Print

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

[oxi]

  Oxi, What exactly are you proposing then? We offered Oath Keepers space on our forum to discuss ideas and to spread what we see as a constructive message to anyone who is willing listen with an open mind. You seem to think that it is necessary to exercise military force in order to achieve freedom. I assure you that military force is exactly the opposite of freedom. Whether you use it or somebody else does it, the end result is the same. People die, and those who live are not free. The initiation of force is the essence of fascism. If you advocate anything like it, you are not welcome here. You have had ample opportunity to express your ideas, and I think I am understanding you. If I do, then I disagree most emphatically and am asking you to leave and stop using our forum to spread a message of power mongering and violence. That is not the way to freedom. If you persist, I consider the staff of this forum well within it's rights to revoke your posting privileges permanently. You can exercise you first amendment rights on someone else's dime, but not ours.

You'll never win with that attitude!

[Klapton Isgod]

You'll never win with that attitude!

One who is not striving does not "lose."

[Bill St. Clair]

I'm always surprised when people seem to think the First Amendment applies to anybody but who it plainly says it applies: "Congress shall make no law...". It applies to the United States Congress. Nobody else. I realize that the nine nazgul have expanded its meaning to forbid prayer in schools, and much more. Guess what? They're wrong. Of course, they claim to be the final arbiter of disputes, but that's nowhere in the Constitution either. They decided that themselves (don't remember the name of the case). In actual fact, we the jurors are the final arbiters, since if even one juror votes to acquit, it's at worst a hung jury, and the defendant walks.

But even the nine nazgul won't support requiring us to let anybody say or do anything he wants on our property. The forum owners make the forum rules. They can be totally ridiculous, though I think TMM's rules are pretty sensible and lenient. If you want to hang out here, you must comply. Your ONLY moral recourse, if you don't like the property owner's rules, is to stay off of his property.

I agree that we don't really OWN property in the US, we rent it with property taxes. But that's just a protection racket, demanding that we pay their protection money or have our legs broken. My property is still MY property.

[suijurisfreeman]

Bill St.Clair posted, "I realize that the nine nazgul have expanded its meaning to forbid prayer in schools, and much more. Guess what? They're wrong. Of course, they claim to be the final arbiter of disputes, but that's nowhere in the Constitution either. They decided that themselves (don't remember the name of the case)."

I believe that would be: Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).

[Bernie]

Oxi is a great unifier.  He shows us all how not to act at this forum.  I am truly surprise that he is still lurking about.  Perhaps this is the only forum that has not banned his rants.  I am not posting to fan the flames but to point out that your posts are counter productive to what is being expressed here.  The WWW is a vast and diverse place.  Go find a forum that appreciates all that you have to share.  IMHO this is not it.
 

[Scarmiglione']

Oathkeepers make LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oath-keepers18-2009sep18,0,4937225.story?page=1) and by extension, Fark (http://www.fark.com/cgi/comments.pl?IDLink=4644150).

That latter link goes to the Fark comments on the article, and Farkers are notoriously merciless. If you choose to visit, wear your thickest internet armor.

There is no such thing as bad publicity, just bad responses to publicity.

[Who...me?]

Wow those fark comments get to be pretty rabid at times.  I noticed more than one that advocated killing all of "them".

[freewoman]

The LA Times article was great--except for that heading.  After reading the headline part about "antigovernment" and all the usual liberal fearmongering, the article was a nice surprise.  The fark commentary was hilarious, IMO--these internet dweebs talk about Oath Keepers being "pussies".  Hee hee hee.  Put them face to face with some of OK's folks and they'd wet their pants.  But one of them did point out that the Times "journalist" was trying to bait Rand, which I find interesting--usually folks of that ilk see nothing wrong with backwoods small-town "flyover" people being riduculed by the press.

[da gooch]

Having never been to Fark before I was a little surprised that there were actually people there with intelligence enough to state truth.
Not that anyone listened but it was there.

My favorite was the genius that kept saying Read the Constitution again and again.
My two cents will wager that s/he-it cannot tell me how many times the word democracy* is used in it.

I-Net show offs with way too much time on their hands to borrow a statement from there ....

Oathkeepers make LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oath-keepers18-2009sep18,0,4937225.story?page=1) and by extension, Fark (http://www.fark.com/cgi/comments.pl?IDLink=4644150).

That latter link goes to the Fark comments on the article, and Farkers are notoriously merciless. If you choose to visit, wear your thickest internet armor.

There is no such thing as bad publicity, just bad responses to publicity.

emphasis is mine

Hear hear
I concur Scarmig




* Never

[socalserf]

Oathkeepers make LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oath-keepers18-2009sep18,0,4937225.story?page=1) and by extension, Fark (http://www.fark.com/cgi/comments.pl?IDLink=4644150).

There is no such thing as bad publicity, just bad responses to publicity.

BTW, my mother in law subsrcibes to that particular yellow sheet.
It was on the front page in "Column One."
Get ready for a great deal of attention.

Congratulations, and be careful, the EVIL EYE has turned your way.

[2ndA]

To say that Fark in general is a joke and the den primarily of people too stupid to type and think at the same time would be an understatement.

[Scarmiglione']

Sort of agree there 2nd.  I find Fark to be a good, wide slice of current America.  It is good because the environment there is no-holds-barred, no opinions right, and the demographic is very, very wide, and vocal.  It's a good way for to keep aware of attitudes to ideas, because every idea is challenged on every point, ridiculed, dissected, overblown in every possible way.

It's kind of an internet crucible.  If you, as a person or an idea, can survive Fark you'll probably be just fine.  Oathkeepers did well that day.  Much better than, say, Ron Paul and his supporters.  That was embarrassing.

But yes, the Evil Eyes have turned towards Oathkeepers, and I suspect the heat is about to be turned up.

[mystry_tour]

.....A little heat is good to simmer the pot into a tasty meal
Tour

[da gooch]

Sort of agree there 2nd.  I find Fark to be a good, wide slice of current America.  It is good because the environment there is no-holds-barred, no opinions right, and the demographic is very, very wide, and vocal.  It's a good way for to keep aware of attitudes to ideas, because every idea is challenged on every point, ridiculed, dissected, overblown in every possible way.

It's kind of an internet crucible.  If you, as a person or an idea, can survive Fark you'll probably be just fine.  Oathkeepers did well that day.  Much better than, say, Ron Paul and his supporters.  That was embarrassing.

But yes, the Evil Eyes have turned towards Oathkeepers, and I suspect the heat is about to be turned up.

Well I think it landed this weekend. Or maybe we just had a glitch ... *sigh*
We had people banned, peoples posts removed, all sorts of sh.. stuff happening.

I was forced to ban a fellow and the next morning he was back with the exact same name everything just like I had never touched the button ... weird stuff Ning.
So I banned him again and tomorrow and the day after and the day after ad infinitum ad nauseum.

Me no likee Ning.


The newspapers [was it Miami ?] had an article today that was actually an honest statement about OK BUT it was in the middle of a smear article about violent militias.
*sigh*
No one but us will notice that it did not SAY that Oath Keepers is a violent militia .... infer, smear, smear, infer  *sigh*
Publicity ... it is all good but sometimes it doesn't seem like it.

[hermit]

I have thought for a while now that the sudden resurgence of attention - and media blitz - by SPLC had financial underpinnings to it. Dees is not one to lose a dollar, or to let someone else make a dollar, if he can help it.
And now we have the financial statements - they lost over 30% of their funds (over 50 million bucks) for fiscal '08 in the stock market plunge. Report from Oct '08, which is about the same time they started rattling cages again - helping with the Missouri report, DHS report, interviews, etc.
Link here (PDF warning):
http://www.splcenter.org/pdf/static/SPLCfinancial2008.pdf
Good analysis of it on VDARE:
http://vdare.com/cleburne/090408_splc.htm