OATH KEEPERS: Are They for Real???

[Calboner]

That doesn't sound that psycho or right wing at all. Conservative perhaps, in the true sense of the word, but it's certainly a response to the patriot act initially, and seems rather non-partisan in its suspicion of excessive governmental oversight.

That seems highly implausible in view of the fact that this organization only came into existence within the past year, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. The reference to "turning American cities into giant concentration camps" is a clear symptom of Obama derangement syndrome. It's a resumption of the right-wing paranoia that broke out during the country's last Democratic presidency.

 

[MercyfulFate]

That seems highly implausible in view of the fact that this organization only came into existence within the past year, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. The reference to "turning American cities into giant concentration camps" is a clear symptom of Obama derangement syndrome. It's a resumption of the right-wing paranoia that broke out during the country's last Democratic presidency.

Actually I think a lot of it popped up with Bush.

 

[SR_Blarney_Frank]

Unless they were one of the 2750 in the WTC. How quickly people forget.

Terrorism deniers are the same as Holocaust deniers. Why do people always say "We must never let the Holocaust happen again," but when someone says "we must never let terrorist attacks happen again" they are viewed as "Right Wing Nuts"?

This is just a stupid comment. Being realistic about your risk of being a victim of terrorism is not a denial that it exists.

And claiming it's akin to denying the Holocaust is even stupider.

 

[EagleCowboy]

NJ: ROFLMAO!! Oklahoma and Texas aren't running out of oil. Why Texas wants to take Oklahoma with them is beyond me, I think it's all talk except for Texas wanting to leave the union. And We keep Austin. Build your own Austin somewhere else!! LOL.

It seems to me that when people put a government in place, and that government gets out of control and starts taking on a life of it's own contrary to what people want, and the elections become rigged/useless as seen in other countries currently, then HOW is the people to stand against and change the government back to where it should be when the people don't have guns but the government does? Talking sure as hell won't do it and one can only stop a bullet once.

So all you gun control freaks, I'm immensely curious as to HOW you would go about fixing the government when ballots clearly won't work anymore.

 

[2322]

That seems highly implausible in view of the fact that this organization only came into existence within the past year, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. The reference to "turning American cities into giant concentration camps" is a clear symptom of Obama derangement syndrome. It's a resumption of the right-wing paranoia that broke out during the country's last Democratic presidency.

Actually I think a lot of it popped up with Bush.

It did pop up under Bush. You have to get out of the mentality that it's one or the other with the libertarian movement AND please note I'm using little 'l' libertarian here, not the capital, 'L,'political party. These folks did not trust Bush with his shady Patriot Act or The War On Terror and they don't trust Obama either. They don't trust federal government. Period. It doesn't matter who is in charge to them because, "they're all the same, working for the same shadowy superrich, trying to bring about one-world government."

They are a wing, but they're not left nor right. They're closer to anarchists than anything else.

 

[2322]

This is just a stupid comment. Being realistic about your risk of being a victim of terrorism is not a denial that it exists.

And claiming it's akin to denying the Holocaust is even stupider.

A little over a month ago I went into New York using the subway and PATH trains knowing that a terror plot had just been uncovered to attack that very system. Around me were millions of other people using the very same system like it was any other day. There were more cops, more searches, and more recorded warnings than usual but we all went about our business.

Maybe I think about it more since I don't live in the city itself so I only become consciously aware of the possibility of being a terror victim when I'm in the city. Maybe New Yorkers have just learned to live with the fact that it can all happen again.

I don't hesitate to ride the subway just as I don't hesitate to be in or near landmark buildings. I don't know any New Yorker who does. That doesn't mean they aren't out there, but I don't sit around thinking, "Gee, what a juicy target this would be!"

Like people in Jerusalem or elsewhere, you just go on with your life and try to be prepared for anything that comes down the pike.

It's not denial that terrorism has struck the city and that terrorists want to strike it again, it's denying the terrorists power over your life. They can intimidate you or not. That's YOUR choice. Precaution is good but living in perpetual fear is unsustainable no matter how much our media and Dick Cheney would like it. Living your life day-to-day is a great offensive play. Try it.

 

[SR_Blarney_Frank]

It's not denial that terrorism has struck the city and that terrorists want to strike it again, it's denying the terrorists power over your life.

Indeed. Every day everywhere we are at risk. We exercise reasonable caution - enough to diminish the danger without taking over our lives and our liberty.

The only way to eliminate road accidents is to give up driving.

The only way to eliminate gun deaths is to ban guns.

The only way to eliminate terrorism is to impose a police state.

Is that any way to live?

 

[SR_Blarney_Frank]

So all you gun control freaks, I'm immensely curious as to HOW you would go about fixing the government when ballots clearly won't work anymore.

Ballots work just fine. Whether or not you like the result is a different issue.

 

[Calboner]

Ballots work just fine. Whether or not you like the result is a different issue.

Well said. :clap:

 

[vince]

NJ: ROFLMAO!! Oklahoma and Texas aren't running out of oil. Why Texas wants to take Oklahoma with them is beyond me, I think it's all talk except for Texas wanting to leave the union. And We keep Austin. Build your own Austin somewhere else!! LOL.

It seems to me that when people put a government in place, and that government gets out of control and starts taking on a life of it's own contrary to what people want, and the elections become rigged/useless as seen in other countries currently, then HOW is the people to stand against and change the government back to where it should be when the people don't have guns but the government does? Talking sure as hell won't do it and one can only stop a bullet once.

So all you gun control freaks, I'm immensely curious as to HOW you would go about fixing the government when ballots clearly won't work anymore.

Study history. Or simply open a newspaper.

The Berlin Wall fell without a shot being fired.

The playwright Václav Havel led the Velvet Revolution in '89 without using guns and terror.

Mahatma Gandhi, Corazon Aquino, Lech Welensa, all leaders most bloodless revolutions.

Just five years ago there was the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine in which the government was forced by the people, to re-run the elections.

Yes people had to risk their lives or physical well-being. They got in the faces of some of the most brutal regimes in history and bought them down.

Why do some people only see violence as the only path to revolution?

The greatest and most profound changes throughout history have not come at the point of a gun.

 

[bigdickbastard9]

Katrina Gun Confiscation
YouTube - National Guard Confiscating Guns in New Orleans

YouTube - NRA: The Untold Story of Gun Confiscation After Katrina

 

[B_Enough_for_Me]

A lot of it is stuff we're not currently in danger of, but the warrantless searches part is something that has happened. The Patriot Act and the Bush Administration put that forth, and with warrantless wire-tapping it did happen. The unlawful enemy combatants part was a Bush-era thing that was scary, basically changing terms to bypass the Geneva conventions or even deprive Americans of their rights. Jose Padilla was one of the most well known cases of this, and people fought tirelessly to free him of the bullshit the government was pulling.

Their hearts are in the right place, but it seems like they think things are going to get a lot worse soon even though it's doubtful it will. I've never heard of them before, I'm going to read some more about it when I have the time.

1) Warrant less searches are a daily reality that have absolutely nothing to do with the USA PATRIOT Act. Nothing. Warrant less searches have been violating the Constitution since 1787.

2) Enemy Combatants was another thing long in existence by the time Bush got to office. We had enemy combatants all over the place.

3) Bush didn't "change terms" to bypass the Geneva Convention, he used the existing terms of combatant that had long existed in the Convention.

 

[B_Enough_for_Me]

The greatest and most profound changes throughout history have not come at the point of a gun.

The rest came as hard fought violent struggles.

All the major western nations are based on events driven by force of arms.

Arms enforce the peace that is won through non-violence. It turns out that non-violence is worthless in the face of crime.

Further, many great pacifists have said there is no way around violence. Some situations absolutely require it. The most famous example was Germany under the National Socialists.

Dr. King said defensive violence was acceptable.

Ghandi, faced with National Socialism, said the jews should kill themselves (as quoted from Louis Fischer).

Judah Magnes, student of Ghandi, doubted non-violence would work in extreme situations.

Even modern pacifists like David Cortright flat out say violence is acceptable some of the time.

So, don't act like guns are the problem, they are just a tool. If used properly they can help achieve the greatest peace.

 

[HazelGod]

I don't know anything about this group, but going solely from their 10 listed orders they will refuse to obey and the rationale given for each, their beliefs wouldn't seem to be very divergent from my own.

Just a few thoughts for those who cling so readily to the belief in the infallibility of the ballot box: what recourse do you have when the electoral process itself has been irreversibly corrupted? When your choice on election day is consistently between a giant douche and a turd sandwich, are the interests of the people really being reflected in the resulting government? When the only "legal" means of changing the government process is through an act of government, what choice is left to us?

 

[MercyfulFate]

I don't know anything about this group, but going solely from their 10 listed orders they will refuse to obey and the rationale given for each, their beliefs wouldn't seem to be very divergent from my own.

Just a few thoughts for those who cling so readily to the belief in the infallibility of the ballot box: what recourse do you have when the electoral process itself has been irreversibly corrupted? When your choice on election day is consistently between a giant douche and a turd sandwich, are the interests of the people really being reflected in the resulting government? When the only "legal" means of changing the government process is through an act of government, what choice is left to us?

Pretty much exactly what I said. I think their hearts are in the right place in terms of following the constitution, I just think some of that stuff isn't going to happen anytime soon.

However it COULD happen. People who deny the possibility that the US could turn into a fascist state someday are a little too naive.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Just a few thoughts for those who cling so readily to the belief in the infallibility of the ballot box: what recourse do you have when the electoral process itself has been irreversibly corrupted? When your choice on election day is consistently between a giant douche and a turd sandwich, are the interests of the people really being reflected in the resulting government? When the only "legal" means of changing the government process is through an act of government, what choice is left to us?

As citizens, we only have a few choices.
1. We can either not vote, which provides a nice image of rebellion but doesn't prevent anyone you don't like from getting elected.

2. You can run for office themselves. But we all know what kind of drama that leads to. Plus that takes money and IMO the best people for the job don't have the finances to run the campaign.

3. Vote for the person who you like best even if they don't have a chance in winning. That's almost like #1 in essence.

4. Swallow your price and vote for the better person out of the two who do have a chance. Because even if the end result is selecting between a giant douche or turd sandwich, one still benefits a person better than the other if you're willing to look.


I usually choose #4 because I know there's a good chance my favorite candidates may not make it to the final showdown. That doesn't mean that anyone of the remaining people may not share my views on some of the issues that matter to me the most. One of those remaining two are going to look more favorable than the other. If I can't have my first pick, I'll learn to live with a second or even a third best until election time comes again.

Lemonade is a popular drink... and it still is. :wink:

 

[MercyfulFate]

As citizens, we only have a few choices.
1. We can either not vote, which provides a nice image of rebellion but doesn't prevent anyone you don't like from getting elected.

2. You can run for office themselves. But we all know what kind of drama that leads to. Plus that takes money and IMO the best people for the job don't have the finances to run the campaign.

3. Vote for the person who you like best even if they don't have a chance in winning. That's almost like #1 in essence.

4. Swallow your price and vote for the better person out of the two who do have a chance. Because even if the end result is selecting between a giant douche or turd sandwich, one still benefits a person better than the other if you're willing to look.


I usually choose #4 because I know there's a good chance my favorite candidates may not make it to the final showdown. That doesn't mean that anyone of the remaining people may not share my views on some of the issues that matter to me the most. One of those remaining two are going to look more favorable than the other. If I can't have my first pick, I'll learn to live with a second or even a third best until election time comes again.

Lemonade is a popular drink... and it still is. :wink:

The problem comes in when it doesn't truly matter what you do. The two parties nominate the person with the best chance of winning, not the best person for the job. So already you're left with stunted choices.

People in this country have the blinders on and really only see Red or Blue. You're aware of this as you've had to argue the point with others. Even without the electoral college and money buying the "best candidate", whoever you vote for most likely will go back on everything they promised.

Obama has done some good, but he's also let me down on quite a lot. He ran as an anti-war candidate(Pelosi and others were elected for the same), and anything about withdrawing troops has been purely lip service. He was also staunchly against torture, then basically said "Eh, we might prosecute people for it, but probably not".

You could vote for the perfect candidate, and when he gets in office the money flowing from lobbyists and special interests will change anything they promised. Really it's an illusion of choice, left or right, red or blue.

I wish more than anything Americans would all vote for third party candidates, but too many people are indoctrinated into this two party system to really change that mindset. It's depressing to say the least. People forget very quickly that their candidate hasn't fulfilled anything they promised, and that worries me.

 

[tripod]

At face value the Oath Keepers have a noble creed yet appear almost cartoonishly cavalier in their hubris.

It looks suspicious to me though... it smells like the recruitment of a new "American style" Nazi party.

Where were the fucking oath keepers during 8 years of the Bush administration where the countries constitution was defiled on a regular basis?

We only see them now during the Obama administration where the constitution has seen MUCH less defilement since he has taken office.

I don't trust them, it feels Orwellian with their crusade against fascism.

The military and police are basically fascist organizations by nature and employ a good amount of the authoritarian minded people in this country.

These people would LOVE for nothing more than a Fourth Reich to develop in this country and are PLANNING on being on the ruling side if they can get enough recruits.

A 100,000 well armed men could basically wreak havoc and destroy the government if that was their goal... and it seems like it is.

I'm gonna use my psychic power of intuition on this one and say that the organization is dangerous and malicious.

And it's not that I disagree with MercyfulFate or Hazelgod because there IS a need for righteous men with courage in their hearts to do the right thing.

I'm just not sure if an armed revolution by the wrong people is in the countries best interests.

The founding fathers are like Rorschach paintings... everyone sees what they want to see in them.

They were not bloodthirsty military men though... definitely not authoritarian types either. The founding fathers were radical thinkers and descendants of the enlightenment.

Let me repeat myself... the founding fathers were NOT MILITARY MEN BUT WERE RADICAL THINKERS AND INTELLECTUAL DESCENDANTS OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT.

The constitution's words should not exist in a vacuum, but should be in context with the time and the men who wrote it.

Most of these oathkeepers just read the words of the consitution yet don't understand teh meaning behind those words.

CORPORATIONS ARE THE PROBLEM WITH THIS COUNTRY... THEY HAVE BOUGHT OUR GOVERNMENT WITH THE MONEY THAT THEY HAVE CONNED FROM US... REMOVING THE GOVERNMENT IS LIKE CUTTING OUT CANCEROUS CELLS WITH A SCALPEL AND LEAVING IT AT THAT.

THE CANCER EXISTS INDEPENDENT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE CANCEROUS CELLS, SO REMOVING THEM DOES NOT BRING HEALTH BACK TO THE PATIENT... the cancer is not cured by the removal of cancerous cells.

The healing of cancer is a holistic process and does involve the removal of the cancerous cells, but requires a much more holistic form of medical care in order to bring the patient back to health.

I'm not even gonna get into the psychology of authoritarian personalities of which, the Oathkeepers seem to be primarily composed of.

 

[MercyfulFate]

This would make more sense during the Bush years, that I agree with.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

The problem comes in when it doesn't truly matter what you do. The two parties nominate the person with the best chance of winning, not the best person for the job. So already you're left with stunted choices.

A third, fourth and even fifth party would do exactly the same. Every party takes both circumstances into consideration when picking their candidates to run for office. Although it would be ethical if everyone picked the right person for the job every time, it would also be suicidal if that person they picked was not liked by anyone. We've seen countless times American people choose candidates based on a person's image instead of what they actually do.

People in this country have the blinders on and really only see Red or Blue. You're aware of this as you've had to argue the point with others. Even without the electoral college and money buying the "best candidate", whoever you vote for most likely will go back on everything they promised.

At the same time, I don't expect any politician to be able to follow through with every promise they make. My parents couldn't... my closest friends couldn't... not even any of my lovers could ever do it. There are just too many surrounding and unexpected circumstances for anyone of us to expect someone to always come through. However, we can choose people who are most likely to produce positive results for the nation and for their party.

Obama has done some good, but he's also let me down on quite a lot. He ran as an anti-war candidate(Pelosi and others were elected for the same), and anything about withdrawing troops has been purely lip service. He was also staunchly against torture, then basically said "Eh, we might prosecute people for it, but probably not".

I'm not completely satisfied with Obama's performance either, but I'm glad he's in office and not McCain. The same way you have issues with his response to the war I have some with his approach to some civil rights issues. However, that's more fueled by our eagerness to see something done as fast as possible. We have 4 yeas to see it through, and perhaps 8 if we're lucky.

You could vote for the perfect candidate, and when he gets in office the money flowing from lobbyists and special interests will change anything they promised. Really it's an illusion of choice, left or right, red or blue.

Like you said... it's an illusion.
There isn't going to be a politician who gets elected to office who isn't inadvertently influenced by some form of lobbyist or special interest. But since we all know this is going to happen, we can still go past this and see who is actually making change for the better despite all of it.

I wish more than anything Americans would all vote for third party candidates, but too many people are indoctrinated into this two party system to really change that mindset.

Let's get real. I would like a viable third party because I like to have options. But do I honestly believe that the next political party to emerge is going to produce a candidate that is going to keep every promise they make, or not pander to lobbyists or special interest? Even I know this is a fallacy.

It's depressing to say the least.

Perhaps. We all wish Utopia existed somewhere.

People forget very quickly that their candidate hasn't fulfilled anything they promised, and that worries me.

Then again, some people are just more patient than others. When I voted for Obama, i technically agreed to a 4 year contract. Just because he hasn't closed Gitmo or make same sex marriage legal in every state within his first year isn't enough for me to be too upset. He is focusing on Health Care, which we both know is a HUGE issue that will take a lot of time and dedication to get done. I'm willing to take things one step at a time.