John Kerry flips the bird

i don't know the whole story, but someone here must. I heard reports that Kerry was at the Viet Nam war memorial for memorial day and was heckled by a vet. supposedly the guy lambasted him for his comments in the '70's. the report i heard said Kerry got flustered and flipped the guy the bird, and it all happened in front of a group of elementary students.

that is the story as i heard it - but that is from talk radio... since that is not the best source to get facts from i was hoping someone here knew more?

The only place I've seen it thus far is NewsMax.

you would think that if it is a true story it would have been reported everywhere. then again i thought the same of h. clinton's stupid remark about ghandi a few months back.

Originally posted by lookout123

you would think that if it is a true story it would have been reported everywhere.

That would be if W did it. The media look out for their own.

The media look out for their own.

What? Kerry is their(media) own? How so?:confused:

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
What? Kerry is their(media) own? How so?:confused:

Taken literally, I am saying that Kerry and the media are both liberal so they are a little softer on him then they would be to a conservative. Had W flipped off someone who questioned his National Guard service (rightly or wrongly) then I think it would be on the front page of every newspaper and the lead story of every newscast.

lookout123's point about Hillary's off-color joke about Ghandi running a 7-11 is well taken. The comment was very under-reported - Hillary was let completely off the hook. Imagine how the media would have treated Dick Cheney had he said it.

Look what happened to Trent Lott. I realize that he's a complete idiot but he makes a remark about Strom Thurman and gets run out of Washington while certain liberals make racist and or anti-Semitic comments seemingly without being taken to task by the media.

I could be misinterpreting all this but it really does seem to me that the media has two sets of rules.

Why was the media so excessive in their coverage on the Lewinsky scandal if they're so liberal?

I don't think there's a liberal bias in media...it's all about what will sell.

Originally posted by sycamore
Why was the media so excessive in their coverage on the Lewinsky scandal if they're so liberal?

I don't think there's a liberal bias in media...it's all about what will sell.

No kidding! The "liberal" media tore Bill Clinton a new asshole. And they weren't exactly kind to Jimmy Carter either ("sinning in my mind", reporting in detail of the exploits of his alkie brother). Conservatives always like to whine about the "liberal" media when the spotlight is turned on THEIR pecadillos.

Originally posted by sycamore
Why was the media so excessive in their coverage on the Lewinsky scandal if they're so liberal?

I don't think there's a liberal bias in media...it's all about what will sell.

IMO, media = bottom-rung hanging, pond scum sucking, cum-bubble blowing filth. (sorry for the mental image)

not that i feel strongly about it or anything.
The most important thing to them is that "if it bleeds, it leads."

the problem is that the media no longer reports the news, they decide what IS news. there is no "fair and balanced" reporting in america. personally, my politics lean a little bit closer to Fox news side but they are no better than Peter Jennings at Al-Jazeera West - it pisses me off that there is no semblance of unbiased reporting out there.

I believe it has grown increasingly worse since watergate. Desert Storm kicked it up a couple of notches when "reporters" were given instant celebrity status because they were suddenly in our faces 24/7.

IMO the media had to cover the Clinton scandal because once one of them does they all have to jump on the bandwagon - but i think at the time they were just as critical of Ken Starr and his lackeys (as they should have been). it has been what, 8 years since that whole debacle and i think it has gotten increasingly worse as each successive talking head realizes if they throw enough of their own view on the news, they may be rewarded with their own show. (i.e. O'Reilly, Matthews, etc.) they each make a mountain out of a mole hill to pander to their audience while ignoring what doesn't comply with their view of the world.

sorry - i guess that turned into a real rant. but they really rank up their with lawyers on my scale.

"Up" with the lawyers? Surely, you've heard that joke about "What's 10,000 lawyers under the ocean?";)

And now our half-time show, Up With Lawyers!

Taken literally, I am saying that Kerry and the media are both liberal so they are a little softer on him then they would be to a conservative. Had W flipped off someone who questioned his National Guard service (rightly or wrongly) then I think it would be on the front page of every newspaper and the lead story of every newscast.

Oh please, the US media is about as left wing as adolph hitler, particularly fox which is just plain scary.

Originally posted by jaguar Oh please, the US media is about as left wing as adolph hitler, particularly fox which is just plain scary.

If what you are suggesting is that the American media vote along the same lines as a random cross section of the American people than you could not be more wrong. There are numerous legitimate studies that clearly demonstrate that the mainstream media is overwhelmingly liberal as evidenced by either self-procaimation or voting patterns. Fox is but one exception but it is wildly successful because it caters to the other 50% of the American people.

The notion that the majority of media in this country are down the middle centrists is laughable. Even Katie Couric admits that much.

Originally posted by Beestie
The notion that the majority of media in this country are down the middle centrists is laughable. Even Katie Couric admits that much.

Ther is also the issue of confusing the reporters with the people who tell them what to report.

I want CNN, I find that fairly center, I find the idea it gets called left wing laughable, same goes for reuters. Simple fact is what most of europe would see as centre, msot of the US would see as left.

I thought we had this discussion already. Sycamore is correct: It is biased to whatever pushes people's buttons and that includes anger. Also, if you lean to the right, you are a lot less likely to remember something that is reported to anger those that lean left but you will never forget the small comment made on the news that gets the right upset.

I don't think the news is "owned by" the left, right, or anything like that. It is biased, but it biased specifically to sell.

...unless its Fox News, that is. ;)

Originally posted by jaguar
Oh please, the US media is about as left wing as adolph hitler, particularly fox which is just plain scary.

compared to bbc, you are correct.

Originally posted by jaguar
Simple fact is what most of europe would see as centre, msot of the US would see as left.

well, no kidding. although america continues to slide down the slippery slope of entitlements, socialism is still a pretty dirty word in america. that stigma has pretty well faded away in the rest of the world.

only history ( a loooong time from now) will show if this was a good thing or bad. but for now at least most americans, to verying degrees, agree that "socialist" ideas are not the right path for america to follow. even if it is just lip-service from many, that is what is said out loud.

Dude, the BBC isn't left wing, if you want an example of left wing media look at the Guardian or to a lesser extend, the Independant. Not the BBC. Hell half the time CNN and BBC World aare showing exactly the same feeds. I feel I look at a broad enough range of media sources to be able to judge what is left, right and what lies closest to the centre, in terms of balanced reporting I do find the BBC very, very good.

Just for the record, socialism has a very precise definition far, far closer to communism that most people realise.

i do understand the dictionary definition of socialism. what i was referring to is what is commonly accepted to be "socialist ideas".

whether it is left wing or right wing is all a matter of perspective. to you bbc is centrist and you support that by saying it reports about the same as cnn. personally i think cnn is pretty left of center, at times.

but that is what i was saying before - there is no fair and balanced reporting left in the media. and it is a damn shame.

Wow, I hope Kerry did flip them off. If he did, my opinion of him is better than before.

Originally posted by Beestie
There are numerous legitimate studies that clearly demonstrate that the mainstream media is overwhelmingly liberal as evidenced by either self-procaimation or voting patterns.

Let's see some of them, then.

Ha! If true, a breach of decorum, but a welcome one.
Do a bit of research on the poor offended delicate veteran Ted Sampley who reports this, what an obnoxious creep. "Ted Sampley, a North Carolina conservative who tried to discredit former prisoner of war John McCain as anti-veteran in 2000, runs a Web site called Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry." Apparently Sample assaulted McCain's campaign manager. Go Kerry Go! Frankly, I'm surprised at Kerry's moxy and it makes me like him more. I hope the kids cheered, too. :)

The media is up for sale. Never trust a "journalist" to be objective while sporting any nation's flag in his or her lapel.

edit correction- I read later it was a McCain staffer that Sampley beat up.

the media in general sucks my butt.

except for howard stern, the daily show, and
the onion

Originally posted by Radar
Wow, I hope Kerry did flip them off. If he did, my opinion of him is better than before.

what about flipping off a vietnam vet makes you like him more?

Don't get it twisted, lookout. He said nothing about like. With Radar, he just hates you less. :)

Well, one advantage the President has over Kerry is that he can pick safe venues. The Secret Service can keep protesters over 100 yards away. If he picks a military school or base, a code of conduct prevents any active military personnel (and thanks to GW, almost all of them are active now) from criticizing the President in public.

This means he can cocoon himself with people who agree with them and only be exposed to the %40 of the public who don't vocally disagree with him.

I remember hearing about how during Vietnam Nixon actually left the White House to speak to a protester. Even Nixon had more balls than our current leader.

BTW, I think those 'flip flop' protesters at Kerry rallies are staged.

Originally posted by richlevy
BTW, I think those 'flip flop' protesters at Kerry rallies are staged.

By "staged" do you mean "not spontanious"

I think most potesters do it with pre-meditation. Of course they are staged.

Originally posted by lookout123
the problem is that the media no longer reports the news, they decide what IS news.

... and because the general blood sucking populace is incapable of distinguishing between WHAT is told and how it is told, our beliefs, ideals and social structure are all dictated by self-obsessed attention grabbing power seeking soul destroying MYTHs.

And I'm holding back on the capitalised four-letter words.

The Secret Service can keep protesters over 100 yards away.

Kerry gets the same treatment because he is a US Senator. His recent visit at USF, which is right up the street from me, resulted in roads being shut down by local police and a huge escort of Secret Service security. A large section of campus closed down where he was speaking.

Kerry gets that treatment because he is a frontrunner for President.

Senators get security too, but not at that level.

That makes sense, Glatt. I assume not every candidate gets that kind of security, though. You must already hold an office and be the front runner?

I think the secret service assigns a detail to any major presidential candidate (i.e., not the wackjob from the Natural Law Party), but they have the option to decline.

Think of it as the "Bobby Kennedy Rule".

Originally posted by richlevy

Well, one advantage the President has over Kerry is that he can pick safe venues. The Secret Service can keep protesters over 100 yards away. This means he can cocoon himself with people who agree with them and only be exposed to the %40 of the public who don't vocally disagree with him.

Originally posted by glatt

Kerry gets that treatment [the Secret Service keeping protestors 100 yards away] because he is a frontrunner for President.

So you are saying that richlevy is incorrect - that Kerry is just as afraid to confront his critics as richlevy suggests Bush is. Just wondering.

that Kerry is just as afraid to confront his critics as richlevy suggests Bush is.

This might be true, but I'd have to say that Bush is more afraid ever since "Free Speech Zones" were implemented with his blessing. 100 yards back? Try several city blocks.

Originally posted by Kitsune

that Kerry is just as afraid to confront his critics as richlevy suggests Bush is.

This might be true, but I'd have to say that Bush is more afraid ever since "Free Speech Zones" were implemented with his blessing. 100 yards back? Try several city blocks.

I think free-speech zones are an insult to the American way and lost a lot of respect for Chicken George when he implemented them. If Kerry wants to do the same thing then he can lose respect also. I think Kerry has more balls than Bush when it comes to slugging it out on the debate floor so I find it very curious that he would implement the same strategy.

Just to be clear, I'm not a fan of either candidate - I'm still pissed McCain lost in South Carolina.

Originally posted by Beestie
Originally posted by richlevy So you are saying that richlevy is incorrect - that Kerry is just as afraid to confront his critics as richlevy suggests Bush is. Just wondering.

I was actually commenting more on what the Secret Service does for various office holders.

But you raise a good question. I have the impression that Bush avoids protestors much more than Kerry does, but I may be completely wrong. The Secret Service doesn't typically talk about how it does security, so there isn't much information out there about whether the "free speech zones" are by order of the President or by order of the Secret Service. The president's personality certainly plays into the level of security provided to them. Clinton loved contact with the public, so he was always trying to break down those security barriers, much to the chagrin of the agents protecting him. Bush seems to hate public contact, and I think the Secret Service is all to willing to completely isolate him from the public. It makes their job easier.

I think the president has to actively tell the Secret Service to back off, and Bush doesn't do that at all. He hides behind them.

With the Kerry incident, I imagine (and am totally guessing because I haven't read anything about this incident) that the Secret Service went into a spot that already had people in there. Cordoned off the area, so nobody could leave or enter, and then Kerry showed up. The Vietnam vet was probably already there when they arrived.

The Vietnam Vet, Sampley is well known for his publicity stunts. He has used POW and MIA families for his own monetary gain and lost an ugly lawsuit with other vets, led by McCain and Kerry, for illegally setting up as a vendor at a MIA "memorial" on park grounds. He picketted against Maya Lin's design because she was Asian, then, seeing the popularity, sets up shop to sell knick knacks. He's staged outrageous "protests" one involving spilling oil on a road so that cars would lose control- he ran into the law on that one too. Thats only a bit of his shit. He makes his money. He has his website where you can buy his goods. He is the slime master that attacked McCain in South Carolina, ironically in the name of POWs...he alleged McCain was a spy and didnt really suffer...enough. he was a "Manchurian Candidate". (I guess he fancies himself Frank Sinatra) Oh brother. He also slandered McCain's family. I'm not outraged that this vet, who was never a POW but married the widow of one briefly to enable him to claim family status, was flipped the bird. He earned that at least. This was an other ugly stunt. He was there to sell Hanoi John T shirts and bumper stickers.

McCain's statement:
"I strongly caution reporters who may be contacted by or are interested in Mr. Ted Sampley and the various organizations he claims to represent, and his opinions on the subject of Senator Kerry, or any subject for that matter, to investigate thoroughly Mr. Sampley's background and history of spreading outrageous slander and other disreputable behavior before inadvertently lending him or his allegations any credibility.

I am well familiar with Mr. Sampley, and I know him to be one of the most despicable people I have ever had the misfortune to encounter. I consider him a fraud who preys on the hopes of family members of missing servicemen for his own profit. He is dishonorable, an enemy of the truth, and despite his claims, he does not speak for or represent the views of all but a few veterans. The many veterans I know would think it a disgrace to be considered a comrade or supporter of Ted Sampley."

thanks for the quote warch. that sheds some light on how it happened. the guy more than likely did deserve to get hauled out behind a shed by a kerry supporter for some attitude adjustment. but, i'm still not sure what it says about the candidate to get flustered enough that he is willing to stoop to that level. he is running for the presidency, effectively interviewing for a job he desperately wants. i wouldn't even do that in a meeting of junior partners in the firm i am with.

i wouldn't even do that in a meeting of junior partners in the firm i am with.

Why not? It's a very effective way to convey displeasure/distain quickly, from a distance.;)

you're right bruce. but it's not the best way to showcase your intellectual capabilities. i feel like a real dumbass about 2 seconds after i flash it when i'm cut off by someone in traffic, and that is a situation where i am not trying to impress anyone.

Bad attitude. You should give the "bird" it's due. It's quick, effective, and transcends language, age and social status. It's a very valuable tool. Just 'cause you got couth, don't make Spaghettios bad. :D

i love spaghettio's - my wife won't buy them - she says i need to grow up and eat real food. so i just hold my breath and stomp my feet until 1) i pass out 2) she gives in.


[SIZE=1]don't tell me to grow up.... grumblegrumblegrumble.[/SIZE]

You do get the ones with the hot dogs, right?

are you kidding? i would have to do more than hold my breath, i may have to lie down on the grocery store's floor and scream profanities to get that.

I wonder, the Newsmax report from which all of this came is from the nutty Sampley whining, spinning, howling that he was flipped off. Maybe Kerry was just coincidently, pointing out landmarks with his middlefinger, or doing the innocent middle finger led comb through the hair or nose scratch....subtle.;)

ooooh - like simon on american idol. it's possible and in the end it doesn't really matter. my personal guess is it was intentional like his use of the f-bomb in rolling stone. i think he may be trying to prove to the american public that he is just one of them, $1000 haircuts and manservants aside.

the question then would become - does it work?

IMO - i have no research to say this is what the kerry team is doing, it's just a thought.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Beestie
[B]Taken literally, I am saying that Kerry and the media are both liberal
Liberal? Is that someting you find when you turn a rock over in a creekbed?Oops sorry. I didn't want to bring politics into this. Anyway I'm guessing beetsie is a tried and true...."Sorry can't hear"..George is drilling into my creekbed looking for oil.