I’ll be whatever the godamned fuck I want to be, without your fucking permission, you fucking cunt. Go manipulate your disabled vets into feeling even more sorry for themselves, but I’m not falling for your bullshit.
Jesus Christ, dude, get a fucking grip. You’re the one telling everyone they should have just ignored Jane Fonda, and then you flip out like this?
Thank you.
Anyone else read Chefguy’s post and hear Clark W. Griswold?
http://www.reelwavs.com/movies/christmas_vacation/hlgiftidea.wav
HA HA HA, you poor, stupid, hysterical jackass. Wipe off the non-war protester spit you have drooling down your chin and flying across the room and come back when you can catch your breath and act like a big boy. If you can’t manage that simple little task, my discussion with you is over.
Funny thing. Go back to Posting #2 and of all people, ChefGuy asked me “Why is this in the Pit?”
I guess RTFirefly (posting #5) summed it up pretty well:*
Can we just assume that any thread about Jane Fonda, Vietnam vets (real or fake), and spitting in people’s faces as an act of protest, probably wouldn’t stay GQ-acceptable for more than 5 minutes?*
I would be amazed if it took ONE minute, let alone five. I personally know people who still refer to Fonda as Hanoi Jane, or alternately as “that Commie traitor bitch”. Somtimes I have to wonder in amazement that it took so long for someone to spit on her, or worse - not that I condone it. I was just barely old enough to be against the Vietnam war - I was in the “lottery” but was able to squeak by. It’s no lie, to say I was greatly relieved to not have to go. It was an even bigger relief, when Nixon called the whole thing off. Even so, I remember the big brouhaha, and joined many others in thinking of Jane as a traitor. I also noticed that her recent “apology” was really not even close to being one, and was suspiciously close to the timing of whatever she is trying to sell now (her book). Like the guy on TV says “I am skeptical”.
Interesting OP-ED piece in the Boston Globe today by a sociologist who has studied the spitting Urban Legends.
You don’t have to agree with the writer. Just found it timely.
SamClem
Thanks for posting that link.
Not surprisingly, there is a thread at “New Republic” which states this guy (Jerry Lembcke) is totally clueless and there is a long list of replies from veterans stating how rotten they were treated on their return home.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1323399/posts
Of course, since this is the Internet, you can say anything you want to with 0% requirement of substantiation - ESPECIALLY if it is on a message board.
This reply would be longer but Nicole Kidman is anxiously awaiting for me to pick her up in my new Ferrari - purchsed with the money I received from my second Nobel Prize in Chemistry. 
Oops I menat “Free Republic”. :smack:
A Nobel Prize winner should be more meticulous than that.
Hope I redeemed myself.
Quite all right. Say “Hi!” to Nicky for me, and ask if she ever found my lighter.
PS: try to work the phrase “Hammer of Thor” into the conversation, you’ll get to see how cute she is when she blushes.
This is why you shouldn’t mention spitting even as an analogy: people will still remember the incidents as actually occuring if you continue to use the imagery. I’m just sick of all the self-important morons who use those fake incidents to justify whatever current conflict they want support for. As has been mentioned, it’s not as important as incidents of violence, and the sooner we can totally drop projection of oral liquids from the national radar screen the sooner we can talk about the real issues facing the country during the end of Vietnam and how they do or do not relate to today’s political environment. You can’t relate nonexistent incidents to today’s environment in a useful way.
I bow to you and bask in your ballsy radiance.
Whether I agree with him or not, I wouldn’t trust any writer who doesn’t know the difference between “credulity” and “credibility.”
Any Kansas City SDMB “Dopers” heard anything about this guy? Has he been interviewed by the Kansas City Star, Kansas City Television, Radio, etc?
Diane,
Just a couple of questions:
Do you independently verify the military records and Vietnam service of those veterans you counsel?
Have you read “Stolen Valor” by B. G. Burkett?
BMalion
That is precisely why I started this thread.
Although I have not read “Stolen Valor” by BG Burkett, I have read (on many Internet sites) a lot about the book. Burkett has a good quote when he states that “Claiming to be a Vietnam Veteran has become a cottage industry”.
You’d think someone would be trying to get this guy’s story as to why he has such hatred and bitterness for Ms Fonda. If it is out of his traumatic Vietnam combat experience, let him tell the tale.
I am not sure what you mean by “independently verify”.
Although we work with homeless veterans, education, substance abuse, survivors of veterans, soldiers about to be discharged. . . our main objective and duty is to adjudicate and grant benefits. These benefits cannot, and will not, be granted without solid verification.
We obtain military records - service medical records, personnel 201 files, discharge documentation, line of duty, morning reports, clinic reports, and other documentation directly from the National Personnel Records Center or other records storage centers.
We also obtain records from VA Medical Centers, private physicians and medical providers, state and federal agencies (police reports, Social Security, etc.), and at times and at a more limited degree of credibility, statements from friends, family members, fellow soldiers, etc. (these are called Buddy Statements).
With the exception of Buddy Statements, all come directly from the source (military, agencies. . . ) and are considered reliable verification.
Again, I am not sure what your question is. If you are asking whether or not we verify the document is legit, yes, as I said, they are original documentation directly from the originating source.
Yes, I have read the book.
If you are wondering whether or not I am aware of fakers? Hell yes! I could write a 1000 page, single space report of my personal experience alone. Another 10,000 pages of the experience of co-workers.
This is why solid verification is so crucial in my line of work and allows us to shake out the fakers.
I hit reply too soon.
I was going to add, there are service connected disabilities that are presumptive to exposure to Agent Orange (diabetes mellitus type II, Hodgkin’s disease, multiple myeloma, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, subacute peripheral neuropathy, prostate cancer, chloracne, to name a few (there are others).
In order to grant benefits as presumptive, we must have indisputable verification from the military that the veteran served in country Vietnam between January 9, 1962 and May 7, 1975.
To be eligible to received benefits for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, the veteran must have received one or more specific medals or have verification (usually through his 201 file) of a specific traumatic experience while on active duty (does not have to be related to combat).
The evidence needed to grant benefits under these two examples are very easy to get from military records centers and is considered solid evidence. We are able to pinpoint where and when a veteran served as well as certain incidents that may have happened.
Again, not sure what you are asking.
Thank you, Diane, it sounds like you do a thorough job of checking. I’ve recently read Mr. Burkett’s book and I was amazed at the number of people who were fooled and taken in by those fakers, including counselors, therapists, psychologists, psychiatrists, congressmen, senators and presidents.
and thousands of journalists. 
next question:
What percentage of Vietnam vets are in need of medical/mental-health help as a direct result of their war experience?