Facebook & Twitter

To follow BoreMe on Facebook, click 'Like'

To follow BoreMe on Twitter, click 'twitter'

Follow BoreMe on Twitter
Tags

AdviceHomepage: Sports & PastimesInspirationMiscellaneousPolitics & SocietySpeechesSports & PastimesSuccess

Know something about this post? Email us

Report fault

<< Back to listing

Eric Thomas: How bad do you want success?Eric Thomas: How bad do you want success?

(5:30) Motivational speaker Eric Thomas speaks to students at Michigan Student University about becoming successful.

You are welcome to
comment as a guest,
but registering gives you
added benefits

Add your comment

Submit as guest (your name)

Submit as member (username / password)



TheBob TheBob (611 days ago)
Favourite comment: Doesn't look like Eric forgot to eat
Original comment
Favourite comment: Doesn't look like Eric forgot to eat
Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Submit as member (username / password)



Guest: PeterLondon (611 days ago)
cengland0 - next time you are on your therapist's couch, you might ruminate on your automatic equating of "success" with "making a lot of money". They are two separate things, and as as many older, wiser, folks will tell you, they are not synonymous. Success (for me and my mate Jesus Christ) is looking after and caring for others, loving your fellow man, doing something meaningful with your life like finding a cure for a disease, teaching kids how to read and write, looking after sick old folks, serving and defending your country in the armed forces, cleaning toilets in a hospital, driving kids to school in a bus, inventing helpful and useful products to make folks live's easier, being a minister of religion and tending to your flock. Do you honesty think that when you meet your maker he's (or she) is going to judge you by seeing how much is in your bank account?
Original comment
cengland0 - next time you are on your therapist's couch, you might ruminate on your automatic equating of "success" with "making a lot of money". They are two separate things, and as as many older, wiser, folks will tell you, they are not synonymous. Success (for me and my mate Jesus Christ) is looking after and caring for others, loving your fellow man, doing something meaningful with your life like finding a cure for a disease, teaching kids how to read and write, looking after sick old folks, serving and defending your country in the armed forces, cleaning toilets in a hospital, driving kids to school in a bus, inventing helpful and useful products to make folks live's easier, being a minister of religion and tending to your flock. Do you honesty think that when you meet your maker he's (or she) is going to judge you by seeing how much is in your bank account?
Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Submit as member (username / password)


    
cengland0 cengland0 (611 days ago)
And, by the way, I've already met my makers. I call them mom and dad. Don't know who you consider your makers and why you haven't met them but I feel sorry for you if you haven't. Additionally, I consider people being a minister of religion a complete failure in life -- not a success.
Original comment
And, by the way, I've already met my makers. I call them mom and dad. Don't know who you consider your makers and why you haven't met them but I feel sorry for you if you haven't. Additionally, I consider people being a minister of religion a complete failure in life -- not a success.
Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Submit as member (username / password)


    
cengland0 cengland0 (611 days ago)
And if you think those things make you successful in life, good for you. Become a teacher, nurse, janitor in a hospital, whatever. Anyone can do those jobs so my definition of success is being better at something than most of everyone else. Otherwise, you're just mediocre like most people. Eric was talking about working hard and not getting much sleep. Well, why do you need to do that if all you're going to do is a standard job that everyone can do? I've done those jobs before. So that means I was a success in life in your opinion?
Original comment
And if you think those things make you successful in life, good for you. Become a teacher, nurse, janitor in a hospital, whatever. Anyone can do those jobs so my definition of success is being better at something than most of everyone else. Otherwise, you're just mediocre like most people. Eric was talking about working hard and not getting much sleep. Well, why do you need to do that if all you're going to do is a standard job that everyone can do? I've done those jobs before. So that means I was a success in life in your opinion?
Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Submit as member (username / password)


        
Guest: PeterLondon (611 days ago)
When the actor Christopher Reeves was first in hospital as a quadriplegic, he was looked after by a male nurse. This guy was in his 50's, and had spent his life helping patients through the first few weeks of knowing they would never walk again - he had always worked in the spinal injuries unit, and he was very good and compassionate. He was earning a small wage, just enough for him and his family to live on. After a few weeks of rehabilitation, Christopher Reeves was due to go back to his home, and he offered this chap a very large amount of money to look after him in his home. He would pay him handsomely, and his family would live rent-free in a nearby house. But the nurse politely declined him, saying that his calling in life was to look after injured patients, and help them transition to their altered lives. His place was with them, in the hospital, and he would be there until he retired. This is what "successful" is - it's finding what your calling is in life; what brings happiness to others and yourself; where your bliss and soul lies. It's not about being "better" than anyone else, or doing a "hard" job, or making lots of money. It's about being the best that you can in whatever it is you are doing. This nurse is not "mediocre", he's a giant amongst men. And you sir, "cengland0" are a midget.
Original comment
When the actor Christopher Reeves was first in hospital as a quadriplegic, he was looked after by a male nurse. This guy was in his 50's, and had spent his life helping patients through the first few weeks of knowing they would never walk again - he had always worked in the spinal injuries unit, and he was very good and compassionate. He was earning a small wage, just enough for him and his family to live on. After a few weeks of rehabilitation, Christopher Reeves was due to go back to his home, and he offered this chap a very large amount of money to look after him in his home. He would pay him handsomely, and his family would live rent-free in a nearby house. But the nurse politely declined him, saying that his calling in life was to look after injured patients, and help them transition to their altered lives. His place was with them, in the hospital, and he would be there until he retired. This is what "successful" is - it's finding what your calling is in life; what brings happiness to others and yourself; where your bliss and soul lies. It's not about being "better" than anyone else, or doing a "hard" job, or making lots of money. It's about being the best that you can in whatever it is you are doing. This nurse is not "mediocre", he's a giant amongst men. And you sir, "cengland0" are a midget.
Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Submit as member (username / password)


            
cengland0 cengland0 (611 days ago)
I believe you have confused successful with fulfilled and happy.
Original comment
I believe you have confused successful with fulfilled and happy.
Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Submit as member (username / password)


                
Guest: knetazor (609 days ago)
Really?
Original comment
Really?
Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Submit as member (username / password)



Guest:  (610 days ago)
Great presentation - Real.
Original comment
Great presentation - Real.
Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Submit as member (username / password)



cengland0 cengland0 (612 days ago)
Do you really want to be successful and make a lot of money? Seems today people hate the rich. Besides, Obama has targeted the rich and wants to take their hard-earned money away and give it to the poor that didn't work as hard.
Original comment
Do you really want to be successful and make a lot of money? Seems today people hate the rich. Besides, Obama has targeted the rich and wants to take their hard-earned money away and give it to the poor that didn't work as hard.
Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Submit as member (username / password)


    
WalterEgo WalterEgo (612 days ago)
People don't hate the rich, they hate unfairness. They hate it when the rich don't share their riches appropriately between ALL those who helped create those riches. For example, workers actually lose their jobs so the rich can get even richer when they ship American jobs abroad. It's certainly job creation, but for China. When corporations pay little tax, they are not paying their fair share towards the cost of infrastructure, health, education, security etc that a society needs for the corporation to make a profit in. That is why corporations don't set up in Somalia, because you can't make a profit in a broken society, and it costs money to keep a society unbroken. People don't hate rich people, only those who get rich at the expense of everybody else.
Original comment
People don't hate the rich, they hate unfairness. They hate it when the rich don't share their riches appropriately between ALL those who helped create those riches. For example, workers actually lose their jobs so the rich can get even richer when they ship American jobs abroad. It's certainly job creation, but for China. When corporations pay little tax, they are not paying their fair share towards the cost of infrastructure, health, education, security etc that a society needs for the corporation to make a profit in. That is why corporations don't set up in Somalia, because you can't make a profit in a broken society, and it costs money to keep a society unbroken. People don't hate rich people, only those who get rich at the expense of everybody else.
Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Submit as member (username / password)


        
cengland0 cengland0 (611 days ago)
The people that help the rich get their money are getting paid for the job that they do. Do you think the billionaire should split his income with his secretaries, limo driver, and house cleaners? Those people get paid what the job deserves. If they felt they are not getting paid fairly, they should quit and find another job elsewhere.
Original comment
The people that help the rich get their money are getting paid for the job that they do. Do you think the billionaire should split his income with his secretaries, limo driver, and house cleaners? Those people get paid what the job deserves. If they felt they are not getting paid fairly, they should quit and find another job elsewhere.
Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Submit as member (username / password)


            
WalterEgo WalterEgo (611 days ago)
I guess it depends on how you define fairness. Sure a worker is getting paid for a job, but the billionaire is always looking to cut the worker's wages as much as possible so he can increase his billions even more. The billionaire has no qualms about shipping jobs to China if it will increase his bank balance. He doesn't even want to pay taxes to help the Americans he just made unemployed. How is that fair?
Original comment
I guess it depends on how you define fairness. Sure a worker is getting paid for a job, but the billionaire is always looking to cut the worker's wages as much as possible so he can increase his billions even more. The billionaire has no qualms about shipping jobs to China if it will increase his bank balance. He doesn't even want to pay taxes to help the Americans he just made unemployed. How is that fair?
Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Submit as member (username / password)


                
cengland0 cengland0 (611 days ago)
That is fair because we are in a free enterprise market. I own my own business so shouldn't I have the option to go where I want for my products and services? If I want to go to China because they are more competitive in pricing than the US, why can't I do that? Why should I pay extra to hire a person on-shore when it will only negatively affect my bottom line -- is that fair to me? The corporations are obligated by law to make as much profit for their shareholders as possible. If that means cutting expenses then that's what they will do. Why would you purposely increase expenses? So anyway, the people that helped the rich get rich were already compensated for the job well done. How much more do you think they deserve? Let's pick a secretary for example. Do you think we should pay that person more than they get today just because the person that hired him/her is rich?
Original comment
That is fair because we are in a free enterprise market. I own my own business so shouldn't I have the option to go where I want for my products and services? If I want to go to China because they are more competitive in pricing than the US, why can't I do that? Why should I pay extra to hire a person on-shore when it will only negatively affect my bottom line -- is that fair to me? The corporations are obligated by law to make as much profit for their shareholders as possible. If that means cutting expenses then that's what they will do. Why would you purposely increase expenses? So anyway, the people that helped the rich get rich were already compensated for the job well done. How much more do you think they deserve? Let's pick a secretary for example. Do you think we should pay that person more than they get today just because the person that hired him/her is rich?
Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Submit as member (username / password)


                    
WalterEgo WalterEgo (610 days ago)
Surely it comes down to what sort of world we want to live in? Would you rather live in a world where everybody cares only for themselves, or where everybody looks out for each other? If you choose 'everybody for themselves', then your logic is flawless. Business is about personal wealth at whatever cost. That is the world we are headed for and I think it looks pretty ugly.
Original comment
Surely it comes down to what sort of world we want to live in? Would you rather live in a world where everybody cares only for themselves, or where everybody looks out for each other? If you choose 'everybody for themselves', then your logic is flawless. Business is about personal wealth at whatever cost. That is the world we are headed for and I think it looks pretty ugly.
Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Submit as member (username / password)


                        
cengland0 cengland0 (610 days ago)
I don't want to put in all the hours and hard work that I do only to share it with bums that can work but prefer just to live off the generosity of our social system. I don't mind helping out people unable to work and orphanages but not lazy adults that want to slide through life by taking advantage of welfare. If I cannot keep what I earn, what encouragement is there to work hard? The more I earn, the more the government takes away to give to the poor. Is that fair to the hard working citizens?
Original comment
I don't want to put in all the hours and hard work that I do only to share it with bums that can work but prefer just to live off the generosity of our social system. I don't mind helping out people unable to work and orphanages but not lazy adults that want to slide through life by taking advantage of welfare. If I cannot keep what I earn, what encouragement is there to work hard? The more I earn, the more the government takes away to give to the poor. Is that fair to the hard working citizens?
Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Submit as member (username / password)


                        
WalterEgo WalterEgo (610 days ago)
I would prefer a world where everybody looks after each other. That means business is not about making a profit, but about providing a great service to society (i.e. everybody) and profit is the side-effect of a job well done, not the primary goal. I know this is socialist, idealistic and unreachable, but today we are headed in the opposite direction towards a very selfish world which will lead to global unrest and probably the demise of human civilisation. With massive global issues looming, climate change (whether human induced or not), population growth, resources, demographics, debt, poverty, religion etc. we need to change our mindset towards more cooperation and less competition. The Libertarian model simply does not fit.
Original comment
I would prefer a world where everybody looks after each other. That means business is not about making a profit, but about providing a great service to society (i.e. everybody) and profit is the side-effect of a job well done, not the primary goal. I know this is socialist, idealistic and unreachable, but today we are headed in the opposite direction towards a very selfish world which will lead to global unrest and probably the demise of human civilisation. With massive global issues looming, climate change (whether human induced or not), population growth, resources, demographics, debt, poverty, religion etc. we need to change our mindset towards more cooperation and less competition. The Libertarian model simply does not fit.
Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Submit as member (username / password)


                    
Guest: Bruder_Adolf (610 days ago)
You are so right! Social darwinism is the true way. If our brothers/sisters/parents/ children need financial help we should *NOT* give it to them because we would only be propping up an inefficient part of the system. If they can't pay their own way, they (and their offspring) deserve to die out. This obviously applies to everyone else outside our families. Why on earth would we "purposely increase expenses"? Your thinking, Carey, will lead us to a better world. Thank you for your clearsightedness and ability to discount irony.
Original comment
You are so right! Social darwinism is the true way. If our brothers/sisters/parents/ children need financial help we should *NOT* give it to them because we would only be propping up an inefficient part of the system. If they can't pay their own way, they (and their offspring) deserve to die out. This obviously applies to everyone else outside our families. Why on earth would we "purposely increase expenses"? Your thinking, Carey, will lead us to a better world. Thank you for your clearsightedness and ability to discount irony.
Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Submit as member (username / password)


                        
cengland0 cengland0 (610 days ago)
I don't mind helping out people who cannot help themselves. For example, the handicapped. I do not like giving free money to those people who do not want to work and those people that just prefer to live off the system. My girlfriend is a social worker and I see the type of people that get the benefits. They can work but lie on their applications to get as many benefits as possible. Sometimes they get caught but are not prosecuted -- instead, they are just denied benefits after they are caught. I have a solution that would fix the problem but I don't have the ability to implement it. Solution: If you are getting welfare because you have the ability to work but are not working, you MUST put in 6 hours of work doing something for the government. This would include simple tasks like cleaning up trash on the side of the roads, sharpening pencils, cleaning toilets, etc. If you refuse to show up for your work assignment, you do not get paid. This will encourage them to work a little harder to find a real job in the private sector and the government will not have to pay the companies that are doing those services today. Two additional hours each day is for you to find another job.
Original comment
I don't mind helping out people who cannot help themselves. For example, the handicapped. I do not like giving free money to those people who do not want to work and those people that just prefer to live off the system. My girlfriend is a social worker and I see the type of people that get the benefits. They can work but lie on their applications to get as many benefits as possible. Sometimes they get caught but are not prosecuted -- instead, they are just denied benefits after they are caught. I have a solution that would fix the problem but I don't have the ability to implement it. Solution: If you are getting welfare because you have the ability to work but are not working, you MUST put in 6 hours of work doing something for the government. This would include simple tasks like cleaning up trash on the side of the roads, sharpening pencils, cleaning toilets, etc. If you refuse to show up for your work assignment, you do not get paid. This will encourage them to work a little harder to find a real job in the private sector and the government will not have to pay the companies that are doing those services today. Two additional hours each day is for you to find another job.
Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Submit as member (username / password)


                            
Guest:  (608 days ago)
Latest comment: Jawohl! Du hast recht, Carey! Gott Mit Uns!
Original comment
Latest comment: Jawohl! Du hast recht, Carey! Gott Mit Uns!
Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Submit as member (username / password)


    
Guest: Overlysimplistic (612 days ago)
I must remember and tell the people emptying my bins that they don't work hard, on the way to my fun and interesting office job.
Original comment
I must remember and tell the people emptying my bins that they don't work hard, on the way to my fun and interesting office job.
Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Submit as member (username / password)


2leep  (opens in new window)
Related Posts