NationStates Jolt Archive

If you ask me, it should be banned everywhere. Gotta love Kentucky.

Shes a Commie Aye?
Which Film............ .. . .. . . . .. ... ... ... .. .. .

Her latest. It's called Monster-In-Law or something. And it's doing horribly, too! Yay!!!

Why should it be banned?

If you ask me, it should be banned everywhere. Gotta love Kentucky.
Are they banning freedom of speech in Kentucky these days?

You don't like it, you don't have to watch it. Whatever happened to freedom of speech?

Are they banning freedom of speech in Kentucky these days?
No, but they'd sure like to.

(I can say these things because I'm from Alabama and we're even more geographically Southern than Kentucky!)

No, but they'd sure like to.

(I can say these things because I'm from Alabama and we're even more geographically Southern than Kentucky!)
Extremely sad for America.

The owner of two Kentucky theaters has refused to show the new Jane Fonda film "Monster-in-Law" because of the activist role the actress took during the Vietnam War. This DOES NOT constitute a ban in Kentucky, for crying out loud.

Also, I'm no Fonda defender, but the accusation that the movie isn’t doing well enough is also in error it would seem.

"Monster-in-Law" raked in more than $23 million last weekend as the top-grossing movie across the country, according to Exhibitor Relations Co. Inc. and Nielsen EDI Inc.

The way I see it, the treasonous **** deserves everything she gets. The recent incident where a Vietnam vet spat in her face-I wish I woulda thought of that!
Now, I'm not a Vietnam vet and am not, as of yet, a member of the US military. However, as the son of a man who served valiantly in 'Nam, I am disgusted by her. Whatever bad happens to her is perfectly fine by me. If her film comeback goes down the crapper, good. If every copy of her book went up in flames, good.
:sniper:
Can ya tell I hold much contempt for the turncoat weasel?

There everyone goes with the freedom of speech crap. Are traitors protected by the Constitution, too? Also, to the one who said that if you don't like it, don't watch it, you don't even have to worry about that, because no one is watching it. It's getting awful reviews. And she deserves it. I am still angry about what she did. She does not deserve to live in America with us. The guy who banned it is a veteran. He served his country unlike she, and he was apalled by her actions thirty years ago. Certain things cannot be forgiven, and she should be banished. She disrespected our boys on the ground. She spread lies about them and attacked them. She has pure hatred in her heart for the men who answered their nation's call. As far as I'm concerned, she is not an American.

Well that says as much about Kentucky as it does about anyone who thinks censorship based on political ideology is somehow a good idea.

The owner of two Kentucky theaters has refused to show the new Jane Fonda film "Monster-in-Law" because of the activist role the actress took during the Vietnam War. This DOES NOT constitute a ban in Kentucky, for crying out loud.

Also, I'm no Fonda defender, but the accusation that the movie isn’t doing well enough is also in error it would seem.

"Monster-in-Law" raked in more than $23 million last weekend as the top-grossing movie across the country, according to Exhibitor Relations Co. Inc. and Nielsen EDI Inc.

Okay, so I overstated it a little.

All the ban does is give the movie free publicity. Good or bad publicity; it doesn't matter. More people will go see the movie as a result of this ban. It's not as though the ban is going to draw the attention of irate Vietnam vets that would have otherwise gone to see the movie. This will not inspire people who were already not going to see the movie to go see it. All it will do is get people who were not interested in the movie interested in it, and to the movie theatre to see it. Counter productive, I think.

There everyone goes with the freedom of speech crap. Are traitors protected by the Constitution, too? Also, to the one who said that if you don't like it, don't watch it, you don't even have to worry about that, because no one is watching it. It's getting awful reviews. And she deserves it. I am still angry about what she did. She does not deserve to live in America with us. The guy who banned it is a veteran. He served his country unlike she, and he was apalled by her actions thirty years ago. Certain things cannot be forgiven, and she should be banished. She disrespected our boys on the ground. She spread lies about them and attacked them. She has pure hatred in her heart for the men who answered their nation's call. As far as I'm concerned, she is not an American.

Amen, man. Couldn'ta said it better myself. Believe me, I tried.

There everyone goes with the freedom of speech crap. Are traitors protected by the Constitution, too? Also, to the one who said that if you don't like it, don't watch it, you don't even have to worry about that, because no one is watching it. It's getting awful reviews. And she deserves it. I am still angry about what she did. She does not deserve to live in America with us. The guy who banned it is a veteran. He served his country unlike she, and he was apalled by her actions thirty years ago. Certain things cannot be forgiven, and she should be banished. She disrespected our boys on the ground. She spread lies about them and attacked them. She has pure hatred in her heart for the men who answered their nation's call. As far as I'm concerned, she is not an American.

The constitution protects the right to believe, and say, treacherous things. It does not protect treachorous acts, but Jane Fonda has been given all she will be given, by the government. Its not the peoples, nor the states rights to ban a movie, because a traitor is in the movie. Not only does it impose on the rights of all others in the movie, its unconstitutional toward fonda(two wrongs dont make a right).

All the ban does is give the movie free publicity. Good or bad publicity; it doesn't matter. More people will go see the movie as a result of this ban. It's not as though the ban is going to draw the attention of irate Vietnam vets that would have otherwise gone to see the movie. This will not inspire people who were already not going to see the movie to go see it. All it will do is get people who were not interested in the movie interested in it, and to the movie theatre to see it. Counter productive, I think.
I have to agree with you. It is kind of ironic though when you think about it.

There everyone goes with the freedom of speech crap. Are traitors protected by the Constitution, too?

1. Yes. Traitors are protected by the Constitution. Everyone is.

2. Those merely accused of treason are particularly protected by the Constitution.

3. Ms. Fonda is not a traitor.

Also, to the one who said that if you don't like it, don't watch it, you don't even have to worry about that, because no one is watching it. It's getting awful reviews.

Hmm.

Last weekend, Monster-in-Law was #1 in box office returns with $23,105,133. That was the movies first weekend.

Apparently, you are wrong.

And she deserves it. I am still angry about what she did. She does not deserve to live in America with us.

She has every right to live in America. She is a citizen with every right and privilege that you have.

Luckily, spiteful tantrums do not override the Constitution.

The guy who banned it is a veteran. He served his country unlike she, and he was apalled by her actions thirty years ago. Certain things cannot be forgiven, and she should be banished. She disrespected our boys on the ground. She spread lies about them and attacked them. She has pure hatred in her heart for the men who answered their nation's call. As far as I'm concerned, she is not an American.

Bully for him. He will lose money, but it his right.

Your description of Ms. Fonda's actions is hysterical nonsense.

She said and did some hurtful and stupid things that she thought were right at the time. She has apologized repeatedly.

But neither you nor anyone else need forgive her. Hate away, if it makes you happy.

But banish? No. You do not have that power. The very idea is anti-American.

The constitution protects the right to believe, and say, treacherous things. It does not protect treachorous acts, but Jane Fonda has been given all she will be given, by the government. Its not the peoples, nor the states rights to ban a movie, because a traitor is in the movie. Not only does it impose on the rights of all others in the movie, its unconstitutional toward fonda(two wrongs dont make a right).

If you wanna see it, I'm sure it's showing in North Korea. If I were you, though, I'd try Red China, because it's easier to get in there.

I'm not going to go see it, not because of any "patriotic" reasons, but because I personally think it looks terrible.

If you wanna see it, I'm sure it's showing in North Korea. If I were you, though, I'd try Red China, because it's easier to get in there.

LOL.

Are you really this silly or are you an inept troll?

If you wanna see it, I'm sure it's showing in North Korea. If I were you, though, I'd try Red China, because it's easier to get in there.

I dont want to see it, but if I wanted too, there are about 20 theaters showing it that I could reasonably get too, three in my city alone. Infact, im almost sure it isnt in north korea, and probably hard to find in china.

1. Yes. Traitors are protected by the Constitution. Everyone is.

2. Those merely accused of treason are particularly protected by the Constitution.

3. Ms. Fonda is not a traitor.



Hmm.

Last weekend, Monster-in-Law was #1 in box office returns with $23,105,133. That was the movies first weekend.

Apparently, you are wrong.



She has every right to live in America. She is a citizen with every right and privilege that you have.

Luckily, spiteful tantrums do not override the Constitution.



Bully for him. He will lose money, but it his right.

Your description of Ms. Fonda's actions is hysterical nonsense.

She said and did some hurtful and stupid things that she thought were right at the time. She has apologized repeatedly.

But neither you nor anyone else need forgive her. Hate away, if it makes you happy.

But banish? No. You do not have that power. The very idea is anti-American.


The 1st Amendment doesn't apply on private property. Chew on that.

I find it hilarious that so many people want to protect Jane Fonda's freedom to lie and get American soldiers killed, but nobody cares about the theater owner's freedom to not be forced to show a movie he objects to.

I don't like Jane Fonda, and I don't think she should get anything, but our constitution gives her the freedom to say and think whatever she wants. If you don't like her movie, don't go see it. However, I encourage everyone to use their freedom of speech and send her mail of how much you hate her. The man who owned the theater has the freedom to decide what he will or won't play in his movie theater. If you don't like his choices, don't give him your business. Use your freedom of speech to tell him how you feel about it. Should anything more be said?

Jane Fonda apologized? Would you mind posting some links that actually had her apologizing? Last time she was on an interview, she carefully worded some fake apology that said in hindsight that wasn't the smartest thing to do, but she doesn't regret her actions. I don't believe she has any remorse in her for what she did to the soldiers who fought in vietnam.

The 1st Amendment doesn't apply on private property. Chew on that.

The topic implied that kentucky has done this. Which would be unconstitutional. Any movie theater can choose not to show a film. Its not unconstitutional at all.

As someone who has served in the military, I find it disturbing that any of my fellow soldiers would belittle and ostracize Jane Fonda for her political views regarding Vietnam. Even those of us who have the privilege of wearing the uniform cannot agree on the merits of that conflict---how can we expect a civilian to be any less confused?

The simple fact of the matter is that she had the right to say and do as she did. She believed her action just at the time, as did many Americans and citizens of nations around the world. It is pointless to suggest that any particular side was "right" in this ongoing debate.

I do not agree that her actions were wise or in any way helpful to our government's effort at maintaining support for the war. It may have proved helpful to those troops whose lives were saved by helping to bring to a close a very unpopular conflict. Whatever the outcome, it was her right and duty as a citizen to voice her opinion and convert that thought to action. It is this right and duty that we are fighting to protect, by the way. I may not agree with what she said, but I would defend with my life her right---and freedom---to say it.

Today we gripe and complain about the apathy and disinterest of the U.S. voting population. We look on in frustration and disbelief at the low percentage of voting-age adults who actually participate in our experiment in democracy. Jane Fonda did participate. Are we honestly prepared to accept less from an American?

I dont want to see it, but if I wanted too, there are about 20 theaters showing it that I could reasonably get too, three in my city alone. Infact, im almost sure it isnt in north korea, and probably hard to find in china.
It's probably is in China but that's beside the point.
I always find it amusing, yet sadly pathetic, how angry and indignant Americans get over any perceived slight against them, and how they will never forget nor forgive anyone doing or saying anything that goes contrary to their beliefs.
Some 'free expression of speech'.
It seems to me that the USA is full of people not comfortable with themselves and generally lacking in confidence in their own abilities. Hence their rage and ire against any criticism of themselves.

If you think the continual furore over Jane Fonda is pathetic, read the message boards on IMDB.com about 'High Noon'.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044706/
I read them last night (I couldn't remember who was the main actor and it was bugging me) and was just dumbfounded to see the hatred by Americans being spewed forth. Apparently it's a 'Communist' propaganda movie, because the townfolk are cowards and Gary Cooper has to face the baddies alone. Oh, and Bill Clinton loves the movie, which somehow 'proves' it's communist crap.
I'm not making this up.

I find it hilarious that so many people want to protect Jane Fonda's freedom to lie and get American soldiers killed, but nobody cares about the theater owner's freedom to not be forced to show a movie he objects to.

I don't like Jane Fonda, and I don't think she should get anything, but our constitution gives her the freedom to say and think whatever she wants. If you don't like her movie, don't go see it. However, I encourage everyone to use their freedom of speech and send her mail of how much you hate her. The man who owned the theater has the freedom to decide what he will or won't play in his movie theater. If you don't like his choices, don't give him your business. Use your freedom of speech to tell him how you feel about it. Should anything more be said?

People are talking about states banning the film and the constitution, not individual theatres. The topic maker should be more clear in the future.

Topics are made to get people to read the thread, why are you surprised by this? By getting to my response, it should be obvious that you no longer believe this thread is about one state banning a movie.

1. Yes. Traitors are protected by the Constitution. Everyone is.

2. Those merely accused of treason are particularly protected by the Constitution.

3. Ms. Fonda is not a traitor.



Hmm.

Last weekend, Monster-in-Law was #1 in box office returns with $23,105,133. That was the movies first weekend.

Apparently, you are wrong.



She has every right to live in America. She is a citizen with every right and privilege that you have.

Luckily, spiteful tantrums do not override the Constitution.



Bully for him. He will lose money, but it his right.

Your description of Ms. Fonda's actions is hysterical nonsense.

She said and did some hurtful and stupid things that she thought were right at the time. She has apologized repeatedly.

But neither you nor anyone else need forgive her. Hate away, if it makes you happy.

But banish? No. You do not have that power. The very idea is anti-American.

Hmmm. . . where to start, where to start. First of all, if she isn't a traitor, what do you call it when you're on an anti-aircraft carrier, looking as if you want to shoot our planes down? Where does it say that traitors are protected? I haven't seen that anywhere, because, last time I checked, that was a high crime. Second of all, I admitted earlier that I overstated some things. Apparently, I am wrong, and I'm happy to admit it. Thirdly, what right has she to stay here amongst good up-standing citizens after the horrible things she did. She gave aid and comfort to the enemy. Fourthly, my descriptions of her actions are quite accurate. She did all those things I said she did. I don't care if she has apologized, because she should have known better. Also, I'm not aware of her having apologized for the things she said. You can say that the war is wrong; you can protest. But you cannot disrespect the troops, having never worn the uniform yourself. And Lastly, I never said I had the authority to banish anyone. What I said was she should be banished. And I was absolutely right for saying it. How is banishment anti-American anyway?

Our media is sending a dangerous signal when you cause soldiers harm, then, in 1999, you're one of ABC's Women of the Century. Shame, shame, shame.

The 1st Amendment doesn't apply on private property. Chew on that.

Well, it actually isn't that simple ... but I never said the First Amendment was being violated.

The theatre owner has every right to decide not to show films he does not want to show. The Constituion protects his right to do so.

I responded to the specific question of whether the Constitution applied to Jane Fonda and the assertion she had lost her rights because she was a "traitor."

Reading comprehension. Chew on that.

Topics are made to get people to read the thread, why are you surprised by this? By getting to my response, it should be obvious that you no longer believe this thread is about one state banning a movie.

My point was, the thread was misleading, so people posted information that would have been true if the thread topic had been true. I was never surprised by it. Also, by reading my posts, it should be obvious that I realize its no longer about one state banning a movie.

Googling shows she did a televised apology to Vietnam vets back in 1988.

I don't really see what the big deal is. She considers her actions to be a mistake and apologized for them. A guy who owns a theater is still upset and doesn't want to show her film. So he doesn't.

Okay.

If you want actual controversy, how about we look at global military actions and conditions this very minute. Yikes.

As someone who has served in the military, I find it disturbing that any of my fellow soldiers would belittle and ostracize Jane Fonda for her political views regarding Vietnam. Even those of us who have the privilege of wearing the uniform cannot agree on the merits of that conflict---how can we expect a civilian to be any less confused?

The simple fact of the matter is that she had the right to say and do as she did. She believed her action just at the time, as did many Americans and citizens of nations around the world. It is pointless to suggest that any particular side was "right" in this ongoing debate.

I do not agree that her actions were wise or in any way helpful to our government's effort at maintaining support for the war. It may have proved helpful to those troops whose lives were saved by helping to bring to a close a very unpopular conflict. Whatever the outcome, it was her right and duty as a citizen to voice her opinion and convert that thought to action. It is this right and duty that we are fighting to protect, by the way. I may not agree with what she said, but I would defend with my life her right---and freedom---to say it.

Today we gripe and complain about the apathy and disinterest of the U.S. voting population. We look on in frustration and disbelief at the low percentage of voting-age adults who actually participate in our experiment in democracy. Jane Fonda did participate. Are we honestly prepared to accept less from an American?
Wow dude. Can I vote for you? I am not being sarcastic. That was well said.

I dont want to see it, but if I wanted too, there are about 20 theaters showing it that I could reasonably get too, three in my city alone. Infact, im almost sure it isnt in north korea, and probably hard to find in china.

It's called mean humor, people. And to the person who called me an "inept troll," maybe I don't feel the need to defend people who obviously are traitors. I love my country too much for that.

If you want actual controversy, how about we look at global military actions and conditions this very minute. Yikes.

Did any theaters ban Micheal Moores Fahrenheit 911?

What a bunch of bullshit. Like they even have movie theaters in Kentucky.

Hmmm. . . where to start, where to start. First of all, if she isn't a traitor, what do you call it when you're on an anti-aircraft carrier, looking as if you want to shoot our planes down?

Its called a misleading picture. There is no evidence saying she shot down any planes, or made an attempt too. She apologized for the picture. There is no proof that this was a treacherous act.

Where does it say that traitors are protected?

Traitors are not protected. Their beliefs and speech is, which are covered by blanket protections. Only treacherous acts can land her in trouble.

I haven't seen that anywhere, because, last time I checked, that was a high crime.

Second of all, I admitted earlier that I overstated some things. Apparently, I am wrong, and I'm happy to admit it.

Ok

Thirdly, what right has she to stay here amongst good up-standing citizens after the horrible things she did.

Horrible in your opinion. She has broken no laws, committed no crimes. Unless you see yourself as a greater judge of the law than those who preside(d).

She gave aid and comfort to the enemy.

No, she didnt. She made some propoganda, but thats hardly aid and comfort. Nothing material. If you can call her a traitor for what she did, many americans today, and in vietnam before, could be called traitors, because of their anti-war opinions. Further, if a soldier commits friendly fire, is he a traitor? Because he was giving aid to the enemy? Even if it wasn't directly in aid of the enemy?

Fourthly, my descriptions of her actions are quite accurate. She did all those things I said she did. I don't care if she has apologized, because she should have known better. Also, I'm not aware of her having apologized for the things she said. You can say that the war is wrong; you can protest. But you cannot disrespect the troops, having never worn the uniform yourself.

Yes, you can. Its protected under the first amendment.

And Lastly, I never said I had the authority to banish anyone. What I said was she should be banished. And I was absolutely right for saying it. How is banishment anti-American anyway?

You have the right to your opinion. It doesn't work in conjunction with laws she may have broken, however.

Our media is sending a dangerous signal when you cause soldiers harm, then, in 1999, you're one of ABC's Women of the Century. Shame, shame, shame.

She didnt cause soldiers harm. North vietnamese did.

Replies in bold.

It's called mean humor, people. And to the person who called me an "inept troll," maybe I don't feel the need to defend people who obviously are traitors. I love my country too much for that.

Except she isnt a traitor.

Anyways, you were pretty much inferring that the film was, or had anything to do with, communist(communism respectively).

Hmmm. . . where to start, where to start. First of all, if she isn't a traitor,
Hmmm. . . where to start, where to start. First of all, if she is a traitor, why was she never charged with said offence?

If you ask me, it should be banned everywhere. Gotta love Kentucky.

Typical red-state antics. Fonda rocks.

Hmmm. . . where to start, where to start. First of all, if she isn't a traitor, what do you call it when you're on an anti-aircraft carrier, looking as if you want to shoot our planes down?

A publicity photo. And an deliberate exaggeration on your part.

Where does it say that traitors are protected? I haven't seen that anywhere, because, last time I checked, that was a high crime.

The protections of the Constitution apply to all persons within the US -- particularly all US citizens. No person may be deprived of these protections without due process of law.

In addition to defining treason, Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution requires a special level of proof of such a crime (in addition to all other protections afforded those accused of crimes):

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Second of all, I admitted earlier that I overstated some things. Apparently, I am wrong, and I'm happy to admit it.

Good. But after you admitted it earlier, you repeated falsehoods. Perhaps you'll stop.

Thirdly, what right has she to stay here amongst good up-standing citizens after the horrible things she did. She gave aid and comfort to the enemy.

1. Bullshit. She did not provide Aid and Comfort to the enemy. Opposing a war is not treason. Visiting a foe during war is not treason. If those things were treason, some of the greatest men in American history are traitors.

2. She has the same rights you do. She has all the rights afforded by the Constitution. She has all the privileges and immunities of citizenship.

Fourthly, my descriptions of her actions are quite accurate. She did all those things I said she did.

No. You exaggerated and mistated.

She did speak out against the war. She did go to Vietnam. She did villify those leading the war. She did speak out in favor of the Vietnamese people.

If you want to accuse her of treason, then prove it. With objective, reliable sources, prove that she committed the equivalent of levying war against the United States.

Otherwise, simply denounce her for what she actually said and did.

I don't care if she has apologized, because she should have known better. Also, I'm not aware of her having apologized for the things she said.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Which makes me think you are less well informed about this than you claim.

http://www.voanews.com/english/AmericanLife/2005-05-10-voa42.cfm

Her second Oscar came 7 years later for Coming Home, the story of a paraplegic Vietnam veteran. She says her inspiration to produce and star in the film grew out of her outspoken opposition to America's military involvement in Vietnam.

Jane Fonda sitting on the seat of the North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun
It was on an anti-war trip to North Vietnam that Ms. Fonda says she allowed herself to be photographed posing on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun -- the same kind used to shoot down American flyers. The incident earned Ms. Fonda the derisive nickname, "Hanoi Jane," and to this day, it fuels the anger of many Vietnam veterans and U. S. servicemen. She admits it was "a complete lapse of judgment."

Jane Fonda says she never intended for the photograph to be taken, and she continues to publicly apologize for an incident she describes as her biggest regret. "And I'll go to my grave regretting it," she says. "That image betrayed everything that I had done the previous 2 years - working with soldiers, representing the G.I. movement, entertaining the troops. And I am very, very sorry to have done things that may have hurt or made the soldiers feel betrayed -- I'm sorry."

http://jam.canoe.ca/Movies/2005/05/08/1030771.html

In 1972, Fonda visited Vietnam to see first hand the ravages of a war that was taking its toll on American soldiers as well as Vietnamese soldiers and civilians.

She made 10 radio broadcasts urging American soldiers to cease bombing villages and had her picture taken on a Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun.

"If I had to do it over again, I would never have taken that picture. It amounts to the biggest single mistake I've made in my life," says Fonda. "It was the largest lapse of judgment that I can imagine."

Over the past decade, she has addressed numerous veterans associations to apologize for the insensitivity of such an act.

At a recent book signing in Kansas for her autobiography My Life So Far, a man spit tobacco juice in her face, calling her a traitor. Michael Smith, 54, was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct.

Fonda and her second husband, Tom Hayden, led numerous anti-war rallies in America before her infamous trip to Vietnam, which earned her the title 'Hanoi Jane.'

"I am not sorry I opposed the Vietnam war, but I am sincerely sorry I took that picture.

"It was as if I was thumbing my nose at the American military. I care deeply about our soldiers."

http://www.latimes.com/features/lifestyle/la-et-martinez13may13,1,1283492.column?coll=la-headlines-lifestyle&ctrack=1&cset=true
http://www.suntimes.com/output/entertainment/cst-ftr-jane22.html

You can say that the war is wrong; you can protest. But you cannot disrespect the troops, having never worn the uniform yourself.

You can. And you would be protected by the First Amendment.

And whether you have worn a uniform is irrelevant.

And Lastly, I never said I had the authority to banish anyone. What I said was she should be banished. And I was absolutely right for saying it. How is banishment anti-American anyway?

No. You are wrong.

And banishment for free speech is an anti-American idea. It goes agaisnt the principles of the Constitution, the very ideals of liberty.

Our media is sending a dangerous signal when you cause soldiers harm, then, in 1999, you're one of ABC's Women of the Century. Shame, shame, shame.

Or, perhaps, others have recognized (a) what Ms. Fonda really did as opposed to your hysterical fictions, (b) the sincerity of her apologies, (c) she was in many ways right about the war, and (d) she has done other things with her life.

Perhaps you are just holding on to irrational hate. Shame, shame, shame.

Well... at least Jane Fonda went to Vietnam. George W. went AWOL during wartime to avoid taking a drug test. That's a pretty good definition of traitor to me.

I never said that she tried to shoot down American planes; I said that she looked as if she was. I believe she did break the law, because "Tokyo Rose" was convicted of treason for propaganda during WWII, so why shouldn't she be? She said that it was "laughable" that POWs were being tortured. She accused them of "exaggerating, probably for their own self-interest," and she wouldn't even debate them. She called them "military careerists and professional killers trying to make themselves look self-righteous." In fact, she accused them of a crime, being "war criminals." How is that not giving aid and comfort to the enemy? I don't understand. And no, she never directly caused any soldiers harm. Emphasis on "directly."

I never said that she tried to shoot down American planes; I said that she looked as if she was. I believe she did break the law, because "Tokyo Rose" was convicted of treason for propaganda during WWII, so why shouldn't she be? She said that it was "laughable" that POWs were being tortured. She accused them of "exaggerating, probably for their own self-interest," and she wouldn't even debate them. She called them "military careerists and professional killers trying to make themselves look self-righteous." In fact, she accused them of a crime, being "war criminals." How is that not giving aid and comfort to the enemy? I don't understand. And no, she never directly caused any soldiers harm. Emphasis on "directly."

Toyko rose was later pardoned.

Accusing someone of being a criminal, does not make you a traitor. Especially not by the US laws.

Nothing Jane Fonda did was an overt act of treason. Much of it can be argued for covert treason, but nothing was direct, material, or overt.

To All:

I never said that the Vietnam War was right. If I was living back then, I'd have opposed it.

Also, what I advocated was not banishment for free speech; it was banishment for treason. See, there's a difference.

And I certainly never said anything in support of George W. Bush. I oppose him and his war BUT NOT THE TROOPS.

And the person that accused me of "red state antics" can just bite me.

I never repeated any falsehoods, either. You all keep repeating falsehoods about what I said.

<sigh>

As you have basic facts wrong, ignore facts presented, and totally ignore the law re treason, I won't try to explain in detail where your understanding of treason goes awry.

Perhaps this will help explain the difference between dissent and treason (but my guess is you will struggle against the distinction):

The idea that loyalty will ultimately be given to a government only so long as it deserves loyalty and that opposition to its abuses is not treason has made our government tolerant of opposition based on differences of opinion that in some parts of the world would have kept the hangman busy.

...

Treason of adherence to an enemy was old in the law. It consisted of breaking allegiance to one's own King by forming an attachment to his enemy. Its scope was comprehensive, its requirements indeterminate. It might be predicated on intellecutal or emotional sympathy with the for, or merely lack of zeal in the cause of one's own country. That was not the kind of disloyalty the framers thought should constitute treason. They promptly accepted the proposal to restrict it to cases where also there was conduct which was 'giving them aid and comfort.'

'Aid and comfort' was defined by Lord Reading in the Casement trial comprehensively, as it should be, and yet probably with as much precision as the nature of the matter will permit: '... an act which strengthens or tends to strengthen the enemies of the King in the conduct of a [325 U.S. 1, 29] war against the King, that is in law the giving of aid and comfort' and 'an act which weakens or tends to weaken the power of the King and of the country to resist or to attack the enemies of the King and the country ... is ... giving of aid and comfort.' Lord Reading explained it, as we think one must, in terms of an 'act.' It is not easy, if indeed possible, to think of a way in which 'aid and comfort' and be 'given' to an enemy except by some kind of action. Its very nature partakes of a deed or physical activity as opposed to a mental operation.

Thus the crime of treason consists of two elements: adherence to the enemy; and rendering him aid and comfort. A citizen intellectually or emotionally may favor the enemy and harbor sympathies or convictions disloyal to this country's policy or interest, but so long as he commits no act of aid and comfort to the enemy, there is no treason. On the other hand, a citizen may take actions, which do aid and comfort the enemy- making a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work, and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strength- but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason.

-- Cramer v. United States (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/325/1.html ), 325 U.S. 1 (1945).

1. Jane Fonda is a traitor.
2. Jane Fonda is a communist.
3. Jane Fonda cannot act.
4. Jane Fonda should be prosecuted under the Patriot Act.
5. The Patriot Act should be made bigger.
6. The man who spit tobacco juice in Jane Fonda's face should be given the Congressional Medal of Honor for defending America from a virulent communist.
7. This ban in Kentucky should be expanded to all fifty states.
8. Jane Fonda's book should be banned in all fifty states as well.

Toyko rose was later pardoned.

Accusing someone of being a criminal, does not make you a traitor. Especially not by the US laws.

Nothing Jane Fonda did was an overt act of treason. Much of it can be argued for covert treason, but nothing was direct, material, or overt.

Who wasn't pardoned under Ford?

I never said her accusing someone of a crime was treason. I said that her remarks gave aid and comfort to our enemies, which they did.

And you're right. It wasn't overt treason. She never gave the North Vietnamese military aid nor funding. She never gave them our army's secrets. She didn't do anything of that sort, no.

As far as I am concerned, the Kentucky theater owner was perfectly within his rights for banning the Fonda film if he saw fit to do so. I frankly find it refreshing that the man has a sense of history and honor about him. So many people nowadays have such short attention spans that it surprises me that someone still remembers what Hanoi Jane did, and why it was treason. My only question here would be why anyone seemed to think that Sean Penn was justified in visiting Iraq to talk to Saddam Hussein while we were preparing to invade Iraq, and all this while technically a state of war existed between the U.S. and Iraq (we were having our planes shot at patrolling in the no-fly zone while this was occurring). I seem to recall that the Rev. Jesse Jackson visited Saddam prior to our invasion also, though I'm not sure of the time frame there. There are ways of protesting a war and then there is treason. Travelling to an enemy's foreign soil to render aid of any kind to that government is treason. If any of those two events had happened in a less enlightened country, they might have been shot for their acts. Frankly, I will not pay money to see a movie by either. The man who banned the films should be left alone. The two actors have been extended that right.

I say, good for him.

1. Jane Fonda is a traitor.
2. Jane Fonda is a communist.
3. Jane Fonda cannot act.
4. Jane Fonda should be prosecuted under the Patriot Act.
5. The Patriot Act should be made bigger.
6. The man who spit tobacco juice in Jane Fonda's face should be given the Congressional Medal of Honor for defending America from a virulent communist.
7. This ban in Kentucky should be expanded to all fifty states.
8. Jane Fonda's book should be banned in all fifty states as well.

How special.

1. No. You clearly do not understand the term.
2. At most, she was. So?
3. She has two Oscars for Best Actress. How many do you have?
4. Sorry. Ex post facto laws or applications of laws are unconstitutional.
5. No. I like freedom. Why don't you?
6. Assaulting another citizen is grounds for the Congressional Medal of Honor. Does Scott Peterson get one or two?
7. There is no ban.
8. Why do you hate the First Amendment? How un-American.

Who wasn't pardoned under Ford?

Heh. You're right.

Ford was one of two stains on the Republican godliness that was Nixon. Now if only Nixon was still alive and he had that giant robot from Futurama. Then we wouldn't have to worry about all these damn hippies supporting Fonda.

It's good to know that in America, you can make a mistake, and decades later, after you apologize for it, people will still hate you, and go as far as stomping on the very Constitution that the soldiers they claim to be showing respect for fought to protect to stifle your right to free speech.

My goodness. The problem with this is that she insulted the troops, which in turn gave support (or adherence, if you will) to our enemy. And Nixon would have charged her with the crime of treason, but he'd bigger fish to fry.

My goodness. The problem with this is that she insulted the troops, which in turn gave support (or adherence, if you will) to our enemy. And Nixon would have charged her with the crime of treason, but he'd bigger fish to fry.

:headbang:

opposing war != treason

"insulting the troops" != treason

Rinse, repeat as necessary.

Fonda was duped into thinking that US prisoners weren't being mistreated by the Vietnamese. I don't support her or even know much about her outside of the Vietnam incident, but cut her some slack.

It's good to know that in America, you can make a mistake, and decades later, after you apologize for it, people will still hate you, and go as far as stomping on the very Constitution that the soldiers they claim to be showing respect for fought to protect to stifle your right to free speech.

I support free speech, not treason. And I am not a soldier, just in case someone thought so.

:headbang:

opposing war != treason

"insulting the troops" != treason

Rinse, repeat as necessary.

This is ridiculous. I never said that opposing war was treason, AND YOU KNOW IT. In fact, I said that I am antiwar myself. You are misrepresenting my statements, and I don't appreciate it. But I want to find the hardhat that'll tell me what she said didn't insult our troops. Was that meant to be a compliment to them? Maybe "war criminal" took on a new meaning.

As far as I am concerned, the Kentucky theater owner was perfectly within his rights for banning the Fonda film if he saw fit to do so.

Yes. Yes, he was.

I frankly find it refreshing that the man has a sense of history and honor about him. So many people nowadays have such short attention spans that it surprises me that someone still remembers what Hanoi Jane did, and why it was treason.

Except it was not treason. You really shouldn't throw around accusations you do not understand.

My only question here would be why anyone seemed to think that Sean Penn was justified in visiting Iraq to talk to Saddam Hussein while we were preparing to invade Iraq, and all this while technically a state of war existed between the U.S. and Iraq (we were having our planes shot at patrolling in the no-fly zone while this was occurring). I seem to recall that the Rev. Jesse Jackson visited Saddam prior to our invasion also, though I'm not sure of the time frame there. There are ways of protesting a war and then there is treason. Travelling to an enemy's foreign soil to render aid of any kind to that government is treason.

Setting aside your factual errors, no -- none of what you describe constitutes treason.

Treason is a serious crime. Only specific types of acts constitute treason. Your allegations are not of treasonous conduct.

If any of those two events had happened in a less enlightened country, they might have been shot for their acts.

Luckily, we live in a country that seeks to protect liberty and freedom of speech. Perhaps you'll embrace those ideas.

Frankly, I will not pay money to see a movie by either. The man who banned the films should be left alone. The two actors have been extended that right.
I say, good for him.

He has a right not to show the films. Others have the right to criticize him.

That is how freedom of expression works.

This is ridiculous. I never said that opposing war was treason, AND YOU KNOW IT. In fact, I said that I am antiwar myself. You are misrepresenting my statements, and I don't appreciate it. But I want to find the hardhat that'll tell me what she said didn't insult our troops. Was that meant to be a compliment to them? Maybe "war criminal" took on a new meaning.

This is ridiculous. Again: insulting our troops != treason

And, you are misrepresenting Ms. Fonda's statements and actions. And falsely accusing her of treason.

She never apologised,the contemporary "apologise if my actions/words caused inconvenience" is not an apology, saying you take responsibility for the wrong things you have done and said, and proimising never to even think of doing them again is an apology.

Another thing, she never spoke for the people of Vietnam, she spoke for the North Vietnamese Government, and considering what they've done to Vietnam, speaking for them is speaking against the Vietnamese people.

Is this another of those cases were some braindead idiot translated "theaters chose not carry it" as "it was banned in _________"?

I'm fairly sure a large number of people were against the Vietnam war, so surely singling out Jane Fonda is unfair?

Being patriotic doesn't neccesarily mean you should go along with everything your government says. I'm a patriot of Britain, but I objected to our soldiers going into Iraq. Being a patriot of Britain doesn't mean I'm a patriot of the New Labour Party; it means I want the best for my country and its citizens.

"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from his government." -Thomas Paine

Hmmm. . . where to start, where to start. First of all, if she is a traitor, why was she never charged with said offence?

Fonda was never prosecuted for a number of reasons. Her father was a well respected actor...respected not only for his acting ability but also for his personal conduct. It has long been believed that his influence kept her bacon out of the fire. There was always a family rift after her stunt. For several years Henry Fonda refused to acknowledge Jane. This rift was partially mended when they starred together in "On Golden Pond", but news from the filming of that movie claims that there was a lot of tension between the two. That era was also a time of great social unrest due to the Vietnam conflict. To have persued her prosecution would have enflamed the divisions in our society even more.

Her actions are not acceptable based on the merit of the war. The infamous photos of her sitting on an anti-aircraft gun, laughing, clapping, and smiling adoringly at the enemy soldiers, were taken immediately after that gun had been used to shoot down an American plane. Americans died when that plane went down. She was celebrating their death and other American deaths with the North Vietnamese. This was tantamount to collaberation in the murder of American citizens. She was not an enlisted member of any armed force, she was there in the guise of an American citizen. This constitutes aiding and abetting the enemy.

You cannot place value of the lives of American soldiers in that conflict based on the merit of the war. They were everyday citizens like the rest of us, who, for the most part, were drafted and sent into that hell. Her celebration of their death is unconscionable. If a person were to collaberate in the death of thousands of civilians, would a statement that they wished they hadn't done that because it probably wasn't a good idea, absolve them of all blame and entitle them to a life of prosperity and acclaim? There are no words to make up for what she did.

The Kentucky theatre owner is doing what our rights as free Americans allow us to do. Boycott and protest every thing she does. At least no one is shooting at her like they were at our men whom she protested.

"Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9:00 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war, and that she would struggle along with us." - Bui Tin, Colonel, People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN) in Wall Street Journal article, Thursday August 3, 1995 (A8). -- Reference: Following Ho Chi Minh: The Memoirs of a North Vietnamese Colonel by Tin Bui (1999 PB) Read also, General Bui Tin of the North Vietnamese Army tells all. Enough said?

I respect you Zooke, a helluva lot, but...

If my nation was attacking another nation that I thought they shouldn't, I would go to said nation and tell them to hang on and not give in as well.

I respect you Zooke, a helluva lot, but...

If my nation was attacking another nation that I thought they shouldn't, I would go to said nation and tell them to hang on and not give in as well.
I see, so you only support war against you own country. Makes sense. :headbang:

I see, so you only support war against you own country. Makes sense. :headbang:
No, stupid. I would only support a war if I didn't think that we definitely shouldn't be in this war.

No, stupid. I would only support a war if I didn't think that we definitely shouldn't be in this war.

With an argument as pointless as yours you should be more careful about who you call 'stupid'.

I suppose then that if you felt your nation should be at war you would support it. Maybe even enlist yourself? Am I right or are you to cowardly even for that?

Presuming you are true to your convictions and choose to serve or support your friuends who do. I'm sure your thoughts of warm-fuzzies will be lacking for the girl who sits on the gun turret that just shot your best friends bowels out from underneath him and shares her opinions of why your friend deserves it, while offering her warm support and congratulations to your enemy. But hey, its OK because she doesn't support the war. She can do that, right?

idiot.

I respect you Zooke, a helluva lot, but...

If my nation was attacking another nation that I thought they shouldn't, I would go to said nation and tell them to hang on and not give in as well.

The Vietnam conflict wasn't a matter of the US going in and attacking the Vietnamese enmasse. We got involved in a civil war between the Communist faction and a dictatorship. The US view on the conflict was that it was part part of the Cold War. I've never said that I supported our involvement. What I have said is that I support our men and women who are sent into these conflicts. Her words and actions were aimed primarily against them.

If you disagree with actions your government is taking, contact your government officials, let them know about your displeasure, work to elect new representatives that share your views. But, to contribute support to the opposing view by encouraging and supporting your nation's enemy, is treason. Her words and actions hurt our fellow citizens fighting in Vietnam. Whether you agreed with a war, or not, the folks in our military deserve our respect and support.

http://www.1stcavmedic.com/jane_fonda.htm

Edit: I appreciate your respect and value it. I hope you realize that I am from that era. I have spent my life among Nam vets and I have seen first hand the damage done to them by Fonda and her ilk in the name of ending a bloody unjust war. Two wrongs will never make a right.

If you ask me, it should be banned everywhere. Gotta love Kentucky.
EXCELLENT! And good riddance! :mad:

The Vietnam conflict wasn't a matter of the US going in and attacking the Vietnamese enmasse. We got involved in a civil war between the Communist faction and a dictatorship. The US view on the conflict was that it was part part of the Cold War. I've never said that I supported our involvement. What I have said is that I support our men and women who are sent into these conflicts. Her words and actions were aimed primarily against them.

If you disagree with actions your government is taking, contact your government officials, let them know about your displeasure, work to elect new representatives that share your views. But, to contribute support to the opposing view by encouraging and supporting your nation's enemy, is treason. Her words and actions hurt our fellow citizens fighting in Vietnam. Whether you agreed with a war, or not, the folks in our military deserve our respect and support.

http://www.1stcavmedic.com/jane_fonda.htm

Edit: I appreciate your respect and value it. I hope you realize that I am from that era. I have spent my life among Nam vets and I have seen first hand the damage done to them by Fonda and her ilk in the name of ending a bloody unjust war. Two wrongs will never make a right.
Yes I realise that, and that is why I value your opinion and insight into this. When I say that I *would*, doesn't mean that I would. Chances are I couldn't be that bothered, and would stick to the normal protesting, like during the Iraq conflict. And for me to actually do something like that, deliberately disrespecting the troops, it would have to be a very injust war. Like attacking Nepal. One where I would actually expect the troops to go AWOL. But yes, the troops do deserve our respect, because they do fight for us, and I am thankful of that every day. Some people take them for granted. I know too many to do that.

As for the Fonda issue, if she had never apologised, or if she had intended on doing that, then I wouldn't be so lenient towards her. But fact is she apologised and didn't intend on having the photo, so I think the past should be left in the past. We all make mistakes, she was famous, so she made a famous mistake. (Though you could make the point that people in the spotlight should be more of a rolemodel and thus more careful, but hey.)

Jane Fonda became an unwitting pawn in a propaganda war. If you've ever heard her side of the story, youd understand how this happened. There was an interview on US News and World Reports with her a few issues back that shed some light on alot of these issues. She goes into greater detail about what really happened in her book "My Life So Far". If you want the other side of the story, you might consider picking that one up. If you dont, then please quit talking out of ignorance, you need both sides of the story before you can have a truly informed point of view on any subject.

With an argument as pointless as yours you should be more careful about who you call 'stupid'.

I suppose then that if you felt your nation should be at war you would support it. Maybe even enlist yourself? Am I right or are you to cowardly even for that?
Actually, if my nation was being attacked, I would enlist. I prolly would never see armed combat (thankfully) but I would definitely enlist. If it was another nation, then chances are no. However, I have always been tempted to go into the army. Its only because I've already chosen a path for my life that I haven't.

And try understanding my argument before calling it pointless. Though sorry for calling you stupid. It was merely a stupid statement.

Jane Fonda became an unwitting pawn in a propaganda war. If you've ever heard her side of the story, youd understand how this happened. There was an interview on US News and World Reports with her a few issues back that shed some light on alot of these issues. She goes into greater detail about what really happened in her book "My Life So Far". If you want the other side of the story, you might consider picking that one up. If you dont, then please quit talking out of ignorance, you need both sides of the story before you can have a truly informed point of view on any subject.
Pff. "Both sides," "informed point of view"...what america have you been living in. Don't you know that the best advice fits on bumper stickers (and if possible should rhyme), opinion is news, and only points that belittle are valid?

Jane Fonda became an unwitting pawn in a propaganda war. If you've ever heard her side of the story, youd understand how this happened. There was an interview on US News and World Reports with her a few issues back that shed some light on alot of these issues. She goes into greater detail about what really happened in her book "My Life So Far". If you want the other side of the story, you might consider picking that one up. If you dont, then please quit talking out of ignorance, you need both sides of the story before you can have a truly informed point of view on any subject.
Yeah, yeah. Poor, innocent, misguided little whore! Tsk! :headbang:

Yeah, yeah. Poor, innocent, misguided little whore! Tsk! :headbang:
I may be out of line here, because I know what part you had to play, but... she apologised and will forver regret it. Can not the past be left in the past?

Jane Fonda became an unwitting pawn in a propaganda war. If you've ever heard her side of the story, youd understand how this happened. There was an interview on US News and World Reports with her a few issues back that shed some light on alot of these issues. She goes into greater detail about what really happened in her book "My Life So Far". If you want the other side of the story, you might consider picking that one up. If you dont, then please quit talking out of ignorance, you need both sides of the story before you can have a truly informed point of view on any subject.

Fonda can apologize until she is blue in the face. She was implicated in the death of who knows how many of our people and the damage to the lives of tens of thousands of our returning troops. A person who becomes involved in a crime due to peer or external pressure is no less culpable. She managed to avoid paying for her crimes, but there is a whole generation that will never forget or forgive her treason.

Actually, if my nation was being attacked, I would enlist. I prolly would never see armed combat (thankfully) but I would definitely enlist. If it was another nation, then chances are no. However, I have always been tempted to go into the army. Its only because I've already chosen a path for my life that I haven't.

And try understanding my argument before calling it pointless. Though sorry for calling you stupid. It was merely a stupid statement.

If you chose to support your war there would undoubtedly be people who did not. Your own point suggests they would be justified to go to your enemy and offer support. Maybe even posing for some headshots on the cannon that just took out your best friend (or even you - non combat role does not = safe). They could even turn in prisoners who tried to slip them notes and giggle as they hear about their torture and execution.

Once it was all over I doubt at all you'd have any resentment for this type of person. Why? Because they 'thought' they were doing the right thing. WHo cares who it got killed? They deserved it, right?

...and that would be what makes your point moot. If you consider that 'stupid', well, it speaks more about you than the statement.

I know that a vast majority of the people on here are too young to remember those times. There is no way possible that you can understand the emotions and conflict that we lived through. You weren't there to see the harmful impact that Fonda and others like her had on an entire generation. Why do you think we are called the Lost Generation? Our troops were damaged physically and mentally in that war. When they returned Fonda and her crowd encouraged the further torture of our military men and women. Those of us who stayed at home adjusted to accept them in their changed state as normal, thus changing all of us. We weren't "lost". We were thrown away. Until or unless you have experienced that rejection, you can not understand why Fonda will never be forgiven.

I may be out of line here, because I know what part you had to play, but... she apologised and will forver regret it. Can not the past be left in the past?
In a word? NO! What she did is beyond forgiveness, IMHO, especially in light of the fact that she only "apologized" when it was convenient to do so to help sell her damned books and tapes.

Fonda can apologize until she is blue in the face. She was implicated in the death of who knows how many of our people and the damage to the lives of tens of thousands of our returning troops. A person who becomes involved in a crime due to peer or external pressure is no less culpable. She managed to avoid paying for her crimes, but there is a whole generation that will never forget or forgive her treason.

Read her side or shut up. You're talking out of ignorance here. If her side is true (and you need to read it before you can decide), then there was no crime or pressure. But then, you have no idea what her side is do you?

Spaam...If you can, visit a VFW, American Legion, or a VA hospital. I doubt if you will be able to get the vets to talk to you, but listen to what they talk about to each other. It will be a learning experience in the grief, pain, and disillusionment these men live with every day. Then, ask yourself, "How can I expect them to forgive?"

The way I see it, the treasonous **** deserves everything she gets. The recent incident where a Vietnam vet spat in her face-I wish I woulda thought of that!
Now, I'm not a Vietnam vet and am not, as of yet, a member of the US military. However, as the son of a man who served valiantly in 'Nam, I am disgusted by her. Whatever bad happens to her is perfectly fine by me. If her film comeback goes down the crapper, good. If every copy of her book went up in flames, good.
:sniper:
Can ya tell I hold much contempt for the turncoat weasel?

That man took an oath to defend to the death her right to be a "treasonous ****". Your comments are more of an attack on him than anything Fonda did.

Spaam...If you can, visit a VFW, American Legion, or a VA hospital. I doubt if you will be able to get the vets to talk to you, but listen to what they talk about to each other. It will be a learning experience in the grief, pain, and disillusionment these men live with every day. Then, ask yourself, "How can I expect them to forgive?"
You see, I know a lot of veterans. And I know what it did to them, and how I can never fully understand. I know that I can't expect them to forgive. But I can ask them. Especially when there is every chance that Fonda actually repented for what she did.

And Bozzy, I am relying on the assumption that I am intelligent enough that when I support a war, it is a war that should be supported, and those that go over there are doing a bad thing. And I would never support someone who got one of our men killed. I don't see how Fonda did.

How much distaste do vietnam vets hold for the government?

Seeing as it sent them into a war they should never have been involved in thus leading to all these deaths, injuries etc for no good reason or result. At least Fonda stood against it. She did it in a stupid way but she was on the side of right.

Read her side or shut up. You're talking out of ignorance here. If her side is true (and you need to read it before you can decide), then there was no crime or pressure. But then, you have no idea what her side is do you?

No, I am not ignorant and I will not shut up. The people she slandered have fought and died to preserve my first amendment rights. She called the people whose names are on that black granite wall rapists, murderers, and baby killers...all in the name of bringing an end to an unjust war. Nice job HJ. I have read plenty of her whiney excuses for her actions. I will not add a penny to her budget by buying her self-absorbed, excuse ridden autobiography. The results of her "performance" speak louder than any words she can ever utter.

In a word? NO! What she did is beyond forgiveness, IMHO, especially in light of the fact that she only "apologized" when it was convenient to do so to help sell her damned books and tapes.
All I can do is ask you to maybe accept that she has truly repented.

<<No, I am not ignorant and I will not shut up. The people she slandered have fought and died to preserve my first amendment rights>>

How? Vietnam was not about to invade the US. Your rights would have been safe whether they fought or not.

And the Domino would not have brought the US down. Even if it had happened they would all have collapsed soon enough, the CIA could see to that.

No, I am not ignorant and I will not shut up. The people she slandered have fought and died to preserve my first amendment rights.


Hers too, which grossly undermines your position.

Hers too, which grossly undermines your position.
How so? She's still making public statements and can say pretty much what she wants to, yes?

No, I am not ignorant and I will not shut up.I have read plenty of her whiney excuses for her actions.

A person who forms an opinion without listening to both sides is ignorant by definition.

I will not add a penny to her budget by buying her self-absorbed, excuse ridden autobiography.

A person who forms an opinion on something they have not even looked at is even beyond ignorant. You have already catalogued her book as self-absorbed and excuse ridden without even cracking it open. Your ignorance shows even more by this.

Let me let you in on a little secret. You might be too young to know about this, its one of the secrets that we have kept from those born in the internet age. When you want to read a book but are not interested in buying it, there is this great place where they keep thousands of books that they freely lend to anyone who asks. It is called a public library and chances are there is one near you. If you go there you can borrow the book for free without giving her or anyone else any money. Or you can sit there and read the section that deals with this issue then put it back on the shelf.

I think she should be forgiven. But honestly, all the people attacking Zooke and Eutrusca and others of that era... SHUT THE HELL UP. We do NOT know what it was like then. Asking them to change their opinion and putting forward yours is fine, but attacking them is just not on.

A person who forms an opinion without listening to both sides is ignorant by definition.



A person who forms an opinion on something they have not even looked at is even beyond ignorant. You have already catalogued her book as self-absorbed and excuse ridden without even cracking it open. Your ignorance shows even more by this.

Let me let you in on a little secret. You might be too young to know about this, its one of the secrets that we have kept from those born in the internet age. When you want to read a book but are not interested in buying it, there is this great place where they keep thousands of books that they freely lend to anyone who asks. It is called a public library and chances are there is one near you. If you go there you can borrow the book for free without giving her or anyone else any money. Or you can sit there and read the section that deals with this issue then put it back on the shelf.
LazyHippies, I'd be willing to wager money that Zooke is older than you. Shut up.

Read her side or shut up. You're talking out of ignorance here. If her side is true (and you need to read it before you can decide), then there was no crime or pressure. But then, you have no idea what her side is do you?
Careful there, oh evil one. You're borderline slandering someone for whom I have considerable admiration and respect. :mad:

I'm not attacking, although it is annoying that they have bth ignored my points.

Careful there, oh evil one. You're borderline slandering someone for whom I have considerable admiration and respect. :mad:

Something is only slander if it is incorrect. Forming an opinion on something before you know both sides is by definition an opinion based on ignorance. To be more specific ignorance of the opposing point of view. Someone who argues from a position of ignorance is by definition ignorant.

Something is only slander if it is incorrect. Forming an opinion on something before you know both sides is by definition an opinion based on ignorance. To be more specific ignorance of the opposing point of view. Someone who argues from a position of ignorance is by definition ignorant.
Actually, I think Eutrusca would know more about this than anyone else here, so ignorant is the last thing I'd call him.

Something is only slander if it is incorrect. Forming an opinion on something before you know both sides is by definition an opinion based on ignorance. To be more specific ignorance of the opposing point of view. Someone who argues from a position of ignorance is by definition ignorant.
Oh, you mean kinda like you? Have you read anything written by Vietnam veterans who still oppose the Fonda-bitch?

I think she should be forgiven. But honestly, all the people attacking Zooke and Eutrusca and others of that era... SHUT THE HELL UP. We do NOT know what it was like then. Asking them to change their opinion and putting forward yours is fine, but attacking them is just not on.

But it's fine for them to sit there attacking the opinions of other people?

It matters not a jot how old they are - the notion that Fonda [or *any* person] should be castigated to that extent for taking a stance is simply absurd. Especially so when that stance is against a war.

US soldiers, unless I'm very much mistaken, take an oath to defend the constitution. That means they take an oath to defend the absolute freedom of speech - including that of Jane Fonda.

Actually, I think Eutrusca would know more about this than anyone else here, so ignorant is the last thing I'd call him.
It's ok. I think he was talking about Zooke. I appreciate the support, but those who underestimate Zooke are simply asking for trouble. :D

You know, I've seen previews on TV for the movie. Not really the type of movie I would see. But because of this, I'm going to go out of my way to see it. America land of the free, ya right! This is bullshit! :headbang:

Oh, you mean kinda like you? Have you read anything written by Vietnam veterans who still oppose the Fonda-bitch?

I have spoken with some, and of course Ive heard and read the opinion of many of the conservative talking heads who have touched on the issue but may not be vietnam veterans themselves.

But it's fine for them to sit there attacking the opinions of other people?

It matters not a jot how old they are - the notion that Fonda [or *any* person] should be castigated to that extent for taking a stance is simply absurd. Especially so when that stance is against a war.

US soldiers, unless I'm very much mistaken, take an oath to defend the constitution. That means they take an oath to defend the absolute freedom of speech - including that of Jane Fonda.
Its better for the informed to attack the ignorant, than the other way around.

Its no so much her stance against the war that is the problem, but what she did against the soldiers.

You know, I've seen previews on TV for the movie. Not really the type of movie I would see. But because of this, I'm going to go out of my way to see it. America land of the free, ya right! This is bullshit! :headbang:
Try reading the thread.

But it's fine for them to sit there attacking the opinions of other people?

It matters not a jot how old they are - the notion that Fonda [or *any* person] should be castigated to that extent for taking a stance is simply absurd. Especially so when that stance is against a war.

US soldiers, unless I'm very much mistaken, take an oath to defend the constitution. That means they take an oath to defend the absolute freedom of speech - including that of Jane Fonda.
You are seriously lacking in an ability to handle logic. Hanoi Jane didn't simply "take a stance," she committed what, in the minds of many who lived through that era, was treason.

I'm exercising my right to free speech when I criticise her, just as she was exercising her right to free speech when she criticised the war.

Where she deparated from simply exercising her rights was when she visited N. Vietnam, peered through the sights of an anti-aircraft gun which was used to shoot down American pilots, gave a propaganda victory to the N. Vietnamese by telling everyone that our POWs were being treated humanely, made propaganda radio broacasts over Hanoi radio directed at American forces in S. Vietnam ... shall I go on? Any one of those things is treason, in my book.

The owner of two Kentucky theaters has refused to show the new Jane Fonda film "Monster-in-Law" because of the activist role the actress took during the Vietnam War. This DOES NOT constitute a ban in Kentucky, for crying out loud
You beat me to it.
And yeah, as the thread-starter had said, he did overstate the action taken.

I have spoken with some, and of course Ive heard and read the opinion of many of the conservative talking heads who have touched on the issue but may not be vietnam veterans themselves.
In other words, "no." I thought not. :headbang:

In other words, "no." I thought not. :headbang:

I would not have criticized Zooke if he had spoken with Jane Fonda. Speaking with the opposition is a legitimate way to obtain the other point of view. As is reading the other point of view regardless of who wrote it (as long as its written by people with a solid understanding of the point of view who hold that point of view).

To make it clearer, ignorance is not knowing the arguments that the other side puts forth. Zooke demonstrated that he did not have even a basic understanding of Jane Fonda's point of view on what took place during her visit to N. Vietnam. I have an understanding of both sides, therefore I am not speaking out of ignorance.

You are seriously lacking in an ability to handle logic. Hanoi Jane didn't simply "take a stance," she committed what, in the minds of many who lived through that era, was treason.

I'm exercising my right to free speech when I criticise her, just as she was exercising her right to free speech when she criticised the war.

Where she deparated from simply exercising her rights was when she visited N. Vietnam, peered through the sights of an anti-aircraft gun which was used to shoot down American pilots, gave a propaganda victory to the N. Vietnamese by telling everyone that our POWs were being treated humanely, made propaganda radio broacasts over Hanoi radio directed at American forces in S. Vietnam ... shall I go on? Any one of those things is treason, in my book.

But not in the eyes of the law, so you are slandering her by labelling it treason.

By all means criticise her. Do not step over the line by claiming she should be silenced, or her movie banned or - as others have quite worryingly suggested - her books burned.

The owner of two Kentucky theaters has refused to show the new Jane Fonda film "Monster-in-Law" because of the activist role the actress took during the Vietnam War. This DOES NOT constitute a ban in Kentucky, for crying out loud
You beat me to it.
And yeah, as the thread-starter had said, he did overstate the action taken.

I would not have criticized Zooke if he had spoken with Jane Fonda. Speaking with the opposition is a legitimate way to obtain the other point of view. As is reading the other point of view regardless of who wrote it (as long as its written by people with a solid understanding of the point of view who hold that point of view).
What part of this statement do you NOT understand: We don't need to read anything Hanoi Jane has written because we SAW what she DID!

( I'm done here. I'm getting way too angry about this! ) :(

What part of this statement do you NOT understand: We don't need to read anything Hanoi Jane has written because we SAW what she DID!

( I'm done here. I'm getting way too angry about this! ) :(

No, you didnt. You saw clips of her visit, you did not see her visit. Everyone who has ever watched reality tv can tell you how a clever editor can put together a caricature of a person with little resemblance left of reality using bits and pieces of what the person actually did and said.

But not in the eyes of the law, so you are slandering her by labelling it treason.

By all means criticise her. Do not step over the line by claiming she should be silenced, or her movie banned or - as others have quite worryingly suggested - her books burned.
Hell! I'd burn her books myself, except that I'd have to buy the damned things first! Saying that what someone did was treason is NOT slander, particularly when the language of what constitutes a treasonous act includes the acts which they did.

No, you didnt. You saw clips of her visit, you did not see her visit. Everyone who has ever watched reality tv can tell you how a clever editor can put together a caricature of a person with little resemblance left of reality using bits and pieces of what the person actually did and said.
"None so blind as those who will not see."

She had pictures taken by the N. Vitnamese showing her lauging with glee as she looked through the sights of an anti-aircraft gun. There are tapes of her propaganda broadcasts over N. Vietnamese radio! What the hell is your definition of "proof?" Jeeze!

gave a propaganda victory to the N. Vietnamese by telling everyone that our POWs were being treated humanely

To be fair, if the North Vietnamese were treating the POW's humanely thats not a propoganda victory, thats accurate reporting.

Hell! I'd burn her books myself, except that I'd have to buy the damned things first! Saying that what someone did was treason is NOT slander, particularly when the language of what constitutes a treasonous act includes the acts which they did.

Advocating book burning renders your opinion worthless - you say Fonda committed treasonous acts, and then you go on to advocate actions which directly undermine the most basic tenets of the USA. That's simply absurd.

"None so blind as those who will not see."

She had pictures taken by the N. Vitnamese showing her lauging with glee as she looked through the sights of an anti-aircraft gun. There are tapes of her propaganda broadcasts over N. Vietnamese radio! What the hell is your definition of "proof?" Jeeze!

Like I said, read act 2 of her book. This is covered in there. Until you know her side, you continue to be ignorant on the topic. Use the library, they will lend you the book for free.

If this post has thought me anything, it's that the war in Vietnam still scars and divides America today. Interesting, even for an obviously flawed European like me. Is there a national feeling of guilt, perhaps? [Not sarcastic, by all means. I really like to know where all this hatred comes from.]

Tone it down people.

- The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator

Anyone who still has such anger against Jane Fonda over something she was RIGHT about even if she didn't go about it perhaps the way she should of, seriously needs to seek professional help. Get over it! It was 30 years ago! I'm so going to take my whole family to see this movie. Where is the anger towards our government for sending the troops to the war in the first place? You want some one to blame, blame the politicians, not Jane Fonda. I am more than old enough to remember the war, it was bullshit then and the only difference between now and then is every one knows it was bullshit now.

A person who forms an opinion without listening to both sides is ignorant by definition.



A person who forms an opinion on something they have not even looked at is even beyond ignorant. You have already catalogued her book as self-absorbed and excuse ridden without even cracking it open. Your ignorance shows even more by this.

Let me let you in on a little secret. You might be too young to know about this, its one of the secrets that we have kept from those born in the internet age. When you want to read a book but are not interested in buying it, there is this great place where they keep thousands of books that they freely lend to anyone who asks. It is called a public library and chances are there is one near you. If you go there you can borrow the book for free without giving her or anyone else any money. Or you can sit there and read the section that deals with this issue then put it back on the shelf.

Let me let you in on a not so little secret. I'm 54. I'm married to a vet. I can count on one hand close male friends who are not Nam vets. I have seen up close and personal what that woman did. I have followed statements and excuses Fonda has made for years. Now let me clarify it a little more for you.

Fonda is a self-proclaimed Communist.

Jane Fonda tells the student audience at the Michigan State University in 1969;
"I would think that if you understood what communism was, you would hope,
you would pray on your knees, that we would someday become communist."

Our involvement in Nam was part of the Cold War...a movement to stop the spread of Communism and the nuclear threat it posed. Her right to say what she wishes is the result of living in a free society...not a communist state that is noted for trampling on human rights.

She did not limit herself to civil protests. She extended her support to a political ideology she believed in that was in direct opposition to the ideology that now defends her rights to have done so.

She claims to have committed these acts in order to end an unjust war and to save American lives. Yet, she called our troops liars, war criminals, baby killers, murderers, and rapists.

I think that one of the only ways that we are going to redeem ourselves as a country for what we have done there is not to hail the POWs as heroes, because they are hypocrites and liars.

When the POWs returned in early 1973 and detailed the torture and mistreatment, she accused them of lying. When Senator John McCain told how he had both his arms broken she called him a liar.

She apologized??

Jane arranged to be interviewed by Barbara Walters on June 17, 1988 on 20/20. Walters was married to Merv Adelson, CEO of Lorimar Telepictures, the company that marketed Jane's workout tapes.

Jane Fonda's "apology" on 20/20:

I would like to say something, not just to Vietnam veterans in New England, but to men who were in Vietnam, who I hurt, or whose pain I caused to deepen because of things that I said or did. I was trying to help end the killing and the war, but there were times when I was thoughtless and careless about it and I'm very sorry that I hurt them. And I want to apologize to them and their families.

At the time she was filming Stanley and Iris on location in a number of New England towns. Production being picketed and protested by vets and filming was being severely hampered. So, after 16 years, she issued this lame excuse for an apology.

As he said...

Tone it down people.

- The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator

EDIT: This wasn't pointed at you, Zooke. Thankyou for your reply.

Tone it down people.

- The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator
That's why I'm not going to post on this issue anymore. I'm getting way too angry at those who have little knowledge or understanding about this issue and who will simply not listen to those of us who had to live through the time period in question.

As a matter of fact, I'm sorely tempted to just leave Jolt and NS entirely. :(

Tone it down people.

- The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator

Hear ya loud & clear. Sorry Hack.

That's why I'm not going to post on this issue anymore. I'm getting way too angry at those who have little knowledge or understanding about this issue and who will simply not listen to those of us who had to live through the time period in question.

As a matter of fact, I'm sorely tempted to just leave Jolt and NS entirely. :(
Please don't. You have to remember that there are a lot of stupid and ignorant people out there. This just happens to be a topic that is very close to heart.

Besides, if you leave, I won't have any competition ;)

If this post has thought me anything, it's that the war in Vietnam still scars and divides America today. Interesting, even for an obviously flawed European like me. Is there a national feeling of guilt, perhaps? [Not sarcastic, by all means. I really like to know where all this hatred comes from.]

Because when our soldiers returned they were denegrated for answering their country's call, right or wrong. They have lived under this pall of rejection and hatred for over 30 years. Even today, they are denegrated for their justifiable hatred of Fonda.

You have to remember that there are a lot of stupid and ignorant people out there.

It is true there are. Any one who wants to see or I should say read what a debacle the war was and how much the government lied to the people and sent troops into that war to be killed to win elections just goggle "The Pentagon Papers" It's all you youngsters need to know. The war was for political gain. They kept the war going only because they didn't want to lose elections. It's proven fact! People should get informed before they make statements, I agree with that.

*in calm voice* Jane Fonda was RIGHT!

Because when our soldiers returned they were denegrated for answering their country's call, right or wrong. They have lived under this pall of rejection and hatred for over 30 years. Even today, they are denegrated for their justifiable hatred of Fonda.

Answered their country's call? What sort of nonsense is that - the US was *never* under threat from Vietnam. There was no "call".

The only thing that war achieved was a big black wall full of dead people.

This whole "my country right or wrong" attitude is frankly nauseating.

Shes a Commie Aye?
Which Film............ .. . .. . . . .. ... ... ... .. .. .

Proving yet again that Facism is the opposite of Communism.

I'll ask again because Etrusca and Zooke were too busy in the flamewar before.

Are vietnam vets bitter at the government who sent them to fight and die in a war that had nothing to do with the US, in a country which could never threate it for reasons which were suspect even then?

What does Fonda being commie have to do with it? That is her choice of political ideaology, perfectly legal within the US.

You can't have it both ways. If her being communist invalidates whatever she says then you just shat on the 'freedom' argument for fighting in the war. If the war was wrong then she was in the right.

I may despise the methods she used but I'm not screaming to have her erased from history. I can ignore her books and films so I do.

So has America always been such a scary fundamentalist country, or has this just become more entrenched under the Bush administration? Freedom of speech 'crap' someone uttered. Man, that's just scary. Breaking down the fundamentals of democracy under the banner of 'patriotism'. Let's break out the book burnings next shall we?

Invading other countries under the pretext of ideals that people within your own country don't even follow any more. Something's become very, very wrong. It almost seems like there are two seperate countries living under the same flag.

~sigh~

I'll leave this debate, because some people will never learn.

Answered their country's call? What sort of nonsense is that - the US was *never* under threat from Vietnam. There was no "call".

The only thing that war achieved was a big black wall full of dead people.

This whole "my country right or wrong" attitude is frankly nauseating.

Hey, to this day land mines in Vietnam are blowing poor farmers legs off making America's share of the rice market that much more profitable. Vietnam was of vital importance to our cornering of the global agriculture market. That's worth killing thousands of Americans and maiming a never ending stream of foreign peasants, right? I mean we're doing the same thing in Iraq over a friggin patch of tar. Do you really think that the president and the army would do something bad? Why do you hate America?

That's why I'm not going to post on this issue anymore. I'm getting way too angry at those who have little knowledge or understanding about this issue and who will simply not listen to those of us who had to live through the time period in question.

As a matter of fact, I'm sorely tempted to just leave Jolt and NS entirely. :(

Don't. How much longer will they have the opportunity to hear the voice of someone who was there, who saw what really happened, who knows??? They sit in their tidy little houses, surfing the net, reading more propoganda by fluff like Fonda, and think they have full knowledge. They think that by reading one more book, we will finally have a complete understanding and will appreciate what a fine humanitarian she is. One book will not make up for a lifetime of lies, propaganda, and manipulation. The only ones who can bring light to this woman's hypocracy are those, like you, who suffered most at her hands.

Anyone who still has such anger against Jane Fonda over something she was RIGHT about even if she didn't go about it perhaps the way she should of, seriously needs to seek professional help. Get over it! It was 30 years ago! I'm so going to take my whole family to see this movie. Where is the anger towards our government for sending the troops to the war in the first place? You want some one to blame, blame the politicians, not Jane Fonda. I am more than old enough to remember the war, it was bullshit then and the only difference between now and then is every one knows it was bullshit now.

First of all, it's a book, not a movie. She whines and cries about how her Daddy was cold and didn't give her the love and attention she needed. How she has been married to sexual deviants and participated in their sex games, and how she didn't protest the war in the best way possible. Ah....poor Jane.

There has been plenty of anger with the government from vets. The issue here is Fonda's actions. She chose to align herself with a different political ideology. She had every right to protest a war she didn't agree with. She chose to slander and attack our troops. Rather than honor them for their efforts, she chose to call them names and call on all citizens to reject and castigate them. Now these men are expected to forgive and forget, run out, buy her book, and give her big :fluffle: ?

Maybe we're on the wrong track here. This is Kentucky we're talking about. Maybe it's banned because Michael Vartan and Jennifer Lopez play an interracial couple.

First of all, it's a book, not a movie. She whines and cries about how her Daddy was cold and didn't give her the love and attention she needed. How she has been married to sexual deviants and participated in their sex games, and how she didn't protest the war in the best way possible. Ah....poor Jane.

There has been plenty of anger with the government from vets. The issue here is Fonda's actions. She chose to align herself with a different political ideology. She had every right to protest a war she didn't agree with. She chose to slander and attack our troops. Rather than honor them for their efforts, she chose to call them names and call on all citizens to reject and castigate them. Now these men are expected to forgive and forget, run out, buy her book, and give her big :fluffle: ?

Actually the thread is about her new movie.

Listen, you know as well as I do millions of Americans felt the exact same way she did. Why single her out? Because she's famous? It's not like she was a lone wolf in all of this.

I'll ask again because Etrusca and Zooke were too busy in the flamewar before.

Are vietnam vets bitter at the government who sent them to fight and die in a war that had nothing to do with the US, in a country which could never threate it for reasons which were suspect even then?

What does Fonda being commie have to do with it? That is her choice of political ideaology, perfectly legal within the US.

You can't have it both ways. If her being communist invalidates whatever she says then you just shat on the 'freedom' argument for fighting in the war. If the war was wrong then she was in the right.

I may despise the methods she used but I'm not screaming to have her erased from history. I can ignore her books and films so I do.

I can't say what the majority consensus is among vets on the government's use of them. I suspect that they feel misused and abandoned by all sides of this issue. They were the scapegoats for a civil uprising and they continue to be scapegoats. Do you realize that the wall was not built with government funds? It was built with donations. The ceremony marking its first anniversary was not attended by any representative of the US government? It's past time we put aside our debates long enough to welcome them home, thank them for their efforts, and make them feel like fully entitled human beings again. They didn't choose the war. The war chose them.

I'm a 'support the troops hate the govt' guy really. Surely the best way to deal with this stuff is to ignore her. More publicity she gets, the more the coals are raked over and the more hurt gets done to the actual victims of the war.

Some responses here are on the lines of 'I'm watchin this to see what the fuss is about'. That's the problem here I think.

Thanks for the response BTW, always good to get sensible answers.

Actually the thread is about her new movie.

Listen, you know as well as I do millions of Americans felt the exact same way she did. Why single her out? Because she's famous? It's not like she was a lone wolf in all of this.

You're right...this thread was originally about her new movie. I got sidetracked with discussion of her autobiography. She, and other people of note, are focused on because they have recognizable names. Who cares if Joe Blow, a mechanic in McLouth, Kansas, committed similar acts? But, put a name out there people know and who has a fan base, and you have a voice that some people will listen to.

Personally, I believe that the treatment of our vets is a million times worse than the war itself. The war may have been wrong, but our behavior is dispicable.

It's past time we put aside our debates long enough to welcome them home, thank them for their efforts, and make them feel like fully entitled human beings again. They didn't choose the war. The war chose them.

And people did learn from that war. Look at the war now in Iraq. Most if not all people who are against the war in Iraq now do separate what the government is doing and in the knowledge that the soldiers have no choice, they are sent where they are sent and told what to do. People have learned. Sure there are still some but not many who blame the troops in Iraq, but mostly it's the government they blame. I think the 'Nam war taught people that lesson. The ghosts of the past perhaps haunt some, but it's not like nothing was learned by the way the troops were treated back then. It shows today with the Iraq war. I am very, I mean very against the war in Iraq, but I don't blame the troops, I know where the blame falls, on the government. But that is just the way it was back then. It wasn't just Jane Fonda. She just seems to have been made the poster child for all of the resentment.

The infamous photos of her sitting on an anti-aircraft gun, laughing, clapping, and smiling adoringly at the enemy soldiers, were taken immediately after that gun had been used to shoot down an American plane.
Do you know this for a FACT? I would love to see your proof on this one.

Americans died when that plane went down. She was celebrating their death and other American deaths with the North Vietnamese. This was tantamount to collaberation in the murder of American citizens. She was not an enlisted member of any armed force, she was there in the guise of an American citizen. This constitutes aiding and abetting the enemy.
Again, I would love to see your PROOF. My guess is that you cannot prove these allegations.

You cannot place value of the lives of American soldiers in that conflict based on the merit of the war. They were everyday citizens like the rest of us, who, for the most part, were drafted and sent into that hell. Her celebration of their death is unconscionable. If a person were to collaberate in the death of thousands of civilians, would a statement that they wished they hadn't done that because it probably wasn't a good idea, absolve them of all blame and entitle them to a life of prosperity and acclaim? There are no words to make up for what she did.
Again, please prove your assertion.

There are no words to make up for what she did.
Are you making up words about what she did?

The Kentucky theatre owner is doing what our rights as free Americans allow us to do. Boycott and protest every thing she does. At least no one is shooting at her like they were at our men whom she protested.
Many of your fellow citizens protested against this war. Many of your fellow citizens went to Canada rather than participate in a war that they thought was wrong.

I believe that Jane Fonda wanted to see an end to the war, to save the lives of innocent people on both sides of the battlefield, and the lives of the soldiers on both sides of the battlefield.

I await your PROOF on the other points you made.

Canuck, if you go to the snopes site, you can see what she did and did not do.

BTW, from the snopes, it's pretty clear that she wasn't just looking for peace. She was an actual supporter of the North Vietnamese government - even after the US left.

So I don't think it's as simple as "she was for peace". She was for their side winning against all comers.

Additionally, she admits that what she did was wrong. Being photographed on that gun, for instance. She's admitted several times that it was wrong, and if she could take it back she would. Are you going to say that she's wrong to take it back?

Also, it's up to any movie theater operator what movies they show. If they know a local community won't show up to see a particular movie, they're not going to play it. Also, if it's going to be controversial, and may cause problems, they won't show it.

It's not censorship. It's called marketing. You play the movies that people want to pay money to see.

I will also add that there's at least one hotel and one restaurant that has refused service to Jane Fonda. That's not illegal, either.

<sigh>

This is typical. People get more and more entrenched and more and more ridiculous.

1. Some of Jane Fonda's actions during the Vietnam War were unconscionable. Despicable. Horrible. Perhaps unforgiveable.

2. But they were not treasonous. Treason is a legal term. It is defined by the Constitution. The term has a history. Even the worst (and untrue) accusations against Fonda would not amount to treason.

3. And at least some of what alleged here, particularly by Zooke, is untrue. Ms. Fonda said and did plenty for which she can be villified and castigated. But she did not celebrate the shooting down of a US plane, etc. Spreading falsehoods don't help the matter. To the contrary, they distract from what Fonda actually did that was wrong. It is like starting a debate over whether Stalin was evil because he ate babies for breakfast. He was, but he didn't.

4. Whether or not veterans or others accept Ms. Fonda's apology is up to them. Some have, some have not. When you act in an irresponsible and hurtful manner, those you hurt may not forgive you. You earned their animosity.

5. On the other hand, Ms. Fonda has apologized. Repeatedly. In many different ways. Refuse to accept her apologies if you wish. Denying she apologized at all is lying.

6. Although some of her actions and words were despicable, Ms. Fonda's actions were protected by the First Amendment. Freedom of speech protects speech we despise.

7. Ms. Fonda was right in some of her opinions and some of what she said. She had at times worked very hard to support our troops. She had provided entertainment to our troops. She worked closely with some veterans.

8. But, again, Ms. Fonda was very, very wrong in some of her statements and actions. She crossed the line. She was hateful. She denigrated good men and women.

9. Freedom of speech works all the way around here. Ms. Fonda's expressions then and now were and are protected. So are the actions of the theatre owners that choose not to show her movies. So are the statements of anyone that denounces Ms. Fonda.

10. On the question of defamation, it would be slander, not libel. Ms. Fonda is a public figure. She made herself one. To defame her, a statement must be: (1) false, (2) injurious to her reputation, and (3) made with "actual malice"--that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. The opinions here about her actions and whether or not she committed treason may wrong, but I don't think they constitute defamation.

Proving malice is harder than most people think.

That's why I'm not going to post on this issue anymore. I'm getting way too angry at those who have little knowledge or understanding about this issue and who will simply not listen to those of us who had to live through the time period in question.

As a matter of fact, I'm sorely tempted to just leave Jolt and NS entirely. :(

Eutrusca, at your age, I didn't think this would be needed, but:

http://www.directhomeshopping.com.au/images/products/2601_879_100_0007.jpg

By calling for her to be silenced, her books burned and banned, you spit on the constitution you claim to have protected. Shame on you.

Eutrusca, at your age, I didn't think this would be needed, but:

http://www.directhomeshopping.com.au/images/products/2601_879_100_0007.jpg

By calling for her to be silenced, her books burned and banned, you spit on the constitution you claim to have protected. Shame on you.
Ok, this has gotten to flaming... I'm requesting a lock.

Fonda can apologize until she is blue in the face. She was implicated in the death of who knows how many of our people and the damage to the lives of tens of thousands of our returning troops. A person who becomes involved in a crime due to peer or external pressure is no less culpable. She managed to avoid paying for her crimes, but there is a whole generation that will never forget or forgive her treason.
You obviously hate Jane Fonda and that is your problem. However, accusing her of "treason", trying to imply that her actions resulted in the deaths of soldiers, and that she caused damage to "tens of thousands of our returning troops", are unsupportable arguments?

The only thing I can think of after reading through it is "get the fuck over it". I mean, really, if you don't want to see the movie and if you don't like her, well, then don't watch it. I don't think there's some huge guy with a shotgun at the cinema's entrance who'll tell you "WATCH THAT MOVIE, BITCH! OR ELSE!"

OMG! She looked through the sight of an AA gun that was used to shoot at American aircraft. How terrible. Please note the sarcasm. If you go technically, then she looked through the sight of a weapon that was used to defend the people of North Vietnam against weapons of aggression by another country. For those who came up with the bright idea and told others to go some vets home etc. Go to Vietnam and have a look what US B-52 strikes did to the civilians there. The Americans there were soldiers, tough shit. In a war soldiers have to fight, to kill and, if necessary, to die. So some 55,000 American soldiers or so were killed. And how many North Vietnamese civilians were killed? Oh wait, I forgot, the Vietnamese were only "gooks" (just like the Japanese before them, and the Koreans and Chinese), so one could use anything against them... I see a pattern there.

OMG! She was a communist! I wonder what it is with Americans and seeing communism as the most evil thing. I think you're still not out of your Cold War brainwashing. It reminds me a lot of those muslim fundamentalists who see America as the most evil thing. Maybe those two sides aren't that much different.

So she did certain things 30 years, or so, ago. And? Big deal, shit happens. Stop whining over it. It's gone, you can't change it anymore, no matter how much you whine. But then again, in a world where some stupid arse Yank can tell me that I owe the USA my freedom (load of bull) it shouldn't be surprising that the loudest whiners are usually the Americans...

Read her side or shut up. You're talking out of ignorance here. If her side is true (and you need to read it before you can decide), then there was no crime or pressure. But then, you have no idea what her side is do you?

Out of line.

Both you and Zooke are making assumptions about the ignorance or lack of intelligence of the other.

Although I think many of Zooke's assertions are incorrect and I disagree with her conclusions, she appears better informed than you about what happened.

Both of you should lay off the "you are an ignorant little punk" crap -- but it is especially silly when leveled at Zooke.

1. Jane Fonda is a traitor.
2. Jane Fonda is a communist.
3. Jane Fonda cannot act.
4. Jane Fonda should be prosecuted under the Patriot Act.
5. The Patriot Act should be made bigger.
6. The man who spit tobacco juice in Jane Fonda's face should be given the Congressional Medal of Honor for defending America from a virulent communist.
7. This ban in Kentucky should be expanded to all fifty states.
8. Jane Fonda's book should be banned in all fifty states as well.

1. Never proven, never charged.
2. Jane Fonda has been affiliated with both the Democrats and Republicans. Being against the war in Vietnam was not the same as being affiliated with Communism.
3. She won an Oscar and many other acting awards. Go figure.
4. Our Constitution prohibits Ex Post Facto prosecution (i.e., the Patriot Act was adopted many decades after her public opposition to Vietnam.) Even so, she's committed no criminal acts in opposing the war. Her speech is protected by the First Amendment.
5. Let's take it to Kinko's and have it enlarged. 11X14 paper should do.
6. No can do, my friend. He is not an active-duty soldier involved in a present war with an identified enemy country. He is being prosecuted himself for...well....being a dumbass. And there is NO SUCH AWARD as the Congressional Medal of Honor. It is called the Medal of Honor. Period.
7. It's not banned in Kentucky. One theater owner refused to show the movie because he remains angry over Jane's conduct of more than thirty-years ago. Sounds like he needs serious, focused therapy. And I live in Kentucky---if you need a list of theaters where the movie IS playing, telegram me. I'll buy you a ticket.
8. Those who support such a notion should read Bradbury's "Farenheit 451" or examine "Krystalnacht" in Germany during WWII. After you review these, let's talk about your suggestion again.

Eutrusca, at your age, I didn't think this would be needed, but...
Fass, you're out of line. Knock it off. Now.

The rest of you, scroll up to Hack's request to tone it down, and reread your responses to it. There is obviously lots of heat about this topic from both sides, and I don't want to close down something because it's controversial. Get yourselves under control.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator

Her latest. It's called Monster-In-Law or something. And it's doing horribly, too! Yay!!!
Why the hell would they ban it? That doesn't even make sense. It seems to be a rather inoffensive movie.

I wouldn't see it, it looks terrible, but that doesn't mean it should be banned.

I know that a vast majority of the people on here are too young to remember those times. There is no way possible that you can understand the emotions and conflict that we lived through. You weren't there to see the harmful impact that Fonda and others like her had on an entire generation. Why do you think we are called the Lost Generation? Our troops were damaged physically and mentally in that war. When they returned Fonda and her crowd encouraged the further torture of our military men and women. Those of us who stayed at home adjusted to accept them in their changed state as normal, thus changing all of us. We weren't "lost". We were thrown away. Until or unless you have experienced that rejection, you can not understand why Fonda will never be forgiven.

How about the impact that those who publically supported the war and villified those who spoke out had on world opinion about the United States? May it not be argued that those who openly espoused "My country! Love it or leave it" caused more harm by making the United States appear an unthinking bully in the eyes of millions around the world? How about the debilitating social price this country paid by the rift caused within the American population by the hostility and name-calling and, more importantly, the refusal of those supporting the war to recognize the First Amendment right of those protesting the war?

Let me be absolutely clear on my position, for those so inclined to label me a "sympathizer." I proudly wore the uniform of a United States Army officer for 16 years. I held an MOS of 11-B (Infantry,) and strongly support a national, well-trained and well-funded military.

I believe that we should support our government when it is morally and legally correct, and openly criticize it when it is not.

I believe that citizens have the right to protest and disagree with the actions of our government, and that it is not my right to tell others what to think and when to speak---or NOT to speak.

And I believe, without question, that Thomas Jefferson's words on this point are as true and profound today as they were when uttered more than two centuries ago:

A patriot must always be prepared to defend his country---against its government.

That's why I'm not going to post on this issue anymore. I'm getting way too angry at those who have little knowledge or understanding about this issue and who will simply not listen to those of us who had to live through the time period in question.

As a matter of fact, I'm sorely tempted to just leave Jolt and NS entirely. :(
You are letting what happened over 30 years ago to rule your emotions today, resulting in your obvious anger and intolerance towards others?

You have every right to your opinion but because others don't agree with your opinion, you are going to fold your tent and move? When you were fighting in Nam, was it was to defend the 1st Amendment rights of some of the people?

BTW, you are also guilty of having "little knowledge" of this issue? On an earlier thread about Jane Fonda, you accused her of being involved in the "slips of paper" episode, that supposedly resulted in the deaths of some POWS, which is factually not true. Although you later admitted that you were wrong, the fact remains that you used a serious falsehood, to tell "your" truth.

The "understanding" that I get out of that, is that I have to take your "truths" with a grain of salt, and that you are willing to go to any lengths to make "your" truth "understood".

Let go of the anger and free your soul. Quit playing the martyr and enjoy life.

You see, I know a lot of veterans. And I know what it did to them, and how I can never fully understand. I know that I can't expect them to forgive. But I can ask them. Especially when there is every chance that Fonda actually repented for what she did.

And Bozzy, I am relying on the assumption that I am intelligent enough that when I support a war, it is a war that should be supported, and those that go over there are doing a bad thing. And I would never support someone who got one of our men killed. I don't see how Fonda did.

sorry for gap - life got in the way.

Your 'assumption' is that everyone woud support a war that you supported is both false and arrogant. You presume that your opinion is the final matter on morality. You then make the hypocritical judgement that 'those who go over there' are doing a bad thing - simply becase they disagree with your outlook on the conflict. This is a foolish absolute you are setting. I can't believe you are so willingly walking down this dead - end argument.

re: not seeing how Fonda supported those who killed our soldiers - you'd have to be immeasurably dense or willfully ignorant to not see that. There is so much information readily avaliable I won't even offer a link. Google it and educate yourself - unles you'd rather remain ignorant.

2. Jane Fonda has been affiliated with both the Democrats and Republicans. Being against the war in Vietnam was not the same as being affiliated with Communism.
Well there's being against the war, then there's sympathizing with the enemy....here (http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/entertainers/actors/jane-fonda/jane_fonda_hanoi.jpg)'s Jane hanging around with the VietCong, and then there's the footage of her holding an assault rifle with the VC, and grinning (which I can't seem to find)

BTW, from the snopes, it's pretty clear that she wasn't just looking for peace. She was an actual supporter of the North Vietnamese government - even after the US left.
From Snopes.com:

On the one hand, Jane Fonda provided no tangible military assistance to the North Vietnamese: she divulged no military secrets, she gave them no money or material, and she did not interfere with the operations of the American forces.

You were saying?

Additionally, she admits that what she did was wrong. Being photographed on that gun, for instance. She's admitted several times that it was wrong, and if she could take it back she would. Are you going to say that she's wrong to take it back?
I am not saying that she is wrong for apologizing. But she has apologized, so the ball is in your court, so either accept it and move on with your life, or you can carry the burden for as long as you wish.

The only thing I can think of after reading through it is "get the fuck over it". I mean, really, if you don't want to see the movie and if you don't like her, well, then don't watch it. I don't think there's some huge guy with a shotgun at the cinema's entrance who'll tell you "WATCH THAT MOVIE, BITCH! OR ELSE!"

OMG! She looked through the sight of an AA gun that was used to shoot at American aircraft. How terrible. Please note the sarcasm. If you go technically, then she looked through the sight of a weapon that was used to defend the people of North Vietnam against weapons of aggression by another country. For those who came up with the bright idea and told others to go some vets home etc. Go to Vietnam and have a look what US B-52 strikes did to the civilians there. The Americans there were soldiers, tough shit. In a war soldiers have to fight, to kill and, if necessary, to die. So some 55,000 American soldiers or so were killed. And how many North Vietnamese civilians were killed? Oh wait, I forgot, the Vietnamese were only "gooks" (just like the Japanese before them, and the Koreans and Chinese), so one could use anything against them... I see a pattern there.

OMG! She was a communist! I wonder what it is with Americans and seeing communism as the most evil thing. I think you're still not out of your Cold War brainwashing. It reminds me a lot of those muslim fundamentalists who see America as the most evil thing. Maybe those two sides aren't that much different.

So she did certain things 30 years, or so, ago. And? Big deal, shit happens. Stop whining over it. It's gone, you can't change it anymore, no matter how much you whine. But then again, in a world where some stupid arse Yank can tell me that I owe the USA my freedom (load of bull) it shouldn't be surprising that the loudest whiners are usually the Americans...

Well-said, man. Well-said. You deserve a cookie.

*hands you a cookie*

Well there's being against the war, then there's sympathizing with the enemy....here (http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/entertainers/actors/jane-fonda/jane_fonda_hanoi.jpg)'s Jane hanging around with the VietCong, and then there's the footage of her holding an assault rifle with the VC, and grinning (which I can't seem to find)

Think about it. We went into Vietnam for no reason at all. We caused a lot of unnecessary deaths (civilian and otherwise). I would've posed for pictures with the Viet Cong if I was in her position.

In a word? NO! What she did is beyond forgiveness, IMHO, especially in light of the fact that she only "apologized" when it was convenient to do so to help sell her damned books and tapes.

So are you saying all of our troops are not christians or jews ?
Part of the words, " I will choose who I will forgive but you must forgive all lest you be judged at the end."

Those words of unforgiveness will be a testimony against you. You don't have a choice you have to forgive if you believe.


And remember this post by Cat tribe:
Perhaps this will help explain the difference between dissent and treason (but my guess is you will struggle against the distinction):

The idea that loyalty will ultimately be given to a government only so long as it deserves loyalty and that opposition to its abuses is not treason has made our government tolerant of opposition based on differences of opinion that in some parts of the world would have kept the hangman busy.

...

Treason of adherence to an enemy was old in the law. It consisted of breaking allegiance to one's own King by forming an attachment to his enemy. Its scope was comprehensive, its requirements indeterminate. It might be predicated on intellecutal or emotional sympathy with the for, or merely lack of zeal in the cause of one's own country. That was not the kind of disloyalty the framers thought should constitute treason. They promptly accepted the proposal to restrict it to cases where also there was conduct which was 'giving them aid and comfort.'

'Aid and comfort' was defined by Lord Reading in the Casement trial comprehensively, as it should be, and yet probably with as much precision as the nature of the matter will permit: '... an act which strengthens or tends to strengthen the enemies of the King in the conduct of a [325 U.S. 1, 29] war against the King, that is in law the giving of aid and comfort' and 'an act which weakens or tends to weaken the power of the King and of the country to resist or to attack the enemies of the King and the country ... is ... giving of aid and comfort.' Lord Reading explained it, as we think one must, in terms of an 'act.' It is not easy, if indeed possible, to think of a way in which 'aid and comfort' and be 'given' to an enemy except by some kind of action. Its very nature partakes of a deed or physical activity as opposed to a mental operation.

Thus the crime of treason consists of two elements: adherence to the enemy; and rendering him aid and comfort. A citizen intellectually or emotionally may favor the enemy and harbor sympathies or convictions disloyal to this country's policy or interest, but so long as he commits no act of aid and comfort to the enemy, there is no treason. On the other hand, a citizen may take actions, which do aid and comfort the enemy- making a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work, and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strength- but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason.

-- Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945).

Again, this is not black and white.

The Vietnam War was wrong -- in many ways, in many senses of the word.

Our soldiers were betrayed in how they were used by some military commanders and politicians.

Our soldiers were also betrayed by some of the public that villified them.

Some soldiers did actively lie and spread propaganda to support the war. They deserved to be called liars and worse. But they were a very small minority.

Jane Fonda was one of thousands upon thousands that opposed an unjust and ill-waged war. At times she stood shoulder-to-shoulder with our soldiers in doing so. At other times she denegrated them. She deserves some praise and heavy, heavy scorn. I can understand those who think she is more villian than anything else. But that does not excuse false witness, unfounded accusations, threats, etc.

As Zooke admitted, Ms. Fonda is a primarily convenient scapegoat for those who blame opponents of the war for what happened to our soldiers.

A better target might be those that sent them to the wrong war, who lied about it, and who failed to support them when they returned.

Is this another of those cases were some braindead idiot translated "theaters chose not carry it" as "it was banned in _________"?

It was banned in Kentucky, you idiot. Those theaters that banned it are in Kentucky. I never said that Kenucky banned it; I said that it was banned in Kentucky. There's a difference. Learn to read what's written.

Think about it. We went into Vietnam for no reason at all. We caused a lot of unnecessary deaths (civilian and otherwise). I would've posed for pictures with the Viet Cong if I was in her position.
I just finished a small study of Vietnam in English class....I believe it was a horrible, horrible war. But what Fonda did was also unexcusable; you don't betray your own countrymen to end a war.

I just finished a small study of Vietnam in English class....I believe it was a horrible, horrible war. But what Fonda did was also unexcusable; you don't betray your own countrymen to end a war.

Excuse me, but how, exactly, did she "betray" her own countrymen?

Excuse me, but how, exactly, did she "betray" her own countrymen?
Fraternizing with the enemy? I mean, if you saw your own countryman with *your* *enemy,* holding a stinkin assault rifle and grinning, how wouldn't you get pissed?

I always thought some of the implications of the treason law were stupid. I can be executed for providing comfort to people in a nation the US is at war with? How fucked up is that?

Fraternizing with the enemy? I mean, if you saw your own countryman with *your* *enemy,* holding a stinkin assault rifle and grinning, how wouldn't you get pissed?

She had every right to do what she did. So what?

Fraternizing with the enemy? I mean, if you saw your own countryman with *your* *enemy,* holding a stinkin assault rifle and grinning, how wouldn't you get pissed?

Actually no. Just because your country goes to war, you don't have to agree with it. That's why we have freedom of speech and opinion.

Fraternizing with the enemy? I mean, if you saw your own countryman with *your* *enemy,* holding a stinkin assault rifle and grinning, how wouldn't you get pissed?
So let's say you have family in another country. The U.S. goes to war with this other country, do you have to consider your family members the enemy?

Actually no. Just because your country goes to war, you don't have to agree with it. That's why we have freedom of speech and opinion.
Dissent? I'm all for it; but treason is another thing. Not sure if she could be put on trial for it though....

This is ridiculous. Again: insulting our troops != treason

And, you are misrepresenting Ms. Fonda's statements and actions. And falsely accusing her of treason.

I never misrepresented anything she said or did. And she did all those things. And yep, it is treason because she gave adherence to the enemy. She is very guilty.

I never misrepresented anything she said or did. And she did all those things. And yep, it is treason because she gave adherence to the enemy. She is very guilty.

Just keeping saying that over and over and over.

Perhaps if you click your ruby slippers together it will become true.

If you ask me, it should be banned everywhere. Gotta love Kentucky.

Gotta love a whole segment of society who can't get over something that trivial. Get a f**king life.

And read a book while you're at it -- you wanna talk treasonous? How about the multitutde of things YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT has done in YOUR NAME in SOVEREIGN countries across the globe? Starting with the USS Maine and continuing through Guatemala, Cuba, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and even including the assassination of the freely elected sitting president of Chile in 1973.

There are one HELL of a lot more things to be outraged about that some airheaded actress trying to alert her nation to yet another US outrage in a long, LONG series of them. :rolleyes:

EDIT: For the record, I couldn't care less about Jane Fonda -- as an actress, she's complete overblown sh*t, just like this whole "controversy".

I never misrepresented anything she said or did. And she did all those things. And yep, it is treason because she gave adherence to the enemy. She is very guilty.

I find you funny :p.

The only thing I can think of after reading through it is "get the fuck over it". I mean, really, if you don't want to see the movie and if you don't like her, well, then don't watch it. I don't think there's some huge guy with a shotgun at the cinema's entrance who'll tell you "WATCH THAT MOVIE, BITCH! OR ELSE!"

OMG! She looked through the sight of an AA gun that was used to shoot at American aircraft. How terrible. Please note the sarcasm. If you go technically, then she looked through the sight of a weapon that was used to defend the people of North Vietnam against weapons of aggression by another country. For those who came up with the bright idea and told others to go some vets home etc. Go to Vietnam and have a look what US B-52 strikes did to the civilians there. The Americans there were soldiers, tough shit. In a war soldiers have to fight, to kill and, if necessary, to die. So some 55,000 American soldiers or so were killed. And how many North Vietnamese civilians were killed? Oh wait, I forgot, the Vietnamese were only "gooks" (just like the Japanese before them, and the Koreans and Chinese), so one could use anything against them... I see a pattern there.

OMG! She was a communist! I wonder what it is with Americans and seeing communism as the most evil thing. I think you're still not out of your Cold War brainwashing. It reminds me a lot of those muslim fundamentalists who see America as the most evil thing. Maybe those two sides aren't that much different.

So she did certain things 30 years, or so, ago. And? Big deal, shit happens. Stop whining over it. It's gone, you can't change it anymore, no matter how much you whine. But then again, in a world where some stupid arse Yank can tell me that I owe the USA my freedom (load of bull) it shouldn't be surprising that the loudest whiners are usually the Americans...

It's a good thing no one can force me to see it. I'd kill myself.

Innocent civilians always end up killed, and that's a damn shame, but we were fighting a war. And when you fight a war, you can't be all compassionate. That doesn't work.

Communism is evil. It's awful despotism. I wish we could just completely get rid of it for the sake of those people living in those countries. But of course you'd defend those Communist nations before you'd defend us. And how dare you compare us to those Muslim fundamentalists?

Shit doesn't just happen. People do things.

Just keeping saying that over and over and over.

Perhaps if you click your ruby slippers together it will become true.

I don't have to do that, because it's already true.

I don't have to do that, because it's already true.

When one can just sit back and laugh without any work, that's comedic gold.

There everyone goes with the freedom of speech crap.

Yes, which is misleading. Since this isn't a freedom of speach issue. A theater owner is most free to decide what to, and what not to, play in his own theater. Since this is not a government ban, the charge is thus moot to begin with.


Are traitors protected by the Constitution, too?

As a matter of fact, they are. That's what makes this country great to begin with.


Also, to the one who said that if you don't like it, don't watch it, you don't even have to worry about that, because no one is watching it. It's getting awful reviews. And she deserves it. I am still angry about what she did.

Valid opinion.


She does not deserve to live in America with us.

No one "deserves" America except citizens thereof. She is a citizen, and has as much rights to "America" as any other citizen.


The guy who banned it is a veteran. He served his country unlike she, and he was apalled by her actions thirty years ago.

Which he has every right to be.


Certain things cannot be forgiven, and she should be banished.

Very unamerican of you.


She disrespected our boys on the ground. She spread lies about them and attacked them. She has pure hatred in her heart for the men who answered their nation's call.

Yes, which is horrible.


As far as I'm concerned, she is not an American.

You're concern means very little, nor are you capable of determing who is and is not an "American". I could levy the same epiteth upon yourself.

Well that says as much about Kentucky as it does about anyone who thinks censorship based on political ideology is somehow a good idea.

Movie was banned from showing by a theater owner, only in the theaters he owned. It's not "censorship" by the legal definition of such, as it is an act by a private citizen, on his private property.

I find you funny :p.

I find you quite hilarious, too, myself. To say Jane Fonda was right and you'd do those things she did. To defend those brutal North Vietnamese against us. That's what's funny. And don't worry, I've got so many patronizing replies that I've lost count.

The constitution protects the right to believe, and say, treacherous things. It does not protect treachorous acts, but Jane Fonda has been given all she will be given, by the government. Its not the peoples, nor the states rights to ban a movie, because a traitor is in the movie. Not only does it impose on the rights of all others in the movie, its unconstitutional toward fonda(two wrongs dont make a right).

It is an act by a private citizen on his property. Theater owners have the right to determine what movies they will and will not show. Thus your charge is groundless.

Since pulling out of Vietnam was inevitable. I wonder how many American lives Jane Fonda saved? If she hastened the end of the war by even 1 hour, she saved the lives of American soldiers. Perhaps we should give her a medal.

And read a book while you're at it -- you wanna talk treasonous? How about the multitutde of things YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT has done in YOUR NAME in SOVEREIGN countries across the globe? Starting with the USS Maine and continuing through Guatemala, Cuba, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and even including the assassination of the freely elected sitting president of Chile in 1973.

Amusing.

I agree with you in general concerning this thread, but your history is spotty at best.

The USS Maine exploded as a result of technical engine failure. The American press (led by William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer) aroused public opinion by using questionable information to blame the bombing on the Spanish. President McKinley's hands were more or less tied, given that basically the entire country had been whipped into a frenzy. It's also questionable whether this war was a bad thing. I, in fact, probably think that it was net better than any of the other options.

I don't understand how a country taking actions which it perceives to be in its own interests are treasonous - as happened in every instance you cited. They may have been morally questionable, but certainly not treasonous.

The US was not responsible for Salvador Allende's assassination.

America bashing is a cliche, and no more accurate than the blind American patriotism seen elsewhere on this thread.

I find you quite hilarious, too, myself. To say Jane Fonda was right and you'd do those things she did. To defend those brutal North Vietnamese against us. That's what's funny. And don't worry, I've got so many patronizing replies that I've lost count.
"Those brutal North Vietnamese?"

Fact check:
They weren't the ones who massacred entire villages because there might have been "enemy sympathizers" there.

They weren't the ones who used napalm on civilian targets.

They aren't the ones torturing prisoners in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.

They weren't the ones who started a war in a foreign country that the people they were "liberating" didn't want (I'm thinking of more than one war).

America is not blameless. The Vietnamese are no more brutal than we are. They're just as human as anyone else.

America has done both good and bad things. So did the North Vietnamese. Take off your ideological blinders.

Hmmm. . . where to start, where to start. First of all, if she isn't a traitor, what do you call it when you're on an anti-aircraft carrier, looking as if you want to shoot our planes down?

Most people call that posing for a photograph.


Where does it say that traitors are protected? I haven't seen that anywhere, because, last time I checked, that was a high crime.

Article III, Section 3; Amendment IV, V, VI, VII, and thereby IX.


Second of all, I admitted earlier that I overstated some things. Apparently, I am wrong, and I'm happy to admit it. Thirdly, what right has she to stay here amongst good up-standing citizens after the horrible things she did.

US Constitution Preamble; Article IV, Section 2; Amendments I and IX.


She gave aid and comfort to the enemy.

Your opinion, not the courts.


Fourthly, my descriptions of her actions are quite accurate. She did all those things I said she did. I don't care if she has apologized, because she should have known better. Also, I'm not aware of her having apologized for the things she said. You can say that the war is wrong; you can protest. But you cannot disrespect the troops, having never worn the uniform yourself. And Lastly, I never said I had the authority to banish anyone. What I said was she should be banished. And I was absolutely right for saying it. How is banishment anti-American anyway?

Amendment XIV


Our media is sending a dangerous signal when you cause soldiers harm, then, in 1999, you're one of ABC's Women of the Century. Shame, shame, shame.

James Madison opposed Govenor Patrick Henry's push to include a Bill of Rights in the Virginia Constitution [May, 1776].... He appologized for his acts at that time, later, realizing their importance, and the impropriety of his acts and arguments of the time. In 1788 he was part of the move to put those same enumerations in the Federal Constitution. Yet, Madison later served as President, and is considered both a Founding Father and a Patriot.... People change... my son, people can change.

Most people call that posing for a photograph.

Article III, Section 3; Amendment IV, V, VI, VII, and thereby IX.

US Constitution Preamble; Article IV, Section 2; Amendments I and IX.

Your opinion, not the courts.

Amendment XIV

James Madison opposed Govenor Patrick Henry's push to include a Bill of Rights in the Virginia Constitution [May, 1776].... He appologized for his acts at that time, later, realizing their importance, and the impropriety of his acts and arguments of the time. In 1788 he was part of the move to put those same enumerations in the Federal Constitution. Yet, Madison later served as President, and is considered both a Founding Father and a Patriot.... People change... my son, people can change.

Well said and well done.

Welcome to the treasonous communist conspiracy. :p

Yes, which is misleading. Since this isn't a freedom of speach issue. A theater owner is most free to decide what to, and what not to, play in his own theater. Since this is not a government ban, the charge is thus moot to begin with.

People were talking about her freedom of speech, and that's why I wrote that.


As a matter of fact, they are. That's what makes this country great to begin with.

No. A traitor can't just say, "Well, that was my first amendment right," and get off.



Valid opinion.

Glad you think so.



No one "deserves" America except citizens thereof. She is a citizen, and has as much rights to "America" as any other citizen.

She doesn't deserve citizenship is all I'm saying.



Which he has every right to be.



Very unamerican of you.

No, it isn't. Banishment is a strong punishment, I must admit, but that is what she deserves.


Yes, which is horrible.



You're concern means very little, nor are you capable of determing who is and is not an "American". I could levy the same epiteth upon yourself.

Defending traitors and liars against those who call them on it. That's the American way. I never said that I had any of that kind of authority. And no, you couldn't call me that, because I love being here. And I'm not a damn traitor.



Replies in bold.

1. Jane Fonda is a traitor.

Your opinion, not the courts.


2. Jane Fonda is a communist.


Who cares (US Constitution Amendment I, second clause).


3. Jane Fonda cannot act.


Personal opinion. I do think she was good in 9 to 5; which is the only movie I ever liked that she was in.


4. Jane Fonda should be prosecuted under the Patriot Act.


Violation of US Constitution, Article I, Section 9, 3rd Paragraph.


5. The Patriot Act should be made bigger.


Why?


6. The man who spit tobacco juice in Jane Fonda's face should be given the Congressional Medal of Honor for defending America from a virulent communist.

Violation of US Constitution, Amendment I, first and second clauses.


7. This ban in Kentucky should be expanded to all fifty states.


The state hasn't banned it, a private theater owner has banned it in his theater. Banning the movement nationwide would constitute a violation of the US Constitution, Amendment I, second clause.


8. Jane Fonda's book should be banned in all fifty states as well.

You just said that.

(Wonders why so many "Americans" are so vehemently opposed to the textual document which defines "America".)

(Wonders why so many "Americans" are so vehemently opposed to the textual document which defines "America".)
America means something very different to them than it does to you, I, and other posters on this thread. To them, America is defined in terms of oppositional identities (America is not communist, America is not "Islamo-fascist," etc). Thus, preserving America against those forces is more important than what actually created the United States as a nation and a country. Funny how that works out.

Amusing.

I agree with you in general concerning this thread, but your history is spotty at best.

The USS Maine exploded as a result of technical engine failure. The American press (led by William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer) aroused public opinion by using questionable information to blame the bombing on the Spanish. President McKinley's hands were more or less tied, given that basically the entire country had been whipped into a frenzy. It's also questionable whether this war was a bad thing. I, in fact, probably think that it was net better than any of the other options.

I don't understand how a country taking actions which it perceives to be in its own interests are treasonous - as happened in every instance you cited. They may have been morally questionable, but certainly not treasonous.

The US was not responsible for Salvador Allende's assassination.

America bashing is a cliche, and no more accurate than the blind American patriotism seen elsewhere on this thread.

Nice pontificating there, junior.

Now before you go on to convince yourself that black is indeed white, let me add something I didn't think was necessary before.

MY government had SOMETHING to do and SOME complicity in The Allende murder, and certainly COULD have chosen to ignore a load of yellow journalism which turned a malfunction into a mine.

I do not "bash" America, I attempt to balance those who can never seem to find a single fault in any action my government takes. Forgive me for not presenting the niceties and details in a thread where they wouldn't be believed or appreciated anyway.

I'm sure this will do nothing be further enrage those of you that hate Fonda, but how many of you knew she is a christian now?

wnd.com Jan 2000 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17333)

Perhaps we're all ignoring the obvious here. Monster-in-Law sucks. THAT is why is should be banned. Also J-Lo. Everything she did post-OUT OF SIGHT should be banned and stricken from the annals of history. Poor Michael Vartan, I really hoped he had a shot at a decent career.

Defending traitors and liars against those who call them on it. That's the American way. I never said that I had any of that kind of authority. And no, you couldn't call me that, because I love being here. And I'm not a damn traitor.

Perhapse you should read Thomas Paine's "Common Sense"; the pamphlet which urged the colonists in the Revolutionary War.... you know, all those "traitors" who made up the colonial forces, and the Continental Congress, to betray the King? Giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and entering into war against the King (AKA Treason)....

This is why we have a definition of "Treason" far different then the one you suppose.... Being an American, and entering into a principle and concept of free government comes with more than a price than mere bloodshed, but self-sacrifice of even your own ideologies, to favor those of opposing ones when they are presented in danger... Much like the quote in my signature.

I urge people ot to see this movie because it has Jennifer Lopez in it. Please don't encourage her further.

How the hell did this thread get this long?

I urge people not to see the movie because it's a romantic comedy, and romantic comidies suck, unless they have zombies...

I urge people not to see the movie because it's a romantic comedy, and romantic comidies suck, unless they have zombies...

It has bloody J-Lo in it! You'd think she'd be a bigger deterrent than old kooky Jane Fonda...

Nice pontificating there, junior.

Now before you go on to convince yourself that black is indeed white, let me add something I didn't think was necessary before.

MY government had SOMETHING to do and SOME complicity in The Allende murder, and certainly COULD have chosen to ignore a load of yellow journalism which turned a malfunction into a mine.

I do not "bash" America, I attempt to balance those who can never seem to find a single fault in any action my government takes. Forgive me for not presenting the niceties and details in a thread where they wouldn't be believed or appreciated anyway.
Condescension doesn't really help your argument. ESPECIALLY when you don't refute much of the historical analysis given in my earlier post with any warranted analysis.

Some degree of complicitly is no standard for levelling the type of accusation you do in your first post. Doing nothing in the face of an action is by definition complicity. So, by your standard, the United States is responsible for everything wrong in the world now because we're not doing anything about most of them.

The public pressure on the government after the Maine was impossible to resist, and probably shouldn't have been. See most accounts of American history written since then.

Your post was not balanced. It was a one-sided polemic. That's no better than a right-wing polemic. History should be respected.

America means something very different to them than it does to you, I, and other posters on this thread. To them, America is defined in terms of oppositional identities (America is not communist, America is not "Islamo-fascist," etc). Thus, preserving America against those forces is more important than what actually created the United States as a nation and a country. Funny how that works out.

And of course, by giving into the concept of defining a system of free-government by oppositional identity, to defend requires you to give up what defines the identity the government exists at in the first place; indeed, surrendering said identity in the first place, creating a precedent that places your opposition in the first place in danger....

Thomas Paine must have been a genius; he understood the situation and cost of free government more-so than these people.

If someone can be "banished" or even advocatedly "banished" merely for possession of oppositional identity than that which is adhered to; then precedent is set where identity towards ideology can be grounds for banishment. Thus religion, economic ideals, speech; all become grounds for banishment, and oppression; including the danger of any particular belief you hold, as long as there is enough people in possession of an oppositional identity, to "vote you out"...

Yes, millions of people have died and shed blood so that others, or even themselves, later, breing up opposing views.... And it appears its just find and dandy, to urinate all over documents and ideals created by the blood of American Patriots, in defending American Patriotism?

Regardless of their talk, in the exercize of my First Amendment rights, under clause 2 and 3... I can rightly classify them as hypocrits.... And indeed as bad, if not worse, than Fonda herself....

Makes me wonder, about all these epiteths upon Fonda these people purport; and her "underdeserving" of such... Makes me wonder why they themselves believe they are "deserving" of the same?

"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." - Thomas Paine

How little the small minds of today, understand the true price of freedom.

"Those brutal North Vietnamese?"

Fact check:
They weren't the ones who massacred entire villages because there might have been "enemy sympathizers" there.

They weren't the ones who used napalm on civilian targets.

They aren't the ones torturing prisoners in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.

They weren't the ones who started a war in a foreign country that the people they were "liberating" didn't want (I'm thinking of more than one war).

America is not blameless. The Vietnamese are no more brutal than we are. They're just as human as anyone else.

America has done both good and bad things. So did the North Vietnamese. Take off your ideological blinders.

Sometimes you have to destroy the village to save it.

In the fog of war, it's hard to tell the difference between the enemy and an innocent civilian. But there were some soldiers in Vietnam that had a cavalier attitude towards killing.

Yeah, torture is wrong, but they did far worse.

Yeah, the Iraq War and the War in Vietnam were both wrong. It's wrong to impose your system of gov't on others just because you're some big superpower. But that doesn't mean that there aren't Vietnamese and Iraqis who genuinely want(ed) western democracy. It just isn't worth it.

I do think the North Vietnamese are more brutal than we are, but maybe that's just bias on my part.

Can you tell me any good that North Vietnam did?

by all means continue to post on this thread if you like, but the same arguments keep getting repeated over and over so perhaps people might want to save themselves 5 minutes and just reread some of the earlier posts.

Condescension doesn't really help your argument. ESPECIALLY when you don't refute much of the historical analysis given in my earlier post with any warranted analysis.

Some degree of complicitly is no standard for levelling the type of accusation you do in your first post. Doing nothing in the face of an action is by definition complicity. So, by your standard, the United States is responsible for everything wrong in the world now because we're not doing anything about most of them.

The public pressure on the government after the Maine was impossible to resist, and probably shouldn't have been. See most accounts of American history written since then.

Your post was not balanced. It was a one-sided polemic. That's no better than a right-wing polemic. History should be respected.

Okay, look, William F. Buckley, you can weave sophistry and history all you want, but it's not ever going to convince a neo-con nutjob that he's lost all touch with reality. Yes, history should be respected, but it never has been by the Right. You honestly think historical diligence is important to the people you're trying to prove wrong? Guess again.

You get their attention with my post and then I'll let the ivory tower types like you explain the details when, by some miracle, someone asks for them.

And you're one to talk about condescension.

Perhapse you should read Thomas Paine's "Common Sense"; the pamphlet which urged the colonists in the Revolutionary War.... you know, all those "traitors" who made up the colonial forces, and the Continental Congress, to betray the King? Giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and entering into war against the King (AKA Treason)....

This is why we have a definition of "Treason" far different then the one you suppose.... Being an American, and entering into a principle and concept of free government comes with more than a price than mere bloodshed, but self-sacrifice of even your own ideologies, to favor those of opposing ones when they are presented in danger... Much like the quote in my signature.

I have read "Common Sense," and it is truly a brilliant book. I'm glad those great men rose up and realized that the oppression must end, but you cannot even compare them to Jane Fonda.

1. Sometimes you have to destroy the village to save it.

2. Yeah, torture is wrong, but they did far worse.

3. I do think the North Vietnamese are more brutal than we are, but maybe that's just bias on my part.

4. Can you tell me any good that North Vietnam did?

1. Ah, the George Orwell defense. I suppose "war is peace", too?

2. "They did far worse" has been used to excuse a whole litany of horrors since the dawn of time. If that kind of childish justification makes you feel better, then you deserve nothing but pity.

3. Ya think?!?

4. Well, I'm no war scholar -- I'll let Deleuze have that role -- but I can tell you that they didn't indiscriminately carpet bomb an entire nation and accept ghastly amounts of innocents lost in "collateral damage" as worthwhile, honorable and liberating goals. Whose sin is worse? And does it even matter?

Good for this guy banning Jane Fonda in his theaters. He has the right to do so. Heck, my father boycotts all of Jane Fonda's movies.

I have read "Common Sense," and it is truly a brilliant book. I'm glad those great men rose up and realized that the oppression must end, but you cannot even compare them to Jane Fonda.

No, but I can espouse their ideology, being that they defined what "American" ideology is in the first place. And planted the seeds, which eventually culminated in the foundational principles of this country as a whole.

These principles are "christianity"

They aren't "capitalism" or "anti-communism"

They simply are freedom and liberty.... And to "guard" this, you must even guard those of your enemy, and those who oppose your views.

That is what makes "Common Sense" and the resultant "America" and a whole what it is. If you give up those principles, even denying them from the enemy, you do far more damage against "America" than any outside enemy, or even some "Traitor" ever could.

Condescension doesn't really help your argument. ESPECIALLY when you don't refute much of the historical analysis given in my earlier post with any warranted analysis.

Some degree of complicitly is no standard for levelling the type of accusation you do in your first post. Doing nothing in the face of an action is by definition complicity. So, by your standard, the United States is responsible for everything wrong in the world now because we're not doing anything about most of them. *snip*

I applaud your respect for history.

Please do not whitewash it re US involvement in Chile.

Even the CIA's own public report on Chile (http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/chile/) makes a fair case for our significant role in the assassination of Allende. At that is just what is publicly admitted by the CIA itself.

Sometimes you have to destroy the village to save it.
*snip*

:headbang:

You must be being deliberately ironic and provocative.

You cannot really endorse something so inane, immoral, and historically disproven.

Again, this is not black and white.

The Vietnam War was wrong -- in many ways, in many senses of the word.

Our soldiers were betrayed in how they were used by some military commanders and politicians.

Our soldiers were also betrayed by some of the public that villified them.

Some soldiers did actively lie and spread propaganda to support the war. They deserved to be called liars and worse. But they were a very small minority.

Jane Fonda was one of thousands upon thousands that opposed an unjust and ill-waged war. At times she stood shoulder-to-shoulder with our soldiers in doing so. At other times she denegrated them. She deserves some praise and heavy, heavy scorn. I can understand those who think she is more villian than anything else. But that does not excuse false witness, unfounded accusations, threats, etc.

As Zooke admitted, Ms. Fonda is a primarily convenient scapegoat for those who blame opponents of the war for what happened to our soldiers.

A better target might be those that sent them to the wrong war, who lied about it, and who failed to support them when they returned.

Thanks TC. I had to get away from this discussion to get my emotions under control. Let me clarify just a few points.

What proof do I have that she celebrated the shooting down and killing of
American pilots? She posed for pictures, laughing, clapping, and looking down the sight, of an anti-aircraft gun with the VC. They weren't using that thing for lawn furniture...it was a weapon used against citizens of our country. As for defending their own country, we got messed up in a civil war...one can say that we were there helping Vietnamese defend their country and way of life.

No one has said that Fonda's books should be burned enmasse. Eutrusca said that he would burn her book if he owned it, but that he wouldn't shell out the money to buy one. In so saying, he is exercising his right to boycott any of her works, film or book.

Fonda's protest of the war is not what earned her the nickname Hanoi Jane. It was her public and vocal support of a faction that we were actively at war with. She didn't limit herself to protesting the war, though. What earned her so much hatred was the way she persecuted our troops and called on others to do the same. She took her disagreement with a government action and focused her hate rhetoric on our troops. It was her personal attack on our GIs and moral support of their enemy, not her anti-war sentiments, that rightfully earned her their scorn.

A theatre owner in Kentucky who suffered because of her and others like her, has refused to show her film in his threatres. He has the right to do that every bit as much as she has the right to spout hateful lies about our vets. At least he is justified in doing so. She was just mean spirited and vindictive. We also have the right to refuse to waste our valuable time in reading any more drivel that flows out of her mouth or to spend a penny on any project that she has had a hand in. I have heard all that I want to from that woman.

There everyone goes with the freedom of speech crap. Are traitors protected by the Constitution, too? Also, to the one who said that if you don't like it, don't watch it, you don't even have to worry about that, because no one is watching it. It's getting awful reviews. And she deserves it. I am still angry about what she did. She does not deserve to live in America with us. The guy who banned it is a veteran. He served his country unlike she, and he was apalled by her actions thirty years ago. Certain things cannot be forgiven, and she should be banished. She disrespected our boys on the ground. She spread lies about them and attacked them. She has pure hatred in her heart for the men who answered their nation's call. As far as I'm concerned, she is not an American.

I grew up in the Vietnam era. As a female, I'm ashamed to claim Jane Fonda in with my gender. This is not about HER freedom, but about the freedoms she jeopardized by her treasonous behavior to our country especially the men who bravely went to Vietnam and didn't get "daddy" to ship them to Canada or Europe. Your freedom of speech to defend her is your right, but Farrisland has made an exceptional point in all aspects. Thank you to all who see this woman as she truly is, and, to those who don't, hey, hey, That's your right too. Just hope you are grateful you're not being FORCED against your will to speak a foreign language like German or Vietnamese, and, now, "Saddameze" because men have chosen to defend our country over the decades.

Thank you to all who see this woman as she truly is, and, to those who don't, hey, hey, That's your right too. Just hope you are grateful you're not being FORCED against your will to speak a foreign language like German or Vietnamese, and, now, "Saddameze" because men have chosen to defend our country over the decades.
Has anybody here said that the US should let itself be taken over?
No.
You are ascribing a view to your opponents that they do not have.

Give me a Z! Z
Give me an O! O
Give me an O! O
Give me a K! K
Give me an E! E

What's that spell?

ZOOKE!

Nice Post Zooke! Keep it up :)

Most people call that posing for a photograph.

Well, I've always been different from most people. I see it as an inexcusable act of treason.



Article III, Section 3; Amendment IV, V, VI, VII, and thereby IX.

In fact, I have read Article III, Section 3, and I am well aware of the definition of treason. And I never said I had such authority to charge her and decide her punishment. I just suggested banishment.


US Constitution Preamble; Article IV, Section 2; Amendments I and IX.

I remember memorizing the Preamble in elementary. It's well written. About Article IV, Section 2, yes, she is entitled to those things, but she doesn't deserve it. Treason isn't protected by the First Amendment. I'd like to hear some traitor, upon being charged, say it was his First Amendment right to do so. About the Ninth Amendment, so I can't deny her rights. I never said I could. I wish I could, but I never said that.





Your opinion, not the courts.

I never said it was the court's opinion. Last time I checked, I was entitled to my own opinion. On second thought, it wouldn't do much good if she was charged now. It'd be a media frenzy, and she'd become some sort of martyr.



Amendment XIV

Yes, unfortunately, she is a citizen.



James Madison opposed Govenor Patrick Henry's push to include a Bill of Rights in the Virginia Constitution [May, 1776].... He appologized for his acts at that time, later, realizing their importance, and the impropriety of his acts and arguments of the time. In 1788 he was part of the move to put those same enumerations in the Federal Constitution. Yet, Madison later served as President, and is considered both a Founding Father and a Patriot.... People change... my son, people can change.

Yes, people can change, but they could at least apologize for their wrong doing. Jane Fonda never apologized sincerely. Her apologies are crap. It's like if I hit you in the head. I can't (or at least shouldn't) say, "Well, I'm sorry if my hand caused you trouble," and expect you to forgive me. People should be grownups and admit to mistakes and offer genuine apologies.



Replies in bold.

:headbang:

You must be being deliberately ironic and provocative.

You cannot really endorse something so inane, immoral, and historically disproven.

My point was that our soldiers didn't have an evil mindset. They were trying to save Vietnam. They weren't like, "Woo hoo! I get to kill these yellow Commie bastards!"

It's funny how I've never written anything mean or patronizing to you, and this is the respect I get. I suppose I should be happy to get it.

I grew up in the Vietnam era. As a female, I'm ashamed to claim Jane Fonda in with my gender. This is not about HER freedom, but about the freedoms she jeopardized by her treasonous behavior to our country especially the men who bravely went to Vietnam and didn't get "daddy" to ship them to Canada or Europe. Your freedom of speech to defend her is your right, but Farrisland has made an exceptional point in all aspects. Thank you to all who see this woman as she truly is, and, to those who don't, hey, hey, That's your right too. Just hope you are grateful you're not being FORCED against your will to speak a foreign language like German or Vietnamese, and, now, "Saddameze" because men have chosen to defend our country over the decades.

The point, is moot, because the point is meaningless in contrast to being an American itself...

Unlike Farrisland, I actuall have served in the armed forces. And I took an oath, and still uphold the primary clause of that oath (to uphold the Constitution).... Which means upholding that PRINCIPLE itself which exists in the Constitution.... Regardless of what Jane Fonda has said and done, has no bearing on her as an American Citizen.... She had not been indicted for any crimes, and it is my duty, as an American, to consider her innocent. I will not advocate banishment for a fellow citizen, nor will I bash them merely based upon the principles they espouse... I do not agree with her principles and beliefs... But she has rights to them, and as a former officer, once bound in oath, and still bound in principle to the foundation of this country, I will defend her rights, and liberties to those.

IMHO Farrislands views are far more dangerous to this country, that anyone standing on an enemy AA cannon, to anyone who would "protest a war", to anyone who considers themselves communist... Because the others may be at ideological odds to what America itself means... so is Farrisland.... the only difference is Farrisland acts in a manner whereby he attempts to convince others (falsely so) that he is American... Yet cannot in actual deed stand by one single principle this nation is founded upon.

At least with an outside clearly labled "Enemy" one can fight readily in the field with them.... What, on the other hand, are you to do with an "enemy" who is masqueraded as a "Patriot"? What is the point in trying to protect "freedom" at the price or removing those very freedoms? How can you justify your own possession of natural rights, at the denial, or want of denial of those of another?

Unlike Mrs. Fonda, who clearly was opposed to American systems, and could be easily classified are roled into an enemy, yourself and others would, with deceit and malicious intent, tear the country apart from the inside... Under the guise of being "patriots" to America...

If you can't even guard the liberties of your enemy; you have no business guarding those liberties in the first place... You might as well admit you have no faith in them to begin with; considering that faith you do possess is self-serving, and conceited. Bound to nothing but an inconsistent view of liberty. More than willing to remove them from others you oppose...

If I set about the idea that natural rights as enumerated can be removed, even if for Treason; then I create an enviroment where another can remove my own, for any other crime... Because once precedent is found, it stands... It is a vile beast, this "precedent" is, that would consume its own "master" and creator. It has no "friends"... And consumes all in its path.

That is the wonder of what is "America" a foundation built upon the natural rights of man... these rights aren't "Granted" by an entity, as they exist, they exist in nature... By our very existance... And cannot be removed, except by deceit and treachery. People are "granted" freedom of speech; they have it in lieu of their very existence. People aren't "granted" protection from self-incrimination; they have it by their very existance.... The enumeration of rights, is not their creation, it is the restatement of those rights which exist outside of the order... And the enumeration of rights does not explicitly limit all rights to those enumerated... But indeed includes those rights which exist, by nature, which still have yet to be enumerated.

The way I see it, the treasonous **** deserves everything she gets. The recent incident where a Vietnam vet spat in her face-I wish I woulda thought of that!
Now, I'm not a Vietnam vet and am not, as of yet, a member of the US military. However, as the son of a man who served valiantly in 'Nam, I am disgusted by her. Whatever bad happens to her is perfectly fine by me. If her film comeback goes down the crapper, good. If every copy of her book went up in flames, good.
:sniper:
Can ya tell I hold much contempt for the turncoat weasel?

iTT was hard to thunk of spitted in somoneS face?

ThreeThreeThree']iTT was hard to thunk of spitted in somoneS face?

Just out of curiosity,

Is english your first or second language Three?

1. Ah, the George Orwell defense. I suppose "war is peace", too?

2. "They did far worse" has been used to excuse a whole litany of horrors since the dawn of time. If that kind of childish justification makes you feel better, then you deserve nothing but pity.

3. Ya think?!?

4. Well, I'm no war scholar -- I'll let Deleuze have that role -- but I can tell you that they didn't indiscriminately carpet bomb an entire nation and accept ghastly amounts of innocents lost in "collateral damage" as worthwhile, honorable and liberating goals. Whose sin is worse? And does it even matter?

I'd really appreciate it if you treated me like a fucking person! Everybody has been such an asshole to me, but they know who they are.

1. Read my later post. I defended that already.

2. Some say a sin is a sin, but I disagree. I think there are degrees of badness.

3. I won't even answer that.

4. First of all, who the hell is proud of Vietnam? And secondly,those North Vietnamese took our men as prisoners. They beat them and mutilated them and starved them for being "war criminals". And they also oppress their people. Their sin is far worse. And it does matter, because I won't compare my country to some Communist dictatorship.

Just out of curiosity,

Is english your first or second language Three?

wYH?

Yeah, the Iraq War [was] wrong.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

There everyone goes with the freedom of speech crap. Are traitors protected by the Constitution, too?

I agree that Fonda is a traitor to America, but the law does not agree. She was never convicted of any crime, so yes, free speech applies to her.

ThreeThreeThree']wYH?

mostly because of how you spell. I was just curious anyway

I grew up in the Vietnam era. As a female, I'm ashamed to claim Jane Fonda in with my gender. This is not about HER freedom, but about the freedoms she jeopardized by her treasonous behavior to our country especially the men who bravely went to Vietnam and didn't get "daddy" to ship them to Canada or Europe. Your freedom of speech to defend her is your right, but Farrisland has made an exceptional point in all aspects. Thank you to all who see this woman as she truly is, and, to those who don't, hey, hey, That's your right too. Just hope you are grateful you're not being FORCED against your will to speak a foreign language like German or Vietnamese, and, now, "Saddameze" because men have chosen to defend our country over the decades.

You wouldn't be speaking Vietnamese, as the Vietmanese people were not invading your country. You maybe, would be speaking German, if Hitler hadn't been taken out, yes. But you attacked Vietnam, they did not attempt to invade your country. If you had been defending against an attack from them, fine, that could be a valid point, but you were not. You wouldn't be speakin 'Saddameze' (I'm pretty sure that is not what they speak in Iraq anyway...) either as you also invaded Iraq too. Not invading a country, does not equal their country invading yours.

And, feel free to tell me if I'm wrong, but these 'brave' men were drafted into service. There was no choosing about it, the Iraq war yes, there was an element of choice. But even in that war 'choice' is a difficult thing to ascertain, because not everyone in the army or the reserves wanted to fight in taht particular war.

I'm not going to get involved in the rest of this argument as I am not informed enough to make valid comment.

~~V

The point, is moot, because the point is meaningless in contrast to being an American itself...

Unlike Farrisland, I actuall have served in the armed forces. And I took an oath, and still uphold the primary clause of that oath (to uphold the Constitution).... Which means upholding that PRINCIPLE itself which exists in the Constitution.... Regardless of what Jane Fonda has said and done, has no bearing on her as an American Citizen.... She had not been indicted for any crimes, and it is my duty, as an American, to consider her innocent. I will not advocate banishment for a fellow citizen, nor will I bash them merely based upon the principles they espouse... I do not agree with her principles and beliefs... But she has rights to them, and as a former officer, once bound in oath, and still bound in principle to the foundation of this country, I will defend her rights, and liberties to those.

IMHO Farrislands views are far more dangerous to this country, that anyone standing on an enemy AA cannon, to anyone who would "protest a war", to anyone who considers themselves communist... Because the others may be at ideological odds to what America itself means... so is Farrisland.... the only difference is Farrisland acts in a manner whereby he attempts to convince others (falsely so) that he is American... Yet cannot in actual deed stand by one single principle this nation is founded upon.

At least with an outside clearly labled "Enemy" one can fight readily in the field with them.... What, on the other hand, are you to do with an "enemy" who is masqueraded as a "Patriot"? What is the point in trying to protect "freedom" at the price or removing those very freedoms? How can you justify your own possession of natural rights, at the denial, or want of denial of those of another?

Unlike Mrs. Fonda, who clearly was opposed to American systems, and could be easily classified are roled into an enemy, yourself and others would, with deceit and malicious intent, tear the country apart from the inside... Under the guise of being "patriots" to America...

If you can't even guard the liberties of your enemy; you have no business guarding those liberties in the first place... You might as well admit you have no faith in them to begin with; considering that faith you do possess is self-serving, and conceited. Bound to nothing but an inconsistent view of liberty. More than willing to remove them from others you oppose...

If I set about the idea that natural rights as enumerated can be removed, even if for Treason; then I create an enviroment where another can remove my own, for any other crime... Because once precedent is found, it stands... It is a vile beast, this "precedent" is, that would consume its own "master" and creator. It has no "friends"... And consumes all in its path.

That is the wonder of what is "America" a foundation built upon the natural rights of man... these rights aren't "Granted" by an entity, as they exist, they exist in nature... By our very existance... And cannot be removed, except by deceit and treachery. People are "granted" freedom of speech; they have it in lieu of their very existence. People aren't "granted" protection from self-incrimination; they have it by their very existance.... The enumeration of rights, is not their creation, it is the restatement of those rights which exist outside of the order... And the enumeration of rights does not explicitly limit all rights to those enumerated... But indeed includes those rights which exist, by nature, which still have yet to be enumerated.

Are you kidding me? First of all, I don't serve because I'm too young, and I get scared when bullets fly. I'll admit that. I do love my country and the Constitution, just not traitors. My faith in these things is not "self-serving and conceited," it's true. It comes from reading history and seeing how America, despite its faults, can do a lot of good. It comes from having a disabled veteran as a father. And how dare you impugn my integrity? I'm just as American as anyone here. (And I'm not a "he.")

mostly because of how you spell. I was just curious anyway

sout UP!

ThreeThreeThree']sout UP!

Well excuse me for being curious. And that is shut up.

That I can agree with, merely because you're military and a party to a conflict, especially in light of Post-WW2 conflicts, where the US has "gone to war" for no really acceptable reason (in my book)... I've been a party to conflict I personally considered pointless... And I've launched ordinance at "enemies", and I disagreed with having to perform those acts.

The Chicken-Hawks in here my shout all they want... Their opinion means little to me. I've actually carried a weapon into combat... They, on the other hand, bleed yellow.

Well excuse me for being curious. And that is shut up.

NOe yuo shout up!

ThreeThreeThree']NOe yuo shout up!

IS THIS SHOUTING UP ENOUGH?!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LMAO! :D

IS THIS SHOUTING UP ENOUGH?!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LMAO! :D

noe yuo AGian tallked

ThreeThreeThree']noe yuo AGian tallked

you told me to shout up not shut up.

you told me to shout up not shut up.

yOU DIDENt

Well excuse me for being curious. And that is shut up.
Ah, Corny, I think the kid is a troll.

Ah, Corny, I think the kid is a troll.

Don't poke the troll!

~~V

Ah, Corny, I think the kid is a troll.

Oh I agree 100% but comeon, the temptation was just too great :D

That I can agree with, merely because you're military and a party to a conflict, especially in light of Post-WW2 conflicts, where the US has "gone to war" for no really acceptable reason (in my book)... I've been a party to conflict I personally considered pointless... And I've launched ordinance at "enemies", and I disagreed with having to perform those acts.

The Chicken-Hawks in here my shout all they want... Their opinion means little to me. I've actually carried a weapon into combat... They, on the other hand, bleed yellow.

I'm not a chickenhawk. I told you I'm antiwar. But what does it matter? It's more fun to insult me for things I haven't said.

I agree that Fonda is a traitor to America, but the law does not agree. She was never convicted of any crime, so yes, free speech applies to her.

Correction...Fonda was never tried for the crime of treason. If you compare her actions and words to those of Iva Toguri D'Aquino (Tokyo Rose) who was tried and convicted of treason, then you would know that she did commit prosecutable treason. Why wasn't she prosecuted? Her father's influence and an attempt to not further flame the fires of social discontent? Likely, though we'll never know for sure. The vets have pretty much chalked it up to another screwing that they got.

She did exercise her right to free speech...at the expense of our vets. Just because you can do it legally doesn't make it acceptable or forgiveable.

Ah, Corny, I think the kid is a troll.

I thunk s!o toe!

Ah, Corny, I think the kid is a troll.

Corny...read my sig. And thanks for the cheer. You're a dear. I'm a poet and my feet show it.

I agree with the sig Zooke. But here's a question? Why are we on the NS General forums then when there are so many idiots posting BS?

I find you quite hilarious, too, myself. To say Jane Fonda was right and you'd do those things she did. To defend those brutal North Vietnamese against us. That's what's funny. And don't worry, I've got so many patronizing replies that I've lost count.

Alabama, eh? Haha.

Our troops were just as brutal, if not moreso (not all of them, though). It seems to me that you're picturing our military as an unstained force of perfection that couldn't possibly do anything wrong. I bet I'm not far off by that guess.

I agree with the sig Zooke. But here's a question? Why are we on the NS General forums then when there are so many idiots posting BS?

Heh, we don't get BS all the time ;).

Corny...read my sig. And thanks for the cheer. You're a dear. I'm a poet and my feet show it.

Your sig... It speaks the truth!

Are you kidding me? First of all, I don't serve because I'm too young, and I get scared when bullets fly. I'll admit that. I do love my country and the Constitution, just not traitors. My faith in these things is not "self-serving and conceited," it's true. It comes from reading history and seeing how America, despite its faults, can do a lot of good. It comes from having a disabled veteran as a father. And how dare you impugn my integrity? I'm just as American as anyone here. (And I'm not a "he.")

If you have valid grounds to question Fonda, and swear epiteths on her... I can swear the same upon you... You're the one creating the precedent, not me...

I'll impugn you're integrity, because it is worth very little in my book. And counter-productive to the principles America stands for. Hows that, IMHO, your very OPINIONS, as misguided as they are, are far more dangerous to America as country, than a million Jane Fonda-s... And far more treasonist.... Because they are a commission of treason against the principles this country stands for... Without those principles, there is no America... There is nothing to fight for....

Oh yes, it's easy to point fingers... "They are a TRAITOR... WE SHOULD BANISH THEM..."... At least I have not levied such snide remarks upon your head, as deserving in principle as you are of having such levied against your own perverted principles...

When I fought and served, I didn't merely serve for my liberty, or the liberty of others back home waving flags.... I served for those who sat in picket lines, against our governments involvement in those conflicts... I served for people who were over in those countries providing medical aid... I served for the principles the constitution stood for, for what "America(tm)" stands for... I even served for Jane Fonda....

It's obvious that the character of "America" has degraded to the point at which people now have to "deserve" those things we were born with... I thank those protestors... sure, they may be misguded sometimes, but at least, in their own way, they cared.... I can say far more for them than I can for those pathetic weezles waging their flags like they actual care about anything....

I'm still a vertibrate...I still have a backbone... If the US were trying Saddam, I'd expect him to afforded every single right that I would enjoy in a trial... You know why? Because I have a backbone, because I have a principle... Because I am an American.... Can you say the same thing? If Jane Fonda were tried, I'd expect her to be afforded every right enjoyed by every other American... And I would be in the face of anyone who argued otherwise.... Why? Because I am an American, and I believe, HEART, MIND AND SOUL in the principles this country was founded upon.... I'd be up there beating everyone in Washington with the Constitution till their ears bled...

I agree with the sig Zooke. But here's a question? Why are we on the NS General forums then when there are so many idiots posting BS?Because this is General...

and I'm starting to like [ns]threethreethree... kinds hopes he tells me to Shout up. :D

The movie is on the borderline of 'sucks' and 'ok'... I watched it last nite... Jane Fonda sucked... like she was so phoney that it wasn't even funny. J. Lo was a bit better I think... the ending was really stupid i thought.. the only things i like about it was some of the stuff they did but they weren't really funny though... i guess it was the 'revenge' of J. Lo. I think the movie producers should have gotten 102 Dalmations's Cruella De'vil AKA Glenn Close to play the Jane Fonda's part. I think, with her experience w/ the Dalmations movies, it would be a more realistic character.... the Cruella De'vil laugh is much more realistic than the Jane Fonda laugh.

Correction...Fonda was never tried for the crime of treason. If you compare her actions and words to those of Iva Toguri D'Aquino (Tokyo Rose) who was tried and convicted of treason, then you would know that she did commit prosecutable treason. Why wasn't she prosecuted? Her father's influence and an attempt to not further flame the fires of social discontent? Likely, though we'll never know for sure. The vets have pretty much chalked it up to another screwing that they got.

She did exercise her right to free speech...at the expense of our vets. Just because you can do it legally doesn't make it acceptable or forgiveable.

Toyko rose was pardoned, so if you want to use her as the example, Fonda should be pardoned of anything she did. Which still doesn't constitute as treason.

Btw, Tekania, please dont post until you have read a whole thread. You rehashed many things that had already been covered.