Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Joe Miller: Obama moving America 'toward socialism'

By Matt DeLong

Traditionally, when a candidate wins a party primary by appealing to the base, he or she frequently "runs to the center" in the general election campaign in an attempt to draw support from moderates. Alaska GOP Senate candidate Joe Miller, fresh off a stunning upset of Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), is apparently not a traditional candidate.

In an interview Wednesday with CNN's John King, Miller didn't mince words when asked to describe President Obama in one sentence.

"Bad for America," Miller responded without missing a beat. He added that Obama is "one of the major forces moving this country toward socialism."

Watch:

By Matt DeLong  |  September 2, 2010; 6:38 AM ET
Categories:  44 The Obama Presidency  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Angle: Reid 'wants to call me an extremist?'
Next: Boxer-Fiorina debate: Boxer blasts Fiorina on HP (video)

Comments

The new saviours of our country. A half-illiterate quiter, a Morman alchoholic, an addicted radio demagogue.

Good work, Tea Party. Just wave the flag, utter a couple of religious non-sequitars, and carp about "Socialism."

Well, if you Jingos get your chance, we will see how long your psychotic ravings will play.

None too long, methinks.

Posted by: inplants | September 8, 2010 8:42 AM | Report abuse

This is a complaint coming from a guy who has grown up in a state that pays it's citizens thousands a year from state owned oil royalties and who's state has been one of the biggest recipients of federal dollars over the last 30 years, thanks for Senator Stevens, rest his soul,,, and things like the bridge to nowhere..

either he does not know anything about his state, is in a state of denial, or is nothing but a classic charlatan running a game led by deceit and hypocracy....

Take your pic!!!

Posted by: EastCoastnLA | September 5, 2010 1:02 PM | Report abuse

This is a complaint coming from a guy who has grown up in a state that pays it's citizens thousands a year from state owned oil royalties and who's state has been one of the biggest recipients of federal dollars over the last 30 years, thanks for Senator Stevens, rest his soul,,, and things like the bridge to nowhere..

either he does not know anything about his state, is in a state of denial, or is nothing but a classic charlatan running a game led by deceit and hypocracy....

Take your pic!!!

Posted by: EastCoastnLA | September 5, 2010 1:00 PM | Report abuse

If Miller is so opposed to socialism, does that mean that if he is elected governor, Alaskans will be required to forego their annual $3000 welfare checks that they recieve from all other U.S. taxpayers(Through the oil corps)?
Alaska..the one true socialist state.

Posted by: markappraiser1 | September 5, 2010 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Of course we are moving toward socialism.

Compare the public statements of Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Barney Frank, et al to both of the following websites:

Democratic Socialists of America
http://www.dsausa.org/about/where.html

Communist Party USA
http://www.cpusa.org/a-way-out-of-the-deepening-crisis/

If you don't believe me and don't bother to read the websites, isn't it just because you really don't WANT to know how extreme the Democratic party has gotten?

Posted by: tacheronb | September 3, 2010 5:15 PM | Report abuse

its funny watching these liberals after a fresh glass of koolaid...like banshees in attack mode while their imploding...its like watching Natural Selection Live...theres a big deep hole waiting for you liberal's in November..obama will carry the bag of lime before he jumps in...hahahahaha!

Posted by: JWx2 | September 3, 2010 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Has anyone else noticed that Joe Miller looks like the Iranian pres?

Posted by: jmfromdc | September 3, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

And for all the wingnuts who want to root out the state ownership of things, here's your top ten things that should be sold to private companies and run by them - and YOU should receive a bill each month to pay for them, cuz you wouldn't want to be tainted by nasty socialism.

10) Your school system, kindergarten through university. You'd only be billed while you're in school. Edison reports that a theoretical comprehensive private system would cost a 1st grader $4,000 a semester.
9) Water treatment. Right now you pay about 1/15th of the actual cost for your water. Get rid of that awful socialism so that YOU can pay your actual bill.
8) Public parks. Without tax funds Yosemite would cost a bout $85/day for entry, and $5-$100 for itemized services.
7) VA hospitals. Don't even go there on costs, but it's "socialism." Get the freeloaders to pay their own bills.
6) Medical research. Without tax funds, most research (like cancer) would not be profitable enough for the Genentech's of the world to take on. But that's so much better than to operate under stupid socialism.
5) Public roads. With RFID technology the company who owns the pavement or dirt road at the end of your driveway starts the billing meter every time you go somewhere and can track your every move - it's all business of course, because they own the road and can do whatever they want with it. If you don't like it, don't use it. And to think of the oppressive socialism the road used to operate under.
4) Radio frequencies. This regulation of the cell phone companies has got to stop. I want my $600 a month bill and so do YOU. If you can't afford it, use a pay phone.
3) Disease response. Aren't you tired of the government meddling in the affairs of drug companies? If there's an epidemic and a company can maximize profit by creating artificial scarcity (which companies do all the time in all sorts of other industries), then it's just plain oppressive for the government to go into business in competition with drug companies just to stamp out disease. If YOU can't afford the price of limited supplies of a vaccine, then die. That's so much better than living under a medical system tainted by socialism.
2) NASA. I don't care if NASA technology turns up in NASCAR. So what if the EU and China move ahead of the U.S. in space. If someone can make money going into space, more power to 'em.
1) Armed forces. Jeez. I don't a Washington bureaucrat running a hospital, er, I mean, military force. We should have multiple private armies that have to compete to win business, keep costs down and performance up. And the private army gets to keep the booty they acquire! Costs us nothing. And to think, we used to do this under that retarded socialism.

My sense is that the only people who would make it under such a system are the college educated liberal elites who'll be running all these companies and sticking it to the Tea Part demographic.

Posted by: 20000days | September 3, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

There are good people on both the left and right, who are closer to the center than away from it. There are conservatives who are pro-choice and there are liberals who believe that welfare doesn't work. Both understand the world is made up of millions of diverse people and that realistic measures must be taken to solve anything - and that there's no such thing as getting absolutely everything you want. They understand that living in the world requires compromise. Then there are the far left wing and right wing idiots. They whine and complain that the world isn't exactly as they are - left wingers who want to dismantle society and riot at World Bank events, right wingers who quote the Bible but don't even come close to acting Christ-like. They want EVERYTHING to be just the way they want it. And they benefit from the fact that we live in a society that allows their opinions, wants and desires to carry equal weight with those of the clear thinking. But here's the thing, anyone who equates Obama to Hitler is simply a retard. And it's obvious that calling Obama a Muslim is a nice safe replacement codeword for what ignorant white people really want to call him. But intelligent conservatives are hamstrung by this dynamic and can't afford to call these people out, lest they sink the whole Republican boat. I had been hoping that people in the center, smart conservatives and realistic liberals, would have jettisoned either side. Conservatives and liberals who want to have actual dialogue are far too tolerant of them. What good does it do to call Joe Miller a Fascist or make absurd comparisons of his ideas to Pol Pot's? That's ludicrous. But that's our public debate. Are clear thinking, ethically motivated people going to continue to let this happen and allow these losers to win?

Posted by: 20000days | September 3, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Finally, someone running for candidate who doesn't go around with a boring clean-shaven look.

He is quite a handsome man with his facial hair.

But however, his good looks can't hide the fact that he is too extreme for America. Wants to privatize social security, NO WAY! Hands off my Social Security, Mr. Miller!!!

Thinks Medicare is unconstitutional and thinks that even hate crimes laws are unconstitutional. Backed by far-right wing religious zealots like Mike Huckabee. By the Sarah Palin. Miller not sure if global warming and climate change are real or what can be done about it. Hello Mr. Miller! The ice is melting at both ends of the earth, polar bears are drowning, Greenland is melting, glaciers around the earth have been retreating for years with man's increasing output of air pollution, coastal waters are rising, winters are shorter and warmer, in many places, permafrost melting. Deep mountain snow needed for water and irrigation when it melts in the springtime becoming more uncertain around the globe.

And we let folk like Joe Miller into Congress who don't know enough and who would mess with the Social Security some have no choice but to rely upon in their old age. And his God remarks (even though I am Christian) make me fear that he won't abide by the separation of church and state that some of our forefathers found necessary and desirable. He is still hung up on Iraq, when we needed to leave there and go to where Bin Laden is more likely to be found. Obama recognized the sacrifices of our troops in Iraq, whether Miller wants to thinks so or not. Miller talks as if Obama doesn't recognize that.

Posted by: mmhoover1 | September 3, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Someone needs to steer Joe Miller toward a razor. He looks like he just climbed out of his basement after a week-long drunk.

Posted by: whatmeregister | September 3, 2010 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Can any of these tea partiers have an original thought.
1. Obama is a socialist
2. Obama is a muslim
The list goes on and on. And the tea party drones believe everything they hear. Miller is just reading the page given to him. This is exactly how every dictator in the world has come to power. A large group following everything blindly.

Posted by: formerwxman1 | September 3, 2010 6:39 AM | Report abuse

@Tina, absolutely you can save huge on your auto insurance by making these simple changes find how much you can save http://bit.ly/bUb5Ms

Posted by: aidenjose01 | September 3, 2010 2:49 AM | Report abuse

Miller just doesn’t get it. He and the Republican obstructionists want to tag Pres. Obama as a socialist. Pres Obama has been trying to help the middleclass regain their status after the Republicans, starting with the Reagan Administration and all Republican Administration thereafter worked to divided American into a country of rich and poor (no middle class). If anyone is bad for America it is him (Joe Miller) with his ultra conservative philosophy of more for the rich and to hell with everyone else. And then there are those who use the air ways and cable TV to promote hatred, bigotry and fear. These are the people that are BAD FOR AMERICA.

Posted by: normbrou | September 3, 2010 12:34 AM | Report abuse

Palin stepped up when she saw a travesty in her own position. She had just run for Lt. governor and all but beat out then governor Frank Murkowski's Lt. governor in the vote count.... got herself "appointed" to the "Gas and Oil Commission" where she shared offices with fellow Commissioner Randy Ruderick, the repuglican party chairman, who basically ran the repuglican party from Oil Gas Commission offices. When she announced she would be challenging Murkowski in the primary she pivoted on her appointment to a "do nothing" job where she was paid over $100k a year. She also mentioned she was ashamed the party was run out of the Commission offices. These two positions made headlines and that is how she knocked off Murkowski... no recount necessary. Her platform evolved into getting the Gas line built and also she did this strange thing where she pulled the lease on an oilfield that has sat capped (Pt. Thompson). She revealed that the oil companies have plenty of wells drilled and capped but keep oil off the market to keep prices high. Anyway, she stumbled like a neophyte into a world she barely understands and there is no other explanation other than it is a religious experience.

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld1 | September 3, 2010 12:27 AM | Report abuse

"You on the left control the government so bring on the charges and let's see what happens. Whether or not I agree with them is irrelavant as the law is the law. Contact your representatives and tell them to file the charges. I would if I believed they were valid.

"Posted by: AkCoyote | September 2, 2010 3:59 PM"

Typical blithering, hypocritical teabagger response, you claim to venerate our Constitution, then enthusiastically appease "freedom-hating terrorists" by attacking our Constitution.

Bin Laden is very pleased with this type of hypocrisy, makes the job of recruiting al-Qaeda members much easier.

"You ignorant leftist types will believe what you are told.

"Posted by: AkCoyote | September 2, 2010 6:15 PM"

Willfully ignorant, and easily-led by the nose teabaggers boastful of their stupidity are the last types who should ever, logically, use a phrase like "will believe what you are told".

Posted by: kingcranky | September 2, 2010 11:51 PM | Report abuse

The fact is that saying that Obama is a socialist a thousand times, won't make it true, but sadly enough of the ignorant fascist types will believe what they are told.


Posted by: francinelast | September 2, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse
===============================
And saying that he ISN'T a socialist a thousand times doesn't make it true either, does it? You ignorant leftist types will believe what you are told.

Posted by: AkCoyote | September 2, 2010 6:15 PM | Report abuse

===
If you want to use an overly broad definition, then sure: Obama's a socialist. But then you'd have to lump in nearly every other politician who's ever voted for a "socialist" program. "Medicare D" pretty much nails all the Republicans currently in office.

Then add to that, most Americans would be unwilling to give up many "socialist" programs - FDA and FAA for example. (I never fly, why the heck do I have to pay for air traffic control????)

So what are you left with? A belligerent few continuing to whine about having to pay somebody else's tab (until, of course, they actually need one of these programs)

Posted by: mikem1 | September 2, 2010 7:03 PM | Report abuse

Oh good, another kid coming to the playground that can't play well with others. And one who will never see fault in himself, only "the others". He has NO desire to find common ground. Wouldn't it be refreshing to hear a positive voice for a change instead of this continuous, negative ranting, screaming, crying and all the other crazy theatricks (misspelling intended) coming from these people that have hijacked the republican party?

Posted by: runbusterrun | September 2, 2010 6:55 PM | Report abuse

The fact is that saying that Obama is a socialist a thousand times, won't make it true, but sadly enough of the ignorant fascist types will believe what they are told.


Posted by: francinelast | September 2, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse
===============================
And saying that he ISN'T a socialist a thousand times doesn't make it true either, does it? You ignorant leftist types will believe what you are told.

Posted by: AkCoyote | September 2, 2010 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Only a radical liberal elite would think there is a center to socialism!
This is clearly a black and white issue, either you are a socialist or you are not.
Sorta like being a little bit pregnant.

Posted by: rteske | September 2, 2010 5:24 PM | Report abuse

==

Okay, then here you go:

Was FDR a socialist?

Was Nixon a socialist?

Was George Bush a socialist?

Is Canada socialist?

Is the UK socialist?

Is Germany socialist?

If you want to paint everyone as black or white, I think you'll find there's really not that many people on your team.

Good luck.

Posted by: mikem1 | September 2, 2010 6:04 PM | Report abuse

This guys comments really piss me off. He talks about internationalism as a bad thing and American exceptionalism as a good thing. Look where it got George Bush! America learnt fast that it shares this planet with other people, like it or not, it has to learn to tolerate others as much as others need to learn to tolerate America. America needs friends, it has learnt that much over the last 8 years.

Posted by: francinelast | September 2, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Only a radical liberal elite would think there is a center to socialism!
This is clearly a black and white issue, either you are a socialist or you are not.
Sorta like being a little bit pregnant.

Posted by: rteske | September 2, 2010 5:24 PM | Report abuse

If Joe Miller thinks government is bad, then why is he running for it. Why doesn't he practise what he preaches and STAY OUT OF GOVERNMENT!

Posted by: francinelast | September 2, 2010 5:20 PM | Report abuse

If Joe Miller thinks government is bad, then why is he running for it. Why doesn't he practise what he preaches and STAY OUT OF GOVERNMENT!

Posted by: francinelast | September 2, 2010 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Hey WildBill1! You see, that's the problem: viewing the world through an 18th century lens. Though the Constitution is a timeless document, it was written over two centuries ago. The world and our country have changed a great deal since then. Great care must be taken when attempting to elicit the founders true intentions as they would apply today. Thomas Jefferson once wrote: "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." We're supposed to have a government "of the people, by the people and for the people." We vote to elect people to represent us in our government. That's a fantastic thing! Socialism as Marx saw it is not going to happen here! Creating fear to the contrary is nothing more than a right-wing bogey-man. There are certain elements, such as Social Security and a national health care system which are just, good and right in terms of where we are today in the 21st century. They do indeed, as the preamble states,"promote the general welfare."

Posted by: JATECT2 | September 2, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

It's hilarious how Republicans go on about Obama being a socialist. If Obama was running for president in France, he would be considered an right-wing conservative! The funny thing is that in Europe being labelled a socialist is a compliment, being labelled conservative is like saying, you are tired, old, boring, unoriginal, unable to move with the times or adapt, lacking in social considerations and totally for elitism.

The fact is that saying that Obama is a socialist a thousand times, won't make it true, but sadly enough of the ignorant fascist types will believe what they are told.

Posted by: francinelast | September 2, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

If we are so socialistic, I'm surprised that you are not packing your car to move here. I have $100 that says you wouldn't last a year with 4 hours of sunlight a day and -30 temperatures. Come on up to utopia and get your free money!

Posted by: AkCoyote | September 2, 2010 4:04
==============================
Thanks, you have just cleared up my long-standing confusion why so many Alaskans are so whacked-out.....sunlight deprivation and frozen brain cells. If this is utopia, give me (God help me) Texas.

Posted by: mikem4 | September 2, 2010 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Isn't Alaska the #1 most socialist state in the sense that it ranks first in the ratio of tax money received from the federal government to taxes paid?

I look forward to those free-loading Alaskans giving up their socialist habit.

Posted by: scientist1 | September 2, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse
====================================
If we are so socialistic, I'm surprised that you are not packing your car to move here. I have $100 that says you wouldn't last a year with 4 hours of sunlight a day and -30 temperatures. Come on up to utopia and get your free money!

Posted by: AkCoyote | September 2, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

And you Mr Miller are moving America back to the dark ages. I'll take Obama's version of 'socialism' any day over a crackpot like you!

Posted by: mikem4 | September 2, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Well, if socialism is so bad, better start sending back that social security checks, oh, and we best get rid of public education, don't want to contaminate kids with socialism, and Medicare, better get those seniors into Euthanasia programs, huh. College, well, private ones are averaging around $40K a year, I'm sure the middle class can afford that. After all, I'm in that middle class and make about $37K, so I could probably, humm, do what to earn the other $3K, but of course I would be living under a freeway bridge then, wouldn't I. These are all Socialist, Social Security, Medicare, public education, just the tip of the "socialism" iceberg your new representative hates. But then, look at the perks he will get for the rest of his life since you all elected him. Joe, watch what you wish for and try using that thing between your ears for more then a hat rack.

Posted by: kity5 | September 2, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

There was a time when voting would change the course of our great Nation, but the level of degradation and corruption within the political world, at least on the Federal level, is becoming undeniable, and there are few politicians anymore who resolutely SERVE us, and still fewer who are incorruptible, or without agendas for the few instead of the many.
For decades, as we have gone from one Presidential administration to the next, there has been less and less concern for what WE want, to such a degree that things we want done by our government are ignored, or more often than not, the direct OPPOSITE of what we want is carried out with the "We know what is best for you" policy.
When a Federal government intends to sue ANY one of the States it is supposed to serve merely for trying to stem the tide of illegal immigration, this does seem to be a BOLD statement against State government and democracy itself. So to, when a Federal government passes legislation in which a majority of United States Citizens oppose, our lack of being the governing people we are supposed to be becomes blatantly apparent.
I see our great country going in a direction that is far and away from what our founding fathers ever wanted, and "doom saying" as it may be to say, it is probably inevitable.
Some are saying civil uprising is what is needed, and this too may be inevitable. Yet I think were we as the rightful governors of our United States to ACT upon what we want government to become, I think we would be shocked to learn just how in control of us "Our" Government really is. Civil "Disobedience", so far as reclaiming control of our government would be defined as Civil Unrest, and Martial Law would be put upon us. Civil war is not a road I would ever like to see happen, and yet something MUST be done to change this course of ever increasing Federal control OF the people. I don't know what the answer is, but I DO know we face perhaps the biggest challenge we as Americans have ever had to face.
As we draw closer to a NEW Presidential Administration, and a new Senate, we all share the same hope of ALL of them having OUR interests at heart. We all hope the next round of Federal government will be better than the last one. What are we to do if the next generation of Senators, and the next President are WORSE? I honestly do not see us allowing to much more of the same Federal policies to continue unchecked, but I also do not see "Our" Government at all willing to relinquish their Control to We the People either. In the end, it is my hope that We as a People do prove to be the Irresistible Force.
God Bless Governor Jan Brewer, and God Bless America...Again!

Posted by: Elasfar | September 2, 2010 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Isn't Alaska the #1 most socialist state in the sense that it ranks first in the ratio of tax money received from the federal government to taxes paid?

I look forward to those free-loading Alaskans giving up their socialist habit.

Posted by: scientist1 | September 2, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse
====================================
If we are so socialistic, I'm surprised that you are not packing your car to move here. I have $100 that says you wouldn't last a year with 4 hours of sunlight a day and -30 temperatures. Come on up to utopia and get your free money!

Posted by: AkCoyote | September 2, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Wow, from reading the comments, Joe has really shook your liberal tree. I haven't seen you folks, jump around and yell like this, since Sara came on the scene. Good on you Joe, give em hell.

Posted by: hooligan6a | September 2, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Wow, from reading the comments, Joe has really shook your liberal tree. I haven't seen you folks, jump around and yell like this, since Sara came on the scene. Good on you Joe, give em hell.

Posted by: hooligan6a | September 2, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Wow, from reading the comments, Joe has really shook your liberal tree. I haven't seen you folks, jump around and yell like this, since Sara came on the scene. Good on you Joe, give em hell.

Posted by: hooligan6a | September 2, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Wow, from reading the comments, Joe has really shook your liberal tree. I haven't seen you folks, jump around and yell like this, since Sara came on the scene. Good on you Joe, give em hell.

Posted by: hooligan6a | September 2, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Republicans and their media mouthpieces said the same thing when FDR was in office. Funny thing is that the Republcians always say that it is socialism to use the American taxpayer money to help out the American people. But they have no problem sending trillions in subsidies to the oil industry, or the ridiculous ethanol subsidy, or finding convenient war to garner profits for our defense contractors (all very big Republican campaign donation contributors).

There is nothing the Republican or Tea parties can point to over the last 100 years that shows corporations do the right thing unless forced. If they did, we would not need unions, we would not need OSHA, product safety laws, etc., etc.

It is like the Republicans making a mockery of someone who cares about the environment by calling them tree huggers or worse. Even a bear knows you don't crap where you eat. Of course Republicans always find a way where their toxic waste is not in their back yard. Why do you think we have more than a 1000 superfund sites. These are toxic waste dump sites where corporations cost tax payers trillions in clean up costs to clean up what they were so irresponsible about releasing into the environment.

The Republican Party and those who blindly follow them are so far off the right course they have no choice but to believe their own rhetoric. To do otherwise would result in a massive recognition that they nearly destroyed the US financially and environmentally.

Posted by: garryh | September 2, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Wow, from reading the comments, Joe has really shook your liberal tree. I haven't seen you folks, jump around and yell like this, since Sara came on the scene. Good on you Joe, give em hell.

Posted by: hooligan6a | September 2, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Republicans and their media mouthpieces said the same thing when FDR was in office. Funny thing is that the Republcians always say that it is socialism to use the American taxpayer money to help out the American people. But they have no problem sending trillions in subsidies to the oil industry, or the ridiculous ethanol subsidy, or finding convenient war to garner profits for our defense contractors (all very big Republican campaign donation contributors).

There is nothing the Republican or Tea parties can point to over the last 100 years that shows corporations do the right thing unless forced. If they did, we would not need unions, we would not need OSHA, product safety laws, etc., etc.

It is like the Republicans making a mockery of someone who cares about the environment by calling them tree huggers or worse. Even a bear knows you don't crap where you eat. Of course Republicans always find a way where their toxic waste is not in their back yard. Why do you think we have more than a 1000 superfund sites. These are toxic waste dump sites where corporations cost tax payers trillions in clean up costs to clean up what they were so irresponsible about releasing into the environment.

The Republican Party and those who blindly follow them are so far off the right course they have no choice but to believe their own rhetoric. To do otherwise would result in a massive recognition that they nearly destroyed the US financially and environmentally.

Posted by: garryh | September 2, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

"All true conservatives want is for the government to operate within those constraints. What is so 'unamerican' about that?

"Posted by: AkCoyote | September 2, 2010 12:12 PM"

Great, so you're completely in favor of bringing criminal charges against the Bush Jr Administration for the following anti-Constitutional policies:

Warrantless spying on US citizens and our purely domestic communications.

Torture as official US policy.

Indefinite detention.

Suspension of habeas corpus.

I voted for Obama but he's continuing these same policies, and giving a free pass to the war criminals in the Bush Jr/Cheney regime by not prosecuting them for the above.

So I'd be willing to see Obama hit just as hard as I hit Bush Jr/Cheney for actions which violate our Constitution.

Posted by: kingcranky | September 2, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

==================================
You on the left control the government so bring on the charges and let's see what happens. Whether or not I agree with them is irrelavant as the law is the law. Contact your representatives and tell them to file the charges. I would if I believed they were valid.

Posted by: AkCoyote | September 2, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Miller may wish to note that even if
he manages to get elected a Senator from Alaska, there are electoral districts in several states more populous than all the people in Alaska.
Sir, it is nothing but idiotic for you to prattle on about socialism. Your state has been sucking on the federal teat for a long, long time. It is just an abject hand-out-ism that the mouthy Ms Palin should know that too. I challenge her to discuss ANY Orwell book with me.
It is a testament to the TV screen that silliness like hers or yours, Mr. Miller, is tolerated by some of our electorate. I wonder if there should not be a Branch in the Homeland Security Department to protect us from your terrorizing of anyone who actually thinks or knows anything. You will reduce our nation to brainlessness if the likes of you are what we get in high office.
God (any brand will do as long as his/her protection works) save our nation from you.

Posted by: doppler1 | September 2, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Joe Miller speaks the truth concerning the liar Obama.

Posted by: textonyc | September 2, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

"I didn't see him leaning towards one party or the other.

"Posted by: Ted57 | September 2, 2010 3:07 PM"

Well, since Miller's the GOP nominee for the Senate race, I'm guessing he IS leaning towards one party in particular.

Posted by: kingcranky | September 2, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse

"All true conservatives want is for the government to operate within those constraints. What is so 'unamerican' about that?

"Posted by: AkCoyote | September 2, 2010 12:12 PM"

Great, so you're completely in favor of bringing criminal charges against the Bush Jr Administration for the following anti-Constitutional policies:

Warrantless spying on US citizens and our purely domestic communications.

Torture as official US policy.

Indefinite detention.

Suspension of habeas corpus.

I voted for Obama but he's continuing these same policies, and giving a free pass to the war criminals in the Bush Jr/Cheney regime by not prosecuting them for the above.

So I'd be willing to see Obama hit just as hard as I hit Bush Jr/Cheney for actions which violate our Constitution.

Which makes me consistent.

Now, if you're not willing to insist on accountability for the Bush Jr/Cheney Administration's attacks on our Constitution, then you're an easily debunked hypocrite.

And if you have no problem with Obama's use of these same unchecked Executive powers first grabbed by Bush Jr/Cheney, then obviously, Obama's nowhere near as petty or "socialist" as so many blithering teabaggers whine and blather on a constant basis.

Posted by: kingcranky | September 2, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

I find it hard to believe that the majority of you. Watched and read the same interview I did and came away with some very outlandish ideas on what Miller said. I heard him say our government bailouts aren't working and need to be addressed. I heard him say our government has not been operating as our founding fathers (and most Americans now) intended and needs to be addressed and that Obama is leading us into Socialism. I didn't see him leaning towards one party or the other. I did see him stating facts that we the American people need to make sure our elected representatives take a good hard look at.

Posted by: Ted57 | September 2, 2010 3:07 PM | Report abuse

God Bless You Joe, Bring the silent majorities thoughts out and speak the truth. Seakeys said "the gov't is the people" they are exactly right! But the tail has been wagging the dog, the gov't has forgotten that it is the people and Odumo, Nancy, Harry and the rest of the Dems have decided that they know better than the people and headed in their own direction. And although Seakeys seems to think that the Dems know the peoples mind the polls all indicate otherwise. Sorry but I think the people are waking up and paying attention and reading the facts and finding that the Dems are not planning to take them where they want to go. Bye Bye Dems.

Posted by: 2012anewstart | September 2, 2010 3:07 PM | Report abuse

What is this guy talking about? A simple definition of socialism is:
•a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
•an economic system based on state ownership of capital
Who in the Obama administration has done anything to cause the U.S. government to own "industry". TARP gave government ownership of GM as security for the bailout it got but those funds didn't give government "ownership". Would this guy have preferred to see GM go out of business? Their are really very few examples of socialism around. Not even China is a socialist country. Its vast private enterprise system is on display on the Chinese stock market. In terms of social programs do they make a country a socialist country? Does Miller want to do away with social programs like Food stamps, medicaid, medicare, social security,etc.

If so he should say so instead of babbling about "socialism".

Posted by: jimeglrd8 | September 2, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Cut Alaska off! Let them fight it out with the oil companies. And watch its roads, schools and hospitals crumble.

Alaskan voters are the biggest bunch of fiscal hypocrites in the country. They and Miller deserve each other.

Posted by: JustinOhio | September 2, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Obviously, Miller feels corporations and big money don't have enough influence on Capitol Hill as it is, and probably also believes the Constitution applies to, and protects, corporations and big business far more than the citizens.

What's really funny, and hypocritical, on Miller's part is that he wants to shrink the federal government by being elected, which allows him a congressional pension, overly generous paychecks, and involuntary taxpayer subsidies of his health insurance premiums and health care costs.

Of course, if Miller wishes to forgo the pension and taxpayer subsidies of his health insurance premiums and health care costs, AND slashes his congressional paycheck to that of the average US wage earner, then at least his hypocrisy of insisting on reducing the federal government for everyone but himself won't be quite so glaring.

Posted by: kingcranky | September 2, 2010 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Isn't Alaska the #1 most socialist state in the sense that it ranks first in the ratio of tax money received from the federal government to taxes paid?

I look forward to those free-loading Alaskans giving up their socialist habit.

Posted by: scientist1 | September 2, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Again, Miller (and many other republicans) talk and act as if we're still living in the 18th century!!
_________
Well, considering that the US Constitution was written in the 18th century, it's probably a good thing. Just like you yourself are stuck in the 19th century, which is when Marxism was crafted. If it's between Constitutional Republic vs. Marxism, I'll take the 18th century time and time again....

Posted by: WildBill1 | September 2, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

Again, Miller (and many other republicans) talk and act as if we're still living in the 18th century!!
_________
Well, considering that the US Constitution was written in the 18th century, it's probably a good thing. Just like you yourself are stuck in the 20th century, which is when Marxism was crafted. If it's between Constitutional Republic vs. Marxism, I'll take the 18th century time and time again....

Posted by: WildBill1 | September 2, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

I'm so tired of these ridiculous republican attempts to scare and inflame hatred in people by yelling "socialism" at any democratic policy.

Not only is it a morally bankrupt approach, it is remarkably stupid. If you look at modern political science, the most common breakdown of the left, based on increasing government control, runs like so: centrism, liberalism, social democracy, democratic socialism, and then socialism.

All you have to do is look these up in Wikipedia or some other non-biased source. Educate yourself. Obama is governing as a centrist, with perhaps a bit of liberalism mixed in. His policies do not even approach the social democracies of northern Europe, and thus he and the democrats come no where close to being socialists.

To say it again, this "socialism" stuff is just another republican effort to promote fear and hatred by exploiting the ignorance of their followers. Educate yourself.

Posted by: dougd1 | September 2, 2010 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Again, Miller (and many other republicans) talk and act as if we're still living in the 18th century!!
_________
Well, considering that the US Constitution was written in the 18th century, it's probably a good thing. Just like you yourself are stuck in the 20th century, which is when Marxism was crafted. If it's between Constitutional Republic vs. Marxism, I'll take the 18th century time and time again....

Posted by: WildBill1 | September 2, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

"socialism" eh?

Are we going to start calling all of our allies (e.g. Canada, UK, Germany) "socialists"?

Are we going to rewrite the history books and make sure that FDR, Eisenhower, LBJ, Nixon, and Bush are called "socialists" too?

Posted by: mikem1 | September 2, 2010 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Now, given the majority of Alaskans have nothing to do with the oil fields, and have no ownership in that land (other than through the STATE) I am forced to conclude that Alaska is a Socialist enterprise.

Posted by: Freethotlib | September 2, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse
=======================================
Wow. Amazing that since you have 'been here' you seem to think that you KNOW everything.

The PEOPLE own our resources, NOT the state. The PEOPLE can't develop our resources so through the state, we contract for our resource development. The contractors (BP, Shell etc) put out huge sums of money to build the pipeline etc and the PEOPLE through the state SHARE in the profits of the development.

You can call it whatever you want to make whatever point you want but this is the reality.

Posted by: AkCoyote | September 2, 2010 1:53 PM | Report abuse


IF THIS IS NOT TREASON AND GROUNDS FOR OBAMA'S ARREST, WHAT IS?


Obama Violates Constitution Again; Elicits UN Involvement In Arizona! Where's the FBI?!


For Barack Obama to insinuate civil rights abuses as his reasons, is a slap in the face of the people of Arizona, and the United States. We have bent over backwards and been taxed to the hilt, to accommodate and pay for the 30 million from south of the border who have already entered the country illegally. Obama's language suggests the beginnings of sanctions, that could escalate into actions similar to those on Iraq after the First Gulf War. Sanctions that took a first world nation back to Third World poverty in less than two decades. This 'president’s' actions betray his true loyalties, and begins the toppling of the first domino within the United States — Arizona. To quote Abraham Lincoln,“This nation can never be conquered from without. If it is ever to fall it will be from within.”


http://www.infowars.com/obama-violates-constitution-again-elicits-un-involvement-in-arizona/

Posted by: AJAX2 | September 2, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Again, Miller (and many other republicans) talk and act as if we're still living in the 18th century!! They turn a blind eye to the oppressive elements of unchecked capitalism, while eagerly, though ignorantly embracing a kind of fascism where policies are dictated by corporations rather than people. Thankfully, we have democrats, liberal and otherwise to keep things in perspective!! Obama is no socialist. He's not even a liberal! Those on the right like to call anyone who doesn't agree with their 18th century view of the nation, "liberal," or "socialist," or "unpatriotic," among other things.

Posted by: JATECT2 | September 2, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Again, Miller (and many other republicans) talk and act as if we're still living in the 18th century!! They turn a blind eye to the oppressive elements of unchecked capitalism, while eagerly, though ignorantly embracing a kind of fascism where policies are dictated by corporations rather than people. Thankfully, we have democrats, liberal and otherwise to keep things in perspective!! Obama is no socialist. He's not even a liberal! Those on the right like to call anyone who doesn't agree with their 18th century view of the nation, "liberal," or "socialist," or "unpatriotic," among other things.

Posted by: JATECT2 | September 2, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Again, Miller (and many other republicans) talk and act as if we're still living in the 18th century!! They turn a blind eye to the oppressive elements of unchecked capitalism, while eagerly, though ignorantly embracing a kind of fascism where policies are dictated by corporations rather than people. Thankfully, we have democrats, liberal and otherwise to keep things in perspective!! Obama is no socialist. He's not even a liberal! Those on the right like to call anyone who doesn't agree with their 18th century view of the nation, "liberal," or "socialist," or "unpatriotic," among other things.

Posted by: JATECT2 | September 2, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

ruralamericans wrote "Freethotlib ? Nancy! Is that you? :-)

Calling the Free Market success of Alaska's entrepreneurs, socialism, is the kind of premeditated misinformation that has roused the sleeping giant of Americans thirsty for some honor and decency. Keep it up butter-roll!"

------------------------------------------

Cute and ignorant.

The oil fields in Alaska are there through the grace of GOD and developed by big oil.

Prudhoe Bay is operated by BP; partners are ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips Alaska. No Alaskan entrepreneurs there.

The Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) was an unincorporated joint group created by ARCO, British Petroleum, and Humble Oil in October 1968. No Alaskan entreprenuers there!!

Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.

Now, given the majority of Alaskans have nothing to do with the oil fields, and have no ownership in that land (other than through the STATE) I am forced to conclude that Alaska is a Socialist enterprise.


As for butter roll - I'm 65, run marathons and am probably in better health than you.

I've been to Alaska. Alaska is a beautiful state with wonderful scenery. Sadly, many of its residents (like you) are lost in a myth.

Posted by: Freethotlib | September 2, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

"we put illegals on the public"?

Not me. I'm too busy puttin' food on the family.

Posted by: mattintx | September 2, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Over 50% of the people of Fairbanks are on the public payroll one form or another....

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld1 | September 2, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Joe has it right and so do the American people. Call it anything you want but the left-leaning media and a left-leaning President are a terrible combination for America.

America is unique, but not in Obama's eyes. We are an embarrassment in his state of mind. Yet we can't keep people out of our nation. Maybe it isn't Freedom and Liberty - maybe it is because we put illegals on the public and are the Anchor Baby site of choice in the world. See the socialist links here: http://ow.ly/2yDhi

Posted by: desertcactus | September 2, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Ok folks, let's do a reality check.

Alaska had a primary election on the first sunny day in a month. Voter turnout was light. A ballot measure that was very important to the far right ( my guess is that more than $10 per registered voter was spent by special interest groups) was the main event. A far right "dude" got the nod as a sideshow. Mind you that he did so with fewer votes then you would need to be elected mayor of pick your small town America. Give it a break, this is nothing more than dumb luck. Don't read too much into this.

Posted by: mamoore1 | September 2, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Funny, Joe the Miller biggest supporters are military retirees and those living on social security... even Miller himself has lived his entire life on the dole.

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld1 | September 2, 2010 12:53 PM | Report abuse

"You also need to remember that we don't even have a road to our state capitol."

In my state, we pay taxes and the states and cities build and maintain roads with some of that money for the good of the citizenry.

Are you suggesting that WE should pay for YOUR roads too?

Maybe Joe Miller should propose a state income tax so you poor souls don't have to drive over dirt paths to get somewhere? Or better yet, why not every citizen receiving a check this year just donate a piece of it so you can come join us in the current century?

Posted by: steve-2304 | September 2, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse
===================================
We too pay FEDERAL hiway excise taxes on every gallon of gas we buy which is supposed to be returned to the states for hiway construction. So we are supposed to give that up because we get the PFD?

Posted by: AkCoyote | September 2, 2010 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Joe Miller, and the other Tea-baggers, wouldn't know socialism if it walked up and bit them on the keister.

Obama hasn't done anything that hasn't been already done by other western democracies and/or NATO-allies of the US (e.g. Canada, UK, Germany, Japan). All of them were either initiated or at least supported by conservative governments and parties in those respective countries.

Frankly, I suspect "socialism" in this case is just a code-word for "we can't stand a negro being president".

Posted by: lhale3 | September 2, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Isn't one half baked dim witted right wing nut from Alaska running around enough?

Posted by: cmsatown | September 2, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

"You also need to remember that we don't even have a road to our state capitol."

In my state, we pay taxes and the states and cities build and maintain roads with some of that money for the good of the citizenry.

Are you suggesting that WE should pay for YOUR roads too?

Maybe Joe Miller should propose a state income tax so you poor souls don't have to drive over dirt paths to get somewhere? Or better yet, why not every citizen receiving a check this year just donate a piece of it so you can come join us in the current century?

Posted by: steve-2304 | September 2, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

What is socialism? Isn't starting an unnecessary war and spend nation's 1 Trillon$ (which only benefits defense contractors) socialism? How many soldiers died in Iraq belonged to top 2% of US? Isn't that socialism? Giving away 1.5 Trillion$ back to superrich, isn't that socialism?

Guys, the moment 40k earning policeman or fire person stop risking their lifes for you, all these talk of market economy will not stop this nation from becoming a second world nation. Unless and until, majority has a good living standard, nation can not progress.

Posted by: tarang_72 | September 2, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

What is socialism? Isn't starting an unnecessary war and spend nation's 1 Trillon$ (which only benefits defense contractors) socialism? How many soldiers died in Iraq belonged to top 2% of US? Isn't that socialism? Giving away 1.5 Trillion$ back to superrich, isn't that socialism?

Guys, the moment 40k earning policeman or fire person stop risking their lifes for you, all these talk of market economy will not stop this nation from becoming a second world nation. Unless and until, majority has a good living standard, nation can not progress.

Posted by: tarang_72 | September 2, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Freethotlib ? Nancy! Is that you? :-)

Calling the Free Market success of Alaska's entrepreneurs, socialism, is the kind of premeditated misinformation that has roused the sleeping giant of Americans thirsty for some honor and decency. Keep it up butter-roll!

Posted by: ruralamericans | September 2, 2010 12:32 PM | Report abuse

mbahde wrote "Do you know anything about Alaska? Really? Have you lived there? Only the land owners get checks...its called owning the mineral rights."
---------------------------------------
Really? Do you live there? If so, you're statement is -- and I'm being kind -- disingenuous.

From "alaskabucks.com"

"In Alaska, the State Constitution was amended in 1976 to put 25% of the State of Alaska oil income into a special savings account, the Alaska Permanent Fund. The Alaska Permanent Fund invests part of this income in stocks (so there will be cash in poor years). Then it sends a check to the state government and a check to every Alaskan citizen. Even the ten-year-olds get a check."
Also see

2007 Alaska oil royalty is $1,654
By STEVE QUINN
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

JUNEAU, Alaska -- Nearly every Alaskan will soon receive a check for $1,654, their share of the state's oil riches, Gov. Sarah Palin announced Wednesday.

The dividend checks are derived from the state's oil royalty investment program and distributed each year to eligible residents -- just for living here for a full calendar year.

Slightly more than 600,000 men, women and children in 248 communities will receive the dividend this year, according to the Revenue Department. The state's estimated population is just over 670,000 people.

Anyone who has lived in Alaska for a full calendar year can apply for the money -- including children. Of those receiving checks this year, about 41 percent -- or 244,695 of the state's residents -- were born in Alaska.

---------------------------------------

My analysis -- Every Alaskan citizen does not own property EXCEPT through the SOCIALIST concept that ALL SHARE in STATE property and the property the oil is under is -- by and large -- state property.

So - Alaskans are SOCIALISTS and Joe is a HYPOCRITE or a fool.


Posted by: Freethotlib | September 2, 2010 12:22 PM | Report abuse

mbahde wrote "Do you know anything about Alaska? Really? Have you lived there? Only the land owners get checks...its called owning the mineral rights."

Really? Do you live there? If so, you're statement is -- and I'm being kind -- disingenuous.

From "alaskabucks.com"

"In Alaska, the State Constitution was amended in 1976 to put 25% of the State of Alaska oil income into a special savings account, the Alaska Permanent Fund. The Alaska Permanent Fund invests part of this income in stocks (so there will be cash in poor years). Then it sends a check to the state government and a check to every Alaskan citizen. Even the ten-year-olds get a check."
Also see

2007 Alaska oil royalty is $1,654
By STEVE QUINN
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

JUNEAU, Alaska -- Nearly every Alaskan will soon receive a check for $1,654, their share of the state's oil riches, Gov. Sarah Palin announced Wednesday.

The dividend checks are derived from the state's oil royalty investment program and distributed each year to eligible residents -- just for living here for a full calendar year.

Slightly more than 600,000 men, women and children in 248 communities will receive the dividend this year, according to the Revenue Department. The state's estimated population is just over 670,000 people.

Anyone who has lived in Alaska for a full calendar year can apply for the money -- including children. Of those receiving checks this year, about 41 percent -- or 244,695 of the state's residents -- were born in Alaska.

---------------------------------------

My analysis -- Every Alaskan citizen does not own property EXCEPT through the SOCIALIST concept that ALL SHARE in STATE property and the property the oil is under is -- by and large -- state property.

So - Alaskans are SOCIALISTS and Joe is a HYPOCRITE or a fool.


Posted by: Freethotlib | September 2, 2010 12:21 PM | Report abuse

smiley says: "Everyday I'm grateful McCain isn't president."

Us too.

Posted by: ruralamericans | September 2, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Freehotlib plumps: "If I use my binoculars Alaska looks like Greece from my back porch."

Cool, just saw a Faux sNuuz REPORT: Millions of Americans are reporting that they can see November 2nd from their back porch!

They better not get too cocky - I've lived in Greece, the socialists (read Obama) raided the treasury, and taxed the last few job creators out of the country -- we want the socialist neo-libs out of DC.

Posted by: ruralamericans | September 2, 2010 12:16 PM | Report abuse

"The neo-libs posting here are mostly from call George Soros funded call centers "

Good luck with that conspiracy theory.

Paranoid much?

Posted by: mattintx | September 2, 2010 12:15 PM | Report abuse

"Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."

That's great Janet, you found the definition.

Now you need to work on the comprehension part.

Let me know when the doctors and automakers are drawing checks directly from the Federal Government, meaning they are employees of the Feds. Let me know when the Government owns all the hospitals. Let me know when they dissolve their boards of directors and Obama directs their policies himself. And let me know when the Feds are responsible for moving all manufactured goods around the country.

Get a grip Chicken Little.

Posted by: steve-2304 | September 2, 2010 12:14 PM | Report abuse

In a democracy, government and "the people" are not two separate entities, but rather, government is by and for the people. Government is not some occupying force, but elected by Americans and paid for by their taxes. Now, one can argue about whether government should do this or government should do that.

But this talk of government as some kind of foreign oppressive force is at best bizarre and at worst conspiratorial. The way Joe Miller talks, the constitution is something separate from government sent by God. No, Joe Miller, the constitution was written by men in government in a constitutional convention. And it can be changed by government (via the democratic process) by adding amendments. Joe Miller talks about things things like the stimulus package or assistance to vital industries as being "unAmerican". But his very understanding of government, the constitution, and democracy is what is unAmerican.

Posted by: AnonymousBE1 | September 2, 2010 11:36 AM | Report abuse
=====================================
You are correct to a point. The constitution LIMITS the power of the federal government. When the government EXCEEDS (as determined by the supreme court) those limitations, the the act i.e. law, is therefore UNconstitutional. All true conservatives want is for the government to operate within those constraints. What is so 'unamerican' about that?

Posted by: AkCoyote | September 2, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

When 90% of the wealth is controlled by 1% of the population as it is now; any movement to change the bank accounts of the oligarchs is decried as "socialist".

Everyday I'm grateful McCain isn't president.

Posted by: smileyzjohn | September 2, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Where were all these folks who are petrified about the US becoming "socialist" when Tricky Dick Nixon created the EPA, the CPSC, OSHA, and exercised price and wage controls nationally? Or tried to get national health care passed?

Has the Republican party swung so far to the right that Nixon is a communist by comparison?

Posted by: exerda | September 2, 2010 12:10 PM | Report abuse

I hope he wins the general elections and sticks to his promise of no more pork for Alaska. I'm tired of supporting that welfare state.

Posted by: thor2 | September 2, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Poor, Freethotlib; he/she probably knows way more about the ubiquitous Beck than most...why is that?

Anyway, young Mr Beck is learning, and using "his" celebrity to counter balance Hollywood's media Jihad by lascivious cretins who undress for a living.

Even Beck doesn't yet realize or understand that there are uncounted millions of rural Americans, black, Hispanic, Asian and Indigenous, who are reviled by the new neo-libs who have run to Soro's media spin sessions like those posting here with cut and paste bullet points.

Posted by: ruralamericans | September 2, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Its a good thing the lower 48 pays taxes. Otherwise the folks in Alaska would have to find an income and actually pay their own way. Why? Because Alaska gets more than $1.84 back in federal aid for every $1 they pay on taxes.

Socialism at work.

If I use my binoculars Alaska looks like Greece from my back porch.

Posted by: Freethotlib | September 2, 2010 12:04 PM | Report abuse

"Get ready to stand in line to pick up your government supplied toilet paper soon."

-----

Someday, even people on the right will be laughing at their own hysteria when they look back at these neo-McCarthyist rants.

Posted by: writinron | September 2, 2010 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Ah yes, Alaska, those brave independent self-reliant tea baggers - who stand there with greedy hands out grasping for more money from the federal government per capita than any other state. But of course, that's pretty consistent with the whole right-wing mentality. They decry federal government spending, but when you look at a map of which states get more money back from the feds than they pay in taxes it's the right-wing red state southerners: a bunch of hypocritical welfare queens. Alaska is leader of the pack, just colder than the rest of them.
(Oh, but the poor dears don't even have a road to the capital! Maybe they should use some of the money we give them and build one.)

Posted by: FunFacts1 | September 2, 2010 11:56 AM | Report abuse

ruralamericans wrote "Alaska and Texas seem to be doing well and are logically the least tethered to Obama's slippery agenda to turn America into Greece.

Independent sovereign states, with strong economies are what the United States is/was all about. Our founders forewarned future Americans copious times to beware of bloated federal government run by professional politicians.

Oh Steve, there's room up here for MEN and WOMEN if you're interested."

------------------------------------------
Amazing!! Yes I can imagine there is room for men and women in Alaska given what currently lives there.

As for slippery slope to Greece -- that is stright out of Beck. If you're going to quote Beck do it in full. Beck has said that Obama is turning the US into Greece, China, Russia, Hitler Germany, Italy and what ever other counry he can think of

One thing about Alaskans -- not original.

As for Alaska and Texas doing well. Well you seem to forget the savings and loan debacle of the 1980s. See below for a reminder.

-----------------------------------------
"Back in the early 1980s when Ronald Reagan deregulated the savings and loan industry, Texas became the nation's biggest cesspool of S&L crookery. At the core of their thieving strategy was a little trick they described thusly: 'A rolling loan gathers no loss.'

"These wily Texas coyotes had figured out a win/win situation. S&L operators could help their buddies "borrow" money from their S&Ls, not pay it back, and still allow the S&L to book loan fees and other profits, upon which the S&L executives based their salaries and bonuses."
((source is creditbubblestocks. com))

As for Alaska - yeah - real men and women love getting back $1.84 from the federal government for every $1 they in federal taxes. They also love getting the oil "bonus" which is ultimately paid for by the lower 48. Brag on "Alaska" welfare man.

By the by, the savings and loan disaster was paid for by GHW Bush with about $156 billion in tax payer money. I didn't hear the right complaining then.

Posted by: Freethotlib | September 2, 2010 11:46 AM | Report abuse

"There are a few states you don't pay income tax in, Texas and Alaska are because of Oil and Natural gas, Florida is because of tourism, but you will also find in those states that you have higher sales tax and property tax. So you are taxed on what you spend rather than what you make, which makes it better for those that have payments coming out of their checks such as for child support."


Exactly!

The neo-libs posting here are mostly from call George Soros funded call centers -- their lexicon is like a tell tale scrap of toilet paper stuck to their common shoe! :-)

Posted by: ruralamericans | September 2, 2010 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Funny, when I was in college studying economics back in the '70s, we had a lot of controls on markets, and regulations that applied to certain classes of businesses, which were not called "socialism", even by the very conservative supply-siders, and free-market professors at the University I attended(Baylor University in Texas). Nowaways, ANYTHING that constrains a business in any way is SOCIALISM, or worse COMMUNISM! If I lend my neighbor my garden hose when his roof catches fire, I am a socialist! I wonder if Mr. Miller could explain to me when the change took place. I won't hold my breath...

Posted by: squirebass | September 2, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Do you know anything about Alaska? Really? Have you lived there? Only the land owners get checks...its called owning the mineral rights. There are some people in Texas also that own land with mineral rights, but nowadays most people that own those rights sell the land without selling the mineral rights so they are the ones that get the checks. Illinois you are required to sign a waiver that you do not own the mineral rights and any coal you find on your property digging a hole, you have to turn over.
There are a few states you don't pay income tax in, Texas and Alaska are because of Oil and Natural gas, Florida is because of tourism, but you will also find in those states that you have higher sales tax and property tax. So you are taxed on what you spend rather than what you make, which makes it better for those that have payments coming out of their checks such as for child support.
So those are not good examples of "socialism". Socialism would be the government stepping in, taking the money from the people that don't own those mineral rights and handing it to people that don't work and pay taxes. Socialism is about redistributing wealth so that it doesn't matter if you are a doctor or lawyer or if you are a ditch digger or if you are just a lazy bum that decides not to work...you all end up with the same amount of money in the end...virtually nothing. Get ready to stand in line to pick up your government supplied toilet paper soon.

Posted by: mbahde | September 2, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

In a democracy, government and "the people" are not two separate entities, but rather, government is by and for the people. Government is not some occupying force, but elected by Americans and paid for by their taxes. Now, one can argue about whether government should do this or government should do that.

But this talk of government as some kind of foreign oppressive force is at best bizarre and at worst conspiratorial. The way Joe Miller talks, the constitution is something separate from government sent by God. No, Joe Miller, the constitution was written by men in government in a constitutional convention. And it can be changed by government (via the democratic process) by adding amendments. Joe Miller talks about things things like the stimulus package or assistance to vital industries as being "unAmerican". But his very understanding of government, the constitution, and democracy is what is unAmerican.

Posted by: AnonymousBE1 | September 2, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

There is indeed a culture war in play:
For the current, (Sal Alinsky) "progressive" regime there is no such thing as morality; no deity, no witness line; and therefore no political reason to protect the individual person. No? Is there not sucking babies from their mothers wombs a BILLION dollar business in the U.S? Who fostered this genocide?

The new uber-left liberals, neo-libs, will not be satisfied until their sock puppets in education are allowed to openly proselytize a secular humanist and socialist political ideology... oh, they already do.

Posted by: ruralamericans | September 2, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

There is indeed a culture war in play:
For the current, (Sal Alinsky) "progressive" regime there is no such thing as morality; no deity, no witness line; and therefore no political reason to protect the individual person. No? Is there not sucking babies from their mothers wombs a BILLION dollar business in the U.S? Who fostered this genocide?

The new uber-left liberals, neo-libs, will not be satisfied until their sock puppets in education are allowed to openly proselytize a secular humanist and socialist political ideology... oh, they already do.

Posted by: ruralamericans | September 2, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Do you know anything about Alaska? Really? Have you lived there? Only the land owners get checks...its called owning the mineral rights. There are some people in Texas also that own land with mineral rights, but nowadays most people that own those rights sell the land without selling the mineral rights so they are the ones that get the checks. Illinois you are required to sign a waiver that you do not own the mineral rights and any coal you find on your property digging a hole, you have to turn over.
There are a few states you don't pay income tax in, Texas and Alaska are because of Oil and Natural gas, Florida is because of tourism.
So those are not good examples of "socialism". Socialism would be the government stepping in, taking the money from the people that don't own those mineral rights and handing it to people that don't work and pay taxes. Socialism is about redistributing wealth so that it doesn't matter if you are a doctor or lawyer or if you are a ditch digger or if you are just a lazy bum that decides not to work...you all end up with the same amount of money in the end...virtually nothing. Get ready to stand in line to pick up your government supplied toilet paper soon.

Posted by: mbahde | September 2, 2010 11:37 AM | Report abuse

In a democracy, government and "the people" are not two separate entities, but rather, government is by and for the people. Government is not some occupying force, but elected by Americans and paid for by their taxes. Now, one can argue about whether government should do this or government should do that.

But this talk of government as some kind of foreign oppressive force is at best bizarre and at worst conspiratorial. The way Joe Miller talks, the constitution is something separate from government sent by God. No, Joe Miller, the constitution was written by men in government in a constitutional convention. And it can be changed by government (via the democratic process) by adding amendments. Joe Miller talks about things things like the stimulus package or assistance to vital industries as being "unAmerican". But his very understanding of government, the constitution, and democracy is what is unAmerican.

Posted by: AnonymousBE1 | September 2, 2010 11:36 AM | Report abuse

I hope Joe Miller has his way and removes Alaska from the federal welfare teat.

Alaska is the bad side of socialism personified; a great big snow-covered welfare queen of a state.

Posted by: roblimo | September 2, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse
==================================
We have 4 military bases here. When you divide the cost of running those bases by our 750K population, of course it looks like we receive more than a fair share. You also need to remember that we don't even have a road to our state capitol. Your infrastructure down there was built when money was plentiful. I would say that you need to actually learn something about this state before starting the ridicule but I forgot that leftists just spout off with whatever sounds good.

Posted by: AkCoyote | September 2, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Go check out the "The Starfish and the Spider, The unstoppable power of Leaderless Organizations" by Ori Brafman which is the new Tea Party manifesto and required reading for all tea partier’s then ask yourself the question below.

What do a spider, a star fish, and a right wing-nut have in common?

All are brainless, spineless, bottom feeding Invertebrates!

Go figure!

Posted by: Citi__Street | September 2, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Miller doesn't have a clue what socialism is. President Obama, a dyed in the wool moderate, is simply moving us away from the friendly fascism of the Bush years. That's hardly socialism.

As Michael Harrington so put it so accurately many years ago, in America we have socialism for the wealthy and capitalism for the poor.

Posted by: dl49 | September 2, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

So then the entire US would be like Alaska. Alaska redistributes the wealth of the oil company in the form of checks to each and every citizen. They don't work for that money, they just collect a check for living in Alaska. They take money that isn't theirs, that they don't work for in any way, and claim it is for the people of Alaska. That is socialism. As is the problem Alaska has with taking more money from the Federal Government than the people of Alaska pay. Again, redistributing the wealth of the rest of the country to the people of Alaska. So he wants to be part of a socialist state so much that he ran for election on the claim that the US is too socialist. Hilarious.

Posted by: greenmansf | September 2, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

We're heading toward socialism? Awesome. When do we arrive? Maybe then Americans will actually be able to afford their health care and secondary-school education. Maybe we'll even get retirement with dignity and a functioning national rail service. If 21st-century capitalism is such a magnificent system, how do we explain the last two years of middle-class misery? I'll take socialism thanks. Dish it up.

Posted by: eyestreet | September 2, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

and Joe Miller will take this country towards Fascism. Take you pick.

Posted by: larsonlk | September 2, 2010 11:21 AM | Report abuse

I hope Joe Miller has his way and removes Alaska from the federal welfare teat.

Alaska is the bad side of socialism personified; a great big snow-covered welfare queen of a state. If Joe Miller and Todd Palin and their brethren want to secede, it's fine with me. Maybe they can go back to being part of Russia.

That's better than being part of an America that's drifting toward socialism, right?

I love these kooks. And I thank the Koch Bros., Mellons, Scaifes, Waltons and their other sponsors for the endless amusement they give us.

Posted by: roblimo | September 2, 2010 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Joe should know. His core support are from
Alaskan Socialists in denial who collect permanent fund checks, get senior tax exemptions on their real estate, pay no income tax and no sales tax. With their moose and fish in the freezer, they live in a Socialist paradise.

Posted by: steveconn1 | September 2, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse
===============================
Question. Do you own stocks and do you receive a dividend? Alaskans own our resources and a part of the profits go into the Alaska Permanent Fund which is invested in the stock market. Each citizen receives a dividend on the profits from those investments. That isn't socialism but capitalism at its best. You shouldn't preach about something that you know nothing about.

Posted by: AkCoyote | September 2, 2010 11:17 AM | Report abuse

The charge that the U.S. was moving towards socialism, if it wasn't already there, has been made for many, many years, even before the New Deal. Certainly Social Security, Medicare, etc. were seen as harbingers of impending doom by some. I wonder if Miller has ever been in a really socialist country (there are many around the world). People there would laugh at the concept that the U.S. is even close to socialism.

Posted by: Sutter | September 2, 2010 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Quite simply: Communism does not work. Socialism is one step removed from Communism. When will we wake up?

Posted by: sportsfan2 | September 2, 2010 11:14 AM | Report abuse

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money to spend."

In a sense, Miller has a point, the US is broke and getting broker. However, the blame for that cannot be put completely on our current POTUS; this path was started several Presidents back. However, it can perhaps be reasonably argued that Obama is getting us broker faster.

And of course, there is his overseeing the government taking over private businesses and his (quite obvious) favoritism towards unions and their members. Obama's not red, but certainly has some shades of pink.

Posted by: mr_bill_10 | September 2, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Good post by 1EgoNemo

He is correct bail outs for corporations are nothing new. For a list of the history of US Government bailouts check out these websites:

http://www.getlisty.com/preview/biggest-corporate-bailouts/

http://www.propublica.org/special/government-bailouts

BTW - bank and auto bailouts are not a new phenomena.

Posted by: Tuathe | September 2, 2010 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Obviously Rustbkt, keepthefaith and others of their ilk get their "facts" from Beck and FOX.

The mantra "The gov't now controls student loans, Health Care, the banks, Wall Street, owns General Motors, has dumped billions of your money into a stimulus bill, shut down 23,000 oil jobs in the gulf, is trying to pass cap and trade and is about to pull off the largest tax increase ever seen on this planet!"

is straight out of Beck's mouth and the constant stream of BS from FOX.

Interestingly - real facts are not something the right cares about. The FACT that the government made a profit on the TARP is ignored.

The fact that GM is going to do an IPO and pay the government back is ignored.

The assertion re: the tax increase is typical right wing hyperbole (known in common circles as egregious BS).

As for the stimulus bill - a lot of that money went to companies and the wages they pay went into the pockets of your fellow citizens. That allowed them to make mortgage payments, car payments, buy products made / sold in America thus employing other Americans. Far better - if you are a right winger that those folk lose their jobs and their homes. Far beter -- if you are a right winger -- that the money be spent on bullets.

I guess - if you are a right winger -- you would prefer that the banks have gone bankrupt -- thus hurting pension funds, mutual finds and the many small investors (mom and pop folks) that invested in those companies for the dividends to supplement their retirement income. Bankruptcy takes the stock value to ZERO and everybody loses!!!! Nobody lost on the TARP!!!! Get it STUPID -- nobody lost and the taxpoayers - in fact -- made money.

I guess if you are a right winger you would prefer that low income people just get sick and die rather than bother the right with concerns over health care.

I guess if you are a right winger you insist that abortion be banned because it is then much more fun to watch the children die for lack of health care.

I guess if you are a right winger it is much better to BORROW $5 trillion as "W" did than to pay as you go -- the liberal democratic mantra.

I guess if you are a right winger facts are just bothersome things. The fact that Joe MIller would say what he did was no surprise to me -- that is the Beck and FOX mantra. What Joe MIller really believes is an unknown to me because I believe thaT CONSERVATIVES HAVE NO BELIEFS.

Posted by: Freethotlib | September 2, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

steve from (where else?) conn, plumps: "With their moose and fish in the freezer, they live in a Socialist paradise."

Alaska and Texas seem to be doing well and are logically the least tethered to Obama's slippery agenda to turn America into Greece.

Independent sovereign states, with strong economies are what the United States is/was all about. Our founders forewarned future Americans copious times to beware of bloated federal government run by professional politicians.

Oh Steve, there's room up here for MEN and WOMEN if you're interested.

This Nov. vote out long term incumbents from either party -- it's waaaay past time to reclaim DC for the ALL the people of America, not just the densely democrat urban districts.

Posted by: ruralamericans | September 2, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Socialism is a good enough word. Government taking control of businesses like they have done with the car companies and their new bill with the stipulation that the government will move in and take over any business that is "too big to fail" that starts showing signs of failing.
Their Health Care Reform which is a load of taxes to take money from working class people to pay for those that cannot afford insurance. Which in turn will make it harder for people who are just barely affording insurance to not be able to anymore, but they will "make too much" to get the free, so they will have to pay a tax penalty on top of not having insurance anymore and have to pay out of pocket.

Posted by: mbahde | September 2, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Dear Bruce

A little historical research will do you a world of good.

You said to @ egc52556 ... "taking care of each other" does not require a gov't apparatus. and in a biblical context, it in no way refers to some social-political system whereby folks are taxed to underwrite gov't programs for the less fortunate.

there are a million ways to take care of the less fortunate through volunteering or private non-profit service organizations. allowing gov't to assume responsibility for these things actually dampens people's interest in taking care of each other ... because the gov't is (supposedly) doing it.

**************

It truly is a shame that you were not living in the 19th Century. No Social Security, no medicare, no social services, no OSHA, no decent highways, no unions nada - none. It really was a time of every man, woman and child for themselves.

Let's see - High immigration, low paying jobs, 10 to 12 hour work days, child labor, filthy working conditions, unsafe working conditions, slavery, indentured servitude, orphan trains, slums in the inner cities, shacks for the poor in rural areas, dustbowl farms, foreclosures normal, limited education for the poor and disenfranchised, Robber Barons ruled, Revival Camps florished - praying would bring rain, make your boss see that you were working hard and would give you a day to spend with your family and make them more charitable. Fat Chance - Many gave, but grudgingly and there needed to be something in it for them.

BTW you statement that Charitable giving is higher on the right than the left is skewed. It included all giving to Churches, which the right gives the majority of the money to, without discounting the administrative costs. Tithing 10% of your income to the Church of your choice is fine and good. But, 75% to 80% of your tithe is used for Church maintenance, salaries and day to day management of the Church - 20% to 25% (that is 20 to 25 cents on the dollars received go to charitable programs sponsored by the Church / denomination. So, we are really only talking about 2% or 2.5% going to charity. Look at your Churches annual statement if you don't believe me.

That would have made the giving about equal on left and right. Left leaners give more to private and government supported non-profit charitable organizations and the right gives more to religious organizations. As a Liberal Humanist I always ask how much goes to Admin vs the program. I want at least 75% to go to the program, not to administrative costs. Thus, I am a Fiscal Conservative - Liberal Humanist.

Without some Government assistance programs many small non-profit charitable organizations would not be able to take care of the needy and we would return to those good olde days of yore when it was every person for themselves.

Posted by: Tuathe | September 2, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse

.
.

Fresh out of the woods and into the spot-light... just like the other moron, Sarah Palin.

Stupidity has a large following.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

Posted by: A-Voter | September 2, 2010 10:54 AM | Report abuse

When Conservatives like Joe Miller and others say that President Obama is moving the country towards "socialism", I wish that the media and others would ask them specifically what is it that they mean by it.

For example, when they say this are they talking about:

1. Retaining SS for retirees, Medicare for the elderly and Senior Citizens, Medicaid for poor woman and children.

2. Retaining our infrastructure, i.e., roads, highways, and bridges, and mass transportation.

3. Inspecting and regulating Clean Water and Food.

4. Regulating Wall Street & the Banking Industry, so that they do not continue to put people's incomes, savings, and retirement accounts at Risk and driving them further into poverty.

5. Citizens Rights as discussed in the 14th Amendment.

These are just a few examples, that I believe Joe Miller and others need to be more specific concerning what they believe to be "Socialism".

Just ranting the word "Socialism" is NOT good enough.

Posted by: lcarter0311 | September 2, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

janet8 wrote of socialism:
"1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."

Which Obama has systematically done and in the process of controlling more sectors. Obama has exerted control over car companies, healthcare, student loans, banks, insurance companies, financial firms, schools, businesses and is also trampling on States rights.

------

Other than General Motors, which is temporarily partially-owned by the US Treasury, explain how the government or any collective organization owns healthcare companies (either health care providers or health insurers). How are the banks owned by the US govt? Or the schools? Student loans already were being handled by the government, Obama merely signed into law the dismantling of bank intermediaries - do you not understand? Do you prefer that the government spend more of your tax dollars to go to banks when providing student loans?

You obviously are confusing government involvement in the economy with government ownership of the means of production. Likewise, "trampling on states' rights" (more rationally known as Federalism) isn't an indicator of socialism. Typical of those spouting off the "Obama is a socialist" nonsense, you don't understand the definition of the word even when you've typed it out.

Posted by: hitpoints | September 2, 2010 10:46 AM | Report abuse

mattinx states..If you don't like having a black man in a position of authority, have the courage to say so. But don't keep screaming socialist.

Okay I'll say it, I don't like his black side nor do I like his white side. I can't agree with Obama's policies. The change he advocates is not the change that most Americans wanted or expected. He is the worst President we ever elected in my opinion.

Posted by: jhnjdy | September 2, 2010 10:41 AM | Report abuse

keepthefaith writes:

"Interesting. Joe Miller calls it like it is and those on the left go silly with name-calling and statements of ridicule."

OK. No name calling. But it is fair to describe the Tea Party movement as one exhibiting strong signs of nationalism coupled with support of Corporate America and favoring militarist policies.

Generally, this is referred to as fascism -- people strongly favoring aligning political and economic systems along corporate perspectives and values, coupled with strong nationalist and militarist tendencies.

Although fascism can be considered 'right' or 'left' it has generally been occupied by the extreme right where it appears, which is where we find the current Tea Party movement heading today.

No one called names here, but if it 'quacks' then it must be a duck. Let's call out the Tea Party for what it is, what it represents and where its headed.

Posted by: HillRat | September 2, 2010 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Joe should know. His core support are from
Alaskan Socialists in denial who collect permanent fund checks, get senior tax exemptions on their real estate, pay no income tax and no sales tax. With their moose and fish in the freezer, they live in a Socialist paradise.

Posted by: steveconn1 | September 2, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Joe Miller will be crucified by the wapo and it's extended cabal, but he speaks for those of us who are about to take back the reins from this socialist regime we allowed to snooker us.

See you big city bigots in Nov.

Posted by: ruralamericans | September 2, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Ms. Palin got her Joe Six-Pack at last. Lucky us.

Posted by: njglea | September 2, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse

The American voter must never forget that incompetent Republican leadership is responsible for our failing economy, handed over at the end of 2008 at a point of near total collapse. The irresponsible doubling of our national debt and transfer of wealth leading to the destruction of American lives, lost homes, lost jobs, lost retirement funds. Deregulation and tax cuts that are funded on borrowed money in the “trillion” dollar amounts. The Republican leadership would also continue another attempt to “privatize” Social Security funds, after the loss of thousands upon thousands of 401k accounts…. Now these mental midgets insist that they will not be happy until they have also ruined the elderly citizen’s existence.
Incompetent and ignorant Republican leadership from 1995 to 2006 will be with us for many years to come, surrounding us with the results of their failed policies.

Posted by: motiv8ed | September 2, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse

The American voter must never forget that incompetent Republican leadership is responsible for our failing economy, handed over at the end of 2008 at a point of near total collapse. The irresponsible doubling of our national debt and transfer of wealth leading to the destruction of American lives, lost homes, lost jobs, lost retirement funds. Deregulation and tax cuts that are funded on borrowed money in the “trillion” dollar amounts. The Republican leadership would also continue another attempt to “privatize” Social Security funds, after the loss of thousands upon thousands of 401k accounts…. Now these mental midgets insist that they will not be happy until they have also ruined the elderly citizen’s existence.
Incompetent and ignorant Republican leadership from 1995 to 2006 will be with us for many years to come, surrounding us with the results of their failed policies.

Posted by: motiv8ed | September 2, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

mattintx wrote:

"Here's the definition of socialism from freedictionary.com:

"1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."

- - - -

Very helpful.

But the president doesn't meet that definition.

If you don't like having a black man in a position of authority, have the courage to say so. But don't keep screaming socialist.

------

When liberals don't have a valid answer, they pull out the race card.

That's getting old and sadly it will lose it's validity like the "little boy who cried wolf."

I stated my reasons in my previous comment which showed how Obama's actions and agenda are socialistic.

I guess the truth hurts.


Posted by: janet8
--------
Here's the problem with your argument you resorted to ad hominum yourself because you have not stated one thing that Obama's actions amounts to socialistic except to parrot what others have said without facts.

To paraphrase your last sentence, I guess the truth hurts.. Here's a better contradiction of your statement: look at tunkefer

Posted by: beeker25 | September 2, 2010 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Stupid is as stupid does, so said Forest Gump's movie mother. It certainly looks like Joe Miller and his Tea Party running dog lackeys are doing a lot of it. They haven't even bothered to look up 'socialism' in the dictionary.

Posted by: queenofromania | September 2, 2010 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Got enough socialism? check out this article:
http://bit.ly/ahDZ1s

Posted by: orphedivounguy | September 2, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Interesting. Joe Miller calls it like it is and those on the left go silly with name-calling and statements of ridicule.

The majority of the comments here do not reflect the opinions of those who will help give new direction to our country in the November elections.

In the 20 months that Obama has been president, there is little doubt that his motives are questionable at best.

The comment by Janet8 is the most accurate of any comment posted. I couldn't agree more.

Posted by: keepthefaith | September 2, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

MY GOD mattintx! Are you kiddin' me? The gov't now controls student loans, Health Care, the banks, Wall Street, owns General Motors, has dumped billions of your money into a stimulus bill, shut down 23,000 oil jobs in the gulf, is trying to pass cap and trade and is about to pull off the largest tax increase ever seen on this planet! I guess I don't understand the definition you looked up below. I don't care what color he is...if it looks like a socialist, walks like a socialist and quacks like a socialist....

(
Posted by: Rustbkt | September 2, 2010 10:04 AM
=======================================
The Federal government controls student loans? No. Any bank that wants to issue student loans can do so. The only thing Obama did was pull the administration of _Federal_ loans back into the government where it could be done with far less overhead expense.

The banks? Yes, the banks received loans from TARP. But the Federal government did not take control of them. The proof of that is that the banks are continuing to behave in ways the Obama admin doesn't want them to, namely by failing to extend credit to businesses and paying their executive huge salaries.

Owns GM? If that is true, how is it that GM is able to issue an stock IPO which they are doing soon?

Stopping drilling in the gulf is socialistic? How so. The property the oil companies are drilling on is publically held and the oil companies are merely lessees. If you leased your house to someone, does that givethem the right the burn it down? Of course not. If the government leases land to oil companies, does that give them the right to destroy it?

Cap and Trade? Not sure how that is socialistic in that involves no ownership of companies by government.

Sorry, but you haven't even come close to proving that the Obama administration is socialistic.

Posted by: tunkefer |

-------------
Amen.....

Posted by: beeker25 | September 2, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

What else would you expect from a tea party idiot whose state has benefited most from government handouts?

These legacies are known as earmarks and former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens was known as the godfather of them all!

Remember Sarah Palin’s bridge to now where? This idiot is basically destined to travel the same route on his way to further north of Alaska and not to the lower 48 states.

We already have too many of these idiots already in the lower 48 states vying for a seat in the next congress.

Posted by: Citi__Street | September 2, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Interesting. Joe Miller calls it like it is and those on the left go silly with name-calling and statements of ridicule.

The majority of the comments here do not reflect the opinions of those who will help give new direction to our country in the November elections.

In the 20 months that Obama has been president, there is little doubt that his motives are questionable at best.

The comment by Janet8 is the most accurate of any comment posted. I couldn't agree more.

Posted by: keepthefaith | September 2, 2010 10:23 AM | Report abuse

Statement by Miller proves one thing he doesn't know what's he's talking about and the same goes for the Republican party in general. Alaska get $1.86 for every $1 they pay to the Federal Government. This amounts to socialism in reverse and that's without looking at how states spends its money wisely.

Just another GOP talking point while ignoring the fact that corporate America runs the government.

Posted by: beeker25 | September 2, 2010 10:22 AM | Report abuse

MY GOD mattintx! Are you kiddin' me? The gov't now controls student loans, Health Care, the banks, Wall Street, owns General Motors, has dumped billions of your money into a stimulus bill, shut down 23,000 oil jobs in the gulf, is trying to pass cap and trade and is about to pull off the largest tax increase ever seen on this planet! I guess I don't understand the definition you looked up below. I don't care what color he is...if it looks like a socialist, walks like a socialist and quacks like a socialist....

(
Posted by: Rustbkt | September 2, 2010 10:04 AM
=======================================
The Federal government controls student loans? No. Any bank that wants to issue student loans can do so. The only thing Obama did was pull the administration of _Federal_ loans back into the government where it could be done with far less overhead expense.

The banks? Yes, the banks received loans from TARP. But the Federal government did not take control of them. The proof of that is that the banks are continuing to behave in ways the Obama admin doesn't want them to, namely by failing to extend credit to businesses and paying their executive huge salaries.

Owns GM? If that is true, how is it that GM is able to issue an stock IPO which they are doing soon?

Stopping drilling in the gulf is socialistic? How so. The property the oil companies are drilling on is publically held and the oil companies are merely lessees. If you leased your house to someone, does that givethem the right the burn it down? Of course not. If the government leases land to oil companies, does that give them the right to destroy it?

Cap and Trade? Not sure how that is socialistic in that involves no ownership of companies by government.

Sorry, but you haven't even come close to proving that the Obama administration is socialistic.

Posted by: tunkefer | September 2, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

What would you expect from someone whose state has benefited most from government handouts?

These legacies are known as earmarks and former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens was known as the godfather of them all!

Remember Sarah Palin’s bridge to now where? This tea party idiot is basically on the same route on his way to further north in Alaska…

Posted by: Citi__Street | September 2, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

What would you expect from someone whose state has benefited most from government handouts?

These legacies are known as earmarks and former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens was known as the godfather of them all!

Remember Sarah Palin’s bridge to now where? This tea party idiot is basically destined to travel the same route on his way to further north in Alaska and not to the lower 48 states.

Posted by: Citi__Street | September 2, 2010 10:19 AM | Report abuse

What will the response of the Tea Party/GOP supporters be when they finally realize that they have willingly handed their democracy to billionaires? The Kochs and Murdochs are laughing themselves sick looking at the ignorant masses demanding that the richest of the rich be given even more money and more power. The right screams about elitism, yet fall prostrate to the most elite. As the Tea Party demands more freedom, they actively cede their freedoms to the multinational corporations, which are neither American nor patriotic. Wake up, damn it, you are being taken for fools.

Posted by: rcasero | September 2, 2010 10:16 AM | Report abuse

I guess he would know a lot about Socialism with how Alaska is run. Oil money for all? Share the wealth?

Posted by: Eckertae | September 2, 2010 10:10 AM | Report abuse

Isn't Alaska the largest recipient of Federal dollars? Isn't that's why they called the late Mr. Stevens "Uncle Ted" so affectionately? While Governor and before then Mayor of Wasilla, wasn't Palin's idiology slightly left of center begging for federal dollars??? I'm almost certain that if the 44th President was Biden, Edwards, or McCain; there would not be this racial tension that Republicans are exhibiting.

These under educated happily ignorant middle aged white males working in the dwindling manufacturing sector should obviously look at another trade or just put their energy and anger towards expanding on their antiquated highschool education. Those days of exceptionalism are gone.... lol

Posted by: Debonair31 | September 2, 2010 10:08 AM | Report abuse

Obama moving us toward socialism? Then so did Roosevelt and Eisenhower and Kennedy and Johnson and Nixon and Ford and Carter and Reagan and Bush and Clinton.

As far back as Robert Taft, Republicans have supported government aid for the needy.

It is a measure of the fall of U.S. education that the babbling idiots of the Tea Party movement have any kind of voice in American discourse.

Posted by: Ripley123 | September 2, 2010 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Joe Miller doesn't seem to understand that we no longer live in the 18th century!! Rather, we live in a world where multi-national corporations are more powerful than entire nations. Obama's "socialism," if that's what Miller chooses to call it, is absolutely no threat to our great American democracy, unlike multi-national corporations which are beholden to no single nation, and are certainly not democratic in nature. In 21st century America (where we actually now live!), our president's policies have enhanced and strengthened liberty and freedom. Today, those who would do us harm on the frontier are far less obvious, and considerably more elusive and sinister than British redcoats, or simple outlaws with six-shooters, or Indians honorably defending their lands. Big business does not self-regulate. And market forces provide no relief for the less fortunate unless there's money in it. Who protects and defends the little guy from the abuses of big business if not big government? As Gandhi once said, "I am as concerned about the yoke of Capitalism as I am the yoke of Bolshevism."

Posted by: JATECT2 | September 2, 2010 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Obama moving us toward socialism? Then so did Roosevelt and Eisenhower and Kennedy and Johnson and Nixon and Ford and Carter and Reagan and Bush and Clinton.

As far back as Robert Taft, Republicans have supported government aid for the needy.

It is a measure of the fall of U.S. education that the babbling idiots of the Tea Party movement have any kind of voice in American discourse.

Posted by: Ripley123 | September 2, 2010 10:04 AM | Report abuse

MY GOD mattintx! Are you kiddin' me? The gov't now controls student loans, Health Care, the banks, Wall Street, owns General Motors, has dumped billions of your money into a stimulus bill, shut down 23,000 oil jobs in the gulf, is trying to pass cap and trade and is about to pull off the largest tax increase ever seen on this planet! I guess I don't understand the definition you looked up below. I don't care what color he is...if it looks like a socialist, walks like a socialist and quacks like a socialist....

(mattintx wrote:)

"Here's the definition of socialism from freedictionary.com:

"1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."

- - - -

Very helpful.

But the president doesn't meet that definition.

If you don't like having a black man in a position of authority, have the courage to say so. But don't keep screaming socialist.


- - - -

Posted by: Rustbkt | September 2, 2010 10:04 AM | Report abuse

The comments in here once again prove that facts matter not. Maybe some in here were to young or have a short memory or refuse to accept the truths. There has been bailouts in the past, pre-President Obama. When Regan was elected, Chrysler came knocking on Uncles Sams door for bailout and to avoid bankruptcy. And also Lockheed got a bailout of 250million during the nixon years. At that time, 250 million was a huge amount of $$ as it is now. Also Penn Central Railroad got a bailout, Franklin National Bank, Even NYC in 70's got a bailout & Airlines. And also the saving and loans which President George H. W. Bush signed and Congress enacted the Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act in 1989.

So before yapping about bailouts during the Obama admin and goverment take overs etc, read, study & learn about *bailout history* of the USA. And Remember bears and Sterns bailout? It happened under Bush not Obama. Remember TARP? Also under Bush. So its not just President Obama that has bailedout corps, it has also been done under republicans presidents. Agree or disagree with bailouts which and we can all formulate our own opinions about bailouts, we are not entitled to our facts or fabricate our own facts to fit into an ideology

Posted by: Realistic5 | September 2, 2010 10:00 AM | Report abuse

Another mental midget brought to you by the teabagger party.....these yahoos are an insult to evolution.

Posted by: dem4life1 | September 2, 2010 10:00 AM | Report abuse

Ego nemmo--EXELLENT POST--------

Posted by: Bronski | September 2, 2010 9:58 AM | Report abuse

The comments in here once again prove that facts matter not. Maybe some in here were to young or have a short memory or refuse to accept the truths. There has been bailouts in the past, pre-President Obama. When Regan was elected, Chrysler came knocking on Uncles Sams door for bailout and to avoid bankruptcy. And also Lockheed got a bailout of 250million during the nixon years. At that time, 250 million was a huge amount of $$ as it is now. Also Penn Central Railroad got a bailout, Franklin National Bank, Even NYC in 70's got a bailout & Airlines. And also the saving and loans which President George H. W. Bush signed and Congress enacted the Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act in 1989.

So before yapping about bailouts during the Obama admin and goverment take overs etc, read, study & learn about *bailout history* of the USA. And Remember bears and Sterns bailout? It happened under Bush not Obama. Remember TARP? Also under Bush. So its not just President Obama that has bailedout corps, it has been done also under republicans presidents. Agree or disagree with bailouts which and we can all formulate our own opinions about bailouts, we are not entitled to our facts or fabricate our own facts to fit into an ideology.

Posted by: Realistic5 | September 2, 2010 9:58 AM | Report abuse

The comments in here once again prove that facts matter not. Maybe some in here were to young or have a short memory or refuse to accept the truths. There has been bailouts in the past, pre-President Obama. When Regan was elected, Chrysler came knocking on Uncles Sams door for bailout and to avoid bankruptcy. And also Lockheed got a bailout of 250million during the nixon years. At that time, 250 million was a huge amount of $$ as it is now. Also Penn Central Railroad got a bailout, Franklin National Bank, Even NYC in 70's got a bailout & Airlines. And also the saving and loans which President George H. W. Bush signed and Congress enacted the Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act in 1989.

So before yapping about bailouts during the Obama admin and goverment take overs etc, read, study & learn about *bailout history* of the USA. And Remember bears and Sterns bailout? It happened under Bush not Obama. Remember TARP? Also under Bush. So its not just President Obama that has bailedout corps, it has been done also under republicans presidents. Agree or disagree with bailouts which and we can all formulate our own opinions about bailouts, we are not entitled to our facts or fabricate our own facts to fit into an ideology.

Posted by: Realistic5 | September 2, 2010 9:58 AM | Report abuse

The comments in here once again prove that facts matter not. Maybe some in here were to young or have a short memory or refuse to accept the truths. There has been bailouts in the past, pre-President Obama. When Regan was elected, Chrysler came knocking on Uncles Sams door for bailout and to avoid bankruptcy. And also Lockheed got a bailout of 250million during the nixon years. At that time, 250 million was a huge amount of $$ as it is now. Also Penn Central Railroad got a bailout, Franklin National Bank, Even NYC in 70's got a bailout & Airlines. And also the saving and loans which President George H. W. Bush signed and Congress enacted the Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act in 1989.

So before yapping about bailouts during the Obama admin and goverment take overs etc, read, study & learn about *bailout history* of the USA. And Remember bears and Sterns bailout? It happened under Bush not Obama. Remember TARP? Also under Bush. So its not just President Obama that has bailedout corps, it has been done also under republicans presidents. Agree or disagree with bailouts which and we can all formulate our own opinions about bailouts, we are not entitled to our facts or fabricate our own facts to fit into an ideology.

Posted by: Realistic5 | September 2, 2010 9:57 AM | Report abuse

The GOP to a significant extent and the Tea Party to a much greater extent have so warped the definition of terms such as "socialism" that they are making political discussion almost impossible.

Just what is it that the Obama administration has done that is socialistic? Was it the way they loaned TARP money to banks? The government did get equity positions as collateral for the loans but as events ave proven, they certainly didn't take control of the banks. Was it the loans to GM? True, they did force GM to name a new CEO but any private investor would have done the same thing. Besides, most of the TARP loans have been repaid and all will eventually be paid.

Is it the Health Care Reform bill? I'm not aware of a single insurance firm that is being federally controlled as a result. The fact is, insurance companies are probably going to make money as a result of the bill.

So where is the socialism by any common definition of the term? Nowhere. So I can anly assume that the Tea Party and the GOP have invented a brand new definition, sort of like Palin invents new words. Perhaps they wouldn't mind sharing that definition with the rest of us.

Posted by: tunkefer | September 2, 2010 9:55 AM | Report abuse


mattintx wrote:

"Here's the definition of socialism from freedictionary.com:

"1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."

- - - -

Very helpful.

But the president doesn't meet that definition.

If you don't like having a black man in a position of authority, have the courage to say so. But don't keep screaming socialist.

------

When liberals don't have a valid answer, they pull out the race card.

That's getting old and sadly it will lose it's validity like the "little boy who cried wolf."

I stated my reasons in my previous comment which showed how Obama's actions and agenda are socialistic.

I guess the truth hurts.


Posted by: janet8 | September 2, 2010 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Joe Miller is out of touch with Alaska it self. Before talking about Social security / Medicaid / Medicare, he should talk about $2500 per every family heating aid that they get from Federal government. First of all, all Alaskans forego that aid this winter and talk.

Mr. Joe Miller is gross ignorant of the facts.

Posted by: sasidhargv | September 2, 2010 9:46 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Joe Miller is out of touch with Alaska it self. Before talking about Social security / Medicaid / Medicare, he should talk about $2500 per every family heating aid that they get from Federal government. First of all, all Alaskans forego that aid this winter and talk.

Mr. Joe Miller is gross ignorant of the facts.

Posted by: sasidhargv | September 2, 2010 9:45 AM | Report abuse

"Here's the definition of socialism from freedictionary.com:

"1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."

- - - -

Very helpful.

But the president doesn't meet that definition.

If you don't like having a black man in a position of authority, have the courage to say so. But don't keep screaming socialist.

Posted by: mattintx | September 2, 2010 9:44 AM | Report abuse

I'm happy for the Alaskans. They deserve everything Miller will bring to them.
And I'm happy for all the rest of the ignorant electorate, that will probably put Congress, back in the hands of those who've killed our economy, raided our Treasury, and sent our jobs overseas.
It's just sad that the many good people in America, have to go along for this ride into 3rd-World status. Enjoy GOPers, Tea-Partiers, and followers of propaganda points.

Posted by: burf | September 2, 2010 9:44 AM | Report abuse

Yeah ok just like Martin Luther King, Jr. was a communist!!!! GET OVER IT keep shoving that bible down peoples throat it's sickening the spin PALIN, MILLER, BECK & rest of them they are no better than the terrorists who distort the koran to their sick thoughts!!!!

Posted by: dgirl20 | September 2, 2010 9:32 AM | Report abuse

JOe Miller and his ilk have clearly not thought their knee jerk immature positions through thoroughly. What are the likely consequences if their policies were to hold sway?

Posted by: wd1214 | September 2, 2010 9:32 AM | Report abuse

JOe Miller and his ilk have clearly not thought their knee jerk immature positions through thoroughly. What are the likely consequences if their policies were to hold sway?

Posted by: wd1214 | September 2, 2010 9:32 AM | Report abuse

Dear liberal
Reeducation camp starts today with Joe Miller take some pain meds with you It's going to be rough! Drink plenty of water. Anti milk of human kindness pills will be handed out at the door to help you absorb the truth of the liberal mendacity.

Posted by: FreddyPizza | September 2, 2010 9:28 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: LETFREEDOMRING2 | September 2, 2010 9:27 AM | Report abuse

"completeaoutonomy" is giving a great impression of where our country is right now ... evidently spelling and grammar are not necessary either. why don't you look up some of your words in the dictionary as well. Look at where our country's gone...jobless, homeless, in another war, no choice on healthcare coming, fines to pay if you don't pay for the healthcare. Put that in you "bran" and think on that a while.

Posted by: totegal | September 2, 2010 9:20 AM | Report abuse

fresh ar you in produce this man joe miller is a shmuk you see in alaska you must breed before you graduate ask palin and her daughter thats why thay call it palin pie evry buddy had apice

Posted by: completeaoutonomy | September 2, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

fresh ar you in produce this man joe miller is a shmuk you see in alaska you must breed before you graduate ask palin and her daughter thats why thay call it palin pie evry buddy had apice

Posted by: completeaoutonomy | September 2, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

fresh ar you in produce this man joe miller is a shmuk you see in alaska you must breed before you graduate ask palin and her daughter thats why thay call it palin pie evry buddy had apice

Posted by: completeaoutonomy | September 2, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

fresh ar you in produce this man joe miller is a shmuk you see in alaska you must breed before you graduate ask palin and her daughter thats why thay call it palin pie evry buddy had apice

Posted by: completeaoutonomy | September 2, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

fresh ar you in produce this man joe miller is a shmuk you see in alaska you must breed before you graduate ask palin and her daughter thats why thay call it palin pie evry buddy had apice

Posted by: completeaoutonomy | September 2, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

fresh ar you in produce this man joe miller is a shmuk you see in alaska you must breed before you graduate ask palin and her daughter thats why thay call it palin pie evry buddy had apice

Posted by: completeaoutonomy | September 2, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

fresh ar you in produce this man joe miller is a shmuk you see in alaska you must breed before you graduate ask palin and her daughter thats why thay call it palin pie evry buddy had apice

Posted by: completeaoutonomy | September 2, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

fresh ar you in produce this man joe miller is a shmuk you see in alaska you must breed before you graduate ask palin and her daughter thats why thay call it palin pie evry buddy had apice

Posted by: completeaoutonomy | September 2, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

fresh ar you in produce this man joe miller is a shmuk you see in alaska you must breed before you graduate ask palin and her daughter thats why thay call it palin pie evry buddy had apice

Posted by: completeaoutonomy | September 2, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

fresh ar you in produce this man joe miller is a shmuk you see in alaska you must breed before you graduate ask palin and her daughter thats why thay call it palin pie evry buddy had apice

Posted by: completeaoutonomy | September 2, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

fresh ar you in produce this man joe miller is a shmuk you see in alaska you must breed before you graduate ask palin and her daughter thats why thay call it palin pie evry buddy had apice

Posted by: completeaoutonomy | September 2, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

fresh ar you in produce this man joe miller is a shmuk you see in alaska you must breed before you graduate ask palin and her daughter thats why thay call it palin pie evry buddy had apice

Posted by: completeaoutonomy | September 2, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

fresh ar you in produce this man joe miller is a shmuk you see in alaska you must breed before you graduate ask palin and her daughter thats why thay call it palin pie evry buddy had apice

Posted by: completeaoutonomy | September 2, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

fresh ar you in produce this man joe miller is a shmuk you see in alaska you must breed before you graduate ask palin and her daughter thats why thay call it palin pie evry buddy had apice

Posted by: completeaoutonomy | September 2, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

fresh ar you in produce this man joe miller is a shmuk you see in alaska you must breed before you graduate ask palin and her daughter thats why thay call it palin pie evry buddy had apice

Posted by: completeaoutonomy | September 2, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

fresh ar you in produce this man joe miller is a shmuk you see in alaska you must breed before you graduate ask palin and her daughter thats why thay call it palin pie evry buddy had apice

Posted by: completeaoutonomy | September 2, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

fresh ar you in produce this man joe miller is a shmuk you see in alaska you must breed before you graduate ask palin and her daughter thats why thay call it palin pie evry buddy had apice

Posted by: completeaoutonomy | September 2, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

fresh ar you in produce this man joe miller is a shmuk you see in alaska you must breed before you graduate ask palin and her daughter thats why thay call it palin pie evry buddy had apice

Posted by: completeaoutonomy | September 2, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

fresh ar you in produce this man joe miller is a shmuk you see in alaska you must breed before you graduate ask palin and her daughter thats why thay call it palin pie evry buddy had apice

Posted by: completeaoutonomy | September 2, 2010 9:16 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Miller, by his comment, is either a calculating demagogue who believes the American people are stupid, or he himself is quite ignorant.

Mr. Miller, if he is truly open-minded, and anyone else of truly good will who wants to explore this issue honestly, should have a conversation with a liberal person who is upset with Obama for being too close to Wall Street.

They would have an interesting chat -- One side saying Obama is acting against the interests of market capitalism and the other arguing that he is too much the tool of market capitalism.

One thing is true -- both extreme points of view are dead wrong. But that conclusion only matters if one intends to actually analyze our nation and not score demagogue points on cable TV news.

The administration clearly moved to save capitalism from itself. No industries were actually nationalized. Not one single honest producer or consumer in the United States up to this very moment has lost any access to any market due solely to a government action.

Without government assumption of industry, without restriction of markets there can be no socialism.

Instead, the administration saved modern U.S. capitalism from itself. And did it in a singularly American way, that cannot be glibly labeled with worn-out European fighting words, like 'socialism.'

The American people, through their government, provided capital to keep large private organizations -- principally banks and automobile manufacturers -- whole while then being reorganized.

While the scale is large, this is no unprecedented. This sort of thing has gone on, on a local scale, since before the beginning of the Republic. Countless times before haven't the officers of a local bank in a given town extended credit to a keystone local industry far beyond the limits of their reasonable policies because the the alternative -- the loss and collapse of that keystone employer -- would easily have been a far greater risk than making a loan?

Yes. Hundreds of thousands of times in American history. This is the way of market credit and community pragmatism.

These things worked on a national scale this time, and yet this success -- which brought no diminishment of freedom -- is met with misunderstanding and even distortions and fabrications. We get fear-driven screamers who spend time blathering on cable TV for obvious personal aggrandizement instead of taking the afternoon to see the markets rise and actually do some productive work and make more capital.

We'd be even better off as a nation if the factless complainers used their energies to refinance their debt to lower rates and aligned their portfolios to take advantage of the bullish trends in today's market.

If they were true capitalists, they'd be out there making money, and not telling tall tales on the unwatched CNN.

Posted by: 1EgoNemo | September 2, 2010 9:16 AM | Report abuse

blow joe blow, what a bunch of rah rah feel good smoke for the ken from Alaska. Distort, lie and dissemble, wrap up in a flag and throw mud. Such a statesman - go pump some gas.

Posted by: right_as_rain | September 2, 2010 9:13 AM | Report abuse

Guess the morning points were e-mailed out to the college students early this morning, judging from the similarity in comments.

Posted by: Gooddogs | September 2, 2010 9:11 AM | Report abuse

Be were of false profits and that is joe miller the bible got that wright if ther is a god when joe go's globel worming helll won't need no one after jojo the cercus boy

Posted by: completeaoutonomy | September 2, 2010 9:07 AM | Report abuse

Wow! This is sooo amazing and FRESH! Miller is quite the trendsetter! Pretty soon everyone will be repeating this!

Oh, wait....

Posted by: trident420 | September 2, 2010 9:07 AM | Report abuse

Be were of false profits and that is joe miller the bible got that wright if ther is a god when joe go's globel worming helll won't need no one after jojo the cercus boy

Posted by: completeaoutonomy | September 2, 2010 9:07 AM | Report abuse

Be were of false profits and that is joe miller the bible got that wright if ther is a god when joe go's globel worming helll won't need no one after jojo the cercus boy

Posted by: completeaoutonomy | September 2, 2010 9:07 AM | Report abuse

Be were of false profits and that is joe miller the bible got that wright if ther is a god when joe go's globel worming helll won't need no one after jojo the cercus boy

Posted by: completeaoutonomy | September 2, 2010 9:07 AM | Report abuse


Miller is a breath of fresh air! We should have more candidates running in both parties who put people/country before party and their own radical agenda.

When Miller says Obama is leading our country towards socialism he is spot on!

Here's the definition of socialism from freedictionary.com:

"1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."

Which Obama has systematically done and in the process of controlling more sectors. Obama has exerted control over car companies, healthcare, student loans, banks, insurance companies, financial firms, schools, businesses and is also trampling on States rights. These are just a few, not to mention his desire to control the internet, energy, illegal immigration flow (by ignoring rule of federal law) and the list goes on.

2012 can't come soon enough.

Wake up America!

Posted by: janet8 | September 2, 2010 9:06 AM | Report abuse

Hey Joe, look-up the definition of socialism before making a fool of yourself.

Posted by: jckdoors | September 2, 2010 9:02 AM | Report abuse

you know is bad for the us.you. thats wright you you weak as its GOP not GOD YOU SHEAT for brans.

Posted by: completeaoutonomy | September 2, 2010 8:57 AM | Report abuse

you know is bad for the us.you. thats wright you you weak as its GOP not GOD YOU SHEAT for brans.

Posted by: completeaoutonomy | September 2, 2010 8:57 AM | Report abuse

you know is bad for the us.you. thats wright you you weak as its GOP not GOD YOU SHEAT for brans.

Posted by: completeaoutonomy | September 2, 2010 8:57 AM | Report abuse

you know is bad for the us.you. thats wright you you weak as its GOP not GOD YOU SHEAT for brans.

Posted by: completeaoutonomy | September 2, 2010 8:57 AM | Report abuse

you know is bad for the us.you. thats wright you you weak as its GOP not GOD YOU SHEAT for brans.

Posted by: completeaoutonomy | September 2, 2010 8:57 AM | Report abuse

you know is bad for the us.you. thats wright you you weak as its GOP not GOD YOU SHEAT for brans.

Posted by: completeaoutonomy | September 2, 2010 8:57 AM | Report abuse

Alaska easily has the most socialized state economy in the US. Spreading corporate revenue amongst the population is far and away the most socialist program in this country. Comparative politics was one of the first classes I took in college; it's discouraging to think that the right would learn so much from a POL101 course. Then again that would require setting foot on a liberal/pinko college campus so I guess that's out of the question.

Posted by: booerns14 | September 2, 2010 8:54 AM | Report abuse

Alaska easily has the most socialized state economy in the US. Spreading corporate revenue amongst the population is far and away the most socialist program in this country. Comparative politics was one of the first classes I took in college; it's discouraging to think that the right would learn so much from a POL101 course. Then again that would require setting foot on a liberal/pinko college campus so I guess that's out of the question.

Posted by: booerns14 | September 2, 2010 8:53 AM | Report abuse

Alaska easily has the most socialized state economy in the US. Spreading corporate revenue amongst the population is far and away the most socialist program in this country. Comparative politics was one of the first classes I took in college; it's discouraging to think that the right would learn so much from a POL101 course. Then again that would require setting foot on a liberal/pinko college campus so I guess that's out of the question.

Posted by: booerns14 | September 2, 2010 8:52 AM | Report abuse

@ egc52556 ... "taking care of each other" does not require a gov't apparatus. and in a biblical context, it in no way refers to some social-political system whereby folks are taxed to underwrite gov't programs for the less fortunate.

there are a million ways to take care of the less fortunate through volunteering or private non-profit service organizations. allowing gov't to assume responsibility for these things actually dampens people's interest in taking care of each other ... because the gov't is (supposedly) doing it.

one statistic: volunteering / charitable giving / etc. is much higher by people "on the right" than by people "on the left." you can make the connection that's because "the left" sees / wants a much more active gov't role in our everyday lives and acts accordingly.

Posted by: BruceHyland | September 2, 2010 8:51 AM | Report abuse

Curious what he thinks the Bush/Paulson
efforts to Nationalize all of our banks in Dec 2008 was?

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 2, 2010 8:50 AM | Report abuse

Curious what he thinks the Bush/Paulson
efforts to Nationalize all of our banks in Dec 2008 was?

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 2, 2010 8:50 AM | Report abuse

what's next Joe miller are you going to anounce your gay let me guess your kids go to privet school and your wife sleeps in a seperate room am i right so far its we the popple you commie betch and you still oue me money you man hore

Posted by: completeaoutonomy | September 2, 2010 8:49 AM | Report abuse

what's next Joe miller are you going to anounce your gay let me guess your kids go to privet school and your wife sleeps in a seperate room am i right so far its we the popple you commie betch and you still oue me money you man hore

Posted by: completeaoutonomy | September 2, 2010 8:49 AM | Report abuse

The real sad thing about this is that most people have no clue about what is happening. Before we know it we will all be given vouchers to buy our food and our Government will control every aspect of our lives. Stand up and show your solidarity.

Posted by: randykree | September 2, 2010 8:34 AM | Report abuse

_


Gee, what Miller calls "socialism" is what I call "taking care of each other."

Project Vote Smart ( http://www.votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=27169 ) says Miller is a Christian. I guess Miller missed the part of the Bible -- Luke 9:48 ( http://bible.cc/luke/9-48.htm ) -- where we are admonished to care for the least among us.

No, Miller would prefer a form of government where it's every man for himself and "greed is good". Yessiree-bob, that's what America needs: more capitalism.


_

Posted by: egc52556 | September 2, 2010 8:31 AM | Report abuse

Moving towards socialism? So we're all gonna become farmers?

Posted by: Garak | September 2, 2010 8:28 AM | Report abuse

It saddens me to see the polarization that exisits in the blame game about our current situation. The truth is, that neither politcal party is to blame, it is our elected representatives who pander to special interest groups to the detriment of the will of the majority of the american people. Alaskans may get a 'welfare' check, but at least they are receiving direct compensation for allowing the oil companies to withdraw natural resources. Too bad the rest of the states didn't think of it. As for Obamacare - providing medical care is a good thing - but having to borrow money to pay for it is bad bad bad. It will be a sad day when the payment for this spending binge is due.

Posted by: gmurphmi | September 2, 2010 8:16 AM | Report abuse

Great to see Joe Miller is recognizing Obama for what he is - a socialist! Miller will win Alaska easily and will join the GOP in halting the socialist agenda of Obama and Pelosi!

Posted by: Realist201 | September 2, 2010 8:12 AM | Report abuse

My native state used to provide leaders like Dwight Eisenhower; now we export our own generous supply of wing nuts. (sigh)

Posted by: doolindalton1 | September 2, 2010 8:11 AM | Report abuse

so you'll be cancelling those commie socialist oil cheques to the people of Alaska then?

Posted by: Chops2 | September 2, 2010 7:59 AM | Report abuse

What is it about Glenn Beck Christian "Old White Joes" (Wilson, Barton and Miller) that they have the cajones to say what they're thinking but lack the common sense not to?

Posted by: areyousaying | September 2, 2010 7:52 AM | Report abuse

Very amusing, Joe. You live in a State that takes in more Government assistance than any other. Your pal Palin also legislated a big fat check for every Alaskan from the oil companies. So, the Alaska brand of big government "socialism" is OK, but providing health care for all citizens as every other industrialized nation does doesn't fit in your Team Party model. Good luck with your plan to stop the Alaskan earmarks - once your citizens understand your taking away the $$ that they have, you won't be long for the job.

Posted by: ben16 | September 2, 2010 7:48 AM | Report abuse

Any knucklehead who thinks Obama is taking us towards socialism obviously doesn't know what socialism is. But these same people think the GOP's drive to let big business run the country is good? They just don't get it.

Posted by: tojo45 | September 2, 2010 7:46 AM | Report abuse

What can you expect from Alaska, they voted for Palin. Alaska love the Republiklan party. Miller does not even know what Socialism is if he thinks that is Obamas agenda. The GOP has become the refuge of the most ignorant bigoted Americans. It give a voice to the stupidest, racists Americans. The GOP reaffirms their belief that it is ok to be a racist idiot.

Posted by: rcc_2000 | September 2, 2010 7:34 AM | Report abuse

Joe Miller is myopic.

He says that Republicans have the solution to America's problems. He doesn't mention that Republicans got us into this sad place we currently find ourselves. George Bush not only drove the US into a needless and winless war with Iraq and abandoned going after Bin Laden. He justified and funded the initial bailout of the banks. Both the Iraq war and bank bailout were supported by all the Republicans, without exception or opposition. Note that the Republicans all vote in unison, not for what's good for the country but for what they view as best for their political future.

And here were are today. Listening to the words of tea-bagging nincompoops like Joe Miller who want to return the country to Republican control.

Posted by: stonemen2 | September 2, 2010 7:30 AM | Report abuse

Ah yes. Continuing its tradition of wackos like Palin, Alaska (recipient of tax-payer largess) nominates another wacko. Sharon Angle, Rand Paul, and now Joe, are showing the GOP to be the party of idiots. Bet they will all be watching Bristol on Dancing With The Stars.

Posted by: davidlhanegraaf | September 2, 2010 7:26 AM | Report abuse

Another example of Republican voters letting their outrage get in the way of their common sense. Just like Utah, where Bennett lost the primary election. A state can be powerful or insignificant. Lose your Congressional seniority and possibly lose the seat to the Democrats as well when you run extreme right candidates and you are much worse off. But I guess if voting out of anger makes you happy...

Posted by: sam38 | September 2, 2010 7:26 AM | Report abuse

Miller and his anti gov't compadres lose sight of the fact that in America, the gov't IS the people. The hypocrites on the right see nothing wrong with gov't being run by the big corporations. In America, the Dems are for the People- the Repubs are for the Corporations. Miller, your populist rhetoric doesn't stand... you are a typical repub corporate shill... nothing more, nothing less.

Posted by: seakeys | September 2, 2010 7:16 AM | Report abuse

Joe Miller is not telling American something that we didn't already know. Thanks anyway Joe.

Posted by: williams3061 | September 2, 2010 7:10 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company