Oath Keepers is now officially a "terrorist" organization

[tangent4ronpaul]

Veterans Group Behind Pro-Snowden Billboards Now Forming Militia Cells
'Training cadres' necessary, leader says, because 'we see a severe weakness in the American people'

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/10/04/veterans-group-behind-pro-snowden-billboards-now-forming-militia-cells

http://www.usnews.com/pubdbimages/image/53923/Widemodern_MetroAd_130816620x413.jpg

The anti-surveillance veterans group Oath Keepers rolled out a call-to-arms this week to its 30,000 dues-paying members, urging them to activate into small "civilization preservation" cells modeled on special operations units in the U.S. military.

Stewart Rhodes, the Army veteran and Yale-educated lawyer who founded Oath Keepers in 2009, told U.S. News his organization has received an outpouring of enthusiasm since making the call.

"It's the right time for it," he said. "We have been kind of lax and negligent in our duties of citizenship."

A majority of Oath Keepers members are military veterans, but it also includes current and former police and first responders. It earned national attention during the summer with billboards supporting National Security Agency whistle-blower Edward Snowden. "Snowden honored his oath," the ads said. "Honor yours! Stop Big Brother!"

Rhodes lives in Montana with several Oath Keepers colleagues, but he says the group has members in all 50 states. His vision is for chapters to serve as relief teams during natural disasters and community defense units during times of civil unrest.

The cells, and their laundry list of community-securing objectives, are necessary because of an impending economic collapse, possibly caused by devaluation of the dollar, leaders of Oath Keepers say.

"The reason why we are doing this right now is because we see a severe weakness in the American people and their capacity to absorb the kind of civil disruption that would be in the wake of catastrophic economic collapse," Rhodes said.

The Oath Keepers cells, Rhodes added, will serve as "training cadres" that emulate special forces units – whose "main purpose is to train the local population in how to provide their own security and to help lead them," he said. "We're doing it within our own chapters, but the main point it to lead by example, to have a working model so that other organizations – whether it's a neighborhood watch or veterans organizations – can do the same thing."

According to a member alert posted to the Oath Keepers website, cells will have a local government team to "draft and introduce militia bills, posse bills, and nullification bills, among other items to support liberty" and another sub-group to "[make] sure the local sheriff is a 'constitutional sheriff' who understands the Constitution and the duty to defend it."

"We urge you to presume the worst in the short term, and to work in three or four month sprints – assume that a collapse will be triggered this fall/winter and do all you can to get yourselves and your communities ready," Rhodes says in the online post.

The group has some detractors. Aside from a few irate Pentagon workers who didn't appreciate the pro-leaking ads, the Southern Poverty Law Center – which keeps an eye on domestic extremists – dubs Rhodes "one of the Ivy League's most conspiratorial minds."

-t

[tod evans]

The propaganda arm the SPLC is against it so he's doing something right...

[vita3]

Pretty sharp oathkeeper sign.

[69360]

SPLC is a hate group.

[phill4paul]

@doingsomethingright

[Brett85]

But these guys are former members of the military and police, AKA "government workers," so they must be evil. ;)

[tod evans]

TC,

I'm a veteran.

[Brett85]

TC,

I'm a veteran.

Good, then I'm not talking about you. I'm just not sure how the people here who are so strongly anti military and anti police could possibly support an organization composed of former police officers and former members of the military. And I would assume that this group also includes current members of the police and the military.

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

But these guys are former members of the military and police, AKA "government workers," so they must be evil. ;)

They've all repented for their criminal behavior of not keeping their oaths to not enforce unconstitutional statutes. Perhaps their victims will forgive them and not seek compensation for their damages.

[Brett85]

They've all repented for their criminal behavior of not keeping their oaths to not enforce unconstitutional statutes.

But have they ever said that they were wrong to even be a member of the military or the police?

[tod evans]

Good, then I'm not talking about you. I'm just not sure how the people here who are so strongly anti military and anti police could possibly support an organization composed of former police officers and former members of the military. And I would assume that this group also includes current members of the police and the military.

I could never belong for the simple reason I am morally and ethically at odds with many of their members current behaviors.

However, that doesn't stop me from acknowledging when they do something I agree with.

[JK/SEA]

But have they ever said that they were wrong to even be a member of the military or the police?

c'mon..quit being obtuse. You know damn well that nothing is that 'black and white'..

do i really have to explain?...geeez.

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

But have they ever said that they were wrong to even be a member of the military or the police?

I haven't looked that closely at the Oath Keepers but I would imagine that coming to grips with the fact that they are members of an unconstitutional permanent military system is way too traditionally conservative for most of them. If they've ever confronted the fact at all, I would imagine their responses would be something like the blank stare I received from you after I cited several state bills of rights that enumerate the ancient right of the people to be free from armed government gangs.

But I wouldn't fault anyone for remaining or even becoming a member of the illegal standing government armies in our midst as long as they admitted what they were doing and worked from within to render the government's armed gangs less murderous and less terroristic.

[Brett85]

If they've ever confronted the fact at all, I would imagine their responses would be something like the blank stare I received from you after I cited several state bills of rights that enumerate the ancient right of the people to be free from armed government gangs.

I'm not always able to respond to every post that people make. Those statutes prohibited "standing armies" from operating in their state, and there isn't any judge who's going to agree that police officers are equivalent to "an army."

[Feeding the Abscess]

Makes it all the more pathetic that they pulled out their knives on Adam Kokesh, WHEN THE SAME GOD DAMN SHIT CAN BE SAID ABOUT THEM.

Fuck them and the horse they rode in on. When Oath Keepers goes anarchist I'll give a shit. Otherwise, they're nothing but massive tools for the state - blustery rhetoric, making them easy to target as 'terrorist' and whatever else, all while supporting the very document that gave us the government we have.

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

I'm not always able to respond to every post that people make. Those statutes prohibited "standing armies" from operating in their state, and there isn't any judge who's going to agree that police officers are equivalent to "an army."

I don't think the Oath Keepers rely on judges to their thinking for them about constitutional matters.

[Brian4Liberty]

Rhodes lives in Montana with several Oath Keepers colleagues, but he says the group has members in all 50 states. His vision is for chapters to serve as relief teams during natural disasters and community defense units during times of civil unrest.

Does Rhodes ever use the word "cells", or is that just propaganda from the SPLC?

[Brett85]

I don't think the Oath Keepers rely on judges to their thinking for them about constitutional matters.

So you're saying that the Oath Keepers support abolishing the police and view the police as being a "standing army?"

[torchbearer]

They've all repented for their criminal behavior of not keeping their oaths to not enforce unconstitutional statutes. Perhaps their victims will forgive them and not seek compensation for their damages.

I am full of forgiveness. Any pig who renounces the blue brotherhood becomes clean again.

[torchbearer]

So you're saying that the Oath Keepers support abolishing the police and view the police as being a "standing army?"

local PDs are being militarized by federal funds.
it seems every department is becoming a standing army for the federal government.
I service technology equipment in these agencies. I can confirm this to be the case.

[Brett85]

Fuck them and the horse they rode in on. When Oath Keepers goes anarchist I'll give a shit. Otherwise, they're nothing but massive tools for the state - blustery rhetoric, making them easy to target as 'terrorist' and whatever else, all while supporting the very document that gave us the government we have.

Thanks. At least you're being consistent. Other anarchists are strangely supporting a group that's in favor of keeping a "standing army," aka the police.

[Brian4Liberty]

As I thought. The Oath Keepers never use the term "cells". This is just inflammatory, pejorative and defamatory language from the SPLC hate group.

"OMG , the Cub Scouts are organizing into cells!"


Oath Keepers is instructing its 30,000 members nation-wide to form up special teams and sub-teams in each Oath Keepers chapter, at the town and county level, modeled loosely on the Special Forces “A Team” (Operational Detachment A ) model, and for a similar purpose: to be both a potential operational unit for community security and support during crisis, but also, as mission #1, to serve as training and leadership cadre, to assist in organizing neighborhood watches, organizing veterans halls to provide community civil defense, forming County Sheriff Posses, strengthening existing CERT, volunteer fire, search-and-rescue, reserve deputy systems, etc., and eventually to assist in forming and training town and county militias (established by official act of town and county elected representatives). We want our chapters to organize themselves as a working model that we can then take to other veterans organizations, such as the VFW, American Legion, Marine Corps League, etc. in each town and help them establish such teams within their already existing veterans halls. And likewise, to serve as a model and training cadre to help churches, neighborhood watches, and any other civic organization organize.

We are basing this on the Special Forces model, which has a twelve man “A team” of specially trained soldiers who are inserted into a community to train and lead that community in resistance to oppressive regimes (hence their motto: “De Oppresso Liber). SF’s primary mission is to teach, organize, and lead, rather than to directly fight. They can fight, of course, but they are most dangerous as a force-multiplier by helping an entire community to fight. We will do the same – be force multipliers to help prepare communities so they can preserve civilization by providing their own security, disaster relief, infrastructure preservation, emergency communications, strategic food reserve, and medical care.

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2013/10/01/oath-keepers-is-going-operational-by-forming-special-civilization-preservation-teams/

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

So you're saying that the Oath Keepers support abolishing the police and view the police as being a "standing army?"

Wow, you're reading comprehension and/or reasoning capabilities are questionable. I repeat:


I would imagine that coming to grips with the fact that they are members of an unconstitutional permanent military system is way too traditionally conservative for most of them. If they've ever confronted the fact at all, I would imagine their responses would be something like the blank stare I received from you after I cited several state bills of rights that enumerate the ancient right of the people to be free from armed government gangs.

Times have changed. Traditions from 200 years ago are considered too "old fashioned" by most people--even by those who label themselves "traditionalists" and "conservatives".

Since the Oath Keepers don't rely on judges to define what the meaning of "shall not be infringed" is--for instance--I wouldn't expect them to respond to the fact that they are or were members of an unconstitutional gang the way you did by appealing to judges definitions.

How you conclude from that, that the Oath Keepers have confronted the issue of the unconstitutionality of the police and taken a position on it is beyond me.

[Brett85]

How you conclude from that, that the Oath Keepers have confronted the issue of the unconstitutionality of the police and taken a position on it is beyond me.

They obviously have taken a position on it, otherwise they wouldn't claim to be an organization that claims to support the Constitution while also having members of their group who are actually police officers.

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

...all while supporting the very document that gave us the government we have.

Even though Spooner pointed out in 1870 that the Constitution had been powerless to prevent the despotic government that had then arisen, he nontheless had spent a lot of time earlier pointing out that the government was in violation of the constitution regarding slavery for instance and continued to point out these inconsistencies and hypocrisy of the government (e.g. check out his discussion about the Constitution's "obligation of contracts" clause in his Letter to Cleveland 1888 which was his 80 page testament to his own life's work).

If the Oath Keepers are beginning to open their eyes to certain hypocrisies in government policy vis-a-vis their oaths to support the federal and state constitutions, then hopefully they'll read further and learn about a whole bunch of other important rights of the people.

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

They obviously have taken a position on it, otherwise they wouldn't claim to be an organization that claims to support the Constitution while also having members of their group who are actually police officers.

You are obtuse. And probably not maliciously I'm beginning to suspect.

[noneedtoaggress]

But these guys are former members of the military and police, AKA "government workers," so they must be evil. ;)

Many of the voluntarists I know are veterans. Why would you even respond this way when no one has even made this argument in the thread?

How does an "anarchist" who now condemns the socialist institution they were formerly a part of, whether military or police (I've known both), fit into your response? Are you offended by the very few people who can't separate individuals from the institutions they are/were a part of to the point that you have to initiate it into the conversation?

[Brett85]

How does an "anarchist" who now condemns the socialist institution they were formerly a part of, whether military or police (I've known both), fit into your response?

They don't "condemn" these institutions. That's the point. Their purpose is to get these institutions to uphold their Constitutional oath, not to abolish these institutions.

[Christian Liberty]

But these guys are former members of the military and police, AKA "government workers," so they must be evil. ;)

I think that's a little bit of a stawman of the pure anti-state position. I believe that the military and police are tools for evil. I seriously doubt there's anyone in the military who isn't. Laurence Vance has written excellent articles of why even military chaplains and medics are ultimately statist gang members and are still wrong.

But to call them all "evil"? What do you mean? They're pawns for an evil state, yes. I do believe some of them are true Christians, and thus not seen as evil in God's eyes. I believe they're sinning if they follow immoral orders, but nonetheless, Christ has paid for their sins just as he has my own. If you mean that they are inherently aggressive, I'd say this is often the case. Although not necessarily always. But the thing is, you don't KNOW if they're going to order you to be an aggressor or not, so you have to assume they will and as such have nothing to do with them.


I'm not always able to respond to every post that people make. Those statutes prohibited "standing armies" from operating in their state, and there isn't any judge who's going to agree that police officers are equivalent to "an army."

So what? Does this make the judges correct?

Makes it all the more pathetic that they pulled out their knives on Adam Kokesh, WHEN THE SAME GOD DAMN SHIT CAN BE SAID ABOUT THEM.

Fuck them and the horse they rode in on. When Oath Keepers goes anarchist I'll give a shit. Otherwise, they're nothing but massive tools for the state - blustery rhetoric, making them easy to target as 'terrorist' and whatever else, all while supporting the very document that gave us the government we have.

Even as an ancap.... the constitution did NOT give us the government we currently have. That's insane. Idiots gave us the government we currently have. Period.


Thanks. At least you're being consistent. Other anarchists are strangely supporting a group that's in favor of keeping a "standing army," aka the police.

I support any good they do, and oppose any bad they do. Beyond that, I don't know much about them.

[noneedtoaggress]

They don't "condemn" these institutions. That's the point. Their purpose is to get these institutions to uphold their Constitutional oath, not to abolish these institutions.

TC, please re-read my post. You seem to have read "How does an Oathkeeper who now condemns the socialist institution [...]" which isn't what I wrote.

[Christian Liberty]

If we only worked with people who believed exactly the same thing as us, we'd be useless. It makes sense to work with those who agree with us when it is mutually beneficial for us to do so, even if they disagree with us on other issues or wouldn't go as far as we would in the same direction. We've got to keep our eyes on the ball.

[XNavyNuke]

But have they ever said that they were wrong to even be a member of the military or the police?

:p

[Brett85]

TC, please re-read my post. You seem to have read "How does an Oathkeeper who now condemns the socialist institution [...]" which isn't what I wrote.

Yeah, my mistake. I just wrote my initial comment because in the other long thread we have going on, it was basically about how the police are evil and shouldn't exist. It just seems strange to me that anarchists actually support a group composed of former police officers and current police officers.

[noneedtoaggress]

Even as an ancap.... the constitution did NOT give us the government we currently have. That's insane. Idiots gave us the government we currently have. Period.

He wasn't trying to make the point you're arguing against, which is that the constitution explicitly established the government in it's current form.

[Christian Liberty]

He wasn't trying to make the point you're arguing against, which is that the constitution explicitly established the government in it's current form.

I don't see how the constitution is responsible for allowing it either, though. The clear wording of the text rejects it. If the statist's favorite article, the "necessary and proper" clause, really meant what they think it means, the 10th amendment would clearly have overridden it. So there's simply no way, shape, or form in which the Constitution is responsible for the monstrous state we have. Period. If there are enough idiots who want tyranny they will get it, no matter what constitution we try to use to prevent them from getting it. Even if we start with anarchy, if enough idiots are willing to fight for tyranny, they will get it.

[noneedtoaggress]

Yeah, my mistake. I just wrote my initial comment because in the other long thread we have going on, it was basically about how the police are evil and shouldn't exist. It just seems strange to me that anarchists actually support a group composed of former police officers and current police officers.

It's the same problem you're accusing people of.

Police as an institution = coercive socialist institution which shouldn't exist.

Policemen as individuals = individuals security guards who should be beholden to natural law instead of an authoritarian monopoly.

I hope this makes sense.

[Brett85]

Apparently, at least one member agrees with my point, who gave me a +rep and said this:

"Yeah, I am active duty it is really hypocritical of forum members."

[Cabal]

Even as an ancap.... the constitution did NOT give us the government we currently have. That's insane. Idiots gave us the government we currently have. Period.


http://www.rugusavay.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Lysander-Spooner-Quotes-1.jpg

[noneedtoaggress]

I don't see how the constitution is responsible for allowing it either, though. The clear wording of the text rejects it. If the statist's favorite article, the "necessary and proper" clause, really meant what they think it means, the 10th amendment would clearly have overridden it. So there's simply no way, shape, or form in which the Constitution is responsible for the monstrous state we have. Period. If there are enough idiots who want tyranny they will get it, no matter what constitution we try to use to prevent them from getting it. Even if we start with anarchy, if enough idiots are willing to fight for tyranny, they will get it.

The other half of that spooner quote was about it being powerless to prevent it. You're right that both the Constitution and statelessness require a critical mass of support to function, but the Constitution is at a disadvantage because it establishes an centralized power monopoly which subverts economic forces.

[Christian Liberty]

If I met the me from three years ago, I would call myself evil to my face. Just saying.

Maybe some former cops and military regret what they did?

[Brett85]

If I met the me from three years ago, I would call myself evil to my face. Just saying.

Maybe some former cops and military regret what they did?

But do these former cops and military actually regret being a cop or being a soldier? Or do they just regret certain actions they took while they were a police officer or a soldier?

[Christian Liberty]

http://www.rugusavay.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Lysander-Spooner-Quotes-1.jpg


The other half of that spooner quote was about it being powerless to prevent it. You're right that both the Constitution and statelessness require a critical mass of support to function, but the Constitution is at a disadvantage because it establishes an centralized power monopoly which subverts economic forces.

Yeah, I mostly agree with you guys. The Constitution was a mistake. But its still not in any sense responsible for the massive government we have today.

Constitutionalism would at least be a step in the right direction.

[Christian Liberty]

But do these former cops and military actually regret being a cop or being a soldier? Or do they just regret certain actions they took while they were a police officer of a soldier?

I don't know. It probably depends on the particular individual. I'm just saying there's a little more to this than "They're hypocrites."

Also, its possible to support abolition of the government without taking the position that its necessarily always wrong to work in the government. I don't believe that its wrong to work in the government if you can do it without committing aggression. (Taking money from the State is basically stealing from the thieves, as Walter Block puts it, and I see nothing wrong with that.) I do believe that people who commit aggression are wrong even if its legal.

[Cabal]

Constitutionalism would at least be a step in the right direction.

The problem here is that constitutionalism is still supportive of statism; so it's not only missing the root, but it's actually diverting the attention from the real problem, and placing it somewhere else. It's doesn't matter how "small" the centralized monopoly of force is, it's still a centralized monopoly of force. Constitutionalist types seem to think that if we could just hit the reset button, everything would be fine, and we'd have this ideal utopian minarchy. All we have to do is look at history to know that this isn't true, and has only ever been a fantasy. Even at the time of its inception the State it established proceeded to do some crazy shit in its name, and then we have 100s of years of evidence where this minarchist dream State established by the constitution has grown into the most powerful, largest, and among the most destructive States in the history of man, despite 100s of years of opposition to the growth of said State. What, do you think this generation is the first to have been against the growth of government? People have been trying to shrink the State for as long as it has existed, but it's the State... it's not meant to shrink, it's not designed to shrink. No one centralizes a monopoly on force with a intention for that force to be impotent.

[noneedtoaggress]

But do these former cops and military actually regret being a cop or being a soldier? Or do they just regret certain actions they took while they were a police officer or a soldier?

Certain actions = Following orders of a socialist monopoly that perverts the function of security for it's own benefit.

You're talking about not regretting being a security agent whose purpose is to establish a secure environment which people can peacefully interact.

Security is positive and necessary for any sort of society and they shouldn't regret that aspect.

It's the way it's been monopolized in coercive socialist institutions that's problematic. The security industry becomes the standing army of a socialist organization which monopolizes on law, disregarding natural law in order to exploit it's subjects.

[Brett85]

Certain actions = Following orders of a socialist monopoly that perverts the function of security for it's own benefit.

You're talking about not regretting being a security agent whose purpose is to establish a secure environment which people can peacefully interact.

Security is positive and necessary for any sort of society and they shouldn't regret that aspect.

It's the way it's been monopolized in coercive socialist institutions that's problematic. The security industry becomes the standing army of a socialist organization which monopolizes on law, disregarding natural law in order to exploit it's subjects.

My point is that "Oath Keepers" is not an anarchist organization, but just an organization that promotes Constitutional principles.

[Antischism]

"Oath Keepers" can fuck off. I don't need another gang of pigs patrolling the streets in the name of a document that I never signed and should have no authority. Where were these assholes during the Bush years? Probably fighting against the "Evil Muslims" and racially profiling people on the streets. They're a bunch of shitty, John Birch Society/Koch Brothers-loving opportunists. They don't give a fuck about your average citizen. If you think they do, you're very much mistaken. They're agenda-driven and love their power trips.

I won't be fooled again. I won't buy into the fear-mongering.

[noneedtoaggress]

Apparently, at least one member agrees with my point, who gave me a +rep and said this:

"Yeah, I am active duty it is really hypocritical of forum members."

I'd agree with your point too. People are more complex than than lumping them into a good/evil dichotomy at all. In fact, I'd even say that you should apply your point into even more of your views. No one was making the argument that you were criticizing in this thread, you brought it up.

[Christian Liberty]

The problem here is that constitutionalism is still supportive of statism; so it's not only missing the root, but it's actually diverting the attention from the real problem, and placing it somewhere else. It's doesn't matter how "small" the centralized monopoly of force is, it's still a centralized monopoly of force. Constitutionalist types seem to think that if we could just hit the reset button, everything would be fine, and we'd have this ideal utopian minarchy. All we have to do is look at history to know that this isn't true, and has only ever been a fantasy. Even at the time of its inception the State it established proceeded to do some crazy shit in its name, and then we have 100s of years of evidence where this minarchist dream State established by the constitution has grown into the most powerful, largest, and among the most destructive States in the history of man, despite 100s of years of opposition to the growth of said State. What, do you think this generation is the first to have been against the growth of government? People have been trying to shrink the State for as long as it has existed, but it's the State... it's not meant to shrink, it's not designed to shrink. No one centralizes a monopoly on force with a intention for that force to be impotent.

Ultimately, I agree with you. But I have no objection to using everything we've got to fight against statism, including working with constititutionalists at times.

I don't think anyone would accuse Murray Rothbard of not being sufficiently radical, yet he got involved in politics when he felt it suited his agenda to do so.

[AuH20]

"Oath Keepers" can fuck off. I don't need another gang of pigs patrolling the streets in the name of a document that I never signed and should have no authority. Where were these assholes during the Bush years? Probably fighting against the "Evil Muslims" and racially profiling people on the streets. They're a bunch of shitty, John Birch Society/Koch Brothers-loving opportunists. They don't give a fuck about your average citizen. If you think they do, you're very much mistaken. They're agenda-driven and love their power trips.

I won't be fooled again. I won't buy into the fear-mongering.

ROFL ROFL!!!!!

[noneedtoaggress]

My point is that "Oath Keepers" is not an anarchist organization, but just an organization that promotes Constitutional principles.

In other words, what I say is irrelevant as far as you're concerned. You don't really want to talk about the points you're bringing up or discuss perspectives, you simply want to explain your view of the organization (and make snarky responses to arguments that weren't brought up after being offended by some anti-statist at some other point).

[Brett85]

"Oath Keepers" can fuck off. I don't need another gang of pigs patrolling the streets in the name of a document that I never signed and should have no authority. Where were these assholes during the Bush years? Probably fighting against the "Evil Muslims" and racially profiling people on the streets. They're a bunch of shitty, John Birch Society/Koch Brothers-loving opportunists. They don't give a fuck about your average citizen. If you think they do, you're very much mistaken. They're agenda-driven and love their power trips.

I won't be fooled again. I won't buy into the fear-mongering.

This is exactly what I was talking about. What the Oath Keepers do and their goal is not consistent with anarchism.

[Brett85]

In other words, what I say is irrelevant as far as you're concerned. You don't really want to talk about the points you're bringing up or discuss perspectives, you simply want to explain your view of the organization (and how offended you've been by some anti-statist).

You're arguing in favor of anarchy or anarcho capitalism or whatever you want to call it. You're the one who's not addressing my point. I didn't try to make a case against anarcho capitalism in this thread; I just pointed out that what the Oath Keepers advocate is the exact opposite of anarchism.

[Christian Liberty]

This is exactly what I was talking about. What the Oath Keepers do and their goal is not consistent with anarchism.

I'm pretty sure in the grand scheme of things he's more statist than you are. Did you see him defending the LGBT anti-discrimination laws using "Two wrongs make a right" logic? He's a textbook example of why social liberalism is not libertarianism.

[noneedtoaggress]

You're arguing in favor of anarchy or anarcho capitalism or whatever you want to call it. You're the one who's not addressing my point. I didn't try to make a case against anarcho capitalism in this thread; I just pointed out that what the Oath Keepers advocate is the exact opposite of anarchism.

The only time I was "arguing in favor of anarchy" was when I was responded to FF about his Constitution comments and compared them.

The point you were making was to prove to "someone who hadn't posted in this thread" wrong when it comes to the idea that "anyone who works for or has worked for the government is evil" which is ridiculous and very few people would even make that argument. You were clearly making a snarky comment because you were offended by someone at some other point and you wanted to argue about it.

I exactly addressed this by explaining the more complex perspective of the situation, but you didn't care about that. It seems you just wanted to argue about how "people who work for the government are not pure evil like some people seem to think".

[Antischism]

I'm pretty sure in the grand scheme of things he's more statist than you are. Did you see him defending the LGBT anti-discrimination laws using "Two wrongs make a right" logic? He's a textbook example of why social liberalism is not libertarianism.

You're misrepresenting my views, actually. I want to abolish the State, but if that's not happening any time soon, and there are anti-discrimination laws for every other protected group aside from one, you must either get rid of them for everyone (preferred) or apply them to everyone. Apply them to everyone now, then remove them all later when the time comes. Same goes for same-sex marriage. You don't give a fuck anyway because you're part of the protected group.

[Brett85]

The only time I was "arguing in favor of anarchy" was when I was responded to FF about his Constitution comments and compared them.

The point you were making was to prove to "someone who hadn't posted in this thread" wrong when it comes to the idea that "anyone who works for or has worked for the government is evil" which is ridiculous and very few people would even make it.

I exactly addressed this by explaining the more complex perspective of the situation.

In the quote of yours below, weren't you arguing in favor of anarchism, that police forces should be privatized?

"It's the way it's been monopolized in coercive socialist institutions that's problematic. The security industry becomes the standing army of a socialist organization which monopolizes on law, disregarding natural law in order to exploit it's subjects"

[HOLLYWOOD]

What should be addressed is the Propaganda and Lies of U.S. News & World Report Fascist corporate media... ALWAYS consider who is publishing/distributing it, as well as who controls and/or owns these propaganda outlets. There's a track record and it appears to be the same inner circle Kabal of people who have very special interests and the Marxists enslavement motives.


In December 2012, Mortimer Zuckerman pledged $200 million to endow the Mortimer B. Zuckerman Mind Brain Behavior Institute at Columbia University.


http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2010/05/26/the-strategic-ally-myth/

http://dgxhtav2e25a8.cloudfront.net/giraldi.gif

The Strategic Ally Myth
by Philip Giraldi (http://original.antiwar.com/author/giraldi/), May 27, 2010


It is difficult to understand why anyone would take Mort Zuckerman seriously. He is a New York based but Canadian born Israel firster who made a fortune in real estate before buying The New York Daily News and the US News and World Report. He now fancies himself as a leading journalist and political commentator. Zuckerman is frequently spotted on the television talking head circuit where he dispenses analysis of international events that could have been crafted in Tel Aviv or Herzliya, where the Israeli intelligence service Mossad has its headquarters.

Zuckerman’s latest contribution (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/mzuckerman/articles/2010/05/21/mort-zuckerman-israel-is-a-key-ally-and-deserves-us-support_print.html) to international harmony is a lengthy piece in the US News & World Report entitled “Israel Is a Key Ally and Deserves US Support.” It is a propaganda piece that promotes one of the most persistent fictions put out by the mainstream media, that the relationship with Israel somehow benefits the United States. To give the devil his due, it is not often that an article in a national publication includes an out-and-out lie in its first few words, but Zuckerman succeeds in doing just that. As he is a smart man who went to Harvard Law School before becoming a propagandist for Israel, he must know that words have meanings. But the significance of the word “ally” must have somehow eluded his grasp. Israel is not now and never has been an ally of the United States. As Zuckerman is a lawyer he should know that to be an ally requires an agreement in writing that spells out the conditions and reciprocity of the relationship. Israel has never been an ally of any country because it would force it to restrain its aggressive behavior, requiring consultation with its ally before attacking other nations. It is also unable to define its own borders, which have been expanding ever since it was founded in 1948. Without defined borders it is impossible to enter into an alliance because most alliances are established so that one country will come to the aid of another if it is attacked, which normally means having its territorial integrity violated. Since Israel intends to continue expanding its borders it cannot commit to an alliance with anyone and has, in fact, rebuffed several bids by Washington to enter into some kind of formal arrangement.

The article’s spin begins almost immediately thereafter in paragraph one, where the reader is informed that “the Israelis have agreed to [a Palestinian state] in principle.” Zuckerman conveniently overlooks that Tel Aviv has in fact obstructed every move toward creation of a Palestinian state because that would stop its continued colonization of the West Bank and Jerusalem. He then proceeds to lay it on really thick in the next two paragraphs, where one learns that the Palestinians need to “do what the Israelis have done for decades, which is to declare…that both sides have genuine claims to this land,” that the “Palestinian leadership has all along made an honorable peace impossible,” and that the Palestinians are not prepared to live with an Israeli state along their borders. The Palestinians also “beat the drums of hate” and only the Israelis guarantee freedom of religion in Jerusalem. Without wishing to be too contentious, it is safe to say that everything Zuckerman writes blaming the Palestinians can easily be disputed and should be challenged.
Zuckerman then launches into one of his major themes, that poor little Israel, always willing to take risks and do what is right in the cause of peace, has been betrayed by Washington. Zuckerman opines that Tel Aviv is right to hold on to the West Bank because if it gives it up Israel will not be “secure and defensible” against Arab terrorism. He also provides a hagiography of Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, who apparently is “serious about making peace” and has done lots of good things for the Palestinians that he is not given credit for (except by Zuckerman). Bibi is also reported to be “disturbingly” under-appreciated by the White House.

According to Zuckerman, Netanyahu and Israel are “not to blame for trouble in the Middle East,” and one also learns that “The Islamists are not enemies of America because of Israel. They are fighting America because they see the whole West…as antithetical to their own beliefs.” Yes, this is the new version of they hate us because of our freedom bumper sticker. Israeli bestiality toward the Arab population that it dominates, seen on television nightly all over the world except in the US, has nothing to do with it.
After making sure that everyone knows who is completely to blame for the Middle East imbroglio, Zuckerman arrives at the argument that he knows will crush all opposition. “Israel has been an ally that has paid dividends exceeding its cost.” Zuckerman asserts that seventy per cent of Washington’s military aid, now exceeding $3 billion per year, is used to buy equipment made in the USA, providing thousands of jobs and making sure that Lockheed and other struggling defense contractors don’t go bust. And the Israelis not only provide “access to the Red Sea,” they also permit US forces to stockpile equipment in Israel for contingencies. Furthermore, Israel has been “working jointly” and “cooperating” with the US to protect America’s troops all over the Middle East. And then there is all that good intelligence that Tel Aviv hands over to Washington on the many bad guys in the Near East region.

Israeli tunnel vision means that most of the actual intelligence that Tel Aviv collects is on organizations that resent being occupied or bombed by Israel, not groups that actually threaten the US, a point ignored by Zuckerman. And to those who argue that using billions of American taxpayers dollars to buy US military equipment for Israel is not necessarily money well spent in the middle of a financial crisis or that Washington’s unlimited support for Tel Aviv is precisely the reason why the United States is in trouble around the world, Zuckerman delivers a final, devastating retort. Israel has an unrivaled location on the Mediterranean. Per Zuckerman “One analyst has described Israel as a ‘strategic aircraft carrier’…”

Well, Mort Zuckerman is certainly entitled to his own opinion and I suppose he can use the magazine he owns to spread Israeli hasbara, but the notion that Israel is some kind of strategic asset for the United States is nonsense, a complete fabrication. Most recently, Chas Freeman has pointed out (http://mondoweiss.net/2010/04/freeman-israel-is-useless-to-us-power-projection.html) that Israel is useless for the projection of American power. The US has numerous bases in Arab countries but is not allowed to use any military base in Israel. Washington’s own carrier groups and other forces in place all over the Middle East, including the Red Sea, have capabilities that far exceed those of the Israel Defense Forces. Israel has never been a strategic asset or any asset at all, always a liability. Even the stockpiles of US equipment in Israel are a typical bit of bonus support for Tel Aviv from Congress, placed there for the Israelis to use “in emergencies” while making it appear that they are for American forces. The supplies are, in fact, regularly looted by the Israelis, leaving largely unusable or picked over equipment for US forces if it should ever be needed.

Make no mistake, Tel Aviv is always carefully calculating how it can use Washington to further its own objectives with little regard for possible American interests. In 1967 the Israelis attacked the USS Liberty in international waters with the intention of sinking the ship and killing all the crew. During the first Gulf War Israel had to be defended by the United States. In the Cold War Israel spied aggressively on the US while cutting deals with both the Soviets and Chinese. The intelligence provided by Israel that Zuckerman praises is generally fabricated and completely self serving, intended to shape a narrative about the Middle East that makes the Israelis look good and virtually everyone else look bad – ask any intelligence officer who has seen the stuff. Israel as a key ally and security asset? A “strategic aircraft carrier”? Completely ridiculous.

[Cabal]

Ultimately, I agree with you. But I have no objection to using everything we've got to fight against statism, including working with constititutionalists at times.

How do you overcome statism by allying yourself with those who advocate statism, and perpetuate a faith in statism? That is what empowers statism, after all--that faith that the State is just, and necessary, and good, and right, and moral. So how do you do it? I honestly want to know, because I don't have an answer for this. How do you preach anti-statism while being supportive of statism in practice? How do you reconcile that? And yes, I'm aware of the abolitionist vs. gradualist persuasions of anti-statism, but this doesn't really answer my question here. How do you say "statism is wrong" and then proceed to use the State as a means to an end, and expect anyone else to take your message of anti-statism seriously?

[Brett85]

How do you overcome statism by allying yourself with those who advocate statism, and perpetuate a faith in statism? That is what empowers statism, after all--that faith that the State is just, and necessary, and good, and right, and moral. So how do you do it? I honestly want to know, because I don't have an answer for this. How do you preach anti-statism while being supportive of statism in practice? How do you reconcile that? And yes, I'm aware of the abolitionist vs. gradualist persuasions of anti-statism, but this doesn't really answer my question here. How do you say "statism is wrong" and then proceed to use the State as a means to an end, and expect anyone else to take your message of anti-statism seriously?

How do you support Ron Paul if you're so critical of people who support limited government rather than anarchism?

[noneedtoaggress]

In the quote of yours below, weren't you arguing in favor of anarchism, that police forces should be privatized?

"It's the way it's been monopolized in coercive socialist institutions that's problematic. The security industry becomes the standing army of a socialist organization which monopolizes on law, disregarding natural law in order to exploit it's subjects"

You can look at it that way if you want, but I typed it out in the context of explaining a more complex perspective of the security industry and people who work in it and untangling concepts that get lumped together which are the root cause of your problem with some people. Your initial point was valid when it comes to the few people who it would actually apply to, but you're not taking your point when it comes to understanding anyone else's perspective.

(I also didn't argue for anything in that instance, it was a criticism of the existing system)

[Tywysog Cymru]

"Oath Keepers" can fuck off. I don't need another gang of pigs patrolling the streets in the name of a document that I never signed and should have no authority. Where were these assholes during the Bush years? Probably fighting against the "Evil Muslims" and racially profiling people on the streets. They're a bunch of shitty, John Birch Society/Koch Brothers-loving opportunists. They don't give a fuck about your average citizen. If you think they do, you're very much mistaken. They're agenda-driven and love their power trips.

I won't be fooled again. I won't buy into the fear-mongering.

you realize that the John Birch society gave Ron Paul a 96% and gives Massie a 100% on their scorecard? I don't agree with them on everything but they want to get us out of the UN and foreign entanglements along with limiting government at home.

[Anti Federalist]

Just donated another $100.

Suck it, Soviet Paranoia Lies Center.

[Cabal]

How do you support Ron Paul if you're so critical of people who support limited government rather than anarchism?

If you don't already know and understand the answer to this, then either you haven't been paying attention to me, or you haven't being paying attention to RP.

[Brett85]

If you don't already know and understand the answer to this, then either you haven't been paying attention to me, or you haven't being paying attention to RP.

I understand how anarchists can support Ron Paul, but I don't understand how an anarchist who says that it's wrong to even work with limited government advocates could actually support Ron Paul. You're obviously "working with" limited government advocate Ron Paul by supporting him.

[Tywysog Cymru]

Just donated another $100.

Suck it, Soviet Paranoia Lies Center.

My parents actually donated to the SPLC until they saw their true colors. They have become like the groups that they set out to oppose in the '70s.


If you don't already know and understand the answer to this, then either you haven't been paying attention to me, or you haven't being paying attention to RP.

Are you suggesting Ron Paul is a closet Anarchist?

[Christian Liberty]

you realize that the John Birch society gave Ron Paul a 96% and gives Massie a 100% on their scorecard? I don't agree with them on everything but they want to get us out of the UN and foreign entanglements along with limiting government at home.

How in the world did Ron Paul get a lower score than Massie? Don't get me wrong, I like Massie a lot, but I can't imagine how he'd get a higher score than Ron...


If you don't already know and understand the answer to this, then either you haven't been paying attention to me, or you haven't being paying attention to RP.

I don't know the answer to this either. Although I'm guessing Tywysog Cymru got it.






Are you suggesting Ron Paul is a closet Anarchist?

I presume that is his stance. I can see why they think that, but honestly, they really don't know. They're guessing. Ron's logical principles do lead to anarchism, but at the same point, you kind of have to run for politics as a minarchist. You don't even have to affirm statism at all for the presumption to be that you are a minarchist. So... I don't know, nor do I care. Ron Paul opened my eyes, and advocated for freedom consistently on nearly every issue. Is he perfect? No. But nobody is.

[Cabal]

Are you suggesting Ron Paul is a closet Anarchist?

Well, that was really more of a commentary on TC's narrow-mindedness.

But, to answer your question (since no one seems prepared or able to answer mine), I'd say that anyone who has bothered to read and listen to RP will find a very strong message of anti-statism and voluntaryism that is often very similar, if not identical, to the rhetoric you may hear anarchists using. Personally, I think RP is a pragmatic gradualist voluntaryist, as opposed to an abolitionist, and I think he used/uses constitutionalism as a legal and rhetorical vehicle with which to achieve his gradualist agenda for a number of reasons. But I'm sure many would be reluctant to agree, so I'm not sure what difference it makes. In either case, there seem to be two different versions of RP--the conservative Repbulican constitutionalist campaign trail politician and the radical voluntaryist author and advocate. The former tends to use arguments from effect, while the latter employs arguments from morality using NAP as a foundation. The former talks about the Founding Fathers and the constitution, and the latter talks about the flaws of the constitution, and ideas and definitions that are antithetical to statism. Suffice to say RP isn't as simple as a singular label.

Anyway, I'd really rather not get into this debate here, as it's been done ad nauseam in other threads, if you care to search; and ultimately it doesn't really matter anymore, if it ever did.

[Tywysog Cymru]

How in the world did Ron Paul get a lower score than Massie? Don't get me wrong, I like Massie a lot, but I can't imagine how he'd get a higher score than Ron...

He hasn't been around as long. Ron got 100% during a lot of his time in congress, never getting less than 90% on his lowest score years.

Rand Paul is at 93%
Amash is at 93%

Ted Cruz is currently at 90%, I expect that number to go down as time goes by.

The John Birch Society was (and still is) a great organization that sometimes gets minor issues wrong. They were in many ways a precursor to the Liberty movement. They were strongly anti-Communist, but at the same time vocally opposing the War in Vietnam. Of course, they were portrayed as extremists by the GOP establishment Rockefeller Republican Neocons.

[Christian Liberty]

He hasn't been around as long. Ron got 100% during a lot of his time in congress, never getting less than 90% on his lowest score years.

Rand Paul is at 93%
Amash is at 93%

Ted Cruz is currently at 90%, I expect that number to go down as time goes by.

The John Birch Society was (and still is) a great organization that sometimes gets minor issues wrong. They were in many ways a precursor to the Liberty movement. They were strongly anti-Communist, but at the same time vocally opposing the War in Vietnam. Of course, they were portrayed as extremists by the GOP establishment Rockefeller Republican Neocons.

Cool. And yeah, Ted Cruz will probably go down. Ted Cruz sucks.

[Brett85]

Well, that was really more of a commentary on TC's narrow-mindedness.

So I'm the one who's "narrow minded," even though you stated that you refuse to even work with people who are minarchists or Constitutionalists.

[Christian Liberty]

So I'm the one who's "narrow minded," even though you stated that you refuse to even work with people who are minarchists or Constitutionalists.

I'm not sure if that's actually what he's saying. If it is, he's inconsistent for supporting Ron Paul, since by his own admission Ron does not always stand on anarchistic principles.

[Elias Graves]

Good, then I'm not talking about you. I'm just not sure how the people here who are so strongly anti military and anti police could possibly support an organization composed of former police officers and former members of the military. And I would assume that this group also includes current members of the police and the military.

As for me, I'm not against the military in any way. What I'm against is the way our leaders have used our military. A strong national defense is critical to a free country.

[DamianTV]

Grandmas Weekly Bridge Club will also be labeled a "Terrorizer" Organization if the Powers That Be have their way. In their eyes, all Mundanes are potential Terrorizers.

[mad cow]

You just made a payment of
$20.00 USD

Paid to
Oath Keepers
oksupport@oathkeepers.org
7026080627

[Brett85]

As for me, I'm not against the military in any way. What I'm against is the way our leaders have used our military. A strong national defense is critical to a free country.

I agree. Welcome to the club, where basically only you and I are members.

[noneedtoaggress]

I agree. Welcome to the club, where basically only you and I are members.

http://img.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/tdomf/167323/2010-09-20-205-No-Girls-Allowed.png

[Anti Federalist]

"Oath Keepers" can fuck off. I don't need another gang of pigs patrolling the streets in the name of a document that I never signed and should have no authority. Where were these assholes during the Bush years? Probably fighting against the "Evil Muslims" and racially profiling people on the streets. They're a bunch of shitty, John Birch Society/Koch Brothers-loving opportunists. They don't give a fuck about your average citizen. If you think they do, you're very much mistaken. They're agenda-driven and love their power trips.

I won't be fooled again. I won't buy into the fear-mongering.

This is untrue.

I watched Stewart personally respond to a pending police state matter, concerning a relative of mine, and was of great help and assistance.

[Anti Federalist]

As for me, I'm not against the military in any way. What I'm against is the way our leaders have used our military. A strong national defense is critical to a free country.

A free people do not have "leaders".

And to call this mob in the District of Calamity "leaders", sullies and cheapens the word to the point of being meaningless.

[Brett85]

A free people do not have "leaders".

And to call this mob in the District of Calamity "leaders", sullies and cheapens the word to the point of being meaningless.

I was under the impression that you were in favor of very limited government, not anarchism. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. Perhaps you just don't like to use the word "leaders" to describe politicians.

[Anti Federalist]

I was under the impression that you were in favor of very limited government, not anarchism. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. Perhaps you just don't like to use the word "leaders" to describe politicians.

There have been "leaders" worthy of the name.

But not this mob that the label is currently applied to.

I generally dislike the term and concept.

A free man follows his own lead.

[noneedtoaggress]

I was under the impression that you were in favor of very limited government, not anarchism. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. Perhaps you just don't like to use the word "leaders" to describe politicians.

Why do you even care what he's in favor of or what "labels" he identifies with?

[Anti Federalist]

Oh and to answer your question TC:

I am an anarchist in this regard, that I yearn for the day that the entire concept of government and enforcement of government edicts by application of violence, through a monopoly on same, is as repugnant as human sacrifice is considered today, that the whole concept is thrown on the ash heap of history as a barbaric relic of bygone age.

Human nature being what it is, however, I realize how far off that is, and do what I can with what I have.

[Occam's Banana]

Why do you even care what he's in favor of or what "labels" he identifies with?

People need to be assigned to neat & tidy pre-conceived boxes. Otherwise you might have ... "anarchy!!" :eek:

[noneedtoaggress]

People need to be assigned to neat & tidy pre-conceived boxes. Otherwise you might have ... "anarchy!!" :eek:

I'm surprised TC hadn't already put him in the "cop-hating anarchist" box regardless of what AF said he "favored".

[Cabal]

So I'm the one who's "narrow minded," even though you stated that you refuse to even work with people who are minarchists or Constitutionalists.

Where did I say anything about refusing to 'work' with minarchists or constitutionalists? I asked questions related to consistency between rhetoric and action. As is expected--reference narrow-mindedness--you saw this in the way you wanted to see it; rather than engaging the substance of these questions and even trying to provide a response, you interpreted it as a "refusal to 'work' with minarchists and constitutionalists" because of your own defensiveness and bias. Try devoting as much time and energy into actually reading and thinking as you do in looking to be offended by anarchists.

And define 'work'. Because work can mean a lot of things that have nothing to do with political action. I can, for instance, support a message for its educational value without explicitly supporting a methodology that relies on political action within the government. And this is just one example of non-political support--or 'working' with someone. But that's not what you meant, is it? You say 'work' but I suspect what you really mean is 'political action', and nothing else, right?

Truth be told, I have nothing against 'working' with anyone, minarchist, anarchist, constitutionalist, or otherwise so long as they aren't promoting a philosophy that is antithetical to what I hold to be true; so long as they aren't constantly demonstrating moral and intellectual bankruptcy while parading around as if to represent the so-called 'liberty movement'. If I refuse to involve myself in political action, that not about a refusal to 'work' with anyone else, that's about me not wanting to involve myself in the State. As Ron Paul put it, “When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads.”

[VoluntaryAmerican]

How is this official?

[Brett85]

Why do you even care what he's in favor of or what "labels" he identifies with?

Why do you care whether I ask him what label he identifies with?

[Brett85]

Where did I say anything about refusing to 'work' with minarchists or constitutionalists? I asked questions related to consistency between rhetoric and action. As is expected--reference narrow-mindedness--you saw this in the way you wanted to see it; rather than engaging the substance of these questions and even trying to provide a response, you interpreted it as a "refusal to 'work' with minarchists and constitutionalists" because of your own defensiveness and bias. Try devoting as much time and energy into actually reading and thinking as you do in looking to be offended by anarchists.

And define 'work'. Because work can mean a lot of things that have nothing to do with political action. I can, for instance, support a message for its educational value without explicitly supporting a methodology that relies on political action within the government. And this is just one example of non-political support--or 'working' with someone. But that's not what you meant, is it? You say 'work' but I suspect what you really mean is 'political action', and nothing else, right?

Truth be told, I have nothing against 'working' with anyone, minarchist, anarchist, constitutionalist, or otherwise so long as they aren't promoting a philosophy that is antithetical to what I hold to be true; so long as they aren't constantly demonstrating moral and intellectual bankruptcy while parading around as if to represent the so-called 'liberty movement'. If I refuse to involve myself in political action, that not about a refusal to 'work' with anyone else, that's about me not wanting to involve myself in the State. As Ron Paul put it, “When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads.”

This is what you said.


How do you overcome statism by allying yourself with those who advocate statism, and perpetuate a faith in statism?

Apparently you see a huge difference between the terms "allying with" and "working with." I think most people would say those terms are very similar.

[Cabal]

This is what you said.



Apparently you see a huge difference between the terms "allying with" and "working with." I think most people would say those terms are very similar.

Learn to read.

[Brett85]

Learn to read.

Brilliant response. Are you in the 3rd grade or 2nd grade?

[noneedtoaggress]

Brilliant response. Are you in the 3rd grade or 2nd grade?

That probably would have been a more effective response if you hadn't used such a childish method to call someone childish.

[Brett85]

That probably would have been a more effective response if you hadn't used a childish method to imply someone was childish.

Probably true. I just couldn't think of anything better.

[noneedtoaggress]

Probably true. I just couldn't think of anything better.

How about asking him to explain himself more sufficiently or rephrase what he meant?

[Brett85]

How about asking him to explain himself more sufficiently or rephrase what he meant?

I'm not sure if it's worth it. He doesn't seem to be interested in having a civil conversation.

[noneedtoaggress]

I'm not sure if it's worth it. He doesn't seem to be interested in having a civil conversation.

Maybe he feels the same way about you.

[Brett85]

Maybe he feels the same way about you.

I never called him any names or engaged in any personal attacks, at least until I was provoked.

[noneedtoaggress]

I never called him any names or engaged in any personal attacks, at least until I was provoked.

Do you consider your initial post in this thread to be provocative or not? Just wondering.

[Brett85]

Do you consider your initial post in this thread to be provocative or not? Just wondering.

Provocative? Probably. A personal attack? No.

[noneedtoaggress]

Provocative, probably. A personal attack? No.

I agree, it wasn't a personal attack because you weren't addressing anyone in particular at that point at all. You initiated the provocative topic in order to get a reaction and that's pretty much what you got.

Perhaps starting it off on that foot didn't really help foster a civil conversation. Your responses largely seem to be mostly concerned with taking cheap shots at an ambiguous group of people whose rhetoric you feel offended by, while disregarding what leads to the rift in the first place.

I can't speak for Cabal, but I could see how he might feel that you're not really interested in having a meaningful conversation the same way you've explained how you felt about him.