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

[grasping the after wind]

-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"

I would suggest that the above things are not anti immigration. They do not stop immigration from happening they regulate it. Unless you contend that regulating a thing makes it ant i that thingI do not see how you can call these anti immigration policies. Are regulations on what a businesses or citizen might do anti business or anti citizen policies?

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.

I would say it is plain as day that those policies are addressing actual problems within our previous immigration law enforcement. I do not read minds so I cannot tell you what Trump thinks and I really wouldn't venture to guess at that as from his public pronouncements the man seems not to know himself what he thinks from minute to minute. . Frankly ,I do not need to read minds I simply look at whether a policy makes sense or not and is legally allowable . From my perspective the policies you quoted ( with the exception of RAISE as that is not a policy nor would Trump have the power to institute it only congress makes laws. ) are simply a practical way to enforce immigration law through regulating how many are legally allowed to come into the country. If our previous policies were allowing, by non enforcement of laws, a larger percentage of people coming from Mexico and people coming from primarily Muslim countries than from elsewhere, was the previous policy bigoted in favor of those groups and against all non Mexicans and non Muslims? I would assume that one should be consistent in their arguments So, if policies aimed at enforcing immigration laws could be considered bigotry because it ends up curtailing immigration from two groups more than other groups then non enforcement of immigration laws could be considered bigotry against those not included in those two groups.

 

[SummerMadness]

I would suggest that the above things are not anti immigration. They do not stop immigration from happening they regulate it. Unless you contend that regulating a thing makes it ant i that thingI do not see how you can call these anti immigration policies. Are regulations on what a businesses or citizen might do anti business or anti citizen policies?

Kind of like reading tests at southern polling locations was only to ensure people could read? The intention wasn't simply to regulate immigration, it was to target a specific group based on their religion, which was clearly stated by the president, and that is simply unconstitutional. That they write a law and then attempt to hide their original intent does not make their previous statements disappear.

 

[Go Braves]

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.

I sure am glad you didn't encounter any racism while you were there for a memorial service. I'm sorry for your loss.

I think things have progressed in the South, for sure. Comparing what I experienced as a kid, to what folks a generation and more before me did, there was definitely a big improvement. But the racism is still more prevalent some areas there, in my own experiences, than other parts of the country. I went to a Christian school that had been founded to get around desegregation laws, on account of how at that time the focus was on public schools. Now, eventually they did have to let black kids in but that didn't happen till the 90s & it was just a few who ever set foot inside. I never met any Jewish folks in that town. In Atlanta there's plenty but in the more rural areas I don't think there are even today.

When you were a kid were Jewish adults picked on where you were, or were kids the softer targets? I know that folks would say all sorts of nasty racist things about black folks where I lived, but rarely to their face. Kids would be bullied more but I don't think many would bully adults. Now back before my time, they'd say racist crap right to their faces, demean adults, kick them out of places. In my day it was at least the racism was more contained, less obvious, definitely less violent.

 

[Rion]

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.

First off, it's an idiom: https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/Trust+me!

Secondly says the person who is telling me to listen and believe that the Tea Party and the alt-right are the exact same people. Seems a little contradictory there. Oh, wait, I forgot, you had some Facebook posts to prove it.

How would you even know that?

Well, I did say likely. As for how, it's a wild guess based on you not knowing what NeoGAF was. For all I know, however, you could spend your days galavanting around in the craziest parts of Tumblr. Otherwise, I think plumbing the depths of the left-wing equivalent of 4Chan's POL gives me a wee bit more experience.

Statistically and historically speaking, they would not be wrong.

"Piece by piece" does not mean separate each individual sentence so that you can remove context.

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.

First, I never said that the previous systems affected all groups equally. Secondly, that's a ridiculous argument to be making if you happen to be paying attention to the news these past few years...

I like that you took the effort to make it an image. Not sure what that's supposed to do. Keep me from realizing that you just pulled it off of Google? Maybe you were afraid that I might click on those synonyms or something? Oh, I know, you wanted to avoid the second definition:

"the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."

Huh. Well, would you look at that. Strangely enough, this definition tends to be the first one given in a lot of other dictionaries: the definition of racism

Now I understand why you seemed so insulted that I used the phrase 'trust me.'

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.

To argue that all groups can be racist and/or discriminatory if given a chance (which is what I was arguing) I need to prove no such thing. I just have to provide an example where blacks were in power and acted in a similar manner to whites. I guess you got me there. Not like that's ever happened anywhere in the world. Oh, wait, yes it did.

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.

Again, not something I was arguing.

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.

Never said it did, but then, if you'd continued with the rest of my post (you did, after all, claim it was going to be piece-by-piece), you would have gotten to where I was arguing that all such discrimination should never be tolerated, and that doing so actually harms society in the grand scheme of things. Again, context is key.

Sorry if I come across a tad cheeky today. Remember that cesspit I mentioned above? That place completely imploded over the weekend, and watching it happen in real time was pure entertainment.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I would suggest that the above things are not anti immigration. They do not stop immigration from happening they regulate it. Unless you contend that regulating a thing makes it ant i that thingI do not see how you can call these anti immigration policies. Are regulations on what a businesses or citizen might do anti business or anti citizen policies?

So, if that's your position, then one could say that the GOP/NRA advocates are incorrect when they refer to democratic candidates as "anti-gun" since they don't stop guns from being bought, they just regulate it right?

I would say it is plain as day that those policies are addressing actual problems within our previous immigration law enforcement.

Are the addressing actual problems? Or are they addressing straw men that people have been convinced are legitimate problems? For example, the bit about the economic impacts. We've had high numbers of Mexican immigrants coming in for work for decades, in both good economic times and bad and economic experts even agree that immigrants are actually promote growth

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuart...migrants-key-to-economic-growth/#7a58e3d87dab

...so how is it that Trump and GOP members seem to have missed these reports and instead have taken the exact opposite position in which they claim that they're going to improve the economy by cutting the thing, that economists agree helps the economy, by 50%?

 

[Aryeh Jay]

I sure am glad you didn't encounter any racism while you were there for a memorial service. I'm sorry for your loss.

I think things have progressed in the South, for sure. Comparing what I experienced as a kid, to what folks a generation and more before me did, there was definitely a big improvement. But the racism is still more prevalent some areas there, in my own experiences, than other parts of the country. I went to a Christian school that had been founded to get around desegregation laws, on account of how at that time the focus was on public schools. Now, eventually they did have to let black kids in but that didn't happen till the 90s & it was just a few who ever set foot inside. I never met any Jewish folks in that town. In Atlanta there's plenty but in the more rural areas I don't think there are even today.

When you were a kid were Jewish adults picked on where you were, or were kids the softer targets? I know that folks would say all sorts of nasty racist things about black folks where I lived, but rarely to their face. Kids would be bullied more but I don't think many would bully adults. Now back before my time, they'd say racist crap right to their faces, demean adults, kick them out of places. In my day it was at least the racism was more contained, less obvious, definitely less violent.

Luckily I was not picked on because we kept it hidden for the most part. I was unaware of any other Jews in the town I lived in Arkansas. We would drive about 45 minutes to an hour to Jonesboro, Ark to a Reform synagogue about once every month or so. There was a synagogue in Brookhaven, Mississippi that we attended when we lived there, but it was a dying congregation with only 12 families, most over 70 years old, and has since closed and become the Lincoln County Historic Museum. By the time we had moved to Alabama, we were un-observant and just about assimilated, but we lived in what was known as a “sundown town” so if anyone asked what church we attended, we always said “Methodist”. They probably had no idea what a “Jew” or “Catholic” look like, but they knew that they hated them.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Secondly says the person who is telling me to listen and believe that the Tea Party and the alt-right are the exact same people. Seems a little contradictory there. Oh, wait, I forgot, you had some Facebook posts to prove it.

lol, you love to keep bringing that up while simultaneously leaving out the fact that I provided far more than just facebook posts to prove it.

I provided snippets from the Breitbart publication, self professing to be the "voice of the alt-right", and showed video several Breitbart authors, including Andrew Breitbart himself back in the day, acting a keynote speakers for numerous tea party rallies.

It seems like you like to use this as a distraction technique to attack me rather than address my post.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I like that you took the effort to make it an image. Not sure what that's supposed to do. Keep me from realizing that you just pulled it off of Google?

Not at all...it's because the traditional copy paste was messing up the formatting so I used the snipping tool. I don't hide the fact that I use the wonderful tool that is google to look things up. (as do most people)

To argue that all groups can be racist and/or discriminatory if given a chance (which is what I was arguing) I need to prove no such thing. I just have to provide an example where blacks were in power and acted in a similar manner to whites. I guess you got me there. Not like that's ever happened anywhere in the world. Oh, wait, yes it did.

Yeah, when we're having a conversation about Zimbabwe then feel free to bring this up. However, this is a discussion about racism in the US.

Again, not something I was arguing.

It seemed like you were when you posted this:

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.

...if you weren't trying to suggest parity or equivalency, then why bring this up?

 

[SummerMadness]

lol, you love to keep bringing that up while simultaneously leaving out the fact that I provided far more than just facebook posts to prove it.

I provided snippets from the Breitbart publication, self professing to be the "voice of the alt-right", and showed video several Breitbart authors, including Andrew Breitbart himself back in the day, acting a keynote speakers for numerous tea party rallies.

It seems like you like to use this as a distraction technique to attack me rather than address my post.

On one side, we have links provided, along with citations, references, and an explanation of the supporting text. In contrast, we have no explanation except ad hominem. When pressed to actually substantiate the argument, obfuscation and personal attacks continue. It's a pattern.

I may not always agree with @ThatRobGuy, but I know he's good about providing citations/references and explaining his references.

 

[Rion]

lol, you love to keep bringing that up while simultaneously leaving out the fact that I provided far more than just facebook posts to prove it.

I provided snippets from the Breitbart publication, self professing to be the "voice of the alt-right", and showed video several Breitbart authors, including Andrew Breitbart himself back in the day, acting a keynote speakers for numerous tea party rallies.

It seems like you like to use this as a distraction technique to attack me rather than address my post.

I bring it up because it's absurd. You, in turn, ignore that BB is a decade removed and the creator is dead. I'm sure WaPo is the exact same now that Bezos owns it, right?

Not at all...it's because the traditional copy paste was messing up the formatting so I used the snipping tool. I don't hide the fact that I use the wonderful tool that is google to look things up. (as do most people)

As tempting as it were to post your own quote about some stranger on the internet back to you, I'll just say that I remain skeptical. Pattern of behavior and all that.

Yeah, when we're having a conversation about Zimbabwe then feel free to bring this up. However, this is a discussion about racism in the US.

Fine then, are those minorities who are calling segregation racist then? Or does that not count because reasons? Does companies admitting that they have policies of 'whites need not apply' not count because of those same reasons?

...if you weren't trying to suggest parity or equivalency, then why bring this up?

Because there does not have to be parity for it to equally wrong and rejected. How many more times do I need to restate my position before you stop cutting it out and asking for it once more?

 

[Rion]

On one side, we have links provided, along with citations, references, and an explanation of the supporting text. In contrast, we have no explanation except ad hominem. When pressed to actually substantiate the argument, obfuscation and personal attacks continue. It's a pattern.

I've never made a personal attack on you. Or are you referring to Rob? Because cheekily pointing out how he carefully quoted stuff is not a personal attack. It is an observation.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Because there does not have to be parity for it to equally wrong and rejected. How many more times do I need to restate my position before you stop cutting it out and asking for it once more?

Okay, so with all of those things being said, what exactly was the purpose of you participating in this thread in the first place? If you in no way wanted to diminish what their gripe is over the situation, and you didn't want to imply some sort of equivalence or parity, then what exactly was your purpose in posting in this thread?

I see where your earlier posts when you first jumped in where:

Yeah, I have no qualms with what he said about white supremacy, but had he qualified it with any sort of racial supremacy, or called out racism in general, I highly doubt this would've gotten posted.

...and then when another user centered the focus back to white surpremacy in particular, you replied to them with:

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

To which I replied back with the fact that this is a problem that disproportionately impacts blacks and that started this whole exchange.


Obviously I can't read your mind, but it's coming across as if you take some sort of objection to the notion that black people might want to voice their discontentment with the fact that they've been disproportionately impacted by racism in this country.

Any time this subject gets brought up, some folks like to immediately throw in the fact that "blacks can be racists too" or "these other groups were the victims of racism at one point and they got past it", almost like the first thing on their mind when this topic comes up is "how can we delegitimize their anger about this situation?"

The reason why people are posting and commenting specifically about white->black racism is because it's been significantly more impacting than any/all other forms in our country's recent history. Saying "oh, well if he would've mentioned racism in general, nobody would've posted it", you're right, and there's good reason for that...because the largest problems being experienced in our culture center around one specific form of racism, and not "racism in general". It's like that disingenuous, phony "now now, ALL lives matter!" rebuttal that people love to toss out whenever someone brings police brutality against blacks.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Fine then, are those minorities who are calling segregation racist then? Or does that not count because reasons? Does companies admitting that they have policies of 'whites need not apply' not count because of those same reasons?

It's not so much about whether or not it "counts", if we're just making a blatant tally, and putting tick marks in columns then yes it would "count". The real question is impact. For these instances of minorities calling for segregation, is there even a snowball's chance in hell that it will lead to me having to use a sub-par bathroom, separate drinking fountain, or having to ride in the back of public transportation? No, not in the slightest. For one, it's a strikingly small percentage calling for that, and two, they're not in key positions of authority to make that happen. When the roles were reversed, it was a case where the majority of whites in certain regions were supporting things like that, and bad/hateful ideas became public policy in a matter of a few months.

As far as your link about "Whites need not apply", I think it's fair to give it a little context here.

“Hamilton” put out a casting call, seeking “NON-WHITE men and women” to audition for its Broadway run and touring companies.

In a statement, “Hamilton” said its producers “regret the confusion that’s arisen from the recent posting” but defended the verbiage.

“It is essential to the storytelling of ‘Hamilton’ that the principal roles — which were written for non-white characters (excepting King George) — be performed by non-white actors,” the statement said.

“This adheres to the accepted practice that certain characteristics in certain roles constitute a ‘bona fide occupational qualification’ that is legal.”


So, basically, their casting call was no different than a movie producer casting for the role of Kennedy and specifically needing a middle-aged white male to play the role. Did you read the full article of the link you sent?...or just immediately pounce on the first search result that came back for the point you were trying to make?

 

[Rion]

Okay, so with all of those things being said, what exactly was the purpose of you participating in this thread in the first place? If you in no way wanted to diminish what their gripe is over the situation, and you didn't want to imply some sort of equivalence or parity, then what exactly was your purpose in posting in this thread?

I see where your earlier posts when you first jumped in where:

Yeah, I have no qualms with what he said about white supremacy, but had he qualified it with any sort of racial supremacy, or called out racism in general, I highly doubt this would've gotten posted.

...and then when another user centered the focus back to white surpremacy in particular, you replied to them with:

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

To which I replied back with the fact that this is a problem that disproportionately impacts blacks and that started this whole exchange.


Obviously I can't read your mind, but it's coming across as if you take some sort of objection to the notion that black people might want to voice their discontentment with the fact that they've been disproportionately impacted by racism in this country.

Any time this subject gets brought up, some folks like to immediately throw in the fact that "blacks can be racists too" or "these other groups were the victims of racism at one point and they got past it", almost like the first thing on their mind when this topic comes up is "how can we delegitimize their anger about this situation?"

The reason why people are posting and commenting specifically about white->black racism is because it's been significantly more impacting than any/all other forms in our country's recent history. Saying "oh, well if he would've mentioned racism in general, nobody would've posted it", you're right, and there's good reason for that...because the largest problems being experienced in our culture center around one specific form of racism, and not "racism in general". It's like that disingenuous, phony "now now, ALL lives matter!" rebuttal that people love to toss out whenever someone brings police brutality against blacks.

Once more, you selectively edit when quoting me. Here's the full quote:

I believe it's more annoyance in how people who were setting their hair on fire over Bush now quote him when it pushes their narrative. Yeah, I have no qualms with what he said about white supremacy, but had he qualified it with any sort of racial supremacy, or called out racism in general, I highly doubt this would've gotten posted.

I was responding to Hank77's post:

I see it as a problem when one cannot agree with someone on some views if they don't agree with them on other views.
Basically that is the same as saying, my way or no way.

I agree with you on the three things you hold against Bush but that isn't going to stop me from commending him for what he said in this speech.
It is no wonder the Congress cannot accomplish anything when this attitude of my way or no way prevails.

And to my comment, he responded with:

??
White supremacy is racial.

Which is when I said:

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

So perhaps if you hadn't cut out key parts of my post and removed context, you wouldn't have to ask those questions. I was explaining to @Hank77 why someone might be annoyed with the left's sudden love affair with G.W.Bush, and he asked for clarification for something that I said. Go ahead and ask Hank, but I'm pretty sure he was asking me what I meant, and not saying "No, no, no, this is only about white supremacist racism!" We then continued the conversation.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Once more, you selectively edit when quoting me. Here's the full quote:

I believe it's more annoyance in how people who were setting their hair on fire over Bush now quote him when it pushes their narrative. Yeah, I have no qualms with what he said about white supremacy, but had he qualified it with any sort of racial supremacy, or called out racism in general, I highly doubt this would've gotten posted.

So, we'll just go over this little bit for the time being...

You sort of engaged in a little bit of wordplay here...
You're depicting it as if the point of your post was about the part you have in bold. Yet, if that's the case, then why did you even need to put in the bit that I highlighted in red? If your purpose really was to just highlight that it's an annoyance that people are being hypocritical on the subject of George Bush (which, if you read a prior post of mine in this thread directed at someone else, you'll see I agree on that 100% and even specifically called out the Democrats and far-left people by name on that one, see my posts #27 & #44), than the little bit you tacked onto the end was just nothing more than you trying to make it about how you think people are also hypocrites if they don't put just as much focus on other forms of racism as they do specifically on white->black racism...which is why I jumped in and explained precisely why people are putting specific emphasis on that particular flavor of racism.

It's almost like a bit of the "imply then deny game".

It'd be like if we were in a conversation about pro-life v. pro-choice, and a pro-life person made their argument, and then I replied back with a direct rebuttal to their point, but also then tacked on a bit at the end about ", but if they really cared about well being, they'd vote for healthcare expansion...". And then when someone challenges me about that little extra bit I tacked on at the end, I deny that it was even my intention to discuss that part in the first place.

 

[Hank77]

Does companies admitting that they have policies of 'whites need not apply' not count because of those same reasons?

It's very obvious to me that your example does not count. There is no racism or age discrimination in this want ad. Sheesh, characters in a play/movie/commercial call for certain types in appearance and age.
Audition for the Old Woman in the Shoe. No one under 65 needs to apply.

 

[Rion]

So, we'll just go over this little bit for the time being...

You sort of engaged in a little bit of wordplay here...
You're depicting it as if the point of your post was about the part you have in bold. Yet, if that's the case, then why did you even need to put in the bit that I highlighted in red? If your purpose really was to just highlight that it's an annoyance that people are being hypocritical on the subject of George Bush (which, if you read a prior post of mine in this thread directed at someone else, you'll see I agree on that 100% and even specifically called out the Democrats and far-left people by name on that one, see my posts #27 & #44), than the little bit you tacked onto the end was just nothing more than you trying to make it about how you think people are also hypocrites if they don't put just as much focus on other forms of racism as they do specifically on white->black racism...which is why I jumped in and explained precisely why people are putting specific emphasis on that particular flavor of racism.

It's almost like a bit of the "imply then deny game".

It'd be like if we were in a conversation about pro-life v. pro-choice, and a pro-life person made their argument, and then I replied back with a direct rebuttal to their point, but also then tacked on a bit at the end about ", but if they really cared about well being, they'd vote for healthcare expansion...". And then when someone challenges me about that little extra bit I tacked on at the end, I deny that it was even my intention to discuss that part in the first place.

The only one playing games is you.

It's very obvious to me that your example does not count. There is no racism or age discrimination in this want ad. Sheesh, characters in a play/movie/commercial call for certain types in appearance and age.
Audition for the Old Woman in the Shoe. No one under 65 needs to apply.

He demanded America only. I was still on google from figuring out where he dug that definition up, so of course the results were curated as BBC is pretty notorious for that kind of policy.

Job ad at U of Louisville raises questions about considering race in faculty hires
http://claremontindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Geology15_F17_flyer_v2.pdf
Southwest Fresno leaders criticize hiring of white teacher for Gaston school's cultural studies
Ann Arbor school district looking into legality and principal's actions in black-only field trip

 

[Hank77]

He demanded America only. I was still on google from figuring out where he dug that definition up, so of course the results were curated as BBC is pretty notorious for that kind of policy.

Job ad at U of Louisville raises questions about considering race in faculty hires
http://claremontindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Geology15_F17_flyer_v2.pdf
Southwest Fresno leaders criticize hiring of white teacher for Gaston school's cultural studies
Ann Arbor school district looking into legality and principal's actions in black-only field trip

Sorry but I fail to see how any of these hiring examples compare with the 'Hamilton' audition ad.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The only one playing games is you.

Again, you're dodging...

You posted your full chunk of text to justify your position that you merely chiming in so that you could voice your displeasure with the fact that so many left-leaning folks were being hypocritical with respect to W Bush...

Here was the quote where you re-quoted yourself in order to illustrate that:

--Your quote---------------------------------------------
I believe it's more annoyance in how people who were setting their hair on fire over Bush now quote him when it pushes their narrative. Yeah, I have no qualms with what he said about white supremacy [if your purpose was really just to highlight the hypocrisy pertaining to George Bush, this is where your post should've ended but you felt compelled to continue and post this -->] , but had he qualified it with any sort of racial supremacy, or called out racism in general, I highly doubt this would've gotten posted.
-----------------------------------------------------------

...you had to tack on the part in red just so you could express the sentiment that you feel that anyone who puts specific focus on white->black racism is somehow hypocritical. Otherwise, what would be your purposes in appending that on?

We don't have to pretend that we aren't well aware of where the other stands on these sorts of issues. On this particular topic, you've been known to engage in identity politics. Since the "liberal side" is usually the group that's sympathetic to the idea that the black community has been negatively impacted, for reasons outside of their control, by systemic racism...you always need to find a reason to argue against that, or indirectly argue against it by throwing in little extra tidbits (like you did on your post above).


Now, if I'm wrong about any of that, please, provide an explanation about why you felt the need to tack on the part in red onto your post if your intentions were simply just to highlight the hypocrisy of democrats with respect to George W Bush...


With regards to racism in this country, suggesting that we need to "focus on racism in general" instead of focusing specifically on white->black racism would be like going to an area where there's been a pervasive issue with arson in particular, and saying "well, we shouldn't put any special focus on arson, we should just focus on all crime in general".

Putting a specific focus on a particular subset of a problem that's more pervasive (quite frankly, more pervasive than all other subsets of that problem combined) doesn't mean that a person doesn't care about the other subsets, it just means they want to focus the lion's share of their efforts in the area where the lion's share of the problems exist.

 

[Rion]

Sorry but I fail to see how any of these hiring examples compare with the 'Hamilton' audition ad.

I'm tired, so maybe I'm missing something, but

But just under that statement, the ad continued, “The Department of Physics and Astronomy announces a tenure-track assistant professor position that will be filled by an African-American, Hispanic American or a Native American Indian [sic].”

Seems rather discriminatory insofar as Asians and Whites were not eligible?

Same with:

In resolving PERMs I will strive to identify students for whom the small-section setting has the potential to be of particular benefit. I am especially interested in seeing PERM requests from students of color, first generation or lowincome students, international, and students early in their college career (first two years); such students are especially encouraged to apply.

Just change it to not allowing blacks or Jewish people, or for the teacher to say she's looking for requests from white, conservative students.

My point isn't that all discrimination has been done equally, it's that we've reached a point in society where a small, but very vocal group wants to discriminate against whites to so-called 'make up' for past injustices. This is the same thing I was warning about years ago, during the last presidential election. By not treating these people like the radicals that they are, it feeds white identitarians.

Again, you're dodging...

No, I'm just tired of dealing with people who are dishonest in their methods and their arguments.

...you had to tack on the part in red just so you could express the sentiment that you feel that anyone who puts specific focus on white->black racism is somehow hypocritical. Otherwise, what would be your purposes in appending that on?

We don't have to pretend that we aren't well aware of where the other stands on these sorts of issues. On this particular topic, you've been known to engage in identity politics. Since the "liberal side" is usually the group that's sympathetic to the idea that the black community has been negatively impacted, for reasons outside of their control, by systemic racism...you always need to find a reason to argue against that, or indirectly argue against it by throwing in little extra tidbits (like you did on your post above).


Now, if I'm wrong about any of that, please, provide an explanation about why you felt the need to tack on the part in red onto your post if your intentions were simply just to highlight the hypocrisy of democrats with respect to George W Bush...


With regards to racism in this country, suggesting that we need to "focus on racism in general" instead of focusing specifically on white->black racism would be like going to an area where there's been a pervasive issue with arson in particular, and saying "well, we shouldn't put any special focus on arson, we should just focus on all crime in general".

Putting a specific focus on a particular subset of a problem that's more pervasive (quite frankly, more pervasive than all other subsets of that problem combined) doesn't mean that a person doesn't care about the other subsets, it just means they want to focus the lion's share of their efforts in the area where the lion's share of the problems exist.

I'm not sure if you're trying to beat around the bush of calling me racist, or if it's just a bit too much wandering on your part, but let me make it clear to you: No, I am not racist and I do not 'engage' in Identity Politics. My stance has always been pretty darn clear: I hate identity politics in all shapes and sizes and colors. It's pure, unvarnished cancer. I think people who engage in them are hateful, bigoted, and the lowest of the low. I also realize that if you tolerate it in any form, that all of them grow because hate begets hate.

As for why I mentioned that particular example in this particular thread, let's just say that any kind of racist angers me. I will pray for them, I will try to reason with them, but my patience for them is generally very low. Add to that the fact that I have a very smart mouth, and it lands me in all sorts of trouble.

 

[dgiharris]

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.

When you drive your car in to work do you have "faith" that it will not kill you? THere are hundreds of moving parts, thousands of connections, and a million different ways in which you can die simply driving to work? Or flying in an airplane, or crossing a bridge.

THe same science that enables your modern day lifestyle to include the computer screen you are reading this rant on is the same science that predicts that the bail outs were needed in order to avert disaster.

Economists are mathematicians and social SCIENTISTS attempting to model human behavior as relates to economy. True, there are a billion unknowns but there are some things that are known and some conditions which can be modeled provided you have the data.

My pronouncement about all the doom and gloom is not based on my derivation or conclusions, but on that of mathematicians and Social Scientists and Economists who study these mathematics and social conditions for their livelihood. And so, I'm inclined to believe them.

Because, I drive a car, because I fly in an airplane, because I use a microwave oven. Science and mathematics are confirmed in our everyday lives every second of every day. 99% of the stuff we don't understand but our lack of understanding does not negate the fact that Science is right. And that same science says that without the bail outs we would have been thrown into a depression.

SO I'm inclined to trust that vs your hopeful "well maybe it wouldn't have been so bad" musings...