Uncle Ted's At It Again

[1Buckshot]

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

[tombogan03884]

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.

[twyacht]

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!

[TexGun]

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!!!

[MikeBjerum]

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

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.

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

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.

[JLawson]

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.

[tombogan03884]

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.

[JLawson]

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.

[Rastus]

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.