Not many of the above in Aus.Macbeth wrote:
Hispanics. A Spanish person is a European.
Mexican, Spanish, and Hispanic are not interchangeable.
Each district elect their representative, the people are represented equally. Are you suggesting govt. should represent by race? whites black and chinese are represented as American citizens, there are no laws that distinguish race, so there is no need for racial representation within govt.AussieReaper wrote:
Each district is represted. But that doesn't mean the population groups in those districts are equally represented. And with black/mexicans/chinese better represented I don't see a problem.lowing wrote:
They are? There is a black president you know that right? and each district is represented, are you telling me they represent by race and not by district?AussieReaper wrote:
Because they are under-represented in politics.
and yet again you fail to answer if you would consider a white caucus racist. How about you just go ahead and tackle that question once and for all with a simple yes or no?
Asking if a white caucus is racist is too stupid a question to have to answer. There is no need for one. I'm sure that in 50 years when the Spanish are the majority, you would be screaming for a white caucus and I wouldn't find that racist.
So asking about a white caucus is too stupid to answer huh? Got it.
How about a white miss America, white magazine, white scuba clubs ( http://www.nabsdivers.org/ ) the list goes on and on. Would any of those be considered racist by you? Race is not supposed to an issue within govt. and to have a blacks only group within our govt. is by the definition set forth against such white groups, a racist organization.
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6950
So then stop poking at the dead horse.lowing wrote:
Race is not supposed to an issue
If a minority vote one way, and the majority in another, the people are not represented equally.lowing wrote:
Each district elect their representative, the people are represented equally.
That's a pretty simple concept that I'm surprised you are failing to understand.
How bout you get into context. or better yet, ignore the thread.Superior Mind wrote:
So then stop poking at the dead horse.lowing wrote:
Race is not supposed to an issue
The elected official is supposed to represent the district NOT the race, speaking of failing to understand.AussieReaper wrote:
If a minority vote one way, and the majority in another, the people are not represented equally.lowing wrote:
Each district elect their representative, the people are represented equally.
That's a pretty simple concept that I'm surprised you are failing to understand.
Don't forget to go back and answer the question Aussie
Last edited by lowing (2011-09-01 05:12:15)
Voting blocs based on race are asinine.AussieReaper wrote:
If a minority vote one way, and the majority in another, the people are not represented equally.lowing wrote:
Each district elect their representative, the people are represented equally.
That's a pretty simple concept that I'm surprised you are failing to understand.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Exactly.lowing wrote:
The elected official is supposed to represent the district NOT the race, speaking of failing to understand.AussieReaper wrote:
If a minority vote one way, and the majority in another, the people are not represented equally.lowing wrote:
Each district elect their representative, the people are represented equally.
That's a pretty simple concept that I'm surprised you are failing to understand.
Which is why blacks, etc are under-represented. Duh.
Do you want this explained with a popup book or similar?
In our constitution it isn't specified whether congress people have to represent the views of the people of their district or are supposed to use their own best judgment when voting.AussieReaper wrote:
If a minority vote one way, and the majority in another, the people are not represented equally.lowing wrote:
Each district elect their representative, the people are represented equally.
That's a pretty simple concept that I'm surprised you are failing to understand.
Random fact
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6950
Government of the people. If race doesn't belong there, it doesn't belong anywhere else.lowing wrote:
How bout you get into context. or better yet, ignore the thread.Superior Mind wrote:
So then stop poking at the dead horse.lowing wrote:
Race is not supposed to an issue
Or the best judgement of lobbyists.Macbeth wrote:
In our constitution it isn't specified whether congress people have to represent the views of the people of their district or are supposed to use their own best judgment when voting.AussieReaper wrote:
If a minority vote one way, and the majority in another, the people are not represented equally.lowing wrote:
Each district elect their representative, the people are represented equally.
That's a pretty simple concept that I'm surprised you are failing to understand.
Random fact
Then the elected official for a district should be championing for his district and NOT for his race right?AussieReaper wrote:
Exactly.lowing wrote:
The elected official is supposed to represent the district NOT the race, speaking of failing to understand.AussieReaper wrote:
If a minority vote one way, and the majority in another, the people are not represented equally.
That's a pretty simple concept that I'm surprised you are failing to understand.
Which is why blacks, etc are under-represented. Duh.
Do you want this explained with a popup book or similar?
They aren't under represented. White people don't vote in favor of legislation that helps black people? I know you like arguing with lowing, but you're wrong here.AussieReaper wrote:
Exactly.lowing wrote:
The elected official is supposed to represent the district NOT the race, speaking of failing to understand.AussieReaper wrote:
If a minority vote one way, and the majority in another, the people are not represented equally.
That's a pretty simple concept that I'm surprised you are failing to understand.
Which is why blacks, etc are under-represented. Duh.
Do you want this explained with a popup book or similar?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
correct, govt. of the people, NOT govt. of the black people, or govt. of the white people. Govt. is supposed to be neutral yet a black caucus seems to fly in the face of that stance, just like a white caucus would.Superior Mind wrote:
Government of the people. If race doesn't belong there, it doesn't belong anywhere else.lowing wrote:
How bout you get into context. or better yet, ignore the thread.Superior Mind wrote:
So then stop poking at the dead horse.
No, they should be championing the people he/she represent. All of the people. And the best way to do that, is to give added representation to the minorities in those districts who are often overlooked because they are a minority.lowing wrote:
Then the elected official for a district should be championing for his district and NOT for his race right?AussieReaper wrote:
Exactly.lowing wrote:
The elected official is supposed to represent the district NOT the race, speaking of failing to understand.
Which is why blacks, etc are under-represented. Duh.
Do you want this explained with a popup book or similar?
How so, what laws are there that "ovelook "blacks? What laws are racially biased today? Congress makes laws, period. Are you suggesting there are white laws and black laws? Or do the laws of the land apply to all citizens?AussieReaper wrote:
No, they should be championing the people he/she represent. All of the people. And the best way to do that, is to give added representation to the minorities in those districts who are often overlooked because they are a minority.lowing wrote:
Then the elected official for a district should be championing for his district and NOT for his race right?AussieReaper wrote:
Exactly.
Which is why blacks, etc are under-represented. Duh.
Do you want this explained with a popup book or similar?
and no, they should be representing the district that elected them, not the black people or the white people in the district that elected them.
Last edited by lowing (2011-09-01 05:21:54)
Is it too a difficult concept if I were to mention the life expectancy between a white/black/hispanic population and why providing better/cheaper medical access to the minorities via law is an attempt to decrease the gap? Because I'd have thought that would be obvious.lowing wrote:
How so, what laws are there that "ovelook "blacks? What laws are racially biased today? Congress makes laws, period. Are you suggesting there are white laws and black laws? Or do the laws of the land apply to all citizens?
This sentence makes no sense. The district is made up by those people.lowing wrote:
and no, they should be representing the district that elected them, not the black people or the white people in the district that elected them.
So its OK if the President just looks out for the rich then?lowing wrote:
they should be representing the district that elected them, not the black people or the white people in the district that elected them
Fuck Israel
Show me a hospital that accepts poor white people yet turns down poor black people.AussieReaper wrote:
Is it too a difficult concept if I were to mention the life expectancy between a white/black/hispanic population and why providing better/cheaper medical access to the minorities via law is an attempt to decrease the gap? Because I'd have thought that would be obvious.lowing wrote:
How so, what laws are there that "ovelook "blacks? What laws are racially biased today? Congress makes laws, period. Are you suggesting there are white laws and black laws? Or do the laws of the land apply to all citizens?This sentence makes no sense. The district is made up by those people.lowing wrote:
and no, they should be representing the district that elected them, not the black people or the white people in the district that elected them.
If that district is made up of those people and they voted the congressman in, then they ARE represented.
you need to explain that one Dilbert. How did you get there from my post?Dilbert_X wrote:
So its OK if the President just looks out for the rich then?lowing wrote:
they should be representing the district that elected them, not the black people or the white people in the district that elected them
That has more to do with diet and violence than health care.AussieReaper wrote:
Is it too a difficult concept if I were to mention the life expectancy between a white/black/hispanic population and why providing better/cheaper medical access to the minorities via law is an attempt to decrease the gap? Because I'd have thought that would be obvious.lowing wrote:
How so, what laws are there that "ovelook "blacks? What laws are racially biased today? Congress makes laws, period. Are you suggesting there are white laws and black laws? Or do the laws of the land apply to all citizens?This sentence makes no sense. The district is made up by those people.lowing wrote:
and no, they should be representing the district that elected them, not the black people or the white people in the district that elected them.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
You object to a congressman supporting non-white minorities, and yet you cheer when the President pushes through tax cuts for the rich - a predominantly white, male minority.lowing wrote:
you need to explain that one Dilbert. How did you get there from my post?
How so?
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-09-01 05:37:41)
Fuck Israel
That just means the majority are represented.lowing wrote:
If that district is made up of those people and they voted the congressman in, then they ARE represented.
This is true.AussieReaper wrote:
That just means the majority are represented.lowing wrote:
If that district is made up of those people and they voted the congressman in, then they ARE represented.
Representatives are supposed to represent all their constituents, not just the ones who voted them in or pay them 'campaign donations'.
Fuck Israel
kfc errydayJay wrote:
That has more to do with diet and violence than health care.AussieReaper wrote:
Is it too a difficult concept if I were to mention the life expectancy between a white/black/hispanic population and why providing better/cheaper medical access to the minorities via law is an attempt to decrease the gap? Because I'd have thought that would be obvious.lowing wrote:
How so, what laws are there that "ovelook "blacks? What laws are racially biased today? Congress makes laws, period. Are you suggesting there are white laws and black laws? Or do the laws of the land apply to all citizens?This sentence makes no sense. The district is made up by those people.lowing wrote:
and no, they should be representing the district that elected them, not the black people or the white people in the district that elected them.
