It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Missouri Man Spits on Jane Fonda

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2005 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by goose
I doubt that Hanoi Jane did little to you Vets but earn your disrespect, others however are much more guilty of crimes against you and have not even attempted to apoligize.


Name them.




posted on Apr, 20 2005 @ 11:46 PM
link   
HAHA!

You know - It's funny....

.....I cooked once for Jane Fonda.....

Being her shape-mindly self she ordered an incredibly dull and simple grilled chicken breast with sautéed spinach.....*sighs*

Of course, it wasn't on the menu, but we obliged her....

I never got a chance to introduce myself, all the servers agreed that night that she was a First Class Bitch....

What goes around, comes around



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Originally posted by goose
I doubt that Hanoi Jane did little to you Vets but earn your disrespect, others however are much more guilty of crimes against you and have not even attempted to apoligize.


Name them.

Let's start with Goldwater-
    sons avoided the draft,
    continuing on:


    Vets for peace 2003House Budget Committee in March rammed through a resolution that would cut $844 million from veterans’ medical care for next year? At the same time, they managed to come up with $900 million to give to Dick Cheney’s old company Halliburton and a few other big Republican sugar daddies who will quite conveniently be rebuilding Iraq after the war.
    Over the next 10 years, the Republican changes would cut $24.7 billion from veterans’ medical care, disability compensation and other benefits.


    Yes
    The U.S. House of Representatives approved billions of dollars in cuts to veterans’ programs over the next 10 years—on the same day it unani-mously passed a resolution of “unequivocal support” for the nation’s troops overseas. Proposed by President Bush as part of his 2004 budget plan, the reductions—estimated at $28 billion—would erode health-care benefits already stretched by other budget shortfalls, raise costs, and decrease veterans’ access to medical care.
    Voicing the dismay of representatives opposed to the measure, who narrowly lost the 215-212 vote in the Republican-controlled House, Rep. Joseph Hoeffel (D-PA) said, “These cuts to veterans’ programs are indefensible. We are at war and our current troops will be our future veterans and this funding is inadequate, it’s wrong, and it’s an insult.”

This is just the more recent few years. For as far back as the eve of the Korean War Veterans benefits have been a political football.

Actually, let's go further back.

    Eyewitness on history
    In 1924, a grateful Congress voted to give a bonus to World War I veterans - $1.25 for each day served overseas, $1.00 for each day served in the States. The catch was that payment would not be made until 1945. However, by 1932 the nation had slipped into the dark days of the Depression and the unemployed veterans wanted their money immediately.
    -and-
    A month later, on July 28, Attorney General Mitchell ordered the evacuation of the veterans from all government property, Entrusted with the job, the Washington police met with resistance, shots were fired and two marchers killed. Learning of the shooting at lunch, President Hoover ordered the army to clear out the veterans. Infantry and cavalry supported by six tanks were dispatched with Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur in command. Major Dwight D. Eisenhower served as his liaison with Washington police and Major George Patton led the cavalry.
    By 4:45 P.M. the troops were massed on Pennsylvania Ave. below the Capitol. Thousands of Civil Service employees spilled out of work and lined the streets to watch. The veterans, assuming the military display was in their honor, cheered. Suddenly Patton's troopers turned and charged. "Shame, Shame" the spectators cried. Soldiers with fixed bayonets followed, hurling tear gas into the crowd.



    More?



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 04:58 AM
link   
This can only be news in America.
In the rest of the world people just don't care who spits in whos face, at least not enough to want to hear about it on the news.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko
This can only be news in America.
In the rest of the world people just don't care who spits in whos face, at least not enough to want to hear about it on the news.


Well, its not major news, its kinda in the back-page type news. Sorry to rain on your "we are better than you" parade.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Enigmatic_Messiah
Sorry to rain on your "we are better than you" parade.


You didn't rain on my "we are better than you" parade, you made the parade possible to begin with.
;+)

Just kidding.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko

Originally posted by Enigmatic_Messiah
Sorry to rain on your "we are better than you" parade.


You didn't rain on my "we are better than you" parade, you made the parade possible to begin with.
;+)

Just kidding.



Next time I will get rid of the parade for good with a tornado.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 05:27 AM
link   
Intelerthling....your biligerence and your crude maniupulation of my quote contridicts your name........I remember Kerry's testimony before congress and just to be suce i went to the congressional record online last year and read what he actually said which was that he had been told of atroticities at the Winter Soldiers gathering...he never called our soldiers war criminals....and if you really think war crimes and atroticities did not happen what do you call Mi Lai? And do you really believe that was an isolated insidence? Hadrly. Atroticities always happen during war, it is the nature of the beast, there are no innocents among the combatants on either side, just unfortunate civilians caught in the crossfire. Besides that war is criminal even if it is justified. What jane Fonda went to Hanoi to protest was Kissingers ordering of the dikes around Hanoi to be destroyed, and no he wasn't bombing lesbians LOL, flooding thousands of acres and killing noncombants. To be opposed to war is not traitorous, leading the nation into an unneccessary one is. Bush is a traitor.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

It really shouldn't come as a surprise that sooner or later a veteran would take some action, even if it was mostly symbolic. It says quite a lot about our nation that those who supported the most vicious and murderous regimes of all time can become revered cultural icons and even run for President.



It doesnt come as much as a suprise to me either that some low life vet thinks spitting in peoples faces is a acceptable way of protest, doesnt say much for your nation from my view, also a man who was arrested and spat in a officers face in the US was arrested and had a possible life sentance because of his act, why should some probable child murdering face spitting yank be creditited for such an act? Im not a violent person but if he did that to me, id hit him with the nearest metal object i could find.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Don't use such a broad brush. He was arrested. Had Fonda pressed charges he would be looking at a very long sentence.

Lots of Vets hate Fonda and she acknowledges it. Her travel to Hanoi was seen as traitorous- the pics of her smiling at an AA emplacement were outrageous. She acknowledges that. She admits to very bad judgment on her own part.

Judge her acts at that time- judge the Vet for this time. Had Fonda showed up near some recent returning Vets in that time being spat upon would have been the least of her worries.

Times change.

'low life vet' what does this mean?



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoeDoaks
'low life vet' what does this mean?


I donno what the poster meant, but if I may venture:

a behavior unbecoming to a gentlemen.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Thank you Joe for that reply it saved me a lot of work, to add to it Grady every company that supported the war and influenced prolonging the war thoeugh political connections, and made money off of it. Every politician who made sure their son got to join the National Guard through political connections and the ones who got deferment after deferment and still runs for the office of President and Vice President and then had all their chicken hawk friends appointed to political office to send our youths to fight another war today that was brought about by lie after lie and continues to cut veteran benefits.
The vets should not be angry at someone who got off their butts to protest the Vietnam war, they the majority of the protesters were protesting the fact that our government was sending them the soldiers off to fight a war we had no business being in; in the first place. The protesters actions brought about the end to the war. I never heard anyone say they were protesting the soldiers or against the soldiers only that they protested the war and the fact that our sodliers were dying in it. The vets are misplacing their anger IMO if they are angry at the protesters. The protester were at least risking something to aid the soldiers. The companies and politicians who supported the war did not risk anything not even the time it took to welcome them home instead they the supporters turned their backs on them and did not give them the heroes welcome they deserved. Jane Fonda did cross the line but at least she has apoligized, others won't even acknowledge they got anything to apoligize for.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 03:51 PM
link   
All said and done, spitting in a womens face (heck anyones face) is bad taste and disgusting!! If you find you cannot express yourself through more restrained methods you may aswell not bother!



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by goose
The protesters actions brought about the end to the war. I never heard anyone say they were protesting the soldiers or against the soldiers only that they protested the war and the fact that our sodliers were dying in it.

Don't go so far-

Returning soldiers(including marines)/sailors/airmen (after somewhere around '68/70) were:
    assaulted
    spit on
    not given their jobs back (that was a law)
    denied emplyoment
    divorced by surprise
    excluded on campuses

It was a bad time. The protestors in large part helped end the war. They did not end it.
.

.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Vets do not get the respect they deserve, or have earned. Protesting against any soldier fighting in a war, and calling them 'baby-killer' and such, should not be allowed to happen.

Soldiers go where they are told to go. That is their profession. To protest against the government is one thing; to hack on a soldier or Vet is another.

The Romans took care of their Vets; giving them free land and preference in employment after their terms were up. That is what we need in the U.S. today. Vets don't get the respect they deserve; veteran organizations are weak; and the VA does little to help them.

Soldiers are making the ultimate sacrafice. They deserve preferential treatment in our society. Am I biased because I am a Vet? I sure am. Am I mad about the situation? Of course.

Jane Fonda got what was coming, though she deserves a heck of a lot more.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by nathraq
Jane Fonda got what was coming, though she deserves a heck of a lot more.


You're joking, right? These events happened over 30 years ago. Most of the posters here weren't even alive then. I find this lack of "letting go" to be really amazing. :shk:



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 04:20 PM
link   
That vet waited in line 90 minutes, to get a shot at a woman he despised for 30 years. That shows tenacity, and the amount of anger he felt. Maybe he feels better now. Maybe he feels that he, in some small way, he has found some sort of relief for confronting a woman who who is a traitor, and an enemy to those brave men who served in that god-awful war.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by nathraq
That vet waited in line 90 minutes, to get a shot at a woman he despised for 30 years. That shows tenacity, and the amount of anger he felt. Maybe he feels better now. Maybe he feels that he, in some small way, he has found some sort of relief for confronting a woman who who is a traitor, and an enemy to those brave men who served in that god-awful war.


I know this is going to be unpopular but if you haven't dealt with your issues in 30 years and this was your closure? That's sad. Why didn't he just go to Johnson's, Nixson's grave and defecate on them. Those are the individuals responsible for them being there.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Intrepid, I agree with alot of what you have to say, but I have to disagree here.

Nixon or Johnson didn't fly overseas to have lunch with the enemy in the field.

I have no sympathy for traitors. I am not going to be "PC" about it. She committed a traitorous act, and as such, getting spat in the face is a very lenient punishment.

(BTW, I am not a Viet Nam Vet, but a Persian Gulf I Vet).



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
I know this is going to be unpopular but if you haven't dealt with your issues in 30 years and this was your closure?


Bro a lot of us still have issues and always will



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join