If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   Army hands Ted Nugent another 4-F   (reuters.com) divider line 290
    More: Amusing, Ted Nugent, obama, REO Speedwagon, public comment, U.S. Secret Service, rock musics, Styx, Dixie Chicks  
•       •       •

8423 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Apr 2012 at 8:37 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



290 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-21 09:33:46 PM  

SkinnyHead: No, the government is a different kind of employer. A government employer cannot fire a government employee to retaliate for exercising first amendment rights. Government can't just fire people for making political comments at events away from the job site, can they? Of course not. That's unconstitutional.


I'd ask DeVry for a refund for that GED in Law degree you have because you obviously don't know how to use it.
 
2012-04-21 09:34:00 PM  

SkinnyHead: No, the government is a different kind of employer. A government employer cannot fire a government employee to retaliate for exercising first amendment rights. Government can't just fire people for making political comments at events away from the job site, can they? Of course not. That's unconstitutional.


they can fire them for conduct.
 
2012-04-21 09:34:32 PM  

Complicit: bojon: Yes, the Dixie Chicks should be availiable.

They'd certainly be a better concert.


Much better.
 
2012-04-21 09:35:27 PM  

stoli n coke: Mrtraveler01: SkinnyHead: Once you announce an illegal motivation like that

I'd love to see where in the Constitution it says that you can't fire someone from a gig for political reasons.

It's right next to the part where Reagan and Jeebus beat Hitler and Buildabear Humptyhump Fartbambo in a tag-team Indian leg wrestling match for the Soul Of America.


I REALLY need to look over that Constitution again. I must've slept through this part of the course in High School.
 
2012-04-21 09:35:30 PM  

TheDumbBlonde: Seriously? Lock Ted Nugent up. He's an obvious threat to the President. Yawn.


The Secret Service is required, per their job description, to investigate ALL THREATS against the President Of The United States, whether they've come from someone like Ted Nugent or the guy who huffs glue behind the Walgreens dumpster.
 
2012-04-21 09:35:53 PM  

TheDumbBlonde: LOL. That's so FUNNY.


lh3.googleusercontent.com
 
2012-04-21 09:36:01 PM  

TheDumbBlonde: Seriously? Lock Ted Nugent up. He's an obvious threat to the President. Yawn.


He seems to think so. Despite being a pants shiatting coward.
 
2012-04-21 09:36:03 PM  

TheDumbBlonde: stoli n coke: TheDumbBlonde: dustman81: TheDumbBlonde: Bathia_Mapes: TheDumbBlonde: Ted Nugent is an American citizen who is allowed by the Constitution certain rights. One of those is saying shiat you don't like. Plus, none of you ever made major cash of a song called "Stranglehold", so kiss his ass.

He made comments regarding President Obama that the Secret Service deemed worthy of investigating. The First Amendment does
not apply when the person is making perceived threats against the
President. That applies to anybody who is President, not just Barack Obama.

Farrakhan said seemingly equal threats to "leaders" the same week. Does anyone in their right mind think Ted Nugent is going to go postal on the President? Really?? Also, it seems the Secret Service has bigger internal fish to fry.

The Secret Service must investigate all threats made against the President. Even making the threat is a federal crime.

I'll hold my breathe.

Hold your breathe all you want, but Ted doesn't get a pass just because he gave your mom the syph back in '78.

Oh there is the intelligent argument I expect from Fark. Seriously?


Yeah it was such a weak counterpoint to your awesome argument "I'll hold my breathe"
 
2012-04-21 09:36:05 PM  

SkinnyHead: Ned Stark: SkinnyHead: Nugent's First Amendment rights are being violated. He should sue for viewpoint discrimination.

if they had arrested him, yeah sure. all they did was cut him from a concert.
what he said probably is legal, but .gov has no obligation to continue hiring him to perform crappy music.

The problem is that they announced he was being cancelled, not for crappy music, but because of the political comments he made. Once you announce an illegal motivation like that, it's hard to take it back.

Ned Stark: its not a benefit, he was being hired to perform a service and the .gov can fire his ass just like any other employer can.

No, the government is a different kind of employer. A government employer cannot fire a government employee to retaliate for exercising first amendment rights. Government can't just fire people for making political comments at events away from the job site, can they? Of course not. That's unconstitutional.


nope. theres even a supreme court ruling on this. government has a material interest in controlling the speech of its employees that is distinct from its relation to the public at large. i should know, i work for .gov and i cant even have a sign in my yard thats got a politicians name on it. (signs about particular issues are ok though.)

that said, hes not even an employee he an entertainer under contract so they're probably allowed to fire him even harder.
 
2012-04-21 09:36:24 PM  

SkinnyHead:
No, the government is a different kind of employer. A government employer cannot fire a government employee to retaliate for exercising first amendment rights. Government can't just fire people for making political comments at events away from the job site, can they? Of course not. That's unconstitutional.


photos.lasvegassun.com

Six years ago would like a word with you.
 
2012-04-21 09:38:29 PM  
Ted's only a threat to defenseless animals and those with good musical taste.
 
2012-04-21 09:44:08 PM  
In other news, the mods get mad when you point out the site'shiat driving trolls are obvious trolls.
 
2012-04-21 09:44:24 PM  

SkinnyHead: No, the government is a different kind of employer. A government employer cannot fire a government employee to retaliate for exercising first amendment rights. Government can't just fire people for making political comments at events away from the job site, can they? Of course not. That's unconstitutional.


i811.photobucket.com

That's a mighty big load of fail right there.
1. Ted isn't a government employee. In fact, he shiat his pants back in the 60s to make sure of it.
2. The government can fire independent contractors whenever they want.
 
2012-04-21 09:44:54 PM  

GodsTumor: Ted's only a threat to defenseless animals and those with good musical taste.


Underage foreign girls too. Well, maybe not killing them
 
2012-04-21 09:45:13 PM  

CavalierEternal: They shouldn't have booked that pants-sh*tting draft-dodger in the first place.


Done in one.

When you insult and make thinly-veiled threats against the Commander-in-Chief of the US military, and insult the SoS, don't expect to get booked for their gigs anytime soon.

The First Amendment doesn't mean there are no consequences for your speech, you jailbait-farking enema nozzle.
 
2012-04-21 09:45:27 PM  
I was going to make fun of Nugent, then I saw he was headlining with REO Speedwagon and Styx. And realizing reality beat me to it.

This guy would have to threaten the president. He really has nothing else going on. He's old and sad and forgotten as some pathetic rock relic who hasn't been truly popular in about twenty years (if that) and your typical attention whore. He likes pissing people off because it makes them realize he's still alive. Then runs back to the woods to playact pioneer until he gets the burning urge to pop his head back up to make everybody realize he's still alive.
 
2012-04-21 09:46:02 PM  

Ned Stark: nope. theres even a supreme court ruling on this. government has a material interest in controlling the speech of its employees that is distinct from its relation to the public at large. i should know, i work for .gov and i cant even have a sign in my yard thats got a politicians name on it. (signs about particular issues are ok though.)

that said, hes not even an employee he an entertainer under contract so they're probably allowed to fire him even harder.


Pretty much. Which is why I cited earlier to our Beamish Boy about how film makers have to sign a LOT of paperwork before they're allowed on bases to film.

They want to make a piece critical of military, they are free to do so. Just not to expect any assistance from the military to do so, and if you have active duty folks in your piece, they have a final say on the cut of the film.

There is a lot that the military will agree to. Very little of that will be calling for the death of the Commander in chief, or having military personnel who are active duty on camera doing so.
 
2012-04-21 09:46:34 PM  

SkinnyHead:
If the performer was already booked to perform at the base, and the base then cancels the performance because the performer made public comments critical of the president, that's unconstitutional. The government cannot deny a government benefit to retaliate against someone for exercising constitutional rights, like freedom of speech.


I don't generally vote for the "Smart" or "Funny" posts here, but I felt compelled to after reading this.

Care to guess which button I clicked?
 
2012-04-21 09:46:40 PM  

Ned Stark: nope. theres even a supreme court ruling on this. government has a material interest in controlling the speech of its employees that is distinct from its relation to the public at large. i should know, i work for .gov and i cant even have a sign in my yard thats got a politicians name on it. (signs about particular issues are ok though.)

that said, hes not even an employee he an entertainer under contract so they're probably allowed to fire him even harder.


What Supreme Court decision are you referring to. My point was based on these:

Government "may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests - especially, his interest in freedom of speech." Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 597

Public employee's "exercise of his right to speak on issues of public importance may not furnish the basis for his dismissal from public employment." Pickering v. Board of Educ., 391 U.S. 563, 574
 
2012-04-21 09:47:15 PM  
Hmm, did he get to keep the deposit?
 
2012-04-21 09:48:52 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: GodsTumor: Ted's only a threat to defenseless animals and those with good musical taste.

Underage foreign girls too. Well, maybe not killing them


Oh yeah...forgot about that one.
 
2012-04-21 09:49:20 PM  
What, the whole "Obama can suck on my machine gun" rant wasn't enough for them?
 
2012-04-21 09:49:41 PM  

wildcardjack: Hmm, did he get to keep the deposit?


Nah...it's a Dog Eat Dog business.
 
2012-04-21 09:53:00 PM  
In addition to the veiled threat on the president, Nugent clearly said American citizens who happen to be Democrats should be decapitated.
 
2012-04-21 09:53:23 PM  

SkinnyHead: Ned Stark: nope. theres even a supreme court ruling on this. government has a material interest in controlling the speech of its employees that is distinct from its relation to the public at large. i should know, i work for .gov and i cant even have a sign in my yard thats got a politicians name on it. (signs about particular issues are ok though.)

that said, hes not even an employee he an entertainer under contract so they're probably allowed to fire him even harder.

What Supreme Court decision are you referring to. My point was based on these:

Government "may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests - especially, his interest in freedom of speech." Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 597

Public employee's "exercise of his right to speak on issues of public importance may not furnish the basis for his dismissal from public employment." Pickering v. Board of Educ., 391 U.S. 563, 574



Funny how neither of those rulings cover making threats against the President Of The United States.
 
2012-04-21 09:54:13 PM  

CavalierEternal: TheDumbBlonde: Seriously? Lock Ted Nugent up. He's an obvious threat to the President. Yawn.

The Secret Service is required, per their job description, to investigate ALL THREATS against the President Of The United States, whether they've come from someone like Ted Nugent or the guy who huffs glue behind the Walgreens dumpster.


Who also happens to be Ted Nugent.
 
2012-04-21 09:54:38 PM  

Bathia_Mapes: HighOnCraic: djkutch: Bathia_Mapes: TheDumbBlonde: Ted Nugent is an American citizen who is allowed by the Constitution certain rights. One of those is saying shiat you don't like. Plus, none of you ever made major cash of a song called "Stranglehold", so kiss his ass.

He made comments regarding President Obama that the Secret Service deemed worthy of investigating. The First Amendment does not apply when the person is making perceived threats against the President. That applies to anybody who is President, not just Barack Obama.

Bush shrugged it off when the Dixie Chicks discussed his assassination. Obama has obviously managed to to corrupt even the most obviously apolitical section of government.

Wait, I was out of the country during that Dixie Chicks nonsense, but did they actually discuss assassinating Bush, or just say that they were ashamed by his actions in Iraq?

And were they invited to perform on any Army bases?

Lead vocalist Natalie Maines said "we don't want this war, this violence, and we're ashamed that the President of the United States (George W. Bush) is from Texas".

None of the Dixie Chicks made any death threats against George W Bush.


Yeah, that's the way I remembered it. If anything, there were a lot of Freepers making death threats against them.
 
2012-04-21 09:54:47 PM  
REO Speedwagon, Styx and shiatpants Chickenhawk

That would have been a big show when I was a teenager

// old, so very,very old
 
2012-04-21 09:54:48 PM  

CavalierEternal: SkinnyHead: Ned Stark: nope. theres even a supreme court ruling on this. government has a material interest in controlling the speech of its employees that is distinct from its relation to the public at large. i should know, i work for .gov and i cant even have a sign in my yard thats got a politicians name on it. (signs about particular issues are ok though.)

that said, hes not even an employee he an entertainer under contract so they're probably allowed to fire him even harder.

What Supreme Court decision are you referring to. My point was based on these:

Government "may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests - especially, his interest in freedom of speech." Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 597

Public employee's "exercise of his right to speak on issues of public importance may not furnish the basis for his dismissal from public employment." Pickering v. Board of Educ., 391 U.S. 563, 574


Funny how neither of those rulings cover making threats against the President Of The United States.


Not is Nugent a public employee
 
2012-04-21 09:55:55 PM  
I wonder if the 'Skinnyhead' persona is so ingrained in the poster's consciousness that it starts to affect him in the real world.

At home--
"Why are you crying, pumpkin?"

'Daddy, I told the teacher what you said about palm trees growing on the moon and she sent me to the special classroom!'

At a party with friends--
"I can help you with your taxes. I have a GED in Accounting."

'Jesus, not *this* again.'

In bed with the Mrs.--
"Honey, I've just thought of the most amazing thing!"

'No you didn't. That's just Skinnyhead talking. Go back to sleep.'
 
2012-04-21 09:58:00 PM  

SkinnyHead: Nugent's First Amendment rights are being violated. He should sue for viewpoint discrimination.


Now your best work. You're stretching the suspension of disbelief a little to far.
 
2012-04-21 09:59:02 PM  

Thrag: SkinnyHead: Nugent's First Amendment rights are being violated. He should sue for viewpoint discrimination.

NowNot your best work. You're stretching the suspension of disbelief a little to far.


Let me fix that for me.
 
2012-04-21 10:01:03 PM  

Darth Macho: I wonder if the 'Skinnyhead' persona is so ingrained in the poster's consciousness that it starts to affect him in the real world.


Obviously the "skinnyhead" persona is not 100% reflected in "real" life, it's been in use longer than someone that stupid could go without choking to death on paste.

I use to be annoyed by skinny but I now see it as performance art and an amusing addition to our collection of greater internet farkwads
 
2012-04-21 10:01:06 PM  

JAYoung: How 'bout if he performs in front of an armed audience of soldiers?


That's a lovely idea. Maybe he could get the crowd warmed up by telling them that amusing little story about his visit with his draft board - I'm sure they'll find it terribly entertaining.

Oh, and for those of you who are still confused:

You do not have a constitutional right to threaten the life of the president, even in jest.

That is all.
 
2012-04-21 10:01:07 PM  

AnEvilGuest: REO Speedwagon, Styx and shiatpants Chickenhawk

That would have been a big show when I was a teenager

// old, so very,very old


I'm in my 20's and I'd appreciate REO Speedwagon and Styx.

I'd just use the time Nugent was on to go to the bathroom and get refreshments.
 
2012-04-21 10:04:31 PM  
Nugent is also an admitted pedophile. So he's got that going for him too.
 
2012-04-21 10:04:48 PM  

HighOnCraic: Yeah, that's the way I remembered it. If anything, there were a lot of Freepers making death threats against them.


Yep. There were a lot of death threats agains the Dixie Chicks after that.
 
2012-04-21 10:07:15 PM  

BMulligan: JAYoung: How 'bout if he performs in front of an armed audience of soldiers?

That's a lovely idea. Maybe he could get the crowd warmed up by telling them that amusing little story about his visit with his draft board - I'm sure they'll find it terribly entertaining.

Oh, and for those of you who are still confused:

You do not have a constitutional right to threaten the life of the president, even in jest.

That is all.


And I'd like to add that the Secret Service is not known for their sense of humor, especially when it comes to threats against the President.
 
2012-04-21 10:07:47 PM  

Guntram Shatterhand: I was going to make fun of Nugent, then I saw he was headlining with REO Speedwagon and Styx. And realizing reality beat me to it.


Oh, it's much much better than that. Other articles made the relationship more clear - apparently REO Speedwagon and Styx were co-headliners. Nugent was the opening act for them.
 
2012-04-21 10:09:27 PM  

fusillade762: What, the whole "Obama can suck on my machine gun" rant wasn't enough for them?


hey it got him all sorts of paid appearances on Fox News and a couple of 50k appearance fees from the NRA

decollins1969.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-04-21 10:10:20 PM  

BMulligan: JAYoung: How 'bout if he performs in front of an armed audience of soldiers?

That's a lovely idea. Maybe he could get the crowd warmed up by telling them that amusing little story about his visit with his draft board - I'm sure they'll find it terribly entertaining.

Oh, and for those of you who are still confused:

You do not have a constitutional right to threaten the life of the president, even in jest.

That is all.


i dunno, if it was really unspecific/general principal-y and/or you could demonstrate that it definitely was a joke you probably wont get charged with anything.

you definitely should expect to get questioned by some utterly humorless black suit types over it though.
 
2012-04-21 10:11:16 PM  

AnEvilGuest: Darth Macho: I wonder if the 'Skinnyhead' persona is so ingrained in the poster's consciousness that it starts to affect him in the real world.

Obviously the "skinnyhead" persona is not 100% reflected in "real" life, it's been in use longer than someone that stupid could go without choking to death on paste.

I use to be annoyed by skinny but I now see it as performance art and an amusing addition to our collection of greater internet farkwads


The fact is someone out there is reading hundreds of Fark posts and mentally asking themselves 'What would Skinnyhead say?' A hundred times a day every day. Someone is locked inside their own skull with Skinnyhead and likely undergoing some kind of accidental self-hypnosis. There is no way that isn't warping a person's consciousness and worrying the shiat out of their family and friends.

"Son, I know you graduated college and all, but ever since you got on the internet you've been getting stupider by the hour."
 
2012-04-21 10:12:07 PM  
s1.reutersmedia.net

Ted: " 'Freedom of Speech' doesn't mean that I am free from all consequences due to the things I say? Who knew?!?

We can fix this with Second Amendment solutions! "

Photographer: " Ted, for God's sake!! "

Ted: "What?"
 
2012-04-21 10:15:40 PM  
co-headliners REO Speedwagon and Styx.

LOL @ "co-headliners".

Dollars to donuts it was Ted opening for REO then Styx to close the show.
 
2012-04-21 10:16:49 PM  

CavalierEternal: SkinnyHead: Ned Stark: nope. theres even a supreme court ruling on this. government has a material interest in controlling the speech of its employees that is distinct from its relation to the public at large. i should know, i work for .gov and i cant even have a sign in my yard thats got a politicians name on it. (signs about particular issues are ok though.)

that said, hes not even an employee he an entertainer under contract so they're probably allowed to fire him even harder.

What Supreme Court decision are you referring to. My point was based on these:

Government "may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests - especially, his interest in freedom of speech." Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 597

Public employee's "exercise of his right to speak on issues of public importance may not furnish the basis for his dismissal from public employment." Pickering v. Board of Educ., 391 U.S. 563, 574


Funny how neither of those rulings cover making threats against the President Of The United States.


If you want a case that spells out the difference between an unlawful threat to the president and a constitutionally protected one, read US v. Bagdasarian, 652 F. 3d 1113 (9th Circuit 2011). I'm not even going to repeat what that fool said about Obama, but suffice it to say, it was far worse than anything Nugent said, and it was ruled constitutionally protected speech.
 
2012-04-21 10:19:30 PM  

Darth Macho: The fact is someone out there is reading hundreds of Fark posts and mentally asking themselves 'What would Skinnyhead say?' A hundred times a day every day. Someone is locked inside their own skull with Skinnyhead and likely undergoing some kind of accidental self-hypnosis. There is no way that isn't warping a person's consciousness and worrying the shiat out of their family and friends.

"Son, I know you graduated college and all, but ever since you got on the internet you've been getting stupider by the hour."



You got yourself the makings of a Steven King novel there.
I would steal the idea if I had the slightest bit of writing talent.

The Stupiding.

All posts and no sense makes jack a dull boy
All posts and no sense makes jack a dull boy
All posts and no sense makes jack a dull boy
 
2012-04-21 10:20:12 PM  
REO, Styx and Nugent. What, they couldn't get Kansas and Foreigner?

/vomiting
 
2012-04-21 10:21:52 PM  

Halli: TheDumbBlonde: Seriously? Lock Ted Nugent up. He's an obvious threat to the President. Yawn.

He seems to think so. Despite being a pants shiatting coward.


I don't think so, no one that talks as much shiat as he does believes it. He just wants us to believe it.

\Some stupid people do, too.
 
2012-04-21 10:26:47 PM  

SkinnyHead:
If you want a case that spells out the difference between an unlawful threat to the president and a constitutionally protected one, read US v. Bagdasarian, 652 F. 3d 1113 (9th Circuit 2011). I'm not even going to repeat what that fool said about Obama, but suffice it to say, it was far worse than anything Nugent said, and it was ruled constitutionally protected speech.


I'm going to go over this again for you.

Ted Nugent did not become a public employee when the military signed a contract for him to come give a concert. He became an independent contractor, and because his contract almost certainly contained a clause whereby the military could revoke the contract, they exercised their contractual rights and ended the contract.

He was not fired; his contract was revoked. Those are fundamentally two different things in employment law, and everything you are citing is completely and totally irrelevant to the case at hand.
 
2012-04-21 10:31:47 PM  

Rincewind53: He was not fired; his contract was revoked. Those are fundamentally two different things in employment law, and everything you are citing is completely and totally irrelevant to the case at hand.


Forget it Jake, it's Skinnytown.
 
Displayed 50 of 290 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report