Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jane Fonda still uttering drivel

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Handsome Jack View Post
    It's her business. If anything it did help disprove the myth that the NVA were all violent savages who murdered foreigners on sight. I'm not a big fan of demonizing wartime enemies no matter who they are.
    She shouldn't have been there. What it showed about the NVA is irrelevant to the point she should never have been there at all.



    So you don't believe that the Arctic's beauty and stability should be preserved? You really think we should gouge it with no restriction and no caution and no attempt to preserve any wild areas left? I guess you'd agree with my sarcasm of napalming the Antarctic, leveling the Himalayas, and slashing the Amazon, then. I'm more of an environmentally-favoring person. I don't think we need Lefty restrictions on it, but I do think we need to have concern for it and not just mad-dash for profits. Look at China. They're filthy rich and getting rich thanks to their coal industry, but they're butchering the environment and won't have much coal for much longer at the rate they use it. I like to think that there are wild, beautiful, and/or uninhabited places left on Earth and I want it to stay that way.
    Some of it. But, not millions upon millions of acres to the detriment of man. I live in Arizona. Nearly two thirds of the state is off limits to any sort of development due to it being federal land.
    Arizona could be many times more productive than having almost totally fallow land that can never be developed and isn't being used for any productive purpose.
    This isn't "beautiful land" or something. It is nothing special land that the government owns to no useful purpose.

    I think that we can have national parks and such at reasonable levels. I think we can exploit resources in reasonably environmentally friendly ways.

    What I don't think works is harming people's livelihood by denying use of resources and land to the extent we are doing now. East of the Mississippi river there is very little federal land by comparison to the Western US. Yet, today, the Eastern US is no more polluted or environmentally endangered than the Western US is.
    What we have instead in the environmental movement today are modern day Luddites opposed to anything and everything. They can't even justify their positions most of the time.
    For example, I just love talking about nuclear power with environmentalists. It is so entertaining to watch them froth at the mouth and go into hysterics over the subject while knowing absolutely nothing about it. Their response to things nuclear is "It's nuclear! There's radiation!" and then they start hyperventilating over it.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
      She shouldn't have been there. What it showed about the NVA is irrelevant to the point she should never have been there at all.
      It's her business.

      Some of it. But, not millions upon millions of acres to the detriment of man. I live in Arizona. Nearly two thirds of the state is off limits to any sort of development due to it being federal land.
      Arizona could be many times more productive than having almost totally fallow land that can never be developed and isn't being used for any productive purpose.
      This isn't "beautiful land" or something. It is nothing special land that the government owns to no useful purpose.
      It's still wild and open land. We don't need to cordon off millions upon millions of acres for no reason, no, but we don't need to use every last inch of land there is either. Sometimes it's good to have empty, open places. It's a natural human tendency to have some affection for nature, beautiful or non.

      I think that we can have national parks and such at reasonable levels. I think we can exploit resources in reasonably environmentally friendly ways.
      Definitely. Exploiting environmental resources sustainably is the best way to do it.

      What I don't think works is harming people's livelihood by denying use of resources and land to the extent we are doing now. East of the Mississippi river there is very little federal land by comparison to the Western US. Yet, today, the Eastern US is no more polluted or environmentally endangered than the Western US is.
      What we have instead in the environmental movement today are modern day Luddites opposed to anything and everything. They can't even justify their positions most of the time.
      For example, I just love talking about nuclear power with environmentalists. It is so entertaining to watch them froth at the mouth and go into hysterics over the subject while knowing absolutely nothing about it. Their response to things nuclear is "It's nuclear! There's radiation!" and then they start hyperventilating over it.
      That's why I steer away from the idea of environmentalism. I'm all for protecting the environment and preserving it and I absolutely love visiting wild and undeveloped places. I find beauty in it. But I don't hate power plants or think every last tree needs to be kept up. In fact most Leftiementalists don't even admit nor realize that thanks to safer and smarter practicing of deforesting we actually have more acres of forest worldwide now than we did a few decades ago, even as foresting increases. We can use the environment's resources yet sustain it and preserve it simultaneously.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Handsome Jack View Post
        Didn't she say she was tricked into sitting there? According to her the NVA photographers got propaganda shots from it that she was unaware they were going to take. Plus, it's just a helmet. I don't think a helmet is a full combat uniform... Even then it's not like she used the AA gun. It's still not treasonous. Maybe insulting to soldiers at the time but definitely not treason, especially considering it wasn't something intentional.
        Setting aside Ms. Fonda's willfulness, or lack thereof, can we agree that posing for propaganda photos with the enemy in a AAA battery in their capital city, while wearing their uniform isn't analogous to just "voicing support for the NVA?"

        Originally posted by Handsome Jack
        Well, my problem here is I think we need to be more careful with the Arctic. Obama just telling Shell to go ahead and do whatever they want in the American sector of the Arctic is incredibly irresponsible, and it's a big cop out to the corrupt oil industries. We need natural resources sure, but do we need to gouge out a pristine and beautiful area relentlessly to get it? I like to think that natural beauty and preservation is more important than a quick and dirty profit for some of the most corrupt companies on Earth.
        If you think Maobama is "just telling Shell to go ahead and do whatever they want in the American sector of the Arctic," you are as poorly informed as Jane Fonda.

        As a petroleum geologist/geophysicist with 34 years of experience in the oil industry, I would be fascinated to see you logically explain how the oil industry is "corrupt" or how the oil industry is comprised of "some of the most corrupt companies on Earth." Given your depth of knowledge of the state of oil & gas operations in Alaska and its state & federal waters, I have no doubt that such an explanation would be of immense entertainment value.
        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
          Setting aside Ms. Fonda's willfulness, or lack thereof, can we agree that posing for propaganda photos with the enemy in a AAA battery in their capital city, while wearing their uniform isn't analogous to just "voicing support for the NVA?"
          I'll totally agree it's tasteless and more than solely voicing support, but I still wouldn't call it outright treason. Now if it turns out she fired that AAA gun at an American or South Vietnamese aircraft? Hang her high.

          If you think Maobama is "just telling Shell to go ahead and do whatever they want in the American sector of the Arctic," you are as poorly informed as Jane Fonda.
          To the best of my knowledge oil companies aren't that regulated.

          As a petroleum geologist/geophysicist with 34 years of experience in the oil industry, I would be fascinated to see you logically explain how the oil industry is "corrupt" or how the oil industry is comprised of "some of the most corrupt companies on Earth." Given your depth of knowledge of the state of oil & gas operations in Alaska and its state & federal waters, I have no doubt that such an explanation would be of immense entertainment value.
          Look at all the oil spills they try to cover up and bribe their way out of. BP was the most notorious but there've been oil spills afterward that don't get much mainstream attention. It's pretty common speculation that they bribe their way out of repercussions. I'll concede though that you definitely would know more about the oil industry than me. I've never worked in it and I'm no sort of geologist. When it comes down to it all I'm concerned about is that the drilling's done sensibly and sustainably.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Handsome Jack View Post
            I'll totally agree it's tasteless and more than solely voicing support, but I still wouldn't call it outright treason. Now if it turns out she fired that AAA gun at an American or South Vietnamese aircraft? Hang her high.
            My avatar is tasteless (at least to Yankees). Had aspiring actor John Wilkes Booth posed for propaganda daguerotypes, wearing a gray kepi, manning a Confederate artillery battery pointed at Ft. Sumter, right after First Manassas, would that have been treasonous or traitorous? Or just a tasteless voicing of support for the CSA?


            Originally posted by Handsome Jack
            To the best of my knowledge oil companies aren't that regulated.
            If that is the *best* of your knowledge, I can't wait to see the worst of your "knowledge." If the best is zero, the worst will be a doozy!

            Originally posted by Handsome Jack
            Look at all the oil spills they try to cover up and bribe their way out of. BP was the most notorious but there've been oil spills afterward that don't get much mainstream attention. It's pretty common speculation that they bribe their way out of repercussions. I'll concede though that you definitely would know more about the oil industry than me. I've never worked in it and I'm no sort of geologist.
            I didn’t have to wait very long. I'll get back to this particular drivel later today.

            Originally posted by Handsome Jack
            When it comes down to it all I'm concerned about is that the drilling's done sensibly and sustainably.
            If your definition of "sensibly and sustainably" is managing the reservoir such that the maximum volume of oil is economically recovered, it has been sensible and sustainable in the US for nearly a century.

            The purpose of drilling wells is making money. Oil spills don't make money.
            Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Handsome Jack View Post
              It's her business. If anything it did help disprove the myth that the NVA were all violent savages who murdered foreigners on sight. I'm not a big fan of demonizing wartime enemies no matter who they are.
              The NVA were not stupid. They and their Soviet allies tool advantage of any and all propaganda opportunities that presented themselves. It does nothing to reduce the savagery committed against anyone they captured.

              Ernest Brace, kept in a 4x4 cage for several years. buried up to his neck for a week as punishment for trying to escape. (Passed away late last year.)

              (Digger) O-Dell. had his neck broken while under interrogation. He was lucky to have been placed in a cell with a medic that knew rehabilitation therapy.

              James Warner. nearly starved to death during his torture at the notorious "Skid Row." while being slandered by the that other traitor, John Kerry. The photo was taken shortly after his release.


              Don't give me that crap the NVA were all civilized. The three examples show that they were not.
              “Breaking News,”

              “Something irrelevant in your life just happened and now we are going to blow it all out of proportion for days to keep you distracted from what's really going on.”

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Handsome Jack View Post
                I consider treason to be any active form of providing combative or espionage aid to a wartime enemy done with the explicit intention of aiding that enemy. Voicing support or favoritism for a wartime enemy is not treason.
                Then lots of people who should be harshly punished will get away with treason if you were in charge.

                Oh, wait, they do now anyway.
                The First Amendment applies to SMS, Emails, Blogs, online news, the Fourth applies to your cell phone, computer, and your car, but the Second only applies to muskets?

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Handsome Jack View Post
                  Didn't she say she was tricked into sitting there? According to her the NVA photographers got propaganda shots from it that she was unaware they were going to take. Plus, it's just a helmet. I don't think a helmet is a full combat uniform... Even then it's not like she used the AA gun. It's still not treasonous. Maybe insulting to soldiers at the time but definitely not treason, especially considering it wasn't something intentional.
                  She lied. Unless you have proof that she was actually tricked? She went there all on her own, her choice in the first place. Her actions were traitorous, plain and simple.
                  The First Amendment applies to SMS, Emails, Blogs, online news, the Fourth applies to your cell phone, computer, and your car, but the Second only applies to muskets?

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Handsome Jack View Post
                    It's her business. If anything it did help disprove the myth that the NVA were all violent savages who murdered foreigners on sight. I'm not a big fan of demonizing wartime enemies no matter who they are.
                    They didn't "murder her on sight" because she was there to support them.
                    The First Amendment applies to SMS, Emails, Blogs, online news, the Fourth applies to your cell phone, computer, and your car, but the Second only applies to muskets?

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      [QUOTE=Handsome Jack;3063810]It's her business.

                      Wait, was she tricked or was it her business to go to the enemy with traitorous intentions? You can't have it both ways.
                      The First Amendment applies to SMS, Emails, Blogs, online news, the Fourth applies to your cell phone, computer, and your car, but the Second only applies to muskets?

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Handsome Jack View Post
                        I'll totally agree it's tasteless and more than solely voicing support, but I still wouldn't call it outright treason.
                        But you said she was tricked. And though you won't call it that, around here we call a duck a duck.
                        The First Amendment applies to SMS, Emails, Blogs, online news, the Fourth applies to your cell phone, computer, and your car, but the Second only applies to muskets?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Just be happy Hida that none of the 'progressive' kids have any desire to serve. Just think how much it would suck to have those programmed traitors doing our defense...
                          Credo quia absurdum.


                          Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            What always gets me with all the so called celebrities is the manner in which they give all of society hell for contaminating the environment but arrive at these protests in their private jets, big limos, etc..ie Bono and his private jet, Neal Young in his big gas burner, Jane in her private jet, and others , even the Pope in his commercial jet....and they all have the audacity to give us peons hell for having some 4 cylinder auto instead of a bike to go to work...

                            Near Toulon France...

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Handsome Jack View Post
                              I'll totally agree it's tasteless and more than solely voicing support, but I still wouldn't call it outright treason.
                              Then you must be unaware of the legal definition of treason, which is "providing aid and comfort to the enemy". Fonda did that and more when she donned the uniform of the enemy ; therefore, she is a traitor and always shall be.

                              Don't get into the fatal habit of apologizing for or defending dirtbags like Fonda.
                              Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Hida Akechi View Post
                                But you said she was tricked. And though you won't call it that, around here we call a duck a duck.
                                According to Fonda's own claims in the 80's and today, she claims she was deceived into posing with their AAA gun. She had no idea they were going to use the photo as they did. I'm not saying one way or the other, I'm repeating what she herself said. Being in North Vietnam in the first place was not an act of deception or accident. She was there, and it was her business. She never shot at American troops or gave military intelligence to the NVA, nor any state secrets or vital documents, nor did she spy on military movements there. She did not commit treason. Your emotions and passion for the American cause in that War do not amount to evidence or proof that she was an active traitor against the United States, because she wasn't.

                                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                                Then you must be unaware of the legal definition of treason, which is "providing aid and comfort to the enemy". Fonda did that and more when she donned the uniform of the enemy ; therefore, she is a traitor and always shall be.

                                Don't get into the fatal habit of apologizing for or defending dirtbags like Fonda.
                                She put a helmet on. I'm not even trying to defend her. I think this drivel in the original post was pretty dumb drivel. I think she's a lunatic Lefty through and through. At the same time though I think "Hanoi Jane" is an unfair reputation. She disagreed with the War, she agreed with the NVA, and she visited them to gather proof of U.S. attacks on civilians and river dikes to cause floods. Again, according to her. I'm going off of what she said. I don't know why she was actually there, no one ever will unless they're Fonda herself. What I know is that war doesn't immediately make a country the devil incarnate, and it doesn't make their land an impassable Mordor where if you go you're claimed by the Shadow and are a filthy traitor to all those fighting it. "Aid and comfort". Yeah, that's the definition, but she didn't do that. She didn't give the NVA our guns, supplies, food, intelligence, our vehicles or shelter and quarters. She didn't help the NVA on the battlefield, she didn't go on raids with the VC. She visited the country, she took some photographs, one of which was admittedly tasteless, and she came back home. That's her business, and again, your emotional feelings over it are valid, but not in an argument. Pathos does not equal proof. Again, I'm not defending Fonda herself, not at all. But over a long time I've heard her defamed as some evil piece of scum solely for taking some photos with the NVA, which isn't true. Did she know they were being merciless and abhorrent to American prisoners? Did she visit NVA POW camps over there? I doubt it, and unless she took a smiling photo next to a dying U.S. soldier, then I don't think anything she did constitutes as treasonous. I hate Communism and Cultural Marxism to the core, but I don't hate people who support it without fighting for its sake.

                                Originally posted by SRV Ron View Post
                                Don't give me that crap the NVA were all civilized. The three examples show that they were not.
                                Armies do bad things in war. Being your typical Commie regime the NVA did lots of bad things.

                                Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                                My avatar is tasteless (at least to Yankees). Had aspiring actor John Wilkes Booth posed for propaganda daguerotypes, wearing a gray kepi, manning a Confederate artillery battery pointed at Ft. Sumter, right after First Manassas, would that have been treasonous or traitorous? Or just a tasteless voicing of support for the CSA?
                                Well, clearly it'd be before his Sic Semper Tyranis bit, so... Just tasteless.

                                If that is the *best* of your knowledge, I can't wait to see the worst of your "knowledge." If the best is zero, the worst will be a doozy!
                                Well, not many people have extensive knowledge of the oil industry. You've got me there, I already admitted that.

                                If your definition of "sensibly and sustainably" is managing the reservoir such that the maximum volume of oil is economically recovered, it has been sensible and sustainable in the US for nearly a century.
                                Where does concern and stability for the environment come into play? The Arctic's a pretty fragile ecosystem in and of itself. It's not as easy as "drill as much as we can".

                                The purpose of drilling wells is making money. Oil spills don't make money.
                                They sure don't. They lose money, lose oil, and are destructive to people and the surrounding environs, Doesn't stop the oil companies from getting slapped on the wrist for their own carelessness.
                                Last edited by Handsome Jack; 06 Jul 15, 12:08.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X