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.
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.
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 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.)
as evidenced by his referring to someone who disagrees with him and is very intelligent as a "mindless puke,"
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.
Not that it matters one way or another, but only for the sake of being accurate, he called him a "spineless puke", not mindless.
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.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.
Ventura seems to be like McCain, they like the idea of serving the government more than citizens being free.
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.