Ann Coulter is political

[PoliticalChic]

One man, one woman marriage is fundamental to a healthy society.....have you taken a good look at Europe and Canada where the social engineers promoting gay marriage are causing havoc to marriage rates, family stability, and the well-being of children....which is leading to the decline of society?

Do you realize that these leftist social engineers and activist groups have a political agenda....? Do you realize that their targets include the family unit...as well as religion...?

And until leftist lobbyists can attack sharia law and all its gory results as much or more than you attack Christians....you pro-gay marriage pontificators don't have a leg to stand on...

Well, Screammy, perhaps you should research before posting.

Births to unwed mothers in the US 40%
Netherlands 40
Canada 30%
Ireland 30%
Spain 28%
Italy 21%
Iceland 66%
Sweden 55%
Norway 54%
France 50%
Denmark 46%
United Kingdom 44%

Seems that there are nations both with less and with more single mothers in Europe. And Canada is defintely less than we are.

Believe it or not there are more factors than just gay marriage that enter into the cause for unwed birth rates....welfarism, feminism, secularism...

Also consider the higher number of blacks in the U.S. as compared to European countries.....although improving some, that unwed mother rate hovers around 75%....

1966 LBJ expanded the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program…under FDR, AFDC had been limited to widows, those who had lost their husbands and now lacked a breadwinner at home to help support the children.

Then began to loosen and expand the rules of AFDC eligibility, eventually getting to the point where any woman living alone with children could take advantage of this program. In doing so, they not only bought a large number of new votes, they also incentivized out of wedlock births and single motherhood.As Charles Murray described in “Losing Ground,” the Great Society incentivized the same negative behaviors that cause poverty in the first place.

I think the above is from Robert Caro, “Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson, vol.3,” p. xv.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Well, Screammy, perhaps you should research before posting.

Births to unwed mothers in the US 40%
Netherlands 40
Canada 30%
Ireland 30%
Spain 28%
Italy 21%
Iceland 66%
Sweden 55%
Norway 54%
France 50%
Denmark 46%
United Kingdom 44%

Seems that there are nations both with less and with more single mothers in Europe. And Canada is defintely less than we are.

Believe it or not there are more factors than just gay marriage that enter into the cause for unwed birth rates....welfarism, feminism, secularism...

Also consider the higher number of blacks in the U.S. as compared to European countries.....although improving some, that unwed mother rate hovers around 75%....

1966 LBJ expanded the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program…under FDR, AFDC had been limited to widows, those who had lost their husbands and now lacked a breadwinner at home to help support the children.

Then began to loosen and expand the rules of AFDC eligibility, eventually getting to the point where any woman living alone with children could take advantage of this program. In doing so, they not only bought a large number of new votes, they also incentivized out of wedlock births and single motherhood.As Charles Murray described in “Losing Ground,” the Great Society incentivized the same negative behaviors that cause poverty in the first place.

I think the above is from Robert Caro, “Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson, vol.3,” p. xv.

The "War on Poverty" is the left's Vietnam.... on steroids. Goes on for decades, produces endless casualties and they keep claiming it a success and then demand more funding to fix what it was supposed to have already fixed.

 

[Charles_Main]

In her speech to CPAC she said she is a friend of gays.

She said she is against gay marriage. She is a friend who is against the primary objective of the gays.

Why would any sane person care at all who any other person marries?

Ann is also against sodomy. Isn't that the essence of gay intercourse? Does Ann like putting a cock in her own ass? Some women like sodomy with a man. Why does Ann care what other people want to do?

She has never denied being a conservative Political Person.

What is the point of this post?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Believe it or not there are more factors than just gay marriage that enter into the cause for unwed birth rates....welfarism, feminism, secularism...

Also consider the higher number of blacks in the U.S. as compared to European countries.....although improving some, that unwed mother rate hovers around 75%....

1966 LBJ expanded the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program…under FDR, AFDC had been limited to widows, those who had lost their husbands and now lacked a breadwinner at home to help support the children.

Then began to loosen and expand the rules of AFDC eligibility, eventually getting to the point where any woman living alone with children could take advantage of this program. In doing so, they not only bought a large number of new votes, they also incentivized out of wedlock births and single motherhood.As Charles Murray described in “Losing Ground,” the Great Society incentivized the same negative behaviors that cause poverty in the first place.

I think the above is from Robert Caro, “Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson, vol.3,” p. xv.

The "War on Poverty" is the left's Vietnam.... on steroids. Goes on for decades, produces endless casualties and they keep claiming it a success and then demand more funding to fix what it was supposed to have already fixed.

"...they keep claiming it a success and then demand more funding to fix what it was supposed to have already fixed."

Can't disagree with that.

Our Trillion-Dollar War, by Edgar K. Browning of The Independent Institute:

When Lyndon Johnson inaugurated the War on Poverty in 1964, he assured the public that “. . . this investment [of tax dollars] will return its cost many fold to our entire economy.” Now that this “investment” has reached a trillion dollars a year we should evaluate whether the returns have, in fact, been large. Some questions to consider:

Is the low-income population more independent and self-supporting than before the War on Poverty?

If a trillion dollars were simply given to those counted as poor by the federal government (37 million in 2005), it would amount to $27,000 per person. That’s $81,000 for a family of three, higher than the median income of all American families, and far greater than the poverty threshold of $15,577.
Right Truth: War on Poverty, the high costs and the depressing results

 

[ScreamingEagle]

1966 LBJ expanded the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program…under FDR, AFDC had been limited to widows, those who had lost their husbands and now lacked a breadwinner at home to help support the children.

Then began to loosen and expand the rules of AFDC eligibility, eventually getting to the point where any woman living alone with children could take advantage of this program. In doing so, they not only bought a large number of new votes, they also incentivized out of wedlock births and single motherhood.As Charles Murray described in “Losing Ground,” the Great Society incentivized the same negative behaviors that cause poverty in the first place.

I think the above is from Robert Caro, “Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson, vol.3,” p. xv.

The "War on Poverty" is the left's Vietnam.... on steroids. Goes on for decades, produces endless casualties and they keep claiming it a success and then demand more funding to fix what it was supposed to have already fixed.

"...they keep claiming it a success and then demand more funding to fix what it was supposed to have already fixed."

Can't disagree with that.

Our Trillion-Dollar War, by Edgar K. Browning of The Independent Institute:

When Lyndon Johnson inaugurated the War on Poverty in 1964, he assured the public that “. . . this investment [of tax dollars] will return its cost many fold to our entire economy.” Now that this “investment” has reached a trillion dollars a year we should evaluate whether the returns have, in fact, been large. Some questions to consider:

Is the low-income population more independent and self-supporting than before the War on Poverty?

If a trillion dollars were simply given to those counted as poor by the federal government (37 million in 2005), it would amount to $27,000 per person. That’s $81,000 for a family of three, higher than the median income of all American families, and far greater than the poverty threshold of $15,577.
Right Truth: War on Poverty, the high costs and the depressing results

That begs the question....to whom is the money really going....and why....?

 

[miller]

Is America the greatest hypocrisy of all time?

Ann Coulter keeps claiming she has Christian values which completely contradict the values of Christ. Coulter is a nasty, vindictive liar who has a huge following and is used by many shows to boost their ratings. I will watch her every chance I get so I can get as disgusted as possible.

CPAC gave Coulter the stage and the mic because they love what she tells them. If CPAC wanted to ridicule the liberals they would invite me. Liberals are stupid wimps who drool every time the Democrat Crime Family throws the a few crumbs for their votes.

 

[MikeK]

I disagree with Ann Coulter's political positions, many of which I believe are exaggerated for theatrical effect. But I find her entertaining and I like her assertive personality.

 

[JFK_USA]

She has been saying a lot of bat shit crazy things.









Well more than normal at least

 

[Mr. Shaman]

In her speech to CPAC she said she is a friend of gays.

She said she is against gay marriage. She is a friend who is against the primary objective of the gays.

Why would any sane person care at all who any other person marries?

Ann is also against sodomy. Isn't that the essence of gay intercourse? Does Ann like putting a cock in her own ass? Some women like sodomy with a man. Why does Ann care what other people want to do?

I agree, but she's a heck of a writer. As a libertarian I tend to agree with her on fiscal issues and disagree on social issues. I'm also against the war. But her books are very good. They don't change my mind, but she is a very intelligent person and very articulate.

She's just slightly......

....History-Challenged!!!!

 

[CindyInKentucky]

Ann Coulter is just another loon who got lucky. Also, I believe gay couples should be allowed to marry one another. I see no reason to keep holding homosexual couples back from marrying simply by using personal religious beliefs as a tool not to allow it.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Get the government out of the marriage business, civil union permits only.

 

[Richard-H]

In her speech to CPAC she said she is a friend of gays.

She said she is against gay marriage. She is a friend who is against the primary objective of the gays.

Why would any sane person care at all who any other person marries?

Ann is also against sodomy. Isn't that the essence of gay intercourse? Does Ann like putting a cock in her own ass? Some women like sodomy with a man. Why does Ann care what other people want to do?

I have friends who are gay. And I'm against gay marriage. I think the confusion comes down to the definition of marriage. I'm Catholic, so the definition of marriage - to me - comes from my faith. It is not a piece of paper, or a license.... it is a union, ordained by God, for the procreation of children. I am not against gays having equal rights - in fact, I'm very supportive of equal rights - for everyone.... but.... I will not tolerate the state deciding what is a matter of faith for me.

I think the rest of your post is just silly gibberish, for 'shock value'... it is mindless, grade school language so I'll ignore it.

I think that you bring to light an interesting and common misunderstanding of the entire issue of gay marraige. In fact, it's a misunderstanding of marraige.

Marriage, in the political sense, is a legal contract between 2 people which is recognised by the state. Marraige is also considered by religious people to be a spiritual bond between two people recognised by God.

The issue of gay marriage concerns only the former, not the latter, so religious views concerning marriage should not affect views of the political institution.

Now, as a Catholic (which I am also), if some couple were married by a Catholic priest, but did not obtain a legal marriage license, would you consider them to be married?

I'd guess that you would based on your religious beliefs. So why wouldn't the converse be true?

A legal marraige does not have to be recognised as religiously valid. In fact, the Catholic church, in a religious sense, does not recognise most legal marriages.

I think that you have severe 'separation of church & state' issues.