[justshutupandtakeit]

Half of your responses are not germaine to what I wrote. I'll try again and give you some more comments to distort and misunderstand.

Those who took up arms and assault federal officials are criminals, bootleggers are criminals. Nothing was said about farmers (the bootleggers were 100+ yrs later) who did not fall into either of the above catagories. I defended nothing, romantically or otherwise, merely stated a fact. I didn't write the laws that make them criminal and may not even believe them to be right but that is not the issue.

In the eyes of the law they were criminals particularly since they feloniously assaulted individuals who were merely carrying out duly legislated laws. YOU might think, for some odd reason, that attacking someone performing their job is appropriate but I don't.

Do you side with the drug-runners who have shootouts with the police, too?

YOU are not We the People as much as you might think so.

When you slander Hamilton you are slandering Washington as well.

[tpaine]

----- "Residents of Appalachia don't just distrust the fedgov they distrust all outsiders and all governments. Criminals, by nature, hate all authority. And that is what bootleggers were romantic as you might like to consider them." 152 posted on 02/05/2004 12:48:11 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit

----- Justi boyo, that takes todays cake for biizarro reasoning..
The feds created a 'crime'; -- of making untaxed booze.. -- And you come rushing romantically in, defending the cause of what you see as 'justice'..
- When all rational folk see an unconstitutional taxation scheme which was a bald infringement of personal liberty.
-208-

Those who took up arms and assault federal officials are criminals, bootleggers are criminals. Nothing was said about farmers

You made your remarks above in refering to the Whiskey rebellion.

(the bootleggers were 100+ yrs later) who did not fall into either of the above catagories. I defended nothing, romantically or otherwise, merely stated a fact. I didn't write the laws that make them criminal and may not even believe them to be right but that is not the issue.

The old 'we MUST obey' defense. Do you never get tired of using these pitiful excuses?

In the eyes of the law they were criminals particularly since they feloniously assaulted individuals who were merely carrying out duly legislated laws.

Umconstitutional laws, 'legislated' without due process.. And being enforced by agents violating sworn oaths to uphold those principles of liberty.

YOU might think, for some odd reason, that attacking someone performing their job is appropriate but I don't.

The agents are fully aware of the simple principles of our constitution. They ignore them at their peril..

Do you side with the drug-runners who have shootouts with the police, too? YOU are not We the People as much as you might think so.

I'm proudly aware of being in the minority on this issue.

When you slander Hamilton you are slandering Washington as well.

Keep up your silly hyping my boyo. Laughter is good..

[tpaine]

----- "Residents of Appalachia don't just distrust the fedgov they distrust all outsiders and all governments. Criminals, by nature, hate all authority. And that is what bootleggers were romantic as you might like to consider them." 152 posted on 02/05/2004 12:48:11 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit

----- Justi boyo, that takes todays cake for biizarro reasoning..
The feds created a 'crime'; -- of making untaxed booze.. -- And you come rushing romantically in, defending the cause of what you see as 'justice'..
- When all rational folk see an unconstitutional taxation scheme which was a bald infringement of personal liberty.
-208-

Those who took up arms and assault federal officials are criminals, bootleggers are criminals. Nothing was said about farmers

You made your remarks above in refering to the Whiskey rebellion.

(the bootleggers were 100+ yrs later) who did not fall into either of the above catagories. I defended nothing, romantically or otherwise, merely stated a fact. I didn't write the laws that make them criminal and may not even believe them to be right but that is not the issue.

The old 'we MUST obey' defense. Do you never get tired of using these pitiful excuses?

In the eyes of the law they were criminals particularly since they feloniously assaulted individuals who were merely carrying out duly legislated laws.

Umconstitutional laws, 'legislated' without due process.. And being enforced by agents violating sworn oaths to uphold those principles of liberty.

YOU might think, for some odd reason, that attacking someone performing their job is appropriate but I don't.

The agents are fully aware of the simple principles of our constitution. They ignore them at their peril..

Do you side with the drug-runners who have shootouts with the police, too? YOU are not We the People as much as you might think so.

I'm proudly aware of being in the minority on this issue.

When you slander Hamilton you are slandering Washington as well.

Keep up your silly hyping my boyo. Laughter is good..

Bootleggers entered the discussion from Alberta's Child who was talking about Junior Johnson and Tom Wolfe's essay about him and them. Keep up.

Keep spinning your silly excuses.. Please.

What baloney. Felonious assaults against federal officers may be acceptable in the ghettos but not among decent folks.

'Decent folk' uphold our constitution. Far to many feds violate it.

The agents are well aware that Congress passed laws and that their role is to implement them.

No one forces agents into their 'roles'.. And justi does not get to decide which laws are constitutional and which are not, boo hoo.

So you do support the drug gangs which attack law enforcement officers?

No... I support ending the 'war' that supports the gangs.

You have some evidence that attacks on Hamilton were not attacks upon his friend/boss/mentor/aegis? Please lets hear it.

Evidence to prove your demented negative? How dumb, - none can exist.