McKinney is up to her old tricks again... this is the 5th time she's punched a cop. McKinney is a known race-baiter, hate monger, bigot, unintelligent 'tard from my home state.
And I thought the Dems were all about respect and respecting human rights and human civil liberties... maybe she needs more Democratic indoctrination...
Here's the story:
A U.S. Capitol Police officer is considering filing assault charges against Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) following an altercation yesterday in which she allegedly hit him after he asked to see identification, according to a source familiar with the incident.
The incident occurred at approximately 8:50 yesterday morning at the New Jersey Avenue and C Street entrance to the Longworth Building. As McKinney was entering the building, the officer stopped her and asked for identification. McKinney allegedly hit him before identifying herself as a member of Congress and walking away, the source said.
McKinney’s office would not comment on the incident yesterday afternoon.
Sgt. Kimberly Schneider, spokeswoman for the Capitol Police, was unable to confirm the details of the account, saying, “The matter has been brought to our attention and is currently under investigation.”
Members of the House do not typically display their congressional ID cards around the Capitol complex, as staff do, but many wear the official lapel pin for the 109th Congress. It was not known whether McKinney was displaying the pin yesterday.
With or without the pin, many Congress members pass through security with merely a nod or hello to security officers. They are not required to pass through metal detectors.
Capitol Hill publication Hotline reported a witness’s account on its ****. According to the ****, the witness recounted that the officer pursued McKinney after she failed to pass through the metal detector. As the officer took McKinney by the arm, she swung around and punched him in the chest while still holding on to her cell phone.
The incident is likely to have been caught on videotape, since all Capitol Hill entrances are monitored by cameras.
Posted by Pagan on :
Well at least she didn't shoot him in the face with a shotgun Posted by glassman on :
last election? i kept trying to tell all the other conservatives they were stupid to say that liberals are wimps...
LOL
Posted by Gordon Bennett on :
POST OF THE DAY!
quote:Originally posted by Pagan: Well at least she didn't shoot him in the face with a shotgun
Posted by HILANDER on :
Obviously "the man" isn't keeping her down. If what the article says is true, then I kind of figure the cop got what he had coming. I'm sure he knew exactly who she was.
Posted by Team Sleep on :
The cop didn't know her... she tried to enter through an area she never goes to, she changed up her hair style, and she refuses to wear her security I.D.
She tried to by-pass the metal detector and that's when the trouble started, and kept walking after the cop repeatedly asked her to come back. She's her own worst enemy.
You really think the cop would waste his time hasseling her for no reason? He was doing his job.
Posted by bdgee on :
The reports before "editing" by the cops were that the cop grabbed her from behind and she reflexively swung and hit him as she was spun around.
Were you a woman suddenly grabbed from behind when you know you are doing what you are supposed to be doing, it might be a good idea to swing first and ask questions later.
The fact is, no Capital cop has reason or the right to grab or question a Congress person doing exactly as Congress persons are supposed to do, a Capital cop has no right to not know who a Congress person is (since that's the nature of the job!), and this particular one deserves to be canned.....FAST!
Posted by bdgee on :
The following quoted statement conflicts with ALL the available evidence of the incident and clearly is motivated by political interest:
"She tried to by-pass the metal detector and that's when the trouble started, and kept walking after the cop repeatedly asked her to come back. She's her own worst enemy."
ALL Congress persons "by-pass the metal detector". It is their right.
There are witnesses that contradict any claim that the cop "asked" her anything or spoke at all.
Perhaps her "worst enemy" is busy making such statements?
Posted by Team Sleep on :
You're right, Congress can bypass the metal detector WHEN they are WEARING their security I.D. McKinney wasn't wearing hers. That gave the cop reasonable cause to stop and question her and it even gives him the authority to physically stop her.
This cop did no wrong and the tape will prove that. Even if he was just giving her a hard time, she had no place in punching him or slapping him.
McKinney knows she messed and she knows it's all on tape, hence her apology statement that was released today...
Posted by bdgee on :
NO!
The rule is that the Congress person DOES NOT have to wear or display ANY form of ID to bypass those checkpoints.
Are you suggesting that in this time of terrorism that the Congress chose to require Congressmen to wear conspicuous decorations identifying themselves as targets for assassins from Al Qaeda? How idiotic would that be, even if it would benifit your biased argument and views of the incident? Show me that rule and the idiotic Congress person that brought such a bill before Congress. Were all the other members absent when he got such a dumba$$ rule into effect and that is the way he got it passed?
The cop chose to ignore his obligation to know who is and who is not a Congress person and chose to ignore the Congress person's right to bypass the checkpoint, not to mention her right to not be physically attacked for observing her right. The cop had an obligation to NOT impose upon a member of Congress and had NO "cause to stop and question her". However, I can certainly see that a woman, Congress person or not, has "cause" to suspect that someone grabbing her is up to no good and has "cause" to react in defense. Claiming a cop has "cause" to act in a manner that directly contradicts the intended finction of his job is b-ll s--t! And saying otherwise is political bias and trash talk of the kind generated by the RNC!
His job ONLY exist to protect the Congress persons and that requires that he first know who they are so he doesn't "create or invent", intentionally or otherwise, some imagined "cause" to interfere with them and, thereby, the course of business of the Republic.
He needs to be canned and all those blaming her need to admit they are nothing more than koolade drinkers.
Posted by Team Sleep on :
OK, following your line or reasoning, let me ask you this:
For what purpose and for what reason are congresspersons issued their special security I.D. tags? Why are they issued and expected to wear these tags? What is their purpose?
Tell me what purpose they are if they are not intended to be used for things like bypassing metal detectors?
Posted by Team Sleep on :
You probably won't answer this question, but how can you or anyone else justify her violent outburst and violent behaviour?
Even if McKinney is 100% in the right, how can her actions be just fine and OK?
Again, more double-standards from the Dems (the party of peace and non-violence).
Posted by jordanreed on :
pms
Posted by Pagan on :
quote:Originally posted by Team Sleep: OK, following your line or reasoning, let me ask you this:
For what purpose and for what reason are congresspersons issued their special security I.D. tags? Why are they issued and expected to wear these tags? What is their purpose?
Tell me what purpose they are if they are not intended to be used for things like bypassing metal detectors?
So the lobbyists know who to make the checks out to?
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by Team Sleep: OK, following your line or reasoning, let me ask you this:
For what purpose and for what reason are congresspersons issued their special security I.D. tags? Why are they issued and expected to wear these tags? What is their purpose?
Tell me what purpose they are if they are not intended to be used for things like bypassing metal detectors?
In case you didn't know, which you certainly should, before fostering this bigoted B-ll sh-t you are presenting as reasonable, Congress persons are, via the Constitution itself, immune from arrest......
"...a member of Congress "shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest" both while attending a session and traveling...."
Note that that is Constitutional and even Congress, short of actually ammending the Constitution (which Congress hasn't the power to do), cannot dispose of that law.
Whether or not they are issued their special security I.D. tags", as you put it. They are NOT required to even have them, let alone wear them.
I can't tell you what their purposes is, since they aren't required and cannot be made so without a Constitutional ammendment.
But I can tell you what the purpose of your post that begins by declaring the Congresswoman was a Democrat and leaving out most of the facts, then characterized a womans defense of her person by saying she "punched" the policeman, leaving out the fact that she did so in response to an attack, so as to disparage both the Congress woman and the Democratic Party. Yours was a biased and purtely partisan political character attack.
Now, had you taken the opposition political approach and titled your insinuations such as. "A Capital cop who is a Republican sympathizer manhandles a Congresswoman", you probqbly would want to believe I would approave. No way. I'd have asked what the h-ll his political affiliation had to do with the situation and why you imagine the cop was acting as a Republican and then suggested you may have over stated the case by choosing the descriptive word "manhandles" (or should it, in this case, have been "womanhandles").
[ March 30, 2006, 20:15: Message edited by: bdgee ]
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by Team Sleep: You probably won't answer this question, but how can you or anyone else justify her violent outburst and violent behaviour?
Even if McKinney is 100% in the right, how can her actions be just fine and OK?
Again, more double-standards from the Dems (the party of peace and non-violence).
Where do you get off describing the incident of a woman defending herself as a "violent outburst and violent behaviour" when you have already demonstrated via misrepresentations that you have no facts to justify your insinuations.
She did not attack him, he attacked her. He is by Constitutional requirement not allowed to resrtrain or arrest her. It is his responsibility, as an official representative of the Capital Police, expected to at least have a passing familiarity with the boundaries of the laws he is there to enforce, including those that declare he can not restrain a member of Congress.
How, pray tell, do you get off defending an attempted open voilation of the Constitution and a perpetrator of that violation?
Posted by glassman on :
TS, you might wanna read this article... to be honest? today is the first i've heard of her
Let me point out though, it repeatedly refers to her as an ex congress member, the date on the article is June 18, 2003. Since that time, Cynthia McKinney, was re-elected to Congress.
I may have only recently heard of Cynthia McKinney myself, but after reading that article, I want to hear more of her and of her ideas.
Posted by jordanreed on :
I like this from the same article''
Months before the 2000 presidential elections, the offices of Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Secretary of State Katherine Harris ordered the removal of 90,000 citizens from the voter rolls because they were convicted felons . . . and felons can’t vote in Florida. There was one problem: 97 percent of those on the list were, in fact, innocent.
They weren’t felons, but they were guilty . . . of not being white. Over half the list contained names of non-whites. I’m not guessing: I have the list from out of the computers of Katherine Harris’ office -- and the “scrubbed” voter’s race is listed with each name.
And that’s how our President was elected: by illegally removing tens of thousands of legal African American voters before the race.
Posted by glassman on :
that appears to be correct jordan...
the facts seem to be verified from numerous sources...
the "funny" part? everybody complains about the recount issue and ignores the real issue: voter disenfranchisement...
i think Rove did an awesome job of diverting the attention...
on the other hand? the Dems may not have complained too much about FLA because there are so many illegals registered to vote elsewhere...
why else would Bush be so worried about getting their vote?
the sad truth in America today is that we probbaly could not stand up to international scrutiny in our very own voting system, and the electronic system will in fact make it IMPOSSIBLE to verify anything... i have no idea where all this is headed, but i don't like it..
Posted by Team Sleep on :
Where and when did I say McKinney should be arrested? I didn't. I know what the constitution says.
McKinney herself said that out of the 435 congress men and women on capitol hill, only 7 others don't wear their issued security I.D. And guess who started wearing her I.D. tag yesterday?????
I think it's pretty funny that there isn't even a bit of furor over the fact that she refuses to face the media, and Pelosi is saying "It's no big deal..."
If this were A GOP, there would be an uproar about not facing the media and the Dems would be all over this situation.
The bottom line is, her actions are completely unjustitifed... even if the cop was harrasing her because she was black, as her first press release states, she should conduct herself in a professional manner, rise above it, and be the bigger person.
And after McKinney blamed her 2002 congressional loss (to another black woman) on the Jews, I lost all respect for her. What kind of insane and ridiculous thinking is that? She lost to a Republican black woman and she blames Jews for her loss? Her credibility is shot.
Posted by bdgee on :
Do you not think at all? Or do you simply hate and regurgitate the Party line, which is what appears to be the case.
What you advocate is that a Capital Cop be allowed to grab and hold a mamber of Congress.
If a cop detains you, that is an arrest. Check it out.......follow back the roots and origines of the word....a-rest, i.e, to stop from moving. And note that the Framers of the Constitution considered exactly that possibility. The provision that they inserted into the Constitution to free members of Congress from such detention is to stop any and all interference with a member of Comgress being able to perform his functions for the Nation. It makes no allowances for either your or my political preferences....it shouldn't.
Also, it is clear that you didn't bother to read the link Glass.... provided, that dispels all that trash talk about the Congresswoman you are spewing.
Now let's look at your "jive-talk" insult ("Congressho") to a mamber of Congress. Do you have to engage in that nonsense? Vulgarity properly means something entirely inappropriate and calling a respected member of Congress a "ho" is that and more.
Posted by Team Sleep on :
And what partyline am I regurgitating? I'm not a Dem or a member of the GOP. You can desist with that lame, tired, played-out response...
McKinney said that 9/11 was a fabrication of the Bush administration. Now she has backed away from her unfounded comments...
Her friends are fellow hate-mongers like Louis Farrakhan and Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe. And lets take a look at her donor list which include upstanding folks like Abdurahman Alamoudi, the former executive director of the American Muslim Council, and former college professor Sami Al-Arian. Both have links to terror groups.
Who can forget the riveting letter she wrote to Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal where she blasted Rudy Giuliani for returning Saudi's $10 million "I'm sorry" check after 9/11. She urged the prince to give the money to poor blacks who were neglected by Washington D.C.
What a class act she is...
Surprise, surprise... McKinney is now making this a racial issue. Gee, couldn't see that one coming...
Again bdgee, you won't even speak to the double-standard... if this was a GOP, the media would be screaming for an interview (just like they did with Cheney) and the Dems would be calling for an arrest. You know it! Admit it!
Posted by glassman on :
i have to say i don't like her positions, but i do suspect that this is being blown way out of proportion.
the surveillance vidoes are "inconclusive"... that would lead me to believe she didn't "assualt" the cop...
and she shoulda been wearing her ID pin out of respect for the security people... on the other hand? she's been on the "hill" for ten or twelve years, the cops should know who she is by now since she has such a loud mouth... Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by Team Sleep: And what partyline am I regurgitating? I'm not a Dem or a member of the GOP. You can desist with that lame, tired, played-out response...
McKinney said that 9/11 was a fabrication of the Bush administration. Now she has backed away from her unfounded comments...
Her friends are fellow hate-mongers like Louis Farrakhan and Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe. And lets take a look at her donor list which include upstanding folks like Abdurahman Alamoudi, the former executive director of the American Muslim Council, and former college professor Sami Al-Arian. Both have links to terror groups.
Who can forget the riveting letter she wrote to Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal where she blasted Rudy Giuliani for returning Saudi's $10 million "I'm sorry" check after 9/11. She urged the prince to give the money to poor blacks who were neglected by Washington D.C.
What a class act she is...
Surprise, surprise... McKinney is now making this a racial issue. Gee, couldn't see that one coming...
Again bdgee, you won't even speak to the double-standard... if this was a GOP, the media would be screaming for an interview (just like they did with Cheney) and the Dems would be calling for an arrest. You know it! Admit it!
You keep repeating those lies about the woman!
My god, stop quoting the RNC newsletter.
Posted by bdgee on :
Or are you getting these "facts" off the Bill O'Reily show on Fox?
No offense to Glass (whom I think is an upstanding moderate) but could anyone come up with an article written by a more leftwing flaming liberal than Greg Palast??? I mean, c'mon, people.
I was just in Washington D.C. last week. The helicopters fly overhead all day, every day. You can't go into the Library of Congress unless you register for a "reading card". I wanted to get a cup of coffee in a Starbucks located in the hospital. I had to show my driver's license. All this bickering about whether people (and yes, even the high and mighty icons of Congress) have to wear identification according to the Constitution is moot. Everything changed after 9/11. And if you think it didn't, go visit the Capitol.
Posted by glassman on :
no offense taken....
i really don't like her politics...
i am all for taking all the politicians "down a peg" at this point.. they have been taking too much special interest money...
what i thought was interesting about the article was the "he said that she said" stuff...
been seeing a lot of that...
somebody says somebody said something that they DIDN'T say.....
just recently? i was informed by a neighbor freind that Clinton pardoned murderes on his way out...
i just had to look, and of course i couldn't find a murderer he pardoned, just a bunch of cocaine dealers and bank/savings/loan crooks.... LOL... those are pretty bad, but not murderers...
interestingly? Clinton's pardon list is the only COMPLETE one i could find....
another really good example is Sadam and his connection to 911... Bush recently stated clearly that he was always careful NOT to say Sadam was involved, and yet 70% of people polled during the '04 campaign believed he did say Sadam was involved....
i knew Bush never said it, but was informed over and over and over again that i was incorrect... Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by ladybird: No offense to Glass (whom I think is an upstanding moderate) but could anyone come up with an article written by a more leftwing flaming liberal than Greg Palast??? I mean, c'mon, people.
I was just in Washington D.C. last week. The helicopters fly overhead all day, every day. You can't go into the Library of Congress unless you register for a "reading card". I wanted to get a cup of coffee in a Starbucks located in the hospital. I had to show my driver's license. All this bickering about whether people (and yes, even the high and mighty icons of Congress) have to wear identification according to the Constitution is moot. Everything changed after 9/11. And if you think it didn't, go visit the Capitol.
Leftwing? Isn't that your word for not slanted to the far far right?
The Constitution DID NOT change, no matter how much you may want to install the Religious Right as a dictatorial moral police.
Posted by ladybird on :
Oh for Pete's sake, bdgee, take a lesson from Glass. Chill.
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by ladybird: Oh for Pete's sake, bdgee, take a lesson from Glass. Chill.
"Chill out", you say? Don't you really mean succumb....capitulate......submit?
And accept your vision of the United States without the protections of the Constitution? No, I will not accept the destruction of my Country!
You need to accept the fact that this is not the United States of the RNC.
"Everything changed after 9/11.", is an excuse to justify whatever the Administration wants to shove down our throats and is a line parallel to those by the same spinners and honorable koolade servers that brought us other such wise pronouncements as Saddam has stockpiles of atomic bombs and poison gas and biological weapons already loaded onto rockets he has made that are capable of reaching the United States and anyone the President wants to declare an "enemy combatant" has no Constitutional rights and Saddam is working with Ben Laden and made 9/11 happen and on and on and on........
All of that was nothing but lies and propaganda to scare the population into granting power to a prevaricating president and his hand picked collection haters of normal American values. He wants dictatorial power and you want to allow it.
NO!
The Constitution has not changed, in spite of horrific effort by the Administration and the RNC.
Until you learn that the Constitution is what this country is and is all about and stop advocating ignoring or altering it by Presidential order or judicial manipulation, you are, absolutely, nothing more than an enemy of the United States.
Posted by glassman on :
"Chill out", you say? Don't you really mean succumb....capitulate......submit?
bdgee, you can't be suggesting that i've submitted?
the pendulum swings both ways...
everybody ran from Clinton and now they are gonna run from Bush...
is Delay from Bush' own district? Bush flew down there last month for the primary, (instead of casting an absentee ballot) ostensibly to show his unvoiced support for Delay....
people are beginning to realise that the war on terror will never be over and are waking up to the fact that we can't give up all of our rights to fight it... we've lost very little so far, and i think the lines have been drawn...
the Dems really do seem to be in total disarray, and they have only themselves to blame for losing so much ground in the last elections....
i really want to see the House go Dem and the Senate stay GOP.... i don't like it when one party controls all three....
it takes time, and yes, soemone does need to keep "cracking the whip" so that people don't become complacent....
as the corruption story unfolds? i suspect we'll see more polticos from BOTH parties go down...
i just hope they get everybody that has it coming to them... there's been to much big business welfare under this crew....
big business welfare is not good for capitalism any more than individual welfare is... in fact? i think it's worse....
Posted by ladybird on :
Hey bdgee. I am a staunch believer in the Constitution. In fact, I teach it to 6th graders. I don't want anybody to change it. When I said everything has changed, I meant security, not the Constitution. Wow, you fly off the handle because I use the term "left-wing liberal." Then you assume you know all my beliefs and blast me with your rhetoric. Well, there are extremes to every spectrum and just as there are left-wing loons, there are right-wing wackos. Most people fall somewhere in the middle. Now, relax and take a deep breath. I think the country will somehow manage to get along without your emotional rants.
Posted by Pagan on :
quote:Originally posted by ladybird: just as there are left-wing loons, there are right-wing wackos.
I like the sound of that, almost poetic Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by ladybird: Hey bdgee. I am a staunch believer in the Constitution. In fact, I teach it to 6th graders. I don't want anybody to change it. When I said everything has changed, I meant security, not the Constitution. Wow, you fly off the handle because I use the term "left-wing liberal." Then you assume you know all my beliefs and blast me with your rhetoric. Well, there are extremes to every spectrum and just as there are left-wing loons, there are right-wing wackos. Most people fall somewhere in the middle. Now, relax and take a deep breath. I think the country will somehow manage to get along without your emotional rants.
It isn't me asasuming knowledge of others beliefs, it is you. And talk about rhetoric .... "left-wing liberals" ..... "leftwing flaming liberals" .... "Everything changed after 9/11" ..... "the Constitution is moot" ......
NO, THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT MOOT.
You say, "I think the country will somehow manage to get along without your emotional rants." Well, does it fail to impact your being and what you see as "ballanced" OR "moderate" that you are very much the ranter or you wouldn't be laying on so many intentionaly pejorative terms?
Consider following your own advice before you toss about terminology you clearly intend to belittle and besmirch and have no other reason or basis for using. (You are not the only living human being that has practiced the profession of teaching.)
Please take note that neither conservative nor liberal serves as a synonym for patriot (include republican and democrat and independent to that list). Assigning labels may be exactly the opposite of patriotic, when discussing political positions in the United States. It defies, after all, the most fundamental precepts of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.
Please, "...relax and take a deep breath. I think the country will somehow manage to get along without your emotional rants".
If my request and observations offend you, I apologize for that, but maybe you could consider not issuing things in quite so obviously demeaning language.
Posted by bdgee on :
Glass....,
No, there are a couple of hundred miles between Sugarland (Delayland) and Crawford (nearest town to where dubya bought a ranch with the money he skimmed from the City of Arlington with the Texas Rangers). I say that as if it mattered after Delay (and not without assistance from dubya) "construed" the Texas congressional and legislative voting districts. I now am in a district that is hundreds of miles from end to end and finger wide and represented by a person that lives in an entirely different climatic zone! I cannot without consulting a map assure you that dubya and Delay live in different districts!
I too have been hoping for a split in party control of the two houses of Congress. It is Party rule and loyalty that is aimed at the destruction our Nation and culture.
[ April 04, 2006, 17:19: Message edited by: bdgee ]
Posted by glassman on :
yes, bdgee, i am aware of what Delay did, and i hope they undo the gerrymandering...
democracy/republic (whichever) only works when the people are truly represented...
otherwise you may as well call it a dictatorship or whatever they call Iran's ONE-PARTY democracy....
i also know why ladybird accuses you of ranting, and i am also aware of what you are ranting about... the problem as i see it is that too many people haven't really been paying attention cuz they think everything is OK...
911 was a wakeup call but i don't think alotof people "got it".... sadam and osambinalivetoolong are both OUR creations.... and nothing has really changed in the policies that created either one...
the same guys who were in Iraq and Iran in the late 80's selling arms to both sides are still in power....
in this article? it mentions Bush the first, not Dubya...
Cheney generally focused on external matters and delegated most internal Pentagon management details to Deputy Secretary of Defense Donald J. Atwood, Jr. He worked closely with Louis A. (Pete) Williams, assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, and Paul Wolfowitz, under secretary of defense for policy. For chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff he selected General Colin L. Powell, who assumed the post on 1 October 1989. Many of Cheney's major decisions resulted from the almost daily meetings he had in the Pentagon with Powell and Atwood.
Cheney met regularly with Bush and other top-level members of the administration, including Secretary of State James Baker, national security adviser Brent Scowcroft, White House Chief of Staff John Sununu, and General Powell. Occasionally Bush consulted with Cheney on matters unrelated to defense, such as White House organization and management. When not at the White House, Cheney was often on Capitol Hill. He understood how Congress, and more particularly the legislative process, operated, and he used this knowledge and experience to avoid the kind of difficulties Caspar Weinberger had encountered with Congress. In general Cheney got along well with Congress and with DoD's main oversight committees in the House and the Senate, though he suffered disappointments and frustrations. http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/secdef_histories/bios/cheney.htm Posted by bdgee on :
Yes, Glass....
We shouldn't forget that this Administration is organized about the same collection of crooks that had to be pardoned to keep them out of the federal prison for the Iran/Contra scandles. They have just continued to operate in the style we allowed them to get away with before. For that shameful neglect, in a sense, we are all responsible and guilty for what they have led us into, with or without the lies.
Patriotism has noting to do with Party loyalty, indeed, Party loyalty, by definition, is the placing of the Party before the Country. That's anti-patriotic. Germany, Russia, Italy, Cuba, and how many others have tried that and descended into dictatorship....if it isn't a strict rule, it at least can't be disproved.
Posted by ladybird on :
I never said the Constitution was moot, bdgee. I said your argument was moot. The Constitution says nothing about having to wear identification or not having to wear it.
You also misconstrue the Constitution when taking Team Sleep to task for his, in your words, bigoted b-ll sh-t.
"In case you didn't know, which you certainly should, before fostering this bigoted B-ll sh-t you are presenting as reasonable, Congress persons are, via the Constitution itself, immune from arrest......
"...a member of Congress "shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest" both while attending a session and traveling...."
And traveling? Here is the exact wording for Article 1, Section 6:
They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.
Representatives are not immune from arrest. They simply cannot be arrested while they are in session - speaking or debating in chambers. Neither can they be arrested while going to or returning from session. This is called the Speech and Debate clause.
By the way, the above address to Team Sleep is what I consider an emotional rant. Calling me an enemy of the state is another.
Posted by LEO on :
Can we get back on topic here....Cynthia McKinney is a walking talking freakshow who is full of herself and who is self-serving. It is never OK to hit a cop, racial profiling or not. This incident and the immature way in which she is handling it will not help her party in this years elections, IMHO.
Posted by Jucifer on :
Democractic leaders won't even stand behind McKinney. They see through her ridiculous actions, ridiculous claims, lies, bigotry, and insanity...
Check this out:
House Democratic leaders publicly rebuked Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) yesterday over an incident last week in which she hit a U.S. Capitol Police officer when he stopped her at a security checkpoint.
Speaking at a news conference, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said of McKinney’s explanation, “I don’t think any of it justifies hitting a police officer. I don’t know if that happened, but if it did happen, I don’t think it was justified. … I find it hard to see any set of facts that would justify striking a police officer.”
Pelosi, who is no longer on speaking terms with McKinney, went on, “Our Capitol Police have a very difficult job protecting this symbol of democracy and the buildings around it.”
House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.) was even more emphatic.
“I think it is the responsibility of every member [of Congress], every visitor to the Capitol, every staff member, every member of the press and anyone else who comes in and out of the Capitol and the House or Senate office buildings to cooperate fully with the Capitol Police, who have been given an extraordinarily difficult and important responsibility of keeping the Capitol safe,” he said, adding, “It doesn’t appear that happened” in McKinney’s case.
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by ladybird: I never said the Constitution was moot, bdgee. I said your argument was moot. The Constitution says nothing about having to wear identification or not having to wear it.
You also misconstrue the Constitution when taking Team Sleep to task for his, in your words, bigoted b-ll sh-t.
"In case you didn't know, which you certainly should, before fostering this bigoted B-ll sh-t you are presenting as reasonable, Congress persons are, via the Constitution itself, immune from arrest......
"...a member of Congress "shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest" both while attending a session and traveling...."
And traveling? Here is the exact wording for Article 1, Section 6:
They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.
Representatives are not immune from arrest. They simply cannot be arrested while they are in session - speaking or debating in chambers. Neither can they be arrested while going to or returning from session. This is called the Speech and Debate clause.
By the way, the above address to Team Sleep is what I consider an emotional rant. Calling me an enemy of the state is another.
Indeed the Constitution is not moot. Nor is any part of it, even after 9/11. And that is the sum and total of my argument. If my argument that the Constitution cannot be ignored is moot (because of 9/11 or any other thing), then, consequently, the Constitution can be ignored, i.e., the Constitution, via your claim, becomes moot.
And you claim that you didn't declare the Constitution to be not in effect is wrong, at best.
It's a simple logical inference. We have A implies B as "our rule". Person X states that "our rule" is "our rule". Then person Y insist that person X is using a moot argument, that is, an argument logically contrary to fact. Thus, accepting Person Y's claim, the statement that A implies B is not "our rule". That forces the result that "our rule" is moot and person Y has so stated that as a fact.
You said, "All this bickering about whether people (and yes, even the high and mighty icons of Congress) have to wear identification according to the Constitution is moot. Everything changed after 9/11." That is in fact false. There is no event or power, short of the destruction of this nation, that can un-declare things declared in the Constitution. That is a matter of definition. The subject in question that you wish to declare "bickering" is that there is the statement in the Constitution exempting members of Congress from arrest while Congress is in session and while members are in route to sessions of Congress (traveling). The constitution provides no exception to that rule and offers no permission to anyone for bypassing it, Yet, you want to declarre it not in effect. I wasn't bickering with anyone, I simply stated that we must abide by the Constitution. So, if you declare that "argument" moot, then, in effect, we don't have to abide by constitutional mandates and by the Constitution. Thus, by your declaration, the Constitution becomes moot.
Your interpretation of what I had to say about Team Sleep's viscious and slanted attack on the character of a member of Congress, based on hear-say politically generated propaganda, is a bit off base, as are several other of your characterizations of what I say and think. (Did you intentionally misquote me?)
You don't know what I think. You are not even close. You don't know me and, from your reaction to things clearly outside your appreciation, I dare say you've never known anyone like me or similar to me. How about not making the "usual" categorizing and labing insults. It would be appreciated.
Please, in the future, take care not to misrepresent what I say (including misquoting). So far I can't see that you have bothered to care about that. As I say, it would be appreciated.
Posted by AgentGPF on :
quote:Originally posted by HILANDER: Obviously "the man" isn't keeping her down. If what the article says is true, then I kind of figure the cop got what he had coming. I'm sure he knew exactly who she was.
Someone in charge of securing a premises has a RIGHT to ask. He didn't "get what he had coming." Remind me never put you in charge of anything important that requires a methodical and careful person. I'll put you in charge of the good old boys club where everyone strokes each other, oh yeah, we call that local goverment.
Posted by AgentGPF on :
quote:Originally posted by LEO: It is never OK to hit a cop, racial profiling or not. This incident and the immature way in which she is handling it will not help her party in this years elections, IMHO.
I'm glad some of us made it past playground fighting and grew up.
Posted by ladybird on :
Well according to the news tonight, a grand jury is investigating the McKinney incident and the officer involved wants her to be charged with assault. I hope she is.
These security police aren't tour guides. Two were shot in 1998 trying to protect legislators. McKinney may have played the race card one too many times.
Posted by BuyTex on :
quote:Originally posted by AgentGPF:
quote:Originally posted by LEO: It is never OK to hit a cop, racial profiling or not. This incident and the immature way in which she is handling it will not help her party in this years elections, IMHO.
I'm glad some of us made it past playground fighting and grew up.
get this first: have no idea what happened/why/about with this congress-chick, but if we here in my country just rolled over for cops? they'd be up our azz...
As home-team players, we have to bow up now and again, simply to remind them who pays the salaries, lol....
Posted by Jucifer on :
More McKinney dirt...
WASHINGTON — When Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) spent money from her congressional office budget to fly singer Isaac Hayes to DeKalb County last year, it wasn't just to have the superstar attend the opening of her new district office or talk about music education for children of the 4th Congressional District.
Hayes also was the headliner at a political fundraiser for McKinney at the Stone Mountain home of state Sen. Gloria Butler, a violation of House ethics and campaign rules.
McKinney's office on Monday said it made a mistake when it paid for Hayes' trip — $500 for airfare and $400 for accommodations — from her $1 million congressional office budget, which is funded by federal tax dollars. Her aides vowed to pay back the money.
But McKinney's problems grew more serious Tuesday because using House funds to pay for purely political activity is specifically prohibited by House rules. Further, McKinney's failure to list Hayes' expenses on her campaign disclosure forms violated Federal Election Commission rules.
"It's actually breaking the law," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
"It's breaking House rules, which prevent a member from using travel funds for anything but their own travel," Sloan said. "And it breaks Federal Election Commission law, which requires that campaign funds be used for campaign expenses."
McKinney's spokesman, Coz Carson, said the misreporting had been an administrative mistake.
"This was not some sinister act to dupe the people out of a small amount of money," Carson said.
Butler, a Democrat from Stone Mountain, said the fundraiser with Hayes in March 2005 was the only event she hosted for McKinney. Butler said she couldn't recall how many people attended the event or how much money was raised, details she said were handled by McKinney's campaign.
Public records show McKinney did make a distinction between the event at her district office and the fundraiser held that evening when it came to catering.
She paid the caterer who did both events about $1,000 from her congressional office funds for one event and $800 from her campaign fund for the fundraiser.
McKinney featured Hayes in a full-color brochure she sent later to constituents. The singer also taped a radio campaign ad for McKinney.
Bob Kemper and Scott MacFarlane write for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
Posted by BuyTex on :
900 bucks for Isaac Hayes?
wotta bargain...
last time my cover-band played we got a grand...
Posted by glassman on :
i just love it when a big fish gets hauled into the net:
all the dirty laundry starts coming out.....
Tom Delay then Mckinney, who's next??
i don't like her or share anything in common with her that i've read about, but there is something about this one that bothers me...
no video... actually? the quote i got was- "no CONCLUSIVE video" so there is video, but it doesn't show a darn thing... anybody really believe the video surveillance wouldn't pick up an actionable incident?
the only places i can think of where surveillance should/would be more "secure" is in casinoes....
this is just another diversion, interesting, but not really worth getting excited about...
Posted by LEO on :
there were eyewitnesses, we'll se what they have to say. They work for dems so they should be honest (lol)
As far as who's next? Possibly Hilary C. Word has it she is stealing lines from Bill's speeches and slipping them into her own. Fairly and balancedly reported by Fox News...For SHAME.
Posted by glassman on :
yeah what's 900 bucks for Isaac Hayes compared to traveling to Scotland?
they've all been "doing it" , it's just a matter of scale isn't it?
DeLay Airfare Was Charged To Lobbyist's Credit Card
By R. Jeffrey Smith Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, April 24, 2005; Page A01
The airfare to London and Scotland in 2000 for then-House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) was charged to an American Express card issued to Jack Abramoff, a Washington lobbyist at the center of a federal criminal and tax probe, according to two sources who know Abramoff's credit card account number and to a copy of a travel invoice displaying that number. DeLay's expenses during the same trip for food, phone calls and other items at a golf course hotel in Scotland were billed to a different credit card also used on the trip by a second registered Washington lobbyist, Edwin A. Buckham, according to receipts documenting that portion of the trip http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12416-2005Apr23.html Posted by BuyTex on :
where *is* the opposition party?
seriously...I no longer question the in-pirates. What's their fear? They got it made.
doh...!
What's the phuk up with the Dems?
Posted by ladybird on :
You know, I remember reading somewhere that 3/4 of McKinney's campaign donors were Arabs or Moslems living outside of her district. That seemed odd to me so I went to a website that lists campaign donors for each representative.
Aaghar, Mohammad Aaron, Henry AARON, JON Abbas, Fazal Abbasi, Rashid Abbasi, Sohaib Abbassi, Nibil Abbassi, Samih ABBOUD, ELIE Abdelilah, Nina Abdelkarim, Basil Abdelkarim, Riad Abdul, Javid Abdul-Rahim, M.y. ABDULLAH, RAIED Abdur-Rahim, Julius Abdur-Rahim, William ABDURAHMAN, ALAMOUDI ABED, WADAD ABERRA, HADDIS ABODUNRIN, YINKA Aboukayyas, Yousef ABT, WENDY ABU-GHAZALEN, SAMIR Abuitar, Yousef ABURISH, HILMI Aburmishan, M. Abusir, Asem ABUZAAKOUK, ALY Abuzarad, Husam
Posted by bdgee on :
Abdul-Jabbar, Kareem
Ali, Muhammad
Posted by jordanreed on :
quote:Originally posted by BuyTex: 900 bucks for Isaac Hayes?
wotta bargain...
last time my cover-band played we got a grand...
But did you get your 20%?
Posted by glassman on :
ladybird, i like that tool, nice find....
it also shows the state of origin of the donations... for instance Aaghar, Mohamad is listed as from Columbus Ohio.... Abdul, Javid is listed as from Teaneck New Jersey....
there's a few possible Moslem type names in Delays list as well, but not as many...
Dealy had this one on his list that caught my eye, "Vigilante for Congress" from Pawtucket Rhode Island, i wonder what that one is?
i wonder how much this is American type Nation of Islam people (Farrakhan) versus rich oil people?
i don't like seeing foreigners contributing at all, like when the Chinese donated so much to Clinton.... but i bet they donated just as much to Bush
Posted by glassman on :
Kevin Vigilante is a GOP from Rhode Island...he donated to Delay's campaign? LOL sounds like more money laundering.... Posted by ladybird on :
ladybird, I like that tool, nice find....
Thanks, Glassman. I think it's helpful to follow the money trail on anyone in politics.
By the way, you said you didn't like some of McKinney's politics. Which ones?
Posted by glassman on :
the bill I supported provided for the Secretary of HHS to negotiate for the price of prescription drugs for the entire nation. Not only would this plan save our seniors and others money, but it would save the nation money too http://www.cynthiaforcongress.com/issues/healthcare.html
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)