Ya lost me, it is well established the CBC favors legislation that support black communities..What is it I said that shocks you so much?Pug wrote:
You actually wrote that!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?
What make up your mind! Are there racist laws or not?
Not quite answering are you...so I'll repeat the question.lowing wrote:
What laws has the tea party passed that is racist...Doesn't stop anyone from labeling them as such, and they are not even whites only.
IF the CBC was for the people, ALL the people, then they would not be a race specific organization. Their very existence is racist.
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.
As far as this goes...lowing wrote:
and you already admitted that any such white organization that met under the same circumstances, using the support of the KKK or the aryan race hate groups would be considered racist... Again. It is this double standard that I address trying sticking to that point.
The KKK or aryan race cannot support a caucus. Which means your statement about what I said is false. I hope you eventually read the rules I have posted in this thread.
If you think "protection" of a certain race by racist congressmen isn't discrimination. I can't help ya.Pug wrote:
Not quite answering are you...so I'll repeat the question.lowing wrote:
What laws has the tea party passed that is racist...Doesn't stop anyone from labeling them as such, and they are not even whites only.
IF the CBC was for the people, ALL the people, then they would not be a race specific organization. Their very existence is racist.
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.As far as this goes...lowing wrote:
and you already admitted that any such white organization that met under the same circumstances, using the support of the KKK or the aryan race hate groups would be considered racist... Again. It is this double standard that I address trying sticking to that point.
The KKK or aryan race cannot support a caucus. Which means your statement about what I said is false. I hope you eventually read the rules I have posted in this thread.
Why can the black panthers and the KKK support a CBC then?
Statement 1:lowing wrote:
Ya lost me, it is well established the CBC favors legislation that support black communities..What is it I said that shocks you so much?Pug wrote:
You actually wrote that!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?
What make up your mind! Are there racist laws or not?
There are no racist laws.
Statement 2:
do you see through the bills?
So, if the Katrina bill is racist and there are no racist laws...then how did Katrina bill become law?
Well now you are making my argument for me. As I said from page one. The CBC is racist, and some of its members come from racist organizations.Pug wrote:
Statement 1:lowing wrote:
Ya lost me, it is well established the CBC favors legislation that support black communities..What is it I said that shocks you so much?Pug wrote:
You actually wrote that!
What make up your mind! Are there racist laws or not?
There are no racist laws.
Statement 2:
do you see through the bills?
So, if the Katrina bill is racist and there are no racist laws...then how did Katrina bill become law?
I have also stated that our laws are not race specific, now if you want to argue that the CBC does introduce bills that are racist, I will back you up. I have also challenged you to tell me that whites only members of whites only caucus's could never get away with such legislation. The double standard.
So I guess it is up to you, does the CBC introduce racist laws or don't they? I can tell you as I have said, our govt. should not recognize race as a special interest group. Are you saying black is a special interest group or not?
So which is it?
Well, for one, despite your continual references in the thread, the black panthers disbanded in the 60's.lowing wrote:
If you think "protection" of a certain race by racist congressmen isn't discrimination. I can't help ya.
Why can the black panthers and the KKK support a CBC then?
Nice argument there.
For two, your answer is still tied up in the link I posted for LSO's that you never bothered to read.
You have yet to make a compelling argument that get around "discrimination". Aka, why is it only racial discrimination you are worried about?
Wow, I guess ya missed the part where I said members of congress and the CBC were black panthers. I also guess you didn't get the memo of the black panthers and their voter intimidation suit. Maybe you should tell the black panthers they do not exist.Pug wrote:
Well, for one, despite your continual references in the thread, the black panthers disbanded in the 60's.lowing wrote:
If you think "protection" of a certain race by racist congressmen isn't discrimination. I can't help ya.
Why can the black panthers and the KKK support a CBC then?
Nice argument there.
For two, your answer is still tied up in the link I posted for LSO's that you never bothered to read.
You have yet to make a compelling argument that get around "discrimination". Aka, why is it only racial discrimination you are worried about?
Actually as I said, your rules are not relevant since they do not go to the point that, any whites only groups would be deemed racist, even under the rules you love you cite.
Very nice. You picked the bill that only the parts of the bill became law. Nice work.lowing wrote:
Well now you are making my argument for me. As I said from page one. The CBC is racist, and some of its members come from racist organizations.Pug wrote:
Statement 1:lowing wrote:
Ya lost me, it is well established the CBC favors legislation that support black communities..What is it I said that shocks you so much?
There are no racist laws.
Statement 2:
do you see through the bills?
So, if the Katrina bill is racist and there are no racist laws...then how did Katrina bill become law?
I have also stated that our laws are not race specific, now if you want to argue that the CBC does introduce bills that are racist, I will back you up. I have also challenged you to tell me that whites only members of whites only caucus's could never get away with such legislation. The double standard.
So I guess it is up to you, does the CBC introduce racist laws or don't they? I can tell you as I have said, our govt. should not recognize race as a special interest group. Are you saying black is a special interest group or not?
So which is it?
How about the extremely racist other bills on the list that became law:
-1986 - Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act
-1992 - Voting Rights Language Assistance Act
-1993 - National Voter Registration Act
-2002 - Help America to Vote Act
-1965 - Voting Rights Act
As far as whether the Katrina Bill is racist...well, I kind of have to have more information than you insinuating it is, don't you think?
Nope, the rules are the only thing that matter.lowing wrote:
Wow, I guess ya missed the part where I said members of congress and the CBC were black panthers. I also guess you didn't get the memo of the black panthers and their voter intimidation suit. Maybe you should tell the black panthers they do not exist.
Actually as I said, your rules are not relevant since they do not go to the point that, any whites only groups would be deemed racist, even under the rules you love you cite.
Pick any one of those bills, and tell me that there are not racist undertones in all of them..Pug wrote:
Very nice. You picked the bill that only the parts of the bill became law. Nice work.lowing wrote:
Well now you are making my argument for me. As I said from page one. The CBC is racist, and some of its members come from racist organizations.Pug wrote:
Statement 1:
There are no racist laws.
Statement 2:
do you see through the bills?
So, if the Katrina bill is racist and there are no racist laws...then how did Katrina bill become law?
I have also stated that our laws are not race specific, now if you want to argue that the CBC does introduce bills that are racist, I will back you up. I have also challenged you to tell me that whites only members of whites only caucus's could never get away with such legislation. The double standard.
So I guess it is up to you, does the CBC introduce racist laws or don't they? I can tell you as I have said, our govt. should not recognize race as a special interest group. Are you saying black is a special interest group or not?
So which is it?
How about the extremely racist other bills on the list that became law:
-1986 - Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act
-1992 - Voting Rights Language Assistance Act
-1993 - National Voter Registration Act
-2002 - Help America to Vote Act
-1965 - Voting Rights Act
As far as whether the Katrina Bill is racist...well, I kind of have to have more information than you insinuating it is, don't you think?
Everyone of those bills goes toward the getting black people to the poles to vote for democrats. and go read the anti apartheid act, and tell me if you think the CBC would have introduced such a thing if it were white people in Africa that was oppressed.
and yeah as far as the Katrina bill goes, all you got is the CBC history and their established motivations, then look at Katrina and decide for yourself why the CBC wasn't so passionate with past disasters. If you are honest, I think we will come up with the same conclusion.
Last edited by lowing (2011-09-19 15:53:01)
No Pug, it is the double standard, the one you acknowledged, that matters.Pug wrote:
Nope, the rules are the only thing that matter.lowing wrote:
Wow, I guess ya missed the part where I said members of congress and the CBC were black panthers. I also guess you didn't get the memo of the black panthers and their voter intimidation suit. Maybe you should tell the black panthers they do not exist.
Actually as I said, your rules are not relevant since they do not go to the point that, any whites only groups would be deemed racist, even under the rules you love you cite.
I mean really, how can you say the only thing that matters is the "rules" while acknowledging at the same time they would never be given the same consideration for all?
Last edited by lowing (2011-09-19 17:36:44)
whoa...lowing wrote:
Pick any one of those bills, and tell me that there are not racist undertones in all of them..
Everyone of those bills goes toward the getting black people to the poles to vote for democrats. and go read the anti apartheid act, and tell me if you think the CBC would have introduced such a thing if it were white people in Africa that was oppressed.
and yeah as far as the Katrina bill goes, all you got is the CBC history and their established motivations, then look at Katrina and decide for yourself why the CBC wasn't so passionate with past disasters. If you are honest, I think we will come up with the same conclusion.
...i thought there were no racist laws.
So by definition the Katrina bill (which didn't become law) was racist because it helped black people? So then the "Gulf Opportunity Zone Act of 2005" was therefore racist...because it basically did the same thing (help black people)?
But there's no racist laws?
Do you think you are reaching a little bit?
You mentioned the Family and Medical Leave Act - where someone can take time off when the are having a kid. Something that involves women more than men. Brought forth by an all women's caucus.
That's not discriminatory because it helps more than women...
...but when you are talking about Katrina its black people?
...or language assistance act...because deaf people are mostly black?
And I'm the guy with the double standard?
Is anyone actually reading this?
Any legislation that is introduced that is set up to help one race of people and not ALL of the people is discriminatory. Sorry if you disagree with that, but you would be wrong. Every one of your examples of the legislation introduced by the CBC was meant to do that.Pug wrote:
whoa...lowing wrote:
Pick any one of those bills, and tell me that there are not racist undertones in all of them..
Everyone of those bills goes toward the getting black people to the poles to vote for democrats. and go read the anti apartheid act, and tell me if you think the CBC would have introduced such a thing if it were white people in Africa that was oppressed.
and yeah as far as the Katrina bill goes, all you got is the CBC history and their established motivations, then look at Katrina and decide for yourself why the CBC wasn't so passionate with past disasters. If you are honest, I think we will come up with the same conclusion.
...i thought there were no racist laws.
So by definition the Katrina bill (which didn't become law) was racist because it helped black people? So then the "Gulf Opportunity Zone Act of 2005" was therefore racist...because it basically did the same thing (help black people)?
But there's no racist laws?
Do you think you are reaching a little bit?
You mentioned the Family and Medical Leave Act - where someone can take time off when the are having a kid. Something that involves women more than men. Brought forth by an all women's caucus.
That's not discriminatory because it helps more than women...
...but when you are talking about Katrina its black people?
...or language assistance act...because deaf people are mostly black?
And I'm the guy with the double standard?
Ummmmm the language assistance act is actually the voting rights language assistance act. This is meant to help minorities that can not read English vote in elections. It is not meant to aid deaf people. Now if you can not see the agenda behind this bit of legislation. Well again, your denial runs deeper than all hope.
If none of your examples ever made it to becoming a law, then I guess there are no racist laws. If any of those bills introduced by the CBC were made into laws, then yup you proved me wrong, their are racist laws. Congrats. You then also proved me right, in that the CBC is racist. Which did you want to argue?
For your argument that laws that might help special needs citizens such as women, handicapped, children, etc. would be discriminatory would only hold water if you considered being black as a special need. Is that what you are trying to argue? That somehow, being black makes you a special needs case, and therefore should qualify you for special needs consideration by the govt.? I have acknowledged that there are groups that do indeed require special consideration. I maintain being black is not one of those. How about you?
Apparently you are. If you don't WANT to read it then I suggest, well...............you don't.Macbeth wrote:
Is anyone actually reading this?
Well, looks like I could have just saved to time...
pug: yes
lowing: ok, well then why doesn't that apply to the cbc
pug: because LSO's have rules against discrimination
low: really? i had no idea i completely ignore those rules, therefore your argument is false
pug: oh crap. but the cbc isn't discriminatory
low: no, it is. because this one guy said some shit about the tea party, and they won't allow other races to join
pug: wow, good call. a white guy absolutely knows how to be a black dude and therefore should be allowed to join the cbc
low: i suggest enimem or vanilla ice
pug: i totally get it. all other LSO's can exist, but the one's based on race are wrong
low: yup, if it's okay to have a black LSO, then there should be a white LSO
pug: wow, really. i guess white folk missed out, just because black people are more organized.
low: i reckon so
pug: rats.
pug: wait...i have a question about discrimination.
low: go on
pug: so like when a woman's caucus forms that's not discrimatory
low: no, discrimination is only race
pug: rats, so how about old people? those are not allowed i guess
low: sure
pug: what if its an old jewish lesbian who belongs to three caucuses: the old, the lesbian, and the hebrew caucuses?
low: are they black?
pug: maybe
low: well, i can't answer that yet
pug: so basically only discrimination happens with race?
low: that's right
pug: wow i had no idea that the government is out of control. how many race specific laws do we have?
low: none so far.
pug: so how many black laws has the cbc got in place so far?
low: none so far
pug: really? wow, so the systems is broken...despite there's no racially discriminating laws in place
low: yep, shattered actually
pug: wow our legislation system is shit because its full of racist assholes
Pretty close to my prediction.
pug: yes
lowing: ok, well then why doesn't that apply to the cbc
pug: because LSO's have rules against discrimination
low: really? i had no idea i completely ignore those rules, therefore your argument is false
pug: oh crap. but the cbc isn't discriminatory
low: no, it is. because this one guy said some shit about the tea party, and they won't allow other races to join
pug: wow, good call. a white guy absolutely knows how to be a black dude and therefore should be allowed to join the cbc
low: i suggest enimem or vanilla ice
pug: i totally get it. all other LSO's can exist, but the one's based on race are wrong
low: yup, if it's okay to have a black LSO, then there should be a white LSO
pug: wow, really. i guess white folk missed out, just because black people are more organized.
low: i reckon so
pug: rats.
pug: wait...i have a question about discrimination.
low: go on
pug: so like when a woman's caucus forms that's not discrimatory
low: no, discrimination is only race
pug: rats, so how about old people? those are not allowed i guess
low: sure
pug: what if its an old jewish lesbian who belongs to three caucuses: the old, the lesbian, and the hebrew caucuses?
low: are they black?
pug: maybe
low: well, i can't answer that yet
pug: so basically only discrimination happens with race?
low: that's right
pug: wow i had no idea that the government is out of control. how many race specific laws do we have?
low: none so far.
pug: so how many black laws has the cbc got in place so far?
low: none so far
pug: really? wow, so the systems is broken...despite there's no racially discriminating laws in place
low: yep, shattered actually
pug: wow our legislation system is shit because its full of racist assholes
Pretty close to my prediction.
No if you wanted to save time, you could have just admitted the obvious double standard that is the argument a lot earlier, or address the questions posed to you directly, instead of this bullshit that you insist on doing. Hell I took the time to answer directly every one of your questions. and I can not get you to answer anything question I ask. You insist on wondering off, or respond with some ambiguous line of bullshit. Tell ya what, how about we just stop. You don't answer anything anyway.Pug wrote:
Well, looks like I could have just saved to time...
pug: yes
lowing: ok, well then why doesn't that apply to the cbc
pug: because LSO's have rules against discrimination
low: really? i had no idea i completely ignore those rules, therefore your argument is false
pug: oh crap. but the cbc isn't discriminatory
low: no, it is. because this one guy said some shit about the tea party, and they won't allow other races to join
pug: wow, good call. a white guy absolutely knows how to be a black dude and therefore should be allowed to join the cbc
low: i suggest enimem or vanilla ice
pug: i totally get it. all other LSO's can exist, but the one's based on race are wrong
low: yup, if it's okay to have a black LSO, then there should be a white LSO
pug: wow, really. i guess white folk missed out, just because black people are more organized.
low: i reckon so
pug: rats.
pug: wait...i have a question about discrimination.
low: go on
pug: so like when a woman's caucus forms that's not discrimatory
low: no, discrimination is only race
pug: rats, so how about old people? those are not allowed i guess
low: sure
pug: what if its an old jewish lesbian who belongs to three caucuses: the old, the lesbian, and the hebrew caucuses?
low: are they black?
pug: maybe
low: well, i can't answer that yet
pug: so basically only discrimination happens with race?
low: that's right
pug: wow i had no idea that the government is out of control. how many race specific laws do we have?
low: none so far.
pug: so how many black laws has the cbc got in place so far?
low: none so far
pug: really? wow, so the systems is broken...despite there's no racially discriminating laws in place
low: yep, shattered actually
pug: wow our legislation system is shit because its full of racist assholes
Pretty close to my prediction.
LOL, I answered plenty.
The double standard:
You insist the CBC is discriminatory based on a few members within the CBC - but omit the other individuals within the CBC that have different views or backgrounds.
You insist the CBC is discriminatory based on being homogeneous - but omit membership can be restrictive within LSO rules.
You say the CBC is discriminatory based on being race restrictive - but deny membership exclusivity of other LSO's is discriminatory by using the same argument.
You say the CBC discriminates by supporting laws targeted for a specific segment of the population - but the other homogeneous LSO's do not, despite targeting a specfic segment of the population.
You insist an organization is discriminatory based on supporting racist laws - but then say there aren't any racist laws.
You say there aren't any racist laws - yet you say the laws passed and supported by the CBC are racist.
You say that if there are racist laws then the CBC is discriminatory - yet when other LSO's pass a discriminatory law for a reason other than race is not discrimination.
Like I said a few pages back...you think it's negative, I think it's positive. You think it promotes discrimination, I say it defends rights. You think there is no oversight, I say there is plenty.
The double standard:
You insist the CBC is discriminatory based on a few members within the CBC - but omit the other individuals within the CBC that have different views or backgrounds.
You insist the CBC is discriminatory based on being homogeneous - but omit membership can be restrictive within LSO rules.
You say the CBC is discriminatory based on being race restrictive - but deny membership exclusivity of other LSO's is discriminatory by using the same argument.
You say the CBC discriminates by supporting laws targeted for a specific segment of the population - but the other homogeneous LSO's do not, despite targeting a specfic segment of the population.
You insist an organization is discriminatory based on supporting racist laws - but then say there aren't any racist laws.
You say there aren't any racist laws - yet you say the laws passed and supported by the CBC are racist.
You say that if there are racist laws then the CBC is discriminatory - yet when other LSO's pass a discriminatory law for a reason other than race is not discrimination.
Like I said a few pages back...you think it's negative, I think it's positive. You think it promotes discrimination, I say it defends rights. You think there is no oversight, I say there is plenty.
Is being black a special need group Pug? If so, what exactly is the special need that should be afforded them, that should not be afforded to ALL citizens?Pug wrote:
LOL, I answered plenty.
The double standard:
You insist the CBC is discriminatory based on a few members within the CBC - but omit the other individuals within the CBC that have different views or backgrounds.
You insist the CBC is discriminatory based on being homogeneous - but omit membership can be restrictive within LSO rules.
You say the CBC is discriminatory based on being race restrictive - but deny membership exclusivity of other LSO's is discriminatory by using the same argument.
You say the CBC discriminates by supporting laws targeted for a specific segment of the population - but the other homogeneous LSO's do not, despite targeting a specfic segment of the population.
You insist an organization is discriminatory based on supporting racist laws - but then say there aren't any racist laws.
You say there aren't any racist laws - yet you say the laws passed and supported by the CBC are racist.
You say that if there are racist laws then the CBC is discriminatory - yet when other LSO's pass a discriminatory law for a reason other than race is not discrimination.
Like I said a few pages back...you think it's negative, I think it's positive. You think it promotes discrimination, I say it defends rights. You think there is no oversight, I say there is plenty.
If you do not believe they are a special needs group, then why would they need a CBC?
I do stand corrected however, there are no racist laws or bills, unless they were introduced by the CBC.
Already addressed your bullshit regarding these famous rules you love so much....Whites only groups would be considered racist under them.
Yeah you have answered plenty, however, you have answered nothing that was asked you.
Last edited by lowing (2011-09-20 12:32:34)
Ahh, so being a women is special needs. Got it
Ahh, so being a senior citizen is special needs. Got it.
Ahh, so being in the Tea Party is special needs. Got it.
After all, they aren't discriminatory, just a social-economical "special needs" group.
Makes perfect sense to me...since we are ignoring LSO rules.
After all, they aren't discriminatory, just a social-economical "special needs" group.
Makes perfect sense to me...since we are ignoring LSO rules.
Last edited by Pug (2011-09-20 12:46:40)
yes it can bePug wrote:
Ahh, so being a women is special needs. Got it
yes it can bePug wrote:
Ahh, so being a senior citizen is special needs. Got it.
No the tea party is not a special needs, it is made up of various races with various backgrounds. There is nothing discriminatory about the tea party, its membership or its ideology.Pug wrote:
Ahh, so being in the Tea Party is special needs. Got it.
After all, they aren't discriminatory, just a social-economical "special needs" group.
Makes perfect sense to me...since we are ignoring LSO rules.
If you do not want to ignore "rules", you can start by not ignoring the fact that any whites only group would be scrutinized under those same rules.
Still refusing to answer questions I see, I don't blame you really an honest answer would fuck your argument all up. Better to NOT stand toe to toe and answer them.
Last edited by lowing (2011-09-20 14:01:26)