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

Dilbert_X wrote:

I don't understand the point you're making, you're saying any kind of corruption, favouritism, nepotism etc is fine just so long as it doesn't involve race, specifically brown people?

There are many de facto whites only 'caucuses', rich only caucuses, WASP only caucuses, jew only caucuses, freemason only caucuses, Ivy League only caucuses, etc etc etc but you're bent all out of shape by a brown only caucus?

Its not that long ago that discrimination against blacks was enshrined in law - the pendulum has swung fractionally the other way - boo hoo.

You do understand the point I am making, you must, because you are hell bent on avoiding and addressing it.

You just told me and admitted there are no "whites only" groups within our govt. So stop trying to rephrase the same beaten down argument in order to try and save it. It is dead. Now move on to my argument and address it.

This is not about "favoritism" "corruption"or "nepotism". It is about one blatant racist and a blatant racist organization within our govt. A man and a group that would not be allowed to exist if it were a whites only group. You yourself, have labeled people and groups racist with far less information and far less evidence. 

You speak of the pendulum of discrimination. You are right, it was 40 years ago our laws were discriminatory, however, that wrong has been corrected. A pendulum swing the other direction is as EQUALLY wrong.

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I don't believe the concern is manipulation of the govt by these groups.

It should be.

/facepalm

I'm talking about the OP.

Oh well then let ME say...It should be. Why the hell else would you have such meetings, caucus's, special interest groups, (whatever term Pug feels comfortable with) if not to make change that favors not all people, but YOUR special interest?

FEOS wrote:

lowing wrote:

FEOS wrote:

/facepalm

I'm talking about the OP.

Oh well then let ME say...It should be. Why the hell else would you have such meetings, caucus's, special interest groups, (whatever term Pug feels comfortable with) if not to make change that favors not all people, but YOUR special interest?

I don't agree that these groups should be meeting. But I also don't think they introduce "blacks only" legislation into Congress...at least, I haven't seen any reports of that.

What exactly would you think any group that meets that is race specific, refuses help or membership from any other race then, if not pushing policy for their race if not themselves?

Also I have no problem with special interest groups that help people that can not help themselves or that raises awareness for these groups. IE the handicapped, or children, etc... but for race? fuck that!!

and lets not forget, I am talking about organizations of govt. officials not private citizens pushing agendas on govt.

Last edited by lowing (2011-09-11 06:46:26)

lowing wrote:

I have answered your posts more than once. You choose to dissect what a caucus is, even though I have repeatedly and correctly described the double standards on which they meet.

I'm going to stop you right here.

I'm telling you WHAT THE RULES ARE.

I am not telling you WHAT I SUPPORT OR NOT SUPPORT.

Read the post and shut the fuck up already:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti … ganization

Pug wrote:

lowing wrote:

I have answered your posts more than once. You choose to dissect what a caucus is, even though I have repeatedly and correctly described the double standards on which they meet.

I'm going to stop you right here.

I'm telling you WHAT THE RULES ARE.

I am not telling you WHAT I SUPPORT OR NOT SUPPORT.

Read the post and shut the fuck up already:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti … ganization

read up....and note whatever fuckin rules you want to cite, you can acknowledge that they would not be acceptable for any whites only congressional caucus's, meetings, organizations, focus groups, special interest groups, or whatever else you want to use for dissection to derail the argument at hand

Last edited by lowing (2011-09-11 14:30:53)

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

/facepalm

I'm talking about the OP.

Me too. lowing should be ranting about important stuff, not whether the fuzzy-wuzzies have private discussion group.

There is nothing private about public servants using public money and public office to forward private agendas and racist polices.

Besides your last line of bullshit has already been addressed. I will patiently wait for you to stop avoiding the double standards and the racism from Carson and the racist organization that he belongs to.

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

There is nothing private about public servants using public money and public office to forward private agendas and racist polices.

You've just blown trillions on two unnecessary wars, bailed out a corrupt and undeserving corporate sector to the tune of trillions, and you're bothered that black people are having meetings?

As I said, your arguments are continuously debunked. Switching topics is not an acceptable argument of this issue. If you want to make a thread regarding the issues you mentioned go for it. I will even respond.

How about you stick to the topic in this thread and stop avoiding it.

I don't care what "black people do", I care that public servants are allowed to make racist comments and belong to racist organizations, if you are not white that is.

Again I will patiently wait for you to address the OP. and the racist Carson and the racist CBC.

I gotta tell ya, yours and Pugs deliberate and obvious avoidance of the OP is as laughable as it is telling.

Last edited by lowing (2011-09-12 04:09:45)

Ok, so here's where I'm at:
-This guy who made the comment is a complete asshole and should be fried.
-The guy does not represent the entire CBC.
-The CBC is not a racist organization.
-Having special interest caucuses are extremely important to government as they provide insight directed towards specific topics.
-Pushing racism in a special interest group should never be done.
-If you are arguing that the CBC should be disbanded based on this guy, then ALL special interests should be disbanded for the same reason...why? Because the same logic you are using to remove the CBC is the same logic for forming every caucus in congress.

I continue to tell you this, and you continue to act indifferently/idiotically.

Last edited by Pug (2011-09-12 06:10:06)

Pug wrote:

Ok, so here's where I'm at:
-This guy who made the comment is a complete asshole and should be fried.
-The guy does not represent the entire CBC.
-The CBC is not a racist organization.
-Having special interest caucuses are extremely important to government as they provide insight directed towards specific topics.
-Pushing racism in a special interest group should never be done.
-If you are arguing that the CBC should be disbanded based on this guy, then ALL special interests should be disbanded for the same reason...why? Because the same logic you are using to remove the CBC is the same logic for forming every caucus in congress.

I continue to tell you this, and you continue to act indifferently/idiotically.

Never said the entire CBC was racist because of this guy. It is racist because it is a blacks only organization made up of elected govt. officials. where no other race is allowed. Your own accusations of racism regarding other groups are not as blatantly racist as this group.

Carson is racist because well, he belongs to a racist organization, and spews racially charge comments as an elected official.

There is a difference between a special interest group and a whites only group or a blacks only group. Race is not supposed to be a differentiating factor within our govt. Whites can't do it, neither should blacks or any other race and certainly not as an elected official within our govt..Unless of course you subscribe to the double standard and discrimination that goes along with a blacks only organization within govt.

What you continue to tell me are posting bullshit rules for caucus's and argue the definition of caucus. You do not address the OP. You also fail to acknowledge whatever rules you love to cite would not be acceptable for whites only groups in any capacity, especially within the fuckin govt.

Please explain how a group like the CBC is not racist, when it is a blacks only membership and their agenda is for blacks only, and their members spew racist comments and accusations. I suppose then, based on your criteria, the KKK is not racist, nor the skin heads.

Last edited by lowing (2011-09-12 06:34:08)

Pug wrote:

Because its a special interest group. 

I have NEVER said that a whites only group is not allowed, in fact I said, based on the rules available one could exist!

You have called groups like the tea party racist with far less evidence of them being as such, and no, I do not believe for a second that you would not consider a whites only group within govt. or not, a non-racist group. You accept the CBC as a mere special interest group. You would not consider any whites only organization as anything except a racist hate mongering organization, yet you give the CBC a pass on this.

and yes by calling it a "special interest group", makes it sound benign, compared to the CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS. A govt. sanctioned "blacks only" organization made up of elected officials, using tax payer money and govt. offices and tax payer time to forward their agenda. Nice try.

Last edited by lowing (2011-09-12 07:14:50)

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

Each district elect their representative, the people are represented equally.

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.

Not interested really in the rest of the thread.

Democracy is majority rule. I dont buy the whole "the person I voted for lost so i'm not represented" argument. I mean come on you only have 2 parties, wouldn't that make America only half democratic? Everybody gets one vote therefore they are all equally represented.

Pug wrote:

When did I call the tea party racist?  I said the membership is overwhelming made up of the same type of people.  By definition, a special interest group is formed to support their own agenda.  Which exactly is what the CBC is doing.

YOU are the one taggig that as a racist activity.

So by me using the same logic you are using...
I have explained that the CBC is one of many organizations which has a narrow focus.  There are other groups which focus are specific to age, religion, country, and yes race.

You want to exclude the CBC, but allow the rest to stay put?  Or do you want to disband all groups in general?

Based on the fact you are defending the Tea Party YOU have to come to an understanding that these organizations have the right to exist for the same reason the Tea Party exists.

I'm also not understanding why you are so hung up with attempting to reverse this on me.  The group was formed to deal with black issues.  The Tea Party deals with issues that are more in line with its membership.  The Council on Aging deals with old people shit.

If you would stop for a second and actually educate yourself on how LSO's get founded and their guidelines...

Our govt.s laws apply equally, not differentiated by race there for there is no reason for members of our govt. to form organizations that cater to a specific race.  Handicapped people, old people, children etc. need special consideration because they have special needs that the majority does not. It is not set up for OLD white people, or HANDICAPPED white people. It is set up for all citizens in need of those considerations. There are no considerations that should be addressed by race within our govt.. In doing so, you are discriminating. Period.

ok so lets just get this straight once and for all. You would not consider any "WHITES ONLY" congressional meetings OF white people FOR white people as a racist organization. is this what you are telling me?

Last edited by lowing (2011-09-13 02:01:32)

Pug wrote:

I AM not telling you anything.

I AM telling you that the RULES allow for a white's only caucus.

and I AM TELLING you, a whites only group would be considered racist. Look at what the tea party has been made out to be and it isn't even "whites only".

lol, Ok, well lets see if we can pin you down once and for all. I am asking YOUR OPINION. Would YOU consider a "whites only" organization within our govt. or otherwise, whose agenda is "whites only" issues, and refuses membership from any other race, a racist group?

you also failed to address the first paragraph, ya know where I stated our laws are not race specific there fore there is no need for race specific meetings within our govt. and its lawmakers.

Last edited by lowing (2011-09-13 06:24:56)