Premier Rock Forum

...and your smiles.

I truly apologize for drudging this topic up from the depths of this message board from where it probably belongs - but, I feel I must address a few posts since my last, as I've been out of town and away from my beloved Electrical forum. (How's that for a run-on sentence?)

Didn't the Bush campaign make a lot of sleazy use of John Kerry's position as an anti-war veteran?

Didn't the John Kerry campaign make a lot of sleazy use of whether or not Bush served in the reserves? If not, didn't Dan Rather?

It's funny that the guy who calls people who disagree with him clueless and insinuates that they must be "homeschooled" would be the one to throw himself a pity party and try to paint himself as a victim. And to make shit up about how people have insinuated that he's an "uneducated, redneck, right winged fuck-all." And to baselessly accuse people of having attacked his upbringing and education.
Unable to change people's minds, or really to present jackshit in the way of evidence, you've resorted to slandering people's character.

First, you should never start a sentence with the word "And." AND, especially not twice. Homeschooled? (I kid, I kid)
Second. I wasn't throwing myself a pity party. I was merely stating that this forum is left-winged biased at the least. Which is fine. My point was (and is, based off of the response to my last post) that opinions differing from the left most times on this forum, and more than often in this day and age, are summarily disregarded as CRAP.

Why is Jane Fonda NOT the universal posterchild of the anti-Vietnam War movement? Why does this commonplace offend you, when it is so completely and universally accepted as so - to a man?

But you're wrong about this "the majority of americans" business, as you were wrong about Jane Fonda being responsible for the deaths of soldiers. This gets peoples' dander up, because you've got this hard-line opinion about these things, but your facts are all screwy. It makes for a frustrating conversation.

This is why people keep posting links to other stories - because your statements seem based in emotion, rather than fact.

Who says that I'm wrong about the 'majority of Americans'? You?
What planet are we all living on?
Again, this is a lay-up question that anyone would answer the same as the next. JANE FONDA IS THE POSTERCHILD FOR THE ANTI-VIETNAM WAR PROTEST MOVEMENT. This is the answer 99/100, 999/1000, 999,999/1,000,000 Americans will give when asked this question - regardless of age, race, education, etc...
Jane Fonda is the undisputable face of anti-Vietnam - period. We may argue all we want on this topic, but I guaren-fuckin'-tee you that if you ask some no-name, nobody from South Dakota who he/she would say most clearly defines the anti-Vietnam war movement, they will say Miss Jane Red Man Fonda.

Unfortunately, I don't have the cash to prove this absolutely. I'm speaking with common sense as my torch, and am hoping that you will see my point. Forget the spitting incident, if someone walked up to you prior to two weeks ago and said, "Joe Blow, who was the most widely recognized anti-Vietnam war protester back in the 70's?"
Would your kneejerk answer be Jane Fonda? Or would it be John Lennon, or anyone else for Chrissakes?

Here endeth my point.

6-4-3 wrote:I guaren-fuckin'-tee you that if you ask some no-name, nobody from South Dakota who he/she would say most clearly defines the anti-Vietnam war movement, they will say Miss Jane Red Man Fonda.

6-4-3 wrote:Why is Jane Fonda NOT the universal posterchild of the anti-Vietnam War movement? Why does this commonplace offend you, when it is so completely and universally accepted as so - to a man?

I don't mean to be facetious but I think most people remember Jane Fonda for heading the '80s areobics craze.

Oh yes, and America lost the war. I don't think this was Janes fault, but if you think spitting in a women's face will make things right, then go ahead.

I bet the guy who spat in her face would still love to fuck her.

6-4-3 wrote:What planet are we all living on?

Planet America, apparently.

I don't think this was Janes fault

Let me help: "I don't think this was JANE'S fault..."

Apostrophes are fun when attaching possession to a noun.

Obviously, this post wasn't directed at you, sir. Move along.

6-4-3 wrote:I truly apologize for drudging this topic up from the depths of this message board from where it probably belongs - but, I feel I must address a few posts since my last, as I've been out of town and away from my beloved Electrical forum. (How's that for a run-on sentence?)

Didn't the Bush campaign make a lot of sleazy use of John Kerry's position as an anti-war veteran?

Didn't the John Kerry campaign make a lot of sleazy use of whether or not Bush served in the reserves? If not, didn't Dan Rather?

No. It's "sleazy" to try to paint honorable actions as dishonorable, not vice versa. One man joined the military to go and fight (whatever motivated him, this is not a dishonorable thing per se), fought honorably, made a careful consideration, decided he opposed the war out of conscience, then came home and worked to end it. The other man supported the war, used his family connections to get into the National Guard, a common and legal (though wholly sleazy) method for well-connected people to avoid serving (even more sleazy for war supporters), and then - couldn't even be bothered to hold himself to the low standard he had set, breaking the law, going AWOL, and relying on his family connections to keep him from getting in trouble. (Fun Quiz: Name one milestone in George W. Bush's educational, business, or political career that he could have achieved without his family name). So, painting Kerry's actions as dishonorable is not equivalent to accurately portraying Bush's actions as dishonorable.

Who says that I'm wrong about the 'majority of Americans'? You?
What planet are we all living on?
Again, this is a lay-up question that anyone would answer the same as the next. JANE FONDA IS THE POSTERCHILD FOR THE ANTI-VIETNAM WAR PROTEST MOVEMENT. This is the answer 99/100, 999/1000, 999,999/1,000,000 Americans will give when asked this question - regardless of age, race, education, etc...
Jane Fonda is the undisputable face of anti-Vietnam - period. We may argue all we want on this topic, but I guaren-fuckin'-tee you that if you ask some no-name, nobody from South Dakota who he/she would say most clearly defines the anti-Vietnam war movement, they will say Miss Jane Red Man Fonda.

Unfortunately, I don't have the cash to prove this absolutely. I'm speaking with common sense as my torch, and am hoping that you will see my point. Forget the spitting incident, if someone walked up to you prior to two weeks ago and said, "Joe Blow, who was the most widely recognized anti-Vietnam war protester back in the 70's?" Would your kneejerk answer be Jane Fonda? Or would it be John Lennon, or anyone else for Chrissakes?

Here endeth my point.

Fans of fallacies will recognize this as the fallacy of argumentum ad nauseam.

6-4-3 wrote:I truly apologize for drudging this topic up from the depths of this message board from where it probably belongs - but, I feel I must address a few posts since my last, as I've been out of town and away from my beloved Electrical forum. (How's that for a run-on sentence?)

Didn't the Bush campaign make a lot of sleazy use of John Kerry's position as an anti-war veteran?

Didn't the John Kerry campaign make a lot of sleazy use of whether or not Bush served in the reserves? If not, didn't Dan Rather?

It's funny that the guy who calls people who disagree with him clueless and insinuates that they must be "homeschooled" would be the one to throw himself a pity party and try to paint himself as a victim. And to make shit up about how people have insinuated that he's an "uneducated, redneck, right winged fuck-all." And to baselessly accuse people of having attacked his upbringing and education.
Unable to change people's minds, or really to present jackshit in the way of evidence, you've resorted to slandering people's character.

First, you should never start a sentence with the word "And." AND, especially not twice. Homeschooled? (I kid, I kid)
Second. I wasn't throwing myself a pity party. I was merely stating that this forum is left-winged biased at the least. Which is fine. My point was (and is, based off of the response to my last post) that opinions differing from the left most times on this forum, and more than often in this day and age, are summarily disregarded as CRAP.

Why is Jane Fonda NOT the universal posterchild of the anti-Vietnam War movement? Why does this commonplace offend you, when it is so completely and universally accepted as so - to a man?

But you're wrong about this "the majority of americans" business, as you were wrong about Jane Fonda being responsible for the deaths of soldiers. This gets peoples' dander up, because you've got this hard-line opinion about these things, but your facts are all screwy. It makes for a frustrating conversation.

This is why people keep posting links to other stories - because your statements seem based in emotion, rather than fact.

Who says that I'm wrong about the 'majority of Americans'? You?
What planet are we all living on?
Again, this is a lay-up question that anyone would answer the same as the next. JANE FONDA IS THE POSTERCHILD FOR THE ANTI-VIETNAM WAR PROTEST MOVEMENT. This is the answer 99/100, 999/1000, 999,999/1,000,000 Americans will give when asked this question - regardless of age, race, education, etc...
Jane Fonda is the undisputable face of anti-Vietnam - period. We may argue all we want on this topic, but I guaren-fuckin'-tee you that if you ask some no-name, nobody from South Dakota who he/she would say most clearly defines the anti-Vietnam war movement, they will say Miss Jane Red Man Fonda.

Unfortunately, I don't have the cash to prove this absolutely. I'm speaking with common sense as my torch, and am hoping that you will see my point. Forget the spitting incident, if someone walked up to you prior to two weeks ago and said, "Joe Blow, who was the most widely recognized anti-Vietnam war protester back in the 70's?"
Would your kneejerk answer be Jane Fonda? Or would it be John Lennon, or anyone else for Chrissakes?

Here endeth my point.

What a compelling point it is. You used capital letters to indicate your main thesis, as though you being really adamant is going to change someone's mind. You nitpicked my grammar. And in response to one of my questions, you raised another, totally unrelated question, as though you were addressing mine. And I'm still starting sentences with and.
Furthermore, you might not believe it, but writing "period" at the end of your sentences and using phrases such as "guaren-fuckin'-tee" is not persuasive.
Finally, your statement that ideas that differ from the left "in this day and age" are summarily disregarded in this society is truly silly. I'll give you that the electrical message board leans to the left. To suggest that the United States leans to the left is an argument you simply could not support. But (I'm starting a sentence with but! Call William Strunk!) I'm sure you can make a lot of fervent assertions about it.

6-4-3 wrote:Who says that I'm wrong about the 'majority of Americans'? You?

Not me - the article I quoted in my post. I thought about adding more from it, but I figured you'd follow the link. The article mentioned a poll by the Annengerg Public Policy Center:

40 percent of the respondents thought of Fonda as an actress and only 20 percent as an antiwar activist

I haven't seen the poll itself, but the article says the poll asked respondents "to identify people mentioned during the [2004] campaign."

I believe the numbers mean: 60% of people know who Jane Fonda is; and only 20% think of her primarily as an antiwar activist.

I'm sure that if you went to South Dakota and took a poll of 1,000 men in their late 40's and early 50's, you may get a pretty high percentage who say Jane Fonda represents what you say she represents. But I don't know that such a poll would be considered accurate.

Whatever happened to unarmed_man?

spoot wrote:Whatever happened to unarmed_man?

I miss that bloke. He was much more polite and reasoned.

spoot wrote:Whatever happened to unarmed_man?

He either:

A) Moved to Texas becuase he feels left out of the whole Republican-NRA concealed weapon thing.

B) Decided to invade the rest of the Middle East to help bring the democracy

C) Is very busy eating a bag of dicks made out of knives.