Author Topic: Jane Fonda  (Read 5917 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

_JS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3500
  • Salaires legers. Chars lourds.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Jane Fonda
« Reply #15 on: February 15, 2008, 02:59:57 PM »
why?

The list is too long to write here for the little time that I have.

'84 and '85 Miner's Strike
Love Affair (not literal) with Pinochet and von Hayek
Selling out of the British working class
No such thing as society
Fucked the Scottish, Irish, and Welsh (pardon the language)
Manufactured a war with the fascist junta of Argentina

I could go on for pages, but I'll spare you...she made Reagan look like a little fuzzy puppy.
I smell something burning, hope it's just my brains.
They're only dropping peppermints and daisy-chains
   So stuff my nose with garlic
   Coat my eyes with butter
   Fill my ears with silver
   Stick my legs in plaster
   Tell me lies about Vietnam.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Jane Fonda
« Reply #16 on: February 15, 2008, 03:20:40 PM »
I am amazed that a disagreement over political philosophies conjures up visions of pissing on peoples graves.

I guess it is cathartic, but it also implies that without escalation (and emotionally internalizing an issue to the extent of visualizing desecrating a grave is an escalation) arguments don't stand on their own merits.


Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Jane Fonda
« Reply #17 on: February 15, 2008, 03:21:36 PM »
Perhaps by the time Dick Cheney dies, people will recognize what he has done to the US and will incorporate a urinal into his tombstone. I think I might pay as much as a dollar to pee on the remains of Dick Cheney.

Of course,I mean this symbolically, as it would accomplish nothing. But that is not to say that Cheney is undeserving of the honor.

« Last Edit: February 15, 2008, 03:43:48 PM by Xavier_Onassis »
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Jane Fonda
« Reply #18 on: February 15, 2008, 03:35:51 PM »
Hmmm. Perhaps this is a way to retire the national debt.


Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Jane Fonda
« Reply #19 on: February 15, 2008, 03:58:46 PM »
<<Calley was a man under too much stress and made a wrong decision. >>

Spoken like a man with no moral compass.  I'm not surprised you were in the Marines.  You guys have no conscience and no sense of right and wrong.  What surprises me is that you can pretend to be a Christian.  Apparently "Whatsoever ye do unto the least of me . . . " does not refer to Vietnamese or any other civilian enemy of the U.S.A.

Calley was a murderer.  Consciously, knowingly.  He wasn't taking fire at the time and the stress as any high school B student would know, was fabricated solely for the purposes of saving his ass at a trial.  The "wrong decision" that he made was a decision to deliberately murder unarmed and defenceless old people, children, toddlers, infants, nursing mothers.    Kinda like Ted Bundy's "wrong decision" to (a) rape and (b) murder Jane Doe.  Although I'm sure Ted Bundy too was under too much stress.

Nevertheless, Jane Fonda, for her recognition of the fact that the Vietnamese too are human beings, and her attempts to make peace and stop the slaughter, deserves to have her grave pissed on.  Lt. Calley, who "made a wrong decision" when "under too much stress" does not.

Thanks for your opinion.  I found it very interesting.  I'll keep it in mind when I see other opinions of yours, remind myself who they're coming from.

The_Professor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1735
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Jane Fonda
« Reply #20 on: February 15, 2008, 04:09:13 PM »
<<Calley was a man under too much stress and made a wrong decision. >>

Spoken like a man with no moral compass.  I'm not surprised you were in the Marines.  You guys have no conscience and no sense of right and wrong.  What surprises me is that you can pretend to be a Christian.  Apparently "Whatsoever ye do unto the least of me . . . " does not refer to Vietnamese or any other civilian enemy of the U.S.A.

Calley was a murderer.  Consciously, knowingly.  He wasn't taking fire at the time and the stress as any high school B student would know, was fabricated solely for the purposes of saving his ass at a trial.  The "wrong decision" that he made was a decision to deliberately murder unarmed and defenceless old people, children, toddlers, infants, nursing mothers.    Kinda like Ted Bundy's "wrong decision" to (a) rape and (b) murder Jane Doe.  Although I'm sure Ted Bundy too was under too much stress.

Nevertheless, Jane Fonda, for her recognition of the fact that the Vietnamese too are human beings, and her attempts to make peace and stop the slaughter, deserves to have her grave pissed on.  Lt. Calley, who "made a wrong decision" when "under too much stress" does not.

Thanks for your opinion.  I found it very interesting.  I'll keep it in mind when I see other opinions of yours, remind myself who they're coming from.

Well, well, didn't we hit a nerve!

First, I will not attempt to place this in personal terms as that is immature. <sorry, couldn't help myself there. But I digress.)

I never said I would piss on anyone's grave. Go back and read the posts, if you will. Tacky in my mind.

Lt. Calley went past the point of rationality. Beyond regrettable. He broke. It happens and sometiems people die because of it. Part of war, I am afraid. To think otherwise is naive. Again, that is not to minimize what he did, just to offer a reasonable explanation for it.

Jane Fonda knew what she was doing all along, and didn't "break". She is a traitor and I will always believe that, barring some further "revelation" on her part.

We disagree. Sobeit. I will no longer lose any sleep over it. Doesn't mean you're a dirtbag; just incorrect.
***************************
"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide."
                                 -- Jerry Pournelle, Ph.D

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Jane Fonda
« Reply #21 on: February 15, 2008, 05:02:44 PM »
<<I never said I would piss on anyone's grave. Go back and read the posts, if you will. >>

I was aware of the posts and that you never said you would do it.  But it was clear, at least to me, getting past the silly symbolism of pissing or not pissing on the graves (I took my symbols as I found them) that you considered Fonda's conduct much more reprehensible than Calley's.  It was on that distinction that I based my remarks.

In effect, a mass murderer gets a pass.  A woman who defies her own country's government to befriend her official "enemies" and condemn their American killers, doesn't get a pass.

"Blessed are the peacemakers" gets consigned to the shredder.

So I will tell you flat-out you are 100% wrong.  In my world, Lt. Calley gets a fair trial and if "too much stress" is his defence, then (a) I don't believe he was under much stress and (b) even if he were, it would be no excuse and (c) he is going to be hanged by the neck until dead.  And in that same world, Jane Fonda gets a medal and every civic honour that can be bestowed upon a civilian.

I believe I understand your take on Fonda, though - - she gave aid (questionable but possible) and comfort (I'll admit she made them feel good about what they were doing, especially when she posed with an anti-aircraft gun crew on station) to the "enemy."  Here's where I'm coming from on that:  had she done the same during WWII, I'd agree with you.  The enemy was the enemy.  Hostilities were in progress AND war had been declared.But in Viet Nam, the war was an illegal and unjustified assault on a people who did not give cause for war, therefore (without a formal declaration of war) they could not be the enemy.  A legalistic argument to be sure, because they are killing Americans, but then also a reality-based argument too since they are only killing Americans because Americans are illegally attacking them in their own homes.

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Jane Fonda
« Reply #22 on: February 15, 2008, 05:12:04 PM »
Hmmm. Perhaps this is a way to retire the national debt.
=============================================
Every president in recent times has his own 'Library', even those who were not all that fond of books, like Reagan. So far, most of the visitors are fans. Now if there were a special place where those who disliked the president could pee in an insulting manner, they could also charge for that, and thereby collect more revenue. They could keep a running totall of admirers vs. pissers, because Americans love competition. True this is rather dumb, but less so than American Idol or the Emmys or Cops.

I doubt that it would be enough to retire the national debt. Most Americans are apathetic about politics and more so about history. How would you react to John Q. Adams, James K. Polk or Chester A. Arthur, for example?

I am more curious than political about any politician before TR.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Jane Fonda
« Reply #23 on: February 15, 2008, 05:25:42 PM »


I doubt that it would be enough to retire the national debt. Most Americans are apathetic about politics and more so about history. How would you react to John Q. Adams, James K. Polk or Chester A. Arthur, for example?

 

Adams was the most abolitionist Preaident we ever had. I am a fan.

Polk was the most warlike , agrandiseing and imperialistic  President we have ever had. I am ambivilient.

Chester A Auther reformend the Civil Service and made it a decent living rather than the spoils of the victor , I benefit directly.

The_Professor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1735
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Jane Fonda
« Reply #24 on: February 15, 2008, 08:32:09 PM »
<<I never said I would piss on anyone's grave. Go back and read the posts, if you will. >>

I was aware of the posts and that you never said you would do it.  But it was clear, at least to me, getting past the silly symbolism of pissing or not pissing on the graves (I took my symbols as I found them) that you considered Fonda's conduct much more reprehensible than Calley's.  It was on that distinction that I based my remarks.

In effect, a mass murderer gets a pass.  A woman who defies her own country's government to befriend her official "enemies" and condemn their American killers, doesn't get a pass.

"Blessed are the peacemakers" gets consigned to the shredder.

So I will tell you flat-out you are 100% wrong.  In my world, Lt. Calley gets a fair trial and if "too much stress" is his defence, then (a) I don't believe he was under much stress and (b) even if he were, it would be no excuse and (c) he is going to be hanged by the neck until dead.  And in that same world, Jane Fonda gets a medal and every civic honour that can be bestowed upon a civilian.

I believe I understand your take on Fonda, though - - she gave aid (questionable but possible) and comfort (I'll admit she made them feel good about what they were doing, especially when she posed with an anti-aircraft gun crew on station) to the "enemy."  Here's where I'm coming from on that:  had she done the same during WWII, I'd agree with you.  The enemy was the enemy.  Hostilities were in progress AND war had been declared.But in Viet Nam, the war was an illegal and unjustified assault on a people who did not give cause for war, therefore (without a formal declaration of war) they could not be the enemy.  A legalistic argument to be sure, because they are killing Americans, but then also a reality-based argument too since they are only killing Americans because Americans are illegally attacking them in their own homes.

But, here is where we differ, MT: IT IS NOT YOUR JOB TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT IS JUSTIFIED OR NOT, IT IS THE CA.
***************************
"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide."
                                 -- Jerry Pournelle, Ph.D

The_Professor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1735
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Jane Fonda
« Reply #25 on: February 15, 2008, 08:35:05 PM »
<<I never said I would piss on anyone's grave. Go back and read the posts, if you will. >>

I was aware of the posts and that you never said you would do it.  But it was clear, at least to me, getting past the silly symbolism of pissing or not pissing on the graves (I took my symbols as I found them) that you considered Fonda's conduct much more reprehensible than Calley's.  It was on that distinction that I based my remarks.

In effect, a mass murderer gets a pass.  A woman who defies her own country's government to befriend her official "enemies" and condemn their American killers, doesn't get a pass.

"Blessed are the peacemakers" gets consigned to the shredder.

So I will tell you flat-out you are 100% wrong.  In my world, Lt. Calley gets a fair trial and if "too much stress" is his defence, then (a) I don't believe he was under much stress and (b) even if he were, it would be no excuse and (c) he is going to be hanged by the neck until dead.  And in that same world, Jane Fonda gets a medal and every civic honour that can be bestowed upon a civilian.

I believe I understand your take on Fonda, though - - she gave aid (questionable but possible) and comfort (I'll admit she made them feel good about what they were doing, especially when she posed with an anti-aircraft gun crew on station) to the "enemy."  Here's where I'm coming from on that:  had she done the same during WWII, I'd agree with you.  The enemy was the enemy.  Hostilities were in progress AND war had been declared.But in Viet Nam, the war was an illegal and unjustified assault on a people who did not give cause for war, therefore (without a formal declaration of war) they could not be the enemy.  A legalistic argument to be sure, because they are killing Americans, but then also a reality-based argument too since they are only killing Americans because Americans are illegally attacking them in their own homes.

I believe in peace. I really do. I think we should pursue all reasonable avenues via diplomacy. You must be willing to give as well as take. But if that fails, then you must be willing to pick up your musket and shoot somebody with it. Until you win. Ruthlessly. Effectively. No holds barred, thank you. Then, you offer aid and comfort to your defeated enemies.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2008, 08:49:24 PM by The_Professor »
***************************
"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide."
                                 -- Jerry Pournelle, Ph.D

Lanya

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3300
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Jane Fonda
« Reply #26 on: February 15, 2008, 08:42:38 PM »
Bless her heart; I think the Doula project sounds great.  That's what is needed.
Planned Parenthood is America’s most trusted provider of reproductive health care.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Jane Fonda
« Reply #27 on: February 15, 2008, 09:13:01 PM »
Sticking up for [gasp] Jane Fonda


HER AGAIN. I don't have to prove that I have no use for Jane Fonda. But today she's being tarred unreasonably. Drudge has run one of his RED headlines to highlight her latest crime:



La Malkin pounced on the infraction in her first post of the day, expressing her profound indignation, as well as the banal observation that "the woman has no class." Yet she found it within her journalistic soul to reproduce the offending clip and to caption her teaser for the post as follows:



That's better is it, than what Fonda did? I don't think so. "Ew, I could never bring myself to utter this disgusting word myself, but I can show you other people saying it, and I can play allusive word games with it, but rest assured it will never pass my lips." The truth is, there are only two dirty words left in the English language. The runt-rhyme is one of them. Malkin is equally obsessed with the other one (which she can, somehow, force herself at least to type):




It used to be that words were dirty because they were too anatomical, too pungently evocative of sheer physicalness to be permissible in mixed company. The offending source was always Celtic or Anglo-Saxon (Go figure.) Latin words were almost always acceptable -- feces, urine, anus, penis, glans, testicles, mammaries, vagina, vulva, coitus, orgasm. Because they're not especially successful words; they don't instantly summon a vivid, sensual (i.e., lurid and smelly) experience of the thing so named. The Anglo-Saxon words are all works of verbal genius, astonishingly direct highways to the most fully developed regions of sense memory: shit, piss, asshole, cock, prick, balls, tits, cunt, pussy, fucking, cum.

Well, the Romans faded away for some reason. The Celt/Anglo-Saxon peoples flourished and came to dominate the world. Because their dirty words were dirtier than everyone else's? No one can say. But their dirty words were so powerful that their own poets and playwrights and novelists actually connived in the process of making them dirty in the first place. (Distinctly not the case with the Romans, for example. See Catullus, the Keats of Rome.) The words were too powerful. Using them in print or on stage heightened their power and could cost the author the audience attention he craved. So the Latin words were resurrected for all mundane informational applications ("The mother delivers the infant through her vagina," not "Mommy squeezes the baby out of her cunt"), and the writers made up a brand new art of innuendo, double-entendre, and puns to keep their audiences under control. Today it's popular to blame Christians for such word games, and Christians seem happy to accept the credit, but squeamishness about truly effective words long predates Christianity. Politicians have hated every one-syllable word meaning 'lie' as long as governments have existed. 'Prevarication' is a great, mild-sounding Latin word, isn't it?

But we live in liberated secular times now. The censoring of dirty words has become as vestigial as the human appendix. Most of them can be encountered on American sitcoms in primetime, and all but two are routinely said on basic cable and BBC sitcoms: shit, piss, asshole, cock, prick, balls, tits, [nope], pussy, [nope], cum.

But I previously said there are only two dirty words, including the infamous, unspeakable, unholy N-Word, and I've listed two plain old dirty words you'll never hear unless you have a premium cable channel -- or a pre-teen son or daughter.

Which brings us to the most ridiculous phenomenon of our whole media-saturated age: the phony bleep. With the possible exception of 'shit', 'fuck' (and its variants) is the most widely used word on the whole list. The audio editors have acquired the skill of neurosurgeons in cutting out all sound between the first half of the 'f' and the last half of the 'k.' (Soupy Sales should have been so lucky.) Like there's anyone over the age of three who doesn't possess enough persistence of memory to hear the word that's being (un)spoken. We seem to be content with the pretense that we don't hear what every single damn one of us does hear in our mind's ear, as long as the token phony bleep gives us cover. Exactly the same principle is at work with Michelle Malkin's "rhymes with runt." All phony bleeps come with a built-in leer that arises from the shared perception that a dirty word has been amplified by its fraudulent subtraction. We LOVE it, lechers and prudes alike. Censorship as actual titillation. Will Malkin be hotter tonight, on this St. Valentine's Day, because she rhymed runt with [you know]? Sure she will. Words wouldn't be dirty if they didn't have an effect.

Here's a good example of the whole phony bleep phenomenon. Note two things (skip ahead to four minutes into the clip): Harvard alum Matt Damon's easy use of the word 'fuck' with his whole immediate family and children sitting in the front row, and his schizophrenic feelings about the word 'cunt.' Why does he love it AND hate it? Because it's the last dirty word. (Except for that other one.}



Observe how the largely female audience just loves his uses of these words. They laugh, they giggle, they smile. It's HOT.

The sad truth is, we've destroyed all the good dirty words. When anyone can use them anytime, they gradually lose their force. That's part of the meaning of Matt Damon's description of 'fuck' as a mere conjunction like 'and' and 'because' and 'but.' He said the word a whole bunch of times in his interview, but he never got the reaction he did when he said 'cunt.' The women approved and accepted the former, but they loved the 'latter.' They knew exactly what he meant.

Here's the thing. Women don't "hate" the word 'cunt' any more than black people "hate" the word 'nigger.' Apart from real articulate speech, these are the last two words of power in our language. They're both words used by people who inflict their power on others by posing as victims. They're both words that are used proudly by the supposed victims with each other to heighten the potency of their grievances: Feminists 'celebrate' the supposedly hateful C-Word in events like Penn State's 'Cuntfest,' while blacks use 'nigger' as an ethnic privilege to demonstrate their politically correct advantage over white people in the culture wars. In short, women love the word 'cunt,' depending on who says it and under what circumstances. And black people love the word 'nigger' the same way.

The only thing that makes these words dirty anymore is that there's a caste distinction with respect to who can use them.

But that's not dirt. That's politics.

I know it's taken a long time to get here. But I really liked what Jane Fonda said. She didn't cringe or make a face when she said 'cunt.' She didn't pretend the word is one her lily ears have never heard. I think I heard her say, implicitly, that scrawling a bad word on the wall of a theater or on a page (or even its rhyme) is basically a juvenile waste of time and hardly art. (Rappers take note.) What better way to communicate her objection to performing in a play called the Vagina Monologues, for God's sake? She said a word we all know and made it clear she's not hostage to the word, afraid of it, or particularly smitten by it. She sounded [gasp], for the first time in my experience of her, like a grown-up woman.

Malkin take note too. Yes, a word can be a hurtful brick. But a brick is a weapon only by accident. Mostly, it's a building material. A cunt isn't a disgusting thing. It's probably the single coolest thing God ever created.


http://www.instapunk.com/archives/InstaPunkArchiveV2.php3?a=1260

The_Professor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1735
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Jane Fonda
« Reply #28 on: February 15, 2008, 10:29:50 PM »
There is some truth in this article. Still, and perhaps it is my being too old-fashioned, but THAT is still a dirty word.
***************************
"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide."
                                 -- Jerry Pournelle, Ph.D

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Jane Fonda
« Reply #29 on: February 16, 2008, 12:47:29 AM »
Quote
There is some truth in this article. Still, and perhaps it is my being too old-fashioned, but THAT is still a dirty word.

Then don't use it.