Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 3
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Gmoneycricket
 





Sad part is the site seems to confirm,
what Ted Nugent said.


There is a god! I shall thank you for at least reading the article, not surprised... rather, inspired.




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.

Because of the chief justice’s vote, Fedzilla just burped and is now prepared to gobble up even more of our tax dollars, more of our GDP and limit even more opportunity in the private sector.

Chief Justice Roberts‘ opinion was that Obamacare was a tax, not a mandate under the Commerce Clause to purchase a product, and that Congress can levy any tax it wants.


We're fortunate that Madison, Morris, Jefferson were intelligent men, who did see into the future(figuratively) and understood what roads were ahead of us in regards to the wording of the Constitution. Thank goodness for men like Alexander Hamilton that placed unity over self, in the promotion of the constitution. It's this whole Commerce Clause thing, and the interpretations of the word 'welfare' that are getting a little out of whack... Well, they have been for a while now. It's as if, nobody wants to read or understand anything John Locke had to say about property and the protection of it... then to confuse slaves as property, under some hypocritical notion that all men are still created equal in respect to life, liberty and the 'pursuit of happiness'.

I think Ted is intelligent enough to understand the principals of the Constitution, I just think he's too bigoted to understand the complexities of the world and allowing prosperity for all those that find themselves citizens AND residents of the US.

It's getting disgusting, that people are just not willing to let markets be markets, and economies slowly fix themselves. Look, we got into a big mess... and we're still in one. What's to blame? Bad policies, crap mortgages, immature/ignorant speculation, and misplaced incentives... it's all about incentive. It then sucks, because we're stuck with a bunch of pieces to a puzzle that doesn't require so many pieces in the first place! That's when the Keynesian's get all up and ready to start bailing out everyone and their mom, while Hayekian's slowly emerge from the shadows.

I'm not going to sit here and pretend to know every use of the commerce clause, yet... I can not find one that I agree with. From what I've heard, this is the very same clause used to try and protect the Obamacare mandate.

Here's some weak, although informative links...

en.wikipedia.org...
The commerce clause part is of interest here

en.wikipedia.org...
Although about land, natural resources... and who has say over what... the




The proviso says that though every appropriation of property is a diminution of another's rights to it, it is acceptable as long as it does not make anyone worse off than they would have been without any private property.


Now... when you parallel this with the money taken out of peoples pockets in the name of health care. Money that is derived from work, that becomes property.




Money is property; indeed, the Supreme Court has held that money involves the same set of rights the Constitution attaches to land or personal property, that is, the “right to possess, use and dispose of it.”

townhall.com...

The government 'taking' our money IS leaving individuals worse off. THEIR work, is in the name of THEIR choice with their life, in the name of THEIR pursuit of happiness.

It should be obvious that federally mandating the citizens of the US to pay into such a thing as healthcare is a joke. One that, if presented.... Locke, Madison, and the others would have scoffed at. I wonder what Hamilton would have had to say about it, I bet it would shock people. Incentives of being removed from tax burdens!?!?! This is madness...

This then leads down a rabbit hole, considering the whole federal income tax thing and such....

Ok, I'm done ranting for now lol... you should know where I stand by now, please no more taking what I say out of context. I'm hear neither to offend, or give lessons... just state some opinions and prove my point. This isn't about Obamacare(although it kinda is), it's about Ted Nugent. The man is a hack, as I've stated before... yet, he does understand a thing or two about the constitution and freedom. I think he would be incredibly wrong to assume that we'd be better off if the South had won... I'd say we've had enough speculation of past events, time to move on.
edit on 6-7-2012 by FractalChaos13242017 because: additional comment




posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   
I used to like Ted but I think he should blow it out his butt, he is a full blown hypocrite.

Do you remember back in April this comment.......



"If Barack Obama becomes the President in November again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year,"


Yet he had this to say about Rage against the Machine in 07........



In May 2007 Nugent criticized rap metal band Rage Against the Machine after singer Zach de la Rocha's onstage proclamation at the 2007 Coachella festival that the "current administration . . . should be hung and tried and shot." Nugent appeared on the Hannity & Colmes program on Fox News and said "We've disagreed with a lot of administrations in the past, but none of our rhetoric included threatening lives, these guys are over the top, but they're the lunatic fringe that even your average democrat and liberal doesn't agree with. But unfortunately, nobody is silencing these guys — or not necessarily silencing, but condemning this outrageous violence that they're recommending."[47]


hmmmmmmm.......

....and for someone that's always preaching about American rights and the constitution, I find it lame he wasn't willing to go fight for them. WTH Ted?



In 2006, an interviewer from the British newspaper The Independent questioned Nugent about a 1977 interview in High Times magazine[63] in which Nugent admitted taking elaborate steps to avoid the Vietnam draft.[56] In the interview Nugent says, contrary to the story in High Times, that "I had a 1Y [student deferment]. I enrolled at Oakland Community College.". However, the Selective Service classification for student deferment is actually 2-S, and medical deferment is 1-Y. A copy of Nugent's Selective Service record shows that he had at separate times both a 1-Y medical deferment and 2-S student deferment, .[64] "... if I would have gone over there, I'd have been killed, or I'd have killed, or I'd kill all the hippies in the foxholes ... I would have killed everybody," he told the Detroit Free Press in an interview published July 15, 1990."
[edit]




posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 12:14 AM
link   
In regards to the Obamacare, commerce clause relationship...




In a surreal twist of fate, Chief Justice Roberts cast the deciding vote that upheld the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) as Constitutional.

Having followed the arguments of the case, I never would have fathomed this outcome. Given the government’s arguments, I expected the court to base its decision on whether Obamacare violates the commerce clause of the Constitution. Period.

Although the court did protect the commerce clause, it took the liberty to redefine the Obamacare “individual mandate” as a tax. (The mandate requires that we either purchase health insurance or pay a penalty.) Thus it follows, because Congress can levy taxes, that Obamacare’s individual mandate is constitutional.

You just can’t make this stuff up. President Obama has consistently and vehemently denied that the mandate is a tax. During oral arguments, the Administration’s attorneys waffled on the issue of whether it is a tax or a penalty. Our Supreme Court decided that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck. So like it or not, the Obamacare mandate is indeed a tax.


www.phillyburbs.com... bb30f31a.html

So then it's now argued under Congress' ability to levy taxes...




The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


All in the name of paying debts, the common defence, and general Welfare...

Just what is general Welfare, well... from everything that I've read, 'progressive' 'lefts' aka 'new aged liberals'(god I hate using words outside of original definitions), this covers just about every social medium in which we interact with one another and used to promote personal values. All the 'common good' or general welfare needed to be provided from the Government is simply allowing for markets or industries to govern themselves under necessary regulations. Not to manipulate laws and impose tactics in attempts of steering such activities. The government sucks with money, especially the control of it. They have always failed, and will continue to do so.. what makes people think they got it right this time?

Doesn't the health fall under the pursuit of happiness? We already have life, then the liberty to do as we please with said life, work and acquire property in the name of the pursuit of happiness... where in there, does it say we have a right to health care? Health care is a service, and usually accompanies a line of products. Lets say(hypothetically speaking here!), for 100 years... there are no doctors coming out of colleges. No doctors left, nothing... zip, nodda... then what happens to this tax? Is there then a tax put in placed, and the funds then used as further incentives for people to become said doctors? Although, in a round about way... one could claim this is already true.

I hear people all the time argue about the right for gay marriage, and then I ask... where is the right to marriage? I didn't know that the Constitution grants the right of marriage to people... I didn't know that marriage originated as a religious ceremony.... I didn't know that there are over 1500 laws added to support some nonsense of a 'civil union' that shouldn't even recognize the gender of the individuals claiming such... My point is, this should be a state issue, as should health care... to federally recognize either is a joke. Inaction is not commerce, so there goes the commerce clause.




A good job is more than just a paycheck. A good job fosters independence and discipline, and contributes to the health of the community. A good job is a means to provide for the health and welfare of your family, to own a home, and save for retirement.
James H. Douglas


Jobs-Work-Property-Happiness




Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society.
Jack Kingston


Working together-love-welfare and the stability of society

The only time people die inside of boarders in mass, outside of wars... government intervention with agriculture and healthcare...




And for man to look upon himself as a capital good, even if it did not impair his freedom, may seem to debase him... by investing in themselves, people can enlarge the range of choice available to them. It is one way free men can enhance their welfare.
Theodore William Schultz


Crime, family dissolution, welfare, and low levels of social organization are fundamentally a consequence of the disappearance of work.
William Julius Wilson

Making any sense yet?



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
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 Southern states started seceding from the Union even before Lincoln took office because they felt he would try to abolish slavery. Slavery was the issue, what the Southern states didn't want was a political fight over that issue, so they tried to leave.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 12:29 AM
link   


Why don't you ask them that?



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by SUICIDEHK45
 


Maybe? It was about state rights and trade. Lincoln was a traitor to his country. He truly was nothing more then a petty dictator. History is a shame the books lie and the idiots eat it up as fact.




I wonder how Lincoln felt about newspapers printing the facts? FIND THE TRUTH.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   
Well the country would have been different had Lincoln had his way for the reconstruction. The way it played out was awful the military acted as near tyrants to enforce the Radical Republican construction plan. Had the ten percent plan been used the south would have been eased back into the union and possibly less racism and less backlash against the north.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by SUICIDEHK45
 


This coming from a guy who doesn't have all his teeth.
Some people should just quit embarrassing themselves.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by denynothing
Well the country would have been different had Lincoln had his way for the reconstruction. The way it played out was awful the military acted as near tyrants to enforce the Radical Republican construction plan. Had the ten percent plan been used the south would have been eased back into the union and possibly less racism and less backlash against the north.


I think that is a pretty fair statement. Slavery was the biggest obsticale of the entire war. I ask you all now to think on one thing. What if slavery were illegal when the south suceeded. How would you feel then. Would you revel in the right to your freedom, or would you simply stand by and let it be determined for you.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 02:17 AM
link   
If the south had won ,it would have been better.We would not be waging genocide on the planet.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010
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.


salvery would have been phased out naturally without 600,000 dead Americans.

all it did was introduce a little thing called Tyranny.

I can't begin to understand people as gullible as you



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 05:05 AM
link   
Since I'm on this rant... apparently the Constitution drafted by the South didn't contain the words 'General Welfare' in it. Just imagine the headache that would have saved us!




posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 05:22 AM
link   
reply to post by SUICIDEHK45
 


I think focusing on this one piece of speculative (i.e. "had the South won the Civil War") consideration at the exclusion of all else Nugent wrote arrogates his thesis with a sort of irrational juxtapositioning. Besides that the context of his opine doesn't imply endorsement of slavery, but a movement away from expansive government power over individual choices. But, you know, whatever.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 05:47 AM
link   
It would be awkward though. We would had to put up sending our troops like if Southern wondered how the North was doing and all that. The South would have kept slavery as stated reasons why they secede from the Union.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by SUICIDEHK45


Not surprisingly, Nugent – a firearms enthusiast, conservative and guitar rocker best known

For his adopting a girl because after petitioning to marry her although she was below the age of consent failed, he wanted to keep screwing her.

This pig is famous for other things?
Why?


Originally posted by Kovenov
reply to post by SUICIDEHK45
 


I think focusing on this one piece of speculative (i.e. "had the South won the Civil War") consideration at the exclusion of all else Nugent wrote arrogates his thesis with a sort of irrational juxtapositioning. Besides that the context of his opine doesn't imply endorsement of slavery, but a movement away from expansive government power over individual choices. But, you know, whatever.


Opine is a verb.
Ted is an idiot no matter how many 50 cent words are misused.
edit on 7-7-2012 by habitforming because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 06:41 AM
link   
If the South had won the civil war the US would still be here, only much smaller.
There would also be a Confederate States of America right on it's southern border and slavery would still have been abolished.
Then again a new form of slavery appears to have raised it's ugly head in recent years under debt issuance created by the Federal government of the US.

Nugent is from Michigan, who cares what that damn Yankee thinks anyways?



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


He has to stay in the limelight so this is how he does it.

What a shame. He WAS a good rocker though. Most of his songs were about women, sex and drinking.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 06:44 AM
link   
The far right conservative agenda resembles the old confederacy, a ruling class and the slaves. No wonder he thinks it would have been a better outcome.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 06:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


Can you name any one of the Southern States that did not mention their right to practice slavery in its declaration of secession?



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Paulioetc15
 


If they had kept slavery, it still would not have lasted much longer.

I'm sure there would be more bumpkins with mullets and tacky chevy cobalts though.





new topics




 
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join