|
To Mr. SM: “you can hate me for creating jobs for other people because of the risks I took early on, but you CANNOT accuse me of not paying my fair share of taxes.
Asshat.”
Mr. SM, I stand corrected. I was confusing you with Mr. Undertoad and whatever paper shuffling he admits to in order to appear as having no income. My apologies for confusing the two of you. I do not “hate” you for creating jobs and being successful through your own hard work and willingness to take risks. I didn’t even know about those things and I honor anyone with the intelligence and pluck to succeed in the business world. I am not advocating a dreary communist economy where merit and hard work bring no reward. What I am advocating is social awareness and a sense of enlightened self interest. The disabled man or the child living in poverty that you help today may then be given the chance to enter the work force and become one of your best employees, bringing in thousands of dollars for your company. Or you can refuse them help and pay the cost of social unrest and wasted human potential.
Nor do I hate you because we differ in political outlook. I have called upon you to intelligently defend your position and offer me something besides rhetoric in its defense. Sorry to disappoint you, but my strongest response toward you has been one of exasperation because of your lack of a good, rational argument in defense of your words. Calling me “asshat” does not impress me with your ability to conduct a civil debate, Sir. I have apologized to you for my mixing you up with Mr. Undertoad, now perhaps you might like to apologize for your thinly disguised poor language.
To Mr. Cloddfobble: “Fourth, I would be willing to bet I am more familiar with the ins and outs of family court than you are.” I am sure you are, and I am sorry to hear of what sounds like an extremely unfair and emotionally difficult situation for you. All too often there are wrongs committed against both sides in divorce and custody hearings, and I have heard countless bitter stories from men and women both in this regard. To me its just one more example, that we citizens need to watch dog our courts and legislatures to ensure fair laws are passed and that those laws are impartially administered by our judges. As to your father in law, he became eligible for early social security benefits at age 62. Therefore, his case was different than most.
To Mr. Jaguar: “Neither is godawful spelling mistakes. I speak as one who has made far too many himself.” I freely admit to atrocious spelling. This board doesn’t have a spell check or if it does, I haven’t figured it out. Between spell check and having had a secretary for 20 years who corrected my professional correspondence for me, I have fallen into an extremely slothful approach to spelling, especially in the heat of the moment. Spelling is not the issue here, however. The use of valid reasoning is.
“what exactly are you trying to get across or advocating. Also, accusing, without evidence of the most slim, that people here are evading taxes is not going to bolster your claims to being an anylitical mind.”
My original post was asking the question what is the ethical/moral response of a concerned individual in the face of perceived flaws in our governing system and national policies? Mr. SM then responded with a post saying in effect “everything’s going good for me, what’s the big deal?” I replied to this with a random set of government statistics, easily obtainable from the internet, as things that might concern a responsible citizen. I accuse no one of anything. I simply comment on Mr. Undertoad’s admission that on paper he has no income.
|