Laura Ingraham interviews Sharron Angle, day after her debate smack-down of Harry Reid (full audio)

Sharron Angle explains
why November 3, 2010
is even more important
than November 2, 2010

on with the program…

Folks, wave good-bye to Harry Reid


Previous blog posts from VotingFemale…

Politics Blogs

About VotingFemale

I am a female voter, as my blog name implies. I vote for conservatives. I am a political opponent of Leftists, Progressives, Socialists, Marxists, and Communists.
This entry was posted in 2010 Mid-Term Elections, Harry Reid, Sharron Angle and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Laura Ingraham interviews Sharron Angle, day after her debate smack-down of Harry Reid (full audio)

  1. arlenearmy says:

    Angle won that debate hands down.

    Reid was fumbling w/his papers & gave piss poor closing remarks. He was obviously nervous. He may lose this race which probably will first time in history that a majority leader loses the election.

  2. Foxwood says:

    Angle handed Reid his ass. You won’t hear that anywhere but Fox and Rush…

    and here!

  3. tellitlikeitis says:

    Democrat driver. lol!

    Man Passes Driving Test, Then Crashes Into DMV

    Lauren Frayer

    AOL News
    (Oct. 15) — Moments after passing his driving test, a Pennsylvania man mistakenly crashed his car into a department of motor vehicles building, smashing through a window and plowing into a waiting room. Four people were injured, none seriously.

    The man’s license ended up being revoked before he even got it.

    Robert Keller, 34, of Carnegie pulled into a parking spot outside the DMV in Collier, Pa., on Wednesday after successfully completing his driving test. Police say he thought the car was in park rather than drive, and then got the accelerator and brake pedals mixed up.

  4. tellitlikeitis says:

  5. Pingback: Tweets that mention Laura Ingraham interviews Sharron Angle, day after her debate smack-down of Harry Reid (full audio) | VotingFemale --

  6. Orca says:

    California Mayor Arrested After Wild-Ride Purse Snatch

    Published October 15, 2010

    | Associated Press
    SAN GABRIEL, Calif. — A suburban Los Angeles mayor has been arrested after a purse-snatching and a wild ride through streets with a woman clinging to his sport utility vehicle.

    San Gabriel police Lt. Ariel Duran says Mayor Albert Y.M. Huang was booked in jail for investigation of felony assault, felony robbery and misdemeanor battery after his arrest early Friday.
    It’s not that politicians don’t take our money, it the method they use.
    It appears the direct route is still illegal, for now.

    Duran says the 35-year-old mayor had been arguing with the woman over money in a parking lot when he took the woman’s purse and got into his SUV.

    Investigators say the woman was standing on the running board and reaching through the passenger window when Huang sped away, reaching speeds of 45 mph for more than a quarter mile.

    The woman’s name and her relationship to the mayor weren’t released.

  7. Orca says:

    I think the Mayor missed Obama’s class on redistribute the wealth
    At least the part covering collections and timing.

  8. Orca says:

    Then again maybe not
    Maybe he was just making some minor adjustments to the program.

  9. AFVET says:

    Military absentee ballots delayed to the troops again ??
    WTF !!
    I say they should be able to vote through a secure server in the Pentagon.
    This BS about not getting the forms to the troops in time is crap.
    We are living in the electronic age for God’s sake.

  10. tellitlikeitis says:

    Traitor: Dem Congresswomen Chooses Appeasement of Muslims Over National Security

    Dem Congresswoman Favors Terror Blindfold

    By Joel B. Pollak

    On Sunday, at a candidate forum sponsored by the American Muslim Task Force, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) told the audience that she opposes FBI monitoring of mosques and “peace activists” for possible links to terror organizations:

    “The good news is that I’m actually in a really good position to work on these issues, because I am on the Intelligence Committee,” she reminded the audience, “and I am the chair of the Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee.”

    “The first thing I’m gonna do when I go back [to Washington]–and I’ve been talking to Muslim advocates–is to talk about: what is this business of people going into mosques, of investigating peace activists, who are exercising their constitutional rights? What is going on here?”

    She tried to relate to the audience by talking about experiences that she and her husband, convicted felon and community organizer Robert Creamer, had when they were part of radical political organizations that had been infiltrated by the Chicago Police Department’s “red squad.”

    Then she made this promise:

    “I pledge to you that when I go back — you know what, I could use help from the community, to get examples of these specifics. I can get answers. I may not be able to share all the answers, if they’re somehow classified, but I can certainly raise this issue in a public way and then bring it to the intelligence committee in a more private way.”

    Just a few miles away, a few weeks before, the FBI arrested Sami Samir Hassoun, who had attempted to commit mass murder by planting a bomb outside Wrigley Field as crowds left a Dave Matthews Band concert.

    The FBI had been following Hassoun for over a year, and caught him because he had been talking about his various terror plans in the presence of FBI informants. The bomb he planted was a dud, but hundreds would have been killed or injured if he had succeeded.

    A week later, US and European intelligence services foiled a terror plot that aimed to strike several major cities in Europe, and which was directly linked to terror groups in Pakistan. The key informant had attended the Masjid Taiba mosque in Hamburg, Germany, which is where the 9/11 terrorists met and which was shut down earlier this year.

    The simple fact is that if the FBI were unable to monitor mosques where radical activists gather, we would all be more unsafe.

    The Muslim community, by and large, has been cooperative, and has assisted the U.S. government in stopping terror before it strikes.

    Yet Schakowsky’s open-ended commitment to stop investigations of mosques and “peace activists”–and to uncover information about ongoing FBI investigations–is highly dangerous and irresponsible.

    Her use of the term “peace activists” is probably a reference to the recent arrest of local SEIU official Jospeh Iosbaker and his wife Stephanie Weiner, who are being investigated by the FBI for links with terror organizations in the Middle East and Latin America.

    Schakowsky works hand-in-hand with the SEIU, and she is certainly aware of the controversy surrounding Iosbaker’s arrest, which has sparked demonstrations in Chicago and elsewhere. Iosbaker’s “peace” activism included support for anti-Israel groups and anti-government groups in Columbia.

    Her pledge to intervene on behalf of “peace activists” reflects more than an innocuous commitment to civil rights. It reflects sympathy and solidarity with the activists–a point she emphasized by sharing her own experience as a far-left activist in Chicago.

    It is certainly appropriate that the members of Congress responsible for oversight of our intelligence services do all that they can to make sure the government stays within constitutional bounds.

    Yet it is highly inappropriate for those members to offer to reveal information — even unclassified information — about what the government is looking for, and where.

    And it is wrong for those same members to dismiss the danger that terrorism poses, to express sympathy with the groups being investigated, or to promise to block the FBI’s ongoing investigations, which continue to save untold thousands of lives.

    Joel Pollak is the Republican challenger against Schakowsky in the 9th District of Illinois.

  11. tellitlikeitis says:

    Gallup: 46 Percent Say U.S. Government ‘Poses Immediate Threat to the Rights and Freedoms’ of U.S. Citizens
    Wednesday, October 13, 2010
    By Terence P. Jeffrey

    President Barack Obama, George Washington University

    President Barack Obama speaks at George Washington University in Washington, Tuesday, Oct. 12, 2010. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

    ( – The percentage of Americans who think the federal government poses “an immediate threat” to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens has increased significantly over the last seven years, rising from 30 percent to 46 percent, according to a Gallup poll conducted Sept. 13-16 and released today.

    Only 51 percent of Americans now say they do not think the federal government poses “an immediate threat” to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens.

    Similarly, the percentage of Americans who think the federal government has too much power has also significantly increased, from 39 percent in 2002 to 59 percent today.

    In its Sept. 13-16 polling, Gallup asked the 46 percent of respondents who said that they think the federal government poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of Americans in “what ways” they think the government is posing this threat. The top four answers were that the government has too many laws and is too big in general, that it is too involved in people’s private lives, that it is threatening freedom of speech, and that the health-care law signed by President Barack Obama is a threat.

    Since 2003, Gallup has periodically asked adult Americans this question: “Do you think the federal government poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens, or not?”

    When Gallup first asked the question in September 2003, 30 percent said, yes, they did think the federal government posed an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens and 68 percent said, no, it did not. In September 2004, 35 percent said, yes, and 63 percent said, no. In September 2005, 37 percent said, yes, and 62 percent said, no. And in September 2006, 44 percent said, yes, and 54 percent said, no.

    This September, 46 percent said, yes, they think the federal government poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. Only 51 percent said, no.

    Gallup asked the 46 percent who said yes, this follow-up question: “In what ways do you see the government posing an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of its citizens?” The answers broke down as follows:

    Answer Percentage

    Too many laws/Gov’t too big in general 18

    Too much involvement in people’s private lives 17

    Taking away freedom of speech/violating First Amendment 15

    Healthcare law 11

    Socialist government 8

    Overtaxing/Taxes too high 7

    Taking away freedom of religion 6

    Gun control/violating Second Amendment 6

    Failing to secure borders/Illegal immigration 3

    Over-regulation/Too much involvement in business 3

    Too much spending 2

    Marriage issue 2

    Other 3

    None/Nothing 2

    No opinion 9

    Republicans and Independents were more likely than Democrats to say they think the federal government poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. Sixty-six percent of Republicans said this was the case, 49 percent of Independents, and 21 percent of Democrats.

    Since 2002, Gallup has also periodically asked this question: “Do you think the federal government today has too much power, has about the right amount of power, or has too little power?” When Gallup most recently asked this question in its poll conducted Sept. 13-16, 59 percent said the federal government has too much power, 33 percent said it has the right amount of power, and 8 percent said it has too little power.

    In a poll conducted, Sept. 5-8, 2002, only 39 percent said they thought the federal government had too much power, while 52 percent said it had the right amount of power, and 7percent said it had too little power.

    Gallup has asked this question about the federal government’s power ten times over the last eight years. The last time fewer than 50 percent of Americans said they thought the federal government had too much power was in a poll conducted Sept. 13-15, 2004. At that time 42 percent said the federal government had too much power, 49 percent said it had the right amount of power, and 7 percent said it had too little power.

  12. Pingback: Sarah Palin: Dem Leaders act like Pixie Dust spreading Residents Of Some Unicorn Ranch | VotingFemale

  13. Pingback: Sarah Palin and why ‘We’ are pulling ‘their’ political power plug | VotingFemale

  14. Bob Mack says:

    “I say they should be able to vote through a secure server in the Pentagon.”
    AFVET, I agree. Why let these mostly Dem hacks lollygag around until it’s too late for the guys’ ballots to count? You can bet your last dollar that if they thought the votes would go blue, they’d have ’em to the troops the Easter before the election.

  15. Pingback: Political Ferocity of Conservative Women – We Are All In | VotingFemale

  16. Pingback: bigoted NPR fires bigoted Juan over bigoted statement about religious bigots who wants world domination by bigoted religion | VotingFemale

  17. Pingback: Man Fired for Wearing ‘CVN-77 USS Bush’ Sweatshirt at Obama Rally in L.A. | VotingFemale

  18. Pingback: Sarah Palin may not respond to Paul Mirengoff’s article but this Mama Grizzly will… | VotingFemale

  19. Pingback: Sen. Barbara Boxer, the bad good news… | VotingFemale

  20. Pingback: Gov Christie reacts and whines re: NJ Teacher Union malfeasance | VotingFemale

  21. Pingback: Dem Party standing between votes and the ballot box | VotingFemale

  22. Pingback: Angle to Behar: Thank You! | VotingFemale

  23. Pingback: Chris Coons’ Sex Goons and; Leftists condemning it? Insincere BS | VotingFemale

Comments are closed.