"Oath Keepers" sending armed "guards" to protect Kim Davis

[2MuchMark]

Anyone heard about this? "Oath Keepers" are sending armed "guards" to protect Kim Davis. The group is the same that had an armed stand-off against US officials when they were supporting Cliven Bundy, the Nevada Rancher a year or so ago.

What the hell is going on with people?

[L-Pink]

Protect from who/what?

[j3rkules]

Religious people always makes me laugh.

[bronco67]

Originally Posted by jerkules

Religious people always makes me laugh.

Wannabe soldiers make me laugh. Don't these guys have jobs?

Don't tell them she's registered as a democrat -- although we all know she's not.

[dyna mo]

they offered to protect her from being detained again by the feds, she declined. at least that was how it was playing out last week.

[bronco67]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

they offered to protect her from being detained again by the feds, she declined. at least that was how it was playing out last week.

and what are they going to do? Get into a shooting war with federal forces over this stupid bullshit that she created? The nerve of some motherfuckers.

I'd like to see these guys finally get what they fantasize about -- and get their asses handed to them. Hopefully they forget the Kevlar that day.

[brassmonkey]

hotlinked
sponsored by pabst blue ribbon! buzz getting low? chug down a couple and get your fucking gun!


hotlinked

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by bronco67

and what are they going to do? Get into a shooting war with federal forces over this stupid bullshit that she created? The nerve of some motherfuckers.

I'd like to see these guys finally get what they fantasize about -- and get their asses handed to them. Hopefully they forget the Kevlar that day.

they seem to think our Constitution is being trampled upon by our government. I don't disagree.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by jerkules

Religious people always makes me laugh.

just imaging the chuckle you get hanging out with isis

[bronco67]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

they seem to think our Constitution is being trampled upon by our government. I don't disagree.

Ok. So why don't they start with cops? Oh yeah, they have guns.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by bronco67

Ok. So why don't they start with cops? Oh yeah, they have guns.

i'm not their spokesperson but they did start with the cops.

bundee ranch standoff

[crockett]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

Protect from who/what?

we are talking religious nutters here... Do we really need an explanation.. They are fucking nuts and like guns...

[crockett]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

they seem to think our Constitution is being trampled upon by our government. I don't disagree.

This is not a case of states rights being trampled anymore than it was states rights being trampled when they were forced to allow black kids into schools with whites.

This is about discrimination..

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

just imaging the chuckle you get hanging out with isis

Something I've always wondered about you... In a given week how many black or gay people do you manage to meet up there in Montana?

[AaronM]

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by crockett

This is not a case of states rights being trampled anymore than it was states rights being trampled when they were forced to allow black kids into schools with whites.

This is about discrimination..

who said anything about state's rights? the kim davis matter is a matter of personal rights based on the Constitution. it's not a matter of states rights, discrimination, or religious freedom.

[Mediamix]

I'm sorry.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

who said anything about state's rights? the kim davis matter is a matter of personal rights based on the Constitution. it's not a matter of states rights, discrimination, or religious freedom.

States rights is always the excuse used by state's who want to discriminate against gay marriages.. The federal govt finally stepped in and made it the law.. States now have to follow suite.. This woman doesn't want to do her job, which requires she obey the law, she can go back to jail or find a new job.

This is about Relgious nutters trying to tell others what they can and can't do.. Just like the Taliban or Islamist extremist do.. They tell others what they can or can't do in the name of Allah...

[bronco67]

Originally Posted by crockett

Something I've always wondered about you... In a given week how many black or gay people do you manage to meet up there in Montana?

Grapesoda? All of his friends are black AND gay.

[AaronM]

Originally Posted by crockett

This is about Relgious nutters trying to tell others what they can and can't do...

You should take a break for a moment and research the Oath Keepers group then get back to us when you're ready to apologize for spreading inaccurate information due to your ignorance.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by crockett

States rights is always the excuse used by state's who want to discriminate against gay marriages.. The federal govt finally stepped in and made it the law.. States now have to follow suite.. This woman doesn't want to do her job, which requires she obey the law, she can go back to jail or find a new job.

This is about Relgious nutters trying to tell others what they can and can't do.. Just like the Taliban or Islamist extremist do.. They tell others what they can or can't do in the name of Allah...

See AaronM's post.

Moreover, this is about the Supreme Court allowing the government to regulate personal relationships, i.e., dictate what relationships are OK in the eyes of the government. it's all in the opinions written by the SC justices. it was a 5-4 split decision with both sides very much diametrically opposed to interpreting the Constitution in this circumstance and the fact that "marriage" is no where in that document.

[EonBlue]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

[crockett quote]

I had to laugh at crockett's quoted post in your post. Moral relativism at it's finest. He thinks some religious person not wanting her name on the marriage certificate of a gay couple is morally equivalent to the Taliban and ISIS who execute gay people by beheading them, stoning them and/or throwing them off of buildings.


.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by AaronM

You should take a break for a moment and research the Oath Keepers group then get back to us when you're ready to apologize for spreading inaccurate information due to your ignorance.

The federal govt isn't violating this woman's rights. She is refusing to follow the law based on "HER" religious beliefs..

The constitution says we are to keep region and govt separate therfore her argument is aginst the constitution..

Do you think these "oath keepers" would be standing up for a Muslim woman who wanted to wear a face covering berka to her job at the court house? Would they show up for a Mormon who wanted to marry a 3rd woman?

No they wouldnt.. the oath keepers are just a break away "milita" type group which almost always attract hardcore right wingers.


Why don't you tell us what part of the constitution is being upheld by trying to stop law enforcement officers from sending a woman to jail who is in contempt of court?

[SuckOnThis]

[brassmonkey]

Originally Posted by Mediamix

I'm sorry.

he had a long black tongue wow

[AaronM]

Originally Posted by crockett

The federal govt isn't violating this woman's rights. She is refusing to follow the law based on "HER" religious beliefs..

The constitution says we are to keep region and govt separate therfore her argument is aginst the constitution..

Do you think these "oath keepers" would be standing up for a Muslim woman who wanted to wear a face covering berka to her job at the court house? Would they show up for a Mormon who wanted to marry a 3rd woman?

No they wouldnt.. the oath keepers are just a break away "milita" type group which almost always attract hardcore right wingers.


Why don't you tell us what part of the constitution is being upheld by trying to stop law enforcement officers from sending a woman to jail who is in contempt of court?

Until you do the research I suggested and follow up with an apology then I see no reason to "tell" you anything more. You clearly don't listen or care to see ALL the facts before taking your position anyway.

[AaronM]

Originally Posted by SuckOnThis

I LOLed.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by AaronM

Until you do the research I suggested and follow up with an apology then I see no reason to "tell" you anything more. You clearly don't listen or care to see ALL the facts before taking your position anyway.

You won't answer because you know I'm right.. I don't care if they are ex cops, ex military or what ever.. Timothy McVeigh was ex military... was he right to do what he did because he was ex military?

They are not upholding the constitution by trying to protect a woman whom refuses to follow the law as a govt employee/official. Her choice is to follow the law, remove herself from office or go to jail.

Her religious beliefs do not trump federal law...

So again I ask you to tell us all why the constitution is being violated? I think you need to apologize if you can't for being ignorant.

[AaronM]

Originally Posted by crockett

You won't answer because you know I'm right.. I don't care if they are extremely cops, ex military or what ever..

They are not upholding the constitution by trying to protect a woman whom refuses to follow the law as a govt employee. Her choice is to follow the law, remove herself from office or go to jail.

Her religious beliefs do not trump federal law...

So again I ask you to tell us all why the constitution is being violated? I think you need to apologize if you can't for being ignorant.

I don't recall taking any side to this argument in the first place so your question to me is nothing more than deflection on your part. Your ignorant statements about the Oath Keepers are what caught my attention, not your opinion about the situation.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by AaronM

I don't recall taking any side to this argument in the first place so your question to me is nothing more than deflection on your part. Your ignorant statements about the Oath Keepers are what caught my attention, not your opinion about the situation.

So then tell me why they are right to protect a woman who is in contempt of court? Looks like the only deflection is coming from you...

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

they seem to think our Constitution is being trampled upon by our government. I don't disagree.

They have it ass-backwards. Gay couples want to get married. It is perfectly legal. Kim Davis is a government employee denying them their rights and discriminating against them, and using her own personal religions beliefs as an excuse not to do it. She is breaking the law and not doing the job she is being paid to do.

[crockett]

So this is what the founder of Oath Keepers said in a recent speech to his members...


I think that keeping with that communist agenda of a fourth-generation warfare assault, the intent is to use an economic neutron bomb ? doesn?t destroy the buildings, but it kills the people eventually, it starves you out ? cause chaos, and in the middle of all that chaos, spark a race war, and in the middle of that, unleash these ISIS cells that are now all over the country. And they don?t just ignore the influx of these cells, they cultivate it, they give them fertilizer, water and fresh air and make them grow.
Rhodes said ?the leftists in this country hate this country, they hate it, and they will get in bed with radical Islamists because they have a common enemy, western civilization.?

The Oath Keepers? concern for the Constitution doesn?t seem to apply to the constitutional rights of gay people. Mike Koeniger, vice president of the Virginia state chapter, declared last month that a couple hundred sheriffs could defy the Supreme Court?s marriage equality ruling if they were backed by Oath Keepers:

Imagine that we only had 200 sheriffs that stood in the gap, and behind every one of those sheriffs there were 2,000 Oath Keepers, being civilian or prior military or whatever, imagine the power of 200 sheriffs?

We?d win. We?d win with just 200 sheriffs and 2,000 people behind each of those sheriffs. And then we win the war.

That?s not the only time


So AronnM please tell me how they aren't the far right wing gun nut whacks I said they were?

So do you now plan to apologize?

[crockett]

Originally Posted by **********

They have it ass-backwards. Gay couples want to get married. It is perfectly legal. Kim Davis is a government employee denying them their rights and discriminating against them, and using her own personal religions beliefs as an excuse not to do it. She is breaking the law and not doing the job she is being paid to do.

Its because they are far right wing radicals as I originally said.. Their founder thinks Obama is trying to start a race war and will partner with ISIS and Islamic extreemists..

They are religious nut jobs with guns and Aaron thinks they are great it seems.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by **********

They have it ass-backwards. Gay couples want to get married. It is perfectly legal. Kim Davis is a government employee denying them their rights and discriminating against them, and using her own personal religions beliefs as an excuse not to do it. She is breaking the law and not doing the job she is being paid to do.

they may have it ass-backwards, i'm speaking to the overall issue, the split opinion of the SC to dictate personal choices. the 4 SC justices who dissented with the majority were very articulate in their dissents re: the trampling of the Constitution on the decision for the government to approve gay marriage.

that's the bigger and real issue here. it's not about kim davis's excuse for being in contempt of court. she could have said she didn't feel like certifying marriages and she would still be in contempt.

but overall, she's fighting for the Constitution. not unlike max hardcore fought for it. i may not like his content, etc, nevertheless.

[noshit]

Originally Posted by AaronM

You should take a break for a moment and research the Oath Keepers group then get back to us when you're ready to apologize for spreading inaccurate information due to your ignorance.

+1

[crockett]

Originally Posted by noshit

+1

It takes a special kind of dumb to blindly agree with someone who was just proven very wrong..

That or perhaps you also think Obama is trying to start a race war, intends to use emp bombs on the US and use ISIS and other Islamic extreemists to attack the US in order to install communism..

So are just just fucking dumb or are you fucking nuts?

[TheSquealer]

More of the usual blind, emotionally driven stupidity from the usual suspects who consider themselves above anyone who doesn't agree with them.

When I saw this headline I made the assumption that's it was due to the endless flood of death threats to her and her family. Not sure how you could be so fucking moronic to think that somehow there is a standoff between the federal government and them as a result of her action.

If you wanted to know the answer to "why", you could shut the fuck up and Google for two seconds and have an answer. Of course the real purpose is not to answer "why" but to continue with the hate and venom and finger pointing because "you're compassionate and kind"

Idiots.

[AaronM]

Originally Posted by crockett

So then tell me why they are right to protect a woman who is in contempt of court? Looks like the only deflection is coming from you...

Apparently reading comprehension isn't your strong point today.

Once again, I don't recall me saying anything about that topic. The fact that I refuse to engage in your deflections is not a deflection in itself. I'm sticking to the discussion of your overall ignorance and inaccurate ramblings of the Oath Keepers group itself.

Sorry to confuse you. I thought you were intelligent enough to follow along. My bad.

[TCLGirls]

Originally Posted by crockett

The Oath Keepers? concern for the Constitution doesn?t seem to apply to the constitutional rights of gay people.

[TampaToker]

You know someone should read Davis Romans 13:1?2 She is being a naughty christian

13 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

Folks should read Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article Six, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution federal law trumps state

I have no clue why the Oath Keepers would wanna be there Kim Davis is clearly in violation of the first amendment and should be jailed.

[AaronM]

Originally Posted by crockett

So this is what the founder of Oath Keepers said in a recent speech to his members...


I think that keeping with that communist agenda of a fourth-generation warfare assault, the intent is to use an economic neutron bomb — doesn’t destroy the buildings, but it kills the people eventually, it starves you out — cause chaos, and in the middle of all that chaos, spark a race war, and in the middle of that, unleash these ISIS cells that are now all over the country. And they don’t just ignore the influx of these cells, they cultivate it, they give them fertilizer, water and fresh air and make them grow.
Rhodes said “the leftists in this country hate this country, they hate it, and they will get in bed with radical Islamists because they have a common enemy, western civilization.”

The Oath Keepers’ concern for the Constitution doesn’t seem to apply to the constitutional rights of gay people. Mike Koeniger, vice president of the Virginia state chapter, declared last month that a couple hundred sheriffs could defy the Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling if they were backed by Oath Keepers:

Imagine that we only had 200 sheriffs that stood in the gap, and behind every one of those sheriffs there were 2,000 Oath Keepers, being civilian or prior military or whatever, imagine the power of 200 sheriffs…

We’d win. We’d win with just 200 sheriffs and 2,000 people behind each of those sheriffs. And then we win the war.

That’s not the only time


So AronnM please tell me how they aren't the far right wing gun nut whacks I said they were?

So do you now plan to apologize?

I must have missed the part where that mentions anything about guns and/or religion.

No need for me to apologize as I'm not the ignorant asshole posting false bullshit in this thread..

I'm done with this thread. Feel free to post your apology as a new topic. Until then....

[AaronM]

Originally Posted by crockett

They are religious nut jobs with guns and Aaron thinks they are great it seems.

Never said anything remotely close to that. Figure out how to read properly or shut the fuck up.

[AaronM]

Originally Posted by crockett

It takes a special kind of dumb to blindly agree with someone who was just proven very wrong..

You've proven exactly NOTHING was wrong with....

Never mind. You're a fucking retard and not worth debating.

Just fuck off.

[TCLGirls]

Looks like the Oath Keepers focus their attention on anything that hinders government...or in government employee Kim Davis' case, hinders federal government. They even wanted to arm the Black Lives Matters people in Ferguson.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by AaronM

Apparently reading comprehension isn't your strong point today.

Once again, I don't recall me saying anything about that topic. The fact that I refuse to engage in your deflections is not a deflection in itself. I'm sticking to the discussion of your overall ignorance and inaccurate ramblings of the Oath Keepers group itself.

Sorry to confuse you. I thought you were intelligent enough to follow along. My bad.

Apparently you have no clue what you typed an hour or so ago so I'll remind you...

Originally Posted by AaronM

You should take a break for a moment and research the Oath Keepers group then get back to us when you're ready to apologize for spreading inaccurate information due to your ignorance.

You clearly told me I dunno what the fuck I'm talking about when I called them Relgious gun nutters..

This is the current founder and president of the Oath Keepers.. He's a fucking lunatic



https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GibMn7...VOuNJCti0JAGRw

He thinks Obama is trying to start a race war, is gonna round everyone up and throw them in concentration camps. He thinks Obama is going to use ISIs hidden cells to help cause chaos to move it all along..


So please tell me what the fuck I have wrong and what you got right? You can keep on rambling and getting atta boys from your buddies but you are clearly trying to deny, deny, deny..

Why don't you explain what I got wrong that you were talking about... When you said I was spreading ignorance and inaccurate information.. Please explain what you really meant as it seems pretty clear to me you don't have a clue what you are talking about which is why you are trying to run away from what you said..

[crockett]

Originally Posted by AaronM

You've proven exactly NOTHING was wrong with....

Never mind. You're a fucking retard and not worth debating.

Just fuck off.

It's always easier to call people names and run away once you've been proven wrong, than to man up and admit you were wrong..

[bronco67]

Originally Posted by AaronM

You've proven exactly NOTHING was wrong with....

Never mind. You're a fucking retard and not worth debating.

Just fuck off.

I thought you said you were done.

[noshit]

Originally Posted by crockett

It takes a special kind of dumb to blindly agree with someone who was just proven very wrong..

That or perhaps you also think Obama is trying to start a race war, intends to use emp bombs on the US and use ISIS and other Islamic extreemists to attack the US in order to install communism..

So are just just fucking dumb or are you fucking nuts?

'blindly' agreeing would suggest I am not awake. I can assure you; I am awake.
Although I do know the race war is part of the plan, so you're right on with that one.

As for the misguided emp bomb scenario and installing communism, you are way off base as to their real agenda.
In short, you're just not awake ...And Nuts.

[TCLGirls]

Originally Posted by noshit

'blindly' agreeing would suggest I am not awake. I can assure you; I am awake.
Although I do know the race war is part of the plan, so you're right on with that one.

As for the misguided emp bomb scenario and installing communism, you are way off base as to their real agenda.
In short, you're just not awake ...And Nuts.

No it doesn't. If you were unconscious (not awake), then it would be impossible for you to agree to anything..."blindly" or otherwise.

So when he said you are blindly agreeing, he is suggesting that you are indeed conscious.

[noshit]

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

No it doesn't. If you were unconscious (not awake), then it would be impossible for you to agree to anything..."blindly" or otherwise.

So when he said you are blindly agreeing, he is suggesting that you are indeed conscious.

Hey Norman, we are not talking about the evolution of the mind from Bicameral to Consciousness. Consciousness allows us to deceive. Of course a deceived Bicameral mind would agree to anything.
The closer they are to the bicameral mind, the easier deceived. Think tribal.

We are talking about the state of affairs today on a Conscious level.