Ann Coulter vs. Ron Paul

[Kirk Freeman]

In previous threads Ann Coulter has been featured in videos questioning the Libertarian position as to drugs or gay marriage. I saw this article in this week's Human Events and thought INGO would appreciate her expanded remarks (and zingers) on the Paulians:

Ann Coulter - June 15, 2011 - GET RID OF GOVERNMENT -- BUT FIRST MAKE ME PRESIDENT!

 

[Paco Bedejo]

If state governments stop officially registering marriages, then who gets to adopt? How are child support and child custody issues determined if the government doesn't recognize marriage? How about a private company's health care plans -- whom will those cover? Who has legal authority to issue "do not resuscitate" orders to doctors? (Of course, under Obamacare we won't be resuscitating anyone.)

Who inherits in the absence of a will? Who is entitled to a person's Social Security and Medicare benefits? How do you know if you're divorced and able to remarry? Where would liberals get their phony statistics about most marriages ending in divorce?

[sic]

Some of those legal incidents of marriage can be obtained by private contract -- such as the right to inherit and make medical decisions. Gays don't need gay marriage to leave their electric spice racks to loved ones.

She answers her own question (correctly, IMO), but dismisses it because "gays don't need gay marriage", while Paul is arguing against the existence of state-sponsored marriage altogether. Logic fails this woman...

Paul can't even scratch Social Security and Medicare off that list by taking the libertarian position that there should be no Social Security or Medicare, because he also said during the debate: "We don't want to cut any of the medical benefits for children or the elderly, because we have drawn so many in and got them so dependent on the government." (And of course, those programs do exist, whether we like it or not.)

Congressman Paul is correct...we can't just eliminate them overnight. The existence of those programs is unconstitutional & immoral...but it would be just as immoral to pull the rug out from under those who paid in. It's essentially theft.

Under Rep. Paul's plan, your legal rights pertaining to marriage will be decided on a case-by-case basis by judges forced to evaluate the legitimacy of your marriage consecrated by a Wiccan priest -- or your tennis coach. (And I think I speak for all Americans when I say we're looking for ways to get more pointless litigation into our lives.)

Huh? Maybe she doesn't understand the difference between religious ceremony & contract law? The ceremony would have no legal bearing while the contract would be a normal contract...like a lease, purchase, EULA, etc...

If one spouse decides he doesn't want to be married anymore, couldn't he just say there never was a marriage because the Wiccan wasn't official or the tennis coach wasn't a pro?

Yes. If there was no contract, then it's no different than a child taking his ball & going home.

Under Paul's plan, siblings could marry one another, perhaps intentionally, but also perhaps unaware that they were fraternal twins separated and sent to different adoptive families at birth -- as actually happened in Britain a few years ago after taking the government-mandated blood test for marriage.

Is she a Quaker? Marriage & sex are not synonyms... Does anyone really believe we need government control to prevent this?

Marriage is a legal construct with legal consequences, particularly regarding rights and duties to children.

Most children who come to the attention of the courts haven't been anywhere near a marriage... WTF is she talking about?

Do people actually take her seriously?...

 

[rambone]

-1 Ann Coulter

But it's a chicken-s**t, I-don't-want-to-upset-my-video-store-clerk-base answer when it comes to gay marriage.

Asked about gay marriage, Paul said, in full:

If state governments stop officially registering marriages, then who gets to adopt? How are child support and child custody issues determined if the government doesn't recognize marriage? How about a private company's health care plans -- whom will those cover? Who has legal authority to issue "do not resuscitate" orders to doctors? (Of course, under Obamacare we won't be resuscitating anyone.)

Who inherits in the absence of a will? Who is entitled to a person's Social Security and Medicare benefits? How do you know if you're divorced and able to remarry? Where would liberals get their phony statistics about most marriages ending in divorce?

Coulter starts out saying Paul gives a "chicken-s**t" answer, then starts acting like these little predicaments she posed would have no solution, but for the government deciding everything for us. Poor Ann, what will we do without all her favored regulations and government registries?

Most libertarians are cowering frauds too afraid to upset anyone to take a stand on some of the most important cultural issues of our time.

If they could only resist sucking up to Rolling Stone-reading, status-obsessed losers, they'd probably be interesting to talk to.

Since when were libertarians afraid to upset people? Is she for real? Has she ever met a libertarian? hahaha

I guess she doesn't get exposed to many libertarians when she is sucking up to Neo-conservative Establishment hacks like Bill ORLY all the time.

In my book "Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America," I make the case that liberals, and never conservatives, appeal to irrational mobs to attain power. There is, I now recall, one group of people who look like conservatives, but also appeal to the mob. They're called "libertarians."

Liberals always bad... conservatives always good... lock yourself mind into the Left-Right system. And learn to hate liberty like Ann Coulter.

 

[Fletch]

Ann Coulter is a shrew. She's an occasionally very funny shrew, but a shrew nonetheless.

 

[mrjarrell]

Do people actually take her seriously?...

Certain strains of "conservatives" do. But they usually aren't concerned with issues like freedom and liberty. Just big government and getting into peoples bedrooms. If she's the best the "conservative" movement has then they truly are doomed.

 

[dross]

The value Ann Coulter brings to the discourse is her use of biting humor. The right is short of attacks using humor and ridicule.

I don't agree with Coulter on many things, but she's doing good work. I don't require ideological purity to allow someone to be on the same side I'm on.

 

[gdkaiser]

two loonies just wanting to get more face time...

 

[rambone]

I don't agree with Coulter on many things, but she's doing good work. I don't require ideological purity to allow someone to be on the same side I'm on.

She's thinks you're a cowering fraud. She's not on your side.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Since when were libertarians afraid to upset people? Is she for real? Has she ever met a libertarian? hahaha

Ummm, did you read the article? Ron "C.S." Paul is afraid to upset the Ponzi game of Social Security but willing to crumble the custom of society overnight when it is cool to do so.

Real brave, Paulie.

I guess she doesn't get exposed to many libertarians when she is sucking up to Neo-conservative Establishment hacks like Bill ORLY all the time.

You do know what she has said about Bill, right?

There is, I now recall, one group of people who look like conservatives, but also appeal to the mob. They're called "libertarians."

Right, because the mob that chased Sean Hannity for example was just a mob of pro-government hacks dressed up as video clerks for Paul.

 

[strahd71]

i agree with her on a lot of issues! not a huge ron paul fan either!

jake

 

[rambone]

Ummm, did you read the article? Ron "C.S." Paul is afraid to upset the Ponzi game of Social Security but willing to crumble the custom of society overnight when it is cool to do so.

Real brave, Paulie.

I have heard Ron Paul talk about Social Security reform in dozens of interviews.

And Ron Paul doesn't support Federal meddling in marriage. He's running for President and not Governor. So his opinion on how states should handle the issue isn't going to crumble society as Coulter [strike]thinks[/strike] wants people to think.

*strawman overload warning -- logic levels critically low*
*strawman overload warning -- logic levels critically low*
*strawman overload warning -- logic levels critically low*

 

[Kirk Freeman]

If Paul has spoken about abolishing the SSA before I wonder why he backed down in the debate?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Do people actually take her seriously?...

The people that diasgree with her.

She's a friggin entertainer. Just like Rush and Hannity and Schultz and Olbermann. She is a shock jock. Milk toast ideas don't make you a regular on any TV shows and don't build an audience that wants to read your books. In a world where there is only one absolute correct answer and no other outcome can be considered, she's a flake. In the rest of the world where the vast majority of us live she helps shape the debate.

 

[rambone]

If Paul has spoken about abolishing the SSA before I wonder why he backed down in the debate?

Since we've been saddled with it for 80 years, its not just as simple as instantly abolishing SSA, and I don't believe you think it is either. People have been paying for it their whole lives. Paul wants to phase it out. He wants to save us some money overseas and make an attempt to honor commitments at home while simultaneously weaning younger people off the dole.

Is this a cowardly approach?

 

[kingnereli]

Excellent article. I found no areas of disagreement. I enjoyed her use of sarcasm in explaining how unworkable libertarian ideas are.

 

[Denny347]

Great pic...LOVE IT!!!!

 

[Denny347]

 

[Garb]

Excellent article. I found no areas of disagreement. I enjoyed her use of sarcasm in explaining how unworkable libertarian ideas are.

What, you mean where the government doesn't make your decisions for you? Maybe some don't work so well, I'm not necessarily a libertarian in the purist sense, but holy crap, libertarians are pro-capitalism and pro-freedom of choice. How does that not work?

 

[The Bubba Effect]

Coulter reeks of authoritarianism.

 

[Expat]

The value Ann Coulter brings to the discourse is her use of biting humor. The right is short of attacks using humor and ridicule.

I don't agree with Coulter on many things, but she's doing good work. I don't require ideological purity to allow someone to be on the same side I'm on.

I agree with this. I will never forget when the elder Bush got beat when he ran for reelection. All the Republicans were too respectable to take it to the Clintons except Mary Matalin. They would lie and twist things and of course the MSM would repeat it without challenging anything they said. GHWB and all of his other advisors thought they should remain above such things. Poor Mary was out there by herself fighting until her voice was nearly gone.