April 3, 2018
"I don't think the guy can be fixed. ... This guy is a lost cause. He is consumed with hate. He is part of the problem, not the solution."
Unlike the frontman of The Eagles of Death Metal,Ted Nugent won't back down.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
91 comments:
Part of it is the way he looks, part of it is the way he acts, most of it is the things he says.
Consumed with hate is not something I want to watch. And Ted is right, he is consumed with hate. It's both disgusting and frightening.
Has anyone been able to refute that Hogg was a bully? That’s probably the most damaging thing for him long term.
Ted Nugent has been consumed with hate for a long time. It's what he knows.
Arrogate said...”Ted Nugent has been consumed with hate for a long time. It's what he knows.”
No, Ted’s just a show off, just like Kathy Griffin is They both even made credible threats which were looked into by the Secret Service.
Don't back down.
David Hogg more than likely bullied the shooter and now he wants to bully everyone else.
How do you go from posting an image of Emma Gonzalez shredding the Constitution to saying she has a "beautiful agenda"?
It's Orwellian!
They keep using the word "survivor" to describe all students who were in that school. To me, that's sloppy thinking. There were people shot who died. There were people shot who didn't die. Those are the true survivors of the attack. Everyone else was just in attendance. Sure, they may be traumatized but they're not "survivors".
Emma Gonzalez admitted that she bullied the shooter.
Is it wrong to call the kids who want gun control 'vile abusers of the dead' yeah but it is also wrong to call people who want to protect 2nd amendment rights murderers and people who wish the death of kids. Ideally, both sides would stop but since that won't happen, let me emphatically state that I am 100% against Unilateral rhetorical disarmament. The right constantly tries to take the high road and play the role of honorable statesman. All that does is get them to honorably lose. I don't want to lose the 2nd amendment.
While it isn't exactly an old saying, in fact I think I am the first person to say it here, David Hogg should take heed that people who qualify as a public figure under the New York Times v. Sullivan standard shouldn't throw stones. Especially, if you are teenager who probably has thinner skin than most who have been involved in political back and forth for years. When people think you are trying to take their rights away from them, they sometimes more than just want you to fail they want you to fail painfully. I know I have taken pleasure in the irony of some of the Parkland students complaining about losing their rights when the school forced them to only wear clear plastic backpacks.
I'm not sure whether the quote is of Nugent or of Hogg. I believe it's a comment by Nugent about Hogg, but I don't want to confirm that until I comment, because I don't want to be completely influenced by which one I more often agree with.
I don't like arguments that anyone "cannot be fixed" or that they are "not part of the solution." First, we all have to live here together, so EVERYBODY has to be part of the final solution. And everybody has to learn how to live with one another, even as we disagree.
More importantly, no one is irredeemable, and we shouldn't write anyone off as "deplorable," with whom we simply won't engage in argument or civil, reasoned debate. This is particularly so for teenagers, and all the more so for teenagers who have been thrust into a prominence for which no one can be truly prepared. I fear for young Mr. Hogg that he will be permanently damaged by this entire episode. I don't believe he is getting good guidance from his parents and the political movement that is using him. I hope and pray that in time he will recover from being thrust on the national stage and will learn better to reason and think through arguments. For centuries, teenagers have been absolutely certain that they, unlike their parents and grandparents, hold the keys to the secrets of the universe. They generally learn better as they get older and, hopefully, wiser.
If the quote is by Hogg, then he is simply channeling Hillary Clinton's believe that half the country is "deplorable," a large collection of backwater idiots who should give way to their betters. One day, politicians may start to see a bit more wisdom in NOT insulting vast swathes of voters. Instead, I hope, they will start to listen, to take their concerns seriously, and try to find areas of common ground. Ronald Reagan certainly didn't always hold himself above the fray, but in general he tried hard to communicate with and persuade those who didn't agree with him; he didn't simply write his opponents' supporters off in a bid to get 50% + 1 votes.
And the same lesson goes for Mr. Nugent, if he supplied the quote. Now I'm going to go check to see who said it.
There's a way to approach David Hogg, and every reader of Althouse ought to understand it. Ann Althouse is something of a template for how to argue about David Hogg. As typified by this brilliant Althouse blog-post headline: "If we give immunity from criticism to children — such as David Hogg, et al. — then adults will rely on children to do what adults want done."
Obviously, there is much more to say about David Hogg and the partisan world surrounding him. But you get the idea.
This was Laura Ingraham's problem; sure, David Hogg represented something that needed pushback. The whole notion of child-politicians who could advocate policy, and make personalized attacks on Republicans and gun rights advocates and especially the NRA, but who were supposedly immune from criticism and questioning themselves. Laura Ingraham could have intelligently made that argument. She's a perfectly good advocate for conservative causes on a normal day.
But Laura Ingraham made the mistake of going after the kid personally, on the basis of his college admissions. And here we have Ted Nugent doing his own uniquely in-lawyerly argument. Such that instead of having to defend indefensible extremism, David Hogg gets to play victim once again.
Anybody have any idea, where these post-2016 conservatives got the idea to wade into personal attacks instead of advancing ideas and sound arguments carefully?
Back around 1980 I was working for WIQB in Ann Arbor. I had a Saturday and Sunday morning show. Right down the road was A Squared Studio which a lot of the local talent used for rehearsing and recording so I got to book a good number of rockers from around the area for early morning on-air interviews. They would spend the night at the studio and roll by in the morning. Friday and Saturday nights were cheap to book. Some would come in the morning before a concert for promotion.
I got to interview Ted, Bob Seger, Steve Forbert, Iggy Pop when he was in town, Peter Wolf from J. Geils, a few others, and one really weird time, Ozzy Osborne stopped by.
Ted Nugent was a lot of fun and very intelligent, but dear lord, once he started talking it was darn near impossible to shut him up. He came by a couple of times and it was always a wide-ranging, enjoyable time.
I'm still confused by the attention that this Hogg kid gets. Why do so many high profile conservatives feel the need to chime in? What good does it do? It's certainly extended Hogg's Andy Warhol 15 minutes by a bunch.
By the way, all: the Motor City Madman was on the radio in Detroit (WJR/the Frank Beckmann Show) yesterday doing the same kind of interview. I heard it live, and he said much the same. These aren't misquotes, they aren't out of context; this is pure Ted Nugent.
The Nuge is kicking off the publicity tour for his summer run of concerts, and so is doing a lot of these interviews. There will be more quotes to come, no doubt.
When I was Hogg’s age, I had already seen two Ted Nugent shows. Both times in that liberal bastion of free speech, Madison, Wisconsin. I doubt that could happen now.
Anybody have any idea, where these post-2016 conservatives got the idea to wade into personal attacks instead of advancing ideas and sound arguments carefully?
The Democratic Party? Academia? Hollywood?
"...un-lawyerly argument..."
Not "in-lawyerly argument." That one was on spellcheck and not me.
"Anybody have any idea, where these post-2016 conservatives got the idea to wade into personal attacks instead of advancing ideas and sound arguments carefully?"
Sure. They got it from a generation's worth of personal vilification by the left. They got it from a generation's worth of experience showing that "advancing conservative ideas and sound arguments carefully" means nothing in the political arena and the MSM.
That doesn't mean tit-for-tat will work.
Emma Gonzales did not "admit that she bullied the shooter." She admitted that everyone knew of him and was scared of him, and that they avoided him and were scared to interact with him because he was subject to fits of rage. We shouldn't blame the teenagers for failing to figure out how to be friends with a rage-filled, disturbed fellow teen with serious mental health issues.
Also, Emma Gonzales never actually ripped up a copy of the constitution. That was a photoshop. It was taken from the cover of Teen Vogue, on which she is shown ripping up a paper target. Someone replaced the image of the paper target with an image of the constitution being ripped.
There are strong facts and arguments on the side favoring the 2nd amendment; there is no need to lie about what some teenagers said or did.
"How do you go from posting an image of Emma Gonzalez shredding the Constitution to saying she has a "beautiful agenda"? "
The Constitution-shredding image was a fake, FYI.
"But Laura Ingraham made the mistake of going after the kid personally, on the basis of his college admissions.
Leftwing media and Hillaryoodland never mock or go after everyone on the right, personally. right?
All while Rachel Maddow tells her cultists to give money to a rich ex-FBI liar.
Why does the failed Broward County sheriff still have a job?
Oh right- loyal D.
But Laura Ingraham made the mistake of going after the kid personally, on the basis of his college admissions
Fair pint but, like some other media sources, the Daily News lies about what she said. She did not attack him "on the basis of his college admissions." She ridiculed his whining about it publicly. The distinction may be a little subtle but why does he disclose these disappointments and in such a manner ?
I suspect he is working up to a campaign to force these colleges to offer him admission because of "Who He Is."
I have already seen the beginning of this campaign. She would have done better to emphasize that point.
The sponsors who dropped her program will also see some pushback.
Chuck opined: “Anybody have any idea, where these post-2016 conservatives got the idea to wade into personal attacks instead of advancing ideas and sound arguments carefully?”
This was written by someone who has fought a most personal war against Donald Trump. If Chuck is recanting his most viscous smears, perhaps there is hope for him yet.
It's Orwellian!
Has anyone been able to refute that Hogg was a bully?
I can prove he never beat his wife.
I suspect he is working up to a campaign to force these colleges to offer him admission because of "Who He Is."
It's dangerous to reward self-entitled child emperors whatever they want whenever they throw a tantrum. Remember the Twilight Zone episode It's a Good Life?
That David Hogg is a bully is indisputable. I saw him on that stage, attacking entire swathes of people.
That he bullied his classmate is open to discussion. Of course he would never admit it. It would have to come from sworn testimony of others. It will probably come out in due time.
@PatHMV -- Thanks for your factual response.
You are mostly overthinking this.
Its a mudfight and fine gradations of tactics don't matter one bit to the big picture.
Its just a question of volume.
Who can fling the greatest weight at the other.
Hogg and the others are simply ammunition to be expended at this time.
Any individual person is just something else to throw.
Next week and next month it will be something or someone else.
The MSM has the advantage of its expensive machinery for mud-flinging. If you really want to fling back effectively, then you need similar machinery.
That doesn't mean tit-for-tat will work.
It's scary to think where this could lead if we fight back. But at least our side is well-armed.
I wouldn't have thought that even during the worst of Obama, and now look at us. It isn't the blacklash the Dems thought was coming, it's a different one.
I have no memory of the 2015 Paris attacks. That's also scary to me.
I saw him on that stage, attacking entire swathes of people.
This, of course, is the way the left attacked Trump's campaign rallies.
It's Orwellian!
As for personal attacks - they work just fine.
The only requirement is volume and velocity, they are good, clumpy stuff that moreover smears well.
Finely structured policy arguments are thin material to feed the machine. Unnoticed and irrelevant. Nobody cares.
"there is no need to lie about what some teenagers said or did."
"The Constitution-shredding image was a fake, FYI."
Of course it was fake. No shit.
And I didn't lie about anything. Did you read the article linked in the this post before you started calling me a liar?
From the article: "[Hughes] also deleted a post criticizing one of the leaders – Emma Gonzalez – with an image of her shredding the U.S. Constitution, according to Billboard."
Also from the article: "Hughes said. “What I'd intended to be a statement about the hijacking by any side of the aisle of the beautiful agenda of a movement of our nation's youth came off seeming like a mean-spirited, personal attack and slight of the youth themselves and even a personal attack of its leadership.”
I was obviously commenting on the extreme nature of Hughes reversal. I did not say anything about Emma Gonzalez or that the image was real.
Hogg is a useful front man for Joyce foundation (vinik) and women's march (Deena late) who happens to be a producer for bill Maher, quelled surprise.
Media matters went after beck with some success, they took o'reilly out, dint seriously affect rush, focus on the forest not the trees.
buwaya said...
As for personal attacks - they work just fine.
They work just fine ... for what?
Tie dismiss the other persons argument.
chickelit said...
Arrogate said...”Ted Nugent has been consumed with hate for a long time. It's what he knows.”
No, Ted’s just a show off, just like Kathy Griffin is They both even made credible threats which were looked into by the Secret Service.
I wouldn't call those threats credible; but at least Ted Nugent might actually understand and know how to use a rifle.
I think the visits by the SS was just a way of making it known that if you talk loud enough, you get looked at, and not even celebrities are immune.
Michael K said...
I suspect he is working up to a campaign to force these colleges to offer him admission because of "Who He Is."
Ingraham commented and tweeted a Dailywire article that quoted an interview David Hogg did with TMZ, which seems to specifically be about his college acceptance woes. In the interview, Hogg lets it be known how disappointed he is with the UC system for not taking him since he's 'changing the world' and stuff.
I'd say you're 100% correct.
They work just fine to win public relations wars and gain political power.
the visits by the SS
Also CYA by the bureaucracy. It's probably in the SS charter now.
Yet the FBI keeps dropping the ball.
Recognize this: anytime anyone of note comments on this kid,CNN jumps for joy because they get to Narrative for another newscycle. Ignore him and it all goes away. Don't take the bait, people!
Laura Ingraham made the mistake of going after the kid personally, on the basis of his college admissions.
She said he was "whining" in public about it. That's all. Not really a personal criticism. No one likes a whiner. And whiner + bully id really too much. Stop slandering Laura, Chuck.
PatHMV said...
Emma Gonzales did not "admit that she bullied the shooter." She admitted that everyone knew of him and was scared of him, and that they avoided him and were scared to interact with him because he was subject to fits of rage. We shouldn't blame the teenagers for failing to figure out how to be friends with a rage-filled, disturbed fellow teen with serious mental health issues.
She admitted that she and the others ostracized Cruz. An exact quote:
“Since he was in middle school, it was no surprise to anyone who knew him, that he was the shooter. Those talking about how we should have not ostracized him? You didn’t know this kid! OK? We did!”
So they ostracized him since middle school, long before he had any ability to strike. You can split hairs and say that's not bullying, but it would be if he were Saint Gonzales and the right-wingers were ostracizing her (assuming they had enough power to do so). In fact, that's pretty much what's going on now. Criticizing the Parkland kids (at least the anti-gun ones) is bullying.
One of my co-workers in the environmental field used to compare me to the Uni-bomber because of my conservatism; it didn't seem to make much difference to her that he was a left wing killer.
Because the spread in time magazine, and other itinerant appearances weren't going to happen, he is means to an end.
The bully story is fake news, but Nugent's hate is not. It seems the bully is Ingraham and Nugent. If you watch the actual interview of Hogg you will see he does not whine but admits that many qualified students do not get their choice in college and he is just one of them.
You can split hairs and say that's not bullying...
I'll split those hairs. That's not bullying.
What you offer is an intentional misreading of what Gonzales said. To summarize: Cruz was a violent, destructive kid with severe mental and emotional problems. Other kids avoided the violent, destructive kid. After the shooting some people accused/hypothesized that Cruz was ostracized. Gonzalez references that accusation in her rejoinder -- she doesn't claim it.
Grant for the sake of argument that Hogg did not bully Cruz while they were in school (but I believe he did).
Hogg has definitely acted like a bully since the shooting....and he gets away with it from some people because he's a kid.
How do you know that Hogg didn't bully the shooter.. Roesch?
Hogg is out their acting and speaking like a bully. Lets find out from some of his classmates, shall we?
Emma Gonzalez admitted that she bullied the shooter.
is that fake news, Roesch?
buwaya said...
They work just fine to win public relations wars and gain political power.
Given that both sides are doing it, insult theatre works only up to a point. It's intentionally creating a zero-sum game.
It also repels as many people as it attracts, which means that the more both sides spin up the shit storm, the more most moderates avoid both sides.
The side that stays silent may do better in the long run (especially if they actually pay attention to the voting instead of the shouting.)
is that fake news, Roesch?
Yes.
harrogate said...
Ted Nugent has been consumed with hate for a long time.
It's hatred to point out that saying people with different political preferences support child murder is promoting hate?
See what you have to believe to be a leftist?
The definition of the word "bully" as used against Hogg is exactly the same definition as used against Trump. Hogg uses his bully-pulpit to make bold claims and insults groups that oppose him. If you like that definition of "bully" you can ride with it, but you should be aware of who your fellow-travelers are. Just because they got on at an earlier stop doesn't make their complaints any different.
“Since he was in middle school, it was no surprise to anyone who knew him, that he was the shooter. Those talking about how we should have not ostracized him? You didn’t know this kid! OK? We did!”
-Emma Gonzalez
Sound to me like some Ostracizing was going on for a very long time. What came first, the bullying/ostracizing or the the guy who snapped?
DnB, you're playing someone else's broken record. Read upward.
Love thy neighbor, destroy anyone who points out you're a whiner.
I'm not a fan of his music; but, I like Mr. Nugent--he's very intelligent and a hoot.
In brief, here is my Terrible Ted story.
It was 1987; I was working the Back Door at the Paramount in Seattle; I was still a gradual student. My boss, Bluesman Steve comes up and tells me I'm working the Talent tonight. Who's the Talent? Terrible Ted. I have to wait by the back door for Ted, who's late as he did not come with the bus. I wait. I wait.
The First Group starts the night. I wait some more.
There's a knock at the Back Door, I open and look downward at this smallish guy in a three piece suit, hair pulled back, carrying an attache case.
Before I can speak, he sticks out his hand, grabs mine with a forceful shake, and says, "Ah so you're Dan The Man the Back Door Man who is to be my shadow for the next eight hours. Show me to my suite; I'm late; I have to change into Ted Nugent."
Which he did.
I think it was the first real crack in my leftist facade. He was wonderful. Sat me inside the suite and put the buffet in front of me saying he knows how gradual students eat.
A Bow Hunter on the NRA Board!
I'll repeat my remarks and extend them:
The idea that Gonzalez admitted to ostracizing Cruz is an intentional misreading of what Gonzales actually said. To summarize: Cruz was a violent, destructive kid with severe mental and emotional problems (this is well documented -- he did not just snap). Other kids avoided the violent, destructive kid. After the shooting some people accused/hypothesized that Cruz was ostracized. Gonzalez references that accusation in her rejoinder -- she doesn't claim it. She makes the utterly commonplace observation that other kids avoided the kid who tortured animals and made physical threats.
I've occasionally encouraged my kids to make friends / stay friends with another kid who was going through some troubles. I would have no problem telling my kid to stay away from the kid who makes violent threats and tortures animals. Would you?
@Henry, the people who argue that the ostracism suffered by Nikolas Cruz was a form of bullying are right, and you are wrong. Accept that.
@roesch, it's not fake. I grew up in a quarry town with talent for math and science, and the son of one of the few white color workers in town. I know what it's like to be different, and I know what the ostracism can do, including signaling to the serious bullies that it's okay to pick on this kid. I got lucky in high school, made the varsity on one of the teams, found friends from other towns. Cruz wasn't so lucky and he broke. But Gonzalez, and others in her clique, helped break him. Never doubt that.
Are we using the word "hate" in the conventional, dictionary sense? (Example: "Statist pseudo-liberals hate liberty.") Or are we using it in the new, Orwellian sense: i.e., "that which opposes the 'liberal' Hive and its agenda"? I just like to clarify the terminology right up front.
Not caring much for rock music, I know little of Mr. Nugent; although I did enjoy his appearance on the old Letterman show in which he and Dave spoofed the Bing Crosby/David Bowie Christmas special team-up. Lately I've been seeing a lot of negative stuff about Nugent; but since it all seemed to be coming from the Usual Gang of Liberty-Phobes, I thought I'd see what the guy was actually saying. I watched a YouTube video of him being interviewed regarding Second Amendment issues and was pleasantly surprised. He was clearly passionate about liberty, but also spoke rationally about it. In that context he reminded me of Tom Paine--not bad philosophical company to keep. What I liked best is that, unlike many conservatives, he didn't entirely base his position on an interpretation of the Second Amendment. That is, he didn't see his right to own a firearm deriving from some kind of permission-slip from Der Staat. It was a "radical" position in the best sense of the term. It reminded me of one of the few sensible things to ever come out of 1960s radicalism: H. Rap Brown's "If someone let's you be free, you're not free." I wonder how many of the Radical Chic boneheads who said "Right on!" to that comprehended its full implications.
This, of course, does not give a full imprimatur to everything and anything else Mr. Nugent might have said before or since; although after that YouTube video it's hard for me to imagine him saying anything nearly as stupid as the usual "liberal" idiocies.
@Henry, you make a good point but it's a non sequitur. We don't know what Cruz would have been like had other kids reached out to him. Four years ago he was evaluated by state mental health professionals and pronounced no risk to others or to himself. What happened after that, if not middle school and high school?
What I find interesting, no, make that fascinating, is evidence that if one were to poll all of the youngsters in the high school - early college years cohort here in the United States, that a majority support gun rights and only a smallish minority adopt the extremist position of David Hogg with his neo-Nazi hatred and Nazi-like salute.
@Big Mike -- I'm parsing the accusation of ostracism as applied it to a single individual, Emma Gonzalez, using a bald misreading of a fairly straightforward comment she made on the subject.
The idea that Cruz "snapped" or "broke" is a wild misstatement of all the facts we know. Throwing in the word "clique" is a particularly sick embellishment.
I don't take my morality from kids who barely have to shave and have zero real world experience.
Neither do I let murder victim survivors determine guilt, innocence and most importantly punishment of a murderer. They are not exactly unbiased or even rational actors.
Four years ago he was evaluated by state mental health professionals and pronounced no risk to others or to himself.
I thought we were contesting the state's professionalism.
In any case I think we state as axiomatic that serial killers have mental problems that go far beyond having a crappy high school experience.
I think part of the reason Hogg is such an appealing target is because he so resembles an all-American type: the know-it-all soda jerk.
Henry said...
The definition of the word "bully" as used against Hogg is exactly the same definition as used against Trump. Hogg uses his bully-pulpit to make bold claims and insults groups that oppose him. If you like that definition of "bully" you can ride with it, but you should be aware of who your fellow-travelers are. Just because they got on at an earlier stop doesn't make their complaints any different.
Wow, I like that a lot! (I'd add, about both Hogg and Trump, that their claims aren't just "bold" and often insulting. They are -- both of them -- often plainly false. Hogg whines about how he and his fellow students are being "shut down" and "silenced" by their opponents. Everybody knows that's not true. Hogg has a whole media world ready and willing to magnify his voice in a way that almost no teenager in history has ever enjoyed. And Trump likes to whine about "fake news" even when the news is directly quoting Trump or the people that matter to Trump's policies. Trump also has a whole world of media -- Fox News, Breitbart, conservative talk radio, the Enquirer, etc., etc. -- actively working on his behalf.)
@Henry, you're wrong. Deal with it.
Did you ever notice that David Hogg and Dana Loesch look a lot alike? They could almost be siblings.
https://twitter.com/davidhogg111
https://twitter.com/dloesch
PatHMV said... [hush][hide comment]
Emma Gonzales did not "admit that she bullied the shooter." She admitted that everyone knew of him and was scared of him, and that they avoided him and were scared to interact with him because he was subject to fits of rage. We shouldn't blame the teenagers for failing to figure out how to be friends with a rage-filled, disturbed fellow teen with serious mental health issues.
Yeah, I brought this up in a post some days ago.
Most kids not gonna mess with this guy because he would beat their ass. Even the tougher guys probably leave him alone because he is the type to get beat up one day and come back the next with a baseball bat and whack your head. Also, the type of guy who would keep hitting you with the bat while you were unconscious on the ground.
Far as 'ostracizing" being bullying, ostracizing means they didn't socialize with the guy. Maybe he didn't even notice they were ostracizing him.
Had a situation in Silicon Valley area where, after parking dispute, guy follows the other into sporting goods store, grabs a bat, and beats him to death. Not one unfortunate whack on the head, but smashing his skull over and over and ove and over.
That is Cruz
@Big Mike. I'm often wrong. Begin wrong is pretty easy to deal with it. It's always being right that's a chore.
It's always being right that's a chore.
it's a cross I have to bear.....
it’s always being right that’s a chore.
Don’t I know it! ;-)
Of course I was wrong once. I thought I had made a mistake but it turned out I hadn’t.
Chuck,
If you really think Nugent got his approach and style from Trump, you are mistaken.
PatHMV said...
Emma Gonzales did not "admit that she bullied the shooter." She admitted that everyone knew of him and was scared of him, and that they avoided him and were scared to interact with him because he was subject to fits of rage. We shouldn't blame the teenagers for failing to figure out how to be friends with a rage-filled, disturbed fellow teen with serious mental health issues.
It's a pity that Gonzales and Hogg and all of us are talking about gun control and personalities instead of the poisonous farm-to-table, I mean prison-to-school system operating in Coward County. What must the kids have wanted above all else? For Cruz to be removed from their presence. But no, because that would have been a blip on a spreadsheet.
walter said...
Chuck,
If you really think Nugent got his approach and style from Trump, you are mistaken.
I don't think that. I didn't think that, and I didn't write that. I'd never suggest that the Nuge got much of anything from Trump. (I might say, "chutzpah"; but the Nuge has a rucksack full of chutzpah at all times.)
I'm a born-and-raised Detroiter. I've been in a room with Nugent and heard him talk.
I really wasn't saying much of anything about Nugent that would surprise anybody.
My "Did this come from Trump?" notion was aimed at Laura Ingraham. And it was because her gaffe (minor, but still a gaffe) was so perfectly Trumpian; it was an insult, and a dumb one, and it was on Twitter.
The Trump-trifecta.
You know...
"Anybody have any idea, where these post-2016 conservatives got the idea "
Hogg is wrong. He is an employee of the treat symptoms for financial and political profit industry. The FBI failed in their background check. The Sheriff failed before and during the mass elective abortion event. The abortionist was a known risk who should have been removed from the hostile environment that eventually pushed him over the cliff. The children were victims, first, of the abortionist, and, second, the authorities who denied people their civil rights and are now doubling-down on their failure as second-responders.
The reality show I would binge would be Ted Nugent takes David Hogg to man-camp.
Stick him in camo..put a heavy gun in those spindly arms..go boar hunting..
>>It's always being right that's a chore.
You people who think you know everything are very annoying to those of us who do.
Anybody have any idea, where these post-2016 conservatives got the idea to wade into personal attacks instead of advancing ideas and sound arguments carefully?
Gee. I don't know.
From the left?
Chuck
"Anybody have any idea, where these post-2016 conservatives got the idea to wade into personal attacks instead of advancing ideas and sound arguments carefully?"
Gosh, Chuck. You were not around for Ronald R? GWB? Et al? I am stunned.
Gosh, Chuck. You were not around for Ronald R? GWB? Et al? I am stunned.
There's some reason he wasn't bothered by personal attacks on them. I can't quite put my finger on it.
It's a pity that Gonzales and Hogg and all of us are talking about gun control and personalities instead of the poisonous farm-to-table, I mean prison-to-school system operating in Coward County.
It would be interesting to know if this was their idea or they are really just following a script.
There are other school districts suffering from this Obama obsession with blacks in prison.
Even the Star Tribune, a lefty paper of there was one, published this.
Clearly, however, there’s been a profound shift in district leaders’ educational philosophy. In place of academic excellence for all, the district’s primary mission is now to ensure that students think correctly on social and political issues — most importantly, on race and “white privilege.”
District leaders enshrined this new mission in EPS’s “All for All” strategic plan, adopted in 2013. The plan mandates that, going forward, the EPS must view “all teaching and learning experiences” through the “lens of racial equity.”
If “equity” meant “treating kids equally,” all thinking Minnesotans would support it. In this context, however, it’s code for racial identity politics — a simplistic blaming of “white privilege” for the racial learning gap and any other problems that minority populations experience.
The “All for All” plan mandates sweeping change to how education is delivered in Edina. For example, it dictates that, from now on, the district will hire “racially conscious teachers and administrators.” It also declares that students must “acquire an awareness of their own cultural identity and value racial, cultural and ethnic diversities.”
I suspect we will be reading about this school on the not too distant future.
"Anybody have any idea, where these post-2016 conservatives got the idea to wade into personal attacks instead of advancing ideas and sound arguments carefully?
"'Gee. I don't know.
'From the left?"
Indeed. The Argument Ad Hominem has been a much-used arrow in the Statist quiver since I was a boy and Barry Goldwater was running for president. And along with the Argument Ad Hominem, that Argument from Pity (shout out to Jimmy Kimmel!) and the Tu Quoque.
"“They’re actually committing spiritual suicide because everything they recommend will cause more death and mayhem,” he said. “Guaranteed.”"
Ted nailed this one to the wall. I, for one, get tired of hearing the same arguments, debunked back during Heller v DC, presented as if new by ignorant kids who think they are having profound thoughts, rather than knowing they are being used as shills by the same people who have lost the anti-gun war since 1980.
Trump is one of the few Republicans that fights back. His Alinsky tactics / persuasion are amazing. And he’s getting results. The hit in credibility of the media has been amazing.
Romney got crucified by the Alinsky tactics of Obama’s clique. They threw so much mud, and Romney played the nice guy. Same with McCsin.
It’s been amusing to watch Obama throw stuff at Trump, and Trump hitting him back. And Obama’s stops...
>They work just fine to win public relations wars and gain political power.
>
>Given that both sides are doing it, insult theatre works only up to a point. It's intentionally creating a zero-sum game.
“Romney got crucified by the Alinsky tactics of Obama’s clique. They threw so much mud, and Romney played the nice guy. Same with McCain.”
Remember that Hillary wrote a thesis on Alinsky and Obama followed in his Chicago community organizer footsteps. The Clintons invented the politics of personal destruction and Obama perfected it. Many Republicans were blindsided by the tactics, thinking that Alinsky was just some left wing asshole. Like or not, the tactics are here to stay, at least until some Dem challenger distances him, her, or itself from it. I don’t see that in any Dem challenger except Sanders.
Post a Comment