A staffer for John Kerry tore up a pro-life sign

[Leo Hubbard]

A staffer for John Kerry tore up a pro-life sign held by a protester at a campaign rally in Florida after it apparently was noticed by the presidential candidate.

Rebecca Porter says her sign, saying "My Abortion Hurt Me," was ripped to shreds just moments after the Massachusetts senator noticed it at the event in Tampa last week, reported LifeNews.com.

A similar sign held by her friend Cindy also was torn apart, she said.

Porter said Kerry was "shocked and surprised" to see her sign, but his campaign has refused to comment despite four attempts by LifeNews.com

"I'm very disappointed that he will not acknowledge what happened at his rally," she told LifeNews.com

"As a presidential candidate for all the people – including me – I think he should speak to his staff and apologize to Cindy and I for their actions and guarantee that it won't happen again to other women."

Porter said she intentionally made her way to a place where Kerry could see her as he was shaking hands.

"Then it happened," she said. "He reached up to shake a hand in the back and his eyes went up to my sign. He read it and then he looked into the crowd to see who was holding it – and he looked me directly in the eyes."

"I hope he saw my pain. I was not angry, just pleading with him to understand," Porter said. "You could see the shock and surprise on his face."

Within seconds, she said, a member of Kerry's campaign staff grabbed her sign, saying "You can't have that sign here."

Porter said she let go after the sign tore and the staffer then ripped it to pieces.

"He wouldn't even let me have the pieces," Porter said.

"As a supporter of abortion rights, how does he feel about the fact that abortion does hurt many women and men," Porter told LifeNews.com. "Abortion takes the life of our children and leaves many very wounded individuals."

LifeNews.com said in its attempt to get a comment, the Kerry campaign's Florida office said the national office in Washington fields all media calls. Then an assistant in the Washington office said he would have to find a Florida representative to handle the request. After failing to call back, LifeNews.com spoke twice with the Washington press assistant, Adam Abram, who would not comment and refused to provide a representative who would.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37644

Bush people tear up tickets of protestors to keep them from interupting his rally inside, so they could have a civil rally. Elsewhere, and yes elsewhen, Kerry's people destroy anti-abortion signs for what reason?

I would've posted this in Zim's post about bush's op/ed piece but I dont' want to be accused of hijacking his thread.

[Leo Hubbard]

My answer to both is ---- 'things happen'.

[pseudobrit]

Find an major news source carrying this old news:

(hint: you can't (http://www.google.com/search?q=kerry+staffer+pro-life+sign&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8))

[Leo Hubbard]

Find an major news source carrying this old news:

(hint: you can't (http://www.google.com/search?q=kerry+staffer+pro-life+sign&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8))
Old news perhaps, but I hope you aren't saying that if it isn't contained on a left wing biased news site then it is invalid?

[amnesiac1984]

"As a supporter of abortion rights, how does he feel about the fact that abortion does hurt many women and men," Porter told LifeNews.com. "Abortion takes the life of our children and leaves many very wounded individuals."

Fair enough, but was it not her choice to have one?

[RacerX]

Old news perhaps, but I hope you aren't saying that if it isn't contained on a left wing biased news site then it is invalid?

I'd like to see it on a non-bias news site actually.

You're (general you, not a specific person) in pretty bad shape if you are getting your information from propaganda sites of either the left or the right.

But to each their own. :rolleyes:

[toontra]

Old news perhaps, but I hope you aren't saying that if it isn't contained on a left wing biased news site then it is invalid?

How about any relatively "mainstream" site (agreed by both sides), rather than your rabid right-wing one. To be honest, links to sites like that are worthless, and clutter this forum up with spurious junk. Not worth the screen space or viewing time they occupy.

Mind you, thanks for exposing me to worldnetdaily. On a brief inspection I can see where cranks get their info from. It would be hilarious if it wasn't for the fact that some people take this stuff seriously - I sincerely hope you are not amongst them!

[Taft]

Elsewhere, and yes elsewhen, Kerry's people destroy anti-abortion signs for what reason?

The same EXACT reason Bush keeps protesters away from his rallies and PR moments: it's bad press to have protesters in the spotlight with the candidate. Both parties and cadidates do this, and it is very old news.

BTW, how many people were arrested at the Kerry rally for speaking their mind? (Hint: a few less than the number arrested at the Bush rally.)

Taft

[Leo Hubbard]

I'd like to see it on a non-bias news site actually.


no such place.

[toontra]

no such place.

So let's get this clear. You are suggesting that all news sources are equally partisan, biased and consequentially unreliable?

If this is the case then you inhabit a place more deeply cynical than any I have yet encountered.

If not, what is the point of your post?

[Leo Hubbard]

So let's get this clear. You are suggesting that all news sources are equally partisan, biased and consequentially unreliable?

If this is the case then you inhabit a place more deeply cynical than any I have yet encountered.

If not, what is the point of your post?
I wouldn't use the words "equally", or necessarily "unreliable" just because a place is biased doesn't mean it is a place that is full of liars. Web space cost money and people don't put things up on the web simply because they wanted to be a neutral place to do things, everyone has a platform they want to push, that doesn't necessarily make them all equal or even unreliable.

[TreeHugger]

A staffer for John Kerry tore up a pro-life sign.

So what?

[toontra]

I wouldn't use the words "equally", or necessarily "unreliable" just because a place is biased doesn't mean it is a place that is full of liars. Web space cost money and people don't put things up on the web simply because they wanted to be a neutral place to do things, everyone has a platform they want to push, that doesn't necessarily make them all equal or even unreliable.

We had this debate (at great length) last year with a member called macfan. He would say that all news contains a bias of some sort, and none is truly objective.

We're all reasoning beings here. We know this. It's a question of degrees. The (only) site that you used as the basis of this thread is, in almost everyone's estimation (I hope), unashamedly far-right, anti-Kerry and un-balanced. There is no attempt at balance, as I think even you would admit there is in other, let's say more reliable, news sources.

As such, to stand an argument on this kind of source is ludicrous, as I think you know very well!

[mischief]

I have many questions about things like this.

But rather than get into symantics I'll come right out and say it:

What's your problem Leo?

You seem bent on coming as close to trolling as is possible without getting banned.

You seem to have an obsession with the "left wing" biased media.

Here's a news flash for you: They're not so much left wing as greedy. If it sells papers or gets you to watch the news at eleven, they'll run it. The diffference is in how the "news" comes to light.

Generally speaking, the media has learned that they don't have to go digging for anti-democrat stuff: the Rebs do it fairly reliably for them. On the other hand, the Dems generally don't actively go after such things so if the media want to "even the field" they have to do it themselves. As a result, even in an equally bloodthirsty year in the press the Rebs claim a "liberal media bias" because the press actually has to do the work themselves.

[Leo Hubbard]

We had this debate (at great length) last year with a member called macfan. He would say that all news contains a bias of some sort, and none is truly objective.

We're all reasoning beings here. We know this. It's a question of degrees. The (only) site that you used as the basis of this thread is, in almost everyone's estimation (I hope), unashamedly far-right, anti-Kerry and un-balanced. There is no attempt at balance, as I think even you would admit there is in other, let's say more reliable, news sources.

As such, to stand an argument on this kind of source is ludicrous, as I think you know very well!
oh I'm sorry the problem is with worldnetdaily. Ok there are other sources to this one story.
http://www.catholicsagainstkerry.com/articles_RipItJohn.aspx
http://www.nysrighttolife.org/news/03192004/John%20Kerry%20Campaign%20Won.htm
http://www.talonnews.com/news/2004/july/0705_kerry_abortion.shtml
http://www.google.com/search?q=kerry+tore+up+abortion+sign&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&start=10&sa=N
Yes I don't see any USA Today, NYT, Washington Post, etc stories on this, why is that? Maybe their biased?

[TreeHugger]

oh I'm sorry the problem is with worldnetdaily. Ok there are other sources to this one story.
http://www.catholicsagainstkerry.com/articles_RipItJohn.aspx
http://www.nysrighttolife.org/news/03192004/John%20Kerry%20Campaign%20Won.htm
http://www.talonnews.com/news/2004/july/0705_kerry_abortion.shtml
http://www.google.com/search?q=kerry+tore+up+abortion+sign&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&start=10&sa=N
Yes I don't see any USA Today, NYT, Washington Post, etc stories on this, why is that? Maybe their biased?

And what about FOX NEWS? They put a whole new definition on biased....
USA TODAY NYT and the Washington Post don't cover stories like this, not because they are biased but because they are just not worth covering. Stories like this you see in the latest gossip mags at the supermarket or in the tabloids but not in a serious newspaper with serious journalism.
To me it is no suprise why catholicsagainstkerry cover this story... It fits their agenda!

[mischief]

oh I'm sorry the problem is with worldnetdaily. Ok there are other sources to this one story.
http://www.catholicsagainstkerry.com/articles_RipItJohn.aspx
http://www.nysrighttolife.org/news/03192004/John%20Kerry%20Campaign%20Won.htm
http://www.talonnews.com/news/2004/july/0705_kerry_abortion.shtml
http://www.google.com/search?q=kerry+tore+up+abortion+sign&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&start=10&sa=N
Yes I don't see any USA Today, NYT, Washington Post, etc stories on this, why is that? Maybe their biased?

So you're saying that any news agency that has any significant distribution or readership is liberally biased?

Since News is a product like any other, doesn't that imply that the vast majority o the US populace is similarly Liberal-biased?

Just food for thought Leo....

[toontra]

oh I'm sorry the problem is with worldnetdaily. Ok there are other sources to this one story.
http://www.catholicsagainstkerry.com/articles_RipItJohn.aspx
http://www.nysrighttolife.org/news/03192004/John%20Kerry%20Campaign%20Won.htm
http://www.talonnews.com/news/2004/july/0705_kerry_abortion.shtml
http://www.google.com/search?q=kerry+tore+up+abortion+sign&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&start=10&sa=N
Yes I don't see any USA Today, NYT, Washington Post, etc stories on this, why is that? Maybe their biased?

skunk did this search for you at the start of this thread!! All rabidly anti-Kerry sites. Your argument doesn't hold, and you are within a hair's breadth of trolling.

[Leo Hubbard]

I have many questions about things like this.

But rather than get into symantics I'll come right out and say it:

What's your problem Leo?


I only came up with the left wing bias news sources angle of this topic because people like to discount my sources, they claim are right wing biased news sources. Even if it is true, and not in all cases it is, that doesn't mean they are lieing. I'm simply defending myself from those who seem to only want me to post from left wing news sources, and that is hypocritcal.

without this post
I'd like to see it on a non-bias news site actually.

You're (general you, not a specific person) in pretty bad shape if you are getting your information from propaganda sites of either the left or the right.

But to each their own. :rolleyes:
or this post
How about any relatively "mainstream" site (agreed by both sides), rather than your rabid right-wing one. To be honest, links to sites like that are worthless, and clutter this forum up with spurious junk. Not worth the screen space or viewing time they occupy.

Mind you, thanks for exposing me to worldnetdaily. On a brief inspection I can see where cranks get their info from. It would be hilarious if it wasn't for the fact that some people take this stuff seriously - I sincerely hope you are not amongst them!

I would have never went off on the left wing biased crap.
See the problem is there is no "mainstream" site (agreed by both sides).

[toontra]

I only came up with the left wing bias news sources angle of this topic because people like to discount my sources, they claim are right wing biased news sources. Even if it is true, and not in all cases it is, that doesn't mean they are lieing. I'm simply defending myself from those who seem to only want me to post from left wing news sources, and that is hypocritcal.

I can't remember the last time anyone here posted a link to an extreme "left-wing" news source and expected it to be taken seriously. If you know otherwise please share.

[Leo Hubbard]

I can't remember the last time anyone here posted a link to an extreme "left-wing" news source and expected it to be taken seriously. If you know otherwise please share.
Joan Collins is one from the post http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=82992
I'm not disputting the story itself but this post uses the LAtimes as a source, clearly left wing biased paper. http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=80684
Richard Clark is deffinitely biased and while this clearly points out it is an op-ed piece it is still used a source for this post http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=81301

People use biased sources in their discussions here all the time.

Mac Clelland is clearly biased yet a news story quotting him as their primary source was used as a source for this thread http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=80495

Last one since someone has replied to this thread and I wouldn't want to be accused of editing it too much after people started to post. http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=77067 Farenheit and Michael Moore, columbine, etc has been used as sources for a large number of threads.

So what is wrong with a little bit of counter balance?

[mactastic]

Shouldn't the WSJ have run this story if it was important? They're obviously a right wing news organization.

[Leo Hubbard]

Shouldn't the WSJ have run this story if it was important? They're obviously a right wing news organization.
I wouldn't call them an obvious right wing news organization, they are more of an obvious financial news organization. They tend to stick to financial news, and yes I realize nothing is 100%.

[mactastic]

I wouldn't call them an obvious right wing news organization, they are more of an obvious financial news organization. They tend to stick to financial news, and yes I realize nothing is 100%.

Oh get off it. Have you ever actually read the WSJ's OpEd page? 'Cause that's what you're relying on to discredit the LA Times, aren't you? Not their news coverage, but their editorial bias, right?

[Lyle]

Find an major news source carrying this old news...I don't have a dog in this fight, but out of curiosity I went to the Tampa Tribune (http://tampatrib.com/)'s web site to see if I could find anything in their archives about it. The incident allegedly occurred in Tampa in March, 2004. If I search for the keywords "rebecca porter", and search stories from 2004, it does turn up what sounds like a story about this lady. The story is titled "Trying To Resolve Abortion's Trials" and appeared in the paper on April 4, 2004, about a month after the alleged incident. Can't tell from the abstract whether it gets into the alleged sign-ripping incident.

I'm not from Tampa, and don't know anything about the Tribune. I'm not going to pay $1.95 for the full article text, because it's all a moot point to me personally. But I thought I'd share the info for anyone who cares.

[mischief]

I would appreciate it if you would answer the above questions Leo.

Do you, or do you not believe that any news publication or agency with significant distribution is Left wing?

If this is so, does that not logically (due to the laws of economics) mean that the vast majority of US Citizens are similarly left-wing?

[toontra]

Joan Collins is one from the post http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=82992
I'm not disputting the story itself but this post uses the LAtimes as a source, clearly left wing biased paper. http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=80684
Richard Clark is deffinitely biased and while this clearly points out it is an op-ed piece it is still used a source for this post http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=81301

People use biased sources in their discussions here all the time.

Mac Clelland is clearly biased yet a news story quotting him as their primary source was used as a source for this thread http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=80495


So what is wrong with a little bit of counter balance?

I'm losing my patience here. Are you willfully misunderstanding? ALL the links you show are to mainstream (relatively balanced) media organisations. Whilst they may sometimes have op-ed pieces, or even straight news items, which upset your particular political sensibilities, these will be balanced fairly evenly over a period of time with other stories and opinions.

The source of your item, on the other hand, is from a site solely dedicated to spewing pro-Republican and anti-Kerry nonsense.

Do you understand?

[Taft]

I'm losing my patience here. Are you willfully misunderstanding? ALL the links you show are to mainstream (relatively balanced) media organisations. Whilst they may sometimes have op-ed pieces, or even straight news items, which upset your particular political sensibilities, these will be balanced fairly evenly over a period of time with other stories and opinions.

The source of your item, on the other hand, is from a site solely dedicated to spewing pro-Republican and anti-Kerry nonsense.

Do you understand?

The problem isn't that Leo doeesn't understand, its that Leo think the LA Times is a liberal rag. NYTimes too, probably.

What's funny, I think, is that Leo then turns around and says the WSJ is not a right wing rag. Everything is black and white...except when dealing with those with right-leaning ideology. Then, everything is in shades of grey.

Taft

[edesignuk]

Reading these kinda threads don't half make me laugh....:rolleyes:

Politics, what a load of bollocks!!!








P.S. Please don't vote in Bush again, kthx ;) :D

[toontra]

Reading these kinda threads don't half make me laugh....:rolleyes:

Politics, what a load of bollocks!!!

P.S. Please don't vote in Bush again, kthx ;) :D

Trouble is, bollocks or not, someone will get elected. If Leo & friends get their way, Bush will indeed be voted in again. That's why some here try and keep the nonsense factor down a bit by pointing out fallacious arguments.

[Bobcat37]

Another topic turned to "bias in the media"? Brother... Look, if a lot of you went and joined the GOP discussion forums (just generalizing, I don't even know if they exist, but they probably do) and started posting anti-Bush articles from the NY Times, do you think they would say "well shucks, what was I thinking. We all know the NY Times is an unbiased reliable news source"? And if some of you joined the GOP discussion forums and made the same Bush-bashing comments you make here, surely you would be charged with "trolling". So who's "blind" here? Democrats or Republicans? Maybe neither? Perhaps we're just all stuck in our own paradigms and thus assume that the other side must be ignorant, blind, and stupid because they do not agree with us. Bah to that mode of thinking.

Now, maybe we should all stay on topic and just give Leo's article the benefit of the doubt and RESPOND TO IT. Instead of pulling out the "that's garbage so I'm not even going to think about it" card, why don't we either not respond or say "Well IF that was true, I think this.... But I don't think it is true". Let me show you how it works.

Personally, if that story is in fact TRUE, then I think that is a pretty idiotic thing for that staffer to do. It's not like that sign was offensive or something, I just don't get it. And instead of just confiscating it, or asking the woman to put it down (which still seems like it would violate her right to free speech and protest), the person snatchs it out of her hands and tears it up? That would have been quite the spectacle to see. Do I think it's true? Well, I sure as heck wouldn't rule it out, but I'm not going to say I 100% believe it based on the sources provided.

[TreeHugger]

I would have never went off on the left wing biased crap.
See the problem is there is no "mainstream" site (agreed by both sides).

CNN.

[3rdpath]

so let me get this right...the lady has an abortion and somehow blames Kerry for it? amazing...


idea for another moronic poster... " Childbirth Hurt my Mother "

[Taft]

CNN.

C'mon! Ted Turner is a liberal, commie traitor!

Someone needs to brush up on their radical propoganda! :eek:

Taft

[TreeHugger]

Someone needs to brush up on their radical propoganda! :eek:

Taft

Yeah Fox needs to brush up on their propoganda.

[takao]

'counter balance against the left biased media'

...

funny how the FPÖ complains about the generally far left leaning austria press/media as well


'fair and balancing right wing media' sorry but isn't that like "microsoft works" or "military intelligence" ?

(this answer also fits into the FOX thread)