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

[AuH20]

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.

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.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

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.

So it's an issue, but just not one to deal with?

I agree with her on marriage but disagree with her on Iraq and marijuana. But regardless of what your stance is on marijuana or marriage, these aren't major issues. It's ridiculous for libertarians to pretend that these are huge issues to deal with.

 

[fisharmor]

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.

Ok so let me rephrase three questions and see if we can get an answer.

1) Which of their other platform issues will be achieved by voting for Republicans?

2) How many Republicans are going to win without them?

3) Given that Republicans offer them nothing, and given that Republicans will lose without them, what exactly is their incentive not to sound like a bunch of stoner homos?

 

[LibertyEagle]

Guys, I am a paleocon, so please at least listen to what I am going to say. Being against the War on Drugs because it has and is being used to stomp all over the Constitution to build a police state and citing specific examples of what it has led to, is worlds apart to a conservative than a bunch of people wanting to get high. Ninety percent of politics is perception and you know as well as I do that many of the things that have even been posted on this forum are not putting our best foot forward to onlookers, as might have been. Perception is very important and it's frustrating because very few seem to realize that, or care enough about it.

 

[dannno]

She's wrong on her rigid interpretation of marriage. She's wrong on the Iraq war. But she's dead on when she stated that some libertarians are overly deferential pussies in the presence of hardcore progs. I've seen it with my own eyes.

Ok, fine, then Rand Paul is a pussy with Republicans when it comes to foreign policy..

It's called strategy, and it's a good one. You get people on your side, get them to see that you do have some common beliefs and then you help them come around on other issues. It's the same thing no matter what direction you are going in. Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are less likely to get progressives on their side because they don't agree on anything. I have a better shot, one on one, than they do because I have some common beliefs with progressives. Conversely, I have convinced war hawks who believed in a violent foreign policy, which I see as more atrocious than our welfare state, that our government's foreign policy needs to be curtailed immensely and I've convinced progressives that maybe the government isn't the best at taking care of people and maybe they can't solve our health care problem, etc..

Ann Coulter just likes to say inflammatory shit, she may be right that some libertarians try to find common ground with progressives but it doesn't make them pussies. It makes them intelligent. There are plenty of socialists who have come around to free markets, all this bullshit about leftists will never come around is just that - complete bullshit. Some of them won't, but some Republicans won't come around on foreign policy either so we just have to do the best we can. I don't have a lot of conservatives in my circle, so I end up talking to more progressives. According to some people on this board, I guess I should just give up and go find some conservatives and try and drive into their heads how violent our foreign policy is while they are likely going to be scared of Muslims for the rest of their lives and there is nothing I may (or may not) be able to do about it.

 

[fisharmor]

Ninety percent of politics is perception and you know as well as I do that many of the things that have even been posted on this forum are not putting our best foot forward to onlookers, as might have been. Perception is very important and it's frustrating because very few seem to realize that, or care enough about it.

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.

 

[sparebulb]

Dude looks like a lady.

Coulter has a suspiciously large adam's apple.

 

[compromise]

What is it in this segment that she said which is not straight neocon?

"But now I hear it is the official policy of the Republican Party to be for all wars, irrespective of our national interest. What if Obama decides to invade England because he’s still ticked off about that Churchill bust? Can Michael Steele and I object to that? Or would that demoralize the troops? Our troops are the most magnificent in the world, but they’re not the ones setting military policy. The president is – and he’s basing his war strategy on the chants of Moveon.org cretins. Nonetheless, Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney have demanded that Steele resign as head of the RNC for saying Afghanistan is now Obama’s war – and a badly thought-out one at that. (Didn’t liberals warn us that neoconservatives want permanent war?) I thought the irreducible requirements of Republicanism were being for life, small government and a strong national defense, but I guess permanent war is on the platter now, too."

 

[AuH20]

Ok so let me rephrase three questions and see if we can get an answer.

1) Which of their other platform issues will be achieved by voting for Republicans?

2) How many Republicans are going to win without them?

3) Given that Republicans offer them nothing, and given that Republicans will lose without them, what exactly is their incentive not to sound like a bunch of stoner homos?

I don't think this is about Republican or Democrat. It's more about an undeveloped political philosophy that prides itself on superficialities, to it's own detriment. LINOs or the libertarians who eschew personal responsibility. This crowd isn't exactly Stefan Molyneaux, who I respect greatly. Besides this board, how many libertarians have you personally met who really can articulate what it means to be a libertarian, without relying on all the immature, tired imagery?

 

[CaptUSA]

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.

 

[UWDude]

how is a plant and a same sex marriage license at the top of the list of concerns??

People are not imprisoned and have their lives destroyed for same sex marriage licenses.
People are imprisoned and have their lives destroyed over a plant.

The second statement is very concerning.

 

[fisharmor]

I don't think this is about Republican or Democrat. It's more about an undeveloped political philosophy that prides itself on superficialities, to it's own detriment. LINOs or the libertarians who eschew personal responsibility. This crowd isn't exactly Stefan Molyneaux, who I respect greatly. Besides this board, how many libertarians have you personally met who really can articulate what it means to be a libertarian, without relying on all the immature, tired imagery?

Well the context of this discussion is Coulter browbeating a bunch of kids for not voting Republican.
How many Republicans can articulate what it means to be a Republican?
How many Democrats can articulate what it means to be a Democrat?
Aren't their images just as tired? And libertarians who talk about legalizing pot have an advantage: decriminalization is not just a bargaining chip for libertarians. A Republican who gets into office is going to pass deficit budgets the first chance he gets, and a Democrat who gets into office is going to pass war resolutions first chance he gets.

At least the libertarians who only talk about decriminalization are actually serious about it, as opposed to just paying lip service to an issue and then gouging out its eye and skull fucking it. (But not too close to election season! Be sure to simply not be in session then!)

But as I already pointed out, none of that even matters - because these stoner hippie fag lovers have stopped the train. It's not going anywhere until the people who have a problem with stoner hippie fag lovers stop having a problem with stoner hippie fag lovers and actually try to get their votes.

I actually met David Friedman before I was libertarian and before I knew who he was, does he count?

 

[AuH20]

People are not imprisoned and have their lives destroyed for same sex marriage licenses.
People are imprisoned and have their lives destroyed over a plant.

The second statement is very concerning.

Hypothetically speaking, if those two issues were rectified by landmark legislation tomorrow, would the U.S. still not be a tyrannical state????? That's my point. This micro perspective on trivial issues is alarming. I view the entire Federal Leviathan as harmful and ulitmately feel that limiting it's resources and scope of enforcement will ultimately lead to the specific goals that you seek. It's all interconnected. For example, I hope the citizens of Colorado aren't complacent enough to fall back into the slumber of the Matrix now that marijauna is legal.

 

[Brett85]

Hypothetically speaking, if those two issues were rectified by landmark legislation tomorrow, would the U.S. still not be a tyrannical state????? That's my point. This micro perspective on trivial issues is alarming. I view the entire Federal Leviathan as harmful and ulitmately feel that limiting it's resources and scope of enforcement will ultimately lead to the specific goals that you seek. It's all interconnected. For example, I hope the citizens of Colorado aren't complacent enough to fall back into the slumber of the Matrix now that marijauna is legal.

The people in Colorado support legalizing marijuana and banning guns, but apparently legalizing marijuana is the more important issue, at least to people here.

 

[dannno]

Guys, I am a paleocon, so please at least listen to what I am going to say. Being against the War on Drugs because it has and is being used to stomp all over the Constitution to build a police state and citing specific examples of what it has led to, is worlds apart to a conservative than a bunch of people wanting to get high. Ninety percent of politics is perception and you know as well as I do that many of the things that have even been posted on this forum are not putting our best foot forward to onlookers, as might have been. Perception is very important and it's frustrating because very few seem to realize that, or care enough about it.

What a bunch of BULLSHIT.

It is absolutely true that people who smoke cannabis, for the first time, will after some personal contemplation often change their philosophical position on freedom as it relates to the ingestion of ALL substances. Do you REALLY think people who smoke cannabis want to end the war on drugs so they can do heroin?!! No! But they do realize that people should have the freedom to do things that don't hurt other people whether or not it may affect their own consciousness.

So there is a fundamental shift in thought patterns that will often occur after one ingests cannabis, and while they may not make the logical connection and apply that philosophy to every area of life, it doesn't mean that they want to legalize drugs just so they can get 'high'. It means they are starving for freedom of consciousness and freedom to engage on peaceful activities of their choice.. and they want to apply it to others as well and let them make their own choices. Not to mention, most tokers are equipped with the knowledge of how the drug war and police state affects everybody's rights and increases crime. If you took a survey of people who had a technical understanding of how the drug war increases crime and poverty and you asked them whether they personally use cannabis, I guarantee you will find that many more cannabis users or past cannabis users understand this connection than non-cannabis users.

Case in point: Many people who are undecided about the war on drugs toke up in college and realize that it is wrong and cannabis should be legal. Many of these people toke for a few years while in college and may quit at some point with no regrets. Most of these people hold onto the belief that cannabis should be legal. Therefore they don't hold the belief because 'they want to get high', they hold it because they know it's the right thing to do.

I don't think it is an accident that the majority of people here either currently toke or would toke if they could or did so in the past without any regrets. You don't have to ingest cannabis to understand the freedom philosophy, but it certainly helps and it certainly pushes people in that direction, even if they get distracted by some radical leftist philosophy and they don't fully comprehend how collectivist ideology goes against personal freedom.

 

[AuH20]

The people in Colorado support legalizing marijuana and banning guns, but apparently legalizing marijuana is the more important issue, at least to people here.

In a SHTF economic collapse, what would you feel more comfortable with??????????? A few ounces of pot or a Colt AR-15 with a few cartridge boxes??? This is the bread and circus nonsense that the TPTB count on. Not that there is anything wrong with pot and hemp, but it's secondary to your survival and ultimately independence. This is the reason why I rail on fashionable phonies who call themselves libertarians, because they want all the trappings that come with being a libertarian, but none of the hard, critical analysis.

 

[UWDude]

Hypothetically speaking, if those two issues

Stop lumping the two together. I have already clarified why one is trivial, and one isn't.
Unjust prison terms are worse than unjust fines which are worse than unjust access to courts over domestic disputes.

were rectified by landmark legislation tomorrow, would the U.S. still not be a tyrannical state?????

Yes, it still would be. It would take thousands of reversals of all sorts of trivial issues to reverse the tyrannical personality of the United States.

I hope the citizens of Colorado aren't complacent enough to fall back into the slumber of the Matrix now that marijauna is legal.

I as well.

 

[UWDude]

In a SHTF economic collapse, what would you feel more comfortable with??????????? A few ounces of pot or a Colt AR-15 with a few cartridge boxes??? This is the bread and circus nonsense that the TPTB count on. Not that there is anything wrong with pot and hemp, but it's secondary to your survival and ultimately independence. This is the reason why I rail on fashionable phonies who call themselves libertarians, because they want all the trappings that come with being a libertarian, but none of the hard, critical analysis.

This is that tired "you can only care about one issue at a time" schtick. I am of the position RPG's and armored tanks should be legal. So what now?

 

[AuH20]

This is that tired "you can only care about one issue at a time" schtick. I am of the position RPG's and armored tanks should be legal. So what now?

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.

 

[jmdrake]

Guys, I am a paleocon, so please at least listen to what I am going to say. Being against the War on Drugs because it has and is being used to stomp all over the Constitution to build a police state and citing specific examples of what it has led to, is worlds apart to a conservative than a bunch of people wanting to get high. Ninety percent of politics is perception and you know as well as I do that many of the things that have even been posted on this forum are not putting our best foot forward to onlookers, as might have been. Perception is very important and it's frustrating because very few seem to realize that, or care enough about it.

So how about talking about the costs of the WOD? Cause Coulter used the "I wouldn't mind if I didn't think I'd have to pay for healthcare for druggies" argument. You have to pay for healthcare for people in prison.