http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20...LY06/198091324

On Feb 15, 10:04 am, Terry wrote:
http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20...LY06/198091324

I have to judge this a pretty stupid essay.

"Each candidate is carefully pandering to a smorgasbord of special-
interest groups, ranging from gay, lesbian and transgender people to
children of illegal immigrants to working mothers to evangelical
Christians."

Really? There's been a lot of pandering to transgendered people and
children of illegal immigrants, has there?

"There is one group no one has recognized, and it is the group that
will decide the election: the Angry White Man."

I really don't think so this time. They don't have a horse in this
race, I think they'll largely stay home.

"The victimhood syndrome buzzwords -- "disenfranchised," "marginalized"
and "voiceless" -- don't resonate with him. "Press 'one' for English"
is a curse-word to him."

Yeah, because he considers himself to be disenfranchised and
marginalized by the children of illegal immigrants and transgendered
people. Which is stupid.

"Most important, the Angry White Man is ****ed off. When his job site
becomes flooded with illegal workers who don't pay taxes and his wages
drop like a stone, he gets righteously angry. When his job gets
shipped overseas, and he has to speak to some incomprehensible idiot
in India for tech support, he simmers....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."

This is all bull****. Hillary Clinton isn't any more pandering than
any other politician, nor is she especially planning to spend more tax
dollars on social programs than other democratic candidates. The AWM
doesn't like her because the idiots he listens to have been mindlessly
badmouthing her since her husband first was elected. They don't
really know why they hate her at this point, they just do.

And for God's sake, what kind of idiot doesn't mind Bush spending a
trillion dollars on what has amounted to a grossly ineffective social
program for the betterment of Iraq and then gets his panties in a wad
about the idea that maybe a couple of poor kids might get to go to
college here in America? Does he think he's not going to have to pay
for that just because Bush doesn't have the testicular fortitude to
raise taxes?

"There are many millions of Angry White Men. Four million Angry White
Men are members of the National Rifle Association, and all of them
will vote against Hillary Clinton, just as the great majority of them
voted for George Bush. He hopes that she will be the Democratic
nominee for president in 2008, and he will make sure that she gets
beaten like a drum."

Except, see, these guys are the Republican base, so they aren't really
relevant. These are the guys who are going to vote Republican no
matter what. Moderates and independants who might vote one way or
another will decide the election.

Scooter the Mighty wrote:

On Feb 15, 10:04 am, Terry wrote:

http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20...LY06/198091324


I have to judge this a pretty stupid essay.

"Each candidate is carefully pandering to a smorgasbord of special-
interest groups, ranging from gay, lesbian and transgender people to
children of illegal immigrants to working mothers to evangelical
Christians."

Really? There's been a lot of pandering to transgendered people and
children of illegal immigrants, has there?

Snipped

I read that essay and thought; This is one of those examples where
ignorance is NOT bliss! It is just stupidity.

--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
Georgetown, TX

Scooter the Mighty wrote:

On Feb 15, 10:04 am, Terry wrote:

http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20...LY06/198091324


I have to judge this a pretty stupid essay.

"Each candidate is carefully pandering to a smorgasbord of special-
interest groups, ranging from gay, lesbian and transgender people to
children of illegal immigrants to working mothers to evangelical
Christians."

Really? There's been a lot of pandering to transgendered people and
children of illegal immigrants, has there?

Snipped

I read that essay and thought; This is one of those examples where
ignorance is NOT bliss! It is just stupidity.

--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
Georgetown, TX

"Terry" wrote in message
...

http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20...LY06/198091324

I can't speak for the Angry White Man or for other geographic areas, but I
can tell you there are a whole lot of Angry Disgusted Folks around here.

This article, from a Vancouver daily, describes the current power of racial
minority groups in upcoming elections:
http://www.canada.com/theprovince/st...0b254c&k=42738

Also today, the other major BC daily ran a story on the same-sex marriage
issue splitting the Anglican church:
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/n...d-4e81f8590756

On Feb 16, 6:48 am, Scooter the Mighty wrote:
On Feb 15, 10:04 am, Terry wrote:

snip


"Most important, the Angry White Man is ****ed off. When his job site
becomes flooded with illegal workers who don't pay taxes and his wages
drop like a stone, he gets righteously angry. When his job gets
shipped overseas, and he has to speak to some incomprehensible idiot
in India for tech support, he simmers....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."

This is all bull****. Hillary Clinton isn't any more pandering than
any other politician, nor is she especially planning to spend more tax
dollars on social programs than other democratic candidates. The AWM
doesn't like her because the idiots he listens to have been mindlessly
badmouthing her since her husband first was elected. They don't
really know why they hate her at this point, they just do.


If you ask them *why they hate her, they tend to get angry at the
question, but never really articulate any reason. At least, that's
been my experience. shrug It rather reminds me of some of the
reactions from Creationists when you start asking them to support
their claims of fact.

snip

Kermit

On Feb 15, 12:04 pm, Terry wrote:
http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20...LY06/198091324

The Angry White Man might be less angry if he less Aspen and moved
somewhere more
redneck.

-jc