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

lowing wrote:

Pug wrote:

Question 4:
Do you realize that if an all-white caucus was formed it would cease to be a functioning caucus if it did not follow the rules governing LSO's...rules that disallow your wet dream of having racist laws being passed?

DO you realize that an all white caucus would never be allowed to form without being labeled a racist organization? Kinda the point of the whole argument.

Not exactly what I've been saying.  A white caucus COULD form.

The stress here is..."if it did not follow the rules governing LSO's".

aka, if the organization formed specifically to be racist...it is doomed.

jesus, 12 pages to manage that. and i'll bet a mod get's the last post.

lowing wrote:

Pug wrote:

Question 6: If one person in the CBC is labeled as racist by you does that make the CBC a racist organization?

Nope, the CBC is racist baed on its racist actions by refusing non blacks to join. It is racist by the elected officials spending time on blacks only issues whatever that is, and not the issues of all the people.

Sounds good, going back to question one then

Pug wrote:

lowing wrote:

Pug wrote:

Question 4:
Do you realize that if an all-white caucus was formed it would cease to be a functioning caucus if it did not follow the rules governing LSO's...rules that disallow your wet dream of having racist laws being passed?

DO you realize that an all white caucus would never be allowed to form without being labeled a racist organization? Kinda the point of the whole argument.

Not exactly what I've been saying.  A white caucus COULD form.

The stress here is..."if it did not follow the rules governing LSO's".

aka, if the organization formed specifically to be racist...it is doomed.

No Pug, it could not form without being labeled a racist organization. and rightfully so. Fuck, you can't even hold up a sign that says 'YOU MAD BRO" without the fuckin NAACP coming down throwing race cards everywhere. Even when they were informed of the background behind the phrase, they still insisted it was racist. For you to deny that whites could get away with forming their own race specific organizations within govt. or otherwise, without being labeled racist is some deep deep denial.

lowing wrote:

Now a question for you. Since all of our laws are not race specific. Name one issue that our govt. should do for "blacks only" that it should not do for every other citizen. and if you can not think of one, then there is no other reason to have a blacks only organization other than for discriminatory reasons.

We HAVE had laws that have been racially discrimative in nature (Jim Crow, reason for the 13th amendment, etc...)...I'm taking a position that the purpose of a caucus is NOT to discriminate.  Its to defend rights.

But beyond that (and I'm tired so I'm lazy) I know we've discussed EOE laws before.

Pug wrote:

stop taking the bait

good luck with that.

Pug wrote:

lowing wrote:

Pug wrote:

Question 8: If publically it seems that the one person from question 6 (Andre Carson?) and publically it seems that the one person from question 7 (Allen West?) are very up front about their beliefs are part of the CBC, which do we believe since one seems to cancel out the other?

Easy, Andre' Carson is a racist based on his words and his officiation with a racist organization.  Allen West belonging to a racist organization that is blacks only and an organization that is clearly for the people, all the people does seem to be in conflict, and it would seem he might see that as well which has prompted him to resign from the racist organization.

Except he didn't resign.

I stand corrected, here is his reasoning, however, I feel the CBC and any conservative ideology is in conflict, so I gotta step back and try and figure this guy out.
"Cowards run from challenges, while warriors run to the sound of battle," West proudly declared. "I will not be resigning from the Congressional Black Caucus. Constitutional Conservatism is now and will in the future be a part of the Congressional Black Caucus."


http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011 … battle.php

Pug wrote:

lowing wrote:

on some of those issues yes. But most of them are for womens needs issues therefore I do not consider discriminatory.  However issues like the Family Medical Leave Act, is not exclusive to women. I took advantage of it as well when my sons were born.


For example you have heard me speak out against hate crime bullshit. Whatever the violence against women act is, it sounds like some bullshit special consideration act thats wants to say killing a woman is worse than killing a man.

My base argument is what you can't get around.

The purpose is to defend the rights, not to promote discrimination.

I'm pretty sure that cervical/breast related laws are sex specific...

I'm still not understand why its merely race.

And let's be honest lowing...hate crime isn't a good example for either one of us.  Both of us what the fucker dead in that situation = max penalty is awesome.

What rights need defending more vigorously for black people than for ALL people. What rights are whites entitled to that blacks are excluded from?

The cervical and breast cancer treatment act goes toward allowing more women access to screening under medicaid. This is not discriminatory. Sorry. It goes towards women's needs not women's rights.

Race is discriminatory because there are no "special needs" based on race. Womens health yes, ( not white womens health) is special needs, handicapped is a special need, children are special needs. Being black is not a special need issue.

lowing wrote:

Pug wrote:

lowing wrote:

Now a question for you. Since all of our laws are not race specific. Name one issue that our govt. should do for "blacks only" that it should not do for every other citizen. and if you can not think of one, then there is no other reason to have a blacks only organization other than for discriminatory reasons.

We HAVE had laws that have been racially discrimative in nature (Jim Crow, reason for the 13th amendment, etc...)...I'm taking a position that the purpose of a caucus is NOT to discriminate.  Its to defend rights.

But beyond that (and I'm tired so I'm lazy) I know we've discussed EOE laws before.

Yes laws that were in place 50 years ago. The vast majority of blacks in our country were either not alive during those times or too young to remember. As I told Dilbert, and of course he didn't respond. A racial pendulum centered is equality, a pendulum that swings the other direction is EQUALLY as racist, discriminatory and wrong as before.

As far as EOE goes, there are blacks in positions because they are black and NOT because they bested their competition in test scores, or qualifications.. What exactly is the message you want to convey with this?

A prime example.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37318753/ns … nMfWnNdo-A

Racism was legal in the past...the purpose of these caucuses is to make sure it doesn't happen again.  NOT to promote discrimination.

Pug wrote:

lowing wrote:

Pug wrote:

We HAVE had laws that have been racially discrimative in nature (Jim Crow, reason for the 13th amendment, etc...)...I'm taking a position that the purpose of a caucus is NOT to discriminate.  Its to defend rights.

But beyond that (and I'm tired so I'm lazy) I know we've discussed EOE laws before.

Yes laws that were in place 50 years ago. The vast majority of blacks in our country were either not alive during those times or too young to remember. As I told Dilbert, and of course he didn't respond. A racial pendulum centered is equality, a pendulum that swings the other direction is EQUALLY as racist, discriminatory and wrong as before.

As far as EOE goes, there are blacks in positions because they are black and NOT because they bested their competition in test scores, or qualifications.. What exactly is the message you want to convey with this?

A prime example.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37318753/ns … nMfWnNdo-A

Racism was legal in the past...the purpose of these caucuses is to make sure it doesn't happen again.  NOT to promote discrimination.

Ummmm discrimination in a different direction is not making sure it doesn't happen again. The pendulum balanced at bottom dead center is what makes sure it doesn't happen again, not swinging it the other way.

lowing wrote:

Ummmm discrimination in a different direction is not making sure it doesn't happen again. The pendulum balanced at bottom dead center is what makes sure it doesn't happen again, not swinging it the other way.

Pretty much you have to prove the organization makes discriminatory laws no?  I've kind of already explained the purpose of the caucus is protection.  You think its to promote discrimination.

I mean right now all I'm going on is you telling me they are discriminatory based on being homogeneous.  But discrimination is only race, according to you.

I see no reason to discuss this anymore.

Pug wrote:

lowing wrote:

What rights need defending more vigorously for black people than for ALL people. What rights are whites entitled to that blacks are excluded from?

The cervical and breast cancer treatment act goes toward allowing more women access to screening under medicaid. This is not discriminatory. Sorry. It goes towards women's needs not women's rights.

Race is discriminatory because there are no "special needs" based on race. Womens health yes, ( not white womens health) is special needs, handicapped is a special need, children are special needs. Being black is not a special need issue.

Ahh jeez.

Walking a pretty fine line on the difference between "needs" and "rights".

Bills supported and/or introduced by the CBC:
-Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 (H.R. 4868) (aka South African sanctions)
-Voting Rights Language Assistance Act (help those people who can't read vote)
-National Voter Registration Act (increase access to voting booths)
-Help America to Vote Act
-HR 4197, the Hurricane Katrina Recovery, Reclamation, Restoration, Reconstruction and Reunion Act of 2005
-Voting Rights Act (continual renewals)

Pretty much these are the big accomplishments.  Are these racist because the CBC was very much involved with getting this bills turned into law?

I'm really not seeing the difference between sex and race discrimination here...they are too parallel.

and you really do not see through any of those bills? really? example. Where is the CBC and there wonderful life saving legislation when TX or Florida gets nailed by hurricanes? 

there may not be a difference between sex and race discrimination depending on the issue. However, since there are no laws that are race specific  then there really isn't any reason for a CBC to assemble is there? While at the same time, women through biological needs have certain considerations that should be addressed. Just like the handicapped, it is awareness that brought about access ramps and handicapped parking spots or handicapped accessible restrooms. Using your logic these are discriminatory, and it isn't...

I asked you before and I will ask again. What laws are in place that are race specific that requires the existence of the CBC and the support of the other racist organizations such as the NAACP or the BLack Panthers?

lowing wrote:

and you really do not see through any of those bills? really? example. Where is the CBC and there wonderful life saving legislation when TX or Florida gets nailed by hurricanes?

You actually wrote that!

What make up your mind!  Are there racist laws or not?