Oathkeepers goes operational

I don't even know much about Oathkeepers but based on their website, they look like an extreme Ron Paul or 'tin foil hat' group. And groups like that seem to be magnets for crazies.

That's why people don't trust organizations that label themselves as "Constitutionalist" or "Ron Paul supporters" or "libertarians" - not saying they're all crazy, but groups like that are basically 'meet-ups' for crazies, paranoids, conspiracy theorists, even potential domestic terrorists. Kind of like how groups that call themselves "white pride" are usually havens for Neo-Nazis, racists, and white supremacists - the kind of people these groups attract tarnishes their image

And while I get that 99% of these guys talking about "violent revolution" are just internet tough guys - the idea that there might be someone out their with a narcissist complex who thinks they're a Founder, crazy enough to start shooting people thinking he's going to single-highhandedly overthrow the entire US military - is a little scary

 

my politics/economics/social theory is very simple. it stems from the unstable spherical system of the whole.

 

check again. you do not have to assume anything should you not desire. however logic does follow.

i do not subscribe to oathkeepers as being "hail fellows! well met!" but rather as something else stemming from an unannounced political agenda.

 

this from a socialist liberal, Are you that threatened by the conservative/moderate view point, that you threaten them? All a lib wants is someone else to pay for their freeloading ....cuz it's all free, right?
Libs tend to run thick with insecurities and lack of self-dependency issues......................they tend to want others to pay their way........good lessons from dumbosocialists
by the way, these are your programs that have driven this country into a ditch...............free welfare to illegals, free med for deadbeats, studies on how frogs have sex and $40,000 hammers. And y'all wonder why we're broke.................

 

You are, if nothing else, a great one for non sequiturs. Obviously my failure to enunciate such a definition within the scope of your perception, and in a manner you can understand (charitably assuming, of course, that you are capable of such understanding) says nothing whatsoever about whether or not I have a foundation for my assertions.

And that's all I can take of your screwball formatting.

Indeed it does, though what logic has to do with anything you've said remains a mystery.

 

Nope. This was your statement:

"since you lack either understanding or the ability to formulate what defending a document means we must assume that whatever the oathkeepers swore to do means either nothing or is an attempt to pursue a political agenda outside of the military in relationship to civilian leadership." --bird ​

Your premise was that yguy lacks "understanding or the ability to formulate what defending a document means." Whether or not that is true is up for debate but it is beside the point, regardless.

From that premise you somehow concluded that "whatever the oathkeepers swore to do means either nothing or is an attempt to pursue a political agenda outside of the military in relationship to civilian leadership."

Do you see where you went off the rails? Your premise is completely disconnected from your conclusion. The second claim cannot be deduced from the first. Yguy's understanding or lack thereof cannot be used to ascertain what this particular group's oath means. Surely you understand that? Perhaps not...?

 

wow. a lot to unpack here. first perhaps you can define socialist/socialism. and when you do you might then want to come back and discuss what the unstable spherical system of the whole means as relates to socialism.

second i am threatened by no one thus you lie. i simply point out that oathkeepers has a political agenda that i do not agree with.

third i threatened no one thus you lie.

fourth i have no insecurities beyond that of any other human being and i also do not lack for self-dependency. but that and the rest of your blather is pointless to respond to except for the bolded areas. study up on the great compression.

 

ok. i can see that particular point. i should have separated the two. as relates to the concept of the oathkeepers and their agenda it doesn't impact it greatly if at all. as relates to yguy when he and the oathkeepers define what their defense oath means then further discussion can occur as to its impact.

 

then test the limits of my perception by providing said definition. tap-dancing around it while not providing it may give you some exercise but it is still avoiding the question.

sorry to test your limits as regarding formatting. although that is irrelevant to the question.

and the last is pointless.

 

there can be no doubt that you worship Maobama and the rest of the Pelosi lynch mob. It might even appear that you are willing to foregoe your Rights to savor some meager handout for your subsistence.
While the shutdown doesn't affect me personally (no gov subsidies or handouts) it is the Lib agenda that has brought us here, and you are attacking those who stand against big government and the cost of doing business their way. The Libs have been in control since FCR and you have finally broken the bank. ..... and here you are attacking those people who declare the government is a waste of money and time, as it is. Rather than support an independent America, yo useek to further force the rest of us to bow and kneel like a bunch of slaves to Maobama and his stupid (*)(*)(*)(*)ing ilk.
The only job Congress had, in the beginning, was to defend our national borders and the States ran the rest of it. (*)(*)(*)(*)ed that up too. Now they not only what to open the borders, they want to give our jobs and livelihood away to foreign operatives AND force us to buy their stupid and highly expensive insurance.
Slick, we are ethically bankrupt and morally destitute, thanks to the idiot libs, and you attack those who desire to be free of the stupidity. You defend the thieving and lying that comes from the demoLibs and tell the rest of the forum that we don't have the Right do anything that isn't government approved....the Lib agenda rears it's ugly head again.
Yes, you do attack those who want to be left alone. You do support government intrusion in every facet of our lives, well at least for those who YOU deem enemies of your Liberal state. Rather than just leaving the rest of America alone, folks like you are pushing for a fight.

 

Why should I bother with that?

 

What political agenda would that be? The US government itself administers the oath to office holders and the military. Many local governments and police organizations do also. Why do you think there's an agenda beyond the commitment to stay true to the oath? Please articulate this so-called political agenda you keep referring to.

 

Trouble is that the detractors are carrying pre-conceived notions from things they thought they understood in the past.
It's similar to saying that discussions of the "God particle" belong in religious forums.
This is what happens when you try to carry a sensible topic with people who are accustomed to ultra low information and 5 second sound bites as the basis of their *convictions*.
I challenge them to actually study and research the premise that the Oathkeepers is founded upon, along with the case histories that indicated the need for OK.
No "militia". No "agenda".

 

I think the issue might be in the interpretation of the oath and the duties which it imposes on those who take that oath.

 

Lol @ Lefties rounding up anyone to do anything.
1st - That resembles work
2nd- They have no guns
3rd- They get nothing free out of the deal
4th- If they shoot us, who will pay for all their freebies

I'm going to the website rt now to sign up to be an Oather!
U.S.Army 91 Bravo 1998-2007

 

deleted.

 

since you already took an oath what purpose is served beyond that?

- - - Updated - - -

what was the time frame for the formation of oathkeepers?

 

Pretty sure I'd learn more of value reading about the history of bobsledding than I ever would in any conversation with you.

 

you are welcome to your opinion, inaccurate though it may be.