Thread: In election 2008, don’t forget Angry White Man

Except for the "not metrosexual" and "not racist" bits, I liked it.

why pander to political dinosaurs? Angry white men may still have some clout, but it's rapidly vanishing. Unless they devictimise themselves in a hurry, I say fuck em.

I can point out one thing that should resonate with every motherfucking "angry white man" in this country. Out of Iraq right now. Fuck Iraq, get out of there right now. Want to know where you fucking tax dollars are going? They're going there. Your government is spending your tax dollars on Habib Towelhead and Co. Fuck that.

I'm a part of a "special interest" group called stop spending my tax money on arabs. The article writer above is full of shit.

........this was a great article. Damn good.

Originally Posted by iMan323

why pander to political dinosaurs? Angry white men may still have some clout, but it's rapidly vanishing. Unless they devictimise themselves in a hurry, I say fuck em.

Giving up thinking have you? No one is talking about pandering. The writer is saying that this political force is out there and will likely have some appreciable affect.

Originally Posted by DOMS

Giving up thinking have you? No one is talking about pandering. The writer is saying that this political force is out there and will likely have some appreciable affect.

You can't make 'em happy, that's why nobody cares.

Originally Posted by iMan323

You can't make 'em happy, that's why nobody cares.

What does "happy" have to do with whether or not they'll be a contributing factor in the elections?

I don't want to see any of those faces as my next President. I honestly don't feel that a black man, a woman, a demented war vet and a crazed neo con can act in my best interests.

I think they're all full of shit, and therefore, to the my voice doesn't count. I pretty much fit the bill of what the type of voter the author is talking about (except I'm not angry, more like thoroughly disillusioned). So I hold no grudges against any of them for completely ignoring my demographic.

cute article...it looks as though the author's wish is going to come true b/c Hilary isn't going to get the nomination.

I'm not angry. Just disappointed. Disappointed that our politicians give away our future for their job security, and disappointed that neither party gives a fuck about freedom anymore.

I fully agree with this article... I truly despise Hillary... I don't really hate Obama, I just think he's full of shit.
That being said, I don't like McCain either... I just think he would be the lesser of the three evils.

Originally Posted by iMan323

I don't want to see any of those faces as my next President. I honestly don't feel that a black man, a woman, a demented war vet and a crazed neo con can act in my best interests.

I think they're all full of shit, and therefore, to the my voice doesn't count. I pretty much fit the bill of what the type of voter the author is talking about (except I'm not angry, more like thoroughly disillusioned). So I hold no grudges against any of them for completely ignoring my demographic.

I almost completely agree with this. But the only demographic our govt ignores is the poor/middle class one, it doesn't matter what color you are.

Originally Posted by JailHouse

I almost completely agree with this. But the only demographic our govt ignores is the poor/middle class one, it doesn't matter what color you are.

Now that's a good point. Otherwise, it's kinda hard to see what point the writer is making, besides golden peepee worship of the white male. Unless they are poor and working class, what do they have to be angry about? They are the only minority who has ever been President. . .they hold 85% of the seats in Congress even though they represent less than 35% of the population. . .they make up the overwhelming majority of managing organizations and corporations, own and operate the overwhelming majority of the "mainstream" media (ever wonder why its called the "mainstream" media? cuz it was the white male media).

They've used their skin color to justify entitlement for themselves, and prostituted their primary religious beliefs to support that entitlement. They used their gender to claim superior access to running things. So if they are angry, they might as well be angry with themselves.

They bitch about helping Katrina victims, and are never at a loss for blaming anyone else but themselves. Did they get angry about the white people living in Kansas or Tennessee who know they built towns in tornado alley, yet expect a handout when their homes are blown away and people have to be rescued? Hell, some of them blamed Katrina on the Mardi Gras antics in New Orleans and the godawful gays living in the city, ignoring the fact the hurricane hit white male towns in Mississippi a lot harder. But utter silence when a conservative "Christian" college gets a couple of dorms blown away by a tornado in Tennessee (guess God's got a bad aim).

Their creative solution for America is to take a nation proud of having open borders and advocating the construction of the Great Wall of America to keep out the Brown People and Keep the White People In, even though their own companies are the ones employing illegal aliens so the greedy owners can pay nada and skip out on taxes. Then they go shoppin' at the WalMart, which USED to advertise "Made in the USA" products, and happily buy up all the Chinese-made stuff they can stack in their carts.

Then they keep on votin' for the same old white men who set the policies the angry white men hate, cuz it isn't American if they don't have the same old white men runnin' the show.

Originally Posted by kbm8795

Now that's a good point. Otherwise, it's kinda hard to see what point the writer is making

Of course you can't see the point. You're looking at it, and everything else, through the warped glass of an old bitter liberal gay. Even if it ran over you, you wouldn't see the point.

So I'll spell it out for you: he's saying the group of people he's talking about aren't pleased with Hilary and would create a voting force against her.

Originally Posted by kbm8795

They've used their skin color to justify entitlement for themselves,

Right, because it's only whites that do this.

Originally Posted by kbm8795

Their creative solution for America is to take a nation proud of having open borders and advocating the construction of the Great Wall of America to keep out the Brown People and Keep the White People In.

You're so much free entertainment.

Originally Posted by kbm8795

Then they keep on votin' for the same old white men who set the policies the angry white men hate, cuz it isn't American if they don't have the same old white men runnin' the show.

It's about not voting for the wrong old white man. Like Lyndon B. Johnson who signed Executive Orders 11246 and 11375 that gave rise to modern Affirmative Action.

And if you think that a white man has an agenda, just think what an agenda that a black or woman president would have.

Originally Posted by DOMS

Of course you can't see the point. You're looking at it, and everything else, through the warped glass of an old bitter liberal gay. Even if it ran over you, you wouldn't see the point.

So I'll spell it out for you: he's saying the group of people he's talking about aren't pleased with Hilary and would create a voting force against her.

We've been down this road before, babe. And just like your amazing inability to assess simple bias in a simple news story, your critical thinking skills are severely limited by your own choice. It's called willful ignorance.

Try really reading that column. He uses generalizations about numbers (did he really talk to all four million members of the NRA?) and attitudes (has he talked to every single person he assigns that list of attitudes to?) as if he has interviewed every person in that group. While it's nice to see angry white men dehumanized by one of their own to the point of not being recognized as individual thinkers - like they've done to everyone else, the writer tries to create a minority status - without the baggage or responsibility, of course.

But it's nice to see that namecalling is still your last refuge.[/B]



Right, because it's only whites that do this.

And here I thought this column was about bitter old golden peepee possessors.



You're so much free entertainment.

You're lucky. I usually charge.


It's about not voting for the wrong old white man. Like Lyndon B. Johnson who signed Executive Orders 11246 and 11375 that gave rise to modern Affirmative Action.

Isn't it really about letting anyone but white men vote?

And if you think that a white man has an agenda, just think what an agenda that a black or woman president would have.

Well, that would have to be limited to projected fantasies based upon the actions and behavior of the angry American white male agenda - which has a well-documented history. Of course the angry white man is going to assume that a member of any other group is going to be as bad as he was. . .even if it's more internalized guilt and insecurity rather than documented fact.

I'm disappointed. You weren't able to come up with any reason why there would be so many angry white men.

Originally Posted by kbm8795

And just like your amazing inability to assess simple bias in a simple news story

Says the bitter old liberal gay man. You're better than the funny papers.

Originally Posted by kbm8795

Try really reading that column. He uses generalizations about numbers (did he really talk to all four million members of the NRA?) and attitudes (has he talked to every single person he assigns that list of attitudes to?) as if he has interviewed every person in that group. While it's nice to see angry white men dehumanized by one of their own to the point of not being recognized as individual thinkers - like they've done to everyone else, the writer tries to create a minority status - without the baggage or responsibility, of course.

Ever hear of an opinion piece? You know, it's like the crap that you, and most news agencies, spew out in your "writing" career, but it doesn't claim to be impartial news.

The difference between the whites and say, the blacks or the chewies, is that we're not looking for a handout. The author is saying that the pale male segment of society is tired of having crap like affirmative action shoved down out throats. Now, you may like having things shove down your throat, but the majority of men don't.

Originally Posted by kbm8795

I'm disappointed. You weren't able to come up with any reason why there would be so many angry white men.

You don't read much, do you? The original post covered a lot of details regarding this.

Don't bother responding to him, I find ignoring him a much more effective tool. All he can do is say "blah blah white people, straight people, blah blah, I like it in the ass, blah blah, con-servative, wingnut" It's like talking to a child.

He's actually more bitter and less reasonable than BigDyl, which is quite an achievment.

"Never argue with a fool, people watching may be unable see the difference," he's at a level I don't want to stoop to.

Originally Posted by brogers

Don't bother responding to him, I find ignoring him a much more effective tool. All he can do is say "blah blah white people, straight people, blah blah, I like it in the ass, blah blah, con-servative, wingnut" It's like talking to a child.

He's actually more bitter and less reasonable than BigDyl, which is quite an achievment.

"Never argue with a fool, people watching may be unable see the difference," he's at a level I don't want to stoop to.

Oh, I know, but it's fun. At least he writes well.

If only you knew how bitter he is.

Originally Posted by DOMS

Oh, I know, but it's fun. At least he writes well.

If only you knew how bitter he is.

Wow...two pots callin' the kettle black.

Originally Posted by brogers

Don't bother responding to him, I find ignoring him a much more effective tool. All he can do is say "blah blah white people, straight people, blah blah, I like it in the ass, blah blah, con-servative, wingnut" It's like talking to a child.

He's actually more bitter and less reasonable than BigDyl, which is quite an achievment.

"Never argue with a fool, people watching may be unable see the difference," he's at a level I don't want to stoop to.

Just for fun. . .and all you can do is say...blah blah damn liberals, communists...blah blah...everyone is to blame but me. . .blah blah..blah..

Amazing how you respond when you get yourself thrown back in the face. And you can't even defend your own positions - but I'll bet you can wave the flag and talk about how patriotic you are.

Maybe that's another reason people are fed up this year with the Republicans. . .they are just sick and tired of listening to angry white men on the radio and the television whining and calling names and providing nothing of substance about the issues.

Originally Posted by DOMS

Says the bitter old liberal gay man. You're better than the funny papers.


I always know when you don't have any ability to discuss an issue when you resort to the middle school playground routine. . .


Ever hear of an opinion piece? You know, it's like the crap that you, and most news agencies, spew out in your "writing" career, but it doesn't claim to be impartial news.

[B]You really have no clue about "opinion" journalism.[B]

The difference between the whites and say, the blacks or the chewies, is that we're not looking for a handout. The author is saying that the pale male segment of society is tired of having crap like affirmative action shoved down out throats. Now, you may like having things shove down your throat, but the majority of men don't.

Your not? Seems to me like you've been handing out to yourselves for over 200 years. And the author is saying that the ANGRY pale male segment of society, which he claimed to know something about, is "tired of having crap" shoved down your throats. And then followed it up with the same, tired, repeated every day laundry list of wingnut grievances, all wrapped up with a bunch of false claims about representing millions of 'angry white men."

Since the writer is part of the minority who spent its entire history shoving things down the majority's throat, it's a bit funny to see a writer categorize the spoiled minority runnin' the show as "angry." Angry about what? Not being absolutely entitled based on your own skin color and gender?



You don't read much, do you? The original post covered a lot of details regarding this.

It was the same laundry list that wingnuts always whine about. It's all about how virtuous and patriotic and godlike they are, cuz they told themselves so.

It ain't like any of that little minority of angry white men is gonna vote for Hillary anyway. So which member of the GOP clown car were they supporting to represent America? Romney, the professional flip-flopper? Huckabee, the self-appointed Southern Baptist preacher who was gonna remake the U.S. Constitution to line up with Baptist law? McCain, the adulterer who suddenly became recognized as the all-necessary-to-be-President "war hero" even though they kicked him under the bus over the simplest smear campaign from Bush? Giukiani, the multiple cross-dressing adulterer?

Oh yeah. . .they are angry white men all right. And they are the deciding factor in the election? Doesn't look like they did too well for their own party in the primaries.
Giuliani

Ah...is this an example of how angry white men work so hard to derail any chances for credibility from the Republican candidate this year?

Just like old times, Welcome back again Kbm8795.

Originally Posted by kbm8795

Ah...is this an example of how angry white men work so hard to derail any chances for credibility from the Republican candidate this year?

1. I certainly don't like McCain, but I give him more credit than being involved with that guys statements. Even an idiot would know that is only going to bring McCain bad press.

2. If Barack Hussein is so touchy about his middle name, I'd suggest he change it.

3. Liberals hardly looked twice when he was called "Osama" by some liberal about a year ago, I forget who but it might have been Ted Kennedy. Yet another case of liberal elitism, "do as I say, not as I do."

Originally Posted by kbm8795

Ah...is this an example of how angry white men work so hard to derail any chances for credibility from the Republican candidate this year?

you cant trust ANY of these guys running, they are all liers. US politicians are corrupt.

Originally Posted by min0 lee

Just like old times, Welcome back again Kbm8795.

Originally Posted by clemson357

1. I certainly don't like McCain, but I give him more credit than being involved with that guys statements. Even an idiot would know that is only going to bring McCain bad press.

2. If Barack Hussein is so touchy about his middle name, I'd suggest he change it.

3. Liberals hardly looked twice when he was called "Osama" by some liberal about a year ago, I forget who but it might have been Ted Kennedy. Yet another case of liberal elitism, "do as I say, not as I do."

I think the point is that people are just sick and tired of the grade school level namecalling. That just ain't the kind of mentality we need in the highest office in the land or in a discussion of pressing issues facing this country.

And this clown is from McCain's own party. Now it is raising questions about how much McCain knows his guy (he apparently appeared on the clown's radio whinefest a couple of times) - and if that is the support for McCain coming from the conservatives, they'll sink him before the general election.

As for Obama's middle name, there is a very standard rule in basic journalism. You use one person's middle name (who doesn't use it himself on a regular basis) and you have to use ALL the candidate's middle names. Doesn't that sound exactly like what we need this election to sink into? The worst thing is that conservatives take that as nasty criticism, but they are going to ruin themselves if they keep trying to play the American public like this is 2000 or 2004. People are worried about heating their homes - if they are able to keep them, and finding a way to put gas in the car, pay the medical bills, and feed themselves and their children. They really don't give a shit about the namecalling. I think that's why Obama dismisses most of it as the "normal silliness" you see in recent American political campaigns. And every time he says that, he packs another 5,000 arena, while the rest of the candidates (on both sides) struggle to find a few hundred.

Originally Posted by kbm8795

I think the point is that people are just sick and tired of the grade school level namecalling. That just ain't the kind of mentality we need in the highest office in the land or in a discussion of pressing issues facing this country.

I have to disagree...the name calling is used b/c it works; otherwise, it would have ended decades ago.

And this clown is from McCain's own party. Now it is raising questions about how much McCain knows his guy (he apparently appeared on the clown's radio whinefest a couple of times) - and if that is the support for McCain coming from the conservatives, they'll sink him before the general election.

As for Obama's middle name, there is a very standard rule in basic journalism. You use one person's middle name (who doesn't use it himself on a regular basis) and you have to use ALL the candidate's middle names. Doesn't that sound exactly like what we need this election to sink into? The worst thing is that conservatives take that as nasty criticism, but they are going to ruin themselves if they keep trying to play the American public like this is 2000 or 2004. People are worried about heating their homes - if they are able to keep them, and finding a way to put gas in the car, pay the medical bills, and feed themselves and their children. They really don't give a shit about the namecalling. I think that's why Obama dismisses most of it as the "normal silliness" you see in recent American political campaigns. And every time he says that, he packs another 5,000 arena, while the rest of the candidates (on both sides) struggle to find a few hundred.

You seem to be well versed in the subject of US politics (a little in foreign politics too)...why can't you concede it just a talking point and both sides use these tactics. It politics...its how things are done.