It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ron VS Mitt

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   


These two facts alone should automatically decide your vote, even if you were to ignore everything else.. and STILL make the right choice.

RP ad's are awesome!




posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   
It is a good ad
But I am against PACs

You know the PACs are not allowed to speak directly with the candidate they are supporting

That means that PACs can endorse an idea that the candidate which they "support" doesn't agree with.

PACs are horrible and are nothing but a circumvention of the maximum donation allowed to canddiates.

Beware!



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 
Hi MA - I'm of mixed opinions on the PAC bag.

I saw a petition idea floating around some time back about limiting all donations from any single entity to a political candidate to $100 each, which I think would allow for better representation of the people and direct funding of the candidates according to the will of the people as such.

What would you think about something along those lines?



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius
Hi MA - I'm of mixed opinions on the PAC bag.

I saw a petition idea floating around some time back about limiting all donations from any single entity to a political candidate to $100 each, which I think would allow for better representation of the people and direct funding of the candidates according to the will of the people as such.

What would you think about something along those lines?


100$ wouldn't do much good to be honest
It especially would prove to be useless for the Flordia Primaries which do cost alot

So it would force them to have less TV ads but more travelling and campaigning in person
But those travel expenses & hotel rooms/food are sent to the american taxpayer in any case

Coorporations should also be able to lobby
But there are so many doors for corporations though

But corporations would have only just interest in a limited govt. scenario with less legislation and regulatory bodies which these execs from big corps. get not elected but appointed to.

It's a slippery slope



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 
Here's the video the ad video refers to in the OP.

You shoulda put this up too OP as the ad is all about this-







Go Ron Go!



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


Damn Straight. You think these fine young American Men and Women who have Earned a right
to come home, want to see that while they have been busy fighting it,
Willard has been busy ... Gutting it?

www.bls.gov... (March 2011)

www.afba.com...

www.bls.gov...

If you cannot smell the Foreign Influence and Agenda, you better clear your sinuses.

Because you a strolling blindly into a Cesspool.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 
I'll agree on the slippery slope, pretty much any time it comes to government.

As far as the donation/funding - perhaps more than $100, but something within the doable reach of the average citizen, but not so high as to allow well-connected bigwigs to reach out to a relatively small number of people while padding their campaign accounts well in excessive of candidates who are actually more popular...basically a matter of making it up on volume for income to more accurately represent actual support, and thus drive candidates who are actually more popular (compare Paul's # of donors to Romney and Perry, etc.).

As to regulatory agencies - ugh. Talk about a double-edged sword. I believe the terms "unintended consequences..." and "even the best-laid plans..." apply well here, as it seems to me they tend to quickly get corrupted and then populated by those they were founded to regulate, so they eventually only end up regulating competition out of business while insulating those to be regulated from serious challenge, by imposing stifling regulations only they can afford to meet - or ignore directly by simply paying the fines the competition can't.

The thought makes me sick, and forces me to ask who regulates the regulators? And on and on...it's like a russian nesting doll when you think about it, a never-ending cycle of regulatory agencies seems called for.



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join