'Oath Keepers' spotted carrying guns, walking along Ferguson streets

Now you are spamming.

You didn't properly reference my statements when you replied, and made it look like you made the statements, which are attributed to you alone when they are quoted by others.

Fix it.
:crybaby: Nope. You are spamming. IAW the rules, I acted properly. You are unhappy you are not in charge. And the Oath Keepers decide which LEO commands are lawful at their own peril.

I am not spamming, I am sending a single reply to each of your statements.

Fix it.
:crybaby:

Looks like farkey has an admirer.
 
From the Rules and Regulations, Marty. Stop spamming.
  • Editing quotes. You may selectively quote, provided that it does not change the context or meaning of the quote. When you comment on the quote, do it outside of the quote box. Do not post inside of the quote box.
  • No Spamming. Multiple posting of the same thing, advertising and links to other sites.
 
From the Rules and Regulations, Marty. Stop spamming.
  • Editing quotes. You may selectively quote, provided that it does not change the context or meaning of the quote. When you comment on the quote, do it outside of the quote box. Do not post inside of the quote box.
  • No Spamming. Multiple posting of the same thing, advertising and links to other sites.

You didn't create a quote box in the first place, so you are violating the rules. in any further quote, it appears my statements were made by you.

I am not multiple posting the same thing, I am replying once to each of your replies.

Fix it.
 
As long as the quotation marks are there, it is obvious that they are not my remarks but someone else's. It is what it is. You continue to spam. I am replying to the lack of merit in the quote, not you.
 
As long as the quotation marks are there, it is obvious that they are not my remarks but someone else's. It is what it is. You continue to spam. I am replying to the lack of merit in the quote, not you.

Not good enough, as there is no reference to me being the source, and in any subsequent post it appears the entire content is yours.

Fix it.
 
I don't have to reference you being the source.

I am responding the merit of the fallacious assertions: they lack it.
 
Sff5YfI.jpg
In your mind, how is this a meaningful response to the topic at hand?
 
Oath Keepers Say They're Defending Ferguson; Others Say They're Not Helping
Oath Keepers Say They re Defending Ferguson Others Say They re Not Helping The Two-Way NPR

"Mark Potok, a senior fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center, said there's no record of Oath Keepers' engaging in political violence and that the group is mainly driven by anti-government views. "The core ideas of these groups relate to the fear that elites in this country and around the world are slowly and steadily and nefariously moving us towards a one-world government, the so-called 'New World Order,' " he said."

"Both the St. Louis County police chief, Jon Belmar, and County Executive Steve Stenger say the Oath Keepers aren't welcome in Ferguson. Stenger told St. Louis Public Radio's Jason Rosenbaum, "The last thing you need in a situation like we have are people walking around with semi-automatic weapons. It's inflaming a situation that's already inflamed."
 
The oath keepers were supposedly there to protect a neocon from infowars.con. What they were hoping for was an altercation in which they could've used a weapon to shoot a protester and place themselves in the news and increase the fame and readership of infowars. It's race-baiting at its worst, and I guess the only good parts was that there wasn't any visible confederate flags.

Sent from my 0PCV1 using Tapatalk
 
Now you are spamming.

You didn't properly reference my statements when you replied, and made it look like you made the statements, which are attributed to you alone when they are quoted by others.

Fix it.
:crybaby: Nope. You are spamming. IAW the rules, I acted properly. You are unhappy you are not in charge. And the Oath Keepers decide which LEO commands are lawful at their own peril.

I am not spamming, I am sending a single reply to each of your statements.

Fix it.
:crybaby:

Looks like farkey has an admirer.
Fix it! :crybaby: Fix it! :crybaby: Fix it! :crybaby:
 
You didn't properly reference my statements when you replied, and made it look like you made the statements, which are attributed to you alone when they are quoted by others.

Fix it.
:crybaby: Nope. You are spamming. IAW the rules, I acted properly. You are unhappy you are not in charge. And the Oath Keepers decide which LEO commands are lawful at their own peril.

I am not spamming, I am sending a single reply to each of your statements.

Fix it.
:crybaby:

Looks like farkey has an admirer.
Fix it! :crybaby: Fix it! :crybaby: Fix it! :crybaby:

Don't you have anything better to do than White Knight for Farkey?
 
An opinion?? If you're going to make accusations with an opinion your credibility is absolutely zero. It wa just a stupid ass comeback on your part because you couldn't find a link, as hard as you tried

Sent from my 0PCV1 using Tapatalk
 
An opinion?? If you're going to make accusations with an opinion your credibility is absolutely zero. It wa just a stupid ass comeback on your part because you couldn't find a link, as hard as you tried

Sent from my 0PCV1 using Tapatalk

I think you're a tad confused who you are responding to. I stated my opinion, it's just that, an opinion. You don't link opinions. LOL
 

Forum List

Back
Top