• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

America's top UN diplomat has high praise for 'Hanoi Jane' [W:306]

It's probably from 'lots of people', a common source some posters.'

What good would it be to name names regarding the people who helped shape my opinion of the Vietnam War? You wouldn't know them anyway. But please, continue attempting to bait me.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Knock off the baiting comments or I'll knock a few folks out of this thread.
 
I don't see why you're attempting to bait me by slamming LBJ. The guy was three years dead before I was born.

If you do not have the ability to learn history, why are you posting anything in this thread?
 
If you do not have the ability to learn history, why are you posting anything in this thread?

What on earth are you talking about? You're simply pulling attacks out of thin air.

My query regarding LBJ and you attempting to use him as an anti-liberal cudgel has nothing to do with "learning history;" I was simply asking what the point was. Although I know what it was -- since he escalated the war, you are attempting to use him to blame "liberals" for Vietnam. Because anytime anything bad happens, the right's first instinct is to find a way to make it be a liberal's fault.
 
Dig him up. Maybe he learned something by now with his dirt nap time. Maybe this time around he'll be smart enough not to be just another senseless liberal.
Tricky Dick ran in '68 on he had a secret plan to end the war Vietnam, it was a lie. In the end 58,000 of our soldiers died and apparently that's not enough for some people on the Right.
 
Yes, because clearly she's just as much of a monster as those people. :roll:

In principle, she's no different than a Southern slave owner.
 
the spitting was isolated -and considering the nation was split in 2,,,well I'll not try to justify it. It was wrong, and disrespectful.

I was on the home frontlines, trying to get the war stopped. It's long over, and the dead died for nothing but their service to America.
Not for Vietnam, not for a nobel goal; but that is enough. All blessings to them who serve.

I didn't serve. But let me be the first to tell you that hippy has yards STILL spit on our troops and I personally witnessed 1 dirt ball occupy punk spit on a marine friend scarred and so riddled with PTSD that he couldn't drive a car.

"Isolated" is certainly garbage.
 
:doh

DUDE.

IT. DOES. NOT. WORK. LIKE. THAT.

:2brickwal

But you think whatever you want.

I've given you an opening for everything but your opinion to substantiate your claim that it was treason, but either you were too lazy, or you couldn't find the source, I don't know what...but either way it's not my fault so don't yap at me.
 
I didn't serve. But let me be the first to tell you that hippy has yards STILL spit on our troops and I personally witnessed 1 dirt ball occupy punk spit on a marine friend scarred and so riddled with PTSD that he couldn't drive a car.

"Isolated" is certainly garbage.
thanks for the anecdotal, it happened. It wasn't the norm, most of us at least understood
"there but for the grace of God (or the draft board/lottery) go I."

I made my peace with the Viet. vets long ago - something you might want to consider.
 
What on earth are you talking about? You're simply pulling attacks out of thin air.

My query regarding LBJ and you attempting to use him as an anti-liberal cudgel has nothing to do with "learning history;" I was simply asking what the point was. Although I know what it was -- since he escalated the war, you are attempting to use him to blame "liberals" for Vietnam. Because anytime anything bad happens, the right's first instinct is to find a way to make it be a liberal's fault.

Escalated the war? He was the one that sent our first combat units to the place. Do you not think he had his reasons, right or wrong, smart or dumb, for doing that?


I don't find a way to make anything a liberals fault. They do. I just routinely comment on their stupidity and their failed brain dead ideas.
 
Tricky Dick ran in '68 on he had a secret plan to end the war Vietnam, it was a lie. In the end 58,000 of our soldiers died and apparently that's not enough for some people on the Right.

Don't you know that the only way to keep a secret is not to tell anybody? So how would you know if he actually had a secret?

Are you now trying to say Nixon was a right winger? LOL. You too would find that really, really funny if you ever bothered to looked at what he did as President.

Apparently "58,000" of our soldiers deaths is not enough for the you to know that a liberal started our combat involvement in Vietnam.
 
I've given you an opening for everything but your opinion to substantiate your claim that it was treason, but either you were too lazy, or you couldn't find the source, I don't know what...but either way it's not my fault so don't yap at me.

No, you haven't -- you've been on some irrelevant bender about "precedent." Precedent does not apply. Only facts. And yes, in my opinion, the facts fit the elements.
 
Don't you know that the only way to keep a secret is not to tell anybody? So how would you know if he actually had a secret?

Are you now trying to say Nixon was a right winger? LOL. You too would find that really, really funny if you ever bothered to looked at what he did as President.

Apparently "58,000" of our soldiers deaths is not enough for the you to know that a liberal started our combat involvement in Vietnam.
I remember it was JFK who sent advisers to Vietnam and it was LBJ who escalated it. He declined to run for another term because he realized he did wrong. Who knows what would have happened if JFK was not assassinated on Nov 22, 1963?
 
thanks for the anecdotal, it happened. It wasn't the norm, most of us at least understood
"there but for the grace of God (or the draft board/lottery) go I."

I made my peace with the Viet. vets long ago - something you might want to consider.

I never had animosity for those who had the balls to go do a job that they could end up losing their life over. Spitters weren't isolated. Isolated suggests that it only happened a few times in a few small cases. I think a YouTube search shows that it happened plenty.
 
I remember it was JFK who sent advisers to Vietnam and it was LBJ who escalated it. He declined to run for another term because he realized he did wrong. Who knows what would have happened if JFK was not assassinated on Nov 22, 1963?

Based on his "Summons of the Trumpet" speech and what he started doing in Vietnam, my guess would be pretty much what LBJ did. But I have no way knowing with 100% certainty.
 
Rotting in Hell seems an archaic punishment, but I would say that I find it disconcerting to be represented by a women that would make such statements about the Vietnam imbroglio.

Obama's appointments have not enjoyed much success. You have to wonder what their qualifications might be.
 
Funny how you didn't provide any opposing view so people could make up their minds on how to feel about it.

Fair enough.

Here's something I just found that should be more than enough to really piss people off and cement their impression of her assuming they were on the fence.

OUTRAGEOUS! Jane Fonda Wears ‘Hanoi Jane’ T-Shirt to Plug Nancy Reagan Movie (Photo) | The Gateway Pundit

Hanoi Jane Fonda Activist Black T Shirt

Why she'd wear the T-shirt to an interview for her upcoming movie debut where she is cast in the role of Nancy Reagan is beyond me. But there you go. No further words are necessary.
 
No, you haven't -- you've been on some irrelevant bender about "precedent." Precedent does not apply. Only facts. And yes, in my opinion, the facts fit the elements.

Precedent was just one example of a legal source I would have accepted that would codify her actions as fitting the definition of "giving aid and comfort." I would have accepted rulings, specific laws...anything but opinions. But yes, you're certainly entitled to your opinion that her actions were applicable to treason if you like. I can't imagine anyone suggesting otherwise.

But anyway, it will certainly only be a matter of time before her actions as pertaining to treason do in fact become codified and then, well, that will be that I guess.

Feel free to post some more emoticons of smiley faces knocking their heads against brick walls. I can handle it.
 
Precedent was just one example of a legal source I would have accepted that would codify her actions as fitting the definition of "giving aid and comfort." I would have accepted rulings, specific laws...anything but opinions. But yes, you're certainly entitled to your opinion that her actions were applicable to treason if you like. I can't imagine anyone suggesting otherwise.

But anyway, it will certainly only be a matter of time before her actions as pertaining to treason do in fact become codified and then, well, that will be that I guess.

Feel free to post some more emoticons of smiley faces knocking their heads against brick walls. I can handle it.

You obviously don't get how a prosecution works.

The prosecutor establishes the facts and then argues how the elements of the crime have been satisfied by the facts.

The jury then decides if they agree. That's it. The fact pattern does not need to be "codified." (Though the way you use it, I'm not sure you know what "codified" means.)

No one -- NO ONE -- cites "precedent." PRECEDENT DOES NOT MATTER.

That you do not get this is baffling.
 
Back
Top Bottom