Ted Nugent: It might have been best if South won Civil War

[GreenBat]

http://entertainment.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/06/12603883-ted-nugent-it-might-have-been-best-if-south-won-civil-war?lite%3Focid=twitter

[Rudy]

And the point of this issssss......?

I contemplate what would have happened as well. It is called being a historian. Kind of a pointless article.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Idiot... never knows when to keep his mouth shut.

[KRAM1]

Several books written on this topic. Lots of speculation as to what would have happened had the South won the Civil War. One theory had Texas once again becoming a separate nation and the country re-uniting as one to fight the axis in WWII. So, there would have been three nations until the early 40's when the various nations would once more form "a more perfect union".

Nothing wrong with such historical "play"...I did not read what Nugent had to say...just pointing out that such speculation has even found it's way into recognized books and historical fiction on numerous occasions.

[TheTastyGreek]

Alternate timelines are Historically Significant Fun.

[UNT90]

http://entertainment...te?ocid=twitter

Shocking to see you qoute an MSNBC article.

I think this quote from Teddy puts his comments in a more fair context than your title of this thread:

The Detroit-born rocker and outspoken conservative activist writes in a new op-ed for The Washington Times of his fundamental fear of what he calls "Fedzilla," or a government with a social safety net. Triggered by Chief Justice John Roberts voting to uphold President Obama's Affordable Care Act -- but calling the mandate to buy insurance a tax instead of a penalty -- Nugent says, "Because our legislative, judicial and executive branches of government hold the 10th Amendment in contempt, I’m beginning to wonder if it would have been best had the South won the Civil War. Our Founding Fathers’ concept of limited government is dead."

Check out the link to the original op-ed written by Teddy, which is in the above paragraph. I mean, if one was wanting to be fair, that is what one would have posted in the first place, not an ultra-liberal news network's slant on what Teddy wrote in the op-ed, but I digress. I think this particular sentence is dead on:

"The bottom line is that Chief Justice Roberts‘ traitor vote will ensure more monumental spending and wasted taxes and put almost 15 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) under one of the world’s most bureaucratic, ineffective, incompetent and grossly expensive systems ever devised by man: our out-of- control federal government."

And if one reads the full op-ed by Teddy, one would realize that the one sentence in which he mentions the nation being better off with the South winning the civil war was hypebole and said to make a point. The op-ed is about out of control federal spending and the huge effect Judge Roberts decision will have on the future of America, but that is not what Greenbat or MSNBC want you to read because it doesn't benefit eithers' political position.

Edited July 7, 2012 by UNT90

[UNTflyer]

Most of Nugent's editorial was spot on, but the whole Civil War comment just didn't fit in. It's almost like it got thrown in there at the last minute to create controversy.

[Texas Stranger]

Alternate timelines are Historically Significant Fun.

Turtledove's certainly made a good living at it.

For those interested in a decent story about a different Civil War outcome, start with "How Few Remain" by Harry Turtledove. Concept is that McClellan never finds a copy of Lee's orders moving his army north in Sept 1862, thus the Battle of Antietam never happens. Instead Lee successfully invades central Pennsylvania and turns east toward Philadelphia. France and England see this and assume viability for the Confederacy. The also covet the CSA's agribusiness and recognize the CSA and open trade, sending enough naval forces to remove the USA's blockades of Southern ports. Since the CSA is trying for independence, not taking over the USA, Lee is able to eventually bring things to where Lincoln has no choice but to reach a peace treaty and formally recognize the CSA.

The next dozen or so books that follow unwind the next century in such a 4-nation North American continent. Texas remains in the CSA. Obviously, the USA and CSA fight again (and again ?). Who invents The Bomb ? And who uses it first ? What roles do Mexico and Canada play ?

It's a good story although there are a few ridiculous parts. Turtledove recreates some 20th century happenings in new locations ("bolshevik" revolution, "Third Reich", etc) Some "real" famous people also become famous in this setting, others do not.

Check it out, the first book is How Few Remain. If you like it keep going with "American Front".

This is different from "Guns of the South" by Turtledove, which is not part of this canon. Guns of the South is a stand-alone book about time travelers bringing AK-47's to Lee. It turns out they are from a near-future white supremacist faction.

[Green P1]

Had Stonewall not been shot down by his own men we'd all be speaking Confederate right now.

[GreenBat]

Shocking to see you qoute an MSNBC article.

I think this quote from Teddy puts his comments in a more fair context than your title of this thread:

The Detroit-born rocker and outspoken conservative activist writes in a new op-ed for The Washington Times of his fundamental fear of what he calls "Fedzilla," or a government with a social safety net. Triggered by Chief Justice John Roberts voting to uphold President Obama's Affordable Care Act -- but calling the mandate to buy insurance a tax instead of a penalty -- Nugent says, "Because our legislative, judicial and executive branches of government hold the 10th Amendment in contempt, I’m beginning to wonder if it would have been best had the South won the Civil War. Our Founding Fathers’ concept of limited government is dead."

Check out the link to the original op-ed written by Teddy, which is in the above paragraph. I mean, if one was wanting to be fair, that is what one would have posted in the first place, not an ultra-liberal news network's slant on what Teddy wrote in the op-ed, but I digress. I think this particular sentence is dead on:

"The bottom line is that Chief Justice Roberts‘ traitor vote will ensure more monumental spending and wasted taxes and put almost 15 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) under one of the world’s most bureaucratic, ineffective, incompetent and grossly expensive systems ever devised by man: our out-of- control federal government."

And if one reads the full op-ed by Teddy, one would realize that the one sentence in which he mentions the nation being better off with the South winning the civil war was hypebole and said to make a point. The op-ed is about out of control federal spending and the huge effect Judge Roberts decision will have on the future of America, but that is not what Greenbat or MSNBC want you to read because it doesn't benefit eithers' political position.

Sorry that baston of Journalism truthfulness Fox New did not have a link on the story.

Edited July 7, 2012 by GreenBat

[UNT90]

Sorry that baston of Journalism truthfulness Fox New did not have a link on the story.

Point is, you could have just posted Teddy's op-ed piece, but you didn't. You posted a slanted MSNBC piece that focused on one statement and completely ignored the theme of the editorial.

Not surprised.

[HoustonEagle]

Have to be honest, was fully expecting everyone to say "who cares, Nugent is an idiot, plenty of them on both sides of politics" oh well.

[emmitt01]

Have to be honest, was fully expecting everyone to say "who cares, Nugent is an idiot, plenty of them on both sides of politics" oh well.

Why do that when we can just attack the OP for not being politically neutral...though we all knw his political leanings, have no right to act shocked, and look even MORE ridiculous for pretending he's the only one around with a bias.

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

I really used to like Ted Nugent. I used to pay money to go see him play his guitar whenever he'd come to town. What a waste of time and money I now realize it all was.

The whole North-South thing is stupid. Arguing for the South is like arguing the benefits of Soviet Communism and Nazism.

Here's the bottom line - in the South, humans with one color of skin owned and abused humans with a different color of skin.

And, yes...I fully understand that Confederate flag waving idiots today - some even (surprisingly) with advanced degrees - try to gloss over this point with other garbage.

I was born and raised in Texas, and have never lived anywhere except Texas and Oklahoma. Both were members of the Confederacy. The southeastern part of Oklahoma to this day still calls itself "Little Dixie." I could care less about the Confederacy.

Let's cut through the crap and get down to what is really happening in America: white Americans - mainly old, white American males (like Ted Nugent) - are really having a hard time with the huge demographic shift that has occurred since the 1980s.

I listen to my 70 year old dad rant about politics quite a bit. Everything's going to hell in a handbasket. Mexicans. Blacks. Welfare. Blah, blah, blah.

It really gets old to listen to it. If you can't adapt to the world as it is in 2012, please shut up except in the company of your other, equally "lost in the 50s tonight" friends. No one, except the most right wing of Republicans and Ron Paul nutcases, want to hear it.

Everyone else is making a living and trying to get along. Old people have this mistaken view of history that says America is the greatest country ever and blah, blah, blah. They've got it all mixed up with God and Jesus because of the Founding Fathers...a group of elite, rich, white people who went to war against their mother country because they didn't want to pay taxes.

So, to war the elite, rich. white people went. They perserved their colony...and kept their bootheels on the necks of their black-skinned slaves.

Yes...some of them "bravely" wrote against slavery, but didn't flinch when accepting a Constitution stating the they weren't whole people, but property to be counted for their white owners. Some of these "brave" writers even fathered children with their black slave women.

This document, the Constitution - written by those rich, white, elitist bent on saving their own assets - people still piss and moan about to this day.

I'm a former Republican who attended the 1984, 1992, and 1996 Conventions. I no longer vote because there are no parties worth voting for:

Republicans - confused about the role of God in their (and your) lives. They'd have you believe Jesus would have wanted you to at least "vote for the lesser of two evils"...which they say is them. However, I don't recall Jesus teaching that, in spite of all of their shortcomings, choose either the Sadducees or Pharisees, whichever one you consider to be the lesser of two evils. The notion of Jesus participating in a Democracy at all and choosing the lesser of two evils is wholly laughble. The Jews were under the bootheel of Rome during Jesus' day, and he never talked politics. This group of political inbreeds, regrettably, purports to champion Jesus...the man who told the parable of the Good Samaritan and said, "Love your neighbor...oh, by the way, everyone is your neighbor...even the Mexicans." And, just for good measure, Jesus would be the last person telling you pledge your allegiance to a flag and Republic. He said, all along, pledge your allegiance to God, not man. Flag and Republic are of man.

Democrats - confused about so many things it's difficult to even fathom a complete list. The constant knee-jerking about the environment. The whining about some people having more money than other people. The constant pushing of the gay agenda - if you really believe people's personal, bedroom business should stay in the bedroom, then shut up and quit making such an issue of it. No one gives a damn that you are confused about the physiology of the human anatomy and the role biology has played in Evolution.

Libertarians - confused about, well...everything. We teach our kids to share and get along. Somewhere along the way, in spite of our best efforts, Libertarians sprung up. No sharing at all, or going along to get along. Roads and infrastructure would just mysteriously get built and maintained privately to this special brand of political idiot. It is 164% appropriate that these people fawn all over the atheist Ayn Rand and her selfish, pointless scribblings. Back in the day, I wasted four or five days plowing through "Atlas Shrugged." Instead of steeling me in my then-right wing beliefs, it made me want to get as far away from people of that mindset as possible. There is no more self-absored bunch of lunatics than the Libertarians.

Greens - Just infantile. These people will believe anything you throw down the pike about any insect, plant, animal, fish, bird, fart cloud...you name it. No theory is too "out there" for this bunch. It is wholly fitting that they are led by Ralph Nader, and man so confused about the world that, but for the existence of Ron Paul, he'd be the most mistaken man in the world. My four and six year old children have deeper, more advanced thought processes than your run-of-the-mill Green.

Here's the bottom line for me: Shut up and get along with the people who are here now. Don't politick me about Jesus, sex, taxes, or the environment. None of it. Shut up, Ted Nugent. Shut up, (insert name of any Democrat here), Shut up, Ron and Rand Paul. Shut up, Ralph Nader and Al Gore.

Edited July 9, 2012 by The Fake Lonnie Finch

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

--- Why some people who think actors, musicians, athletes, etc. are really smart amazes me. Some like Tom Cruise never even walked into a college even one day and are as dumb and ignorant as a goat. Granted being a college graduate doesn't automatically make a person intelligent but it sure increases the odds. -- As said above, some need to shut up and we might think they are more intelligent than we think they are.

--- As he said above, I often voted GOP in some of the years he mentioned above ..... but once they started claiming it was the party of Christianity.... I pretty much stopped... Mixing religion and government doesn't work for me..... apparently it doesn't work so well in the Middle East either. Besides Christian churches have so many different beliefs.... on alcohol, contraception, the way you dress(1880 dresses/hair styles), which day is #7, snake worship, caffeine use*, eating pork, and so many other things..... so which group do we want to be in charge? [ and yes I am Christian, and attend church regularly ]

---I don't think not voting is the answer.. I have voted for individual Green or Liberterian candidates at times...not because I wanted them to win .... but as a protest to the idiot that was running in the major party... that way they and others can see some don't support them.

*Mormons oppose use of coffee, tea, cokes, energy drinks, alcohol, etc.

Edited July 9, 2012 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[BeanCounterGrad'03]

As a self-labeled moderate Democrat, I approve of TFLF's post.

[meangreendork]

TFLF's whole awesome post, even if I don't jive with some of it.

Yeah, that sounds about right. Best post on politics on this board since it all mysteriously started around the 2008 election.

Also, Nugent is an idiot and at best, a troll. Once a great musician, now just a sad joke of a man who should give as much thought to what he says as what he's shooting at on his property at home.

Edited July 9, 2012 by meangreendork

[GreenMachine]

--- Why some people who think actors, musicians, athletes, etc. are really smart amazes me. Some like Tom Cruise never even walked into a college even one day and are as dumb and ignorant as a goat. Granted being a college graduate doesn't automatically make a person intelligent but it sure increases the odds. -- As said above, some need to shut up and we might think they are more intelligent than we think they are.

--- As he said above, I often voted GOP in some of the years he mentioned above ..... but once they started claiming it was the party of Christianity.... I pretty much stopped... Mixing religion and government doesn't work for me..... apparently it doesn't work so well in the Middle East either. Besides Christian churches have so many

beliefs.... on alcohol, contraception, the way you dress(1880 dresses/hair styles), which day is #7, snake worship, caffeine use*, eating pork, and so many other things..... so which group do we want to be in charge? [ and yes I am Christian, and attend church regularly ]

---I don't think not voting is the answer.. I have voted for individual Green or Liberterian candidates at times...not because I wanted them to win .... but as a protest to the idiot that was running in the major party... that way they and others can see some don't support them.

*Mormons oppose use of coffee, tea, cokes, energy drinks, alcohol, etc.

Totally agree, George Clooney is a complete idiot.