In election 2008, don’t forget Angry White Man

The Aspen Times, Aspen, CO ^ | February 9, 2008 | Gary Hubbell

[Bulldawg Fan]

This is a great synopsis of why white men make a difference in this country and are the pillar of strength that keeps this country number one in the world. You know we are effective because hollywood and tv land make us the buffons and dolts of the world. We are hated by the radicals of color and the feminists who would turn America into a haven for every devient group around. Very well written.

[normy]

He also votes, and the Angry White Man loathes Hillary Clinton. Her voice reminds him of a shovel scraping a rock. He recoils at the mere sight of her on television. Her very image disgusts him, and he cannot fathom why anyone would want her as their leader. It’s not that she is a woman. It’s that she is who she is. It’s the liberal victim groups she panders to, the “poor me” attitude that she represents, her inability to give a straight answer to an honest question, his tax dollars that she wants to give to people who refuse to do anything for themselves

Boy does that nail it.

[sierrahome]

Why do these people keep mistaking steadfast for angry.

[randita]

Yup.

[Chgogal]

Bump for later reading! Thanks for posting.

[Chgogal]

“He knows that his wife is more emotional than rational, and he guides the family in a rational manner.”

Hey, there................

Phooey, how can I argue this when we have Oprah, Shriver and Caroline having the vapors over Obama...ick!

[SolidWood]

Excellent analysis. Spot on.

[Melas]

The use of “white” was totally superfluous in the little missive. None of the traits enumerated have anything at all to do with being white. You’ll find white, black, brown, asian, etc men with all those same qualitie and concerns.

[Pietro]

"Why do these people keep mistaking steadfast for angry."

Because steadfast is an attribute they don't understand. Anger, OTH, is something they have is spades.

opps, did I say spades? What I really meant to say was "in plenty", yeah like lots, ok?

[SolidWood]

Because it’s the white ones that are being targeted by liberal “political correctness”. Otherwise you are right.

[Pontiac]

There is a great amount of interest in this year’s presidential elections, as everybody seems to recognize that our next president has to be a lot better than George Bush.

Considering the way the field of Presidential candidates is shaping up I think we are going to look back on the Presidency of George W. Bush with longing for the good old days.

[Hang'emAll]

Bump to top

[Iron Munro]

We live in a nation packed with bright, successful movers and shakers.
Yet the best we can get as presidential nominees are three bottom feeders like McCain, Obama and Hillary.

That tells us it is far past the time to make a major change in our political system.

People are always saying:

"Don't worry, it could be worse."

As if George Bush isn't bad enough.

And yet they are right. It soon will be worse.

The bad news is that we have 3 liberal scumbags as serious contenders for the presidency right now.

The only good news is that the field will soon narrow down to two liberal scumbags and that only one of them will actually become president.

[Pontiac]

That tells us it is far past the time to make a major change in our political system.

It is not the system that needs to change it is the people.

The old saying that “You get the leaders that you deserve” is true.

Like it or not the people of the United States chose these BOZOs. (What disturbs me most is that the most politically interested amongst the population votes in primaries)

WE need to get better at educating our fellow Americans if we want better government.

[iopscusa]

Well the hidden message may well be the Angry & Armed White Male is generally a strong advocate for 2nd Amendment...and thus will pose a threat to the “new” Socialism as manifested by the current none of the above candidates

[Iron Munro]

Yes, individual people did choose these candidates but I maintain that the two party system is front loaded to favor party hacks and incumbents from the two parties.

Real political party zealots want the party to win and maintain its power above all other considerations.

The two parties are actually almost indistinguishable - just two branches of the same party - the one that has a lock on the government.
The system itself effectively prevents a meaningful third party challenge.
They may compete between themselves to get the bigger share of power and money but they close ranks against any outside challenge.

Look what happened when citizens rebelled against the Shamnesty bill.
We ended up on one side fighting republicans and democrats on the other side.

Does it feel better when it is a republican giving away $30 billion dollars instead of a democrat?
Is illegal amnesty better when it is the brainchild of a republican president than a democrat?

But what options do we have?

.

[puroresu]

I agree. The media always label conservative voting blocks in a negative way. You’d never see them calling Hillary’s supporters “dependent women” or Obama’s supporters “race-obsessed blacks”.

[oh8eleven]

[The Pack Knight]

I have made one major decision this year...

I'm buying a new AR-15 before 20 January, 2009.

[RedMonqey]

You?ll find white, black, brown, asian, etc men with all those same qualitie and concerns.

This is very true but you miss the point of the article.

The white man is the only one that doesn't perpetually whine about being a professional"victim" even though he has just as many problems as the next fellow.