TPMDC
Angle: 'I Was Speaking Broadly' About Second Amendment Remedies
NV Senate candidate Sharron Angle (R)
Share
Send to a friend!
Nevada Republican Senate nominee Sharron Angle just sat down for an interview with Jon Ralston, one of the top political reporters in the state, on the NBC station in Reno. And a big question that Ralston had for her was just what she meant by people having "Second Amendment remedies."
Ralston played back the audio, with accompanying on-screen text, from an interview that Angle gave with a conservative talk radio host back in January. "You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason, and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said, it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years," Angle said. "I hope that's not where we're going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying, my goodness, what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you, the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out."
"A lot of people think that's pretty outrageous rhetoric," Ralston said, referring to the language about "take Harry Reid out," and asked Angle whether she thought President Obama was a tyrant comparable to King George III.
"Well, I was speaking broadly, as you saw, about the Constitution, and that was the context of that rhetoric," Angle responded. "I admit that was a little strong to say 'take him out,' but you know what I meant. I meant take him out of office, and taking him out of office is a little different. I changed my rhetoric, to 'defeat Harry Reid.'"
Ralston continued to ask Angle whether she had gone too far.
"You know what, Jon," Angle responded, "I think it's interesting that we're nitpicking on all the little topics that Harry is putting out there."
"Harry Reid didn't put this out there," an excited Ralston said. "You put it out there."
Angle then appeared to switch topics, responding that she thought Reid should instead come and debate her on the main issues. "Why did we put all that money into a stimulus," Angle said, among other economic issues.
Comments (74) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
It's Pat
June 29, 2010 10:24 PM
Too late. She's on tape saying what she did. Would make a great ad asking "what is Sharron's true angle"?
She seems to be flip flopping here and she can't blame Harry Reid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RKT
June 30, 2010 11:45 AM in reply to It's Pat
Except Reid is a Democrat. I.e., he doesn't have the cajones to do anything such as that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
It's Pat
June 30, 2010 12:11 PM in reply to RKT
TPM had a good article about the guy heading Reid's campaign. That person is good and was the reason for the media going after Sharron's views.
I'm not writing off Reid's campaign and I suspect they have a few tricks up their sleeves - or something in their pants, as you alluded to above.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mJJ
July 1, 2010 3:05 AM in reply to RKT
This has nothing to do with Reed. This ditzy woman was the one who used a blatant threat against her political opponant. She should be arrested for such a stupid thing. But alas, she did nice up the lethal threat a bit so she could skirt the law, Any one in my party who votes for this viscious woman needs their head examined. Just keep her out of the public limelight because she goes bazooka all the time. No self control of her hate speech whatsoever. And then she plays coy and TRIES to convince any thoughtful person she did not mean it like it sounds. Beware of this ticking time bomb known as Angle.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RKT
June 30, 2010 11:46 AM in reply to It's Pat
By the way, I'm a lifelong Democrat. For now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
June 29, 2010 10:27 PM
"a little different"
She fails to see the irony in her self defense.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acf_ma
June 29, 2010 10:44 PM
What's sad, and more than a little scary, is how far out there the rhetoric of the mainstream Republican party has gone. When candidates like Angle and Paul routinely and widely say stuff like this, and don't get immediately and strenuously condemned by their party leadership and talkers, it sends a wink and a nod down the line to the average Joe at the coffee shop or listening on the radio, that this is mainstream thought, and acceptable. From there, it's a short trip to rabid talk radio and even more nasty talk around the cooler. People take their cue from them, and they long ago crossed the line of what's acceptable and what's not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rumpole
June 29, 2010 11:11 PM in reply to acf_ma
It's not the party that scares me, it's the media reporting on this nonsense with the "loonies on both sides"--for example, Idaho Republican Party Platform vs. anonymous Daily Kos commenter. Her remarks are not to be condemned, mind, they're just "controversial."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
June 29, 2010 11:42 PM in reply to rumpole
Correct. There is NO Democratic equivalent of an Angle or a Bachman. And even if Democrats start getting edgy, ie: talking about impeachment of W for lying us into a war of aggression... the Dem leadership quickly puts the radicals in their place: "Impeachment is off the table." Nothing like that restraint happening on the GOP side!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
martis
June 30, 2010 4:34 AM in reply to CityGuy
"Gotta look forward and not backward" "torture policies" "rendition" "gitmo" "bagram" "targeting US citizens for assasination" "no public option" "weak ass bank reform" "afghan war escalation" ... Obama's a fraud of a slightly lesser magnitude than W. I gave him money and voted for him. Will not make that mistake again. I also will NEVER vote Republican. Looks like I just won't vote for Prez next time around.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
June 30, 2010 5:55 AM in reply to martis
"slightly"?
Fuck you. And fuck your pie in the sky fantasy legislation that wouldn't get 40 votes in the Senate, much less the 60 required to actually get shit done. That "public option" you idiots cry over was a bullshit crippled version of the Public Option. And yet ya'll insist on pretending that this weak, purely symbolic P.O would've cured cancer and magically led America to single payer. Negro please.
You FORGOT what President Bush was *actually* like. I remember all too well. I remember that President McCain (the 2000 version) would've been a far superior POTUS. I remember that Bush I was a far superior President. I remember idiot liberals (LIKE YOU) saying that a Bush presidency would be the same as a Gore presidency - HA! And so I will happily vote to re-elect the most liberal POTUS in 40 years.
If you can't tell that frequently frustrating Democrats are infinitely preferable to evil insane Republicans by now, then you're fucking blind.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
vasu
June 30, 2010 7:54 AM in reply to Ben
Well I wouldn't be as mean as you. But I do agree with the sentiment.
It's unfair that the liberals/progressives are all bent out of shape about Obama and what he has done since taking office. For only having about half his presidency done he has done more then any single president in the last 30 years.
Moreover, he has done so with a hostile senate, on the repukes side, that is requiring a super majority on every major piece of legislation that comes forward. Which has NEVER before happened in this country.
So to say that you are disappointed and will never vote for Obama is your choice, but you should really base that choice in a bit of Fact. Not a knee jerk, rage-quit, attitude that because the liberal/progressive agenda had to be scaled back.
Instead, you should be out trying to get others to support the policies and hopefully pull this country back from the brink of stupidity. I mean the republican party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DownriverDem
June 30, 2010 9:54 AM in reply to vasu
The problem is that most folks don't know how their government works. They did not learn it in school. They seem to think if you win the election, you get all you want and more. It doesn't work that way. No matter how often righites think compromise means weakness, that is how we must proceed if anything will ever get done. We must compromise. Righites were sold a bunch of lies on this subject starting with Reagan. Even now, they would rather see folks suffer and our country fail if it means they get back in power. I find this totally disgusting. As someone who is white, the repubs represent to me the old white folks party. They use lies, fear and race to appeal to voters. They will gain seats in November, but down the road demographics will bite them in the you know what. The repubs will not continue as a national party with just old white people. I'm loving watching them insult everyone but white people.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
It's Pat
June 30, 2010 8:30 AM in reply to Ben
Well said.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hologram5
June 30, 2010 9:35 AM in reply to Ben
40 Years from now there'll be nobody to vote for, nothing worth voting for. Our voting rights will be gone by that time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DownriverDem
June 30, 2010 9:55 AM in reply to hologram5
Gee, why not work to make things better? You might as well leave the planet with that attitude.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Leftflank
June 30, 2010 8:48 PM in reply to DownriverDem
UM, yeah.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RKT
June 30, 2010 11:55 AM in reply to Ben
Unfortunately, most liberal POTUS in 40 years is a very low bar. He's a corporatist who's in bed with large corporations including big oil and Wall Street, worked against meaningful health care reform despite his rhetoric, may have worked against meaningful financial reform, appears to be working to keep the war in Afghanistan going for reasons likely he and a handful of close advisers are privy to (I suspect the purported 2011 draw down is appeasement for liberals), etc.
I truly like Obama. I'll probably vote for him again. But I submit you're fooling yourself if you believe he's more than another typical Ruling Elite corporatist president.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cinesimon
June 30, 2010 2:32 PM in reply to RKT
I submit you were simply wanting a left wing W.
Sorry, the country doesn't want that- especially real progressives.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
phoebes in santa fe
June 30, 2010 1:28 PM in reply to Ben
Ben Hill, I couldn't have said it any better than you or the repliers below did. The "progressives" complaining about Obama are as clueless and blind as the Tea Baggers are on the Right. Neither group understands how government works and these people who expected Obama, once he entered office to just wave his arms and everything would be "progressive". Uh, no, guys, Obama had to dig his way out of the hole left him by Bush/Cheney, first.
I think he's done a damn good job of it, too. Maybe HCR wasn't as "progressive" as you might have wanted, but at least it's there and we can amend it in future years. As we did the original Civil Rights Bill passed in the early 1960's.
I expect this anti-Obama shit from the Right, it really is their job. But I don't like it all from our own party. Fuck off, "progressives" and join the real world. Don't be all hurt and say you're not going to support Obama anymore.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
June 30, 2010 9:38 AM in reply to martis
Don't listen to Ben Hill. Just another Obamabot getting hysterical if you don't like the President's tie selection that day. I agree with your opinion about Obama but he's only part of the problem. Corporate America runs the show. That's the problem.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cinesimon
June 30, 2010 2:36 PM in reply to Clarance Vine
Yeah - don't like someone's opinion, just don't listen to it That's the way forward.
And oh, yeah - the change we were looking for was a left wing Bush.
So you think. So you wish.
Just because we're not hysterical conspiracy theorists who reject reality and all it's flaws, doesn't mean we're Obamabots.
Grow up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JerseyCurmudgeon
June 30, 2010 10:02 AM in reply to martis
I am like many Obama voters who are extremely disappointed with many of his decisions. But I also understand the reality of the situation he (and we) were handed in January 2009 on EVERY level. Saying "Obama's a fraud of a slightly lesser magnitude than W" smacks of the kind of self-righteous excuses that Nader voters made from 2001 to 2008 to justify their roles in installing the most criminal and incompetent administration in American history.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
June 30, 2010 10:18 AM in reply to martis
You're a troll - you're not fooling anyone here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
matty
June 30, 2010 10:23 AM in reply to CityGuy
Taking impeachment off the table was a good thing for the Democrats politically but it was bad for the country.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shle896
June 30, 2010 2:04 PM in reply to matty
LOL, your comment totally reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw during Bush's presidency.
It said, WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE GIVE PRESIDENT BUSH A BLOW JOB SO WE CAN IMPEACH HIM.
Things are so ass-backward in this country when we impeach a president because of a b.j., but do nothing when a president puts us into an unnecessary war and fails to capture or kill Bin Laden following 9/11.
Invading Iraq after 9/11 is like bombing Mexico after Pearl Harbor! If a Democratic president had done this, the GOP would be frothing at the mouth. What a joke.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mass_murdock
June 29, 2010 11:13 PM
Enter it into the record that she said we should shoot Harry Reid. Next.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LisB
June 29, 2010 11:45 PM in reply to mass_murdock
See, this is why I follow you. :)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
donquijoterocket
June 30, 2010 11:49 PM in reply to mass_murdock
That's precisely what she said,but trying to follow the gyrations she'll go through to deny or rationalize that fact would make you dizzy enough to puke on her shoes if her voice and wingnut ideas weren't enough already, but there will no doubt be trollboyz and grlz lined up to support her. Like most wingers when they indulge their Rambo and Red Dawn fantasies they're working from the assumption they're the only ones who own weapons and know how to use them . they forget that the draft didn't care about your ideology and a lot of us of a more progressive outlook spent time there.Hell that war may have created more liberals than would fit in a Richard Nixon nightmare. That said this particular wingnut female is an idiot of the Palin Bachmann stripe and likely digging her own rut, if not her political grave, with her motorized mandible.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pbrauer
June 30, 2010 12:08 AM
That lady is far far out. You can see the entire video at the link:
http://www.mynews4.com/story.php?id=21303
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ivo
June 30, 2010 12:38 AM
She says: "Well, I was speaking broadly, as you saw, about the Constitution, and that was the context of that rhetoric,"
about this: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
So I'm not sure how broadly one can speak on this amendment. She's either advocating a militia attack or the bearing of arms, there don't seem to be any other second amendment remedies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RKT
June 30, 2010 12:00 PM in reply to Ivo
I suspect she has no idea what the Second Amendment provides other than, "We get to pack," and was actually advocating violence at gunpoint if the radical right doesn't get its way in the elections. Historically, the right has revealed it simply doesn't believe any election that does not result in far right leadership is not a valid election.
Could we herd all these people into West Texas?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pipestein
June 30, 2010 12:41 AM
Remember when crazy people in congress were mostly (at least less harmful than crazy people in congress today) harmless? I miss Trafficant and his trade marked, "Beam me up Scotty!"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Roma Victors
June 30, 2010 2:20 AM
Sharon Angle is a strong septuagenarian sharpshooter who should shimmy on down to Searchlight and sing for SailorMarlowe.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
johnnymorales
June 30, 2010 4:06 AM in reply to Roma Victors
Just to let you know she is a "Sexagenarian" someone between the ages of 60-69.
Feel free to google it. That is how the word is spelled and it has no sexual connotation.
The prefix Septa refers to 70-79 years old.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Roma Victors
June 30, 2010 11:02 AM in reply to johnnymorales
I was channeling Ahmed, the little fella in the canoe.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Matt Jones
June 30, 2010 12:40 PM in reply to Roma Victors
It's probably better if you don't - Ahmed/Thana-whatever/Arundhat/Sailor has created so many sockpuppet accounts to evade banning that you're likely to get banned as well for "channeling" that dreck.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Roma Victors
June 30, 2010 1:12 PM in reply to Matt Jones
I think you're right. It made me feel funny, too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
itheuser
June 30, 2010 2:22 AM
At least Traficant added some comic relief, and everyone knew he was crazy.
Traficant was like the unhinged uncle that everyone tried to avoid at gatherings, but he was essentially harmless, and he was something to talk about.
What we have in the modern Conservative movement is a desperate form of nihilism. Since Teabaggers now appear to be the dominant strain of Conservative, they bring with them an almost gleeful sense of cruelty that they no longer feel bashful about. They've already lost the plot, and it's not reemerging in the form that they want it to.
Like the bitter elderly person "who doesn't care what anyone thinks anymore," modern Conservatives are waving their freak flag. The movement has adopted the paranoid bitterness of its only remaining benefactor: The aged, and out of touch.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cinesimon
June 30, 2010 3:34 AM in reply to itheuser
I think it's sad that people are still referring to these people as conservatives.
They're not conservatives.
They're right wingers.
They have shat all over the admirable goals and traditions of true conservative thought.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mr.Boots
June 30, 2010 9:54 AM in reply to cinesimon
The fact is that they are Conservatives. Being a geezer, I remember the early 60s when Conservatives were a separate party with a separate voting line and were not considered to be Republicans. They were just as they are now in terms of what you are decrying. A friend's father was a local Conservative candidate and their literature was all over their house.
It was every bit as odious as now, rife with racial slurs, bigotry, and ad hominum attacks. I remember to this day how Conservative literature characterized and attacked John F Kennedy, and how I was repulsed by it.
Yes, these people are Conservatives. For many years they have cloaked their true colors while infiltrating and taking over the Republican Party. Now, that they have a strangle hold on the party, they are once again showing their true colors. They are the same as they were in the early 60s.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cinesimon
June 30, 2010 2:40 PM in reply to Mr.Boots
I guess if you believe that America is the original planet, you're right. I'm thinking in terms of the history of the world - not just the boxing world.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DownriverDem
June 30, 2010 9:59 AM in reply to cinesimon
Then why do folks who are conservatives in the economic sense not see that these folks are more dangerous than taxes?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Beetlejuice
June 30, 2010 5:17 AM
From what little I remember from my American history studies in pubic school in the deep south and in college out west, I recollect a discussion as to why the right to bear arms was put into the Constitution.
The Brits were faced with a very serious problem in the colonies...everyone was armed. But they all had good reasons to be armed...plenty of wild game just outside the city limits and the indians weren't too far away. However, there was serious rumblings about taxes, self rule, freedom and other such nonsense.
So the Brits found themselves stuck between a rock and a hard place...either allow the colonies self rule and loose control over them or enforce draconian measures to keep the colonist in check.
The easiest way to enforce British Authority would be to remove the one thing that could be used by colonist to go from grumblings to actual combat...confiscate all their weapons. If you check out the history of Europe during the same period of time, guns were a highly controlled item...the public didn't have access to them. The best way to scuttle a rebellion is to remove the one item that would change the odds in the rebels favor...guns.
So when the founding fathers were drafting the Constitution, the right to bear arms was put in on purpose to support state militias rather than a standing Army...ever notice state militia's is nothing more than an organization of citizens?
Some how the right to bear arms and hunting got intermingled and the bastard step-child is what we have to deal with today.
volunteers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joe Steel
June 30, 2010 8:36 AM in reply to Beetlejuice
The Second Amendment has been grossly, and I think deliberately, misconstrued, especially in the last 30 or so years. It was intended not to create an armed force to resist the government but to ensure the military of the United States relied on civilian rather than professional membership. It guarantees the People the right to manage and serve in the military. That would make it a militia (in the technical sense) rather than a professional (or standing) army.
Standing armies were thought be dangerous to liberty because they comprised primarily persons who's loyalty was vested in the army itself rather than in the citizens. Militias are presumed to be loyal to the citizens because their ranks are filled with citizens. The Second Amendment was intended to guarantee the right to create and operate a civilian military not to have guns for the purpose of revolution.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
windowpane
June 30, 2010 3:43 PM in reply to Joe Steel
That's how I see it.....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tinsk
June 30, 2010 10:02 AM in reply to Beetlejuice
A couple of things. The founders did not write the "right to bear arms" in the original Constitution of 1787. It was included in the Bill of Rights and added as (the 2nd) amendment in 1792.
But more to your point. You are correct regarding the standing Army vs. a militia. Understanding the time, the need for a militia was anticipated for defense against foreign forces as well as the anticipated need for one state to defend itself from another state. In the early days of the Union, the States were quite distrustful of each other and the likelihood of armed conflict over a dispute between two states was thought to be inevitable.
Therefore state citizen militia's were necessary. As such, neither the state nor the federal government provides the weaponry. A militiaman went to battle with the weapon they brought to the battle from home. It was in the government's interest for its citizens to be armed with guns or else they risk having to defend themselves against an aggressor with garden tools such as pitchforks, axes and shovels. Not a great idea if your enemy is armed to teeth with firearms.
Clearly the written words of the 2nd amendment was intended to ensure an 18th century "rapid deployment" fighting force with an already home equipped army for self defense. One could argue there is no longer a need for an individual to keep arms since we are no longer required to provide our own weapons for military/state/national defense. On the other hand, one could also argue there is still a need for personal self defense.
The way I see it, if you don't like guns, don't buy one. If you do like guns, keep it reasonable since you are more likely to injure or kill yourself, family or friends via accidental shooting or suicide, than you are to use your weapon in self defense.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NobleCommentDecider
June 30, 2010 10:17 AM in reply to Beetlejuice
The British seizing of guns and powder from the Williamsburg Militia in 1775, the 2nd Amendment was to prevent acts like this, not to arm every yahoo with semi-automatic Glocks:
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ahmedsaid
June 30, 2010 5:44 AM
Sharron Angle is an exciting candidate who understands & defends our Bill of Rights. Her supporters are fully engaged with her breath-taking, climactic race for US Senator.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kirenos
June 30, 2010 6:52 AM in reply to Ahmedsaid
SailorMarlowe wades in again
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
June 30, 2010 9:06 AM in reply to kirenos
The hyperbolic declarative sentences of praise are the clue.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
June 30, 2010 10:21 AM in reply to jeffgee
I suspect an impostor. Or else, his heart just isn't in it anymore. There used to be at least be some craftsmanship to the trollery and a half-witted facsimile of panache. Now, it's all just very rote and unenthusiastic. Like someone doing a boring and unpleasant chore.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
June 30, 2010 10:44 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Yes, Ahmedsaid reads like an imposter unfortunately. Even when Sailor was pushing the obvious buttons it was often well crafted and for me, at times, amusing. Can't find his signature postings anywhere in the last 30 days.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
howie911
June 30, 2010 1:04 PM in reply to Clarance Vine
SailorMarlowe Imposter? Not so sure... use of the word "climactic" is the tell for me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
vasu
June 30, 2010 7:59 AM in reply to Ahmedsaid
And she's a complete nutter so it fits the Teabag agenda!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clarance Vine
June 30, 2010 9:41 AM in reply to Ahmedsaid
Sailor, you left out "good for Nevada, good for America"!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bill57
June 30, 2010 10:01 AM in reply to Ahmedsaid
little man in the boat! You're back!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joe Steel
June 30, 2010 8:25 AM
She can spin all she wants. We all know what she meant.
Regressives love violence. Unlike normal persons, they look to it as first rather than last resort.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mjclare
June 30, 2010 8:25 AM
So, she believes that a vocal, self centered, power hungry minority has some sort of 'right' to use violent means when they are not successful at the ballot box? Even in jest no responsible person (or wanna-be leader) would think this much less say something like this. But by all means, let her have her say. But on the same token let's pay real close attention to the political struggle going on down in Mexico. After all, the drug lords down there have just as much right to impose their will on the political system by violent means as the Tea Party does up here. Perhaps Ms Angle sees Mexico as the new Laboratory for Democracy?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
vasu
June 30, 2010 8:31 AM in reply to mjclare
Wow... Thats a very good point that I never considered.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
reetwow
June 30, 2010 8:47 AM
LOL, Back Peddling, thats what politicians do best. tell you what you want to hear at first, then do a complete 180. Nothing new here.
www.anon-surfing.at.tc
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
June 30, 2010 9:09 AM
It looks like that will be the last time she ventures from the safety of Fox News softball interviews.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chitowner
June 30, 2010 9:24 AM
Hope this interview served to end Angle's political career. Her fundamental world view is a nightmare.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ahmedsaid
June 30, 2010 9:30 AM
We want Sharron Angle & we want Pamela Gorman. This country needs economic & emotional stimulation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bill57
June 30, 2010 10:04 AM in reply to Ahmedsaid
little man in the boat! You're back!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
It's Pat
June 30, 2010 9:32 AM
I can't help but wonder how this message would have been received had it been said by an ex member of the New Black Panther Party or an American of Arab descent?
It just seems the Republican party is allowed to get away with statements like this all the time and people either laugh it off, call them "patriots" or it's not even seriously discussed.
This rhetoric is disturbing yet no one seems to take it seriously unless it's muttered by someone of color.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
greenmean
June 30, 2010 9:51 AM in reply to It's Pat
Hear, Hear, I totally agree and let me add, that lady is NUTS!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
windowpane
June 30, 2010 10:27 AM
Sharron Mangle was never talking about armed revolution. C'mon, who are the tebaggers going to fight? The U.S. Marines? She was talking in code about assassination. Assassination of Obama and Democratic leaders. This should be hung around her neck from now until election day.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shle896
June 30, 2010 1:46 PM
She's the latest in line of the Republicans "Craaaaaaaazies".
History will not be kind to the current Republican party that is full of old, scared, ignorant and bigoted men and women.
At this point, it's truly laughable.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
windowpane
June 30, 2010 3:37 PM
Never trust anyone that smiles 100% of the time. (That would include most GOoPers)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Leftflank
July 1, 2010 10:54 AM in reply to windowpane
Yeah, what's with that, I'm an idiot but I keep smiling look?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ZeraLee
July 1, 2010 5:05 AM
I think that the GOP must be breakfasting at the Intranational House of Waffle.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ps2os2
July 11, 2010 1:18 AM
I am getting mixed signals here, are the republicans really thinking that *some* of the constitution is wrong ??????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They better not let the gun lobby hear that!!
It is just plain interesting that any republican would bring that up (to me).
On the other hand if she has any background of the history and the people of that time you sure would not know it! Back in the time period before and after the constitution was written and signed politics was not a place for gentlemen. People use to fight their differences out with theirs hands and it was generally a no barred screaming match between people who had differing opinions. They was probably a few guns fights as well to toss into the mix. Today we have (sort of) graduated into seemingly decent debate and no major fist fights or gun play (most of the time). A few years later there was at least one dual fought. OK I know its not like the wild west when things got really dirty.
Reputations were regularly called into question as well as politicians parents (who there really were).
We do this but (usually) behind a computer screen.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SkeeterVT
July 20, 2010 12:09 PM
Angle said. "I hope that's not where we're going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying, my goodness, what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you, the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out."
This is far beyond outrageous rhetoric. What Sharron Angle was make a thinly-disguised call for people to commit acts of violence against our elected officials.
That's a CRIME under federal law -- Specifically, the Smith Act of 1940, which bars the open advocacy of the violent overthrow of the government and was TWICE upheld by the Supreme Court.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?