Jihad Jane???

Jihad Jane??? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

WyrdRich -> Jihad Jane??? (1/31/2007 3:37:01 PM)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8699776/ Hehehehehe.... The anti-war movement just proved they can get even more marginal.

Anachron -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (1/31/2007 4:06:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich Hehehehehe.... The anti-war movement just proved they can get even more marginal. ... and I would characterize that statement as a tactical attempt to marginalize quite a few millions of people without bothering to engage any of the reasoning behind their position. JT

WyrdRich -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (1/31/2007 4:12:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anachron quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich Hehehehehe.... The anti-war movement just proved they can get even more marginal. ... and I would characterize that statement as a tactical attempt to marginalize quite a few millions of people without bothering to engage any of the reasoning behind their position. JT Millions??? We can get 10 times as many illegals to a local rally in Los Angeles than the anti-war bunch can to a national protest in DC. And most of the blue-collar Democrats I know hate Fonda even more than they hate Bush. (just saw that you are in LA... Remember the day without traffic jams, oops, I mean "The Day Without An Immigrant?")

Sinergy -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (1/31/2007 4:30:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8699776/ Hehehehehe.... The anti-war movement just proved they can get even more marginal. Yes, WyrdRich, you are correct. The vast majority of American citizens support the war, support the stop-loss program, support the building of swimming pools in Iraq for their police force. Support the billions of dollars spent supporting our military actions there, to the tune of 362 or so billion dollars. Support Monkeyboy borrowing money from China to fund his idiotic desert party. How silly of me to think that the Americans who know their ancestors will get stuck with the bar tab are not gung-ho about his idiocy. Sinergy

juliaoceania -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (1/31/2007 4:35:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8699776/ Hehehehehe.... The anti-war movement just proved they can get even more marginal. If this nation is really pro war, it really would not be worth fighting for.. but you know what, Americans are NOT pro war... you really only speak for yourself Wyrdrich

WyrdRich -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (1/31/2007 4:38:55 PM)
I don't believe I said any of those things, Sinergy. I disagree with most of them. You can attack the straw man if that is how you get your kicks, but I'm over here saying that the public face of the anti-war bunch (is 'bundle' a more accurate term?) was already on the kook fringe and they have now added an incredibly divisive figure with 34 years of pent-up crap to spew. I think she hurts them and their cause.

juliaoceania -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (1/31/2007 4:42:08 PM)
I was listening to CNN while with my mom, and Lindsey Graham was on the defensive with Wolf Blitzer explaining why republicans are divided about funding the troop increase that Bush wants to have. Many republicans are getting ready to bolt on the Iraq war.... If it is so popular with their constituents, I wonder why they would do that?

WyrdRich -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (1/31/2007 4:44:58 PM)
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/h/hanoijane.htm The e-mail rumor is widely believed. The truth of what happened is more than enough.

Sinergy -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (1/31/2007 4:46:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich I don't believe I said any of those things, Sinergy. I disagree with most of them. You can attack the straw man if that is how you get your kicks, but I'm over here saying that the public face of the anti-war bunch (is 'bundle' a more accurate term?) was already on the kook fringe and they have now added an incredibly divisive figure with 34 years of pent-up crap to spew. I think she hurts them and their cause. By stating that the anti-war movement is a marginal movement in this country is, in essence, making that claim. The anti-war movement involves a solid majority of the American people, being that, a majority of the American people are not in support of the war. This does not qualify as a "marginal" movement. Sinergy p.s. I would love to hear an intelligent treatise on how Jihad Jane hurts the cause of the anti-war movement.

WyrdRich -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (1/31/2007 4:58:05 PM)
Once again, I'll refer you to the 1972 Election and mention events like the Hard Hat Riots. Being unhappy with the actions this country has taken in Iraq is one thing, empowering a bunch of kooks is another.

domiguy -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (1/31/2007 4:59:54 PM)
WyrdRich, I do think you simply like coming out here to "stir the pot"....Yet there is a part of me that feels you are simply a Bush apologist...And as far as I am concerned that this is the person who is unable to have a debate for they have lost the ability to reason. out. D.G. p.s. Jesus please protect me from your followers.

audioguy58 -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (1/31/2007 5:01:37 PM)
We're happy to welcome Jane Fonda back into our fold. During the Eighties, she seemed to be running away from her own record. It's nicew to see that she no longer is. She clearly committed apostasy by apologizing to Barbara Walters, and taking a position on the Vietnam War that was indistinguishable from that of Robert McNamara (that the war should have been opposed "because it was unwinnable"). I believe Bob Avakian, chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party USA said it best when he wrote: "We're proud of the fact that there was a Hanoi Jane, even if Jane Fonda herself is not." Quoted from: Question: Does Jane Fonda or anyone else who sided with the Vietnamese People need to apologize? Revolutionary Worker #488, 1/9/90 http://rwor.org/a/rwindex/text/rw1989.htm http://revcom.us/avakian/index.html Sincerely, Kevin

audioguy58 -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (1/31/2007 5:04:25 PM)
Also, Jane looks totally hot for a woman of 66, and I would love to have her as my Domme! Sincerely, Kevin

Sinergy -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (1/31/2007 5:07:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich Once again, I'll refer you to the 1972 Election and mention events like the Hard Hat Riots. Being unhappy with the actions this country has taken in Iraq is one thing, empowering a bunch of kooks is another. So what you are saying is there is 0 difference between the anti-war movement in 1972 and the anti-war movement in 2006. Seems a bit like living in the past and not evolving to deal with changes in extant reality, but if it works for you, I say go with it. Sinergy

juliaoceania -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (1/31/2007 5:08:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: audioguy58 Also, Jane looks totally hot for a woman of 66, and I would love to have her as my Domme! Sincerely, Kevin From reading her book I would say that she is very much a submissive sort of person...

sleazy -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (1/31/2007 5:10:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy The anti-war movement involves a solid majority of the American people, being that, a majority of the American people are not in support of the war. A typically piece of word play. Hate to piss on the bonfire so to speak, but not supporting something does not necessarily make someone against it. After all it seems apathy is as prevelant there as here, ie the majority (largest single group) just couldnt really give a damn unless it affects them personally.

WyrdRich -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (1/31/2007 6:13:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy WyrdRich, I do think you simply like coming out here to "stir the pot".... D.G. You've never heard of the fairness doctrine? I bring balance.

Rule -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (1/31/2007 6:22:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich And most of the blue-collar Democrats I know hate Fonda even more than they hate Bush. Was it not Jane Fonda about whom I read on these boards that she betrayed a lot of US soldiers when she visited a prisoner of war concentration camp of the vietcong? Or am I mistaken? Edited to add: quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich they have now added an incredibly divisive figure with 34 years of pent-up crap to spew. I think she hurts them and their cause. Quite. So she got the mission to infiltrate this anti-war movement and to sabotage their efforts. I agree with your analysis, W.

WyrdRich -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (1/31/2007 6:22:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: audioguy58 I believe Bob Avakian, chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party USA said it best when he wrote: "We're proud of the fact that there was a Hanoi Jane, even if Jane Fonda herself is not." Quoted from: Question: Does Jane Fonda or anyone else who sided with the Vietnamese People need to apologize? Revolutionary Worker #488, 1/9/90 http://rwor.org/a/rwindex/text/rw1989.htm http://revcom.us/avakian/index.html Sincerely, Kevin Thanks for making my point about being marginal...

WyrdRich -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (1/31/2007 6:26:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich Once again, I'll refer you to the 1972 Election and mention events like the Hard Hat Riots. Being unhappy with the actions this country has taken in Iraq is one thing, empowering a bunch of kooks is another. So what you are saying is there is 0 difference between the anti-war movement in 1972 and the anti-war movement in 2006. Seems a bit like living in the past and not evolving to deal with changes in extant reality, but if it works for you, I say go with it. Sinergy Lots and lots of differences, Sinergy. The movement during Vietnam was part of a much larger social upheaval AND had the self-interest factor going for it, ie, a draft. A bunch of flag-burning, America hating punks pissing off the great middle? Oh you betcha they line up nicely.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.0390625