• Welcome!
    |
    ||
    Logout|My Dashboard

Nugent performance brings in funds for new house - The Galveston County Daily News : Local News

July 29, 2014

Nugent performance brings in funds for new house

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
  • 2 Don't Threaten or Abuse. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. AND PLEASE TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
  • 3 Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
  • 4 Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 5 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 6 Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Welcome to the discussion.

21 comments:

    You must be a subscribed user to comment on this story.

  • kevjlang posted at 9:00 am on Fri, Apr 11, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2662

    If we believe what we've been told, Ted Nugent is not collecting any fees for his performance. None of the League City money is going to Ted Nugent, and, supposedly, isn't even contingent on him being there. It is a donation to help the promotion and advertising of the event. So, technically, it's not blood money, or quid pro quo, or any of that.

    Now, whether there are some implied deals cut to get some kind of favors in return, we'll probably have to keep our eyes peeled down the road.

     
  • sverige1 posted at 4:25 pm on Thu, Apr 10, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3093

    Well, again I have to concur this time with gecroix. Money is money. Although someone of the ilk of Nugent is of questionable humanity, he's not on the scale of hardened criminal and he's not void of the ability to find some sort of redemption.

    Maybe this concert/fundraiser is just what he needs. The money wouldn't hurt LC either. If we gripe about it, then we should match it...come up with an alternative solution. If we went around and thwarted attempts and prevented each organization of "questionable" origin to raise $, then no one would be "good enough" to fundraise or much of anything else. Imperfections, corruption, falling short abounds in human nature. Now, if he were Dahmer, I'd say "no". If he were Hannibel Lector, Charles Manson - "no".

     
  • gecroix posted at 3:26 pm on Thu, Apr 10, 2014.

    gecroix Posts: 2600

    Which January?
    There's been one every year...
    If you mean this most recent January, then I did in fact miss that distinction in the various posts.
    Thank you for the clarification.
    Here's a thought.
    The aggrieved, if they truly believe in their opposition to Nugent, should offer to REPLACE the money collected with their own donations, and urge LC to tell Nugent to take the 'blood money' back, thereby walking their talk. This would seem appropriate as I've yet to read anyone against the cause for which it was collected.
    I fully agree that there are distinctions between good and bad money.
    But, tossing 'slavery' into a discussion of a performer who uses foul language, racial epithets, and disrespect for someone he has no respect for seems just a tad overdone, imho. If that's the yardstick, LC better forgo any thoughts of ever 'Rapping for Houses'...
    [wink]
    Personally, I don't have much use for any of these or other 'fundraisers' that offer a quid pro quo. When I donate to worthy causes, I do so directly, and thus the cause get's the full dollar value.
    I figure a cause truly worthy doesn't need to incentivize support.
    Now, I just wonder is Nugent will show up at the ex-professors protest.
    They could compare pony-tails...[beam]

     
  • Cpointe_Mod posted at 2:20 pm on Thu, Apr 10, 2014.

    Cpointe_Mod Posts: 164

    GECROIX, most of us are not talking about Ted Nugent's "past". We're talking about January.

     
  • Cpointe_Mod posted at 2:15 pm on Thu, Apr 10, 2014.

    Cpointe_Mod Posts: 164

    Money is NOT money, however it is raised. Our society draws a distinction between money and blood money. If someone were to own slaves and generate money by their labor, would we smile at them and clap politely if they later donated some of it to a worthy cause? Does that warrant absolution?

     
  • gecroix posted at 9:01 am on Thu, Apr 10, 2014.

    gecroix Posts: 2600

    The ex-professor could protest right in these forums against the race baiting trolls. No narcissistic satisfaction, though, in not getting your picture in the paper...
    I would expect similar protests, if the objection is really supposed to be one of character, hate speach, and race baiting, the next time QX or Sharpton or Jackson is in the area.
    I suspect that I can expect in one hand, and you-know-what in the other, and hand #2 will fill up a lot faster...

     
  • sverige1 posted at 7:30 am on Thu, Apr 10, 2014.

    sverige1 Posts: 3093

    I tend to agree with Cpointe, as in another thread I also mentioned Longview. Longview is a conservative community, and no doubt there's plenty of citizens there who share an underlying ideological similarity. However, with his past reputation as representing general bad taste in speech, they made a good decision to say, "No, thank you". That sounds pretty reasonable to me.

    However, I am a believer in that money generated for a good cause need not be questioned in regard to its source. After all, Miss Melanie in GWTW accepted donations from Belle, the local madame in that community. Money is money, however it's raised. Let him perform.

     
  • kevjlang posted at 1:51 pm on Wed, Apr 9, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2662

    I'm sorry. That one went right over my head. Was I supposed to get it?

     
  • gecroix posted at 12:58 pm on Wed, Apr 9, 2014.

    gecroix Posts: 2600

    I get it.
    It's all Bush's fault...[wink]

     
  • kevjlang posted at 11:43 am on Wed, Apr 9, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2662

    I don't think I particularly resemble your remarks, but....

    I remember Jimmy Carter got criticized when he admitted to once having smoked marijuana. Clinton got criticized for his draft maneuverings years before his candidacy. Nixon's "Checker's" speech was a campaign issue in '68. GWB took heat over his prior bout with alcohol abuse.

    Our past actions and speeches are things we cannot completely escape. I don't think that Eich should have have been run out his job because of a political stance he took, however I have no problem with him being asked about it. Saying and doing things that many people wouldn't take pride in is not something that should be a kiss of death. However, you don't get immunity from being asked to reconcile those things just because you're doing something good now.

     
  • IHOG posted at 11:40 am on Wed, Apr 9, 2014.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    If liberals are so upset over Nugent doing something nice for a wounded warrior and LC why don't liberals get together and donate more (not tax money) to wounded warriors.
    LC should not have pledged tax money to the Nugent project.

    Nugent didn't taint the deal, LC CC did.

     
  • Judy0313 posted at 11:37 am on Wed, Apr 9, 2014.

    Judy0313 Posts: 26

    Why is there no mention of the FREE tickets that cost the city $275 each for the council people and a guest and other big wigs in LC city gov't? How can this be legal? My guess is these folks donated NOTHING to the cause but got free tickets. Some of these LC council people are the same ones that voted down $1700 to provide a bus to take our disabled veterans for medial treatment. Do the math $275 x 16(council and guest) plus 10 x $275 for dept. head and others = 26x$275= $7,150.00. Add this to the $24K the city spent of taxpayers $$$$. $31,150. This is about the same amount former mayor Toni Ranall spent of taxpayers $$$ on a X-mas party. When will it end? Remember, all the disabled vets wanted for their bus was $1700.

     
  • IHOG posted at 11:26 am on Wed, Apr 9, 2014.

    IHOG Posts: 2486

    Facts confuse liberals, truth angers liberals.
    The truth of Nugents facts angers and confuses liberals.
    Ignore the confused and angry liberals, they have nothing of value to offer.

     
  • gecroix posted at 11:04 am on Wed, Apr 9, 2014.

    gecroix Posts: 2600

    I expect as much from the types who thought it was perfectly OK for a business executive to be forced to quit recently because of a political donation he made privately 6 years ago, that ran contrary to the liberal agenda, no small part of which is to champion free speach, except when it's personally inconvenient. Especially when it was the EXACT SAME opinion and position held by their beloved POTUS, at the time, before his 'Christian beliefs evolved'...right before the 2012 election, coincidentally...
    If Ted Nugents past is allowed to overshadow his present act to help the soldiers causes a 'bad example' for children, then to me, the parents of those children need to do a bit of self-assessment as to parenting skills, and maybe redefine their notions of 'tolerance', so they can stop preaching what they don't practice.

     
  • TrebleClef posted at 10:15 am on Wed, Apr 9, 2014.

    TrebleClef Posts: 293

    They probably could have built a neighborhood if they had brought in P-Diddy!

     
  • kevjlang posted at 10:08 am on Wed, Apr 9, 2014.

    kevjlang Posts: 2662

    I find it interesting that people that criticize the disrespectful speech of our youth and the rappers that entertain them are quick to defend the disrespectful speech of a middle-aged rock star.

    Ted Nugent deserves to be criticized for his rude and obnoxious public speech. Sure, he has the right to say whatever he wants. However, he doesn't have the right to do so without the backlash of public opinion.

    Let him perform. However, he has no more right than any of the rest of us to say ridiculous things have expect everyone to just blow it off as "It's just Ted."

     
  • carlosrponce posted at 8:37 am on Wed, Apr 9, 2014.

    carlosrponce Posts: 1703

    "[W]hen asked to serve his country, he turned & ran." Really? He was classified 1-S in 1967 (High School Student Deferment), 2-S in 1968 ( College Student Deferment), 1-A in 1969, 1-Y later in 1969 (qualified for service only in time of war or national emergency), then 1-F when 1-Y was eliminated in 1971. If you have ever listened to Ted Nugent's interviews anyone with common sense would realize that he is spinning a tale which his interview with "High Times" magazine in 1977 clearly is. I am no fan of Ted Nugent nor his music but you can hardly say "he turned & ran". The Draft board members know all the tricks and gave him a I-Y classification for a legitimate reason.
    1-Y : Registrant available for military service, but qualified only in case of war or national emergency. Usually given to registrants with medical conditions that were limiting but not disabling (examples: high blood pressure, mild muscular or skeletal injuries or disorders, skin disorders, severe allergies, etc.). Class was discontinued in December 1971 and its members were reclassified as 4-F.

     
  • LisaAGray posted at 7:59 am on Wed, Apr 9, 2014.

    LisaAGray Posts: 12

    I guess all liberals protesting Ted Nugent have no past indiscretions? I am very happy and excited that a US Marine will be given a new home because Mr. Nugent has turned the course of his life and decided to help those who defend this country.
    It is unfortunate that ideologues cannot see that. Glass houses anyone??

     
  • Alvinbr62 posted at 7:35 am on Wed, Apr 9, 2014.

    Alvinbr62 Posts: 179

    Sounds like a socialist rant to me. Freedom of speech baby !

     
  • TXDoula posted at 7:33 am on Wed, Apr 9, 2014.

    TXDoula Posts: 38

    Kudos to Longview for figuring out how to rid themselves of Nugent. This performance is nothing more than a blatant attempt to rehabilitate his own image, using the coat tails of a real American hero. Shame on Nugent, when asked to serve his country, he turned & ran.

     
  • Cpointe_Mod posted at 7:20 am on Wed, Apr 9, 2014.

    Cpointe_Mod Posts: 164

    This is a well-written piece - I'm especially glad that the City of Longview's decision was described here. I wish that the City of League City had the courage to take a similar stand. When a guy like Nugent makes racist comments such as "sub-human mongrel" and then a city like LC declines to impose any consequences in response, it reinforces and validates his belief that he's justified in saying things like that. Longview let him know that he crossed the line, whereas League City has done its part to further embolden him, to the tune of twenty thousand bucks and a blind eye turned.

    And the citizens of League City share in the responsibility for this situation. I believe that Cobarruvias was the first local blogger to alert to the fact that a protest is planned for the League City concert, which is fast approaching. Neither of us know much about the group which is planning the protest, but from an examination of internet content, the group does not appear to represent a mainstream social position. For crying out loud, at what point in our history did protesting racism and sexism become a "non-mainstream" pursuit?! In my day, "mainstream" college and high school kids would have rallied around a thing like this, social justice being the purview of youth. But maybe these days they're too distracted by Angry Birds and watching Netflix at artificially-depressed streaming speeds to notice what's going on around them.

    Just to add insult to injury, it's a terrible lesson we're collectively teaching those same apathetic young people with this event - follow the money irrespective of any other factor. No doubt part of the reason why there's so little local protest is that people are figuring, "Oh, well, a veteran is getting a house out of this, so it's a wash." Sure, but that same goal could be achieved *without* prostituting ourselves to the kind of ideology that Nugent actively promotes. The City of Longview figured out that its citizens could achieve their social goals without his ideology, even if they had to pay to get rid of him. Pity we can't do the same.