What was that about Jesse Ventura?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by poncho, Apr 9, 2008.

  1. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    As former Governor, Ventura may be the highest level official in the United States to take 9/11 truth questions seriously, yet his enduring popularity and success as a celebrity, wrestler, Hollywood star, Navy SEAL and even Harvard professor make him more difficult to diffuse and ignore than celebrities who have previously come forward or Congressmen who have flirted with raising questions.


    The Associated Press ran a story last week about Ventura’s 9/11 comments following an appearance on the Alex Jones Show that has now exploded into a frenzy of coverage as he makes the rounds to promote his book Don’t Start the Revolution Without Me, a title that may prove to be more than just rhetoric.



    Full Article...

    I know...crazy isn't it? A man with his credentials questioning the offificial theory?

    Amazing that Hannity didn't start attacking him right off the bat. Hannity intimdated by a "truther" ? I know...crazy isn't it?
     
    #1 poncho, Apr 9, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 9, 2008
  2. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Need ten letters to bump.
     
  3. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Isn't Jesse a guest lecturer at Harvard, not a prof?

    And his credentials? What are his scientific credentials? His knowledge of physics? He's a politician who used to be an actor/wrestler. He also has a penchant for narcisissm. He's liberterian in name only. He advocates big brother type policies when they suit him, and he believes no liberterian should support anything but an open border since that would deny liberty to all who would come into our country.

    I liked Jesse as a wrestler and an actor. I even liked the novelty of his campaign. But his denial of core Constitutional principles, his love of his own voice, his inability to deal with anyone who would dare disagree with him, and his speak first and think later mentality alienated me. He just can't seem to let facts get in the way of good rhetoric, and I'm just not wild about that. I know, I know...I'm in the minority :)
     
  4. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Show me who amongst us is perfect Tom. If I picked my friends by your standards I wouldn't haven't any...I only got a couple as it is.
     
  5. windcatcher

    windcatcher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    While I agree with Venturra's stand on 9-11....
    I regret the opportunities he's had to make other impressive stands but has not.

    But now a little controversy will serve to get free press for his book.

    It's doubtful we'll ever have the real story on 9-11.

    It's also questionable that there's enough influence between those of us watching the demise of our constitution upon those who can't see the forest for the trees, that we'll wake up intime to exert the peacable power the people of this nation could exercise.

    Liberty without law is anarchy. We've been bless to start out as a nation with laws... and the foundation of our laws was the Constitution... and the foundation of our rights in the Constitution was the Bible.
     
  6. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    People would rather be warm safe and fed than be free so long as they can still think they're free I reckon. Questioning authority and the official theory isn't freedom these days it's "fringe extremism" you've all heard the propaganda heads on the tv talking about it. And those that maybe or might practice it maybe or could become dangerous "domestic threats" to the state. (status quo)

    Of course they didn't word it quite that way but that's about the jist of it.

    That's why the state (bipartisan support) approved H.R. 1955 doncha know. It fears an awkening population and is getting it's boot ready to grind in our faces. To keep "order" and "peace" in society. Not to mention to protect itself from our how should I say... our righteous and constitutionally protected indignation.
     
    #6 poncho, Apr 13, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 13, 2008
  7. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,332
    Likes Received:
    786
    Reconsidered
     
    #7 Revmitchell, Apr 13, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 13, 2008
  8. Hopeful

    Hopeful
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    0
    RE: H.R.1955-->

    This definition is troublesome: "The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change." Troublesome because, who defines what constitutes "an extremist belief system"?
    BUT, this: (Sec 899B, Findings) "8) Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents."....doesn't this effectively protect, say-- the average Baptist, from any kind of abuse of the law?
     
  9. windcatcher

    windcatcher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is a troubling and unclear statement.
    Is it saying "Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States will recognize and not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.

    OR

    Is it saying that 'any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States does not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.". [my words to clarify a certain ambiguance in meaning]
     

Share This Page

Loading...