Candidate is Strong Supporter of 2nd Amendment

imported post

[font="arial,helvetica"] [/font]Sharron Angle gains 20 points in one month

From Gun Owners of America [font="arial,helvetica"]- [/font][font="arial,helvetica"]Friday, May 14, 2010

In just one month, Republican U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle has surged twenty points in the polls in her bid to take on Nevada Senator Harry Reid in November.

According to a May 10-11 joint poll released by the Las Vegas Review Journal and Mason Dixon, Angle now leads anti-gunner Danny Tarkanian by three points, and is closing in fast on the other leading candidate, Sue Lowden.

Sharron Angle is strongly supported by Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund, earning an "A" rating from GOA for her unwavering work defending the Second Amendment during her eight years in the state legislature.

The latest poll results are extremely encouraging for gun owners and sportsmen not only in Nevada, but throughout the country as well. Harry Reid continually uses his position as Majority Leader of the Senate to undermine the Second Amendment. In Sharron Angle, supporters of the right to keep and bear arms will have a tried, true and trusted friend.

With Sharron now rapidly rising to the head of the pack, it is more important than ever for gun owners across the country to get behind her campaign with as much generous financial support as possible.[/font]

http://www.sharronangle.com/
[font="arial,helvetica"]http://www.goapvf.org[/font]

Yata hey

imported post

100% agreement. There is no other real choice. Sue Lowden is just the flip side of the same coin as Harry. Harry has to go, but we have to replace him with real change.

BG

imported post

I'm not a Republican, and rarely vote for them, because every idiot hoplophobe law on the books got there with the support of Republicans, who then turn around and claim to be pro-gun-rights. At least the Democrats ADMIT their perversions.

I will vote for whoever the Republicans pick to run against Reid.

imported post

My contribution is sent. Let's make each shot count.

imported post

Although she may support gun rights, there are other things to consider. A few key reasons not to support Sharron Angle.


1) She was in the IAP for many years as a Nye county School Board member. She only changed to being a Republican after losing election for another office.

Nothing against the IAP, I just wonder if her decision to change parties was based on the fact that she had very little chance to advance her career whilein the IAP.

2) She is ineffective. She introduced 43 bills as a legislator and only passed 1.

This is a pass rate of just 2.3%. Do we really want to rely on someone on the national level who only had a success rate of 2.3% on the state level?

3) She is a deficit spender. Shealways voted for all appropriations, just never funding them. Even during the 2003, she voted for more spending than could balance the budget.

Thelaw of the state requires a balanced budget, once the legislature passes the budget, and the governor signs it, it must be funded. Sue voted to pass a budget that wouldhave caused a deficit, this required an increase in revenue, she voted against the tax increase which was required to fund the budgetthat she voted for and encouraged others to join her. This resulted in2 extended special sessions which cost the state $50,000 a day. The 2sessionslasted a total of 37 days, costingthe state $1,850,000.

Voting for the budget, but then voting against funding it reminds me of a rather well known quote "I actually voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it."

In the 2005 session, she never introduced a single bill to roll back or eliminate any of the taxes of the 2003 session and again voted for all of the spending.

Considering that her biggest claim to fame is being a tax fighter, this is a problem.

4)In the 2003 session, she tried to get the State of Nevada to fund sendingNevada inmates with substance abuse problems to a Mexico rehab center run by the Church of Scientology.

Why would we send our inmates to Mexico, unless that is where they belonged in the first place?

5)In2004, she actively recruited Republicans to run against Republicans to try and secure more votes to get herself into leadership at the expense ofthe Assembly Republican caucus. She specifically targeted Republicans who had defied her and voted for the tax increase to cover the budget during the previous session. (A budget which she voted for, but refused to fund.)

She was somewhat successful, several of these seats went to Democrats as a result.

If this is the kind of game playing that you want in Washington, then why not leave Harry in office?

imported post

The Big Guy wrote:

100% agreement. There is no other real choice. Sue Lowden is just the flip side of the same coin as Harry. Harry has to go, but we have to replace him with real change.

BG

Click to expand...

I didn't realize that there were only 2 candidates in the primary.

imported post

How about Bill Parson. Here is what I found on his campaign site regarding the second amendment: "The individual’s right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to deterring tyranny and must be preserved without political meddling."

imported post

Gordie wrote:

The Big Guy wrote:

100% agreement. There is no other real choice. Sue Lowden is just the flip side of the same coin as Harry. Harry has to go, but we have to replace him with real change.

BG

Click to expand...

I didn't realize that there were only 2 candidates in the primary.

Click to expand...

You attack Sharon Angle but fail to suggest an alternative. Perhaps she believes as Ron Paul does that an independent has little chance and it is better to work within the major parties to bring on change. Your rant against Angle above reads like a party attack piece. I would almost think someone is paying you to write it. Perhaps getting less done in Washington is not such a bad idea. After all the job was never meant to be full time. Perhaps also her lack of success in getting bills passed had to do with the fact that her ideas seemed radical at the time. Such things as leaving us the hell alone to live and run our own lives without the interference of big government.

BG

imported post

The Big Guy wrote:

Gordie wrote:

The Big Guy wrote:

100% agreement. There is no other real choice. Sue Lowden is just the flip side of the same coin as Harry. Harry has to go, but we have to replace him with real change.

BG

Click to expand...

I didn't realize that there were only 2 candidates in the primary.

Click to expand...

You attack Sharon Angle but fail to suggest an alternative. Perhaps she believes as Ron Paul does that an independent has little chance and it is better to work within the major parties to bring on change. Your rant against Angle above reads like a party attack piece. I would almost think someone is paying you to write it. Perhaps getting less done in Washington is not such a bad idea. After all the job was never meant to be full time. Perhaps also her lack of success in getting bills passed had to do with the fact that her ideas seemed radical at the time. Such things as leaving us the hell alone to live and run our own lives without the interference of big government.

BG

Click to expand...

There are 9 Republican candidates in the primary. I personally am leaning toward Tarkanian, but since this topic was about Sharron Angle, not who we each were pulling for, I only talked about Sharron. You said that there were only two choices, I pointed out that there may be more.

Perhaps she believes as Ron Paul does that an independent has little chance and it is better to work within the major parties to bring on change.

Click to expand...

Or maybe she just didn't feel that she could live up to the IAP platform. Her behavior doesn't fit into their stated beliefs.

Your rant against Angle above reads like a party attack piece. I would almost think someone is paying you to write it.

Click to expand...

I'm a registered Republican, so what partyam Iattacking for or from?

Or maybe I've seen her work, and I'm tired of seeing the backstabbing of good people to further a personal agenda. How about doing what is good for the people who elected them, instead of doing whatever it takes to get ahead. You say that Sue Lowden is the flip side of the same coin as Harry, but I say Sharroncould bethe reflection in the mirror.

My writing skills are such that I would feel guilty taking money for them. Or maybe you are just projecting what you would do in a certain situation on me. Believe it or not, some people do things because they feel that they are the right things to do.

I notice that you attack me personally, making accusations, but you don't refute the information about Sharron. This is a tactic usually used by people who have no argument to back up their position. If you have information to refute mine, present it.

Perhaps getting less done in Washington is not such a bad idea.

Click to expand...

So let's just elect the most inept person on the ballot, is that your suggestion?

Perhaps also her lack of success in getting bills passed had to do with the fact that her ideas seemed radical at the time.

Click to expand...

Like her proposal in the 2003 session, to get the State of Nevada to fund sendingNevada inmates with substance abuse problems to a Mexico rehab center run by the Church of Scientology? This stillseems radical to me evennow.

Or maybe her lack of success is due to her having bad ideas that can get no support.

Such things as leaving us the hell alone to live and run our own lives without the interference of big government.

Click to expand...

If she was really interested in getting the government out of our lives, then why didn't she introduce any legislationto repeal the taxes that she fought so hard to stop? Why did she vote for theappropriations that increased the role of government in our state?

Do you have any examples of Sharron working to reduce the government's role on our lives? Remember that she voted for the budget that required the increasing of revenue which led to the tax increase. She knew when she voted for this budget that state law requires a balanced budget. She voted for it knowing that. Either she didn't know what was in the budget she voted for, or she voted for it knowing that there wasn't enough money to meet the budget, therefore requiring a tax increase. Either way, how is this any better than what we have right now?

You say that you want real change, but Sharron is just another game playing politician.

imported post

BobInCa wrote:

How about Bill Parson. Here is what I found on his campaign site regarding the second amendment: "The individual’s right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to deterring tyranny and must be preserved without political meddling."

Click to expand...

I met Bill just this week, he is a good man, I doubt he has a chance, but I wish him the bestof luck. I can't think of a better person to be on my staff if I were running. He would be great at keeping someone honest. I wish that he had better name recognition, he would have a better chance then.