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

Ummm...legally it could occur.

Pug wrote:

Ummm...legally it could occur.

it is not a matter of legalities Pug, but that point has been made clear... I am a patient man, I can play your silly games all ya want.

Pug wrote:

I'm not quite understanding you Special Needs.

I answered your question...again.

What game am I playing by saying a White-only LSO, if existed, would be judged the same and have the same oversight as other caucuses?

You keep mentioning the same thing over and over and over.  You want equality...so do I.  But you have to apply the rules universally or disband all groups universally.

I've already told you that I believe in the oversight, you do not.  So basically you are hammering the "ha ha you have double standard" when we fail to agree on the base level...

The very fact that the tea party in general or its caucus's are viewed as racist even though it is a multi-racial organization, even though some of its most prominent members are black pretty much shows your opinions on how it is judged is full of shit.

I do want equality, but first you have to recognize that there is a double standard that prevents that, your denials and dismissals not withstanding.


I keep asking the same question over and over again....waiting for an answer. and not the bullshit you choose to replace it with. I am not asking about legalities, or rules. I am asking about the double standard and irony on which the CBC exists that would never be allowed for a whites only organization.


Oh and let me ask again. If being black is a special needs what exactly would those special needs be that should not be afforded to any other citizen? and if they are not special needs, what the hell do they need to organize as blacks only with special blacks only representation for?

Last edited by lowing (2011-09-27 08:03:58)

Pug wrote:

lowing wrote:

The very fact that the tea party in general or its caucus's are viewed as racist even though it is a multi-racial organization, even though some of its most prominent members are black pretty much shows your opinions on how it is judged is full of shit.

Incorrect.  I said the tea party was made up of folks that were essentially in the same socio-economic background and focused on issues that benefit that same socio-economic background.  Aka, the same logic you are using to claim racism by the cbc.  I also pointed out that the CBC has different opinions...just like the Tea Party.

There are other forms of discrimination you are ignoring.

lowing wrote:

I do want equality, but first you have to recognize that there is a double standard that prevents that, your denials and dismissals not withstanding.

Well obviously it would be political suicide if a white-only caucus existed.  I've told you that as well.  Possible one could exist, just not likely.  Get over the fact that this is NOT a denial or dismissal, no matter how many times you hammer on it.

lowing wrote:

I keep asking the same question over and over again....waiting for an answer. and not the bullshit you choose to replace it with. I am not asking about legalities, or rules.

Well Special Needs, the organization ceases to be a LSO if there is no oversight.  Aka that damn definition of a caucus: a group of politicians working within the legislative process

lowing wrote:

I am asking about the double standard and irony on which the CBC exists that would never be allowed for a whites only organization.

Oh and let me ask again. If being black is a special needs what exactly would those special needs be that should not be afforded to any other citizen? and if they are not special needs, what the hell do they need to organize as blacks only with special blacks only representation for?

Gee, according to there's never been racist laws in the US, right? 

So like slavery never happened? There was never a civil right issue with segregating the whites & blacks?

Dude get over the fact that there is government oversight & defending rights...which is different from rampant racism.

I see, so the constitution is now a socio-economic background....Ok whatever.


I claim racism by the CBC based on the same exact criteria that the CBC  deems others as racist. Difference is, the CBC can get away with it....Hence the double standard.

I am not ignoring anything, this topic is about the CBC and it blatant racist practices and its blatantly racist support groups.

ANNNNNddddddd once again, the rules or oversight is not the issue, if those same rules as applied to a whites only group, would still label them as racist....again it is the double standard I address and not your bullshit rules.


How could a whites only group within our govt. be "political suicide", if they organize under the rules you love so much, if not for the double standard on which the CBC NAACP and black panthers exist?


Yeah slavery happened, and if there are any ex slaves out there, then have them stand and be recognized. and how many generations have to pass before you stop beating the tired old drum of the civil rights argument...It is over, it is won... I guess since you still want to beat the slavery drum we still have several hundred years o,...f "yeah but what about civil rights",.. to go

i found that there are Whites only caucuses. the article talked more about partisanship, and i don't know all the members of the house, but i'm finding the names of these obscure caucus chairmen . . .

Of course, we already have caucuses in the Congress. In the House, where their existence is publicly disclosed, we currently have 258 of them, covering all sorts of subjects from African Great Lakes to the Arts, from Bosnia to Bourbon. How partisan are these caucuses? We can tell by looking at the names of the people who lead each caucus as co-chairs. If a caucus is led by a combination of Democratic and Republican co-chairs, it’s bipartisan. If it’s led by only Democrats or only Republicans, that’s partisan. To complicate matters only a little bit, there are a small number of caucuses that are led by just one member of Congress; when there’s just one caucus leader you just can’t say whether there’s partisanship or bipartisanship in leadership.

source; http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/arc … operation/

13urnzz wrote:

reserved - looks like it will take a while to match names with pictures, to confirm Whites Only caucus, brb

While you are at it, be sure to dig up where whatever whites only caucus's you cite, have banned all other races from joining.

lowing wrote:

While you are at it, be sure to dig up where whatever whites only caucus's you cite, have banned all other races from joining.

while you*re at it, please don't tell me what to do.

you are not my boss, son.

13urnzz wrote:

lowing wrote:

While you are at it, be sure to dig up where whatever whites only caucus's you cite, have banned all other races from joining.

while you*re at it, please don't tell me what to do.

you are not my boss, son.

still waiting.

13urnzz wrote:

13urnzz wrote:

reserved - looks like it will take a while to match names with pictures, to confirm Whites Only caucus, brb

Liberty Caucus

SO you think posting white members of a caucus is the same thing as posting a whites only allowed caucus? I think I TOLD YOU to be sure to post a caucus that is of white people FOR white people and openly refuses membership from other races. Ya know like the black caucus.

Hell, their name ( liberty caucus) isn't even racist.

I will continue to wait for a proper example.

lowing wrote:

Nothing but more bullshit Pug. Keep it up though, you are doing great avoiding the issue as presented.


Continuing on with your inability to understand oversight does not mean non-racial.

Hell the FBI oversees the actions of the KKK and the Aryan groups , doesn't stop them from being racist.

really?  so the FBI is the governing body of the KKK and Aryan groups?

lowing wrote:

SO you think posting white members of a caucus is the same thing as posting a whites only allowed caucus?

white members? i cited the source, they are the only members.

Liberty Caucus

i don't even care if you post last, looks like i won this argument. Son.

Last edited by 13urnzz (2011-09-27 11:57:11)

lowing wrote:

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.

try again, son.