A Quote by Jason Chaffetz

If we're going to win this battle over fiscal responsibility, we need more of the people who vote right and fewer of those whose seniority is their only selling point. — © Jason Chaffetz
If we're going to win this battle over fiscal responsibility, we need more of the people who vote right and fewer of those whose seniority is their only selling point.
What this country needs is more people to inspire others with confidence, and fewer people to discourage any initiative in the right direction more to get into the thick of things, fewer to sit on the sidelines, merely finding fault more to point out what's right with the world, and fewer to keep harping on what's wrong with it and more who are interested in lighting candles, and fewer who blow them out.
We need a nonpartisan debate commission that actually allows candidates, who are on the ballot in enough states that they could win the election - voters not only have a right to vote, we have a right to know who we can vote for.
When you're at the lower levels in the organization, you need to win and be right. But as you move up, you need to let other people win and be right, and become a manager and delegate responsibility.
People selling content internationally need to be highly focused on selling the right product to the right buyer. If things don't succeed on a particular network, they're not going to stay on very long.
I think what it was about was the people's right to vote and have those votes counted. And if you think back through our history, an awful lot of what we've fought over, struggled for, is the right of people to vote. That's what the civil-rights movement was, at its bottom, about. At the fundamental level, democracy means a government in which the people vote.
I hope we don't have to keep going back over the same territory and winning the same rights over and over again. The battle for birth control. The battle for abortion. The parity of women's health. It's very depressing to think that you win these rights, but then you have to win them again, and again, and again, and fight the same battles over and over.
Investing intelligently in those of us who are marginalised means fewer people in jail, fewer homeless, fewer unemployed, fewer of us who are forlorn and depressed, fewer people addicted to things that drag us down... Because as we invest in those that do it tough, we will see more Australians taking pride in themselves, having realisable dreams and aspirations and making their own positive contribution to the world's greatest nation.
If you win the turnover battle and the explosive play battle in the same game, you win it 98 percent of the time. Now, can you win it with only winning one and losing one? Sure, but if you lose both of 'em, you only win 2 percent of the games where that occurrence happens.
The battle for the airwaves cannot be limited to only those who have the bank accounts to pay for the battle and win it.
I'm willing to stand behind this concept, that as conservatives, we can win the Hispanic vote without selling out the values. I don't think we need to compromise.
There are more and more products with fewer people able to consume them. We have to help those who don't have the economic stability to grow, or one day there will be very few who are able to buy what we're selling.
To me, it's not necessarily about whom you vote for, it's more about the fact that you go out and exercise that right. There's a lot of people who fight for our right to vote and people in other countries fighting for other peoples' right to vote and I think everyone should exercise that vote.
Fewer and fewer people are paying larger and larger percentage of the tax burden, as you know, almost half the people pay no income taxes at all. We're going to have more people in the wagon than we got pulling the wagon before long and that's not going to work. Those jobless numbers, you know, go hand-in-hand with those tax numbers.
We are involved in an intense battle. It is a battle between right and wrong, between truth and error, between the design of the Almighty on the one hand and that of Lucifer on the other. For that reason, we desperately need moral men and women who stand on principle, to be involved in the political process. Otherwise, we abdicate power to those whose designs are almost entirely selfish.
So in 1924, Eleanor Roosevelt really gets a sense of what the limits of the battle and the contours of the battle are going to be. The men are contemptuous of the women, and the women really need to organize. She writes an article which becomes an article she writes in different ways over and over and over again: Women need to organize. They need to create their own bosses. They need to have support networks and gangs so that they are a force.
Monopolistic capitalism is to blame for this; it sunders the right to own property from responsibility that owning property involves. Those who own only a few stocks have no practical control of any industry. They vote by postcard proxy, but they have rarely even seen "their" company. The two elements which ought to be inextricably joined in any true conception of private property - ownership and responsibility - are separated. Those who own do not manage; those who manage; those who manage and work do not control or own.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!