Ted Nugent wonders if U.S. would be better 'had the South won the Civil War'

page: 1
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   


Not surprisingly, Nugent – a firearms enthusiast, conservative and guitar rocker best known for hits such as “Cat Scratch Fever” – took aim at the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent 5-4 decision upholding the insurance mandate in the 2010 health care law and what he called Chief Justice John Roberts’ “traitor vote” siding with the court’s more liberal wing.

Nugent said the court’s decision “will ensure more monumental spending and wasted taxes …under one of the world’s most bureaucratic, ineffective, incompetent and grossly expensive systems ever devided by man: our out-of-control federal government.”


Cat Scratch Fever?

Yeah, I don't think Ted knows what he is talking about. I personally don't think the U.S. would be better off if the south had won the war. I think either way, the U.S. would still be screwed up just as bad as it is now. What do you guys think?



+3 more 
posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   
So the old pedo is still whining about Obama? Did this moron stop to think that the civil war got rid of a little thing called slavery? Ted should follow his career and just fade away.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   
USA better off if the Confederates had of won ? Ted, the 19th Century called, they'd like you back.


+48 more 
posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by SUICIDEHK45
 


I think it depends on how one looks at US History. If one thinks the civil war was about ending slavery, then it is easy to say that Nugent is off his rocker. If one thinks that the civil war was fought over state rights and the growing federal power struggle with the states, and that slavery would of ended either way, then, yea, I think he has a point.

The easy thing to do is call him a neo confederate racist and not examine or think critically about what he may of meant or how things may have been different. Obviously the latter is the hard thing to do. I don't know if he is right or wrong but I think it is a good statement to examine and shouldn't just be dismissed of-hand without critical thought or even a second thought.

Say that slavery would of ended either way, with the south winning or the north winning. How might the country be different? Could any of that difference be for the better? I think it certainly could be.

edit on 6-7-2012 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Teds a tool....Grumpy,I will agree a lot for his sake from across the crick.Take care Ted,don't shoot me



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
reply to post by SUICIDEHK45
 


I think it depends on how one looks at US History. If one thinks the civil war was about ending slavery, then it is easy to say that Nugent is off his rocker. If one thinks that the civil war was fought over state rights and the growing federal power struggle with the states, and that slavery would of ended either way, then, yea, I think he has a point.

The easy thing to do is call him a neo confederate racist and not examine or think critically about what he may of meant or how things may have been different. Obviously the latter is the hard thing to do. I don't know if he is right or wrong but I think it is a good statement to examine and shouldn't just be dismissed of-hand.

Say that slavery would of ended either way, with the south winning or the north winning. How might the country be different? Could any of that difference be for the better? I think it certainly could be.




edit on 6-7-2012 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)


The reason it's easy to dismiss him as a "neo confederate racist" is because he already acts like one. Now if a less redneck-esque type of classic rocker came out and said that, maybe I'd give that person a second thought.


+4 more 
posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 





The reason it's easy to dismiss him as a "neo confederate racist" is because he already acts like one.


How exactly does a neo confederate racist act and what has Nugent done that would qualify him as one?

Honestly I don't know much about Nugent other than he likes to hunt and has made some decent music, so if he acts like a neo confederate racist, making it easy to dismiss him as one, I wouldn't mind hearing what exactly a neo confederate racist does and what Nugent has done to make him so easily dismissed as one.

I am not trying to be argumentative, it just seems strange to me that people would be fine dismissing somebody simply because the are "redneck-esque". Doesn't that seem a bit discriminatory? Shouldn't ideas be weighted by their merit not the character traits or personality of the person expressing the ideas? Maybe I am misunderstanding what you have said.
edit on 6-7-2012 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   
I agree with Nugent, Lincoln was a dictator wannabe and because of him many Americans lost their lives.
The US would be much better off today had the South won.
Look at where all the degenerate parts of society come from, the East and West coast.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
reply to post by SUICIDEHK45
 


I think it depends on how one looks at US History. If one thinks the civil war was about ending slavery, then it is easy to say that Nugent is off his rocker. If one thinks that the civil war was fought over state rights and the growing federal power struggle with the states, and that slavery would of ended either way, then, yea, I think he has a point.

The easy thing to do is call him a neo confederate racist and not examine or think critically about what he may of meant or how things may have been different. Obviously the latter is the hard thing to do. I don't know if he is right or wrong but I think it is a good statement to examine and shouldn't just be dismissed of-hand without critical thought or even a second thought.

Say that slavery would of ended either way, with the south winning or the north winning. How might the country be different? Could any of that difference be for the better? I think it certainly could be.

edit on 6-7-2012 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)


Or... some would argue that the South could have never won because they were weak because they adopted a more of a Jeffersonian means, opposed to a Hamiltonian. Meaning stronger Union trumps weakly bound states.

Upon critical thinking, Ted Nugent is a hack.

Slavery would have been prolonged, although... if the South had won, there would be no United States today(that's how it would be different). Differences for the better? I can't think of any off the top of my head... we would have never made it to where we are if this were so..



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by sageofmonticello
 



If one thinks that the civil war was fought over state rights and the growing federal power struggle with the states, and that slavery would of ended either way, then, yea, I think he has a point.


The civil war, like all wars, was only of benefit to the bankers and those who strive for more and more centralized power.

Following the war Lincoln stated his intention to continue issuing debt free currency called greenbacks. He was assassinated soon thereafter and the greenbacks already in circulation were immediately recalled, leaving the country torn apart and ALL of the people, black and white alike, enslaved to the bankers he had attempted to free us all from.

Follow the money.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   
I thought the south wanted to be its own country and abandon the north.
If the south would have won there would just be 2 country's now.
The north did not want to lose the revenue from the south.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
I thought the south wanted to be its own country and abandon the north.
If the south would have won there would just be 2 country's now.
The north did not want to lose the revenue from the south.



umm... I'm fairly certain an industrialized nation in bed with banking had enough revenue to make it through whatever. Plus, the North would have just reclaimed the South by now. Who are the banks going to loan to... Some slave holding buffoons, or some industry leading Jack Wagons?

I mean cmon... Robert E lee? Lets just think about his history with money for a second...

While you're at it, think about Foreign relations, and trying to ally with Europe while holding slaves at the time?

At least Stonewall Jackson wasn't all that much of a piece of trash... although that can be argued...




“If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side”
― Ulysses S. Grant


edit on 6-7-2012 by FractalChaos13242017 because: additional comment



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   
The strange thing about the civil war? It diverted the war that was about to take place against the Mormons. Namely Bringham Young in Utah territory. Both were tax evaders. The South were dodging the taxes on black slaves. Utah was dodging taxes on there multiple wifes and children. They chose the war with the South and just passed laws against the Mormons in Utah. This included laws against there Vatican like church they were building that had more money than the Federal Government at the time. If you read some of the presidential executive orders of that time you will see the evidence for this. Part of the Mormons after the laws were passed then moved to Mexico to avoid the laws. Mitt Romneys family. But the diverting of the war on the Mormons made the Mormons stop there terrorist style attacks on the US Military supply lines. And made them quit the propaganda war they were conducting on the Federal Government. Strange how the Mormons and the South are so close friends now in our modern day politics. I guess the South forgave the Mormons for not joining them back then. They back stabbed the South so they would be left alone. Do you think The White Horse Prophecy Mitt Romney the Flipflop would be any different now then the Mormons were then?



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   
I used to like old Ted. Guess what? I just changed my mind



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by JBA2848
 



It diverted the war that was about to take place against the Mormons. Namely Bringham Young in Utah territory.


The "war" against the Mormans was called the Utah Expedition and it was over before the civil war started.

eom.byu.edu...



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
reply to post by Cuervo
 





The reason it's easy to dismiss him as a "neo confederate racist" is because he already acts like one.


How exactly does a neo confederate racist act and what has Nugent done that would qualify him as one?

Honestly I don't know much about Nugent other than he likes to hunt and has made some decent music, so if he acts like a neo confederate racist, making it easy to dismiss him as one, I wouldn't mind hearing what exactly a neo confederate racist does and what Nugent has done to make him so easily dismissed as one.

I am not trying to be argumentative, it just seems strange to me that people would be fine dismissing somebody simply because the are "redneck-esque". Doesn't that seem a bit discriminatory? Shouldn't ideas be weighted by their merit not the character traits or personality of the person expressing the ideas? Maybe I am misunderstanding what you have said.
edit on 6-7-2012 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)


Oh, I'm definitely basing it on his character traits. To answer your question, a "neo-confederate racist" will say things like this:

On the Confederate Flag:
"Those politically correct mother[snip] can take the flag down but I am
going to wear it forever"

or

"I'm a fun guy, not a sexist or a racist. I use the word [snip] a lot
because I hang around with a lot of [snip]s" (the expletives were the n-word)

or

"My being there (South Africa) isn’t going to affect any political structure. Besides, apartheid isn’t that cut-and-dry. All men are not created equal"

These are just a few of the things Ted Nugent spews out of his mouth. The man is just as delightfully sexist as well but none of his sexist quotes would make sense when they are censored because they are so laden with profanity.

His wishing of the south winning isn't based on values and liberty alone. There are several disgusting reasons why a guy like him would want the south to rise.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Never, ever look back in time and run "what if..." scenarios. For yourself, for others, or for history.

Our minds cherry pick the variables that will provide the outcome we want to happen. That's never reality, that's daydreaming. You can only direct your behaviors to shape the outcomes of the future. Even that is forged by so many variables (unforeseen circumstances, random chaos of the Universe, etc.) it rarely ever coincides with our intent.

Never look back. It's gone and locked in the currents of time for all eternity.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by FractalChaos13242017

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
I thought the south wanted to be its own country and abandon the north.
If the south would have won there would just be 2 country's now.
The north did not want to lose the revenue from the south.



umm... I'm fairly certain an industrialized nation in bed with banking had enough revenue to make it through whatever. Plus, the North would have just reclaimed the South by now. Who are the banks going to loan to... Some slave holding buffoons, or some industry leading Jack Wagons?

I mean cmon... Robert E lee? Lets just think about his history with money for a second...

While you're at it, think about Foreign relations, and trying to ally with Europe while holding slaves at the time?

At least Stonewall Jackson wasn't all that much of a piece of trash... although that can be argued...


The war was not about slavery in the beginning.
So you would consider my family members that fought on the side of the south,
could also be trash?
My relatives were at the Battle of Chancellorsville,
where Stonewall Jackson was shot with friendly fire resulting in death 8 days later.
As far as history which side was your family on?


edit on 6-7-2012 by Gmoneycricket because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by sageofmonticello
 

Thank you! Someone who has read and understood a little history. I'd give you five stars if I could.

I'm not a fan of Ted's politics, but I've wondered the same thing a few times.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket

Originally posted by FractalChaos13242017

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
I thought the south wanted to be its own country and abandon the north.
If the south would have won there would just be 2 country's now.
The north did not want to lose the revenue from the south.



umm... I'm fairly certain an industrialized nation in bed with banking had enough revenue to make it through whatever. Plus, the North would have just reclaimed the South by now. Who are the banks going to loan to... Some slave holding buffoons, or some industry leading Jack Wagons?

I mean cmon... Robert E lee? Lets just think about his history with money for a second...

While you're at it, think about Foreign relations, and trying to ally with Europe while holding slaves at the time?

At least Stonewall Jackson wasn't all that much of a piece of trash... although that can be argued...


The war was not about slavery in the beginning.
So you would consider my family members that fought on the side of the south,
could also be trash?
My relatives were at the Battle of Chancellorsville,
where Stonewall Jackson was shot with friendly fire resulting in death 8 days later.
As far as history which side was your family on?


edit on 6-7-2012 by Gmoneycricket because: (no reason given)


Very good, it was not about slavery in the beginning


No, my comment about trash was in regards to Mr. 'Stonewall' Jackson... good try on pulling my words out of context.

Just because your family fought along side him, does not equate them to Stonewall... although, I'm sure they took orders to kill men that were already defeated... which is despicable. If you don't agree... well, that's your opinion.

What side was my family on? Psh... does it matter? I'm me... never meet my father, and only having a loving relationship with my mother who I disagree with often enough as it is. Address who I am, and what I say please.




new topics
top topics
 
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join