UPDATE BELOW
Yeah. We know Ted "I crapped my pants to get out of serving my country" Nugent is not supported by everyone in the Gee-Oh-Pee. But too many of the Republican Party's leaders have no problem being seen in his company or associating with him -- including the presidential nominee of the Republican Party, Mitt Romney. It is true that he has found a comfortable home within that political party, even to the point where the Attorney General of the State of Texas, Greg Abbott, is not ashamed to be seen with and encourage a self-admitted sexual predator to campaign for him.
A very larger chunk of Gee-Oh-Pee-ers love the Nuge.
Quoted below is what Sarah Palin and Sean Hannity's friend, Ted Nugent, had to say about the President of the United States of America. (Oh yes, it is a free country and our Constitution allows any crackpot to say any loathsome thing about America's president, as long as it doesn't contain a death threat.) This sorry waste of a flesh and blood is definitely a Gee-Oh-Pee-er, and apparently no one who belongs to that once great party is ashamed of the jackass or is brave enough to call him out on his repulsive idiocy:
Ted Nugent:
"I have obviously failed to galvanize and prod, if not shame enough Americans to be ever vigilant not to let a Chicago communist-raised, communist-educated, communist-nurtured subhuman mongrel 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.”
There you go, Republican Party! One of your very own!
And what a role model for your children!
Will you read this fine piece of Republican sentiment about the President of the United States of America to your darling little ones at night before they say their prayers and fall into sweet, innocent slumber?
“If he [Greg Abbott] is good enough for Ted Nugent, he is good enough for me!” Palin wrote.
Oh, Sarah! EXACTLY the sort of guy you'd agree with: a foul-mouthed, underwear-pooping draft-avoider and self-admitted sexual predator.
Good on you, Sarah! "Classy."
UPDATE:
Oh this is sweet. Apparently little soiled prissy-pants Nugent is really brave when he's shooting off his filthy mouth but he was too chicken to face Wolf Blitzer? Hahahahahahahaha! What a little yellow weasel.
Cowardly Ted Nugent can’t take the heat. After getting called out by Wolf Blitzer for calling President Obama a “subhuman mongrel,” Nugent canceled an interview on CNN 2 hours before it was supposed to air.
Here's what Blitzer said about Nugent's slur, "subhuman mongrel" on President Obama:
“That’s what the Nazis called Jews to justify the genocide of the Jewish community,” Blitzer said in a Feb. 18, 2014, interview. “They called them untermenschen, subhuman mongrels. If you read some of the literature that the Nazis put out there, there is a long history of that specific phrase he used involving the president of the United States.”
57 comments:
"subhuman mongrel"
So that's what it's come to. Well, there's no middle ground here. Either people are comfortable with that kind of language or they're not. Evidently Greg Abbott is comfortable with it.
Nugent should stick to crapping in his pants instead of talking. It would stink less.
Much better to be friends with Bill Ayres. After all he did was condemn the Unites States and blow up a government building and commit murder.
The Chicago Sun Times dealt with skudrunner's allegations during the 2008 presidential election campaign:
The FBI labeled the Weather Underground “a domestic terrorist group” whose members took credit for bombings of the U.S. Capitol, Pentagon and other government buildings. The bombings were designed to cause property damage, not hurt people.
Ayers never has been accused of killing anybody.
So how well do Ayers and Obama know each other?
Ayers and Obama served on separate boards associated with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, an education-reform group that Obama began chairing in March 1995 and continued to work with through 2000. Ayers served on the Chicago School Reform Collaborative, which made recommendations to the board on grant awards during those years. Ayers and Obama occasionally would see each other in those roles.
Also, Ayers served alongside Obama between December 1999 and December 2002 on the board of the not-for-profit Woods Fund of Chicago. That board met four times a year, and members would see each other at dinners the group hosted.
The RNC’s statement that “Obama’s first campaign was launched at a gathering at Mr. Ayers’ home” stems from a 1995 “meet-and-greet” coffee that Ayers and Dohrn held for Obama at their home when Obama was making his first run for the Illinois Senate. Obama’s presidential campaign has described the event as an opportunity for Ayers and Dohrn to introduce Obama to their neighbors.
In 2001, Ayers gave $200 to Obama’s campaign. A year ago, the two met walking through the neighborhood where they both live.
How does Ayers respond to the Republicans’ charges?
He doesn’t. He has declined to comment to the Sun-Times or any other media since Sen. Hillary Clinton first raised him as a potential problem for Obama in April during the Democratic primary.
What does Obama say about Ayers?
During a primary debate, Obama underplayed his relationship with Ayers: “This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who’s a professor of English in Chicago, who I know, and who I have not received some official endorsement from,” Obama said. “He’s not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. The notion that somehow, as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn’t make much sense.”
Is it fair for McCain to criticize Obama on this issue?
Factcheck.org has this take: “Voters may differ in how they see Ayers, or how they see Obama’s interactions with him. We’re making no judgment calls on those matters. What we object to are the McCain-Palin campaign’s attempts to sway voters — in ads and on the stump — with false and misleading statements about the relationship, which was never very close.
President Reagan hangin' out with terrorists! IN THE WHITE HOUSE!!!!!
Infidel753: "Either people are comfortable with that kind of language or they're not. Evidently Greg Abbott is comfortable with it."
Greg Abbott is not an obscure GOP pol from some backwater town. He's the Attorney General of Texas, FFS!
Republican politicians are cowards when it comes to standing up for decency against the stupids in the Tea Party.
I guess they're afraid of losing the snarling wretch vote.
Come on now all you people. Stop talking about my hero!
He has been doing all that he can to prove his creds as a C.G. [Crazy Gooper]!
He has warned the planet and stopped the spread of Obamacare. Sent me an autographed picture of himself in his sh*t-stained tightie whities. Put a twinkle in my eye by letting me kiss his "machine gun." Gave my entire family thrills up their legs... Gave me free lessons on how to be a flaming asshole. And he has been acting like an authenticly demented Gooper ... So Stop it! I say, just stop it!
Nugent has a penis, inversely proportional to the size of his mouth, and evidently he thinks his guns compensate for that. The Democratic party sound make the Repellicans OWN Nugent. Hang him around the neck of the GOP like a dead albatross.
Nugent is a perfect representative of the modern GOP: Loud, indecent, and stupid.
skudrunner, I won't publish your latest comment that changes the subject of this post to Bill Ayers and Obama.
You do this all the time.
You obviously can't defend the GOP's embrace of the batshit crazy Ted Nugent, so you bring up something that has nothing to do with Nugent and the GOP.
Try Geeeeez's or AOW's blogs. They'll welcome your whining there.
Anonymous@4:32, that's exactly what I'm trying to do. But then people like skudrunner try to change the subject because they're obviously embarrassed by the GOP's tolerance of Nugent, an accidental discharge from a howler monkey.
Maybe the problem is simply Texass.
Stunning.
"Lloyd Oliver, a Democratic candidate for district attorney in Harris County, Texas, has a problem with domestic violence: He thinks it's prosecuted too much.
Oliver told the Texas Observer Wednesday that domestic violence is "so, so overrated." If elected, he indicated he'd redirect resources away from family violence to focus on other issues.
Harris County has the highest rate of domestic violence homicides in the state."
Ted Poogent?
shaw, you can't shame people who know no shame. They hate Obama more than they love their country. Nugent: Disgusting dirtbag.
Ya know I have many thoughts about the republican party. In fact I have many thoughts about the democratic party.
But today I think I'll let Ray Bradbury say it for me. He said it so clearly and with such truth and simplicity.
"I hate all politics. I don't like either political party. One should not belong to them - one should be an individual, standing in the middle. Anyone that belongs to a party stops thinking."
Ray Bradbury
Yeppers, bout sums it up, don'tcha think?
Ray Bradbury was a very talented sci-fi writer. I enjoyed his stories.
But someone who stands in the middle stands for nothing, IMHO. You either have an opinion on how the government should function or, if you're in the middle, you have none.
I don't believe there are that many people who have no opinion on how the government should function.
You don't stop thinking just because you find a group of people who believe in and work toward the same ideals as you do.
IMHO it is elitist to think someone who stays "above it all" has the correct attitude.
oh contraire Shaw. Being in the "middle" does not mean you have no opinion. Certainly not with the independents or those who are more centrist that I know.
You are correct. When you join a party you don't stop thinking, however many simply and slowly become part of groupthink and become part of the problem. This is the danger in political parties. You do an exemplary job of highlighting this with regards to republicans.
Being centrist, independent, moderate IMO more readily allows one to consider alternatives and make decisions dispassionately. It means sometimes you lean right, sometimes you lean left keeping your core values in mind. Never forget no party, ideology, or think tank has all the answers.
Now, on a personal note. I am opinionated, I express my views and I stand my ground when I believe I am right. I also change my mind when New or additional information is presented it makes rational sense. Every independent. moderate, non politically aligned person I know personally has the same attitude.
Elitist? Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Funny how I used to view some liberals that way. Now I view some conservatives and some libertarians that way as well.
But what do I know? I have no opinion according to your thinking.
Isn't Nugent one of the right's biggest heroes? Yes. He's the sort of right-thinking intellect they admire.
Nugent is a degenerate ass. A boil on society and one of the rights most destructive forces.
Oops, did I just express a strong opinion? A centrist? By gosh I believe I did.
The fact that Bradbury was an impressive writer doesn't mean he had a good sense for politics. In fact, it's generally true that greatness in one area doesn't confer expertise in another. Einstein was a brilliant physicist but very naïve about international relations.
To stand "in the middle" between sanity and insanity (which are, de facto, the options now presented by the left and right in this country) isn't a sign of intellectual integrity, it's an abdication of moral responsibility.
Joining a party does not imply groupthink unless one mindlessly accepts the whole program merely because it's the party's position. That's not how most people, at least on the left, operate. I've been critical of the left in cases where they represent a danger to freedom, such as gun rights and some free-expression issues. But anyone who's not willfully blind can see that 95% of the threat to freedom and sanity comes from the right wing. The chief imperative in politics today is to keep the right wing out of power, and to do that effectively, we need tools like a political party, even if there are some issues where that party is not with me.
A good point from The Texas Observer on the "both sides are equally bad" idiocy:
Now, no one’s begrudging Nugent’s right to be an immoral, hateful asshole. Plenty of great artists are assholes. But you won’t see Woody Allen stumping for New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, and you won’t see R. Kelly posing with California’s Jerry Brown. It’s amazing that so many Texas GOPers are willing to bear-hug Nugent.
They've lain down with this dog. They have to accept the fleas.
RN is not in the middle. He has been a Republican for decades. He thinks Randian ideals were part of Reagan's ideology.
Try Geeeeez's or AOW's blogs
They are kind of like FOX News, fair and balanced. If you have an opinion you can share it. There are people on those sites who actually believe obama is competent, amazing.
There was nothing in that post that was not truthful and supported by facts, if you believe Wikipedia is factual. It just happened to make obama look less than saintly.
From the Houston Chronicle reporting on Nugent campaigning for the REPUBLICAN governor of Texas, Rick Perry. The governor of Texas had no problem working with this dirt bag. That's how low the cons have sunk.
"Nugent appeared onstage wearing a cut-off T-shirt emblazoned with the sure-to-draw-headlines Confederate flag and shouting some unflattering remarks about non-English speakers, according to people who were in attendance. His props were machine guns...
Perry's spokesman, Robert Black, downplayed the incident.
"Ted Nugent is a good friend of the governor's. He asked him if he would play at the inaugural. He didn't put any stipulation of what he would play," Black said. He added that "Most people had a really good time and enjoyed the show."
The dirt bag is a "good friend" of the governor!
Infidel753: "They've lain down with this dog. They have to accept the fleas."
And the GOP pols don't understand why a majority of women, Hispanics, Latinos, African-Americans, gays, and just about any other group that doesn't share their "brand," would never vote for anyone from that party.
If you embrace filth like Nugent, expect people to avoid your "brand."
Someone encouraged Nugent to use the term "subhuman mongrel" to describe President Obama. And Nugent was too stupid to understand how loaded that term is.
But the he does belong to the Gee-Oh-Pee, and they LOVE him.
I very strongly disagree on parties, which is why I belong to none. I used to until I finally woke up and saw the hypocrisy, corruption, and futility in doing so. Remaining independent, unaffiliated with any party, being able choose posistions and candidates based solely on ones own conscience rather than by party affiliation is liberating. Something IMO the purely partisan never will understand.
Truly Independend minded people are not willing to be constrained by "the party" or the "group" IMO.
So I'll do my part in fighting the extreme right as well as the extreme left. neither which belong in position of power.
America is neither extreme right nor extreme left. At least for now. The people at large are smarter than that. For now anyway. It seems sensible to work to keep America that way.
By the way, I am right no
more concerned with seeing the tar right blunted because right wing facism is our greater threat right now.
Political pendulums swing both ways perpetually. Get my drift.
Agreed
From The Daily Beast
"For well over a year now, Americans have been treated to the spectacle of GOP leaders plotting and planning and searching for clever ways to assure the public that it is not the party of old, angry, testosterone-heavy, and most of all white grievance politics. Granted, this is a delicate task, calling for a thoughtful, multi-faceted approach. But how’s this for a modest starting point: Stop sucking up to freak-show, has-been rocker Ted Nugent?
Honestly, it was sad enough when Rep. Steve Stockman took Ted as his date to the State of the Union address... Then again, these days, people pretty much expect that level of adolescent fuck-you from rank-and-file House members. But a leading gubernatorial candidate from our second-most populous state?"
I was a republican, that was then, long ago.
Rand in fact did NOT approve of Reagan nor the republican party in general who she viewed as anti capitalist and facist leaning. But of course anyone who actually read Rand's writtings with a modicum of understanding knows this.
Welcome back Anon the Non Thinking attact scoundrel.
Ted is definitely dog whistling. He had to cancel with CNN because only the racists were supposed to understand what he was saying. He certainly did not want to be called on it on air!
Shaw: President Reagan hangin' out with terrorists! IN THE WHITE HOUSE!!!!!
And don't forget that both bush presidents were cozy with (at least one) of the bin Laden family. Wikipedia notes that "Bandar has formed close relationships with several American presidents, notably George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, the latter giving him the affectionate and controversial nickname 'Bandar Bush'... He was reportedly so close to George H.W. Bush that he was often described as a member of the former president's family".
RN: oh contraire Shaw. Being in the "middle" does not mean you have no opinion.
But it does mean your opinion counts for very little. People "in the middle" end up voting for fringe candidates like Gary Johnson, who, when he ran for president received a whopping 0.99% of the popular vote. Yes, he was elected as governor of NM, but he ran as a Republican, not a Libertarian... and we all know Libertarians, even when they run as Republicans have no chance of being elected president (think Ron Paul).
Also, in regards to Johnson, it appears he towed the Republican line while governor, at least in respect to gay marriage. Johnson now speaks in favor of marriage equality, but that didn't come until 2011, when he was out of office and without the political power such a statement would have had coming from a governor. I pointed this out to RN on his blog, but he didn't like my comments. Nor did several of the other commenters who were bashing President Obama (the president who has done THE MOST to further the cause of marriage equality) because Obama isn't advocating for "a constitutional amendment protecting equal marriage rights" like Gary is. But Gary isn't in office any longer... while Obama is. Politicians have to deal with political realities. A concept that escapes many who comment over on RN's blog.
And this is why the GOP will be marginalized:
"In an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) defended Ted Nugent as a passionate fighter for Second Amendment rights and only mildly censured the has-been rocker for his ridiculous statements made about the President. At the same time, he made it appear that he’d allow Nugent to campaign with him at future events. Overall, Cruz said the bare minimum when it came to disagreeing with Nugent’s racism. You could sense that Cruz felt that Nugent did nothing wrong and that Cruz was just doing what he thought he needed to do for PR reasons."
It isn't that difficult for sensible and decent people to condemn Nugent's inflammatory and bigoted rhetoric.
But when a US Senator with presidential aspirations cannot bring himself to do so, that enforces the perception of how cowardly the GOP pols are in service to the rabid dog mouth-foamers of their party.
They dare not alienate the folks who think a dirtbag like Nugent is a "hero."
That's who they relate to?
Good luck with that GOPers.
Independents, women, young Americans, African-Americans, Latinos, and gays will avoid you, and somewhere in your temporal lobes, you know that.
"Cruz and his Tea Party cohorts won’t come down hard on Nugent. He is one of them. He thinks like them. And he appeals to a portion of this country who feels they are ‘losing their country.’ Heck, the main reason Abbott probably used Nugent is because he realized he didn’t appeal to the extreme base as much as Cruz did in 2012 when they were both vying for Texas’ GOP Senate nomination. Cruz beat Abbott in the primary because he whipped up the Tea Party voters and got their support.
This is the difference between the GOP and the Democratic Party. If anyone supportive of the Democratic Party, acting as a surrogate or campaigning on behalf of a candidate, were to make these types of comments, they would be immediately censured and distanced from. For the GOP, that person ends up being celebrated and defended.
To you Mr. Sanders I say bullshit. The largest force in the American electorate remain the independents. I leave it to you to figure how this can be so.
If Johnson runs again as a Libertarian or Independent he will have my support and vote. What EVERYONE should hope for is he is not largely ignored by the LSM and FOX News.
RN said: Nugent is a degenerate.
....and a drunk,pedophile sex addict,spaced out druggie and a marginal muscian.
self avowed.
neat little clip if anyone
wants to hear it in his own words...his ex bandmates words.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpVx9NCOo2c
any sensible politician who would assert any 'friendship' with Ted is affirming his values.
comparing Obama's miniscule,tenous connect with Bill Ayfers to a current politician's assocciation with Nugent is disingenous and ludicrous. Sarah Palin is an attention whore. Her views on anything are as marginal as Betty Crockers
"This sorry waste of a flesh and blood is definitely a Gee-Oh-Pee-er, and apparently no one who belongs to that once great party is ashamed of the jackass or is brave enough to call him out on his repulsive idiocy:"
Well Shaw, I must say I agree. I once belonged to that great party of ideas but idiots not nearly as clueless as Degenerate Nugent, Green Eggs and Ham Cruz, Looney Louie Gohmert, Batty Michelle Bachman, or One Trick Pony Palin completed the parties journey into "Lost in Space."
Truly a sad thing. Hopefully the party wises up, gets some new truly brilliant leaders before it's too late and the democrats have the opportunity to turn the United States into a one party state.
RN: The largest force in the American electorate remain the independents. I leave it to you to figure how this can be so.
I know how it is so, although RN apparently does not. Independents have no power unless they chose a side and vote D or R. This is always true when it comes to presidential elections (at least in modern times), and almost always true when it comes to all other elections to political office. Voting for a candidate who isn't a D or an R is likely a waste of time. It surely is in regards to Gary Johnson, a man who has no chance at all of ever being president. He could be called a "has been", if following the guidelines of a certain commenter on RN's blog.
Not according to me (I should point out though). Johnson has something worthwhile to contribute to the conversation, so I'll give RN that. If he wants to talk on marriage equality or on other issues with which I agree with him... I don't want him ignored. I sure as hell wouldn't want him as president, however - not that there is anything to worry about in that department. Anyone who voted "Gary for prez" in the last election is deluding themselves if they think that action didn't put them in the "smallest and least influential" category.
As for Nugent, he's another rodeo clown who has found that stirring up the racist Rightwing gun nuts can be profitable. According to a 4/19/2012 Tuscon Sentinel article Nugent has his own line of ammo and "hopes to tap that same income stream [that produced the] ammo shortage when President Barack Obama was elected. [Because] in garages, basements, CONEX containers, and buried in forest caches and hidey-holes, the nuttiest gun squirrels stockpile hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of rounds".
Less than a year ago RN was writing how great Rep. West is, glowing words for Palin, and other Republicans. RN supported the exact kind of political idiots this site decries. His great party of ideas was the party that cut taxes before cutting spending leaving us this multi-trillion dollar debt. Great idea.
yeah, RN, the Republican party has morphed into something unrecognizable .... it is hard to remember that Lincold had been a member of that party, as had Teddy Roosevelt. Wisconsin's Fighting Bob La Follette originallyt was a Republican,thouigh he parted ways with the party and is mostly noted as a Progressive. Today we can think of Eisenhower and Ford as decent presidents...personally honest. Or at least my perception is that they were...especially compared to the type of Republican affiliated with the far righ. Even the Arch Conservative, Barry Goldwater, would have had a tough time today...a sample...
”I’m completely opposed to selling automatic rifles. I don’t see any reason why they ever made semi-automatics. I’ve been a member of the NRA, I collect, make and shoot guns. I’ve never used an automatic or semiautomatic for hunting. There’s no need to. They have no place in anybody’s arsenal. If any S.O.B. can’t hit a deer with one shot, then he ought to quit shooting.”
Barry Goldwater.
that mere statement, on one issue, would have had the Tea Party howling for his head.
I am, and always have been an Indepdent. Back In The Day I was a supporter of William Steiger, a Wisconsin representative. I did not agree with him on all issues, but he supported Conservation, OSHA, AND averate American workers. I was privledged to meet him. (also...he was a ton better than the clowns the Democrats would come up with to run against him) I doubt he would have any place in today's Republican Party.
anyways....it is damn difficult to find a Republican to vote for....except my sister in law....she is a damn fine Clerk of Courts.
so it goes.
oh...I totally take umbrage with RN's last sentence. To me it is exactly what the Koch Bros, via their money chute, is trying to do to America through the auspices of the Republican/Tea Party.
"Truly a sad thing. Hopefully the party wises up, gets some new truly brilliant leaders before it's too late and the democrats have the opportunity to turn the United States into a one party state."
And you take umbrage with this statement?
Exactly why?
The "party" can't wise up. It's too full of assholes.
Hm, since everyone has an asshole I guess the democratic is full of assholes as well :-)
If your bullshit deserved a response I would respond. But since it does not all there is to say is:
The ASS is back!
Okjimm is correct. Goldwater would have been far too sane for the present-day Republican party.
RN...umbrage because I do not feel that the Democrats are actively trying to 'turn the US into a one party country' rather than the Republicans are imploding, giving in to special interests, fringe agenda and abdicating sensible dialog.
Shouldn't he be somewhere shitting his pants and wetting himself in order to prove that he loves America so damn much he won't serve in its military? Or maybe being a pedophile ... again ... ?
GoP's HERO!!!!
While I do believe the dems would like nothing better than to turn the nation into a Large MA. I do agree on all other points.
RN: "While I do believe the dems would like nothing better than to turn the nation into a Large MA..."
RN, do you not know how well your home state, Massachusetts, does in many aspects of quality of life compared with other states? Especially red states run by conservative governments?
Do you not know that Massachusetts students lead the nation (and in some cases, other countries!) in math and science scores? That Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate? Among the lowest rates of unwed pregnancies?
The highest rates of INSURED citizens? And Massachusetts leads the nation in number of citizens with graduate degrees?
What exactly do you think is not desirable in those categories that caused you to warn people against turning the nation into a Large MA?
Would you prefer the nation turn into a conservative state like Mississippi? or Louisiana? or Alabama? Go look at their stats in the areas I outlined and see where they stand. HINT: They at the bottom. They FAIL their citizens in all those categories.
We can only wish the country were lucky enough to be like Massachusetts.
I'm surprised that you denigrate your own state, considering how well it does.
While there are dangers in a one-party country, personally I consider the Republican party to be so dangerous to personal freedom that we need to do our utmost to defeat it electorally wherever possible. If this ultimately leads to its complete disappearance (unlikely), I'll take my chances with a one-party system until the Democratic party splits in two or whatever. The risks are less.
Shaw, I would love it if the whole US were as developed as Massachusetts. The US would no longer be near the bottom of the developed world in health-care outcomes, social mobility, inequality, education, unplanned pregnancy, etc., etc., etc. For that matter, if every state had something like MIT and Boston Dynamics, we'd be much further along to solving the major problems that face the world.
Also, RN, Massachusetts is among the top ten HAPPIEST states in America.
If education matters to you, RN, the top 10 best educated states are all BLUE LIBERAL STATES. The bottom 10, least educated are RED CONSERVATIVE STATES.
Do you believe that education is an important part of being an informed citizen? That the ability to reason and engage in critical thinking is important to a democracy? I do. And the blue states do a better job of educating their citizens than do the conservative states. That's a fact. Taxes? Yeah. You get what you pay for.
Infidel753, what I've outlined above regarding Massachusetts doesn't excuse the areas where the state could do better. And there are many. I live here, and I've lived in California and Florida, so I have some ability to compare. I know where Massachusetts could do a lot better.
I also know that the people I read on con blogs who malign Massachusetts are doing so in ignorance, and don't know what they're talking about. But it makes them feel powerful to repeat lies and misinformation.
I suppose it's better than having them stick forks in their eyes--something they'd otherwise be doing if they weren't busy smugly passing along wrong information.
Yeah Shaw, I know, not being the ignoramus you apparently believe ALL conservative/libertarians are.
You apparently misunderstand my point. Perhaps one day you will understand just what my point is.
As to education, a low frigging blow. Ask my son who is earning his doctorate from Northeastern University. He works in education and his aspiration is to be a University President some day. I hope he realizes his dreams.
So much for that one Shaw...
RN: "Yeah Shaw, I know, not being the ignoramus you apparently believe ALL conservative/libertarians are."
Where have I said that?
RN: "You apparently misunderstand my point. Perhaps one day you will understand just what my point is."
RN, I responded to this by you: "While I do believe the dems would like nothing better than to turn the nation into a Large MA."
I understood your statement to mean that would be a bad thing.
RN: "As to education, a low frigging blow."
What blow? I pointed out that Mass. does a great job in education, and I said nothing derogatory about libertarians or you on that subject. If you go back and read what I actually wrote, I gave props to Massachusetts on their excellence in education and pointed out that the bottom ten states are red states. A fact. How was that a "low blow" to anyone in particular?
RN: "Ask my son who is earning his doctorate from Northeastern University. He works in education and his aspiration is to be a University President some day. I hope he realizes his dreams."
That's great. And good for him because he will add to the number of people here in Massachusetts who earn post-graduate degrees! That's to be commended!
RN: "So much for that one Shaw..."
I think you misread me. Go back and read what I said.
Whatever.
RN: "You apparently misunderstand my point. Perhaps one day you will understand just what my point is."
No one here accuses you of not having your heart in the right place, but oftentimes you are either deliberately evasive or habitually vague. In any case, you perform a disservice to your viewpoint (whatever it is). Perhaps one day, you will state just what your point is.
hmmmmm...I checked out the Bloomberg thingee...and...I was aghast, alarmed and disturbed that my dearly beloved Badger State was only, get this....EIGHTH IN NUMBER OF BREWERY PERMITS?! HORRORArama!
well, and it may be unofficial, but I must say that we lead, dast I say it, the nation in cheddar consumption !!!! AND...we are the ONLY state in the union that produces limberger cheese.
I take my solace where I will and take my beer by the pint !!!
To the Anonymous who keeps piss-moaning because I won't publish his/her taunts, complaints, and lies about RN: Give it up.
My blog is not a forum for your hatred directed at ANY of my commenters. Got that, pal?
Good.
(O)TO(O)PUS, I have stated my point(s) of view and opinion on many, many posts. Clearly I am an individualist. Clearly I am an advocate of rational capitalism and rational self interest. Clearly I am a support of and advocate of liberty, free speech, the right to own and reasonably bear arms (with restrictions). Clearly I am not a dyed in the red or blue partisan. Clearly I am an advocate for equal treatment under the law of law for ALL individuals regardless of race, national origin, gender or sexual orientation. Clearly I belief in equal opportunity for ever individual who puts forth the effort to better themselves. Clearly I am against corporatism, so called crony capitalism, the influence of money on politics. Clearly I an AGAINST religion having influence on secular laws that apply the everyone, not just the "faithful. Clearly I am FOR balanced budgets. Clearly I am FOR eliminating unneeded and wasteful spending. Clearly I am FOR controlling and gradually reducing the DOD budget. Clearly I am FOR a press that reports the news and leaves it to us to decide how to react. Clearly I am for REDUCING our national debt over time. Clearly I am for REDUCING spending and INCREASING taxes to accomplish the goal of reducing the national debt by balancing the budget. Clearly I am FOR bipartisan discourse and working through COMPROMISE from both sides to strengthen our nation and its position in the world. Clearly I DESPISE pure partisanship whether it is red or blue. Clearly I AM NEITHER A DEMOCRAT or a REPUBLICAN.
I am an individual, fiercely independent, and DAMN PROUD OF IT. Someday I'll explain how and why I got to where I am (O)CT(O)0PUS. Until that time the above will have to do. Or you can read my 2400 posts and perhaps understand and or notice the "evolution."
BTW, being in the center means at least for me that one listens to, analyzes both sides of a position, decides what make sense to them, and then supports it. Which means recognizing that no one ideology, party, etc is always right.
It is what it is (O)CT(O)PUS...
Post Script to my reply to (O)CT(O)PUS... Only by questioning ones own views and beliefs can one know themselves as well as grow. Further,willingness to change a view based on new data or stronger argument is a sign of strength, not weakness or fickleness. And finally, I phrase my comments as I do because if one takes the time to read them and go beyond a knee jerk reaction there is something there to consider. Whether one chooses to dismiss or see the point is entirely up to them. I intentionally do not make it easy on occasion.
It is what it is...
Post a Comment