BF2S Forums Rep. Andre Carson, D- Indiana - words of wisdom

Pug wrote:

lowing wrote:

Pug wrote:

Why isn't there one penis in the women's caucus?

Why isn't there one person over 30 in the Under 30 Caucus?

Get back with me when the CBC recognizes the tea party or any whites only allowed group as something other than a organization of racist. When the CBC recognizes whites only allowed groups, you will have an argument. Until then, it is a double standard on which they exist. That is the discussion. You did see the video right?

Answer the questions and feel free to throw in "special needs" to make it look like its not a double standard in your logic.
Since its perfectly logical to think women are not equal than men, and being under 30 is a disability.

Right? That's your argument why only non black caucuses arent discrminatory? Or was it that I proved the cbc was discrimatory, but you believe only the cbc is discriminatory despite using your same logic and applying it elsewhere?

Oh yeah, I think I made that argue a few times already. I hope you didn't accidentally fall asleep there

Already told you being a woman can have special needs issues...You have failed to tell me what special needs being black would entail, or what special needs ANY race would entail. So no, it is not the same logic Pug. Until you tell me what special needs black people have over all other citizens,  you really don't have an argument.

Oh and by the way, special needs is your catch phrase, it isn't mine.

Roc18 wrote:

Lol I wonder why the black caucus is getting so much media attention. I love that Obama ripped them.

Obama didn't rip them, he tried to rally them. Must be going bad for Obama for catering to all blacks, instead of the fence sitters. In 2008 he had them locked in just because of race, now he is begging for their votes.

lowing wrote:

Pug wrote:

lowing wrote:

lol, actually you didn't. So I will try again....What rights do white people have that blacks don't?

Is it your opinion that white people can gather in whites only allowed groups to defend white rights without being considered racist, EVEN under the same rules you cling to as an argument? If this is your opinion, do you have any examples that support your opinion?

I am no longer answering things I've already answered.

you did? You gave me an example of a whites only allowed organization that is not considered racist? Hmmmm I missed that I guess. I missed what it is you are basing your opinion on.

I answered this already

Pug wrote:

lowing wrote:

Pug wrote:

Answer the questions and feel free to throw in "special needs" to make it look like its not a double standard in your logic.
Since its perfectly logical to think women are not equal than men, and being under 30 is a disability.

Right? That's your argument why only non black caucuses arent discrminatory? Or was it that I proved the cbc was discrimatory, but you believe only the cbc is discriminatory despite using your same logic and applying it elsewhere?

Oh yeah, I think I made that argue a few times already. I hope you didn't accidentally fall asleep there

Already told you being a woman can have special needs issues...You have failed to tell me what special needs being black would entail, or what special needs ANY race would entail. So no, it is not the same logic Pug. Until you tell me what special needs black people have over all other citizens,  you really don't have an argument.

Oh and by the way, special needs is your catch phrase, it isn't mine.

I answered that already.
and the under 30 caucus?

No ya didn't , and how many congressmen are under 30? What govt. organization has 30 and under allowed in it?  Personally I don't think any, but I could be wrong.

women caucus's fight for all women not white women, handicapped caucus's champion issues regarding all handicapped not white handicapped.

I don't give 2 flyin fucks if blacks only groups exist. Just not within our govt. which is supposed to represent the people.

http://www.hapblog.com/2011/09/cbc-atte … acist.html

Pug wrote:

Yes, I happened to discuss why whether there was a white only caucus how that was not important.


Second, there is a caucus of senators and representatives who are under 30, called the Under 30 Caucus. There is like eight members.

Women's caucus fights for women, but not men. I wonder if there is a man's caucus? Or am I not allowed to make the same argument?

And regarding your flyin fucks, I think you only care because they are black, because I've shown you several times where discrimination exists based on your comments.  Either the rules are the same for everyone or the organizations all should be disbanded

If a whites only caucus isn't important, why should a blacks only caucus be important?

love to see a link to those senators and congressmen that are under the age of 30.

As I said repeatedly, there are special considerations that only apply to women, if there are special considerations that only apply to blacks I am still waiting for you to list them.

Nope, I care because they represent blatant racism within our govt. SOmething we have moved away from for 2 or 3 generations now. I also loathe the hypocrisy of their very existence and their open unhindered opinions of others being racist while they bath in it.

Pug wrote:

lowing wrote:

If a whites only caucus isn't important, why should a blacks only caucus be important?

Exactly.  You apply the rules equally.

lowing wrote:

love to see a link to those senators and congressmen that are under the age of 30.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/30_Something_Working_Group

in the link you never bothered to read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucuses_o … s_Congress

lowing wrote:

As I said repeatedly, there are special considerations that only apply to women, if there are special considerations that only apply to blacks I am still waiting for you to list them.

I've already listed them.  Why isn't there a man's caucus?

lowing wrote:

Nope, I care because they represent blatant racism within our govt. SOmething we have moved away from for 2 or 3 generations now. I also loathe the hypocrisy of their very existence and their open unhindered opinions of others being racist while they bath in it.

Well, I think I've been pretty clear that it lies within the individual member.  Where's a whole lot of restrictions you are omitting within your argument.  The reality is the CBC is vocal but pretty powerless, just like the Tea Party and other caucuses.

If there were a whites only caucus, I would consider it equally as racist. This is the double standard on which the CBC is allowed to operate where others would be chastised

I see no congressional caucus of congressmen under the age of 30 sorry.

Nope you haven't. You have not told me what special needs blacks only have, nor any special rights whites only have that blacks do not.


yeah it lies within the individual members, unfortunately just about every member has made comments, or has a questionable affiliations. Their  very name is racist Pug, and this is not about anything except their hypocritical existence, where others could not get away with it without being labeled racists.

did you happen to watch the video I posted?

lowing wrote:

If there were a whites only caucus, I would consider it equally as racist. This is the double standard on which the CBC is allowed to operate where others would be chastised

So black people are more organized...I mean that in a non-stereotypical way.

lowing wrote:

I see no congressional caucus of congressmen under the age of 30 sorry.

My apologies.  30 somethings.  Aka 30 - 40 year olds only.

lowing wrote:

Nope you haven't. You have not told me what special needs blacks only have, nor any special rights whites only have that blacks do not.

yes i have civil rights and more

lowing wrote:

yeah it lies within the individual members, unfortunately just about every member has made comments, or has a questionable affiliations. Their  very name is racist Pug, and this is not about anything except their hypocritical existence, where others could not get away with it without being labeled racists.

did you happen to watch the video I posted?

not yet.  but you never bothered to understand my links either, so consider it a wash.

lowing wrote:

got nothing to do with organization...Has everything to do with hypocrisy

30-40 year old Americans? great!! ALL 30 -40 year old Americans? or only white 30-40 year old Americans?  I have no idea what they would talk about, nor do I care. I have no problem with congressmen meeting over issues that concern ALL retirees, ALL children, ALL women, ALL men, ALL teenagers.... I do have a problem with an blacks only allowed congressional meeting whose core existence is racism screaming racism.

Look every caucus has a specific focus.  The 30-40 group is looking specifically at angles within the legislation for 30-40 year olds.  The group is made up of only 30-40 year olds.  Just like the women's caucus.  Just like the Tea party.  It's a group that essentially is made up of the same concentration...

If the CBC is discriminatory, then all caucuses are discriminatory.

lowing, fucking learn to read.  i've answered your question multiple times.  its time for you to move on.  you understand my point so move on.

really? so i don't have to go back a few pages where you claimed that all of the bills the CBC introduced/supported were racist?

you are claiming they are...

make up your mind.

30-40 year olds make up about the same percentage of population in the US as black people.  If you are defining the CBC as a discriminatory organization based on 1) everyone is the same, 2) membership is limited, 3) focuses mostly on a target population...then the 30 something group is discriminatory as well...according to you.  How is it ok for 30-40 year olds but not blacks?

Absolutely assinine

Pug wrote:

lowing, fucking learn to read.  i've answered your question multiple times.  its time for you to move on.  you understand my point so move on.

really? so i don't have to go back a few pages where you claimed that all of the bills the CBC introduced/supported were racist?

you are claiming they are...

make up your mind.

30-40 year olds make up about the same percentage of population in the US as black people.  If you are defining the CBC as a discriminatory organization based on 1) everyone is the same, 2) membership is limited, 3) focuses mostly on a target population...then the 30 something group is discriminatory as well...according to you.  How is it ok for 30-40 year olds but not blacks?

Absolutely assinine

No  you haven't, telling there are rules is not answering my question. Telling me whites can do it tooooooo is not answering my question. Telling me 200 years ago we had slavery is not answering my question. Telling me 50 years ago our country discriminated is not answering my question. SO let me try yet again..

What rights do whites have that do not apply to blacks? What rights do blacks have that whites don't that they feel need special representation?


The CBC is racist and yes their bills are directed toward the black community. Which is more to my point. White people can not get away with this form of discrimination in todays govt. Because our govt. is supposed to have moved away from such attitudes.  Hence the double standard, ya know the one you refuse to address?


I define the CBC as racist because of who it represents, who is allowed to be a member, its agenda, what they have publicly said, its very title, and the fact that its hypocrisy apparently knows no bounds....IF you come up with racist shit the 30-40 crowd does, let me know. Also if the 30-40 crowd screams discrimination from the 20-30 crowd, get back with me. Cuz that would be a double standard as well. and if it is one that you wanna talk about we can.


Again, black is not a special needs group..........OR IS IT? <-------ya see, that is a another question you refuse to answer.

Last edited by lowing (2011-09-29 10:24:36)

Pug wrote:

lowing wrote:

No  you haven't, telling there are rules is not answering my question. Telling me whites can do it tooooooo is not answering my question. Telling me 200 years ago we had slavery is not answering my question. Telling me 50 years ago our country discriminated is not answering my question. SO let me try yet again..

What rights do whites have that do not apply to blacks? What rights do blacks have that whites don't that they feel need special representation?


The CBC is racist and yes their bills are directed toward the black community. Which is more to my point. White people can not get away with this form of discrimination in todays govt. Because our govt. is supposed to have moved away from such attitudes.  Hence the double standard, ya know the one you refuse to address?


I define the CBC as racist because of who it represents, who is allowed to be a member, its agenda, what they have publicly said, its very title, and the fact that its hypocrisy apparently knows no bounds....IF you come up with racist shit the 30-40 crowd does, let me know. Also if the 30-40 crowd screams discrimination from the 20-30 crowd, get back with me. Cuz that would be a double standard as well. and if it is one that you wanna talk about we can.


Again, black is not a special needs group..........OR IS IT? <-------ya see, that is a another question you refuse to answer.

We covered this already.

Either the cbc has the right and everyone has the right, or it doesn't and none of them do.

Wow.  Same answer...again....

EXACTLY, same non-answer,  answer.


My questions have nothing to do with the right others have to do the same thing as the CBC. It has everything to do with the perception of some other group doing it, and the hypocrisy that comes from that perception.

Pug wrote:

lowing wrote:

EXACTLY, same non-answer,  answer.


My questions have nothing to do with the right others have to do the same thing as the CBC. It has everything to do with the perception of some other group doing it, and the hypocrisy that comes from that perception.

Yeah, I know its a bitch when people actualy use context when answering your question, isn't it?

I wouldn't know, I haven't seen you address the hypocrisy or the double standards that I try to discuss.

Pug wrote:

lowing wrote:

Pug wrote:

Yeah, I know its a bitch when people actualy use context when answering your question, isn't it?

I wouldn't know, I haven't seen you address the hypocrisy or the double standards that I try to discuss.

The context is "what is a caucus" and "the function of a caucus" and "the legislative system" and "government oversight".

Things you continue to ignore.

No actually, the context is the double standards and hypocrisy of racism on which the CBC exists, and operates, as well as their motives.