Freedom Fries Flip Flop

[Dexter]

My 'inference' is absolutely, unequivocally, unambiguously based on your quote, which is absolutely, unequivocally, unambiguously straightforward in its meaning.

If you don't want people to comment on it, don't post it in the first place

[ChadTower]

Actually, what you say shows that you don't understand what I said very well, but whatever.  I'm not going to spoon feed you.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Actually, what you say shows that you don't understand what I said very well, but whatever.

[danny_galaga]

Unfortunately, the "American Dream" of coming here and making something of oneself has been supplanted by one of individual selfishness.

hang on, isnt that one and the same thing? 

[Sasquatch!]

My dad, who is a vietnam veteran, will never forgive her. Myself, I see a difference between being stupid and being evil. What she did was incredibly stupid I think. I don't know that it was evil. It very well may have been, she may have deliberately decided to succor the enemy -- but I find it just as likely that it was a stupid and misguided attempt to protest the war. It is possible to love your country while disagreeing with its actions.

Again Saint types out what I'm thinking.  All of this "SHE IS A TRAITOR AND SHE SHOULD BE HUNG" sounds just a tad bit...nutty.

[SirPeale]

Here's some more on Jane Fonda.

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

I had believed the slips of paper story to be real for many years, but Snopes has debunked it.

The other things, OTOH...

[ChadTower]

If don't want to defend the things you say, don't say them.

That's not how it works.  I only feel the need to defend what I say if I feel the need for the person to whom I have said the thing to understand.  This particular point does not fill me with such a need.

Btw, your whole argument that American lives are "worth more" than the lives of people from other nation's is based entirely on the fact that you are an American? Is this correct? Or am I reading into it too much?

You're extrapolating it too far.  American lives are worth more to me.  I mean to say nothing about their value as it relates to anyone other than myself, nor to say that they are inferior in any way as human beings. 

[Dexter]

Sounds like a flip flop to me

[Dexter]

I mean to say nothing about their value as it relates to anyone other than myself, nor to say that they are inferior in any way as human beings.

Sounds like a flip flop to me

[Dartful Dodger]

It very well may have been, she may have deliberately decided to succor the enemy -- but I find it just as likely that it was a stupid and misguided attempt to protest the war. It is possible to love your country while disagreeing with its actions.

During one of her visits to a POW camp the American soldiers had folded up papers with their dog tag numbers on it and gave them to her when they shook her hand.  They were hoping she'd give them to American officials and then their families would know they were still alive.

Instead she gave them to the guards and the men were beaten.  The guy that was telling this story said he had lost the sight in one of eyes, from the beating.  He also said another guy died.

Stupid people can still be evil.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

During one of her visits to a POW camp the American soldiers had folded up papers...

Stupid people can still be evil.

Does this include you? 'cuz you obviously didn't read the link above that shows this story to be completely false.

mrC

[Dartful Dodger]

Does this include you? 'cuz you obviously didn't read the link above that shows this story to be completely false.

Miller was among seven POWs who met with Fonda in Hanoi. He said he didn't recall her asking any questions other than about their names, if that. He said that he passed her no piece of paper, and that to his knowledge, no other POW in the group did, despite the e-mail's claims.

One man not knowing if it is true is not the same as "completely false".

This is why I don't click on any links. I gave this link the benefit of the doubt and for that I lost 10 minutes of my life. 

At least I can ignore future links and still know as little about the topic as the person who posted the links.

[ChadTower]

You know, after he posted that link, I hit reply, typed in a response about how the info at that link could easily be false as well, and then scrapped the idea. 

I didn't want to throw anyone into a logic cyclone, what with the original story, the link possibly refuting it, and my possibly refuting the link.  Everything you read on the net is 100% reliable and I didn't want to create a paradox that would rip the fabric of someone's pants.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

One man not knowing if it is true is not the same as "completely false".

It was more than one man, in fact, it was all of them.

If you read the entire thing it says that *every single soldier* that was "quoted" in the email rumor about the dog tags has said the story is absolutely false.

Again, by your own standards, this makes you "evil" because you choose to remain willfully ignorant. Maybe you should have spent more than 10 minutes of your precious life finding the truth. I'm sure we'd all happily wait idly by. I'll even help you...


"Those named in the inflammatory e-mail have repeatedly and categorically denied the events they supposedly were part of."

...

"It's a figment of somebody's imagination," says Ret. Col. Larry Carrigan, one of the servicemen mentioned in the 'slips of paper' incident."

...

"Mike McGrath, President of NAM-POWs, has also stepped forward to disclaim the story"

...

"Despite the claims of hundreds of Vietnam veterans who maintain they were "there" and can affirm these tales as true, Jane Fonda actually met with only a handful of American POWs in North Vietnam, and even they have spoken out on the record to disclaim the story: "The whole [e-mail] story about Jane Fonda is just malarkey," said Edison Miller, 73, of California, a former Marine Corps pilot held more than five years. Miller was among seven POWs who met with Fonda in Hanoi. He said he didn't recall her asking any questions other than about their names, if that. He said that he passed her no piece of paper, and that to his knowledge, no other POW in the group did, despite the e-mail's claims."

...

"Air Force pilot Jerry Driscoll...said he never met Fonda, as the e-mail claims

[mr.Curmudgeon]

You know, after he posted that link, I hit reply, typed in a response about how the info at that link could easily be false as well, and then scrapped the idea. 

Could be, but it's not. Feel free to ignore that fact that it actually NAMES people and then quotes them. If you harbor so much hatred for Fonda, and you feel this link is bunk...then by all means feel free to contact these people and see if they stand behind these quotes. Otherwise, move along.

and my possibly refuting the link.

HAHAHAHA. But you can't, so you won't.

This 'dog tag' hoax has been so widely debunked it's ridiculous. I just buried it with the links below. You and DD are free to keep denying it...and you'll continue to look foolish.

Mike McGrath's (President of NAM-POW) Rebuttal
http://vikingphoenix.com/public/rongstad/military/JaneFonda/bogus_rebuttal.htm

EVEN THE GUY WHO ORIGINATED THE STORY (Jon Dougherty) NOW SAYS IT WAS FALSE:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15719


mrC

[ChadTower]

This 'dog tag' hoax has been so widely debunked it's ridiculous. I just buried it below. You and DD are free to keep denying it...and you'll continue to look foolish.

I didn't say I thought it was true or not true, I mentioned the possibility that it is true or not true, the same way the original hoax is possibly true or not true.

My actual opinion is that it probably is not true, seeing as how if I were a POW and there were an American actress there entertaining my captors, I'd spit on her instead, assuming by her very presence that she would not help me.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I didn't say I thought it was true or not true, I mentioned the possibility that it is true or not true, the same way the original hoax is possibly true or not true.

My actual opinion is that it probably is not true, seeing as how if I were a POW and there were an American actress there entertaining my captors, I'd spit on her instead, assuming by her very presence that she would not help me.

So, you move the goalposts once again. It's really a waste of time arguing with you, since you never say what you mean and you never stand behind was you say, or insinuate. It seems to be the new professional hobby of conservatives and right-leaners.

You're actual opinion doesn't matter, in the end, even after you've claimed a bunch of "possibilities" that fly in the face of a reality based on irrefutable facts, which I've provided for you. I showed you how the story is 100% - without a doubt - a hoax and now you claim you never said it wasn't, even though you claimed earlier that you could "possibly refute the link."  Whatever. It's intellectually dishonest and it sucks.

You're hatred of Fonda blinds you, use the force young Padawan and seek the truth. Otherwise, you are no better than her.

I mentioned the possibility that it is true or not true, the same way the original hoax is possibly true or not true.

Again, there IS NO "POSSIBILITY" about this. It's not true. Simple as that. She never did it. Jesus H. Christ, what is wrong with you people?! Do facts EVER get in the way of your opinions? lol.

From Dartful:

At least I can ignore future links and still know as little about the topic as the person who posted the links.

I guess ANSWER = NO.


mrC

[ChadTower]

So, you move the goalposts once again. It's really a waste of time arguing with you, since you never say what you mean and you never stand behind was you say, or insinuate. It seems to be the new professional hobby of conservatives and right-leaners.

Moving the goalposts?  What I insinuate?  I go to pains to state my opinions as I feel them.  You keep trying to find hidden meaning or facetious subcontext in my posts.  I do not usually insinuate.  I am quite overt when I have something to say.  My opinions on Fonda have not changed, you are not going to convince me to change them, and the goalposts have not moved.  Whatever goalposts are in this context, anyway. 

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I do not usually insinuate.

Suuuure, I guess that's why you traffic in limitless, unsubstantiated "possibilities", even when the cold, hard facts are definitively laid out before you.

mrC

[ChadTower]

I do not usually insinuate.

Suuuure, I guess that's why you traffic in limitless, unsubstantiated "possibilities", even when the cold, hard facts are definitively laid out before you.

Yes, I consider things as possibilities.  That is how a critical thought process works.  Nothing is entirely impossible until proven as such by some semblance of the scientific method.  I do not traffic in limitless, unsubstantiated possibilities, I traffic in a limited amount of possibilities for which a reasonable extrapolation can be considered.

Basically, take what you think is the case... extrapolate it out in several directions... consider which ones are or are not likely... and make your conclusions based on which you consider most likely.

The problem with this type of conversation is that there are no irrefutable facts here.  None of us is in a position to have such facts.  All we have are net sources, media reports, and our own educated guesses.  This is a perfect example.  Those sites SAY this is not true, and they SAY they have quotes from these people, but without actually contacting them ourselves, we do not know for certain that they ever said those things.  Hell, we don't know that they are even the right POWs.  It's just not irrefutable, and that is why I won't accept it as such.

I do believe they are at least conceptually correct, as I said, in that the notes/beatings did not happen.  My belief that it is not likely to have happened does not mean it did not, but it does mean that I don't consider it when I think of Jane Fonda.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Yes, I consider things as possibilities.

...

Those sites SAY this is not true, and they SAY they have quotes from these people, but without actually contacting them ourselves, we do not know for certain that they ever said those things.

You have not circumnavigated the globe, ergo it's "possible" the world is flat. This argument will come back to haunt you, I promise.

It's just not irrefutable, and that is why I won't accept it as such.

YES. IT IS. The man who wrote the story said it is a hoax and the men quoted in the hoax, have said it is a hoax, so the statement that this story is a HOAX is irrefutable.

My belief that it is not likely to have happened...

Zzzzzzzz.....

In the meantime, here's some more reading on how this is absolutely, irrefutably...a hoax.

My Critic is Right .... .... And Wrong
Not saluting Jane Fonda, part II

So unless I'm to believe that the Internet domains hosting these articles are being controlled by liberal pro-Fonda activist hackers (and if you knew anything about Worldnetdaily, you'd know how hilarious this allegation is), and that these articles have been, in fact, penned by Jane Fonda herself as some sort of elaborate conspiracy to clear her name...the story is irrefutably, without a shadow of a doubt, absolutely 100% HOAX-RIDDEN in nature. Come on, say it with me...H.O.A.X.....Sounds like "jokes", rhymes with "smokes"...whether or not you "believe" it, is irrelevant. It is a fact, and your belief-system "croaks."

mrC

[ChadTower]

You have not circumnavigated the globe, ergo it's "possible" the world is flat. This argument will come back to haunt you, I promise.

See, seeing as how we can find hundreds of scientific texts that state it is a sphere, we can reasonably conclude that there is enough corroborating evidence.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

You have not circumnavigated the globe, ergo it's "possible" the world is flat. This argument will come back to haunt you, I promise.

See, seeing as how we can find hundreds of scientific texts that state it is a sphere, we can reasonably conclude that there is enough corroborating evidence.

What if these texts appear on the "internets" though? Does that somehow invalidate their claim? Just admit that this "serial number" Fonda story is a hoax and I'll leave you alone. Until then, you're in my "seriously in denial whack-job" category. You don't want to be there, all I do is tease. Feelings get hurt. 

..and it has to be better than this "I do believe they are at least conceptually correct"...that's soooooooo weaselly.

mrC

[ChadTower]

What if these texts appear on the "internets" though? Does that somehow invalidate their claim? Just admit that this "serial number" Fonda story is a hoax and I'll leave you alone. Until then, you're in my "seriously in denial whack-job" category. You don't want to be there, all I do is tease. Feelings get hurt.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I'm not weaselling, I'm disagreeing with you.

You are disagreeing with stated FACTS that I am presenting to you. It's not *my* position, it's just facts.

That type of hyperbolic analogy doesn't work on people who think.

And your constant refusal to acknowledge facts, doesn't help either. You are on the wrong end of this one, and I'm going to just go ahead and rub it in a little bit more. (See below)

Those sites SAY this is not true, and they SAY they have quotes from these people, but without actually contacting them ourselves, we do not know for certain that they ever said those things.

Btw, I took your advice, earlier I had emailed Cpt. Mike McGrath who was quoted as a source for the POW "serial number and beatings story" involving Jane Fonda. I found his email on his organizations website (http://www.nampows.org/). You'll find my email, along with his reply, below. If you don't trust me, as I said before, you can contact him yourself. I'll IM you his email.

My email:

"I know you've gotten plenty of emails about this subject in the past, but I respectfully request a summation from "the horse's mouth" to the question: Is the story about Jane Fonda turning over the "tiny slips of paper" to the POW's captors true?"

Here's his reply, along with an attachment he sent:

"David...It's all an internet hoax, and has been for the last 6 years.  O'Reilly even got sucked in recently.  He made a retraction the next day.  It's a story which folks "want to believe," but that doesn't make it true.  See my attachment.  Also, check Snopes and other internet verification sites for fact vs. fiction.

Mike McGrath
NAM-POW Historian
www.nampows.org

Attachment: Fonda story rebuttal 10-29-99.doc

So, not only does he, himself, point out that the story is a hoax, he points to the validity of the information available on the internet. All of which is obviously based on his statements he maed when he attempted to correct the record in the first place (1992).

Will you FINALLY admit that you understand this is a hoax and that we do know this FOR CERTAIN?

mrC

[ChadTower]

Will you FINALLY admit that you understand this is a hoax and that we do know this FOR CERTAIN?

Sure, now I will, now that I see you're learning enough to double check a story, look for corroborating evidence, and even go so far as to inquire of the original party.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Sure, now I will, now that I see you're learning enough to double check a story, look for corroborating evidence, and even go so far as to inquire of the original party.  THAT is thorough, and without this discussion, would you have done it?  There is little more you can reasonably produce at this point to corroborate the fact that it is a hoax.

The only thing I've learned from this, is that I have to beat you over the head with the truth before you'll admit to it. I *ALWAYS* double-check the things I use as background...doesn't mean I'm always right, but it *DOES* mean I go a few steps farther than most posters.

I corraborate evidence by finding sources I trust, I then "triangulate" the truthfulness of the story from multiple sources. When possible, I usually *do* attempt to contact the original party. When I can't, then I trust the person I'm reading is being truthful when *they* say they've contacted the source. I don't trust things from "anonymous sources" unless verfied from multiple individuals and only then do I trust it only as much as it leads to *further* investigation.

If a story originates from a biased partisan site, I try to source it back to a third-party press agency. If I can't, I don't post it. I look at the background of the writer as well as the editor, if the story is big enough, in an attempt to figure out their objectivity.


mrC

[Dartful Dodger]

Speaking of flip floping French things....CHIRAC LOST!!!

[danny_galaga]

Speaking of flip floping French things....CHIRAC LOST!!!

                           MERDE!

[markrvp]

So, you move the goalposts once again. It's really a waste of time arguing with you, since you never say what you mean and you never stand behind was you say, or insinuate. It seems to be the new professional hobby of conservatives and right-leaners.

We learned from Slick Willy, "I guess it depends on what the meaning of is, is."

[shmokes]

Speaking of flip floping French things....CHIRAC LOST!!!

That's not a good thing for America's economy.

[Dexter]

What if these texts appear on the "internets" though?

LOL!

http://www.cafepress.com/thewhitehouse.13373348

Help make enstrongrinated internets free of tyrannicalisations

[ChadTower]

The only thing I've learned from this, is that I have to beat you over the head with the truth before you'll admit to it.

I don't consider committing to the burden of proof to be beating someone over the head.  You were the one trying to prove a point so the burden fell on you this time.  That's what it takes to convince some people, but consider that no one worth convincing is easy to convince.

Of course, I did feel it was a hoax all along, I just wanted proof before outright declaring it to be such.  The one undeclared thing here is that if you felt that put out trying to convince me, why do it?  I'm not even the one who brought the notes story into this discussion.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

The one undeclared thing here is that if you felt that put out trying to convince me, why do it?  I'm not even the one who brought the notes story into this discussion.

'Cuz I pick my battles and there ain't no convincing our illustrious, intellectual bubble-boy, his holiness Dartful ("This is why I don't click on any links") Dodger, of anything. He initially brought it up, and you so slyly insinuated that you could "possibly" debunk the theory that it was, in fact, a hoax. To me, that demonstrated a willingness to support DD's absurd allegation that it was a "real" story, even after he was provided copious amounts of evidence that it was not.

Of course, I did feel it was a hoax all along

And of course, this is *not* what you said, so that's very disingenuous of you. But it doesn't really matter, it's all good now, truth reigns supreme.   


mrC

[DrewKaree]

The only thing I've learned from this, is that I have to beat you over the head with the truth before you'll admit to it. I *ALWAYS* double-check the things I use as background...doesn't mean I'm always right, but it *DOES* mean I go a few steps farther than most posters.

I corraborate evidence by finding sources I trust, I then "triangulate" the truthfulness of the story from multiple sources. When possible, I usually *do* attempt to contact the original party. When I can't, then I trust the person I'm reading is being truthful when *they* say they've contacted the source. I don't trust things from "anonymous sources" unless verfied from multiple individuals and only then do I trust it only as much as it leads to *further* investigation.

If a story originates from a biased partisan site, I try to source it back to a third-party press agency. If I can't, I don't post it. I look at the background of the writer as well as the editor, if the story is big enough, in an attempt to figure out their objectivity.

As a wise_acre once said

Suuuure,

Simply going back and reading the words actually typed demonstrates your preconceived notions of what Chad means and how you read into his words what it is you feel he's "actually" saying.

You've got such a woodie working on trying to place blame or find fault with anything opposite your positions you couldn't even figure out how to control yourself when fredster posted a picture....you can't even begin to differentiate the reason one is different from what you consider to be "reasonable"....you most CERTAINLY couldn't be bothered to....how was it you put it?  "look at the background of the writer as well as the editor, if the story is big enough, in an attempt to figure out their objectivity"

You got duped into blowing up at a word-for-word quoted response that didn't even garner a hiccup by yourself when first posted by someone you generally agree with, but when put forth by someone seemingly disagreeing with your view, you couldn't stuff words into his mouth fast enough!

Chad was clear in his point.  I'd take it a step further.  The only thing you've demonstrated to him is that you can type responses that would appear to support the possibility of your claim, but you've still not proven anything substantial to him. 

You ought to be thanking him for believing you and not assuming you're lying to him in order to prove your point.  Your post is essentially what's already available to him out there on those big bad "internets", and he's taking you at face value, something you, in your haste to show him up, couldn't.  You couldn't even be bothered to decipher basic English in order to figure out what he said all along.

I wish I had more time to argue with you like Chad does, but I've got scores of links to parse through and twist to my evil machinations.  Someone's gotta feed Mr Rove his talking points

[KenToad]

Wow, Drew, you always seemed so sarcastic and now you suddenly talk so serious.  Why do you defend Chad?  Are you disappointed that he caved into believing Mr. C?  If you don't believe Mr. C, check it out for yourself.  That's been the idea all along, right?  Don't suck down the propaganda from the mouths of the men who speak it into the echo chamber.  Wouldn't it be funny if those poor vets had to respond to ten of us just wishing to once and for all corroborate the bunk of that Fonda story? 

As for me, I never thought I'd be arguing politics on the BYOAC forum.  Glad you're all here.

Cheers,
KenToad 

[DrewKaree]

Wow, Drew, you always seemed so sarcastic and now you suddenly talk so serious. 

Not enough time off, I think.  I've left my sarcasm and humor at a few job sites and had to go back to retrieve them.  Someone always is spotted running off with a chunk of it whenever I come upon them again.  Bastids!

Why do you defend Chad?  Are you disappointed that he caved into believing Mr. C? 

I'm not defending Chad, I'm defending his point.  He's a big enough boy to defend himself.  Chad rarely disappoints too, and he and I even disagree on some things. 

What I find funny is that this story is put out there time and again, and it's what's concentrated on instead of her actions with the enemy in a time of war, and the hedging of words by Fonda equal to that which has MrC's undies in a bunch re: Chad.

I've always thought of her as someone looking for affirmation from others, constantly working to find something that would get her accepted, even though many DO accept her for who she is.  Evidently, me liking her is something she requires.  It's gotta be rough to go through life unfulfilled

It's not that I don't believe MrC, it's that I don't care about the story, it's that Chad pointed out quite clearly the possibilities against the story, it's that MrC thought enough of beating a dead horse here that he blathered on and on and on and...on?  Evidently he suffers much like Ms Fonda.  It's tiresome to see someone become more petty by the day, to the point that you feel sorry for them.  Chad's also at fault, because he goads him on so much, but I suspect that Chad's having fun at his expense.  I guess I feel bad because I can see Chad leading him around, but he keeps leading him into a wall.

Good times.....good times


Oh, and it's not called "arguing".....it's "debating".  Arguing brings all kinds of mean stuff into it, and sometimes it just starts off at rock bottom and starts digging.

Carry on.

p.s.  I was told if I keep typing, I'd fall under the attention ho label too ('',)

[KenToad]

You're a weird man, Mr. Karee.  It's funny that I almost never check the Everything Else part of this forum.  I love what you guys say in regards to arcade building.  You particularly have been an incredibly informative source regarding all aspects of arcade building.  That said, we obviously have glaringly different views of this political debate.  Maybe Mr. Curmudgeon took it a little personally that the more right-leaning members of this forum only seem to believe the stories that fit their personal political views.  Maybe it's true also that no one should ever trust the Internet for information.  Still, that story about Fonda seemed incredibly well debunked.  I don't fault Mr. C for digging deeper into that story and I commend him for encouraging others to check it out for themselves.  It's too often that we get sucked into the "accepted" view of things, without ever personally verifying things for ourselves. 

Are you tipsy?  I am.  This is a great part of the forum for this state of mind. 

Bars close in half an hour.

Cheers,
KenToad

[Dexter]

Just curious for peoples view of the following:

Say one country is invaded by another, ie Iraq by America. Now, the adminstration in America calls this Invasion a WAR ie the war on terror (tm). Now, some people in America say 'this is not a war, its an invasion and a crime against humanity'. Are those people 'unpatriotic' because they're not supporting their country at, according to the president, a time of "war"?

[ChadTower]

Sure, she didn't cause them to be beaten.  That does not change what she DID do, which is to provide aid to hostile troops who had and would continue to kill Americans. 

She can protest however she chooses and it is a statement against our actions.  The second she crosses the line from being against our gov't actions and being in support of the enemy troops, she goes from reasonable point of view to being antiUS troops.  At this point she is in favor of killing US troops.  That has not changed, will not change, and makes her a piece of ---steaming pile of meadow muffin---.