All Forums | Politics

THE GOP JUST ....

...
Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 1348
Posts: 43
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2004
Posts: 10739
Posted: #1

continues to shoot itself in the foot.

https://www.politicususa.com/ted-nugent-state-of-the-union.html

 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 28196
Posted: #2
since we all know the family values crowd does not have a problem with, and perhaps even supports, child molestation, divorce, domestic violence, adultery, and so on, who would be a better guest than nugent? 

the only surprise will be if the republicans don't announce him as the frontrunner for 2016, along with pastor jones as his VP. 


 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2010
Posts: 6431
Posted: #3
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 28196
Posted: #4
you know what GOP stands for, right?
 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2003
Posts: 32362
Posted: #5

Ted Nugent being invited by Texas Congressman Steven Stockton.

Here's another Stockton gem...

Steven Stockman, rejecting the ADL's assertion that a Holocaust-denying radio show was anti-Semitic.

"They said that because they talk against 'international bankers' that means they're against Jewish folks," he told Jewish Week. "I don't agree...The largest banks today are not American. I know that most of them are Japanese now."

Besides, he explained, he leads by example.  His own staff included "one Christian Jewish person."


~~~~~ZOSO~~~~~
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2003
Posts: 27850
Posted: #6
people follow, support and vote for the party that presents the candidates that best display their values and goals in life...

I dont see how any GOP lemming some how decides to do anything but follow the herd...

and I think this thread will be a testament to that...
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2006
Posts: 14715
Posted: #7
Holy crap, a rock star had sex with a 17 year old. 

Someone call the press this is a story. 


I find inviting Ted Nugent  much more tasteful than inviting the sandy hook parents to be political props. 
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2003
Posts: 27850
Posted: #8
rick... so in your eyes what exactly did nugent do and what is your opinion of what he did?
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2003
Posts: 27850
Posted: #9
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2006
Posts: 14715
Posted: #10
I guess he had consenting sex with someone that was of the age of consent.  (16 is the age of consent right).  
I think calling him a pedophile over sex with a 17 year old is dishonest, but this piece was not done for honesty, it was done by a left-wing hatchet blog. Just look at the headlines. 
  


 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 28196
Posted: #11
Quote Originally Posted by rick3117:

I guess he had consenting sex with someone that was of the age of consent.  (16 is the age of consent right).  
I think calling him a pedophile over sex with a 17 year old is dishonest, but this piece was not done for honesty, it was done by a left-wing hatchet blog. Just look at the headlines. 
  




how old was he at the time?  that might change my opinion a little.

in any case, is he who the republicans want to align themselves with?  which minority group does he help them with?
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2004
Posts: 10739
Posted: #12

Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:



how old was he at the time?  that might change my opinion a little.

in any case, is he who the republicans want to align themselves with?  which minority group does he help them with?

He was 30.

In 1978, Nugent began a relationship with seventeen-year-old Hawaii native Pele Massa. Due to the age difference they could not marry so Nugent joined Massa's parents in signing documents to make himself her legal guardian, an arrangement that Spin magazine ranked in October 2000 as #63 on their list of the "100 Sleaziest Moments in Rock".

 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 28196
Posted: #13
that's close.  when i was 30, if one of my friends was hooking up with a 17 year old, i wouldn't hesitate to throw the pedophile label on that.  but it's certainly good enough to not get a special invite to the state of the union address.  but i know rightwingers draw the line on pedophilia a lot differently than the rest of us. 
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2006
Posts: 14715
Posted: #14
I boned a 17 year old when I was 25.  
The Guardian stuff is pretty creepy, but I do not think 17 year old when  I think pedophile.  Neither do most states,  believe me,  After a drunken night, and lots of mistakes, I checked Virginia law to see if I was in the clear.  
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2003
Posts: 27850
Posted: #15
Rick,

I hate to say TMI with your effort and respectful participation on this thread...

But I am interested in your opinion about specially nugent... And his choosing to take on a step-father like role as a legal guardian to he sex with a minor...

This not about the legality of it or if he is a pedophile or another hypocritical rightwinged sexual deviant.

The question is what do you think specifically about nugent's choices and actions in respect to this minor.

Do you feel that this is not a big deal and we should turn a blind eye to this as it has no reflection on his character and who he is as a person?

Seems like millions of lemmings are doing exactly that... Do you consider yourself to be one of them?
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2006
Posts: 14715
Posted: #16
No, the guardianship is creepy as hell, as I see it. 

But is it creepy on his part, or is it creepy on the state's part?  

Look further into the details. 

-She was old enough to consent by any state's laws (as I understand) they were both consenting adults. 
-They were apparently in love, He wanted to marry her, and I am assuming she reciprocated the feelings.
-The parents signed off on it.  Whatever weird things that were done, it was because the state wouldn't let them marry.  It was by all accounts legitimate love, and the parents and both consenting adults had to go through this demeaning process of the state for them to be together.  

HMMMMMM.  I wonder if there is any hypocrisy in the fact that lefties are up in arms about this?  

Does this remind you of any other current arguments.  

At the end of the day the heart wants what the heart wants.  That should not be seen as a defense of pedophilia, because this is not pedophilia by a long shot.  Pedophilia involves a child that can not consent due to their age,  pedophilia involves a victim.  There is no victim in this.  

There is demonization of two consenting adults that want to get married.  

Congrats bigots. 
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 28196
Posted: #17
Quote Originally Posted by rick3117:

No, the guardianship is creepy as hell, as I see it. 

But is it creepy on his part, or is it creepy on the state's part?  

Look further into the details. 

-She was old enough to consent by any state's laws (as I understand) they were both consenting adults. 
-They were apparently in love, He wanted to marry her, and I am assuming she reciprocated the feelings.
-The parents signed off on it.  Whatever weird things that were done, it was because the state wouldn't let them marry.  It was by all accounts legitimate love, and the parents and both consenting adults had to go through this demeaning process of the state for them to be together.  

HMMMMMM.  I wonder if there is any hypocrisy in the fact that lefties are up in arms about this?  

Does this remind you of any other current arguments.  

At the end of the day the heart wants what the heart wants.  That should not be seen as a defense of pedophilia, because this is not pedophilia by a long shot.  Pedophilia involves a child that can not consent due to their age,  pedophilia involves a victim.  There is no victim in this.  

There is demonization of two consenting adults that want to get married.  

Congrats bigots. 


here are my comments

- i'm not sure she was old enough to consent in any state.  i think the age of consent mainly goes between 16 and 18.  so she was old enough to consent as an adult in some states, probably moist states but not in others.  so he would be a pedophile in some states and not in others. 

- the parents signing off on it makes it more fucked up to me, not less.

i don't understand the hypocrisy comment.  a hypocrite in this situation would be someone who calls nugent a pedophile who also had sex with a child under 18.  unless i'm missing something.

i also disagree that it isn't pedophilia by a long shot.  it is pedophilia in some states.  if it was my daughter and some 30 year old was going after her, i'm sure i'd consider the dude a pedophile.  but even if you disagree, the point is that this probably isn't the best guy for the republicans to promote as a guest to the state of the union address, although given today's republicans, maybe it is. 


 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2003
Posts: 27850
Posted: #18
Quote Originally Posted by rick3117:

No, the guardianship is creepy as hell, as I see it. 


Cool... nugent is creepy... 

I guess I can kind agree with you on the pedophile label itself as she was not a child...  but his choices and character are meaningful...

I think if people think that it is okay for 30 year olds being in relationships with teenaged highschool students because they are constenting adults of age then why would we the average american be against such a thing? 

Perhaps we should have more 30 year olds taking highschool students to their proms?

Or perhaps allowing teachers and students to date each other as long as they do not go to the same schools...

Or perhaps why dont you start a dating website for girls under 18 and the guys 30 or older that want to date them...

Is that the type of america and culture you believe in?  

I dont...  

but it is america and people have the right to believe in and promote what ever beliefs they have the people that best represent the values, character and life choices that are most similar with their own...
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2006
Posts: 14715
Posted: #19
16 = age of consent in Hawaii.  

I actually learned (via the Wiki page) that it has been as low as 10 or 7 in some cases in this country.  Wow.  That is just gross.  

The hypocrisy comment was directed towards those that believe that Homosexuals should have the right to marry, but somehow a consenting adult should not have the right to marry.  

Some people in this country still practice arranged marriages which take place when the woman is just old enough to consent (16-17 depending on the state), and even then is she really consenting?  

I think I am against arranged marriages.  Culturally, I understand that they are important to keep the identity of certain heritage, but there is little or no free will involved. 
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 28196
Posted: #20
The hypocrisy comment was directed towards those that believe that Homosexuals should have the right to marry, but somehow a consenting adult should not have the right to marry. 

i'm not sure i see the relationship between protecting kids (i consider a 17 year old a kid) from older men and restricting happy people from marrying.  but, as long as it is legal, which it is in some states and not in others, so be it.  of course, while i see no legitimate basis at all for the law to restrict consenting adults from marrying each other whatever their sex is, i do see the legitimacy of protecting children from marrying and i would put the age of consent at 18.  but if a 30 year old wants to marry a 17 year old, what the darn do i care.  it doesn't affect me any.  if a 30 year old is going to the junior prom, i'll probably think that's a pedophile but if it's legal, it's legal. 


 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2008
Posts: 5625
Posted: #21
Clubdirt

My first time was with a 17 year old when I was 16. No way in hell could you call her a kid.

Go back and think about it for a moment.
 
Hall of Fame
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2003
Posts: 28196
Posted: #22
what am i thinking about?  i would call a 16 year olds a kid in hell or anywhere else.  same for a 17 year old.  kids at that age have sex with each other.  what does that have to do with a 30 year old trying to bang a junior, possibly a senior,  in high school?
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Jul, 2003
Posts: 27850
Posted: #23
Here we go with the tall tales and "Fantasy land" stories....

Dirt,

I am with you about he culture and values of 30 year olds trying to bang highschool students...

I personally do not support that... But like I said, if others think that 30 year olds schould be going to proms and hanging out prep rallies and choose to do and have sex because it is legal then I respect the right to support such an agenda even though I vehemently disagree with it...

It is absolutely scary to me how desperately people are trying to Spin this story...
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2004
Posts: 10739
Posted: #24
https://www.politicususa.com/sequester-cuts-latest-crime-republican-war-america.html
 
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2008
Posts: 12821
Posted: #25

Quote Originally Posted by darkhorse12:

https://www.politicususa.com/sequester-cuts-latest-crime-republican-war-america.html

finger pointing isn't going to stop the pain that's coming

i blame both parties and you should as well

95 democrats in the house and 45 in the senate voted for it

All Forums | Politics
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Sports Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gaming
Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Office Pools
The Covers community has
810,221
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 30 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
Site Map Help Privacy Terms of Service youtube logo facebook logo twitter logo instagram logo linkedin logo google news logo
Covers is verified safe by: Evalon Logo GPWA Logo GDPR Logo GeoTrust Logo Evalon Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2026 CS Media Limited All Rights Reserved.

If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.