Have an account?

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

I-1183 Campaign Spending

Here is something I don't understand. The yes on 1183 campaign has more money, according to various articles I've read in local papers. Yet, everywhere I go I see signs for the no campaign. Which makes no sense, as the money campaign should be more visible, thanks for its cash.

People! Don't believe the propaganda of the no campaign. The roads will be plenty safe if this law passes. Many other states have legalized the sale of alcohol at stores, and they have the same accident statistics as we do. And as a friend of mine recently pointed out, the roads will probably be safer if this passes because people won't have to drive as far for a visit to the liquor store.

We are a liberal state, lets act like it and vote yes on 1183.

And every time you see an ad on a website for the no campaign, click on it! That doesn't mean you support the cause, it means you are costing the no campaign money. They have to pay for those ad clicks each time.


1 comment:

chalas said...

I agree. I have seen way more ads for "no." Also, in many of their arguments I have found logical fallacies, specially the appeal to emotion. Also, federal statistics show that even though it is harder for minors to obtain alcohol, the consumption of alcohol by minors in the state is higher than California's.

Hiding the alcohol will not prevent minors from drinking, education will!