(that because you can drive a truck through their three-pronged test for proving a domestic terrorist, any one definition cited -- especially from the slate of possibilities included in section (B) -- is somehow NOT a truthful representation of what the Act means by "domestic terrorist")I fear it's going to be like arguing SB-130 (Texas's so-called "Parental Consent" bill) all over again.
We'll see. I'll see if I can't come up with something substantive for you to take apart and will do my best to find the Ashcroft quote.
A debate over the definitions of both "and" and "or", or either "and" or "or" (ie: the lewrockwell thread) is completely pointless IMO.
I'm really pleading here for more substantive debate from your side
Please feel free to "ping" me to such threads if it occurs to you to do so, and if you run across any.