Ted Nugents To Blacks: "Don't Claim 'Black Lives Matter' When You Ignore The Millions You Abort"

[Rocko]

Look at almost every response to the OP.

When a good point is made by someone, they ignore the point made completely.

Their tactic when they are faced with uncomfortable badthink is to DISQUALIFY, DISQUALIFY, DISQUALIFY.

Disqualify the person who said the uncomfortable badthink, so that people can pretend to themselves that nothing a disqualified person says is ever, ever true.

This is how progressives successfully brainwash themselves. It's similar to scientologist practices that preserve their in-group solidarity.

It's not a good point...it is offensive to try to justify the killing of blacks because abortion is legal in this country

Strawman.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Look at almost every response to the OP.

When a good point is made by someone, they ignore the point made completely.

Their tactic when they are faced with uncomfortable badthink is to DISQUALIFY, DISQUALIFY, DISQUALIFY.

Disqualify the person who said the uncomfortable badthink, so that people can pretend to themselves that nothing a disqualified person says is ever, ever true.

This is how progressives successfully brainwash themselves. It's similar to scientologist practices that preserve their in-group solidarity.

It's not a good point...it is offensive to try to justify the killing of blacks because abortion is legal in this country

Strawman.

Its what he said.

Its the same kind of racist crap he always says.

And, considering the life he has led, he has no right to tell others how to live.

 

[Rocko]

Look at almost every response to the OP.

When a good point is made by someone, they ignore the point made completely.

Their tactic when they are faced with uncomfortable badthink is to DISQUALIFY, DISQUALIFY, DISQUALIFY.

Disqualify the person who said the uncomfortable badthink, so that people can pretend to themselves that nothing a disqualified person says is ever, ever true.

This is how progressives successfully brainwash themselves. It's similar to scientologist practices that preserve their in-group solidarity.

It's not a good point...it is offensive to try to justify the killing of blacks because abortion is legal in this country

Strawman.

Its what he said.

Its the same kind of racist crap he always says.

And, considering the life he has led, he has no right to tell others how to live.

Umm no that's not even close to anything he said. His point was it's hypocritical to say you care so much about black lives and ignore all the blacks that are aborted. Now feel free to agree or disgaree, but don't try and say he was justifying the killing of blacks, because thats just dishonest.

 

[JFK_USA]

Black lives only matter to blacks and white liberals when a white person is responsible for killing a black. They need to be constantly called out for thier shameless race baiting. More and more people are getting fed up with the bullshit and I see change coming.

What is this "change" you speak of? Bringing back Jim Crow? Slavery?

I'm sorry your racist ass can't understand that other people face different things than you do.

 

[Rocko]

Black lives only matter to blacks and white liberals when a white person is responsible for killing a black. They need to be constantly called out for thier shameless race baiting. More and more people are getting fed up with the bullshit and I see change coming.

What is this "change" you speak of? Bringing back Jim Crow? Slavery?

I'm sorry your racist ass can't understand that other people face different things than you do.

You see, you're a race baiter. When did I ever say anything about bring back slavery or Jim Crow?? Never that's when. So I ask you why would you ever say such a thing?

 

[rightwinger]

Look at almost every response to the OP.

When a good point is made by someone, they ignore the point made completely.

Their tactic when they are faced with uncomfortable badthink is to DISQUALIFY, DISQUALIFY, DISQUALIFY.

Disqualify the person who said the uncomfortable badthink, so that people can pretend to themselves that nothing a disqualified person says is ever, ever true.

This is how progressives successfully brainwash themselves. It's similar to scientologist practices that preserve their in-group solidarity.

It's not a good point...it is offensive to try to justify the killing of blacks because abortion is legal in this country

Strawman.

I agree

Nugents abortion comparison is a Strawman and offensive

 

[Rocko]

Look at almost every response to the OP.

When a good point is made by someone, they ignore the point made completely.

Their tactic when they are faced with uncomfortable badthink is to DISQUALIFY, DISQUALIFY, DISQUALIFY.

Disqualify the person who said the uncomfortable badthink, so that people can pretend to themselves that nothing a disqualified person says is ever, ever true.

This is how progressives successfully brainwash themselves. It's similar to scientologist practices that preserve their in-group solidarity.

It's not a good point...it is offensive to try to justify the killing of blacks because abortion is legal in this country

Strawman.

I agree

Nugents abortion comparison is a Strawman and offensive

You're the one who misrepresented what he said. Anyone who reads this thread will see that.

 

[rightwinger]

Look at almost every response to the OP.

When a good point is made by someone, they ignore the point made completely.

Their tactic when they are faced with uncomfortable badthink is to DISQUALIFY, DISQUALIFY, DISQUALIFY.

Disqualify the person who said the uncomfortable badthink, so that people can pretend to themselves that nothing a disqualified person says is ever, ever true.

This is how progressives successfully brainwash themselves. It's similar to scientologist practices that preserve their in-group solidarity.

It's not a good point...it is offensive to try to justify the killing of blacks because abortion is legal in this country

Strawman.

I agree

Nugents abortion comparison is a Strawman and offensive

You're the one who misrepresented what he said. Anyone who reads this thread will see that.

That is exactly what Nugent said

To claim that complaining because blacks are killed is irrelevant as long as abortion exist.

 

[Rocko]

 

[rightwinger]

Blacks are doing exactly what conservatives are urging them to do

Don't have children you can't support.

If conservatives would stop bitching about supporting black children of unwed mothers....the number of abortions would be unnecessary

 

[ninja007]

white libs don't care about blacks or any person except themselves.

 

[Political Junky]

He is only upset because it shrinks his dating pool.

Ted is married.

But he had a child with another woman while with his current wife.

Ted Nugent

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

He is only upset because it shrinks his dating pool.

Ted is married.

But he had a child with another woman while with his current wife.

Ted Nugent

Irrelevant to the thread topic.

 

[ninja007]

Blacks are doing exactly what conservatives are urging them to do

Don't have children you can't support.

If conservatives would stop bitching about supporting black children of unwed mothers....the number of abortions would be unnecessary

what the hell are you talking about?

 

[rightwinger]

Blacks are doing exactly what conservatives are urging them to do

Don't have children you can't support.

If conservatives would stop bitching about supporting black children of unwed mothers....the number of abortions would be unnecessary

what the hell are you talking about?

Don't see conservatives lining up to support black children...do you?

 

[G.T.]

He is only upset because it shrinks his dating pool.

Ted is married.

And once said he can't get it up unless he kills something first.

Or unless his victim is underage.

No wonder sicko RWs love this poopy pants jerk.

I'm pretty sure Ted would like to add a coon hunting segment to his TV show.

That would be great show. After hunting the coons down using dogs, he could find a nice oak tree and put a rope around their necks and string em up like wind chimes.

Why dont you grow a pair of balls and do.it yourself, keyboard warrior

 

[Vigilante]

Blacks are doing exactly what conservatives are urging them to do

Don't have children you can't support.

If conservatives would stop bitching about supporting black children of unwed mothers....the number of abortions would be unnecessary

what the hell are you talking about?

Don't see conservatives lining up to support black children...do you?

This is a question pro-aborts endlessly badger pro-lifers with: “If you so badly want babies to be born, how many are you willing to adopt?” They hope that by casting pro-lifers as somehow not doing enough to give “unwanted” children a home, they can divert attention away from the deaths they’re responsible for and guilt a few of us into shutting up. If that reminds you of a child snapping, “If you love it so much, why don’t you marry it?,” that’s because the challenge is about as sophisticated.

Sorry, but moral high ground doesn’t come that cheaply, the primary reason being that it doesn’t change the tiny details of a) who’s making children they don’t want in the first place, and b) who’s actually killing them and perpetuating that killing. Can anyone think of any other scenario where “I should be able to harm someone unless you aid me in some way” would be taken even remotely seriously as moral reasoning? If I forbid somebody from stealing my neighbor’s car, am I therefore obligated to let the would-be thief borrow my own?

Of course not. It’s preposterous. Again, pro-aborts are (intentionally) confusing the difference between abstaining from harm and going out of one’s way to do good. Our obligation to the former doesn’t necessarily entail the latter. And just because Person A won’t help Person B, it doesn’t give Person C a license to kill Person B. So even if this objection were to reveal that pro-lifers are somehow negligent in this area, it wouldn’t legitimize legal abortion.

It’s certainly true that all people, pro-lifers included, should do their part to find abandoned children homes, including adopting them themselves when they can. But, at the risk of ruining a perfectly good narrative by asking the obvious question, how do pro-aborts know we already aren’t? Do they have any reason other than malice to suggest that pro-life Americans aren’t adopting at a perfectly respectable rate compared to the rest of the population? Heck, how do we know pro-lifers aren’t adopting more than our “choice”-minded brethren? (After all, conservatives and religious Americans are more charitable in other ways.)
Personally, I’m not aware of adoption data to either effect, so if any of our critics can prove they’ve got facts behind the smears, step right up. It is, however, worth noting that even when pro-lifers do exactly what pro-aborts chastise us for allegedly not doing, it doesn’t make them hate us any less – just ask Rep. Michele Bachmann.

Besides, moving on from the macro to the individual level, it’s awfully presumptuous to assume whether the circumstances of a stranger’s personal life – yes, even a pro-lifer – are conducive to providing an orphaned child a good home, whether due to the number of children one already has (conservatives tend to have more kids than liberals), making too little to handle adoption’s steep price tag, being unmarried and therefore unable to provide a two-parent home, or simply because one isn’t good with kids.

Lastly, regardless of how many pro-lifers are personally adopting, the fact is that we’ve more than stepped up to support adoption – just take a look at Students for Life’s rundown of adoption activism and groups, and compare it to Planned Parenthood’s own abortion-to-adoption ratio (fun fact: the United States actually has more crisis pregnancy centers than Planned Parenthood clinics).
Another day, another shabby excuse for mass slaughter dispatched. It’s a sad commentary on our culture that there remain any venues where you can be taken seriously badgering someone to take care of a stranger’s child while cherishing the child’s own mother’s right to kill him or her.

Any other dumb statement RightWingNut?

 

[rightwinger]

Blacks are doing exactly what conservatives are urging them to do

Don't have children you can't support.

If conservatives would stop bitching about supporting black children of unwed mothers....the number of abortions would be unnecessary

what the hell are you talking about?

Don't see conservatives lining up to support black children...do you?

This is a question pro-aborts endlessly badger pro-lifers with: “If you so badly want babies to be born, how many are you willing to adopt?” They hope that by casting pro-lifers as somehow not doing enough to give “unwanted” children a home, they can divert attention away from the deaths they’re responsible for and guilt a few of us into shutting up. If that reminds you of a child snapping, “If you love it so much, why don’t you marry it?,” that’s because the challenge is about as sophisticated.

Sorry, but moral high ground doesn’t come that cheaply, the primary reason being that it doesn’t change the tiny details of a) who’s making children they don’t want in the first place, and b) who’s actually killing them and perpetuating that killing. Can anyone think of any other scenario where “I should be able to harm someone unless you aid me in some way” would be taken even remotely seriously as moral reasoning? If I forbid somebody from stealing my neighbor’s car, am I therefore obligated to let the would-be thief borrow my own?

Of course not. It’s preposterous. Again, pro-aborts are (intentionally) confusing the difference between abstaining from harm and going out of one’s way to do good. Our obligation to the former doesn’t necessarily entail the latter. And just because Person A won’t help Person B, it doesn’t give Person C a license to kill Person B. So even if this objection were to reveal that pro-lifers are somehow negligent in this area, it wouldn’t legitimize legal abortion.

It’s certainly true that all people, pro-lifers included, should do their part to find abandoned children homes, including adopting them themselves when they can. But, at the risk of ruining a perfectly good narrative by asking the obvious question, how do pro-aborts know we already aren’t? Do they have any reason other than malice to suggest that pro-life Americans aren’t adopting at a perfectly respectable rate compared to the rest of the population? Heck, how do we know pro-lifers aren’t adopting more than our “choice”-minded brethren? (After all, conservatives and religious Americans are more charitable in other ways.)
Personally, I’m not aware of adoption data to either effect, so if any of our critics can prove they’ve got facts behind the smears, step right up. It is, however, worth noting that even when pro-lifers do exactly what pro-aborts chastise us for allegedly not doing, it doesn’t make them hate us any less – just ask Rep. Michele Bachmann.

Besides, moving on from the macro to the individual level, it’s awfully presumptuous to assume whether the circumstances of a stranger’s personal life – yes, even a pro-lifer – are conducive to providing an orphaned child a good home, whether due to the number of children one already has (conservatives tend to have more kids than liberals), making too little to handle adoption’s steep price tag, being unmarried and therefore unable to provide a two-parent home, or simply because one isn’t good with kids.

Lastly, regardless of how many pro-lifers are personally adopting, the fact is that we’ve more than stepped up to support adoption – just take a look at Students for Life’s rundown of adoption activism and groups, and compare it to Planned Parenthood’s own abortion-to-adoption ratio (fun fact: the United States actually has more crisis pregnancy centers than Planned Parenthood clinics).
Another day, another shabby excuse for mass slaughter dispatched. It’s a sad commentary on our culture that there remain any venues where you can be taken seriously badgering someone to take care of a stranger’s child while cherishing the child’s own mother’s right to kill him or her.

Any other dumb statement RightWingNut?

And you worked so hard on your response..

Doesn't negate Conservative outrage at the idea of supporting the children of unmarried black women
Can we get another personal responsibility lecture?

When you take away the ability to raise a child, abortion becomes an inviting option

 

[ScienceRocks]

How about the 2,400/year black on black murders? Mostly young males killing each other.

If it mattered so fucking much... Why doesn't the community do more for them?

 

[Vigilante]

Blacks are doing exactly what conservatives are urging them to do

Don't have children you can't support.

If conservatives would stop bitching about supporting black children of unwed mothers....the number of abortions would be unnecessary

what the hell are you talking about?

Don't see conservatives lining up to support black children...do you?

This is a question pro-aborts endlessly badger pro-lifers with: “If you so badly want babies to be born, how many are you willing to adopt?” They hope that by casting pro-lifers as somehow not doing enough to give “unwanted” children a home, they can divert attention away from the deaths they’re responsible for and guilt a few of us into shutting up. If that reminds you of a child snapping, “If you love it so much, why don’t you marry it?,” that’s because the challenge is about as sophisticated.

Sorry, but moral high ground doesn’t come that cheaply, the primary reason being that it doesn’t change the tiny details of a) who’s making children they don’t want in the first place, and b) who’s actually killing them and perpetuating that killing. Can anyone think of any other scenario where “I should be able to harm someone unless you aid me in some way” would be taken even remotely seriously as moral reasoning? If I forbid somebody from stealing my neighbor’s car, am I therefore obligated to let the would-be thief borrow my own?

Of course not. It’s preposterous. Again, pro-aborts are (intentionally) confusing the difference between abstaining from harm and going out of one’s way to do good. Our obligation to the former doesn’t necessarily entail the latter. And just because Person A won’t help Person B, it doesn’t give Person C a license to kill Person B. So even if this objection were to reveal that pro-lifers are somehow negligent in this area, it wouldn’t legitimize legal abortion.

It’s certainly true that all people, pro-lifers included, should do their part to find abandoned children homes, including adopting them themselves when they can. But, at the risk of ruining a perfectly good narrative by asking the obvious question, how do pro-aborts know we already aren’t? Do they have any reason other than malice to suggest that pro-life Americans aren’t adopting at a perfectly respectable rate compared to the rest of the population? Heck, how do we know pro-lifers aren’t adopting more than our “choice”-minded brethren? (After all, conservatives and religious Americans are more charitable in other ways.)
Personally, I’m not aware of adoption data to either effect, so if any of our critics can prove they’ve got facts behind the smears, step right up. It is, however, worth noting that even when pro-lifers do exactly what pro-aborts chastise us for allegedly not doing, it doesn’t make them hate us any less – just ask Rep. Michele Bachmann.

Besides, moving on from the macro to the individual level, it’s awfully presumptuous to assume whether the circumstances of a stranger’s personal life – yes, even a pro-lifer – are conducive to providing an orphaned child a good home, whether due to the number of children one already has (conservatives tend to have more kids than liberals), making too little to handle adoption’s steep price tag, being unmarried and therefore unable to provide a two-parent home, or simply because one isn’t good with kids.

Lastly, regardless of how many pro-lifers are personally adopting, the fact is that we’ve more than stepped up to support adoption – just take a look at Students for Life’s rundown of adoption activism and groups, and compare it to Planned Parenthood’s own abortion-to-adoption ratio (fun fact: the United States actually has more crisis pregnancy centers than Planned Parenthood clinics).
Another day, another shabby excuse for mass slaughter dispatched. It’s a sad commentary on our culture that there remain any venues where you can be taken seriously badgering someone to take care of a stranger’s child while cherishing the child’s own mother’s right to kill him or her.

Any other dumb statement RightWingNut?

And you worked so hard on your response..

Doesn't negate Conservative outrage at the idea of supporting the children of unmarried black women
Can we get another personal responsibility lecture?

When you take away the ability to raise a child, abortion becomes an inviting option

Sensible sterilization sounds like a plan! You want abortion, the first one, ALTHOUGH we hate it, is a go, as the SCOTUS, in their fucked up judgment has made it the law of the land, BUT you want an abortion, you get STERILIZED at the same time.... both sides can play that game.... Glad to see you appreciated my response, It's been saved for the next one of you immoral twats that state the same shit!