Rand Paul: Ted Nugent should apologize

[Rudeman]

Rand was fine up until he said Nugent should apologize. That was just dumb. What Rand should have said is that he didn't think it was appropriate, that he takes a different approach to politics and thinks respectful discourse is the best way to affect change, and then end with how comments like Nugent's and (and here you would insert some offensive thing that a Dem Celebrity has said about Republicans) aren't productive. That would have been a gold response. But calling on Nugent to apologize is amateur hour. Cruz definitely outplayed Rand on this one.

Completely disagree. If Nugent wants to continue campaigning with Republicans then an apology was necessary. Nugent understood this otherwise he never would have apologized.

 

[RonPaulMall]

Sure, as long as you also think it's dumb to call for Obama, Clinton, Clapper, or Bill Maher to apologize for their respective speech (whichever you think is the worst, I don't care which)

Obama and Clinton are not Ted Nugent. They aren't entertainers and crude talk is not a part of their schtick. Look at how Cruz handled the situation to see what Rand should have done. Cruz completely distanced himself from the comments, pointed out the Democrats have celebrities who talk the same way, belittled the interviewer for even bringing up the nonsense, yet didn't in any way question the underlying sentiment all the while remaining cool and confident. By asking Nugent to apologize, Rand looks like he is carrying water for the Left and he pisses off the base. Most of us would consider "subhuman mongrel" a generous description of the President.

Completely disagree. If Nugent wants to continue campaigning with Republicans then an apology was necessary. Nugent understood this otherwise he never would have apologized.

What does Ted Nugent wanting to campaign with Republicans have to do with Rand making a good statement on the issue? Who cares what Ted Nugent does or does not want to do. That has nothing to do with Rand Paul.

 

[Rudeman]

What does Ted Nugent wanting to campaign with Republicans have to do with Rand making a good statement on the issue? Who cares what Ted Nugent does or does not want to do. That has nothing to do with Rand Paul.

Campaigning with Nugent means you'll be associated with him, no one serious (as in with a serious shot of winning a political campaign) would want to be associated with someone that brings more bad than good. Pretty simple stuff really, Nugent could have been defiant but he knew that doing so would make him poison.

By taking a clear stand against it Rand gains the moral high ground.

 

[fr33]

and it's a good thing, because "if I would have gone over there, I’d have been killed, or I’d have killed all the Hippies in the foxholes. I would have killed everybody."

Yeah they love me (in Japan) — they’re still assholes. These people they don’t know what life is. I don’t have a following, they need me; they don’t like me they need me… Foreigners are a******s; foreigners are scum; I don’t like ‘em; I don’t want ‘em in this country; I don’t want ‘em selling me doughnuts; I don’t want ‘em pumping my gas; I don’t want ‘em downwind of my life-OK? So anyhow, and I’m dead serious…

I am aware there are prominent conservatives who make strong arguments in favor of legalizing drugs. Their argument is that legalizing drugs will take the crime out of drugs. Not only do I not believe that, but I have never been in favor of pouring gas on a blazing fire in hopes of extinguishing it, which is what I believe will happen if ever we are foolish enough to legalize drug use in America.

We have all the laws we need to fight drugs. What America needs is the will-power and a renewed warrior spirit to crush evil and evil doers.

We need a Drug Czar who will commit to the American people to stopping at least 50% of the illegal drugs flowing into the country within the first year of the Obama Administration. That’s the kind of leadership America wants and deserves from its government.

May every freedom fighter be fortunate enough to have the drop to take out the Ted Nugents of the world. They are part of the problem.

 

[Crashland]

What does Ted Nugent wanting to campaign with Republicans have to do with Rand making a good statement on the issue? Who cares what Ted Nugent does or does not want to do. That has nothing to do with Rand Paul.

It has everything to do with Rand if he wants to be a leader in the party. Part of steering the ship means avoiding icebergs.

By asking Nugent to apologize, Rand looks like he is carrying water for the Left and he pisses off the base. Most of us would consider "subhuman mongrel" a generous description of the President.

Actually no, he only pisses off the part of the base that finds Nugent's comment funny or agrees with it. That is, the part of the base I want to have nothing to do with. Who cares if he looks like he is helping the left or the right? If you want to be a leader with cross appeal you can't selectively stand on principle only when your political enemies are doing things wrong and then sit on your hands when a political ally does. Call it out on both sides. It's not nonsense for an interviewer to bring up the issue.

Making fun of someone is one thing. Dehumanizing someone is completely different. You can tell me that I have thin skin, but if you actually look at what happens when it becomes socially acceptable or socially encouraged to dehumanize people, you can't not see this as an extremely important moral issue that easily warrants such caution. And I'm not only talking about something extreme like a holocaust mass genocide. It is a very personal issue when someone is directly or indirectly significantly affected by *any* injustice caused by racism or any dehumanization. When you use that kind of language it is not only the target of your ridicule that you are damaging. If you are confused by this or don't know what I'm talking about, then you need to go out and talk to some people less advantaged than yourself.

If most of "us" consider 'subhuman mongrel' to be a 'generous' description of the President, then I'll be right on my way out of this community. (To me that is either ignorant or morally bankrupt.) However I don't think that is really the case, despite the loud voices on this particular thread.

 

[Natural Citizen]

If you want to be a leader with cross appeal you can't selectively stand on principle...

"We are sort of a mongrel people."

"I mean we're all kinds of mixed up," Obama said. "That's actually true of white people as well, but we just know more about it."

The president's remarks were directed at the roots of all Americans.

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...can-americans-a-mongrel-people-#ixzz2ts6gKyTH

Please find one argument that our principled leader made against the President of The United States referencing it's people (including white fellers) as mongrels. After all...this is about morality as I recall.



I'll be in the neighborhood, sparky.

 

[Crashland]

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...can-americans-a-mongrel-people-#ixzz2ts6gKyTH

Please find one argument that our principled leader made against the President of The United States referencing it's people (including white fellers) as mongrels.

Didn't we already go over this? The President was not using the word mongrel as an *insult*, which is obvious given the context. Using 'mongrel' to mean 'of mixed descent' without presenting a negative framework is not offensive. Obama's statement and Nugent's are not at all comparable. Stop playing word games. Are you even serious or just trolling now

 

[Natural Citizen]

Didn't we already go over this? The President was not using the word mongrel as an *insult*, which is obvious given the context.

Nope. We haven't been over anything. Wasn't obvious to me. I was insulted. It's about morality.

Crashland, you're a joke. A fake. Hit the bricks.

 

[fr33]

Callinig someone a mongrel isn't near as bad as calling them a sub human.

 

[Crashland]

Nope. We haven't been over anything. Wasn't obvious to me. I was insulted. It's about morality.

Crashland, you're a joke. A fake. Hit the bricks.

Right. Well at this point it's not worth me continuing this discussion and doing so is a disservice to anyone else who might have the bad fortune of stumbling on this thread. It's embarrassing that anyone looking into the Rand Paul forum is seeing an actual argument among Rand supporters over whether we even stand behind his statement about Nugent.

 

[RonPaulMall]

It has everything to do with Rand if he wants to be a leader in the party. Part of steering the ship means avoiding icebergs

.

Yep, and Rand ran right in to the iceberg. He pissed off the base while sucking up to the mainstream media that two years from now is going to be calling Rand a racist every day of the week and running nonstop stories about newsletters and the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Ted Cruz schooled Rand once again. He handled the situation perfectly. Both men repudiated the comments, but Cruz did it in a way that pleased the base while Rand did it in a way that pissed them off. Rand really needs to get better at handling situations like this.

Actually no, he only pisses off the part of the base that finds Nugent's comment funny or agrees with it. That is, the part of the base I want to have nothing to do with. Who cares if he looks like he is helping the left or the right? If you want to be a leader with cross appeal you can't selectively stand on principle only when your political enemies are doing things wrong and then sit on your hands when a political ally does. Call it out on both sides. It's not nonsense for an interviewer to bring up the issue.

Who said he had to sit on his hands? Cruz didn't sit on his hands. He got the same questions Rand did and hit it out of the park.

Making fun of someone is one thing. Dehumanizing someone is completely different. You can tell me that I have thin skin, but if you actually look at what happens when it becomes socially acceptable or socially encouraged to dehumanize people, you can't not see this as an extremely important moral issue that easily warrants such caution. And I'm not only talking about something extreme like a holocaust mass genocide. It is a very personal issue when someone is directly or indirectly significantly affected by *any* injustice caused by racism or any dehumanization. When you use that kind of language it is not only the target of your ridicule that you are damaging. If you are confused by this or don't know what I'm talking about, then you need to go out and talk to some people less advantaged than yourself.

Yeah, maybe I should talk to some of the "disadvantaged". Like maybe those 12 dirt poor innocent Yemeni citizens that Obama bombed at a wedding last December. Oh, wait, I can't, because they are dead. Obama is a murdering, subhuman, scumbag. He is the world's greatest criminal thug. I get that talking in these terms doesn't make for great politics, which is why I praise Cruz for distancing himself (in a politically savvy way) from the comments, but this isn't politics, this is a messageboard and we are allowed to speak truthfully here. Save your sympathy for people that deserve it.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Right. Well at this point it's not worth me continuing this discussion and doing so is a disservice to anyone else who might have the bad fortune of stumbling on this thread. It's embarrassing that anyone looking into the Rand Paul forum is seeing an actual argument among Rand supporters over whether we even stand behind his statement about Nugent.

Well. Firstly, I should apologize for calling you a joke and a fake. And, of course, all are welcomed here. Far be it for me to say who can and can't use their illusion. So, I'm sorry for calling you a fake and a joke.

Here's the thing. We cannot very well go around saying that there is no place in politics for this kind of language...except for when there is a place...which depends upon our own personal perception and morality (like with the example that I just gave you regarding Obamas use of the same model)...and we cannot go around saying that the same language is acceptable because of popular perception or because there is nothing to be had politically. That's grandstanding. As you said. Leaders cannot be selective with their cause. Morality is a matter of individual perception. You don't get to define it. Nor do I. Nor does Rand Paul or any other representative. If he's going to call out one politically active person using the language then, if he's genuine, he should call out other politicians who use it. such as the example that i shared. And if you can't do that then there is some credibility to clear up.

So, I suppose that what I mean by this being a joke and a fake is the simple fact that, yes, we are selective. And our morals define how selective we are. Who are you or anyone else to define how Americans absorbed The President's use of the language? Because you took it one way then it must be deemed as not offensive and so we get to be selective with our morality and principles? This whole hurry up and jump on anything popular just to hurry up and get elected in no way serves the cause of changing the course of history. And you should know that if you feel so strong about it to go so far as to place it in your sig line.

 

[donnay]

Callinig someone a mongrel isn't near as bad as calling them a sub human.

'Subhuman' is now a bad word? Definition: "Not worthy of being human" is where we have shifted this argument?

SMH.

The thing is, I never liked Ted Nugent. I never cared for his rock and roll and I never cared for his politics. That being said, this has nothing to do with what I, personally, think of the man. It has everything to do with his first amendment right to say what he wants to say. And what he said are just words. Words that, physically, harms no one. But the knee-jerk, politically correct crowd are running around like the sky is falling.

Has anyone seen the movie Demolition Man? I see a future where people will be fined and imprisoned for things they say that goes against the authoritarian regime.

 

[erowe1]

It has everything to do with his first amendment right to say what he wants to say.

It has nothing to do with his first amendment right to say what he wants to say. Not in the slightest bit. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[klamath]

Saying sub human is the racist part of the speech. Subhuman is Exactly what was used to deny freedom to black people. So when used against a black person it is racist as hell. Glad people Rand said what he did.

 

[donnay]

It has nothing to do with his first amendment right to say what he wants to say. Not in the slightest bit. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

So says the lukewarm liberty lovers.

 

[donnay]

Saying sub human is the racist part of the speech. Subhuman is Exactly what was used to deny freedom to black people. Glad people Rand said what he did.

Is it human to bomb other humans because their skin color is brown?

Is it racist to indiscriminately kill brown people with drones?

 

[klamath]

Is it human to bomb other humans because their skin color is brown?

Is it racist to indiscriminately kill brown people with drones?

Very human. It is those very traits of human nature I fight against. Hating somebody for the way they were born I will fight against and back Rand 100% and believe me Ted nugent didn't call Obama subhuman because he is bombing grown people.

 

[compromise]

Is it human to bomb other humans because their skin color is brown?

Is it racist to indiscriminately kill brown people with drones?

They're not being bombed because their skin is brown. They're being bombed because some people think it's a good way to spread democracy. They are of course wrong.

 

[donnay]

They're not being bombed because their skin is brown. They're being bombed because some people think it's a good way to spread democracy. They are of course wrong.

So what you are saying is democracy is racists.