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.
Just think of the name and what I can do to you all. Stop the personal attacks or up the ______ for you. Your sheep will be cut off for the night.
“Byron 1, April 5, 2010 at 6:31 pm
Goneville:
National Socialism was only to include the German race. They already had national health care courtesy of Bismark, I think. The National Socialists didn’t have to worry about it, it was already in place.”
Byron, thanks but if you read my comments from the previous days of this same discussion you’ll see I was already well aware of that Hitler was “continuing” their national health care, not originating it which is why I used the word.
As for “National Socialism” I’m not sure your point their either. Surely you’re not making the same argument that the Nazi’s made that their party was a socialist movement. Perhaps you’re not aware but “they” called themselves National Socialists. That’s what the name “NAZI” means. National Socialist or “Nationalsozialismus” was the name they used to draw moderate social democrats and confuse the citizens into seeing them as a socialist movement opposed to the Weimar Republic.
So I hope you’re not making the same argument there as the Nazi leaders Germany made. Socialism does not restrict by race or skin color. That was the Nazi’s claim. Socialism by definition includes all the people, not a select few. That’s the opposite of socialism.
Nazi’s tried to claim that, but I hope you’re not.
now here is something we can all agree on, this took some effort to do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=RobaJKGMMiE
goneville:
that was a really “well presented cogent argument”. And totally incoherent. I would have expected more from someone with your obvious intellectual abilities.
Why dont you explain what you mean, really lay it out there and present your argument. What you presented was a simplistic leftist talking point.
Goneville:
the majority of university professors are left of center or left of left. You don’t think they have biases? You make me laugh. 🙂
Actually Duh accused Buddha of childlike logic, I did not.
I have no invisible friends and the fact that you think all “knowledge” resides in universities is absurd on it’s face. It is just funny to say something like that. I know people with masters degrees in economics who have never heard of Von Mises or Hyack or other free market/libertarian economists. I don’t mind if Marx is taught but don’t you think Von Mises ought to be taught as well?
That is one of the problems with socialism, capitalism is “illegal” but in a capitalist system socialism is not ‘illegal”. Seems to me that is all one needs to know about the 2 systems.
“And I have yet to hear one good argument against the philisophical viewpoint of the Tea Partiers.”
Yes you have. You just keep skirting over it in an attempt to argue the definition of the word Fascism.
The arguments a plain one and easy to understand to any reasonable person.
The Tea Parties philosophical viewpoint is “I’ve got mine and scew everyone else. We ain’t giving none of our tax dollars to help those dirty lazy poor people”.
We got it. We get it. And we’re giving it back.
“Byron 1, April 5, 2010 at 6:17 pm
Goneville:
“If you mean you’d like to conceal your comments in an endless muddled discussion on whatever topic crops into your head, no. I’m not into that.”
well actually you are and did. Let me refresh your memory.
“We are known by the company we keep and the causes we join in to support. Anyone standing with the Brownshirts in the Berlin beer halls were strengthening their numbers and adding credibility to their cause. The more people whether antisemitic or not that stood with the Brownshirts the stronger they became.”
It appears to me that you are/were insinuating that anyone who supports the Tea Partiers are not only racists but Nazis as well.”
Well it also seems to you that our collected knowledge as a people with regards to our history is controlled by Marxists, so your perception is clearly flawed.
As to my statement and your twisting it to meet your claim, the answer is no. You are wrong. I used the Nazi’s as a comparison because the situation is similar. A group of far right wing goons trying to bully and intimidate the rest of the country into supporting their political agenda. The similarities between the Tea Baggers with their subtle and not so subtle threats of violence and the shoutdown tactics used by the Brownshirts in the early years of the Nazi movement are striking. The Brownshirts didn’t begin with violence. They began by shouting the opposition down and threatening violence. Just like we see at your Tea Bag rallies with their guns, their signs warning of assassination and violent overthrow of the government, etc. These are similar tactics so its a natural comparison.
But I never said they were Nazi’s and was not implying that. True they are similar to the Nazi movement on many levels including in tactics and methods but they have a long way to go before they bathe this country in that sort of global disaster.
But I agree they are making a good start of it.
Goneville:
National Socialism was only to include the German race. They already had national health care courtesy of Bismark, I think. The National Socialists didn’t have to worry about it, it was already in place.
Prof. Turley:
I have no problem with Buddha calling me insane, he did not mean it in a literal sense. He just thinks I am either smoking a controlled substance or I got hit on the head. I don’t think he meant any animosity, it is more incredulity.
Buddha and Goneville:
Please provide me with authors and titles and I will prove my point. It shouldnt be too hard.
Goneville:
“If you mean you’d like to conceal your comments in an endless muddled discussion on whatever topic crops into your head, no. I’m not into that.”
well actually you are and did. Let me refresh your memory.
“We are known by the company we keep and the causes we join in to support. Anyone standing with the Brownshirts in the Berlin beer halls were strengthening their numbers and adding credibility to their cause. The more people whether antisemitic or not that stood with the Brownshirts the stronger they became.”
It appears to me that you are/were insinuating that anyone who supports the Tea Partiers are not only racists but Nazis as well.
And I have yet to hear one good argument against the philisophical viewpoint of the Tea Partiers. Racism is the only retort so far. But then it is rather hard to put forth a cogent argument against individual liberty, free markets and lower taxes.
“I hazard a guess that most of those history and poli-sci books were written by Marxists or at least people who lean to the left. All that I have read indicates that the Nazis were indeed socialists.”
Those are the two wackiest statements I’ve ever heard. Marxists writing our history books? That’s a line I’d expect to hear from Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh. That’s so absurd as to not even merit any response other than a chuckle.
As for the Nazi’s being socialists that too is silly. Sure they had elements of socialism in their government. As I keep saying and as you keep dancing around, most governments have facets of socialism, communism, fascism and capitalism. There is no hard line. But to call the Nazi’s socialists is laughable.
You are looking at small aspects of the Nazi movement to justify your cry of socialism which is ridiculous. If you’re going to brand a party then you need to look at their CORE foundations, not by products or peripheral policies. And any history book you read will show Nazism has always been equated with Fascism. Their core foundations were not social programs like health care to all. They did not trouble themselves with inclusiveness of the races within their people. Remember socialism includes ALL the people, not a specific race or group of them. This could never equal the Nazi’s. So your premise is laughable.
Which brings us to your first absurdity. You dismiss the fact that your republican talking point is not supported by the colleges, universities, historians and scholars by declaring “history books are written by leftists and Marxists”. So even though your republican talking point is not supported by the collected knowledge of our people, you promote it by simply dismissing history books and textbooks as wrong because they’re written by Marxists and the left.
Who can argue with that sort of logic? You accused Buddha of childlike logic earlier and you present us with this? Who could refute such a statement? It would be like arguing with a 2 year old who claims they know something is true that is not because their invisible friend told them. How can you debate it? If you are going to arbitrarily dismiss our educational institutions, historians and collected knowledge as a people then no one can possibly counter you because you refuse to acknowledge facts when they are presented to you.
Duh,
Say “fantasy” one more time, sport.
It’s really funny coming out of your troll mouth.
Prof,
I’m not insulting Byron. We all know that we’re friends. But I have to call him out on that assertion. Nazis aren’t fascists? It’s like saying chocolate is vanilla. Up is down. Electrons are positrons. Peanuts are nuts. Chinese is not an Asian language. It flies in the face of empirical facts and established history, which by definition, is insane. And an insane claim is a lot like an incredible claim: it requires credible proof. If he can prove his assertion without resorting to propaganda sources, I’ll gladly retract my statement about his possible faculty collapse. Until then, I have to call the assertion, by anyone, that Nazis were not and are not fascists some first grade crazy bullshit.
Now duh, on the other hand, if he got burned that’s what he gets for playing with fire. I hope you don’t begrudge a little fun at the expense of a guy who called me “idiot” and “stupid” in the same thread. We both know I was wearing the “mini-war face” with him.
Buddha,
Of course your conclusion follows your premise. However, when your premise is based on fantasy instead of facts, your conclusion is as worthless as the logic you employed to arrive at your conclusion.
13 percent of American voters say they are part of the Tea Party movement. Of the 170 million that would be about 22 million people. To consider 100 people (if that is even an attainable number) who held racist signs, or made racial slurs, to be a “large number” is ridiculous. To attribute the actions of less than .01% to the whole is far from a logical conclusion. (Except perhaps in your mind and the minds of your ilk.)
Keep using your false claims of racism. In doing so, you will make it extremely hard for a woman or person of color to ever hold the Office of President at any time in our near future. Most people won’t put up with the attempts to silence their voice by making use of these false claims. Their only way to ensure that they can express their views without being called a bigot is to prevent the situation from being permitted to take place.
I do appreciate your help to make sure that Obama will not be elected to a second term. 🙂 Is that is your ultimate goal?
Then quite simply, you’ve gone insane Byron. You attribute a bias to not just one, but literally hundreds of authors? The same bias?
You must have been hit on the head to believe the revisionist crap you are spewing now.
We need to stop this personal stuff in this thread. There is no need to personalize this debate. I can’t monitor the comments so I am relying on people to maintain the civility rule.
Buddha:
I hazard a guess that most of those history and poli-sci books were written by Marxists or at least people who lean to the left. All that I have read indicates that the Nazis were indeed socialists. The Marxists had a dog in that fight, I would want to distance my political and economic philosophy from them as well.
But in any event I am against facism as well as Marxism and it’s derivatives.
duh,
I’m still waiting for your dissection of my argument on racism.
I suspect I’ll be waiting until Hell freezes solid for you to get it even remotely right.
http://www.publiceye.org/fascist/berlet_fascism.html
But let’s be clear . . . historical revisionism is the tool of propagandists.
Seriously, Byron.
Were you hit in the head recently or something? You are waaaayyyy off today if you think hoping into bed with duh lends you any credibility or a logical and historically accurate footing to play from.
More basic definitions:
http://definitions.uslegal.com/f/facism/
But let’s not forget fascist efforts here in America:
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/rise_of_american_fascism.htm