Yes, she seeks to hide her views so that she will not suffer the repurcusions of negative public opinion.

hi sharon…this is sarah palin…shhh, you’re not supposed to say that out loud

“Matthews was somewhat more lenient on the network, even if he did call Angle and her campaign a “travesty”

Chris, when it comes to objective, unbiased journalism, you’re the travesty.

“Alongside guests Ryan Grim of the Huffington Post and Media Matters’ Eric Boehlert, Matthews attacked Angle for repeated comments that showed a similar line of thought”

A guests on MSNBC are required to have a similar line of thought (Bobbleheads).

Matthews , Media Matters , and a boob from ZSa Zsa ‘s site . Which one of these stooges is Curly Joe ?

Chris Softball, Huffpiss Post, Media What? Now that’s a fair and balanced panel. The utter hypcocrsy exhibited by the media matters idiot was astounding. Complaining how Fox interviewers throw softballs as if Matthews and or media matters or MSM have ever asked meaningful substantive questions of Democratic candidates. It should be noted that Chris Matthews has ran a negative campaign against this women since the primary. Harry Reid should have to claim hardball as paid political announcer for all the work Matthews has done for him. It took media matters guy one second to jump on Fox even though the issue as framed by Matthews had nothing to do with Fox. Of course Chrissy didnt steer the conversation back on course. This lady may be crazy as a loon but Ill leave that up to the voters of Nevada. But this show is just another example of the lame stream media advocating certain candidates by attacking their opponents.

A-Mess-NBC and Chris are informercials for Obama, all-day-every-day!

Trouble is, they can’t sell the product!

His approval is at a low of 41%!

Oh, HAPPY DAY!

November cometh -

haha…you whackjobs can criticize mathews all you want, but that clown you got will loose the election for you against harry reid…\
keep on talking sharron

I’m in Texas so I can’t vote in that race, but I don’t think her platform is radical. It is all laid out at her website. Heaven help us if conservatives (not Republicans) do not take the House, Senate, or both in November.

does that website have the statements she tried to sue to have deleted?

Chili, what were those statements? I see nothing crazy on her site.

ChiliPeppersFan said:
haha…you whackjobs can criticize mathews all you want, but that clown you got will loose the election for you against harry reid…\
keep on talking sharron

Chilli, did your prescription kick in yet?

You are proving yourself to be a blatherskite again.

Patrick Henry said:
I’m in Texas so I can’t vote in that race, but I don’t think her platform is radical. It is all laid out at her website. Heaven help us if conservatives (not Republicans) do not take the House, Senate, or both in November.

I’m in Texas, too (well, actually the People’s Republic of Austin, bu we can see Texas in every direction), and her platform is radically rightist. So, radically rightist, I intend to hold my nose and write a check to Harry Reid. I didn’t think anyone or anything could make me do that.

FOX:
WE NEVER GAVE NEWS A TRY.
WHY?
EASIER TO SIMPLY LIE

King, give me examples of her platform being “radically right”. Also, let me know how much you are sending Harry so I can send Sharon the same amount. He already has something like $80 million to her $2 million.

Oh by the way King, Gig ‘em!

Patrick Henry said:
Oh by the way King, Gig ‘em!

What a lovely fight song.

We are the Faggies,
The Faggies are we,
We’re as queer as
Any men can be ….

Yes, indeed. You know, our governor, Toll Booth Perry, was a cheerleader at College Station Community College before he started trading political influence for lake property. He was the one on the end with two maroon pom poms.

Well, Peas in Our Time!

I bid you a very pleasnt evening.

FOX:
WE NEVER GAVE NEWS A TRY.
WHY?
EASIER TO SIMPLY LIE

Notsofast, thanks for the word “blatherskite”. When I looked it up I saw a picture of Royal next to it.

I’ve been observing for a few weeks .This guy who thinks he’s a king is one disturbed individual . Humor him . He will snap (again) one day and climb a tower in Texas .

His Nipsey Russell – like poems are indicative of extreme psychosis ( Olbermannic Level ) . Call for back -up when approaching .

patrick henry
i’m not sure what her ORIGINAL platform was, but the reid campaign said she had “long believed in killing social security” and whatever other stuff she said she didn’t want the voters to read

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/angle-sends-cease-and-desist-to-reid-for-reposting-her-own-website.php

Touche, ‘sip and it’s “yell leader”, not “cheerleader”. You have a pleasant evening as well. Seriously, I would like to see a rundown of Angle’s positions you see as radical and why.

I use to love Nipsey Russell.

Red Skelton always scared me a bit, however.

FOX:
WE NEVER GAVE NEWS A TRY.
WHY?
EASIER TO SIMPLY LIE

Chili, I know she wants to give people under 55 the option of a private account and gradually raising the retirement age to 70. Those actions would affect me, but we have to do something to fix SS or it won’t be there for anyone.

didn’t she say that unemployment insurance creates ‘lazy’ people?
that sounds a bit radical to me especially considering the troubled times we are in

but what the reid camp said is that before she won the repub nomination, she had “long believed in killing ss..
now i know you have to talk out of both sides of your face to be a politician, but when you’re just starting off you should be a little more ideological

Chili, thanks for that link. I would like to see if what she has on her site is different from what was on there before. I went to http://www.sharronsundergroundbunker.com, but that is obviously a partisan website and difficult to tell what might be true.

Chili, I think unemployment insurance can become a crutch if it goes on for too long, but if she did say it makes “lazy people”, that is a bit much. I’d like to see a video of her saying that.

here ya go pat
http://www.examiner.com/x-39124-Providence-Headlines-Examiner~y2010m7d16-Will-unemployment-extension-pass-Tuesday-Tea-Partys-Sharron-Angle-calls-unemployed-lazy

listen, i’m not a big reid fan but given the alternative i hope he wins

Recently Sharron Angle told Nevada political reporter John Ralston, ” The truth about it is that they keep extending these unemployment benefits to the point where people are afraid to go out and get a job because the job doesn’t pay as much as the unemployment benefit does … What has happened is this system of entitlement has caused us to have a spoilage with our ability to go out and get a job.”

maybe she has a different class of friends, but no one i know would pass on a job if they were unemployed

Chili, the video wasn’t on that link, but I read what she told the reporter. She did come on strong, but she didn’t say they were lazy. If you saw the video and say that she called them lazy I will take your word for it. Thanks again for the link.

Chili, the following if from BO’s economic advisor Larry Summers on unemployment insurance:

What Causes Long-Term Unemployment?

To fully understand unemployment, we must consider the causes of recorded long-term unemployment. Empirical evidence shows that two causes are welfare payments and unemployment insurance. These government assistance programs contribute to long-term unemployment in two ways.

First, government assistance increases the measure of unemployment by prompting people who are not working to claim that they are looking for work even when they are not. The work-registration requirement for welfare recipients, for example, compels people who otherwise would not be considered part of the labor force to register as if they were a part of it. This requirement effectively increases the measure of unemployed in the labor force even though these people are better described as nonemployed—that is, not actively looking for work.

Similarly, unemployment insurance increases the measure of unemployment by inducing people to say that they are job hunting in order to collect benefits.

The second way government assistance programs contribute to long-term unemployment is by providing an incentive, and the means, not to work.

Unemployment insurance also extends the time a person stays off the job. Clark and I estimated that the existence of unemployment insurance almost doubles the number of unemployment spells lasting more than three months. If unemployment insurance were eliminated, the unemployment rate would drop by more than half a percentage point, which means that the number of unemployed people would fall by about 750,000.

There is no question that some long-term unemployment is caused by government intervention and unions that interfere with the supply of labor.

Seems to me, he’s saying the same thing as Angle.

Patrick Henry said:
I’m in Texas so I can’t vote in that race, but I don’t think her platform is radical. It is all laid out at her website.

Since this hasn’t really been answered yet, thought I’d share:

“Shortly after her primary win, Angle’s website, which talked about phasing out social security and eliminating federal departments, was pulled down.
Sharron Angle’s official website shares her toned-down views that follow GOP talking points.”
http://www.fox5vegas.com/news/24164814/detail.html

Angle believes that the Federal Department of Education should be eliminated.

Instead of laws, Angle “believes that campaign finance limitations must come from the candidates themselves.”

expresses her support to bring 77,000 tons of deadly radioactive waste to Nevada’s Yucca Mountain.

calls for “free-market alternatives” to be developed “as the Social Security system is transitioned out.”

abolishment of medicare

thinks the 15 million people competing for the same 1 million jobs are “spoiled” and “lazy” for not all having jobs and didn’t support the unemployment benefits extension <- even if you defend her on that one by posting a defense of THAT position, the case can hardly be made that this person is better for Nevadans, and those who support her show just how loyal to the right they are. I mean, does this lady have to be Cecil Marceaux before a conservative is willing to say no thank you?

http://www.therealsharronangle.com

even when a corrupt wall street guy says it…if i were unemployed, i would not sit around at home if i were able to get another job

This is all well and good, but the phrase that really got me thinking is: Then the conversation veered to the 2012 elections, and the fact that three of the major possible Republican presidential candidates– Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and Mike Huckabee– work for Fox News. Um, does anybody else see why this is wrong, and also a dangerous precedent. Not only do they get to have free campaign advertising and get their platform out there, but they get paid to do it. And right now, that seems unfair mainly to other Republicans who don’t have a chance of getting this type of publicity and get paid to deliver it. It’s not necessarily propaganda but it veers pretty darn close. I don’t know, maybe it’s me, but what would be said if the three major democratic front runners for any office were under the employ of MSNBC. Would the Right be angry? It’s not fair and balanced at all. Not even for their own party.

coalminecanary said:
Since this hasn’t really been answered yet, thought I’d share:

“Shortly after her primary win, Angle’s website, which talked about phasing out social security and eliminating federal departments, was pulled down.
Sharron Angle’s official website shares her toned-down views that follow GOP talking points.”
http://www.fox5vegas.com/news/24164814/detail.html

So, she’s a libertarian. That’s not the same as conservative, is it? Is it further to the right of conservatives? I’m generally asking, not trying to stir anything up. I’m curious.
Angle believes that the Federal Department of Education should be eliminated.

Instead of laws, Angle “believes that campaign finance limitations must come from the candidates themselves.”

expresses her support to bring 77,000 tons of deadly radioactive waste to Nevada’s Yucca Mountain.

calls for “free-market alternatives” to be developed “as the Social Security system is transitioned out.”

abolishment of medicare

thinks the 15 million people competing for the same 1 million jobs are “spoiled” and “lazy” for not all having jobs and didn’t support the unemployment benefits extension <- even if you defend her on that one by posting a defense of THAT position, the case can hardly be made that this person is better for Nevadans, and those who support her show just how loyal to the right they are. I mean, does this lady have to be Cecil Marceaux before a conservative is willing to say no thank you?

http://www.therealsharronangle.com

Sorry, I had asked a question to that last post, don’t know why it didn’t show up. My question was: So she’s a libertarian? Is that different from conservatives? Is it farther to the right than conservatives, or is conservative the farthest to the right? Not trying to stir anything up, just curious. Wanted to see if anyone could shed a bit of light on that. Beck’s a libertarian, right?

I can’t speak as to who is a libertarian but her positions do seem more in line with the positions that notable libertarians have taken, that I have seen, but I don’t think she claims to be, not sure on that. As far as being further to the right, Angle absolutely is right of the mainstream Republican party.

I think the word “conservative” encapsulates the entire right spectrum of politics, with Libertarianism and Republicanism and neo-conservatism all falling somewhere in between, but I would challenge someone else here to post a better explanation or to do some research on it, there is definitely a better answer than mine

I think this article should be able to answer your question at least regarding Angle’s position in the conservative spectrum well:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/apr/18/will-tea-party-express-stop-dc/

“CARSON CITY — Sharron Angle has been waiting decades for the Nevada Republican Party to catch up.

Before Sarah Palin declared Republicans the “party of ‘Hell No,’ ” Angle, as a legislator, cast so many solitary “no” votes that it was common to say bills had passed “62 to Angle.”

Before the conservative movement became almost exclusively anti-establishment, anti-incumbent, Angle dared to challenge Republican icon Bill Raggio, a state senator for more than three decades — forcing the then-81-year-old to spend a hot August walking his district, vowing not to raise taxes. Angle lost the 2008 race by a few hundred votes.

Before the Tea Party movement formed, anti-tax fervor crescendoed and candidates thumped on copies of the U.S. Constitution like a preacher on a Bible, Angle was doing it.

“I was a conservative before it was fashionable,” she says.”

MichelleF said:
following if from BO’s economic advisor Larry Summers on unemployment insurance:

What Causes Long-Term Unemployment?

Here’s what Larry Summers says about quoting his work out of context:

In a recession such as this one—with five unemployed workers for every job opening—it’s not clear whether the old academic findings apply.

In his scholarly past, Lawrence Summers, now Mr. Obama’s economic guru, wrote in 1993 that “government assistance programs contribute to long-term unemployment…by providing an incentive, and the means, not to work.” When an April Wall Street Journal editorial described his position, Mr. Summers fired back in a letter to the editor: “In the wake of the worst economic crisis in eight decades…there can be no doubt that the overwhelming cause of unemployment is economic distress, not the existence of unemployment insurance.”

http://www.betterjobsfaster.org/discussion/topic/show/333339

coalminecanary,

If you notice Michelle never gives a link to her C&P. Because it usually comes from Newsbuster, BigGovernment, Hotair or some other radical RW site.

the real john t said:
coalminecanary,

If you notice Michelle never gives a link to her C&P. Because it usually comes from Newsbuster, BigGovernment, Hotair or some other radical RW site.

Thank you, noted. I usually only post here to essentially “correct the record” and not exchange brainless quips. I contemplated not responding to that person, but I figured I was just responding to the general right wing meme of quoting something Summers said 13 years before an unprecedented recession as proof of anything that pertains to the reality of unemployment in this country today, right now.

The Real Royal King said:
You know, our governor, Toll Booth Perry, was a cheerleader at College Station Community College.

Oh, how funny!

How many states can claim that two of their governors were cheerleaders?

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushcheerleader.htm

ChiliPeppersFan said:
Didn’t she say that unemployment insurance creates ‘lazy’ people?
That sounds a bit radical to me especially considering the troubled times we are in.

When I read that in the 42-member Nevada assembly, she voted “no” so frequently on matters of wide consensus that votes were often called as “41-to-Angle”, I definitely wondered about her proclivity for taking extreme positions.

Of course this was after I had a good laugh first.

Michael_T said:
Oh, how funny! How many states can claim that two of their governors were cheerleaders? http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushcheerleader.htm

Indeed, like Lake Wobegon, we expect our women to be strong and our men to be good-looking. As for our children being above average, we don’t care enough to fund education.

FROM ITS CONCEPTION,
THROUGH YOUR RECEPTION,
FOX IS PURE DECEPTION.

Michael_T said:
When I read that in the 42-member Nevada assembly, she voted “no” so frequently on matters of wide consensus that votes were often called as “41-to-Angle”, I definitely wondered about her proclivity for taking extreme positions. Of course this was after I had a good laugh first.

I hadn’t heard that. Not too surprising. Thanks.

FROM ITS CONCEPTION,
THROUGH YOUR RECEPTION,
FOX IS PURE DECEPTION.

MichelleF said:
Chili, the following if from BO’s economic advisor Larry Summers on unemployment insurance: What Causes Long-Term Unemployment? To fully understand unemployment, we must consider the causes of recorded long-term unemployment. Empirical evidence shows that two causes are welfare payments and unemployment insurance. These government assistance programs contribute to long-term unemployment in two ways. First, government assistance increases the measure of unemployment by prompting people who are not working to claim that they are looking for work even when they are not. The work-registration requirement for welfare recipients, for example, compels people who otherwise would not be considered part of the labor force to register as if they were a part of it. This requirement effectively increases the measure of unemployed in the labor force even though these people are better described as nonemployed—that is, not actively looking for work. Similarly, unemployment insurance increases the measure of unemployment by inducing people to say that they are job hunting in order to collect benefits. The second way government assistance programs contribute to long-term unemployment is by providing an incentive, and the means, not to work. Unemployment insurance also extends the time a person stays off the job. Clark and I estimated that the existence of unemployment insurance almost doubles the number of unemployment spells lasting more than three months. If unemployment insurance were eliminated, the unemployment rate would drop by more than half a percentage point, which means that the number of unemployed people would fall by about 750,000. There is no question that some long-term unemployment is caused by government intervention and unions that interfere with the supply of labor. Seems to me, he’s saying the same thing as Angle.

Holy Gold Tablets! An unattributed copy and paste! As rare as a day in August.

FROM ITS CONCEPTION,
THROUGH YOUR RECEPTION,
FOX IS PURE DECEPTION.

“Chris Matthews… is… An Infomercial”

but I figured I was just responding to the general right wing meme of quoting something Summers said 13 years before an unprecedented recession as proof of anything that pertains to the reality of unemployment in this country today, right now.

So what you’re saying is be posted that before BO was elected and it no longer applies. Got it!

btw, here’s your link:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Unemployment.html

ps, I’m sure in your world, The Concise Encyclopedia of Economis, is a right wing rag. Liberal hypocrite dimwits!

coalminecanary said:
Here’s what Larry Summers says about quoting his work out of context:

Thanks for repeating an effete lib excuse. Are you supposed to be original or something? If so, you failed.