Sign in to follow this  
desert rat

Who am I ?

Recommended Posts


so far everyone has stuck to the no personal attacks rule. I was afraid I'd have to reign in this thread and I haven't needed to do that. Thank you.



seems like you're being ganged up on. Don't mean it to seem that way; politics and religion cause strong feelings. I'm on the other side of most of these issues so I appreciate the bravery it takes to defend your position in the face of strong contrary opinions.


As to being surprised at Obama's actions, I am not. I read what he said during the campaign so I expected everything he has done so far. He did tell us, we just heard what we wanted, not what he said.


First a definition:

"A governmental system with strong centralized power, permitting no opposition or criticism, controlling all affairs of the nation (industrial, commercial, etc.)" (American College Dictionary, New York: Random House, 1957).

This is the definition of Fascism. Note that Socialism is the government ownership of the affairs of the nation. Under this definition, Mr. Obama is clearly a Fascist. The actions with the automobile industry and the health care industry fit the definition of government control of privately owned business. In spite of the medias' attempt to paint Fascism and Socialism as opposites, they are not - they are just graduations of the same mindset that wants government control of a nation. Fascism is by its nature antithetical to a Republic or Democratic form of government.


Obama is not like Hitler. Hitler was a social Darwinist. He believed and even stated that if the German people failed to win WW2 then they did not deserve to live. His actions were not insane; they were completely logical given his belief in Darwinism and the superiority of the Germanic peoples.


Obama may or may not be communist, Muslim, Christian, agnostic, pagan or any other belief system. I simply don't know. Since I believe what he says when he is talking to his supports, I tend to think that he is "none of the above" but speaks (like a great many politicians) what is expedient at the time.


As to the matter of "choice" you must be careful of words. There is a choice made, of course, but it is not whether or not to have a baby. That has already been decided; fetus is defined as

a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth—compare embryo
and an embryo
the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception
so according to the medical dictionary, it is a human being. What is chosen is whether or not to kill a baby. Your facts are incorrect about the majority of Americans favoring abortion but that is irrelevant to the argument in any case. At least since the time of Hippocrates and the Hippocratic Oath
I swear by Apollo, the healer, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath and agreement:


To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art; and that by my teaching, I will impart a knowledge of this art to my own sons, and to my teacher's sons, and to disciples bound by an indenture and oath according to the medical laws, and no others.


I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.


I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.


But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.


I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.


In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.


All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.

If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all humanity and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my life.

it has been considered morally wrong to take the life of the unborn.


The physician cursed himself if he performed an abortion. It wasn't until the latter half of the twentieth century that we decided in our courts that we had a "right" to chose to murder the innocent. As far as "punishing" the victims of rape or incest, the APA's own data shows that the victims of those crimes who have had an abortion have problems over the abortion to a far greater extent than the rape. The unasked question is, "recognizing that the rapist committed a crime, what crime did the child commit that deserves death?"


It is a second violence that we perpetrate on our women when we perform such acts. I do not wish to further harm any woman that has had an abortion; she has been violated enough already and needs help dealing with the aftermath.


A real problem between constitutionalists and progressives is the approach. If I were to concede that Obama's action with Obamacare is a good thing, I would insist that the Constitution MUST be amended to allow the government to do this thing. It is NOT in the Constitution and the 10th Amendment absolutely reserves this action to the states or the people, not the Federal Government.


To rule by executive order and unconfirmed czars is to usurp the powers of the Congress and Courts and do fatal violence to our constitutional form of government. Whether you agree with my positions or not, I invite you to consider the ramifications of unconstitutional government. Without the constitution, as written, I have no protection for my God given rights. Note, please, that the constitution does NOT confer rights on anyone. It exists to protect our inalienable rights, given by God and not to be usurped by any human agency. Not all rights are equal, by the way. With out liberty the right to 'pursue happiness' (property rights among others) is meaningless since my owner or government can take my property at any time they choose for any reason. With out the right to Life, my liberty is meaningless. A dead man can not exercise his liberty in any fashion. So the founding documents of the US recognize the hierarchy of rights and insists that the role of government is to preserve these rights.


The old KGB forecast that the US would split into at least 5 and as many as 9 separate nations. They thought that the division of the country could be brought to the part that we would 'Balkanize' into many smaller nations. With half of the population paying no taxes and as many as 24% living totally on government handouts, we are rapidly approaching the point where America as we have known it will cease to exist. I may already be too late but I pray that is not the case.


If we let the government do for us what we can do for ourselves, we cease to be citizens and become serfs. If that happens, it will likely be a thousand years before freedom again appears on this earth. I base that estimate on the time from the fall of the Roman Republic to England's Magna Carta that established that even the king was subject to the rule of law.


I've gotten a bit long winded; my apologies.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Capt Bart, I've actually been quite impressed by the discourse here. It's amazing what can be covered when people are mutually respectful, even if the ultimate end of the discussion is that we agree to disagree... which certainly seems to be the most likely scenario here. LOL


The Hippocratic Oath has been retooled into many different versions, and as far back as the late 19th century some colleges abandoned asking their med school graduates to take that particular pledge, so I'm not sure that holding all physicians to a standard based on a single line from one version is a particularly strong argument. From my perspective, abortion rights have to do with women's ability to determine their own fate vs. relegating them to being less important than any potential offspring - a demotion from full citizen to baby factory - often with the patronizing message that they are getting what they deserve and have to live with the consequences of their actions, as if it's a moral lesson and not a lifelong obligation. Our efforts would be better spent taking care of the children who *are* being born (providing food, education, medical care, loving households, etc. - even if they are the unfortunate bastards of those reviled lazy welfare mothers). Even better than shouting at women entering clinics and cutting access to vital preventive care because a small fraction of a clinic's services includes abortion would be making unplanned pregnancy less common (through comprehensive sex ed, readily available birth control to ALL who are of childbearing age, building up girls' self-esteem so that they are making better, healthier choices for themselves, and working on boys to teach them about being loving partners who are equally responsible for birth control and saying no, etc.). I've volunteered with NARAL, I've marched with signs saying things like "US out of my uterus," I give money to Planned Parenthood, and I am deeply resentful of the idea of men who have 100% no risk of EVER being forced to endure an unwanted pregnancy telling me that it's not up to me as to whether I want to bear a child.


As for your other arguments... I don't see where I've advocated having a government without a Constitution, or providing more power to the President at the expense of the other branches of government. In fact, I've literally cited that as one of the great things about our nation, and been supportive of the Supreme Court taking action to prevent unconstitutional laws from being enforced.


It's funny; one of the reasons I strongly identify with progressives is that I also think that the way things are going, civil unrest and even outright rebellion is a likely outcome. For me, the biggest thing is the way wealth is being steadily concentrated into the hands of fewer and fewer people; the impending death of the middle class is a beautiful way to gain recruits for a revolution.


Republicans notoriously protect the wealthy from "unfair" taxation and extend immense protection to large corporations as well, while all around us we have evidence of poverty, people going hungry, people being unable to receive adequate medical care, people losing their houses, etc... and our current system does little to bolster or safeguard the average person's wealth and well-being when there's a small downturn, layoff, or whatever. Instead, you have to lose EVERY financial resource in order to qualify for assistance and only THEN do you receive barely enough to eke by. You will never regain the ground you lost, the retirement you're no longer eligible for because the company that laid you off keeps it, the equity in your house lost due to mismanaged banks/inability to pay a mortgage with no income/downturn in the market and the black mark on your credit now becoming a hindrance to you finding even a rental property let alone qualifying for a future loan.


We give money to single mothers who stay home with their children, then denounce them in the media as being lazy, but we don't do something simple like provide free, quality childcare and education/training so that they have any hope of being self-supporting. (And remember, we clearly WANT them to have these kids - because abortion is bad and birth control is evil.) We tell children that they can be whatever they want when they grow up, but a favorite conservative approach to the myriad problems we have with education is to pull out as many kids as possible into private schools and homeschooling, which means that the kids whose parents are least invested and/or poorest are the only ones who remain - heaping disadvantages on to innocents who are already not playing on an equal footing to their peers.


Yes, the rich get richer and the poor are basically f*cked, and f*cked on a generational level to boot! And if you advocate for leveling the playing field, you're a pinko commie socialist who is engaging in class warfare, or treading on parents' rights by not wanting to fund their flight from public schools, or eroding liberty, or coddling the lazy masses by saying that not only is welfare necessary, but it needs to be completely overhauled so that MORE people get it EARLIER and on MORE levels in order to stop them from needing it perpetually.


Small wonder liberal me is getting my BOB together and searching for a good BOL.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've gotten a bit long winded; my apologies.


I think I'm probably the last person in the world who deserves that apology, if you look at how long my own responses are! LOL Thanks for your patience and your willingness to even SKIM what I've written.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy smoke Batman!!!! WOW!


Uhhh, in no way did I mean to offened anyones politics here. It was just that the similarities "JMO",

were well, ummm, similar. I had not intended to call Mr. Obama ,"Hitler" it was, but again, it was the "similiarities" of the two.

Not being a match, but similar. I'm certainly glad to see the survivalist on

this forum didn't relate to any personal attacks. The difference in opinions in this discussion is what makes us all individuals in its self. The phrase, "we should agree to disagree" as Oregonchick said definitely comes to play...


Oregonchick, I admire your "stand pat" attitude and beliefs. You are impressive.


ps: I do not hate Obama. Who knows, I may even like him if I knew him as a person.


However, I do not like his politics.


My personal opinion is that most,"and I say most" (not all) of our governing body seem to be puppets on a string. Who's pulling the strings? Well, who knows. Some say lobbyists. I don't have a clue! My opinion is that we are going

to hell in a handbasket slowly but surely, and possibly even faster than I think.




As Automouse said, my hat is also off to you all!


Now, Autonomous. If you look at the Supreme Court Justices that have been appointed in the last several years you'll find a "negative stance" with them in relation to gun ownership. I'm wondering again where this will be heading in the future.


CaptBart, sorry for getting you on the edge of your seat. I would have hated to have been the first person to have had a post removed or even been banned

from the site. I didn't mean to stir up hate and discontent in any way, shape or

form. However, I did learn a few things!


Respectively, desert rat

Edited by desert rat

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gun control? I don't remember that being something that Obama either campaigned on or has acted on. Am I missing something?.


He led Illinois to some of the most restrictive gun control laws, even if he abstained from voiting.

For one - lack of recognition of other CCW permits.



He has always been on the fence but his true intentions and alliance is easy to see.

Edited by BamaMan

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

desert rat,

no harm, no foul. I try to keep hands off as much as possible; we have a good group and I enjoy the give and take.


As I've said to others, it would have to have been SOME post to get someone banned first time out. This has, so far, been a good thread to have folks start looking at their thoughts.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Capt Bart, I think this group is GREAT.


When I worked in Human Resources (up to a couple of years ago), I was a frequent contributor to a professional forum where we discussed all sorts of HR issues. Anyway, people would often talk religion and politics - because that's something you CAN'T do as an HR person without undermining credibility in the workplace - and holy pajamas could a group of policy-driven, so-called "people pleasers" turn a bulletin board into an out-and-out brawl! We routinely had members get suspended from the board for 30 days (and a couple outright banned) due to name calling, personal attacks, and obscenities. Part of me thinks it was the stress of trying to present such a level-headed, pleasant demeanor at work - they'd just crack when they could post relatively anonymously online - but part of it was that topics like religion and politics do get people fired up.


My point is, while I've only just started posting on this forum, I am really impressed with the way members conduct themselves and the way the boards are moderated. I wonder if it's due to the fact that the boards are so collaborative in general? People seem so willing to share their expertise and opinions, and most seem to easily accept that what makes sense for their own preps may not be the best choice for everyone else, so there isn't as much trolling/attacking as there might be elsewhere.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this