Mr.Jingles 25.08.2007 12:47 |
...and send him to Iraq. Seriously, if the man likes shooting so much then let's put him in a place where he can shoot all he wants. I know the sick bastard is a coward who can't shoot anything than can't shoot back, but for once this chickenhawk deserves a good lesson. link |
Haystacks Calhoun II 25.08.2007 12:56 |
Ted rules!!!!! I think he's hilarious. You know, it speaks volumes about our society when the NAACP and Al Sharpton will stand up for Michael Vick and his reprehensible actions, but those same people called for the head of Don Imus for telling a joke..... We are doomed. Freedom of speech my arse. |
Mr.Jingles 25.08.2007 13:14 |
The NAACP sounds very biased and hypocritical for asking the NFL to allow Michael Vick back in. Of course it's a huge double standard considering that if a white athlete was in the same situation, they wouldn't give a shit. Now back to Ted Nugent he's a chickenhawk. He sure is allowed to use his freedom of speech and come across as the ignorant idiot he is. |
Haystacks Calhoun II 25.08.2007 13:16 |
That's what makes him hilarious! |
Freya is quietly judging you. 25.08.2007 13:18 |
He looks like the last thing that Iraq needs. |
KillerQueen840 25.08.2007 17:47 |
*hides her Cat Scratch Fever cd* |
Penetration_Guru 26.08.2007 15:55 |
Isn't it worryingly indicative of the US attitude to foreign policy that its citizens see Iraq as a place where it's ok to indiscriminately discharge lethal weaponry? Apropos of this, what proportion of "friendly fire" incidents have not featured Americans as the "firers"? |
Lisser 26.08.2007 20:04 |
Penetration_Guru wrote: Isn't it worryingly indicative of the US attitude to foreign policy that its citizens see Iraq as a place where it's ok to indiscriminately discharge lethal weaponry? Apropos of this, what proportion of "friendly fire" incidents have not featured Americans as the "firers"?For what its worth, I do not see Iraq as a place where it is ok to just fire at whatever moves. I wish we never went there and just minded our own business, and I am American. I don't think Ted Nuegent is even close to funny, but he's entitled to his opinions, no matter how absurd I feel they are; others are bound to think they are funny or agreeable. He's a very radical person who likes to use his time on stage to get extra special attention. |
Mr.Jingles 26.08.2007 21:25 |
Penetration_Guru wrote: Isn't it worryingly indicative of the US attitude to foreign policy that its citizens see Iraq as a place where it's ok to indiscriminately discharge lethal weaponry?I'm not directly implying that Ted Nugent should be given a machine gun, sent to Iraq, and told to shoot anything he wants. For once we all know that his first targets will be women and children. After all, it was Ted Nugent himself the one who said about the use of military force in Iraq: "Our failure has been not to Nagasaki them" Needless to say, the man is a fuckin' lunatic. I agree with Lisser that is not even close to funny to hear his statements. If he was locked in a mental institution where he deserves to be, then I guess some of us could go ahead and laugh. However, is deeply worrying that he's legally allowed to teach children how to use weapons. |
Maz 26.08.2007 22:39 |
The problem is not Nugent (as stated above, nuts can have their opinion). The problem is what would happen if the situation was reversed (hello Dixie Chicks). You know that O'Reilly, Rush, and all of those talking-head blowhards would be all over this and demanding their pound of flesh. |
Penetration_Guru 27.08.2007 08:05 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:I knew it wasn't what you meant, but you did accidentally say just about exactly that!Penetration_Guru wrote: Isn't it worryingly indicative of the US attitude to foreign policy that its citizens see Iraq as a place where it's ok to indiscriminately discharge lethal weaponry?I'm not directly implying that Ted Nugent should be given a machine gun, sent to Iraq, and told to shoot anything he wants. |
Micrówave 27.08.2007 12:06 |
Yeah, I'm a little unclear on the point here. Are we (1) defending Bambi? -or- (2) supporting a more violent Iraq. Plus, looking at that country from afar, with all the shooting guns in the air and all, I would think most Iraqi 18-30 year olds would enjoy a good Ted Nugent show and probably worship the guy when he pulls out the bow & arrow. What's wrong with believing in a cause? It is still legal to hunt, isn't it? Just because YOU don't like it, yeah we should ban guns, crimilize hunting, and send Ted Nugent to Iraq. Great fricking idea. |
Mr.Jingles 27.08.2007 12:50 |
Micrówave wrote: Yeah, I'm a little unclear on the point here. Are we (1) defending Bambi? -or- (2) supporting a more violent Iraq. Plus, looking at that country from afar, with all the shooting guns in the air and all, I would think most Iraqi 18-30 year olds would enjoy a good Ted Nugent show and probably worship the guy when he pulls out the bow & arrow. What's wrong with believing in a cause? It is still legal to hunt, isn't it? Just because YOU don't like it, yeah we should ban guns, crimilize hunting, and send Ted Nugent to Iraq. Great fricking idea....but it is indeed a great idea! For once we can see the hunter becoming the target. It's what makes those "trading ______" reality shows successful. What can be more entertaining than that? Now, I'm not saying Ted Nugent should be killed, but it would be funny as hell to see him being shit scared of getting shot. |
Donna13 27.08.2007 12:57 |
I think if people would explain what we would see if we watched a Youtube clip, that would be helpful. Edit: (I don't like to watch anything disturbing, so even if I had high speed, I wouldn't just click on stuff.) Also, then those of us who don't want to watch the clip could understand what the comments are about. For example, from the comments, I now believe that probably the clip has Ted Nugent teaching his kids to shoot? Or teaching them to bow-hunt? Or talking about the joys of hunting and killing animals? Or (worst case) showing Ted Nugent killing an animal? |
Mr.Jingles 27.08.2007 13:29 |
Donna13 wrote: I think if people would explain what we would see if we watched a Youtube clip, that would be helpful. Edit: (I don't like to watch anything disturbing, so even if I had high speed, I wouldn't just click on stuff.) Also, then those of us who don't want to watch the clip could understand what the comments are about. For example, from the comments, I now believe that probably the clip has Ted Nugent teaching his kids to shoot? Or teaching them to bow-hunt? Or talking about the joys of hunting and killing animals? Or (worst case) showing Ted Nugent killing an animal?It's just hate speech. Disturbing, but not as disturbing as what he does. |
user name 27.08.2007 13:35 |
He's outspoken, but he's not a morally bankrupt evildoer that you people make him out to be. He actually rationalizes his opinions quite well. If anyone (Jingles?) wants to go point-to-point on each one of his views and why they are wrong, I will do my best to try to defend him. I'm not an expert on his point of view, so I'll need such a list to rebut. |
Mr.Jingles 27.08.2007 14:32 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: He actually rationalizes his opinions quite well.I've been think about what's so rational about claiming that the only solution in Iraq is to nuke the entire country. If there's any common sense on that statement, I would be more than glad to hear why. |
Micrówave 27.08.2007 15:10 |
Here here, Music Man. I don't think Ted seriously believes we would nuke Iraq. It's kinda the same opinion that my late father had, and I'm sure many of you here have an older generation that thinks likewise. Fortunately, there's enough people to remember what happened in Japan that something of that proportion won't happen... probably will come close, as it did in the Bay Of Pigs. But, I certainly wonder what Mr. Jingles' opinion would be if a certain rogue country developed the capability to nuke his neighborhood... or maybe the country where his mail-order bride came from. Would he THEN be OK with "Nukin' 'em till they glow", or would he go put on an aluminum foil helmut and hope for the best? |
user name 27.08.2007 16:03 |
I doubt that Ted actually means that we should destroy Iraq by means of nuclear armaments. It is merely an outlet of his frustration that such a country as Iraq would cause such significant troubles for the United States. Seriously, if that's the foundation of your entire beef with Ted, that's a little overblown and exaggerated. Actually, it's a lot overblown and exaggerated. It's kind of tantamount to people saying, "We should just kill off all the lawyers." These people obviously don't mean it literally, nor do they rationally believe that it would be a solution to the problem they are facing. It's merely an outlet of frustration, Jingles. No big deal, really. |
Mr.Jingles 27.08.2007 16:28 |
Micrówave wrote: But, I certainly wonder what Mr. Jingles' opinion would be if a certain rogue country developed the capability to nuke his neighborhood... or maybe the country where his mail-order bride came from.How pathetic that for a grown man you have no choice but to restore to low cheap shots. I guess that's your way of setling a debate, right? All I can say is that I truly hope that your daughter doesn't grow up to be like you. I certainly hope that the kid is smart enough to realize that there are much better people to look up to. |
Mr.Jingles 27.08.2007 16:52 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: I doubt that Ted actually means that we should destroy Iraq by means of nuclear armaments. It is merely an outlet of his frustration that such a country as Iraq would cause such significant troubles for the United States. Seriously, if that's the foundation of your entire beef with Ted, that's a little overblown and exaggerated. Actually, it's a lot overblown and exaggerated.Sorry, but if we allowed to justify the fact that an outlet of frustration entitles us to make such extreme statements, then why don't we allow the KKK to have the right to freely spread their racist doctrine among children in the same way that Ted Nugent is allowed to have hunting camps for kids. After all, does anyone really want their kids to be sent to a camp with a man who once was given the right to adopt a 17 year old girl just so he can have sex with her? We might as well be taking our kids to Neverland Ranch. |
Maz 27.08.2007 17:54 |
link I'd sure like to hear more about Ted's method of avoiding the draft. |
Micrówave 27.08.2007 18:17 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: then why don't we allow the KKK to have the right to freely spread their racist doctrine among children in the same way that Ted Nugent is allowed to have hunting camps for kids.Uh, we do. Ever been to Alabama? Mr.Jingles wrote: After all, does anyone really want their kids to be sent to a camp with a man who once was given the right to adopt a 17 year old girl just so he can have sex with her? We might as well be taking our kids to Neverland Ranch.So... Ted teaches you to have sex with 17-year-old girls at this camp? So... only sex happens at Neverland Ranch. Here's an idea. Let's have Ted's camp AT Neverland Ranch. You get to ride the Rapercoaster. |
user name 27.08.2007 20:09 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: Sorry, but if we allowed to justify the fact that an outlet of frustration entitles us to make such extreme statements, then why don't we allow the KKK to have the right to freely spread their racist doctrine among children in the same way that Ted Nugent is allowed to have hunting camps for kids. After all, does anyone really want their kids to be sent to a camp with a man who once was given the right to adopt a 17 year old girl just so he can have sex with her? We might as well be taking our kids to Neverland Ranch.It appears that Ted Nugent does have a history of romance with underage girls. However, that is irrelevant to his opinions...unless those opinions involve sex with minors. Anyway, "we should nuke Iraq" isn't really that extreme of a statement. Rather, it's an extreme statement, but you have to consider the seriousness and intent of the statement (both are minimal in this case). I mean, I can't even count how many times I've heard things like "I hope Bush gets assassinated," or something like that. In fact, these people probably would actually like for something like that to happen. The truth is that Nugent has unlikely invested a serious amount of time and effort to understand the situation in Iraq, so his opinion is merely the result of a lack of caring or attention. It's not even really an opinion, as much as a statement that he couldn't care less what happens in Iraq, but that he just wants it over with. That's fair enough. It's not "hate speech" or anything like that. Anyway, the KKK does have the right to indoctrinate whomever they so desire with any opinions they wish to impart. Not only that, but is there even anything wrong with a hunting camp? It sounds like you're just throwing everything about him against the wall, and seeing what sticks. |
Mr.Jingles 27.08.2007 21:08 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Anyway, "we should nuke Iraq" isn't really that extreme of a statement. Rather, it's an extreme statement, but you have to consider the seriousness and intent of the statement (both are minimal in this case). I mean, I can't even count how many times I've heard things like "I hope Bush gets assassinated," or something like that. In fact, these people probably would actually like for something like that to happen.But then, again. Where do we draw the line when it comes down to what's considered an "extreme statement"? I mean, it would be one thing to say: -"We should kill all the terrorists", a statement that even moderate sides of politics have made to declare that the only solution to stop extremists is by killing them before they kill innocent people. Some might even consider "killing terrorists" a extreme statement under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Then you have a statement such as -"Let's nuke Iraq", which states that in our pursue to hunt down terrorists, little does it matter how many innocent civilians would have to die as long we end up killing the terrorists. Now, does Ted Nugent know that by nuking Iraq we'd end up killing far more civilians than terrorists? He probably does, and does not give a shit considering that the man seems to have a morbid fascination with blowing to pieces anything that he doesn't like or anyone he disagrees with. Of course, such type hate speech is not exclusive of the far right, and the best example that we can give from the opossite side is Rage Against The Machine who recently made a statement where they said that Bush and the members of his administration should be "hung, and tried, and shot. As any war criminal should be". Certainly this wouldn't be such an extreme statement if they only called for members of the current administration to be sent to trial, but calling for someone to be executed indeed makes it extreme. Far even worse is the statement where RATM claims: "we have to stand up with the same force that the Iraqi youth are standing up with every day" Which makes it seems as they are giving their support towards the insurgency and any terrorist groups targeting U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Yet it seems like the media outlets are so used to the hate filled statements by RATM that it's nothing new when they make another one, but the day The Dixie Chicks said: -"We’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas", then all hell broke loose for the Dixie Chicks. |
LozlanTheMage 27.08.2007 21:16 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: I doubt that Ted actually means that we should destroy Iraq by means of nuclear armaments. It is merely an outlet of his frustration that such a country as Iraq would cause such significant troubles for the United States.Pardon me, but I believe it was the United States that brazenly decided to invade Iraq sans any sane reason. Yes, they are 'causing us trouble,' but we threw the rocks at this hornet's nest. The consequences, regrettable and dire as they are, fall on the heads of our illustrious leaders. So...should we nuke Washington? Ted? |
user name 27.08.2007 23:03 |
LozlanTheMage wrote:That's irrelevant to my point. Listen, people, we don't have to turn every single argument into, "We shouldn't have been there in the first place," no matter how popular it is.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: I doubt that Ted actually means that we should destroy Iraq by means of nuclear armaments. It is merely an outlet of his frustration that such a country as Iraq would cause such significant troubles for the United States.Pardon me, but I believe it was the United States that brazenly decided to invade Iraq sans any sane reason. Yes, they are 'causing us trouble,' but we threw the rocks at this hornet's nest. The consequences, regrettable and dire as they are, fall on the heads of our illustrious leaders. So...should we nuke Washington? Ted? |
user name 27.08.2007 23:06 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: -Snip-I suppose I understand your point, but I personally don't even take RATM's statements to be that big of a deal either. Their point is essentially, "We disapprove of the current administration," but in a more colorful way. I don't think there are any deep moral and philosophical reasonings behind these statements. So basically, does Ted really want the entirety of Iraq, innocent or not, to be nuked? We certainly cannot ascertain or imply that from his statement at all. |