Who Are The Oath Keepers On Conspiracy Trial With Stewart Rhodes?

Yakuda said:
I asked you the similar question yesterday and you never answered because you're weak minded or a pussy, I'll let you decide. But I will try again to test you like a thinking human being and not a leftist cockroach:

Tell us something on the news you disagree with that you dont believe is a lie or "misinformation".
Click to expand...

Hateful geezers like Yak are most likely only a danger to themselves and the retirement home staff and residents.

It's only a matter of time before someone like Yak, Truth Detector, Grok, TDAK, TA, etc, decide to end it all and go room-to-room shooting residents and staff.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Hateful geezers like Yak are most likely only a danger to themselves and the retirement home staff and residents.

It's only a matter of time before someone like Yak, Truth Detector, Grok, TDAK, TA, etc, decide to end it all and go room-to-room shooting residents and staff.
Click to expand...

This from a lying pussy. I love the fairy tales, emphasis on fairy, that you create for yourself.
 
Hello Dutch Uncle,

Dutch Uncle said:
Most cases of mass murderers are elaborate suicides. The nutjobs literally seek to go out with a bang either by their own hand or suicide-by-cop.

Suicidal or not, most, like several JPP members, telegraph their hatred on social media. If Congress and the States put more attention on it, these deluded individuals could be stopped and treated before they committed mass murder.

Example: https://abc7chicago.com/mass-shooti...spect-robert-crimo-iii-social-media/12020970/
'Screaming out for help': Highland Park shooting suspect's social media littered with hatred
Click to expand...

Perhaps an independent non-profit could be instituted which would be tasked with monitoring social media for warning signals?

If the social media profiteers are not doing enough, and government can't do it...

Perhaps it is time to ask for volunteers to step in?
 
Dutch Uncle said:
You're sick, Fredo. Many have told you to get help but you refuse. Fine. The Lead to the Head Treatment works too.

Too bad a Good Guy with a gun didn't put down this freak before he committed mass murder. He won't last long in prison. Someone will gut him like a fish and feed him his own balls as he bleeds out. His parents deserve to serve time too.

robertcrimo.jpeg
Click to expand...



you aint doing shit, now stfu and eat your dick soup.
 
PoliTalker said:

USA TODAY
Oath Keepers trial: What we know about the militia members who aren't Stewart Rhodes

"A bar owner. A car dealership general manager. A welder. And a retired military intelligence officer.

All members or affiliates of the Oath Keepers — and all followers of the group's notorious leader, Stewart Rhodes.

Memorable for his role as founder of the right-wing militia group, Yale law education and signature eye-patch, Rhodes has long captivated the public eye. His four co-defendants are less well-known but also on trial for similarly insurrectionist activities.

Jessica Watkins, Kelly Meggs, Kenneth Harrelson and Thomas Caldwell are facing trial this month alongside Rhodes on numerous federal charges, including a rare seditious conspiracy charge, for their alleged roles in the Jan. 6 Capitol attack as Oath Keepers.

In the first two weeks of the trial, prosecutors painted the defendants as embattled extremists, bitter over the 2020 election outcome and willing to resort to violence to ensure former President Donald Trump remained installed.

Inversely, defense attorneys for the Oath Keepers on trial set out to humanize them for the jury, pointing to age-related ailments, social media aversion and gender identity as evidence they're not as dangerous or calculating as the government makes them out to be.

Here's what we know about the Oath Keepers on trial who aren't Stewart Rhodes."

Disgruntled people who do not believe in democracy. People who think they should be entitled to force their way upon others and claim they are 'saving America.'

Instead, they trashed America in the worldwide image.
Click to expand...

Yep, democracy only works for fascists if they win.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello evince,



They always have.

What's new is the scientific methods used to purposely psychologically ensnare weak minds by careful use of emotional triggers and peer group buzzwords. Very calculating. And done with complete greed or lack of any responsibility to the national damage caused. Remarkably audacious devotion to wealth at the cost of a nation.
Click to expand...

Which is why after WWII our nation made laws about news coverage



Then Republicans removed them
 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine



The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that fairly reflected differing viewpoints.[1] In 1987, the FCC abolished the fairness doctrine,[2] prompting some to urge its reintroduction through either Commission policy or congressional legislation.[3] However, later the FCC removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.[4]

The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been cited as a contributing factor in the rising level of party polarization in the United States.[5][6]

While the original purpose of the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints, it was used by both the Kennedy and later the Johnson administration to combat political opponents operating on talk radio. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court, in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the fairness doctrine where channels were limited. However, the court did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so.[7] The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the doctrine.
 
Cypress said:
It's been a while since one of them bellowed that J6 was a Deep State false flag operation.

You wonder if they even believe their own horseshit, or if they are just extremely comfortable lying their flabby asses off.
Click to expand...

I think it's mostly trolling and lying to themselves as well as to us. It's pretty clear what happened, they want us to believe no one else believes the irrefutable evidence. It's kind of like they're all doing some kind of affirmation to themselves, "J6 was just a peaceful tour". Yeah, twumptards.. sure.
 
The problem is that liberal talking points make too much sense. But people don't want to accept it.

We killed traditional conservative small government ideology with the facts, so they resorted to outright fantasy.

Turns out it worked.
 
In June 2011, the chairman and a subcommittee chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, both Republicans, said that the FCC, in response to their requests, had set a target date of August 2011 for removing the fairness doctrine and other "outdated" regulations from the FCC's rulebook.[81]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top