Supreme Court Denies Freedom of Association

[Coyote]

Not by a long shot. All of them receive federal funding and you know it.

Don't make people do your homework for you. Quit spouting stuff like you know what you are talking about when you clearly don't.

About CBCF-The Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, Inc.

The Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, Inc. (CBCF) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy, research and educational institute that aims to help improve the socioeconomic circumstances of African Americans and other underserved communities.........

............CBCF programs are supported by fundraising events and the generous support of our corporate partners. To better expand and sustain its research efforts, and to enhance its leadership education programs, CBCF is establishing a multi-million-dollar endowment to provide support for its efforts not just for one year, or even one generation, but also in perpetuity.

I guess it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is...

Tell me, where do these folks meet, in a private hall or the United States Congress?

Is the Congressional Black Caucus racially exclusive?
What exactly is the Congressional Black Caucus? Is it a racially-exclusive group, and, if so, how can such a group exist within Congress?
A: Yes. It has never had a white member in its 36-year history. However, its stated mission is to work for "America's neglected citizens," whatever their color.
The CBC has always been an all-black organization. It was founded in 1971 with 13 members. It is currently made up of 42 House members and one senator, Barack Obama of Illinois. All are African American, and all are Democrats.

But while the group's membership is racially exclusive, its stated goals are not. The group's stated mission is to "empower America’s neglected citizens – including but not limited to Americans of color" and "to ensure, insofar as possible, that everyone in the United States has an opportunity to live out the American Dream."

FactCheck.org: Is the Congressional Black Caucus racially exclusive?

Interesting - good source too....

They also state:

The House's rules governing such organizations allow House members to form them (and to include Senators) and to allocate some of their normal staff people and office funds to support them. But the groups may have no office space of their own, and they can't employ anybody directly, accept donations from outsiders, use the Franking privilege to send mail postage-free or have "separate corporate or legal identity.

...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.
​

 

[Coyote]

Don't make people do your homework for you. Quit spouting stuff like you know what you are talking about when you clearly don't.

About CBCF-The Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, Inc.

The Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, Inc. (CBCF) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy, research and educational institute that aims to help improve the socioeconomic circumstances of African Americans and other underserved communities.........

............CBCF programs are supported by fundraising events and the generous support of our corporate partners. To better expand and sustain its research efforts, and to enhance its leadership education programs, CBCF is establishing a multi-million-dollar endowment to provide support for its efforts not just for one year, or even one generation, but also in perpetuity.

Why do we ALWAYS have to do the racists' homework for them???

Sad how totally in the tank you are for the wrong side....post #31 above documented who the racists are...

Care to argue with the documentation?

I didn't think so.

Not really. It's a very incomplete list (one sided one might say...)

 

[VaYank5150]

Don't make people do your homework for you. Quit spouting stuff like you know what you are talking about when you clearly don't.

About CBCF-The Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, Inc.

The Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, Inc. (CBCF) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy, research and educational institute that aims to help improve the socioeconomic circumstances of African Americans and other underserved communities.........

............CBCF programs are supported by fundraising events and the generous support of our corporate partners. To better expand and sustain its research efforts, and to enhance its leadership education programs, CBCF is establishing a multi-million-dollar endowment to provide support for its efforts not just for one year, or even one generation, but also in perpetuity.

Why do we ALWAYS have to do the racists' homework for them???

Sad how totally in the tank you are for the wrong side....post #31 above documented who the racists are...

Care to argue with the documentation?

I didn't think so.

What does your Post #31 have to do with the private CBC organization or anything else in this thread?

 

[CurveLight]

What a foul mouthed boor you are...

Are you still spray painting you mottos on bathroom walls?

The best way to freshen your breath would be to put my dick in your mouth. (Wanna whine about foul mouth some more?)

Most people bitching about Wright have no knowledge of BLT nor have any background for context. It's easier for bitches like you to try and play the race card.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why do we ALWAYS have to do the racists' homework for them???

Sad how totally in the tank you are for the wrong side....post #31 above documented who the racists are...

Care to argue with the documentation?

I didn't think so.

What does your Post #31 have to do with the private CBC organization or anything else in this thread?

Come now, you're brighter than you let on...

Post #31 is a direct and complete refutation of your implication as to who the racists are.

You should take another look at it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What a foul mouthed boor you are...

Are you still spray painting you mottos on bathroom walls?

The best way to freshen your breath would be to put my dick in your mouth. (Wanna whine about foul mouth some more?)

Most people bitching about Wright have no knowledge of BLT nor have any background for context. It's easier for bitches like you to try and play the race card.

Your mommy must be so proud of the way you turned out: rude, vile, and ignorant.

I believe that there is a medication for your voluntary Tourette's syndrome.
But it may be fatal....
Go for it.

 

[VaYank5150]

Sad how totally in the tank you are for the wrong side....post #31 above documented who the racists are...

Care to argue with the documentation?

I didn't think so.

What does your Post #31 have to do with the private CBC organization or anything else in this thread?

Come now, you're brighter than you let on...

Post #31 is a direct and complete refutation of your implication as to who the racists are.

You should take another look at it.

You DO realize I was referencing KWC57's responde to Willow's racist rant, right?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why do we ALWAYS have to do the racists' homework for them???

Sad how totally in the tank you are for the wrong side....post #31 above documented who the racists are...

Care to argue with the documentation?

I didn't think so.

Not really. It's a very incomplete list (one sided one might say...)

In that case, I await your refutation...or at least a comparable list documenting similar racism from similarly high ranking elected officials and public institutions.

The one-sidedness is of necessity, in that it represents rectitude.

 

[CurveLight]

What a foul mouthed boor you are...

Are you still spray painting you mottos on bathroom walls?

The best way to freshen your breath would be to put my dick in your mouth. (Wanna whine about foul mouth some more?)

Most people bitching about Wright have no knowledge of BLT nor have any background for context. It's easier for bitches like you to try and play the race card.

Your mommy must be so proud of the way you turned out: rude, vile, and ignorant.

I believe that there is a medication for your voluntary Tourette's syndrome.
But it may be fatal....
Go for it.

You know what's really sick? Bitches like you totally support bullshit optional wars where countless innocent people are killed but you get offended into silence from stoopid vulgarity on a message board.

 

[WillowTree]

What does your Post #31 have to do with the private CBC organization or anything else in this thread?

Come now, you're brighter than you let on...

Post #31 is a direct and complete refutation of your implication as to who the racists are.

You should take another look at it.

You DO realize I was referencing KWC57's responde to Willow's racist rant, right?

 

[PoliticalChic]

What does your Post #31 have to do with the private CBC organization or anything else in this thread?

Come now, you're brighter than you let on...

Post #31 is a direct and complete refutation of your implication as to who the racists are.

You should take another look at it.

You DO realize I was referencing KWC57's responde to Willow's racist rant, right?

I thought it applied to those on the other side of the issue...

I'll assume, then, that you see the truth of post #31.

 

[VaYank5150]

Come now, you're brighter than you let on...

Post #31 is a direct and complete refutation of your implication as to who the racists are.

You should take another look at it.

You DO realize I was referencing KWC57's responde to Willow's racist rant, right?

I thought it applied to those on the other side of the issue...

I'll assume, then, that you see the truth of post #31.

You posted a list of "quotes" from multiple sources....what "truth" were you attempting to draw from this, or better yet, what "truth" are you attempting to get me to draw from it?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You DO realize I was referencing KWC57's responde to Willow's racist rant, right?

I thought it applied to those on the other side of the issue...

I'll assume, then, that you see the truth of post #31.

You posted a list of "quotes" from multiple sources....what "truth" were you attempting to draw from this, or better yet, what "truth" are you attempting to get me to draw from it?

The 'truth' is that political correctness, or 'progressive correctness,' applies only to the groups chosen by the Left. It informs the Democrat Party policy known as 'identity politics.'

Post #31 lists other groups who are not elevated to such protection:

"It is not discrimination that is decried in politically correct America...progressive America.

It is discrimination of certain protected and valued groups only.

Attack of Christians gets you a pat on the head...

Jews and Asians are not considered for 'diversity' calculations...

And the most obvious: open season on white folks:"

How's that?

 

[VaYank5150]

I thought it applied to those on the other side of the issue...

I'll assume, then, that you see the truth of post #31.

You posted a list of "quotes" from multiple sources....what "truth" were you attempting to draw from this, or better yet, what "truth" are you attempting to get me to draw from it?

The 'truth' is that political correctness, or 'progressive correctness,' applies only to the groups chosen by the Left. It informs the Democrat Party policy known as 'identity politics.'

Post #31 lists other groups who are not elevated to such protection:

"It is not discrimination that is decried in politically correct America...progressive America.

It is discrimination of certain protected and valued groups only.

Attack of Christians gets you a pat on the head...

Jews and Asians are not considered for 'diversity' calculations...

And the most obvious: open season on white folks:"

How's that?

These are your opinions. Please show me a law ANYWHERE in the United States that claims it is OK to discriminate against anyone based on their religion, or the fact that they are Jewish or of Asian decent, so that it is "open season on white folks"...

 

[PoliticalChic]

You posted a list of "quotes" from multiple sources....what "truth" were you attempting to draw from this, or better yet, what "truth" are you attempting to get me to draw from it?

The 'truth' is that political correctness, or 'progressive correctness,' applies only to the groups chosen by the Left. It informs the Democrat Party policy known as 'identity politics.'

Post #31 lists other groups who are not elevated to such protection:

"It is not discrimination that is decried in politically correct America...progressive America.

It is discrimination of certain protected and valued groups only.

Attack of Christians gets you a pat on the head...

Jews and Asians are not considered for 'diversity' calculations...

And the most obvious: open season on white folks:"

How's that?

These are your opinions. Please show me a law ANYWHERE in the United States that claims it is OK to discriminate against anyone based on their religion, or the fact that they are Jewish or of Asian decent, so that it is "open season on white folks"...

Actually, I showed exactly that.

It remains interesting to me how intellegent folks on the left claim never to be able to connect the dots, or see the point, if it comes from the right.

I included the point in my "Liberal Playbook"- recognize #6b?

6. Claim to misunderstand, obfuscate, deflect and change the subject, and, if all else fails, allege that you misspoke.
a. Remember, left-wingers may make a ‘mistake,’ for right-wingers, it is a lie!
b. When relating a series of events that lead to a conclusion, if it is a right-wing conclusion, we must never see the connection!
c. Any exposure of detrimental information must be referred to as either ‘fear-tactics,’ or ‘red-baiting.’
d. No matter how strong the opposition argument or data, always respond with “you falsely claimed…” or “I exposed your lies…” of “I destroyed your argument…” etc.

Maybe I should add 'that's just your opinion' to 6d, huh?

Try this simple experiment: replace the ones that I bolded with 'gay' or black, or Hispanic, etc.
See how it sits with you, then.

Here, let's try one togeter:

f. The minister chosen by President Obama upon the occasion of his inauguration:
The Associated Press noticed liberal Rev. Joseph Lowery's prayer raised eyebrows when he prayed for that day in the hazy future when "blacks will embrace what is right." That divisive note drew this headline: "Lowery gives sole inaugural note of racial caution." The entire dispatch was brief "When yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white.” http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-gra...racial-caution


Think President Obama would have remained silent about this? Or would we have seen another 'beer summit'?

 

[VaYank5150]

The 'truth' is that political correctness, or 'progressive correctness,' applies only to the groups chosen by the Left. It informs the Democrat Party policy known as 'identity politics.'

Post #31 lists other groups who are not elevated to such protection:

"It is not discrimination that is decried in politically correct America...progressive America.

It is discrimination of certain protected and valued groups only.

Attack of Christians gets you a pat on the head...

Jews and Asians are not considered for 'diversity' calculations...

And the most obvious: open season on white folks:"

How's that?

These are your opinions. Please show me a law ANYWHERE in the United States that claims it is OK to discriminate against anyone based on their religion, or the fact that they are Jewish or of Asian decent, so that it is "open season on white folks"...

Actually, I showed exactly that.

It remains interesting to me how intellegent folks on the left claim never to be able to connect the dots, or see the point, if it comes from the right.

I included the point in my "Liberal Playbook"- recognize #6b?

6. Claim to misunderstand, obfuscate, deflect and change the subject, and, if all else fails, allege that you misspoke.
a. Remember, left-wingers may make a ‘mistake,’ for right-wingers, it is a lie!
b. When relating a series of events that lead to a conclusion, if it is a right-wing conclusion, we must never see the connection!
c. Any exposure of detrimental information must be referred to as either ‘fear-tactics,’ or ‘red-baiting.’
d. No matter how strong the opposition argument or data, always respond with “you falsely claimed…” or “I exposed your lies…” of “I destroyed your argument…” etc.

Maybe I should add 'that's just your opinion' to 6d, huh?

Try this simple experiment: replace the ones that I bolded with 'gay' or black, or Hispanic, etc.
See how it sits with you, then.

Here, let's try one togeter:

f. The minister chosen by President Obama upon the occasion of his inauguration:
The Associated Press noticed liberal Rev. Joseph Lowery's prayer raised eyebrows when he prayed for that day in the hazy future when "blacks will embrace what is right." That divisive note drew this headline: "Lowery gives sole inaugural note of racial caution." The entire dispatch was brief "When yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white.” http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-gra...racial-caution


Think President Obama would have remained silent about this? Or would we have seen another 'beer summit'?

You can deal with opinion all day long if you wish as you know as well as I do what they say about opinion. In the meantime, I await the link to that law...

 

[PoliticalChic]

These are your opinions. Please show me a law ANYWHERE in the United States that claims it is OK to discriminate against anyone based on their religion, or the fact that they are Jewish or of Asian decent, so that it is "open season on white folks"...

Actually, I showed exactly that.

It remains interesting to me how intellegent folks on the left claim never to be able to connect the dots, or see the point, if it comes from the right.

I included the point in my "Liberal Playbook"- recognize #6b?

6. Claim to misunderstand, obfuscate, deflect and change the subject, and, if all else fails, allege that you misspoke.
a. Remember, left-wingers may make a ‘mistake,’ for right-wingers, it is a lie!
b. When relating a series of events that lead to a conclusion, if it is a right-wing conclusion, we must never see the connection!
c. Any exposure of detrimental information must be referred to as either ‘fear-tactics,’ or ‘red-baiting.’
d. No matter how strong the opposition argument or data, always respond with “you falsely claimed…” or “I exposed your lies…” of “I destroyed your argument…” etc.

Maybe I should add 'that's just your opinion' to 6d, huh?

Try this simple experiment: replace the ones that I bolded with 'gay' or black, or Hispanic, etc.
See how it sits with you, then.

Here, let's try one togeter:

f. The minister chosen by President Obama upon the occasion of his inauguration:
The Associated Press noticed liberal Rev. Joseph Lowery's prayer raised eyebrows when he prayed for that day in the hazy future when "blacks will embrace what is right." That divisive note drew this headline: "Lowery gives sole inaugural note of racial caution." The entire dispatch was brief "When yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white.” http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-gra...racial-caution


Think President Obama would have remained silent about this? Or would we have seen another 'beer summit'?

You can deal with opinion all day long if you wish as you know as well as I do what they say about opinion. In the meantime, I await the link to that law...

I didn't expect you to admit that you see the point...

but I am glad to expound on the correct viewpoint.

Thanks for playing.

 

[ConHog]

What a foul mouthed boor you are...

Are you still spray painting you mottos on bathroom walls?

The best way to freshen your breath would be to put my dick in your mouth. (Wanna whine about foul mouth some more?)

Most people bitching about Wright have no knowledge of BLT nor have any background for context. It's easier for bitches like you to try and play the race card.

So, you're admitting that your penis is the size of a tic tac? Wow, that's not something I'd be proud of, but you go for it.......

 

[Modbert]

If they get funding from the school, then the school can set the rules as to who can and cannot join. Pretty simple really.

 

[ConHog]

If they get funding from the school, then the school can set the rules as to who can and cannot join. Pretty simple really.

and if the school says limiting membership to one group or another?

See there's the problem with that. Black groups, just as an example , form and no whites want to join, because as I said who wants to join a group where you're not wanted? but a Christian group forms,, and there's always some asshole who wants to join just for NO other reason but cause problems for that group. Anyone who denies this basic FACT is a liar.