Reply With Quote
lol Ventura being a 9/11 conspiracy nut
http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10...-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 Cons ution and Bill of Rights exists to protect unpopular ideas."
That needs to be stapled onto the foreheads of Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, and Olbermann.
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.
I have to disagree with you there. Most people in office are sane, they are just greedy. Ventura is straight up crazy.
He is a character for sure. Get him on the View.
Anyone with half an understanding of cons utional principles knows this. I would say most on the far right dont.
Oh I think they clearly understand what is and isn't cons utional. 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 cons utional.
But if they had their way, they would stamp out the protections for those "innapropriate acts/activities," using legal means, and opening the cons utional 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 Cons ution. 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 Cons ution, or not.
To be fair, many liberals want to erode liberties for their own purposes.
Libertarian Party. Thats where its at.
LP-USA? Gag me with a spoon!
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 cons ution as it is, and I'm free to say that I think something that might be cons utional 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 Cons ution. So you can't say that you're a proponent of what he's talking about and then say you're fine with the Cons ution, because it's obvious that the two are not in parallel here.
... not the whole BlackJack21 thing again...
A majority of people think its inappropriate, does that make it uncons utional? 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..
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 !
this stuff will turn you into a god damned sexual tyranasuarus...like me.
Nice video Winehole…No piercing’s, tattoos, bling or F-bombs…I forgot how much I like big hair….
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.
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?The obvious question is, why else do they not want it? Because it not only causes distress to the families,
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 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.
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".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.
YOU
ARE
A
ING
IDIOT.
Can't you ING READ?
I'm not forcing my beliefs on anyone else.
I believe in the cons ution as is. I am not advocating changing it.
What the is wrong with YOU calling me an intolerant bigot?
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 Cons ution 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.
"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 cons utional."
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.
Fox News is the most watched "news" channel in our country. That's all I'm going to say to this.
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.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.
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?
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.
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.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.Where in the USA? We are still talking about Americans' reactions, aren't we?
What about slavery? Yep, that still exists too in huge numbers.
First, automatically assuming some 200 million+ Americans are by and large, bigots because they react naturally negative is impossibly pessimistic.Trying to defend humanity's ability to accept different things based on the "average person's" viewpoint of things is impossibly optimistic.
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.
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?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?
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
