Not only that... The guy is more known for his guitar playing.
He had two hit songs, which I found out in this thread he didn't sing, one about excitedly catching VD and the other celebrating threatening/attacking a woman. Good guy.
The same people bitching about a story of Nugent getting a defferment (Some of whcih sounds a bit inflated), are the same ones that either voted for Bill Clinton or love the guy... And he also is a draft dodger who liked to launch cruise missiles and bomb countries.
Since you didn't bother to read the thread, cut and paste:
He's not being criticized for 'dodging a bad war's draft', he's being criticized for doing so while being pro-war for OTHERS - hence the 'hawk' in 'chickenhawk'.
And in addition to the chickenhawk issue, he's being mocked for the extreme he said he went to (he may or may not be lying).
Bill Clinton wasn't an advocate for the Vietnam war being a hypocrite.
It's pretty idiotic that 'your team' will attack Clinton for attempting to use cruise missiles against Al Queda as 'too much', but defend your guy starting the longest US war.
Does go to show that you are irrational; and you think the left opposes all use of force.
I just watched again a documentary of street gangs; it's amazing to watch the way these people are almost inhuman in their dedication to a simple tribal war. There seem pretty normal much of the time, until you get to the gang agenda of war with another gang. During the documentary, people who said they were done with the gang turned around and happily volunteered to take missions to kill, and were sentenced to decades in prison, and couldn't be happier they had done it, just laughing and joking.
They kept talking about the 'war' and killing the other gang as all they cared about.
'Conservatives' often remind me of that - when Clinton did launch missiles against Al Queda, Republicans opposed him, too. Not because he missed, but for the attacks.
Nevermind that they'd then turn around soon after and rabidly support a full war under 'their guy' (and then turn around and largely oppose any policy by Obama).
To these people, what matters in a war is that it makes a President more powerful, not the morality of the war - so oppose war for 'the other team', support it for their team.
When Nugent implies he wants to kill or ask others to kill the President, they are apologists for him because he's on 'their team'. Pretty disgusting.
And it's an irrational abuse of our political system, just as the street gangs are a crazy, insane social structure about little more than being a tribe at 'war'.
The mentality seems awfully similar between these 'conservatives' and these street gang members. The Republicans are happy to cause great harm if it's a defeat for the 'other team', and the street gang members are happy to kill people who are their counterparts simply to hurt the 'enemy'.
No wonder the 'conservatives' are so rabid about the symbolic things like the American flag - they're desparate for something since they are morally bankrupt. Their ritualistic use of the flag - including the now mandatory lapel pin - is a lot like the ritualistic gang 'symbols' such as the hand signals they so proudly flash.
Helping the poor, for these 'conservatives', is a dirty, even damaging thing to do, but they can all agree the flag is worth getting weepy over.
How many patriots in the crowd while Nugent called for violence against the President yelled out to oppose his message, instead of nodding their head in agreement?
This is why they have so many lies about 'the left' - to make sense of their mindless hate, just as the street gang members just hate the other gang.
There are a few more honest, but they are surrounded by the rest. No wonder Republicans said their top priorities are 'beat Obama, beat Obama, and beat Obama'.
No real idea about why - the man has largely implemented their policies - just the desire to 'beat the other tribe'.
And so we hear the same laughable language about 'this is the most crucial election in US history and the nation is at risk over it'.
The main difference is that the political party can't be called what it is, like a street gang can. It pretends to respectability - while its leaders are much more dangerous than gangs.
Gangs can't begin to attack the nation the way the political leaders can, draining the nation's wealth, misuing the most powerful military in the world, covert violence.
The gangs blindly serve a few leaders who are made 'powerful' with their army, and the 'conservatives' blindly serve the needs of the 0.01% most wealthy. Both of them sell out their country, neighbors, families who are harmed by their activities, to serve the 'tribe' they joined.
Are street gangs trading in weapons and governments forming alliances and making arms deals really that different, except the scale? Often not. Both pursue power for 'their side' leaving many victims - again only on different scales. The main difference is the more harmful group, 'conservatives', have more PR to justify their policies. And street gangs might be embarrassed by having a Ted Nugent on TV representing them.