One Man Has The Courage

[local 12 proud]

This is not meant to be read by the Weak Hearted, Faint, Sackless, Hen Pecked, Metrosexual who gets rained on every day, This is a Real Mans view of his Surroundings!!!

Angry White Man

 

[delldude]

I don’t have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It’s a depression. Everybody’s out of work or scared of losing their job. The dollar buys a nickel’s work, banks are going bust, shopkeepers keep a gun under the counter.

Punks are running wild in the street and there’s nobody anywhere who seems to know what to do, and there’s no end to it. We know the air is unfit to breathe and our food is unfit to eat, and we sit watching our TV’s while some local newscaster tells us that today we had fifteen homicides and sixty-three violent crimes, as if that’s the way it’s supposed to be.

We know things are bad - worse than bad. They’re crazy. It’s like everything everywhere is going crazy, so we don’t go out anymore. We sit in the house, and slowly the world we are living in is getting smaller, and all we say is, ‘Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials and I won’t say anything. Just leave us alone.’

Well, I’m not gonna leave you alone. I want you to get mad! I don’t want you to protest. I don’t want you to riot - I don’t want you to write to your congressman because I wouldn’t know what to tell you to write. I don’t know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crime in the street. All I know is that first you’ve got to get mad.

You’ve got to say, ‘I’m a HUMAN BEING, Goddamnit! My life has VALUE!’ So I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out, and yell,

‘I’M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I’M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!’ I want you to get up right now, sit up, go to your windows, open them and stick your head out and yell - ‘I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore!’ Things have got to change. But first, you’ve gotta get mad!… You’ve got to say, ‘I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!’ Then we’ll figure out what to do about the depression and the inflation and the oil crisis. But first get up out of your chairs, open the window, stick your head out, and yell, and say it:

“I’M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I’M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!â€￾

 

[Garfield1966]

This is not meant to be read by the Weak Hearted, Faint, Sackless, Hen Pecked, Metrosexual who gets rained on every day, This is a Real Mans view of his Surroundings!!!

Angry White Man

He believes the Constitution is to be interpreted literally, not as a “living documentâ€￾ open to the whims and vagaries of a panel of judges who have never worked an honest day in their lives.

Racist and sexist.

His last name and religion don’t matter. His background might be Italian, English, Polish, German, Slavic, Irish, or Russian, and he might have Cherokee, Mexican, or Puerto Rican mixed in, but he considers himself a white American.

I am guessing that there are very few who consider them selves 'white' and if the 'literal constitution' part is true then no 'angry white man' would accept any minority as an equal.


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

Sexist again.

He’s not a racist, but he is annoyed and disappointed when people of certain backgrounds exhibit behavior that typifies the worst stereotypes of their race. He’s willing to give everybody a fair chance if they work hard, play by the rules and learn English.

I hope he does not look in the mirror.

just as the great majority of them voted for George Bush.

That says it all.

 

[local 12 proud]

Puss-N-Boots, we already know what category you fall into! 😀

 

[Garfield1966]

Yes you do. One who is not sexist or racist.

 

[UAL_TECH]

This is not meant to be read by the Weak Hearted, Faint, Sackless, Hen Pecked, Metrosexual who gets rained on every day, This is a Real Mans view of his Surroundings!!!

Angry White Man

Sounds like me.

He’s not a racist, but he is annoyed and disappointed when people of certain backgrounds exhibit behavior that typifies the worst stereotypes of their race. He’s willing to give everybody a fair chance if they work hard, play by the rules and learn English.

Most important, the Angry White Man is pissed 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. When Al Sharpton comes on TV, leading some rally for reparations for slavery or some such nonsense, he bites his tongue and he remembers. When a child gets charged with carrying a concealed weapon for mistakenly bringing a penknife to school, he takes note of who the local idiots are in education and law enforcement.

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.

UT

 

[Gilding the Lily]

He believes the Constitution is to be interpreted literally, not as a “living documentâ€￾ open to the whims and vagaries of a panel of judges who have never worked an honest day in their lives.

Racist and sexist.

Gar,

In your opinion, what passage in the Consitution, literally read, is racist and sexist?

I am not talking historically... but literally?

 

[Garfield1966]

My interpretation of Article 1 section 2 is that slaves were not considered full citizens. This was later abolished by the 14th amendment.

There is also Article 1 section 9 which allows the 'importation of such persons" and prohibits Congress from preventing the "importation of such persons" till 1808.


In regards to women it is less clear and in your opinion would not qualify. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits women from voting, owning property and being treated as equal and yet they were not allowed to vote, own property and were not (in some situation are still not) considered equal to men.

Th USC was formulated and written by white, Christian (for the most part) men who were property owners. The fact remains that while the USC did not out right prohibit womens rights, it did not out right allow them right s either. It was assumed in the society at the time that the rights of the USC only applied to white males. The 14th amendment, section 2 went so fare as to spell it out.

If you look at the Declaration of Independence which I believe set out the path for the USC, it clearly says that "all men are created equal". Given that only men were in government and that the only men n government or afforded any rights at the time were white men, it seems pretty clear to me that women were not meant to have any of the rights out lied in the USC.

IMO, race is definitely codified by the USC, sex not so much but definitely implied and given the fact that the 19th amendment was required to allow women to vote I think one can conclude that the te USC did not apply to women.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

This is not meant to be read by the Weak Hearted, Faint, Sackless, Hen Pecked, Metrosexual who gets rained on every day, This is a Real Mans view of his Surroundings!!!

Angry White Man

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


........."12"........, GOOD article, but it did'nt tell me, or you, or the Democratic party, anything new.

The A W M, are for sure, JMc voters !!...(a handful will break for NA----DAAR)

Here's the HUGE problem for the A W M(this time), though I have NOT made my official Hillary speach, (I'll make it on tuesday 3/4/08), it's looking more and more, that the "slugfest" will be between JMc, and BO.

The A W M, is really gonna get MUCH MORE ANGRIER, because of a couple of reasons.

First, ...we are living in interesting times, because "This" time, there is a HUGE ground swell happening, and it's name is "BARACK"..(A W M's Blood pressure will rise, on just Baracks name alone)

As I said yesterday, with NA--DAAR in, the Democrats WILL win a "MANDATE"(A W M's BP rising even further)

Finally, the more that the A W M thinks about HOW he got put into this NO WIN POSITION, he will think of, and look at EL-CHIMPO,................and at THAT point, he'll probably slap his ol' lady around, or kick the dog.


Unfortunately, the A W M is ........."SCREWED".................BIG TIME. !!!!!!!!!!

 

[local 12 proud]

Bears, I have no grand illusions....

The AWM will see the first Black POTUS elected.

I just wish it was a MANS...MAN, like Colin Powell or perhaps condalezza!!!! 😛

BTW.... My Cherokee brothers in (OKIE) Homa like Obama! :blush:

 

[Gilding the Lily]

My interpretation of Article 1 section 2 is that slaves were not considered full citizens. This was later abolished by the 14th amendment.

There is also Article 1 section 9 which allows the 'importation of such persons" and prohibits Congress from preventing the "importation of such persons" till 1808.


In regards to women it is less clear and in your opinion would not qualify. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits women from voting, owning property and being treated as equal and yet they were not allowed to vote, own property and were not (in some situation are still not) considered equal to men.

Th USC was formulated and written by white, Christian (for the most part) men who were property owners. The fact remains that while the USC did not out right prohibit womens rights, it did not out right allow them right s either. It was assumed in the society at the time that the rights of the USC only applied to white males. The 14th amendment, section 2 went so fare as to spell it out.

If you look at the Declaration of Independence which I believe set out the path for the USC, it clearly says that "all men are created equal". Given that only men were in government and that the only men n government or afforded any rights at the time were white men, it seems pretty clear to me that women were not meant to have any of the rights out lied in the USC.

IMO, race is definitely codified by the USC, sex not so much but definitely implied and given the fact that the 19th amendment was required to allow women to vote I think one can conclude that the te USC did not apply to women.

Gar,

I absolutely agree with most of what you said. But that is all historical and has been revised by Congress. What literal reading of the Constitution, TODAY, makes its sexist and racist?

 

[Garfield1966]

Gar,

I absolutely agree with most of what you said. But that is all historical and has been revised by Congress. What literal reading of the Constitution, TODAY, makes its sexist and racist?

I think we have our wires crossed. My response back on page 1 was in response to this section of the AWM post



He believes the Constitution is to be interpreted literally, not as a “living documentâ€￾ open to the whims and vagaries of a panel of judges who have never worked an honest day in their lives.

I took that to mean the original USC ratified back in 1700's. All the revisions made were done after the fact and I assume would not e approved by the AWM.

Todays USC is of course far different and I would agree with our contention that the racism and sexism have been removed and have no legal standing.


I was reading this and I something else came to mind. Apparently the AWM are not to bright in terms of law/enforcement/creation. Seems I recall that judges do not make law, they enforce the law as writen by Congress who is empowered by the people.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

I think we have our wires crossed. My response back on page 1 was in response to this section of the AWM post



He believes the Constitution is to be interpreted literally, not as a “living documentâ€￾ open to the whims and vagaries of a panel of judges who have never worked an honest day in their lives.

I took that to mean the original USC ratified back in 1700's. All the revisions made were done after the fact and I assume would not e approved by the AWM.

Todays USC is of course far different and I would agree with our contention that the racism and sexism have been removed and have no legal standing.

Maybe we are "crossed." But, honestly, you really think he is suggesting that we read the Constitution that was drafted in the 1700's without any of the amendments chosen by Congress??? I highly doubt he is suggesting that. Rather, I think he is suggesting that we read today's constitution -- with all the historical amendments -- in a literal fashion... in a way in which the Justices leave "creating law" to Congress.

 

[Garfield1966]

Maybe we are "crossed." But, honestly, you really think he is suggesting that we read the Constitution that was drafted in the 1700's without any of the amendments chosen by Congress??? I highly doubt he is suggesting that. Rather, I think he is suggesting that we read today's constitution -- with all the historical amendments -- in a literal fashion... in a way in which the Justices leave "creating law" to Congress.

Perhaps you are right. I guess I have a bit of a more jaded view of what a AWM is Maybe the interpretation is somewhere in between. It may also be affected by where you find your AWM as to what version of the USC he is looking at. A NYC AWM may be more 'liberal' than a AWM from say Alabama. I know it is a generalization but some generalizations have a basis in truth.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

Perhaps you are right. I guess I have a bit of a more jaded view of what a AWM is Maybe the interpretation is somewhere in between. It may also be affected by where you find your AWM as to what version of the USC he is looking at. A NYC AWM may be more 'liberal' than a AWM from say Alabama. I know it is a generalization but some generalizations have a basis in truth.

AWSM would be more fitting for the jaded view I suppose. The "S" is interchangeable... but to keep it clean, let me suggest "stupid." I have no doubt that AWSM's exist today.