|
Post by chicobrownbear on Feb 15, 2008 13:26:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Feb 15, 2008 13:59:30 GMT -5
True enough; however they never addressed 1 question: where does he turn this fall?
|
|
|
Post by chicobrownbear on Feb 15, 2008 14:14:14 GMT -5
I would have to say GOP.
|
|
|
Post by Ahawkeye on Feb 15, 2008 14:37:17 GMT -5
I think that article hit the nail on the head, thanks Chico.
|
|
|
Post by DEERTRACKS on Feb 15, 2008 14:38:27 GMT -5
YUP! I'm an AWG.........
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Feb 15, 2008 14:38:40 GMT -5
Wow, there is a "group" that I fit into.
|
|
|
Post by RiverJim on Feb 16, 2008 9:43:09 GMT -5
Yeah that's me! I really like the part that said he doesn't mind killin folks that need killin!
Or somethin to that effect.
|
|
|
Post by hunter480 on Feb 16, 2008 10:34:41 GMT -5
Two issues I take with the piece- First, I don`t believe the Dems have an African-American candidate at all, but they do have a black candidate.
Mostly though, the comment that ".....everybody seems to recognize that our next president has to be a lot better than George Bush. " That is strictly a matter of personal opinion-NOT a fact, and it doesn`t represent my opinion at all.
|
|
|
Post by drgreyhound on Feb 16, 2008 10:37:39 GMT -5
The Angry White Man certainly has every right to feel that way, especially with the current state of things, and I don't blame him a bit.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Feb 16, 2008 13:19:03 GMT -5
480, See, we do agree on some things!
While I do understand the numbers that support some stereotypes, the black men I have personally known and worked, hunted, or shot with have belonged just as solidly into this group based on their responsibility, beliefs, and work ethics as any white man I've ever been acquainted with. I could never belong to any group that starts out by eliminating from consideration for membership otherwise qualified individuals based on their racial makeup.
One of my proudest moments with my Dad was when he was otherwise finally convinced to join a social organization that his brother-in-law had been pushing for him to join, and read the application, pen in hand. He got to a line where the applicant swore that he was "of pure white extraction", and paused. Then he handed the app back unsigned and told his b-i-l that he wouldn't be joining after all, and exactly why. End of discussion. Dad was qualified, or close enough, with some Sioux blood, but he sure didn't believe in sorting folks out by their race. The private organization was free to do so, if they wished, but he was certainly free to refuse membership in their organization because of their policy, as well.
A generation later, I was proud to be able to duplicate his action to some extent when my new father-in-law and one of his brothers were trying to interest me in joining a social organization they were heavily involved with. The organization rules forbade them from recruiting actively, but they'd been dropping some very heavy hints about the advantages of membership. As a new member in their family, I didn't want to upset them or seem to be ungrateful for their attempts to nudge me to become one of the "good ole boys". When his brother pointed out that another advantage of the organization was that I'd never have to worry about being "seated next to a n....r" at any of their functions, I looked him in the eye and managed to put all my conviction in my voice when I said, "Thank you for the invitation, but I'm not interested". Thankfully, they both picked up on the sense that it would be useless to persist, and no ugliness had to follow. We are all to some degree the products of our times and places of origin, and I had great respect for both men, but was not about to surrender my principles, or my Dad's, to gain their acceptance.
And, we agree on George Bush. I have several areas of disagreement with his actions regarding issues of separation of church and state, where we would probably disagree as well, but I believe he has done pretty well overall, and very well in combatting the terrorists. I completely agree with fighting the fanatics who want to kill us in Baghdad, rather than in Detroit. I think the strategic decisions to go after them in large, well-armed countries located where our presence would hamper their consolidation by separating their dominated areas into disconnected segments was crucial. Skipping over Saudi Arabia despite the fact that most of the 9-11 gang came from there was the right move, as it kept the most important source of oil flowing while we disarmed the most active and able military arms of the movement and segmented the members of their sphere of influence. Rebuilding of a country under a democratic government of their own choosing in a free election, right in the middle of the theocracies and kingdoms, will prove to be worth the blood and the effort, if we don't elect cut-and-run leaders who will sell out the cause for some very temporary quick "peace".
We can hope, but I really doubt that any of the current crop of candidates will be the equal of our current president. McCain seems to be our only chance now. With all due respect for his sacrifices as a POW, our greatest soldiers have not usually proven to be our best elected leaders. Colin Powell might have had a better chance at being the exception to that rule than McCain, but that ship sailed long ago.
|
|
|
Post by hunter480 on Feb 16, 2008 13:43:09 GMT -5
480, See, we do agree on some things! While I do understand the numbers that support some stereotypes, the black men I have personally known and worked, hunted, or shot with have belonged just as solidly into this group based on their responsibility, beliefs, and work ethics as any white man I've ever been acquainted with. I could never belong to any group that starts out by eliminating from consideration for membership otherwise qualified individuals based on their racial makeup. One of my proudest moments with my Dad was when he was otherwise finally convinced to join a social organization that his brother-in-law had been pushing for him to join, and read the application, pen in hand. He got to a line where the applicant swore that he was "of pure white extraction", and paused. Then he handed the app back unsigned and told his b-i-l that he wouldn't be joining after all, and exactly why. End of discussion. Dad was qualified, or close enough, with some Sioux blood, but he sure didn't believe in sorting folks out by their race. The private organization was free to do so, if they wished, but he was certainly free to refuse membership in their organization because of their policy, as well. A generation later, I was proud to be able to duplicate his action to some extent when my new father-in-law and one of his brothers were trying to interest me in joining a social organization they were heavily involved with. The organization rules forbade them from recruiting actively, but they'd been dropping some very heavy hints about the advantages of membership. As a new member in their family, I didn't want to upset them or seem to be ungrateful for their attempts to nudge me to become one of the "good ole boys". When his brother pointed out that another advantage of the organization was that I'd never have to worry about being "seated next to a n....r" at any of their functions, I looked him in the eye and managed to put all my conviction in my voice when I said, "Thank you for the invitation, but I'm not interested". Thankfully, they both picked up on the sense that it would be useless to persist, and no ugliness had to follow. We are all to some degree the products of our times and places of origin, and I had great respect for both men, but was not about to surrender my principles, or my Dad's, to gain their acceptance. And, we agree on George Bush. I have several areas of disagreement with his actions regarding issues of separation of church and state, where we would probably disagree as well, but I believe he has done pretty well overall, and very well in combatting the terrorists. I completely agree with fighting the fanatics who want to kill us in Baghdad, rather than in Detroit. I think the strategic decisions to go after them in large, well-armed countries located where our presence would hamper their consolidation by separating their dominated areas into disconnected segments was crucial. Skipping over Saudi Arabia despite the fact that most of the 9-11 gang came from there was the right move, as it kept the most important source of oil flowing while we disarmed the most active and able military arms of the movement and segmented the members of their sphere of influence. Rebuilding of a country under a democratic government of their own choosing in a free election, right in the middle of the theocracies and kingdoms, will prove to be worth the blood and the effort, if we don't elect cut-and-run leaders who will sell out the cause for some very temporary quick "peace". We can hope, but I really doubt that any of the current crop of candidates will be the equal of our current president. McCain seems to be our only chance now. With all due respect for his sacrifices as a POW, our greatest soldiers have not usually proven to be our best elected leaders. Colin Powell might have had a better chance at being the exception to that rule than McCain, but that ship sailed long ago. Russ-I always respect you as well as your opinion, even when we disagree, which does seem to be on most issues. But it is good to see some common ground this time. ;D
|
|
|
Post by drgreyhound on Feb 16, 2008 16:41:10 GMT -5
Very true, and they have just as much reason to be upset as the "angry white man." In terms of calling this cohort the "angry white man," I interpreted the article as meaning that white men are oftentimes marginalized by affirmative action and other racist, discriminatory policies that want to make achievement easier for minorities and women. If I were a hard working, intelligent, honest member of a minority group, I'd be completely offended by these policies, as if my race or other superficial quality mattered more than my achievement or hard work.
|
|
|
Post by hunter480 on Feb 16, 2008 16:44:52 GMT -5
Very true, and they have just as much reason to be upset as the "angry white man." In terms of calling this cohort the "angry white man," I interpreted the article as meaning that white men are oftentimes marginalized by affirmative action and other racist, discriminatory policies that want to make achievement easier for minorities and women. If I were a hard working, intelligent, honest member of a minority group, I'd be completely offended by these policies, as if my race or other superficial quality mattered more than my achievement or hard work. What she said. ;D
|
|
|
Post by dadfsr on Feb 16, 2008 20:51:48 GMT -5
It's real simple-replace "white" with "American" and I think that would take care of a lot the first impression problems I had with it. Other than that I think the rest of it is fairly close.
|
|
|
Post by Sasquatch on Feb 16, 2008 21:15:38 GMT -5
We might cringe at the "white man" part, because white people are the only racial group that cannot indentify itself as such without being automatically considered racist... but I have to agree with the majority of what was said. White people are a voting group that it's perilous to ignore, even if it's uncooth to be known as white. When is the Indiana White Expo this year?
|
|
|
Post by danf on Feb 16, 2008 21:17:26 GMT -5
I believe it is at the State Fairgrounds, in August. ;D Gaurantee there will be NO shootings, unlike the IBE....
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Feb 16, 2008 22:29:24 GMT -5
I'll be kind of surprised if there are not some shootings out at the Deer and Turkey Expo before it wraps up tomorrow.
Those goose calls had a lot of people on the verge of violence before we left Friday at around 9pm. 8^)
|
|
|
Post by danf on Feb 16, 2008 22:38:03 GMT -5
And they fired right back up as soon as the doors opened at 10 this morning. ;D
|
|
|
Post by raporter on Feb 16, 2008 23:50:39 GMT -5
Yep that is us. I have to admit I have worked with some black folks who would fit in this "Club" too. I hope I will never dislike someone because of their complexion before I get to know them.
|
|
|
Post by huxbux on Feb 17, 2008 8:59:06 GMT -5
Very true, and they have just as much reason to be upset as the "angry white man." In terms of calling this cohort the "angry white man," I interpreted the article as meaning that white men are oftentimes marginalized by affirmative action and other racist, discriminatory policies that want to make achievement easier for minorities and women. If I were a hard working, intelligent, honest member of a minority group, I'd be completely offended by these policies, as if my race or other superficial quality mattered more than my achievement or hard work. Liberal policies concerning race are simply the democratic parties form of racism. A few bucks here, some food stamps there, a pat on the head, "go back to your corner and be happy with what we've allowed you to have" type treatment. The Democratic party identifies everyone by race, gender, sexual preference, amount of wealth etc. Once you've been pigeonholed into a labeled group, they advocate separate, unequal treatment of these groups. Doesn't sound anything like democracy to me. But that's just me, I could be wrong.
|
|