Make liberals safe, legal and rare (ANN COULTER)

worldnetdaily ^ | August 14, 2002 | Ann Coulter

[anncoulteriscool]

Make liberals safe, legal and rare

Posted: August 14, 2002

6:45 p.m. Eastern

Whenever a liberal begins a peevish complaint with "of course, we all agree ..." your antennae should go up. This is how liberals couch statements they assume all Americans would demand they make, but which they secretly chafe at.

Liberal sophistry requires pretending they support, for example, sexual abstinence (for teenagers) and marriage (between heterosexuals); making abortion and drug use "rare"; America's winning the war on terrorism – and before that, winning the Cold War. Fascinatingly, their proposals for achieving these goals are invariably the opposite of what any normal person might think would work.

Instead of punishing bad behavior and rewarding good behavior, liberals often feel it is the better part of valor to reward bad behavior and punish good behavior. Of course, we all agree that Fidel Castro is a bad man. That's why we need to lift travel restrictions and trade with Cuba! Of course, we all agree that abortion should be "rare." That's why all reasonable regulations of abortion must be fought against like wild banshees! (One proven method of making something "rare" is to make it illegal.)

Their comically counterintuitive positions are inevitably backed up with long, complicated explanations about the dire risk of encouraging "hard-liners," the enemy's "paranoia," or clever points such as "teenagers will have sex anyway." The arguments not only make no sense ab initio, but openly contradict one another.

While pretending to oppose drug use, the New York Times has supported programs to give addicts needles, referring in a 1998 editorial to "some interesting new ideas" such as "needle exchanges." In the case of cigarettes, however, liberals enthusiastically embrace the otherwise mystifying concept of punishing bad behavior.

Thus, the Times has cheered on Mayor Michael Bloomberg's obsessive desire to outlaw smoking, referring to his proposed ban on smoking in bars as an attempt to close "a major loophole in the city's anti-smoking law." Aren't people going to smoke anyway? Why not make smoking "safe, legal and rare" – just like abortion?

The liberal clergy at the Times have criticized sex education programs that purport to discourage sexual activity among teenagers, while unaccountably neglecting to hand out condoms and scented candles.

Times theater critic Frank Rich has rhapsodically supported Joycelyn Elders' genius idea of teaching children to masturbate: "The more people talk about masturbation, the more fears can be dispelled among those young people." (Thirteen-year-old boys could probably teach him a few tricks.)

So it was striking that a recent op-ed piece in the Times opposed a Bush administration's plan to encourage marriage. Needless to say, it included the ritualistic disclaimer: "Of course, none of this is to say that marriage is not a wonderful institution." It seems that, in this one case, "we don't need government programs to convince people ... that marriage is good for them."

We do, however, urgently need government programs to teach them that dying of AIDS is bad for them. (At least, we finally have the left on record opposing some federal government program other than national defense and an independent counsel investigating a Democrat.)

Currently, liberals pretend to be rooting for America in the war on terrorism. To show their support, they oppose America doing anything. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said: "We are all prepared to give the men and women in law enforcement the latitude necessary to protect our nation." Despite what "we all" support, Durbin said using appearance to sort potential terrorists from non-terrorists "reflects not only poor judgment, but poor law enforcement."

Really? Which law enforcement experts concluded that surveilling angry Middle Eastern men with smoke pouring out of their trousers would be "poor law enforcement"? Seems unlikely. For some reason, liberals think it's fun to give Arab terrorists a chance.

Democrats claim to support invading Iraq – just not yet! As the Associated Press recently reported, "the Democrats always preface comments on Iraq with a general statement that Saddam must go." Of course, we all agree that Saddam must go. But first – there are many worthless objections to be raised.

Sore loser Al Gore has said that before invading Iraq we need to establish peace in the Mideast, create a perfect Jeffersonian democracy in Afghanistan, and get the American-hating French and Germans on board. Also invent cold fusion and put a man on Mars. Then will the time be ripe for a pre-emptive attack!

Liberals also carped pointlessly about the war in Afghanistan last fall. Their principal complaint was that we were going to lose. Among many, many other liberals, columnist Maureen Dowd raised the specter of Vietnam and called Afghanistan "another quagmire." She said that Rear Adm. John Stufflebeem "may be the last to know that Afghanistan is a stubborn and durable place."

After we routed the Taliban approximately five minutes later, Dowd said, "The liberation of Afghanistan is a wonderful thing, of course." Of course. And something you said we couldn't do.

"Of course, we all agree" always means liberals don't agree, but are under no illusions about the popularity of what they really believe.

[brat]

"Why not make smoking "safe, legal and rare" – just like abortion? "

If the Pols keep it up, it will not only be easier but CHEAPER to have an abortion.

[gcruse]

the exception of drug use, which is encouraged by probitive laws,

Please expand on this.  And does this apply to other
crimes than drug use?

[glock rocks]

what's wrong with y'all?

slackers.

[Selara]

bump

[Freemeorkillme]

slackers?

Nah, my money's on pushups.(ducking and running, feverishly adorning flamesuit)

[ibbryn]

"Of course we all agree Ann is swell..." bump

[rainman59]

Thanks for the pictures. I almost forgot what she looks like.

As if THAT could ever happen!

[Coeur de Lion]

Liberalism has no logical consistency and that's why their arguments always boiling to: If you agree with my view you're obviously an intelligent forward looking thinker, if you don't, you're obviously somekind of ignoramus troglodyte who ought to crawl back under the rock from which you came. It's this inconsistency and intellectual dishonesty which is always the dead giveaway. What would be pitiful if it wasn't a serious thing is that they're totally unaware of this. I remember listening to a public radio program and a woman called in and basically said that no way could she ever support a candidate that was for the death penalty and didn't support a woman's right to choose. My reaction was, dear lady is there some underlying moral principle which supports you taking such stances. I mean I can see anti-death penalty, pro-life or death penalty, pro-choice or death penalty, pro-life. But that latter choice--I don't think so.

[TheGrimReaper]

The woman is brilliant!
And those LEGS!!!!
)8-])

[dasboot]

...Liberal clergy at the NYT....

Sweeeeet!

[dasboot]

New wallpaper!

[Kermit]

"One proven method of making something "rare" is to make it illegal."

One proven method of making something "rare" is to make it a governmental monopoly.

Good education in public school. Good mail service. Safe streets. Sound retirement plan in Social Security. Sound dollar.

[Tall_Texan]

Would Ann Coulter have any material if the New York Times shut down for a month? I love her columns but it seems as if nearly every one of them boils down to lambasting something she read in the Times.

It's like shooting fish in a barrel. With an AK-47. Repeatedly. For once, can she nuke the idiots at the Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The Boston Globe, USA Today, Newsweek, Time Magazine, CBS News, CNN, ABC News, PBS....?

There is so much more liberal nonsense out there in the world besides the New York Times, Ann. You need to expand your horizons.

[Keyes For President]

Of course, we all agree that abortion should be "rare." That's why all reasonable regulations of abortion must be fought against like wild banshees! (One proven method of making something "rare" is to make it illegal.)

Their comically counterintuitive positions are inevitably backed up with long, complicated explanations about the dire risk of encouraging "hard-liners," the enemy's "paranoia," or clever points such as "teenagers will have sex anyway." The arguments not only make no sense ab initio, but openly contradict one another.

Hey, anncoulteriscool, I love your screename!

[jackbill]

There is so much more liberal nonsense out there in the world besides the New York Times, Ann. You need to expand your horizons.

Isn't it pathetic that we have only one frail (from looking at her) female carrying the flag when we supposedly have a whole freaking Republican party that can't get out of the fetal position? Sad indeed. That's why I will be voting AGAINST my Republican Congressman in a couple of weeks.

[section9]

Please expand on this. And does this apply to other crimes than drug use?

Drug use tends to start in the teenage years, when feeligs of rebellion against authority coincide with raging hormonal activity. The "War on Drugs" is a political attempt to solve an insoluble problem, drug use. I'll be honest with you. I don't have a solution, but I do know that legalization is not the answer. But I do know that blanket prohibition has done nothing to solve the problem.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[RightOnline]

Ann.

Gotta love 'er.

[Chi-townChief]

Hear, hear!! Let's be pro-choice: Abort Democrats safely, legally, and on-demand!

[mc5cents]

That's why all reasonable regulations of abortion must be fought against like wild banshees! (One proven method of making something "rare" is to make it illegal.)

I love ya Ann, but... making something illegal does not, per se, make it "rare". E.g., drugs and booze during "proabition" era. That is not a good argument. But, I still love ya.

[GBA]

Here's a clue to solving the drug problem:

"While pretending to oppose drug use, the New York Times has supported programs to give addicts needles, referring in a 1998 editorial to "some interesting new ideas" such as "needle exchanges." In the case of cigarettes, however, liberals enthusiastically embrace the otherwise mystifying concept of punishing bad behavior."

Make the war on drugs look like the war on smokers. Make it all legal and then villify the now law abiding users as scum of the earth pariahs, just like they're doing with smokers.