Ted Nugent being a lunatic shitbag

[Randy]

People gaming the system is nothing new and it will never go away.

Welfare/food stamps are administered and fraud is managed at the local level. If you don't like how things are going down, blame your local DSS. The fact is, there are people legitimately in need of assistance (especially children) and just villainizing the whole program because of the people who abuse the system is the absolute absence of human compassion.

The "piece of the pie" (federal, state, local budgets) that go to those programs, as a whole, isn't much. I work, I pay taxes, I have a roof over my head, I feed myself, I clothe myself, I can fill my gas tank, I can afford to have hobbies and I still have some money left over. I'd be an idiot to voluntarily get scammed but if given the choice between the way things are vs. NO money for social services and letting these people turn to robbery, murder, starving in the streets, eating out of garbage cans, prostituting themselves for money or lord knows what else, I'll take the way things are.

And you know what else... who am I to judge those people? It's not exactly a glamorous lifestyle. I don't envy anything about getting stuff for free, not being able to feed/clothe your kids on your own and (even if they don't work out of sheer laziness), sitting around all day doing nothing. I mentioned it in a thread before... my income afforded me the ability to get free health insurance and I opted to either have nothing (paying 100% per visit) or eat Ramen dinners to afford an insurance policy out of my pocket. I have honor. Most people who have a life that I'd consider anything more than a living hell do as well.

[BlackMesa]

Originally Posted by Randy

People gaming the system is nothing new and it will never go away.

Welfare/food stamps are administered and fraud is managed at the local level. If you don't like how things are going down, blame your local DSS. The fact is, there are people legitimately in need of assistance (especially children) and just villainizing the whole program because of the people who abuse the system is the absolute absence of human compassion.

The "piece of the pie" (federal, state, local budgets) that go to those programs, as a whole, isn't much. I work, I pay taxes, I have a roof over my head, I feed myself, I clothe myself, I can fill my gas tank, I can afford to have hobbies and I still have some money left over. I'd be an idiot to voluntarily get scammed but if given the choice between the way things are vs. NO money for social services and letting these people turn to robbery, murder, starving in the streets, eating out of garbage cans, prostituting themselves for money or lord knows what else, I'll take the way things are.

And you know what else... who am I to judge those people? It's not exactly a glamorous lifestyle. I don't envy anything about getting stuff for free, not being able to feed/clothe your kids on your own and (even if they don't work out of sheer laziness), sitting around all day doing nothing. I mentioned it in a thread before... my income afforded me the ability to get free health insurance and I opted to either have nothing (paying 100% per visit) or eat Ramen dinners to afford an insurance policy out of my pocket. I have honor. Most people who have a life that I'd consider anything more than a living hell do as well.

But that's part of the problem. Look I'm not saying let them starve to death etc. What I want is to see the damn thing restructured and start kicking the shitbags off of the tit. I'm just tired of people being lazy or just corrupt ....s living off my tax dollars. Its time people start acting like god damn adults and taking care of themselves.

[Randy]

As I said, that's administered at the local level. If you don't like it, report them. If the authorities don't act on it, report it at the state level. If nothing happens, work on getting those authorities replaced.

EDIT: And my previous point still stands... the vitriol against these people who have a life that's clearly not worth much. If you hate the life you live and the job you work so much that every dime your tax dollars is spent on bothers you so much, maybe you need to consider problems in your own life.

[BlackMesa]

Originally Posted by Randy

As I said, that's administered at the local level. If you don't like it, report them. If the authorities don't act on it, report it at the state level. If nothing happens, work on getting those people replaced.

EDIT: And my previous point still stands... the vitriol against these people who have a life that's clearly not worth much. If you hate the life you live and the job you work so much that every dime your tax dollars is spent on bothers you so much, maybe you need to consider problems in your own life.

Umm never said anything about me hating my life or my job. Not sure where you even got that at. Anyway the reason I care soo much about where my tax dollars goes is the damn government spends waay too much of my tax dollars on stuff they are not even supposed to be involved in.

[Randy]

Sorry if I came off as accusing you personally. I take that back, then.

All I was trying to get at was, the government spends money on everything from wars I didn't agree with, bailouts I didn't agree with (federal), down to PILOT agreements, giving contracts to specific companies (state and local) that I don't agree with. If I expend energy being frustrated about each of those things, I'd have no hair left in my head. That doesn't mean I'm totally apathetic... I choose my battles but at the end of the day, you don't get to itemize what your taxes are used for so... eh.

And with the life/job statement, I'm just saying... I'm not financially well off but I pay my bills and I enjoy what I'm doing. I don't think fighting over one specific tax item or the other is all of the sudden going to make me wealthy. I guess, past taking care of the essentials, I don't put a lot of value on money; that's probably mostly a personal thing.

[Philligan]

This might be kinda OT, but the talk of constitutional terrorism got me thinking. Is changing the Constitution really a bad thing? Everything else has changed since 1776.

[Randy]

Originally Posted by Philligan

This might be kinda OT, but the talk of constitutional terrorism got me thinking. Is changing the Constitution really a bad thing? Everything else has changed since 1776.

.... you and your crazy thinking! Slavery FTW

[highlordmugfug]

Originally Posted by BlackMesa

WRONG. You have absolutely no idea at all just how many people abuse the system. A few thousand? Yea maybe in a small city. Try millions all over the U.S. There are whole generations of families that do this. That's all they do. Why work when the gubment gives me a check, pays for your housing, etc. See it every single day at my job. It makes me sick.

Okay, so I didn't get the number right I'm still sure the number of people that legitimately need the assistance is drastically higher than the number that are scamming it.

[Mordacain]

Originally Posted by Philligan

This might be kinda OT, but the talk of constitutional terrorism got me thinking. Is changing the Constitution really a bad thing? Everything else has changed since 1776.

Of course its not; however there is a significant portion of people in this country that view the Constitution as some sacrosanct artifact that should never be modified which is directly incompatible with how the document was intended to be used by its creators.

Obviously, the Constitution itself was made to be modifiable with the addition of amendments that enable the Constitution to remain the living document that Jefferson envisioned.

The sad truth is that the bulk majority of people that decry changing the constitution are the ones that purport the majority of laws that violate the original spirit of the document and directly violate the Bill of Rights. The Patriot Act violates the Bill of Rights and more than 1 amendment to the constitution is the most obvious example of this that I can think of. Rather ironically, the "constitutional scholars" that started cropping up on TV at the start of the Tea Party movement are guilty of spreading the most misinformed and overall incorrect views on the Constitution (both historically and in its current iteration).

[BlackMesa]

I think alot of you guys need to read The Federalists Papers to understand why alot of us dont think the constitutional should be changed all that much. Yes there has been some good amendments added but the interpretation of alot people these days is WAAAY too open ended. I think if we went back to interpreting it the way the father's really made it it would get rid of a WHOLE lot of government problems.

[Jakke]

To me, as a godless, heathen european (or viking, whatever you prefer), the constitution seems to be reverad as the bible in some circles.

What I fail to see however is how 18th century people could know about and forsee problems arising now now as products of our time. They had no idea what the internet is, and to bear arms to them was having a smoothbore musket, a weapon that was: 1. Wildly inaccurate, and 2. Had to be reloaded for a long time after each shot.

[renzoip]

Originally Posted by Jakke

To me, as a godless, heathen european (or viking, whatever you prefer), the constitution seems to be reverad as the bible in some circles.

What I fail to see however is how 18th century people could know about and forsee problems arising now now as products of our time. They had no idea what the internet is, and to bear arms to them was having a smoothbore musket, a weapon that was: 1. Wildly inaccurate, and 2. Had to be reloaded for a long time after each shot.

I agree, some circles here in the US revere the Constitution like a holy book, when it's convenient to them. And much like holy book adherents, they have a very convenient interpretation that disproportionately benefits their interests over those of people who are getting the short end of the political and socio-economic stick.

[viesczy]

He runs his yap like he's some god of guitar and paragon of virtue but he was railing teenagers (Pele Massa) and getting bl0wn by Courtney Love when she was 12.

He's a douche.

Derek

[Jakke]

Originally Posted by renzoip

I agree, some circles here in the US revere the Constitution like a holy book, when it's convenient to them. And much like holy book adherents, they have a very convenient interpretation that disproportionately benefits their interests over those of people who are getting the short end of the political and socio-economic stick.

Pretty much, I would say that the constitution of the US is probably the best founding document of its age. However, all the other founding documents has since then evolved.

free speech is a classic double edged sword as the ones you mention. It is very convenient to claim free speech when you want to say something, when someone else says something you don't agree with.. Ehh, not so much

[Mordacain]

Originally Posted by Jakke

To me, as a godless, heathen european (or viking, whatever you prefer), the constitution seems to be reverad as the bible in some circles.

What I fail to see however is how 18th century people could know and forsee about problems arising now. They had no idea what the internet is, and to bear arms to them was having a smoothbore musket.

It is revered as the Bible in some circles (and often held up in connection with), which is sad since the chief architects of the document were far from the good, honest god-fearing Christians so many Christians in this country believed them to be.

Now, my comment there is really only relevant in the context of the Christian right trying to justify the establishment of an intolerant Christian Theocracy in place of the original goal, a tolerant, Secular Democracy.

With regards to the 2nd Amendment: the Supreme Court recently upheld the right to bear arms without connection to state or local organized Militia (District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)), which is important since the original verbiage of the 2nd Amendment clearly makes that distinction for a reason. That being said, the Supreme Court upheld in the same ruling that previous established restrictions on personal arms ownership were also legal restrictions given the rather undefined generalized use of "arms" in the verbiage. The AWB (Assault Weapons Ban) also ended in 2004, so in reality, gun restriction laws are laxer than they have been since 1994 so Ted Nugent and all his NRA cronies are full of shit.

[Jakke]

Originally Posted by Mordacain

It is revered as the Bible in some circles (and often held up in connection with), which is sad since the chief architects of the document were far from the good, honest god-fearing Christians so many Christians in this country believed them to be.

THE USA WAS FOUNDED AS A NATION UNDER GAWD!



Wasn't it Jefferson who took the bible and stripped out everything supernatural from it?


*EDIT* Also, please note that I am not kicking christians, there are christian members here, and I like them immensely (however I could give you a run for the money debating religion if that is what you would desire). I kick scumbag idiots, who also happen to be intolerant, ignorant christians.

[Mordacain]

Originally Posted by Jakke

THE USA WAS FOUNDED AS A NATION UNDER GAWD!



Wasn't it Jefferson who took the bible and stripped out everything supernatural from it?


*EDIT* Also, please note that I am not kicking christians, there are christian members here, and I like them immensely (however I could give you a run for the money debating religion if that is what you would desire). I kick scumbag idiots, who also happen to be intolerant, ignorant christians.

Much as I might disagree with many of them I personally want them to be able to practice whatever religion floats their boat... right
up to the point said religion commands them to start wars with and demonize atheists, deists, pagans and other Abraham-based religions and impose their worldview on everyone else.

Personally I'm all for an amendment to make "Freedom of Religion" legally the right to practice any religion you want personally, but disallow you or your religion meddling in anyone Else's ability to do the same.

[Jakke]

Originally Posted by Mordacain

Much as I might disagree with many of them I personally want them to be able to practice whatever religion floats their boat... right
up to the point said religion commands them to start wars with and demonize atheists, deists, pagans and other Abraham-based religions and impose their worldview on everyone else.

Personally I'm all for an amendment to make "Freedom of Religion" legally the right to practice any religion you want personally, but disallow you or your religion meddling in anyone Else's ability to do the same.

Exactly, freedom from religion is a concept some people does not seem to have grasped yet (well, it has only been 300 years).

[Jakke]

And mister Nugent now has the Secret Service on his ass.

[Waelstrum]

That sort of fits with his paranoid statements about Barak wanting to kill or imprison him. I hate when people say that something bad is going to happen and then make it happen to prove themselves right.

[athawulf]

Originally Posted by Jakke

It was very much intentional for the sake of joking, and to be frank, I did not think anyone could take it literally. I tried to be as absurd as a I possibly could, but short of screaming about the Soviet Union, that is pretty much what I could muster late in the evening. The people I made fun of, in this case the consvervative crazies with Nugent as their leader, are experts of reductio ad absurdum and the slippery slope-argument, thererfore my post of course reflected that.

Athawulf, glad you like my thread

I just find it funny that when either side uses a mechanism or fallacy of the other side it becomes legitimate merely because you're playing "their game"- similar how to when limbaugh called the law student a prostitute. When the media fired up a shitstorm about it conservatives were excusing it by saying "it was entertainment, just how you liberals do all the time with your entertainment/satire shows".

It just ends up in a circle ....fest and nothing ever gets actually done or anything worthwhile said.

And that isn't even reductio ad absurdum

[ST3MOCON]

Originally Posted by Gothic Headhunter

The only real flaw I found in his speech was the gun part. We still have a right to bear arms, but in most states fully automatic assault rifels are banned, and if you need assault rifels to defend yourself, you're a pussy. Other than that, he's just expressing his pollitical views, and last time I checked, that's one of the things you're allowed to do here.

Actually there are far more gun restrictions than "fully auto" restrictions in most states. The reason people don't like giving up some gun right is because when you give in some the government takes a mile. Also something someone wrote in a very important document about not infringing on this right. Being a pussy doesn't really have anything to do with it.

[Jakke]

Originally Posted by athawulf

I just find it funny that when either side uses a mechanism or fallacy of the other side it becomes legitimate merely because you're playing "their game"- similar how to when limbaugh called the law student a prostitute. When the media fired up a shitstorm about it conservatives were excusing it by saying "it was entertainment, just how you liberals do all the time with your entertainment/satire shows".

It just ends up in a circle ....fest and nothing ever gets actually done or anything worthwhile said.

And that isn't even reductio ad absurdum

Ok, man.
1. I was showing the absurdity of some reasoning I have heard myself from ignorant paleo-conservatives.
2. how many times do I have to say it? It was not a legitimate argument, it was merely an attempt of humour (that people seems to have gotten as well).
3. How can I commit a rhetorical fallacy if I did not present an argument?

Yes, it is Reductio ad Absurdum. Reductio ad Absurdum is to disprove an argument by using a chain of far-fetched and/or impossible outcomes of that argument. In this case changing the constitution would bring on all these ridiculous consequences, and then ending in the end of the world.

[Mordacain]

Originally Posted by ST3MOCON

Actually there are far more gun restrictions than "fully auto" restrictions in most states. The reason people don't like giving up some gun right is because when you give in some the government takes a mile. Also something someone wrote in a very important document about not infringing on this right. Being a pussy doesn't really have anything to do with it.

Ah the old slippery slope argument which has been proven both rhetorically and historically invalid.

That being said, there are fewer overall gun restrictions now than in years past. Fully Automatic restrictions have been in effect ever since the National Firearm Act of 1934 in an effort to combat the prolific gang violence so there is nothing new there. Some states allow the ownership of Class 3 weapons with the proper permits (firearms regulated by the NFA).

Of real interest here is The Nuge's endorsement of Mitt Romney, who signed a permanent Assault Weapons Ban in 2004 for Massachusetts. This is where you see the absolute bat-shit crazy right-wing mentality hard at work in my opinion. The way I understand that idea is something like this: "any conservative candidate, regardless of what that candidate actually endorses or signs into law, must be better than the liberal candidate simply because he/she says he/she is a conservative."

[Necris]

Originally Posted by athawulf

I just find it funny that when either side uses a mechanism or fallacy of the other side it becomes legitimate merely because you're playing "their game"- similar how to when limbaugh called the law student a prostitute. When the media fired up a shitstorm about it conservatives were excusing it by saying "it was entertainment, just how you liberals do all the time with your entertainment/satire shows".

I remember that, Limbaugh actually called her a plant by the liberals when making his "apology" which I found hilarious.
Even if she was a plant he's still the jackass who was so easily goaded into making misogynist remarks about a woman who happened to care about having a right to choose. It's like being arrested in a prostitution sting and claiming you shouldn't go to jail because you were set up.
Take some ....ing responsibility for your actions.