Cynthia McKinney - Obama Buyer's Remorse

(I don't agree with her views but I still wanted to post this for those who hadn't seen it).

http://www.voxunion.com/?p=1085

Of late, I’m been approached by four types of voters: one voter type knew about our Power to the People campaign and enthusiastically supported it. They find themselves in the position of not wanting to say, “I told you so” too loudly, but certainly say it among themselves and to each other.

Increasingly, though, there’s another type of voter that is contacting me, expressing “Buyer’s Remorse” for having supported candidate Barack Obama. These voters can be futher subdivided into three categories: those who voted for Obama, not knowing very much about our Power to the People campaign; those who voted for Obama, knowing a lot about Rosa, me, and the Power to the People campaign, but who chose instead to vote for Obama out of fear of a McCain/Palin White House; and finally, those who knew about our Power to the People campaign and were hostile to it because they were suspicious that our campaign was designed to deny the White House to candidate Obama–the spoiler campaign. Fortunately and hopefully, because of the integrity with which we ran our campaign, those in this latter category are few in terms of their numbers in communication with me.

For me, the number of people contacting me expressing regret for having voted for Obama is a double-edged sword. That is, it indicates that prior to the election, we were not able to seal the deal with a significant number of our natural voters. There are many reasons for that, but being severely underfunded lies at the base of that failing. However, on the other hand, these expressions of “buyer’s remorse” indicate that people knowingly allowed themselves to be swept into the voting booth and vote against their values.

I am happy that more and more people are freely expressing their support for the platform of the Power to the People campaign. I am extremely happy that more and more people express their interest in supporting me in another political endeavor, be it another Congressional or White House run. I am particularly pleased that people are willing to explore the possibilities that politics outside the box of two-party conformity can provide. But I have to admit that I am saddened by the fact that so many people fail to understand that in the transaction of a political election, there is no warranty for “buyer’s remorse.” The crescendo of well-financed political propaganda is all geared toward achieving the desired result on election day and there is no denouement.

The desired result is to have as many voters as possible stay within the political confines of either of the two special interest parties because their candidates have already been vetted and have agreed to certain restrictions in the area of public policy. That’s why our Power to the People campaign was the only one talking about instituting full employment and a living wage, subsidizing education through college so that students would not have to take out loans to go to college, creating green jobs (like solar panel manufacture) in neighborhoods blighted by abandoned big box buildings, having former Comptroller of the U.S. David Walker perform audits of the companies that got bailout money, nationalizing the Federal Reserve, creating publicly owned neighborhood banks, thereby finally creating an economy that worked for the people instead of the special interests. And shutting down the military-industrial complex’s Empire America.

Our agenda provided a clear route to an end to torture, rendition for torture, warrantless wiretapping, spying on U.S. citizen activists, and an end to war. Not just an end to the war on terror, but a clear end to war and occupation. And now that the Obama Administration has used its Justice Department to argue in court in favor of those who ordered torture, and to defend Bush Administration policies of torture, rendition, warrantless wiretapping, and extra-legal treatment of so-called “enemy combatants,” most of whom have committed no crime (like six-year Guantanamo Prisoner number 345, Sami El-Hajj, who was on the Dignity with me as I tried to make it to Gaza). On these issues, the Obama Administration is consonant with the Bush Administration. No wonder Bush et al have more to worry about from the “small-d” democrats in Spain than from the “big-D” Democrats in Washington, DC.

she's entitled to her opinion, I choose not to read it.

""I choose not to read it""

Yes, Gawd forbid you choose to read something that might, just might get you to question your beliefs!! That's the way to stay edumacated, right?

Thankfully not everyone is so hard-headed. What she has to say makes a lot of sense in the light that some in our party do side with the slave owners against us slaves. Given who Ms. McKinney is and her history, she does have a better picture of the slave/slave-owner realities and she elucidates that vision well.

But you choose not to read it?? And some people wonder why this country is in such a mess....

only out to promote herself. I need not read her hit piece on the President. Since you don't know my history, I don't think you can tell me how her ramblings will open my eyes to anything. I hope whatever she writes educates you to the fullest! Enjoy!

Anyone who is not in the upper class is a 'loser'. And she speaks well for us losers. You don't want to hear any of it and you are so bold as to tell everyone, that it makes me wonder if you think you are one of the 'winners'.

not upper class? Cynthia was my congress person and is a nice person but she is not middle or lower class.

I almost voted for her in the General Election.

Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision he makes and should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens.

...not to read this.

Should I read diatribes by Glen Beck just because he questions my beliefs? Pol Pot? Timothy McVeigh?

No...I am not really comparing McKinney to the previous mentioned assholes, but why should I bother to read something that I will disagree with and will not convince me otherwise?

This country is in a mess for a lot of reasons...the least of which being some people not reading some hit piece by a kook.

""...should I bother to read something that I will disagree with""

That's a typical closed mind reaction. And McKinney is nowhere near your list of her opposites.

I read it and while I don't totally agree, she makes some good points. Read it and see for yourself.

...that McKinney is no where near the Pol Pot and Tim McViegh - but some of her rants (and I have read many of them) have been close to Glenn Beck in off kilter ridiculousness.

I did read the article...I was just being obtuse to make a point. Looks as though I failed...happens a lot.

She's a little out there on some issues, but she isn't advocating genocide. She's just got another point of view, and I think she's earned the right to be heard and have her views attended to.

LOL

whack job who needs to crawl back under her rock where she belongs. Why anyone still bothers to listen to her useless paranoid drivel gibberish is beyond me.

I wonder how she would have liked President McCain and VP Palin. Something tells me her simple mind doesn't even begin to grasp how different it would be and not in a good way. She's just one of those "celebs" who always has to have something to bitch about and is NEVER happy with ANYTHING. Oh, and did I mention what a total, complete paranoid whack job she is? Nothing she writes or says deserves any attention whatsoever.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I will always respect her for her time in office, but it looks like she has lost her bearings.

As if that was the only criteria on which to base support for Obama?

A little self-absorbed IMHO.

Ms. McKinney is mistaken, as national polling clearly indicates.

Sorry you're becoming a female Ralph Nader--there's treatment for that now.

It's been a little over 100 days and it's amazing the shit that's starting to show up on DU more and more. Who fucking needs this? There's being critical, and then there's this BULLSHIT being splattered all over DU. Go lament with the freepers if you're so disgusted with Obama. They'd love to have you.

hosted by KKK. I don't exactly know how that worked but, yeah. She's fringe.

for years, she's totally disgusting. She and her father blamed her congressional loss several years ago, before she won again two years later, all on "teh joooooooooos." Fucking bigoted whack job.

Feel free to carry on with your frothing-at-the-mouth, though.

hateful anti-semitic statements. And she should know all about frothing at the mouth statements as well. Nice try, thanks for playing.

Come on, show me something she's said that's anti-semitic. :shrug:

to back it up. If she really were an anti-semite, it wouldn't be very hard to show, would it?

:sarcasm:

including Jews. She didn't turn green, smoke didn't come out of her ears and she didn't shout blood libels. She was terrific.

This anti-semitism libel is bullshit. I'd think people would be more careful of the horrible things they say about people they don't know.

The only thing keeping me from voting for her this time around was the fact that I live in a swing state, and even that decision was made at the very last minute after pining over it for weeks.

She doesn't have to scream anti-semitic remarks and blame it all on the "J-E-W-S" as her father so famously did after his defeat. She lets the New-Black Panther Party do it for her.

Following McKinney's concession speech, a reporter attempted to ask the Congresswoman why she thought she lost. The New Black Panther member interrupted, shouting, "Why do you think she lost? You wanna know what led to the loss? Israel. The Zionists. You. Put on your yarmulke and celebrate."

"This incident is reminiscent of the 2002 campaign in which Rep. McKinney's father "blamed the J-E-W-S" for her defeat," said Ms. Rose. "Rep. McKinney did not distance herself from the anti-Semitic comments then, and her service in Congress has been clouded by a perception that she also harbors such feelings."

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASUS_12/4869_12.htm

McKinney is at best a conspiracy theorist and at worst a functioning paranoid, she doesn't hide her hate for the "Zionist" very well either. I will never understand why anyone with half a brain takes her seriously. You seem to be the only one on this thread doing so.

just your paranoid lame opinion....

Still waiting for "proof" of her "antisemitism". <crickets>


Hint: Being against the fascist theocracy that "governs" Israel is NOT anti-Semitic...

while coming to the defense of one of the most paranoid people this side of Lyndon LaRouche is absolutely hilarious and I am sure it is completely lost on you.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

fortunately I never have.

There's a whole sub-set of political-circuit people who made their living traveling the country getting paid to criticize Bush. Now that he's gone, they're critics without a target, i.e. without a paycheck...unless they find a new one.

Same phenomenon as the people who made bank ragging on Clinton for whatever. It's called "the rubber-chicken circuit," and it's been going on since Washington and Jefferson's day.

thanks for that education about the rubber chicken circuit.

...but it's a fair portion of the whole 9/11 conspiracy thing, and a large part of why legitimate 9/11 inquiries have fallen apart. Someone's out there peddling "thermite bombs took down the Towers/missile hit the Pentagon" because enough people are willing to pay to hear it...but those assinine theories have subsumed legitimate lines of inquiry, cuz those didn't pay.

10% of the country will pay handomely to hear someone tell them their worst fears are true...and there are plenty of people willing to fleece that 10%. It's true on both sides of the political aisle. Why do you think so many demonstrably deranged right-wing conspiracy theories never die? Vince Foster, drug-running at the Mena airport, the Clinton Body Count, etc.? It's because someone gets paid to keep those stories alive by keeping them alive. Bev Harris is another example: taking legitimate inquiries into electronic voting machines and subsuming the entire investigation with nonsense out of a motive for profit.

Permanent critics, out of their niche but still milking the cow.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The main knock on McKinney is that she's gone too far, she's fringe, she's critical of Israel (all things that have been said about Obama too, incidentally, and by all the wrong people) etc.

However, I've never seen Cynthia McKinney make a fuss over something that she didn't believe in, and didn't communicate thoughtfully and passionately about. Hardly someone I would accuse of being a cynical bottom-feeder.

She took her office to the limit, and was the opposite of everything that we complain about in our Dems...too timid, afraid to tackle the wrong people or the elephant in the room. People are all for a brass-knuckle Dem who's willing to sacrifice their political career for what they believe is right until they get one and realise how messy actual change is.

Cynthia McKinney was made an example of over and over again, humiliated, taken out of context, all because she wasn't willing to play the game. And she's still out there doing it, despite all of that.

But now she's just a nutty, cynical person just because she's not satisfied with Obama. That's ignorant bullshit. Based on everything we know about Cynthia McKinney, OF COURSE SHE'S NOT SATISFIED WITH OBAMA. That's evidence of consistency, of character, not cynical calculation. I don't agree with it, but I don't think she's doing it for selfish reasons. Indeed, only a fool would think that there was some personal benefit in taking on Obama from the left. And I don't think McKinney is that fool.

And I like Obama. But Cynthia McKinney deserves more respect than the dismissive nonsense getting posted in this thread.

the opposite of mckinney.

whack job theories and paranoid anti-everything-that-doesn't-agree-with-me rambling drivel to be "principles" worth defending and I don't want them in my party, either.

we'll see what you say in 2102 when you want my vote. i'll remember you.

So you've got about no credibility on that topic. Although I see it doesn't stop you from continuing incessantly.

The falsehoods and attacks on McKinney on DU show that THEIR attack on her worked. She wouldn't play their game, so they marginalized her. "American Blackout."

:thumbsup:

The way you say that one would think you were afraid of questioning Bushco.

Being that Bushco presented their theory in a way that is full of the typical loopholes and deceit so common from Bushco, it makes all questions quite necessary, but here you are, tirading against the questions!! How far we have fallen!!

It's as if they now own you!!

though you criticized the 9/11 truthiness industry. Now the nutters will come out of the woodwork.

Sid

Edit: spelling

which is part of the problem.

Gawd forbid we examine the Bushco relationship to 9/11 and try to get to the bottom of what really happened?

Man, with friends like you, who needs enemies?

Really?

And so calling something bullshit means one is against all of it?

I was doing 9/11 investigations waaaaaaaaaaaaaay before it was cool, my friend. This is one area where I will not be lectured at. Where were you in December 2001? I was researching 9/11 and getting my research published both in books and in articles. I was going from town to town speaking on it, I spent years on it, until the bullshiters within the "Truth" movement so thoroughly polluted the inquiry with nonsense that, basically, the whole fucking thing came crashing down. I was there from the beginning, and saw a lot of good and important work get stepped on in favor of "Giant Laser Space Frisbees Took Down The Towers"-type horseshit, and we're all the worse for it because the important questions (Unocal, Karzai, Turkmenistan pipelines, Lila Helms, Taliban in Houston, etc.) weren't sexy enough and never got answered. The bullshit made it easy to dismiss the whole thing, which is why I believe a lot of that bullshit was deliberately injected into the debate so suckers would buy into it and freight the whole thing with crap until it all stalled out. Which is exactly what happened, so spare me the indignation.

Friends like me were working for you eight years ago on this. Don't you dare lecture me about it.

So you gave up? You quit? Taking the easy route, now? Did, as you say: the 'bullshit deliberately injected' scare you off so far as to now paint anyone who speaks about it as a nutcase? It was important then but not now? It got a little messy and you washed your hands of it?

Thanks. It is hard to accept failure, I know. I have been flailing away and failing, but at least I don't label truthers as nutcases or whatever the fuck you were trying to call us.

Read what I wrote above again and show me exactly where I paint all Truthers as nutcases. Go ahead, I'll wait.

But you agreed with whats-his-face who has called us lots of names. I went back to edit my post, but decided Pitt is strong enough to take it, so I let it stand.

Ya know, the Election Reform movement was badly declaimed for sometime in a similar way as 9/11 truthers, but since the Diebold issue was far and away simpler to uncover, we eventually won out.

We need people like you to come back in and discuss the matter once again. Call bullshit where you see it and call Bushco where you see it. History demands we not let Bushco write the 9/11 story all by itself.

And not to give offense, but your reaction upthread is a lot of what makes it so hard. Please tell me if I'm mischaracterizing, but when I called BS on some aspects of the Truth movement above, you came down on me pretty hard. "Gawd forbid we examine the Bushco relationship to 9/11 and try to get to the bottom of what really happened," you wrote. "Man, with friends like you, who needs enemies?"

THAT is a fair portion of the reason I wound up shoved away from the Truth movement. I DID try to get to the bottom of it, and I helped to uncover and disseminate a whole shitload of damning information But to question any aspect of Truth questions is to slaughter somebody's sacred cow, which leads to reactions like "Oh so you buy the official story" or "Yeah, asking questions is bad," or some permutation of precisely what you wrote to me.

I worked on all this long and hard, and spent several years getting publicly kicked in the balls for my trouble, because for too much of the movement, questioning one part amounts to questioning the whole. I mean YEARS, and every single time I wrote or said anything that didn't cater to some Truther's orthodoxy, I got the firebombing-of-Dresden treatment but good. I've been getting hate mail from the Right for a decade, but nothing they ever said comes close to the bile I got from Truthers because I didn't think a missile was fired from beneath the planes that hit the Towers, didn't believe a missile hit the Pentagon (because I have a friend who saw it happen and another who was comrades with the pilot who died), didn't believe something or other that was patently nonsense but, apparently, off-limits to criticism. I got fed the fuck up, and if you were in my shoes, so would you.

Blaming me for my inability to kick through the nonsense isn't fair. I tried my ass off, but I eventually lost out to three groups within the movement who exist now in this awful symbiosis: those who believe unsupportable theories and peddle them relentlessly, thoise who peddle unsupportable theories to discredit the line of inquiry or to make money, and those who want to hear their worst fears "confirmed" by any source they can find, and thus buy into all the garbage that has paralyzed the movement.

It ain't my fault, and I did my best. All my work is still out there, in two books and God only knows how many articles and speech transcripts. I gave at the office, sir, and anyone who wants to can pick up my work and run with it. Be careful, though; you're bound to be called some rotten names in your travels.

...indeed. You have been a lightning rod. Even my lightning attacked you. McKinney is in many ways in a similar boat as you. Me? I'm just a hack.

My apologies, Mr. Pitt.

Still, I got what I wanted in a way, and that was to get you to write a bit about the situation. And, it isn't pretty. I recognize most of what you wrote. The movement, such as it is, is greatly diffused and quite frustrating. But the end is what is important and Gawd damn it, you have some influence and I want you participating again!! Like 100's of others.

So, if you can find a way to dust off some of your more factual based discoveries and present them again, it may be much appreciated. Try to ignore those who might come at you with the lightning (apology again) and see if we can't write the history as it need be written.

But, hey, can't blame you if you don't, just thot I'd give it a go.

Peace.

and thank you. :hug:

You may indeed be on to something. The movement, unfortunately, has kinda fizzled out due to its own shortcomings and out of sheer exhaustion. The untenable stuff isn't as loud anymore, so maybe it's a good time to get back to talking about the serious stuff.

Food for thought.

:toast:

100% of the evidence favored the plaintiff. The entire defense was, "he doesn't look too injured to me." Sure, all we had to ignore all the medical evidence that said he was injured because, you know, he didn't LOOK injured.

The first vote went 9-3 in favor of the defense. That was nine White people voting for the White defendant, with two Black people and one White (me) voting for the Hispanic plaintiff.

I didn't point out the obvious racism since insulting people is no way to convince them of anything (hey, DUers, you read that?). I simply pointed out the 100% evidence fact and asked them to argue. They tossed out a few arguments, but none of them really had any heart in their arguments. They knew they couldn't really justify it and would probably have reached the proper verdict if not for what happened next.

They asked the other two people why they voted for the plaintiff.

"He wouldn't sue if he wasn't really injured," replied one.

"I think he's lying, but he was probably talked into this by his slickster lawyer, and I don't want to see him get stuck with the legal bill when the defendant's insurance company can cover that," replied the other.

For the next few hours every attempt to bring it back to the 100% evidence point was ignored. The nine wanted to argue against the above two points instead. And they had plenty of heart for arguing against those two points.

Ultimately, we awarded the plaintiff property damage, but nothing for personal injury. Then the judge asked us to stay afterwards to be interviewed by all the lawyers because, "this ruling makes absolutely no sense whatsoever." Even the defense attorneys told us it made no sense. I didn't stick around. I just tossed out, "it was racism, and I'm not going to sit here and argue about it." Then got up and left to a chorus of denials.

You were just trying to get to the bottom of things, and got kicked in the balls and called a lot of names for your trouble, but Cynthia McKinney is fleecing people on the rubber chicken circuit. I'd be inclined to believe you, because you're in a position to know if the nasty rumors about her are true, but it sounds like the main difference is that McKinney continued to dig into the less pleasant stuff after you decided to get out to preserve your reputation/sanity. If you know something, feel free to say it. But saying that a fellow progressive advocate is basically a self-aggrandizing huckster is a mean charge worth backing up if you really know it.

Look who you're talking to, dude.

Will has been busting his ass for all the right reasons for the past decade at least. I will abide unsubstantiated nonsense posted about him no more readily than about McKinney.

So I'll quote you:



Really. In this field I worked at least as hard, and daily, and got kicked in the balls, many many times, and fed the fuck up.

Now. How is this a reason...

a) to blame Cynthia for anything here, or to bring up these issues in this thread?

b) to lose sight of which remains more important - 9/11 deception and exploitation by the Bush regime, and the imperative to get disclosure and justice, or the relentless and/or opportunistic stupidity of many "truthers"? (Use of the term to describe oneself is already a tip-off.)

If you really cared enough about the truth, you wouldn't have given up and let those bastards get away with it.

I'd go on but since my previous post got removed for mysterious reasons I can't fathom (even after a careful reading of the rules), maybe there's no point. So I'll just say that, clearly, you're quite correct.

Remember in the first Gulf War they hired PR firms to go out and pose as outraged citizens incensed by the phony babies-chucked-out-of-the-incubators story? Disinfo agents have always been part of the playbook.

and worked very hard to build a movement that committed hara-kiri with the bullshit you decry.

Nevertheless, that's no excuse for you to now claim that the "Loose Change" bullshit is what keeps you away from the real questions of September 11th.

An outrageous cover-up was perpetrated by compromised permanent insiders like Zelikow-Hamilton-Kean. They presented a report so fraudulent that in their later memoirs the chairs pretended they had nothing to do with it, and this was done officially on the taxpayers' dime. Someone who cares about truth, accountability and justice will devote their energies to uncovering what the 9/11 Commission omitted and covered up, not to complaining that people you yourself describe as a fringe have made the issue too unsexy for you.

Cleland resigned calling the Commission a whitewash and a scam, and pointing to the agenda of war that the unelected Bush regime implemented thanks to their 9/11 exploitation. Millions died, world politics was transformed by 9/11 exploitation, and you want to pretend the unpleasant conspiracy theorists keep you from talking about it. The Commission produced a report based on testimonies extracted by torture, and interviews held under the guard of Bush regime "minders" who intimidated the interviewees.

That means everything in the world and should be what a real fighter for justice and truth talks about, rather than wasting time with empty complaints about people you characterize as powerless but who nevertheless supposedly stop you from doing the right thing.

My departure from the Truth movement was in no way solely based on the ocean of bullshit that flooded the thing. It helped, but I also had to focus on Iraq beginning in June of 2002, and as important as the 9/11 issue was and remains, my head has only so much RAM.

without the deliberate false linkage of 9/11 and "al Qaeda" to the Saddam Hussein regime? As practiced by the very same Bush regime that simultaneously exploited 9/11 and prevented any chance of an impartial investigation of 9/11? I believe this most essential deception of the Bush years was No. 2 among the Kucinich impeachment articles. (Remember him? That would be the campaign you were working for in 2004. He didn't seem to lack the mental RAM to see the connections.)

Their motives and causes may have varied, but the Iran-Contra veterans and Cheney world-domination set who came together at PNAC and other clubs wanted an agenda of aggressive war that was impossible without some overwhelming pretext of foreign threat. They even said so.

Then they literally seized power in a fraud election, as you presumably are still willing to say yourself.

Then, there is no doubt that at the least they knew some kind of pretext of foreign threat was about to arise (something you were also willing to say once). Then, voila, it happened! Then they implemented the agenda they knew would not have flown with the people otherwise, and blocked all investigation into 9/11 despite the gaping questions and their own adoption of it as their quasi-religious justification for everything they did.

And they lied and stole and killed and never stopped. And shall these criminals now retire to more fat years as corporate princes, the younger ones to await a return to government in four, eight or twelve years more?

A last question, Pitt: What priority do you today assign to full investigation, disclosure and justice for all crimes of the Bush regime? If they get away with what they did, then constitutional government no longer exists, but perhaps you believe otherwise, or don't really care about it. Does that justice still rate any of your mental RAM? Or will you say the need to focus on more immediate problems prevents you from thinking about it any more? (Or, for that matter, from maintaining a coherent narrative of your own history?)

One of us uses our real name here. One of us doesn't.

I do the best I can, and that's the best I can do. Always have, always will. The very day I have to justify myself to a screen name fashioned after a comic book character is the day they'll wind me in my shroud.

Physician, heal thyself.

Cheers,

William Rivers Pitt

Which means simply to attack the messenger, whether fairly or not, usually when you can't deal with the message.

Need I remind you who came in to this thread, which wasn't about 9/11, with his non-sequitur complaint that stinky "truthers" make 9/11 disclosure an unhappy issue for serious thinkers?

And when others respond to your own, unprompted statements, in which you talk with self-praise about your own experiences as a former seeker of 9/11 truth, is this how you answer? Funny how you don't use the screen name excuse with the other 99 percent of DUers who aren't using their real names. It's a sad retreat, Pitt.

While it's sport here to pick screen names (mine isn't based on a comic book character, but came to me spontaneously for whatever reason, and I don't take it very seriously), it's never been a secret who I am and you'll find many DU posts with my own name. This is an Internet debate board, more a salon than a publication, but even if I'm wrong as often as people speaking spontaneously in a loud environment will tend to be, I am neither ashamed nor intimidated.

Nicholas Evangelos Levis - Successor to the Leonide throne

And, IMO, that's exactly what most of the "explosives/thermite took down the WTC towers" is..

provided material for countless books, seminars, motivational speeches (how you can rob the government in a month or less), so much material!

People were paid just to criticize Bush?

Your tin foil hat is much too tight, Bush was criticized for legitimate reasons, no one had to pay a soul to criticize him - he made enough mistakes and committed enough abuses in office that no one had to "travel the circuit" they just had to speak the truth about his screwed up administration.

Really, WP, you have posted some very strange shit over the years. IMHO, this is just one of the stupidest of the strange.

:eyes:

Really, I am fine with her asserting that her way would be better, but i don't buy her contention that the contents of her inbox mean anything significant. I do this kind of thing for work - if I'm selling something in a market where there are no competitors, I can honestly say 'it's the undisputed leader' - which sounds a lot better than 'nobody else thinks it's worth trying to sell this sort of thing'. It's technically true, but it's also a persuasion tactic.

She fought teh man. She deserves much more respect on here than she gets.

or any other victim who isn't "worthy" in her worthless estimation. She deserves no respect and needs to crawl back under her rock where she belongs.

and evidently her constituent services suck. she hasn't done 1/100 of what Bernie Sanders has done. she's a poseur. a narcissistic and paranoid piece of work.

:shrug:

in the world. :P

She has really gotten into the conspiracy stuff. She is a reoccurring guest on Alex Jones' radio program where she says things like 5000 people were executed after hurricane Katrina.


Just sayin'.

or eaten by alligators.

The death toll was higher than we were told. Of that I'm personally quite certain. McKinney was talking about executions.

Ms McKinney's off the deep end.

I don't take her comments seriously since she was one of his opponents in the last general election. I take it as seriously as if McCain said that people have been coming up to him saying they voted for Obama and now have "buyers remorse."

He seems to be conducting his White House pretty much as he conducted his campaign -- No Drama Obama, smartest man in the room.

All those folks who hope he'll fail -- for them, the dynamite goes boom in their faces.

Hekate

campaign to protect myself.

I have no regrets and doubt I ever will.

I rest my case.

But I don't regret my vote because it might would have led to McCain/Palin if she had gotten it.

she isn't taking being utterly irrelevant, well.

Good luck with your agenda under any administration!

Perhaps 8 years ago this woman impressed me and I did feel bad when the GOP used the GA open primary elections to get her booted out of office. But these past few years she's gone off the deep end and someone who I have not had much respect for.

I have no remorse for voting for Obama - only pride. I think Ms. McKinney is just pissed that she is on the path to obscurity and she can't get there quick enough.

she said were executed during Katrina?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYjewdHb8UY

Sid

Have you ever found the WMD in Iraq? Funny that folks here should attack Ms. McKinney while the big criminals go free. No, not funny.

where I claimed there were WMD in Iraq.

Oh, and I know funny when I see it.

Sid

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'll attack those who lied about WMD and crazy lady who claims there were 5,000 people executed after Katrina without a shred of evidence to back it up.

One person DID do it, the other is just reporting.

But you knew that, right? So why such a stupid question?

It's not really a stupid question at all. Cynthia is not "just reporting." She made a claim with no apparent evidence to back it up. Pretty much the same thing Bush did. I'm not going to hold her to a different set of standards because she's a so-called progressive. When you make a claim like that, you better be ready to back it up with pretty solid evidence or people are going to call you out on it, and rightfully so.

I read where she got her info, did you?

No, the reason you pick on her is that you are scared of her. She brings scary truths right to you and like others above you prefer to not hear these truths so you attack. And I answered your god-damned stupid fucking question, and you say she did pretty much the same as Bush did? Gawd!! You compare the two and expect any respect? Fuck that!

I'm not scared of Cythia. The last federal election should be a pretty strong indication why. There's nothing scary about a claim with no proof to back it up unless, I guess, you're just a hysterical person in general. I'm not. The difference between you and me is that I'll call bullshit when I see bullshit no matter which side of the fence it's coming from.

There appears to be a wide gulf between the two of us in what we accept as "truth." Your definition seems to be "someone I agree with said is so it must be true." I'm a little more skeptical, that's all. I require pesky things like proof before I'm willing to accept a statement as "truth."

Yes, I read where she got her info and it still contains zero physical evidence. If you've got what you think is some sort of proof feel free to post and I'll weight it accordingly.

I asked why McKinney isn't spending time trying to validate a claim that she made.

You asked why I'm not spending time trying to validating a claim that I never made.

Not. The. Same.

And I have attacked those who lied about WMD. But this is a thread about nutbar Cynthia McKinney.

Sid

Edit: fixed awkward wording

It is so idiotic that anyone spends any time attacking McKinney while Bush walks free.

and it's no surprise you're defending her.

Sid

I least I don't defend Bushco. Who, BTW, she is fighting.

administration, and it isn't any more attractive when it comes from people on "our" side.

What do you think? Who is McKinney fighting? And who is she fighting for?

You don't have a clue how I think but you see me blowing away the people who are blowing hard on a person who blows away Bushco, so you feebly try to blow me. Figure out what side you are on, K?

Bushco is our enemy, right?

You know who else hates George Bush? Fred Phelps. He hates him a great deal, and spoke out against him and his administration vehemently for the last eight years. But, alas, he's an asshole. Unfortunately, by your metric, his opposition to Bush is all that matters, and he deserves our allegiance. See where your reasoning takes us?

Just because someone hates something you also hate, it does not mean that they aren't batshit crazy attention-mongers who are more interested in how many cameras they can get pointed at them than actually doing good work.

Sid

Never even paid him any mind except to know that he is against us. Call it binary, but that is what draws the line, so your Fred is of no consequence.

I still don't know what your problem is. But I do McKinney has many stances against our great over-arching enemies, at least my enemies - I realize they may not be your enemies, I don't know.

If you read the OP you'd see what I am talking about per McKinney. She lays out some good points and nobody is perfectly aligned so we go with what's good and unite where we can to maybe someday win. Do you want to win? Then unite.

Call it binary, or whatever, but there are always shades of grey and we have evident enemies that deserve our undivided attention, is the way I see it.

as important as the opposition itself. You don't get to have it both ways.

The underlying philosophy is everything. Phelps is wrong to start with, while McKinney's means a lot. People Power is the basis of her philosophy and while she is not perfect she has done more than you and I ever will.

So, you fail.

I'm glad you agree with me.

You and McKinney, a couple of peas in a pod, where matters of truth are concerned.

Sid

But she was right about the execution of people during Katrina. They were executed by virtue of the US government ignoring them. You really didn't get that?

Not that lack of governmental oversight led to their deaths, that they were actively shot and killed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x224795

She said they were killed by a single gunshot to the head. They weren't murdered by neglect.

Sid

and always enjoy reading about what she has to say.

Thanks for posting.

I think Obama is doing well and have no sour grapes having voted for him. Crazy Cynthia is about dead ass last in the list of parties I would have voted for.

She's become an embarrassment to this state.

Neither is fact. They are both just opinions. You are allowed yours, they are allowed theirs, regardless of how you might feel about the subject of that opinion.

JOHNSON 41,281

MCKINNEY 28,915

http://www.sos.georgia.gov/ELECTIONS/election_results/2006_0808/0001410.htm

You cannot assume that only Democrats voted against her.

With this mindset, we are doomed.

I get so tired of seeing so many fall right in line with that tendency.

It usually goes something like this:

Person A holds to the orthodox, mainstream view per his/her background assumptions

Person B conversely holds to a dissident, heterodox view

Hence person A automatically and immediately relegates person B as "crazy/delusional/ignorant/wingnut," etc

I gather that since so many do this they must not realize how ridiculously childish it is, and only gained such cultural prominence due to it being a favored right-wing tactic on talk radio and M$M

Mainstreamers think they are not crazy, that they are the sane ones. But they have supported the mainstream establishment as it has driven this country over a cliff while lying to the people the whole way.

Have they no conception of their being fooled and deceived? McKinney is trying to tell them the truth and they can't handle it. They won't even listen...Gawd!

And, both BLACK WOMEN have done so much for other people, even if sometimes they believe their own press too much. I wonder why these two BLACK WOMEN garner such responses on here? Why do YOU think? And, both have such falsehoods thrown out about them.

Really weird.

I wonder why all three BLACK WOMEN garner such responses on here? Why do YOU think?

That IS really weird.

Sometimes it seems none is allowed. I've seen even civilly stated criticism of her be shot down as hating and how dare you and she's done so much and you've done NOTHING. First of all no one here knows what a poster has done or not done just by the fact that they are here and writing on the board. Being here doesn't mean they're not doing things to make the world better.

As for me and my opinion, I think that nothing will ever have the power of her very first protest. She was just a Gold Star mom looking for answers and standing in an obvious place waiting to get it. It was simple and compelling. She can do what she wants and maybe some of it is helpful, but she is not a god, and as a public figure she is just as open to criticism as anyone. Sometimes I get the feeling her supporters hold up her Gold Star mom status as a shield, resulting in the aforementioned "HOW DARE YOU!"

That annoys me.

Why are you surprised?

It's funny how that works. :eyes: Also people love to parrot "She's Crazy" as if they will be given a cracker as a reward. :shrug:

I believe we've slipped into the inane comedy that was a successful SMEAR CAMPAIGN ... a lesson to all others who don't "play ball" with the power elites of either party. :(

She was on the same ballot in most states that Barack Obama was on and by huge numbers voters rejected her agenda and chose him instead.

She was hardly a player at all.

Or for most of the American public, apparently.

Nuff said!

"Check out the people you're voting for.... "For instance, Joseph Biden comes off as a liberal Democrat, but he's the one who authored the bill that put me in jail. He wrote the law against shipping drug paraphernalia through the mail - which could be anything from a pipe to a clip or cigarette papers." ~ Chong

...as I said, all things considered, apropos :smoke:

As well as many, many other positive things.

TPTB didn't like her, so they took her out, even though they ahd to lie and set her up to do it.

It was she who termed much of how our govt operates as a "crime syndicate," a reference I still use. Sorry I jumped in w/o realizing the point you were making ... I was just taken aback that so many were hurling such nastiness at her.

She has earned a far higher degree of disdain, IMO.

If We the People are the government, 'crime syndicate' is a bit uh, untoward. And if government is so tainted why does she seek to lead it?

McKinney is not leadership material on a national scale. She's a walking ego, and a very angry one at that.

Other than someone with a "D" next to their name "winning."

Politics isn't about theory anymore, it's about rooting for the home team. And the minute McKinney dared to attack Democrats, people here turned on her like it was a fucking football game.

Either that, or the supposedly uber duper super lefty McLefties on this site are as clueless, ignorant, or spineless as the rest of the whimpering moderates I run across in real life.

Watch "American Blackout."

Watch "American Blackout."

Lots of people care about the murder of a talented young black man, and the fact that, as in many cases with murdered young black men, police can't be bothered to figure out who did it.

I guess if Miley Cyrus was gunned down, people on DU would be up in arms about it, though, so I guess I should consider who I'm talking to.

It's not the job of Congress to legislate that "all Government records related to the life and death of Tupac Shakur should be preserved." Of all the issues facing this country, the life and death of Tupac Shakur is not even on the list for probably 99.9% of Americans, if not more.

I'd be more impressed if she took an active role in the lives and deaths of young black men NOT named Tupac Shakur!

This is a woman who, while showing great concern for a dead rapper, attacked civil rights icon John Lewis after he failed to endorse her. The Pulitzer Prize winning Cynthia Tucker noted McKinney "doesn't have the prestige or power to pass a resolution in support of sweetened ice tea." Congressional Black Caucus member Rep. Alcee Hastings said "we avoid her. Cynthia won't approach people beyond her real friends." I guess they're bigots too, huh?

And Miley Cyrus? LOLOLOL! Get real!

Maybe some constituents or others connected to Tupac lobbied for a voice in Washington and only found her. I seem to remember Tupac's mother, Afeni, being connected to McKinney in some way. Who are you to tell Tupac's mother that her son's death isn't that important in the grand scheme of things (probably just because you "hate gangsta rap")?

And I didn't call anyone a bigot. I just suggested that maybe the world doesn't revolve around you and what you alone thinks is important.

I wonder how many other mothers of slain children feel knowing their child's death is not important to McKinney since they are not "connected to McKinney?"

No, you didn't use they word "bigot," but you know as well as I do what your ridiculous remark "I guess if Miley Cyrus was gunned down, people on DU would be up in arms about it, though, so I guess I should consider who I'm talking to" means.

The only thing "presumptuous" here is that Tupac Shakur's life was more important to McKinney than that of her constituents. Did she introduce legislation of behalf of any of them? I guess to McKinney, ones life only matters if that person is rich and famous and has a personal connection to her in some way.

Tupac grew up around Black Panthers. His mother was an activist for a long time. I'm sure she and Cynthia ran in similar circles. Despite what you're suggesting, I seriously doubt there's this all-powerful cabal of ex-Panthers secretly currying influence among our legislators.

And Tupac was a public figure, and a very powerful voice in the hip hop world. His murder shocked and outraged a lot of people, as did the police not giving a shit about solving it. Take a look outside of your bubble sometime.

I find it ironic that you have Matthew Shepard in your sig, and yet you're willing to downplay the influence of Tupac and the effect of his murder. I mean, Matthew's just one guy, right? What makes him so special? :sarcasm:

Was Shakur killed because he was black? Was he a victim of a hate crime?

Was he just some innocent black man, minding his own business, who was singled out simply because of his race, or was he killed because he chose to associate with people who don't think twice about blowing a person's head off over some disagreement?

Hey, guess what - lots of people are killed, black and white, through no fault of their own. Shakur doesn't fall into that category. He lived his life on the edge and that's how he died. That's too bad, but for you to suggest that his life is more important than anybody else's is insulting, and for you to compare his death to Matthew Shepard's is outrageous!

I never said Tupac Shakur's life and death didn't matter, all I wa saying was McKinney should have used her position to advocate for those who didn't have platinum records hanging on the walls in their multi-million dollar mansion!

If you don't understand that then there's nothing I can say to make you understand.

I'd like to think that your belittling the death of Tupac (because of some stereotype you have of "gangsta rappers") was definitely not your finest moment.

:shrug:

Plus, she probably knows that Biggie put the hit out on Tupac.

It's all part of the massive cover up of the Tupac murder.

;)

And on the other hand, she should have also focused on Biggie's death.

You and your friend need to conference call before you start trolling these threads.

Why is he so special? What about all the other thousands of young black men who just happen to not be famous? Why no special legislation for them? Just because they're not famous their lives don't matter?

a group that was afforded no Federal protections against such crimes? Are East Coast rappers a threatened minority?

But no, of course I don't think Tupac's death was a hate crime.

But, like Matthew Shepard, the outrage over Tupac's death was not just about his death, it was also representative of a much larger grievance. Trying to turn this into some sort of evidence of "special treatment" by Cynthia, as the other poster is doing, is as ridiculous as suggesting that Matthew Shepard's mother was getting special treatment when she was invited to Congress last week because of hate crimes legislation that was passed in her son's name.

You honestly think comparing Tupac Shakur to Matthew Shepard is somehow going to make you, or McKinney, look less crazy?

You started this whole subthread with your hypocritical, paranoid little tirade about "special treatment."

All I posted was "This is a woman who introduced the Tupac Shakur Records Act." That's hardly a "tirade!" And I said absolutely nothing about "special treatment" until you jumped in and started spouting off about Shakur's mother "being connected to McKinney."

No, I express myself very well, and I have read your replies closely, and responded to them accordingly.

Seems the only one suffering from any paranoia is you who incorrectly claims I "started this whole subthread with your hypocritical, paranoid little tirade about "special treatment"" despite the fact that all one has to do is look at my post that "started this whole subthread" to see that that is patently false.

Stark-raving loony.

She's a clown. I can't believe some many people on here respect and defend her.

:thumbsup:

Please go over there and sit by Sheehan and Kucinich in the irrelevancy section. Thank you.

We've known for quite a while in GA that she deserves her batshit crazy label. And before folks jump on me and say but...but...but...she was right about this or that...even a broken clock is right twice a day.

"Yes, Cynthia, We Can Quit You"

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/8/6/173637/0320

IMO, the 15 points made in the essay say it all about her, and why she was ultimately rejected by the voters in her own district.

As for me, I have no regrets whatsoever in voting for Obama - the alternative was and still is too unthinkable.

and that article is an excellent explanation as to why.

Very nice article! :hi:

oh, the remorse!!

Woe is me!!

:cry:

is having liked McKinney, she's become quite a nut...

Not surprised to see the same old names on this thread-doing their best to silence her and paint her as fringe which she is not. :grr:

that's just one of the "truths" McKinney has been known to speak. Sbe was an ineffective rep and was voted out by her constituency because of it. She had a poor reputation when it came to constituent services.

Yes, she's the fringe. She has no influence on virtually anything. And no one is trying to silence her. She's free to say whatever she pleases- as am I.

Why wasn't that on the news!?

No one here has any power to silence Cynthia - heck no one anywhere does.

She can say whatever she wants to say. However, if someone disagrees with her - they have the right to disagree. Or is that not how it works??

5000 executed in the swamps (one of her better statements)- how is that NOT fringe??

And, even though it wasn't 5,000, there were at least 50 prisoners killed, as reported here and in the MSM. She was a huge force in helping those hurt by Katrina. She isn't Fringe in the least, TPTB have just worked very, very hard to marginalize her, and to have people think she is "Fringe."

...I am unable to find one to the story about 50 prisoners being killed....executed in the swamps.

I hate to ask for one for I am pretty good with search engines...

Being from Georgia, I have kept up with Cynthia and her father - sorry, but I am not influenced by the great MSM AND I find them both to be fringe kooks.

You don't say things are "confirmed" if you actually mean they're "wild speculation you once heard from someone." That's her problem: she's credulous. She'll believe anything anyone tells her.

People will have their opinions, and she is not immune.

about the points she raised in the article anywhere on this thread. This whole thing has been one big ad hominem.

*gasp*

Ahahahahahahahahahaha.

how pathetically low our expectations are for our government, our society, ourselves, and our neighbors in the world.

her public career.

McKinney has been spectacularly ineffective in reaching more than an extremely small and marginal handful of people even angrier than she appears to be and among the whole batch of them I see or hear not one leader.

Least of all Cynthia McKinney.

McKinney's commentary quoted in the OP is astonishingly out of touch with what is happening in the country. IMO it was also characteristically self-promotional as well.

'Buyer's remorse.'

Marketed, bought, sold, traded (Specter-ed).

Then I got bored of that, too.

She's self-appointed and self-interested.

She's bonkers!

That's alittle over the top don't you think?

W h a c k a d o o d l e

Wrong Cindy. Sorry folks.

...nobody really cares what you think, Cynthia. Sorry.

that she has of 500 people killed during Katrina and dumped in the bayou.

She thinks that five thousand were executed in the swamp.

I've never seen that before!

:banghead:

She heard it from a mom, who was told by her son, who signed a "silence" agreement, that 5000 people were executed and dumped in the swamp.