Jesse Ventura Speaks of Torture

[Detroitej72]

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/jesse-ventura-you-give-me-water-board-dick


He definitely speaks his mind. His points about water boarding, Cheney, and Rush are spot on. Unlike the chicken hawk neo-cons, he actually experienced water boarding first hand, and served bravely in the military.

I'm sure Rush and his kind will defend their cowardices and call him all sorts of names, but that is par for the coarse with these people who were too terrified to serve in the armed forces themselves. Cheney himself got 5 deferments because he said he was too busy with other things.

Just remember what they did to war hero John Kerry.

[ccbatson]

He is a left leaning libertarian who has taken too many falls from the top tunrbuckle.

[jams]

He is a left leaning libertarian who has taken too many falls from the top tunrbuckle.
Thank you for proving Detroit72's point.

[Lorax]

He is a left leaning libertarian who has taken too many falls from the top tunrbuckle.

Batts is far-right reactionary who was dropped on his head at birth. :eek:

[Pam]

Have you guys heard about the new "ignore" feature? It's quick and easy. Give it a try.

I never paid much attention to Jesse in the past, but I've been enjoying the clips of his talk show visits the past view days.

[ejames01]

There is nothing that he said in that interview that was not true.


He is a left leaning libertarian who has taken too many falls from the top tunrbuckle.

[Islandman]

A Navy SEAL that served during Vietnam telling it like it is. Kudos to him.

[oladub]

Jesse Ventura and FOX's Brian Kilmeade almost come to blows-

http://www.pyrabang.com/view.php?ref=&post_id=31472&visitor=true

[grumpyoldlady]

I voted for Jesse and helped elect him Governor of Minnesota. He tells it like it is. He is a no-nonsense type guy and I wish he'd run and win a higher office. As for the comment about him taking too many falls on his head...we should all have our heads screwed on as straight as he does. He can be off the wall in appearance, but I'd vote for him for president in a heartbeat.

[Islandman]

I second this.



I voted for Jesse and helped elect him Governor of Minnesota. He tells it like it is. He is a no-nonsense type guy and I wish he'd run and win a higher office. As for the comment about him taking too many falls on his head...we should all have our heads screwed on as straight as he does. He can be off the wall in appearance, but I'd vote for him for president in a heartbeat.

[Jimaz]

Oladub's link didn't work for me so here's another:
http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/19/ventura-schools-kilmeade/

[mjs]

He is a left leaning libertarian who has taken too many falls from the top tunrbuckle.

I had to go to Wikipedia to look up libertarianism, right-libertarianism, left-libertarianism, and re-examine objectivism and comparisons of them to understand what it all means. You believe that you're an objectivist, but you seem more of a right-libertarian who mindlessly repeats ultra-conservative sound bites. I finally found why so many Dems and Repubs sound to me like they're at least partially full of it; I'm as left-libertarian as Jesse. I need to read that book.

[rb336]

what book?

[oladub]

Oladub's link didn't work for me so here's another:
http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/19/ventura-schools-kilmeade/

Thanks Jimaz, That is the same video. Jesse started rocking in his chair. I think this interview took place shortly after Hannity kicked Jesse off of his program. The Kilmeade twerp decided maybe that it was a good time to leave an empty chair on stage. I hope that Jesse emerges from his 'looking for the perfect wave' phase and runs for something. He did say he would run for president last summer but only if he had a lot of support and was guaranteed a place in the presidential debates as an independent. It looks like he will settle for the Cuban ambassadorship now. If he doesn't choose to expose corruption in Washington, at least he can popularize surfing in Cuba. :)

[East Detroit]

what book?

http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Start-Revolution-Without-Me/dp/1602397163/

[rb336]

thanks. i'll have to take a look

[ccbatson]

Objectivism does share somethings with libertarianism with the following important differences:

1. Limited government to insure just trade practices protecting individual property rights under objectivism compared to something closer to anarchy under libertarianism.

2. Defense of our interests abroad via military means, if necessary, is congruent with objectivism, not libertarianism.

The second item is where Jess and left leaning libertarians go wrong (that, and too many piledrivers in the sqaured circle for Jesse).

[otter]

Clearly, everyone who disagrees with you is "go(ing) wrong" and mentally defective to boot :)

O.

[otter]

Slimshady,

"left libertarian" is an old descriptor, not something that Bats made up off the top of his head. perhaps you can do some research to learn what it means, eh?

O.

[Detroitej72]

Jesse's to turn the other cheek for me.

Then you would feel very comfortable among the jihadists radical Muslims.

[mjs]

Objectivism does share somethings with libertarianism with the following important differences:

1. Limited government to insure just trade practices protecting individual property rights under objectivism compared to something closer to anarchy under libertarianism.

2. Defense of our interests abroad via military means, if necessary, is congruent with objectivism, not libertarianism.

The second item is where Jess and left leaning libertarians go wrong (that, and too many piledrivers in the sqaured circle for Jesse).

I can more or less agree, but I'd term it as libertairians believe strong individual rights have to be balanced against community rights. Objectivists believe greed is good; left libertarianists believe competition is good.

I support very few wars abroad with the exception that the US should support UN peace keeping missions provided we aren't expected to carry all the heavy weight. Especially when our interests is code for our Corporate profits.

As to the pile drivers, as I've said to others, personal attacks and name calling weakens your ability to change opinions because it moves the focus from your argument to the messenger.

[Bobl]

Mr. Ventura, as an ex Navy Seal, carries more weight in my opinion.
Mr. Cheney, a five time draft dodger who, when asked about this, replied "I had other priorities.", then became a war profiteer with Haliburton, then shot his friend in the face while "hunting" for tame birds in a fenced in farm lot shows lack of judgement.
They both have enormous egos, but the facts favor Ventura on this issue.

[oladub]

Bats, I read 'Atlas Shrugged' many years ago but I don't remember that it contained the concept of collectively defending 'our interests abroad via military means'. The objectivists instead retreated to their own community thus denying corporate socialists of the ability to harnass their abilities. The problem with your definition is that "our interests" can be whatever those in power want them top be. It might be a better definition of the neocon foreign agenda. Here is a definition of objectivism. I don't think it matches you definition. http://www.answers.com/topic/objectivism

Libertarian is the opposite of authoritarian. Politically, left is the opposite of right. The authoritarian/libertarian spectrum is on one axis while left/right is on the other axis. Leftists tend to be socially libertarian and economically authoritarian. Rightists tend to be more socially authoritarian and economically libertarian.

One problem with your point #2 is that those in power fight too many wars to fulfill their wish list of whatever they consider to be in their interests. They run into someone else who is also willing to wage wars for things that they consider to be in their interest. Libertarians, and I would think objectivists, would instead negotiate mutually agreeable settlements and then start working on their own better solution. For instance, when oil was about $40/barrel Bin Laden said the west should be paying about $117/barrel. The price of oil eventually went over $117 even though we fought wars for our interests. Had we paid more for oil to start with, we could have since gone a long way toward developing energy efficient vehicles and other energy sources with the money we instead spent on those wars.

Jesse is probably more of a social libertarian than an economic libertarian but is more of an economic libertarian than most Democrats. When Jesse was governor of Minnesota, social services and education were not damaged. He approved spending money on light rail. The big change he brought to government was that he questioned a lot of spending that was in the interests of special friends of Democrats and Repoublicans. He broke up the clubbiness and sweeheart insider deals. He and his family were harassed and threatened. The Democrats and Republican establishments mutually hated him. Their attack dogs were the press. I expect a Ventura presidency would follow similar lines. Special interests would run into some libertarian financial sreens delivered to them by a Teddy Roosevelt presona. I doubt that the bankers would like Jesse asking them questions.

[rb336]

If people who call themselves "objectivists" followed that definition, I would have no problem with them. the vast majority of them that I have met (as well as Ayn Rand) tend to throw out objective data that contradict their core dogmas and think that any thinking that doesn't conform to their dogma is "irrational" or "illogical" or "faulty"

In otherwords, Objectivist "logic" is the most purely subjective system I have yet to come across

[otter]

Oladub,

Good post - but it may have had more complexity in it than bats can handle in one post ;)

O.

[d.mcc]

As someone who is very left leaning myself, I can definitely see the appeal of Jesse Ventura. No one, including myself is completely one-sided on the political slant. I consider myself a left-leaning AMERICAN. I side more with those on the left simply because they represent my views more than those on the right. That being said, I don't vote straight ticket, and I have no trouble voting my conscious rather than what some political party tells me to vote. Jesse is an American. He's a veteran, and a VERY smart man who speaks his mind. While I don't agree with all of his viewpoints. I agree more with him than I disagree with him. I would vote for him and not thing twice about it.

[ccbatson]

Oladub...you are making the classic mistake of relying on the fictional material as opposed to the core philosophical works. Read "Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal" and "The Virtues of Selfishness" to get the right idea.

Libertarian is anti authoritarian, perhaps to the extreme of bordering on Anarchy. Not bad things, BTW.

[Lorax]

Oladub...you are making the classic mistake of relying on the fictional material as opposed to the core philosophical works. Read "Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal" and "The Virtues of Selfishness" to get the right idea.

Libertarian is anti authoritarian, perhaps to the extreme of bordering on Anarchy. Not bad things, BTW.

Sounds like a prescription for disaster to me.

By the way, are those titles written by "liberatarians?" If so, I have no interest in volunteering for brainwashing.

[mjs]

Lorax, I've got to hear what category you believe describes your beliefs and what socio-political books you've read and liked.

[Jimaz]

Jesse Ventura on Democracy (http://www.detroityes.com/mb/showpost.php?p=23306&postcount=199)

[Blarf]

Have those who have been waterboarded been properly convicted of terrorism in our courts?

[mjs]

No. Thats part of the problem. It can't be considered a punishment because they're only accused at that point. It would be alot easier to justify if they waited until the guys had been convicted.

[Lorax]

No. Thats part of the problem. It can't be considered a punishment becuase they're only accused at that point. It would be alot easier to justify if they waited until the guys had been comvicted.

Nothing like being a cheerleader for torture!

You and George Bush should do a Torquemada style review of his old Andover Days, since you take your cues from warmongering cheerleaders.

Actually Mel Brooks had it right in "History of the World part I" with the Inquisition Song. Look it up. It should put this all into perspective.

I know looking up things is anthetical to the Reich's m.o., but it really is funny.

Even this "Mancow" social retard from Chicago radio was waterboarded yesterday and admitted it was torture, and he was also a big cheerleader for it.

He lasted a couple of seconds before wussing out like a typical big mouth sissy who runs his chops for a living.

He noted for having called Obama a foreign terrorist, among other socially retarded gems, so you know where he's coming from- land of the Batcrap Crazies.

[mjs]

I know you've seen me speak out against torture! You were arguing against my criticisms regarding Pelosi's inaction on it and also arguing with me against those who defended it in the Bush Torture Memo's thread. I was saying one of the reasons we shouldn't use enhanced interrogation is because we can't be sure the guys are even terrorists. I struggle to understand the Lorax Report.

[ccbatson]

Reading a book...even something as radical and anti American as...oh, I don't know..."The Audacity of Hope" cannot brainwash a person with a modicum of intellect and rational thought.

In this case, the books I referred you to were written by Ayn Rand (as I made very clear)...definitely not a Libertarian as she herself had made clear in various essays and interviews.

[rb336]

how, exactly, is "The Audacity of Hope" un-American?

you are seriously losing your nut, boy

[ccbatson]

Marxism is in American rb

A former professional wrestler tells it like it is?? Right

[Detroitej72]

Marxism is in American rb

A former professional wrestler tells it like it is?? Right

This, from someone who hails a phony plumber as a hero.

[ccbatson]

I never said I thought he was a hero. I think he was lucky to expose Obama as a Marxist on tape.

[rb336]

Marxism is in American rb

A former professional wrestler tells it like it is?? Right


how, exactly, is "The Audacity of Hope" Marxist? chapter and verse, not just 'cause Hannity told you it was

you are seriously losing your nut, boy

[Omaha]

Boy oh boy, what an opening for a Colbert Conservative and Social Darwinist. What about The Audacity of Hope is Marxist? Let the rant begin.

The first thing that jumps to mind is the idea of “empathy.” Empathy is a Marxist concept when applied to government. And when used by individuals, it is anti-free market as well. Sympathy is OK, empathy is dangerous.

For Conservatives and Social Darwinists like Cc and myself, walking in the shoes of others is a waste of time. If others want to prosper in a capitalist society all they have to do is apply themselves. Ayn Rand and the other great political philosophers believe that if everyone just looks out for themselves and their families…EVERYONE PROSPERS.

Now, there may be a lag time for some before success arrives. But starving can be very motivational for those who don’t want to work for minimum wage (which is a Marxist concept to begin with). Rest assured that leading conservative scholars have written that,in the end, individuals competing with each other in the unregulated free market “all works out for the best.” (PUN INTENDED!)

And yet, as I said, even self-disciplined people will fail along the way. But its important to put failure in the proper perspective as Thomas Edison did Edison considered failure as just another way of learning what didn’t work. In that light, failure is a magnificent motivator for showing that capitalism works just as well in real life as it does in theory.

Self-discipline can work for anyone. President Obama applied himself and look what he accomplished. Why can’t every other man and women of color (or poor white trash for that matter) do the same? The answer is quite simple. They don’t apply themselves with the rigor that our President did. He is not the exception to the rule. His success shows that bias and prejudice no longer exists in the U.S. We have a level playing field on which to compete. This stuff about DWB and other examples of “so-called real-life bias” is just in the imagination of Marxists.

If people choose to apply themselves, going to Denby is no different or more limiting than going to Cranbrook. That stuff about different teachers, curriculum, higher expectations and a culture of success, or social networking giving someone an unfair leg up on the competition is crazy. :rolleyes:

Now President Obama wants to lead folks with the false idea that government can do something to help increase social and economic mobility. There is exactly enough social and economic mobility as needed. Anyone who says different is a Marxist.


President Obama wants us to believe that empathy is the basis for democracy. My gosh, he wants to promote freedom and fairness for the poor and downtrodden. What he won’t say is that every time that happens, it inevitably unfairly limits the freedom and liberty of the wealthy. How? Either through the enactment some sort of Marxist legislation that limits corporate decisions or through some sort of taxation where the government takes from the rich and gives to the poor.

Here’s a prescription from long ago that still applies today.

“The prosperity of the lower and middle classes depends upon the good fortune and light taxes of the rich.” Andrew Mellon, treasury secretary under Presidents Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover; founder of Gulf Oil and Alcoa who, at his appointment, was the third richest man in America

In our society, we need not go any further than caring just about ourselves and our immediate families. Adam Smith wrote that "The invisible hand of God" takes care of the rest. But that is not enough for Marxists. They think it’s empathetic to get the government involved.

If some of the elite wealthy among us do decide to sympathize and help others less well off that is our decision. Charity is individual in nature and not governmental. It is not the role of the government to get involved and give the less well off a hand up. And history teaches us that when government does get involved, it is always in the form of a handout that robs people of the initiative to improve themselves and makes them dependent on BIG government.

Now some of you may argue that I should look at how dependent the military industrial complex is on BIG government. Those "no bid" and “cost plus” contracts are needed to keep this nation safe from invasion from within and without. National security trumps anything else, like individual rights to privacy, no matter how often Marxists may complain about individual rights being violated.

Here’s what I mean by BIG government. Take Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. It unfairly limits the right of employers to hire, promote and fire who they want. This is a great example of the “empathy thing” driving unneeded legislation. Social Darwinists know that the most competent will get hired and promoted and the least capable of helping an employer to maximize profits will be let go. That is as the market dictates. Government interference is unwanted, wasteful, and causes headaches for the corporations that make this country grow.

Please feel free to apply that error-proof logic to all other legislation that gives workers so-called rights like Social security, unemployment compensation, workers compensation, minimum wage, overtime and the National Labor Relations, Equal Pay, Occupational Safety and Health, Americans with Disabilities, and Family and Medical Leave Acts. Each unfairly robs management of its legal rights to unilaterally determine any and all conditions of employment as it sees fit. My gosh people, if the market wanted employers to hire adults rather than children, the market would have made that clear to employers. Its just good business sense to use cheaper child labor whenever possible. :D

Government interference in employment decisions based on “empathy” just gets in the way and is MARXIST.

And please don’t give me the Christian Sermon on the Mount arguments. Jesus never ran a business in an international market where the philosophy of "dog-eat-dog" rules. He never had to operate in a place where if you are not a tough businessman you are thrown to the lions. Yeah, I know, some of his followers had that happen to them. But look where they ended up…dead! :eek:

I better not get started on his recent nomination to the SCOTUS. She is “empathetic.” She believes that because she faced oppression and deprivation as a poor Latina that she brings something to the Court that Chief Justice Roberts doesn’t. She thinks that she brings a complementary vision of the consequences of judicial decisions that others don’t. That’s crazy talk. It’s like saying that if there were more black justices on the SCOTUS in 1896, Plessey v. Ferguson would have been decided differently. :confused:

I define empathy as not being reflective of the diversity of this nation. I define it as not recognizing a responsibility to the less well off. Empathy is merely a personal bias…typically an anti-white male bias.

What makes the POTUS think that a white male has a bias? Where is that written? No where! And that is why things like the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act are Marxist.

It is clear to Colbert Conservatives and Social Darwinists like Cc and myself that anti-white male bias has no place on the SCOTUS. If a pro-white male bias existed in this country it is just the rightful legacy of our Founding Fathers. They limited the vote to white male property owners. Take this quote from John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the SCOTUS. “The people who own this country ought to govern it.” In 1790, they also limited becoming naturalized citizens to free whites.

It couldn’t be any more clear. Empathy is a Marxist concept. Oh I could go on and on about the horrors of believing that the government has a “social responsibility” to make the nation/world better by “caring” for its citizens by protecting them. Give me a break! If people don’t measure up, let them lie by the roadside. At least that way they would serve as an important reminder to the others to work hard and make something of themselves. That is a better alternative to an empathy-driven government interfering in the affairs of business.
.

[Detroitej72]

I seem to recall folks on the right were overjoyed at the selection of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, and GHWB even said that it was necessary to have a black justice replace Thurgood Marshall. Nobody on the right was too concerned with diversity back then, but I suspect it is because Thomas thinks like them.

And nobody on the right had any problems when Justice Samuel Alito famously proclaimed he brought a different perspective, since, as the son of immigrants, he faced discrimination first hand as well. You guys crack me up with all this holier than though rhetoric, its Ok to claim you bring "perspective" to the court, just as long as you lean to the right.

And yes, Plessy vs Ferguson would have been decided diferently had the court been racially diverse. It wasn't until the liberal thinkers started to take over the government that we got past the segragation laws that the consevatives embraced so dearly.

[ccbatson]

Libs can't fathom that conservatives like Clarence Thomas because of his character and ideology, not his skin color.

[rb336]

Omaha, good to have you back

[Detroitej72]

Libs can't fathom that conservatives like Clarence Thomas because of his character and ideology, not his skin color.

Conservatives were overjoyed at Thomas' nomination because they could claim they were now open minded about race.

Myself, I think he is a competent justice, even though I sometimes disagree with his rulings.

[ccbatson]

Very competent at the limited role he rightfully acknowledges as proper behavior for a Supreme Court Justice. Again, my statement about liberals being unable to "get" honesty like that stands.

[Jimaz]

Cheney's Spin Machine Isn't Working (http://www.detroityes.com/mb/showpost.php?p=27772&postcount=230)

[East Detroit]

Conservatives were overjoyed at Thomas' nomination because they could claim they were now open minded about race.

Myself, I think he is a competent justice, even though I sometimes disagree with his rulings.

What about his ruling that someone put a pubic hair on his coke? Agree or disagree?

[rb336]

i suggest you read "Strange Justice: The Selling of Clarence Thomas"

[ccbatson]

That's the best they, liberals, have? A hair on a coke can? Next

[gibran]

I suggest someone re-reads or reads "Audacity of Hope" and underline the un-American parts that I missed....

Unlike a true "objectivist" stuck in the concrete and basking in skewed statistics...libertarians are a very diverse and interesting group, and like many of the third party candidates (after meeting and listening to Nader) I would welcome their views voiced on the mainstream...but that would scare many of the power parties...and we don't want to do that.

Heaven forbid those who proclaim to protect individual constructs like our friends on the right see anyone who speaks their minds less individual than themselves,,,,,

[edgewood]

objectivist, but you seem more of a right-libertarian

Objectivist + Right leaning Libertarian = Neo Conservative.

[oladub]

Objectivist + Right leaning Libertarian = Neo Conservative.

You are so far off base. Look up a definition of neocon. Neocons and modern liberals have much more in common than libertarians do with either. Definitions for your review-

Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States of America, and which supports using American economic and military power to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries. Unlike traditional conservatives, neoconservatives are generally comfortable with a minimally-bureaucratic welfare state; and, while generally supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes. -Wikipedia

Libertarianism is a term used by a broad spectrum of political philosophies which seek to maximize individual liberty, which they see as requiring minimization of state power over individuals' personal and economic decisions, or for some libertarians, the abolition of the state. Libertarians embrace viewpoints across that spectrum ranging from anti-property to pro-property, from openly anarchist to minimal government. The word libertarian is an antonym of authoritarian. -Wikipedia

[gibran]

a neocon wouldn't know real liberty and economic security if it bite them on the nose..they are generally old liberals who saw their chance to seize power through manipulation and fear with a Madison ave mentality and a think tank credential...Wolfowitz, Perle, Kilpatrick, Douglas Fife, Kistrol et al..really did a number on us..playing into the Christian right 's fear of secularism and other people's beliefs while exploiting 9/11 for their own gains...while claiming to spread democracy( or at least their brand)..they should be held accountable for the mess Barak is having to clean up...

by the wayisnt he doing a great job ....we are very lucky to have a president who really cares about the American people and who has a more realistic view of the real sense of Social Justice....which by the way is what Democracy should evolve to...

[rb336]

You are so far off base. Look up a definition of neocon. Neocons and modern liberals have much more in common than libertarians do with either. Definitions for your review-

Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States of America, and which supports using American economic and military power to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries. Unlike traditional conservatives, neoconservatives are generally comfortable with a minimally-bureaucratic welfare state; and, while generally supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes. -Wikipedia

"Neoconservative" is an extremely changeable term. The Wiki definition was accurate for the 50s, when it was essentially hawkish democrats "Scoop" Jackson was probably the best example of this. the current use of the term, however, derives from that nasty bit of fascism, A Project for the New American Century and its signatories

[Pam]

by the way isnt he doing a great job

I'd like to see him say we are going to prosecute those responsible for the torture.

[gibran]

this might be a President Ford act...even though it would be the right thing to do..he may have to consider all the options ...the role of pres takes on a whole new meaning when you in the chair...I still think depsite his tightrope on some issues his leadership is just beginning to emerge....

[ccbatson]

How could a libertarian or an objectivist be "comfortable" with a welfare state of any kind? They can't, these neo cons you speak of, when it comes to liberty...are liberal.

[Islandman]

Omaha, you rock! That is all..:)

[ccbatson]

The funny thing is, that sarcastic or not, the stand alone validity of the principles of objectivism shines through.

[vetalalumni]

Omaha, you rock!
Well constructed Omaha.

[ccbatson]

He has quite an audience amongst the underclassman, doesn't he? Does that tell you something?

[ccbatson]

It is just eating me up inside that I can't have the liberal children on Dyes worship me like Omaha.

[rb336]

The funny thing is, that sarcastic or not, the stand alone validity of the principles of objectivism shines through.

If that were the case, there would be some objective evidence to back it up, but there isn't. the randians pick and choose what they believe is "logical" based on how it stacks up to their tired, disfunctional, nearly psychotic dogma rather than how robust the evidence is. that, by the way, is definitively SUBJECTIVE rather than OBJECTIVE