I'm 63 and I'm Tired

[ksech]

This is one of those email things. I don't normally post these types of things, but this one kind of reached out and made some sense...

"I'm 63 and I'm Tired"
by Robert A. Hall



I'm 63. Except for one semester in college when jobs were scarce and a six-month period when I was between jobs, but job-hunting every day, I've worked hard since I was 18. Despite some health challenges, I still put in 50-hour weeks, and haven't called in sick in seven or eight years. I make a good salary, but I didn't inherit my job or my income, and I worked to get where I am. Given the economy, there's no retirement in sight, and I'm tired. Very tired.


I'm tired of being told that I have to "spread the wealth" to people who don't have my work ethic. I'm tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy to earn it.


I'm tired of being told that I have to pay more taxes to "keep people in their homes." Sure, if they lost their jobs or got sick, I'm willing to help. But if they bought McMansions at three times the price of our paid-off, $250,000 condo, on one-third of my salary, then let the left-wing Congress-critters who passed Fannie and Freddie and the Community Reinvestment Act that created the bubble help them with their own money.


I'm tired of being told how bad America is by left-wing millionaires like Michael Moore, George Soros and Hollywood Entertainers who live in luxury because of the opportunities America offers. In thirty years, if they get their way, the United States will have the economy of Zimbabwe , the freedom of the press of China , the crime and violence of Mexico , the tolerance for Christian people of Iran , and the freedom of speech of Venezuela ....


I'm tired of being told that Islam is a "Religion of Peace," when every day I can read dozens of stories of Muslim men killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family "honor"; of Muslims rioting over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering Christian and Jews because they aren't "believers"; of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims to death for "adultery"; of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the Qur'an and Shari'a law tells them to.

I'm tired of being told that "race doesn't matter" in the post-racial world of Obama, when it's all that matters in affirmative action jobs, lower college admission and graduation standards for minorities (harming them the most), government contract set-asides, tolerance for the ghetto culture of violence and fatherless children that hurts minorities more than anyone, and in the appointment of U.S. Senators from Illinois.

I think it's very cool that we have a black president and that a black child is doing her homework at the desk where Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation. I just wish the black president was Condi Rice, or someone who believes more in freedom and the individual and less arrogantly of an all-knowing government. Like Bill Cosby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He's fabulous and everything he says makes sense! Why doesn't someone convince HIM to run!

I'm tired of being told that out of "tolerance for other cultures" we must let Saudi Arabia use our oil money to fund mosques and mandrassa Islamic schools to preach hate in America , while no American group is allowed to fund a church, synagogue or religious school in Saudi Arabia to teach love and tolerance.

I'm tired of being told I must lower my living standard to fight global warming, which no one is allowed to debate. My wife and I live in a two-bedroom apartment and carpool together five miles to our jobs. We also own a three-bedroom condo where our daughter and granddaughter live. Our carbon footprint is about 5% of Al Gore's, and if you're greener than Gore, you're green enough.

I'm tired of being told that drug addicts have a disease, and I must help support and treat them, and pay for the damage they do. Did a giant germ rush out of a dark alley, grab them, and stuff white powder up their noses while they tried to fight it off? I don't think Gay people choose to be Gay, but I #@*# sure think druggies chose to take drugs. And I'm tired of harassment from cool people treating me like a freak when I tell them I never tried marijuana.

I'm tired of illegal aliens being called "undocumented workers," especially the ones who aren't working, but are living on welfare or crime. What's next? Calling drug dealers, "Undocumented Pharmacists"? And, no, I'm not against Hispanics. Most of them are Catholic, and it's been a few hundred years since Catholics wanted to kill me for my religion. I'm willing to fast track for citizenship any Hispanic person, who can speak English, doesn't have a criminal record and who is self-supporting without family on welfare, or who serves honorably for three years in our military.... Those are the citizens we need.

I'm tired of latte liberals and journalists, who would never wear the uniform of the Republic themselves, or let their entitlement-handicapped kids near a recruiting station, trashing our military. They and their kids can sit at home, never having to make split-second decisions under life and death circumstances, and bad mouth better people than themselves. Do bad things happen in war? You bet. Do our troops sometimes misbehave? Sure. Does this compare with the atrocities that were the policy of our enemies for the last fifty years and still are? Not even close. So here's the deal. I'll let myself be subjected to all the humiliation and abuse that was heaped on terrorists at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo, and the critics can let themselves be subject to captivity by the Muslims, who tortured and beheaded Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, or the Muslims who tortured and murdered Marine Lt. Col. William Higgins in Lebanon, or the Muslims who ran the blood-spattered Al Qaeda torture rooms our troops found in Iraq, or the Muslims who cut off the heads of schoolgirls in Indonesia, because the girls were Christian. Then we'll compare notes. British and American soldiers are the only troops in history that civilians came to for help and handouts, instead of hiding from in fear.

I'm tired of people telling me that their party has a corner on virtue and the other party has a corner on corruption. Read the papers; bums are bipartisan. And I'm tired of people telling me we need bipartisanship. I live in Illinois , where the " Illinois Combine" of Democrats has worked to loot the public for years. Not to mention the tax cheats in Obama's cabinet.

I'm tired of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers and politicians of both parties talking about innocent mistakes, stupid mistakes or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think their only mistake was getting caught. I'm tired of people with a sense of entitlement, rich or poor.

Speaking of poor, I'm tired of hearing people with air-conditioned homes, color TVs and two cars called poor. The majority of Americans didn't have that in 1970, but we didn't know we were "poor." The poverty pimps have to keep changing the definition of poor to keep the dollars flowing.

I'm real tired of people who don't take responsibility for their lives and actions. I'm tired of hearing them blame the government, or discrimination or big-whatever for their problems.

Yes, I'm tired. But I'm also glad to be 63. Because, mostly, I'm not going to have to see the world these people are making. I'm just sorry for my granddaughter.


Robert A. Hall is a Marine Vietnam veteran who served five terms in the Massachusetts State Senate. Robert A. Hall is the actor who plays the coroner on CSI if you watch that show.


I did like his comment about Bill Cosby...

 

[azzagirt]

That is magic. Bill Cosby is ever so cool..

 

[greasemonkey]

cue up bbkpoker for his/her retaliation to this letter.....Im sure its coming - anything against liberalism/socialism on this board has been combatted by him/her.

 

[cpdnd31]

I have to say I live in Illinois and boy did he get that one right.......

 

[anniemac]

I live in Texas and I am tired too.

 

[tat00]

im tired of reading all of this

 

[Nifty29]

I'm tired of reading about people being tired of reading.

 

[chuchu59]

The trouble is some 'lazy people' are living off the earnings from the hardworking class. Taxes are paid by some but many unashamedly dont work and seek welfare assistance. We have had these people using social assistance to go on lavish vacations. I dont usually work hard (only 8 hours daily) but really put my mind into action when the going gets tough and get hopping mad with people who dont do their share of work. In fact, just had a row with a colleague yesterday.

Meanwhile is '63' somewhat related to a song I listened to when I was young ie 'Will you still need me, will you still feed me when I am 64'. Please enlighten me.

 

[4 of a kind]

Regardless whoever actually wrote that e-mail, the different points being made within should be obvious to most that live in the United States. Yet, we should also remember that all these different issues took decades to develop. It also took several different presidents, along with all the different elected politicians throughout the past years that eventually directed this country into its present condition.

It doesn’t matter which politicians had a bigger part in this wrong direction, as long as we take action for corrections by learning from our past mistakes.

What frightens me more then the facts in that e-mail is the actual amount of registered voters (who actually vote) that refuse to recognize these issues and for some unknown phenomenon think everything is fine.

I also believe the crux of the whole problem is the actual candidates we seem to be limited to vote for, being forced to choose and settle for whoever decides to showcase.

Great leaders are far and few between, and we are certainly suffering a serious drought. We better find one soon since we’re running out of time. As it is, if we immediately started to do things right we would still need a good decade just to get back on track.

With the different political parties, along with all the different media’s that actually endlessly argue the complete opposite confusing anyone that’s listening is another scary thing. I understand how a democracy works, and arguments with different and valid points are necessary for a successful democracy. But our government has been in complete chaos for a long time and when next year comes the only thing we could count on is it’ll be worse then this year.

We need a special leader and I certainly don’t see one on the list for the next election. Since we have to settle for whoever is in the pool we all better hope we don’t get mislead and screw up again.

We’re running out of time…

 

[Nifty29]

Regardless whoever actually wrote that e-mail, the different points being made within should be obvious to most that live in the United States. Yet, we should also remember that all these different issues took decades to develop. It also took several different presidents, along with all the different elected politicians throughout the past years that eventually directed this country into its present condition.

It doesn’t matter which politicians had a bigger part in this wrong direction, as long as we take action for corrections by learning from our past mistakes.

What frightens me more then the facts in that e-mail is the actual amount of registered voters (who actually vote) that refuse to recognize these issues and for some unknown phenomenon think everything is fine.

I also believe the crux of the whole problem is the actual candidates we seem to be limited to vote for, being forced to choose and settle for whoever decides to showcase.

Great leaders are far and few between, and we are certainly suffering a serious drought. We better find one soon since we’re running out of time. As it is, if we immediately started to do things right we would still need a good decade just to get back on track.

With the different political parties, along with all the different media’s that actually endlessly argue the complete opposite confusing anyone that’s listening is another scary thing. I understand how a democracy works, and arguments with different and valid points are necessary for a successful democracy. But our government has been in complete chaos for a long time and when next year comes the only thing we could count on is it’ll be worse then this year.

We need a special leader and I certainly don’t see one on the list for the next election. Since we have to settle for whoever is in the pool we all better hope we don’t get mislead and screw up again.

We’re running out of time…

Very good post.

 

[casinoboy2k]

Well,

I'm tired of gross generalizations and exhaustive text about people being tired.
*Sips latte*

 

[jetset]

Good post, 4oaks!

For what it's worth I don't believe this is a problem confined to the United States - government overspending and too much intrusion into the private lives of citizens appears to have grown everywhere. The ordinary taxpayer increasingly besieged by political profligacy is having to work longer before enjoying the privelege of retirement...and even then those who have been responsible by preparing for the supposedly golden years are being hammered by the taxman.

Inspired and accountable political leadership is a commodity in short supply almost everywhere, it appears to me. And as 4oaks points out in his bipartisan post, this is not a weakness confined to any particular party - the international political establishment in general often appears lacking in morals and wisdom, and concerned more with re-election than real governance.

Thankfully in a democracy that can be changed, but the party political system serves up limited choices these days.

Just a reminder - this is the attic, where CM members are permitted to exchange often opposing views and concerns on just about anything provided it's all kept cool and civil - you don't have to frequent the place or read particular threads if you're "tired" of the subject matter

 

[Silencio]

I'm a big fan of the daily show.. and I do like to read.

I find it strange that liberals are the left wing of the US, and the right wing in my country..
To me as a foreigner the republicans seem completely mental, and if I try to understand why people would still vote for them it probably must be cause they only have 2 choices.
I just can't understand why people allow the taxes to be this low for the rich and at the same time have the whole country go to $%#@

 

[greasemonkey]

I'm a big fan of the daily show.. and I do like to read.

I find it strange that liberals are the left wing of the US, and the right wing in my country..
To me as a foreigner the republicans seem completely mental, and if I try to understand why people would still vote for them it probably must be cause they only have 2 choices.
I just can't understand why people allow the taxes to be this low for the rich and at the same time have the whole country go to $%#@

The Rich in America pay most of the taxes. How is it low? 50% of the population pay zero net taxes. The top 1% pay more than the bottom 90% combined.

What is absolutely amazing is that people think that if you earn money you should have to give it to everyone else. What is even more amazing is that people keep voting for the politicians that promise to spend more and have even bigger govt.....Govt isn't the solution to anything. It is the problem of most everything. Lower govt. spending and interference is what is needed yet many sheeple continue to vote for the politician that promises to steal from one person and give it to them. It is absurd. Hence, we have the issues that are plaguing us during this current administration.

 

[Silencio]

bigger government? ehm how about lowering your debts..
the tax level for the richest is much lower than most countries, even those who don't have debts..
and lol, I think your last administration added the most to your debts. Added the most and lowered the revenue the most..
sigh... republicans, tax cuts for the rich and start wars, while blaming poor people for their lavish vacations

 

[ksech]

Good posts 4 of a kind and jetset!

 

[greasemonkey]

bigger government? ehm how about lowering your debts..
the tax level for the richest is much lower than most countries, even those who don't have debts..
and lol, I think your last administration added the most to your debts. Added the most and lowered the revenue the most..
sigh... republicans, tax cuts for the rich and start wars, while blaming poor people for their lavish vacations

The problem isnt revenue... its spending. If govt. would be just a little bit reserved and cut the ridiculous social spending that the writer of this email loathed then we wouldn't have need for more "revenue" as you put it.

Revenue is another word for taking a man's money. You want to increase revenue for the spending? How about cutting spending to fit your revenue??? Thats what needs done and i am not talking about obvious spending like defense and such, I am talking about social programs that take from one man forcefully and gives to another. Roadways, defense and that sort of thing benefit everyone. social spending is redistribution of wealth and vote buying. It is harmful and creates a class of people that are totally dependent and leach off of others earnings.... tax "CUTS" for the rich??? They are already paying more than their fair share.

 

[jod5413]

I agree, damn good posts, 4oak and Jetset.

Thank you.

 

[Nifty29]

The problem isnt revenue... its spending. If govt. would be just a little bit reserved and cut the ridiculous social spending that the writer of this email loathed then we wouldn't have need for more "revenue" as you put it.

Revenue is another word for taking a man's money. You want to increase revenue for the spending? How about cutting spending to fit your revenue??? Thats what needs done and i am not talking about obvious spending like defense and such, I am talking about social programs that take from one man forcefully and gives to another. Roadways, defense and that sort of thing benefit everyone. social spending is redistribution of wealth and vote buying. It is harmful and creates a class of people that are totally dependent and leach off of others earnings.... tax "CUTS" for the rich??? They are already paying more than their fair share.

Most of your posts on this topic have a central theme revolving around your resentment of anyone else deriving benefit from your money, and hence you advocate cutting social spending.

You're obviously entitled to your opinion, but I feel you generalize way too much about people who are supported by such programs. Not all of them are lazy no-hopers who buy plasma TVs and eat take away every night along with copious amounts of cigarettes and alcohol. Many people are desperately in need through no fault of their own.

My questions for you are:

1. Why do you think defence spending a higher priority than caring for a population?

2. People living on the edge currently will be pushed over that edge by your proposed cuts. What are these people to do?

3. What is your idea of a fair tax system?

4. Do you think if the US concentrated on running one country instead of three as it pretty much does currently, it would not be in the mess it is now?

 

[jetset]

"How about cutting spending to fit your revenue???" Greasemonkey asks, and I concur.

That's what the poor bloody taxpayer has to do; in other words governments need to cut their cloth to suit their purse and reduce borrowing.

Politicians almost everywhere have amassed truly frightening levels of national debt, but seem unfazed by the consequences.

Hiking taxes has become almost a knee jerk reaction, continually hammering people who in general work long and hard for their money.

 

[Janek12]

Robert A. Hall is a Marine Vietnam veteran who served five terms in the Massachusetts State Senate. Robert A. Hall is the actor who plays the coroner on CSI if you watch that show.

The author is most probably not the actor, this is what I found at

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

"Analysis: This viral op-ed piece was authored by retired U.S. Marine and former Massachusetts state senator Robert A. Hall, who published it on his blog on Feb. 19, 2009.

The forwarded text incorrectly identifies Sen. Hall as the actor who plays the coroner on the CBS television series CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. That actor's name is Robert David Hall."

 

[ksech]

Thank you janek12 I stand corrected, as I said it was sent in and email, and I don't normally post this type of thing...

On a personal level, I recently had to swallow my pride and make a visit to my local Social Services department to see if I could get some type of help (food stamps, HEAP (helps with electric bill) or whatever was available) since I have only been able to work 2 days a week since May. No work from the end of February to the end of May (when I had my stroke). I've exhausted all of my savings and have closed out both of my retirement plans. I'm taking home about $128/week, but I can't receive any social service help because I am making too much money for a single person. I've never collected any disability (but have paid in for 32 years), but I'm not eligible for that either because I'm currently trying to work 2 days a week. So, please tell me where the system works?

My hard earned tax dollars aren't helping me in my time of need, but some lazy 20 year old something with 2 kids who has never worked a day in her life gets ALL the creature comforts. WTF is wrong with this picture!!!!

 

[greasemonkey]

Most of your posts on this topic have a central theme revolving around your resentment of anyone else deriving benefit from your money, and hence you advocate cutting social spending.

Many people are desperately in need through no fault of their own.
For ANYONE desperately in need there has seemingly ALWAYS been homeless shelters, soup kitchens, Women's shelters, family shelters....etc. Of course, that is my definition of DESPERATELY. Desperately is if you are hungry and need food/shelter and possibly clothing to get by. If your definition of DESPERATELY is perhaps that your mcmansion may be foreclosed or you cannot afford your car payment or even if it is that you will have to do without air conditioning or cable TV or cell phone usage then we have a big difference of opinion. Those things are not desperation, they are luxuries that are not needed. Most "POOR" in America have some or all of these things. I didn't have them when I was young and certainly wasn't DESPERATE. Nor are they.

My questions for you are:

1. Why do you think defence spending a higher priority than caring for a population?

This seems like a nonsenical question. If you cannot protect your borders or your population than how could you possibly "care for them" in the first place??? They must be safe from foreign threat first. Secondly, what is it that you mean by "care for them"? If it is cradle to grave entitelments then that is not caring for them, that is appeasing them. Making them worse than if you just gave them the freedom to succeed or fail on their own accord. I am not against basic safety nets. I am against entitlements. I am against living as comfortably and nicely as the person that is being extorted in order for you to live that way. I don't want anyone starving but I also don't see how they could have luxuries in their lives that they are not gaining by their own efforts but by having it stolen from another citizen. SURE, give food and shelter but just the basics. We go way overboard. We have obese poor people. The definition of poor keeps changing and it has become absurd.

2. People living on the edge currently will be pushed over that edge by your proposed cuts. What are these people to do?

Please verify your statement. What people? Which edge? Your scenario needs direct numbers/circumstances. Currently, unless you are mentally disabled it is almost impossible to starve or go without shelter here.

3. What is your idea of a fair tax system?

A fair tax system would be one that doesn't punish success nor punish prudent decisions. Like the marriage penalty, or being taxed more because you have less children or being rewarded for having more children....et al.
What would be most fair is for there to just be a consumption tax with no exceptions or loopholes. EVERYTHING purchased is taxed. From a loaf of bread to a yacht. A consumption tax is totally fair and the "rich" would still pay the lions share. More money would be taxable as people like drug dealers would actually be taxed every time they bought something. It would allow the govt to cut the IRS staff dramatically. It would stop the average citizen from having to hire a professional just to file taxes. It would not allow any loop hole to any person or company and would be FAIR. It would be totally taxing consumption and not production. No more punishing success directly.

4. Do you think if the US concentrated on running one country instead of three as it pretty much does currently, it would not be in the mess it is now?

This is a silly question. A similar question would be something like "Do you think if you stopped beating your wife now as you pretty much currently do that she may forgive you"? You have to give a direct question. Give an example, name the country and what affairs you believe the USA to be sticking their nose in.. etc. You cannot simply set a parameter in your question and expect it to be accepted as fact to base an answer on.


A few questions for you:

1. Do you think that governments should base their spending on how much taxes are brought in or do you think that the government should determine how much taxes are needed based on their spending?

2. Do you believe all humans should have an equal opportunity to succeed or fail based on their individual ability, intellect and work ethic? Or, do you believe all humans should have equal outcomes regardless of their ability, intellect or work ethic, and the government should redistribute the wealth of those who succeed to those who don’t in order to level the playing field? Please explain why you feel the way you do.

3. Do you believe that every person should be naturally born with rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Or, do you believe our rights come from government?

4. Do you believe the money you earn from your job or business belongs to you, as well as the property you buy with the money you earn? Or, do you believe the government has the right to your money and property?

5. Do you believe that as long as you earn your money honestly and break no laws, there should be no limit on the amount of money you make? Or, do you believe like our President (Obama) who said, “at some point, you’ve made enough money?” . If so what amount would you set the limit at? Would you punish the person by taking higher and higher % of the income the more they made? What do you suppose would be the motivation of the person to continue to grow their business and create jobs if you kept confiscating more and more as they made more?

 

[Mouche12]

bigger government? ehm how about lowering your debts..
the tax level for the richest is much lower than most countries, even those who don't have debts..
and lol, I think your last administration added the most to your debts. Added the most and lowered the revenue the most..
sigh... republicans, tax cuts for the rich and start wars, while blaming poor people for their lavish vacations

I have to agree with this one. The root of all evil is greed, of course, but it's in everyone of us, republicans and democrats alike. But the financial crisis has most definitely not been caused by 'poor people and their lavish vacations' (from welfare). This is Greed with a capital G from those in key positions, bankers, CEOs, and the little man has to pay for it, big time. That's what makes me tired.

 

[greasemonkey]

I have to agree with this one. The root of all evil is greed, of course, but it's in everyone of us, republicans and democrats alike. But the financial crisis has most definitely not been caused by 'poor people and their lavish vacations' (from welfare). This is Greed with a capital G from those in key positions, bankers, CEOs, and the little man has to pay for it, big time. That's what makes me tired.

This is interesting. I have not heard this side of it really.
How so does the little man have to pay for it?
How have wealthy people created it? (some have surely contributed no doubt, especially in the banking industry but was that the CAUSE of it?)
Are you sure that Government spending and borrowing isn't the cause of it?
Poor people directly did not cause it of course, but don't you think perhaps that the massive govt. social spending HAS caused it to a large degree? Don't you think if we cut some of this spending rather than raised taxes it would help immensely to alleviate our debt problem? don't you think less spending is the best way out of debt rather than more spending and more taxes?

 

[Nifty29]

This is a silly question. A similar question would be something like "Do you think if you stopped beating your wife now as you pretty much currently do that she may forgive you"? You have to give a direct question. Give an example, name the country and what affairs you believe the USA to be sticking their nose in.. etc. You cannot simply set a parameter in your question and expect it to be accepted as fact to base an answer on.


A few questions for you:

1. Do you think that governments should base their spending on how much taxes are brought in or do you think that the government should determine how much taxes are needed based on their spending?

The former. However, it is seldom done as nobody has the kahones to stake their political life on it. Perhaps if politician's salaries were performance based i.e. linked to budget surpluses or employment rates etc it would happen. Unfortunately, most pollies seem to be in it for what they can get out of it, and the fact that most are in bed with the large conglomerates that control Western nations means that they will only stick their neck out for these companies (because the campaign contributions and other fringe benefits makes it irresistable).

2. Do you believe all humans should have an equal opportunity to succeed or fail based on their individual ability, intellect and work ethic? Or, do you believe all humans should have equal outcomes regardless of their ability, intellect or work ethic, and the government should redistribute the wealth of those who succeed to those who don’t in order to level the playing field? Please explain why you feel the way you do.

I believe all humans have basic civil rights. We are all equal in that regard IMO. Of course, different countries have different definitions of basic human rights so I guess it depends where you are standing.

I believe that hard work should be rewarded, and that people should be encouraged to start businesses and contribute to the financial stability of their country. Employees should be paid a good days pay for a good days work. IMO it is insane that someone who works their guts out in a factory or looks after the sick and frail gets paid peanuts, whereas lawyers and stockbrokers etc get paid huge amounts way above what they entitled to (IMO). Some of the most important jobs in a society are the lowest paid, so, at present, even those who have an excellent work ethic and/or abilities are not rewarded.

Everyone deserves an opportunity to succeed or fail. Once we start deciding who deserves this opportunity we become a class-based society where only the wealthy and well-connected/bred are able to flourish. Managing a society should not be about money at every turn - it is only a part of the equation. Western nations, with some intelligent re-working of tax systems (I agree with your idea of a flat tax on everything BTW), can well afford to look after the less fortunate and still be countries where the wealthy can enjoy their wealth and not despise those who have little. Remember, in many cases, people have come from horrendous backgrounds and childhoods and have not had the access to education and proper parenting that most take for granted. I know you stated previously that your own childhood was difficult, and it's great that you came out on the other side and made something of yourself, but not everyone can do that. Some are more strong-willed or more physically able than others and hence more able to overcome adversity, but many are not....and that is why we cannot throw a blanket over everyone and say "well you don't work or run a business so it's the soup kitchens for you".

3. Do you believe that every person should be naturally born with rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Or, do you believe our rights come from government?

Yes I do. Unfortunately those rights can (and are in some cases) be taken away by Governments. It is not right that some group of self-absorbed, money grubbing politicians can decide which rights someone is entitled to. Governments have a duty to ensure that their citizens have the access to those things you mentioned. Whether they take them up is another argument.

4. Do you believe the money you earn from your job or business belongs to you, as well as the property you buy with the money you earn? Or, do you believe the government has the right to your money and property?

The money I earn never completely belongs to me, and it never will. How can it possibly? Someone has to pay for roads and hospitals and defence etc etc. The sure things in life are death and taxes.

If one isn't happy with the way their government handles the distribution of wealth, then one can always run for congress/parliament or move to another country that does it better or lobby their current pollies etc. One thing for sure is that we will always have to cough up towards the upkeep of our own country. The argument I see is how it is done, and to a degree how it is distributed. However, there will always be areas (geographically and socially) that require more funding than others, but we cannot have a system where one can refuse to allow "their" contribution to be spent on something that doesn't directly benefit them.

I'm not sure where you're coming from with the property angle, but I of course agree that your land is your land, remembering that it is the state that provides energy and sewage and access etc etc so a person can never be an "island" so to speak.

5. Do you believe that as long as you earn your money honestly and break no laws, there should be no limit on the amount of money you make? Or, do you believe like our President (Obama) who said, “at some point, you’ve made enough money?” . If so what amount would you set the limit at? Would you punish the person by taking higher and higher % of the income the more they made? What do you suppose would be the motivation of the person to continue to grow their business and create jobs if you kept confiscating more and more as they made more?

Hmmm. Well I can see the point he is making. When a person has amassed say $50 million, what's the big deal if the tax is increased marginally on the next $50m they earn? It would certainly be peanuts to them, but it could mean a lot to developing areas of the country or to those who are genuinely in need. Motivation? Well I guess that person doesn't have to go and make another $50m, but I don't see how paying an extra 2% tax or something is going to stop them in their tracks. Ending up with $90m instead of $92m hardly seems to be a show stopper.

IMO it is obscene for people like bank execs and CEO's to being getting huge salaries and even bigger bonuses when the average person is being slugged more and more in banking fees and paying more and more to borrow money. It is the result of the mega-wealthy being able to do as the please for so long with little or no restraint. It's time that at least something was done to ease the burden on the average worker, as all they seem to be doing is filling the pockets of the greedy financiers and others who spend their life with their nose in the trough. If it takes something like what Obama proposes to make them realise the effect their own greed is having on their fellow countrypeople, then maybe it's a good thing.

I was going to just ignore your questions on the basis of the following comments you made which were inappropriate, unnecessary and unprovoked....and not at all conducive to a proper debate:

This is a silly question.

This seems like a nonsenical question

However, I decided to just put that down to some kind of personal issue you have and answer your questions in an adult fashion.

 

[Janek12]

Thank you janek12 I stand corrected, as I said it was sent in and email, and I don't normally post this type of thing...

I was not correcting you , I know the incorrect information was a part of the disseminated text.

I am sorry to hear about your difficulties; 128 USD is really very little with today's prices... IMO it's outrageous they can deny you the welfare benefits in your situation.

 

[The Dude]

Just to add - as soon as greasemonkey started using red bold - I quit reading. It's like you're on a soapbox preaching to everyone. Everybody here has different life experiences. And just because this is so, it doesn't make our questioning of anyone's stance "silly".

 

[Janek12]

Poor people directly did not cause it of course, but don't you think perhaps that the massive govt. social spending HAS caused it to a large degree?

I think the war-mongers have caused it to a much larger degree: see

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

According to that piechart 54 % of the federal budget spendings go to military and 46 % of the federal budget are spent on non-military purposes.

Also, your argument about the absolute need to spend on defence would be, IMO, much more acceptable, if the USA were not the aggressor, either alone or as part of NATO or even the UN, in so many wars in the 20th and 21st centuries and were really spending funds on defence and not on invasions and attacks... etc., etc. ...

 

[Silencio]

How have wealthy people created it? (some have surely contributed no doubt, especially in the banking industry but was that the CAUSE of it?)

eh goldman sachs? Even we in Europe are in the shitter once again with Greece thanks to them.

And why is it you seem to think its the hard working people who will have to pay the taxes like nifty says it the richest of the rich.
Now they finally came to an agreement to cut spending, a couple of trillion or whatever, well did you see the statistics of how much of a difference it will make in debt in the long run? It's just the tip of the iceberg..

On the other hand, in my own country, they have gone to far at some points, well allot. I used to work for the governement and some people over there come close to being the scum of the earth like *coughs* goldman sachs. They should be ashamed of wasting hard earned tax money on failed projects etc. While if my parents who worked hard their whole life would die, I would have to pay taxes on the money they saved up for me.
And they're no millionaires..

 

[greasemonkey]

Just to add - as soon as greasemonkey started using red bold - I quit reading. It's like you're on a soapbox preaching to everyone. Everybody here has different life experiences. And just because this is so, it doesn't make our questioning of anyone's stance "silly".

good derail... here we go:

Well you were wrong to think that way. Perhaps if you would have read instead of just quit reading you would have noticed that I was not on a soap box but I was interjecting my text in with Nifty's text and I needed to differentiate my words and his. Hence I made them Red. Similarly, when he interjected his words with mine he made his Bold. Nobody is on a soap box. Thanks.

I wish more people would actually pay attention to the meaning of the words that people say (and type) and not care so much about the feeling they get when seeing/hearing these words/ideas or the percieved attitude they perceive the words to be delivered in. The attitude that a message is given in isn't the important part - it is the message itself. If your too caught up in the delivery then you will never give the message a chance to reach your mind... and thats too bad.


Also, I didn't say nifty's stance was "silly" or that his questioning of a stance was silly. please go and read again if you care this much to interject. I called his question "silly". I still think it was or at least the way I perceived it was silly. If he had reworded it or verified the question with fact then I wouldn't have. If I ask you why you rogue the casinos that you actually own like the virtual group then you would think that question silly also and rightfully so.

 

[greasemonkey]

eh goldman sachs? Even we in Europe are in the shitter once again with Greece thanks to them.

And why is it you seem to think its the hard working people who will have to pay the taxes like nifty says it the richest of the rich.
Now they finally came to an agreement to cut spending, a couple of trillion or whatever, well did you see the statistics of how much of a difference it will make in debt in the long run? It's just the tip of the iceberg..

On the other hand, in my own country, they have gone to far at some points, well allot. I used to work for the governement and some people over there come close to being the scum of the earth like *coughs* goldman sachs. They should be ashamed of wasting hard earned tax money on failed projects etc. While if my parents who worked hard their whole life would die, I would have to pay taxes on the money they saved up for me.
And they're no millionaires..

I apologize but I am not sure I understand what you are saying actually. You asked why I "seem to think its the hard working people who will have to pay the taxes like nifty says the richest of the rich"? I don't understand and I am sorry. Let me just say that it IS the hard working that will have to pay the taxes. Those that don't work don't pay taxes. They receive money from the taxes that are taken from the hard workers. Also, the rich in America are very hard workers as a group. Here is a bit of stats:

Since 1980, the number of men in the bottom fifth of the income ladder who work long hours (over 49 hours per week) has dropped by half, according to a study by the economists Peter Kuhn and Fernando Lozano. But among the top fifth of earners, long weeks have increased by 80 percent.

The idea of the poor person working hard all day for nothing and the rich guy sitting on his yacht getting richer are far from reality and skewed.
I whole heartedly agree with you regarding govt. workers and wasting of funds. I absolutely agree with you that the taxes are ridiculous and I believe the solution to be lowering taxes by lowering the cost of running the govt. Which would mean cutting much of the spending/ redistribution of wealth that takes place.

 

[greasemonkey]

I think the war-mongers have caused it to a much larger degree: see

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

According to that piechart 54 % of the federal budget spendings go to military and 46 % of the federal budget are spent on non-military purposes.

Also, your argument about the absolute need to spend on defence would be, IMO, much more acceptable, if the USA were not the aggressor, either alone or as part of NATO or even the UN, in so many wars in the 20th and 21st centuries and were really spending funds on defence and not on invasions and attacks... etc., etc. ...

I can't argue with you. You are correct that the war effort has made a huge impact on the deficit. Absolutely it has.
However, my stance on the defense spending wasn't in direct reference to funding war efforts. I felt as though I was asked why defense spending is important in comparison to social spending and I answered "to keep the population safe before you can otherwise care for them". I agree that we have been the aggressor in many instances in the past 100 years. That is another subject and one that I was not directly referencing but I get your point.

 

[The Dude]

good derail... here we go:

Well you were wrong to think that way. Perhaps if you would have read instead of just quit reading you would have noticed that I was not on a soap box but I was interjecting my text in with Nifty's text and I needed to differentiate my words and his. Hence I made them Red. Similarly, when he interjected his words with mine he made his Bold. Nobody is on a soap box. Thanks.

I wish more people would actually pay attention to the meaning of the words that people say (and type) and not care so much about the feeling they get when seeing/hearing these words/ideas or the percieved attitude they perceive the words to be delivered in. The attitude that a message is given in isn't the important part - it is the message itself. If your too caught up in the delivery then you will never give the message a chance to reach your mind... and thats too bad.


Also, I didn't say nifty's stance was "silly" or that his questioning of a stance was silly. please go and read again if you care this much to interject. I called his question "silly". I still think it was or at least the way I perceived it was silly. If he had reworded it or verified the question with fact then I wouldn't have. If I ask you why you rogue the casinos that you actually own like the virtual group then you would think that question silly also and rightfully so.

A simple "Sorry - didn't mean to come across that way" would have sufficed. Your response here is way out of line.

I don't need to read anything again - you need to watch who you are addressing your wrath at.

Your posting privileges in this thread have been suspended.

 

[gaydave]

A simple "Sorry - didn't mean to come across that way" would have sufficed. Your response here is way out of line.

I don't need to read anything again - you need to watch who you are addressing your wrath at.

Your posting privileges in this thread have been suspended.

Really? So, you misunderstand a guy on a political thread then you want him to apologize to you? After he explained to you your misunderstanding? Your making yourself look smaller and smaller with your posts on this one Bryan.

A simple, "sorry, didn't mean to misunderstand and derail your thread" would have sufficed from your end as well.

I didn't read any wrath in GMs statements.


Seems there is an animosity between GM and CM. Too bad it had to spill over and put a wet blanket on this thread and subject.
https://sussexmskpartnershipeast.com/forums/threads/greasemonkey-vs-club-worlds-alladins-gold.38840/

 

[greasemonkey]

Reply to Nifty on interesting discussion

it appears that I have been removed from the "63 and tired" thread. No freedom of speech here I suppose..... anyways, wanted to continue my interesting and respectful discussion with NIfty so i got that in, now I can't see what was written by casinomeister but I suppose he didn't like something that i wrote........ anyways. This is for that discussion Nifty:

A few questions for you:

1. Do you think that governments should base their spending on how much taxes are brought in or do you think that the government should determine how much taxes are needed based on their spending?

The former. However, it is seldom done as nobody has the kahones to stake their political life on it. Perhaps if politician's salaries were performance based i.e. linked to budget surpluses or employment rates etc it would happen. Unfortunately, most pollies seem to be in it for what they can get out of it, and the fact that most are in bed with the large conglomerates that control Western nations means that they will only stick their neck out for these companies (because the campaign contributions and other fringe benefits makes it irresistable).

I agree! It seldom happens and that is a big issue. Hence, we should not condone nor cheer for them to raise more taxes, right?!!? We should demand that they spend within a certain confined amount (whatever that amount is deemed to be). We should not let them operate the country like an out of control teen living on a credit card. That is irresponsible and so are they. They need to stay within a budget REGARDLESS of the situation. Too often people are complaining about some not paying enough taxes for a country to operate. It is perposterous! The govt. just needs to spend less, not steal more from people. If the politicians lack the "kahones" to do it then they need to get kicked out.


2. Do you believe all humans should have an equal opportunity to succeed or fail based on their individual ability, intellect and work ethic? Or, do you believe all humans should have equal outcomes regardless of their ability, intellect or work ethic, and the government should redistribute the wealth of those who succeed to those who don’t in order to level the playing field? Please explain why you feel the way you do.

I believe all humans have basic civil rights. We are all equal in that regard IMO. Of course, different countries have different definitions of basic human rights so I guess it depends where you are standing.

I believe that hard work should be rewarded, and that people should be encouraged to start businesses and contribute to the financial stability of their country. Employees should be paid a good days pay for a good days work. IMO it is insane that someone who works their guts out in a factory or looks after the sick and frail gets paid peanuts, whereas lawyers and stockbrokers etc get paid huge amounts way above what they entitled to (IMO). Some of the most important jobs in a society are the lowest paid, so, at present, even those who have an excellent work ethic and/or abilities are not rewarded.

Everyone deserves an opportunity to succeed or fail. Once we start deciding who deserves this opportunity we become a class-based society where only the wealthy and well-connected/bred are able to flourish. Managing a society should not be about money at every turn - it is only a part of the equation. Western nations, with some intelligent re-working of tax systems (I agree with your idea of a flat tax on everything BTW), can well afford to look after the less fortunate and still be countries where the wealthy can enjoy their wealth and not despise those who have little. Remember, in many cases, people have come from horrendous backgrounds and childhoods and have not had the access to education and proper parenting that most take for granted. I know you stated previously that your own childhood was difficult, and it's great that you came out on the other side and made something of yourself, but not everyone can do that. Some are more strong-willed or more physically able than others and hence more able to overcome adversity, but many are not....and that is why we cannot throw a blanket over everyone and say "well you don't work or run a business so it's the soup kitchens for you".


Lets start with where we agree. We agree that hard work and investing should be rewarded and not punished. We also agree that the factory worker and the nurse are very integral to the working of our society.
However, where we start to differentiate is that bankers and lawyers should get paid at the same level as nurses and factory workers. Or close to it even. To become a lawyer or banker you have to be a certain type with a certain aptitude. Your intelligence as a group will be higher. You will have to go to school for several years and pass bar exams and such. Not everyone can do this and those with the capability and determination are then in high demand. Factory workers, while important, have no special skills or ability per se that are worth a lot of money. ALSO, if lawyers and bankers only did get paid as much as the factory worker or nurse then anyone would/could do it and hence the brightest people would turn to other fields that were paying more. It is just common sense that a lawyer, Doctor, Banker, business owner would be paid more than a factory worker, nurse, cashier, waitress...
We also agree that everyone has the right to succeed or fail! Every country is different so I can really only speak on America in this instance. but if you are lower income then the door is even more open to you. If you want to go to college and are low income it is nearly all paid for you (which is ridiculous IMO - I worked in college for my money, why can't the poor of today do it also? Is it harder than the wealthy kids life? YES. Is it impossible or even hard to obtain? NO.) Our education system throws tons of money at "poor areas". A big issue is the parents as you mentioned. These people are being paid via other people's money to stay at home and have kids that they are raising to think and be like them. They are not being forced to work and are taught that working is less advantageous than waiting for the monthly handout from the govt. I could go on here but don't want to derail from what you had said, so you also said that not everyone is as strong willed or able. That is true. Absolutely it is. Also, that is why not everyone can have the same OUTCOME in life. We can't all live with the same amenities or comforts that the successful's have gained via their hard work. Should we all have basic food/clothing/shelter? Yes, of course. Should the person receiving these through other's work have anything beyond the basics given to them? absolutely not.

3. Do you believe that every person should be naturally born with rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Or, do you believe our rights come from government?

Yes I do. Unfortunately those rights can (and are in some cases) be taken away by Governments. It is not right that some group of self-absorbed, money grubbing politicians can decide which rights someone is entitled to. Governments have a duty to ensure that their citizens have the access to those things you mentioned. Whether they take them up is another argument.

Right on brother!! Right on!

4. Do you believe the money you earn from your job or business belongs to you, as well as the property you buy with the money you earn? Or, do you believe the government has the right to your money and property?

The money I earn never completely belongs to me, and it never will. How can it possibly? Someone has to pay for roads and hospitals and defence etc etc. The sure things in life are death and taxes.

If one isn't happy with the way their government handles the distribution of wealth, then one can always run for congress/parliament or move to another country that does it better or lobby their current pollies etc. One thing for sure is that we will always have to cough up towards the upkeep of our own country. The argument I see is how it is done, and to a degree how it is distributed. However, there will always be areas (geographically and socially) that require more funding than others, but we cannot have a system where one can refuse to allow "their" contribution to be spent on something that doesn't directly benefit them.

I'm not sure where you're coming from with the property angle, but I of course agree that your land is your land, remembering that it is the state that provides energy and sewage and access etc etc so a person can never be an "island" so to speak.


Of course you are correct in the part of paying for roadways, defense etc. Right, some taxes need paid. However, it doesn't have to be extorted does it? Does it have to be on income? Can't the taxes come from other things like spending? Where you have the right to not buy bread that is taxed if you don't want to?
Our big difference comes in your 2nd paragraph where you say "how the govt handles distribution of wealth". That is a huge chasm in our thinking I believe. The govt. SHOULDNT EVER be handling distribution or redistribution of wealth!!! It is not the govt. function! If it is YOUR govt. function then you are living unfree in a communistic or socialistic country. There is little freedom there and many of us are sliding closer into that in our respective countries. It is the person's money that earned it. Period. It is not for the govt to decide how much you can keep or what you can do with it. The fact that it has become that way is terrible and needs to be halted immediately. We as human beings cannot be of the mindset that it is ok for someone in our govt. to decide for us how much fruit of our labors we can keep and how much they can take. That is not freedome. We are not children and the govt. is not our nanny. it is wrong on every level to allow this to be. The amazing part is that some vote for politicians that preach on the very principles of taking your money (although the voters are thinking "yeah, take THAT guys money and give it to me" never thinking of the money that will be taken from them as well).
Nifty, when I say property I am not always talking about real estate. Any personal property (car, house, clothes, dishes, pencil....) is your property and not that of the govt. Also, just as an aside , in America the govt. is not the provider of utilities everywhere, but I get your point.
5. Do you believe that as long as you earn your money honestly and break no laws, there should be no limit on the amount of money you make? Or, do you believe like our President (Obama) who said, “at some point, you’ve made enough money?” . If so what amount would you set the limit at? Would you punish the person by taking higher and higher % of the income the more they made? What do you suppose would be the motivation of the person to continue to grow their business and create jobs if you kept confiscating more and more as they made more?

Hmmm. Well I can see the point he is making. When a person has amassed say $50 million, what's the big deal if the tax is increased marginally on the next $50m they earn? It would certainly be peanuts to them, but it could mean a lot to developing areas of the country or to those who are genuinely in need. Motivation? Well I guess that person doesn't have to go and make another $50m, but I don't see how paying an extra 2% tax or something is going to stop them in their tracks. Ending up with $90m instead of $92m hardly seems to be a show stopper.

IMO it is obscene for people like bank execs and CEO's to being getting huge salaries and even bigger bonuses when the average person is being slugged more and more in banking fees and paying more and more to borrow money. It is the result of the mega-wealthy being able to do as the please for so long with little or no restraint. It's time that at least something was done to ease the burden on the average worker, as all they seem to be doing is filling the pockets of the greedy financiers and others who spend their life with their nose in the trough. If it takes something like what Obama proposes to make them realise the effect their own greed is having on their fellow countrypeople, then maybe it's a good thing.

Well, if a person has made $50million maybe he has 5 children and 15 grand children and he wants to leave them each $5million but needs to double his money to do it. Regardless of his reasoning who are you or me or any politician to declare that he cannot? it is HIS. Not yours or mine. It is amazing that anyone would think that we should have any right to his money. $50 million to you may be a lot. Maybe to a billionaire it is not. So it is perspective. Maybe to you $100k is not a lot but to a guy making $20k it is. So maybe you should put the cap at $50k because to the $20k guy he can't see how you need more than $50k to be comfortable and the rest should go to him. It is not any of our rights to determine how much is enough for another. That is horrible. And why should he have to pay a higher % of his income? Why shouldn't I have to pay a higher % of MY income also then? If $2million is nothing to him then $2k should be nothing to me. Although you are asking the govt. to confiscate $1,998,000 more from him than you are from me. That is not fair at any level is it?
The communist Karl Marx wrote:

From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need

Communism is not freedom and that is communistic to think that one person should have to pay so much more than another for the same benefits. Can you imagine if we went to a restaurant and both ordered an omelet but since you make more than me yours cost $100 and mine only $1.??? How is that fair? Well you make more so $100 to you is nothing compared to what it means to me. So you pay $100 so that I can eat for almost free. Actually, you should pay more than $100. Now a politician wants to cut the cost of omelets down by 25%! That isn't fair to me! I am only saving .25c as mine now costs .75c. BUT YOU!!! YOU ARE GREEDY because you are getting a huge omelet break! You are saving $25 per omelet and I am only saving .25c!!! You greedy guy you! How dare you get all the omelet breaks while I am having to foot the bill for all you wealthy omelet eaters who get by on not paying your fair share for omelets!

That is just how insane the current tax system is and to want to tax people more rather than cut the gross spending of govts. makes no sense to me.

As an aside, the wealthy create more business and more jobs as they grow their wealth.

 

[The Dude]

Really? So, you misunderstand a guy on a political thread then you want him to apologize to you? After he explained to you your misunderstanding? Your making yourself look smaller and smaller with your posts on this one Bryan.

A simple, "sorry, didn't mean to misunderstand and derail your thread" would have sufficed from your end as well.

I didn't read any wrath in GMs statements.


Seems there is an animosity between GM and CM. Too bad it had to spill over and put a wet blanket on this thread and subject.
https://sussexmskpartnershipeast.com/forums/threads/greasemonkey-vs-club-worlds-alladins-gold.38840/

I guess you didn't get the recent memo on harassing and flame comments.
https://sussexmskpartnershipeast.com/forums/threads/flaming-mobbing-and-harassment-of-members.44984/

There is no "history" in this thread - I was merely pointing out the fact that Greasemonkey was out of line. You have a habit of dissing the moderators, and now you disrespect me?

Sorry, I have no patience for this. Come back when you have a change of attitude - like 30 days. I believe this is strike two.

 

[rainmaker]

Maybe we all should start a new thread every time we want to reply to something seen in another thread. That would be messy

 

[The Dude]

There is plenty of freedom here. But when you are participating in a forum, you agree to our posting rules. One rule that we require everyone to abide by is to not harass or belittle others. This seems to be a challenge for you.

You also have chosen to disrespect my decision of having you removed from the "Sick and tired..." thread. In essence, you feel you are above the rules that the majority of the forum conforms to. You need to grow some manners.

30 day suspension for disrespecting the board. Come back when you have a change of attitude. You may then continue your discussion. Thank you.

 

[chuchu59]

Just to add - as soon as greasemonkey started using red bold - I quit reading. It's like you're on a soapbox preaching to everyone. Everybody here has different life experiences. And just because this is so, it doesn't make our questioning of anyone's stance "silly".

Plenty of red bold make my eyes sore so I just skipped the posts such is the fragility of my injured eyes. Months ago I asked my friends to send me emails with words highlighted in either green or light purple.

 

[jetset]

I was sad to see Greasemonkey banned, because he is always prepared to argue his viewpoint with facts as well as general comment...and as it turned out he and Nifty were not as far apart on several issues as one may initially have thought. That made for an interesting exchange that I was enjoying.

 

[Nifty29]

I was sad to see Greasemonkey banned, because he is always prepared to argue his viewpoint with facts as well as general comment...and as it turned out he and Nifty were not as far apart on several issues as one may initially have thought. That made for an interesting exchange that I was enjoying.

The problem is that he allowed our previous encounters to impact on the discussion instead of taking it at face value initially.

I also think statements like this didn't help:

If I ask you why you rogue the casinos that you actually own like the virtual group then you would think that question silly also and rightfully so.

...and eventually, when removed from the discussion, he started another thread so he kinda pooped in his own nest so to speak.

Anyway, I don't want to say too much as the guy cannot reply (even though the same courtesy wasn't afforded me not so long ago....).

I think we agreed on some things for sure. It was also about degrees at the end of the day and maybe definitions of "need" and "basic rights".

 

[slotaddict]

I don't understand what happened here. This has to be an underlying issue from elsewhere. Seemingly Mr. Meister interjected himself into the conversation while misunderstanding greasemonkey. Then greasemonkey replied telling him that he was mistaken and he was equally cordial as was spoken to him. Then he is banned from the thread. The misunderstanding was from Mr. Meister, yet he wanted to punish the person that he misunderstood. That does not seem reasonable nor rational.

None of this made any sense. Greasemonkey was being very nice IMO. He was respectable and stating his opinion. He was using metaphors and stories to show his point. He was doing it well IMO. So either Mr. Meister was having a bad day and wanted to take it out on somebody or there is an underlying circumstance behind this.

From an outside perspective greasemonkey was mistreated and Mr. Meister is in need of the timeout. Realizing of course that it is his forum and he can do what he pleases. Certainly, it was not an appropriate way of handling greasemonkey. Mr. Meister made an off topic comment on the thread, was rebuffed and then kicked everyone out of the forum that disagreed with him. Poor showing IMO.

 

[slotaddict]

The problem is that he allowed our previous encounters to impact on the discussion instead of taking it at face value initially.

I also think statements like this didn't help:

If I ask you why you rogue the casinos that you actually own like the virtual group then you would think that question silly also and rightfully so.

.

When I read this I did not find anything mean spirited about it. It seemingly is a person trying to explain their way of thinking. This particular thread did not show greasemonkey being hurtful or flaming or in anyway disrespectful. Was there another associated thread that included this from him? what am I missing?

 

[Nifty29]

When I read this I did not find anything mean spirited about it. It seemingly is a person trying to explain their way of thinking. This particular thread did not show greasemonkey being hurtful or flaming or in anyway disrespectful. Was there another associated thread that included this from him? what am I missing?

About 2 years.

Ridiculing other people's opinions is not allowed, and GM was removed from the discussion for doing just that (among other things).

I'm not saying any more, as stated earlier, as GM doesn't have the right of reply at present.

If you have an issue with the way CM or Max moderate the forums, then you should contact them privately and not make pointless and inflammatory comments like "Mr. Meister is in need of the timeout"

 

[slotaddict]

About 2 years.

Ridiculing other people's opinions is not allowed, and GM was removed from the discussion for doing just that (among other things).

I'm not saying any more, as stated earlier, as GM doesn't have the right of reply at present.

If you have an issue with the way CM or Max moderate the forums, then you should contact them privately and not make pointless and inflammatory comments like "Mr. Meister is in need of the timeout"

jUnderstood that you don't want to reply because greasemonkey cannot at the moment. That is commendable. Do you really think that he will come back to this forum after being treated this way however? I hope so but would not count on it. I must state again that I read the entire thread and did not see where greasemonkey ridiculed anyones opinion. I cannot see it. If I had a problem with Max or the way he moderated then I would say it. I certainly do not. He is in no way involved here and I am uncertain why you would even mention his name at this point.
I have no personal issue with CM either. I was simply pointing out that it appears he made a mistake on his judgement. There is no need to say so in private as none of this happened in private to my knowledge. It all played out in the open. I also don't appreciate you naming my comments "pointless or inflammatory". I thought that you were not allowed to ridicule comments?

 

[Silencio]

oh come on, give it a rest, didn't we have enough whine posts this past week? he disrespected the owner of the place he was a guest at. case closed.

do the happy dance!

 

[slotaddict]

oh come on, give it a rest, didn't we have enough whine posts this past week? he disrespected the owner of the place he was a guest at. case closed.

do the happy dance!

I am just stating that I did not see the disrespect. I think the reaction was overblown and totally unwarranted. I am stating my opinion and I am sure that many others share a similar opinion that were reading this thread that is now totally off topic and ruined. It was a great thread at the time it was knocked completely off course.
I am not trying to be a pain to anyone. I am just questioning how this blew up for no apparent reason. I am also questioning the call of disrespect. Greasemonkey was no more disrespectful than was shown to him. Actually, quite less so IMO. Should I just keep quiet if a fellow forum member, who I happen to like reading, is treated grossly unfair? I will not.

 

[The Dude]

I don't understand what happened here. This has to be an underlying issue from elsewhere. Seemingly Mr. Meister interjected himself into the conversation while misunderstanding greasemonkey. Then greasemonkey replied telling him that he was mistaken and he was equally cordial as was spoken to him. Then he is banned from the thread. The misunderstanding was from Mr. Meister, yet he wanted to punish the person that he misunderstood. That does not seem reasonable nor rational.

None of this made any sense. Greasemonkey was being very nice IMO. He was respectable and stating his opinion. He was using metaphors and stories to show his point. He was doing it well IMO. So either Mr. Meister was having a bad day and wanted to take it out on somebody or there is an underlying circumstance behind this.

From an outside perspective greasemonkey was mistreated and Mr. Meister is in need of the timeout. Realizing of course that it is his forum and he can do what he pleases. Certainly, it was not an appropriate way of handling greasemonkey. Mr. Meister made an off topic comment on the thread, was rebuffed and then kicked everyone out of the forum that disagreed with him. Poor showing IMO.

We will have to agree to disagree. I felt that both Greasemonkey and Gaydave were disrespectful to my role as administrator - so I came down hard with an iron fist. Stepping back, I realized that this was uncharacteristically harsh of me - so I have chosen to lift their suspensions and give them infractions instead.

Perhaps they caught me at a bad moment - maybe it was a long day for me. All I know is a nerve was hit, and I dealt out a severe spanking. Sorry about that.

Feel free to go back on topic.

 

[jetset]

Good decision, Bryan