• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Ted Nugent all talk no action

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,431
82
91
Really, it goes back further - you could point out President Wilson's refusal to respond to Ho Chi Minh's appeal to the US as a beacon of freedom to support their desire to remove colonialism. In pre-JFK days, the US was pretty friendly to allies' colonization of other countries.

The US was supportive of French colonization before and after WWII, despite Ho Chi Minh again appealing to the US to not support re-colonizing them after the war.

Under Eisenhower, the main issues were support for France so strong that the US was paying 90% of the war costs for France; and that the US still had a 'we can only trust right-wing dictators' approach, so that issues like Laos were a military crisis as the US opposed any leader other than the far right.

JFK had supported the US strategy in the 1950's and wanted South Vietnam to succeed; he tried to both support them but also was very concerned about expanding the war, and went to great lengths to opposed his almost unanimous own government pushing for expanding the war. Politically, he knew that announcing a withdrawal - when the US had a mindset that we win every war and absolutely should not surrender in the war against communism by handing the communist bloc a country that would only strengthen them and threaten several more southeat Asian countries - would be a negative in his re-election campaign.

There have been many researchers and generally it's supported that he fought against the expansion pushed on him - and most agree he was planning to withdraw forces from Vietnam rather than send combat troops. His close friend Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield was reported to say President Kennedy had told Mansfield, who urged him to leave Vietnam, that he agree and would do so after the 1964 re-election, but it had to wait for that.

JFK did escalate the number of 'advisors' to 16,000; the month before he was assassinated, he ordered 1,000 of them back home.

It's not easy to discuss a complicated issue such as how a President battles his own military on an issue like this and all the maneuvering and appearences he creates.

An important comment he made publicly was that 'we can send material assistance, but this is a war for South Vietnam to win or lose'. That is the comment of a President laying the groundwork for politically justifying withdrawal, rather than paving the way for starting a war.

LBJ had strong reservations about expanding the war - with the trigger being the bizarre, false 'second attack' in the Gulf of Tonkin, purportedly one of two 'unprovoked attacks on US ships in international waters', but which apparently were one justified attack by North Vietnam in its own waters against a US escort for terrorists being taken to North Vietname for sabotage, assasination, terrorism that was an ongoing policy.

The best information I've seen is that LBJ 'agreed to the war in Vietnam to placate his opponents to secure his Great Society domestic agenda'. He made a comment to the military who was pressuring him to expand the conflict to let him get re-elected 'and then you can have your war'. One commentary:



Johnson eventually announced his plan to seek a negotiatied peace, after losing political support for the war and deciding the US was not going to 'win'.

Enter Richard Nixon, secretly conspiring to tell South Vietnam's leader that if he rejected any peace deal with LBJ, Nixon would give him a better deal - and that's what happened.

A public unhappy with Vietnam opposed LBJ, and Nixon won, promising peace, falsely (much as Johnson had done in the previous election, without the treason).

The most major escalation of Vietnam happened under LBJ, with Republicans as or more pushing for war than Democrats; it could have been avoided under Eisenhower it seems.
Your cut and paste skills are second to none! Impressive.
 

TheSlamma

Diamond Member
Sep 6, 2005
7,628
4
81
Any info posted on what was said in his meeting with the Secret Service? I'm sure his normally puffed out chest was caved in hard the whole time.
 

WackyDan

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,794
68
91
The album Cat Scratch Fever hit number 17 on the billboard chart in the US (and 14 in Sweden). Those who say he could never sing are obviously liars.
Not only that... The guy is more known for his guitar playing.

The same people bitching about a story of Nugent getting a defferment (Some of whcih sounds a bit inflated), are the same ones that either voted for Bill Clinton or love the guy... And he also is a draft dodger who liked to launch cruise missiles and bomb countries.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
345
126
Not only that... The guy is more known for his guitar playing.
He had two hit songs, which I found out in this thread he didn't sing, one about excitedly catching VD and the other celebrating threatening/attacking a woman. Good guy.

The same people bitching about a story of Nugent getting a defferment (Some of whcih sounds a bit inflated), are the same ones that either voted for Bill Clinton or love the guy... And he also is a draft dodger who liked to launch cruise missiles and bomb countries.
Since you didn't bother to read the thread, cut and paste:

He's not being criticized for 'dodging a bad war's draft', he's being criticized for doing so while being pro-war for OTHERS - hence the 'hawk' in 'chickenhawk'.

And in addition to the chickenhawk issue, he's being mocked for the extreme he said he went to (he may or may not be lying).
Bill Clinton wasn't an advocate for the Vietnam war being a hypocrite.

It's pretty idiotic that 'your team' will attack Clinton for attempting to use cruise missiles against Al Queda as 'too much', but defend your guy starting the longest US war.

Does go to show that you are irrational; and you think the left opposes all use of force.

I just watched again a documentary of street gangs; it's amazing to watch the way these people are almost inhuman in their dedication to a simple tribal war. There seem pretty normal much of the time, until you get to the gang agenda of war with another gang. During the documentary, people who said they were done with the gang turned around and happily volunteered to take missions to kill, and were sentenced to decades in prison, and couldn't be happier they had done it, just laughing and joking.

They kept talking about the 'war' and killing the other gang as all they cared about.

'Conservatives' often remind me of that - when Clinton did launch missiles against Al Queda, Republicans opposed him, too. Not because he missed, but for the attacks.

Nevermind that they'd then turn around soon after and rabidly support a full war under 'their guy' (and then turn around and largely oppose any policy by Obama).

To these people, what matters in a war is that it makes a President more powerful, not the morality of the war - so oppose war for 'the other team', support it for their team.

When Nugent implies he wants to kill or ask others to kill the President, they are apologists for him because he's on 'their team'. Pretty disgusting.

And it's an irrational abuse of our political system, just as the street gangs are a crazy, insane social structure about little more than being a tribe at 'war'.

The mentality seems awfully similar between these 'conservatives' and these street gang members. The Republicans are happy to cause great harm if it's a defeat for the 'other team', and the street gang members are happy to kill people who are their counterparts simply to hurt the 'enemy'.

No wonder the 'conservatives' are so rabid about the symbolic things like the American flag - they're desparate for something since they are morally bankrupt. Their ritualistic use of the flag - including the now mandatory lapel pin - is a lot like the ritualistic gang 'symbols' such as the hand signals they so proudly flash.

Helping the poor, for these 'conservatives', is a dirty, even damaging thing to do, but they can all agree the flag is worth getting weepy over.

How many patriots in the crowd while Nugent called for violence against the President yelled out to oppose his message, instead of nodding their head in agreement?

This is why they have so many lies about 'the left' - to make sense of their mindless hate, just as the street gang members just hate the other gang.

There are a few more honest, but they are surrounded by the rest. No wonder Republicans said their top priorities are 'beat Obama, beat Obama, and beat Obama'.

No real idea about why - the man has largely implemented their policies - just the desire to 'beat the other tribe'.

And so we hear the same laughable language about 'this is the most crucial election in US history and the nation is at risk over it'.

The main difference is that the political party can't be called what it is, like a street gang can. It pretends to respectability - while its leaders are much more dangerous than gangs.

Gangs can't begin to attack the nation the way the political leaders can, draining the nation's wealth, misuing the most powerful military in the world, covert violence.

The gangs blindly serve a few leaders who are made 'powerful' with their army, and the 'conservatives' blindly serve the needs of the 0.01% most wealthy. Both of them sell out their country, neighbors, families who are harmed by their activities, to serve the 'tribe' they joined.

Are street gangs trading in weapons and governments forming alliances and making arms deals really that different, except the scale? Often not. Both pursue power for 'their side' leaving many victims - again only on different scales. The main difference is the more harmful group, 'conservatives', have more PR to justify their policies. And street gangs might be embarrassed by having a Ted Nugent on TV representing them.
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
27,179
4,252
126
As much as I love talking shit about that ridiculous ass clown this article is 6 years old and the article cited in this article is from comments he made 22 years ago.

So he's older now. You think he's started shitting his pants again?
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
56,281
4,695
126
So you're mad he got a deferment for a war Democrats started and then turned around and opposed bitterly? There's nothing wrong with supporting one war and opposing another, switch Ted Nugent and Vietnam/Iraq for Obama and Iraq/Afghanistan for an example.

And being a vet myself, I'd glad to have not needed to deal with someone in my unit like Ted anyway, we already have enough morons in the line units as it is.
Which Democrat are you referring to? Dwight D. Eisenhower? He's the first one to get us involved in Vietnam...

http://personal.ashland.edu/~jmoser1/usfp/morris.htm

Eisenhower 1953-1961

Eisenhower was the first president to go head first into the Vietnam conflicts. Eisenhower did not support the Geneva Accords signed by France and Vietnam in the summer of 1954. The Accord made the 17th parallel dividing the country of Vietnam to north and south section until two years when they would hold a free election for all of the country. Eisenhower and his secretary of state John Foster Dulles believed that the agreement gave the communist too much power in the north. Instead Eisenhower decided to create the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO). This treaty’s purpose was to stop any more communist influence in Southeast Asia. Using the SEATO as a cover, Eisenhower started to help build a new nation in South Vietnam. In 1955 GVN was born, the government of the republic of Vietnam, the leader being Ngo Dinh Diem, after a landslide election.

Soon after Diem claimed his country was under attack from communist. In 1957 the Vietnam War began. Diem imprisoned all those he viewed as being suspected communist and his people became outraged, administering protest and demonstrations.

From 1956-1960, North Vietnam did all it could to put political pressure on Diem’s regime, gathering followers in the south to overthrow him. Since the false imprisonments it was not hard to rally rural areas in the south. This was how the National Liberation Front (NFL) was created. Washington
(although Truman did send military and economic aid to the French, starting in 1950)
 

WackyDan

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,794
68
91
He had two hit songs, which I found out in this thread he didn't sing, one about excitedly catching VD and the other celebrating threatening/attacking a woman. Good guy.



Since you didn't bother to read the thread, cut and paste:



Bill Clinton wasn't an advocate for the Vietnam war being a hypocrite.

It's pretty idiotic that 'your team' will attack Clinton for attempting to use cruise missiles against Al Queda as 'too much', but defend your guy starting the longest US war.

Does go to show that you are irrational; and you think the left opposes all use of force.

I just watched again a documentary of street gangs; it's amazing to watch the way these people are almost inhuman in their dedication to a simple tribal war. There seem pretty normal much of the time, until you get to the gang agenda of war with another gang. During the documentary, people who said they were done with the gang turned around and happily volunteered to take missions to kill, and were sentenced to decades in prison, and couldn't be happier they had done it, just laughing and joking.

They kept talking about the 'war' and killing the other gang as all they cared about.

'Conservatives' often remind me of that - when Clinton did launch missiles against Al Queda, Republicans opposed him, too. Not because he missed, but for the attacks.

Nevermind that they'd then turn around soon after and rabidly support a full war under 'their guy' (and then turn around and largely oppose any policy by Obama).

To these people, what matters in a war is that it makes a President more powerful, not the morality of the war - so oppose war for 'the other team', support it for their team.

When Nugent implies he wants to kill or ask others to kill the President, they are apologists for him because he's on 'their team'. Pretty disgusting.

And it's an irrational abuse of our political system, just as the street gangs are a crazy, insane social structure about little more than being a tribe at 'war'.

The mentality seems awfully similar between these 'conservatives' and these street gang members. The Republicans are happy to cause great harm if it's a defeat for the 'other team', and the street gang members are happy to kill people who are their counterparts simply to hurt the 'enemy'.

No wonder the 'conservatives' are so rabid about the symbolic things like the American flag - they're desparate for something since they are morally bankrupt. Their ritualistic use of the flag - including the now mandatory lapel pin - is a lot like the ritualistic gang 'symbols' such as the hand signals they so proudly flash.

Helping the poor, for these 'conservatives', is a dirty, even damaging thing to do, but they can all agree the flag is worth getting weepy over.

How many patriots in the crowd while Nugent called for violence against the President yelled out to oppose his message, instead of nodding their head in agreement?

This is why they have so many lies about 'the left' - to make sense of their mindless hate, just as the street gang members just hate the other gang.

There are a few more honest, but they are surrounded by the rest. No wonder Republicans said their top priorities are 'beat Obama, beat Obama, and beat Obama'.

No real idea about why - the man has largely implemented their policies - just the desire to 'beat the other tribe'.

And so we hear the same laughable language about 'this is the most crucial election in US history and the nation is at risk over it'.

The main difference is that the political party can't be called what it is, like a street gang can. It pretends to respectability - while its leaders are much more dangerous than gangs.

Gangs can't begin to attack the nation the way the political leaders can, draining the nation's wealth, misuing the most powerful military in the world, covert violence.

The gangs blindly serve a few leaders who are made 'powerful' with their army, and the 'conservatives' blindly serve the needs of the 0.01% most wealthy. Both of them sell out their country, neighbors, families who are harmed by their activities, to serve the 'tribe' they joined.

Are street gangs trading in weapons and governments forming alliances and making arms deals really that different, except the scale? Often not. Both pursue power for 'their side' leaving many victims - again only on different scales. The main difference is the more harmful group, 'conservatives', have more PR to justify their policies. And street gangs might be embarrassed by having a Ted Nugent on TV representing them.


You seem to forget his multi-platinum album with Dam Yankees... A group he put together.

No patriots in the crowd opposed what Nugent said the other day because he did not call for violence against the president - That was the liberal spin.. Thanks for buying into it.

Clinton also waged war in Kosovo using real human beings even. One even got shot down. Refresh your memory.

Get back on the meds Craig.
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
11,826
3,059
136
The problem with Nugent is he never grew out of being a spoiled brat. And I never thought a guy that's a former(?) burnt out knuckle dragging pedophiling long haired drug addicted psychedelic hippie acid rock headbanger could ever be a leading spokesperson for the ultra conservative NRA. LOL
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,897
638
126
Ridiculous thread is ridiculous. For a group that touts at the drop of a hat how you're all independent thinkers, when it comes to demonizing someone on the right that is outspoken, you're all in lockstep. Just listen to the stomping of your boots. I can just imagine you all in pretty uniforms goose stepping your way through the heartland of America spreading the wealth.

Biggest bunch of control freaks - ever.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,497
3
0
You know, the right has us there.

I mean, look how tolerant they are, with all the liberals on Fox, the WSJ editorial board etc.
But the right doesn't profess itself as being tolerant of others. That liberal tolerance goes out the window when it comes to things like homophobia, xenophobia, and shooting the pres doesn't it? Just more hypocrisy from the left.


;)
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
27,179
4,252
126
Ridiculous thread is ridiculous. For a group that touts at the drop of a hat how you're all independent thinkers, when it comes to demonizing someone on the right that is outspoken, you're all in lockstep. Just listen to the stomping of your boots. I can just imagine you all in pretty uniforms goose stepping your way through the heartland of America spreading the wealth.

Biggest bunch of control freaks - ever.
They all agree not just because he's a righty but because he's a cowardly, hypocritical arsehole.
The fact that he (literally) shat his pants for a week to get out of the military is just funny.
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
11,826
3,059
136
Ridiculous thread is ridiculous. For a group that touts at the drop of a hat how you're all independent thinkers, when it comes to demonizing someone on the right that is outspoken, you're all in lockstep. Just listen to the stomping of your boots. I can just imagine you all in pretty uniforms goose stepping your way through the heartland of America spreading the wealth.

Biggest bunch of control freaks - ever.
I hope you're not including me in that "group" you're describing. I'm not "demonizing" Nugent because he represents the right. I'm "demonizing" him because he really is demonic. I mean, just look up his bio. The guy is just another burnt out chronic that, as Ron White describes himself "of having the right to remain silent, but not having the ability". ;)
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,215
13
81
Ridiculous thread is ridiculous. For a group that touts at the drop of a hat how you're all independent thinkers, when it comes to demonizing someone on the right that is outspoken, you're all in lockstep. Just listen to the stomping of your boots. I can just imagine you all in pretty uniforms goose stepping your way through the heartland of America spreading the wealth.

Biggest bunch of control freaks - ever.
You better double up on the meds....
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
17,211
7,302
136
A 28yr old talking a 12yr fan old into a hummer, wow. That's just creepy gross (if true) I knew he liked them a little on the young side but holy shit 12?!!
 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,939
3,083
126
Ridiculous thread is ridiculous. For a group that touts at the drop of a hat how you're all independent thinkers, when it comes to demonizing someone on the right that is outspoken, you're all in lockstep. Just listen to the stomping of your boots. I can just imagine you all in pretty uniforms goose stepping your way through the heartland of America spreading the wealth.

Biggest bunch of control freaks - ever.

Just curious for the defenders using Obama's age as a defense - at what age would it no longer be an accepted norm? In addition, remember that Obama's own words are that he was 'introduced' to dog meat. That implies he didn't try it just once.

BTW, when is PETA going to go all ape shit over this? Answer: never.

This is going to be a great election cycle. How many elections have we had that had to deal with the sitting President eating dog meat?
Lol.... You're such a tool...
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,215
13
81
The saddest part about this was that the military gets music from groups like REO speedbump, Stynx and Nugent to play music for them.
That's to please the 40+ somethings in the Military could you imagine a General getting down to hip hop? ;)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY