- Joined
- May 29, 2007
- Messages
- 42
- Likes
- 4
A couple thoughts on what GOAL is here to do and the Board’s influence to that end. Note, this is not a lead-in for topics not related to the Cause (other threads have that more than covered): supporting and protecting “the basic right of firearms ownership for competition, recreation and self-protection” that the 2nd Amendment gives us.
I believe that voting for a candidate because he or she has NES attached to their name is not rational. Equally irrational is looking for change for changes’ sake. Lots of folks used this logic in the last Presidential election and look where that got us.
I was at the BoD meeting in January which served to confirm that “NES endorsed" is not necessarily a good thing (of course, I think any self-claimed endorsement isn’t worth much either). Why?
One 'NES' BoD member made the comment that “print media would be gone in a year or two” (I’m paraphrasing a bit here). “Gone” Really?! Is the sky falling too?
Another came forward, owning up to having initiated the vote that (essentially) fired TOM in order to put a timeline in place to understand the cost/benefits of the service being provided, TOM or otherwise. I’m a “businessman” and a “manager” too, and I also like timelines to hold people accountable and keep deliverables on track, and I like understanding what I am paying for – all makes great sense. I would not, however, fire someone, and then ask them to explain their activities – this makes no sense.
Naturally, neither of these gentlemen will ever get a vote from me. That said, I know of at least one other person on this group that probably will (hopefully to take the place of one above).
Again, it’s the ~person~ – not the association to some group – that will inform my vote.
My recommendation is that, whoever you’re voting for, respectfully ask them the following:
If they are an existing BoD member, what have the ~done~ to further the Cause?
~What~ will they do to further our Cause and the mission of GOAL?
~What~ do they want to change or ~what~ they want to fix?
If they merely start going on about hope and change - tip your hat and walk away.
Michael
I believe that voting for a candidate because he or she has NES attached to their name is not rational. Equally irrational is looking for change for changes’ sake. Lots of folks used this logic in the last Presidential election and look where that got us.
I was at the BoD meeting in January which served to confirm that “NES endorsed" is not necessarily a good thing (of course, I think any self-claimed endorsement isn’t worth much either). Why?
One 'NES' BoD member made the comment that “print media would be gone in a year or two” (I’m paraphrasing a bit here). “Gone” Really?! Is the sky falling too?
Another came forward, owning up to having initiated the vote that (essentially) fired TOM in order to put a timeline in place to understand the cost/benefits of the service being provided, TOM or otherwise. I’m a “businessman” and a “manager” too, and I also like timelines to hold people accountable and keep deliverables on track, and I like understanding what I am paying for – all makes great sense. I would not, however, fire someone, and then ask them to explain their activities – this makes no sense.
Naturally, neither of these gentlemen will ever get a vote from me. That said, I know of at least one other person on this group that probably will (hopefully to take the place of one above).
Again, it’s the ~person~ – not the association to some group – that will inform my vote.
My recommendation is that, whoever you’re voting for, respectfully ask them the following:
If they are an existing BoD member, what have the ~done~ to further the Cause?
~What~ will they do to further our Cause and the mission of GOAL?
~What~ do they want to change or ~what~ they want to fix?
If they merely start going on about hope and change - tip your hat and walk away.
Michael