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.
“Byron 1, April 6, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Goneville:
When you accept the fact that fascism and socialism are pretty much the same, I’ll accept that Nazis were fascists.”
I just got through pointing out that I stated repeatedly that most forms of governments contain aspects of the other. I said that 3 or 4 times yesterday. And I repeated it today. That doesn’t mean they’re “pretty much the same”. But they do contain aspects of each other.
Pretending you did not see all the times I wrote that, does nothing to strengthen your failed talking point.
“Byron 1, April 6, 2010 at 3:13 pm
I am not backpedaling but I can certainly see your confusion and I certainly understand why you would refuse to admit that fascism and socialism are pretty much different sides of the same coin.”
Incredible.
You selectively quote from the American College Dictionary to try and make your point. Then when I quote from the very same dictionary, suddenly its wrong.
Its right when you quote it, but wrong when I quote it.
And I’m the one confused?
Tootie,
In all honesty, that wasn’t an attack on a typo, or your education. I apologize for phrasing that comment in that way. As an explanation, I was in a hurry and didn’t take my usual care to edit out the uncivil, and the fault is all mine. The best advice I can give for dealing with any ill wordings on my part is that you really shouldn’t ever take what I say personally, I always argue with your ideas not you as a human being.
With that out of the way there is fundamental mistake in your wording. One that has been pointed out to you on at least one other occasion. The differing opinions on globalism are A difference between Marxism and fascism, not THE difference. That is what I was referring to.
Goneville:
When you accept the fact that fascism and socialism are pretty much the same, I’ll accept that Nazis were fascists.
I am not backpedaling but I can certainly see your confusion and I certainly understand why you would refuse to admit that fascism and socialism are pretty much different sides of the same coin.
If you had bothered to read what I posted you would be able to see that they are pretty much the same thing.
Here is a refresher:
“Fascism/Nazism
The difference between [socialism and fascism] is superficial and purely formal, but it is significant psychologically: it brings the authoritarian nature of a planned economy crudely into the open.”
Superficial – presenting only an appearance without substance or significance.
If I were a socialist I would want to distance myself from the Nazis too.
I think you may need to do a little growing up as well.
Byron-“Fascism, socialism, Marxism they are all the same economically and eventually politically.”
How many times did I state yesterday that “all governments have aspects of fascism and socialism”? Huh? 3, 4 times? And now you proceed to lecture me as if this is your concept? Laughable.
Byron, you claimed the Nazi’s were Socialists. They were not.
The very dictionary you quoted from trying to claim they weren’t fascists by presenting a partial definition of fascism has been shown to utterly refute you. Any reasonably mature individual would simply admit they were wrong at this point. You’ve left yourself no where to go.
But not you. You seem intent on “being right” even in the face of all evidence to the contrary. So you are impossible to debate. At least honestly. When a grown man (I’m assuming you’re a grown man) refuses to accept cold hard facts in a debate and worse, won’t accept the definitions of the very reference materials HE introduces into the debate, then there is no where left to go.
You cannot debate with someone who is unwilling to accept cold hard facts from the reference materials THEY themselves use to make their point.
The American College Dictionary you quoted from says the Nazi’s were FASCISTS. It doesn’t include the word “SORTA”.
Backpedal all you like but you’ve left yourself no place to go. Other than growing up and admitting you were wrong.
Now the inevitable backpedaling begins. “they’re SORTA facists”.
Well Byron, the dictionary you quoted from doesn’t state that they were “SORTA fascists”. It says they were fascists.
Normally this would be game, set and match given the Dictionary you used to make your argument unequivocally states Nazism is Fascism and thus proves you were wrong. When the reference material you choose to selectively quote from states the exact opposite of your claims that’s the ball game in any actual debating forum. But given you ignore facts when they are presented to you I am confident you will just keep painting yourself further into that corner.
Gyges:
What is your point?
To hurt me?
Does it please you to make it appear you are superior to me? Fine, EVERYONE, Gyges is superior to Tootie.
Do you feel better now?
I agreed with you that word meanings are important, but then you you sought to insult me about a trivial grammar or typing error somewhere in a large post I made elsewhere on the site. Why? We weren’t talking about grammar errors or typos, we were talking about the meaning of words, and I don’t believe I have a real big problem with word meanings. No one in their right mind would think I don’t know the difference between “a” and “the”.
Don’t be lazy. Pull out the error and re-post it here since it’s so important to you, otherwise act like an adult and drop it.
I had a horrible education, it was almost disadvantaged. And yet I keep up with the many arrogant prigs and snobs at this website who think they are quite superior to those of us who never received the advantages or blessings they have. I make a few good points and I have none of the training that many here obviously have.
Is there no room in your world for those who are disadvantaged? Perhaps you are one of those nuts who “love humanity, but hate people” (Millay)? They claim compassion for those who are the lesser, but when the lesser shows up and confront them, their instinct is to crush and destroy.
They try to eliminate the disadvantaged from the online town square or civic debate because they do not want them to speak in a manner they consider inferior. So they mock the spelling and the typing error in hopes of eliminating…what? A weaker member of the group? Or a stronger member with less verbal skills? Nice, real nice.
Who knows what bullies think?
I have struggled to teach myself grammar because it was fraudulently denied me by those who got paid for not teaching me the things they claimed to teach.
I realize that people here often resort to bullying others about bad grammar in an effort to humiliate them into silence. I don’t let these thugs bother me.
They are only superior in showing how inferior they are.
GONEVILLE:
if you go read what I posted, I said that Buddha was sort of right about the fascism thing.
But the end result from each is the same state control of industry and production. Fascism, socialism, Marxism they are all the same economically and eventually politically. In other words they are oppressive. I am sorry if that doesn’t comport with what you learned in college.
What we are arguing about is dark grey vs. charcoal grey.
To all teabagging tea-hadist apologists:
Do you think Faux Noise and Glen Peck will flog this little fun fact: “Exxon Mobil paid no federal income tax in 2009.”
“In fact in 2008, the Government Accountability Office found that two out of every three US corporations paid no Federal Income Taxes from 1998 through 2005.”
Yea, let’s bring back the repugs they were so good for business!
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/04/06/exxon-tax/
The dictionary definition of fascism is: “a governmental system with strong centralized power, permitting no opposition or criticism, controlling all affairs of the nation (industrial, commercial, etc.), emphasizing an aggressive nationalism . . .”
The American College Dictionary,
New York: Random House, 1957.
*********************
Funny you should quote the American College Dictionary, and leave out their definition of Nazism.
Why is it funny? Because The American College Dictionary which you quoted from to try and leverage their definition of Fascism to support your claims that Nazi’s aren’t fascists, also states Nazism is fascism.
From the American College Dictionary;
****************************
Main Entry:Na·zi
Pronunciation:\ˈnät-sē, ˈnat-\
Function:noun
Etymology:German, by shortening & alteration from
Nationalsozialist, from national national + Sozialist socialist
Date:1930
1: a member of a German FASCIST party controlling Germany from 1933 to 1945 under Adolf Hitler
2: often not capitalized: one who espouses the beliefs and policies of the German Nazis : fascist: one who is likened to a German Nazi: a harshly domineering, dictatorial, or intolerant person
*******************************
Next time you might want to read the definition of the word that is provided by the dictionary you’re quoting from, prior to quoting from it. That is if you’re going to pretend it means something else.
Tootie,
Do you ever get tired of parroting the same blatantly false facts?
http://jonathanturley.org/2010/03/22/with-friends-like-this-al-sharpton-insists-that-the-public-voted-for-socialism-with-the-election-of-obama/#comment-120718
Forgive me if I find lectures on language from a someone who can’t comprehend the difference between “a” and “the” a little laughable.
“Byron 1, April 6, 2010 at 8:17 am
Goneville:
How is posting the 25 tenants of National Socialism in an effort to prove my point about whether or not the Nazis were socialists propaganda?”
You’re asking me how its propaganda to defend the Nazi’s claims to socialism by reprinting the Nazi’s propaganda that they used to claim they were socialists?
You just asked a question and answered a question at the same time.
The important and main difference between fascism and Marxism (both being totalitarian collectivist systems) is that fascism is nationalist and Marxism is universal.
Outside of that Stalin and Mussolini were doing a very similar thing: taking over control of the means of production; one doing it locally, the other (Stalin) hoping to do it globally. Both took control of business–giving that power to the state. Like with health care.
Democrats are at the fascist stage of collectivist totalitarianism (the same starting point as Mussolini and Hitler), moving forward to the universal Marxist stage as quickly as possible through globalism and the United Nations (they hope).
The Russian starting point was Regicide as monarchy had to be murdered. Then it was fascistic, then Marxist, then dictatorship (Monarchy!). That was the same starting point for the French Revolution: Regicide, Collectivist (plunder of the rich/church), then Napoleonic dictatorship. Obama knows all this as he is well versed in the works of Edmund Burke.
Here is some fun, who will you vote for?
Vote here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer52.html
Gyges: Sorry, correction. The exact English rendering of the Confucius quote is:
“If the language is incorrect…the people will have nowhere to put hand and foot.” David Hawkes, Oxford.
I idea is to imagine how life would be when you could not put your hand or foot down anywhere on earth.
Gyges:
Agreed, word meanings sure do matter.
I didn’t think I said otherwise. Hayek has another book, “The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism”. He has a chapter on words called Our Poisoned Language. That chapter starts with this quote by Confucius:
“When words lose their meaning
the people lose liberty.”
A colleague wrote to him and said the more accurate rendering was “When words lose their meaning there is no place to put hand or foot”.
Both version mean to state that liberty is not possible when we corrupt the meaning of words. I totally agree with that. It is interesting, also, especially considering the history of the Chinese people, that their language does not have a character or word for liberty. Thus, Confucius’s phrase “no place to put hand or foot”.
The concept of liberty was so far from their worldview, they didn’t even have a specific word for it. The Greeks, on the other hand, discovered such a thing very early in human history.
Leftist intellectuals are often as guilty of the “my god is better than your god” argument as the religious folks they often mock.
It goes something like this:
“my intellectuals are better than your intellectuals”
Well whoop-dee-doo Spanky. Just because your intellectual hero says someone elses intellectual hero is a bozo, doesn’t make it so. It’s not like we can definitively measure it on a ruler or scale.
That unscientific conclusion about whose intellect is better than the other is based solely on a leap of faith just like religion. Intellect can be just as invisible as god.
There is no hard science in those conclusions about what an intellectual is or is not unless we are talking IQ. And even then, when we talk about IQ, we have to see what that leads to.
Ted Kaczynski’s IQ (in the fifth grade) was 167 (in the genius range).* A case could be made that he was actually anti-intellectual. Which, in my opinion, seems to be the case for many leftists (especially the ones who want to control others).
Ashkenazi Jews (the group with the highest IQ) are nearly extinct.
So what then is intellect?
At LEAST the Libertarian tradition and its “scholars” derive their political ideology FROM the data, evidence, statistics (human action). They gather the information and make political assumptions FROM IT and make recommendations. And they don’t pick up a weapon to accomplish it. The leftists do pick up weapons and always have: FDR, LBJ, Woodrow Wilson, Harry Boom Boom Truman, Clinton.
The problem with that ax grinding attitude by the left (they hate poverty, they hate racism, they hate inequality, and will make everyone’s life miserable until they are obliterated) is that virtually all political theories based on that kind of outrage about injustice wind up becoming more unjust because the remedy requires brutal force. The irrational notion that these evils can be abolished leads us continually off the proverbial cliff.
They can only be mitigated.
From the libertarian viewpoint (I’m not a libertarian) data indicates that collectivism (fascism, Marxism, socialism, communism) is everything it pretends to dislike: hurtful, destructive, inefficient, brutal, immoral, impoverished, unjust, and selfish.
When Stalin finally came to power, his own supporters wondered if what they had created was simply a Soviet Czar. They knew he was the Soviet King and they were surprised to end up in the same place they started.
Beethoven supported Napoleon until the tyrant (under the guise of liberty) crown himself king! The same happened with Robespierre; he became the terror he said that monarchy was. Ghandi, Gertrude Stein, Winston Churchill, and Henry Ford had all once supported Hitler.
They were duped by his words!
Just as democrats are duped by Obama and all others who promise salvation. Just as republicans were duped by George Bush.
Obama believes his own delusions about himself. That’s when it gets dangerous.
Byron and Tootie,
A note on why it matters what you call it:
Words have power, just ask Orwell. He dedicated so much time in 1984 to the reduction of the English language because he knew that how we speak shapes how we think. Every time you eliminate a nuance, or remove a distinction you are limiting the way you can think. Imagine trying to describe a painting using only basic color terms black\white\orange\red\yellow\etc. Now imagine having to see that painting with only seeing those colors. That’s what you’re doing to your world view when you say “well it doesn’t matter what we call X, because it’s similar to Y, so from now on they’re both Y.”
If you want to make a conscious choice to limit your thought process, be my guest, but once you make it you loose the ability to truthfully number yourself among the intellectually curious and honest.
Byron,
I take that back. The edit cannot be attributed to “BHenry1969”. The strange thing is that it also cannot be attributed to “Mandolinface”, who performed the previous edit. The words quoted above by Buddha just magically appeared sometime between 5:06 on Dec. 17th 2009 and 4:49 on the 22nd of December.
Here are the links to the two edit pages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nazism&diff=prev&oldid=332215358
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nazism&diff=next&oldid=332215358
Very strange.
Buddha:
I am not a fascist and after about 2005 I wrote many letters to my congressman and senators requesting an end to the war once I figured out it was not a good thing.
In the end it doesn’t matter if it is socialism, communism or fascism they all forfeit individual rights in the end.
Jefferson was not a socialist. And I don’t think corporations should be above the law. An objective rule of law is necessary for human existence.
I also think that there should be some sort of safety net for those that are truly unable to provide for themselves.
And as far as my love of money goes, I will hazard a guess that the net worth of the regular posters is larger than mine by a substantial amount. Most small business owners dont do it for the money, oh you can make an adequate living but you wont get rich. I think the main attraction is the freedom it offers, at least that is what I like.
I am sorry you think I am a fascist, I can assure you I am not, but I do most definitely believe in free markets and transparency. A number of corporations like the status quo because they do not have to suffer the inherent Darwinian nature of a true free market. I wouldn’t care if Exxon Mobile went out of business, if it couldn’t compete on a level playing field, so be it. If you think that is fascism I don’t know what to say to you.
Here is a definition of the 2 and so you are right sort of.
“Fascism/Nazism
The difference between [socialism and fascism] is superficial and purely formal, but it is significant psychologically: it brings the authoritarian nature of a planned economy crudely into the open.
The main characteristic of socialism (and of communism) is public ownership of the means of production, and, therefore, the abolition of private property. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Under fascism, men retain the semblance or pretense of private property, but the government holds total power over its use and disposal.
The dictionary definition of fascism is: “a governmental system with strong centralized power, permitting no opposition or criticism, controlling all affairs of the nation (industrial, commercial, etc.), emphasizing an aggressive nationalism . . .”
The American College Dictionary,
New York: Random House, 1957.
Under fascism, citizens retain the responsibilities of owning property, without freedom to act and without any of the advantages of ownership. Under socialism, government officials acquire all the advantages of ownership, without any of the responsibilities, since they do not hold title to the property, but merely the right to use it—at least until the next purge. In either case, the government officials hold the economic, political and legal power of life or death over the citizens.
Needless to say, under either system, the inequalities of income and standard of living are greater than anything possible under a free economy—and a man’s position is determined, not by his productive ability and achievement, but by political pull and force.
Under both systems, sacrifice is invoked as a magic, omnipotent solution in any crisis—and “the public good” is the altar on which victims are immolated. But there are stylistic differences of emphasis. The socialist-communist axis keeps promising to achieve abundance, material comfort and security for its victims, in some indeterminate future. The fascist-Nazi axis scorns material comfort and security, and keeps extolling some undefined sort of spiritual duty, service and conquest. The socialist-communist axis offers its victims an alleged social ideal. The fascist-Nazi axis offers nothing but loose talk about some unspecified form of racial or national “greatness.” The socialist-communist axis proclaims some grandiose economic plan, which keeps receding year by year. The fascist-Nazi axis merely extols leadership—leadership without purpose, program or direction—and power for power’s sake.”
Yes, duh. By all means, cherry pick your definitions some more and ignore the multitude of other sources I provided.
Just like a propaganda troll.
BTW, still waiting for a logical dissection of my earlier arguments. Which I’m sure you’ll avoid once again.
Just like a propaganda troll.