2007-11-13 20:53:50 · 3 answers · asked by :D 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
The media should be banned the the war but there not. Can`t win a war with them there. War is hell, let them do there job and come home. If we had this media in wwII we would all be speaking German
2007-11-14 01:15:01 · answer #1 · answered by charlie s 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it should not be banned because it is more practical. Compared to putting up posters and public speaking, it reaches more people. If a candidate uses media ads, he will be known by more people because even just one airing of a commercial reaches many people. Using media ads is a more effective way of campaigning.
2007-11-16 02:35:09 · answer #2 · answered by pucca_1993 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Media enables the people to know the candidates and it must not be banned for election purposes.
2007-11-13 21:00:39 · answer #3 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, but this catalyst could be used to get them to do a better job for us as Americans.They should be paid for by the government. An equal share to each party. The money used could be a percentage of whatever monies the government saves us as taxpayers i.e. lower taxes, drilling our own oil lowering fuel costs, welfare reform, repealing certain drug laws. Saving hard working middle class Americans money would be a great incentive for each party to get get a piece of it for political gain and end lobbyist being the puppet masters of our politicians. It would actually force them to work together to solve problems in an effort to get and distribute an equal share of monies to be used politically.
2007-11-13 21:04:50 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
yes, and so should male enhancment, viagra type ads.
2007-11-13 21:00:54 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋