| 5/21/2009 8:27:48 AM |
Fox News at its best |
|
alan272
East Helena, MT
59, joined Feb. 2009
|
Here is Jesse Ventura chewing up Fixed News:
Meet singles at DateHookup.dating, we're 100% free! Join now!
|
| 5/22/2009 7:14:21 PM |
Fox News at its best |
|
pamela0324
Pasadena, MD
63, joined Nov. 2007
|
He said it....ask questions of your government of the past 8 years, you are not patriotic.
The Bush/Cheney administration and their minions (Fox News) beat up anyone who questioned the administration's logic, "facts" and actions. And we, who questioned, were labeled in the ugliest terms.
Amazing how the tables are now turned -- its somehow now patriotic to question everything Obama believes, says, does and intends to do.
Jesse Ventura - a man who says whatever is on his mind - and what a treat to see him chew up that syncophant!
Peace, Pam
|
| 5/24/2009 4:55:03 PM |
Fox News at its best |
|
coolchick
Woodway, TX
64, joined Nov. 2006
|
 alan & pam
I thought Jesse was great to bring up the lies told by previous administrations, including going back to Vietnam. Wow. So similar to how the Bush administration peddled lies to sell the Iraq invasion. I do think Jesse is in la-la land on his 9/11 theory. And, that he goes a bit out in left field on his anti-government ranting.
But, I loved seeing him sock it to that idiot from Fox News. Jesse was definately the higher intellect in that show-down.
|
| 5/31/2009 2:05:13 AM |
Fox News at its best |
|
nansterdee
Saint Louis, MO
56, joined May. 2008
|
Great videos!!! Thanks for sharing!
|
| 7/8/2009 6:12:25 PM |
Fox News at its best |
|
walter555
Albuquerque, NM
60, joined May. 2009
|
Fox News at its very best.
You can learn a little bit about purity.
|
| 7/8/2009 6:21:30 PM |
Fox News at its best |
|
coolchick
Woodway, TX
64, joined Nov. 2006
|
Walter, your video broke up on me. What I was able to see was some idiot apparently talking about racial purity. Was that it? What's up with him saying "We keep marrying other species"? Does he know what a species is? What, are some humans marrying giraffes or something? Enquiring minds want to know.
|
| 7/8/2009 7:37:08 PM |
Fox News at its best |
|
billzbub1
San Pedro, CA
59, joined Mar. 2009
|
I think his parents were related.
|
| 7/28/2009 4:02:47 PM |
Fox News at its best |
|
redshyguy25
Spokane, WA
33, joined Jul. 2009
|
Mr. Ventura does have some valid points.
It isn't about the fact that people are being tortured; it's about sticking to what we've said. Okay, so we torture someone for information; fine. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but fine: we do it. Why, then, do we deny we've done it? Why not change the law? Simple: people would hate the government. Yet we were doing the same thing before the Patriot Act; the only difference now is that everything we were already doing is now legal if there's an iminent threat.
I don't think that torture is humane. I disagree with it either as a form of punishment or interrogation. However, like the death penalty, I think there are certain circumstances where it should be permitted. There are people out there blowing up their kids, for crying out loud. If you're willing to strap a bomb to your child's chest and send him into a store to kill 30 people, I'd be willing to waterboard you myself. You deserve it. But the crime should fit the punishment.
Really, how is torture any different than the death penalty? We strap someone to a table, put three needles in them, and then let people watch them die. The only difference is we intend to kill them; with torture, we just make people think we're going to kill them.
As for lying, it's what the government does. Ventura's right: our government lied to get us to fight in Vietnam. The government lies its a** off for many reasons: sometimes the cause is just; sometimes it's not. But no one's disputing the fact that they lie. The point, I think, is that if the government is going to lie about something, they should make it something that needs to be lied about. We didn't need to fight in Vietnam; it wasn't our war. But if the CIA lies about espionage in China or if the NSA lies about having a communications satellite monitoring peoples' phone calls, whether it's right or wrong, it's because they're trying to protect themselves in order to protect our country.
On the other hand, you don't bring a knife to a gunfight. If you're gonna duke it out with someone, make sure you're prepared. Jesse was; I'm not so sure about the guy from Fox. 
[Edited 7/28/2009 4:05:17 PM ]
|
| 8/5/2009 8:56:40 AM |
Fox News at its best |
|
danguitarman
Redding, CA
63, joined Aug. 2007
|
Hi Coolchick! Jesse's not crazy. I saw and heard a panel on CSPAN made up of physicists and engineers talking about the destruction of the twin towers and they all seemed to think that the destruction that occured could not be the result solely of the impact of aircraft. They believed that there must have been simultaneous or near simultaneous explosions at ground level for those towers to come down. These people were all highly qualified in their areas. One of them had been involved with the design and construction of the twin towers.
I know it sounds bizzare. I'm not a conspiracy nut and neither is Jesse. He might have seen the same panel that I saw on CSPAN.
[Edited 8/5/2009 8:58:45 AM ]
|
| 8/8/2009 2:28:51 PM |
Fox News at its best |
|
coolchick
Woodway, TX
64, joined Nov. 2006
|
Well, dan, I've seen reports from architectural & engineering experts that offered to explain why the towers collapsed after being hit by the airplanes. According to those experts, the towers collapsed due to the interior steel reinforcing structures failing due to the intense heat generated from the burning jet fuel. Basically, the heat pretty much melted the infrastructure of the inside of the buildings, and they came tumbling down. Pretty simple. If there was some government conspiracy associated with "nine-eleven", it would have come to light by now. I mean, it's been ten years. Somebody would have spilled the beans by now, if there were any beans to be spilled. That's my opinion.
|
| 8/12/2009 6:40:43 AM |
Fox News at its best |
|
danguitarman
Redding, CA
63, joined Aug. 2007
|
I remember in the 1960s when it was exposed for the first time that the Lusitania, which was sunk by a German submarine in 1917 and this sinking caused us to declare war on Germany and enter World War I, was actually carrying munitions which made it a valid military target. This information had been suppressed by our government from 1917 until sometime in the 1960s.
A more recent example is the Gulf of Tonking incident. The firing on an American warship in the Gulf of Tonkin, off of North Vietnam, led congress to approve the escalation of the war in Vietnam. I think it was 1964. I don't know all of the details or how or when it was revealed, but sometime in the 1990s it came out that the whole attack never occurred and it was a sham to get approval for the war from congress and the public.
I don't know how the towers came down. I have heard it said that the temperature at which jet fuel burns would be insufficient to melt the steel superstructure of those towers. I don't know if this is true or not. I have heard that only "thermite" bombs would generate the heat required to melt the superstucture and that for the towers to come down that the bombs would have to have been exploded at the base of the buildings. There were three buildings destroyed and the third one was not hit by a plane and yet it, too, had been "melted".
Once again, I swear I'm not a conspiracy nut. This panel on CSPAN was very persuasive and I'm sure, Coolchick, that if you had seen it you would also wonder about what really happened. If there is more to come out, it might not be revealed in our lifetimes.
I only brought it up, though, to defend Jesse Ventura. He may sound like a nut sometimes but he's not a nut. The republicans think that Al Franken is a nut, too; and there's no sharper guy in DC.
[Edited 8/12/2009 6:45:18 AM ]
|
| 8/12/2009 11:05:59 PM |
Fox News at its best |
|
coolchick
Woodway, TX
64, joined Nov. 2006
|
Hey, dan, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about 9/11. I didn't mean to give the impression that I think Jesse Ventura is crazy. I think he makes a lot of good points, and is intelligent. I just think he's way off about 9/11.
|
| 8/13/2009 2:16:31 PM |
Fox News at its best |
|
fzappa
Oklahoma City, OK
60, joined Sep. 2008
|
Well, dan, I've seen reports from architectural & engineering experts that offered to explain why the towers collapsed after being hit by the airplanes. According to those experts, the towers collapsed due to the interior steel reinforcing structures failing due to the intense heat generated from the burning jet fuel. Basically, the heat pretty much melted the infrastructure of the inside of the buildings, and they came tumbling down. Pretty simple. If there was some government conspiracy associated with "nine-eleven", it would have come to light by now. I mean, it's been ten years. Somebody would have spilled the beans by now, if there were any beans to be spilled. That's my opinion.
CC, I don't want to see this thread melt down with another 9/11 CT issue but it's not that simple. WTC 7 fell for no apparent reason...annnnd jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel..but I just want to point out that things are not always as they seem and the reporting of the events of 9/11 were very...unseemly. I am not saying we attacked ourselves but there are too many unanswered questions to draw any final conclusions.
But back on the topic at hand!
|
| 8/15/2009 6:17:50 AM |
Fox News at its best |
|
danguitarman
Redding, CA
63, joined Aug. 2007
|
If burning jet fuel could melt steel girders, then why wouldn't it melt the jet engine? And even if jet fuel could melt steel girders, that doesn't explain how those structures were completely demolished. This is not entirely off-topic because Jesse Ventura brought this up on the clip and was criticized for it here, but not by the Faux News folks.
|
| 8/26/2009 2:49:23 PM |
Fox News at its best |
|
bklynbabi
Brooklyn, NY
52, joined Dec. 2008
|
I think the most important point is one of free speach & the ability 2 ask govn. officials questions (holding them accountable, keeping them in check) which is a legitamate point regardless of weather the questions asked are valid or not.
|
| 8/26/2009 5:30:00 PM |
Fox News at its best |
|
ctprincess
Danbury, CT
64, joined Feb. 2009
|
Walter, your video broke up on me. What I was able to see was some idiot apparently talking about racial purity. Was that it? What's up with him saying "We keep marrying other species"? Does he know what a species is? What, are some humans marrying giraffes or something? Enquiring minds want to know.
If the video broke up on you, try this, when you attempt to play a video if you hit the pause button and let the video continue to load then when it is done it will play through smoothly. Try it...it works.
|
| 8/26/2009 5:31:37 PM |
Fox News at its best |
|
ctprincess
Danbury, CT
64, joined Feb. 2009
|
I think the most important point is one of free speach & the ability 2 ask govn. officials questions (holding them accountable, keeping them in check) which is a legitamate point regardless of weather the questions asked are valid or not.
 What she said....
|
| 9/2/2009 3:50:46 PM |
Fox News at its best |
|
walter555
Albuquerque, NM
60, joined May. 2009
|
|
| 9/2/2009 9:51:20 PM |
Fox News at its best |
|
coolchick
Woodway, TX
64, joined Nov. 2006
|
Walter, what was Glenn Beck rattling on about? If he wants to be with his family so much, then who is stopping him from staying home? Who is making him be on TV? What are the walls and gates and security he's talking about? Is it that he needs protection because he's so famous? So, get off of TV and quit being famous. Or is he paranoid delusional?     
|
| 10/4/2009 6:48:01 PM |
Fox News at its best |
|
walter555
Albuquerque, NM
60, joined May. 2009
|
Brooks: "Loons" Beck, Limbaugh, Levin "don't control" GOP
And Brooks is very conservative to say the least.
|
| 10/5/2009 4:08:54 AM |
Fox News at its best |
|
danguitarman
Redding, CA
63, joined Aug. 2007
|
Thank you, Walter, for that voice of reason from the right.
|
| 10/6/2009 8:51:05 PM |
Fox News at its best |
|
coolchick
Woodway, TX
64, joined Nov. 2006
|
I'd disagree with Mr. Brooks in his assessment that Limbaugh and Beck don't have a major influence on right-leaning folks. Or maybe it's just where I live that makes me think that.
|
| 10/6/2009 11:53:02 PM |
Fox News at its best |
|
danguitarman
Redding, CA
63, joined Aug. 2007
|
Hi CoolChick! That is a reasonable and reassuring little video clip. I don't think that anyone will deny that the far right media bulldogs like Beck and Limbaugh were opposed to the candidacy of John McCain. David Brooks is arguing that McCain won even in the most conservative of all early primary states (South Carolina) even though Beck and Limbauch vehemently opposed McCain.
So, argues David Brooks, how much political power do these guys really have? Apparently, not much.
On the other hand though, look at who McCain picked as his running mate. This was raw meat for the Beck and Limbaugh crowd and they still think she's great.
Didn't the Democrats WIN last November? I seem to recall a total change in control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency. The Republican party is in a state of virtual disintegration. They are wavering between permanent minority status and oblivion. So I guess these guys like Beck and Limbaugh just aren't doing a very good job of expanding the support for the Republican party.
|
| 10/7/2009 8:46:54 PM |
Fox News at its best |
|
coolchick
Woodway, TX
64, joined Nov. 2006
|
Point well taken, dan. You bring up an interesting point in that McCain picking Palin as his running mate was to bolster support from the far-right. That move back-fired on McCain because (imo) he failed to understand that there needs to be intelligence behind the facade of flaming rhetoric and the "youth factor". If you agree that Palin was offered up as a appeasement to the followers of Beck and Limbaugh, and if you agree that Palin was McCain's undoing....then would you then agree that Beck, Limbaugh and their followers did have a major influence on the election?
|
| 11/5/2009 5:01:04 PM |
Fox News at its best |
|
walter555
Albuquerque, NM
60, joined May. 2009
|
|
| 2/2/2010 2:47:28 PM |
Fox News at its best |
|
walter555
Albuquerque, NM
60, joined May. 2009
|
|