Jane Fonda

[quote]Al Shades wrote:
I gladly will the first chance I get, but I can tell you right now that it wouldn’t change a thing. As a pure objectivist, I am completely and irrevocably unsusceptible to all forms of sentimentalist persuasion. To accept any such arguments at face value would herald nothing less than a complete mental breakdown for me. [/quote]

Oh I could really give a shit about how ‘susceptable to persuasion’ you may or may not fashion yourself to be.

If you truly plan on saying this to a Vet, as you claim you will - find a big one. Of course at your robust size that is going to be hard to do. But please try. Then make sure you square up to him, look him in the eye, and say it really loud and proud.

Better yet, find a VFW post somewhere near your house, and go exercise your objectivism in there.

My bet is that you will be susceptable to something. Hopefully a right hook, maybe a body shot, it could even be a boot in your ass. But you will be persuaded to introduce your face to the floor - because real heros won’t take this kind of shit from a punk ass whether it’s coming from Jane Fonda, or Al Shades.

Al

I’ve stayed away from bashing you on "Popular request’ because it is just so juvenile and others were doing great, but this is reprehensible.

I have to agree with ZEB here, that may be one of the most vile things put forth by you. I know you’re good at pushing buttons, but that crossed a line.

You are a wanabee intellectual who is a quasi-informed, somewhat clever, smartass who makes off the cuff remarks with the intent of elevating oneself through outrageous, outlandish verbage.

My dad and many others made the ultimate sacrifice. I find you most irritating and repugnant.

Moriarity

I just reread my post and yours. I over reacted to what you said.

Jane just makes my blood boil…I guess that’s obvious.

Look forward to arguing with you in the future, unless of course you jump ship and become conservative.

[quote]HouseOfAtlas wrote:
Treason is punishable by death.

'nuff said.[/quote]
Then why hasn’t Delay been off’d?

[quote]100meters wrote:
HouseOfAtlas wrote:
Treason is punishable by death.

'nuff said.
Then why hasn’t Delay been off’d?

[/quote]

Treason is committed against your country.

If you got shot for furthering self-interest then 1/2 of congress would be gone. Especially the Democrats!

Those who like Howard Stern might find this article interesting:

Stern: Jane Fonda a ‘Hero’ of Vietnam

He freely admits he may be one of the few people who thinks so, but Howard Stern says Jane Fonda is a “hero” for going to North Vietnam in 1972.

Fonda made her highly controversial trip at a time when U.S. servicemen were still fighting and dying at the hands of North Vietnamese regulars and Viet Cong guerrillas.

Her trip was seen by millions as an act of blatant treason, though she was never charged with the crime and continued on her path to a successful career in Hollywood.

And though he gets “really pissed-off letters from vets and stuff” when he says such things, Stern says Fonda’s trip should be praised because “anyone - especially anyone of prominence - who helped to bring down that war, especially when I was a year or two away from going over myself, I gotta say: Thank you.”

He did say Fonda’s posing behind an enemy weapon was a bad thing, but he said it was clear the North Vietnamese soldiers in the picture with her were just reacting to being napalmed by French and U.S. troops.

[quote]Al Shades wrote:
I gladly will the first chance I get, but I can tell you right now that it wouldn’t change a thing. As a pure objectivist, I am completely and irrevocably unsusceptible to all forms of sentimentalist persuasion. To accept any such arguments at face value would herald nothing less than a complete mental breakdown for me. [/quote]

Damn Pelonious, I thought Hamlet had killed you.

[quote]100meters wrote:
HouseOfAtlas wrote:
Treason is punishable by death.

'nuff said.
Then why hasn’t Delay been off’d?

[/quote]

nice.
Typical fucking lib nutjob.

I think Stern is way off…

At this point, I don’t even think Fonda thinks that she was much of a hero…

Mufasa

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
100meters wrote:
HouseOfAtlas wrote:
Treason is punishable by death.

'nuff said.
Then why hasn’t Delay been off’d?

nice.
Typical fucking lib nutjob.
[/quote]
Why?

On Delay-- Remember who he supported in the Bosnian War (Hint: It wasn’t the U.S. President)
Now put the puzzle togeather…

The question is: Who stood behind Chelsea [Commercial Enterprises], and thus ultimately financed the trip? A regular office for the firm could not be located by The Post, in Moscow or at its two listed addresses; its Bahamian registration ended in 2000, officials there said. Efforts by The Post to find the three men – one Belgian, one British, one Russian – named in lobbying registrations as Chelsea investors or owners in lobbying disclosures were unsuccessful.

A spokeswoman for Cadwalader, Paula Zirinsky, said the firm had no contact information for anyone from Chelsea, because “persons that worked on that matter have not been with the firm since 1997.” Jonathan Blank, managing partner of the Washington office for Preston Gates, similarly said his firm had no current contact information for Chelsea.

In interviews, however, five individuals with direct knowledge of the lobbying effort separately described executives of a diversified Russian energy firm known as Naftasib as being intimately involved in the lobbying.

Naftasib, which oversees interests in mining, oil and gas, construction and other enterprises from a four-story unmarked building in downtown Moscow, says it is a separate company from Chelsea but acknowledges seeking to cultivate friends in Washington in 1997.

In a written statement issued Friday in response to questions from The Post, Marina Nevskaya, Naftasib’s deputy general manager, explained that her firm “wanted to foster better understanding between our country and the United States, and felt that if these trips were successful they would foster a better overall climate that could ultimately benefit Naftasib as well as other Russian enterprises.”

…those involved in organizing DeLay’s trip said he met with Nevskaya and was escorted around Moscow by the general manager of Naftasib, Alexander Koulakovsky. DeLay has also met with Nevskaya and Koulakovsky in Washington since then, according to several sources with direct knowledge of the contact…

The efforts by Naftasib’s executives to curry favor among Republicans – including DeLay – sowed controversy at the time among conservatives. A journal published by a Washington think tank, the American Foreign Policy Council, claimed within a few days after DeLay’s trip ended that it was actually “sponsored” by Naftasib. The journal – the Russian Reform Monitor – also highlighted what it characterized as Naftasib’s tight connections to the Russian security establishment.

The journal quoted promotional literature for Naftasib that described the firm as a major shareholder in Gazprom, the state-controlled oil and gas giant. The literature also said Natfasib’s largest clients were the ministries of defense and internal affairs. The literature also states that Nevskaya was an instructor at a school for Russian military intelligence officers. She declined to address those claims in response to questions from The Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28319-2005Apr5.html

Ok, still reading? Now here’s what the Russia Reform Monitor says about Naftasib:
The Russian oil company that has supplied fuel to the [Russian spy ship] Liman, the [Russian naval reconnasaince vessel] Kildin, and the rest of the Black Sea Fleet [in the Adriatic], has been bankrolling a political influence operation in Washington. Working through a cutout in the Bahamas, NaftaSib is paying a prominent D.C. law and public relations firm, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds, to influence congressional staff, lawmakers, editorial writers and journalists. A NaftaSib executive involved in the influence effort is tied to GRU military intelligence. Most of the targets are conservative Republicans. In 1995, the same lobbyists were paid to represent the then Milosevic-controlled government of Montenegro, Yugoslavia.
http://www.afpc.org/rrm/rrm637.htm

Isn’t funny how the Russian security establishment was one of the Serb’s biggest defenders. And Delay was the idiot that did this:

MARK SHIELDS: Tom DeLay, the House Whip, and a member of House Republicans, this actual impeachment. That’s exactly what it is. They’re going to make it Clinton/Gore’s war and they’re going to guarantee that it doesn’t work. Paul can say they’re emulating, they’re simulating. What that was - you had the House Republican Whip whipping members on the floor to vote against air cover that had been supported by president George Bush, supported by Bob Dole, the last Republican nominee, supported by Dick Lugar, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and John Warner, the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Dick Shelby, Richard Shelby, the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. And he whipped them to the point where they were contradictory. They’re saying we’re against bringing our troops home. We’re just going to leave them there.

JIM LEHRER: The bombing war was more intense today than it has been since it began. Does that make kind of the House of Representatives almost irrelevant in this? Have they made themselves irrelevant?

PAUL GIGOT: I doubt it was irrelevant to Slobodan Milosevic. What message do you think he took with a 213 to 213 vote? Do you think he thinks Bill Clinton is leading a unified country? I don’t think so.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/shields&gigot/april99/sg_4-30.html

Shameless!
Meanwhile Joe is worried about the clueless Jane Fonda, let me guess Joe, it was the “liberal media” who made Delay take golf trips from lobbyists who also lobbyied for Milosevic, and no way it influenced his decisions right? There’s nothing questionable in Joe’s mind that a congressman is recieving junkets from foreign interests and then making pro-enemy policy decisions. I love these republican “American Values”!

(and I’m a nutjob for not liking this–WTF!)

[quote]hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
HouseOfAtlas wrote:
Treason is punishable by death.

'nuff said.
Then why hasn’t Delay been off’d?

Treason is committed against your country.

If you got shot for furthering self-interest then 1/2 of congress would be gone. Especially the Democrats!

[/quote]

Thanks Hedo, I knew that already though.

On your second thought, uhmm… no, I’m pretty sure K street is a Rebublican est right now. Nice try though.

We should hold personal history against Jane Fonda the same as we should hold personal history against George Bush. He smoked pot, sniffed coke and was a general hell-raiser in college. Oh yeah, we elected him president. I guess the past really doesn’t matter, he’s now a (quasi) role model.

Hey, 100meters, let me make something clear to you: I dont’ give a flying fuck about Jane Fonda. I personally think she was wrong, and she’s not much of a femnist role model, but I don’t really care.

What I do care about is your suggestion that a sitting member of congress should be shot for treason or any other reason.

Why don’t you send an email to that effect to his office and the capitol police, I’m sure they’d find it just as annoying as I do.

Hey roadwarrior, if you pull hard enough on your earlobes you just might be able to dislodge your head from your ass.

Smoking pot, raising hell, getting a DUI (which he apoligized for), and alledgedly doing coke doesn’t even come CLOSE! to the same thing as treason.

Think about the comparison your making. Did any of the presidents actions back then kill American GI’s.

Nope. didn’t think so.

She’s still ‘Hanoi Jane’

By Robert J. Caldwell
April 10, 2005

NIHON DENPA NEWS
Jane Fonda was photographed in July, 1972 as she sat on the gunner’s seat of a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun near Hanoi.

The most famous ? make that infamous ? image of Jane Fonda from her years protesting the Vietnam War was a photograph taken during her wartime visit to North Vietnam in 1972. In the photo, Fonda is sitting on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun clasping her hands, singing, a rapturous smile on her face, a North Vietnamese helmet on her head, surrounded by grinning North Vietnamese soldiers.

Fonda, out promoting her autobiography these days, now says she regrets that particular “betrayal,” and that is her word. In an interview with Leslie Stahl on CBS’s “60 Minutes,” Fonda said: “I will go to my grave regretting that … It was the largest lapse of judgment that I can even imagine.”

She expressed similar regrets in an interview in 1988 and again in 2000, when she called posing on the enemy’s anti-aircraft gun “thoughtless.”

Careful readers will note that “thoughtless” and “lapse of judgment” and even “betrayal” are not apologies. In truth, Jane Fonda has never apologized for eagerly lending herself and her celebrity to the wartime propaganda of an enemy state, a Stalinist dictatorship no less, that killed 58,000 Americans.

And she’s not apologizing today.

Fonda did a lot more in that 1972 visit to North Vietnam than demonstrate her solidarity with those who were shooting down American pilots.

At her request, she made at least 10 broadcasts on Radio Hanoi that included calling American pilots war criminals and urging them to stop bombing North Vietnam. In a propaganda gesture heavily publicized by Hanoi, she also met with a group of coerced American prisoners of war to demonstrate, as the North Vietnamese intended, that the POWs were receiving “humane” treatment.

In fact, as we know now, nearly all American POWs in North Vietnam were brutally tortured until 1969, when Hanoi’s policy changed to more selective mistreatment. One American POW was strung up from a ceiling by his broken arm until he agreed to listen to Fonda’s assertions that the prisoners were being well treated.

When the POWs returned from North Vietnam in 1973 and told of their torture, Jane Fonda declared, “the POWs are lying if they assert it was North Vietnamese policy to torture American prisoners.” For good measure, she also suggested that their recollections of torture were products of “racism” toward the Vietnamese.

Does Fonda regret her propaganda broadcasts for Radio Hanoi or her role in trying to persuade the world that tortured, brutalized American POWs were receiving humane treatment? Not a bit. Is she apologizing? No.

Here’s what she told Leslie Stahl on “60 Minutes”:

“I don’t think there was anything wrong with it. It’s not something that I will apologize for … we’d been saying to Richard Nixon, ‘stop this’… it needed what looks now to be unbelievably controversial things. That’s what I felt was needed.”

During World War II, two equally deluded American women, dubbed by U.S. servicemen Tokyo Rose and Axis Sally, made propaganda broadcasts from the capitals of Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany. Both were prosecuted for treason after the war, convicted and sent to federal prison.

Fonda escaped that fate partly, one assumes, because of the ultimate unpopularity of the Vietnam War and partly because a prosecution for treason would require that a formally declared state of war had existed between the United States and North Vietnam.

Nonetheless, Fonda’s treasonous folly speaks to larger truths about a war that inflicted grievous wounds on the American psyche. For millions of Americans, and for millions of America’s South Vietnamese allies, those wounds have yet to heal completely, and perhaps never will.

The anti-war movement of the 1960s and early 1970s was, in fact, two parallel movements. The majority of anti-

war protesters simply believed that American participation in the war was wrong. Their objective was American withdrawal from Vietnam. But a hard-core, hard-left minority in the anti-war coalition favored a communist victory by the Viet Cong and North Vietnam.

However witlessly, Jane Fonda lent herself to that latter goal, a communist triumph in Vietnam.

When the Soviet-armed North Vietnamese army overran South Vietnam in 1975, Fonda’s then-husband, the left-wing radical Tom Hayden, expressed his relief and approval. When the North Vietnamese, quite predictably, imposed their totalitarian system on South Vietnam ? complete with concentration camps that imprisoned hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese and the extinguishing of all civil and political liberties ? Jane Fonda said she couldn’t object because the evidence of oppression was unproven.

When, by United Nations estimate, a quarter of a million South Vietnamese boat people perished at sea escaping their supposed liberators in the 1970s and 1980s, Jane Fonda was silent. When 2 million Cambodians were murdered or died of privation at the hands of the communist Khmer Rouge (originally Hanoi’s allies), Jane Fonda had nothing to say. When the people of reunified Vietnam were denied basic human rights and continue to suffer today under Hanoi’s one-party dictatorship, Jane Fonda apparently was too busy with her personal life to comment.

That’s a lot to answer for, Hanoi Jane.

Caldwell, a Vietnam veteran, is editor of the Insight

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Hey roadwarrior, if you pull hard enough on your earlobes you just might be able to dislodge your head from your ass.

Smoking pot, raising hell, getting a DUI (which he apoligized for), and alledgedly doing coke doesn’t even come CLOSE! to the same thing as treason.

Think about the comparison your making. Did any of the presidents actions back then kill American GI’s.

Nope. didn’t think so.

She’s still ‘Hanoi Jane’

By Robert J. Caldwell
April 10, 2005

NIHON DENPA NEWS
Jane Fonda was photographed in July, 1972 as she sat on the gunner’s seat of a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun near Hanoi.

The most famous ? make that infamous ? image of Jane Fonda from her years protesting the Vietnam War was a photograph taken during her wartime visit to North Vietnam in 1972. In the photo, Fonda is sitting on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun clasping her hands, singing, a rapturous smile on her face, a North Vietnamese helmet on her head, surrounded by grinning North Vietnamese soldiers.

Fonda, out promoting her autobiography these days, now says she regrets that particular “betrayal,” and that is her word. In an interview with Leslie Stahl on CBS’s “60 Minutes,” Fonda said: “I will go to my grave regretting that … It was the largest lapse of judgment that I can even imagine.”

She expressed similar regrets in an interview in 1988 and again in 2000, when she called posing on the enemy’s anti-aircraft gun “thoughtless.”

Careful readers will note that “thoughtless” and “lapse of judgment” and even “betrayal” are not apologies. In truth, Jane Fonda has never apologized for eagerly lending herself and her celebrity to the wartime propaganda of an enemy state, a Stalinist dictatorship no less, that killed 58,000 Americans.

And she’s not apologizing today.

Fonda did a lot more in that 1972 visit to North Vietnam than demonstrate her solidarity with those who were shooting down American pilots.

At her request, she made at least 10 broadcasts on Radio Hanoi that included calling American pilots war criminals and urging them to stop bombing North Vietnam. In a propaganda gesture heavily publicized by Hanoi, she also met with a group of coerced American prisoners of war to demonstrate, as the North Vietnamese intended, that the POWs were receiving “humane” treatment.

In fact, as we know now, nearly all American POWs in North Vietnam were brutally tortured until 1969, when Hanoi’s policy changed to more selective mistreatment. One American POW was strung up from a ceiling by his broken arm until he agreed to listen to Fonda’s assertions that the prisoners were being well treated.

When the POWs returned from North Vietnam in 1973 and told of their torture, Jane Fonda declared, “the POWs are lying if they assert it was North Vietnamese policy to torture American prisoners.” For good measure, she also suggested that their recollections of torture were products of “racism” toward the Vietnamese.

Does Fonda regret her propaganda broadcasts for Radio Hanoi or her role in trying to persuade the world that tortured, brutalized American POWs were receiving humane treatment? Not a bit. Is she apologizing? No.

Here’s what she told Leslie Stahl on “60 Minutes”:

“I don’t think there was anything wrong with it. It’s not something that I will apologize for … we’d been saying to Richard Nixon, ‘stop this’… it needed what looks now to be unbelievably controversial things. That’s what I felt was needed.”

During World War II, two equally deluded American women, dubbed by U.S. servicemen Tokyo Rose and Axis Sally, made propaganda broadcasts from the capitals of Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany. Both were prosecuted for treason after the war, convicted and sent to federal prison.

Fonda escaped that fate partly, one assumes, because of the ultimate unpopularity of the Vietnam War and partly because a prosecution for treason would require that a formally declared state of war had existed between the United States and North Vietnam.

Nonetheless, Fonda’s treasonous folly speaks to larger truths about a war that inflicted grievous wounds on the American psyche. For millions of Americans, and for millions of America’s South Vietnamese allies, those wounds have yet to heal completely, and perhaps never will.

The anti-war movement of the 1960s and early 1970s was, in fact, two parallel movements. The majority of anti-

war protesters simply believed that American participation in the war was wrong. Their objective was American withdrawal from Vietnam. But a hard-core, hard-left minority in the anti-war coalition favored a communist victory by the Viet Cong and North Vietnam.

However witlessly, Jane Fonda lent herself to that latter goal, a communist triumph in Vietnam.

When the Soviet-armed North Vietnamese army overran South Vietnam in 1975, Fonda’s then-husband, the left-wing radical Tom Hayden, expressed his relief and approval. When the North Vietnamese, quite predictably, imposed their totalitarian system on South Vietnam ? complete with concentration camps that imprisoned hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese and the extinguishing of all civil and political liberties ? Jane Fonda said she couldn’t object because the evidence of oppression was unproven.

When, by United Nations estimate, a quarter of a million South Vietnamese boat people perished at sea escaping their supposed liberators in the 1970s and 1980s, Jane Fonda was silent. When 2 million Cambodians were murdered or died of privation at the hands of the communist Khmer Rouge (originally Hanoi’s allies), Jane Fonda had nothing to say. When the people of reunified Vietnam were denied basic human rights and continue to suffer today under Hanoi’s one-party dictatorship, Jane Fonda apparently was too busy with her personal life to comment.

That’s a lot to answer for, Hanoi Jane.

Caldwell, a Vietnam veteran, is editor of the Insight [/quote]

Your argument demonstrates your lack of knowlege of history during this period. Jane Fonda was never arrested, never tried and never convicted of Treason. Therefore is impossible for her to be a traitor. The FBI didn’t arrest her, the Justice Department never tried her. You can’t be convicted if you don’t go to court.

Robert Caldwell’s piece shows how deeply feelings go…and how deeply many felt betrayed by Fonda…

Mufasa

dude, you can be guilty of something and not be charged with it, just like you can be found guilty in a court of law and not actually have done it.
That’s a crap argument.

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
Hey, 100meters, let me make something clear to you: I dont’ give a flying fuck about Jane Fonda. I personally think she was wrong, and she’s not much of a femnist role model, but I don’t really care.

What I do care about is your suggestion that a sitting member of congress should be shot for treason or any other reason.

Why don’t you send an email to that effect to his office and the capitol police, I’m sure they’d find it just as annoying as I do.
[/quote]

Did I make that suggestion or was I suggesting he was a traitor? Hmmm…I think the latter. But to the point at hand, Ms. Fonda obviously regrets the incident, and has made clear many times that she supported veterans before and after the incident, and most likely in her own misguided way she thought she was doing “something good” when she went to north vietnam. She also said the moment the photograph was taken she felt sickened, because she knew it would distort the perception of her motives. Let’s just face it she was big, dumb, idiot.

[quote]100meters wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
Hey, 100meters, let me make something clear to you: I dont’ give a flying fuck about Jane Fonda. I personally think she was wrong, and she’s not much of a femnist role model, but I don’t really care.

What I do care about is your suggestion that a sitting member of congress should be shot for treason or any other reason.

Why don’t you send an email to that effect to his office and the capitol police, I’m sure they’d find it just as annoying as I do.

Did I make that suggestion or was I suggesting he was a traitor? Hmmm…I think the latter. But to the point at hand, Ms. Fonda obviously regrets the incident, and has made clear many times that she supported veterans before and after the incident, and most likely in her own misguided way she thought she was doing “something good” when she went to north vietnam. She also said the moment the photograph was taken she felt sickened, because she knew it would distort the perception of her motives. Let’s just face it she was big, dumb, idiot.[/quote]

Couldn’t help but notice how joyous she looked on 60 minutes during the video of her with the NVA.

Just saying “I support the troops” doesn’t mean that you do or did in the past. If I remember she agreed witht the Kerry bullshit that the troops were fighting an immoral war and committing atrocities on a daily basis in Vietnam. I am sure she is hoping we forget about stuff like that.

What she andthe other holywood idiots will never understand is that soldiers kill to survive and to defend those around them and those at home they love. At least that’s how I felt. She needs to realize that “mistake” will neve be forgiven and that history will judge her. Her spin will never be considered.

[quote]hedo wrote:

Just saying “I support the troops” doesn’t mean that you do or did in the past. If I remember she agreed witht the Kerry bullshit that the troops were fighting an immoral war and committing atrocities on a daily basis in Vietnam. I am sure she is hoping we forget about stuff like that.

[/quote]
Well, from what I understand she did support the troops, financially at least, but she still did some awfully stupid things in her youth (she was advocating communism at one point for gosh sakes!). As for the Kerry “bullshit” I think it was General Tommy Franks that agreed with him hedo, it’s weird Hannity didn’t apologize to Kerry when Gen. Franks told him Kerry was right? It’s almost like Hannity and other dittoheads wanted people to think Kerry was lying about it, hmmm…