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:
Follow Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) on Twitter
Featured images screen grab.























































































































Comments (764)
xjeeper
Feb. 22, 2013 at 10:29amWhen the entitlements are dismantled, then the potheads among the libertarians can do as they please. Ann demonstrated why entitlements enslave us, Obamacare gives the government power over our bodies, reproduction, and very life. If you are dumb enough to use drugs (and alcohol to excess), you need to do it on your own dime.Addiction is not a disease, it is a character flaw. Libertarians need to self regulate in the absents of external regulation, Anarchists want neither.
Report this comment
Libby_Tarian
Feb. 22, 2013 at 10:51amI am a libertarian, I believe that Prohibition did not work, the war on Poverty did not work, the war on Drugs did not work, Gun running to Mexico is insane, O. Care will never work, and anything that the Feds get their hands on fails. Our armed forces have not won a war since WWII. So why do Repukes keep holding on to failed policies?
Report this comment
Locked
Feb. 22, 2013 at 1:13pm@Libby
“Our armed forces have not won a war since WWII.”
Well, we haven’t hard a declared war since WWII, so that’s not really a good point to bring up. We’ve “won” plenty of military engagements.
Report this comment
Bruce P.
Feb. 24, 2013 at 3:18pmAnn also demonstrates why the Republicans will never get rid of the entitlement state, as long as they can use it as an excuse to control behaviors they do not like.
Report this comment
sbenard
Feb. 22, 2013 at 10:28amMy best friend’s sister crashed her dad’s truck, which was pulling a trailer with a boat on it, after smoking pot that day. She tested positive for marijuana. She destroyed the truck, the trailer and the boat, NONE of which belonged to her. You can’t say, as Stossel did, that it doesn’t hurt anyone else.
What if she had killed someone in another car? What if she had hit a family and killed them? That hurts ALL of us!
She lost her license and her job. Now, she’s on welfare! That hurts ALL of us who are compelled to pay taxes to support her!
And that’s why I am a conservative, NOT a Libertarian! Libertarianism just creates MORE demands for welfare services, and that just creates more 47% low-information voters demanding more government services!
Report this comment
WakingSheep
Feb. 22, 2013 at 10:33amThat’s the dumbest arguement ever considering Libertarians want next to no government intervention.
Obesity kills more people in the US every year than Pot does.
Does that justify NY banning large sodas?
Report this comment
Locked
Feb. 22, 2013 at 10:36am@Sbenard
Operating under the influence was the crime here. If she had been driving drunk, the results could have been the same (or worse). The easy conclusion? Make DUI a crime… oh wait! It already is!
When someone is shot, do you blame the gun or the shooter? In this case, do you blame the drug, or the person who misused it and broke the law?
Report this comment
truthnstuff
Feb. 22, 2013 at 10:42amWhile I agree with you, it does not negate the point. Make laws that punish the behavior, just like drunk driving. Also, I think that society will govern it. If someone is a druggy, just like an alcoholic, they will after a while pay the price and be regulated by society. As far as welfare, they as most others, should not qualify for any assistance. There are ways to control it without taxpayers picking up the cost. As far as Gays, marriage is defined as a man and a woman, and should not be legislated to be different, let them stay in the closet. You can’t legislate morality.
Report this comment
Bruce P.
Feb. 24, 2013 at 3:23pmIf she had not got behind the wheel, she would not have wrecked. Thus, we should ban cars as well. It is not the marijuana’s fault she wrecked those cars. It is her fault and her fault alone. You are making the same arguments that the anti-gun lobby makes.
Because someone’s irresponsibility caused mayhem and misery, that does not mean that the rights of everyone else should be infringed. Even when marijuana is legalized, there will still be common sense laws prohibiting operating a vehicle while impaired.
Once again, the “personal liberty” and “personal responsibility” crowd shows they are nothing but liars. They care nothing for either, seeking government control of any behavior they do not approve of.
Report this comment
Bruce P.
Feb. 24, 2013 at 3:24pm“As far as Gays, marriage is defined as a man and a woman, and should not be legislated to be different, let them stay in the closet. You can’t legislate morality.”
But you are demanding laws be put in place to do just that.
Report this comment
Bruce P.
Feb. 24, 2013 at 3:26pm“She lost her license and her job. Now, she’s on welfare! That hurts ALL of us who are compelled to pay taxes to support her!”
Doubtful she is unable to find a job because of causing a car-accident and more likely she is unable to find a job because of the ridiculous drug-laws in this country. If there was not the prohibition on marijuana and anti-drug hysteria, she may be gainfully employed.
Report this comment
Bruce P.
Feb. 24, 2013 at 3:30pmLOCKED…”When someone is shot, do you blame the gun or the shooter? In this case, do you blame the drug, or the person who misused it and broke the law?” Exactly, SBENARD is making the exact same argument the anti-gun lobby makes.
This goes to show, yet again, the “personal liberty” crowd here are nothing but liars…they want personal liberty, as long as you exercise it the way they demand.
Report this comment
Libby_Tarian
Feb. 22, 2013 at 10:27amI am a Libertarian who thinks if this govt. wants to go to war, then we all need a course on how to WIN a war. Why go to war and lose? Ann is a LOSER.
Report this comment
sbenard
Feb. 22, 2013 at 10:34amI doubt if Ann were Defense Secretary, she would LOSE a war. She would advocate for total war — war to WIN!
You assessment is the LOSER!
Report this comment
WakingSheep
Feb. 22, 2013 at 10:54am“She would advocate for total war”
Isn’t that what all Rhino’s do now?…
Report this comment
Bruce P.
Feb. 24, 2013 at 3:32pmIf Ann were Secretary of Defense, she would tell us how brave she is for sending others to die in wars she wants to fight. And if you disagree, well, you are just a “p****” for not wanting young men and women to die on foreign soil.
Report this comment
funjumper
Feb. 22, 2013 at 10:27amOh, and one more than. Ann, you are looking great these days, not that you always weren’t but lately sexier.
Report this comment
B-Neil
Feb. 22, 2013 at 10:26amTalk is cheep, no matter who’s spouting off.
Report this comment
Rosemary Woodhouse
Feb. 22, 2013 at 10:26amAnn is 100% correct.
Report this comment
WakingSheep
Feb. 22, 2013 at 10:40amand let me guess…. Obama is a big poo poo head.
Report this comment
Bruce P.
Feb. 24, 2013 at 3:33pmIf Ann were correct, she would not need to resort to name calling. It shows the impotency of her beliefs and the vacancy of her thoughts.
Report this comment
WakingSheep
Feb. 22, 2013 at 10:26amIf 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
justangry
Feb. 22, 2013 at 1:23pmI want to know why any of their pundits won’t face any of ours? They know they’d be SCHOOLED.
Report this comment
EndTheGOPTEA
Feb. 22, 2013 at 10:25amIs her Adams Apple getting bigger?
Report this comment
kiwiburgerwithcheese
Feb. 22, 2013 at 10:25amthe word P***es is a bad word?
Report this comment
bobad
Feb. 22, 2013 at 10:25amAre we talking about the same Ann Coulter who is in love with the 0bama hugging, giant RINO Chris Christie?
Report this comment
Libby_Tarian
Feb. 22, 2013 at 10:31amYes, she is. She is the same Ann Coulter that told all Jews that they are going to hell.
Report this comment
WakingSheep
Feb. 22, 2013 at 10:34amYUp
Report this comment
funjumper
Feb. 22, 2013 at 10:25amI am probably a libertarian conservative, but I love Ann mostly and this time as often is the fact, she is right. I would let all drugs be legal if we didn’t have to come along and clean up after you and take care of you and your family. When that stops, then do whatever you want to do to yourself. I just don’t want to hear you complain afterwards.
Report this comment
Bruce P.
Feb. 24, 2013 at 3:48pmThen stop coming in and cleaning up after people make mistakes. You are using the same social welfare/entitlement excuses that Coulter is using; and in the process, you expose the true agenda of conservatives…they only pay lip-service to small government and personal liberty, but as long as you can use the excuse of big government to regulate and restrict behaviors you do not like, that big government will keep chugging along.
Report this comment
glegakis
Feb. 22, 2013 at 10:24amThat so called “bad word” is a colloquialism for “pusillanimous” which means cowardly. So what’s the problem?
Report this comment
sbenard
Feb. 22, 2013 at 10:30amThanks for the English lesson. :) I honestly didn’t know that!
Report this comment
WakingSheep
Feb. 22, 2013 at 10:21amShe’s a control freak just like the rest of the Republicrats.
She doesn’t mention the fact that we pay more in law enforcement, court hearing, jail time, rehabilitation of ex-cons, etc.
The money going into the never ending drug war is a joke. Quit trying to control other people lives!
I’m going to drink a gallon of gasoline right now. ANYBODY GOING TO STOP ME WITH A LAW?
Report this comment
sbenard
Feb. 22, 2013 at 10:31amGo ahead! Make my day!
Report this comment
Bruce P.
Feb. 24, 2013 at 3:35pmSBENARD — aren’t you going to tell us how that is against some verse or another in the Bible and therefore must be the law of the land?
Report this comment
JohnGalt
Feb. 22, 2013 at 10:20amAlthough I think that libertarians and republicans have traits that over lap. I watched Anne last night, she isn’t the best communicator for republicans. She’s unnecessarily confrontational and treats libertarians as progressives, and they are not. She thinks libertarians want pot, most don’t care about pot, just that Government shouldn’t tell people what they can or cannot do. Which I totally agree with! Most Republicans should agree that personal freedoms trump government.
Report this comment
Johnny Cocheroo
Feb. 22, 2013 at 3:07pmAgreed.
I could care less about marijuana. I just want less government spending, control & power. I think a lot of anti libertarians use the marijuana argument because it’s indefensible and an easy target.
Report this comment
Max jones
Feb. 22, 2013 at 10:19amGotta love our spirited warrior, Ann.
Report this comment
hades3
Feb. 22, 2013 at 10:17amIf pot were too be legalized, Liberals would make it a Constitutional right, and require taxpayers too
pay for it. It would become a legal purchase on ones food stamp card.
Report this comment
Libby_Tarian
Feb. 22, 2013 at 10:30amNo, Libertarians would not make anyone pay for anything. We would rid ourselves of the IRS, Public Schools run from the White House, NEA, TSA, and many, many more Alphabetic agencies.
Report this comment
Bruce P.
Feb. 24, 2013 at 3:36pmLIBBY! But if you go rid of those things, how would the GOP control people!?!
Report this comment
Not_Fooled
Feb. 22, 2013 at 10:15amI stand with Ann. Marriage, for example, is not something that everyone can do. If gays can get married, then why is it wrong for, say, an 8 year old to get married? At some point you need to define marriage in absolute terms, or you will have no definition, and consequently, confusion. Liberals and progressives have been doing this to confuse people, because if people can’t define something, it is easier to take it away from them (like, take away Capitalism and give them socialism, because the people have been confused by liberals, and cannot tell you what Capitalism is, or why socialism is wrong.)
Report this comment
Bruce P.
Feb. 24, 2013 at 3:40pm“If gays can get married, then why is it wrong for, say, an 8 year old to get married?”
Because 8-year-olds are not consenting adults.
I cannot tell if question is reflects stupidity on your part or a willful ignorance.
Report this comment
FiscalBill
Feb. 22, 2013 at 10:15amHer biggest point was the fact that if Im paying for it I get a say. Dont want me to have a say? Fine. Pay for it yourself then.
Report this comment
THX-1138
Feb. 22, 2013 at 10:15amWow. She’s absolutely clueless. Libertarians would trim 90% of the existing government power and money and restore a real Free Market based society but since the “Conservatives” (read Republicans) are just as BIG Government as the Liberals (read Democrats/Socialists/etc.) we stand no chance. Her guys helped the Liberals destroy America with their insane urge to Control everything (just different things that the Lefties). Democrats and Republicans are cut from exactly the same cloth; they are the Farmers and we are the Cows. Screw ‘em both.
What a useless tool…
Report this comment
Locked
Feb. 22, 2013 at 10:12amI don’t consider myself a libertarian, but after listening to Coulter I can’t see why anyone would want to align themselves with whatever label she uses for herself either.
Report this comment
Eastinfection
Feb. 22, 2013 at 10:12amAnne is feisty, but in reality she’s just another Prog RINO that thinks she can apply the Constitution only when it’s convenient to her.
Report this comment
justangry
Feb. 22, 2013 at 1:28pmThat’s all social progressives. I don’t understand why they can’t see it. Social conservative is living one’s life a certain way (conservatively). Social progressive is asking the government to use force to make others live they way they see fit. They all ignore the 10th amendment and see nothing wrong with it when it suits their purposes. Then when you point that out there hypocrisy, they resort to Alinksy smears. There’s 6 pages demonstrating this on this article alone.
Report this comment
ScribblerG
Feb. 22, 2013 at 10:11amIf she can be accepted in polite company on the right, after calling John Edwards a “fa**ot” with a nice haircut, I’m not surprised to hear her bring her guttersnipe rhetoric to this new low. Funny, I’ve never heard libertarians called what she called them before, so there’s the first problems. Many think we are hedonists, impractical, anarchic, Utopian, to friendly to kooks and conspiracy theorists – but never “pu**ies”.
Let’s talk about pot, Ann. Let’s see how conservative your vile talk actually is. First of all, where in the constitution do the Feds get the authority to police drug use in the first place? Not clear at all. Second, what does individual sovereignty really mean? It means self-ownership. It’s not a wooly concept, but a very precise idea. I own myself and my body according to the ideas that informed the liberty our founders gave us. People do all kinds of bad things with their bodies – why is the govt especially empowered to interfere when I use a very small range of substances? Third. Even if there was a moral basis for outlawing drug use in the first place, it’s clear the govt can do very little about it. Wrt pot, there is no doubt that the law has had no impact on use.
Last, and this is where you really expose yourself for the ignorant, vicious cur that you are, Ms. Coulter. 50% of all spending on criminal justice in our country is based on drug enforcement. And it has almost no effect. That’s conservative? Lol, she’s a joke.
Report this comment
wilbstal
Feb. 22, 2013 at 10:08amcall me what you want if you back the constitution and bill of rights we will get along. You cant just support parts that you like, all of the constitution must be obeyed. If you cant we wont get along. I like lots of what conserves like and want just follow the constitution as you do your Conserve ideas.
Report this comment
Bruce P.
Feb. 24, 2013 at 3:55pmConservatives don’t want to follow the Constitution. To them, it begins and ends at the Second Amendment; personal liberty, to them, only entails guns. Every other amendment is to be ignored, everything must be regulated and controlled.
Report this comment
SREGN
Feb. 22, 2013 at 10:07amLibertarians are just anarchists with an empty sack. Not that there’s anything wrong with that….
Report this comment
ScribblerG
Feb. 22, 2013 at 10:12amYeah, it takes a big ‘sack’ to believe in the fantasyworld of anarchy. Just so you know, Hayek and Mises both rejected anarchy utterly, so I’ll stay with them. You can have Rothbard and Spooner. Lol, really, that’s a fight you really don’t want to have.
Report this comment
THX-1138
Feb. 22, 2013 at 10:19am@ScribblerG
THANK you!
Report this comment
SREGN
Feb. 22, 2013 at 11:37amBoth libertarians and anarchists want government to do as little as possible. They just differ over what’s possible.
Report this comment
WakingSheep
Feb. 22, 2013 at 1:53pm@SREGN
Anarchists want chaos with no government.
Libertarians want government to protect our freedoms (The U.S. Constitution).
Big difference.
Report this comment
Bruce P.
Feb. 24, 2013 at 3:45pmYes, it is “empty sack” to believe you have the ability to regulate yourself and that others have the same ability, to not be scared what others may do with their liberty…and not use the crutch of government to help you or control others. Oh yes, that is very cowardly.
Report this comment
SquidVetOhio
Feb. 22, 2013 at 10:07amIf only there were more conservative men the testicular fortitude she has. Big L libertarians are as bad as pink-O commie liberals. In fact, they are liberals that just hate paying taxes.
Report this comment
ScribblerG
Feb. 22, 2013 at 10:16amAnd you love paying taxes? Libertarians are more opposed to leftists than conservatives – I don’t know where you guys get your delusional ideas from. Criticize libertarians for the right reasons, and use facts – it really helps when trying to actually have an argument versus acting like a 9 year old in a school lunchroom.
Report this comment
Bruce P.
Feb. 24, 2013 at 3:43pmYeah, we’re big ol’ pinkies because we aren’t demanding laws be passed to force everyone to live as we see it, we’re big ol’ pinkies because we believe in very limited government. Yes, that is the very definition of Congress.
Report this comment
Bruce P.
Feb. 24, 2013 at 4:01pmI meant Communist. HA! That was a Freudian slip if ever there was one!
Report this comment