fish82;520427 wrote: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.

ptown_trojans_1;520438 wrote:Haha, yeah. Although, I thought for sure Angle was the better of two evil, now I just think they are equally bad. But, if pressed, perhaps Angle is a little better than Reid as long as she does not have any leadership positions in her first term.

Plus, it would not hurt to have another Senate leader.

I Wear Pants;520454 wrote:Neither party has any record of reducing the government size in the past 30 years.

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.

fish82;520461 wrote:How about "bringing expenditures in line with revenue." Better?

bigdaddy2003;520510 wrote:I still would like to know why the OP mentioned Angle wants English to be our official language in his original post like it was a strike against her.

ptown_trojans_1;520438 wrote:Plus, it would not hurt to have another Senate leader.

Manhattan Buckeye;521224 wrote:"What strikes me as odd about Angle (and all other Tea Party candidates) is that they claim to want less (or no) government, yet they want desperately to be a part of that government, to the point of spending millions of dollars to be a part of the government."

I respectfully disagree. How is it odd? Either way you have it, there are 100 Senators. Is there something wrong about ensuring that someone else isn't abusing the position?

FWIW I don't care for either candidate. But Reid is in a position of power, as is Pelosi on the House side. What were the DEMs thinking putting these clowns in charge?

cbus4life;521280 wrote:They weren't.

What a mess the democratic leadership has made of things in such a short amount of time...

believer;521345 wrote:Suffice to say that the Repubs have been handed a gift by the Dems. Let's see how rapidly they screw up this time.

stlouiedipalma;521120 wrote:What strikes me as odd about Angle (and all other Tea Party candidates) is that they claim to want less (or no) government, yet they want desperately to be a part of that government, to the point of spending millions of dollars to be a part of the government.

Great point. If Nevadans keep Harry Reid, we're all screwed.

HitsRus;522357 wrote:This.

Moreover, can Angle be worse that Reid? At least we can rely on her not to vote instep with Pelosi.


If you are gonna get screwed you might as well choose the way you are going to enjoy it the most.

believer;522594 wrote:After November 2nd Pelosi will go back to being House Minority leader and Angle will force the Dems to pick a new Senate Slim Majority Leader.

That works for me!

fish82;522622 wrote:I got a five spot that says she won't have the votes to hold the minority leader spot. I honestly don't think the Dems are stupid enough to let her keep the leadership role.

majorspark;522881 wrote:Did someone forget to tell Harry, "This election is lost".