• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Jesse Ventura on the Mosque near ground zero

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
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:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.)
 

zack991

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
1,535
Location
Ohio, USA
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:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
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.


2010-10-10_150142.png
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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!
 

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
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:

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
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.
2010-10-10_150142.png
 
Top