Now go over to the No on Measure 49 website (aka stop49.com) and sign up to volunteer to stop this horrible measure!
Don't forget to go over to NWRepublican for more information on Measure 49!
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
The No on Measure 49 Website is Up!
Well, this is good news. The No on Measure 49 website is up and running. I think it looks great, and the tag line really captures what is wrong with Measure 49 - the tricks and traps that make Measure 49 nothing more than pie in the sky for Oregonians.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Just went over and took a look and signed up. We need to get this grass roots movement off the ground to protect our rights and our vote!
Great logo, fantastic message! On my way to sign up now and stop these commie bastards from continuing to steal our property and our rights!
Now if we could only repeal SB100 (1973)...
Measure 49 really is a wolf in sheep's clothing! I can't believe all the hard work that Measure 37 claimants went through would be for nothing. Read this measure very carefully, because you will realize that all of our rights are in danger!
Great logo! This just doesn't make sense, what a mess! I can't believe there wasn't even a public hearing...
It is not just those folks with current claims under Measure 37 who will be screwed by M49.
ANYONE, let me rephrase that ANY PROPERTY OWNER in the state who currently owns property/land or may do so in the future is SOL under M49.
My advice, kill this measure now and show the NIMBY's that they need to keep their hands to themselves!
Because Measure 49 hurts Measure 37 claimants by revoking their claims, and it hurts commercial small business property owners by taking away their compensation rights and because it removes Measure 37 protection for just about every landowner in the state, it should be called wolvES in sheeps clothing, because there is so much damage happenign on so many levels
Has anyone seen the new ad from the Yes on 50 campaign? They are using the same "wolf in sheep's clothing" tag line.. is this just a mistake? or a purposeful confusion?
Post a Comment