Jesse Ventura: why was he considering RFK jr as a running mate?
Posted May 7th, 2008 by atrickpay
output
Remember when Ventura was on Larry King last month?
Why did he name-drop Robert F. Kennedy Jr as a potential running mate for him? What is he thinking??
First off, RFK Jr is a liberal ideologically.
Secondly, he is a climate change fear-mongerer!
This was just on my mind....Am I missing something here?
Bookmark/Search this post with:
- Login or register to post comments
- Flag as offensive
The more I see, the more I like
CHECK THIS OUT
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
Then tell me you can’t deal with this guy.
For what it’s worth…Joe has a personal perspective, watch the end.
For those of you who pause because he’s a Democrat, think about it…He’s a Kennedy. And because of this, he doesn’t have to justify himself to them by conformity. While for now I’d RATHER have him pissing in their tent, I might suggest Ron Paul put him on the short list.
BEST TAG TEAM COMBINATION
PAUL / VENTURA
http://www.dailypaul.com/...
Jesse "ran away" Ventura
I think I will go see how his book is doing on amazon and NY times. I think we started the revolution without him. I give him credit .. he had a great TV show for awhile.He spoke a lot of truth and woke up many Americans He announced that he may run as president... then.. got cancelled. Like Tucker. instead of growing the continuous revolution he fired up in many Americans, he went to mexico. He let them tape his mouth. We stayed continuing the eternal vigilance that must be kept to retain our liberties. Many as Cooper, Russo, 911 Vics, gave with their lives. If he really cares for this country he would campaign for Ron Paul. I will except nothing less. Maybe he should be Ron Paul's vice. There is only one man for the job his name is Ron Paul. Jessie can kiss my &%$#$$^$$$.
Jesse's ok...
But he's no Ron Paul.
He is better than the other 3 choices though. By a long shot.
He also realizes 911 was an inside job.
He’s a free market environmentalist and a ballsy crusader
And he’s prolife, with a personal perspective on the drug war. Recently he ended a speech with the exhortation : “ …see you on the barricades. “ He’s an outdoorsman. This is not your run-of-the-mill smarmy liberal. He’s a fighter….but, happily, the enemy of most of our enemies. I suspect I wouldn’t mind crashing some barricades with him.
I need to research more, but from what I see this is no knee-jerk ivory tower bone head. He is a hands on advocate in the trenches who knows what he is talking about even when he's blowing some smoke.There is more here than just the Kennedy name. We probably wouldn’t agree on many things, but for now he seems busy fighting good fights… most of which need to be fought, against people who we probably wouldn’t mind seeing get their collective ( and collectivist, ass kicked ) OK, his agenda is not ours…. But I would rather see his orthodoxy occupy the left than the usual blatherers’. The real downside is that if our team did lock horns….he would probably be formidable as an adversary. But he starts off as a prolife, freemarket antifascist with a drug conviction; and, let me remind you he has a family tradition of anti-war and civil rights advocacy….and I bet he doesn’t buy the Warren Report. Just glancing at the highlights : He strikes me as generally our kind of progressive, a potential truth telling ally, without the socialism. He might be teachable...an evolutionary missing link.
http://www.grist.org/news...
http://www.truthout.org/d...
Free-market environmentalism? That's shocking if true...
I'm just reading the Grist article. This is too weird.
Well, I've done a bit more research on RFK Jr...he is one weird
dude to be advocating free-market capitalism while being affiliated with the Democrat Party!
But as one might suspect his free-market capitalism position is inconsistent.
For example he believes that "we need to get the corporate money out of the election process."
Um, Robert, so how can corporations freely use their capital with those kinds of restrictions?
I don't want to Shill for a Neo-Kennedy, but...
Let me see if I’ve got this right, you scold RFK,Jr because he is not sufficiently supportive of the legal (sic) fiction ( sic) of Group Rights
(sic) embodied ( sic ) in the notion of corporate personhood ( sic ) being ( sic ) entitled to the same level of dignity ( sic ) and rights ( sic) as other natural ( sic) born ( sic ) living (sic) human(sic) beings(sic)…..Well….What’s to become of the concept of one man, one vote? ....Or what's to become of the invisible hand of Capitalism when the Corporatists have one ironfist tied behind their back ( sic, excuse the personification )?...Is nothing sacred (sic).
Look. Corporations are not human beings — they are fictional persons, creations of the law for legal and pragmatic purposes.This issue seems to merit it’s own thread. http://www.reclaimdemocra... Although the courts have ruled that companies are legal persons, they are only now beginning to make clear ( sic) the extent to which political free speech for corporations is limited by the strictures legitimately placed upon corporate commercial speech.
Apparently it’s a hot topic which may well result in some interesting realignments and strange bedfellowship. http://www.huffingtonpost...
Even reason magazine has chimed in with some paleo-neocon insight on behalf of group rights and corporatism. http://www.reason.com/new...
If RFK,Jr is raising questions about the legitimacy of multinational corporation dominance of our politics, that seems to prove the point of my last post that his brand of progressive politics may pose comparatively little grand threat in the scheme of things to those who care about the traditional priorities of our original republic.
Maybe it will take a brand name like Kennedy to joust with the dark knight sir-names (sic) like Murdoch ( or should I say Newscorp ) or Haliburton ( or should I say Chaney )....its so hard to know what to say...or who to say it to....doesn't matter....who will listen when no one can hear as one gets shouted down in this free marketplace (sic) of free(sic) ideas -- NEOCAMELOT.
I differ sharply here. What's wrong a corporation...
as long it is engaging in voluntary transactions?
I believe that "rights" should be only granted to individuals.
I don't believe all "rights" should be extended to entities operating to limit their liability in the market place. The only way a free market system will work is if all are held accountable for their decisions and actions.
Simply by the corporate charter, corporations do not and in effect, get permission from the government to act outside the realm of personal responsibility. If one chooses to act outside of that realm then one can not be a citizen and must be barred from all involvement or interaction with the government other than to bow to it's dictates and pay taxes for the privilege of operating outside the bounds of personal responsibility.
The government should exist to provide a well oiled court system to deal with altercations in the marketplace and to mete out justice to those that would endanger the well being of others during the course of business.
**We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. **
- Edward R. Murrow
What is your definition of a right?
Mine (which I pulled from Roderick Long) is: a legitimately enforceable claim.
According to this definition corporations do possess them.
What's yours?
NATURAL RIGHTS IS THE ESSENCE OF CIVILITY
You both are talking about government granted privileges which in the premise of the Group Think much to the left of Mr. Kennedy.
See:http://www.dailypaul.com/node/47924
The abolishment of government + corporations
Even if gov't was abolished, they still could exist.
They are granted gov't privileges now, but why couldn't they still exist without them?
If someone voluntaries wants to enter into a contract with an entity that operates with a a limited liability, that is the corporation, why shouldn't they be free to do so?
"MAN WILL BE,WHAT HE WAS BORN TO BE, FREE AND INDEPENDENT"
If corporations are social institutions created by government, then society through government makes the rules. You now posit private agreements among individuals. This is as it should be. When all is said and done, you can only deal with individuals. Only individuals can have responsibilities….and ONLY INDIVIDUALS HAVE RIGHTS.
Perhaps you’ll find this historical survey interesting, and somewhat on point. http://www.fee.org/Public... ( Note particularly the discussion of corporation laws being understood as merely contractual default rules. In this libertarian sense corporations can hardly be independently empowered. )
The group rights, for which you, and most liberals, and many conservatives, advocate can not be divorced from the individuals hiding behind the entity pretensions. Group prerogatives, however acquired ( whether by agreement or government decree ) are coextensive with the terms by which they were asserted. Such privileges ( for we cannot truly call them rights ) can never be legitimately regarded as transcendent of those terms, nor morally binding on those who are not in privity, and have not assented to those terms.
I believe it best to refer to this group, as it really exists in nature : IT IS A RELATIONSHIP, NOT AN ENTITY. This is not all that radical. To be simplistic: Trusts are relationships, Foundations are referred to as entities, but for all legitimate and benign purposes can function equally effectively.
Clubs have charters and members. Only the members and their agents live and interact in relationship with each other and in relationship the world outside their membership. Clubs are only as worthwhile and effective as their constituent components. We should not want to change this even if we could by contrary declaration. Governments, to the minds of our founders, could legitimately lay claim only to powers. RIGHTS ARE RESIDENT ONLY IN THE PEOPLE, whether assembled or disbursed. Likewise, this is true of corresponding responsibilities as well.
To bring this discussion back to the topic, it is noteworthy that RFK,Jr seems more inclined than many even on the political right to acknowledge the “invisible hand” of capitalism guiding human action toward socially beneficial endeavors. We can hope his ideological involvement in the debates of this rEVOLution may help bring some conservatives, as well as some progressives, back to those Fundamental Principles to which we must frequently recur if we are to secure the Blessings of Liberty.
On the issue of corporate political speech, RFK,Jr appears to call for a piercing of the statists’ sponsored corporate veil. There should be only hard money in campaigns from real people willing to stand up and be counted. His respect for freedom principles seems very consistent in this regard as his call for transparency is a strike against secret societies and an insistence that individuals exercise their rights without being able to hide from personal responsibility.
Perhaps this too he comes by naturally, maybe a hardwired intuition if not at least a family tradition:
“Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
(doubleP)
.
Jesse seems to get things
Jesse seems to get things wrong..
not my kind of guy...
...and you got nothing. Back
...and you got nothing. Back your sh!t up if your gonna make claims.
"It is like a finger pointing away to the moon, don't concentrate on the finger or you will miss all the heavenly glory." - Bruce Lee
Not entirely true...watch the Ventura on Hannity + Colmes
interview. Pay attention to what he says about running with McCain in 2000.
Talk about a horrific judgment call at the time by Jesse...
Hmmm... ok, would you prefer
Hmmm... ok, would you prefer the way it went in 2000 over the potential JV proposal? To me this wasn't a statement about how he felt about McCain at all but how he felt about Bush. Evidently strong enough to want to run against him. IMO this was just a crafty way of saying, "anybody but Bush". And of course McCain didn't leave the republican party, I mean how can he carry out his agenda if he leaves? If JV got in this thing later on this information would come out later and not taken lightly. He addressed the issue before it can happen. It's called a preemptive strike. JV made a proposal to McCain and in doing so drew a line in the sand and found out just where he stands.
Now lets play out the scenario. McCain leaves the republican party and runs independent with JV. Splits the vote and Gore wins. Now with a very real possibility that McCain could be the next POTUS this means no matter what you would have gotten stuck with McCain anyway had he been blessed with the miracle of winning as an independent in 2000. Highly unlikely but since you're splitting hairs I guess I will to. So now my question is would you prefer Bush in 2000 or McCain? Personally, I've been opposed to Bushes since the Reagan years. So McCain/Ventura 2000 to skip the last 8 years of Bush??? You bet your ass.
"It is like a finger pointing away to the moon, don't concentrate on the finger or you will miss all the heavenly glory." - Bruce Lee
Jesse is a wimp,,,,
Too much work for him to get on the ballet,,,but if someone else does it for me !!!! Show some gonades Jesse stand up for a belief like Ron did then you get the respect of the Paulies
What you're missing...
is the name KENNEDY! That name is magic, & if Jesse wants his star to rise as far as possible, he's going to hitch a ride on another star. It's sheer calculation if this happens, as RFK Jr is not someone who believes in freedom.
Actually...
I've seen lectures by RFK Jr., and he's amazed me. While I would choose RP over him in an election, I'd vote RFK over just about anybody else. A Ventura/Kennedy ticket would be magic.
bingo!
"It is like a finger pointing away to the moon, don't concentrate on the finger or you will miss all the heavenly glory." - Bruce Lee
Ventura Kicks Arse
i'd vote for him - if he ran Independent...
or if no RP on the ballot -
probably, Chuck Baldwin - Constitutional Party!
can't wait to see/hear RP in Kentucky (i'z jazzed!)
I just bought his
book hope I didn't waste my money.
Hehe, well I've heard his book is pretty good
Sounds like there's a lot of interesting events that he recounts.
But what he is thinking with this toad RFK Jr I don't know. RFK Jr. is probably a supporter of neutrality for petesake! He is very left.
Meanwhile Ventura leans towards libertarianism.
Well
what exactly is neutrality?
It allows the gov't to regulate the internet...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w...
eealll
thanks
Bump...anyone else what to chime in?
.