On Nov 25, 8:39*am, Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 05:01:30 +0200, ChattyCathy
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 16:35:57 -0500, blake murphy wrote:
>
> >> c.c., have you actually looked at *people of walmart*?
>
> >I have. When it was first launched and everybody was 'busting a gut' over
> >it. Didn't think much of it back then so it's not saved in my bookmarks....
>
> >> that ain't 'working
> >> attire' unless you're a very fat hooker.
>
> >Please don't forget that's allegedly the oldest profession in the world,
> >so who are you or I to criticize their 'working attire'?
>
> >But no, seriously (as Bob P used to say) - you can't expect me to believe
> >that WalMart is the only public place in the USA that these ahem,
> >so-called "freakazoids" shop at and/or frequent?
>
> >What is it with the anti-WalMart clientele sentiment in general, anyway?
> >Is their hard-earned money pink instead of green, perhaps? And before you
> >mention it - they can't possibly *all* be on welfare.
>
> >Heh, rumor has it that the WalMart powers-that-be have been sniffing
> >around in our neck of the woods with an eye to 'starting up shop' over
> >here one of these fine years - so should I expect the 'dress code' of the
> >people who might choose to shop there to suddenly change?
>
> In the US it's more usual for the every day shoppers on the
> entitlement-dole to dress in far finer finery and be more costly
> coifed than those hard working folks who receive no financial aid...
> often the parasites arrive in much nicer vehicles too.

==
"often the parasites arrive in much nicer vehicles too." --

Of course you have REAL statistics to prove this.

Define "entitlement-dole"...I've not heard of this.
==