> elsewhere, some putz
I wub you too snit.
> is going on about how the vote should be denied to
> anyone who received welfare. i laugh my ass off when i read such a claim
> sent out via the fookin internet of all mediums that is primarily the
> result of gov largesse! freakinchristonabrokencrutch!
My argument was from a position of protecting liberty (although the idea of limiting who can vote as a means to protecting liberty will probably go over like a lead balloon here), not creating a fiscally responsible .gov.
> so anyway, isn't there a load of middle class "welfare" such as subsidized
> student loans and home loans and that sort of thing that ought to render
> anyone who takes advantage of such ineligible for the vote on this logic?
Yes. In fact I mentioned borrowers and recipients of subsidies specifically. If you read my whole post, and follow-ups, you might notice that I am not out to disenfranchise the underclass. I wanted to disenfranchise middle and upperclass yuppiedom as well as the AARP.
-- Matt Cramer <cramer at voicenet.com> http://www.voicenet.com/~cramer/ We cannot separate the air that chokes from the air upon which wings beat.
-John Perry Barlow