tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post4783026915132909356..comments2024-03-27T18:24:19.683-07:00Comments on Steve Sailer: iSteve: Democrat pundit tries to save GOP from terrible fate of winningUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-18527773312463835922011-11-25T01:01:15.769-08:002011-11-25T01:01:15.769-08:00Weekly Standard is a WASP publication? More like ...Weekly Standard is a WASP publication? More like Scotch-Irish.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-43886519094485959962011-11-24T15:18:07.991-08:002011-11-24T15:18:07.991-08:00For the record, here's the vote for the 1986 a...For the record, here's the vote for the 1986 amnesty played out in the <a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1986-860" rel="nofollow">House</a> and <a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s1986-738" rel="nofollow">Senate</a>.<br /><br />I correct myself from above - John McCain, who was in the House at the time, did not vote for the amnesty. Dick Cheney, however, did, as did now Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell, who also voted for the amnesty in 2006.Captain Jack Aubreynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-46091337136227421442011-11-24T15:04:14.663-08:002011-11-24T15:04:14.663-08:00"Was Reagan pandering to the then miniscule H...<b>"Was Reagan pandering to the then miniscule Hispanic vote when he passed amnesty for illegals in 1986?"</b><br /><br />An excellent reply to the notion that hispandering to Hispanics on immigration is the ket to electroal success is to remind people that the president who signed the 1986 amnesty was Republican, and that one-half of the amnesty bill was named for a Republican senator, Alan Simpson of Wyoming. Newt Gingrich voted for Simpson-Mazzoli, as did John McCain.<br /><br />And yet Hispanics don't seem to be be all the grateful...<br /><br />Oh, and Republicans had their asses handed to them in the following election, losing control of the Senate within months of the amnesty's passage.<br /><br />Gee, Republicans lose after pushing an amnesty in 1986, lose after pushing another one in 2006, and lose after pushing yet another one in 2007. They still seldom manage to get more than 40% of the Hispanic vote, and haven't elected a real conservative <br /><br />Being pro-amnesty sounds like a surefire path to electoral success to me!Captain Jack Aubreynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-12985616595577659742011-11-24T12:09:45.563-08:002011-11-24T12:09:45.563-08:00"Svigor said...
I notice that when the NYT r..."Svigor said...<br /><br />I notice that when the NYT refers to Barney Frank in a story about some topic, they do not make references to his proven involvement with homosexual prostitution.<br /><br /> Journalists are shitbirds (present company excluded of course, Steve). It's "former KKKer David Duke" but not "former KKKer Robert Byrd," and "whoremonger David Vitter," but not "sodomite whoremonger Barney Frank."<br /><br /> When they're done with the introductions, they move on to quoting the SPLC with a straight face.<br /><br /> This is SOP."<br /><br />Quite so. Highlighting the prominent position in the Democratic party held by the loathesome Barney Frank - a man who looks like Baron Harkonnen from Dune, sounds like Daffy Duck, and acts like Boss Tweed - ought to be a permanent fixture of Republican campaigns.Mr. Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-7124245100499171932011-11-24T12:02:39.954-08:002011-11-24T12:02:39.954-08:00"Anonymous said...
You probably hate Calvin ..."Anonymous said...<br /><br />You probably hate Calvin Coolidge. But he signed the immigration restrictions into law. Of whom else can you say that?"<br /><br />You are partially right about the Democrats being even more elitist, in their own way, than are the Republicans. But the poster to whom you replied was also right. The Republican party is not now a conservative party, nor has it been for most of it's existence. It came closest to being a conservative party during the period of about 1910 - 1950 (Taft to Taft) - and not uncoincidentally that's exactly the period when Calvin Coolidge signed the immigration restriction law into effect. What the Republican party is primarily, now and in the past, is the party of big business interests.Mr. Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-37521888776293936212011-11-24T11:56:34.449-08:002011-11-24T11:56:34.449-08:00"Anonymous said...
""Calling the G..."Anonymous said...<br /><br />""Calling the GOP the 'White party' is like saying the Weekly Standard is a WASP publication.""<br /><br />Huh?!?<br /><br />The Weekly Standard is a, ah, um, uh, how do you say it?, "Neocon" publication."<br /><br />Yes, the other anonymous poster knows that - that was the whole point of his post: That the GOP is not really a white party (in the sense of serving white interests), just as the Weekly Standard is not a WASP publication (in the sense of serving WASP interests).Mr. Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-39298190048476999922011-11-24T11:36:33.220-08:002011-11-24T11:36:33.220-08:00"At what point do we accept that the Republic..."At what point do we accept that the Republicans are pro-immigration, always have been pro-immigration, and always will be pro-immigration? And does anyone seriously think this is all due to a strategic miscalculation? Was Reagan pandering to the then miniscule Hispanic vote when he passed amnesty for illegals in 1986?"<br /><br />Reagan was had by the very first amnesty for enforcement deal( and of course Gingrich whole heartedly supported the next 6), but regretted it. Eisenhower actually enforced our laws, and the Republicans further back in the 20s actually got mass immigration ended to the economic benefit of all. More to the point the state and local GOP are doing what they can, and the federal government only has so much it can do to stop them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-267092922437889132011-11-23T13:39:20.687-08:002011-11-23T13:39:20.687-08:00jody - when you watch CNN and some of the other sm...jody - <i>when you watch CNN and some of the other smaller television news networks, you can go a long time these days without seeing a european man as the anchor</i><br /><br />When we had the riots here in England early in the year, the MSM were very quick to tell us that race played no part at all. But at the same time they suddenly felt the need to flood our screens with assorted non-white pundits, academics, social workers, lawyers, police etc etc to tell us all about the riot phenomenon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-37852343924506335112011-11-23T11:43:55.202-08:002011-11-23T11:43:55.202-08:00"Calling the GOP the 'White party' is..."Calling the GOP the 'White party' is like saying the Weekly Standard is a WASP publication."<br /><br /><i>Huh?!?<br /><br />The Weekly Standard is a, ah, um, uh, how do you say it?, "Neocon" publication.</i><br /><br />Tell me, are you familiar with the concept of irony?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-1700132560226678562011-11-23T11:28:48.429-08:002011-11-23T11:28:48.429-08:00At what point do we accept that the Republicans ar...At what point do we accept that the Republicans are pro-immigration, always have been pro-immigration, and always will be pro-immigration? And does anyone seriously think this is all due to a strategic miscalculation? Was Reagan pandering to the then miniscule Hispanic vote when he passed amnesty for illegals in 1986?<br /><br />The elites who fund and control both parties know that they can get away with offering up nothing but pro-immigration candidates, and the public won't do squat about it because they're basically a bunch of pussies. Conservatives will just delude themselves that Ron Paul is secretly on their side, or else they will get their kicks vicariously by supporting Israel instead of their own country. What else are they gonna do? Frankly, it's hilarious if you can just look at it from a detached perspective.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-8956474548986174832011-11-23T10:15:34.159-08:002011-11-23T10:15:34.159-08:00Everyone watch out for the day Whiskey makes an ar...Everyone watch out for the day Whiskey makes an argument that isn't supported solely by anecdote. The sun will go nova.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-53846778843276429972011-11-23T10:15:19.808-08:002011-11-23T10:15:19.808-08:00Of course an IM wouldn't pass, but making a ca...<i>Of course an IM wouldn't pass, but making a case for it would push the Overton Window. The problem for this proposal would be the hysterical reaction of the usual GOP funding sources.</i> <br /><br /><br />Yeah, the "usual GOP funding sources" are left-wing on just about every issue you can think of. Except low-taxes for rich people - <i>that one</i> they like. But they're pro immigration, pro-abortion, pro gay marriage, pro affirmative action, pro the whole left-wing cultural world-view.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-4474489382039638792011-11-23T10:09:45.206-08:002011-11-23T10:09:45.206-08:00On the question of open borders, all the Republica...<i>On the question of open borders, all the Republican candidates are bad. What separates them are are the different degrees of badness.</i> <br /><br /><br />Gingrich and Perry seem to have an almost Bushian dedication to the open-borders idea. Other candidates such as Paul and Rommey are poor on the topic but do not give the impression that they go to sleep at night dreaming of millions of people pouring across a non-existent border.<br /><br />The border question will be settled in Congress, not the WH.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-53067822405660521282011-11-23T10:09:32.174-08:002011-11-23T10:09:32.174-08:00I notice that when the NYT refers to Barney Frank ...<i>I notice that when the NYT refers to Barney Frank in a story about some topic, they do not make references to his proven involvement with homosexual prostitution.</i><br /><br />Journalists are shitbirds (present company excluded of course, Steve). It's "former KKKer David Duke" but not "former KKKer Robert Byrd," and "whoremonger David Vitter," but not "sodomite whoremonger Barney Frank."<br /><br />When they're done with the introductions, they move on to quoting the SPLC with a straight face.<br /><br />This is SOP.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-33384415551734081982011-11-23T10:04:41.174-08:002011-11-23T10:04:41.174-08:00Steve, when Romney is sworn into power in January ...<i>Steve, when Romney is sworn into power in January of '13, what exactly do you think is going to change?</i><br /><br />Hey Steve, you've probably read this already, but in case you haven't, Romney's old man has ties to FLDS, IIRC. Some of his kin (or maybe the folks they run with?) are FLDS down in Mexico, apparently. Same crew that some cartel kidnapped for money, apparently. On a side note, it's somewhat funny to me, how the cartels make attempts at PR. See, this FLDS guy apparently started running his mouth about crime (contrary to established FLDS behavior, which was to STFU and keep their heads down). Not long after, crooks kidnapped his brother and demanded 1m ransom. He refused, and kept making noise, and the Mormons got a posse together and started patrolling the streets. He accused a particular cartel of the crime, got the local DA or whatever involved in the denunciations. Apparently, this hurt the cartel in question's feelings, so they put it up on an over pass, "weren't us, ask the other cartel in town." That just hits my funnybone. So anyway, the cartel turned the brother loose and sent a hit squad dressed up as po-po to kill bigmouth, and they shot him in the head. I kinda respect that; why kill the poor brother? He was just a means to an end, and when it proved ineffective, they turned him loose.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-30355915642558401272011-11-23T09:57:32.942-08:002011-11-23T09:57:32.942-08:00"This country was a lot freer before the inco..."This country was a lot freer before the income tax than after."<br /><br />This country was a lot freer when there were high tariffs on imports.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-6108616452234583352011-11-23T07:59:44.269-08:002011-11-23T07:59:44.269-08:00In the chapter "Why Nations Decline" fro...In the chapter "Why Nations Decline" from his ironically titled book "No apology" Romney seems to argue for open borders and unrestricted free trade.<br /><br />http://books.google.com/books?id=PDpBpo5CVB4C&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=why+nations+decline+romney&source=bl&ots=wGr4JU5vaa&sig=xJc7HuRgI--gu_N0Qx78mr4xPQM&hl=en&ei=vBPNTtSDL4KH2AWFyqTQDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=falseAtoZnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-25191987566989001302011-11-23T06:04:39.538-08:002011-11-23T06:04:39.538-08:00Anon 12:54, to say nothing about Bawney Fwank bein...Anon 12:54, to say nothing about Bawney Fwank being present at the arrest of his boyfriend in Oqunquit, Maine (the new Provincetown) for marijuana possession and cultivation. His defense: he didn't know what pot plants look like!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-36948649454742242192011-11-23T05:40:45.712-08:002011-11-23T05:40:45.712-08:00"The only trouble with this analysis is that ...<b>"The only trouble with this analysis is that the Republican Party is not the 'white' party, never was the 'white' party and never will be the 'white' party.<br /> Let's face it, it's the party of big business..."</b><br /><br />Indeed.<br /><br />I wonder if it would ever be OK for me or anyone else to go to a candidate meeting and ask a candidate what he's going to do for whites. Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and lesbian transgendered Native American hermaphrodites are all allowed to ask what a candidate's going to do "for them" as a group. Look at any Democratic presidential campaign and see how they have pages targetting each group. It's a given, taken for granted. See <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gerq4GpHpKw&feature=related" rel="nofollow">this campaign ad</a>, for example. (See the 2nd top comment for a brilliant rebuttal: "Hey asshole both California senators are Jewish. How marginal is that?")<br /><br />And I refer you again to <a href="http://mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/BelieveInAmerica-PlanForJobsAndEconomicGrowth-Full.pdf" rel="nofollow">Mitt Romney's site</a>, specifically to his plan for "jobs and growth." It is pure red meat for Wall Street. Nothing in there for "whites."Captain Jack Aubreynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-42887066930534942452011-11-23T03:42:02.526-08:002011-11-23T03:42:02.526-08:00Environmentalist Republicans (I'm sure there a...Environmentalist Republicans (I'm sure there are some in the Midwest) should push for am immigration moratorium. I'm sure there are plenty of rank-and-file GOP'ers who are pro-conservation, anti-congestion and want to preserve lands for hunting and other forms of outdoor recreation. <br /><br />Of course an IM wouldn't pass, but making a case for it would push the Overton Window. The problem for this proposal would be the hysterical reaction of the usual GOP funding sources. This plurality voting system is the s**ts-it prevents the US from getting awesome electoral formations like the True Finns.icrnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-43115636402087261982011-11-23T01:17:54.496-08:002011-11-23T01:17:54.496-08:00Let's face it, it's the party of big busin...<i>Let's face it, it's the party of big business, the 1%, Wall Strret and the swivel eyed globalist maniacs of the WSJ. Low tax...</i><br /><br />The party of the 1% is closer to the common man than the party of the 0.01%-- George Soros, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Oprah Winfrey, 3 of every 4 hedge-fund owners... all Democrats.<br /><br />You probably hate Calvin Coolidge. But he signed the immigration restrictions into law. Of whom else can you say that?<br /><br />You got a problem with low taxes? This country was a lot freer before the income tax than after. No tax, no Irax.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-37655407069839580152011-11-23T01:02:46.240-08:002011-11-23T01:02:46.240-08:00When ethnic cleansing happens to white people it i...When ethnic cleansing happens to white people it is "a tide" which "washes out to sea"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-2725922685927960602011-11-23T00:33:32.520-08:002011-11-23T00:33:32.520-08:00Do you really see any vote changing the status quo...<i>Do you really see any vote changing the status quo on immigration: several million unskilled legals every year and another million unskilled illegals? What serious alternative do you see to this?</i><br /><br />State-mandated minimum wages for non-citizens. Like $20 or $30 per hour. Never mind the legislatures-- in many states, this can be enacted by initiative-and-referendum.<br /><br />And no guff about "unconstitutionality", please. States already set minimum wages above the federal rate, and they already distinguish between citizens and non-citizens in other areas. Just combine the two.Reg Cæsarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-65850085620353302011-11-23T00:13:22.795-08:002011-11-23T00:13:22.795-08:00The only trouble with this analysis is that the Re...The only trouble with this analysis is that the Republican Party is not the 'white' party, never was the 'white' party and never will be the 'white' party.<br /> Let's face it, it's the party of big business, the 1%, Wall Strret and the swivel eyed globalist maniacs of the WSJ.Low tax, high profits and f*ck you loser - they own the party it's their private property.Certain white dupes and duffers like religious maniacs ad useful tools of blue collar idiocy think it's got something for them - well I've got news for you, it hasn't.They would laughing mockinhly and contemptibly whilst sipping crystal champagne, taking the labridoodle for a $1000 pedicure at the baseball capped right-wing a$$-hole blue collar loser sleeing in his car and picking up dog-ends.<br /> All of you who cling to the vain hope that the plutocrats party give a sh*t for 'whites' or are the saviors of 'whites', just forget it.Stop it. You're being silly (as Monty Python would say).<br /> Of course it was Nixon who instituted government legislated racial discrimination against whites (affirmative action to you).It was that dumb low IQ klutz Reagan who instituted the 1986 amnesty - *the* coup-de-grace of white America and the death knell of California.It was the globalist, right wing WSJ 'Economist' crowd that held sway over Bush that pushed and pushed and pushed for amnesy after amnesty.It was they who opened the floodgates H1b visas for untold millions of subcons.It was they who tried there damndest to bring in open borders - trying to change policy and public opinion.<br /> I'm not a fan of the Democrats either, but why is there, amongst the 99%, the tiniest smidgen of sympathy for these horrible b*stards?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-26588013521886348702011-11-23T00:07:17.744-08:002011-11-23T00:07:17.744-08:00"For the future years in this century, I see ..."For the future years in this century, I see Whites retreating into the colder states of the USA, and becoming more militant about nullifying Federal laws and regulations that are seen as hurting the people in those states."<br /><br />Yes. Boise real estate is a buy. If I were a young working class white guy in Los Angeles, I would move to Boise and never look back.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com