has anyone spoken about her comment here yet? i looked around and didn't really see anything...well my 2 cents...

i respect the fact that a woman can be outspoken, but that comment..specially coming from a possible future first lady, was a bit out of the line. i think she's slowly but surely letting her true colors shine...and oh well i just can't stand the fact that Kerry will most likely be president. not that i want Bush back either. ugh. i hate everyone.

bye

Originally posted by twilightfadez
i respect the fact that a woman can be outspoken, but that comment..specially coming from a possible future first lady, was a bit out of the line. "shove it" > "go fuck yourself"

it's not the word itself that bugged me...it's just that i think that a a possible first lady should really think a bit more before shouting out crap like that.
oh well i know no one is going to agree with me and flame me.

*steps out*

better yet...i think somebody in that position should have a little bit more tact and class.

there you go.

*leaves again*

I think you missed pumpkins point. If you are so offended by the first lady saying "shove it", what are your thoughts on the current Vice President of the United States saying "go fuck yourself" to a senator on the congress floor?

Originally posted by Debaser
I think you missed pumpkins point. If you are so offended by the first lady saying "shove it", what are your thoughts on the current Vice President of the United States saying "go fuck yourself" to a senator on the congress floor?

IM NOT OFFENDED

OMG WHY CAN'T PEOPLE READ



im just saying i think she lacks tact that is all.

geez.

on a lighter note:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1192954,00.html

Kerry's wife once called the Democratic Party 'putrid'
BY RONAN MCGREEVY



The wife of John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate, once condemned the party’s "putrid" politics and called Senator Ted Kennedy a "perfect bastard".



The Boston Herald has resurrected an interview that Teresa Heinz Kerry gave almost 30 years ago which could be potentially embarrassing for the Kerry campaign. Mrs Kerry is due to speak at the Democratic convention in Boston tonight.

She has long been a controversial figure and is renowned for speaking her mind.

Earlier this week she told a reporter from a conservative newspaper to "shove it" when he asked for an interview.

In the 1975 book about political wives called The Power Lovers: An Intimate Look at Politicians and Their Marriages, Mr Kerry lashed out at the senator she’ll share the prime-time convention stage with tonight.

"I know some couples who stay together only for politics," she said at the time. "If Ted Kennedy holds on to that marriage (to ex-wife Joan) just for the Catholic vote, as some people say he does, then I think he's a perfect bastard."

At the time she gave the interview Mrs Kerry was married to the multi-millionaire former Heinz heir and Republican Senator, John Heinz, who was killed in an air crash 13 years ago.

She also said: "The Democratic machine in this country is putrid".

Senator Kennedy's office dismissed the comments as water under the bridge and said the two get along famously now, regardless of what Mrs Kerry has said in the past.

"Over the years, Senator and Mrs Kennedy and John Kerry and Teresa Heinz Kerry have developed a deep friendship and strong mutual respect,'' a Kennedy spokesman said in a statement to the Herald.

"A 30-year-old quote dug up by the Republican attack machine made long before they became friends is irrelevant.''

Mrs Kerry's spokeswoman also said the quotes' age makes them irrelevant.

"You are talking about statements that are more than 30 years old. A lot has changed since then,'' said Marla Romash, a senior adviser to Mrs Kerry.

and this doesn't mean i'm excusing him for saying that either. i think they are all garbage. i wish Clinton could come back.

Originally posted by Debaser
I think you missed pumpkins point. If you are so offended by the first lady saying "shove it", what are your thoughts on the current Vice President of the United States saying "go fuck yourself" to a senator on the congress floor?

Before his comment to Leahy, Dick Cheney hadn't just finished a speech talking about taking a more civil tone in the political discourse. Heinz-Kerry did. The issue is hypocrisy, not language.

Originally posted by Corganist


Before his comment to Leahy, Dick Cheney hadn't just finished a speech talking about taking a more civil tone in the political discourse. Heinz-Kerry did. The issue is hypocrisy, not language.

“Governor Bush and I are also absolutely determined that [we] will restore a tone of civility and decency to the debate in Washington.” - Mr. Cheney from the 2000 Presidential campaign

Originally posted by Debaser


“Governor Bush and I are also absolutely determined that [we] will restore a tone of civility and decency to the debate in Washington.” - Mr. Cheney from the 2000 Presidential campaign
The furor over Cheney's comment was about his language, not him going back on any promise of civility. It was all about what was be perceived as a breach of decorum on the Senate floor. The controversy surrounding Mrs. Kerry is all about the fact that she had just finished a speech calling for civility, and then minutes later started berating a reporter.

Even supposing for a minute that hypocrisy was the issue with Cheney's "Go fuck yourself" comment, Mrs. Kerry's actions stand as a much more extreme example of hypocrisy and two-facedness. Unless you actually believe that going back on something you said four years ago is worse than going back on it minutes after you say it.

But lets not cloud the issue. We can't pull this, "Well, he's a hypocrite too!" game to try and turn the issue away from Mrs. Kerry. Dick Cheney has nothing to do with the issue at hand, which is Mrs. Kerry's disingenuousness.

Originally posted by Corganist

and then minutes later started berating a reporter.


i guess you haven't seen the video. it was the other way around, the reporter was berating her.

and since you want to nitpick she said:

"We need to turn back some of the creeping, un-Pennsylvanian and sometimes un-American traits that are coming into some of our politics."

minutes later, a reporter from a right wing paper kept asking her what did she mean when she said "un-american". She then claimed she didn't say "un-american" and left. then the reporter caught up to her again and kept berating her over and over again with the same question. she then repeated she didn't say that and told him to "shove it" in a pretty mild voice - she did not raise her voice.


oooh boy, you're right corganist she's one evil bastard.

but sarcasm aside, i tend to think she just got flustered by the aggressive attacking reporter and forgot she said the word "un-american". but why are you so worried about this? she's just a potential first lady and she does not set policy - unlike Dick Cheney, who you admit is "shady".

Originally posted by twilightfadez
and this doesn't mean i'm excusing him for saying that either. i think they are all garbage. i wish Clinton could come back.

Yes, especially since Hillary was so nice with her words. :p

This whole thing is bullshit and pointless. So she said "shove it". BIG FUCKING DEAL. She's human. And "shove it" is a hell of a lot nicer than what a lot of other politicians have said. And it's not like she said it to an important foreign leader or anything. This is absolutely no reflection on what she would be like as a first lady.

All that being said, the double E (Elizabeth Edwards) would be an amazingly fabulous first lady.

Originally posted by Debaser
i guess you haven't seen the video. it was the other way around, the reporter was berating her.
I've seen the video, and I went back and watched it again just now. Its not at all like that. Now you're the one being disingenuous.

and since you want to nitpick she said:

"We need to turn back some of the creeping, un-Pennsylvanian and sometimes un-American traits that are coming into some of our politics."

minutes later, a reporter from a right wing paper kept asking her what did she mean when she said "un-american". She then claimed she didn't say "un-american" and left. then the reporter caught up to her again and kept berating her over and over again with the same question.
She got testy and defensive the second the reporter asked her what she meant by the "Un-American" comment. She didn't answer the question, and instead lied that she never said it. The reporter tried to press the issue, and asked what she did say, and she grew more steadfast in her objection. She was obviously irritated at the question. The reporter was acting professionally throughout the whole exchange. You'd have to be pretty thin-skinned to consider his tactics "berating."

And that whole business about the reporter "catching up to her again" is an out and out lie. Mrs. Kerry walked off, and the exchange with the reporter was over. She went and talked to the Governor, apparently still miffed at the reporter's question. My guess is that the Governor told her who the reporter was and that his paper was "right-wing," because right after she spoke to him, Mrs. Kerry went back through the crowd and confronted the reporter again, saying something to the effect of "You're from the Tribune-Review? Figures." That led directly into her 'shove it' comment.

Once again. The exchange with the reporter was over, and then Mrs. Kerry went back and started berating him, presumably after finding out he was from a "right-wing" paper.

But why are you so worried about this? she's just a potential first lady and she does not set policy
I really don't care that much. I just think that you can tell a lot about people from the people they associate with. Honest people usually hang out with honest people, and vice versa. I think this incident unequivocally shows Mrs. Kerry to be at least hypocritical, and at worst dishonest. And I think it reflects badly on her husband's character.

Yes, what the White House needs is a foreign First Lady who is the second heiress wife of the President.

I find it hilariously hypocritical that you jump in defense of Cheney all the time and in the same breath you attack Heinz on the issue of hypocrisy and honesty.

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
Yes, what the White House needs is a foreign First Lady who is the second heiress wife of the President.

wow. sexist and racist in one post. way to go, nimrod.

Originally posted by Debaser


wow. sexist and racist in one post. way to go, nimrod. Please tell me how that was sexist OR racist.

Kerry married two heiresses. She's not from America. Those are facts. Also, she's caucasian, which is her race.

Originally posted by Debaser
I find it hilariously hypocritical that you jump in defense of Cheney all the time and in the same breath you attack Heinz on the issue of hypocrisy and honesty.
Upon running a quick search, there is exactly one (1) other thread on this board where I even so much as mention Dick Cheney. The only times that I have ever "jumped in defense" of Cheney have been when people bring him up (usually through some tenuous or non-existent link to the topic at hand) in order to divert attention from an argument they don't want to take on.

Case in point: this thread. Someone brings up the "Shove it" deal, and the first reply brings up Dick Cheney instead. We finally get back on topic, and you give a fictionalized version of what transpired between the reporter and Mrs. Kerry. I reply by giving my different (aka more correct) take of the incident...and you defend yourself by...

bringing up Dick Cheney again.

*sigh*

Is it really that hard to get down to the bottom line? Or do we always have to change subjects or bail out when the writing on the wall becomes clear and its something we don't like?

Originally posted by Corganist

Upon running a quick search, there is exactly one (1) other thread on this board where I even so much as mention Dick Cheney. The only times that I have ever "jumped in defense" of Cheney have been when people bring him up (usually through some tenuous or non-existent link to the topic at hand) in order to divert attention from an argument they don't want to take on.

Case in point: this thread. Someone brings up the "Shove it" deal, and the first reply brings up Dick Cheney instead. We finally get back on topic, and you give a fictionalized version of what transpired between the reporter and Mrs. Kerry. I reply by giving my different (aka more correct) take of the incident...and you defend yourself by...

bringing up Dick Cheney again.

*sigh*

Is it really that hard to get down to the bottom line? Or do we always have to change subjects or bail out when the writing on the wall becomes clear and its something we don't like?

I guess we see two different videos. I see Heinz getting berated and you see the opposite. I cannot help that then. So I then move onto the main point of your arguement: hypocrisy. So naturally I pointed out your hypocrisy in defending somebody that is a proven liar and a war profiteer while at the same time you offer moral judgements on somebody being badgered by a reporter. That is not changing the subject. Is it really that hard to step out of your shoes and judge yourself? Or do we just declare ourselves winners when the arguement has reached an impass?

you can't have it both ways. you can't attack Kerry's character for what his wife says and at the same time cry foul if somebody then brings in the parallel of cheney/bush. and you can't call somebody a hypocrit and be a hypocrit yourself.

Originally posted by Corganist

Upon running a quick search, there is exactly one (1) other thread on this board where I even so much as mention Dick Cheney. The only times that I have ever "jumped in defense" of Cheney have been when people bring him up (usually through some tenuous or non-existent link to the topic at hand) in order to divert attention from an argument they don't want to take on.

Case in point: this thread. Someone brings up the "Shove it" deal, and the first reply brings up Dick Cheney instead. We finally get back on topic, and you give a fictionalized version of what transpired between the reporter and Mrs. Kerry. I reply by giving my different (aka more correct) take of the incident...and you defend yourself by...

bringing up Dick Cheney again.

*sigh*

Is it really that hard to get down to the bottom line? Or do we always have to change subjects or bail out when the writing on the wall becomes clear and its something we don't like? I think he's just upset that Dick Cheney is better looking than Teresa Heinz-Kerry.

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
Please tell me how that was sexist OR racist.


sure. please tell me what is so bad about having a rich foreign first lady. since basically your post was "oh no, we don't need a rich foriegn first lady!"

or were you just talking out of you ass?

Originally posted by Debaser


sure. please tell me what is so bad about having a rich foreign first lady. since basically your post was "oh no, we don't need a rich foriegn first lady!"

or were you just talking out of you ass? Ok, I asked you how it was racist or sexist.. let me break something to you: the First Lady position is traditionally filled by a female. So.. describe the sexism.

She's caucasian, as is the opposition, as has been every previous First Lady. Please show the racism.

Maybe people would take you more seriously if you didn't just talk out of your ass all of the time and attack the poster rather than the comments.

Originally posted by Debaser


I guess we see two different videos. I see Heinz getting berated and you see the opposite. I cannot help that then.

Here's a link to the video I watched. http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/video/3576483/detail.html

I beleive that its from the station that originally broadcast the footage, though I could be wrong on that. Watch it and tell me with all honesty that your version (reporter badgers Mrs. Kerry, chases her down, badgers her more, and gets told to 'shove it') is more accurate than mine (reporter asks Mrs. Kerry a question, she gets irritated and lies, walks off after reporter attempts to clarify, then comes back after a couple of moments and then lays into the reporter). Or at least show me an accurate video that shows your version. Anyone else out there wanna watch the video and back one of us up?

So I then move onto the main point of your arguement: hypocrisy. So naturally I pointed out your hypocrisy in defending somebody that is a proven liar and a war profiteer while at the same time you offer moral judgements on somebody being badgered by a reporter.

I merely pointed out that the controversies surrounding Mrs. Kerry's comment, and Cheney's comment are two different animals. Again, the controversy brought up surrounding Cheney's "Go fuck yourself" remark wasn't that he was being hypocritical and going against something he said 4 years ago. It was rather a matter of whether his language was appropriate for a sitting Vice-President to use on the Senate floor. It was about decorum, and thus should not have even been brought up in reference to Mrs. Kerry's altercation with the reporter,as the two situations and controversies were nothing alike.

And I never defended Cheney's "hypocrisy" in regards to the quote you posted. I only said that its not the issue, and that at any rate, any hypocrisy shown by Cheney by going against something he said years ago pales next to Mrs. Kerry doing a 180 degree about-face in the span of a few minutes.

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
She's not from America.

Arnold's not from this country, and he's serving in an elected post. What on earth is your point?

And once people get past 10 million, or really 100,000 in net worth, they are all rich to me. So don't try to say the former Halliburton CEO is more like regular folk because he only has 53 million compared to Kerry's 500 million (depending on whether or not there's a prenump), or W's 12 million.

Come on Nimrod's Son, you have better arguments than this in you.

Originally posted by Corganist


Here's a link to the video I watched. http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/video/3576483/detail.html

I beleive that its from the station that originally broadcast the footage, though I could be wrong on that. Watch it and tell me with all honesty that your version (reporter badgers Mrs. Kerry, chases her down, badgers her more, and gets told to 'shove it') is more accurate than mine (reporter asks Mrs. Kerry a question, she gets irritated and lies, walks off after reporter attempts to clarify, then comes back after a couple of moments and then lays into the reporter). Or at least show me an accurate video that shows your version. Anyone else out there wanna watch the video and back one of us up?



I merely pointed out that the controversies surrounding Mrs. Kerry's comment, and Cheney's comment are two different animals. Again, the controversy brought up surrounding Cheney's "Go fuck yourself" remark wasn't that he was being hypocritical and going against something he said 4 years ago. It was rather a matter of whether his language was appropriate for a sitting Vice-President to use on the Senate floor. It was about decorum, and thus should not have even been brought up in reference to Mrs. Kerry's altercation with the reporter,as the two situations and controversies were nothing alike.

And I never defended Cheney's "hypocrisy" in regards to the quote you posted. I only said that its not the issue, and that at any rate, any hypocrisy shown by Cheney by going against something he said years ago pales next to Mrs. Kerry doing a 180 degree about-face in the span of a few minutes.

christ this is so fucking unimportant and you are just pathetically hanging on to this issue as hard as you can since you have no ground to stand on actual important issues about this country and where its heading.

from the video heinz was just talking off the top of your head as you can see. She says "sometimes unamerican traits". The stupid reporter pins her down on her saying "unamerican activities" and that set her off because that is obviously not what she meant. Who the fuck cares, really?

And since when is there a fucking statute of limitations on going back on your word? By all means, keep defending Cheney (you know, in how you keep saying I'm not going to defend him and its not the issue, immediately followed by you defending him in the next sentence) because you look like a fucking douche in doing so.

Originally posted by Debaser


christ this is so fucking unimportant and you are just pathetically hanging on to this issue as hard as you can since you have no ground to stand on actual important issues about this country and where its heading.
This is starting to become tiresome. Yes its unimportant. So why haven't you just been honest and admitted the woman was out of line? Thats all it takes. You've been doing everything in your power to avoid the issue and bring up Dick Cheney, Dick Cheney, Dick Cheney. All because the FACTS haven't supported your version of the topic actually being discussed. You've been intellectually dishonest throughout the whole thread, and now thats the house of cards is coming down you try and make it out like its no big deal anymore. If its no big deal, then why did you lie about what was shown on the video to support your version? Why not just say "Yeah, she's a hypocrite. So what?" Why go to such lengths over so trivial a thing?

Say what you will about me "hanging on to the issue," at least I haven't lied or stretched the truth in any way. And the facts support me. You wanna talk about ground to stand on? How do you expect anyone to beleive any argument you make on the "important" issues, if you so blatently fly in the face of facts on stupid things like this topic?

from the video heinz was just talking off the top of your head as you can see. She says "sometimes unamerican traits". The stupid reporter pins her down on her saying "unamerican activities" and that set her off because that is obviously not what she meant.
He didn't say "un-American activities" until after Mrs. Kerry had gotten irritated when he asked that she meant by "un-American." The "activities" part was an effort by the reporter to (inaccurately) place her statement back into context to jog her memory. Again, the guy asked her two or three times only what she meant by the word "Un-American" by itself, and thats what set her off.

By all means, keep defending Cheney (you know, in how you keep saying I'm not going to defend him and its not the issue, immediately followed by you defending him in the next sentence) because you look like a fucking douche in doing so.
No where in this thread have I said that Dick Cheney is or is not a hypocrite. I've only used hypotheticals. And if you want to split hairs, in all my hypotheticals I've assumed that he is a hypocrite. I'd hardly call that an A+ defense job. I'm through talking about Dick Cheney. Next time his name is mentioned in this thread, I'm gonna start talking about "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky." Lets not go there.

Originally posted by Corganist


Before his comment to Leahy, Dick Cheney hadn't just finished a speech talking about taking a more civil tone in the political discourse. Heinz-Kerry did. The issue is hypocrisy, not language.

she isn't an elected official, he is. he presides over a body of people who overwhelmingly voted against his very behavior. want to talk about hypocrisy? "virtues" guys uses profanity as the second highest leader of our nation, the wife of a candidate wants a zealous reporter to stop assailing her, not using profanity, and the media runs her story as if she sold arms to iran.

Even if we ignore the irony that Vice President Cheney used the vulgarity in the Senate chamber on the very same day that the Senate passed the "Defense of Decency Act" by a vote of 99 to 1 – not to mention the hypocrisy of the remark coming from the very same vice president, who piously pledged "to change the tone in Washington, to restore a spirit of civility and respect and cooperation" – we ought to question Cheney's arrogance.

Originally posted by Corganist


ugh, motherfucker. heinz made a mistake. But she wasn't out of line and I don't consider her a hypocrit and I certainly don't think this has any real basis to use as an attack John Kerry, which you did earlier in this thread. Fuck this. If you write another 200 word response I'm gonna just give you a 2 word response in turn.

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
Yes, what the White House needs is a foreign First Lady who is the second heiress wife of the President.

I'm tired of your shit. Fuck you. What's it matter if she's a Mexican midget?

The first lady (no caps, by the way) doesn't run the fucking White House.

Oh, and as a member of the media, she has all rights to do what she did. That guy was all over her ass, and had written a mis-guided editorial the day before and kept questioning her on it ... even though he knew what he wrote was not true.

What I find funny is this: People who are making an "issue" out of these are the same people who ignored Bush's comments to that Irish reporter. It's the same fucking thing.

Originally posted by sppunk


I'm tired of your shit. Fuck you. What's it matter if she's a Mexican midget?

The first lady (no caps, by the way) doesn't run the fucking White House. She did for 8 of the last 12 years.

Originally posted by sppunk
Oh, and as a member of the media, she has all rights to do what she did. That guy was all over her ass, and had written a mis-guided editorial the day before and kept questioning her on it ... even though he knew what he wrote was not true.

What I find funny is this: People who are making an "issue" out of these are the same people who ignored Bush's comments to that Irish reporter. It's the same fucking thing. She said that people were acting "Un-Pennsylvanian and Un-American." His question was "What did you mean by Un-American?" She denied ever saying that (haven't you seen the tape by now) and then came back AFTER him when he was on the other side of the room.

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
She said that people were acting "Un-Pennsylvanian and Un-American." His question was "What did you mean by Un-American?" She denied ever saying that (haven't you seen the tape by now) and then came back AFTER him when he was on the other side of the room.

She didn't deny saying that. She has repeated that point thousands of times. And, she's right about un-American activities completely.

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
She did for 8 of the last 12 years.

Open the window, Mike, there's more to politics than Hillary Clinton. Saying she ran the White House is like saying Condi Rice runs the country.

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
She did for 8 of the last 12 years.

fuck platitudes.

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
She did for 8 of the last 12 years.

What, specifically, did she DO?

She tried to structure a universal healthcare program, but failed.

She visited foreign leaders and spread goodwill.

She didn't walk around like an empty-headed stepford wife, but specifically, how did she RULE the house?

Originally posted by Debaser


heinz made a mistake. But she wasn't out of line and I don't consider her a hypocrit

Well, now we're getting somewhere. Though I wonder now: if Mrs. Kerry's actions weren't out of line and weren't hypocritical, then how were they a mistake? Her actions had to be out of line and/or hypocritical. Otherwise no attention would have been paid to them, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. You're getting closer now though.

and I certainly don't think this has any real basis to use as an attack John Kerry, which you did earlier in this thread.
I certainly think that a fair view. I never said it was a solid attack on John Kerry, only that it reflects badly on him. But thats just a personal thing that I know some people don't really adhere to. A great man once said "Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation, for 'tis better to be alone than in bad company." I happen to agree with that.