Who and What are the 'OATH KEEPERS'?

As a combat vet from an Marine Infantry Battalion I have to say I extremely dislike militias as a whole. Very few live up to the ideals they espouse. Most are just loud mouth braggarts who would cut and run in a serious firefight. That being said there are a few well trained and organized groups out there that take the meaning of militia seriously and you wont ever see them doing crazy marches or protesting. There too busy leading productive lives. But if push came to shove and either party stepped too far out of line, I can promise you that there will be organized resistance and I don't mean the out of shape camo surplus pants kind either.

 

That question was directed at the person I was responding to. Their inability to comprehend it is the basis.

 

Sorry, but if you take into consideration what the British were about, there are many who would be more than happy to explain exactly what the Brits did to countries far and near. Ask any Scot, or Caribbean nation nation how the Brits treated them. That will give you a good overview.

That aside, do you beleive this country would have faired better under British rule? You know, the ones who kept slaves?

britain-and-the-trade.pdf (nationalarchives.gov.uk)

 

Considering that the British didn't fight a war over slavery, yes, we would have.

 

Really bro, other than the first two what's left, well other than your attempt at a pissing contest about Trrrrrruuuuummmmppp?

 

You are ignoring content by this member.
` '​

 

You find one post where I denigrate police or veterans or ****.

 

Amazing this!!!^^^ If you believe a proven liar, you are responsible for your beliefs and hence, you actions.

The gaslighting is truly cultish. It's sick.

Touché!

 

I understand, I guess? Melting is never pleasant for the majority of folks who are always chasing rabbit holes. BTW, one should always start with quotes from the beginning of an interaction for any relevant context:

 

Really? Then I assume you can provide some evidence for that. Maybe a list of Dixiecrats who stayed in the Democrat Party compared to those who became Republicans?

 

The only reason Republicans now win in The South, is because the Democrats became Liberals who opposed Segregation and supported rights for blacks.

 

About 95% of racist Dixiecrat Governors and Congressmen remained in the Democratic Party for life. So 60 years after civil rights legislation the south is finally solidly Republican. Took a long time for that switch, didn’t it?

BTW , maybe you’ve noticed that as the south gradually became more Republican over the years it also became less racist. So, less racist = more Republican, more Republican = less racist. See the pattern?

 

Nope, southern strategy.

 

Really! You certainly couldn't tell by how the majority of blacks are pocketed in city projects, ghettos and low-income housing.. The Dixiecrats are clearly chameleon like critters

Almost forgot and vote almost exclusively DNC, the "D" stands for Dixie I'd think

 

So not even taking into consideration what the British did to other countries, the only thing that matters is they didn't fight a war over slavery of Blacks.

A limited view is not not what is needed to understand the world as a whole.

 

The evidence is historical and I don't run down rabbit holes that have space for just one. Sorry.

 

So, then tell me the political results of that Southern Strategy. Maybe you could tell me the party affiliations of the President’s voted for by the southern states. Let me help you.

1968 - Vote for Republican? Nope, voted for life-long Democrat George Wallace.
1972 - Vote for Republican? Yes, but Nixon won 49 states altogether, not just the south.
1976 - Vote for Republican? Nope, voted for Democrat Jimmy Carter.
1980 - Vote for Republican? Yes, but Reagan won 44 states, not just the south.
1984 - Vote for Republican? Yes, but Reagan won 49 states, not just the south.

So, how was that Southern Strategy working.?

Oh, BTW, the southern states did not send a majority of elected Republican Congressmen and Senators to D.C until the 1990s.

 

If the evidence is historical let’s see it.

 

IF you fought a war based on having your soldiers vote on what to do next (or just doing what they chose to do) your country couldn't survive a week. When the threat is to the nation, the response must be united- and not spend months debating it like you were making a political choice. Necessity mandates a command structure in an army at war that would be unacceptable in normal public life.
The old saying untied we stand, divided we fall is critically true here.

A number of tests are given when you enter the military. An officer came to see me afterward and asked if I was interested in the OTC, or Officer's candidate school. I asked why he offered that; the answer was that I had the highest score of the 125 men being tested. I told him I wasn't interested, even for a commission. My reason- I didn't want to subject myself to the structured discipline, and particularly the sacrifice of independent thinking and decisions. While I could do it if necessary, I'd not fit well in that position. This was peacetime. Had it been wartime and I had been drafted, I probably would have accepted that offer- but not without reservations. While I do like to act in a role of leadership- I want to lead people who want to follow, not those I would have to order to follow. Even in business, it's difficult to make that work, but I do. I simply won't employ people who have to be pushed. So I understand your point; but I'm saying that military, of necessity, must operate on a chain of command rather than a democratic basis. I will say that most people I've known with a military experience are glad they had it. While it can be difficult in some ways, it also teaches a great many things including teamwork, self discipline, self-confidence, objectivity- and of course dealing with frustrations of rigid conditions you can't change. It's made a lot of boys who couldn't break bad habits at home grow into men, too. Teaches you that the things you thought were valuable and made you who you thought you were at home- were mostly false values.

You have to look at being "called on" as from your country, and the authority is federal law. One of those things that freedom doesn't allow you to dodge, like taxes.

By the way, there are military laws that dictate limits, and an order to violate those limits (such as killing children or civilians intentionally) can be refused by a soldier. He may be face court martial ed by process, but the military law would be on his side. Like civilian law- proving things is not always easy, but that right exists. My experience was long ago, so I'm not up to date, but that part is most likely still the same.
Nothing is ever perfect; it's always a matter of doing the best we can.

 

I don't run down rabbit holes, this one only has space for one, and the straw is wet.

 

The cha-cha, Tango, Fox trot, and we are about to see the "liberal two step". A Liberal two step that dances around the question and never gives the answer...

 

Pelosi.

 

Do you know any member of Oath Keepers or do you have any knowledge of them other than what you've read via MSM because I don't?

Therefore, I'm reluctant to condemn every member of the organization until I know more about them and about the real threat level they pose to our country.

Finally, I hope that BLM and related leftist organizations are receiving the same level of scrutiny because the multiple riots of 2020 cost our country far more in resources and lives.

 

Pretty much all the racists left the dems and went to the repubs.

 

Got any evidence of that, or is it just what you wish it to be?