On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 04:42:56 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Sep 28, 3:19*am, Don Foreman wrote:
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 04:46:09 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck





wrote:
On Sep 27, 1:11*am, Don Foreman wrote:

If ever employed then he made some contributions before dropping out,
but his period of contribution was quite short so the aggregate was
small. *Medicare (and Obamacare) are not pro-rated based on
contribution. *

What kind of argument is that? Are you saying that if a twenty-
something person invents the next whiz-bang doodad and sells the
rights for a zillion dollars, pays the taxes on said zillion and then
declares himself "retired," that said twenty-something is now a
deadbeat? That one is required, in Don's world to continue to work
until he's 65? Even if continuing to work takes a job away from te
next guy in line?

Is that what you're saying?

No. I didn't say any of that, those are your words.

Forget it, weasel. Readers were able to discern your meaning exactly
as you intended. Gave the smear your usual amount of thought, eh?
Figured that gummer gets away with **** like that dozens of times per
day, right? Time for you to use another of his idiotic techniques -
trying a different smear to reinforce the previous one...

*I didn't use the
pejorative term "deadbeat" at all, it's *wmbjk (whomever that might
be) that uses that term liberally and often. *Try to read and
understand what I actually wrote. * You're irresponsibly extrapolating
and attributing inferentially for sensational effect. *Hey, it's
Usenet, enjoy! *

I merely observed that if wmbjk (whomever that might be) dropped out
about mid-life or so, then if (s)he later draws on Medicare or
Obamacare rather than accumulated assets *(s)he will be riding on the
backs of contributive, employed working people if taking more than
(s)he contributed. *

That's quite legal and exemplarily liberal. Do you think (s)he will
pay for his/her medical care in later life from his/her asset base
rather than drawing far more from Medicare and Obamacare than (s)he
ever contributed? *If in similar circumstances, would you? *

This successful working of the system wouldn't be noteworthy if (s)he
wasn't so vituperatively (if anonymously) intent upon scathing others
who also "work the system" successfully with different approach.

Perhaps a matter of professional jealousy?

You mean, like a culler anticipating TEOTWAWKI, and who's dependent on
SS and Medicare and powerlines, being jealous of someone who isn't?

That is such complete bull****, Don.

Unfortunately, that's become his habit. Which has the inevitable
result of him being unable to keep his theories snorf straight. With
one breath he claims that I'm already "*entirely* self-sufficient",
but with the next he contradicts himself by speculating that I "might"
"someday" turn into a drain on society. The fact is that the facts
don't matter to him in the slightest. Same M.O. as his buddy - truth
is merely an impediment, something to be twisted or ignored whenever
it interferes with their smears or the fun of pontificating - as
opposed the "bore" of critical thinking.

Wayne signs each and every one of his posts "Wayne" which is, in my
experience, a male name.

It's also the first letter in the initials with which I sign my posts,
which always include a valid email address. In addition, my
home-building project is described in detail on a web site that I've
shared hundreds of times, and which we know that don has read because
he's commented favorably. Yet he says he still doesn't know my gender,
and has repeatedly spent time trying to convince readers that it could
go either way. As if I could blend into the crowd of females posting
on Usenet. :-) How to tell if he's serious, as he assures us he is,
or an insincere phony as I claim... Money talks, so let's imagine he
was offered the chance to make some on his best "guess". I'd bet that
*he'd* bet quite a lot on his choice. If he'd like to bet against my
contention, then I'd be happy to give him favorable odds. :-) Anybody
think he'd go for that? And yet whenever he's losing a debate, here
comes foreman again with the same old lame "he or she" BS. But he
pretends that he doesn't deserve to be called insincere! Only on
Usenet.

You on the other hand, may be "Donald" or,
perhaps "Donna." Do you see how childish that sort of crap is, Donna?

Occasionally folks ask me to do this or that or with one of my old
tractors. I tell them the truth - that the iron is tired, that each
job might be its last, and I'd prefer that any death throes take place
close to home. Maybe Don's made the same realization about his brain,
and has decided to not to put any unnecessary strain on it. :-)

Wayne