Bush - Nazi Dealings Continued Until 1951 - Federal Documents

There are presently SIXTY-FOUR up-votes for this post. Why? What is it? Could it be that this post contains compelling front-page news telling us something timely and relevant that the Nation Needs to Know?

Or is it merely some sort of self-service, give the guy a pat on the back, he speaks ill of Bush!

Thus we see how it is that Newsvine posts are rewarded. And this is the process that determines the stories we see on Newsvine. It's not set up to show me news. It's set up so show me whatever attracts the highest number of partisan Up-votes. Is that really what the site has set out to become? Geez. It's like those liberals who speak of the decline and fall of The Media and comment on how the ignorant "sheeple" watch Fox News because it tells them what to hear... except this time it's exactly backwards!

Sad, sad, sad, sad, sad...

I totally agree with you on this one Fennec. Why does this article deserve so many votes? There is so much REAL news printed on the vine that doesn't even garner a single vote. I have also noted plenty of articles like this receiving so many votes. I just don't understand it.

Myself, I upvoted the article because I think that it serves as an important article as one that is cited all over the place as having been upvoted a lot for political reasons. To clarify, I didn't upvote it for political reasons, but because if there are all these references to it, it must be important.

Kind of like how all numbers are interesting, because if the least number that was not interesting would have the property of being the least uninteresting number, which would make it interesting...

Political motivation doesn't change facts. Comments like this only show that people will ignore facts because of their political preferences.

Political motivation doesn't change facts.

No, but it will apparently get you fifty-some Up-votes for your seed on Newsvine.

I should try being politically motivated sometime.

gnoleb

Political motivation doesn't change facts. Comments like this only show that people will ignore facts because of their political preferences.

No it shows the lengths at which some people will go to take cheap shots by posting facts that are 55 years old and with little or no relevance to the present.

No it shows the lengths at which some people will go to take cheap shots by posting facts that are 55 years old and with little or no relevance to the present.

They are very relevant. Lets see how this sounds:

Our president's grandfather helped fund the nazis.

Not once by mistake, but repeatedly over the length of nearly 20 years. That is definitely on purpose. This is quite relevant, I would say.

how and why do you feel this is at all relevant?

How does this sound:

Our President's grandfather was Al Capogne.
Our Presidents grandparents were the Rosenburgs.
Our Presidents grandfather was Lee Harvey Oswald (a president in 2020).
etc.

And, when one considered that 20 years of support went to the Nazis, AND that parents will instill similar beliefs in their children, what do you think the odds are that both president Bush's think similarly to their grandfather in many ways.

that should be both president Bush's think similarly to Prescott Bush (since he is W's grandfather, but HW's father)

OK, so you seem to think that President Bush thinks like his grandfather. That is all fine and good. Do you have any reasons behind this? i.e. Things about his Presidency, or personal life to actually back this up? Do you even know how his grandfather thought from this article?

You seem to be blindly accusing the president of being a bad guy once again.

Daweb,
Parents and grandparents shape their children. They are the ones who instill them with values. Are you saying that the values of your parents and your grandparents do not have anything to do with the person that you are today? If so, I am sorry for you.

Parents Sure. Grandparents far less so. As you age and become an adult tho, you make your own choices. My grandparents on both sides were clearly racist. Neither of my parents were and I don't feel that I am either. That is merely one clear example. I think if you had any clear examples of situations, decisions, etc. made by George W. Bush that pointed to him supporting Hitler, I would be more interested in what you have to say. So far all I hear is a bunch of bashing based entirely on what his grandfather is alleged to have done.

No need to be sorry for me, rather support your arguments.

I never meant to make one belief he supported Hitler, but I think that you can gain insight into a person based on how they were raised.

And do you have any proof that he was raised as such to accept what his grandfather did?

Thank you James, that is exactly my point. is there any evidence that you can point to that says, 'see, this is what his grandfather must have taught him!'.

arg.... are you kidding me? Do you need proof that a KKK member raises his son to be as racist as him?

Lets play a game.

Parents raise their children to believe what they do.... True.
Nazis are racists... True
G.H.W. Bush was raised by his Nazi sympathising father.... True.
---------------------------------------------
Deduction: G.H.W. Bush was raised to believe what his father did.

Based on my deduction, GW Bush was raised to believe what his father does.

now, does that mean that they are hard nosed racists? no, most likely they are soft racists. they hold a stereo-type belief about a group of people and that stereo-type influences their decision making. They may not mind being around members of other races when they know them well, and they may be trained to cover up their racism in public, but it is there.

I am not calling Bush a Nazi, nor am I saying it is a fact that he is a racist, in fact, it probably was diluted a bit by GW Bush's formative years. All I am saying is that Bush was raised in a racist environment.

logical deduction is a valid method to raise critical questions. Just because there is a lack of hard evidence does not make the question invalid.

Sorry but there is a basic flaw in your reasoning. If your reasoning were true, there would NEVER be any change in our belief systems from our parents or their parents or their parents. Your statements have just assumed that because my grandparents were racists that therefore I must also be one. I personally don't accept that line of reasoning.

I think that you can look at a persons behaviour, their choices and actions and you can say, 'see, that right there, that is a value he was taught and he learned from his parents!'. To blindly say that all of our beliefs were taught to us from our parents, or that all of our parents beliefs are by default ours, is just wrong.

All I am saying is that Bush was raised in a racist environment.

My Parents did NOT raise me in a racist environment and that is what you are saying.

And you would know this how? You were raised in a way that you see as normal... and there is more to racism than KKK/neo-Nazi racists. Soft bigotry replaced the hard racism prevalent in the 40's, 50's and 60's.

So just so I understand you, are you saying that I am a racist? Are you saying that I was raised in a racist environment? Just trying to understand your argument (or lack thereof). I personally do NOT thinkk I was raised in a normal fashion. and no one but you has mentioned the KKK so I am not sure where you are going with that. Please state your argument.

I do not know you, so I can not say that you are or are not a racist. All I am doing is raising a critical question (you know, critical questioning is part of critical thought which is an important part of reasoning). No one knows if they were raised in a racist environment or not except those raised in a hard racist environment such as is evident in KKK member's families and neo-Nazi families and white supremacy families or those raised in a completely non-racist environment where all races and ethnicities are taught to be equally competent and bigotry is punished. I call KKK and White supremacy, etc. hard racism, they are loud and in your face.

Soft racism is denoted by bigotry and is a lot harder for an individual to see in themselves because often, they do not see it as bigotry, but as common sense. They will have colleagues of other races that do not fit their bigoted stereo-types of members of groups and use that as reasons that they are not bigoted.. the "I have black friends" justification. The problem is that this bigotry taints their first impressions with a new person of these other racial or ethnic groups, thus contributing to discriminatory acts.

Common phrases out of these people's mouths are "Not every ethnic group> is like that, but..." or when confronted with stereo-typical actions from a member of a racial or ethnic group they say, "typical" or "I expected that" or "why do they act like that" where "they" is in reference to the group not the individual.

Most people, including members of minority groups, are raised with some bigotry taught to them. Many adults raised with some bigotries in the US also gain bigotries as they gain experience in life and events happen (bigotry toward Japanese in WW2, Bigotry towards Vietnamese during the Vietnam war, bigotry toward Arabs and Arab-looking people post 9/11, bigotry toward conservatives, bigotry toward liberals, and then there is the host of bigotries taught in religion about people of other religions or even other secs of the same religion).

I am not claiming to be perfect. I know that sometimes I think or say something that is bigotry, usually about Fundamental Christians or Conservatives, and when I was a teenager I would point out behavior that I saw as stereo-typical of some races/ethnic groups when I was with my friends. But, one cannot improve their self unless one acknowledges that they are in need of improvement. I am sure that if you look at your own behavior, you can see places where you have acted in a bigoted way... I could probably make that claim about most people here and elsewhere.

No one knows if they were raised in a racist environment or not except those raised in a hard racist environment such as is evident in KKK member's families and neo-Nazi families and white supremacy families or those raised in a completely non-racist environment where all races and ethnicities are taught to be equally competent and bigotry is punished. I call KKK and White supremacy, etc. hard racism, they are loud and in your face.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I could see you saying that as you are growing up you might not realize you are being raised in a racist environment, but I believe that many (no, not all) can look back as an adult on their formative years and make intelligent evaluations. I can say that I was not raised in a racist environment. If you cannot say the same, I am sorry. It sounds like you are saying that most (all?) people cannot really even claim to know if they themselves are racist. I do not envy you your outlook on the world if this is truly how you see things tho.

People who claim to not have any bigotries are in denial In my opinion. Bigotry does not have to be racial, as I said, religious bigotries and political ones are very prevalent.

I did not say I was raised in a racist home. I had a lot of friends who were racist, and they had an impact on me, around my parents though I never said anything bigoted, I would have gotten in trouble. Peer pressure is a very hard thing to deal with as a teenager.... luckly my friends were not hard core racists and the bulk of their attitude was let out in jokes. I am glad to be done with those people.

I don't know that it was talked about at the dinner table. After all, Prescott had his son flying around as a pilot in WWII, so I don't know that he would speak of his nazi dealing while George was flying around in danger.

Much like George's dealings with Saudi Arabia- it seems the Bush's are more than open to take money from foriegn sources that probably don't have America's best interests in mind. (I personally still think the first Iraq "war" was all about GB's business dealings with Saudi Arabia. Kuwait wasn't an ally, and we bombed the hell out og Iraq because Saudi Arabia asked us to and footed the bill.)

I also still wonder about Gore taking money from the PRC while in office. That seems like a gigantic conflict of interests there. There doesn't seem to be any good reason to ever do that.

While I agree that the President shouldn't be blamed for the actions of his grandfather, I think that a person's family history has a very important part in shaping his or her own outlook on life. My grandfather had influence on me, both overtly and covertly (I'm sure). If George Bush was living a life that didn't include collaborating with business organizations and governments that don't have the best interests of the United States at heart, it would be easy to conclude that his grandfather's tendency to do so had not influenced him. It's not really a matter of blaming him for his grandfather's sins, rather it is helpful to understand one of the factors which may influence his worldview.

OK, while we are dredging up ancient history, how about a discussion of old Joe Kennedy's Nazi sympathies? As US ambassador to Great Britain, Old Joe incurred the wrath of FDR because of his really stupid support of Hitler and comments that Britain would lose the war. Part of his admiration was the fact that both Old Joe and Hitler were strongly anti-Semitic. The Nazis, in turn, considered him to be their best friend in London.

rockman, do "Old Joe's" descendants maintain close ties with organizations and governments who do not have the best interests of the United States at heart? Does the Kennedy family, for example, do business with the Bin Laden family? If not, you've provided an excellent counterexample of how a person's descendants may rise above the sins of their ancestors. Maybe in another generation or so, the Bush family will do so - it'd be good for our country.

Another question, too, is whether, how much and in what ways the grandson profits from the sins of the grandfather.

Rise above? Heh, too bad that poor girl's head couldn't rise above the river water old Teddy drove her into.

rockman, with respect, you don't know me. You don't know anything about me, and I don't appreciate your personal attacks and insults. I posed a question, a logical one considering your inflammatory comment, and you responded with an insult. If you find that you are unable to provide an answer to my question that supports your position, you would be better served by simply ignoring the question and making the lack of strength of your argument more obvious.

In my opinion, James, if your grandfather is a racist and you turn out not to be a racist people are likely to consider that you have overcome a family bias to your credit. If, on the other hand, your grandfather is a racist and your father is a racist and you are a racist, it would be very difficult not to conclude that your choice to be a racist was not influenced by your grandfather, overtly or covertly. In the case of the President, the question which one may ask is whether or not a familial tendency to do business with organizations which do not have the best interests of the United States at heart might manifest itself in the current generation.

You consider this to be "making a shot" at the President, but I don't see it that way. As far as I'm concerned, it is information which is pertinent to forming an opinion about the President. If the article flattered Bush's grandfather, would you be commenting here, pointing out that just because George Bush's grandfather was a good man, nobody should conclude that George himself is a good man?

If it had been an article complementing Prescott Bush, I would say the same thing in regards to it having nothing to do with George W. Bush.

But it obviously wouldn't be a shot at President Bush because it wouldn't be a negative article. It would most likely be posted by someone who likes Bush, instead of someone who disklikes Bush.

Third Reich... "esoteric stuff"... !?!?!?

Right!

You would have to admit that JFK wouldn't approve of what Teddy does. BTW, where did they get all of their money again?

This whole topic is designed to be inflamitory and sensationalistic. I not sure how many Newsvine Code rules that it bends, if not completely breaks. I protest the whole thing.

Actually - just judging by the number of comments on this thread and the discussion this has prompted of familial responsibility - I would say this article has a lot of merit.

So popular opinion means merit, now? Popular opinion on the internet? I refer you to the Google Zeitgeist, which puts Kenny Rogers above the first mention of Bush. Does that mean we should elect Kenny Rogers?

If you want to talk about familial responsibility, why don't you donate your home to Native Americans? Maybe that doesn't apply to you. Do you want to think about what does? Would you like to be held accountable for all those actions? Would you like to be held accountable for the things your parents did? Your mother slept with your father, does that make you incestuous?

As a critic of Bush, I think there are enough things to hold him accountable for without going into this, as it only makes his opposition seem childish.

@urban - I am actually of Native American descent - so I guess that means my home has already been given to one?

I would also love for you to read my first post (#5) before jumping all over me. If you would take the time to read my comments, you would know my views.

No, popularity does not lend credibility - I was just saying that any article or seed that lends to intellectual debate (instead of a one-sided yelling match or nonsensical muttering) is to be valued.

Please respond to me AFTER you read my previous post. Then your argument will have some validity.

I agreed with your original post, but sometimes we have to ask whether the debate, in general, is meaningful or not, and in this case, I was disagreeing with the credence you lent to the argument.

By the way, I also have some Native American blood.

In my time here at Newsvine, I have never seen a post make so little sense and be completely unreadable.

Please, please, please clarify. A lot. I have no idea what the heck you are saying.