Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Yamato

Ann Coulte on Libertarians

32 posts in this topic

We all know that Ann Coulter calls people names and sells millions of books because that's how "conservatives" establish their credibility in this country.

The entire video is fascinating but I'll include another one of her answers above the link:

John Stossel: Why can't gays get married like straights do?

Ann Coulter: "They can! They have to marry a member of the opposite sex!"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/02/22/ann_coulter_takes_on_john_stossel_calls_libertarians_pussies.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all know that Ann Coulter calls people names and sells millions of books because that's how "conservatives" establish their credibility in this country.

The entire video is fascinating but I'll include another one of her answers above the link:

John Stossel: Why can't gays get married like straights do?

Ann Coulter: "They can! They have to marry a member of the opposite sex!"

http://www.realclear...ns_pussies.html

Just another attention whore probably about to release another book.Nothing to see here.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just another attention whore probably about to release another book.Nothing to see here.

There's libertarian views to see here. Stossel's one of the very few places where you'll ever get that on cable.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's libertarian views to see here. Stossel's one of the very few places where you'll ever get that on cable.

Was refering to coulter,the only reason she does what she does is to make money.If she knew only 5 books would sell she would be doing something else.Was actually agreeing with you was just kind of vague about it haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That woman disgusts me. She's just another mouthpiece for a 'group' . A political tool designed to influence the thinking impaired.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She makes it sooo easy to hate and loathe her,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea who she is; now I'm going to have to find out. Is she just anti-gay or is there more there than that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea who she is; now I'm going to have to find out. Is she just anti-gay or is there more there than that?

This woman is a full on republican stooge frank.She is the republican al sharpton haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can you take someone seriously who actually stated "she wants to make divorce a lot more difficult too"......

Yeah that's going to be great for kids who have their parents living together who really hate each other.

Anyway she had no clue about Iraq and terrorism. She also doesn't even understand the "war on drugs". She acted like thye wanted it changed so everyone could smoke weed. That's not the point of it. It's to get rid of all the stupid money it costs, to stop sending thousands to overcrowded prisons for silly drug crimes (again costs) and would stop the drug voilence by taking out the drug dealers/smugglers etc.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She's one of those professional contraversialists, isn't she; people like that base their whole careers on saying outrageous things. q.v. in britain: Julie Burchill or Jeremy Clarkson.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She's one of those professional contraversialists, isn't she; people like that base their whole careers on saying outrageous things. q.v. in britain: Julie Burchill or Jeremy Clarkson.

She is a female Glenn Beck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is what you get with most politicians. They are cookie cut, one size fits all type of characters that doesn't think for themselves, they only think along the parties lines. Being an American I don't trust liberals who want to establish a social government, I don't trust republicans to police themselves, and I don't trust democrats to protect the constitution. As a American, I look for what is best for my country instead of what is best for the party lines.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She's one of those professional contraversialists, isn't she; people like that base their whole careers on saying outrageous things. q.v. in britain: Julie Burchill or Jeremy Clarkson.

Yeah, but Jeremy Clarkson's funny with his outrageous things. Beck and Coulter and most bitter politicos come off as just that, bitter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She is very misunderstood. I disagree with her approach but I understand where she is coming from. It’s not that she’s anti-gay or whatever but anti-Liberal. She does have a point in that there are far more important issues to deal with than drug legalization and gay marriage. And when people are more focused on these things rather than the economy and jobs, I can understand when she says that Libertarians suck up to Socialists. That is the game the Socialists want to play do distract us from real issues.

I don’t believe that abortion should be illegal, that gays should be allowed to marry, and drug use be legal as well. But these are social issues and a healthy society can regulate these things. But these things are not where the government belongs to either legalize something or not. We need jobs and a truly Free Market. That is the only focus. That is the only solution and the sooner we exercise Socialism from our system the better. This current course is only going to lead to collapse. That is my prediction and it’s not a stretch to see. At least for those that can still see.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ann Coulter is very sarcastic, and very controversial, but somehow, I do still like her and I did actually read one of her books (Slander). Has anyone else here actually read one of her books? I may not agree with actually everything she says, but I think she does bring up some very good points. I'm just curious if anyone has read one of her books, and still dislikes her? Because I'm thinking you might misunderstand her if you only listen to a short clip like this one. Having said that, even if I did disagree 100% with her (and I don't) I've seen comments posted about her that are practically criminal in their display of hatred and use of language, I wouldn't say things like that (well I might) about my worst enemy. Any, somehow I like her...

eta: I'm happy to say the REALLY negative comments weren't on this website however.

Edited by Gummug
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And when people are more focused on these things rather than the economy and jobs, I can understand when she says that Libertarians suck up to Socialists. That is the game the Socialists want to play do distract us from real issues.

The economy and jobs aren't the responsibility of government. To believe otherwise is an endorsement of "the public sector" and the statist belief that our employment comes from the government, that our unemployment rate comes down via the White House (Mitt Romney).

To say that Libertarians suck up to Socialists couldn't be further from the truth. Libertarians want the government out of our production and out of our economy, out of our wallets and out of our lives. It's the only way to oppose the Socialism you allege to hate so much, but you want to take the republican party tack instead, which supports using the government the same way the democrats do, but with different spending priorities. Instead of coming into our bathroom and telling us what kind of toilet to flush, Ann wants to come into our bedroom and tell us what kind of marriage to have, and suddenly that's not socialist? Don't kid yourself.

Libertarians say: Democrats/socialists/liberals can't take the money and spend it however they like, and you can't either, Ann Coulter. Conservatives want us to believe that big republican-party government isn't big government. They need a serious wake up call, and that's the reason I posted this OP. It isn't to blaspheme Ann Coulter; that's too easy. There are much deeper waters here and much bigger fish to fry. I'd rather highlight and expose the abject hypocrisy in republican-party thinking, figures like Ann Coulter are just a case in point.

Ann Coulter is obviously not just an empty-headed voice box. I think it's clear by the video that she really believes in what she says/thinks. She's fundamentally flawed in her reasoning however, and I'll point out a few of the ways how that's so in future replies. For now, suffice to say, I think her positions need to be challenged instead of either agreed with or silently rejected/ignored.

Edited by Yamato
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The economy and jobs aren't the responsibility of government. To believe otherwise is an endorsement of "the public sector" and the statist belief that our employment comes from the government, that our unemployment rate comes down via the White House (Mitt Romney).

To say that Libertarians suck up to Socialists couldn't be further from the truth. Libertarians want the government out of our production and out of our economy, out of our wallets and out of our lives. It's the only way to oppose the Socialism you allege to hate so much, but you want to take the republican party tack instead, which supports using the government the same way the democrats do, but with different spending priorities. Instead of coming into our bathroom and telling us what kind of toilet to flush, Ann wants to come into our bedroom and tell us what kind of marriage to have, and suddenly that's not socialist? Don't kid yourself.

Edit: Libertarians say: Democrats/socialists/liberals can't take the money and spend it however they like, and you can't either, Ann Coulter. Conservatives want to believe that big republican government isn't big government. They need a serious wake up call and that's the reason I posted this OP.

Correct Ann just wants a republican version of what the dems have at the moment,both want everyone to live their way.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She's one of those professional contraversialists, isn't she; people like that base their whole careers on saying outrageous things. q.v. in britain: Julie Burchill or Jeremy Clarkson.

Clarkson says **** to get a reaction, he doesn't actually believe what he's saying, he's like the Fool in the King's Court who can say things just to have them said. Coulter does believe what she says..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She is very misunderstood. I disagree with her approach but I understand where she is coming from. It's not that she's anti-gay or whatever but anti-Liberal. She does have a point in that there are far more important issues to deal with than drug legalization and gay marriage. And when people are more focused on these things rather than the economy and jobs, I can understand when she says that Libertarians suck up to Socialists. That is the game the Socialists want to play do distract us from real issues.

I don't believe that abortion should be illegal, that gays should be allowed to marry, and drug use be legal as well. But these are social issues and a healthy society can regulate these things. But these things are not where the government belongs to either legalize something or not. We need jobs and a truly Free Market. That is the only focus. That is the only solution and the sooner we exercise Socialism from our system the better. This current course is only going to lead to collapse. That is my prediction and it's not a stretch to see. At least for those that can still see.

Sorry RavenHawk.. i just couldn't let it slide : exorcise |ˈeksôrˌsīz, ˈeksər-|(also exorcize )

verb [ with obj. ]drive out or attempt to drive out (an evil spirit) from a person or place: an attempt to exorcise an unquiet spirit | figurative : inflation has been exorcised.• rid (a person or place) of an evil spirit: infants were exorcised prior to baptism.

ORIGIN late Middle English: from French exorciser or ecclesiastical Latinexorcizare, from Greek exorkizein, from ex- ‘out’ + horkos ‘oath.’ The word originally meant ‘conjure up or command an evil spirit’; the specific sense of driving out an evil spirit dates from the mid 16th cent.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is the game the Socialists want to play do distract us from real issues.

Now I'm in Vietnam so I only hear about Ms Coulter here, and she sounds pretty awful, but I will leave that alone and comment on what you say. You seem to want to associate everything bad in the world with those nasty people called "socialists." I wonder what your understanding of that word might actually be. They don't have horns, I do know that much.
I don't believe that abortion should be illegal, that gays should be allowed to marry, and drug use be legal as well.
Sounds like you are pretty much an out-of-the box conservative, so why do you try to imply otherwise unless it is to perhaps increase your credibility. It doesn't work when you make such admissions.
But these are social issues and a healthy society can regulate these things. But these things are not where the government belongs to either legalize something or not. We need jobs and a truly Free Market. That is the only focus. That is the only solution and the sooner we exercise Socialism from our system the better. This current course is only going to lead to collapse. That is my prediction and it's not a stretch to see. At least for those that can still see.

I don't think you want a truly free market. All societies by necessity have to be mixes of government and private enterprise, and where on the particular scale a given society can be found has a lot to do with history and their phase of development.

In fact, I think I might agree with you that the US has a little too much socialism. Get rid of the post office and privatize secondary education for two things. A little competition for those institutions appears needed.

But do not forget your obligations to your elders, to the handicapped, to the children, and, yes, to the poor.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Work calls or I would have responded to this sooner. I want to try to explain this to you.

You seem to want to associate everything bad in the world with those nasty people called socialists.

Absolutely!!!

So now let me try to explain. It's really quite simple. Firstly, please watch a study the following 10min clip:

Active content removed Active content removed

It is very simplistic but it is suppose to be. The whole idea is to make it easy to understand. If you have too many questions, then you defeat the purpose of the clip.

I wonder what your understanding of that word might actually be. They don't have horns, I do know that much.

Yes, they do have horns. Anytime government takes a little more from the people, a new horn grows out. No government, no matter how benevolent can guarantee that it will not infringe upon the individual. The confusion comes in that there are many different types of governing and that's not where the problem is. We could sit here and define Socialism, Marxism, Fascism, Communism, Nazism, Monarchy, and even Democracy. We'll find that they all have distinct differences. But I cut through all of this by saying that it isn't the differences that matter. It is the one thing they all have in common. And if you caught on to that clip, you'll understand that all these forms tend to approach 100% control over the people. When the government infringes on the Rights of the people, it robs a little more of their freedom. It is an ongoing process of attrition crossing generations at times. I'm not talking about traffics laws. I'm talking about little things like in Iceland where they dictate what you can name your children. Or other nations that raise taxes for wealth redistribution for whatever need. Or enslaving the populace with dole. Humans are not cattle and do not do well being nannied. There is always revolution at the end of Authoritarian governments. Yet that is what happens when government gets bigger and bigger. It gets more authoritarian. And the people eventually only become batteries for the state.

That's why I call it Socialism. Because it is a perversion of the *accepted* definition of Socialism. Below is that definition – do you agree?

"socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members."

Now if you agree with that, there are two ways to read that. One is naive and suckers people into the trap and is the basis for every nation on this planet. One can separate the two meanings with the simple question of "who controls the resources"? The Socialism that people are sold on is the one that answers that no one does, those decisions are just made for benefit of the whole. But the reality is that there is some ruling elite that dictates the allocation of those resources. At that point, the people are artificially divided into haves and have-nots. All depending on whether you tote the party line.

The reality is that if the people actually controlled these resources then the economic form would be a free market with very limited government. In a free market, people do not work in isolation but depend on their self interest to cooperate with each other. When you work for yourself with the promise that what you earn is yours benefits the whole as that generates more opportunity.

People are not all the same, so you can't treat them all the same. When a government does treat everyone the same, then it must do so accordingly to the least person. That is forced enslavement by the government. Without government involvement people rise to their level, whatever that may be. By yoking that, you can raise all boats, instead of restricting everyone. I believe Goldwater or Ford said "Government is not the solution, government is the problem" but Reagan stated it profoundly.

Sounds like you are pretty much an out-of-the box conservative, so why do you try to imply otherwise unless it is to perhaps increase your credibility. It doesn't work when you make such admissions.

Yes, I am definitely an out-of-the box conservative but I don't understand why you say that I imply otherwise?? I don't need to increase my credibility. It is solid and firm. If you disagree then I would say that you need to look to your own foundation.

I don't think you want a truly free market. All societies by necessity have to be mixes of government and private enterprise, and where on the particular scale a given society can be found has a lot to do with history and their phase of development.

Government has a role to play, especially in oversight but from the clip "The essence of freedom is the proper limitation of government". That's all that matters. There is no government on this planet that is still in its proper place. And ultimately, that is the fault of the people for letting that happen.

In fact, I think I might agree with you that the US has a little too much socialism.

Socialism has been creeping into our system for over a century now. With this current Regime, it has pushed the last vestiges of a Constitutional Republic to its limits. This current President thinks that he is Peter the Great and plans on dragging us into a Socialist 21th Century kicking and screaming. I think it is only a matter of time before we see riots in the street and civil unrest here. But why should we be different than any other place? We've all heard about the Muslim Spring. Is an American Spring coming? France or Greece may beat us to it.

Get rid of the post office and privatize secondary education for two things. A little competition for those institutions appears needed.

I don't think getting rid of the Post Office is ever going to happen. It was the brain child of Franklin and was instituted by Washington. But it can go through great reform. The PO should rent its buildings to Fed Ex, UPS, DHL, etc. and use what it makes to maintain these buildings and print stamps. And of course, administer zip codes. People are still going to need easy accessible PO boxes.

Let's just strip down the DOEd to bare bones. Let the states handle primary and secondary education, then follow that up with a mandatory two year military enlistment where time will be allotted for college prep. From there, the individual will have their choice of following a military career or go into college or neither.

But do not forget your obligations to your elders, to the handicapped, to the children, and, yes, to the poor.

Agreed, but it's not the place of government to see that they are taken care of. It's the place of society. True Socialism is not in the despotism of government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've long suspected that RavenHawk IS Ann Coulter. But then, who knows....

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Work calls or I would have responded to this sooner. I want to try to explain this to you.

Absolutely!!!

So now let me try to explain. It's really quite simple. Firstly, please watch a study the following 10min clip:

Active content removed Active content removed

I feel vaguely disappointed that I can't watch the following 10 min clip. I rather suspect it might have been rather fun. :-(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will say he would be more effective if he would leave off the pyrotechnics.

I think a certain amount of socialism is inevitable; a certain amount of private market economy is too. Private markets left to themselves lead sooner or later (generally sooner) to monopolies or at least pseudo-monopolies (where the parties are encouraged to not be competitive).

Then, again, there are some things where a monopoly is the best way to organize it, in which case it either has to be the state doing it or the monopoly has to be heavily regulated (might as well be the state).

The Vietnamese experience convinces me that pure Communist-style socialism doesn't work because it takes away the motivation people normally have to work hard to make money, distasteful as that analysis might be. Maybe someday we won't need people to do the work, and can have everything in a model of socialist enterprise, and do away with both greed and want, but that's a big maybe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will say he would be more effective if he would leave off the pyrotechnics.

For the benefit of the blind, bigger is always better.

I think a certain amount of socialism is inevitable;

"Logic is on our side: this isn't a case of a world struggle between two divergent ideologies, of different economic systems. Every day your country becomes more socialistic, my country becomes more capitalistic. Pretty soon we will meet in the middle and join hands. No, my dear doctor; you're going to defect because you want to live."

I suppose that some is inevitable but not in the middle. Maybe 10% or so. I could see a government supplied safety net or more like Gore's Lockbox with some gawd awful amount, say $1 Trillion that is available to those in need for whatever purpose. The catch is that as soon as you pull from this lockbox, you become responsible for paying it back or perhaps Pay-it-forward. Now if you are unable to pay it back, then it passes to your offspring and they become responsible.

One argument against this Administration is that it is putting future generations in debt with its tax and spend Socialism. A solution as I've mentioned would make it individual responsibility. What kind of parent puts their children into debt? Ultimately, this may not be Socialism, but it's as close as I want to be. I do not like being in the position of having the government force itself on me and having to *accept* it as normal.

a certain amount of private market economy is too. Private markets left to themselves lead sooner or later (generally sooner) to monopolies or at least pseudo-monopolies

No not necessarily. Prosperity does not always lead to monopolies. You even acknowledge as much by CYA with the pseudo-monopoly comment (a monopoly is a monopoly). What leads to monopoly is a lack of competition.

(where the parties are encouraged to not be competitive).

I don't think you understand what a free market is. It's not about *just selling things*. Its nature alone encourages competition. It's the basis of Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations". It's when government infringes via heavy regulation that causes it to not be competitive. Government infringement makes people lazy. East Germany before the wall came down is probably the ultimate example. The thing that controls monopolies is the consumer. If there is a monopoly that runs amok, it's the fault of the consumer. It's the well informed and well educated consumer that drives the market and therefore controls what business does. Last year the credit card companies were instituting extra fees. When the public became aware, the credit card companies were inundated with negative comments, so much so that they rescinded those fees. That's how the free market works, not government regulation. So the best thing that government can do is to educate the public on the free market. Encourage the people to be entrepreneurs. This will allow the best to rise and the rest to follow, all at their own rate. That benefits a nation better than forcing everyone to fit a certain mold. A nation whose individuals do things for themselves is a stronger nation than one in which it nannies its people. Socialism is just an indicator of narcissistic leadership.

Then, again, there are some things where a monopoly is the best way to organize it, in which case it either has to be the state doing it or the monopoly has to be heavily regulated (might as well be the state).

A monopoly is not the trademark of free enterprise. The only regulation that is needed is that of the well educated consumer. Monopolies are not always the best way to organize things. The chaos of a free market is usually the best.

The Vietnamese experience convinces me that pure Communist-style socialism doesn't work because it takes away the motivation people normally have to work hard to make money, distasteful as that analysis might be.

Well, hello!

Maybe someday we won't need people to do the work,

That will never happen. People need to work to live. We were made to toil. Not just work to provide sustenance but the work itself is what we need. To build things ourselves, with our own two hands. To accomplish, to succeed. You don't get that if something is just handed to you.

and can have everything in a model of socialist enterprise,

Have you seen what happens to the humans in Wall-E? That is what happens in such a utopia. That is not the ultimate goal of man. I know there are heavy religious aspects here but I don't want to go in that direction.

and do away with both greed and want, but that's a big maybe.

As the quote goes, greed is good. When problems arise is when greed goes amok. Greed is nothing more than you looking after your family and wanting the best for them. Want is good if you can fulfill it. Man is build to be able to fulfill want and need. That is what builds community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.