Obama a subhuman mongrel

[mudwhistle]

Obama is destroying the health care industry, taken away roughly 6 million people's health insurance, taken away their right to keep their favorite doctor, has caused divisions at every turn in this country, and yet we're supposed to forget all of that and vilify the rantings of a few idiots.

He causes wide spread hate and discontent and yet feels he can take advantage of their hate and discontent. It's amazing to see somebody so lacking in contrition.

 

[TemplarKormac]

However, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Joe Biden, and Barack Obama are part of the government, and in positions of power, and are changing the country as we speak.

What they have to say has much more relevance on our lives than Ted Nugent.

"Changing" things is what Liberals do.

It started with the Liberal Founders when they punted the rule of King George.

The Constitution has been amended 27 times.

Catch up.

Executive orders you mean. Ignoring the Constitution when it pleases you, with the same impunity as the Republicans before you did.

Your description of the founders is a bastardization of what they actually stood for. They were not liberals of your stripe, Sallow. They were Classical Liberals who held more in common with the conservatives of today. But hey, I don't see YOU extolling their virtues, now do I? Catch up.

The founders abhorred absolute rule. You on the other hand favor absolute government intervention and unlimited authority in the executive branch. They supported the checks and balances, you want to usurp two branches of government to give unabridged power to the executive.

Doesn't matter if you never said so yourself, its written in the behavior of your party and your president. Yes. YOUR president, not mine. Any leader who holds the Constitution with such utter disregard is no leader of mine.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I am now fully convinced that there is nothing a conservative could call Obama that most other conservatives wouldn't defend, in one way or another.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Obama is destroying the health care industry, taken away roughly 6 million people's health insurance, taken away their right to keep their favorite doctor, has caused divisions at every turn in this country, and yet we're supposed to forget all of that and vilify the rantings of a few idiots.

He causes wide spread hate and discontent and yet feels he can take advantage of their hate and discontent. It's amazing to see somebody so lacking in contrition.

Do you have new doctor?

 

[Sallow]

However, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Joe Biden, and Barack Obama are part of the government, and in positions of power, and are changing the country as we speak.

What they have to say has much more relevance on our lives than Ted Nugent.

"Changing" things is what Liberals do.

It started with the Liberal Founders when they punted the rule of King George.

The Constitution has been amended 27 times.

Catch up.

Executive orders you mean. Ignoring the Constitution when it pleases you, with the same impunity as the Republicans before you did.

Your description of the founders is a bastardization of what they actually stood for. They were not liberals of your stripe, Sallow. They were Classical Liberals who held more in common with the conservatives of today. But hey, I don't see YOU extolling their virtues, now do I? Catch up.

The founders abhorred absolute rule. You on the other hand favor absolute government intervention and unlimited authority in the executive branch. They supported the checks and balances, you want to usurp two branches of government to give unabridged power to the executive.

Doesn't matter if you never said so yourself, its written in the behavior of your party and your president. Yes. YOUR president, not mine. Any leader who holds the Constitution with such utter disregard is no leader of mine.

Here's the thing.

They were Liberals at the time. They believed that folks not in the Aristocracy should be able to manage their own lives, make money from their own innovation and be able to vote on people that represent them in government.

All of that was very Liberal.

However, they had views that modern liberals did not keep.

They felt that people who weren't white were not equal. They felt that women were not equal. They felt that landowners should be the only folks that vote.

I guess for you folks..that "Classical". For modern Liberals? That's wrong.

 

[Wildman]

I encourage that kind of rhetoric from the right

It reminds people of why they should not be given more leadership in this country

Nugent is one damn person and what is said on this board is not a concern but to you idiots on the left...you have broken down from reality and it's spilling over on us

Shut up you subhuman mongrel

go to hell, you fucking maggot !!

 

[Seawytch]

Obama is destroying the health care industry, taken away roughly 6 million people's health insurance, taken away their right to keep their favorite doctor, has caused divisions at every turn in this country, and yet we're supposed to forget all of that and vilify the rantings of a few idiots.

He causes wide spread hate and discontent and yet feels he can take advantage of their hate and discontent. It's amazing to see somebody so lacking in contrition.

Do you have new doctor?

It's funny...I've had to change doctors a few times since I left the military (and I sure as hell didn't have a "regular doctor" then) because my employer changed insurance plans putting me in a different network.

I had no idea this whole time that keeping that same doctor was a right. Fuck, I should have been suing the insurance companies for not carrying my doctor in their network. Why didn't anyone tell me?

 

[rightwinger]

I find the Republican failure to address the the comments by a well known celebrity that Nugent took advantage of her at the age of 12 or 13 and and sodomized her far more repulsive than his comments about Obama. The method he used to avoid serving in the military are repulsive as well. Add these to the recent comments about a sitting President and it is fair to conclude that those who lend Nugent support are of the lowest of ethics and moral character.

I fail to see what possible advantage Ted Nugent gives the GOP. He is big with the NRA crowd, but they already have that vote

Ted Nugent is poison with the moderates that Republicans need to win national elections

 

[TemplarKormac]

"Changing" things is what Liberals do.

It started with the Liberal Founders when they punted the rule of King George.

The Constitution has been amended 27 times.

Catch up.

Executive orders you mean. Ignoring the Constitution when it pleases you, with the same impunity as the Republicans before you did.

Your description of the founders is a bastardization of what they actually stood for. They were not liberals of your stripe, Sallow. They were Classical Liberals who held more in common with the conservatives of today. But hey, I don't see YOU extolling their virtues, now do I? Catch up.

The founders abhorred absolute rule. You on the other hand favor absolute government intervention and unlimited authority in the executive branch. They supported the checks and balances, you want to usurp two branches of government to give unabridged power to the executive.

Doesn't matter if you never said so yourself, its written in the behavior of your party and your president. Yes. YOUR president, not mine. Any leader who holds the Constitution with such utter disregard is no leader of mine.

Here's the thing.

They were Liberals at the time. They believed that folks not in the Aristocracy should be able to manage their own lives, make money from their own innovation and be able to vote on people that represent them in government.

All of that was very Liberal.

However, they had views that modern liberals did not keep.

They felt that people who weren't white were not equal. They felt that women were not equal. They felt that landowners should be the only folks that vote.

I guess for you folks..that "Classical". For modern Liberals? That's wrong.

You haven't the slightest clue what a classical liberal is, do you? The views they espoused then are the views conservatives now hold. By that I mean limited government, free enterprise, equal representation and etc.

Imagine living in a time when it was legal to discriminate, to hold slaves, to objectify women, now insert them into today's world. They would be seen as barbarians. But yet, we all manage to see past that and extol them for founding this great nation of ours.

But I must address one other thing.

Unlike you and your party, they did favor freedom from Aristocracy. However, you sit there and condone the egregious violations of power enacted by the president; who frankly acts like an aristocrat himself. You advocate government intervention, thus limiting a citizen's right to manage their lives. The founders on the other hand believed that a man has the right to life, liberty, property and happiness. Your views and theirs are complete contradictions of one another. Don't try to sit there and claim them as your own.

 

[Sallow]

Obama is destroying the health care industry, taken away roughly 6 million people's health insurance, taken away their right to keep their favorite doctor, has caused divisions at every turn in this country, and yet we're supposed to forget all of that and vilify the rantings of a few idiots.

He causes wide spread hate and discontent and yet feels he can take advantage of their hate and discontent. It's amazing to see somebody so lacking in contrition.

Do you have new doctor?

It's funny...I've had to change doctors a few times since I left the military (and I sure as hell didn't have a "regular doctor" then) because my employer changed insurance plans putting me in a different network.

I had no idea this whole time that keeping that same doctor was a right. Fuck, I should have been suing the insurance companies for not carrying my doctor in their network. Why didn't anyone tell me?

Prior to ObamaCare, I was FORCED by my employer to change insurance companies FIVE times.

I didn't know conservatives had such a big problem with that!

I should sue!!!

 

[rightwinger]

Executive orders you mean. Ignoring the Constitution when it pleases you, with the same impunity as the Republicans before you did.

Your description of the founders is a bastardization of what they actually stood for. They were not liberals of your stripe, Sallow. They were Classical Liberals who held more in common with the conservatives of today. But hey, I don't see YOU extolling their virtues, now do I? Catch up.

The founders abhorred absolute rule. You on the other hand favor absolute government intervention and unlimited authority in the executive branch. They supported the checks and balances, you want to usurp two branches of government to give unabridged power to the executive.

Doesn't matter if you never said so yourself, its written in the behavior of your party and your president. Yes. YOUR president, not mine. Any leader who holds the Constitution with such utter disregard is no leader of mine.

Here's the thing.

They were Liberals at the time. They believed that folks not in the Aristocracy should be able to manage their own lives, make money from their own innovation and be able to vote on people that represent them in government.

All of that was very Liberal.

However, they had views that modern liberals did not keep.

They felt that people who weren't white were not equal. They felt that women were not equal. They felt that landowners should be the only folks that vote.

I guess for you folks..that "Classical". For modern Liberals? That's wrong.

You haven't the slightest clue what a classical liberal is, do you? The views they espoused then are the views conservatives now hold. By that I mean limited government, free enterprise, equal representation and etc.

Imagine living in a time when it was legal to discriminate, to hold slaves, to objectify women, now insert them into today's world. They would be seen as barbarians.

But I must address one other thing.

Unlike you and your party, they did favor freedom from Aristocracy. However, you sit there and condone the egregious violations of power enacted by the president; who frankly acts like an aristocrat himself. You advocate government intervention, thus limiting a citizen's right to manage their lives. The founders on the other hand believed that a man has the right to life, liberty, property and happiness. Your views and theirs are complete contradictions of one another.

Classical liberal is an invention from the right to pretend that Conservatives did not oppose the War of Independence

 

[Wildman]

Ted Nugent for President 2016

I bet Hillary would be terrified to run against him

an old white lady that cant play the race card and has a mountain of baggage

oooohh repubs might as well give up!1

lol what a moron!

lady.......????? that woman is far, far removed from being a "lady", a bitchy witch is her colsest relative.

 

[Sallow]

Executive orders you mean. Ignoring the Constitution when it pleases you, with the same impunity as the Republicans before you did.

Your description of the founders is a bastardization of what they actually stood for. They were not liberals of your stripe, Sallow. They were Classical Liberals who held more in common with the conservatives of today. But hey, I don't see YOU extolling their virtues, now do I? Catch up.

The founders abhorred absolute rule. You on the other hand favor absolute government intervention and unlimited authority in the executive branch. They supported the checks and balances, you want to usurp two branches of government to give unabridged power to the executive.

Doesn't matter if you never said so yourself, its written in the behavior of your party and your president. Yes. YOUR president, not mine. Any leader who holds the Constitution with such utter disregard is no leader of mine.

Here's the thing.

They were Liberals at the time. They believed that folks not in the Aristocracy should be able to manage their own lives, make money from their own innovation and be able to vote on people that represent them in government.

All of that was very Liberal.

However, they had views that modern liberals did not keep.

They felt that people who weren't white were not equal. They felt that women were not equal. They felt that landowners should be the only folks that vote.

I guess for you folks..that "Classical". For modern Liberals? That's wrong.

You haven't the slightest clue what a classical liberal is, do you? The views they espoused then are the views conservatives now hold. By that I mean limited government, free enterprise, equal representation and etc.

Imagine living in a time when it was legal to discriminate, to hold slaves, to objectify women, now insert them into today's world. They would be seen as barbarians. But yet, we all manage to see past that and extol them for founding this great nation of ours.

But I must address one other thing.

Unlike you and your party, they did favor freedom from Aristocracy. However, you sit there and condone the egregious violations of power enacted by the president; who frankly acts like an aristocrat himself. You advocate government intervention, thus limiting a citizen's right to manage their lives. The founders on the other hand believed that a man has the right to life, liberty, property and happiness. Your views and theirs are complete contradictions of one another. Don't try to sit there and claim them as your own.

Oh wait, really?

It's REPUBLICANS that defend the wealthy at every juncture.

And you skipped over the point about the Founders thinking women and non whites were not equal. That's the facts. And that's what you guys STILL think.

President Obama has done NOTHING different than the majority of Presidents that preceded him. In fact, he's issued less executive orders than most of the modern Republican Presidents.

It's you guys that want to break labor unions, get rid of minimum wage, get rid of OSHA and labor protections, get rid of environmental protections, view corporations as people and money as speech.

That goes against the grain of the underlying principles of the Constitution.

 

[Spiderman]

So what you're saying is that anyone on this board who isn't from Texas but is criticizing Wendy Davis

should shut up and mind their own business?

Ouch. We'll see how many agree.

btw, a quick FYI. A Senator impacts NATIONAL policy. No matter what state he's from, that's everybody's business.

Yeah mid your own business is a good place to start and the thread Op is whining about what ted nugent said not what some wannabe politician said.

Again Nugent is irrelevant and anyone who takes him seriously is a moron.

Well the NRA takes him seriously enough to have him as a board member. I guess they're the kind of morons you're referring to?

You think I give a shit about the NRA?

WHat's the matter with you people that you can't think outside of your little labels?

 

[FJO]

Liberals/Democrats made a science of portraying President Bush as a monkey, many of them on and off this board routinely refer to him as chimpanzee.

Is "subhuman mongrel" any worse than monkey and chimpanzee?

I condemn Ted Nugent for what he said, but let the liberals/democrats stop acting hurt and call the kettle black (no pun intended).

We've been hearing them call him "The Chimp" for over 10 years.

That you can't tell the difference is about all anyone needs to know about you.

Definition of "subhuman":

Lower down the evolutionary scale than mankind; less than human.

Well, monkey, chimp, chimpanzee is certainly that. All those liberals who used those terms about President Bush might as well have used the word "subhuman".

I thought you could understand that, and don't imagine any difference in offensiveness, where there is none.

 

[rightwinger]

We've been hearing them call him "The Chimp" for over 10 years.

That you can't tell the difference is about all anyone needs to know about you.

Definition of "subhuman":

Lower down the evolutionary scale than mankind; less than human.

Well, monkey, chimp, chimpanzee is certainly that. All those liberals who used those terms about President Bush might as well have used the word "subhuman".

I thought you could understand that, and don't imagine any difference in offensiveness, where there is none.

How many people who called Bush "Chimp" were invited to one of Bush's State of the Union address?

 

[mudwhistle]

That you can't tell the difference is about all anyone needs to know about you.

Definition of "subhuman":

Lower down the evolutionary scale than mankind; less than human.

Well, monkey, chimp, chimpanzee is certainly that. All those liberals who used those terms about President Bush might as well have used the word "subhuman".

I thought you could understand that, and don't imagine any difference in offensiveness, where there is none.

How many people who called Bush "Chimp" were invited to one of Bush's State of the Union address?

Don't know. Were they invited afterwards or before? I know people that were the most vocal got some really good gigs.

Meet The Press
The View
MSNBC


Some of them, like Al Sharpton, got their own shows.

 

[FJO]

That you can't tell the difference is about all anyone needs to know about you.

Definition of "subhuman":

Lower down the evolutionary scale than mankind; less than human.

Well, monkey, chimp, chimpanzee is certainly that. All those liberals who used those terms about President Bush might as well have used the word "subhuman".

I thought you could understand that, and don't imagine any difference in offensiveness, where there is none.

How many people who called Bush "Chimp" were invited to one of Bush's State of the Union address?

I don't know. There may have been some occupying seats on the Democrat side of the aisle.

 

[natstew]

"Changing" things is what Liberals do.

It started with the Liberal Founders when they punted the rule of King George.

The Constitution has been amended 27 times.

Catch up.

Executive orders you mean. Ignoring the Constitution when it pleases you, with the same impunity as the Republicans before you did.

Your description of the founders is a bastardization of what they actually stood for. They were not liberals of your stripe, Sallow. They were Classical Liberals who held more in common with the conservatives of today. But hey, I don't see YOU extolling their virtues, now do I? Catch up.

The founders abhorred absolute rule. You on the other hand favor absolute government intervention and unlimited authority in the executive branch. They supported the checks and balances, you want to usurp two branches of government to give unabridged power to the executive.

Doesn't matter if you never said so yourself, its written in the behavior of your party and your president. Yes. YOUR president, not mine. Any leader who holds the Constitution with such utter disregard is no leader of mine.

Here's the thing.

They were Liberals at the time. They believed that folks not in the Aristocracy should be able to manage their own lives, make money from their own innovation and be able to vote on people that represent them in government.

All of that was very Liberal.

However, they had views that modern liberals did not keep.

They felt that people who weren't white were not equal. They felt that women were not equal. They felt that landowners should be the only folks that vote.

I guess for you folks..that "Classical". For modern Liberals? That's wrong.

Have you ever actually read the Constitution, including the Bill Of Rights?
Don't lie! But you can't help yourself, without lying you would be mute!

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I find the Republican failure to address the the comments by a well known celebrity that Nugent took advantage of her at the age of 12 or 13 and and sodomized her far more repulsive than his comments about Obama. The method he used to avoid serving in the military are repulsive as well. Add these to the recent comments about a sitting President and it is fair to conclude that those who lend Nugent support are of the lowest of ethics and moral character.

I fail to see what possible advantage Ted Nugent gives the GOP. He is big with the NRA crowd, but they already have that vote

Ted Nugent is poison with the moderates that Republicans need to win national elections

I agree. As disturbing as his craziness is to normal people on both sides, ultimately he helps the Dems.