Ted Nugent Will Attend State of the Union Address[W:496, 768]

[ChrisL]

re: Ted Nugent Will Attend State of the Union Address[W:496]

Oh, sorry. I did get that crazy demented idea from Blaxsheep, who yesterday was saying the only reason he didn't want it to happen was because Obama would be martyred. In other words, straight from a horse's mouth.

Oh. So is that the opinion of "republicans?" Or just one republican?

 

[Muhammed]

re: Ted Nugent Will Attend State of the Union Address[W:496]

True.

What is sick, though, is that apparently to the disappointment of Republicans he didn't.

Your English teacher should be fired.

 

[Danbury]

re: Ted Nugent Will Attend State of the Union Address[W:496]

What must your opinion be of a president who dodged the draft? Commander in Chief?

Well, if you're talking about Vietnam, I have no problem with it. I think that, if someone believes a war is immoral, they should dodge that draft. I also think dodging a draft is fraught with risk, so it actually takes some courage to do so.

What does NOT take courage, though, is to AVOID combat via who your father is and knows, a cyst on your butt, and five college deferments, all while you are SUPPORTING that same war. That, to me, is the definition of not only a coward but a cad.

 

[ChrisL]

re: Ted Nugent Will Attend State of the Union Address[W:496]

Let's try this for yet another time.

Of COURSE I'm ASSuming here. THAT is the point! It is a very reasonable assumption to conclude that FAR more gun nuts are fit to serve but choose to not do so than to assume that the vast majority are NOT fit to serve. You really don't think so? Now, I understand that a tactic of avoiding a question is to deflect by heaping ad hominems on the other person, but unfortunately, I can see you doing that here. Why all the bluster about guns yet a hugely disproportionate number willing to serve in combat using guns?

Of course you are. Thank you for acknowledging that you have no idea. BTW, did you serve?

 

[Danbury]

re: Ted Nugent Will Attend State of the Union Address[W:496]

Your English teacher should be fired.

well, you are very astute this morning and have hit upon a very critical issue: a missing comma! If I put it in, will the world be saved, and will that lower your blood pressure?

 

[ChrisL]

re: Ted Nugent Will Attend State of the Union Address[W:496]

Well, if you're talking about Vietnam, I have no problem with it. I think that, if someone believes a war is immoral, they should dodge that draft. I also think dodging a draft is fraught with risk, so it actually takes some courage to do so.

What does NOT take courage, though, is to AVOID combat via who your father is and knows, a cyst on your butt, and five college deferments, all while you are SUPPORTING that same war. That, to me, is the definition of not only a coward but a cad.

Oh, so it's okay to avoid the military as long as it's on YOUR terms? I see.

 

[Danbury]

re: Ted Nugent Will Attend State of the Union Address[W:496]

Of course you are. Thank you for acknowledging that you have no idea. BTW, did you serve?

Still no answer.

No, I did not serve. Females couldn't when I was of age. But I wouldn't have anyway. But that is irrelevant because I"m not hootin' and hollerin' and talkin' tough about guns all the time, which is hte point of this particular discussion. See?

 

[Danbury]

re: Ted Nugent Will Attend State of the Union Address[W:496]

Oh. So is that the opinion of "republicans?" Or just one republican?

TRY to follow the context. I was called demented for saying something, but it was not my original idea.

Get it?

 

[Danbury]

re: Ted Nugent Will Attend State of the Union Address[W:496]

Oh, so it's okay to avoid the military as long as it's on YOUR terms? I see.

Huh? I didn't say it's okay or not okay.

Have someone who can comprehend what is written explain my post for you.

 

[Danbury]

re: Ted Nugent Will Attend State of the Union Address[W:496]

Another crazy demented post. :roll:

Btw, not only did I not see or hear any outrage from the right when Nugent threatened the president ,I saw cheers and high-fives AND I saw him INVITED by a Republican to hear the SOTU speech of the person he threatened!


Has the GOP become the party not only of Crazies but also of nothing more than flippancy?

 

[ChrisL]

re: Ted Nugent Will Attend State of the Union Address[W:496]

Huh? I didn't say it's okay or not okay.

Have someone who can comprehend what is written explain my post for you.

Oh really? Hmmm. Interesting how one can miss her own hypocrisy.

Well, if you're talking about Vietnam, I have no problem with it. I think that, if someone believes a war is immoral, they should dodge that draft. I also think dodging a draft is fraught with risk, so it actually takes some courage to do so.

What does NOT take courage, though, is to AVOID combat via who your father is and knows, a cyst on your butt, and five college deferments, all while you are SUPPORTING that same war. That, to me, is the definition of not only a coward but a cad.

 

[ChrisL]

re: Ted Nugent Will Attend State of the Union Address[W:496]

TRY to follow the context. I was called demented for saying something, but it was not my original idea.

Get it?

You said republicans were disappointed that the president didn't get shot. Are you going to deny that you said that? (or typed it to be more precise).

 

[Danbury]

re: Ted Nugent Will Attend State of the Union Address[W:496]

Oh really? Hmmm. Interesting how one can miss her own hypocrisy.

I do get sick of having to explain everything for you folks. You asked if I believe someone should avoid the military ONLY If it is on MY terms. 1) We were talking about avoiding a DRAFT; 2) one person's moral objection is not necessarily MINE. If a person VOLUNTEERS to join the military, I believe protesting a war on moral grounds becomes more difficult, but not impossible. But I do not believe that, in a draft, where the government is FORCING you into combat, if you oppose a war should you be forced to fight in it. I also said, which you blithely and conveniently ignored, that "dodging" a draft is illegal and fraught with risk, so it takes courage to do so.

I don't know why this is even relevant to the discussion, which was why is there such a disproportionate number of yahoos (over guns) actually willing to serve? I'm not talking about people who SAY they don't like guns and war and blah, blah, blah.

Get it yet?

 

[ttwtt78640]

re: Ted Nugent Will Attend State of the Union Address[W:496]

Wait...now guns are NOT for defending against tyranny? Isn't that one of the main defenses of the 2nd Amendment in terms of its original intent???

Your argument re: fire extinguishers is fallacious. You've turned the argument around to fit your agenda. I'm not arguing here that people shouldn't own guns. I'm arguing, using your fire extinguisher example, that people with fire extinguishers and who scream about their extinguishers being a right and are terrified of them being taken away, should be the FIRST people to be out there extinguishing fires, NOT that their fire extinguishers should be taken from them.

The home/self defense here is also irrelevant. it is gun owners who equate "Freedom" with "guns". "Freedom" used in this context is a very jingoistic term, and in fact it's gun owners who portray themselves as patriots and "real Americans" and "Constitution defenders". However, when it comes to going to war, it seems only a very tiny fraction are actually willing to put their money where their mouths are. Do you actually disagree with the statistics here?

Slow down there, Skippy. Going to war is not "defending the country", at least not since WWII, nor is military service a prerequisite for Constitutional rights. If you actually believe that the game (mission?) going on in Afghanistan has ANYTHING to do with defending this country then you are mistaken, just as the Vietnam "war" was never about defending America. Its outcome was NEVER designed to "win", its end date is now preordained REGARDLESS of outcome. In case you missed the memo, 9/11/2001 was an attack carried out by terrorist folks from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Yemen - yep not a soul was from Afghanistan. If the most powerful military on the planet cannot advance beyond a stalemete, in over ten years, against an enemy with no navy, no airforce and a "rag tag", at best, army then we have a very, very bad battle plan. The Afghanistan "war" is not even against Afghanistan (or any other nation) it is simply a foreign police action, less the use of courts (plus a little nation building), to "show resolve" against terrorist gangs. It will never be "won", because the Muslim extremist morons (terrorists) involved are all over the world and still have massive financial and ideological support. Note that our "allies" are hardly involved; it is not a NATO war it is a political game to "keep a military presense in the region".

 

[notquiteright]

re: Ted Nugent Will Attend State of the Union Address[W:496]

So are you saying that people who haven't served shouldn't have a right to a political opinion about what is best for their country and shouldn't have the right to express that?

There are plenty on the left who didn't serve and draft dodged. I don't hear you complaining about Slick Willy now, who was an actual President of our country.

Chris where did you see me say that? I wasn't the one using a very cheesy movie as some guide for the nation. Except for the Co-ed shower scene I was pretty bored with 'Starship Troopers'.

I have REPEATEDLY said i don't have a problem with the millions who didn't serve. Please pay attention.

What does bug me a bit is are those who dodged and think themselves 'too valuable' to serve NOW being blathering hateful punks. Nuge's machine gun rant, his 'I will be dead of in jail crap', the all mouth 'patriots' who spew on and on about King Obama this or tyrant that. Those who think they can have whatever weapons they can think of for home defense and refuse to consider the Supreme Court has already said no right was without limits.

But
we
are
born
with
the
right
to
vote.

It is getting old, folks attempting to move the discussion away from what I have repeatedly said to some extreme I never would agree with.

You can do better than that, or at least should be able to... eace

 

[Danbury]

re: Ted Nugent Will Attend State of the Union Address[W:496]

You said republicans were disappointed that the president didn't get shot. Are you going to deny that you said that? (or typed it to be more precise).

I said "apparently" based on comments I've heard. And remember, it was Nugent himself who threatened the president. If you really opposed such sentiment, he would have been run out of town at the time, condemned by Republicans, and we CERTAINLY would NOT have seen him invited BY a Republican to that speech. What do YOU call a Democrat who invites someone who, say, threatened Bush, to a speech given by Bush? I'd call it provocative and demented and totally inappropriate. So I'm consistent. You likely are not and likely would have been rightly outraged were it the other way around.

All I saw when the news came out that Nugent was invited were cheers and support for it from the right. I didn't see ONE condemnation. What would YOU conclude?

 

[Danbury]

re: Ted Nugent Will Attend State of the Union Address[W:496]

Slow down there, Skippy. Going to war is not "defending the country", at least not since WWII, nor is military service a prerequisite for Constitutional rights. If you actually believe that the game (mission?) going on in Afghanistan has ANYTHING to do with defending this country then you are mistaken, just as the Vietnam "war" was never about defending America. Its outcome was NEVER designed to "win", its end date is now preordained REGARDLESS of outcome. In case you missed the memo, 9/11/2001 was an attack carried out by terrorist folks from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Yemen - yep not a soul was from Afghanistan. If the most powerful military on the planet cannot advance beyond a stalemete, in over ten years, against an enemy with no navy, no airforce and a "rag tag", at best, army then we have a very, very bad battle plan. The Afghanistan "war" is not even against Afghanistan (or any other nation) it is simply a foreign police action, less the use of courts, to "show resolve" against terrorist gangs. It will never be "won", because the Muslim extremist morons (terrorists) involved are all over the world and still have massive financial and ideological support. Note that our "allies" are hardly involved; it is not a NATO war it is a political game to "keep a military presense in the region".

Right. It's only "defending the country" when it's used to bash "liberals".

 

[ChrisL]

re: Ted Nugent Will Attend State of the Union Address[W:496]

True.

What is sick, though, is that apparently to the disappointment of Republicans he didn't.

I do get sick of having to explain everything for you folks. You asked if I believe someone should avoid the military ONLY If it is on MY terms. 1) We were talking about avoiding a DRAFT; 2) one person's moral objection is not necessarily MINE. If a person VOLUNTEERS to join the military, I believe protesting a war on moral grounds becomes more difficult, but not impossible. But I do not believe that, in a draft, where the government is FORCING you into combat, if you oppose a war should you be forced to fight in it. I also said, which you blithely and conveniently ignored, that "dodging" a draft is illegal and fraught with risk, so it takes courage to do so.

I don't know why this is even relevant to the discussion, which was why is there such a disproportionate number of yahoos (over guns) actually willing to serve? I'm not talking about people who SAY they don't like guns and war and blah, blah, blah.

Get it yet?

LOL! Aren't YOU the one who brought up people's military service? Now it's "not relevant to the discussion." How typical.

Edit: Oops, I accidentally included a mini quote, but I'll just leave it in. :shrug: That is how this person feels about republicans apparently.

 

[Danbury]

re: Ted Nugent Will Attend State of the Union Address[W:496]

Slow down there, Skippy. Going to war is not "defending the country", at least not since WWII, nor is military service a prerequisite for Constitutional rights. If you actually believe that the game (mission?) going on in Afghanistan has ANYTHING to do with defending this country then you are mistaken, just as the Vietnam "war" was never about defending America. Its outcome was NEVER designed to "win", its end date is now preordained REGARDLESS of outcome. In case you missed the memo, 9/11/2001 was an attack carried out by terrorist folks from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Yemen - yep not a soul was from Afghanistan. If the most powerful military on the planet cannot advance beyond a stalemete, in over ten years, against an enemy with no navy, no airforce and a "rag tag", at best, army then we have a very, very bad battle plan. The Afghanistan "war" is not even against Afghanistan (or any other nation) it is simply a foreign police action, less the use of courts (plus a little nation building), to "show resolve" against terrorist gangs. It will never be "won", because the Muslim extremist morons (terrorists) involved are all over the world and still have massive financial and ideological support. Note that our "allies" are hardly involved; it is not a NATO war it is a political game to "keep a military presense in the region".

Now you're sounding like those "liberals" who opposed bush going into Iraq.

 

[Danbury]

re: Ted Nugent Will Attend State of the Union Address[W:496]

LOL! Aren't YOU the one who brought up people's military service? Now it's "not relevant to the discussion." How typical.

Correct. Because the issue wasn't military service, it was why gun nuts are so LOATHE to volunteer, like say after 9/11, despite all their bluster about guns and defense and their jingoistic nonsense.

See?

 

[ChrisL]

re: Ted Nugent Will Attend State of the Union Address[W:496]

True.

What is sick, though, is that apparently to the disappointment of Republicans he didn't.

I said "apparently" based on comments I've heard. And remember, it was Nugent himself who threatened the president. If you really opposed such sentiment, he would have been run out of town at the time, condemned by Republicans, and we CERTAINLY would NOT have seen him invited BY a Republican to that speech. What do YOU call a Democrat who invites someone who, say, threatened Bush, to a speech given by Bush? I'd call it provocative and demented and totally inappropriate. So I'm consistent. You likely are not and likely would have been rightly outraged were it the other way around.

All I saw when the news came out that Nugent was invited were cheers and support for it from the right. I didn't see ONE condemnation. What would YOU conclude?

He's made some divisive comments. So what. You're doing it too. As far as outright threats go? Show me a link.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

re: Ted Nugent Will Attend State of the Union Address[W:496]

Proof of that is 20 pages on this web site dedicated to Uncle Ted. I'm sure it makes him giddy that the mere mention of his name pisses off Liberals/Progressives/Socialtards everywhere.

I love to watch a right wing nut job like him mak a fool of himself.

 

[ChrisL]

re: Ted Nugent Will Attend State of the Union Address[W:496]

Chris where did you see me say that? I wasn't the one using a very cheesy movie as some guide for the nation. Except for the Co-ed shower scene I was pretty bored with 'Starship Troopers'.

I have REPEATEDLY said i don't have a problem with the millions who didn't serve. Please pay attention.

What does bug me a bit is are those who dodged and think themselves 'too valuable' to serve NOW being blathering hateful punks. Nuge's machine gun rant, his 'I will be dead of in jail crap', the all mouth 'patriots' who spew on and on about King Obama this or tyrant that. Those who think they can have whatever weapons they can think of for home defense and refuse to consider the Supreme Court has already said no right was without limits.

But
we
are
born
with
the
right
to
vote.

It is getting old, folks attempting to move the discussion away from what I have repeatedly said to some extreme I never would agree with.

You can do better than that, or at least should be able to... eace

You're entitled to your opinions, just like any other citizen. I think ALL of our rights are precious and worth defending.

 

[ChrisL]

re: Ted Nugent Will Attend State of the Union Address[W:496]

I love to watch a right wing nut job like him mak a fool of himself.

Another BRILLIANT comment from the trolling gallery. :roll:

 

[Gardener]

re: Ted Nugent Will Attend State of the Union Address[W:496]

God, don't you just hate it when those Hollywood types or famous musicians start flapping their gums with a bunch of ill informed opinions using their fame to push all their li...........

what? This guy's ultra conservative? Oh."

Never mind.