ted nugent politics

pandora

I agree and his press release today was a good one too :thumbup:

I wonder if more middle ground people, in the years to come,
will start moving in their respective directions til there ain't any middle anymore

more radicals

Godfather.

bigdvs wrote:

The NRA party rocked
Posted on April 19, 2012 at 10:18am
Ted Nugent is a musician, author, and activist from Detroit, Michigan. The guitarist and singer has recorded 35 albums and sold over 40 million worldwide. Ted […] Ted Nugent is a musician, author, and activist from Detroit, Michigan. The guitarist and singer has recorded 35 albums and sold over 40 million worldwide. Ted is an award-winning writer for over 40 publications, and author of the New York Times best sellers Ted White & Blue: The Nugent Manifesto and God, Guns and Rock 'n' Roll, along with Kill It and Grill It, BloodTrails and BloodTrails II. Ted has been re-elected for his sixth term on the Board of Directors of the NRA, and worked as a national spokesman for D.A.R.E and as Ambassador for Big Brothers/Big Sisters and the Pass It On Outdoor Mentors Program.

If all of America was just like the great families at the NRA 141st Annual Members meeting in St. Louis last weekend, our country would be flawless. Surrounded by my family, friends, patriots, law enforcement and military heroes, veterans who have sacrificed dearly for freedom and the US Constitution, the goodwill and positive energy in the air was cleansing to say the least. We set another attendance record for the NRA and for St. Louis. It was downright perfect.

I spent all three days doing fundraisers for children’s and military charities, fondling much hardware, meeting legions of good folks at the Ted Nugent Ammo exhibit, and shaking hands with great Americans, Canadians, Brits and freedom loving people from around the globe.

As always, I also conducted numerous media interviews providing unlimited self-evident truth and the inexhaustible evidence supporting the beauty of keeping and bearing arms for defense of self, family and liberty. Unarmed helplessness is for sheep. Such an embarrassing, irresponsible, crime inducing condition is inexcusable.

On Sunday, April 15, my killer MotorCity soulbrother, Derek St. Holmes joined me onstage for an impromptu celebration of Motown classics and my firebreathing soundtrack of defiance and God given, constitutionally guaranteed individual rights. Much enthusiastic footstomping and dancing erupted like it was the 4th of July.

Introduced lovingly by the great Texas’ Attorney General Gregg Abbot, I took the stage, humbled yet proud that such a gathering of fine people would unite to hear the old guitar player raise hell for a better America.


My speech, just like every year at NRA, was about the unlimited greatness of this sacred experiment in self-government, thanking the heroes of the US Military and law enforcement for their incredible sacrifices waging war against the enemies of freedom wherever it may slither.

But beyond all that is good, the real duty of we the people is to watch out for and fight against the bad and the ugly brought about by people of power that historically have always abused it.

I named names. I called out Eric Holder for his fast and furious and other offenses. I railed against our president for his engineered dismantling of the once greatest economy in the world. I reminded everyone how Hillary Clinton sides with the evil criminals of the UN instead of her own great nation. I reminded good Americans that it isn’t the enemies fault for sneaking into the White House and abusing power, but rather we the people for bending over and allowing them to take corruption to a horrible new level.

I begged everyone to register and vote, because warriors give up their lives so that we can. I spotlighted cockroaches and rallied those who care to stomp em out at the voting booth in November, as is my duty as an American.

By no stretch of the imagination did I ever threaten anyone’s life, or hint of violence or mayhem. Metaphors needn’t be explained to educated people.

I passionately rallied the American civilian troops to stand up for what is right and to demand that the US Constitution and Bill of Rights are once again forced into determining all laws and policies in America.

Then in their ever desperate scramble to divert attention from the crimes of their communist leaders, the Saul Alinsky “Rules for Radicals” leftwing media and terminally liberal democrats circled their battlewagons of deceit and hate and unleashed their tsunami of lies about me and everything I said.

To me, my family and thinking America, the dysfunctional leftwing hate hysteria was laughable. I became the #1 global tweet entity of the bogus blogosphere, while every newspaper and America hating television and radio gang literally tripped over themselves in a feeble attempt to out-lie each other.

I personally have never been prouder. If my daily activities and simple statements of truth and logic can cause such bizarre over-reaction by so many, I need no more evidence that I am on the right track. When doing God’s work, the devils go bonzo. So be it.

I stand by my statements. The line is drawn in the American sand. I stand with patriots who love this country and wake up early every day to put our hearts and souls into being an asset for America, our fellow Americans, people of the world and the good earth.

Those who despise me blindly chant Mao Tse Tung and Che’ Guevara rants, and the difference between our good and their bad is glaring.

Choose your side carefully America. The shining city on the hill is under attack from within.

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/t ... ty-rocked/

Godfather.

Godfather.

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

this country is a bit of a mess and Ted is saying like it is and not just complaining on a forum.

Godfather.

he is not saying it like it is. he is spouting off a bunch of bullshit without backing any of it up.

big mouth + big gun = big fucking pussy...

like what ?...pussy ? bro this the train.....

Godfather.

lukin2006

Byrnzie wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

I imagine their are plenty of PJ fans who have no interest in the politics of the band...who just happen to like the band for the music. Why should the band care about the politics of their fan base? It would also be extremely naive of the band to think that their entire fan base supports the same view of as them.

Fair enough.





But Ted Nugent? :fp:

I agree...I don't like Ted Nugent or his politics. I also watched that video posted earlier in the thread about him giving these people advice about alcohol and drugs...I'm guessing it was unsolicited advice...wonder if it ever occurred to him that the drugs these musicians were taking opened up their mind allowing them to write and create amazing music that has far outlasted his crap.

Paul McCartney said he was giving up his 40 year cannabis habit...yet he's 8 or 9 years older than him and looks younger.

Steve jobs has credited dropping LSD with opening his mind.

maybe old Teddy should loosen up.

Godfather.

lukin2006 wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

I imagine their are plenty of PJ fans who have no interest in the politics of the band...who just happen to like the band for the music. Why should the band care about the politics of their fan base? It would also be extremely naive of the band to think that their entire fan base supports the same view of as them.

Fair enough.





But Ted Nugent? :fp:

I agree...I don't like Ted Nugent or his politics. I also watched that video posted earlier in the thread about him giving these people advice about alcohol and drugs...I'm guessing it was unsolicited advice...wonder if it ever occurred to him that the drugs these musicians were taking opened up their mind allowing them to write and create amazing music that has far outlasted his crap.

Paul McCartney said he was giving up his 40 year cannabis habit...yet he's 8 or 9 years older than him and looks younger.

Steve jobs has credited dropping LSD with opening his mind.

maybe old Teddy should loosen up.

"...wonder if it ever occurred to him that the drugs these musicians were taking opened up their mind allowing them to write and create amazing music that has far outlasted his crap."
:? no matter what the consiquinses are.....Joplin Hendrix Morrison and the list goes on but if they died to suit your musical taste then good for you I hope it was worth it.

Godfather.

lukin2006

Godfather. wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

Fair enough.





But Ted Nugent? :fp:

I agree...I don't like Ted Nugent or his politics. I also watched that video posted earlier in the thread about him giving these people advice about alcohol and drugs...I'm guessing it was unsolicited advice...wonder if it ever occurred to him that the drugs these musicians were taking opened up their mind allowing them to write and create amazing music that has far outlasted his crap.

Paul McCartney said he was giving up his 40 year cannabis habit...yet he's 8 or 9 years older than him and looks younger.

Steve jobs has credited dropping LSD with opening his mind.

maybe old Teddy should loosen up.

"...wonder if it ever occurred to him that the drugs these musicians were taking opened up their mind allowing them to write and create amazing music that has far outlasted his crap."
:? no matter what the consiquinses are.....Joplin Hendrix Morrison and the list goes on but if they died to suit your musical taste then good for you I hope it was worth it.

Godfather.

WTF...they died living the life they wanted to live...and i'm willing to bet that they saw more, did more, accomplished more than most people who live to a ripe old age.

the wolf

I'll probably regret this, but wtf.

I'm having a hard time seeing how people here that I have the utmost respect for, even though our political views are polar opposites can applaud or defend Nugent.
He's clearly a misogynist asshole.
And worse yet, he has stated in interviews many times his "addiction" to young girls. By young I mean underage.
Read some of the guys lyrics to songs like "jailbait". Let's not forget his tender love song called "girl scout cookies", where he uses the cookies as a metaphor for fucking the actual girl scouts.
He's fucking sick, and i can't understand how anyone would back him, or applaud him.

If that's who you want representing you in the political, and activist arena, more power to ya.


Sorry, had to get that off my chest.

Carry on.

Godfather.

maybe if you live to be a ripe old age you'll change your mind,27 years old just ain't enough time to taste what life has to offer.......I remember thinking I'd never make it to 40 and think back on all the deep thoughts and see a few pieces of the poetry I wrote back then..and all it is is cool memories but the good ol day's just keep coming.


Godfather.

Godfather.

the wolf wrote:

I'll probably regret this, but wtf.

I'm having a hard time seeing how people here that I have the utmost respect for, even though our political views are polar opposites can applaud or defend Nugent.
He's clearly a misogynist asshole.
And worse yet, he has stated in interviews many times his "addiction" to young girls. By young I mean underage.
Read some of the guys lyrics to songs like "jailbait". Let's not forget his tender love song called "girl scout cookies", where he uses the cookies as a metaphor for fucking the actual girl scouts.
He's fucking sick, and i can't understand how anyone would back him, or applaud him.

If that's who you want representing you in the political, and activist arena, more power to ya.


Sorry, had to get that off my chest.

Carry on.

cool Wolf ! you have nothing to regret,it's your opinion bro. mines different than your's that's all.

Godfather.

THE LOOK

Military In 2006, an interviewer from the British newspaper The Independent questioned Nugent about a 1977 interview in High Times magazine in which Nugent allegedly detailed elaborate steps taken to avoid the Vietnam draft.[51] In the interview Nugent says, contrary to the story in High Times, that "I had a 1Y [student deferment]. I enrolled at Oakland Community College.". However, the Selective Service classification for student deferment is actually 2-S, and medical deferment is 1-Y. A copy of Nugent's Selective Service record shows that he had at separate times both a 1-Y medical deferment and 2-S student deferment


wiki

peacefrompaul

riotgrl wrote:

While I'm not citing the Patriot Act, I think if we look at Japanese internment during WWII the constitutionality of "protecting" us from the threat posed by the Japanese was questioned by the case of Korematsu v. US. The Supreme Court upheld the actions of the US govt. to restrict the civil liberties of ANYone of Japanese ancestry. Check it out here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States

I bring up this case to highlight the fact that we citizens are often willing to give up some rights if the govt. convinces us its ok in order to protect us. First from the likes of the Japanese then Soviet communism and now terrorism. If we are willing to give up small liberties where does it end? For example, I worked for a brokerage firm for 5 years. I worked in an office with ONE other person for 5 years. I held all my accounts there as did my husband, my parents, my children and my in-laws. After passage of the Patriot Act, I had to show this same guy my state issued ID to PROVE I was indeed myself. A small thing? Perhaps, but if we give in on the small things so the govt. can "protect" us how long before we are asked to give up things we don't want to?

Thank you for understanding

pandora

peacefrompaul wrote:

riotgrl wrote:

While I'm not citing the Patriot Act, I think if we look at Japanese internment during WWII the constitutionality of "protecting" us from the threat posed by the Japanese was questioned by the case of Korematsu v. US. The Supreme Court upheld the actions of the US govt. to restrict the civil liberties of ANYone of Japanese ancestry. Check it out here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States

I bring up this case to highlight the fact that we citizens are often willing to give up some rights if the govt. convinces us its ok in order to protect us. First from the likes of the Japanese then Soviet communism and now terrorism. If we are willing to give up small liberties where does it end? For example, I worked for a brokerage firm for 5 years. I worked in an office with ONE other person for 5 years. I held all my accounts there as did my husband, my parents, my children and my in-laws. After passage of the Patriot Act, I had to show this same guy my state issued ID to PROVE I was indeed myself. A small thing? Perhaps, but if we give in on the small things so the govt. can "protect" us how long before we are asked to give up things we don't want to?

Thank you for understanding

this line here means everything to me .. it just says it all!

riotgrl

jimc3 wrote:

riotgrl wrote:

jimc3 wrote:

I was particularly thinking about due process which is the fifth. my point was, I don't see how if the government detained a US citizen could use the Patriot act as justification, because it would deprive you of due process. Has a federal court ruled on the law's constitutionality in that respect?

While I'm not citing the Patriot Act, I think if we look at Japanese internment during WWII the constitutionality of "protecting" us from the threat posed by the Japanese was questioned by the case of Korematsu v. US. The Supreme Court upheld the actions of the US govt. to restrict the civil liberties of ANYone of Japanese ancestry. Check it out here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States

I bring up this case to highlight the fact that we citizens are often willing to give up some rights if the govt. convinces us its ok in order to protect us. First from the likes of the Japanese then Soviet communism and now terrorism. If we are willing to give up small liberties where does it end? For example, I worked for a brokerage firm for 5 years. I worked in an office with ONE other person for 5 years. I held all my accounts there as did my husband, my parents, my children and my in-laws. After passage of the Patriot Act, I had to show this same guy my state issued ID to PROVE I was indeed myself. A small thing? Perhaps, but if we give in on the small things so the govt. can "protect" us how long before we are asked to give up things we don't want to?

yeah but we learned from that. nothing like what happened re Japanese internment would ever happen today. it just wouldn't.

look at even the wiki article you cited. Korematsu's conviction for evading internment was overturned in Federal Court, and Former Supreme Court Justice Tom C. Clark wrote that "The truth is, the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, and despite the Fifth Amendment's command that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, both of these constitutional safeguards were denied by military action under Executive Order 9066..."

if there were a need / instance to challenge that decision today, the Supreme Court would strike it down 9-0.

I certainly wish I had your faith that something like this would never happen again but I have my doubts. As far a Supreme Court ruling on protecting civil liberties I definitely don't think all 9 justices would protect our civil liberties. John Roberts, IMO, is probably the most troubling member as his record is generally one that has not always been in favor of protection of civil liberties. I can't speak to his decisions about due process - I just remember civil liberties being a real concern when Bush nominated him.

Godfather.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... ?hpt=hp_t3

what did you think was going to happen ?

Godfather.

jimc3

riotgrl wrote:

jimc3 wrote:

riotgrl wrote:

While I'm not citing the Patriot Act, I think if we look at Japanese internment during WWII the constitutionality of "protecting" us from the threat posed by the Japanese was questioned by the case of Korematsu v. US. The Supreme Court upheld the actions of the US govt. to restrict the civil liberties of ANYone of Japanese ancestry. Check it out here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States

I bring up this case to highlight the fact that we citizens are often willing to give up some rights if the govt. convinces us its ok in order to protect us. First from the likes of the Japanese then Soviet communism and now terrorism. If we are willing to give up small liberties where does it end? For example, I worked for a brokerage firm for 5 years. I worked in an office with ONE other person for 5 years. I held all my accounts there as did my husband, my parents, my children and my in-laws. After passage of the Patriot Act, I had to show this same guy my state issued ID to PROVE I was indeed myself. A small thing? Perhaps, but if we give in on the small things so the govt. can "protect" us how long before we are asked to give up things we don't want to?

yeah but we learned from that. nothing like what happened re Japanese internment would ever happen today. it just wouldn't.

look at even the wiki article you cited. Korematsu's conviction for evading internment was overturned in Federal Court, and Former Supreme Court Justice Tom C. Clark wrote that "The truth is, the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, and despite the Fifth Amendment's command that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, both of these constitutional safeguards were denied by military action under Executive Order 9066..."

if there were a need / instance to challenge that decision today, the Supreme Court would strike it down 9-0.

I certainly wish I had your faith that something like this would never happen again but I have my doubts. As far a Supreme Court ruling on protecting civil liberties I definitely don't think all 9 justices would protect our civil liberties. John Roberts, IMO, is probably the most troubling member as his record is generally one that has not always been in favor of protection of civil liberties. I can't speak to his decisions about due process - I just remember civil liberties being a real concern when Bush nominated him.

really? you really doubt that if there was a case today that somehow dealt directly with the Korematsu decision, that it wouldn't be overturned unanimously? do you realize what that would mean? that one or more SC justices would not only be saying that Japanese internment was constitutional, but that it was justified. I can't imagine how anyone could think that is possible.

jimc3

riotgrl wrote:

jimc3 wrote:

riotgrl wrote:

While I'm not citing the Patriot Act, I think if we look at Japanese internment during WWII the constitutionality of "protecting" us from the threat posed by the Japanese was questioned by the case of Korematsu v. US. The Supreme Court upheld the actions of the US govt. to restrict the civil liberties of ANYone of Japanese ancestry. Check it out here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States

I bring up this case to highlight the fact that we citizens are often willing to give up some rights if the govt. convinces us its ok in order to protect us. First from the likes of the Japanese then Soviet communism and now terrorism. If we are willing to give up small liberties where does it end? For example, I worked for a brokerage firm for 5 years. I worked in an office with ONE other person for 5 years. I held all my accounts there as did my husband, my parents, my children and my in-laws. After passage of the Patriot Act, I had to show this same guy my state issued ID to PROVE I was indeed myself. A small thing? Perhaps, but if we give in on the small things so the govt. can "protect" us how long before we are asked to give up things we don't want to?

yeah but we learned from that. nothing like what happened re Japanese internment would ever happen today. it just wouldn't.

look at even the wiki article you cited. Korematsu's conviction for evading internment was overturned in Federal Court, and Former Supreme Court Justice Tom C. Clark wrote that "The truth is, the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, and despite the Fifth Amendment's command that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, both of these constitutional safeguards were denied by military action under Executive Order 9066..."

if there were a need / instance to challenge that decision today, the Supreme Court would strike it down 9-0.

I certainly wish I had your faith that something like this would never happen again but I have my doubts. As far a Supreme Court ruling on protecting civil liberties I definitely don't think all 9 justices would protect our civil liberties. John Roberts, IMO, is probably the most troubling member as his record is generally one that has not always been in favor of protection of civil liberties. I can't speak to his decisions about due process - I just remember civil liberties being a real concern when Bush nominated him.

"The Court's decision in Korematsu...generally condemned by historians ever since...a report issued by Congress in 1983 declared that the decision had been "overruled in the court of history," and the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 contained a formal apology -- as well as provisions for monetary reparations -- to the Japanese Americans interned during the war. In 1998, President Bill Clinton awarded Fred Korematsu the Presidential Medal of Freedom."
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/pe ... matsu.html

I mean, c'mon

Cliffy6745

pandora wrote:

Ted's one of those larger than life characters, America has a lot of them.
The news loves them and so do the people!

Lookie the number of pages here ...
how boring would it be without his kind

Yes, how boring it would be without people threatening to murder the president and the security of state of the United States. It's all fun, right?

Funny you talk about your lack of freedoms then when some reacts and asks you to talk about how your life has been impacted by a lack of freedom you disappear. Keep up the talking points though.

lukin2006

Godfather. wrote:

this country is a bit of a mess and Ted is saying like it is and not just complaining on a forum.

Godfather.

But who made the mess?

riotgrl

jimc3 wrote:

[

jimc3}&#91 wrote: »

riotgrl wrote:

yeah but we learned from that. nothing like what happened re Japanese internment would ever happen today. it just wouldn't.

look at even the wiki article you cited. Korematsu's conviction for evading internment was overturned in Federal Court, and Former Supreme Court Justice Tom C. Clark wrote that "The truth is, the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, and despite the Fifth Amendment's command that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, both of these constitutional safeguards were denied by military action under Executive Order 9066..."

if there were a need / instance to challenge that decision today, the Supreme Court would strike it down 9-0.

I certainly wish I had your faith that something like this would never happen again but I have my doubts. As far a Supreme Court ruling on protecting civil liberties I definitely don't think all 9 justices would protect our civil liberties. John Roberts, IMO, is probably the most troubling member as his record is generally one that has not always been in favor of protection of civil liberties. I can't speak to his decisions about due process - I just remember civil liberties being a real concern when Bush nominated him.

really? you really doubt that if there was a case today that somehow dealt directly with the Korematsu decision, that it wouldn't be overturned unanimously? do you realize what that would mean? that one or more SC justices would not only be saying that Japanese internment was constitutional, but that it was justified. I can't imagine how anyone could think that is possible.

Really? do you doubt that such an event could occur in this country that we might not attempt this again? How many Americans would have supported the rounding up of all Middle Eastern people after 9/11? How many Americans even know anything about Japanese internment during WWII? As far as the Supreme Court, they have a record of not holding up civil liberties so yes I acknowledge there is the POSSIBILITY. I don't understand how someone can say there is no way that it could ever happen again. Humans say, never again all the time and yet history proves over and over again that we commit the same mistakes over and over and over.

mikalina

I just heard on the news this morning that the Feds are dropping all charges against Ted Nugents rants..

In my opionion all he was doing was ranting and trying to get attention. But, of course he went too far !!!! :?