My grandfather was over the other day (he’s a rather big-time Republican) and my mother and him were having a political discussion about the 2004 election, and Jane Fonda came into the conversation and he said, “I’ll always believe until the day I die, that that woman should be in jail” And it just struck me, that so many people in this nation absolutely hate this women. It’s astounding to me that people can be so misguided on the events surrounding Jane Fonda. I know we’ve talked about her before, but I still think a lot of things were not talked about and/or not talked about enough. So I’m here to put this debate back in place…anyway, I’m going to tell you what I think…

No one can prove that because of her a solider was beaten. No one can prove she gave aid and comfort to the enemy. I’m waiting for sufficient proof not made up stories that have been deemed false. Most all Republicans will just do whatever it takes to drag this women’s name into the mud. It’s pathetic, really.

The most famous attack the veterans use against her are the fact she sat at an anti-aircraft gun. The pictures themselves are shocking. But there is no sufficient proof that these pictures gave any aid to the enemy or killed even one American solider. Furthermore, she has apologized for these pictures. If you cannot accept that she made a mistake and that she has apologized for it, then you are in need of some medication. To attack her for a mistake she made over 40 years go, is just unethical.

Another attack they use against her is that they say she claimed there was “No torture against American soldiers” which is not true. She claimed that the soldiers she met had not been tortured, starved or brainwashed.

"I'm quite sure that there were incidents of torture...but the pilots who were saying it was the policy of the Vietnamese and that it was systematic, I believe that's a lie." –Jane Fonda

James Stockdale who was a Vice Presidential canadaite varifies her stance, being a POW himself saying that, no more than 10% of US pilots in captivity received more than 90% of the torture, usually for acts of resistance.

Just because she went to North Vietnam, does not mean she supported their government. She used their radio to warn them that we would be bombing innocent targets in the Dikes. She went to Vietnam to end the war and to create an impact on our government. She has never stated that she supported the North Vietnamese government. She has never said what they were doing was correct. All she did was go to North Vietnam to try and stop us from killing the innocent in North Vietnam.

And the pilots she attacked on the radio, well, many of them were war criminals. Whenever they would drop bombs, what would they kill? Innocent civilians. We had no right to be in Vietnam, let alone kill the innocent and target the innocents with our bombs. She, I doubt, said that all the pilots were criminals, but many were and the ones who were going to bomb the Dikes, WERE criminals.

She has told Americans why she went to Vietnam. To stop the innocents from being killed in the bombing of the dikes in North Vietnam, where almost no military bases were. She felt that that was wrong of our government, period. You can't say that just because she went to North Vietnam, that she supported their cause against South Vietnam. She supported us leaving Vietnam and not killing the innocents.

Late in the war, the United States wanted to bomb the dikes in North Vietnam. It included the Red River Delta that protected several hundred thousand people from having their land overrun by water. The Red River Delta provided the majority of the food to North Vietnam, and the destruction of the farmland and the people within would have starved the nation's population and army. When Jane Fonda got wind of this, she decided to take a stand and stop it from occurring. She did not want to see thousands die, because of us being involved in a wrong war. She went to Vietnam to stop that, NOT support the North Vietnamese government. That's why she went, to protect the innocent, not to support North Vietnam government.

Joan Baez was also a political activist with similar views, but no one is so angry with her now. I think it's because Jane Fonda was more arrogant and anti-American in her protestations than the others of that time, and people don't forget that.

Originally posted by Brooks
Joan Baez was also a political activist with similar views, but no one is so angry with her now. I think it's because Jane Fonda was more arrogant and anti-American in her protestations than the others of that time, and people don't forget that.

Yeah, exactly. People may get annoyed at loud-mouthed celebrities that think they know something about world issues, but when you go the extra step of hanging out with our supposed enemies, it's hard to come to grips with that, regardless of whether she caused any actual harm. It's sort of like giving your country a big middle finger.

I don't, and never will respect her in any fashion.

I don't think OD was asking people to respect her. I think he was trying to point out that 99% of what people hate her for is hyperbole put out by people who want everyone to hate her.

If you go to urban legends you will find that most of the things she has been accused of never happened.

As for her anti war stance, one can respect or not respect her for that.

I was against the vietnam war but in my oppinion she was out of line in the war she handled herself durring that time.

Originally posted by Brooks
I think it's because Jane Fonda was more arrogant and anti-American in her protestations than the others of that time, and people don't forget that.
Arrogant, maybe. Anti-American? No. Anti soldiers who killed innocent people and our government? Yes.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
It's sort of like giving your country a big middle finger.
But don't you think our country or, well, government deserved a big middle finger?

Originally posted by Overdose
May I ask, why?
----------------------------------------------

Yes.

That's all the reasons you can come up with? Or are you just being a jerk and wanting me to say, "What are your reasons for why you will never respect her?"

Whether or not we can "prove" that Fonda was indirectly responsible for the torture of American POW's, or comforted the enemy, isn't the point. We can't "prove" that OJ murdered his bitch whore wife and that fellow she was banging either, but if we shake the magic freaking 8-ball, all signs point to yes. What can be proven is she didn't help us. I guess all I'm saying is the possibility of her harming soldiers was undoubtedly greater than that of her helping them. The woman, in my opinion, will always be a traitor - nothing more, nothing less...

Was her intent evil? I don’t think so, but regardless – she betrayed our nation, POTENTIALLY put soldiers in harms way, and gave aid to the enemy in the form of information. IOW, a traitor.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Was her intent evil? I don’t think so, but regardless – she betrayed our nation, POTENTIALLY put soldiers in harms way, and gave aid to the enemy in the form of information. IOW, a traitor.

Let it go prae, that kind of angst is bad for your karma. And afterall, it was almost 40 years ago.

There are many, many things that I did when I was in my 20's that I would never do today. I have had 30 years to grow up. I would imagine that she regrets her actions during that time.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Whether or not we can "prove" that Fonda was indirectly responsible for the torture of American POW's, or comforted the enemy, isn't the point. We can't "prove" that OJ murdered his bitch whore wife and that fellow she was banging either, but if we shake the magic freaking 8-ball, all signs point to yes.
The issues surrounding OJ are far different then those of Jane Fonda. It’s ethical to believe that OJ did kill his wife, with all the evidence used in the court case. It’s just using common sense. But with Jane Fonda, you have no court case or evidence. You have literally nothing. Do you honestly think that her being in North Vietnam changed any of the basic procedures of torture used by the North Vietnamese? They were abusing our soldiers before and after she came. Why would one woman being in North Vietnam make any affect what-so-ever on how our POW’s were treated? I’ve yet to see the logical evidence to prove that because she was there, our POW’s were all of a sudden beaten for no reason other then her being in North Vietnam. It just doesn’t make sense.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
What can be proven is she didn't help us.
Err, her and the thousands of protestors did help us. They helped us end a war that was incorrect. And just because she didn’t help us fight this war, does not mean she deserves all the shit she gets from many people. Am I helping this war in Iraq? No. I’m protesting is. Does that mean I’m a horrible person? No. And it doesn’t make her a horrible person, either.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
I guess all I'm saying is the possibility of her harming soldiers was undoubtedly greater than that of her helping them.
Oh, that’s such a great reason to hate someone! Going off of the “chance” or the “possibility” is such a wonderful reason…

Originally posted by The Praetorian
The woman, in my opinion, will always be a traitor - nothing more, nothing less...
Yeah, right. She isn’t a traitor. She’s an American who protested her nation from fighting an incorrect war.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
she betrayed our nation
No she didn’t. You’ve yet to prove it. She protested our government, not our nation. Big difference there Prae.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
POTENTIALLY put soldiers in harms way, and gave aid to the enemy in the form of information. IOW, a traitor.
1. Potentially isn’t a good enough reason to hate someone. You haven’t even given evidence to why she could have potentially hurt an American soldier.

2. What aid did she give?

3. What information did she give? She gave information that we were going to bomb innocent people in their country? Which she was FULLY correct in doing so. Do you support killing innocent people?

The Jane Fonda thing.

Give you an analogy. No matter who you hire to cook it, now matter what spices you use, no matter the care in the cooking, road kill possum just ain't going to be appetizing to the vast majority of Americans. It's the same damn thing with Jane Fonda.

Jane Fonda wasn't young or naive when she did her little shin dig down in Hanoi. She was 34. Nor was she one of those vermin they call peace activists. She is an admitted Socialist and was in Vietnam to lend support, in the form of propoganda, to the North Vietnamese. She called our P.O.W.s liars for their claims of brutal torture, both during and after the Vietnam war, she did these nifty radio broadcasts for the North Vietnamese praising the North Vietnamese fighting spirit and how Nixon will never break it. Then she goes and poses on North Vietnamese anti-aircraft batteries. Of course she apologized about THAT little incident, but it was an apalogy for being caught, not doing the deed. Dammit.

Jane Fonda stabbed our country, and our P.O.W.s in the back hard, fast and often. I hate her, she is one of those parasites I wish America could rid itself of. She benefits from all the rights, freedoms and dignities that America can offer and uses it to aid some of the lowest scums of the earth in the form of the North Vietnemese government. Jane Fonda is a complete and total piece of garbage that should be exported, jailed or shot, dammit.

Echo's quote:

I think he was trying to point out that 99% of what people hate her for is hyperbole put out by people who want everyone to hate her.

Yeah, will doing what many view to be betraying our country has that kind of effect on people.


Overdose's quote:



Yeah, right. She isn’t a traitor. She’s an American who protested her nation from fighting an incorrect war.


Can someone explain to me, just once, why is it only America that fights incorrect, immoral, unjust, unnecessary wars and no other nation on the planet? At least that's what you are lead to believe reading the likes of doseechodopguerilla's posts.


Echo's quote:

Let it go prae, that kind of angst is bad for your karma. And afterall, it was almost 40 years ago.

This is coming from the same person who seems physically incapable of starting a post that doesn't wind up bashing Bush. I'd be willing to bet my bottom dollar that she'll go to her deathbed blaming Bush for her dying. Dammit.


Fonda's activities (http://www.1stcavmedic.com/jane_fonda.htm)

Originally posted by Overdose

But don't you think our country or, well, government deserved a big middle finger?

The government? Probably. But rightly or wrongly I think people perceived it as being aimed at everyone.

She’s an American who protested her nation from fighting an incorrect war.

Yes, stopping the spread of abusive communist dictatorships around the world to protect the rights of individuals, democracy, capitalism, and the world's populace sure is an incorrect thing to do.
Sympathizing with marxist imperials that wish to destroy america and human rights...
OD, i do not think you ever want to come within my field of vision, otherwise, you best be able to run fast.:D

Darth

Jane Fonda wasn't young or naive when she did her little shin dig down in Hanoi. She was 34. Nor was she one of those vermin they call peace activists. She is an admitted Socialist and was in Vietnam to lend support, in the form of propoganda, to the North Vietnamese.
Firstly, just because she was 34 does not mean she was "old". And she's 67 now, what she did was over 30 years ago. Do you not regret anything you did in your 30's? Secondly, just because she has socialist views does not make her a bad person. Thirdly, she was in Vietnam to send a message to end the war. You call it propoganda, I call it a political message.

She called our P.O.W.s liars for their claims of brutal torture
She called the POW's she met liars. She didn't call all of them liars. Stop spinning what she actually said/did.

she did these nifty radio broadcasts for the North Vietnamese praising the North Vietnamese fighting spirit and how Nixon will never break it.
Show me exactly what she said with a factual source.

Then she goes and poses on North Vietnamese anti-aircraft batteries. Of course she apologized about THAT little incident, but it was an apalogy for being caught, not doing the deed. Dammit.
We will leave it to the Republicans to assume the worst in people. Because assuming that she is actually sorry about what she did is just totally unrealistic.

Jane Fonda stabbed our country, and our P.O.W.s in the back hard, fast and often.
She attacked our government, not our country. And she didn't attack all the POW's...so, she didn't stab them in the back either.

Jane Fonda is a complete and total piece of garbage that should be exported, jailed or shot, dammit.
Oh, how I love your compassion. Do you even realize what you're saying? You are wishing a woman should die because of things she did over 30 years ago. Things she did that had no affect on how our POWs were treated. How can you wish anyone to death, Darth? You're just a sick man to wish anything like this apon anyone.

Can someone explain to me, just once, why is it only America that fights incorrect, immoral, unjust, unnecessary wars and no other nation on the planet? At least that's what you are lead to believe reading the likes of doseechodopguerilla's posts.
I've never claimed other nations haven't fought wrong wars. However, I feel far more disgust when we commit or do something wrong because this is my nation and it reflects badly apon me and our countries image.

It's funny because you said so many things I refuted in my main post, yet you choose to ignore it. How typical. She didn't do anything wrong, besides pose in that picture...which is hardly bad and something she has said sorry for. Until you can offer something with more substance you're lost.

She called the POW's she met liars. She didn't call all of them liars. Stop spinning what she actually said/did.

Well, how about you show me exactly what she said with a factual source. :D hehe

Anyway, why such a debate over this no-talent actress/celebrity so many years after her hollywood flare has cooled? She is a nobody; famous only because of her family, and only is given a glance at because of her backing of marxist imperialists back during the middle of the Cold War working against the interests of the West.
Give it up....

Evakian

Well, how about you show me exactly what she said with a factual source. :D hehe
She also added, concerning the POWs she met, "These were not men who had been tortured. These were not men who had been starved. These were not men who had been brainwashed." Concerning torture in general, Fonda told the New York Times in 1973, "I'm quite sure that there were incidents of torture...but the pilots who were saying it was the policy of the Vietnamese and that it was systematic, I believe that's a lie."

Her quotes speak for themselves. She was talking in reference to the POWs she met, and then everyone took it out of context and said she was calling them all liars, when in reality she admits there was torture, but not systematic torture...and that the POW's she met were liars. It's not very hard to refute what the haters have to say about her.

Anyway, why such a debate over this no-talent actress/celebrity so many years after her hollywood flare has cooled? She is a nobody; famous only because of her family, and only is given a glance at because of her backing of marxist imperialists back during the middle of the Cold War working against the interests of the West.
I suppose it's your opinion that she has no-talent...one that I would expect of someone of your nature. I mean, you admit to not liking her in this thread and then you say she has no talent. How typical. And sure, say she is only famous because of her family. We must assume the worst in people! That she has no talent and that she is ONLY famous because of her family. Give me a break.


Academy Awards

1970: Academy Award Nomination; Best Actress, They Shoot Horses, Don't They?
1971: Academy Award; Best Actress, Klute
1978: Academy Award Nomination; Best Actress, Julia
1979: Academy Award; Best Actress, Coming Home
1980: Academy Award Nomination; Best Actress, The China Syndrome
1982: Academy Award Nomination; Best Supporting Actress, On Golden Pond
1987: Academy Award Nomination; Best Actress, The Morning After

Golden Globes
1971: Golden Globe; Best Actress in a Motion Picture (Drama), Klute
1972: Golden Globe; World Film Favorite - Female
1977: Golden Globe; Best Actress in a Motion Picture (Drama), Julia
1978: Golden Globe; World Film Favorite - Female
1978: Golden Globe; Best Actress in a Motion Picture (Drama), Coming Home
1961: Golden Globe; Most Promising Newcomer - Female

Others
1983: Emmy; Outstanding Lead Actress in a Limited Series or a Special, The Dollmaker
Yes, she just all around SUCKS at acting...but then again, I'm sure you'll say awards mean nothing and she still sucks. But that will only prove your bias.

Yes, she just all around SUCKS at acting...but then again, I'm sure you'll say awards mean nothing and she still sucks. But that will only prove your bias.

:rolls on floor laughing at the judgmental buffoon:

I suppose it's your opinion that she has no-talent...one that I would expect of someone of your nature. I mean, you admit to not liking her in this thread and then you say she has no talent. How typical. And sure, say she is only famous because of her family. We must assume the worst in people! That she has no talent and that she is ONLY famous because of her family. Give me a break.

OF COURSE ITS MY OPINION, i have never seen her in a movie with an impressive performance. I also like how you can read my mind and tell me i do not think she is a good actor because of her views, if that was the case, i would not like any actor around and would hate movies because of that. But i watch movies by the dozens every week, and never would judge any actor ever off their personal lives, its wrong and stupid.

Its also undeniable that she got famous because of her father, the great Henry Fonda, one of my favorites. And also because of her activism, she gets pats on the back from hollywood for that garbage. And the foreign critics would be lighting her cigars for that stuff (The Golden Globes are done through a worldwide effort of movie nuts).

Awards do mean something, but not the ultimate adjudication of who is the best and who is not, its all subjective of the movie guilds.

All in all, she may have won awards and had much fame in the past, but that was years ago, and defending her working against the ideals of the west is pointless and foolhardy.

Evakian

:rolls on floor laughing at the judgmental buffoon:
Ouch, you sure got me there.

I also like how you can read my mind and tell me i do not think she is a good actor because of her views, if that was the case, i would not like any actor around and would hate movies because of that. But i watch movies by the dozens every week, and never would judge any actor ever off their personal lives, its wrong and stupid.
Just as I thought, your real reason is because you think she can't act. Ahhaha. Anyway, if this is your "real" reason, so be it. This isn't a thread to debate if she is good at acting but to debate what she did in Vietnam. Take your opinions of her acting elsewhere.

Its also undeniable that she got famous because of her father, the great Henry Fonda, one of my favorites.
You said she is famous only because of her family that is your quote. But saying something like that is only true for someone like Paris Hilton. She is only famous because of her family name. Jane Fonda may have had a famous father, but became a national icon because of what she did. Because of her acting and her political activism. She took her fame from her father and created her own fame in which she can take credit for. She is not only famous because of her family, she is famous for what she did as a person.

And also because of her activism, she gets pats on the back from hollywood for that garbage.
Garbage? Why?

And the foreign critics would be lighting her cigars for that stuff (The Golden Globes are done through a worldwide effort of movie nuts).
Again, assuming the worst in people.

Awards do mean something, but not the ultimate adjudication of who is the best and who is not, its all subjective of the movie guilds.
No it's not the "ultimate adjudiction", but it does prove that many find her to be good at acting. Weather you want to admit it or not.

All in all, she may have won awards and had much fame in the past, but that was years ago, and defending her working against the ideals of the west is pointless and foolhardy.
I'm defending what she did in Vietnam and her actions. Yes this may have been years ago but people like my grandfather still talk about her like she's the devil. People like Darth think she should be shot. I find it sick. And I refuse to just let the lies they say about her go.

Anyway, I'm off to a football game today! I'll be replying to your reply later! :)

No it's not the "ultimate adjudiction", but it does prove that many find her to be good at acting. Weather you want to admit it or not.

"many" people like an actor because of getting awards such as an oscar or golden globe is not entirely true, a small clandestine group of producers, actors, screenwriters, etc get together and cast their ballots for who is nominated and who wins. Its not a popularity contest, just an opinion of their peers.

Just as I thought, your real reason is because you think she can't act. Ahhaha. Anyway, if this is your "real" reason, so be it. This isn't a thread to debate if she is good at acting but to debate what she did in Vietnam. Take your opinions of her acting elsewhere.

IF you had read my first post, which i am sure you did, you would have not come to the conclusion i dislike her because of her acting, it is because of her brainless hollywood activism. IF you had read the post that you just quoted me on, which i am certain you read, you would also know that i do not judge acting off of personal views and lives.

:begins typing up 'Why JF was a bad actress' on the movie forum:
:D, nah i wont do that. She doesn't stink horribly, but i do believe she is overly rated.

You said she is famous only because of her family that is your quote. But saying something like that is only true for someone like Paris Hilton. She is only famous because of her family name. Jane Fonda may have had a famous father, but became a national icon because of what she did. Because of her acting and her political activism. She took her fame from her father and created her own fame in which she can take credit for. She is not only famous because of her family, she is famous for what she did as a person.

Yes i did say 'only' but i said only because of her family ties AND activism. On another note: Paris is 'famous' the way that clubber in your sig is famous, she parties with the rich and famous, then over time she got deals for all sorts of different media exposure and became a household name.

Garbage? Why?

Because actors run around espousing unqualified views as gospel truth to others and people feed off of it and take it and so on and so forth blah blah blah blabbity blab. We've discussed this before so i don't feel like retyping it all

Again, assuming the worst in people.

Not assuming 'the worst', just assuming what i know to be a general rule of thumb. I know that Hollywood and especially many overseas salute her behavior in a sick, twisted way.

I'm defending what she did in Vietnam and her actions. Yes this may have been years ago but people like my grandfather still talk about her like she's the devil. People like Darth think she should be shot. I find it sick. And I refuse to just let the lies they say about her go.

No need to have anyone get shot here.
What lies? She backed the marxist imperials that wished to implace a communist dictatorship and take away human rights against the whim of the people there, as well as backing the side(same as mentioned earlier) that wanted to destroy democracy and capitalism.

Anyway, I'm off to a football game today!

Boo! sports are we todd tedd

Evakian

"many" people like an actor because of getting awards such as an oscar or golden globe is not entirely true, a small clandestine group of producers, actors, screenwriters, etc get together and cast their ballots for who is nominated and who wins. Its not a popularity contest, just an opinion of their peers.
This isn't a thread to talk about if she is good at acting or not. Drop it or move it to another thread.

IF you had read my first post, which i am sure you did, you would have not come to the conclusion i dislike her because of her acting, it is because of her brainless hollywood activism. IF you had read the post that you just quoted me on, which i am certain you read, you would also know that i do not judge acting off of personal views and lives.
Brainless Hollywood activism? Have you proven what she did was brainless? No. You haven't. So until then, you have no merit.

Yes i did say 'only' but i said only because of her family ties AND activism.
Well you're incorrect. She is famous for the movies she's been in, and the awards she's won have proven she has become a famous movie star on her own. Yes, she is famous because of her family and political activism, but those are not the only reasons. Period.

On another note: Paris is 'famous' the way that clubber in your sig is famous, she parties with the rich and famous, then over time she got deals for all sorts of different media exposure and became a household name.
Moving on...

Because actors run around espousing unqualified views as gospel truth to others and people feed off of it and take it and so on and so forth blah blah blah blabbity blab. We've discussed this before so i don't feel like retyping it all
They are just as qualified as you or I to have a political opinion. They have every right to speak out as we do. They are after all American citizens.

Not assuming 'the worst', just assuming what i know to be a general rule of thumb. I know that Hollywood and especially many overseas salute her behavior in a sick, twisted way.
A general rule of assuming badly about people and assuming that they are "sick" by supporting someone you find not worthy. So, they must of course be supporting her because she is against the war, not because she is good at acting. ::sigh::

What lies? She backed the marxist imperials that wished to implace a communist dictatorship and take away human rights against the whim of the people there, as well as backing the side(same as mentioned earlier) that wanted to destroy democracy and capitalism.
Incorrect. She didn't back the marxist imperials, she backed us not killing the innocent people in North Vietnam. She never once said she supported the NV government. She just supported ending the war and saving the innocent people in North Vietnam. You're incorrect to say she backed their government, when she clearly didn't. You haven't offered proof, quotes, or anything. Until then, you have nothing.

Drop it or move it to another thread.

Yes master *bows and walks backward out of room*

OD, you really are ridiculous sometimes, anyway, i've had enough of Fonda for the next decade. This conversation has made me never want to watch a movie with her in it again. Good day

Originally posted by Evakian
OD, you really are ridiculous sometimes, anyway, i've had enough of Fonda for the next decade. This conversation has made me never want to watch a movie with her in it again. Good day
Ahh, typical. When you have nothing left to say, just claim the person is "ridiculous" and move on with your life. Good day.

Ahh, typical. When you assume what people are thinking apparently you hold yourself high as having some unnatural power to read minds, then you tell people what they are thinking (which is wrong to do and the assumptions are wrong also) and then disdain and blow off whatever people say.
Thanks for proving my point that you are ridiculous, i've shared my viewpoints and you disregard any and all that oppose your own and make fanciful stories up, then proved yourself as being asinine in claiming uncontestable victory. Now i am truly left speechless...

Originally posted by Evakian
Ahh, typical. When you assume what people are thinking apparently you hold yourself high as having some unnatural power to read minds, then you tell people what they are thinking (which is wrong to do and the assumptions are wrong also) and then disdain and blow off whatever people say.
Thanks for proving my point that you are ridiculous, i've shared my viewpoints and you disregard any and all that oppose your own and make fanciful stories up, then proved yourself as being asinine in claiming uncontestable victory. Now i am truly left speechless...
Now you just keep claiming I'm ridiculous and skipping over the actual debate.

I've been reading Jane Fonda's book. It has a lot of insight on this whole issue. Good book, I suggest it.

Ah. Now I understand your sudden interest in this woman.

Please don't read any books on Ethel Rosenberg or Diane Downs any time soon, please.
I beg you.
I shudder to think what you might post after all that.

Whether or not we can "prove" that Fonda was indirectly responsible for the torture of American POW's, or comforted the enemy, isn't the point. We can't "prove" that OJ murdered his bitch whore wife and that fellow she was banging either, but if we shake the magic freaking 8-ball, all signs point to yes. What can be proven is she didn't help us. I guess all I'm saying is the possibility of her harming soldiers was undoubtedly greater than that of her helping them. The woman, in my opinion, will always be a traitor - nothing more, nothing less...

Was her intent evil? I don’t think so, but regardless – she betrayed our nation, POTENTIALLY put soldiers in harms way, and gave aid to the enemy in the form of information. IOW, a traitor.

What type of military secrets would Fonda be privy to?

Ah. Now I understand your sudden interest in this woman.

Please don't read any books on Ethel Rosenberg or Diane Downs any time soon, please.
I beg you.
I shudder to think what you might post after all that.
I have been interested in Jane Fonda for about 2 years now. And I assume you don't like Jane Fonda, however you have made a baseless claim and refuse to actually debate issues.

This thread lay peacefully for over a year. OD is to be sent to bed without dessert and no tv for a month for resurrecting it from its' slumber.

Let's just say that in many countries she would either have been shot or jailed for a very long time, for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Instead, in America, she is merely hated and denigrated by a lot of people. She is lucky to be an American.

Let's just say that in many countries she would either have been shot or jailed for a very long time, for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Instead, in America, she is merely hated and denigrated by a lot of people. She is lucky to be an American.
We don't shoot and or put people in jail for speaking out against our government and that is something we pride ourselves on. And rightfully so. However, you seem to be under the impression she gave "aid and comfort" to the enemy. Please explain how she gave "aid and comfort" and why you hate her.

PS: You are also lucky to be an American for you live in a country that values freedom of speech and protest.

Let's just say that in many countries she would either have been shot or jailed for a very long time, for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Instead, in America, she is merely hated and denigrated by a lot of people. She is lucky to be an American.

She's lucky to be American?

How about everything she did is 100% American.

She protested a war that was nothing more than a bunch of garbage, Since when were North Vietnam our enemy? The day we chose to make them our enemy. They were no threat to the US and we had no business being at war with them.

Turns out she was 100% in the right. She got tricked into a photo sitting behind an anti-aircraft battery and for that she was stupid, but she had every right to do what she did & everything about what she did is fundamentally America, so to say she is lucky to be an American is a bit off the wall.

We must also take into account that she was in her 30's and in the midst of a war zone. Jane Fonda has apologized for this picture several times and regrets being manipulated into being placed into a situation such as that.

What she describes in her book is that she was singing a Vietnamese song she had learned. And since she did not speak the language very well everyone was laughing at her pronunciations and someone led her to that seat, where she sat down still laughing and singing, not realizing where exactly she was sitting. However, once she got up she realized what had happened. But it was too late, the cameras had already snapped shots of her sitting down for only 5 minutes, in a broken down anti-aircraft gun. And to be honest, that is a stupid mistake. However we all make mistakes and she has apologized and paid dearly for this one mistake (that took all of 5 minutes) she made over 30 years ago.

That photograph had nothing to do with why she went to Vietnam and the message she was trying to convey back to the American public. Which was that civilians were being targeted by U.S. bombs and that the United States was going to bomb the dikes of North Vietnam, which would have resulted in the death of thousands of Vietnamese civilians. The bombing of the dikes would have created massive flooding which would have resulted in widespread death among civilians. It was considered by the Nixon Administration. And when Jane Fonda started exposing this plan George Bush accused Jane Fonda of lying about this plan, however it has since been proven through recordings that the Nixon Administration did consider bombing the dikes.

Nixon: We've got to quit thinking in terms of a three-day strike. We've got to be thinking in terms of an all-out bombing attack - which will continue until they - Now by all-out bombing attack, I am thinking about things that go far beyond. I'm thinking of the dikes, I'm thinking of the railroad, I'm thinking, of course, the docks.

Nixon: See, the attack in the North that we have in mind, power plants, whatever's left - POL [petroleum], the docks. And, I still think we ought to take the dikes out now. Will that drown people?

She was simply exposing the lies the Nixon Administration was spewing to the American public. She did so by broadcasting her findings on the radio, through pictures she took and a documentary she filmed. Jane Fonda should be commended for exposing the truth of what was actually going on in North Vietnam. And for anyone to say she went there to give “aid and comfort to the enemy” when she had been making statements for months on end in the United States about the possibility of the bombing of the dikes and about the civilians who were dying in Vietnam is laughable on their part. She was obviously going to prove her position she had been publicly sharing for years on end. Plus, her boyfriend at the time had already been to North Vietnam and was shocked at the horrors he saw. Jane Fonda went to see it for herself and to convince the American public that this war needed to be stopped.

Jane Fonda also met with POW's and found that many were un-harmed and seemed to be in good physical and mental condition. She realized they may have been forced to lie about their conditions, but judging from the way they looked physically they seemed to be in good condition. Jane Fonda has never said torture didn't occur (even though some lie and say she has), she has simply said it was not widespread and or systematic throughout North Vietnam.

What Jane Fonda did was brave and she is someone to admire. Hundreds of Americans had been to North Vietnam. They went there to see the health conditions on the ground. The only difference between them and Jane Fonda was...

1. The pictures (which prove nothing)
2. She was rich and famous.

For her to be under such attack just because of those factors is beyond me. Many other Americans went to North Vietnam and nothing was ever said about them (IE: her boyfriend at the time and many others from the U.S.) However, Jane Fonda gets a bad reputation for doing basically the same thing.

God bless Jane Fonda.

I have been interested in Jane Fonda for about 2 years now. And I assume you don't like Jane Fonda, however you have made a baseless claim and refuse to actually debate issues.

Hee hee hee!
You know nothing about my close, personal, and yes, briefly sexual relationship with Hanoi Jane. And discretion being the better part of valor, I'd prefer to keep it that way.

Jane and I differ dramatically in our politics, and yes it is true that I found her whole foray into anti-American anti-war activism a huge turn off.
That did not however affect our friendship, nor did it spoil the times we managed to tear ourselves away from our otherwise hum-drum lives and engage is some truly memorable, gritty, intense, unusual, (and probably illegal in over 31 States) three ring circus-style physical gratification.

Debate issues with a teenager who recently read a book?
A teenager with a history of over-identifying with questionable female icons (Paris Hilton, Madonna, and now Jane Fonda of all people?), developing a crush on them, and then posting endless, pointless soliloquy’s extolling their virtues and 'accomplishments', ad nauseum?

I think not, sonny boy.

Say, don't you have some homework to do?
I think finals are coming up.
You might better lay off the internet & the Jane Fonda book, and crack open a few text-books.

I'd hate to see you flunk out and have to repeat the 12th grade, while all your friends go off to University and the Junior College.

Just trying to be helpful.
:smile2:

Jane Fonda is scum.

End of story

My view when it comes to somebody's enemies is this:

Your enemies aren't necessarily my enemies.

Even if you are my friend...

She protested a war that was nothing more than a bunch of garbage, Since when were North Vietnam our enemy? The day we chose to make them our enemy. They were no threat to the US and we had no business being at war with them.

I agree, the war was a stupid act. North Vietnam was no threat to the US. Why the US government chose to attack them is no secret, however it was a mistake.

Yes, she is lucky to be an American. America is one of the very few countries that allows its citizens to denigrate their own politicians while consorting with its enemy. Perhaps the world be a better place if more countries allowed such behaviour.

We don't shoot and or put people in jail for speaking out against our government and that is something we pride ourselves on. And rightfully so. However, you seem to be under the impression she gave "aid and comfort" to the enemy. Please explain how she gave "aid and comfort" and why you hate her.

PS: You are also lucky to be an American for you live in a country that values freedom of speech and protest.

Your own Constitution states "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." It does not define what aid and comfort means. Two or three times in history, sedition laws have been passed trying perhaps to clarify the situation. Everytime they have failed because of your over-riding to free speech.
However, many countries would interpret that assuring your enemies that your own country was wrong and could never overcome them. would certainly be covered under this clause. Jane Fonda undoubtedly did this in her tour of Vietnam. Her actions may well be explained as part of her right to free speech. However, the distaste expressed by other Americans is also covered by their right to free speech. All this shows is that Americans should be proud of their freedom to speak freely.

btw, do not make assumptions when reading posts. Nowhere have I said I am an American, I am not. Neither have I said I hate Jane Fonda.

That did not however affect our friendship, nor did it spoil the times we managed to tear ourselves away from our otherwise hum-drum lives and engage is some truly memorable, gritty, intense, unusual, (and probably illegal in over 31 States) three ring circus-style physical gratification.
You are a delusional man.

A teenager with a history of over-identifying with questionable female icons (Paris Hilton, Madonna, and now Jane Fonda of all people?), developing a crush on them, and then posting endless, pointless soliloquy’s extolling their virtues and 'accomplishments', ad nauseum?
Just because I have people in the world I look up to and or like does not mean I “over-identify” with them nor do I develop a crush on them. And if I post endless, pointless posts about them why do you decide to get involved?

Say, don't you have some homework to do? I think finals are coming up.
You might better lay off the internet & the Jane Fonda book, and crack open a few text-books.
I’ve already done my homework. Plus, the Jane Fonda book was apart of a homework assignment. Way to make assumptions there buddy.

I'd hate to see you flunk out and have to repeat the 12th grade, while all your friends go off to University and the Junior College.

Just trying to be helpful.
:smile2:
You don’t even know my grades nor are you trying to be helpful.

------------------

Jane Fonda is scum.

End of story
Prove it. You are making a baseless claim with no evidence.

-------------------

Her actions may well be explained as part of her right to free speech. However, the distaste expressed by other Americans is also covered by their right to free speech. All this shows is that Americans should be proud of their freedom to speak freely.
This has nothing to do with the debate at hand. Jane Fonda was never tried nor convicted of treason. What she did was in the realms of freedom of speech.

btw, do not make assumptions when reading posts. Nowhere have I said I am an American, I am not. Neither have I said I hate Jane Fonda.
You implied both heavily.

Were hanoi jane repeat her antics today in Iraq or Afganistan it is highly doubtful she would get off as easily as she did following her visit to Vietnam. The accolades given her as an actress are meaningless - they were the result of another individual's written works and careful direction. Those aberrant behaviors so widely published many years ago were hers alone.

Were hanoi jane repeat her antics today in Iraq or Afganistan it is highly doubtful she would get off as easily as she did following her visit to Vietnam.
What did she do that was so wrong? Hundreds of other Americans went to Vietnam and did the exact same thing. The only difference was the photographs that were taken of Jane Fonda at the anti-aircraft gun. Which she had apologized for and said she did not even intend to sit there.

All you've done is read a book. Living through those times gives one a completely different understanding of the situation, one which you are incapable of understanding or accepting.

All you've done is read a book. Living through those times gives one a completely different understanding of the situation, one which you are incapable of understanding or accepting.
To say I "can't understand" is laughable on your part. And it clearly suggests you are afraid of debating the actual issues at hand. You also fail to take many things into consideration, which is that when she returned from her trip she met and protested with VIETNAM VETERANS. Don't try and tell me living through those times gives you a different understanding, when people who have lived through those times AGREE with my position.

Please read what I have to say and THEN tell me where I'm wrong and you are right.

We must also take into account that she was in her 30's and in the midst of a war zone. Jane Fonda has apologized for this picture several times and regrets being manipulated into being placed into a situation such as that.

What she describes in her book is that she was singing a Vietnamese song she had learned. And since she did not speak the language very well everyone was laughing at her pronunciations and someone led her to that seat, where she sat down still laughing and singing, not realizing where exactly she was sitting. However, once she got up she realized what had happened. But it was too late, the cameras had already snapped shots of her sitting down for only 5 minutes, in a broken down anti-aircraft gun. And to be honest, that is a stupid mistake. However we all make mistakes and she has apologized and paid dearly for this one mistake (that took all of 5 minutes) she made over 30 years ago.

That photograph had nothing to do with why she went to Vietnam and the message she was trying to convey back to the American public. Which was that civilians were being targeted by U.S. bombs and that the United States was going to bomb the dikes of North Vietnam, which would have resulted in the death of thousands of Vietnamese civilians. The bombing of the dikes would have created massive flooding which would have resulted in widespread death among civilians. It was considered by the Nixon Administration. And when Jane Fonda started exposing this plan George Bush accused Jane Fonda of lying about this plan, however it has since been proven through recordings that the Nixon Administration did consider bombing the dikes.

Nixon: We've got to quit thinking in terms of a three-day strike. We've got to be thinking in terms of an all-out bombing attack - which will continue until they - Now by all-out bombing attack, I am thinking about things that go far beyond. I'm thinking of the dikes, I'm thinking of the railroad, I'm thinking, of course, the docks.

Nixon: See, the attack in the North that we have in mind, power plants, whatever's left - POL [petroleum], the docks. And, I still think we ought to take the dikes out now. Will that drown people?

She was simply exposing the lies the Nixon Administration was spewing to the American public. She did so by broadcasting her findings on the radio, through pictures she took and a documentary she filmed. Jane Fonda should be commended for exposing the truth of what was actually going on in North Vietnam. And for anyone to say she went there to give “aid and comfort to the enemy” when she had been making statements for months on end in the United States about the possibility of the bombing of the dikes and about the civilians who were dying in Vietnam is laughable on their part. She was obviously going to prove her position she had been publicly sharing for years on end. Plus, her boyfriend at the time had already been to North Vietnam and was shocked at the horrors he saw. Jane Fonda went to see it for herself and to convince the American public that this war needed to be stopped.

Jane Fonda also met with POW's and found that many were un-harmed and seemed to be in good physical and mental condition. She realized they may have been forced to lie about their conditions, but judging from the way they looked physically they seemed to be in good condition. Jane Fonda has never said torture didn't occur (even though some lie and say she has), she has simply said it was not widespread and or systematic throughout North Vietnam.

What Jane Fonda did was brave and she is someone to admire. Hundreds of Americans had been to North Vietnam. They went there to see the health conditions on the ground. The only difference between them and Jane Fonda was...

1. The pictures (which prove nothing)
2. She was rich and famous.

For her to be under such attack just because of those factors is beyond me. Many other Americans went to North Vietnam and nothing was ever said about them (IE: her boyfriend at the time and many others from the U.S.) However, Jane Fonda gets a bad reputation for doing basically the same thing.

Or just tell me why you dislike her and actually PROVE why she should be disliked.

I lived through those times, and I don't hate Jane Fonda. I don't agree with some of the things she did, but I don't agree with some things a lot of people did then. That includes some of the things some "patriotic Americans" did as well. I remember the day construction workers on the World Trade Center attacked a peaceful anti-war march and started beating people for expressing their opinions.
I don't even agree with all the things I did then. People learn from their mistakes, and grow as individuals. Jane Fonda has apologized for some of her actions, and admitted to mistakes. I, for one, believe that the apology was sincere and am willing to forgive her.
As far as acting accolades, the only thing I really remember her from is "Barbarella" and it wasn't the acting that caught my attention.

Why do people even attempt to discuss issues with Overdose? If you want to be annoyed why not simply beat your head against the refrigerator. It will serve as much purpose as discussing things with OD.

Jane Fonda did the same thing as Lord HaHa, Axis Annie and Tokyo Rose, only on a smaller scale. She gave aid and comfort to the enemy and acted as an arm of their propoganda machine during time of war. Whether the war was popular or not is beside the point. You may not give aid and comfort to enemies of the United States when the country is at war with those enemies. It is a crime punishable by death.

Jane did not simply innocently sit on an anti-aircraft gun. She was smiling while she simulated aiming the gun at American aircraft. She did not only lie about American POW, she turned in those who gave her a secret message to the North Vietnames, thereby causing them to be punished severely by their captors.

What she did amounted to treason and no amount of treacle by Overdose will change that.

Sparky touched on a truth when he posted this:

Debate issues with a teenager who recently read a book?
A teenager with a history of over-identifying with questionable female icons (Paris Hilton, Madonna, and now Jane Fonda of all people?), developing a crush on them, and then posting endless, pointless soliloquy’s extolling their virtues and 'accomplishments', ad nauseum?

I think not, sonny boy.

It is impossible to debate Overdose on any topic. He is hidebound and refuses to allow any other ideas or viewpoints penetrate his skull. I honestly think he falls gaga in love with these women only because they are looked down upon by society. Overdose has a psychological need to identify with the underdog. Perhaps he feels that society looks down on him and this is his way of getting back at it. Perhaps he simply likes being confrontational. Perhaps he feels voicing support for these women makes him seem like a more tolerant liberal. Whatever the reason(s) Overdose likes to defend those whom society finds repugnant and then gets personally hurt when people disagree with him. There is no debating such people.

Why do people even attempt to discuss issues with Overdose? If you want to be annoyed why not simply beat your head against the refrigerator. It will serve as much purpose as discussing things with OD.

Because OD is a long-time member in good standing who provides evidence to back up his claims rather than just lashing out at his fellow posters because he disagrees with them.


What she did amounted to treason and no amount of treacle by Overdose will change that.

Which of course is why she was tried for treason and executed. :rolleyes:


Sparky touched on a truth when he posted this:

Debate issues with a teenager who recently read a book?
A teenager with a history of over-identifying with questionable female icons (Paris Hilton, Madonna, and now Jane Fonda of all people?), developing a crush on them, and then posting endless, pointless soliloquy’s extolling their virtues and 'accomplishments', ad nauseum?

I think not, sonny boy.

All Sparky did was make fun of someone he disagrees with.


It is impossible to debate Overdose on any topic.

Maybe you should try "debating" rather than insulting him and you might get somewhere.


He is hidebound and refuses to allow any other ideas or viewpoints penetrate his skull.

Patently untrue. OD does defend his positions vigorously, and unlike you and Sparky, he has done so without bringing your age into the debate. The fact that you and Sparky have to resort to denigrating him because of his age speaks volumes about your arguments.


I honestly think he falls gaga in love with these women only because they are looked down upon by society. Overdose has a psychological need to identify with the underdog. Perhaps he feels that society looks down on him and this is his way of getting back at it. Perhaps he simply likes being confrontational. Perhaps he feels voicing support for these women makes him seem like a more tolerant liberal. Whatever the reason(s) Overdose likes to defend those whom society finds repugnant and then gets personally hurt when people disagree with him. There is no debating such people.

There you go. Turn this into a debate about OD. Brilliant way to demonstrate your debating skills. The topic here is Jane Fonda. If you can't say anything about her, perhaps you've already lost the debate.

Sparky touched on a truth when he posted this:

Debate issues with a teenager who recently read a book?
A teenager with a history of over-identifying with questionable female icons (Paris Hilton, Madonna, and now Jane Fonda of all people?), developing a crush on them, and then posting endless, pointless soliloquy’s extolling their virtues and 'accomplishments', ad nauseum?

I think not, sonny boy.
Spot on.
It is impossible to debate Overdose on any topic. He is hidebound and refuses to allow any other ideas or viewpoints penetrate his skull. I honestly think he falls gaga in love with these women only because they are looked down upon by society. Overdose has a psychological need to identify with the underdog. Perhaps he feels that society looks down on him and this is his way of getting back at it. Perhaps he simply likes being confrontational. Perhaps he feels voicing support for these women makes him seem like a more tolerant liberal. Whatever the reason(s) Overdose likes to defend those whom society finds repugnant and then gets personally hurt when people disagree with him. There is no debating such people.
I don't think truer words have ever been spoken here.

Bravo, Frogger!!!

I don't think truer words have ever been spoken here.


Plenty of times.

What I find distressing is that we have adult members of this forum, all of whom are intelligent men capable of great reason, and the best they can do in a debate with a younger member is complain about the topic, or call him a little boy. In my opinion, instead of berating OD and generally acting worse than you've claimed he has, you should be trying to set a good example.

Why do people even attempt to discuss issues with Overdose?
OD never gives up. Vile always reverts to the dictionary. FT is mean-spirited. sedan is not a good poster. Blibblob calls names. Evakian is full of shit.

We all have our quirks according to you, but I think you've nailed one down for yourself: complaining about other posters. Your debating skills seem to have taken a nose dive after you visited Australia.

Plenty of times.

What I find distressing is that we have adult members of this forum, all of whom are intelligent men capable of great reason, and the best they can do in a debate with a younger member is complain about the topic, or call him a little boy. In my opinion, instead of berating OD and generally acting worse than you've claimed he has, you should be trying to set a good example.
Fair enough, Vile - but you have to admit Frogger's choice of the word "hidebound" couldn't have been more apropos. OD is one of the most OBSTINATE people I've ever had the pleasure of dealing with. IOW, he REFUSES to see it any other way than his own, and any attempt to debate with him is futile.

I mean, seriously, have you ever, in all your time here, EVER heard him acquiesce??? Think about it.

Oh, and just for the record, making the argument personal isn’t unique to Frogger, Sparky, or me – OD himself is, hands down, the past master.

You may not give aid and comfort to enemies of the United States when the country is at war with those enemies.
What exactly is “aid and comfort”? Could you define it for me?

Jane did not simply innocently sit on an anti-aircraft gun. She was smiling while she simulated aiming the gun at American aircraft.
Jane Fonda was singing a Vietnamese song she had learned. And since she did not speak the language very well everyone was laughing at her pronunciations and someone led her to that seat, where she sat down still laughing and singing, not realizing where exactly she was sitting. However, once she got up she realized what had happened. But it was too late, the cameras had already snapped shots of her sitting down for only 5 minutes, in a broken down anti-aircraft gun. And to be honest, that is a stupid mistake. However we all make mistakes and she has apologized and paid dearly for this one mistake (that took all of 5 minutes) she made over 30 years ago. She was not simulating anything and was smiling due to a totally unrelated issue.

She did not only lie about American POW
She never lied. Prove it with a quote. Do you even have a quote?

she turned in those who gave her a secret message to the North Vietnames, thereby causing them to be punished severely by their captors.
No she didn’t. That is a myth. No POW was punished what-so-ever due to her actions.

He is hidebound and refuses to allow any other ideas or viewpoints penetrate his skull.
If you can offer a strong idea I will consider it. You have yet to offer a strong idea in any debate we have been in. Plus, I have changed my opinions on issues. One being prostitution where I am now not in favor of legalizing it.

I honestly think he falls gaga in love with these women only because they are looked down upon by society.
Maybe your sector of society, but not the masses. Madonna is an icon. She has sold more albums then any other female artist and has had more #1 hits then any other female artist. Her last CD went to #1 in over 40 countries and her latest tour SOLD OUT worldwide. Jane Fona’s movies continued to be successful throughout the 80’s and her book she came out with a year or so ago was a New York Times bestseller and she was put in Time magazine as one of the 100 greatest women in American history. For you to say they are completely looked down upon is INSANE due to the facts of their past and present successes.

Overdose has a psychological need to identify with the underdog.
How the HELL is Madonna an underdog?

Whatever the reason(s) Overdose likes to defend those whom society finds repugnant and then gets personally hurt when people disagree with him. There is no debating such people.
I defend them because they are correct in what they did.

----

To everyone:

Due to my un-popularity I have been personally ridiculed. Not only have I been ridiculed, I have been told I am not “worthy” of debate with other members.

I find it increasingly ironic how members on this forum respond to what I have said and then when I question their claims they say I am not worthy of debate. That is a scapegoat response. Plain and simple. If you don’t want to debate with me, fine. But don’t reply to my posts with brash generalizations and then expect to get away with the defense “you aren’t worthy of debate” because that makes you look like the fool. That makes you seem like you cannot back-up your claims.

I have also noticed that a vast number of you have jumped on the band-wagon and claimed I am “impossible” to debate with and have all personally started throwing insults in my direction. This makes it easy for the conservatives on this board (for the most part) get away with the questions and points I raise. Good scheme you guys have going on. The more you keep repeating yourself the more people are willing to believe the lies you are spewing. Genius plan.

Most of this had derived from the Madonna thread. Laughable, really. That you all go so offended by my defense of some “slutty, bimbo” artist that you now disregard everything I have to say.

Honestly, why don’t you look in the mirror and stop telling me to grow up when it is all of you who need to grow up.

I hate to tell you Vile, many of the adult members of this forum just can't get over the age thing...

Oh, and OD, I feel your pain...

We all have our quirks according to you, but I think you've nailed one down for yourself: complaining about other posters.
Amen. And he uses all of our generalizations to escape debate. Watch, he won't debate about Jane Fonda. He will just keep thinking she is a horrible woman because he is stubborn and ignorant.

Vilepagan,

I would lglivae more weight to your complaints about kids being called kids if you were as upset by the old geezer, etc. remarks.

Overdose, when someone says something you don't like you simply dismiss it. Jane Fonda was photographed seated at an anti-aircraft gun that was simulated to be pointing at American planes and laughing. You have said no she wasn't. The POWs themselves reported, upon their release that Jane Fonda turned over to the North Vietnamese pieces of paper with messages on them and that they were later punished because of this. You deny it ever happened. Jane Fonda went to North Viet Nam, an enemy country at the time and not only consorted with the enemy but gave them encouragement. You deny it ever happened.

Is it any wonder I say it is impossible to debate with you?

OD never gives up. Vile always reverts to the dictionary. FT is mean-spirited. sedan is not a good poster. Blibblob calls names. Evakian is full of shit.

We all have our quirks according to you, but I think you've nailed one down for yourself: complaining about other posters. Your debating skills seem to have taken a nose dive after you visited Australia.

Cute trick, Evakian; posting a bunch of stuff that I didn't say and then insulting me because of it. I never said Vile always reverts to the dictionary. I never said Freethinker is mean-spirited. I never said Sedan is not a good poster. I did say Blilbblob calls names and he does.

Since you made up all the other things I supposedly posted I guess the last one is true. Evakian is full of shit.

All right already.

I'll act like a grownup for once, and will gladly be the first to extend an olive branch:

Overdose I am sorry for being insensitive, and for teasing and belittling you in the Jane Fonda thread (and all the Madonna threads). I acted in an unnecessarily cruel and cavalier manner, and for that I sincerely apologize.

I will never again call you Junior, Bub, Sport, Boy, Sonny boy, ‘wet behind the ears’, Todd, Nancy, or whistle-dick.

Your fascination with female pop-icons is your own business, and I should respect the fact that you feel so strongly about them that you are willing to post such lengthy and voluminous paeans extolling their virtues. This speaks highly of your sense of friendship, loyalty, commitment, tenacity, and perseverance.

You are by all accounts an intelligent, thoughtful, accomplished honor student, and I am sorry to have implied that you are neglecting your studies in any manner or fashion. Truly, you will go on to graduate high school with honors, and will attend a prestigious University.

Those who call you bull-headed, obstinate, single-minded, inflexible, stubborn, headstrong, stiff-necked, bullheaded, pigheaded, mulish, dogged, pertinacious and argumentative simply haven’t taken the time to read and evaluate your many assertions, point by point, and then do the homework necessary to engage in a proper and productive debate.

The truth is, you are young, attractive, driven, and you’ve got your whole life ahead of you. Most of us on these boards are old, used-up, has-beens. We’re probably just jealous of you, and we mistake our age, experience, education, and life’s-experiences for ‘wisdom’. A common mistake for people our age. I personally suspect that most of us are suffering from early-onset Alzheimer’s.

You are to be admired, revered, and respected, not teased and ridiculed.
My humble apologies for contributing to the ugliness.

Please carry on with the Jane Fonda discussion, I personally find it fascinating and enlightening.

(And please just ignore those Vietnam Veterans and their strong opinions regarding Jane. What the heck do they know anyway? What does the fact that they were physically there in Vietnam, and alive at the time of her transgressions mean? The dummies are ignoring the fact that you’ve actually read her book! Jerks, they can be. I apologize for them too.)

That was beautiful.
If I wasn't happily married already, I'd swoop you off your feet, Sparky.

Vilepagan,

I would lglivae more weight to your complaints about kids being called kids if you were as upset by the old geezer, etc. remarks.

I don't believe OD ever called you an old geezer, or any other name before you decided to lash out at him. If there's another poster who said something you find objectionable, I suggest you aim your vitriol at them.


Overdose, when someone says something you don't like you simply dismiss it. Jane Fonda was photographed seated at an anti-aircraft gun that was simulated to be pointing at American planes and laughing. You have said no she wasn't.

No, he said nothing of the kind. Reread what he wrote.


The POWs themselves reported, upon their release that Jane Fonda turned over to the North Vietnamese pieces of paper with messages on them and that they were later punished because of this. You deny it ever happened.

So does Snopes.com. Apparently that's an urban legend.

http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.asp


Jane Fonda went to North Viet Nam, an enemy country at the time and not only consorted with the enemy but gave them encouragement. You deny it ever happened.

Is it any wonder I say it is impossible to debate with you?

The same could be said of you because you keep repeating that she did something that she apparently did not do. Does this fact make you "impossible to debate with"?

What I don't understand is that if you feel that OD is mistaken on some point, or ignorant of certain facts, why don't you try to educate him instead of belittling him for his perceived ignorance?

Cute trick, Evakian; posting a bunch of stuff that I didn't say and then insulting me because of it. I never said Vile always reverts to the dictionary.

I believe this is the quote in question:

"Paul, haven't you yet noticed that when Vile can't argue a point on its merits he resorts to arguing it on definition. He did the same thing with bullets vs catridges. As soon as I see Vile pulling out the dictionary I know he has lost the arguement."

http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?p=212467


I never said Freethinker is mean-spirited.

Yes you did.

"You are really pathetic, Freethinker. You are a mean spirited, immature poster."

http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?p=173752


I never said Sedan is not a good poster. I did say Blilbblob calls names and he does.

I'll let you off the hook on those two. ;-)


Since you made up all the other things I supposedly posted I guess the last one is true. Evakian is full of shit.

I guess since Evak didn't make up all the other things you posted, you might be off with the "full of shit" thing too.

All right already.

I'll act like a grownup for once, and will gladly be the first to extend an olive branch:


Then do so. If you're sincere, perhaps it might help if the branch isn't dripping with sarcasm.


(And please just ignore those Vietnam Veterans and their strong opinions regarding Jane.

I don't think your problem is that OD "ignored" your opinions, it's just that he doesn't neccessarily agree with them.


What the heck do they know anyway? What does the fact that they were physically there in Vietnam, and alive at the time of her transgressions mean?

It means nothing more than what it says. They were alive during that time (as was I), and they were in Vietnam. (I was not). Why does this give more or less weight to someone's opinions about Jane Fonda?


The dummies are ignoring the fact that you’ve actually read her book! Jerks, they can be. I apologize for them too.)

Honestly Sparky, I think you're deliberately missing the point here. OD apparently read Jane's book as part of a school assignment, and when he tried to discuss his opinions here he was attacked for it. He wasn't attacked because he had his facts wrong, he was attacked for being an "ignorant little boy", by people who should know better.

Can you explain to me why your opinion is inherently more accurate than OD's on this subject? Feel free to use as much sarcasm as you feel neccessary to get your point across. ;-)

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/6412/barbarella01hn4.jpg

I'll let you off the hook on those two. ;-)Sedan, I've read enough of your posts to realize they generally aren't worth the band width they take up. You're basically Napsterbater without his lovable side.
And see the Darkfantasy thread for Frogger's whining about Blibblob.

Oops! Cute trick Frogger, I guess you did either say or imply those things.

We are presented with a petulant, insolate adolescent desperately seeking attention. This individual is seemingly inflexible in receiving criticism of any sort. When confronted, this obstinate youngster typically resorts to pusillanimous outbursts replete with accusations and denials. There is little or no respect given to any view other than his own, regardless of another's experiential knowledge or factual accuracy.

I guess I did post those things a long time ago. I simply forgot them. It was nice of you to do an archives search to find them, Evakian. Thank you so much for refreshing my memory.



That doesn't change the fact that Jane Fonda is not someone to be looked up to. She gave active support to the enemies of her country while those enemies had American citizens locked in tiger cages. She abused the trust some of those prisoners had in her, enough trust to give her messages to take back to her country, by handing those messages over to the North Vietnames authorities. Anyone who applauds or excuse the actions of Jane Fonda either doesn't know history or is denying it.

I've never understood people's fascination with celebrities.
These people don't even know you're alive. Why waste time on them?
They are not the power brokers of history.

We are presented with a petulant, insolate adolescent desperately seeking attention.

Forgive me es, but I don't think you're in a position top know OD's motives for posting what he does.


This individual is seemingly inflexible in receiving criticism of any sort.

The sort of criticism he receives would be unpalatable to anyone.


When confronted, this obstinate youngster typically resorts to pusillanimous outbursts replete with accusations and denials.

OD may be obstinate at times, but I don't believe I've ever seen him act cowardly.


There is little or no respect given to any view other than his own, regardless of another's experiential knowledge or factual accuracy.


Again, I think the other posters in this thread have been far more disrespectful than he has.

Can you explain to me why your opinion is inherently more accurate than OD's on this subject?

Vilepagan,

Opinions cannot be accurate, sir. Measurements can be accurate. Facts can be proven or disproven to be accurate. Instruments and their readings and/or indications can be accurate, subject to periodic and routine calibration.

Assertions are subjective, hypothesis can either be proven or disproven, and the human interpretation of events and circumstances (as documented in countless criminal cases in the form of sworn testimony) is frequently inaccurate, and all too often considered highly suspect.

Opinions are like belly-buttons. Everybody’s got one.
The question isn’t whether someone’s opinion is more accurate, it’s more a matter of whether someone’s opinion holds any water or not.
Whether their opinion is compelling, respected, and genuinely thought-provoking, valid, & relevant.

When it comes to the topic of Jane Fonda (or any other pop/political/cultural figure born before 1981) I would comfortably assert that my opinion is automatically more relevant than that of anyone who was born long after Ms. Fonda’s cultural and creative influence had waned.

Why precisely is my opinion regarding Ms. Fonda more relevant than a teenager who recently read a book written by Ms. Fonda for a homework assignment?
Here’s why:

(1) I’ve done my homework on Jane Fonda. I did my homework long before Overdose was even born, and I’ve kept an eye on her on and off for many years. I’ve had to, you see. All of my teachers and mentors during my first several years in the US Army had such strong opinions on the woman that I owed it to myself to read up on her. She and Tom Hayden. And John Kerry.

(2) The right and honorable Overdose indeed has a demonstrable inclination to over-identify with female pop/cultural icons, and then argue in a most zealous and passionate fashion about their virtues, accomplishments, and attributes. This lack of objectivity, coupled with a knee-jerk, ‘fly off the handle’ style of emotional debate he is prone to, makes his opinion somewhat suspect. I say that with all due respect and affection toward the venerable and esteemed Mr. Overdose.

(3rd) And lastly: I did in fact have an ill-advised personal relationship, for a number of years, with Ms. Fonda. And yes, (mind you, I am none too proud of this either) our relationship was one of a highly volatile and viscerally-deviant-sexual nature. I only admit this in order to bring some measure of context to the dialogue. You cannot spend that many hours in the throes of disturbed psycho-sexual physical passion with someone and not come away with some opinion regarding their character and moral fiber.

It is what it is, and I don’t know what else you would have me say;

* I offered a sincere and humble apology to Mr. Overdose for my insensitive and thoughtless postings.

* My opinions on the topic of Jane Fonda will inarguably hold more water than nearly anyone else on this planet. I’ve spent more time handcuffed to her than many of her husbands, that I can guarantee you.

That doesn't change the fact that Jane Fonda is not someone to be looked up to.

That's your opinion, not as you say a "fact", and you're entitled to that opinion. It might come as a shock that not everyone agrees with you, even some that are older than OD.


She gave active support to the enemies of her country while those enemies had American citizens locked in tiger cages.

Did she give them money? Ammunition? Information about American troop dispositions? What exactly do you mean by "active support"?


She abused the trust some of those prisoners had in her, enough trust to give her messages to take back to her country, by handing those messages over to the North Vietnames authorities.

Actually, she did nothing of the sort. This is a myth. An urban legend. It didn't happen. It's false. A rumor, nothing more. It won't become true no matter how many times you post it.

http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.asp

"The POW camp visits also lead to persistent stories - widely circulated on the Internet and via email - that the POWs she met had reviled her or attempted to sneak notes to her, which she had reported to the North Vietnamese, leading to further abuse. These false accounts have been discredited by the former prisoners who are directly mentioned in the accounts."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Fonda

One of the people who discredits the story is Mike McGrath, the President of NAM-POW's, and I'm going to include his statement for your reading pleasure, and because it happens to mirror my own opinion of Fonda, and this rumor, quite well.

"Please excuse the generic response, but I have been swamped by so many e-mails on the subject of the Jane Fonda article (Carrigan, Driscoll, slips of paper, torture, and deaths of POW's etc.) that I have to resort to this pre-scripted rebuttal. The truth is that most of this never happened. This is a hoax story placed on the internet by unknown Fonda haters. No one knows who initiated the story. Please assist by not propagating the story. Fonda did enough bad things to assure her a place in the garbage dumps of history. We don't want to be a party to false stories, which could be used as an excuse that her real actions didn't happen either. I have spoken with all the parties named: Carrigan, Driscoll et. al. They all state that this particular internet story is a hoax, and they wish to disassociate their names from the false story." (emphasis mine)


Anyone who applauds or excuse the actions of Jane Fonda either doesn't know history or is denying it.

I agree with your statement about Fonda, but you are the one here denying the facts when they are presented to you, so I don't think you're in a good position to make credible claims of denial by others.

Overdose, when someone says something you don't like you simply dismiss it.
The exact same can be said for yourself. Out of all the debates I have been in with you, you have never conceded your stance. You fall victim to the same criticisms you accuse me of. As Evakian said, you find a specific trait you don’t like in a poster. And then you hammer that trait home so you don’t have to debate the issues, you just use their trait you dislike as a scapegoat and an excuse to escape debate. Honestly, I can see through your bullshit.

Jane Fonda was photographed seated at an anti-aircraft gun that was simulated to be pointing at American planes and laughing. You have said no she wasn't.
You are lying. I have never denied she sat at that anti-aircraft gun. What I have said is she did not intentionally sit there and that her laughing was due to a completely un-related issue (her horrible singing in Vietnamese). Not to mention the fact that the anti-aircraft gun was broken down and unusable. You also fail to take into consideration that she has apologized for this mistake and regrets being manipulated into sitting there.

The POWs themselves reported, upon their release that Jane Fonda turned over to the North Vietnamese pieces of paper with messages on them and that they were later punished because of this.
Do you have proof that the POWs themselves reported this? As Vilepagan pointed out this has been proven as a myth. You may want to research some more.

Jane Fonda went to North Viet Nam, an enemy country at the time and not only consorted with the enemy but gave them encouragement. You deny it ever happened.
How did she give the enemy encouragement? She was simply exposing the lies the Nixon Administration was spewing to the American public. She did so by broadcasting her findings on the radio, through pictures she took and a documentary she filmed. Jane Fonda should be commended for exposing the truth of what was actually going on in North Vietnam. And for anyone to say she went there to give “aid and comfort to the enemy” when she had been talking about the possibility of the bombing of the dikes (which would have killed thousands of innocent civilians) and about the civilians who were dying in Vietnam for months prior to her trip is laughable on their part. She was obviously going to prove her position she had been publicly sharing for years on end. Plus, her boyfriend at the time had already been to North Vietnam and was shocked at the horrors he saw. Jane Fonda went to see it for herself and to convince the American public that this war needed to be stopped.

Jane Fonda also met with POW's and found that many were un-harmed and seemed to be in good physical and mental condition. She realized they may have been forced to lie about their conditions, but judging from the way they looked physically they seemed to be in good condition. Jane Fonda has never said torture didn't occur (even though some lie and say she has), she has simply said it was not widespread and or systematic throughout North Vietnam.

What Jane Fonda did was brave and she is someone to admire. Hundreds of Americans had been to North Vietnam. They went there to see the health conditions on the ground. The only difference between them and Jane Fonda was...

1. The pictures (which prove nothing)
2. She was rich and famous.

For her to be under such attack just because of those factors is beyond me. Many other Americans went to North Vietnam and nothing was ever said about them (IE: her boyfriend at the time and many others from the U.S.) However, Jane Fonda gets a bad reputation for doing basically the same thing.

That doesn't change the fact that Jane Fonda is not someone to be looked up to. She gave active support to the enemies of her country while those enemies had American citizens locked in tiger cages. She abused the trust some of those prisoners had in her, enough trust to give her messages to take back to her country, by handing those messages over to the North Vietnames authorities. Anyone who applauds or excuse the actions of Jane Fonda either doesn't know history or is denying it.
Vilepagan posted a link that proves this never occurred. Look into it. Also, why was she not tried for treason? Why did the senators who accused her of treason retract their position? Honestly. If it is so CLEAR that she comitted treason why was she not tried and convicted? Seems FAIRLY odd to me.

Oh and Frogger, I love how you claimed I over-identify with female icons who are the “under-dogs” yet don’t respond to the fact that these women have been some of the most successful women to have ever been in American society. I listed their recent accomplishments and I am looking for a rebuttal to prove they are the “under-dogs”.

(And please just ignore those Vietnam Veterans and their strong opinions regarding Jane. What the heck do they know anyway? What does the fact that they were physically there in Vietnam, and alive at the time of her transgressions mean? The dummies are ignoring the fact that you’ve actually read her book! Jerks, they can be. I apologize for them too.)
Many Vietnam veterans met with Jane Fonda to protest the Vietnam War. And many veterans support her to this day.

Also, Sparky, your long rants about knowing more about Jane Fonda prove nothing. Until you can offer specific evidence and proof you have nothing. Oh, and it appears you aren’t being sincere in your apologizes. You keep listing adjectives to describe me, that are clearly being used to jokingly poke fun at my want to not be called a “kid” anymore.

Vilepagan,

Opinions cannot be accurate, sir. Measurements can be accurate. Facts can be proven or disproven to be accurate. Instruments and their readings and/or indications can be accurate, subject to periodic and routine calibration.

Quite so. A poor choice of words on my part.


Opinions are like belly-buttons. Everybody’s got one.
The question isn’t whether someone’s opinion is more accurate, it’s more a matter of whether someone’s opinion holds any water or not.
Whether their opinion is compelling, respected, and genuinely thought-provoking, valid, & relevant.

I agree, well said.


When it comes to the topic of Jane Fonda (or any other pop/political/cultural figure born before 1981) I would comfortably assert that my opinion is automatically more relevant than that of anyone who was born long after Ms. Fonda’s cultural and creative influence had waned.

Again I agree, but if you are trying to put forward an opinion that is "compelling, respected, and genuinely thought-provoking, valid, & relevant", do you think the best way to impress a younger person with the truth of your position is to belittle them, and rather than present your own views and attack their position, you attack them?

Perhaps I am a product of my culture.
(Trust, until it is proven that trust is not indicated. Offer respect and deference, until it is determined that respect has not been earned, nor is appreciated. Be kind and polite, until it is apparent that such behavior is wasted and indeed unwarranted.)

My tactic, many months ago, was to offer Mr. Overdose some thoughtful and sage advice regarding his approach, and how he might present himself in a manner that was less confrontational and would surely earn him more credibility points with the posters at large:

* Listen slightly more than he speaks.

* Think before he flies off the handle
and
* Lose the Paris Hilton/Madonna affectations, and maybe somebody will take him seriously.

Mr. Overdose ultimately rejected my heartfelt offerings, and indeed postured himself as both the downtrodden victim AND the haughty, superior teenaged intellectual who somehow has more on the ball than all the other human beings out there. (All the other human beings who have actually lived on their own, maintained a career, had sexual intercourse, graduated college, fathered children/mothered children, suffered a loss or two, served in the military, gone to war, accomplished something of note, and earned the respect of people who otherwise might be inclined to offer disrespect based purely upon first appearances.)

By attacking him, I hoped to make him wiser, more thoughtful and introspective, less of an immature, argumentative jackass. (And I mean that in only the kindest, most deferential way possible.)

In the end, I failed. Mr. Overdose is, in his own way, a product of HIS culture.

He's been coddled. He's had adults and parent figures (yourself included) make excuses for his behavior, and he is in serious danger of graduating high school and going out into the REAL world seriously underestimating just how cruel, daunting, challenging, and demanding the real world can be.

You aren't doing him any favors by shielding and protecting him, Vilepagan.
You're only making it harder on him.
And in the end, you run the risk of having to take him in and supporting him in a few months, when he finds the real world not to his liking.

I'd personally rather he grow up now, and learn certain hard lessons HERE on allforums, among his friends, rather than later on, among cruel real people.

REAL people can be so much harder to persuade than e-people and web-people.
After all, where does our responsibility to him end?
At the log-off come bedtime,
or
at the curb where he may find himself someday?

I love Overdose just enough to be hard on him.
I care about him just enough to break his balls every now and then.
Just like he was my little brother.

So sue me.

Jane Fonda has never said torture didn't occur (even though some lie and say she has), she has simply said it was not widespread and or systematic throughout North Vietnam. I have a question.

How the hell could Jane Fonda possibly know that torture "was not widespread and or systematic throughout North Vietnam"?

I have a question.

How the hell could Jane Fonda possibly know that torture "was not widespread and or systematic throughout North Vietnam"?
She is Hanoi Jane the Sensual, a Vietnamese Wind goddess. Of course she knows.

I've never understood people's fascination with celebrities.
These people don't even know you're alive. Why waste time on them?
They are not the power brokers of history.
I never understood people's fascination with historical figures. These people don't even know you're alive, and they aren't themselves. Why waste time on them?

Celebrities may be unimportant, but all historical figures you seem to take interest in, like high profile murderers, aren't power brokers of history either.

My tactic, many months ago, was to offer Mr. Overdose some thoughtful and sage advice regarding his approach, and how he might present himself in a manner that was less confrontational and would surely earn him more credibility points with the posters at large:

* Listen slightly more than he speaks.

* Think before he flies off the handle
and
* Lose the Paris Hilton/Madonna affectations, and maybe somebody will take him seriously.

Mr. Overdose ultimately rejected my heartfelt offerings, and indeed postured himself as both the downtrodden victim AND the haughty, superior teenaged intellectual who somehow has more on the ball than all the other human beings out there. (All the other human beings who have actually lived on their own, maintained a career, had sexual intercourse, graduated college, fathered children/mothered children, suffered a loss or two, served in the military, gone to war, accomplished something of note, and earned the respect of people who otherwise might be inclined to offer disrespect based purely upon first appearances.)

By attacking him, I hoped to make him wiser, more thoughtful and introspective, less of an immature, argumentative jackass. (And I mean that in only the kindest, most deferential way possible.)

In the end, I failed. Mr. Overdose is, in his own way, a product of HIS culture.

He's been coddled. He's had adults and parent figures (yourself included) make excuses for his behavior, and he is in serious danger of graduating high school and going out into the REAL world seriously underestimating just how cruel, daunting, challenging, and demanding the real world can be.

You aren't doing him any favors by shielding and protecting him, Vilepagan.
You're only making it harder on him.
And in the end, you run the risk of having to take him in and supporting him in a few months, when he finds the real world not to his liking.

I'd personally rather he grow up now, and learn certain hard lessons HERE on allforums, among his friends, rather than later on.

REAL people can be so much harder to persuade than e-people and web-people.
After all, where does our responsibility to him end?
At the log-off come bedtime,
or
at the curb where he may find himself someday?

I love Overdose just enough to be hard on him.
I care about him just enough to break his balls every now and then.
Just like he was my little brother.

So sue me.
Sparky, when you first started posting often on Allforums, you decided to make false assumptions about my character and personality. You then asked, through a PM I believe, if you could get to know me on a more personal level. Through that you tried to give me “advice”, however, your advice fell flat due to the assumptions you had previously made about my lifestyle and personality. I don’t take suggestions kindly from people who assume incorrect things about me. Not only were these things incorrect, they were also hurtful. And I don’t care if you wanted to “get to know me better” the comments were already made and I was not about to listen to anything you had to say. Maybe if everyone on this forum would stop harping on my sexuality and age I would be more willing to see other people’s point of view.

I also find it ironic how you suggest things, such as being less “confrontational”, yet you yourself turned into an extremely confrontational jackass. Hypocritical much? Also, how does liking Paris Hilton’s music and thinking Madonna is a strong musical icon something that would discredit my credibility in terms of political issues?

Also, I remember proving I was un-fairly attacked in many instances. These included people mocking my sexuality and age. Of course I respond in a confrontational way when people such as yourself falsely assume things about my sexuality and what I know and don’t know due to my age. And they have been doing this from day one. It isn't a new thing.

This quote stuck me that you made:
(All the other human beings who have actually lived on their own, maintained a career, had sexual intercourse, graduated college, fathered children/mothered children, suffered a loss or two, served in the military, gone to war, accomplished something of note, and earned the respect of people who otherwise might be inclined to offer disrespect based purely upon first appearances.)
Because adults in my life who are just as old as yourself AGREE with me on most all of my political stances. It just so happens a few adults on this one little forum don't tend to agree with me. If you think that is going to compell me to change, you're not living in reality.

And if you thought by attacking me you’d make me “wiser” and more “thoughtful” you suffer from insanity. In doing these things you proved yourself to be a hypocrite and a person of increasing immaturity.

Your false attempt to try and justify your cruel comments towards me by saying you actually did so to “try and help me” is laughable. I don’t buy it for once second and you are using it as your way to make excuses for your actions.

The adults on this forum, such as Prae and Trav and other adults who were here before you even joined have been extremely rude to me. More-so then you will ever know, because you simply were not here to see Trav’s hurtful comments in many, many political debates. Besides, Freethinker and others have all said cruel, hurtful things to each other. To think this is due to my generation and age is again, laughable. When adults on this forum, have from day one, attacked me with personal insults and adults on this forum contiune to attack EACH OTHER daily. Frogger recently claimed Evakian was full of bullshit. I guess it has to do with his "generation" that he has to make such rude comments.

So, brother Overdose.
What can you surmise from all this?

Who cares enough to hang in there and offer meaningful advice, and who hits and runs with the snide comments (and oh by the way, uses your threads as launching points for their own agendas)?

I've extended the hand of friendship and mentorship on more than one occasion. But for some reason, you continue to reject that kindness and make your own assumptions about my motives and agenda.

Goddamn it man!
'Paris Hilton is my idol' is your banner, yet you want to be taken seriously as a man and an intellectual?

I care enough about you to tell you the truth!!
You massacre your own credibility with your affectations.
You shoot yourself in the foot by muddying the waters of your otherwise intelligent assertions with your emotions and your poorly-researched arguments.
And then you take two steps backwards after lurching one step forward by arguing, point by mind-numbing point, each and every sub-strata of each fragment of each counter-point offered.

I'm doing you a favor here, and you can't control your emotions long enough to appreciate it.
Look past your bitteness and animosity, and try to objectively evaluate who really gives two shits about how you turn out someday!!

Who are your real friends?
Those who stroke you and tell you that everythings all right,
or those who are willing to challenge you and help you to grow as a person?

Think carefully before you respond.

I never understood people's fascination with historical figures. These people don't even know you're alive, and they aren't themselves. Why waste time on them?

Celebrities may be unimportant, but all historical figures you seem to take interest in, like high profile murderers, aren't power brokers of history either.

Cannot you see the difference in people who DO and people who make a living PRETENDING to do?
The fella who died on Everest a few years ago--forget his name, but he was such an adventurer, a very noble fellow. A friend described him--"Movie stars make a living pretending to be like him."

I hate it when people do that "I'm trying to do you a favor" thing, when they're really just trying to look superior...

I'm not saying that's what's going on here because I don't know but that's what it seems like.

Little sister,

I've put a daughter and a step-daughter through college, sacrificing all personal luxuries and amenities in order that they might have a better life than I did.

I've walked the walk as a parent, mentor, teacher, and friend. Many times over.

When I tell overdose that I am doing him a favor, I mean it.

You want to feel less-persecuted for your youth and inexperience?
Stop using it as a crutch and a weapon.
That's my advice to you, young friend.

I've extended the hand of friendship and mentorship on more than one occasion. But for some reason, you continue to reject that kindness and make your own assumptions about my motives and agenda.
Your "friendship" was not going to be granted. You had already assumed rude, incorrect and hurtful things about me. Of course I am going to reject your offer.

Goddamn it man!
'Paris Hilton is my idol' is your banner, yet you want to be taken seriously as a man and an intellectual?
It is a joke. Again, you are assuming things about me. Did you honestly think Paris Hilton was my idol?

I care enough about you to tell you the truth!!
You massacre your own credibility with your affectations.
You shoot yourself in the foot by muddying the waters of your otherwise intelligent assertions with your emotions and your poorly-researched arguments.
You have spoken no truth. As everything you have criticized me for, you, yourself have done. And please, basically everyone on this forum gets emotional. I don't know a single poster who has not personally attacked another member or hasn't used profanity. Also, pick any topic and prove I was poorly researched.

And then you take two steps backwards after lurching one step forward by arguing, point by mind-numbing point, each and every sub-strata of each fragment of each counter-point offered.
Yep. I do. If you don't like that, then don't debate with me.

Who are your real friends?
Those who stroke you and tell you that everythings all right,
or those who are willing to challenge you and help you to grow as a person?
Think carefully before you respond.
My real friends are people who treat me with respect. Something you lack. And your "challenges" are nothing more then another word to excuse your horrible personal conduct.

Fair enough.

Here's my email address.
john@sparkman.name

Whether life turns out exactly the way you think it's going to, or whether it is ultimately revealed that there was even a fragment of truth or wisdom in the advice I offered you,
I'd sure appreciate hearing in a few years just how everything's worked out for you.
As a life-long student of psychology, I'd really appreciate your letting me know who was right and who was wrong.

Best of luck to you, young man.
I mean that.

Fair enough.

Here's my email address.
john@sparkman.name

Whether life turns out exactly the way you think it's going to, or whether it is ultimately revealed that there was even a fragment of truth or wisdom in the advice I offered you,
I'd sure appreciate hearing in a few years just how everything's worked out for you.
As a life-long student of psychology, I'd really appreciate your letting me know who was right and who was wrong.

Best of luck to you, young man.
I mean that.
It isn't a matter of who was "right" or "wrong". I don't act this way towards people who give me respect. What you are seeing is the way I act towards people who have, from day one, shown me nothing but disrespect. For you to assume these things, when this is hardly who I am in real life, is laughable. And the way you tried to help me only furthered the hate and animosity on this forum. Try a different approach next time.

Stop using it as a crutch and a weapon.

With that, you have destroyed any faith you might have engendered. Overdose is not using his youth as a crutch or a weapon. His weapons are stubbornness and a willingness to go the distance to prove points. Others are content with merely looking like they know what they are doing. You misinterpret it as obstinancy.

Very good post Napster.

Respect is earned.
Or so I have learned.

You've just not earned my respect, overdose.
My instincts as a parent and a big brother have caused me to extend to you that which you neither appreciate nor deserve, I suspect.
And yet I still extend that which you have come to take for granted.
Some hard truths,
and some good advice.

The more you run your mouth, the less I come to care whether you heed either.

Respect is earned.
Or so I have learned.
Exactly! And from day one you made false assumptions about my character and personality. Which made me stubborn and un-willing to see your point-of-view.

You've just not earned my respect, overdose.
I don't want your respect, due to the way you treated me when you first joined. What I want is for you to shut up about all of the negative things you think about me and just either debate the issues or don't post at all. Because all of you have done for awhile now is make threads go off-topic due to personal attacks.

And yet I still extend that which you have come to take for granted.
Some hard truths,
and some good advice.
The truth is you avoid the real issues at hand and you avoid the criticism of your own tactics. Obviously you fall victim to the same critiques you accuse me of.

The more you run your mouth, the less I come to care whether you heed either.
And the more you run yours the more I grow to dislike you.

Napsterbater,

If Ithought for one second that you cared even one little bit about Overdose, or even that you would give Little Sister a second glance beyond some passing impulse to fuck her and then pass her off to your father, I would take your posting seriously & would respond in kind.

As it is, you are just a seriously deranged instigator, gadfly, and lay-about.
So what's the point in sparring with you?

At least I respect where you are coming from; you make no excuses for what you are (a bored trouble-maker) and clearly there is some perverse fun in hanging around to see what kind of trouble you and your little brother AngelDust can stir up.

Glad to have you back, sir.
How many days you reckon you'll be around this time?

We are presented with a petulant, insolate adolescent desperately seeking attention. This individual is seemingly inflexible in receiving criticism of any sort. When confronted, this obstinate youngster typically resorts to pusillanimous outbursts replete with accusations and denials. There is little or no respect given to any view other than his own, regardless of another's experiential knowledge or factual accuracy.

Forgive me es, but I don't think you're in a position top know OD's motives for posting what he does.

His motives are clearly displayed in the style of his writing.

The sort of criticism he receives would be unpalatable to anyone.

He brings the criticism on himself.

OD may be obstinate at times, but I don't believe I've ever seen him act cowardly.

I stand by my wording.

Again, I think the other posters in this thread have been far more disrespectful than he has.

Again, he's brought that upon himself. I stand by what I said and have repeated above.

Oh crap.
I made this thread go off-topic due to my personal attacks.

My opinions regarding Jane Fonda:

* Traitor

* Seditionist bitch

* Surprisingly fun conversationalist, and a genuinely rewarding companion on a road trip

* Self-important twit

* Hollywood elitist nincompoop who inherited her fame and privilege from her father. Confuses this privilege with influence and a real mandate. Has always been under the assumption that her fame and celebrity equate to political gravitas. Her brother Peter at least has a clue that he is a no-talent bimbo. Jane never caught on to this fact.

* A real tiger in the sack. Alarmingly firm body for a woman her age.
All that exercise paid-off, I guess.


* Limber. Contortionist, one might say. Can nibble the small of her own back.

That's about all I can think of for right now.