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 3 4 5 6

Ann is not a conservative.

njrob on February 22, 2013 at 10:51 PM

The mob comment was right on. Bunch of little sheeple standing up to applaud almost in unison when one of their ‘team’ makes a point.

this is pathetic. Ann was trying to talk some sense (in vain). Question to all the ‘libertarians’…did you get Ann’s point that we are quarreling over pot, while the Entire Country is in massive decline…fiscally, socially and culturally.

I am generally in favor of drug legalization…but Ann was actually too nice to these people. They’ll trade their freedom for a joint or a divorce. Not bright, people

r keller on February 22, 2013 at 11:02 PM

Panther on February 22, 2013 at 10:19 PM

Stupid. THEY brought it up.

Cleombrotus on February 22, 2013 at 11:02 PM

Ann Coulter essentially says that you cannot repeal any socialist laws or programs in this country (like drug laws) because other socialist laws (like unemployment compensation and medical welfare) would make her pay more as a result of the repeals and thus it IS her business to keep them in force. Hey, you anti-socialists, resistance is futile. Just ask Ann Coulter.

Ceteris Paribus on February 22, 2013 at 11:21 PM

I am so, so, so tired of this attitude. ROMNEY WON THE MIDDLE. Look it up.
alwaysfiredup on February 22, 2013 at 7:25 PM

If you read my next post, it was because of this unwillingness to vote to appease the center that our base stayed home. Stayed home and lost the election to a certified left-wing socialist.

That’s the reality here.

Tennman on February 22, 2013 at 11:24 PM

John Stossel looks like his head should be frozen in a chryogenic chamber.

tomas on February 22, 2013 at 10:22 PM

I get him confused with M. Medved. I don’t watch the moustache guys. It’s too Mario brothers for me.

BoxHead1 on February 22, 2013 at 11:26 PM

No, Ceteris, she’s saying that libertarians have their priorities messed up. She’s saying “get rid of unemployment compensation and medical welfare first, so that drug legalization won’t force us all to bear the burdens of the unemployed and sick.”

OhioCoastie on February 22, 2013 at 11:28 PM

Pre-Christian “marriage”, isn’t marriage as we define it today. Most cultures bought and sold young girls, had multiple concubines or ganymedes, could legally kill their spouses, etc…

This wasn’t marriage, it was indentured servitude done in the name of a god-king.

budfox on February 22, 2013 at 6:57 PM

Hey budfox, thanks for the tip. You’re right, although Hebraic marriage back in the book of Judges was very Christian-like, the ancient Greeks were also monogamists, and in many cultures the tradition of marriage (with the exchange of money) coincided with a man wanting exclusivity over a woman’s sexuality in order to be certain of the paternity of his children. Ancient Israel used to have a full year of “betrothal” in order to guarantee the woman wasn’t carrying another man’s child.

Naturally, all bets were off with the rich in any given culture, especially those that practiced a system of patronage. Then it was party on, apparently.

John the Libertarian on February 22, 2013 at 11:33 PM

No, Ceteris, she’s saying that libertarians have their priorities messed up. She’s saying “get rid of unemployment compensation and medical welfare first, so that drug legalization won’t force us all to bear the burdens of the unemployed and sick.”

OhioCoastie on February 22, 2013 at 11:28 PM

I saw the show on Fox Business and reread the above article and saw nothing directly stating or even remotely implying that she advocates getting rid of unemployment compensation and medical welfare. Did I miss something?

Ceteris Paribus on February 22, 2013 at 11:47 PM

I am so, so, so tired of this attitude. ROMNEY WON THE MIDDLE. Look it up.
alwaysfiredup on February 22, 2013 at 7:25 PM
If you read my next post, it was because of this unwillingness to vote to appease the center that our base stayed home. Stayed home and lost the election to a certified left-wing socialist.

That’s the reality here.

Tennman on February 22, 2013 at 11:24 PM

No, no. Obama is a fascist, not a socialist. I know it’s shades of grey between the two, but fascist is more accurate.

woodNfish on February 23, 2013 at 12:12 AM

I am so, so, so tired of this attitude. ROMNEY WON THE MIDDLE. Look it up.

alwaysfiredup on February 22, 2013 at 7:25 PM

If you read my next post, it was because of this unwillingness to vote to appease the center that our base stayed home. Stayed home and lost the election to a certified left-wing socialist.
That’s the reality here.

Tennman on February 22, 2013 at 11:24 PM

Not sure how many times this will need to be said – probably millions.

A statist center/center-left Republican will pretty much almost always win a higher percentage of the electorate that shows up. But if the statist Republican is the one running a campaign, the electorate is likely to be less informed, less conservative, and less motivated to vote against the Democrat’s own statist candidate than if a principled free market conservative candidate were running. A bigger minority of an uninformed, unmotivated electorate is not better than a smaller majority of a more informed, motivated electorate.

besser tot als rot on February 23, 2013 at 12:12 AM

Ann Coulter essentially says that you cannot repeal any socialist laws or programs in this country (like drug laws) because other socialist laws (like unemployment compensation and medical welfare) would make her pay more as a result of the repeals and thus it IS her business to keep them in force. Hey, you anti-socialists, resistance is futile. Just ask Ann Coulter.

Ceteris Paribus on February 22, 2013 at 11:21 PM

Functionally, Coulter’s arguments are no different from those on the statist left. Sure, she adds a preamble that she supposedly doesn’t like statism, but essentially dismisses it as pointless given the futility in attempting to change the system. She then moves into the actual meat of the argument, which is indistinguishable from the arguments of the statist left.

besser tot als rot on February 23, 2013 at 12:20 AM

She then moves into the actual meat of the argument, which is indistinguishable from the arguments of the statist left.

besser tot als rot on February 23, 2013 at 12:20 AM

Yep! It is the standard progressive republican argument for maintaining the status quo.

Ceteris Paribus on February 23, 2013 at 12:33 AM

She then moves into the actual meat of the argument, which is indistinguishable from the arguments of the statist left.

besser tot als rot on February 23, 2013 at 12:20 AM

Yep! It is the standard progressive republican argument for maintaining the status quo.

Ceteris Paribus on February 23, 2013 at 12:33 AM

She’s talking about getting rid of the welfare state as a priority, and you’re upset that you don’t get some pot.

“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.’

sharrukin on February 23, 2013 at 12:50 AM

She’s talking about getting rid of the welfare state as a priority, and you’re upset that you don’t get some pot.

So, she basically agrees with John Stossel? I guarantee that he wants to get rid of the welfare state as a priority as well. Pot, of course, would be a non-issue in a non-welfare state.

Ceteris Paribus on February 23, 2013 at 1:01 AM

So, she basically agrees with John Stossel?

She said that in the clip. If the welfare state is gone then she wouldn’t care if drugs were legal.

I guarantee that he wants to get rid of the welfare state as a priority as well. Pot, of course, would be a non-issue in a non-welfare state.

Ceteris Paribus on February 23, 2013 at 1:01 AM

I believe that of Stossel but those asking the question were solely concerned about pot and marriage issues. Pretty heavy into the social issues for a movement that says its primarily concerned about economic considerations.

sharrukin on February 23, 2013 at 1:13 AM

To trump Obama, Congress should pass a new tax on ESF‘s.

Exorbitant Speaker’s Fees.

(Before Hillary Clinton opens her boozy yap and starts raking in mega-shekels for pimping to her monied post-Americans.)

Add a 70% surtax on all speaker’s fees above $25,000, quick.

It, at least, would haul some of the treasonous swines’ looted billions back into the Treasury.

And tweak their calls for “taxing the rich”.


Good for the goose, in this case.

profitsbeard on February 23, 2013 at 1:55 AM

I believe that of Stossel but those asking the question were solely concerned about pot and marriage issues. Pretty heavy into the social issues for a movement that says its primarily concerned about economic considerations.

sharrukin on February 23, 2013 at 1:13 AM

Agree with you there. Maybe it is because of the audience’s age and experience.

Ceteris Paribus on February 23, 2013 at 2:15 AM

Most Libertarians are only libertarian in theory, in practice, they are usually conservative. They say they we should be welcoming of all people, whether they do drugs or are homosexuals. However, if most libertarians had the chance of letting a group of gay crackheads move in next door, I think they would probably choose to sell the house to someone else.

NeverLiberal on February 23, 2013 at 2:25 AM

sharrukin, can I say that our mutual understanding of the Coulter/Stossel debate is that they basically agreed about the desired elimination of the welfare state and disagreed about the intermediate priorities to be used in the elimination process.

Ceteris Paribus on February 23, 2013 at 2:33 AM

I’m a staunch libertarian and I don’t support the gay marriage cause. Why? Because I’m a libertarian. I’m sorry but most libertarians simply haven’t thought this one out properly according to their own principles.

I do not believe that anyone should gain access to any kind of special rights, whether they be legal or financial or whatever, simply by virtue of becoming a member of a certain group. As a libertarian I believe that everyone should have the same rights. Therefore, it is not right that married couples should have any kind of special rights compared to single individuals or unmarried couples.

The fight for gay marriage rights is in effect saying that “we, the gays, want access to the same discriminatory rights that straight married couples have.” Most libertarians have deluded themselves into supporting the wrong fight. It’s unmarried couples they should be supporting, not gay couples.

Sharke on February 23, 2013 at 2:35 AM

I saw the show on Fox Business and reread the above article and saw nothing directly stating or even remotely implying that she advocates getting rid of unemployment compensation and medical welfare. Did I miss something?

Ceteris Paribus on February 22, 2013 at 11:47 PM

Watch the video…

Ann said ‘get rid of those programs and then we’ll talk about legalizing pot’ and…

“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!”

After which Stossel said so if we get rid of those programs then you be okay with pot? And Ann stated that at that point she wouldn’t care.

So… watch it again…

RalphyBoy on February 23, 2013 at 2:50 AM

Watch the video…

Ann said ‘get rid of those programs and then we’ll talk about legalizing pot’ and… And Ann stated that at that point she wouldn’t care.

RalphyBoy on February 23, 2013 at 2:50 AM

So, Ann Coulter believes we need to get rid of “those programs” and then we’ll talk [and wouldn't care]. Whew. She is pretty much libertarian then, right? She believes in no unemployment compensation and no medical welfare? So, she basically agrees with John Stossel on these issues? She just disagrees that talk of pot legalization should follow the elimination of “those programs”.

Cool!

Ceteris Paribus on February 23, 2013 at 3:37 AM

Certain drugs must stay illegal/controlled because they turn people violent/dangerous who then go harm innocents. Besides that Coulter did a great job.

scotash on February 23, 2013 at 3:56 AM

Censorship, are you proud?

Ceteris Paribus on February 23, 2013 at 4:44 AM

My understanding of this is that according to Coulter, Liberty and freedom can suck it because shes forced to pay for old people’s medical care?

Spliff Menendez on February 23, 2013 at 4:53 AM

Certain drugs must stay illegal/controlled because they turn people violent/dangerous who then go harm innocents. Besides that Coulter did a great job.

scotash on February 23, 2013 at 3:56 AM

Next time you have a drink, remember you’re a hypocrite. It must be hard to be a socon and keep that circle squared.

Spliff Menendez on February 23, 2013 at 4:57 AM

Argh.

All the comments “announcing” Coulter’s this, not that…not among the membership, whatever.

The issue, so I took it, as to the video and discussion between Coulter and Stossel WAS ON THE ISSUES THEY DISCUSSED THERE.

It’s quite possible for one person (Coulter, for example but anyone else) to have an opinion that is Conservative, to have another opinion that is dubiously contrary to Conservatives (what I’d agree was “RINO” territory), to have another opinion on a specific candidate that is supportive of that candidate specific to the campaign in which they’re running (which is to me the only realistic one to have, to take into consideration the person/candidate running and in what conditions they are campaigning, and against what opponent — all of these comprise the “worth” or lack thereof of any candidate in any specific race), etc.

Everyone has a unique perspective on the world. Coulter is no different.

I disagree with her association with GOProud and a number of her other borderline if not contrary views on social issues but agree with her on some of her other social views — I’ve never found Christie too supportable but I’m not a NJ resident so don’t have to deal with the man in his campaigns there…

Just saying that AS TO THE ISSUES DISCUSSED HERE BETWEEN COULTER AND STOSSEL, I find Coulter’s views most supportable, while Stossel is somewhat arrogant about his “anyone can do anything they want and it’s OK with me and…” line of thought and views.

It doesn’t mean *I’m* not Conservative if and as I can agree on some views with Coulter…and I tend to think Coulter is more practical in her outlook about politics than most but far too Moderate politically because of that (thus, her enthusiasm about Christie).

People who denounce patently others as not being Conservative seem to be borderline themselves, in my view. The “gay marriage” debacle is something that, clearly, “youth” today (students as in this video) have been indoctrinated to “believe in” as “normal” and it’s the gay-activists who are responsible for that, thus eradicating in the perceptions of many as to what words mean and why.

The audience there is Liberal. Stossel’s views are predominantly also Liberal. Assuming the identity of “Libertarian” is oftentimes a sortof fancying of the Liberal label as is “Progressive” to do the same.

Lourdes on February 23, 2013 at 6:20 AM

There are a lot of people who can’t distinguish between the individual and their individually issued opinions. One person, an individual, can hold a myriad of views given a myriad of issues. That variation doesn’t mean they’re “all this” or “all that”…

Lourdes on February 23, 2013 at 6:23 AM

And a person who supported Romney last election certainly is not “not a Conservative” any more than those who supported McCain and his ongoing irregular bowing to amnesty for illegal aliens means one IS a Republican.

Issues. One has to look at the issues.

Lourdes on February 23, 2013 at 6:25 AM

Not willing to let Coulter hold the title conservative. She is not, she lost that.

astonerii on February 22, 2013 at 12:55 PM

Didn’t Coulter support that Romney guy? How could she possibly be a conservative?

casuist on February 22, 2013 at 1:03 PM

Progressives now in the Tea Party…

SEIU, MoveOn, Obama activists, homosexual activists…and more now trying to represent the Tea Party for purposes of capturing that movement for the Left.l Same thing the Left, with same players, did with the McCain campaign in 2007/8.

Lourdes on February 23, 2013 at 6:28 AM

If you are asking for gays to be able to marry each other then have a ceremony and you’re married. No STATE involvement at all.
THAT ISN’T WHAT THEY WANT HOWEVER. They want it to be STATE sanctioned.

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 1:18 PM

I agree, and well said. IF homosexuals were after some life-long commitment with their chosen one, they’d be satiated with the legalities of a civil union.

Because they insist on “marriage,” that inherently reveals their aggression upon the religious liberty of others. Marriage is a religiously defined relationship by religions that are Constitutionally entitled, enabled to engage as they deem fit their principles.

It’s the insistence on the issue of “marriage” that reveals the target that the Left, homosexual activism, has as goal: force-modify religious liberty in the U.S.

Otherwise, if it was the actual relationship that “gays” were after, they’d scramble for civil unions and be off in thrills about that for the duration of their lives with their significant others.

Lourdes on February 23, 2013 at 6:36 AM

Hey Stossel,

Why can’t I marry my 12 year old daughter??????????

Why can’t I marry my dog????????????

Why can’t I marry my daughter, my dog, and 6 other people???

Eph on February 22, 2013 at 1:23 PM

Stossel’s intellectualism is great on so many fronts but as to specifics like those, I think his views fall apart because from what I’ve heard from him, he seems to think anyone “can” do whatever anyone wants and “should be able to”. He has wonderful reason on so many other issues but when he’s asked about specific social liabilities, his notions just can’t hold up.

Lourdes on February 23, 2013 at 6:38 AM

Seems Ann’s problem ain’t with the loot’n or thuggery. Just as long as She and her Guys are do’n da loot’n & Thug’n

roflmmfao

donabernathy on February 23, 2013 at 7:07 AM

Certain drugs must stay illegal/controlled because they turn people violent/dangerous who then go harm innocents

Alcohol is the drug which best fits that definition and it is……legal.

tommyboy on February 23, 2013 at 7:31 AM

I think Ann was absolutely right about libertarians sucking up liberals on the pot and gay marriage front.

When you say something like, “I just think the government should get out of marriage”, to a liberal who wants to legalize gay marriage, that sounds like agreement. Because even to liberals, they think legalization of gay marriage is really the government getting out of people’s private lives. Libertarians frame it in the least offensive-to-liberals of terms. Saying, “I want the government out of marriage, which means that I oppose same-sex marriage since legalizing it would be an even broader expanse of government into people’s private lives” would be a lot more honest, but it would piss off liberals, which is why they never say it.

jas88 on February 23, 2013 at 7:34 AM

Lourdes on February 23, 2013 at 6:36 AM

Of course, because it is religion, and specifically the Christian religion (ironically, since Islam – which is much more intolerant rushes in to fill the void left by its disappearance) because it is the last bastion of intellectually defensible opposition to their perversions and must be eliminated or suppressed.

One wonders, however, to what levels of insanity they will then turn to when their victory in this battle fails to deliver the desired contentment they think it will? I suspect the suicide levels in that community,already disproportionate to the general population, will likely increase, not decrease.

“For every one who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. ” John 3:20

Cleombrotus on February 23, 2013 at 7:57 AM

njrob, why is ann not conservative? that was a great clip, it showed the naivete of libertarians and young people in general. of course, they do not believe they are … duh

moyeti on February 23, 2013 at 8:19 AM

The repubs always find a way to argue against decreasing governmemnt, just like their dem counterpart. Coulter has been a big government repub cheerleader for years. She practically gives Hannity lap dances to get on his show.

Panther on February 22, 2013 at 6:01 PM

You people are a joke. You want to expand government’s role in defining marriage, impose the same government fiat on the population, demand pot while others pay the bill, and call that advocating reduced government?

sharrukin on February 22, 2013 at 6:05 PM

Great call, sharrukin. Self-declared Libertarians, among other delusions, have deluded themselves into believing that legalizing drugs (all sorts of them, not just pot) will somehow decrease the size of government. One would have to have lived in a cave for the past 20 years of Nanny State/creeping socialism to believe that.

“Legal” cigarette smoking basically requires a court order in most places. Manufacturers of everything live under the constant threat that some retard will sue them for the abuse of their product. It will be quite amusing to see what the Nanny State does with legalized intoxicants.

Jaibones on February 23, 2013 at 8:27 AM

Great call, sharrukin. Self-declared Libertarians, among other delusions, have deluded themselves into believing that legalizing drugs (all sorts of them, not just pot) will somehow decrease the size of government. One would have to have lived in a cave for the past 20 years of Nanny State/creeping socialism to believe that.

“Legal” cigarette smoking basically requires a court order in most places. Manufacturers of everything live under the constant threat that some retard will sue them for the abuse of their product. It will be quite amusing to see what the Nanny State does with legalized intoxicants.

Jaibones on February 23, 2013 at 8:27 AM

As a general rule, we Americans seek better reasons to criminalize the production and use of something than the possibility that people will sue over its production and use. I can’t believe anyone in their right mind would want to put a man in prison for years just because another man, somewhere and sometime, might possibly try get rich off the court system.

NorthernCross on February 23, 2013 at 9:06 AM

Notice that not ONE, NOT ONE at all libertarian has made the argument of how their proposed freedom pushes will make America a freer nation.

We already have a sizable moocher/looter population that votes for expanded government.

So the question for libertarians is this.

How does legalizing and creating incentive’s for people to partake in activities which cause them to become leeches reduce the size and scope of government?

How does the manufacture of more needy people who will vote for more taxes and more handouts make this nation freer?

How does further destroying the moral compass of our citizens, making them ever more open to socialism give this nation the opportunity change direction to more freedom?

If your first and ONLY goal is to make something you yourself want to do legal, damn the consequences that come from it, you are not a libertarian. You are just another loser who wants to do anything they please and ensure that there is a government there to back you up when you fail, willing to point its guns at me and my daughter to steal our money to fund your life. You are not libertarian, you are authoritarian!

astonerii on February 23, 2013 at 9:37 AM

I can’t believe anyone in their right mind would want to put a man in prison for years just because another man, somewhere and sometime, might possibly try get rich off the court system.

NorthernCross on February 23, 2013 at 9:06 AM

I can’t, either. (I’ll be right back … this damn straw man isn’t dead yet, gotta whip him some more.)

Jaibones on February 23, 2013 at 10:00 AM

NorthernCross on February 23, 2013 at 9:06 AM

(OK, thanks…he’s dead now, by golly).

Leaving aside your imaginary scenario, my point deals with the 100,000 times I have heard the argument from libertarian types for legalizing marijuana that all costs of managing pot as a controlled substance will easily be paid for from the “cost savings from ending the so-called War on Drugs”.

I suggest that this is a delusion borrowed from stoned liberals, who also believe that unemployment benefits are the most effective type of economic stimulus. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I offer you the variety of economic costs associated with the regulation of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, cars, etc. as support.

I see no philosophical right for the government to make pot illegal and scotch legal. I am calling out those who make the idiotic economic argument in favor of legalization. Freedom on this issue will be expensive.

Jaibones on February 23, 2013 at 10:08 AM

Certain drugs must stay illegal/controlled because they turn people violent/dangerous who then go harm innocents

Alcohol is the drug which best fits that definition and it is……legal.

tommyboy on February 23, 2013 at 7:31 AM

If other drugs were ingested in the same proportion to its carrier liquid as the alcohol in beer or wine is, then your “oh yeah alcohol” ploy might make sense. Alcohol is simply not consumed to the same degree and as directly as shooting heroin.

Nutstuyu on February 23, 2013 at 11:34 AM

If your first and ONLY goal is to make something you yourself want to do legal, damn the consequences that come from it, you are not a libertarian. You are just another loser who wants to do anything they please and ensure that there is a government there to back you up when you fail, willing to point its guns at me and my daughter to steal our money to fund your life. You are not libertarian, you are authoritarian!

astonerii on February 23, 2013 at 9:37 AM

Too many of these so-called Libertarians don’t realize they are actually Libertines–overgrown juveniles. They just want to do whatever they want to do and no one can judge them.

Nutstuyu on February 23, 2013 at 11:40 AM

I don’t know if its true for all libertarians, but it seems that these libertarians are just liberals who don’t want to pay for liberalism. They want to cut the military, they want gay marriage, and drug legalization. No mention of increasing freedoms under the constitution, or actually rolling back the size and scope of government.
Like Nutstuyu says, they’re just overgrown juveniles, which jibes with my theory of our culture being over-run by narcissistic hedonists.
They don’t even wonder why drugs were criminalized in the first place. Yes that’s right, you could get any drug legally. Cocaine, Heroin and other opiates, marijuana were all legal. Until the cost to society became too large. We tried the libertarians experiment already, but our teaching of history is so pathetic, almost no one knows its results.
One of the points Ann was trying to make was that freedom requires responsibility, but with our socialist welfare state, we’ve become insulated from the responsibility or cost of our actions. When we criminalized drugs, we didn’t have the massive welfare state we have today. Then people had to accept the consequences of their actions, and for the drug abuser they’re not nice. Today government shields you from being too drug addled to hold a job, the costs of rehab, and the long term costs to health that drug abuse brings. Just think of those before and after meth pictures and realizing that happens to every organ in your body. So drug use gets glamorized in the culture because its ugly side is hidden by the state. And its the same thing with homosexuality, and the other pathologies of our hedonistic culture.
Libertarians say you should be free to do what you want as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else. Ok, I agree with that too. But history teaches us that drug use has a cost to society. That all of these libertine behaviors have a cost to society beyond the individual. Until we get rid of the welfare state that shields us from these costs, we can’t have a true debate about whether or not these behaviors should be permitted.
Oddly enough, I think I’d be more in favor of these behaviors if the individual who engaged in them had to bear the responsibility for them instead of me.

Iblis on February 23, 2013 at 12:09 PM

For some reason most of you are under the assumption that people are not leeching off the system yet because pot is illegal…

(Enter Second Amendment contradiction here)

cantaffordcollege on February 23, 2013 at 12:40 PM

njrob, why is ann not conservative? that was a great clip, it showed the naivete of libertarians and young people in general. of course, they do not believe they are … duh

moyeti on February 23, 2013 at 8:19 AM

Ann does a great job at times of talking the talk like she did on Stossel. This is why I used to like her and bought some of her books.

Then she stabbed Palin in the back, said Romneycare was conservative, and became a big Krispy Kreme Christie supporter.

So you actually have to walk the walk and not just be able to talk the talk.

LevinFan on February 23, 2013 at 1:45 PM

Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, the United States Congress may criminalize the production and use of home-grown cannabis even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes.

If you agree with this and think you are conservative, you should come out of the closet and admit that you are a socialist (or progressive). The Commerce Clause: “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”. If you agree with the socialists on the Supreme Court that this extends to people growing an indiginous plant on their own property for their own consumption, well, you might be a RINO. Our founding fathers may have had homosexual sex and smoked marijuana, but they didn’t talk about it. In those days, if neighbors were consistently loud and obnoxious (e.g., because of their sexual or drug habits), they would be shunned and even expelled. Lawyers who tried to defend them would not likely have succeeded. Isn’t progress wonderful?

Actual socialists like Hitler and Stalin abhorred abortion, drug use, and homosexuality. They all openly advocated for more babies from ‘right thinking’ people. Russia’s Putin has a big campaign today to convince depressed socialists to have more babies. RINOs (Ann Coulter, please pick up the blue phone), please come out of the closet. You will feel better for it.

Ceteris Paribus on February 23, 2013 at 2:28 PM

Ceteris Paribus on February 23, 2013 at 2:28 PM

More fascination with pot?

Way to prove Coulter’s point.

sharrukin on February 23, 2013 at 2:42 PM

More fascination with pot?

Way to prove Coulter’s point.

sharrukin on February 23, 2013 at 2:42 PM

You can just ignore the rest of my argument. Or…just come out of the closet.

Ceteris Paribus on February 23, 2013 at 2:47 PM

Iblis on February 23, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Excellent. Like you said, if you don’t know history, you are going to repeat it. Which is not a good thing.

Mirimichi on February 23, 2013 at 3:01 PM

Libertarian statements about drug legalization and gay marriage are just an attempt to suck up to liberals as opposed to being deeply held personal beliefs? So are libertarian statements about free market principles and low taxes just an attempt to suck up to conservatives? And to what end?

alchemist19 on February 23, 2013 at 3:12 PM

More fascination with pot?

Way to prove Coulter’s point.

sharrukin on February 23, 2013 at 2:42 PM

You can’t see the forest for the trees.

The fascination isn’t with marijuana but rather with the disconnect between your limited government rhetoric and your big, activist government desires.

alchemist19 on February 23, 2013 at 3:20 PM

It is not that RINOs cannot see the forest for the trees, it is that they do not and cannot see themselves as communists.

Ceteris Paribus on February 23, 2013 at 4:31 PM

If I have not nailed the argument within the Republican party, please tell me why I am wrong?

Ceteris Paribus on February 23, 2013 at 4:45 PM

There is nothing communistic in being concerned about a drug users impact on the society around them. I think even the staunchest libertarian would have qualms about sharing the road, let alone a ride with individuals high on pot, or even drunk.
The problem isn’t the criminalization of chemicals, but the lack of consequences for imbibing in them.
Look at the great libertarian cause of legalized prostitution. Legalizing prostitution in Amsterdam didn’t make it safer for the women, it actually increased their suffering as the pimps, non-decriminalized, brought in more women from poor countries to satisfy demand. Taxes didn’t go up because the women didn’t join the hooker unions, and it spread from the red light zones to all across the city, spreading urban blight instead of containing and eliminating it.
Prostitution isn’t criminalized because people are against having a good time or letting women make easy money. Its criminalized to make it less desirable for men to skip out on their social obligations to the women they fathered children with.
You can’t have a libertarian society as long as there is a socialist welfare state. The socialist state distorts the market and masks the consequences of the individual’s actions. It rewards poor decision making and poor behavior at the expense of good. When the founding fathers engaged in their vices, they had to personally pay the consequences. Now when one engages in their vice, the consequence is socialized.
And it should be instructive to us at how the totalitarian movement has embraced the homosexual movement as a means to an end. The liberals, like all good statists want to remake society, and in order to do that they must flush away the current society to make way for their more perfect version. And of course the building block of our society is the nuclear or traditional family. By taking away its protections, by taking away its benefits and privileges, by making it less desirable, the liberals weaken it, and weaken society at large. Do not have any doubts that if the liberals ever got their way, homosexuals would be immediately rounded up for anti-social behavior. Its already happened a couple of times.

Iblis on February 23, 2013 at 5:00 PM

Iblis on February 23, 2013 at 5:00 PM

It is exactly why I said that Hitler and Stalin were both against drugs, abortion, and homosexuality. They were also against prostitution. You said it too. I totally agree that overly loud and abusive folks should be shunned or expelled from where they live, as I said previously.

Ceteris Paribus on February 23, 2013 at 5:11 PM

I’m coming to hate Hot Gas’s comment regime. I just lost a comment because of the auto refresh at this site.

My understanding of this is that according to Coulter, Liberty and freedom can suck it because shes forced to pay for old people’s medical care?

Spliff Menendez on February 23, 2013 at 4:53 AM

I’m not Coulter fan, but I have to say you missed the point of what Coulter said. The welfare state sucks freedom and you can not have what you seem to imply you want while a welfare state exists. You have to have individual responsibility, rather than socializing the consequences of everyone’s idiocy.

This is the heart of the problem with the big ‘L’ libertarian. Grow up people. Freedom is not like a sucker your Barber hands you for being a good boy while he cut your hair. Freedom requires individual responsibility.

Quartermaster on February 23, 2013 at 8:09 PM

NorthernCross on February 22, 2013 at 9:03 PM

Don’t know if you will see this because of the time it took me to get back to you, but I will post anyway.

I never said that same sex marriage undermines traditional marriage, but that it is the result of decades of the undermining of marriage and family. It is the natural end to the course that was begun with No Fault Divorce and the separation of the creation of life from the “marital” bed.

If the union of same sex couples is “marriage”, then marriage means nothing. It is a contract between two people or more as may happen in the future and not a covenant between man and woman as it has been understood and practiced for thousands of years.

I don’t think it necessary to post the empirical evidence of the breakdown of the family and the chaos that has resulted from it.
The statistics bear out that children are more likely to be successful in all areas of life when they are raised in a household of father, mother and children.

If you have not heard or seen these studies regarding this, then you must live in a cave. Poverty, low education, teen pregnancy, and criminal activity resulting in jail time are negatively affected by the breakdown of the family. The traditional family which sustains society.

Same sex marriage is but one more in a long line of attacks against the family. It is not the first and won’t be the last, it is just the latest domino that will fall.

I don’t celebrate that, I don’t shrug and say, “Live and let live” like some.

Jvette on February 23, 2013 at 8:26 PM

This is the heart of the problem with the big ‘L’ libertarian. Grow up people. Freedom is not like a sucker your Barber hands you for being a good boy while he cut your hair. Freedom requires individual responsibility.

Quartermaster on February 23, 2013 at 8:09 PM

.
Another way of putting it:

The hardcore, militant atheist-libertarians are pro-hedonism.
It seems that’s all they live for.

But ALL hedonism is, by definition, a “casting aside any and all responsibility.”
.
Or … “responsibility and hedonism are mutually exclusive.”

listens2glenn on February 23, 2013 at 8:26 PM

I don’t think it necessary to post the empirical evidence of the breakdown of the family and the chaos that has resulted from it.

Jvette on February 23, 2013 at 8:26 PM

.
I always seem to trigger a firestorm, when I say that something (like your line I copy/pasted above) is SELF-EVIDENT.

In any event, you’re exactly right.

listens2glenn on February 23, 2013 at 8:33 PM

There is nothing communistic in being concerned about a drug users impact on the society around them. I think even the staunchest libertarian would have qualms about sharing the road, let alone a ride with individuals high on pot, or even drunk.
The problem isn’t the criminalization of chemicals, but the lack of consequences for imbibing in them.

Do libertarians oppose drunken driving laws, and would they oppose similar laws to driving under the effects of other substances? This one doesn’t.

Look at the great libertarian cause of legalized prostitution. Legalizing prostitution in Amsterdam didn’t make it safer for the women, it actually increased their suffering as the pimps, non-decriminalized, brought in more women from poor countries to satisfy demand. Taxes didn’t go up because the women didn’t join the hooker unions, and it spread from the red light zones to all across the city, spreading urban blight instead of containing and eliminating it.

So clearly there was a demand for the service, everyone was going to the same place to get what they wanted and…. business expanded. Basic free market principles right there! Rather than try to pack everyone necessary to satisfy worldwide demand into one small area it would be better to just legalize it everywhere so the demand is more defuse. Why fly to Amsterdam when you can get what you’re looking for just down the block?

Prostitution isn’t criminalized because people are against having a good time or letting women make easy money. Its criminalized to make it less desirable for men to skip out on their social obligations to the women they fathered children with.

Whoa! The only thing keeping men faithful to their wives is the unavailability of legal prostitutes? You must have an interesting marriage.

You can’t have a libertarian society as long as there is a socialist welfare state. The socialist state distorts the market and masks the consequences of the individual’s actions. It rewards poor decision making and poor behavior at the expense of good. When the founding fathers engaged in their vices, they had to personally pay the consequences. Now when one engages in their vice, the consequence is socialized.

This is more or less true.

And it should be instructive to us at how the totalitarian movement has embraced the homosexual movement as a means to an end. The liberals, like all good statists want to remake society, and in order to do that they must flush away the current society to make way for their more perfect version. And of course the building block of our society is the nuclear or traditional family. By taking away its protections, by taking away its benefits and privileges, by making it less desirable, the liberals weaken it, and weaken society at large. Do not have any doubts that if the liberals ever got their way, homosexuals would be immediately rounded up for anti-social behavior. Its already happened a couple of times.

Iblis on February 23, 2013 at 5:00 PM

What? Homosexuals want to take away the nuclear family? How exactly are they planning to do that? Will your nuclear family cease to exist if two women are allowed to get married? Based off what you said earlier about the threat of legal prostitution then maybe that’s the case and my family is just really different and way stronger than yours so if you can explain this threat exactly then I’m all ears.

alchemist19 on February 23, 2013 at 9:30 PM

So are libertarian statements about free market principles and low taxes just an attempt to suck up to conservatives? And to what end?

alchemist19 on February 23, 2013 at 3:12 PM

To what end? Because they want all the freedoms to do as they please while not having to pay for it.
Here is the problem. You want to create more leeches to vote for bigger government wealth transfers BEFORE we get around to actually voting for that smaller government. Hence, a self defeating method.

It is like the immigration argument. Give em amnesty now and we will imagine that we will secure the border and stop future waves of immigrants!

astonerii on February 23, 2013 at 9:36 PM

Don’t know if you will see this because of the time it took me to get back to you, but I will post anyway.

I never said that same sex marriage undermines traditional marriage, but that it is the result of decades of the undermining of marriage and family. It is the natural end to the course that was begun with No Fault Divorce and the separation of the creation of life from the “marital” bed.

If the union of same sex couples is “marriage”, then marriage means nothing. It is a contract between two people or more as may happen in the future and not a covenant between man and woman as it has been understood and practiced for thousands of years.

I don’t think it necessary to post the empirical evidence of the breakdown of the family and the chaos that has resulted from it.
The statistics bear out that children are more likely to be successful in all areas of life when they are raised in a household of father, mother and children.

If you have not heard or seen these studies regarding this, then you must live in a cave. Poverty, low education, teen pregnancy, and criminal activity resulting in jail time are negatively affected by the breakdown of the family. The traditional family which sustains society.

Same sex marriage is but one more in a long line of attacks against the family. It is not the first and won’t be the last, it is just the latest domino that will fall.

I don’t celebrate that, I don’t shrug and say, “Live and let live” like some.

Jvette on February 23, 2013 at 8:26 PM

Okay, let’s just say that everything you say about what you’re calling the traditional family is true. Will that change? Will your family be broken up, altered or made tangibly weaker once gay marriage is legalized? Assuming you’re married will you love your spouse any less or be any less protective of your children?

alchemist19 on February 23, 2013 at 9:36 PM

I always seem to trigger a firestorm, when I say that something (like your line I copy/pasted above) is SELF-EVIDENT.

In any event, you’re exactly right.

listens2glenn on February 23, 2013 at 8:33 PM

Because at least when I’ve seen you use the term “self-evident” it’s usually something you believe but aren’t able to back up with evidence or facts and then people call you on it.

alchemist19 on February 23, 2013 at 9:38 PM

To what end? Because they want all the freedoms to do as they please while not having to pay for it.
Here is the problem. You want to create more leeches to vote for bigger government wealth transfers BEFORE we get around to actually voting for that smaller government. Hence, a self defeating method.

It is like the immigration argument. Give em amnesty now and we will imagine that we will secure the border and stop future waves of immigrants!

astonerii on February 23, 2013 at 9:36 PM

What are you talking about? I don’t want one single more leech, and I want to get rid of the ones we have now. What’s the self-defeating method you’ve made up that you’re blaming me and my ilk for?

alchemist19 on February 23, 2013 at 9:42 PM

What are you talking about? I don’t want one single more leech, and I want to get rid of the ones we have now. What’s the self-defeating method you’ve made up that you’re blaming me and my ilk for?

alchemist19 on February 23, 2013 at 9:42 PM

You are pushing for drug legalization while we have a welfare state, one which is supported by the votes of the current welfare leeches, and will have increased supporters when the drug addicts decide they too want to keep getting government subsidies. Thus if the welfare vote already is too much to deal with at the moment, adding to their ranks will make the roll back of the welfare state that much harder.

It has been explained about a dozen times on this thread. You obviously have no desire to actually face the truth.

astonerii on February 23, 2013 at 9:50 PM

You are pushing for drug legalization while we have a welfare state, one which is supported by the votes of the current welfare leeches, and will have increased supporters when the drug addicts decide they too want to keep getting government subsidies. Thus if the welfare vote already is too much to deal with at the moment, adding to their ranks will make the roll back of the welfare state that much harder.

It has been explained about a dozen times on this thread. You obviously have no desire to actually face the truth.

astonerii on February 23, 2013 at 9:50 PM

So your position is that if legalization occurs the drug addicts who vote and who do not currently receive welfare benefits in the form of free health care or treatment or whatever will start getting those for free and in turn support the Democrats (whom they are not supporting right now already) just to secure their free stuff? That’s the subset of the electorate about which you are concerned?

alchemist19 on February 23, 2013 at 10:04 PM

So your position is that if legalization occurs the drug addicts who vote and who do not currently receive welfare benefits in the form of free health care or treatment or whatever will start getting those for free and in turn support the Democrats (whom they are not supporting right now already) just to secure their free stuff? That’s the subset of the electorate about which you are concerned?

alchemist19 on February 23, 2013 at 10:04 PM

I sure am, and if you were actually a libertarian or even a fiscal conservative you would to. But you are not, you are what I would term a for the impossible as it has no cost to be for it in order to hopefully lure some idiots into what I see as possible benefit for me kind of person.

I AM YOUR ALLY! I WANT SMALLER GOVERNMENT AND YOU CAN HAVE MY SUPPORT IF ONLY YOU LET ME SMOKE DOPE AND GET MARRIED TO SOMEONE THE SAME SEX AS ME. YOU GO FIRST, VOTE FOR MY POT AND GAY MARRIAGE AND I ASSURE YOU AFTER WE WILL FINALLY, YES FINALLY CUT BACK GOVERNMENT. right after one more roll and long fudge packing session. Yeah, right after…

Go join your natural ally buddy, the democrats.

astonerii on February 23, 2013 at 10:14 PM

astonerii on February 23, 2013 at 10:14 PM

Calm down and use your inside voice. No need to shout.

I’m a fiscal conservative first and foremost and if I had any legislative power it would be my sole focus. I don’t speak for anyone but myself but if I were in a position of power then the drug issue or gay rights wouldn’t even be on my radar because we have bigger, more important things to deal with. When it comes to what the government should be doing right now what we really need is the truce on social issues that Mitch Daniels got flayed for suggesting. And I put my vote where my mouth is on that when I cast my ballot for a number of candidates who didn’t share my personal views on drug legalization or gay marriage because we so desperately need to get our fiscal house in order. But wasn’t it you who talked about voting for Obama back in the primaries?

But this thread isn’t about that; this thread is in response to a discussion between Ann Coulter and John Stossel so it’s philosophical in nature to me. And when it comes to philosophical debates I like to take the opportunity to point out the hypocrisy of most conservatives when they say they’re for small government. They are not. They’re for the same government the liberals are; they just apply it someplace else. You know? Get the government out of my wallet so it can go back into my bedroom where it belongs!

alchemist19 on February 23, 2013 at 10:42 PM

Okay, let’s just say that everything you say about what you’re calling the traditional family is true. Will that change? Will your family be broken up, altered or made tangibly weaker once gay marriage is legalized? Assuming you’re married will you love your spouse any less or be any less protective of your children?

alchemist19 on February 23, 2013 at 9:36 PM

Will that change?

It already has and the results are in…

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/marriage_divorce_tables.htm

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-number-of-children-living-in-single-parent-homes-has-nearly-doubled-in

http://www.inquisitr.com/533775/new-study-reveals-children-born-to-unmarried-parents-live-in-poverty/

http://www.photius.com/feminocracy/facts_on_fatherless_kids.html

http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/are-children-with-same-sex-parents-at-a-disadvantage/

Is this caused by gay “marriage”?

No.

Is this caused by the undermining of the sanctity and importance of marriage and the traditional family?

Yes.

Is gay “marriage” another example and nail in the coffin?

Yes.

What happens in my life and to my marriage is not the point. I believe in the traditional marriage and family and strive to keep mine strong regardless of the irreverence shown it by the secular world.

There is a reason support for traditional marriage has been codified by this country and nearly all civilizations. It is the single best unit for the raising of children to be productive, responsible and moral citizens.

We are reaping the whirlwind sown by the I’m Okay, You’re Okay crowd.

Jvette on February 23, 2013 at 10:48 PM

The refresh monster ate my post: (

Tried to resubmit but the double post monster prevented that.

What now?

Jvette on February 23, 2013 at 10:52 PM

But this thread isn’t about that; this thread is in response to a discussion between Ann Coulter and John Stossel so it’s philosophical in nature to me. And when it comes to philosophical debates I like to take the opportunity to point out the hypocrisy of most conservatives when they say they’re for small government. They are not. They’re for the same government the liberals are; they just apply it someplace else. You know? Get the government out of my wallet so it can go back into my bedroom where it belongs!

alchemist19 on February 23, 2013 at 10:42 PM

I think you have cause and effect wrong.
Because the government is in my pocket, and what people are doing in their life is causing larger and larger chunks of my check to disappear, I demand that those activities be prevented to the degree we can.
Like I keep arguing.

Only when the libertarian can come up with a solution to the welfare state we are in and only then will I consider increasing the number of moral hazards allowed to be practiced by other citizens. So long as I do not have the right to my labor, and until a majority of the people return to me the right of my labor, then they do not have the right to partake in activities which increase the burden on my labor.

You can twist it any way you want. But before more bad behavior is allowed through my vote, my wallet will be made whole and my child’s future earnings will be ensured through a balanced budget.

If you were serious about what you claim, then when these discussions come up, then you would side with the fiscal conservatives and against the moral hazard seekers who would burden fiscal conservatism with additional votes for the welfare state which prevents any fiscal conservative or libertarian ending. But instead, you have the selfish need to attack and turn off your fiscal conservative allies, the social conservatives such that they will not be your allies in the end.

ACTIONS ALWAYS SPEAK LOUDER THAN MERE WORDS.

astonerii on February 23, 2013 at 10:55 PM

I always seem to trigger a firestorm, when I say that something (like your line I copy/pasted above) is SELF-EVIDENT.

In any event, you’re exactly right.

listens2glenn on February 23, 2013 at 8:33 PM

It’s just ridiculous to act as if the data needs to be posted.

Unless one has been out of the universe for the last twenty years, one is well aware of the disaster the breakdown of the family has wrought on society.

Jvette on February 23, 2013 at 10:56 PM

Okay, tried again without success. Done trying.

Jvette on February 23, 2013 at 11:06 PM

I expected to go into this video 100% liberatarion, disagreeing with Ann Coulter at every point. I came out of the video agreeing with Ann Coulter 100%.

CrustyB on February 23, 2013 at 11:27 PM

I expected to go into this video 100% liberatarion, disagreeing with Ann Coulter at every point. I came out of the video agreeing with Ann Coulter 100%.

CrustyB on February 23, 2013 at 11:27 PM

I think that anyone who publicly misspells the name of a political group that they profess to belong to probably does not actually support that group. This would be especially true of people who are smart enough to gain a login to a website like hotair and actually post something. Perhaps you should graduate from CrustyB to CrustyC. The “C” being for clown.

Ceteris Paribus on February 23, 2013 at 11:52 PM

libertarians do not believe in the total depravity of mankind. They don’t see the need for laws/rules/regulations. Libertarianism has morphed into anarchism, especially among youth. Most of whom are unbelievers. These will not help Movement Conservatism.

Darvin Dowdy on February 24, 2013 at 12:23 AM

ACTIONS ALWAYS SPEAK LOUDER THAN MERE WORDS.

astonerii on February 23, 2013 at 10:55 PM

*sigh*

Do they? How about these words?

The humanizing of Romney. It is not going to work on me. I do not like the man, I detest what he stands for, I will never vote for him.

astonerii on April 1, 2012 at 6:21 PM

Did you vote for Romney or Obama? I want to know so I can measure you as a man before I consider your statement that I and my libertarian brethren should check our principles at the door and vote for someone whose social agenda we oppose.

The solution to your problem of covering the cost of what you’ve arbitrarily defined as a bad behavior is simple: stop the government from paying for anyone’s health care. It’s an idea I fully support.

alchemist19 on February 24, 2013 at 12:25 AM

alchemist19 on February 24, 2013 at 12:25 AM

Romney got the filled in spot on my ballot, as a protest vote against Obama and his billions of rounds of ammunition purchases only.

Anyone who ever considered Romney conservative enough to be the Republican nominee pretty much has no credibility when it comes to conservatism.

astonerii on February 24, 2013 at 9:21 AM

The solution to your problem of covering the cost of what you’ve arbitrarily defined as a bad behavior is simple: stop the government from paying for anyone’s health care. It’s an idea I fully support.

alchemist19 on February 24, 2013 at 12:25 AM

I covered that. When you come up with the solution to the wealth transfers, I will be much more open to legalizing the bad behaviors, but not before. I think I have stated that perhaps 6 or more times on this thread already.

astonerii on February 24, 2013 at 9:30 AM

The refresh monster ate my post: (

Tried to resubmit but the double post monster prevented that.

What now?

Jvette on February 23, 2013 at 10:52 PM

Not sure if you are referring to your post with more than 3 links in it, but Hot Air allows posts with 3 links to go through, while any more go through the filter of a person.

astonerii on February 24, 2013 at 9:33 AM

Romney got the filled in spot on my ballot, as a protest vote against Obama and his billions of rounds of ammunition purchases only.

Anyone who ever considered Romney conservative enough to be the Republican nominee pretty much has no credibility when it comes to conservatism.

astonerii on February 24, 2013 at 9:21 AM

Dress it up however you want to make yourself feel better, it doesn’t change it. It’s too bad you’re such a fan of your own money because between what I’ll charitably describe as your bold statements of principle appearing to have expiration dates and your closet statist tendencies you would make an excellent Democrat.

alchemist19 on February 24, 2013 at 4:33 PM

I covered that. When you come up with the solution to the wealth transfers, I will be much more open to legalizing the bad behaviors, but not before. I think I have stated that perhaps 6 or more times on this thread already.

astonerii on February 24, 2013 at 9:30 AM

You appear to need everything spelled out for you so I’ll make one last effort at it.

For starters we should repeal Medicaid.

alchemist19 on February 24, 2013 at 4:34 PM

You appear to need everything spelled out for you so I’ll make one last effort at it.

For starters we should repeal Medicaid.

alchemist19 on February 24, 2013 at 4:34 PM

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The day after the Constitutional Amendment prohibiting transfer payments to individuals and the Constitutional Amendment prohibiting the government from carrying a debt are passed, I’m with ya!

I understood what you said, it was perfectly clear. You say that you are a fiscal conservative first and foremost, right after your need to attack social conservatives over supposed hypocrisy. I can read well for comprehension. It is one reason many of you attack me, the person, because my arguments are for the most part unassailable.

I personally think people should be able to marry anyone they want, I do not think they need to have the government sanction such a thing. That requires the prove their value to society first. Personal contract law works just fine for power of attorney and most of the other shared RIGHTS and LIBERTIES that real marriage affords. But what the gays want are not their rights and their liberties, they want other peoples rights and liberties to be taken. The hospitals right to choose who they allow in to see their patients as family members. The florists’ right to not be forced to do work for people they do not want to. The church’s right to make available their premises for gatherings they approve of. The church’s right to call their relationships abhorrent! They want to force employers to provide health insurance for their choices and so forth. It is not about giving rights and liberties, it is about taking them. You can b!tch and moan all you want that it is about freedom, but the facts of the world prove you false. It is your choice to pretend that those facts are not present, and it informs people as to your credibility when you do so.

I also think that people should be able to obtain and consume any thing they want, including poisons and bullets to their brains if that is what they really want to do. Unfortunately, the government and society we live in does not allow them to do these things without it DIRECTLY impacting everyone else, at least those who work. We are WAY BEYOND the point in which personal responsibility and accountability are enforced in our society such that people can be allowed to their freedom to pursue self destructive lives and not take away the rights of others in the process.

If you want to ever get to the point where conservatives will be willing to contemplate allowing those freedoms and liberties, the very first LIBERTARIAN WORK you should be to working on should be to bring society back to where personal choice means personal responsibility and personal consequences for which others may CHOOSE FREELY TO HELP WITH.

astonerii on February 24, 2013 at 5:24 PM

I don’t know if its true for all libertarians, but it seems that these libertarians are just liberals who don’t want to pay for liberalism. They want to cut the military, they want gay marriage, and drug legalization. No mention of increasing freedoms under the constitution, or actually rolling back the size and scope of government.
Like Nutstuyu says, they’re just overgrown juveniles, which jibes with my theory of our culture being over-run by narcissistic hedonists.
They don’t even wonder why drugs were criminalized in the first place. Yes that’s right, you could get any drug legally. Cocaine, Heroin and other opiates, marijuana were all legal. Until the cost to society became too large. We tried the libertarians experiment already, but our teaching of history is so pathetic, almost no one knows its results.
One of the points Ann was trying to make was that freedom requires responsibility, but with our socialist welfare state, we’ve become insulated from the responsibility or cost of our actions. When we criminalized drugs, we didn’t have the massive welfare state we have today. Then people had to accept the consequences of their actions, and for the drug abuser they’re not nice. Today government shields you from being too drug addled to hold a job, the costs of rehab, and the long term costs to health that drug abuse brings. Just think of those before and after meth pictures and realizing that happens to every organ in your body. So drug use gets glamorized in the culture because its ugly side is hidden by the state. And its the same thing with homosexuality, and the other pathologies of our hedonistic culture.
Libertarians say you should be free to do what you want as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else. Ok, I agree with that too. But history teaches us that drug use has a cost to society. That all of these libertine behaviors have a cost to society beyond the individual. Until we get rid of the welfare state that shields us from these costs, we can’t have a true debate about whether or not these behaviors should be permitted.
Oddly enough, I think I’d be more in favor of these behaviors if the individual who engaged in them had to bear the responsibility for them instead of me.
Iblis on February 23, 2013 at 12:09 PM

So good I had to “retweet” it!

MechEng5by5 on February 25, 2013 at 12:02 AM

Oddly enough, I think I’d be more in favor of these behaviors if the individual who engaged in them had to bear the responsibility for them instead of me.
Iblis on February 23, 2013 at 12:09 PM

So good I had to “retweet” it!

MechEng5by5 on February 25, 2013 at 12:02 AM

They never truly bear the cost of their failures. Society always picks up the cost, one way or another. As it is today, forced confiscation of wealth from the productive with judgement free distribution of that wealth to the immoral. As it should be, volunteered charity from the productive with judgmental distribution of that charity to the immoral.

You are right in that the “libertarians” are just overgrown juveniles, as they demand that the help leeches get does not come from anyone who would be willing to judge them.

Just listen to them on threads and you will hear the words judgmental and discriminating many many many times, all in the argument that we should not be judging these people’s lives.

astonerii on February 25, 2013 at 8:52 AM

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The day after the Constitutional Amendment prohibiting transfer payments to individuals and the Constitutional Amendment prohibiting the government from carrying a debt are passed, I’m with ya!

And here again we see the sad effects of 100 years of liberalism in this country. We don’t need the Constitutional Amendments you say we do because I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.

I understood what you said, it was perfectly clear. You say that you are a fiscal conservative first and foremost, right after your need to attack social conservatives over supposed hypocrisy. I can read well for comprehension. It is one reason many of you attack me, the person, because my arguments are for the most part unassailable.

Ha! Your arguments are easily assailable. See above.

I personally think people should be able to marry anyone they want, I do not think they need to have the government sanction such a thing.

Right so far.

That requires the prove their value to society first.

Well that didn’t take long…..

Personal contract law works just fine for power of attorney and most of the other shared RIGHTS and LIBERTIES that real marriage affords. But what the gays want are not their rights and their liberties, they want other peoples rights and liberties to be taken. The hospitals right to choose who they allow in to see their patients as family members. The florists’ right to not be forced to do work for people they do not want to. The church’s right to make available their premises for gatherings they approve of.

I assume you’re speaking in the context of gay marriage here. If so then legalizing same-sex marriage will have no effect on florists or wedding photographers or anyone else you want to tread out. For as blatant a red herring argument as that is I’m honestly surprised even you would stoop to it. Florists or whomever will be running afoul of anti-discrimination laws that are wholly separate from the same-sex marriage issue. If you oppose anti-discrimination laws then say so and take up that cause. Don’t cloud this issue any farther.

The church’s right to call their relationships abhorrent!

Two years ago SCOTUS ruled 8-1 that the First Amendment protects the right of a church to stand on a sidewalk and use some fairly colorful language to say that God hates homosexual, hates America for tolerating them and we’re all going to hell because of it. If they protected that then your church should be fine. Both you and your church will be free to go on hating gay people just as much as you want.

They want to force employers to provide health insurance for their choices and so forth. It is not about giving rights and liberties, it is about taking them. You can b!tch and moan all you want that it is about freedom, but the facts of the world prove you false. It is your choice to pretend that those facts are not present, and it informs people as to your credibility when you do so.

Since you didn’t realize how easily your arguments could be debunked I’ll give you a pass on this.

I also think that people should be able to obtain and consume any thing they want, including poisons and bullets to their brains if that is what they really want to do. Unfortunately, the government and society we live in does not allow them to do these things without it DIRECTLY impacting everyone else, at least those who work. We are WAY BEYOND the point in which personal responsibility and accountability are enforced in our society such that people can be allowed to their freedom to pursue self destructive lives and not take away the rights of others in the process.

The framework for this is already in place; all we need to do now is get back to a basic respect and understanding of the Constitution. There’s a century of damage to undo, and that starts with having a philosophic core. The first real task is trying to put the brakes on the coming fiscal calamity but while we’re getting that in order we can still advocate for other things we believe even if they’re not at the top of the priority list, and that includes things like drug decriminalization.

If you want to ever get to the point where conservatives will be willing to contemplate allowing those freedoms and liberties, the very first LIBERTARIAN WORK you should be to working on should be to bring society back to where personal choice means personal responsibility and personal consequences for which others may CHOOSE FREELY TO HELP WITH.

astonerii on February 24, 2013 at 5:24 PM

I’ve done what I could on that. I contacted my representatives to voice my opposition to TARP, Obamacare and any other run-of-the-mill abomination that comes out of Washington. But like all big things, killing the federal government’s desire to insulate people from risk will take time and in the meantime the proper social agenda can be advocated. The legalization of something like heroin is a tougher sell but marijuana should be an smaller hill to climb and if Colorado and Washington State end up making money off of their legalization measures then that’s two birds with one stone as it will help with the fiscal woes and take a general step away from the nanny state. As for gay marriage, there’s no real cost of any kind to doing that so while the fiscal issues are our most pressing challenge we could probably spare an hour or two out of our busy days to get that bill passed just so we can say we accomplished something.

alchemist19 on February 25, 2013 at 3:25 PM

alchemist19 on February 25, 2013 at 3:25 PM

They expanded the entitlements out through taxation and general welfare reinterpretations. Arguing that a constitutional amendment specifying explicitly these payments and debts shall not be incurred would close that door. One issue the supreme court has never been asked to decide on the Social Security side is whether the government can make payments to individuals the way it does. As it stands, social security taxes are supported by the Constitution.
It was not that they were a church that the supreme court decided in their favor, it was that they were supposedly practicing their political speech. I disagree with the supreme court on this. The right to speak does not trump the other rights of people. In times past those guys would have found many of their teeth and much of their blood on the ground around where they chose to be obnoxious, and I agree with that kind handling of their sort of disorder as I do with people who insult a man’s woman in public.
I do take issue with anti discrimination laws. Since they exist, allowing state sanctioned gay marriage EXPANDS THEM and in effect REDUCES FREEDOM.
Do not give any passes loser, it screams, I have nothing to refute you with so… I pass. Man up loser!
You are right, the framework is there, but instead of working to get back to constitutionalism, you are FAR MORE INTERESTED in attacking the same social conservatism that existed when we were much closer to constitutionalism. So, your argument that it exists is muted by the fact that you are not willing to actually work towards that goal, but are more interested in the self goals of imposing your version of social issues onto others, and in fact damage the ability to get back to constitutional government.
You have done no such thing as what you can on that. You have spent most of your time pushing for gay “rights” and drug legalization and no time actually arguing how the welfare state damages the ability to get those things without damaging further the majority of American’s rights. Big deal, you spent 3 months in 2010 being active and popular with the crowd. How about actually getting the job done before moving onto the destructive issues?

Using drugs and pounding a man in the ass both cause destruction to a person’s life on the average. Neither does any benefit at all. That means on the average pushing for them to be made acceptable parts of our society, it must mean that it will push those who are damaged by those activities onto the welfare state as dependents, which as we have seen, those dependents vote for more welfare state and not less.

So, I do not ask you to stop pursuing your agenda, I am just telling you that you can count my support and most real conservatives’ support opposed to your goals until we obtain our goals. Our goals will not be met until the welfare state is dismantled and explicitly forbidden as something that can voted back into existence.

Personally, I am ever more convinced we will have to have a another 1860s style debate before we get rid of the slavery of the day.

astonerii on February 25, 2013 at 4:04 PM

Gay marriage may not be the most important issue, but come on, give him the answer! Because gays have a right to be tolerated but NO ONE has a right approval, and marriage is society’s stamp of approval.

If gay marriage gets in because the courts declare it a right, or it is sold to the public as a right, it will be a travesty. Only once it is recognized that there is no right to approval can the question be properly put to a vote. For now, it is all bogus demagoguing on a fraudulent concept of rights.

http://errortheory.blogspot.com/2009/06/gay-marriage-is-not-right.html

Alec on February 25, 2013 at 5:35 PM

They expanded the entitlements out through taxation and general welfare reinterpretations. Arguing that a constitutional amendment specifying explicitly these payments and debts shall not be incurred would close that door. One issue the supreme court has never been asked to decide on the Social Security side is whether the government can make payments to individuals the way it does. As it stands, social security taxes are supported by the Constitution.

It’s an issue that should be decided but as I have no standing I’m not in the position to bring the case.

It was not that they were a church that the supreme court decided in their favor, it was that they were supposedly practicing their political speech. I disagree with the supreme court on this.

I’m not surprised you do. You seem like the sort of person who thinks the Freedom of Speech means the freedom to say only the things you want to hear.

The right to speak does not trump the other rights of people.

Which rights were being trumped?

In times past those guys would have found many of their teeth and much of their blood on the ground around where they chose to be obnoxious, and I agree with that kind handling of their sort of disorder as I do with people who insult a man’s woman in public.

You’re probably right about the mob justice and on a very raw emotional level I wouldn’t shed a tear if the whole Westboro lot were dragged to town square, placed in the stocks and horsewhipped. But we have laws and they’re protected by them. Like I said before, really supporting the freedom of speech means you support the right of people to say things you consider abhorrent.

I do take issue with anti discrimination laws. Since they exist, allowing state sanctioned gay marriage EXPANDS THEM and in effect REDUCES FREEDOM.

And on this matter we agree. Florists, photographers, churches and any other private entity should have the right to refuse to offer service to gay marriage ceremonies if they so choose and they should not suffer any legal consequences as a result. It takes a measure of courage to admit you’re okay with allowing discrimination to take place; I only hope this statement of principle has a longer shelf life than some of the others you have made in the past.

Do not give any passes loser, it screams, I have nothing to refute you with so… I pass. Man up loser!

I was trying to be nice. I won’t make that mistake again.

You are right, the framework is there, but instead of working to get back to constitutionalism, you are FAR MORE INTERESTED in attacking the same social conservatism that existed when we were much closer to constitutionalism. So, your argument that it exists is muted by the fact that you are not willing to actually work towards that goal, but are more interested in the self goals of imposing your version of social issues onto others, and in fact damage the ability to get back to constitutional government.

You appear to be linking a more socially conservative culture to constitutionalism and saying a decline in one has lead to a decline in the other. Correlation does not imply causation; it’s the same flaw a lot of the global warmists make in their warped analysis as well. You could just have easily said that we wear fewer wigs, ride fewer horses and do less whaling and we need to get back to those if we want to get back to constitutionalism. Your argument isn’t even an argument.

You have done no such thing as what you can on that. You have spent most of your time pushing for gay “rights” and drug legalization and no time actually arguing how the welfare state damages the ability to get those things without damaging further the majority of American’s rights. Big deal, you spent 3 months in 2010 being active and popular with the crowd. How about actually getting the job done before moving onto the destructive issues?

I do tend to spend more time here arguing on social issues mainly because on the fiscal ones I’m already in lockstep with everyone here. Welfare state? It sucks, get rid of it. And the sooner the better. Okay, issue settled. Now what?

Using drugs and pounding a man in the ass both cause destruction to a person’s life on the average.

Why are you bringing sodomy into this discussion, and why are you being so graphic about it? SCOTUS has already ruled on that one anyway.

Neither does any benefit at all. That means on the average pushing for them to be made acceptable parts of our society, it must mean that it will push those who are damaged by those activities onto the welfare state as dependents, which as we have seen, those dependents vote for more welfare state and not less.

This is a non-sequitur, especially in the case of the sodomy you’ve opted to randomly inject into the discussion for some reason. But since you brought it up it’s been going on for millennia and it doesn’t follow that practicing it translates into an automatic one-way ticket to the welfare state, and it’s something that’s going to go on whether gay marriage is legal or not. You literally have no point at all here.

So, I do not ask you to stop pursuing your agenda, I am just telling you that you can count my support and most real conservatives’ support opposed to your goals until we obtain our goals. Our goals will not be met until the welfare state is dismantled and explicitly forbidden as something that can voted back into existence.

Ok. *checks for expiration date*

Personally, I am ever more convinced we will have to have a another 1860s style debate before we get rid of the slavery of the day.

astonerii on February 25, 2013 at 4:04 PM

If you’re implying a little insurrection might be a good thing then this last bit would be the single most ignorant thing I’ve heard you say, and that’s a bold statement.

alchemist19 on February 25, 2013 at 6:08 PM

alchemist19 on February 25, 2013 at 6:08 PM

I would hope to fix it without that insurrection you are talking about. That is why I am trying to talk you down from your insane position of increasing the welfare state for your own little personal pet fudge packer and drug taker groups. You see, if we stand any chance of changing the direction of the fiscal mess we are in, it requires FEWER welfare recipients, not more.

You are the one who seems intent on getting to the insurrection aspect. I am interested in preventing.

astonerii on February 25, 2013 at 8:18 PM

astonerii on February 25, 2013 at 8:18 PM

You see, I always believe if you talk to someone long enough you can almost always find some redeeming quality. “Doesn’t appear to be actively supporting an armed rebellion,” isn’t a high bar to clear but at this point I’ll take what I can get.

I could conceive of a way that decriminalizing drugs could increase the cost to the government if the cost of treating people who wouldn’t otherwise try various substances because they are banned and then get into trouble could overrun the savings from no longer spending money on law enforcement for drug crimes and incarceration of users, and from increased tax revenues resulting from regulated sales. I don’t concede that that would be the case (prohibition being historical evidence) but at least isn’t outside the realm of possibilities.

But legalizing gay marriage is going to jack up the welfare rolls? Um, no.

alchemist19 on February 25, 2013 at 8:42 PM

alchemist19 on February 25, 2013 at 8:42 PM

Of course it will jack those rolls up. When you go from a single person household to a two person household and do not have a two person earner household, those people are eligible for more government assistance.

By the way, what savings are you going to get from ending the war on marijuana? There is still crack, cocaine, meth, heroin and a plethora of other drugs, not to mention the fact that they are still unlikely to legalize say v!codin for over the counter any time soon. So, there is still going to be a war on drugs, it just will not include one or two substances which for the most part are not the drivers of the violence and border crossings, because there are hundreds of millions of acres of land in our own nation perfectly capable of producing said drugs, from Hawaii to Florida to Alaska and Maine. For the most part, the other drugs are not well known to be grown in America, outside perhaps opium. So legalizing dope will do effectively nothing to lower the cost of the war on drugs, unless you think you can miraculously get from here to total legalization for anything and everything while we have a welfare state active and survive. Do you think that?

You are not for freedom, you are FOR deviant behavior. There is a big difference between the two.

astonerii on February 25, 2013 at 9:06 PM

Of course it will jack those rolls up. When you go from a single person household to a two person household and do not have a two person earner household, those people are eligible for more government assistance.

This doesn’t make a lot of sense. If you take any two people, one of them is self-sufficient and one of them is not for whatever reason then the one person who’s not is going to get bailed out by the welfare state. Whether you have one person who needs a lot of assistance or two people who need a little between them it’s more or less the same regardless of sexual orientation. Your argument is an argument against the welfare state, not against gay marriage. As far as red herring arguments go that isn’t even a good one.

By the way, what savings are you going to get from ending the war on marijuana? There is still crack, cocaine, meth, heroin and a plethora of other drugs, not to mention the fact that they are still unlikely to legalize say v!codin for over the counter any time soon. So, there is still going to be a war on drugs, it just will not include one or two substances which for the most part are not the drivers of the violence and border crossings, because there are hundreds of millions of acres of land in our own nation perfectly capable of producing said drugs, from Hawaii to Florida to Alaska and Maine. For the most part, the other drugs are not well known to be grown in America, outside perhaps opium. So legalizing dope will do effectively nothing to lower the cost of the war on drugs, unless you think you can miraculously get from here to total legalization for anything and everything while we have a welfare state active and survive. Do you think that?

We will need to maintain the war on drugs to the extent drugs are criminalized. My end goal is total legalization but I know that’s not likely to happen all at once but even if we start with marijuana alone and save only what we’re spending to enforce those laws then that’s still some savings and some is better than none.

You are not for freedom, you are FOR deviant behavior. There is a big difference between the two.

astonerii on February 25, 2013 at 9:06 PM

Deviance is an arbitrary standard and you are not the arbiter of it any more than is the Taliban mullah who thinks you’re deviant for not forcing your women to wear burkas.

alchemist19 on February 25, 2013 at 10:18 PM

alchemist19 on February 25, 2013 at 10:18 PM

You are right, I should use terms that you cannot twist around to your liking.
You support the miscreants who enjoy partaking in aberrant behavior that causes them to degenerate and debauch themselves and the society around them while attacking the virtuous. Apparently all in the name of a freer society where the virtuous are ever more enslaved to the exponentially increasing miscreants you support.

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 9:45 AM

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 9:45 AM

It’s not your words that are the problem; it’s the lack of an intellectual foundation on which to lay your words that is your undoing.

And again you’ve used language that a Taliban mullah could use verbatim to describe the lifestyle that you believe people ought to live. The standards for behavior in this country is not your personal moral code and thank goodness for that.

I’m still keeping my fingers crossed for you though. I used to be exactly where you are, at least on the gay marriage issue. After the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling way back whenever that came down I was screaming non-stop about judicial activism and all the other normal line of talking points, then I had a friend who intellectually challenged me on the issue, I was defeated, I admitted I was wrong and I changed my position. If I can go from about where you’re at now to the correct side of that one issue then there’s hope for you as well.

alchemist19 on February 26, 2013 at 2:22 PM

alchemist19 on February 26, 2013 at 2:22 PM

You were defeated. It shows. A poor argument beat you senseless. Feelings trump freedom. Just like abortion, the woman’s feelings trump the right to life of the child. There is nothing more to it. And you were defeated by it. What a winner you are!

There is no RIGHT to marriage. Marriage is a privilege with respect to the state. The only aspect of it that is a right is that it is a ceremony of religious faithful.

My labor is the insurance policy on which the cost of their aberrant behavior is placed. Thus, increasing their numbers through incentives (privilege) increases the burden on my labor. It is not a call to freedom you are making. It is a call to slavery. Enslavement of the virtuous in service to the miscreants. Enslavement of those who abstain from aberrant behaviors in service to those who practice degenerate and debauched behaviors.

You have not given any argument to prove that they are not and will not be an added burden on my labor. By giving them privilege, you incentivize more of them, and thus increase the burden on my labor. I am not their slave and I refuse to be their slave. You may freely grant yourself to them if you choose, freely adopt yourself a couple dozen gay couples and insure their life with your labor if you so choose to do so. Leave my labor to my chosen charitable causes.

astonerii on February 26, 2013 at 6:37 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6