Ted Nugent - Madman for sure

click me <-- clicky for video viewage

Quote :

The U.S. Secret Service is looking into a violent rant by "Catch Scratch Fever" rocker Ted Nugent in which he denounced President Barack Obama and his top advisers as "evil" and urged National Rifle Association members to help "chop their heads off in November."

"I'll tell you this right now: If Barack Obama becomes the president in November, again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year," Nugent said. "We need to ride into that battlefield and chop their heads off in November. Any questions?"

Nugent, speaking at the organization's annual gathering over the weekend, praised NRA members but warned that if they did not "get everybody in your lives to clean house in this vile, evil, America-hating administration, I don't even know what you're made out of."
"If the coyote's in your living room, pissing on your couch, it's not the coyote's fault. It's your fault for not shooting him," he said.He also denounced the administration as "criminals" and said a Democratic victory in November would mean "we'll be a suburb of Indonesia next year" — an apparent reference to Obama's boyhood time there.

Maybe he has cat scratch fever.

Ba-dum-bum.

Yeah, he picked a few wrong things to say in a heated speech. Blown way out of proportion, imo.

I don't think anybody fears Nugent. Trouble is the rabid idiots that might think his words are the invitation to do something really stupid just because the Nug said something needed to be done.


The metaphorical yelling fire in a theater.

I grew up on metal in the 80's...and never saw what people liked in his stuff. Back then seemed like anyone could sell an album.
Even back then he was heavy with the NRA stuff, and ranting.
Sounds like a few other NRA fanatics I've heard before.
I feel bad for the honourable NRA folk...

mucker wrote:

I grew up on metal in the 80's...and never saw what people liked in his stuff. Back then seemed like anyone could sell an album.
Even back then he was heavy with the NRA stuff, and ranting.
Sounds like a few other NRA fanatics I've heard before.
I feel bad for the honourable NRA folk...

What do you consider an "NRA fanatic?"

Hertz wrote:

mucker wrote:

I grew up on metal in the 80's...and never saw what people liked in his stuff. Back then seemed like anyone could sell an album.
Even back then he was heavy with the NRA stuff, and ranting.
Sounds like a few other NRA fanatics I've heard before.
I feel bad for the honourable NRA folk...

What do you consider an "NRA fanatic?"

Ummm...Ted Nugent for sure.
Charlton Heston, maybe to a lesser extent, but not much...
I'ld have to do some homework to give you a better list.

I guess its not the regulation/rights/responsibility of firearms that I have a concern with...
Rather, what seems like a extreme right wing, absolute, promotion of arming oneself...as to defend themselves from society, lefties in particular.
Though both left and right nuts are surely armed...
Seems that the right leaning folk, have alota pull in the NRA.

Maybe someone could give this canuck some history of the NRA?...so as i could better understand its origins and ideals....I would hope it would be responsible gun ownership/practice.

Ted does get amped up in most of his interviews so this one was not much different. The metaphor to he used in his comments were a little blunt but anyone that watches the video will see within that interview he did state that every person he was speaking to needed to get as many of their friends, family, etc. as possible to vote pro 2nd amendment & again just before the "chop the heads off the administration" statement he stated that they needed to get out & vote for Mit Romney in the election which is the point he wanted to get across.

Most of the time, the left wing media just blows things out of proportion for propaganda purposes.. If you get your perception of conservative viewpoints from msnbc, you're going to have a distorted caricature, not anything based on reality.

Take the santorum contraception hysteria. Santorum hasn't proposed any legislation to outlaw condoms, like the left implies, but is only parroting standard catholic dogma.. much the same as the kennedy's or other catholics. But truth is not important to the statist spin doctors.. they want distortion!

I call it the 5 D's

Deflect
Distort
Discredit
Distract
Divide

They do not deal in logic or discussion of issues, but will use one of these tactics to muddy the conversation & whip up hysteria.

I don't see any difference in this nra debate.

First, you have to isolate the quotes.. pick the ones that can be made to sound crazy as you rearrange the context.. & if they don't say the exact thing you want them to say, a simple edit can give it the desired effect.. like nbc did with the 'he looks black' edit with the zimmerman/martin shooting.

Then, find a spokesperson who will provide the crazy quotes in a good bumper sticker like sound bite..

Make a big issue about some detail that was not even part of the discussion, then try to whip up righteous indignation over it.

Sound the alarm that all your ideological opponents reflect your extreme caricature, and urge the endangered masses to run to the left for protection.. & use a scary label.. like 'Ted Nugent- Madman for sure'.

The left has used these devices for over 100 years.. they are quite practiced at them. If you point them out, they will say 'both sides do this!' But if you involve yourself in any public debate or discussion over political issues, you will see that conservatives are mostly taken aback.. they think you're talking about abortion, the debt, gun control, or other subjects.

Now, if you're wanting to compare inflammatory quotes, i'm sure we can find even more outrageous, violent, & hateful things from the left. Why no quotes from the new black panther party or al sharpton from our concerned moderates here?

The right, arming themselves to defend themselves from lefties? The left has only been able to come to power in countries that are disrupted by war, corruption, or both.. and with an unarmed populace. They do not want to take on an armed citizenry.. that is why they work so hard to disarm americans. But the citizens are unaware of the left's agenda, & just want to hunt quail, or defend themselves from criminals. If the left makes the argument that they are afraid of armed americans, the followup question will be 'why?' If they explain 'why' the people will see through their statist agenda. So the left does not want this argument, which is why they ridicule someone like ted nugent for bringing it up. Is he crazy? I don't know.. i haven't listened to him, much, & only see the quotes provided by the media, like the rest of us. But i am a bit skeptical of the media, given their obvious agenda & history. Many of the topics that they present in their sensationalist headlines are bogus, once you check them out. I put them pretty much in the same category as the tabloid headlines at the grocery stores.

"Aliens have Michael Jackson's baby!"

rydnseek wrote:

Most of the time, the left wing media just blows things out of proportion for propaganda purposes.. If you get your perception of conservative viewpoints from msnbc, you're going to have a distorted caricature, not anything based on reality.

Take the santorum contraception hysteria. Santorum hasn't proposed any legislation to outlaw condoms, like the left implies, but is only parroting standard catholic dogma.. much the same as the kennedy's or other catholics. But truth is not important to the statist spin doctors.. they want distortion!

I call it the 5 D's

Deflect
Distort
Discredit
Distract
Divide

They do not deal in logic or discussion of issues, but will use one of these tactics to muddy the conversation & whip up hysteria.

I don't see any difference in this nra debate.

First, you have to isolate the quotes.. pick the ones that can be made to sound crazy as you rearrange the context.. & if they don't say the exact thing you want them to say, a simple edit can give it the desired effect.. like nbc did with the 'he looks black' edit with the zimmerman/martin shooting.

Then, find a spokesperson who will provide the crazy quotes in a good bumper sticker like sound bite..

Make a big issue about some detail that was not even part of the discussion, then try to whip up righteous indignation over it.

Sound the alarm that all your ideological opponents reflect your extreme caricature, and urge the endangered masses to run to the left for protection.. & use a scary label.. like 'Ted Nugent- Madman for sure'.

The left has used these devices for over 100 years.. they are quite practiced at them. If you point them out, they will say 'both sides do this!' But if you involve yourself in any public debate or discussion over political issues, you will see that conservatives are mostly taken aback.. they think you're talking about abortion, the debt, gun control, or other subjects.

Now, if you're wanting to compare inflammatory quotes, i'm sure we can find even more outrageous, violent, & hateful things from the left. Why no quotes from the new black panther party or al sharpton from our concerned moderates here?

The right, arming themselves to defend themselves from lefties? The left has only been able to come to power in countries that are disrupted by war, corruption, or both.. and with an unarmed populace. They do not want to take on an armed citizenry.. that is why they work so hard to disarm americans. But the citizens are unaware of the left's agenda, & just want to hunt quail, or defend themselves from criminals. If the left makes the argument that they are afraid of armed americans, the followup question will be 'why?' If they explain 'why' the people will see through their statist agenda. So the left does not want this argument, which is why they ridicule someone like ted nugent for bringing it up. Is he crazy? I don't know.. i haven't listened to him, much, & only see the quotes provided by the media, like the rest of us. But i am a bit skeptical of the media, given their obvious agenda & history. Many of the topics that they present in their sensationalist headlines are bogus, once you check them out. I put them pretty much in the same category as the tabloid headlines at the grocery stores.

"Aliens have Michael Jackson's baby!"

Very well put. I did watch Ted on an episode of Sons of Guns & he appears to be pretty laid back when he's not in an interview or debate situation.

rydnseek wrote:

Most of the time, the left wing media just blows things out of proportion for propaganda purposes.. If you get your perception of conservative viewpoints from msnbc, you're going to have a distorted caricature, not anything based on reality.

Let me fix that for ya.

rydnseek wrote:

Most of the time, the media just blows things out of proportion for propaganda purposes. If you get your perception of conservative viewpoints from FOXnews, you're going to have a distorted caricature, not anything based on reality.

As ALWAYS...you are blind to everything but your own perspective. BOTH sides "blow things out of proportion for propaganda purposes".

Both sides.

And none do it better than Foxnews and the right.

That's not to say some sources of news might be just as adept, but none do it better.

motokid wrote:

rydnseek wrote:

Most of the time, the left wing media just blows things out of proportion for propaganda purposes.. If you get your perception of conservative viewpoints from msnbc, you're going to have a distorted caricature, not anything based on reality.

Let me fix that for ya.

rydnseek wrote:

Most of the time, the media just blows things out of proportion for propaganda purposes. If you get your perception of conservative viewpoints from FOXnews, you're going to have a distorted caricature, not anything based on reality.

As ALWAYS...you are blind to everything but your own perspective. BOTH sides "blow things out of proportion for propaganda purposes".

Both sides.

And none do it better than Foxnews and the right.

That's not to say some sources of news might be just as adept, but none do it better.

Ok, fair enough. I provided some examples.. the santorum contraception distortion, the zimmerman/martin 911 call edit, & the 'Ted Nugent- Madman for sure' thread. These are all examples i provided to support my premise that the left uses the 5 D's in their debating tactics..

Deflect
Distort
Discredit
Distract
Divide

I commented on each & reasoned how the tactics were used.

Now let's look at your rebuttal.

Hmm.. no examples.
no facts.
an insult (discredit?)
a deflection (look! A fox!)
and a mild distortion.. your edit of my post was in jest, i am sure.

But your main point is based on an assertion, which you capitalize to emphasize: BOTH sides do it.

All you have done is illustrate my point: The left does not use logic, but the 5 d's. Please don't be offended that i dismiss your point as having no logical basis. Your rebuttal is an empty assertion, with a few leftist tactics to divert the discussion.

Another aside on this subject.. i have been thinking a lot lately (no, really!) about the political discourse in america. I think there is a cultural shift taking place. Emotion & passion are seen as more important than reason or logic. Reality shows reinforce this, & promote the idea that whoever has the most anger, indignation, or can yell the loudest must be right. Calm, reasoned replies are shouted down by these tactics, which have been widely used by the left.. look at any left wing protest or disruption in a speech.. they shout slogans & try to disrupt any discussion of issues. You don't really see that on the right.. you won't have protesters at a harry reid or pelosi speech shouting slogans & disrupting, but you do with chris christie, allen west, herman cain, sarah palin, or any number of right wing speakers. So i perhaps need to add a 'D' to my list.. making it the 6 D's.

Disruption.

Regarding fox news. This is a favorite, high passion issue with the left.. they get enraged talking about the bias & bigotry of fox news.. but few (if any) actually watch it, or can quote a factual basis for their charges. I finally started to watch fox, since so many said i was getting all my info from them, anyway. If anything, they one of the more unbiased news outlet i've heard from in a long time. I became painfully aware of media bias in the reagan/carter election.. the media hated reagan & missed no opportunity to smear him.. like they do with bush, now. But obama? He gets a pass.. nothing critical or scrutinizing from the mainstream media is ever directed toward obama. But fox does.. so for this they are blasted as biased & bigoted.

But it is not my point to engage in a debate whether fox news is biased or not. That was never one of my points, & has no bearing in my arguments. That is merely a deflection to take the focus from the topic.

If anything, i think fox does have a great influence on our cultural form. But the simpsons & glee have more influence & viewership than fox news.

rydnseek - you're as biased and blinded as they come. You only see things one way and your way. I've watched you at numerous forums and you never change. Biased. period.

I don't need to respond to your trying-to-be-jager style posts.

Newt can do it for me:

Quote :

DOVER, Del. -- During a meeting with 18 Delaware Tea Party leaders here on Wednesday, Newt Gingrich lambasted FOX News Channel, accusing the cable network of having been in the tank for Mitt Romney from the beginning of the Republican presidential fight. An employee himself of the news outlet as recently as last year, he also cited former colleagues for attacking him out of what he characterized as personal jealousy.

“I think FOX has been for Romney all the way through,” Gingrich said during the private meeting -- to which RealClearPolitics was granted access -- at Wesley College. “In our experience, Callista and I both believe CNN is less biased than FOX this year. We are more likely to get neutral coverage out of CNN than we are of FOX, and we’re more likely to get distortion out of FOX. That’s just a fact.”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/04/12/gingrich_unloads_on_fox_news_in_private_meeting___113818.html <-- source

Foxnews is roughly 90% commentary and maybe 10% actual news reporting.

I know you'll support them until the cows come home mainly because they have guys that'll continually repeat your "socialism" and "liberal lefts are destroying America" mantra.


You don't see the bias because you believe the crap they spew is true.

Very much like a religious ideology.

rydnseek wrote:

I finally started to watch fox, since so many said i was getting all my info from them, anyway. If anything, they one of the more unbiased news outlet i've heard from in a long time.

Ok, you want a debate.. but you're just not trying.. all you're doing is illustrating & proving my points. You make it too easy.

motokid wrote:

rydnseek - you're as biased and blinded as they come. You only see things one way and your way. I've watched you at numerous forums and you never change. Biased. period.

Here's where you start. Your premise? An insult! I am biased & blind! The evidence for this? Sorry, none.. but you do imply i do it all over the net in 'numerous forums'. This is just an asserted insult with no supporting facts.

Tactic 1. Discredit.

Quote :

I don't need to respond to your trying-to-be-jager style posts.

Here's your next point. A smear, you think, comparing me to jager, whom you dispise. You don't even use the more witty, 'jager wannabe'. You misjudge me in that i admire jager's reasoning skills. He is pithier than i am, but that is a style point, not a logical one. Truth & logic impress me a lot more than emotion & hysteria. I'll take this point as a compliment. Thanks!

Still doing the discredit.. comparing me to a universally known & discredited source.

Quote :

Newt can do it for me:

Quote :

“I think FOX has been for Romney all the way through,” Gingrich said during the private meeting

So now you finally get to providing some evidence for 'fox is biased & bigoted'.. your earlier premise.

This is it? A complaint from gingrich that he doesn't get fair treatment? All of the candidates have complained that fox & all the media outlets don't cover them fairly, so how does this prove anything? I at least showed the zimmerman/martin 911 edit, & the santorum contraception brouhaha.. those are clear biases. Yours? Not so much. You're proving an assertion with another assertion.. no credible evidence has been presented. In no way can this be a proven fact or any kind of credible evidence.

Quote :

Foxnews is roughly 90% commentary and maybe 10% actual news reporting.

Oh, good.. back to distortion. The evidence for your charge? None. Just another assertion to distort whatever might be true. Even your buddies at media matters have better 'data' to promote their assertions. But you pull out a statistic, which only proves the old adage, '88.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot.'

Quote :

I know you'll support them until the cows come home mainly because they have guys that'll continually repeat your "socialism" and "liberal lefts are destroying America" mantra.
You don't see the bias because you believe the crap they spew is true.
Very much like a religious ideology.

Well, given the strength of your reasoning skills, i hope you're not offended if i don't take your conclusion to heart, or give it much credibility. Oh, & i like the last little smear.. a comparison to religion, another known ideology that is universally despised, & discredits me by association.

Now i would like to point out something.

There are no personal insults in my posts. I will not call you 'stupid', or 'blind', or a 'moron', or any other insulting terms, though given the weakness of your logic, i certainly would be justified in doing so. It IS a logical conclusion.. But i don't. I will rip up your arguments, & take no prisoners. But those are fair game. Ideas, to have merit, must stand scrutiny. As a seeker of truth, i would be remiss in letting falsehoods & the 6 'D's' go by unchallenged. But these are not personal attacks & insults, which, as i have stated, the left uses as a debating tactic, rather than reason or the merits of issues.

My premise still stands, unchallenged. The left uses lies, personal attacks, & the 6 (count 'em, 6!) 'D's' in debates over issues.

Deflect
Distort
Discredit
Distract
Divide
Disrupt

I suppose if you stared at the posts long enough, you might find some kinda pattern...but I think its just more of a clever way for you to remember the points you paid attention to. Because to imply they all do it, suggests a conspiracy or an intelligence at work to deliberately avoid the truth. Kinda sounds like fear mongering, but I'm sure you mean well.

Well this thread is now a big waste. Congrats folks. Just rename it "Why everything the media says should be taken with a grain of salt and why opinions are like assholes" since it has nothing to do with the topic anymore.

My take on the media: Half of the time they are ignorant talking heads relaying some fucked up distorted information. The other half is making sure things sound as good/bad as possible to sell a product, their program. The views of the network and/or the personal beliefs of the person will determine which direction everything leans.

Hertz wrote:

Well this thread is now a big waste. Congrats folks. Just rename it "Why everything the media says should be taken with a grain of salt and why opinions are like assholes" since it has nothing to do with the topic anymore.

My take on the media: Half of the time they are ignorant talking heads relaying some fucked up distorted information. The other half is making sure things sound as good/bad as possible to sell a product, their program. The views of the network and/or the personal beliefs of the person will determine which direction everything leans.

You're right.. my bad. I hijacked the subject from dissing ted nugent to media & left wing debating tactics.. i'll stop.

I agree with what Ted Nugent was saying, I just think he could have chosen his words a little better. In my OPINION (not fact) 4 more years of Obama = bad news for America.

motokid wrote:

I don't think anybody fears Nugent. Trouble is the rabid idiots that might think his words are the invitation to do something really stupid just because the Nug said something needed to be done.

You mean, like when Obama told Hispanics to "attack their enemies" (i.e. other Americans). Where was the topic and the emoticons circling their ears with their fingers then?

Like when Obama refused to prosecute the Black Panthers after they were caught on video intimidating voters at the polls. Or after they were offering a bounty on a man? Where was the topic started and the emoticons cercling their ears with their fingers then?

Oh wait. The "rabid idiots" listening to that kind of shit are leftists/statists, and therefore harmless. When they say stuff like that - far worse than what Nugent said - it isn't even worthy of comment, much less its very own topic.

Here's a question while we're on the topic of rabid idiots: why don't we get somebody starting topics when a Marxist/Leftist/Statist tells Americans to attack other Americans, when a bunch of racists put a bounty out on somebody, etc?

Is it only worth discussing when a conservative, a constitutionalist, a right winger voices an opinion? When that kind of rhetoric comes from the left... well hell, that's simply perfectly acceptable political commentary?

Funny how that works, double standard and all, eh?

Food for thought...

If Nugent had said that about Bush when he was in office, would there be this much attention given to it?

Probably not.

adamoto wrote:

Food for thought...

If Nugent had said that about Bush when he was in office, would there be this much attention given to it?

Probably not.

You are probably right. And to why no one raised a stink like this over the points Jag made....personaly, the topic never came up...in the headlines, or the forum, that is. If they were, as he made them sound, then surely criticism was due.
There are many things worth criticising...but I think the fresh topics get the most attention, just due to volume of topics to pick from.

Heh...I'm thinkin that's what they call a slow news day.

Poor Ted feels insulted....

Quote :

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Ted Nugent said he was insulted by the cancellation of his planned concert at an Army post over his comments about President Barack Obama.

Commanders at the Fort Knox, Ky., post nixed Nugent's segment of a June concert after the rocker and conservative activist said at a recent National Rifle Association meeting that he would be "dead or in jail by this time next year" if Obama is re-elected.

Nugent told The Associated Press this week that his words were not intended as a threat against the president.

mucker wrote:

I grew up on metal in the 80's...and never saw what people liked in his stuff. Back then seemed like anyone could sell an album.
Even back then he was heavy with the NRA stuff, and ranting.
Sounds like a few other NRA fanatics I've heard before.
I feel bad for the honourable NRA folk...

Well, we just dealt with the "thoughtful argument" claim on another thread, and this comment immediately came to mind (plus I found a little PM in my mailbox asking if I might have a response to it....). Apparently - we're told over on the Men and Women in Black thread - I just can't deal with thoughtful arguments like this one lambasting "NRA fanatics". It's a good day to deal with those claims.

So far, what we have presented to us here, yet again, is just another example of a pronouncement that somebody hopes everyone will be gullible enough to accept as fact based "thoughtful argument", not the tired ranting of dogma the poster is comfortable with. I don't accept it as thoughtful or fact based at all. It seems to me to be little more than a pronouncement based on nothing other than ignorant personal bias.

I suspect I'm one of them life member Neal Knox type "NRA fanatics" you're talking about in this "thoughtful argument" you're presenting here. Why are the people like me not "honourable NRA folk"? Should I take that comment as one of those personal attacks you're moaning on about?

Let's see... who do we know so far is an NRA fanatic in your mind?
Ummm...Ted Nugent for sure.
Charlton Heston, maybe to a lesser extent, but not much...
I'ld have to do some homework to give you a better list.

Given that you pride yourself on what you believe is the presentation of thoughtful argument, how about a thoughtful argument in defense of your NRA "fanaticism" comment as being legitimate? You know: the fanaticism that falls beyond and outside demanding full exercise of the rights recognized by the Second Amendment. What did Nugent and Heston (or me for that matter) demand regarding firearms ownership and possession beyond and outside of the Second Amendment?

After all, how can it be "fanaticism" if what you're defending/demanding is the full exercise of rights recognized and guaranteed by the Second Amendment? Would Martin Luther King be considered a "fanatic" over his civil rights advocacy? Did Nugent or Heston organize marches on Washington, advocate mass demonstrations of civil disobedience as King did in the defense of rights he was concerned with? Can you show us where they advocated the bullet box while the ballet box was still available?

From what I've seen in 40 years of NRA membership, the main fault of the NRA in their political activities is not going far enough in the defense of the Second Amendment - they've never erred on the side of overreach beyond the Second Amendment that I can recall. But perhaps you have some examples to share with us.

So why don't you attempt some of that "thoughtful argument" stuff of yours to point out what you see as NRA fanaticsm from people like Heston, or Nugent, or me and how that comment is justified because what NRA members like us want goes beyond the Second Amendment to the point of fanaticism?

While you're doing so, pay particular attention to that part of the Second Amendment that says "shall not be infringed". After all, it's the only right contained within the Bill of Rights that was felt sufficiently important to have the words "shall not be infringed" added to it. Our other resident socialists/statists have a real problem dealing with the "shall not be infringed" part; maybe you can do better..

Given your recent trend on claiming your posts are "thoughtful argument" and bemoaning unwarranted personal attacks, I really, really, really look forward to your defense of your thoughtful argument of what "NRA fanaticism" is from dishonourable NRA members like me and why that we want falls outside the rights recognized in the Second Amendment.

I look forward to it a whole bunch.

A person speaks in defense of rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights that are currently politically incorrect and you're a fanatic. Assume powers not provided by the Constitution, ignore Constitutional requirements... no problem. Deny anything that even remotely resembles the exercise of Second Amendment rights, again, no problem. No thread or topic required. Nope, no fanaticism there; nothing to see here folks, move along...

Nugent is dumb in that his choice of dramatics over what his fate would be results in the core message and intent being lost because the attention never gets beyond the words (as though the media has ever paid any attention to violation of Second Amendment rights in the first place). The Second Amendment rights he is speaking in defense of, however, is not "fanaticism".

As far as the cancellation of his concert, well, when you're a public figure who is also a politically incorrect conservative, you have to know your comments can have consequences. Take it like a man; Tim Thomas never acknowledged the crap slung his way when he refused to go to the White House for a photo op with the Prez. He just drove on, ignoring the chattering classes, and Nugent should have done the same.

The troops loved Nugent's music in his heyday - the barracks were full of it. I doubt it would be any different today, so ultimately it's their loss.