Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: Jesse Ventura on the Mosque near ground zero

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Jesse Ventura on the Mosque near ground zero


  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Why does anyone put any more stock in what this guy has to say over any other "mindless puke" who has had his head rammed to the canvas one too many times?

    Here is an example of his "mindless puke"iness: He says that the Constitution and Bill of Rights don't exist to protect the popular points of view. They exist to protect the unpopular ones. BULLHOCKEY! They protect ALL points of view, including those who plead that the mosque should not be built at Ground Zero.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048
    Is that what you're getting worked up over? The fact that he said the Constitution exists to protect unpopular speech? Tell me where in the Constitution that it states that the Mosque can NOT be built, and why? He couldn't have said it any better. The Constitution is not a popularity contest.
    Last edited by Aaron1124; 10-28-2010 at 01:19 PM.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron1124 View Post
    Is that what you're getting worked up over? The fact that he said the Constitution exists to protect unpopular speech? Tell me where in the Constitution that it states that the Mosque can NOT be built, and why? He couldn't have said it any better. The Constitution is not a popularity contest.
    No. That anyone puts any credence in what he has to says over what anyone else has to say is what I am decrying. He's a freakin' wrestler who got lucky and got elected in Minnesota, voted in by the same folks who gave us Al Franken!

    On edit: Tell me where in the Constitution it says I can't advocate against the building of the mosque at Ground Zero. Yeah, I know. That argument is silly. Just as silly as the one to which I am replying. No one is trying to deny anyone's rights. That is a strawman. The same one that has been posted about 500 times on this site alone.

    Not to get distracted, my point, and all I will respond to further, was that Ventura's POV was nothing worth highlighting over what my 6th grade math teacher might have said on the subject. I don't wish to respond to that silly strawman argument again.
    Last edited by eye95; 10-28-2010 at 01:53 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048
    Ah, gotcha. So because he was a professional wrestlers, his credentials aren't worthy, despite what he did for all of the people of Minnesota.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron1124 View Post
    Ah, gotcha. So because he was a professional wrestlers, his credentials aren't worthy, despite what he did for all of the people of Minnesota.
    No. That is not what I said. His credentials are no more worthy than any other average Joe. I used the example of my 6th grade math teacher to illustrate that point.

    Personally, I find the man to be a clown.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048
    I take it you've viewed his interviews in which he discusses his opinion on all of the fiscal and social issues? Do you really not agree with him on anything? The man supports the U.S. Constitution, he supports a free country, he does not support the war, he does, however, support a "war tax", he supports the decriminalization of drugs. Surely, there has to be some issues of his that you agree with. If so, I have no idea what you insist on calling him a clown, simply because you disagree with what he said regarding the constitution and unpopular speech.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron1124 View Post
    I take it you've viewed his interviews in which he discusses his opinion on all of the fiscal and social issues? Do you really not agree with him on anything? The man supports the U.S. Constitution, he supports a free country, he does not support the war, he does, however, support a "war tax", he supports the decriminalization of drugs. Surely, there has to be some issues of his that you agree with. If so, I have no idea what you insist on calling him a clown, simply because you disagree with what he said regarding the constitution and unpopular speech.
    Why do you keep implying I said something that I did not. I am sure I agree with the man on many things. I agree with the wino in the gutter on some things.

    I just have zero respect for the man as a pundit (or a politician). He is a professional clown who got elected in the State that gave us that other professional clown, Franken! That credential means nothing to me.

    Sure, he has opinions. Some are probably great. He just shouldn't be held up as someone with any special credibility at all. I place more credibility in most of the posters here than I would in him.

    I place more credibility in you than in him.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048
    Why do you feel he's a "clown", so to speak? What did he do, in your opinion, to make him a "clown"? That's all I'm asking.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron1124 View Post
    Why do you feel he's a "clown", so to speak? What did he do, in your opinion, to make him a "clown"? That's all I'm asking.
    That was what his profession essentially was for many years. He does not act much differently now--even when he purports to be taking on a serious subject (as evidenced by his referring to someone who disagrees with him and is very intelligent as a "mindless puke," behavior that was, no doubt, ingrained during his days as a professional ludicrous entertainer--you know--a clown.)

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    That was what his profession essentially was for many years. He does not act much differently now--even when he purports to be taking on a serious subject (as evidenced by his referring to someone who disagrees with him and is very intelligent as a "mindless puke," behavior that was, no doubt, ingrained during his days as a professional ludicrous entertainer--you know--a clown.)
    He is nutty on a few things but overall I would rather have this man be in congress than the cheating, stealing, and treasonous idiots that are in congress now. We are getting to the point where we need to go back to the extreme thinking statesmen back in power to get this country back to its roots.
    Last edited by zack991; 10-28-2010 at 03:40 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Las Vegas, ,
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    as evidenced by his referring to someone who disagrees with him and is very intelligent as a "mindless puke,"
    Not that it matters one way or another, but only for the sake of being accurate, he called him a "spineless puke", not mindless.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by zack991 View Post
    He is nutty on a few things but overall I would rather have this man be in congress than the cheating, stealing, and treasonous idiots that are in congress now. We are getting to the point where we need to go back to the extreme thinking statesmen back in power to get this country back to its roots.
    It is not an either/or. We have plenty of options besides the majority of folks in Congress. (A large minority are more than satisfactory.) As a matter of fact, I'd rather have either one of the major party candidates running for Congress in my district than Ventura.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by SoLasVegas View Post
    Not that it matters one way or another, but only for the sake of being accurate, he called him a "spineless puke", not mindless.
    That may well be. My hearing is famously bad. The subject of "WWE" insult, though, is neither mindless nor spineless. The "puke" part is gratuitous in a clownish way.

    Thanks for keeping me straight. Facts are our friends.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Here is an example of his "mindless puke"iness: He says that the Constitution and Bill of Rights don't exist to protect the popular points of view. They exist to protect the unpopular ones. BULLHOCKEY! They protect ALL points of view, including those who plead that the mosque should not be built at Ground Zero.
    His inability to comprehend what this 'brain damaged wrestler' is saying is rather comical. Clearly what the man is saying is that the unpopular opinion requires protection from the popular one, as the popular opinion generally has the force of majority behind it. Hence the need for the constitution and bill of rights. If the founders were only concerned with the majority, then there'd be no need for a constitution, as the majority holds the power required to force it's will.


    Name:  2010-10-10_150142.png
Views: 135
Size:  2.0 KB

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    here is a way to prove that the 1st is to protect unpopular speech instead of popular. read the associated documents written by the founders about the constitution. If they talk about the 1st being for protection of unpopular speech then I guess that is what it is for. Until then I'll go with no interpretation and go with the 1st as written thus protecting all speech.

    Evidence Ventura is a buffoon. Notice if he disagrees with someone he insults them and if it is a man he disagrees with he calls them spineless because they didn't serve in the military, or didn't serve in the right position in the military or maybe the right branch. I'd have at least some respect for him if he could keep from being insulting to get his point across. Logic is the way to frame an argument not insults against the one you are disagreeing.

    Ventura seems to be like McCain, they like the idea of serving the government more than citizens being free.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ohio, ,
    Posts
    155
    Even if Jesse's point is valid, eye95 had it right, Jesse is a puke LOL!

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Sorry. I missed the "Least Popular Speech" clause in the First Amendment.

    Oh, wait. There isn't one.

    The 1A protects all speech. If you think that popular opinion holds sway and, therefore, needs no protection, you should reexamine recent events in politics!

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post

    Ventura seems to be like McCain, they like the idea of serving the government more than citizens being free.
    That is absolute bull. Ventura, of all people, stands for the freedom of the people. That is blatantly clear. For those criticizing this, do you feel that if a Catholic Priest molested a child off of 245th st and 15th ave, that people should rebel against building a Catholic Church off of 240th st and 15th ave? It's the exact same logic. You're attacking minute points rather than addressing the entire purpose of this thread, and of the video, and besides, it's very evident the constitution protects all speech - what he is saying is that popular speech does not NEED to be protected like unpopular speech.
    Last edited by Aaron1124; 10-28-2010 at 09:21 PM.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    here is a way to prove that the 1st is to protect unpopular speech instead of popular. read the associated documents written by the founders about the constitution. If they talk about the 1st being for protection of unpopular speech then I guess that is what it is for. Until then I'll go with no interpretation and go with the 1st as written thus protecting all speech.

    Evidence Ventura is a buffoon. Notice if he disagrees with someone he insults them and if it is a man he disagrees with he calls them spineless because they didn't serve in the military, or didn't serve in the right position in the military or maybe the right branch. I'd have at least some respect for him if he could keep from being insulting to get his point across. Logic is the way to frame an argument not insults against the one you are disagreeing.

    Ventura seems to be like McCain, they like the idea of serving the government more than citizens being free.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    well I addressed his argument and I made an argument as to why he should not be put on a pedestal as someone to listen to as an authority. I think I made a decent case for describing him as http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=buffoon

    Would you make the same face if I describe a politician as a Marxist? I think there is a difference in describing someone with noun and calling someone a puke or an Ahole.
    Last edited by Daylen; 10-28-2010 at 09:39 PM.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048
    Ventura insults them because they've got their head buried in the sand, and won't even acknowledge his point when he's trying to make one. Same incident when he walked off the Opie and Anthony show. The morons wouldn't even give him a chance to say his piece. They continuously interrupted him, and completely disregarded his point, changed topics, yet, criticized him when he'd respond.

  23. #23
    Regular Member oak1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron1124 View Post
    Ah, gotcha. So because he was a professional wrestlers, his credentials aren't worthy, despite what he did for all of the people of Minnesota.
    What exactly did he do? Refresh my memory. I don't remember anything special. Odd that Minnesota elected a former wrestler for Governor and a failed comedian Al Franken (aka Stuart Smallie), for Senator. Neither of which seem like good ideas to anyone else.

    Oh, and he hosts a show called "Conspiracy Theory" and advocates all manner of moonbat crazy nonsense. He's a 9/11 truther, believes we blew up the Twin
    Towers and framed the Jihadists.

    In a word, insane.
    Last edited by oak1971; 10-29-2010 at 12:35 AM.
    In God I trust. Everyone else needs to keep your hands where I can see them.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048
    Quote Originally Posted by oak1971 View Post
    What exactly did he do? Refresh my memory. I don't remember anything special. Odd that Minnesota elected a former wrestler for Governor and a failed comedian Al Franken (aka Stuart Smallie), for Senator. Neither of which seem like good ideas to anyone else.

    Oh, and he hosts a show called "Conspiracy Theory" and advocates all manner of moonbat crazy nonsense. He's a 9/11 truther, believes we blew up the Twin
    Towers and framed the Jihadists.

    In a word, insane.
    "Moonbat crazy nonsense" huh? Kind of like the Gulf of Tonkin Incident? How about all of the other array of so called "Conspiracy Theories" that turned out to actually have happened overtime? Come on man, I'm assuming you're a smart person. Just think about it. Also, you're putting words on Jesse's mouth. He has never claimed (to my knowledge) that our government blew up the towers. He simply said he QUESTIONS the act of what "allegedly" happened, and believes that one must question the "story" of 9/11.

    He never said "Our Government blew up the towers." He stated his opinion as a theory, and a possible outcome, but that's because of all of the lies the government has already told in the past. You can't deny that the Government has not lied to the public over major events. Look what they did to go to war with Vietnam.

    He was not simply elected because he was a professional wrestler. He also served as a mayor. That's like all of those people who say the only reason Brock Lesnar fights in the UFC was because of his professional wrestling image, yet, discredit all of his legitimate combat sport credentials.
    Last edited by Aaron1124; 10-29-2010 at 02:35 AM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Talking

    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post

    Evidence Ventura is a buffoon. Notice if he disagrees with someone he insults them .

    Kind of like you just did?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •