Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
People who watch a lot of Hollywood movies, must see thousands of people killed every year. It’s mass murder on display. Disgusting.
Rambo First Blood plot was somewhat plausible and overall great entertainment.
The subsequent Rambo movies are your typical over the top Hollyweird fantasy drivel. ..
I know it's early, but have a cup of coffee before posting. ...So Rambo just happened to have an elaborate murder maze under his land on the off chance that a bunch of Mexicans come looking for him.
This is plausible to you?
It's time for critics to pan any new endeavors by Stallone, Ahnold, and Neesome that's sole purpose is to show off their muscles.
If not, we're going to see Rambo 16, Taken, 17, and Terminator 19, Expendables 20, with the stars tottering around on walkers
I know it's early, but have a cup of coffee before posting. ...So Rambo just happened to have an elaborate murder maze under his land on the off chance that a bunch of Mexicans come looking for him.
This is plausible to you?
Re-read my post.
I only defended the 1st Rambo movie, and said the rest were drivel.
You are wrong. ..It also perpetuated crap myths like soldiers being spat upon when they returned from Vietnam, which is a lie.
No one? Doubt that.People who watch a lot of Hollywood movies, must see thousands of people killed every year. It’s mass murder on display. Disgusting.
Meh, no one takes it seriously.
Now, what I'd like to see is that instead of Rambo shooting some nameless person we never see again... we actually see the consequences. We see that guys family, and how they are economically and emotionally ruined. We maybe see the innocent person who gets caught in the crossfire.
But funny thing, Japanese movies are even more violent than ours... yet they have a lot less crime because every mal-adjusted youth can't get a gun.
You are wrong. ..
U.S. Army 1970- 71
No one? Doubt that.People who watch a lot of Hollywood movies, must see thousands of people killed every year. It’s mass murder on display. Disgusting.
Meh, no one takes it seriously.
Now, what I'd like to see is that instead of Rambo shooting some nameless person we never see again... we actually see the consequences. We see that guys family, and how they are economically and emotionally ruined. We maybe see the innocent person who gets caught in the crossfire.
But funny thing, Japanese movies are even more violent than ours... yet they have a lot less crime because every mal-adjusted youth can't get a gun.
Posted a video a couple years back, of an MoH recipient stating he had been spat upon when he returned from Nam.
‘It’s a Lifelong Burden’: The Mixed Blessing of the Medal of Honor
Joes response?
(Joe, don't bother responding.)
Posted a video a couple years back, of an MoH recipient stating he had been spat upon when he returned from Nam.
‘It’s a Lifelong Burden’: The Mixed Blessing of the Medal of Honor
Joes response?
(Joe, don't bother responding.)
Where are the CONTEMPORARY accounts. Not what someone said 15 years later as he remembered it.
You know, you'd think that we'd see headlines between 1968 and 1973 of "Hippies spit on returning soldiers" or "Hippy sent to hospital after Soldier puts him in traction".
The Spitting Image - Wikipedia
Even during the most fervent days of anti-war protest, it seemed that it was not the soldiers whom protesters were maligning. It was the leaders of government, and the top generals—at least, that is how it seemed in memory. One of the most popular chants during the anti-war marches was, "Stop the war in Vietnam, bring the boys home." You heard that at every peace rally in America. "Bring the boys home." That was the message. Also, when one thought realistically about the image of what was supposed to have happened, it seemed questionable. So-called "hippies," no matter what else one may have felt about them, were not the most macho people in the world. Picture a burly member of the Green Berets, in full uniform, walking through an airport. Now think of a "hippie" crossing his path. Would the hippie have the nerve to spit on the soldier? And if the hippie did, would the soldier—fresh from facing enemy troops in the jungles of Vietnam—just stand there and take it?
By 1992, the Director of the Connelly Library and curator of the Vietnam War Collection at LaSalle University listed the spitting myth as one of the "Top Six Myths" from the Vietnam era, and observed the myth "derives from the mythopoeic belief that returning GI's were routinely spat upon at some time during their repatriation to the USA. This particular round of tales has become so commonplace as to be treated reverently even among otherwise wisely observant veterans."[2] In 1994, scholar Paul Rogat Loeb wrote, "to consider spitting on soldiers as even remotely representative of the activist response is to validate a lie", and noted that myths like that of anti-war activists spitting on soldiers have rewritten or "erased history".[3] An academic study into the making and shaping of a collective memory found that evidence of antiwar activists targeting troops was virtually nonexistent. Instead, it found popular memory was manipulated by national security elites and a complicit news media by frequently labeling resistors to U.S. war efforts as "anti-troop".[4] As observed by Clarence Page after interviewing Lembcke and Greene, "the stories have become so widely believed, despite a remarkable lack of witnesses or evidence, that ironically the burden of proof now falls on the accused, the protesters; not their accusers, the veterans. Antiwar protesters must prove the episodes didn't happen, instead of the veterans having to prove they did."[5]
Also, your article has a paywall.
Okay.....imagine you're a former Special Forces soldier with hundreds of confirmed kills. You've served your country with distinction and honor....received the Congressional Medial Of Honor twice.....and somebody kidnapped your niece. Turns out drug-cartels are responsible. So you go after them and make them pay in a very violent way for this and several other crimes against humanity.
But you're the bad guy.....according to movie critics. You're a racist.
This is the jist of what critics are saying about "Rambo: Last Blood".
How dare senior citizen John Rambo exact revenge against innocent drug-cartels that are only just doing what the Democrats want.....transporting drugs into America and helping illegals apply for asylum. After all, everyone knows that drug-cartels are essential in the Democrat's hopes for taking back the White House.
82% of the audience loved the movie. But critics gave it a 26% on the tomato meter because the movie is racist and not PC. In all honesty....I think that Hollywood and the critics are full of crap. If 82% of the people that paid for this movie loved it then obviously Hollywood has lost it's sense of what the public wants.
still got your fingers in your ears, asshole?
(pink faggot)
It's no different than the new movie on Clarence Thomas that came out. Those who saw it loved it but critics hated it.
Why? Cuz Fu#k a conservative black, that's why.
still got your fingers in your ears, asshole?
(pink faggot)
Not at all. I would me more than willing to entertain CREDIBLE evidence of soldiers being spat upon during Vietnam.
I knew dozens of senior NCO's and officers when I was in, not a ONE of them ever reported it.
It's one of those stories that grew, such as the story of the "Interrogation" by throwing Vietcong PW's out of a helicopter. It's gripping, it's emotional... what it lacks are dates, names, places, etc.
You see, here's the thing. Our focus on Vietnam has shifted from what a huge policy blunder it was to "we should have treated the guys who served their better". But instead of concentrating on the things that actually were bad, like no job prospects when they got back, lack of medical treatment for things like Agent Orange or PTSD, we come up with these myths about imaginary hippies spitting on soldiers.
How did you know he was only 3?still got your fingers in your ears, asshole?
(pink faggot)
Not at all. I would me more than willing to entertain CREDIBLE evidence of soldiers being spat upon during Vietnam.
I knew dozens of senior NCO's and officers when I was in, not a ONE of them ever reported it.
It's one of those stories that grew, such as the story of the "Interrogation" by throwing Vietcong PW's out of a helicopter. It's gripping, it's emotional... what it lacks are dates, names, places, etc.
You see, here's the thing. Our focus on Vietnam has shifted from what a huge policy blunder it was to "we should have treated the guys who served their better". But instead of concentrating on the things that actually were bad, like no job prospects when they got back, lack of medical treatment for things like Agent Orange or PTSD, we come up with these myths about imaginary hippies spitting on soldiers.
go away little boy.
your stupidity is boring
Also, your article has a paywall.
First paragraph, asshole.
"Gary Beikirch returned from Vietnam filled with rage and racked by guilt and worried he’d kill the next college kid who spat on him."
Don't like it, find your own link to what he said.
(You wont', your mind, small as it is, is made up)
