Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Saturday, March 23, 2019

Welcome to “This Week In Crazy,” The National Memo’s weekly update on the wildest attacks, conspiracy theories, and other loony behavior from the increasingly unhinged right wing. Starting with number five:

5. Ted Nugent

Right-wing media personality and noted birther Ted Nugent, who recently solved “the black problem” in America, returned this week with more advice on promoting racial harmony. During a Tuesday appearance on Nick Cannon’s podcast (yes, that Nick Cannon), Nugent clarified that he is not a racist — in fact, as evidenced by his love of rock pioneer Chuck Berry, he’s actually an “anti-racist.”

With that out of the way, he went on to explain that old ladies should fear black people, because they’re basically the same thing as vicious dogs.

Media Matters explains:

Referencing July 19 remarks by President Obama that addressed issues of race in the country, Nugent said that a “little old white lady” who “clutches her purse tightly and shivers” when an African-American man joins her on an elevator has not wrongly “prejudged” in the same sense that “stormy clouds” are accurate predictors of a destructive weather event.
Nugent made a second analogy concerning racial profiling, stating, “I think when you use the word profile, if a Dalmatian has been biting the children in the neighborhood, I think we’re going to look for a black and white dog.”

For those of you keeping score at home, Nugent should have been dead or in jail three months ago.

  • Share this on Google+0
  • Share this on Linkedin0
  • Share this on Reddit0
  • Print this page
  • 298

34 responses to “This Week In Crazy — July 26th Edition”

  1. Dominick Vila says:

    Some of the statements and arguments made by right wing leaders and supporters are so bizarre or ridiculous that I often wonder if they are deliberately trying to destroy their party or are on the verge of a nervous breakdown.

    • BDC_57 says:

      I think that they are trying to destroy the party.
      That’s why the tea party is going after the GOP.

      • Denise White says:

        The Tea Party did say they would go after the Republicans first, Democrats next and then watch out, they will bring government to its knees. I think they are doing all three at once. For a bunch of crazies they are doing what they said they would do.

        • mikem42 says:

          So when they bring the government to it’s knees, will they be the only ones getting “gummint” checks? Who will print the checks, or deliver them? Just wondering.

    • Mark Forsyth says:

      The insanity of doing the same thing over and over again is manifesting.

  2. Elisabeth Gordon says:

    I come here weekly for my dose of comedy…I am never disappointed.

    • BDC_57 says:

      They do have a way to say stupid things that are funny.

      • Dominick Vila says:

        They also have a way to contradict themselves. Consider their, alleged, advocacy for smaller and less intrusive government, and what Ken Cucinelli said in 2009 when he invoked an archaic anti-sodomy law, and suggested criminalizing consensual sex between adults if it was not limited to “natural laws”, whatever that means. I guess finding social programs like ACA an infringement on our freedoms and unconstitutional, take a back seat to having a law enforcement officer in our beds monitoring what we do.

        • Independent1 says:

          When Reagan and the two Bushes increased the size of the federal government by 261,000 while Carter, Clinton and Obama decreased it by 345,000 – the GOP talking about pushing for a “smaller government” is nothing but a joke.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            They also ignore the impact of reducing revenues while keeping expenditures constant as a result of their refusal to increase the tax rate our highest earners pay, protecting loopholes and subsidies, preserving tax havens, refusing the close unnecessary DoD programs and obsolete bases, curtailing foreign aid, and reducing Federal government expenses by merging departments and agencies with similar charters. They love to talk about reducing expenses, until someone suggests reducing their pet projects.
            As usual, they focus instead on privatizing and dismantling social programs that benefit our most vulnerable citizens. I wonder how they would react if they knew the amount of the liabilities and obligations we have accumulated during the past several decades…

          • Independent1 says:

            Dominick, I’m sure they’re well aware of the debts they’re running up, which is why Romney’s tax plan included cutting the max tax rate virtually in half. They know at some point the debt will have to be paid back and when it comes to that they want the max tax rate as low as possible so the wealthy can get away with contributing as little as possible to paying the debts down. And that’s way many GOP states have cut budgets and services and are teaching many of their citizens how to apply for federal benefits – so as to allow their wealthy residents to pocket as much money as possible while their less well off citizens suck welfare dollars from the federal government. There’s a madness in their schemes and the madness is all about MONEY! How much of the middleclass’s money they can transfer into the pockets of those who already have more than they ever deserve.

        • LotusJoan says:

          They contradict themselves on the racial thing as well. It is a non-issue and attempts by others, notable black leaders, are shameful and just shows that it is the black leaders who have racial prejudices. According to them it is a conversation that we should not be having, yet they just cannot shut up.

  3. AlfredSonny says:

    I wonder which is worse: drug smugglers or money smugglers such as Koch brothers and Mitt Romney, to name a few?

  4. latebloomingrandma says:

    Ted Nugent appears to be one of those high IQ, highly educated people who walk the fine line between smart and mentally unbalanced, just waiting for the diagnosis. of his personality disorder.. The others are obviously not very smart, certifiably nuts and/or just not very nice people. Either way, these people should not be in office, making or repealing laws that affect all our lives.

  5. charleo1 says:

    We can speculate about whether theses ignoramuses really believe what they are
    saying. Or, they have a less apparent motive. My belief is, no ulterior motives here.
    They say these things, because they think these things. In Nugent, and Gohmet’s
    mind, they have been putting up with plenty from African Americans before Obama.
    Always insisting on their Civil Rights, Voting Rights, Equal Rights, and quoting King.
    Who they despised in his time, equally as much as they do President Obama today.
    If a candidate ran on reinstating slavery, they would not only vote for them, they
    would enjoy watching the chains go on. One cretin on a blog of the racist local
    T.V. channel here in Miami, was patting himself on the back for his, “tolerance.”
    Because he said, “Even though statistics showed the majority of Black people were
    violent, he believed, “a few,” were not.” Well, hallelujah, and pass the cornbread!
    We’ve finally overcome! I assume E.W. Jackson knows the stats on the abstinence
    only policy of his Party, if he’s done a lot of ministering to at risk kids. So, it’s his
    own cornbread he’s buttering. Another trait the GOP I’m sure admires, is the, “good
    one,” like him, they come across now and again, to help fig leaf their bigotry, and
    and institutionalized prejudice within the 98% White, “big tent,” Republican Party.
    I imagine Congressman Steve King was flabbergasted at hearing Speaker Boehner
    call him out for pointing out what he believes to be true. The problem with Boehner’s
    calling out, is he only mentioned Congressman Gohmert, and not the other 90%
    of the GOP House members that agree with him. The problem with Louie, for his
    fellow Republicans is, he doesn’t have enough political sense to couch his disrespect, in more respectful terms. He talks like, Ted Nugent, and not Rand Paul.
    But he still speaks for his Party.

  6. jointerjohn says:

    The saddest fact is there are millions of voters out there who eat this stuff up. The wilder these guys talk, the more campaign checks they bring in. Talking crazy crap is a multi-billion dollar industry in this country, just look at Rush Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and all those preachers out there.

  7. ococoob says:

    “Certifiable” NUTS!

  8. Jon Savage says:

    ew what a great name ewwww for him

  9. JDavidS says:

    I once said jokingly that I thought these clowns were just playing a game of “Who can out-crazy this?”… Jesus. I think they actually mean this idiocy!
    On the plus side, I set a personal best. I managed to listen to that gutless, pedophile piece of maggot-shit Nugent for 1 minute and 12 seconds before I threw up.

    • plc97477 says:

      That would have been hard to do.

    • progressiveandproud says:

      Congratulations!! You may have set a world record.

      A sane person listening to Nonuts for 1.12 minutes before barfing. Check with Ripleys, you might just make it into their next record book.

  10. exdemo55 says:

    When Barack Obama ran for president in 2008, he promised that America would be more respected and liked in the world. Foreign leaders would bow to his wishes. Ancient conflicts would end. In a speech before hundreds of thousands in Berlin, he vowed to do nothing less than “remake the world.”

    Instead, President Obama’s foreign policy has been a failure tactically and strategically, almost from beginning to end, mostly because he lacks strategic vision.

    Start with Iraq, where Mr. Obama has largely surrendered America’s hard-won gains. The Iraqis and our allies wanted a continued U.S. military presence to protect them. Mr. Obama said he did, too. But he killed that outcome by demanding parliamentary approval in Iraq of any Status of Force Agreement. This was a political impossibility for Iraqi leaders.

    The result is a region growing ever more unstable and dangerous. Violence is rising in Iraq and Iran’s influence is increasing, while America’s influence is nearly nonexistent. Iranian planes fly over Iraq to resupply Bashar Assad and ferry Revolutionary Guards to the civil war in Syria. This would not happen if the U.S. had a military presence in Iraq.

    That’s not all. Even after endorsing a surge of troops in Afghanistan in 2009, Mr. Obama signaled in 2011 that he was eager to head for the exits by withdrawing U.S. troops in 2014. But quitting Afghanistan next year will not make the tide of war recede, to paraphrase the president. It could allow Afghanistan to become a terrorist haven again, add to regional instability, and cause allies to doubt our word while adversaries doubt our credibility and staying power.

    Next door to Afghanistan is the Islamic Republic of Iran. Mr. Obama squandered the best chance for regime change and a possible historical turning point in that dangerous and vital land by failing to support democratic reformers when the ayatollahs stole the June 2009 presidential election.

    Then there’s Egypt, the largest and strategically most important Arab state. Unlike his two predecessors, Mr. Obama didn’t pressure Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to reform and modernize. In the end, Mr. Mubarak was overthrown. Mr. Obama then badly mismanaged the relationship with Mr. Mubarak’s successor, Mohammed Morsi, as he consolidated power and began imposing an authoritarian Islamic state. Mr. Morsi, in turn, was overthrown in a military coup in July. Egypt is now engulfed in chaos.

    Syria’s brutal civil war is destabilizing neighboring Jordan, a U. S. ally, and increasing Russia’s influence in the region. Assad, the despot Mr. Obama first demanded be gone in August 2011, tightens his grip on power in the face of a feckless U.S. policy.

    Mr. Obama’s promised “reset” with Russia has never materialized. Polls show America’s standing is worse on the Arab “street” than when he took office. America’s relationship with nuclear-armed Pakistan has deteriorated. Mr. Obama failed to take advantage of his predecessor’s negotiation of a nuclear deal with India to strengthen ties there. The U.S.-China relationship remains problematic.

    In Africa, the president’s lack of enthusiasm for his predecessor’s very successful program to combat AIDS and malaria has confounded Mr. Obama’s liberal supporters. His agenda for the continent? The president told African leaders in Tanzania on July 1 that his priority is to “modernize customs, move to more efficient border crossings, reduce bottlenecks, reduce the roadblocks that stymie the flow of goods.” This was worthy of a speech by a commercial attaché, not a U.S. president.

    In all this mess, it’s hard to see a strategic vision for Mr. Obama’s foreign policy. To the degree that a vision exists, it has seemed aimed at diminishing America’s presence in the world. Even then, Mr. Obama’s leadership has been marked by weakness, inconsistency, ad hoc decision-making, unnecessary tensions with foreign leaders and incompetence.

    Befitting a man whose worldview was shaped in the academy, Mr. Obama is deeply mistrustful of American strength. He seems to take special delight in apologizing for America’s pre-Obama past and has the worrisome habit of being hard on allies, such as Israel, and soft toward adversaries like Russia.

    And then there is the war on terror. Mr. Obama’s National Security Strategy released in May 2010 said that America sought to “delegitimize the use of terrorism and to isolate those who carry it out.” Can you imagine if President Ronald Reagan had put forth the goal not of tearing down that wall, but of isolating it?

    It’s impossible to know how much worse things might get between now and the end of Mr. Obama’s presidency. It’s fair to say that it will take many years to clear away the foreign policy rubble accumulated during his years in the Oval Office.

    • charleo1 says:

      It all looks easy from your little perch, doesn’t it” Just keep in mind Einstein,
      most of what you shamelessly butcher with your mischaracterizations, and
      at times, laughable lies, has to do with the gargantuan clean up job made necessary by President Obama’s stupefyingly incompetent predecessor.
      On Iraq, we all agree, the 5 trillion dollar military blunder of historic proportion, that then Illinois Senator Barack Obama opposed. Turned out to be a colossal mess for us. And did provide a much needed friend in the region for Iran. I think this part did actually did surprise the crack Bush, foreign policy team. Who forgot to notice both Iraqis, and Iranians practice the the same form of Islam. Who knew? But, the terms of withdrawal from this entire piece of ignorance put into action, was negotiated, and signed by the outgoing Bush Administration. The UN mandate by which all coalition forces legally operated, was ending. And we now needed the elected Iraqi Government’s permission to remain on the giant military air bases, and modern facilities, and infrastructure build by the American taxpayer. But, amazingly after starting a conflict that threw their Country into Civil War. Killed 600,000 of their citizens, and displaced an additional 2 million into adjoining Countries, over WMDs they never had. They wanted us out. So, now you want what? Oh yes, strategic vision. First of all, your poll showing our standing is worse in the world. Where on Earth did you find it? The world could hardly wait for Barack Obama to take the oath, and Bush to go back to Texas. And the add on, about Candidate Obama telling hundreds of thousands of Germans that foreign leaders would bow to his wishes, and ancient conflicts would end? Some advice. Just making ridiculous shit up off the top of your head, only works if you’re talking to kids, or are on Fox News, talking to their audience. Here, you may fudge a little on the facts, for partisan affect. But again, that was lame. You opened up with it. And although the general drift of your comment was clear. Your credibility only got worse, the longer you continued.

      • exdemo55 says:

        Your rebuttal was quite weak and filled with biased wishful thinking

        • charleo1 says:

          Your argument didn’t deserve any rebuttal at all actually.
          My wishful thinking extends to the opposition Party in this
          Country, taking some responsibility for Iraq, and Afghanistan.
          The fact is, President Obama listened to his military on
          Afghanistan. They thought they could turn it around. But,
          the facts are also, it was mishandled when the attention
          was turned to Iraq. And, as a result, lost before he became
          President. As I pointed out, from your tiny perch, with no
          responsibility for anything. It sure is easy to say we ought to
          stay another 12 years, spend another 2 trillion dollars, and
          lose another 1000, 2000, troops. Whatever it takes, to keep
          the would from doubting our staying power. Perhaps the
          most important fact you failed to mention, is the American
          people in wide, and deep majorities say enough. And it is
          enough. Our allies, most of them left years ago, save for a
          token force, here and there. If our allies doubt our credibility,
          they’ll just have to suck it up. We already pay for 3/4 of
          their defense. If they’re nervous, they could pick up more of their tab. We might all get to see a doctor then. It’s time, in
          my opinion for the nay sayers, and know it alls on the Right
          to step up, and say what their response would be to Syria.
          The American people say, stay out of it. No no fly zone.
          No troops. No heavy weapons, Al Qaeida, and their affiliates
          are with the rebels. So, you’d give them shoulder fired missile
          launchers. Then, when an American airliner is brought down,
          and it’s traced to the weapons President Obama sent. Then,
          what are going to say? That’s right, you’re sitting in the
          cheap seats firing spitballs, along the entire Right Wing
          bunch of losers.

        • Sand_Cat says:

          I was going to say the pot calling the kettle black, but your characterization of charleo1 is beneath contempt, and I didn’t want to insult him by comparing him to a dishonest dimwit like you.

    • Sand_Cat says:

      Go make a fool of yourself on some other site.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.