Manhunt for "Oathkeeper"

[L.K.Eder]

Because it has already happened here. See above...illegal search and seizures, illegal confiscation of firearms...violating Constitutional rights...but they were just following orders.

Nuremberg redux.

shut up.
nuremberg laws were about race.
nuremberg trials were about oaths and consequences of oaths.
nuremberg lebkuchen are delicious.
you are ridiculous.
and should slink away.
idiot influx redux

Google translation into English - "L.K. Elker has nothing intelligent to contribute."

Thanks.

you really should quit.

i can see you have no clue what you are talking about.

you need to have at least a little understanding of the topic before you make or support ridiculous comparisons to concentration camps, oaths and nuremberg.

 

[Luissa]

You could have also sited that Nuremberg was the site of a concentration camp... LOL

I figured "I was just following orders" was a dead giveaway to exactly what I was referring to.

That is what the Nuremberg trials are best known for, eliminating "Just following orders" as a defense for committing a crime.

You said Nuremberg when I asked to give me an example of people's rights being taken away, and being forced into concentration camps... HOw does the Nuremberg Trials relate to that? Maybe you should have been clear on which Nuremberg you were talking about. I figured it was the rallies, since we were talking about the rights of citizens being taken away, and people being forced into concentration camps.

 

[Salt Jones]

Nuremberg, blah, blah , blah.

Black man as president all of a sudden we get oath keepers.

Where were they when the Patriot Act was passed or DHS was formed?

 

[Luissa]

the Nazi Party chose the city to be the site of huge Nazi Party conventions — the Nuremberg rallies. The rallies were held annually from 1927 to 1938 in Nuremberg. After Adolf Hitler's rise to power in 1933 the Nuremberg rallies became huge Nazi propaganda events, a centre of Nazi ideals. The 1934 rally was filmed by Leni Riefenstahl, and made into a propaganda film called Triumph des Willens (Triumph of the Will). At the 1935 rally, Hitler specifically ordered the Reichstag to convene at Nuremberg to pass the anti-Semitic Nuremberg Laws which revoked German citizenship for all Jews

Nuremberg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


You would have had a better point by siting this for a reason to have the Oathkeepers.

 

[Missourian]

Comparing that to Nuremberg is disrespecting the Jewish people who lived in Germany, and any innocent german who lived through it... LIke I said, stop spreading the hate.

I can see you have no clue what you are talking about.

You need to have at least a little understand of the topic before you reply Luissa.

The Jewish victims of Nazi atrocities INSISTED on the Nuremberg trials...is was where nazi war criminals were BROUGHT TO JUSTICE.

Please, pick up a history book, go to Wikipedia.

Talk about knee-jerk.

The defense the German war criminals invoked at Nuremberg time and time again was "We are not responsible, we were just following orders".






They are helping people by reinforcing the oath to protect the Constitution and not follow orders that deprive citizens of their rights.

Before anyone brings up Randy Weaver or any of that bullshit, comparing that to Nuremberg is also pretty fucking stupid..

Since you have already made evident your ignorance on the subject, I'll ignore this.

Looks like you need to pick up a History book, idiot! Since you were talking about taking away citizen rights, I figured you were talking about the fact that Nazi's held propaganda rallies there, and is where they passed the law to take away the citizenship of Jews.
Google Nuremberg Rallies!!
Now tell me how the Nuremberg trials prove your point.

I'd say restricting movement, seizing property, then incarcerating, enslaving, torturing, experimenting on and finally killing people might violate their rights.

As I said, at the Nuremberg trials, at all levels, the defense was "Yes, it was wrong, but I was simply following orders."

The point is, it is important to reinforce the duty to refuse all orders that violate the Constitution...in effect protecting the rights of all citizens.

Savvy?

 

[Missourian]

shut up.
nuremberg laws were about race.
nuremberg trials were about oaths and consequences of oaths.
nuremberg lebkuchen are delicious.
you are ridiculous.
and should slink away.
idiot influx redux

Google translation into English - "L.K. Elker has nothing intelligent to contribute."

Thanks.

you really should quit.

i can see you have no clue what you are talking about.

you need to have at least a little understanding of the topic before you make or support ridiculous comparisons to concentration camps, oaths and nuremberg.

Google translation - Still nothin'.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Google translation into English - "L.K. Elker has nothing intelligent to contribute."

Thanks.

you really should quit.

i can see you have no clue what you are talking about.

you need to have at least a little understanding of the topic before you make or support ridiculous comparisons to concentration camps, oaths and nuremberg.

Google translation - Still nothin'.

maybe you learned when the first concentration camp was opened from this thread, so you won't ever again make such a stupid post as before.

and then you can thank me.

maybe in the future you will also know what you are invoking when you write "nuremberg redux", you little turd.

your backpeddling has been noted and observed with a lot of grinning.

 

[Missourian]

the Nazi Party chose the city to be the site of huge Nazi Party conventions — the Nuremberg rallies. The rallies were held annually from 1927 to 1938 in Nuremberg. After Adolf Hitler's rise to power in 1933 the Nuremberg rallies became huge Nazi propaganda events, a centre of Nazi ideals. The 1934 rally was filmed by Leni Riefenstahl, and made into a propaganda film called Triumph des Willens (Triumph of the Will). At the 1935 rally, Hitler specifically ordered the Reichstag to convene at Nuremberg to pass the anti-Semitic Nuremberg Laws which revoked German citizenship for all Jews

Nuremberg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


You would have had a better point by siting this for a reason to have the Oathkeepers.

People will act on orders from those they presume have authority under the assumption that the responsibility resides with the person giving the order...not with themselves.

And I can prove it.

Milgram experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The experiment

The volunteer subject was given the role of teacher, and the confederate (an actor), the role of learner. The participants drew slips of paper to 'determine' their roles. Unknown to the subject, both slips said "teacher", and the actor claimed to have the slip that read "learner", thus guaranteeing that the participant would always be the "teacher". At this point, the "teacher" and "learner" were separated into different rooms where they could communicate but not see each other. In one version of the experiment, the confederate was sure to mention to the participant that he had a heart condition.[1]




The "teacher" was given an electric shock from the electro-shock generator as a sample of the shock that the "learner" would supposedly receive during the experiment. The "teacher" was then given a list of word pairs which he was to teach the learner. The teacher began by reading the list of word pairs to the learner. The teacher would then read the first word of each pair and read four possible answers. The learner would press a button to indicate his response. If the answer was incorrect, the teacher would administer a shock to the learner, with the voltage increasing in 15-volt increments for each wrong answer. If correct, the teacher would read the next word pair.[1]


The subjects believed that for each wrong answer, the learner was receiving actual shocks. In reality, there were no shocks. After the confederate was separated from the subject, the confederate set up a tape recorder integrated with the electro-shock generator, which played pre-recorded sounds for each shock level. After a number of voltage level increases, the actor started to bang on the wall that separated him from the subject. After several times banging on the wall and complaining about his heart condition, all responses by the learner would cease.[1]


At this point, many people indicated their desire to stop the experiment and check on the learner. Some test subjects paused at 135 volts and began to question the purpose of the experiment. Most continued after being assured that they would not be held responsible. A few subjects began to laugh nervously or exhibit other signs of extreme stress once they heard the screams of pain coming from the learner.[1]
If at any time the subject indicated his desire to halt the experiment, he was given a succession of verbal prods by the experimenter, in this order:[1]

1. Please continue.
2. The experiment requires that you continue.
3. It is absolutely essential that you continue.
4. You have no other choice, you must go on.

If the subject still wished to stop after all four successive verbal prods, the experiment was halted. Otherwise, it was halted after the subject had given the maximum 450-volt shock three times in succession.[1]




Before conducting the experiment, Milgram polled fourteen Yale University senior-year psychology majors to predict the behavior of 100 hypothetical teachers. All of the poll respondents believed that only a very small fraction of teachers (the range was from zero to 3 out of 100, with an average of 1.2) would be prepared to inflict the maximum voltage. Milgram also informally polled his colleagues and found that they, too, believed very few subjects would progress beyond a very strong shock.[1]




In Milgram's first set of experiments, 65 percent (26 of 40)[1] of experiment participants administered the experiment's final massive 450-volt shock, though many were very uncomfortable doing so; at some point, every participant paused and questioned the experiment, some said they would refund the money they were paid for participating in the experiment.




{Read the rest here...it is very interesting}
​

They knew it was wrong...but they did it anyway.

​

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Your faith is very reveling. How are the people in control of the gubermint when it does as it pleases?

what is "it"?

government is made of people. i have faith that people are ultimately good, and that with our system of government we have sufficient checks and balances to prevent any major oversteps of authority - certainly enough that any of the fantasy scenarios the oathkeepers purport to be diligent about would never occur - at least not in large enough numbers that they would need to be sorted out anywhere other than a court room.

again, to me the oathkeepers look like a bunch of anti-government loons looking for a fight - and some of them might just manage to find it.

what is "it"?

Gubermint is the subject using the word it with the subject word gubermint the word it should be understood to mean gubermint.

government is made of people.

So now a liberal says the gubermint is made by the people. Did you say that from 2001 through 2009?

i have faith that people are ultimately good

MOST PEOPLE ARE GOOD WHEN THERE IS PLENTY AND TIMES ARE GOOD, BUT IN THE ROUGH TIMES PEOPLE ARE SURVIVALIST AND WILL DO ANYTHING TO SURVIVE.
Including taking what you have.

and that with our system of government we have sufficient checks and balances to prevent any major oversteps of authority

That remains to be seen when you have 32 czars who make polkicies and only answer to the president that isn't the consent of the governed.

 

[Luissa]

I am still trying to get him to answer about how he feels in regards to Perry not pardoning an innocent man who was later put to death... Is there an oath about that?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Nuremberg, blah, blah , blah.

Black man as president all of a sudden we get oath keepers.

Where were they when the Patriot Act was passed or DHS was formed?

Why hasn't obama repealed the patriot act like he said he wasgoing to do? Why has he extended it's power?

 

[Luissa]

But if you are going to use Nuremberg as an example, what prompted them to make this oath? Were they being forced to put people in concentration camps?

 

[Missourian]

you really should quit.

i can see you have no clue what you are talking about.

you need to have at least a little understanding of the topic before you make or support ridiculous comparisons to concentration camps, oaths and nuremberg.

Google translation - Still nothin'.

maybe you learned when the first concentration camp was opened from this thread, so you won't ever again make such a stupid post as before.

and then you can thank me.

maybe in the future you will also know what you are invoking when you write "nuremberg redux", you little turd.

your backpeddling has been noted and observed with a lot of grinning.

Lol...that's it?

OK.

I didn't know that the first camp opened in '33.

So it was the sentiment of a German in 1932 instead of 1937.

I have no fear of admitting when I am wrong about something.

I should have looked up the fact that concentration camps in Germany existed far earlier than I imagined.

Thanks for clearing that up.

But since it is trivial and has no bearing on anything else in this thread except that one tiny post, and not even the POINT of that post...I have no idea what your point is.

So please...continue stamping your foot and calling names to your hearts content.

But try to make an intelligent comment somewhere in the contents of your post.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Luissa]

So do you think Obama will be opening up a concentration camp soon?

 

[L.K.Eder]

Google translation - Still nothin'.

maybe you learned when the first concentration camp was opened from this thread, so you won't ever again make such a stupid post as before.

and then you can thank me.

maybe in the future you will also know what you are invoking when you write "nuremberg redux", you little turd.

your backpeddling has been noted and observed with a lot of grinning.

Lol...that's it?

OK.

I didn't know that the first camp opened in '33.

So it was the sentiment of a German in 1932 instead of 1937.

I have no fear of admitting when I am wrong about something.

I should have looked up the fact that concentration camps in Germany existed far earlier than I imagined.

Thanks for clearing that up.

But since it is trivial and has no bearing on anything else in this thread except that one tiny post, and not even the POINT of that post...I have no idea what your point is.

So please...continue stamping your foot and calling names to your hearts content.

But try to make an intelligent comment somewhere in the contents of your post.

Thanks in advance.

blabla.

i am not the one using nazi comparisons to excuse whatever behaviour.

so what was this about intelligent comments?

concentration camps, nuremberg.

what a gasbag.

 

[Luissa]

Google translation - Still nothin'.

maybe you learned when the first concentration camp was opened from this thread, so you won't ever again make such a stupid post as before.

and then you can thank me.

maybe in the future you will also know what you are invoking when you write "nuremberg redux", you little turd.

your backpeddling has been noted and observed with a lot of grinning.

Lol...that's it?

OK.

I didn't know that the first camp opened in '33.

So it was the sentiment of a German in 1932 instead of 1937.

I have no fear of admitting when I am wrong about something.

I should have looked up the fact that concentration camps in Germany existed far earlier than I imagined.

Thanks for clearing that up.

But since it is trivial and has no bearing on anything else in this thread except that one tiny post, and not even the POINT of that post...I have no idea what your point is.

So please...continue stamping your foot and calling names to your hearts content.

But try to make an intelligent comment somewhere in the contents of your post.

Thanks in advance.

The point of your post was defend me saying they shouldn't be spreading fear... Were you implying that Obama or the government will soon be opening up concentration camps?

 

[Missourian]

I am still trying to get him to answer about how he feels in regards to Perry not pardoning an innocent man who was later put to death... Is there an oath about that?

More partisan deflection.

Can you at least make an attempt to stay on topic.

Perry followed the law and the Constitution.

The man was found guilty by a jury of his peers.

He was afforded every appeal to the judiciary of both Texas and U.S. Federal Court.

Perry decided not to reverse all of those decisions.

Any other unrelated topic you'd like to deflect to?

 

[Missourian]

maybe you learned when the first concentration camp was opened from this thread, so you won't ever again make such a stupid post as before.

and then you can thank me.

maybe in the future you will also know what you are invoking when you write "nuremberg redux", you little turd.

your backpeddling has been noted and observed with a lot of grinning.

Lol...that's it?

OK.

I didn't know that the first camp opened in '33.

So it was the sentiment of a German in 1932 instead of 1937.

I have no fear of admitting when I am wrong about something.

I should have looked up the fact that concentration camps in Germany existed far earlier than I imagined.

Thanks for clearing that up.

But since it is trivial and has no bearing on anything else in this thread except that one tiny post, and not even the POINT of that post...I have no idea what your point is.

So please...continue stamping your foot and calling names to your hearts content.

But try to make an intelligent comment somewhere in the contents of your post.

Thanks in advance.

The point of your post was defend me saying they shouldn't be spreading fear... Were you implying that Obama or the government will soon be opening up concentration camps?

The point of my post was that I was sure that a German in 1932 (THANK YOU L.K. EDER) probably shared your sentiment that no concentration camps could possibly be instituted in Germany.

It is your blind partisanship that makes this about Obama.

The example I use was Bush era, not Obama.

Ergo, I am neither being partisan nor implying anything about Obama or anyone else...I am only explaining why there is a need for the Oathtakers and the reinforcement of refusing illegal orders.


Anything else you read into my comments is your own projection.

Take off your Obama tinged glasses and go back and read my posts.

 

[Missourian]

maybe you learned when the first concentration camp was opened from this thread, so you won't ever again make such a stupid post as before.

and then you can thank me.

maybe in the future you will also know what you are invoking when you write "nuremberg redux", you little turd.

your backpeddling has been noted and observed with a lot of grinning.

Lol...that's it?

OK.

I didn't know that the first camp opened in '33.

So it was the sentiment of a German in 1932 instead of 1937.

I have no fear of admitting when I am wrong about something.

I should have looked up the fact that concentration camps in Germany existed far earlier than I imagined.

Thanks for clearing that up.

But since it is trivial and has no bearing on anything else in this thread except that one tiny post, and not even the POINT of that post...I have no idea what your point is.

So please...continue stamping your foot and calling names to your hearts content.

But try to make an intelligent comment somewhere in the contents of your post.

Thanks in advance.

blabla.

i am not the one using nazi comparisons to excuse whatever behaviour.

so what was this about intelligent comments?

concentration camps, nuremberg.

what a gasbag.

If your intellect is so limited that it precludes the logical connection of Nazi's using the "I was simply following orders when I gassed those Jews" defense and reinforcing the duty of American servicemen, police and other law enforcement personnel to refuse orders that violate the Constitution or by extention the Constitutional rights of American citizens...there's nothing I can do to remedy that.

 

[Luissa]

I am still trying to get him to answer about how he feels in regards to Perry not pardoning an innocent man who was later put to death... Is there an oath about that?

More partisan deflection.

Can you at least make an attempt to stay on topic.

Perry followed the law and the Constitution.

The man was found guilty by a jury of his peers.

He was afforded every appeal to the judiciary of both Texas and U.S. Federal Court.

Perry decided not to reverse all of those decisions.

Any other unrelated topic you'd like to deflect to?

But wasn't there evidence sent to Perry a month before his executions stating no arson was involved? Wouldn't not pardoning someone that you have evidence for that shows they probably didn't commit the crime taking away someone's right?
I thought Oathkeepers didn't like the government taking away the rights of innocent citizens? They didn't even respond to appeal.

I would rather Oathkeepers stand up for stuff like that this, stuff that is actually happening, then something that MIGHT happen.