Joe Miller supporters are clueless !

[vulcanman]

The clueless citizenry ... or is this the proverbial Kool-aid drinker ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xg2bCSX5XNs

 

[ProfJohn]

Any worse than the Obama supporter declaring that Obama was going to take care of her and how she would never worry about paying the bills again??

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI

 

[Craig234]

Any worse than the Obama supporter declaring that Obama was going to take care of her and how she would never worry about paying the bills again??

B B B Bama!

 

[Craig234]

The clueless citizenry ... or is this the proverbial Kool-aid drinker ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xg2bCSX5XNs

It's the power of propaganda and ideology. People who have terrible ignoranrce are out protesting in public, while the real issues, like corporate campaign corruption are ignored.

 

[her209]

How do we know these two Joe Miller "supporters" weren't paid by Rachel Maddow to act clueless?

 

[Moonbeam]

Trained monkeys. They know the truth but they don't exactly know all the details. Buk Buk BuuuUk, He's anti gun. He's anti gun, just look, it's obvious, I can't be an idiot, he's anti gun. I can't be a brain dead moron, he has to be anti-gun.

The brain dead marching zombies have no shame.

 

[HomerJS]

How do we know these two Joe Miller "supporters" weren't paid by Rachel Maddow to act clueless?

It's MSNBC. They don't have the kind of budgets where the President of the company can donate 1 million dollars to the Republican Party

 

[Craig234]

It's MSNBC. They don't have the kind of budgets where the President of the company can donate 1 million dollars to the Republican Party

$1.25 million, it was later revealed.

Remember: Murdoch gave small donations (tens of thousands total to each) to each party publically - and even more to the Democrats, apparently on the basis they have more seats, where he could say 'see, he gave more to Democrats, and you call him right-wing biased!' But his $1.25 million to Republicans only was given anonymously expecting no one would know, but it was leaked.

 

[shortylickens]

Any worse than the Obama supporter declaring that Obama was going to take care of her and how she would never worry about paying the bills again??

Kinda off topic. I believe that was some sort of logic fallacy you just used.

 

[Craig234]

Kinda off topic. I believe that was some sort of logic fallacy you just used.

Actually, it didn't rise to the level of logical fallacy, it was just 'ignore and attack'.

 

[jonks]

Here's my question, and it'd be nice if someone can parse out this logic.

Joe Miller said he thinks gay marriage should be decided at the state level. He said in Alaska they defined marriage as one man, one woman and other states were and should be free to decide different definitions.

He then said that he would also support and vote for a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in those other states that defined marriage differently.

So he's for states' rights and against federal interference except when the federal interference is on matters with which he disagrees. ??

iow, I'm assuming he'd be against a federal constitutional amendment or statute requiring all the states to recognize same sex marriage because he feels it would be an imposition of federal power on a matter best left to the states. How can he feel that but also be ok if the fed wanted go the other way?

Maybe because like most people who hind behind the states' rights arguments, he's full of shit. But that's just a maybe.

 

[LTC8K6]

Well, if there isn't going to be an amendment, then he thinks it's a state issue, and in his state, he supports banning.

If there is going to be an amendment, which would over ride the state law, he's for banning.

Not so difficult to parse, really.

 

[techs]

You have to give credit to the Right Wing propaganda machine. They have done a great job convincing so many ignorant Americans to support their agenda.

 

[Craig234]

Well, if there isn't going to be an amendment, then he thinks it's a state issue, and in his state, he supports banning.

If there is going to be an amendment, which would over ride the state law, he's for banning.

Not so difficult to parse, really.

Translation: he has no principles about 'states' rights'. He's for bigoted discrimination, and will take it as state or federal, whichever he can get.

To be fair, there's a chance he's not motivated by bigotry, but just by power and willing to use discrimination to take advantage of others' bigotry to get their votes.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

The clueless citizenry ... or is this the proverbial Kool-aid drinker ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xg2bCSX5XNs

Hmm... So if you do what the 'man on the street' said to do and google "Eric Holder 2nd Ammendment" you'll see that he is actually correct. Holder does not believe that the 2nd guarantees an individual's right to keep and bear arms, that it only reserves the right of organized militias to arm themselves. He is a potential danger to the 2nd.

That means 'random dude's' reasoning behind suporting Miller over Murkowski because of her confirmaiton vote for Holder is quite valid.

What you really have is a prepared and professional (lefty) TV personality asking for specifics from someone who was obviouly not prepared to debate specifics at that time. But he does in fact have an apparent well thought out rationale for supporting his candidate.

 

[sportage]

Rachel Maddow had a kinda sorta interview yesterday on her show with him. You can still podcast it. I never knew anything on this guy before, except that he needs a shave, but after the interview he made Nixon look like Shirley Temple. If he wins, then Im convinved somethings in the water up there making people insane... He is one sick puppy.