Ted Nugent Explodes at CBS After Suggestion That He Is Extreme
In an interview that aired on Friday's CBS This Morning, conservative rocker Ted Nugent let loose at CBS correspondent Jeff Glor when Glor suggested he was extreme. "I'm an extremely loving, passionate man, and people who investigate me honestly, without the baggage of political correctness, ascertain the conclusion that I'm a damn nice guy," he ranted before unleashing a torrent of profanity.
CBS was aghast at conservative rocker Ted Nugent's on-camera outburst during an exclusive interview, but the same network treated profane comedian Bill Maher like the voice of reason when it read from his op-ed back on March 22. [Video below the break. Audio here.]
"We have no idea where that unexpected outburst came from," Glor claimed in surprise. "Kind of stunned us. Stunned our producer." Anchor Charlie Rose preached that Nugent should change his act if he wants to be remembered for his charity towards the youth.
However, perhaps CBS ignored its own hand in provoking of Nugent when Glor suggested that Nugent was extreme. "If Mitt Romney is to win, he needs at least some of the moderate vote," Glor told Nugent. "You are many things," he continued, pausing for effect before adding "You are not moderate."
In contrast, CBS held HBO's Bill Maher in much higher regard when it deemed his op-ed so important that they read an excerpt from it on-air, back in March. In the column, Maher slammed the public for being too sensitive to criticism – even though he had repeatedly spewed obscene and hateful verbiage at conservative women.
And that was shortly after Maher had donated $1 million to President Obama's super PAC. CBS didn't mention that he was an Obama donor, however. They made sure to report that Mitt Romney "courted" and received the endorsement of Nugent and asked Nugent about it in the interview.
So CBS took umbrage at conservative Ted Nugent's profane outburst, but gave Maher a microphone to tell people to calm down after he had repeatedly insulted women with the worst of insults. It reveals a double standard toward outspoken conservatives and liberals; CBS made sure to emphasize that Nugent is not a moderate, and yet treated the profane Maher like the voice of reason.
A partial transcript of the interview, which aired on May 4 on CBS This Morning at 7:30 a.m. EDT, is as follows:
[7:30]
JEFF GLOR, CBS This Morning special correspondent: Ted Nugent is loud, non-stop, never at a loss for words. He's also politically influential. Mitt Romney courted his endorsement and got it. And as we discovered firsthand during a visit to his Texas ranch, Nugent is ramping up the rhetoric again.
(...)
[7:33]
GLOR: April was one of the more interesting months I think you ever had.
NUGENT: Well, Jeff, that's where you're wrong. It's always been like this.
GLOR: It has not always been like this.
NUGENT: It has always been like this!
GLOR: You have gotten more boisterous.
(Crosstalk)
NUGENT: No way! It has always been – you go back and look at these interviews, it has always been like this!
GLOR: Politically speaking, you are more of an activist now than you were in 1970.
NUGENT: The political activism is being accelerated because the conditions demand accelerated activism, yes.
(...)
GLOR: If Mitt Romney is to win, he needs at least some of the moderate vote. You are many things. (Pause) You are not moderate.
NUGENT: But not – not very moderate. (Laughter)
GLOR: You are not moderate.
NUGENT: If you examine how I conduct myself, I don't think a day goes by in my life for many, many years now that we don't do charity work for children. I offer you this, have you done a lot of interviews?
GLOR: Decent number.
NUGENT: Call me when you sit down across from someone who has more families with dying little boys and girls who get a call to take them on their last fishing trip in life. Call me when you meet someone who does that more than I do. Because that's really moderate. In fact, you know what that is? That's extreme. I'm an extremely loving, passionate man, and people who investigate me honestly, without the baggage of political correctness, ascertain the conclusion that I'm a damn nice guy. And If can you find a screening process more powerful than that, I'll [ bleep]. Or [bleep]! How's that sound?
GLOR: We have no idea where that unexpected outburst came from.
(...)
GLOR: We released the Romney clip on our website yesterday and the Romney campaign responded by re-releasing a statement saying "Divisive language and offensive and inappropriate, no matter what side of the political aisle it comes from. Mitt Romney believes everyone needs to be civil. Not exactly the most stinging rebuke from the Romney campaign. And Ted feels that he didn't sleight them at all."
CHARLIE ROSE: Why did he go off like that?
GLOR: It’s a good question. Very good question. Kind of stunned us. Stunned our producer. His wife, a very sweet woman, did come in after the interview ended. Interview went on for ten minutes after this explosion. She said, Ted, you need to apologize to Molly.
HILL: Molly, your producer?
GLOR: And he did. He did. At first he started to back off after he apologized, then he delivered a full apology. And we went on. Yesterday he called me on the phone, after we got back to New York, and said, after our interview that he was rushed to the emergency room and had a kidney stone removed. So, that's what he said may have contributed to his high level of energy.
ROSE: When he said it's always been like this, what did he mean?
GLOR: He meant that he's always been provocative, he’s always been loud, he’s always caused controversy.
ROSE: Has he always called the President and the Secretary of State criminals?
GLOR: No. No. And that's why I pointed that out to him. And I think he acknowledged he's upped the activism and that's why the Secret Service went to visit him.
ROSE: Yeah, you know if someone cares about being known for doing things for the little kids, the better way to do that is not to talk about other people being criminals.
(Crosstalk)
GLOR: Yep. I think it’s a very good point. I think it’s a very good point.
- Matt Hadro's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
That's too bad*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sun, 05/06/2012 - 9:07pm.
Wonder why the libs want to take "right to life" away from the smallest of humans. This is a summary of the latest proposal by those who love eugenics.
http://hickeysite.blogspot.com/2012/03/post-natal-abortion-considered-fo...
Location, Location, Location
Submitted by IrateNate on Sat, 05/05/2012 - 3:31pm.
"that's why Wall Street is in Manhattan"
An amazing coincidence, don't you think, that the center of corruption and greed, the very essence of capitalism gone wrong, would choose a scum-hole such as Manhattan as its base of operations - I wonder how it knew?
More liberal fol-de-rol, JasonC,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 05/05/2012 - 8:52pm.
attempting to use my phrase "hard-working people in the heartland" as a slam at urbanites as non-workers.
What you infer, from your liberal state of "mind", is on you.
In another post, you implied that someone putting 'words in your mouth' was out of line; and then you do the same.
I would call you a liberal dork, but that is pretty much redundant.
MD
Romney's camp of wimps are trying to man up their image
Submitted by lrgon on Sat, 05/05/2012 - 11:40am.
that the Romney camp went after the Nugent endorsement is an indication of that strategy; to try to hold on to the second amendment macho base by using Mister NRA - Le monsieur Tedd Nouvojent as a prop to lasso this one issue chump political base. Pump a gun and put a dog on the roof of your pickup and you got them fooled you're just like them. Wow, and these gun toting, bullet pressers talk about the second amendment all the time and all it takes to
de-camouflage them and bring them out into the open is the endorsement of one clown "conservative."
Typical NRA er: "Yea, ol' Ted knows how to talk to them thar media folks. Well, boy howdy, I ah sure am gonna vote for the Mitt now 'cuz Ted knows his polly-ticks, being as he's out in them there woods a lot and he likes kids to boot, he takes um fishin and such. He can run a trout line and that Ted sure can survive in the wurlded peas of politics "
Did you borrow Kerry's manual
Submitted by cocodrie on Sat, 05/05/2012 - 11:51am.
Did you borrow Kerry's manual on how to sound stupid? You didn't really need it, you sound stupid enough on your own.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Cocodrie, Irksome is just butt-hurt
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 05/05/2012 - 1:25pm.
because Ronpaul is well on his way to being another footnote in the political spectrum. Again....
Butt Hurt doubled.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 05/05/2012 - 1:41pm.
Ron Paul has admitted this is his last election and last chance.
'Kun ah git me won uv dem
Submitted by killa37 on Sat, 05/05/2012 - 2:50pm.
'Kun ah git me won uv dem dere huntin' lahcenses'??? John 'Why The Long Face' F**king Kerry...............which verifies ol' Jasons theory that ALL politicians try to talk like the people they are trying to court for support. And verifies my own opinion that the guys in that hunting store thought Kerry was a complete idiot - and they were right..
Typical...
Submitted by MarkR on Sat, 05/05/2012 - 12:16pm.
Typical liberal reply. When you dont have facts to counter an argument its AD HOMINEN TIME kiddies. Go away and dont return until you can think and put it on paper (er computer screen).
Serious questions for you, JasonC.
Submitted by drsamherman on Sat, 05/05/2012 - 12:09pm.
First off, I will tell you that I am a psychiatrist. Many of the questions I ask will be framed from that professional point of view.
Please do tell us:
1) Your account is five years old, yet you have only recently started posting actively. Why where you not posting actively before that time?
2) What motivates you, as a liberal, to post on an overwhelmingly conservative website? What do you hope to accomplish?
3) You seem to hold conservatives in derision with respect to their intelligence, thought process and grasp of current events. Why?
and finally
4) Depending on your answer to question two, conditionally I would ask what makes you think you can change the opinion of any poster on this board?
Hello, Doctor Herman. I'd be
Submitted by JasonC on Sat, 05/05/2012 - 3:32pm.
Hello, Doctor Herman.
I'd be happy to provide some answers to your questionnaire.
1. Actually, my account now exceeds 6 years, but that is beside the point. In the first 4 years that I had it, I posted on probably 200 or so forums. At some point, I think in 2010, NB completely reformatted its system, and all previous message board threads were expunged. Roughly around the same time, I became busier than usual with work and family-related events, and took a long hiatus.
2. I enjoy having conversations and arguments with people who disagree with me. Posting on blogs and forums where 99% of the posters are of my general ideological mindset is, frankly, boring. Though the present discussion is perhaps not the best example of it, and it's certainly not what happens most of the time, I've had some very respectful and enlightening exchanges with some conservative-minded people, most notably Wrathful Brunette and Fitzfong.
3. I do not think conservatives are inherently unintelligent. I always begin by posting on the story at hand. Unsurprisingly, I will attract attacks from others, some well-reasoned, some filled with ad hominems and foolish assumptions. I like to think that I simply give as good as I get when it comes to these sort of attacks. Note that I only began here by criticizing (and yes, mocking) Mr. Nugent. Who, frankly, deserves it for his latest antics. Any posts you see in which I display the attitude toward conservative posters that you summarize in your question is in response to hostility, not as an opening statement. And I might add that many a conservative poster here seems to believe deeply in the inverse of what you impute to me: That to be liberal is to be automatically devoid of reason, logic, and decorum.
4. I don't imagine I will change opinions, nor am I interested in doing so. Anonymous internet exchanges are not a venue in which that is going to happen much. I enjoy the challenge of trying to articulate and defend my worldview. And sometimes, I simply can't resist challenging some of the lazier or more toxic stereotypes about liberal politics.
I've answered as honestly as I can, and look forward to your diagnosis.
No diagnosis, Jason. This is not appropriate for that.
Submitted by drsamherman on Sat, 05/05/2012 - 4:44pm.
But some comments, as you should expect.
1) History of some posting is lost, that is true. Recently we have had a spate of sleeper accounts which seem to have resurrected themselves much like Frankenstein's monster or the mythical Phoenix bird. All of the reactivated (or re-animated, if you will) accounts have been overwhelmingly liberal in their viewpoints, and most (if not all) have been of the extreme left wing variety that cannot resist drawing attention to themselves with outrageous language, conclusions, insults, etc. In medicine, we go on history of the patient for clues on clinical presentation. In psychiatry more specifically, we use a temporal metric to determine symptomatic onset, relapse or disappearance to see if there is evidence of cyclic activity or triggering. In the case of so many of our resurrected accounts, the driver has been the upcoming presidential election. I might call that a proximal trigger in a patient context.
2) I can certainly understand having a different viewpoint on some issues, but once again you will face the full brunt of the board membership if you do go off the deep end into repetition of points that have been made again and again. Recycling of standardized liberal talking points, vis-a-vis what is regurgitated from DKos, DU, HuffPo or similar webs of liberal denizens is, as you have noticed, not a welcome thing in this venue. In the past twenty years, conservatives have been blamed for everything from the Lindbergh kidnapping to the undelectable taste of past post office stamp adhesives, so rightly we guard this board as our venue to express our frustrations with the never-ending media narrative that continues to denigrate our beliefs. I think you would certainly agree that a conservative poster going on to one of the named liberal websites would be treated with disdain. If the point is honest debate, that can be accommodated insofar as you do not try to use language, imagery or subtext that somehow is solely intended for aggressively advancing an agenda that is incongruous with the beliefs of the majority who post on this site.
3) Do not make the mistake of believing that everyone who does not agree with you is "attacking", nor is it "hate". The use of this kind of wording is not acceptable here. We see enough attacks about conservatives, and thus we are deeply suspicious of anyone who uses that kind of terminology in this forum. It smacks of a victimization mentality, and also serves as a clue to your generation. Not all disagreement is hate, nor is all adverse language an attack. Using those descriptors is intended to elicit a visceral response, and as well does not sit well in this forum. I neither own this forum nor have any control over it, but the "rules of the road" are quite easily learned by a reasoned consideration and reading of the tenor, language and positions my fellow board members use in discourse. If you think defense of a position is hostility, then it becomes a question of what your motivation is beyond just debating. I will again emphasize that this is a conservative website devoted to pointing out left-wing bias in news sources, not a college debating society or a clove cigarette smoke-filled university coffeehouse where we simply wonder how to get the next "A" out of an instructor who adores regurgitation. Our defense of our beliefs is strenuous, and if you consider that hostility then please re-consider your participation in the context of what we have seen through the prism of more recent resurrected past posters.
4) You can articulate your world view, but again, remember the purpose of this site. When you do see us vigorously defending a point, we do so with the same strength that liberals will use on their own native forums such as those above named. Liberals have as many stereotypes of conservatives, and if you again use descriptors like "lazy" and "toxic"--those are words intended to elicit equally visceral responses which will trigger our defense.
It is not my job to ensure civility on this board, nor is it yours. Political debate can be a nasty business, but do not think for one second that we are required to show the absurdly false civility we see in university speech codes or within a rhetorical debating class. Good luck.
You certainly act as though
Submitted by JasonC on Sat, 05/05/2012 - 6:57pm.
You certainly act as though you run and/or own this forum. I can't imagine a more officious response.
1. I posted here quite regularly, and was surprisingly well-received by many members, from March of 2006-September of 2010. Check with Blonde if you wish to confirm this. The fact that you see fit to suggest that I am some sort of "sleeper" operative - did we fall into a parallel universe run by Tom Clancy? - is paranoid and silly. What do you mean "History of some posting is lost"? I repeat: The entire backlog of NB discussion boards was obliterated 2 years ago. Ask any long-time poster.
2. I urge you to (re)read some of my interactions on this very forum, and ask yourself honestly, without letting ideology get in the way, who is trying to have a discussion and who is flinging insults and baseless vitriol.
3. I never used the word "hate" or any derivative thereof in this post, so please do put words in my mouth. I have responded to every response addressed to me in a now-2-page message board, and done so with at the very least the same level of courtesy as my interlopers extend to me. This is the very antithesis of the "troll." For some posters (cajun, Radical), the discourse remains civil and mutually respectful. With others, it does not, but again: please double-check who is inflecting their initial posts with: "Typical self important urban liberal shithead - who feels exiled when surrounded by hard working, thinking, conservative Americans in the heartland, as opposed to the liberal ass munchers he prefers to hang with." All because I commented that I prefer living in the city to rural areas. Someone else took genuine offense to the way I phrased that ("can't wait to get back to civilization") and I apologized. But as for the way-over-the-top response that I quoted: If you can find anything I've said that comes close to that level of vitriol, I'll cancel my account right now.
In the end, your post completely contradicts itself. You insist on a certain level of decorum for "visiting" liberals, yet scoff at the idea that conservatives have any responsibility to be civil as well. And indeed, in an anonymous forum dedicated to political debate, there aren't REALLY any rules. But I have posted here for 6 years, minus the 1.5-2 during which I had bigger demands on my time, and have never received so much as a warning from the administrators about my conduct. I don't need nor want your patronizing "good luck", and if anyone is going to instruct me on the Rules of the NB Road, I assure you it will not be you.
Uh Oh
Submitted by stratman on Sat, 05/05/2012 - 7:07pm.
Somebody needs their diaper changed.
Is it also past your nappy time?
Does writing that sort of
Submitted by JasonC on Sat, 05/05/2012 - 7:16pm.
Does writing that sort of thing actually make you feel good about yourself?
Does Writing Your Claptrap Make You Feel Good?
Submitted by stratman on Sat, 05/05/2012 - 8:21pm.
I feel as good as I did before wasting 15 minutes of my life reading the juvenilely justified posts of a sanctimonious, manipulative, flame-throwing Leftist who spouts opinions as if they were facts and gets his jollies creating controversy, basking in the negative attention.
After your performance here, taking another two year hiatus is reasonable.
Are you sure you didn't train in psychiatry, Strat?
Submitted by drsamherman on Sat, 05/05/2012 - 10:01pm.
You certainly have nailed at least two facets of Jason's profile thus far, and quite nicely!
Almost to a 't', Jason's presentation is generally what we euphemistically call the DYKWIA type. Even though the past history of the board is now gone due to issues beyond our control, we are instead asked for confirmation of just what a good little participant he has been through a third party. Generally, it's this type of personality disorder that falls under the "PD-NOS" category on DSM. The black-and-white thought profile corresponds to some of the vacillating negativism described in personality disorder studies as a cross-manifestation of clusters A and B. This is exactly where the temporal component comes in, as normally the interplay of "A" subtypes (schizotypal, schizoidal--not in the schizophrenia sense but more in the isolation sense) and the B symptoms (borderline, attention-seeking, heavy on the narcissist) arise from a sort of delayed reaction from one to another. The long intervals between posting, punctuated by short, attenuated and somewhat compulsive defensive posts he has made support that. Interesting combination, really. Posting profile mirrors that of our previous "friends" Clevie, Auntie Wingie and who could forget our own OCD self-appointed nemesis-of-all Deddy. "Compression troll" like Obama's "compression girlfriend"--quite possibly. He will be with us for a while, just long enough for him to play out his welcome and move on to other pastures.
Secondly, in Jason I see a rare form of narcissism that is sometimes referred to as "above the fray" with occasional dips into indignation, self-righteousness and boring narrative of victimization. It definitely feeds into the "B" symptoms. The indignation of me as being "officious", the self-righteousness of "there are no rules" and the boring victimization of "it won't be you who tells me" are usually encountered with this type if a psychiatrist ever even treats one narcissist of this profile. Putting this into context, the volitional component of narcissism is clearly manifest in ego and drive. The non-volitional component, that being the person who lashes out at others when given a set of conditions that is seen as "beneath" the person's perceived station results in the type of behavior we see with Jason. I thought his flourished "patronizing" descriptor was rather funny, particularly after he calls posters who respond to him "interlopers". He comes rather like migraine headaches, you may not get one for years, but when you do, it's difficult to treat.
And as for you, Jason, I really don't care what you think. You meet the current definition of troll. Deal with the reality that you self-admit that you are living in an area that you do not like (rural) and you are most likely physically and mentally surrounded by those whose presence you find so distasteful--American conservatives who probably are better neighbors to you than vice-versa.
Compression Troll
Submitted by stratman on Sat, 05/05/2012 - 11:07pm.
That's a classic already, Sam.
In one post, you have made reading this thread worthwhile. Magnificent analysis that is rarely found in my communications with other professionals. CME worthy. If ever you are doing Grand Rounds and I am in Texas...
Fellow NewsBusters members, we are not rubbing elbows with just any psychiatrist. Sam is good. Really good.
Yes, drsam is really good. He is really smart. But in this
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 05/05/2012 - 11:58pm.
case he is very wrong. And he is being very unfair.
The point at which Jason began commenting far less frequently roughly coincided with the time of Doc's arrival at NewsBusters, and the ensuing "long intervals between posting" were largely occasioned by the significant responsibilities which necessarily accompany the birth of a child rather than by any sporadic convulsions of a narcissistic troll. Indeed, Jason is the very antithesis of a troll. And those, such as you, strat, who have been here for most of Jason's tenure at this website--during which time he was a regular, even prolific, poster--know that to be true.
Jer
Jer, that is ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 05/06/2012 - 2:52am.
unadulterated, kissy-faced , protect the liberal buddy bullshit.
JasonC is the male half of grisly bear.
Stick with defending Slick Willie and Scarborough - your smooches aren't quite as obvious during the tours of liberal sentry duty you pull on these threads when kissing up to them.
MD
Jer
Submitted by stratman on Sun, 05/06/2012 - 2:13pm.
Cajun is correct. The tenure of JasonC is not the lynchpin of Sam's points. Severability applies in this instance, particularly since reliance on NewsBusters' bio data, the disappearance of historical postings, and the admittance of JasonC not posting for up to 2 years prior to what's seen in the tracking module would give the impression of a potential sleeper.
JasonC may not have started out as a troll on the thread, but, he ended up behaving like a troll in the end.
"JasonC may not have started
Submitted by JasonC on Mon, 05/07/2012 - 12:45pm.
"JasonC may not have started out as a troll on the thread"
Thank you.
"but, he ended up behaving like a troll in the end."
Where? How?
JasonC
Submitted by stratman on Mon, 05/07/2012 - 3:17pm.
You are a Liberal to Lefty in a Conservative forum. Make your point, defend it against the inevitable counter-post. Once you become argumentative without adding much of anything to the discussion then you are exhibiting troll behavior. It becomes a pissing match which you will lose. House (members) rules. You're the guest in our Conservative home. Stop stinking up the joint past your freshness date or expect blow-back. I would expect nothing less than the same treatment if I were to similarly post on a Leftist forum.
I am not going to review all your posts to postulate where you went from reasonable to trollish. Your prolonged invective towards Nugent in a forum you should have known or did know as friendly to and even admiring of Nugent for his works as well as Conservative voice may qualify as trollish. A jump the shark moment might have been your comment about returning to 'civilization'. Given your above average communication skills, you displayed either a stunning lack of understanding of your audience or you knew your audience well enough and were purposefully tweaking Conservatives from the colloquially named flyover country.
And, again, you completely disregarded what may be the most important component of this story - Nugent allegedly was treated for a kidney stone after the interview. Pain has a way of altering how people interact with others. Nugent's outburst was the focal point of the story. Poking a wounded lion with a stick and then acting incredulous when the lion roars? Not buying it. The interview, or at least the outburst, should have been spiked as a matter of understanding for the irregular circumstance.
Maybe Glor will next film flag draped caskets of deceased military personnel in a hangar or homeless people sleeping under bridges for exploitation's sake. It's would seem to be a viable niche for this smirking ass. Oddly, we're no longer inundated with images and stories of caskets and the homeless since Obama took office despite continued casualties in the Middle East and crushing unemployment.
"You're not exactly moderate"
Submitted by balboa on Mon, 05/07/2012 - 3:21pm.
"You're not exactly moderate" ain't much of a poke.
Bal
Submitted by stratman on Mon, 05/07/2012 - 3:45pm.
It has been posted on this thread that that comment was mentioned more than once. Why?
It has also been mentioned that the video appears to be edited. We now know well enough the activistic editing that occurs nowadays. The Zimmerman-Martin shooting should be a textbook case of Media manipulation, a particularly egregious but not isolated incident. Not content with reporting the who, what, where, when, how and why, the Media purposefully are manipulating video/audio/images to create a desired ideological impression. Yellow journalism, know known as activistic journalism, AKA the JorunOlistas, is back and slicker than ever. William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer II applaud from beyond the grave.
OHH, JasonC, Spewing flaming comments and refuse to back em up
Submitted by upcountrywater on Mon, 05/07/2012 - 4:18pm.
And 2 not answering posts related to the thread topic.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro/2012/05/04/ted-nugent-explodes-c...
And 3 not replying to more of your linkless blather.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro/2012/05/04/ted-nugent-explodes-c...
That Pal, is trollishness.
You Didn't Build That.
I believe the scientific term
Submitted by balboa on Sun, 05/06/2012 - 12:05am.
I believe the scientific term for that is "overly complicated gobbledygook."
Don't you have a cop killer to idolize,somewhere,
Submitted by UpNorth on Sun, 05/06/2012 - 12:24am.
Douchenozzle?
Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sun, 05/06/2012 - 12:45am.
drsam posted several times in his exchange with jasonC. drs posts were lengthy and very interesting. And yet, you focus on the timing of jasons absence from NB as somehow distorts drs accuracy or credibility of his posts.
If you wish to defend jason, can you do it with substance of docsams posts? Substance, the thing missing from all of jasons "opinions".
So, bal, do you and Jer get together so the ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 05/06/2012 - 2:41am.
touch peter team can post similar bullshit?
MD
docsam kicked your stupid lib ass ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 05/05/2012 - 8:26pm.
and we get a whiny, "I'm a victim" attempt at a riposte.
Pathetic, you are.
MD
Matthew, look...I know you have your
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 05/06/2012 - 3:36am.
head wedged half-way up your ass, but, still, don't you think you're being a little too hard on yourself?
Misguided? Yes. Pathetic? Not quite.
Jer
Oh, and one other thing...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 05/06/2012 - 3:45am.
It would probably behoove you to go ahead and start drafting a suitable apology to cajun.
Jer
edited to update: I'm starting to understand the posting screw-ups. :-)
Might be, Jer, cuz I am currently fighting a ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 05/06/2012 - 6:45pm.
nagging cold - but I honestly don't know what your last two posts are referring to.
MD
Would you care to explain how
Submitted by JasonC on Mon, 05/07/2012 - 12:49pm.
Would you care to explain how my rebuttal of "No, in fact I do not do anything that resembles troll-like behavior" is one of victimization? Or at least point to an instance of trolling on my part? I would ever so love to see it. Because by your apparent standards, all of NB engages in victimization by way of the idea that because you are conservative you are always being discriminated against by the main/lamestream media.
How close is close?
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sun, 05/06/2012 - 11:24pm.
But as for the way-over-the-top response that I quoted: If you can find anything I've said that comes close to that level of vitriol, I'll cancel my account right now.
And that sound you hear would be that of 99% of the NB regulars sifting deperately through your previous posts. :)
(How close counts as close, btw?)
I dunno. Can vitriol be
Submitted by JasonC on Mon, 05/07/2012 - 12:40pm.
I dunno. Can vitriol be quantified? Show me what ya got. I sure as heck didn't call anyone an "ass-muncher."
The funny thing about DrSam's post is that, contrary to Bal, I don't find it to be gobbledygook or psychobabble. Sam explains himself quite well, and as a lay person to the field, I found it interesting, if also rather over the top and extraneous. He might do the courtesy, for instance, of citing an example of my narcissism if he's going to toss out that term. And the idea that mine is a sleeper account that I've kept inactive since 2006 (just waiting for the right moment to comment on the momentous issue of Maher vs. Nugent!) was indeed a linchpin of his original post, so the defense on my behalf from my liberal cohort is hardly off the mark.
However, I'm trying to imagine the onslaught of epithets like "know-it-all", "ivory tower", and of course, "elitist", that would have resulted if a liberal poster used his knowledge of psychiatry to provide a diagnosis of sorts - immediately after saying that such a diagnosis on a message board would be inappropriate - of a conservative poster.
Poor Jason*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 05/07/2012 - 3:59pm.
Glad you enjoyed drsam's posts. He certainly entertains me. He did not offer a psychiatric diagnosis. What he did is show how certain personality types exhibit specific and common behavior in certain situations. That behavior is often to referred to al "trollish" among NBers regardless of "sleeper" time. Elitist and narcissistic "behavior" is often presented here as "urban" vs "rural". Many posters here, if you havent noticed are educated professionals or skilled individuals. To make a point, they will often show links, documents, official government records or videos to support their beliefs. You on the other hand have only repeated your opinions and have nothing to back them up. When someone feels their opinion is as good as "fact" cause they be so smart, is condescention and egotistical typical trollish behavior.
Change your method and tone of presenting your views or be prepared to be called troll.
Uh, you do realize that that was a joke
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Tue, 05/08/2012 - 8:03am.
Dont'cha?
Resurrect your beer forum, and I just may forgive your willful misunderstanding of my humor. :)
Ted's right-but what did he expect?
Submitted by MarkR on Sat, 05/05/2012 - 12:12pm.
Hey I love Ted Nugent and of course any self respecting (SELF RESPECTING-there's the rub) journalist would investigate have balance and be honest. With liberals in this day and age it aint about to happen. They all come from the same place. They are no longer independent thinkers and they no longer are discerning and objective. So when Ted goes in front of their cameras (CBS are you kidding me Ted?) this is what you are going to get. Then they use it to paint conservatism. No matter-Ted was right. Its just a shame our great history of media involvement as an unbiased as can be at least to a certain extent has become the US version of Soviet Pravda.
I hope little Jeff's testicles didn't retreat permanently.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Sat, 05/05/2012 - 2:20pm.
It may take a month or so, but they'll probably drop down again.
Thank God for Ted Nugent. The man is a solid, passionate...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Sun, 05/06/2012 - 3:45am.
Conservative who says what many of us want to say if only we had the ability and the platform. If wimpy Liberals are taken aback by his passion and his words, then so be it. As Jack Nicholson once said in one of his movies, some people can't handle the truth!
The problem, webster, is that both Liberals and Conservatives,
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 05/06/2012 - 3:58am.
or at least of lot of them, believe the Truth is on--and only on--their side.
So, anything goes and everything is excusable as long as it advances that Truth. And the same words which are considered passionate when used by one's own side are deemed offensive when employed by the other.
Jer
Good morning Jer
Submitted by cocodrie on Sun, 05/06/2012 - 6:51am.
Good description of democrat philosophy except democrats are much more extreme. Don't try to hang liberal failings on conservatives.
More accurate -
Liberals say "I'm going to control you"
Conservatives say leave me alone and I'll leave you alone".
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Good morning, cocodrie...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 05/06/2012 - 11:15am.
Sorry, but we're right and you're wrong.
And that's the Truth!
;-)
Jer
Tape"s doctored folks.
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sun, 05/06/2012 - 9:15pm.
Look at the :24 mark. Notice Ted's right hand. Then just after that, the camera changes and his right hand is up and moving toward Glor.
Just what did Glor say that was edited out?
I wondered the same thing
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 05/06/2012 - 9:18pm.
simply because the conversation makes no sense. Nugent laughingly agrees he's not a moderate, then starts talking about his charity work. Then at the 24 second mark he asks if the interviewer has done many interviews. Not a coherent interview at all.
Maybe Ted has the answer to
Submitted by killa37 on Sun, 05/06/2012 - 11:11pm.
Maybe Ted has the answer to it.................after all, these MSM StateRun Media outfits are all getting very good at doctoring tapes to make them come out the way they want them to - and they KNOW that by the time they are 'fixed' (if they even DO get fixed), the shallow sound-bite public will already have their own opinion of the situation, based on the first go-round. These guys might be idiots, but they're not stooooooooopid when it comes to creating their own 'reality' - they've proved it many times!!!
Nice simple-minded snapshot of the conversation.
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Mon, 05/07/2012 - 9:04am.
But what Glor was talking about--and emphasized by repetition that Ted Nugent CAN NOT appeal to moderates because, as Glor said TWICE "You are not moderate". Or the idea is that Ted should not appeal to moderates because he is not moderate.
So when we get to the level of his appeal, his charity work has something to do with a wider appeal. He's pointing out that his "extreme passion" (which I can testify he's always had) can be extreme com-passion.
The fact is that your boy was making a case (a bad one) and debating Nugent rather than interviewing him. If nothing else Glor's simple-minded repetition of the phrase "You are not moderate" is evidence that he is trying to STATE something particular about Nugent at least by implication.
Number one, Glor makes a stupid, indefensible argument by implication. So from a less than methodological man--like Ted--its not going to force Glor back to redefining terms, so he can answer in the same context. Nonetheless, non-methodical people--like Ted--can notice a challege and respond to where they think the challenge is. And as I said above it is in the general appeal of Nugent to voters.
So Nugent, intuitively, makes this adjustment even though it is not currently in the text of the argument--because Glor is using implication and not any definable argument.
You can laugh about a statement said about you once , and Ted does. If someone thinks they need to bring it up again--THEY are saying SOMETHING. How deaf do you want to pretend to be to context? This is where the liberal pretence to "nuance" is many time, in practice, ludicrous.
Ted is a passionate man and knows when some jerk is trying to prod him and he doesn't mince words. I would have asked Glor to explain his premise. He would probably have deflected that he had any "premise" at all, because he looks like that type of dishonest jerk.