Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

Rant

The "Oath Keepers" providing security

by JP Bill Sep 11, 2015 12:46PM PDT

for the person that violated HER "Oath"

Oath Keepers offers Kentucky’s Kim Davis a ‘security detail’

Just so we’re clear, the Oath Keepers group isn’t offering protection for Davis from potentially dangerous critics. This is a situation in which Oath Keepers intend to “protect” Davis from American law enforcement if she defies the law and faces arrest again.

I guess they think they are "above the law"

I hope absolutely no one shows up for her grand entrance, except for people looking for marriage licenses. And Kim comes into the office sits down at her desk and signs so many papers she gets writers cramp.

And "security" is left standing around drinking coffee and eating doughnuts.

Discussion is locked

13 Posts
- Collapse + Expand Details
- Collapse -
From the horses mouth
by Steven Haninger Sep 11, 2015 1:32PM PDT
http://oathkeepers.org/oktester/oath-keepers-offer-of-protection-for-embattled-clerk-kim-davis/

It seems to me fair and proper to post their side of it and allow readers to see both the positive and negative comments posted on that site as well. I can't approve of vigilantism but I do think it's important to be aware of discord that could erupt into violence. There's a 15 minute recorded dialog here that's without angry voices. Some people might prefer to listen to that rather than the hear the yelling and screaming that is designed to bring on the camera crews.
- Collapse -
More from the horses mouth
by JP Bill Sep 14, 2015 7:41PM PDT
“Oath Keepers has been contacted by Kim Davis’s legal team at Liberty Counsel, and they have, on her behalf, declined our offer of assistance in protecting her from a possible repeat incarceration by Federal District Court judge David Bunning,” the group said in a statement, as Morehead State University’s WMKY reported. “We will, of course, respect her wishes, and are hereby issuing a stand-down for our security volunteers who were planning on deploying to Morehead, Kentucky on Monday.”
- Collapse -
No...here's from the horses mouth
by Steven Haninger Sep 15, 2015 2:01AM PDT
- Collapse -
RE:Not that it implies much that's different
by JP Bill Sep 15, 2015 4:23AM PDT

Right, everything important about both sites on this subject could have been stated in 2 sentences.

from the Oath Keepers

UPDATE: Due to Kim Davis’s Legal team, on her behalf, declining our offer of protection we are standing down. Please see this article for more information.

That's all.... and then they go on to explain THEIR beliefs/SPIN (2 quite long paragraphs)

ONE sentence for the rejection of the security offer....2 paragraphs for their "beliefs". The NO-SPIN Zone?...I don't think so.;

You get to spin it yourself rather than have it done for you.

The "more information" from the Oath keepers site has so much spin....I was getting dizzy.

- Collapse -
soon be every man and woman for themselves in this country
by James Denison Sep 15, 2015 4:49AM PDT

soon be every man and woman for themselves in this country if this continuing spiral into the abyss of immorality continues. It will become "might makes right" because there no longer is any "right and wrong".

- Collapse -
I'm sorry but the original authors message isn't spin
by Steven Haninger Sep 15, 2015 6:16AM PDT

They get to give both their decisions, reasons for it, any follow-up they might do, etc. Another reader who writes a report on the piece but doesn't include the original text in its entirety is, IMO, not the best source if one wants to shape an opinion. If they've 1/2 a brain, they can and should do that on their own and after reading every word of it.

- Collapse -
RE: If they've 1/2 a brain,
by JP Bill Sep 15, 2015 7:09AM PDT
If they've 1/2 a brain, they can and should do that on their own and after reading every word of it.,

And then someone else (that thinks they have 5/8th of a brain) and a different point of view would tell them they are wrong?

So when someone expresses their opinion on something and explains their logic in coming to that opinion they are NOT putting a "spin" on the subject? (SEE Oath-Keepers site)

Laying out all the facts in a method that makes THEIR point of view look like the correct point of view? THAT's not putting a "spin"?

RE: I'm sorry but the original authors message isn't spin

CAUTION!!!!!YOU are entering the "NO-SPIN ZONE!!!!!"

We believe Federal District Court Judge David Bunning grossly overstepped his bounds and violated Mrs Davis’ due process rights, and in particular her right to a jury trial. This judge has assumed unto himself not just the powers of all three branches of government, but has also taken on the powers of judge, jury, and “executioner.”

Now we see the rise of an imperial judiciary

Here are MY versions of "No-Spin" on this story.

Due to Kim Davis’s Legal team, on her behalf, declining our offer of protection we are standing down.

AND

“Oath Keepers has been contacted by Kim Davis’s legal team at Liberty Counsel, and they have, on her behalf, declined our offer of assistance in protecting her from a possible repeat incarceration by Federal District Court judge David Bunning,”

THERE'S "NO-SPIN"...just the facts....No explanation...Just the facts.

A good headline for "Headline News"....never mind the backstory
- Collapse -
P.S.
by JP Bill Sep 15, 2015 7:17AM PDT

[sarcasm]CAUTION!!!!!YOU are entering the "NO-SPIN ZONE!!!!!"[/sarcasm]

- Collapse -
You have something against Oathkeepers?
by Steven Haninger Sep 15, 2015 8:56AM PDT

If you do, I presume you've spent a lot of time studying them from multiple sources, including their own, and multiple perspectives. So what are the positives and what are the negatives you've discovered? Personally, I've only skimmed their web site to see who their membership is comprised of and what are their stated objectives. I could spin this by saying that they are largely people who have gone out of their way to get firearms training. That's scary, isn't it? I wouldn't need to include that most are ex-military and police who would have received this training as part of their jobs defending the country and public. Not including that fact could lead uninformed people to think they were just a bunch of trigger happy yahoos from the backwood. But that's the difference between what the horse will tell you and what the people who don't like the horse will tell you.

- Collapse -
RE: You have something against Oathkeepers?
by JP Bill Sep 15, 2015 10:58AM PDT

Sorry, I thought we were talking about "spin".

- Collapse -
(NT) You thought we were talking about "spin"?
by Steven Haninger Sep 15, 2015 11:15AM PDT
- Collapse -
RE: You thought we were talking about "spin"?
by JP Bill Sep 15, 2015 1:10PM PDT

WHERE would I get THAT idea?

YOUR words

Not that it implies much that's different but it comes without media spin. You get to spin it yourself rather than have it done for you

- Collapse -
Try again...
by Steven Haninger Sep 15, 2015 11:21AM PDT

You thought we were talking about spin?

Sorry, I thought your subject was Oathkeepers.

Sorry as well that these forums are giving me 404s while trying to type and post. Time to give them a rest.

Back to Speakeasy forum

CNET Forums

Operating Systems
Software
Electronics & Gadgets
Hardware
Tablets & Mobile Devices
General Help
Brand Forums
Roadshow Autos
Off Topic

Other Forums

Forum Info