T Nation

Would Ron Paul Get Pwned by Her?


#1

"Get the government out of it" is a good and constitutionally correct answer to many questions, but it's not a one-size-fits-all answer to all questions.

It was a good answer, for example, when libertarian Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, was asked about government assistance to private enterprise and government involvement in the housing market.

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:

"The federal government shouldn't be involved. I wouldn't support an amendment (prohibiting gay marriage). But let me suggest -- one of the ways to solve this ongoing debate about marriage, look up in the dictionary. We know what marriage is all about. But then, get the government out of it. ... Why doesn't it go to the church? And why doesn't it go to the individuals? I don't think government should give us a license to get married. It should be in the church."

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?

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.)" READ THE REST AT:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44209


#2

Actually, she is precisely wrong. "Get government out of it" is the solution to everything.


#3

Fixed^


#4

Well, I am glad that I am not the only one who thought her "argument", well, talking points, um, the stuff that she spouted after drawing it out of her ass was shite:

http://oakparkrepublic.blogspot.com/2011/06/my-response-to-ann-coulters-vicious.html

Also, this gem:

Investment guru Porter Stansberry met Ann Coulter at a dinner several years ago. He wrote about her:

    Ann Coulter had never heard of the gold standard. She didn?t believe us when we told her that in 1933 FDR seized all of the privately held bullion in the country, then devalued the dollar ? probably the greatest financial crime in history. She didn?t even know it was illegal for citizens to own bullion up until 1974. Bretton Woods? Coulter thought we were talking about tennis rackets. She told me flatly ?I don?t know anything about finance or economics.? Not even the basics, like how inflation affects prices or the key role paper money and progressive income taxes have played in building the welfare state. We might as well have been talking to a horse. Ann just looked at us, her long face turned sideways with incredulity.

    Lacking anything intelligent to say, she decided to simply insult us. ?I was a libertarian as a teenager, but I emerged from adolescence??

    Good one, Ann. What a zinger.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2011/06/ann-coulternomics/


#5

yeah, yeah...

:stuck_out_tongue:


#6

A. Coulter is the ultimate troll. Most of what she writes is said mainly to piss poeple off. It helps her ratings.
B. Porter Stansberry? Really? Be carefull what you believe about him.
http://briandeer.com/vaxgen/stansberry-fraud.htm