NationStates Jolt Archive

Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D) Ga. Is either too stupid or to mentally unstable to be in Congress.

Trying to rush the Capitol guards with out proper ID and then hitting him? She's lucky she wasn't handcuffed face down on the ground with a .45 pointed at her head. Hey dumbass, in case you haven't noticed THERE'S A WAR GOING ON!!!

Of course, it was racial profiling, as the Capitol Police should've memorized the faces of all 535 Senators and Representatives and the other hundreds of aides and staffers.

Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D) Ga. Is either too stupid or to mentally unstable to be in Congress.

Trying to rush the Capitol guards with out proper ID and then hitting him? She's lucky she wasn't handcuffed face down on the ground with a .45 pointed at her head. Hey dumbass, in case you haven't noticed THERE'S A WAR GOING ON!!!

Of course, it was racial profiling, as the Capitol Police should've memorized the faces of all 535 Senators and Representatives and the other hundreds of aides and staffers.
Of course she's an idiot. Her home district is mostly Dekalb county, GA. She was so ineffective at representing them, the county commissioners had to hire a lobbyist.

I heard a reporter talk about a similar incident he had witnessed. A new Senator had come to a security point and was challenged by the guard. The Senator introduced himself, they shook hands, and the guard let him pass. That's the way it's supposed to be done.

I just watched an interview with her. It's on the front page of www.cnn.com right now. She just completely dodged the question of what happened. I hope they give her the chair.

you know, i can't figure out whose side i'm on - i hate politicians, but i also hate security guards. i guess we'll have to call it a draw.

you know, i can't figure out whose side i'm on - i hate politicians, but i also hate security guards. i guess we'll have to call it a draw.
Hey I work nights as a security guard:p

Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D) Ga. Is either too stupid or to mentally unstable to be in Congress.

Trying to rush the Capitol guards with out proper ID and then hitting him? She's lucky she wasn't handcuffed face down on the ground with a .45 pointed at her head. Hey dumbass, in case you haven't noticed THERE'S A WAR GOING ON!!!

Of course, it was racial profiling, as the Capitol Police should've memorized the faces of all 535 Senators and Representatives and the other hundreds of aides and staffers.
I saw her interviewed on CNN this morning. She came off as a bit arrogant and as someone with a persecution complex.

She is an idiot.

Come on Rep. McKinney! Fess up that you screwed up.

She does seem intent on making this a bigger issue than her assault on an officer.

I cant imagine the condition I'd be in now if I did what she did.

She does seem intent on making this a bigger issue than her assault on an officer.

I cant imagine the condition I'd be in now if I did what she did.

Jail, hospital or morgue.

I think the issue completely being ignored is the fact that our elected leaders don't have to face the same security scrutiny that they legislated for the rest of us unwashed masses.

Profiling is bad except when you're a member of Congress then I guess the laws don't apply to them, yes? Funny, they say the President isn't above the law but evidently McKinney and others think they are.

Morons, the lot of them.

I think the issue completely being ignored is the fact that our elected leaders don't have to face the same security scrutiny that they legislated for the rest of us unwashed masses.

Profiling is bad except when you're a member of Congress then I guess the laws don't apply to them, yes? Funny, they say the President isn't above the law but evidently McKinney and others think they are.

Morons, the lot of them.

I wonder why she's not at the front of the line screaming about the racial and sexual profiling the BATF has been doing?

Oh, right, it had nothing to do w/ her breaking the law.

I think the issue completely being ignored is the fact that our elected leaders don't have to face the same security scrutiny that they legislated for the rest of us unwashed masses.

Profiling is bad except when you're a member of Congress then I guess the laws don't apply to them, yes? Funny, they say the President isn't above the law but evidently McKinney and others think they are.

Morons, the lot of them.
Well somehow I bet the presendent IS above some of these "laws" (not excusing what she did) but I somehow doubt he is stoped and or searched at every check point everywhere ...

She is an idiot.

Come on Rep. McKinney! Fess up that you screwed up.
Cindy has fallen on some hard times. She lost the primary for her seat a couple years ago, then won it back last year. Usually, members get to keep their seniority when that happens. Apparently, Ms Pelosi shares the same low opinion that the rest of us have, because she refused to restore Cindy's seniority.

Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D) Ga. Is either too stupid or to mentally unstable to be in Congress.

Trying to rush the Capitol guards with out proper ID and then hitting him? She's lucky she wasn't handcuffed face down on the ground with a .45 pointed at her head. Hey dumbass, in case you haven't noticed THERE'S A WAR GOING ON!!!

Of course, it was racial profiling, as the Capitol Police should've memorized the faces of all 535 Senators and Representatives and the other hundreds of aides and staffers.
My thoughts pretty much exactly. Now she's alledging "racial profiling" and "inappropriate touching" as a way of getting the people in her district all riled up so she won't lose her seat. SIGH.

My thoughts pretty much exactly. Now she's alledging "racial profiling" and "inappropriate touching" as a way of getting the people in her district all riled up so she won't lose her seat. SIGH.
She lost her seat last time because Republicans crossed over and voted Democratic in the primary. I don't hear much about that, yet, but it certainly could happen again. Especially in 2006, because there are no other important primary races -- No senate, no President. Maybe it's "Get along Home Cindy" this time, too.

She lost her seat last time because Republicans crossed over and voted Democratic in the primary. I don't hear much about that, yet, but it certainly could happen again. Especially in 2006, because there are no other important primary races -- No senate, no President. Maybe it's "Get along Home Cindy" this time, too.
One can only hope. I'm sure that if she loses her seat this time, she'll find someone to blame. Seems to be a habit with her. :(

A moron is a moron, Left or Right. Anyone co-opting serious and legitimate civil rights language or other charged terms in order to deflect fallout from a howling error needs to be pimp-slapped.

Cynthia shames even the Democrats -- and that's getting harder and harder to do.

At least today is a two-fer. The deputy Homeland Security secretary apparently doesn't watch Dateline. I mean, actually mentioning his job title while trolling for jailbait -- what a complete tool.

IIRC, last time she "lost her seat", it was because the House kicked her out - censured her for making some disparaging comments about Bush.

Interestingly enough, she was back in Congress as soon as her constituents could vote her in. It would appear that, for better or for worse, Dekalb County wants her there.

IIRC, last time she "lost her seat", it was because the House kicked her out - censured her for making some disparaging comments about Bush.

Interestingly enough, she was back in Congress as soon as her constituents could vote her in. It would appear that, for better or for worse, Dekalb County wants her there.
Don't you remember how she lost the primary to Majette? Then won the next election because Majette wanted to be a Senator? That was all because the Republican voters voted Democratic in that election.

Well somehow I bet the presendent IS above some of these "laws" (not excusing what she did) but I somehow doubt he is stoped and or searched at every check point everywhere ...


You arent really comparing the two are you?

Jail, hospital or morgue.


Yeah-after being put in a shoulder dislocating chicken wing and faceplanted on the ground with how many guys kneeling on my back? Pepper sprayed and zip tied hand and foot.

She should really shut her flapping yapper and get back to work. I'm getting tired of looking at her wild koo-koo koogily eyeballs rolling around and her stacked hairdo wobbling. Dopey douchebag.

You arent really comparing the two are you?
Not really I was responding to this comment
Profiling is bad except when you're a member of Congress then I guess the laws don't apply to them, yes? Funny, they say the President isn't above the law but evidently McKinney and others think they are.


The poster was doing the origional comparison ...

Yeah-after being put in a shoulder dislocating chicken wing and faceplanted on the ground with how many guys kneeling on my back? Pepper sprayed and zip tied hand and foot.

She should really shut her flapping yapper and get back to work. I'm getting tired of looking at her wild koo-koo koogily eyeballs rolling around and her stacked hairdo wobbling. Dopey douchebag.
Don't hold back, tell us what you really think.

Not really I was responding to this comment


The poster was doing the origional comparison ...


Ok-I did miss that. I understand now.

Thats why I didnt jump all over the place. :D

Don't hold back, tell us what you really think.


Sometimes, you just have to say it. You know?

Ok-I did miss that. I understand now.

Thats why I didnt jump all over the place. :D
Thats ok :)

Yeah-after being put in a shoulder dislocating chicken wing and faceplanted on the ground with how many guys kneeling on my back? Pepper sprayed and zip tied hand and foot.

She should really shut her flapping yapper and get back to work. I'm getting tired of looking at her wild koo-koo koogily eyeballs rolling around and her stacked hairdo wobbling. Dopey douchebag.
ditto

i cant stand people who play the race card every chance they get. anything happens to them, the only resonable reason why it happened is because they are black.

Don't you remember how she lost the primary to Majette? Then won the next election because Majette wanted to be a Senator? That was all because the Republican voters voted Democratic in that election.

Actually, no. I haven't exactly followed her political career that closely. I just remember that she was kicked out of the House the last time she was elected, only to be promptly elected right back in. Apparently, Dekalb county voters didn't care if she got kicked out for bashing Bush.

It's funny. No white person can say that he or she is a victim or racism and be believed. Asians also have a hard time using the race card. Hispanics, while having a much easier time, still rarely get to use the race card effectively. When a black person uses it, the television cameras come. That African American gets his or her fifteen minutes of fame. Of course some of them will abuse it. They're human. White people would also abuse it if they got it. So would Asians and Hispanics.

What we have here is a politician who can't accept the fact that she can't break the law. Even Bush knows that nobody is allowed to break the law. What makes McKinney so special?

Sometimes, you just have to say it. You know?
Yep.

I'm sorry, I don't know this lady from Adam, but I did watch the video and what a nutcase. If she didn't do anything wrong why doesn't she just say what happened. She won't say. She keeps changing the subject and trying to make cute statements or make it about how the police hate black people or something. What she's saying about their being problems with profiling may be true, but the fact is that she hit an officer, a charge she does not deny, and if any of us did that, we wouldn't be on CNN or smiling.

Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D) Ga. Is either too stupid or to mentally unstable to be in Congress.

Trying to rush the Capitol guards with out proper ID and then hitting him? She's lucky she wasn't handcuffed face down on the ground with a .45 pointed at her head. Hey dumbass, in case you haven't noticed THERE'S A WAR GOING ON!!!

Of course, it was racial profiling, as the Capitol Police should've memorized the faces of all 535 Senators and Representatives and the other hundreds of aides and staffers.
Reagonodia, huh. So, do you hate all democrats?

Although I'm a Democrat, Ronald Reagan is my favorite president.

Reagonodia, huh. So, do you hate all democrats?

Although I'm a Democrat, Ronald Reagan is my favorite president.


Cool-Democrats are capable of rational thought!! :p


Note: Before anybody starts shrieking hysterically, I am joking.
Dont react like Madame Mckinney.

Unless you'd like some innapropriate touching.

Cool-Democrats are capable of rational thought!! :p


Note: Before anybody starts shrieking hysterically, I am joking.
Dont react like Madame Mckinney.

Unless you'd like some innapropriate touching.
A wave of rational thought does indeed strike us every now and then. :cool:

A wave of rational thought does indeed strike us every now and then. :cool:


Me too. But sadly, not often enough.

http://www.thunderchunky.co.uk/napoleon-dynamite.jpg
God! What an IDIOT!

Actually, no. I haven't exactly followed her political career that closely. I just remember that she was kicked out of the House the last time she was elected, only to be promptly elected right back in. Apparently, Dekalb county voters didn't care if she got kicked out for bashing Bush.

Didn't you read what you responded to or are you that intent on attacking republicans you didn't bother? She was not kicked out. She lost the primary.

In 2002, McKinney was defeated in the Democratic primary by Denise Majette, then a DeKalb County judge. McKinney protested the result in court, claiming that Republicans in the mostly-Democratic district had participated in the Democratic primary to vote against McKinney in revenge for her anti-Bush administration views and implied voter fraud. However, Georgia's election laws do not require voters to claim a political party when they register to vote, thus they can participate in whichever primary election they choose.

McKinney's controversial statements regarding 9/11 are widely considered to have led to her defeat. McKinney's reported support of Palestinian causes and her anti-Israel stance also drew the ire of pro-Israel lobbying groups, who donated money to Majette during the primary. On the night before the primary election, McKinney's father stated on Atlanta television that "Jews have bought everyone" in the election.

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynthia_McKinney).

Furthermore, censuring does not get one kicked out of Congress. But that doesn't matter, because she was never censured anyway. She served 3 full terms, from 1997 to 2003, when fellow dem Denise Majette beat her in the 2002 primary and then assumed office in january 2003. The woman who beat her declined to run again so she could run for zell miller's senate seat. So she was not "promptly elected back in" from being kicked out of anything. She lost... and only won a new term because the woman who beat her declined to run again. What a victory that was!

Didn't you read what you responded to or are you that intent on attacking republicans you didn't bother?

I read it, and figured it must be a separate incident from that which I rememberd.

Meanwhile, in what way did I attack Republicans? Methinks you are a little paranoid. I was laughing about a political situation, without regard to partisan politics.

She was not kicked out. She lost the primary.

Indeed. Apparently, what I had heard at the time was wrong.

Furthermore, censuring does not get one kicked out of Congress.'

It *can*, although it does not necessarily do so. As I had heard at the time, this is what had happened. *shrug*

It *can*, although it does not necessarily do so. As I had heard at the time, this is what had happened. *shrug*
That you mentioned twice she you thought she was kicked out for bush bashing was, i thought an intended cheap dig at the party. If i misinterpretted, i apologize.

Censure, though, is a separate process from removal from office. Censuring can never by itself lead to removal from Congress or any public office, only an expulsion proceeding may do that. Censure's just a public reprimand. The underlyling events which led to the censure, may serve as the basis for an expulsion proceeding to remove someone from office... but the two really aren't used together. It's kind of like kicking the horse after you shoot it.

I thought she was the poster-child democrat? It seems to ne that NOW and NAACP were quick to respond with support - they have both also had her speak or participate quite often.

I thought she was the poster-child democrat? It seems to ne that NOW and NAACP were quick to respond with support - they have both also had her speak or participate quite often.

Evidence?

Before you weasel:

1) Evidence that someone who lost her seat in a Democratic primary is "the poster-child democrat."

2) Evidence that NOW has responded to the latest incident with support of McKinney.

3) Evidence that the NAACP has responded to the latest incident with support of McKinney.

Evidence?
Well, I found nothing on the NOW website...

Perhaps the poster is confusing the NAACP with the Rainbow/PUSH coalition, a.k.a. Jesse Jackson's alter-ego, which has been part of most of her press conference and had "portrayed the incident as part of a larger effort by McKinney's political opponents to bring her down."
Source (http://www.ajc.com/services/content/metro/dekalb/stories/0404metmckinney.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=13).

She should really shut her flapping yapper and get back to work. I'm getting tired of looking at her wild koo-koo koogily eyeballs rolling around and her stacked hairdo wobbling. Dopey douchebag.


This is the best description of her yet. I saw the interview she did on CNN. I thought that she had the same look as Charles Manson. That vacant insane stare out into nothing. She is insane I hope she is outta office soon.

Evidence?

Before you weasel:

1) Evidence that someone who lost her seat in a Democratic primary is "the poster-child democrat."

2) Evidence that NOW has responded to the latest incident with support of McKinney.

3) Evidence that the NAACP has responded to the latest incident with support of McKinney.

I have heard many reports of "NAACP" and "NOW" representitives at her latest press conference. A few blogs online even mention this fact. I guess prove they werent there. I have heard differently.

Evidence?

Before you weasel:

1) Evidence that someone who lost her seat in a Democratic primary is "the poster-child democrat."

2) Evidence that NOW has responded to the latest incident with support of McKinney.

3) Evidence that the NAACP has responded to the latest incident with support of McKinney.


Weasel - harsh words from a pussy cat. I hope you finally moved out from your glass house.

I hear crow goes well with a touch of ginger and teriyaki. Bon-appetite.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/31/mckinney.police/index.html?section=cnn_latest

"Representatives of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and National Organization for Women also spoke on McKinney's behalf."

Even your good friend, Harry Belafonte, was there.

I wonder, based on this link, what kind of negro you and Mr. B would consider her to be?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10680327&postcount=128

Weasel - harsh words from a pussy cat. I hope you finally moved out from your glass house.

I hear crow goes well with a touch of ginger and teriaki. Bon-appetit.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/31/mckinney.police/index.html?section=cnn_latest

"Representatives of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and National Organization for Women also spoke on McKinney's behalf."

Even your good friend, Harry Belafonte, was there.

I wonder, based on this link, what kind of negro you and Mr. B would consider her to be?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10680327&postcount=128

1. I'm glad to see you can finally back up a wild assertion with some evidence. Of course, the article says Glover and Belafonte were there but expressly did not comment on the latest incident. The article does not tell us the substance of the representatives of NOW and NAACP comments. Nonetheless, I will admit there was merit to your assertion. I was wrong in assuming you had no basis for your assertion.

See, it it is possible to admit one was wrong.

2. You don't understand the concept of house negro at all do you? You can read the words but you don't understand them. It has less to do with race of the the person concerned and more with the betrayal of their own kind.

1. I'm glad to see you can finally back up a wild assertion with some evidence. Of course, the article says Glover and Belafonte were there but expressly did not comment on the latest incident. The article does not tell us the substance of the representatives of NOW and NAACP comments. Nonetheless, I will admit there was merit to your assertion. I was wrong in assuming you had no basis for your assertion.

See, it it is possible to admit one was wrong.

(-recognizes Cat's stock going up a few points... respect stirring within)



2. You don't understand the concept of house negro at all do you? You can read the words but you don't understand them. It has less to do with race of the the person concerned and more with the betrayal of their own kind.

I added the bold. Having a non-conforming opinion is betrayal of one's own kind? Some would call that a free-thinker. Isn't THAT what the 'progressive' movement is supposed to be about?
(-shorts Cat's stock)

I added the bold. Having a non-conforming opinion is betrayal of one's own kind? Some would call that a free-thinker. Isn't THAT what the 'progressive' movement is supposed to be about?
(-shorts Cat's stock)

Who said anyone with a non-conforming opinion is betraying their own kind? Only you.

Again, you have the full quotes from Malcom X concerning this subject. Read them again. In the meantime, it is rather surreal to discuss the concept out of context. This has nothing to do with Rep. McKinney.

Who said anyone with a non-conforming opinion is betraying their own kind? Only you.

Again, you have the full quotes from Malcom X concerning this subject. Read them again. In the meantime, it is rather surreal to discuss the concept out of context. This has nothing to do with Rep. McKinney.

You are right - it belongs in the other thread. Ressurect it if you wish and I'll join you there later. I'm through discussing it here.

So our current president launched an illegal war against Iraq that killed tens of thousands of innocent people, attempted to overthrow two democratically-elected governments, and has declared that he can do whatever he wants against any US citizen he declares an "enemy combatant," yet the politician savagely attacked by the media for "violating the law" is one of the very few members of Congress who has repeatedly and harshly spoken up on every one of those issues?

Cynthia McKinney is probably my favorite Congressmember, and she remains so. May she continue to serve as well as she has.

That you mentioned twice she you thought she was kicked out for bush bashing was, i thought an intended cheap dig at the party. If i misinterpretted, i apologize.

No, although it was a bit of a dig at the political process in general. After her comments, McKinney became a bit of a pariah in Washington - regardless of party affiliation. She lost quite a bit of support from Democrats, who immediately sought to distance themselves from her, and certainly was not loved by the Republicans even before then. She was also apparently referred to a House committee that never officially censured her, but seems to have effectively done so under the table.

The woman seems a bit over-the-top to me, but I also don't doubt that she is often blown out of proportion for political gains of others.

So our current president launched an illegal war against Iraq that killed tens of thousands of innocent people, attempted to overthrow two democratically-elected governments, and has declared that he can do whatever he wants against any US citizen he declares an "enemy combatant," yet the politician savagely attacked by the media for "violating the law" is one of the very few members of Congress who has repeatedly and harshly spoken up on every one of those issues?

Cynthia McKinney is probably my favorite Congressmember, and she remains so. May she continue to serve as well as she has.

Wow...

What color is the sky on the planet you live on?

Wow...

What color is the sky on the planet you live on?

It varies, depending on the time of day. Though perhaps your sky is different, I fear that it is not blackwhite.

And to think all that she had to do to avoid all this was to stop and produce I.D., or to wear her badge that everyone else BUT her had no problem wearing, and the security guard would have let her go on her merry way.... Attempting to turn it into a race issue was when it pretty obviously was not one was an extremely stupid thing to do and very probably indicates that she is a racist herself. This whole thing now going on will probably just reinforce that paranoia that she so obviously has.

And to think all that she had to do to avoid all this was to stop and produce I.D., or to wear her badge that everyone else BUT her had no problem wearing, and the security guard would have let her go on her merry way.... Attempting to turn it into a race issue was when it pretty obviously was not one was an extremely stupid thing to do and very probably indicates that she is a racist herself. This whole thing now going on will probably just reinforce that paranoia that she so obviously has.

And, of course, she couldn't possibly be telling the truth, right? After all, there is never any racism or sexism in our society.

And, of course, she couldn't possibly be telling the truth, right? After all, there is never any racism or sexism in our society.
I dont see how in the current setup ... all thoes that entered should and were screened for their ID badge

Please show us how they discriminated against her for either her race or sex

It exists in society yes that does not mean it exists in this situation

And, of course, she couldn't possibly be telling the truth, right? After all, there is never any racism or sexism in our society.

This aint the sixties, or Selma, Alabama we're talking about here. Washington D.C., present day. Are you actually asserting that even if she did flash her badge, that the security guard would have probably just beaten her anyway? If that is as you are saying, then you are as paranoid and delusional as she is.

I dont see how in the current setup ... all thoes that entered should and were screened for their ID badge

Please show us how they discriminated against her for either her race or sex

It exists in society yes that does not mean it exists in this situation

McKinney argued with a police officer who did not recognize her as she entered a House office building. Police said McKinney struck the officer as he tried to stop her. McKinney said she acted in self-defense after the officer ''inappropriately touched'' her. In interviews, she has repeatedly blamed racial profiling for the scuffle.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-McKinneys-Image.html?_r=1&oref=login

Your argument only makes sense if you accept beforehand that she is lying, and that her sole motive was the fact that the police officer was preventing her from entering the building.

This aint the sixties, or Selma, Alabama we're talking about here. Washington D.C., present day. Are you actually asserting that even if she did flash her badge, that the security guard would have probably just beaten her anyway? If that is as you are saying, then you are as paranoid and delusional as she is.
Well there has been crazier shit to happen before but you are right at pointing out it is not likly

though ya dont really have to go back to the 60's to see that sort of shit either

I just dont see it in this situation at all

McKinney argued with a police officer who did not recognize her as she entered a House office building. Police said McKinney struck the officer as he tried to stop her. McKinney said she acted in self-defense after the officer ''inappropriately touched'' her. In interviews, she has repeatedly blamed racial profiling for the scuffle.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-McKinneys-Image.html?_r=1&oref=login

Your argument only makes sense if you accept beforehand that she is lying, and that her sole motive was the fact that the police officer was preventing her from entering the building.
As yours only makes sense if you accept before hand that the officer is lying ...

As yours only makes sense if you accept before hand that the officer is lying ...

Which is a possibility, is it not?

Note that I never claimed to know what happened in this particular event, and in fact made no argument advocating one side or the other.

Which is a possibility, is it not?

Note that I never claimed to know what happened in this particular event, and in fact made no argument advocating one side or the other.

I might buy that if she hadn't been the aggressor. The fact that she lost her temper and hit him, and admits it, most assuredly makes it look as though she is just engaging in a most despicable act of self-preservation, that is, playing the race card just to get her sorry butt out of trouble.

I might buy that if she hadn't been the aggressor.

Again, you assume that she is lying. If the police officer did in fact "inappropriately touch" her, then she was not the aggressor.

Which is a possibility, is it not?

Note that I never claimed to know what happened in this particular event, and in fact made no argument advocating one side or the other.
I agree but with her clearly lacking her proper ID and weighing the probablities ... not sure this guy would be trying to sexualy harass her in public as well

I am sure it happens but the chanse he felt like "inapropreatly" touching here in that city at that time in public

I just find it more likley that he was at least mostly tellin the truth

Again, you assume that she is lying. If the police officer did in fact "inappropriately touch" her, then she was not the aggressor.
No but what are the chanses he would try to pull that in public ? really specialy with her missing her badge

I mean I understand it could happen ... I have stated that in previous posts. But in the end if it a battle of "words" what is the most probable

No but what are the chanses he would try to pull that in public ? really specialy with her missing her badge

I mean I understand it could happen ... I have stated that in previous posts. But in the end if it a battle of "words" what is the most probable

There's a video somewhere. I assume what actually happened will come out eventually, if she is in fact charged, and I will form an opinion when more details about this particular aspect are clarified.

Regardless, I find the whole media show to be abhorrent.

There's a video somewhere. I assume what actually happened will come out eventually, if she is in fact charged, and I will form an opinion when more details about this particular aspect are clarified.

Regardless, I find the whole media show to be abhorrent.
Well to that I can agree :fluffle:

Again, you assume that she is lying. If the police officer did in fact "inappropriately touch" her, then she was not the aggressor.

If that were indeed the case, wouldn't she have just reported the incident? Then she would have gotten her revenge (he'd have lost his job at the very least, she's a congresswoman, for God's sakes!) and made herself a cause celebre to boot. She did not even initially say he had touched her "inappropriately". That came out later.

http://www.11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=77991

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/0401metmckinney.html

And even more telling is her original post to her website. Notice how this completely clashes with her later account of the incident.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/8361195/detail.html

As yours only makes sense if you accept before hand that the officer is lying ...

knowing law enforcement in dc, this should technically be the standard operating assumption

And even more telling is her original post to her website. Notice how this completely clashes with her later account of the incident.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/8361195/detail.html

No, it does not.

It does not use the term "inappropriate." That is the only difference.

No, it does not.

It does not use the term "inappropriate." That is the only difference.

I think it does. In any case, it ought to be interesting to see how it unfolds. I read somewhere that there is video of the incident. That ought to settle it, once it goes to court..

I think it does. In any case, it ought to be interesting to see how it unfolds. I read somewhere that there is video of the incident. That ought to settle it, once it goes to court..

The other statement she made blamed the incident on the officer's "inappropriate touching and stopping." So does this statement, only it omits the term "inappropriate" (though by the language she uses it's pretty much implied.)

McKinney argued with a police officer who did not recognize her as she entered a House office building. Police said McKinney struck the officer as he tried to stop her. McKinney said she acted in self-defense after the officer ''inappropriately touched'' her. In interviews, she has repeatedly blamed racial profiling for the scuffle.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-McKinneys-Image.html?_r=1&oref=login

Your argument only makes sense if you accept beforehand that she is lying, and that her sole motive was the fact that the police officer was preventing her from entering the building.

Except she doesn't say the officer hit her or any such thing. He grabbed her arm, she thought it was inappropriate and she hit him. Plain and simple, no matter what color she is or what sex, she is not permitted to do so. You cannot hit a cop who is restraining you, whether he is right or wrong to do so. I'm quite certain he didn't recognize her, but if you have evidence otherwise, please offer it.

If he didn't recognize her and she wasn't wearing identification then he is SUPPOSED to stop her from entering the building. It's the very reason he is there.

If he did recognize her, does anyone think this officer that, if he wanted to, could simply abuse black women that are not congresswomen, decided abusing a congresswoman was the best course of action? It doesn't make any sense other than the way the officer told it.

Regardless, the officer attempted to legally restrained an unidentified woman entering the capitol building and that woman hit him. It's cut-and-dried whether the officer was wrong or not, she is clearly in the wrong here.

Again, you assume that she is lying. If the police officer did in fact "inappropriately touch" her, then she was not the aggressor.

She is referring to him grabbing her. According to the chief both people only claim he tried to prevent her from entering and she hit him. When she uses that term, she is simply trying to obscure the fact that she is talking about him grabbing her arm and her deeming it to be inappropriate.

The fact is that we do not get to decide that an officer is not supposed to restrain us and hit him. It's against the law to do so. We all get our day in court and unless the officer is threatening our safety we have no right to retaliate. There is no part of her claim or his that suggests her safety was ever in question and one has to really stretch to make this about that.

knowing law enforcement in dc, this should technically be the standard operating assumption

As compared to a politician?

If that were indeed the case, wouldn't she have just reported the incident? Then she would have gotten her revenge (he'd have lost his job at the very least, she's a congresswoman, for God's sakes!) and made herself a cause celebre to boot. She did not even initially say he had touched her "inappropriately". That came out later.

http://www.11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=77991

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/0401metmckinney.html

And even more telling is her original post to her website. Notice how this completely clashes with her later account of the incident.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/8361195/detail.html

Her own statement is that he bodyblocked her to prevent her from entering until she identified herself and then let her go on her way. That's his job. Now she adds the word 'inappropriate' to make it sound like he molested her. She is not allowed to strike an officer, for any reason except self-preservation, and she makes no claim that self-preservation was necessary in her own statement.

Seriously, it's amazing how some individuals want this to be something it's not so badly that they ignore ALL evidence to the contrary.

The officer does not deny stopping her. He does not deny not recognizing her. She doesn't say he does recognize her, only that he should. There stories match except she thinks hitting the officer is justified and the law says it isn't. That's all.

No one is lying. She's just wrong and now she is trying to use language to invoke images of molestation rather than an officer simply stopping her and asking for identification.

As compared to a politician?


well, my first reaction was,
you know, i can't figure out whose side i'm on - i hate politicians, but i also hate security guards. i guess we'll have to call it a draw.

well, my first reaction was,

I know. I'm just wondering who you consider to be the bigger, and more consistent, liars of the two.

I know. I'm just wondering who you consider to be the bigger, and more consistent, liars of the two.

The problem here is there isn't really any disagreement. She admits to pushing or hitting the officer. Her own statement says he was just attempting to deny her entrance to the building. Her beef is that he didn't recognize her and that he should. His claim is that he didn't recognize her. There really isn't an issue of lying. Well, not initially anyway. She's just simply wrong. She thinks his failure to recognize her justifies her actions and it does not. It's quite simple.

The problem here is there isn't really any disagreement. She admits to pushing or hitting the officer. Her own statement says he was just attempting to deny her entrance to the building. Her beef is that he didn't recognize her and that he should. His claim is that he didn't recognize her. There really isn't an issue of lying. Well, not initially anyway. She's just simply wrong. She thinks his failure to recognize her justifies her actions and it does not. It's quite simple.

I agree fully. The woman is squirrel bait. I'm just asking FS his opinion.

Now, after realizing nobody is supporting her and she'll most likely be indicted, she's "apologizing".

How convienent.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060406/ap_on_go_co/mckinney_scuffle

McKinney Apologizes for Incident With Cop

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 9 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga., expressed "sincere regret" Thursday for her altercation with a Capitol police officer, and offered an apology to the House.


"There should not have been any physical contact in this incident," McKinney said in brief remarks on the House floor. "I am sorry that this misunderstanding happened at all and I regret its escalation and I apologize."

McKinney's comments came after the case had been referred to a federal grand jury for possible prosecution.

I know. I'm just wondering who you consider to be the bigger, and more consistent, liars of the two.

it's a difficult choice. they both lie because it's in their job descriptions. i guess, if forced, i'd take the word of a cop over the word of a politician. but without better evidence to go on, i'd really only take it as being slightly more likely to be closer to the truth.

I'm not one to judge a book by it's cover, but she DOES like crazy. I don't know the deatails and I await the video. I just hope this doesn't turn into a "look! Dems are crazy!" issue. There is no string of incidents involving Dem congresscritters smacking police.

Corruption, bribery, and obstruction of justice from the other side of the isle, on the other hand...