Posts Tagged ‘Should’

Im currently a 18 year old college student how can I prepare for a career in politics?
Please no ignorant or rude responses

Isn’t this a form of socialism in that the Federal Government is subsidizing property owners by letting them write off the interest on the taxes? We all know the Federal Government is short on money, so it doesn’t make sense that the rest of us have to pay other people’s interest payments on their mortgages!

Municipal governments in Pennsylvania are now requiring landlords to mount the keys to each apartment outside the building in a “Knox Box”. The city will have a key to the box and only enter one of the residential units in the event of an emergency. Personally, I’d rather they break down my door in the event of an emergency. I don’t trust the cops, the fire dept., or the EMTs. Why should the government have keys to tenants homes and not homeowners homes?

I see people post on free speech often and many times they seem to be saying that they do not believe free speech should be protected for certain groups or certain people. As an example I will use radio pundits like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. I do not necessarily agree or disagree with these people, they are just the best polarizing figures I can think of at this time. I see many people post that these people should be censored or removed from the radio.

My question is this. Is it not more important to protect the rights of people who you don’t agree with than those you do based on the idea that if you are not willing to protect the rights of those you dissent against then the freedom itself is in jeopardy as a whole?
Az Grande: Only if they are somehow trying to specifically silence that opinion. To express a counter opinion to opinions expressed is what free speech is all about. We do not have to agree with each others opinions, but we should respect the right to hold and express them.
Az Grande: Yes and those who don’t agree with people like Limbaugh label that opinion as hate speech, racism and use a number of derrogatory terms to describe those people who choose to listen. I hate to tell you, but it is no different. Having free speech does not mean you can speak freely without challenge from other sources. You are trying to make an apples and oranges comparison here. In short saying you should be allowed to say what you want without redress, while those who disagree with you should not because by stating their opinion they are somehow limiting your opinion from being heard. My point is that both sides have equal rights to express their opinions whetehr I agree with them or not. If we do not uphold that right in the end no one will enjoy free speech. As for limiting freedom of assembly, I don’t agree with that practice either, but that’s another discussion entirely.

Abortion, Same-Sex Marriage, The Death Penalty, Education, etc. should all be in the hands of the states! Why should the government be able to make decisions on these issues, point on point. Who’s saying our Federal Government has the best judgment? Let the people decide on these issues in their respect states, and create state competition. Why do we tolerate the government in our lives, in social issues such as these?
Does not the tenth amendment state that all rights not mentioned in the Constitution belong exclusively to the states or the people?

Best man speeches often have a lot in common. After all they are usually given by a brother or a friend of the groom and, as such, he usually has stories to tell and incidents to relate regarding the groom’s past. Despite this weddings vary and bestman speeches should take that into account. If the wedding is a big society do for instance the bestman should ensure his speech is formal? That includes knowing the etiquette as to how to address honoured guests. Obviously best man speeches for a small family wedding will be much less formal and probably funnier.

Then there are military weddings. Best man speeches whether from a soldier or a sailor will reflect that fact. If the general is present he will be addressed and some comment on the honour that bestows made. Usually at such a wedding there will be many representatives of the forces present so comments about army or navy life would be appropriate. The bestman speeches should, though, take into account the fact that all those present may not have a military background. So the best man should not use Acronyms such as C.O. unless he is sure they will be understood.

We take it for granted that best man speeches are made by a man. Nowadays though the bestman is often a best buddy or a woman in fact. This is a reflection on the fact that friendships between the sexes are far more common. Such bestman speeches should reflect this friendship and, coming from a woman, will probably have a distinct flavor of their own. Re-marriage has made it possible that the bestman speeches are often made by the son of the groom. Obviously this close relationship will be evident in the speech. If a father wants his son to be his best man they have a close relationship and the speech should demonstrate this.

Whether you call them bestman speeches or best man’s speeches they are part and parcel of the fabric of the wedding day. They have to be sincere and should, preferably, be light-hearted. They should praise the bride’s beauty and the groom’s good taste in choosing her. Best man speeches should stress the importance the couple place on welcoming their guests. Above all best man speeches should end with his total agreement that the groom is right in saying the bridesmaids are wonderful.

Niamh Crowe
Copyright Speechwriters 1994-2009
marketing@speech-writers.com
Tel. +353 1 8333599

What can the government do to reduce poverty in a city? What level of government should handle it? What should this level of government do?

Okay let’s start from the beginning. With the dying job market there will be a increased interest in alternative ways to make money for the average American. The option most Americans will probably be looking toward will be new/small businesses. The government’s red tape combined with the competition makes it virtually impossible for a new business to survive. If the government were to lessen their control over small businesses by means of zoning laws, permits, inspection costs, and taxes, the possibility of creating a new business would become a more viable option for mainstream Americans. Though American should not expect to become super rich, rather instead hope to make enough to replace the income they lost.

For the business that don’t just survive but rather thrive this would increase the amount of jobs available for those who can’t handle their own business. For when a business grows to a certain size the government should create a new type of government job. This new position is one that people are trained in the fields of economic decision making and smart business planning. Once a business grows to the point where it employs say 1000 people, a person trained for this position is sent by the government to monitor and advise the company and find the best ways for the company to not go under, preventing the loss of jobs to many Americans. Though this person has no actual power and is strictly an advisor.

When a company grows to ten times this size (10,000 employees) a higher ranking government employee, with a higher level of training comes in. This government employee has more power than the previous. This one has voting power of ten percent of the company, and also has the authority to release information about the companies decision making to the government and recommend whether the government should intervene more with the company.

If the previous government employee recommends more government intervention and the government’s review of information provided is reasonable enough then the government should launch an investigation into the company and it past business practices. If it turns out that the company is at risk of going under or outsourcing then the government should create a list of possibilities for preventing the loss of American jobs and sit down with the company owner(s)/ Executive officers and attempt to determine a viable option.

If a viable option can be reached and the owner(s)/ Executive officers refuse to take it then the company must pay 50% of the salary to all employees that are to be laid off until they are able to find another position paying more than 60 % of their previous income, or pay for the employee to be retrained in the field of the employees choice. If no viable option can be found then there is no way that it may be prevented and therefore will be no penalty as long as the company gives adequate notice to its employees and stockholders.

I believe this is a very fair way government could get companies to compromise on what’s best for the company as well as what’s best for the employees. And therefore best for the economy. What do you think?
You don’t have to read this^^^^ If you don’t want to, just tell me you plan instead.

Should Politicians’ Families Be Above The Fray?
Can Vote Seekers Use Their Families To Win Support But Keep Them Free From Criticism?

Should the government still buy fuel from BP?
BP has government contracts for the current fiscal year worth about $980 billion.