Is it OK with you that Ted Nugent is inciting violence against President Obama? archived

RVM said:

SlyFoxy1 said:

I remember several "stars" saying the same sort of things when Bush was in office.

you're a liar.

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621



About 1/2 way down the article.

Suck it RVM!

johnlockedema said:

Jeez, if all the lefties have is the Nuge making a comment that can be construed in many different ways-Nov will be a walkover.

After a year of right-wing buffoonery aiming at becoming president, Nugent's aiming at the president is just the tip of the iceberg. Get your popcorn out JLD for the barrage of reminiscences from the ridiculous to the outrageous when the Obama campaign team hits the airwaves this summer. You won't know what hit ya!

SlyFoxy1 said:

RVM said:

SlyFoxy1 said:

I remember several "stars" saying the same sort of things when Bush was in office.

you're a liar.

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621

About 1/2 way down the article.

Suck it RVM!

One is John Kerry killing "2 birds with one stone".

One is some Nobel Peace Prize winner wondering if there might be a non-violent way to kill somebody.

One is Craig Kilborn making a terrible joke (and he was investigated by the Secret Service for that one, apparently.

RobB said:

SlyFoxy1 said:

RVM said:

SlyFoxy1 said:

I remember several "stars" saying the same sort of things when Bush was in office.

you're a liar.

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621

About 1/2 way down the article.

Suck it RVM!

One is John Kerry killing "2 birds with one stone".

One is some Nobel Peace Prize winner wondering if there might be a non-violent way to kill somebody.

One is Craig Kilborn making a terrible joke (and he was investigated by the Secret Service for that one, apparently.

Ahhh no. It was John Kerry saying he would like to go to 1600 pa ave & kill one bird.

My POINT. No one gave credence to their words. Why would anyone give credence to TN?

Perhaps because he made more explicit threats in the past while holding an automatic weapon.

Rastro,

I think we all can agree TN is an idiot.

I also think we can all agree the outrage here is over the top.

Again, the calls of racism and that he is a national threat are blown out of proportion.

Ask me if I am surprised.

The word outrage is so played. Someone come up with something else !

SlyFoxy1 said:

Rastro,

I think we all can agree TN is an idiot.

I also think we can all agree the outrage here is over the top.

Again, the calls of racism and that he is a national threat are blown out of proportion.

Ask me if I am surprised.

I don't think that many people are outraged, to be honest. A few, maybe, but certainly not everyone.

Who has said he is a national threat? In fact, who has said they think Nuge should be arrested or that they believe he will kill anyone?

Anyone who doesn't believe words have power and can incite people to violence has absolutely no understanding of history.

Is it free speech or not? If it's free speech, then it's cool, because rhetoric is just that.

Again, no one has said he should be arrested. And just because its legal doesn't mean its "cool."

That said, threatening the President is a crime.

With rights come responsibilities. That is the part if the social compact so many people fail to recognize.

rastro said:

Again, no one has said he should be arrested. And just because its legal doesn't mean its "cool."

That said, threatening the President is a crime.

With rights come responsibilities. That is the part if the social compact so many people fail to recognize.

^ What rastro said.

rastro said:

Again, no one has said he should be arrested. And just because its legal doesn't mean its "cool."

That said, threatening the President is a crime.

With rights come responsibilities. That is the part if the social compact so many people fail to recognize.

So. Is what all the people in the link I posted did a crime? Even John Kerry?

SlyFoxy1 said:

rastro said:

Again, no one has said he should be arrested. And just because its legal doesn't mean its "cool."

That said, threatening the President is a crime.

With rights come responsibilities. That is the part if the social compact so many people fail to recognize.

So. Is what all the people in the link I posted did a crime? Even John Kerry?

Usually, the Secret Service decides whether a "threat" needs to be investigated or not. If investigated, then there is the whole process of deciding whether the threat is substantiated. If so, then they will charge the person with a crime.

I didn't go to all of the links you posted. I'm familiar with the one from John Kerry, which I believe was pretty clearly not meant to be serious. TN's full-throated rant was definitely serious but probably not meant to be taken literally. Who knows?

I'm done with this distraction from the work I should be doing.

SlyFoxy1 said:

rastro said:

Again, no one has said he should be arrested. And just because its legal doesn't mean its "cool."

That said, threatening the President is a crime.

With rights come responsibilities. That is the part if the social compact so many people fail to recognize.

So. Is what all the people in the link I posted did a crime? Even John Kerry?

Ask those who investigate these things. Just as with the Martin case, I won't presume to know what investigations actually happened or what was in the mnds of those people.

That is the stance you want us to take on things, right?

rastro said:

SlyFoxy1 said:

rastro said:

Again, no one has said he should be arrested. And just because its legal doesn't mean its "cool."

That said, threatening the President is a crime.

With rights come responsibilities. That is the part if the social compact so many people fail to recognize.

So. Is what all the people in the link I posted did a crime? Even John Kerry?

Ask those who investigate these things. Just as with the Martin case, I won't presume to know what investigations actually happened or what was in the mnds of those people.

That is the stance you want us to take on things, right?

Actually, yes.

That is the stance I think people should take on this.

That's a shame, The Amboy Dukes were a hip band

rastro said:

Again, no one has said he should be arrested. And just because its legal doesn't mean its "cool."

That said, threatening the President is a crime.

With rights come responsibilities. That is the part if the social compact so many people fail to recognize.

^THIS!

Looks like the Secret Service is listening.

The Secret Service is now aware of Nugent's remarks and is taking the appropriate action, Dan Amira of New York Magazine reports. It is customary for the Secret Service to investigate any threatening comments made against the president.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/17/ted-nugent-obama-secret-service_n_1432009.html?ref=mostpopular

I think the NRA should support arming inner city minorities so that they can defend themselves against all the thugs out there. Sell relatively inexpensive handguns and semi-automatics and provide free gun training to all the black and latino folks out there.

And then see how easy it is to cut welfare and medicare and medicaid while also slashing taxes on the wealthiest.

Perhaps we do need an armed citizen's militia made up of the poor citizens.

Hello, NRA, are you good with arming all those black kids and having them march down the streets of suburbia demanding their share of the government pie?

Well, we ask for "stars" and slyfoxy1 gives us Craig Kilborn, but I digress. ;-)

As has been pointed out: If the Secret Service believes there is a credible threat, they will investigate. The zombietime post suggests that the SS and the FBI were not being diligent enough. If this was part of the directive put in place by the Bush Administration, then that's his choice, maybe the SS were a bit more worried about President Obama actually getting shot at by hawkish NRA members who actually buy and use guns than they were by a bunch of sweaty hippies who obviously spend more time creating paper-mache effigies than at the gun ranges.

Of course, the whole thing from Ted Nugent could have nothing to do with assassinating the President. Maybe he's got a massive order of illegally-imported puffer fish he intends to eat if Obama is re-elected.

Bottom line OP is off base in using the word "clearly" and titling the thread with such certainty.

Zoinks said:

Bottom line OP is off base in using the word "clearly" and titling the thread with such certainty.

Outrageous!

Zoinks said:

You are all so off base. Wow. Typical left wing dodge and weave.

So using the word "clearly" is a "typical left wing dodge and weave"?

It's just a message board. Lighten up.

Inner city minorities were the very people gun control legislation was made to disarm originally. After slavery was abolished a gun was the only thing protecting ex slaves from a mob.

Nobody should joke about political violence. Some nutcase is out there thinking he has the green light and sanction to do something awful. Nugent is an ass for even implying it, doesn't matter who the president is.

RVM said:

Zoinks, let me help you down the path to remedial enlightenment, towards baseline functioning, with a few questions:

1) How many people would fly in a plane if the FAA were privatized?

2) How many people would eat meat if the FDA were privatized?

3) How many people would give banks their money without the FDIC?

Regulators in the US are not hostile to business. They are its lackeys. They use the resources of the government to promote business, and the regulators spend their time working for the taxxpayers instead auditioning for their next job- in business Business loves our regulators, in private, because they own them. They only talk a certain way in public so imbeciles will vote Republican.

Here's a libertarian's answer. Yes, a few planes will go down. But after that, the market will demand the best service; yes, some people will eat poisoned meat and die. But those brands will fold and brands that don't kill, will survive. Again, the market will fix things. And yes, some old folks will be scammed but the honest private banks...get it? That's how these folks think.

Ted says: "I will be either be dead or in jail by this time next year."

I hope that's a promise.

What will the world do with the loss of this artistic giant?

Funny thing is, real capitalists prefer regulation. Even Adam Smith realized that "externalities" and "third party negative impacts" that can arise from a completely free market could lead to the complete destruction of that market. Pollution; slave labor (or a close facsimile thereof); monopolies and oligopolies; fraud; theft; etc. In fact, if you read Marx the capitalist economist (and ignore Marx the revolutionary), his main point was that the "internal contradictions" in capitalism would create a negative feedback loop that would cause capitalism to crash in on itself. He was right on the description of the early industrial age, but completely misunderstood the capacity for capitalism and bureaucracy to adapt and regulate the economy to mitigate these problems. Regulation is what has allowed capitalism to become such a dominent, pan-national system.

Economists find all sorts of ways to talk around the issue, but the bottom line is that there has to be some form of regulation from society to restrain the "free market" from becoming a "free rider market" where capitalists are able to enrich themselves while pushing the larger costs onto society.

The question is not "regulation or no regulation". The question is how much regulation and how to make sure that the regulation protects society while simultaneously not overly constraining economic activity or creating regulatory monopolies. And that is the age-old balancing dance that has become far more difficult as society and technology have become far more complex and interwoven.

Businesses often like regulation because it is a means to deter upstart competition because they can mold the regulations to favor them.

Like ATT for years saying that letting others use their network or even letting you plug in your own equipment would blow up the system so the government needs to prevent that. Which is did. to the cost of higher prices and less innovation for a long time. Remember "talk quickly its LONG DISTANCE"?

bettyd said:

Ted says: "I will be either be dead or in jail by this time next year."

I hope that's a promise.

What will the world do with the loss of this artistic giant?

Probably we would go on thinking as we are today.... The guy is an idiot. Period.

bettyd said:

Ted says: "I will be either be dead or in jail by this time next year."

I hope that's a promise.

What will the world do with the loss of this artistic giant?

Another good reason to vote BHO!