Has Ted Nugent been Dixie Chicked?

Yurt said:
i don't recall you "being so furious" when obama signed the above law....
Click to expand...

I never even heard of it until now. After googling, I found "H.R. 347, benignly titled the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act, passed the House 399-3." I don't like it and think Obama should have used his executive powers, the ones conservatives were arguing against in the other thread, to veto it.
 
christiefan915 said:
I never even heard of it until now. After googling, I found "H.R. 347, benignly titled the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act, passed the House 399-3." I don't like it and think Obama should have used his executive powers, the ones conservatives were arguing against in the other thread, to veto it.
Click to expand...

ok...but it was all over the media, it was a big deal. i miss things as well. what thread are you talking about?
 
Yurt said:
dung....heap
Click to expand...


Thank you. Can you tell me what in the hell that article has to do with the law Obama signed? Just so you are aware, there was a change to the law during the Bush Administration, but it didn't happen until 2005. That article is from 2006, so I'm not seeing the connection.

I'm still trying to understand your problem with the law that Obama signed.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
Thank you. Can you tell me what in the hell that article has to do with the law Obama signed? Just so you are aware, there was a change to the law during the Bush Administration, but it didn't happen until 2005. That article is from 2006, so I'm not seeing the connection.

I'm still trying to understand your problem with the law that Obama signed.
Click to expand...

it is the same type of law bush signed. seriously...why are you being so dumb about this? both laws restricted places of speech. yet, you are doing everything you can to defend obama's signature.
 
christiefan915 said:
I never even heard of it until now. After googling, I found "H.R. 347, benignly titled the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act, passed the House 399-3." I don't like it and think Obama should have used his executive powers, the ones conservatives were arguing against in the other thread, to veto it.
Click to expand...

And btw yurt, the ACLU is keeping an eye on this. You know, that agency that righties think is made up of undercover commies.

Also, while H.R. 347, on its own, is only of incremental importance, it could be misused as part of a larger move by the Secret Service and others to suppress lawful protest by relegating it to particular locations at a public event. These "free speech zones" are frequently used to target certain viewpoints or to keep protesters away from the cameras. Although H.R. 347 doesn't directly address free speech zones, it is part of the set of laws that make this conduct possible, and should be seen in this context.

Rest assured we'll be keeping an eye on how this law will be interpreted and used by law enforcement — especially in light of the coming elections.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/how-big-deal-hr-347-criminalizing-protest-bill
 
christiefan915 said:
I never even heard of it until now. After googling, I found "H.R. 347, benignly titled the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act, passed the House 399-3." I don't like it and think Obama should have used his executive powers, the ones conservatives were arguing against in the other thread, to veto it.
Click to expand...


As a general rule, anything that the ACLU is not terribly concerned about but features prominently in right-wing fever dreams is something that you need not worry about.
 
christiefan915 said:
And btw yurt, the ACLU is keeping an eye on this. You know, that agency that righties think is made up of undercover commies.

Also, while H.R. 347, on its own, is only of incremental importance, it could be misused as part of a larger move by the Secret Service and others to suppress lawful protest by relegating it to particular locations at a public event. These "free speech zones" are frequently used to target certain viewpoints or to keep protesters away from the cameras. Although H.R. 347 doesn't directly address free speech zones, it is part of the set of laws that make this conduct possible, and should be seen in this context.

Rest assured we'll be keeping an eye on how this law will be interpreted and used by law enforcement — especially in light of the coming elections.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/how-big-deal-hr-347-criminalizing-protest-bill
Click to expand...

yes, i know.....your point?
 
poet said:
And yet, he accuses others of running and hiding. It's hypocrisy, plain and simple. Do as I say, not as I do.
Click to expand...

It's perfectly acceptable in his mind for him to ignore, dodge, evade, obfuscate, equivocate and even answer a quesion with ANOTHER question...one of the Yurtard's favorites, btw.

But everyone else must immediately, completely and to his personal satisfaction, answer every question put to them by Yurt.

Yurt's allowed to make derisive thread after derisive thread targeting one individual or another, but if anyone ELSE does just that? Well then it's time for the Yurtard to heap some more scorn on whoever had the temerity to try one of his tactics.
 
Yurt said:
it is the same type of law bush signed. seriously...why are you being so dumb about this? both laws restricted places of speech. yet, you are doing everything you can to defend obama's signature.
Click to expand...


But the law that Bush signed that is similar to the law that Obama signed was signed in 2006, three years after the events discussed in that link. In short, I don't think you know what the hell you are talking about.

Link me up to the law that Bush signed that you are talking about so I can read it.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
It's perfectly acceptable in his mind for him to ignore, dodge, evade, obfuscate, equivocate and even answer a quesion with ANOTHER question...one of the Yurtard's favorites, btw.

But everyone else must immediately, completely and to his personal satisfaction, answer every question put to them by Yurt.

Yurt's allowed to make derisive thread after derisive thread targeting one individual or another, but if anyone ELSE does just that? Well then it's time for the Yurtard to heap some more scorn on whoever had the temerity to try one of his tactics.
Click to expand...

:lol:

the bitter angry man lashes out again
 
Darla said:
First of all, that's telling two people to get a room. That is not saying that poet f'd onceler. Telling two people to get a room is no biggie, and people say it all the time here. I've said it.

More importantly; that's not watermark, that's Billy you senile old fuck.

I went through this entire thread three times and there were no watermark posts. I admit I forgot that you doddering old fools become so confused when Grind, 3D, Billy, and Watermark change their names that you do the equivalent of the nursing home 3am bolt out of bed, and stumble around from thread to thread, drooling, wide-eyed, hair standing on end, screaming "Why are you keeping me prisoner here?!!!!"

I don't have that problem.

Idiots.
Click to expand...

Thank you for playing. :)
 
Onceler said:
The Chicks got death threats. And you said that was just people "exercising free speech."

The secret service was w/in their rights to talk to Nugent - his comments were a veiled death threat, by any measure.

Last, I have never suggested, nor would I suggest, that people don't have a right to boycott the Dixie Chicks. I just think it's kind of cowardly & unAmerican in spirit - that's my opinion, which I'm expressing.
Click to expand...

Im not familiar with what happened to the dixie chicks other than to know that it was individuals and private companies reacting to their comments. AS OPPOSED to the Secret Service reacting to Teds comments. Not the same thing.
His comments were silly and the secret service was silly for making an issue out of it. They made a freakin movie about the assasination of George Bush in 2006 and the secret service didnt react with the concern they seem to have for what Ted is saying. And its an Army base that canceled his concert scheduled for the summer and city councilman calling for his scheduled public events in their town to be canceled. The government. And the concert promoters who are saying if people dont like Teds comments, they dont have to see his shows if they dont want to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top