• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Discrimination based on Race is still A-OK, but don't you pass an RFRA...

Renae

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
The organization’s no-whites policy was tested most recently last year by a newly elected House member, Stephen I. Cohen of Tennessee, a white man who represents a 60 percent black district previously held by Harold Ford Jr. During Cohen’s 2006 campaign he wasquoted as saying that if elected he would try to become "the first white member" of the Congressional Black Caucus. But shortly after being sworn in the following January, Cohentold another reporter that he dropped his bid after hearing from several current and former caucus members that whites need not apply."I think they’re real happy I’m not going to join," said Cohen, according to Josephine Hearn, who covers the House for Politico.com. "It’s their caucus and they do things their way. You don’t force your way in. You need to be invited."
Hearn quoted caucus member William Lacy Clay of Missouri, son of one of the CBC’s founders, as confirming that. "Mr. Cohen asked for admission, and he got his answer. … It’s time to move on," she quoted Clay as saying. "It’s an unwritten rule. It’s understood. It’s clear."
As for how such an exclusive organization can exist within the House, there are many caucuses set up to represent specific groups or causes. They are properly called Congressional Member Organizations, and the list includes dozens with very specific names.
Click to expand...
Congressional Black Caucus for Blacks Only?

Now, imagine if you will that a group of congress critters got together and decided to create a "Congressional Heterosexual Caucus".

How far would that go?

Yeah.

So, Racial Discrimination is A-OK.

Where's the outrage? Where are the demands for equality? Where are the boycotts against outright bigotry and hate?

Oh, yeah... I forget, that's reserved for "Christian, Conservative or other non-progressive" groups, laws, states or ideas.
 
MrVicchio said:
Congressional Black Caucus for Blacks Only?

Now, imagine if you will that a group of congress critters got together and decided to create a "Congressional Heterosexual Caucus".

How far would that go?

Yeah.

So, Racial Discrimination is A-OK.

Where's the outrage? Where are the demands for equality? Where are the boycotts against outright bigotry and hate?

Oh, yeah... I forget, that's reserved for "Christian, Conservative or other non-progressive" groups, laws, states or ideas.
Click to expand...

Is there a White Caucus?
 
Welcome to the results of political correctness. That is about all you can say on this subject, there is political correctness reason there is not a "Congressional Heterosexual Caucus" or "Congressional White Caucus."
 
WCH said:
There's an Hispanic Caucus...they're Caucasian.
Click to expand...

I enjoy a little racism in Congress Caucasian, feminine or other.
 
If the Democrats did not have Racial Preference Pandering, there would be no Democrats in Office at all.

-
 
Won't someone PLEASE think of the white hetero christian male??!!?!?!?!!?
 
There's an asshole caucus, it has 435 members.
 
Like I said....I can't wait till we've all ****ed each other into being the same basic color.
 
In the twisted rules of Political Correctness:

Any Organization, i.e. a school student body, school faculty, Government agency, workforce, sports team, club, residential district, military unit...

Any Group, can have too few Blacks or other "Designated Minorities", but it cannot have too many.

Any Group can have too Many White Males, but it cannot have too few.



This is NOT about Justice, or Equality, it is about Government Institutionalized Racial / Gender / Orientation Discrimination and Domination.

-
 
Kurmugeon said:
In the twisted rules of Political Correctness:

Any Organization, i.e. a school student body, school faculty, Government agency, workforce, sports team, club, residential district, military unit...

Any Group, can have too few Blacks or other "Designated Minorities", but it cannot have too many.

Any Group can have too Many White Males, but it cannot have too few.



This is NOT about Justice, or Equality, it is about Government Institutionalized Racial / Gender / Orientation Discrimination and Domination.

-
Click to expand...

It's about social engineering. Blacks are the neo-racist. It's the "victim" syndrome. Victims have special rights. How else would the left keep the black vote in their camp?
 
MrVicchio said:
Congressional Black Caucus for Blacks Only?

Now, imagine if you will that a group of congress critters got together and decided to create a "Congressional Heterosexual Caucus".

How far would that go?

Yeah.

So, Racial Discrimination is A-OK.

Where's the outrage? Where are the demands for equality? Where are the boycotts against outright bigotry and hate?

Oh, yeah... I forget, that's reserved for "Christian, Conservative or other non-progressive" groups, laws, states or ideas.
Click to expand...

There is a heterosexual, christian, conservative group in Congress.

It's called Congress.
 
TheHammer said:
It's about social engineering. Blacks are the neo-racist. It's the "victim" syndrome. Victims have special rights. How else would the left keep the black vote in their camp?
Click to expand...

Define "social engineering" for me, please.
 
MrVicchio said:
Congressional Black Caucus for Blacks Only?

Now, imagine if you will that a group of congress critters got together and decided to create a "Congressional Heterosexual Caucus".

How far would that go?

Yeah.

So, Racial Discrimination is A-OK.

Where's the outrage? Where are the demands for equality? Where are the boycotts against outright bigotry and hate?

Oh, yeah... I forget, that's reserved for "Christian, Conservative or other non-progressive" groups, laws, states or ideas.
Click to expand...

They want a color blind America. Stop treating blacks differently. Everyone is equal! This is a post racial America. No black America, no white America....it's the United States of America!

That's why they separated themselves by color.

You can't even be outraged. You have to laugh at the ignorance of their adoring constituents and supporters who are so easily led by these lying morons.
 
tres borrachos said:
They want a color blind America. Stop treating blacks differently. Everyone is equal! This is a post racial America. No black America, no white America....it's the United States of America!

That's why they separated themselves by color.

You can't even be outraged. You have to laugh at the ignorance of their adoring constituents and supporters who are so easily led by these lying morons.
Click to expand...

Color...people of color...colored people?

Thats racist!!!
 
VanceMack said:
So...this is hilarious...

https://twitter.com/BLM_Boston/status/581932997944958976

"UPDATE: tomorrow's community meeting will be a People of Color ONLY space. Thank you for respecting wishes of community & Angelo's family"
Click to expand...

Maybe they can invite the black Democratic lawmakers to entertain everyone with another round of "Hands up! Don't shoot!". We haven't seen them to that since they took the floor of Congress and did it.
 
tres borrachos said:
They want a color blind America. Stop treating blacks differently. Everyone is equal! This is a post racial America. No black America, no white America....it's the United States of America!

That's why they separated themselves by color.

You can't even be outraged. You have to laugh at the ignorance of their adoring constituents and supporters who are so easily led by these lying morons.
Click to expand...
Segregating by ethnicity is not inherently racist. Claiming superiority due one's ethnicity, is. AIPAC, the ADL and the CBC all exist for the reason of promoting minority interests that they feel are otherwise neglected by society in general. King himself was a prominent supporter and member of the NAACP for this precise reason. Speaking of ignorance on display!
 
tres borrachos said:
They want a color blind America. Stop treating blacks differently. Everyone is equal! This is a post racial America. No black America, no white America....it's the United States of America!

That's why they separated themselves by color.

You can't even be outraged. You have to laugh at the ignorance of their adoring constituents and supporters who are so easily led by these lying morons.
Click to expand...



A long, long time ago I had this out with a Detroit Black Panther who had no valid reason other than skin color to keep me out of his "klan."

there is always some negative racism when dealing with a minority, natives hear get a lot more help than anyone else, better access to commercial fisheries etc.

However there has always been a very observable double standard in the US, as color/race is never OUT of the equation. Even football and basketball statistics are kept black vs. white. No one ever had a problem with a movie called "White men can't jump" but race riots would break out with a movie called "Black guys can't play hockey".

"No more black America, white America...." will never happen as long as one or both sides draw that line anywhere.
 
tres borrachos said:
Maybe they can invite the black Democratic lawmakers to entertain everyone with another round of "Hands up! Don't shoot!". We haven't seen them to that since they took the floor of Congress and did it.
Click to expand...
Just to be a dick, I think the white lawmakers should respond by doing the Hokey Pokey. Or maybe join the Hispanic lawmakers doing the Macarena. If that wouldnt be racist.
 
Fearandloathing said:
A long, long time ago I had this out with a Detroit Black Panther who had no valid reason other than skin color to keep me out of his "klan."

there is always some negative racism when dealing with a minority, natives hear get a lot more help than anyone else, better access to commercial fisheries etc.

However there has always been a very observable double standard in the US, as color/race is never OUT of the equation. Even football and basketball statistics are kept black vs. white. No one ever had a problem with a movie called "White men can't jump" but race riots would break out with a movie called "Black guys can't play hockey".

"No more black America, white America...." will never happen as long as one or both sides draw that line anywhere.
Click to expand...

"Black guys can't play hockey" ... Sticks up! Dont skate!
 
a351 said:
Segregating by ethnicity is not inherently racist. Claiming superiority due one's ethnicity, is. AIPAC, the ADL and the CBC all exist for the reason of promoting minority interests that they feel are otherwise neglected by society in general. King himself was a prominent supporter and member of the NAACP for this precise reason. Speaking of ignorance on display!
Click to expand...

Ok, so be honest here-would a white group that very specifically did not claim superiority but instead promoted white interests be perceived as racist? Im in California where whites are a minority, btw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom