In The Sex- Neutral, Color-Blind society Democrats want so bad, Cynthia McKinney would Be In Jail!!

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 11:30 AM
link   
It was only a matter of time. I'm sure it won't be long until her apologies turn into groveling. I bet she does regret the escalation. She's the escalator operator and the only rider on the escalator at the same time.




McKinney Apologizes for Incident With Cop

"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."




posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   
I'm agreeing with you entirely to much. This is getting to be a bad trend.!!! I'll have to watch myself closer.

Seriously though..I agree with you again.

The people who complain about this stuff being done to them use it themselves..as I stated earlier not leadership material.

Loam you posted:


Originally posted by orangetom1999
The capitol police are responsible for security..not politics/privelege.


Originally posted by Loam
Then I think you missed the point... THERE IS NO SECURITY based on how things are currently done.


No I didnt miss the point. As I recall it was about ...lets wait till all the evidence is in...was that not the point.??? Is that what you are doing in your threads????

This Cynthia McKinney is not part of the security apparatus..she is running a totally seperate security apparatus? NOt accountable to the security people or leaders???? Is that whats happening??

This has been politics not security. At least most of the rest of the members have enough common sense to keep their mouths shut. Thank Goodness.
Loam ..there are people out here who know what a Queen Bee looks like..even in the media spin...male or female. WE dont have much use or respect for it. Nor is the media a Queen Bee to us either. The media too is not above our criticism or scorn.


Thanks,
Orangetom


Mod Note: How to Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 6-4-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Hmm...now can she apologize to the poor sap she punched? Can she suck back all the racist/sexist rhetoric? Well, of course not. Even I think that's too much to ask. But an apology in person to that guard would be a great start.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
Let's see there are currently 435 members in the House of Representatives. Are these security guards supposed to remember every single one of them?


Yes.

I'm sorry, but some of my lecturers at College teach more than 500 students. Normally doing one-hour-thirty-minutes, with 60 of us, one a week. If they're able to know our names a security guard who should see these people twice a day, five days a week should be able too. Especailly if they had done it before.

However the real issue is - how did this woman:

Beat up a security guard? Let's be honest, if they can't take care of her let's hope no terrorists ever bother to try and kill them off.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Odium, I dont think that is fair...

She didn't take him out, or beat him up...

she violated the law, pure and simple...
if she hadn't violated the law, she MIGHT have been able to play the race/harrasment card...

as it is, she is just trying to justify her angry (and shortsighted) behavior, and avoid prosecution...

She recently changed her hair style (I can change mine to look like elvis
)
she wasn't wearing her pin
she didn't even say anything like "i am a congresswoman" before she hit him.

Personally, I dont want people being let in, on personal recognition only...
In fact, why dont they run metal detectors on all congress people anyway...
who says they are immune to sneaking something in (perhaps unknowingly)?

In post 9-11 era, it is stupid to allow you can walk into congress on recognition alone.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 02:36 PM
link   
One crime was corruption, slime which is a blight to america. The other one was a bit of a confusion of a police officer not knowing who she was (and she didn't declare herself), touching her in a way that was thought to be inapropriate and geting slaped.

Not all crimes are equal, geting a parking ticket isn't quite the same as using undocumented workers.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   
I notice that no one replied to me.

I asked a serious question about the 'hairstyle excuse.'

But, since no one is replying to me, I might as well ask a few more questions: What is with this "race card?" Why is it that ANY TIME a black person says "racism," their claim is dismissed immediately?

Do the McKinney- bashers EVER admit, yeah, what was racist? Or, can I safely assume that all of them, including people who never agree on anything else, are just ganging up on her?

And, now that we're invalidating others' experiences, when do I get to tell people to stop playing the "Holocaust card?"




posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Okay, Hottie since you seem so incensed with getting a response to your first post, I'll give it a shot.


Originally posted by HarlemHottie
And people say racism is dead...


The only people who keep insisting it's alive are those who have a vested interest in KEEPING it alive.


I saw her on CNN with Wolf Blitzer on Tues., and he, too, and brought up the issue of her change of hairstyle.


That, in my opinion, puts him right up there with Larry King. "So, what IS your favorite ice cream anyway?"


My first thought was, Don't white women change their hair? (Of course)


Yes, they do, and when they do, WHITE MEN have to do a double-take.


The second, Damn, do we all really all look alike to white people? (I don't think so, but how else can you explain this rather shabby defense?


What's so shabby about it? The first thing I notice about my friends is whether or not they still HAVE hair!


To me, what Wolf seemed to be implying was that they hadn't actually used her face for identification, they had used her hair. This can't be true. Could someone please explain this?


The fact is, they shouldn't have used her face OR her hair...they should have used her ID!


And, in reference to the oft-repeated excuse that one couldn't possibly remember all 435 members, BS.

Did you know everyone in your highschool?


I knew six...maybe seven people in my high school, not including my teachers and the principal. Did you know everyone in YOUR highschool?


Sixteen year old Congressional pages are required to recognize all 435 of them by face, and to know their names,


We have Sixteen-year-old pages working in the Nations Capitol?


so, until we establish that the Capitol Police are as inept and incompetant as our Chimp-in-Chief,


This pretty much sums up your viewpoint. You should have started with this line and saved us a lot of spare reading.


they should be held, at the very least, to the same standards as the interns.


There's a difference between a page and an intern. Check it out.


*shakes head in complete and total disgust*


Me too, but only from my headache!






posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 07:55 PM
link   
I find it incredible that some here would characterize the police, or their actions, as stupid. There is no way that those statements are defensible.

People can try to sidetrack the main issue with page-long referneces to The Hill,, or whether or not lapel pins and/or passing through metal detectors are necessary, or referencing a notice and picture placed 13 years ago advising the police to please recognize this lady.

Throw out the race card argument. It is also without merit.

Personally, if I were the head of security there, I'd make it a hard and fast rule that everyone wear their ID pin and pass through the metal detectors. Facial recognition is not an adequate method of recognition; for one, it doesn't take into account new officers who may be unfamiliar with most members.

No, the main issue here is the assault that Ms. McKinney committed. Now, apparently, there are two eyewitnesses ready and willing to come forward and support the officer's rendition of the facts. This is probably the real reason for her insincere, vague apology.

Assault is the issue that she has to face. And given her past, she should get the maximum penalty, imo.



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Wait...

Just to clear this up, is it assault or battery? Because there is a difference between the two of them. If it is battery [ or aggravated assault] or just assault? To be fair, assault can consist of me patting you on the back or in fact any act which involves me touching another person against their will resulting in actual or percieved physical harm.

Assault could consist of her waving her bag around her head and claiming she'd kill him. Furthermore, many aspects of assault are not a felony and thus are a civil matter [which is why she'd not be in jail.] Also, it is now being defined as a "scuffle" and the media is reporting it as a single strike with her mobile phone.

You also all over-look the fact members of congress do not go through the metal detectors[1]. Along with the fact the prior to this the security guards have mistaken her white-23 year old aid as being the congress woman. Along with the fact she makes a point of not wearing her security badge and it's publically known - so clearly those who voted for her, know she won't wear it and want her not to have to wear it.

The odd thing is about it all, is her stand. People seem to over-look which groups she works with, what bills she has tried to place into power. The whole 9/11 view she holds - this can be used as a fantastic way to discredit her and after all this is meant to be a conspiracy website.

[1]http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060330-120057-3228r



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 08:47 PM
link   
double post

[edit on 6-4-2006 by jsobecky]



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Wait...

Just to clear this up, is it assault or battery? Because there is a difference between the two of them.

Whatever. That's a point for the lawyers to sort out. Here, it is merely another attempt at sidetracking the issue.


You also all over-look the fact members of congress do not go through the metal detectors[1]. Along with the fact the prior to this the security guards have mistaken her white-23 year old aid as being the congress woman.

I did not overlook it. I have already stated that those are deflection tactics, inserted to take the focus off the real issue.



The odd thing is about it all, is her stand. People seem to over-look which groups she works with, what bills she has tried to place into power. The whole 9/11 view she holds - this can be used as a fantastic way to discredit her and after all this is meant to be a conspiracy website.

So the fact that she may have passed a decent bill gives her the right to strike an officer?



posted on Apr, 6 2006 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Well. Odium, I'd say that they're still figuring out the "Who's, What's, Why's, and Where's" of this whole incident, since nobody has actually been cited with anything. Just keep watching the web...and keep us posted!



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally quoted by El senor Pom pom
Not sure if your talking about me or not but all of my judgements were made AFTER watching her LIVE interview on CNN and looking at the Photo Comparison on TDS. So yeah... I made an unbiased(seeing as i am a left leaning Independant) observation. I knew nothing about her past run-ins with the Bush Administration..and while its nice that she has come out and challenged the Administration. What she is doing is just a micro-examaple of the Macro-problem. All government officials, or rather most since using words like all and never are counter-intuitive, feel/believe they are above the law. the problem is She broke the law and is unwilling to except the consequences.


El senor Pom pom, I was referring to your post because it described the very same things that I talked about in my post. I could understand if you were talking about the policies of Ms. McKinney, but you weren't. Your post, imho, sounded like something that Neal Boortz said, when referring to her as "ghetto trash". You reverted to what HarlemHottie was trying to explain in her post: denigrating an African-American woman by her looks.

It frustrates me that some of the comments complaining that Ms. McKinney "uses the race card", some of the commentators forgot they were doing the same. Or was it all right to dehumanize her when she has a legitimate right to complain? After all, she was not being "recognized" over and over.

But then again, I saw that when you viewed The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and he was using her looks as a comedy routine, I could only figure that you were just as susceptible to putting her down in the same way. Because of that, I don't really think that you were being unbiased in your attempt. It was as if you were just falling into the same camp as the others who "accuse" her of the "race card".

I see from your latest post that you did change your mind. For that, I commend you. However, I do not agree with your statement that everyone here at ATS is okay with a government official breaking the law (that is what you meant by G.O., yes?). I'm not. And I especially replied in my post that her behavior was not excusable.

Generally:

I can only say, that it frustrates me how easy it is for people to use comments like "Black Crack Hoe", 'idiot", "nut" and "crazy" as well as giving tips about "how a Congresswoman is supposed to dress" when in the same breath, they are saying what a "racist, sexist" person she is. I just want to ask, "Are they actually saying what they think about African-American women (if, not people in general) or are they just being hypocritical only for this post?" What frustrates me more is the fact that some commentators can feel as if they are both the "fashion police" and the "behavior police" when in the same breath, they would not know how to act in the same way.

We can talk about this situation at a distance. But unfortunately, no one knows how they would act on impulse.

No wonder Ms. McKinney is mad. Heck. How would you feel if some officer grabbed you inappropriately(No one ever said how he grabbed her.)? Let's say the cop, feeling his oats, grabbed your buttocks while trying to catch you. He's thinking, "You're no better than me. How dare you walk past me thinking that you're 'uppity'. I'm going to teach you a lesson."(After all, who knows what he was thinking?) Would your "fight or flight" instincts take over? Would you swing around to hit him? Or would you just smile, and say, "Thank you, may I have another?"

The problem here I see is that no one in this thread has ever had the experience of people clutching their purses as they walk by. Or, in a mall, a security guard following you for half a mile? Or getting separated from the rest of a flight and have a "special pat down" while the rest of the passengers wait. If these things happened to you on a regular basis, you might want to be angry too. You might want to act like a nut. Heck, you might even feel nuts.

I'm sorry the gloves are off on this post. Usually, I am a very considerate, tolerant and kind person. In fact, I love people. But, I can't stand it when a group of people who have no concept of a person of color's experience with the law do a verbal beatdown on one, little African-American woman. Ms. McKinney deserves dignity--which some of the naysayers will not give.






[edit on 7-4-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 06:58 AM
link   
She is a racist for crying out loud. Even worse is the fact that she has a 67 IQ. She is right about racism and she proves it by daily making up stories about white people who could care less about her psycho world. Considering how many times she poped up on the tube these past few day's proves you do get around a whole bunch better if you are black and pretend a cop socked you.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
was it all right to dehumanize her when she has a legitimate right to complain? After all, she was not being "recognized" over and over.

She had no right to complain. SHE is the one who didn't follow the
rules. SHE is the one that 'forgets' her ID. Others who forget their
ID have no problem walking through a metal detector. It's no big
deal. She could have done it. AND as far as her complaining about
'not being recognized' .. facial recognition isn't the only criteria for
entrance to the Capitol without going through the metal detectors.
ID is required. It's the law. She shouldn't be above the law simply
because she's a black woman.


"Are they actually saying what they think about African-American women (if, not people in general)


Where did you see 'all black women are nutz'?? No where. This is
about McKinney alone. That is obvious.


Heck. How would you feel if some officer grabbed you inappropriately(No one ever said how he grabbed her

She claims she was grabbed inappropriately. However, when questioned
on TV by reporters she refuses to say exactly how she was so
' inappropriately' grabbed. The Capitol security guard said that when
she refused his order to stop and come back to go through the metal
detectors that he grabbed her arm to stop her. That's minimal
restraint and has nothing to do with 'buttocks' as you brought up.


But, I can't stand it when a group of people who have no concept
of a person of color's experience with the law do a verbal beatdown on
one, little African-American woman.


She's not 'one little african-american woman'. She's a member of congress
who did not follow security rules in our nation's Capitol building. She is
a member of congress who struck a Capitol security guard for no good
reason. What other experiences she may or may not have had with
other law enforcement are not relevant. Her 'color experience' is not
relevant either.

It was a very simple rule to follow. It is there for a good reason.
She refused to follow it. She refused to do as all the others do when
they forget their ID ... a simple walk through a metal detector.
That's it. All the others do it. She shouldn't be exempt just because
she's a black female with a bad attitude.


Ms. McKinney deserves dignity--


WE THE PEOPLE deserve to have members of congress who will follow
the security rules that are in place. WE THE PEOPLE deserve to have
our security officers treated with dignity and to be obeyed. If the
TV is treating Ms. McKinney like a laughing stock, she has only herself
to blame.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Whatever. That's a point for the lawyers to sort out. Here, it is merely another attempt at sidetracking the issue.


Actually no, it's one of the most important issues. Battery involves actual physical harm being done, assault involves the touching of an unwilling party where harm could be done. Also the fact assault [unless aggrevated] isn't clased as a felony in many states of the U.S.


Originally posted by jsobecky
I did not overlook it. I have already stated that those are deflection tactics, inserted to take the focus off the real issue.


Nobody has said or proven this security guard was knew to the job, if this is a repeating event from the same guard - what do you expect?


Originally posted by jsobecky
So the fact that she may have passed a decent bill gives her the right to strike an officer?


No, the fact she's one of very few Congress officals to try and get all the MLK files, 9/11 Commission files, the fact she has spoken out about the Bush administration and their involvement with 9/11, etc, etc. We're meant to be on a conspiracy site, yet people desire not to evaluate things from every angle...come on.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Actually no, it's one of the most important issues.

In your mind, I'm sure it is, because you want to sidetrack the issue. The issue is that she struck the officer.



No, the fact she's one of very few Congress officals to try and get all the MLK files, 9/11 Commission files, the fact she has spoken out about the Bush administration and their involvement with 9/11, etc, etc. We're meant to be on a conspiracy site, yet people desire not to evaluate things from every angle...come on.

Another attempt at deflection. As I said, past performance is not a blank check for bad behavior. And just because this is a conspiracy site doesn't make this a conspiracy.

Back on topic:

Great post, FlyersFan! She has only herself to blame for this. It's incredible how people are scraping the bottom of the barrel for excuses to justify the fact that McKinney struck the officer.

You have voted FlyersFan for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.





posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by HarlemHottie
What is with this "race card?" Why is it that ANY TIME a black person says "racism," their claim is dismissed immediately?


Probably because people like Rep. McKinney. Have you ever heard about The Boy who Cried Wolf? His cries of "wolf" were answered at first, but since he kept using it to get attention this little tool was unavailable when it was really needed. The problem is that racism is real but we have people like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and now McKinney who love abusing this line and ruin it for others.

Basically everyone is sick of hearing it.



posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Flyersfan,

I will address your comments later, but I just wanted to let you know that yours and the subsequent posts just proved my point. People are willing to go below the belt to prove that this woman did the wrong thing because they refuse to see the other side of the situation. Or the fact, that they refuse to acknowledge their bigotry out in the open, but rather stay in the closet.

Enjoy your day.

HarlemHottie, this is for you:

You have voted HarlemHottie for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month


[edit on 7-4-2006 by ceci2006]





top topics
 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join