Ted Nugent talks about our eroding rights

[Yippee38]

And I believe in the seperation of church and state.

I too believe in the separation of church and state. I believe that the gov't should not make any ruling regarding religion at all. For example, they cannot tell a town to remove the cross or Star of David from their city's shield, or force a courtroom to remove a plaque of the ten commandments. Forcing the lack of religion is the same as forcing a religion.

Rush Limbaugh?

I think they point is that Rush Limbaugh offers an opinion that differs from the mass media Obama worship.

Our country is doomed as long as the masses continue to turn on the TV and shut off their minds. They accept the crap that mass media spews at them as 100% truth without questioning if it makes sense. Then they go out and vote based on that misinformation. Worse are the people who vote for a candidate because they are a member of a certain religion and must vote conservative, or because they're a member of a union so must vote liberal, or vote for a party because their father and his father voted that way. America needs to wake up and think.

 

[Comic Book Dude]

Government isn't the problem people...we are the frickin' government. The problem is the fact that we are a corporate fascistic state. You want to fix this broken country? I say we start by revoking corporations rights as people.....they own this country and are lording over it's demise.

 

[edgeofthorns]

Rush Limbaugh? That man has the credibility of an oxycodone addict.

I consider myself very conservative and even I can't stand Rush Limbaugh nor Michael Savage. Both of these guys are "bomb throwers" wanting to get the highest ratings possible, period.

I believe that the gov't should not make any ruling regarding religion at all. For example, they cannot tell a town to remove the cross or Star of David from their city's shield, or force a courtroom to remove a plaque of the ten commandments. Forcing the lack of religion is the same as forcing a religion.

Yippee, I totally agree with you.

~Brian~

 

[PurpleCrayonWriter]

I consider myself very conservative and even I can't stand Rush Limbaugh nor Michael Savage. Both of these guys are "bomb throwers" wanting to get the highest ratings possible, period.

~Brian~

Sorry to disagree with you, Brian. But there's no "period" about it. I've listened to both for many years -- to Rush for close to a decade. I don't hear ratings-mongers. I hear people who have a genuine concern about America. Their ratings come from the same source as do Ted's -- from telling the truth, from speaking common sense fluently, and from putting themselves at risk of being the butt of jokes (or worse) for speaking their minds.

Often, I learn best when I try to disprove someone. If somebody -- let's say Rush Limbaugh -- says something I initially don't agree with, I don't just react viscerally and disagree. I find facts to prove him wrong. My contrary opinion wouldn't mean shit if it weren't supported by solid facts.

Nine times out of 10 I can't disprove Rush. He offers sound bites of people saying things, he reads from the mainstream media, he reads from bloggers. He uses people's own words to form his opinions. So, for me to disprove him, I'd have to disallow the facts (the people's own words) he provided. And what sense does that make?

I'm not a dumb guy. And I'm far from easily swayed. If I thought Rush was spewing anything but the truth -- the same truth Ted Nugent utters -- I'd be outta there.

It's okay not to like Rush as a person. You can hate his personality all you want. Hate his voice. Hate his appearance. But I don't think it's possible to find fault with his facts. And, once you realize that, you understand why the mainstream media -- and, especially, the White House -- tries to gin up public sentiment against him. It's not possible to "fight" him any other way that subjectively and viscerally. Because, intellectually, he's untouchable.

Bill

P.S. Michael Savage is a character, an acquired taste I haven't yet acquired. He's full of himself. But he's armed with facts up the wazoo, too. I don't like Savage as much. But I listen to him occasionally when I want a swift, eye-opening kick in the pants.

 

[Ascension]

Nine times out of 10 I can't disprove Rush. He offers sound bites of people saying things, he reads from the mainstream media, he reads from bloggers. He uses people's own words to form his opinions. So, for me to disprove him, I'd have to disallow the facts (the people's own words) he provided. And what sense does that make?



It's okay not to like Rush as a person. You can hate his personality all you want. Hate his voice. Hate his appearance. But I don't think it's possible to find fault with his facts. And, once you realize that, you understand why the mainstream media -- and, especially, the White House -- tries to gin up public sentiment against him. It's not possible to "fight" him any other way that subjectively and viscerally. Because, intellectually, he's untouchable.

Very true. l'm not a Rushophile in any way. l can't even remember the last time l heard a show. But, from bites that are aired on other shows...l've seen where the guy has his stuff nailed down. He uses the Libs words against themselves & that's what puts them over the edge...he is a master at that.Then at that point it's business as usual with name calling, dirty laundry, etc. from the Libs. Does Rush bait them? Without a doubt...this is where his ratings are...and they fall for it.

 

[Comic Book Dude]

Opinions are not fact. Rush is a demagogue and cannot be trusted....the same way you won't trust the so-called "liberal media" (which should actually be called the "corporate" media...it's not interested in the truth, just the almighty dollar and furthuring their own interests.).

 

[nailz]

I too believe in the separation of church and state. I believe that the gov't should not make any ruling regarding religion at all. For example, they cannot tell a town to remove the cross or Star of David from their city's shield, or force a courtroom to remove a plaque of the ten commandments. Forcing the lack of religion is the same as forcing a religion.

Ehm... Seperation of Church and State means that there shouldn't be religion of any kind inside of a government organization. What you're saying is exactly the opposite. To admit a town or a court favors the moral values of a specific religion and not the constitution is exactly the OPPOSITE of Seperation of Church and State. =\

Forcing the ideology of religion out of the courts and government is not the same as forcing it INTO the courts. If you're Trying a muslim in a courtroom with the 10 commandments displayed in a city with the star of david on their city shield, how does that even begin to seem fair and balanced?

I think they point is that Rush Limbaugh offers an opinion that differs from the mass media Obama worship.

I think the point is Rush Limbaugh is a fat bag of egotistical cancer living in his own mind, as he continues to drive a massive wedge down a party line he thinks he's saving. Good for him. Sometimes, the wretch that comes out of his mouth is so absolutely idiotic I have to wonder if even he believes it.

 

[PurpleCrayonWriter]

Opinions are not fact.

Absolutely correct, CBD. But opinions based on facts are nevertheless still hard to refute. Plus, as has been pointed out, Rush merely repeats back what others have said -- using sound bites, quotes from articles and blogs, books, and live interviews. It's not easy to refute statements you can hear with your own ears.

Rush is a demagogue and cannot be trusted....

Now that's an opinion that can be refuted. Trust is formed when what someone says can be verified and relied upon. The more times that happens, the more trust is built up.

I listen to Rush as often as possible, sometimes every day. I trust what he says because when he makes predictions about what he thinks will happen -- based on the past as well as statements made by current politicians and pundits -- he's right more often than not. Plus (and this is a a key point) he bases his statements on principles. So his foundation doesn't shift with the political wind. His comments may change. But his foundation doesn't. So all I have to do to test his theories or opinions is examine his foundations. If they match, I know he's being true to himself rather than selling out to the highest bidder.

...the same way you won't trust the so-called "liberal media" (which should actually be called the "corporate" media...it's not interested in the truth, just the almighty dollar and furthuring their own interests.).

There's nothing wrong with "the almighty dollar." I'm an unabashed capitalist. I believe it's everyone's right to make as much money as they can, and then to use their money for whatever they wish to use it on. Without profits, there is no economic growth. Anyone who says otherwise has never studied Economics 101.

Furthermore, there's nothing wrong with corporations. Just because something is a corporation doesn't mean it's evil or bad or wrong. Corporations are neutral. It's what they do that makes them good or bad.

The media is bad because it's not a watchdog. It's a lapdog. It's in the tank for one party and for the government. That's an extremely dangerous combination, one shared only by the governments of China, Russia, North Korea, and Venezuela among other totalitarian/socialist countries.

End result: It's easy these days to become jaded, cynical, and angry. That's why Talk Radio is so important to the preservation of our freedoms. Without it, the mainstream/government media would have a total monopoly on the minds of Americans. Talk Radio gives people hope for the kind of change America really needs.

When I hear reports about the increasing opposition and the groundswell of grassroots activism I'm excited and hopeful we are not in the twilight of our country. There's hope because there's still time to change things.

But it takes people like Ted Nugent, Ron Paul, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich, John Boehner, Sarah Palin, and others whose mouths are big but who have something of substance to back them up. Those are the people I listen to these days.

Bill

 

[SharkBlack]

Fun Fun!! You Go People!! Good Stuff!! I Love it!!

 

[nailz]

Often, I learn best when I try to disprove someone. If somebody -- let's say Rush Limbaugh -- says something I initially don't agree with, I don't just react viscerally and disagree. I find facts to prove him wrong. My contrary opinion wouldn't mean shit if it weren't supported by solid facts.

Allow me to give you an example of countless phone calls I have heard on the Rush Limbaugh show:

Caller: "Rush, I disagree with you on Issue X."
FatBag: "WELL WHAT DO YOU KNOW, ANOTHER LIBERAL JERK CALLING ME A LIAR."
C: "No, no, actually I'm quite conservative. If you jus.."
FB: "OOOH, SURE YOU ARE, CALLING YOURSELF A CONSERVATIVE, LIVING IN YOUR HEAD, YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT IT MEANS TO LOVE AMERICA."
C: "Bu.." *click*
FB: "I AM SO SICK OF YOU PEOPLE AND YOUR LIBERAL AGENDA AND YOUR DRIVE BY MEDIA. DON'T YOU PEOPLE REALIZE YOU HAVE TO WAKE UP AND STOP BEING LED TO THE SLAUGHER?....etc etc etc"

The man is a ratings whore, plain and simple.

Absolutely correct, CBD. But opinions based on facts are nevertheless still hard to refute. Plus, as has been pointed out, Rush merely repeats back what others have said -- using sound bites, quotes from articles and blogs, books, and live interviews. It's not easy to refute statements you can hear with your own ears.

For everything Rush says, John Stewart points out something equally absurd. Sometimes, out of context, sometimes not, the difference is, one is the most trusted man in media, on a comedy network, and the other is a radio talk show host who polarizes everyone and takes everything seriously.

But it takes people like ... Ann Coulter, ... Sarah Palin, ... whose mouths are big but who have something of substance to back them up. Those are the people I listen to these days.

Just who I want to shape my political views, a crazy broad who claims the wives of the people who died in the two towers are attention seeking whores and a assbacked redneck who thinks man rode on dinosaurs to hunt saber-tooth tigers. I find Ann Coulter hilarious though, but probably not for the same reasons you do.

 

[Comic Book Dude]

There's nothing wrong with corporations....unless they have a stranglehold on the government and are steering it's politics. Corps don't give a crap about the individual person...we're just commodoties to them. All that matters is profit, and that does not lend itself to a healthy society. It just leads to a greater disparity between the rich and poor. If you don't mind living in a serfdom, by all means, support those corporations. The way we're going now, it won't be long before we're living in a version of Mike Judge's film "Idiocracy".

 

[Yippee38]

Ehm... Seperation of Church and State means that there shouldn't be religion of any kind inside of a government organization. What you're saying is exactly the opposite. To admit a town or a court favors the moral values of a specific religion and not the constitution is exactly the OPPOSITE of Seperation of Church and State. =

No. It means the government shouldn't regulate religion. That's all.

Your example is a good extreme, but what about an athiest being tried in that same courtroom with a plaque of the 10 commandments outside? Will they feel they cannot get a fair trial there? What about a Christian being tried in that same courtroom after those 10 commandments have been removed? Religion should not play a part in it unless it directly is related to the case. In that case, each lawyer should try to ensure that the jury is made up of jurors both of sympathetic religions (or lack thereof) and differening religions (or lack thereof). To give another extreme example, that's like saying that a black person should feel that they won't get a fair trial in a courthouse that has a statue of a white person outside it (or vice versa).

 

[nailz]

Your example is a good extreme, but what about an athiest being tried in that same courtroom with a plaque of the 10 commandments outside? Will they feel they cannot get a fair trial there?

It has been my experience that Atheists are thought of as morally defunct people who are destined to burn in hell by Christians who can't believe that having no belief in god can lend itself to a just life.

Watch the episode of 30 days where the Atheist goes to live with a family of Christians. For the most part, this is the every day experience of every Atheist I know. I've known non-believers who were more afraid to tell their parents they had no belief in god than to tell them anything else.

I've asked friends who I know to hold strong religous convictions what they would do if their children came to them and told them they were an athiest or agnostic. Their first response was "I'd wonder what I did wrong." WTF is that??

I wanted specifically avoid using an Atheist reference, however, because it's too easy to prove my point. Look at the reaction in London when Atheists wanted to put up a bus ad saying "There probably is no god, so quit worrying and enjoy life." You'd think they started a witch hunt. It was challenged in court as offensive, and fortunately, the courts upheld their right to put up the ad, citing other religous groups had advertised on the bus system as well.

On my way home from work, I am utterly ASSULTED by Religous propaganda, and it makes me sick. It turns me off so much to see everyone wearing it on their sleeve and on billboards and mega churches, it nearly tore my faith apart. I have sense turned away from the catholic church, because, frankly, it has become a mockery of what I believe. I can't even imagine what it must be like to be an Atheist. Probably like being gay in the 50's.

What about a Christian being tried in that same courtroom after those 10 commandments have been removed?

I don't understand why a Christian would assume s/he can't get a fair trial if the courtroom doesn't display the 10 commandments, nor any religious sect would feel that way if no religious symbolism was there. Belief in God, or Allah or Zeus wasn't a valid defense last I checked. In fact, it got Joan of Arc killed. I don't understand why the 10 commandments, or any religous paraphinalia should be up in a courtroom.

Believe whatever you want to believe, but don't force it on me. I'm tried of looking at it. Your belief system has no business in my life.

 

[AeonicSlumber]

I'm not a dumb guy.

I don't know you, but yes, if you actually think that Hannity, Coulter, and Limbaugh are truthful then you have to be dumb.

It's not a matter of political bias, it's a matter of being suckered into idiocy and half-truths made by these guys. It's a sad state of affairs when comedians like Colbert/Stewart/Maher are more objective than the people who pretend to be journalists (that includes MSNBC along with Fox News).

What most people don't know, is that most of these guys like Hannity and Coulter were actually quite moderate at one point (I've listened to Hannity on the radio for about 10 years and before he blew up like he did, he was much more relaxed and moderate), but once they got syndicated they become sick disgusting ratings whores lying off their asses to get whatever word in they could so their inbred trailer trash fanbase (not saying that any of you guys are amongst that crowd by the way, I'm not gonna make that judgement since I don't know ya, but that group exists and they ain't Obama fans) could keep tuning in. Hell, Bill Maher and Coulter actually dated at one point and when she'd comment on his show, she'd STILL be all lovey dovey and bend over to him. They purposely spew crap to their "base" to make money.

None of these hacks talk with any factual accuracy whatsoever. I pretty much debunked Rush's entire interview with Gretta Van Sustren (who used to work for CNN as a liberal LOL -- more proof that you've all been duped by these nutjobs) last week in my sleep.

That's an extremely dangerous combination, one shared only by the governments of China, Russia, North Korea, and Venezuela among other totalitarian/socialist countries.

Dude, you've been spouting about how factually competent you are and you don't know the difference between socialism and communism, NONE of you guys do it seems. Please stop posting about something you know nothing about. Among countless other things, if it wasn't for socialism, bands like Opeth wouldn't be able to tour etc. Alot of countries' goverments award money to bands who originate from there to tour, produce videos etc. Idiotic neocons PURPOSELY confuse socialism for communism to use it as a buzzword and protect greedy ass corporations who don't contribute to society and live to make a profit. Countries like Sweden, Finland, Norway, The Netherlands, are socialist and their citizens have a higher quality of life than we do. Russia and North Korea are ruled by a communist/dictatorship.

What do you think having a government fire department and a police department is? That's socialism. And Neocons that say "DO WE WANT BUREAUCRATS CONTROLING OUR HEALTHCARE WHEN THEY CANT EVEN RUN THE DMV." Yeah, our government is really incompetent, look at our MILLITARY.../sarcasm.

Corporations are fucking awful. The way we've corpratized everything from drinking water to healthcare to prisons is disgusting. There's nothing wrong with making some money, and I believe that capitalism can be a beautiful thing, but we have taken it to the absolute extreme and it's pretty sickening.

Sure the dollar sustains our country just like our sex drive sustains our human race. That doesn't mean we go out having sex with everything that moves, so why should we try to make a fucking profit off everything that exists?

Yes I did, and I too believe in seperation of Church and state. But to me, and remember this is my opinion and belief. I believe that any Church or religion has no business meddling in Government, but we must have a faith in God. Am i religious? Not religious but spiritual, I do believe in a god.

The very definition of religion is something that requires you to believe in a spiritual reality. Religion and spirituality are interchangeable. And the idea that everyone HAS to believe in a god is also quite sickening. You're more than welcome to believe whatever you want and you'll have my utmost respect, but don't try to convert me to your beliefs please.

People who seriously think that Obama was going to change the world in 6 months are insane. People who attack the mainstream media, who were all on Bush's teat when he was elected, and against Gore, are misguided. You are all liars and hypocrites if you support this extremist, idiotic garbage.


Full disclosure by the way -- I am not liberal. I'm a registered independent.

 

[AeonicSlumber]

One example I vividly remember of how stupid/pathetic Hannity is:

The day after the VTech shootings there was also an assassination in Japan. Hannity was defending the second amendment and he said something along the lines of "see here now, Japan has very strict gun laws and very low gun crime but even then these things happen." He's either a complete imbecile, or a fake character like Stephen Colbert to say something like that. If strict gun laws lead to very few gun-related deaths, then this genius contradicted himself.

 

[AeonicSlumber]

If we all got cancer right now, private medicine would be making trillions right now. If we're not being controlled by the government, we're being controlled by some soulless rich motherfucker in a tower. Freedom is an illusion.

 

[nailz]

Freedom is an illusion.

Maybe, but I'll take my illusion of freedom over anyone elses any day. That said, I'd rather the illusion stay constant, than move to a more, non-freedom type of illusion.

But lets face it, Health Care > Health Insurance.

On a lighter note:

 

[AeonicSlumber]

No. It means the government shouldn't regulate religion. That's all.

That's not true at all.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

It's not an issue of regulation; regulation implies that Gov't would otherwise be telling the Church what to do. It's an issue of having ANY semblance of religion in government whatsoever, whether it's for pro-religion or anti-religion. Gov't can't declare a national Church day in which we all give $10 to our local Churches just like they can't declare that Churches be burned down.


However, Gov't CAN regulate Churches. For example, if there was an establishment of some Aztec religion where human sacrifices were taking place, the police can shut it down.

l agree on W.... My hat's off to him for a job well done there.

How does getting a memo in August 2001 saying that Osama Bin Laden is going to smash planes into WTC towers and ignoring it and then going on more vacation than any President in the history of the United States = keeping us safe? You can't say "well we were never attacked after 9/11 so therefore he kept us safe." Godzilla didn't rise up from the deep and blow his nuclear breath all over California during Obama, so therefore I'm gonna say Obama has done an excellent job fending off Godzilla.

And even if that logic did work at all (which.. hah.. it doesn't), he was still responsible for 9/11. It happened under his watch, he knew about it before it happened. He also covered up pedophiles and sent our troops to die in a dessert on a lie among countless other atrocities. To quote my favorite comedian Patton Oswalt: "If the standard for impeachment is getting a blowjob or covering up a burglary, shouldn't we have killed George Bush by now?"

And before you say "well Clinton had an opportunity to get Bin Laden and he passed on it, so we can make the same judgements about him as you are with Bush, eh?" No. Because 9/11 did not happen under Clinton and that's how it is. It happened under Bush. Clinton wasn't responsible for thousands of American lives, Bush was. And not only that, but Clinton has since apologized for letting Bin Laden go admitting it was one of his biggest blunders. He even drew up plans to capture Bin Laden that he handed to the Bush administration that they promptly flushed down the toilet. So even though Clinton was VERY much an imperfect Prez, and he royally fucked up with Bin Laden, he took responsibility for his mistake. Bush/Cheney never did. They are disgusting slime.

I think I pretty much successfully debunked alot of misguided "facts" in this thread. Take care all.

 

[Yippee38]

That's not true at all.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

It's not an issue of regulation; regulation implies that Gov't would otherwise be telling the Church what to do. It's an issue of having ANY semblance of religion in government whatsoever, whether it's for pro-religion or anti-religion. Gov't can't declare a national Church day in which we all give $10 to our local Churches just like they can't declare that Churches be burned down.

Not sure how you got that out of your quote. When I read that it makes me think that their intent was to prohibit the government from making laws (regulation) that require the practice of any religion, or prohibit the practice of any religion. It doesn't say anything about keep religion out of our government. If that was what they meant, don't you think they would have chosen to not use "in God We Trust" and "one nation under God"?

 

[Yippee38]

It has been my experience that Atheists are thought of as morally defunct people who are destined to burn in hell by Christians who can't believe that having no belief in god can lend itself to a just life.

It has been my experience that anybody who believes in any form of God is thought of as a self-deluding moron by athiests who can't believe that having belief in a god proves that a person is a complete and utter moron.

I've asked friends who I know to hold strong religous convictions what they would do if their children came to them and told them they were an athiest or agnostic. Their first response was "I'd wonder what I did wrong." WTF is that??

I don't doubt that. If I felt strongly about my belief in one religion and raised my children that way, I would hope that they would form a similar conclusion as I had. I would definitely be disappointed if they formed an opposite belief. BTW, that applies to any moral issue.

I wanted specifically avoid using an Atheist reference, however, because it's too easy to prove my point. Look at the reaction in London when Atheists wanted to put up a bus ad saying "There probably is no god, so quit worrying and enjoy life." You'd think they started a witch hunt. It was challenged in court as offensive, and fortunately, the courts upheld their right to put up the ad, citing other religous groups had advertised on the bus system as well.

You make my point above. I've seen people standing outside of bars yelling at patrons and telling them that their soul is damned if they don't repent now and change their ways. They will burn for eternity. I've gotten in arguements with them because even though I am Christian, I don't believe that is the way to win people over. That is a way to drive them further away.

I've also seen people who have bumper stickers that say stuff like "Jesus Saves," or whatever. I feel that is fairly harmless. It is, IMO, as harmless as a bumper sticker that has the name of a politician who you don't like. You don't agree with it, but it's pretty harmless. Most of them don't tell you that if you don't believe, there is something wrong with you. I'm sure they are out there, but I don't see them.

OTOH, I've seen lots of bumper stickers that say, "There is no God Moron!" and stuff like that. I have never seen a bumper sticker that said something like, "I don't believe in God." Instead, they are always derogitory toward those who do believe in a god.

On my way home from work, I am utterly ASSULTED by Religous propaganda, and it makes me sick. It turns me off so much to see everyone wearing it on their sleeve and on billboards and mega churches, it nearly tore my faith apart. I have sense turned away from the catholic church, because, frankly, it has become a mockery of what I believe. I can't even imagine what it must be like to be an Atheist. Probably like being gay in the 50's.

I can understand that. As I said above, I don't think ANYBODY should force their beliefs (even if they are a lack of belief) on anybody else. IMO, that is just wrong.

I don't understand why a Christian would assume s/he can't get a fair trial if the courtroom doesn't display the 10 commandments, nor any religious sect would feel that way if no religious symbolism was there.

Because, as I've implied above, my feeling as a Christian is that atheists believe that anybody who believes in a god is a complete idiot who is delusional, or looking for excuses for why their life isn't perfect. Where I live, and I realize it may be the opposite where you live, atheists are very outspoken in their contempt for those who believe in any god. I would be uncomfortable having a jury of atheists.

Believe whatever you want to believe, but don't force it on me. I'm tried of looking at it. Your belief system has no business in my life.

Agreed. 100%