I'm a nerd and stumbled upon the Nevada Senate debate between Harry Reid and Sharon Angle on cspan.
Both are complete morons. Reid is a political hack, spinning his Senate career and the last two years on his leadership.
Angle is really a doof and is just spitting right talking points about limited government, but when pressed can't up with any policy proposals.

She also said that English should be the official language, that insurance companies should have to cover anything (let the markets take care of). She is saying we need solutions-but offers none.
She is also a poor speaker drifting from point to point and having awkward pauses in her responses.

Reid as I said is a hack, and is really spinmaster is his awful Senate leadership. He constantly repeats bills he introduced, but doesn't go into the specifics on the bill, now how he would help drop unemployment and foreclosures.

Both are awful and really don't deserve to be in the U.S. Senate. Nevada is screwed.

Not just Nevada.

[video=youtube;lwx2ce_AyOE][/video]

Love the laugh at the end.

Pretty terrible.

How anyone can actually support either of them is beyond me.

Pretty much par for the course for politicians. Don't know why anyone is surprised.

The only reasonably valid reason to vote for Angle is to send Reid packing. Congress needs a huge enema November 2nd and Reid should be one of the first turds to be sent down the crapper.

believer;520020 wrote:The only reasonably valid reason to vote for Angle is to send Reid packing. Congress needs a huge enema November 2nd and Reid should be one of the first turds to be sent down the crapper.

Yea, i completely get that, not a fan of Reid at all, but what do we gain from replacing one giant turd in the toilet with another giant turd? Is the only difference that it is your own turd, so you're able to look at it there in the bowl without becoming completely grossed out, and even feel slightly proud at what it is?

cbus4life;520022 wrote:Yea, i completely get that, not a fan of Reid at all, but what do we gain from replacing one giant turd in the toilet with another giant turd? Is the only difference that it is your own turd, so you're able to look at it there in the bowl without becoming completely grossed out, and even feel slightly proud at what it is?

Oh I agree. I wouldn't call Angle "my turd" though. I don't trust the Repubs either. I'm only hoping for stalemate in DC to minimize the damage. Gridlocked government may not be good government....but it isn't bad either!

If I vote for the person who is, in my opinion, the lesser of two evils, I have done all I can do to limit the damage that may be or could have been done. If I stay home, I have done nothing and should not participate in the whining that will follow over how bad this candidate or that one is. We have a vote for a reason and if you forfeit your right to select, you are as detrimental to our election process as anyone out there.

Reid sucked monkey balls. Worst debate performance I've seen in awhile. Angle may not be the most eloquent lady out there, but Harry made her look like farking Shakespeare last night.

Say g'night, Harry. You're done.

It's gonna be all up to Patty Murray to save the Dems majority. She'll be the difference between 50-50 and 51-49 for the dems.

If I lived in Nevada, I would vote for Angle for two reasons:

1. Using the "Palin" fitness evaluation, She is remotely doeable.....(it's a reach but it's something)

2. She is not Harry Reid.....

Swamp Fox;520024 wrote:If I vote for the person who is, in my opinion, the lesser of two evils, I have done all I can do to limit the damage that may be or could have been done. If I stay home, I have done nothing and should not participate in the whining that will follow over how bad this candidate or that one is. We have a vote for a reason and if you forfeit your right to select, you are as detrimental to our election process as anyone out there.

Great point. If Nevadans keep Harry Reid, we're all screwed. I could care less how eloquent Angle is, or that she wants English to be the official language (what could be more radical than that?!?!?).

And one senator representing Nevada in the US Senate has a way, way more limited role in what happens to Nevadans than US Representatives, the governor, state legislature, local govt, etc, etc.

ptown_trojans_1;519831 wrote:She is also a poor speaker drifting from point to point and having awkward pauses in her responses.

The greatest speaker we've seen in the last 30 years got elected and look where we are. Is being a poor speaker = lousy senator? Harry's no orator neither.

BGFalcons82;520219 wrote:The greatest speaker we've seen in the last 30 years got elected and look where we are. Is being a poor speaker = lousy senator? Harry's no orator neither.

No, but it is important to put together complete thoughts. She was all over the place sometimes.

ptown_trojans_1;520224 wrote:No, but it is important to put together complete thoughts. She was all over the place sometimes.

bingo.

There's a difference between being a poor orator and not being able to formulate ideas quickly and cleanly so that you can deliver then verbally.

Thread Bomber;520131 wrote:If I lived in Nevada, I would vote for Angle for two reasons:

1. Using the "Palin" fitness evaluation, She is remotely doeable.....(it's a reach but it's something)

2. She is not Harry Reid.....

I'm fascinated by the fact that for some reason...it always comes back around to Palin.

Con_Alma;520226 wrote:bingo.

There's a difference between being a poor orator and not being able to formulate ideas quickly and cleanly so that you can deliver then verbally.

That happens to everyone. I've watched the POTUS himself stand there and drool for 5-10 seconds before launching into a 15 minute convoluted cesspool of an answer.

We can bat around who's "worthy" or "qualified," or who speaks in complete sentences all day long, gents. However, that ain't what this election cycle is all about. You're either for a bloated federal government, or your not. It's really just that simple.

Why was the fact that she thinks English should be our official language thrown in there?

fish82;520244 wrote:That happens to everyone. I've watched the POTUS himself stand there and drool for 5-10 seconds before launching into a 15 minute convoluted cesspool of an answer.

We can bat around who's "worthy" or "qualified," or who speaks in complete sentences all day long, gents. However, that ain't what this election cycle is all about. You're either for a bloated federal government, or your not. It's really just that simple.

It may happen to everyone but the when and how it "happens" impacts voters impressions and ultimately voting decision.

If the message was the sole source of a voters decision politics would indeed be much more "simple". ..but it's not. Candidates spend a lot of money determining what triggers voters motivating forces to vote for certain candidates.

fish82;520244 wrote:That happens to everyone. I've watched the POTUS himself stand there and drool for 5-10 seconds before launching into a 15 minute convoluted cesspool of an answer.

We can bat around who's "worthy" or "qualified," or who speaks in complete sentences all day long, gents. However, that ain't what this election cycle is all about. You're either for a bloated federal government, or your not. It's really just that simple.

No, it isn't that simple.

I don't think there is anyone here that honestly wants a massive bloated government. But acting like there is only a "good" and a "bad" side to this is simply dishonest.

I Wear Pants;520310 wrote:I don't think there is anyone here that honestly wants a massive bloated government. But acting like there is only a "good" and a "bad" side to this is simply dishonest.

Examples of Bloatedness:
1. Government takeover of 16% of the economy through ObamaKare and the not-too-distant single payer system all Democrats pine for.
2. Cap and Tax. Creating a false scarcity of carbon to reduce planetary temperatures by less than .09 of 1 degree Fahrenheit. Link - http://www.masterresource.org/2009/05/part-i-a-climate-analysis-of-the-waxman-markey-climate-bill%E2%80%94the-impacts-of-us-actions-alone/
3. Governmental ownership of not 1, but 2 American car manufacturers.
4. Increasing spending by 9% when revenues are declining.

OK, IWP...if you say no one honestly wants massive bloatedness, then how did these things occur?

All that matters is her votes FOR limited government, tax relief, and spending cuts. I don't care if she can chew gum and walk at the same time as long as she governs like a real conservative.

Harry Reid represents everything that is wrong with government ------ it is wonderful to see him get whipped; it just should have happened a long time ago so we could have avoided the massive damage he has inflicted.

QuakerOats;520382 wrote:All that matters is her votes FOR limited government, tax relief, and spending cuts. I don't care if she can chew gum and walk at the same time as long as she governs like a real conservative.

Harry Reid represents everything that is wrong with government ------ it is wonderful to see him get whipped; it just should have happened a long time ago so we could have avoided the massive damage he has inflicted.

I'm actually for limited and smart government too. But, the problem I have with Angle is once she gets to specifics, her arguments fall apart. Several times last night she fell to the same talking points.

I guess this is my whole problem with the modified tea party. It has some good broad ideas, but I have to see policy or actual steps that they would take.
Also, her answer to the Yucca Mountain question made no sense whatsoever. She wants to build a power plant near a mountain? Huh?

I agree with you on Harry Reid, which is why I said Nevada is screwed. Both candidates just plain suck ass.

I Wear Pants;520310 wrote:No, it isn't that simple.

I don't think there is anyone here that honestly wants a massive bloated government. But acting like there is only a "good" and a "bad" side to this is simply dishonest.

Where did I say it was a choice between good or bad?

And I'm sorry, but yes...it is just that simple. If you really don't want bloated government, then the choice is clear. If you still think it serves a purpose, then I guess you still have some pondering to do.

There are currently two parties. One of them has any kind of track record the past 30 years in reducing the size of the federal government. I'm merely playing the odds.