29 votes

Jesse Ventura Off The Grid New Show


http://youtu.be/oTiCSlRuOjU

ron paul thursday

gary johnson friday

http://www.ora.tv/offthegrid



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Debbie's picture

That is awesome!!

Go Jesse!

Debbie

Garan's picture

Support and Guidance

I generally think that people who get most of the freedom message right, should be encouraged, not torn apart.

It always seems to be the case that those who are part of the beginning of a major movement have a hard time watching the Johnny-come-latelys (not saying this about Jesse) take the ball and run with it.
However, it is probably necessary and inevitable.

..anything to get all the different walks of people aware. That's my view.

great story about his gay friend

I wasn't aware of that problem as it relates to gay marriage.

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

wish jesse would give up statism fully and completely

.

Tag team of Jefferson & Duck Dynasty vs. Jesse the madman

Well I don't know why Ventura is getting down on the Duck Dynasty comment. I mean after all Ventura said he wished everybody would be a Thomas Jefferson type. In 1777, Jefferson worked on an anti-sodomy law for Virginia, which said: "Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy (Homosexuality)with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting through the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least." Fortunately, the Virginia legislature voted it down, because they already assigned the death penalty, which was more proper in keeping with the penalties for such crimes as related in God's Word. Maybe since Ventura is no longer governor, he should try running for the Mayor of San Francisco (The Sodom and Gomorrah of America). He could get dressed up in a little girly man camouflage skirt. I'm sure he would be welcomed in that city for helping out their cause. Or maybe, since he likes the camera so much, he could start a new program call "Perverted Duck Dynasty." And he could play the leader of all the little perverted ducks.

I noticed in the intro how it

I noticed in the intro how it lists his past jobs, like navy seal, wrestler, governor, and then it says president with a question mark. I think he seriously wants to run, and I think he is serious when he says he won't do it without Howard Stern. This show is not about fat youtube video paychecks, it is his election soapbox, he is priming the pump.

I think Howard Stern doesn't take it seriously, but might initially go along with it as a self promotion goof. I think Howard might be shocked how much traction they will actually have.

Jesse knows how entertainment works, his simplistic style of wrestling speeches would have appeal to many many young lemmings out there. I don't agree with Jesse on abortion, which is a big issue for me, however I don't ever find myself wondering if he is an honest man, I do with Rand Paul though.

With Rand Paul I spend my time wondering if he is a man of principal doing what he has to in order to play the game, or if he has flexible morals/ethics and is just trying to dupe his dad's fan base.

Part 2

"Hell is empty, and all the devils are here" (Shakespeare)
RP 2012~ Intellectual Revolution.

I like Jesse. I do. He's a

I like Jesse. I do. He's a lot of fun. But he's making money. That's all. I just don't think he's for real.

Being that a lot of his views

Being that a lot of his views are not consistent with the non aggression/property rights views i see how its easy to think he's just making money. I think he is doing his best at trying to help but he just isnt as intelligent on some issues as we would like him to be. In the first 5 minutes of this video he is against the income tax, we may think he's against it because its an act of aggression or its unconstitutional or another reason similar to that, but he then goes and says we need a national sales tax. So obviously he is not against the income tax for reasons being it is unconstitutional or an act of agression, we dont know why he is against the income tax. We do know he supports an unconstitutional sales tax and the act of "robbing from the rich and giving to the poor" becuase somebody bought a fancy car with their hard earned money. He has a lot of good views but he obviously doesnt use non agression/property rights principles to come up with his stance on issues.

I think Jesse thinks that

I think Jesse thinks that those who live the largest can make the choice to pay more taxes. There will always be taxes, at least you would have the choice to opt out if you chose not to buy something. A sales tax would at least allow some choice on how much you pay in taxes as opposed to the income tax which is totally involuntary.

Theoretically you would have a larger tax base, since some people don't pay income taxes like drug dealers. Drug dealers do however buy stuff. I am pretty sure Jesse would also want to slash "defense", I mean Offense spending. I know he believes our military shouldn't go more than 500 miles beyond our border, and he references Smedley Butler.

i still completely disagree

i still completely disagree with it. Its like saying, "yea you can be rich...but only if you dont want to spend your money. You can keep all your money as long as you dont try and enjoy your hard work by buying yourself something nice." Its not really a choice if you have to opt out of of buying stuff you want. Might as well go move someplace where everyone is poor and nobody sells good things.

Ever heard the saying that

Ever heard the saying that only 2 things are for sure in life, death and taxes?

Are you against all taxes? Against funding anything publicly? You certainly have the right to be a full anarchist. I am for small limited government, but not the total elimination of it. If it were up to me, I would easily slash over 75% of it, probably more I would have to see the numbers.

I know you are concerned about the millions of dollars that you have, but at least you would have a voluntary option as to how much you would pay on your fortune.

Voluntary choice does not always mean a good choice. You can choose to leave a job that you do not like, but the alternative might be living in a cardboard box. That doesn't mean you don't have a voluntary option.

Does a sales tax you can opt out of provide more liberty than an income tax? Yes. Is it perfect and going to make everyone happy? No. Is there a perfect answer to funding public works? Tell me what it is.

Practical answer

~ Public Trusts

Taxation is unethically premised on anti-voluntary coercion and should be abolished.

Public Trusts conversely dignify the prerogative of individual choice while reserving the right to exercise one's conscience, and withdraw from abuse.

More here
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=361786257294768

Ok, so do not take this as an

Ok, so do not take this as an endorsement of forced taxation, but I am pretty skeptical that a public trust (a passing of the hat), is going to provide adequate funds to operate things that serve the public good. Maybe it would, but I doubt it.

I might me more inclined to donate towards schools if I have a kid or two in school, but if I don't, maybe I am not thinking of the long term effects of living around a bunch of poorly educated people.

Passing the hat, in my experience, is kind of a peer pressure thing. I don't enjoy parting with my money, but I have when I was younger only because I felt guilt if I didn't. So in order to get a lot of people to donate, there has to be a shame system to work, maybe. Now that I am older, I am more generous, but not when I was younger and less empathetic.

I think a public trust system of funding would require people to be smart enough to see the big picture, and based on the current state of things, I don't have that much trust in the general public. There is also the human aspect of a diffusion of responsibility. When someone collapses on the street and a lot of people are around, they tend to feel someone else should do something to help, and when they are the only one around they jump right in.

>

1) 'I am pretty skeptical that a public trust (a passing of the hat), is going to provide adequate funds to operate things that serve the public good. Maybe it would, but I doubt it'

Firstly, a lack of confidence in the good will of others still does not justify violating the agency of an individual ~ taxation.

Secondly though, all the money which is spent on the NSA or unjust wars etc can be re-directed by each citizen's choice; hence as Dr. Ron advocated, the practical result becomes 'limited government'

2) 'I might me more inclined to donate towards schools if I have a kid or two in school, but if I don't', maybe I am not thinking of the long term effects of living around a bunch of poorly educated people'

In principle and if an individual wishes to fund a public road rather than a school (or what they might judge to be an abusive department for example), they should have that prerogative.

Otherwise I believe it is a presumption to argue that everyone values the same thing. For example some might prefer to keep the military strong, some prefer endowing the arts, etc

3) 'Passing the hat, in my experience, is kind of a peer pressure thing'

Partial disagreement: I think most tolerate taxation because in theory, it is supposedly for important amenities like roads or hospitals.

Further and personally, I see municipal Trusts as a way to not only demonstrate authentic pride for having contributed to a bridge (for ex.), but also to help my fellow man without the moral conflict of taxation or mandates

4) 'So in order to get a lot of people to donate, there has to be a shame system to work, maybe'

Disagreement and IMO such pre-suppositions are typically the rationale of despots
Ie. 'people are too stupid to determine their own lives' or 'because we believe that people don’t have good will, we are going to subjugate and if they don’t like it, too bad.'

IMO a truly tolerant society would recognize the light/(dark) within each individual and honor it with free choice to exercise their conscience

5) 'I think a public trust system of funding would require people to be smart enough to see the big picture, and based on the current state of things, I don't have that much trust in the general public'

Fair enough, although I would still criticize the pre-judgment that individuals aren't blessed with conscionability to exercise care for others, nor the ability to understand the setting of a good example.

Incidentally though, what I am endorsing also reserves the right to withdraw from abuse so if dissatisfied with service or corruption, you could re-direct funding that aligns with your own virtues and 'level the playing field' fiscally

6) 'There is also the human aspect of a diffusion of responsibility. When someone collapses on the street and a lot of people are around, they tend to feel someone else should do something to help, and when they are the only one around they jump right in'

Perhaps so, while others routinely participate in larger efforts to assist those in need
http://www.habitat.org/newsroom/2005archive/insitedoc010607....

I appreciate the notion you

I appreciate the notion you are putting forward and I think it could work on a local level to an extent, but not on a national level. This does not mean I believe taxation through force is right, it just means I think the answer is not all there.

I was just talking to my brother and he was pissed off about the people on the corner here holding signs to raise property taxes to pay for schools. Pissed because he has no kids and no desire to have them. He pointed out that his paying to fund education was funding his future marketplace competition. I thought he made a good point. A selfish one, but a good one.

He works in a navy yard as a welder for a contractor. I told him I didn't like my taxes being taken to pay people like him a good salary to create war machines, especially when they are not even practical ones. He said he understood it was very inefficient what he does. He obviously has to get his in this life, and no one in the private sector is going to pay him as well.

Thanks for your consideration too

To answer as well

1) 'I think it could work on a local level to an extent, but not on a national level'

Partial disagreement: because nationhood is the furthest removed from individually seated conscience within 8 theoretical scopes of governance [ international / *federal / state / county / township / estate / domicile / *self ], there is lesser immediate need.
Practically then it would require a smaller percentage when divided amongst citizens to maintain functions like national defense, or other ventures like space travel etc

2) 'He pointed out that his paying to fund education was funding his future marketplace competition. I thought he made a good point. A selfish one, but a good one'

I would say that he's entitled of course not only to his opinion, but also to where he might divest his own value.
Additionally it's a presumption to say that those who value schools wouldn't also support a proper military etc

3) 'I told him I didn't like my taxes being taken to pay people like him a good salary to create war machines, especially when they are not even practical ones'

This further makes my case for municipal Trusts since you can divest value where you civilly see fit, as could your brother, and your neighbors on the street corner

4) 'He obviously has to get his in this life, and no one in the private sector is going to pay him as well'

IMO the economy would conjunctively benefit since people would have the prerogative to exchange in whatever kind of currency standard they see fit (ex. silver, gold), thus freeing the public from imposed inflation and municipal dependency, while further opening private commercial markets.

In any case and until there's a better idea, to me such Trusts are the closest apparatus to realizing a just ideology

the federal government could

the federal government could operate on 1 million dollars a year if it operated as as it was supposed to, probably less than that. You would need no income or sales tax. Besides i would be paying more in taxes under a national sales tax than i would with the current income tax. Unless the national sales tax is like 3%.

I think one million is pretty

I think one million is pretty low, especially if they are going to still have a military at the federal level. There isn't much that the constitution actually empowers the feds to specifically do, depending on your definition of providing for the "general welfare". I would have been nice if the founding fathers didn't use such a vague term that is open to many different interpretations.

Of course the states are supposed to be a counterbalance to the feds, but also the feds are supposed to be a check on the states. The same way that power is divided among 3 branches of federal government. If the feds were too weak, then you would be trading a national tyranny for a local one. It is like the line Mel Gibson says in the "patriot". "Why would I trade one tyrant a thousand miles away, for a thousand tyrants one mile away?".

Ha ha!

Jesse could have sold out with contracts with Fox and the like... I think he is an inspiration, Go Jesse!

Let us disappoint the Men who are raising themselves upon the ruin of this Country. John Adams

He is for real, and he's

He is for real, and he's already got plenty of money and a nice home in Mexico. Its chep to live down there so I dont think he's really in it for the money.

must be making millions off

must be making millions off these youtube videos...lol...

Hell yeah the politicians

Hell yeah the politicians would get fired if it were a real job they kept failing at.

we cant just reply to this

we should spread this like wildfire.

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine

The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!

U Betcha...

Up North!

http://www.dailypaul.com/311288/president-venturas-state-of-...

"I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_enlistment

There is no duration defined in the Oath

Bump

Looks good!

allegory - ˈalɪg(ə)ri/ - noun - 1. a story, poem, or picture which can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.

love it!

love it!