Ann Coulter on Stossel battles room full of libertarian students (updated w full show vid)

[Brett85]

I shouldn't have said that the war on drugs isn't an important issue or shouldn't be discussed, but I just meant that it isn't the most important issue, as some of the younger libertarians think it is. I personally view something like 2nd amendment rights as being more important.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I shouldn't have said that the war on drugs isn't an important issue or shouldn't be discussed, but I just meant that it isn't the most important issue, as some of the younger libertarians think it is. I personally view something like 2nd amendment rights as being more important.

IMO, any issue that violates the Constitution is just as important as any other issue that violates the Constitution. It's a matter of priority to me to get back to Constitutional principles on ALL issues.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I have listened and I see what you're saying.
My counter is this: we perceive you as someone who thinks that not looking like a stoner homo is more important than stopping the police state.

Last time I knew, I was part of "we" and you may have listened, but you did not hear what I was saying. This isn't about me and it isn't about you. It is about the perception that we give others of our movement. If to get rid of the War on Drugs, we need paleocons and others to be with us on this, then speak to them about it in terms that they care about and present yourself as such.

 

[Giuliani was there on 911]

she has a point

 

[Rothbardian Girl]

I am actually going to go out on a limb and partially agree with AuH20 here. Although I find Coulter's ideology and vitriol to be utterly repugnant, I do think she made a somewhat valid point about some (I'm going to be ageist against my own age group here and call them mainly college-age) libertarians who seem to only be capable of arguing against drug prohibition from a personal freedom standpoint, which also happens to be the more outwardly emotional argument against prohibition. I ironically do think that the later debates she had with the various students served to reinforce her point. Emotional platitudes of "I should be able to put what I want in my body!" just don't work with people like Ann who can only see that money comes out of their paychecks to [at least ostensibly] pay for people's drug habits. I think most people on this board know that not all welfare recipients are drug abusers, and that this argument smacks of class warfare and is ultimately close to irrelevant, but it's essentially what you're going to get from most mainstream conservatives.

Although Coulter's point was perhaps deliberately simplistic, most mainstream conservatives are going to agree with her. I do realize that the TV format makes things a little awkward for everyone who is not already used to being on TV (like most of those students) and they will often say the simplest things that come to mind. Stossel should know better as an experienced journalist and TV host, though. I've never been a big fan of his because I tend to think he's another populist libertarian that oversimplifies a lot of issues. The key is finding the right mixture of entertainment and sound arguments in favor of libertarian talking points, and so far I haven't really seen that.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I'll refer you back to my earlier post. It's not about the drug war, gay marriage, getting high, or any other policy issue. It's about arguing with people where we disagree instead of working with people where we agree. We love to argue - which has been demonstrated beautifully in this thread.

Coulter could have picked anything - the issue didn't matter. Chris Matthews can do the same thing to us. We want to argue with people about how they're wrong and we're right. All this does is push our would-be supporters further away. On both sides. It's futile.

Very true.

 

[UWDude]

Well, I'm glad you aren't aboard the train for style points, which I suspect since you are a regular contributor on the board. I'm sorry for sounding like a prick but I personally know people who proclaim themselves libertarian for the wrong reasons.

Well I don't like you half the time. But that leaves the half of the time that I do, which is more than I can say for the general populace.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Last time I knew, I was part of "we" and you may have listened, but you did not hear what I was saying. This isn't about me and it isn't about you. It is about the perception that we give others of our movement. If to get rid of the War on Drugs, we need paleocons and others to be with us on this, then speak to them about it in terms that they care about and present yourself as such.

Hm. Can't give you another rep right after I just did but wow do you have that right. Spot on. Was just sharing a similar model in the tv show thread. Indirectly as it may have been depending upon how perceptive the viewer was. I like to sneak little puns in once in a while just to see if anyone is paying attention. Although different subject matter it's basically the same model you point out. But yes. You're absolutely right.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

All those media stations with their party alliance paid puppets and Ann Coulter is no different all for profit. She's obnoxious on top of being the a huge hypocrite, but there's a reason, it called money and fame.

There should be an alert the next time she is on a call in show like C-SPAN, and everyone call in on all the lines and rip her phony game to pieces.

REMEMBER: Corporate media is the 4th branch of the US government... basically the Depart of Propaganda. Don't ever sympathize to their poison/potion dialect, they're business is to profit from sensationalism propaganda while serving the US government in partnership, it's creating the product out of the people; WARS, TERRORISM, TERRORISTS, CRISIS, FEAR, SECURITY, DISINFORMATION, MISINFORMATION.

Never forget, at the Pentagon, corporate media caught on Hot microphone... "See this room, half of us laid-off if Ron Paul becomes president" Media ratings would plummet to hell if there was peace in this country and especially the world. Coulter would be out of a job and out of overpaid appearances. Only thing I do agree upon with Bill Maher, They are CONMEN... Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, Greta, the Morning clowns, the afternoon puppets, the evening marionettes, and Mr. Coulter too. All these CONMEN are paid $10Ks, $100Ks, Millions to CON(lie & push the agenda) you.

Corporate Media and their Pundits, play the indoctrinated viewers like a Broadway play... all of them and Ann Coulter are very good actors.

fucking THIS!^^ Amazing how history keeps repeating itself regarding media/State alliances. Orwell and the other great dystopian writers were right.

 

[jmdrake]

I think you're giving them far too much credit for their thought process (or lack thereof). No, it sounds more like disgruntled liberals who transitioned over to libertarianism because it sounds "easy" and socially acceptable.

Let's forget about the mind-numbing duopoly which defines American politics for a second. Given what we know about the massive surveillance state and outright financial graft built into our national economy, how is a plant and a same sex marriage license at the top of the list of concerns?? This prioritization signals me to that the audience in particular, while being principled is hopelessly immature and short-sighted.

Part of the reason for that "massive surveillance state" is to support the war on drugs. Do you think it's easier to get people to "just say no" to the police state despite fears about pot than it is to get people to "just say no" to the police state over fears about terrorists? I agree the focus of these youngsters was a bit off. I'm surprised nobody hit her on her "Iraq war good / Afghan war bad" hypocrisy. But the GWOD is almost as responsible for the surveillance state as the GWOT. And now we have the GWOI shaping up. (Global War On Immigration).

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

It's because most libertarians would rather argue about disagreements than work together on the issues where we find agreements.

It's why the LP is always doomed. It's why Rand Paul gets all the hate from us. And it's why Coulter drew that fire. Libertarians like to argue, "I'm right!" instead of, "Will you help us?".

It's also why we throw so many people under the bus. I don't get too caught up on which issues she picked. All anyone has to do is disagree with us about something and off we go, driving them further away.

+Rep

 

[Bastiat's The Law]

Well I don't like you half the time. But that leaves the half of the time that I do, which is more than I can say for the general populace.

Luckily neither of you are against a little bromance.

 

[itshappening]

By the way I love the way she calls libertarians "pussies" when we were the only ones standing up to Bush when he was expanding government.

Where was she? on Fox News as a cheerleader and shill attacking the blue team.

She's a total dishonest hack.

 

[Boss]

I find this video an excellent demonstration of the sharp contrast between Neoconservativism and Libertarianism. The next time someone hastily blurs the line between the two, I'll be happy to showcase this video.

 

[haaaylee]

does anyone have a link to the whole show? ? haven't time right now to go through all these pages. . .

 

[AGRP]

It's because most libertarians would rather argue about disagreements than work together on the issues where we find agreements.

It's why the LP is always doomed. It's why Rand Paul gets all the hate from us. And it's why Coulter drew that fire. Libertarians like to argue, "I'm right!" instead of, "Will you help us?".

It's also why we throw so many people under the bus. I don't get too caught up on which issues she picked. All anyone has to do is disagree with us about something and off we go, driving them further away.

That must explain why Paul would have got the nomination if the primaries were accurately conducted.

Libertarians LOVE hanging separately. It's what they do....

What do you do? Troll forums?

 

[anaconda]

She's looking good for 51.

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Amazing. Every conversation with you leads to police. Why are you so paranoid? Lemme guess. You spend your spare time watching videos on youtube, cop shows on tv, etc. till your mind is filled with 'police state' paranoia.

Can you explain to me what about my comment was "paranoid"?

Do you recognize that the Drug War, which is one of the main topic of this thread, is enforced by police?

You're ragging on "socialists" for valuing receiving their government checks over people's freedom. I'm just pointing out the fact that what you said could be applied to those authority figures you're so enamored with even more so than your average left-leaning neighbor.

Law Enforcement put people in cages for buying/selling and possessing legitimate property voluntarily on the market simply because politicians have (unconstitutionally, at least alcohol prohibition involved an amendment) declared those substances to be "illegal". They steal property, both in the form of drugs but also other assets, and search people over it. They fine people and ruin their lives over it. That's just one example of their job being to enforce anti-freedom edicts, and it's one directly relevant to this thread.

How does what I said not apply? And it doesn't just go for drugs. It goes for any authoritarian edict that the police enforce as part of their job. You're claiming that socialists care about receiving a government check more than they do about freedom. I'm saying that, if you want to put it that way, that exact line of thought can be applied to the individuals at our socialist police forces (which you seem to love) who obey commands made by authoritarians trying to mold society and extract our wealth. By their very actions it can clearly be shown that what you said applies to our socialist police, who clearly care more about getting paid their "government checks" in return for a job in which they themselves are the tip of the spear when it comes to taking away the freedoms the politicians want to take.

Obviously if they cared more about protecting freedoms than a check they wouldn't be getting paid in government checks which were extracted from their "customers" in the first place. It's clearly a socialist protection racket, and a tool being used to try to mold society rather than to protect individual freedom.

I was simply showing that your logic can be applied even better to those socialist police you seem to adore, even more-so than your average "liberal" neighbor, who may not even be getting a check at all but simply thinks the government is a tool to help poor people. Of course you turned that around to me being "paranoid", which doesn't even make sense, so that you can continue your love affair with police authority and not look at police in the context of 'socialists more interested in receiving government checks over freedom', which perfectly applies to them even more than the group you were trying to lambast.

So what exactly was "paranoid" about what I wrote, and how are police not only directly relevant to what's being discussed in this thread, but also even more relevant to your own comments about having an interest in government checks over freedom? Please go on and explain that...

 

[anaconda]

I can't believe that Ann is saying Saddam was supporting terrorists.

 

[anaconda]

At 3:34 everyone just laughed at her. Classic.