[MileHi]

I'm sorry if facts (We are not under the King's law) cause you to have mental indigestion.

So do you suggest that laws can only be unjust if decreed by a king? I don't see how your lame reply is germane.

Personal, ad hominem, attacks say more about the speaker than they do about the intended target.

Red herring. You didn't come within a hundred miles of addressing my post. Typical of "big gov is ok as long as they have "R" after their name" apologists.

You posted:

These armchair constitutionalists who advocate violence as a means of breaking laws they disagree with are no different, imo, than terrorists. They just use a document to justify their illegal, immoral, inflated faux-flag-waving sense of self-worth. Remember?

And so you cry "personal attack" because I challenge you to defend an inflammatory cheapshot. Lame, and pathetic, but so typical.

[justshe]

Please pay attention this time, OK? Your premise was based on YOUR statement:

" Um, so you would agree that Washington, Jefferson, Adams,etc were terrorists? They sure didn't agree with the Kings laws, advocated violence of breaking those laws and they didn't even have a document..."

I told you we were NOT under the King's law now.

I further pointed out that: Personal, ad hominem, attacks say more about the speaker than they do about the intended target.

In order of your posts you state:

1) #51--Oh, silly me. That must mean all is well. Or it does if mindless replies fix everything for you.
Go back to sleep, we'll wake you if something happens.

2)#56--So do you suggest that laws can only be unjust if decreed by a king? I don't see how your lame reply is germane. Red herring. You didn't come within a hundred miles of addressing my post. Typical of "big gov is ok as long as they have "R" after their name" apologists.

(MileHi---I think you sort of lost your train of thought on that reply)

Face it.......I believe that people who plant bombs are terrorists. YOU don't. You see it as some sort of fluff civil disobedience or righteous insurection. We disagree.

Anyway----some advice.

Personal, ad hominem, attacks say more about
the speaker than they do about the intended target.

If, in order to make yourself appear bigger, you must make others appear small, it is perhaps time to examine your premise.

If you cannot support your premise without guile and ad hominem attacks, you are on a fool's errand. And only you control the fool.

I wish you well.