seems abnormal for the paper to publish an obvious political ad without an organization or their names included.
concerned citizens was in small print - looks like individuals instead of a valid group.
why the secrecy and cowardice to claim the ad by name?
makes one wonder how many individual cowards there were that anonymously supported that anonymous ad? 2, 20, 200, 2000?
we're not as stupid as the ad supporters obviously think we are -
and would like to know who you high and mighty acting folks are that are trying to influence us.
we're not stupid -
and know that those area reps who didn't vote for the bill were not voting against brtc.
the bill was the total funding bill for all colleges in ar.
and did have a couple of very odd amendments for a few million at the end.
who's to say the nay/non voters may have been holding out for more funding for brtc?
it was clearly just a partyline vote on legislation.
happens all the time.
do they really expect r's to just rubberstamp every d spending bill that's rammed down their throat.
we're not stupid.
if the vote had failed, it would have been brought back up and eventually passed. do they seriously think ar wouldn't fund it's colleges?
congrats to the cowards on placing the ad.
the bs ad further convinced me to vote for those they were trying to hurt - and hurt their candidates instead.
we're not stupid -
many local folks don't appreciate such obvious attack ads, being talked down to, and trying to be fooled by the bs. also wouldn't mind knowing WHO supported such bs.
editor obviously accepted and condoned publishing it as a non political ad without names as she wished, but it smells and seems wrong and unethical. much worse than her recent published claim on the pool condemnation and the one 2 weeks ago that randolph voters would get to vote on the ambulance issue.
is it bad to expect better from our local paper?