GOPUSA INTERVIEW WITH CONSERVATIVE FAVORITE ANN COULTER

GOPUSA email ^ | 6/10/02 | GOPUSA - Carol Devine-Molin

[Constitutions Grandchild]

When I grow up I wanna' be just like Ann. I usually crack people up with that since I'm going on 53. I wish someone had told me when I was growing up that I could say the kinds of things she does and get away with it. I admire her "in-your-face, take it or leave it, but no hard feelings" attitude about matters of importance. She's got game. Her statements about Dems being "cute," still leaves me in stitches -- mostly because I agree.

[weikel]

She is a conservative and for racial profiling but the impression I get is that she like most women feels rather than thinks. She supports the black fiscal hole known as the WOD( no I don't use drugs and I am pro war).

[weikel]

No Hannity is ussually smarter than her.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

Since the best the majority can do is say "we're in the majority", the fact that they think Ann knows how to make a good argument is further evidence for my case. She can't.

[JG52blackman]

Where is Ann on record as supporting the fiscal black hole known as WOD??? The last place I saw her argue against drug legalization was an article called "Burning Down My Neighbor's House" (or something close to that). The message I took from that title and the anecdote behind that title was that she was trying to spite the libertarians by opposing one of their chief positions in print even if it really wasn't something she cared a whole lot about. The reason she was pissed at the libertarians is that she was willing to be their nominee against RINO Chris Shays who represents her district in Connecticut. But they wouldn't have her unless she was willing to go all out for drug legalization. Knowing Ann's sarcastic and hyperbolic style (and perhaps because I was projecting my own views upon her, since her world view seems identical to mine on virtually every other issue), I saw that article as her way of getting back at those libertarians. Perhaps she will clear this up in a future article.

[weikel]

Well why didn't she support drug legalization then? Let the crackheads kill themselves off.

[Exnihilo]

I'm not a libertarian you ninny. In fact I'm right up there with Kevin Curry when it comes to libertarian bashing as a sport.

[Exnihilo]

Sean Hannity's entire schtick basically boils down to him taking notes on Rush Limbaugh, selecting a few main issues, and re-packaging them with less bravado. Sean Hannity is nothing compared to Rush, the man, the legend.

[weikel]

Yeah I like Rush too.

[weikel]

I don't think Rush would much like Kevin Curry.

[Exnihilo]

Why not? I suspect Rush is pro-drug war. I notice he *never* broaches the subject.

[weikel]

I noticed he never broaches it too. But Rush unlike the drug warriors has subordinated his emotions to his logic( you will never catch liberals or Kevin Curry using logic). And logic says that the drug war is just a fiscal black hole.

[JG52blackman]

I'll have to play both sides here. On the pro-legalization side, there is no question that WOD is Prohibition of the 20's and 30's transplanted to today with almost identical effects. It finances a number of powerful criminal empires and it drives a high percentage of the robberies, burglaries, muggings, etc. that are perpetrated by users trying to get enough money for their next fix. So what would we get if these drugs were legal? On the relatively harmless side, the crackheads might very well take their places alongside the winos on skid-row, and finance their habits with aluminum cans and odd jobs until their hearts explode or they meet their doom in a bumfight. On the more harmful side, the fear is that we would get the same really bad things that we now have with legal alcohol. Even now, about 20,000 people are killed on the highways every year by drunk drivers, down from almost 30,000 per year a few decades ago before we started to get serious about drunk drivers. Another well known problem is the dramatic drop in IQ and good judgement that occurs when people drink past "moderation" and the various acts of stupidity and criminality that occur as a result. The only way to combat the feared increase in this sort of thing is to attack both drug and alcohol mis-use from the demand side. The reduction in highway deaths due to alcohol indicates the possibilities here. The full force of the law must hammer the crap out of DUI's and abusers who endanger or harm others. Various barriers to getting a good job like drug/alcohol testing in the work-place should be allowed by any organization who wishes to blatantly discriminate for any reason against drug users and alcohol abusers. Drug use or alcohol abuse should be a legal cause for immediate revocation of child custody/visitation rights or any other desired privileges like driver's licenses, insurance policies, loan approvals, etc. These are things that should be made ALLOWABLE FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION by organizations other than criminal law enforcement. The fear of those who oppose legalization is that this won't happen and people will not be held accountable for their drug- or alcohol-fueled behavior that endangers or harms the innocent.

[TLBSHOW]

ANN COULTER BUMP

[weikel]

Great analysis.

[Exnihilo]

Maybe it is. I'll take the fiscal black hole over the social one any day. Besides, since when does the ineffectiveness of an effort automatically mean that effort should be abandon? Can we not modify and/or reform said effort?

[weikel]

Oh there are ways to win the WOD Chairman Mao had a WOD he won but its not really possible in a free society.

[Exnihilo]

I've always felt that capitol punishment fit the crime of drug dealing quite nicely. I don't see how that would impose on anyone's freedom. After all, when you violate the laws you often forfeit your freedom.

[weikel]

Mao ignored the dealers he targetted the addicts drugs are a demand problem.