George W. Bush: Bigotry and white supremacy are 'blasphemy' against the American creed

[dgiharris]

Everyone ought to apologize for corporate welfare. You can believe,on faith alone, that some horrible fate would occur if politicians aren't allowed to prop up failed corporations if you like to, but I am not buying that prophecy because I do not believe in the honesty or objectivity of those that came up with it. From my perspective, insisting that only one course of action( the one they and their cronies profited from) could have staved off some looming catastrophe that we are just expected to assume would have taken place otherwise is simply the way a con man gets the mark to go along with fleeced.

the bail outs that occurred were necessary, and it wasn't opinion, it was hard core economic and mathematical fact. Without those bailouts, we would have been thrown into a Global DEPRESSION instead of a recession...

However, the one mistake that was made was that there was no purge. The leaders of every single political entity, regulatory entity, and corporate entity that enabled the tragedy of the whole housing market scandal should have been fired, fined, and imprisoned.

Instead, they were ignored and able to pawn the entire housing scandal off on a I think 3 or 4 scapegoats. That's right, TRILLIONS of dollars disappears from the US Economy and only a few people are to blame. NOthing to see here folks, move along....

the whole matter is so disgusting, I'm amazed the Public didn't literally grab torches and pitchforks and go hunting corporate bankers and Wall Street brokers...

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

the bail outs that occurred were necessary, and it wasn't opinion, it was hard core economic and mathematical fact. Without those bailouts, we would have been thrown into a Global DEPRESSION instead of a recession...

Without the bailouts, the recession probably wouldn't have happened. The financial sector would have felt some pain, but the malaise wouldn't have spread to the rest of the economy, and the banks may have been provided an incentive to clean up their act...

 

[Aryeh Jay]

I have to disagree with you on that, having been born & bred in the South. Now, it does depend a lot on where in the South you live. We live in Atlanta now, it's a stark difference from the little peanut farming town I'd lived in when I was younger. I grew up hearing the n word routinely, hearing about that black man in the White House, etc.

I don’t know much about Georgia but in my younger years I grew up in Arkansas, Mississippi and Alabama and had to keep my Jewishness under wraps (more so in Alabama and Mississippi). I was in north central Arkansas last weekend, Oct 12th-15th for a memorial service and did not encounter any noticeable racism at all and I was decked out in full Jew gear. We passed 20+ confederate flags flying in Michigan, 0 in Indiana, 3 in Illinois, 0 in Missouri and 0 in Arkansas.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

lol "far-left democrats"

Nobody on the far left is citing George Bush as a "wise moral authority." You're thinking of liberals. Most leftists have been wondering why liberals shower conservatives with praise just for saying the obvious or doing the bare minimum once in their lives.

Actually, I have talked to people who are far left democrats who have been praising Bush lately who used to hate him...

Basically, anyone who vocally criticizes Trump has been regarded as "one of the good ones" even if they were someone who was previously not well liked among that group. Look at some of the Bush appearances recently on left-leaning shows...he's met with a standing ovation by people who, quite frankly, had nothing nice to say about him when he was still in office.

 

[Landon Caeli]

According to some posters, blacks, etc. cannot be racist.

One would have to be a very, very dumb person to hold that view.

 

[dgiharris]

Without the bailouts, the recession probably wouldn't have happened. The financial sector would have felt some pain, but the malaise wouldn't have spread to the rest of the economy, and the banks may have been provided an incentive to clean up their act...

the financial sector would have felt "some pain" in the same way you would feel "some pain" if 90% of your body suffered 3rd degree burns.

We aren't talking about one or two banks that managed to accumulate debt that equated to 25% of their equity....

No, we are talking about EVERY MAJOR BANKING INSTITUTION in the US having enough debt on their books to sink the entire US economy. We had passed the point of self correcting mechanisms and the entire economy would have collapsed ala 1930s Great Depression and that is no hyperbole.

I am not an economist but I do know that our modern system of banking and finance and our modern economy is in many ways more fragile than the past because so much of our entire financial system is dependent on credit, financing, and creative accounting. I also watched several 2008 documentaries and read plenty of articles by financial experts from both the RIGHT and the LEFT that all unanimously agreed that the bail outs needed to happen.

I don't remember any major economic source in 2008 on any end of the political spectrum arguing against the bail outs. Not one. Right, left, center, MSNBC, CNN, Fox News... no one.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Nice use of deflection technique. Weinstein has nothing to do with Trump shameful behavior. Although they are similar in many ways.

Trump brags about his perverted Peeping Tom acts on naked women in beauty pageants. Trump brags about sexually assaulting women by grabbing their genitals. Of course there are many other incidents such as women coming forward and saying Trump was doing his perverted Peeping Tom act on naked children.

Donald Trump Walked in on Half-Dressed Teen Girls
Teen Beauty Queens Say Trump Walked In On Them Changing
Former teen beauty queens: Trump barged in on us changing
Donald Trump boasted about meeting semi-naked teenagers in beauty pageant

Isn't there term for people who do this sort of thing with children?

It's like they completely forget (or ignore) the fact that Trump came from that same Hollywood swamp of immorality.

They elected a D-list celebrity to President and then complain when higher ranking and more respected celebrities give their political opinions. But they only have themselves to blame for that, which explains their frustration.

 

[dgiharris]

Actually, I have talked to people who are far left democrats who have been praising Bush lately who used to hate him...

Basically, anyone who vocally criticizes Trump has been regarded as "one of the good ones" even if they were someone who was previously not well liked among that group. Look at some of the Bush appearances recently on left-leaning shows...he's met with a standing ovation by people who, quite frankly, had nothing nice to say about him when he was still in office.

it is an unfortunate part of the human condition that we don't miss our water till the well runs dry.

We define good and bad using frames of reference. And Bush's administration was bad, but it was "bad" within what I call the acceptable boundaries of bad that every single president has managed to stay within. Bush may have been many things, but he was "Presidential" and he held with the traditions of the Presidency and you never felt that he was unfit for office...

Trump on the other hand, is so far out of bonds and his conduct is so troubling that those of us who are independent and unbiased are literally amazed at what is taking place. We are witnessing history right now and not in a good way..

Thus, Compared to Trump, Bush is now seen as competent and trustworthy and "good". That is how bad Trump is. which speaks volumes...

 

[Rion]

I have heard some people make that assertion, and there are certainly people ignorant enough to believe that statement at face value. However. when some people espouse those ideas, context is everything. (and perhaps it's their fault for not explaining themselves correctly).

When I challenge them on that assertion, and demanding that they quantify their statements, I find what they're actually referring to is the systemic effects of racism with regard to disproportionately negative effects as a result of the racism.

To elaborate, there's no doubt that there are some whites who hate black people, and vice versa.

However, whites aren't very likely to suffer as a result of a black person hating them simply for being white. However, the same isn't necessarily true when it's going in the other direction.

For example, I've never heard of a white person being denied an apartment lease because the landlord was black and "wanted to keep a certain element out of the community". I've never heard of a white person being harassed by cops for "not being in the right neighborhood". You've never heard of "black flight" where a white person moves into a black neighborhood, and all of the well-to-do black folks in that neighborhood, fold up shop and move their residence and businesses somewhere else to get away from the "white element". (As the old Chris Rock joke goes "here comes the neighborhood") However, White Flight was most definitely something that occurred. You didn't hear of black leaders in the 50's & 60's purposely raising property taxes on white families just so they would lose their homes, and then turn around and sell the properties other black families for cheap, and then drop the property taxes back down once all of "those people" were gone.

So long story short (I know, a bit late for that after my ramblings above), when some people are saying things like that, what they actually mean is that whites hating blacks is more likely to have a real negative impact on the black community as where blacks hating whites is unlikely to have any systemic impact on us at all.

I know what they mean, trust me. I've dealt with these types far more than you likely have. Even when that is what they mean, they'd be wrong. To begin with, that's not racism, that's discrimination. Secondly, that's utter nonsense. I've seen all sorts of discrimination based on racism by American Indians, either directed at whites or other tribes. In the same manner, groups like the Irish, Italians, and Germans were all discriminated against as being 'non-white' in this country's past. Any time you have any single group overwhelmingly in control of an area, there's bound to be discrimination. Whenever it happens, we should absolutely bring a hammer down on it; but to pretend that it flows only one way is not only asinine, but actually helps fuel these white nationalist groups.

Yet that's not even what they mean most of the time. Instead, what they mean is that because of these past injustices it is literally impossible for a black person to ever have power, or be in a position of power, and so no matter what they say or do about white people, etc. it isn't racist. So when these people ramble about how much they hate white people and can't wait for them to go extinct... why, that's totally not racist.

 

[SummerMadness]

I know what they mean, trust me. I've dealt with these types far more than you likely have. Even when that is what they mean, they'd be wrong. To begin with, that's not racism, that's discrimination. Secondly, that's utter nonsense. I've seen all sorts of discrimination based on racism by American Indians, either directed at whites or other tribes. In the same manner, groups like the Irish, Italians, and Germans were all discriminated against as being 'non-white' in this country's past. Any time you have any single group overwhelmingly in control of an area, there's bound to be discrimination. Whenever it happens, we should absolutely bring a hammer down on it; but to pretend that it flows only one way is not only asinine, but actually helps fuel these white nationalist groups.

Yet that's not even what they mean most of the time. Instead, what they mean is that because of these past injustices it is literally impossible for a black person to ever have power, or be in a position of power, and so no matter what they say or do about white people, etc. it isn't racist. So when these people ramble about how much they hate white people and can't wait for them to go extinct... why, that's totally not racist.

Discrimination based on race is racism. What you're saying comes across as a jumble because you're describing different forms of racism, yet refuse to acknowledge those differences. For instance, there is a difference between systemic and individual racism, but rather than acknowledge these differences, people try to equate a person saying, "I don't like your kind," with practices like redlining. They're not the same, they don't have the same impact, so people should stop talking about them as if they are equal.

I think it's funny that you now acknowledge that different European immigrants where considered non-white, considering how you when you previously challenged notions of whiteness. Why were they considered non-white? Because white is the top of society and these immigrants are lesser, so they must be called non-white. Whiteness and its invented classification system has always been the core issue of racism in America.

 

[Rion]

What you're saying comes across as a jumble because you're describing different forms of racism, yet refuse to acknowledge those differences.

You should probably avoid ever accusing someone else of coming across as jumbled.

I think it's funny that you now acknowledge that different European immigrants where considered non-white, considering how you when you previously challenged notions of whiteness.

I never denied that happened. I simply said that 'blackness' was a similar concept, which triggered you.

 

[SummerMadness]

You should probably avoid ever accusing someone else of coming across as jumbled.

Yet again saying something while failing to substantiate your claim.

I never denied that happened. I simply said that 'blackness' was a similar concept, which triggered you.

You never substantiated your claim, you posted links without actually explaining anything, but nothing new here.

 

[Rion]

Yet again saying something while failing to substantiate your claim.

I'm just saying, it's kind of like a blind person criticizing an artist's choice of color.

You never substantiated your claim, you posted links without actually explaining anything, but nothing new here.

Is that where the goal posts were last moved to? I didn't explain my links well enough for you?

 

[SummerMadness]

I'm just saying, it's kind of like a blind person criticizing an artist's choice of color.

Is that where the goal posts were last moved to? I didn't explain my links well enough for you?

No goal posts were moved, you didn't substantiate your claim, that is all. Again, nothing new here; if anything, this comes down to a fundamental misunderstanding of how to actually provide citation/references. But I'll chalk that up to my fault, I forget that most people do not understand how to do it properly.

 

[Rion]

No goal posts were moved, you didn't substantiate your claim, that is all. Again, nothing new here; if anything, this comes down to a fundamental misunderstanding of how to actually provide citation/references. But I'll chalk that up to my fault, I forget that most people do not understand how to do it properly.

I'm well aware of how to do citations properly. However, this is a message board, not a research paper or a formal debate. Complaining due to you not liking how someone cited their sources is not an argument. Posturing on how you're obviously above us for having to explain something to the filthy masses isn't one either.

 

[grasping the after wind]

...depends on which policy he's referring to.

If he's referring to anti-immigration policies that have been proposed by Trump, then he's not claiming the policy is bigoted simply because it's not what he prefers...it's the other way around...he doesn't prefer it, precisely because it is bigoted.


.

Precisely what anti immigration policies are you referring to? Additionally, if you can reference for me a truly anti immigration policy i.e one that deals with legal immigration or any legal entrance into the US by foreign nationals, explain how that policies is based upon bigotry?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'll touch on these piece by piece...

I know what they mean, trust me.

I don't have to trust you, you're a stranger on a discussion & debate message board. If you want me to trust you, then you need to quantify and substantiate that claim.

I've dealt with these types far more than you likely have.

How would you even know that?

Even when that is what they mean, they'd be wrong.

Statistically and historically speaking, they would not be wrong.

Unless you can demonstrate that the inverse of this has ever occurred in our nation's history on a large scale:

...then it's fair to say that that "black-on-white" racism has never had the same level of systemic effects as "white-on-black" racism.

To begin with, that's not racism, that's discrimination.

Secondly, that's utter nonsense. I've seen all sorts of discrimination based on racism by American Indians, either directed at whites or other tribes.

Ok...but in order to dismiss the stance of the people you're arguing against and truly render their claim "utter nonsense" then you need to also demonstrate that it has had the same effects on the white population.

In the same manner, groups like the Irish, Italians, and Germans were all discriminated against as being 'non-white' in this country's past.

That's very true, however, as history has shown us, the impacts weren't as deep and didn't last as long as the discrimination toward the black community.


To summarize. "The other group can be discriminatory too" argument or highlighting examples of other groups who experienced a much less severe version of that type of treatment in no way negates the point they're trying to make.



If I may make a hypothetical comparison, trying to dismiss their grievances using that king of logic would be like me looking at a person who's just had their life's savings stolen, and condescendingly telling them "I don't know why you're complaining, I once had someone steal $50 out of my wallet 5 years ago, and I bounced back okay and you don't see me complaining"

 

[SummerMadness]

I'm well aware of how to do citations properly. However, this is a message board, not a research paper or a formal debate. Complaining due to you not liking how someone cited their sources is not an argument. Posturing on how you're obviously above us for having to explain something to the filthy masses isn't one either.

On one side you have links to primary sources, passage citations and context provided for links; on the next side you have a link to a paper someone didn't even read. Yeah, they're equal explanations, much like your attempt to argue that a person calling someone names is somehow equal in scope and weight to institutional racism, it's unsurprising that you would make such pronouncements.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Precisely what anti immigration policies are you referring to? Additionally, if you can reference for me a truly anti immigration policy i.e one that deals with legal immigration or any legal entrance into the US by foreign nationals, explain how that policies is based upon bigotry?

-He seeks to rollback birthright citizenship
-The Trump administration embraced the Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy (RAISE) Act in August 2017.[11][12] The RAISE Act seeks to reduce levels of legal immigration to the United States by 50% by halving the number of green cards issued.
-In December 2015, Trump proposed a temporary ban on foreign Muslims entering the United States (the U.S. admits approximately 100,000 Muslim immigrants each year)[61] "until we can figure out what's going on".[62][63][64][65] In response to the 2015 San Bernardino shooting, Trump released a statement on "Preventing Muslim Immigration" and called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on"

Unless someone is deliberately playing naive for purposes of deniability, it's as plain as day that these proposals are nothing more than a pandering technique for people who have anti-Mexican and anti-Muslim sentiments. Basically...the kind of folks who falsely think "our economy is hurting from all the Mexicans coming over" and who think every Muslim immigrant is a small piece of the Trojan horse from which Sharia Law will somehow emerge.

 

[grasping the after wind]

the bail outs that occurred were necessary, and it wasn't opinion, it was hard core economic and mathematical fact. Without those bailouts, we would have been thrown into a Global DEPRESSION instead of a recession...

However, the one mistake that was made was that there was no purge. The leaders of every single political entity, regulatory entity, and corporate entity that enabled the tragedy of the whole housing market scandal should have been fired, fined, and imprisoned.

Instead, they were ignored and able to pawn the entire housing scandal off on a I think 3 or 4 scapegoats. That's right, TRILLIONS of dollars disappears from the US Economy and only a few people are to blame. NOthing to see here folks, move along....

the whole matter is so disgusting, I'm amazed the Public didn't literally grab torches and pitchforks and go hunting corporate bankers and Wall Street brokers...

You have an interesting crystal ball that sees an alternative reality so clearly that you have no doubts of its infallibility. Sorry if i do not have the same faith in it as you do.You know what though? Maybe the world is not an"either you do exactly what I want without hesitation or a moment of reflection on whether what I want is actually the best course or it will be a total catastrophe" type of place. Maybe there are more ways than one to deal with a problem and maybe things might turn out better in the long run if we allow a bit of discomfort for a short period of time. I am not inclined to just take on faith the pronouncements of a group of politically motivated economists( and aren't they all) that insist that they can tell the future and tell what would have happened in the past had their advice not been heeded.