>
>[snip - if you want to argue with my dc-stuff posts, do it on dc-stuff.
>I will not defend them here]
i'm not asking you to defend yourself re dc. i'm calling you a redbaiter who speaks from the ignorance of the libertarian conservative position. your comment was not a funny joke, especially to a leftist. it's especially not funny, i repeat, because you often speak from a conservative position. i don't have to dredge up your redbaiting elsewhere, to show you're a con leaning lib, i can just point to your first post to the list where you claimed that you wanted to disenfranchise poor and middle class recipients of welfare -- and this was about liberty, you said, which you figured no leftist would appreciate. now, disenfranchising is somehow not conservative? exactly how the hell so?
you outted yourself as a conservative leaning libertarian with your first post to the list. you again reveal your conservative biases here on this thread -- with the joke and recently with your characterization of a "left" position-- and i called you on it and i will continue to call you on it. you don't like being called one? don't spew conservative lib crap on the list then.
Subject: Re: The "law" of wealth concentration From: Matt Cramer (cramer at unix01.voicenet.com) Date: Thu Aug 17 2000 - 17:04:14 EDT http://nuance.dhs.org/lbo-talk/0008/0735.html On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, kelley wrote:
> 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