97 votes

Ann Coulter Calls Libertarians 'Pussies,' Gets Booed By Room Full Of Students

What do you get when you invite outspoken conservative firebrand Ann Coulter to debate outspoken libertarian John Stossel in front of an audience of 1,000+ libertarian students? Fireworks, that’s what.

Link thanks to fonzdrew.

http://youtu.be/4qiIFwDziQw

http://www.mediaite.com/t...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
henry9's picture

A bunch of what?

I think not!

We will take our country back and she will go licking her wounds and a bunch more.

What a F-in moron...

...nuff said.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

LKY's picture

She defends

her position against liberty because we are living in a socialized country with massive socialized welfare program. Then, at the same time, she defends and supports Romney, who started socialized healthcare in the state of MA.

Another screeching ghoulish neo-con banshee

trying desperately to remain relevant.

Cyril's picture

LOL. You, lady, have a killer wit when you want! :)

LOL. You, lady, have a killer wit when you want! :)

"ghoulish ... banshee" Oh my! :D

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

LOL!

Wicked! "...and your Big Dog (Liberty) too!"

"I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_enlistment

There is no duration defined in the Oath

Ann Coulter: The FACE of the GOP: "The Iraq War Was Magnificant"

I HATE people like her.

SHE is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths of innocent Iraqis killed with OUR tax dollars.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

What a stupid bitch.

What a stupid bitch.

A man with he same treasonous ideals is just as bad.

The sexual distinction is fallacy not an argument.

Free includes debt-free!

Anne Coulter needs to Read John Locke; She shows her ignorance.

Anne Coulter and Other Corporate "so called" Capitolist, always want the people to work within the CORRUPTED SYSTEM that benefits collectives (State Born Exclusive Privileged Entities that Corrupted it). See Virginia Declaration of Rights #4.

Note how she attempts to establish (hopelessness) that our system is too far corrupted to be corrected...

Maybe she should read John Locke:

In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/Locke_Civil_Government/lo...

John Locke 220. " In these, and the like cases, when the government is dissolved, the people are at liberty to provide for themselves by erecting a new legislative differing from the other by the change of persons, or form, or both, as they shall find it most for their safety and good. For the society can never, by the fault of another, lose the native and original right it has to preserve itself, which can only be done by a settled legislative and a fair and impartial execution of the laws made by it.

But the state of mankind is not so miserable that they are not capable of using this remedy till it be too late to look for any. To tell people they may provide for themselves by erecting a new legislative, when, by oppression, artifice, or being delivered over to a foreign power, their old one is gone, is only to tell them they may expect relief when it is too late, and the evil is past cure.

This is, in effect, no more than to bid them first be slaves, and then to take care of their liberty, and, >>>>>when their "CHAINS ARE ON", tell them they may "act like free men".

This, if barely so, is rather mockery than relief, and men can never be secure from tyranny if there be no means to escape it till they are perfectly under it; and, therefore, it is that they have not only a right to get out of it, "BUT TO PREVENT IT"..."

American Patriot Party.CC
http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

Trevor Lyman's picture

Her own logic on social

Her own logic on social programs disproves her point the drug war isn't important.

My response:

http://libertycrier.com/front-page/ann-coulter-booed-on-stos...

So We're All Secretly in League With Liberals?

The Biblical position that the government does not belong in the sacrament of marriage is just "sucking up to liberals?"

Stating the obvious fact that the drug war is being run by the CIA (I think Brzezenski admitted as much) for the express purpose of converting America's police from the Andy Griffith Show to a jackbooted police state is also "sucking up to liberals?"

Believing that the Constitution should be followed when going to war and that America should deal with other nations is a upright way is also "sucking up to liberals?"

Sure, lady, if that's what you've got to tell yourself. Sheesh. I guess that's how screwed up the neocon paradigm is. If you don't agree with them you are some sort of liberal. There are no other kinds of people. Also note, there are no principles, there just is a screwed up monopolist system that employs Ms. Coulter to spout her crap.

This wench is awful. Let's be GLAD she's not on our side.

It would make us look even worse than we already look to the unprincipled masses.

We might be the kooks and nut-jobs but we're the moral ones.

Remember: "TRUTH IS TREASON IN THE EMPIRE OF LIES"

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

Cyril's picture

Exactly!

Exactly!

You WANT to be the kook when that's the establishment she represents.

What a freaking arrogant moron she is.

She made an utter fool of herself and probably thinks she lessoned everybody.

Ann Coulter? ... No: Ann LOSER.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Stopped watching this at

Stopped watching this at "Iraq was a magnificent war..."

Thanks For the Heads Up

I think I'll pass on this one. Enjoy reading the comments above especially the everyday is Halloween for "another screeching ghoulish neo-con banshee."
http://www.dailypaul.com/275541#comment-2968783

"I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_enlistment

There is no duration defined in the Oath

These Federalists have been big government worhipers

These Federalists have been big government worshipers for over 220 years.

The Federalists and Marxists have been working together since Lincoln.

Free includes debt-free!

This is the same troll who

This is the same troll who stated that its just to go to war over resources (1st degree murder): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2KniTxIgWM

what an actress!

She cannot possibly be that stupid. She is defending positions for the sake of sensationalism, and not honest discourse. She kept redirecting the drug legalization question to pot when she knows full well that it is not about that, but rather, about the liberty concept that the government has no role in our individual choices. When she said that it's too late to ask those questions, and those about gay marriage, because the government is already involved someone should have spoken up and said, yeah, we know, and that's one thing we want to change. Long story short, not honest discourse IMHO. Glad to see lots of college age libertarians.

Libertarian Mafia

That's funny, every libertarian I know stands up for people's personal rights far more often than any conservative or liberal.

agreed

absolutely

This is why the issue should be about the Constitution. A Lesson

This is why the issue should be about the Constitution and not Conservatism, or libertarianism, both sides confuse the arguments which need to be discussed, which is to adhere to the limitations of the Constitution and the principles of Common law.

The Republicans and Democrats both accept state born exclusive privileges in the form of Corporations, Unions, Tax supported special interests and undelegated state and federal bureacracies; All which change Free Trade into Privileged Trade, and Freedom of Contract into Privileged Contracts.

The Libertarians (perceived) want to FORCE societies, to accept whatever they do, using federal laws to enforce. (Though on marriage this was cleared up "a bit" by one speaker);

Both attempt to utilize the federal government in ways it was not intended.

The federal government is limited to defining prosecuting only "4" (FOUR) crimes. Drugs are not one of them. The Federal Government cannot govern police outside the 10 miles square of Washington DC. The federal government cannot collect taxes through the WELFARE CLAUSE but for 2 (two) two things, National DEBT and National DEFENSE. Neither state or federal governments can exceed the principles of COMMON LAW.

All this was concluded in the Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788:

In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/americanpatriotpartynewsl...

Also review Kentucky Resolutions Par #2; as Thomas Jefferson Restates this fact 10 years later. In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/candidates

Libertarian modern thought ignores the principles of Common Law defined by hundreds of years of history and the purpose of living in small well represented communities/societies - i.e. Republics.

See John Locke on Civil Government.

In Full: http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/Locke_Civil_Government/lo...

#6. But though this be a state of liberty (man in the state of Nature without any government), yet it is NOT a state of licence; though man in that state have an uncontrollable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has "NOT LIBERTY" to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some NOBLER use than its bare preservation calls for it. The "State of Nature" has a "LAW OF NATURE" to govern it, which obliges every one, and REASON, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, NO ONE OUGHT to harm another in his LIFE, HEALTH, LIBERTY or POSSESSIONS; for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker; all the servants of one sovereign Master, sent into the world by His order and about His business; they are His property, whose workmanship they are made to last during His, NOT one another's pleasure (that would harm others.)"

And, being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of Nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us that may authorise us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for ours. Every one as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he as much as he can to preserve the rest of mankind, and not unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.

7. And that all men may be restrained from invading others' rights, and from "doing hurt to one another", and the LAW OF NATURE BE OBSERVED, which willeth the peace and preservation of all mankind,..."

57: ".....So that however it may be mistaken, the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings, capable of laws, "WHERE THERE IS NO LAW, THERE IS NO FREEDOM". For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others, which "CANNOT BE WHERE THERE IS NO LAW"; and is NOT, as we are told, "a liberty for every man to do what he "LISTS" (i.e. WANTS)." For who could be free, when every other man's humour might domineer over him? But a liberty to dispose and order freely as he lists his person, actions, possessions, and his whole property within the allowance of those laws under which he is, and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary will of another, but freely follow his own. "

---

B.) Rights of the Colonists 1772, Samuel Adams:
http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc/Rights_of_the_Colonists/r...

"... If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms (personal contract or legislative law) renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely VACATE (NULLIFY - VOID) such renunciation; the [Volume 5, Page 396] right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and VOLUNTARILY become a slave-- ....."

One of the major differences between a Original Constitutionalist and a Modern Libertarian as generally perceived, is the understanding of those foundations that separate "Inalienable Rights" from "Individual Rights" in Common Law, that are clearly illustrated here, and in fact establish the historical and true basis and Foundation of freedom;

That is that there are certain rights an individual has NOT the liberty to give up to others as being inalienable includes the limitation on one's self as well;

It is THAT principle that makes them inalienable; and NOT a "individual choice" of whether or not one wishes to "give them up".

John Locke applies this principle in regard to Slavery:

Chapter 4: Of Slavery

21. The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of Nature for his rule. (APP Note: See this exact wording in the Rights of the Colonists) The liberty of man >>>"IN SOCIETY" is to be under no other legislative power but that established by consent in the commonwealth, nor under the dominion of any will, or restraint of any law, but what that legislative shall enact according to the "TRUST" (Created in the "Original Compact" i.e. Constitutions that create AUTHORITY) put in it.

Freedom, then, is NOT what Sir Robert Filmer tells us: "A liberty for every one to do what he "LISTS" (WANTS), to live as he pleases, and not to be tied by any laws"; but freedom of men under government is to have a standing rule to live by, COMMON TO EVERYONE of that society, and made by the legislative power erected in it. A liberty to follow my own will in all things where that rule prescribes not, not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man, as freedom of nature is to be under no other restraint but the law of Nature.

22. This freedom from absolute, arbitrary power is so necessary to, and closely joined with, a man's preservation, that he cannot part with it but by what forfeits his preservation and life TOGETHER.

For a man, NOT having the power of his own life, CANNOT by compact or his OWN consent ENSLAVE himself to any one, nor put himself under the absolute, arbitrary power of another to take away his life when he pleases. Nobody can give more power than he has himself, and he that CANNOT take away his own life CANNOT give another power over it..."

It is clear that the foundation of true liberty of "inalienable Rights" has set limits on "individual rights".

American Patriot Party.CC
http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc

On Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/American-Patriot-Party-CC-Nati...

Educate Yourself, Educate Others.

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

I can't stand a liar.....

I can't stand a liar..... I would call her brainwashed etc but she knows exactly what she is doing.

Could her opinion about Libertarians be any more unimportant?

I did not get past 2 minutes before becoming nauseous - seriously. I like Stossel enough to have given it a try, but...... (puke)_

All I kept thinking was, "she

All I kept thinking was, "she looks like she's drowning."

I can (but can't) believe she

I can (but can't) believe she would use that type of language on a serious TV program. She has always been a sensationalist, bony, barbie doll. Well, we finally got rid of DICK Morris. Round two.

The breeze flows freely between her ears

I can't even find the right words to express my dislike of this woman. I've never spoken negatively of mentally stunted people and I won't start with her.

People who question evolution can see quite clearly that there is some primate type of behaviour exhibited by this female example of an endangered sub-human species.

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

What the fuck?!!?

Why didn't ANYONE say that the drug war is SOCIALISM!!!! She is paying that from her paycheck just as much as the other social programs. Damn some republicans are worse than liberals.

"you're a funny dude, but who gives a fuck about that? I don't care about someone's wit, I care about the courage of their heart and the honesty of their mind."

EXACTLY!!

The drug war is a racist socialist jobs program for police officers DEA agents and the prison industrial complex, that carries with it the ideology that the government has the authority to tell people how to live their lives.

She's really annoying--

. Can't get away from that 'liberals are terrible/enemies' business.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--