🚀 go-pugleaf

Gene Seibel wrote:

> Jonathan Ball <jonball@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:<WOEjb.3189$7a4.1488@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> 
>>Gene Seibel wrote:
>>
>>>Glad you made that clear, Jonathan. ;)
>>
>>I note you do not disagree with my assessment of you as 
>>pro-business, rather than pro-market.  It is the market 
>>that is the linchpin of economic liberty, not big business.
> 
> 
> Yes, people should be free to operate a business.

As usual, you get it wrong.  "The market" is not 
businesses.

> 
> 
>>>I plead guilty to being a right winger.
>>
>>Not just a right winger; an authoritarian right winger.
> 
> 
> A slightly authoritarian right winger - 1.38 on a scale of 10

If the "test" were administered with more cunning, you 
would have come out a lot higher.  The phrasing of the 
questions is *designed* to elicit less authoritarian 
responses.  The test is a well known tool of the 
Libertarian Party that is written to try to "show" 
people that they really "ought" to be Libertarians.

If more blatant hard-ass conservatives wrote *their* 
test, you would come out far higher on the 
authoritarian scale.

> 
> 
>>>I do, however, challange you
>>>to tell me where I have spoken against any other amendment,
>>>particularly the first.
>>
>>I rather imagine you agree with those who condemn Bill 
>>Clinton for having participated in a rally against the 
>>Vietnam war when he was a Rhodes Scholar in London. 
> 
> 
> Bill Clinton was free to demonstrate. He should not be jailed for it. 
> I am free to vote for or not vote for him based on what the has said
> and done.
> You are free to imagine what I might think.
>  
> 
>>I also would bet money you disapprove of the exclusionary 
>>rule, which is the only possible teeth behind the 
>>fourth amendment.
> 
> 
> You are also free to bet money on what I might think. The fourth
> amendment says that there shall not be a search without probable
> cause. I agree that evidence found without probable cause should be
> excluded.
> 
> 
>>It's never hard to find extremists of either left or 
>>right who are willing to trample the bill of rights.
> 
> 
> True. But I'm one who supports the constitution as written and
> amended. ;)

You are suspect.