Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Something to check a year from now:Ted Nugent: Obama ‘Vile’ And ‘Evil,’ Voters Should ‘Chop [Democrat's] Heads Off In November.’Outspoken conservative rocker Ted Nugent appeared at the National Rifle Association’s conference in St. Louis where he delivered a full-throated endorsement of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. ...
Nugent also sharply denounced President Obama, who he described as leading a “vile, evil America-hating administration” which is “wiping its ass with the Constitution.” ...
Nugent warned that he would either be “dead or in jail” by this time next year, should President Obama win reelection in November. “We’ll be a suburb of Indonesia next year,” said Nugent.
Finally, Nugent concluded his attack on the Democratic party by saying that voters need to decapitate those politicians with whom the rock star disagrees. “We need to ride into that battlefield and chop their heads off in November,” said Nugent bluntly. “Any questions?”
posted by Quiddity at 4/17/2012 01:25:00 AM
32 comments
The ravings of someone suffering from cat scratch fever...
Ted Nugent can say whatever he pleases and no one need care, but it's another matter when the NRA thinks he's worth giving a platform to.
Apparently Barack Obama was so disgusted by Ted Nugent's criticism that he went and deleted "Dog Eat Dog" from his Presidential iPod.
Apparently jms was so invigorated by Ted Nugent's criticism of Pres. Obama that he etched "Dog Eat Dog" on his concealed evidence of his "manliness."
Nugent, a Vietnam War draft dodger, exhorting others to "ride into that battlefield" is priceless.
My pod is etch free. In addition, I live in an open carry state of manliness. I would opine further on the issue at hand, but have been lead to believe that Presidential spouses are out of bounds. Yet,it is hard to restrain oneself when the surrounding objects are so shiny. Interpretation of this comment is left as an exercise for the reader.
It appears that jms has Ted Nugent's back, or vice versa, depending upon whether jms likes his vice versa, giving interpretation to his "open manliness." And jms openly carries, with his "shiny" reference, his raciality.
A puzzling reference to raciality. Is Shag perhaps hearing dog whistles in his head?
jms with an earlier comment provided this option:
"Interpretation of this comment is left as an exercise for the reader."
I merely exercised the option. Consider jms' phrasing:
"I would opine further on the issue at hand, but have been lead to believe that Presidential spouses are out of bounds. Yet,it is hard to restrain oneself when the surrounding objects are so shiny."
Based upon jms' past performance at this Blog, I provided an interpretation. Just what are jms' "objects ... so shiny," and why his reference to "Presidential spouses"? Is jms deeper - or more subtle - or even shallower - than Ted Nugent's comments?
I guess jms hasn't heard the latest racist term that's been circulating among the wingnuts, courtesy of the Quitta from Wasilla: Obama is a "tar baby." You might want to work that into your repertoire. Your shtick is getting pretty old otherwise.
Who said that?
Michele Bachmann:
U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann found herself in a sticky situation after using the term “tar baby” to criticize President Barack Obama’s energy policy.
“This is just about waving a tar baby in the air and saying that something else is a problem,” she told The Shark Tank on Wednesday. “I have never seen a more irresponsible president who is infantile in the way that he continually blames everybody else for his failure to first diagnose the problem, and second, to address the problem. It’s always everyone else’s fault.”
Michele’s press secretary Becky Rogness said that the congresswoman was referring to the “sticky situation,” definition of “tar baby” instead of the derogatory meaning towards African Americans.
“The congresswoman values all human life—regardless of race, color and creed,” Becky told POLITICO.com. “If you listen to the interview, Rep. Bachmann was making a point about the president’s poor understanding of oil prices, which has nothing to do with race. The president doesn’t understand the oil market and hence, has gotten himself into a sticky situation.”
This isn’t the first time Michele has received backlash from of a racial situation. Last year, she signed the pledge, “The Marriage Vow,” which stated that Black families were more stable during slavery than they are now. To show that marriage in America is in great crisis, the document cited African-American families.
“Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American president,” the document stated.
Michele’s rep said that Michele endorsed the “candidate vow,” not the preamble that included the slavery section, but because the slavery passage was the first bullet point within the four-page preamble, it’s hard to believe that she didn’t read that section.
The socially conservative group, The Family Leader, created the pledge. The group removed the passage from the vow after receiving sharp criticism.
What I meant was, what the hell does Sarah Palin have to do with this?
So not only was it Michelle Bachmann, not Sarah Palin, who made the comment, but the comment was that Obama was "waving a tar baby in the air", and if you actually watch the video clip and listen to the quote, she makes it clear a few seconds later that she is using the expression to refer to Barack Obama's three year habit of continually blaming George Bush for his own failures and hoping that Obama's failures will stick to Bush.
But then, you didn't watch the video clip, did you? You just lapped up the latest liberal fantasy talking point that Sarah Palin called Barack Obama a tar-baby without watching the clip or even doing the slightest amount of checking, which would have told you that every single part of your accusation was wrong, including the part about the term being "circulating" on conservative blogs. The only context in which "tar-baby" is being used by conservatives is to criticize Michelle Bachmann for using the term.
Another fine moment for Death Panel Truck.
The wikipedia article makes interesting reading. "Tar baby" has two meanings -- the first being a completely legitimate metaphor, taken from an African folk legend, about a character whose ego gets the best of him and is captured in what turns out to be a sticky trap.
The second, unrelated meaning is a slur against blacks, based on nothing more than their skin color, that seems to come from an ignorance of what the term actually means. Like "niggardly." Death Panel Truck relies entirely on the definition based on ignorance.
This explains why Death Panel Truck mischaracterized the use of the term in his casual slander of Sarah Palin. Using the term as Bachmann actually used it -- as a metaphor for a sticky situation -- is not racist, so DPT had to falsely claim that the term was used it in its second form -- as a derogatory slur.
Bachmann actually misused the term. A tar-baby is not something you wave around as an offensive weapon. It's a passive trap. Brer Rabbit had no reason to attack the tar-baby. He did so because the doll-trap offended his ego by not answering, and then he found himself stuck to the trap and unable to get away from it.
But why take the time to think and read when you can reflexively run around making up slanders against random female Republicans and no one will call you on it. Sadly, this is par for the course when it comes to liberal commentary.
jms spends quite a bit of time on "tar baby" and seems to get into Michelle Bachmann's head as to her intent. Surely Michelle as a highly qualified "tax attorney" knows about double and triple entendres to message her constituents (which may include jms). But jms avoids getting into his own head as he avoid addressing:
"Just what are jms' 'objects ... so shiny,' and why his reference to 'Presidential spouses'? Is jms deeper - or more subtle - or even shallower - than Ted Nugent's comments?"
We can't expect someone as busy as Michelle to provide what's in her head but jms directly makes comments on this Blog and may, if he wishes, disclose the meanings between his ears noted, as he apparently has time on his hands even to correct Michelle. To paraphrase jms:
"Sadly, this is par for the course when it comes to right-wing extremist commentary."
Shag has moved beyond dog whistles. He is now hearing entire dog whistle chords -- double and triple entendres -- in his head. The world is an ultrasonic symphony of racism that only he can hear!
Even worse, he has become obsessed with shiny objects, and is convinced that "shiny" is some sort of new double-secret raztendre. This is puzzling, as Shag presents himself as an expert on conservative thought. Yet he fails to recognize a common meme on conservative blogs, which seems to indicate that, like Death Panel Truck, he hasn't exactly done his research. Here. I'll do it for you. Just this time. You really should try Google for yourself sometime. You can search blogs and everything!
Rather than depriving Shag of his much needed mental exercise in figuring out the "meanings between [my] ears", I will continue to allow him to stretch his mental muscles. Who knows. Perhaps he will discover the world's first elusive quadruple entendre!
Since jms has Ted Nugent's back, perhaps the FBI might hear a whistle to check on Nugent's good bud for an interpretation of his:
"I would opine further on the issue at hand, but have been lead to believe that Presidential spouses are out of bounds. Yet,it is hard to restrain oneself when the surrounding objects are so shiny."
as Ted Nugent is associated with shiny (and dangerous) objects, especially at NRA rallies and jms is unclear as to why he introduced Presidential spouses into the commentary. What are the connections that dog whistler jms is alluding to between shiny objects and Presidential spouses? Ted Nugent made a clear statement noted in the post as to what he says should be done. There is a missing link - and it seems to be jms.
Shag has entered the dark world of conspiracies. He has now created, out of whole cloth, a sinister conspiracy between myself, Ted Nugent and the National Rifle Association. But what is the missing link?
It's another exciting episode of CSI Brookline.
How shall I put this ...
cold
That whole cloth jms refers to was on the loom with the post on his darling Ted Nugent at an NRA rally saying nasty things about what should be done to Pres. Obama. jms took over Nugent's theme, weaving with his own vileness, including his introduction of references to "shiny objects" and "Presidential spouses." So jms made the cloth whole, and that's a (w)rap around him.
Perhaps this is the missing link?
Are those the shiny objects? It's all so mystifying. Perhaps it means nothing. Or perhaps it means everything! But Shag, once you start finding shiny objects everywhere, you will have become a shinyologist.
Note that jms continues to ignore explaining HIS reference to HIS introduced "Presidential spouses," perhaps blinded by all the "shiny ... objects" he locates via Google. I am not in the search for "shiny ... objects" and merely seek from jms HIS connection of HIS references to "Presidential spouses" and "shiny ... objects" as he has Ted Nugent's back.
I posted on this thread as a lark, but I can't believe how enjoyable it has become living rent free inside Shag's head. I've offered several clues to the meaning of my post, but Shag doesn't get it. Shag, the only limit is yourself.
jms crows lark-like but actually doesn't have a clue: When that knock on his door comes from someone with a "shiny" object - or two - inquiring of his reference to "Presidential spouses" on a thread addressing Ted Nugent's "chop, chop" remark, jms may "emulate" his hero Ted Nugent. As for jms' claim of living in my head, in my head I'm quite regular and prepared to continue dumping on him, and of course flushing.
Shag,
You have my word that nothing I have said here or anywhere else has included any element of threat against anyone. This goes for any and every posting in the 3+ years I've been posting regularly here, as well as the 22+ years I've been posting on the internet and its predecessors.
it seems that you are threatening to make a knowingly false accusation of threatening the first family to the FBI unless I explain to you something that I choose not to. Not because you believe I have actually made a threat, but because you believe that by doing so you can scare me into satisfying your curiosity about a comment in which I set up a joke but decided not to follow through with the punchline.
You have also stated, using the word "when", that I, my wife, or child can now expect to be met at my door by unspecified armed gunmen because of my refusal to explain my allusion.
That sounds like a death threat. Are you threatening the lives of me and my family, Shag?
jms' efforts at a mea culpa includes:
" ... a comment in which I set up a joke but decided not to follow through with the punchline." [Later, he referred tp: " ... my refusal to explain my allusion."]
But what was the joke set-up? Was it the "shiny ... objects" or the "Presidential spouses"? Why did jms decide to spare us "the punchline"? Who knows, maybe there's a good joke (or a pony) somewhere in his pile of comments, which jms does not wish to share with us. Or perhaps it's a vile joke, sort of like the vileness that Quiddity pointed out with his post on Ted Nugent.
Note that jms did not include a reference to spouses of presidential candidates, suggesting perhaps Pres. Obama's spouse.
jms has nothing to fear from me, an 81 year old man who believes that the militia had great meaning in the Second Amendment. But consider how the authorities reacted to the words of jms' BFF Ted Nugent. Granted, this Blog may not get the same attention as Nugent's NRA performance. But the words of jms are out there and may get the attention of authorities who may not get the joke that jms declines not only to identify but to provide the punchline. As far as I'm concerned, jms is a mere NOAGN.* Hopefully, for the sake of jms' innocent family the authorities will treat him as such and ignore his non-efforts to complete a joke that may or may not be about "shiny ... objects" or "Presidential spouses."
During WW II as a pre-and then young teenager, I recall the poster "LOOSE LIPS SINK SHIPS." One must be careful what one says. Kurt Vonnegut brought this theme to light with his novel "Mother Night." So for his penance, I suggest that jms read "Mother Night" before resuming his internet comments. Words have meanings, but be careful with mean words, for an "allusion" may turn into an "illusion." Peace be with you, jms.
*NIT ON A GNAT'S NUT
Now this is rare.
I don't think that I've ever been browbeaten into telling a dirtyj oke that I refused to tell, but these are unusual times. Although I tried my best to wiggle out, in the face of Shag's dark efforts to paint my comment as a threat to violence, the best I could do was allow the false concession that I had in fact implied violence, and that my refusal to clarify was a
sort of "Mea Culpa" for having done so,
But last night Barack Obama took to the microphone, and said:
"What's the difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom?
A pit bull tastes delicious."
thus utterly blowing my suppressed joke out of the water, and making it seem almost sentimental in comparison. I reveal to Shag the Joke I Refused To Tell:
Years ago, Barack Obama ate a dog. She liked it so much that she married him.
But now Barack Obama has thrown open the barn door. What kind of a husband stands in front of the
entire press corps and tells a joke about "eating" a female political rival? I would have LOVED to have been a fly on the wall when the First Lady got the President's ear in private.
But nonetheless, Obama himself has thrown the door open, and I now rush through it with glee:
The President stood at the 'prompter, and offered opinion in jest
comparing the taste of dog meat, to something -- and you know the rest
'twas the taste of Ms. Palin's vagina, and left the First Lady distraught
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick With The Dog You Brought."
I also wanted to say thank you to Shag for his blessing and reading recommendations. Peace be with you as well, Shag.
jms has just earned the NHL "Puck You" award with an icing maneuver. Could children be next on jms' joke list? And this relates to the post on jms' BFF Ted Nugent's NRA vileness how?
BREAKING NEWS! Earlier this week jms' BFF Ted Nugent pleaded guilty to illegally transporting a dead black bear he shot in Ms Palin's Alaska; fortunately for Ms Palin she was wearing lipstick at the time of the incident.
And this relates to the post on jms' BFF Ted Nugent's NRA vileness how?
Absolutely nothing! Nor did I ever claim it did! I don't give a rat's ass about Ted Nugent or his politics. Ted Nugent falls in to the catagory of "celebrities opening their mouths entertainingly."
The only reason I posted on a Ted Nugent thread was to slip in a dog-eating joke. The "subject at hand" I was referring to was Obama having eaten a dog, not Nugent's behavior. The "shiny objects" I referred to were exactly what I said -- silly distractions like suddenly noticing that Obama claimed to have eaten a dog in his 18 year old autobiography. Of course children are not on the joke list, although it was Bill Maher who broke that rule by referring to the Romney children as "five very shiny and remarkably lifelike boys." So we'll see if other liberals escalate it. Who knows. Perhaps that barrier will fall before all is said and done.
If there was a "Puck You" award for every smear of Sarah Palin in the last four years, and now Ann Romney, the planet earth would be covered three feet deep in "Puck You" awards. So I don't know why you're so shocked. What? A conservative dared to do something reserved exclusively to liberals? Barack Obama tells a pussy eating joke about Sarah Palin in front of the nation, and you're horrified that someone pushed back?
Try not to choke on your indignation.
jms refers to "the issue at hand" but what he describes as "the issue at hand" is not referenced at all in Quiddity's post on Ted Nugent's vileness and evilness at an NRA conference. Perhaps jms was anxious to show his own vileness and evilness as he has self-identified as an expert cunning "forked-tongue" linguist.
As to my being "shocked" by jms' conservative crapola, I haven't expressed "shock" even in Captain Renault's Casablanca sense. I expect vileness and evilness from jms and his conservative ilk; why he has even surpassed his BFF Ted Nugent.
jms can practice his expertise here, even at home, wherever, pursuant to the First Amendment speech clause. Fortunately, that clause is a two-way street.
I don't know if jms has read "Mother Night" as yet and its message about being careful what you seem to be.
|
