Epic: Ann Coulter and John Stossel duke it out

posted at 12:41 pm on February 22, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

Outspoken firebrand conservative Ann Coulter versus outspoken firebrand libertarian John Stossel? …I love it. It’s like the two dueling voices of my innermost moral-political psyche having it out with verbal fisticuffs in an ideological boxing match.

My instincts tend to lean pretty libertarian on a lot of things (with a huge, resounding exception when it comes to foreign policy and security issues), and I agree with the Stossel camp that no way is it the federal government’s business to try to engineer society in any shape, manner, or form beyond enforcing contracts and common defense — but as Ann Coulter points out, however, our huge ever-burgeoning bureaucracy and welfare state mean that sometimes that simply and unfortunately is not the reality of the world in which we all live.

Anyhow, I’m going to let what I know are the many hardcore libertarians and staunch conservatives in the audience have fun with this one in the comments, but I think these are fantastic debates to have while we’re all talking anyway about all of the “soul searching” the Republican party needs to do, and the many areas in which conservatives and libertarians can mesh their ideas.

“We’re living in a country that is 70-percent socialist, the government takes 60 percent of your money. They are taking care of your health care, of your pensions. They’re telling you who you can hire, what the regulations will be. And you want to suck up to your little liberal friends and say, ‘Oh, but we want to legalize pot.’ You know, if you’re a little more manly you would tell them what your position on employment discrimination is. How about that? But it’s always ‘We want to legalize pot.’”

Stossel then asked: “Why can’t gays get married?” …

“This is another one where you’re just sucking up to liberals when there are big fights,” Coulter explained.

“No, we believe the individual should be left alone,” Stossel shot back. …

“First of all, for alleged individualists, you’re very mob-like,” Coulter snarked. “Second of all, it is my business because we are living in a welfare state … Right now, I have to pay for, it turns out, coming down the pike, your health care. I have to pay for your unemployment when you can’t hold a job. I have to pay for your food, for your housing. Yeah, it’s my business!”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 6

If “conservatives” (as in “so-called”) really don’t like big government, then maybe they need to get out of the way when people try to get DOMA repealed so that we can let the States tackle the issue of gay marriage in their own way. And if the same “conservatives” don’t want the government to pay for gay marriage, then they can take the common sense approach and support efforts to make the government’s footprint on private relationships as small as possible.

If my neighbor wants to buy an AR-11 on the same day he marries his most favorite dood, we should just leave him to it.

NorthernCross on February 22, 2013 at 1:54 PM

I don’t believe in God and have never been a Christian but I know what works, and kicking out the foundations of society is doing the work for the statists. Big government will out of necessity step in to impose order from the anarchy that libertarians would create.

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 1:50 PM

As a simple matter of fact, you wrong about the foundation of the United States government. It owes vastly more to John Locke than to the Bible. Locke was a traditional liberal, meaning something close to a modern day libertarian, though a little more moderate.

thuja on February 22, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Make your argument without silly gender stereotypes and man-shaming. We’re getting sick of it.

bmmg39 on February 22, 2013 at 1:16 PM
And show me one example where I did what you say. Oh! I didn’t. Please stop LYING and making COMPLETE FABRICATIONS to support your beliefs.

Congratulations! You’re the asshat of the day! Here’s your trophy.

Wino on February 22, 2013 at 1:20 PM

…we’ll put it next to your Remedial Reading Class certificate. I didn’t accuse you of anything. Ann Coulter said that if John Stossel “more manly” he’d say x, y, and z.

Slow down when you read if you think it might help.

bmmg39 on February 22, 2013 at 1:57 PM

I’m not a Libertarian, but as I understand it wouldn’t the real Libertarian position on marriage be for government to stay out of it altogether? No license, no Justice of the Peace, no special treatment of married vs. single, no difference in taxation, no advantage from the government in any way, etc. ?
That would put it back entirely into the realm of churches, etc. where it started. If people want a church blessing of their union, then they go get it, otherwise if they want to live with someone of the opposite gender or same gender it does not affect anyone else.

Wouldn’t that make BOTH Coulter and Stossel happy?

mdavt on February 22, 2013 at 1:57 PM

The states most certainly have a reason to be involved in keeping society at normal levels.
Like marriage. The engineering of society comes when you are trying to do things that go against nature. Which gay marriage does.
The family unit is a biological thing.
And the state will have to get involved in tiffs involving children & property division bcs of divorce & so on.
So the STATE needs to put forth some boundaries upon normal social behavior regarding NATURE in human beings.
And since homosexuality is not part of reproduction behavior of human beings, there is no reason for the state to sanction aberrant behavior from the norm.
No one is denying gays marriage. But they should n’t expect the state to legally recognize their promises to each other.
And as far as drugs go, if we legalize everything that is lethally harmful, then we should also include citizens being able to arm themselves with nukes.
It is not the role of the FEDERAL govt to get involved in these things.
It is the role of the local states to do so.
Enumeration of powers & so forth.
This is what Libertarians don’t get. And it is why I am not one.

Badger40 on February 22, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Why is it so hard for some “Conservatives” to simply default to Federalism when it comes to social issues like gay marriage and drugs? That’s the true Conservative principle on those issues.

VinceOfDoom on February 22, 2013 at 1:58 PM

Also, if you let people get married & divorce just willy nilly easy, you also will have societal chaos.
In fact, no fault divorce has done this for us.

Badger40 on February 22, 2013 at 1:59 PM

Federalism when it comes to social issues like gay marriage and drugs? That’s the true Conservative principle on those issues.

VinceOfDoom on February 22, 2013 at 1:58 PM

I agree. States have these nonenumerated powers to deal with.
LEt the people of the state regulate their societies how they vote fit.

Badger40 on February 22, 2013 at 2:00 PM

That would put it back entirely into the realm of churches, etc. where it started. If people want a church blessing of their union, then they go get it, otherwise if they want to live with someone of the opposite gender or same gender it does not affect anyone else.

Wouldn’t that make BOTH Coulter and Stossel happy?

mdavt on February 22, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Can’t speak for anyone else, but that sounds like a plan to me. I’m married to a wonderful woman, and we have two awesome children together. Someone else’s decision to go same-sex has absolutely no impact on this.

NorthernCross on February 22, 2013 at 2:00 PM

Someone else’s decision to go same-sex has absolutely no impact on this.

NorthernCross on February 22, 2013 at 2:00 PM

Ask Elaine Huguenin how that worked out for her.

Rebar on February 22, 2013 at 2:03 PM


I am not a fan of rape so I choose to impose that morality on others. I don’t think it should be an optional choice.

Is anyone arguing that rape should be a right?

So, here, as I understand it, is your reasoning. Law is morality. So the question of governance reduces to whose morality gets to be the morality that is encoded as law. You want it to be your morality and not mine.

That’s not even conservatism. That’s a risible caricature of spoils politics where the winners get to impose their values on everyone else.

casuist on February 22, 2013 at 2:04 PM

As a simple matter of fact, you wrong about the foundation of the United States government. It owes vastly more to John Locke than to the Bible.

thuja on February 22, 2013 at 1:57 PM

all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator

John Locke assisted in the drafting of the Carolina constitution under which no man could be a citizen unless he acknowledged God, was a member of a church, and used no “reproachful, reviling, or abusive language” against any religion.

Many of Locke’s political ideas were specifically drawn from British theologian Richard Hooker (1554-1600), whom Locke quotes heavily in approbation throughout his own political writings.

[L]aws human must be made according to the general laws of Nature, and without contradiction to any positive law of Scripture, otherwise they are ill made. – John Locke

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 2:05 PM

then they can take the common sense approach and support efforts to make the government’s footprint on private relationships as small as possible.

False choice. This presupposes the the government does not have a legitimate interest in encouraging nuclear families for the betterment of the most vulnerable citizens: children. This would be an example of “providing for the general welfare” before the liberals destroyed all meaning of the phrase.

Governmental marriage benefits are an incentive for people to take on the legal obligations of a licensed marriage. There is absolutely no point to having a license for which everyone qualifies. Do we need a new licensing bureau for people-who-breathe? As a corollary, there is no sense in offering the incentives for those who won’t or can’t fulfill the objective. You wouldn’t offer ice cream to students who did extra-credit, and then also give it to the kids who didn’t because darn it, they like ice-cream too.

This is why civil unions are as dumb an idea as gay marriage; they’re just pandering. Handouts for votes, business as usual.

CapnObvious on February 22, 2013 at 2:06 PM

That the audience laughed when Ann suggested that the liberals are trying to destroy the family is concerning. The welfare state is designed to destroy the family, particulary the black family and make it dependent on the goverment. And these kids laugh.

ctmom on February 22, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Wow. She is so gutsy. She will go into a room full of drooling liberals or a room full of lockstep libertarians and take the heat. I can’t think of many others that would do that. Regardless of whether you agree with her or not, she is a brave woman.

Hannibal on February 22, 2013 at 2:09 PM

As a simple matter of fact, you wrong about the foundation of the United States government. It owes vastly more to John Locke than to the Bible. Locke was a traditional liberal, meaning something close to a modern day libertarian, though a little more moderate.

thuja on February 22, 2013 at 1:57 PM

I seriously doubt that. Locke’s intellectual foundations were nurtured within a Biblical cultural and social milieu. Today’s Libertarians, not so much.

Cleombrotus on February 22, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Actually, I wish these debates went on for several segments. The fact is, it seemed that these were more sound bit hunting than allowing a strong debate on issues. For example, she got out that she was against easy divorce, but did not explain the underpinnings of damage to children, destruction of traditional family, rootless communities, making the woman a competitor in the rat race and most important, the current demographics of White displacement on the North American Continent. Each woman in the job market in a woman who is putting off child bearing till her thirties. A good explanation is here..

Yet Liberals have worked for years to stigmatize “teen Pregnancy” when the peak of fertility in 18 in a White female and that the longer a woman waits to have children, the worse her chances to conceive, the greater her chances of having a deformed child. Further, a species is growing when it has children in a generation that is every 20 years. Making the generations every thirty years or never brings the birth rate negative. To survive as a species, we must fill those empty cradles.

Bulletchaser on February 22, 2013 at 2:09 PM

thuja on February 22, 2013 at 1:57 PM

As hard as I try, I just can’t see John Locke arguing for same sex marriage. Know what I mean?

Cleombrotus on February 22, 2013 at 2:10 PM

I am not a fan of rape so I choose to impose that morality on others. I don’t think it should be an optional choice.

Is anyone arguing that rape should be a right?

Yes. In fact it has been legally imposed by a court in Pakistan. It is commonly accepted in many Muslim nations.

Are you going to impose your morality on their different life choices?

So, here, as I understand it, is your reasoning. Law is morality. So the question of governance reduces to whose morality gets to be the morality that is encoded as law. You want it to be your morality and not mine.

That’s not even conservatism. That’s a risible caricature of spoils politics where the winners get to impose their values on everyone else.

casuist on February 22, 2013 at 2:04 PM

It’s just life.

Law is codified morality. That isn’t in any question.

Obviously someone has to come up with what moral code will be imposed and the others have to suck it up.

Conservatism isn’t trying to run away from reality like liberalism and libertarianism. We face up to the hard truths about human nature and turn greed for example into a viable economic system. Socialists try to fight that aspect of human nature and their economies fail, because human nature wins out in the long run.

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 2:11 PM

Wow. She is so gutsy. She will go into a room full of drooling liberals or a room full of lockstep libertarians and take the heat. I can’t think of many others that would do that. Regardless of whether you agree with her or not, she is a brave and strong woman.

Hannibal on February 22, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Cleombrotus on February 22, 2013 at 2:12 PM

Make your argument without silly gender stereotypes and man-shaming. We’re getting sick of it.

bmmg39 on February 22, 2013 at 1:16 PM
And show me one example where I did what you say. Oh! I didn’t. Please stop LYING and making COMPLETE FABRICATIONS to support your beliefs.

Congratulations! You’re the asshat of the day! Here’s your trophy.

Wino on February 22, 2013 at 1:20 PM

…we’ll put it next to your Remedial Reading Class certificate. I didn’t accuse you of anything. I referred to Coulter’s having said that if Stossel were “more manly” he would have said x, y, and z.

Slow down when you read if you think it might help.

bmmg39 on February 22, 2013 at 2:12 PM

All this energy wasted over less than 5 percent of the population. We’re BROKE. People can’t afford to heat their homes. Frankly, I’m sick and tired of hearing about gays.

tyketto on February 22, 2013 at 2:12 PM

Libertarians are like teenage conservatives. They have no perspective. They can’t take a mature look at what are the most important issues. Their narrow-minded childishness allows liberals to win and take all of our freedom away.

You want pot, open immigration, and sexual freedom? Fight the welfare state first. Our country cannot have both libertinism and a welfare state.

JohnJ on February 22, 2013 at 2:13 PM

“Right now, I have to pay for, it turns out, coming down the pike, your health care. I have to pay for your unemployment when you can’t hold a job. I have to pay for your food, for your housing. Yeah, it’s my business!”

Be careful, Ann. That’s the same argument used in the UK to, for example, deny fat people medical care.

Do you really want to go there?

Drained Brain on February 22, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Then maybe the government shouldn’t be involved in what goes on between a patient, doctor and the patient’s insurer (coverage) except to enforce a contract that both parties agreed to.

This is what happens when everyone else and their dog get involved – everyone else and their dog get a say.

kim roy on February 22, 2013 at 2:14 PM

thuja on February 22, 2013 at 1:57 PM

thuja, there’s a reason our culture is no longer producing John Lockes.

Cleombrotus on February 22, 2013 at 2:15 PM

Law is codified morality. That isn’t in any question.

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 2:11 PM

Law is the codified morality only of when it is appropriate to use force. Not all morality concerns force, therefore not all law concerns morality.

JohnJ on February 22, 2013 at 2:15 PM

As a lower case libertarian, my issues center around small government, the purpose of which should be acting as an impartial arbitrator and defend our borders. You know, sort of how the Constitution is set up…that pesky 9th Amendment and all. (The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.)

The missing part is personal responsibility from the upper case Libertarians. And definitely from Liberals…always “someone else’s fault” is not valid in my world view.

Republicans today are the Democrats of yesterday. And there are no “Republicans of yesterday” anymore.

But personal responsibility for one’s actions…that is libertarian.

Instead of trying to fix everything in one swoop, Conservatives and Libertarians need to work together on the issues they agree on to turn us from the Liberal path. Just put abortion to the side. Ignore gay marriage and pot legalization.

FOCUS on the economy or Second Amendment Rights, which is the easiest thing to bring to people’s attention…their paycheck and their safety.

Liberals got us here, one Politically Correct step at a time. And that strategy and set of tactics worked. Time to turn it around, as when we start calling out Alinsky tactics and logical fallacies in their posts.

ONE thing at a time. Weight loss comes 1 pound at a time. Alcoholics take it one day at a time. Let’s return things one issue at a time.

Bringing a basket of issues to the table dilutes them all. have positions on all the issues, but beat on one issue. Pound it. Smack it upside the head. ONE issue.

Failure to focus is focusing to fail.

ProfShadow on February 22, 2013 at 2:19 PM

Law is codified morality. That isn’t in any question.

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 2:11 PM

Law is the codified morality only of when it is appropriate to use force. Not all morality concerns force, therefore not all law concerns morality.

JohnJ on February 22, 2013 at 2:15 PM

If I had said all morality should be law then you would be right.

It is a rare law indeed that doesn’t involve some moral aspect.

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 2:20 PM

If my neighbor wants to buy an AR-11 on the same day he marries his most favorite dood, we should just leave him to it.

NorthernCross on February 22, 2013 at 1:54 PM

What’s an AR-11?

Dunedainn on February 22, 2013 at 2:20 PM

The idea that the government can be uninvolved in marriage is as silly and childish as the idea that the government can be uninvolved in contracts. In order to protect an individual’s rights, which is the only true purpose for the existence of government, the government first has to be able to know who has what rights. The government cannot protect your right to your property if it is prohibited from defining your property.

Marriage is a contract in which the parties agree to an exchange of rights. In order for the government to protect those rights, it first has to be allowed to define what rights are exchanged in that contract.

Which is why the federal government should get out of marriage. State governments are the appropriate place for the enforcement of contractual rights.

JohnJ on February 22, 2013 at 2:21 PM

I love Ann but she lost right from the first 30 seconds by defending the Iraq war. What we left in Iraq was an Islamic state being governed under Sharia law with a population that pretty much hates us. Their ongoing stability will always be in question. In retrospect any rational person would conclude it wasn’t worth it. Defending Iraq is defending Bush, who in fact was a horrible president.

He was no Conservative by any stretch he has demolished the Republican and Conservative brands. We need to admit that Bush sucked and move on. Romney could have distanced himself far more from Bush’s interventionists policies and did not. He could have hung Afghanistan around Obama’s neck and did not. Nation building in the Islamic world makes no sense whatsoever.

If Ann had a son I am sure she wouldn’t want him dying defending “governments” that operate in ways that are antithetical to our values. Neither Iraq or Afghanistan were worth dying for. Meanwhile Al Qaeda is operating elsewhere, still planning our destruction. Nothing was gained.

I don’t think Libertarians are that useful either, their fantasy that we can ignore social decay and simultaneously restrain the expansion of the welfare state is absurd. America’s failure is first and foremost a moral one in so many ways. They willfully ignore that and for that they should be dismissed.

echosyst on February 22, 2013 at 2:25 PM

NorthernCross on February 22, 2013 at 1:54 PM

No surprise to see you here spouting stupidity.
The reason we have to limit the degenerates from having SPECIAL PRIVILEGES is that it creates incentive to BE A DEGENERATE.

Here is what happens. You let so and so be a degenerate, and he comes looking for a hand out. Some people feel sorry for him and help him out. No big problem. But then three new people see, hey, he is not suffering from his degeneracy, we can join him. Now you have 4 beggars looking for hand outs, people notice this and cut back on helping the degenerates. But those who do not stop helping become over burdened. Those four degenerates turn into 8 degenerates relying on the good will of say 50 folks in the neighborhood. The degenerates do not like having to present themselves one on one to the person giving them money, and the people who are so generous do not want to be the only ones paying. So the degenerates and the generous group together and vote in politicians who will take money from everyone and hand the money out semi privately.

But hey, your degenerate behavior is special…

astonerii on February 22, 2013 at 2:26 PM

Which is why the federal government should get out of marriage. State governments are the appropriate place for the enforcement of contractual rights.

JohnJ on February 22, 2013 at 2:21 PM

Does one state have to recognize what another state defines as marriage?

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 2:26 PM

As hard as I try, I just can’t see John Locke arguing for same sex marriage. Know what I mean?

Cleombrotus on February 22, 2013 at 2:10 PM

It is hard to know how someone would view our modern debates. I suspect he would end up in favor of it as he learned just how normal gay people are in an environment in which they aren’t oppressed. It would be consistent with his theories on liberty. I’m certain Jefferson would favor gay marriage if he were alive today. He had no problems with the openly gay people he met in Paris.

thuja on February 22, 2013 at 2:31 PM

Does one state have to recognize what another state defines as marriage?

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 2:26 PM

Under the Court’s current interpretation of the Full Faith and Credit clause, yes. But the Court’s current interpretation is wrong. For example, states do not have to give full faith and credit to another state’s concealed carry license, or license to practice law, etc. Marriage should be treated as a license, where states are permitted, but not Constitutionally required, to mutually enforce.

But that can be fixed.

JohnJ on February 22, 2013 at 2:34 PM

thuja on February 22, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that by their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of a toleration. As for other practical opinions, though not absolutely free from all error, yet if they do not tend to establish domination over others, or civil impunity to the church in which they are taught, there can be no reason why they should not be tolerated. – John Locke

I see Christianity.

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 2:35 PM

Weren’t here two guys Romney and Christie Cream? Yeah, I don’t really care about Coulter anymore. She’s in the same boat as Rove.

rndmusrnm on February 22, 2013 at 2:36 PM

I’m a libertarian (note the small “l”)on fiscal policy. There is, of course, not much difference between many conservatives and libertarians on economics, or at least the federal government’s (non) role in economic matters.

I am also a libertarian on abortion, gay marriage, and pot (but not hard drugs), among other things, with a strong strain of federalist mixed in. That is, I would vote in favor of gay marriage, abortion, and legalized pot, but I believe such decisions should be made by voters at the state and local level.

If the voters of Texas choose to keep pot illegal, or for that matter if the voters of California choose higher taxes and more business-killing regulation, more power to them. Just don’t try to make those policies nation-wide, or look to the federal government for aid in enforcing those policies, or bailing you out from the fallout of such decisions.

But, the Libertarian Party position on isolation and appeasement in foreign policy is a deal-breaker for me. The world is a dangerous place, full of dangerous people, and you cannot have an individualist state at home without pro-actively protecting it from danger abroad. Islamo-fascists and Marxists do not simply wish to be left alone to live and let live, no matter what the Libertarian Party thinks.

MidniteRambler on February 22, 2013 at 2:37 PM

False choice. This presupposes the the government does not have a legitimate interest in encouraging nuclear families for the betterment of the most vulnerable citizens: children. This would be an example of “providing for the general welfare” before the liberals destroyed all meaning of the phrase.

Governmental marriage benefits are an incentive for people to take on the legal obligations of a licensed marriage. There is absolutely no point to having a license for which everyone qualifies. Do we need a new licensing bureau for people-who-breathe? As a corollary, there is no sense in offering the incentives for those who won’t or can’t fulfill the objective. You wouldn’t offer ice cream to students who did extra-credit, and then also give it to the kids who didn’t because darn it, they like ice-cream too.

This is why civil unions are as dumb an idea as gay marriage; they’re just pandering. Handouts for votes, business as usual.

CapnObvious on February 22, 2013 at 2:06 PM

I’m not presupposing anything. The government arguably has a “legitimate interest” in all sorts of things, such as restricting marriage and even constitutionally enshrined rights, but that doesn’t mean that we should just allow the government a free hand in something merely because we can cite a government interest.

In any event, we can turn this premise on its head. An argument can be made that the government has a significant interest in passing regulations involving gay marriage. After all, if two people of the same sex live together in an intimate relationship for an extended period of time, it is only “natural” for certain rights and obligations to attach as a result. This becomes especially true if they become adoptive parents to each others’ children.

NorthernCross on February 22, 2013 at 2:40 PM

astonerii on February 22, 2013 at 2:26 PM

Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear in that other thread, so I will do so now. I am done feeding you, troll.

NorthernCross on February 22, 2013 at 2:41 PM

After all, if two people of the same sex live together in an intimate relationship for an extended period of time, it is only “natural” for certain rights and obligations to attach as a result.

Would that apply to long term roommates as well?

I don’t see any reason for rights and obligations to attach to them.

This becomes especially true if they become adoptive parents to each others’ children.

NorthernCross on February 22, 2013 at 2:40 PM

They can’t have children unless someone else is involved.

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 2:43 PM

MidniteRambler on February 22, 2013 at 2:37 PM

I agree completely. Just as pretending that Ghengis Khan didn’t exist wouldn’t have helped anyone in Central Asia back in the 13th century, pretending that Mulsims and Communists are going to be nice will get us killed.

thuja on February 22, 2013 at 2:43 PM

But, the Libertarian Party position on isolation and appeasement in foreign policy is a deal-breaker for me. The world is a dangerous place, full of dangerous people, and you cannot have an individualist state at home without pro-actively protecting it from danger abroad. Islamo-fascists and Marxists do not simply wish to be left alone to live and let live, no matter what the Libertarian Party thinks.

MidniteRambler on February 22, 2013 at 2:37 PM

In many cases, an effective immigration policy can protect the homeland against such external threats. As far as radical Islamists already here, well, that’s why we have things like the First and Second Amendments.

NorthernCross on February 22, 2013 at 2:44 PM

We face up to the hard truths about human nature and turn greed for example into a viable economic system. Socialists try to fight that aspect of human nature and their economies fail, because human nature wins out in the long run.

And you both want to impose your values on everyone else by means of the coercive power of the state. The only difference is that you think God or the laws of physics is on your side and not theirs. No wonder the freakin’ federal super-state keeps growing no matter who is in power.

casuist on February 22, 2013 at 2:45 PM

I have to pay for, it turns out, coming down the pike, your health care

This is such an idiotic quote from Ann. How does she think insurance works? Whether its public or private health insurance its a pooling of people who contribute premiums that pay for your treatments when you get them.

snoopicus on February 22, 2013 at 2:47 PM

I would like to ad this. When you hear people loudly putting down Republicans as “The Establishment” half of the time it is coming loudly from libertarians trying to “pass” as conservatives and work you up. They think that if they help to ruin the republican party they can take it over as it is. But they won’t join you in YOUR conservative party if that is what you think you are making. They don’t show up to help elect local republicans, and they won’t campaign for republicans or conservatives, doing the phone calls or writing checks, they have some other nationwide goal, and when they get pot legalized, and the republican party in ruins they will go away.

Fleuries on February 22, 2013 at 2:48 PM

It is hard to know how someone would view our modern debates. I suspect he would end up in favor of it as he learned just how normal gay people are in an environment in which they aren’t oppressed. It would be consistent with his theories on liberty. I’m certain Jefferson would favor gay marriage if he were alive today. He had no problems with the openly gay people he met in Paris.

thuja on February 22, 2013 at 2:31 PM

Normal?

You’re interjecting Post-modern sensibilities onto a decidedly Modernist individual. Don’t confuse an 18th century Deist mindset, albeit tolerant, with that of a 21st century Libertarian.

They are not the same. A colonial like Jefferson, while tolerant, still recognized a specific moral order to the universe and never confused those operating outside of it as being “normal”.

Cleombrotus on February 22, 2013 at 2:48 PM

And you both want to impose your values on everyone else by means of the coercive power of the state.

casuist on February 22, 2013 at 2:45 PM

I am not a fan of rape and I don’t think it should be an optional choice.

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 2:48 PM

I mean I have private insurance and it burns me up that i pay high premiums because most of the peeps i work with dont want to eat right or exercise. But my company’s plan is my company’s plan so im stuck.

snoopicus on February 22, 2013 at 2:50 PM

Sounds to me like Coulter’s only arguement was … “Libertarians are going after the small issues.”

She really couldn’t say they were WRONG about those issues.

HondaV65 on February 22, 2013 at 2:50 PM

I suspect he would end up in favor of it as he learned just how normal gay people are in an environment in which they aren’t oppressed.

thuja on February 22, 2013 at 2:31 PM

Yeah, I am sure he wouldn’t have any problem with the gay pride parade. /extreme sarcasm

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 2:51 PM

I thought the questioners were prime examples of the problem with libertarianism. It was all about them. I don’t want to do drugs, I am going through a terrible divorce, I shouldn’t be denied marriage.

Libertarianism is inherently selfish and self centered.

Laws, civil and criminal, are about society not the individual, they are needed to insure the general welfare of the individual so that society can thrive. There is a symbiotic relationship between the individual and society.

The family is a cornerstone of a stable society because that should be where morality is taught so that we can trust each other to obey the law.

It’s like traffic laws. As drivers, we have to trust that the other drivers will obey the laws so that traffic moves fairly smoothly. Not following the laws results in accidents and chaos.

Ann Coulter did well under the limited time she had to explain her positions. The crowd was hostile to her and her message but she retained her composure.

Jvette on February 22, 2013 at 2:52 PM

Why anybody still stands against gay marriage is ridiculous, who cares, let people do what they please. Only real argument is a child brought up by gay parents could have it rougher due to it not being widely accepted. Time will change that though, not long ago a the same could have happened to the childeren of mixed race couples. It may still in smaller amounts due to the very small minority of people that are bigoted. There will always be that small percentage though.

Who gives two craps if people get divorced, that is their business. Don’t bring up that a child raised by a single parent is worse off. A child raised in a household where their parents fight all the time, verbally or physically, is just as unhealthy. I’m tired of resistance to gay marriage and divorce being driven on morals taught through religion. Your religion can dictate what is proper for you, but don’t push that on the rest of the world.

On that note, birth control. I’m not into government provided services/subsidies/etc but hand out free birth control to anybody that will take it. If you want to complain about paying for kids in single parent homes, too many people with xx kids on welfare and Obamacare, go for the root of the problem, unplanned pregnancies. Children are indeed a blessing, but birth control is not a sin.

Legalize drugs, I agree with Ann. No legalization while we are a welfare nation. If we want to require all people on government assistance or Obamacare to submit to drug testing fine, legalize. If not, it isn’t very libertarian, but I don’t trust the rest of the country to be productive members of society with drugs illegal let alone with them legal and readily available.

Conservatives need to learn to govern conservatively. This nation is in a very bad financial situation. There is no need to care about social issues if we are destined to become a broke, socialist state. There is no point in fighting for your religious based morals if we will not have a functioning economy/country to enjoy them in. Get with the program Republicans, you can keep fighting for the fringe items that a lot of your base doesn’t care about right now, or you can run on the economy and save our country. The numbers of your voters siphoning over to the libertarian pool grows every election, recognize why or be doomed to slowly become unelectable in future contests.

deuce on February 22, 2013 at 2:52 PM

Well I am going to print out this thread that way I will have a base list of hot air libertarians for referance.

Thanks guys and gals.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on February 22, 2013 at 2:54 PM

Libertarians or libertines? These stupid kids think that potheads and crackheads live in some kind of vacuum where their actions are never deleterious to other people Grow the hell up! And if you think for one minute that mainstream conservatives are going to buy into your pro-Islamofascist,pro gay, pro drug BS you are as insane as your leader Ron Paulmwhose rabid support amounted to absolutely nothing.The conservative movement is dying,split apart by factions that couldn’t care less about the country,but are all about their libertine self-gratification.

redware on February 22, 2013 at 2:57 PM

There is no point in fighting for your religious based morals if we will not have a functioning economy/country to enjoy them in.

deuce on February 22, 2013 at 2:52 PM

Single mothers and welfare bums are going to vote for a paycheck. The destruction of the social fabric is what strengthens socialism. That is why the family is targeted by the leftists. They know what you clearly don’t.

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 2:58 PM

I understand Ann’s main point. I have a high-school/facebook friend who keeps posting the “don’t blame me, I voted for Ron Johnson” stuff. And it all leans towards the coolness of legalization and gay rights. So I tell her if she’s actually a Libertarian, she better be prepared to defend eliminating federal school subsidies, social security and other welfare state programs. It’s easy to defend legalizing pot, but not so easy to defend dismantling our unconstitutional size of the federal government, and it’s tough to sell actual principles of self reliance. Of course I never see postings on those issues. Ann’s point was “we could use a little help on those bigger (and tougher to defend) issues”. And most Libertarians are silent, or more accurately, just as ineffective at winning the salesmanship side of articulating limited government principles to the voting masses as conservatives. So help us out on the big issues first please.

Norbitz on February 22, 2013 at 2:59 PM

Yeah, I am sure he wouldn’t have any problem with the gay pride parade. /extreme sarcasm

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 2:51 PM

I’ve always had a fantasy of one of those guys like Franklin or Jefferson being transported to our time and watching their reaction to where are culture has come since their time.

Cleombrotus on February 22, 2013 at 3:03 PM

I’ve always had a fantasy of one of those guys like Franklin or Jefferson being transported to our time and watching their reaction to where are culture has come since their time.

Cleombrotus on February 22, 2013 at 3:03 PM

I would be inclined to spare them the heartbreak.

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 3:04 PM

They can’t have children unless someone else is involved.

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Correct, that’s why I used the qualifier “adoptive.”

I thought the questioners were prime examples of the problem with libertarianism. It was all about them. I don’t want to do drugs, I am going through a terrible divorce, I shouldn’t be denied marriage.

Libertarianism is inherently selfish and self centered.

Laws, civil and criminal, are about society not the individual, they are needed to insure the general welfare of the individual so that society can thrive. There is a symbiotic relationship between the individual and society.

The family is a cornerstone of a stable society because that should be where morality is taught so that we can trust each other to obey the law.

It’s like traffic laws. As drivers, we have to trust that the other drivers will obey the laws so that traffic moves fairly smoothly. Not following the laws results in accidents and chaos.

Ann Coulter did well under the limited time she had to explain her positions. The crowd was hostile to her and her message but she retained her composure.

Jvette on February 22, 2013 at 2:52 PM

It is not, at least, it is not any more than a strongly held belief in free-market capitalism. One can be a libertarian and a free-market capitalist, and at the same time be an extremely generous and compassionate person. How Libertarians distinguish themselves from libs (and apparently some “conservatives”) is that they believe that we should be allowed the choice to be generous and compassionate.

Who is the better person, the man who gives of himself because his government demands it or the man who does so because it is right?

NorthernCross on February 22, 2013 at 3:06 PM

I would be inclined to spare them the heartbreak heart attack.

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 3:04 PM

Fixed

Cleombrotus on February 22, 2013 at 3:06 PM

Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear in that other thread, so I will do so now. I am done feeding you, troll.

NorthernCross on February 22, 2013 at 2:41 PM

Maybe you do not understand what it means to participate in something larger than your own little world.
I do not care about your feelings, particularly when they feed the degeneration of the society in which I live and reside and am raising a family that will also be involved in.
So, when you spout BS and pass it off as reasoned thought, I will take it upon myself to call your BS and set things straight.
I am not here to win a popularity contest. Perhaps you are.

A democracy, which our nation has sadly devolved into, cannot both have a small government footprint and a large government sanctioned degenerate base. They are exclusionary to each other.

astonerii on February 22, 2013 at 3:06 PM

Federalism when it comes to social issues like gay marriage and drugs? That’s the true Conservative principle on those issues.

VinceOfDoom on February 22, 2013 at 1:58 PM

Sounds good, but issues arise when gays in one state marry & then relocate somewhere that doesn’t allow gay marriage & lawsuits ensue. Civil unions for gays with full bennies (aka, same as marriages) would solve the problem (and allow for true conservative principles), but apparently solving the problem isn’t the goal or else that’s what gay-marriage supporters would be pushing.

The goal is (a) political capitalization; (b) demonization of enemies; (c) mandatory affirmation & approval by the federal government (then it’d be easier to push for hate crimes/discrimination cases against locales that didn’t agree). There’s a reason they keep comparing the issue to civil rights, after all.

Cam Winston on February 22, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Conservatives need to learn to govern conservatively…
There is no need to care about social issues…

The numbers of your voters siphoning over to the libertarian pool grows every election, recognize why or be doomed to slowly become unelectable in future contests.

deuce on February 22, 2013 at 2:52 PM

THAT’S why, deuce. You can’t seem to grasp that “governing conservatively” IS caring about “social issues” and seeing how they are intricately bound up with fiscal issues.

We separate them at our peril.

Cleombrotus on February 22, 2013 at 3:11 PM

Cam Winston on February 22, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Civil unions with the same benefits is not conservative at all.

Marriage earned the benefits that come with it due to its long standing nature and its OBVIOUS benefit to society.

Granting gays the same state benefits as Marriage short circuits a part of the natural order, the part where they demonstrate their VALUE to society to have EARNED these benefits.

All of the general contractual benefits can be had through contracts which have no bearing on their sexual activity.

astonerii on February 22, 2013 at 3:12 PM

deuce on February 22, 2013 at 2:52 PM

How can you have sound economic policies if the average citizen isn’t a moral being? If the leadership is corrupted morally, etc.?

Cleombrotus on February 22, 2013 at 3:12 PM

That would put it back entirely into the realm of churches, etc. where it started. If people want a church blessing of their union, then they go get it, otherwise if they want to live with someone of the opposite gender or same gender it does not affect anyone else.

Wouldn’t that make BOTH Coulter and Stossel happy?

mdavt on February 22, 2013 at 1:57 PM

That’s exactly what Coulter is talking about. Libertarians think in a very naive manner. The government is heavily involved in domestic law, but you don’t want to talk about how to remove government from this area of our lives, nope you want to talk about gay marriage. That’s what she means by saying you’re sucking up to liberals. You know that if you talk about removing government you would lose liberal support.

DFCtomm on February 22, 2013 at 3:15 PM

NorthernCross on February 22, 2013 at 3:06 PM

Libertarians, like yourself it seems, of the sort that are out and about most often are degenerates who want to use the force of government guns and prisons to ENFORCE the acceptance of their degenerate behaviors and demand that society underwrite them with their taxes. This is why you look to the government to impose a condition which is freely entered into even when there is no government.

astonerii on February 22, 2013 at 3:16 PM

I understand Ann’s main point. I have a high-school/facebook friend who keeps posting the “don’t blame me, I voted for Ron Johnson” stuff. And it all leans towards the coolness of legalization and gay rights. So I tell her if she’s actually a Libertarian, she better be prepared to defend eliminating federal school subsidies, social security and other welfare state programs. It’s easy to defend legalizing pot, but not so easy to defend dismantling our unconstitutional size of the federal government, and it’s tough to sell actual principles of self reliance. Of course I never see postings on those issues. Ann’s point was “we could use a little help on those bigger (and tougher to defend) issues”. And most Libertarians are silent, or more accurately, just as ineffective at winning the salesmanship side of articulating limited government principles to the voting masses as conservatives. So help us out on the big issues first please.

Norbitz on February 22, 2013 at 2:59 PM

From what I’ve seen, Libertarians can and absolutely align themselves with “conservatives” on those issues where there’s agreement. But speaking for myself, I don’t see a lot of that anymore. For example, a lot of “conservative” leaders in power talk about reducing the size of government, while doing nothing to actually speak the truth to the American people that we’re eventually gong to have to cut Medicare and Social Security as as cut a lot of waste from the DoD. I could go on…

NorthernCross on February 22, 2013 at 3:18 PM

cut a lot of waste from the DoD.

NorthernCross on February 22, 2013 at 3:18 PM

4% of GDP, seriously, we need to cut that?
Yes we spend more than the rest of the world on our military, it is because we have a large amount of wealth to defend.
This is a prime reason libertarians are such a laughing stock and not respected.

astonerii on February 22, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Normal?

You’re interjecting Post-modern sensibilities onto a decidedly Modernist individual. Don’t confuse an 18th century Deist mindset, albeit tolerant, with that of a 21st century Libertarian.

They are not the same. A colonial like Jefferson, while tolerant, still recognized a specific moral order to the universe and never confused those operating outside of it as being “normal”.

Cleombrotus on February 22, 2013 at 2:48 PM

I started my reply with a statement about how hard it is to guess how anyone from long ago would interpret our debates today. All I am saying that Locke were revived and got to meet today’s gay people, he may very well come down on the side of tolerance for gays. I find that the more gay people are integrated into the lives of people the more they support the rights of gays. I think this is why this social change is happening so fast. Increasing tolerance of gays means more gays coming out and more gays coming out means increasing tolerance. It’s a virtuous cycle.

thuja on February 22, 2013 at 3:23 PM

All I am saying that Locke were revived and got to meet today’s gay people, he may very well come down on the side of tolerance for gays. I find that the more gay people are integrated into the lives of people the more they support the rights of gays. I think this is why this social change is happening so fast. Increasing tolerance of gays means more gays coming out and more gays coming out means increasing tolerance. It’s a virtuous cycle.

thuja on February 22, 2013 at 3:23 PM

What if we arrange that meeting at the Folsom street fair?

DFCtomm on February 22, 2013 at 3:27 PM

THAT’S why, deuce. You can’t seem to grasp that “governing conservatively” IS caring about “social issues” and seeing how they are intricately bound up with fiscal issues.

We separate them at our peril.

Cleombrotus on February 22, 2013 at 3:11 PM

If we care about “social issues” being intricately bound with fiscal issues do we support free birth control for all? A little cost up front save us many likely liberal leaches down the road. Sounds bad, but true.

Do we allow gay marriage because a two parent household is most likely more financially successful and less prone to be on government assistance than a single parent?

How can you have sound economic policies if the average citizen isn’t a moral being? If the leadership is corrupted morally, etc.?

Cleombrotus on February 22, 2013 at 3:12 PM

What constitutes a “moral being”?

Our leaders on both sides of the isle have been corrupted morally quite some time. If we are honest about it both republicans and democrats screw us, just from a different angle and at different speeds.

deuce on February 22, 2013 at 3:27 PM

NorthernCross on February 22, 2013 at 3:06 PM

Funny how you immediately read that and offered a self centered response.

By selfish and self centered, I didn’t mean as in “”non giving or not compassionate”, but thinking only of one’s self interest and desires.

Stossel says “No, we believe the individual should be left alone,” and he is right, to an extent.

A person who wants to have a same sex relationship should be able to have one without fear of reprisal, but the institution of marriage should be brought down so that can happen. I could care less if they want a ceremony with friends and family to celebrate their love and commitment to each other. I agree that they could have some civil protections for their partnership, but that is not marriage.

If someone wants to kill themselves with drugs or throw their life away in a stupor, then fine, but drugs aren’t free and addicts cannot support themselves. I have no problem with pot, smoked quite a bit of it in my day, but hard drugs that incapacitate and are addictive should not be allowed.

The free market is the best way to lift the most people in society out of poverty, but there has to be some rules regarding trade/commerce so that society as a whole benefits and not just the individual. That is why there are contracts between buyers and sellers, employers and employees that the government enforces but should not impose.

Live and let live is another form of utopia and that is why libertarians so often align themselves with Democrats.
They are in for a rude awakening though, because the more power these nanny staters get, the more they will hunger for complete control. It’s a reality of human nature. Kind of like the awakening liberals are in for if the Muslims gain control.

Jvette on February 22, 2013 at 3:32 PM

What constitutes a “moral being”?

If you don’t know then why do you care if socialism takes over? Or do you?

Our leaders on both sides of the isle have been corrupted morally quite some time. If we are honest about it both republicans and democrats screw us, just from a different angle and at different speeds.

deuce on February 22, 2013 at 3:27 PM

True but irrelevant to a discussion about what the right thing to do is.

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 3:33 PM

What constitutes a “moral being”?

deuce on February 22, 2013 at 3:27 PM

That question is at the heart of the issue. If I had to pick 5 words that represented the fall of Western Civilization, I couldn’t choose any better. Find any healthy society in history and ask them that question and you’ll get a strong consistent answer.

DFCtomm on February 22, 2013 at 3:33 PM

That’s exactly what Coulter is talking about. Libertarians think in a very naive manner. The government is heavily involved in domestic law, but you don’t want to talk about how to remove government from this area of our lives, nope you want to talk about gay marriage. That’s what she means by saying you’re sucking up to liberals. You know that if you talk about removing government you would lose liberal support.

DFCtomm on February 22, 2013 at 3:15 PM

If you truly believe that Libertarians espouse the views they do because they want to “suck up” to liberals, then you really don’t understand how intolerant people on that side of the spectrum are. During my last days at my most recent job, I informed co-workers about the importance of the Second Amendment to our free society. Being the wonderful lefties that they are, they accused me of not caring about the safety and well-being of children. On another occasion when I mentioned that I we’ll eventually have to shrink the size of the Fed in order to afford the government that we have, they accused me of wanting to kill poor old grandmothers who depend on Social Security and Medicare.

This is not atypical of people on that side of the fence, and I believe most Libertarians are fully aware that it’s useless to appease people like that. They endorse the things that they do not because it’s popular, but because they actually believe them.

NorthernCross on February 22, 2013 at 3:35 PM

Social conservatives and liberals love them selves some big powerful government. They want that government to legislate morality.

MoreLiberty on February 22, 2013 at 3:37 PM

NorthernCross on February 22, 2013 at 3:35 PM

There are many libertarians like you, but you are outnumbered by those in the audience of this video. They want to be accepted in polite society, so they stick to drugs and gay marriage. I consider myself a libertarian, and a conservative. I believe that the vast majority of the social issues I care about can’t be solved by government so that removes most potential conflict.

DFCtomm on February 22, 2013 at 3:41 PM

That question is at the heart of the issue. If I had to pick 5 words that represented the fall of Western Civilization, I couldn’t choose any better. Find any healthy society in history and ask them that question and you’ll get a strong consistent answer.

DFCtomm on February 22, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Excellent point. The question is at the heart of Western Postmodern thought. There are no moral absolutes; everything is socially constructed. Or more to the point, everything is constructed by “the group”.

EVERY other culture has a moral base, Every last one.

Cleombrotus on February 22, 2013 at 3:41 PM

They want that government to legislate morality.

MoreLiberty on February 22, 2013 at 3:37 PM

Rape and murder laws.

Try thinking.

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 3:43 PM

The engineering of society comes when you are trying to do things that go against nature. Which gay marriage does.
The family unit is a biological thing.

Badger40 on February 22, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Wow. How deep. Murder and rape are biological and natural urges, and yet we have laws against that. Statutory rape, too. Now, please continue with your ridiculous argument.

John the Libertarian on February 22, 2013 at 3:43 PM

They want that government to legislate morality.

MoreLiberty on February 22, 2013 at 3:37 PM

That statement carries a number of wrong assumptions, not the least of it is the modern assumption that “the government” is somehow separate from “we, the People”.

Cleombrotus on February 22, 2013 at 3:44 PM

That’s what she means by saying you’re sucking up to liberals. You know that if you talk about removing government you would lose liberal support.

DFCtomm on February 22, 2013 at 3:15 PM

No. She’s name-calling because she’s lost the argument.

John the Libertarian on February 22, 2013 at 3:45 PM

Murder and rape are biological and natural urges…

John the Libertarian on February 22, 2013 at 3:43 PM

Pops some corn and waits for Badger’s response.

Cleombrotus on February 22, 2013 at 3:47 PM

Jvette on February 22, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Not sure why you say my response is self-centered:

self-cen·tered
[self-sen-terd] Show IPA
adjective
1. concerned solely or chiefly with one’s own interests, welfare, etc.; engrossed in self; selfish; egotistical.
2. independent, self-sufficient.
3. centered in oneself or itself.
4. Archaic. fixed; unchanging.

In any event, you’re right to say that it’s not a marriage when two people of the same gender have a ceremony, at least insofar as it is not legally recognized as such in the majority of the states of the union. But I suspect that what you’re really saying is that it should not be either, and I find “conservative” arguments about that which I’ve heard generally unpersuasive.

Your example of commercial contracts is a good one. The government can and should enforce contractual agreements, and no Libertarian I know would disagree with that. I don’t see a distinction justifying governmental non-recognition of same-sex marital agreements.

NorthernCross on February 22, 2013 at 3:47 PM

And far be it from me to suggest that marriage DID NOT start in the church, but was around much longer than Christianity. For all of you who have been through divorce, marriage is nothing more than an economic contract that greatly favors children if there are any.

John the Libertarian on February 22, 2013 at 3:47 PM

What if we arrange that meeting at the Folsom street fair?

DFCtomm on February 22, 2013 at 3:27 PM

Sure. Right after we take him to snake handling church in West Virginia and explain to him that snake handlers are the mainstream of Christianity in America.

thuja on February 22, 2013 at 3:52 PM

In the marriage debate gays do not want to be equal. If they were really about equality they would advocate for all types of marriage arrangements, not just for gay marriage. What makes gays so special that they are the only ones whose love relationships should be sanction by the state? If they were really honest they would fight for the rights of polygamist, polyandrist,and polyamorists. They don’t because they know that would sink their argument.

For the 6000 years of recorded human history no culture has ever supported gay marriage. Marriage is a religious and cultural institution designed to produce children, sustain the economy and make sure the culture continues. It has never been about “love” as such. Love was the icing on the cake of marriage. In the end marriage is, as Mr. Puffet says, “More than four bare legs in a bed.”

IdrilofGondolin on February 22, 2013 at 3:52 PM

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 3:43 PM

sharrukin, want to see if you would mind doing me a favor. I need you to see how this page loads. http://0ruins.blogspot.com/ Its a series I’m working on. Thanks. ; )

Bmore on February 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM

And far be it from me to suggest that marriage DID NOT start in the church, but was around much longer than Christianity. For all of you who have been through divorce, marriage is nothing more than an economic contract that greatly favors children if there are any.

John the Libertarian on February 22, 2013 at 3:47 PM

I would say it’s just the opposite. Marriage was probably a specific invention of religion. Not Christianity, since there are older religions, but it’s a product of some religion of the past.

DFCtomm on February 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM

The Culture War is what’s killing the GOP, it used to be a political winner decades ago but now it even turns people off in the Red States.

I’m not advocating immorality, I actually have deeply held religious convictions and traditional morals, so I don’t enjoy battling with people who have the same beliefs I do, but if we tie economic conservatism to the fate of social conservatism, the US is going to go past the point of no return and look like Venezuela in short order. We’re simply not the Christian nation we once were, and politicians masquerading as preachers is only going to turn more people off.

What’s maddening is, has an elected Social Conservative ever really made a damn bit of difference? If anything, I would say SoCons have made the nation MORE pro-choice, look at polls after Akin and Mourdock pushed the “no rape exception” position on abortion.

Social conservatism shouldn’t be a political movement, it should be about changing hearts and minds, not laws.

BradTank on February 22, 2013 at 3:55 PM

What if we arrange that meeting at the Folsom street fair?

DFCtomm on February 22, 2013 at 3:27 PM

Sure. Right after we take him to snake handling church in West Virginia and explain to him that snake handlers are the mainstream of Christianity in America.

thuja on February 22, 2013 at 3:52 PM

83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners. Bell and Weinberg p 308.”

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 3:55 PM

And SWalker. I got he Harkonnon reference.

IdrilofGondolin on February 22, 2013 at 3:56 PM

sharrukin, want to see if you would mind doing me a favor. I need you to see how this page loads. http://0ruins.blogspot.com/ Its a series I’m working on. Thanks. ; )

Bmore on February 22, 2013 at 3:54 PM

Loads fine.

I would expect a somewhat more self-satisfied grin on his face after he has done his job.

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 3:57 PM

Sure. Right after we take him to snake handling church in West Virginia and explain to him that snake handlers are the mainstream of Christianity in America.

thuja on February 22, 2013 at 3:52 PM

You think he’d be unfamiliar with them? Those sects in the rural areas of Appalachia go way back.

DFCtomm on February 22, 2013 at 3:58 PM

I would expect a somewhat more self-satisfied grin on his face after he has done his job.

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 3:57 PM

Thank you. ; ) I’m going for that punk ass slick and cocky look. The red tie signifies who will get the blame. I appreciate it.

Bmore on February 22, 2013 at 4:01 PM

but if we tie economic conservatism to the fate of social conservatism, the US is going to go past the point of no return and look like Venezuela in short order. We’re simply not the Christian nation we once were, and politicians masquerading as preachers is only going to turn more people off.

BradTank on February 22, 2013 at 3:55 PM

A financially well run brothel is of small interest to many of us.

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 4:01 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 6