A Quote by Chuck Fleischmann

Most people would agree that infrastructure is something government should do. — © Chuck Fleischmann
Most people would agree that infrastructure is something government should do.
I don't agree with the way labels are set up. I don't agree that anyone should sign 360 deals or sign away their publishing or take most of the infrastructure that's included in a formal deal.
President Bush once said that marriage is a sacred institution and should be reserved for the union of one man and one woman. If this is the case - and most Americans would agree with him on this - then I have to ask: Why is the government at all involved in marrying people?
I'm not here to say that the government is always right, but when the government tells you to do something, I'm sure you would all agree that I think you all recognize that is something you need to do.
If you ask people do you think that government should spend less money than what it takes in, most people agree with that.
Most people I know I think agree and even many theists agree with this. We don't want government involved.
The whole privatisation of health and education, of natural resources and essential infrastructure - all of this is so twisted and so antithetical to anything that would place the interests of human beings or the environment at the center of what ought to be a government concern - should stop. The amassing of unfettered wealth of individuals and corporations should stop. The inheritance of rich people's wealth by their children should stop. The expropriators should have their wealth expropriated and redistributed.
What comedy does, for the most part, is it voices something so simplistically that people will agree with us, and then once you agree with something, you go, 'That's what I think.' So what you're trying to do is try to voice arguments that people get on a side with. So they can use that, maybe at a dinner party, themselves.
I think most Americans would agree people should be treated equally and everyone ought to be able to pursue a fulfilling life with the ones they love.
Government should seek more strategic approaches to developing dynamic, resilient infrastructure. Business must be more creative in offering financing solutions as partners with government, and people must support sustainable innovation as a public policy priority.
It would be a matter of concern for government if intrusive data capture has been deployed against Indian citizens or government infrastructure.
Most people I know I think agree and even many theists agree with this. We don't want government involved. When atheists become the majority in this country, I don't think the theists are going to be glad to have "one nation under no God" inserted in the Pledge of Allegiance.
When most people become president, even if you disagree with their ideology, you can still agree that they would have the competence to run something... With Trump, I do not have the confidence of that at all.
Despite my deep misgivings about austerity and the harm it would do, I agreed to chair the national infrastructure commission under a Tory government, because I believed that delivering infrastructure investment could help build a brighter future for businesses and families. I am a pragmatist. I do what works.
Your thoughts should agree with your words, and the words should agree with your actions. In this world people think one thing, say another thing, and do something else. This is horrible. This is crookedness.
NEW RULE: 'Kidiots' Leave the children behind. At least until they learn something. A new study has shown that half of American high schools agree that newspapers should only be able to publish government-approved material. Almost one out of five said people should not be allowed to voice unpopular opinions..This is the first generation after September 11th, who discovered news during a 'watch what you say' administration...George W. Bush once asked, 'is our children learning.' No, they isn't. A better question would be, 'is our teacher's teaching?
What people don't seem to ever understand is that any infrastructure that exists under your regime, in your current government, will be appropriated and inherited by the next regime. I mean, the KGB came out of the NKVD which came out of the Tsarist version of the same thing. And now, the FSB operates out of the old KGB building in Moscow. The infrastructure remains exactly the same. There's a little bit of reshuffling of personnel, and that's it. The way to make sure that there's no FSB today would have been for the Tsar to not have built an infrastructure for it in the 1800s.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!