• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hank Williams Jr., 1st Amendment Rights?

Hank Williams Jr.'s 1st Amendment Rights were they violated or infringed upon?

  • Total voters
    59
disneydude said:
The NFL is sooooooo 1980's.......boring!

REAL football is played on Saturdays anyway.
Click to expand...

I have to say I do enjoy college football more. There appears to be better balance and just an all around better game because of it. The NFL is so ****ing slow and now all they do is pass and pass a pass oh and run like four times a game unless they are the four teams that SUCK. Lets completely disable the defense, lets create a jesus figure out of the QB and then lets just pass. TOUCHDOWN! When we're at it lets create more rules than we actually need to slow the game down so much you have to be half brain dead to enjoy it. To finish lets say how awesome our QBs our of this era are like its comparable to when football was football and not pansy ball.
 
Last edited:
Tigger said:
There's a difference. The Dixie Chicks were WRONG both in what they said and in the fact that as women they shouldn't have been commenting on politics to begin with. Hank Jr was absolutely CORRECT in what he said.
Click to expand...

why do you hate women?
 
PzKfW IVe said:
This isnt even remotely clever - as I am sure even -you- know, the issue isn't an exception to the cricism of the OFFICE.

Country radio didnt boycott TDC because they spoke poorly of the President, they boycotted them because they spoke poorly of GWB, who their audience, more often than not suppoeted -- its amazing what a station amamger will do when he gets repeated call about 'if you play any more of their music, I'll never listen to you again'.

The support for The Obama among country listeners is, quite likely and put generously, considerbly lower - so there's little to no reason for the radio stattions to change HWJR's limited rotation.

:roll:
Click to expand...

Nice rationalization....but their stated basis was for "Criticizing and lack of respect for the President"....either you have standards/values or you do not. The hypocrisy of Country/Western stations and fans is glaringly obvious.
 
Henrin said:
I have to say I do enjoy college football more. There appears to be better balance and just an all around better game because of it. The NFL is so ****ing slow and now all they do is pass and pass a pass oh and run like four times a game unless they are four teams that SUCK.
Click to expand...

The NFL has become nothing more than corporative entertainment, its not about sport and ...you are correct...its just plain boring any more.
 
Tigger said:
Pretty much every week.
Click to expand...

So you're going to boycott something you did almost every week because a washed up has been was fired from singing a song about it? Good for you. Take that stand.

But I seriously doubt that it'll have any discernible effect. MNF's target demographic are people who care about football. Gamblers, fantasy football freaks, etc. In other words, me. ESPN could change the intro to a song called "Tucker Case is a ****ing moron who likes to rape dead babies" and I'd still watch it.

Because I am watching football, not intros.
 
disneydude said:
Nice rationalization....but their stated basis was for "Criticizing and lack of respect for the President"....either you have standards/values or you do not. The hypocrisy of Country/Western stations and fans is glaringly obvious.
Click to expand...
As is your willfull ignorace.
 
Tucker Case said:
ESPN could change the intro to a song called "Tucker Case is a ****ing moron who likes to rape dead babies"...
Click to expand...
Someone finally got their hands on that video, eh?
 
disneydude said:
The NFL has become nothing more than corporative entertainment, its not about sport and ...you are correct...its just plain boring any more.
Click to expand...

My real problem I have with the NFL is that its not about what it once was about. When I was kid I really enjoyed the game it was balanced and the defense could PLAY as if they were actually on the field. Now you have pansies like Micheal Vick crying because he is hit. Oh every time I throw the ball I'm on the ground. The refs need to call this man. Vick could just grow a pair and realize he is on the field not on the bench. If he doesn't want to be hit maybe he just..you know..go sit on the bench and shut the **** up.
 
disneydude said:
Unlikely....I don't think the vast majority of people turning on MNF do so to listen to HW Jr......just sayin.
Click to expand...

True, but the majority of them are the sort of people who do listen to country music, and who believe in tradition. I'd also suggest your average MNF viewer is probably not as likely to vote for Obama as for a Republican.

Tucker Case said:
So you're going to boycott something you did almost every week because a washed up has been was fired from singing a song about it? Good for you. Take that stand.
Click to expand...

I will, and I know at least a handful of others who are going to take that stand as well.

Tucker Case said:
But I seriously doubt that it'll have any discernible effect. MNF's target demographic are people who care about football. Gamblers, fantasy football freaks, etc. In other words, me. ESPN could change the intro to a song called "Tucker Case is a ****ing moron who likes to rape dead babies" and I'd still watch it.
Click to expand...

Probably won't have any discernable effect. Though it will show me where people stand (or don't) on the simple concept of Right and Wrong. To me no sporting event, concert, etc... is more important than my beliefs, ideology, and philosophy. Simple as that.

Tucker Case said:
Because I am watching football, not intros.
Click to expand...

I see the intro as a part of the greater product, and its removal as a political statement which I will not support. Just like the Ben & Jerry's issue I mentioned earlier.
 
Henrin said:
My real problem I have with the NFL is that its not about what it once was about. When I was kid I really enjoyed the game it was balanced and the defense could PLAY as if they were actually on the field. Now you have pansies like Micheal Vick crying because he is hit. Oh every time I throw the ball I'm on the ground. The refs need to call this man. Vick could just grow a pair and realize he is on the field not on the bench. If he doesn't want to be hit maybe he just..you know..go sit on the bench and shut the **** up.
Click to expand...

The NFL did not have the level of athletes then that they do now. Let's be honest. That is why they had to change the kick off rule. Not to piss you off, but so that people do not get killed. That is why they had to change the defenseless QB (and receiver) rule. Not to piss you off, but so that people do not get killed. Yeah, Vick should have kept his mouth shut after the game, but is that really what is pissing you off about the NFL? I doubt it.

Let me guess, you hate Tiger Woods too because he curses too much and "does not respect the tradition of the game"?
 
ronpaulvoter said:
Hank Jr. was absolutely right. Obama does have a lot in common with Hitler. No, he doesn't have gas chambers, but he is a power-hungry monster who is dedicated to destroying capitalism and replacing it with fascism (socialism) and tons of anti-American mandates.

Thanks, Hank, for calling a spade a spade. ESPN owes you a huge apology.
Click to expand...

You need remedial education. Fascism and socialism are not one and the same. In fact, they're opposing political philosophies. One cannot simultaneously be a fascist and a socialist.

Fascism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read up. And maybe next time you won't make such an ignorant statement.

And, btw, Hitler did use the word "socialist" in the name of his party (National Socialist German Workers Party), but that didn't make him a socialist. It only means he used that word. East Germany was known as The German Democratic Republic, but that didn't make them a democracy.
 
Last edited:
whysoserious said:
The NFL did not have the level of athletes then that they do now. Let's be honest. That is why they had to change the kick off rule. Not to piss you off, but so that people do not get killed. That is why they had to change the defenseless QB (and receiver) rule. Not to piss you off, but so that people do not get killed.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? People threw each other around like rag dolls and no one died and those guys where huge. The guys today aren't much bigger. Talk about believing in bull****. If you don't like football maybe you should watch some other horse**** like dancing. If the guys don't want to play it they should do something else like dancing that you can watch them doing. Sounds like win to me!




Yeah, Vick should have kept his mouth shut after the game, but is that really what is pissing you off about the NFL? I doubt it.
Click to expand...

******s and the league to doing everything to get more touchdowns is pissing me off. I'm not hiding it at all. Vick embodies this. He is ****ing ***** that should be benched for nothing else but being a *****.


Let me guess, you hate Tiger Woods too because he curses too much and "does not respect the tradition of the game"?
Click to expand...

Golf is still golf. Who gives a **** if he curses? The problem I have with golf and tiger woods is comparing what he is doing to what Jack Nicklaus did. The equipment is not comparable so any direct comparisons just do not work but people don't stop doing it though. That does annoy me a bit. I really don't watch golf all that much though. Its a bit boring.
 
Last edited:
Tigger said:
I will, and I know at least a handful of others who are going to take that stand as well.
Click to expand...

Good for y'all.



Probably won't have any discernable effect. Though it will show me where people stand (or don't) on the simple concept of Right and Wrong. To me no sporting event, concert, etc... is more important than my beliefs, ideology, and philosophy. Simple as that.
Click to expand...

While you might imagine that you are taking a stand against his firing, you are actually engaging in the very same behaviors that caused his firing. If nobody ever engaged in such irrational, emotionally-charged behaviors, Hank would still have his job. But because people such as yourself go overboard over pure nonsense like this, he got fired.


I see the intro as a part of the greater product, and its removal as a political statement which I will not support. Just like the Ben & Jerry's issue I mentioned earlier.
Click to expand...

It's not a political statement, it's a business decision.

A business decision based on their assessment of what other people's political decisions might be. Having a controversial figure doing the intro is likely to lead to advertisers getting squirrelly about taking the advertising slots immediately before and after that intro because people might choose to avoid such products based on their irrational, emotionally charged political stances. That's how MNF would lose money over this issue, since it will still remain one of the most watched, if not the most watched, program in it's time slot. The only risk to them is that advertisers choose to avoid those advertising slots, which they might do in order to avoid losing profits as well.

The advertisers and ESPN are both aware that the product (NFL football) is far more important towards viewership than which washed up singer sings the theme song for that product. They aren't afraid of people not watching football (despite the few people who will think that doing exactly the same thing that got Hank fired will somehow prove something other than the fact that they don't really get why Hank was fired).

The biggest risk (in truth, the only real risk) were the advertising slots immediately before and after the intro.

The same thing was true with the Dixie chicks. It's a business decision designed to appeal to advertisers, who are afraid of being associated with morons who can't keep their traps shut despite their income being based on public perception of them. Just like how Gilbert Godfried got fired form being the voice for that annoying ****ing AFLAC bird over his tsunami jokes. Advertisers understand how public perception affects their profits. Celebrities apparently do not.
 
You'd think they'd be a little less sensitive to that kind of thing, considering the fact that ESPN is owned by the Disney Corp., and Walt Disney was the greatest American anti-semite for as long as I can remember.

Maybe they're too sensitive about anyone negative being compared favorably to Das Fuhrer.
 
Tucker Case said:
While you might imagine that you are taking a stand against his firing, you are actually engaging in the very same behaviors that caused his firing. If nobody ever engaged in such irrational, emotionally-charged behaviors, Hank would still have his job. But because people such as yourself go overboard over pure nonsense like this, he got fired.
Click to expand...

My actions are niether emotional nor irrational. They are simply my way of making a clear, concise statement about the actions of a particular company that don't involve any form of violent response.

Tucker Case said:
It's not a political statement, it's a business decision.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that the action cannot be both a political and a business statement at the same time?

Tucker Case said:
A business decision based on their assessment of what other people's political decisions might be. Having a controversial figure doing the intro is likely to lead to advertisers getting squirrelly about taking the advertising slots immediately before and after that intro because people might choose to avoid such products based on their irrational, emotionally charged political stances. That's how MNF would lose money over this issue, since it will still remain one of the most watched, if not the most watched, program in it's time slot. The only risk to them is that advertisers choose to avoid those advertising slots, which they might do in order to avoid losing profits as well.
Click to expand...

That's fine. They're more than free to sell their souls for advertising revenue.
 
Tigger said:
My actions are niether emotional nor irrational. They are simply my way of making a clear, concise statement about the actions of a particular company that don't involve any form of violent response.
Click to expand...

Are you under the impression that violent reactions are the only irrational and emotionally-charged reactions?



Are you suggesting that the action cannot be both a political and a business statement at the same time?
Click to expand...

No, I'm suggesting that smart business people make their business decisions based on the bottom line, not politics.


That's fine. They're more than free to sell their souls for advertising revenue.
Click to expand...

:lol: It's funny that you said this shortly after saying "My actions are neither emotional nor irrational."

:lol:
 
Tucker Case said:
Are you under the impression that violent reactions are the only irrational and emotionally-charged reactions?
Click to expand...

Not at all; though they tend to be the most useful ones.

Tucker Case said:
No, I'm suggesting that smart business people make their business decisions based on the bottom line, not politics.
Click to expand...

I would suggest that in many cases those two things are very difficult to separate. Take Smith & Wesson for example. Some years back they were sold to a British company called Thompkins PLC. That company entered into certain agreements with the US Dept. of Housing and Urban Development to NOT market/sell their products in certain areas. That made many loyal S&W customers very upset and those customers began boycotting S&W products. This eventually caused Thompkins to see S&W to a company in Arizona that immediately voided those agreements with HUD.

Tucker Case said:
It's funny that you said this shortly after saying "My actions are neither emotional nor irrational."
Click to expand...

I don't see anything humorous about it at all.
 
Tigger said:
Not at all; though they tend to be the most useful ones.
Click to expand...

Are you saying the violent ones are most useful or the irrational, emotionally charged ones are most useful?



I would suggest that in many cases those two things are very difficult to separate. Take Smith & Wesson for example. Some years back they were sold to a British company called Thompkins PLC. That company entered into certain agreements with the US Dept. of Housing and Urban Development to NOT market/sell their products in certain areas. That made many loyal S&W customers very upset and those customers began boycotting S&W products. This eventually caused Thompkins to see S&W to a company in Arizona that immediately voided those agreements with HUD.
Click to expand...

I said smart business people. ESPN has smart business people. Thompkins clearly did not.

I don't see anything humorous about it at all.
Click to expand...

That's no small part of what makes it funny.
 
Tucker Case said:
Are you saying the violent ones are most useful or the irrational, emotionally charged ones are most useful?
Click to expand...

The violent ones.


Tucker Case said:
I said smart business people. ESPN has smart business people. Thompkins clearly did not.
Click to expand...

Thompkins simply realized that their POLITICAL stance had affected their BOTTOM LINE, and that the only way to fix it was to sell the company. They tried to make a political statement and it blew up in their faces.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom