John Stossel pushes Libertarian view on terrorism: Do Nothing

John Stossel pushes Libertarian view on terrorism: Do Nothing

Cowardly idiots who deserve to drown and are insufferable in college: Ann Coulter’s composite libertarian..

Ronald Reagan worked with Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II to hasten the defeat of Soviet Communism. It did not happen because world leaders did nothing.

WTF??????

Reagan, Thatcher, and JPII all conspired to bring down the Soviet empire????? That's laughable in of itself.

I do note that it says they hastened to end soviet communism, that "it" did not happen because they did nothing. But what is "it". Is "it" the hastening of the fall, or the fall itself? As grammarically worded, "it" refers to the hastening, implying that the fall would indeed have happened eventually on it's own.

What kind of moron would write this kind of nonsensical paragraph? And that's assuming it's true Reagan, Thatcher & JPII all worked together to end communism.

Vinny, you and Gatlin really need some more intelligent sources of information.

I like Stossel. He's right about a lot of things, and US foreign policy has indeed been a humanitarian disaster, Iraq being among the worst. As for ISIS, if we hadn't invaded Iraq and instead "done nothing", ISIS wouldn't exist today. Answer that one!

"It also means honoring our commitment to the stability of Israel."

Anyone know what that means?

Ann Coulter

The 2012 Romney whore? Who cares what she has to say?

Anyone know what that means?

That the sugar-daddying will continue.

(Interesting to find you taking the libertarian - or at least the anti-anti-libertarian - side.)

As for ISIS, if we hadn't invaded Iraq and instead "done nothing", ISIS wouldn't exist today. Answer that one!

they would still be called 'The Republican Guard ' and they'd still be terrorizing the people of Iraq . Everyone thinks terrorism in Iraq began with the US invasion. But Saddam Hussein led a terrorist campaign in Iraq for years ,that claimed hundreds of thousands of lives before he was ousted . ISIS is the JV team compared to him. No one cared about his terrorism because they believed it led to stability .

(Interesting to find you taking the libertarian - or at least the anti-anti-libertarian - side.)

At first glance the Libertarian philosophy looks good on paper, but would never work in practicality. Which is why there are so many, diverse, small "l" libertarians.

Libertarianism would work on an island populated by amoral, single adults.

Or legalize drugs!

Ann Coulter
The 2012 Romney whore? Who cares what she has to say?

Oh, there probably are more people who care what she has to say than you would like to admit knowing.

Ann has 19.5k tweets added to 111 photos and videos and 883,000 followers on twitter.

She is also the author of eleven New York Times bestsellers. Humans Events has her under contract as their legal correspondent. She writes a widely circulated highly popular syndicated column for Universal Press Syndicate.

Ann is in demand as a frequent guest on many TV shows. These including Hannity, Piers Morgan, Red Eye, HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, Fox & Friends, Dr. Drew, Entertainment Tonight, The Today Show, Good Morning America, The Early Show, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, Hannity, The O'Reilly Factor.

She has been nationally profiled in numerous publications, including TV Guide, the Guardian (UK), the New York Observer, National Journal, Harper's Bazaar, The Washington Post, The New York Times and Elle magazine. She was the April 25, 2005 cover story of Time magazine. In 2001, Coulter was named one of the top 100 Public Intellectuals by federal judge Richard Posner.

I will not take time to cover the demands for her paid speech appearances.

Libertarianism would work on an island populated by amoral, single adults.

Libertarianism probably would not even work there. Libertarianism did not work with the libertarian project in Chile.

It was a good idea, in theory anyway. The plan was to form a sustainable community made up of people who believed in capitalism, limited government, and self-reliance. The site was already picked out: 11,000 acres of fertile land nestled in the valleys of the Chilean Andes, just an hour's drive away from the capital of Santiago, to the east, and the Pacific Ocean, to the west. Residents could make money growing and exporting organic produce while enjoying Chile's low taxes and temperate climate. This was no crackpot scheme to establish a micronation on a platform floating in the middle of the ocean (a common libertarian dream)—this was a serious attempt to build a refuge where free marketers and anarcho-capitalists could hole up and wait for the world's fiat currencies to collapse. They called it "Galt's Gulch Chile" (GGC), naming it for the fictional place where the world's competent capitalists flee to in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.

The project was conceived in 2012 by four men: John Cobin, an American expat living in Chile who once ran unsuccessfully for Congress in South Carolina; Jeff Berwick, the globe-trotting founder of the Dollar Vigilante, a financial newsletter that preaches the coming end of the current monetary system; Cobin's Chilean partner; and Ken Johnson, a roving entrepreneur whose previous investment projects included real estate, wind turbines, and "water ionizers," pseudoscientific gizmos that are advertised as being able to slow aging.

That initial group quickly fell apart, though today the principals disagree on why. Now, two years after its founding, the would-be paradise is ensnared in a set of personal conflicts, mainly centered on Johnson. Instead of living in a picturesque valley selling Galt's Gulch–branded juice, the libertarian founders are accusing one another of being drunks, liars, and sociopaths. GGC's would-be inhabitants have called Johnson a "weirdo," a "pathological liar," "insane," a "scammer," and other, similar things. Some shareholders are pursuing legal action in an effort to remove him from the project, a drastic measure for antigovernment types to take. Johnson, who remains the manager of the trust that controls the land, claims all the allegations against him are false.

Continue reading here to learn what happened …

propping up the Shah of Iran until Jimmy Carter decided not to.

The 2012 Romney whore? Why should any conservative care what she has to say?

Allow me to rephrase:
The 2012 Romney whore? Why should any conservative care what she has to say?

Of course I will allow you to rephrase your question.

I will answer by saying that Ann Coulter is a conservative and has STRONG conservative views:

She is a conservative columnist . She is a registered Republican and member of the advisory council of GOProud. She supported George W. Bush's presidency, endorsed Mitt Romney in the 2008 Republican presidential primary and the 2012 Republican presidential primary and presidential run. In the 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries, she endorsed Donald Trump.

She believes Roe v. Wade should be overturned and left to the states. She is pro-life, but believes there should be an exception if a woman is raped.

She strongly opposed amnesty for illegal immigrants, and at the 2013 CPAC said she has now become “a single-issue voter against amnesty”.

She opposes same-sex marriage and supports a federal U.S. constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman. She insists that her opposition to same-sex marriage "wasn't an anti-gay thing" and that "It's genuinely a pro-marriage position to oppose gay marriage". In an April 1, 2015, column, Coulter declared that liberals had "won the war on gay marriage (by judicial fiat)".

She strongly supports continuing the War on Drugs. However, she has said that, if there were not a welfare state, she "wouldn't care" if drugs were legal. She spoke about drugs as a guest on Piers Morgan Live, when she said that marijuana users "can't perform daily functions".

It has been reported that “Ann's client newspapers stick with her because she has a loyal fan base of conservative readers who look forward to reading her columns in their local newspapers." Her biweekly syndicated column is appearing as a feature of six conservative websites:

Human Events Online
WorldNetDaily
Townhall.com
VDARE
FrontPageMag
Jewish World Review and her own web site.

Her books are in strong support of conservatism:

High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton
Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right
Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism
How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must): The World According to Ann Coulter
Godless: The Church of Liberalism
If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans
Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America
Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America
Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama
Never Trust a Liberal Over 3 — Especially a Republican
High Crimes and Misdemeanors
Adios, America: The Left's Plan to Turn Our Country Into a Third World Hellhole

...member of the advisory council of GOProud

You do know what "GOProud" is, right?

As far as being "conservative", Coulter is O'Reilly in drag

they would still be called 'The Republican Guard ' and they'd still be terrorizing the people of Iraq . Everyone thinks terrorism in Iraq began with the US invasion. But Saddam Hussein led a terrorist campaign in Iraq for years ,that claimed hundreds of thousands of lives before he was ousted.

Hussein was secular. ISIS is anything but. Are you seriously suggesting that ISIS is a direct descendant of Hussein's Republican Guard?

Iraq was invaded, and the preceding years of trade embargos imposed, on the false pretense that he had WMD's. The reality was that W Bush just wanted to do a war, and he took advantage of the public sentiment after 911 to do it. So the US has no business criticizing other countries for their human rights record.

ISIS is the JV team compared to him.

Hogwash. He had his share of skeletons in his closets, but he had no desire to impose Sharia law on Iraqis.

No one cared about his terrorism because they believed it led to stability .

I'm inclined to believe that Saddam's crimes were limited only to him holding on to power, little different from any other leader worldwide. And again, Saddam was never interested in imposing Sharia law on Iraqis.

And yes, under Hussain, Iraq was most certainly stable.

Libertarianism did not work with the libertarian project in Chile.

That project never got off the ground because of the shenanigans of its founder, so we have no idea whether it would have worked. The closest the article comes to claiming an indictment of libertarianism is ... not very:

"it may be true that some of the founders' aversion to government-run legal systems and reliance on handshake agreements hurt them—Berwick's assumption that he owned half of the company with Johnson, though he apparently didn't have documents that stated as much, seems oddly naïve in hindsight.

"Libertarians are normally wary of governments and other large organizations, but in this case they seem to have been too trusting of the idea of the Gulch in general and Johnson in particular. There's nothing uniquely libertarian about putting faith in people who say they share your beliefs, or about wanting to build a utopia far from the grubby reality of your current home—but the idea that you can buy your way into paradise seems tailor-made for that political tribe. Looking back, it seems the problem was that the Gulchers weren't as skeptical of the scheme as they should have been simply because it was spun by their ideological allies."

has STRONG conservative views [...] She supported George W. Bush's presidency, endorsed Mitt Romney in the 2008 Republican presidential primary and the 2012 Republican presidential primary and presidential run.

You contradict yourself.

I'm inclined to believe that Saddam's crimes were limited only to him holding on to power, little different from any other leader worldwide. And again, Saddam was never interested in imposing Sharia law on Iraqis.

And yes, under Hussain, Iraq was most certainly stable.

What difference is it what type of government he was imposing with his jackboots ? The fact is he brutally imposed his will on the people of the Iraq killing hundreds of thousands and torturing many more . He gassed the Kurds in Halabja and 40 other villages killing up to 5,000 people and injuring 7,000 to 10,000 more. He leveled the town of Dujail in retaliation for one person taking a shot at him . Before he did that he rounded up 140 fighting-age men who were never heard from again.He rounded up 1,500 other townspeople, including children,tortured them before he exiled them into the desert . 182,000 Kurds were killed during his Anfal campaign.

As for stability ,he twice invaded his neighbors ,over a million deaths (mostly during his invasion of Iran) . 1,000 Kuwaiti civilians were killed during his invasion and occupation of Kuwait . Had it not been for our intervention he would've easily over-run Saudi Arabia.

The region was far from stable . Iraq under his watch actively supported a number of terrorist organizations and he was a threat to all his neighbors.

yes I am

"...member of the advisory council of GOProud"

You do know what "GOProud" is, right?

What difference is it what type of government he was imposing with his jackboots ? The fact is he brutally imposed his will on the people of the Iraq killing hundreds of thousands and torturing many more . He gassed the Kurds in Halabja and 40 other villages killing up to 5,000 people and injuring 7,000 to 10,000 more. He leveled the town of Dujail in retaliation for one person taking a shot at him . Before he did that he rounded up 140 fighting-age men who were never heard from again.He rounded up 1,500 other townspeople, including children,tortured them before he exiled them into the desert . 182,000 Kurds were killed during his Anfal campaign.

And how many Iraqis died as a direct result of trade embargo and invasion of Iraq?

More than the tally here.

However bad Saddam was for Iraq, the US has been much worse. Or do you suggest we invade every country that has human rights abuses?

Or do you suggest we invade every country that has human rights abuses?

of course not . He was invaded because despite the multiple sanctions ,and the US maintaining no fly zones to protect the people from his abuses ,and the UN fraud and corruption with the Oil for Food program (blame them for Iraqi deaths ) ,and the multiple warnings that there would be consequences for violating sanctions and not coming clean about his chemical ,biological ,and nuclear programs (yes he still had them...he shipped his nuclear research to Libya )....he still stubbornly refused to comply . His past history proved he could not be trusted to willingly give them up ,or give them up under international pressure .Thousands had died from his Chemical weapons . The fact that he still had them was not a matter of debate ;it was the consensus assessment of all the intel services in the world ... including his own services and officers . It was also a consensus of the whole American political community that he retained his weapons . This was the bipartisan opinion of everyone ,who had access to the classified intel ...including both Bush and Clinton ,and every Congressional leader .

"That project never got off the ground because of the shenanigans of its founder ..."

Ah. I see. And I suppose the reason socialism doesn't work is because the wrong people are in charge.

And I suppose the reason socialism doesn't work is because the wrong people are in charge.

Apples and oranges - socialism has been implemented rather than merely planned, and by many people in many places.