Watch Live: Congressional Hearing on IRS Scandal

Live BlazeCast at 2pm ET: All the fireworks from the IRS Hearing!

Business

Ann Coulter Battles John Stossel & a Room Full of Libertarians: This Is Why People Think You’re ‘Pu**ies!’

Feb. 22, 2013 9:47am Becket Adams

Conservative talker Ann Coulter appeared Thursday on Fox Business Network’s “Stossel” to do battle with the show’s Libertarian host — and his 1,400+ Libertarian guests.

Their biggest point of contention? Social Conservatism versus the Libertarian “Individuals Should Be Left Alone” approach.

The evening began pleasantly enough, the two discussing whether the U.S. should’ve invaded Iraq following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Coulter believes military action was justified because Saddam Hussein was “definitely looking for uranium from Niger.”

But then things became a little more heated when Stossel decided to shift gears and brought up legalizing drugs.

“Libertarians and pot,” Coulter laughed. “This is why people think libertarians are pu**ies.”

Now although Fox censored the word, Mediaite’s Andrew Kirell was on the scene and can testify to Coulter’s language.

She continued:

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 went all in Libertarian versus Social Conservatism: “Why can’t gays get married?”

“Well, they can,” she answered. “They have to marry a member of the opposite sex.”

The 1,400+ Libertarian students, who were there as a part of Stossel’s annual taping at the International Students for Liberty Conference in Washington, D.C., became increasingly hostile, jeering and booing Coulter along the way.

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

“No, we believe the individual should be left alone,” Stossel responded.

“Marriage is the most important institution to civilize young people. I make divorce a lot more difficult,” she said. “Liberals want to destroy the family.”

She explained that the left wants to destroy the family so that people will become totally dependent on government.

More jeers and boos.

“How is it any of your business what I choose to put in my body if I’m not affecting anyone else?” one student asked during the Q&A session, prompting a standing ovation from the crowd.

“First of all, for alleged individualists, you’re very mob-like,” Coulter said. “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!”

Now to be clear, Coulter is no stranger to hostile environments and she and Stossel have long been on good terms. So it was not surprising to see the segment end amicably as the Libertarians students gave her a respectful send-off.

Still, that’s not to say that Coulter versus Libertarianism wasn’t something to see:

–

Editor’s note — We’ll be discussed this story on Friday’s BlazeCast:

RELATED:

Libertarian heavyweight responds to Coulter: Yes, libertarians are pu**ies

Follow Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) on Twitter

Featured images screen grab.

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (764)

samurai2112
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:06am
When a group is panicking, running around not knowing what to do or say it is coulter that firmly slaps you across your face and says “Snap out of it and man up”.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Miami
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:11am
  She is right
  
  Report this comment
- grimjack3791
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:18am
  Hey Libertarians: “I want the government to legalize gay marriage” = “I recognize that only the government has the authority to recognize my love and commitment for another individual and I recognize that only government say-so makes my commitment official.” Pretty short-sighted for the party of laissez faire, no?
  
  The correct stance on gay marriage, or any marriage, is to dispense with government marriage licensing entirely.
  
  Report this comment
- nonofmybiznez
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:25am
  Grimm, I so agree. The government should get out of marriage altogether. That should be a religious practice. It shouldn’t affect your tax status or who is allowed to visit you in the hospital when you are sick. There are legal options to allow for civil unions.
  
  Report this comment
- Brian
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:26am
  And we’d be a lot better off if they would take her advice – man up!
  
  Report this comment
- civilwarcometh
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:30am
  Conservatives have become the progressive right. They think it is okay to attack another country that has no way or means to attack this country. They want to keep all the social safety nets that progressives put in place. S.S. medicaid. Drugs were always legal in this country until progressive Prohibition. Our founding fathers were libertarians who formed this country and wrote the Constitution and the bill of rights. You probably think felons shouldn’t be able to own a gun to but then say God gave us our rights and man can not take those rights away. Conservatives have become the left wing of the right. Christie/Romney/Rubio and many others ARE progressives. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/02/shock-report-veterans-receive-letters-from-va-prohibiting-ownership-or-purchase-of-firearms/
  
  Report this comment
- Longslide
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:30am
  Your average Libertarian is already far more man than Ms Coulter could handle.
  
  Report this comment
- Longslide
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:32am
  @Grimjack, you are correct, but since neither would be legislated,wouldn’t that by default make it legal as well?
  
  Report this comment
- SimpleTruths
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:32am
  GRIMJACK3791
  So what are you saying? Marriage can only be a religious sanctioned agreement? No civil ceremony at all? Yeah, that’s that’s what I thought, freedom is great as long as it fits your ideology.
  
  Report this comment
- imperative
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:33am
  @grimjack3791
  
  I agree, but isn’t the libertarian position?
  
  It’s Republicans (and people who claim to be conservative) that now say gay marraige should be legalized.
  
  Report this comment
- Red Meat
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:34am
  “Conservative talker” Yeah ok Blaze.
  Tell me how supporting Chris Christie, GOProud, and being Bill Maher’s bff is conservative? Do you think Colin Powell is also still a Republican? How about Geraldo?
  
  Progressive subterfuge is the name of the Blaze game. They should be ignored.
  
  Report this comment
- destrecht
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:35am
  GrimJack amen.The government shouldn’t have anything to do with it. A lot of people don’t honor it anyway.
  
  Report this comment
- RaydocX
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:38am
  @Grim, @Biz,
  you are spot on.
  the government does nothing to ‘protect’ marriage (no fault states are the norm).
  the ‘tax breaks’ they offer are offset by other penalties in many ways, this ’1300 rights’ the LGBT community sites is hogwash.
  and hospitals could easily end the Dark Ages visiting policies which are NOT government borne.
  
  It’s an example of the government stepping beyond its purview, which was allowed when it was not contentious. And encouraged additional overreaching.
  
  Social conservatism needs to be lived. Fiscal conservatism– small government– needs to be advocated… along the way you will recruit Libertarians and Independents.
  
  Report this comment
- 00100111
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:40am
  Grim, that is not correct. Liberals and Progressives cry “Govt should legalize gay marriage”. Libertarians don’t want govt involved in marriage at all. You need to get it out of your head that libertarians and liberals are the same, we are not. Many of us are not even socially liberal, but we are able to separate our personal life from the role of govt. We don’t seek to use govt to enforce our personal beliefs the way “liberals” and “conservatives” do. I use quotes because “liberals” are not liberal, and “conservatives” are not conservative. They’re both big govt statists, just on different sides of the same coin. Libertarians are now what what conservatives used to be, what our founders were. Do a bit more research.
  
  Report this comment
- Seymour
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:41am
  Nonstarter and too late IMO. Ms. Coulter was very instrumental in giving us McCain, Romney and she is a huge fan of Chris Christie. We’ve flown with her 3 times crashing 3 times yet she’s still up there plugging away wanting us to board the same RINO flights that crashed earlier? Not gonna happen Ann.
  
  Report this comment
- BrutalTruth
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:42am
  Grim and None, You do understand without a strong family, civilization goes down the toilet, don’t you?
  
  A strong family cannot be achieved without the require parts. A man and a woman in a committed relationship bearing children. Without this, a healthy civilization is impossible.
  
  No one says you have to like it, but reality really doesn’t care what you feel.
  
  Report this comment
- searcher619
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:43am
  Sorry but now she isn’t right. Her view only applies to people on the government dole and does not even address the issue of same sex marriage and what right does government have to approve or disprove of ANY kind of relationship between consenting adults. Conservatives irritate me mainly because they seem to want to impose their views on others. I agree with Libertarians. If what I an doing does no harm to ANYONE how is what I am doing anyone’s business? Alcohol is legal and so is tobacco. BOTH are detrimental to your health. Her argument falls apart right there. If something like Alcohol is legal, a substance which is directly related to the injury and death of innocent people, then there is no legit reason why any of the other rugs should be illegal either. ALL recreational drugs should be treated just like alcohol is.
  
  Report this comment
- 00100111
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:44am
  Simpleton, that isn’t what he said. You need to learn to read better. If you and your boyfriend want to go down to city hall and sign a contract with each other, go for it. That’s all the legal aspect of the marriage is anyway. We want to keep govt out of the religious part of it. Ya know, it’s that whole “separation of church and state” thing you progs cry about so much.
  
  Report this comment
- searcher619
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:48am
  I respect the hell out of Stossel but he fell for the same lie most people do when debating Gay Marriage. Fact is Gay couples are free to marry. There is no law anywhere in this country that prevents them from doing so. Gay marriage is not illegal anywhere. What’s at issue is government acknowledgment of gay marriage. Government’s EQUAL treatment of all unions. Right now it discriminates which is 100% wrong. Government, both federal and state, need to get out of the business of issuing marriage licenses and treat all unions the same.
  
  Report this comment
- GilbertAcct
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:48am
  Coulter says libertarians are wimps, yet she buckles and simply accepts that we are a welfare state, so what someone puts in their body is her business (quite wimpish). She thinks libertarians are sucking up to liberals on these issues, but this could not be further from the truth. Libertarians operate under the moral code of non-aggression… meaning anyone should be free to do anything he or she wants, as long as he or she does not commit acts of force or fraud against any other peaceful person. It is mere coincidence that liberals happen to be (partially) correct on some issues, and conservatives (partially) on others. It has nothing to do with sucking up to either party. Libertarians hold both parties to be statist buffoons (Coulter included). Since both parties can only think in terms of pandering to someone to win votes (because that is constantly on their minds), they fail to comprehend that a group can actually operate under a simple moral code. Coulter and other buffoons will act like intellects and use foul language to seem dominant… but they are nothing more than political hacks.
  
  Report this comment
- sonnylivori
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:55am
  it that like the rep that talk’s big then caves at the late minute?? I see real good party. Do u like every thing in the Rep platform?? Is the whole rep party believe that there are diffrent kinds of rape? some in your party does, or maybe it not rape at all, maybe u ask for it, some in your party believe that.
  
  Report this comment
- justangry
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:58am
  @grimjack3791, That’s been the Libertarian position all along. For the same reason as we don’t the the federal government involved with drugs. Both a re progressive and a violation of the 10th amendment.
  
  Report this comment
- Cavallo
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:59am
  1) Government needs to get out of marriage altogether. Let private entities have the liberty and freedom to define marriage.
  2) Iraq wasn’t about 9-11 other than 9-11 gave the United States a heightened sense of militarization. Iraq violated the 1993 ceasefire agreement.
  3) Coulter tried to run as a libertarian for office, but abandoned the endeavor when the party refused to put eliminating the welfare state before legalizing narcotics and other mind altering substances. In other words, Coulter didn’t want to have to be paying taxes to support someone’s drug problem.
  
  Report this comment
- sonnylivori
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:01am
  man up,k take your own advice, rep say Obama is a lie a cheat , and doesn’t know how government work, i don’t think he does or cares. BUT Obama has been beating the rep on every issue and He is making the rep His bitches.
  
  Report this comment
- Jaycen
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:03am
  @RaydocX
  
  God bless you!
  
  Social Conservatism should be lived. It’s worth repeating. It should be lived, not legislated.
  
  If you want to be socialy conservative (and I am), you should berate the Progressives in public. Call people out for their bad behavior. Refuse to associate with those who choose lifestyles with which you disagree. All of this is possible without asking your neighbors to look down the barrel of a gun.
  
  Marriage IS A CIVILIZING FORCE. Government SHOULD NOT BE INVOLVED. Those two concepts are not mutually exclusive.
  
  Let me tell you, if some fruit cake church out there starts marrying homosexuals, most religious people will stay away in droves. Except for the homosexuals who come to get married, the chuch funding will dry up. They won’t be able to operate on their own, and the free market will have spoken.
  
  If homosexual marriage is handled that way, then the government won’t have an excuse to teach it to elementary children. It will remain marginalized as it should be.
  
  Those here who state that many of the Blazers are actually Nationalist (patriotic) Progressives have hit the nail right on the head. If you think you can legislate behavior, then you’re a damned hypocrite. Telling homosexuals they “legally” can’t marry is as effective as setting speed limits. For those of us who drive the speed limit or slower, the homosexuals will keep passing us by.
  
  If you truly believe your own religion, then let God worry about judgin
  
  Report this comment
- WakingSheep
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:03am
  So If libertarians are such puss*es; why won’t the establishment face one of the libertarian candidates (Gary Johnson last election) in the debates?
  
  So if you are scared to debate a pus*y; what does that make you?
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:04am
  False.
  
  Libertarians gave the quiet, meek, silent conservative movement that you establishment types disdain and were ignoring, the ability to step forward and say “no more”. Of course, Ann is establishment (look at who she swoons over and backs as candidates), and she’s here to “put us in our place”. You uppity home body type conservatives that were finally getting your voice heard, thanks to the libertarians out there helping you, are to be silenced again.
  
  Ann is the establishment w h o r e, make no mistake. She always has been, she always will be. If she’s not sighing over how wonderful Chris Christie is, she’s going full frontal on how wonderful Romney is, long before he was picked as the nominee.
  
  Pot is not even an issue at this point. Who cares. Want to get macho Ann? Let’s talk about repealing medicare, medicaid, eliminating SS entirely, getting rid of ADC. Libertarians, we’ll do it if given a chance. You half arsed fake conservatives on the other hand always ensure that you endorse these socialist quagmires, you just want them better managed.
  
  C’mon Ann, you’re all macho flash, tell us how you’d join libertarians *repealing these programs entirely*. Oh, you can’t, because you’re establishment, my bad.
  
  Report this comment
- FormerLib
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:05am
  This from the woman who thinks Chris Christie and Mitt Romney are “great conservatives” and who thinks Karl Rove is a genius.
  
  Consider the source.
  
  Report this comment
- michaelmoron
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:06am
  Ann is an Ignorant Neocon.
  
  Marriage is a personal thing and should have never had anything to do with the government.
  That all revolved around “Marital Rights” and tax loopholes such as filing jointly.
  
  First off, the Constitution does not grant rights according to marital status.
  Secondly, An Unnapportioned Income tax is unconstitutional.
  
  I have rescinded my contracts with the “government”. I can NOT fire them by myself, so
  I QUIT !!!!!
  
  The only contract I have with the “government” is my Driver’s License with the Corporation of Florida.
  
  I am no longer a TRUSTEE and AGENT for the Social Security Administration.
  In addition to other reasons, I fear they are unstable and insolvent since they are always claiming that they may not have my deposits available, when I am eligible to collect. Also, they are threatening to breach the contract by stating that they may change the terms and provisions of the aforementioned contract by abbrogating the age of eligibility.
  My acceptance of the Contract with the Social Security Administration (A Private Company) was voluntary and I was not of Majority age when signed.
  This Contract is an unconscionable contract.
  
  The Government DOES NOT own me.
  
  I have not Contracted.
  
  I DO NOT CONSENT or COMPLY !!!!!
  
  I am a Beneficiary in this TRUST, NOT a TRUSTEE !!!!
  
  http://www.dailypaul.com/227306/bombshell-constitution-is-a-trust-the-people-are-the-beneficiaries-public-servants-are-trustees
  
  Report this comment
- The-Monk
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:07am
  Hi Guys… still watching. Al is OK. : )
  
  Report this comment
- UNALIEN
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:08am
  Conservatism is pragmatic libertarianism, strict libertarianism is ideological
  
  Report this comment
- Zipit
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:13am
  @SONNY! Please Sonny, wake up, sober up, wise up, what up, whatever up, before hitting the keyboard in the morning! Sheesh!
  
  Report this comment
- ashestoashes
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:14am
  This is what makes the globalists happy..to keep everyone at each other’s throats..that takes the focus off of what they are doing..this is why we did the invasion..and this is why we have continued to help the Muslim Brotherhood to do the invasions..it’s a little shadier than you might have imagined..
  http://wesmantoddshaw.hubpages.com/hub/Plastic-Jesus-Rothschild-International-Banking-and-the-Next-Invasion-Lotto
  
  Report this comment
- bertr
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:19am
  If you want the federal government to regulate what you can and cant ingest in your body,then you are for government enforced social conservativism first and indivual liberty second are you not?
  If im wrong please explain how what seems to be straight forward rationality is flawed. And while you can be supportive of libertarianism and be for government enforced social conservativism fover indivual liberty, wouldnt it be a tad bit dishonest to represent yourself as ‘A Libertarian’?
  Maybe not, there certianly may be many valid opinions on this, but i think my question is a valid and resonable one to be asked.
  
  Report this comment
- FOREIGNANDDOMESTIC
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:19am
  LIBERTARIANISM, THE MARXISM OF THE RIGHT.
  http://mises.org/community/forums/p/4598/60879.aspx
  
  For a thorough analysis of what Libertarianism REALLY is, please read the article I linked. Don’t be fooled, conservatives. These people are dangerous. Their goal is to HIJACK THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, just like the commies did with the Dims. Don’t fall for their constant allusions to the Constitution or their opposition to Obama. Their strategy is to create a fifth column within the Republican Party.
  
  Here’s the truth: Libertarian activists despise us as much as Obama does. You think I am exaggerating? Go back and read their response to Chris Kyle’s murder, or the presidential election, or any of RP’s kooky remarks. What do these people really have in common with conservatives? Answer: nothing.
  
  Report this comment
- michaelmoron
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:21am
  @Wakingsheep
  
  Excellent point.
  
  Lets see how many people try to argue with that fact.
  
  I am a Libertarian.
  
  I am an Individual. Not a Collectivist.
  
  Social Conservatives are Collectivists. “Social” ?????
  
  I pledge allegiance to a flag or to NO ONE !!!!!
  
  I do solemly swear to NO ONE !!!!!
  
  I am NOT a U.S. CITIZEN. You have to be a Collectivist to be one of those.
  
  You morons don’t even know that the U.S. is a Private Corporation and you are claiming to be an “employee” of the Corp by claiming to be a “citizen”.
  Look up the legal definition of citizen.
  
  I am an NATIVE AMERICAN. I am not an Indian. I Have the same rights as a “citizen” (except to vote. Like that even counts anymore.) or a native born American Indian.
  
  My religion is Freedom and My bible is the Constitution.
  
  I owe NOTHING to the “Government”, as do, they owe nothing to me.
  
  Man, it feels good to be free !!!!
  
  Check this out:
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9NCxJkIDw
  
  Report this comment
- 3monkeysmomma
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:22am
  After Coulter’s weird Chris Christy crush and early Romney endorsement….why do ACTUAL CONSERVATIVES care about her anymore?
  
  Report this comment
- 3monkeysmomma
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:26am
  So my endorsement of the 10th amendment makes me a “*****”?
  
  Is she kidding?
  
  Report this comment
- JRook
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:29am
  “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!” Of course in most cases the students tuition, food, healthcare, etc. is paid by their parents with assistance from the student who is working or taking out loans. You would think now that she has a pseudo career, Ann Coulter would stop acting like the little girl in the front of the classroom waving her hand widely to answer every question and get some attention. She is a sad sad individual who displays over and over again she couldn’t make an intelligent argument for or against anything. If she could she would not resort to what GB would clearly identify as Saul Alinski tactics. Of course in her case it is more of a psychological and emotional problem.
  
  Report this comment
- leonardo44
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:30am
  agreed, Ann Coulter is a true patriot and really showed that Libertarian audience to be lame.
  Calling yourself a Libertarian is the easy way out, it is far more acceptable and less radioactive to the left. Conservatives actually stand for something and are willing to take the heat.
  
  Report this comment
- michaelmoron
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:34am
  *I pledge allegiance to NO flag or to NO ONE !!!!!
  
  I don’t have to Pledge anything to anybody to secure my inherent, inalienable rights as a native-born American.
  
  I love this Country and will fight to the death to secure my constitutional rights.
  
  I hate this defacto government that took our country over in 1871.
  
  The defacto government was eventually seized by the International Bankster Cartel in 1933.
  
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  
  “The real truth of the matter is that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government since the days of Andrew Jackson.”
  – President FD Roosevelt
  
  “The Federal Reserve is one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen. There is not a man within the sound of my voice who does not know that this Nation is run by the international bankers.”
  – Congressman Louis T. McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, June 20, 1932
  
  “This [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President Wilson signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized….the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill. From now on, depressions will be scientifically created.”
  – Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr., 1913
  
  Report this comment
- busterpuddles
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:37am
  IMO, there is nothing more sexy than a very smart, highly intelligent, strong, blonde woman with long flowing hair. It’s a shame I’ve only been able to see a segment here or there on a show or a snippet in a video like this. I would love to see her speak somewhere.
  
  (BTW, she is correct)
  
  Report this comment
- armyofnibiru
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:38am
  civilwar
  you don’t know the diferrence between a conservative and a republican.most republicans are not conservative,thats why they go along with the dems.sara palin was the closest to a conservative thats why so many republicans joined the dems and attacked her to.when the republicans attack another republican thats my guy.
  and ask any person in jail if they can go down to the local pub and have beer any time they want?their rights have been taken away because they did a crime against another.you pay for your deeds.if you commit a felony and part of your payment to society is no guns ,DON’T COMMIT the crime.
  
  Report this comment
- bertr
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:38am
  If the libertarians and the disgruntled republicans want to get along i think the libertarian name may need to be dropped all together. Republicans fear libertarians are trying to take over thier party and “some” the of people currently associated with self endowed libertarian title feel like the republicans are deluting that to push social agenda.
  If there is a new party it needs to be called something like the “Independance” party. I’d sign up for that and i think a lot of disgruntled republicans and crazy libertarians would too without getting into a fuss over the libertarian title.
  As evidenced by this post, its not like anyone really knows what libertaian means anyway so no need to fuss too much over it lol
  
  Report this comment
- michaelmoron
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:43am
  *Check this out
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9NCxJkIDwI
  
  Report this comment
- demsrtraitors
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:50am
  Seems Women like Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin have more balls than most Conservative White Male Republican politicians. That’s why the traitorous lefties despise them.
  
  Report this comment
- armyofnibiru
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:54am
  in your link.janet napolitano declared our hero vets the most likely to be a terrorist.she and potus and all this regime are enemys of the constitution.and our vets are most likely to love the constitution,so that makes them an enemy of this rigime,not this country.and like oblameo heros,mao,stalin,marx,frank davis,hitler alinsky and cha they need to disarm us or they can’t complete their mission to turn this country communist.they are the revolutionarys and their 85% complete.let us be the counter revolutionarys and return this country back to the constituion.but it will be hard because 47% of this country has been payed to fight for them(traitors).I’ll leave with a quote from Charelton Heston.
  
  “FROM MY COLD DEAD FINGERS” you damn dirty ape.
  
  Report this comment
- James V
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 12:01pm
  Marriage should be recognized by government in that they should record it if you want them to. Marriage should be religious, if those getting married are religious. It then should be recorded by the church and the state if the couple should happen to desire this.
  
  The reason the state started to recognize marriage and encourage it was due to the better socialization of children in married homes. There is no real reason to encourage gay marriage. On the other had, there is no secular reason to discourage it either. Just don’t force recognition of that marriage onto business and individuals.
  
  Report this comment
- A_CALL_TO_CONSCIENCE
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 12:01pm
  Of course Government should not be involved in marriage. However, since it is, gay marriage should be legal.
  
  Report this comment
- KickinBack
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 12:10pm
  Hmmm…The Paulbots don’t seem to be whining about how this isn’t news…
  
  Report this comment
- grimmster
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 12:21pm
  If you look at libertarians, no two will agree on more than one thing, and thats supposedly small govt. Just look at Beck and Stossel,basically, they all tend to blur the lines of the constitution,and even cherry picking which amendments to support, and how they support them. Politically, i myself am a constitutional conservative, believing in the constitution,in its litteral sense,without any liberal interpretation.I boils down to, what is right and wrong,no grey areas,like some libertarians see it.In my opinion, most, younger, so called libertarians are nothing more than fence walkers, always looking for greener pastures,never wanting to deal with the bad, but always wanting whats good for them,even if it comes from uncle sam,as long as uncle sam stays out of their business…..
  
  Report this comment
- sillyfreshness
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 12:22pm
  Some libertarian fools are for open borders to let illegal aliens flood in. Not me. Government is needed to protect the border, not open it up to invaders.
  
  Report this comment
- The_Jerk
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 12:22pm
  Coulter: “Saddam Hussein was “definitely looking for uranium from Niger.”
  
  You see, this fraud conservative, and Chris Christie butt kisser, is still pushing the proven Perle, Wolfowitz, Wurmser, Libby, Feith, all Jewish lies. They lied for Israel, and America paid the price in both lives and wealth.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries#Aftermath
  
  Report this comment
- RoDogg
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 12:37pm
  Conservatives will never fully embrace libertarianism because they cannot put their religion aside and not tell people how they should be living their life!
  Gay marriage, abortion, polygamy, whatever ….
  
  Its all their religious beliefs that have them telling others how to live their life. IMO thats why social conservatives will never fully support TRUE individual liberty. Their beliefs get in the way.
  
  If you’re religious and don’t want people to do certain things based on your beliefs. YOU ARE against real freedom and you’re just a right wing progressive/fascist like Mrs. Coulter!
  
  You can’t be FOR freedom if you’re against what someone else does when it’s not directly effecting you. Period.
  
  Report this comment
- stablepar
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 12:52pm
  and when will the left demand being allowed to marry sheep and goats?
  
  Report this comment
- michaelmoron
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 1:01pm
  A true Libertarian believes that everyone can do ANYTHING they want, PROVIDED that they DO NOT violate the rights of others.
  
  A true Libertarian Follows the Constitution 100%.
  
  A true Libertarian considers any TRUSTEE who Infringes on the Constitution to be a Traitor of the people and guilty of Treason and breach of the Trust.
  
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  
  “Government is a trust, and the officers of the government are trustees. And both the trust and the trustees are created for the benefit of the people.”
  – Henry Clay
  
  Henry Clay, Sr. (April 12, 1777 – June 29, 1852) was a lawyer, politician and skilled orator who represented Kentucky in both the Senate and in the House of Representatives. He served three different terms as Speaker of the United States House of Representatives and was also Secretary of State from 1825 to 1829. He lost his campaigns for president in 1824, 1832 and 1844.
  Clay was a dominant figure in both the First and Second Party systems. As a leading war hawk in 1812, he favored war with Britain and played a significant role in leading the nation to war in the War of 1812.[
  Abraham Lincoln, the Whig leader in Illinois, was a great admirer of Clay, saying he was “my ideal of a great man.”
  
  Report this comment
- jhpackard
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 1:04pm
  Love that woman! More guts than the vast majority of men, be they liberals, libertarians or conservatives.
  
  Report this comment
- WakingSheep
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 1:07pm
  we are so f’d
  
  good luck everybody
  
  Report this comment
- searcher619
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 1:07pm
  stablepar:
  
  People free to marry any adult or anything they wish. They just need to find someone to preside over the wedding. There is no law stopping you from marrying your dog if you want to. Government will not acknowledge the marriage but that really doesn’t matter.
  
  Report this comment
- bertr
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 1:13pm
  @RoDogg
  
  You may be correctly defining some people of faith, but certianly not all. Personally I believe that we were put on this earth to have free agency in our actiona and decisions. This government concept we must work out should in my view be for the most part limited to making sure my decisions don’t take away from someone else ability to accomplish that end(ie living with the freedom to make ones own choices and being responsible for those choices)
  So, just for example, as the constitution was given to us, we in this day and time should “suffer a witch” so within those parameters and even defend the freedom of that “witch”.
  Also I do not want government defining the personal discisions we can make in some kind of attempt “that one soul shall not be lost”
  I do have a faith and I think that people having freedom and liberty is paramount to them being able to fulfill thier purpose here
  
  Don’t assume all people of faith want to enforce thier faith on you at the threat of imprisonment or death. However, I know many in America do very much in fact want to do just that.
  
  Report this comment
- michaelmoron
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 1:25pm
  *Correction
  
  A true Libertarian makes sure that the TRUSTEES (Public Servants) follow the Constitution 100%
  
  Report this comment
- Mil-Dot
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 1:28pm
  She IS right. If you want to smoke pot, be a man and do it illegally and suffer the consequences of being unemployed. But don’t do it on my dime. Only drug-free people who are actively looking for work should get any assistance. The druggies need to go somewhere and die. Get the hell out of here you leeches. It is our business when you try to infect our kids with your drug culture. Young punks want everything handed to them because they are breathing.
  
  Report this comment
- witchrunner
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 1:30pm
  I find it rather amusing that Coulter decided to use the same tactics that the socialists use when discussing the indefensible. She goes on a tirade about the left having pushed the government into every aspect of our lives. Then, when the subject is changed to drugs, she flips her lid. Notice that she didn’t say one word as to why legalization of drugs shouldn’t happen. All she did was try to associate libertarians with the dems. She also fails to recognize that 2010 boost the repubs got was from libertarians. The tea party consist of a number of libertarians. That’s why the only issue the tea party was addressing was the economic catastrophe of liberalism. The christian right then decided to grab the movement’s coat-tales.
  
  The problem with Coulter’s argument (or lack there of) is that she agrees with the socialists that the government has all these powers to infringe on individual liberties, it’s just that she doesn’t agree with the way they are doing it.
  
  Libertarians, on the other hand, are consistent. The government doesn’t have the power to do it if it’s not in the Constitution. That’s why I’ve always argued against the government having whatever power it is seeking. It matters not if their so-called regulations are “reasonable.” We all know that “reasonable” soon becomes “unreasonable” and oppressive.
  
  Report this comment
- SocialistSlayer
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 1:32pm
  Maybe she (Ann Coulter ) is correct but has she taken a look at the Republican party??? They are neck deep in Wimps and Pu***ies!
  
  Report this comment
- bobball
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 1:32pm
  Coulter seemed taken aback by the mob (which she should be used to), her point which she did not articulate well is that Republicans and Libertarians should be working together on the big issue of the welfare state and not on the side issues of gay marriage and legalizing pot. Yes we should be free from Govt intervention into our Marriages, but we are not and getting them out of marriage is not what the LIbs want, they want more government. On the war issue, I think she also did not articulate it well. We should be supporting freedom.
  
  Report this comment
- WakingSheep
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 1:36pm
  Ann Coulter is a satanist.
  
  Report this comment
- naughtycal
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 1:44pm
  ALL i have to know about Coulter to dismiss everything she says is she will support HILLARY IF SHES NOMINATED FOR 2016. She supported Hillary in 08 but changed to McCain when Obama got nominated. Hillary and Obama ran on the same platform. Coulter is a flake nothing more
  
  Report this comment
- lthm
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 1:45pm
  That’s what I’ve been saying for years, GrimJ. The government has no place in marriage. It needs to butt out entirely, and then everyone would be happy except a handful of idiots (liberals).
  
  Perhaps John Stossel’s replies have been edited too far down in this blog-like post to have meaning, or perhaps he was having an off-day. But he could have ripped her arguments to shreds. Except for one. She’s right that there are a ton of libertarians who present the argument for libertarianism as “Duhhh we want to legalize pot, bro. Duhhh.”
  
  But the marriage argument: Marriage should be no business of the government’s so long as the individuals involved are consenting adults.
  
  And the drug argument: The government should have no say over what I choose to put into my body, so long as it doesn’t harm anyone else.
  
  And the welfare argument: Individual responsibility is key, and government welfare/healthcare programs should be discontinued to free individuals to take care of themselves. If they fail to take care of themselves, that’s their own damn fault.
  
  Report this comment
- mcdonnal
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 1:53pm
  In my estimation, she is always right. She is the closest ‘talking head’ to my own beliefs. I wish I had the ability to express myself as well as she does. My favorite.
  
  Report this comment
- bbyrdhouse
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 2:08pm
  @RED MEAT –
  Agree! “Conservative talker” … Yeah right!
  
  When I see Ann Coulter to certainly do not see a conservative … I would never use the word ‘conservative’ to describe Ann Coulter.
  ‘Establishment’, yes
  ‘GOP’, yes
  ‘Progressive’, yes
  ‘Boisterous’, yes
  
  but ‘Conservative’ … no way!
  
  Report this comment
- civilwarcometh
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 2:12pm
  @ARMYOFNIBIRU: So man can take away other men’s rights? What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do you not understand?? What people put in their body’s is none of my business or your’s..So you can say who can keep their rights and who can’t?? A felon has done his time or payed his dues or both. Then on top of that you want to take their rights away? Are you God?
  
  Report this comment
- LaTxGuy
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 2:13pm
  I love this lady, In a crowd of less than men she has no fear! She says it as it is. Like to see those in the crowd try the same in her place! I have seen it, Libs are brave and loud in a group until the other side lifts their fists! and then the squat a squel and helpless animals. Damn thing is most cannot put up with the stress and rigores of life and they are the ones that are quick to belittle those that do! example, the military.
  
  Report this comment
- DLV
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 2:18pm
  Michael Moron- That’s great you’re a conservative, but you got a couple things wrong so am I. One thing is that the U.S. is not a corporation. Here is the definition of a corporation.
  
  an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members. See also municipal corporation, public corporation.
  
  Second Native Americans aren’t Indians. The term was coined by Columbus who thought he was in the Indies. I’ll throw the term around but your statement sounded official and officially Native Americans aren’t “indians.”
  
  Also what’s the this about you’re not a U.S. Citizen? Are you a Canadian or something?
  
  Report this comment
- civilwarcometh
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 2:20pm
  @NAUGHTYCAL: Exactly!!!!
  
  Report this comment
- GuruMeditation
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 2:24pm
  Coulter rocks!
  
  Report this comment
- kadster01
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 2:29pm
  Here’s a hint for you. I don’t give a soupy **** about gay marriage or pot. I just want the government to leave us alone and uphold the US Constitution, instead of shredding it at every turn. If that makes me a “*****,” so be it. I am what I eat.
  
  Report this comment
- LibertarianMonkey
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 2:36pm
  Absolute idiots I usto respect her… True libertarian viewpoint would mean the government would be the **** out of your life and you would have to pay for your own retirement, healthcare, drugs, ect. What a stupid argument … no wonder so many cant stand social conservative… Reduce the government reduce the deficit and taxes and let people kill themselves with pot meth alcohol ect … this world is over populated anyways. I will never again vote Republican… Romney was only a better vote than Obama… Republicans and Democrats both want the same thing control and a politician is only as good as he is a liar
  
  Report this comment
- DogTags
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 2:37pm
  No Grim is wrong. The best approach is to realize that marriage (a permanent, lifetime union between one man and one women) is an important relationship for the stability of society so society, through government, promoting and protecting marriage is good for the general welfare. Homosexual unions have no prayer to be able to procreate or recreate the benefits of marriage. Homosexual behavior produces effeminate wimps out of men, abrasive butches out of women, leads to diseases, increases mental disorders and suicides. Homosexual unions do no benefit society and should not be protected. But marriage is essential for society and the government, which is an expression of the people, should protect marriage.
  
  Report this comment
- FlamingFartSyndrome
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 2:49pm
  No ones panicking…. They are laughing and shaking their heads. Ann is an idiot…. When the girl asks why government should decide what we cant put in our bodies Ann goes into some ramble about how it would be ok if we got rid of the welfare state, which is something libertarians already agree with….
  
  Report this comment
- Johnny Cocheroo
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 2:52pm
  I bet half of you arguing against same sex marriage have been divorced. Nothing cracks me up more than attending a second marriage “till death do us part”.
  
  Marriage should have no government involved whatsoever. No tax breaks, benefits or anything. If government is involved, then same sex couples should get the same benefits. Equality.
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 2:56pm
  For all the ‘conservative’ bluster about libertarians being focused on the wrong issues…..Where is the republican action against big government programs??? Why do you throw rocks at us when your own party is obviously part of the problem. Fix your own house before you start criticizing ours. At least the libertarian party is not responsible for what we have so maybe you would be wise to consider some of our recommendations
  
  Report this comment
- radinsocal
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 2:59pm
  Good analogy.
  
  Report this comment
- PATTY HENRY
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 3:08pm
  ANN COULTER JUST ROCKS!! She speaks the truth. I haven’t really heard or read anything she’s said or written that I disagree with. I recommend her books as being the most well-researched books on the market today.
  MEMO TO LIBERTARIANS: IF GOD wanted us to be hermits, we’d have been born with privacy shells around us. We are meant to be COMMUNITY but not MASSES controlled by any one of us. We are meant to Co-Operate with each other, but not COMPROMISE with each other: (e.g.: If you want to go to NYC and I want to go to LA : the way to do this is for me to help you get to NYC and you help me get to LAX…..NOT (get this) NOT that we compromise and end up (both of us) in Kansas! SO #1…we have to get rid of the idea that we have to “COMPROMISE”. It’s that we must
  cooperate with each other. That means: Being Courteous of each other; Be respectful of our differences – but that doesn’t mean that Gays get to take the Straight word “Marriage” and co-opt it.
  They can come up with their own word….fine. I have the right to privacy in my home. I don’t have the right to walk around naked in public. I have the right to say whatever I want within the confines of my home but not to shout obscenities in public. You have no right to tell me what to eat and when to eat it!! IF your job (paid for by the people’s taxes) is to make sure food is safe..then you’re damned right you had better do your job. continued.
  
  Report this comment
- civilwarcometh
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 3:15pm
  All the rights we have lost since obama took office and how many did Ann’s republicans vote for?? http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/02/constitution.html
  
  Report this comment
- A_CALL_TO_CONSCIENCE
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 3:17pm
  @DLV
  
  He’s actually correct.
  
  There is no such thing as a citizen. The Supreme Court ruled that a citizen is a member of the body politic who owes a duty of allegiance in return for a duty of protection. States are legal fictions, made up of citizens which make up the United States. The SC has also ruled (many times) there is NO duty to protect anyone. What does that mean? If there is no duty to protect then there are no citizens, and if there are no citizens there are no states, and if there are no states there is no United States.
  
  Take a listen to this; it talks about what I said. This is a man named Marc Stevens, a true defender of Liberty.
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAeWPrfcrZQ
  
  Report this comment
- PATTY HENRY
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 3:23pm
  more: WE were able to obtain our FREEDOM by like-minded people sticking together and fighting for each other against a King. Like the most valuable GEM in the Universe, other ambitious groups wanted to control us. They want our mineral rights, they want to control us, there by enslaving us. They have used our freedoms against us. The extreme is Libertarianism. THE STOP GAP is called
  GOD. You do not belong to yourselves. You came from (hopefully will go back to) and Belong to GOD.
  He created each of us for a different purpose. That part is Libertarian. But this garbage about I can do what I want, when I want, how I want and to hell with you is not how it’s designed to be. Having said that, I’d rather have a LIBERTARIAN neighbor than a LIBERAL neighbor. Liberals are immature children who don’t believe in GOD’s teachings for us for HIS purpose of building character, and because of their impulsive belief system and immaturity, they are easy fodder for DASTARDLY FACISTS and MARXISTS who don’t give a damn about anything but CONTROLLING all people.
  Then we have the RON PAUL rabid dog types. (They’d better be reigned in before Rand runs).
  WE NEED TO FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION. THAT’S WHAT OUR CREED NEEDS TO BE, has been,
  and it works. The Socialism B.S. doesn’t work. Giving our $ to all manner of foreigners is insanity. less than 50% of people paying taxes is nuts. GO TO CONSTITUTION !!! GO ANN!
  
  Report this comment
- michaelmoron
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 3:27pm
  @DVL
  
  No disrespect, but you are uneducated in these matters.
  
  The United States Government formed a corporation in 1871 and trademarded names including U.S.A., United States, etc.
  They have been operating this country from that Corporation ever since.
  
  “The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 created a private corporation (hereinafter “Corp. U.S.”, Trademark name, “United States Government”) owned and operated by the actual government for the purpose of carrying out the business needs of the government under martial law. This was done under the constitutional authority for Congress to pass any law within the ten mile square of Washington, District of Columbia.”
  http://teamlaw.net/HistoryOutline.htm
  
  also,
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYLe02uld_0
  
  Any Lawyer will tell you that the Government is a corporation
  
  Here is the hard evidence:
  
  “US House of Representatives in Washington, DC is a private company categorized under Government Offices-Us. Our records show it was established in 1787 and incorporated in District of Columbia.”
  http://www.manta.com/c/mm4qj5s/us-house-of-representatives
  
  Print this as evidence, because like with the executive office of the president. and with the senate, someone has covered up this info.
  I have copies of the originals.
  
  They are all private companies. The Senate, the Executive office of the President, The Navy, Army, Dept of Justice, etc.
  
  Report this comment
- jowettusmc
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 3:36pm
  You go, Ann!!!!
  
  Report this comment
- Bum thrower
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 3:38pm
  bone headed kids; been on ‘daddy’s titi’ and next it’s the ‘government tit’ , but they want POT!! Go figure.
  
  Report this comment
- michaelmoron
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 3:41pm
  DVL.
  
  Furthermore, I only claimed to be a citizen in the past, due to not knowing it’s meaning.
  
  A_CALL_TO_CONSCIENCE gave you a link to a awesome freeman, Marc Stevens.
  
  A_CALL_TO_CONSCIENCE understands.
  
  I don’t want to enter into a contract for “protection”. The Constitution Protects me. Specifically, My right to bear arms and my right to a fair trial.
  
  A Citizen is a title that is of no importance to me. It was created by another to label me.
  
  I claim no such title. I do not consent to being addressed as someone who “belongs” to others.
  
  I was born on American Soil. I have as much of a right to be here as ANY OTHER MAN DOES !!!!
  
  I don’t have to pledge or swear anything to anybody to secure that right !!!!!
  
  A_CALL_TO_CONSCIENCE also understands that a police officer has NO OBLIGATION to protect the individual. Therefore they (The public servant / trustee ) have breached the trust rendering their authority as defacto.
  
  Here is my favorite Freeman, Dean Clifford, talking about the trust:
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7m6dMYni0zQ
  
  Report this comment
- PATTY HENRY
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 3:59pm
  OH GOOD GRIEF!!! It’s finally occurred to me: We have little babies on one hand who never want any pain in their lives vs. more babies who want no rules and total chaos. (Liberals vs. Libertarians)
  
  Neither group seems to have ANY respect for the U.S. CONSTITUTION, any connection to the thousands of Americans who have gone before them, keeping this FREEDOM alive for them.
  
  Neither group either knows or understands that IN ALL THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD, only 5% of
  people who have EVER lived on earth have lived in FREEDOM !!! (digest that for a moment) All the rest have lived under dictators, kings, czars, Imams, Military tyrants (and other tyrants). WE have lived in FREEDOM for over 200 years … We’ve peacefully transferred leadership 43+ times…we have created the greatest wealth on earth…but we failed because of GREED and Infiltration of Marxism, Communism, Socialism and we have not protected our VOTING PROCESS, (it is corrupted, regardless of what they lying liberals try to say…like the woman who voted 6 times in …OHIO… DUH)
  These little babies are ruining the best thing that has ever been on earth. It truly is time for the ADULTS to take the reins. The Unions, most of the Teachers (who are disgustingly anti-American), the Entitled Freaks, the lazy, the corrupt …all of you need to WAKE UP, GROW UP, WISE UP. Babies vs. Babies and both killing real babies. SICKENING.
  
  Report this comment
- mensa141
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 4:02pm
  Being libertarian is fine as long as one is also responsible for oneself while they are doing whatever they want to to themselves. Coulter was right in stating that libertarians aren’t really libertarians in a welfare society. They are acting more like what she described them.
  
  Report this comment
- scarydave
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 4:21pm
  She is right on target!
  
  Report this comment
- scarydave
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 4:26pm
  CIVILWARCOMETH
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:30am
  ———————————————————-
  After that ridiculous rant I think maybe YOU shouldn’t be allowed to own a firearm!
  
  Report this comment
- monitor
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 4:53pm
  sure wish most men had here cahoonies.
  
  Report this comment
- monitor
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 4:57pm
  Libertarians strike this well-informed conservative as liberals who want to hide under the guise of conservatism. They want conditional conservatism. I view them as “moderates.” “Moderate” is but an extension of the dimocrat party.
  
  Report this comment
- FOREIGNANDDOMESTIC
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 4:58pm
  Why are libertarians and liberals two sides of the same coin? Simple. Both ideologies reject God-given government, God-given commandments, and God-given freedoms. Yeah, you heard me right, on that last part. God’s freedom was never meant to be “whatever your heart desires as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else” (an oxymoron). First, because man’s heart is evil, and its desires will always produce evil. Not surprisingly, God calls the libertarian definition of “freedom” sin. When a man (woman) follows his heart’s desires, SOMEONE is harmed. Usually, it’s the people who are closest to your egocentric self. That’s why we must be born again. Second, because once you are born again, your new heart will desire to please Jesus. That is God’s definition of freedom: doing his will on earth as it is in heaven. It also happens to be the only freedom that produces good fruit.
  
  My guess is that most libertarians will not willingly bend their knee and confess Jesus is Lord. Basically, they want to be their own gods. But we all know where lower-case gods end up. Take the Spirit (of God) out of the Constitution HE gifted God-fearing men with the wisdom to write, and you get Libertarianism.
  
  The Founding Fathers in their own words:
  
  “For my part, I sincerely esteem it a system which, without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests.” (Alexander Hamilton) (CONT.)
  
  Report this comment
- FOREIGNANDDOMESTIC
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 5:00pm
  (CONT.)
  “I can never trace the … causes which led to these events without … admiring the goodness of Providence. To that superintending Power alone is our retraction from the brink of ruin to be attributed. A spirit of accommodation was happily infused into the leading characters of the continent, and the minds of men were gradually prepared … for the reception of a good government.” (George Washington)
  
  “I have so much faith in the general government of the world by Providence that I can hardly conceive a transaction of such momentous importance to the welfare of millions now existing, and to exist in the posterity of a great. nation, should be suffered to pass without being in some degree influenced, guided, and governed by that omnipotent, omnipresent, and beneficent Ruler in whom all inferior spirits live and move and have their being.” (Benjamin Franklin)
  
  Enough said.
  
  Report this comment
- henryKnox
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 5:17pm
  Why do libertarians believe that only the gov’t can justify their relationships?
  
  Report this comment
- bertr
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 5:32pm
  @FOREIGNANDDOMESTIC
  
  The problem with that(enforcing the laws of heaven here on earth) is if you follow that out to its natural end you are imprisoning people for profanity and dishonoring the Sabbath(or beating them) and while that might suit some, couldn’t God have just forced us to follow him rather then given us the choice in this life on rather or not to obey his commandments.
  There will be consequences for following the commandments or not, is it the purpose of this country to punish those who do not follow one faith and rob them of their freedom?
  Government exist to ensure we don’t infringe on the freedoms of others.
  With the argument you present there can be no freedom of religion, no freedom of speech.
  Thanks to progress drug policies that have made drugs illegal we may no longer have cocaine on the streets of America, but we do pay a heavy price for that
  
  We tcan either ake the constitution for what it says or what one sects religion thinks it should mean
  
  Report this comment
- VanceUppercut
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 6:08pm
  Just Tranny Annie spouting things off for shock value to generate more publicity to sell her crappy books. Nothing new here.
  
  Report this comment
- mbcooke7
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 7:01pm
  @ CIVILWARCOMETH:
  
  You really need to look at your phrasing. Conservatives have not become the progressive right…REPUBLICANS in general have become the progressive right. There are (unfortunately) very few Republicans whom you can call Conservative.
  
  Most of them are simply RINOs.
  
  Report this comment
- civilwarcometh
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 7:22pm
  SCARYDAVE; So you think men can take away another mans right?? You don’t think conservatives want to keep S.S and their government healthcare? Please explain how a man can take away a God given right….
  
  Report this comment
- Ballot_Box_Revolution
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 7:46pm
  all the libertarians made the points i wanted to make…….EXCEPT……her neck is so dang long!!
  
  Report this comment
- Cemoto78
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 7:59pm
  You can always expect Ann Coulter to bring up very valid points. I especially liked her response to the guy asking how it’s anyone’s business what he puts in his body. Her response was spot on, due to all the government intervention of healthcare, unemployment insurance, etc. it’s hard to argue against her point.
  
  Report this comment
- sonnylivori
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 8:00pm
  Ann call us *******?? haha that is funny coming from a party that caves every time Obama says sit.
  Never won 1 issue going back to the first term of Bush.WOW Ann, check your self.
  
  Report this comment
- Dudemau
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 8:57pm
  libertarians aren’t asking the government to llegalize gay marriage. the libertarian position has ALWAYS been its not the governments right to have anything to do with marriage. straight, gay or whatever. My gosh man, who dresses you in the morning?
  
  Report this comment
- RIDEMODELS
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 9:52pm
  To all women….This is a real woman…..and I hoe you all take note..!!
  
  And to all little boys….Stop playing video games and join the NRA like real men..The End.!!!
  
  Report this comment
- RepubliCorp
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:15pm
  libertarians ( Paulbots) are nothing more than thrifty liberals……
  
  Report this comment
- vendingdude
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:46pm
  Raydoc – Social conservatism needs to be lived. Fiscal conservatism– small government– needs to be advocated… along the way you will recruit Libertarians and Independents.
  
  Smartest thing I’ve read today. If it could be condensed, it would be bumper sticker worthy.
  
  Report this comment
- NogodNojesus
  Posted on February 23, 2013 at 2:15am
  And if you look close you can just see her adam’s apple.
  
  Report this comment
- Obama_In_PeePee_By_Zee_Artist_Beck
  Posted on February 23, 2013 at 3:10am
  “Ann Coulter Battles John Stossel & a Room Full of Libertarians: This Is Why People Think You’re ‘Pussìes!’ ”
  
  Hey, TheBlaze. I think you got your keyboard stuck on the Shift-8 keys a couple of times on this page. Better look into that. People might begin to think you’re a bunch of pussìes. (I fixed it for you … no need to thank me, just doing a Patriot’s work.)
  
  Report this comment
- GETLIFE
  Posted on February 23, 2013 at 6:03am
  Yeah, so it’s true that libertarians should sidestep the marijuana/ gay marriage image by which some are trying to define them. Stick to the important issues! Well now, isn’t that what Romney did?
  
  Uninformed voters just happen to go in for all of the emotional-yet-economically-unimportant issues, and we do not have the luxury of just ignoring that fact. Perhaps instead of ridicule– which was the tool she was using here– just like a liberal, I might add– she might be smart enough to illustrate how emotional/ humanist values can be connected to the infinitely more important economic issues facing us.
  
  And yes, she should keep up the “don’t I have beautiful hair?” thing. In a weird way it kind of offsets all of the bad calls she has made recently.
  
  Report this comment
- Smoovious
  Posted on February 23, 2013 at 7:30am
  I agree with a lot of what Coulter usually has to say…
  I disagree with a lot of what Coulter usually has to say…
  
  The people I end up having respect for, are those that I can say both of those things at the same time about. I’m usually getting what they really think, then…
  
  I disagree about her take on marijuana legalization and gay marriage as just sucking up to the Liberals…
  
  There are a lot of things the Libertarians and Conservatives agree, and there are a lot the Libertarians and Liberals agree, even tho the reasons why we agree, and our approaches to the ends, differ.
  
  One thing that Coulter is dead-on right however. The Libertarians are too tied to the pot legalization and gay marriage issues, which is partly our fault, and bigger-partly, the media’s fault, and biggest-partly, our fault again for not doing more to counter the media pidgeon-holing us that way.
  
  There are MUCH bigger issues at stake than pot and gay marriage. Focusing on the relatively small stuff doesn’t help us. When we can take on those bigger issues head-on, and keep hammering on them, so much so that attempts to keep labelling us as the pot/gay party sound hollow, then we’re doing something right.
  
  Once we can accomplish those bigger issues, those smaller issues like pot and gay marriage, will take care of themselves, as just being a small part of the big stuff.
  
  – Smoov
  
  Report this comment
- Scoutmapper
  Posted on February 23, 2013 at 9:06am
  I just love her!
  
  Report this comment
- A_CALL_TO_CONSCIENCE
  Posted on February 23, 2013 at 4:12pm
  @FOREIGNANDDOMESTIC
  
  It’s interesting you bring up the founding fathers considering most would be called Libertarian.
  
  I am a Christian and I strongly believe in “you should be allowed to do anything (legally speaking) as long as it does not violate someone else’s rights.” You’re confusing moral issues with legal ones. I in no way think we should do whatever we want in the MORAL aspect. However, we cannot legalize morality just for the sake of morality; otherwise cussing would be illegal, premarital sex, etc, etc.
  
  The whole basis of our free society (or any free society) is to protect and maintain individual rights. That would be built upon a moral foundation which the people and the church would be responsible for. It is not the job of the law or government to police morality.
  
  Report this comment
- Crazyotto
  Posted on February 23, 2013 at 4:47pm
  Coulter cannot be trusted. She is a shill for the establishment. Her long love affair with the most despicable RHINO and traitor Chris Christie is all I need to dismiss 90% of what she says as nothing more than ravings of a well paid phony gadfly. She cannot walk back the fact that Christie is a progressive pig who sold out the country to Obama for a cheap photo -op and the hope he might get a shot at 2016. She only pretends to be a “conservative” when she needs to sell another poorly written and researched book. For all her rantings about gay marriage you might want to ask why she has never married. Perhaps like Laura Ingram, she hasn’t found the right woman.
  
  Report this comment
- jettson
  Posted on February 23, 2013 at 7:30pm
  I love this woman. Yes shes right. Theres a reson they call us the RIGHT. Why people run with the clown in the white house I’ll never get it. How stupid is that. demorats suck
  
  Report this comment
- scarydave
  Posted on February 24, 2013 at 12:06am
  UNALIEN
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:08am
  Conservatism is pragmatic libertarianism, strict libertarianism is ideological
  ———————————————————————————————————–
  It’s refreshing to read something intelligent. Congrats!
  
  Report this comment
- S G Applebee
  Posted on February 24, 2013 at 2:41am
  The only “*****” I see is Coulter herself. It’s the REPUBLICAN PARTY who is CONSTANTLY dropping to their knees for the Democrats, not Libertarians.
  
  Report this comment
- milez5
  Posted on February 24, 2013 at 3:11am
  She is right, of course. Here we have a near 17 trillion dollar debt, probably closer to 20 trillion if you count “off the books spending.” An immigration invasion, and near total societal decay. But we have a congress that will likely only give us draconian gun control laws and amnesty over the next two years, and we sit around talking about gay marriage and pot legalization. What the hell is wrong with us?
  
  Report this comment
- FOREIGNANDDOMESTIC
  Posted on February 24, 2013 at 3:44am
  @A_CALL_TO_CONSCIENCE
  You and BURTR missed my point. I am not advocating a theocracy; I am saying that when God-given morality goes out the window, it is utterly stupid to say that “no one will be harmed.” In fact, without morality, harmful practices become legalized or cannot be properly contained, so EVERYONE suffers. But it is humankind’s trend, as the Bible shows even as early as Genesis (6:5), and it must be curbed for civilization to prosper.
  
  Our nation’s social contract was founded on God-given principles, because the Founders recognized the importance of morality. Libertarians don’t because they have the same DISTORTED interpretation of the so-called “separation of church and state” that liberals do.
  
  Report this comment
- TonyRUS
  Posted on February 24, 2013 at 10:35am
  and thank God for her and others like her!
  
  Report this comment
- stage9
  Posted on February 24, 2013 at 10:56am
  Libertarians are nothing more than anarchists with a fancy name.
  
  Keep your eye on Colorado and the pot laws there; you’re about to see the bankruptcy of the libertarian position exposed for all to see!
  
  Libertarianism is a joke!
  
  Report this comment
- wethepublicans
  Posted on February 24, 2013 at 11:36am
  She is SOO right. She is libertarian with a much more causal understanding. The web of socialism cannot be swabbed out in one swoop. It must be disassembled piece by piece in a certain order.
  
  Why does the left attack Anne so much? Because she is so dangerous to their agenda.
  
  Report this comment
- A_CALL_TO_CONSCIENCE
  Posted on February 24, 2013 at 12:01pm
  @FOREIGNANDDOMESTIC
  
  I agree with that. I never advocated for throwing morality out the window. Something can be “harmful” morally speaking but not legally speaking. If you want certain things to be illegal JUST because they are harmful morally then I do not agree.
  
  Yes, it was founded on Christian principles which I agree with. The problem is not any distorted view, because I know exactly what “separation of church and state” means. It has to do with the role of law and the legal system and that is not to police morals. The purpose of the legal system is to protect and maintain individual rights; to make people whole (not give them more or less) who have suffered damages; to punish those who have violated others rights. Morality is the job of the people and the Church.
  
  Report this comment
- Bruce P.
  Posted on February 24, 2013 at 12:51pm
  GRIMJACK — that is a gross mischaracterization of the libertarian position, bordering on either willful ignorance or a purposeful lie. The libertarian position is not that gay marriage should be legalized because only the government can sanction marriage, but that the government should have no place, AT ALL, sanctioning any marriage. It is not the government’s role nor their business what two consenting adults do.
  
  Report this comment
- Ballot_Box_Revolution
  Posted on February 24, 2013 at 1:56pm
  Libertarian haters are kinda funny…..
  
  it boils down to……”I don’t mind chains and shackles as long as they fit my standard of comfort!!” (No matter which side of the isle they are on.)
  
  Report this comment
- FOREIGNANDDOMESTIC
  Posted on February 25, 2013 at 5:27pm
  A_CALL_TO_CONSCIENCE
  You are splitting hairs. Laws are moral in nature because they regulates social conduct (Rom. 13:1-4), and all conduct is in essence good or evil. Every society/culture establishes a rule of law depending on its assimilation of the God of Nature´s Commandments/Principles. If a given people are close to God, their rule of law will attempt to mirror his Code of Conduct (that used to be America). The closer and longer it walks with God, the more civilized and prosperous a culture becomes. Leftists and libertarians deny that FACT, because they shun God’s involvement in social behavior.
  
  Secularists appeal to “human rights,” which are merely a poor copy of God-given inalienable rights. God-given doesn’t mean you get the blessings and then forget the Giver. It doesn’t work that way with God, but you already know that. God-given is our daily bread at all levels, including govt. Our leaders — who used to rise from among us — would truly pray before they led. Thus, we were all like-minded, as God intended. (cont.)
  
  Report this comment
- FOREIGNANDDOMESTIC
  Posted on February 25, 2013 at 6:06pm
  @A CALL (cont.)
  However, no nation is born in a moral vacuum. Before it can even be birthed, there has to be a homogeneous group of people who want to abide by a social contract (in our case, the COTUS). If their foundation is man, they will get big government at best, or tyranny at worst. If their foundation is God and his Word, they will get freedom, which is always contingent upon top-down obedience.
  
  Go to the real genesis of the legal system. It is NOT the Constitution, as you libertarians claim. Don’t fall prey to the subtle byways of deception. Both liberals and libertarians hate origins, because when you delve that deep, you can’t elude God.
  
  Correction: “…they regulate social conduct.” I hate it when I change a word and forget to edit the rest of the sentence. :)
  
  Report this comment
- yuengling
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 5:07am
  Ann coulter is a relic from the old republican guard. Following her advice in the future will result in the ultimate destruction of the conservative movement and the republican party. Continuing the policies that lead to the U.S. fighting in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya will further deprive our own country of our wealth, not to mention the poor guys who lose their lives for nothing. What did the U.S. gain by invading Vietnam or Korea? its been decades since both of these wars, and it would still be difficult to justify either of them in retrospect. We need to concern ourselves with our own borders and our own protection. There’s dozens of horrible dictators on this planet and our nation should not make its overriding goal to right every wrong, while in the process sacrificing our sons, daughters, and wealth in this era of high unemployment.
  
  Report this comment
- yuengling
  Posted on February 26, 2013 at 5:13am
  Does anyone find it strange that we are listening to a single woman (ann coulter) and a man who has been married four times (rush limbaugh) on marriage? I personally support equal marriage rights but find it strange that these two would be the ones arguing against equal marriage. To clarify, Mr. Limbaugh has been divorced several times and has no children so why do you concern yourself with your gay neighbor, cousin, son, or daughter? Would you rather your child be happy or have them get married four times?
  
  Report this comment
sooner12
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:06am
I am a Libertarian and agree with Miss Coulter.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- TDrury
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:19am
  Maybe Libertarian has been redefined. If you believe that the government has the right to put you in jail for using drugs, you cannot be a Libertarian. That is like saying that you are a Communist who is for free market economics. You may be a member of the party, but you do not understand the Libertarian principles of true freedom. I respect Ms. Coulter’s opinion, but it is not a Libertarian one.
  
  Report this comment
- JohnofOregon
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:28am
  @sooner,
  
  Good observation. As a libertarian republican, libertarians in this area have the ability; even though a minority to shape the debate but they threw it away. Moderate republicans are frustrated by libertarian thought but democrats are terrified. So democrats always have the left hand convince libertarians to concentrate on pot and gays while they increase a totalitarian government.
  
  Never do what you can get your enemies to do for you
  
  @meteors will now come on and blather on with liberal talking points
  
  Report this comment
- Longslide
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:34am
  I guess there are all manner or LIbertarians, as there are all manner of conservatives,…can’t say as I agree with Ms Coulter, but part of being libertarian is allowing others to have their own views.
  
  Report this comment
- tmbell87
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:36am
  @TDRURY,
  That’s not entirely true. Many people can sympathize with a certain philosophy or political party but are not always in lock-step with other party members or the party platform. Drug legalization does not epitomize the libertarian party, just as the love of social programs and military adventurism does not necessarily epitomize the republican party. Sure, it is prevalent on both sides respectively, but to say that someone is no longer a libertarian because of a single issue seems a bit narrow minded.
  
  Report this comment
- StatenJM
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:42am
  Me too. I felt like this crowd was disrespectful in a mob-like way. Maybe I just live in a different social paradigm but having a crowd clap for every question asked is more of an intimidation tactic than it is for a support of the question that was asked. Am I wrong, is this the “new” way people support someone’s position?
  
  Report this comment
- crazyrightwingmom
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:06am
  Tmbll: So true. We can’t shut our eyes to some facts, or at least examine them:
  
  Does the legality of marriage help to keep a society stable, help to maintain strong families which are the best incubators for rearing healthy adults, able to take care of themselves?
  
  I think anyone should be able to put whatever they want in their own bodies, but is it a slippery slope to a slothful society as well as being extremely harmful to our bodies as Michael Savage purports??
  
  Report this comment
- WakingSheep
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:06am
  @StatenJM
  
  Did you ever watch the Republican convention last year?
  
  Talk about mob rule….
  
  Couldn’t even call out the floor rules do to the Repubs there wanting to ignore the rules.
  
  Report this comment
- Priscilla King
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:07am
  With the idea that legalizing drugs and same-sex marriage are stupid, or with the idea that shrieking obscenities on TV is less so?! Personally I think the drugs and same-sex-marriage issues are both smokescreens, but it’s hard to respect an alleged woman who can only speak in “‘Army Language” and has never even been in the Army.
  
  Report this comment
- justangry
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:11am
  There is NO authorization for the federal government to be involved in policing vice in the Constitution. If you don’t believe in the LIMITED powers of the federal government 10th amendment, you’re hardly even conservative let a lone Libertarian. Especially when you use FORCE to get your way. Ann’s a progressive. Ann’s fans are progressives. She gets her views of collectivism from religious altruism like most conservative theocrats. Most Libertarians wouldn’t give her the time of day especially objectivists that see her entire philosophy based on mysticism. I care not what the skanky little Olive Oil thinks of Libertarians’ toughness.
  
  Report this comment
- Trance
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:42am
  The hallmark of a libertarian is the belief that the primary function of government is to protect individual liberties. The hallmark of a progressives is the belief that government should engage in social engineering by making laws that force individuals live the way the ruling elite want them to.
  
  Ann’s argument that the government should take away individual liberties because we are a socialist country is a very weak argument. It is also a progressive idea. The idea that government should only recognize a social contract between members of the opposite sex is also a progressive idea.
  
  If you argue for the government to enforce more control over individual lives, you are the problem with this country. It doesn’t matter whether you’ve somehow rationalized that your ideology is the proper one that government should be taking away people’s liberties to progress. Stop being a slave to the government by begging them to exert it’s control over others. Join those who want to live their lives as they wish and want to allow others to live their lives as they wish. Let freedom ring!
  
  Report this comment
- Zipit
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:47am
  @ANGRY! “I care not what the skanky little Olive Oil thinks of Libertarians’ toughness.”. Funny thing is Angry, that’s kinda the same way we feel about the majority of your posts!!!! That is, when I actually put myself through the annoyance of reading one of them!
  
  Report this comment
- justangry
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:59am
  Zipit, I know you don’t care about the 10th amendment like all the other progressives.
  
  Report this comment
- pragmaticpatriot
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 12:24pm
  To paint each Libertarian with the same brush is a progressive act, most of us here have the same disquiet and outrage over what has happened to us and do we really need AC and the other progressives to tell us who and what we are? Yes, i called her a progressive- ANYONE who drools over the likes of Cristy and Romney are either the left side of right or establishment republicans. Romney would make a great president, but he is on the left side of the right. Cristy is an utter RINO, he and the Hildabeast will probably team up in 2016
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 12:56pm
  @Trance
  
  Well said!
  
  Report this comment
- Nuncle
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 1:39pm
  As a libertarian you took an oath not to use force to achieve political ends, true?
  
  But you support forcing people who take drugs into jail (can you say public health issue)? You support forcing your morality on others? These were Ann’s position in the debate.
  
  I am guessing you either did not sign the pledge (and are not a Libertarian) or you are decieving yourself. Just supporting Rand for 2016 does not make you a Libertarian so I must ask, what makes you a Libertarian?
  
  Report this comment
- WakingSheep
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 1:44pm
  BRAVO Trance!
  
  Report this comment
- qualityrkc
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 5:25pm
  Sooner stop lying. Fact of the matter is you can’t be a libertarian and agree with what Ann Coulter is saying! It is intellectually impossible and I think you know that!
  
  Report this comment
- Zipit
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 5:45pm
  Sure ANGRY! If it makes ya feel better about yourself! Whatever!
  
  Report this comment
- RIDEMODELS
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:05pm
  I was a libertarian until I sobered up and realized porn would destroy a woman’s future with an honest marriage…….Its all porn and how women get suckered into it because some guy told them they would make a lot of money, then they resort to self medication with marijuana or alcohol to try and justify their life now.
  
  To any women out there, this is a real woman and this is what you should be preaching on a regular basis……I only wish more men would have the grapefruits that Miss Coulter is carrying……and I bet she is packing heat too and an NRA membership……You weak people need to realize what a real woman is and how she can stand up to a Government full of Evil doers.
  
  Your college professor will never mention Miss Coulter either. You got a nation of people telling you what to do and this woman is telling you to stand up for yourself..!!
  
  I can see SNL and PBS sinking into the Abyss from my house….haha
  
  Go get em Ann…!!!!!…..A nation of NRA members cannot be wrong.!!
  
  Report this comment
- justangry
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:36pm
  @RIDEMODELS, You’re on to us. We get our hos hot and bothered by quoting Hakek…. Now where’s that donkey and someone has to fluff the midgets. OMFG that was the dumbest statement I’ve heard on the Blaze.
  
  Report this comment
liltexasgal
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:05am
Way to represent women Ann. Thanks a bunch!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- WakingSheep
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:08am
  she’s a bitc*
  
  Report this comment
- KickinBack
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 2:39pm
  Way to keep it classy Sheep. And you wonder why nobody likes or listens to you and your angry little buddies.
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 3:45pm
  any constitutional conservative wouldnt touch ann with a 10-foot pole. She wanted mccain. then she desperately wanted chris christie before telling everyone that Romney was ok too (before the primary was halfway over). she is a joke. period
  
  Report this comment
- WakingSheep
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 4:13pm
  @KickinBack
  
  F u
  
  and post to one of my other actual arguments.
  
  Report this comment
- WakingSheep
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 4:17pm
  actually don’t post.
  
  fu was enough…
  
  Report this comment
- stage9
  Posted on February 24, 2013 at 11:08am
  LIBERTARIANS are a joke!
  
  They sided with OCCUPY WALL STREET and their lunatic fringe. That should be enough to clue you into what these idiots stand for!
  
  Libertarians are nothing more than glorified anarchists living in a fantasy world. They are so delusional to believe that if you just “leave everyone alone” that they will live in utopian peace. Libertarians are too stupid to understand the nature of man and his propensity for evil. This is libertarianism’s first fatal flaw.
  
  Keep an eye on Colorado. You’re about to see a death blow levied against the idiocy of the libertarian argument as that state deteriorates into drug induced chaos.
  
  Bunch of low life idiots. I don’t know which is worse, the marxist liberal of the anarchist libertarian!
  
  Report this comment
SREGN
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:05am
It really ****** them off that she’s right all the time, and that she doesn’t feel guilty about it.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Longslide
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:37am
  Yes, I feel myself seething with anger at how “right” Ms Coulter is,….can’t you feel my barely restrained rage? Oh wait, that’s apathy because her opinion means nothing. Sorry, I get those two mixed up.
  
  Report this comment
- SREGN
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:30am
  Longslide – Glad to see you were apathetic enough to respond.
  
  Report this comment
- WakingSheep
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:44am
  Only Obama is right all the time.
  
  Go fish Ann.
  
  Report this comment
- GoodStuff
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 12:19pm
  Looks like the Alex Jones kooks have arrived.
  
  Mmmmmm fetus burgers……
  
  Report this comment
- WakingSheep
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 12:52pm
  @GoodStuff
  
  They aren’t taking your guns or destroying your currency…. go back to sleep….
  
  Report this comment
SimpleTruths
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:05am
The Democrats couldn’t have planned a better divide-and-conquer strategy than the it happening right now between so called Conservative and Libertarians. 2014 and 2016 is going to be a cake walk for the Dems.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- SquidVetOhio
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:10am
  Just stop it. Libertarians and Conservatives have never gotten along. I guarantee you 80 – 90 % of those kids in that audience voted Obama (including Stossel). Like I’ve said, Libertarians are nothing more than liberals that hate paying taxes.
  
  Report this comment
- YOURSENSEI
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:19am
  This is what you must know:
  
  Conservatives are so wishy washy. Always ready to abandon what they said yesterday, who they “believed” last week . . .all depending on who said what today. Doesn’t matter who said it, Ann Coulter, Charles Krauthammer, that idiot O’Reilly – you’re all ready to point fingers and then jump on the latest band wagon.
  
  I’d rather live “If it feels good, do it” than “If it sounds good, believe it.”
  
  Grow a spine, people.
  
  It is so.
  
  Report this comment
- tmbell87
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:30am
  @Squid,
  You stop it. If you knew anything about anything you would know that John Stossel voted for Gary Johnson, not Obama. He announced it many times on his program. Fix yourself, shipmate.
  
  Report this comment
- SLAPTHELEFT
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:31am
  Sensei
  
  What are you rambling about? Your opinion matters not.
  
  Report this comment
- UNALIEN
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:36am
  Yoursensei
  
  保守主義を定義する
  
  自由主義はファシズムである
  
  それはそうです
  
  Report this comment
- SquidVetOhio
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:37am
  @YOURSENSEI
  ^^ this freaking guy ^^
  
  The fact that you believe O’Reilly is a conservative just illustrated how galactically ignorant you are. Ann Coulter is more of man than you’ll ever be.
  
  Report this comment
- phillips1990702
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:38am
  Stossel voted for Gary Johnson.
  
  Report this comment
- Longslide
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:40am
  I was going to reply, but Yoursensei stated it so well I can’t really follow that. NIcely done sir!
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:38am
  I am shocked that I find myself in agreement with Sensei. What a strange Friday this is turning out to be.
  
  And he/she is right, lots of ‘conservatives’ have no ideological underpinning. Y’all are running on two cylinders ideologically with one of them misfiring half the time. If you think libertarians are your enemy then you’re falling for the divide and conquer strategies of the establisment GOP and Dems. If you “believe” that we’re your enemies today, because of Coulter, where yesterday we were your friends, then you clearly are emotion driven and have no business on the heavy lifting end of politics.
  
  Report this comment
- CatB
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:39am
  “Stossel voted for Gary Johnson”
  
  NO STOSSEL VOTED FOR OBAMA AND TYRANNY until some of you understand that there will be NO liberty.
  
  Report this comment
- WakingSheep
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:59am
  CATB
  
  No he voted Gary Johnson as did I.
  The only one actually talking about the real issues…. like the Federal Reserve.
  
  Report this comment
- cemerius
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 12:55pm
  ANY vote NOT cast for Mitt Romeny or a non vote for that matter was a vote for Obama!! The demon in the white house ONLY won by 3 million votes!! How many votes did Gary Johnson receive? I am a Conservative which does NOT mean I am a Republican! I could agree with that Libertarian Ron Paul on some of his issues but he projected himself as the “crazy uncle” and his Libertarian supporters were frothing at the mouth at ANYONE that disagreed with Dr Pauls many ramblings! It amazes me that the ONLY politician I can respect is Rand Paul and he isn’t even in my state……
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 1:06pm
  @Squid
  
  “Libertarians and Conservatives have never gotten along.”
  
  This is true, if by “Conservatives” you mean “social conservatives (or Republicans).” Social conservatism is directly at odds with libertarianism, because the social conservative asks “How can we use the government to enforce proper moral behavior” and the libertarian asks “How can we minimize the government’s control over people’s lives.”
  
  I don’t count myself a libertarian, but I do identify as a fiscal conservative (though I’m social conservative in my own life). As a result I find myself siding with libertarians more often than social conservatives because:
  1. Libertarians don’t change their tune every election cycle like the average GOP “conservative” does.
  2. Libertarians (and true fiscal conservatives) back up their words. We don’t say “small government!” and then try to increase the military or continue the war on drugs.
  3. While I’m socially conservative in my own life, and I don’t agree with @Yoursensei’s “If it feels good, do it,” philosophy, my own philosophy is “If it hurts no one else, do it… but you bear the consequences.” Social Conservatives want big government to legislate harsh consequences; I’m more of the mind that if something is truly bad for a person it will eventually catch up to them – why involve the government?
  4. I think adherence to the Constitution is the best route to prosperity and freedom. Social conservatives don’t.
  
  Report this comment
- Mil-Dot
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 1:34pm
  Damn right they voted for Obama Squid. Most greasy little spoiled brat college punks voted for that commie pinko.
  
  Report this comment
- WakingSheep
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 1:46pm
  @cemerius
  
  Keep calling us ******* and telling us how to live our lives.
  
  Only one ideal will win over socialism – Liberty
  
  Report this comment
- WakingSheep
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 1:57pm
  BTW,
  
  Liberty isn’t what the Republicans were selling with Romney as their candidate.
  
  Remember when he signed that assault rifle ban in MA…. good times…
  
  Report this comment
- DLV
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 2:24pm
  Squid- That is insanely stupid. I’m a conservative libertarian and conservatives and libertarians have plenty of things in common. I generally agree with your posts, but this is just stupid. The things we namely have in common are fiscal issues. small government maximum liberty. I always thought conservatives were not for legislating morality, but it seems like many conservatives here are. God doesn’t force anyone to do anything. He let’s us sin but there are consequences to it. Legislating morality never works. Just look at prohibition, the war on drugs is a massive fail etc. I can imagine you’d be in favor of making cigarrettes illegal? Soda is bad for you too if you drink too much of it are you in favor of nanny bloomberg’s ban? Come on now, you are smarter than that. Libertarians and conservatives agree on a lot and where they disagree is mainly social issues. Even so, many libertarians like Ron Paul are socially conservative as well. Come on now, you’re smarter than this.
  
  Report this comment
- DLV
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 2:34pm
  Locked- Very well, said. I feel like you and I are Conservative Libertarians. I still have yet to here from “conservatives” like CatB and Squid why they hate people like Ron Paul so much and other libertarians. Sure, I agree with some of their policies like Paul’s foreign policy but he is a strong advocate of the constitution! So when you disagree with his views on domestic policy or his views on the constitution, you disagree with the constitution and all the liberties that make this country so great. You would also disagree with our founders. CatB and Squid please explain this because I’m seriously confused.
  
  Report this comment
- BigSky
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 8:57pm
  @cemerius: That old argument is so 1992.
  
  Report this comment
- RepubliCorp
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:28pm
  SquidVetOhio You nail it……… tax hating libs to the core
  
  Report this comment
soap on a rope
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:04am
That’s some selective libertarianism on Coulter’s part. How about the overlap where it comes to fiscal conservatism? Libertarians don’t want a welfare state either.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Swimming-with-the-Sharks
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:24am
  Since Ann was not the moderater the “selective libertarian” element was on Stossel’s side. She just fielded the questions.
  
  There are certainly points where conservatives and libertarians agree with passion. But she wasn’t running this show Stossel was.
  
  IMO.
  
  Report this comment
liltexasgal
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:04am
Don’t we have any better representative to send than a potty mouthed, self-deprecating person?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- nocalifornia
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:25am
  She has more balls than any of the talking RINO heads and speaks her mind without consulting the PC police first!
  
  Report this comment
- tmbell87
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:40am
  @nocalifornia,
  That may be true but how does that bring people to your side by calling them pu****s and spineless dolts. The libertarian sect, while small, is an active and passionate voter block that can be a powerful ally in an election. Why is it good to ostracize them? What do you stand to gain?
  
  Report this comment
- rosegrower
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:46am
  Who would you suggest, Liltexasgal? Paul Ryan? John McCain? No, it doesn’t look like there is anyone willing to represent conservatism than Ann Coulter. As to her being “potty mouthed,” she just calls ‘em as she sees ‘em.
  
  Report this comment
- Displacedsoutherner
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:50am
  So you prefer Nancy Pelosi or Hilary as spokesmen for women? Coulter makes arguments that are backed by logic and facts, hard to find either on the Left.
  
  Libertarians imagine a utopia that will never exist and along the way torpedo Conservatives by siphoning off misguided voters in sufficient numbers to repeatedly get Libs elected. A friend who is a hard core Libertarian refuses to see the illogic in indirectly assisting Lib candidates with which he has virtually nothing in common vs supporting Conservative candidates with which he has 50 to 60% in common.
  
  The reality in contemporary politics is that a vote for a Libertarian candidate is a de facto vote for a Liberal candidate, a fact lost on the Libertarian die-hards whose blinders are firmly in place.
  
  Report this comment
getourcountryback
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:03am
Libertarians are willing to be bought for a joint to smoke while the lefty feminist entiltlement crowd sells out for birth control pills. The rest of the progressive left seems to think an Obama phone is a big enough insentive. Ann is right, they are all wimps.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- manandwolf
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:12am
  most libertarians are not drug users, many never have been they just dont want to take care of or be taken care of by force. all you want to do is force your opinions just like libs want to force theirs. the true crime against nature and the basis of all violent crime is force. live your life and leave mine alone.
  
  although to her point that shes paying for everyones welfare she should have a say, i couldnt agree with more, as long as we are all at the trough for something, we are ruled by the farmers that feed us. simple fix, to each to their own.
  
  Report this comment
- manandwolf
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:14am
  big talking troll, sounds to me like a veiled threat or a challenge. dont write checks you A@# cant cash
  
  Report this comment
- Longslide
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:55am
  The woman supports Chris gun-control-give-me-my-Sandy-handout-I-agree-with-Cuomo-most-of-the-time Christie and you accuse Libertarians of selling out?
  
  Report this comment
- dexterslab1976
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 12:30pm
  Ann bringing up the welfare state is just away from her to dodge the issue. There are people who want to do drugs who make more money than she does. There is no way you can say its ok for alcohol to be legal, but pot is evil. That just makes you dumb. It is very obvious a lot of you dont know what libertarians are or what they stand for. People like Ann are a neo-cons.. Ann is nowhere even close to a traditional conservative. Glenn is trying to jump on the libertarian side, but it is pretty obvious he is also a sell out
  
  Report this comment
- pragmaticpatriot
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 2:25pm
  It isn’t they WANT to do drugs, it they don’t want anyone telling them that they cant. I see both sides of this and choose to vote against tyranny, no matter who’s skin they wear. Shes an establishment talking face- easy on the eyes- but her drooling over Crispy creem causes me unease.
  
  Report this comment
- kage_a
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 4:32pm
  Wimps, right.
  
  Because they hold different social views than you, and are not willing to give them up, we are wimps.
  
  I hope you enjoy another Democrat administration in 2016.
  
  Report this comment
DRSAVAGE24
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:02am
I give credit to Anne Coulter. She basically told the truth, the problem is that her solution to big government is more big government to police the existing big government. That is her entire rationale for regulating what people put in their bodies. She is not far from the slippery slope of requiring us to work out 5 days a week and requiring us to eat brocoli. After all, she is paying for our health care as a taxpayer. She’s acknowledging government can and should regulate these things, now it’s just a matter of degree.

As far as libertarians being p*ssies, I don’t think so. I know from dealing with many libertarians that they are quite principled in their positions on drugs and gay marriage, even though I happen to agree with Coulter on gay marriage. I still respect the libertarians’ argument about gay marriage. At least they are consistent when it comes to individual liberty. This is what drives the Republican establishment nuts. It is very difficult to condemn a libertarian as a hypocrite (and thus dismiss their viewpoints) because they are so consistent, which makes them more credible, which terrifies the establishment.

Anyway, Ms. Coulter is 100 times better than people like Rush and Hannity. Whereas Hannity and Rush were silent and refused to acknowledge Rand Paul’s liberty response to Obama’s SOTU, Coulter spoke out in support of Rand, right on Hannity’s show no less.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- woodyee
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:06am
  “the problem is that her solution to big government is more big government to police the existing big government.”
  
  Please elaborate.
  
  Report this comment
- SquidVetOhio
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:13am
  Please stop equating heroin and crack to broccoli. Do you realize how insane that sounds? Of course, it probably makes sense to a druggie so, never mind.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:21am
  @Woodyee
  
  Social conservatives are the Pepsi to the Democrat’s Coke. For those groups, the problem isn’t spending: it’s spending on the “wrong things.” What those “wrong things” are depends entirely on what problems they believe the government should solve. For social liberals, it means money should be spent on welfare. For social conservatives, it means it should be spent on policing morality.
  
  For fiscal conservatives (and libertarians), the problem is spending in general – and the belief that the government makes more problems than it solves. It doesn’t necessarily matter what the specific programs are; it’s that we cannot afford all the spending we have, or the spending that EITHER side wants. What’s the point in wiping out foodstamps if we’re increasing our military spending by 2 trillion? Where is the fiscal logic in stopping the war on drugs if you take the money and give it out as welfare instead?
  
  Report this comment
- 00100111
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:49am
  Woodeye, he’s right. “Conservatives” are just as big govt as “Liberals” they’re just big govt on the other side of the aisle. Big govt is big govt, whether it is leftist or rightists. When a boot is crushing your throat, it makes little difference if it is a right boot or a left boot.
  
  Report this comment
- woodyee
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:51am
  I understand, Locked. Thank you! I wanted Dr.Savage to elaborate on his claim that Ann Coulter’s solution to big government is more big government, because I think he totally misread her; then again, he may know something I don’t, hence my question.
  
  Report this comment
- DLV
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 2:44pm
  squid- libertarians aren’t druggies they just think if people want to be able to do drugs they should be able to but that they should have to bear the responsibility of the consequences. Legislating morality NEVER WORKS. That’s why Jesus never forced people to listen to him or his ways. When people didn’t listen he said “shake the dust off your sandals and move on.” So when legislating morality doesn’t work what does? It’s called changing the culture. How popular was smoking back in the 60s? VERY! Now people still smoke but in far fewer numbers. Why? Because we are able to spread the word that smoking is very harmful and can kill you. So if people care an ounce about themselves it will stop and it worked. Same thing with slavery. Our founders would have been dumb to start another civil war over slavery after just barely winning the revolution. So what happens? You change people’s attitudes. You educate them on why it is wrong. Over time more people thought slavery was wrong and the culture of the nation changed. If there was not a civil war over slavery the chances are very high that it would have fizzled over time. So you can bet if slavery was still going on today, I would not be in favor of going down to the south and killing white slave owners unless of course they were committing genocide and then it would be self-defense. I’m ranting now but hte point is legislating morality doesn’t work. God doesn’t like it, neither should we. He wants people to repent on th
  
  Report this comment
- Chazael
  Posted on February 23, 2013 at 2:24am
  @DLV
  ” When people didn’t listen he said “shake the dust off your sandals and move on.” So when legislating morality doesn’t work what does? It’s called changing the culture”
  
  One, Jesus isn’t trying to change the world….yet. Now is a time of mercy where the wheat and tares grow together. We, as followers, are to not take personal vengeance, but instead forgive as we have been forgiven (Rom 12:19).
  When He returns its not just legislating morality as a King, but wiping out those who oppose Him.
  
  Two, governments are a minister of God for good who are given the sword to avenge evil (Rom 13:1-4). Jesus said Woe to those through whome stumbling blocks come (Matt 18:7). If your view is for government to protect and sanction evil behavior… woe to you.
  
  And that isn’t just a Christian perspective, its the only logical outcome without resorting to there is no morality, no good or evil. If a government sanctions freedom based upon the self, then that government is going to automatically be evil… as it is putting both good and evil on the same level.
  
  If you noticed the declaration only points to rights that come from a creator. Practices such as homosexuality (and with it gay marriage) cannot come from a creator as something has to go wrong with creation in order for it to exist. In a perfect world homosexuality couldn’t exist. One has to point to corruption for the existance of homosexuality. Why would a society uphold something a right which cannot be
  
  Report this comment
steveinva
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:01am
Agree with Ann. Until we can guarantee that people will be removed from the government teet, we cannot open the flood gates of individual freedoms. Individual rights without personal responsibility is causing the downfall of our country.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- tmbell87
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:53am
  I’m a libertarian and I agree with that. I support drug legalization but I don’t want to pay for the after effects and medical costs. That said, I don’t want to pay for morbidly obese people who have terrible diets, smokers who destroy their lungs, and alchoholics who ruin their livers (all of which cause more deaths and medical expenses alone than all illicit drugs combined). I also don’t want to pay for someone who didn’t plan their financial future properly through the use of unemployment, welfare, and social security.
  
  I would love to see the drug war end and social programs eliminated but we have to set the stage properly for that to happen. So although I’m in favor of drug legalization, it is not even close to my most important voting issue. There are bigger fish to fry at this moment in time than trying to fight for people’s access to narcotics.
  
  Report this comment
SimpleTruths
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:01am
She’s looking more and more like the Wraith from the old Stargate TV show.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Goldline_scam
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:06am
  What IS wrong with that skank?
  
  Report this comment
trolltrainer
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:01am
We all have varying beliefs on everything and more and more we are forced into neat pigeon-holes. We have labels placed on us: Conservative, Libertarian, Liberal, Neo-con…And more and more people are becoming hostile to those who disagree with them, even if it is on a very minor point. I will always feel this is a small reason why Ron Paul could never gain more traction than he did. It was his rude, unreasonable, foaming-at-the-mouth cult followers that led mainstream folks to the conclusion that Paul must be as nuts as his fan club.

Can someone hold some libertarian views and still be socially conservative? Or does that just nullify them as some kind of enemy of the state?

Libertarians that go to this extreme are no better than far left kooky liberals. They do not want a democracy or republic. They want it their way or no way at all. This is not an American ideal, it was what the Americans fought to get out from under in the first place. Yet these very idealists stand on the founding fathers and the Constitution to support their ideas? The ones who scream the loudest against tyranny are the tyrants!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- tmbell87
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:57am
  As a libertarian myself, I find it concerning that many libertarians will burn their fellows at the stake as soon as one of them, especially if they are a public figure, breaks ranks from otherwise accepted libertarian positions. But to answer your question, yes, you can be a libertarian and not agree on every party position, just as you can be a republican and not agree on every party position. The problem I have is that when you are a small, grass roots movement, you cannot afford to push away your allies over a single issue because there is simply not enough allies to go around. The repubs and dems can certainly afford it because they are well established and higher in number.
  
  In order for the libertarian party and the liberty movement to grow is going to require making certain concessions and not making a fight about every issue. These debates will come about in due time but there are simply more pressing matters to attend to. For instance, I don’t agree with the concept of Social Security at all, but redactiing it at this point would be devastating. I would suggest a tapering off of benefits, allowing a number of those to pull out of the system if they choose until we reach a point that it could be privatized and eliminated entirely. However, if I suggested something like that amongst many libertarians, it wouldn’t be seen as movement towards something better, but a betrayal to principles.
  
  Report this comment
- justangry
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 3:52pm
  Sure you can be a social conservative and a Libertarian. I am. You can’t, however, want the federal government to abandon the 10th amendment to make people share your values by force and be a Libertarian. That’s a progressive. I married my high school sweetheart. I think drugs are bad,. homosexuality is gross, abortion is murder, etc. too. Of course none of those issues are worse than what a progressive government turns into.
  
  Report this comment
DimmuBorgir
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:00am
She’s right

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
averageman
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:00am
I supported Ron Paul. NOT because of pot. I could care less about pot. But I DO care about the Constitution and the Too Big To Fails running our government and our Government Droning half the world while our borders are UNPROTECTED…. and Ann Coulter, while very fun to watch, has said some pretty DUMBA– things like the radioactivity from Fukishima is good for you! She has no credibility…but since the libs hate her, I guess shes ok with me!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- jeanr
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 2:59pm
  What a strange comment to make. I guess Libertarians technically are on the opposite end of the political spectrum as me, but at least they have an ideology that governs their political thought. Conservatives scream and yell about the government being too involved in our lives, but then they go and insist that government control big parts of our lives (esp socially). It makes no sense to me. Either you want to be free from regulation or you don’t.
  
  I have TONS of respect for Libertarians. In fact, I voted for Ron Paul in ’08, even though much of what he believes in may not be in my best interest personally. I just think our country needs to go into a different direction of some kind, and trading moderate Dems for moderate Republicans isn’t working.
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on February 23, 2013 at 7:55am
  opposite on the political spectrum??? i didnt now we had glenn beck supporters are communists
  
  Report this comment
perry1980
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 9:59am
Gotta love someone who is Not Affraid to stand up for Conservatism and say what she thinks no matter who she is speaking with.
Keep fighting the good fight Ann!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- kage_a
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 4:33pm
  But Libertarians are “*******” if they do the same thing for their views?
  
  Report this comment
MadeMyDay
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 9:59am
Go away Ann Romney,christy????????????????

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Joss
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 9:58am
Priorities have devolved into whatever pleasure the crowd is into next. Painful things can always be kicked down the road.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- woodyee
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:08am
  Nailed it. That was her point.
  
  Report this comment
gyro
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 9:57am
I liked the manly comment
I liked the moblike comment
I liked the your lovely tonight comment
I liked the mechanical device comment
Ann Coulter wins by points no KO

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- UNALIEN
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:13am
  I concur,, Coulter has an abrasive style, but she nailed this one,
  
  Libertarians are fundamentally correct,,, but we are in a socialist paradigm where 70% of the population is conditioned to some level of State dependency, you can’t go from where we are to where libertarians want to be without complete chaos. Individuals in this society is incapable of taking responsibility for themselves,,, Progressivism has created a nation dominated by intellectual and emotional juveniles,,, incapable of elf reliance and responsibility.. that utopian idealism parallels modern liberalism,,,, until a society is dominated by self reliant individualism then strict libertarianism is a fantasy
  
  Report this comment
- UNALIEN
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:17am
  elf reliance,, reliance on Keynesians like Krugman
  
  Report this comment
- WakingSheep
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:15am
  Too bad the path the Republicrats have given us will lead to nothing but chaos anyway….
  
  Report this comment
- UNALIEN
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 2:50pm
  WAKINGSHEEP
  
  The natural inertia of Governments is toward increasing socialism and Statism,. A parasite must grow an consume its host, the Republicans are operating within a socialist paradigm form which they cannot contextualize. They have lost their way as the path of least resistance to adopt Statism. I do fear that there is no escape form the parasite without killing the host. American exceptionalism died long ago,, bye bye Ms American pie drove my Prius to the seas but the Ocean was dry and good old libs were drinking a latte gettin high…… chanting this’ll be the day that I cry
  
  Report this comment
- gyro
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 3:20pm
  UNALIEN — Any chance I could get english and spelling lesons from you?
  
  Report this comment
WhatTheFrack
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 9:57am
Coulter, Beck, etc. The reason the commies are winning.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- CABERNETQHS
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:07am
  WTF
  Exactly what I’d expect from a Troll.
  The commies are winning because Beck and Coulter call them what they are? The truth hurts, go stick your head back in the sand.
  
  I LOVE ANN COULTER AND BECK AND ANYONE BOLD ENOUGH TO STAND UP AND FIGHT!
  
  Report this comment
- woodyee
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:07am
  Really? Let’s hear your position.
  
  Report this comment
- Miami
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:10am
  Straight from the beak…
  
  Is your duck talking to you and are you listening to him…?
  
  Report this comment
- RIGS
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:25am
  The reason the commies are winning is do th FRACK HEAD MORONS like you ‘IDIOT’
  
  Report this comment
- Dudemau
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 4:26pm
  seems that frack has upset some of the moron voters….poor babies.
  
  Report this comment
ColoradoMaverick
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 9:56am
Ann Coulter has more balls than most liberal men and I mean that in a good way. Our country has devolved into a bunch of self centered metro-sexual ******* that don’t care to work, don’t have any ambition in life and are not embarrassed about it at all. They don’t want to deal with the consequences of doing drugs, not working, having unprotected sex and not standing up for what is right. “Rules are for fools” is their motto. Bu then they expect others to take care of them. Very sad indeed. You go Ann!!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- chicago76
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:08am
  The welfare class is now the ruling class today. Communism is no longer of the working classes. Communism is of the welfare classes.
  
  Report this comment
Stu D. Baker-Hawk
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 9:56am
I can’t go 100-percent libertarian because some of their positions are just plain nuts, but I DO consider myself a conservative with STRONG libertarian leanings.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- DRSAVAGE24
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:03am
  What libertarian positions are nuts?
  
  Report this comment
- THX-1138
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:32am
  I myself have a problem with the Abortion thing. Life either begins at conception or, well, where? If it’s at conception then Abortion is nothing more than Homicide. If an unborn citizen doesn’t need protection then who does? Other than that…
  
  Report this comment
- Norm D. Plume
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 12:24pm
  @THX:
  
  I, too, have recently begun thinking about this abortion issue. Where I’m coming down on it is this: The Constitution guarantees the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The unborn child, left to develop naturally, *IS* a human life, and as such has rights. That is my *personal* view.
  
  Politically, it is no business of the Federal government to have any say at all, whatever, in the abortion issue. It is not mentioned in the Constitution, and should not be debated on the federal level. That is a matter, according to the Tenth Amendment, which belongs to the States, or the People, respectively.
  
  Looking at that perspective, is pragmatic. Abortion is *not* a settled issue in the states. Hate abortion? Support getting rid of Federal authority in that area. Devolve it to the states. The states, and the people therein, will eventually make the right decisions. It’s a lot more likely to happen that way, than if the elite keep it at the Federal level, so that women can continue to sacrifice their innocent, unborn children to Mammon in the biggest slaughter of innocents the world has ever known.
  
  Report this comment
- THX-1138
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 1:09pm
  @Norm D. Plume
  “Politically, it is no business of the Federal government to have any say at all, whatever, in the abortion issue. It is not mentioned in the Constitution, and should not be debated on the federal level. ”
  
  The DNA of the Child is different from the Mother. It is NOT part of her body; it is a seperate life form genetically speaking. There is no scientific basis on which to assert that it is part of the Mother once the egg is fertilized. Period.
  
  This is not Opinion; it is Fact.
  
  I have no idea how you could miss the main implication of my post. If Life begins at Conception then it is protected at that point by the Constitution. The Federal Government has a CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION to protect it. That is its Primary Legitimate function.
  
  Abortion is the Intentional Killing of a Human Being. The only rational argument for it is Self Defense (which, in rare cases is actually valid).
  
  If Murder is prohibited by the Constitution then so is Abortion. There is no other place to draw a line but Conception or when they cut the cord (which demonstrates the absurdity of the argument). Every other point between is utterly arbitrary.
  
  Report this comment
- Turin
  Posted on February 23, 2013 at 10:42am
  The ignorance regarding Libertarianism is astounding. The fundamental axiom of Libertarianism is the NAP – non-aggression principle. Individuals are free to live there lives as they see fit provided that they do not use force or the threat of force against another person or their property. The lack of ideological support for prescriptive government rules regulating behavior does not imply moral APPROVAL of behavior that is not outlawed. This is basic logic people.
  
  Murray Rothbard, Mr. Libertarian, believed in conservative, traditional family values, especially as an important underpinning of western civilization; however, he was not for the government’s use of force to try and make people moral. People only have the opportunity to be moral if they can exercise their free will. A person who is coerced into making a government approved choice is not making a moral choice, but rather avoiding the direction of aggressive force against his person.
  
  Typical of non-establishment views, the media misrepresents the Libertarian view. It’s amazing to me the number of people here who question almost everything the MSM reports; yet you people swallow the false Libertarian narrative hook, line, and sinker. Remember how the Tea Party was portrayed. how about 8/28? God gave you a brain. Try and use it every now and then people.
  
  Regarding the Libertarian view on abortion, here is ONE Libertarian view that I bet nobody has ever heard:
  http://libertarianpapers.org/articles
  
  Report this comment
woodyee
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 9:55am
Do conservatives need to comment? No. She spoke well. The only ones which will probably comment, are those whose feelings were hurt – nearly have of them metrosexuals, pseudo-fill-in-the-blank…

the rest represent the problem.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- booger71
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:04am
  Correcto-mundo
  
  Report this comment
hauschild
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 9:55am
Coulter rocks. A bit hard-edged, no doubt, but she’s really great at pointing out how lemming-like and stupid the majority of Americans have become.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- GuruMeditation
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 2:41pm
  STRONGLY agree.
  
  Report this comment
- OldSkoolDJ
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 2:47pm
  College students are lemming-like, but let’s give credit where credit is due. This audience of young libertarians were well-dressed and no one threw any pies at Ms. Coulter.
  
  That very much differs from her experiences at many of the “elite” schools where she has been booed off the stage. Yes, I know, it was a staged event for TV, and perhaps there was better screening, but it was a vigorous discussion between two very opinionated parties.
  
  Report this comment
IndyGuy
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 9:54am
Coulter for Prez…

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
cdn1979
Posted on February 22, 2013 at 9:53am
ann coulter is low class trash. she uses shock talk to make money. that is all. Libertarians know what’s going on. leave the people alone. let them do and think for themselves. conservatives and liberals are no different. they each want to impose their own will on the entire population. government should mind their own business.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- UNALIEN
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:00am
  define conservatism???
  
  Report this comment
- ColoradoMaverick
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:06am
  CDN1979. You know, I went to high school with a guy who was a libertarian. He had no use for government or rules or anything like that. He abused his body for many years smoking pot every day and abusing alcohol as well. He fathered children and doesn’t bother to support them. He inherited a very nice home from his grandmother and pissed away the money and lost the home in foreclosure after taking out loans against the paid for home to fund his drugs and fun. Now he is in his forties, and cannot work in his trade as a trim carpenter because his hands shake so bad. He’s been out of work for years and recently filed for social security disability. He mooches off of my hard working brother and lives in his house for free while my brother works 60+ hours a week and pays taxes. This is what happens when you “do what you want” without regard to anyone around you. Now he depends on the taxpayers and the government to live. Wake up!
  
  Report this comment
- getourcountryback
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:06am
  You are obviously just another ignorant fool, go drink some more grape juice.
  
  Report this comment
- IndyGuy
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:11am
  @cdn1979……..I’m Conservative and I don’t want to impose my will on you.Now sit down and shut up!!!
  
  Report this comment
- Eastinfection
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:17am
  COLORADOMAVERICK…
  
  ” You know, I went to high school with a guy who was a libertarian. He had no use for government or rules or anything like that.”
  
  Baloney. You went to school with an ANARCHIST.
  Libertarians support the government as limited by the Constitution…. they have nothing to do with the wife-beating drug addict you were buddies with.
  
  Report this comment
- truthnstuff
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 10:54am
  Eastinfection, correct. Libertarians just need to be better at explaining, and less vocal about “we want drugs” to make their point.
  
  Report this comment
- Rebalee
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:01am
  Cloradomaverick, that fellow your talking about isn’t one of my brothers is it?
  
  Report this comment
- Rebalee
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 11:35am
  Wrong Eastinfection. Most libertarians are just libertarians because they want to be free of any social rules. I know a bunch, mostly family. Talk about taking away their food stamps or SS disability if they can’t pass a whizz quiz and your infringing on their constitutional rights. But my paying tens of thousands in taxes a year isn’t infringing on my rights. If libertarians were really libertarians I would agree with the freedom to make their own bed and lay in if they want. The truth is though the majority want the freedom but they also want the government intervention when they can’t care for themselves after being free to party their life away. They have jumped on your band wagon because you offer up all this freedom but they don’t really want a smaller government if it means they have to take care of themselves without the government to fall back on. Right now the party has lots of young people who want all this social freedom but when they are in their late forties and turning fifty like my brothers and have nothing and can’t provide for themselves they claim to still be libertarian but rely on government for most of their needs in some social program or another. I would also be guessing but I would bet on it that a good portion of the young people in that audience are on some sort of educational grants or loan programs getting educated in basket weaving or some other nonsense that won’t make a descent living for them.
  
  Report this comment
- justangry
  Posted on February 22, 2013 at 2:40pm
  @Rebalee, Can you name ONE Libertarian on here that fits your description of what ‘most’ Libertarians believe in? Seems your preconceptions of Libertarians are dead wrong tbh. Probably spouting some establishment republicans talking points. I don’t think there’s one of us one here that wouldn’t TOTALLY gut the welfare state. Not one of doesn’t believe in personal responsibility and I’ve seen maybe a couple of Libertarians on here that have admitted to using illegal substances themselves.
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.