Rand Paul Blasts Ted Nugent, And Says He Should Apologize For Calling Obama A 'Subhum

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/rand-paul-blasts-ted-nugent-040712157.html Rand Paul Blasts Ted Nugent, And Says He Should Apologize For Calling Obama A 'Subhuman Mongrel'



Rand Paul Blasts Ted Nugent, And Says He Should Apologize For Calling Obama A 'Subhuman Mongrel'

.

Business Insider
By Brett LoGiurato
9 hours ago

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who is frequently mentioned as a possible Republican presidential candidate, called on rocker Ted Nugent to apologize after calling President Barack Obama a "subhuman mongrel" in a recent interview.

Ted Nugent's derogatory description of President Obama is offensive and has no place in politics. He should apologize.
— Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) February 21, 2014
Paul's denunciation of Nugent came amid controversy in Nugent's home state of Texas, where he has campaigned in recent days with GOP gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott. Abbott fled reporters when he was questioned Wednesday about his decision to campaign with Nugent.

Other prominent Texas politicians and possible 2016 GOP candidates also began pushing back on Nugent's comments on Thursday. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) told CNN that he disagreed with Nugent's comments and would never use similar words.

Later on Thursday, current Texas Gov. Rick Perry told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that he had a "problem" with Nugent's comments.

"He shouldn’t have said that about the president of the United States," Perry said. "I've got a problem calling the president a mongrel. ... That is an inappropriate thing to say."


For his part amid the backlash, Nugent has gone on an extensive Twitter rant Thursday, asking his followers if his words were "really more offensive" than certain qualms of his with the Obama administration So now these cowardly asshats speak PC speak against Ted's right to free speech. Nugent told the truth Obama is a damn mongrel and even far worse that that IMHO. He lied his way into office and has repeatedly lied to all of us in order to push his nation destroying agenda. As far as lying goes nobody in public office has ever bet him IMHO. -Tyr

[jimnyc]

Wrong call on Rand's side, IMO. Granted, he's entitled to his opinion, and to ask of course, but there's about another zillion people he should be asking to do the same in front of Nugent. Sounds like he is doing the 'ol PC and gather brownie points schtick.

[revelarts]

WWJD?

so when is it not racist to call a black guy a 'subhuman mongrel'?
when Ted N. does it i guess.
and it's PC to say someone should apologize for calling a black guy a "subhuman mongrel".

Tyr, Jim, if you were on your job and a white co-worker called a black co-worker a 'subhuman mongrel' would you say that was racist?
no?

Tyr, Jim, if another white co-workers told the white speaker to apologize would you say that he was just being PC?
Really?

please don't me tell it's different, it aint.

Racist at work is racist in politics.
If he wants to complain about the work he's done fine but to think you can just call someone a subhuman mongrel and people are suppose to ignore it is BS.

jim as far as a line of others coming before Ted N. having to apologize.
please name them and give the reasons why they should.
If Rand Paul ask them to apologize as well he'd probably be accused of "calling all whites racist and blaming slavery and jim crow and burning crosses and the death of MLK on white people everyday".
you can't have it both ways.
do you really want him to call out EVERYONE that's uses racist language?
A few days ago you were saying that's what happens everyday by over sensitive black people anyway.


Just for fun i'd like you guys to give me an example of a "real" racist statement by a famous person. one that should be condemned? other than black peoples all to obvious racist comments of course.

and i'd like to know why Ted should not apologize?
Is it Right to call JEW, a "subhuman mongrel"?
Jim, if Tyr called your son a "Subhuman Mongrel"? would you think a apology was PC and others should get in line 1st?

whatever fellas

[tailfins]

The moral of the story is only say what one thinks behind people's back. Nugent needs to learn sneakiness and duplicity. Advance your agenda through subterfuge. Nugent should just deny or spin having said those things, while putting on his thinking cap to achieve maximum plausibility. As the singer "Shaggy" says, "It wasn't me."

If you create an environment where people can't speak their mind, you won't change minds. You will only get sneakiness.

[jimnyc]

Rev, politicians have been insulting to individuals and to larger groups since politics began. You see racism as something worthy of an apology, and I do as well. I just feel that there are tons more owing apologies, especially if what we're factoring in here is a celebrity. Do we seriously believe that other celebrities have not disparaged presidents and other politicians? What about those who speak of abortion like it's a party, shouldn't they be condemned and asked to give an apology too? Or are you, Rev, saying that you think racism is more worthy of an apology than taking a human life?

Rand should worry about politics and his constituents. I think he's done a fairly fine job of that. But he shouldn't enter the realm of Hollywood, IMO.

[revelarts]

The moral of the story is only say what one thinks behind people's back. Nugent needs to learn sneakiness and duplicity. Advance your agenda through subterfuge. Nugent should just deny or spin having said those things, while putting on his thinking cap to achieve maximum plausibility. As the singer "Shaggy" says, "It wasn't me."

If you create an environment where people can't speak their mind, you won't change minds. You will only get sneakiness.
Be nice if the moral of the story was for people not to think of other human beings as subhumans or mongrels.
But i guess that'd that be asking to much of good christian americans. Who only want the best for the real humans and pure bred real americans.
Freedom to continue to think and say racist things is a more important American value than understanding that God only made one race, the human race.

[revelarts]

Rev, politicians have been insulting to individuals and to larger groups since politics began. You see racism as something worthy of an apology, and I do as well. I just feel that there are tons more owing apologies, especially if what we're factoring in here is a celebrity. Do we seriously believe that other celebrities have not disparaged presidents and other politicians? What about those who speak of abortion like it's a party, shouldn't they be condemned and asked to give an apology too? Or are you, Rev, saying that you think racism is more worthy of an apology than taking a human life?

Rand should worry about politics and his constituents. I think he's done a fairly fine job of that. But he shouldn't enter the realm of Hollywood, IMO.

Jim i will fully answer your question if you answer a few of mine. above

[tailfins]

Be nice if the moral of the story was for people not to think of other human beings as subhumans or mongrels.
But i guess that'd that be asking to much of good christian americans. Who only want the best for the real humans and pure bred real americans.
Freedom to continue to think and say racist things is a more important American value than understanding that God only made one race, the human race.

If Nugent wants to be true to himself AND address the controversy he could just admit that it was hyperbole (or even a poor choice of words) and that being governed by a dictator drove him to it. I'm tired of seeing people pressured into humiliating themselves anytime someone doesn't like what they said.

[fj1200]

So now these cowardly asshats speak PC speak against Ted's right to free speech. Nugent told the truth Obama is a damn mongrel and even far worse that that IMHO. He lied his way into office and has repeatedly lied to all of us in order to push his nation destroying agenda. As far as lying goes nobody in public office has ever bet him IMHO. -Tyr

So you would be OK with the moniker?


Wrong call on Rand's side, IMO. Granted, he's entitled to his opinion, and to ask of course, but there's about another zillion people he should be asking to do the same in front of Nugent. Sounds like he is doing the 'ol PC and gather brownie points schtick.

Perhaps Rand is worried about winning the next election and thinks we shouldn't hamstring our side by embracing those who will alienate potential voters.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

WWJD?

so when is it not racist to call a black guy a 'subhuman mongrel'?
when Ted N. does it i guess.
and it's PC to say someone should apologize for calling a black guy a "subhuman mongrel".

Tyr, Jim, if you were on your job and a white co-worker called a black co-worker a 'subhuman mongrel' would you say that was racist?
no?

Tyr, Jim, if another white co-workers told the white speaker to apologize would you say that he was just being PC?
Really?

please don't me tell it's different, it aint.

Racist at work is racist in politics.
If he wants to complain about the work he's done fine but to think you can just call someone a subhuman mongrel and people are suppose to ignore it is BS.

jim as far as a line of others coming before Ted N. having to apologize.
please name them and give the reasons why they should.
If Rand Paul ask them to apologize as well he'd probably be accused of "calling all whites racist and blaming slavery and jim crow and burning crosses and the death of MLK on white people everyday".
you can't have it both ways.
do you really want him to call out EVERYONE that's uses racist language?
A few days ago you were saying that's what happens everyday by over sensitive black people anyway.


Just for fun i'd like you guys to give me an example of a "real" racist statement by a famous person. one that should be condemned? other than black peoples all to obvious racist comments of course.

and i'd like to know why Ted should not apologize?
Is it Right to call JEW, a "subhuman mongrel"?
Jim, if Tyr called your son a "Subhuman Mongrel"? would you think a apology was PC and others should get in line 1st?

whatever fellas Why should he apologize for freely expressing his views? And why do you play into Obama's scam of only claiming his negro blood. We that are honest and not racists do not allow that scam to bear fruit with us. He claims the black race because it gives him massive, I say massive cover for his criminality and treason. Whereas I have proudly proclaim my claim to being a mongrel myself. I have often spoke of my English, Irish , Native American , Dutch/German and Viking blood line. I do not favor one to gain advantage and give me absolute cover for my transgressions as does the ffing bamdog. As long as Nugent spoke the truth I do care who does or does not like it!! I play no damn PC games , have never and never will. That's called honesty and if you fault me for it then its your mistake not mine. Ponder that amigo... Nugent has Obama's true number and does not yield to PC pressure and fear of the race card. I am shocked that in this particular case you do... Sure seems to me to not be like you at all. My view is when you defend bamscum and attack Nugent for presenting truth you have wholeheartedly bought into the race card scam he has ben running. The race card is so very often played in an attempt to defeat the TRUTH. This case is no different and highlights that being done yet again! Unless you can validate that it is also racism against his White and Arab blood then you have no case,, no case at all. Care to try to prove that? I need a damn good laugh since I am now just over 4 days into a vicious flu. -Tyr

[revelarts]

If Nugent wants to be true to himself AND address the controversy he could just admit that it was hyperbole (or even a poor choice of words) and that being governed by a dictator drove him to it. I'm tired of seeing people pressured into humiliating themselves anytime someone doesn't like what they said.

do you know that he meant it as "hyperbole"?
and hyperbole of what? 2/3s human half bred?
Again, if he wanted to run down Obama's works I'm all on board for that. but hyperbole?
poor choice of words? OK sure, but again what are replacement words here?
no. it's just low racist BS talk.

But he doesn't have to apologize if he doesn't want to. that's his choice. admitting wrong is a bit humiliating. But being humble is not all bad i've read though. as apposed to holding onto pride for pride sake. the Amish might have a word or 2 about that tailfins c'mon.
But people shouldn't wear the issues down for weeks and months either. as Jim said people says stupid crap all the time.
However this time Ted got called on it and sadly he's lost a bit of the platform as a right wing spokesperson, at least for those of us who are weary of those who don't think the causal or knee jerk dehumanization of people becuase of race is a small thing.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

So you would be OK with the moniker?



Perhaps Rand is worried about winning the next election and thinks we shouldn't hamstring our side by embracing those who will alienate potential voters. Just now read your reply after my replying to the Rev. Read that and yes I have often proudly claimed all my blood lines unlike the bastard that chose black in order to use the care card in his agenda to destroy this nation. The ffing scum has no honor , no integrity, no truth in him and anybody that thinks he does is about as intelligent as a damn rock IMHO! Rand Paul will lose voters by breaking a prime principle many of us hold dear. That is -The TRUTH is not to be denied !! Some more of this PC bullshit behavior , falling dead into a damn obama scam and he will lose enough to not ever have a damn chance of winning in a Presidential run. Who wants a man that stupid or lacking in integrity and principle? Catering to lib minded , dumbass voters can easily get his ass lost too IMHO. -Tyr

[revelarts]

[QUOTE]] Why should he apologize for freely expressing his views? And why do you play into Obama's scam of only claiming his negro blood. We that are honest and not racists do not allow that scam to bear fruit with us. He claims the black race because it gives him massive, I say massive cover for his criminality and treason. Whereas I have proudly proclaim my claim to being a mongrel myself. I have often spoke of my English, Irish , Native American , Dutch/German and Viking blood line. I do not favor one to gain advantage and give me absolute cover for my transgressions as does the ffing bamdog. As long as Nugent spoke the truth I do care who does or does not like it!! I play no damn PC games , have never and never will. That's called honesty and if you fault me for it then its your mistake not mine. Ponder that amigo... Nugent has Obama's true number and does not yield to PC pressure and fear of the race card. I am shocked that in this particular case you do... Sure seems to me to not be like you at all. My view is when you defend bamscum and attack Nugent for presenting truth you have wholeheartedly bought into the race card scam he has ben running. The race card is so very often played in an attempt to defeat the TRUTH. This case is no different and highlights that being done yet again! Unless you can validate that it is also racism against his White and Arab blood then you have no case,, no case at all. Care to try to prove that? I need a damn good laugh since I am now just over 4 days into a vicious flu. -Tyr
mind answering any of my questions 1st Tyr?
you quoted them all but answered none.

but Ok ,Are you saying that if only 1 of your bloodlines is insulted then the rest of you is not? if someone says native americans are lazy stupid drunks then it's OK becuase it's not really ALL of you.

And Tyr look you started the thread not me. were you expecting everyone to agree with you?
And you pointed out Ted N comments about Obama's race, as you say you call your self names because of your native dutch german etc bloodline.
And you didn't mention ANY OTHER of Nuegents comments about Obama's ACTIONS, which you know very well i appose.
so what the heck are you talking about?

the whole thread is about Nuegents racist comments, not Nuegents talk about the 2nd amendemnt or the constitution or obamacare or spying. NONE of that!
Your thread is pissing on Rand Paul for saying that Neugent crossed the line by including low life racist remarks. I think your wrong. We can talk about Obama's tranical performance without bringing his bloodline into it.

hope your flu gets better.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

[QUOTE=Tyr-Ziu Saxnot;683698]
mind answering any of my questions 1st Tyr?
you quoted them all but answered none.

but Ok ,Are you saying that if only 1 of your bloodlines is insulted then the rest of you is not? if someone says native americans are lazy stupid drunks then it's OK becuase it's not really ALL of you.

And Tyr look you started the thread not me. were you expecting everyone to agree with you?
And you pointed out Ted N comments about Obama's race, as you say you call your self names because of your native dutch german etc bloodline.
And you didn't mention ANY OTHER of Nuegents comments about Obama's ACTIONS, which you know very well i appose.
so what the heck are you talking about? .
the whole thread is about Nuegents racist comments, not Nuegents talk about the 2nd amendemnt or the constitution or obamacare or spying. NONE of that!
Your thread is pissing on Rand Paul for saying that Neugent crossed the line by including low life racist remarks. I think your wrong. We can talk about Obama's tranical performance without bringing his bloodline into it.

hope your flu gets better. Yet Obama uses that bloodline to give him cover and garner defenders he should never have!! Uses it to get by with great injustice and outright treason. You seem to miss that injustice and total deception because you fall into the trap of defending it now !!
Please show where I denied you your right to disagree. As to your many questions I thought my post pretty much covered them all . When people speak ill of Native Americans I either(most often) ignore them or else choose to enlighten them on the truth of the matter. My topic was this specific quote that made PC appeasers jump to show their greatness. They could have just as easily ignored it. I never stated they had no right to give a reply, I did however state how and why it may hurt them. TRUTH is not to be denied and falling into a scam proves a certain level of stupidity. Feel free to disagree all you like amigo. I truly believe you are not looking deep enough into this. And lets not try to mix it into a lifetime of remarks by a man or else I can reply in kind about Obama and his many false identities and deception. The negative implications of the term "mongrel" aptly apply because of just that very history of his personal life and deceptions. Do not try to attack Nugent while demanding that no truth be shed on the bamscum and his character. I do not and never will play that game !
Thanks on the wishes of better health amigo. Meds seem to have helped more today after three days of taking them. --Tyr

[jimnyc]

Perhaps Rand is worried about winning the next election and thinks we shouldn't hamstring our side by embracing those who will alienate potential voters.

I have no doubt of that, but would he be saying as much if an election wasn't in the distance? And I can think of TONS of other celebrities and similar who have made downright shit comments about our presidents and politicians. So many racist comments, on both sides, were tossed around by celebrities and other famous people. I didn't see a lot of apologies demanded. Then you have black panther party types, no apologies demanded. All I'm saying is that Holly wood and Washington don't work well together and shouldn't. And I find it silly when a politician calls out a single person when SO many others are deserving of the same request. This is not support of what Nugent said. This is about the politically correct crap and the 'pick and choose' times that the PC and race cards are pulled. Black folks, to include politicians, have been racist and not asked to apologize (think Sheila Jackson Lee for starters). Hell, anyone can go to Google and type in "racist democrat quotes" or "racist republican quotes" and find TONS of quotes. 99% were never asked to apologize, and that ain't hollywood, those are politicians.

[fj1200]

Just now read your reply after my replying to the Rev. Read that and yes I have often proudly claimed all my blood lines unlike the bastard that chose black in order to use the care card in his agenda to destroy this nation.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure he won't pass off as white. And yeah, that agenda thing again.


I have no doubt of that, but would he be saying as much if an election wasn't in the distance? And I can think of TONS of other celebrities and similar who have made downright shit comments about our presidents and politicians.

Maybe so, but we're better than they... or should be. We should choose not to be held to their standard, we'll lose that battle every time.

[Kathianne]

I'm with Rev on this one. Has Obama played up one part of his racial background as Tyr has made abundantly clear? Yes. That doesn't justify Nugent's use of race baiting. There is so much wrong with the Obama decisions from day 1 in office, that going after race is the one thing that will lose the message.

Is Obama a racist? Yes, IMO. Worst president for all, but especially the poor, many of whom are minorities.

[jimnyc]

WWJD?

I don't presume to know.


so when is it not racist to call a black guy a 'subhuman mongrel'?

Did I say that?


when Ted N. does it i guess.

Sounds like a way out of line comment to me, but that whole 'freedom of speech' thing...


and it's PC to say someone should apologize for calling a black guy a "subhuman mongrel".

I think it is when one is asking for the apology to increase his political standing. Otherwise, IMO, why not ask for apologies from SO many other celebrities and famous people that speak out of line?


Tyr, Jim, if you were on your job and a white co-worker called a black co-worker a 'subhuman mongrel' would you say that was racist?
no?

I'd have to hear the context. I've called white friends similar! But if they used it in a reference to the other person being black (or similar), then yes, I would say it's racist.


Tyr, Jim, if another white co-workers told the white speaker to apologize would you say that he was just being PC?
Really?

I would tell the workers involved that it's between the 2 involved, not for me to make demands of someone.


please don't me tell it's different, it aint.

Well, if one of these workers was exposed to SO many other workers making racist and other quite insulting comments, I would expect that they treated situations similarly, and have a track record of doing so - otherwise I might think they are suddenly looking to be making a political move.


Racist at work is racist in politics.
If he wants to complain about the work he's done fine but to think you can just call someone a subhuman mongrel and people are suppose to ignore it is BS.

It's not Paul's place, unless he as a representative is now going to do the same with everyone else who says similar crap. He is doing similar to the TONS of other racist comments by other celebrities, isn't he?


jim as far as a line of others coming before Ted N. having to apologize.
please name them and give the reasons why they should.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=democrat+racist+quotes
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=republican+racist+quotes
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=hollywood+racist+quotes



If Rand Paul ask them to apologize as well he'd probably be accused of "calling all whites racist and blaming slavery and jim crow and burning crosses and the death of MLK on white people everyday".
you can't have it both ways.

If he did so I would call him consistent. I love how you say "you can't have it both ways" when no one said a damn thing about what you are saying! C'mon man, don't go back to placing crap in others mouths again, its silly and transparent.


do you really want him to call out EVERYONE that's uses racist language?

Don't you? Or do you prefer he calls out one and ignores the others? Or maybe he should do his job and pay no attention to PAID CELEBRITIES. Or of course he could pay THEM mind and call out the others too, in order to remain consistent.


A few days ago you were saying that's what happens everyday by over sensitive black people anyway.

I don't think either race should blame the other for all their issues, nor claim everything that happens as a race issue. Far too many scream racism no matter what happens to them. WTF does that have to do with this situation?


Just for fun i'd like you guys to give me an example of a "real" racist statement by a famous person. one that should be condemned? other than black peoples all to obvious racist comments of course.

Have you EVER listened to Kanye West? Soulja Boy referred to “crackaz” and “CRACKERS”, Rihanna made fun of her old boyfriends new girlfriend - to her millions of fans and made fun of her for being Asian, Floyd Mayweather went racial against Phillipinos when trying to get Manny Pacquia to fight him, Chelsea Handler posted a grape soda can and asked him to drink it when fighting with Nick Cannon, Gilbert Gottfried made fun of the tsunami in Japan right after it killed thousands by going racial, Jessica Leandra called the gas pumper went on twitter and referred to him as an "african monkey"... Shall I go on? Can you post for me which politicians, and whether Paul, got involved and demanded an apology of any of the above?


and i'd like to know why Ted should not apologize?

If he chooses to it is his business, but freedom of speech prevents him from being forced to. He is free to insult people without apologizing, which happens about a billion times a day, in NYC alone.


Is it Right to call JEW, a "subhuman mongrel"?

The right to do so would be equivalent to the term being stated about a black person or someone of any other race.


Jim, if Tyr called your son a "Subhuman Mongrel"? would you think a apology was PC and others should get in line 1st?

Can we perhaps leave my son out of this, even if it is just fake scenarios? Anyway, big difference between that and a politician making a public demand.


whatever fellas

I'll be waiting on the edge of my chair to see which other celebrities Paul calls out, or that other politicians call out for that fact.

[jimnyc]

Maybe so, but we're better than they... or should be. We should choose not to be held to their standard, we'll lose that battle every time.

I just think when a politician calls out one person and not others, it appears opportunistic. And if not, I would at the VERY least expect that politician to continue and be consistent, then I'll know he means business. I'm laying 100-1 odds right now that this is a limited "calling out". Who wants in?

[jimnyc]

I'm with Rev on this one. Has Obama played up one part of his racial background as Tyr has made abundantly clear? Yes. That doesn't justify Nugent's use of race baiting. There is so much wrong with the Obama decisions from day 1 in office, that going after race is the one thing that will lose the message.

Is Obama a racist? Yes, IMO. Worst president for all, but especially the poor, many of whom are minorities.

If true, I would rather this be where Paul spends his efforts, not going after a celebrity.

[fj1200]

I just think when a politician calls out one person and not others, it appears opportunistic. And if not, I would at the VERY least expect that politician to continue and be consistent, then I'll know he means business. I'm laying 100-1 odds right now that this is a limited "calling out". Who wants in?

I have no problem with the man policing our side and letting the other side worry about there's. It's a waste of his time to go after every penny ante Hollywood lib who feels the need to stick their foot in their mouth to try and remain relevant in the eyes of their fans.

[jimnyc]

I have no problem with the man policing our side and letting the other side worry about there's. It's a waste of his time to go after every penny ante Hollywood lib who feels the need to stick their foot in their mouth to try and remain relevant in the eyes of their fans.

If I were a black person, and I saw him call out one person while ignoring so many others - the one time he spoke up wouldn't amount to a hill of beans to me. One might see Paul as the one trying to remain relevant in a possible election.

[Kathianne]

If true, I would rather this be where Paul spends his efforts, not going after a celebrity.

I'm at a disadvantage, I don't support Paul at this time. If the celebrity is making racist remarks at the GOP candidate's appearance, whom the celebrity is supporting, then they are open for criticism in the political sphere. I'm pretty sure this is what is happening here.

Are there those on the left who've made a habit of making derogatory remarks about those on the right, especially 'tea baggers?' Yes. Should their use of sexist name calling be noted? Yes. No disagreement there.

[Voted4Reagan]

Ted was wrong... he needs to retract that statement.

No call for resorting to childish name calling... we must be better then those on the left.

[aboutime]

This may surprise many here but...I agree with Rand Paul.

Though I agree with Nugent on many things too.


I do believe LOWERING OURSELVES to Obama's, Liberals, Democrat, Leftist levels by using the name calling...isn't how we fight our battles.

It's like those who insist...THEY HATE SOMEONE.

When you practice HATRED. You eventually BECOME what you HATE as well.

Funny names for our Inept, Treasonous, Betrayal Expert named Obama simple puts us on the same LOWER levels as him.
And I for one...do not enjoy looking up from the curb, or from the gutter to be eye to eye with OBAMA.

[jimnyc]

The only thing I can agree with you guys on is that his comments were reprehensible. I certainly can't agree with what he said. But I support his right to say asinine things. And I can't support a politician picking and choosing who to make an example out of. Comes off as having ignored so many other racial things that have taken place in the past few years.

[jimnyc]

Below is as close of an apology as I think we can expect from Nugent. He did more damage to this campaign with his big mouth, and probably thought he was winning people over. I think someone needed to remind Ted that he wasn't on stage with his guitar and M16!!


After several days of controversy surrounding his foray on the Texas campaign trail, the rocker/right-wing agitator expressed regret for using the words “subhuman mongrel” to describe President Obama.

“I did cross the line. I do apologize -- not necessarily to the president -- but on behalf of much better men than myself,” Nugent said Friday in an interview with Ben Ferguson, a Dallas-based conservative talk radio host.

Nugent said he regretted “using the street-fighter terminology of ‘subhuman mongrel’ instead of just using more understandable language, such as ‘violator of… the Constitution.... the liar that he is.'”

The 65-year-old “Motor City Madman” campaigned this week alongside Texas Atty. Gen. Greg Abbott, forcing the GOP gubernatorial front-runner to defend their association after Democrats publicized some of Nugent's more pungent remarks, including the slur against the president last month at a Las Vegas trade and gun show.

An Abbott spokesman said that while the candidate did not always endorse or agree with the language Nugent used, he appreciated his “forceful [advocacy] for individual liberty and constitutional rights.”

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-ted-nugent-apologizes-for-obama-slur-20140221,0,3757905.story#ixzz2tzdg9mO9

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Ted was wrong... he needs to retract that statement.

No call for resorting to childish name calling... we must be better then those on the left. I can agree that we must be better than those on the left. He may have been wrong depending on why one thinks he is wrong but he has no reason to recant unless he chooses to do so. Freedom of speech assures him that right. I am sure he knew it would be called a racist comment when it just as well could have been an observational truth . A truth I've pointed out myself. I call the bambastard all kinds of names all of which he ever so richly deserves. Never ever thought of "mongrel" but realistically it fits I suppose. Sure it has negative implications but so do most insults . Is it absolutely a black racist comment --no! My heritage shows I am a mongrel if one chooses to use that term -doesn't bother me and I wouldn't think it racist if said about me. Then again I am not looking for nor am I living a life of claiming victimhood. . The big problem is politicians jumping on the bandwagon of --"look at me not being a racist--because I condemn this man's words , I condemn his freedom of political speech and I do so defending a black President"! Utter self-serving and contemptible rot IMHO. Who gives a damn rip other than those using his claim of being black so he can get the largest pass ever given on his illegal and Unconstitutional actions!?? Its only a racist comment if that was the way Nugent meant it IMHO. And if he did mean it as a racist comment why on earth should he have to bow to others and apologize. I'd have more respect for him if he stood his ground and held onto his views. Even if that view is one I do not agree with myself and it is. Some will have honest outrage while others we see a chance to spear their opposition. I ask when the hell will people stop busting their asses to defend the dishonorable, traitorous and dictatorial bastard obama!?? Nugent is nobody to be considered important enough in the political arena to lambast him for stupidity or honestly expressing his views regardless of how right or wrong they are IMHO. Did he invite such criticisms(?) , sure but it is still his right to express his political views--least we forget the bambastard isn't just black but is a public figure and a politician. He has a right to say it and people have a right to express their perceived outrage over it. They do not have a right to demand he apologize. A man should only apologize when it is sincere and heartfelt not when it is forced IMHO. -Tyr

[fj1200]

They do not have a right to demand he apologize.

Sure they do, speech rights cut both ways.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Sure they do, speech rights cut both ways. Not when they also would go along with using force to make him apologize and don't tell me a great many would not agree to the use of that force. If you did you would be lying IMHO. When they demand that he apologize they are not asking !! A demand has an implication of force(or else it's not really a demand) whereas a request does not!! Something too many fail to see or to properly consider IMHO. -Tyr

[fj1200]

Not when they also would go along with using force to make him apologize and don't tell me a great many would not agree to the use of that force. If you did you would be lying IMHO. When they demand that he apologize they are not asking !! A demand has an implication of force(or else it's not really a demand) whereas a request does not!! Something too many fail to see or to properly consider IMHO. -Tyr

Who suggested using force? And not your inference.

[aboutime]

I can agree that we must be better than those on the left. He may have been wrong depending on why one thinks he is wrong but he has no reason to recant unless he chooses to do so. Freedom of speech assures him that right. I am sure he knew it would be called a racist comment when it just as well could have been an observational truth . A truth I've pointed out myself. I call the bambastard all kinds of names all of which he ever so richly deserves. Never ever thought of "mongrel" but realistically it fits I suppose. Sure it has negative implications but so do most insults . Is it absolutely a black racist comment --no! My heritage shows I am a mongrel if one chooses to use that term -doesn't bother me and I wouldn't think it racist if said about me. Then again I am not looking for nor am I living a life of claiming victimhood. . The big problem is politicians jumping on the bandwagon of --"look at me not being a racist--because I condemn this man's words , I condemn his freedom of political speech and I do so defending a black President"! Utter self-serving and contemptible rot IMHO. Who gives a damn rip other than those using his claim of being black so he can get the largest pass ever given on his illegal and Unconstitutional actions!?? Its only a racist comment if that was the way Nugent meant it IMHO. And if he did mean it as a racist comment why on earth should he have to bow to others and apologize. I'd have more respect for him if he stood his ground and held onto his views. Even if that view is one I do not agree with myself and it is. Some will have honest outrage while others we see a chance to spear their opposition. I ask when the hell will people stop busting their asses to defend the dishonorable, traitorous and dictatorial bastard obama!?? Nugent is nobody to be considered important enough in the political arena to lambast him for stupidity or honestly expressing his views regardless of how right or wrong they are IMHO. Did he invite such criticisms(?) , sure but it is still his right to express his political views--least we forget the bambastard isn't just black but is a public figure and a politician. He has a right to say it and people have a right to express their perceived outrage over it. They do not have a right to demand he apologize. A man should only apologize when it is sincere and heartfelt not when it is forced IMHO. -Tyr


Tyr. I'm not asking him to recant. He has every right...according to our much abused 1st amendment, to say, think, and feel whatever he wants.
In fact. I honestly feel exactly as Ted does, or did about his statement. However.
As I said earlier.
I think it is wrong for any of us who want to STOP the other side who disagrees with us at EVERY TURN...to use their tactics...as Ted did. Because it LOWERS us...to their levels of ignorance, stupidity, and hatred.
Remember. We would all DEFEND His right to say whatever WE, HE, YOU, and ME say.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Who suggested using force? And not your inference. ALL those that seriously demand he recant IMHO. A DEMAND IS NOT A REQUEST AMIGO. A demand implies force. If not then it is a request or a mere suggestion. Glad to help on that ..-Tyr

[aboutime]

ALL those that seriously demand he recant IMHO. A DEMAND IS NOT A REQUEST AMIGO. A demand implies force. If not then it is a request or a mere suggestion. Glad to help on that ..-Tyr


Tyr. That's what is basically so wrong with our entire society today. Everyone who feels so powerful about everything ONLY THEY are permitted to decide, or agree upon...take the use of WORDS, EXPRESSIONS, and INTENT so seriously. It's a wonder anyone can agree about anything, at any time, anywhere, anymore.

The elite among us who THINK they are so much smarter than everyone else...use the language, grammar, and rhetoric to patronize everyone else whom...the elite consider less knowledgeable, and less educated...from their High Horse, Snobbish positions of self-gratification.

In other words. In today's society. As we often see here on DP from some members. Unless you adhere to, follow, appease, entice, or practice everything the Elite demand...you are less than able to take up the same space, or breath the same air of their ELITIST, self-appointed Arrogant World of Miserable existence only they rule.

[DragonStryk72]

So now these cowardly asshats speak PC speak against Ted's right to free speech. Nugent told the truth Obama is a damn mongrel and even far worse that that IMHO. He lied his way into office and has repeatedly lied to all of us in order to push his nation destroying agenda. As far as lying goes nobody in public office has ever bet him IMHO. -Tyr

Actually, no, they didn't. He did call Nugent out on what he said, using his own right of free speech. What I don't think you get, Tyr, is that the Republican party is in a really bad way right now, and they need to change course, or the Dems will control both House and Senate, with a sitting president, and things like Nugent's little rant are the billy clubs that keep getting used on us whenever the Dems needed to turn attention away from the horrible policies they keep enacting, and fucking up. Seriously, how many times have they gotten nervous about questions about some new fuck up they created, only to throw this or that statement from a random person at us, and force us on the defensive?

Calling his own side on the foul before the Dems could hop on it was a solid strategic move, so that now, the Dems can't use it against him.

I mean come on, we get tripped up with every Bullshit issue. Okay, for instance, gay marriage: You know, and I know that the Dems are not going to do a single thing about gay marriage at the federal level, just like they didn't in '09, and '10 when they had a sitting president, with majorities in both houses, they didn't even attempt it. They know, just like we do, that this is going to get decided at the state level, but they also know that they can push conservatives into saying something that will alienate people.

Then there's illegal immigration, abortion, and every other subject that no one is actually really doing anything about, but that the Dems push us into so they can keep us from talking about things like jobs, the economy, and the debt, where they're weak, or they basically hit us with the stupidest thing some right-wing guy said, and make us either slap it down, or defend it. Whatever it takes, really, so that they don't have to talk about the stuff that actually matters to the vast, overwhelming majority

[revelarts]

The only thing I can agree with you guys on is that his comments were reprehensible. I certainly can't agree with what he said. But I support his right to say asinine things. And I can't support a politician picking and choosing who to make an example out of. Comes off as having ignored so many other racial things that have taken place in the past few years.
I'm at a disadvantage, I don't support Paul at this time. If the celebrity is making racist remarks at the GOP candidate's appearance, whom the celebrity is supporting, then they are open for criticism in the political sphere. I'm pretty sure this is what is happening here.
Are there those on the left who've made a habit of making derogatory remarks about those on the right, especially 'tea baggers?' Yes. Should their use of sexist name calling be noted? Yes. No disagreement there.
that's the point .
you and Tyr are all for Ted's "freedom of speech", while he's making political comments... about a political figure... at a political event... for a political candidate.
But Rand Paul's calls out the bad form in a response and he's being TOO POLITICALLY motivated?!?

double standard much.
the fact that Nuegent is a celeberity is fine but he's injected himself in the middle of politics representing Republican ideas.

If he's going to be the rights version of Conye West, Yes he needs to be called out on comments that make republicans look more racist or as racist than most people already think they are.

[revelarts]

BUT it's been said a couple of times here that OBAMA is a racist.
Can some one give me a few quotes where Obama called whites Sub human, or Mongrels or white devils or anything like that?
one or 2 examples? If he did say something like that it'd just be free speech though right?
that no one should be demanding an embarrassing apology for... for political gain?

I just can't understand you guys idea of racist.
Is a racist someone who says and therefore apparently THINKS another race is less than another race or less than human?
or is a REAL racist someone who race baits for political gain, but who's mother is white and has had at least 1 white girlfreind in college?
I just don't understand what you mean by "racist" here.
Do you mean that Obama hates white people, and is doing them in more than he's doing in blacks? That he hates all white people because they are white? If your evidence is his policies then what are blacks to say about white politicians policies that appear to hurt them?
So specifically what are you saying? He may indeed be racist but what evidence do YOU use to come to that firm unquestionable conclusion?
and can the the SAME standard be use against whites in determining if they are racist?

Cause it seems some of you put racist comments in the free speech zone. That apparently should be ignored and not mentioned. They are not so nice, but OK "in context":rolleyes: . As long as it's not about whites "all the time" or family members. We have to leave them out it because it's offensive at that point.

I'm just remembering here now, when Hannity, O'Riley and others cried bloody murder at half the stray comments against president Bush. "You don't speak ill of the commander and chief ESPECIALLY in war time." "you Respect the OFFICE!! that's what the left doesn't get!! Blah Blah" but when Clinton and Obama are in office all the respect the office stuff is out the window, the 1st amendment is what's really important.

this is the type of thing that made me leave the republican party. the blind and self righteous hypocrisy. the left is no better but man the right doesn't even try to apply the words of God, it claims as foundational, to it's stink.

[Nukeman]

Ted was wrong... he needs to retract that statement.

No call for resorting to childish name calling... we must be better then those on the left.The really sad thing here is that WE ARE.. What does it get us?? Name calling and constant harassment from the left.. I personally am getting sick and tired of always being the one to take the high road, sometimes I just want to be an asshole!! Yaa I know hard to believe :laugh:. You can not combat the idiocy with reason, they just get dumber and dumber...

[aboutime]

The really sad thing here is that WE ARE.. What does it get us?? Name calling and constant harassment from the left.. I personally am getting sick and tired of always being the one to take the high road, sometimes I just want to be an asshole!! Yaa I know hard to believe :laugh:. You can not combat the idiocy with reason, they just get dumber and dumber...

Nukeman. Totally agree. We always insist on being better than the idiots, and not acting like they do. But then...I remember the old expression "Fighting fire with fire".
That seems to be missing with our Congress-critters who have been in office far TOO LONG.
Congress used to have a Mutual Respect for each other, despite their party differences. But that no longer seems to exist as most of AMERICA...who pays attention to politics...seems to prefer being divided in EVERY ASPECT of Legislating, Administering, and Leading.
All of which..no longer exist unless ONE party can play the GOTCHA game for their own benefit.
And we wonder WHY so few new people are willing to SUBMIT themselves to the dangerous scrutiny, and near political assassination techniques used today???

All of us wish we could somehow go back to 'THE WAY THINGS USED TO BE' in many respects. But the overall TOTAL IGNORANCE, and STUPIDITY in general of a large percentage of the American public...JUST WON'T LET THAT HAPPEN unless...there is something IN IT FOR THEM. Namely....something they can BELIEVE they get for FREE.

[fj1200]

ALL those that seriously demand he recant IMHO. A DEMAND IS NOT A REQUEST AMIGO. A demand implies force. If not then it is a request or a mere suggestion. Glad to help on that ..-Tyr

:rolleyes: Rand was going to garner his apology by force? No.


And not your inference.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

:rolleyes: Rand was going to garner his apology by force? No. Speaking out publicly indicates he wished to force the apology by use of public opinion Hoss. EVER HEAR OF THAT?;)-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Actually, no, they didn't. He did call Nugent out on what he said, using his own right of free speech. What I don't think you get, Tyr, is that the Republican party is in a really bad way right now, and they need to change course, or the Dems will control both House and Senate, with a sitting president, and things like Nugent's little rant are the billy clubs that keep getting used on us whenever the Dems needed to turn attention away from the horrible policies they keep enacting, and fucking up. Seriously, how many times have they gotten nervous about questions about some new fuck up they created, only to throw this or that statement from a random person at us, and force us on the defensive?

Calling his own side on the foul before the Dems could hop on it was a solid strategic move, so that now, the Dems can't use it against him.

I mean come on, we get tripped up with every Bullshit issue. Okay, for instance, gay marriage: You know, and I know that the Dems are not going to do a single thing about gay marriage at the federal level, just like they didn't in '09, and '10 when they had a sitting president, with majorities in both houses, they didn't even attempt it. They know, just like we do, that this is going to get decided at the state level, but they also know that they can push conservatives into saying something that will alienate people.

Then there's illegal immigration, abortion, and every other subject that no one is actually really doing anything about, but that the Dems push us into so they can keep us from talking about things like jobs, the economy, and the debt, where they're weak, or they basically hit us with the stupidest thing some right-wing guy said, and make us either slap it down, or defend it. Whatever it takes, really, so that they don't have to talk about the stuff that actually matters to the vast, overwhelming majority I do not disagree at all with your judgment of why politicians must not be seen to go along with Nugent on that. However , Nugent isn't a politician and I was discussing his rights not the campaigning of Republicans in coming election. Was it good electioneering strategy ? No. Was it his God given right to speak his mind ? Yes. Was it his Constitutional right to speak his views? Yes. Did he use a poor choice of words? Yes. Do I think he should apologize? NO. Do I think he should apologize if he wants to help Republicans win in 2014 elections? NO AND HERE IS WHY --THE DAMAGE HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE. He has apologized and that was his choice. How sincere it was is another matter. Myself had it been me hell would have froze over before I would have apologized! I never apologize for presenting truth, not to anybody ever! A principle that I've never broken going on just a month shy of 60 long years. I've been called a very hard man and other names even worse but one thing is for sure when I am in its for the duration of any struggle until one side wins. --Tyr

[DragonStryk72]

I do not disagree at all with your judgment of why politicians must not be seen to go along with Nugent on that. However , Nugent isn't a politician and I was discussing his rights not the campaigning of Republicans in coming election.

Except, Tyr, that he gave up his "not a politician" point when he stepped into the political arena and made a public statement at a political rally. If he was just grumbling on his porch, that's one thing, but he went to a place where he knew there would be a politicially-charged crowd, and made a public statement.


Was it good electioneering strategy ? No. Was it his God given right to speak his mind ? Yes. Was it his Constitutional right to speak his views? Yes. Did he use a poor choice of words? Yes. Do I think he should apologize? NO. Do I think he should apologize if he wants to help Republicans win in 2014 elections? NO AND HERE IS WHY --THE DAMAGE HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE. He has apologized and that was his choice. How sincere it was is another matter. Myself had it been me hell would have froze over before I would have apologized! I never apologize for presenting truth, not to anybody ever! A principle that I've never broken going on just a month shy of 60 long years. I've been called a very hard man and other names even worse but one thing is for sure when I am in its for the duration of any struggle until one side wins. --Tyr

I'm sorry, Tyr, but you're just wrong. Without Paul asking for his apology- Nugent's response is actually irrelevant- he can still be slapped with "supporting" that message by the Dems, a trick they've pulled early and often for years now. And don't worry, the Dems will love your inability to step back and apologize. They'd push you until you double down on the sentiment, and use you as a weapon against your own party. It's one of the main tactics the Dems have been employing.

His statement was also factually incorrect, and thus, is not true. Obama is neither subhuman, being an actual human, and he is not a mongrel. Now, he is a lying, arrogant, pompous ass who won't stop mugging for the camera, but that's very different from what Nugent said Obama was. Nugent's statement can very quickly be morphed into a very racist sentiment, and get the whole party slapped with it hard, and repeatedly. That can lose us a number of black and Hispanic voters who would otherwise vote for us.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Except, Tyr, that he gave up his "not a politician" point when he stepped into the political arena and made a public statement at a political rally. If he was just grumbling on his porch, that's one thing, but he went to a place where he knew there would be a politicially-charged crowd, and made a public statement.



I'm sorry, Tyr, but you're just wrong. Without Paul asking for his apology- Nugent's response is actually irrelevant- he can still be slapped with "supporting" that message by the Dems, a trick they've pulled early and often for years now. And don't worry, the Dems will love your inability to step back and apologize. They'd push you until you double down on the sentiment, and use you as a weapon against your own party. It's one of the main tactics the Dems have been employing.

His statement was also factually incorrect, and thus, is not true. Obama is neither subhuman, being an actual human, and he is not a mongrel. Now, he is a lying, arrogant, pompous ass who won't stop mugging for the camera, but that's very different from what Nugent said Obama was. Nugent's statement can very quickly be morphed into a very racist sentiment, and get the whole party slapped with it hard, and repeatedly. That can lose us a number of black and Hispanic voters who would otherwise vote for us. You made some good points. However in my case , I am not a politician/public figure nor am I speaking at a political rally . Some would call my hardline stand stubbornness or foolishness but others call it taking a firm stand and not giving way. A good look at what the bampunk is and what he actually does and why he does it could easily lead me to agree he is a mongrel and a lying bastard. I wouldn't choose to use that word however because other descriptive words fit much better IMHO. As far as demanding apologies from people I rarely ever do that. Usually if warranted I just beat their ass to teach them why they made a serious mistake and why they must never do so again or else I just ignore them. My main point was the politicians could have just ignored him and when asked about his words then condemned him for all to see. You do not see the lousy dems jumping on their own like this for saying inflammatory remarks. I do not deny the media will use it against us and play a double standard. I just refuse to yield myself on it , choosing instead to go "dog soldier" .. -;) -Tyr

[jimnyc]

Except, Tyr, that he gave up his "not a politician" point when he stepped into the political arena and made a public statement at a political rally. If he was just grumbling on his porch, that's one thing, but he went to a place where he knew there would be a politicially-charged crowd, and made a public statement.

I don't think he owes an apology, even if wrong. Nor did I feel Duck Dynasty needed to apologize for anything. Nor Paula Deen. Nor Don Imus. Nor Beck & Limbaugh who have said some real nasty things over the years. Not the liberal pundits who spoke some horrid things about GWB and his family. I might respect them a tad more of they come out and apologize on their own volition, but no way I attempt to limit speech or make demands. And of course, I would remain consistent, and at the very least call out other politicians, and then onto the tons of celebrities.

[Abbey Marie]

I'm glad that Rand Paul took the high road. I was appalled at the things the Left said about GWB. Let's try to be better than those we abhor.

I do think that public apologies are less than worthless these days. They seem to just empower those who receive them in the worst ways.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm glad that Rand Paul took the high road. I was appalled at the things the Left said about GWB. Let's try to be better than those we abhor.

I do think that public apologies are less than worthless these days. They seem to just empower those who receive them in the worst ways.


They seem to just empower those who receive them in the worst ways. Thanks and that is exactly why I stated I would have never given one! Why validate the dictatorial cry for groveling? People are wrong all the time with statements they make. Its become an obsession now to force apologies in order to maintain a PC culture. F-that, my father taught me to resist the easy way if it also embraced the dark side and Political Correctness does exactly that IMHO. PC demands truth be denied and it also demands individual views be censored least others consider them. Those views don't have to be perfect nor do they have to be all right. Nugent expressed a sentiment that pointed to the true character of the scum that is actively and DELIBERATELY destroying this nation. I haven't a clue why he apologized but I know I never would have based upon the principle that I have the right to express my views without censorship. Tis' why I am a lightning rod for attacks at every forum I post at. A man must stand firm on solid principle or else he can be led by the nose by those very skillful at deception. One must eventually say to all these people to hell with your double standards. Political Correctness can never be stopped unless one takes that first big step IMHO. The dem/lib/leftists use it to defeat truth and justice. Obama is far worse than a mongrel. He is devoid of any honor and any decency. -Tyr

[DragonStryk72]

You made some good points. However in my case , I am not a politician/public figure nor am I speaking at a political rally . Some would call my hardline stand stubbornness or foolishness but others call it taking a firm stand and not giving way. A good look at what the bampunk is and what he actually does and why he does it could easily lead me to agree he is a mongrel and a lying bastard. I wouldn't choose to use that word however because other descriptive words fit much better IMHO. As far as demanding apologies from people I rarely ever do that. Usually if warranted I just beat their ass to teach them why they made a serious mistake and why they must never do so again or else I just ignore them. My main point was the politicians could have just ignored him and when asked about his words then condemned him for all to see. You do not see the lousy dems jumping on their own like this for saying inflammatory remarks. I do not deny the media will use it against us and play a double standard. I just refuse to yield myself on it , choosing instead to go "dog soldier" .. -;) -Tyr

They don't do it, because Republicans don't jump on them for each random comment made by some Dem somewhere, so the Dems have never had to mind it. If he waits, then it's going to be during a structured debate, losing him time when he could be talking about something that's actually important. That's how they work, and if we don't call it, they will continue to use it and win with that tactic.

And at no point did Paul demand an apology. He said he should, just like my doctor says I should lay off the 20" extra-cheese and mushrooms pizzas washed down with a 2-liter of Dr. Pepper, and should is free to be ignored. Politically, it's asking for an apology without actually forcing the issue.

[DragonStryk72]

I don't think he owes an apology, even if wrong. Nor did I feel Duck Dynasty needed to apologize for anything. Nor Paula Deen. Nor Don Imus. Nor Beck & Limbaugh who have said some real nasty things over the years. Not the liberal pundits who spoke some horrid things about GWB and his family. I might respect them a tad more of they come out and apologize on their own volition, but no way I attempt to limit speech or make demands. And of course, I would remain consistent, and at the very least call out other politicians, and then onto the tons of celebrities.

For Duck Dynasty, that was overblown, and they took what he said way out of context (I say this as someone who is in favor of gay marriage). For Paula, that was decades removed from when she said it, and her entire life since should've been, and I know a number of folks around here in black neighborhoods who think it was bullshit. As one old guy put it, "Shit, some white girl out in podunk said nigger some time back in the 60s?! Man, people were burning crosses on our lawns! Nigger was the least of our worries."

How is asking for an apology for nasty statements removing free speech? Aren't I free to ask for an apology where I feel it is warranted, or are you limiting that form of speech? No demand was made, simply someone exercising their own free speech to ask for the apology of someone that said they feel warranted one. I am free to call you an asshole, and you are free to say that's bullshit, and that I owe you apology, and I am free to apologize or not apologize as I see fit.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

They don't do it, because Republicans don't jump on them for each random comment made by some Dem somewhere, so the Dems have never had to mind it. If he waits, then it's going to be during a structured debate, losing him time when he could be talking about something that's actually important. That's how they work, and if we don't call it, they will continue to use it and win with that tactic.

And at no point did Paul demand an apology. He said he should, just like my doctor says I should lay off the 20" extra-cheese and mushrooms pizzas washed down with a 2-liter of Dr. Pepper, and should is free to be ignored. Politically, it's asking for an apology without actually forcing the issue. It is not the mushrooms that are a fattening killer it is the damn cheese, try ordering extra mushrooms with light cheese. A compromise with a healthy benefit added in. And lay off the damn Dr. Pepper they use high fructose corn syrup! That crap is pure poison!! ' Ole Doc Tyr recommends these changes. Be it noted I am not a doctor but used to play one when a teenager and examining my girlfriends ! ;) Take all advice with a huge grain of salt and a pinch of butter if spreading on toast. :laugh:-Tyr

[revelarts]

Should people ever admit they are wrong?
When facts come out that prove one wrong, is it big or small of us to admit it? are you strong eenough to admit error or mistakes?

Should people ever apologize?
When we've said or done something stupid, mean or overly selfish should we only consider a sincere apology if the offended party doesn't ask (demand) one?
Ladies do you think you husbands should apologize when they've done something stupid, and he knows it? Does it make him weak? Does it make you weak if you apologize?

Does it give offended party "power"?, Does it make offender weak and allow others to lord it over them forever and ever amen?

Frankly some of things said here sound like Hatfield and McCoy and Mafia ideals. never forgive, never apologize, never admit wrong ever. not the morals of a "christian nation"

Tyr you asked an ethical question in another thread about wealth and service and the deterioration of society.
But there's an ethical question right here in this thread, it's about the deterioration of civil society and the loss of the concept of humility as a virtue. Of kindness as a higher virtue than pride. Of civility and trying to foster peaceful relations with even enemies. The lost of the ideal promoting the truth of the brotherhood of all humanity.

[jimnyc]

Frankly some of things said here sound like Hatfield and McCoy and Mafia ideals. never forgive, never apologize, never admit wrong ever. not the morals of a "christian nation"

How about you SHOW where ANYONE EVER stated as much? Tyr and myself stated that he should not have an apology demanded of him, for various reasons. We both agreed that an apology should be of ones own volition. And that's what you get out of it?

But I'm glad you jump up and down and all giddy like over abortion and discussion of ones right to kill a baby, but reserve your anger for celebrities who make off handed comments about politicians.

[jimnyc]

I'm glad that Rand Paul took the high road. I was appalled at the things the Left said about GWB. Let's try to be better than those we abhor.

I do think that public apologies are less than worthless these days. They seem to just empower those who receive them in the worst ways.

Apologies are cool if they have meaning, but when forced, I think all meaning has left the building. If Nugent hears feedback and is honestly remorseful, he'll apologize. But telling/forcing him to do so, he can simply do the PC thing and go home and tell everyone what a subhuman mongrel that Obama is. If that's what people want, hollow apologies just so that the person actually stated it, so be it. Then you get the type of apology that Nugent just delivered, which is mostly worthless. An apology has to come from the heart, and from remorse and understanding. Truth be told, if people didn't have votes on the line, none of these people say a damned thing. And if you say otherwise - then why aren't these people standing up at other people who say despicable things?

[jimnyc]

Should people ever admit they are wrong?

Like now...

Didn't mean to be a jerk in my reply.. I could just delete it, but I would rather apologize. :) It's too early!!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Should people ever admit they are wrong?
When facts come out that prove one wrong, is it big or small of us to admit it? are you strong eenough to admit error or mistakes?

Should people ever apologize?
When we've said or done something stupid, mean or overly selfish should we only consider a sincere apology if the offended party doesn't ask (demand) one?
Ladies do you think you husbands should apologize when they've done something stupid, and he knows it? Does it make him weak? Does it make you weak if you apologize?

Does it give offended party "power"?, Does it make offender weak and allow others to lord it over them forever and ever amen?

Frankly some of things said here sound like Hatfield and McCoy and Mafia ideals. never forgive, never apologize, never admit wrong ever. not the morals of a "christian nation"

Tyr you asked an ethical question in another thread about wealth and service and the deterioration of society.
But there's an ethical question right here in this thread, it's about the deterioration of civil society and the loss of the concept of humility as a virtue. Of kindness as a higher virtue than pride. Of civility and trying to foster peaceful relations with even enemies. The lost of the ideal promoting the truth of the brotherhood of all humanity. Rev on another scale I can go with ya but this is a political forum and there is no virtue in politics! Rather only the false claiming by politicians of having it. Now on an ethics or philosophical venue only its very debatable but in politics your citing moral principles is as out of place as talking of virtue in a whorehouse. Sure there is an ethical question here but the accusation was not about ethics but rather Nugents perceived racism and that is the charge they leveled against him for political gain. As to whether a man should or should not apologize it al depends on how much truth was in what he said or how much justice was in what he did. Each man should decide that based upon his own internal principles. As for sincerity I never apologize due to outside pressure rather I YEILD TO INTERNAL PRESSURE BASED UPON WISDOM OF MY CORE PRINCIPLES. And yes I have apologized in a pm to a few members here when I go to damn far in one of my rants. Yet always it was a voluntary and unsolicited action upon my part. And if I ever apologize I never demand a thank you in return nor even an acknowledgment in return. I have a very dim view of demands as they often get ones ass stomped . So I only make demands if or when I am quite ready to give the result of having one refused. I bring this up because the dem/lib/leftists use public opinion to make demands for apologies from opponents to first solidify their guilt , second to expose their moral weakness and thirdly to still beat the hell out of them further with. Trust me on this, if I apologize its well deserved by the offended party and they know damn well it is sincere otherwise tough shat I stand my ground by having not offered one in the first place. -Tyr

[jimnyc]

Rev on another scale I can go with ya but this is a political forum and there is no virtue in politics! Rather only the false claiming by politicians of having it. Now on an ethics or philosophical venue only its very debatable but in politics your citing moral principles is as out of place as talking of virtue in a whorehouse. Sure there is an ethical question here but the accusation was not about ethics but rather Nugents perceived racism and that is the charge they leveled against him for political gain. As to whether a man should or should not apologize it al depends on how much truth was in what he said or how much justice was in what he did. Each man should decide that based upon his own internal principles. As for sincerity I never apologize due to outside pressure rather I YEILD TO INTERNAL PRESSURE BASED UPON WISDOM OF MY CORE PRINCIPLES. And yes I have apologized in a pm to a few members here when I go to damn far in one of my rants. Yet always it was a voluntary and unsolicited action upon my part. And if I ever apologize I never demand a thank you in return nor even an acknowledgment in return. I have a very dim view of demands as they often get ones ass stomped . So I only make demands if or when I am quite ready to give the result of having one refused. I bring this up because the dem/lib/leftists use public opinion to make demands for apologies from opponents to first solidify their guilt , second to expose their moral weakness and thirdly to still beat the hell out of them further with. Trust me on this, if I apologize its well deserved by the offended party and they know damn well it is sincere otherwise tough shat I stand my ground by having not offered one in the first place. -Tyr

As to the bold... I have done so many times as well, both to individuals, and even a few times to the entire board! But imagine if you made a post - and I publicly stated you should apologize? The apology would be "forced" as like you said, you would (if) be bowing to public pressure. Like you, and only speaking for myself now, I think the sincerity and remorse, and the desire to apologize, can only come from inside. But anyway, just as I believe the desire to see an apology was for political points (aka crap), then it was followed up by Nugent actually giving an apology. Case closed.

Whatever happened to the people who used to say "I fought for their right to say stupid things..." Now it's "I fought for them to say stupid things, so long as they apologize in the end"

[revelarts]

How about you SHOW where ANYONE EVER stated as much? Tyr and myself stated that he should not have an apology demanded of him, for various reasons. We both agreed that an apology should be of ones own volition. And that's what you get out of it?

But I'm glad you jump up and down and all giddy like over abortion and discussion of ones right to kill a baby, but reserve your anger for celebrities who make off handed comments about politicians.

Did i post this topic Jim?

On over the years Jim you've seen me lay into how many other issue the saaame way?
A LOT of them. War, torturer, the TSA, Abortion, evolution, corrupt cops, corrupt politicians, lies about the wars, the MSM, the unconstitutionality of various issues, various partisan hypocrisies and other issues.

I'm kinda surprised your trying to use the "and what a about the children" argument with me. and then add the "Other people murder too why not talk about them" argument.
sorry if this issue strikes a nerve.

But to be blunt,
I'm pissed here because people who are Christians, and not racist by their own account, bring up this issue ONLY because they are upset that someone is asked to apologize for making a CLEARLY racist comment.
to me that's just Bass Ackward.

To be only 2nd handedly concerned -not really very concerned- about the racist comment itself is just wrong in my mind. we don't want people calling our family derogatory names, what happened to "do unto others" here 1st.

But You and Tyr are somehow OUTRAGED of the request for an Apology. And you ask me about abortion being more important than a celebrities racism at a political event that represents republicans. Well Jim Isn't racism in politics more important than the political gaming of an apology?
Why didn't anyone post a thread on that and get giddy etc.
no, the outrage is over the so called "forced" "PC" "Politically motivated" apology.

But OK jim lets do apple to apples. You let me know when a republican celebrity and so-called christian says that abortion is OK at a republican political event. And a pro life senator tells them they are wrong.
Don't worry I'll be there with more of the same jumping up and down and giddyness.
If a right wing rank and file post ANGRY condemning threads about the Senator and others pile on with the similar condemnation.

the 1st 2 post in this thread said not 1 negative word about the racist nature of Nuegents comments. Just agreement then obfuscation and then attacks on PAUL. And now your upset at me for going too far in my focus and condemnation of the racist comments?!... because he's a "celebrity"?

Look some People here are so upset because someone ask for an apology that they posted and condemned it, but not seriously upset with the offense that prompted it.
That sends my thats-just-wrong-o-meter off.

Sorry if you don't get that.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Did i post this topic Jim?

On over the years Jim you've seen me lay into how many other issue the saaame way?
A LOT of them. War, torturer, the TSA, Abortion, evolution, corrupt cops, corrupt politicians, lies about the wars, the MSM, the unconstitutionality of various issues, various partisan hypocrisies and other issues.

I'm kinda surprised your trying to use the "and what a about the children" argument with me.
sorry if this issue strikes a nerve.

But to be blunt,
I'm pissed here because people who are Christians, and not racist by their own account, bring up this issue ONLY because they are upset that someone is asked to apologize for making a CLEARLY racist comment.
to me that's just Bass Ackward.

To be only 2nd handedly concerned -not really very concerned- about the racist comment itself is just wrong in my mind. we don't want people calling our family derogatory names, what happened to "do unto others" here 1st.

But You and Tyr are somehow OUTRAGED of the request for an Apology. And you ask me about abortion being more important than a celebrities racism at a political event that represents republicans. Well Jim Isn't racism in politics more important than the political gaming of an apology?
Why didn't anyone post a thread on that and get giddy etc.
no, the outrage is over the so called "forced" "PC" "Politically motivated" apology.

But OK jim lets do apple to apples. You let me know when a republican celebrity and so-called christian says that abortion is OK at a republican political event. And a pro life senator tells them they are wrong.
Don't worry I'll be there with more of the same jumping up and down and giddyness.
If a right wing rank and file post an ANGRY threads about the Senator and other pile on with the same.

the 1st 2 post in this thread said not 1 negative word about the racist nature of Nuegents comments. Just agreement then obfuscation and then attacks on PAUL. And now your upset at me for going too far in my focus and condemnation of the racist comments?!... because he's a "celebrity"?

Look some People here are so upset because someone ask for an apology that they posted and condemned it, but not seriously upset with the offense that prompted it.
That sends my thats-just-wrong-o-meter off.


Sorry if you don't get that.
Look some People here are so upset because someone ask for an apology that they posted and condemned it, but not seriously upset with the offense that prompted it.
That sends my thats-just-wrong-o-meter off. ^^^^^^^ No problem with you citing your honest moral objections to the actual deed done but I do adamantly disagree with your agreeing with those that seek to actually force an apology. As noted before a demand is not a request. If Nugent wants to be an asshole it his right who are you to demand he not do so? Doesn't he have that freedom in this nation? Besides my main objection is the charge of racism and demanding of apologies is a core part of Political Correctness and used largely to destroying political opponents --often coming from false allegations. Rand Paul I like a lot, a damn lot but he should have stayed out of it until questioned by the media then given his answer IMHO. -Tyr

[revelarts]

Jim Tyr
can you answer this question for me.

IF Ted's Comments are worth ignoring because he has free speech and LOTS of others have used racist language before WHY is it that you feel COMPELLED to RAIL AGAINST Rand Paul for asking for an apology?
Aren't there a lot more people MORE PC than he is?
Aren't there a lot of other people that have demanded apologies before?
Doesn't he have free speech?
Why are you picking on him? Can't a Politician say what he wants? even if it's a bit PC.
why are you jumping up and down and so giddy and anyway ....
....what about ABORTION!?!!?:poke:

[jimnyc]

But to be blunt,
I'm pissed here because people who are Christians, and not racist by their own account, bring up this issue ONLY because they are upset that someone is asked to apologize for making a CLEARLY racist comment.
to me that's just Bass Ackward.

To further be blunt, I DO NOT ever go around here claiming to be a good Christian. Never have and never will, never preached once and never will. My religious beliefs not once took place in this thread. Everything I said was based on right/wrong - politician/celebrity - consistent/inconsistent.

I think his comment was CLEARLY degrading to Obama, but by the words alone I don't see racism. It's ass backwards to ask for apologies from .01% of people in politics and from .0001% of celebrities, but then act like the world is collapsing because one celebrity, with a history of knocking democrats, and a history of derogatory comments towards Obama, actually said some foul words about the man. Again, it's opportunistic to take advantage of just one situation while ignoring the rest. It's inconsistent to not have done so to others before and I'll wager not to the overwhelming majority in the future (and my bet still stands). Does that mean what Nugent said was OK? Nope, never stated as much. Does that mean Paul is a bad person or wrong for thinking an apology is worthy in this situation? Nope. He's probably right, but it's not his call to make - unless he wants to win over a few voters.

I hear about "fake outrage" so much over the years. That's where I see this. And no offense to everyone, but with many here too. Otherwise, if someone speaking about Obama in such a sense was SO wrong - why is it ignored SO SO SO SO many other times? At least to the extent that it's either ignored, or at the very least, even if condemned, apologies aren't asked for? I've seen members on this board say things MUCH worse about Obama, but where was anyone asking for apologies? I'm not saying this means anyone agrees... But if someone were consistent - Rev - wouldn't they condemn and want an apology for it NO MATTER? Odd that, huh? :)

To make it clear:

Nugent - his comments, IN MY OPINION, were way out of bounds. I don't condone them.

Paul - I admire him. I agree with his sentiments about the comments being wrong. I simply disagree with public pressure as such to get an apology. And solely for political gain, no less.

[jimnyc]

Jim Tyr
can you answer this question for me.

IF the Ted's Comments are worth ignoring because he has free speech and LOTS of others have used racist language before WHY is it that you feel COMPELLED to RAIL AGAINST Rand Paul for asking for an apology?
Aren't there a lot more people MORE PC than he is?
Aren't there a lot of other people that have demanded apologies before?
Doesn't he have free speech?
Why are you picking on him?

I never said "ignore" his comments. I'm sure plenty of fans might think twice about purchasing his next record, or wanting to go to one of his shows. One can also condemn him for his words, I take no issue with that and never stated as much. He has a right to speak his crap, consumers have the right to take their business away, Rand Paul has the right to criticize/condemn his actions until his face turns blue.

Yes, there are more PC than him. There are others who have asked for apologies before, yes, but not many I can recall being politicians asking for apologies from a celebrity.

Yes, he has free speech. Again, complain till his heart explodes for all I care, that's his business. And he also has the freedom of speech to ask for an apology, appealing to public pressure, and perhaps garnering a few votes.

[revelarts]

....
I hear about "fake outrage" so much over the years. That's where I see this. And no offense to everyone, but with many here too. Otherwise, if someone speaking about Obama in such a sense was SO wrong - why is it ignored SO SO SO SO many other times? At least to the extent that it's either ignored, or at the very least, even if condemned, apologies aren't asked for? I've seen members on this board say things MUCH worse about Obama, but where was anyone asking for apologies? I'm not saying this means anyone agrees... But if someone were consistent - Rev - wouldn't they condemn and want an apology for it NO MATTER? Odd that, huh? :)
....

uh Jim, to be a bit controversial,
if you'd like me to begin pointing out every comment on this board i perceive as racist against Obama, Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims and Arabs and other minotiries or groups I'd probably have a new thread everyday. Maybe i should post a thread called "racist comments of the week" and just grab quotes and post them there? hows that?

the few times i have commented on racism here it usually it ends up with people talking AROUND me, not engaging my comments. Or people just not responding to my questions. As my earlier request for examples of Obama calling whites names like "subhuman". And my request for equal standards for what considered racist in Obama to be applied to whites as well, has been left hanging.

But just as I don't reply to all of the constitution threads or all of the gun threads or religion threads I repond where an interest is sparked, where i think i have something to add and the time.
I suspect the same goes for most people here.

[jimnyc]

uh Jim, to be a bit controversial,
if you'd like me to begin pointing out every comment on this board i perceive as racist against Obama, Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims and Arabs and other minotiries or groups I'd probably have a new thread everyday. Maybe i should post a thread called "racist comments of the week" and just grab quotes and post them there? hows that?

Rev, I think you call out such talk more than Rand Paul does. Even if you did it only 3x, I still think you would have done so more than Rand Paul. And you know what else, I think when you do so it's because you are truly insulted, and truly want the other person to understand why you find something offensive. I don't see either of those qualities in Rand Paul. This isn't about whether the comments were wrong or right. This is about WHY the comments were called out and why an apology was asked for. A simple condemning of the comments would have been more than sufficient. The rest was fluff used to help any candidacy he may have for the future. I am completely convinced of that. I don't believe he wanted an apology. I believe he wanted political points for putting himself on the opposite side of the words stated. Whether Nugent apologized or not wouldn't make a difference at all. Paul used the situation to make a statement himself and try to brighten himself in front of potential voters, hence him doing so in such a public manner. A good political move, of course, but that doesn't mean I must agree wholeheartedly. If it were from his heart and in the right setting, and he was truly insulted, and hurt, then I can potentially understand. But I wasn't born yesterday nor did I fall off of a turnip truck.


the few times i have commented on racism here it usually it ends up with people talking AROUND me, not engaging my comments. Or people just not responding to my questions. As my earlier request for examples of Obama calling whites names like "subhuman". And my request for equal standards for what considered racist in Obama to be applied to whites as well, has been left hanging.

Maybe because no one has any of those examples? Maybe Obama never stated such names? Has anyone stated that HE has? But as much as you claim I didn't answer something, something I never stated happen anyway - YOU as well completely ignored all of the links and such I gave to you about other republican/democrat quotes. If you seem to think that Nugent is on an island of his own, and that others haven't done similar, or worse, you're certifiable. And my responses all along have been about PAUL, and whether or not he should be demanding/asking for apologies, not defending what Nugent said, or claiming Obama said stuff.


But just as I don't reply to all of the constitution threads or all of the gun threads or religion threads I repond where an interest is sparked, where i think i have something to add and the time.
I suspect the same goes for most people here.

Yep. But yet you're still consistent. If Rand wants to make points on racial issues, he can start with Sheila Jackson Lee, Rangel and Jackson for starters. I'd rather see Washington worrying about their own and actually doing something down there, and honoring the COTUS, and doing what they were voted in to do - work for their constituents, regions and country.

[revelarts]

Rev, I think you call out such talk more than Rand Paul does. Even if you did it only 3x, I still think you would have done so more than Rand Paul. And you know what else, I think when you do so it's because you are truly insulted, and truly want the other person to understand why you find something offensive. I don't see either of those qualities in Rand Paul. This isn't about whether the comments were wrong or right. This is about WHY the comments were called out and why an apology was asked for. A simple condemning of the comments would have been more than sufficient. The rest was fluff used to help any candidacy he may have for the future. I am completely convinced of that. I don't believe he wanted an apology. I believe he wanted political points for putting himself on the opposite side of the words stated. Whether Nugent apologized or not wouldn't make a difference at all. Paul used the situation to make a statement himself and try to brighten himself in front of potential voters, hence him doing so in such a public manner. A good political move, of course, but that doesn't mean I must agree wholeheartedly. If it were from his heart and in the right setting, and he was truly insulted, and hurt, then I can potentially understand. But I wasn't born yesterday nor did I fall off of a turnip truck.



Maybe because no one has any of those examples? Maybe Obama never stated such names? Has anyone stated that HE has? But as much as you claim I didn't answer something, something I never stated happen anyway - YOU as well completely ignored all of the links and such I gave to you about other republican/democrat quotes. If you seem to think that Nugent is on an island of his own, and that others haven't done similar, or worse, you're certifiable. And my responses all along have been about PAUL, and whether or not he should be demanding/asking for apologies, not defending what Nugent said, or claiming Obama said stuff.



Yep. But yet you're still consistent. If Rand wants to make points on racial issues, he can start with Sheila Jackson Lee, Rangel and Jackson for starters. I'd rather see Washington worrying about their own and actually doing something down there, and honoring the COTUS, and doing what they were voted in to do - work for their constituents, regions and country.

OK Jim
I hear what your saying, we just disagree.
And I'll point out, that everything you've mentioned about Paul's comments are an assumption.
You mainly attributed to him bad motives and assume you know his heart on this matter. At least to the extent that you are willing to condemn him for his action.
well you may be right,
but you may be wrong
or a little of both.
But all of you outrage is your assumed knowledge of the man's "real" motives.

while others here have given Ted the benny of the doubt, with stuff like "it might be hyperbole" "said in a heated moment" "under pressure" and you said that the comments are "degrading to Obama, but by the words alone I don't see racism".

In Nugents words you don't see racism but in Rand Paul's heart you see conniving vote seeking dark hypocritically political intent.
Which is worse than racism? or as bad as racism? Or worthy of much more heated comment than ..."degrading comments"


Jim, I hear you but i just can't go there with you.

[jimnyc]

OK Jim
I hear what your saying, we just disagree.
And I'll point out, that everything you've mentioned about Paul's comments are an assumption.
You mainly attributed to him bad motives and assume you know his heart on this matter. At least to the extent that you are willing to condemn him for his action.
well you may be right,
but you may be wrong
or a little of both.
But all of you outrage is your assumed knowledge of the man's "real" motives.

Agree to disagree is cool!

Anything anyone here has said about Paul is assumption, only he knows the truth of his true motives. You have no idea either. And I don't have outrage, and not sure why you continue to repeat that. If anything, the fake outrage is towards Ted Nugent. I have no outrage over Paul's request/demand, I just disagreed with it and explained why I disagree.


while others here have given Ted the benny of the doubt, with stuff like "it might be hyperbole" "said in a heated moment" "under pressure" and you said that the comments are "degrading to Obama, but by the words alone I don't see racism".

I said his comments were out of line, from the beginning to the end. He's been given NO benefit, at least from me, other than freedom of speech and the ability to apologize on his own volition.


In Nugents words you don't see racism but in Rand Paul's heart you see conniving vote seeking dark hypocritically political intent.
Which is worse than racism? or as bad as racism? Or worthy of much more heated comment than ..."degrading comments"

I see downright shit comments from Nugent. It doesn't somehow negate my opinion of Paul just because I don't go even deeper into condemnation. It matters not anyway, as regardless I would see Paul as being opportunistic. Of course his previous track record on calling out racism in politics would go a long way in making me think it was more than a political play based on an opportunity. And I'll gladly eat more and more and more of my own words, as time goes forward and he continues to stay on the same path and equally calls out others.


Jim, I hear you but i just can't go there with you.

Let me ask you this - is ALL racism bad? Regardless of who states the ugly words?

[revelarts]

Agree to disagree is cool!
....


Let me ask you this - is ALL racism bad? Regardless of who states the ugly words?

Yes,
condoning and promoting the idea that some races are better than others and people should be judged and treated according to ideas on their race is Bad.
It's based on generalities and lies. And promotes division, animosity, pain and.... frankly loss of capitalistic opportunity...
And lack of peace.

so yes it's bad.
and stupid IMO.

[jimnyc]

Yes,
condoning and promoting the idea that some races are better than others and people should be judged and treated according to ideas on their race is Bad.
It's based on generalities and lies. And promotes division, animosity, pain and.... frankly loss of capitalistic opportunity...
And lack of peace.

so yes it's bad.
and stupid IMO.

Then it should be condemned, correct? And it shouldn't matter if the comments were made by a (R) or a (D), or supporter of either? And it should be wrong if a celebrity does so? And it should be wrong whether it's said to the President of the USA or to the homeless guy on the corner?

[revelarts]

Then it should be condemned, correct? And it shouldn't matter if the comments were made by a (R) or a (D), or supporter of either? And it should be wrong if a celebrity does so? And it should be wrong whether it's said to the President of the USA or to the homeless guy on the corner?

Yes it should be
condemned in some fashion, privately to yourself at times, or directly to the person, or to few others but occasionally publicly. As you say, people have choice when to speak and when not to.

I mean, Lies should be condemned as well, do you call your boss or co-workers out on every lie you catch them in or only on the ones that are going cause the most problems, or the ones you think you can get the most fun out of?

As your links point out there a lot stupid racist remarks to choose from it'd be a full time job to call out each. sometimes you have to pick a few as representative. That is still sincere if not "fair".
and sadly just put up with far to many.

Now i'm remembering somthin', it's funny that you rode my back for weeks about your idea of Ron Paul being a Racist, and therefore unfit for office, even when he didn't write the old newsletters. Now you trying to say that you can selectively call out racism there, but Rand Paul shouldn't, because THAT'S it's insincere.
Maybe i'm wrong but i can't think of ANY other instance on the board , other than Ron Paul , where you've condemned racism out of the gate. You've condemned racism elsewhere for sure , as far as i can remember, after others have pointed it out, as with this thread. Well you say it's "degrading speech" that is extremely bad.

so I'm not sure where your going with this "must be condemned at all times" line Jim.
you don't.

but do you think politicians are different,
and celebrities are different,
And you, as a guy on a debate forum, are different so you get to be selective when you think it important.

unless of course I should assume you were not being sincere in your political criticism of Ron Paul:poke:

[jimnyc]

Yes it should be
condemned in some fashion, privately to yourself at times, or directly to the person, or to few others but occasionally publicly. As you say, people have choice when to speak and when not to.

Good, then you agree that not one person should be singled out for scolding (for political gain), but that others should be as well.


I mean, Lies should be condemned as well, do you call your boss or co-workers out on every lie you catch them in or only on the ones that are going cause the most problems, or the ones you think you can get the most fun out of?

My boss or co-workers aren't public figures with the reach of millions. They aren't politicians being payed by myself. I grab what you're saying, but the analogy is too far apart to even make comparisons. With that said, I don't think it would be wise to call out for each and every instance. I'd likely be shitcanned. But I can tell you that I wouldn't make a public demand/request for an apology. IF I wanted an apology, I would have pulled him aside.


As your links point out there a lot stupid racist remarks to choose from it'd be a full time job to call out each. sometimes you have to pick a few as representative. That is still sincere if not "fair".
and sadly just put up with far to many.

That's my point, to an extent. First off, I don't even see a "few", I see one. And with such a HUGE group of offenders, it seems a bit unfair to pull one person out of the crowd, when it's fairly obvious that Rand is using it for political gain.


Now i'm remembering somthin', it's funny that you rode my back for weeks about your idea of Ron Paul being a Racist, and therefore unfit for office, even when he didn't write the old newsletters. Now you trying to say that you can selectively call out racism there, but Rand Paul shouldn't, because THAT'S it's insincere.
Maybe i'm wrong but i can't think of ANY other instance on the board , other than Ron Paul , where you've condemned racism out of the gate. You've condemned racism elsewhere for sure , as far as i can remember, after others have pointed it out, as with this thread. Well you say it's "degrading speech" that is extremely bad.

LOL "he didn't write the newsletters". Just signs away to them like an alzheimers patient then I suppose!

One is a politician who was directly involved in racial comments. Whether he directly wrote them or not is irrelevant, they WERE his letters on HIS letterhead. That's a HUGE HUGE difference. Not to mention, I never sought any type of apology.

Why would "I" need to be creating threads condemning racism? Or saying I condemn it before another person states it? That makes no sense. Does that somehow mean that I condone racism? You can recall now that I am not a politician seeking votes, nor a public figure or celebrity. I think myself condemning racism at all is more than sufficient. And it WAS degrading, but how can you show it to be racial? Does "subhuman" equate to race? Does "mongrel" relate to race? Quite frankly though, I don't need to further prove to you anything. You yourself stated that you have seen me condemn racism. Do I need to condemn it on a particular level? I am NOT the politician here.


so I'm not sure where your going with this "must be condemned at all times" line Jim.
you don't.

But YOU think it should be, and those taking advantage of a political situation have not done so. I honestly didn't do much research though. Can you post for me some links so I can see in context what other people that Rand has called out on racial issues/comments before?


but do you think politicians are different,
and celebrities are different,
And you, as a guy on a debate forum, are different so you get to be selective when you think it important.

unless of course I should assume you were not being sincere in your political criticism of Ron Paul:poke:

Again, makes no sense. Because I think Rand Paul was an opportunist in this particular situation - this means that somehow I shouldn't have condemned Ron Paul? I have been even steven on all of my stances. Nothing I have stated about Rand Paul, or in this entire thread, has been in conflict with my stances against racism or perceived racism from Ron Paul.

[revelarts]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=democrat+racist+quotes
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=republican+racist+quotes
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=hollywood+racist+quotes


some are silly but many are to painful for quote. There should be apologies all over and many cases people did in fact apologize for their remarks with little prompting. would it really be PC or wrong to pick a few out for special mention?

...
Sad there are so many to choose from, And we wonder why people are so sensitive -cough-.

[revelarts]

Good, then you agree that not one person should be singled out for scolding (for political gain), but that others should be as well.

As your links point out there a lot stupid racist remarks to choose from it'd be a full time job to call out each. sometimes you have to pick a few as representative. That is still sincere if not "fair".
and sadly just put up with far to many.
and you assume it's only for political gain.



My boss or co-workers aren't public figures with the reach of millions. They aren't politicians being payed by myself. I grab what you're saying, but the analogy is too far apart to even make comparisons. With that said, I don't think it would be wise to call out for each and every instance. I'd likely be shitcanned. But I can tell you that I wouldn't make a public demand/request for an apology. IF I wanted an apology, I would have pulled him aside.
That's my point, to an extent. First off, I don't even see a "few", I see one. And with such a HUGE group of offenders, it seems a bit unfair to pull one person out of the crowd, when it's fairly obvious that Rand is using it for political gain.
Ted Nugent is a PUBLIC FIGURE with the reach of millions yet you don't rush to comdemn him either.
So you saying you don't need to condemn you boss or co-workers publicly because they are your boss and co-workers who don't reach millions
but then you say Rand Paul is WRONG for condemning someone who DOES reach millions for political reasons Publicly.
seem you don't think it's right to call out the small one OR the big ones. unless people follow your program of doing it all the time.

Look, bottom line you think Rand Paul is wrong for doing it ..as far as you know once... and you think for only political reasons.

I say It's always right to do right.
Even if you only do it once and sometimes even if you do it for the wrong reasons.

we disagree.

but here;s something else i remember, ive point out to you on a few occasions that sentencing and arrest are different for blacks than whites with the same crimes. It's Clearly demonstrated in research.
I pointed out that this is UNFAIR and judges and sentencing should be equal and not based on race.
you have cooly replied , more than once. with something like. "BUT THEY ARE GUILTY"...so they deserve jail... the fact that others get off makes no difference.

however here where there is NO real punishment, just a bit of public shaming, you would rather have people NOT be UNFAIRLY called out when so many other are deserving or MORE deserving.
seem you should revisit one or both positions.

Somehow i'm sure you'll say "that's different".

horrible double standard Jim.
If they make a racist comment they are GUILTY? right? If they do the crime they are GUILTY? right?

Concerning Ron Paul the distinction i'm making is clear.
you called out Paul PUBLICLY once (Paul has already apologized often in 30 years)
You have not a called out any others.

you can't honestly run to the i'm not a public figure I don't count, only, public figures have to be consistent the way i tell them too or they are wrong, thats BS. you'd call a lefty out if they only condemned righties on race here.
You've only once PUBLICLY (here on the baord) initiated a public condemnation of someone for racism.
It doesn't means you condone racism it just mean you don't live up to the standard you think should apply to Rand Paul before he says a word against any racist comments.

[jimnyc]

Ted Nugent is a PUBLIC FIGURE with the reach of millions yet you don't rush to comdemn him either.

You're quite a dishonest debater. Not once have I defended what I said and I REPEATEDLY have condemned his words throughout this thread.

I'll end it on my part with the agree to disagree. No point in continuing to debate things that are put in my mouth, distorted or outright made up.

[revelarts]

You're quite a dishonest debater. Not once have I defended what I said and I REPEATEDLY have condemned his words throughout this thread.

I'll end it on my part with the agree to disagree. No point in continuing to debate things that are put in my mouth, distorted or outright made up.

sorry Jim, not trying to put word in your mouth.

don't put them i mines either and please don't pull my words out of context.
I've repeatably said you've called Nugents words wrong.
but you did in fact say you don't need to make threads condemning racist remarks. of public figures in genral when commenting on Ron Paul



Maybe i'm wrong but i can't think of ANY other instance on the board , other than Ron Paul , where you've condemned racism out of the gate. You've condemned racism elsewhere for sure , but as far as i can remember, after others have pointed it out, as with this thread. Well you say it's "degrading speech" that is extremely bad.

"...Why would "I" need to be creating threads condemning racism? Or saying I condemn it before another person states it?...."THAT is what i was referring too.
that what you said
that seems me that to you are saying that you don't think it's necessary to initiate public condemnation of racism. even though you privately do.
Is that a dishonest assessment of your words?
and you also said

My boss or co-workers aren't public figures with the reach of millions. They aren't politicians being payed by myself. I grab what you're saying, but the analogy is too far apart to even make comparisons. With that said, I don't think it would be wise to call out for each and every instance. I'd likely be shitcanned. But I can tell you that I wouldn't make a public demand/request for an apology. IF I wanted an apology, I would have pulled him aside.

so i said
"Ted Nugent is a PUBLIC FIGURE with the reach of millions yet you don't rush to condemn him either."

I think i could have added the word "publicly" before condemn, to make it more specific.

Bit wasn't a blanket statement of you position. just referring 2 specific lines.
one where you say you have no need to create threads commending racism
and the other where you say you don't think is wise to publicly call out bosses and co-workers, but speak privately from time to time.

public figure and private figures,
no need to publicly comdemn... unless they are condemning it all the time.

that's where it came from.
no intent to misrepresent and I did not put words in your mouth.

[jimnyc]

Or is it just like "nigger" and OK for one side to say things but so offensive that one must apologize to the public if another does so?

And from the President of the USA?

OR, perhaps is it that mongrel isn't racist?

<iframe width="640" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/ZerO4KZDlBY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Or is it just like "nigger" and OK for one side to say things but so offensive that one must apologize to the public if another does so?

And from the President of the USA?

OR, perhaps is it that mongrel isn't racist?

<iframe width="640" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/ZerO4KZDlBY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Truly great find. bravo! :beer:-Tyr

[jimnyc]

And I don't point this out only because of the racist vibe it gave off, but also in how he is not wanting to limit speech in any way - when discussing racists.


Two days after becoming the newest symbol of "tea party" politics, Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul of Kentucky thrust himself, his party and the movement into an uncomfortable conversation about the federal government's role in prohibiting racial discrimination and about a period of history that most politicians consider beyond debate.

Paul, who beat an establishment-backed candidate in Tuesday's GOP primary, appeared on MSNBC's "Rachel Maddow Show" and, in a long exchange with the liberal host, repeated his belief in a limited government that should not force private businesses to abide by civil rights law.

His statements created an overnight controversy, with Paul, an ophthalmologist and political novice, thrown on the defensive as party leaders sought to distance themselves from their new nominee's views until he began to pull back from his remarks. By midday, Paul issued a statement saying he abhors discrimination, backs the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and would not support its repeal.

"Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws," he said.

Later Thursday, in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, he went further. Asked specifically whether facilities should have had the right to segregate their lunch counters, as was common in the South, he said, according to the CNN transcript, "I think that there was an overriding problem in the South so big that it did require federal intervention in the '60s. And it stems from things that I said, you know, had been going on, really, 120 years too long. And the Southern states weren't correcting it. And I think there was a need for federal intervention."

That appeared to reverse the position he took Wednesday night, when Maddow asked him, "Do you think that a private business has the right to say 'we don't serve black people'?"

"I'm not in favor of any discrimination of any form," he responded. "I would never belong to any club that excluded anybody for race. We still do have private clubs in America that can discriminate based on race. But I think what's important about this debate is not written into any specific 'gotcha' on this, but asking the question: What about freedom of speech? Should we limit speech from people we find abhorrent? Should we limit racists from speaking? . . . I don't want to be associated with those people, but I also don't want to limit their speech in any way in the sense that we tolerate boorish and uncivilized behavior because that's one of the things freedom requires."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/20/AR2010052003500.html

[fj1200]

What was the racist vibe?

[jimnyc]

What was the racist vibe?

I believe it's in the article, and other backed off of him, then he backed off of his comments and backpedaled a bit. But thinking it's ok to discriminate in business, and he wouldn't want to stop racial speech.... Yeah, yeah, I know, it's ALL about freedoms! :rolleyes:

At the VERY least he is a hypocrite, to openly support the speech and discrimination, and then go after another for political gain.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I believe it's in the article, and other backed off of him, then he backed off of his comments and backpedaled a bit. But thinking it's ok to discriminate in business, and he wouldn't want to stop racial speech.... Yeah, yeah, I know, it's ALL about freedoms! :rolleyes:

At the VERY least he is a hypocrite, to openly support the speech and discrimination, and then go after another for political gain. Seems 4 years ago he thought free speech just fine even if it included negative comments concerning race. Now he voluntarily leaps forward to castigate Nugent. Certainly opportunistic and hypocritical IMHO. I hope this obvious truth does not upset Rev too much. -Tyr

[fj1200]

I believe it's in the article, and other backed off of him, then he backed off of his comments and backpedaled a bit. But thinking it's ok to discriminate in business, and he wouldn't want to stop racial speech.... Yeah, yeah, I know, it's ALL about freedoms! :rolleyes:

At the VERY least he is a hypocrite, to openly support the speech and discrimination, and then go after another for political gain.

Protecting the property rights of even those who discriminate is not the same as racism, I even think you've supported those types of property rights for others. There is no hypocrisy there, I'm sure he supports Nugent's right to put his foot in his mouth but has every right to call him out too.


Seems 4 years ago he thought free speech just fine even if it included negative comments concerning race. Now he voluntarily leaps forward to castigate Nugent. Certainly opportunistic and hypocritical IMHO. I hope this obvious truth does not upset Rev too much. -Tyr

He should castigate Nugent. The two scenarios are not the same.

[jimnyc]

The point is his hypocrisy. If one disagrees, so be it.

Btw, I'm not a politician! I'm also not calling out others. So my belief has no relevance. I can still think that those who have a few similar beliefs to myself, to also be an opportunistic hypocrite.

[jafar00]

Hung up on a short soundbite?

Ain't nobody got time for dat!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFEoMO0pc7k

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

He should castigate Nugent. The two scenarios are not the same. Yea, one points to the hypocrisy of the other. That you disagree doesn't bother me.

[hjmick]

He left off "subhuman." That, I believe, was the offending word used by Mr. Nugent...

[aboutime]

WOW! Must be the very first, absolute, unquestionable time I've ever heard Obama state truth.

Which brings up the question: "What'chu mean WE?"

Speaking for yourself Obama?

I heard today. The AMERICAN BALD EAGLE has now been replaced by the SKUNK.

Because it answers the question: "What is black & white, and Stinks?"

Much like the CIC in many ways as well.

[aboutime]

sorry Jim, not trying to put word in your mouth.

don't put them i mines either and please don't pull my words out of context.
I've repeatably said you've called Nugents words wrong.
but you did in fact say you don't need to make threads condemning racist remarks. of public figures in genral when commenting on Ron Paul
THAT is what i was referring too.
that what you said
that seems me that to you are saying that you don't think it's necessary to initiate public condemnation of racism. even though you privately do.
Is that a dishonest assessment of your words?
and you also said


so i said
"Ted Nugent is a PUBLIC FIGURE with the reach of millions yet you don't rush to condemn him either."

I think i could have added the word "publicly" before condemn, to make it more specific.

Bit wasn't a blanket statement of you position. just referring 2 specific lines.
one where you say you have no need to create threads commending racism
and the other where you say you don't think is wise to publicly call out bosses and co-workers, but speak privately from time to time.

public figure and private figures,
no need to publicly comdemn... unless they are condemning it all the time.

that's where it came from.
no intent to misrepresent and I did not put words in your mouth.




rev. Every member of Obama's administration does, and says the very same things. How come you aren't as quick to condemn them as you have for TED?

[fj1200]

Yea, one points to the hypocrisy of the other. That you disagree doesn't bother me.

Except that you are incorrect. In both cases he is against the discrimination on one hand and against the words on the other but I'm sure fully backs the rights of the discriminator on one hand and the speech rights on the other.

[Jeff]

OK so they kind of got a apology last week but don't count the Nuge out, on Monday ( still feeling bad about calling Obama a Mongrel :rolleyes: ) Ted said Obama really wants to destroy America :laugh: ( and might I add IMO he is doing a great job so far )



(Politico) - After last week apologizing for comments calling the president a “subhuman mongrel,” Ted Nugent on Monday attacked the administration for what he called similarities to Nazi Germany.The rocker and gun rights activist defended some of his past remarks on Monday on Dennis Miller’s radio show, days after apologizing for using the term “mongrel” to refer to President Barack Obama, which caused a storm of controversy when he hit the campaign trail for Texas Republican governor hopeful Greg Abbott.



http://www.teaparty.org/nugent-obama-really-wants-destroy-america-35541/

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Except that you are incorrect. In both cases he is against the discrimination on one hand and against the words on the other but I'm sure fully backs the rights of the discriminator on one hand and the speech rights on the other. ^^^ goobly gook. Sure you see it that way. I however see it for thee hypocrisy that is and bear in mind I really like the guy. I just speak the truth regardless of my admiration. Its not a deal breaker for me unless he steps too far over the line and sells his integrity even further to advance his political career.

[jimnyc]

He left off "subhuman." That, I believe, was the offending word used by Mr. Nugent...

Well, at least we know now that calling someone a mongrel isn't racist. I can see mongrel being twisted as racist, but not subhuman which has a very specific definition - of not being human. Where mongrel is about a mixed breed of sorts, which many claimed was about his black/white background and therefore racist. I guess some will claim racist with either word though.

[jimnyc]

Except that you are incorrect. In both cases he is against the discrimination on one hand and against the words on the other but I'm sure fully backs the rights of the discriminator on one hand and the speech rights on the other.

So he panders to all sides, basically? How can one be against racism and discrimination and then speak up for the racist and discriminator in the next breath? And if he DOES back the discriminator and the speech rights, then he shouldn't jump at opportunities to be a hypocrite and display the opposite.

Let's face it, if he were TRULY against things like this, why has he never spoken up before? Why wait until it's a celebrity speaking up on the GOP side in a state that has nothing to do with him? But then people can speak up with other derogatory terms and his lips are sealed. And my bet STILL stands that he barely, if ever, speaks up against others when it happens again. He took his opportunity and cashed in, I don't think he'll do so again - based on his own past anyway.

[fj1200]

Well, at least we know now that calling someone a mongrel isn't racist. I can see mongrel being twisted as racist, but not subhuman which has a very specific definition - of not being human. Where mongrel is about a mixed breed of sorts, which many claimed was about his black/white background and therefore racist. I guess some will claim racist with either word though.

Subhuman -> racist, mongrel -> not necessarily racist, subhuman mongrel -> racist. Though none of that may have been Nugent's intent it's easy to see the offense.

It's kind of like only one who is from Poland can tell a "polock" joke. :poke:

[fj1200]

^^^ goobly gook. Sure you see it that way. I however see it for thee hypocrisy that is and bear in mind I really like the guy. I just speak the truth regardless of my admiration. Its not a deal breaker for me unless he steps too far over the line and sells his integrity even further to advance his political career.

:rolleyes: Apologies for going beyond Nugent good, BO bad. /caveman


So he panders to all sides, basically? How can one be against racism and discrimination and then speak up for the racist and discriminator in the next breath? And if he DOES back the discriminator and the speech rights, then he shouldn't jump at opportunities to be a hypocrite and display the opposite.

Let's face it, if he were TRULY against things like this, why has he never spoken up before? Why wait until it's a celebrity speaking up on the GOP side in a state that has nothing to do with him? But then people can speak up with other derogatory terms and his lips are sealed. And my bet STILL stands that he barely, if ever, speaks up against others when it happens again. He took his opportunity and cashed in, I don't think he'll do so again - based on his own past anyway.

How is it pandering? Supporting the rights of people to be stupid and calling out people when they're stupid is not pandering.

[jimnyc]

Subhuman -> racist, mongrel -> not necessarily racist, subhuman mongrel -> racist. Though none of that may have been Nugent's intent it's easy to see the offense.

It's kind of like only one who is from Poland can tell a "polock" joke. :poke:

If unsure of his intent, why call him out when not calling out so many others before him? And which of these words is the one that is racist?

sub·hu·man [suhb-hyoo-muhhttp://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pnghttp://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngn or, often, -yoo-] Show IPA
adjective 1. less than or not quite human (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/human).

2. almost human (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/human): In some respects, the porpoise is subhuman.

mon·grel [muhng-gruhhttp://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pnghttp://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngl, mong-] Show IPA
noun 1. a dog of mixed or indeterminate breed.

2. any animal or plant resulting from the crossing of different breeds or varieties.

3. any cross between different things, especially if inharmonious or indiscriminate.


adjective 4. of mixed breed, nature (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nature), or origin; of or like a mongrel.



At BEST people are reading into these words and GUESSING what his intent was. If he said the same about Harry Reid, would it be racist? What if it were Hillary Clinton? And GWB? And then full circle and he said it about Eric Holder?

[fj1200]

If unsure of his intent, why call him out when not calling out so many others before him? And which of these words is the one that is racist?

...

At BEST people are reading into these words and GUESSING what his intent was. If he said the same about Harry Reid, would it be racist? What if it were Hillary Clinton? And GWB? And then full circle and he said it about Eric Holder?

I'm unsure why you think that the fine Senator from the State of Tennessee has to spend his time calling out every penny ante comment that he doesn't agree with vs. a major voice of conservatism with a wide following who happened to be on the campaign trail in a huge state electorally speaking. :dunno:

Do I think Nugent is racist? No. Do I think his words were racist and reflect badly on conservatives and those who don't like BO? Yes. There really isn't any intent to read into when his words were that bad.

[jimnyc]

:rolleyes: Apologies for going beyond Nugent good, BO bad. /caveman



How is it pandering? Supporting the rights of people to be stupid and calling out people when they're stupid is not pandering.

He wants to support freedom of speech, until he has an opportunity to criticize the very same speech. He wants to condemn racism but support racists. He wants to support civil rights but not have anyone actually have to apply it in a business. He's trying to appeal to ALL sides. More power to ya if you can deal with that, but to ME, and in my opinion, it reeks, and badly. I lost a lot of respect for Nugent over this whole deal. I lost a lot of respect for Paul for how he handled the whole thing too. Only one of them had a chance of ever getting my vote. And I've spoken highly of him many times before, and did in fact consider him a front runner in MY head thus far.

I'm still looking, but if I can find a bunch of times he has spoken out before, and he continues to do so, then I may see this as less of an opportunity he grabbed, and more of his true feelings coming out. I don't see that happening and no takers on my bets as of yet. :)

[jimnyc]

I'm unsure why you think that the fine Senator from the State of Tennessee has to spend his time calling out every penny ante comment that he doesn't agree with vs. a major voice of conservatism with a wide following who happened to be on the campaign trail in a huge state electorally speaking. :dunno:

Do I think Nugent is racist? No. Do I think his words were racist and reflect badly on conservatives and those who don't like BO? Yes. There really isn't any intent to read into when his words were that bad.

Will he speak about liberty at every chance he gets and defend it? Will he always support the constitution of the USA? Will he always work for a limited government?

Or will he spend time campaigning and toying with celebrities? Will his speaking out against racists or racist comments be a one time event?

Yes, I believe how a person handles themselves in one area DOES reflect on how they will do so in other areas. Jumping into the public limelight to condemn racist words, when never having done so before, while being considered for the next election... I prefer my politicians working in Washington than campaigning and acting with Hollywood.

[DragonStryk72]

I believe it's in the article, and other backed off of him, then he backed off of his comments and backpedaled a bit. But thinking it's ok to discriminate in business, and he wouldn't want to stop racial speech.... Yeah, yeah, I know, it's ALL about freedoms! :rolleyes:

At the VERY least he is a hypocrite, to openly support the speech and discrimination, and then go after another for political gain.

Um, no Jim, he isn't a hypocrite. Forcing someone to apologize, which he has at no point done, would be hypocritical, but asking for an apology is free speech, him being free to ask for it, and the person he asked being free to not do so. Just as he is free to speak against those that speak racist messages freely. You get the concept? I can ask you for something without it being divine law, thus allowing you the freedom to accede to my request, or to deny it, in any manner speech you so freely choose.


"I think that there was an overriding problem in the South so big that it did require federal intervention in the '60s. And it stems from things that I said, you know, had been going on, really, 120 years too long. And the Southern states weren't correcting it. And I think there was a need for federal intervention."

You mean he believes that federal government intervention should be limited to those times when the states themselves are violating the rights of citizens, knowingly and enacting laws against them? Jim, I'm a libertarian, and even I'm not arguing that point. That's the way it's supposed to be, is that the states abide themselves, with the federal stepping in only in those matters where the states are acting in an unconstitutional manner.

Using an MSNBC interview with Rachel Maddow is never going to be proof of racism. There's a difference between someone who thinks we went way too fucking far with trying to "fix" racism (i.e. every conservative on this board), and someone who is actually racist.

To put it another way: I signed up to get shot at for my country for less than minimum wage, and sacrificed several constitutional rights to help defend your right to disagree with me. What I did not do was sacrifice my ability to disagree with you, which you are currently denying Rand Paul. He is perfectly capable of defending the right to say things he does not agree with, without also having to like those things, or agree with them in any way. So, unless you're prepared to call every servicemember on the board a giant hypocrite, then you're taking a really bad tack on this one, and you maybe need to re-evaluate how you're judging the man.

Not saying you have to agree with his politics, but he hasn't said anything hypocritical thus far, nor has he in any way diminished free speech.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Subhuman -> racist, mongrel -> not necessarily racist, subhuman mongrel -> racist. Though none of that may have been Nugent's intent it's easy to see the offense.

It's kind of like only one who is from Poland can tell a "polock" joke. :poke: As a proud and self-confessed mongrel I believe that I "just may" have a little more insight into the meaning and reality of the term. It is far more likely to be an insult of not being of pure blood=pure stock than it is to be a condemnation of any one race! The fact Obama was the subject gave false validity to it being cast as a racial slur on the bastard. ONE NEEDS NOT MENTION HIS RACE (RATHER THE RACE HE SO CONVENIENTLY CLAIMS) TO POINT OUT HIS BEING FFING SCUM. Nugent's comment surely was not a insult because of his so-called self proclaim race. It was more an insult about obama's character and Obama's own hypocrisy IMHO. Would it be racist if I said, "Those black guys sure can rap"? Or if I chose instead to say, "those guys sure can rap? Leaving out the word black which is a more detailed description and more accurate. Obama is a mongrel , so am I. The difference is I am not a traitorous lying worthless bastard like he is. OF COURSE I've BEEN CALLED WORSE. One will find that offering and defending TRUTH constantly will birth more hate against you than any damn skin color alone will. I have spent an entire life living that fact complete with having to fight to not be destroyed. Which is not a complaint since it was of my own choosing. Just a fact...-Tyr

[jimnyc]

Um, no Jim, he isn't a hypocrite. Forcing someone to apologize, which he has at no point done, would be hypocritical, but asking for an apology is free speech, him being free to ask for it, and the person he asked being free to not do so. Just as he is free to speak against those that speak racist messages freely. You get the concept? I can ask you for something without it being divine law, thus allowing you the freedom to accede to my request, or to deny it, in any manner speech you so freely choose.

I disagree, I do see what he did as a demand. He didn't ask, he said he should. That's trying to pin someone in a corner and FORCING their hand, or making it so that they more or less HAVE to reply. I agree that Nugent is also free to have ignored what Paul said, but the damage was done already, from both sides. Ignoring it would have been worse.



You mean he believes that federal government intervention should be limited to those times when the states themselves are violating the rights of citizens, knowingly and enacting laws against them? Jim, I'm a libertarian, and even I'm not arguing that point. That's the way it's supposed to be, is that the states abide themselves, with the federal stepping in only in those matters where the states are acting in an unconstitutional manner.

Using an MSNBC interview with Rachel Maddow is never going to be proof of racism. There's a difference between someone who thinks we went way too fucking far with trying to "fix" racism (i.e. every conservative on this board), and someone who is actually racist.

To put it another way: I signed up to get shot at for my country for less than minimum wage, and sacrificed several constitutional rights to help defend your right to disagree with me. What I did not do was sacrifice my ability to disagree with you, which you are currently denying Rand Paul. He is perfectly capable of defending the right to say things he does not agree with, without also having to like those things, or agree with them in any way. So, unless you're prepared to call every servicemember on the board a giant hypocrite, then you're taking a really bad tack on this one, and you maybe need to re-evaluate how you're judging the man.

Not saying you have to agree with his politics, but he hasn't said anything hypocritical thus far, nor has he in any way diminished free speech.

Or perhaps he IS a tad racist, like his Daddy, and that was his angle in not support civil rights? Hell, he didn't backpedal until a shit storm apparently erupted, and only then did he 'explain' his comments.

And if you tell someone they shouldn't have said something, and tell them they should apologize - you ARE asking them NOT to say something, and even to make amends for doing so. That's LITERALLY taking back free speech after the fact!

[DragonStryk72]

Will he speak about liberty at every chance he gets and defend it? Will he always support the constitution of the USA? Will he always work for a limited government?

Or will he spend time campaigning and toying with celebrities? Will his speaking out against racists or racist comments be a one time event?

Yes, I believe how a person handles themselves in one area DOES reflect on how they will do so in other areas. Jumping into the public limelight to condemn racist words, when never having done so before, while being considered for the next election... I prefer my politicians working in Washington than campaigning and acting with Hollywood.

Jim... why are you so against Free Speech? Ever since this thing came out, you've demand we agree with your interpretation of Rand Paul's statement. In fact, you've launched three threads on the same subject at this point. So, again, what is with this demand? Why do you so hate the first amendment?

If you're angry that I pulled that one on you, or that I would think such of you, Jim, then know this: That's exactly what you've been doing in these threads on Paul's reaction to Nugent's statements. Verbal dissent is a freedom of speech, and if you're railing against that, then you yourself of using verbal dissent to lower the right of others to dissent.

Paul asking for an apology for Nugent's statement in no way lower free speech, period. It uses free speech to express his distaste for what was said using free speech. Now, if you felt that Nugent was flat-out correct, and disagreed with Paul's stance that what Nugent said was kinda racist, then you could argue that, but you're using the exact right that Paul was using, but you're using it to deny and impugn that right.

[jimnyc]

I wanted to reply to this separately:


So, unless you're prepared to call every servicemember on the board a giant hypocrite, then you're taking a really bad tack on this one, and you maybe need to re-evaluate how you're judging the man.

I thought much better of you than to pull this shit out. I've made myself clear how I feel about veterans and current service members for 11 years now. I've developed both websites I have owned in honor of those very people, and have tailored it as such to pay respect to them.

Additionally, what a service member states/does in his private time is one thing - what a politician does on the campaign trail is a totally different story.

Amazing though that you WOULD pull this out, in defense of freedom of speech, over a bunch of people horrified over the speech of another. I guess your service wasn't good enough to defend the rights of Ted Nugent, and to be equal about what you defended.

[jimnyc]

Jim... why are you so against Free Speech?

I'll no longer defend what I say, or get into "rights" with you, as a veteran. I'll not have my comments somehow turned around that I am against the service members of this board.

[jimnyc]

In fact, you've launched three threads on the same subject at this point.

I honestly saw them as similar, but yet different. Anyway, the threads have now been merged.

[DragonStryk72]

I wanted to reply to this separately:



I thought much better of you than to pull this shit out. I've made myself clear how I feel about veterans and current service members for 11 years now. I've developed both websites I have owned in honor of those very people, and have tailored it as such to pay respect to them.

Additionally, what a service member states/does in his private time is one thing - what a politician does on the campaign trail is a totally different story.

Amazing though that you WOULD pull this out, in defense of freedom of speech, over a bunch of people horrified over the speech of another. I guess your service wasn't good enough to defend the rights of Ted Nugent, and to be equal about what you defended.

Do you even get how much you are railing against the Constitution with this? I mean, you're free to do so, it's your right by the Constitution, just as it's mine to argue against you. Nugent's rights were in no way harmed, though you've been blowing Paul's to hell and gone. Nugent got to say his piece, and Paul was free to take issue with it, as are all the liberals conservatives and moderates everywhere in the country.

Rand Paul using Free Spech to ask for an apology for speech he found to be offensive does not, in any way, shape or form reduce, remove, or impugn the right of Free Speech of any other living or dead being. You have ducked this point that everyone has pointed out to you. What is your response? Do you accept that asking for an apology is free speech, or have you turned against the first amendment?

What I said to you wasn't trolling. It was quite specifically telling you that I fought for people who hate Irishmen, even though I am one, and according to what you are saying, that is hypocritical, and I should let them die. Hell, I fought for the rights of people who likely hate almost every stance I have, and I'll continue fighting with them to the day I die. according to you, that's hypocritical. If that's not the case, then you need to clear it up.

[jimnyc]

Respectfully, DS, don't hold your breath for a reply. I ducked nothing. But I'm bailing from a thread when people can't help but stay with the celebrity and politician - and feel the need to change the thread to being about me, and my treatment/actions potentially towards veterans. I went line by line with Rev for quite awhile there. NEVER ONCE in the history of the internet have I ducked or dodged questions coming my way. But don't confuse me wanting to cut the head off of bad feelings as somehow ducking. I believe my history on that matter very clearly speaks for itself. But if you still feel I somehow ducked anything you asked, you have my apologies.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Jim... why are you so against Free Speech? Ever since this thing came out, you've demand we agree with your interpretation of Rand Paul's statement. In fact, you've launched three threads on the same subject at this point. So, again, what is with this demand? Why do you so hate the first amendment?

If you're angry that I pulled that one on you, or that I would think such of you, Jim, then know this: That's exactly what you've been doing in these threads on Paul's reaction to Nugent's statements. Verbal dissent is a freedom of speech, and if you're railing against that, then you yourself of using verbal dissent to lower the right of others to dissent.

Paul asking for an apology for Nugent's statement in no way lower free speech, period. It uses free speech to express his distaste for what was said using free speech. Now, if you felt that Nugent was flat-out correct, and disagreed with Paul's stance that what Nugent said was kinda racist, then you could argue that, but you're using the exact right that Paul was using, but you're using it to deny and impugn that right. Speaking for myself I criticized Rand Paul for hypocrisy as I see it. He could have and likely should have just ignored Nugent but his volunteering such criticisms of another's right to free speech carries more weight because he is a politician and not acting as a private citizen. Jim and I both have the same right of free speech to criticize Rand Paul which you noted. The point is our criticism are of a perceived hypocrisy on Rand Paul's actions. A perceived opportunistic leap on his part. At least for me it is and I think judging from Jim's posts it is his take as well. We are all free to criticize but also our motives are up to be judged as well. Rand's obvious motives were self-serving and denigrated another man's views(free speech) as a sacrifice for personal/career gain. Don't get me wrong I still like the guy. I just hope he gets back on track and doesnt dive too deeply into the ffing "please everybody and certainly attempt to soothe the political opposition
mode." To me he started riding the wrong horse in a very long race... He'd be better served not jumping to appease the political opposition unless or until made to do so. And even then he should try his best never to appease the bastards IMHO. - Tyr

[fj1200]

As a proud and self-confessed mongrel I believe that I "just may" have a little more insight into the meaning and reality of the term. It is far more likely to be an insult of not being of pure blood=pure stock than it is to be a condemnation of any one race! The fact Obama was the subject gave false validity to it being cast as a racial slur on the bastard. ONE NEEDS NOT MENTION HIS RACE (RATHER THE RACE HE SO CONVENIENTLY CLAIMS) TO POINT OUT HIS BEING FFING SCUM. Nugent's comment surely was not a insult because of his so-called self proclaim race. It was more an insult about obama's character and Obama's own hypocrisy IMHO. Would it be racist if I said, "Those black guys sure can rap"? Or if I chose instead to say, "those guys sure can rap? Leaving out the word black which is a more detailed description and more accurate. Obama is a mongrel , so am I. The difference is I am not a traitorous lying worthless bastard like he is. OF COURSE I've BEEN CALLED WORSE. One will find that offering and defending TRUTH constantly will birth more hate against you than any damn skin color alone will. I have spent an entire life living that fact complete with having to fight to not be destroyed. Which is not a complaint since it was of my own choosing. Just a fact...-Tyr

No you don't. BO was called a "subhuman mongrel," if you can't see any racism in there I can't help. It was clearly an insult and he didn't need to inject a race based term to make his point; that's what Nugent should apologize for.

[fj1200]

He wants to support freedom of speech, until he has an opportunity to criticize the very same speech. He wants to condemn racism but support racists. He wants to support civil rights but not have anyone actually have to apply it in a business. He's trying to appeal to ALL sides. More power to ya if you can deal with that, but to ME, and in my opinion, it reeks, and badly. I lost a lot of respect for Nugent over this whole deal. I lost a lot of respect for Paul for how he handled the whole thing too. Only one of them had a chance of ever getting my vote. And I've spoken highly of him many times before, and did in fact consider him a front runner in MY head thus far.

I'm still looking, but if I can find a bunch of times he has spoken out before, and he continues to do so, then I may see this as less of an opportunity he grabbed, and more of his true feelings coming out. I don't see that happening and no takers on my bets as of yet. :)

He's not supporting racists, he's supporting the Constitution and the idea of property rights. Making a stand of supporting the Constitution and property rights while at the same time speaking out against discrimination and ill-spoken words is not pandering nor hypocrisy.


Will he speak about liberty at every chance he gets and defend it? Will he always support the constitution of the USA? Will he always work for a limited government?

Or will he spend time campaigning and toying with celebrities? Will his speaking out against racists or racist comments be a one time event?

Yes, I believe how a person handles themselves in one area DOES reflect on how they will do so in other areas. Jumping into the public limelight to condemn racist words, when never having done so before, while being considered for the next election... I prefer my politicians working in Washington than campaigning and acting with Hollywood.

I have no idea what he'll do but I expect that if he campaigns with celebrities he'll call them out if they use language that can be deemed as racist.

[jimnyc]

No you don't. BO was called a "subhuman mongrel," if you can't see any racism in there I can't help. It was clearly an insult and he didn't need to inject a race based term to make his point; that's what Nugent should apologize for.

Which word refers to race - subhuman, or mongrel? And if you say when both placed together, do you have this definition somewhere? What if he said it to Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi, still racism? Do racist words go with the words, or do they go with the person? For example, nigger is considered to be a racist word. If you call a black person that word, it's a racist word. But even if you call a white person that word, it's still a racist word. Why? Because of the meaning and background of the word. NOWHERE is subhuman mongrel considered to be racist/racism. And insult? Absolutely. But good luck proving racism out of words that have nothing to do with race.

[fj1200]

NOWHERE is subhuman mongrel considered to be racist/racism. And insult? Absolutely. But good luck proving racism out of words that have nothing to do with race.

You're kidding right?

Racism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism)

a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/race) is superior and has the right to rule others.

[jimnyc]

He's not supporting racists, he's supporting the Constitution and the idea of property rights. Making a stand of supporting the Constitution and property rights while at the same time speaking out against discrimination and ill-spoken words is not pandering nor hypocrisy.

Like I said, all cool. I'm still waiting for prior instances of him decrying racism and those who spoke racial words though. And still not a single taker on my bet of him doing so going forward. Shall I make it 10-1 odds? If not opportunistic, and him not pandering for votes - then these things will become clearer and I will gladly eat my words.

The man had someone working for him in 2010 who he had to fire due to him posting "Happy Nigger Day" stuff on his FB page. He didn't want to, but relented, and defended him. Then he speaks out in support of businesses being able to discriminate. When asked repeatedly as to whether or not that means he would have supported Woolworths separating blacks and whites, he danced and refused to respond. He takes money from white supremacist groups and refuses to give it back. And now he has the "Southern Avenger" working for him.

Here's a story on the last guy - http://news.yahoo.com/rand-pauls-troubling-ties-racists-160500978.html;_ylt=A0LEVyLQEg5TDE4AdhBXNyoA;_ylu= X3oDMTEzc291a3ZoBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDOQRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dG lkA1ZJUDI4Ml8x

I know the Paul supporters will deny. But sorry, I'm starting to see him a bit like his Dad, just less kooky thus far, but the groundwork is there.

[jimnyc]

You're kidding right?

Racism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism)

You're kidding, right? Yo9u do realize MY DOG is considered subhuman, is that racist? Again, what if he called a white politician a subhuman because he hated their politics? Still racial?

[fj1200]

You're kidding, right? Yo9u do realize MY DOG is considered subhuman, is that racist? Again, what if he called a white politician a subhuman because he hated their politics? Still racial?

Clearly you're kidding. You're dog IS subhuman seeing as he's a whole different species and all. And it's kind of hard to claim that the white race is subhuman when that would describe you as well. How many justifications for slavery because blacks were subhuman would you accept to see that it's racist? I can give a couple of Nazi references as well but I don't like to go all Godwin on ya.

[jimnyc]

Some more good reading...


Yesterday a scandal erupted over Rand Paul and some of his views on civil rights. In interviews with the Louisville Courier Journal, National Public Radio and the Rachel Maddow Show Paul expressed the belief that it is wrong for the government to enforce civil rights. He even expressed the idea that he would not have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act (which he then was forced to walk back).

What Paul appears to be saying is that even though racism is wrong, it’s a greater wrong to limit private business even if that business violates the rights of others. How is this libertarian? To me it’s arguing that the rights of private businesses trump the rights of individuals and that the state has no role in upholding the rights of individuals. Paul believes the free market will solve racism, despite the fact that it didn’t do anything about racism from Reconstruction until the Civil Rights Act.

A discussion started about Rand Paul’s remarks – is this racism? First, let’s hear from Matt Yglesias:


The point to make about Paul, however, is that what he suffers from here is an excess of honesty and ideological rigor not an unusual degree of racism. Basic free market principles really do lead one to the absurd conclusion that government regulation of private business is a greater evil than institutionalized segregation. That’s why Barry Goldwater, William F Buckley, the Young Americans for Freedom, and the other progenitors of the postwar conservative movement all opposed the Civil Rights Act and the civil rights movement. And, indeed, under the kind of hyper-restrictive construction of the constitution that today’s rightwingers use to say the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional, the Civil Rights Act would probably also be invalidated.

Digby at Hullaballoo:


Last night on Rachel Maddow’s show Paul tried to walk the fine line between the inherently racist effect of libertarian policies and being a racist. And he didn’t do a very good job of it. (His father is a much, much smarter politician.) But part of his problem is that it’s very difficult to know if Paul is just a childishly naive Randian or if he actually has more racist motives, in the Bircher tradition. He protests a lot that he doesn’t. But it’s complicated by the history of his father, who most definitely has held some very noxious racist views…

There’s also the little problem of Rand Paul’s spokesman’s crude racism, which led to his resignation. Is Paul to be held liable for the words of others? No. But a pattern does start to emerge that raises the question as to whether Paul is just a starry-eyed libertopian who thinks that government is the only institution that oppresses and that racism will disappear naturally once people realize that bigotry interferes with profits — or if he’s a chip off the old block.

Not that it matters in practical terms. Obviously, libertarians in general are not necessarily racists. But their ideology inexorably leads to a society in which racism is normal and tolerated and where those who have the social power and economic clout are able to rig the game in their favor. You know — the America of 40 years ago before the Civil Rights Act. It’s not like we never gave Rand’s libertarianism a chance to work.

Conservative Bruce Bartlett, who worked in Bush I’s Treasury Department (and ironically, also for Rep. Ron Paul) agrees with digby. He thinks libertarianism has been tried and failed to stop racism.


As we know from history, the free market did not lead to a breakdown of segregation. Indeed, it got much worse, not just because it was enforced by law but because it was mandated by self-reinforcing societal pressure. Any store owner in the South who chose to serve blacks would certainly have lost far more business among whites than he gained. There is no reason to believe that this system wouldn’t have perpetuated itself absent outside pressure for change.

In short, the libertarian philosophy of Rand Paul and the Supreme Court of the 1880s and 1890s gave us almost 100 years of segregation, white supremacy, lynchings, chain gangs, the KKK, and discrimination of African Americans for no other reason except their skin color. The gains made by the former slaves in the years after the Civil War were completely reversed once the Supreme Court effectively prevented the federal government from protecting them. Thus we have a perfect test of the libertarian philosophy and an indisputable conclusion: it didn’t work. Freedom did not lead to a decline in racism; it only got worse.

Dave Weigel at the Washington Post agrees with Matt Yglesias that Rand Paul is a wide-eyed, naive utopian liberatarian:


So is Rand Paul a racist? No, and it’s irritating to watch his out-of-context quotes — this and a comment about how golf was no longer for elitists because Tiger Woods plays golf — splashed on the Web to make that point. Paul believes, as many conservatives believe, that the government should ban bias in all of its institutions but cannot intervene in the policies of private businesses. Those businesses, as Paul argues, take a risk by maintaining, in this example, racist policies. Patrons can decide whether or not to give them their money, or whether or not to make a fuss about their policies. That, not government regulation and intervention, is how bias should be eliminated in the private sector. And in this belief Paul is joined by some conservatives who resent that liberals seek government intervention for every unequal outcome.

Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon writes that libertarianism is just the intellectual justification for racism:


I’m sure Matt thinks he’s being pretty hard on Rand Paul by invoking the term “white supremacy” in his post, but he makes the same mistake that Dave Weigel does in rushing to reassure people that Rand Paul isn’t a racist so much as a hard core ideologue, and that surely his support of segregation is offered more in sorrow than in glee. This view ignores some pretty damning evidence about Paul’s history and associations, but it also ignores the fact that “principled” libertarians who woefully say that they unfortunately have to promote racist policies against their own moral compass will abandon that principled libertarianism when it breaks in favor of reproductive rights. “Principled” libertarianism only seems up to making those “hard” choices if oppressed people have to suffer the consequences.

…

But I’m bothered more by the way that some liberal pundits approach libertarian arguments as if we’re all in some debate club or in a court of law at worst, and this is a matter of everyone presenting arguments to be judged on their supposed rigor and the implications of which don’t fall on the person making the arguments. Conservatives particularly benefit from this mindset, which is why all of them come fully equipped with a willingness to scream “ad hominem” the second you suggest that making asshole arguments is evidence that the person making them is an asshole.

Paul isn’t arguing for a debate team or even in the court of law. He’s a politician who is seeking national office that would allow him to write and vote on legislature. The standards by which we evaluate his arguments must be very different indeed. That he supports racist policies is something that we the opposition should highlight without caveats about ideological rigor that is frankly lacking. Giving him the benefit of the doubt that he’s a principled man is counterproductive and missing the point. From the perspective of a voter, Paul’s associations with racists and the anti-social, racist results of arguments matter way more when assessing whether he’s a racist than his claims of ideological rigor. And we should address our arguments to that.

Charles Lane at the Washington Post demolishes Rand Paul’s argument. Private racism doesn’t exist without government support:


Let’s accept Paul’s assurances that his views on this matter are borne of libertarian doctrine and not actual racism. I believe him when he says he would never personally favor discrimination in any business that he operated or frequented. The problem remains: his argument makes no sense. There is no such thing as “private” discrimination with respect to a public accommodation. Like any other claimed property right, it could not exist without government support.

Suppose an African American customer sits down at a “whites only” restaurant and asks for dinner. The owner tells him to leave. The customer refuses and stays put. What are the owner’s options at that point? He can forcibly remove the customer himself, but, as Paul concedes, that could expose the restaurateur to criminal or civil liability. So he’ll have to call the cops. When they arrive, he’ll have to explain his whites-only policy and ask them to remove the unwanted black man because he’s violating it. But they can only do that on the basis of some law, presumably trespassing. In other words, the business owner’s discriminatory edict is meaningless unless some public authority enforces it.

http://www.delawareliberal.net/2010/05/21/is-rand-paul-racist/

[jimnyc]

Clearly you're kidding. You're dog IS subhuman. And it's kind of hard to claim that the white race is subhuman when that would describe you as well. How many justifications for slavery because blacks were subhuman would you accept to see that it's racist?

I was told yesterday that I was ducking questions. Could you please answer the questions about the actual words...

What if he said it to Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi, still racism?

Do racist words go with the words, or do they go with the person?

If TRULY racist words, then they would be considered racist, not just insulting, but racist as well if they said it to ANYONE.

[jimnyc]

One one hand we have a celebrity who has a history of being derogatory to politicians, who used terminology that was insulting, that some see as racial. Then we have a politician, claiming the upper hand in racism, who defends ones right to be racist and is awfully tight with racists and hiring a few. I won't even mention his kooky relationship with the biggest 9/11 conspiracy theorist of all time.

[jimnyc]

The scenario is that I have a friend, he lives in SF and is going to run for Pelosi's seat. He asks me to help him campaign. He's dumb enough to let me speak at an event, knowing how I feel about this woman over years. I get on stage and tell people what a no good, sub-human piece of dog shit they have there and they should vote elsewhere...

I'm a racist for saying that?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

No you don't. BO was called a "subhuman mongrel," if you can't see any racism in there I can't help. It was clearly an insult and he didn't need to inject a race based term to make his point; that's what Nugent should apologize for.


No you don't--Sorry, believe I do. -Tyr
BO was called a "subhuman mongrel," if you can't see any racism in there I can't help. It was clearly an insult and he didn't need to inject a race based term to make his point; that's what Nugent should apologize for A dog is called a mongrel. Is a dog a race? :laugh: Sure it can be twisted to be racial when it could easily have been intended to be merely an insult. I insult the worthless , lying bastard all the time myself. And I reject Obama calling himself black because he is more not black than he is black. Just like I am more not Native American than I am Native American. What if I went around claiming I am an Indian because I have some Indian blood ? People need to stop defending Obama's lie he gave to hide behind IMHO. How about some honesty Obama is a mongrel, so am I. However in his case he is a worthless sorry bastard too. - :laugh:-Tyr

[jimnyc]

--Sorry, believe I do. -Tyr A dog is called a mongrel. Is a dog a race? :laugh: Sure it can be twisted to be racial when it could easily have been intended to be merely an insult. I insult the worthless , lying bastard all the time myself. And I reject Obama calling himself black because he is more not black than he is black. Just like I am more not Native American than I am Native American. What if I went around claiming I am an Indian because I have some Indian blood ? People need to stop defending Obama's lie he gave to hide behind IMHO. How about some honesty Obama is a mongrel, so am I. However in his case he is a worthless sorry bastard too. - :laugh:-Tyr

I go with Nugent's apology - that he should have just called him "Violator of the COTUS" - or "Liar in Chief"

[aboutime]

The scenario is that I have a friend, he lives in SF and is going to run for Pelosi's seat. He asks me to help him campaign. He's dumb enough to let me speak at an event, knowing how I feel about this woman over years. I get on stage and tell people what a no good, sub-human piece of dog shit they have there and they should vote elsewhere...

I'm a racist for saying that?


Jimnyc. We all know from much experience how...TELLING THE TRUTH, making HONEST STATEMENTS, and CALLING A SPADE, A SPADE is always described, labeled, and identified as being RACIST these days.

And, we shouldn't forget. Per the Obama administration. That kind of stuff makes we MESSENGERS OF TRUTH, and HONESTY terrorists as well.:clap:

[Jeff]

So now it is OK for Obama to call Americans Mongrels but Heaven forbid if Ted ( or anyone else ) should call Obama one ?

And this woman tried everything she could do to try and make Ted look like a Racist but when he refereed to Chimps and 4 dead Americans she was really reaching to try and put his words together to make a racist statement, how sickening is it that now some will try and piece your words together to scream racism just to hide the truth of what is going on.

And yes she got rather pissy when Ted told her how he got rid of Piers Morgan :laugh:

Overall I think Ted make this woman look stupid, another feather in Ted's cap .



After canceling last week, Ted Nugent finally appeared on CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/27/world/asia/china-baby-rescue/) tonight, facing off with Erin Burnett over his comment that President (http://patriotdepot.com/anti-obama-shirts/) Obama (http://patriotdepot.com/anti-obama-shirts/) is a “subhuman mongrel”. Nugent repeatedly denied he’s a racist, telling Burnett, “We call bad people who are destroying our neighborhoods mongrels,” and there’s nothing racial in his intent. He cried, “I don’t have a racist bone in my body!” Nevertheless, he pledged on the air to stop calling people names and tone down his rhetoric so he can be wield more clarity, and during the interview only referred to Obama as a “liar” whose policies are fundamentally destroying the nation. Nugent also took some choice swipes at CNN, even invoking the cancellation of Piers Morgan‘s show to take some credit for it, along with a warning to Burnett’s other colleagues.


http://conservativevideos.com/2014/02/ted-nugent-annoys-cnn-host-taking-credit-getting-piers-morgans-thrown/

[jimnyc]

I'm going to move this thread to the other about Nugent in a minute, just giving a heads up.

And I agree, it's FINDING racism in things. Like I said previously, which no on replied to. If I said the identical thing to Pelosi or Harry Reid, is it racist? Absolutely not. People are FINDING racism in what he said simply because it was said about Obama.

Does a racist word follow the speaker? In other words, if I call my white friend a nigger while out somewhere, is it still racist? Would others perhaps see it as a racist word still, even though spoken to a white person? Of course. But if it's not racist that I call a fellow white person subhuman, which it's not, or a mongrel, which it's not - then it simply can't be racist - unless someone wants to somehow change things because it's said to a black person.

A racist word is a racist word is a racist word.

Btw, I also think that ANY child molester is definitely a subhuman mongrel piece of shit. Is that racist? Seriously, that's an honest question, as we ALL know it's not. Hell, I'm saying as much without even knowing the race.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

So now it is OK for Obama to call Americans Mongrels but Heaven forbid if Ted ( or anyone else ) should call Obama one ?

And this woman tried everything she could do to try and make Ted look like a Racist but when he refereed to Chimps and 4 dead Americans she was really reaching to try and put his words together to make a racist statement, how sickening is it that now some will try and piece your words together to scream racism just to hide the truth of what is going on.

And yes she got rather pissy when Ted told her how he got rid of Piers Morgan :laugh:

Overall I think Ted make this woman look stupid, another feather in Ted's cap .


http://conservativevideos.com/2014/02/ted-nugent-annoys-cnn-host-taking-credit-getting-piers-morgans-thrown/ The standard has been set, destroy any that dare criticize Obama and do so by any means possible. Which means call them racist and beat them with the race card. Obama can call al Americans mongrel in a video appearance on some dumbass women's talk show and receive applause but if the term is used to describe his worthless lying mongrel ass its suddenly bad. They really have raised his mongrel as to Godhood status haven't they? Well, this American says f-him and f-them too.. I do not let anybody play me for a cowardly fool. Everybody defending that sickening bastard(0bama) while he deliberately and actively engages in a systematic campaign to destroy this nation is wrong and in my opinion about as smart as a damn brick! Hell, yes he is a mongrel and a sorry ass piece of scum as well. What did I say first off about this? I stated that I was a mongrel.. Obama called all Americans mongrels... but Nugent says it and he is racist. Wake the hell up people and stop jumping on the shit wagon every time the slave masters (dems/libs/leftists) tell you to. Actually its sickening to have to watch.. -Tyr

[jimnyc]

<iframe width="416" height="234" src="http://www.cnn.com/video/api/embed.html#/video/us/2014/02/24/erin-intv-nugent-president-and-cnn-are-wrong.cnn" frameborder="0"></iframe>

[jimnyc]

Another thing - which is it that was so offensive, and so racist - "subhuman" or "mongrel". At first, when I read stories, it was the mongrel portion, hence me and so many others finding video of Obama stating the same. Then it was the subhuman part, now back to mongrel again. Just a snippet from this article (which I think altogether is a good article, but similar to our already going on discussion...)


Taylor Budowich, executive director of Tea Party Express, said he is pleased that Nugent apologized for the "mongrel" remark and realized that inflammatory comments distract from his core message. He noted, however, that Nugent has support because he talks about the issues his tea party group cares about, including reducing the size of government and "restoring America" after being "hurt by this administration and past administrations."

And there are many others that I have read similarly, that people were offended by the mongrel portion. Regardless, funny that many say it's racist, and yet so many can't even agree on which portion was the supposed racist part!

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/26/politics/ted-nugent/index.html

[jimnyc]

In addition to the above stating that "mongrel" was the racist word...


Texas Governor Rick Perry, who Abbott hopes to succeed, said on CNN that Nugent "shouldn't have said that about the President of the United States ... I got a problem calling the president a mongrel. I do have a problem with that. That is an inappropriate thing to say." When CNN host Wolf Blitzer suggested that Nugent should apologize, Perry said, "I'll recommend that he do that."

Even leading politicians don't know where the racism portion came from?

[jimnyc]

I'm going to move this thread to the other about Nugent in a minute, just giving a heads up.

And I agree, it's FINDING racism in things. Like I said previously, which no on replied to. If I said the identical thing to Pelosi or Harry Reid, is it racist? Absolutely not. People are FINDING racism in what he said simply because it was said about Obama.

Does a racist word follow the speaker? In other words, if I call my white friend a nigger while out somewhere, is it still racist? Would others perhaps see it as a racist word still, even though spoken to a white person? Of course. But if it's not racist that I call a fellow white person subhuman, which it's not, or a mongrel, which it's not - then it simply can't be racist - unless someone wants to somehow change things because it's said to a black person.

A racist word is a racist word is a racist word.

Btw, I also think that ANY child molester is definitely a subhuman mongrel piece of shit. Is that racist? Seriously, that's an honest question, as we ALL know it's not. Hell, I'm saying as much without even knowing the race.


Another thing - which is it that was so offensive, and so racist - "subhuman" or "mongrel". At first, when I read stories, it was the mongrel portion, hence me and so many others finding video of Obama stating the same. Then it was the subhuman part, now back to mongrel again. Just a snippet from this article (which I think altogether is a good article, but similar to our already going on discussion...)



And there are many others that I have read similarly, that people were offended by the mongrel portion. Regardless, funny that many say it's racist, and yet so many can't even agree on which portion was the supposed racist part!

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/26/politics/ted-nugent/index.html


In addition to the above stating that "mongrel" was the racist word...



Even leading politicians don't know where the racism portion came from?

BUMP!

So, am I a racist? Inquiring minds want and need to know!! And is the outcry because of the word mongrel, or subhuman? Are words only racially offensive if said to a black person?

[logroller]

Mongrel isn't necessarily racist, but it could be. By itself, a racial description isn't racist. If its used to imply that a person, by virtue of their impure racial origin is somehow lesser, that's racist. Calling someone a 'subhuman mongrel' certainly implies a lesser than quality.

We can break it down into parts; consider whether subhuman is more racist than mongrel,but the fact is they were used together and the summation of which is overtly racist. I think that, in the grand scheme of things we must ask ourselves whether racial identity is of any import beyond manifesting racism?

Kind of a side note, but I just found out I'm a quarter Jewish.

[jimnyc]

Mongrel isn't necessarily racist, but it could be. By itself, a racial description isn't racist. If its used to imply that a person, by virtue of their impure racial origin is somehow lesser, that's racist. Calling someone a 'subhuman mongrel' certainly implies a lesser than quality.

We can break it down into parts; consider whether subhuman is more racist than mongrel,but the fact is they were used together and the summation of which is overtly racist. I think that, in the grand scheme of things we must ask ourselves whether racial identity is of any import beyond manifesting racism?

But again, what if the EXACT scenario you described is applied to a white person. Is that still racist?

And I believe it was a "lesser than" quality as well. When I say Nancy Pelosi is a subhuman mongrel, I AM in fact stating she is lesser than me, I believe that. But that's not a racist term, although insulting. Many see the term as offensive to a religion as well. Many see lots of things, but not all are what was stated. Perhaps he stated the words, as do I, because he can't stand the fucker?


Kind of a side note, but I just found out I'm a quarter Jewish.

Shalom

[logroller]

BUMP!

So, am I a racist? Inquiring minds want and need to know!! And is the outcry because of the word mongrel, or subhuman? Are words only racially offensive if said to a black person?
Calling anyone subhuman by virtue of race is racist. Americans of African descent have been targets of racism in America-- it's the elephant in the room so naturally it incites more vitriol.

When will promulgating this blight upon a nation founded upon the principles of freedom and equality come to end?

[jimnyc]

Calling anyone subhuman by virtue of race is racist. Americans of African descent have been targets of racism in America-- it's the elephant in the room so naturally it incites more vitriol.

When will promulgating this blight upon a nation founded upon the principles of freedom and equality come to end?

What is it he said about Obama and being a subhuman mongrel made you say it's based on virtue of race, and not just that he can't stand the man, as I would say if saying it to Harry Reid, and it wouldn't be racist?

[aboutime]

Calling anyone subhuman by virtue of race is racist. Americans of African descent have been targets of racism in America-- it's the elephant in the room so naturally it incites more vitriol.

When will promulgating this blight upon a nation founded upon the principles of freedom and equality come to end?


Let's get this straight Logroller. You are practicing what you preach?

Of course, as all of us have been seeing with your posts on this thread.

You completely ignore, and never mention our...ALL OF OUR 1st amendment rights to FREE SPEECH.

If you disagree with Nugent, or anyone else. Does that mean you would deny Him, or anyone else that RIGHT because
you disagree???

Can't have it both ways. And you should remember.
You are using that 1st amendment right....here on DP.
How many of us do you endlessly disagree with, and pretend to be so knowledgeable about NOTHING???

[logroller]

Let's get this straight Logroller. You are practicing what you preach?

Of course, as all of us have been seeing with your posts on this thread.

You completely ignore, and never mention our...ALL OF OUR 1st amendment rights to FREE SPEECH.

If you disagree with Nugent, or anyone else. Does that mean you would deny Him, or anyone else that RIGHT because
you disagree???

Can't have it both ways. And you should remember.
You are using that 1st amendment right....here on DP.
How many of us do you endlessly disagree with, and pretend to be so knowledgeable about NOTHING???
There are limits to to free speech-- when it leads to the infringement on another's freedoms. Nothing I've said here that infringes upon your or anyone else's freedom to defend bigoted views. Have at it, but don't expect me to refrain from calling it out for what it is.

[aboutime]

There are limits to to free speech-- when it leads to the infringement on another's freedoms. Nothing I've said here that infringes upon your or anyone else's freedom to defend bigoted views. Have at it, but don't expect me to refrain from calling it out for what it is.


Okay Log. How bout you start telling all of us what YOU call LIMITS to free speech? Other than yelling FIRE in a theater. Give us your rendition of THE FIRST AMENDMENT, and WHERE you find the word LIMIT???

[logroller]

What is it he said about Obama and being a subhuman mongrel made you say it's based on virtue of race, and not just that he can't stand the man, as I would say if saying it to Harry Reid, and it wouldn't be racist?
It's just the general use of the terms Jim. Mongrel is a pejorative term. If I called Reid a flaming faggot I think its fair to assume I wasn't innocently referring to his being kindling. It was perceived as a sleight with racial undertone. If you don't see it that way then good; but a lot people did. Might you understand that what someone intended something to mean and what others understand it is variable? Take Hillary's comment, after hours of testimony explaining the causes of the attacks and administrative response, "...does it really matter?"-- do you think she meant that American lives don't matter? Because sure as shit, that's what people heard.


Okay Log. How bout you start telling all of us what YOU call LIMITS to free speech? Other than yelling FIRE in a theater. Give us your rendition of THE FIRST AMENDMENT, and WHERE you find the word LIMIT???

According to http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/get-involved/constitution-activities/first-amendment/free-speech.aspx

Freedom of speech does not include the right:


To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “[S]hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).


To make or distribute obscene materials.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).


To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).


To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).


Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).


Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).


additionally,
I'd add that constitutional protections of free speech do not apply to a multitude of agreements. For example, here on DP we have some limits on free speech-- See the rules section. As a member here, you have agreed to the terms and conditions.

So too are those given security clearance so limited. Regardless, have I infringed upon your rights somehow or are you just trolling for confrontation?

[logroller]

Okay Log. How bout you start telling all of us what YOU call LIMITS to free speech? Other than yelling FIRE in a theater. Give us your rendition of THE FIRST AMENDMENT, and WHERE you find the word LIMIT???

Btw, where do you find text in the first amendment hat says you cannot yell FIRE in a crowded theater?

[jimnyc]

It's just the general use of the terms Jim. Mongrel is a pejorative term. If I called Reid a flaming faggot I think its fair to assume I wasn't innocently referring to his being kindling. It was perceived as a sleight with racial undertone. If you don't see it that way then good; but a lot people did. Might you understand that what someone intended something to mean and what others understand it is variable? Take Hillary's comment, after hours of testimony explaining the causes of the attacks and administrative response, "...does it really matter?"-- do you think she meant that American lives don't matter? Because sure as shit, that's what people heard.

Yes, but what you're pointing out about Hillary is apparently a change to suit what one thinks they heard, from 'does it really matter' to the 'American lives don't matter'. What we're discussing there has been no change or assumptions, other from people who found racism in what he said, even though he explained what he meant. No words spoken were by themselves racial. The only reason people are finding race in all of this is because Obama is a black man. Now, if others perceive it as racist, I can understand, but that hardly makes it so.

nigger, zipperhead, yellow, wop, spic, gook, chink, nip, cracker, gringo...

All those words are racial slurs. If at a store, no matter who I may utter the words to, they are racist. I can say it to Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Cruz, Paul or any politician, doesn't matter race, and the terms are racial terms. But neither subhuman nor mongrel fit into that group, because neither word by itself, or put together, is a racial term. Of course one can THINK so, depending on the target, but it's simply a guess as neither word is inherently racist.

Also, calling Reid a faggot wouldn't be "racist" either, but very well insulting. Also, while insulting about gay people, it's still insulting when said to a straight person, as the word itself is a slur.

[jimnyc]

To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “[S]hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).


Btw, where do you find text in the first amendment hat says you cannot yell FIRE in a crowded theater?

Almost as good, and you noted it yourself. :) While not in the COTUS, it will be treated almost as such since the supreme court apparently ruled on it.

[aboutime]

Btw, where do you find text in the first amendment hat says you cannot yell FIRE in a crowded theater?


Log. I learned long ago. Never to argue with anyone that has little intelligence. This is one of those cases. Your stupidity preceded you.

[logroller]

Yes, but what you're pointing out about Hillary is apparently a change to suit what one thinks they heard, from 'does it really matter' to the 'American lives don't matter'. What we're discussing there has been no change or assumptions, other from people who found racism in what he said, even though he explained what he meant. No words spoken were by themselves racial.

The only reason people are finding race in all of this is because Obama is a black man. Now, if others perceive it as racist, I can understand, but that hardly makes it so.

nigger, zipperhead, yellow, wop, spic, gook, chink, nip, cracker, gringo...

All those words are racial slurs. If at a store, no matter who I may utter the words to, they are racist. I can say it to Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Cruz, Paul or any politician, doesn't matter race, and the terms are racial terms. But neither subhuman nor mongrel fit into that group, because neither word by itself, or put together, is a racial term.

the lexicon of subhuman and mongrel has a historical precedent that can't be denied.


Blitzer said the words "subhuman mongrel" were used by the Nazis to "justify the genocide of the Jewish community." We found ample evidence that the Nazis used those words -- in their own language -- to repeatedly describe Jewish people in the build-up to the Holocaust.
We rate his statement True. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/feb/18/wolf-blitzer/wolf-blitzer-ted-nugent-used-nazi-terminology-subh/

And not just the Jews either.
untermensch, or subhuman was repeatedly used to by the Nazis in reference to communists--just as Nugent's comments did.

Wiki--
-In a speech in 1927 to the Bavarian regional parliament the Nazi propagandist Julius Streicher, publisher of Der Stürmer, used the term "Untermensch" referring to the communists of the German Bavarian Soviet Republic:

It happened at the time of the [Bavarian] Soviet Republic: When the unleashed subhumans rambled murdering through the streets, the deputies hid behind a chimney in the Bavarian parliament.[14]
The term "Untermensch" was utilized repeatedly in writings and speeches directed against the Jews, the most notorious example being a 1935 SS publication with the title "Der Untermensch" which contains an antisemitic tirade sometimes considered to be an extract from a speech held by Heinrich Himmler. In the pamphlet The SS as an Anti-Bolshevist Fighting Organization, published in 1936, Himmler wrote:

We shall take care that never again in Germany, the heart of Europe, will the Jewish-Bolshevistic revolution of subhumans be able to be kindled either from within or through emissaries from without.[15][16][17]
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untermensch
. Nugent even defended his comments as "street fighter" language. Ibid, 'rambling subhumans rambled murdering through the streets'.


In 1935, Der Sturmer carried a student essay that parrotted the teaching materials in the classroom. Here is the English translation:
"Regrettably, there are still many people today who say: Even the Jews are creatures of God. Therefore you must respect them. But we say: Vermin are animals too, but we exterminate them just the same. The Jew is a mongrel. He has hereditary tendencies from Aryans, Asiatics, Negroes, and from the Mongolians. Evil always preponderates in the case of a mongrel."


- politifact
The word mongrel is even of Germanic origin-- Its synonymous with half-breed-- in German, mischling. Look up the Nuremberg laws.

It just seems obvious to me that when someone uses rhetoric inline with nazi propaganda it suggests more than just a tinge of racist ideology. But what the heck, maybe Nugent's comment wasn't racist at all... I suppose his referring to Obama as a chimpanzee (in the same interview) wasn't either.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Yes, but what you're pointing out about Hillary is apparently a change to suit what one thinks they heard, from 'does it really matter' to the 'American lives don't matter'. What we're discussing there has been no change or assumptions, other from people who found racism in what he said, even though he explained what he meant. No words spoken were by themselves racial. The only reason people are finding race in all of this is because Obama is a black man. Now, if others perceive it as racist, I can understand, but that hardly makes it so.

nigger, zipperhead, yellow, wop, spic, gook, chink, nip, cracker, gringo...

All those words are racial slurs. If at a store, no matter who I may utter the words to, they are racist. I can say it to Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Cruz, Paul or any politician, doesn't matter race, and the terms are racial terms. But neither subhuman nor mongrel fit into that group, because neither word by itself, or put together, is a racial term. Of course one can THINK so, depending on the target, but it's simply a guess as neither word is inherently racist.

Also, calling Reid a faggot wouldn't be "racist" either, but very well insulting. Also, while insulting about gay people, it's still insulting when said to a straight person, as the word itself is a slur. Face it Jim. When defending Obama people read into it what they want to. I am not black but I am a mongrel (of mixed race) . If you or any other member here had called me a mongrel when I spoke of my bloodline could I have gotten away here with accusing racism? Or should I let those defending Obama by attacking Nugent answer that one? How about answering that one ye ever so vigilant defenders of the dark Lord. O' my, I see that I just used the term "dark lord" surely that is racist too. :laugh:--Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

the lexicon of subhuman and mongrel has a historical precedent that can't be denied.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/feb/18/wolf-blitzer/wolf-blitzer-ted-nugent-used-nazi-terminology-subh/

And not just the Jews either.
untermensch, or subhuman was repeatedly used to by the Nazis in reference to communists--just as Nugent's comments did.

Wiki--http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untermensch
. Nugent even defended his comments as "street fighter" language. Ibid, 'rambling subhumans rambled murdering through the streets'.

- politifact
The word mongrel is even of Germanic origin-- Its synonymous with half-breed-- in German, mischling. Look up the Nuremberg laws.

It just seems obvious to me that when someone uses rhetoric inline with nazi propaganda it suggests more than just a tinge of racist ideology. But what the heck, maybe Nugent's comment wasn't racist at all... I suppose his referring to Obama as a chimpanzee (in the same interview) wasn't either. You can twist a donut to look almost like a pretzel but its still not a pretzel. Nazi's hated Jews and murdered millions of them . So is it your contention everyone using a word must know its roots and every group that ever used it in a negative way to insult or harm others? That's not only a big stretch but is going to require a few trillion dollars to accomplish by way of education, the world being such a big place.. ;)--Tyr

[logroller]

You can twist a donut to look almost like a pretzel but its still not a pretzel. Nazi's hated Jews and murdered millions of them . So is it your contention everyone using a word must know its roots and every group that ever used it in a negative way to insult or harm others? That's not only a big stretch but is going to require a few trillion dollars to accomplish by way of education, the world being such a big place.. --Tyr
So I'm twisting words? As though nugent explaining that subhuman mongrel is street lingo for violating an oath to constitution isn't twisting. Mongrel please. Offer a source that refutes mine?


Regarding your feigned strawman regarding my contentions: Wikipedia is free. So remaining ignorant is a choice.


The fact is that the classification of people as subhuman by virtue of racial/ethnic origins has repeatedly been the pretext for oppression and violence -- its irrefutable and claiming ignorance is, at best disingenuous, if not outright dishonest. He even admitted his comment was inflammatory.

[aboutime]

So I'm twisting words? As though nugent explaining that subhuman mongrel is street lingo for violating an oath to constitution isn't twisting. Mongrel please. Offer a source that refutes mine?


Regarding your feigned strawman regarding my contentions: Wikipedia is free. So remaining ignorant is a choice.


The fact is that the classification of people as subhuman by virtue of racial/ethnic origins has repeatedly been the pretext for oppression and violence -- its irrefutable and claiming ignorance is, at best disingenuous, if not outright dishonest. He even admitted his comment was inflammatory.


LOGROLLER. Just wondering if you would be saying the very same, defensive things had Nugent used the 'N' word?
Jim says it's part of the society, and everybody is using it. So...instead of using the 'N'word. Ted used subhuman mongrel..also street lingo in society. So...WHICH WOULD YOU PREFER?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

So I'm twisting words? As though nugent explaining that subhuman mongrel is street lingo for violating an oath to constitution isn't twisting. Mongrel please. Offer a source that refutes mine?


Regarding your feigned strawman regarding my contentions: Wikipedia is free. So remaining ignorant is a choice.


The fact is that the classification of people as subhuman by virtue of racial/ethnic origins has repeatedly been the pretext for oppression and violence -- its irrefutable and claiming ignorance is, at best disingenuous, if not outright dishonest. He even admitted his comment was inflammatory. I myself am a mongrel and I was not offended by the term being used correctly. Obama is a damn mongrel. People are offended when it suits their purposes. Go ahead call me a mongrel until the damn sun dies it will not bother me. You see I am not ignorant nor am I offended by hearing the truth. Of course I am not hell bent on defending such freaking scum as Obama. -Tyr

[logroller]

I myself am a mongrel and I was not offended by the term being used correctly. Obama is a damn mongrel. People are offended when it suits their purposes. Go ahead call me a mongrel until the damn sun dies it will not bother me. You see I am not ignorant nor am I offended by hearing the truth. Of course I am not hell bent on defending such freaking scum as Obama. -Tyr
I understand what your saying but nugent intended his comments to be inflammatory. His use of such rhetoric, regardless of its veracity connotes a radical racist ideology. Not to mention, that is hardly an isolated incident. He's a racist; that's the truth. Of course, I'm in no way inclined to defend those who proffer nazi rhetoric.

Imho, some, and dare I say many people think its about supporting the lesser of two evils-- that somehow one is either for the racist nugent or for the scumbag Obama--- such may be an expedient means of garnering support, but in no way is this good. I can criticize what I believe to be deleterious behavior and still share and offer support on his other beliefs. In fact, I believe must because he's a spokesman for our shared interests; as such, when he engages in actions that I believe ill-serve those interests, I'll speak out against his actions-- tis my freedom. Whether you choose to enthuse is course of action:your freedom::his choice to continue: his.

[jimnyc]

Except, Tyr, that he gave up his "not a politician" point when he stepped into the political arena and made a public statement at a political rally.


I suppose his referring to Obama as a chimpanzee (in the same interview) wasn't either.

Ok, admittedly I was confused about certain things, so let me backtrack a tad... YES, undoubtedly, calling Obama a chimpanzee is racist, no 2 ways about that one. I wasn't aware and had to search further - which lead me back to DS72's comments, which I ran with when reading.

Thing is, Nugent DID NOT say these things at a political rally, it was all said in an interview with "guns.com". If he were on a political stage, then it's a little different. It's still racist, the chimp part, but he did so as Ted Nugent the idiot entertainer, not as Ted Nugent, speaking for a politician at the time. And yes, I think that makes a difference. Not in whether it's racist or not, which it is, but is it a political statement on stage?

Like DS alluded to above, it's different when he gives up his "not a politician" when on stage - but he wasn't on stage at a public political rally.

So I say his comment about the chimp was racist. But I further now stand by my comments that politicians (Rand) shouldn't be injecting themselves into celebrity world and Hollywood. Especially if they have never done so before. And of course I would be remiss if I didn't once again state that my bet offer still stands! :)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I understand what your saying but nugent intended his comments to be inflammatory. His use of such rhetoric, regardless of its veracity connotes a radical racist ideology. Not to mention, that is hardly an isolated incident. He's a racist; that's the truth. Of course, I'm in no way inclined to defend those who proffer nazi rhetoric.

Imho, some, and dare I say many people think its about supporting the lesser of two evils-- that somehow one is either for the racist nugent or for the scumbag Obama--- such may be an expedient means of garnering support, but in no way is this good. I can criticize what I believe to be deleterious behavior and still share and offer support on his other beliefs. In fact, I believe must because he's a spokesman for our shared interests; as such, when he engages in actions that I believe ill-serve those interests, I'll speak out against his actions-- tis my freedom. Whether you choose to enthuse is course of action:your freedom::his choice to continue: his. I have no problem with you speaking your views on this or any other topic. I simply look at it as Nugent expressing his outrage that we must endure and suffer as a nation at the hands of the lying dishonorable ffing mongrel. Sure he meant it as an insult but the possibility exists that he did not consciously intend it to be racial at all. My biggest gripe in the entire thing is that he apologized! Of course his words and he had aright to react how he wanted to but not me -I'd never apologize no matter how I insulted Obama. It would be like apologizing for having said "shit stinks".. Why apologize when its true? --Tyr

[aboutime]

I have no problem with you speaking your views on this or any other topic. I simply look at it as Nugent expressing his outrage that we must endure and suffer as a nation at the hands of the lying dishonorable ffing mongrel. Sure he meant it as an insult but the possibility exists that he did not consciously intend it to be racial at all. My biggest gripe in the entire thing is that he apologized! Of course his words and he had aright to react how he wanted to but not me -I'd never apologize no matter how I insulted Obama. It would be like apologizing for having said "shit stinks".. Why apologize when its true? --Tyr


TYR. Agreed. There is NEVER any reason for Anyone to ever apologize for TELLING THE TRUTH.

[logroller]

TYR. Agreed. There is NEVER any reason for Anyone to ever apologize for TELLING THE TRUTH.
So Obama's subhuman?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

So Obama's subhuman? No but he is a sorry worthless human. A lying treacherous human. A socialist piece of shat. And a dumbass to boot. A man's true worth has nothing to do with his station in life and the false respect he has managed to garner amigo. He is just about as close to being sub human as a human can get IMHO. IN OTHER WORDS = HE IS A SORRY BASTARD!!! May God place a pox upon his miserable lying head. When I was 10 years old we lived on a farm and this 17 year old kid lived about 2 miles down the road. Shortly after he got his first car he'd drive by our house and always try to run over any of our dogs out by the gravel road. He would veer over trying to hit any of them. Well one day I was walking down that road and "my dog" Brownie was trailing behind me about a hundred yards. This worthless bastard came along swerved over and hit my dog then sped past me pointing and laughing. I ran back to Brownie and he died in about 4 or 5 minutes with me still holding him an hour later when my dad found us.. I cried , not an easy thing to ever make me do! I was only 10 years old and could do NOTHING about it since dad took my gun for a whole year to insure that I didn't deliver some justice. . Now comes the good part , I am 18 years old in a bar already in a bad mood(woman troubles). Guess who walked in? That's right , the bastard that deliberately killed a ten year old kid's dog! Do I need to tell you just how badly I busted him up or how much I had hated that son of a bitch for those 8 long years? Or that if I met that man (who afterwards spent his life staying clear of me) again I'd stomp his ass again within an inch of his life. I am not a gentle man when angered .... Now to the point of this story, Obama is a much sorrier bastard than him! Has caused a million times more misery than him. And should someday receive his just rewards IMHO.. He is protected from man's hand but God's wrath can not be stopped. A pox, a pox upon his sorry miserable brow is my fondest wish. --Tyr

[aboutime]

So Obama's subhuman?


If you say so!

[logroller]

My biggest gripe in the entire thing is that he apologized! Of course his words and he had aright to react how he wanted to but not me -I'd never apologize no matter how I insulted Obama. It would be like apologizing for having said "shit stinks".. Why apologize when its true? --Tyr


So Obama's subhuman?


No...

So what he said wasn't true....so an apology was warranted.

In regards to the same question,

If you say so!

Nugent said so, not I. Besides, it was a direct question in response to the maxim, 'never apologize for telling the truth' proffered by tyr and seconded by you. Tyr answered, you did not. So I ask you again, is Obama a subhuman?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

So what he said wasn't true....so an apology was warranted.

In regards to the same question,


Nugent said so, not I. Besides, it was a direct question in response to the maxim, 'never apologize for telling the truth' proffered by tyr and seconded by you. Tyr answered, you did not. So I ask you again, is Obama a subhuman?


Of course his words and he had a right to react how he wanted to but not me -I'd never apologize no matter how I insulted Obama. It would be like apologizing for having said "shit stinks".. Why apologize when its true? --Tyr

My comment in totality amigo is I'd never apologize NO MATTER---- "HOW I"---- INSULTED OBAMA. That did not apply to Nugent what he did or didn't do. It applied to me pointing out MY INSULTS delivered in regards to Obama are all true. And because I know my insults are TRUTH I'd damn sure never apologize for making them no matter who sought, begged for or demanded an apology. In other words, I'd die not apologizing. As to whether an apology was warranted that is his decision to make not mine. His words not mine. You making the comparison by taking out of context my direct quote doesn't cut it with me Hoss. --Tyr