Thanks to all who have responded. If you haven't yet, please reply to this email to get us your answer by the end of the day tomorrow, Thursday November 1st.
Please respond by November 1
The Pentagon budget, plus military-related intelligence, homeland security and nuclear programs; veterans' affairs; and defense-related interest on the national debt account for nearly one-quarter of the entire federal budget or more than half of discretionary spending, at $832 billion (for fiscal year 2012).
The United States spends more on war and weaponry than all of our potential adversaries combined. In fact, U.S. military spending could be cut by 80 percent and still remain the largest military budget in the world. Moreover, U.S. military spending has nearly doubled since 2001, both in real dollars and as a percentage of federal discretionary spending.
Do you support redirecting some portion of the U.S. military budget to meet domestic needs, such as education, housing, healthcare, programs supporting veterans and their families, public and private sector job creation, infrastructure, and environmental protection?
How to respond
You may respond by simply replying to this email with your answer (yes or no, plus any comments),
Friends of Primo@gmail.com
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Potsie,
Should I ignore this "survey" or respond to it?
My answer to the question below is "yes," but this is an extremely left-leaning organization. The e-mail below says they do not endorse candidates, but it does say that "We will publish all the candidate responses we receive and share them with our members."
I suspect that you will advise me to stay away from this, but I'm not 100% sure.
Thanks,
Primo
Yeah, you can ignore this. I don't suspect it will gain you any votes, and you won't be voting in any capacity whatsoever on the apportionment of the federal budget. I hate when these groups send out surveys to state candidates.
|
|
| |
|
to Potsie, friends, Primo
|
|
Agreed with Potsie. Yeah, this is just stupid. If they think state candidates should be answering these questions, they have no business in state politics.
You will gain nothing from this but grief.
| Primo |
| |
|
to Ralph, Potsie, friends
|
|
OK, then. I will ignore it.
Thanks for the quick responses, guys!
|
|
| |
|
to Primo, Potsie, friends
|
|
You don't need to ignore, but you can reply "thanks, but i am not seeking further endorsements at this time" and that's it. If that's cool with Potsie.
I mean, did they just remember there is an election in a few days?
Haha! That would be crass and HILARIOUS. I wouldn't have a problem with that,
.
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
Primo
Well, the e-mail says "We are a non-profit, non-partisan organization and do not endorse candidates," but it also says that they "will publish all the candidate responses we receive and share them with our members."
Therefore, a statement that I'm not seeking further endorsements would not be appropriate because they don't endorse!
I think it's probably better to ignore the e-mail unless we can come up with something else. :)
|
|
| |
|
to Primo, Potsie, friends
|
|
Ahhh good catch, Primo.
That is right, do not reply at all.
Besides, it would be pointless anyway. Especially because they aren't going to do anything for you.
They might offer you a pair of Birkenstocks or something.
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
|
|
| |
|
to potsie, Ralph, friends
|
|
If this were on Facebook, I'd definitely "Like" the comment about Birkenstocks. :)
|
|
| |
|
to Primo, Potsie, friends
|
|
LOL i am still laughing :D
|
No comments:
Post a Comment