| Yes | 82% | 82% - 29 | ||||
| No | 5% | 5% - 2 | ||||
| Maybe | 11% | 11% - 4 | ||||
| Total: 35 | ||||||
I was thinking the same thing.CameronPoe wrote:
I would have thought the obvious answer is a resounding yes. Start a white caucus and see how long it lasts.
Seems to fit the definition of racism to me. They exclude non-blacks and have a race based adgenda.wikipedia wrote:
Over the years, the question has arisen, "Does the Caucus allow only black members?" Pete Stark, D-Ca., who is white, tried and failed to join in 1975. In January 2007, it was reported that white members of Congress were not welcome to join the CBC.[5] Freshman Representative Steve Cohen, D-Tn., who is white, pledged to apply for membership during his election campaign to represent his constituents, who were 60% black. It was reported that although the bylaws of the caucus do not make race a prerequisite for membership, former and current members of the Caucus agreed that the group should remain "exclusively black." Rep. William Lacy Clay, Jr., D-Mo., the son of Rep. William Lacy Clay Sr., D-Mo., a co-founder of the caucus, is quoted as saying, "Mr. Cohen asked for admission, and he got his answer. He's white and the Caucus is black. It's time to move on. We have racial policies to pursue and we are pursuing them, as Mr. Cohen has learned. It's an unwritten rule. It's understood." In response to the decision, Rep. Cohen stated, "It's their caucus and they do things their way. You don't force your way in."
Clay issued an official statement from his office:
"Quite simply, Rep. Cohen will have to accept what the rest of the country will have to accept - there has been an unofficial Congressional White Caucus for over 200 years, and now it's our turn to say who can join 'the club.' He does not, and cannot, meet the membership criteria, unless he can change his skin color. Primarily, we are concerned with the needs and concerns of the black population, and we will not allow white America to infringe on those objectives."
On January 25, 2007, Representative Tom Tancredo, R-Co., spoke out against the continued existence of the CBC as well as the Democratic Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Republican Congressional Hispanic Conference saying, "It is utterly hypocritical for Congress to extol the virtues of a color-blind society while officially sanctioning caucuses that are based solely on race. If we are serious about achieving the goal of a colorblind society, Congress should lead by example and end these divisive, race-based caucuses."[6]
Last edited by mcgid1 (2009-10-08 16:12:07)
mcgid1 wrote:
Seems to fit the definition of racism to me. They exclude non-blacks and have a race based adgenda.
That being said, it's not the same as the KKK or other hate groups, but it is still racist.
Sure it's a stretch, but not far off.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
It's incredibly stupid to compare a political group based on race to an organization that lynches black people.
Absolutely correct. And to FM, they may not lynch white people, but they sure seem to dislike whites.CameronPoe wrote:
I would have thought the obvious answer is a resounding yes. Start a white caucus and see how long it lasts.
There is a very big difference between racially motivated legislation and burning crosses.JohnG@lt wrote:
Sure it's a stretch, but not far off.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
It's incredibly stupid to compare a political group based on race to an organization that lynches black people.
If you look at them as being right or wrong, they are not so different.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
There is a very big difference between racially motivated legislation and burning crosses.JohnG@lt wrote:
Sure it's a stretch, but not far off.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
It's incredibly stupid to compare a political group based on race to an organization that lynches black people.
It's not even like we're talking black code type legislation.
Never said magnitude has nothing to do with it. You are either trying to deflect the argument or you are just being a tard. Hard to decipher which sometimes. The comparison is slightly related at best, but they are related.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Because magnitude has nothing to do with anything. Extremism and mild political incorrectness are comparable.
So it is OK then?AussieReaper wrote:
They are representing a minority. They aren't trying to destroy one.
The comparison is useful for nothing but mindless attack.LividBovine wrote:
Never said magnitude has nothing to do with it. You are either trying to deflect the argument or you are just being a tard. Hard to decipher which sometimes. The comparison is slightly related at best, but they are related.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Because magnitude has nothing to do with anything. Extremism and mild political incorrectness are comparable.
So you attack the mindless attack and ignore the base argument of whether or not the organization should exist or not.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The comparison is useful for nothing but mindless attack.LividBovine wrote:
Never said magnitude has nothing to do with it. You are either trying to deflect the argument or you are just being a tard. Hard to decipher which sometimes. The comparison is slightly related at best, but they are related.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Because magnitude has nothing to do with anything. Extremism and mild political incorrectness are comparable.
If they were actively trying to commit genocide, incite racial violence and kill people then no it wouldn't be okay.LividBovine wrote:
So it is OK then?AussieReaper wrote:
They are representing a minority. They aren't trying to destroy one.