Rand Paul: Ted Nugent should apologize

[eduardo89]

*SIGH* By getting involved and saying that Nugent needs to apologize for his words.

And what does Rand Paul exercising his right to free speech as a private citizen have to do with Congress enacting a law abridging the freedom of speech?

 

[cajuncocoa]

And what does Rand Paul exercising his right to free speech as a private citizen have to do with Congress enacting a law abridging the freedom of speech?

Let me see if I can take a stab at this because I think I understand where donnay is coming from. Because Rand Paul is a U.S. Senator and directly involved in government, I believe she is saying it's a little heavy-handed to demand an apology from a private citizen. Rand Paul is not a private citizen; he is a public official of the government.

 

[eduardo89]

Let me see if I can take a stab at this because I think I understand where donnay is coming from. Because Rand Paul is a U.S. Senator and directly involved in government, I believe she is saying it's a little heavy-handed to demand an apology from a private citizen. Rand Paul is not a private citizen; he is a public official of the government.

And because he is a Senator speaking on his private twitter account he loses his First Amendment right to speak freely?

So I guess Ron Paul violated the First Amendment when he demanded an apology from Newt Gingrich during his campaign. Ron Paul was a sitting US Representative during that time...

 

[Crashland]

Let me see if I can take a stab at this because I think I understand where donnay is coming from. Because Rand Paul is a U.S. Senator and directly involved in government, I believe she is saying it's a little heavy-handed to demand an apology from a private citizen. Rand Paul is not a private citizen; he is a public official of the government.

That is probably where donnay is coming from, but there is nothing in the first amendment that says public officials cannot do this. The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law....". Unless Rand wants a law abridging the freedom of speech, there is no basis for saying that he doesn't understand the first amendment.

 

[donnay]

Let me see if I can take a stab at this because I think I understand where donnay is coming from. Because Rand Paul is a U.S. Senator and directly involved in government, I believe she is saying it's a little heavy-handed to demand an apology from a private citizen. Rand Paul is not a private citizen; he is a public official of the government.

Thank you, CC. +rep

 

[Crashland]

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.

I still disagree - it is not that simple because the language has different meanings for the same words, and in this case, unlike racial slurs that only have one meaning, it is not the word itself that is offensive, but the context in which it is used. For example let's substitute mongrel out for something with more of a singular meaning, "mixed-race".

Here would be Obama's quote:

"We are sort of a mixed-race 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."

And here would be Nugent's quote:

...not to let a Chicago communist-raised, communist-educated, communist-nurtured subhuman mixed-race person 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

Here Obama's use of 'mixed-race' would be appropriate because that is what he is actually talking about. Nugent's is absolutely inappropriate because he is including 'mixed-race' right in the middle of a long list of insults, as if mixed-race is a negative thing and even attaching the "subhuman" adjective to it. I think you are missing something if you are comparing the two and claiming it is hypocritical to judge them differently even though they both use the same word.

 

[Sola_Fide]

So is it your opinion that calling a politician a subhuman mongrel *does* have a place in politics?

I think it does.

 

[TheNung]

I don't think anyone should have to apologize for calling a spade a spade. Barry is a tyrant and a murderer. He should be shown no respect whatsoever. Rand can stick it.

Edit: To juleswin

Here was your rep comment: "[mod deleted]"

Well, if we're going to toss insults around, I'm going to call you an [mod deleted]. Where you got the idea that I support Ted Cruz I cannot even fathom. Yet, like an [mod deleted], you jump to the asinine conclusion that if I make a negative comment about Rand, I must support Ted Cruz. Like a [mod deleted], you reserve your comment for a private hit-and-run insult instead of replying to me like a sensible, competent adult in this thread itself. Wow. Brilliant. But lastly I'd like to thank you for outing yourself as an [mod deleted] to me in private. That way in the future I'll know that you are incapable of handling yourself as anything other than a [mod deleted] and therefore I can ignore you.

 

[cajuncocoa]

And because he is a Senator speaking on his private twitter account he loses his First Amendment right to speak freely?

So I guess Ron Paul violated the First Amendment when he demanded an apology from Newt Gingrich during his campaign. Ron Paul was a sitting US Representative during that time...

That is probably where donnay is coming from, but there is nothing in the first amendment that says public officials cannot do this. The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law....". Unless Rand wants a law abridging the freedom of speech, there is no basis for saying that he doesn't understand the first amendment.

Neither donnay or I suggested that Rand has no 1st amendment right to say whatever he wants to say.

I merely explained to you both how I interpreted what donnay was saying....that she's seeing it as a possible violation of NUGENT'S 1st amendment rights....due to the fact that a US Senator (public government official) is calling him (Nugent, a private citizen) out to apologize for words that he said.

 

[Crashland]

Neither donnay or I suggested that Rand has no 1st amendment right to say whatever he wants to say.

I merely explained to you both how I interpreted what donnay was saying....that she's seeing it as a possible violation of NUGENT'S 1st amendment rights....due to the fact that a US Senator (public government official) is calling him (Nugent, a private citizen) out to apologize for words that he said.

Yes I do realize you are trying to interpret donnay's reasoning. But it's not a violation of anyone's first amendment rights unless their freedom of speech is being abridged, and particularly by a law. Making a public comment calling for an apology does not abridge anyone else's freedom of speech, nor is it a law.

 

[eduardo89]

Yes I do realize you are trying to interpret donnay's reasoning. But it's not a violation of anyone's first amendment rights unless their freedom of speech is being abridged, and particularly by a law. Making a public comment calling for an apology does not abridge anyone else's freedom of speech, nor is it a law.

It's as absurd as saying a public official can't talk about faith or a high school senior can't invoke God in their graduation speech.

 

[Dianne]

I still fail to understand how Rand gets "smeared by association"....where is the association between Rand and Nugent? In the imagination of people who read HuffPo and watch MSNBC? You can't do anything to convince those people! Try to remember, those are the same people who think peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are racist.

That's why Rand should have kept his mouth shut, and looked Presidential ... Now the libtards are running around thinking Rand and Ted are best friends, and Rand made Ted apologize. You know how stupid Obama looks when he gets involved in trivia, such as Washington Redskin's name .. Rand involves himself in trivia when he stops to comment on something like Ted's comment ... Most Americans (like myself), are wondering what the hell we pay the Congress and the President to do all day? Worry about Ted Nugent and the Washington Redskins ??

As I said earlier, for the sake of Rand's political career he should not think he has to make a comment about any "Entertainment Tonight" issues unless it involves the job he is doing for the people ... Ted's a big boy, he can handle himself..

 

[juleswin]

Well, if we're going to toss insults around, I'm going to call you an [mod deleted]. Where you got the idea that I support Ted Cruz I cannot even fathom. Yet, like an [mod deleted], you jump to the asinine conclusion that if I make a negative comment about Rand, I must support Ted Cruz. Like a [mod deleted], you reserve your comment for a private hit-and-run insult instead of replying to me like a sensible, competent adult in this thread itself. Wow. Brilliant. But lastly I'd like to thank you for outing yourself as an [mod deleted] to me in private. That way in the future I'll know that you are incapable of handling yourself as anything other than a [mod deleted] and therefore I can ignore you.

Yes, I get very suspicious of people with very low post counts complaining when Rand gets some positive press. I think there are basically 3 types of people complaining about Rand Paul as a private Citizen asking(not demanding) Ted Nugent to apologize.

1st kind are the people who have been so accustomed to losing elections and being outcasts in the republican party that when things starts going well for anyone in our camp, they overreact and fight that success. These people are uncomfortable with winning and being part of the mainstream

2nd type are troll supporters of other republican rivals masquerading as Rand supporters on RPF to be a wet blanket to Rand's public relation win.

Lastly, the racist types who actually agree with the wording of the insult and see nothing wrong with being a racist asshole representing the republican party.

Yes, I think you're of the 2nd type and I gave you a negative rep with a private message to go with it explaining why I did it and it was a dick move on your part to post my private message to you for everyone to see. Its not me being a coward by using the message system for reps cos it is what the message box is for. God forbid I believe somethings are better left said in private than in public. Also you could have replied to me in private and maybe we could have resolved it but no, you put out the private message in a public responding with insults and personal attacks while complaining about me insulting you.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Yes I do realize you are trying to interpret donnay's reasoning. But it's not a violation of anyone's first amendment rights unless their freedom of speech is being abridged, and particularly by a law. Making a public comment calling for an apology does not abridge anyone else's freedom of speech, nor is it a law.

It's as absurd as saying a public official can't talk about faith or a high school senior can't invoke God in their graduation speech.

it's so cute to see you agree with yourself.

 

[eduardo89]

it's so cute to see you agree with yourself.

If I had a sock puppet account I'd be banned again. And that was never my MO, I never had more than one account at the same time.

 

[Crashland]

it's so cute to see you agree with yourself.

...because there just can't be as many as two whole people who disagree with you so we must be the same person.

 

[eduardo89]

That's why Rand should have kept his mouth shut, and looked Presidential ... Now the libtards are running around thinking Rand and Ted are best friends, and Rand made Ted apologize.

This is the exact oppose of what happened.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I think it does.

I'd like to know how you'd reconcile this to 1 Peter 2:17, because my first instinct is to agree with you (mass murderers are subhuman in a sense). That said, I don't actually expect politicians to talk that way.

 

[Dogsoldier]

Why not just say "I don't know what Ted Nugent said or what context...I'm here to talk about government, my plans, what I believe in. So can we get back to what's important?"...He could also throw in a commentary about what Justin Beibers been up to and how its not a national tragedy...Benghazi is!!!!

How about that?

 

[Crashland]

Why not just say "I don't know what Ted Nugent said or what context...I'm here to talk about government, my plans, what I believe in. So can we get back to what's important?"...He could also throw in a commentary about what Justin Beibers been up to and how its not a national tragedy...Benghazi is!!!!

How about that?

Because he did know what Nugent said and the context. And because Beiber isn't raising money for Republicans.