Reply #15: "I like to use analogies in my show... [View All]

[Fla_Democrat]

.. That's where they compare things." Bill Engvall.


1) There are too many candidates, who decides who gets free air time and who doesn't.

This one is very easily overcome. Simply set a minimum percentage of the vote that has to be captured in order to be eligible. Yep, that would be really tough.


So, you are for denying the right of free speech to candidates that don't reach a certain level of support, then how will those candidates ever reach enough people to get that support. Sorry DK, Not enough votes, you are the weakest link, good bye.

2) It's not fair that the broadcast media can't make a profit off our electoral process. They'll lose out on money.

I know, profits first. And gosh, that's nearly impossible to overcome too. I guess the stations would have to just bite the bullet and raise the rates on commercial advertising during the election cycle to offset any potential lost revenue. I'm sure they'd hate to do that.

Do you work for free? When you wake up, go into work, and put in your time, do you expect to be paid? Then why should others just "bite the bullet". Oh, that's right, they would just pass the cost on to other commercial advertisers, you pointed that out. So, if on your way into work, you stop into a 7-11 to get a cup of coffee. The clerk behind the counter charges you $1.50 for a .99 mug. Well, it would have been .99 cent, but there was a police officer in earlier, and since it is important that they are awake and alert, he gave him a free cup, and well, he passed part of the price on to you. Good?


You're right, what's radio and television access compared to the power of the stump speech. :eyes:

Welcome to the 21st century.

Yes, it's a wonder anyone was ever elected before the 1959's.

However, I do note you missed one question, if you (in all your generosity) give free time to candidates, is that it? After, do you deny candidates the right to purchase advertising, with no other hoops to jump through?