Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jane Fonda still uttering drivel

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    No, she wouldn't have "changed her mind", nor did she ever do so after the war.
    She made several apologies for it and stated she regretted what was done and said. Take that for what you will.

    Originally posted by Bwaha View Post
    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.

    I understand that and respect that, but the anger over what occurred to American POWs should be directed to those who inflicted the torture on them, not a woman who took a photograph with an AAA gun.

    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Far, far more Americans are on my side of this argument than on yours, and I'll leave it at that.
    That's fine as well.

    Comment


    • #77
      Oh, let's not forget Jane's travelling companions:

      Naomi Klein is an "economist."

      http://www.thenation.com/article/dis...rship-society/

      The problem boiled down to this: people tend to vote their economic interests. Even in the wealthy United States, most people earn less than the average income. That means it is in the interest of the majority to vote for politicians promising to redistribute wealth from the top down.

      So what to do? It was Margaret Thatcher who pioneered a solution. The effort centered on Britain’s public housing, or council estates, which were filled with die-hard Labour Party supporters. In a bold move, Thatcher offered strong incentives to residents to buy their council estate flats at reduced rates (much as Bush did decades later by promoting subprime mortgages). Those who could afford it became homeowners while those who couldn’t faced rents almost twice as high as before, leading to an explosion of homelessness.

      As a political strategy, it worked: the renters continued to oppose Thatcher, but polls showed that more than half of the newly minted owners did indeed switch their party affiliation to the Tories. The key was a psychological shift: they now thought like owners, and owners tend to vote Tory. The ownership society as a political project was born.
      Her argument her is that to get people to vote Leftist, make them renters. Dispossess them of a shot at Capitalism and ownership.

      http://www.vancouversun.com/entertai...960/story.html

      Klein said that if there was more of a focus in Canada on an economy tied to environmental protection and renewable energy, the country would be able to create many times more jobs than we have currently in the fossil fuel sector.

      "Our governments are nowhere near where they need to be. Their pledges, their emission reduction pledges, are not in line with what scientists are telling us," she said.

      "If we take the science seriously we need to be cutting our emissions by about eight per cent a year, that's not going to happen out of what we're hearing at those official summits," she added.

      Comment


      • #78
        Need to save this thread and re-post it next time a 'Con' makes a post in reply in a thread that mentions Sara Palin and asking why 'libs' are so obsessed with her....

        funny.
        “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
        “To talk of many things:
        Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
        Of cabbages—and kings—
        And why the sea is boiling hot—
        And whether pigs have wings.”
        ― Lewis Carroll

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
          Oh, let's not forget Jane's travelling companions:

          Naomi Klein is an "economist."

          http://www.thenation.com/article/dis...rship-society/
          I can't say much about her environmental views, but she's got a point with housing. Not redistributing wealth, but definitely on private ownership of homes being much, much harder, nigh-unfeasible in today's economy, unless you enjoy copious debt. This I know first-hand, and it does seem that the rich get richer while the middle class stays static. That's just a limited-scope view from one individual though, don't take it as a blanket statement of the country as a whole.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Handsome Jack View Post
            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?


            The inanity of her comments should be obvious.
            "He (Obama) has just given Shell permission to drill in the Arctic.

            Shell leased the acreage in the Chukchi Sea from the Federal government for the purpose of drilling the prospects they had generated. The law says that Shell gets to drill if it complies with the regulations. Shell has complied with all of the regulatory requirements, including the ones that were fabricated over the past five years.

            Shell has obeyed the law. The only way Maobama could stop Shell from drilling would be to break the law.

            It's inconceivable."

            It's not "inconceivable" to the Department of the Interior or the Department of Energy.
            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.

            Setting aside the fact that there is very little evidence to support the AGW failed hypothesis and no evidence at all to support the notion of " generational threat to the world climate from continuing oil drilling and burning of fossil fuels"... There is no "potential of renewable energy sources to reverse that environmental catastrophe" even if it was real.


            Originally posted by Handsome Jack
            You also didn't answer my question of how environmental stability plays into oil drilling.
            I don't recall you asking that question.

            Firstly, we live in the same environment as Jane Fonda.

            Secondly, spills and other accidents are expensive.
            Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
              I don't recall you asking that question.

              Firstly, we live in the same environment as Jane Fonda.

              Secondly, spills and other accidents are expensive.
              I asked a page or so back after you stated environmental stability means extracting the maximum amount of oil possible.

              I don't quite get what you mean with the Jane Fonda statement, and the second statement is true, yes, and I'm not claiming oil companies love having spills on a whim for fun, but it does happen, and when it happens it's typically due to carelessness on their part. BP's oil spill was the most well-known example of that recently.

              I've got no problem with them drilling. My problem is that some may support absolutely gouging the Arctic for all it's worth and plundering it 'till there's nothing left to plunder.

              Comment


              • #82
                T. Boone Pickens found the same thing with "renewables."

                In 2008, Pickens debuted his “Pickens Plan,” which aimed to increase the nation’s use of wind energy and decrease America’s dependence on OPEC oil. With the help of investors he spent 80 million dollars on TV ads to promote his plan and $2 billion on General Electric wind turbines. Pickens hoped that once the wind farm was constructed, it would be the largest in the world.

                The plan collapsed after natural gas prices fell and selling wind power was no longer economically feasible. He lost $150 million of his personal fortune on the failed wind plan.

                After his failure in the wind market, Pickens revamped his Pickens Plan to focus on the use of natural gas as well as any other American-based energy source.

                He has made moves to convert all trucks from using gasoline to natural gas. As part of this effort, he has encouraged Obama to use subsidies in order to incentivize the trucking industry to make the switch.
                http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/16/wi...rbes-400-list/

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Bwaha View Post
                  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...
                  Oh, wow, yes that's a good point. Rep incoming.

                  EDIT: When I can get you some again...
                  Last edited by Hida Akechi; 06 Jul 15, 14:21.
                  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


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Hida Akechi View Post
                    Oh, wow, yes that's a good point. Rep incoming.
                    Little does he know how anti-ProgLibCultMarx I am.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Handsome Jack View Post
                      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.
                      She lied. Or is utterly and completely stupid. Since she knew what she was doing from the start, the lying part is the obvious choice.

                      I'm not saying one way or the other, I'm repeating what she herself said.
                      Then do you believe her or not?

                      Being in North Vietnam in the first place was not an act of deception or accident. She was there, and it was her business.
                      Her intent was to undermine from the start.

                      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.
                      Well, we'll actually never know that.

                      She did not commit treason.
                      Her presence and intent were treasonous. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

                      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.
                      And now it's about me. Sorry, it's not. It's about her being a traitor to this country. What she did does amount to treason. That is my opinion, and your die-hard defense of her is your opinion.

                      She put a helmet on. I'm not even trying to defend her.


                      Yes, you are.

                      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.
                      Either defend her or don't, you can't have it both ways.

                      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, with the intention of undermining the effort of the US. Treason. She's garbage humanity.

                      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.
                      again. You were sure just a few lines above why she was there.

                      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.[/quote]

                      But you just said you didn't know why she was there...please, make up your mind.

                      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.
                      Then you do know why she was there. Stop flip-flopping.

                      That's her business, and again, your emotional feelings over it are valid, but not in an argument.
                      But your's are? How emotional do you think I am sitting here pointing out your inconsistency?

                      Pathos does not equal proof. Again, I'm not defending Fonda herself, not at all.[/quote]

                      That's EXACTLY what you're doing.

                      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.
                      If it quacks like a duck...

                      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.
                      How does she feel about that now?

                      I hate Communism and Cultural Marxism to the core, but I don't hate people who support it without fighting for its sake.
                      What's that supposed to mean? You hate this and that, but the people who support it are A-okay to you?

                      Armies do bad things in war. Being your typical Commie regime the NVA did lots of bad things.
                      That's WAR. War isn't supposed to be nice. And she supported what they did, but wouldn't support her own home country. She's a traitor to the US.

                      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.
                      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.
                      Where's your sources for claiming that she was deceived?
                      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


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Handsome Jack View Post
                        Little does he know how anti-ProgLibCultMarx I am.
                        I didn't infer your position one way or another on that subject. Btw have you served?

                        I was in SAC during the Cold War and you don't get any more anti-commie than that...

                        Funny thing though, I'll stand with a commie to kick a neo to the curb...

                        I loath commies but I absolutely hate nazis more...
                        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


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Bwaha View Post
                          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.

                          And the sons of vets that served in Vietnam that do not tolerate historical revisionism, treason against the US, and those apologists that support such.
                          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


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Handsome Jack View Post
                            Little does he know how anti-ProgLibCultMarx I am.
                            And how little I care. It's your current posts defending Hanoi Jane that are the current subject, not any of your other views.
                            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


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Handsome Jack View Post
                              I asked a page or so back after you stated environmental stability means extracting the maximum amount of oil possible.
                              Our exchange...
                              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.



                              To the best of my knowledge oil companies aren't that regulated.



                              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.
                              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?




                              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!



                              I didn’t have to wait very long. I'll get back to this particular drivel later today.



                              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.

                              You: When it comes down to it all I'm concerned about is that the drilling's done sensibly and sustainably.

                              Me: 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.


                              Originally posted by Handsome Jack
                              I don't quite get what you mean with the Jane Fonda statement, and the second statement is true, yes, and I'm not claiming oil companies love having spills on a whim for fun, but it does happen, and when it happens it's typically due to carelessness on their part. BP's oil spill was the most well-known example of that recently.
                              You don't get what I mean with which Jane Fonda statement?

                              Oil spills from drilling and production operations are extremely rare. Macondo (BP) was the only accident of such magnitude in almost 70 years of drilling the US OCS in the Gulf of Mexico.

                              Drilling rigs are dangerous places to work, even more so offshore. Everything from getting to an offshore rig or platform, to working and living on it, to getting back to the shore base is dangerous. 3-4 fatalities occur every year; helicopter accidents, fires, explosions, falls, crane accidents are ever-present hazards. Everyone would like to see that number be 0; no lost time accidents is objective number 1 in every operation.

                              http://www.bsee.gov/Inspection-and-E...nvestigations/

                              Spills happen; but they are rare. This used to be on the MMS (now BOEM & BSEE) website prior to the Maobama Maladministration...
                              From the old MMS website:
                              Haven't OCS operations historically spilled a great deal of oil?

                              No. Since 1980, OCS operators have produced 4.7 billion barrels (bbl) of oil and spilled only 0.001 percent of this oil, or 1 bbl for every 81,000 bbl produced. In the last 15 years, there have been no spills greater than 1,000 bbl from an OCS platform or drilling rig. The spill risk related to a diesel spill from drilling operations is even less. During the 10-year period (1976-1985) in which data were collected, there were 80 reported diesel spills greater than one barrel associated with drilling activities, compared with 11,944 wells drilled, or a 0.7 percent probability of occurrence. For diesel spills greater than 50 bbls, only 15 spills have occurred, or a 0.1 percent probability.

                              Natural seepage of oil in the Gulf of Mexico (unrelated to natural gas and oil industry operations) is far more extensive. Researchers have estimated a natural seepage rate of about 120,000 bbl per year from one area (23,000 square kilometers) offshore of Louisiana.



                              No industry can operate 100% accident-free. However, safety is the #1 priority on drilling rigs and production platforms. The greatest hazard is not carelessness. It is complacency. When you do something very difficult and very dangerous with very few mishaps over a long period of time, it is easy to become complacent. That's when mistakes can cascade into disasters.

                              Macondo has cost BP ~$54 billion to date. This is a very strong incentive to avoid complacency.

                              Originally posted by Handsome Jack
                              I've got no problem with them drilling. My problem is that some may support absolutely gouging the Arctic for all it's worth and plundering it 'till there's nothing left to plunder.

                              I can assure you that Shell is only going to produce the oil & gas that they discover. They won't be "gouging" or "plundering" anything.

                              The Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) will have to be prematurely shut down and dismantled unless ANWR Area 1002 and the Beaufort & Chukchi OCS areas are exploited soon. If this happens, a very large volume of oil will never be produced. Jane Fonda would like to see this happen.
                              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Bwaha View Post
                                I was in SAC during the Cold War and you don't get any more anti-commie than that...
                                I pretty sure my wife is more anti-commie then you....
                                "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X