I have been wondering for a few weeks now: Since we now own GM would our government be pressuring GM as vigorously as they are Toyota?
Not that I am defending Toyota. Nor am I say our government should not be pursing these safety issues.
But if you were the owner of a company would you pressure yourself? Would you make yourself testify before Congress? I am sure you would not. So it is a fair question.
Now the other question. Will Toyota point this out. That the U.S. Government is an owner of a competing car company? And if so does this cause a conflict of interest for the U.S. Government? Therefore, the United States cannot impose well...anything.
I don't know the answers to these questions. I am just asking. And if I am asking don't you think the Toyota lawyers are looking into it?
Monday, February 22, 2010
Friday, February 19, 2010
Why do we have political parties?
If you are reading this hoping I will answer the question, I will not. I am really asking this question. Why do we have political parties?
I have heard for years that we need a two party system. A third party only messes things up. We don't need a third independent party but a revitalised Republican/Democratic party. Fine. But why do we need parties?
I am so tired of people voting for the "D" or the "R" after someone's name. Or listening to and disregarding others because they have a "D" or "R" by their name. We should asses each individual candidate on their merits. What they say. And more importantly what they do.
"Well we can't have a hundred candidates." You say. "We have to narrow down the field through primaries." You say.
Fine. Lets make some rules. And I am just spit balling here. If a candidate meets the criteria to run for office, the laws of the state, and the federal government; then they can run. Maybe they have to get 10,000 signatures. Maybe 100,000. Whatever the state puts out there. Then you have a primary and lets say the top three vote getters run for the office. No party just each candidate evaluated on their merit.
"It will never happen. Their is too much money and power wrapped up in the Democratic and Republican parties. Too much history." You say.
Right. And they won't let it happen. They will not go quietly into that good night. But do they run the country? Or do the people?
"Well, even our founders belonged to a political pary." You say.
True. But would they belong to either one of the parties we currently have?
I have heard for years that we need a two party system. A third party only messes things up. We don't need a third independent party but a revitalised Republican/Democratic party. Fine. But why do we need parties?
I am so tired of people voting for the "D" or the "R" after someone's name. Or listening to and disregarding others because they have a "D" or "R" by their name. We should asses each individual candidate on their merits. What they say. And more importantly what they do.
"Well we can't have a hundred candidates." You say. "We have to narrow down the field through primaries." You say.
Fine. Lets make some rules. And I am just spit balling here. If a candidate meets the criteria to run for office, the laws of the state, and the federal government; then they can run. Maybe they have to get 10,000 signatures. Maybe 100,000. Whatever the state puts out there. Then you have a primary and lets say the top three vote getters run for the office. No party just each candidate evaluated on their merit.
"It will never happen. Their is too much money and power wrapped up in the Democratic and Republican parties. Too much history." You say.
Right. And they won't let it happen. They will not go quietly into that good night. But do they run the country? Or do the people?
"Well, even our founders belonged to a political pary." You say.
True. But would they belong to either one of the parties we currently have?
Our Intentions were good.
"You choose a side...because you have to. It's not suppose to be the right one. The difference being...our...intentions were good." (Sgt Jim Raynor in the movie Rush 1991)
I was thinking about that line from the Movie Rush as I watched and read the news over the past week. It occurred to me than many people seem to think that way. As long as your intentions are good it does not matter. You can do anything as long as you have good intentions.
ACORN- Lie cheat steal. But we were trying to help the poor and helpless. Our intentions were good.
S.E.I.U - Beat down protesters at summer town hall meetings. But I our intentions were to help get health care passed. We had to stop those people from using their right to free speech. Our intentions were good.
I heard somewhere that "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." I am beginning to see how true that statement is.
The problem is this. Once you resort to lying, cheating, stealing, and ex specially violence you have lost the debate. If you have to do those things to accomplish your goals you need to examine your goals. And if you resort to using those tactics because the others side has then you are no better. Or as the character Christen Cates replied to Jim Raynor: The difference is there is no difference.
I was thinking about that line from the Movie Rush as I watched and read the news over the past week. It occurred to me than many people seem to think that way. As long as your intentions are good it does not matter. You can do anything as long as you have good intentions.
ACORN- Lie cheat steal. But we were trying to help the poor and helpless. Our intentions were good.
S.E.I.U - Beat down protesters at summer town hall meetings. But I our intentions were to help get health care passed. We had to stop those people from using their right to free speech. Our intentions were good.
I heard somewhere that "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." I am beginning to see how true that statement is.
The problem is this. Once you resort to lying, cheating, stealing, and ex specially violence you have lost the debate. If you have to do those things to accomplish your goals you need to examine your goals. And if you resort to using those tactics because the others side has then you are no better. Or as the character Christen Cates replied to Jim Raynor: The difference is there is no difference.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Tim Tebow Commercial
WHERE WAS THE CONTROVERSY? There wasn't any. Just a sweet ad about a mother and her son. How proud she was of him and how glad that he was alive.
The controversy was that N.O.W., Planed Parenthood, and the pro-choice factions did not want the ad no mater what it said. They wanted to stop someones free speech without even knowing what the ad said. They don't like the people paying for the ad so we must shut them up.
If your argument is the right answer you should not care what the other side has to say. In fact when someone is wrong it is better to let them blabber on and on. But not these pro-choice lobbyist. Shut the other side up at all cost.
When they realised their was nothing in the add but a sweet story and a link to read the rest if YOU wanted to. The head of N.O.W. had to come out and say the ad promoted violence against women. She said nothing about the Betty White ad though. You see it is about who is saying it, not what is being said.
This hypocritical insanity is driving me....well...crazy!
This whole thing should give use great insight into who these people really are and what they really want. They want you to shut up if you do not agree with them. Well I for one will not.
The controversy was that N.O.W., Planed Parenthood, and the pro-choice factions did not want the ad no mater what it said. They wanted to stop someones free speech without even knowing what the ad said. They don't like the people paying for the ad so we must shut them up.
If your argument is the right answer you should not care what the other side has to say. In fact when someone is wrong it is better to let them blabber on and on. But not these pro-choice lobbyist. Shut the other side up at all cost.
When they realised their was nothing in the add but a sweet story and a link to read the rest if YOU wanted to. The head of N.O.W. had to come out and say the ad promoted violence against women. She said nothing about the Betty White ad though. You see it is about who is saying it, not what is being said.
This hypocritical insanity is driving me....well...crazy!
This whole thing should give use great insight into who these people really are and what they really want. They want you to shut up if you do not agree with them. Well I for one will not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
