MissingChico
enthusiast
Posts: 2228
Reg: 02-13-06
|
04-27-12 09:05 AM - Post#148512
Not to be argumentative, but I'm sure we all remember the Dixie Chicks and their "non-violent" protest of the wars that got them in such hot water. I'm curious how that equates with draft dodger Ted Nugent actually threatening President Obama recently and not a word is spoken regarding patriotism and respect for the president. Do Republicans just like beating down women or is their "patriotism" merely political?
http://www.christianpost.com/news/ted-nugent-threa ...
| I get my news from the Comedy Central and my comedy from Fox News. |
|
Allenite
enthusiast
Posts: 302
Loc: Allen, TX, USA
Reg: 06-18-01
|
04-27-12 10:40 AM - Post#148527
In response to MissingChico
Here's my take on this "double standard"...
Dixie Chicks are from Texas and made their statement while overseas. Their fan base is/was country music and southern. The south is generally Red states. So, as a former fan of the Dixie Chicks, I believed they were thumbing their noses at their fan base, and insulting their president on foreign soil.
Ted Nugent: Rabid second amendment proponent. I'm not sure where he fits in with the rest of the conservative agenda. His recent comment was a defense of the second amendment. When he stated that he would be "in jail", I took that to mean that he would be arrested for bearing arms that Obama will declare illegal if reelected. I did not think he meant that he would do harm to the President. Conservatives are NOT going to get upset with someone for defending their right to bear arms. It was the media that interpreted his statement to mean a threat to the President. He has been investigated by the squeaky clean secret service, and found to be a non threat.
|
carygold
enthusiast
Posts: 4940
Reg: 05-30-08
|
04-27-12 12:05 PM - Post#148543
In response to Allenite
I don't think the Dixie Chicks saying they are embarassed that Bush II is from Texas is anything like Nuggent calling Obama a criminal, or saying "we need to chop their heads off in November" or when he said "if Obama gets re-elected I will either be dead or in jail."
Ted Nuggent is a back woods red neck with a gun fetish, who simply hates Obama and has no Factual reason behind his hate.
Here is the reality... Obama only tried to remove guns from the hands of inner city gangs when he was younger. That's it.
The NRA is trying to scare people into buying guns, yet Obama has done nothing but expand gun rights. Some say he has expanded gun rights more than any president in 50 years.
But the NRA says Paranoid NRA Chief: Obama Leaving Gun Owners Alone Is ‘Conspiracy’ To Take Away Guns... how stupid is that statement?
People are being herded like cattle to the Gun Shops and gun shows for fear of the coming stripping of the Constitution's second amendment. As if Obama is so powerful he can remove a constitutional amendment that is part of the "Bill of Rights."
Nuggent and the NRA are yelling fire, to make a buck using fear, that's it. There is nothing more to it.
Gun Rights Expand under Obama
If CEO's increased their pay at the same rate as Average Americans
their pay would average $1,384,890 not $10,621,000 |
|
RRRquilter
enthusiast
Posts: 1243
Loc: Allen
Reg: 05-02-05
|
04-27-12 03:34 PM - Post#148568
In response to carygold
What is interesting is that this has not really made as much press at I would think it would. Just a blurb here and there.
Personally, Ted Nugent should not be allowed to own a gun - he just plead guilty this last week for an illegal hunt up in Alaska. Once you show that you cannot obey the laws when it comes to guns, you should not be allowed to own one.
|
lostyankee
enthusiast
Posts: 1263
Reg: 10-27-05
|
04-27-12 06:55 PM - Post#148579
In response to RRRquilter
I'll admit. I've been a fan of the Motor City Madman since Double Live Gonzo days. I think his statements were over the top to say the least.
As for the comparison, the Dixie Chicks comments could not be construed as hyperbole, while Sweaty Teddy's could be.
The whole firearm issue is more complex. Ted has been (up to this incident in Alaska) a great spokesperson for hunters. He was on the board of Ducks Unlimited, and his PBS series won several awards. He has several programs to help inner city kids experience the great outdoors.
IMO Obama has not been the boogey man many have made him out to be on gun rights, but give him a 2nd term and who knows where he'll go when re-election doesn't matter.
|
lostyankee
enthusiast
Posts: 1263
Reg: 10-27-05
|
04-28-12 02:37 PM - Post#148593
In response to lostyankee
From Ted's website.
In 2009, I returned again with my sons to Alaska to hunt black bear. What I was unaware of is that the specific region where I hunted had a new and unprecedented requirement that a bear hunting tag was considered to be "filled" even with a non-lethal hit on the animal. For sixty years, every "tag" regulation in every state and Canadian province has declared that you tag the animal upon taking possession of the animal.
The first arrow I shot on that hunt was obviously a non-lethal shot where the arrow literally glanced off the animal's rib, as seen clearly on stop action video. The bear leapt, stopped, looked around, and slowly ambled off, confused but unhurt by the disruption. After diligent effort by my son and me, we were convinced that this bear was alive and well. We then continued our hunt and ultimately killed a beautiful black bear.
I filmed the entire hunt including the first non-lethal arrow and put it on my television program Spirit of the Wild on Outdoor Channel for tens of millions of viewers to witness. Airing the hunt on television proves beyond all doubt that I had no willful intention to violate any hunting regulation.
Was I negligent in not knowing the Alaska bear hunting rule for the specific region I hunted that year? Absolutely. For my negligence, I have been charged with a violation and I pled guilty. To the best of my knowledge, I am the only person ever charged with violating this new, unheard of law. Lifetime AK hunters, guides, outfitters, even the resident judge at my hearing were unaware of such an unprecedented regulation.
While I disagree with Alaska’s requirement that a tag is considered to be "filled" even on a non-lethal hit, that was the requirement at the time of my hunt. Had I known of that requirement, I would not have hunted that region because I fundamentally disagree with it, and I certainly would not have hunted another bear.
I have promoted the grand, honorable hunting lifestyle all of my life and will continue to do so. Hunting, fishing and trapping are the epitome of true conservation.
What I also pledge to American outdoorsmen is to work to repeal onerous, unscientific, counterproductive rules and regulations that make no sense such as the seven states where hunting is banned on Sunday, making 50% of the season illegal for the average hunting families in those states. Idiotic laws such as these are a hindrance to real conservation and the critical need for recruiting new hunters. Such arbitrary laws serve no scientific purpose that benefits the management of wildlife value whatsoever.
The outdoor lifestyle cannot be preserved for future generations of sportsmen by constructing such a labyrinth of confusing, unscientific and oftentimes counterproductive regulations and rules. Reversing this trend is my focus.
While I have never intentionally violated a hunting regulation, ignorance of the law is no excuse, and I am truly sorry, and have paid dearly. There is even less of an excuse for ignorant laws
|
RRRquilter
enthusiast
Posts: 1243
Loc: Allen
Reg: 05-02-05
|
04-29-12 07:54 AM - Post#148595
In response to lostyankee
According to the prosecutor in the case there was a blood trail from the bear after being hit by the arrow. Also, in the hunting regulation book it states in a yellow highlight the change in the regulations which had changed in 2004. Then, after all was said and done Nugent went on the air with Glen Beck and complained of a government conspiracy.
Honestly, I would not use Nugent's website as an unbiased source.
Anchorage Daily News
Opinion Piece
|
lostyankee
enthusiast
Posts: 1263
Reg: 10-27-05
|
04-29-12 08:40 AM - Post#148596
In response to RRRquilter
And I didn't claim it WAS unbiased, now did I? Perhaps the reason it was highlighted in yellow further exemplifies that it's so stupid it needs further explanation.
It seems a crazy rule that if you don't kill an animal how do you consider it tagged? Yes it's the law, but it doesn't not make it stupid either.
Your addition of a Glen Beck comment has nothing to do with the case, so why bring it up? Your obvious bias makes your citations equally questionable.
Edited by lostyankee on 04-29-12 08:41 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
RRRquilter
enthusiast
Posts: 1243
Loc: Allen
Reg: 05-02-05
|
04-29-12 11:22 AM - Post#148600
In response to lostyankee
Your right, the citations are most likely biased because they come from the largest newspaper in Alaska - and they are biased to idiots coming just to "bag" some trophy animal for a t.v. show. My guess is that he didn't even eat any of the meat and just kept the head and hide for some comfy "rug" in his house.
Why did he plead guilty so easily on a misdemeanor charge? Did he actually commit a felony and made a deal with the prosecutors? If he would have been charged with a felony and found guilty he would have lost his right to bear arms.
As for Glen Beck, it was Ted Nugent who went onto the show and spoke about the case - he definitely is the perfect fit for a Glen Beck devotee. Classic anti-government, paranoid rhetoric.
|
lostyankee
enthusiast
Posts: 1263
Reg: 10-27-05
|
04-29-12 07:31 PM - Post#148610
In response to RRRquilter
My point was your bias is obvious as the Glen Beck appearance had nothing to do with the case. It's not relevant to the case except to point to your own personal bias.
He had no choice but to plead as he did, it was on tape. His argument is valid, regardless of the plea deal.
|
RRRquilter
enthusiast
Posts: 1243
Loc: Allen
Reg: 05-02-05
|
04-29-12 09:31 PM - Post#148618
In response to lostyankee
And just what exactly is my bias? He broke a law - a law that was written out, that he should have read and known for himself before he went out on his "made for t.v." adventure. That is the responsibility of the hunter - not anyone else. His argument is his made up version in his mind. To paint a picture that this "obscure" law is completely unknown by any guides and is only in one little part of Alaska is a lie. It was with input from guides that this law came to fruition. This is not the first time he has gotten in trouble with the law for his hunting practices. Of course, it is always some government conspiracy against him due to his outspokenness. He and Glen Beck make the perfect pair. The funny thing is that I am a pretty conservative person, share the same religion as Glen Beck, I just do not care for the far right or the far left and their penchant for extremism.
|
lostyankee
enthusiast
Posts: 1263
Reg: 10-27-05
|
04-29-12 10:37 PM - Post#148621
In response to RRRquilter
You're the one that brought Glen Beck into the argument, not me. It wasn't germane to the argument, so I one would tend to conclude that you harbor some sort of bias by introducing him into the argument. Sorry if I misread this, but it wasn't a big logical jump to make.
If you know anything about Ted he is far from misinformed on the subject. Sure he should have known the law. He didn't, and has paid the price.
I as well don't care for far left or right anything. Sure we probably agree on more than what we don't.
You DO have to agree that Cat Scratch Fever is one of the best rock songs of the 70's.
Peace.
|
