More Liberal fascists

[liberty]

Their parents and grandparents supported the Vietcong and spit on soldiers

I participated in many anti war demonstration in the 60s/70s and never once saw anyone spit on (or at) a soldier; indeed, I marched side by side with many Vietnam vets who wanted the idiocy of that "ar" to end. As for supporting the Viet Cong, perhaps there were some who did, but they were few and far between, as were supporters of the government of north Vietnam (and you do know the NLF and North Vietnam were not the same, right?), but most supported the right of the people on both sides to be free of the bombing and napalm and attacks that ruined their villages and killed parents and children. Hardly an endorsement of any side or political philosophy, more a recognition of human rights not to be pawns in a game of idiocy.

As for the events you write of here, I am disinclined to believe the accounts of a game show host/wresting (or is it UFC) host, just as I would Ted Nugent. I'd need a more detailed (and nonbiased) description of the events and rhetoric before I would comment. Sure, crowds can be pretty threatening, and some people just love a fight (or the ability to threaten someone) from the anonymity of the crowd, but I don't have the time, or interest, to investigate it on my own.

Do you think the liberal professor is lying? This is basically the same thing I heard on NPR. Does NPR lie?

[liberty]

Their parents and grandparents supported the Vietcong and spit on soldiers

I participated in many anti war demonstration in the 60s/70s and never once saw anyone spit on (or at) a soldier; indeed, I marched side by side with many Vietnam vets who wanted the idiocy of that "ar" to end. As for supporting the Viet Cong, perhaps there were some who did, but they were few and far between, as were supporters of the government of north Vietnam (and you do know the NLF and North Vietnam were not the same, right?), but most supported the right of the people on both sides to be free of the bombing and napalm and attacks that ruined their villages and killed parents and children. Hardly an endorsement of any side or political philosophy, more a recognition of human rights not to be pawns in a game of idiocy.

As for the events you write of here, I am disinclined to believe the accounts of a game show host/wresting (or is it UFC) host, just as I would Ted Nugent. I'd need a more detailed (and nonbiased) description of the events and rhetoric before I would comment. Sure, crowds can be pretty threatening, and some people just love a fight (or the ability to threaten someone) from the anonymity of the crowd, but I don't have the time, or interest, to investigate it on my own.

Do you think the liberal professor is lying? This is basically the same thing I heard on NPR. Does NPR lie?

[liberty]

I participated in many anti war demonstration in the 60s/70s and never once saw anyone spit on (or at) a soldier; indeed, I marched side by side with many Vietnam vets who wanted the idiocy of that "ar" to end. As for supporting the Viet Cong, perhaps there were some who did, but they were few and far between, as were supporters of the government of north Vietnam (and you do know the NLF and North Vietnam were not the same, right?), but most supported the right of the people on both sides to be free of the bombing and napalm and attacks that ruined their villages and killed parents and children. Hardly an endorsement of any side or political philosophy, more a recognition of human rights not to be pawns in a game of idiocy.

As for the events you write of here, I am disinclined to believe the accounts of a game show host/wresting (or is it UFC) host, just as I would Ted Nugent. I'd need a more detailed (and nonbiased) description of the events and rhetoric before I would comment. Sure, crowds can be pretty threatening, and some people just love a fight (or the ability to threaten someone) from the anonymity of the crowd, but I don't have the time, or interest, to investigate it on my own.

Do you think the liberal professor is lying? This is basically the same thing I heard on NPR. Does NPR lie?

They are not my words; I copied them.

[Big RR]

As I did not hear the NPR account, I don't know if it is the truth, a lie, or some mixture of the two. I don't think NPR generally lies (and I cannot think of any time I have seen them having been proven to lie), but they report what information they have and I am not sure how accurate or corroborated it is; there are generally two sides to every story and this account tells only one--if this is exactly the same as NPR reported, I would still like to hear the other side. As for the professor lying, I really don't know as I have never met nor seen nor even heard of him before. The fact that he went to an entertainer rather than a legitimate news outlet to tell his story makes me suspicious that he didn't want it looked at too closely by a legitimate reporter, but there could be other reasons for this that I am unaware of.

Again, as I said, I'd have to see more before I could make a judgment as to what I think happened. I am not saying anyone lied, nor am I saying that the events couldn't have unfolded precisely as reported by the professor and Rogan, but when there are a lot of emotionally-charged words in the account that are not supported (cult-like, progressive, left-wing, ...), I have concerns about the accuracy of the report.

[rubato]

The story that numbers of vietnam veterans were spit on and called 'baby killers' when they returned has been proven false for a long time now.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spitting_Image

"...

Origins

A persistent but unfounded criticism leveled against those who protested the United States's involvement in the Vietnam War is that protesters spat upon and otherwise derided returning soldiers, calling them "baby-killers", etc. During the late 1980s and early 1990s, years after the war in Vietnam ended, the proliferation of these spitting stories increased greatly. As both a Vietnam veteran and a member of the antiwar movement, Lembcke knew this criticism ran counter to what he personally experienced and witnessed. To the contrary, one of the hallmarks of the period's antiwar movement was its support for the troops in the field and the affiliation of many returning veterans with the movement. Lembcke was motivated to look further into the truth and origins of this spat-upon veteran myth, and the contradiction between historical fact and popular collective memory. Other observers had already noticed the proliferation of stories and questioned whether the spitting stories even made sense. In 1987, columnist Bob Greene noted:

"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?"

Synopsis
At the time he wrote The Spitting Image, Lembcke had not found a single substantiated media report to support the now common claims of spitting. He theorizes that the reported "spitting on soldiers" scenario was a mythical projection by those who felt "spat upon" by an American society tired of the war; an image which was then used to discredit future antiwar activism and serve political interests. He suggests that the manufactured images of pro-war antipathy against antiwar protesters also helped contribute to the myth. Lembcke asserts that memories of being verbally and physically assaulted by antiwar protesters were largely conjured, noting that not even one case could be reliably documented. He further suggests the "baby-killer" and "murderer" components of the myth may have been reinforced, in part, by the common chants by protesters aimed at President Lyndon Baines Johnson, like "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?"

I went to college with Vietnam Vets at a very liberal university and never saw them treated any way but with warmth and acceptance.

yrs,
rubato

[liberty]

As I did not hear the NPR account, I don't know if it is the truth, a lie, or some mixture of the two. I don't think NPR generally lies (and I cannot think of any time I have seen them having been proven to lie), but they report what information they have and I am not sure how accurate or corroborated it is; there are generally two sides to every story and this account tells only one--if this is exactly the same as NPR reported, I would still like to hear the other side. As for the professor lying, I really don't know as I have never met nor seen nor even heard of him before. The fact that he went to an entertainer rather than a legitimate news outlet to tell his story makes me suspicious that he didn't want it looked at too closely by a legitimate reporter, but there could be other reasons for this that I am unaware of.

Again, as I said, I'd have to see more before I could make a judgment as to what I think happened. I am not saying anyone lied, nor am I saying that the events couldn't have unfolded precisely as reported by the professor and Rogan, but when there are a lot of emotionally-charged words in the account that are not supported (cult-like, progressive, left-wing, ...), I have concerns about the accuracy of the report.

I Read books during this period on this subject and remember veterans describing how they were verbally assaulted and insulted these people. I have forgotten a lot from those days but I remember that.



How about this guy is he lying:

https://understandingevil.wordpress.com ... were-they/

Karl Marlantes fought in Vietnam, and came back to a divided America. In his book What It Is Like To Go To War he describes the reception he got:
“I was walking in uniform down M Street in our nation’s capital. I had been back perhaps a month. A group of young people, my age, began to follow me down the street on the opposite side, jeering, calling me names, chanting in unison. They were flying the flags of North Vietnam and the Viet Cong.

[Big RR]

I don't know if he is lying or not--how could I know, I don't know him? Clearly there are jerks everywhere, so I have no doubt isolated instances of this behavior could well have happened, but I sincerely doubt it was common, or even widespread. And I have no idea if the behavior was politically motivated or just a few people being a pain in the ass (I would lean toward the latter).

[Scooter]

Do you think the liberal professor is lying?

I will be generous and say that his initial reaction was based on a misunderstanding of how the Day of Absence was organized. However, the manner in which he has doubled down on his comments after having it clarified, he has definitely moved into lying territory.

This event has been going on for years - a group of white people and a group of people of colour meeting to discuss racism and anti-racism strategies from their perspective as white people or people of colour. The following day, the groups reunite for further discussion together. Read about its origins and history here.

In past years, it has always been the group of people of colour that have left campus to have their meetings at another venue. The group of whites held their meetings on campus. This year, they decided to flip it around - the people of colour would meet on campus, and the whites would meet at the off site venue, which has a maximum capacity of 200.

The good prof managed to twist this into a claim that all white students, faculty and staff were being asked to vacate the campus for a day, instead of just the 200 participants attending this event. It's frankly preposterous; given what I am guessing to be the racial makeup of the school, the campus could not stay open if it were done. If someone did make this misguided suggestion, and it's not just another embellishment from someone who clearly loves the attention for being a gadfly, it could not have come from anyone responsible for planning the event, who would have realized that their on campus program couldn't happen on a closed campus.

So the first reaction I have is, it has been years that people of colour disappeared from campus for a day every year, and this prof never had a word to say about it. Where were all of his platitudes about free speech not being based on race then?

And yes, professor, when you throw out accusations at people of colour that you are being "oppressed", and if you get unhinged about why the whites have to leave campus, anyone who thinks you have at least the reading comprehension of a suckling pig is not going to realize that your anger is about your imaginary version of the event, rather than the event as planned. That's going to sound a lot like saying that people of colour should always be the ones to leave to accommodate the whites. And yes, that's pretty fucking racist.

And that, folks, is how violence starts. One person's misunderstanding (I'm still being charitable) has morphed into a cause for every racist neo-Nazi group in the country, because a certain kind of "journalists" continue to purvey the version that fits their narrative, the facts be damned. And useful tools like the village idiot swallow it wholesale because it is what they want to believe.

And of course the brainless maggot with the morals of a mafia enforcer will not bother to read this, because he will at all costs avoid learning anything that will demolish the fairy tales he spins here.

[Econoline]

• I Read books during this period on this subject and remember veterans describing how they were verbally assaulted and insulted these people. I have forgotten a lot from those days but I remember that.

  The story that numbers of vietnam veterans were spit on and called 'baby killers' when they returned has been proven false for a long time now.
  

  • [ ... ]

  I went to college with Vietnam Vets at a very liberal university and never saw them treated any way but with warmth and acceptance.

[RayThom]

Many of my friends and work associates were Nam vets. And many of them are now dead due to PTSD related issues and/or residual illnesses caused by all the chemical warfare that was being used.

Granted, and unfortunately, these vets -- upon their return -- were not treated to parades and a lot of fanfare as our vets receive today. However, they never made mention, nor did I ever witness, any kind of animosity between them and any protesting or unappreciative members of the "war hating" public.

Conversely, I was a Vietnam anti-war protester at the march in DC in '67. (Hey, hey, LBJ...) All my Nam vet friend eventually knew this yet not one of them ever spit on me to show their disdain. We did, however, argue a lot as we all got drunk at the local tappy.

Ah, those were the days, my friend.

[Scooter]

I Read books during this period on this subject and remember veterans describing how they were verbally assaulted and insulted these people. I have forgotten a lot from those days but I remember that.

. Ahh yes, the stock answer when you are asked to back up your assertions and are unable to find anything to support them. Always this vague recollection of something you claim to have read or heard, but can't say where or when, and cannot document it. It's one more in the category of "Canada was an ally of the Soviet Union" and "Europeans don't eat corn."

How about this guy is he lying:
https://understandingevil.wordpress.com ... were-they/

Karl Marlantes fought in Vietnam, and came back to a divided America. In his book What It Is Like To Go To War he describes the reception he got:
“I was walking in uniform down M Street in our nation’s capital. I had been back perhaps a month. A group of young people, my age, began to follow me down the street on the opposite side, jeering, calling me names, chanting in unison. They were flying the flags of North Vietnam and the Viet Cong.

He is quoted in the article saying that he never heard of a similar incident from anyone else he knew who served in Vietnam, and so acknowledged that it might have been a totally isolated incident. Which is the point BigRR made several posts back, thank you for providing the evidence that shows he was right.

And that article repeats the term"baby killers" over and over again, yet does not identify a single incident when it was lobbed at a Vietnam vet.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Be fair... Lib watched parts of Forest Gump