October 3, 2012

The Debate

Here's a link to a semi-coherent transcript of the first Presidential debate. 

The President seemed peeved having to deal with somebody who evidently hadn't been briefed that Obama is always The Smartest Guy in the Room. Hadn't Romney gotten the memo from Valerie Jarrett?

From the bits and pieces I saw, it looked like Romney would have won pretty decisively if he wasn't stuck with the reigning Republican orthodoxy. Like I've been saying, the notion that Romney is some particularly horrible individual candidate is silly. He's a man of varied accomplishments (and ridiculously good looking for his age). He's not particularly gifted at politics, but he makes a decent generic GOP candidate. He's a well-adjusted grown-up with a track record of executive skill.

The problem is that the GOP ideology of tax cuts and stronger military and not much else is well-suited to solving the problems of 1980. There are diminishing marginal returns to tax cutting, and (as far as I can remember) we won the Cold War. Imagine that Romney stood up and said, "Look, one of the things we have to do is cut the bloat from the military budget. It's a managerial problem. I have years of experience going over budgets line by line. President Obama has years of experience writing his autobiographies. Who do you trust to do a better job?" But, he can't say that.

Further, the GOP is so throttled in what they can talk about by their concessions to political correctness that they don't have much to say.

The word immigration never came up.

113 comments:

Anonymous said...

Romney is hobbled by the fact that he supports open borders, out-sourcing, TARP, affirmative action, Gay marriage, 'free-trade', and dislikes Labor unions and Social Security.

His goal in getting elected is to help the well-to-do and the investor class by any means necessary.

That he isn't losing by 20 points shows you how lame and evil the Democrats are.

David said...

"Look, one of the things we have to do is cut the bloat from the military budget.[...] I have years of experience going over budgets line by line. President Obama has years of experience writing his memoirs. Who do you trust to do a better job?"

Sailer for President.

tg moderator said...

I think the most annoying thing is all the blather about jobs and the economy while ignoring all the resons that it so painful to hire someone. Perhaps it is fine to have workman's comp, social security, medicare, unemployment comp., mantatory healthcare, liability coverage, etc. Rebublicans are not vocal in opposing any of this as long as it is employer paid, but there is no free lunch and it is absurdly expensive to hire an American. Rebublicans can't be honest and say they oppose all thse popular programs, and they can't call for progressive taxation to pay for them, so they are left with policies that punish American workers.

Carney said...

Romney doesn't support gay marriage, never has.

Anonymous said...

Romney is hobbled by the fact that he... dislikes Labor unions and Social Security.

Today labor unions don't really help labor, they represent the interests of union management and/or capital. The largest unions in the US support unlimited immigration.

Social security is bullshit and needs to go. People my age are never going to get any meaningful income from social security, so we shouldn't have to pay into it just to "keep a promise" to the same old fucks who are telling us with graduate degrees that we aren't qualified or skilled enough to do the jobs they got with their HS diplomas.

If a politician really wanted to do us a favor and help us survive old age, they would make it easier for us to have big families and own real assets, not promise us more paper money.


His goal in getting elected is to help the well-to-do and the investor class by any means necessary.


Romney's primary loyalty may be to the investor class, but he understands that they are better off owning a successful country than a shit hole. His model is to skim off the top of the biggest pie he can, so while he may not help us much, he isn't going to be actively trying to hurt us. Obama/Jarrett on the other hand want to cut as much out of the pie as the can, and if it shrinks and/or we all die in the process, so much the better because raaacism and slaaavery

Anonymous said...

If I ever heard a single "smaller government" politician propose cutting the military budget I would get behind him 100%. It's time to trim the fat from that sacred cow.

DaveinHackensack said...

"The problem is that the GOP ideology of tax cuts and stronger military and not much else is well-suited to solving the problems of 1980."

Exactly. Bruce Bartlett, who helped craft Reagan's tax cuts, has made this point as well.

On Defense, it's pretty clear we don't need to spend this much to ward off a handful of Mohammedans. But no GOP president is going to cut it with the job market this weak.

Kaus made the same point on Twitter about immigration not coming up.

I hate to keep hammering on about trade, but

Anonymous said...

I've never understood the claims that Obama is some kind of fantastic public speaker, so I'm not surprised that he seemed useless tonight.

Anonymous said...

"Romney doesn't support gay marriage, never has."

He doesn't oppose it either. So, its a distinction without a difference.

Anonymous said...

Romney is hobbled by the fact that he supports open borders, out-sourcing, TARP, affirmative action, Gay marriage, 'free-trade', and dislikes Labor unions and Social Security.


His goal in getting elected is to help the well-to-do and the investor class by any means necessary.



Thanks for that take from the left. We value a variety of viewpoints around here.

Anonymous said...

"Social security is bullshit and needs to go."

A view of the young or the rich - or those who never wish to be elected.

Anonymous said...

"Thanks for that take from the left. We value a variety of viewpoints around here."

Oh, please. Dems want to tax and spend while Repubs want to borrow and spend.

They are both full of crap. The fact that Romney and Obama agreed on a lot of "issues" during the debate should tell you something.

David said...

>it so painful to hire someone [...] it is absurdly expensive to hire an American<

Poor little you. It would be so much easier to have slaves.

Dad said...

Agreed. Romney's performance was nearly flawless. He sold the GOP message about as well as it can be sold. If he doesn't win, blame must go to the Republican establishment and its unappealing policies, not to the candidate who presented them.

Zog said...

It is not absurdly expensive to hire someone. Quite the opposite, wages are lower than they've been for 10 years if you want to hire an intelligent college graduate. Nor are the various payroll deductions, they are all handled automatically by payroll companies, including all the paperwork. It takes maybe 6 minutes to set up a new employee with our payroll direct deposit system. Most of them only apply on the first few thousand dollars of income anyway, and after 110k the only employer tax is the 2.9% Medicare tax.

I find all the rich people whining about how hard it is to be a "job creator" silly. Statistics show it has never been a better time to be a rich person in America. Our tax system has so money loopholes that with an aggressive accountant you can pay under 15% like Romney and completely avoid inheritance taxes. Even if you are not inclined to plan to avoid estate taxation, that tax does not even apply to the first 10.1 million of your estate.

Sailer is not in touch with average Americans if he finds Romney like able on a personal level. I detest financiers and smug heirs of giant fortunes.

I would have voted for Mitch Daniels or Rudy but will take pleasure in voting against the first an hopefully last time a major party nominee who made his money looting on Wall Street.

Anonymous said...

"Poor little you. It would be so much easier to have slaves."

Hey, now...shouldn't be too harsh on him, private jets and luxury cars aren't getting any cheaper.

Anonymous said...

Dems want to tax and spend while Repubs want to borrow and spend.


Credit where it's due: The Dems have proved themselves much bigger borrower-and-spenders than the GOP ever managed.

DirtyTricks said...

Romney won, clearly.
Now watch democrats go negative, nasty, shrill and personal.

To win, Romney's campaign needs someone like H R Haldleman, Ed Rollins, Lee Atwater, or whoever created the Willie Horton ad.

I am Dirty Tricks.

Anonymous said...

GOP ideology of tax cuts and stronger military and not much else...

That's because many more people care more about taxes than, say, immigration restriction.

Right now, immigration restriction is not an issue that can help a politician reach 50.001% in an election. It's just not. No matter what the members of this echo chamber tell you. The moment the immigration restriction gets within a striking distance of being a winning issue one or the other party will instantly adopt it.

tg moderator said...

Does anyone remember the great downsizing trend of the 1990s? Profits are maximized when marginal revenue equals marginal cost. Companies learned that they could cut headcount, lose revenue and see an increase in profits because costs fell further and faster than revenues did. This trend has not gone away. It is expensive to hire Americans compared to the alternatives of outsourcing and offshoring. Remember that every employer paid goodie and benefit is really a hidden tax on the worker's paycheck. The worker's revenue generation must exceed his cost or his job goes away. If we really must have all these programs I say tax the rich--not the workers. Of course the Laffer curve shows that the tax the rich option has diminishing returns. It would be cheaper to have slaves, but the policies of the Dems and Repubs are creating a nation of serfs.

Anonymous said...

I would have voted for Mitch Daniels or Rudy but will take pleasure in voting against the first an hopefully last time a major party nominee who made his money looting on Wall Street.


Good grief, this is right up there with "Romney supports free trade with China" and "Romney supports gay marriage".

Romney is far from my idea of an ideal Republican, but he's a lot closer to it than these people who keep making up ever more ludicrous lies about him.

He did not make his money "looting on Wall Street".

Anonymous said...

Romney won, clearly.
Now watch democrats go negative, nasty, shrill and personal.



Yup - I'm watching it happen right here in the comments section of iSteve.

Anonymous said...

Zog;

How many guys looking to start Joe's Nifty Idea are going to look into hiring a payroll company for fewer than a few dozen employees?

How many guys making under half a mil per year are going to hire an accountant? How many are going to jump through the hoops to escape estate taxes?

The system works fine if you're one of the top tenth or hundredth of a percent. Not so much if you're simply in the top one, five, or ten.

Anonymous said...

Steve gay for Romney?

DaveinHackensack said...

Looks like I just trailed off on trade above. The point I was going to make was that the trade deficit exacerbates everything else. E.g., fewer good-paying jobs for Reagan Democrat-type workers means an over-reliance on military spending as a jobs program. It also means a bloated financial sector as foreign exporters pour the dollars they got from selling us stuff into US financial assets.

"It is not absurdly expensive to hire someone. Quite the opposite, wages are lower than they've been for 10 years if you want to hire an intelligent college graduate. Nor are the various payroll deductions, they are all handled automatically by payroll companies, including all the paperwork..."

Yeah, that's more of a talking point you'll hear from GOP pols than from actual entrepreneurs. Same with business taxes (not an issue when you first start a business, in most cases, because you are losing money in the beginning) and regulations. I did hear a billionaire business exec (might have been Zuckerman) mention on Bloomberg TV that uncertainty about taxes was holding back hiring. The anchor asked him, "Have you stopped hiring because of this uncertainty?". And his response was basically, "No, we haven't, but other companies say...".

Anonymous said...

The notion that Obama is a brilliant orator has always been a media fabrication. When he has to stand up there before the camera's without a teleprompter and think and talk off the cuff, he's revealed for the stumblebum he actually is.

M Steinberg said...

***That's because many more people care more about taxes than, say, immigration restriction.

Right now, immigration restriction is not an issue that can help a politician reach 50.001% in an election. It's just not. No matter what the members of this echo chamber tell you. The moment the immigration restriction gets within a striking distance of being a winning issue one or the other party will instantly adopt it.***

Not true. Look at polls on the "tough" Arizona law. The majority of voters supported it.

And even for Obama voters immigration is rated as a "very important" issue. 47% for Romney voters.

http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/9-24-12%20Voters%20Priorities%20Release.pdf

Anonymous said...

Obama is the best!

eah said...

Obama was The Smartest Guy in the Room

How could anyone still believe that after watching him as President the last four years? Honestly?

I don't see real analytical intelligence in Obama. Never have. He has a kind of glib verbal intelligence that he uses to good advantage, mostly to push the buttons that decades of media-hyped political correctness and white guilt have set up in a nice row in front of him. This is also why so many Hollywood and entertainment types host fundraisers for an empty suit like Obama -- their own livelihoods depend on staying on the good side of political correctness and a media that is infatuated with Obama.

His big 'accomplishment' is Obamacare, which in its implementation is just another race hustle -- getting better-off Whites and Asians to subsidize health insurance for a population that is disproportionately black and Hispanic. (Personally I think some kind of single payer reform is necessary and inevitable.)

All of that is why even if Romney 'wins' the debates (I wouldn't know because I did not and will not watch) -- whatever that means -- he may still not be elected President.

Finally, I must mention how grateful I am that Sean Penn has kept his mouth shut recently about Haiti.

Anonymous said...

Obama was just acting like, 'this white boy is so pathetic that I'll go easy in the first round and look bored'. So, by 'losing', he really won. His attitude was like, "I'm not even gonna try that hard in the first debate cuz I'm so far ahead and cuz I'm so bored with this dull white man."

Anonymous said...

Romney is also not an ideologue and will, if he wins the job, find some democrats with whom he can work.

All the focus groups said he creamed the Pres tonight. This debate was expected to be watched by 60 million Americans. Since most people didn't pay much attention to either the GOP or Dem conventions, except to see snippets of it, this is really the first time most Americans voters saw Romney unfiltered. I think they might have been impressed. We have to remember most voters can't recall the VP's name, something hard to do when the Veep is Trippin' Joe Biden.

Whiskey said...

Yeah, who needs military spending, hugging the Muslim Brotherhood and apologizing for America will secure the supply of Persian Gulf oil. Oh wait ...

Romney did just fine. I agree 100% Steve that the Mexodus is acid-washing America into disaster, and destroying the country. The problem is, a great deal of voters don't want to here it. Anyone who tells the truth like you, or Tancredo, or Brimelow, gets marginalized. Lee Atwater is just a memory, because his ways don't work anymore. Too many unmarried women, too many married women just HATE HATE HATE the idea of border enforcement and the historic American nation.

RINO #1, G HW Bush, ran Lee Atwater to the Presidency. Rinos were certainly willing to do so within living memory. They don't Atwater any more because that just repels women voters. Simple as that.

Anonymous said...

"Looting on Wall Street"?

Give me a break.

Anonyia said...



"Social security is bullshit and needs to go. People my age are never going to get any meaningful income from social security, so we shouldn't have to pay into it just to "keep a promise" to the same old fucks who are telling us with graduate degrees that we aren't qualified or skilled enough to do the jobs they got with their HS diplomas."

Thank you, anonymous. My sentiments exactly. It doesn't even need to go entirely: the income needs to simply be reduced by at least half. Decent families would still take care of their elderly relatives. My parents basically already do for my grandparents.

People our age are going to permanent debt slaves just so that old people of today can live comfortably amongst the mess they helped create. They all had short term gratification on their mind as they did all their shopping at Wal-Mart or hired an illegal Mexican maid.

In the end, there are two ways to concretely raise revenue: cut spending, or raise taxes.

Anonymous said...

The 2700+ pages of Obamacare alone are reason to vote against Obama.

Whiskey said...

I wish immigration WAS a deciding factor for how Whites vote, but it just isn't. White women don't get harmed by it, there's all those immigrant kids to teach, NGO-mind, and status monger over. Who taught me that?

STEVE SAILER.

The marginal vote gained by emphasizing immigration loses two (female) votes; Romney is a numbers guy, its why he emphasized it but not much on the GOP trail, and not at all tonight.

Does anyone think the undecided are going to vote for a guy who wants to deport illegals? Really? When those voters are overwhelmingly White and female? And single?

As Steve pointed out, the declining White share of the vote makes bigger White proportions mandatory for winning. If Romney wants to win, he has to get more than McCain's 60% of the White vote. That means WOMEN. Since Obama took White single women by over 70%, and has an edge over abortion, contraception, paying for it, female preferences, culture wars, and the like. Romney can't win them but he can cut say that percentage down by 10%.

And in office he can without fanfare on the margins increase deportations, fines for employing illegals (hit Chipotle hard), and the like. Marginal changes are all we have got, because Whites are smaller percentages of voters.

Do any of you know any actual women? They despise to a woman social conservatism, and anti-immigration measures like deportation as "cruel" and reactionary. Pandering to them is necessary. I'd rather have less bad than awful.

Anonymous said...

Whiskey - "Do any of you know any actual women?"

Laugh line of the year.

eah said...

The word immigration never came up.

Nowadays it's to 99% a racial issue. I haven't heard a Population Bomb-type of view on it for a long time. Even severe economic problems with persistently high unemployment has not been enough to counter the increasingly third rail-ish racial aspect.

Anonymous said...

Agree with Whiskey.

Did you guys watch CNN? They had an undecided voter polling thingy during the debate and the men agreed with Romney and the women agreed with Obama. It was like they were watching different debates.

john marzan said...

immigration will come up during the second debate, where it's a town hall format. I expect the stunt where an attractive Dreamer will ask romney if he's going to revoke obam's dreamact Exec Order.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone think the undecided are going to vote for a guy who wants to deport illegals? Really? When those voters are overwhelmingly White and female? And single?


I'd as you to provide a shred of evidence to back up the assertion that undecided voters are overwhelmingly white, female, and single, if I did not already know that you would not and could not do so.

This is why you're the laughing stock of the internet.

Anonymous said...

"Sailer is not in touch with average Americans if he finds Romney like able on a personal level. I detest financiers and smug heirs of giant fortunes.

I would have voted for Mitch Daniels or Rudy but will take pleasure in voting against the first an hopefully last time a major party nominee who made his money looting on Wall Street."

Guess you'd have gone for Nixon over Kennedy in "60.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, we need an army bigger than every other country combined and then some to...do what with the Muslim world? Whiskey, what do you want? A few nukes, carriers and some troops is all that's necessary to keep America safe from existential threats.

Anonymous said...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/this-presidential-race-should-never-have-been-this-close-20120925

Anonymous said...

john marzan said...

"immigration will come up during the second debate, where it's a town hall format. I expect the stunt where an attractive Dreamer will ask romney if he's going to revoke obam's dreamact Exec Order."

John, Gov. Romney has already said that he will not overturn the amnesty:

http://www.vdare.com/articles/romneys-surrender-on-amnesty-its-not-a-dream-its-a-nightmare

x said...

I want to see a guy put Romney or Obama (but especially Romney) on the spot with a question posed during the debates about legal immigration. Something like: "all this talk about illegal immigration in he media and discourse I find is merely a distraction from the much more serious issue of legal immigration, which when broached at all is always presented in a biased manner, always as an unmitigated good that does no harm. Given the absolute numbers vis-a-vis legal to illegal immigration, do you think it is time a presidential candidate finally took a contrary view? Why do we need more immigration? The economic arguments in its favour are equivocal. The social effects are likewise complex and potentially harmful."

Whoever would come out and ask a question like that would be a hero.

Anonymous said...

romnesty

Conatus said...

In 2008 Obama won with only 43% of white voters and his strategists think he can win this time with only 39%. One of the previous commenters noted that Kerry had won the first debate with Bush by the same percentage yet lost the Presidency.

Romney will lose because of Grover Norquist and his inflexibility regarding taxes. Income inequality(Gini coefficient) is the highest it has been in the US and yet Grover(NO TAXES) won't budge?

Here is Thomas Edsall yakking now(9/24/2012) about the white working class, saying 'yeah they will go Romney in the South, but not the rest of the nation.
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/whats-wrong-with-pennsylvania/?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120924


In the sixth paragraph of the above article it says that in Pa., " By the end of August, however, ad buying stopped. The Romney campaign effectively conceded the state." That, to me, is very ominous for Romney, unless Obama continues to have a pot hangover in the debates.

In the aforementioned article it says Southern white working class is overwhelmingly for Romney. We know they are the 'children of wrath,' We know why they vote the way they do. Race trumps money. But in the rest of the US, working class whites want class warfare, they think Reaganomics has not helped them and for the last 40 years it has all been about trickle up rather than down.
If Romney fails he can thank Grover Norquist for this loss. Having an obsessive hard-on for no taxes limits your flexibility and means you lose. I think if Romney had made more 'tax rich people noises' he would not be in the bind he is in. Whites are hurtin' and they do not want to hear warmed over eighties exhortations to give 110% for the Gipper. They just want the playing field leveled: no Affirmative Action, no cheap labor Mexicans, no female favoritism.

Anonymous said...

The moment the immigration restriction gets within a striking distance of being a winning issue one or the other party will instantly adopt it.

Oh come on now, we know thats not entirely true. Both parties must know from opinion polls that immigration is a guaranteed vote winner.

If immigration restriction became part of one party platform its game over. The other party would have no option but to propose even greater restrictions and a virtuous feedback loop would be initiated resulting in closed borders.

Insofar as its discussed in the MSM at all the trick is to imply a vast consensus in support of immigration and/or 'reform' but not to risk putting it to a popular vote.

The game is to avoid immigration restriction being discussed or adopted as policy at all. If that happened the whole charade would collapse.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, we need an army bigger than every other country combined and then some

Not forgetting that some of the other bigger/better armies are very close allies of the US. Making the equation even more lopsided.

Narun said...

"The problem is that the GOP ideology of tax cuts and stronger military and not much else is well-suited to solving the problems of 1980. There are diminishing marginal returns to tax cutting, and (as far as I can remember) we won the Cold War. Imagine that Romney stood up and said, "Look, one of the things we have to do is cut the bloat from the military budget. It's a managerial problem. I have years of experience going over budgets line by line. President Obama has years of experience writing his autobiographies. Who do you trust to do a better job?" But, he can't say that."

The cold war is up, but the Six-Day war goes on...

Traile said...

The Obama trolls are really coming out of the woodworks....

Anonymous said...

Steve please slow down in your posting ... you are not giving us commentors enough time to react to your postings before you start another thread...

Dude.... I love you ... but please take a break ...smoke a bone (don't know if you do but you live in Cali were it is practically legal) .... or drink some moonshine or take your wife out or whatever it takes ...just chill a little.

One every other day would be cool ... not two or three every day (even though I admit they are all good).

Geesh ... I admire your work ethic but have some mercy on the weak who can't keep up and are sufffering from information/ thought overload.

DirtyTricks said...

Whiskey
When someone explains the issue to them, white women hate hate HATE third world immigration just as they hate H1B if that program has affected them or their husbands, brothers, etc who work in STEM.
Blue collar women (white and black) hate hate HATE Mexicans who have taken their and their husbands' jobs.
Take a field trip to Walmart any Sunday afternoon. At my Walmart, all cashiers are proud working black women. Most of their customers are Mexicans with kids using their food stamp EBT cards.
The unemployment rate for black men is close to 40%.
Guess who works the jobs black men used to have? Mexican men. This is not lost on black women.

Anonymous said...

"All the focus groups said he creamed the Pres tonight. This debate was expected to be watched by 60 million Americans. Since most people didn't pay much attention to either the GOP or Dem conventions, except to see snippets of it, this is really the first time most Americans voters saw Romney unfiltered. I think they might have been impressed. We have to remember most voters can't recall the VP's name, something hard to do when the Veep is Trippin' Joe Biden."

Good point. This is the reason why I found all the people saying the polls show Romney has lost the election yesterday before the first debate kinda hysterical and silly (b/c half of the people in the country had never even heard Romney speak and were relying on their opinion from what they heard about him in the press).

One thing I remembered, because I am old enough, is that Reagan was down by 10 or so points in the polls before the first debate with Carter just 6 weeks before the election.

Basicly, I though Reagan was a nut who was going to start WWIII, because I was young and that was how he was portrayed in the press.

After the first debate with Carter I realized that he was likable, not insane, and not the Anti-Christ as he was portrayed by the liberal media.

I ended up voting for him ... as did a lot of other Americans who were undecided and Reagan won in a landslide.

At the time the economy was a mess with double digit inflation and high unemployment ... they called it stagflation (stagnant wages and inflation combined).

The same could happen this time ...if Romney keeps emphasizing his human qualities (that he is not just a heartless Wall Street bastard) and Ryan does the same and not try to showboat and just let Biden implode all by himself during the veep debate.

I thought Romney did a good job hitting some populist themes tying Obama to crony capitalism with special favors to his Wall Street friends ... passing legislation that made five banks "too big to fail" ... and giving his friends in the green energy racket 90 billion or so...

If he keeps doing this Obama is toast and the press will go along just as it did with Reagan.

When Reagan started to change the tide after the debates with Carter ... the press still did not love him ... but they dropped the Anti-Christ stuff because they realized that people weren't buying that he was evil or a dangerous nut.

It was as simple as that.

Of course they still hated him, but painting him as a nut wasn't working because poeple had seen with their eyes and ears that he was not.

Anonymous said...

Found the money quote in the transcript:

Romney "Number two, I will not reduce the share paid by high-income individuals. I know that you and your running mate keep saying that and I know it's a popular thing to say with a lot of people, but it's just not the case.
Look, I've got five boys. I'm used to people saying something that's not always true, but just keep on repeating it and ultimately hoping I'll believe it. But that -- that is not the case. All right?
I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans.

The line comparing Obama with a 'boy' was... what?

Dog-whistling? Romney's unconscious thoughts showing?

Truth said...

"White women don't get harmed by it, there's all those immigrant kids to teach, NGO-mind, and status monger over. '"

Don't forget SLEEP WITH, Whiskey. You're starting to sound a little, Pee-Cee lately!

Truth said...

"Anonymous said...
Whiskey - "Do any of you know any actual women?"

Laugh line of the year."

I second! Actually, I had the comment all copied ready to add some snark, when I read the comment right below it.

hailtoyou said...

David Gergen on CNN:
"I didn't think Obama was 'rusty', so much as I don't think anyone has spoken to him like that, over the last four years years. And I think he found that not only surprising, but offensive in some ways. It looked like he was angry at times."

A major theme of Steve Sailer over the past five years: No one has much spoken "like that" to Obama his entire life. He has just coasted through life with people patting him on the back the whole time.

Someone could write a biography of Obama, and entitle it "An Affirmative Action Life".

Anonymous said...

"Social security is bullshit and needs to go. People my age are never going to get any meaningful income from social security, so we shouldn't have to pay into it just to "keep a promise" to the same old fucks who are telling us with graduate degrees that we aren't qualified or skilled enough to do the jobs they got with their HS diplomas."

Exactly. The young, poorer, indebted are paying for the income and medical care of the old and rich.

That's the real wealth redistribution in America.

Anonymous said...

Indeed. I'm complete baffled that, in a time when tens of millions of middle, lower-middle, and working class people are feeling poorer and poorer, the GOP has had absolutely nothing to offer them. They really are the party of corporate profits and nothing else.

As for Romney, you're right. He is a very competent adult. But, I'm sure he'd use his competency to lower the taxes on his wealthy peers even further.

If he had something to offer us Joe Six-packs, some way to fix the economy such that we feel more secure and our kids can actualy get jobs and leave the house, I might vote for him.

Mr. Anon said...

"That he isn't losing by 20 points shows you how lame and evil the Democrats are."

And how lame and gullible the Republican electorate is.

Scrutineer said...

Anonymous 9:23 - The moment the immigration restriction gets within a striking distance of being a winning issue one or the other party will instantly adopt it.

The moment pro-Christian movies like The Passion of Christ ($600 million box office) become profitable to make, some studo or other will start cranking them out. Right?

Politicians and filmmakers often will sacrifice their narrow self-interest rather than violate tribal taboos.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

Good grief, this is right up there with "Romney supports free trade with China" and "Romney supports gay marriage"."

Romney DOES support "free trade" with China. What would he do to reduce the outsourcing of manufacturing to China? What? His very ideology makes any action on his part impossible. And if that were not the case, the ideology of his party would.

And in terms of gay marriage, he might support it, but neither will he oppose it. Not one jot. He has already said that he will not overturn the overturning of DADT in the military. Posting women on ballistic missile submarines - think he will reverse that? No way.

There is not one liberal social policy whose repeal he has campaigned on, and which he would ever repeal.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Steve gay for Romney?

Oh, God no. Steve is far too nerdy, gawky, and boring to be gay. And obsessed with golf, numbers, really unfashionable topics, admires Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, etc. etc.

Now is Obama gay for someone? You bet your Reggie Love.

Anonymous said...

Whiskey said,

"Do any of you know any actual women? ... Pandering to them is necessary. I'd rather have less bad than awful."

Yes I do know a couple women. I am a son, grandson, husband, father, uncle, nephew, cousin, coworker, neighbor, acquaintance, friend, ex-boyfriend, and I don't know what-all to at least a couple women.

Some of them will vote for Obama. Most that have expressed an interest say they will not. None of them prefer open borders, like illegal immigration, or their kids taking backseat to non-citizens from south of the border.

Take a breath, go outside, try striking up a conversation with a woman at church. Even if you are middle aged there are still plenty of decent and kind women out there and if they didn't have charity in their hearts not a man alive would get a second date.

Give it a try get away from the electric crystal ball you hover over and go live some life. Because frankly you come off as isolated and more than a little pathetic. I am sorry if that is cruel.

You haven't taken any other advice here, you seem to enjoy being abused, and apparently believe the weird, twisted, stuff of your imagination you write here. Please, seriously take a sabbatical from the internet. Go get in some walking in the park or just drive for a while with the window down.

You'll feel better I promise.

Beecher Asbury said...

Whiskey wrote, "Do any of you know any actual women?"

Whiskey, that is the million dollar question most people on this blog have been wondering about you for years.

Dahlia said...

"Steve gay for Romney?"

You know, I've been wondering some things, thoughts still in the infant stages, about gayness in this election.

The homophile movement has gotten noticeably less shrill lately and I have a theory that it is because they are distracted by "somebody".

Anonymous said...

The problem is that the GOP ideology of tax cuts and stronger military and not much else is well-suited to solving the problems of 1980.

The GOP is militaristic because it is afraid of dealing with the issue of race. They, in fact, had the same problem in 1980, when something actually could have been done. In the words of Peter Hitchens:

These strengths had been fading for some time, mainly due to poorly controlled mass immigration and to the march of political correctness. They had also been weakened by the failure of America’s conservative party – the Republicans – to fight on the cultural and moral fronts.

They preferred to posture on the world stage. Scared of confronting Left-wing teachers
[white-hating racists] and sexual revolutionaries at home, they could order soldiers to be brave on their behalf in far-off deserts. And now the US, like Britain before it, has begun the long slow descent into the Third World. How sad.

Tax breaks and military campaigns are (somewhat) racially neutral.

@Whiskey-the-troll - Obama got only 46% of the white female vote in 2008.

Dutch Boy said...

Romney is a corporation man and corporations love cheap labor (hence, immigration). No hope there.

Jack said...

Immigration restriction is favored by a great majority of white Americans, men and women. It's one of my most important issues and I supported Romney in primaries because of it, to a large extent. Since then, he won't say where he stands on the Arizona law he once supported, and he won't overturn obama's mini-amnesty. Unfortunately, the media is so, so biased toward illegal immigration that any national cadidate who runs on it will be viciously attacked. So if Romney is elected, the Congress and we the people will have to hold his feet to the fire.

At some point, the Republicans will stop pandering to "latinos" ad wil start realizing that they need to get higher white percentages. Then, they will run openly on restricting immigration, ending affirmative action, etc. But for now, all we can hope for is the lesser of two evils. At least Romney won't sue anymore states who are just trying to protect themselves.

Anonymous said...

"He doesn't oppose it either. So, its a distinction without a difference."

He was asked about this during the primary season: he's on record as believing that "marriage is between one woman, one man."

Lord Dark Helmet said...

Re Whiskey's point on 'the marginal vote gained by emphasizing immigration loses two (female) votes':

I suspect another aspect to single-women being anti-anti-immigration is that it means a limit to their pool of potential mates. There might be some cool, alpha, hard-working, exotic beastly multi-lingual hustler whatever guy out there who could come in and make all her dreams come true, but father-state wants to keep him out so she's only left with Prince Valium. What a downer.

beowulf said...

Eliminate the trade deficit with tariffs, use that revenue to cut taxes (cutting the regressive payroll tax would do the most good in boosting aggregate demand).

There, you're reviving the manufacturing sector, putting Americans to work and cutting taxes without increasing the budget deficit by a dollar (the additional employment will actually reduce it). How hard was that?

ATBOTL said...

"Anyone who tells the truth like you, or Tancredo, or Brimelow, gets marginalized."

Yes, and your neocon heroes are the ones who marginalized immigration restrictionists out of the Republican party and mainstream conservative movement. Neocons lead the charge against those who opposed open borders.

Anonymous said...

You cannot marginalize a genuinely popular idea. Americans don't like to think about immigration. They may not like it much but they don't like any real efforts to restrict it, either.

NOTA said...

Anon 3:14:

This survey says that 41% of voters and 39% of swing voters consider immigration very important. So at least 40% of voters *do* like to think about it.

Severn said...

Romney DOES support "free trade" with China.


I guess you can believe that, if you believe that he's lying when he says that he opposes China's unfair trading practices.

And of course you DO believe that, so it's hard to have any sort of intelligent discussion with you.

Severn said...

Steve gay for Romney?


Can we bring back Komment Kontrol? Please?

MarkII said...

It appears Whiskey had a point on undecided voters:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/04/us-usa-campaign-undecided-poll-idUSBRE8930ND20121004

Anonymous said...

"Can we bring back Komment Kontrol? Please?"

That be whim.

Anonymous said...

"Indeed. I'm complete baffled that, in a time when tens of millions of middle, lower-middle, and working class people are feeling poorer and poorer, the GOP has had absolutely nothing to offer them. They really are the party of corporate profits and nothing else."

Money talks, bullshit walks.

Rich guys give more to GOP than 'white trashers'. Politicians go with the money.

Same with Dems. It's essentially a Jewish and gay party. Sure, blacks and Hispans get some stuff, but the main thrust of Democratic Party is 'what is good for urban Jews and gays'.

Anonymous said...

I'm guessing around 80 to 85% of Democratic party funds come from Jews and gays. I think Jews provide like 65%. And maybe gays like 15%. So, 4% of the US population provides 80% of the Democratic party funds.

Maya said...

DirtyTricks said...
"Whiskey
When someone explains the issue to them, white women hate hate HATE third world immigration just as they hate H1B if that program has affected them or their husbands, brothers, etc who work in STEM.
Blue collar women (white and black) hate hate HATE Mexicans who have taken their and their husbands' jobs."

Right. Not to mention that a lot of young, single, college-educated women are unemployed and are supported by their fathers. Anything that works against their prospects of employment prolonges their humiliation of living like children. Anything that threatens their fathers' jobs is an attack on their very livelihood.

Oh, and contrary to what Whiskey seems to believe, working for the benefit of the poor and culturally crude isn't all that easy, clean, safe, fulfilling or profitable. Actually, it's rather dangerous, thankless and draining. All the young "nice white lady" teachers, nurses and social workers that I know who serve the "at risk" populations would ideally prefer to do their jobs in, er, better conditions, and the vast majority would leave tomorrow if they could get any other job, in any field.

This whole idea of unrestricted immigration and/or education reform being a jobs program for young college educated girls is ludacris. If the young women or the elite white parents wanted to create clean, safe, "fulfilling and important" jobs for the "nice white ladies", they'd open more publishing houses, community theaters, art therapy centers and charity organizations that would focus on themed fund-raisers for tackling issues far, FAR away.

You think the liberal-minded vegitarian with a BA in English who ended up in social work due to misinformation and lack of other prospects LIKES going on home visits in the drugs and murder part of town? You think her parents aren't worried sick over her situation?

Maya said...

DirtyTricks said...
"Whiskey
When someone explains the issue to them, white women hate hate HATE third world immigration just as they hate H1B if that program has affected them or their husbands, brothers, etc who work in STEM.
Blue collar women (white and black) hate hate HATE Mexicans who have taken their and their husbands' jobs."

Right. Not to mention that a lot of young, single, college-educated women are unemployed and are supported by their fathers. Anything that works against their prospects of employment prolonges their humiliation of living like children. Anything that threatens their fathers' jobs is an attack on their very livelihood.

Oh, and contrary to what Whiskey seems to believe, working for the benefit of the poor and culturally crude isn't all that easy, clean, safe, fulfilling or profitable. Actually, it's rather dangerous, thankless and draining. All the young "nice white lady" teachers, nurses and social workers that I know who serve the "at risk" populations would ideally prefer to do their jobs in, er, better conditions, and the vast majority would leave tomorrow if they could get any other job, in any field.

This whole idea of unrestricted immigration and/or education reform being a jobs program for young college educated girls is ludacris. If the young women or the elite white parents wanted to create clean, safe, "fulfilling and important" jobs for the "nice white ladies", they'd open more publishing houses, community theaters, art therapy centers and charity organizations that would focus on themed fund-raisers for tackling issues far, FAR away.

You think the liberal-minded vegitarian with a BA in English who ended up in social work due to misinformation and lack of other prospects LIKES going on home visits in the drugs and murder part of town? You think her parents aren't worried sick over her situation?

Manx Hans said...

"

"Social security is bullshit and needs to go. People my age are never going to get any meaningful income from social security, so we shouldn't have to pay into it just to "keep a promise" to the same old fucks who are telling us with graduate degrees that we aren't qualified or skilled enough to do the jobs they got with their HS diplomas."

Exactly. The young, poorer, indebted are paying for the income and medical care of the old and rich.

That's the real wealth redistribution in America."


- Except those same old people who you view as parasites paid into the system, working for 47 years themselves. They're also the group that took down Hitler, took down Communism, kept America safe and pushing upwards over the 20th century. Granted they fell asleep at the wheel when it came to liberals in sheep clothing in the 60's, but on the whole, they didn't do so bad....

Anonymous said...

That immigration is a taboo subjetc for the GOP just shows how Gramsciism is everything in modern politics.

David Davenport said...

The problem is that the GOP ideology of tax cuts and stronger military and not much else is well-suited to solving the problems of 1980....


I have long suspected that our host, Mr. Steve, voted for the O. in 2008 because Mr. S. thought the Muslim Manchurian Candidate would bring the troops home sooner than J. Elmer Fudd McCain would.

Funcrusher said...

A major theme of Steve Sailer over the past five years: No one has much spoken "like that" to Obama his entire life. He has just coasted through life with people patting him on the back the whole time.

-

The Sailer theme isn't that Obama has never been criticized. Its that he doesn't have the temperament or experience to be President. You make it seem like this debate is first time Obama has been exposed to Republican ideas or something.

Anonymous said...

Austerity is never popular, and that's basically what you're arguing what the GOP should be. Cut military spending? Good luck winning Virginia, or possibly even Colorado. And on social issues, no one trusts the GOP anyway, thanks to years of betrayal on immigration, AA, etc.

Romney is limited in what he can do to win, but if he wins he needs to walk softly and carry a big stack of executive orders. He needs to act on the social issues. The only way to get unemployment and welfare spending down is to get the illegals out of here and to slow unskilled immigration to a trickle.

On immigration a strong, silent approach is best.

Mr. Anon said...

"Severn said...

""Romney DOES support "free trade" with China.""

I guess you can believe that, if you believe that he's lying when he says that he opposes China's unfair trading practices."

What does that mean? Will he impose tarriffs? Unlikely. File a complaint with the WTO? Whole industries can die in the time it takes them to ajudicate anything. What concrete actions would he take? Has he said? Do you know?

And of course you DO believe that,......"

No, I don't believe he's lying. I just think he's making an empty promise.

".....so it's hard to have any sort of intelligent discussion with you."

Perhaps the problem is that it's difficult for you to have an intelligent conversation with anyone.

Severn said...

What does that mean? Will he impose tarriffs? Unlikely. File a complaint with the WTO? Whole industries can die in the time it takes them to ajudicate anything. What concrete actions would he take? Has he said? Do you know?


Why don't you stop flapping your gums and read a little?

http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Romney/China.php


No, I don't believe he's lying. I just think he's making an empty promise

Ah, thanks for clearing THAT up, Mr Incoherent.


Perhaps the problem is that it's difficult for you to have an intelligent conversation with anyone

No, the problem is that you posses the intellect of a head of cabbage.

JSM said...


"I suspect another aspect to single-women being anti-anti-immigration is that it means a limit to their pool of potential mates. There might be some cool, alpha, hard-working, exotic beastly multi-lingual hustler whatever guy out there who could come in and make all her dreams come true"

Ah geez not this shit again.
I've explained it to Whiskey too many times to count, already, so pay attention, dude.

Women like Tall, Dark and Handsome.

Note the order: Tall. Then Dark. Then Handsome. Now, if the wallet's fat, then the dark, and even handsome, are somewhat negotiable. But NOT tall. Tall is nonnegotiable. Tall is What Matters.

The short, dumb, poor, short, ugly, submissive, (did I mention short?) gardeners sneaking across the border may be dark, but they are NOT TALL.
White women 10s are NOT interested in them as mates. As gardeners to keep the grounds lovely so she can entertain the friends of her Tall, Executive, Alpha husband, sure. But NOT as a mate for herself.
The very idea is just guffaw-inducing.

Severn said...

"Mr Anon" writes that the fact that Romney is not losing by 20 points shows "how lame and gullible the Republican electorate is" ..... and he then has the gall to squeal like a stuck pig when he is is described as shilling for Obama.

ATBOTL said...

"I guess you can believe that, if you believe that he's lying when he says that he opposes China's unfair trading practices.

And of course you DO believe that, so it's hard to have any sort of intelligent discussion with you."

Of course we believe he's lying. Politicians lie every time they open their mouths. They especially lie about advocating populist measure that play well with voters right before election. Obama gave the same line of BS about getting tough with China in 2008 and did nothing. Now their both saying it. We know all the big donors who finance their campaigns are opposed to "protectionism." What do you think is most likely to happen? How naive are you?

Truth said...

"But NOT tall. Tall is nonnegotiable. Tall is What Matters...."

Bravo, Sheila!

We're with you. These tall guys just don't know how tough it is for a little guy, even if he has a few duckets in his pocket, to get a chick! Sadly, it is what it is.

Sincerely:

Tom Cruise, Aristotle Onassis, Silvo Berlusconi, and Joe Pesci

Anonymous said...

President Obama has years of experience writing his memoirs.

yeah. a book he didn't write about a life he didn't live.

Difference Maker said...


Note the order: Tall. Then Dark. Then Handsome. Now, if the wallet's fat, then the dark, and even handsome, are somewhat negotiable. But NOT tall. Tall is nonnegotiable. Tall is What Matters.


Think it was racehist.blogspot.com that suggested that tall dark and handsome coincided with the rise of the jews in media, where tall, fair and handsome was the old usage

Difference Maker said...

Austerity is never popular, and that's basically what you're arguing what the GOP should be. Cut military spending? Good luck winning Virginia, or possibly even Colorado. And on social issues, no one trusts the GOP anyway, thanks to years of betrayal on immigration, AA, etc.


If a candidate in office means I won't pay for other people's worthless kids, I will be wildly enthusiastic for them

Associated policies will be a boon for the economy and military personnel will have better opportunity to integrate into civilian life

On social issues, the Democrats are determined to destroy America, whereas the Republicans are merely subverted and befuddled

Anonymous said...

In terms of physique most women want a man who is about 120% of their size, would be considered handsome by their female friends, and has genitalia that fit them just right for good sex. Too big is as bad as too small, but too big is pretty rare.

If they are planning a family, temperament and intelligence is more important than physique, provided he doesn't embarrass them in the perceived estimation of their friends.

Now that most successful women have gay male friends, or think they do, has anyone thought of how that affects their perceptions? Women basically think of gay men as women in men's bodies and their estimations are regarded as such. Women weren't all that concerned with penis size until the opinions of gays were on their radar, and gays think about penis constantly. In any city one of the primary gay hangouts and meeting places is a building, like the Washington Monument or the Liberty Memorial in Kansas City, that is most phallic.

beowulf said...

"In any city one of the primary gay hangouts and meeting places is a building, like the Washington Monument or the Liberty Memorial in Kansas City, that is most phallic."

And, to follow your logic, the base station of radio and TV towers all over the country.

Jonathan Silber said...

To do without a teleprompter, and think on one's feet in debate, one has to have previously acquainted oneself with the facts of the subjects under discussion, and devoted some time thinking about them, and reflecting on them.

It will not do, in debate, to merely saunter in on one's high horse of self-regard and wing it,
when the opponent has facts and arguments, at his fingertips, to refute whatever stale talking points and tired cliches one might succeed in cobbling together.


While Obama is said to think himself the smartest fellow in any room he finds himself; and while his supporters see him as the Second Coming, in exactly which fields of knowledge has Obama demonstrated, in either his writing or his speaking, even the basics of a solid understanding?

Anonymous said...

they are stuck on these "number issues" which no one really cares about (the debt, taxes). I have a challendge find a republican who has mentioned affirmative action since 9/11. also are there any republicans who advoacate reduced legal immigration (or anything we'd like)? Sailer is right to point out how out of step Romney is with his grow the military stance. Young people like myself think our military is more than large enough. Though if you read Frum this may be a back door way for Romney (who I think reads Frum) to do kenyasian spending that NRO hacks will approve of.

Anonymous said...

I AM SERIOUS: WHY SHOULDN'T STEVE SAILER TRY TO ENTER A GOP PRIMARY IN CALIFORNIA FOR A CONGRESS SEAT? Kaus' run got him in the NYT mag even though he lost. He'll destroy all comers in debates. It could be a great turning point in the GOP as the PC hacks reveal themselves and get blowbacks if and when they denounce Sailer for not being PC (but the base is so ready for Sailer-esque messages compared to the tax cut cult dribble his likely opponent will offer). Better yet a smart wealthy Isteve reader should do the same but with the advantage of having no past statements on which opponents can blast you. Get the isteve ideas out there without opponents being able to say "look what he wrote about blacks in 2002!"

Anonymous said...

I sense a Frum-Sailer alliance. Ofcourse Frum is too much of a MSM pussy to praise Steve openly at his new digs over at Newsweek. But it seems though Sailer is ofcourse much better and less PC they are saying much of the same thing about the GOP and how it is stuck in the past. p.s.:Rick Santorium is an ass.

Anonymous said...

I've come to the conclusion that THE SOLUTION IS BREAKING THE 2 PARTY MONOPOLY AND HAVING A EUROPEAN STYLE ARRAY OF POLITICAL PARTIES. The Chamber of Commerce types fear the end of the 2 party monopoly cause if we got it Buchanan/Sailer would start a US version of something like The Front National (i think) and the GOP base would finally be free of their globalist masters (Gingrich, Paul Ryan, the tax obbessed boys). Henrik Hertzberg is pushing this movement to end the eleoctoral college as a means of getting towards this european type (more parlimentary system). If I'm not mistaken ending the electoral college would be a step in breaking the 2 party monopoly. I don't like either party (the Dems are PC and bring in third worlders for votes, the Republicans are owned by tax obbessed globalists).

Anonymous said...

@10/4/12 5:31am - Ha ha! I agree, but Steve can't turn it, off, man. HE CAN'T TURN IT OFF. That brain is locked in overdrive.

David said...

>Women weren't all that concerned with penis size until the opinions of gays were on their radar<

The circle of whores around William Hazlitt was concerned (see Paul Johnson's The Birth of the Modern), and examples of women's concern over penis size can be produced from as far back as ancient Greece (e.g. "Lysistrata"). You are right that this concern is more visible or open in a degenerate society, but that is different from asserting that women were not so concerned about it in the past.

Most demoralizing does not take the form of introducing demoralizing memes that are entirely novel, but instead of exploiting some pre-existing weakness or touchiness to the fullest.

JDP said...

Obama sucks! Romney sucks too! everyone's stupid!

can't any of y'all find anything to like about anything

also lol@the guy who said Romney referring to his boys in one response to Obama was a dog whistle

Svigor said...

The military doesn't really work as a jobs program. We could pay 500k Americans 50k a year and it would only add up to 25 billion. Or we could take that 1.4T annually and divvy it up and give 50k annually to 28m Americans.

It works as economic protectionism, though.

Svigor said...

I did hear a billionaire business exec (might have been Zuckerman) mention on Bloomberg TV that uncertainty about taxes was holding back hiring. The anchor asked him, "Have you stopped hiring because of this uncertainty?". And his response was basically, "No, we haven't, but other companies say...".

You don't have to be a GOP pol to know that uncertainty has a chilling effect on hiring and other expenditures; if you can't be reasonably certain what the mandarins are going to do next, you pull back into your shell and wait.

Since Obama took White single women by over 70%

What's the source for that, in your alt-U?

It occurs that Whiskey's fantasy life is a lot like Lloyd Christmas'; all he has to do is lean over and light his political farts to achieve fame and fortune.

Nowadays it's to 99% a racial issue. I haven't heard a Population Bomb-type of view on it for a long time. Even severe economic problems with persistently high unemployment has not been enough to counter the increasingly third rail-ish racial aspect.

And it's the First Estate (the press) that enforces this rule.

As for Romney, you're right. He is a very competent adult. But, I'm sure he'd use his competency to lower the taxes on his wealthy peers even further.

If he had something to offer us Joe Six-packs, some way to fix the economy such that we feel more secure and our kids can actualy get jobs and leave the house, I might vote for him.


Romney can make people like you cry for 4 years just by winning the presidency. That's enough reason for me.

He was asked about this during the primary season: he's on record as believing that "marriage is between one woman, one man."

The funny thing is, polygamy is still logically viable under this construction; Bob marries Jane - a marriage between one woman and one man; then Bob marries Sue - another marriage between one woman and one man.

I suspect another aspect to single-women being anti-anti-immigration is that it means a limit to their pool of potential mates. There might be some cool, alpha, hard-working, exotic beastly multi-lingual hustler whatever guy out there who could come in and make all her dreams come true, but father-state wants to keep him out so she's only left with Prince Valium. What a downer.

Why is this nowhere near a factor in Japan? If there was ever a population hungry for some beastly alpha foreign men, it's Japanese women. They're far more testosterone-deprived than American white women, yet Japan has zero immigration.

Incidentally, Japan's media is run by Japanese, and America's media is run by a hostile, alien elite. Hmmm, how to explain the difference? It's a riddle wrapped in an enigma!

Svigor said...

You cannot marginalize a genuinely popular idea. Americans don't like to think about immigration. They may not like it much but they don't like any real efforts to restrict it, either.

You don't have to suppress a genuinely unpopular idea. Americans don't insist on violating their masters' taboo on the subject, yet, but that doesn't change the fact that the media moves Heaven and Earth to suppress native instincts on the issue.

I'm guessing around 80 to 85% of Democratic party funds come from Jews and gays. I think Jews provide like 65%. And maybe gays like 15%. So, 4% of the US population provides 80% of the Democratic party funds.

Elementary math say, x and y not mutually exclusive, so no add up to 80%.

You think the liberal-minded vegitarian with a BA in English who ended up in social work due to misinformation and lack of other prospects LIKES going on home visits in the drugs and murder part of town? You think her parents aren't worried sick over her situation?

No. He thinks he'd throw her and all the other millions like her under the bus in a heartbeat if it meant saving one Jewish fingernail - even a .001 percenter's.

- Except those same old people who you view as parasites paid into the system, working for 47 years themselves. They're also the group that took down Hitler, took down Communism, kept America safe and pushing upwards over the 20th century. Granted they fell asleep at the wheel when it came to liberals in sheep clothing in the 60's, but on the whole, they didn't do so bad....

It's not the current generation's fault that somebody stole the oldsters' money - they should've seen that one coming. Not like they had no warning. I don't care that they took down Hitler, in fact I think they should have let Hitler and Stalin fight it out. Communism failed as a system, it didn't need any outside help to fail. America didn't need to be kept safe, she can take care of herself just fine, thanks, that's what the right to bear arms is for.

And they midwifed the current mess, so they didn't do too well, either. They can keep all their accomplishments, they all pale next to their failures and I'd swap the two out in a heartbeat.

Anonymous said...

In any city with a particularly phallic building that rises from the skyline relatively unencumbered, that is likely to be the gay place. It's true of DC, KC and Seattle. I'm sure many others.

By contrast, gays didn't particularly concentrate at the John Hancock or Sears Tower in Chicago, the Empire State or WTC in NYC, or in other places where it looked like many such objects amongst others. The don't cluster ta the Gateway Arch in STL for perhaps obvious reasons, nor at the tower at ORU in Oklahoma.

Towers, bridge members, and other such things do not seem to be perceived that way either. I have not made a scientific study, I've just lived in 15 cities in 30 years.

In each case where this is the case the gays themselves readily admit this is why.

Women have always, I suspect, had some interest in penis size for the same reasons men are interested in female breasts, but with some greater concern, because a woman unwittingly marrying a really bejingled man (think Sonny Corleone, in the book) could be in for an unpleasant time. Most young girls do not want their first experience to be with a particularly big man. But open obsession with it, as I have heard many females discuss when thinking they were out of male earshot, seems to be much newer. Ava Gardner discussed Sinatra's endowment off-the-record with reporters, but now it seems like large numbers of celebrity women are open size queens.