YOT 3,743 Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 Boy, did he just get some panties in a knot!........ http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Hank-Williams-Jr-pulled-from-ESPN-after-compari?urn=nfl-wp8592 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
vulcan16 971 Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 Frick the PC police and ESPN. Hank Rocks. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
supertex 242 Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 Hank for president 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
going12220 125 Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 (edited) Well I have to agree with at least one statement from the article: “Even if using Hitler in an analogy was something that was socially acceptable, the comparison still doesn't make any sense.” After 2 years in office Hitler had higher approval ratings from the Germans than Obama does now from the Americans These are just the kind of remarks that would be made by the “Bigots” in the Tea Party. Always remember the Tea Party is heavily white so they can be called names and slandered with labels but not the President who’s protected by “Political Correctness”. Sometimes I marvel at how silly this shit is, just bring the song back and get over it. Go Hank. Edited October 4, 2011 by going12220 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BuffetDestroyer 969 Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 How many times did celebrities compare Bush to Hitler? The double standard baffles me sometimes. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dayofruin 425 Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 How many times did celebrities compare Bush to Hitler? The double standard baffles me sometimes. Bush wasn't black. I know that Obama is mixed but everything you read or hear is about "the first black president", never "the first biracial president". Quote Link to post Share on other sites
nlacy 692 Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 Hank needs to stick to music. He doesn't sound coherent. But his ramblings on Fox should not be grounds for pulling him from MNF. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DogMan 2,343 Posted October 5, 2011 Report Share Posted October 5, 2011 I like some of his music but I've always been annoyed by the MNF intro. It's NOT a Monday night party with all my "rowdy friends", it's just a freakin' football game. No need to go over the top about it. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
thebuns1 4,323 Posted October 5, 2011 Report Share Posted October 5, 2011 i like all 3 of the hanks. dont care much for the MNF tune but thats me. but i dont see any reason for apology. its obvious there are too many assholes in this country that hear what they want to hear and make a fuss out of nothing. its sad when someone like this is scrutinized for free speech, especially when it wasnt an insult. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cvhanh20 1,052 Posted October 5, 2011 Report Share Posted October 5, 2011 I really respect Hank Jr. after his "America the way I see it" and he did touch off on what a lot of people are not willing to say in fear it will hurt them, but he was really out of it and in no state to make the kind of comments he did. People out there are just waiting to tear your ass down when you say something stupid or out of sorts. His heart is in the right place. 6 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
storm6490 2,768 Posted October 5, 2011 Report Share Posted October 5, 2011 (edited) Hank JR sucks. ESPN sucks. The media sucks.. Pop country really sucks. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgI4Gl2fS9c some real music. Edited October 5, 2011 by storm6490 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
going12220 125 Posted October 5, 2011 Report Share Posted October 5, 2011 I’m sure Hank will return to his entertainment of people with his music, something he’s very good at. Now if we can get Obama to return to his efforts as a community organizer everyone wins because he sucks as a president. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dudethebagman 222 Posted October 6, 2011 Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 (edited) Hank Williams Jr., cultural icon, analogizes the U.S. President to Hitler, and says that "they're the enemy" (referring to Obama and Biden). He is made to apologize. Certain forum members are disgusted that he was punished for his speech. http://espn.go.com/c...-night-football Anwar al-Awlaki, cultural icon, also speaks out against the U.S. government to the effect of: "they're the enemy." The government executes him in a drone attack. Certain forum members rejoice and call the man a seditious traitor. I recognize that there is a difference in degree, but does anyone else see any irony or double standard here? Edited October 6, 2011 by Dudethebagman 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
patriot 7,197 Posted October 6, 2011 Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 Nope. As similar as bourbon and watermelon....unless your glasses are tinted rose, and you love tyranny. One man exercising free speech. Another aiding and abetting terrorism...as a self-proclaimed member of a terrorist organization. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dudethebagman 222 Posted October 6, 2011 Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 (edited) An American citizen preaching "they're the enemy" to an audience including some who undoubtedly want to take violent action against our government (Timothy McVeigh) vs. an American citizen preaching "they're the enemy" to an audience including some who undoubtedly want to take violent action against the U.S. government (Jihadists). I can see that they are different regarding how serious they probably believe the implications of their speech will translate into actual acts against "the enemy." But their speech itself seems awfully similar and certainly could influence similar behavior (unless you're wearing rose-colored partisan blinders and love fascism). One man's seditious speech is another man's political speech. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Edited October 6, 2011 by Dudethebagman Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BuffetDestroyer 969 Posted October 6, 2011 Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 If you are really trying to equate Hank Williams Jr. to a terrorist for his comparison of Obama to Hilter, then there is absolutely no potential for rational discussion. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
patriot 7,197 Posted October 6, 2011 Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 (edited) Edited October 6, 2011 by patriot Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dudethebagman 222 Posted October 6, 2011 Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 (edited) If you are really trying to equate Hank Williams Jr. to a terrorist for his comparison of Obama to Hilter, then there is absolutely no potential for rational discussion. I'm not. I'm equating seditious speech to seditious speech, and saying that certain people tolerate some seditious speech but not others. Buffet, I already know there's not much chance for rational discussion with some people on here anyway. In some cases, the IQ and critical thinking skills just aren't there. Generally, I'm trying to point out the hypocrisy of those who hide behind party lines and what they claim is "patriotism" rather than using their mental faculties to come to their own conclusions. Especially so when those conclusions aren't based on any principle other than groupthink. I think what Hank Williams said was seditious. I think that Anwar al-Awlaki was also seditious. Both could influence people to act on their seditious speech and commit terrorist acts. I don't think that's an outlandish claim. Many people nod along to their icons' speech and change their behavior, whether or not they admit to doing it. Michael Jordan's persona apparently really does sell underwear and wheaties. If these things didn't influence people's behavior, the advertising and propaganda industries would have disappeared long ago. I'm not an apologist for either, but let's call a spade a spade, eh? Edited October 6, 2011 by Dudethebagman 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Gaddis 1,689 Posted October 6, 2011 Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 Yeah, but Hank didn't give the go-ahead to terminate Anwar al-Awlaki, unlike Obama did. I'd actually feel safer around Hank with his "seditious" speech than around Obama now. Besides, all this talk of "seditious" speech kind of reminds me of the anti-gunners and their sad "it's just a matter of time before they go on a killing spree" when trying to introduce children to safe firearms usage. Neither Hank's speech or children's gun handling has caused either "bad case scenario" to happen yet. Buffet, I already know there's not much chance for rational discussion with some people on here anyway. In some cases, the IQ and critical thinking skills just aren't there. Is that so, Brian? What, the Liberal mindset might be out-gunned (as usual?) here? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BuffetDestroyer 969 Posted October 6, 2011 Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 Dude, what the fuck happened to the First Amendment in your world? Because I don't agree with Obama, Bush, Hank, or some other public figure, and I state it in public, I am being seditious? Fucking Seriously? Renouncing your citizenship and conspiring against the United States to commit murder and mass destruction is not the same thing as making a fucking analogy to Hitler! Should all the people that did the Bush=Hitler protests be bombed by a Predator Drone too? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
nlacy 692 Posted October 6, 2011 Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 Before they interviewed Hank, the same Fox show ways saying "why do we care what celebrities have to say?" Then an hour later they interview Hank and asked him to weigh in on the 2012 election. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dad2142Dad 6,559 Posted October 6, 2011 Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 One, We ask people questions and then kill them for the answers. Two, Last I checked, hanging with terroist homies can get you killed. Doesn't matter if your a citizen or not. Three, We keep putting the wrong people on pedestals. While I like Hank, he is just someone who has a microphone. I should not raise him above another individual like I have. So I am an idiot for that. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dudethebagman 222 Posted October 7, 2011 Report Share Posted October 7, 2011 Dude, what the fuck happened to the First Amendment in your world? Buffet, where did you go to law school? There are exceptions to freedom of speech such as: obscenity, treason, defamation, fighting words, incitement to violence, violation of copyrights, bribery, threats, and false advertising. There's also varying levels of protection depending on the type of speech. There is high, low, and no value speech. The level of protection speech gets depends on its value. You can learn all about it, if you care to research the constitution before you invoke what you think it means. Political speech is high value and highly protected. However, comparing our president to Hitler (an enemy we fought a war with and would have killed had we gotten the chance), then declaring the president "the enemy" is different that saying "I dislike our incompetent president's economic policy and plan on voting against him in the next election." One is sedition bordering on treason, one is protected political speech. When read together, the implication of what Williams said is: "The president is like this evil guy we should have killed. The president is our enemy too. Therefore, ................................................he should get the Hitler treatment." Did that subtlety escape you, or do you just refuse to see it? Don't bother answering. Dissident political speech is protected. Political criticism is fundamental to democracy, and there's plenty to criticize (thus, "love it or get the hell out" is unpatriotic, no matter how much the person wrapping himself in the flag claims he is a patriot). Comparing the president to Hitler and declaring the exectutive branch of the government "the enemy" is at best low value speech and at worst sedition bordering on treason. Because I don't agree with Obama, Bush, Hank, or some other public figure, and I state it in public, I am being seditious? Fucking Seriously? No. You're misquoting me again. And exaggerating again. When you compare YOUR PRESIDENT to Hitler and declare him "the enemy", you are being seditious. se·di·tion [si-dish-uhn]noun 1. incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government. 2. any action, especially in speech or writing, promoting such discontent or rebellion. trea·son [tree-zuhn] noun 1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign. 2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state. Renouncing your citizenship and conspiring against the United States to commit murder and mass destruction is not the same thing as making a fucking analogy to Hitler! You are correct. I never said it was. I said making the Hitler analogy, then declaring that the POTUS is "the enemy" is seditious. You're misquoting and exaggerating again. See above. Should all the people that did the Bush=Hitler protests be bombed by a Predator Drone too? No. I never said anyone should be bombed or even prosecuted. I just said that cheering one person's sedition and booing another's is hypocritical. More misquoting and exaggerating. Add a lack of reading comprehension to the list of traits that make it impossible to have a rational conversation with a person. Because you are apparently unable to reply without misquoting and exaggerating, I won't dignify any further of your idiotic comments with an answer. You simply aren't worth talking to. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dudethebagman 222 Posted October 7, 2011 Report Share Posted October 7, 2011 Last I checked, hanging with terroist homies can get you killed. Doesn't matter if your a citizen or not. Hanging with terrorist homies seems like a dangerous activity. You may become collateral damage. However, U.S. citizens do normally have constitutional rights. We normally at least give those accused of treason a trial before they're executed - including one U.S. soldier who actually defected to the Nazis and wrote propaganda for them. Aaron Burr was actually tried for treason and acquitted. I'm not sure of the legal mechanism used to kill a U.S. citizen without a trial because he has been declared a traitor. I also understand that there are practical considerations when the guy is hiding out on the Middle East and inciting others to attack the United States. Still, I think it's right for people to worry about government actions like this. We can tell ourselves "oh, it'll never happen here", but then there are those nagging doubts about Waco and Ruby Ridge. Oddly enough, I watched "Hang 'em High" last week. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Cobra 76 two 2,677 Posted October 7, 2011 Report Share Posted October 7, 2011 A country boy can survive..... 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dudethebagman 222 Posted October 7, 2011 Report Share Posted October 7, 2011 Yeah, but Hank didn't give the go-ahead to terminate Anwar al-Awlaki, unlike Obama did. I'd actually feel safer around Hank with his "seditious" speech than around Obama now. Fair enough. Neither Hank's speech or children's gun handling has caused either "bad case scenario" to happen yet. ...yet. But there are some disturbed individuals out there. Hinckley shot Reagan to impress Jodi Foster. Tim McVeigh made similar comments about the government as an "enemy" before the OK City bombing. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh#With_Nichols.2C_Waco_siege.2C_radicalisation_and_first_explosives_devices). You just don't use a national forum to say things like Williams did. But I guess we shouldn't hold it against him, as he was obviously high on something. I'm all for teaching kids about guns. My dad taught me about his. I knew where they were, how they worked, and that I was not to fuck with them. No locks needed where there's responsible parenting. Buffet, I already know there's not much chance for rational discussion with some people on here anyway. In some cases, the IQ and critical thinking skills just aren't there. Is that so, Brian? What, the Liberal mindset might be out-gunned (as usual?) here? LIBERALS? WHERE? I'LL TEAR 'EM APART!!! Seriously though, what's a liberal? The caricatures I hear about on talk radio? If we're playing the strict party-line ideology game, I think it's safe to say that there are no "liberals" here. After all, this is a gun forum, and "liberals" hate guns. If I believe in the Second Amendment, and also think the government has no right to prohibit gay marriage, and think that the middle class is shouldering an unfair chunk of the tax burden while the top 1% loots the treasury and gets richer off our backs, does that make me a liberal, a libertarian, a conservative, or a socialist? None of the above. Maybe I decide on the issues and not along narrow party lines. Come on man, think outside the partisan box! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BuffetDestroyer 969 Posted October 7, 2011 Report Share Posted October 7, 2011 I have not gone to law school, but if you want to cite case law about analogies and calling someone the enemy being equivalent to treason and sedition in a time of "peace" (no war has been declared by Congress since WWII), be my guest. I will happily concede my argument if you show someone put to death in the last 60 years for just making an analogy and calling the president an enemy. The issue in your comparison is that one person said some less-than-thoughtful shit while partially drunk on TV, while the other actively conspired to cause people in the U.S. harm (and may have done more, but was never tried nor convicted of additional treasonous acts). Al Awliki was just assassinated by our government without a trial. If Hank had said, "You need to take up arms and shoot the president because he is the enemy and there is no other recourse," then I would be more likely to agree with your sedition accusations. Being a political "enemy" is not the same thing in the U.S. as conspiring or inciting violence which is what Al Awliki did. Political "Enemies" in the Executive Office can be voted out, impeached, or nullified with a 2/3 majority in Congress in our country and they don't need be thrown out with violence (other countries, this isn't the case). You can call an apple an orange, but it doesn't make it true. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DogMan 2,343 Posted October 7, 2011 Report Share Posted October 7, 2011 This has gotten all twisted around. He never "compared" Obama to Hitler. He used an analogy to liken the polarized pairing of Obama and Boener to the equally (in his mind) odd pairing of Hitler with Netanyahu. I supposed if he would have said it was like pairing an apple with an orange he would be accused of calling Obama a "fruit". It would be just like Hank to call a press conference to issue an "apology". Then proceed to apologize to the Hitler family for comparing him to Obama. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
YOT 3,743 Posted October 8, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2011 That's exactly the way I heard it, DogMan. Way to many oversensitive, politically correct types out there that want to infringe on somebody's First Amendment rights if they don't like what the think the heard, but wasn't actually said! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BuffetDestroyer 969 Posted October 8, 2011 Report Share Posted October 8, 2011 Add a lack of reading comprehension to the list of traits that make it impossible to have a rational conversation with a person. Because you are apparently unable to reply without misquoting and exaggerating, I won't dignify any further of your idiotic comments with an answer. You simply aren't worth talking to. Maybe you should stop trying to smugly stir bullshit like you are the only person here that has any semblence of intelligent thoughts. Demeaning others' intelligence to boost your own perception of yours is what Gaddis was referring to as a typical "liberal" trait... FOR EXAMPLE: "I am so much smarter than all the other forum members that I can make inane comparisons of two figures in recent events and then tell anyone that disagrees with me that they are not as smart as I am and that they are exaggerating what I stated". I am sorry that your vast intellect had to be lowered to continue conversing with the "hypocritcial" "partisan" members on this forum that don't have "law degrees" to counteract your amazing Google skills of posting definitions that may vaguely apply to a statement supporting your view that Hank Williams Jr. could be inspiring the new generation of Timothy McVieghs. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.