Manhunt On For Ex-Marine Oathkeeper Accused Of Rape

[The_Dude 1,142]

When you were in the military did you ever question any orders?

Keep in mind, it's not illegal to disobey unlawful orders. As a matter of fact, a military member is obligated to disobey unlawful orders.

Maybe you didn't read what I posted. Read it again, and try again. Maybe take a few law courses to familiarize yourself with the contitution, bill of rights and other important documents. Then maybe you'd be qualified to actually determine what is or is not constitutional. Until then, you should not be fomenting treason within the military. Have you begin your visajourney to Somalia yet?

Yes. That's why he's a bigot. Read the definition of what a bigot is and then ask yourself why the sheriff sees that group as something other than they are. Oathkeepers does not support treason. Read my post above. It's not treasonous to disobey unlawful orders.

Your attempt at an insult by comparing oathkeepers to appleseed nutjobs is a poor one since both groups are neither supportive of treasonous activities or nutjobs. I guess you have problems with people who support and defend the constitution? No worries. You're far from alone. The majority of americans don't like it when people do that either. The government (and sheriff in this case) absolutely abhor the practice.

OH, so your contention is that they are not an extremist group. I think supporting treason in the military if they don't agree (in their unqualified opinion) with orders would fit that bill, despite your contention that they don't.

[slim 1,525]

Maybe you didn't read what I posted. Read it again, and try again. Maybe take a few law courses to familiarize yourself with the contitution, bill of rights and other important documents. Then maybe you'd be qualified to actually determine what is or is not constitutional. Until then, you should not be fomenting treason within the military. Have you begin your visajourney to Somalia yet?

You're so close to actually making real posts. Way to switch it from "you're a criminal with reading comprehension problems" to insinuating that I, nor anyone in the military, is qualified to make decisions on the legality of the orders they're given.

Perhaps you should apply your vast knowledge of the UCMJ and take your military experience into account before jumping to conclusions about the constitutionality of orders military members are required to obey. While you're at it, why don't you re-up your commitment to supporting and defending the constitution itself? Say, through an organization like Oathkeepers?

OH, so your contention is that they are not an extremist group. I think supporting treason in the military if they don't agree (in their unqualified opinion) with orders would fit that bill, despite your contention that they don't.

You keep saying treason and then you keep saying I have the reading problems and/or misunderstanding of the constitution.

I'll repeat what I posted since you obviously missed it last time. Oathkeepers do not advocate treason.

Before you get your panties in a bunch (again) and post something about my comprehension level (again) why not familiarize yourself with -

1. The US Constitution

2. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)

3. The Oathkeepers organization

After that... maybe we can talk a little more about this subject.

[The_Dude 1,142]

You're so close to actually making real posts. Way to switch it from "you're a criminal with reading comprehension problems" to insinuating that I, nor anyone in the military, is qualified to make decisions on the legality of the orders they're given.

Perhaps you should apply your vast knowledge of the UCMJ and take your military experience into account before jumping to conclusions about the constitutionality of orders military members are required to obey. While you're at it, why don't you re-up your commitment to supporting and defending the constitution itself? Say, through an organization like Oathkeepers?

You keep saying treason and then you keep saying I have the reading problems and/or misunderstanding of the constitution.

I'll repeat what I posted since you obviously missed it last time. Oathkeepers do not advocate treason.

Before you get your panties in a bunch (again) and post something about my comprehension level (again) why not familiarize yourself with -

1. The US Constitution

2. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)

3. The Oathkeepers organization

After that... maybe we can talk a little more about this subject.

Sorry Slim, I don't support domestic terrorist organizations like Oathkeepers or appleseed movement.

But we can bring your reading comprehension into question again. I will ask, Slim, where in your educational background are you qualified to analyze what is or is not constitutional? I think we've seen how well soldiers interpretation of what is not? How did that fight go for Major Cook when he challenged the constitutional merit of his orders? Oh, it turns out he was wrong and a dumbass to boot. Sound familiar?

This is much like one of your co-workers at McDonalds challenging supply chain strategy from the corporate office.

[slim 1,525]

Sorry Slim, I don't support domestic terrorist organizations like Oathkeepers or appleseed movement.

Please explain to me how either one of those are terrorist organizations.

But we can bring your reading comprehension into question again. I will ask, Slim, where in your educational background are you qualified to analyze what is or is not constitutional?

What qualifies someone to analyze a simple document?

I think we've seen how well soldiers interpretation of what is not? How did that fight go for Major Cook when he challenged the constitutional merit of his orders? Oh, it turns out he was wrong and a dumbass to boot. Sound familiar?

Wow. And you want to say I have problems with legal documents.

Maj. Cook didn't challenge the orders, he challenged the authority of the commander-in-chief to issue orders.

This is much like one of your co-workers at McDonalds challenging supply chain strategy from the corporate office.

Nice! Almost got another insult in there but, once again, wrong.

This would be like one of my co-workers at McDonald's disobeying an order to poison food because the manager doesn't like a certain group of customers.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Please explain to me how either one of those are terrorist organizations.

The fact that they openly entice treason?

What qualifies someone to analyze a simple document?

Expertise? Knowledge?

Wow. And you want to say I have problems with legal documents.

Maj. Cook didn't challenge the orders, he challenged the authority of the commander-in-chief to issue orders.

He was challenging the authenticity of his orders since it originated from someone he deemed not to be the rightful commander in chief. It is an example of someone ignorant of the facts trying to analyze something they had no business doing.

Nice! Almost got another insult in there but, once again, wrong.

This would be like one of my co-workers at McDonald's disobeying an order to poison food because the manager doesn't like a certain group of customers.

Slim, your analogy is cute, but off base. What you seem to neglect is the fact taht soldiers lack the requisite understanding to be qualified to challenge an order on the basis of its constitutional merit. Maybe someone from the JAG office could.

[slim 1,525]

The fact that they openly entice treason?

Neither organization openly entices treason. As a matter of fact, both specifically state they're not anti-government.

Expertise? Knowledge?

Is that what you need to read the newspaper? Because, seriously, the constitution isn't exactly a hard document to read and understand. It's pretty straightforward and easier than most newspapers in print today.

He was challenging the authenticity of his orders since it originated from someone he deemed not to be the rightful commander in chief. It is an example of someone ignorant of the facts trying to analyze something they had no business doing.

No, this is an example of someone challening the birthplace of Barack Obama.

If you do a little research on the oathkeepers, you'll notice they don't advise disobeying orders because of WHO ordered them, but moreover because of what the orders are. If you're not sure, it's specifically outlined on their websites. I'm not saying you could understand them, but perhaps someone you know could explain what they mean.

I'd also like to remind you once again... disobeying an order that is illegal is not treason. It's not terrorism either. I know this is hard for you to comprehend, but service members (and LE) are supposed to uphold the constitution and defend it, not just follow all orders they're given.

Slim, your analogy is cute, but off base. What you seem to neglect is the fact taht soldiers lack the requisite understanding to be qualified to challenge an order on the basis of its constitutional merit. Maybe someone from the JAG office could.

So they're qualified to kill people but not understand a simple document?

Are you really going with that as your argument? If so, are cops any better? They're allowed to kill people too. Do you really want people out there "protecting us" carrying guns and shooting at people though they lack the basic understanding of simple documents?

Believe it or not, the constitution can be clearly understood by anyone and not just government representatives. A JAG officer is no more qualified to interpret the constitution than the basic grunt on the line.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Neither organization openly entices treason. As a matter of fact, both specifically state they're not anti-government.

Well that settles it, slim says so, so they aren't. Too bad your litmus test isn't the standard.

Is that what you need to read the newspaper? Because, seriously, the constitution isn't exactly a hard document to read and understand. It's pretty straightforward and easier than most newspapers in print today.

There is no qualification to read the newspaper slim. But if you wanted to be able to competently and intelligently analyze and comment on it, you would need knowledge or expertise. Nice attempt to deflect though.

No, this is an example of someone challening the birthplace of Barack Obama.

If you do a little research on the oathkeepers, you'll notice they don't advise disobeying orders because of WHO ordered them, but moreover because of what the orders are. If you're not sure, it's specifically outlined on their websites. I'm not saying you could understand them, but perhaps someone you know could explain what they mean.

I'd also like to remind you once again... disobeying an order that is illegal is not treason. It's not terrorism either. I know this is hard for you to comprehend, but service members (and LE) are supposed to uphold the constitution and defend it, not just follow all orders they're given.

Slim, I have tried to be nice, but you don't seem to get it. You are not intelligent enough to grasp the context and original intent of the 2nd amendment. What makes you think that you, or your ilk has the capacity and expertise to be able to do the work of a constitutional scholar? Despite what Paul has been telling everyone, just because you read a few blogs doesnt' mean you are qualified as a constitutional scholar.

So they're qualified to kill people but not understand a simple document?

It's a simple document, yet you seem to fail at every turn when reading it.

Are you really going with that as your argument? If so, are cops any better? They're allowed to kill people too. Do you really want people out there "protecting us" carrying guns and shooting at people though they lack the basic understanding of simple documents?

Cops don't interpret the law, they enforce it, simple memorization of a big book. It takes time, but I have faith that even you could memorize it. There is no analysis on their part. Nice try again to deflect.

Believe it or not, the constitution can be clearly understood by anyone and not just government representatives. A JAG officer is no more qualified to interpret the constitution than the basic grunt on the line.

Maybe in broad strokes you can understand it, but the ability to interpret and analyze it is a bit beyond your grasp.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Well that settles it, slim says so, so they aren't. Too bad your litmus test isn't the standard.

There is no qualification to read the newspaper slim. But if you wanted to be able to competently and intelligently analyze and comment on it, you would need knowledge or expertise. Nice attempt to deflect though.

Slim, I have tried to be nice, but you don't seem to get it. You are not intelligent enough to grasp the context and original intent of the 2nd amendment. What makes you think that you, or your ilk has the capacity and expertise to be able to do the work of a constitutional scholar? Despite what Paul has been telling everyone, just because you read a few blogs doesnt' mean you are qualified as a constitutional scholar.

How is it that you don't get banned...or even thread banned for that matter after making insult after insult on here ? Amazing isn't it.

It's a simple document, yet you seem to fail at every turn when reading it.

Cops don't interpret the law, they enforce it, simple memorization of a big book. It takes time, but I have faith that even you could memorize it. There is no analysis on their part. Nice try again to deflect.

Maybe in broad strokes you can understand it, but the ability to interpret and analyze it is a bit beyond your grasp.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

It is a violation of the TOS to make personal attacks at other VJ members. Discuss the article and its contents; you can find ways to disagree that don't include personal attacks, either direct or indirect. One member has been thread-banned.

[slim 1,525]

Well that settles it, slim says so, so they aren't. Too bad your litmus test isn't the standard.

Is your Big Brother adding these organizations to the terror watch list? Last time I checked, both of them were non-profits that event the government has approved of. You can't get a much better endorsement than Uncle Sam!

There is no qualification to read the newspaper slim. But if you wanted to be able to competently and intelligently analyze and comment on it, you would need knowledge or expertise. Nice attempt to deflect though.

Slim, I have tried to be nice, but you don't seem to get it. You are not intelligent enough to grasp the context and original intent of the 2nd amendment. What makes you think that you, or your ilk has the capacity and expertise to be able to do the work of a constitutional scholar? Despite what Paul has been telling everyone, just because you read a few blogs doesnt' mean you are qualified as a constitutional scholar.

So.... the litmus test that is the US Government isn't good enough for you?

It's a simple document, yet you seem to fail at every turn when reading it.

Is that why the rulings of SCOTUS are in line with my views? Huh. You'd think if I misunderstood something the SCOTUS rulings would differ from my views. Funny that they don't. Care to explain that one?

Cops don't interpret the law, they enforce it, simple memorization of a big book. It takes time, but I have faith that even you could memorize it. There is no analysis on their part. Nice try again to deflect.

So cops are smart enough to memorize a big book (but not competent enough to interpret it) and the military isn't smart enough to memorize the constitution?

Maybe in broad strokes you can understand it, but the ability to interpret and analyze it is a bit beyond your grasp.

You keep posting stuff like this but I keep posting PROOF that not only do I understand it, the SCOTUS has upheld it. Are you sure you don't want to try a different approach? This one doesn't seem to be working for you.