User Profile: oathkeeper2

Member Since: June 22, 2011

CommentsDisplaying oathkeeper2's 10 most recent comments.

  • In general I find Megyn and Bill to be condescending, pedantic, individuals, who believe they know more than the rest of the masses, at times. Bill takes Megyn’s legal analysis as gospel on almost all issues. Yet, her arguments are occasional riddled with holes large enough for a collider to fit through. Ex. Megyn’s analysis on the SAFE act in NY. No case, it’s constitutional. Bill’s response “there you have it.” Not one reference from the “brilliant” legal mind to heller 1 and the fact that the sawed-off shotgun could be regulated because it did NOT serve a military purpose, or to that the lack of 7 round mags in existence. Ex2 obamacare after the decision, kelly-well now it’s done, “there you have it”-bill. Yet no mention of the aaps/Ohio veteran cases on grounds that tax bills SHALL originate in the house. Their reporting and analysis is on a much more often basis than the blaze, inadequate and sensationalized. Of course, still better than msm. But, that is not a high hurdle to jump. Hence, I’ve stopped watching both of their shows on fox. As for the”thumping” comment, I feel he was his usual self, see description above. As such, he was rude and insensitive in delivering his commentary. The other arguments, which he stated are lacking, are in the above posts. Losing the definition of marriage is akin to the slope of losing the definition of murder or any other word, in legal context. Two individuals relationship is no different if the law cal

  • No surprise. Most of our medical organizations are based in Chicago and run by progressives. That’s why I dropped all of them and joined the only real world, common sense one, the aaps, American association of physicians and surgeons. Ask your doctors if they belong to that. If not, they should join it. It has some of the best medical/political advice out there for doctors. As for the future, ask your docs if they participate in Medicare/Medicaid, or if they plan on participating with exchanges. If the do be wary. They will have to share all of their med records, with the feds then follow gov’s indep. Payment advisory board recommendations, or receive fines/jail time. And, if they do follow but it’s the wrong thing, they will still be subject to medical malpractice suits. As Dr Emmanuel said in his grand rounds, “the biggest hurdle is the hippocratic oath. We need physicians to no longer do what’s right for their patients, but do what’s right for the society as a whole, the collective.”

  • As a physician, with more pieces of paper that cover my walls, than really matter at this point, the poor child is being confused further by very liberal parents and an incompetent psychiatrist if that’s indeed what they saw. Gender identity is NOT formed from birth. The chromosomes and parts say one thing but his brain says another? Up until dsmIV, homosexuality was considered a psychiatric illness. Was this right? Well, in part yes and in part no. There are those that are different for one reason or another. Do we in the medical field fully understand it yet? No. But, are there also those that are abused/mistreated/scarred in rearing while they are forming their own identities that makes them think they’re gay, transgendered, etc? Yes. There are both categories. To deny either is to speak from ignorance and threats of homophobia, and claims of abomination on the other side. This child at this age is NOT a transgender as he’s in his formative years. Those years are from birth up to and including through the teen years. Might this boy be one day transgendered? yes. Might he grow up and fit in the category of homosexual or transexual? yes. Might this boy through his gender exploration and formation years, being manipulated by well meaning, loving, yet confused probably very liberal parents and an incompetent psychologist, have otherwise turned out a normal heterosexual male adult? yes. And, yes the other children also have their rights too.

  • Unfortunately this person feels she knows better than the rest of the world and her opinion is the truth. She states why its news and what others think. I believe its news because I’m happy that a person in political office spoke the plain truth in what he believes, and echoes what I believe as well. If you move someplace because you love certain aspects and then demand other things to change, or you’ll leave. That’s a threat like a spoiled child. Please leave that area and return from whence you came. Perhaps she’ll leave there and make it even better for others that wish to live without her sanctimonious rhetoric. Or perhaps she will in a more civil tone express her beliefs in future letters to people in governtment. Not as good from my end, but at least better. Although its still an unconstitutional belief, it would be better for her to write her letter attempting to change the constitution. But, she probably believes this is a democracy and not a democratically elected republic tied to a constitution which can be ammended through a process. However, I would fight any attempt to change, modify, or nullify the second ammendment.