It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jesse Ventura, In His Own Words: Will You Stand With Me Against Big Media?

page: 7
25
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

Ventura's reputation from his fellow military members was destroyed when Kyle went around the national news circuit lying about him. His continuation of the lawsuit after Kyles death only fueled the fires of hate but the fire starter was Kyle. The lawsuit started before his death and before their was a lawsuit Jesse asked him to recant those lies to avoid going to trial. If anyone is guilty of putting the Kyle family through this lawsuit its Chris Kyle. Even the books publisher told Kyle not use Ventura's name in the book for fear of a lawsuit but that didn't stop Kyle from going on every radio and TV show telling his tall tales.

So let's hold the departed Chris Kyle responsible for his own actions.




posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Guys....

Agree to disagree. There are a lot bigger battles out there.

🍻



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: whyamIhere
Guys....

Agree to disagree. There are a lot bigger battles out there.

🍻


Yes sir drill sergeant sir !!!!



I've pretty much given up on my discussion with him in this thread. But coincidentally the next thread I went to I agree with his opinion .


Just wish there was more of that going around. People need to realize that just because you don't agree with someone one time you don't have to hate them .



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

You seem to be even more confused, as that was my first post in the thread, so I don't what what "you keep throwing that word around" is even referring to. Lay off the sauce when posting?

And you aren't commenting in jest, that is apparent. You are trying to play it off as jest to look less ignorant.

An orphan (from the Greek ὀρφανός orfanos[1]) is a child whose parents are dead or have abandoned them permanently.[2][3] In common usage, only a child who has lost both parents is called an orphan. When referring to animals, only the mother's condition is usually relevant. If she has gone, the offspring is an orphan, regardless of the father's condition

What you are describing are called paternal and maternal orphans, not orphans. These terms were started by the UN since they don't consider humans to be anything other than animals.


the legal definition used in the United States is a minor bereft through "death or disappearance of, abandonment or desertion by, or separation or loss from, both parents".[5]


Keep it up though, easy targets are easy.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

You can't please all the people all of the time.



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Look the word up in Webster. I already posted it earlier. Both your parents do not need to be dead in order for you to be an orphan .




The only thing I relish is that nobody Has been able to argue the facts I represented about the case. So now in their nearsightedness and ongoing need to get the last word in they are nitpicking individual words. Whenever that happens I see total victory on my part .


Oh yeah and anymore questioning along this line will result in your Dismissal of the privilege to engage me in conversation .



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Greathouse

You seem to be even more confused, as that was my first post in the thread, so I don't what what "you keep throwing that word around" is even referring to. Lay off the sauce when posting?

And you aren't commenting in jest, that is apparent. You are trying to play it off as jest to look less ignorant.

An orphan (from the Greek ὀρφανός orfanos[1]) is a child whose parents are dead or have abandoned them permanently.[2][3] In common usage, only a child who has lost both parents is called an orphan. When referring to animals, only the mother's condition is usually relevant. If she has gone, the offspring is an orphan, regardless of the father's condition

What you are describing are called paternal and maternal orphans, not orphans. These terms were started by the UN since they don't consider humans to be anything other than animals.


the legal definition used in the United States is a minor bereft through "death or disappearance of, abandonment or desertion by, or separation or loss from, both parents".[5]


Keep it up though, easy targets are easy.



Another thing you should learn with me. Is the cherry pick your quotes and not like them. Because that is always obviously an attempt to cover up the rest of the lake that you don't want scene. I give his example the rest of the story from the link you quoted .



In the common use, an orphan does not have any surviving parent to care for him or her. However, the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), Joint United Nations Programme on HIV and AIDS (UNAIDS), and other groups label any child that has lost one parent as an orphan. In this approach, a maternal orphan is a child whose mother has died, a paternal orphan is a child whose father has died, and a double orphan has lost both parents.[6] This contrasts with the older use of half-orphan to describe children that had lost only one parent.[7]



I have nothing to hide so I will link your full source


But thank you for your obfuscated reply George Washington .



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: JesseVentura

hi.

if I lend my voice to big media, that means to me that they must have some kind of clout?

I watch the weather channel on mute, and can determine the day ahead for myself going off of the doppler and etc. maps...

...and I thought going off grid means that one severs ties to the 'grid'... communication/utility platform?

i'm not really off grid if my writings are getting somehow digitally circulated?

navy seal bored with life? there's a crazy druglord kingpin on the loose, aren't you there down in Mexico?

more pressing issues, I get it...

apologies, i really am a nice and decent person. and like to believe your heart is in the right place.


edit on (7/17/1515 by loveguy because: grammar errors



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

I agree. I, myself, have much respect for Swills and value his input.

edit on 17-7-2015 by The GUT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

You must look like a pretzel to twist a common word, commonly known and accepted usage of a word to match the United Nations secondary definition.
If, as you say above,


The military is a family.

the children aren't orphans in any sense of the word because they have literally millions of parents and siblings who will care for them.

And all of this to elicit feeling of pity for a woman and children who are millionaires because their husband/father lied on national tv about a "brother-in-arms." Common decency would demand that she apologize and pay him the money the jury awarded him, then give the rest of the money to the charities to which it was promised.

I have no idea what "facts" you think you've disputed but the facts of the case are contained within the court documents. Your feelings on the matter are of no consequence to the case.
Since you feel so very sorry for these poor millionaire survivors, I'm sure you'll be sending them regular checks to help them out of their tight spots. And you should. So you can feel better.


(post by Greathouse removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 08:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Greathouse

You must look like a pretzel to twist a common word, commonly known and accepted usage of a word to match the United Nations secondary definition.
If, as you say above,


The military is a family.

the children aren't orphans in any sense of the word because they have literally millions of parents and siblings who will care for them.

And all of this to elicit feeling of pity for a woman and children who are millionaires because their husband/father lied on national tv about a "brother-in-arms." Common decency would demand that she apologize and pay him the money the jury awarded him, then give the rest of the money to the charities to which it was promised.

I have no idea what "facts" you think you've disputed but the facts of the case are contained within the court documents. Your feelings on the matter are of no consequence to the case.
Since you feel so very sorry for these poor millionaire survivors, I'm sure you'll be sending them regular checks to help them out of their tight spots. And you should. So you can feel better.


We've been through this about 10 times. You subscribe to one definition of the word orphan. There are multiple definitions. The fact that you were wrong and I pointed out with a dictionary definition has upset you for some reason. Apparently that is why you will not let this issue go .



he children aren't orphans in any sense of the word because they have literally millions of parents and siblings who will care for them.


Does not change the fact they are orphaned from their father .




What amount of money, if any, will fairly and adequately compensate Plaintiff Jesse Ventura for damages directly caused by the defamation? (See Jury Instruction Nos. 12 and 13 for the means of determining damages.) $ 500,000.00 3. Did Plaintiff Jesse Ventura prove his claim of appropriation against Chris Kyle? (See Jury Instruction No. 9.) _____YES X NO 4. What amount of money, if any, will fairly and adequately compensate Plaintiff Jesse Ventura for damages directly caused by the appropriation? (See Jury Instruction No. 13 for the means of determining damages.) $_____________________ 5. Did Plaintiff Jesse Ventura prove his claim of unjust enrichment against Chris Kyle and the Defendant Estate? (See Jury Instruction No. 10.) X YES _____NO 6. By what amount of money, if any, has the Defendant Estate been unjustly enriched? (See Jury Instruction No. 13 for the means of determining damages.) $ 1,345,477.25



And my position no matter how many times you've tried to switch up my words remains the same. The $500,000 defamation suit will be covered by the insurance company. The $1.354 million settlement will have to come out of Chris Kyle's estate. So What Jesse is doing is suing a widow to enrich his self. He has more Vindicated himself in the eyes of the public. Now he is only trying to enrich himself from the coffers of a widow .



posted on Jul, 17 2015 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse
It isn't his fault the children are without a father and the wife is a widow.

If the law allowed for widows and orphans to keep ill-gotten gains the judge would have explained that fact to the jury and would never have accepted their decision. This is no different that the Madoff scheme where Jeffrey Picower died in the midst of the suit against him. The administrator of that estate had sense enough to settle that suit---thus depriving the widow and orphans of billions of dollars.

You can attempt to spin it any way you wish but the law is on Jesse's side and the media is attempting to get the judgement overturned because they are afraid that they'll be the next to be hit when they spread lies and deception. That is a threat to every person in the US who has a reputation to defend.

It is really no wonder this country is so messed up. A man who stands up against lies told about him gets a whole load of crap dropped on him because he wants to pursue the truth. A man who tells the truth when asked questions about his behavior gets slammed because he doesn't give a politician's answer but tells the brutal truth about taking a job to make a living for his family. And instead of going outside the law to solve the problem of some scumbag going on national radio/tv telling lies about him, he uses the law instead of his fists to find justice and he gets slammed because the liar got himself killed.

Once again we see people saying in essence "Just ignore the legal system and let's see how everyone FEELS about this." But those same people would be the first to howl like a hound if the tables were turned. Critical, logical thinking has been discarded for arguments appealing solely to emotions.





posted on Jul, 18 2015 @ 12:58 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt


t isn't his fault the children are without a father and the wife is a widow.


And it isn't the widow or children's fault that their dad was a liar .
edit on 18-7-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

You didn't argue any facts of the case...you just harped on how "evil" Jesse is for continuing to sue a widow and "orphans", when Jesse is only suing the estate that made money off of a lie.

Those are actually zero and none facts of the case...



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Greathouse

I find it hilarious you are to dense to read your quote of me. How about you check the last part of the quote...it clearly contains the UN definition of Paternal and Maternal Orphans...

It seems obvious you are just trolling at this point since you haven't made one single valid point this entire thread.



posted on Jul, 21 2015 @ 12:31 PM
link   
For all the people (Like Greathouse) who are truly and utterly oblivious to the facts of this case, please read This as it outlines the history of the case and the findings of the courts.

Chris Kyle is a lying liar who lied. His war record can't be questioned, but the tall tales in his book sure can be, and they were. He profited off lies. His estate, who profited off those lies has to pay the piper.

Chris Kyle's Widow will still have over 6 million dollars after CK's estate pays the remaining 1.3 mil owed to venture. Part of it will pay legal fees, and the rest is going to charities.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Right on Q, Dude. Thank you. And Jesse has filed a suit against the cowardly liar, and not against his widow. Some morons completely and conveniently swept that under the rug. Either that, or they are in purpose accusing him of going after the widow " 's " money to make him feel guilty about standing up for himself. The money awarded was partially made by making up a lie about him. So technically it belongs to him FIRST DEGREE, regardless of who is going to have to pay it.

Even this coward's war records are questionable. I saw a report about A British soldier, who apparently is the REAL all times record holder of sniper's kills. They didn't reveal neither one of his face or identity for safety and security reasons. Very humble guy, from what one can gather off the short masked interview clips that were posted about him.
Kyle or his people also claimed that the proceeds from the book all gone toward helpin US Veterans in need. I read that, out of the money made, only 52,000 $ was actually given to such cause, and the rest was kept!!!! yeah some hero, he is.
Jesse is a great guy. And no. One does not need to be perfect or IMMACULATE to be great. Some ignorant dork called him '...... bag'. What kind of oblivious moron would do such thing!! This man (Jesse) has done it all. Navy Seal, Professional Wrestler, Governor, Published Author, Activist, etc. Etc. So as A public figure, he has every right to insure no bull # lies are thrown out there about him, because if he lets that happen, He is the first and the last that will have to swallow the ugly ensuing consequences of it all. Kyle should not have filled his book with garbage. It's his fault. And just the way he let a wacko take him out shows how stupid and oblivious the guy can be. The Iraqis must have laughed their faces off when they heard about how he died. They must have thought Allah answered their prayers. What a Shame and embarrassment for the US!!!!

Some of the posters made some really really good points about Jesse. It is true he does not interact online using the threads he or god knows who, creates on his behalf. And he should. Although he claims to live off the grid, it is true that he does not live off the grid. Him making money off the tv shows he produces definitely taints his integrity in one way or the other, considering the channels that air them are tainted. etc. So yeah, the ones that don't like him and took the time to post here made some really good points. And thank you people for caring to make such outlines.
So I guess Democracy is somewhat still alive in this country for how all parties are allowed to put forth their points of view no matter who, at the moment has the upper hand.

We really should do our best to stand with Jesse. Although he might be looking like he is fighting for his own interests, his interests are ours too, so he is us and we are him. The public media are now a days nothing but several clusters of corrupt criminals that need to be uprooted or reformed. So he's doing the right thing as an American.




edit on 23-7-2015 by AgreeswithJesse because: (no reason given)


(post by JackReyes removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: AgreeswithJesse

I have to disagree with you about his war record. He was a war hero. I personally know a marine who was saved by Kyle and Marines deployed with them really did think he was a legend and a badass.

Also, something I forgot to mention, is that the Kyle estate didn't even pony up the 1.3 million, Forge Clothing did:

The Legend



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join