(07-26-2018, 11:31 AM)copycat Wrote:

(07-26-2018, 10:50 AM)mikesez Wrote: I think your definition of racism is way too narrow.  Belief that one's own race is superior is common among racists, but not all racists feel that way. Some racists believe that races are basically equal, but so different that they should be separated.  Other racists believe their own race is inferior.  
From 1890 to 1957 the motto was separate but equal.  To defend that system in court,  the elected officials argued up and down that it wasn't about superiority or inferiority, just separation.  Your definition of racism would have given that generation a pass.  
I think you are telling the truth that you harbor no ill will to your neighbor from Honduras.
But you should ask him if he feels like some Americans treat him as an inferior due to his race.  It might not be you, but it's out there, and he most likely has sensed it.
Racism has at least two definitions.  

There is personal racism, in our own personal behavior about how we assess each other's character and capabilities. For instance, if you were attending an orchestra concert, and a black man stepped up to the piano, you might think for a moment - well I know black people can play popular music, but classical? Until you actually heard him play, you might doubt his ability in a way that you might not doubt an Asian's.  Conversely, if you were at a rock or jazz concert, and an Asian stepped up to the piano, you might feel the same question.  These are racist instincts, based on stereotypes we have seen. The piano example is mostly harmless because any of us would give the person a chance to play and confirm or break the stereotype.  So here's another.  You walk outside of a large office building downtown and people are yelling at each other.  You are not sure why.  A crowd is forming. No uniformed cops around, yet. A man catches your eye, lifts his shirt just enough for you to see he has a pistol, and winks at you. If the man is the same race as you, you probably think, "oh, he's saying he has my back." If the man is a different race, you probably think you just got threatened and you start thinking "fight or flight.". Every single person has racist reactions like this, just like every person has jealousy or adulterous thoughts.

Then there is institutional racism, which is much more complicated, and has been building up for years and years and will take generations to undo. For instance, my wife and I had our parents pay for our first cars and our college tuition.  We stand to get good inheritances from our parents and grandparents.  We get these advantages mostly because they had great home equity over the years. But back when our grandparents bought that starter home, they got loans which never would have been extended to a black person back then, before the Fair Housing Act was passed. Our grandparents still worked hard to pay their mortgages.  My wife and I worked hard to graduate college debt free.  But those respective, cascading advantages typically were not available to black people no matter how hard they worked.

Stop projecting your views on everyone else.  

In a previous post you stated, and I paraphrase:  people are not right or left on all issues the go back and forth depending on the issue.

Now you have spent two days slapping labels on anything and everyone.  Maybe you should do some self reflection and soul searching.

I'm just trying to demonstrate that promoting white supremacy in the 1960s and 1970s would have been a right wing view.  I'm categorizing a specific viewpoint on a single issue at a single time. 
People devoted to that cause could have had other views on other issues - like how Squeaky Fromme apparently also wanted to "save the trees".  That part is pretty left-wing.  Real people have multiple views on multiple issues and live through multiple times.
I self-reflect and search my soul all the time.  I'm sure you do too.  Most of us do.
The problem is that I'm the only one here trying to answer one question at a time.  Whether intentional or not, most of you are equivocating my words, and then arguing against points that I didn't actually make.  I'm being specific for a reason.  Make sure you understand before you say I'm wrong.

---

(07-26-2018, 11:49 AM)MalabarJag Wrote:

(07-26-2018, 11:23 AM)mikesez Wrote: Let's see that politifact article.  The bailout started in the Senate, and a majority of the Republican senators voted yes.  Then the bailout went to the House, where a majority of Republican members voted no.  Then it went to the President, and the Republican signed the bill.
So in two out of three steps the Republican party endorsed the legislation.  It's also true that a majority of the Democrats supported the bill in the Senate and in the House, but that's not relevant to my point.  My point is that Republicans used to support that kind of thing, and then changed their minds.

As for stimulus, we both have the dates wrong.  Bush passed two stimuli, 2001 and 2008.  You are correct that the Bush stimulus was purely temporary tax cuts, both times, but the Obama stimulus was 2/3 spending and 1/3 tax cuts.  But every spending bill passed during the Bush Administration also added to large deficits, all deficits are stimulative, and all of them for the first six years had majority Republican support.  I don't see how doing the taxes and the spending in separate bills is really more morally defensible than combining them, but, whatever.

The word Politifact was a link, and you are dead wrong about the Senate.

I don't remember a 2008 stimulus, unless you are counting the bail out as a stimulus. The Dems controlled both houses in 2008, so if there was a stimulus it was a Dem bill signed by Bush, who was not a conservative.

The tax cuts under Obama were cuts to the employee portion of FICA. I had no disagreement with that part of it, but it was not a stimulus. In 2009 there were a lot of people hurting, and many of the temporary laws passed then were necessary, although they were in the realm of welfare, not stimulus.

I agree that spending was too high under Bush. Bush wasn't given a pass by the right for the overspending. Most conservatives opposed the spending increases, and I sent an E-mail to Speaker Hastert and Senate Majority leader Frist (and to my own congressman and senators) expressing my anger at the overspending (Senator Frist actually personally responded, my congressman and senators didn't even reply with a form letter). Admittedly, some of the spending was needed in response to the 9/11 attack, but much was wasted rebuilding Iraq. There were also big increases in domestic spending.

If you're going to say that Bush 43 wasn't a conservative, you are committing the No True Scotsman fallacy.  Some of the things he did might not fall under a specific definition of "conservative" but his identity in general is part of any definition of American Conservative. You can disown some of what he did, but to disown most of it, you'd have to re-define "conservatism" as this fringe political movement that wasn't actually able to get people elected from 2000 to 2008.
You can do better.

---