>
>>
>>[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
>
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com