Navy SEAL: Why yes, I did punch Jesse Ventura in the face for saying we deserved to lose some guys in Iraq at a wake for an MOH recipient

posted at 4:32 pm on January 5, 2012 by Allahpundit

Via Breitbart TV, three minutes from Opie & Anthony with the deadliest sniper in American history. So awful is this accusation that I paused after watching it to consider that maybe it isn’t true. I mean, is this something that a belligerent Truther would be likely to say to a bunch of a servicemen while they’re mourning a fallen comrade? And then I thought: Yeah, this is exactly what he’d say. So there you go.

By the way, was Jesse Ventura actually once governor of Minnesota? This Jesse Ventura? Did I hallucinate that? Content warning.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

I read somewhere that Jesse Ventura completed BUDS/UDT training but was never actually a SEAL which requires additional training.
Does anyone have any data on that? I’d be curious to know because he wears the SEAL trident all the time.

Art on January 6, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Ventura deserved it.

1. If he knows so much about SEALs then he knew making a statement to a SEAL’s face like he did would result in a smackdown. He asked and recieved. He alone is responsible for the punch in his suckhole.

Question why didnt Billy Badass Ventura lay a ass whoopin on the SEAL? I mean surely a badass like Ventura could have handled him right? Guess he didn’t have his pink feathers to aid in the fight…

GunnyRet03 on January 6, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Dante, rights in a legal sense are instruments of law – do you have a right to food and housing? No. You have the right to believe as you wish. And that is about it. The constitution has expressly noted rights you have in your dealings with the state. We have criminal law to deal with behavior amongst citizens.

Just stop – you obviously are an over-educated idiot.

Zomcon JEM on January 6, 2012 at 10:21 AM

oops…………several previous folks answered my question alredy.
Kudos for Kyle

Art on January 6, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Now, I think I’ll start a new character on Skyrim, Dante The Everwrong, and have him repeatedly climb to the top of the Throat of the World, and jump off……

Then go and tell some giants they’re ugly, and smell bad….

oughta be good for an hour or so of demented enjoyment.

yeah yeah,.. but it’s a tasty chewbone, and I don wanna give it up yet.

woof…

mark81150 on January 6, 2012 at 10:30 AM

I read somewhere that Jesse Ventura completed BUDS/UDT training but was never actually a SEAL which requires additional training.
Does anyone have any data on that? I’d be curious to know because he wears the SEAL trident all the time.

Art on January 6, 2012 at 10:19 AM

He was in an underwater demolition unit which was a precursor to the SEALS, which is why he can claim BUDS/UDT training – some shared jargon (I doubt it was the kind of training that goes by that name now; the unit did not have the same purpose as the SEALS). Eight (I think; maybe more) years after he left the military that unit and 1 or 2 others were merged together to create the SEAL program. He, however, was not a SEAL by any stretch of the imagination, and I’m not sure how he gets away with wearing the trident. Maybe the trident was used by that precursor unit in some fashion?

AndStatistics on January 6, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Does Ventura still have that whackjob conspiracy theory reality show? I saw one bit where he tried to prove the Moon landings were fake, almost cost me the price of a new TV… what a screaming moron.

mark81150 on January 6, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Spoken like a member of the Westburo Baptist Church, or.. a klansman at a NAACP meeting. You may have an absolute right to your opinion, but to say you have an absolute right to enfringe on the location and grief of others to harass and enrage them totally free of consequences is on it’s face moronic. I would also bet, if you didn’t have strong sympathies to the Paulian troofer insanity, you would see that.

Absolute?

Why?

Spoken like a person who values our inherent rights, you mean. I didn’t say someone has an absolute right to harass someone; I said that our right of free speech and thought without harm is an absolute right.

Why is it an absolute? Because we exist. We all have the right to our life; it is the first property right, and it is the right from which all others emanate.

You keep saying that, but where in the Consitution, does it say you have an absolute right to force your opinion on others no matter what, at any time, any place, without suffering any consequences?

It doesn’t say that anywhere.

The 1st Amendment only applies to the government anyway, not private interactions. The courts, even in the Westburo cases have stated they have a right to protest, but that they have no right to attend the funeral to do it, they can be kept at a distance. So They have no “absolute right” either.

This isn’t a Constitutional issue, so why are you trying to make a Constitutional argument? The Constitution doesn’t grant us rights; we have rights because we exist, and our natural rights are absolute.

Where you fall down, is in thinking you have an absolute right to force others to hear it, even unwillingly, free of any normal human response.

No one has a right to not hear unpopular opinion in public, nor does anyone have the right to not be offended. That someone says something is not forcing their opinion on another; no one is being held against his will.

There is no absolute anything…

To believe there is, is to deny reality, deny basic human nature.

mark81150 on January 6, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Wow. To say there is no absolute is to deny reality? My friend, it is the exact opposite. I see you are no student of libertarianism, Locke, Jefferson, Rand, etc.

Dante on January 6, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Dante is mixing things up.

You have a right to speak your peace and not have that right trampled upon by the state. The state is the party held bound by the constitution as it relates to rights. Otherwise, you have the give and take of daily grind of life. Jesse has no right to not be punched by another indivual citizen. He may very well have that expectation, but he has no right. The word right is thrown around rather carelessly by folks like Dante, who hasn’t a clue to what a right is.

Zomcon JEM on January 6, 2012 at 10:18 AM

I’m not mixing anything up. We have the natural right to say and think as we wish. Laws exist (theoretically) to protect these rights. For the thousandth time, however, this is not a Constitutional issue. This is an issue of rights, rights which are innate because we exist. Jesse, and everyone else, most certainly – absolutely – has the right to life, the right to say and think without being harmed. This right is an absolute.

You don’t know a thing about rights. You have no business telling anyone they don’t have a clue about them.

Dante on January 6, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Dante, rights in a legal sense are instruments of law – do you have a right to food and housing? No. You have the right to believe as you wish. And that is about it. The constitution has expressly noted rights you have in your dealings with the state. We have criminal law to deal with behavior amongst citizens.

Just stop – you obviously are an over-educated idiot.

Zomcon JEM on January 6, 2012 at 10:21 AM

You don’t have any idea what the argument is. Read the thread and try to understand the argument being made. I’ll give you a hint: it has nothing to do with the Constitution or man’s laws.

Dante on January 6, 2012 at 10:46 AM

He, however, was not a SEAL by any stretch of the imagination, and I’m not sure how he gets away with wearing the trident. Maybe the trident was used by that precursor unit in some fashion?

AndStatistics on January 6, 2012 at 10:35 AM

I’m guessing he just bought one and wears it, I doubt it’s illegal, unethical as Hell,.. but this is Ventura. I looked once, and you can buy my old units beret crest online easily.. SAC Beret pin,.. SP’s wore em,… never considered wearing it though, just as a keepsake for my son. I did wear a US Army pin, but it was a gift from a friend going to Irag with the 4th Infantry in 03. I asked him if I could, as I was Air Force, not Army,..

He just laughed and said that was alright, he forgave me.

after that, wore it on my name badge at work with an American flag pin till he made it home in one piece. Never fibbed about it, and told anyone who asked, how I got it.

I don’t think there’s any law to stop him from wearing a SEAL pin, ever if he never was one. Stolen Valor to be sure,.. contemptable,..

mark81150 on January 6, 2012 at 10:50 AM

This is from “the brave” Jesse Ventura’s own wiki article concerning his “SEAL” career …

Navy career

From September 11, 1969, to September 10, 1975, during the Vietnam War era, Ventura served in the United States Navy. Ventura graduated with BUD/S class 58 in December 1970[7] and was part of Underwater Demolition Team 12 (UDT).[8] The UDTs were merged with the US Navy SEALs in 1983, 8 years after Ventura had left the Navy.

Bill Salisbury, an attorney in San Diego and a former Navy SEAL officer, accused Ventura of “pretending” to be a SEAL and wrote that Ventura would be blurring an important distinction by claiming to be a SEAL when he was actually a frogman with the UDT. Compared to SEAL Teams, UDTs saw less combat and took fewer casualties.[9][10][11] Following that, Governor Ventura’s office confirmed that Ventura was a member of the UDTs. His spokesman stated that Ventura has never tried to convince people otherwise.[9] Ventura stated: “Today we refer to all of us as SEALs; that’s all it is,” and described the accusations of lying about being a SEAL as “[m]uch ado about nothing.”[11]

Ventura has frequently referred to his military career in public statements and debates.[9][12][13] He was criticized by hunters and conservationists for stating in an interview with the Minneapolis StarTribune in April 2001, “Until you have hunted men, you haven’t hunted yet.”[13][14]

In January 2002, Ventura, who had never specifically claimed to have fought in Vietnam, disclosed for the first time that he did not see combat. He did not receive the Combat Action Ribbon, which was awarded to those involved in a firefight or who went on clandestine or special operations where the risk of enemy fire was great or expected.[8]

He’s a wannabe pretender – and he should be beaten in the head by every REAL Navy SEAL that comes across his worthless carcass.

HondaV65 on January 6, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Dante: I agree with much of what you say, but when the logical end result is ludicrous then you might want to reexamine the whole chain of reasoning to find the flaws. Do you support that miniscule extremist church that goes out and protests at random soldier’s funerals? They’re events held for a specific group of people, for a specific purpose. They’re held at places anyone can patronize, but they are not public events. Generally they are by invitation only. Soldiers, and especially SEALS, may be more likely to act upon their convictions than most, but that only makes them more admirable.

Fenris on January 6, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Wow. To say there is no absolute is to deny reality? My friend, it is the exact opposite. I see you are no student of libertarianism, Locke, Jefferson, Rand, etc.

Dante on January 6, 2012 at 10:38 AM

I stand by that,..

and no I am empathetically not,…. a libertarian,.. by any means.

I detest most of their more extreme views, can’t for the life of me understand why they feel the need to attempt to drag the GOP there, when the Liberatarian candidate never even makes a blip on the radar on election day.

I see that they fulfill a useful function, but as a benchmark to gage certain things by, not as a governing system. It’s unworkable in a world of billions, in a world where a nuke can fit in a suitcase. It cannot be done, and frankly, only the tinyest minority, would wish it were our operating system.

I’m a Reagan conservative, not an absolutist. You can no more run a system on pure libertarian policies, than on a pure democracy, or a pure Marxist theme.

It takes greater compromise than libertarians are capable of.

You’ll never get a majority..

not even in the GOP, which I still am a part of, though far less happy with the party leadership than I’d like to be.

mark81150 on January 6, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Dante: I agree with much of what you say, but when the logical end result is ludicrous then you might want to reexamine the whole chain of reasoning to find the flaws. Do you support that miniscule extremist church that goes out and protests at random soldier’s funerals? They’re events held for a specific group of people, for a specific purpose. They’re held at places anyone can patronize, but they are not public events. Generally they are by invitation only. Soldiers, and especially SEALS, may be more likely to act upon their convictions than most, but that only makes them more admirable.

Fenris on January 6, 2012 at 10:59 AM

I support everyone’s right to speech and thought no matter how deplorable.

Dante on January 6, 2012 at 11:14 AM

mark81150 on January 6, 2012 at 11:13 AM

I don’t know whether to laugh or feel sorry for you.

Dante on January 6, 2012 at 11:15 AM

I support everyone’s right to speech and thought no matter how deplorable.

Dante on January 6, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Do you support the right to freely associate (and to not associate)?

Fenris on January 6, 2012 at 11:21 AM

Maybe if Ventura had shown some common decency and respect for the grieving family and held his opinion until he was with Kyle, then maybe they could have had a discussion / argument without the fisticuffs. But, no he couldn’t hold himself back and got the beatdown. Good for Chris Kyle.

Palin/Kyle 2012!

Mirimichi on January 6, 2012 at 11:36 AM

a problem solved the old Navy way. the guy who can walk away with less injuries wins

billhedrick on January 6, 2012 at 11:42 AM

Ventura was UDT
Scrubbing barnacles off of mens’ ships in Subic Bay.
What a poseur.
He ripped off my pal Superstar’s wrestling schtick too.

Come on, Jesse …
(grin)

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 6, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Dante… I’ve been laughing at you, at Paul, at the whole sorry mess of third party isms for decades..

and F*** your sorry,..

I’m a vet, a married father of two.. and disabled from multiple fractures of my spine. I can still walk, but it’s far more difficult than it was, and I’m not ashamed to be who and what I am.

I’m in the majority and you know it.

You can’t insult me into silence, nor can you prove me wrong. You qoute libertarian scripture well,.. that’s nice, but it’s one school of thought, among several, few of which are widely accepted as gospel.

If my disability makes me touchy about inferences of pity,(which, you of course could not be aware of).. you’ll just have to bear with me, when I say,.. P*ss on your sympathy..

My back was broken from working hard to care for my family, I regret none of that, the only regrets I have, are that I never had the time or money to pursue college. That however does not make me less able to see the holes in your reasoning. My argument is much the same as most here, so I doubt I’m wrong, just as you

seem to doubt you are merely mortal..

You read Locke and Rand…. nice, have a cookie,

I read William F Buckley, I read Thomas Sowell, I read everything on Ronald Reagan,.. Goldwater, even though I think he lost it in later years…

you have all the bona fide’s of libertarianism,… but I know conservatives, and what they believe.. and I’m telling you.. and all everyone here is telling you..

We don’t want what you sell.. not in it’s purist uncut form..

To have libertarian tendencies is healthy,. to be an absolutist libertarian with no middle ground, is delusional. Because you cannot get most people to agree to a dog eat dog, screw the rest world. Even the most arch conservative will say, we should care for those who can’t work, or care for themselves…

Pure Libertarians would not, not if they are honest about what they say. It’s all survival of the fittest, and most libertarians being strong, can afford that philosphy. Most of the rest can’t. So….. I should adopt the liberarian platform Dante?

do away with social security?

even SSD?

So should my ten and 12 year olds report to your sweatshop today? or tomorrow? I mean if we’re talking absolute purity of thought here on libertarians… let’s stop kidding around, and go back to 1783 style laws.

Unless…

you aren’t really an absolutist..

in which case, it’s point, set, match.

mark81150 on January 6, 2012 at 12:03 PM

mark81150 on January 6, 2012

Kudos.
I can (sadly) relate.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 6, 2012 at 12:06 PM

mark81150 on January 6, 2012 at 12:03 PM

I repeat what I said above, one of the main reasons being that I’m discussing the philosophy of rights and you’re talking about it as a political party.

And “I’m in the majority and you know it,” is hardly an argument, unless one happens to be a second-grader on a playground. Ditto for the profanity.

Also, being in the majority does not make one right. And honestly, I have no idea what you’re even referring to, but I guess it adds a certain je ne sais quois to your nonsensical rant.

Dante on January 6, 2012 at 12:22 PM

I salute this true American hero. Saw him on O’Reilly yesterday and what an awesome, squared away soldier. He stood firm against O’Reilly’s badgering and made no apology for doing his job and protecting America and Iraqi innocents.

I bought his book after the show!

Sparky5253 on January 6, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Besides, what, exactly, are you disagreeing with?

You disagree that people do not have the right to inflict physical harm on another?

You disagree that people do not have the right to think or speak freely?

You disagree that we do not have the right to life?

You disagree that our rights do not exist because we exist?

What in the world are you disagreeing with?

Dante on January 6, 2012 at 12:33 PM

What in the world are you disagreeing with?

Dante on January 6, 2012 at 12:33 PM

I’m pretty sure they just consider it fun to just disagree with you. Much like poking a stick at a wild animal. Did you even say whether glitter bombing was okay or not/

hawkdriver on January 6, 2012 at 12:37 PM

mark81150 on January 6, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Salutes your way.

hawkdriver on January 6, 2012 at 12:38 PM

mark81150 on January 6, 2012 at 11:13 AM
I don’t know whether to laugh or feel sorry for you.

Dante on January 6, 2012 at 11:15 AM

Dante, what problem do you have with him??
You seem like the sketchy one to me…

Fartnokker on January 6, 2012 at 12:57 PM

I didn’t say someone has an absolute right to harass someone; I said that our right of free speech and thought without harm is an absolute right.

Dante on January 6, 2012 at 10:38 AM

That’s a misunderstanding of the 1st amendment. It means that the government is not allowed to arrest you for expressing your opinion. The 1st amendment says nothing about your neighbor who punches you in the nose because you insulted his wife.

Gelsomina on January 6, 2012 at 1:10 PM

That’s a misunderstanding of the 1st amendment. It means that the government is not allowed to arrest you for expressing your opinion. The 1st amendment says nothing about your neighbor who punches you in the nose because you insulted his wife.

Gelsomina on January 6, 2012 at 1:10 PM

And for the ten thousandth time, this has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution or man’s laws.

Yours is a misunderstanding of the discussion. Go back to page 1.

Dante on January 6, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Besides, what, exactly, are you disagreeing with?

You disagree that people do not have the right to inflict physical harm on another?

You disagree that people do not have the right to think or speak freely?

You disagree that we do not have the right to life?

You disagree that our rights do not exist because we exist?

What in the world are you disagreeing with?

Dante on January 6, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Do you, Dante, disagree with Ventura — that our soldiers deserve to die because they are fighting unjust wars?

stefanite on January 6, 2012 at 1:21 PM

Do you, Dante, disagree with Ventura — that our soldiers deserve to die because they are fighting unjust wars?

stefanite on January 6, 2012 at 1:21 PM

I disagree that they deserve to die, but I agree that the wars are unjust and unconstitutional.

Why do you ask?

Dante on January 6, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Why do you ask?

Dante on January 6, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Because you’ve spent this entire thread taking up for that POS Ventura. If someone punched Dick Cheney, you’d be laughing about it. Obviously your motive is based on simpatico viewpoints.

And also because other of your fellow Ronulans have called our troops Nazis on this website in the past. I was just wondering if you would go that far.

stefanite on January 6, 2012 at 1:45 PM

I support everyone’s right to speech and thought no matter how deplorable.

Dante on January 6, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Imagine that a member of your family was killed protecting me from something and I came over to your house during the funeral and announce that it would be a good thing if more were to drop dead you would support me in voicing my opinion?

V7_Sport on January 6, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Because you’ve spent this entire thread taking up for that POS Ventura. If someone punched Dick Cheney, you’d be laughing about it. Obviously your motive is based on simpatico viewpoints.

stefanite on January 6, 2012 at 1:45 PM

No, I have been defending his right to say and think what he believes and to do so without harm; I have not defended what he supposedly said. And no, if someone punched Cheney I would not laugh about it.

I think you’re prone to delusions because you are responding emotionally rather than rationally, and crafting a rich fantasy that doesn’t reflect reality. Use your head in some other way.

Dante on January 6, 2012 at 1:53 PM

I support everyone’s right to speech and thought no matter how deplorable.

Dante on January 6, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Then grow up and accept that there are consequences that must be borne for issuing “fighting words” in certain circumstances.

OTOH; you’ll never accept reality. You believe so much in the absolute right to say anything, to anyone, in anyplace, that you probably defend someone’s right to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater – ‘just because they have the right’.
Couple that to your inability to comprehend or understand the concept of HONOR, and it’s a sure bet that you’ll end up with a broken jaw at some point.
And that you’ll whine and snivel about your ‘right’ to say what you want.

Solaratov on January 6, 2012 at 1:54 PM

Did you even say whether glitter bombing was okay or not/

hawkdriver on January 6, 2012 at 12:37 PM

Yeah. He said it was assault.

Solaratov on January 6, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Sorry, but I’ll just say to all the pu**ys on this board – if you come up to me and call my Mom a whore to my face – I’m going to punch your lights out.

And if I’m at a wake for one of my buds and you come up and say, essentially, that he should have died and that we’re all murderers – you’re going to be lucky if punching your lights out is ALL I do.

Sorry man, but I think you sissy’s get a bit carried away with the 1st amendment. First amendment is primarily there to protect free speech from government – it’s not there to protect a stupid idiot who’s taken his mouth too far and pissed another private citizen off.

THIS ISSUE IS BETWEEN JESSE (THE NOOB) VENTURA and this Navy SEAL – it has NOTHING to do with any of us – or the US government. I suppose the SEAL could guilty of assault – but it was Jesse Ventura who got his ass kicked – none of us did. It’s Jesse Ventura who has to file the police reports and press the charges – none of us.

And Jesse Ventura hasn’t done any of that … why?

Because somewhere in Jesse Ventura’s hollow skull is a gray, lonely neuron that KNOWS he deserved that ass kicking.

HondaV65 on January 6, 2012 at 2:04 PM

I didn’t say someone has an absolute right to harass someone; I said that our right of free speech and thought without harm is an absolute right.

Dante on January 6, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Now you’re starting to quibble.

You know – from the article – that what Ventura was doing was harassing the Mansur family. And that he was issuing “fighting words”.
Ventura – no matter how much you paulbots wish to protect him – was behaving like a low-class ass — and he got exactly what he deserved.
You aren’t going to change anyone’s mind here. Nor are you going to impress anyone with the “absolute purity” of your belief. All you’re going to do is provide amusement for those who enjoy watching paulbots froth about their supposed ‘rights and superiority’.

Solaratov on January 6, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Imagine that a member of your family was killed protecting me from something and I came over to your house during the funeral and announce that it would be a good thing if more were to drop dead you would support me in voicing my opinion?

V7_Sport on January 6, 2012 at 1:45 PM

I think you are trying to needlessly complicate the issue. As I’ve said, we all have the right to our thoughts and speech without harm. Someone in my house still has the right to their thoughts and speech without harm, but they do not have the right to say it on my property if I don’t allow it. You are presenting an example of someone infringing upon the property right of another.

Dante on January 6, 2012 at 2:20 PM

OTOH; you’ll never accept reality. You believe so much in the absolute right to say anything, to anyone, in anyplace, that you probably defend someone’s right to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater – ‘just because they have the right’.
Couple that to your inability to comprehend or understand the concept of HONOR, and it’s a sure bet that you’ll end up with a broken jaw at some point.
And that you’ll whine and snivel about your ‘right’ to say what you want.

Solaratov on January 6, 2012 at 1:54 PM

Oh, I love these arguments.

First, I did not say we have the absolute right to say anything, to anyone, in anyplace. I said that we have the right to life, the right to say and think without harm is an absolute right. Clearly force and fraud do not fall under this, although your fallacious misrepresentation includes them.

Secondly, we do have the right to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. I would hope someone would yell “Fire!” if there were one. Wouldn’t you? We do not have the right to cause or attempt to cause harm, which is what yelling “Fire!” is really about: trying to incite a panic that may lead to harm – an infringement of someone’s right to life.

I understand honor perfectly well. I do not find honor in a person violating the right to life of another.

Dante on January 6, 2012 at 2:26 PM

You’re despicable.

ZGMF_Freedom on January 6, 2012 at 2:29 PM

I think you are trying to needlessly complicate the issue.

Dante on January 6, 2012 at 2:20 PM

I think you are evading the question, soooo, property rights aside you don’t have the right to insult people with impunity. Were I to be so clueless as to celebrate the deaths of your family members and wish for more at the wake of someone you cared about would think that any non doormat of man would probably react as Mr Kyle did. The morally preening position that you have taken here leaves you with the options of either shutting up and taking it as someone disrupts the wake of a family member or punching them in the face as they would so richly deserve. Either a doormat or a hypocrite.

V7_Sport on January 6, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Dante,

You have repeatedly been challenged to answer a simple question. You have avoided, studiously, answering that question. That is the question regarding someone accosting you in a public setting and degrading your wife and children in the vilest of ways, with them present. Perhaps following you and continuing to do such a thing.

What would you do?

Why do you avoid offering an answer?

Yoop on January 6, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Cluebat to Dante:

What is the Fighting Words Doctrine?

The fighting-words doctrine was first articulated in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942). Chaplinsky was convicted of violating a New Hampshire statute that prohibited the use of offensive, insulting language toward persons in public places after making several inflammatory comments to a city official. The Court, in upholding the statute as constitutional, set down those famous words:

There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or “fighting” words — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.

Terp Mole on January 6, 2012 at 3:45 PM

I think you are evading the question, soooo, property rights aside you don’t have the right to insult people with impunity. Were I to be so clueless as to celebrate the deaths of your family members and wish for more at the wake of someone you cared about would think that any non doormat of man would probably react as Mr Kyle did. The morally preening position that you have taken here leaves you with the options of either shutting up and taking it as someone disrupts the wake of a family member or punching them in the face as they would so richly deserve. Either a doormat or a hypocrite.

V7_Sport on January 6, 2012 at 2:35 PM

I’m not evading the question. I worked with what you presented. Property rights aside? No, not if you’re going to present a hypothetical that occurs on my private property. You do not have the right to infringe upon the rights of others. I don’t know how I can make this any clearer to you.

Dante on January 6, 2012 at 3:55 PM

First, I did not say we have the absolute right to say anything, to anyone, in anyplace. I said that we have the right to life, the right to say and think without harm is an absolute right.

Go back and re-read your posts. Either you are changing your position or you’re just lying and hoping that no one calls you on it.
You have made perfectly clear that you believe that a person has the absolute right to say anything he wants anytime or place – without consequence.

Give it up, kid. You’ve lost this one. Nobody buys your twaddle.

Solaratov on January 6, 2012 at 4:05 PM

First, I did not say we have the absolute right to say anything, to anyone, in anyplace.

This would be a flat out lie even if you hadn’t said this in the same breath:

I said that we have the right to life, the right to say and think without harm is an absolute right…

Go watch cartoons in the living room, Beaver. The adults are having a serious conversation and you’re just being a nuisance.

MelonCollie on January 6, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Go back and re-read your posts. Either you are changing your position or you’re just lying and hoping that no one calls you on it.
You have made perfectly clear that you believe that a person has the absolute right to say anything he wants anytime or place – without consequence.

Give it up, kid. You’ve lost this one. Nobody buys your twaddle.

Solaratov on January 6, 2012 at 4:05 PM

This would be a flat out lie even if you hadn’t said this in the same breath:

I said that we have the right to life, the right to say and think without harm is an absolute right…

MelonCollie on January 6, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Oh my god. No. No one has the right to say anything to anyone if it infringes upon another’s right, such as fraud, or threatening force. And yes, we do have the right to our thoughts and speech without harm; we have the right to our life. And yes, that is an absolute right. This is not a change of position. What part of we all have the right to life and to be secure in our persons without harm do you not understand? Can you not put the two together?

Dante on January 6, 2012 at 5:11 PM

What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Terp Mole on January 6, 2012 at 4:21 PM

One sentence is rambling? Maybe if you’re William Faulkner. I do not think word means what you think it means.

Dante on January 6, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Sure the Seal shouldn’t of punched him, and Ventura does have a right to say what he believes without fear of harm the etc. but… It just couldn’t happen to a more deserving person. That’s just the difference between my politics and my personal philosophy. I don’t believe the government should condone violence but I do think some people can only learn things the hard way.

Esthier on January 6, 2012 at 5:50 PM

Yeah. He said it was assault.

Solaratov on January 6, 2012 at 1:59 PM

That was Lord. I wanted to know if Dante liked glitter bombs.

hawkdriver on January 6, 2012 at 6:15 PM

That was Lord. I wanted to know if Dante liked glitter bombs.

hawkdriver on January 6, 2012 at 6:15 PM

Dante is a one note tune. He can’t get past it.

Look up thread at the number of times he has been asked for what his reaction would be for he and his family being accosted by a vile hater. He absolutely refuses to address that issue. He finds it impossible to consider because it takes him past his one-note-theme that he has memorized so well and has sung for two days.

Yoop on January 6, 2012 at 6:24 PM

Dante is a one note tune. He can’t get past it.

Look up thread at the number of times he has been asked for what his reaction would be for he and his family being accosted by a vile hater. He absolutely refuses to address that issue. He finds it impossible to consider because it takes him past his one-note-theme that he has memorized so well and has sung for two days.

Yoop on January 6, 2012 at 6:24 PM

It’s simple, he is little chickensplit who would not do anything at all. For two days he has taken a shellacking and keeps posting the same goofy responses.

arnold ziffel on January 6, 2012 at 7:43 PM

Yoop on January 6, 2012 at 6:24 PM

I KNEW IT!!!!

Dante is Michael Dukakis!

hawkdriver on January 6, 2012 at 7:46 PM

One shot, one kill.

unclesmrgol on January 6, 2012 at 7:49 PM

I disagree, Dante is much worse, the reason why he would not answer the question that I and Yoot had asked is this, he or she have no honor. To him or her, honor is an archaic concept that belongs to the dustbin. To him or her, it’s better to talk about John Locke and natural rights in your face while he or she gleefully stabs you in the back when you are not looking. To him or her, everything is useful until it becomes inconvenient as long as he or she can lure his opponent into complacency thinking that he or she is a friend until such time he or she can strike.

Dante, there’s no difference between centuries when duels were legal. The only hold up in regards to duels was how the existing monarchs/rulers regarded duels among their nobles and officers.

DinobotPrime on January 6, 2012 at 8:29 PM

Besides, what, exactly, are you disagreeing with?

your premiss.. That he has an absolute right to hold and express his opinion, no matter what. Fails to consider both fighting words, and while no one disagrees he can hold an asinine position, he has no absolute right to express it on any time and place of his chosing. Basic social skills 101..

You disagree that people do not have the right to inflict physical harm on another?

In what context? I was an SP, violence in some cases, is a tool, like in war, or the restraint of a subject. I would say in a normal conversational context, you have an expectation, that you have a right to express said opinion free of being struck, not what happened here.. is it? He sought out grieving warriors, and essentially spit on them, povocation anyone?

You disagree that people do not have the right to think or speak freely?

Again, context,.. do you have a right to speak freely in a courtroom? Or during a presidents statement?.. time and place, so it’s again, not in practice, an absolute.

You disagree that we do not have the right to life?

We have a right to life unless voided by actions like capital murder, or warring on the state, then you take your chances.

You disagree that our rights do not exist because we exist?

Rights are as noted by the founders, inalienable, meaning cannot be removed by the government or others,.. however,.. that does mean unless you forfeit them, by criminal action. Do murderers have the right to liberty? Isn’t that inalienable too? You’re confusing the perfect with the practical, there is no such thing as an absolute outside of science.

What in the world are you disagreeing with?

You….

You ranted above, you were confused, because you were talking philosphy, and I was talking politics.. wrong, I was talking real world, versus academic bubble.

You cannot have an absolute right, respected or not, because you are dealing with variables you can’t control. Such as human emotion, such as society’s rules against criminal behavior, and the way people violate them.

You have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness..

Unless you define that by killing people, stealing, generally hurting others..

so how absolute, is that? if it were, no criminal would ever be confined, or executed.

Explain, show your work…

Dante on January 6, 2012 at 12:33 PM

mark81150 on January 6, 2012 at 9:44 PM

Look up thread at the number of times he has been asked for what his reaction would be for he and his family being accosted by a vile hater. He absolutely refuses to address that issue. He finds it impossible to consider because it takes him past his one-note-theme that he has memorized so well and has sung for two days.

Yoop on January 6, 2012 at 6:24 PM

Ok, you obviously have your feelings hurt about it, and you feel it is an oh-so-important and relevant question.

It depends on what was said and what his actions would be. If I felt that there was a physical danger to me or my family, then I would respond with the threat of lethal force, otherwise I’d leave and avoid/ignore it. Maybe if you gave me something specific, then I could respond specifically. Your generality doesn’t allow a one-size fits all answer.

Were you hoping I’d say that I’d punch him in the face?

Dante on January 6, 2012 at 10:26 PM

Also, being in the majority does not make one right. And honestly, I have no idea what you’re even referring to, but I guess it adds a certain je ne sais quois to your nonsensical rant.

Dante on January 6, 2012 at 12:22 PM

So nonsensical, you bothered to not only reply, but shovel the snark with a number 9 coal shovel.

so I guess one of the Sidewiders must’ve found a tailpipe, else you’d have ignored me entirely. Instead you augered in rather dramatically.

I never took higher than High School Philosphy, doesn’t matter, the arguments don’t change. You defend the indefensible, perfection doesn’t exist, not on this planet. The very concept of an absolute excludes the reality that variables can have any effect. The only people who believe in absolutes, are

ideologs,..

and

students….

which are you?

Not to pile on,… but you didn’t address any points made against your mantra. Not one.. not one variable considered.. that is why Paul fails in both his premise and his execution. He makes the same students mistake of thinking perfection can exist,.. oh he’ll deny that he does that, as will you,.. hoping that by intoning “liberty” often enough, you can get away with a philosphical conjob. Total liberty isn’t freedom, it’s anarchy,.. just as true democracy is merely mob rule in a dress.

mark81150 on January 6, 2012 at 10:41 PM

Dante

It depends on what was said and what his actions would be. If I felt that there was a physical danger to me or my family, then I would respond with the threat of lethal force, otherwise I’d leave and avoid/ignore it. Maybe if you gave me something specific, then I could respond specifically. Your generality doesn’t allow a one-size fits all answer.

Wow, it took you a long time to answer that very important question but unfortunately, you betray yourself. From this post alone, you had expose your hypocrisy for the all the posters to see. Ignoring the rest of the sentence, “Depends on what was said” phrase is already a significant evidence that you are willing to punch that person when the right words are said to prompt you into violence. The phrase, “otherwise I’d leave and avoid/ignore it, became your way of back pedaling on the issue.

DinobotPrime on January 6, 2012 at 11:32 PM

mark81150 on January 6, 2012

Kudos.
I can (sadly) relate.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 6, 2012 at 12:06 PM

———
yeah,.. those life altering injuries really suck… I focus on my wife and kids.. They are my motivation for everything, and why I don’t spend any time crying in the closet. I hope you have more good days, and few bad ones..

mark81150 on January 6, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Salutes your way.

hawkdriver on January 6, 2012 at 12:38 PM

———————-

I’ve read your posts for quite a while before becoming a commenter, and I have to say, thank you sir..

mark81150 on January 6, 2012 at 11:13 AM
I don’t know whether to laugh or feel sorry for you.

Dante on January 6, 2012 at 11:15 AM

Dante, what problem do you have with him??
You seem like the sketchy one to me…

Fartnokker on January 6, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Maybe I remind him of a uncle he didn’t get along with?

Hardly matters though.. person after person has challenged his position on absolute rights to freedom of expression for an opinion as toxic as Ventura’s.. and he just repeats his mantra,.. over and over without ever thinking it through.

I tried taking his view on absolute rights when I was 17 in a pysch class. The teacher tore it to shreds in a few well chosen remarks,.. the theoretical rarely survives it’s first exposure to the real world, something Dante has yet to learn.

Why I believe he’s still a student.. that, and he argues like a teenager. He evades answering, just repeating the rote memorized phrases, never thinking beyond what snarky reply he’ll use next. I’m sure he’s quite the texting warrior,… Order of the purple thumbs,….

mark81150 on January 6, 2012 at 11:36 PM

Mark81150
When I read his last post, I was stunned that he just basically demolished the arguments he had laid down in his earlier posts. His view on absolute rights all fell apart when he started his post with the phrase ” it depends on what was said”. I think, Dante is one of those people who in the safety of their sheltered life have the firm belief that repeating some mantra would make their beliefs come true.

DinobotPrime on January 6, 2012 at 11:49 PM

“Depends on what was said” phrase is already a significant evidence that you are willing to punch that person when the right words are said to prompt you into violence. The phrase, “otherwise I’d leave and avoid/ignore it, became your way of back pedaling on the issue.

DinobotPrime on January 6, 2012 at 11:32 PM

Hypocrisy? Yes, it depends on what was said. If I believe my life or my family’s lives are threatened, then I will respond with threat of lethal force or with lethal force. Did you forget (more likely ignore, or even more likely not comprehend) the whole right to life thing I’ve been talking about? There is no backpedaling; if I don’t believe there is no danger to me or my family, I’d leave and avoid/ignore it.

Dante on January 7, 2012 at 12:35 AM

When I read his last post, I was stunned that he just basically demolished the arguments he had laid down in his earlier posts. His view on absolute rights all fell apart when he started his post with the phrase ” it depends on what was said”. I think, Dante is one of those people who in the safety of their sheltered life have the firm belief that repeating some mantra would make their beliefs come true.

DinobotPrime on January 6, 2012 at 11:49 PM

I’m going to amend my previous post to say it is not forgetting, it is not ignoring, it is that you do not comprehend the right to life argument I’ve been making throughout this entire thread.

The right to life is absolute. This is the first of rights, and the source of all other rights.

The right to think and speak freely is absolute.

No one has the right to harm or use force against another unless in self-defense, and no one has the right to infringe upon the rights of others. This, too, is an absolute and is key to understanding rights. Infringement doesn’t mean offensive or unpopular speech; infringement would be threat of harm to life and threat to property.

I don’t know why you’re struggling with such a basic concept.

Dante on January 7, 2012 at 12:49 AM

The right to life is absolute. This is the first of rights, and the source of all other rights.

The right to think and speak freely is absolute.

No one has the right to harm or use force against another

drumroll…….

unless in self-defense

that simple four word ending, just contradicted the entire premise. If you insert a qualifier, haven’t you just voided that ABSOLUTE right?

seems pretty clear, if it were absolute, there would be no…. “unless” now would there?

This isn’t a game of gotcha Dante, though you might think so. It’s an older man trying to impart a hard learned life lesson. You cannot have an absolute anything, wether we’re talking rights, or philosphy, or even government policy, absolutes have that arrogance of certainty which causes men to think they have no higher moral law they have to answer to.

I’d imagine, Obama’s crew is full of men and women certain of their absolute right to rule by divine right. I know the history of man well enough to know that absolutes or rather the people who believe in them, in their pursuit of those absolutes, have wrecked more devastation on mankind than any group of less certain men have.

Be careful what you find absolute truth in, people die when folks get the idea they have a lock on truth, or rights,.. I’ll stick with what works, what has always worked, which is the mainstream conservatism most here adhere to.

I know you’re not able to admit error, haven’t yet that I’ve seen. I don’t need you too, the last post set up that display.

Just, if you are going to argue in absolutes, be prepared to suffer disappointment, and that may be the closest you come to an absolute.

mark81150 on January 7, 2012 at 2:26 AM

DinobotPrime

He just did it again.

mark81150 on January 7, 2012 at 2:30 AM

This isn’t a game of gotcha Dante

I know it isn’t; it’s a matter of your inability to understand a basic concept or two and to see how they’re related.

The right to life is absolute. Self-defense is an assertion and affirmation of this right. All of our other rights come from this right.

Dante on January 7, 2012 at 10:12 AM

I said that our right of free speech and thought without harm is an absolute right.

Dante on January 6, 2012 at 10:38 AM

If you use self-defense to assert and affirm your right to life, free speech and thought, because those rights are absolute, then the rights of the person upon whom you just asserted your right to use self-defense did not have absolute rights to the same, so there are no absolutes for the other. See the problem?

Yoop on January 7, 2012 at 10:37 AM

If you use self-defense to assert and affirm your right to life, free speech and thought, because those rights are absolute, then the rights of the person upon whom you just asserted your right to use self-defense did not have absolute rights to the same, so there are no absolutes for the other. See the problem?

Yoop on January 7, 2012 at 10:37 AM

This is incorrect. You are not asserting your rights upon someone else.

Dante on January 7, 2012 at 11:10 AM

This is incorrect. You are not asserting your rights upon someone else.

Dante on January 7, 2012 at 11:10 AM

My God, you really are that dense.

Yoop on January 7, 2012 at 11:58 AM

You do not have the right to infringe upon the rights of others. I don’t know how I can make this any clearer to you.

Dante on January 6, 2012 at 3:55 PM

So what about the right of people to mourn their dead without some jackass/liar/disgrace demonstrating the class and wisdom of a phony professional wrestler and announcing that more SEALs should be killed?

The Constitution protects people from prosecution by the government, not the consequences of their own actions. Ventura isn’t going to be prosecuted by the government for wishing death on real SEALs (although why they tolerate his presence is a mystery) and the law may very well have something to say to Mr.Kyle. (Although I assure you that there will be plenty of Sailors lavishing money on his defense fund) However, that doesn’t mean that he didn’t have a punch in the face coming for infringing on the rights of others to mourn their dead without it turning into a political circus.

As much as you like to put on sanctimonious displays of morally inverted posturing; my bet is that even you would have the sense not to attempt to disrupt a SEAL funeral. Your supposed “right” to do so would have immediate consequences that I don’t think you would be willing to endure. Pretty much what you would wish on someone else were they to disrupt the funeral of your loved one.

V7_Sport on January 7, 2012 at 6:37 PM

So what about the right of people to mourn their dead without some jackass/liar/disgrace demonstrating the class and wisdom of a phony professional wrestler and announcing that more SEALs should be killed?.

V7_Sport on January 7, 2012 at 6:37 PM

There is no such right. And quit bringing up the Constitution; this is not a Constitutional issue nor anything to do with man’s laws.

Of course I wouldn’t disrupt someone’s funeral. What does that have to do with anything?

Dante on January 8, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5