Hanoi Jane wants to MURDER pro-lifers

[reason10]

https://www.foxnews.com/media/abortion-groups-silent-pro-life-advocates-condemn-jane-fondas-murder-suggestion-the-view

"We have experienced many decades now of having agency over our body, of being able to determine when and how many children to have. We know what that feels like, we know what that’s done for our lives," Fonda said. "We’re not going back, I don’t care what the laws are. We're not going back." When asked by co-host Joy Behar what can be done "besides marching and protesting," Fonda replied, "Well, I've thought of murder." Sparking laughter at the table, Behar insisted to viewers Fonda was "just kidding," which prompted a long glare from the Hollywood icon. 

And you can't play the "she was just kidding" card. If a Republican said those same words, you'd be screaming bloody murder.

 

 

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, reason10 said:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/abortion-groups-silent-pro-life-advocates-condemn-jane-fondas-murder-suggestion-the-view

"We have experienced many decades now of having agency over our body, of being able to determine when and how many children to have. We know what that feels like, we know what that’s done for our lives," Fonda said. "We’re not going back, I don’t care what the laws are. We're not going back." When asked by co-host Joy Behar what can be done "besides marching and protesting," Fonda replied, "Well, I've thought of murder." Sparking laughter at the table, Behar insisted to viewers Fonda was "just kidding," which prompted a long glare from the Hollywood icon. 

And you can't play the "she was just kidding" card. If a Republican said those same words, you'd be screaming bloody murder.

 

 

Maybe she was just talking about exercising her second amendment rights.  You can't be against someone blowing someone away with an M60 or something, if the scum was trying to control her body, right?

After all, that's what guns are for.  Personal protection.

[reason10]

2 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Maybe she was just talking about exercising her second amendment rights.  You can't be against someone blowing someone away with an M60 or something, if the scum was trying to control her body, right?

After all, that's what guns are for.  Personal protection.

She didn't mention a gun. She just mentioned a CAPITOL CRIME.

Oh, and NO  pro lifer gives a rat's ass about controlling her body parts. If she wants to slut out to everything on two legs, that's her choice.

But when she creates a NEW LIFE, it's not her fcking body.

She's a NAZI, same as the rest of the pro Abortion goose steppers.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, reason10 said:

She didn't mention a gun. She just mentioned a CAPITOL CRIME.

Oh, and NO  pro lifer gives a rat's ass about controlling her body parts. If she wants to slut out to everything on two legs, that's her choice.

But when she creates a NEW LIFE, it's not her fcking body.

She's a NAZI, same as the rest of the pro Abortion goose steppers.

Ah well, Nazis.  Why didn't you say?

[robosmith]

6 minutes ago, reason10 said:

She didn't mention a gun. She just mentioned a CAPITOL CRIME.

Oh, and NO  pro lifer gives a rat's ass about controlling her body parts. If she wants to slut out to everything on two legs, that's her choice.

But when she creates a NEW LIFE, it's not her fcking body.

She's a NAZI, same as the rest of the pro Abortion goose steppers.

It was the NAZIS who enslaved people in service to their WAR CRIMES. 

IF the "new life" is totally dependent on HER SERVICE, that is slavery IF NOT VOLUNTARY.

Slavery of the woman is what YOU want. Otherwise you'd ENTICE her to SERVE YOUR AGENDA with MONEY instead of FORCE OF LAW.

[Dougie93]

ah, Hanoi Jane

I met her once, in Toronto, when she was shooting Stanley & Iris with Robert DeNiro

she really was quite stunning, much more so in person than in the movies

in terms of her invoking abstract use of force and/or law breaking

I would say that is constitutionally protected speech

under the First Amendment, by the ruling of Brandenburg v. Ohio

thus, more power to her, American freedom for all I say

[WestCanMan]

18 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

ah, Hanoi Jane

I met her once, in Toronto, when she was shooting Stanley & Iris with Robert DeNiro

she really was quite stunning, much more so in person than in the movies

in terms of her invoking abstract use of force and/or law breaking

I would say that is constitutionally protected speech

under the First Amendment, by the ruling of Brandenburg v. Ohio

thus, more power to her, American freedom for all I say

Leftists think that saying "march peacefully" is a call to violence. There's no way that comments like Hanoi Jane's pass that same test.

Leftists said things like "Maybe it's time for another actor to assassinate a president", "I've dreamt of blowing up the WH", held an effigy of the POTUS's severed head, etc, until that violent rhetoric eventually led to the shooting of Steve Scalise at the congressional baseball game. Perhaps it was even responsible for the violent insurrection at the WH in Aug 2020. 

Hanoi Jane is irrelevant now, the casting couch no longer beckons. 

[Dougie93]

4 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Leftists think that saying "march peacefully" is a call to violence. There's no way that comments like Hanoi Jane's pass that same test.

Leftists said things like "Maybe it's time for another actor to assassinate a president", "I've dreamt of blowing up the WH", held an effigy of the POTUS's severed head, etc, until that violent rhetoric eventually led to the shooting of Steve Scalise at the congressional baseball game. Perhaps it was even responsible for the violent insurrection at the WH in Aug 2020. 

Hanoi Jane is irrelevant now, the casting couch no longer beckons. 

as I say, under the First Amendment, re Brandenburg v. Ohio

abstract calls to violence and/or law breaking are constitutionally protected free speech

I want that right for myself, so I wouldn't try to take it from Hanoi Jane

[WestCanMan]

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

as I say, under the First Amendment, re Brandenburg v. Ohio

abstract calls to violence and/or law breaking are constitutionally protected free speech

I want that right for myself, so I wouldn't try to take it from Hanoi Jane

Are abstract calls to murder a specific person protected speech?

[Dougie93]

8 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Are abstract calls to murder a specific person protected speech?

calls to murder a specific person would make it not abstract by definition

[reason10]

On 3/11/2023 at 1:57 PM, robosmith said:

 

It was the NAZIS who enslaved people in service to their WAR CRIMES. 

Slavery in Nazi Germany based on war crimes? Did you EVEN get out of the second grade?

IF the "new life" is totally dependent on HER SERVICE, that is slavery IF NOT VOLUNTARY.

Slavery of the woman is what YOU want. Otherwise you'd ENTICE her to SERVE YOUR AGENDA with MONEY instead of FORCE OF LAW.

This

is the same concept as this

thanks to THIS person.

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

calls to murder a specific person would make it not abstract by definition

The effigy of Trump's severed head didn't result in criminal charges

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, reason10 said:

It was the NAZIS who enslaved people in service to their WAR CRIMES. 

Slavery in Nazi Germany based on war crimes? Did you EVEN get out of the second grade?

thanks to THIS person.

A Demmie hero. 

Hillary Clinton proudly received an award named after her. IIRC it's the "Margaret Sanger - Helping Fellow Skanks Kill Babies Award" or something like that.