Vietnam Era Veterans: Grow The **** Up.

[JakeStarkey]

Remember that many of the forum served so they naysayers can have their right to express their dissent. Freedom of speech is certainly not free. But unpopular speech (and the naysayers are in the very small minority and very unpopular) is exactly the speech that needs to be protected. Why protect popular speech?

 

[L.K.Eder]

Remember that many of the forum served so they naysayers can have their right to express their dissent. Freedom of speech is certainly not free. But unpopular speech (and the naysayers are in the very small minority and very unpopular) is exactly the speech that needs to be protected. Why protect popular speech?

hiding behind the military without evidence= pathetic.


no one of you served for my dissent.

 

[rdean]

Remember that many of the forum served so they naysayers can have their right to express their dissent. Freedom of speech is certainly not free. But unpopular speech (and the naysayers are in the very small minority and very unpopular) is exactly the speech that needs to be protected. Why protect popular speech?

hiding behind the military without evidence= pathetic.


no one of you served for my dissent.

When I served, it was for the country. I still love the country, but I feel terrible about what the Republicans have done to it in the last 8 or 10 years. Failing to get Bin Laden. How could they? The invasion of Iraq. The genocide of the Iraqi Christians. The aftermath of Katrina. Pushing mysticism over science. The greed in business. Sending jobs overseas. "Wealth care". Removing regulations for clean air and clean water.

And look at their new plans. Like, well, like, er, ..... Ok, so they don't have any plans.

It's like they have this plan to bring America to it's knees and it worked far beyond their expectations.

 

[JenT]

another sign of the bullshitter is to use the first person plural.

example:

we believe you are full of shit!

no it's a sign of a person that doesn't have a leg to stand because after how many pages you've been proved wrong, so what do you do? Criticize someone saying "we"

(rolling eyes)

btw, you must have had "we" on the brain because your last post as of 20 seconds ago, you wrote on another thread:

we think you are neither wicked nor a jester, and that you are late for your intro. so WE tell you to **** off.

wow, you've shown signs of intelligence, why do you think i did answer to the "wicked jester" the way i did. check the timeline. other than you, i have the ability to read my posts critically.

now is your time to shine, st. jennifer. where was i proved wrong. link it, post the pics, or have you already destroyed all evidence because you find it that horrible. a propos, you are horrible.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1435640-post165.html

 

[L.K.Eder]

no it's a sign of a person that doesn't have a leg to stand because after how many pages you've been proved wrong, so what do you do? Criticize someone saying "we"

(rolling eyes)

btw, you must have had "we" on the brain because your last post as of 20 seconds ago, you wrote on another thread:

wow, you've shown signs of intelligence, why do you think i did answer to the "wicked jester" the way i did. check the timeline. other than you, i have the ability to read my posts critically.

now is your time to shine, st. jennifer. where was i proved wrong. link it, post the pics, or have you already destroyed all evidence because you find it that horrible. a propos, you are horrible.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1435640-post165.html

you are insulting me with this link.

you have no clue what evidence is.

you have no clue what decency is.

you have no clue what Christianity is.

to sum it up

you have nothing.

 

[JenT]

wow, you've shown signs of intelligence, why do you think i did answer to the "wicked jester" the way i did. check the timeline. other than you, i have the ability to read my posts critically.

now is your time to shine, st. jennifer. where was i proved wrong. link it, post the pics, or have you already destroyed all evidence because you find it that horrible. a propos, you are horrible.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1435640-post165.html

you are insulting me with this link.

you have no clue what evidence is.

you have no clue what decency is.

you have no clue what Christianity is.

to sum it up

you have nothing.

Then be insulted.

"The Killing Zone" from which I got that excerpt was good enough for the Library of Congress. If it's not good enough for you, tough cookies.

 

[L.K.Eder]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1435640-post165.html

you are insulting me with this link.

you have no clue what evidence is.

you have no clue what decency is.

you have no clue what Christianity is.

to sum it up

you have nothing.

Then be insulted.

"The Killing Zone" from which I got that excerpt was good enough for the Library of Congress. If it's not good enough for you, tough cookies.

where did frederick downs jr. support your spitting polemic, st. jennifer of the rotten cross?

did you know that everytime you lie, zombie arafat is killing kittens in front of kindergardeners again? think of the innocent furry kittens

 

[JenT]

you are insulting me with this link.

you have no clue what evidence is.

you have no clue what decency is.

you have no clue what Christianity is.

to sum it up

you have nothing.

Then be insulted.

"The Killing Zone" from which I got that excerpt was good enough for the Library of Congress. If it's not good enough for you, tough cookies.

where did frederick downs jr. support your spitting polemic, st. jennifer of the rotten cross?

did you know that everytime you lie, zombie arafat is killing kittens in front of kindergardeners again? think of the innocent furry kittens

okay that one I can't back up cause Emanuel A. Winston doesn't have it up any more, but he wrote it...except it was puppies, not kittens...(wince)

Emanuel A. Winston, a Middle East Analyst & Commentator

 

[L.K.Eder]

Then be insulted.

"The Killing Zone" from which I got that excerpt was good enough for the Library of Congress. If it's not good enough for you, tough cookies.

where did frederick downs jr. support your spitting polemic, st. jennifer of the rotten cross?

did you know that everytime you lie, zombie arafat is killing kittens in front of kindergardeners again? think of the innocent furry kittens

okay that one I can't back up cause Emanuel A. Winston doesn't have it up any more, but he wrote it...except it was puppies, not kittens...(wince)

Emanuel A. Winston, a Middle East Analyst & Commentator

zombie arafat is complaining about his work hours. the kittens just look cute.

 

[JenT]

I don't have one of a Vietnam war vet being spit at, but here's one of an Iraq War Vet being spit at

and an article about Iraq War Vets
Vietnam Veterans Against the War: THE VETERAN: War Supporters "Spit" on Iraq War Vets in DC

and since you're fighting so hard to deny this stuff happens, all I can think of is it must be damage control to your efforts

I'm posting this of the Iraq vets because I know they're secure about how America feels about them.

Americans are proud of our Vietnam War Vets as well and regret the insane way they were treated when they came home, and I think that's why the parades are a little louder, in fact that town re-enacting their return proves it.

What I'm not sure of is why anyone would try to deny all of this so much. I can only imagine it's because you have your own hatred of this country. If there is any other reason, please tell me what it is.

 

[L.K.Eder]

I don't have one of a Vietnam war vet being spit at, but here's one of an Iraq War Vet being spit at

and an article about Iraq War Vets
Vietnam Veterans Against the War: THE VETERAN: War Supporters "Spit" on Iraq War Vets in DC

and since you're fighting so hard to deny this stuff happens, all I can think of is it must be damage control to your efforts

I'm posting this of the Iraq vets because I know they're secure about how America feels about them.

Americans are proud of our Vietnam War Vets as well and regret the insane way they were treated when they came home, and I think that's why the parades are a little louder, in fact that town re-enacting their return proves it.

What I'm not sure of is why anyone would try to deny all of this so much. I can only imagine it's because you have your own hatred of this country. If there is any other reason, please tell me what it is.

you link me to VVAW.org? you are brain dead.

Fifty Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War, led 100,000 other American citizens in a huge demonstration and march in Washington DC on September 15. They were exercising the Rights that they thought they had just earned on the battlefield. Behind them, thousands of other military veterans, including many members of VVAW and VFP followed.
IVAW marched as in a military company, in formation, with a 7 man honor guard front and center, all in their military uniforms. They carried the US flag, as did many of the vets and citizens, in the position of "distress."
ALL of them were called "cowards," "traitors" or "disgraces"... there were hundreds of "**** you's" screamed at them, and there were even screams of "we'll kill YOU later" coming from the pathetic group of 1,000 pro war citizens that formed a thin line in a few small areas along the route of the march, and the pro-war group ALL claimed that they "supported the troops."
Does any else see the extreme irony here?
This "proud" group of fanatics even took the time to stomp on the father of an Iraq war KIA, as he was walking back to his car after the march had ended. They kicked him a dozen times when he was down on the ground, and shredded the picture of his son that he carries on top of the coffin that he was pulling. I guess the "Eagles" support "Gold Star" family's too. And not a cop in sight. The police were all waiting for us at the Capitol I guess, protecting an empty building against the petition to end the war that was signed by about 1,000,000 people, that we wanted to leave there.
Apparently "spitting on the troops," as it were, equates to "supporting the troops," at least if you are a so-called "Gathering of Eagles" or "Move America Forward" member, which are pro-neocon, pro-war groups. This gang is given support by the national media, in the form of Michele Malkin and Rush Limbaugh, among others... 2 more military experts that blindly suck Dick Cheney's ass. Two more war freaks that never served a second in the military.
The "Eagles" even had bright red arm bands, just like the nazis used to wear, except with black eagles instead of swastikas. I swear.
The Cheney and Bush fan club.
They are more like the "Gathering of Vultures," if you ask me. They support the genocidal slaughter of innocent people. They support killing kids and torturing innocent humans. They support the sending of our children into an unjust occupation, where they are hated for being occupiers, so their minds will be screwed forever. You know, troop and flag support. But the troops know the truth.

now who is disrespecting veterans?

edit because you are so dense and dishonest: vietnam is not the same foreign country as iraq.

 

[JenT]

What?

ooops

So like NOW you decide to read what I post???

Hey LK, be a sweetheart would ya hon and just sorta delete that part of the quote...

 

[noose4]

nobody cares for us grenada era veterans either

 

[Ralph]

Nobody trashed the homecomings of most if not all of you. There is no need to apologize. Most V-Era vets never saw combat or anything close to it. Sure the war was unpopular. Doesn't mean you weren't supported by many of us back home. Stop insulting us with the pity pot act and move on.

---
btw...
I enlisted in 1973/74
(the process went from december to february)

It appears the "CHILD" is he who gestated a thread in relation to a topic on which he accused others of CRYING? Typical. That's much like the homosexuals starting a thread informing everyone of their PRIVATE sex life.....and then accusing others of INVADING their privacy. Me thinks you fit perfectly into the category that listed the traits of a FOOL....as defined by God.

1.) A fool does not want to learn or be enlightened. -- Pr. 1:22 2.) He will always despise good advise. -- Pr. 15:15. 3.) The fool makes the pretension of listening, but.......because nothing changes and the same old subjective argument is presented in a circular motion.....we can tell they are not listening to anything but their own pretty words. -- Matt. 7:26 4.) The fool always reveals his/her foolishness, as observed by the gestation of this thread -- Pr. 13:16. 5.) The fool is interested in only ONE THING.....saying his/her piece, he is not interested in understanding the position of another, he just demands the opportunity to spout off his nonsense...as observed. -- Pr. 13:16.

6.) Once the mouth of a fool begins flapping, everyone can observe THERE IS NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE THERE. -- Pr. 18:2 7.) As a fool speaks only of FOOLISH THINGS -- Pr. 15:2. 8.) And because there is NO SUBSTANCE THERE.......the lack of substance is made up in the politically correct structure of the use of many VERBOSE words, dreams....of SUBJECTIVE OPINION lacking any OBJECTIVE or DEMONSTRABLE TRUTH -- Eccl. 5:3 9.) Because the fool does not use reason or logic....he/she is lead by EMOTION (sound like a liberal?).....He believes everything he hears...except the truth (example The creator God is rejected and replaced by SCIENCE FICTION, Ghosts, Vampires, Little Green Men..etc....which is readily accepted as truth...without proof) -- Pr. 14:15 10.) Thus the gullibility of the fool leads he/she very easily into sin and perversion -- Pr. 7:6-27

And MY favorite as clearly demonstrated in the gestation of this thread..... 11.) THE FOOL ENJOYS PICKING FIGHTS -- Pr. 18:6-7 12.) The fool constantly meddles in the affairs of others, making the pretension of knowing what's best for everyone (Liberalism personified), simply to stir strife -- Pr. 20:3 13.) Though the fool is easily angered....he hides his feelings and uses BACKBITING and DECEIT in an attempt to gain advantage (again LIBERALISM personified) -- Pr. 10:8 14.) The fool is ARROGANT (it appears the pseudo intellectual liberal has taken every play from the fools handbook) -- Pr. 28:26 15.) He mocks SIN (the first play in the book) -- Pr. 14:9

16.) Even when faced with EVIL...he denies the existence of EVIL and ignores it -- Pr. 22:3. 17.) Sin does not deter the fool...its any means to an end, nothing stops him from his selfish goals, He may even pretend to be religious, but HIS life does not example the pretension....thus TWO faces are demanded, one for public life..the other for private -- Luke 11:39-40 And last but not least.........no. 18.) with a bullet......IT IS THE FOOL THAT CONVINCES HIMSELF THERE IS NO GOD. -- Ps. 53:1.....and everything that is exampled by the fool is for one purpose...the pleasures of this life, with empathy toward none...except SELF.

It is clear there are many such fools right here in the United States who have in error chosen not to retain the knowledge of God -- Romans 1:20-22. Its not the evidence is not there....the fool simply would prefer a world without the burden of being JUDGED for his/her actions. But as observed by this thread........THEY sure as HELL DO NOT MIND passing judgment upon those that would dare disagree with them, and their supposed freedom from JUDGMENT.

 

[Dante]

Nobody trashed the homecomings of most if not all of you. There is no need to apologize. Most V-Era vets never saw combat or anything close to it. Sure the war was unpopular. Doesn't mean you weren't supported by many of us back home. Stop insulting us with the pity pot act and move on

DevNell go Fu*k yourself !!!!

DOne that been there. I'm just sick of seeing people in the streets who keep saying "I'm a 'Nam vet" and expecting like we all owe them something. Especially when they are getting veteran's services.

Douglas McAuthur had troops fire on the bonus marchers.

 

[Dante]

Nobody trashed the homecomings of most if not all of you. There is no need to apologize. Most V-Era vets never saw combat or anything close to it. Sure the war was unpopular. Doesn't mean you weren't supported by many of us back home. Stop insulting us with the pity pot act and move on.

---
btw...
I enlisted in 1973/74
(the process went from december to february)

Thank you for your service.

Not all, certainly not a great minorty, but unfortunately a signficant number of Vietnam viets' homecoming were trashed. That you don't like it means nothing. The events happened, get over it.

Once again, thank you for your service.

Where are the documented cases of the trashing o returning troops from the 'nam?

The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory and the Legacy of Vietnam is a 1998 book by sociologist Jerry Lembcke. The book argues that the common claim that American soldiers were spat upon and insulted by anti-war protesters upon returning home from the Vietnam War is an urban legend intended to discredit the anti-war movement. Lembcke's book argues, further, that posttraumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, is a socially-constructed diagnostic category that disparages the image of Vietnam veterans and provided another way to discredit the many veterans in the anti-war movement. Lembcke writes that this discrediting of the anti-war movement was foreshadowed by Hermann Goring's fostering of the stab in the back myth, after Germany's defeat in Europe in 1918.[1]

-The Spitting Image - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nobody trashed the homecomings of most if not all of you. There is no need to apologize. Most V-Era vets never saw combat or anything close to it. Sure the war was unpopular. Doesn't mean you weren't supported by many of us back home. Stop insulting us with the pity pot act and move on.

---
btw...
I enlisted in 1973/74
(the process went from december to february)

Thank you for your service.

Not all, certainly not a great minorty, but unfortunately a signficant number of Vietnam viets' homecoming were trashed. That you don't like it means nothing. The events happened, get over it.

Once again, thank you for your service.

Where are the documented cases of the trashing o returning troops from the 'nam?

The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory and the Legacy of Vietnam is a 1998 book by sociologist Jerry Lembcke. The book argues that the common claim that American soldiers were spat upon and insulted by anti-war protesters upon returning home from the Vietnam War is an urban legend intended to discredit the anti-war movement. Lembcke's book argues, further, that posttraumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, is a socially-constructed diagnostic category that disparages the image of Vietnam veterans and provided another way to discredit the many veterans in the anti-war movement. Lembcke writes that this discrediting of the anti-war movement was foreshadowed by Hermann Goring's fostering of the stab in the back myth, after Germany's defeat in Europe in 1918.[1]

-The Spitting Image - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia is not considered a reliabe source. The Spitting Image is written by a pro-commie freak who has been debunked by Robert Turner. All of that has been posted in another thread. In this forum plenty of evidence has been provided that the spitting occurred and that occurred a lot more than what we would like to think.

Whether you deny it, whether you think black is white, whatever you think on the merits of this is clear -- you have no idea what you are talking about or you are deliberately falsifying on this subject. Your opinion has no relevance.

If you don't like Vietnam vets, that's your right, and I don't think six people in the universe care what you think on the subject.

 

[JenT]

Dev you are so shockingly outrageous that I think that's your goal

and I aint bitin

God covers all

 

[JenT]

Thank you for your service.

Not all, certainly not a great minorty, but unfortunately a signficant number of Vietnam viets' homecoming were trashed. That you don't like it means nothing. The events happened, get over it.

Once again, thank you for your service.

Where are the documented cases of the trashing o returning troops from the 'nam?

The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory and the Legacy of Vietnam is a 1998 book by sociologist Jerry Lembcke. The book argues that the common claim that American soldiers were spat upon and insulted by anti-war protesters upon returning home from the Vietnam War is an urban legend intended to discredit the anti-war movement. Lembcke's book argues, further, that posttraumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, is a socially-constructed diagnostic category that disparages the image of Vietnam veterans and provided another way to discredit the many veterans in the anti-war movement. Lembcke writes that this discrediting of the anti-war movement was foreshadowed by Hermann Goring's fostering of the stab in the back myth, after Germany's defeat in Europe in 1918.[1]

-The Spitting Image - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia is not considered a reliabe source. The Spitting Image is written by a pro-commie freak who has been debunked by Robert Turner. All of that has been posted in another thread. In this forum plenty of evidence has been provided that the spitting occurred and that occurred a lot more than what we would like to think.

Whether you deny it, whether you think black is white, whatever you think on the merits of this is clear -- you have no idea what you are talking about or you are deliberately falsifying on this subject. Your opinion has no relevance.

If you don't like Vietnam vets, that's your right, and I don't think six people in the universe care what you think on the subject.

He knows, Jake, he's just playin

 

[rdean]

Nobody trashed the homecomings of most if not all of you. There is no need to apologize. Most V-Era vets never saw combat or anything close to it. Sure the war was unpopular. Doesn't mean you weren't supported by many of us back home. Stop insulting us with the pity pot act and move on.

---
btw...
I enlisted in 1973/74
(the process went from december to february)

Thank you for your service.

Not all, certainly not a great minorty, but unfortunately a signficant number of Vietnam viets' homecoming were trashed. That you don't like it means nothing. The events happened, get over it.

Once again, thank you for your service.

Where are the documented cases of the trashing o returning troops from the 'nam?

The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory and the Legacy of Vietnam is a 1998 book by sociologist Jerry Lembcke. The book argues that the common claim that American soldiers were spat upon and insulted by anti-war protesters upon returning home from the Vietnam War is an urban legend intended to discredit the anti-war movement. Lembcke's book argues, further, that posttraumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, is a socially-constructed diagnostic category that disparages the image of Vietnam veterans and provided another way to discredit the many veterans in the anti-war movement. Lembcke writes that this discrediting of the anti-war movement was foreshadowed by Hermann Goring's fostering of the stab in the back myth, after Germany's defeat in Europe in 1918.[1]

-The Spitting Image - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Slate wrote an article about the same thing. A portion of that article - this is NOT spam.

Spitfire
Vietnam veterans were gobbed on, insist angry readers and critical bloggers.
By Jack Shafer
Posted Monday, Feb. 5, 2007, at 6:32 PM ET
The idea that Vietnam veterans returning from the war were spat upon by protesters is fixed in many minds, notably the score of readers who e-mailed me to dispute my Jan. 30 column that declared the story an "urban myth." They know vets got spat on because it happened to them, they wrote.


Also taking exception to my piece were Dan Riehl at the NewsBusters blog, Jim Lindgren at the Volokh Conspiracy, and others. My piece took the stand—following Jerry Lembcke's 1998 book, Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam—that the spit stories began to proliferate in 1980 or thereabouts. (For a thumbnail of Lembcke's argument, see this paper.) But both Riehl and Lindgren helpfully point to several mentions of spat-on vets published or broadcast during the Vietnam era.

Indeed, the spit meme was in circulation well before that. Former Defense Department official Alfred B. Fitt wrote a Sept. 15, 1971, Washington Post opinion piece about the divisiveness of the war in which he concluded, "You can't be fond of being spat upon, either literally or figuratively, just because of the uniform you're wearing." In a Nov. 30, 1971, New York Times op-ed, Army magazine Editor in Chief L. James Binder wrote, "The uniform of [Army] soldiers is spat upon in the streets and its wearers are denounced in public places as 'war criminal.' " A June 9, 1971, op-ed (whose provenance I cannot vouch for) states that veteran Jim Minarik claims to have been "twice spat upon" as well as "denied restaurant service" because of his uniform. (The op-ed is posted in the comment section of this Web site.)