Ann Coulter "This Is NOT Our Tradition! America Was NOT Founded By Mobs!"

I hear the same crap from Herman Cain and now this crazy lady? I think we all need is to sit these people down, crack open a history book and slowly read the American Revolution to them. I might fully agree with the Tea party or OWS movements but I support them 100% our nation was founded on the ideals of Free speech and sticking it to the man. Not sitting back and becoming Imperial Britain 2.0

Democracy is mob rule. Republic is rule of law. We are a republic formed by mob rule.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


The preferred presidential candidate of one individual does not represent the entire "occupy" movement, that is beyond ignorant to even consider such a thing.

reply to post by TupacShakur

You watch too much MSM, I can tell. I take it you haven't seen the videos of the more intelligent protesters, but just the ones dancing around or going on an anti-jew rant?

Actually, we don't have network television, and I tend to spend far too much of my time on the internet e-bating.

That's a very ignorant thing to say, people protesting are retarded. Really dude, think about how outrageously stupid such a massive generalization sounds.

You are obviously not very familiar with the protester mindset. Not that I expect average human beings to recognize their own mediocrity and intellectual irrelevance.

These aren't anarchist protests, they just want to audit the Fed and put an end to the corruption in our political system.

They are?

occupywallst.org...

Admin note: This is not an official list of demands. This is a forum post submitted by a single user and hyped by irresponsible news/commentary agencies like Fox News and Mises.org. This content was not published by the OccupyWallSt.org collective, nor was it ever proposed or agreed to on a consensus basis with the NYC General Assembly. There is NO official list of demands.

They openly admit they have no #ing clue what they are there to do.



It's like some kind of cultural arts fair or something.

I disagree entirely.

I wouldn't be voicing my opinion if I thought yours was relevant.

reply to post by KeliOnyx

Unlike the Tea Party they know who really makes the decisions and sets policy. They understand that it doesn't matter who you vote for because, at the end of the day the winner is decided by who spent the most during their campaign to the tune of 96% of the time the campaign that spent the most money wins and those backers expect results favorable to them. Corporate influence is a weed it must be pulled out at the root, continuing to think that you can just simply vote the corruption out is a flawed idea, because from day one of a campaign they are beholden to a special interest.

This is ignorance at its finest.

"The only way to get rid of corporate influence is to use the government to take over business!"

Brilliant idea. Next thing you know, you'll be advocating a eugenics policy involving sex in graveyards (google it if you don't get it).

The best way to get rid of corporate influence from the government is to get the government out of business and isolate the two from each other. Have the government capable of influencing business and the market in very limited ways, and so, too, will the benefit of soliciting the favor of candidates be a limited strategy (if they can't make laws to get rid of your competition - it doesn't make sense to spend vast sums of money to woo them).

The only institution that should have the power to regulate businesses to such an extent (or the authority to delegate such power) is the State. The National government should not. States are given enumerated powers - and they can be a fascist state if they wish - not that people will be too keen on living there.

Originally posted by Vikus
reply to post by KySc5

 

The French Revolution was the one founded by mobs. It wasn't really the fault of the mobs, the leadership was out of touch and the system was elitist, kind of like our government today. Marie Antoinette and Michelle Obama have some eerie similarities.

As crazy as Coulter might look, she is right. The American Revolution was very organized for a revolution. The American Revolution was led by wealthy landowners wanting to be free of British taxation and oppression.

edit on 7-10-2011 by Vikus because: (no reason given)

Obviously the Walt Disney corporation is still the main source of American history for posters such as yourself.

The "revolution" really was little more than a mob uprising - though at least you have the source correct, wealthy landowners wanting to increase their profits - but it was hugely disorganized, defection was enormous, and at least two thirds of the population wanted no part in it. There was no government to make the calls, soldiers were not paid (thus the defections) and the "generals" relied heavily on gunpoint conscription and pillage of their "fellow countrymen." once we got a few seasoned Frenchmen on our side, things started getting more organized. But it certainly was not the santitized, squeaky clean, powdered-wigs-and-starched-collars conflict that it's usually shown as in media.

it's called a national myth. Most nations have a few. This is one of ours.

Also Marie Antoinette never once said "let them eat cake." The line appears in Rosseau's "confessions". Marie was nine years old when Rosseau wrote it. And kind of living in Austria at the time.

Honestly the only think Michelle and Marie have in common is their gender.

Ann Coulter,is part of the left/right scam she seems worried about her investments.She's not a patriot at all.Her job is to get people to buy her books don't let her fool you.It's all about her bottom line nothing else.

reply to post by TupacShakur


Sorry, theres only a few Ron Paul End the Fed ppl there, the rest are calling for downfall of Capitalism, or at least some rant on how we need democracy, and rants against corporations, usually a sign of communist or socialist leanings.

I'm actually shocked at what I have learned in this thread.

I had no idea how out of touch with TV I have become.

Ann Coulter is the only person I have ever seen
who always gives the distinct impression
that they have done their own research.

For that reason I have always actively
searched out her latest videos.

I also always suspected that if I ever linked one here
that the reaction would be generally bad,
but ... man ... I had no idea.

Ah well, I guess I just outted myself for
people who do their own research.

It's not too late, all you hipster ninjas of the new generation.
You're not irredemably lost yet. Not quite.


David Grouchy

The reason for the Boston Tea Party was that the tea being brought in by the British even though taxed was priced cheaper than the tea being smuggled in by John Hancock.. It was a mess of drunken Free Masons that were painted up as Indians that dumped the tea into the harbor.

reply to post by KySc5


maybe she is confused because these mobs are wearing sneakers and baseball caps, jeans, and all other modern clothing, and carrying phones and backpacks etc.

maybe she expects to see people wearing period clothing carrying pitchforks or something?

Originally posted by Aim64C


Unlike the Tea Party they know who really makes the decisions and sets policy. They understand that it doesn't matter who you vote for because, at the end of the day the winner is decided by who spent the most during their campaign to the tune of 96% of the time the campaign that spent the most money wins and those backers expect results favorable to them. Corporate influence is a weed it must be pulled out at the root, continuing to think that you can just simply vote the corruption out is a flawed idea, because from day one of a campaign they are beholden to a special interest.

This is ignorance at its finest.

"The only way to get rid of corporate influence is to use the government to take over business!"

Not what I said nor insinuated. Your reading comprehension is terrible. I will clarify what it is I said because clearly you did not understand.


You are correct that the two need to be separated, but giving that power to the States will not and cannot work. It will only result in corporate interests playing the State governments against each other. This plays completely and totally against the idea of a unified nation. The first thing that must be done is removing the private money being funneled into political campaigns. With the Citizens United ruling the only way that may be accomplished is to amend the Constitution, because now money is considered speech. This is what I advocate, not some grand scheme for the Government to take over business.

reply to post by KeliOnyx

Not what I said nor insinuated. Your reading comprehension is terrible. I will clarify what it is I said because clearly you did not understand.

*yawn* You really had no point to what you said - so I assigned you one.

You are correct that the two need to be separated, but giving that power to the States will not and cannot work. It will only result in corporate interests playing the State governments against each other. This plays completely and totally against the idea of a unified nation. The first thing that must be done is removing the private money being funneled into political campaigns.

Giving the power to the states is the only thing that will work. It's how the country survived its first 150 years of existence. Giving the power to the National Government is what has led us to this spectacular flaming pile of poo we have right now.

Corporate interests cannot play state governments against each other. It simply doesn't work. If a state wants to regulate its own business sector into fascism - then let it. If a state is rife with corrupt state representatives who are bought and paid for by corporate interests - then that is what they can do if they want. It will have little impact on the function of other states or the Nation (the Nation would simply not entertain such legislation, the Constitution being modified to require a super-majority popular vote to amend the constitution to allow for the direct regulation of business at the National level).

Shutting off donations won't work. There are always ways around this - stock options, private interests groups, etc. Companies can even buy their own advertising space and simply invite the candidate they back as a speaker.

Without complete government regulation over the media - the idea holds no practical merit.

With the Citizens United ruling the only way that may be accomplished is to amend the Constitution, because now money is considered speech. This is what I advocate, not some grand scheme for the Government to take over business.

Like I said - you don't actually have a solution. So I assigned you one, because you are incapable of following through with your own logic.

You advocate a concept. Which is nice, and all - but it doesn't really give us much to go off of.

The reason corporations place so much money into the campaigns of representatives is because those representatives can, in a piece of 8,000 page legislation drafted and passed in the course of a few weeks, invert the tax structure of a business and radically change the way in which that business must operate to avoid a multi-million dollar affair with the IRS (even if they don't get fined and/or taken to court - it's a lot of resources that have to be expended figuring out how to adjust and going back-and-forth between departments and the various alphabet-agencies).

So long as representatives have this virtually unchecked authority within our National Government (it would be up to individual states to incorporate a similar scheme), businesses will always have an ever-increasing incentive to invest in campaigns and lobbyists.

To expect to completely remove business presence from the government is expecting the impossible. However - it is possible to reduce the power of our representatives when drafting legislation and thereby reduce the power of businesses in drafting legislation (and the potential gains for investing in a candidate).

I'll put it to you bluntly. I walk in and take a test to rank intellectual performance on four hours of sleep and in a horribly distracting environment and come back with a test score in the 99.9 percentile in just about every metric available (this doesn't change when I have more sleep and better focus - apparently it doesn't get much better than that). If there is ever a time you think I am being dumb... you should either be laughing, as it's my attempt at humor; or you should ask me to better explain how I arrived at my conclusion - because my 'normal' logic consists of links and connections that the average person simply doesn't have, and I occasionally try to be frank and lose half the audience.

It wouldn't be so bad if I didn't have the excellent memory that I do - I recall and link memories into my logic pattern - the two being horribly more expansive than the average person makes any intelligent conversation an excruciating exercise in patience.

Anyway - that's my way of saying that I take extreme offense to the assertion that I lack reading comprehension. Though I suppose it isn't your fault. I can't really be upset with you for a handicap that you don't realize you have.