So tell me a bit about your experiance with Oath Keepers

[mpbarry1]

I have never served in the Military, which is a regret of mine. However, I have been a volunteer Firefighter, Assistant Chief, and now Chief for small departments for 24 years now. One of the things that I am considering implementing is the administration of an Oath to the board, officers and firefighters on our department. When I mentioned this to my guys, a few were excited, and the rest were ok with it. I do have a couple of folks that said "as long as it doesn't mean we are tea party members". lol. Of course said that I didn't have anything to do with those liberal bastages. :kidding:

I have read the Oath Keepers site and am interested in them. I know they say that first responders are eligible, but I can't help but feel inadequate in the face of the sacrifices that our military men have given. I certainly don't want to join and feel inadequate in face of the hero's who have joined before me, or to lessen the impact that those hero's represent.

What are your thoughts of the Oath Keepers?

[perotter]

They seem to friendly and honest enough for me. Most likely you'd be more than welcomed by them. They are very interested in having those who are like minded and are willing in being active in the organization, military/LEO service record or not.

And given what you do as an occupation(a leader in emergency services), they just might be very excited if you joined and got involved.

[Echo]

As an Oathkeeper ( I swore to defend the Constitution several times), I have no problem at all having first responders next to me in this association. And your idea to have your folks perform the same oath is commendable.

[Jammersix]

There's no problem with keeping an oath.

The problem is who decides what constitutes a breach of the oath, what action is necessary to keep the oath, and how that decision is made.

It's one thing to keep an oath. It's another for Skeeter and Booger to assign themselves to patrolling the southwest desert.

Not to mention that, to paraphrase, your oath stops at the end of my nose. (The actual saying is your right to hit me stops at the end of my nose.)

[runfiverun]

how it got started was because of the swearing in at the basic training where you state to support and defend the constitution.
when you leave the military you don't have to unswear that oath.

the organization has changed a bit over the years.

[mpbarry1]

the organization has changed a bit over the years.

How so?

[Jammersix]

when you leave the military you don't have to unswear that oath.
What you do leave behind, however, is the authority to use anything but rhetoric and the ballot. The same is true for police who leave the force or retire-- no more authority to do anything but talk and vote.

As long as oath keepers restrict themselves to talking and voting, things are fine.

[montana_charlie]

The oath sworn by enlisted military members is:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

The grey portion becomes null upon discharge from service, but the rest is still valid ... if the individual feels bound to continue to uphold it.

I see it as something that only comes into play in 'stressful times', but has nothing to do with talking and voting.

I mean ... an eighteen year-old anchor baby who doesn't speak English, with a retirement account set up in Guadalahara, and the Mexican flag on his bedroom wall, can 'talk and vote'.

CM

[Jammersix]

Ah, I see. So standing by the oath is selective, and the oath keepers only keep part of it?

[mpbarry1]

hadn't realized there was so much controversy w the Oath Keepers?

[Old School Big Bore]

Took the military oath in Basic and at every re-up. Took the similar LE oath upon commissioning and at every re-election of my various elected bosses. Been under one, the other, or both since '72...don't know how to act any different. As a firefighter you would be welcome, and I'm sure you could come up with a relevant paraphrasing to fit your folks.

[montana_charlie]

Ah, I see. So standing by the oath is selective, and the oath keepers only keep part of it?
Actually, you try hard to pretend that you don't see.
No longer bound by membership in the military, the promise to bow to articles of the UCMJ becomes nullified.

Standing by any oath is always a 'selection' by the individual.
As an example of one who stands by none of the lines in his, look at Obama.

[perotter]

hadn't realized there was so much controversy w the Oath Keepers?

Some(or most) people think it is a militia group or has some plan to use force against the government or things along those lines. Some time ago I decided to look into the matter and found they are no such thing.

May I suggest, if you haven't, that you join their forum and personally check them out. You don't have to join the organization to do that. You'll likely be able to see what you think of those members in your state/area. And see what they are about.

There's times a man just has to go and find out for themselves what something is about.

[Jammersix]

President Obama?

I'd vote for him again if I could.

[gray wolf]

President Obama?

I'd vote for him again if I could.

Now how did I know that was coming ??
This should be fun.

[montana_charlie]

President Obama?

I'd vote for him again if I could.
You aren't surprising any of us ...

[shooter93]

You don't have to be a member of anything to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. On the post where I was worn in MC....they guy administering the oath eliminated the obey the orders of the president. I have found others who said it was also eliminated from their oath and others who took it as quoted. Some couldn't remember. This was during the 60's which needless to say was a tumultuous time in our history.

[TXGunNut]

I've looked at the Oath Keepers, as a former LEO I like that they remind current LE and military of the oath they have taken. Some need more reminding than others.

[Jammersix]

I'm not arguing that the oaths are bad things, I'm merely pointing out that without the authority to do anything about it, an oath keeper other than a sworn officer is limited to reporting what he or she sees, and voting his or her conscience.

Since that's the duty of every citizen, it comes out like the Chris Rock line: "so what do you want, a cookie? That's what you're supposed to do! You don't get no points for doing what you're supposed to do!"

[DRNurse1]

The oath sworn by enlisted military members is:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

The grey portion becomes null upon discharge from service, but the rest is still valid ... if the individual feels bound to continue to uphold it.

I see it as something that only comes into play in 'stressful times', but has nothing to do with talking and voting.

I mean ... an eighteen year-old anchor baby who doesn't speak English, with a retirement account set up in Guadalahara, and the Mexican flag on his bedroom wall, can 'talk and vote'.

CM


Ah, I see. So standing by the oath is selective, and the oath keepers only keep part of it?

It is an honor and character thing. If you lack either or both, the oath is meaningless.

Having both, the Oath remains your promise to yourself and your loved ones. But that is just my $0.02.

[Recluse]

MPBarry,

Nothing controversial about Oathkeepers in spite of what some of our resident bed-wetting pinko commie alpha hotels like to continuously stir up.

It's real simple: Oathkeepers are citizens who either wear, or wore, the uniform of this nation for the purposes of defending it, and/or citizens who wear, or wore, badges denoting their dedication and authority to serving and protecting their fellow citizens from domestic dangers.

For the latter, that absolutely includes law enforcement, firemen and paramedics.

What's more, I'll put the bravery and commitment of one who walks into a burning building AHEAD of the majority of worthless-*** REMFs we have in the Pentagon and "command headquarters" duty stations around the world who are in the military.

:coffee:

[Jammersix]

How, exactly, would a citizen who has been discharged defend the constitution, other than voting and speaking?

Details. Specifics, please.

[Love Life]

I could care less about whether the oath-keepers are good, bad, or ugly, but I just wanted to say that Firefighters should not feel like they are lesser men for not being in the military.

[Jammersix]

Geez. I missed that, had to go back and look for it.

I'm an infantry vet, I should have been a fire fighter. Would have made me a better man.

Oathkeepers have nothing on you, MPBarry.

[runfiverun]

jammer read the entire constitution there is a part in there that say's
and I'm paraphrasing from memory. [simplifying]
that it is each citizens duty to stand up against the government if they are doing things contrary to the constitution.
that means IT IS YOUR DUTY TO BOOT YOUR BUDDY'S BUTT OUTTA OFFICE,
if he is doing things contrary to the constitution, or not upholding his oath of office.

[mpbarry1]

The way I read the information was that it wasn't what you would do, but what you will not do in the face of tyranny. I have no intention of taking my type 1 engine up against a tank, but i can refuse to have my fire department aid in putting citizens in boxcars.

God forbid I ever see that, Agenda 21 aside.

[Jammersix]

Okay, what will a citizen with a DD 214 in his hand not do?

[leftiye]

What you do leave behind, however, is the authority to use anything but rhetoric and the ballot. The same is true for police who leave the force or retire-- no more authority to do anything but talk and vote.

As long as oath keepers restrict themselves to talking and voting, things are fine.

Authority isn't the end all in reality. Nor is authority the end all where our rights are concerned. And authority growing out from a corrupt government has nothing whatsoever to do with what is right, our rights, our religion, or what we may find necessary to do someday either. Actually reality is all the authority one needs.

And, yes, nowadays "doing what you are supposed to do is becoming a thing worthy of salutation.

[leftiye]

Okay, what will a citizen with a DD 214 in his hand not do?

Follow any commie, criminal, pinko, or ***. Nor vote for them. (Der Bummer - 4 out of four ain't bad, eh?)

Signed, another grunt.

[Love Life]

Geez. I missed that, had to go back and look for it.

I'm an infantry vet, I should have been a fire fighter. Would have made me a better man.

Oathkeepers have nothing on you, MPBarry.

That is not what was said by either MPBarry or myself. You were infantry? Awesome!! I'll send you a Chicken Tetrazzini MRE to pat yourself on the back with. You have no reason to be a d-bag toward fire fighters or MPBarry.

[montana_charlie]

I think there different oaths for commissioned officers of the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard?

Oath of the President, Congressman & Senators?
I can't say, from personal knowledge. What I posted is the oath taken by enlisted military members ... which was my station in life.
For all I know, officers may just trade handshakes and promise to act like gentlemen.

Google may have your answer ...

CM

[shooter93]

In the case of your discharge jammersix your vote is your first line of defense. That does not negate the fact that one day you may have to take up arms on your own soil to defend the Constitution against the infamous domestic enemies namely a tyrannical government.

[Jammersix]

That is not what was said by either MPBarry or myself. You were infantry? Awesome!! I'll send you a Chicken Tetrazzini MRE to pat yourself on the back with. You have no reason to be a d-bag toward fire fighters or MPBarry.
What are you talking about?

I meant what I said. I meant it to mean that, speaking as a vet, I have extremely high regard for firefighters.

How did you get from there to being a d-bg to firefighters and MPBarry?

Shooter, if the Oathkeepers are about voting, then I have no problems with them. But it's everyone's duty to vote, with or without the Oathkeepers. Back to Chris Rock's line.

[jaystuw]

That is not what was said by either MPBarry or myself. You were infantry? Awesome!! I'll send you a Chicken Tetrazzini MRE to pat yourself on the back with. You have no reason to be a d-bag toward fire fighters or MPBarry.

Lovelife, Mean spirited remark. I was also an infantryman. Should I not be proud of that? Jay

[Jammersix]

Thank you, Bill.

One thing I note is that some of the definitions of specific words there should be explained; disarming the American people is, for example, different from disarming a single person.

The state of emergency is pretty interesting, there are valid states of emergency, and that seems to me to either require explanation or change.

That all said, I intend to visit their site and read their material.

[cricco]

97634
PM me if you have specific questions.

[runfiverun]

keep it cool or this thread will be locked.....period.

[Love Life]

His post came across as very facetious, and reads remarkably similar to the rest of his posts that are very facetious. If I mistook it, and my reply was out of hand, then I apologize.

[Jammersix]

Actually, that makes sense. I accept.

The post under discussion, out of all of my smart-assed posts, was probably the most sincere. I admire both firefighters and cops.

[Love Life]

Agreed. Firefighters and Police do a very hard job that not everybody can do. While I am not a member of oath keepers, I believe that you have nothing to be ashamed of MPBarry. If they look down on you, then they can go pound sand.

[Lead Fred]

You know Oath Keepers is a good org when the LIBTARDs call them a hate group

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/03/30/avlon.hatriots.militia/index.html?hpt=C2

http://www.dailypaul.com/131801/newsweek-oath-keepers-hate-group

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/03/oath-keepers?page=2

[jaystuw]

Yeah. I am ok to.


Jammersix, You have been around castboolits for a long time and are aware of the "lay of the land". Saying you voted for president Obama will always bring a heated reaction. Not the best thing to joke about. Take it from a known/real leftie, No one is fooling around here. Jay

[Jammersix]

Where did you get the idea I was joking?

I'm not a one issue voter-- in 2014, only fools cast a vote based on one criteria.

The President has met far more of my criteria than any candidate in twenty years. I'd vote for him again in a heartbeat.

No joke. It doesn't make any difference to me if you (or anyone else here) is "fooling around" or not, because my vote is real. Your reaction, whether heated, measured or reasoned is worth all the paper it's printed on.

But it's an interesting question, isn't it? Why should I have to listen to your politics unless you have to listen to mine?

For that reason, dragging politics into a non-political discussion is extremely rude, it's downright bad manners.

So when one is asking about the oath keepers, you might consider keeping politics out of it. Once someone brings politics into it, why, then, someone might have a "heated reaction", and answer them.

I wish all those who can't keep their politics to themselves stayed in the political section of this board. That's why it exists, so you can all go there, get all heated, and the rest of us, who have absolutely no interest in who you sleep with, who you vote for or what you eat can talk, in peace, about firearms, oath keepers and other interesting topics.

[leftiye]

They live, walk amoung us, breathe, procreate, and vote.

[quilbilly]

There are two independent clauses in that oath. One is independent of the other and one may require you to become a war criminal if the orders are illegal and if it forces you to disobey the other (note the Ukraine and Venezuala as you read this). The first clause is permanent and the second is frangible.

[jaystuw]

Actually, that makes sense. I accept.

The post under discussion, out of all of my smart-assed posts, was probably the most sincere. I admire both firefighters and cops.



Jammersix, This is the post that most troubles me. You say that you are not jokeing, but admit to "smart-assed" posts and being less than sincere.

Know this, jammersix. Anyone with left leaning ideas is a guest in this house.You and I are both guest in a conservative household. Please Act like a guest and state your feelings with honestly and respect. Do not toy with these guys, they call the shots here and neither they nor I post in a thread like this for fun.

And YES! I need to practice what I preach! I have made mistakes and tarnished the image of the left. It sucks to admit that the righties have cut me a lot of slack. But I learn with each post and try to do better. I ask you to do the same.

The conservatives here have a very low opinion of liberals. Lets not show them that their opinions are correct. Jay

[montana_charlie]

The way I read the information was that it wasn't what you would do, but what you will not do in the face of tyranny.
Okay, what will a citizen with a DD 214 in his hand not do?
If he lives in Connecticut, he might not register his 'magazine-fed semi-automatic rifles' to comply with a new set of hastily-passed, knee-jerk laws that violate the Constitution.

CM

[Jammersix]

Jammersix, This is the post that most troubles me. You say that you are not jokeing, but admit to "smart-assed" posts and being less than sincere.

Know this, jammersix. Anyone with left leaning ideas is a guest in this house.You and I are both guest in a conservative household. Please Act like a guest and state your feelings with honestly and respect. Do not toy with these guys, they call the shots here and neither they nor I post in a thread like this for fun.

And YES! I need to practice what I preach! I have made mistakes and tarnished the image of the left. It sucks to admit that the righties have cut me a lot of slack. But I learn with each post and try to do better. I ask you to do the same.

The conservatives here have a very low opinion of liberals. Lets not show them that their opinions are correct. Jay

We're all guests in this house. Therefore, I expect the same respect that they show each other-- if they're rude enough to drag politics A) out of the political forum and B) into a non-political discussion, and I have to listen to them, then they get to listen to me and my politics.

They are not above me, they are not entitled to anything more than I am. Talking among themselves and only with those that agree with them is what the Klan does. Listening to opposing points of view is what a responsible citizen does. Unless they want to concede that issue, they'll listen politely to you, as well as to me.

I suggest you come out of your closet, because hiding and conceding the forum to a conservative majority without the manners to keep their politics to themselves does us no good, either.

Sometimes I'm sincere, sometimes I'm sarcastic, sometimes I'm a smart ***. All of you, liberal, conservative, smart, Skeeter or Booger, can take me as I am or have a seat and ignore me.

None of this sequence is about politics-- this sequence is about politics outside of the political section. Their forum, their rule, their infraction. And you seem to be saying that they (the conservatives) get to break their own rule at will, and that we (liberals, or, more accurately, anyone to the political left of Attila The Hun) have to read their opinions meekly, keep our eyes cast down, and mumble "yes, master" because it's "their house".

They're guests here, Jay, just like you and I are. And they're breaking a rule that is meant to protect all of us from political discussions by dragging it out here.

[mpbarry1]

honestly guys, i was not trying to cause an argument. i was really just curious about Oath Keepers. i googled them and found an article by mother Jones that pretty much called them domestic T*********s. which was expected, but I really don't think they are. If they stand for what they say on the website.

we are at a crossroad in our history where we must choose between the end of a republic yeilding an all powerful national govt, or rolling back that power. obviously I choose the later, and our constitution demands it.

I hope we can all be civil. I like the discussion.

[shooter93]

Not wishing to drag this out or stir the pot....but....I am neither fool nor an idiot. I am however a one issue voter. That issue is the Constitution of this Republic. Feel free to hammer me Lamar...I understand completely but sometimes I can't refrain.

[Love Life]

Anybody can defend the Constitution if they choose to.

[Jammersix]

we are at a crossroad in our history where we must choose between the end of a republic yeilding an all powerful national govt, or rolling back that power.

We live at that crossroads. We are always at that crossroads. Being there is nothing new, that's why Constitution, v.1.0 failed, and you ended up with the constitution you have now. The first government wasn't powerful enough. The government needs enough power to do what we need done, and no more. Keeping that balance is our job.

So being "at" that crossroads is nothing new, it's the only point freedom exists.

And I'll say it again-- if you want to discuss politics, there's a political forum. Out here, you have to listen to folks like me if you bring politics up.

I don't see joining the oath keepers as a political issue, but apparently, others do, and can't discuss the oath keepers without the politics.

[cricco]

I'm an Oath Keeper. I'm not a terrorist. I'm a good, honest man with a family. I've been a police officer for 16 years, and I've never heard another OK mention anything even close to a treasonous act. We simply agree to honor the oath we took to defend the constitutional rights of citizens. Simple enough, right?

[Jammersix]

Simple enough, right?

You'd think so. Problem is, it only matters if it matters.

[Lonegun1894]

MPBarry,
Here is the way I see it. I have served in the military, and now do so as a peace officer. I have friends who are EMTs, and even some "Hosers". Guess what? You signed the same check any military vet did when you raised your hand and stood up to serve your community. You did it in a different way, but just as honorably as anyone else who has ever done so. Besides, we all have a screw loose to do what we do, it's just that it isn't always the same screw. I have been shot at, both due to my uniform and due to my badge, and it doesn't bother me and I never hesitated there. But I have also helped some of my Hosers, and going into a burning building does make me hesitate, while your kind does it without a second thought. Does that make sense? I don't care if you are a military vet, a peace officer, an EMT/Paramedic, or even a "Hoser", you're family. We will have disagreements, and talk trash to each other, and even make each other mad, but if things go wrong, I want a man or woman with the guts to stand up like you have at my side. So don't think you wouldn't be welcomed by me. You and I and every other Vet and first responder and anyone else who takes AND KEEPS this Oath, we do the same exact thing, we just do it slightly differently, but equally importantly.

[jaystuw]

Jammersix, You and I are the only known/admitted lefties on the site. I came clean some time ago and have defended the left with very little help up to the start of this thread. You have come out of nowhere and may disappear just as fast.

If you take offense to everything the conservatives say, you will wear yourself out . This is a right leaning site. This is their comfort zone. They vent here. I respect that as much as I can.

So jammersix,To sum it up, you want to fight the righties all the time, I only want to fight them some of the time. The only 2 lefties on castboolits not only can't get along, but are in fact at each others throats. The righties will laugh themselves sick upon reading this post. No wonder they think all of us are nuts. However, If you can handle it, so can I. jay

[leftiye]

Interesting take there jay. Yup, I find it most enjoyable. The other thang us redneck conservatives enjoy to no end is watching liberal intellectuals (would it surprise you that many of us consider ourselves intellectuals?) step in doo doo step after step. The old saw about when I was twenty I was liberal, but as I got older I got more sense - isn't anything short of natural progression. We all want to change the world even at our age, but like a long term master mechanic (or any other skilled profession) we know what werks and what wastes time, effort, and resources. Non functional, ill considered, airhead solutions pushed by women's libbers, politicians/criminals, and queers in the name of intellectualism and, enlightenment are the bain of us all, knowing what works and what leads to chaos is called wisdom, another very unpopular word in the lefties camp. If by the time you're about fifty, you aren't a conservative, you might want to consider suicide. Life really goes downhill after that, and stumbling around without any clue will make it worse at any age.

Sorry, I know this was purty nasty to endure, I didn't start out to have it so. I started out to commend you on your easy tolerant approach. But I'm a simple honest person who can't sugar coat thangs very well. It's not about hating blacks, it's about hating low lifes. That they are black is their excuse, not mine. Giving them free I phones isn't a solution, it's bribery. And certainly not a display of erudition.

[Jammersix]

An intellectual is anyone who is capable of changing his or her mind when presented with evidence.

I have yet to meet one here. It's not why people come here.

[leftiye]

Wouldn't know a cow pie enough to not step in it. So you make up your definitions as you go (kinda like - on the fly?)

[cricco]

You'd think so. Problem is, it only matters if it matters.

It always matters.

[Jammersix]

It always matters.

Nope.

Saying that you would disobey these particular orders doesn't matter. What would matter would be the actual disobedience.

I have a problem with the state of emergency clause. There are valid states of emergency that are necessary for citizens.

[cricco]

Nope.

Saying that you would disobey these particular orders doesn't matter. What would matter would be the actual disobedience.

I have a problem with the state of emergency clause. There are valid states of emergency that are necessary for citizens.

I take pride in my integrity. I keep my word. I honor my oath, even if it may cost me my job. Here's my proof.

http://mobile.recorder.com/opinion/3960747-108/oath-citizens-constitution-executive

What are you doing for the cause? Attacking people on the internet? Good for you. That, and $1.65 will get you a small, regular coffee at the corner store.

[Recluse]

"Lefties and Righties?"

The topic of discussion is the United States Constitution. There are some things in the Bill of Rights that one could argue "lean to the left" and likewise, things that "lean to the right."

However, it is what it is and that is the law of the land. A lot of us put our butts on the line for it and will continue to do so, which is basically what Oath Keepers is all about.

The beautiful thing about America is that nobody is forcing anyone to come here or to stay here. Don't like the Constitution of the United States? Solution: Leave. Immediately. Pack up and go. Cuba, Venezuela, Argentina. . . all nice socialist countries. Pick one and move there. I doubt they'll start printing signs and documents in English for you, though.

In the meanwhile, the only way I can see what some participants in this discussion are saying is via quotes because they've have long been keeping Frank company on my Ignore List.

:coffee:

[Love Life]

My, this thread has traveled all over the place. Is this the wrong point to remind everybody about Doe Run?

OP: "I have never served in the Military, which is a regret of mine. However, I have been a volunteer Firefighter, Assistant Chief, and now Chief for small departments for 24 years now. One of the things that I am considering implementing is the administration of an Oath to the board, officers and firefighters on our department. When I mentioned this to my guys, a few were excited, and the rest were ok with it. I do have a couple of folks that said "as long as it doesn't mean we are tea party members". lol. Of course said that I didn't have anything to do with those liberal bastages.

I have read the Oath Keepers site and am interested in them. I know they say that first responders are eligible, but I can't help but feel inadequate in the face of the sacrifices that our military men have given. I certainly don't want to join and feel inadequate in face of the hero's who have joined before me, or to lessen the impact that those hero's represent.

What are your thoughts of the Oath Keepers?"

My thoughts: I'm not an Oath Keeper. However; I am active duty military. I would never look down my nose at a fire fighter, Cop, or EMT. They are all very hard and demanding jobs that require dedication and the ability to put others above yourself. Even to the extent that you may lose your lives to save the lives of others.

Any military man who would look down their nose at the aforemention professions is a person to be ignored. Period.

I can be a Marine, but could I hack it to be a Cop? Could I hack it to be a fire fighter? Could I hack it to be an EMT? I don't know, and my hat is off to the men and women who can hack it at those professions.

MPBarry, were I an Oath Keeper, I would welcome you to the organization. I already have immense respect for fire fighters. Even military members have people they look up to and see as heros. I will never forget watching the attacks on September 11th, and I will NEVER forget the actions of the fire fighters, police, and EMT's on that day.


You don't feel as if you stack up against military personnel? Puh-lease. You have nothing to be ashamed of and you don't walk in the shadow of anybody.

[montana_charlie]

An intellectual is anyone who is capable of changing his or her mind when presented with evidence.

I have yet to meet one here. It's not why people come here.
The dictionary I checked to find a definition for 'intellectual' had four for the term when used as an adjective.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intellectual

Of those, this one seems (to me) to be the proper one for the context of this discussion:

" guided or developed by or relying on the intellect rather than upon emotions or feelings; rational. "

But, the statement above uses 'intellectual' as a noun, and (luckily) the dictionary covers that, too, with four definitions.

They are:

"6. a person of superior intellect.
7. a person who places a high value on or pursues things of interest to the intellect or the more complex forms and fields of knowledge, as aesthetic or philosophical matters, especially on an abstract and general level.
8. an extremely rational person; a person who relies on intellect rather than on emotions or feelings.
9. a person professionally engaged in mental labor, as a writer or teacher. "

I believe Number 8 is the most applicable to our discussion, but nowhere do I see anything related to the 'ability to change one's mind'.

CM

[Recluse]

8. an extremely rational person; a person who relies on intellect rather than on emotions or feelings.


I believe Number 8 is the most applicable to our discussion, but nowhere do I see anything related to the 'ability to change one's mind'.

CM

Charlie,

Liberals rely on revising history and changing the rules and laws to suit their emotions and feelings (at the time)--which is why you'll never meet a rational liberal. It's an oxymoron. . . like "Anarchists Unite!"

It's also why liberals despise the Constitution and anyone who swears to defend it (ala Oath Keepers).

:coffee:

[searcher4851]

Very spirited discussion. I always considered protecting and defending the Constitution to be the duty of ALL citizens.

[ktw]

The topic of discussion is the United States Constitution. There are some things in the Bill of Rights that one could argue "lean to the left" and likewise, things that "lean to the right."

However, it is what it is and that is the law of the land. A lot of us put our butts on the line for it and will continue to do so, which is basically what Oath Keepers is all about.

Sounds a lot like what the ACLU is all about.

The ACLU spends it resources to protect Civil Liberties and the Constitution in our court system. Where and how are the Oath Keepers spending their resources to defend the Constitution?

-ktw

[rockrat]

I consider myself to be an intellectual and can change my mind presented with evidence/proof. Comes from my chemistry background

However, that means actual proof, not made up facts, yelling and screaming, slanted evidence to show your interest is correct. Too many have "proof" that when you look at it, it is far from independent. Do they "fudge" thier results, so they won't lose funding if the result conflict the philosophy of the grantor. When you scream at me, I automatically assume you are wrong. Just because you are loud , doesn't mean you are right. And repeating things, ad nauseum, still doesn't mean you are right either. Tell me something, show "proof" and I will listen, but you can bet that I am going to do research into your "proof" and gather information and then make up my mind.

Guess lawyers would hate me on a jury. I actually listen to what is said and what might be left unsaid.

[Recluse]

Sounds a lot like what the ACLU is all about.

The ACLU spends it resources to protect Civil Liberties and the Constitution in our court system. Where and how are the Oath Keepers spending their resources to defend the Constitution?

-ktw

Two different missions.

The ACLU is reactive, taking on cases in court in which it feels Constitutional rights have been violated or threatened.

The ACLU seems to misunderstand the Constitution from time to time, especially when they argue a case on the merits of "separation of church and state" which simply does not exist anywhere in the First Amendment, let alone in the Constitution.

As such, the ACLU is also known for wonderful things like moving to have a veterans' cross removed from a hillside near San Diego, ensuring that Muslims can keep their religious apparel worn in the workplace while Christians cannot, etc etc.

I keep looking for the stacks of case law and precedence where the ACLU has represented those invoking their Second Amendment civil rights, but for some reason I have a hard time finding much. . .

The Oath Keepers work to be proactive in reminding all of us who served that our oath was not absolved by time or absence of uniform or badge. Likewise, Oath Keepers serves to remind and educate active-duty military and first responders that they are not beholden to following illegal orders that violate the Constitution.

Same objective, two different tactics.

:coffee:

[montana_charlie]

I know they say that first responders are eligible, but I can't help but feel inadequate in the face of the sacrifices that our military men have given. I certainly don't want to join and feel inadequate in face of the hero's who have joined before me, or to lessen the impact that those hero's represent.
I have spouted off in a few different ways in this thread, but I haven't said anything about your remarks in your opening post.
When I have said this in the past, it always manages to make people mad at me.

Along about the time of Desert Storm, the American public tried hard to change the way it relates to servicemen.
It was a general attitude of respect that had not been seen since before Vietnam.
That respect solidified and continued to grow to the point where it's now common to look at any man in military uniform as a 'hero'.
Because of that pervasive attitude, you suspect that you don't 'measure up' to former military people who might be in the ranks of the Oathkeepers.

Do not concern yourself, Mr. Barry.
While anyone who enlists may deserve to be called a patriot, wearing the uniform does not confer 'hero status' on the body inside the shirt.
There are good soldiers, and poor ones. Some are brave, and some run pretty scared most of the time. You just never know which one is the actual hero ... and you can't tell which is which by the clothes.

Take your place within the Oathkeepers if they stand for the things you admire, and rest assured that you deserve your place in the line.

CM

[Jammersix]

I believe Number 8 is the most applicable to our discussion, but nowhere do I see anything related to the 'ability to change one's mind'
You could have just asked me. There is no citation, it was a statement of opinion, not a definition. :)

The ACLU does not take on second amendment issues, and is quite forthright about their position. Their position on the second amendment used to be right on their website, it's not a secret. They promote and defend the rights they choose, just like the NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation.

[jaystuw]

Well, That was rough. The replies from my last post were predictably brutal. Even recluse was able to find a way around his ignore list to suggest some travel options to countries he feels I might find more appealing than america! He believes cuba or Venezuela would better serve my needs.

Anyway, lets get past what all of us already know, of course liberals are crazy, clueless and everything else. old news. the only new twist is me worrying about you fellows feeling that way. Totally crazy!

I was suppost to talk about oath keepers. However, I wandered a bit. I was busy trying to muzzle my fellow lefty to prevent hurt feelings. No ones feelings are hurt, right? Good! mine aren't either. Well ok, maybe the "closet lefty that is afraid to state his beliefs" remark hurt a bit. Truth sometimes hurts.

Failed strategies also hurt. Obviously, trying to find common ground with my righty counterparts is a non-starter. Nice means weak to a true conservative believer. To bad, I had hoped we could share a thread in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Jeez, I really am clueless.

Ok, to much personal info. What I know about oath keepers is Quick and easy to cover. Even a very short check of the internet reveals an organization that has baggage. Oath keepers come packaged as a group of military patriot good guys with the best intentions! Lots of people don't seem to see it that way. Some of the words that pop up when I google "oath keepers" are extremist, paranoid, military mutiny, radicalization, going operational, anti government, the list goes on. That's great. Whats not to like? nothing for the average guy to be afraid of, right? Except maybe if your a leftie. Hey, wait! that's me! What happens when a 12 man oath keeper combat team comes to my door? I'm going to wish I was in Venezuela! Jay

[jaystuw]

Sorry bill, you were not rude and I did not mean to ignore your post. Sometimes there is a lot of fish to fry and meaningful post do not get the attention they deserve. I did look at yours very closely and pondered the things you had to say.

I wondered about right and wrong. I was touched by your comments about people getting hurt.

Distilled to the very basics, that's what this whole thing is all about. Doing what is right and not hurting anyone. That's what you want, thats what I want. We look to the same things to find a way to do what is right , but we see those things in very different ways. We look for common ground but cannot find it. instead, bill, you stand on the right side of the fence and jay stands on the left.

I feel that my side of the fence sits on higher ground. I want as many americans as possible to have a shot at the American dream and enjoy a good life. Would the constitution & bill of rights not support an ideal such as that? Jay

[Love Life]

I feel that my side of the fence sits on higher ground. I want as many americans as possible to have a shot at the American dream and enjoy a good life. Would the constitution & bill of rights not support an ideal such as that? Jay

Sure, if they earned it.

[cbrick]

Well Jay, if you stick to the leftie web sites for info on Oath Keepers you will learn all that you posted and I'm sure much more.

Try doing a search on them that doesn't involve the Kool-Aid sites and perhaps you'll learn what they are really about, so far it seems you've learned nothing about them. At least nothing accurate, it stands to reason that the left would be true to form and use their normal tactics of lying, belittling and name calling.

Rick

[w5pv]

Didn't a officer from Flordia go to the big house for refusing to obey a lawful order from our illegal o in office?I think his defense was that o was illegal and could not give him a legal order.
They're all on wikipedia and they are all slightly different:
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Uniformed_Services_Oath_of_Office

United States Uniformed Services Oath of Office
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
All officers of the seven Uniformed services of the United States swear or affirm an oath of office upon commissioning. It differs slightly from that of the oath of enlistment that enlisted members recite when they enter the service. It is required by statute, the oath being prescribed by Section 3331, Title 5, United States Code.[1] It is traditional for officers to recite the oath upon promotion but as long as the officer's service is continuous this is not actually required.[2] One notable difference between the officer and enlisted oaths is that the oath taken by officers does not include any provision to obey orders; while enlisted personnel are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey lawful orders.
Text of the Oath[edit]

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.[1]



Note that the last phrase is not required to be said if the speaker has a personal or moral objection, as is true of all oaths administered by the United States government; Article Six of the United States Constitution requires that there be no religious test for public office.

The oath is for an indeterminate period; no duration is specifically defined.

Officers of the National Guard of the various States, however, take an additional oath:

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of ___ against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of ___, that I make this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the Office of [grade] in the Army/Air National Guard of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of ___ upon which I am about to enter, so help me God.[3]
(Conspicuously missing is the word " lawful " from obey orders from....)



Commissioned officers (O-1 [second lieutenant or ensign] through O-10 [general or admiral] and W-2 through W-5 [chief warrant officers]) are commissioned under the authority of the President of the United States with the advice and consent of the United States Senate; warrant officers (WO-1) receive a warrant under the authority of their respective service secretary (e.g., the secretary of the Army or the secretary of the Navy); National Guard officers are additionally committed to the authority of the governor of their state. They may be activated in the service of their state in time of local or state emergency in addition to federal activation. Reserve officers may only be activated by the President of the United States.................

[jaystuw]

Well Jay, if you stick to the leftie web sites for info on Oath Keepers you will learn all that you posted and I'm sure much more.

Try doing a search on them that doesn't involve the Kool-Aid sites and perhaps you'll learn what they are really about, so far it seems you've learned nothing about them. At least nothing accurate, it stands to reason that the left would be true to form and use their normal tactics of lying, belittling and name calling.

Rick

Hi rick, good to see you! Today is a good day, I find that I am not on your ignore list. I Hope there are no hard feelings between us. Remember, its only politics, nothing personal.

Not to get off on the wrong foot rick, but I cannot let you off easy on this topic. One does not have to look long or far to find fear of the oath keepers, I found those feelings on the internet in a short few moments. I wish more digging was needed. And of course, as expected, the further left I search, the greater the distrust. It is hoped that you do not find pleasure in that. I would ask you how far one might be willing to go as an oath keeper. I will not. I am already uncomfortable enough with the movement. Jay

[Love Life]

Why do the oath keepers make you uncomfortable? Do police, firefighters, and the military make you uncomfortable?

[jaystuw]

Why do the oath keepers make you uncomfortable? Do police, firefighters, and the military make you uncomfortable?

They are a group of trained military professionals with a political motive that may or may not follow orders, and do not trust the govt. Do I need more key strokes than that to answer your question love life? Jay

[cbrick]

Jay, why would you be on my ignore list after all the fun we had in that other thread? :mrgreen:

Yes LL, it makes people on the left uncomfortable when someone takes an oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. They are after all the enemy of that document.

Rick

[longranger]

Mr. Jay exactly where has the "Rousseau" doctrine enabled any country to rise above or even closely emulate what the United States of America has done for the world ? Where would I find the freedoms we used to have codified in their Constitution ? It has been men of your kind that believe in policies of panacea/utopia that have brought us to where we are today,it doesn't work.History proves it time and time again you are just wrong on about everything.You keep playing with your feelings and the rest of us will be on guard for the laws and policies you curry favor with.

[jaystuw]

Yes Rick! that was great fun. I was afraid some miss-steps on my part may have offended you as it did others. That thread was very fast paced and sometimes heated. Some of my posts work, others don't . No disrespect is intended.

The uncomfortable part is who might be defined as a domestic enemy? That is somewhat subjective and may play out along party lines. Saying a person or group is a domestic enemy could be Interpreted a way to get around the vote and majority rule. Jay

[Love Life]

They are a group of trained military professionals with a political motive that may or may not follow orders, and do not trust the govt. Do I need more key strokes than that to answer your question love life? Jay

No. you have responded to my point question with a direct answer.

I can understand you being uncomfortable about the group.

I'm not an oath keeper, but they (Oath Keepers) do not make me uncomfortable.

Understand that Oath Keepers are also in the police, Fire Fighters, and EMT.

Members who are no longer active are not required to fulfill the "and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

However, members who are active duty, and in all the Oath Keeper approved things must adhere to the above. Lawful orders must be followed or else you are an oath breaker. Unlawful orders may be questioned and not followed, but you better have your ducks in a row. To deviate from that is wrong. The oath goes both ways if you take it at face value. Now imagine if a constitutional amendment were added that banned ALL firearms from the civilian population. Those who swore the oath would have to make a very tough PERSONAL choice.

There are two kinds of orders jaystuw, as you well know from your experience. It's pretty black and white to be honest with you.

[Love Life]

Yes Rick! that was great fun. I was afraid some miss-steps on my part may have offended you as it did others. That thread was very fast paced and sometimes heated. Some of my posts work, others don't . No disrespect is intended.

The uncomfortable part is who might be defined as a domestic enemy? That is somewhat subjective and may play out along party lines. Saying a person or group is a domestic enemy could be Interpreted a way to get around the vote and majority rule. Jay

Your side (left) has already labeled the Oath Keepers and Veterans as possible domestic enemies...

Oh, and white conservative Christian Males are also enemies of the left as announced by the royals from on high.

[MBTcustom]

Hoo
hoo
who is jaystew?

Still just sitting on my limb. Still hearing that squeaking.

It will comfort you to know Jay, that you are far from being on my ignore list. Quite the opposite in fact.

[jaystuw]

Lots of stuff to answer. ok love life, leave out the follow orders part. Still more than enough to make me feel uncomfortable with the group


longranger and lovelife, I have the luxury of playing with my feelings. And for me, domestic enemies are a worry but not a deal breaker. We, the left, have the numbers and the vote. If you want things your own way, find some common ground with us. Jay

[Jammersix]

Sure, if they earned it.

You "earn" your shot by being born here. Talk about a low bar... So I assume you meant "if you earn a good life". That way, we can agree.

But it's the shot at a good life that matters, in my opinion.

[cricco]

Why are you guys still arguing with a fella who has clearly stated that he hates everything you stand for? I'm content to accept that he's just a sheep, and will forever be one. I would still defend him, and his right to be such a fool, but I won't continue to entertain him.

Matthew 7:6......."Do not give that which is holy to the dogs, and do not throw your pearls before hogs, lest they trample upon them with their feet and turn and tear you in pieces."

[Love Life]

find some common ground with us. Jay

Stop trying to crush my rights. Until then, common ground is minimal.

[Jammersix]

Why do the oath keepers make you uncomfortable? Do police, firefighters, and the military make you uncomfortable?

Authority.

If one is truly acting in my name, society will give him the authority to do so. That authority is symbolized in uniforms, badges, offices, jobs, warrants, commissions.

Authority is never present without proof.

And authority cannot be assumed without a legal path.

It is the potential for attempted assumption of authority that makes me uncomfortable.

[Love Life]

You "earn" your shot by being born here. Talk about a low bar... So I assume you meant "if you earn a good life". That way, we can agree.

But it's the shot at a good life that matters, in my opinion.

You get a shot by being born here. You earn a good life.

I should not be taking from you in order to better my life. You should not be taking from me in order to better your life. I will accept money from you for a product/service I provided which in turn will improve my life. Same for you getting money from me.

Now we may agree. All you deserve is the shot.

[Jammersix]

Now we may agree. All you deserve is the shot.

We agree. Everyone deserves the shot, and it was the shot portion of your statement I had an issue with.

[Love Life]

We agree. Everyone deserves the shot, and it was the shot portion of your statement I had an issue with.

There was no shot portion. Just a blanket "If they earned it."

You pointed out that further clarification was required because my general response covered two separate thingamabobs. I will be more clear in the future.

[cbrick]

The uncomfortable part is who might be defined as a domestic enemy? That is somewhat subjective and may play out along party lines.

Party lines? I would say so since the obummer administration has publicly stated that Veterans are domestic enemies and threats.

The only mindset that could possibly think like that is tyrannical government or a government that plans on becoming tyrannical.

Oath Keepers are those who swore an oath to defend The Constitution and there is no expiration date on that oath. By the tens of thousands these oath takers have given their lives in the defense of that document. That document is the single most important document ever written and to watch it go away for no better reason than it makes liberals/progressives/socialists feel all warm & fuzzy is at best nauseating and is the worst crime against freedom ever committed.


It will comfort you to know Jay, that you are far from being on my ignore list. Quite the opposite in fact.

Not to worry, liberals are a lot of fun. All you need to do to get them all riled up is say something that isn't what the Kool-Aid told them to think. Throw in a couple of facts and a little logic and watch them go . . . 97968

Rick

[cbrick]

We, the left, have the numbers and the vote. If you want things your own way, find some common ground with us. Jay

97970

I will patiently wait until the day after the November elections for you to post that statement again.

If you open your eyes you would notice that all across the country things are looking rather poor for the progressives even in progressive strongholds. Every day more and more people are beginning to see the progressives for what they really are. But odds are that you listen only to the alphabet news and I can assure you they will not tell you, they will only tell you that everything is peachy and conservatives are evil.

Rick

[Recluse]

We, the left, have the numbers and the vote.

And we have the guns, the veterans and the Constitution.

Care to guess how it will end up if you keep pushing us?

:coffee:

[jaystuw]

Goodsteel! your visit is somewhat unexpected, but not unanticipated. You my be pleased to know that never for a moment did I believe you would ignore me. A master hunter does not ignore a trophy, He watches ,waits and studies his prey.

You must continue to be patient goodsteel. The sqeaking mouse has evolved. gone are the reckless dashes, the unguarded moments. A far more careful mouse roams the forest floor. A more valued trophy awaits, but more time and effort will be needed on your part. I have no doubt that you are up to the task. Jay

[Love Life]

This thread has gone full retard.

[Alvarez Kelly]

This thread has gone full retard.
Lol! I'll agree with that!!

[jaystuw]

Ha Ha, an unguarded moment! come on, guys. You can give me that. Goodsteel and I have some history, infraction type history. His visit broke my stride, as his visits do. Hardly a time for me to leave. you might have me up against the ropes! Are we good? Jay

[cbrick]

Against the ropes Jay, we know better than that. You'll never admit that socialism at best is evil, the Kool-Aid is too strong. Doesn't mean that we can't have some fun with ya though does it?

Rick

[ShooterAZ]

Ha Ha, an unguarded moment! come on, guys. You can give me that. Goodsteel and I have some history, infraction type history. His visit broke my stride, as his visits do. Hardly a time for me to leave. you might have me up against the ropes! Are we good? Jay

Far from good. Guys, this character just revels in finding a controversial or political thread and then proceeds to poke the bear. He likes to spew his rhetoric and then he sits back and smiles seeing how many people he can rile up . Clearly he gets his jollies this way. His purpose has been recognized now though, and I'm sure will be dealt with accordingly.

[cbrick]

That is probably his goal but at least with me he fails miserably. I see progressives for exactly what they are but that is no reason not to poke him back and have some fun.

Rick

[jaystuw]

ShooterAz, Smiling and having Fun? Jeez. These threads are grueling and gut-wrenching for me. I like the guys here and hate some of the things I have to say. However, jammer correctly noted that I am a closet liberal that does not have the courage to stand up for his beliefs. You be the judge ShooterAz, In this situation, if you were me, would you stand up or stand down?



cbrick, I like your reply much better. The first one anyway!

[ShooterAZ]

Jay, it's all fun & games until our Veterans (and Police/Firefighters/ems) get poked in the eye. Not to mention the US Constitution. I think you need to pick your battles a little more carefully here. If you hate some of the things you have to say, why do you want to say them? Mixed emotions? Poking the bear? I'm not sure. If I were you, I would quit drinking the Kool Aid or whatever it is that you drink to want to rile up the whole forum. This truly has gone full retard, and at the expense of the people that are serving or have served this great nation. Please show some respect.

[Love Life]

Fighting for what you believe in is always honorable. Doesn't matter what side, as long as you are willing to fight for what you believe in. The stronger will win and the histories will be written.

[jaystuw]

Thanks love life, I needed that.

ShooterAZ. This is a carefully picked battle and it is at the expense of no one. jammer and I were both infantry soldiers, many here are veterans. No disrespect is intended towards anyone. It is only a chance to see both sides of the same coin. Jay

[ShooterAZ]

OK Jay. I respect your beliefs, but obviously don't agree with all of them. Thanks for your service and God Bless.

[Jammersix]

However, jammer correctly noted that I am a closet liberal that does not have the courage to stand up for his beliefs.

This one thread has changed that impression. :)

We're out in the cold on a semi-permanent basis. My lovely wife and her colleagues, genuine Ivory-tower, highly educated, scientific, Ivy League, ACLU card carrying liberals, consider me a far right gun owning whack job. But gun owners consider me a flower child, because I vote to the left of George Wallace.

I'm used to it, and content myself with my own company. :)

And as you pointed out, not all veterans are right wingers, not all gun owners are Republicans. It would be best for all if force never entered into it, and we have a system where rhetoric is more important than rifles. It's not us or them, unless someone wants it to be. If you do, and you act on it, you end up locked up.

If you don't act on it, I don't see a point to the oath keepers, which is what this thread is about.

Not to mention the obvious-- an enlisted oath keeper could end up with a real problem when he disobeys an order.

[MT Gianni]

This has run it's course, time to close the show down.