Ted Nugent: Flight of the Chicken Hawks

Jake DiMare is officially calling bullshit on Ted Nugent’s patriotic, tough-guy act. 

It’s time to add a another word to my own personal definition of what it means to be a Good Man: ‘Duty’. As in, the philosophical concept of duty…When one feels a moral commitment or obligation to someone or something. Often, duty manifests itself as patriotism. A strong sense of commitment to one’s own country. Those men and women with a strong sense of patriotic duty will put the best interests of their country before their own.
Many right-wing conservatives are vociferous war hawks. They will often claim this sense of patriotic duty as justification for putting young men and women in harm’s way. Ironically, it is often the loudest voices among the pro-war crowd who have a strange twist in their back story.
Enter Vietnam War draft dodger Theodore Anthony ‘Ted’ Nugent. A man so patriotic he literally wears American flags on stage while playing a guitar with an American flag painted on it. A man so dedicated to American conservative ideals he brings guns out onto the stage between songs. A man so bound by duty he spent the time between receiving notification he’d been drafted to serve in Vietnam and appearing before the draft board…Well…shitting his pants.
I’ve got a serious question for conservative readers of the Good Men Project: Am I the only person who is confused when the GOP doesn’t distance itself from this guy? In a 1990 interview with the Free Press Ted Nugent explained how he intentionally avoided the draft:
“He claims that 30 days before his Draft Board Physical, he stopped all forms of personal hygiene. The last 10 days he ingested nothing but junk food and Pepsi, and a week before his physical, he stopped using the bathroom altogether, virtually living inside his pants caked with excrement and urine. That spectacle won Nugent a deferment.”

His father must have been so proud. Here’s a guy who literally bragged about how going to the Vietnam war scared him so much, he shit his pants. 

The New Hampshire Gazette has gone so far as to come up with a title for this special category of hypocrites: The Chicken Hawks. They’ve even created an online database where you can learn more about specific Chicken Hawks, and the tactics they employed to avoid duty to their country when their time came.

If you have the time, check it out. It makes for some enlightening and entertaining reading. 
Photo: AP

Premium Membership, The Good Men Project

About Jake DiMare

Jake DiMare lives in Boston, Massachusetts with his fiancee Jackie. In addition to writing for the Good Men Project, Jake is a digital strategist managing large scale web projects for government, health and higher education clients. When Jake’s not at work he enjoys sailing, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, movies and hanging out with friends. Jake blogs at jakedimare.com and can be found on Twitter @jakedimare

Comments

  1. The Wet One says:

    Like Wow!

    And no, I don’t mean World of Warcraft…

  2. Professor Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist working at the University of Chicago, once engaged in a spirited debate with Ann Coulter about the merits of the theory of evolution.

    He acknowledged that there was no question that the fossil record was incomplete. He further admitted that, while micro-evolution was observable, no human would likely live long enough to witness macro-evolution. He was happy to report that there are many aspects of human anatomy for which evolutionary theory cannot yet explain.

    And then he delivered his greatest point: even if evolutionary theory was completely wrong, that left no evidence that Creationism was correct. Ann Coulter was committing a classical false-dichotomy by making pretend that if evolution was wrong, creationism must be correct.

    Mr. DiMare’s posts seem to exhibit the same logic that Ms. Coulter used. He will trot out a conservative (in this case Ted Nugent, but it’s been others in the past), apply a logical fallacy (we’re seeing an ad hominem attack here, where the merits of Mr. Nugent’s arguments are not discussed but his personal history is attacked), and then left to assume that the opposing side must be correct.

    Just as Professor Coyne was unconvinced by Ms. Coulter’s false dichotomy, I remain unconvinced by Mr. DiMare’s arguments.

    The important question we need to be asking is: are the policies of liberals going to lead to the better outcomes than the policies of conservatives?

    Attacking anyone’s personal history does not answer that question, nor does it even begin to contemplate it.

    • I agree with you that a person’s conduct does not tell us much, if anything, about whether his beliefs are correct or otherwise justified. That said, there seems to be something to the notion of rhetorical authority (to borrow a phrase from David Foster Wallace). Is it really unreasonable for us to expect that certain people prone to using using bellicose rhetoric — people like Mr. Nugent — simply keep those opinions to themselves? I would argue that Ted is no longer entitled to weigh in on such matters. He had his chance and he avoided it. As such, while I don’t question his professions of love for his country, why should his fellow countrymen to listen to his views on matters of war and service to one’s country. I can’t be certain what I would have done had I been in ted’s shoes but, I would hope that if I acted as he did, I would humbly keep my opinions on such matters to myself.

      • Taylor,

        Let me put it this way.

        If you had gotten an F in arithmetic, that does not mean you are automatically wrong when you tell me that 1 + 1 = 2. Indeed, 1 + 1 = 2, regardless of who the messenger is, and we need to acknowledge that.

        Ted Nugent got that F in the relevant subject, but that doesn’t automatically make the policies he advocates for wrong. The policies need to be evaluated independently of the messenger.

        • My piece is about the ‘nuge’ and his hypocrisy, not policy

          • I see your point and in general agree with it. However, you seem to think that all conservatives support us going to war. In fact, many of the conservative point of view were AGAINST us going into Iraq and Afganisitian (Pat Buchannan and Bill O’Reily were very vocal in their dissent) In fact, a look at our history suggests that since at least the time oe Andrew Jackson it was the Liberal progressive type party that for using military might to expand our countrys influence (remember that Lincolns new Republicians were the progressive liberals until about the 1920’s) That changed in the Vietnam War ( even though our involvement was started by the Liberal Democrat J.F.K.) Throughout our history , Conseratives have been Isolationist who for the most part believe our troops should basically be to protect our shores. Todays Conserative party has been coerced by various groups with their own agenda (Religious Right, Big Business). Those of us who believe in true Conserative ideals find ourselves today calling ourselves Libertarians. Those of us who believe the government should Pave the roads, deliver the mail , protect the shores and otherwise stay the HELL OUT OF OUR LIVES!

            • bobbt, I think you’d be surprised to learn just how much I agree with you. However, I disagree I made a sweeping generalization of all conservatives in my article.

          • Then your piece is moot and flawed. Chicken Hawk. How about that Bill Clinton? Address the issues, or go dig a ditch.

            • Address the issues, or go dig a ditch? I’ve done both in my life but I reject the notion they are my only choices.

            • Sorry, I must have missed the day Bill Clinton was aggressively war mongering and shouting about guns and God. Which day was that again, CB?

            • Fun fact: The President that mentioned God and religion most, out of any President to date…Bill Clinton.

              (I’m really not commenting on the rest of this and I’m not looking to discuss whether Ted Nugent (or Bill Clinton) is hypocritical or not. I am bringing up what I thought was a pretty interesting fact that’s a little bit off topic).

            • As I said, I clearly missed the day Clinton was war mongering and shouting about God and guns.

          • “My piece is about the ‘nuge’ and his hypocrisy, not policy”

            If this is true, then what is it doing on The Good Men Project?

            Is that what we’re about now, slinging mud? What happened to “the discussion is important” and the other ideals? What kind of a discussion are we supposed to have?

            Should we be saying:
            Ted is a huge idiot!
            No he’s not!
            Yes he is!

            Is that a real discussion? If you’re not grounding your points in something debatable, aren’t you just name calling?

            • “If this is true, then what is it doing on The Good Men Project?”

              Mike, if you’ve read my other work, you’ll notice hypocrisy is a common theme I seek to root out an illustrate as an example of how NOT to be a good man.

              Furthermore, it is you who is using the straw man fallacy to try and distract readers from the true intent of my work. I give you an A for effort, but an D+ in execution of logical arguments.

            • Sorry, Mike L, but since when is hypocrisy something we’re not allowed to discuss at The Good Men Project? Are you in charge of setting the parameters? Whether a man is good or not (and this level of hypocrisy suggests that no, Mr. Nugent is probably not a “good man,” whether he’s a good rock star, or a good loud, bellicose right-wing blowhard talk show guest) strikes me as the very definition of the site’s mandate.

              If you’re a Ted Nugent fan who’s peevish at having one of his heroes, or his co-politicists, called out for hypocrisy, that’s one thing. But suggesting that a man’s hypocrisy isn’t a relevant subject for discussion on a site called The Good Men Project seems a fairly transparent end-run around an issue that personally distresses you as a fan.

          • TruthWillOut says:

            While anyone who bends to calling someone a hypocrite is most likely a hypocrite themselves, one thing is certain. Mr. Nugent had a 1Y deferment from the military, but first, he had a high-school student deferment, then a college student deferment, and finally his 1Y, which is a medical deferment. There is no evidence in the official record of him defecating in his pants, although most people love to throw that story around the web, unsubstantiated in any form of record. Many people deferred from the military during Vietnam, a war that was both literally and historically wrong. That doesn’t revoke their first Amendment rights, anymore than your little jaunt into fantasyland here.

        • Mike,

          Hypocrisy is an important issue when evaluating someone who advocates for us to follow certain policies. You call it ad hominem, but you’re misusing the fallacy. No one’s calling Nugent a “meany sissie-head, and thus he’s wrong about everything in LIFE”. We’re pointing out that his war-hawk advocacy, gun-totting, tough-guy persona is not genuine, but instead an incredible facade.

          You may not like it, but it *matters* to voters when politicians and celebrities who advocate for us to go to war are among the most notorious examples of those who refused to go themselves. It *matters* to EVERYONE when people (like Ted Nugent), who are incredibly outspoken on warlike foreign policy, not to mention allusions to violent revolutions against our government, turn out to be hypocrites and cowards. Call it ad hominem if you want (erroneously) but it undermines your credibility and your policies when you don’t practice what you preach.

          • And as a veteran – a person who was scared of combat, but still went – I forgive his actions, if true (I would still like to see proof), all is forgiven. Will you forgive Hollywood actors that condemn law enforcent, but yet make their money off of pretending to be one, or is that acceptable?

            • ‘If true’? Do some research, ‘The Nuge’ is an admitted draft dodger. In fact, he bragged about how he ‘tricked’ the draft board.

              The really funny thing about his story is he was willing to dodge the draft by pretending to be a craven coward instead of just admitting he was.

            • CB, I’m sorry, but that comment didn’t even make sense. No one is asking you to forgive, or not forgive, Ted Nugent. It’s not up to you. This piece is about his hypocrisy. And rambling on about Hollywood actors playing cops is completely unconnected to any part of this story.

            • michael rowe, well said… i went into the military at 17 (vietnam era veteran), I had mush for brains. I could’ve done anything including what Nugent allegedly did, heck I didn’t know up from down, did no fighting. I’m 55 now and much wiser and if I was asked, right now, to fight along side my brothers and sisters to defend this great country I would not hesitate. Nugent is a patriot and I’m pretty sure if asked the same thing his response would be as immediate as I believe mine would be.

          • Zek,

            Let me give you a hand here. An ad hominem attack is when you attack the speaker rather than the argument.

            So something that IS NOT an ad hominem would say “We shouldn’t go to war because it will not achieve our policy objectives for the following reasons…”

            Something that IS an ad hominem would say “We shouldn’t go to war because the following people are advocating for it…”

            This piece clearly reflects the later sort of argument and is an obvious ad hominem. That’s what an ad hominem is, an attack TO THE PERSON (the literal translation of the Latin) rather than to the argument. Believe it or not, an ad hominem doesn’t actually require traditional name calling.

            Furthermore, you may not like it, but people are swayed all the time by things that should not convince them (conspiracy theories come to mind). This doesn’t mean we should stop calling out the illogical when we see it.

            • Mike,

              Okay, so I think you’re missing the point, which is surprising since it’s been clearly made by a bunch of the commenters here…

              This piece clearly reflects the later sort of argument and is an obvious ad hominem. That’s what an ad hominem is, an attack TO THE PERSON (the literal translation of the Latin) rather than to the argument. Believe it or not, an ad hominem doesn’t actually require traditional name calling.

              Believe it or not, pointing that someone’s being hypocritical is not an ad hominem.
              Hypocrisy is a valid criticism of someone’s policies. It matters to people that when you say we should act a certain way or do certain things, but don’t yourself. It doesn’t just undermine your credibility, it undermines the entire point because why wouldn’t you do yourself what you ask of others?

              Furthermore, you may not like it, but people are swayed all the time by things that should not convince them (conspiracy theories come to mind). This doesn’t mean we should stop calling out the illogical when we see it.

              Sorry, who’s swayed by conspiracy theories? Last I checked, there was no great consensus in the existence of Bigfoot. However, we should call out the illogical when we see it.

              Like we’re doing right here to you, Ted Nugent, and Chicken Hawks.

              That said, I’m not going to argue with you whether the sky is blue or whether hypocrisy is illogical. If you can’t see it, sorry. Most everyone else gets it.

            • Zek,

              This is particularly hilarious because the wikipedia page on “Chicken Hawk” actually begins be defining the term as an “ad hominem” attack.

              Clearly “most every else” does not “get it.”

              Good luck with convincing people though…

            • You might also have noticed, had you kept reading the Wikipedia article, the following:

              “Doug Walton has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue,[12] as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject’s words.”

              Of course, none of this is applicable in this case since my article MAKES NO MENTION OF POLICY.

              Seriously bro, I think you’d have figured out by now this weak ass trolling isn’t going to work with me.

        • @Mike L
          It’s a stretch to say that Nugent advocates policy. He mostly advocates an attitude and lifestyle. So if his personal life doesn’t match up with his bravado it’s totally valid to call bullshit.

        • John Schtoll says:

          LIke the old saying goes “Even a broken clock is right twice a day, but that doesn’t mean I rely on it for time keeping”. Same goes for Mr Nugent, I wouldn’t rely on his opinions about anything.

  3. Charles Giacometti says:

    Nugent should be prosecuted for his threat to commit violence in the event of President Obama’s election. If he was just “kidding” then he should shut the fuck up and go away. He was either threatening the President, or he was being a moron. Either way, his rhetoric should be condemned far and wide. If you don’t get that, shame on you.

    Nugent is a moron and a rube. That’s not ad hominem; it’s fact. If I ever doubt my support for Democratic party ideals, I just have to look at who is on the other side. I know I am in the right.

  4. eric russo says:

    I thought when you were calling him a Chicken Hawk, you were referring to when he convinced a Hawaiian couple to let him become the legal guardian of their 17 year old daughter whom he allegedly wanted to marry. Apparently, in Hawaii, she was still a minor and it was illegal to do so. But why let the law stop you from getting what you want right?

  5. The Bad Man says:

    Meh, all political partisans suck rocks.

  6. Mark Ellis says:

    I am a big fan of Ted’s music (especially the classics “Stranglehold” and “Cat Scratch Fever”) but less so of his brand of all-American patriotism, simply because in my opinion it is not thoughtfully articulated.
    You don’t have to be a veteran to comment on policy as relates to the military, but if you dodged the draft and then crowed about it publically you should probably avoid coming across as Mr. Gung Ho. That said, we’ve all made mistakes when younger, and my instinct is to forgive youthful transgressions like Nugent’s draft panic as long as the individual seems to have learned something from it.
    What Ted might have learned is that he should have been honest and straightforward about his unwillingness to fight in Viet Nam, and humble about it, even if it chinked at the armor of his balls-out, guns and gonzo persona.
    His support for the military is laudable, but he needs to remember that there is a big difference between shooting an elk and being shot at by enemy combatants. Beyond that, I take the political pronouncements of entertainment celebrities—whether Nugent or Alec Baldwin—with a large helping of salt.

  7. Mark Ellis says:

    I did take a look at the chicken hawk list, and missing is Bill Clinton who avoided the draft and then had to explain the collateral damage (aspirin factory) of his bombing runs in Bosnia. Barack Obama, who didn’t serve, but has no problems unleashing drones to reign death. (Note: I support both actions) That’s often the problem with liberal analysis, one-sided hypocrisy fatally weakens their arguments.

    It’s like when liberals get all up in arms about Rush/Fluke, but don’t equally condemn Ed Schultz
    (Ingraham=slut) and Letterman (Willow Palin knocked up by A-Rod) Spare me the line about Letterman being an entertainer and Rush an analyst–Rush is an entertainer when it suits the left, and the titular head of the GOP when that works.

    • Well Mark, for the record…which is Rush Limbaugh? An analyst or entertainer?

    • Bill Clinton didn’t serve in Vietnam, but he also didn’t brag about getting out of it. Nor did he establish his political identity with bellicose statements and condemnation of those who question the government’s military actions. As Commander in Chief he faced situations in which military force was necessary, but he hasn’t been an apologist for unchecked militarism, nor a “might makes right–America, love it or leave it” type. Obama was never of draft age during the Vietnam war, nor has he campaigned as a pacifist. (More like a pragmatist that prefers to avoid military conflict when possible.)
      The Chicken Hawk label belongs to those who strongly advocate for the unrestrained use of U.S. force, and who condemn and demean the patriotism of those who respectfully (or not) disagree, while having avoided service themselves (and whose children have been unlikely to serve as well.) It is almost exclusively a situation found among those on the right.

  8. Mike L., if his entirely fake bravura macho is tied to selling “the policies he advocates for,” when he sets himself up the embodiment of those policies, then its entirely relevant to take a long hard look if those policies are as fake as he is. In 1977 it wasn’t “cool” to be pro-war, so he took advantage of that to brag in interview about how he went to his draft board with piss and shit in his pants so other boys would be sent to war in his place. Now it’s cool to be pro-war, so out come the flags and the guns. What kind of rock star is most attracted to the GOP? A coward and a fraud.

    Terrific piece, Jake.

  9. Someone mention Rush Limbaugh? The bellicose de facto leader of the GOP/Tea Party rank and file?

    He missed Vietnam because he had a boil on his butt. I bet he really wanted to go and serve, too.

  10. Mark Ellis says:

    Pedro,

    You’re conflating the issues of chicken-hawks and selective liberal media outrage.

  11. Copyleft says:

    Ted Nugent’s hypocrisy is an undeniable fact… and that’s why it doesn’t matter to his far-right fans. They’re not interested in facts; they’re interested in how Nugent’s rants make them feel. That’s why they cheered Romney, with a strong anti-gun record, when he attacked Obama, who’s done nothing to restrict gun rights in any way: because Romney’s words reflected what they wanted to believe, not mere reality.

    Stephen Colbert clarified this point early on in his show: Truthiness is far more powerful than mere truth. “I promise not to tell the truth to you; I promise to FEEL the truth AT you.”

  12. Mark Ellis says:

    Jake, I actually think that Rush is a serious analyst who has an on-air style of presentation that is entertaining. As opposed to a respected analyst like Charles Krauthammer, who is brilliant, but who probably wouldn’t command the kind of audience Rush has over the long hall due to his drier, more Weekly Standard style of presentation. Or, as opposed to Jon Stewart, who I believe is 85% entertainer and 15% analyst.

    • Mark,

      I actually think that Rush is a serious analyst who has an on-air style of presentation that is entertaining.

      Hahahahahahahaha! You’re kidding, right? Right?? Right???

      Seriously!? Let me show you some of the things your “serious analyst” has said:

      “The worst of all of this is the lie that condoms really protect against AIDS. The condom failure rate can be as high as 20 percent. Would you get on a plane — or put your children on a plane — if one of five passengers would be killed on the flight? Well, the statistic holds for condoms, folks. ”

      For the record: condoms are 99% effective at preventing pregnancy and STDS, including HIV/AIDS.

      “There are more American Indians alive today than there were when Columbus arrived or at any other time in history. Does this sound like a record of genocide?”

      Apparently he forgot the Trail of Tears, small pox, and the fact that Europeans stole an entire continent from its original inhabitants numbering in the millions.

      “Too many whites are getting away with drug use…Too many whites are getting away with drug sales…The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too.” —- “I need to tell you today that part of what you have heard and read is correct. I am addicted to prescription pain medication.”

      But Rush doesn’t count himself in that category, because he’s TOTALLY exempt from illegal/abusive drug use. Something he’s done many, many times apparently.

      “I’m talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You ever heard of need to blow some steam off?”

      Here he’s talking about Abu Ghraib and the soldiers convicted of torturing prisons in violation of the Geneva Convention.

      “Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.”

      Because back in the 1950’s it totally didn’t look like a game between the KKK and Nazis?

      “You know, this is all BS, as far as I’m concerned. Cross species evolution, I don’t think anybody’s ever proven that. They’re going out of their way now to establish evolution as a mechanism for creation, which, of course, you can’t do. ”

      Yep, Rush think he’s know more about science than scientists.

      There was also that snafu where he called a private citizen speaking about public policy a slut and asked her to post videos of herself having sex online. And there are the many times he’s promoted homophobia, transphobia, sexism, misandry, misogyny, racism, classism, nativism, Islamophobia, ableism, Birtherism, violence against Democrats/Liberals/The President, as well as an incredible slew of hypocritical bigotry so vastly immoral it’s enough to stop the heart of even Mother Theresa and Gandhi.

      Want more proof?

      http://timtpost.com/2012/03/12/the-bigotry-of-rush-limbaugh-and-those-that-bank-roll-him/

      http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/homophobia-rush-limbaughs-top-anti-gay-quotes/discrimination/2009/03/05/517

      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/18/1008008/-Rush-Limbaugh-racist

      Mark, I want to take your comment seriously, I really do!

      But when you say patently untrue things, like Rush Limbaugh being a “seriously analyst”, well… I call BS. Don’t be dishonest, because people here WILL call you out on it.

    • You’re being sarcastic, right Mark?

  13. Mark Ellis says:

    Dimare asked a question, and I answered it honestly. I never said I though Rush was always right, nor is any commentator. I can often take or leave his flamboyant social commentary, which is part of the entertainment side. He’s right enough often enough about the important things, which for me is the political landscape.

    I don’t usually go to my columns, but I think it might help to show exactly where I’m coming from.
    http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/ellis/120306

    Let the trashing begin.

    • You said he was a “serious analyst.” Now you addd, “He’s right enough often about the important things,” and you post a column from the virulent right-wing, homophobic “Renew America” website to show where you’re coming from.

      OK, I guess context really is everything.

    • Mark Ellis,

      So I read your link. I’m curious. A post about why Rush is awesome, all Democrats suck, and women are greedy whores sucking off the government teat is your justification? I mean, you kinda went beyond ignorance, “I am begging Republicans, including the radio talkers, including the granddaddy of them all. Get on message about jobs, national defense, trade imbalances, debt, deficits, the economy, Islamic jihadists, and border security. These are the party’s strong suits, and these are the issues Democrats hope we become diverted from.”

      As I recall it was a Democratic president who killed Osama bin Laden, a Democratic Congress who prevented a government shutdown, a Democratic (former) president who balanced the budget, and Democrats who’ve, by and large, promoted better, smarter government with less corruption — meanwhile Republican presidents in conjunction with a Republican congress provided blanket amnesty to immigrants, wrecked the economy, waged costly wars that made us less safe, deregulated the financial sector, and advocated against civil liberties to homosexual couples. Moreover, it has been Democrats who’ve been working towards bipartisanship and attempted to keep Republicans focused on helping 99% of Americans instead of the 1%.

      I mean, if you’re going to take a political position, you could at least be honest.

      And what important things are you referring to? I mean, after being wrong about race, gender, class, religion, immigration, the economy, drugs, consistency, ethics, morality, nonpartisanship, birth control, and healthcare, what important things are left that Rush is right about???

      Sorry Mark, but I think by showing your hand here, you’ve ultimately undermined your own position. I’m glad you did, but I’m also disappointed that you apparently don’t know what you’re talking about =/

    • Rush Limbaugh is a festering boil on the fat, sweating, lily-white ass (Clear Channel) of American media. If you really think he has anything of any value to add to the national discourse, we’ve got nothing left to discuss. In my opinion any further debate with someone so foolish would be like debating with a developmentally disabled child. Genuinely.

      • I’m not sure why you are choosing to bring developmentally disabled kids into this. Many of them are loving, sweet, and function as best they can. They have a wide variety of disabilities but that doesn’t mean some of them couldn’t debate. In a way, this is more of an insult to them, than it is to Rush. Just my 2 cents. I think it goes past what I’d consider moderation policy worthy but thought I should hear from you.

        • That’s fair Julie. Objection sustained.

          What I meant to say is, in my humble opinion, entering into a debate with someone foolish enough to see real value in what Rush Limbaugh has to say would be, in my eyes, like debating a doorknob.

  14. Not only is this extraordinary, but extraordinary he told it public! OMG. Extraordinary…

    Thanks to BarkingInTheDark I found you – this was hilarious!!

  15. Mark Ellis says:

    Noleen,

    In my orbit, digging Rush is no insult. In fact, many of my compatriots (you know, the millions of dolts who listen to Rush) wonder why I bother with the GMPM (answer: I’ve been aboard since it was a low-profile blog, and it is a good place to publish personal essays not related to politics). I linked to my column simply to speed up the process of where I knew things were heading anyway, me being called a doorknob, to save everybody some time.

    • Mark,

      Your response kinda reminds of of Eeyore — y’know, all emo and forlorn about that bad things people say/do to you, but I daresay you’ll find you’re actually the bully in this scenario. Advocating racism, homophobia, sexism, and McCArthyism as well as supporting those who are even worse is incredibly wrong to a large percentage of Americans who are covered by the categories you are bigoted towards. I mean, based on your article, you’ve essentially admitted to being bigoted against the majority of Americans. Now where’s the sense in that?

      You may feel sad that others attack you for holding these views, but perhaps you should wonder why everyone does? How would you feel if the people who’ve always held power over you said the issues you care about are a drain on society, called you Marxist even though you aren’t (and being a Marxist isn’t a bad thing either), and said they supported people who hate you? How would that make you feel? Angry? Upset? Enough that you’d refuse to tolerate it anymore?

      People don’t like being lied *to* or lied *about*. Dishonesty is wrong, even when you have good intentions. These are things we supposedly learn as children, but sadly others commit their entire lives — as well as vast fortunes — to oppressing other people based on such ignorance and bigotry. How would you feel if someone told you to go back to Europe because White people are racist genocidal liars and rapists? People say parallel things to Men of Color, Jews, Homosexuals, and Liberals ALL the time, and we/they are sick of it. So when I personally see someone do that, advocating for oppression instead of compassion, ignorance instead of truth, and bigotry instead of justice, I refuse to be silent. I refuse to give it pass. I challenge it. I confront it and fight against it.

      And you know what’s the most insulting thing about your comment? Telling us about your hurt feelings, as if we’re the bad guys for calling you out on saying such terrible things. It’s dishonest and inappropriate.

    • Millions of people love to eat fast food as well. Doesn’t make it good for them.

    • Not sure if my comment was moderated or not, so let me just leave you something to think about Mark:

      Millions may listen to Rush, but Rush promotes bigotry against tens of millions of Americans, from Black people to immigrants to women to liberals to homosexuals to the poor to non-traditional men. What you wrote and what Rush says are terrible things about these groups. I can guess that to believe in them you’d have to be ignorant or a liar, because they’re patently false.

      Don’t play the victim when you say such terrible things about so many people =/ It’s incredible insulting.

  16. Mark Ellis says:

    You guys are totally misreading me. I’m not hurt, sad, or upset or feeling like a victim at all. I am so familiar with this kind of response that I honestly chuckle because it is so predictable. This terrain is where I live, and I’m a firm believer in the idea that if you’re going to put yourself out there, you have to be able to take it, or I never would have written the post, “Should the GMP Discuss Politics.”

    This thread is nothing compared to the abuse I take when I publish something in Portland’s Oregonian, which has largely unmoderated comments.

    I’ve always known that if I ever diverged from my usual nonpartisan essays about things like heavy metal, the death of my dog, or the pressure washing of Mount Rushmore, that I would provoke this kind of blowback. You think I don’t know this, and after 20 years as a conservative political writer, don’t expect it. It’s off my back like water off a duck’s. And I well continue to submit material for the site’s consideration.

    But lets leave it alone guys. We’re never going to convince each other of anything. You’re never going to understand why I support Rush, and I can’t spend an inordinate amount of time here making the case. The web is replete with columns fleshing out my positions–for anyone who’s interested.

    • Mark,

      I am so familiar with this kind of response that I honestly chuckle because it is so predictable.

      I’m sorry, so you find it funny that a substantial amount of people — according to you — are upset that your support for dishonest, ignorant, prejudiced, and divisive politics? Seriously? And you’re comfortable with that? Wow. Well, I’m not sure if I should be impressed at your ability to block out “teh haters” or troubled that you don’t seem at all perturbed at being unapologetically bigoted.

      But lets leave it alone guys. We’re never going to convince each other of anything. You’re never going to understand why I support Rush

      Actually I do understand why you support Rush, better than you know. I grew up around Republicans, around privileged old White men who voted for Reagan’s reactionary oppression and believed to the salt of their bones that it was everybody else — from People of Color to immigrants to women to liberals to men like myself — who were ruining the country. They blamed the poor and the oppressed for not being able to pull themselves up by their stock portfolios and White male privilege. They didn’t care about all the men being incarcerated today, because those were poor men who were usually Black or Hispanic. Even now, when I go home I see signs and jokes about President Obama being a Nazi or not a citizen that I don’t see anywhere else in this country. It’s like this big Orange Curtain behind which all this bigotry coalesces because of ignorance, lies, fear, anger, and even hatred.

      I understand why you support Rush, because you actually believe in what he says. You actually believe the BS he spouts; you say as much yourself in your “columns”. You support Rush because you can’t admit it, not even to yourself apparently, that the problems in this country aren’t because of liberals, or women, or immigrants, or People of Color, or “Marxists”, or teachers, or unions, or the LGTBQ community, or college students, or even the poor.

      It’s because of people like Rush, like Karl Rove, like Glenn Beck, Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, Bush, Bachman, Derbyshire, and a whole host of other reactionary groups from the Tea Party and Birthers to radfems and PETA. It’s because people like you, and like those you look up to hate everyone else so much that you’d rather burn everything to the ground than give up even one ounce of your own bigotry.

      I’m sorry Mark, but it’s because of what you stand for that this country is in trouble. Maybe one day you’ll face up to that fact. But even if you don’t, like Bob Dylan said, “the times they are a-changing.”

  17. T. Rollins says:

    This argument has points on both sides. However the only relevant issue is does Nugent walk the walk and talk the talk now! Everyone of you crapped and pissed in your pants when you were young. Do you now??? That is the main point…can we convince others who were draft dodgers…liberals…etc.,…to change and reverse the course that this country is heading like a snowball to hell. I hope that others who see the err of their ways and thoughts will take a stand before its too late. Screw all of you who condemn Nugent unless you show me your record of all your deeds since you were a teen! Everyone changes…some to the good and some to the bad!

    • Michael Rowe says:

      Sorry, I never “crapped and pissed in my pants” when I was eighteen, nor did I ever do it on purpose to disgust someone so much that I’d be excused from doing my duty. What a bizarre excuse for inexcusable hypocrisy, T. Rollins.

    • Dude, what are you talking about? What exactly is Nugent doing now that somehow redeems him? Is,he out there actively solving problems, or serving the common good in some way? All I’ve seen or heard is his self-glorifying bravado with some right-wing cliches mixed in. And who exactly needs to repent the error of their ways? And how will this prevent the country from going to hell? And who says it’s going to hell? Just because you don’t like Obama or liberals or whatever, doesn’t mean the country is going downhill. Lighten up, or do something constructive, instead of whining about people having different views than you.

    • Now, now. I’ve heard the ‘Nuge’ is incredible at hunting majestic game animals as long as they are fenced in so he doesn’t have to do too much leg work.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] since he brought up the idea that he’s a “patriot,” that it’s common knowledge that he had shit in his pants to avoid going to Viet Nam, citing Nugent’s claim that 30 days before his Draft Board Physical, he stopped all forms of [...]

  2. [...] Ted Nugent: Flight of the Chicken Hawks [...]

  3. [...] for his buddies to discuss at the local klavern. What you might not know is that ol’ Teddy shit-his pants to avoid the draft also happens to have him an outlet to voice these dumbass ideas that reaches more than his friends [...]

  4. insurance,tech,gadget,investmenr,forex,money,travel,health Youre so insightful, have so much real stuff to bring to the table. I hope that more people read this and get what I got from it: chills. great job and great web site. I cant wait to read mor…

    Youre so insightful, have so much real stuff to bring to the table. I hope that more people read this and get what I got from it: chills. great job and great web site. I cant wait to read more, keep em comin!…

  5. [...] Posted by 007 Thank you Ted for speaking the truth. Yeah…..he's quite the……. Quote: ….BAD-ASS!!!!! __________________ Quote: August 5, 1996 Taxes: The Highest in History? [...]

Speak Your Mind

*