Report Inappropriate Comments

davebarry, thank you for trying to talk sense to the two-time election reject about his delusional claim of 80,000 taxpayers in Warwick.

You are correct, and he is wrong.

His statement that taxpayers include "a baby receiving high cost or low cost food, diapers, clothing, toys etc. due to the taxes paid by his/her parents" is, literally, gibberish. As in, it isn't logical or coherent.

And his reply "If you only want to list just those that directly send a check to the City of Warwick feel free" is only further proof of his delusional ideas, because, as we know, that is precisely what the term "taxpayer" means: Someone who pays taxes. Babies and children do not pay taxes.

And yet, that specific, objective, and true definition of "taxpayer" is, according to the two-time election reject, not as valid as the one that he made up in his head.

Of course, it's no surprise that the two-time election reject does not understand what a taxpayer is -- he lost his former residence to tax sale after failing to pay the taxes on it.