Talk:Cynthia McKinney

Here's an interview with her (I wanted to put some of the info into the article, but I don't have time right now). Mt. McKinney Erupts The writer goes out of his way to be nice and respectful, and she starts dissing him. (For the record, the writer is known in Louisville, KY, as a bit of a radical himself. If anyone was going to help her out, it would probably have been him.) Researcher (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Mona
Don't even try to whitewash her history. I have lived in her district for all but one year of my life. She was my representative the entirety of her reign. And she was a fucking loon. |No, I'm not joking. And she and her father have hated Jews for as long as they both have lived. She was just unfortunate enough to get caught saying publicly what everyone knew privately. --Castaigne (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's all very interesting. But nevertheless, sourcing is required. Moreover, what her father thinks is not fairly imputed to her, but if it is going to be, I'm adding the Haaretz reporting on the "Jewish money" targeting her.---Mona- (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's fairly imputed to the father/daughter corrupt gangsterism crazy-shit we put up in Atlanta for years. There's no difference between her and her father. You are hereby notified: you want to whitewash her as a hero of Palestine and unfairly maligned? Fuck you, buddy. Ain't going to happen this go-around. I'll say it out loud: Cynthia McKinney hates Jews. She was corrupt. She would love to throw Jewish babies in oven and eat the remains and her father would help with the marinade. So go back to the Hamas or Zionism article and fucking whitewash there. --Castaigne (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "Corrupt gangsterism" is the language you use to describe the actions of a left-wing African American female congresswomen? That's absolutely disgusting. If you want to engage in an actual discussion, then you shouldn't be hurling out racial stereotypes and labeling a well-educated, professional black women as a "corrupt gangster". If you disagree with her policies and you're pissed off, that's fine, but labeling an African American congresswomen as a "gangster" hearkens back to the days of minstrel shows and public lynchings. Not everyone who criticizes Israel is a "muslim terrorist" or a "Nazi". If you're first reaction to hearing someone criticize the government of Israel is to label them as a supporter of terrorism or Hamas, then you probably have mental health problems. People are aloud to criticize the government. People are allowed to disagree with the actions of other countries. You can criticize whatever country you want. I'm sure you agree that it's possible to criticize Iran without being Islamophobic? And you can also criticize Somalia without being anti-black, you can criticize Russia without being anti-slavic, you can criticize China without being anti-Chinese, etc. I myself am a Jewish man who group up in Pikesville and studied Maimonides in school, and even I am not as bothered by criticism of Israel as you seem to be. I get the impression that you're one of those weird Evangelicals who worships Israel and the Republican party. I think maybe you need to take you meds.


 * You do realize that this comment was made over five years ago? —cosmikdebris talk stalk 17:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to MonaWiki
Where only Mona gets to decide what is and is appropriate here. CorruptUser (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And fuck her. She's not going to whitewash the history of a fucking shithouse-rat crazy loon who decided to declare war against Israel after her failed Presidential bid. She was a fucking horror for our district and we're still having to deal with her corrupt shenanigans. --Castaigne (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Mona has long decided that intelligent adults must support claims, especially extraordinary or derogatory ones, with solid evidence. Even if it makes User:Castaigne have a conniption fit. Freakish, I know. ---Mona- (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Streisand Effect. A quick google is finding far more crazy bullshit.  She is now part of the anti-vaxxer movement. CorruptUser (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * When I get back from the weekend, there's going to be a nice few-paragraph section about her one-man Israel war. --Castaigne (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Once the protection is lifted I'll delete the anti-vaxxer claim if all you have is a 40 minute Youtube. And I'll keep adding footnotes that she was right about Bush knowing in advance about 9/11. This is no longer controverted -- mainstream news has copiously reported it. Add all you like about her views on Israel, but don't make claims about her dad and impute them to her, or if you do, I'll add the Haaretz reporting about "Jewish money" being trown at "Anyone But McKinney." It's simple guys. DOCUMENTATION form reasonable sources, or it goes. (And if you add any of her claims about Israel that I do not find outrageous, I will add support for why she's justified.)---Mona- (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Citation needed that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance. CorruptUser (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Citation needed that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance." I fucking gave it, two sources. Did you not read them? NYT: WASHINGTON, April 9— President Bush was told more than a month before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that supporters of Osama bin Laden planned an attack within the United States with explosives and wanted to hijack airplanes, a government official said Friday.
 * "The warning came in a secret briefing that Mr. Bush received at his ranch in Crawford, Tex., on Aug. 6, 2001. A report by a joint Congressional committee last year alluded to a closely held intelligence report that month about the threat of an attack by Al Qaeda, and the official confirmed an account by The Associated Press on Friday saying that the report was in fact part of the president's briefing in Crawford."
 * And ABC, NBC, and on and on. I can give a dozen mainstream sources.---Mona- (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a significant difference between knowing someone's planning an attack on your country and having foreknowledge of 9/11. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:42, 4 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * More evidence that she's an anti-vaxxer. CorruptUser (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that's nutbar conspiracy bullshit. It's not mainstream, it's not sourced. |It is a conspiracy theory. Keep your Truther crap off.
 * No fucking shit, the VERY LARGE JEWISH CONTINGENT OF DEMOCRATS IN THE DISTRICT threw their money at Hank Fucking Johnson - also a nutter - after she publicly spewed her Jew hate. Gee, it's a wonder how that works. The bunch around Congregation Beth Jacob are only the largest political funders of this fucking district. GEE. What a shock. Say stupid shit, watch your nomination disappear. She was hanging on by a thread as it was - there was a reason we put Denise Majette in office. And the only reason McKinney got back in is because Majette decided to try for Senate and we didn't have a replacement in time.
 * Claiming McKinney is justified in her antisemitism - along with her father - is like claiming Pol Pot is justified in his Cambodian purges. Ain't going to fly. --Castaigne (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "That darn colored vote, it's a conspiracy I tell ya, those people don't know their place and we just let them take control of the media and our daughters" -David Duke, after losing any nomination, probably. CorruptUser (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "No fucking shit, the VERY LARGE JEWISH CONTINGENT OF DEMOCRATS IN THE DISTRICT threw their money at Hank Fucking Johnson" Yes, that's what her father said, rather crudely. If that is to be included I will add the Haaretz quote. Or, you can keep her father out of it. Your choice.---Mona- (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what her "father said rather crudely". He was referring to the usual ZOG bullshit that he spouts to his cultist followers in his private meetings. --Castaigne (talk) 22:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Mona, it's good that you want to defend activists against smears and false accusations, but how do you so often manage to pick ones that clearly have some legitly controversial business to them? Cynthia here clearly has some loony beliefs, PETA has run some extreme and trollish campaigns and is actually known to treat animals unethically and the Animal Liberation Front has done some super-naïve, shortsighted and plainly dumb things that didn't help any animals at all. Trying to whitewash that away doesn't reflect well on you. And as for Bush knowing about the 9/11 attacks, well, our 9/11 conspiracies article tells a different story. (Also, for some reason I can't open the sources you linked regarding the latter.) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:23, 4 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * Evidence suggests that Mona is an agenda-loon, thus chooses fellow loons to defend. --Castaigne (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Trying to whitewash that away doesn't reflect well on you." Whitewash is your word. I will never accept derogatory assertions without DOCUMENTATION. Not for PETA, not for ALF, not for McKinney, not for anyone. And if that doesn't reflect well on me here, then the problem is with RW, not me.---Mona- (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If everyone at RW has an issue with what you're saying, I submit that RW is not at fault for that. But hey, we're all Hasbara Agents in the pay of the Elders of Zion, right? Asshat. --Castaigne (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not an accusation, Mona, that's me trying to give you advice. Don't waste your time fervently defending loons, trolls, fanatics or others that are clearly and harmfully ignorant, even if some of the things said about them lack citations. It's not worth the effort and it likely won't reflect well on you at the end of the debacle. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:44, 4 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * "well, our 9/11 conspiracies article tells a different story" A wrong story, which I've edited out. The Administration knew, and Bush was briefed about Islamisist planning plane hijackings. he did nothing. this is a fact. All reasonable people are "Truthers" if to believe that is to be a Truther.---Mona- (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that's not proven worth a shit. Intelligence was received that there was going to be an attack. Intelligence did not state the exact nature of the attack, when it would happen, or where. --Castaigne (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * By your logic, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were inside jobs by Hirohito. After all, he was informed that the US wanted to bomb his cities. CorruptUser (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I will tell you that a truther told me that the bombing was justified for that very reason.--Owlman (talk) 23:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that's not proven worth a shit. Intelligence was received that there was going to be an attack. Intelligence did not state the exact nature of the attack, when it would happen, or where. --Castaigne (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * By your logic, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were inside jobs by Hirohito. After all, he was informed that the US wanted to bomb his cities. CorruptUser (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I will tell you that a truther told me that the bombing was justified for that very reason.--Owlman (talk) 23:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Mona, try to take it easy. You're losing your credibility when you begin defending moonbats like Cynthia McKinney. She is a conspiracy theorist who also posited that bomb sniffing dogs during the Boston Marathon bombing was proof of the "official story" being suppressed. We should not be defending Alex Jones-type loons. Mona you know better. ChrisAmiss (talk) 07:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Larry Jumps In
What is this about?!?! Larry! - ( talk ) 22:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Larry, this is about my unpleasant habit of requiring sources before accepting derogatory claims. It is also about my equally unpleasant tendency to add explanatory sources to misleading claims.---Mona- (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "After all, he was informed that the US wanted to bomb his cities." So then, he knew the U.S. wanted to bomb his cities. Just as Bush knew Islamists were planning to hijack airplanes.---Mona- (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Knowing that crazy people are planning to attack your country and knowing that they were going to do it in the way they did are two separate things and if you can't see the difference, you should fuck off.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 22:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well fucking good evening to you, too, Paravant. Where is the evidence that McKinney believes anything significantly more than what the media reports?---Mona- (talk) 23:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I gave you the recording of her stating that she thinks vaccines and fingerprinting/DNA collection of suspects are all part of the government plot to commit genocide against black people. What more do you need? CorruptUser (talk) 23:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, there's me having to deal with her in person as one of her constituents. Frankly,, it's not that hard to find mainstream sources on the idiot. --Castaigne (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "I gave you the recording" Please transcribe it for me. I decline to watch a 40 minute video. Or find it in writing. And, find something showing that her beliefs about what Bush knew before 911 were significantly more extreme than what the media reports as fact. I would also point out that you dropped several claims after failing to find documentation for them, and then added this vaccine thing.---Mona- (talk) 23:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * " I decline to watch a 40 minute video. Or find it in writing. " It isn't our problem if you're to lazy to go do that.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * She wants me to provide her a transcript. Which I think I have, actually, somewhere. CorruptUser (talk) 23:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah right, it was the LMGTFY link I gave. Very first thing. CorruptUser (talk) 23:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Castaigne, your second and third links go nowhere; I didn't try the 4th. And the first is about some unpleasant members of some of one of her security teams members, not about her. And Paravant, yes, readers of an entry should not have to watch a 40 minute youtube to document a derogatory claim when it is somewhere buried in it, if it is there at all. CorruptUser if you have a transcript you can cite in which she says what you claim about vaccines, that claim is worth keeping.---Mona- (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing stopped you from finding a transcript, you chose to not do so and instead demand that we furnish one for you because of your own unwillingness to use provided sources.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 23:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Corrected my links. Enjoy. --Castaigne (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Mona read the link CorruptUser just posted. If it is a true transcription there can be no argument she is an anti vaxxer, for what that is worth. Tielec01 (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * CorruptUser, that's solid, the article w/ the interview. McKinney promoted vaxxer bullshit. So, that one is documented. Add that article and I won't touch the entry.---Mona- (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Corrected my links." Which show some rudely aggressive members of one of her security teams, and that she associates with some loony tunes at confernces, including Holocaust deniers. And, that some bad web site linked to a speech of hers. Ok. If you want an entry stating she has cavorted at conferences wth known Holocaust deniers and Muslim antisemites, you have the documentation. But was this not all after her defeat? This stuff couldn't have driven the Jewish opposition to her campaign, because it hadn't happened yet, right?---Mona- (talk) 23:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Paravant : "Nothing stopped you from finding a transcript, you chose to not do so" FFS, I didn't even know if there was one. I provide transcripts for my citations, unless it is an extremely short video. I expect the same for others, and we should provide it to our readers. Several of the sources he gave before DID NOT support what he claimed, and he dropped them. I wasn't going to reasearch his additional sources.---Mona- (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

BOTTOM LINE
Any claim that McKinney believed something about what Bush and his administration knew about 9/11 beforehand must be documented with credible sources showing that she specifically added significant claims over and above those made in many mainstream sources. Moreover, if she is going to be called antisemitic find her saying things beyond criticism of Israel and its U.S. lobby. If her father's comments are to be included, they merit being qualified by Haaretz stating that, indeed, specifically Jewish money poured in to an absurd opponent to defeat McKinney. (Was she associating with Holocaust deniers before that last election?) And again, my constant mantra: DOCUMENTATION. If the claim is extraordinary or controverted among reasonable people, it MUST BE CREDIBLY SOURCED. These are the standards I impose on myself, and on the few occasions when I've been wrong, or my source has proven wrong, I immediately and graciously concede error. I expect the same of others.---Mona- (talk) 02:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Because once again, this is MonaWiki, and the community rules are now the comonaty rules. CorruptUser (talk) 02:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If the rules here endorse galloping assertions with no sourcing, then the rules are wrong.---Mona- (talk) 12:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Here are the rules. We run things as a mobocracy; when everyone but you is agreeing on something, no matter how many "citations" you have and "lack of citations" they have, you are the one that's wrong. CorruptUser (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm aware this is a mobocracy. However, if support for Position X is rejected in favor of Not-X with no support, then the mob is wrong. It is is very difficult for me to see myself acceding to sourceless support for a controverted claim just because those who like it have one more vote than I do. In that case, this site should be renamed. (While I'm sure that point is made here many times when people are not getting their way, it is sometimes applicable, for the same reasons that Godwin's law does not always apply.) And, such behavior can and should affect the reputation of the site. If it's true, to the extent I can affect that reputation, I will. If it's true.---Mona- (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

]
 * "In that case, this site should be renamed" CorruptUser (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Honestly Mona, I am not much invested in most of the articles you seem to care so much about. But, personally I say to you, just go away and shit-bag offsite as much as you want. Tweet away to your heart's delight. Your little implied threats are just tiresome. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, upholding the standard that a claim should be supported is fit for drinking games, not this site. To do so is "shit-bagging." Anyway, I had in the last several years promoted this site. Having been involved now for nearly a month I'm much less enthusiastic about the intellectual standards here and feel an obligation to say so -- to reverse myself -- if that remains my revised opinion after sufficient time.---Mona- (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * RationalWiki has always been a wretched hive of scum and villainy, though often useful and entertaining. I thought some of Mona's early efforts did illuminate one of RW's corners that needed it, but this latest outburst is evidence of not knowing when to stop digging. Maybe it's time to add a section to RationalWiki:Pissed at us for disillusioned, disaffected, and disgruntled RW editors. On second thought, probably not. There was once a wikiwiki for that, but it is long gone, into the memory hole of teh interwebz. Oh, well. SmartFeller (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * User:SmartFeller, my first goal in any intellectual venue is not set at being liked. Not that I want to annoy or make people hate me, but if my insistence on the primacy of facts and documentation does lead to that outcome, well, I have lived with it in many venues and can live with it here. (Among the issues contributing to the strained dynamic is the far higher reactionary quotient than I had anticipated based on the articles I had esteemed and referenced before I joined. It's true I can appear contemptuous of reactionaries and have trouble hiding that.)---Mona- (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You may be almost as old as I am, so doubtless you have seen the transmogrification, the evolution, if you will, of online communities as they arise, flourish, and decline. A few of the earliest RW mob still have the occasional thing to say, but most have been and gone. The couple of outstanding vocal reactionaries on your case are relative newcomers, one in particular needing a good whack with the clue stick. In the prevailing atmosphere, the chances of that happening are slim to nil. For this particular article, encouraging the use of solid sources is the way to go, not threatening to toss toys out of pram and roll off to disparage the wiki elsewhere. You probably already knew that. SmartFeller (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "For this particular article, encouraging the use of solid sources is the way to go, not threatening to toss toys out of pram and roll off to disparage the wiki elsewhere" I sincerely do not intend it as a "threat." I believe in transparency of motive and purpose. I am not a mole, and if I have an agenda I am upfront about it. For several years I have enthusiastically endorsed this site in multiple venues. Initially for the woo articles, but also for the Sam Harris and Gamergate entries. Therefore, I am alerting one and all here that I am increasingly feeling I have mislead people, and not only that, but that this site is a good example of what happens when reactionary secularists -- including Zionists -- take hold. No one will be able to say I kept it a secret that I see a good example of a phenomenon known and addressed by many going on right here. Reactionary secularists are often horrid on civil liberties, torture, civil rights, and foreign policy, and there is much evidence of that problem here.---Mona- (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Batshit
What is this batshit stuff about Bush knowing in advance about 9/11? Has David Icke started editing RW?--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 02:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Follow the sourcing -- the links to the mainstream sources. And read thru some of above on this page. You come to this late.---Mona- (talk) 02:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, we've already been thru the issue of the need for sources in the "crazy" section, and many points I challenged had to be dropped due to no support. I still demand sourcing for this ever-changing roster of "crazy."---Mona- (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * How does a non-specific warning of a potential hijack equate to advance knowledge of 9/11?--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We've been thru this above. There is no evidence she claimed anything other than what all these mainstream stories claim. ---Mona- (talk) 02:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * RW Style Manual


 * Any fact should be referenced. This doesn't mean "delete all unreferenced statements", it means to at least be prepared to do some homework and back up our assertions. Any fact that disparages a person or organization should be referenced as soon as possible.
 * I've been over and over this issue with several above and in the fossil record. They finally dropped many claims they could not support. So then they added a few that are sourced. But they can't source what they claim about her statements regarding Bush -- that she said significantly more than what the mainstream press reports.---Mona- (talk) 03:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there anything on this above other than nobody agreeing with you?--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 03:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What there is is no sourcing for the disparaging claim, as required by the style manual. (And for legal reasons, I might add.) They've had plenty of opportunity, and no sourcing, as asked for, was provided.---Mona- (talk) 03:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Page is protected. Good. Anyone who comes back later with (credible, as deemed by reasonable people) SOURCES that support their claims will have no problem with me.---Mona- (talk) 03:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What happened? Why has everything gone to shit so fast in the last few weeks? &#60;-𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈-&#62; (talk) 03:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What happened is yet another page Mona is editing got protected.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * A page being protected is not good and you should not be happy that it is happening.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So what? She is doing a good job of putting our articles under strong scrutiny, and it turns out that many of our articles don't hold up so well (although perhaps more surprisingly, some do). This is especially important when we make negative claims about people. Tielec01 (talk) 03:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see why you're being hostile to me in this. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Because I'm balding and Hitler had a full head of hair. No, if that comment was directed at me, I didn't intend to come across as hostile. Tielec01 (talk) 03:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * God damn nazis, they ruin everything. Alright, I just wanted to make sure.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 03:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "putting our articles under strong scrutiny, and it turns out that many of our articles don't hold up so well" Absolutely, when they are topics I feel comfortably knowledgeable about. The lack of sourcing -- especially the freewheeling spewing of unsourced derogatory claims -- is scandalous here. To the extent of my abilities and knowledge I'm fixing that. ---Mona- (talk) 04:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

How exactly does Cynthia McKinney suggesting CIA plot an admission of anti-Zionism?
I'm referring specifically to the portion "She's really banging it out: "If it's a terrorist act and the culprit yells Allahu Akbar, know that's CIA-speak for 'We did it!' Or how about, "Russian colonel says ISIS is a division of the CIA." Too bad she was railroaded out of D.C. by the Zionist dogs!" I understand there is a degree of hyperbole but this seems like a level of bias that accuses her of being an anti-ZIonist, despite a clear lack of evidence to support that claim. --"woomaster" Talk & Contribs 11:11AM, 27 December 2017 (UTC)