Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[StillaGhost]

Seems Kim's law team has declined any involvement with OathKeepers. See the update.

That's convenient.



I just feel like they chose her case in order to get publicity as allies of her religious cause.  It reminds me of their decision last year to ally themselves with a bunch of anti-Mexican-immigrant groups, on the dubious (IMHO) grounds that "Obama and his minions are directly engaged in a planned, concerted, coordinated invasion of our nation".  They are turning themselves into the right-wing militia that they always claimed not to be, because they can find more supporters that way.  At least, that's how it looks to me.

 
 
  So now you're going to compare apples to oranges? Are we now going to relive a long ago arguement as regards the border?
 
  Which of course will turn into a debacle since those of us who have actually lived along the border know the realities of the situation.
 
   Let me ask you a question  , are *you* a member of the Oathkeepers? Have *you* actually done anything of note about any of these issues the group has gotten involved with? Or is it yet another case of someone who refuses to participate wanting to set policy for an entire group who *actually* is doing something?
 
   And why wouldn't the Oathkeepers aim for some exposure? How would the message that we stand against unconstitutional orders get out without said exposure.
 
  And since we're now getting it from BOTH sides  then eventually a good many members will just say " screw it" , would you rather have that?

[Mr. Bill]

Why do I matter?  No, I'm not a member of Oath Keepers.  I'm not a member of zillions of groups that I'd like to see change their ways.

When Stewart founded Oath Keepers, I thought it was a brilliant idea.  The whole point was to encourage the government's soldiers and enforcers to honor the Constitution.  I feel the organization has drifted from this original purpose.  That's a common problem with many organizations.

I'm not quite clear on what Oath Keepers' current purpose is.

[jamie]

Why do I matter?  No, I'm not a member of Oath Keepers.  I'm not a member of zillions of groups that I'd like to see change their ways.

When Stewart founded Oath Keepers, I thought it was a brilliant idea.  The whole point was to encourage the government's soldiers and enforcers to honor the Constitution.  I feel the organization has drifted from this original purpose.  That's a common problem with many organizations.

I'm not quite clear on what Oath Keepers' current purpose is.

This might help you to understand what the purpose is and has always been.

Stewart Rhodes explains why O-K is under attack.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=305&v=p5qQjUpWgMo


Stewart Rhodes explains why O-K offered to defend Kim Davis.  It had nothing, zero, to do with publicity as allies for her religious cause.    O-K took no side on gay marriage or her religious beliefs.  O-K offered to help because her due process rights were violated by a politically motivated judge.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSGlf22STdw

This is well within the charter and purpose of O-K and doesn't represent a drift at all.

[Chase]

Why do I matter?  No, I'm not a member of Oath Keepers.  I'm not a member of zillions of groups that I'd like to see change their ways.

When Stewart founded Oath Keepers, I thought it was a brilliant idea.  The whole point was to encourage the government's soldiers and enforcers to honor the Constitution.  I feel the organization has drifted from this original purpose.  That's a common problem with many organizations.

I'm not quite clear on what Oath Keepers' current purpose is.

This might help you to understand what the purpose is and has always been.

Stewart Rhodes explains why O-K is under attack.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=305&v=p5qQjUpWgMo


Stewart Rhodes explains why O-K offered to defend Kim Davis.  It had nothing, zero, to do with publicity as allies for her religious cause.    O-K took no side on gay marriage or her religious beliefs.  O-K offered to help because her due process rights were violated by a politically motivated judge.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSGlf22STdw

This is well within the charter and purpose of O-K and doesn't represent a drift at all.

Davis's due process rights were in no way violated, in fact Davis violated the due process rights of others.

People are jailed for contempt of court all the time and without a peep from O-K

[jamie]

Why do I matter?  No, I'm not a member of Oath Keepers.  I'm not a member of zillions of groups that I'd like to see change their ways.

When Stewart founded Oath Keepers, I thought it was a brilliant idea.  The whole point was to encourage the government's soldiers and enforcers to honor the Constitution.  I feel the organization has drifted from this original purpose.  That's a common problem with many organizations.

I'm not quite clear on what Oath Keepers' current purpose is.

This might help you to understand what the purpose is and has always been.

Stewart Rhodes explains why O-K is under attack.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=305&v=p5qQjUpWgMo


Stewart Rhodes explains why O-K offered to defend Kim Davis.  It had nothing, zero, to do with publicity as allies for her religious cause.    O-K took no side on gay marriage or her religious beliefs.  O-K offered to help because her due process rights were violated by a politically motivated judge.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSGlf22STdw

This is well within the charter and purpose of O-K and doesn't represent a drift at all.

Davis's due process rights were in no way violated, in fact Davis violated the due process rights of others.

People are jailed for contempt of court all the time and without a peep from O-K

a. The judge immediately went to the jail option

b. The judge has a history of imposing his  political ideological personal opinion.

c.  did you watch the video?  Either one of them?

d.  due process of law definition. The principle that an individual cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without appropriate legal procedures and safeguards.

e. So you are saying that Kim Davis had someone arrested and jailed for contempt?  Otherwise how could she have violated due process of law?

[WWalker]

WOW......things have changed......4 years ago when Daniel New's (anti-gay) views were brought to the the attention of this Oath Keepers forum, everybody was absoultly enraged by his bigotry. 

Now, bigoted religious fanatics ((such as Daniel New) but) in government employ, are to be defended and protected???
 

[da gooch]

Sorry to take so long to respond ... work ... life ... et cetera.

WOW......things have changed......4 years ago when Daniel New's (anti-gay) views were brought to the the attention of this Oath Keepers forum, everybody was absoultly enraged by his bigotry. 

Now, bigoted religious fanatics ((such as Daniel New) but) in government employ, are to be defended and protected???
 

NO. Him and his views are not what is being defended. His and Our Rights are what is being protected/defended.
Even lowlife bigot scum suckers have rights and if we (all of us) do not protect them there won't be any protection for ourselves and our rights.
See Pastor Mueiller's (sp?) statement ... (paraphrased) When they came for the communists ... ~ snip ~ but when they came for me there was no one left to help me.

[Klapton Isgod]

Miranda was a rapist.  As in, guilty - he did that shit.  He still had rights that the government shat on.  Now everyone knows the rapist's name.

[da gooch]

Mike drop.

Yeah, that. Hope one of the mods here will wipe this puke off the forum... I don't feel free to do it in this section.

I just got to reading this ML.
Do you still want something "wiped off the forum"?

It is just a guess but would it be all of the "F-bombs" that colby556 had posted back in September?

Just let me know and I'll get on it.

[MamaLiberty]

I just got to reading this ML.
Do you still want something "wiped off the forum"?

It is just a guess but would it be all of the "F-bombs" that colby556 had posted back in September?

Just let me know and I'll get on it.

I don't even remember what it was all about. If it didn't bother anyone else, no problem. I just don't feel free to do things here that I would do in other areas. Carry on, my friend.

[da gooch]

I just got to reading this ML.
Do you still want something "wiped off the forum"?

It is just a guess but would it be all of the "F-bombs" that colby556 had posted back in September?

Just let me know and I'll get on it.

I don't even remember what it was all about. If it didn't bother anyone else, no problem. I just don't feel free to do things here that I would do in other areas. Carry on, my friend.

At the first reading I considered an editorial comment about the gratuitous use of words meant only to "shock" rather than convey opinion or ideas but I decided to not as it would appear as if TMM does actually "Edit" the posts of our members and I want to avoid even the image of a "Big Brother" response to all especially people with limited vocabularies and poor emotional control.

Then I read your post and decided to enquire.

Stay safe

[MamaLiberty]

it would appear as if TMM does actually "Edit" the posts of our members

No editing by mods. The post either is left alone, the person posting it is asked to edit it, or the whole thing is deleted for violation of the TOC. Life is too complicated already to be micromanaging posts at TMM, but occasionally things must be addressed to remain on course here. Has nothing to do with being "big brother." Or sister... LOL  The OathKeeper's area at TMM is somewhat unique, and has its own moderators. Therefore, I was likely simply voicing a personal opinion. But whatever... that was long ago.