The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: 1Buckshot on April 17, 2012, 05:57:29 PM
-
Some days he need to just keep his mouth shut. Not that I disagree with him. Just might be doing more harm than good.
http://news.yahoo.com/secret-looking-ted-nugents-violent-anti-obama-rant-215204802.html (http://news.yahoo.com/secret-looking-ted-nugents-violent-anti-obama-rant-215204802.html)
-
Part of the problem with America today is that gutless people have been pussy footing around the truth for so long.
Ted has guts enough to tell it like it is and that horrifies the pampered, PC unbullied, bike helmet wearing faggots.
Black is black, white is white and if they can't deal with that they should just die and make room for people who have eaten mud pies made with real mud.
-
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201204170018
Audio at link with Ted. It's the follow up interview after his remarks at the NRA Convention; On The Dana Loesch Show.....After listening to the interview, I can't see where I disagree with Ted.
What he says about Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Pelosi are true.. and the other subjects he points out.
Ted and Tom are right, Part of the problem with America today is that gutless people have been pussy footing around the truth for so long.
Ted has guts enough to tell it like it is and that horrifies the pampered, PC unbullied, bike helmet wearing faggots.
Black is black, white is white and if they can't deal with that they should just die and make room for people who have eaten mud pies made with real mud.
Bullseye!
-
Part of the problem with America today is that gutless people have been pussy footing around the truth for so long.
Ted has guts enough to tell it like it is and that horrifies the pampered, PC unbullied, bike helmet wearing faggots.
Black is black, white is white and if they can't deal with that they should just die and make room for people who have eaten mud pies made with real mud.
All In!!!
-
Some days he need to just keep his mouth shut. Not that I disagree with him. Just might be doing more harm than good.
http://news.yahoo.com/secret-looking-ted-nugents-violent-anti-obama-rant-215204802.html (http://news.yahoo.com/secret-looking-ted-nugents-violent-anti-obama-rant-215204802.html)
Homosexuals and abortion promoters - Look at what they do, listen to their rants, and listen to their strategy and you will learn one thing: Uncle Ted is where we should all be if we want to protect what we have left of our rights and to restore what we have been stripped of.
While many within in our own ranks are hating the NRA because they are too strong and loud, PETA, and the above named groups will tell us, and they have, that we are far too tame and quiet. Pay attention to the Brady Campaign and explain to me why we shouldn't crank it up.
-
Homosexuals and abortion promoters - Look at what they do, listen to their rants, and listen to their strategy and you will learn one thing: Uncle Ted is where we should all be if we want to protect what we have left of our rights and to restore what we have been stripped of.
While many within in our own ranks are hating the NRA because they are too strong and loud, PETA, and the above named groups will tell us, and they have, that we are far too tame and quiet. Pay attention to the Brady Campaign and explain to me why we shouldn't crank it up.
So what if it scares or alienates the "moderates".
They, who are willing to compromise away our rights, are more of a threat to our culture than the hardcore anti's, who are at best a marginal fringe, because they would rather give a little rather than say "F**k you, I'm giving nothing, and I'll kill you if you try to take."
They have no principles or beliefs, only "opinions " that they are not willing to defend.
By taking the road of " in your face" no compromise we may never change a single mind.
But folks will have no question about where we stand.
They will also have no doubt that if they want to take something from us, whether our guns, or our Republic, they better come hard, resolved that not every one will be going home.
-
It's important to separate the "message" from the "delivery." While most of us (or possibly all of us) agree with Uncle Ted's message, there are more than a few who may be less sure of the delivery.
It's one thing to say, "Damn the torpedoes" and go charging blindly forward with little regard for what is said, how it's said, and who is repulsed. It's quite another to engage in an intelligent and insightful dialogue using facts, reason, and logic to calmly but assertively defend your position. I'm not talking about dancing around the issues by spewing "politically correct" bullsh$t. I'm talking about wielding words as if they were weapons to masterfully lay waste to weak and ineffectual arguments. Calling people "idiots" and "cunts" and intimating violence just isn't effective (even if it is amazingly cathartic).
You have to get people to listen long enough, and closely enough, to actually hear the MESSAGE. A distasteful delivery pushes people away. I've been an Uncle Ted fan for years and I've heard him when his dialogue was sharp, witty, scholarly, and assertive -- totally dominating the conversation. The exchange referenced at the top of this thread does not represent the best that Nugent has to offer.
-
When the "message" is NO COMPROMISE, EVER, there is no point in a "an intelligent and insightful dialogue", which indicates an exchange of ideas.
The socialists, liberals, and anti's have nothing to say that is worth paying attention to unless you want to make fun of them by pointing out their "double think" reasoning.
-
We can't give up on communication... even with those that we disagree with the most. The "other side" may not listen to what we say anyway, but they certainly won't listen if we refuse to listen to them. The purpose of a debate is not necessarily to win over the opponent but rather to influence those who are merely listening.
It doesn't matter if the issue is 2A rights, the economy, unemployment, management of natural resources, or government spending - it's pretty well understood how the true conservatives will vote, how the socialists will vote, how the liberals will vote, how NRA members will vote, and so on. Our goal should extend beyond preaching to the choir. We MUST influence those in the middle, the centrists. Whether we like it or not, those are the folks who decide elections. And once elected, it's often the centrist legislators who pass, or block, important legislation that impacts all of us.
Spokesmen for a cause, any cause, who take the "in your face - no compromise" approach do a wonderful job rallying those who already believe. And this is critical for fund raising and turning out the vote. It isn't as effective, however, for positively influencing those who are undecided or those who view a partcular issue as secondary. Those who are undecided on an issue want to hear the debate, the dialogue, the reasonings and justifications for a position. To reach these people, we must be willing to communicate. We must offer the promise of an open mind. And we must present ourselves and our arguments in a palatable fashion.
-
We can't give up on communication... even with those that we disagree with the most. The "other side" may not listen to what we say anyway, but they certainly won't listen if we refuse to listen to them. The purpose of a debate...........
It's not a debate. It was a rout. Debating is what put us on this path from the 60's on. Facing it head on with CCW, etc. is what is bringing it back. Not to be ugly or anything, but the other side was winning. Being timid (attempting to have a reasonable dialogue) did not hold ground or gain ground.
We must gain ground. There is no dialogue. The guys who are listening are listening to the shrill voices and being won over. That can be countered only by standing and gaining ground...standing tall and talking loud.
That was the pattern, to engage in civil discourse, it by no means can be the pattern going forward unless we desire to lose what has been reclaimed and the foundation thereof. Our history over the last 50-60 years confirms this.
-
Nancy Reagan did not say compromise on drugs.
She did not say avoid crack, but weed is OK.
Her words were " JUST SAY NO".
-
When the "message" is NO COMPROMISE, EVER, there is no point in a "an intelligent and insightful dialogue", which indicates an exchange of ideas.
The socialists, liberals, and anti's have nothing to say that is worth paying attention to unless you want to make fun of them by pointing out their "double think" reasoning.
Well Uncle Ted sort of engages in this... it is just " inciteful dialog " on his part ;D ;D
-
It's not a debate. It was a rout. Debating is what put us on this path from the 60's on. Facing it head on with CCW,Carry, etc. is what is bringing it back. Not to be ugly or anything, but the other side was winning. Being timid (attempting to have a reasonable dialogue) did not hold ground or gain ground.
We must gain ground. There is no dialogue. The guys who are listening are listening to the shrill voices and being won over. That can be countered only by standing and gaining ground...standing tall and talking loud.
That was the pattern, to engage in civil discourse, it by no means can be the pattern going forward unless we desire to lose what has been reclaimed and the foundation thereof. Our history over the last 50-60 years confirms this.
Little personal edit there to reflect my feelings.
I listen. If I don't listen I don't know what direction to go in. However, it is no a debate. It is putting a stake in the ground and saying we will only go that direction from here. Once I know their rants, I respond to them. This may sound like debating, but it is not. In a debate it is possible to find a middle ground or to agree to disagree. I will do neither. In the words of Ted Nugent "I will either be in jail or dead!" if they think they are going to disarm me.
It is time that we renew the universal permit to carry - The Second Amendment to The Constitution of the United States of America.
-
It doesn't matter if the issue is 2A rights, the economy, unemployment, management of natural resources, or government spending - it's pretty well understood how the true conservatives will vote, how the socialists will vote, how the liberals will vote, how NRA members will vote, and so on. Our goal should extend beyond preaching to the choir. We MUST influence those in the middle, the centrists. Whether we like it or not, those are the folks who decide elections. And once elected, it's often the centrist legislators who pass, or block, important legislation that impacts all of us.
You can stop with that word right there - these are our rights you want to have a reasoned dialogue and compromise about. You can have reasoned dialogue and compromise about what to have for dinner, NOT what I can say or read, where I go to church (or if I can go), who I can associate with, whether I get to have "arms", if my home is secure from unreasonable search and seizure, etc.
We cannot afford to debate "the other side" - we always lose because the very act of debate on this means compromise. Screw the leaders of the other side, we have gone to the people and the people are responding with Gun Culture 2.0. We're winning. Now is not the time to retreat or compromise our victories, because those victories are about our rights, our liberties and our freedoms.
-
It is time that we renew the universal permit to carry - The Second Amendment to The Constitution of the United States of America.
FIFY
Damn near the entire document has been shredded by various occupants of the WH and their minions over the years, so we need to restore the lawful foundation and emphasize that every bit of it applies today.
-
Damn near the entire document has been shredded by various occupants of the WH and their minions over the years, so we need to restore the lawful foundation and emphasize that every bit of it applies today.
+1 Path.
-
FIFY
Damn near the entire document has been shredded by various occupants of the WH and their minions over the years, so we need to restore the lawful foundation and emphasize that every bit of it applies today.
True, but even the Founding Fathers realized that we would have asshats among us that would need it spelled out >:(
By the way, the next time some anti gets ranting about the Founding Fathers not envisioning the types of weapons we have today, they did include artillery and blades of all lengths, shapes and sizes in their reasoning. How many of those items are banned today by the "reasonable thinker"?
-
Let's review:
“The war is coming to the streets of America and if you are not keeping and bearing and practicing with your arms then you will be helpless and you will be the victim of evil.” Ted Nugent
Mr. Janet Reno? I think Mr. Janet Reno... I think he's one of the best hunting dogs in the world.
Ted Nugent
There are hundreds of millions of gun owners in this country, and not one of them will have an accident today. The only misuse of guns comes in environments where there are drugs, alcohol, bad parents, and undisciplined children. Period.
Ted Nugent
"You mean to say that when an imbecile walks into a church, office, day care center, or school, stumbling about, almost zombie-like, with gun-filled hands at his side, blabbering incoherently to his next victim, the reaction of grown men and women is to run, cry, whimper, and hide under a desk or pew? The sheeping of America is nearly complete." Ted Nugent.
His own words are better...
Get It?
-
OK, I understand. Nobody likes compromise. It's seen as weak... timid. We all want to stand tall and proud while making our demands and daring anyone foolish enough to cross the line we've drawn in the sand. Well, consider one of our most important victories - carry laws.
Concealed carry, open carry, constitutional carry - whatever type of law a given State may have - has been offered here as the epitome of the "no compromise" approach to protecting our rights or advancing the recognition of those rights. Let me offer this challenge... find just one of those carry laws that passed EXACTLY as it was originally proposed... just one. I don't think you'll find one. Debate, argument, compromise, revision, and then more debate is at the very heart of the legislative process. Each side is attempting to garner enough votes to either pass or block the proposed law. And if the bill survives this process, you can be sure that the final language of the law will be far different than originally introduced.
So the next time you exercise your right as a law-abiding citizen and carry your weapon as prescribed by law, stop to think for a moment that someone's compromise may be responsible for saving your life.
-
OK, I understand. Nobody likes compromise. It's seen as weak... timid. We all want to stand tall and proud while making our demands and daring anyone foolish enough to cross the line we've drawn in the sand. Well, consider one of our most important victories - carry laws.
Concealed carry, open carry, constitutional carry - whatever type of law a given State may have - has been offered here as the epitome of the "no compromise" approach to protecting our rights or advancing the recognition of those rights. Let me offer this challenge... find just one of those carry laws that passed EXACTLY as it was originally proposed... just one. I don't think you'll find one. Debate, argument, compromise, revision, and then more debate is at the very heart of the legislative process. Each side is attempting to garner enough votes to either pass or block the proposed law. And if the bill survives this process, you can be sure that the final language of the law will be far different than originally introduced.
So the next time you exercise your right as a law-abiding citizen and carry your weapon as prescribed by law, stop to think for a moment that someone's compromise may be responsible for saving your life.
You are the one who isn't getting it.
If it had not been for spineless people who were willing to compromise on our rights in the first place getting them back never would have become an issue.
And just so you know, I would carry regardless of local law.
-
One last try...
Our beloved Constitution... that amazing document whose demise we all fear... has been rightfully heralded time and time again as the greatest plan for a new nation ever written by man. We bemoan its abuse, we argue about its meaning, we struggle with its interpretation, we despise those who slander it, and we gladly give our lives to defend it. There are many readers on this very forum who are far greater students of history than am I but I believe that most would agree on this - the Constitution, the National treasure that we so vociferously honor, is itself a product of compromise.
Listen folks, I'm a card-carrying member of the "Molon Labe" club and share the outrage that is so passionately expressed on this forum and elsewhere. My only intent has been to show that compromise, like any other tool, can be used masterfully or ineptly. To compromise on an issue does not mean that you have lost the argument. It can mean that you have positioned yourself for a far greater victory in the future. There are some issues, of course, for which any degree of compromise is moral heresy - for these you stand firm and follow in the blood-pooled footsteps of Leonidas I. For other situations, from the boardroom to the bedroom, compromise should be allowed - if used wisely.
I offer this, a parting thought that surely we can agree on - whether voiced in raucous flurry as is Uncle Ted's strength or expressed in a more stately manner as is wont for those who ponder the full weight of their words - November must witness the defeat of one of the worst Presidents are country has ever endured.
God bless and stay safe.
-
I will always disagree with compromise. I would also suggest that compromise should not be loosely defined. What I mean by that is that state CCW laws got us what we wanted, perhaps not all we wanted, but the proponents did not compromise...it was the politicians. The politicians who supported CCW did so because the people demanded it and then we got what the politicians settled for. So, in essence, not getting what you want does not define an action or group of people as those who did compromise...the foundation did not or may not have and the politician, or person of action, did compromise. Also, weak CCW laws are being strengthened across the board because compromise is bitter and must be corrected.
For instance, here in Oklahoma we have a guy who cosponsored the open carry bill who is a "Republican". The reason he co-sponsored, well the dirt right up front on the douche, is that he needs one more term to get retirement and on his way to the golden land the people found out he was a cheese eating liberal. The guy has never done anything to support guns, in fact he has worked the other side to restrict gun use and ownership. Now that his actions and voting records are being scrutinized he had to do something desperate so he could hold onto that free money at the end of the rainbow. So, in saying that, people willing to compromise and work with their representative would have gotten zero...no compromise we're going to vote your ass out got action even though the slug of a public official had to do a 180 degree turn. NO COMPROMISE....people who compromise routinely (words have meaning, read them carefully) will sell you out for their own self-preservation...this is a good case in point.
The OK State Rep. has sold out his liberal "beliefs" and backers (RINO's and RINO supporters) to get "his" goodies at the end of the rainbow. Now ponder that RINO's and RINO supporters in general (I'm not say you JL) realize and accept that "compromise must be made". The great men who founded this nation worked very hard to avoid war, but when it could not be avoided their was no compromise....it was very much win or die (except as in the traiter, Benedict Arnold). We are in a political war...there can be no compromise on our part. We work the people in political office who do not support us as comrades because they have fear of losing some personal gain...if we are weak we lose effectiveness. The moral compass of selfish sellout politicians is unstable and will align with strength and power from which they gain security. A willingness to compromise is on the surface weakness by definition. I do not compromise what I say or believe....do not read that as I will spout the hard line to all people all the time...it means I do not compromise and if I engage people I engage them at the level of understanding that they possess. Ted Nugent was with brothers and sisters who possessed a high level of understanding of what the fight is, what the fight means and, more importantly, what losing this fight results in both as a right and in the larger context of what our nation shall become if we fail.
No compromise does not mean that in our specific conversations with others we always "Cry havoc.." at each and every discussion and meeting. But it does mean that we do not compromise and that sometimes we do stand and refuse to be shouted down and treated like a bitch dog.
-
One last try...
Our beloved Constitution... that amazing document whose demise we all fear... has been rightfully heralded time and time again as the greatest plan for a new nation ever written by man. We bemoan its abuse, we argue about its meaning, we struggle with its interpretation, we despise those who slander it, and we gladly give our lives to defend it. There are many readers on this very forum who are far greater students of history than am I but I believe that most would agree on this - the Constitution, the National treasure that we so vociferously honor, is itself a product of compromise.
Listen folks, I'm a card-carrying member of the "Molon Labe" club and share the outrage that is so passionately expressed on this forum and elsewhere. My only intent has been to show that compromise, like any other tool, can be used masterfully or ineptly. To compromise on an issue does not mean that you have lost the argument. It can mean that you have positioned yourself for a far greater victory in the future. There are some issues, of course, for which any degree of compromise is moral heresy - for these you stand firm and follow in the blood-pooled footsteps of Leonidas I. For other situations, from the boardroom to the bedroom, compromise should be allowed - if used wisely.
I offer this, a parting thought that surely we can agree on - whether voiced in raucous flurry as is Uncle Ted's strength or expressed in a more stately manner as is wont for those who ponder the full weight of their words - November must witness the defeat of one of the worst Presidents are country has ever endured.
God bless and stay safe.
What was the result of the Constitution being a compromise document ?
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_casualties_were_in_the_Civil_War
Compromise ?
Lousy idea.
-
There are some issues, of course, for which any degree of compromise is moral heresy - for these you stand firm and follow in the blood-pooled footsteps of Leonidas I.
For many of us, "Reasonable Gun Control" is one of those issues that requires a firm stand.
There will be no compromise to scumbag politicians who would use that compromise to hinder, block or otherwise infringe on our God given rights.
I agree with the gist of your post: compromise "from the boardroom to the bedroom" is something we do everyday and is and of itself on most issues, not a bad thing. It's not an option on this issue.
I offer this, a parting thought that surely we can agree on - whether voiced in raucous flurry as is Uncle Ted's strength or expressed in a more stately manner as is wont for those who ponder the full weight of their words - November must witness the defeat of one of the worst Presidents are country has ever endured.
Truth!!