Ted Nugent - 'Sure, why not'

[Sallow]

A. Seriously, you don't know the difference between original and smart?
B. See A Dictionary.

You don't know the difference between first acknowledging something, then not acknowledging something?

That's called a "contradiction".

Like if I said, I have a brown dog, except he's not brown.

I just contradicted myself.

If you need anymore examples..let me know.

The only example you gave me was you didn't grasp the post you responded to. Liberals are fascinating. Or more precisely your ability to dress yourselves is fascinating...

Yeah, basically because you got the part where he contradicted himself wrong. Which is why I provided an example.

But that's okay, Kaz.

Because it makes for some good comedy.

 

[kaz]

You don't know the difference between first acknowledging something, then not acknowledging something?

That's called a "contradiction".

Like if I said, I have a brown dog, except he's not brown.

I just contradicted myself.

If you need anymore examples..let me know.

The only example you gave me was you didn't grasp the post you responded to. Liberals are fascinating. Or more precisely your ability to dress yourselves is fascinating...

Yeah, basically because you got the part where he contradicted himself wrong. Which is why I provided an example.

But that's okay, Kaz.

Because it makes for some good comedy.

He said the person in question had two attributes, A and B, but when they are A, they are not B, and when they are B, they are not A.

Their attributes were changeable, yours were not. Someone can be smart, but do not have to be all the time, they can be original, but do not have to be all the time. You picked "dog" and "brown," which is not changeable, and treated it as if it's the same. It's fundamentally different.

Be honest, you weren't a star in school, were you?

 

[Esmeralda]

Kathleen Wiley was not consenting. Once again, she's just collateral damage to you sick leftists.

Even if Wiley's story is true, and that's debatable, there is no comparison to what she describes as happening to her and an adult male having sex with a girl of 13 or 14. No comparison whatsoever.

Stupid liberal tricks.

1) Blast Republicans for something like sex offenses, ignore Democrat sex offenses.

2) Have your hypocrisy pointed out.

3) Respond that you think the other person is in favor of Republicans committing sex offenses.

My point was your hypocrisy. Your response was that you're too stupid to grasp the point. That's on you. Bill Clinton forcing himself on someone using the power of his office is massively sick. So is his exposing himself to his secretary, using the police to transport his tarts and getting blown in the oval office by a college age intern. I am excusing no sex crimes, you are excusing the ones committed by your party because you're a vacuous ideologue.
And throw in how a freaking Democratic activist's accusation is "even if true" and "debatable," but evidence less Anita Hill, a leftist with a personal ax to grind making an accusation against the other party is just established fact, isn't it?

The thing is, you are trying to say these are equal ethical differences, that they are all just 'sex offenses' and we are excusing one and not the other.

The ethical difference between an adult male having sex with a 13-14-15 year old girls and Clinton or another politician putting a woman's hand on his goodies or touching her breast is like the difference between rural Zimbabwe and Manhattan. There is NO COMPARISON. Even if it was a child whose hand were put on the man's 'package,' through his clothes, btw, it would not be in the same ballpark or even universe. I knew a man who was a choirboy in the Catholic Church, and when he was young, a priest touched him, through his clothes. One time. He did not even realize until his 50's that this was molestation; he only felt it was an odd, uncomfortable experience. And, had it not been for all the media attention about that kind of behavior, and much worse behavior, by Catholic priests, he would probably never have thought of it that way. I'm not saying it was an okay thing; I'm saying it is not the same thing as being raped or an adult having sex with a child. It was not in the same universe as being raped or having sex with that priest. To try to correlate the two types of experiences is extremely disingenuous and only seems to indicate partisanship and, as has been noted, an attempt to divert the true discussion, which is that anyone with Nugent's background with underage girls is indicative of a pedophile and not someone fit for public office. Clinton is not the issue here, but you are trying to make him the issue. He isn't. If you want to discuss his alleged actions, start another thread.


" And that doesn't even count Wanita Brodrick who was coerced into dropping her case. There is no doubt what was done to her." There is plenty of doubt about her whole story. You don't seem to understand the difference between verifiable, reasonable truth and unverifiable, unreasonable truth. Both women's claims are questionable, whereas there is no doubt what Nugent did: he bragged about it himself.

But, again, Clinton is not the issue here: you are diverting the thread from the real issue and trying to justify it by accusing others of hypocrisy when the hypocrisy is yours: intellectual dishonesty is what you are guilty of. Nugent screwing and sodomizing little girls is the issue here, not unverified claims of sexual inappropriateness or even rape by adult women who may (or may not) be seeking notoriety and $ or revenge. If you want to discuss Clinton, make another thread.

 

[kaz]

My point was your hypocrisy

The thing is, you are trying to say these are equal ethical differences, that they are all just 'sex offenses' and we are excusing one and not the other.

That's just stupid. There is no reason that sex offenses have to be "equal." They are sex offenses. Liberals scream bloody murder for any Republican and are silent to your own. Some are larger, some are smaller both ways, but your solution is not. Republican = care, Democrats = don't care.

Clearly sex offenses are not your issue, Republicans are.

 

[Camp]

My point was your hypocrisy

The thing is, you are trying to say these are equal ethical differences, that they are all just 'sex offenses' and we are excusing one and not the other.

That's just stupid. There is no reason that sex offenses have to be "equal." They are sex offenses. Liberals scream bloody murder for any Republican and are silent to your own. Some are larger, some are smaller both ways, but your solution is not. Republican = care, Democrats = don't care.

Clearly sex offenses are not your issue, Republicans are.

The issue seems to be child rape. Ted by his own admission did some kid raping. Why people want to defend it by mimimizing it by comparing it to other forms of sex offenses is not a mystery. Thankfully there will always be a majority that see child rape as an offense that stands alone as the most heinous of sex crimes. My own opinion is that child rapers should be hung from trees, shot and left to rot in the breeze. Others think they should be forgiven and become spokespeople for political groups. Go figure.

 

[kaz]

The thing is, you are trying to say these are equal ethical differences, that they are all just 'sex offenses' and we are excusing one and not the other.

That's just stupid. There is no reason that sex offenses have to be "equal." They are sex offenses. Liberals scream bloody murder for any Republican and are silent to your own. Some are larger, some are smaller both ways, but your solution is not. Republican = care, Democrats = don't care.

Clearly sex offenses are not your issue, Republicans are.

The issue seems to be child rape. Ted by his own admission did some kid raping. Why people want to defend it by mimimizing it by comparing it to other forms of sex offenses is not a mystery. Thankfully there will always be a majority that see child rape as an offense that stands alone as the most heinous of sex crimes. My own opinion is that child rapers should be hung from trees, shot and left to rot in the breeze. Others think they should be forgiven and become spokespeople for political groups. Go figure.

You care about sex crimes against minors, but not against adults. I stand corrected, you are moral and there is no hypocrisy in that.

 

[Camp]

That's just stupid. There is no reason that sex offenses have to be "equal." They are sex offenses. Liberals scream bloody murder for any Republican and are silent to your own. Some are larger, some are smaller both ways, but your solution is not. Republican = care, Democrats = don't care.

Clearly sex offenses are not your issue, Republicans are.

The issue seems to be child rape. Ted by his own admission did some kid raping. Why people want to defend it by mimimizing it by comparing it to other forms of sex offenses is not a mystery. Thankfully there will always be a majority that see child rape as an offense that stands alone as the most heinous of sex crimes. My own opinion is that child rapers should be hung from trees, shot and left to rot in the breeze. Others think they should be forgiven and become spokespeople for political groups. Go figure.

You care about sex crimes against minors, but not against adults. I stand corrected, you are moral and there is no hypocrisy in that.

I am against all sex crimes. Nothing in my post indicates otherwise. You just don't have a reasonible or viable response for defending Ted. You just want to deflect from the fact that your spokesbody Ted is a kid rapist.

 

[007]

Ted Nugent On Running For President: 'Sure, Why Not?'

That would be very refreshing to have an American patriot that loves his country for president after the kenyan, POS, fraud, hates America, commie dick head we have now.

 

[kaz]

The issue seems to be child rape. Ted by his own admission did some kid raping. Why people want to defend it by mimimizing it by comparing it to other forms of sex offenses is not a mystery. Thankfully there will always be a majority that see child rape as an offense that stands alone as the most heinous of sex crimes. My own opinion is that child rapers should be hung from trees, shot and left to rot in the breeze. Others think they should be forgiven and become spokespeople for political groups. Go figure.

You care about sex crimes against minors, but not against adults. I stand corrected, you are moral and there is no hypocrisy in that.

I am against all sex crimes. Nothing in my post indicates otherwise. You just don't have a reasonible or viable response for defending Ted. You just want to deflect from the fact that your spokesbody Ted is a kid rapist.

So you're only a hypocrite if I want to defend Ted. Got it.

I'm not defending Ted, actually. And yet you are still a hypocrite.

A dictionary would change your life...