"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Yappity-yappity-yap.

I didn't attack your class, I attacked your
choice to do less than your share.

Not everybody wants to work their knuckle to the bone.

No ****, and espcially noboby wants to do it to
cover for slackers.

Funny definition you have there. dave weil is gainfully employed, owns
property, pays his due share of taxes.... If he's a slacker, how do
you define being self-sufficient?

Paying at least 1 equal share.



How do you
calculate the "share"?

How about 1 equal part for every man woman and child
(after business tax revenue)?

What is "after business tax revenue"? Do you mean "after-business tax
revenue" or "after business-tax revenue"? Do you even know what you
mean?

Dumb and dumber (Middius & Dormer)


Parents responsible for dependents.

So you're accusing dave of not supporting his supposed dependents?

No.

What makes you think he has any?

I don't. I'm not making him responsible for others dependents.


Seems like Dave is able to look after himself, pay his bills etc.

So. Is this more than can be said for George?

dave owns his own home, which is more than I can say. Furthermore, he
can do his job nearly anywhere, whereas I (like you) am limited to
certain metropolitan areas if I want to make a decent living.


Now you can tell us how you've "won" this "debate".

Being a non-tax payer you can't even figure out what the debate is
about. You're as useful as a brick with no mortar.

ScottW