This was a pathetically weak response from Coulter.
Justifying her support for an intrusive big-government-growing monstrosity of a program but claiming its a necessary corollary to some other big government monstrosities is hardly a conservative position.
A little consistency for the rights of the individual over the intrusive power of the federal government would be nice, Ann.
If you're looking for intellectual consistency from Coulter I wish you luck.
She's a carnival barker who is in it to make money & sell books, not be a serious ideas person.
This was a pathetically weak response from Coulter.
Justifying her support for an intrusive big-government-growing monstrosity of a program but claiming its a necessary corollary to some other big government monstrosities is hardly a conservative position.
A little consistency for the rights of the individual over the intrusive power of the federal government would be nice, Ann.
She's not even consistent in her inconsistency - unless she supports bans on everything with a negative effect on health or employment: alcohol, bacon double cheeseburgers, staying up late on work nights, etc.
I thought it was a decent response. Coulter doesn’t support the socialist state we have, she just acknowledges it. I’d be ok with legalizing most drugs, too, IF those who decide to use them are not allowed to come back to “government” (i.e., the rest of us) when they cannot find work, housing or necessary medical care. I suspect that libertarians who want to use drugs will run from their libertarianism when they “need” government.