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

[Pericles]

It depends on the issue.

If we are talking about government as provider, I can use any of the following:

1. The fact that the war on poverty has utterly failed by any measure.
2. The brute force behind government "charity". The average democrat doesn't like to think about the gun-in-the-face behind the programs
3. The truth that you cannot delegate your own responsibility to love and care for your fellow man without it being corrupted. The implication that their socialism is just a form of laziness appeals to their sense of guilt.
4. The logical conclusion that whatever deficiency they think there is in the character of private sector man, it will also exist in government man.

You can also talk about foreign policy, the bedroom police, crony-capitalism, the banking cartel, etc. And those are EASY.

While I agree with you, I would point out that right wingers usually feel the need to have some form of logical consistency in their views, and left wingers are more willing to go the "feelings" route when inconsistent views are held.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Ann Coulter is a non-issue. I seriously don't care about her. She's just as much an establishment hack as all of the other establishment hacks, and an establishment hack she shall remain.

 

[The Free Hornet]

She's kind of correct in her criticism. I always see some libertarians trying to curry favor with libtards over superficial nonsense. It's flat out bizarre. "No I'm not like THEM. I want to legalize pot and let you kill your children!!!" If it wasn't so tragic, it would be funny.

Wouldn't Coulter's "pussy" qualify their bullshit "some libertarians", rather than taking a firmer stand?

Who talks of "legalization" when decriminalization is the better term? The illiberal progressives want their activities legalized and permitted - literally complete with paperwork and fees to their experts of choice. The libertarian wants government out of that picture 100%.

When I want to speak about you, it won't be about "some Goldwater fans", it'll be about you.

 

[jmdrake]

Quick answer to Ann Coulter on drug laws. "Let me see if I get this straight. You don't want to pay for unemployment benefits of people who may get fired after testing positive for drugs, but you are willing to pay three times that much to keep those same people locked up for using drugs? How about just writing into any drug legalization law that if you get fired for abusing drugs or alcohol you don't get any unemployment benefits?"

 

[Acala]

While I agree with you, I would point out that right wingers usually feel the need to have some form of logical consistency in their views, and left wingers are more willing to go the "feelings" route when inconsistent views are held.

Perhaps, but I think there are plenty of emotion-driven views on both sides. They are just different emotions.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I was in the audience, lets just say there was way more booing than what was heard on the actual show last night. Right after she compared divorce to returning an appliance, some guy yelled out "THEY"RE HUMAN BEINGS!!1111"

Did anyone point out to Coulter the connection between the police state (as discussed on the show before her) and how that stems from the war on drugs?

 

[noneedtoaggress]

Wouldn't Coulter's "pussy"

I'd say it would be more fitting to just call it an asshole, but then again the only thing fitting about it would be Coulter's fist.

 

[youngbuck]

The very first f'kn thing she says is the catch-all "regulate interstate commerce." What she's really saying is that everything the government IS doing, it SHOULD be doing. Hardcore, deluded statist, plain and simple.

It really bugs me how she is, I guess at least on the surface, correct in what shes said concerning the departments of education, commerce and agriculture, but she can't extend that position to other topics (drugs, marriage, etc.) It's like being intentionally half-way enlightened, but refusing full enlightenment. Essentially, she lacks philosophical consistency and purity of any kind.

 

[EBounding]

I hate to say it, but Coulter "won" here. Her mission was to show that all Libertarians care about is gay marriage and drugs and then that's exactly what the audience kept asking her about!

 

[AuH20]

I hate to say it, but Coulter "won" here. Her mission was to show that all Libertarians care about is gay marriage and drugs and then that's exactly what the audience kept asking her about!

Very true. But not all true libertarians are like that. It seems that the younger, more naive members are the ones who are obsessed with the alluring bells and whistles of secondary issues like marijuana (not the drug war) and gay marriage.

 

[CaptUSA]

I hate to say it, but Coulter "won" here. Her mission was to show that all Libertarians care about is gay marriage and drugs and then that's exactly what the audience kept asking her about!

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.

 

[AuH20]

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.

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

 

[Brett85]

To be fair, the war on drugs IS a big issue. it is what causes so many domestic problems and so much violence here in our country. To marginalize it like you just did, is morally wrong, IMO.

how can you feel like an overseas war is totally unjustified, but a slightly more silent and nefarious war here at home is less important?

Well, I guess it is at least an important issue at the federal level, because the principle of states' rights and state sovereignty is very important. And I don't support the war on drugs at the state level either, but it just isn't something I would really run on if I were running for office.

 

[LibertyEagle]

It's ridiculous for establishment statists to characterize these issues as being huge issues to Libertarians.

They sure as heck are talked about on these forums a lot, if they aren't important issues.

 

[Brett85]

If ending the war on drugs is not an issue to you, you are not a fiscal conservative, and you welcome the police state and the end of the Constitution.

When did I say that it isn't an issue? I said that I oppose the war on drugs, but it just isn't my number one issue, and shouldn't be the number one issue to libertarians. I wish people could learn to read.

 

[EBounding]

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

Exactly. Instead of taking her argumentative bait, this could have been an opportunity to find out what she thinks about the TSA, spying on Americans, and the Federal Reserve. Maybe ask her what she thinks of the GOP leadership stomping on the grassroots. And it's not just to build a coalition with her, it's to persuade the conservative Stossel viewer who might be leery of libertarians.

 

[BAllen]

I don't know about your average socialist leaning neighbors, some of them don't get checks and just think the government is a tool to help people worse off than them, but we can be sure that's at least true when it comes to our socialist police, they clearly care more about getting their government checks than protecting our freedoms.

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.

 

[fisharmor]

Very true. But not all true libertarians are like that. It seems that the younger, more naive members are the ones who are obsessed with the alluring bells and whistles of secondary issues like marijuana (not the drug war) and gay marriage.

Acala explained it quite eloquently, and you'd do well to focus on this.
I'm willing to bet heavily that at least a third of that audience has voted Republican in the past. They stopped voting Republican.
What does Coulter offer them? If you come back into the fold, you'll get more PATRIOT act, more wars, more police state, and more social engineering. If you don't come back into the fold, you can expect to be treated like morons.

They've tried the "treat potential Republican voters like shit" strategy for a bunch of elections now.
It doesn't work.

Those kids, whether they are only in it for the pot or actually have a consistent philosophy and are simply too young to put a wise old serpent like Coulter in her place, are holding the electoral power. They are the key. Without them, there are no more Republican presidents... and eventually, no more Republican anything.

It is probably a good idea for people who want access to that political power to change their tone.

 

[BAllen]

It depends on the issue.

If we are talking about government as provider, I can use any of the following:

1. The fact that the war on poverty has utterly failed by any measure.
2. The brute force behind government "charity". The average democrat doesn't like to think about the gun-in-the-face behind the programs
3. The truth that you cannot delegate your own responsibility to love and care for your fellow man without it being corrupted. The implication that their socialism is just a form of laziness appeals to their sense of guilt.
4. The logical conclusion that whatever deficiency they think there is in the character of private sector man, it will also exist in government man.

You can also talk about foreign policy, the bedroom police, crony-capitalism, the banking cartel, etc. And those are EASY.

I've used those arguments time and again. They fall on deaf ears. They'll take security over freedoms EVERY time. That is why the marxists love third world immigrants. They are easy to bribe.

 

[fisharmor]

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.

Um... yeah... dude, it has only been 10 days since the fuzz intentionally burned someone alive on national TV. Are you like that Memento guy or something?