Jesse Ventura, bringing the goods yet again

[Cry Havoc]

http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/14/oreilly-visits-the-view-and-two-hosts-walk-off/?iref=NS1

This man is awesome. He's a little crazy, but I'd still love to see him in a higher office. He's intelligent, well-spoken, and has the nuts to say what people don't want to hear if he thinks it's what needs to be said.

Basically: Ventura > 95-98% of people in office right now.

"The Constitution and Bill of Rights exists to protect unpopular ideas."

That needs to be stapled onto the foreheads of Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, and Olbermann.

[Blake]

lol Ventura being a 9/11 conspiracy nut

[Cry Havoc]

lol Ventura being a 9/11 conspiracy nut

He'll probably also be the first one to step up and tell you that he's a little crazy himself.

Still more sane than most of the people we put in office, IMO.

[jack sommerset]

He'll probably also be the first one to step up and tell you that he's a little crazy himself.

Still more sane than most of the people we put in office, IMO.

I have to disagree with you there. Most people in office are sane, they are just greedy. Ventura is straight up crazy.

[JoeChalupa]

He is a character for sure. Get him on the View.

[Parker2112]

lIzfXOfpFcA

[Parker2112]

"The Constitution and Bill of Rights exists to protect unpopular ideas."

That needs to be stapled onto the foreheads of Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, and Olbermann.

Anyone with half an understanding of constitutional principles knows this. I would say most on the far right dont.

[CosmicCowboy]

Anyone with half an understanding of constitutional principles knows this. I would say most on the far right dont.

Oh I think they clearly understand what is and isn't constitutional. Conservatives just aren't such politically correct pussies that they are afraid to discuss whether it's appropriate or not. There are a lot of totally reprehensible things that are inappropriate but totally legal and constitutional.

[Parker2112]

Oh I think they clearly understand what is and isn't constitutional. Conservatives just aren't such politically correct pussies that they are afraid to discuss whether it's appropriate or not. There are a lot of totally reprehensible things that are inappropriate but totally legal and constitutional.

But if they had their way, they would stamp out the protections for those "innapropriate acts/activities," using legal means, and opening the constitutional protections up for erosion/destruction. Which has already been done.

Many conservatives dont understand that by championing the "inappropriate" they would actually be championing the Constitution. But when the "inappropriate" doesnt match their view of how America "should be," how can they? Especially when they can't see that America is not a nostalgic exercise, or a Christian nation, but a Nation of Free People.

If the conservative "vision" for America was closely aligned to Freedom for All, they would find the "inappropriate" actions of others much more tolerable.

"Inappropriate" has no place at the table of political debate. It is either protected by the Constitution, or not.

[Parker2112]

To be fair, many liberals want to erode liberties for their own purposes.

[Parker2112]

Libertarian Party. Thats where its at.

[Winehole23]

sHf089jl9H4LP-USA? Gag me with a spoon!

[4>0rings]

m7E0HyyNpAs

[Cry Havoc]

Oh I think they clearly understand what is and isn't constitutional. Conservatives just aren't such politically correct pussies that they are afraid to discuss whether it's appropriate or not. There are a lot of totally reprehensible things that are inappropriate but totally legal and constitutional.

What's your point? In some countries it's considered inappropriate to speak out against the leaders of the country. Would you like us to go to that, since it's inappropriate to talk negatively of someone?

It's free speech. Not "Free as long as you agree with my definition of correct" speech.

[CosmicCowboy]

What's your point? In some countries it's considered inappropriate to speak out against the leaders of the country. Would you like us to go to that, since it's inappropriate to talk negatively of someone?

It's free speech. Not "Free as long as you agree with my definition of correct" speech.

You really are dense. I'm perfectly fine with the constitution as it is, and I'm free to say that I think something that might be constitutional is inappropriate. Get it finally?

[Cry Havoc]

You really are dense. I'm perfectly fine with the constitution as it is, and I'm free to say that I think something that might be constitutional is inappropriate. Get it finally?

And what you consider appropriate is not what the next person considers appropriate. Forcing your relative view of morality as the only one that's acceptable has no place in free speech law. You say that "conservatives" like O'Reilly just have the balls to say what is and is not appropriate, when in reality it's just that they are intolerant bigots who aren't afraid to blast their idiocy/bigotry on the air, because it makes them money when other bigots agree with them. Don't kid yourself -- O'Reilly says what he says for one reason: It makes listeners tune in, which makes him $$$.

Again, what you consider inappropriate is pointless. It has no relevance, and in this case just shows that you are an intolerant person, if you're siding with Mr. O'Reilly here. He's not arguing for the appropriateness of the mosque, because if he had his way, the mosque would never happen; which would be a direct violation of the Constitution. So you can't say that you're a proponent of what he's talking about and then say you're fine with the Constitution, because it's obvious that the two are not in parallel here.

[z0sa]

... not the whole BlackJack21 thing again...

A majority of people think its inappropriate, does that make it unconstitutional? Of course not. Does that make the majority of people bigots? Of course not.

The obvious question is, why else do they not want it? Because it not only causes distress to the families, it reminds people that Muslims (extremist, of course granted) caused the deaths of many and a painful day for all Americans. Even though it was only a small faction, the fact remains they were Muslims who worshiped in similar mosques.

It's hard for humans to get over their own natural reactionary inhibitions (as in, associating the mosque with 9/11, not any sort of bigotry), especially if they see little reason for the action.

As for Jesse Ventura.. dude is a bit of an extremist himself..

[boutons_deux]

Ventura?

Boutons "brings the goods" every day, right here, is awesome. He's intelligent, well-spoken, and has the nuts to say what people don't want to hear if he thinks it's what needs to be said.

R E S P E K !

:)

[The Reckoning]

this stuff will turn you into a god damned sexual tyranasuarus...like me.

[Sportcamper]

Nice video Winehole…No piercing’s, tattoos, bling or F-bombs…I forgot how much I like big hair….

[Cry Havoc]

... not the whole BlackJack21 thing again...

A majority of people think its inappropriate, does that make it unconstitutional? Of course not. Does that make the majority of people bigots? Of course not.

Opposing freedom of religion due to race, creed, or any prejudiced viewpoint in a country built on that very principle is my definition of bigotry.


The obvious question is, why else do they not want it? Because it not only causes distress to the families,

That is regrettable, but if they cannot separate the peaceable, kind Muslims with the extremists, they have no place being religious in the first place. Do suicide bombers who target abortion clinics in the name of Christianity suddenly mean that every Christian can be put in that category? Should we restrict churches to be at least 10 blocks away from all medical clinics where abortions are performed?


it reminds people that Muslims (extremist, of course granted) caused the deaths of many and a painful day for all Americans. Even though it was only a small faction, the fact remains they were Muslims who worshiped in similar mosques.

And Christians still worship in churches similar to those that were around when the crusades happened. How about the extermination of the Native Americans? What about the Holocaust? Should we not allow individuals of German descent, such as myself, to be a part of this country due to the fact that other Germans killed 6,000,000 people in concentration camps, and many more on the battlefield? Keep in mind, this isn't ancient history -- it happened less than three-quarters of a century ago. And it wasn't just extremists that did it, either. Millions of soldiers from all over Germany and Italy rushed to sign up and then went out onto the field and committed genocide en masse.


It's hard for humans to get over their own natural reactionary inhibitions (as in, associating the mosque with 9/11, not any sort of bigotry), especially if they see little reason for the action.

Tough. They need to get over it. It's also human nature to procreate as much as possible, to wreak violence when angry, and to shun people who are different from you. None of the above is excusable or defensible as "well, it's human nature".

[CosmicCowboy]

And what you consider appropriate is not what the next person considers appropriate. Forcing your relative view of morality as the only one that's acceptable has no place in free speech law. You say that "conservatives" like O'Reilly just have the balls to say what is and is not appropriate, when in reality it's just that they are intolerant bigots who aren't afraid to blast their idiocy/bigotry on the air, because it makes them money when other bigots agree with them. Don't kid yourself -- O'Reilly says what he says for one reason: It makes listeners tune in, which makes him $$$.

Again, what you consider inappropriate is pointless. It has no relevance, and in this case just shows that you are an intolerant person, if you're siding with Mr. O'Reilly here. He's not arguing for the appropriateness of the mosque, because if he had his way, the mosque would never happen; which would be a direct violation of the Constitution. So you can't say that you're a proponent of what he's talking about and then say you're fine with the Constitution, because it's obvious that the two are not in parallel here.

YOU

ARE

A

FUCKING

IDIOT.

Can't you FUCKING READ?

I'm not forcing my beliefs on anyone else.

I believe in the constitution as is. I am not advocating changing it.

What the fuck is wrong with YOU calling me an intolerant bigot?

[z0sa]

Havoc, I am not interested in arguing the points. If you want to call 70% (by O'Reilly's count) of America bigots, no one can stop you. They wouldn't call themselves bigots by and large, and I don't either. It's a sensitive issue, whether stalwarts such as yourself accept it to be or not. Thousands died, hundreds of millions were and are affected, and two long and extremely costly wars have been started in its name. That can't all be discounted completely just because your definition of bigotry is so concise, with no gray area for natural human mentality and emotion.

Your response would probably be "But the Constitution IS black and white!" which you'd be right. However, you'd also be misinterpreting my response. Because of the extreme emotion anguish of the attacks, especially on the families and survivors, this stirs up a lot of negative feelings. I 100% approve of the mosque's location, and consider it a great sign of American tolerance and values. That doesn't change how the vast majority of (non-bigoted, mind you) Americans naturally react to anything involving "Muslims" and "9/11 ground zero".

Calling them all bigots denotes a lack of understanding of human nature.

[Cry Havoc]

YOU

ARE

A

FUCKING

IDIOT.

Can't you FUCKING READ?

I'm not forcing my beliefs on anyone else.

I believe in the constitution as is. I am not advocating changing it.

What the fuck is wrong with YOU calling me an intolerant bigot?

"Conservatives just aren't such politically correct pussies that they are afraid to discuss whether it's appropriate or not. There are a lot of totally reprehensible things that are inappropriate but totally legal and constitutional."

This is what you said in this very same thread. You may not be "forcing" your beliefs on anyone, but calling people pussies just because they don't object to building a mosque is ridiculous. And don't you dare say that you weren't implying that, because it's obvious the connection you're drawing here.



Havoc, I am not interested in arguing the points. If you want to call 70% (by O'Reilly's count) of America bigots, no one can stop you. They wouldn't call themselves bigots by and large, and I don't either. It's a sensitive issue, whether stalwarts such as yourself accept it to be or not. Thousands died, hundreds of millions were and are affected, and two long and extremely costly wars have been started in its name. That can't all be discounted completely just because your definition of bigotry is so concise, with no gray area for natural human mentality and emotion.

Fox News is the most watched "news" channel in our country. That's all I'm going to say to this.


That doesn't change how the vast majority of (non-bigoted, mind you) Americans naturally react to anything involving "Muslims" and "9/11 ground zero".

Calling them all bigots denotes a lack of understanding of human nature.

No, it just means that I think most of humanity is full of people who are scared of their own shadow. Tell me, how long has it been since we've eliminated racism? Oops, that's still in full force, especially in the deep south. What about slavery? Yep, that still exists too in huge numbers.

Trying to defend humanity's ability to accept different things based on the "average person's" viewpoint of things is impossibly optimistic. How many years would you have to go back in our history to find "average people" who felt nearly or exactly the same way about African Americans as they do now about Muslims?

[z0sa]

Fox News is the most watched "News" channel in our country. That's all I'm going to say to this.

That has no meaning in this context. 70% of America does not watch Fox News, or agree with everything they have to say.

The "Fox News" card is, indeed, a lame one. You basically disregarded my post.




No, it just means that I think most of humanity is full of people who are scared of their own shadow. Tell me, how long has it been since we've eliminated racism? Oops, that's still in full force, especially in the deep south.

For being so anti-prejudice, you sure cast a wide umbrella about the deep south. That's a stereotype if I've ever heard one.


What about slavery? Yep, that still exists too in huge numbers.

Where in the USA? We are still talking about Americans' reactions, aren't we?


Trying to defend humanity's ability to accept different things based on the "average person's" viewpoint of things is impossibly optimistic.

First, automatically assuming some 200 million+ Americans are by and large, bigots because they react naturally negative is impossibly pessimistic.

Second, I'm not assuming anyone's viewpoint. I'm basing this on my knowledge of human psychological tendencies. Humans react to these sort of things in a predictable fashion. It's not because they're inherently bigoted - it's because of the association of elements our brains automatically make.


How many years would you have to go back in our history to find "average people" who felt nearly or exactly the same way about African Americans as they do now about Muslims?

That's not a logical analogy. Is a certain pigment of skin associated with terrorism (9/11) and two massive wars in this case, or is it a religion of all races?

Additionally, you make another unfounded blanket statement: why do you think 70% of Americans inherently want to oppress Muslims simply because of their feelings concerning this mosque?

Different eras, different situations, different feelings.

[Winehole23]

This is what you said in this very same thread. You may not be "forcing" your beliefs on anyone, but calling people pussies just because they don't object to building a mosque is ridiculous. And don't you dare say that you weren't implying that, because it's obvious the connection you're drawing here.It was fairly clear to me that CC was calling people who complain about other people complaining about the so-called GZM, pussies.

It's complaint-complainers like you and me he singles out for derision, not clueless bystanders. (Your spontaneous outburst of clueless-bystander advocacy did give me a chuckle though. :lol)

[Yonivore]

http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/14/oreilly-visits-the-view-and-two-hosts-walk-off/?iref=NS1"The Constitution and Bill of Rights exists to protect unpopular ideas."
You'll have to elaborate on the meaning of the terms "protect" and "ideas."

One amendment to the Constitution, the 1st, protects unpopular speech. But, there's more to the document than that.

The Constitution (including amendments) was written to establish the framework of, and rules under which, our federal government is to be operated, specifically enumerating its obligations and responsibilities; as well as the inviolate rights enjoyed by its citizens.

If someone has the "idea" to overthrow the government and institute a new form of rule, I'm not sure the Constitution would "protect" that idea.

Exactly what have Beck, et. al., done to "endanger" unpopular "ideas," to the point they need "protecting" by the Constitution?

[Winehole23]

The nature of controversy solicits the protection of law when informal adjustments are impracticable, or one/both parties are pussies.

[diego]

maybe not the right thread for this, but I saw this ground zero mosque debate, the debt debate, and started thinking... shouldnt you guys be putting mosques up everywhere? think about it, you get so many benefits:

1) automagically win the tolerance argument
2) dissuade terrorist attacks, and give them their own medicine (muslim shield!)
3) save a lot of money on defense/espionage/intelligence

its a win/win/win situation, I cant fathom any reason NOT to do it.