Ted Nugent on Parkland Kids

[Carl Pickens]

My, aren't you so clever. (eyeroll)
Can you color in the lines, too?

Father of Parkland shooting victim Meadow leads emotional fundraiser | Daily Mail Online

Hogg probably rode a moped with training wheels

 

[DinkinFlicka]

Who really cares about what celebrities have to say? It doesn’t matter what Nugent, Roseanne, Popovich, Kerr, Lebron or any of the other multitude of celebrities say about a subject

So, what you're saying is, none of them/us should ever bother expressing opinions?

 

[TennTom]

Losing is never fun.... even for a loser

As hominem attacks are par for the course for your kind. Did you click on the link to see pictures of David with the Pollacks yesterday or are you just going to stick your fingers in your ear and whine NA NA NA? So adorable.

 

[TennTom]

Hogg probably rode a moped with training wheels

Admitting you were a fool. huh? Well that was easy.

 

[Carl Pickens]

As hominem attacks are par for the course for your kind. Did you click on the link to see pictures of David with the Pollacks yesterday or are you just going to stick your fingers in your ear and whine NA NA NA? So adorable.

LOL... ad hominem! Ad hominem!

 

[AM64]

These “kids” are retarded and should be treated as such.

Those kids are being used and manipulated by the anti-gun faction. The fact that they and the backers aren't honest enough to be upfront - using tragedy to promote political goals - is the lowest of tactics.

 

[Carl Pickens]

Admitting you were a fool. huh? Well that was easy.

While the Parkland shooting is tragic, this Hogg kid is a douche..... message or no message.... he's a jive ass beeotch. If you can't see that it's you my friend... that is the fool.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

While the Parkland shooting is tragic, this Hogg kid is a douche..... message or no message.... he's a jive ass beeotch. If you can't see that it's you my friend... that is the fool.

No doubt.

However, it's pretty obvious that neither side cares about a public figure being a douchebag as long as that douchebag promotes their beliefs.

 

[Carl Pickens]

No doubt.

However, it's pretty obvious that neither side cares about a public figure being a douchebag as long as that douchebag promotes their beliefs.

Spot on with that ...for the most part.... but you and I will call a douche a douche when we see one

Hogg wants gun rights taken but dammit.... he ain't happy with those clear backpacks.... that's violating his rights

 

[1972 Grad]

Spot on with that ...for the most part.... but you and I will call a douche a douche when we see one

Hogg wants gun rights taken but dammit.... he ain't happy with those clear backpacks.... that's violating his rights

Hard to conceal his dildo collection.

 

[AM64]

You're brainwashed. There is nothing normal about the "movement" out of Parkland.

All 4 of these kids are sketchy as hell. I don't get a genuine feeling from any of them (Hogg, Gonzales, Tarr & Kasky).

They're getting pushed by a PAC or DNC fund raising organization IMO. It's much too scripted and polished.

Soros funded without question.

Who’s Really Behind March for Our Lives? | Frontpage Mag

While I have no doubt that this report is as biased as most in the news, and I know nothing of the organization, this article is interesting. And it popped up on news headlines ... according to Google - didn't have to comb the far right to find it. This is the difference in attempting to understand rather than promote - more substance than sensationalism - the intended purpose of reporting and journalism.

The essence is that the people behind the students are trying hard to hide identities, and nobody much is asking questions. Pretty amazing though if the article is accurate that the people hiding their identities and shamelessly using the kids are likely the same people who've made millions on exposure and fan adoration. The name for that is "hypocrite".

 

[AM64]

It shouldnt be a right for insane people to buy AR-15s. Why is that hard for you to understand

Are we going to have the thought police now, or who decides who is nuts? If I don't agree with your agenda, does that make me dangerous? Perhaps you can limit who may drive on hard evidence like lack of sight, but deciding who has rights based on personal evaluation opens up the wonders of the Third Reich.

 

[BeecherVol]

Are we going to have the thought police now, or who decides who is nuts? If I don't agree with your agenda, does that make me dangerous? Perhaps you can limit who may drive on hard evidence like lack of sight, but deciding who has rights based on personal evaluation opens up the wonders of the Third Reich.

Interesting idea.

Maybe we should start with background checks before procreation.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Who’s Really Behind March for Our Lives? | Frontpage Mag

While I have no doubt that this report is as biased as most in the news, and I know nothing of the organization, this article is interesting. And it popped up on news headlines ... according to Google - didn't have to comb the far right to find it. This is the difference in attempting to understand rather than promote - more substance than sensationalism - the intended purpose of reporting and journalism.

The essence is that the people behind the students are trying hard to hide identities, and nobody much is asking questions. Pretty amazing though if the article is accurate that the people hiding their identities and shamelessly using the kids are likely the same people who've made millions on exposure and fan adoration. The name for that is "hypocrite".

A point of irony. Two of the six trustees listed for March For Our Lives are apparently former UCLA admin people.

Yet UCLA is one of the four schools to turn down Douche Hogg.

Now THATS funny!!😂😂😂😂😂

 

[AM64]

Interesting idea.

Maybe we should start with background checks before procreation.

If we ever started limiting rights based on mental aptitude, that would have to be at the head of the line. The thought of libs no longer begetting libs is very enticing, but in the end it just gets back to that thing of who of us has the ability/right to judge others. But that sentiment gets back to my extreme intolerance of "authority".

 

[Pepe_Silvia]

.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Listen to this psycho.

DAVID HOGG PROFANITY LACED INTERVIEW on Vimeo

Pro 2a people want kids to die and wouldn’t care if blood is splattered over their faces.

Seriously, this kid is deranged

Depending on your definition of soulless, this could be considered as such. Definitely a liar. The OBV faux outrage is right on queue.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Like I said in another thread their movement is solely for 15 minutes of fame and social media likes. That. Is. It.

You should chill out OBV. Just because your teenage leaders can't formulate an original thought and get called out on it doesn't mean they can't lead you and the rest of the democrats!

I'm still waiting on what they are protesting. Reminds me of the NFL dudes and BLM. No clear message just protest something, even if it is wrong.

 

[BeecherVol]

If we ever started limiting rights based on mental aptitude, that would have to be at the head of the line. The thought of libs no longer begetting libs is very enticing, but in the end it just gets back to that thing of who of us has the ability/right to judge others. But that sentiment gets back to my extreme intolerance of "authority".

There comes a point (pretty early for some) where you realize it's people that is stupid.

 

[AM64]

There comes a point (pretty early for some) where you realize it's people that at stupid.

Yeah, there really ought to be a category for the criminally stupid. However, take the case of a radical who wears a bomb and blows himself up to harm others. Do we agree he's stupid because he places no value on his own life, or do we believe he's stupid for having absolute faith in a cause to which we completely oppose?

In the short term it's a self correcting error, but who judges mental competency, and who judges the judges? Too often ideology trumps free thought and common sense in deciding. The funny part is that a very vocal group would apparently argue that bombs rather than the bomber or the ideology that radicalized him are at fault.

 

[ajvol01]

So, what you're saying is, none of them/us should ever bother expressing opinions?

You consider yourself a celeb?

That's rich.

 

[MercyPercy]

I'm no fan of this kid, he's obviously a tool being used to push an agenda, but Nugent has always been and appears he will always be a giant **** stain on humanity. A pox on both houses.

 

[barknoxbrawler]

These kids are retarded because they are allowing themselves to be used to push an agenda. They are protesting the wrong thing.

No doubt. But this issue will never find common ground enough to be debated logically as long as liberals see conservatives as killers and conservatives see liberals as freedom takers. Once they both agree that this is a farce, they may just sit down and get to work on something tangible that doesn’t involve throwing feces at each other.

 

[BeecherVol]

Yeah, there really ought to be a category for the criminally stupid. However, take the case of a radical who wears a bomb and blows himself up to harm others. Do we agree he's stupid because he places no value on his own life, or do we believe he's stupid for having absolute faith in a cause to which we completely oppose?

In the short term it's a self correcting error, but who judges mental competency, and who judges the judges? Too often ideology trumps free thought and common sense in deciding. The funny part is that a very vocal group would apparently argue that bombs rather than the bomber or the ideology that radicalized him are at fault.

True.

That was a joke in part toward background checks and guns on my part and why some of that crowd doesn't stump for background checks on baby making.

 

[AM64]

True.

That was a joke in part toward background checks and guns on my part and why some of that crowd doesn't stump for background checks on baby making.

I know it was a joke on your part, but it's also a point that we should all consider because of the importance being attached as a restriction to gun ownership. The "who decides" and "on what basis" are very scary issues that many people have historically neglected until it became too late.