Conservative columnist attacks Jane Fonda for attacking Oscar host Seth MacFarlane
Hanoi Jane turned 75 just before Christmas. Yes, 75.
Ms. Fonda is one sanctimonious, snide, shrill, privileged, traitorous, smokin’ hot 75-year-old.
Hard to believe Fonda plays the universally admired Nancy Reagan in a movie, The Butler, due out this year. (Note obviously he did not read Kitty Kelly's book!)
On her Oscars blog, she groused at Seth MacFarlane’s crack about George Clooney’s girlfriends and “all the comments about what women do to get thin for their dresses. “Waaaay too much stuff about women and bodies, as though that’s what defines us,” said the former fitness guru who made a bundle selling videos.
She especially hated Seth MacFarlane’s We Saw Your Boobs number.
Was she ticked because Seth forgot to mention seeing her own boobs in Barbarella, Coming Home and Klute, etc, etc?
Blogged Jane: “If they want to stoop to that, why not list all the penises we’ve seen?”
But folks always respond to Hanoi Jane, for good or bad.
[quote]Hard to believe Fonda plays the universally admired Nancy Reagan...
This comment alone automatically makes anything else he has to say invalid.
This thread is a Datalounger's dream!
Oh for fuck sake, do we have some idiotic shill from the Toronto Sun?
We don't give a shit what conservative columnists think here, so why in the hell would you think someone who is a nobody here (and I'm sure in Canada, too) thinks?
Are you his mother?
No matter how vile the columnist is, read the comments; they're far worse.
I like her but someone commented on a Yahoo site that when she visited some Hanoi prison camp, soldiers slipped small papers with their names to have her let their families know they were alive.
She took those papers and turned them over to the guards and the prisoners were tortured and beaten. Sounds like a freeper story. Has anyone heard this? Or is it another Internet urban legend.
No thanks, R4. I already couldn't give a shit what the columnist thinks, let alone the idiots who'd not only read this nonsense, but agree with such nonsense.
Jane is wealthy and holding up well - I doubt the idiots shitting on her can say the same.
BTW, I thought McFarlane was fine, but these obsessed conservative morons stuck in a time warp are just useless turds who need to shrivel up and die like yesterday.
[quote]Sounds like a freeper story.
R6 the columnist is actually agreeing with you.
He felt MacFarlane was fine. It was Jane's critique of MacFarlane he is objecting to.
I was kind of embarassed for Seth when he sang the boob song with all the award-honored actresses names. It felt like watching MTV or Razzies. I don't care what reason, it was humiliatingly cheap way to impress.
Oh please, R8, I think Seth was fine because he was fine. This columnist would not think he was fine if Fonda thought he was fine - that's the difference.
All you have to do is look at conservatives and their stance on background checks when purchasing a gun to see that their opinions are not based on the "what," but on the "who." A majority of them believe in background checks, but when asked what they think of Obama wanting background checks, take a guess what these troglodytes say. They're such hypocritical, petulant douchebags.
There were a lot of people who were critical of McFarlane, yet he singles out Fonda, then mentions something about Nancy Reagan??? The guy is such a transparent douchebag, like the rest of them.
This kind of childish humor is EVERYWHERE, so please spare the Oscar, we don't want the same shit in everyting.
[R5] There's info about this on Snopes.com.
The story is false, designed to maintain the hostility that already exists as well as recruit initiates in the AntiJane Army.
"We showed our 'boobs' for our craft and because we are artists"
OP is a trolling Canadian attempting to make their "edgy" politics happen here.
Go away OP. Don't you have some ice shuffling broom game to be playing, or something?
actually the boob to penis ratio is not a fair comparison. Add that most penis shots are from not the conventionally handsome men in, mostly, non-sexual situation (think any Harvey Keitel penis shot) thus the shot is more or less artistic. Wheras, Holly, Naomi, charlize seem gratuitous for male audience.
I love the story of how Halle Berry was paid more money to show her boobs in that totally unnecessary shot in SWORDFISH, presumably to cause more interest .... if thats not selling yourself what is ?
That maybe in some cases r16 but some of the other actresses named were involved in rape scenes.
The problem with the boob song for me is this, the actresses were topless because of the characters they were playing they weren't flashing us at Mardi Gras for beads. Seth's song was calling attention to the fact that we saw the actress as herself half naked not a character and that is publicly putting them in a vulnerable or gotcha moment that did not really happen. If he was working on a set with nudity and took that approach he would be considered really unprofessional and a big douche.
The penis song would not bring comparable embarrassment maybe more along the lines of we saw you get but raped, we saw you get butt raped. In the movie that we saw we saw you get butt raped. Ned Beatty you got butt raped in Deliverance. Jake Gyllenhaal you gave up your butt in Brokeback Mountain, Tim Robbins you got raped in Shawshank etc.
Canadian trash! Seal the borders!
[quote]We don't give a shit what conservative columnists think here, so why in the hell would you think someone who is a nobody here (and I'm sure in Canada, too) thinks?
"Oh my God. I'm back. I'm home. All the time, it was... We finally really did it ... You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!"
We are switching to the new platform for The DataLounge this weekend. All of our mobile users have been using it for over a week and all first time users have been using it for about a month - which adds up to well over one million users. So we're ready to end this phase of the testing and move everybody to the new site. (more)
And yes, we've changed the look and some of how it operates.
Yes, we know you just *hate* it in well in advance.
Yes, we know we suck.
Yes, we are the biggest suckers that ever sucked.
But it was time for a change and with the huge shift to mobile it was long overdue. We've taken this opportunity not only to update the look but also make major changes under the hood (or "bonnet" if you're either British or pretentious or both). And we have to prepare for 2016 - a presidential election year where we can normally expect to see a 60% jump in traffic (yes, we've seen 5 presidential elections so far…Christ we're old).
The site has a bunch - nay, plethora - of new features which will make the site more usable: better search, the ability to ignore posters and threads, see link previews, to pick up a thread where you left off, spam and malware filtering and more.
If you want you can go explore and see for yourself, Click here.
And while running the tests we've noticed two interesting reactions to the new system - people are spending more time on the site and more people that come stay around longer and look at more stuff. Both good things. Yay!
Possibly we've not slain all the dragons and there will be issues that come up during the switchover. There's a help button in the lower right hand corner of the page which you can use to send us bug reports.
Please include as much information about the hardware (PC, Mac, Tablet, Phone etc), operating system (Windows, Mac OS, Android, iOS etc) and browser (Chrome, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer etc) that you are using as possible to help us replicate and fix the problem.
Please note that complaints about colors, fonts, icons and the like are not "bugs" - they are design choices that we've made and we expect one or two cases of world-class bitching. But they won't actually cause headaches, scurvy, heart attacks, Restless Leg Syndrome, Morgellon's Disease or the vapors (but have your smelling salts at hand just in case).
Talking to DataLounge servers. Please wait a moment...