PDA

View Full Version : Rand Paul: Ted Nugent should apologize




RonPaulFanInGA
02-20-2014, 10:57 PM
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/rand-paul-ted-nugent-103753.html

CaseyJones
02-20-2014, 11:15 PM
///


Sen. Rand Paul says Ted Nugent should apologize after the rocker called President Barack Obama a “subhuman mongrel” in an interview with Guns.com last week.

“Ted Nugent’s derogatory description of President Obama is offensive and has no place in politics. He should apologize,” the Kentucky Republican tweeted Thursday night.

Paul isn’t the only potential Republican presidential candidate to speak out about Nugent’s comments.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) told CNN he disagreed with Nugent’s language but also didn’t rule out campaigning with him in the future.

Natural Citizen
02-21-2014, 12:08 AM
Well. Free speech is free speech. One either supports it or they do not. It's as simple as that.

Besides. He's an entertainer. And a rock star at that. What did we expect? This is what happens when we let celebrities influence a way of thinking. Sometimes it backfires. And then sometimes it doesn't. So...hm. Here, I cannot decipher which is happening.

LibertyEagle
02-21-2014, 12:11 AM
And commenting about what someone else said is free speech too.

Crashland
02-21-2014, 12:12 AM
Well. Free speech is free speech. On either supports it or they do not. It's as simple as that.

Calling for an apology is not an attack on free speech. Commenting on whether someone's words are hateful or inappropriate says nothing about their right to say it.

Natural Citizen
02-21-2014, 12:13 AM
Calling for an apology is not an attack on free speech. Commenting on whether someone's words are hateful or inappropriate says nothing about their right to say it.

True. At the end of the day though it's still just a matter of opinion. And opinions vary.

Natural Citizen
02-21-2014, 12:14 AM
And commenting about what someone else said is free speech too.

Yes, I know. Don't get me wrong, I can't stand the guy. And his music sucks too.

ClydeCoulter
02-21-2014, 12:16 AM
And commenting about what someone else said is free speech too.

But people can make judgments about the comments.

Crashland
02-21-2014, 12:17 AM
True. At the end of the day though it's still just a matter of opinion. And opinions vary.

So is it your opinion that calling a politician a subhuman mongrel *does* have a place in politics?

Spikender
02-21-2014, 12:19 AM
I agree with Ted.

But Rand can ask him to apologize if he wants, that's fine.

Natural Citizen
02-21-2014, 12:20 AM
So is it your opinion that calling a politician a subhuman mongrel *does* have a place in politics?

Depends. What if I'm talking about a corporation? I mean they're people too. Right? And they are very political. Are they human? Where do these bricks and mortar derive? Their lineage comes from a pen stroke. So, in that regard, I would say that it's OK to use the term subhuman mongrel .

Politics is broad. Celebrities and politicians don't get to frame the entire phenomenon based upon their perception of a single factor. That's cherry picking. And it's framing the debate.

Crashland
02-21-2014, 12:25 AM
Depends. What if I'm talking about a corporation? I mean they're people too. Right? And they are very political. Are they human? Where do these bricks and mortar derive?

This is not a complicated issue. As a human being is it ever *not* hateful or *not* inappropriate to call another person a subhuman mongrel? I don't care how evil you think they are. Equating a person with an animal is just not good.

Natural Citizen
02-21-2014, 12:28 AM
This is not a complicated issue. As a human being is it ever *not* hateful or *not* inappropriate to call another person a subhuman mongrel? I don't care how evil you think they are. Equating a person with an animal is just not good.

Perhaps you should look up the definition of sub-human mongrel.

Crashland
02-21-2014, 12:30 AM
Perhaps you should look up the definition of sub-human mongrel.

Actually maybe you should. What part about 'sub-human' do you not understand? And 'mongrel' does not necessarily mean an animal but it usually refers to dogs.

hardrightedge
02-21-2014, 12:32 AM
Nice job Rand Paul...why would you want to help Wendy Davis?
Just leave it alone...damn

Natural Citizen
02-21-2014, 12:34 AM
Actually maybe you should. What part about 'sub-human' do you not understand? And 'mongrel' does not necessarily mean an animal but it usually refers to dogs.

You haven't read many of my postings, I gather. :)


Mongrel: a cross between types of persons or things. Which negates the use of the term sub-human but I never took Ted for an intellectual feller anyhow.

I win.

Crashland
02-21-2014, 12:38 AM
You haven't read many of my postings, I gather. :)


Mongrel: a cross between types of persons or things.

I win.

If you use "sub-human" as the adjective to describe "mongrel", then that rules out the "persons" doesn't it. On top of the fact that mongrel does in fact more commonly refer to dogs than anything else. Even if you only take the half-breed part of the connotation, is it appropriate to call someone else a half-breed? Or a sub-human half-breed?

TaftFan
02-21-2014, 12:39 AM
Most people believe he said "mongrel" because Obama is mixed-race.

Unfortunately, Obama has used that language as well: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/111611-obama-calls-african-americans-a-mongrel-people-

Crashland
02-21-2014, 12:42 AM
Most people believe he said "mongrel" because Obama is mixed-race.

Unfortunately, Obama has used that language as well: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/111611-obama-calls-african-americans-a-mongrel-people-

Obama said "We are sort of a mongrel people." Could you imagine if he had said "We are sort of a subhuman mongrel people"? LOL

TaftFan
02-21-2014, 12:45 AM
Obama said "We are sort of a mongrel people." Could you imagine if he had said "We are sort of a subhuman mongrel people"? LOL

That would have been bad, lol.

Natural Citizen
02-21-2014, 12:47 AM
If you use "sub-human" as the adjective to describe "mongrel", then that rules out the "persons" doesn't it. On top of the fact that mongrel does in fact more commonly refer to dogs than anything else. Even if you only take the half-breed part of the connotation, is it appropriate to call someone else a half-breed? Or a sub-human half-breed?

Yeah, but there are too many if's in your model. Consider this. Ifa frog had wings he wouldn't bump his rear end on the rocks. But he doesn't have wings. So then he's hopping around with a sore ass. You know?

Natural Citizen
02-21-2014, 12:49 AM
Most people believe he said "mongrel" because Obama is mixed-race.

Unfortunately, Obama has used that language as well: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/111611-obama-calls-african-americans-a-mongrel-people-

Well, that's basically all I'm saying anyhow. People believe that which supports their moral code. This drama is actually a so-con's wet dream come true. Which is probably the only reason we have all of the politicians jumping on it. Makes one wionder why Ted had this lil "slip of the tongue" in the first place.

TaftFan
02-21-2014, 12:50 AM
Well, that's basically all I'm saying anyhow. People believe that which supports their moral code. This drama is actually a so-con's wet dream come true.

The implication is that mixed-raced people are bad and subhuman. I have no idea why you are arguing about this.

Crashland
02-21-2014, 12:51 AM
The context is also very different. If you are actually using the word 'mongrel' to mean 'of mixed race' then it's fine. To use it as part of an insult as in 'half-breed' is not. Let's look at the context. Which of these two substitutions makes more sense?

This:

...not to let a Chicago communist-raised, communist-educated, communist-nurtured subhuman person of mixed race like the ACORN community organizer gangster Barack Hussein Obama to weasel his way into the top office of authority in the United States of America

or this:

...not to let a Chicago communist-raised, communist-educated, communist-nurtured subhuman half-breed like the ACORN community organizer gangster Barack Hussein Obama to weasel his way into the top office of authority in the United States of America

In this case the word mongrel is obviously used disparagingly to dehumanize, not in the sense of innocently describing a person being of mixed race.

Natural Citizen
02-21-2014, 12:52 AM
The implication is that mixed-raced people are bad and subhuman. I have no idea why you are arguing about this.

Oh, I'm not arguing. I just calls em as I sees em. Watch what happens. The world is on fire and all we'll hear on the boob tube for the next month besides Obamacare and the labor market will be this drama. Maybe an update on the Bieb or something.

Natural Citizen
02-21-2014, 01:08 AM
The context is also very different. If you are actually using the word 'mongrel' to mean 'of mixed race' then it's fine. To use it as part of an insult as in 'half-breed' is not. Let's look at the context. Which of these two substitutions makes more sense?

This:


or this:


In this case the word mongrel is obviously used disparagingly to dehumanize, not in the sense of innocently describing a person being of mixed race.


There is a place in politics for dehumanizing some of it's participants. And it has nothing to do with race. It's about citizenship. For example...I'd like to dehumanize Monsanto. Their gift of constitution is dangerous to the natural state of humanity itself.

Now, sure. One can say that "in this case" Ted is talking about race. But then what if someone calls a multi-national corporation who is very political and acting contradictory to the natural citizen a sub-human mongrel? All of a sudden the language cannot be used ...even when legitimate...because Ted Fuggin whatsisface already used it in context with race and so it's considered inappropriate? It automatically has to be discussed in terms of race? Uh-uh. I don't think so.

Rand is full of it if he's going to say that there is no place for this language in politics as a whole. "In this case"? Perhaps....

Crashland
02-21-2014, 01:17 AM
Why would you call a corporation subhuman or a mongrel? That doesn't even make sense. A corporation is not a human so you can't dehumanize it. You could dehumanize the individuals in the corporation, but then that would be inappropriate like Nugent's comment.

TaftFan
02-21-2014, 01:21 AM
Why would you call a corporation subhuman or a mongrel? That doesn't even make sense. A corporation is not a human so you can't dehumanize it. You could dehumanize the individuals in the corporation, but then that would be inappropriate like Nugent's comment.

I guess a mongrel corporation is one that results from a merger, LOL!

Victor Grey
02-21-2014, 01:28 AM
Yeah he shouldn't of called him a mongrel.

Crashland
02-21-2014, 01:29 AM
I guess a mongrel corporation is one that results from a merger, LOL!

... and TaftFan wins the thread.

Natural Citizen
02-21-2014, 01:30 AM
Why would you call a corporation subhuman or a mongrel?

Because "We The People" means them too. In fact, it's getting to the point that it only means them. What do you think Walmart would offer up along the lines of a birth certificate if asked? It's a pile of bricks. Crashland, do you understand the concept of lobbyists? What about the Bill of Rights and the Constitution?

Crashland
02-21-2014, 01:44 AM
Because "We The People" means them too. In fact, it's getting to the point that it only means them. What do you think Walmart would offer up along the lines of a birth certificate if asked? It's a pile of bricks. Crashland, do you understand the concept of lobbyists? What about the Bill of Rights and the Constitution?

I'm not seeing how this is relevant. I understand how businesses or other entities legally can have qualities of "personhood". But it doesn't make sense to dehumanize them or use dehumanizing language about them because a business entity is not a human. You can dehumanize employees or lobbyists of an entity if you want, but again that would be inappropriate.

Natural Citizen
02-21-2014, 01:51 AM
I'm not seeing how this is relevant. I understand how businesses or other entities legally can have qualities of "personhood".

Corporate Personhood is a legal fiction. Period. There is nothing legal about it at all. And in terms of representation and We The People this certainly makes them sub-human.

I'll tell you what is relevant. The fact that a much larger phenomenon and important issue is consumed by the race model within the left-right paradigm. Again...it's a matter of citizenship in the real world. In the political world, it can be sold as a matter of race (if allowed). But it's just a way of running political interference in approaching the matter correctly and in whole.

If one wanted to make case for amending the 14th amendment at the state level they wouild certainly consider the fact that corporations who benefit from Constitution and The Bill of Rights are not natural citizens...sub human...and in terms of multi-national corporations who fund campaigns and lobby for legislation through political donations we would call them mongrels. By definition.

twomp
02-21-2014, 02:22 AM
Even here in the big blue state of California, i've heard Obama get called worse.

Spikender
02-21-2014, 02:55 AM
Yeah he shouldn't of called him a mongrel.

Glad we're just saying shouldn't instead of saying that it's wrong.

Because I would love to use that same insult on a whole slew of politicians, but I typically don't.

Dogsoldier
02-21-2014, 06:04 AM
Well Obama is committing treason right before our very eyes....What should we call him? Treason is kind of a big deal......

LibertyEagle
02-21-2014, 06:11 AM
Well Obama is committing treason right before our very eyes....What should we call him? Treason is kind of a big deal......

A traitor?

tod evans
02-21-2014, 07:01 AM
Feelings hurt?

Too fucking bad!

Get over it whiner......

cajuncocoa
02-21-2014, 07:12 AM
Why did Rand get involved in this in the first place? Was he asked about it?

limequat
02-21-2014, 07:25 AM
Why did Rand get involved in this in the first place? Was he asked about it?

I'll tell you why.

Ted's comment was a RACIST comment. As stated above, it implies that he is half-breed dog. It says nothing of his foreign policy or his monetary policy. It attacks him based on something that he was born with. It's like when McCain called Rand a "hobbit", but much, much worse.

The media will come at Rand with the race card. It's their biggest weapon. Rand needs to do everything he can to disassociate with racists and condemn racism in general.

Kudos to Rand for being on top of this. I only wish he used even stronger language.

tod evans
02-21-2014, 07:29 AM
Ted's comment was a RACIST comment.

Boogity-boogity.....:eek:

Over-sensitivity has brought us the society we have today.

Thanks for buying in............

limequat
02-21-2014, 07:36 AM
Boogity-boogity.....:eek:

Over-sensitivity has brought us the society we have today.

Thanks for buying in............

If it was other people, nobody would care.

Unfortunately, it was Ted Nugent who has gained some traction (and followers) in the Republican party. In case you missed it, Rand Paul is also in the Republican party and needs to respond. I know you don't care for the politics of it, but this is how it works.

tod evans
02-21-2014, 07:40 AM
If it was other people, nobody would care.

Unfortunately, it was Ted Nugent who has gained some traction (and followers) in the Republican party. In case you missed it, Rand Paul is also in the Republican party and needs to respond. I know you don't care for the politics of it, but this is how it works.

So you believe Rand should respond to BS spewed by other "Republicans" or just Ted Nugent?

Or only if a "Republican" makes a comment perceived as "racist" ?

Seems foolish to me.

mz10
02-21-2014, 07:42 AM
Boogity-boogity.....:eek:

Over-sensitivity has brought us the society we have today.

Thanks for buying in............

If we fail to condemn racism where it actually does exist, we open ourselves up to false charges of it

cajuncocoa
02-21-2014, 07:55 AM
I'll tell you why.

Ted's comment was a RACIST comment. As stated above, it implies that he is half-breed dog. It says nothing of his foreign policy or his monetary policy. It attacks him based on something that he was born with. It's like when McCain called Rand a "hobbit", but much, much worse.

The media will come at Rand with the race card. It's their biggest weapon. Rand needs to do everything he can to disassociate with racists and condemn racism in general.

Kudos to Rand for being on top of this. I only wish he used even stronger language.
Yeah, I get that it's a racist comment. But why should Rand address every situation where someone makes a racist comment? Is he somehow closely associated with Ted Nugent or something? Are they working together? It seems a little ridiculous that anyone should expect Rand to get out in front of every racist comment that is ever made. The only people who expect that would never have voted for him anyway because they're probably uber-progressives. Who else would care?

cajuncocoa
02-21-2014, 07:56 AM
If we fail to condemn racism where it actually does exist, we open ourselves up to false charges of it
Oh, please. :rolleyes:

tod evans
02-21-2014, 07:57 AM
If we fail to condemn racism where it actually does exist, we open ourselves up to false charges of it

Charge away......

Freedom to be racist is one of the freedoms I fight for..

Freedom to speak unpopular opinions yet another....

How's Ted lippin' off any different than Louis Farrakhan lippin' off?

Let 'em both spout off.

I think Rand was foolish to say anything other than "I disagree", calling for an apology is out of line.

If you too want to point your finger and wag it when someone makes comments you don't like go right ahead..

limequat
02-21-2014, 07:57 AM
So you believe Rand should respond to BS spewed by other "Republicans" or just Ted Nugent?

Or only if a "Republican" makes a comment perceived as "racist" ?

Ok. Is it fair to assume that Rand will run for president in 2016? The president kinda speaks for the party. If somebody in the party -especially of any prominence- says something that is overtly contrary to the party line, that person needs to be checked. Rand is has to respond if he wants to appear presidential.


Seems foolish to me.

Well I disagree.


If we fail to condemn racism where it actually does exist, we open ourselves up to false charges of it

Better than I could say it, thanks.

tod evans
02-21-2014, 08:00 AM
Ok. Is it fair to assume that Rand will run for president in 2016? The president kinda speaks for the party. If somebody in the party -especially of any prominence- says something that is overtly contrary to the party line, that person needs to be checked. Rand is has to respond if he wants to appear presidential.


So presidential hopefuls are responsible for correcting statements made by self-proclaimed "party members" ?

I'm not buying it.

limequat
02-21-2014, 08:18 AM
So presidential hopefuls are responsible for correcting statements made by self-proclaimed "party members" ?

I'm not buying it.

Yes, they really are. That's why they also asked Cruz.
Have you seriously not watched TV in the last 20 years?

CNN's gonna be like:

"Rand Paul, your father wrote racists newsletters and pals around with a bunch of racists. Why do you hate black people and hispanics?"

That's where Rand is starting from. Throw in shit like this and they'll eat him alive before the first primary.

That's the politics end of it.
It's also just plain not nice to make fun of people for their race. Do you think Obama is a bad president because he's half black???
I think most people would agree, that Obama is a bad president because he routinely trashes the constitution, ruthlessly kills children, and spends like a drunken sailor.

limequat
02-21-2014, 08:21 AM
Yeah, I get that it's a racist comment. But why should Rand address every situation where someone makes a racist comment? Is he somehow closely associated with Ted Nugent or something? Are they working together? It seems a little ridiculous that anyone should expect Rand to get out in front of every racist comment that is ever made. The only people who expect that would never have voted for him anyway because they're probably uber-progressives. Who else would care?

Independents care. MOST people are neither republican or democrat.
Rand Paul is trying to grow the party. That means reaching out to people and telling them that we don't care about your race or sexual orientation. We want more freedom for everyone. Nugent just undermined that message.

cajuncocoa
02-21-2014, 08:24 AM
Independents care. MOST people are neither republican or democrat.
Rand Paul is trying to grow the party. That means reaching out to people and telling them that we don't care about your race or sexual orientation. We want more freedom for everyone. Nugent just undermined that message.
So, Rand will have to address every incident where someone makes racist comments? That's absurd. Nugent doesn't speak for anyone but himself.

phill4paul
02-21-2014, 08:36 AM
If Nugent were a politician then this might make sense. He is just a jackwagon that can wail the hell out of a guitar. Not even worth the time to comment on.

cajuncocoa
02-21-2014, 08:40 AM
Yes, they really are. That's why they also asked Cruz.
Have you seriously not watched TV in the last 20 years?

CNN's gonna be like:

"Rand Paul, your father wrote racists newsletters and pals around with a bunch of racists. Why do you hate black people and hispanics?"

That's where Rand is starting from. Throw in shit like this and they'll eat him alive before the first primary.

That's the politics end of it.
It's also just plain not nice to make fun of people for their race. Do you think Obama is a bad president because he's half black???
I think most people would agree, that Obama is a bad president because he routinely trashes the constitution, ruthlessly kills children, and spends like a drunken sailor.
Don't you think Rand is savvy enough to handle those questions without throwing himself on top of anyone who makes a racist comment between now and then? And do you really think that addressing the comments of every idiot who makes a racist comment is going to stop them from asking these things anyway?

juleswin
02-21-2014, 08:41 AM
Well I disagree.

.

Well, I couldn't agree more with your right to speak up against Ted the Moron. It is your right and Rands too to say what they want about people they disagree with and I will fight to defend that right. Funny how people are defending the right to freedom of speech when that is not even in question in this case. There is no government authority threatening to deprive Nugent of anything, its just individuals speaking out and condemning him

This is Rand scoring very cheap political points and shedding some of the false perception that he is racist and some people wanna bitch and whine about it. What has the world come to?

juleswin
02-21-2014, 08:51 AM
So, Rand will have to address every incident where someone makes racist comments? That's absurd. Nugent doesn't speak for anyone but himself.

Nope, but this is not just any incident. This was done by a high profile celebrity, at republican event, stomping for a republican gubernatorial candidate for the biggest republican state and it is making big news around the country. It doesn't really get any bigger than this.

Do you also think he should remain silent if someone in the same situation as the Nugent event were to start praising Hitler's treatment of jews? Ofc not, we are trying to win elections not make irrelevant principled stance in defense of a moron

Cap
02-21-2014, 08:56 AM
Bad move on Rands part. He just interjected himself in the middle of a no win situation with the appearance of pandering. He should follow his father's advice, it's called minding your own business. Ron paul has been preaching that for a long time. It works very well on a personal level as well as the foreign policy level.

hardrightedge
02-21-2014, 09:10 AM
What's Rand Paul gonna say when the media asks him to apologize for his fathers newsletters?

It's gonna happen...

limequat
02-21-2014, 09:23 AM
Don't you think Rand is savvy enough to handle those questions without throwing himself on top of anyone who makes a racist comment between now and then? And do you really think that addressing the comments of every idiot who makes a racist comment is going to stop them from asking these things anyway?

All you have to do is read the comments following a politico story or huffingpost to see how people have linked in their mind "Republican = Racist".
Yes, Rand is savvy. And getting ahead of this is part of him being savvy.

limequat
02-21-2014, 09:26 AM
Bad move on Rands part. He just interjected himself in the middle of a no win situation with the appearance of pandering. He should follow his father's advice, it's called minding your own business. Ron paul has been preaching that for a long time. It works very well on a personal level as well as the foreign policy level.

But not for getting him into the whitehouse.


What's Rand Paul gonna say when the media asks him to apologize for his fathers newsletters?

It's gonna happen...

Good question, I hope they're on it. Probably something like, "I love my father, but I have my own views. My views condemn all forms of racism."

angelatc
02-21-2014, 09:30 AM
Depends. What if I'm talking about a corporation? I mean they're people too. Right? And they are very political. Are they human? Where do these bricks and mortar derive? Their lineage comes from a pen stroke. So, in that regard, I would say that it's OK to use the term subhuman mongrel .

Politics is broad. Celebrities and politicians don't get to frame the entire phenomenon based upon their perception of a single factor. That's cherry picking. And it's framing the debate.

Politics is broad. But this topic is not. Rand Paul is not a corporation, and neither is Ted Nugent.

(And your war on corporations only serves to brand you as a liberal.)

angelatc
02-21-2014, 09:32 AM
Bad move on Rands part. He just interjected himself in the middle of a no win situation with the appearance of pandering. He should follow his father's advice, it's called minding your own business. Ron paul has been preaching that for a long time. It works very well on a personal level as well as the foreign policy level.

That doesn't work in politics. You have to be seen as a leader, and that's what he did here. Nugent is of the neocon bent. Nice to see someone calling one of them out on their madness.

cajuncocoa
02-21-2014, 09:38 AM
All you have to do is read the comments following a politico story or huffingpost to see how people have linked in their mind "Republican = Racist".
Yes, Rand is savvy. And getting ahead of this is part of him being savvy.
Politico and HuffPo tells me all I need to know about who these people are. You know they were never going to give Rand the time of day in the first place, right? This is not Boobus....those "independents" that Rand will have to win over. These are people who have already made up their minds to vote Team Blue no matter who the candidate is.

compromise
02-21-2014, 09:39 AM
That doesn't work in politics. You have to be seen as a leader, and that's what he did here. Nugent is of the neocon bent. Nice to see someone calling one of them out on their madness.

Isn't Nugent one of Alex Jones' guys?

Rand should definitely publicly distance himself from the crazy crowd.

phill4paul
02-21-2014, 09:40 AM
Well, after initially thinking this was just a Nugent being his regular jackwagon self, it seems that the story has gained traction. So, perhaps, Rand was correct in getting a soundbite out of it. Given Rand's outreach to grow the Republican party it seems appropriate in this case.

Natural Citizen
02-21-2014, 09:44 AM
Politics is broad. But this topic is not. Rand Paul is not a corporation, and neither is Ted Nugent.

(And your war on corporations only serves to brand you as a liberal.)

It doesn't matter what Rand or Ted is. In scope, my comments are spot on. Consider the larger picture once in a while. Angelatc, I have no problem with corporations. What I have a problem with is their ability to hijack political processes of representation that is historically reserved for the natural citizen. Too often we are content to remain shortsighted and placing race onto the podium in a political environment is often a contributing factor in running interference for the larger discussion which is one of citizenship. This is one of those times.

As I said. My comments stand. Ad hominem does not change the relevance of them.


Angelatc, Monsanto is a sub human mongrel and they operate from within politics. Turn that into a race issue. Turn it into a liberal issue. Should I apologize? And if so then why?

Dianne
02-21-2014, 10:14 AM
It's none of Rand's business. I have no clue why he decided to put his dog in that fight.

asurfaholic
02-21-2014, 10:15 AM
I'll tell you why.

Ted's comment was a RACIST comment. As stated above, it implies that he is half-breed dog. It says nothing of his foreign policy or his monetary policy. It attacks him based on something that he was born with. It's like when McCain called Rand a "hobbit", but much, much worse.

The media will come at Rand with the race card. It's their biggest weapon. Rand needs to do everything he can to disassociate with racists and condemn racism in general.

Kudos to Rand for being on top of this. I only wish he used even stronger language.
Quoted for truth. Needs to be repeated.

RonZeplin
02-21-2014, 10:19 AM
Rand is just adopting the winning racepimp strategy of Al Sharpton. This is a good way to say kill whitey, without coming right out and actually saying it.. It worked for Barack Obama, and it might for Rand too.

asurfaholic
02-21-2014, 10:23 AM
Charge away......

Freedom to be racist is one of the freedoms I fight for..

Freedom to speak unpopular opinions yet another....

How's Ted lippin' off any different than Louis Farrakhan lippin' off?

Let 'em both spout off.

I think Rand was foolish to say anything other than "I disagree", calling for an apology is out of line.

If you too want to point your finger and wag it when someone makes comments you don't like go right ahead..

Yea, but rand is trying to win a political battle. One which will try to defeat him by calling HIM racist and smearing him by association. I think he is just turning the tables and shooting at them with their own guns.

This is what he needs to do to win. I'd appreciate a Rand Paul president more than a Bush or Clinton.

Brett85
02-21-2014, 10:29 AM
I don't have a problem with what Rand said here, but it seems like in order to be consistent he should quit the constant attacks on Bill Clinton.

DFF
02-21-2014, 10:38 AM
I don't agree with what Ted said, but I will defend 'till death his right to say it.

Cap
02-21-2014, 10:55 AM
Oh the hypocrisy is rich on this thread. Here we have establishment republican posters who are on record as telling the rest of the unwashed that in order to succeed with Rand and not alienate anyone, we should refrain from bashing such media personalities ala Beck, because we don't want to risk turning off their followers (because we can work with them). Yet these same know it alls on this thread see no problem in alienating a huge portion of the 2nd amendment crowd (Ted's group) with this issue . Rock meet hard place....dumbasses.

JK/SEA
02-21-2014, 10:55 AM
Teds useful when it comes to the 2nd.

Saying dear leader is a 'mongrel' is not racist, hell, most humans are already 'mongrels'..i'm part norwegian, irish and blackfoot native american... so i think this is just Ted being Ted....

On the plus side, this gives Rand an opportunity to flex his indignation at a 'perceived' racist comment....whatev...

and yawn.

Crashland
02-21-2014, 11:19 AM
Angelatc, Monsanto is a sub human mongrel and they operate from within politics. Turn that into a race issue. Turn it into a liberal issue. Should I apologize? And if so then why?

First of all, using the word mongrel as an insult is inherently racist because you are implying that being of mixed descent is a negative thing. And subhuman mongrel is even worse.

Secondly, applying that terminology to something like Monsanto is not offensive because Monsanto is not a person. Describing it as subhuman is meaningless because it is not a human to begin with. If you describe the PEOPLE at Monsanto as subhuman then that would be offensive.

I am shocked that this is even a discussion here at RPF. No one is saying he doesn't have a right to make racist comments. Just because you have the right to say it doesn't mean you don't owe someone an apology for hate speech.

donnay
02-21-2014, 11:25 AM
"The First Amendment, for example, is utterly undemocratic. It was designed to protect unpopular speech against democratic fervor."
~ Ron Paul


Why doesn't Rand get this?

Origanalist
02-21-2014, 11:26 AM
The nuge really should apologize, he's made some seriously crappy songs.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=5wBpGJemdUs

cajuncocoa
02-21-2014, 11:27 AM
Yea, but rand is trying to win a political battle. One which will try to defeat him by calling HIM racist and smearing him by association. I think he is just turning the tables and shooting at them with their own guns.

This is what he needs to do to win. I'd appreciate a Rand Paul president more than a Bush or Clinton.
I still fail to understand how Rand gets "smeared by association"....where is the association between Rand and Nugent? In the imagination of people who read HuffPo and watch MSNBC? You can't do anything to convince those people! Try to remember, those are the same people who think peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are racist. :rolleyes:

donnay
02-21-2014, 11:29 AM
Isn't Nugent one of Alex Jones' guys?

Rand should definitely publicly distance himself from the crazy crowd.


Alex Jones has lots of people as a guest. Alex Jones believes in the first amendment.

erowe1
02-21-2014, 11:29 AM
I can probably guess which half of Obama's "mongrel" ancestry the Nuge considers fully human.

It's a disgusting comment. I don't know why Rand decided to comment on it. But what he said was right.

Brett85
02-21-2014, 11:32 AM
"The First Amendment, for example, is utterly undemocratic. It was designed to protect unpopular speech against democratic fervor."
~ Ron Paul


Why doesn't Rand get this?

Huh? When did Rand ever say that Ted Nugent should get thrown in prison for saying what he said?

eduardo89
02-21-2014, 11:44 AM
"The First Amendment, for example, is utterly undemocratic. It was designed to protect unpopular speech against democratic fervor."
~ Ron Paul

Why doesn't Rand get this?

What the hell are you talking about? Where did Rand say government should get involved? The First Amendment protects your speech from government censorship. It does not mean people shouldn't call you out when you make an incredibly stupid and offensive comment.

angelatc
02-21-2014, 11:52 AM
Personally I was more concerned by Nugent's implication that the country will be A-OK once the GOP lands in the driver's seat again.

But Rand Paul played this just right. He got positive press from all sides of the room on this.

angelatc
02-21-2014, 11:58 AM
It doesn't matter what Rand or Ted is. In scope, my comments are spot on. Consider the larger picture once in a while. Angelatc, I have no problem with corporations. What I have a problem with is their ability to hijack political processes of representation that is historically reserved for the natural citizen. Too often we are content to remain shortsighted and placing race onto the podium in a political environment is often a contributing factor in running interference for the larger discussion which is one of citizenship. This is one of those times.

As I said. My comments stand. Ad hominem does not change the relevance of them.


Angelatc, Monsanto is a sub human mongrel and they operate from within politics. Turn that into a race issue. Turn it into a liberal issue. Should I apologize? And if so then why?

You are typing a word salad. It almost makes sense, but doesn't.

The point remains that Monsanto has absolutely no bearing on this thread. The bigger picture isn't about that particular bee that's in your bonnet - it's about a GOP celebrity possibly damaging the GOP brand with childish inflammatory rhetoric, and the points that Paul scored in calling him out on it.

angelatc
02-21-2014, 11:59 AM
What the hell are you talking about? Where did Rand say government should get involved? The First Amendment protects your speech from government censorship. It does not mean people shouldn't call you out when you make an incredibly stupid and offensive comment.


Libertarianism will never work if people don't do exactly that.

donnay
02-21-2014, 12:16 PM
Huh? When did Rand ever say that Ted Nugent should get thrown in prison for saying what he said?

Where in that body of text does it say anything you interpreted? :rolleyes:

Brett85
02-21-2014, 12:19 PM
Where in that body of text does it say anything you interpreted? :rolleyes:

Because you said that Rand doesn't "get" the 1st amendment. What did Rand say that makes you think that he doesn't "get" the 1st amendment?

cajuncocoa
02-21-2014, 12:21 PM
So, there's another thread that says Nugent apologized. I guess he listened to Rand, so score one for the good guys...right?

donnay
02-21-2014, 12:21 PM
What the hell are you talking about? Where did Rand say government should get involved? The First Amendment protects your speech from government censorship. It does not mean people shouldn't call you out when you make an incredibly stupid and offensive comment.

Is Rand in government? Yes. Why is Rand (as a representative of government), asking for a citizen to apologize, publicly, for what was said about the President?

donnay
02-21-2014, 12:23 PM
Because you said that Rand doesn't "get" the 1st amendment. What did Rand say that makes you think that he doesn't "get" the 1st amendment?

For getting involved in this matter from the get-go.

phill4paul
02-21-2014, 12:25 PM
Is Rand in government? Yes. Why is Rand (as a representative of government), asking for a citizen to apologize, publicly, for what was said about the President?

This is what I thought at first donnay. But, it seems, Nugent was stumping for a GOP gubernatorial candidate at the time of the comment. So since Rand has made it one of his positions to grow the party I can see why he would comment on this.

eduardo89
02-21-2014, 12:28 PM
Is Rand in government? Yes. Why is Rand (as a representative of government), asking for a citizen to apologize, publicly, for what was said about the President?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg/320px-Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg

So because Rand is a senator he loses his First Amendment right?

He is not speaking on behalf of the government, but as a private citizen. He is not advocating for a law to prevent Ted Nugent from making idiotic statements. He is not using government to punish Ted Nugent from speaking his mind.

Brett85
02-21-2014, 12:30 PM
For getting involved in this matter from the get-go.

But what does that have to do with not understanding the 1st amendment?

eduardo89
02-21-2014, 12:31 PM
But what does that have to do with not understanding the 1st amendment?

It has absolutely nothing to do with the First Amendment. Rand Paul is an American citizen and has the constitutionally-protected right to speak his mind.

I guess donnay doesn't believe in the First Amendment if she thinks Rand Paul can't call out someone who makes an idiotic and offensive comment.

SilentBull
02-21-2014, 12:33 PM
Well. Free speech is free speech. One either supports it or they do not. It's as simple as that.

Besides. He's an entertainer. And a rock star at that. What did we expect? This is what happens when we let celebrities influence a way of thinking. Sometimes it backfires. And then sometimes it doesn't. So...hm. Here, I cannot decipher which is happening.

Free speech doesn't mean everyone has to like what you say and that you can't be attacked for it.

eduardo89
02-21-2014, 12:34 PM
Free speech doesn't mean everyone has to like what you say and that you can't be attacked for it.

+rep

SilentBull
02-21-2014, 12:35 PM
Some libertarians need to do some very, very basic studying on the terms they love to throw around. Free speech means the government can't punish you for what you say. Seriously, people. This is basic stuff. This has nothing to do with free speech. Ugghh.

erowe1
02-21-2014, 12:43 PM
Did Nugent ever have any "mongrel" children of his own from that relationship with the 17-year old Asian girl that he had to make himself the legal guardian of so that he could bed her? I can't remember.

angelatc
02-21-2014, 12:56 PM
It has absolutely nothing to do with the First Amendment. Rand Paul is an American citizen and has the constitutionally-protected right to speak his mind.

I guess donnay doesn't believe in the First Amendment if she thinks Rand Paul can't call out someone who makes an idiotic and offensive comment.

Hard for me to see how Rand Paul is going to convince people to see him as a leader if he just keeps his mouth shut when Republicans do stupid stuff. I guess Boehner and DonnaY have something in common - they want the TEA Party to sit down and shut up.

FloralScent
02-21-2014, 01:24 PM
So is it your opinion that calling a politician a subhuman mongrel *does* have a place in politics?

Absolutely; you just described 95% of them. Now go untwist your panties.

donnay
02-21-2014, 01:55 PM
Hard for me to see how Rand Paul is going to convince people to see him as a leader if he just keeps his mouth shut when Republicans do stupid stuff. I guess Boehner and DonnaY have something in common - they want the TEA Party to sit down and shut up.

So if that is what I want, why are we giving Rand a pass? :rolleyes:

eduardo89
02-21-2014, 02:01 PM
So if that is what I want, why are we giving Rand a pass? :rolleyes:

Give him a pass on what? On calling out some guy for making an idiotic and offensive comment that makes all those associated with him (republicans) look bad?

Oh yeah, Rand, what a horrible thing to do. How dare you denounce a racist comment!

Deborah K
02-21-2014, 02:10 PM
I guess a mongrel corporation is one that results from a merger, LOL!


http://i46.tinypic.com/iegh6s.jpg

Deborah K
02-21-2014, 02:34 PM
A traitor?

My husband has been referring to him that way for years now.

Tywysog Cymru
02-21-2014, 03:38 PM
This is a positive for Rand, moderates don't particularly like Nugent.

Crashland
02-21-2014, 03:47 PM
Is Rand in government? Yes. Why is Rand (as a representative of government), asking for a citizen to apologize, publicly, for what was said about the President?

Rand did not say anything about using the power of the government to stop Nugent's free speech. Tweeting that someone should apologize is not an exercise of government power.

cajuncocoa
02-21-2014, 03:51 PM
This thread is an example of how progressives are allowed to set the tone of what is and is not acceptable to say in our society today. And by cowering in fear that someone will think we're ALL racists if we don't fight over the chance to be the first to denounce anyone who says something that could be construed as a racist comment, we give in to the blackmail (yes, that's what it is). All of you should know that you can't win when you give in to blackmailers. PC is just another form of censorship...whether it's racism or 9/11 Truth, or some other subject. And the idea that one person expressing a controversial and/or reprehensible opinion will tarnish everyone else associated with that person is just another form of collectivism. I thought those of us here at RPF were better than that.

Well, no I really didn't think that some were better than that. And those people didn't disappoint in this thread.

Rudeman
02-21-2014, 04:55 PM
lol at this entire thread. Clearly you guys haven't been paying attention to the media they were harassing Republicans about this issue, Rick Perry was pestered by Wolf for 5 mins straight, they wanted to turn this in favor of Wendy Davis since Abbott had the audacity to speak after Ted Nugent.

It also looks like a bunch of you have no clue what the 1st amendment says:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

No where does it say a government official isn't allowed to exercise his or her free speech by giving his or her opinion on another person's speech.

Crashland
02-21-2014, 04:56 PM
This is not about political correctness. You don't need liberals to set the tone in order to conclude that Nugent's comment was unacceptable. I'm sorry but, if you don't think that 'subhuman mongrel' is unacceptable, you have a right to have your opinion but I don't even respect that opinion. I respect people's differing opinions when its a matter of reasoning. This I can't respect though because it is a fundamental moral principle that it is *not* morally okay to go about disparaging or dehumanizing people with racist comments.

When the person who makes a statement like that is also a public figure and is going around and raising dollars for your party, it is absolutely appropriate to publicly distance yourself from that and lead the party away from it.

Rudeman
02-21-2014, 04:58 PM
This thread is an example of how progressives are allowed to set the tone of what is and is not acceptable to say in our society today. And by cowering in fear that someone will think we're ALL racists if we don't fight over the chance to be the first to denounce anyone who says something that could be construed as a racist comment, we give in to the blackmail (yes, that's what it is). All of you should know that you can't win when you give in to blackmailers. PC is just another form of censorship...whether it's racism or 9/11 Truth, or some other subject. And the idea that one person expressing a controversial and/or reprehensible opinion will tarnish everyone else associated with that person is just another form of collectivism. I thought those of us here at RPF were better than that.

Well, no I really didn't think that some were better than that. And those people didn't disappoint in this thread.

Except for the fact that the media was using it to smear Republicans. It's not like Rand's comment came out of nowhere, he saw how big of an issue the media was trying to make it into and did the smart thing.

cajuncocoa
02-21-2014, 05:11 PM
This is not about political correctness. You don't need liberals to set the tone in order to conclude that Nugent's comment was unacceptable. I'm sorry but, if you don't think that 'subhuman mongrel' is unacceptable, you have a right to have your opinion but I don't even respect that opinion. I respect people's differing opinions when its a matter of reasoning. This I can't respect though because it is a fundamental moral principle that it is *not* morally okay to go about disparaging or dehumanizing people with racist comments.

When the person who makes a statement like that is also a public figure and is going around and raising dollars for your party, it is absolutely appropriate to publicly distance yourself from that and lead the party away from it.

I don't think it's morally okay either. But the progressives set the tone on that too. If a non-white person said a similar thing about a white person, there would be no uproar coming from the MSM. There would be no call for an apology by the peers of the non-white person who made the offensive comment. There would be demands for an apology, typically coming from the right on talk-radio shows and right-wing blogs, but the apology would never come.

Now, I'm not saying that Nugent shouldn't apologize. But that's for him to decide; no one else is responsible for anything he says and he's not responsible for anyone else.


Except for the fact that the media was using it to smear Republicans. It's not like Rand's comment came out of nowhere, he saw how big of an issue the media was trying to make it into and did the smart thing.

The media will always use whatever they have at their disposal to smear Republicans. If you think this nullifies that, I have ocean-front property in Arizona to sell to you. One of the things I dislike about the GOP is that it always dances to its opponents tune. That's why we get entrenched ruin by progressive policies in this country....they have no real opposition to stand up to them.

Rudeman
02-21-2014, 05:59 PM
I don't think it's morally okay either. But the progressives set the tone on that too. If a non-white person said a similar thing about a white person, there would be no uproar coming from the MSM. There would be no call for an apology by the peers of the non-white person who made the offensive comment. There would be demands for an apology, typically coming from the right on talk-radio shows and right-wing blogs, but the apology would never come.

Now, I'm not saying that Nugent shouldn't apologize. But that's for him to decide; no one else is responsible for anything he says and he's not responsible for anyone else.



The media will always use whatever they have at their disposal to smear Republicans. If you think this nullifies that, I have ocean-front property in Arizona to sell to you. One of the things I dislike about the GOP is that it always dances to its opponents tune. That's why we get entrenched ruin by progressive policies in this country....they have no real opposition to stand up to them.

That isn't what I said. I said Rand was simply getting ahead of an issue because he saw the media was trying to make a big stink storm out of it. It's not like Ted said there shouldn't be gun-free zones at schools and the media freaked out over that, he said something stupid and offensive. I don't see what the big deal is, yes Ted has a right to say it but if wants to continue campaigning with Republicans then he should know what he says will be used against those candidates as well. Obviously he realized that and decided to apologize.

cajuncocoa
02-21-2014, 06:30 PM
That isn't what I said. I said Rand was simply getting ahead of an issue because he saw the media was trying to make a big stink storm out of it. It's not like Ted said there shouldn't be gun-free zones at schools and the media freaked out over that, he said something stupid and offensive. I don't see what the big deal is, yes Ted has a right to say it but if wants to continue campaigning with Republicans then he should know what he says will be used against those candidates as well. Obviously he realized that and decided to apologize.I guess we're making more out of it than is necessary here....I don't really care that he demanded an apology, I just didn't see the need to do so. You and others do, and apparently he agrees with you. I just think it's playing a loser's game...there will always be something about which they plan to play "gotcha"...you can't get ahead of everything, nor should any of us feel the need to do so.

CaseyJones
02-21-2014, 06:32 PM
NAACP wants Rand Paul to speak

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?444711-NAACP-wants-Rand-Paul-to-speak

:)

oyarde
02-21-2014, 06:39 PM
Some things are better off left unsaid . No need to say he is sorry though , because that would not be sincere. Also , no reason for elected officials to comment on what Nugent says .

Rudeman
02-21-2014, 07:07 PM
Some things are better off left unsaid . No need to say he is sorry though , because that would not be sincere. Also , no reason for elected officials to comment on what Nugent says .


There may not be a need to say it but it doesn't make it wrong.

Rudeman
02-21-2014, 07:11 PM
I guess we're making more out of it than is necessary here....I don't really care that he demanded an apology, I just didn't see the need to do so. You and others do, and apparently he agrees with you. I just think it's playing a loser's game...there will always be something about which they plan to play "gotcha"...you can't get ahead of everything, nor should any of us feel the need to do so.

There wasn't really a need to do so and Rand doesn't get involved with every controversy (Duck Dynasty). He felt for whatever reason that he should air out his opinion and I really don't see anything wrong with it. Whether you think it was the smart thing to do politically or not I guess that can be debatable.

Crashland
02-21-2014, 07:12 PM
NAACP wants Rand Paul to speak

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?444711-NAACP-wants-Rand-Paul-to-speak

:)

This. People who have historically been affected by racism take notice when you go out of your way against your own party to stand up against racism. If you actually take a stand and aren't afraid of pissing off people in your own party, then you end up getting more opportunities like this and you open the door for people to listen to you who might not otherwise listen to you. Rand has to keep doing things like this to build a winning coalition. Most republicans and most democrats are not racists. So call out racism whenever you see it among other leaders, even if they are in the 'liberty movement'. In the political climate right now, it is better if you are known to stand up for principle and not give a damn what party other people think you're hurting.

RonPaulFanInGA
02-21-2014, 07:13 PM
Is Rand in government? Yes. Why is Rand (as a representative of government), asking for a citizen to apologize, publicly, for what was said about the President?

http://wonkette.com/542450/rand-paul-murders-ted-nugents-first-amendment-rights-with-machine-gun-of-single-mean-tweet


RAND PAUL MURDERS TED NUGENTS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS WITH MACHINE GUN OF SINGLE MEAN TWEET

So Ted Nugent. We have discussed him and his real purty mouth. (He called Barack Obama a chimpanzee and subhuman mongrel, which didn’t even crack that day’s purty-things Top 10, probably.) The Texas Attorney General, Greg Abbott, who is running against Wendy Davis for Texas Gub, campaigned with the Nugemonster the other day, and then this really weird thing happened: the media kept asking Abbott why he would do that. They were like, no, really, why? even after Greg Abbott refused to answer! That is weird, right? Did any CNN type people ask Mitt Romney the same thing, back when Ted Nugent was campaigning with him while also flapping his big manly jaws about murdering Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton with machine guns? Or that time he kindly offered to blow that CBS dude and rape his producer? That was fun.

But now the media isn’t just asking Greg Abbott about his embrace of the Nuge. They’re asking errebody. They are asking Rick Perry, and Ted Cruz, and Newt Gingrich, whether they agree with Ted Nugent that Barack Obama is a “subhuman mongrel.” And then an EVEN WEIRDER THING HAPPENED! Rick Perry and Ted Cruz said no, they do not agree! Newt Gingrich, as is his wont, blamed the media. But they didn’t even have to ask Rand Paul whether he agreed, because he was already tweeting about it all by himself, about how “not cool, Ted Nugent,” and this made all the wingnuts :( that Rand Paul was murdering Ted Nugent’s frist amenmunt rights, by disagreeing with him.

donnay
02-21-2014, 07:37 PM
http://wonkette.com/542450/rand-paul-murders-ted-nugents-first-amendment-rights-with-machine-gun-of-single-mean-tweet


“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
~ Theodore Roosevelt

klamath
02-21-2014, 08:10 PM
"The First Amendment, for example, is utterly undemocratic. It was designed to protect unpopular speech against democratic fervor."
~ Ron Paul


Why doesn't Rand get this?Why don't you get that Rand has free speech.

Natural Citizen
02-21-2014, 08:11 PM
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
~ Theodore Roosevelt

I liked Teddy's use of the term "servile" here. Oh, Teddy, Teddy, Teddy. What have we become...

Just standing around sipping instant TEA today.

RonPaulFanInGA
02-21-2014, 08:13 PM
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
~ Theodore Roosevelt

"Criticism" is not juvenile, borderline-bigoted name-calling.

Republicans, even the 'Freeper' types, condemn George Allen for the "macaca" line today, so what's the difference? As the Washington Post wrote (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/02/21/why-rand-pauls-denouncement-of-ted-nugent-matters/), distancing himself from this shows Rand Paul gets it. Cruz, on the other hand, is relegated to just being a fun little distracting sideshow, with no real hope of winning a national election, nor ever setting foot in the White House as the President of these United States. He's decided he will do nothing but pander to the 15% or whatever percentage of the population that consists of the most extreme no-compromise, Obama-is-the-anti-Christ, no-apology-for-anything-even-when-we're-wrong crowd.

donnay
02-21-2014, 08:31 PM
"Criticism" is not juvenile, borderline-bigoted name-calling.


I remember a time when juveniles use to chant this rhyme...
"Sticks and stones may break my bones...
But names will never harm me."

This country is so incredibly thin skinned because they have been bullied by the politically correct crowds. :rolleyes:

Crashland
02-21-2014, 08:47 PM
I remember a time when juveniles use to chant this rhyme...
"Sticks and stones may break my bones...
But names will never harm me."

This country is so incredibly thin skinned because they have been bullied by the politically correct crowds. :rolleyes:

Unless you and your family have been SERIOUSLY affected by racism you are in no position to tell others who have that they are being too thin-skinned when it comes to racist remarks. Maybe *you* can shrug it off or laugh it off, but in the context of history it is not a laughing matter and should never be taken lightly.

eduardo89
02-21-2014, 08:53 PM
Donnay, you still haven't explained how Rand doesn't understand the First Amendment. Can you please explain that to us?

donnay
02-21-2014, 08:56 PM
Unless you and your family have been SERIOUSLY affected by racism you are in no position to tell others who have that they are being too thin-skinned when it comes to racist remarks. Maybe *you* can shrug it off or laugh it off, but in the context of history it is not a laughing matter and should never be taken lightly.

:rolleyes:

donnay
02-21-2014, 09:00 PM
Donnay, you still haven't explained how Rand doesn't understand the First Amendment. Can you please explain that to us?

Because what Ted Nugent said was of his own doing. Rand getting involved with Ted Nugent's unpopular speech was rather unnecessary. Rand jumping in, makes him seem as though he was grandstanding for attention rather than just letting it run it's course.

eduardo89
02-21-2014, 09:03 PM
Because what Ted Nugent said was of his own doing. Rand getting involved with Ted Nugent's unpopular speech was rather unnecessary. Rand jumping in, makes him seem as though he was grandstanding for attention rather than just letting it run it's course.

How does that in any way relate to the First Amendment and Rand's supposed misunderstanding of it?

Crashland
02-21-2014, 09:04 PM
Because what Ted Nugent said was of his own doing. Rand getting involved with Ted Nugent's unpopular speech was rather unnecessary. Rand jumping in, makes him seem as though he was grandstanding for attention rather than just letting it run it's course.

Yes I'm sure the Jews appreciated the German politicians in the 1920s who said nothing and just let things run their course while racism proliferated in the culture.

Crashland
02-21-2014, 09:13 PM
:rolleyes:

I'm sure that eye-rolling at them when they raise concerns will have minority groups come in droves to vote for the candidates you support.

Natural Citizen
02-21-2014, 10:04 PM
I'm sure that eye-rolling at them when they raise concerns will have minority groups come in droves to vote for the candidates you support.

Well. There are many, many, many trees in the liberty forest...crashland. Not just the one in front of you.

Also. You sure are sure of a lot, huh.

Crashland, I'm going to give you some realistic advice here. It comes from Frederick Douglass. And please pay attention.

Freddy said that those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation are people who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the roar of it's many waters. The struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle.

Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never has and it never will.

That's good advice, crashland. Learn it. Love it.

RandallFan
02-21-2014, 11:06 PM
Barack and Michelle are sensitive on the racial issues. I wouldn't assume someone who race baits them is doing it because they hate blacks. Whether they profited from racial lawsuits or were recipients of affirmative action those records are sealed.

Some people want to bait them into a fight.

The GOP won the political argument on Sonia Sotomayor. It was a group of bigoted Democrats who wanted to screw a group of firefighters for not being diverse enough.

If Ted Nugent said something horrible to a random black person it would be different. But when it is an elite Minority Democrat who has screwed over so many people it is a different situation to try and bait him and inflict damage on him. Also to make the Obama worshippers butthurt.

People assume all the hate and comments directed at Obama are only because he is black.

fr33
02-21-2014, 11:11 PM
Nugent has said that if he had been drafted (and not shit his pants to avoid it) he would have killed them all. He has always been in favor of killing people as a solution to many things. He has sung favorably about pedophilia among many other things. Denounce him every chance you get. That's my advice.

mrsat_98
02-21-2014, 11:43 PM
Rand Paul to Ted Nugent " Dude, you outta be ashamed".

Ted to Rand, "Your right I ought to be ashamed, but I'm not !!!!

Crashland
02-21-2014, 11:44 PM
Freddy said that those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation are people who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the roar of it's many waters. The struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle.

That is a ridiculous misuse of that quote. Do you think "agitation" in that context somehow means hate speech? No, it means not being afraid to disagree with people and having a vibrant free marketplace of ideas. That means allowing people like Nugent to drop these racist comments and offend as many people as he wants. That doesn't mean we should not depreciate that hate speech.


With your logic you should be able to invoke the first amendment as a twisted justification to withhold moral judgment from ANY speech (or even worse to selectively invoke it as a justification to withhold moral judgment only from some speech). That is absurd and is not what the first amendment is. This is not an issue about freedom, it's about morality.

RonPaulMall
02-21-2014, 11:56 PM
Rand was fine up until he said Nugent should apologize. That was just dumb. What Rand should have said is that he didn't think it was appropriate, that he takes a different approach to politics and thinks respectful discourse is the best way to affect change, and then end with how comments like Nugent's and (and here you would insert some offensive thing that a Dem Celebrity has said about Republicans) aren't productive. That would have been a gold response. But calling on Nugent to apologize is amateur hour. Cruz definitely outplayed Rand on this one.

donnay
02-22-2014, 12:11 AM
Yes I'm sure the Jews appreciated the German politicians in the 1920s who said nothing and just let things run their course while racism proliferated in the culture.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Crashland
02-22-2014, 12:23 AM
Rand was fine up until he said Nugent should apologize. That was just dumb.

Sure, as long as you also think it's dumb to call for Obama, Clinton, Clapper, or Bill Maher to apologize for their respective speech (whichever you think is the worst, I don't care which)

eduardo89
02-22-2014, 12:36 AM
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Instead of making stupid faces, can you actually address what you meant by saying Rand does not understand the First Amendment. Your previous answer had nothing to do with the First Amendment.

Rudeman
02-22-2014, 12:40 AM
Rand was fine up until he said Nugent should apologize. That was just dumb. What Rand should have said is that he didn't think it was appropriate, that he takes a different approach to politics and thinks respectful discourse is the best way to affect change, and then end with how comments like Nugent's and (and here you would insert some offensive thing that a Dem Celebrity has said about Republicans) aren't productive. That would have been a gold response. But calling on Nugent to apologize is amateur hour. Cruz definitely outplayed Rand on this one.

Completely disagree. If Nugent wants to continue campaigning with Republicans then an apology was necessary. Nugent understood this otherwise he never would have apologized.

RonPaulMall
02-22-2014, 12:50 AM
Sure, as long as you also think it's dumb to call for Obama, Clinton, Clapper, or Bill Maher to apologize for their respective speech (whichever you think is the worst, I don't care which)


Obama and Clinton are not Ted Nugent. They aren't entertainers and crude talk is not a part of their schtick. Look at how Cruz handled the situation to see what Rand should have done. Cruz completely distanced himself from the comments, pointed out the Democrats have celebrities who talk the same way, belittled the interviewer for even bringing up the nonsense, yet didn't in any way question the underlying sentiment all the while remaining cool and confident. By asking Nugent to apologize, Rand looks like he is carrying water for the Left and he pisses off the base. Most of us would consider "subhuman mongrel" a generous description of the President.


Completely disagree. If Nugent wants to continue campaigning with Republicans then an apology was necessary. Nugent understood this otherwise he never would have apologized.

What does Ted Nugent wanting to campaign with Republicans have to do with Rand making a good statement on the issue? Who cares what Ted Nugent does or does not want to do. That has nothing to do with Rand Paul.

Rudeman
02-22-2014, 12:58 AM
What does Ted Nugent wanting to campaign with Republicans have to do with Rand making a good statement on the issue? Who cares what Ted Nugent does or does not want to do. That has nothing to do with Rand Paul.

Campaigning with Nugent means you'll be associated with him, no one serious (as in with a serious shot of winning a political campaign) would want to be associated with someone that brings more bad than good. Pretty simple stuff really, Nugent could have been defiant but he knew that doing so would make him poison.

By taking a clear stand against it Rand gains the moral high ground.

fr33
02-22-2014, 01:22 AM
and it's a good thing, because "if I would have gone over there, I’d have been killed, or I’d have killed all the Hippies in the foxholes. I would have killed everybody."


Yeah they love me (in Japan) — they’re still assholes. These people they don’t know what life is. I don’t have a following, they need me; they don’t like me they need me… Foreigners are a******s; foreigners are scum; I don’t like ‘em; I don’t want ‘em in this country; I don’t want ‘em selling me doughnuts; I don’t want ‘em pumping my gas; I don’t want ‘em downwind of my life-OK? So anyhow, and I’m dead serious…


I am aware there are prominent conservatives who make strong arguments in favor of legalizing drugs. Their argument is that legalizing drugs will take the crime out of drugs. Not only do I not believe that, but I have never been in favor of pouring gas on a blazing fire in hopes of extinguishing it, which is what I believe will happen if ever we are foolish enough to legalize drug use in America.

We have all the laws we need to fight drugs. What America needs is the will-power and a renewed warrior spirit to crush evil and evil doers.

We need a Drug Czar who will commit to the American people to stopping at least 50% of the illegal drugs flowing into the country within the first year of the Obama Administration. That’s the kind of leadership America wants and deserves from its government.
May every freedom fighter be fortunate enough to have the drop to take out the Ted Nugents of the world. They are part of the problem.

Crashland
02-22-2014, 01:29 AM
What does Ted Nugent wanting to campaign with Republicans have to do with Rand making a good statement on the issue? Who cares what Ted Nugent does or does not want to do. That has nothing to do with Rand Paul.

It has everything to do with Rand if he wants to be a leader in the party. Part of steering the ship means avoiding icebergs.



By asking Nugent to apologize, Rand looks like he is carrying water for the Left and he pisses off the base. Most of us would consider "subhuman mongrel" a generous description of the President.

Actually no, he only pisses off the part of the base that finds Nugent's comment funny or agrees with it. That is, the part of the base I want to have nothing to do with. Who cares if he looks like he is helping the left or the right? If you want to be a leader with cross appeal you can't selectively stand on principle only when your political enemies are doing things wrong and then sit on your hands when a political ally does. Call it out on both sides. It's not nonsense for an interviewer to bring up the issue.

Making fun of someone is one thing. Dehumanizing someone is completely different. You can tell me that I have thin skin, but if you actually look at what happens when it becomes socially acceptable or socially encouraged to dehumanize people, you can't not see this as an extremely important moral issue that easily warrants such caution. And I'm not only talking about something extreme like a holocaust mass genocide. It is a very personal issue when someone is directly or indirectly significantly affected by *any* injustice caused by racism or any dehumanization. When you use that kind of language it is not only the target of your ridicule that you are damaging. If you are confused by this or don't know what I'm talking about, then you need to go out and talk to some people less advantaged than yourself.

If most of "us" consider 'subhuman mongrel' to be a 'generous' description of the President, then I'll be right on my way out of this community. (To me that is either ignorant or morally bankrupt.) However I don't think that is really the case, despite the loud voices on this particular thread.

Natural Citizen
02-22-2014, 01:41 AM
If you want to be a leader with cross appeal you can't selectively stand on principle...



"We are sort of a mongrel people."

"I mean we're all kinds of mixed up," Obama said. "That's actually true of white people as well, but we just know more about it."

The president's remarks were directed at the roots of all Americans.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/111611-obama-calls-african-americans-a-mongrel-people-#ixzz2ts6gKyTH

Please find one argument that our principled leader made against the President of The United States referencing it's people (including white fellers) as mongrels. After all...this is about morality as I recall.



I'll be in the neighborhood, sparky.

Crashland
02-22-2014, 01:50 AM
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/111611-obama-calls-african-americans-a-mongrel-people-#ixzz2ts6gKyTH

Please find one argument that our principled leader made against the President of The United States referencing it's people (including white fellers) as mongrels.

Didn't we already go over this? The President was not using the word mongrel as an *insult*, which is obvious given the context. Using 'mongrel' to mean 'of mixed descent' without presenting a negative framework is not offensive. Obama's statement and Nugent's are not at all comparable. Stop playing word games. Are you even serious or just trolling now

Natural Citizen
02-22-2014, 01:58 AM
Didn't we already go over this? The President was not using the word mongrel as an *insult*, which is obvious given the context.

Nope. We haven't been over anything. Wasn't obvious to me. I was insulted. It's about morality.

Crashland, you're a joke. A fake. Hit the bricks.

fr33
02-22-2014, 02:02 AM
Callinig someone a mongrel isn't near as bad as calling them a sub human.

Crashland
02-22-2014, 02:08 AM
Nope. We haven't been over anything. Wasn't obvious to me. I was insulted. It's about morality.

Crashland, you're a joke. A fake. Hit the bricks.

Right. Well at this point it's not worth me continuing this discussion and doing so is a disservice to anyone else who might have the bad fortune of stumbling on this thread. It's embarrassing that anyone looking into the Rand Paul forum is seeing an actual argument among Rand supporters over whether we even stand behind his statement about Nugent.

RonPaulMall
02-22-2014, 02:15 AM
It has everything to do with Rand if he wants to be a leader in the party. Part of steering the ship means avoiding icebergs.

Yep, and Rand ran right in to the iceberg. He pissed off the base while sucking up to the mainstream media that two years from now is going to be calling Rand a racist every day of the week and running nonstop stories about newsletters and the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Ted Cruz schooled Rand once again. He handled the situation perfectly. Both men repudiated the comments, but Cruz did it in a way that pleased the base while Rand did it in a way that pissed them off. Rand really needs to get better at handling situations like this.



Actually no, he only pisses off the part of the base that finds Nugent's comment funny or agrees with it. That is, the part of the base I want to have nothing to do with. Who cares if he looks like he is helping the left or the right? If you want to be a leader with cross appeal you can't selectively stand on principle only when your political enemies are doing things wrong and then sit on your hands when a political ally does. Call it out on both sides. It's not nonsense for an interviewer to bring up the issue.

Who said he had to sit on his hands? Cruz didn't sit on his hands. He got the same questions Rand did and hit it out of the park.



Making fun of someone is one thing. Dehumanizing someone is completely different. You can tell me that I have thin skin, but if you actually look at what happens when it becomes socially acceptable or socially encouraged to dehumanize people, you can't not see this as an extremely important moral issue that easily warrants such caution. And I'm not only talking about something extreme like a holocaust mass genocide. It is a very personal issue when someone is directly or indirectly significantly affected by *any* injustice caused by racism or any dehumanization. When you use that kind of language it is not only the target of your ridicule that you are damaging. If you are confused by this or don't know what I'm talking about, then you need to go out and talk to some people less advantaged than yourself.

Yeah, maybe I should talk to some of the "disadvantaged". Like maybe those 12 dirt poor innocent Yemeni citizens that Obama bombed at a wedding last December (http://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/21/turning_a_wedding_into_a_funeral). Oh, wait, I can't, because they are dead. Obama is a murdering, subhuman, scumbag. He is the world's greatest criminal thug. I get that talking in these terms doesn't make for great politics, which is why I praise Cruz for distancing himself (in a politically savvy way) from the comments, but this isn't politics, this is a messageboard and we are allowed to speak truthfully here. Save your sympathy for people that deserve it.

Natural Citizen
02-22-2014, 02:56 AM
Right. Well at this point it's not worth me continuing this discussion and doing so is a disservice to anyone else who might have the bad fortune of stumbling on this thread. It's embarrassing that anyone looking into the Rand Paul forum is seeing an actual argument among Rand supporters over whether we even stand behind his statement about Nugent.

Well. Firstly, I should apologize for calling you a joke and a fake. And, of course, all are welcomed here. Far be it for me to say who can and can't use their illusion. So, I'm sorry for calling you a fake and a joke.

Here's the thing. We cannot very well go around saying that there is no place in politics for this kind of language...except for when there is a place...which depends upon our own personal perception and morality (like with the example that I just gave you regarding Obamas use of the same model)...and we cannot go around saying that the same language is acceptable because of popular perception or because there is nothing to be had politically. That's grandstanding. As you said. Leaders cannot be selective with their cause. Morality is a matter of individual perception. You don't get to define it. Nor do I. Nor does Rand Paul or any other representative. If he's going to call out one politically active person using the language then, if he's genuine, he should call out other politicians who use it. such as the example that i shared. And if you can't do that then there is some credibility to clear up.

So, I suppose that what I mean by this being a joke and a fake is the simple fact that, yes, we are selective. And our morals define how selective we are. Who are you or anyone else to define how Americans absorbed The President's use of the language? Because you took it one way then it must be deemed as not offensive and so we get to be selective with our morality and principles? This whole hurry up and jump on anything popular just to hurry up and get elected in no way serves the cause of changing the course of history. And you should know that if you feel so strong about it to go so far as to place it in your sig line.

donnay
02-22-2014, 08:39 AM
Callinig someone a mongrel isn't near as bad as calling them a sub human.

'Subhuman' is now a bad word? Definition: "Not worthy of being human" is where we have shifted this argument?

SMH.

The thing is, I never liked Ted Nugent. I never cared for his rock and roll and I never cared for his politics. That being said, this has nothing to do with what I, personally, think of the man. It has everything to do with his first amendment right to say what he wants to say. And what he said are just words. Words that, physically, harms no one. But the knee-jerk, politically correct crowd are running around like the sky is falling.

Has anyone seen the movie Demolition Man? I see a future where people will be fined and imprisoned for things they say that goes against the authoritarian regime.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MI6-2x_R2VM

erowe1
02-22-2014, 08:46 AM
It has everything to do with his first amendment right to say what he wants to say.

It has nothing to do with his first amendment right to say what he wants to say. Not in the slightest bit. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

klamath
02-22-2014, 08:48 AM
Saying sub human is the racist part of the speech. Subhuman is Exactly what was used to deny freedom to black people. So when used against a black person it is racist as hell. Glad people Rand said what he did.

donnay
02-22-2014, 08:49 AM
It has nothing to do with his first amendment right to say what he wants to say. Not in the slightest bit. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

So says the lukewarm liberty lovers.

donnay
02-22-2014, 08:53 AM
Saying sub human is the racist part of the speech. Subhuman is Exactly what was used to deny freedom to black people. Glad people Rand said what he did.

Is it human to bomb other humans because their skin color is brown?

Is it racist to indiscriminately kill brown people with drones?

klamath
02-22-2014, 08:57 AM
Is it human to bomb other humans because their skin color is brown?

Is it racist to indiscriminately kill brown people with drones? Very human. It is those very traits of human nature I fight against. Hating somebody for the way they were born I will fight against and back Rand 100% and believe me Ted nugent didn't call Obama subhuman because he is bombing grown people.:rolleyes:

compromise
02-22-2014, 09:09 AM
Is it human to bomb other humans because their skin color is brown?

Is it racist to indiscriminately kill brown people with drones?

They're not being bombed because their skin is brown. They're being bombed because some people think it's a good way to spread democracy. They are of course wrong.

donnay
02-22-2014, 09:14 AM
They're not being bombed because their skin is brown. They're being bombed because some people think it's a good way to spread democracy. They are of course wrong.


So what you are saying is democracy is racists.

donnay
02-22-2014, 09:20 AM
Very human. It is those very traits of human nature I fight against. Hating somebody for the way they were born I will fight against and back Rand 100% and believe me Ted nugent didn't call Obama subhuman because he is bombing grown people.:rolleyes:


Wow... that whole paragraph is so convoluted and dripping with denial it made my head hurt just to read.

compromise
02-22-2014, 09:21 AM
So what you are saying is democracy is racists.

No, what I am saying is that the bombing would be wrong whether it was white or brown people being bombed. It may be brown people today, but it wasn't so long ago that the targets were white people in the Balkans.

tod evans
02-22-2014, 09:21 AM
Have you seriously not watched TV in the last 20 years?


No I haven't, and it's actually closer to 30....

donnay
02-22-2014, 09:27 AM
No, what I am saying is that the bombing would be wrong whether it was white or brown people being bombed. It may be brown people today, but it wasn't so long ago that the targets were white people in the Balkans.


So then the people that want these wars/conflicts certainly should be classified as subhuman in my [human] opinion. Because they obviously don't care about the sanctity of human life.

klamath
02-22-2014, 10:15 AM
Wow... that whole paragraph is so convoluted and dripping with denial it made my head hurt just to read.You can go right ahead and support Ted. I will stand with rand.

Ted Nugent the man that wanted to nuke Afghanistan. Yeaw he CARES about those brown people enough to call Obama subhuman.:rolleyes:

cajuncocoa
02-22-2014, 10:18 AM
Instead of making stupid faces, can you actually address what you meant by saying Rand does not understand the First Amendment. Your previous answer had nothing to do with the First Amendment.
OT, but am I the only one here who thinks Crashland is another one of your sock puppets?

donnay
02-22-2014, 10:25 AM
You can go right ahead and support Ted. I will stand with rand.

Ted Nugent the man that wanted to nuke Afghanistan. Yeaw he CARES about those brown people enough to call Obama subhuman.:rolleyes:

Guess you missed post #153. :rolleyes:

donnay
02-22-2014, 10:28 AM
OT, but am I the only one here who thinks Crashland is another one of your sock puppets?

CC, that wouldn't surprise me in the least.

klamath
02-22-2014, 10:29 AM
Guess you missed post #153. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

cajuncocoa
02-22-2014, 10:35 AM
.

Yep, and Rand ran right in to the iceberg. He pissed off the base while sucking up to the mainstream media that two years from now is going to be calling Rand a racist every day of the week and running nonstop stories about newsletters and the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Ted Cruz schooled Rand once again. He handled the situation perfectly. Both men repudiated the comments, but Cruz did it in a way that pleased the base while Rand did it in a way that pissed them off. Rand really needs to get better at handling situations like this.




Who said he had to sit on his hands? Cruz didn't sit on his hands. He got the same questions Rand did and hit it out of the park.

Can you (or someone else) post whatever it was that Cruz said about this?

jct74
02-22-2014, 11:00 AM
First of all, using the word mongrel as an insult is inherently racist because you are implying that being of mixed descent is a negative thing. And subhuman mongrel is even worse.

...


he also called Obama a "chimpanzee".


So a lot of people would call that inflammatory speech. Well I would call it inflammatory speech when it’s your job to protect Americans and you look into the television camera and say what difference does it make that I failed in my job to provide security and we have four dead Americans. What difference does that make? Not to a chimpanzee or Hillary Clinton, I guess it doesn’t matter.

http://thedailybanter.com/2014/01/nugent-mongrel-chimpanzee/

asurfaholic
02-22-2014, 11:11 AM
.

Yep, and Rand ran right in to the iceberg. He pissed off the base while sucking up to the mainstream media that two years from now is going to be calling Rand a racist every day of the week and running nonstop stories about newsletters and the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Ted Cruz schooled Rand once again. He handled the situation perfectly. Both men repudiated the comments, but Cruz did it in a way that pleased the base while Rand did it in a way that pissed them off. Rand really needs to get better at handling situations like this.



I'd really like to see some sort of proof that the "base" was pleased with Ted Cruz, and also some that shows it "pissed off" the "base" because of what Rand Paul said...

Base....

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/500x/36149777.jpg

RonPaulMall
02-22-2014, 11:26 AM
Can you (or someone else) post whatever it was that Cruz said about this?

Masterful Response by Cruz (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/20/cruz-disagrees-with-nugent-but-doesnt-rule-out-campaigning-with-him/)

Repudiates the language while at the same time attacking Obama, Obama's asshole Hollywood friends that are just as crude as Nugent, the reporter, and the subhuman mongrel gangster's policies on the 2nd Amendment.

Interesting that in all the media belly aching over this incident, I haven't heard a single outfit question Nugent's use of the word "gangster" to describe the President. Guess even the MSM is finally willing to accept what government really is.

eduardo89
02-22-2014, 12:05 PM
Guess you missed post #153. :rolleyes:

Going to bump this since you haven't answered yet:


Instead of making stupid faces, can you actually address what you meant by saying Rand does not understand the First Amendment. Your previous answer had nothing to do with the First Amendment.

donnay
02-22-2014, 12:42 PM
Going to bump this since you haven't answered yet:

I believe I already answered your altered ego, Eddie.

eduardo89
02-22-2014, 12:42 PM
I believe I already answered your altered ego, Eddie.

I don't have any sock puppets, if that's what you're inferring.

And no, you have not answered. How does Rand not understand the First Amendment?

klamath
02-22-2014, 02:22 PM
I don't have any sock puppets, if that's what you're inferring.

And no, you have not answered. How does Rand not understand the First Amendment?She never will because her knee jerk anti randism made her jump in and support a chickenhawk neocon because it gave her a chance to attack Rand.

donnay
02-22-2014, 02:31 PM
She never will because her knee jerk anti randism made her jump in and support a chickenhawk neocon because it gave her a chance to attack Rand.

LOL! Anti-Randism. :rolleyes:

eduardo89
02-22-2014, 02:32 PM
LOL! Anti-Randism. :rolleyes:

So are you going to answer or not?

How does Rand not understand the First Amendment?

donnay
02-22-2014, 02:44 PM
So are you going to answer or not?

How does Rand not understand the First Amendment?

*SIGH* By getting involved and saying that Nugent needs to apologize for his words.

eduardo89
02-22-2014, 02:46 PM
*SIGH* By getting involved and saying that Nugent needs to apologize for his words.

And what does Rand Paul exercising his right to free speech as a private citizen have to do with Congress enacting a law abridging the freedom of speech?

cajuncocoa
02-22-2014, 03:11 PM
And what does Rand Paul exercising his right to free speech as a private citizen have to do with Congress enacting a law abridging the freedom of speech?
Let me see if I can take a stab at this because I think I understand where donnay is coming from. Because Rand Paul is a U.S. Senator and directly involved in government, I believe she is saying it's a little heavy-handed to demand an apology from a private citizen. Rand Paul is not a private citizen; he is a public official of the government.

eduardo89
02-22-2014, 03:14 PM
Let me see if I can take a stab at this because I think I understand where donnay is coming from. Because Rand Paul is a U.S. Senator and directly involved in government, I believe she is saying it's a little heavy-handed to demand an apology from a private citizen. Rand Paul is not a private citizen; he is a public official of the government.

And because he is a Senator speaking on his private twitter account he loses his First Amendment right to speak freely?

So I guess Ron Paul violated the First Amendment when he demanded an apology from Newt Gingrich (http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/02/ron-paul-demands-gingrich-apology-after-a-supporter-is-injured-in-clash-with-newt-loyalists/) during his campaign. Ron Paul was a sitting US Representative during that time...

Crashland
02-22-2014, 03:19 PM
Let me see if I can take a stab at this because I think I understand where donnay is coming from. Because Rand Paul is a U.S. Senator and directly involved in government, I believe she is saying it's a little heavy-handed to demand an apology from a private citizen. Rand Paul is not a private citizen; he is a public official of the government.

That is probably where donnay is coming from, but there is nothing in the first amendment that says public officials cannot do this. The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law....". Unless Rand wants a law abridging the freedom of speech, there is no basis for saying that he doesn't understand the first amendment.

donnay
02-22-2014, 03:42 PM
Let me see if I can take a stab at this because I think I understand where donnay is coming from. Because Rand Paul is a U.S. Senator and directly involved in government, I believe she is saying it's a little heavy-handed to demand an apology from a private citizen. Rand Paul is not a private citizen; he is a public official of the government.

Thank you, CC. +rep

Crashland
02-22-2014, 03:43 PM
Here's the thing. We cannot very well go around saying that there is no place in politics for this kind of language...except for when there is a place...which depends upon our own personal perception and morality (like with the example that I just gave you regarding Obamas use of the same model)...and we cannot go around saying that the same language is acceptable because of popular perception or because there is nothing to be had politically. That's grandstanding. As you said. Leaders cannot be selective with their cause. Morality is a matter of individual perception. You don't get to define it. Nor do I. Nor does Rand Paul or any other representative. If he's going to call out one politically active person using the language then, if he's genuine, he should call out other politicians who use it. such as the example that i shared. And if you can't do that then there is some credibility to clear up.

So, I suppose that what I mean by this being a joke and a fake is the simple fact that, yes, we are selective. And our morals define how selective we are. Who are you or anyone else to define how Americans absorbed The President's use of the language? Because you took it one way then it must be deemed as not offensive and so we get to be selective with our morality and principles? This whole hurry up and jump on anything popular just to hurry up and get elected in no way serves the cause of changing the course of history. And you should know that if you feel so strong about it to go so far as to place it in your sig line.

I still disagree - it is not that simple because the language has different meanings for the same words, and in this case, unlike racial slurs that only have one meaning, it is not the word itself that is offensive, but the context in which it is used. For example let's substitute mongrel out for something with more of a singular meaning, "mixed-race".

Here would be Obama's quote:

"We are sort of a mixed-race people. I mean we're all kinds of mixed up," Obama said. "That's actually true of white people as well, but we just know more about it."


And here would be Nugent's quote:

...not to let a Chicago communist-raised, communist-educated, communist-nurtured subhuman mixed-race person like the ACORN community organizer gangster Barack Hussein Obama to weasel his way into the top office of authority in the United States of America


Here Obama's use of 'mixed-race' would be appropriate because that is what he is actually talking about. Nugent's is absolutely inappropriate because he is including 'mixed-race' right in the middle of a long list of insults, as if mixed-race is a negative thing and even attaching the "subhuman" adjective to it. I think you are missing something if you are comparing the two and claiming it is hypocritical to judge them differently even though they both use the same word.

Sola_Fide
02-22-2014, 03:43 PM
So is it your opinion that calling a politician a subhuman mongrel *does* have a place in politics?

I think it does.

TheNung
02-22-2014, 04:43 PM
I don't think anyone should have to apologize for calling a spade a spade. Barry is a tyrant and a murderer. He should be shown no respect whatsoever. Rand can stick it.

Edit: To juleswin

Here was your rep comment: "[mod deleted]"

Well, if we're going to toss insults around, I'm going to call you an [mod deleted]. Where you got the idea that I support Ted Cruz I cannot even fathom. Yet, like an [mod deleted], you jump to the asinine conclusion that if I make a negative comment about Rand, I must support Ted Cruz. Like a [mod deleted], you reserve your comment for a private hit-and-run insult instead of replying to me like a sensible, competent adult in this thread itself. Wow. Brilliant. But lastly I'd like to thank you for outing yourself as an [mod deleted] to me in private. That way in the future I'll know that you are incapable of handling yourself as anything other than a [mod deleted] and therefore I can ignore you.

cajuncocoa
02-22-2014, 05:51 PM
And because he is a Senator speaking on his private twitter account he loses his First Amendment right to speak freely?

So I guess Ron Paul violated the First Amendment when he demanded an apology from Newt Gingrich (http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/02/ron-paul-demands-gingrich-apology-after-a-supporter-is-injured-in-clash-with-newt-loyalists/) during his campaign. Ron Paul was a sitting US Representative during that time...


That is probably where donnay is coming from, but there is nothing in the first amendment that says public officials cannot do this. The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law....". Unless Rand wants a law abridging the freedom of speech, there is no basis for saying that he doesn't understand the first amendment.
Neither donnay or I suggested that Rand has no 1st amendment right to say whatever he wants to say.

I merely explained to you both how I interpreted what donnay was saying....that she's seeing it as a possible violation of NUGENT'S 1st amendment rights....due to the fact that a US Senator (public government official) is calling him (Nugent, a private citizen) out to apologize for words that he said.

Crashland
02-22-2014, 06:19 PM
Neither donnay or I suggested that Rand has no 1st amendment right to say whatever he wants to say.

I merely explained to you both how I interpreted what donnay was saying....that she's seeing it as a possible violation of NUGENT'S 1st amendment rights....due to the fact that a US Senator (public government official) is calling him (Nugent, a private citizen) out to apologize for words that he said.

Yes I do realize you are trying to interpret donnay's reasoning. But it's not a violation of anyone's first amendment rights unless their freedom of speech is being abridged, and particularly by a law. Making a public comment calling for an apology does not abridge anyone else's freedom of speech, nor is it a law.

eduardo89
02-22-2014, 06:25 PM
Yes I do realize you are trying to interpret donnay's reasoning. But it's not a violation of anyone's first amendment rights unless their freedom of speech is being abridged, and particularly by a law. Making a public comment calling for an apology does not abridge anyone else's freedom of speech, nor is it a law.

It's as absurd as saying a public official can't talk about faith or a high school senior can't invoke God in their graduation speech.

Dianne
02-22-2014, 07:21 PM
I still fail to understand how Rand gets "smeared by association"....where is the association between Rand and Nugent? In the imagination of people who read HuffPo and watch MSNBC? You can't do anything to convince those people! Try to remember, those are the same people who think peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are racist. :rolleyes:

That's why Rand should have kept his mouth shut, and looked Presidential ... Now the libtards are running around thinking Rand and Ted are best friends, and Rand made Ted apologize. You know how stupid Obama looks when he gets involved in trivia, such as Washington Redskin's name .. Rand involves himself in trivia when he stops to comment on something like Ted's comment ... Most Americans (like myself), are wondering what the hell we pay the Congress and the President to do all day? Worry about Ted Nugent and the Washington Redskins ??

As I said earlier, for the sake of Rand's political career he should not think he has to make a comment about any "Entertainment Tonight" issues unless it involves the job he is doing for the people ... Ted's a big boy, he can handle himself..

juleswin
02-22-2014, 07:33 PM
Well, if we're going to toss insults around, I'm going to call you an [mod deleted]. Where you got the idea that I support Ted Cruz I cannot even fathom. Yet, like an [mod deleted], you jump to the asinine conclusion that if I make a negative comment about Rand, I must support Ted Cruz. Like a [mod deleted], you reserve your comment for a private hit-and-run insult instead of replying to me like a sensible, competent adult in this thread itself. Wow. Brilliant. But lastly I'd like to thank you for outing yourself as an [mod deleted] to me in private. That way in the future I'll know that you are incapable of handling yourself as anything other than a [mod deleted] and therefore I can ignore you.

Yes, I get very suspicious of people with very low post counts complaining when Rand gets some positive press. I think there are basically 3 types of people complaining about Rand Paul as a private Citizen asking(not demanding) Ted Nugent to apologize.

1st kind are the people who have been so accustomed to losing elections and being outcasts in the republican party that when things starts going well for anyone in our camp, they overreact and fight that success. These people are uncomfortable with winning and being part of the mainstream

2nd type are troll supporters of other republican rivals masquerading as Rand supporters on RPF to be a wet blanket to Rand's public relation win.

Lastly, the racist types who actually agree with the wording of the insult and see nothing wrong with being a racist asshole representing the republican party.

Yes, I think you're of the 2nd type and I gave you a negative rep with a private message to go with it explaining why I did it and it was a dick move on your part to post my private message to you for everyone to see. Its not me being a coward by using the message system for reps cos it is what the message box is for. God forbid I believe somethings are better left said in private than in public. Also you could have replied to me in private and maybe we could have resolved it but no, you put out the private message in a public responding with insults and personal attacks while complaining about me insulting you.

cajuncocoa
02-22-2014, 08:12 PM
Yes I do realize you are trying to interpret donnay's reasoning. But it's not a violation of anyone's first amendment rights unless their freedom of speech is being abridged, and particularly by a law. Making a public comment calling for an apology does not abridge anyone else's freedom of speech, nor is it a law.


It's as absurd as saying a public official can't talk about faith or a high school senior can't invoke God in their graduation speech.

it's so cute to see you agree with yourself.

eduardo89
02-22-2014, 08:31 PM
it's so cute to see you agree with yourself.

If I had a sock puppet account I'd be banned again. And that was never my MO, I never had more than one account at the same time.

Crashland
02-22-2014, 08:37 PM
it's so cute to see you agree with yourself.

...because there just can't be as many as two whole people who disagree with you so we must be the same person.

eduardo89
02-22-2014, 08:41 PM
That's why Rand should have kept his mouth shut, and looked Presidential ... Now the libtards are running around thinking Rand and Ted are best friends, and Rand made Ted apologize.

This is the exact oppose of what happened.

Christian Liberty
02-23-2014, 03:54 PM
I think it does.
I'd like to know how you'd reconcile this to 1 Peter 2:17, because my first instinct is to agree with you (mass murderers are subhuman in a sense). That said, I don't actually expect politicians to talk that way.

Dogsoldier
02-24-2014, 03:36 PM
Why not just say "I don't know what Ted Nugent said or what context...I'm here to talk about government, my plans, what I believe in. So can we get back to what's important?"...He could also throw in a commentary about what Justin Beibers been up to and how its not a national tragedy...Benghazi is!!!!

How about that?

Crashland
02-24-2014, 06:15 PM
Why not just say "I don't know what Ted Nugent said or what context...I'm here to talk about government, my plans, what I believe in. So can we get back to what's important?"...He could also throw in a commentary about what Justin Beibers been up to and how its not a national tragedy...Benghazi is!!!!

How about that?

Because he did know what Nugent said and the context. And because Beiber isn't raising money for Republicans.

Dogsoldier
02-24-2014, 06:40 PM
I don't see a thing wrong with what Nugent said. Free speech. Obama,Clinton,Bush, Bush2 are guilty of treason. That is by far a much bigger issue.

serenityrick
02-24-2014, 07:07 PM
Weren't there books and movies made fantasizing about the assassination of George Bush from the left? And people are up in arms over what Nugent said? Really?

jct74
02-24-2014, 07:37 PM
I don't see a thing wrong with what Nugent said.

...

calling black people "chimpanzees" is not cool.

erowe1
02-24-2014, 07:57 PM
Obama,Clinton,Bush, Bush2 are guilty of treason. That is by far a much bigger issue.

That just makes it all the more strange for someone to be perfectly fine with all of the above treason and then castigate one of them as a subhuman mongrel just because his dad's skin was dark.

Crashland
02-24-2014, 08:08 PM
I don't see a thing wrong with what Nugent said. Free speech. Obama,Clinton,Bush, Bush2 are guilty of treason. That is by far a much bigger issue.

"Free speech" does not mean that you should not distance yourself from morally reprehensible free speech, especially when it is being used to collect money for your party's candidates. And yes, those are bigger issues, but good luck getting anyone who was insulted by this to listen to you on those other more important issues if you're not even willing to disavow the racism from Nugent that is being associated with your party.

Dogsoldier
02-24-2014, 08:28 PM
We have a right to free speech. No one has the right to not be offended. Liberty means you have the freedom to associate with who ever you want. Every race is racist but not necessarily with hateful intent.

I really believe that Nugent is actually one of the non racist people. He has friends and made music with many different races. Its just ridiculous.

All they have to do is bring up the race card and automatically your the devil...It makes me sick.....

Crashland
02-24-2014, 08:41 PM
We have a right to free speech. No one has the right to not be offended. Liberty means you have the freedom to associate with who ever you want. Every race is racist but not necessarily with hateful intent.

I really believe that Nugent is actually one of the non racist people. He has friends and made music with many different races. Its just ridiculous.

All they have to do is bring up the race card and automatically your the devil...It makes me sick.....

Yes, you are free to associate with whoever you want. Whether or not Nugent is actually a racist in his head is irrelevant; what he said is what matters and what he said was racist. Or to put it another way, what he said would motivate actual racists to donate money. You deserve to be criticized if racists are a target demographic for your fundraising.

Dogsoldier
02-24-2014, 08:46 PM
All races are racist. The black panthers supported Obama.

phill4paul
02-24-2014, 08:50 PM
I really believe that Nugent is actually one of the non racist people.

It's possible. He has the same talking points as many conservative politicians............ (my belief of intention of these talking points is sometimes suspect.)


"The truth is that the Democratic Party has been the engineer of the destruction of black Americans, and everyone knows it except the very people who need to know it the most – black Americans," he writes.

Nugent, on the other hand, says he celebrates Black History Month "every day," because his "fire-breathing musical career was literally launched by black musical thundergods" including Bo Diddley, Little Richard, James Brown, Wilson Pickett and more.

"There is no doubt that my 2013 tour will be the best of my life," he writes. "With world-class virtuosos paying tribute to our black heroes nightly, it is only fitting that this year's tour is aptly titled, 'Ted Nugent Black Power 2013.' Say it loud: my music is black and I'm proud!"

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/ted-nugent-dubs-next-tour-black-power-2013-20130222#ixzz2uIYKh4rL
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

Still, I believe..he's just an over inflated loud mouthed celebrity. STFU and play guitar.

Crashland
02-24-2014, 08:59 PM
All races are racist. The black panthers supported Obama.

Yes, but if you had dem candidate campaigning with a black panther member who said something racist, or if someone like that were associated with the dem candidate somehow, there would be people calling for them to apologize or for the dem candidate to disassociate with them. Heck, just look at what happened to Jeremiah Wright.