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.
73 Responses
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
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.
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.
Tom Morello campaigned for the agricultural workers who supply Taco Bell to get decent wages and working conditions.
Hmm, that wasn’t so bad…