There is an ultra conservative attorney in Southern Utah who says he is a member
of the prominent Utah religion. This man has been given a regular book review
spot on this local morning radio station. When this individual substitutes
for the regular radio host, his comments about President Obama rival those of
Ted Nugent. Those who call into the station to make comments, cheer him on when
he speaks in such a way.Quite pathetic.
Tyler DI got into the head of conservatives probably in the same way
that all the liberals have who believe that being a critic of Obama equates to
being racist. We have no more than anecdotal evidence and projection.
Therefore it should never be used to criticize the critics. So please tell your
side to stop. And when Hillary runs you might add that the opposition is not
being anti-women. Just anti her politics. And her over-rated husband.Since you continue to claim that opposition to Obama is based on a
"seething, visceral hatred", ( which contradicts your first point) I
will just say we hate what his policies are doing to this country. If it were
Gore or Kerry, we would be just as opposed.
@m.g. scott Obama has been such a dismal failure, all he and his
supporters on the Left can do is charge racism for any criticism against his
record:* Obamacare* Real unemployment of over 14%*
Americans on food stamps doubled since 2008* Benghazi ("I didn't
know about it...")* IRS Scandal where conservative groups were
harassed ("I didn't know about it...")* Fast and Furious
("I didn't know about it...")* NSA ("I didn't know
about it...")* Solyndra and other failed "Green" Companies
that Obama pumped billions of our dollars intoObama's
presidency is an unmitigated disaster, and the Left knows this. The race card
is all they have.
@m.g. scott – “Using race as a undercurrent of Americans objecting
to Obama. I for one and I'm sure the vast majority of
Republicans/conservative in America do not criticize Obama for his
race.”Since I specifically said “how much of [the
criticism] is based on race is anyone’s guess,” you are doing a fair
amount of projection here.And I’m curious how you know what
the vast majority of conservatives think? Have you gotten inside all their
heads?I agree that Obama should not get a free pass and also that
politics is and always has been a nasty game – the attacks our founders
endured, from each other no less, would make your hair stand up.But
I noted a difference with Obama that you are conveniently ignoring –
specifically, how he is attacked non-stop from the Right even for proposals the
Right created or once supported.Do you have a rational explanation
for this fact other than a seething, visceral hatred for Obama based on…
Tyler DThere you go again. Using race as a undercurrent of
Americans objecting to Obama. I for one and I'm sure the vast majority of
Republicans/conservative in America do not criticize Obama for his race. And
would love a conservative/Republican black President. It is his bad management
of his office that has drawn our ire. Nugents words of course were wrong, but
on the whole, our criticisms of Obama rank with the criticisms of Bush, Clinton,
Bush, Reagan, Carter, ect. All are valid in a our country. And all on both
sides of the isle have their defenders. Some of you think Obama is being
treated unfairly compared to other Presidents. That in and of itself is a
racist view. Obama deserves no better than any other President got or will get.
If one thinks his race should give him special treatment, then they ought to
look at themselves and ask why. Because his race doesn't matter to most in
America. If it did, he would not have been elected twice. Unless you think
anyone who didn't vote for him is automatically a racist. Really?
Why is it that the Ted Nugent comment has opened the door on this issue??? We
have had words unprintable on this DN site used against Sarah Palin, and Laura
Ingraham by million dollar donars to the Democrat party and I didn't notice
any Democrat supporters coming in to complain of this type of talk. And by the
way, if any of you ever listened to Rush Limbaugh you would realize that he and
the Republican Party are very far apart. But you would have to listen to him to
know that. In any case I won't hear the liberals complaining about an out
of line statement from a rock star when so many like statements have come from
the likes of Bill Mahar and others without a peep from the left. Sorry Lois,
but you are way late to this party.
"Have we "arrived" at a point in culture where we will no longer
tolerate such debate, and such negative tones and comments? Perhaps"Are you really seriously saying in order to debate a policy, or an
issue, that we need to resort to name calling, personal distortions,
inflammatory language, lying? That these are necessary to discuss
differences?I hope not. I really do.
What Republicans have done for the last 4+ years will continue for the rest of
President Obama's time in office.The Republican from South
Carolina who reported that it is good politics for Republicans to oppose the
black guy in The White House laid bare the true motivation for what has happened
during the last 4+ years.
i'll try again, as my earlier comment was flagged for review.Both sides have demonstrated hypocrisy--supporting the president when their
party holds the presidency, but strongly criticizing the president when the
other party holds the position. Obviously this is an effort to weaken the
opponent and attempt to control, to some degree, the political discourse and
even, perhaps, legislative outcome.Some of this is understandable.
Conservative Republicans oppose Obamacare because it represents a fundamental
offense to their views--government control of a huge portion of the economy
(healthcare). Obamacare also intrudes upon privacy, controls behavior,
introduces new taxes, controls an entire industry, penalizes opponents, to list
some of the negatives. Other progressive Republicans may have
embraced Obamacare if they had been included in the process. So their
opposition is based more upon being left out of the power grab. Additionally,
many Republicans oppose it simply because Democrats got it through and signed
into law.Americans who oppose politics because of sincere
differences should find ways to communicate their opposition without demagoguing
the other side.I was obviously guilty of demagoguery in my earlier
post, which was flagged. Hopefully this one is better.
Open Minded Mormon,Politics (of any stripe) should have no place at
the pulpit or the teacher's dais.
I too remember the Bush presidency when liberals accused him of lying, of being
guilty of murder, and on and on. I remember the left calling for his
impeachment, his death, his assassination. The left has short memories, and/or
are justifying their behavior and comments a few years ago because "their
man" is now president.The left then complains that the right is
treating the president poorly (just as the left did during the Bush years).There is hypocrisy all around. However, if we truly
researched history and went back to the days of the pre-Revolution we would see
and hear the same tone. This is an American tradition of debate, of smear, of
mud throwing, of efforting to "win" the debate.Have we
"arrived" at a point in culture where we will no longer tolerate such
debate, and such negative tones and comments? Perhaps. We'll
find out when a conservative wins the White House.
@ Marxist@Mohokat "...The holder of that office has to earn that
respect. " Have any of you blokes been in the army? I have. They told us
there that "it's not the man it's the uniform." Its quite
true. I also have been in the service. There were officers that I
had to salute which was the uniform but that does not mean I respected them. In
the present case of the CIC if I was in now I would obviously salute him
although I find everything about him repulsive.
I love reading over the comments… how the very first one rallies to
justify bad behavior because someone else did it. Isn't that the same
logic used on play grounds - the other person did it first? The
author clearly articulates that there is blame enough on both sides. We have
seen in on MSNBC. We see it with Fox, Rush, the rest of the talking heads, and
even a show I do like, the Daily Show, a propensity to crude thoughtless and
often false comments. And yet the first response is a full bore partisan
defense of bad behavior.None of this is new, but there was a time
when being so crass was actually looked down on. Now people pride themselves
in just how rude and disrespectful they can be…. justifying it all the
while by "the other side did it first". It is completely possible to
have respectful debate and differences…. it just seems being nasty is the
preferred path of many.What next - I know you are but what am I?
Rubber - Glue … anyone?
re:EsquirePerhaps a trip through history would help you a
bit....specifically Barack Obama's repeated, inflammatory and dishonest
words toward conservatives ...or for that matter anyone who questions his
policies. George Bush never ever stooped to that level and for that matter
neither did Bill Clinton. With Barack it's become expected behavior. Yes we
do respect the office of president and no we don't respect the current
office holder. The corruption, the lies, and the recent arrogant power grab
combined with the IRS ordered attacks against his detractors including even
movie makers is without equal including Richard Nixon. No Barack has not earned
or deserved our respect - quite the opposite. The millions of Americans who
continue to suffer because of his latest lies about keeping your insurance and
doctor and then his shrug of the shoulders response is typical of this sorry
@Demo Dave 1:45 p.m. Feb. 25, 2014Lois, the correct phrase is,
"I couldn't care less." If you could care less, you imply that you
care to some degree already, which is the opposite of what you are trying to
say.--------------------------Dave -- I am now going to
date myself. The entire phrase of which Ms. Collin used a part says "I
couldn't care less IF I CARED AT ALL." Through usage it got shortened
to "I could care less" and then mutated into "I couldn't care
less." Both you and she had a correct form of the phrase, just from
different times in its existence.
The followers of John Adams very sincerely believed that Thomas Jefferson was
@ Sven, I agree there were some off the wall things said about Bush (the guy who
took us into two wars), but are you raising the Pee Wee Herman defense of "I
know you are but what am I?" Just because someone else did it, does it make
you feel better to do it too? You don't want to rise above the hate and
negativity? Do you wish to continue rationalizing, or will you choose to be
better? I guess in the end, it's your choice.
@JoeCapitalist2 – “What we really dispise is the pure
hypocracy… ”As one who has seen this from both sides
(and believe it or not, even defended Bush against the more vitriolic attacks on
the Left), I’m not sure you want to go down the “hypocrisy”
road in an effort to gain the moral high ground.I don’t think
we’ve ever seen anything like the hypocritical knee-jerk reactionary
hatred of our current president. How much of this is based on race is
anyone’s guess, but it goes without saying that after a few decades of
continuously punishing blatant racism in the public arena, people have gotten
pretty good at hiding their prejudices in the marketplace of ideas. I think the knock-down evidence for my point about Obama is the sheer number
of times he has been attacked with the most hyperbolic & inflammatory
language for policies and proposals that were either created by Republicans or
were at one time supported by Republicans (e.g., Romney’s healthcare plan,
Bush’s Immigration plan, McCain’s cap & trade proposal, etc.,
I know a lot of folks on the right are amused by and appreciate Ted Nugent, aka,
"The Nuge", and admire his (what might be termed) "vigorous
expressions of freedom", like mowing down 400 wild hogs from a helicopter
with a machine gun, etc.But for both the right, and the left, it
behooves the consumer of information to know what they're actually getting.
When the Nuge said Obama was a "subhuman mongrel", it was,
of course, over the line, and it turns out the words "subhuman" and
"mongrel" were actually used by the Nazis to denigrate Jews in the
run-up to the concentration camps in WWII.*THEN*, with the highest
level of irony, the Nuge accuses Obama of taking us on a path like Nazi
Germany(!)(It's debatable whether Nugent actually could
correlate those two items, and see a potential paradox in his statements, but
the consumers of the information he provides hopefully can make the
I found the personal attacks on Bush to be tiresome and below the belt. Despite
my profound differences with him in political philosophy, and my issues with
what I saw as his hubris, he was still my commander in chief. I
would chastise my more extremist friends who bought into the 9/11 conspiracies,
Michael Moore's mocking, etc. I thought the whole co-called
"Bush Derangement Syndrome" was a troubling sign of where civil
discourse was going, and was optimistic that Bush's leaving office would
change the tone.Nope. What we have now is Bush Derangement Syndrome
on steroids. Don't justify the rhetorical hatred of Obama on
the grounds that liberals did it first. Ya'll ought to have known better
and taken the higher ground, but you didn't. Own it.
"Nugent apologized for his comments ...many times.""Nugent however did not excuse his inflammatory words which were spoken in
the heat of the moment. "I guess ole Ted has been in the
"heat of the moment" quite often then.These kinds of
comments are not exactly new for Mr Nugent. When you slip up and then
apologize, it should be accepted and that would be the end.But when
you do it repeatedly, ones "apology" doesn't exactly come off as
sincere. Nugent has a long history of over the top hate speech but that is not
enough to deter high level GOP candidates from stumping with him, or inviting
him to the State of the Union speech.Joecap, you keep insisting that
there is a long list of examples. Bring one or two of the most egregious (from
people that the Democrats give a political platform to)Enlighten me.
Lois, the correct phrase is, "I couldn't care less." If you could
care less, you imply that you care to some degree already, which is the opposite
of what you are trying to say.
TheTrueVoice:No. We don't think it is OK to denigrate Obama
just because Bush had to endure it.What we really dispise is the
pure hypocracy of those who scream how unfair and hateful that conservatives
must be for disagreeing with Obama and his policies after they themselves spent
the entire 8 Bush years saying far worse things about the GOP (and continue to
do so today).
The remarks of Ted Nugent are increasingly common and ominous. When he call
Obama a "mongrel" this gets to the fascist preoccupation with racial
purity. Fascism feeds on intemperate language. The fascist beast is loose.
It seems that some of you think it is justified to denigrate the current
President and his office, simply because the previous President was subjected to
it.Um, okay... are any of you over the age of 10?I only
ask because many of my 5th grade students use the same logic... "I pushed
him off the monkey bars because he pushed me first".Brilliant,
@Mohokat "...The holder of that office has to earn that respect. "
Have any of you blokes been in the army? I have. They told us there that
"it's not the man it's the uniform." Its quite true. I have to remind myself over and over to be civil in my discourse even
though I have strong opinions. We have a lot at stake. Mean talk will result
in mean results.
re:mohokatgreat comment. Spot on!!
Two things need to be said about this article and understood1.
Nugent apologized for his comments ...many times. Lois failed to mention that
fact for some reason. Ted Nugent is a very patriotic person and is correct for
calling out Obama as a clear and present danger to America ...because he is.
Nugent however did not excuse his inflammatory words which were spoken in the
heat of the moment. 2. How many times over the past 5 years has Barack
Obama been the SOURCE of the harsh, terrible, and inflammatory rhetoric toward
conservatives? Too many to count!!! Lois needs to set the record straight and
speak the whole truth ...not just one side of it. 3. It seems that the
media (NBC, MSNBC, CNN) and Democrat's in congress as well as race hate
generators like Sharpton use inflammatory and ridiculously ugly language toward
conservatives on a DAILY basis. It always helps to consider the
whole truth and not just the parts you like Lois!
This is absolutely nothing new. You should just look up campaign materials
going all the way back to 1800. We got nothin' on them!
Remember Werner Klemperer (Col Klink on Hogans Heros)? I remember his being on
a talk show with the late Jack Anderson. Klemperer lived through Nazi Germany.
He said the first thing which went down was public discourse - it became cruder
and cruder - meaner and meaner. Anderson brushed this off, but Klemperer made a
good point. This ugly dialog may be a sign of things to come, bad things.
If the shoe fits, ear it. Or, better yet, get different shoes. Perhaps, we could
begin at home, here in these comments by policing ourselves. Let's improve
our language and our style. We can disagree with civility. I went slightly
overboard, once, myself. Didn't make the cut; even my wife got after me.
Some commenters have a hard time spotting the difference between respect and
simple human decency. Some things are beyond the bounds of civilized
discussion.There is no defense for what came from Nugent. None.
Esquire said:"See, even after reading the op-ed piece, some
commenters still express their hatred for the President, relying on media
propaganda that if full of falsehoods, misrepresenting the man and his
policies."Yeah, I know what you mean. The Left showed nothing
but kindness, understanding, and support for President Bush during his eight
years in office. The nation could at least reciprocate this same good will
towards President Obama...right? Well, okay, there was the movie
depicting President Bush's assassination, which was cheered by Liberals,
but that was just good clean political satire. Okay, the Left also called him a
terrorist, but this was meant in a good way, and shouldn't be confused with
"inflammatory political chatter..." Talk about selective
See, even after reading the op-ed piece, some commenters still express their
hatred for the President, relying on media propaganda that if full of
falsehoods, misrepresenting the man and his policies. These commenters will
never accept anyone not of their party or choosing. They attack even his
legitimacy (just as they did to Clinton). Having worked for leaders in both
parties, I am calling out some of the commenters here and asking them to focus
on issues, on reality, and on facts, instead of Fox and other right wing
propaganda intended to bring the President down or otherwise weaken him. We all
have policy differences, but to want to destroy the duly elected leader of our
nation, just because you disagree (and you are in the minority, after all), does
not seem to me to be patriotic. Seems like a totalitarian state might be your
preference in reality.
Articles like this, and really so much of what our media showcases and has
become, makes me wonder repeatedly when we are going to stop paying attention to
our village idiots.
I agree with Craig Clark. The comments say much more about the person than the
President. The congressman who yelled out "liar" during the state of the
union, Ted Nugent, Micheal Moore, or Alec Baldwin are all cut from the same
cloth. What they said is meaningless because of how they said it.
Which is worse:Ted Nugent calling President Barack Obama a
"subhuman mongrel." orPresident Barack Obama
being calling the "Anti-Christ", "ObamaNation" or "Son of
Perdition" in LDS Gospel Doctrine or Preisthood meetings?It's ture, It's happened -- many times.[And you people
wonder why I sometimes get up and walk out of church...]
You go clear back to the 30's when Roosevelt ran against Hoover. That was
the modern start of all of this, and back then it all came from the Democrats.
They have raised it to an art form that came to its zenith during the W.
Presidency. Harry Reid has never been called out by the media for his
inflammitory rhetoric regarding President Bush.You are crabbing
about Nugent. You ought to be crabbing about the whole Democrat establishment.
"He was born with a silver foot in his mouth", Ann Richards. Need I say
JoeBlow: I could give you instances all day long where "the left embraces
their fanatics and brings them on stage". Somehow, I doubt you would
acknowledge any of them.The civility will never return until BOTH
sides openly condemn outrageous comments from the radical wings of their own
party as adamantly as they condemn similar comments from the other side. Party
leaders must shun such behavior even when they perceive a political advantage by
embracing it.I'm not optimistic that this will happen anytime
soon but your failure to recognize that your party is just as guilty as the GOP
isn't going to help solve the problem.
Does Ted Nugent live in Utah?
JoeCap. As I stated in my post, I agree that there is over-the-top rhetoric on
the left.And your examples of Jeremiah Wright, Bill Maher, Al
Sharpton, and Michael Moore.These folks are not on the campaign
trail. They do not speak at the Democratic National Convention." Al Frankin, Alan Grayson, and Maxine Waters say stuff that is just as
bad."As bad as what? Nugent? Who? "so many
liberals pretend that the current outrage over Obama's policies is
something new."Of course "outrage over policy" is
nothing new. But we are not talking about "policy differences".We
are talking about blatant and personal hatred. The GOP seldom distances
themselves from those who spew such hatred. In Nugent's case, he is
celebrated. He is on the campaign trail.Rush says over the top
things. As does Bill Maher. But Bill Maher would NEVER be asked to speak at the
DNC. Nor would Rev Wright.We cant help what the fringe wackos on
either side say or do. But, I dont see where the left embraces their fanatics
and brings them on stage.Feel free to give me instances.Go
listen to Nugents rant.
Nugent's outburst says more about who he is than anything about the
When the bullets and bombs of a hot war end, sometimes the war just takes on
different weapons and keeps on going. Such is true about the American Civil.
The weapon of choice is hate. Aggravated by the oppression of the winning side,
the losers easily find the resources and motivation for the creation of hate.
And when the level of hate becomes high enough the hot war may very well start
all over again.If a child misbehaves and is punished by the parent,
when the punishment of finished, the child is often accepted back with all the
love and care that was there before. If only we could learn from our successful
JoeBlow:I didn't hear the rant of Ted Nugent, but from the
reports I heard, it was very over-the-top inappropriate. We can disagree (often
emphatically) with the opposition without resorting to those kinds of
tactics.But I am also sorry that you cannot (or won't) see the
blantent examples of similar behavior on the left. There are flame-thowers from
radical leftists all over the place that are openly embraced by the Democratic
party, their leaders, and the president himself!Jeremiah Wright,
Bill Maher, Al Sharpton, and Michael Moore are just a few examples. Elected
officials like Al Frankin, Alan Grayson, and Maxine Waters say stuff that is
just as bad. President Bush endured rude behavior from the left all day long,
yet so many liberals pretend that the current outrage over Obama's policies
is something new.
Some of you clearly don't like the President and have made arguments for
yourself to assuage any conscience you might have against that dislike. Fine.
Next time, vote for your man.
I agree with mohokat. The office deserves respect, but the person holding that
office must earn our respect. When the President blames others for his own
failures, he deserves no respect. That doesn't mean that we should resort
to name calling, but it does mean that we can and should speak about his
failures. Why aren't people talking about the
administration's redefinition of "freedom of the press"? His
administration is campaigning to oversee news outlets to insure that they print
only what Americans "need". They've already defined our need as
those things relating to our "safety" and our "health". That in
NOT why we have the 1st Amendment. We have that amendment to keep government
out of the newsroom, out of the editorial offices, out of TV and out or radio.
Read history. How many nations became dictatorships after the government
"gave" the people health care and then restricted the media?There is enough to write about without calling names, but no one is required
to respect an individual who has not earned that respect.
I'll admit that I was extremely critical of President G.W. Bush, but
I'm every bit as critical of President Obama. They've both been
disasters. However, I find the epithets thrown by Ted Nugent as crossing the
line of acceptable discourse. When you begin to dehumanize other individuals,
you can find yourself on the road to unacceptable behavior. It gives you license
to do things to others because they're no longer human. It makes it easier
to inflict physical or psychological harm on them because they're now a
threat to "the rest of us humans." We see that in wars when soldiers on
one side call the opposing soldiers hateful names. If others don't meet
our standards of thought or behavior, we need to remember that they're
still our fellow men (or women). The act of dehumanizing others is itself
dehumanizing to those who engage in it.
I agree. But when I've asked people to tone it down, especially towards
the President (who has been abused more than any President in modern times),
they get angry. Look at the comments of "mohokat." No one thinks they
are the problem, and they rationalize their behavior in some astounding ways.
So, tell me what is the solution? As long as you have the fractured media, and
media who are either intellectually dishonest, cowardly, cannot connect the
dots, or are advocates, then the discourse will not change.
The office of the President has and deserves respect. The holder of that office
has to earn that respect. I have no respect for the present occupant of that
office and that has no bearing on my patriotism. Respect for someone who takes
no responsibility, who has proven to be untrustworthy. No thanks.
I couldN'T care less, either.
This editorial totally misses the point of public outrage over Ted Nugent's
inflammatory comments. The outcry is over the fact that Texas
Republican gubernatorial hopeful Greg Abbott has RECRUITED Nugent to campaign
for him! The outrage is over the fact that Mr. Abbott recruited
someone who released a record in 1981 called "Jailbait", which has
lyrics so sordid I won't even quote them!The outrage is over
the fact Ted Nugent is cheered on by a hardcore group of people who actually
think he is speaking on their behalf!
Ms Collins is right. There is inflammatory political rhetoric on both sides of
the isle.So, is that an equivalence? Seems to Ms Collins it is.There will always be fringe elements on both the right and the left that
will overstep the bounds of decency. Nothing that we can do about them.
(however, we can police ourselves)But, we don't have to
celebrate them. It is one thing to not have the backbone to publicly denounce
over the top rhetoric, but we don't need to elevate their stature.Sorry, but I don't see an equivalence. The GOP base loves Ted
Nugent and Rush Limbaugh and what they say and stand for. And that is
fine...... until the GOP leaders include them as spokespeople. Possibly you can find those on the left who have publicly said similar things
to Nugents recent rant (If so, show me). But can you show where the party
embraces them? That is the difference.
Ms. Collins,I'm always amused when the Left feigns outrage at
something somebody says; especially about President Obama. The only people with
thinner skin than Obama, are his supporters...especially his cheerleaders in the
media.Where were you the eight years George W. Bush was president?
*Remember the movie that was made, and celebrated by liberals, about
the assassination of President Bush? *Remember Barbra Streisand
likened Bush to Herman Goering?*Remember what Sean Penn said about
Bush: "I am more patriotic than this president we have, who I consider a
traitor of human and American principles.”*Remember what
Julianne Malveaux of USA Today said about Bush: "George W. Bush is evil. He
is a terrorist. He is evil. He is arrogant. And he is out of control."I could go on...You're a reporter, yet the only thing
negative you could dig up on the Left, and their treatment of Bush, was Alec
Baldwin threatening to leave the country...seriously?My short list
of outrageous things said by liberals about Bush, make Ted Nugent's
comments inconsequential.Were the Left's "Rude,
inflammatory political chatter a harmful sign of the times" when Bush was