You know they're both dead, right?
Jane Fonda tells veterans boycotting her movie...
- Thread starter Bay_Kat
- Start date
You know they're both dead, right?
Seems like you.We Agree she was a brain dead moron back then, where we disagree is if what she did was treasonous.
So, what? Their actions should brought out into the open .
luvmygdaughters
Well-Known Member
My BIL served in Viet Nam, he heard about the Jane Fonda scandal and like many of his fellow soldiers, developed a real hatred for her. There were pictures that were posted of Hanoi Jane showing her having just a wonderful time with the enemy. But as is customary, with these low life, POS, losers, she came back home to the good ole USA. She couldve chosen to live in Viet Nam and fought with these people she believed in, but no, she wanted to spout off about how bad we americans were and what baby killers we were and we are just the most dispicable people on the planet. But, after her little anti-american tirade is over, she hops a plane to come home to this terrible place. Just like Dennis Rodman and the loser in N.K. What the hell good could possibly come from Dennis visiting him. As far as her apology goes, I can tell just how heartfelt that must've been, considering her response to the boycotting of her movie. She's just an old has been who still wants to be a current somebody.
Where have you been??? The corruption and bungling of the Vietnam War is well known among anyone who has even a nodding acquaintance with history.
Where have you been??? The corruption and bungling of the Vietnam War is well known among anyone who has even a nodding acquaintance with history.
I 'm fine, you guys are the ones with a problem.
Keep telling yourself that. At least we're familiar with the Vietnam War. You keep indicating that you're a middle-aged person, yet you post like a high school kid who thinks history began in 1995 and nothing happened before then.
Do you seriously believe that? How about that it was because they didn't have sufficient evidence to meet the legal hurdle. Ever read this anywhere -
Now maybe they could have indicted her and got her into court to get her to openly confess, but I can bet you that she would have had a team of lawyers telling her to keep her trap shut as there were no two witnesses to what she did. Regardless of all the circumstantial evidence, tapes of her broadcasts, pictures of her there and sitting on an AAA gun, etc. there is that pesky legal hurdle to get beyond and they (DOJ) knew they couldn't and that is assuming that what she did had been determined as adhering to the enemy and/or giving them aid and comfort and I'm not even sure about that.
Are you kidding?
Two witnesses, hell - the whole world got to see it. Tapes and photos are not circumstantial evidence, they are considered physical evidence, you dingbat.
How do you think they freaking nailed Tokyo Rose?The DOJ didn't want to make a case against her because opposition to the Vietnam War was very popular among younger voters and she was a celebrity and daughter of a major movie star. The end.
Only if she spit on you.
MMDad
Lem Putt
Just like the only reason DOJ didn't pursue contempt charges against Holder is because there is no evidence, right?
The TJ bridge is for sale, cheap. Wanna buy it?
Are you kidding?
Two witnesses, hell - the whole world got to see it. Tapes and photos are not circumstantial evidence, they are considered physical evidence, you dingbat.
The DOJ didn't want to make a case against her because opposition to the Vietnam War was very popular among younger voters and she was a celebrity and daughter of a major movie star. The end.
What did you see/hear? In treason those are exactly what is meant by circumstantial. How was Iva Ikuko Toguri D'Aquino (Tokyo Rose) nailed? Apparently by fraud and deception as it was discovered that key witnesses claimed they were forced to lie during testimony, thus her being pardoned by Ford.
And while I agree that the mood of the nation was such that it would have been difficult to prosecute I am willing to bet that had the required evidence been present they would have at least indicted her.
If that's what you think is the reason, fine. I figured you to be low wattage.
Why, did you already get stuck with a fraudulent title to it?
PsyOps
Pixelated
You don’t see one bit her antics in VN as spitting in the faces of our VN vets? I deplore any disrespect to those that served; especially on the battlefield. Jane Fonda chose to do an ignorant thing and never apologized for it. And then she tells our vets, when they criticized this choice to have her play Nancy Reagan, to get over it, as if to say they don’t have a voice in the matter?
There are hundreds of actresses they could have picked for that role. They picked THE MOST controversial anti-war liberals they could find. I find it deplorably ironic; but really typical for Hollywood. They have very little interest in depicting our historical characters accurately; they want to send an anti-conservative message by using conservative people in our history. These progressive/liberal in Hollywood never pass up an opportunity to slap the right and our vets in the face.
Ford pardoned Nixon, too.
You can have your opinion that the DOJ is not a political entity and its only goal is to uphold the laws of this great country. Have fun with that.
And the DOJ was controlled by what political party in 1972? I'll help you out so you don't bruise your melon, it was Republican.
Okay, let me spell this out for you, I'll type slowly since I know you can't read very fast.She was never indicted. Know why? The DOJ couldn't make a case against her.
Didn't say that no veteran was ever spit upon, I said she didn't do it. Keep up.
It is one of the "treasonous acts" she supposedly did. You really need to keep up.
Free advertisement that only benefits her and the movie is good. Hmm, maybe we think quite a bit differently. What exactly did she do that would meet the legal challenge of her being a traitor?
Now you are just being stupid. All I can say is what part of "I loathe her" is your mind unable to comprehend?
Please point out where in this thread anyone mentioned her spitting on any veterans, or where we talked about her going to the HH, or handing notes over to the NV.
We are talking about her treasonous actions that are all well documented and have numerous witnesses. I see reading comprehension is not your strong suit.
Now, to use your logic, if someone commits a crime and it is on video but no charges are brought against them does that mean no crime was committed?
Why were charges not brought against her, those reasons have already been stated but I guess you only want to believe what you want to believe.
And before you accuse someone of being of low wattage I recommend you re-exam your own intelligence, your not the brightest bulb either.
Last edited:
And the DOJ was controlled by what political party in 1972? I'll help you out so you don't bruise your melon, it was Republican.
So what? Did I mention political parties at all?
