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

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its a trivial issue compared with much bigger ones, and considering discrimination against blacks was enshrined in US law until relatively recently, and is still practiced extensively, I'm not sure what you're griping about.

As trivial as accusing the tea party, as a pack of racists, with little to no evidence compared to that of Carson and the CBC. You spare no expense trashing the tea party as being racist while totally ignoring and/or dismissing what has been presented regarding actual govt. officials.

I think you're confused between govt officials and elected representatives.

Its an easy mistake.

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

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".

Who is saying the tea party is racist?
I've heard a lot of words used, none flattering, but not racist.

you gotta be fuckin kidding me Dilbert.

Tell you what, how about you? you wanna tackle the question as to whether or not you would consider a whites only group within our govt. or otherwise, that pushes a whites only agenda and rejects membership form any other race, a racist organization?

Where did you get the idea our laws aren't race specific?  I've heard you complain multiple times about EOE and other like laws.

I do not have a problem with a race-specific group researching issues, and lobbying to get these issues included in legislation.  Why isn't there a white caucus?  Well, its not going to encourage the voter base, is it?  But it could exist if someone wanted to throw it out there.

You see, either you believe that the legislative system works (aka, the special interests influence legislation for GOOD reasons) or you think it's broken.

Secondly, I have yet to believe this a-hole represents the entirety of thought from the CBC.

Thirdly, we are talking about the possibly losing funding.  They would lose funding if what they said was blatantly false.  I am not going to dissect whether what was said was false, nor am I going to attempt to figure our whether this one guy is fully endorsed by the CBC.  Others will do that, and EVEN if guilty...the group only loses funding.  Don't you think the CBC will continue to exist anyway?

Instead you rage about how unfair it is to have a race-specific caucus group...and ignore the entire system, purpose, and checks and balances in place already.  You ignore other groups like the CBC exist.

In other words, you either are completely naive about the system or you don't like brown people.

I also find it ironic that you do not see the CBC, its agenda, or its membership as blacks only as racist, yet have no problem openly calling me racist for challenging it. Just like real world and the liberal line of defense. Typical.

Last edited by lowing (2011-09-13 07:18:19)

Pug wrote:

lowing wrote:

Pug wrote:

Where did you get the idea our laws aren't race specific?  I've heard you complain multiple times about EOE and other like laws.

I do not have a problem with a race-specific group researching issues, and lobbying to get these issues included in legislation.  Why isn't there a white caucus?  Well, its not going to encourage the voter base, is it?  But it could exist if someone wanted to throw it out there.

You see, either you believe that the legislative system works (aka, the special interests influence legislation for GOOD reasons) or you think it's broken.

Secondly, I have yet to believe this a-hole represents the entirety of thought from the CBC.

Thirdly, we are talking about the possibly losing funding.  They would lose funding if what they said was blatantly false.  I am not going to dissect whether what was said was false, nor am I going to attempt to figure our whether this one guy is fully endorsed by the CBC.  Others will do that, and EVEN if guilty...the group only loses funding.  Don't you think the CBC will continue to exist anyway?

Instead you rage about how unfair it is to have a race-specific caucus group...and ignore the entire system, purpose, and checks and balances in place already.  You ignore other groups like the CBC exist.

In other words, you either are completely naive about the system or you don't like brown people.

last time,


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?


kinda sorta a yes or no question.

lol.  How about you START answering the questions I put forth a few pages back first?

I think it's already clear my point.  Since you lack reading comprehension....see above highlight.

I openly call you a racist, because I continue to make the same point - the CBC is governed by the same rules of other organizations that are just as discriminatory as the CBC.  I point this out.  I show you proof.

So..if you have the proof that there other groups like the CBC, but you single out the CBC...I'm incorrect in calling you a racist?

If you aren't racist, then explain to me why we shouldn't disband all other special interest groups using the same logic you have put forth here?

Pretty easy, I've been asking this question of you for a few pages now.

I have long addressed your posts, every one of them.

Lets recap.

I told you why I am addressing the CBC. There is are no laws on the books that are race specific. There for no reason to have a race specific congressional organization within govt.

I told you that the "rules" that you love to keep citing are not only irrelevant to the discussion at hand, I also pointed out that whatever rules you want to cite would not go unchallenged if a white only organization, certainly within our govt. tried to meet and push policy for whites only.

I also said I do not have a problem with certain special interests groups such as the aged, children, or handicapped,  I listed my reasons in past posts.

I have said these things repeatedly.

Now, how about you answer the question I posed to you?

Last edited by lowing (2011-09-13 09:45:11)

See, the bottom line here is that I don't see a difference between the CBC and other caucuses.  You do.  I've explained there is no difference by explaining the rules for LSOs.  You ignore them and say they are irrelevant.

Well, they are relevant if you are citing reasons why one group should be disbanded.

Fuck dude, white is a race no?
Read the fucking highlight for your answer.

YES







_{or maybe no}

Pug wrote:

Let me repeat:
I do not have a problem with a race-specific group researching issues, and lobbying to get these issues included in legislation.
Either you believe that the legislative system works (aka, the special interests influence legislation for GOOD reasons) or you think it's broken.

So in other words, that's a NOT RACISM for me and a YES RACISM for you.

and let me repeat. Our laws are for the people ALL the people. There are no race specific laws, there for should not be any race specific organizations by govt. officials.

Now again I will ask you SPECIFICALLY. Would you consider any whites only organizations within govt. or otherwise, that are made up of whites only, exclude any other race, and press for whites only issues, a racist organization..Yes or No Pug.


So in other words, I would consider any group within govt. or otherwise that is race specific, and exclude other races to be racist, be it black white hispanic or purple.

Your continued avoidance of answering this specific question with a specific answer is starting to become telling. So again toe to toe, answer the question without all of your ambiguous bullshit. Yes or No?

Pug wrote:

What the fuck, I thought that was clear.  Apparently you have to clarify your "simple" yes or no question...

Which is the definition you are using:
1) A completely discrimatory organization formed for the purpose of discrimating against any other group, and has authority to act without regard to government oversight;

or

2) a faction within a legislative body that pursues its interests through the legislative process

I did clarify my question it is clear and direct.

Would you consider a "whites only" group of govt. officials or otherwise, that excluded all other races from their meetings, and push for "whites only" agendas and considerations a racist organization? Simple and direct...Now all you gotta do is say yes or no. Your insistence that you do not answer this direct and specific question with a direct and specific answer ( yes or no) is as telling as it is absurd and comical.

Now how about, yes or no?

Pug wrote:

Comical indeed.

Well, are you talking about a caucus?

Please note I said within our govt. or other wise. In other words,  I don't give a fuck. Would you consider an organization of whites only, for whites only and made up of whites only pushing for whites only agendas, excluding all other races, to be a racist organization.

Yes or no.

Pug wrote:

What exactly are you looking for?  I've answered this a few pages back already...plus five times on this page (I counted).

Would you consider a "whites only" group of govt. officials or otherwise, that excluded all other races from their meetings, and push for "whites only" agendas and considerations a racist organization? Simple and direct...Now all you gotta do is say yes or no.

Can't ask any more directly than that.

Last edited by lowing (2011-09-13 18:49:00)

Pug wrote:

You already have a direct answer.

Learn to fucking read.

No Pug, ya didn't. I ask you a direct yes or no question. You did not give me a direct yes or no answer. You fed me a line ambiguous bullshit. No go back and read what I asked and answer it yes or no

Telling me you think a whites only group has just as much a right to assemble is not telling me if you think it is a racist group. Also asking me if I think the legislative system works is NOT telling me if you think a whites only organization is racist.

Last edited by lowing (2011-09-13 19:10:13)