← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · SoCal Jeffersonian
Thread ID: 15552 | Posts: 17 | Started: 2004-11-05
2004-11-05 07:29 | User Profile
Anyone else surprised that Giles was able to muster 13%? I didnt think he would get that high.
2004-11-05 08:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=SoCal Jeffersonian]Anyone else surprised that Giles was able to muster 13%? I didnt think he would get that high.[/QUOTE]Did he really get 13%? I'd like a link on that.
If he did, he definitely must have something in person or on TV that he lacks on internet forums. But bully for you Jim if you really did. Sometimes it takes people with a few rough edges to pave the way.
2004-11-05 12:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=SoCal Jeffersonian]Anyone else surprised that Giles was able to muster 13%? I didnt think he would get that high.[/QUOTE]
I am! Giles is nothing but a con man!
2004-11-05 14:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Did he really get 13%? I'd like a link on that.
If he did, he definitely must have something in person or on TV that he lacks on internet forums. But bully for you Jim if you really did. Sometimes it takes people with a few rough edges to pave the way.[/QUOTE] He has it on the front page of his website and I also saw it before on foxnews.com when they had their link to each state on their frontpage. He actually came in at 13.48%.
2004-11-05 17:20 | User Profile
Giles' opponent, Chip Pickering, was running unopposed (by a Democrat anyway) so some may have simply voted for the other guy on the ballot, not knowing much about him. That's not to take anything away from Mr. Giles' accomplishment; he did an excellent job on a shoestring budget. The total # of votes he garnered was in the 37,000 range and was far in excess of the "acceptable" opposition of the Reform Party candidate's total in the low four-digits. Way to go Mr. Giles!
2004-11-05 18:29 | User Profile
I suppose Mississippi's 3rd District is now on the ADL/SPLC radar for "re-education"
[url]http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=13285134&BRD=1838&PAG=461&dept_id=104621&rfi=6[/url]
In the 3rd District, which stretches from southwest Mississippi through the Jackson suburbs and into the east-central part of the state, incomplete returns showed Pickering received 80 percent, independent Jim Giles received 14 percent and the Reform Party's Lamonica L. Magee received 6 percent.
2004-11-05 20:01 | User Profile
[QUOTE=SoCal Jeffersonian]Anyone else surprised that Giles was able to muster 13%? I didnt think he would get that high.[/QUOTE]
I would have expected about that much, considering there was no Republican to vote for. I'm sure many whites in Mississippi are tired of being demonized for being white and voting for Giles allows them to protest without someone calling them racist to their faces.
2004-11-05 20:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]I would have expected about that much, considering there was no Republican to vote for. I'm sure many whites in Mississippi are tired of being demonized for being white and voting for Giles allows them to protest without someone calling them racist to their faces.[/QUOTE]I think you meant Democrat to vote for.
I don't doubt there is a lot of sentiment in rural Southern Mississippi along those lines. You aren't that far from David Duke's home base. Indeed I'm not sure what kind of campaign Jim Giles actually ran, but if he's anywhere remotely serious about what he's doing I'd think he's already broken down the vote by legislative district if not by precinct. With those totals there ought to be a couple of districts where he could be a serious contender in a couple of years, if he wants to be, whether as a Democrat or Republican. (which I think is part and parcel of being a serious contender in America, accepting those labels, although local circumstances may vary).
And a success would arouse serious notice. That's all it took for David Duke to get national attention - winning a seat in the Louisiana legislature in 1988.
The key is 1. Does he want to be and 2. what kind of a person is he really and what's his political vision. Even Duke IMO turned out to have certain flaws as a leader, (to me he still seems like a little bit of a flake) party accounting for his quick disappearance from the national scene. But what I've seen of Gles so far makes Duke look like the epitomy in [I]gravitus[/I] by comparison.
So we'll see. Odds are he'll disappear without a trace frankly. That's the odds on favorite for any political endeavor, let alone candidates with views are far outside of the mainstream. But Jim Giles has made accomplishments which, flankly, are not to be sneezed at, especially considering his circumstances.
I suspect the only person who knows what Jim Giles accomplish is Jim Giles. He certainly shows he has the ability to surprise us, and everybody else.
2004-11-06 08:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=SoCal Jeffersonian]Anyone else surprised that Giles was able to muster 13%? I didnt think he would get that high.[/QUOTE]
I had a pretty low opinion of Mr. Giles (and I don't think I was the only one around here that did), despite his obviously good intentions, but if he can score 13% of the vote running on a pro-White platform, he's A-OKay with me! Of course, he's going to need to triple that score in order to actually win....but its an excellent start. If he runs again, I will at least kick in a few bucks to help him out. Did anyone hear how that pro-White eugenicist in Tennessee did as the Republican congressional nominee (albeit in a safe Democratic district)?
2004-11-06 08:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Gabrielle]I am! Giles is nothing but a con man![/QUOTE]
Put a cork in it, you ignorant strumpet!
2004-11-07 03:35 | User Profile
^I agree with Kevin. From what I read of his posts here and his own site, he seems like a decent man, if not more. If we had more of his kind, the country would be alot better off.
2004-11-07 04:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]Put a cork in it, you ignorant strumpet![/QUOTE]
I have seen a few of you calling Gabrielle some very nasty names, I don't know where you kids come from but a gentleman always acts as a gentleman with a woman no matter what so KNOCK IT OFF.
2004-11-07 15:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Solid]^I agree with Kevin. From what I read of his posts here and his own site, he seems like a decent man, if not more. If we had more of his kind, the country would be alot better off.[/QUOTE]
I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but Jim Giles is a wacky, crude, obnoxious man. The evidence for my opinion of him can be found in this Stormfront thread:
[url]http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=146279[/url]
Anyone who witnesses Giles' behavior in this thread and still finds him to be a swell fellow is just fooling himself. Are white nationalists so desperate for leaders that we are willing to excuse and follow even degenerates like Giles?
2004-11-07 17:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Braveheart]I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but Jim Giles is a wacky, crude, obnoxious man. The evidence for my opinion of him can be found in this Stormfront thread:
There's a lot of other evidence Braveheart as I understand it. In fact every time Jim opens his mouth or types a word.> Anyone who witnesses Giles' behavior in this thread and still finds him to be a swell fellow is just fooling himself. Are white nationalists so desperate for leaders that we are willing to excuse and follow even degenerates like Giles?[/QUOTE]Maybe :rolleyes: Apparently the voters in Mississippi were. I wonder if they experienced the same inimitible Jim Giles 'how to win friends and influence people' style we did.
2004-11-07 19:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Braveheart]I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but Jim Giles is a wacky, crude, obnoxious man. The evidence for my opinion of him can be found in this Stormfront thread:
[url]http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=146279[/url]
Anyone who witnesses Giles' behavior in this thread and still finds him to be a swell fellow is just fooling himself. [/QUOTE]Actually Braveheart, I scrolled through the first 20 pages of that interminable thread and found Jim to be fairly logical in his own way, reasonably well-behaved, and using some degree of thought in his dialectics. Not the "get off your butts and work assh**s method he sometimes employs. Maybe you could point a little more precisely to the sections where you found him most "interesting".
2004-11-07 21:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]I have seen a few of you calling Gabrielle some very nasty names, I don't know where you kids come from but a gentleman always acts as a gentleman with a woman no matter what so KNOCK IT OFF.[/QUOTE]
Assuming the poster in question really [B]IS[/B] a woman. Anyone could select a feminie name for their handle, after all (perhaps in order to garner the gentlemanly treatment you are advocating here), and since the poster in question is a pathological liar (or else borderline insane), I see no reason to assume the poster is a woman. If anything, the reverse of whatever it claims is perhaps a more reliable indicator of the truth, so maybe I should have referred to "her" in a derogatory manner that did not have female connotations ("strumpet"). In any event, I'm sorry if my being unpleasant to this "Gabrielle" person has offended you, but when dealing with an apparent traitor (or a complete imbecile, or lunatic), and with no particular reason to suppose the person isn't a hairy, smelly dude, I see no reason to treat the person as if it were a lady.
2004-11-07 21:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Braveheart]I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but Jim Giles is a wacky, crude, obnoxious man.[/QUOTE]
I don't need to read any Stormfront thread to know that about Giles; he demonstrated it here in just a few messages. That's what's so encouraging about his vote total; if a nutjob like Giles can score 13%, imagine what a competent candidate could have done....