Ted Nugent — like Laura Ingraham before him — could teach the GOP “pragmatists” a thing or two about how to deal with a dishonest media:
TN: You’re one of those guys that’s going to try to equate rush Limbaugh with meth heads?
UP: No, but he was illegally using drugs.
TN: He had a prescription drug problem for a period of time. But, in the final analysis, is Rush in the asset column or the liability column. Did he learn from his mistakes or didn’t he?
UP: I don’t know. I don’t know him.
TN: You call yourself a journalist and you don’t know that?
UP: I don’t know him personally, I don’t know where he is personally.
TN: I think it’s universally known that Rush beat that demon. And he’s been on the law-abiding side for many more years than he was on the law-breaking side… but to compare Rush’s blink of and eye stumble to the drug culture. Martin, I gotta tell you, when I see you I’m going to have slap the shit out of you. I’ll buy you a mocha, then I’ll knee-cap you. Because that is so soulless. What a far-reaching fantasy.
UP: I just don’t know that drugs are a liberal or conservative problem, is all I’m saying.
TN: Bottom line? Do conservatives and liberals all make mistakes? You think? Do conservatives at least not just preach, but do their damndest to implement and certainly live by a realm of accountability? You’re damned right they do. Do liberals? No…
It’s simple, really. Stop them. Call them on the lies that act as the premises for leading questions. Put them on the defensive for trying to put you on the defensive.
In short, call them out on their game, describe it, and then mock it while refusing to play.
The fact is, what most of these media types do — and how they do it — has become formulaic, so common is the practice and so feeble have been the defensive responses from the GOP or conservatives, who too often look to please their abusers (see, eg., those who were willing to throw Limbaugh under the bus for leaving “open to interpretation” a criticism of Obama’s policies, a critique that was “open to interpretation” only should one allow it to be entirely recontextualized, and its intent ignored).
Which means that the majority of interviewers looking to score loaded gotcha points will be ill-prepared when the rhetorical tables are turned.
An activist press that gets portrayed as “objective” is an enormous threat to a free society that relies upon the information the media provides in order to make the informed decisions that determine its own governance.
Thus, it is crucial that we expose the machinations of such a politically-driven institution while we still have the opportunity to do so.
Because by the looks of things, that may not be much longer.
(h/t Tman)
Priceless:
UP: When you talk about the hippie thing…
TN: How old are you, Martin?
UP: I’m 28.
TN: Then you haven’t the faintest fucking idea.
” I’ll buy you a mocha, then I’ll knee-cap you. ”
I’m just picturing Michael Steele saying that.
As Rush himself put it: “I reject your premise.” As good an opening gambit as I can think of, suitable for just about every such situation.
The question is who paid fascist attorneys Bruce W. Sanford and Bruce D. Brown to write that dirty socialist George Soros wet dream OpEd urging that the already dirty socialist media become wholly dependent on the State. It wasn’t me.
Funny thing is that the comments there are all about what an idiot/douche TN is, and how brilliant Martin is.
I think that is a microcosm of our greater difficulty; the Left is so accustomed to having their view of reality officially blessed by teachers/professors/journalists that they can read that transcript and see exactly the opposite of what we see.
That is sooooooo entertaining and refreshing to read. Kudos, Mr. Nugent. I miss his carnivore reality show.
Hits em all, monopoly, wage and price controls, all under the cover of lies.
That was a good response by Ted. The question was argumentative, since it was intended from the get to go after Rush, not solicit a fair response. Ted called him on it.
Rush’s prescription drug problem was embarassing for him, but it is not like Rush is some hypocrite on the subject and it is not like he really hurt anyone other than himself doing it.
Thus we see how forgiving the Left is about human foibles. Martin said that “Rush is” an addict (but in the next sentence used “was”); the Left always speaks of the addiction (which can happen to anyone at all) as current, ongoing evidence of the man’s abhorrent nature.
Dirtbags, hypocrites, liars.
I don’t really know the process of letting info out to the website or recomindations (Newb since the OUTLAW role call), but something interesting I found (No time to try to html)…
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520514,00.html?test=latestnews
http://blog.cleveland.com/bedfordschools/
I vow to use the Nugent method every time a see a comment that starts with, “Bush screwed everything up.” or “I’m no fan of George Bush”, or “Bush ruined the Republican party.”
To me, these comments always come off sounding like it’s a skinny white guy saying it in a cell full of big black dudes.
well, Al, respectfully, did Bush help the GOP?
He isn’t what Olbermann and the nutroots think of him certainly, but I dont know why you’d want to get long a lot of Bush in here, you know?
On most every domestic issue, save for the initial tax cuts, he was at best a 1970s liberal Republican.
He sure as hell was no classical liberal.
So mind your heads guys, ‘cos that grader is comin’ along to level that ol’ playing field and we don’t want any accidents now, do we?
So you remember all those anguished editorials when the press had the monoply of print medeia and the networks had the monopoly of the airwaves?
No, I don’t either. Must’ve missed them somehow.
I can’t wait for some RINO crapweasel to get the vapors about the Nuge making “terrorist threats”.
Heh.
“Do you know how much damage this bulldozer would sustain if I were to order it to roll on over you?
How much?
None at all.”
oh. The Live Free or Die links are a lot interesting sad funny. Read this one first. Then here. It’s also a name that party sort of thing on the second link where the dirty socialist Associated Press does that thing it does.
What could help the GOP? They want to be soft and cuddly. They feel they need the young journalists to like them so they won’t write mean stuff about them. Bush got up at 4 every morning and said “how do I keep this safety and security streak going?” Obama rolls out of bed and says “how do I keep my approval numbers up?”
The unwavering attention to the most important task, even while everyone (except me and the other 299 people wavered and went soft) is admirable, and will be missed.
To now choose these two idiots who release CIA info and divulge the location of secret bunkers because Bush’s way was so unpopular is in Nugent’s words “insanity”.
I know my comment stung you mcgruder, and it was intentional. But not only for you. It was for the others as well. Let Bush go. If you think he was bad, fine. Why frame every comment with it? Don’t praise him, don’t bash him. Let him go. He certainly went off into the sunset. Is that what’s bothering you?
Gotta love this:
So…. lowering taxes to decrease costs of some businesses, apparently in order to keep those businesses operating.
But only for some. Only for the ones that support lefties.
One of the worst examples of the dishonest media controlling the message is the war in Iraq. To this day each conversation begins with the forgone conclusion that Bush lied to convince the country to go to war, thus further cementing the democrats vision of Bush the Warmonger that they’ve ridden all the way to the majority lead in the White House and Congress.
And the worst part is IT’S A FUCKING FANTASY. Bush didn’t lie at all about the reasons to go to war, and the entire Congress who overwhelmingly voted in favor of authorizing military force in Iraq saw all the same intelligence and knew all the same realities behind Saddam and company.
But listen today and all you’ll hear is the assumed reality that Bush is a war criminal who lied to steal oil for Haliburton or other such nonsense, and it’s only a matter of time before the “truth comes out”.
Instead of celebrating the removal of a despised psychotic dictator who had enslaved 25 million people in their own country and supplied various worldwide Islamic terrorist groups with funding and government support we instead listen to Perky Katie tell us well “what can we do to restore America’s image after Bush lied.”
Sickening.
I like that he’d buy him the coffee first. The Nuge has an odd and subtle mind.
The rest will. “Business” is obedient.
SENATOR: So you represent the buggy whip manufacturers of America, eh? What can I do for you?
LOBBYIST; Well Senator, we’d like you to do something about all those nasty smelly horseless carriages that are tearing round our streets, frightening the children and the horses.
S: Well, I’m not sure about that. Many people say these Auto Mobiles are the wave of the future.
L: There’s 50 gees in it for your re-election fund.
S: Well, I’m not so sure about that, it would be difficult to sell to my colleagues, they’re quite tiresome about these things. I really need a vacation but I don’t have a decent vacation home.
L: Not a problem, Senator. If we could get a law saying these horeless carriages need to be preceded by a man in a top hat waving a red flag, we consider that would level the playing field so to speak.
S: I’ll get my staff on it right away. Level the playing field, eh? I’ll use that one again if you don’t mind.
L: I’m sure you will Senator. Now how about some lunch.
To have any governmental intervention to keep the businesses of the press alive would be the single worst thing to happen to the media ever.
Well, Jeff, is your name not Bruce? That’s gonna cause a bit of confusion. Mind if we call ya Bruce just to keep it clear?
Sorry. Had to…
The law of the Internet was written for the technology companies seeking to protect their growth in a once-fledgling medium
Really? The First Amendment was written for “technology companies”?
Damn, I knew those framer dudes liked to think way ahead of the curve, but that’s unreal!
Nugent is hilarious and of course, refreshing. He speaks from a position of actual principles- ie he lives by them every day – and not from a position of “how will what I say now benefit me”. Politicians think they have to appeal to everyone to be elected and I think they’re wrong- they need to appeal to people with the same beliefs they have and let those people elect them. If you don’t have enough people to elect you, change their minds about your principles- but stick with them. Conservative politicians spend all of their time straddling the fence- McCain, Powell, etc- because they think the middle is what elects them. They’re wrong. Principles which appeal to the masses elect people and equivocation is not a principle- however, with no clearly defined principles being presented by the conservatives with political clout, the GOP has been stumbling around in the wilderness for years now. IN fact, while people whine about Bush’s damage to the GOP, it was his principles which got him re-elected- he ran on the belief that there is evil in the world and evil must be fought- people connected with that principle and so elected him – I’d venture a guess alot more dems voted for Bush in 2004 then would admit to it now, simply because the one thing they did understand was Bush would not stop fighting until his last day in office.
Bruce and Bruce are getting hammered from all sides in the comments, I notice.
[…] Nugent gets the last word, (h/t PW): Did they ever tell you about the Bataan Death March in college? Did they ever tell you about how […]
My favorite part:
“I would have to do everything in my power to neutralize you.” I kinda like that.
What really gets me is how leftists create a talking point and it goes viral. How are they so successful at that? How do they get the whole leftie gang in on the strategy? In this article this dude tells Nugent that the “game has changed” now that the O is sheriff. No more “traditional culture wars” you morons! I remember when PBo gave his “openminded” speech to Planned Parenthood late last year where he promised that on the issue of abortion “I will NOT YIELD!” In that same speech he also said “the culture wars are so 90’s.” Huh? Just ’cause Obama says so? I guess so, ’cause now I read this podunk Jschool flunkie is echoing just that to Nuge.
[…] Nugent gets the last word, (h/t PW): Did they ever tell you about the Bataan Death March in college? Did they ever tell you about how […]
Tangentially related, but hopefully in the spirit of The Nuge, I just committed my first act of Outlaw by refusing to check the race boxes on my kids’ school registration forms and was told they wouldn’t be registered if I didn’t. I refused again and we’ll see what happens.
If you can’t get out of it, Zelda, check them all.
I mean, all human beings came from Africa originally, right?
Are you sure you don’t have American Indian blood? Most Americans have at least a bit.
What else is on there these days? Asian/Pacific Islander? Hispanic?
American Indians came from Asia. Most Mexicans are Indians. So… putative Indian blood also qualifies you as Hispanic and Asian.
Or write in “5k.”
I generally check “multiracial” if that’s a choice, or “other” if it’s not.
I’m just not going to fill out the ethnicity box. You can only fill out one, and it’s supposed to be the father’s “ethnicity” or some such fucking bullshit. In the name of political correctness/multiculturalism, the government has managed to be both sexist and racist.
I’d rather homeschool them even though I hate homeschooling. But I am never going to fill out those boxes.
Yet I would have voted for W. again if possible over any other Republican in the last primary, other than Thompson.
If Bush would have had the ’94 Gangrich Congress, instead of the weasely one he had, I think things would have been much different, starting with social security being fixed and ending with Congress being held in ’06.
Not that I agree with everything the man did, far from it, but I do think he always did what he thought was good for the country, regardless of polls, and he is one of the very few politicians whose word I still trust.
And a ’70’s liberal Republican is still way, way right of anything in Washington today. You may give Bush nothing save the initial tax cuts, but if you look at the last 100 days, I think you can at least give him credit for keeping the barbarians away from the gate and preserving our country like he found it.
I kinda miss that place.
err, Gingrich…but you knew that.
“Really? The First Amendment was written for “technology companiesâ€?”
When I first came upon the phrase you quoted, I thought they were referring to section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Further reading of the piece only served to confirm that. It would indeed be odd for them to talk about first amendment, since they’re talking about the differences between online and non-online ventures.
Shut up, liebot.
Nugent is such a hoot:
“TN: The enemy has always been law-breakers ”
“. Martin, I gotta tell you, when I see you I’m going to have slap the shit out of you. I’ll buy you a mocha, then I’ll knee-cap you.”
And this gem:”Did they ever tell you about the Bataan Death March in college? Did they ever tell you about how the trains lined up in Nuremburg in ’37 and ’38 and took people to Auschwitz, to the internment camps, and then ultimately to their death? Did they ever tell you about the Japanese emperor who gathered up Japanese little girls for the army to rape and torture and murder so they could get in the right frame of mind for war. My point is: In the absence of the most evil moments in human history you can pretend those moments didn’t happen, so you can pretend that certainly no human would ever force another human to be unarmed and helpless.”
Has this dude ever been on colbert? That would be gold.
Put a sock in it, liebot. Don’t even TRY to pretend you’re interested in a discussion.
We’re all wise to your game.
You’re not so dumb as to think they were referring to the first amendment, right? That’s just a ruse you put on, right?
President Big Ears used illegal drugs. He bought illegal drugs. He sniffed and smoked illegal drugs.
He didn’t get a prescription for a medical problem or surgery. HE sought out drugs and alcohol to use them recreationally.
“Put a sock in it, liebot. Don’t even TRY to pretend you’re interested in a discussion.”
I’m of very mixed feelings when it comes to the CDA 230. But one thing i am sure about is it does provide people running things like online classifieds with an advantage that people running print ones don’t have.
Talking to yourself, SFAG?
[…] think Jeff Goldstein’s got a point here (and a similar point is made with video here). I’ve been in conversations where the […]
Having an advantage should be outlawed! Unless of course the right sort of people decide you need one, in which case it’s fine.
Doing drugs should be outlawed! Unless of course the right sort of people decide it’s ok that you did, in which case it’s fine.
I’m noticing a trend here. Still too early to say for certain.
You know, if strictly on-line news organizations have an overwhelming advantage, maybe these idiots should give up the printed form altogether, the same way we gave up papyrus, cuneiform tables, and vellum scrolls.
Then they could compete on a perfectly “level playing field”.
Nah. That would never work.
Fascists always think that way, Makewi.
Self-centered envious egotists do as well, SBP.
Maybe, someday, maya will grace us with her intellectual gifts.
Rusty, I’m pretty sure that the over-generous meya gave them all away years ago. Ironically, she did it because it made her feel so good, and she didn’t stop to consider the long-term consequences.
“You know, if strictly on-line news organizations have an overwhelming advantage”
If it’s the CDA we’re talking about, it’s not hte strictly on-line that get the advantage. It’s being online period. The washingtonpost online classifieds get CDA protection. But not the ones they print. I do think this provides an incentive if not effective subsidy to move away from print media. And that’s the direction we will head.
It recognizes a fundamental difference in the medium, meya. It’s the difference between an automated system where the content needs no human hand to intervene (online and telephone) vs one where a human hand is still required (print media). What you are suggesting would provide a subsidy the the print media in the form of requiring the electronic media to hire censors, thereby removing the natural advantage of the medium.
“It’s the difference between an automated system where the content needs no human hand to intervene (online and telephone) vs one where a human hand is still required (print media).”
I don’t know how familiar you are with printing these days, but it can be automated too.
“What you are suggesting would provide a subsidy the the print media in the form of requiring the electronic media to hire censors, thereby removing the natural advantage of the medium.”
I don’t suggest getting rid of the CDA. But I also don’t deny that online publishers get exemptions from the law that print ones don’t. I see no reason why this advantage is “natural.”
god you’re dumb
I see no “natural” reason why telephone carriers are granted immunity from defamation and/or libel and yet they are. Perhaps we should force them to hire censors to help level the playing field?
just a genuine full-blown fascist fucking Barack Obama dicksucking idiot
Comment by meya on 5/18 @ 4:16 pm #
“HE sought out drugs and alcohol to use them recreationally.â€
I’d be concerned if we had a president that hadn’t. What’s the point of chemistry if it can’t give you some fun?
I guess that leaves out Rush. He used “chemistry” for pain relief. If only it had been for fun…..
“Perhaps we should force them to hire censors to help level the playing field?”
The subsidy is that even if online media have editors performing the same editing duty as old media, they still have the immunity.
“If only it had been for fun…..”
That’s what the viagra trips to third world countries are for. I’m sure fun was had there.
laws that maximalize freedom are inherently bad
The subsidy is that even if online media have editors performing the same editing duty as old media, they still have the immunity.
It is, and has always been the acknowledgment that the new medium is a cross between common carriers (which have libel/protection) and media (which do not), so it’s not a subsidy. It’s the acknowledgment that new things don’t fit in your neat little boxes no matter how much you hit them with your but-its-not-fair hammer.
that should be (libel/defamation protection)
meya is a cocksucking fascist
sue me
It being a subsidy is not up for debate.
Are you a for real dizzy fascist whore or do you just play one on the internets? Go away and after you analyze cpm differentials between print and online maybe you can blather something not stupid and that would be better don’t you think?
It being a subsidy is not up for debate.
Shut up, she explained.
“Debating” SFAG furthers SFAG’s goal, which is to waste your time.
I suggest that you simply call her a liar and move on.
maya. I’m afraid your true gifts lie in some other field of endeavor. Unless your desire is to be an advisor to the Obama administration. In which case you have attained your desired level of mediocrity.
The fact that you can walk around with an open container of Coke, but not Budweiser provides a subsidy to Coke and as such we should get rid of open container laws. Likewise, some states allow you to drink a beer on a boat but not in a car, despite the fact that both boats and cars are modes of transportation. SUBSIDIES!!!!!
This world is so freaking unfair.
“The fact that you can walk around with an open container of Coke, but not Budweiser provides a subsidy to Coke and as such we should get rid of open container laws”
I don’t think you’re getting this part: simply because it is a subsidy doesn’t mean we should get rid of it.
I forgot the meaning of the acronym.
SFAG stands for Stupid Fascist x y?
BUT IT IS UNFAIR!
Stupid Fascist Antisemitic Girl.
No rational human being could argue that in a situation where company X has an online presence and company Y has both an online presence and a print presence, that company X has any kind of “unfair advantage”. If that were the case, company Y could simply close down its print presence, sell off the real estate, presses, and whatnot, and be in precisely the same position as company X.
Thus, SFAG is simply lying. Dissembling. Spinning. Crapweaseling. Deflecting. Dodging. Call it what you will.
“where company X has an online presence and company Y has both an online presence and a print presence, that company X has any kind of “unfair advantageâ€. If that were the case, company Y could simply close down its print presence, sell off the real estate, presses, and whatnot, and be in precisely the same position as company X”
That’s pretty much how the advantage operates. You’re incentivated to sell off your presses and real estate and whatnot that you have invested in and move to online only. The incentive is that you no longer face certain kinds of liabilities.
#81
Are you really that dense, or do you really think everyone else is?
incentivated?
I choose just the “move on” part, and suggest that you do likewise. This thing you’re doing with her is just her stringing you along. Join the unstrung generation, or something.
She is for real stupid. These “certain kind of liabilities” have absolutely nothing to do with why our dirty socialist parasitic print media is collapsing. They wish that were the extent of their problems but the truth is that liability issues don’t even make the top 10 list of why print media is gay and socialist and drooling and potentially damaging to your brand.
The fascist liebot proves to be mendoucheous every time she clicks on “Say It!”
[…] Case in point: Ted Nugent, rocker extraordinaire, NRA Board member, Conservative icon, answers questions posed by a sissified ‘journalist’ (h/t Jeff Goldstein)… […]
This thing you’re doing with her is just her stringing you along
She isn’t stringing me along, although she does like to do that. I see nothing wrong with pointing out her lies. At least she’s mostly civil.
Besides if not for her how in the world would we ever know that the law is biased against the physical world? Or that there is no recourse to libel in the digital one?
“These “certain kind of liabilities†have absolutely nothing to do with why our dirty socialist parasitic print media is collapsing.”
I didn’t say they did. I just said that htey have that advantage. I don’t think erasing this advantage will benefit print or established media, even if they are online.
“Or that there is no recourse to libel in the digital one?”
I said there are cases where there will be none. I believe there’s one now, where the blogger who posted the libel is dead. And blogspot or whatever can’t be made to take down the libel. How shall we deal with this case?
Might be easier to answer that if we knew what the fuck you believe you are talking about, or whatever and stuff.
her point is extraordinarily elusive
It’s the beehive hairdo. Covers it right up.
After reading the article and thus the comments here I have concluded 2 things;
1. Uncle Ted is da Man!
2. “Life IS NOT Fair.”
that is all.
[…] Submitted By: Wolf Howling – Protein Wisdom – Cat Scratch Fever […]
[…] place with 1/3 points – (T*) – Protein Wisdom – Cat Scratch Fever Share and […]