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

Pug wrote:

lowing wrote:

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

You mean the same rules that all caucuses operate under right?

aka, how is it a double standard when all are allowed the same leash?

Because I do not hear your 30-40 caucus screaming age discrimination about the 80 year olds. How bout you?


If you are going to tell me that a whites only caucus championing whites only issues, can exist without being considered racist by the CBC, NAACP or the black community in general well then I will call you a liar, because you know better, or in denial because you are naive, or dismissive because you don't want to stand toe to toe with it.

Pug wrote:

Try again.

You mean the same rules that all caucuses operate under right?

How is it a double standard when all are allowed the same leash?

Those were the questions.

You are making statements that they are doing something illegal, right?  And then claiming a double standard within the law, right?

nope

because as I said, whites would not not be allowed the same leash, without being condemned as racists. The treatment of the tea party movement makes that perfectly clear.


Didn't say a word about the CBC doing anything illegal. I said their existence is an accepted double standard where white groups could not assemble without being called out as racists, and certainly not within our govt.

Pug wrote:

lowing wrote:

Pug wrote:

Try again.

You mean the same rules that all caucuses operate under right?

How is it a double standard when all are allowed the same leash?

Those were the questions.

You are making statements that they are doing something illegal, right?  And then claiming a double standard within the law, right?

nope

because as I said, whites would not not be allowed the same leash, without being condemned as racists. The treatment of the tea party movement makes that perfectly clear.


Didn't say a word about the CBC doing anything illegal. I said their existence is an accepted double standard where white groups could not assemble without being called out as racists, and certainly not within our govt.

Ok, I get it.

You are perfectly aware of the function and restrictions of a caucus within our legislative process.  Except those rules don't apply when the caucus is black.

Basically a racist position.


Bye lowing.  Enjoyed this immensely.

Yup, you get it, that is why you are avoiding it.

Nope. not the issue either. Look Pug, it is clear all you want to do is play games..If you do not want to address the double standard and the hypocrisy of the existence of the CBC as I have tried to discuss with you, then just say so and let it go. Whatever rules you want to use as a crutch is irrelevant if those rules would not be a defense in charging whites within our govt. forming whites only organizations, serving white people as racism. Just like the tea party.

Last edited by lowing (2011-09-30 09:23:45)

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

lowing wrote:

Pug wrote:

Try again.

You mean the same rules that all caucuses operate under right?

How is it a double standard when all are allowed the same leash?

Those were the questions.

You are making statements that they are doing something illegal, right?  And then claiming a double standard within the law, right?

nope

because as I said, whites would not not be allowed the same leash, without being condemned as racists. The treatment of the tea party movement makes that perfectly clear.


Didn't say a word about the CBC doing anything illegal. I said their existence is an accepted double standard where white groups could not assemble without being called out as racists, and certainly not within our govt.

The same leash? Lowing, you've been calling them racist this whole thread. Is your whole beef that people would bitch about the existence of a whites-only caucus but that people don't care about a black caucus?

partially, the big complaint is a CBC exists within our govt.. Where great strides has been taken to eliminate successfully a racist govt. only to swing the other direction where the CBC complains about racism, under the same accusations they themselves exist and operate.

Pug wrote:

lowing wrote:

Yup, you get it, that is why you are avoiding it.

Nope. not the issue either. Look Pug, it is clear all you want to do is play games..If you do not want to address the double standard and the hypocrisy of the existence of the CBC as I have tried to discuss with you, then just say so and let it go. Whatever rules you want to use as a crutch is irrelevant if those rules would not be a defense in charging whites within our govt. forming whites only organizations, serving white people as racism. Just like the tea party.

Pardon me, but I'm not playing any kind of game.

There is a law on the books regarding these organizations.  You are claiming the CBC is breaking the law.

Frankly, you haven't been able to come up with anything that proves the law has been broken or the law should be repealed.

Never not once did I say anything about anyone breaking any laws. So please either address the double standards and the hypocrisy of the CBC or don't. Choice is yours.

Pug wrote:

Be specific then.  What is the double standard?

I have been specific and like burnzz, you know damn well the issue I have raised. If you do not want to comment on it, that is fine. don't

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

what is the double standard? Can you repeat it for us dumb people?

Sure.

Our govt. is not supposed to racially discriminate, yet here we have an organization of govt. officials that have formed a "club", within our govt. that does that very thing. It is organized for BLACK people, and not ALL people. White govt. officials would never be allowed to form such organizations without massive protests and resistance and accusations of racism. The teas party faces these very charges, and it is a mixed race organization with blacks that belong to it are considered sell outs and "oreo's"..

lowing wrote:

Pug wrote:

Be specific then.  What is the double standard?

I have been specific and like burnzz, you know damn well the issue I have raised. If you do not want to comment on it, that is fine. don't

Well, in actuality, you have mentioned three separate double standards. Because you switch around, I want to make sure to address the correct double standard.  Do you care to state one of the other double standards so I can address it indiviually?

Plz excuse typos. Rotten phone

lowing wrote:

Pug wrote:

lowing wrote:

Sure.

Our govt. is not supposed to racially discriminate, yet here we have an organization of govt. officials that have formed a "club", within our govt. that does that very thing. It is organized for BLACK people, and not ALL people. White govt. officials would never be allowed to form such organizations without massive protests and resistance and accusations of racism. The teas party faces these very charges, and it is a mixed race organization with blacks that belong to it are considered sell outs and "oreo's"..

Thank you lowing.

And so since the CBC has been formed legally, and an all white caucus could be formed legally...
Where does the double standard exist?

Gee Pug, you just read it. But whatever you do, DON'T address it. Not that I would expect you to actually address it.

How did I not address it?

"An all white caucus could be formed"

Wow, dodged that question....what?

Last edited by Pug (2011-09-30 21:35:21)