TED NUGENT DISCUSSES SEBASTIAN BACH, MICK BROWN AND TOM MORELLO

Ted-Nugent400 Ted Nugent recently spoke to Radio.com. Blabbermouth.net transcribed highlights from the interview, read the excerpts below.

On Sebastian Bach:

“I love the guy, he’s incredibly gifted, a gentleman for the most part, but he’s weak. He’s weak. And he doesn’t understand the concept of the [body as a] Sacred Temple. He doesn’t understand accountability. He doesn’t understand — clearly — how his indulgences and his poisons ruin his life. And his relationships, and his marriage. And his musical capabilities. I love the guy and if he’s watching this, I love you, but when you’re the drunk Sebastian Bach, you’re nowhere near the Sebastian Bach that you are when you’re clean and sober. Case closed. That isn’t a Ted Nugent opinion, that’s scientific truism.”

On his drummer Mick Brown, who got a DUI a few years ago backstage at one of Ted’s shows:

“Well, he had a couple of beers and went on a golf cart ride! Whoa! Let’s crucify him! That’s no big deal! Even I can look the other way for that! I have zero tolerance for dangerous criminal behavior that compromises the music. It was the last date of the tour. He watched me get up on stage with Tommy Shaw and the STYX guys and we played a Damn Yankees masterpiece, Coming Of Age. I can understand how anybody could lose control of themselves under that musical jihad. It was a very powerful musical moment. It was very magical and I think he did a couple of extras, saw some good-looking chicks with short skirts… I don’t bemoan his decision. A golf cart and two pretty girls? It was harmless.”

On Tom Morello:

“Tom Morello claims to be an ultra-liberal. But let’s examine Tom Morello’s life, shall we? He works really hard. He gets up early. He puts his heart and soul into being the best craftsman he can be. Provides for and protects his family. He’s true to his family. So far, he sounds an awful lot like Ted Nugent. [My new album] SHUTUP&JAM, if it’s a shout-out to anybody, is probably a shout out to my good friend Tom Morello. Because we talk politics, and we should do it on film sometime, it’s quite telling. Because the typical liberal, when they attempt to debate me, always ends up with a very predictable statement: ‘Yeah, but still…’ If you give people stuff, dependence will be the result. If you give a beggar money, you’re helping to kill him! Because he will spend that money while you lie to yourself and feel good, you’ve actually expedited the death of that individual, because he will buy dangerous deadly things with that money! You gotta be kidding me! If he wants a sandwich, give him a sandwich! That’s not what he wants! My point being: Tom Morello, I love him dearly, I respect his musical genius, and I respect him as a man. And when it gets time to have a legitimate political debate, we remain civil and gentlemanly, and eventually we can both shut up and jam because we both come from the Chuck Berry school of uppity, spirited, freedom-drenched American rhythm and blues.”

Listen to Nugent’s interview with Radio.com below.

Comments

  1. james perkins says:

    He loves, respects & recognizes the hard work of a liberal? He must have gotten his meds checked, a new puppy or just a temporary lapse of insanity? Either way, thank you Ted. Your new record is pretty serious business too!

    James Perkins
    Houston, Texas

  2. I wonder if Ted could comment on Morello’s stance on the U.S.-Mexico border. Morello is an ultra liberal. Bach could comment about the last Nugent kid he had that Nugent doesn’t talk about.

  3. Because hard work, providing for and protecting one’s family is exclusive of “liberalism”? This guy’s thoughts on anything but playing guitar and plowing teen girls is pretty much irrelevant. Oh, and also hawkish draft-dodging, on which he’s an unparalleled expert. Pay attention, Ted: “Urban” America was created by one thing– GREED. It was an aristocratic 1% that sought to import a “free” foreign labor element from the dark continent into this country to do their dirty work, and for no other reason than to selfishly fatten their big business fortunes. Republicans call this self-determination. Well, after Ayn Rand told them so. I’ll allow the results to speak for themselves.

    • It was also the ‘greedy’ 1%’s idea and machination to gain independence from Britain, to have a Bill of Rights, and to ultimately abolish slavery.

      • And now it’s time for YOU to pay attention: All slave owners were greedy. But not everyone who sought independence from Britain were slave owners…to dispose with the impertinence of your attempted point. Let’s repeat– Freedom from unrepresented British taxation and religious oppression were the not the exclusive providence of slave owners, so don’t conflate them as if they’re inextricably coupled . Meanwhile, abolishing slavery? Couple things: The American civil war was fought because greed would not relent. Period. Further, my point regarding urban america clearly escaped you; does “the horse is already out of the barn” mean anything to you?

        • Nice, you start off your post with a sort of demeaning intro, that was pretty stupid. But to get to the rest of your counter argument: 1.) You said I conflated slave owners with the people who wanted to break from Britain, and yes, it was the wealthy 1% that didn’t like the taxation; the middle class, the artisans, weren’t that concerned. So, then, that would have to include, almost exclusively, slave owners. 2.) The religious oppression you mention, this Country was full of Puritans who advocated strict adherence to their religious beliefs, the climate in Britain was too relaxed, hence they moved. 3.) It was a feudal society, and with the Country’s expansion, the richest 1% also got together and said they should form a Union because Britain was distracted with fighting France the first time, and they will return to try and take the Colonies back, so there should be a unified, strong nation. Back to my point, this meant that goods would be manufactured and sold throughout the States; infrastructure had to be put in place to facilitate commerce, this led to the Country changing from a feudal society that used slaves, to a contract society wherein people entered the workforce to mass produce. This is why there was a Civil War, the South didn’t want to change over, this is a much more complex and diverse set of reasons than just “greed wouldn’t relent.” 4.) So, now your point regarding urban America, which was that it was created by greed. Rockefeller, a guy who at age 12 had his own business selling chickens, and whose own father once stole from him, telling his son, don’t trust anyone, not even me! Yes, greed and ambition, they do go together. Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Carnegie, these guys really got the ball rolling as far as urban America, but I wouldn’t use the dysphemism of greed on them necessarily. But back to your point, which is what Marx would call the disaster of a contract society (now fiduciary), being that the worker is so alienated from themselves and each other that they were better off before, and that they are, in everything but title, slaves. But egalitarianism is a form of totalitarianism. It is a leveling down. So, there really is no utopia, no perfect system. I like a Capitalist/Socialist hybrid, I think it’s the most pragmatic, so, yes, I believe in a person getting paid more if they can prove their worth: Ozzy should get more than his band, he is the reason people buy the tickets. By the way, you use very broad strokes when making your points, some even nonsensical, full of non-sequiturs.

        • So, I am making the incentives argument to counter the egalitarian, Marxist one.

          • Now you listen here, dumb-dumb head! …I kid, staten island clown, I really do.

            Seriously though, you do understand that EddieTrunk.com is an elliptical medium in which to mostly express disappointment in the likes of Dokken’s and Winger’s latest efforts, and not an open forum for anatomizing major historical events, yes? Therefore, when you dismiss my comment as not substantive enough in its treatment of inordinately complex issues, I can only respond with “no sh$t, sherlock”. See, mine wasn’t supposed to be an exacting explication of all that engendered this country’s civil war. Having said that, complexity, most especially of the economic variety, can often be pared down to a series of binary choices…where unfettered, self(ish)-interests will invariably rule, absolutely, in the absence of regulatory structure and oversight rooted in creating a “just” society. Incontrovertibly. That was my point, and I am most certainly not wrong in asserting that pure greed is what was at fault in precipitating the deaths of 600,000 or so people.

            Further, I could just as easily seize upon a single line from your near-unending screed in order to point out your apparent inability to recognize, or at least unwillingness to acknowledge, issue complexity. Such as– “I believe in a person getting paid more if they can prove their worth”. Well that would beget a whole host of qualitative and quantitative analysis, but I wouldn’t dare venture to do so because I actually know you were simply being succinct. Mind you, a conversational flexibility you were unwilling to afford me.

            Now to address your “incentives argument”:

            1) + 2) + 3) + 4) = a lot of nuanced minutiae that can’t be completely and conclusively explained in bullet-point fashion. Which is why I choose to seek the definitive hows and whys of human events in where they actually rest– our psychology, individual and collective, and the dynamic implications therein. Turns out, optimizing our reproductive(either expressly or simply sexually) value is pretty much the motivation to most all of human behavior. With money(i.e. provisions) being an integral factor in optimizing said value. My “greed would not relent” line is actually quite accurate in characterizing your “South didn’t want to change over” bit, to the point they are practically synonymous.

            Where we do converge is in our belief that an explicitly socio-capitalistic economy is the way of the future. It’s just a matter of tuning that dial…

            By the way, your lump-throated, jingoistic Rockefeller story really got me all misty-eyed. Not.

          • What is ‘pure greed’ anyway? Does Madoff capture the axiom with which you dispatch so cavalierly? (So, really then, it’s a definition, open to interpretation). The Southern States didn’t want to lose their autonomy to what they saw as a Sovereign like power such as the three branches of the Federal govt. vs. the States. This was a very significant reason they didn’t want to join. To chalk it up to ‘pure greed,’ that’s not even close to being right.
            Your analysis of the incentives argument: you attempt to peel back the curtain into subconscious evolutionary motivations…. you throw in the South fighting a war for greed, that doesn’t make any sense, and it completely side steps the incentives argument as it should be framed: as a social contract theory.
            Jingoistic? Another dysphemism….I thought it would be a good idea to perhaps show these people in a more human light, it was just an aside. I thought the information was useful in a sense, it shows that the person got there through extreme hard work and ambition with some talent, I thought the tidbits were interesting, and I am disappointed that you couldn’t see past your own biases to at least give him some credit.
            At least we agree on the same economic model….take care, O.K.? if you want to respond, I’ll check it out one more time, but I agree, this is a music site and perhaps not the right forum for this.
            (and to say that this is a music site and that’s why you were so general, come on, you flat out challenged me…go re-read your intro).

    • Because I know you can take it, this is full of ad hominem, honestly, I can’t even believe the logical fallicies you commit here.

    • Ad hominem,I am talking about your very first post, at the top of the thread….

    • 1) + 2) + 3) + 4) = a lot of nuanced minutiae that can’t be completely and conclusively explained in bullet-point fashion. Which is why I choose to seek the definitive hows and whys of HUMAN events in where they actually rest

      This is total b.s., are you even being serious? (I am myself on here, I don’t post as a hypothetical person).

      • Logical fallacies? Silly person, what are you fumbling on about? The first half of my first post was simply an expression of my personal views on “The Nuge”, and was in no way presented as a rigid argument in support of what was to follow. Understand?

        “Does Madoff capture the axiom with which you dispatch so cavalierly?”– What Madoff did was explicitly criminal; self-evident. What concerns me more is that which is actually legal.

        “By the way, you use very broad strokes when making your points, some even nonsensical, full of non-sequiturs.”— You’re confusing “nonsense and non-sequiturs” with your own inability to connect the argumentative dots. Typical of those stuck on the same page of that same ol’ book. Your problem, not mine. Although, it’s becoming my problem as you’ve grown to be quite the energy-consuming burden.

        “The Southern States didn’t want to lose their autonomy…”– Of course they didn’t, because they wished to continue to conduct their economy in a fashion their power structure knew served them best. And to the detriment of pretty much everyone else. Now, if only there was a word for that…

        “you attempt to peel back the curtain into subconscious evolutionary motivations”– Yes…and succeeded.

        “Jingoistic? Another dysphemism”– I’ll see your Rockefeller and raise you a Jonas Salk. Then you tell me whose jingoistic story of success is more dysphemstically regarded.

        “it shows that the person got there through extreme hard work and ambition with some talent”– You forgot exploitation of labor.

        “come on, you flat out challenged me…”– Check again. It was you who challenged me.

        I have some parting advice for you: measure twice, and cut once. You’re welcome.

        • 1. Yes, I understand. But please understand that your views were illogical. Maybe that doesn’t matter in the context you used them in, but someone who espouses to be as smart as you are, I figured it might. It does to me. I cringe when I hear/see people make those lapses. It doesn’t matter to you, fine, point taken. But I just see a poor thought process in action.
          2. “Pure greed” is a poor use of rhetoric.
          3. What is ‘the same old page of the same old book?’ What are you talking about? That makes no sense. Where is the argumentative dot that I missed on this one? So, you expect me to just figure out this stuff you spit out, and then you complain that I am making the argument difficult when I make my points with as much clarity as possible. That is so dysfunctional.
          4. They had just broken from Britain and had a very strong inclination to not be under any kind of Sovereign. Haven’t you heard of Brutus? You ascribe the agenda of profit, and you give it the full weight of their decision. Genius (and I can already see your childish, ‘that’s the one thing you got right’ response), the Southern business owners made out much better under the contract society rather than the feudal one that they were forced to abandon. They didn’t have to take care of their workers anymore, they just paid them, and the rest was their workers problem. So, then, how could it have been pure greed?
          5. So what about gay people? they don’t reproduce. Just an aside really, my point is that what was on the table was social contract theory, you just completely side stepped it, into a whole other discussion, something more appropriate for studying zoo primates. Really, I should be mad at you for wasting my time.
          6. Sure, fine, tell me the story. I am more objective than you, that is becoming clear.
          7. Straw man. Next.
          8. I just commented on your post, and was expecting a more adult like answer, which was stupid of me now that I re-read your initial post, and that you took that as a challenge bolsters my hypothesis of you being childish. So, then after your admonishing me to pay attention, I hit you with a structured argument as a response, and you get huffy. Pretty funny.
          9. The irony.

          • (Note to Dana: I believe I attempted to add this comment late last night but it failed to post. Why? I think it only fair that commenters who invest time and energy in EddieTrunk.com be allowed to redact unacceptable entries, or at least be forewarned when posts will no longer be accepted for certain threads. Yes, maybe? Further, I kindly ask that my 2nd attempt now be approved, if nothing more than to put a period on this already lengthy discussion. Thanks, and much appreciated. Oh, and if it is posted, please delete this note. Thanks again.)

            1) My personal views on Ted Nugent are…”illogical”? You’re not making sense.

            I “espouse” to be smart? First, get a dictionary and look up illogical and espouse. Second, I’m pretty sure you meant to say that I “claim to be smart”. Third, I made no such claim. I simply allow others to judge for themselves.

            There was no “lapse”, as there was no intent. You’re struggling to follow along.

            “It doesn’t matter to you, fine, point taken”– No, not point taken. So don’t put words in my mouth, especially yours.

            2) One man’s rhetoric is another man’s truth. See what I did there.

            3) You’re hopelessly mired in the tangible minutiae of why certain events may have happened. You’re not pushing knowledge forward. Instead, you’re stuck in this historical quicksand of romanticized story-telling and the heroising remembrances of figures past. In stark contrast, I seek a deeper, fundamental truth. A biological truth. Really, it’s the difference between being a quantum physicist and a…pep boy. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. You being a pep boy, that is. Figuratively speaking.

            4) Stop with the history lectures. We all know how to google. Meanwhile, you do understand “greed” encompasses more than just monetary profit, yes? Just checking.
            “the Southern business owners made out much better under the contract society”– The Southern plutocracy(not to be confused with ALL Southern business owners), like all other plutocracies, are what dictated policy. Period. And its prime directive was preserving their comprehensive interests. The foundational core of those interests being financial. The power, and all it promises, would of course follow. All the other constellation issues you’re alluding to and attempting to shoehorn into their motivational psychology in order to dispute my “rhetorical” “pure greed” claim are a distant ancillary to what actually moves them– money, power, sex. Speaking of– ever heard this expression regarding sex and marriage: when it’s good, it accounts for 20% of the success of a marriage. But when it’s bad or non-existent, it accounts for 100% of the failure of the relationship. Similarly, before the plutocracy will allow themselves to consider issues outside of their own narrow self-interests, they must secure their financial stranglehold on society. No money means no plutocracy. While having an unthreatened fortune means they can begin to consider secondary issues, such as cultural and judicial matters. Insomuch as those matters continue to serve their same ol’ self-interests. See how that works.

            5) Ugh. Did you not notice that I parenthetically included “either expressly or simply sexually” in that earlier statement?. See, that’s just one example of your frustrating inability to connect those argumentative dots. Despite me having drawn you a straight line from point A to Point B.

            Finally, I have a (correct) theory regarding homosexuality’s role in our ecology, and it in no way contradicts or is in any sort of conflict with my assertions concerning human psychology and its formative influence on social structures. But I won’t be sharing it here.

            6) How ’bout you google instead.

            7) Fact. Exploitation of labor was an implicit(and explicit) part of doing business in America(or anywhere), especially at this time. J.D. had no compunctions about participating in this reality as he gleefully accumulated his fortune. Seems you pulled the short straw on that one, “man”.

            8) Lighten up…Francis, maybe?

            9) Deep thoughts, by Francis Rockefeller.

          • Sar305,

            I e-mailed you three times offline, so you were forewarned.

            I wanted to keep this off the board, but here goes. Due to the direction this debate has gone, we will be saying au revoir to this topic. It is now officially a closed subject. If you would like to continue this offline, please e-mail for contact information.

            Dana from EddieTrunk.com :)

        • Not sure if this will get posted, but sar305, you are a great thinker, but you are prone to erring, and great thinking does lead to great erring, so the crackpot designation I gave you I would like to rescind. I actually respect you. Take care, this debate is over as far as I am concerned.

  4. Tom Morello campaigned for the agricultural workers who supply Taco Bell to get decent wages and working conditions.

  5. Hmm, that wasn’t so bad…

  6. Mick got a dui for driving a golf cart after a couple of beers? What a hell raiser! I hope this doesn’t damage his career! (LOL!)

  7. I wish Ted would keep music and politics separate.

  8. Really Ted, Tom does NOT sound like you. Tom Morello is well spoken, intelligent, thoughtful, and does not resorate to immature name calling any time some one does not agree with him. Now, on your position of give someone a helping hand and they will kill themselves, veterans, the working poor, the elderly, single mothers, workers who have lost there jobs to over seas or downsizing , would disagree with you. Please Eddie, STOP printing every ignorant statement by Ted and Gene Simmons.

    • Kyle,

      I am responsible for posting those stories, not Eddie.

      Dana from ET.com :)

    • Kyle,
      These topics make for good discussion. Its all good.

    • Frank Rizzo says:

      Ted also doesn’t support those who depend on the government unnecessarily for food stamps, those who pop out six kids to six different men by the time they’re 22 years old who don’t work or even try to work and instead rely on food stamps, Medicaid, section 8 housing and cash assistance. Ted doesn’t cry racism if an unqualified “minority” gets hired for a job over a more qualified white person because “corporate” has to fill a diversity quota, Ted doesn’t hold straight white guy festivals, he doesn’t parallel the black panthers with a white based organization let’s say called the great white Buffalos, ted hasn’t opened an all white college and Ted has not started an all white dating service or tv channel. Ted also hasn’t scammed bs liberal groups like the ACLU, IRS or lbgt “community” like the IRS blatantly did to the almighty Tea Party and then lie about lost emails. Ted also didn’t lie about Bhengazi. But yet he’s a racist, bigot, alleged draft dodger and alleged child molester. Give me a break! Uncle Ted for President!

      • What is your position on government assistance? When some people take advantage of the system, you think we should just get rid of. With your logic, we should get rid of capitalism because people and corperations take advantage.

      • Thanks Rush……You people are just parrots. Same ole s–t…..!!!

    • And he doesn’t make babies out of wedlock either

  9. Ted. Please shut up!! You are so full of yourself. Your such a uncaring person. You would let someone starve to death before you would lift a finger to help a person in need. Money is your God!! And your values on how to be American? Your a crazy person. Thank God, not everybody is like you.
    I will never forget (and I’ve always voted Republican until last election) in Kansas City on the Kiss Farewell tour how I stood in line for at least a half hour waiting to get a beer. As I stood there patiently waiting my turn I had to listen to you bark out horrible things about President Clinton and Janet Reno. As I recall you called Reno a Lesbian B!! I didn’t like Reno but you are so classless. You called Clinton several dirty names also. I mean dude you stopped playing music to stand up there for at least 20 min. Bashing Democrats. I remember thinking. Jesus Christ man I came here to watch and hear a great rock concert. I remember thinking also. Thank god Kiss doesn’t do this shit. And Kiss didn’t. They got up there and blew your ass away!!! So please just go into the woods and kill unarmed animals and eat the meat you kill. Your a lousy example of a do called conservative Republican. In short. “YOU SIR SUCK”

  10. How can a life long sober man who is known for sleeping with an underage woman (remember, please massa, Ted? 17? Legal guardian, Ted?) have any opinion on anything? You drove your first wife to her demise with your infidelities didn’t you? You lost your fortune and blamed that on bad management decisions by other people. The only time people ever see you do anything charitable is when there is a t.v. camera around. As far as your fans go , unless there”s money involved you never give any autographs, pictures or even time, unless it’s to do damage control for all the childish, nonsense you say and that you do. Your fans love your music and your shows but, what are you on that makes you act this way?(ego addiction)?

  11. Dana,

    If you think that you can’t print my last comments, just remember everything that wrote is public knowledge, Ask eddie. I’m a life long fan.

  12. Yeah, Ted is pretty smart unless your an American Indian.

  13. Come on Dana, my comments were that bad? they are the truth everytime i puta comment that you know is the truth( even wishin you a happy birthday and comment on eddie’s fanbase)you have a problem .What”s your problem the truth hurts? Everyone else can bash each other but, I state facts and it”s wrong?????? So much for free speech, right?

    • Mark,

      If I didn’t already thank you for my birthday wishes, thank you (again).

      Again, I have no idea what comments you are referring to, but I don’t think we should tie up the comments section with this, please e-mail me off site. Click my name where it says “by Dana” below the headline. Thank you.

      D from ET.com :)

  14. Sorry, about this last rant, my comment wasn’t printed on line when I wrote this my apologies, Dana.

  15. after watching teds video clip i dont know how to respond to what i just heard, i am not hard left or right, i am somewhere in the middle, but i am not wishy washy, i will say i agree with ted on his belief about the commander in chief being the enemy – i am for non violence, i am anti war , unless… i am protecting my family, or defending my country from legitimate threat – we send kids into battle and they come back mentally and emotionally shattered, broken, do we really expect anything less, when they have to kill other human beings, or see their buddys arms or legs blown off by a roadside bomb or some other war related horror show- we need to really rethink what and why we are doing what we are doing over there – and we as americans have every right to question what the hell is going on-
    and we have to take great care of our soldiers when they come home ! too many of these kids have broken minds and bodies – jesus,,, i have to go play some music right now…….

    • Obama’s the enemy? And yet he was one of a small minority of elected officials to publically oppose the tragic, criminal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan well before any boots hit the ground. Get your story straight. But not before your facts.

      • when a post is of real interest on this site , social or political, the comments are really amazing and thought provoking, this is so not the case when the post is about kiss lol! i normally woud not clarify a comment i made here but sar 305 really made me think about my thoughts on obama { who i genuinely thought could really change this country for the better } he is the enemy, because this war is still about greed as much as it is about stabilizing the the middle east and trying to stop terror and extremism-he is sending our kids over and over again into hell and then he is asleep at the switch when they come home broken- or worse…. he is not asleep… he fully knows what is going on – that is the real horror – again i love honest debate and love hearing the great opinions on posts that actually mean something -

        • Frank Rizzo says:

          Obuma is as anti-American as they come. I’m currently reading a book entitled Obama’s America – Unmaking The American Dream. This is the book that liberal based & biased Costco removed from its shelves once they realized the book presents factual evidence of Obuma’s hate for America. It is gut wrenching knowing what our so called potus stands for and operates.

        • bobbyd, there is a huge difference between what Obama has created and what Obama has inherited. I believe you and many others confuse the two.

          • He’s been in 6 years. He owns the damn thing.

          • He owns the damn thing after 6 years? How fast do you think world issues get fixed? Based on that logic, why don’t you ask why we don’t have peace in the middle east yet? Was Al Quaida formed the day after Obama got elected? Holy crap Man, you give respectable Republicans a bad name with that sort of tripe. I honestly can’t believe how ignorant those 9 words you typed are. It must be incredibly nice to just throw blame at someone for something just because they are now in the drivers seat. 911 happened 13 years ago yesterday. Think about that. Think about how long terrorists conspired to kill us in our homeland…long before Obama and long before W. Think about the war in Iraq that someone not named Obama started but he had to deal with. Gonna blame him for that too? Wanna blame him for Libya too decades ago? Shall we blame in for the Cuba embargo? Should we blame him for Russian troops occupying parts of Ukraine right now? Brilliant.

  16. Morello wears Che shirts, Ted a USA flag.

  17. Jared Diamond: Guns, Germs, and Steel…this is a pretty good synopsis of how European interests have dominated the world. In other words, if the opportunity was there for the other parts of the world to do what the Europeans did, most likely, they would have.

    • Read it. And here’s where it fails: It neglects to recognize the incipient, evolutionary symbiosis between a people and their ecology. His “dumb luck” theory of societal development and consequent domination is ludicrous. Especially annoying is how he spends the entire book assiduously attributing rhyme and reason to everything and anything except his central, underlying thesis.

      • But it was dumb luck, they had access to wheat and livestock, such as the horse, the other parts of the world didn’t have that. Compound that by 13000 years. So, he was saying, no one is born smarter than anyone else. (This is his underlying thesis, he wanted to completely disprove the theory that some races are smarter). His point was you could take someone in New Guinea, and transplant them here, and they could acclimate, or, their children certainly could. And his theory about European domination is plausible, that is, the people in Africa and the Americas were going to war with each other, so, it is a reasonable inference to make that if they had had the same access to the agricultural technology that the Europeans did, they would have done the same thing: made guns, ships, got on their horses, and start a war with another continent.

        • SIC,

          I’ll be brief…and vaguely cryptic(for reasons that should become quickly apparent):

          Muscle biopsies taken from sub-saharan africans have revealed a fiber constitution that is favorable for all things physical. A comparative advantage they possess over every other “race” on this planet. This is empirical, qualitative fact that is not to be intelligently disputed or discounted. It allows them to feed themselves and otherwise survive in their natural habitat. A habitat in which they evolved to completion. But there is an evolutionary flipside to this obvious physical advantage…can you figure it out? It, too, is just as glaringly obvious. That’s where I’ll end this discussion, except to further say that Jared Diamond…*gasp*…was wrong.

          • You are either being completely full of it on purpose or you are a complete crackpot. If you examined a person’s body with just the muscles and bones, i.e. all skin and cosmetic differences removed, you would not be able to tell what race they were. The flip-side you are referring to is that Africans have a lower IQ (why didn’t you just “man up” and admit that’s what you think?)…this has been completely dis-proven, maybe you think that Diamond’s theory of European domination is ad-hoc, I think it’s very plausible, but your theory has been debunked by other, very credible, studies too.

          • “If you examined a person’s body with just the muscles…”– Obviously you’re ignorant with regards to muscle fiber composition. Research the subject before bothering to (foolishly) comment any further.

            “If you examined a person’s body with just the…bones”– Apparently, forensic anthropology as a field of study has also escaped you. Hint: skulls alone can identify “race”.

            “If you examined a person’s body…all skin and cosmetic differences removed, you would not be able to tell what race they were.”– You mean removing the very outward differences that actually go towards distinguishing “race”?…speaking of “logical fallacies”. Further, you do understand physical characteristics, such as melanin content and nostril dimensions, serve an evolutionary/functional purpose, yes? And to remove them as a means to “prove” our collective, genetic commonality would actually be a self-defeating proposition. This is all becoming oh so maddening…

            “The flip-side you are referring to is that Africans have a lower IQ (why didn’t you just “man up” and admit that’s what you think?)…”– Because “manning up” should include a bit of tact. That’s why. Any other questions?

            “The flip-side you are referring to is that Africans have a lower IQ…this has been completely dis-proven”– False. Further, “IQ” is a western metric and modality for assessing intra-cultural, comparative intelligence. Meanwhile, more sophisticated means of cross-cultural(“race”) intelligence studies are required in collecting and comparing data thereof.

            Keep trying. And failing.

          • i did not mean any disrespect to you with my reply ! i love reading your comments i really do- and i would love to see you comment on the next post related to anything kiss -

        • You’re wrong, I have studied anthropology and have examined skulls that you would identify as African which were European and vice versa. This muscle fiber composition has not been incorporated into any formal source, so, as it stands, it’s a crackpot theory. Melanin content and nostril dimensions, so then you are saying if you remove them then there is commonality, which proves my point. How is melanin content and nostril dimension any more relevant than nappy hair, eye color? What I said had complete logical symmetry, where is the fallacy with which you allege?
          Your IQ point is interesting, you ascribe cultural bias to an intelligence test, as if someone who is African, or even African American would still do worse than a European because of genetics. And not socio economic factors? Asians do great with Western IQ tests, because of their strong family structure, they are not genetically superior, this applies to Africans too. That is a complete myth. In fact, it’s people like you who keep propagating this myth that makes it worse for African-Americans. There is no way in the world that any black person should believe that they can’t do as good as anyone else on a Western IQ test.

      • I for one am never screwing with sar305 ever again.

        • lol! sar305 is amazing – in the first 20 words of his reply he used…incipient, evolutionary, and………symbiosis- that should have been his reply , just those three words- i have to say.. i never thought i would read these words on eddie trunk .com! let alone one after the other ! i love it!!

          • DR and Bobbyd, you guys are hilarious. Please forgive the d-baggery of my language, but sometimes I just can’t resist concision. I figured if anyone was interested enough in the original topic that they’d at least be tolerant, if not appreciative, of one treating it with a certain intellectual honesty and effort. There’s no window dressing there, each and every word serves an integral purpose. Disagree? Don’t hesitate in saying so, I can take it!

        • sar, as you know I enjoy a great debate on this site. I fancy myself slightly intellectual and able to hold my own in a debate. But you sir just obliterated my confidence in all things debate. So I one day hope to engage you, but I’m going to think very carefully before I do. Until then…much respect.

          • james perkins says:

            The checkmate goes to sar305. Well done. Are you actually Spock? haha.

            Regards,

            James Perkins
            Houston, Texas

  18. I would like to hear Ted’s comments on dodging the draft or what it felt like for a man pushing nearly 30 at the time to be getting BJ’s from 12 year old girls. I think they call that pedophelia. And that just isn’t Ryan B.’s opinion, Ted. That is scientific truism.

  19. TED NUGENT is an IDIOT! end of story

  20. Ted just can’t say or do anything right any more and that is 100% his fault. People hate him and are sick of hearing his views and opinions, which is also 100% his fault. I believe deep down that Ted has a kind heart and means well in his own, albeit sometimes misguided, way. But unfortunately, his kind heart gets overshadowed and sabotaged by his big mouth and, once again, that’s 100% his fault. I love Ted’s music so much and he is still to this day one of my all time guitar heroes/influences. So I hate it when he makes a fool of himself, which he frequently does.

    • Jim From Houston says:

      Ted is awesome with a guitar but i agree his mouth is right up there with Simmons and as puzzling as David Lee Roth and Steven Tyler. He is a real media attention whore so it is difficult to separate his true feelings from nonsense for attention. I have met some real whack jobs here in Texas so it does not surprise me when I hear him say the things he does, but does make me pause and shake my head at the human condition. Again I am a fan of his music and have seen him live.

  21. Hey Clown, I’m down here, trying to stay away from the political B.S! I wish Uncle Ted would take his own advice and just Shut Up & Jam! Because no matter what he says or how he says it, it never comes out right and always goes wrong. Nuge is at his best on stage, that’s where he belongs. If ever the phrase “Let The Music Do The Talking” was invented for someone, it would be the Motor City Madman! :)

  22. Morello wears Che swag…a Marxist who marched into Havana with Fidel raising the communist flag. Hey Tom, Mr. 60 million net worth in a 4 million dollar crib in L.A.: wake up. Ever hear the story of a teenage Courtney Love meeting Ted?

    • Frank Rizzo says:

      In regards to the alleged Courtney Love encounter, consider the source. And I can’t fault Ted for dodging the draft, if in fact it’s true, for a war that we had absolutely positively no business being in. God bless those who served in Nam! They were incredibly brave!

  23. curt jones says:

    Ted’s “whacking and stacking” his own career.More guitar,less talk!

  24. One last thing: I know it will be posted on this site…Jimi Jamison, what a huge loss, I’m pretty devastated. His music, voice….it’s one of those intangibles, he just had it all, I feel like I lost a great friend and I’ve never met him.

  25. Hey Ted, those clips you are grasping are illegal in Colorado due to the p—y laws. How bout rippin’ our state a new one….we want firepower.

Speak Your Mind

*