Manhunt for "Oathkeeper"

[uscitizen]

Does that mean he's guilty? Or does it mean he's runmning from the self inflicked hanging in his cell when caught?

Most innocent people would want to clear their name, not make it worse for themselves... Plus there is the whole fact he wants to have a gun battle with Cops..

What is you answer to that part?

You know what I love about Cop hating morons? They always call the Cops when a crime is committed against them, but the moment they commit a crime the Cops are evil.

When faced with that self inflicked hanging in a jail cell most people will run, wouldn't you? OH thats right you believe the gubermint is good and would never have a person killed to look like they did it to themself.

Wait just a darn minute! What are you doing talking about that when Obama has screwed up our country?

 

[Luissa]

No this whole thread is a deflection of from obama's failed economy. Or don't you care about that?

First you try to deflect to Obama, then when that doesn't work you try to say I am deleting your quotes, when you are proven to be a delusional freak you come up with that???

I will give you an A for effort.

so you don't care that obama polices have fucked this country up and whether talk about something that doesn't fix obama's mess?
Do tell.

I would answer you if this thread was about OBama.


But I will deflect right now, because it is fun.. Would you defend this woman? She hasn't been convicted in a court of law.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/gener...tries-to-sell-5-year-old-son-for-2-000-a.html

 

[ogibillm]

i've got no problem with 'oathkeepers' except the implication that they are the arbiters of what is and is not constitutional

 

[Luissa]

Does that mean he's guilty? Or does it mean he's runmning from the self inflicked hanging in his cell when caught?

Most innocent people would want to clear their name, not make it worse for themselves... Plus there is the whole fact he wants to have a gun battle with Cops..

What is you answer to that part?

You know what I love about Cop hating morons? They always call the Cops when a crime is committed against them, but the moment they commit a crime the Cops are evil.

When faced with that self inflicked hanging in a jail cell most people will run, wouldn't you? OH thats right you believe the gubermint is good and would never have a person killed to look like they did it to themself.

Doesn't self inflicted mean he would be doing it to himself? I guess he could just not hang himself.

 

[uscitizen]

Most innocent people would want to clear their name, not make it worse for themselves... Plus there is the whole fact he wants to have a gun battle with Cops..

What is you answer to that part?

You know what I love about Cop hating morons? They always call the Cops when a crime is committed against them, but the moment they commit a crime the Cops are evil.

When faced with that self inflicked hanging in a jail cell most people will run, wouldn't you? OH thats right you believe the gubermint is good and would never have a person killed to look like they did it to themself.

Doesn't self inflicted mean he would be doing it to himself? I guess he could just not hang himself.

Yeah I caught that too.

 

[Luissa]

When faced with that self inflicked hanging in a jail cell most people will run, wouldn't you? OH thats right you believe the gubermint is good and would never have a person killed to look like they did it to themself.

Doesn't self inflicted mean he would be doing it to himself? I guess he could just not hang himself.

Yeah I caught that too.

I really can't wait for BigRigs response..... some how he will blame Obama.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That oath didn't make it your decision regarding when to take action. As long as we've got a USSC to interpret the Constitution and the government follows their rulings, anyone taking overt action against the government, is breaking the very oath they took.

interpret is the key word a justice can't amend the constitutoin through an interpretation but that is what you are agreeing to.

No, ‘interpretation’ and ‘amending’ aren’t the same. The Supreme Court is authorized by the doctrine of judicial review (Marbury v. Madison, 1803) to determine what the Constitution means. The Amendment process may be used subsequent to a Supreme Court ruling, as with the 14th Amendment in response to Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857).

I thought oatrh keepers were people who had to stand up in front of thousands of others and take an oath to be a good person?
why anyone whould have to take a public oath to be a good person is beyond my understanding though.

That’s ‘promise keepers,’ predicated on religious fundamentalism, and perhaps just as problematic.

“Oath keepers’ is a bizarre group of LEO and military who, once given the order to disarm Americans or start rounding citizens up to be sent to Beck’s FEMA camps, will disregard those orders, ‘obey’ the Constitution, and form an armed resistance to the Federal government.

Yeah, it’s nuts.

 

[Dot Com]

Let's keep my reply you quoted in context for the reason I mentioned obama.

I will quote it again.... and say your deflection is noted.

No this whole thread is a deflection of from obama's failed economy. Or don't you care about that?

DEFLECTION FAIL!!! ​

 

[Dot Com]

Does that mean he's guilty? Or does it mean he's runmning from the self inflicked hanging in his cell when caught?

Most innocent people would want to clear their name, not make it worse for themselves... Plus there is the whole fact he wants to have a gun battle with Cops..

What is you answer to that part?

You know what I love about Cop hating morons? They always call the Cops when a crime is committed against them, but the moment they commit a crime the Cops are evil.

When faced with that self inflicked hanging in a jail cell most people will run, wouldn't you? OH thats right you believe the gubermint is good and would never have a person killed to look like they did it to themself.

This bigreb poster is a certified red state doofus. He prolly believes the War of Southern Rebellion (Civil War) aint over yet

 

[Salt Jones]

I thought oatrh keepers were people who had to stand up in front of thousands of others and take an oath to be a good person?
why anyone whould have to take a public oath to be a good person is beyond my understanding though.

Since it appear you never took one fuck off you haven't a clue.

I took one and you are a bunch of scared white racists who fear having a black president. Your lot is through out the military as Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols show.

 

[Missourian]

"Orders we will NOT obey"

The Oath Keepers feel that their sworn oath to the American Constitution, grants them not only the right, but the duty to refuse unconstitutional orders. The Oath Keepers organization has published a list of orders that they claim they will not obey, the list is as follows:




1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.


2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people


3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.


4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.


5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.


6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.


7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.


8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."


9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.


10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

Oath Keepers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

So, which of these do you disagree with?

 

[ogibillm]

"Orders we will NOT obey"

The Oath Keepers feel that their sworn oath to the American Constitution, grants them not only the right, but the duty to refuse unconstitutional orders. The Oath Keepers organization has published a list of orders that they claim they will not obey, the list is as follows:




1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.


2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people


3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.


4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.


5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.


6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.


7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.


8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."


9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.


10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

Oath Keepers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

So, which of these do you disagree with?

you know it's not so much a matter of disagreement on issue as one on attitude.

there's no reason to 'reaffirm' any oath, or pledge to not follow orders like that. it's unnecessary.

what the pledge does do though is put you in an adversarial role with the government - one where not only do you think they could issue such orders but where you expect them too.

and it makes the 'oathkeepers' look as though they'd relish an opportunity to take up arms against their government.

 

[Luissa]

My question is, why was this group formed? In the last few years has anyone been forced into concentration camps, or has martial law been imposed?

In my opinion, it is just a bunch of crazy white military men who believe all the hate spewed about Obama and how he is going to put us into concentration camps and turn us into communists. I think they should have taken oath to take anti psychotic drugs and called it good.

 

[Missourian]

"Orders we will NOT obey"

The Oath Keepers feel that their sworn oath to the American Constitution, grants them not only the right, but the duty to refuse unconstitutional orders. The Oath Keepers organization has published a list of orders that they claim they will not obey, the list is as follows:




1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.


2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people


3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.


4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.


5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.


6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.


7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.


8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."


9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.


10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

Oath Keepers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

So, which of these do you disagree with?

you know it's not so much a matter of disagreement on issue as one on attitude.

there's no reason to 'reaffirm' any oath, or pledge to not follow orders like that. it's unnecessary.

what the pledge does do though is put you in an adversarial role with the government - one where not only do you think they could issue such orders but where you expect them too.

and it makes the 'oathkeepers' look as though they'd relish an opportunity to take up arms against their government.

I don't see it that way at all.

It's easy to go with the flow.

It is much, much, MUCH more difficult to shake off training, peer pressure and fear of consequences.

The examples are as long as history itself.

Look to Nuremberg..."Yes, it was wrong but I was only following orders."

Any and all reinforcement of the personal conviction to do what's right in the face of orders to the contrary is important.

If the situation has deteriorated to the point that the government believes these orders a necessary, without the knowledge that their would be a revolt within the ranks, what would keep the government from simply ordering that those who disobey these orders will be summarily executed?

It is important that service members know without doubt that there will be others who have their back if this hypothetical scenario becomes a real world situation.

 

[yidnar]

I don't give a damn what this scumbags political views are !!!if he hurt a child he should pay!!!

 

[Luissa]

"Orders we will NOT obey"

The Oath Keepers feel that their sworn oath to the American Constitution, grants them not only the right, but the duty to refuse unconstitutional orders. The Oath Keepers organization has published a list of orders that they claim they will not obey, the list is as follows:




1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.


2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people


3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.


4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.


5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.


6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.


7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.


8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."


9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.


10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

Oath Keepers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

So, which of these do you disagree with?

you know it's not so much a matter of disagreement on issue as one on attitude.

there's no reason to 'reaffirm' any oath, or pledge to not follow orders like that. it's unnecessary.

what the pledge does do though is put you in an adversarial role with the government - one where not only do you think they could issue such orders but where you expect them too.

and it makes the 'oathkeepers' look as though they'd relish an opportunity to take up arms against their government.

I don't see it that way at all.

It's easy to go with the flow.

It is much, much, MUCH more difficult to shake off training, peer pressure and fear of consequences.

The examples are as long as history itself.

Look to Nuremberg..."Yes, it was wrong but I was only following orders."

Any and all reinforcement of the personal conviction to do what's right in the face of orders to the contrary is important.

If the situation has deteriorated to the point that the government believes these orders a necessary, without the knowledge that their would be a revolt within the ranks, what would keep the government from simply ordering that those who disobey these orders will be summarily executed?

It is important that service members know without doubt that there will be others who have their back if this hypothetical scenario becomes a real world situation.

How about if they go AWOL if they think the President wasn't born here? Is that part of the oath?
By playing into the fear, and the delusions of nut cases you are only making the problem worse..

I also wonder if those same people would have helped the Japanese who were forced into camps?

 

[Missourian]

In the last few years has anyone been forced into concentration camps, or has martial law been imposed?

I'm sure a German pre-1937 made a statement very similar to this one.

 

[Ravi]

"Orders we will NOT obey"

The Oath Keepers feel that their sworn oath to the American Constitution, grants them not only the right, but the duty to refuse unconstitutional orders. The Oath Keepers organization has published a list of orders that they claim they will not obey, the list is as follows:




1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.


2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people


3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.


4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.


5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.


6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.


7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.


8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."


9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.


10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

Oath Keepers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

So, which of these do you disagree with?

you know it's not so much a matter of disagreement on issue as one on attitude.

there's no reason to 'reaffirm' any oath, or pledge to not follow orders like that. it's unnecessary.

what the pledge does do though is put you in an adversarial role with the government - one where not only do you think they could issue such orders but where you expect them too.

and it makes the 'oathkeepers' look as though they'd relish an opportunity to take up arms against their government.

I don't see it that way at all.

It's easy to go with the flow.

It is much, much, MUCH more difficult to shake off training, peer pressure and fear of consequences.

The examples are as long as history itself.

Look to Nuremberg..."Yes, it was wrong but I was only following orders."

Any and all reinforcement of the personal conviction to do what's right in the face of orders to the contrary is important.

If the situation has deteriorated to the point that the government believes these orders a necessary, without the knowledge that their would be a revolt within the ranks, what would keep the government from simply ordering that those who disobey these orders will be summarily executed?

It is important that service members know without doubt that there will be others who have their back if this hypothetical scenario becomes a real world situation.

It's already known to service members that they need not follow an unlawful order.

 

[Ravi]

In the last few years has anyone been forced into concentration camps, or has martial law been imposed?

I'm sure a German pre-1937 made a statement very similar to this one.

Jeesh, I never took you for a nut case.

 

[Luissa]

In the last few years has anyone been forced into concentration camps, or has martial law been imposed?

I'm sure a German pre-1937 made a statement very similar to this one.

Do we live in POst World I, Pre Hitler Germany?