A little more info then I needed.

[w2amr]

At 74, Jane Fonda 'never had such a fulfilling sex life':vomit:

http://todayentertainment.today.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/10/12666278-at-74-jane-fonda-never-had-such-a-fulfilling-sex-life?lite (http://todayentertainment.today.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/10/12666278-at-74-jane-fonda-never-had-such-a-fulfilling-sex-life?lite)

[N8YX]

Without meandering into politics by issuing a few select comments regarding the person, I'll just leave these here:

http://i577.photobucket.com/albums/ss220/tomway/1236646217949.gif


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k80nW6AOhTs

[KA9MOT]

I guess she forgot about the time she fucked all of America and the hundreds of thousands of troops we had in Vietnam... I detest that fuckin' cunt! Traitorous Bitch!

[PA5COR]

^What he said...

[KC2UGV]

I guess she forgot about the time she fucked all of America and the hundreds of thousands of troops we had in Vietnam... I detest that fuckin' cunt! Traitorous Bitch!

For those who have a less than savory opinion of her due to past missteps, perchance you'd want to give this a read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Fonda#.22Hanoi_Jane.22_controversy

And, I can understand the view, given the perspective of hearing about it through an enflamed media machine. However, I can't find fault with her intentions, only with her missteps along the way (Hindsight being 20-20 and all that).

[W5GA]

Sorry, Corey...her comments are no different than a bank robber saying I didn't mean to kill the teller. No sale.

[KC2UGV]

Sorry, Corey...her comments are no different than a bank robber saying I didn't mean to kill the teller. No sale.

And yet, her goal was to get us the hell out of a war we had no business being in.

[W3WN]

I don't care what kind of spin she puts on it today. If she wasn't technically a traitor, she was close enough to the legal line to morally & ethically be one.

[W3WN]

And yet, her goal was to get us the hell out of a war we had no business being in.One can argue that. If that is the case, and I'm not saying it is... her goal may have been laudable, but her methods were deplorable.

[W5GA]

And yet, her goal was to get us the hell out of a war we had no business being in.
And the bank robbers goal was to get money, not kill the teller.
Her motivations were immaterial. Many, many people were motivated to get us out of that war. It's actions that tell the tale, and hers amounted to treason.

[N8YX]

Here's the problem with what she did: Consorting with the enemy.

I don't care for a number of things our government does - especially during police actionwartime - but I damn sure won't venture into a combat zone for the purpose of making propaganda films or pictures with 'the enemy'. Have issues with the way the military is doing things, and who they're doing them to? Lobby your Congresscritter, at home...in D.C. ...which is what she should have been doing with hers and Daddy Fonda's money in the first place.

Without looking at the Wikipedia link (and whose content may or may not be trusted, depending on the brand of axe being ground at the moment) my personal jury is still out regarding the rumors of her having informed the NVA of POWs complaining of mistreatment. Enough culpability has been established without it.

I'll also guarantee something else: If anyone besides one of the moneyed/well-connected had pulled that stunt, they would probably be facing treason charges.

[KC2UGV]

One can argue that. If that is the case, and I'm not saying it is... her goal may have been laudable, but her methods were deplorable.

And, this is merely my point.


Here's the problem with what she did: Consorting with the enemy.

I don't care for a number of things our government does - especially during police actionwartime - but I damn sure won't venture into a combat zone for the purpose of making propaganda films or pictures with 'the enemy'. Have issues with the way the military is doing things, and who they're doing them to? Lobby your Congresscritter, at home...in D.C. ...which is what she should have been doing with hers and Daddy Fonda's money in the first place.

Without looking at the Wikipedia link (and whose content may or may not be trusted, depending on the brand of axe being ground at the moment) my personal jury is still out regarding the rumors of her having informed the NVA of POWs complaining of mistreatment. Enough culpability has been established without it.

I'll also guarantee something else: If anyone besides one of the moneyed/well-connected had pulled that stunt, they would probably be facing treason charges.

Of course that's not the case. Look at all the people right now calling for secession. That's outright treason, outlined in the constitution in black and white. Are any of those people facing treason charges?

Where her actions less than favorable? Sure. What was "treasonous" about it? Siding with people fighting for their home country against a foreign invasion? Come on, me being a veteran, I might not find her actions tasteful, but it's hardly treason.

We want to talk about treason, let's talk about the people selling our nation down the river right now, not a stupid 20 something sitting for a tasteless photo op...

[W3WN]

OK Corey. I will concede that cavorting with the enemy in a war may not neccesarily be within the technical and legal term of "treason." I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not going to argue the point.

Do I find her actions less than favorable? I'd have said deplorable.

And, as I recall, the primary issue in Vietnam wasn't a foreign invasion... yeah, I know, the French conquered what had one time been known as French Indo-China decades before, and there was insurrection against them, but they had pretty much pulled out by the time of our major involvement. What we got involved in was a civil war, fronting a nominal democracy (more of a dictatorship, but that's another story), whilst our adversaries on the other side of the Cold War were fronting a different dictatorship that had the trappings of Communism.

Should we have gotten involved? That's also another story, and I don't want to go down that tangent right now.

Suffice to say... a primary reason that we "lost" that conflict (and we did, no matter how you try to spin it) is that our nation collectively lost the desire, the will, to fight it. One of the reasons that that happened was due to effective propaganda from the other side.

And Jane Fonda... whether out of the naive nature of her youth, or due to her active distaste for the war and the way our government chose to fight it, or for any of a number of other reasons... aided the other side in the creation of that propaganda.

You want to say that that's not 'treason?' Like I said, I'll concede the legal point, as I am not a lawyer. But her actions are certainly suspect of being way down that road, even if they didn't quite get there.

...and yes, there are many peopel selling out our nation right now, and yes, there actions might be considered treason, many probably should be. That too is a different topic for a different thread, and does not mitigate what Fonda did.

[N8YX]

Let me see if I got this correct: You're excusing her actions because her political beliefs happen to coincide with your own? The fact that there are "...people selling this nation down the river..." having no bearing whatsoever on Fonda's innocence (or guilt, as that may be).

She gets no free pass, they get no free pass. Simple, and non-partisan.

[n2ize]

I don't think what she did amounts to traitorism. It was a different time and among a lot of young people anti war sentiments were very strong, almost to the point of detesting our own military and the role it was playing, or being made to play. I think she was young, gullible, and perhaps has some misplaced/misdirected emotions. I think she could have been more tactful. While she was trying to raise the point that we were fighting a dirty corrupt war which was resulting in the deaths of many innocent people, she could have done it in such a way as to not turn our soldiers into the "bad guys", but rather aim her ire in the direction of the politicians who created the whole mess.

I understand she offended many people however, I feel there is always room for forgiveness. People do change. There is such a thing as being young and naive, even among priviledged persons like herself. Heck who hasn't done or said something offensive in their youth only to regret it in their older years and wish we could go back to fix what we did wrong. While she doesn't have to apologize for taking an anti-war stand I only hope her apologies are sincere and she has truly come to terms with where and what she did that offended many people.

I think the real people we should be angry about are the politicians and their lies and propaganda, who started a useless war resulting in thousands of young Americans robbed of their lives and countless innocent civilians killed and maimed in Vietnam. Hanoi Jane may have done wrong but her crimes are dwarfed by the crimes of those who made it all happen and allowed it to continue.

[VE7DCW]

I guess she forgot about the time she fucked all of America and the hundreds of thousands of troops we had in Vietnam... I detest that fuckin' cunt! Traitorous Bitch!

Yup .... I agree with this statement .......and I'm not an American or even the fact Canada was not involved in that conflict ....... the moniker of "Hanoi Jane" will always stick with her ..... :wtf:

[WØTKX]

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

[n2ize]

Suffice to say... a primary reason that we "lost" that conflict (and we did, no matter how you try to spin it) is that our nation collectively lost the desire, the will, to fight it. One of the reasons that that happened was due to effective propaganda from the other side.

And Jane Fonda... whether out of the naive nature of her youth, or due to her active distaste for the war and the way our government chose to fight it, or for any of a number of other reasons... aided the other side in the creation of that propaganda.

Sometimes there is truth in "propaganda" and/or sometimes what some label "propaganda" is actually truth. What about the propaganda that politicians and media dumped onto the American people in support of that war ? How much of that was truth ? How much was exposed to be not truth over the years since ? What about the propaganda (much of which was proved false) used to motivate us into Iraq ? Had we know gotten "propaganda" from the other side of tthe coin would we have been so anxious to get into Iraq ? Vietnam ?

[n2ize]

Yup .... I agree with this statement .......and I'm not an American or even the fact Canada was not involved in that conflict ....... the moniker of "Hanoi Jane" will always stick with her ..... :wtf:

And who screwed over the troops the most ? Hanoi Jane or Nixon ? Who got thousands of Americans killed ? Who were the real traitors to American back then ? Who really fucked over America ?

[n2ize]

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

Interesting...

[KC2UGV]

OK Corey. I will concede that cavorting with the enemy in a war may not neccesarily be within the technical and legal term of "treason." I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not going to argue the point.

Do I find her actions less than favorable? I'd have said deplorable.


Since I was not alive then, I can hardly state with the emotional fervor many hear are able to. However, after reading about her "actions", the worse she did was a photo op with "the enemy". Tasteless? Sure. Deplorable? Maybe. Traitorous? Hardly.



And, as I recall, the primary issue in Vietnam wasn't a foreign invasion... yeah, I know, the French conquered what had one time been known as French Indo-China decades before, and there was insurrection against them, but they had pretty much pulled out by the time of our major involvement. What we got involved in was a civil war, fronting a nominal democracy (more of a dictatorship, but that's another story), whilst our adversaries on the other side of the Cold War were fronting a different dictatorship that had the trappings of Communism.


It became an invasion once we stepped foot over there, picking winners and losers. It's the same we did in the Middle East (And do so today). And, no better.



Should we have gotten involved? That's also another story, and I don't want to go down that tangent right now.

Suffice to say... a primary reason that we "lost" that conflict (and we did, no matter how you try to spin it) is that our nation collectively lost the desire, the will, to fight it. One of the reasons that that happened was due to effective propaganda from the other side.

And Jane Fonda... whether out of the naive nature of her youth, or due to her active distaste for the war and the way our government chose to fight it, or for any of a number of other reasons... aided the other side in the creation of that propaganda.


Then, Nixon was a traitor, because he went to China. Happy?

We "lost" that war (Which we didn't "lose" or "win") because many Americans were sick of the 50,000 people dying, and wanted it to stop. Hell, maybe she helped prevent more deaths by demoralizing us enough to get out of there.



You want to say that that's not 'treason?' Like I said, I'll concede the legal point, as I am not a lawyer. But her actions are certainly suspect of being way down that road, even if they didn't quite get there.

...and yes, there are many peopel selling out our nation right now, and yes, there actions might be considered treason, many probably should be. That too is a different topic for a different thread, and does not mitigate what Fonda did.

Again, the worst she did was a photo op. If that amounts to disgraceful, we should mark Nixon, Clinton, Reagan, and a number of past presidents the same. They all "helped" make propaganda for various "enemies" at times (Eurasia or Eastasia, I can't remember which one was our enemy at the time).


Let me see if I got this correct: You're excusing her actions because her political beliefs happen to coincide with your own? The fact that there are "...people selling this nation down the river..." having no bearing whatsoever on Fonda's innocence (or guilt, as that may be).

She gets no free pass, they get no free pass. Simple, and non-partisan.

Excusing? Hardly. I'll admit, it was pretty tasteless posing in an arty battery, or making a radio broadcast speaking the truth of the matter (Our politicians were dirty, and playing a proxy war) from a Tokyo Rose spot. It's hardly "traitorous" as many here state, and are probably thinking that way because of US propaganda making her out to have done far worse than that.

[W4GPL]

Then, Nixon was a traitor, because he went to China. Happy?As much as I don't give a shit as to what Jane Fonda did, that's a really obtuse thing to say. There's a big difference between between a chief diplomat and being a celebrity bimbo sitting on a tank in enemy territory.

[KC2UGV]

As much as I don't give a shit as to what Jane Fonda did, that's a really obtuse thing to say. There's a big difference between between a chief diplomat and being a celebrity bimbo sitting on a tank in enemy territory.

Oh? Amazingly, I agree with you. There is a HUUUGE difference.

Sending our top diplomats for photo ops with dictators is much worse than a celebrity (Who doesn't affect politics, largely) posing in a photo op. The Top Diplomat sends the signal that the leadership of the country is on board with the dictatorship. The celebrity represents the celebrity's support.

[W3WN]

Sometimes there is truth in "propaganda" and/or sometimes what some label "propaganda" is actually truth. What about the propaganda that politicians and media dumped onto the American people in support of that war ? How much of that was truth ? How much was exposed to be not truth over the years since ? What about the propaganda (much of which was proved false) used to motivate us into Iraq ? Had we know gotten "propaganda" from the other side of tthe coin would we have been so anxious to get into Iraq ? Vietnam ?Good point. After all, one nation's "truth" is another nation's "propaganda".

With that in mind, whether or not our country issued it's own packaged "truth" as propaganda (and it did) is not the point. Her actions on behalf of the other side, whether or malicious, or as a naieve young girl who was duped, or somewhere in between... and her subsequent actions to defend or deny or to spin what she did... is.

Many will never forgive her for what they believe that she did. And even if they are wrong (and I'm not saying they are, nor am I saying their not), perception is reality and you will never convince them otherwise.

[W3WN]

< snip >
Then, Nixon was a traitor, because he went to China. Happy?
< snip >Well, that came out of left field, and was totally irrelevant.

Nixon was a crook. No, let me be more precise: He was a corrupt politician who was willing to stop at almost nothing to prevent his opponent from defeating him for re-election. He was guilty of criminal conspiracy in the planning, execution, and attempted cover-up of the Watergate break-in, and the only reason he didn't go to jail was because President Ford pardoned him.

Which is totally irrelevant... when he went to China, as only he could ("There is an old Vulcan proverb: Only Nixon could go to China" -- Spock), he went as a diplomat, representing our nation. And we were not in a shooting war with China at the time. So this has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

[W4GPL]

Using Corey's logic, Truman and Churchill were evil traitors too.

http://cdn.dipity.com/uploads/events/f221acfe9580c1714d0f3cbdbda4b84a_1M.png

[N8YX]

Using Corey's logic, Truman and Churchill were evil traitors too.
Who should be dug up and hung.

[KC2UGV]

Good point. After all, one nation's "truth" is another nation's "propaganda".

With that in mind, whether or not our country issued it's own packaged "truth" as propaganda (and it did) is not the point. Her actions on behalf of the other side, whether or malicious, or as a naieve young girl who was duped, or somewhere in between... and her subsequent actions to defend or deny or to spin what she did... is.

Many will never forgive her for what they believe that she did. And even if they are wrong (and I'm not saying they are, nor am I saying their not), perception is reality and you will never convince them otherwise.

And, I'll cede: What she did was tasteless, however, it's doubtful it was malicious. Never attribute to malice what can be explained as stupidity comes to mind here.

And, I don't think she's ever tried to defend or spin. She's stated many times since that she regrets doing it. How long shall we crucify a person for mistakes made during during 20's?


Well, that came out of left field, and was totally irrelevant.

Nixon was a crook. No, let me be more precise: He was a corrupt politician who was willing to stop at almost nothing to prevent his opponent from defeating him for re-election. He was guilty of criminal conspiracy in the planning, execution, and attempted cover-up of the Watergate break-in, and the only reason he didn't go to jail was because President Ford pardoned him.

Which is totally irrelevant... when he went to China, as only he could ("There is an old Vulcan proverb: Only Nixon could go to China" -- Spock), he went as a diplomat, representing our nation. And we were not in a shooting war with China at the time. So this has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Well, we were in a cold-war with them. It's why were in Vietnam to begin with: To keep the Chi-coms from taking over! And, the US sent a high level diplomate to China, enabling China to create propaganda from the photo shoot that made it look like the US supports the Chinese government. So, therefore, if we apply the same level to Nixon (And Clinton, and many others) that we apply to Fonda, then they are traitors as well.

[KC2UGV]

Using Corey's logic, Truman and Churchill were evil traitors too.



Not my logic. I am applying the same logic to others, that many here are applying to Fonda. Me? She did something stupid, and tasteless, as many dumb 20-somethings do. However, her actions are just about on par with many "official" actions done by our own government.

However, I have yet to see anyone here talking about the "traitors among us", who called for secession from the US, and are still in office today. And, what they are doing is black and white considered "traitorous" by our constitution.

[n2ize]

Good point. After all, one nation's "truth" is another nation's "propaganda".

With that in mind, whether or not our country issued it's own packaged "truth" as propaganda (and it did) is not the point. Her actions on behalf of the other side, whether or malicious, or as a naieve young girl who was duped, or somewhere in between... and her subsequent actions to defend or deny or to spin what she did... is.

Many will never forgive her for what they believe that she did. And even if they are wrong (and I'm not saying they are, nor am I saying their not), perception is reality and you will never convince them otherwise.

Very well put. Each of us can only offer our own feelings but cannot change others.

Personally, I feel that Jane's message about the war being wrong and about the impact it was having on innocent civilians in a soverign land were spot on and she had every right to express and publicize them. What I have opposition to were her methods. She did come across ad being rather insensitive to our own men in uniform who were placed in harms way, many of whom were killed or severely injured in action. I think she could have gotten her message across much more effectively had she avoided the photo-ops which gave many the impression she was glorifying the other side while condemning our men in uniform.
If she wanted to direct criticism and blame for the whole debackle she should have instead focused her criticisms against the politicians who used propaganda and lies in order to justify a war which was in all probability corrupt, immoral and unnessesary.

One thing I will say on H-Jane's behalf is that while she did wrong at least she publically admitted she was wrong and apologized for her actions. That is more than I can say for the politicians who never had the guts to admit that anything they did may have been wrong. I can find it in my heart to give Jane the benefit of doubt and forgiveness long before I could Nixon and the politicians who made it all happen.

The worst part is that it seems we have learned nothing from all this.Seems we are still falling for politicians lies and propaganda.

For me, my biggest concern is computers and teaching people how to use them to do things like print files, bookmark pages, etc. Computers are my life.

[WØTKX]

I agree John, but the "main stream media" propaganda for "our side" in that stupid useless war PLUS government coercion meant she would be portrayed that way.Our right wing war hawk cronies always made sure of that. Besides, it sold advertising for the news broadcasts, same as it does now. Jane Fonda was a bit ignorant, and still pretty childish then, but her heart and mind were all about anti war.

In those days, John Lennon was considered a terrorist, and was denied entry to this country. About 60% (various polls) felt that the Kent State victims deserved to get shot. Kennedy was beholden to the Pope, and not the USA. Segregation of schools was still being fought for. The only thing missing was Fox News.

[kf0rt]

I agree John, but the "main stream media" propaganda for "our side" in that stupid useless war PLUS government coercion meant she would be portrayed that way.Our right wing war hawk cronies always made sure of that. Besides, it sold advertising for the news broadcasts, same as it does now. Jane Fonda was a bit ignorant, and still pretty childish then, but her heart and mind were all about anti war.

In those days, John Lennon was considered a terrorist, and was denied entry to this country. About 60% (various polls) felt that the Kent State victims deserved to get shot. Kennedy was beholden to the Pope, and not the USA. Segregation of schools was still being fought for. The only thing missing was Fox News.

That's a proper perspective, IMHO. I know some 'Nam vets who still spit nails at the mention of her name, but stepping back a bit, it's a predictable response to an ugly situation. She never should have been allowed to go. When you look at the intent behind it and the actual damage done, it kind of comes off as a world-class case of butt-hurt.

This isn't to say that the vets aren't justified in their view given the events, but in the parade of folks who "wish it didn't happen," I'd expect "Hanoi Jane" to be holding the #1 position. Given how hot this topic can be even today, I won't be expecting any change of opinion in my lifetime.