Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter Wants to 'Drown' Libertarians: Come Try to Drown Me—Address Provided

|

Ann Coulter
facebook

In her latest column, conservative provocatuese Ann Coulter is demanding that all conservatives and libertarians vote Republican this November. Coulter asserts:

For the next six weeks, nothing matters more to the country than Republicans taking a majority in the Senate. When it comes to politics, conservatives need to learn one thing from liberals: All that matters is winning.

As if conservatives in Congress have done anything to rein in overweening government, reduce the budget, cut programs, or protect civil liberties.

More amusingly, she writes:

If you are considering voting for the Libertarian candidate in any Senate election, please send me your name and address so I can track you down and drown you.

In Virginia, I am voting for the Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate, Robert Sarvis, this November.

So O.K., Ms. Coulter, come give drowning me a try. My home address in Charlottesville is marked on the map. Google Map directions to my house from your digs in Palm Beach are below. See you soon.

Map From Florida

NEXT: L.A. School Cops Give Up Grenade Launchers … But Keep the M-16s, MRAP

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. When it comes to politics, conservatives need to learn one thing from liberals: All that matters is winning.

    She must confuse Principles with Principals.

    1. Shorter Ann Coulter: YAY TEAM!

      1. Kill it with FIRE!!!

        1. The bobbing Adam’s apple is coming FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE!

          1. -1 caller-ID technology for making 70’s movies less shocking.

    2. I honestly think it all stems from her confused gender identity.

      1. Lame.
        Give her some credit – after reading her articles from Jewish World Review I found she’s smarter than she seems once you get past her soundbite attention-whore exterior.

        She supports the 10th and the 2nd (especially for blacks); if the U.S. congress were to be filled with Coulter clones we’d have a libertarian federal gov’t by default because of this.

        She’s pointing out a real problem here… is it better to go for the safe, pragmatic route to win & stop Obama from appointing new Democrat Supreme judges, or should we stick to principles & risk losing it all?

        1. r should we stick to principles & risk losing it all?

          If “winning” is just TEAM RED instead of TEAM BLUE, we’ve already lost it all, so lets get it on.

  2. No hat tip to Shreek?

      1. Yea, nobody wants to mention Weigel where others can see it.

      2. Or it might just be because you are a fucking asshole.

    1. I think a commenter has to be sentient to get a hat tip.

      1. Nahh…pretty sure we’ve given anono-bot some love on a couple of occasions!

        1. Anon-bot comes way closer to sentience than the shrieking imbecile ever has.

    2. RB doesn’t want to risk the whirling fists and elbows, and he has no cake.

  3. Also, there’s no point in a pyrrhic victory.

  4. As if conservatives in Congress have done anything to rein in overweening government, reduce the budget, cut programs, or protect civil liberties.

    Why would they start now?

    1. Sure you wanna keep playing, shreek? The game’s always between you and getting called a cunt. That dropped eye of yours looks like the hood on a cunt to me, shreek. When you talk, your mouth looks like a cunt moving.

      1. Licking and playing with the clitoral hood is remarkably wonderful. Just sayin’. You might want to re-craft your invective into something more apt, mawn.

  5. What a cunt.

  6. As if conservatives in Congress have done anything to rein in overweening government, reduce the budget, cut programs, or protect civil liberties.

    You act as if that matters. She is a Republican trying hard to save the party. That’s all. What’s best for the party is more important than what’s best for country or individual liberty.

    1. “… She is a Republican trying hard to save the party. That’s all. What’s best for the party is more important than what’s best for country or individual liberty.”

      I agree with you.
      Sadly, I’ve met a lot of individuals (belonging to both major parties) who hold very similar views.

      Regards,

      Charles

  7. I suspect you would have little luck trying to drown me, Madame. I would invite you to try, but be ready to be tied into a pretzel knot upon such attempt.

    1. …be ready to be tied into a pretzel knot…

      She’s probably into that, SS. You’d never be able to get rid of her.

      1. Oooh. Hadn’t considered that. Maybe I’ll just shoo her away with a fire extinguisher or such.

    2. YOU THINK IT’S OK TO STRIKE A WOMAN?!?!?!

      CAST OUT THE BLASPHEMER!

      1. In self defense, it’s acceptable to hit anyone, regardless of identity politics.

        1. Wow! SOMEONE needs re-education camp BAD!

          *points at UCS*

          1. *breaks Alnanian!’s pointing finger*

            *walks off*

            1. OW!

              Someone needs a NAP after re-education camp!

        2. Unless you’re a large man defending yourself from a smaller woman.

      2. As I said on the previous thread, she’s not a woman. Look at the Adam’s apple.

        1. She’s whatever gender identity she says she is, you cis-normative shitlord! Check your hetero white male privilege!

          1. shitlord

            Check your not-having-Crohn’s-disease privilege!

            (hat tip to that Salon parody twitter feed)

            1. That feed is a perfect parody.

          2. So is it okay to hit (in self defense, of course) a female who identifies as a man?

        2. Rufus would.

          *Shudders*

        3. Ann Coulter is Andy Kaufman.

          She’s totally the pissing everyone off for the lulz type character he loved to play. They’re both 6’1″, nearly the same age, from New York, have the same light blue eyes with that piercing crazy person stare.

          1. They aren’t both anything sadly…

            1. In my conspiracy theory, Kaufman faked his death and got a sex change, so yes they are!

          2. Does she wrestle women or men?

            1. Bald eagles.

          3. She should change her name to Andy Apple.

    3. Perhaps LTC but remember her venom will paralyze you and she will then consume your internal organs at her leisure.

      1. Gah! One of those tarantula vs wasp things….eugh!

  8. She came to my college years ago and she is a huge bombthrower. She’s a joke but she does get the left riled up so there you go.

    1. She is a bomb thrower and a polemic writer. I would have thought Ron would be smart enough not to get taken in.

      1. Ron was being funny. Made me laugh.

  9. Why would she need to come try Ronald, you’ll be under water because of global warming in a few years anyway right?

    1. Well, once the warming ‘pause’ comes out from hiding in the deep ocean.

      1. Ph’nglui mglw’nafh Warming R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn.

        1. I couldn’t agree more.

        2. We DO NOT summon Elder Gods on THIS blog, mister!

          1. “We DO NOT summon Elder Gods on THIS blog, mister!”

            Well, at least not more than once.

        3. ke’tle ma’eh, ke’tle ma’eh, ke’tle ma’eh… WOOP WOOP WOOP WOOP WOOP WOOP WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOP WOOP WOOP WOOP WOOP WOOP!

          1. I think you just summoned Bucky Katt, of Gety Fuzzy fame.

            1. *Get Fuzzy*.

              Sorry, Darby.

        4. “Ph’nglui mglw’nafh Warming R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn.”

          Nicely done.

          Have you heard “Hey There Cthulhu” by Eben Brooks?

  10. I’m about a half a mile from you, and I’m also voting for Sarvis. I met him here in Charlottesville before last year’s Governor’s election, and was very impressed. Warner will win, of course, but I’m voting for what I believe.

    1. Well Warner better win after they went after McDonald like they did. I’m also going to vote for Sarvis so that’s at least three votes for Sarvis.

      1. So you guys are proving her point. Conservatives think libertarians are really conservatives, and all our votes are belong to them.

        If you’re actually worried that Warner might not win, she’s right.

        1. The fact that I identify marginally more with Republicans than Democrats does not mean that I owe them my vote. Given an alternative that reflects what I actually believe, I will vote my conscience. I would say that most libertarians are inclined toward the conservative, and a Libertarian candidate probably draws more votes away from Republicans than Democrats. That in no way makes me feel that I am betraying my (true) conservative feelings by voting Libertarian. When the Republican party turns back into something worth voting for, they can have my vote again.

        2. There is no way in hell Gillespie is going to beat Warner. There’s a 19 point spread right now, Gillespie is a GOP establishment turd, and Warner is too smart to open his mouth between now and the election.

          Gillespie would have to have video of Warner pitching to a 12 year old in order to win.

          The Virginia GOP is in tatters at the state level. They can’t seem to find a candidate who can avoid sticking his ass in his mouth.

          1. I too won’t be voting Republican for Virginia Senate race. The party is becoming worse and worse, and the Virginia GOP isn’t bold enough to try anything that runs counter to an establishment candidate.

      2. “Well Warner better win after they went after McDonald like they did.”

        Yeah, after all, Gifty should have been able to take all the perks and money he could while promoting false diet products. Shame those “democRATS” went after him like that. How dare they want to rein in such things?

        1. And this coming from someone that voted for a white senatorial candidate that lied about having American Indian ancestry to get a better job. Shame those “democRATS” spent millions of dollars supporting her campaign.

    2. I’m also in Charlottesville. Perhaps a get together is in order?

      1. Heck, Anne may be into foursomes, you know?

        1. Go on…

            1. She might break in half since she’s so thin.

        2. Paging SugarFree, Mr. Free to the menstrual blood-spattered courtesy phone, please.

      2. At a local pool, perhaps, to facilitate Ann’s drowning efforts?

        Meet at the free speech wall at noon, wearing a Gadsden Flag patch?

    3. Isn’t Sarvis funded by blue, in order divide, and thwart red?

      Seems like Ann might have a point here.

      Apart from the whole drowning thing.

      Unless it’s a euphemism of some sort..

  11. We don’t have any Senatorial races in New York this year, and there is only one candidate running against Taxin’ Tonko for his house seat. I’m not voting for Tonko, so the small business owner is getting my vote. I’m not sure what party he’s with, but given that Taxin’ earned his nickname…

    Anyway, do you really think you have the strength required to hold a bouyant fat bastard like me under water? I don’t think you even have the body mass to do it.

    1. She’s got the money to hire Big Tony and fat Anthony to hold your legs up over your head in the tub.

      1. That’s not the same thing, now is it?

  12. Why can’t Reason ever attract trolls as entertaining as Coulter? All we get are Tony and Shreek.

    1. Yeah. We’re stuck with you for our socon troll. Sucks to be us.

      1. John is far from our only SoCon troll.

        1. Why do you think I am a SOCON? Is it my position against the drug war? Is it my support of legalized prositution and gambling? Is it my libertine views towards sex?

          What exactly makes me a SOCON other than the fact that I think SOCONS are entitled to think whatever the hell they want?

          SOCONs really are the new Jews for a lot of people. They are the perminant other that one must either hate or be considered part of. You call me a SOCON troll just like the old fascists used to accuse people of being Jew lovers.

          1. You’re an Aborto-Freak, anti-gay marrying, anti-secularist.

            Maybe an anti-Colonial too. Ask Dinesh on that one.

            1. Are you quitting on me? Well, are you? Then quit, you slimy fucking walrus-looking piece of shit! Get the fuck off of my obstacle! Get the fuck down off of my obstacle! NOW! MOVE IT! Or I’m going to rip your balls off, so you cannot contaminate the rest of the world! I will motivate you, IF IT SHORT-DICKS EVERY CANNIBAL ON THE CONGO!

            2. How in the hell did you win that commitment hearing? Seriously, are the standards for involuntary commitment really that high in Georgia? Was the judge drunk that morning? Did the Thorazine wear off just that fast?

              You really are a walking reminder of the failure of mental health care in America.

            3. John’s certainly not a socon. He may at times defend them as allies, but he’s not one.

              1. Look Bo…briannnnn, you, John, hitler. you’re all the same. Just admit it!

          2. You know who else talked a lot about Jews and claimed not to be a SoCon?

            1. Joe Lieberman?

            2. Pontious Pilate?

      2. What Brenden said. I do troll the hell out of you and others on this site. But I am not a socon. I don’t see how you could rationally say I was.

        1. I’m teasing. Take a sedative.

            1. Though your reflexive defense of all things military is soconish.

              1. I don’t defend all things military. I am highly skeptical of the military. I know the military and thus understand how they are prone to ineptitude.

                1. Why don’t you two get a room. I’ll send a skinny chick and her fat friend over.

                  1. Ann Coulter and Lindy West?

                    *ducks and runs from room*

                    1. *barfs a LOT*

                2. But you do seem to defend all things ‘military intervention in the Middle East’.

                  1. For sure. That is why I supported Obama going I to Libya and Syria.

              2. Reflexive defense of all things military is neoconish.

                1. Reflexive defense of all things military is neoconish.

                  You’re right. He’s our neocon troll.

                  1. I am totally a neocon. That is why I immediately jumped to the defense of John Yoo this morning.

                    You are onto me.

                    1. Look John, anyone who is prolife is a neocon racist christfag troll. You hate women and minorities. It’s impossible to think that an unborn baby has rights and still be a libertarian.

                      Racist fucking womanhating creationofascist underbite having neanderthal!

              3. Socons can have any position on the military.

                1. Very true. I know quite a few Mennonites who are 100% pro-life, against gay marriage and yet are pacifists.

        2. Well, we have briannnnn/black blood now. He’s sort of entertaining.

          1. HEY! There are still some people who don’t know our…ahem…the secret!

          2. And the FUCK do you mean by “sort of?”

      3. I personally like the libertarian troll briannnnn the best.

        1. You’re too kind. Black Blood is the best libertarian troll in my book!

          1. You two are the same person, aren’t you?

            1. That’s an odd way to phrase a question.

              1. Don’t worry about him; he’s just trying to throw people off!

                1. I know you are, but what am I??!

                  1. Hey! No one wins this game alright?

            2. I thought we were all the same 5 or 6 people and our various bots.

              1. Wait….There’s more than 2 people? I know that I’m at least 90%

      4. Are all socons trolls to you? Because all I see is John desperately trying to convince a floundering movement that the “this will be out year guys as long as we double down on the issues the democrats already support” thinking is magical. To put it in sneering secularist terms it’s as worthless as prayer.

      5. John may be a lot of things, but I don’t consider him a troll.

    2. I’m sure Ann would peg you instead of drowning you.

      1. I bet you’re the kind of guy who would fuck a person in the ass and not even have the goddamn common courtesy to give him a reach-around. I’ll be watching you.

        1. He’s a turd.

          1. You’re too kind. I think he’s more santorum.

        2. Clint Eastwood??
          “I bet you’re the kind of guy who would fuck a person in the ass”

  13. Over react much?

    1. Or are you hoping to get kinky with AC?

    2. Ron’s filing for a restraining order as we speak.

      Don’t worry Ron, she didn’t mean it. Honest.

    3. I’m sure if a ‘proggie’ has said similar comments AlmightyJB, John, etc., would similarly be saying ‘why’d you bite on such silliness, Ron?’

  14. Let me know when you’re coming to the DC office, Ron, and I’ll be happy to drown you in booze.

      1. I’m just trying to not be called passive-aggressive in a Bailey thread.

        Besides, white wine is for chumps.

        1. But it’s not really white, is it? Certainly not a red, per se.

          How about: dessert wines are for chumps.

          1. Breaks empty bottle of Dow’s 10 year old Tawny Port and waves sharp end at sloopy.

            YOU LEAVE PORT ALONE!!!!!!

            *drunkenly sobs*

  15. Wow, now Skeletor is an internet tough guy, too? Does she have a single redeeming quality?

    1. Her bones can be turned into mystical flutes that control the migration patterns of certain species of birds.

    2. She’s mortal, so future generations won’t have to endure her moronity?

      1. Really? She looks like a fucking vampire to me.

    3. “Wow, now [Coulter] is an internet tough guy, too? Does she have a single redeeming quality?”

      That was a rhetorical question, wasn’t it Brandon?

      Regards,

      Charles

    4. She really pisses off many of the right people. I think that’s about it.

  16. RONALD BAILEY GETS ALL INTERNET TOUGH GUY WITH COULTER, WITH “HERE’S MY FUCKING REAL ADDRESS, BITCH” WHILE WE’RE AT IT!

    Woo hoo!!

    i’m headed your way, Ronald – what’s for supper? I’ll bring some ironic PBR and we’ll talk Cosmotarianism and Virginia Postrel. Deeeeep, cleansing breaths, bruddah……innnnnnnnnn…….ouuuuuuuuut…..

    1. Must not have watched Iron Man 3.

  17. Alt Headline: Ann Coulter gives horrifying accurate preview of Hit & Run comments during summer of 2016

    1. What if Paul gets the nomination? Will it be six months of endless “not a true Scotsman” arguments?

      1. Not if scottish independence goes forward.

        1. So a If you vote no on the referendum does that hurt your True Scotsman bid?

            1. No True Scotsman would vote on independence, they’d seize it by the edge of a sword!

                1. It’s SHITE being Scottish! We’re the lowest of the low. The scum of the fucking Earth! The most wretched, miserable, servile, pathetic trash that was ever shat into civilization. Some hate the English. I don’t. They’re just wankers. We, on the other hand, are COLONIZED by wankers. Can’t even find a decent culture to be colonized BY. We’re ruled by effete arseholes. It’s a SHITE state of affairs to be in, Tommy, and ALL the fresh air in the world won’t make any fucking difference!

                  1. What about the Irish?

      2. Of course, but urging someone to vote for Paul is light years away from “Shut up and vote for Romney.”

        1. But Paul isn’t a real Libertarian. Didn’t you hear that?

          1. Well, he isn’t. But certainly someone better for my interests than Romney.

              1. It is kind of a slippery slope.

                1. It is kind of a slippery slope.

                  I hear that’s how Rick Sanotrum got started.

        2. Shut up and vote for Romney.”

          It wasn’t just that in the last election but “Romney is a conservative!” I have a hard time even enjoying her eviscerating the Left after such abject and stupid partisanship.

      3. In that regard I am not sure what I fear most.

      4. She’ll support whomever TEAM nominates.

        She hates libertarians because they’re spoilers who draw votes away from TEAM, and that’s very important since every election is the most important election we’ll ever have in our lifetime.

        As long as Paul is running for TEAM, she’ll back him 100%.

        1. Coulter doesn’t hate libertarians, she just likes the attention that her schtick receives and ultimately the income it generates for her. That she’s anything other than a redassed shitflinger for a local rag is proof positive that politics is just a circus.

          1. She kind of The Offspring of political pundits. She does one thing really well which induces a lot of people who ought to know better to wildly overestimate her talent.

            1. Their first album kicked ass, first CD I ever bought.

          2. Or it’s proof that she started mailing it in after Treason. Kind of like PJ ORourke. We get it you do coke and listen to 60s era LPs sometimes in war zones. Treason was a really good book which did exactly what a conservative activist should undermine a favored left wing trope and inure fellow conservatives to its power. Think how much better Reason would be if it weren’t so abundantly clear that at least half the contributors here live in utter fear of being a John Stewart punch line.

      5. If Paul gets the nomination the neocons will abandon all pretense of rallying to the party as they would have us do, and run an independent fascist like McCain or Giuliani or Bloomberg.

        1. Nah. They’d support him. The only way Paul could get the nomination is by shedding his libertarian principles and being what Republicans want him to be. Just watch. He’s going to disavow his libertarianism as we approach the election. He’s just another politician.

        2. If he gets the nomination and Hillary Clinton gets it for the Dems, I bet at least some neocons would back Hillary (or at the least not support Paul).

          1. Yes, I can envision Mr. Kristol pulling for the Hildebeest

            1. I’d say Jennifer Rubin would too. Also Max Boot and some of the Commentary crowd.

              1. I think you guys are wildly mistaken in that belief. Then again, I’m an idiot.

                1. Oh c’mon, you can’t see the Retarded David Twins, Frum and Brooks, being Ready For Hillary?

                  1. Frum and Brooks absolutely! But for some reason I think Bill Kristol would have a stroke if he voted for a Democrat.

                    1. Oooooo…. my new band name Brooks and Frum

                      Our first song will be Butt Scattin’ Baggie

                    2. Did they both have colostomies or something?

                    3. Just wishful thinking

    2. Well if you don’t like vote for Romney you hate america.

      1. Just 53 percent of it.

  18. Hey, Ann, if you’re driving, pick me up some fireworks, a nut log from Stuckey’s, and one of those South of the Border bumper stickers because mine has faded. I’m in PA, so I’ll meet you at the Street Road exit on I-95. I have a green van and I’ll be wearing a carnation in my lapel. Thanks.

    1. I have a green rape van and I’ll be wearing a carnation in my lapel.

    2. Also, grab some sweet, illegal, out-of-state booze.

      1. Why is Max Power’s post in yellow highlighter! I want that!!!!

    3. You know who else drove out of the South into Pennsylvania looking to fight?

      1. Muhammad Ali?

        1. In high school, I had a friend I used to drop off on the way home. Sometimes there was a really nice RV parked on his street. That meant Ali was visiting his Mom. Not sure why he slept in the RV instead of the house.

        2. + float like a butterfly, sting like a bee

  19. Party at Ron’s House! WooooH!

  20. This article is so much better if read in your best Axl Rose/Get In the Ring voice.

    1. She did date Bob Guccione Jr.

      1. And Dinesh “Clang Go the Prison Bars” D’Souza

        1. I was referring to the line in Get in the Ring where Axl says “Bob Guccione Jr. at Spin, what are you pissed off cuz your dad gets more pussy than you? Fuck you! Suck my fucking dick!”

        2. Olbermann also, correct?

            1. It’s like she dated every asshole on the planet.

  21. You’re a godsend, RB. We’re just now leaving Fluvanna County, Furthur is about out of gas, and the triplets polished off the last of the anti-psychotics a week ago.

  22. I recommend the drive from 64 to 81 to 95 it is a little longer, but if you like scenery it is the way to go.

  23. VOTE LIBERTARIAN
    Ms. Ann Coulter will want to drown you

    My dream bumper sticker.

    1. The Libertarian Party appreciates your idea for new merchandise. It’s not quite “Pro-choice on everything,” but it’s catchy in its own way.

  24. . My home address in Charlottesville is marked on the map. Google Map directions to my house from your digs in Palm Beach are below. See you soon.

    So Ron, what sort of beer you like? This is a godsend – me and the old lady just had a fight and I need a place to crash for a couple of days. That’s cool right? I figure if me and Bill hit the road this afternoon we can be there by Saturday. You tweak?

    1. I totally vote for the next H&R meetup at Ron’s place.

      1. I can be there in 8 hours!

  25. It’s cute that writers still respond to Ann Coulter like she’s real people. She’s a persona; performance art writ large. Taking her seriously is more than the act deserves.

    1. I didn’t include IT with Almighty and John above, but of course by now it should be implied.

  26. I’m assuming that’s Postrel’s address and Bailey’s just setting things up for a legendary beatdown.

    1. heh.

  27. I live near Belmont so if it’s close by she can drown me in Moore’s Creek while she is visiting.

  28. If I were a Republican bigwig, I’d probably call Ann Coulter and tell her to please stop trying to help.

    1. If I were an amnesty supporter I’d make the same call to Reason.

  29. Bailey drives a Ranger?

    1. That’s the gardener/landscaper.

  30. When it comes to politics, conservatives need to learn one thing from liberals: All that matters is winning.

    A senate filled with deranged authoritarian closet cases like Lindsey Graham does not fit any conceivable definition of “winning” as far as I can see.

    STFU and GTFO, Annie.

    1. She is right. When all your opponents care about is winning and all you care about are principles, you are always going to lose. That is just how the world works. Progs are fascists and fight dirty. That is why they win.

      1. If you follow your principles, you always win.

        1. A PSA from the concerned citizens for heightening self esteem no matter what!

      2. And?

      3. I don’t know, sometimes your side fights dirty and wins, John. Interestingly the size and the scope of government doesn’t seem to be reduced though.

        1. I’m agreeing with BCE over John. I think I’m going to need to shower.

      4. And why everyone else besides politicians loses. Pretty much any successful candidate for national office has to be a fascist who fights dirty, regardless of party.

      5. No, you lose when you stop caring about principles.

      6. There are remnants of apolitical decency left in progressives. We’d never stoop to a wholesale undermining of the democratic process to win, like you guys have.

        1. Thank you for the laugh.

        2. “There are remnants of apolitical decency left in progressives. We’d never stoop to a wholesale undermining of the democratic process to win, like you guys have.”

          Umm, yeah, like demanding a partial recount of just the counties that lean you’re way.

          “Gore request for recounts of all ballots in Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia counties”

          Sure, no stooping there.

  31. She can sit on my lap and choke me any time.

    1. She’d stab you to death with her bony frame.

    2. Agreed.

      Personally, I think Bailey is now more in danger from nutty environmentalists.

      As if conservatives in Congress have done anything to rein in overweening government, reduce the budget, cut programs, or protect civil liberties.

      They have often done so by not being Democrats, who tend to do the opposite on all those things. Which is her point.

      I know, this is an unsolvable conundrum. As much as we may dislike it, the two-party system isn’t going away anytime soon, and despite periodic claims that Libertarians take votes from both parties, I think it’s clear that on average, they take more votes from Republicans.

      And then there’s the whole issue of tactical voting vs. voting your conscience, a.k.a. “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” On many issues, I think a GOP win is more of a win for liberty than a Democratic win. Unfortunately, a Libertarian win just is not a realistic option.

      In short, I see her point, without being in total agreement.

      1. Nobody takes votes from anyone. Votes don’t have a default state and they don’t exist until they are cast. Unless you are proposing a system where someone holds a gun to your head and forces you to vote D or R, the whole idea of candidates stealing votes is just a pointless counterfactual.

        1. In a close election between the only two electable choices (R or D) third party votes CAN affect the outcome. Don’t know that I’d call it “stealing” votes, but it can swing the election one way or the other. It rarely happens during Presidential elections, but frequently does happen at local level (Congressional districts and some Senate seats, but most frequently in primaries).

          For example, Gary Johnson had absolutely ZERO impact in the results of any state’s electoral votes in 2012. Closest he came to potentially impacting the vote was in Florida.

          This year in the Republican primary in NC, we had something like 7 candidates claiming the Libertarian banner and a RINO. Well the strongest of these Libertarians lost to the RINO thanks to the other six candidates. It was that close.

          1. Yes. While I don’t like the term “stealing votes,” it’s obvious that candidates take votes at the expense of other candidates. That’s what elections are. It’s not “counterfactual.”

            1. To steal something, it must first be owned. I own my vote. I cast it for whomever I choose. You want it, you earn it. You don’t get it as a default simply because you aren’t as bad as the other guy.

              It is a counterfactual.

            2. Then the problem is with first-past-the-post. Preferential voting would be less bad.

            3. Not really. It assumes a vote for one of the candidates is the alternative. The real alternative is staying home. That has exactly the same effect.

      2. …the two-party system isn’t going away anytime soon…

        The only thing going away soon is the Republicans, unless they move toward libertarianism. The Republicans need the libertarian vote to win. They better start appeasing us or they can kiss their collective asses goodby.

        I think a GOP win is more of a win for liberty than a Democratic win.

        I see no difference whatsoever.

        1. I agree that the GOP needs to move libertarian. I disagree that there’s no difference: Democrats are far more statist/socialist economically, and far more willing to create and feed the welfare state. They may be more socially libertarian at times, but I think that’s less important than the economic aspects.

          1. I agree that the GOP needs to move libertarian.

            Then I suggest they do it. When they do, they’ll have my vote. Not until.

            (Oh, and PS…that cunt Coulter threatening me isn’t helping)

            1. If the socialists had said that to the Democrats, the Democratic Party wouldn’t be socialist in all but name, as it is now. Better to be a “Fabian libertarian” moving the GOP in that direction than (again) letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

              We didn’t get Obama in 2012 because he won independents, or libertarians. We got him because they mobilized the far left voters to vote for him, regardless. Romney lost because conservatives and libertarians didn’t vote for him or stayed home. Now, is Romney an ideal candidate? Of course not, but he’d have been better than Obama in 100 ways, including not packing the courts with leftists.

          2. They may be more socially libertarian at times, but I think that’s less important than the economic aspects.

            Really? I’m not all that convinced of even that. Is it the Republicans who gave us “rape culture”, trigger warnings, campus speech codes, “check your privilege”, or political correctness in general?

            1. I was thinking of abortion and drugs, but you’re right, the Democrats are arguably worse than the GOP on social issues overall, these days.

  32. Progs are fascists and fight dirty. That is why they win.

    Republicans are fascists and fight dirty.

    I lose no matter what. There is no reason to pretend otherwise.

    1. I agree. I’m one these Libertarian-leaning creatures belonging to no camp that views Republicans as no more improved than the ilk they claim to resist.

  33. She’ll get right around to this drowning business as soon as she’s done personally killing and/or converting everyone in the Ummah.

  34. Yes, vote for another round of Republicans, like the ones who did so much good when they had the Presidency and both Houses of Congress under George W. I mean, how can one fail to be inspired by the likes of firebrand Mitch McConnel?

  35. Here is my reason to vote for the GOP rather than Libertarians for Senate this year:

    The Obama administration has, to a greater degree than any previous administration, used its control of the Senate to immunize its executive branch employees from oversight of any kind. If you are advancing a progressive cause approved of by Obama and Holder, there is no law and you may do as you like. That is the reality of our situation now.

    If we don’t want this situation to be permanent – if we don’t want Presidents to realize that a friendly Senate means there is no law, forever – we need to deliver the Senate to the GOP in 2014. No matter what they are going to do with it. No matter what other small government principle they may betray.

    2016 isn’t good enough. We need the Senate to turn over while Obama is in office. Once he’s out of office, nobody anywhere is going to pursue any wrongdoing, because “that’s ancient history” and “we want to look forward not back”. We need a GOP Senate while Obama occupies the White House – because that gives us two years when the law applies to the Executive Branch again, and maybe the Senate will inflict enough pain pour encourager les autres for the future.

    1. Yeah, maybe. I’m still not voting for Scott Brown.

      1. You like Jeanne Shaheen, eh? Again, don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

        1. Really day girls like to hang out with morbidly obese girls because it makes them look skinny (skinnier/not as fat). Scott Brown is the really fat girl.

          1. Fat. Not day.

    2. This assumes that the Republicans will want to spoil the chances of having a Republican President and Congress together by being so UBSTRUKSHUNIST with Obama that it motivates the D base to go out in droves for Hildebeast/Fauxcahontas in 2016. The impeachment of Bill didn’t go so well for Team Red as I recall.

      1. The impeachment of Bill didn’t go so well for Team Red as I recall.

        Which is why they aren’t talking about it now and indeed are trying to downplay such talk. Lots of folks would look at impeachment as being personally vindictive (right or wrong).

        Hamstringing Obama policies, on the other hand, seems less personal. Better “Optics.”

        1. And this is why I won’t vote Republican.

          They will stand by and watch the Constitution shredded because they think doing their sworn duty will make them look bad.

          Fuck them! They need to grab their nutsack and step up and lead, rather than be the least of two evils.

          Winners always want the ball. -JM

          1. You’re only saying that because you lurve teh Democratz!

    3. You believe in the willingness of a GOP Senate to hold the President to account.

      Do you also believe in Santa Claus and unicorns?

      1. It’s a better bet than a Democratic Senate holding Obama to account. Duh.

      2. Perhaps not the President personally.

        But underlings?

        Sure.

        We need a large bonfire of underlings.

    4. My option is mcconnell or the lp candidate. Yeah, im voting lp.

      1. Your vote only reduces McConnell’s margin of victory by one vote. No Biggie.

  36. Huh, I went running literally right past Bailey’s house yesterday. Who knew?

    1. Were his shades pulled, or could you actually see him masturbating to the IPCC’s latest report and pictures of Michael Mann?

      1. I’ll check on that.

  37. We need a GOP Senate while Obama occupies the White House – because that gives us two years when the law applies to the Executive Branch again, and maybe the Senate will inflict enough pain pour encourager les autres for the future.

    Sorry- I see merely “them” and “us”. A Senate with 75 Republicans still wouldn’t lift a finger to rein in Executive Branch lawlessness. Because they really are all part of the noble caste, and could never contemplate such treachery.

    1. So basically, f-it and give up. Think things are bad now? They can get worse if the Democrats retain control of the Senate.

  38. As if conservatives in Congress have done anything to rein in overweening government, reduce the budget, cut programs, or protect civil liberties.

    They were blocking leftist judge appointments until Reid pulled the nuclear option.

    Yes, vote for another round of Republicans, like the ones who did so much good when they had the Presidency and both Houses of Congress under George W. I mean, how can one fail to be inspired by the likes of firebrand Mitch McConnel?

    So, things are so much “hunky dorier” with the Democrats running things? That is more of what will transpire if Republicans don’t take the Senate. Would we have Obamacare if the Republicans had held either house in 2010? NO.

    Right now we are dealing with the choice of either bad, or worse. Ain’t got’ny good choices. So far, it seems many well-meaning Libertarians are choosing worse.

    Go ahead, cast your vote for a Libertarian candidate. He won’t get elected, but you’ll feel good because you voted your conscience. And maybe, just maybe you’ll have helped the worse Democrat get elected/re-elected and the Senate stays in Harry Reid’s hands. Then more leftists judges get appointed and approved by simple majority vote and you see more of your precious liberties squashed by these same leftist judges.

    1. Look, do you want to go hurtling towards the cliff at 100mph, or just 75mph?

      1. The brakes have a better chance at 75mph.

        1. Not much better. I’m not voting for a 75mph speed just because everyone else in the car is dumb enough to vote for that or go faster.

          1. So you’d rather have zero chance. But your conscience is secure.

            1. Exactly. Slowing a catastrophe is better than doing nothing.

              1. Just because hardly anyone wants to stop the catastrophe doesn’t make it a poor choice.

              2. Exactly. Slowing a catastrophe is better than doing nothing.

                No, better to get it over with and start fresh.

                1. You want to “get over” the USA and “start fresh”? No thanks.

                  1. Yes.

                    The USA is a shithole of oppression, coming equally from both sides of the political spectrum. The sooner it collapses upon itself, the sooner we can reclaim our lost liberty.

    2. Then more leftists judges get appointed and approved by simple majority vote and you see more of your precious liberties squashed by these same leftist judges.

      Leftists like John Roberts? Who wants more judges like him, right?

      1. But you’d like more Breyers, Ginsburgs, Kagans, and Sotamayors, eh? There’s far more votes where Roberts went the other way. Personally, I’d kinda prefer to see Obama be forced to at least find a middle of the road judge to replace Ginsburg than be guaranteed a clone.

        1. Nope, I’d rather have more Clarence THomases, but neither party nowadays would appoint someone like him because he’d be too likely to rein in both parties’ naked power grabbing.

      2. Brian D would rather have judges he knows will vote against him rather than be disappointed when a judge who was expected to vote his way doesn’t. It’s why he’s always relived when he strikes out with a girl. If one ever said yes then maybe they’d start dating and maybe break up. Better to keep getting shot down.

        1. LOL…I’m gonna need a new keyboard if this sort of thing keeps up.

        2. Yep. If I don’t vote for Team Red’s Statist Fuckwad du Jour, it must mean that I want Team Blue’s Statist Fuckwad du Jour to win, despite me voting for neither.

    3. All the Republicans do is slow down the Democrats a little bit. That’s NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Ten years ago the Republicans had a choice to as what kind of party they wanted to be – a party that had a future or the party that wanted to cling onto the 1950’s. They kicked the libertarians out of the party and doubled down on the supper club circuit blue hairs.

      When the walking papers were issued to the libertarians by the National Review et al circa 2003, the lesser of two evils bullshit died. Don’t complain now because the Republicans fucked things up so bad. If all the Republicans are are Democrat-lite, don’t make it out like there’s some major difference. We’re fucked but good, and the Republicans are just as responsible as the Democrats.

      It’s not our fault that we’re fiscally and socially sane while the Democrats and Republicans are insane, and the option is throw our support behind the party that has 20 minutes of momentary clarity versus 15 minutes. All that does is move the inevitable collapse out 2-3 years. Big fucking whoop.

      1. I don’t disagree with you about how Republicans screwed up. I’m just not ready to go over the cliff yet and with the Democrats controlling the Senate over the next two years, that’s exactly what will happen. I’ll take a delaying action over capitulation any day.

        1. Two truths of every election:

          1. This is the most importantest election ever!!!!

          2. If (THE OTHER TEAM) wins, they’ll kerplodify the country before the next election (which will, of course, be the most importantest election ever!!!)

          derp

      2. “All that does is move the inevitable collapse out 2-3 years. Big fucking whoop.”

        Big News. It already happened. And it was largely the fault of the GOP.

        We are very unlikely to have such an event again in our lifetimes. Possible, but very unlikely. It takes a lot of selfishness – almost a perfect storm – to do the job. I am fairly certain we will nip it earlier next time.

        Sure, we will have recessions. But we are unlikely to come as close to “losing the sucker” as GW did.

        1. Turd.Burglar.

        2. You stupid fuck, W GREW the government, GREW the regulatory state, he presided over the fastest domestic spending expansion since LBJ, with the Democrats cheering on and voting for every spending increase, and wanting more. They also voted for both wars, and every penny of spending for them. And before you bring up the tax cuts, they went disproportionately to the lower and middle incomes, and resulting in the “rich” paying a higher percentage of taxes, i.e. they were more “progressive.” And your “solutions” are simply more of the same, but with a Democrat imprimatur on policies in the same vein.

        3. You stupid fuck, W GREW the government, GREW the regulatory state, he presided over the fastest domestic spending expansion since LBJ, with the Democrats cheering on and voting for every spending increase, and wanting more. They also voted for both wars, and every penny of spending for them. And before you bring up the tax cuts, they went disproportionately to the lower and middle incomes, and resulting in the “rich” paying a higher percentage of taxes, i.e. they were more “progressive.” And your “solutions” are simply more of the same, but with a Democrat imprimatur on policies in the same vein.

          1. Fuck you, squirrels.

            1. No. Craig really needed that double posted. His cognitive dissonance hinders his ability to process facts when they don’t fit his broken paradigm.

  39. If you are considering voting for the Libertarian candidate in any Senate election, please send me your name and address so I can track you down and drown you.

    That’s kind of extreme. A panty raid of Reason’s offices would suffice.

    1. LOL…iced tea through my nose. Thank you.

  40. Republicans, when they got their “Contract With America” a decade ago, kicked the libertarians to the curb. Now we’re supposed to unite because of some libertarianesque talking points the Republicans would have no likelihood of keeping. No thanks. The lesser of two evils boat has sailed.

    Republicans need to stop being the socially conservative branch of the Democratic Party. At this point, the Republicans are fiscally liberal and socially conservative, pretty much the exact opposite of the average libertarian. Lying about being fiscally conservative and for less government isn’t going to trick anyone.

    Somebody should tell Coulter that libertarians are a reasonably smart bunch of people. You’re not talking to the lumpen, white, lower middle class here. We were content being in the same party with the Pat Robertsons etc, just as the Dems could simultaneously house Bob Gucionne and Gloria Steinem in the same party, but WE got kicked to the curb, not the other way around. Drown the Stosh and Stella portion of the Republican Party, then maybe we’ll talk. They’ve less than a decade of relevancy left anyway.

    1. So rather than the lesser of two evils, you want more evil. Because if you think the Democrats won’t work to obliterate Libertarians after they’ve knocked off the Republican Party, you’ve been toking too much weed. The Democrats want ONE PARTY RULE. They aren’t the Democrats of Harry Truman anymore. The Communists succeeded in taking over the Democratic Party. Unfortunately, most Democrats don’t even recognize it and probably won’t until it’s too late.

      1. No, just that getting ripped apart by a vampire isn’t much different than getting ripped apart by a werewolf. I hate to break it to you, but this “take over” had been going for a long, long time. But the solution to the Democrats slide further left wasn’t for the Republicans to slide to the left of JFK. That wasn’t much of a solution. All it got us was a corporo-fascistic economy with one branch of a unified party playing toward the industrial owners and the other party playing to industrial labor. BOTH PARTIES have been merging with the productive sector and taking it over. BOTH PARTIES have used central banking for its purposes. BOTH PARTIES have used perpetual war for whatever ends it serves them. The idea that the Republicans serve individuals, consumers, personal freedom, fiscal responsibility, or real personal equity is a dream.

        In the end, I hate to break it to you, but it isn’t COMMUNISTS that have won, it’s simply the difference between Hitlerian or Strasserian fascism that’s being contested at this point.

        1. Yep, I agree with you for the most part. I’m not delusional to think that Republicans are some sort of white knight looking out for the Constitution and our individual rights.

          So, we just throw up our arms and quit. Because that’s the only real option right now given your reasoning.

          1. No, support candidates the support individualism and freedom, you know those people Coulter apparently doesn’t want you to vote for.

            AND, I have a ten year old and an eight year old. I can instill in them sanity, or at least try.

            AND, comment on message boards and try and persuade people to understand just what the hell is going on. That a country with an accrual debt north of $50,000,000,000,000 (conservatively), breathtaking currency debasement, troops around the world, prisons filled with “weed tokers”, 24/7 surveillance, and all the rest is one fucked up country. And voting between Democrats and Republicans is truly a waste. You might was well not vote at all.

            1. cont

              In other words, the last best chance to undue the creep of socialism into the fabric of our society and culture was in the 1980’s. We could have undone the socialist welfare/warfare state. But all the Republicans did was deficit spend and borrow like maniacs. It set the blue print for the Republican side of the “take over”. THEN, in the early 2000’s, there was pretty much a last chance to use the Republican ascendancy in Washington to make some serious headway against the SW/W State, and we got Medicare Part D (and an additional $11,000,000,000,000 added to the accrual basis national debt) and the libertarians kicked out of the party.

              So forgive me if my naivete finally went down the rabbit hole viz a viz Republicans. They joined the Big Government train and tried to steer it for the benefit of their adherents – the Statist, white, middle lumpen idiots. I don’t see any difference between them and the frizzy haired, blue state/city-state neurotic idiots. I’ll end up on the wrong side of the razor wire whoever wins out.

              1. C’mon man, you get to choose between dumb and dumber, what’s not to like?

              2. Support candidates with ZERO chance of winning. That sounds like a winning strategy if I ever heard one.

                So, we’re doomed. No hope. Just roll over cause nothing matters anymore.

                Might as well cash in your chips ’cause the only thing that will change all this is a real shooting Civil War.

                1. Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.

                  In my mind, you’re worse than someone who resigns his conscience to the legislator. You give it up willingly to someone whom you know does not represent your values simply because they present an alternative to something worse. And the only reason that you are limited to these choices is that the legislators have conspired to limit them while you acquiesce from fear.

                  Stop being the witting fool.

                2. Support candidates with ZERO chance of winning.

                  You just don’t get it, do you? We don’t win if Republicans win any more than we do if Democrats win.

                  So, we’re doomed. No hope.

                  Absolutely correct, unless Republicans can be convinced to not commit suicide and become libertarian.

                  As things are, we are doomed. Period.

                3. Support candidates with ZERO chance of winning. That sounds like a winning strategy if I ever heard one.

                  They told me I should beck John McCain because the Libertarian (or libertarian Republican) candidate wasn’t electable. Then they told me I had to back Romney because the Libertarian (or libertarian Republican) candidate wasn’t electable.

                  Boy, I can’t tell you how thrilled I am that Presidents McCain and Romney stopped (or at least slowed down) the Democrats’ plans for massively increasing the size and scope of government.

                  1. And how many votes did the Libertarian get in either case? POINT 4 % in 2008 and just under 1% in 2012. Did the Libertarian candidate in either case change the election? No.

                    Both McCain and Romney had a chance, then blew it down the stretch. Their campaigns were crap.

                    Libertarians who voted for McCain and Romney only reduced the margin of defeat by a teensie bit. There aren’t enough Libertarians right now to make a difference.

                    The real reason the Republicans lost is that they alienated their conservative base, who took the same path many Libertarians are espousing here.

                    I think Ann is off base blaming Libertarians. It’s the conservative base who rebelled and sat it out TWICE. There’s alot more of them than there are Libertarians.

                    The practical problem is that the Democrats have put aside internal differences to make sure they win at all costs. How many Democrat incumbents had primary opponents this cycle?

                    If you will note, the Dems have pretty much purged any “D” with remotely conservative (fiscal or social) leanings. Can’t think of a single Dem with Libertarian views either other than those who are for unfettered drug use. Their opponents are so busy fighting themselves that collectively, they give the the Dems the win.

                    1. Libertarians who voted for McCain and Romney only reduced the margin of defeat by a teensie bit. There aren’t enough Libertarians right now to make a difference.

                      Somewhere between 11 and 15% of the population identify as libertarian. Libertarians may have only gotten 1% of the vote, but that’s because the vast majority didn’t vote. You don’t have the numbers to beat the Dems without us. What is it, something like 25-30% of the population identifies as Republican now?

        2. “No, just that getting ripped apart by a vampire isn’t much different than getting ripped apart by a werewolf. I hate to break it to you”

          I hate to break it to YOU, but both of those things are fictional – just like modern Libertarianism.

        3. “No, just that getting ripped apart by a vampire isn’t much different than getting ripped apart by a werewolf. I hate to break it to you”

          I hate to break it to YOU, but both of those things are fictional – just like modern Libertarianism.

          1. But then, you repeat yourself.

    2. You’re not talking to the lumpen, white, lower middle class here.

      WTF?

      1. What do you mean WTF? You don’t think the Republicans, at this point, aren’t the party of Statist “bourgeois” (for lack of a better terms) whites? It’s the bread and butter of the party. It’s what makes up the red portion of the political maps. And they ARE dyed in the wool Statist at this point. They only complain when the gravy flows away from them, never when the gravy flows their way. It’s WHY we’re facing the crisis we’re facing. BOTH PARTIES are Statist parties and they cater to the 50% of the people who vote who want to mail fists around.

        1. And your workable solution is?

    3. Yes because libertarians are small in number, unlikely to donate, and above doing all the nuts and bolts campaign work that modern campaigns require. I don’t say this to be offensive, but non-libertarians don’t find libertarians cool or exotic or anything so when given a choice between the social right which hustles is loyal and doesn’t stick it’s nose up at retail politics then they are going to choose them every time. I get the feeling a lot of libertarians feel like they are like a stuck up hot girl. Yea the attitude sucks but the hotness makes up for it. In reality you guys are the stuck up magna chick if anything it’s easier just to deal with the plain average looking chick with normal interest.

      1. Yes because libertarians are small in number, unlikely to donate, and above doing all the nuts and bolts campaign work that modern campaigns require.

        So those people flocking around Ron Paul all those years were part of the GOP base? Who knew!

        1. He ran as a Republican. Maybe he could have won running under the Libertarian banner, but we’ll never know. He definitely got elected because of the “R” next to his name on the ballot.

    4. The Contract With America was two decades ago, and it had much that libertarians should (and did) approve of.

    5. As far as “smartness” goes, the libertarians are in no way intellectually elite enough to make up for their small numbers and disdain for volunteering. An instructive comparison would be the neo-cons who were intellectually elite with the academic backgrounds to overcome many of the limitations libertarians face. But neo-conservatism really is made up with almost exclusively ivy grads who are good at talking heads type debate and political polemic.

      Rather than comparing themselves to neo-cons or socons libertarians should compare themselves to a movement like paleoconservatism which has a similar level of support and shares the disdain for partisan politics that libertarians have. Thankfully the impeccable political correctness and social liberalism of libertarianism means that they are still allowed some say in the Republican Party. But that may not last with open border welfare statism it won’t be long before Matt welch is sharing a back corner table with Steve sailer.

  41. Tell you what, Ann, I’ll donate $100,000 to RNC if any candidate for U.S. Senate anywhere in the United States, with a Libertarian opponent, loses by one vote.

    1. She didn’t say she just wants to drown one libertarian.

  42. Lighten up, Francis. Does Reason have no sense of humor at all, or are its staff just terribly thin-skinned?

    1. Meh. I thought his response was fairly funny.

  43. Here’s an idea. Let’s vote for Republicans, because by doing that we can totally make believe they’re coming around to seeing things our way, despite the fact that we’re actually rewarding them for all the colossally stupid shit they’ve been doing for the past twenty years.

    Utopia, dead ahead!

    1. Here’s an even better idea! Let’s keep helping Democrats stay in power to reward them for all their attempts at limiting free speech and undermining the 2nd Amendment. Maybe they’ll succeed next time!

      Really guys, what’s the real choice? There’s about a ZERO probability of a Libertarian, running as a Libertarian and not a Republican, winning a Senate seat or the White House. At least in the foreseeable future.

      Even IF a true Libertarian can win a seat in the House or Senate, who is he going to caucus with? If he doesn’t join either the Republicans or Democrats he has no shot at a committee seat. Which means he has absolutely ZERO impact.

      1. Really guys, what’s the real choice?

        The only real choice for the Republican party is to start appeasing libertarians. Until then, they can rot and die for all I care. They are not any better than the alternative. I lose either way. They need me. I don’t need them.

        Deal with it or perish.

        He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing. -PA

        1. And when the Republican Party is gone, you think you can beat the Democrats alone? You been smoking waky tobaccy. Won’t happen.

          1. The Democrats will beat themselves.

            People will not tolerate totalitarianism.

            1. So you agree that the only fix is a violent bloody Civil War. Because if the Dems have permanent control that’s the only thing that will remove them.

              1. And the people seem to be ok with totalitarianism so far. Not much resistance in evidence and the totalitarian curtain lowers.

                1. grr…as the totalitarian curtain…

              2. So you agree that the only fix is a violent bloody Civil War

                No, that’s not the only option. There is still hope for a peaceful solution. One of them is for the Republicans to embrace libertarianism.

                But it may come to that. If it does, so be it.

                And the people seem to be ok with totalitarianism so far.

                Ha! Look around you. Since when would Ann Coulter even mention libertarians? Oh, wait, since she saw the writing on the wall and recognized us as a threat. We will win so long as we don’t give what hasn’t been earned.

                1. I haven’t heard any realistic peaceful solutions offered.

                  Kindly produce the list of elections where the Libertarian candidate, running as a Libertarian, actually won, or changed the election. Can’t be more than a couple. Certainly none that are “high profile.”

                  I happen to think Ann is off base on this one.

                  I’d settle for the Republican establishment actually doing what they say they believe in. Because then at least, Libertarians might feel a little more welcome and be able to make a difference.

                  1. The peaceful solution is for the Republican party to become libertarian. Educate the public, as the Pauls are doing, about the benefits of liberty. Gain membership through reason, liberty and prosperity.

                    I don’t give a flying fuck about the Libertarian party. I’m talking about libertarians taking over the Republican party.

                    And to answer your question, it happened right here in Montana in the last Senate race.

                    I proudly voted for the Libertarian and would do it again. Got that?

                    You want libertarian votes? Run libertarian candidates.

                    1. Could you explain how maintaining the Democrat incumbent’s seat ‘changed’ the election?

                      The same thing happened in the previous election–although, that time it DID change things–it helped make Tester the incumbent.

                      If I support liberty, I really can’t call that a good thing.

                      But then, I like liberty, I like libertarianism–I’m not overly fond of the Libertarian Party, which is, as I see it, an Institution that has been Marched Through.

                      You see, libertarians manage to get their candidates elected–like Paul, and Amash and Massie, while Libertarians manage to get Democrats elected, like Tester, and McAuliffe, and who next? Grimes?

                      Grimes is a good one–at some festival in KY this year the Kentucky LP was pimping their candidate–instead of Bevin and chalking up another lib/rep(what you say you want) victory.

                      What is more important? a victory for liberty–or a vic…..let’s be honest, not a victory at all–just another loss for the organized Libertarian Party.

        2. Can’t say I disagree with the sentiment, but only extent. My formulation at this point would be “They are not enough better than the alternative.”

          1. Fair enough. I won’t hold out for libertopia either. But the Republicans, as a whole, aren’t even close. They run libertarians with an (R) by their name, I’ll vote for them. If not…tough shit.

      2. I think most everyone here would support a libertarian running as a Republican, or even a libertarian leaning Republican. But that’s not what’s under discussion, nor what you are advocating. You are advocating voting Republican regardless of their policy positions, and regardless of the results of Republican rule.

  44. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/594

    Whoever intimidates, threatens, coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, at any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing such candidate, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

    1. I think I have an answer for you Sock Monkey.

    2. If I’m reading this right, voter intimidation is a Class A misdemeanor and the fine could be up to $100,000.

  45. I admire it’s appreciation for practicality, but, after following it for years and tracking its behavioral patterns, I still can’t figure out why it wants Republicans to win. Like, what policy positions does it care about? Do any Republicans know? Is it 100% about being agin’ the libruls–that amorphous boogeyman who wants to [insert random hysterical nonsense] to children and Jesus?

    1. Maybe she’s just as much an ignoramus as you, Tony!
      Stupid and wedded to TEAM!

      1. Yeah, tony, take that! Voting for a major political party and making distinctions between viable political candidates proves that you are a hack. The only candidate I vote for are self-righteous minor splinter parties with no chance of governing that don’t have to do anything that would appeal to more than 0.5% of the population.

        It’s the Peace and Freedom Party for you and me in 2016.

    2. I’ve got to admit Tony has a point here. He’s obviously so invested in voting for a postive program rather than against a self-created chimera that he doesn’t have to make up ridiculous caricatures to gin up his tribalism. So committed is Tony to positive messaging that he posts these delightful satires of what a compete foam mouthed tribal foot solider would post.

      1. Fair point–I’ve admitted to being more motivated by keeping Republicans out of power than Democrats in. The difference is they aren’t a caricature. They actually are stupid and evil and will destroy the planet if ever given full control of this government again. It’s a fact. You can look it up.

        1. Dunno, looks like you didn’t provide proper attribution for your last sentence. Isn’t that a Nancy Pelosi quote?

        2. Never go full retard.

  46. you’d like more Breyers, Ginsburgs, Kagans, and Sotamayors, eh?

    You forgot scalia.

    1. I actually like Scalia. I don’t necessarily agree with all his opinions, but at least he’s firmly on the strict constructionist side of the Constitution.

      1. Compared to Breyer and Ginsberg, I agree.

        1. Thomas and Alito are probably the best ones on the Court. Just my humble opinion. Thomas doesn’t say much publicly, but his writing is pretty inspiring.

          1. raaaaccccccciiiiiisssssssst

            1. Sticks and stones…LOL

          2. “Thomas doesn’t say much publicly, but his writing is pretty inspiring.”

            So you are sure that’s HIS writing? How? These folks have dozens of people writing for them. I think he just gets the notes from Scalia and his staff writes something for him to approve.

            The fact that he can’t talk says something…

            1. I never said Thomas could not talk. He simply isn’t high profile and doesn’t grand stand. I’ve seen him speak in person and without a teleprompter or notes AND he was very open to questions from the audience. He could answer questions coherently and thoughtfully. Quite unlike the current resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

              If you’re going to accuse Thomas of being an illiterate bumpkin, maybe you should produce some evidence to back up the accusation.

              Dig up some of Thomas’ writing from before he was on the Supreme Court and compare to recent opinions. The “voice” is the same. Until someone can provide proof that it’s not his writing, I’m going to assume that it is his.

  47. Think things are bad now? They can get worse if the Democrats retain control of the Senate.

    What are they going to do? Destroy the currency? Bankrupt the country?
    Get back to me when the Republicans don’t propose to do exactly the same shit.

    1. Rule against the 2nd Amendment. Restrict protections of the 1st Amendment to “credentialed” journalists. (Already tried both.)

      Yeah, could be even worse than it is now. At least now you can complain about things in a public forum.

      1. DEY’LL TAKE YER GUNZ!!!

        1. Think they won’t try?

          Dey’ll also take yer Innernet!

          1. They’ve tried and failed. They may keep trying, but they’ll keep failing. They tried recently to amend the first amendment with hilarious results, amending the 2nd will be just as fruitless.

            1. Only because they don’t have the votes right now.

              Once upon a time they didn’t have the votes to take over “Healthcare” either.

              Imagine if they’d been focused in 2009 and went after the 1st and 2nd instead of Healthcare. We might not even be able to have this discussion.

  48. She can be one kinky bitch.

    My neighbor is a libertarian lawyer who was friends with her since they were Hill rats. He gets her manuscripts before they are published, and apparently warns her to take out the most unlibertarian half dozen howlers. Like Coco Channel, she apparently takes a small bit of his advice and removes one item before it goes out of the (publishing) house.

    I’d love to see what the removed item was each time. Her publishers were in a tizzy a few years ago because the ultra-secret manuscript did not arrive at the neighbor’s co-op. They wondered if our local government sponsored enterprise mail deliverer had left it with me. Sadly s/he had not.

    Next time though Ann, it’s mine! You can afford the ransom!

  49. Ann Coulter actually sought the Libertarian Party of Connecticut nomination for US House in 2002, with the self-proclaimed goal of costing a moderate-liberal Republican the election. The Libertarians rejected her, rather promptly, which is kind of funny if you’ve met some of the … characters… that have successfully secured Libertarian Party nominations at the state/local level (including myself!).

    She likes to recount that story when she explains that she opposes marijuana legalization just to spite the Libertarians. (LPCT says it was much more a question of foreign policy than drug policy, but either way it’s funny)

  50. They actually are stupid and evil and will destroy the planet if ever given full control of this government again. It’s a fact. You can look it up.

    WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

  51. Come at me bro!

  52. I actually like Scalia.

    Proof (as if I needed it) you’re a moron.

    Scalia has done as much to shit on my freedom as any member of the Supreme Court in the last fifty years.

    All hail the New Professionalism!

    OBEY

    1. You’re a moron. Nyah Nyah.

      So that’s what counts for an intelligent Libertarian argument? I find it difficult believe, based on such erudite brilliant name calling, that you’ve actually read any of Scalia’s opinions.

      You really think the Republican Party NEEDS the Libertarian piss ant 1% of the total vote in Presidential elections? Dream on.

      Libertarians RARELY even impact House or Senate seats.

      I’m not agreeing with Coulter on this at all. I just don’t like to seeing meaningless votes cast. Yes, meaningless because apart from making you feel better they have absolutely ZERO impact.

      At this point in history the only thing the Libertarian vote does pad the margin of victory or defeat for Republicans. It doesn’t generally turn an election.

      1. You really think the Republican Party NEEDS the Libertarian piss ant 1% of the total vote in Presidential elections? Dream on.

        Libertarians RARELY even impact House or Senate seats.

        Then why are you and Ann so worried?

        1. I’m not actually. I don’t happen to agree with Ann. Not yet anyway.

          There may come a time when the Libertarian vote matters. For now, I’ll tend to first offer support to Libertarians running as Republicans, and if that fails, hold my nose and vote for the RINO.

          But at this moment in history a Libertarian running under the Libertarian banner isn’t going to win and likely won’t even affect the outcome.

          1. You’re expending alot of energy for someone so indifferent.

            1. Not really, I was bored today and had nothing more important to do for a change.

  53. Good to know that there are more than 10 libertarians in Charlottesville

    1. “Good to know that there are more than 10 libertarians in Charlottesville”

      Makes sense that there are WAY more than 1000 disaffected republicans and conservatives in that area – therefore the fact that a few call themselves libertarian isn’t surprising at all.

      I’d have to have full access to their finances, family records, job records, etc. to determine if they truly meet the high criteria for true libertarians.

      1. You’d like to have access to that so you could determine if they were paying their fair share , eh?

  54. She has very little to worry about. Most “libertarians” here – if they vote at all, will vote for “conservatives”…

    Let’s not fool ourselves. Koch is paying to get conservatives elected. He who pays..plays!

    1. And who is Soros paying to get elected?

      1. I don’t know. Why not research it and tell us? I assume that whoever it is, it has to do with Open Society. Is that a bad thing – open society?

        That’s a whole lot different than “resource extractors rich man’s secret club”, isn’t it?

        “Open Society Foundations (OSF), formerly the Open Society Institute, is a grantmaking network founded by George Soros, aimed to shape public policy to promote democratic governance, human rights, and economic, legal, and social reform. On a local level, OSF implements a range of initiatives to support the rule of law, education, public health, and independent media. At the same time, OSF works to build alliances across borders and continents on issues such as combating corruption and rights abuses.

        One of the aims of the OSF is the development of civil society organizations (e.g., charities and community groups) to encourage participation in democracy and society”

        1. Yeah, sure. I got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

    2. The demonic Wall Street, financial and tech industry used to throw gobs of money at the feet of the Democrats. But Obama demonized them so much that they were less enthusiastic during the 2012 election.

      Wall Street is now openly courting Hillary Clinton, who’s made up with them. She’ll be friends with the insurance industry too, once they start complaining.

      1. All industries other than coal mining and Koch led ones are demonic. Right?

        1. The coal that powers the electric plans that power the Tesla Motors vehicles that, when sold, result in you profiting.

  55. You really think the Republican Party NEEDS the Libertarian piss ant 1% of the total vote in Presidential elections? Dream on.

    And off comes the mask.

    Party shill troll is party shill.

    1. And name calling is still a logical fallacy.

      Was never a mask to come off because I’ve never claimed to be a Libertarian. I share a number of views, but I’m voting for electable candidates, not casting my vote for people who have no shot.

      Come on, how much of the vote did Gary Johnson get in 2012 and where did it impact ANY state’s electoral vote? HINT: .99% (just under 1%) and NONE.

      Dude, I voted for the Libertarian in the NC Republican Senate Primary because he had a shot at winning, was the best candidate and would have beaten Hagan in November. But I’m not about to sit by and let Hagan win re-election just because my primary favorite lost. I’ll hold my nose and vote for the RINO because he’s still better than Hagan.

  56. And name calling is still a logical fallacy.

    Name calling is just name calling. And Scalia’s “strict constructionism” needs some serious work when it comes to the Fourth Amendment.

    1. I agree with you on the Fourth Amendment.

      He didn’t go as far as I’d have liked on the 2nd in Heller either.

      He’s not perfect, but a hell of a lot better than the current sitting Liberals.

      Name calling is first cousin to ad hominem.

  57. Libertarians vote?

    1. Sure they do. All 1% of them. Mileage may vary state to state.

      1. I’ve been doing it wrong, then.

  58. Why anyone gives the revisionist, lying twit airtime is a mystery to me. Hasn’t the multiple revelations of her twisting and blatant misrepresentation of facts on past occasions be enough to discredit her as meaningful voice in any forum? But then again Fox News hasn’t been driven off the air either so I guess where there is a dollar to squeeze from a delusional unthinking audience some sociopath will step up to the plate and take that dollar.

    1. Yeah, like MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC are SO objective and don’t have any revisionist, lying twits in their employ and their audiences are SO intellectual.

  59. “As if conservatives in Congress have done anything to rein in overweening government, reduce the budget, cut programs, or protect civil liberties.”

    They’ve done at least as much on those issues as libertarians in Congress. A platonic libertarian representative or senator will be able to do nothing unless there are people willing to work with him. Dismissing all efforts as meaningless unless you get everything you want is setting yourself up for disappointment in the event a libertarian is elected.

    1. What efforts are you referencing? The efforts to grow government, grow the budget, expand programs and attack civil liberties? Why wouldn’t libertarians condemn such efforts?

      1. The efforts to restrain the Democrats on the budget that the Democrats condemn as draconian “cuts”, not supporting the Dems implementing Obamacare. The “both major parties” are equivalent and the black & white viewpoint of libertarians are indicative of group that has no practical political influence.

  60. My only wish is that people who detest libertarians would be upfront about what they really detest – which is liberty. Which is, sorta, what this country was supposed to founded on. At least that’s the myth.

  61. Yeah, I read her article. I agree with her.

    The US system is first past the post. The Libertarian candidate IS NOT GOING TO WIN. But voting for him (her) will take votes from the Republican. I can’t imagine any Libertarian preferring a Democrat to a Republican in the current regime. This isn’t a choice between half a loaf and a full one. This is a choice between 70% and nothing.

    Vote Republican.

    1. You just keep on thinking like that and see where your party is in 10 years.

      You want libertarian votes? Run libertarian candidates. Until then, fuck off.

    2. Vote Republican.

      Fuck you. I like having a clear conscience.

      -jcr

  62. my roomate’s step-sister makes $68 /hr on the laptop . She has been fired from work for 6 months but last month her check was $16959 just working on the laptop for a few hours. visit this page….

    ???????? http://www.netjob70.com

  63. I’m voting Libertarian, live in the Tampa bay area. She can come try to drown me too what a stupid thing to say as a public figure.

  64. Ann Coulter and the conservative movement (which is just as statist and the next leftist) can go to hell.

  65. Since I am a Libertarian not running against a Republican, I wonder if Ann Coulter would settle for some white wine in a hot tub instead of drowning me.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.