Down Goes McKinney

[Quinn]

According to CNN, it goes something like this:

With 66 percent of precincts reporting, McKinney was trailing at 42 percent to her challenger's 58 percent.

That's right, this idiotic low-life is going away -- and she won't be coming back. Finally, the electorate actually seems to be getting something right. I'm actually drinking a bit of Champagne to celebrate. The little things really do make all of the difference.

-Quinn

[twowaybro]

All i have 2 say is that i hope the people of Dekalb County like what they r gonna get...another bought and paid 4 "Republicrat" stooge. Another cronie of this current American Corporatocracy. And if they used those Diebold machines down there in all likelihood the election was rigged anyway. Long live Ms Cynthia McKinney!!!!!

[Quinn]

Hank Johnson is a good Democrat who won't loose that seat to a Republican challenger. Face it, McKinney was just an embarrassment to everyone. Striking a police officer was bad enough. However, her decision to play the race card so as not be held accountable for said behavior was a disgusting act that imperils the cause of anyone who has legitimate issues with racial profiling, etc.

Her decision to, among other things, blame the voting machines for 18 point trouncing was similarly farcical. The woman is a clown and won't be coming back.

-Quinn

[White_Male_Canada]

All i have 2 say is that i hope the people of Dekalb County like what they r gonna get...another bought and paid 4 "Republicrat" stooge. Another cronie of this current American Corporatocracy. And if they used those Diebold machines down there in all likelihood the election was rigged anyway. Long live Ms Cynthia McKinney!!!!!

Hank johnson is a Republican !?

He`s a liberal`s liberal. Mckinney`s a kook neo-marxist. That seat is safe for the left.

Shortly after the polls opened on Tuesday, allegations of voting irregularities began appearing on U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney’s campaign Web sitehttp://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared-blogs/ajc/elections/entries/2006/08/08/mckinney_allege.html

"My mother was hurt by someone in the press in this room tonight," McKinney said after losing to challenger Hank Johnson Tuesday. "One of my assistants needs stitches because of the press that are in this room tonight." Her campaign manager, John Evans, blamed the loss on the ABC - Anybody But Cynthia - movement and the Capitol Hill incident.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...08-08-23-26-26

[Jamie Michelle]

Hank Johnson is a good Democrat who won't loose that seat to a Republican challenger. Face it, McKinney was just an embarrassment to everyone. Striking a police officer was bad enough. ...

As I wrote previously on this matter:

---

Cynthia McKinney didn't assault the police officer, the officer clearly physically assaulted Cynthia McKinney by grabbing her arm. (As an illustration of this, go up to a police officer and grab their arm, and you'll almost certainly be charged with assault upon a law enforcement officer.) It was only upon the police officer's physical assault upon Cynthia McKinney did she push the officer on the chest--precisely the natural, God-given instinctual human response that one would expect in such a situation.

It was the police officer who initiated the use of force upon Cynthia McKinney. If anyone is to be charged in this case, then it is the police officer who should be charged with assaulting a U.S. congressperson.

Cynthia McKinney has been far too conciliatory in this case by making concessions which hurt her case. She should have simply stated the facts in the case and filed charges on the police officer for his physical assault upon her. But instead she's been apologizing even though she did no wrong. Kind of like Harry Whittington apologizing to Dick Cheney for Dick Cheney having shot him (assuming the White House's claimed details of that shooting incident are to be believed).

... However, her decision to play the race card so as not be held accountable for said behavior was a disgusting act that imperils the cause of anyone who has legitimate issues with racial profiling, etc.

Her decision to, among other things, blame the voting machines for 18 point trouncing was similarly farcical. The woman is a clown and won't be coming back.

-Quinn

With the black-box electronic voting, the ruling elite can simply punch in any numbers that they want, as they did in the 2004 U.S. Presidential election (of which the actual winner, Bonesman Kerry, was more than happy to roll over for his good buddies, the Bushes):

"Science proves that vote fraud is real!," Joseph Cannon, April 2, 2005:

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2005/...d-is-real.html

"Analysis of the 2004 Presidential Election Exit Poll Discrepancies," Josh Mitteldorf, Ph.D., Kathy Dopp, MS mathematics, Steven F. Freeman, Ph.D., Prof. Brian Joiner, Prof. Frank Stenger, Prof. Richard G. Sheehan, Paul F. Velleman, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Victoria Lovegren, Ph.D. Lecturer, Campbell B. Read, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, Jonathan Simon, Ron Baiman, Bruce O'Dell, US Count Votes' National Election Data Archive Project, March 31, 2005:

http://uscountvotes.org/ucvAnalysis/...n-Mitofsky.pdf

"The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy," Steven F. Freeman, Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania, November 11, 2004:

http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/1...screp_v00l.pdf

In "The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy," Dr. Steven F. Freeman says:

"As much as we can say in social science that something is impossible, it is impossible that the discrepancies between predicted and actual vote counts in the three critical battleground states [Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania] of the 2004 election could have been due to chance or random error."

The odds of those exit poll statistical anomalies occurring by chance are, according to Dr. Freeman, "250,000,000 to one."

See also:

"Was the 2004 Election Stolen?: Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted--enough to have put John Kerry in the White House," Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Rolling Stone, June 15, 2006 issue:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/sto...ction_stolen/1

"Was the 2004 Election Stolen? Sources and Commentary," Rolling Stone, June 1, 2006:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/sto...and_commentary

"The stolen election of 2004," Michael Parenti, Columbus Free Press, July 11, 2006:

http://www.freepress.org/departments...y/19/2006/2073

[Quinn]

Cynthia McKinney didn't assault the police officer, the officer clearly physically assaulted Cynthia McKinney by grabbing her arm. (As an illustration of this, go up to a police officer and grab their arm, and you'll almost certainly be charged with assault upon a law enforcement officer.) It was only upon the police officer's physical assault upon Cynthia McKinney did she push the officer on the chest--precisely the natural, God-given instinctual human response that one would expect in such a situation.

It was the police officer who initiated the use of force upon Cynthia McKinney. If anyone is to be charged in this case, then it is the police officer who should be charged with assaulting a U.S. congressperson.

Your understanding of the facts – and the law – leaves much to be desired. McKinney attempted to bypass a metal detector and gain entrance to a House office building without showing her ID (she has admitted to not wearing her Congressional pin). She also refused to heed multiple verbal warnings to stop, requiring the police officer to actually have to chase after her. Under those circumstances it is legal for a Capitol Hill police officer to use reasonable force to prevent an individual from gaining entrance. McKinney’s use of force, by contrast, was clearly illegal. The Capitol Hill police believe she received special treatment, and so, most obviously, do a significant portion of her former constituents.

-Quinn

[Jamie Michelle]

Cynthia McKinney didn't assault the police officer, the officer clearly physically assaulted Cynthia McKinney by grabbing her arm. (As an illustration of this, go up to a police officer and grab their arm, and you'll almost certainly be charged with assault upon a law enforcement officer.) It was only upon the police officer's physical assault upon Cynthia McKinney did she push the officer on the chest--precisely the natural, God-given instinctual human response that one would expect in such a situation.

It was the police officer who initiated the use of force upon Cynthia McKinney. If anyone is to be charged in this case, then it is the police officer who should be charged with assaulting a U.S. congressperson.

You understanding of the facts – and the law – leaves much to be desired. McKinney attempted to bypass a metal detector and gain entrance to a House office building without showing her ID (she has admitted to not wearing her Congressional pin). She also refused to heed multiple verbal warnings to stop, requiring the police officer to actually have to chase after her. Under those circumstances it is legal for a Capitol Hill police officer to use reasonable force to prevent an individual from gaining entrance. McKinney’s use of force, by contrast, was clearly illegal. The Capitol Hill police believe she received special treatment, and so, most obviously, do a significant portion of her former constituents.

-Quinn

"You understanding" of English leaves much to be desired.

McKinney's use of force wasn't illegal. Charges weren't even brought against her. With the political Establishment's utter despisement of McKinney (coming from both the Democratic Party and Republican Party top-tier), it makes no sense to say that she got off because of insider special treatment. The political Establishment was looking to burn her by hook or by crook. The whole incident could very well have been a set-up to begin with.

As far as her "former constituents" go, with the black-box electronic voting, the ruling elite can simply punch in any numbers that they want, as they did in the 2004 U.S. Presidential election (of which the actual winner, Bonesman Kerry, was more than happy to roll over for his good buddies, the Bushes):

"Science proves that vote fraud is real!," Joseph Cannon, April 2, 2005:

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2005/...d-is-real.html

"Analysis of the 2004 Presidential Election Exit Poll Discrepancies," Josh Mitteldorf, Ph.D., Kathy Dopp, MS mathematics, Steven F. Freeman, Ph.D., Prof. Brian Joiner, Prof. Frank Stenger, Prof. Richard G. Sheehan, Paul F. Velleman, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Victoria Lovegren, Ph.D. Lecturer, Campbell B. Read, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, Jonathan Simon, Ron Baiman, Bruce O'Dell, US Count Votes' National Election Data Archive Project, March 31, 2005:

http://uscountvotes.org/ucvAnalysis/...n-Mitofsky.pdf

"The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy," Steven F. Freeman, Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania, November 11, 2004:

http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/1...screp_v00l.pdf

In "The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy," Dr. Steven F. Freeman says:

"As much as we can say in social science that something is impossible, it is impossible that the discrepancies between predicted and actual vote counts in the three critical battleground states [Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania] of the 2004 election could have been due to chance or random error."

The odds of those exit poll statistical anomalies occurring by chance are, according to Dr. Freeman, "250,000,000 to one."

See also:

"Was the 2004 Election Stolen?: Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted--enough to have put John Kerry in the White House," Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Rolling Stone, June 15, 2006 issue:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/sto...ction_stolen/1

"Was the 2004 Election Stolen? Sources and Commentary," Rolling Stone, June 1, 2006:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/sto...and_commentary

"The stolen election of 2004," Michael Parenti, Columbus Free Press, July 11, 2006:

http://www.freepress.org/departments...y/19/2006/2073

[Quinn]

Cynthia McKinney didn't assault the police officer, the officer clearly physically assaulted Cynthia McKinney by grabbing her arm. (As an illustration of this, go up to a police officer and grab their arm, and you'll almost certainly be charged with assault upon a law enforcement officer.) It was only upon the police officer's physical assault upon Cynthia McKinney did she push the officer on the chest--precisely the natural, God-given instinctual human response that one would expect in such a situation.

It was the police officer who initiated the use of force upon Cynthia McKinney. If anyone is to be charged in this case, then it is the police officer who should be charged with assaulting a U.S. congressperson.

You understanding of the facts – and the law – leaves much to be desired. McKinney attempted to bypass a metal detector and gain entrance to a House office building without showing her ID (she has admitted to not wearing her Congressional pin). She also refused to heed multiple verbal warnings to stop, requiring the police officer to actually have to chase after her. Under those circumstances it is legal for a Capitol Hill police officer to use reasonable force to prevent an individual from gaining entrance. McKinney’s use of force, by contrast, was clearly illegal. The Capitol Hill police believe she received special treatment, and so, most obviously, do a significant portion of her former constituents.

-Quinn

"You understanding" of English leaves much to be desired.

McKinney's use of force wasn't illegal. Charges weren't even brought against her. With the political Establishment's utter despisement of McKinney (coming from both the Democratic Party and Republican Party top-tier), it makes no sense to say that she got off because of insider special treatment. The political Establishment was looking to burn her by hook or by crook. The whole incident could very well have been a set-up to begin with.

As far as her "former constituents" go, with the black-box electronic voting, the ruling elite can simply punch in any numbers that they want, as they did in the 2004 U.S. Presidential election (of which the actual winner, Bonesman Kerry, was more than happy to roll over for his good buddies, the Bushes):

Citing a single spelling error on my part does nothing to change the fact that you lack an understanding of both the facts and the legal considerations appropriate to this incident (I’ve fixed it nonetheless). My original points stand factually undisputed:

A) The police officer was within his legal rights to use force in order to restrain McKinney, something you have yet to effectively dispute;
B) Striking a police officer – which McKinney clearly did do – while said officer is performing his or her duty is illegal, something else you have yet to effectively dispute.

The Capitol Hill police officers union has made it clear that they wanted charges pressed and were surprised when they weren’t – as were the majority of legal analysts. That she received special treatment is obvious enough so as not to warrant debate.

So far as any assertions of electoral fraud are concerned, no one in their right mind is taking them seriously in this instance. Why? The election results mirror the polling data produced by numerous organizations in the week prior to the election. In the end, she lost because her former constituents figured out what so many people across the political spectrum already understand: McKinney is an idiot.

-Quinn

[Jamie Michelle]

Cynthia McKinney didn't assault the police officer, the officer clearly physically assaulted Cynthia McKinney by grabbing her arm. (As an illustration of this, go up to a police officer and grab their arm, and you'll almost certainly be charged with assault upon a law enforcement officer.) It was only upon the police officer's physical assault upon Cynthia McKinney did she push the officer on the chest--precisely the natural, God-given instinctual human response that one would expect in such a situation.

It was the police officer who initiated the use of force upon Cynthia McKinney. If anyone is to be charged in this case, then it is the police officer who should be charged with assaulting a U.S. congressperson.

You understanding of the facts – and the law – leaves much to be desired. McKinney attempted to bypass a metal detector and gain entrance to a House office building without showing her ID (she has admitted to not wearing her Congressional pin). She also refused to heed multiple verbal warnings to stop, requiring the police officer to actually have to chase after her. Under those circumstances it is legal for a Capitol Hill police officer to use reasonable force to prevent an individual from gaining entrance. McKinney’s use of force, by contrast, was clearly illegal. The Capitol Hill police believe she received special treatment, and so, most obviously, do a significant portion of her former constituents.

-Quinn

"You understanding" of English leaves much to be desired.

McKinney's use of force wasn't illegal. Charges weren't even brought against her. With the political Establishment's utter despisement of McKinney (coming from both the Democratic Party and Republican Party top-tier), it makes no sense to say that she got off because of insider special treatment. The political Establishment was looking to burn her by hook or by crook. The whole incident could very well have been a set-up to begin with.

As far as her "former constituents" go, with the black-box electronic voting, the ruling elite can simply punch in any numbers that they want, as they did in the 2004 U.S. Presidential election (of which the actual winner, Bonesman Kerry, was more than happy to roll over for his good buddies, the Bushes):

LOL…. Ok, citing me on that specific, and uncommon, misspelling was more than appropriate (I’ve fixed it). However, my original points stands factually undisputed:

A) The police officer was within his legal rights to use force in order to restrain McKinney, something you have yet to effectively dispute;

Joseph Stalin was within his legal rights to murder tens of millions of his country's own populace for purely ideological reasons.

B) Striking a police officer – which McKinney clearly did do – while said officer is performing his or her duty is illegal, something else you have yet to effectively dispute.

If it had been illegal, then the political Establishment would have thrown the book at her. They didn't think they had a case.

The Capitol Hill police officers union has made it clear that they wanted charges pressed and were surprised when they weren’t – as were the majority of legal analysts. That she received special treatment should be obvious to you by this point.

It's obvious that they didn't have so much as even a flimsy case, because if the political Establishment thought that they could have credibly prosecuted her then they would have taken great joy in throwing the book at her.

So far as any assertions of electoral fraud are concerned, no one in their right mind is taking them seriously in this instance. Why? The election results mirror the polling data produced by numerous organizations in the week prior to the election. In the end, she lost because her former constituents figured out what so many people across the political spectrum already understand: McKinney is an idiot.

-Quinn

If McKinney is an idiot, then at least she's a far, far smarter idiot than all the other idiot politicians in Washington, D.C., with the possible exception of Congressman Ron Paul (Republican from Texas). Not to mention far, far more moral and brave, and with a great deal more integrity.

[Quinn]

Joseph Stalin was within his legal rights to murder tens of millions of his country's own populace for purely ideological reasons.

If you are attempting to argue that there is any sort of legal or moral equivalence between Stalin murdering tens of millions of people and a single police officer preventing an unidentified woman from bypassing a metal detector into a sensitive area – that is the best example of fallacious reasoning I have yet to see anywhere.

Stalin’s actions were illegal by the standards of any liberal democracy and international law. By contrast, the actions of the Capitol Hill police officer would be deemed legal within any of those same courts.

If it had been illegal, then the political Establishment would have thrown the book at her. They didn't think they had a case.

It's obvious that they didn't have so much as even a flimsy case, because if the political Establishment thought that they could have credibly prosecuted her then they would have taken great joy in throwing the book at her.

The union to which the Capitol Hill police belong as well as the legal analysts monitoring this case don’t share your opinions. Since they obviously have a far greater command of both the facts and the law than you do, I’ll defer to their judgment.

If McKinney is an idiot, then at least she's a far, far smarter idiot than all the other idiot politicians in Washington, D.C., with the possible exception of Congressman Ron Paul (Republican from Texas). Not to mention far, far more moral and brave, and with a great deal more integrity.

Someone who chooses to play the race card in order to avoid personal accountability is neither moral nor brave. The fact that McKinney has, among other things, blamed her loss upon electoral fraud militates against any reasonable assessment of integrity.

Judging from the electoral trouncing that she received, McKinney’s former electorate sees it much the same way.

-Quinn