I will continue to group together all racist groups - including these white supremesists and the NAACP. When you distinguish one person from another based on the color of their skin, you are practicing racism. For some reason, the protesting community goes nuts over a whites only group, but pays no mind to meetings filled with racist filth by blacks only groups. If its about standing up for morality and principle, you should be doind it all the time, not just on fronts where it is politically correct. Why should this hotel filter its bookings through your half-assed political agenda? Please explain why you find it acceptable for some people to organize themselves and exclude others based on skin color, but find this same behavior bigoted in other cases. If there is some perspective for me to gain here, please furnish some.

Why don't you help us answer the question? Why do you think we do? Get over the "political correct" strawman. No one does anything on that basis; that's simply a label. Why do you think it's done?

Let's forget for the moment that the NAACP is and has never been a "black power" organization; why do we think it legitimate for oppressed groups to organize along the basis of skin and not "white power groups." I've provided a hint to the basis of the answer in this paragraph. What's really going on here?

You who attack anti-racists as racists try and think what the argument probably is, and then let's have a discussion about that. Stop with strawman arguments and let's really air out our differences.

When you respond to criticism with more questions than statements, its easy to see you're unsure why you really hold the ideals you so enthusiastically support.

Yes, certain groups have been oppressed throughout history, but if oppression and double standards were wrong when white people did it to black people in the past, then how can double standards where black people are given greater advantage than white people be acceptable today? Haven't you heard that two wrongs don't make a right? This is why I disagree with the Million Man March, affirmative action, and BET as enthusiastically as I disagree with David Duke. Call me crazy, but I don't think we should treat one person differently from another based on the color of their skin . . . . at any time . . . . ever. We won't solve the racism of our past by only protesting white race groups and never protesting black race groups. If you form a group that only allows members of one race, or a group that only lobbies congress on the interests of one race, then you are practicing racism, regardless of what that one race is. This is the reasoning I use when I equate the NAACP to the American Renaissance group. By its very definition, its all racism.

I think you're right to protest this conference - these people are bigots. However, I'd like to see you protest all racism, not select which events to protest based on the race of the racists (which makes you a racist by definition yourself). Here's a good test: take any racial issue and flip the races. Would it be okay with you if affimative action gave preference to whites instead of blacks in college admissions and job hiring? Would you protest if the vice president of the US spoke at a fundraiser that would give scholarships only to white students? (hint: the UNCF is headquartered in "multicultural Fairfax County")

You can't tear down racial barriers with one hand while putting up racial barriers with the other - so start thinking for yourself and start tearing them down with both.

Any questions?

"When you distinguish one person from another based on the color of their skin, you are practicing racism"

Does that mean when you are looking for a suspect in a crime and in your description, you tell the person's skin color, you are racist? Well does it? Hmmmmm?

Quite outlandish calling these people bigots and racists. If South Africa's ANC attended this meeting, what would your comments have been then? This organisation is turning a blind eye to 30 000(!) infants and babies getting raped by AIDS infected Africans every year, while the SA police wants to close their child molestation department. Along with this, 1800 SA farmers were savagely murdered since Mandela's release in 1990. Some experts concluded the criteria for genocide have already been met with the murders of these farmers, not to mention the wave of famine about to be released on millions of poor blacks, which would only agravate the cycle of violence.
But no, as soon as a white South African condemns these crimes and wants to take defensive action, he is scorned a bigot and a racist.
Unfortunately life isn't always as idyllic outside the hardline Stalinist ivory tower as many worshippers of multiculturalism proclaim, and abetting one's guilt feelings on another man's genocide is not the way to go about.

Perhaps you can explain to us how it is that because the ANC ruler of South Africa denies that HIV causes AIDS that that has anything to do with whether the people at the American Renaissance are racists and bigots.