Dr. Jack Cassell, 56, a Mount Dora urologist and a registered Republican, left a message for Obama supporters on his door: heal thyself or at least find a doctor elsewhere.
Cassell posted a sign reading “If you voted for Obama…seek urologic care elsewhere. Changes to your healthcare begin right now, not in four years.” Personally, I am not sure I want a proctological exam with a guy who is really pissed off at Democrats and liberals. Hint: when you visit Dr. Cassell bring a copy of Rush Limbaugh on tape, the exam goes much smoother.
Curiously, Cassell insists that telling Obama supporters to “seek urologic care elsewhere” is not denying them care: “I’m not turning anybody away — that would be unethical. But if they read the sign and turn the other way, so be it.”
This raises an interesting question. It would seem unethical to deny care based on political beliefs but state law only addresses race, religion,
gender, sexual preference or disability. However, as an ethical matter, it would seem rather clear but I am but a juris doctor.
To further his unique combination of politics and proctology, Cassell supplies copies of a health-care timeline produced by Republicans and added a sign that reads “This is what the morons in Washington have done to your health care. Take one, read it and vote out anyone who voted for it.”
For the full story, click here.
“Buddhro, Your childlike relliance on ad hominem attacks does well to demonstrate the childlike mind controlling your behavior. In your mind, the rules of civility are meant for others. If nothing else, you’re predictable.”
Not that your conversation with Buddha is Laughing is any of my business but weren’t you the one who just yesterday profanely blew up at me calling me all sorts of names?
Seems odd that you would be doing it yesterday and complaining about it today.
“and the problem is government intervention in the market. I have read Marx and he does not understand economics, in fact he makes basic mistakes about valuation of the products of production. This same economic illiteracy has been assimilated into our once capitalist system. The things you speak of are caused by our government trying to realize a Marxist ideal, the damage you see is a direct result of the marriage of Marx and capitalism. I know many people who support capitalism totally against giving tax money to corporations.
What you speak of is Fascism or socialism.”
Not true. Painting a label on it in order to demonize it is the tactic of the Teabaggers. It is not Fascism to have laws designed to make sure corporations do not cheat the poor, or that they pay their fair share of tax dollars. Fascism would be if the government took over the businesses, like Nazi Germany did pre WWII.
We are talking about corporations paying their fair share of taxes. Asking corporations to pay taxes does not constitute socialism or fascism. Those claims are claims made by Teabaggers to demonize any actions this President does in order help Americas working class poor.
Goneville:
and the problem is government intervention in the market. I have read Marx and he does not understand economics, in fact he makes basic mistakes about valuation of the products of production. This same economic illiteracy has been assimilated into our once capitalist system. The things you speak of are caused by our government trying to realize a Marxist ideal, the damage you see is a direct result of the marriage of Marx and capitalism. I know many people who support capitalism totally against giving tax money to corporations.
What you speak of is Fascism or socialism.
Buddhro, Your childlike relliance on ad hominem attacks does well to demonstrate the childlike mind controlling your behavior. In your mind, the rules of civility are meant for others. If nothing else, you’re predictable.
Now go build your sandcastles. When you get a few more years outside of school you may have the wisdom to make a serious contribution to the world around you. Until such time, you can keep making your faces, and I will continue to laugh at you.
Your logic is mitigated by your prejudice. You run away from everything you can’t cope with. Your words have become your fortress.
Now hush little baby.
Gyges:
I agree that some Tea Partiers are racist, but I just disagree they all are. I know some personally and they are not racist but they are concerned about the direction of the country. Wrongly or rightly they have a legitimate right to dissent.
What I disagree with is using a broad brush to paint all people in the Tea Party as racist. You can disagree with their agenda and philosophy and present arguments about why you disagree but to just dismiss them as racist is a mistake and it is easy to do because it doesn’t take much effort.
I know you and Buddha could make many arguments against them for other reasons besides racism and greed and selfishness. Those aren’t really arguments they are dismissals and ending of dialogue. They give you an easy way to claim the moral high ground without addressing legitimate concerns.
I’m not sure how much further I want to delve here but this statement needs to be addressed.
“Capitalism is a system of providing goods and services to human beings as such it is morally neutral in the sense you are using.”
So very wrong. Anytime you are dealing with governing human beings you can never claim moral neutrality. On any level. This sort of thinking is the stuff tyrants and despots are made of. Its the mentality that permits the banks to rob the working poor, then come begging for tax dollars to bail them out and then when they get those tax dollars, fly off to Barbados for a “corporate getaway” and to hand out fat bonuses. That sort of thinking is why we have a working poor.
We see a lot of talk about the poor, particularly with health insurance. Comments like “you have to work for what you get” and “I don’t want my tax dollars paying for lazy people” are the antithesis of a moral democracy. Those comments pretend that we can ignore our moral responsibility to our fellow man and worse, they deceive by pretending that the poor are not working and that’s why they’re poor.
The truth is the real bulk of the people working in this country are working poor, meaning they work 40, 50, 60 hour weeks yet are paid a wage that does not provide sufficient income to feed, clothe and house themselves, much less pay the 500 or 5000 dollar deductible on their crappy insurance policy, assuming they can even afford to have a policy.
The bulk of Americans in this country work harder than any of the big mouthed fat cats out there who are crying about giving up a portion of their tax dollars to care for the poor. They work long hours, in crummy conditions for rotten wages not capable of sustaining them or their families. Their wives work, sometimes even the older children work just to make ends meet. So working poor are not “lazy” and their not some unfortunate wretch asking for a hand out. These are the bulk of the working class of our country and they are only demanding a fair shake.
Laws to protect the working class and poor have been around forever and they’ve often demanded the rich dig into their own pockets to help pull the weight of their fellow man. After all the rich wouldn’t be so rich if it weren’t for all those working poor beneath them, propping them up.
To pretend that you can separate our individual and collective responsibility to our fellow man, or that any form of society or government can ever be “morally neutral” is to deny our own collective humanity.
Buddha,
You seem to have your game on today, as per usual 🙂
Gyges,
Since when did mugging become a racial stereotype? Not even Wikipedia has applied that attribute to “mugging”. You might not realize it, but you’re prejudice.
On the sites that identify the racist signs are comments from those who attended Tea Party rallies. Many of those comments denounce the racist signs.
The racists signs have been denounced.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/03/republicans-denounce-racist-an.html
You just don’t care to recognize it. That’s not good enough for you. You want the Tea Party disrupted. You want infighting. The Tea Parties are not about race. They’re about government spending.
Duh,
You’re barking at the wrong dog, tea bagger.
rac·ism \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
Am I prejudiced? Why yes I am and I’ve said it before but my prejudice is based on logic. You know, logic, that thing you are bereft of.
I’m prejudiced against evil behaviors like those exhibited by racists and the willfully ignorant.
If you have a problem with that, that’s your problem. “Apes read philosophy, Otto. They just don’t understand it.” Apes have an excuse. Humans? Not so much. That Bible you put so much stock in says in 2 Corinthians 11: 19 “For ye suffer fools gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise.”
Too bad for you I’m not a Christian. And while I may suffer you, I’ll not suffer your propagation of ignorance.
I’m more in the lines of what George Bernard Shaw said in Pygmalion. “He was, I believe, not in the least an ill-natured man: very much the opposite, I should say; but he would not suffer fools gladly.”
Logic is the mother of all tools. I suggest you get some before barking at the wrong dog again, yappy lil’ racist apologist. “My aim is not to teach the method that everyone ought to follow in order to conduct his reason well, but solely to reveal how I have tried to conduct my own.” – René Descartes. If people find logics more persuasive than excuses, that’s still your problem. You have yet to win a single argument here, against anyone. Logic is not your strong suit. And ethics? “The first step in the evolution of ethics is a sense of solidarity with other human beings.” – Albert Schweitzer. Association with racists and, worse, apologizing for them, is not in any way a sense of solidarity with other human beings. You are a divider, duh, not a unifier and your basis of operation is weak platitude instead of hard logic. “I conceive that the great part of the miseries of mankind are brought upon them by false estimates they have made of the value of things.” – Benjamin Franklin. Why ol’ Ben could have been thinking of you, duh, for one cannot form proper logics without proper valuation and both logic and proper valuation are rooted in education. You should try getting some of that too. Maybe then you’d understand the phrase “All men are created equal”.
Now ask yourself why I don’t seem to like you or tea baggers very much, duh. Your posts demonstrate willful ignorance and the desire to segregate. What is there to like? Not much.
Challenge? Methinks your opinion of your skills far outweighs your actual skill. Nothing you’ve ever posted here is a challenge except maybe a challenge to read without laughing in the face of your ridiculous and self-serving Neocon spoon-fed tripe. I can analyze and think logically better in my sleep than you can with assistance after drinking a gallon of coffee.
Run along now, lil’ dog.
Free,
And the lips and mugging? Actually, I have no doubt you can find plausible reasons to excuse all of the individual details. I don’t think it’s possible to prove that the imagery of the sign is undeniably racist. I do think it’s possible to show that the totality of the imagery in the sign strongly suggests the artist in question sought to exploit well known racial stereotypes.
Gyges,
“The emphasis of the lips and ears present on the representation of Obama is very clearly from the traditional symbolism of “the minstrel shows.”
One who is looking for racism is sure to find it.
Obama said: “I just want to put you on notice. I’m very sensitive,” adding, “I was teased relentlessly when I was a kid about my big ears.”
http://mediamatters.org/research/200612150012
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=obama+%2Bears&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=KRW6S77aEZiMNe6cheIL&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQsAQwAA
Buddha:
what definitions am I changing? I believe I have used all correctly. If I havent please let me know where I am mistaken or misapplying a definition.
My position isn’t that all teabaggers are racist, my position is that all non-racist teabaggers have a duty to let the racists know that they’re not welcome. I also feel that all teabaggers have a duty to reject calls to violence. Actually, I my position is that every human being has those duties.
If Tea Partiers don’t know by now, not to carry racially motivated signs, then they are stupid no matter what there personal belief is. It would be in the best interest of the Tea Party Movement to have officials designated at every event and speak with anyone holding a racist or could be deemed as a racist sign and take notes effectively policing themselves.
There is the potential for Flash Riots.
Byron,
My position isn’t that all teabaggers are racist, my position is that all non-racist teabaggers have a duty to let the racists know that they’re not welcome. I also feel that all teabaggers have a duty to reject calls to violence. Actually, I my position is that every human being has those duties.
As to the rest of your rant, Buddha’s right. You’re better than this.
“Changing definitions to suit your need is a coercive definitional bias and the tool of propagandists.”
Nice rhetoric, Buddhro. What definition of “racism” are you using?
I’ll present the same challenge to you that I did to rafflaw and those of the same ilk who followed in his steps. I doubt you’ll accept the challenge, because in doing so you would expose your own prejudice.
Free,
First, let’s be accurate: the Daily Kos article about the Hillary44 website over a year before the H44 posting you’re referring too, so in no way were they defending that image. Secondly, the Daily Kos posting was opining that the postings at H44 were not acceptable political behavior. The author calls the postings on H44 “insane,” and “borderline racist.” I’ll also point out that since the author is speaking from a position outside the movement exhibiting the inappropriate behavior. So in no way is the situation analogous to the Teaparty movement.
That little side trip into reality (and comprehension of the written word) out of the way, let’s play in hypothetical land. Let’s say that the two situations were a perfect point for point match with the only difference being the political inclinations of the people involved. THE PICTURE IS STILL RACIST. The only proper response to racism (or bigotry of any sort) is “Your behavior is unacceptable.” Lack of response is viewed (by the bigots) as tacit agreement, and excuses turn the person making them into an apologist.
I never said that Obama Threatening Uncle Sam was racist, I said the imagery of that particular sign was racist. The emphasis of the lips and ears present on the representation of Obama is very clearly from the traditional symbolism of “the minstrel shows.” Any argument of ‘that’s just the way the guy draws’ is rings false when one notices that Uncle Sam doesn’t exhibit either of those features.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jimcrow.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ImperialMinstrelsPostcard.jpg
The positioning of the two characters is evocative of a mugging, playing into the narrative of “the black man as a violent criminal.”
Yeah, let’s ignore all evidence that is to the contrary, Byron.
It’s called a selection bias.
And if one acts greedy and selfish, then one is greedy and selfish just as if one acts racist, one is racist. Changing definitions to suit your need is a coercive definitional bias and the tool of propagandists.
Did you fall asleep last night in a pool of logical fallacies? Because you got them all over you today.
Gyges:
I think (I’ll let Duh speak for himself) the majority of Tea Partiers are not racist and the left is using the actions of a few to smear the entire group. Which it fears and with good reason, if in November a large number of congress who believe in free markets and individual liberty get elected there are going to be major changes in Washington. These changes will be in direct opposition to a redistributionist philosophy that has taken hold since the 2006 election and which Obama enthusiastically supports.
My point is that they (the left) have no real intellectual ammunition against anti-redistributionist policies (except the old tired bromide that Tea Pariters are greedy and selfish) so they are using race to try and blunt the tip of a political stake aimed at their collective heart.
The democratic party has become the bastion of 60’s radicals and has left every democratic ideal in the gutter. The party of Harry Truman and John Kennedy has become the party of the Weather Underground and other Marxist front groups. They no longer represent coal miners and steel workers but The Sierra Club and the Socialist Workers Party and they are antithetical to a free people. What they couldn’t do by physical force in the 60’s they are now doing by political force without the consent of a majority of the governed.
So the whole “all Tea Partiers are racist” meme doesn’t ring true or carry much weight. Seeing as how that is the only “serious” response the left can muster and as their political lives and dream of a socialist utopia are at stake, I wouldn’t be so quick to grab hold of a “drowning” man.
On major issues, 48% of voters say that the average Tea Party member is closer to their views than President Barack Obama. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 44% hold the opposite view and believe the president’s views are closer to their own.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2010/tea_party_48_obama_44
Gyges,
There has never been any denial that a sign using the word “niggar” is racist. I don’t care what meaning Robertson wants to give the word, the intent is pretty clear to most. In addition, there has never been a claim that racists didn’t attend the Tea Parties. I doubt you could keep racists from showing up at an event protesting President Obama. However, that doesn’t mean that more than an extremely limited minority of those attending share those views or accept their ideals. Heck, I know people who voted for Obama and use the same racist terms when they talk about him. Why would they vote for him if they were racists? Because he wasn’t Bush.
Do you know where I found the first article relating Obamacare to a Witch Doctor? It’s a pro-Hillary Clinton website.
http://www.hillaryis44.org/2009/11/21/witch-doctor-obamas-health-insurance-math-scam-vote/
Would you call all those who supported Hillary Clinton “racists”?
Or would you defend her supporters in the same way The Daily Kos did?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/16/183647/866/511/517160
And will you now call The Daily Kos a racist site because they pointed out that it was limited to a few?
Now I’ll let you explain to me how the depiction of Obama killing Uncle Sam is racist. 🙂