Incident Exposed Liberals Flawed Views On Race

Update: More to see from The Influence Peddler.

When The Nation's Max Blumenthal mocked a White (curiously pale Black Republican) man for occupying the National Black Republican Association (NBRA) booth at this years CPAC event, he exposed precisely what is wrong with the Liberal view of race relations and how it is subtly racist at heart.

It was funny to a Liberal like Blumenthal because somehow a White man isn't qualified, or shouldn't speak to Black issues; that's a Blacks only affair. Blumenthal saw color, not cause when he looked at the booth.

The White individual manning the booth at CPAC is married to a Black woman, NBRA chair Francis Rice - email on the incident from her here. As I understand conservatism, it isn't racist, it's more color blind than not. That you had an interracial couple sharing the duty of manning the NBRA booth at the most conservative event of the year says more of the conservative view of race than anything else.

In the color-first view of today's Liberalism, white will always be white and black, black. It offers no pathway for both races to genuinely join in common cause. It's that very thing that makes the liberal view on race so tragically flawed. Unfortunately, Blumenthal didn't see that - he just thought it was funny. And that's as racist as it gets.

Comments

[Legalize]

It was a "Black Republicans" booth, moron. The guy wasn't black. It's hilarious that you guys are trying to spin your way out of what your OWN hate rally actually is. Max' video is remarkable work. He has clearly proved that all it takes to literally unhinge a winger is to shine the light of day on them, and challenge them with their own policies - like when the heroic Undergraduate Republican shrinked away, covering up his Confederate Flag.

Everyone should see this important documentary.

[Devil's Advocate]

"He has clearly proved that all it takes to literally unhinge a winger is to shine the light of day on them, and challenge them with their own policies - like when the heroic Undergraduate Republican shrinked away, covering up his Confederate Flag."

Indeed... Or Michelle Malkin running away from questions about her position on Japanese internment camps, or the Tancredo supporter who lost his cool and told Blumenthal to get lost... The right-wingers really hate it when their racism is shoved back in their faces.

[Legalize]

"Indeed... Or Michelle Malkin running away from questions about her position on Japanese internment camps, or the Tancredo supporter who lost his cool and told Blumenthal to get lost... The right-wingers really hate it when their racism is shoved back in their faces."

Word. Not only that, but the Tancredo supporter dropped the "shit" bomb on Max - at a "family friendly" event!! Such foul-mouthed and uncivil rhetoric really shocks and troubles me.

[scarshapedstar]

So if you guys have Jerry Falwell manning the Gay Republicans booth, is that off-limits for criticism too?

I think I'm starting to understand the rules now...

[Legalize]

"I think I'm starting to understand the rules now..."

There is only one rule: don't call conservatives on the policies they advocate. Period.

[Devil's Advocate]

Clean up your glasses, Riehl. The guy at the "Black Republicans" was white... Of course, you know that, you just need to make something up to bash anyone who is not a radical right-winger. It must be hard to live with such an obsessional hatred.

[Raging_Dave]

So, just to clear things up, to the Left it's all about skin color, not actual ideas. To the Left, Identity Politics trumps all.

Gotcha. Thanks for clearing that up. The fact that you care more about his skin color than what he has to say speaks volumes about you. Of course, it doesn't say anything I didn't already know.

[Legalize]

Unhinged Dave, you need to go back on your meds. This was a "Black Republican" booth at CPAC. The rep. wasn't black. It would be like having a "College Republicans" booth on a college campus, and having a war veteran sitting there.

[Raging_Dave]

OK, one more time, it is your position that this person could not advocate for the Black Republicans because he was white, yes?

So again, in the Leftist position, skin color trumps actual arguments or personal beliefs. Thanks for reaffirming what I just said, Legalize. It's always nice to have someone from the other side prove me correct.

[Raging_Dave]

By the way, Legalize, since you moved directly into an ad hominum attack on my name, I can assume that you have no other points with any merit to them. Amazing how the oh-so "tolerant" left only seems to tolerate people who are in lockstep with them.

No, I take it back, it's not amazing at all.

[Devil's Advocate]

"The fact that you care more about his skin color than what he has to say speaks volumes about you."

Wow! Raging Dave is being "politically correct". Here is the Righteous Right standing up for color blindness! Limbaugh said of Obama that "he might as well be white, since he is of mixed race". Any comment on that, you newly-PC right-wingers?

[Zifnab]

"I think I'm starting to understand the rules now..."

IOKIARDI

It's that simple. Run as a "Steele Democrat". Tell Congress to screw off, you're to busy for an investigation. Play the US Army like your own personal game of Risk. Take a week off in the middle of one of the worst hurricanes in US history. Jack the national debt up to $9 trillion on the fiscal responsibility platform. Stick a white guy in front of the "National Black Republican Cacaus" then hide him behind his wife when people point and laugh.

You guys are incredible.

[Zifnab]

"So again, in the Leftist position, skin color trumps actual arguments or personal beliefs."

It doesn't matter if he's black or white, so long as he believes he's black or white. Truly the Party of GOD, the Grand Old Delusionists!

[Legalize]

"By the way, Legalize, since you moved directly into an ad hominum attack on my name, I can assume that you have no other points with any merit to them."

Haha, I love it when wingers whine about ad hominems while engaging in as hominems, as a matter of general practice. The difference being of course, that I attacked your bizarro and dubious "argument" at the same time. You just chose to ignore that and whine about the dreaded ad hominem hurled against you. Like the intellectual cowards assembled at CPAC, you become unhinged when asked to support your hysterical hysteria.

"Amazing how the oh-so "tolerant" left only seems to tolerate people who are in lockstep with them.

No, I take it back, it's not amazing at all."

It's amazing that when your ramblings are attacked for what they are - bullshit - you prefer to whine instead of step up the plate. This would be why you have earned the scary ad hominem against you - you have nothing remotely substantive to say, and you can't defend your asinine assertions with anything remotely approaching factual support.

Have a nice day.

[Hard Right]

Hey devil, that's not what Limbaugh said. I saw his site the day he said it. As usual the left has to lie to try and win an arguement.

It's amusing how race obsessed the left is despite their claims to the opposite. What it comes down to is that the Dems are mad one of their "slaves" escaped their "plantation" and married "the enemy".

The fact that you leftists loons think a white man manning a "black Republicans" booth is somehow wrong tells us how racist and how politically fascist you are.

[Legalize]

No one said it was "wrong," detective. You're being laughed at because at your little hate rally, the blackest guy in the room was A WHITE GUY, supposedly married to a black woman, and this guy was manning the GOP's "Black Republicans" booth. But please feel free to play intentionall dense; it might rile up your drooling base to behave like childish bigots, but like, to the sane, you just look like childish bigots and nothing more - which of course, is what you are.

Have a nice week.

[Devil's Advocate]

"I saw his site the day he said it."

Then provide the link with the exact wording. I am always willing to stand corrected when presented with real facts.

[Legalize]

"Then provide the link with the exact wording. I am always willing to stand corrected when presented with real facts."

Haha. You know that asking them for facts is against the rules.

[Raging_Dave]

Again, and no single Leftist here has proven me wrong - in the Left's position, it is the guy's skin color that counts, not what he believes.

You can't even defend your own position, you just have to move into insults, slurs and ad hominum attacks. By the way, Legalize, please show me where on this thread I used an ad hominum attack. I don't even think you truly know what that is.

Either prove that you're worth treating like an adult, or expect to be treated like a child. I have small hope that you'll do the former, but based on your words and actions I expect nothing more but the same mental vomit that I've seen on this thread.

[kl]

"Limbaugh said of Obama that 'he might as well be white, since he is of mixed race'. Any comment on that, you newly-PC right-wingers?"

"...Then provide the link with the exact wording. I am always willing to stand corrected when presented with real facts."

You're the one making the accusation. It's up to you to prove he said it, not up to anybody else to prove he didn't. Where's your link with the exact wording?

[Devil's Advocate]

Wrong, KL. Since Hard Right effectively accuses me of being a liar, "Hey devil, that's not what Limbaugh said. I saw his site the day he said it. As usual the left has to lie to try and win an arguement.", he is the one who has the burden of proof. I am still waiting for the link leading to the exact wording of Limbaugh's comments on Obama.

[kl]

So: you made an unsubstantiated accusation, and now you're refusing to back it up with facts. Okay then.

[Hard Right]

You guys think you're smart, you go check his site. If you're going to quote or paraphrase someone, check the source and not what you read off some moonbat site.

I'll ask again, what is wrong with a white man manning a Black Republican's booth? Like I said, the fact you think something is wrong or funny about that proves you are the racists.

[Legalize]

"You can't even defend your own position, you just have to move into insults, slurs and ad hominum attacks."

It's like talking to a 4 year old with you, isn't it? Clean your glasses.

"By the way, Legalize, please show me where on this thread I used an ad hominum attack. I don't even think you truly know what that is."

I didn't say you did, sport; I said "I love it when wingers whine about ad hominems while engaging in as hominems, as a matter of general practice."

"Either prove that you're worth treating like an adult, or expect to be treated like a child."

Either prove that you can read and address what has actually been said, instead of whining about mean old "ad hominems" or get in line with the rest of the ankel-biters who populate the Riehl Wurld. Take number and wait your turn.

"I have small hope that you'll do the former, but based on your words and actions I expect nothing more but the same mental vomit that I've seen on this thread."

You mean the mental vomit perpetrated by delusional cultists who see nothing funny or bizarre about a "Black Republican" booth at CPAC being manned by a white guy, in light of its context within a short video detailing the rampant biggotry and bile perpetrated at said event? I have small hope that you and your fellow-travellers will rent a clue some day and realize what "conservatism" has come to represent these days. Actually, scratch that, I actually hope that you continue to not get it.

[Raging_Dave]

So, you can't defend what you said, you resort to insults, and you still expect to be treated like an adult?

Again, and you have said NOTHING to refute me, this person's skin color is more important to you than his actions or beliefs. According to YOUR argument, if I want to support the Black Republicans, I cannot do it because I'm not black. And every snarky little whine-fest perpetrated by you only re-inforces that point. You care more about the color of someone's skin than what they do or say.

But then you claim that we're a bunch of racists. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Keep proving my point for me, boyo.

By the way, when you make the claim "I love it when wingers whine about ad hominems while engaging in as hominems, as a matter of general practice." in a response to my post, you are de facto accusing me of engaging in ad hominum attacks. Either provide proof of that accusation, or don't make it. Of course, you could easily prove that you're not worth the time it takes to respond to you by ignoring this and continuing to use ad hominums. But that's your choice.

[Devil's Advocate]

"I have small hope that you and your fellow-travellers will rent a clue some day and realize what "conservatism" has come to represent these days."

The ones who got a clue have already moved away from the 29% lunatic fringe that was represented at their BigotFest. The remainder are the fanatics. You cannot reason with fanatics, Legalize. They'll tell you that the sun is shining even if it is pouring cats and dogs.

[Legalize]

"The ones who got a clue have already moved away from the 29% lunatic fringe that was represented at their BigotFest. The remainder are the fanatics. You cannot reason with fanatics, Legalize. They'll tell you that the sun is shining even if it is pouring cats and dogs."

I know; I know. I make that mistake every time - as evidenced by this thread.

[Nikki]

So I assume everyone here would have no problem with a black manning a booth entitled "Asian-American: What it means to me" or some such? Stop it right now with the stupid arguments. I am a black woman and I am telling you that the white guy at the Black Republicans booth will not be able to sell black republicanism to me. He does not speak my language; he does not see from my point of view. Ask yourselves this question: why couldn't the Rices find other blacks to man their booth and provide that so important black perspective?

[Legalize]

"Ask yourselves this question: why couldn't the Rices find other blacks to man their booth and provide that so important black perspective?"

This of course, is the concept that is whooshing by over their heads at an remarkable rate of speed.

[Legalize]

"So, you can't defend what you said, you resort to insults, and you still expect to be treated like an adult?"

Is there an echo in here? How many times to I have to make the same point over and over before you acknowledge that (a) a point has been made, and (b) you are avoiding it?

"Again, and you have said NOTHING to refute me, this person's skin color is more important to you than his actions or beliefs."

Ok. That person's beliefs are more important to me than his skin color - refuted.

"According to YOUR argument, if I want to support the Black Republicans, I cannot do it because I'm not black."

No, (pardon my pending French) dumb ass. According to my argument, CPAC looks silly for having a white guy standing up purporting to represent "BLACK REPUBLICANS," especially in the context of Max' video detailing the biggotry of the event? Are you fucking dense, or what?

"And every snarky little whine-fest perpetrated by you only re-inforces that point."

"Snarky"? Hell yes - that's what you get for making me type the same point over and over. "Whine-fest"? Put down the crack pipe, professor. I'm LAUGHING and POINTING; not whining. Sheesh.

"You care more about the color of someone's skin than what they do or say."

No I don't.

"But then you claim that we're a bunch of racists. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Keep proving my point for me, boyo."

Even if I was claiming that you are a bunch of racists (which is still pending), that fact would not prove whatever rambling you are trying to establish.

"By the way, when you make the claim "I love it when wingers whine about ad hominems while engaging in as hominems, as a matter of general practice." in a response to my post, you are de facto accusing me of engaging in ad hominum attacks."

Yawn. No. I'm stating that it's funny when wingers whine about "ad hominem attacks," because as a general matter, wingers engage in such attacks on a regular basis. If I was accusing YOU of making ad hominem attacks, I would say that. You see, I don't whine about such things. The term you are looking for is "per se" anyway.

"Either provide proof of that accusation, or don't make it."

I didn't.

"Of course, you could easily prove that you're not worth the time it takes to respond to you by ignoring this and continuing to use ad hominums. But that's your choice."

Great. Save youself the time and stop responding, fuckwit. Ooops!! There's that potty-mouth we communists are known for!!

[Hard Right]

Legalize, you are just owning yourself and you don't even know it. This is too funny.

[Jeff]

"It's hilarious that you guys are trying to spin your way out of what your OWN hate rally actually is."

This is a classic!

And Hard Right, it was just a matter of time until Legalize got him self all tangled up in his string of stupidity, and couldn't get out.

Legalize, I imagine your mind and the arguments you use looking somewhat like a Charlie Chaplin movie. You fix one thing, and in fixing that, you break 3 other things.

[Raging_Dave]

As has been pointed out, the guy was married to THE HEAD OF THE BLACK REPUBLICANS. Heaven forbid that a husband might just care about the same things his WIFE cares about. And YOU are the one popping a blood vessel over the fact that this guy was sitting at the NBRA table. The only objection you've raised to his being at that table is his skin color. You aren't getting teed off over anything he said or did, it's the fact that a white guy was sitting at the Black Republian's booth that has you in a tizzy.

Hence, you care more about the color of the guy's skin than his actions. Every post of yours proves my point.

And again, child, I'll restate this for you. I'll even type really. Really. Slowly. Just so that you might be able to understand it. When you respond to a post of mine, with this statement: "I love it when wingers whine about ad hominems while engaging in as hominems, as a matter of general practice."

Then. You. Are. Accusing. Me. Of. Making. Ad. Hominum. Attacks.

Either that, or you bring so little to the debate that you have to try to use that statement to deflect attention from your own pathetic arguments, and I'll grant you that case might just be so.

So, now that I've proven you're a racist and an idiot, where do we go from here?

[Jeff]

I find that it is sad to see that Democrat's claim to follow Martin Luther King's manifesto of judging a man by the content of their character and can also support Affirmative Action.

The truth is that the Democrats have a corner on the black vote because they have convinced Black Americans (I never use the word African-Americans for the reason that Teddy Roosevelt wouldn't) that they are oppressed, and will be more oppressed if the Republicans win (forget that a Republican abolished slavery) The Dems know that if Blacks start realizing that they can rise above the false oppresion (that Dems are feeding) they will shift to Republican. In my Church (which is about 70% black) I find that the most moral people are black, yet the vote for the immoral party (Democrat Party, of course). If Black Americans began to see past Democrat nay sayers like Sharpton and Jackson, the Democrats will be the new Whigs... Then I guess we will be a one party system (uck!).

[Zifnab]

And if Republicans would stop hanging nooses and Confederate flags behind their desks to symbolize their love of racial equality perhaps the Black voters would learn to love the Republican-American caucus as much as whitey.

Alas, they are blinded by Hurricane Katrina, which as anyone will tell you, was really Clinton's fault.

[Hard Right]

Nooses? Now you're stereotyping Zif. Funny, I thought you leftists were against that. One more thing Zif, take a look at which party fought segregation tooth and nail and loved those Confedrate flags. (Hint) It wasn't the GOP.

BTW Legalize, the fact you feel it's silly to have a white man in a booth for Black Republicans shows how you really are on race. Spin and lie all you want, you've outed yourself.

[TheSpartan]

HR Ken Melman admits the GOP's "Southern Strategy" why can't you?

[scarshapedstar]

"OK, one more time, it is your position that this person could not advocate for the Black Republicans because he was white, yes?"

Uh... no. Our position is that black Republicans do not, in a meaningful sense, exist.

Bush garnered 2% of the black vote. That's two. One plus one. Didn't leave off a zero.

[Nikki]

If you watched this administration's response to the Terri Schiavo matter, then watched this administration's response to Hurricane Katrina, only then could you begin to grasp why Black people will never vote Republican.

Hey...how many black Republicans are sitting in Congress?

[Hard Right]

Nikki, how about blaming Nagin and his cronies? They are far more responsible for what happened than W. Blaming Bush is just another way to avoid puting blame squarely where it belongs-on N.O. leadership...AKA Democrats.

[Jeff]

"Uh... no. Our position is that black Republicans do not, in a meaningful sense, exist."

Interesting... Keyes, Steele, Rice...

Obviously Bellafonte thinks the Black republicans exist.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200508%5CSPE20050808a.html

[Bozoer Rebbe]

Mr. Rice was temporarily staffing the booth because the NBRA was at the same moment having its national meeting in the ballroom.

A few years ago I worked with a non-profit called Jews For Judaism and we had a booth at the United Synagogue of America convention in Toronto one year. All the other staffers had speaking engagements scheduled so I ended up staffing the booth by myself. The organization had a number of non-Jewish supporters who were active in the Noahide movement. Suppose I had also had a speaking obligation. Would it have been wrong to have a non-Jew hand out pamphlets at a Jews For Judaism booth?

Could the liberals here please explain to me, without using the KKK/NSDP "one drop" theory, why Barak Obama is considered a black politician while Hallie Berry is not considered a Jewish actress?

[Nikki]

Could the liberals here please explain to me, without using the KKK/NSDP "one drop" theory, why Barak Obama is considered a black politician while Hallie Berry is not considered a Jewish actress?

Um...'coz they both identify themselves as black?