Cynthia McKinney website allows Racial Slurs

The re-election campaign website of US Rep. Cynthia McKinney, (D-GA), allows posters to use racial slurs in their portrayal of whites. McKinney has recently been in the news for striking a US Capitol Police officer for attempting to validate her identification, stating that the officer's actions were racially motivated.



People will attempt to post many offensive comments to websites. However, the owner of the website is ultimately responsible for what gets posted. Allowing these comments to remain on her website shows implicit approval by McKinney.

I have seen very offensive political comments, but never on a candidate's official relection website.

www.cynthiaforcongress.com...

[edit on 27-6-2006 by jsobecky]

I find this no surprise at all.

Her immediate response to any criticism is to invoke the racial cue card. A prime example of the refusal to admit any blame, or responsibility for her actions.

What ever is happening to her must, there for be because she is black, not because she is incompetent, a racist or an underachieved debutante.

Semper

And the anti-Cynthia roadshow carries on.

She is being demonized here, if she told her webmaster to edit out public comments she would be accused of censorship and all the other connotations that surround that slur.

Greg Palast is a very well known and well respected journalist. It was his comment that this storm in a teacup is being used to some how discredit Cynthia. The comment, is actually a jibe at Republican politicians, not at white people.

I personally dont find the term "cracker-crat" offensive but I can understand why some people do. It is a racial slur but it came from a white journalist, Greg Palast, not Cynthia.

It's really quite pathetic that this is being used to some how paint Cynthia in a bad light.

p.s. I voted for this story even though I disagree with it, remember that voters

[edit on 28/6/06 by subz]

Originally posted by subz
And the anti-Cynthia roadshow carries on.

She is being demonized here, if she told her webmaster to edit out public comments she would be accused of censorship and all the other connotations that surround that slur.

No she wouldn't. She would be recognized as not tolerating racial slurs on her website.

Only dingbats would cry censorship.

It's really quite pathetic that this is being used to some how paint Cynthia in a bad light.

No, it's pathetic that a politician would allow racial slurs on their re-election website. Who could she possibly be appealing to by tolerating those comments?

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by subz
And the anti-Cynthia roadshow carries on.

She is being demonized here, if she told her webmaster to edit out public comments she would be accused of censorship and all the other connotations that surround that slur.

No she wouldn't. She would be recognized as not tolerating racial slurs on her website.

Only dingbats would cry censorship.

You might want to reread that.

Allow the slurs--------- GUILTY!

Your words: "Only dingbats would cry censorship." ------------ GUILTY!

Man what have the States come to. :shk:

Well, here's a first. I agree with those who say she consistently plays the race card at any given opportunity. I think she's an arrogant ding bat.
I dont care what her political affiliation is, she's still a ding bat.

Originally posted by jsobecky
No she wouldn't. She would be recognized as not tolerating racial slurs on her website.

Only dingbats would cry censorship.

Are you sure the website is a private website? If it's a website paid for by public funds she would have no right to edit out an American citizens post. The terms "cracker-crat" and "oreo" are not illegal are they?

Originally posted by jsobecky
No, it's pathetic that a politician would allow racial slurs on their re-election website. Who could she possibly be appealing to by tolerating those comments?

How could she be appealing to some one with those comments? They are not her words, they were posted by a third party. If you have a problem here it is with Greg Palast.

Henry Kissinger is on the record saying that food should be used as a weapon against developing countries. That's a really evil thing to say, yet President Bush appoints this guy as the head of the 9/11 commission. Who's he appealing to by putting a genocidal war criminal on the 9/11 commission. If you believe in guilt by association what does that tell you about your beloved Prez?

Originally posted by dgtempe
Well, here's a first. I agree with those who say she consistently plays the race card at any given opportunity. I think she's an arrogant ding bat.
I dont care what her political affiliation is, she's still a ding bat.

Where has she played the race card here?

It's like you calling her a ding bat then SkepticOverlord or Springer is branded a ding-bat hater because your post wasnt removed. How is that logical?

Is this the same Cynthia McKinney who hit someone...you've heard that story?
If it is, after i saw her and heard her speak on tv, i say she appears very arrogant and she cried "Racist" then.

I dont know what you're talking about, Subz. Sorry i dont agree. Its ok not to agree once in awhile. Just an opinion-

Originally posted by dgtempe
I dont know what you're talking about, Subz. Sorry i dont agree. Its ok not to agree once in awhile. Just an opinion-

Hey, ofcourse I respect your opinion dgtempe

I know Cynthia cried race in that altercation with the Capitol Hill cop and I criticized that in the thread I started regarding the incident. Race has nothing to do with the victimization leveled at Cynthia McKinney. If a white woman said the things surrounding Iraq, 9/11 and the Bush administration she'd be targeted exactly the same.

But, in her defence, she hasnt played the race card in this story. She hasnt even opened her mouth. A white journalist posted an anti-republican diatribe on a website and Cynthia is being held accountable for what he wrote. How is that fair? That's all I am saying

Mod Edit: Quoting Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 28-6-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

Subz, i understand.

As far as the racial slurs on her website, i guess we should give her the benefit of the doubt. Who knows if she even is the keeper of that website, for that matter do we even know if she's very active on it???

My mother had a funny point of view about Cynthia: She said, that woman's changed her hairdo and now she thinks she's all that!!!

Originally posted by subz

Henry Kissinger is on the record saying that food should be used as a weapon against developing countries. That's a really evil thing to say, yet President Bush appoints this guy as the head of the 9/11 commission.

I don't find that an evil thing to say at all. Throughout the entire history of the United States food has never been used as a weapon by this country even though this country consistently produces more food than anywhere else in the world. To me it would make good sense to deny an enemy vital resources needed to prosecute a war.

Who's he appealing to by putting a genocidal war criminal on the 9/11 commission. If you believe in guilt by association what does that tell you about your beloved Prez?

For one, he appeals to me by such a move, HK is a very pragmatic diplomat. I don't believe Mr. Kissinger is a "genocidal war criminal", so even if I did believe in guilt by association it would tell me nothing about my beloved prez.



[edit on 28-6-2006 by Astronomer70]

Originally posted by subz
Are you sure the website is a private website? If it's a website paid for by public funds she would have no right to edit out an American citizens post.

She may not have the right, but she has the responsibility. I'm sure the owners would have acceded to her request to remove racial slurs.

Otherwise, she could have made a public statement distancing herself from the website. Her silence implies complicity.

The terms "cracker-crat" and "oreo" are not illegal are they?

Neither is dingbat.

Originally posted by jsobecky
No, it's pathetic that a politician would allow racial slurs on their re-election website. Who could she possibly be appealing to by tolerating those comments?

How could she be appealing to some one with those comments? They are not her words, they were posted by a third party. If you have a problem here it is with Greg Palast.

No, my problem is with a politician who allows her name to be associated with these racial slurs. See above.

For a day and a half, I have quietly read what people might say about this story. Although the author of the article clearly demonstrates subz's words of making this a "tempest in a teacup", in the spirit of First Amendment Rights it should be rightfully counted as an ATNNS story.

With that being said, I think that the author of the article cannot voice his own opinions about race. Therefore, he must use a scapegoat in his efforts to share his contempt for the Georgia Congresswoman. So much so, that he has to scrape the barrel to demonstrate that she is not worthy of the Grand Jury's ruling earlier in June.

In the spirit of his quest, I submit weighing who is the bigger racist in Congress. Is it Cynthia McKinney? Or is it Trent Lott? Let's see shall we?

Time Magazine in 2002 wrote about Mr. Lott's segregationist days at old Miss:

Trent Lott's Segregationist College Days
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott helped lead a successful battle to prevent his college fraternity from admitting blacks to any of its chapters, in a little-known incident now four decades old. At a time when racial issues were roiling campuses across the South, some chapters of Sigma Nu fraternity in the Northeast were considering admitting African-American members, a move that would have sent a powerful statement through the tradition-bound world of sororities and fraternities. At the time, Lott was president of the intra-fraternity council at the University of Mississippi. When the issue came to a head at Sigma Nu's national convention — known as a "Grand Chapter" — in the early 1960s, "Trent was one of the strongest leaders in resisting the integration of the national fraternity in any of the chapters," recalls former CNN President Tom Johnson, then a Sigma Nu member at the University of Georgia.
[...]
Lott has been under fire since last week, when he declared that his state was proud to have voted for Strom Thurmond's segregationist ticket in 1948. "And if the rest of the country had followed our lead," Lott added in remarks at Thurmond's 100th birthday party, "we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years either."

The Nation does a pretty good job of outlining the greatest exploits with race during his political career. To wit, we will highlight a few examples:

Trent Lott's "Uptown Klan"

* In 1978, after his election to the US House, Lott led a successful campaign to have the US citizenship of Jefferson Davis restored. Davis lost his citizenship when he became president of the Confederate States of America when southern states were in open revolt against the US government.
[...]
Despite the fact that he represents the state with the largest percentage of African-American citizens in the US, Lott has throughout his career been an active supporter of the Sons of the Confederacy, a group that celebrates the soldiers who fought to defend the "right" of Mississippians to own African-Americans as slaves." Lott even appears in recruitment videos for the group.
[...]
Lott gave the keynote address at a 1992 national executive board meeting of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a successor organization to the old white Citizens Councils, segregation-era groups the Southern Poverty Law Center refers to as "the white-collar Ku Klux Klan. The C of CC may have changed its name, but it remains a passionate "white racialist" group that condemns intermarriage, integration and immigration by non-whites.

Knowing his loyalty, it is not surprising that he was one of the first ones that got help from FEMA when Hurricane Katrina destroyed his house. Isn't it funny he didn't have to suffer while others lingered in Trailers or remained homeless after this terrible disaster:

Trent Lott
He successfully ran for the U.S. Senate in 1988, filling the seat formerly held by retiring John C. Stennis. He was re-elected in 1994 and 2000 with no substantive Democratic opposition. He gave some thought to retirement for much of 2005, especially after his house was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina (see below)He was among the first people to receive help from FEMA.

But before deciding who's a dingbat now, there's more to this ballad of Trent Lott in the next post.

[edit on 29-6-2006 by ceci2006]

While the jury is still out for some of you to decide who is the bigger racist in Congress, I submit to you other proof of Mr. Lott's deeds during his political career. This is a man who wants to be higher up in the Republican Leadership November of 2008.

I think that his endeavors say a lot more than what is published on Ms. McKinney's website. But alas, I digress.

Mr. Lott, when asked about what to do about the troops in Iraq, answered aptly in his usual manner. Mind you, this is the Congressional periodical The Hill:

GOP unity is strained by attacks
“Honestly, it’s a little tougher than I thought it was going to be,” Lott said. In a sign of frustration, he offered an unorthodox military solution: “If we have to, we just mow the whole place down, see what happens. You’re dealing with insane suicide bombers who are killing our people, and we need to be very aggressive in taking them out.”

Mow them down? Who's playing the race card now?

Before you think that Mr. Lott's association with the CCC is a myth, here's more about it:

The Reality of the United Statesmen: Trent Lott, Politics and the Council of Conservative Citizens

Trent Lott addressed the national conference of the CCC in Greenwood, Mississippi on April 11, 1992—as Senator, not while a member of the House of Representatives.[...]After urging those at the gathering to increase their recruiting efforts for the "conservative" cause, Lott concluded his address praising CCC members stating, "The people in this room stand for the right principles and the right philosophy. Let's take it in the right direction and our children will be the beneficiaries!"
[...]
According to their sources, Lott is "one of the leading political figures promoting the Neo-Confederate cause—a movement said to be filled with racism and other forms of bigotry."
[...]
Additionally, Mr. Lott is just one of many elected officials involved with the CCC who hold the same views. Rep. Bob Barr (R-Georgia) Gov. Kirk Fordice (R-Mississippi) and Gov. Guy Hunt (R-Alabama) just to name a few, have ties to the CCC. In fact, Bob Barr was the keynote speaker at the CCC's national conference last June, and was pictured in the group's newsletter, addressing the CCC’s governing board and posing with several CCC leaders.*

To be nonpartisan, I turned to OntheIssues.org to examine his stance on Civil Rights. Here is what the site said:

Trent Lott

* Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
* Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
* Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
* Voted NO on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)
* Voted YES on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)
* Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
* Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
* Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. (Dec 1995)
* Voted YES on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds. (Jul 1995)
* Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
* Rated 20% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)

In Counterpunch, Kendall Clark writes of how he perceives Mr. Lott's actions regarding his apology for what was said during Mr. Thurmond's birthday party:

The Real Distractions of Trent Lott
According to Lott's defenders and apologists, his critics are "overreacting" and "hurting America"; they "prevent Americans from focusing on important issues" and "obviously fail to understand Southern culture" or fail to understand "the informal context" of Lott's racist comments. Pat Buchanan said that Lott's comments were "innocuous"; Senator Shelby of Alabama even suggested that Lott shouldn't be "lynched".

Lott's critics would have been accused of race baiting, too, if his comments hadn't been so plain and so hateful. Lott's chief accomplishment so far is to have been so insensitive and crude that it was impossible for his defenders to accuse his critics of race baiting.[...]What lies behind this maddening spasm of unconvincing excuses and empty defenses is the idea that the material conditions of racism have withered under the harsh sun of racial reform. Lott and his defenders, indeed most Republicans and Democrats, suggest that racism is largely, if not entirely a thing of the past. Have you noticed that prominent white politicians are comfortable criticizing racism harshly only insofar as everyone consents to the idea that it's a thing of the past?

With this being said, I have a few things to say about the posting of this ATNNS article:

The author, when criticizing an article by Greg Palast posted on Ms. McKinney's website, should also be aware of others who also need to be mentioned as a comparison to the Georgia Congresswoman's deeds of "mentioning race".

Lest we forget, there are a few others that more appropriately wear the mantle of bigotry who hold high office in this country. Along with Mr. Lott, there is of course, Mr. Barbour, Mr. DeLay and of course, the past exploits of Mr. Barr--to name a few.

I suggest in all due fairness, that the author of this piece about Ms. McKinney channels his abilities to speak out about these other transgressors as well since he is so concerned about issues of race. If he is brave enough to highlight the transgressions of the Georgia Congresswoman, then he possesses the same sinew and courage when exposing this horrible epidemic of bias across the halls of the House and the Senate regardless of race.

I'm sure he will--if he takes up the challenge. But if not, his silence in being complicit with the behaviors of some politicians as opposed to others speaks loudly about his hypocritical approach to singling out Ms. McKinney and not thoroughly examining others who fall under these lines.

This thread is not about Trent Lott or Robert Byrd. It's about Cynthia McKinney. Nice try at deflection, though.

If you want to discuss other politicians, start your own thread.

I would also appreciate it if you would stop baiting and trolling with statements such as these:

I suggest in all due fairness, that the author of this piece about Ms. McKinney channels his abilities to speak out about these other transgressors as well since he is so concerned about issues of race. If he is brave enough to highlight the transgressions of the Georgia Congresswoman, then he possesses the same sinew and courage when exposing this horrible epidemic of bias across the halls of the House and the Senate regardless of race.

I'm sure he will--if he takes up the challenge. But if not, his silence in being complicit with the behaviors of some politicians as opposed to others speaks loudly about his hypocritical approach to singling out Ms. McKinney and not thoroughly examining others who fall under these lines.

It is not sidetracking the issue. Since the author declares that there is an epidemic of this racism in both Houses by mentioning Cynthia McKinney's faults, it is fair to examine the records of other politicians who share this common characteristic. To prove my point, I've chosen Mr. Lott.

It is the author that cannot take a challenge. It is the author who shamefully has to use an article by Greg Palast to claim Ms. McKinney is racist.

At least answer my question, if the author is brave enough.

Well, who is the bigger racist here? Ms. McKinney or Mr. Lott?

[edit on 29-6-2006 by ceci2006]

I'll have to concur with jsobecky,

What does Lott have to do with McKenny's racist website?

Semper

Originally posted by semperfortis
I'll have to concur with jsobecky,

What does Lott have to do with McKenny's racist website?

Semper

I, too agree with jsobecky. It's as if the argument is that McKinney is not the biggest racist in Congress so it's okay for her to simultaneously play the race card in one hand while dealing out racism with the other.

I wonder if Trent Lott or Robert Byrd ever tried to justify their criminal behavior (if any) by claiming reverse discrimination? If so, then you might have a point in dragging Lott into the debate. But as it stands Ceci2006, your attempt to inject a decade old story about Trent Lott into the debate is as transparent as glass. Maybe you could tell us exactly what it is about McKinney that makes you act this way? As far as I'm aware, both Robert Byrd and Trent Lott have done far more for their country than McKinney has ever even contemplated.

Also, I found your insertion of a tiny percentage of Lott's voting record into the debate to be laughable. In fact, you (apparently inadvertently) have shown Lott to at least be consistent and well representative of his constituency in the admittedly small number of his votes you displayed. Particularly amusing are the votes and statements about Affirmative Action. You yourself played the race card there. To you, it is apparent that anyone, anywhere that even entertains the notion that Affirmative Action may be wrong is de facto a racist.

Additionally, I think you might be surprised to see which other politicians voted the same way as Lott on some of those issues. I would wager that McKinney has concurred with Lott's view on at least some occasions, so you might want to watch who you're demonizing!

Harte

Originally posted by semperfortis

What does Lott have to do with McKenny's racist website?

Semper

So now the site is RACIST?......It's gone from 'allowing racist slurs' to being a racist website. That's quiet a leap there. Some might say a total streach of the truth. ( If one's argument needs to be bolstered by foolish exaggerations, if it cannot stand on it's own true facts, it needs to sit down.)

Did you even read the site?? I did. I even read the first page TWICE and did NOT find the phrase.........."The good ol' boy cracker-crats of the Republican Party are having themselves a regular hootenanny over allegations that Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney landed a punch on a security guard at the Capitol." ( did I just miss it or......

Could it be that the site manager DID remove the supposed offensive language??? Opps, that would mean your premise that 'racist slurs are allowed!!' was a bit premature......and no longer true.......not to mention the 'racist website' claim......sounds like Cynthia is not the only one who can go off half cocked on the 'racist card'.

PS> I believe the Oreo remark would have been directed at another AFRICAN AMERICAN woman.......and cracker-crats does not exactly qualify as a 'racial' slur.