Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jane Fonda still uttering drivel

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

  • #61
    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.

    She did not fire the gun, however, she did clap her hands in glee upon seeing it and proclaim that she wanted to shoot down American air pirates.
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedy. -- Ernest Benn

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Tsar View Post
      She did not fire the gun, however, she did clap her hands in glee upon seeing it and proclaim that she wanted to shoot down American air pirates.
      Source for that? Unless you're joking: I've never read anywhere ever that she said she wanted to gun down Americans with it.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Handsome Jack View Post
        Source for that? Unless you're joking: I've never read anywhere ever that she said she wanted to gun down Americans with it.
        Why did she put on the uniform? Why was she there aiding and supporting the cause of our enemies? Why did she agree to be photographed in the seat of an AA weapon? Think all that "just sort of happened"?

        I think you would have an interesting time talking to former POW's about Hanoi Jane and her antics, but I doubt you would survive the experience. They certainly consider her a traitor, and I'll believe their stories before I will even consider hers.
        Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Tsar View Post
          She did not fire the gun, however, she did clap her hands in glee upon seeing it ...
          That's because she thought it was a mechanical penis.
          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            Why did she put on the uniform? Why was she there aiding and supporting the cause of our enemies? Why did she agree to be photographed in the seat of an AA weapon? Think all that "just sort of happened"?
            If you consider the helmet to be a full uniform, then I don't know why. Why she was there was because she opposed America's involvement and supported the "people's revolution" bullshit that became a lie shortly after Ho Chi's death, and what as we know now was a war for control of the South and the slaughter of non-communist civilians. Despite that she stated she came there to gather evidence of American attacks on civilians and to aid them, as I said, which would be a pretty good cause had she not got caught up the controversy of the NVA photos. Maybe she thought the AAA gun was neat? I'd certainly think seeing war equipment up close and personal would be exciting if it wasn't firing at me.

            I think you would have an interesting time talking to former POW's about Hanoi Jane and her antics, but I doubt you would survive the experience. They certainly consider her a traitor, and I'll believe their stories before I will even consider hers.
            If they'd murder someone over disagreeing with them or the Vietnam War then they're not the best of men, regardless of whether they served or were imprisoned. Fonda didn't know of what they went through and didn't condone it. At least she never did openly. Of course POWs would feel strongly about anything related to Vietnam, but again, feel. Pathos never makes a solid argument. Emotion is not a valid excuse to say something is one way or the other. How you feel is totally inconsequential in the face of facts and of logic. Those POWs have every right to be angry about what happened to them, but their anger at cruel NVA troops doesn't mean it's right to wish to murder a woman who was expressing her First Amendment right, a right those men were supposedly fighting and dying for there.

            Freedom of Speech is defending speech you disagree with.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Handsome Jack View Post
              If you consider the helmet to be a full uniform, then I don't know why. Why she was there was because she opposed America's involvement and supported the "people's revolution" bullshit that became a lie shortly after Ho Chi's death, and what as we know now was a war for control of the South and the slaughter of non-communist civilians. Despite that she stated she came there to gather evidence of American attacks on civilians and to aid them, as I said, which would be a pretty good cause had she not got caught up the controversy of the NVA photos. Maybe she thought the AAA gun was neat? I'd certainly think seeing war equipment up close and personal would be exciting if it wasn't firing at me.



              If they'd murder someone over disagreeing with them or the Vietnam War then they're not the best of men, regardless of whether they served or were imprisoned. Fonda didn't know of what they went through and didn't condone it. At least she never did openly. Of course POWs would feel strongly about anything related to Vietnam, but again, feel. Pathos never makes a solid argument. Emotion is not a valid excuse to say something is one way or the other. How you feel is totally inconsequential in the face of facts and of logic. Those POWs have every right to be angry about what happened to them, but their anger at cruel NVA troops doesn't mean it's right to wish to murder a woman who was expressing her First Amendment right, a right those men were supposedly fighting and dying for there.

              Freedom of Speech is defending speech you disagree with.
              The First Amendment protects her right to say the moronic things that she has.
              She did not merely criticize the authoritarian government of South Vietnam, or the dubious motives of powerful corporations that make up the American military-industrial complex. She sided with the Viet Cong as revolutionary “liberators.” And she travelled to Hanoi at a time when North Vietnamese soldiers were killing Americans. A photograph caught her looking through the scope of an anti-aircraft gun, surrounded by revolutionaries.[2] While criticizing America, she made laudatory comments about the Soviet Union.[3] And she referred to the POW's as hypocrites and liars.[4]

              - See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/articl....wa86ERbW.dpuf

              It does not protect her from the consequences of her moronic drivel...
              One Thing Right

              The e-mail does get one other thing right, according to Michael Benge, a former civilian economic development advisor who was captured by the North Vietnamese in 1968.

              Benge told the Star Tribune that he is the man described in the e-mail as having "spent three days on a rocky floor on my knees, with my arms outstretched with a large steel weights placed on my hands, and beaten with a bamboo cane." Though he said he didn’t know who attached his story to the e-mail.

              Benge, who was held captive for more than five years, described his punishment in a letter he wrote in 1999, shaming Walters and ABC for including Fonda in that year’s special.
              Michael Benge letter excerpt, 1999: At one time, I was weighing approximately 90 lbs. (My normal weight is 170 lbs.). We were Jane Fonda’s "war criminals." When Jane Fonda was in Hanoi, I was asked by the camp communist political officer if I would be willing to meet with Jane Fonda. I said yes, for I would like to tell her about the real treatment we POWs were receiving, which was far different from the treatment purported by the North Vietnamese, and parroted by Jane Fonda, as "humane and lenient."

              Because of this, I spent three days on a rocky floor on my knees with outstretched arms with a piece of steel rebar placed on my hands, and beaten with a bamboo cane every time my arms dipped. Jane Fonda had the audacity to say that the POWs were lying about our torture and treatment.

              Now ABC is allowing Barbara Walters to honor Jane Fonda in her Feature "100 Years of Great Women." Shame, shame on Jane Fonda! Shame, shame on Barbara Walters! Shame, shame on 20-20. Shame, shame on ABC. And, shame, shame on the Disney Company.

              http://www.factcheck.org/2010/11/blame-jane-falsehoods/
              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                The First Amendment protects her right to say the moronic things that she has.

                It does not protect her from the consequences of her moronic drivel...
                Again, yeah, it's moronic drivel, but how was she meant to know exactly what they went through? The NVA weren't idiots as another pointed out. As Communist regimes know propaganda is half the battle. They were sure that the public believed POWs were treated fairly and humanely, and that no brutality or torture took place. It was the exact opposite, and as we know now the conditions POWs suffered were far worse than anything we'd seen in recent decades from anyone.

                Fonda couldn't have known that, and that's why POWs were forbidden from speaking to her, why they were mercilessly beaten and tortured if they expressed desire to. I have no doubt Fonda would've changed her story around and her views on the North Vietnamese had she known in full depth what they did to our men, let alone the South Vietnamese whom they hated even more. I still think she should've never talked out her ass and claimed POWs were lying, not at all. She should've stuck to her initial stated goal of helping noncombatants in North Vietnam who suffered from the side effects of the war from both the Americans and the NVA. Maybe that was just a publicity stunt too? I don't know. However, she didn't stick to her original goal, and it was foolish in hindsight, but this is a case where ignorance was an excuse. She was a pro-Commie who had seen nothing to believe POWs were treated with absolutely subhuman methods there. She can't be faulted for not instantly assuming the worst when all "evidence" to her said otherwise. She had no way of knowing otherwise, and the NVA kept it that way.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Jane Fonda is like any other celebrity who does things not because it's the right thing to do but because it will sell tickets and merchandise. I am convinced to this day that the only reason Lebron James wore the "I Can't Breathe" shirt is because his agent told him to.
                  “When you're in jail, a good friend will be trying to bail you out. A best friend will be in the cell next to you saying, 'Damn, that was fun'.”
                  ― Groucho Marx

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Handsome Jack View Post
                    Again, yeah, it's moronic drivel, but how was she meant to know exactly what they went through? The NVA weren't idiots as another pointed out. As Communist regimes know propaganda is half the battle. They were sure that the public believed POWs were treated fairly and humanely, and that no brutality or torture took place. It was the exact opposite, and as we know now the conditions POWs suffered were far worse than anything we'd seen in recent decades from anyone.

                    Fonda couldn't have known that, and that's why POWs were forbidden from speaking to her, why they were mercilessly beaten and tortured if they expressed desire to. I have no doubt Fonda would've changed her story around and her views on the North Vietnamese had she known in full depth what they did to our men, let alone the South Vietnamese whom they hated even more. I still think she should've never talked out her ass and claimed POWs were lying, not at all. She should've stuck to her initial stated goal of helping noncombatants in North Vietnam who suffered from the side effects of the war from both the Americans and the NVA. Maybe that was just a publicity stunt too? I don't know. However, she didn't stick to her original goal, and it was foolish in hindsight, but this is a case where ignorance was an excuse. She was a pro-Commie who had seen nothing to believe POWs were treated with absolutely subhuman methods there. She can't be faulted for not instantly assuming the worst when all "evidence" to her said otherwise. She had no way of knowing otherwise, and the NVA kept it that way.
                    So... What's her excuse for this bit of ignorance?
                    "He (Obama) has just given Shell permission to drill in the Arctic. It's inconceivable," Fonda told The Hollywood Reporter on Saturday. Her comments came ahead of her scheduled march on Sunday in Toronto alongside fellow celebrities, including Naomi Klein and singer Joel Plaskett, to protest Canada's controversial oilsands project and the efforts to ship Canadian crude oil to the U.S. Gulf Coast.

                    "We can't wait for politicians, whether it's (Canadian prime minister} [Stephen] Harper or Obama. We have to force them to do the right thing or force them out of office," she argued. Fonda pointed to a generational threat to the world climate from continuing oil drilling and burning of fossil fuels, and the potential of renewable energy sources to reverse that environmental catastrophe.

                    "It boils my blood that people I helped bring to office would endanger the lives of my grandchildren," she added. Fonda also joined the march with First Nations communities in Vancouver in June against oil pipelines and tankers on the west coast.

                    Who tricked her into babbling this nonsense?
                    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                      So... What's her excuse for this bit of ignorance?
                      "He (Obama) has just given Shell permission to drill in the Arctic. It's inconceivable," Fonda told The Hollywood Reporter on Saturday. Her comments came ahead of her scheduled march on Sunday in Toronto alongside fellow celebrities, including Naomi Klein and singer Joel Plaskett, to protest Canada's controversial oilsands project and the efforts to ship Canadian crude oil to the U.S. Gulf Coast.

                      "We can't wait for politicians, whether it's (Canadian prime minister} [Stephen] Harper or Obama. We have to force them to do the right thing or force them out of office," she argued. Fonda pointed to a generational threat to the world climate from continuing oil drilling and burning of fossil fuels, and the potential of renewable energy sources to reverse that environmental catastrophe.

                      "It boils my blood that people I helped bring to office would endanger the lives of my grandchildren," she added. Fonda also joined the march with First Nations communities in Vancouver in June against oil pipelines and tankers on the west coast.

                      Who tricked her into babbling this nonsense?
                      You'll have to prove why it's utter nonsense first.

                      You're the one after all who's got 34 years of oil experience under his belt, right? Honestly I don't know enough about the subject to make a solid comment.

                      You also didn't answer my question of how environmental stability plays into oil drilling.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Handsome Jack;3064162

                        [B
                        Freedom of Speech is defending speech you disagree with.[/B]
                        Treason is not "freedom of speech."
                        Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                          Treason is not "freedom of speech."
                          You can stand by your opinion of her being a traitor, I'll stand by my opinion of her not being a traitor, and we can leave it at that.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Well Jack as a Vet myself I look at her with total disdain. She has never put her ass on the line nor served for me or you.

                            She gets nothing but a sneer from me...

                            One of the thing you should understand is that this forum has many Vets who have risked both life and limb so that you got to grow up in peace and freedom.

                            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


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Handsome Jack View Post
                              Again, yeah, it's moronic drivel, but how was she meant to know exactly what they went through? The NVA weren't idiots as another pointed out. As Communist regimes know propaganda is half the battle. They were sure that the public believed POWs were treated fairly and humanely, and that no brutality or torture took place. It was the exact opposite, and as we know now the conditions POWs suffered were far worse than anything we'd seen in recent decades from anyone.

                              Fonda couldn't have known that, and that's why POWs were forbidden from speaking to her, why they were mercilessly beaten and tortured if they expressed desire to. I have no doubt Fonda would've changed her story around and her views on the North Vietnamese had she known in full depth what they did to our men, let alone the South Vietnamese whom they hated even more. I still think she should've never talked out her ass and claimed POWs were lying, not at all. She should've stuck to her initial stated goal of helping noncombatants in North Vietnam who suffered from the side effects of the war from both the Americans and the NVA. Maybe that was just a publicity stunt too? I don't know. However, she didn't stick to her original goal, and it was foolish in hindsight, but this is a case where ignorance was an excuse. She was a pro-Commie who had seen nothing to believe POWs were treated with absolutely subhuman methods there. She can't be faulted for not instantly assuming the worst when all "evidence" to her said otherwise. She had no way of knowing otherwise, and the NVA kept it that way.
                              No, she wouldn't have "changed her mind", nor did she ever do so after the war.

                              Remember that she referred to American pilots as "air pirates", aping the propaganda of her North Vietnamese friends.

                              And if she was totally unaware of the savagery of the North Vietnamese then she had to be the stupidest human on the face of the planet. There was plenty of evidence about their treatment of POW's and civilians.

                              Once again, you are wasting your time and credibility defending a war criminal. It might be nice if you find something or someone more appropriate and more deserving.
                              Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Handsome Jack View Post
                                You can stand by your opinion of her being a traitor, I'll stand by my opinion of her not being a traitor, and we can leave it at that.




                                Far, far more Americans are on my side of this argument than on yours, and I'll leave it at that.
                                Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X