Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jane Fonda still uttering drivel

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
    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.
    Thank you for the charts and explanations. I see your points now. You do definitely know your stuff! If drilling is done with concern for the surrounding ecosystem and the preservation of the environment, then by all means, drill away.

    Originally posted by Bwaha View Post
    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...
    You aren't the first and you won't be the last to call me a Neo because I'm anti-Zionist. I don't take it personally. On your note though I've never served. I considered the Army for a while but moved on to the IT industry instead.

    Originally posted by Hida Akechi View Post
    What's that supposed to mean? You hate this and that, but the people who support it are A-okay to you?
    Your post was a little too long and bit-and-piece to respond to effectively in full, but I'll sum it up by answering this part in particular: yes. I don't agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. That's my entire philosophy on this. If there's no solid proof she took pot shots at American pilots, if there's no solid proof she supplied military espionage to the NVA, then she isn't a traitor and she hasn't committed treason, by legal definition. Her intention as I've now repeated several times was stated as such: to photograph damage done to river dikes which she believed were causing flooding to civilian areas, done by the USAF to hinder North Vietnam's food production and civilian morale. She wanted to get proof of these attacks on civilians and try to aid them however she could. Not the NVA, but NV civilians. No one but Fonda herself can know her true intentions, but what she said, the only thing we have to go on, was that her intents were noble. What happened was less noble, but still not treason. I'm not flip-flopping, I'm being impartial. I don't like to judge people all too quickly, and when judgement that I perceive is unfair is occurring I'll see why it's happening, and possibly try to defend the judged. To be blunt, yeah, I'm defending her against the accusation of treason, because it's simply false. Saying "But think of how the POWs feel!" is again using pure Pathos as an argument, which had been regarded as a fallacy since antiquity in debates. You cannot replace factual evidence with emotion. The factual evidence we have states Fonda was ignorant of NVA POW treatment, sympathetic to the Communist cause, and didn't personally intend to come off as harmful or disrespectful. These are things she stated, and the only person who knows one's intentions in this world fully is one's own self. I may hate Communism, but I don't hate Communists unless they give me a reason to hate them. I can hate what they say, but I'll never stop defending their right to say it.

    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.
    In times of war charity groups, such as medical ones, are known to give aid to all who need it, on our side or not. Do you consider them traitors too? War is hell, but your enemies don't become the Devil just because your country's leaders claim they are. If we declared war on Russia today it wouldn't stop me from visiting the country if I wanted to. That's not treachery, that's my right. I'm all for nationalism and the love of one's own country but nationalism is just that, loving your country. It doesn't mean you immediately hate all other countries and view them as inferior, whether at war or at peace.

    Where's your sources for claiming that she was deceived?
    http://www.janefonda.com/the-truth-a...trip-to-hanoi/

    From her personal website.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Handsome Jack View Post
      In times of war charity groups, such as medical ones, are known to give aid to all who need it, on our side or not.
      Those charity groups go in as neutrals, Fonda did not.

      This is not actions of a neutral person:

      https://www.google.com/search?q=jane...0CCoQ7Ak#imgrc=_
      "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Handsome Jack View Post
        You aren't the first and you won't be the last to call me a Neo because I'm anti-Zionist. I don't take it personally. On your note though I've never served. I considered the Army for a while but moved on to the IT industry instead.
        Did I say that your a neo? I don't think I've made one personal comment about you one way or the other.

        That's twice you've claimed I've called you something. Have we a prior relationship here?
        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


        • #94
          Originally posted by Bwaha View Post
          Did I say that your a neo? I don't think I've made one personal comment about you one way or the other.

          That's twice you've claimed I've called you something. Have we a prior relationship here?
          It's odd that when I mention your comment about me that you posted shortly after I had posted something ("progressive kids") that you then mentioned neo-Nazis out of nowhere specifically when speaking to me, after expressing distaste at what I said in the other topic about the London Protests. If you really didn't mean any ill will, sorry for thinking so, but it seems that the implication is very blatant.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Handsome Jack View Post
            It's odd that when I mention your comment about me that you posted shortly after I had posted something ("progressive kids") that you then mentioned neo-Nazis out of nowhere specifically when speaking to me, after expressing distaste at what I said in the other topic about the London Protests. If you really didn't mean any ill will, sorry for thinking so, but it seems that the implication is very blatant.
            Ah I see. No I was referring to the influx of ill educated kids who being raised progressive have no moral center and thus fall victim to the various 'crazy' cults and political movements.

            I also blame the education system for failing to teach them how to do basic research and 'critical thought'.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

            But then our 'lords' don't want the youth to utilize such tools...
            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


            • #96
              I think it is clear that Fonda is not a stable individual and discussing her as if she was is pointless. She is a poster child for act now and excuse my poor understanding of the consequences later.

              She gets a lot of attention because of the status that comes with celebrity which she partially inherited. It is also true that she has lived a life where she has not been as accountable as people with less means may be. Some people resent this is the same way they resent O.J. Simpson's popularity but the accountability of the rich and famous is another discussion.

              What we should be discussing is not the views of a fairly irrelevant individual but why society equates celebrity with political relevancy. Why does Jane Fonda or her views matter?
              We hunt the hunters

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Bwaha View Post
                Did I say that your a neo? I don't think I've made one personal comment about you one way or the other.

                That's twice you've claimed I've called you something. Have we a prior relationship here?
                To quote an old saying, it appears that you do not know 'Jack'.

                Jack appears to feel victimized by the somewhat cool reception he has gotten for some of his views.
                Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                  I think it is clear that Fonda is not a stable individual and discussing her as if she was is pointless. She is a poster child for act now and excuse my poor understanding of the consequences later.

                  She gets a lot of attention because of the status that comes with celebrity which she partially inherited. It is also true that she has lived a life where she has not been as accountable as people with less means may be. Some people resent this is the same way they resent O.J. Simpson's popularity but the accountability of the rich and famous is another discussion.

                  What we should be discussing is not the views of a fairly irrelevant individual but why society equates celebrity with political relevancy. Why does Jane Fonda or her views matter?
                  Because the media plasters them everywhere as if their vapid views do matter, which creates a great deal of resentment among a population sick and tired of the "celebrity syndrome".

                  That's my guess.
                  Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    To quote an old saying, it appears that you do not know 'Jack'.

                    Jack appears to feel victimized by the somewhat cool reception he has gotten for some of his views.
                    I'm Handsome Jack, baby. No bandit nor disagreement pulls me down.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                      I think it is clear that Fonda is not a stable individual and discussing her as if she was is pointless. She is a poster child for act now and excuse my poor understanding of the consequences later.
                      That's the Left in general. They never take responsibility for the fd up ideas they foist on society. They just walk away from the wreckage looking for another "good deed" to do.

                      That's the Fonda thing: "I didn't mean any harm by going to N. Vietnam. I just wanted to empathize with America's enemies. It thought if we all sang Kumbayah, ate some Smores around a campfire we could settle our differences."


                      She gets a lot of attention because of the status that comes with celebrity which she partially inherited. It is also true that she has lived a life where she has not been as accountable as people with less means may be. Some people resent this is the same way they resent O.J. Simpson's popularity but the accountability of the rich and famous is another discussion.

                      What we should be discussing is not the views of a fairly irrelevant individual but why society equates celebrity with political relevancy. Why does Jane Fonda or her views matter?
                      They matter for two reasons:

                      1. He celebrity status means she has appeared in the public eye and the things she chooses to say, do, and act in, can have influence on people in general. For example, she was in the movie "The China Syndrome."
                      Never mind that it was a total fiction and had no engineering or scientific basis, it influenced those who had no knowledge of nuclear power in an negative way.

                      2. She has access to people that matter. What if she were at the White House at a small dinner with the Obama's? Her opinions might influence their opinions.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                        They matter for two reasons:

                        1. He celebrity status means she has appeared in the public eye and the things she chooses to say, do, and act in, can have influence on people in general. For example, she was in the movie "The China Syndrome."
                        Never mind that it was a total fiction and had no engineering or scientific basis, it influenced those who had no knowledge of nuclear power in an negative way.

                        2. She has access to people that matter. What if she were at the White House at a small dinner with the Obama's? Her opinions might influence their opinions.
                        Good points but isn't the only counter to that other celebrities?
                        We hunt the hunters

                        Comment


                        • Sure Charton Heston did a gr8 job for the NRA. But coming out as a conservative in hollyweird is usually the kiss of death. Same with the UC system, they will destroy you with malice and venom...
                          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


                          • Originally posted by Handsome Jack View Post
                            I'm Handsome Jack, baby. No bandit nor disagreement pulls me down.
                            And your overwhelming modesty is apparent to us all...baby.
                            Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                              2. She has access to people that matter. What if she were at the White House at a small dinner with the Obama's? Her opinions might influence their opinions.
                              Seriously? She's a hard core conservative compared to the Obama's brand of flaming liberalism, and she's white.
                              Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                                Seriously? She's a hard core conservative compared to the Obama's brand of flaming liberalism, and she's white.
                                Oh no she's not. She's the sort of dyed in the wool Progressive Leftist celebrity the Obama's embrace totally. Look at the people she's on "tour" with. They are as far to the Left as you can get.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X