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.
Rafflaw:
here is some more:
“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 . . . .
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 . . . .
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.”
Rafflaw:
maybe you need some education on the subject. Here you go:
“[Some “moderates” are trying to] revive that old saw of pre-World War II vintage, the notion that the two political opposites confronting us, the two “extremes,” are: fascism versus communism.
The political origin of that notion is more shameful than the “moderates” would care publicly to admit. Mussolini came to power by claiming that that was the only choice confronting Italy. Hitler came to power by claiming that that was the only choice confronting Germany. It is a matter of record that in the German election of 1933, the Communist Party was ordered by its leaders to vote for the Nazis—with the explanation that they could later fight the Nazis for power, but first they had to help destroy their common enemy: capitalism and its parliamentary form of government.
It is obvious what the fraudulent issue of fascism versus communism accomplishes: it sets up, as opposites, two variants of the same political system; it eliminates the possibility of considering capitalism; it switches the choice of “Freedom or dictatorship?” into “Which kind of dictatorship?”—thus establishing dictatorship as an inevitable fact and offering only a choice of rulers. The choice—according to the proponents of that fraud—is: a dictatorship of the rich (fascism) or a dictatorship of the poor (communism).
That fraud collapsed in the 1940’s, in the aftermath of World War II. It is too obvious, too easily demonstrable that fascism and communism are not two opposites, but two rival gangs fighting over the same territory—that both are variants of statism, based on the collectivist principle that man is the rightless slave of the state—that both are socialistic, in theory, in practice, and in the explicit statements of their leaders—that under both systems, the poor are enslaved and the rich are expropriated in favor of a ruling clique—that fascism is not the product of the political “right,” but of the “left”—that the basic issue is not “rich versus poor,” but man versus the state, or: individual rights versus totalitarian government—which means: capitalism versus socialism.”
goneville:
you are entirely incorrect, the depression was extended by Hoover and Roosevelt. This subject has been looked at by many people over the last 70 years and the economists I have read believe this to be true.
“Byron 1, April 6, 2010 at 8:22 pm
goneville:
what caused the great depression?”
**************************************
No Byron. You don’t get to keep moving the goal posts down the playing field with me. That trick works with others in here perhaps, but not me.
With me you’ll need to address the actual issues of yours that I demonstrate to be wrong. You did it when you began, pretending their were no racists signs, even though we know you’ve seen them because you blog here. But you played a game, making everyone go out and find links to the signs for you before you’d admit they were there. This is your pattern thus far and its not one you’re going to play with me any more. You’re going to need to address your inaccuracies.
And we’ll start with this one. You were not talking about the “cause” of the great depression. You said this famous Teabag talking point.
“The stimulus didn’t work in the 30’s and it hasn’t worked now.”
SO moving the goal posts to the start of the great depression under Hoover (or whatever cockamamie story you’ve got dreamed up) is not going to work. You won’t evade this statement. You claimed it didn’t work yet we know it did work. It stopped the run on the banks, brought depositors money back, saved the country from an entire economic collapse and even paved the way for Glass Steagall.
So to suggest it “did not work” is beyond absurd.
Its Teabag Absurd.
Deal with that one and then I’ll deal with the rest of your fallacies, prior to moving the goal posts on into the next County.
Byron,
Every tax is a redistribution of wealth, but if Obama is a socialist, let’s see evidence of any policy or program of Obama’s that is Socialistic. You also may want to look up the definition of the Socialism, Communism and Fascism. They are very different “isms” and are not interchangeable as you have used them.
Calling Obama a “socialist” is a joke. He has done nothing to redistribute wealth. He is positioning himself as a centrist with the teabaggers to his right.
goneville:
what caused the great depression? Maybe you have a hole in your knowledge. Hoover and Roosevelt were reacting to a problem caused by . . . and no the answer is not all about stock speculation.
Obama is a socialist by his own admission in his conversation with Joe the plumber. “I want to redistribute the wealth” or words to that effect.
Bottom line is if socialism is such a great thing why aren’t you defending it instead of just telling me I am wrong? What are it’s positive aspects? What level of taxation is acceptable? How do you regulate business under a socialist system and to what length? How much of a safety net is acceptable that type of thing.
I disagree with state control of markets and make no bones about it. I call state control of markets socialism, fascism, communism. I suppose you could say that of the 3 socialism is the least malignant to the extent it allows some market freedom. All three are set up to control markets and to the extent markets are controlled people are controlled.
And as a final thought maybe I feel about people calling Tea Partiers racist the same way you feel about me calling socialists Nazis. It isn’t very nice, especially when it cannot be applied across the board.
Byron, I will try to keep step with your latest tune.
***********************
Byron 1, April 6, 2010 at 6:15 pm
“So no I am not trying to paint all liberals as socialists”
***********************
No just the Obama administration and their policies and supporters.
Oh yea and me. You called me a socialist too.
************************
Byron 1, April 6, 2010 at 6:15 pm
“But I do think it is rather troubling that you don’t see the similarities. I guess concept formation, differentiation and integration are not your strong suits.”
***************************
The similarities between what? I guess blurring your intent in perpetual ambiguity is a strong point of yours? I realize it helps one to weasel out of positions they are clearly supporting but you’ve been too frank to try and continue to the veil of ambiguity.
I’m assuming here you mean the similarities between Nazism and Socialism. Or maybe you mean the similarities between the Obama Administration and Socialism. Or is the similarities between the Obama administration and Nazism? Or is it the similarities between the National Health Care and Hitler? Its hard keeping them straight since you have so many TeaParty talking points you’re trying to make here. Please check one of the above.
***************************
Byron 1, April 6, 2010 at 6:15 pm
“And I am not a Tea Partier and have never been to a Tea Party.”
***************************
Perhaps, who knows? You can claim anything online. All that we do know is you spend your days on the internet selling their talking points.
***************************
Byron 1, April 6, 2010 at 6:15 pm
You can call it what you want but government interference in the market is not a good thing, what ever system is involved.
***************************
Like this cornerstone talking point of the Tea Party movement. Most people understand that limited government role in the economy is essential to ensure accounting standards are met and kept, equity in the workplace is honored, safety on the job, etc. Sure there’s a trade off, and everything doesn’t always work. But earlier you made this Teabagger talking point;
“The stimulus didn’t work in the 30’s and it hasn’t worked now.”
This coupled with this reinforcement of Teabag doctrine is difficult to ignore. To say that FDR’s “Bank Holiday” (Emergency Banking Relief Act of 1933) didn’t work is to show either a stark hole in your knowledge of US history, or a Tea Party agenda to sell. I’m no expert on the subject by any means, but its common knowledge that were it not for FDR’s intervention the country’s economy would have entirely collapsed.
FDR shut down the banks and injected massive capital into them to keep the system from collapsing. There was a massive run on the banks and everyone had pulled out their money. The banking system was teetering on the edge of total collapse.
Yet within two weeks of instituting the Banking Act more than half of the money people had pulled out was returned, re-stabilizing the banking system and paving the way for recovery and the stock market rebounded with its biggest increase it had ever seen. That certainly wasn’t the end of the countries troubles or even the depression but it was huge victory over the imminent doom the country was facing.
To claim it “didn’t work” is about the most TeaBaggery thing I’ve ever heard.
In a nutshell, (an apt at this point) you’ve openly done the following here in spite of your recent backpedaling.
1. You have attempted to label the Obama administration and its policies on health care, its followers, myself included, as socialists.
2. In the same breath, you have in no uncertain terms stated that the Nazi’s were Socialists.
3. By first heralding the Teabagger call of “Obama Socialism” over public health care and regulation of the markets, and then in the same breath making the argument that Socialism is Nazism, you have called the President and his supporters Nazis.
So doing your trick that I’ve seen you do repeatedly in this discussion, that is hiding behind the word “all” is not going to change the fact that you are calling the President, his policies on health care and federal regulation and his supporters of these policies, which with regards to health care seems to be most of the people in here, Nazi’s. Or at least supporting Nazi policies, which is the same thing.
I don’t care if you have a 2nd cousin living in a cabin in the Appalachian mountains who calls herself a Robert Byrd democrat that you don’t consider to be a socialist hence a Nazi.
The fact is you’ve made the case here that President Obama and supporters of his policies are Socialists.
And you’ve made the case that Socialism is Nazism.
Hence you’ve quite nicely labeled everyone in here a Nazi.
Just like the Teabaggers are doing.
gONEVILLE:
I still disagree, but do agree that not all democrats are socialists and not all liberals are socialists either. So no I am not trying to paint all liberals as socialists. Some conservatives are pretty socialistic/fascistic as well.
I also agree that Patriot Act was a stupid thing to do and I also think that Bush should have stuck to getting rid of the Taliban. And I am not a Tea Partier and have never been to a Tea Party.
But I do think it is rather troubling that you don’t see the similarities. I guess concept formation, differentiation and integration are not your strong suits.
You can call it what you want but government interference in the market is not a good thing, what ever system is involved.
And I also think Obama’s presidency is a good thing and will in the long run be transformational.
The reality here is clear. Byron is a teabagger who is selling teabag doctrines. The Teabaggers were angry when the Bush regime was likened to the Nazi regime. There were key reasons the Bush regime was likened to the Nazis.
1. Hitler falsely used the Reichstag fire and other “terrorist” incidents to invade and occupy Poland. Bush falsely used 911 to invade and occupy Iraq.
2. Hitler introduced the “Enabling Act” removing civil liberties and significantly enhancing the power of the executive. Bush used the “Patriot Act” removing civil liberties and significantly enhancing the power of the executive.
3. Hitler advocated and ordered torture. Bush advocated and ordered torture.
There are other similarities like how the Polls defended Warsaw which is identical to how the Iraqi’s defended Baghdad, but those three are the three main points where people saw history repeating itself. They were legitimate comparisons to draw.
But in his first months in office the Teabaggers knowing people would continue to make those comparisons to Bush and Hitler, turned to painting President Obama as Hitler in order to detract from the real comparisons being made about Bush and Cheney. First they painted him as a Socialist, then tied Socialism to the Nazis.
Now in typical fashion Byron ignores the actual definitions of the terms, “toss out” the history books as “written by liberals and Marxists” and ignore the dictionary. The Nazi’s were socialists because “he says so” and in today’s media driven world that’s all that’s needed.
But the fact is the Nazi’s were socialists by any stretch of the word. Did they have “forms” of socialism in their government? Sure? As I said 5 times now or so, every government has ASPECTS of the others. But they were not socialists nor did they practice socialism. Like the Teabaggers here they simply claimed to be Socialists.
It is impossible to debate someone who is able to toss out the dictionaries, history books and collected knowledge of an entire planet in deference to their “opinion”. You cannot argue with such an individual. No hard facts will sway them. Even showing their own reference materials prove them wrong is not sufficient. Any reasonable individual once shown his OWN reference source which he is quoting from to make his point shows he’s wrong, would simply own up to being wrong and move on. But the Teabagger, like the Nazi, is a fanatic. Facts won’t get in the way of their agenda.
And Byrons agenda he has made clear, even openly and unabashedly stating it. His agenda is to;
1. Paint liberals as Socialists
2. Claim the Nazi’s were socialists.
3. Merge the two, showing liberals are Nazis.
Its a ridiculous argument to make, but leave it to a Teabagger to try and make it.
Gyges,
Okey dokey. No harm, no foul. I know what you mean. I feel like an octopus most days, typing on several websites, running a household, chasing the dog around, fixing meals, working, reading, watching the clowns in D.C. It’s crazy.
And I’m getting old. Sometimes I hit submit accidentally if my computer is acting up. Arrrgghh!
I really hate typing anyway.
lol
Here. American Heritage Dictionary.
Collins English Dictionary.
And Websters.
********************************
Na·zi (näts, nt-)
n. pl. Na·zis
1. A member of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, founded in Germany in 1919 and brought to power in 1933 under Adolf Hitler.
2. often nazi An adherent or advocate of policies characteristic of Nazism; a FASCIST.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
*********************************
Nazi [ˈnɑːtsɪ]
n pl Nazis
1. (Historical Terms) a member of the FASCIST National Socialist German Workers’ Party, which was founded in 1919 and seized political control in Germany in 1933 under the Austrian-born German dictator Adolf Hitler (1889-1945)
2. Derogatory anyone who thinks or acts like a Nazi, esp showing racism, brutality, etc.
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged 6th Edition 2003. © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
********************************
Nazi definition
Nazi (nät′sē, nat′-)
adjective
designating, of, or characteristic of the German FASCIST political party (National Socialist German Workers’ Party), founded in 1919 and abolished in 1945: under Hitler it seized control of Germany in 1933, systematically eliminated opposition, and initiated a program of nationalism, rearmament, political aggression, and racism, esp. anti-Semitism
Etymology: Ger < Nati(onalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei), party name
noun
1. a member of this party
2.
1. a supporter of this or any similar party; FASCIST
2. someone who thinks or acts like a Nazi
Webster's New World College Dictionary Copyright © 2010 by Wiley Publishing, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio.
Used by arrangement with John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
goneville:
good show 🙂 man you really showed me the light, thanks.
Even if they were their own ranking officers unless they were a Storm Trooper. Himmler complained that Roehm was only promoting his own. Well we know what happened to him, he beat the gallows by a pill….
Even if they were their own ranking officers unless they were a Storm Trooper. Himmler complained that Roehm was only promoting his own.
Nazis also persecuted and killed homosexuals.
“Superficial – presenting only an appearance without substance or significance.
If I were a socialist I would want to distance myself from the Nazis too.”
****************************
So by superficial you mean ignoring the very definitions from the dictionary you quote from? Is that what you mean?
Its right when you quote it and wrong when I quote it?
Not to mention every other book out there and dictionary that likewise says you’re wrong?
Or do you mean superficial like calling me a socialist? Which really constitutes more juvenile than superficial.
What you’re doing is what the right wing has been doing since President Obama got into office. Trying to change the definitions of words so as to smear him as a Nazi. Every peice of recorded history we possess states the Nazi’s were fascists not socialists. It was the Nazis who falsely claimed they were socialists when trying to seize power.
Now, 70 some odd years later we have you repeating the Nazi’s claims to socialism. You even went so far as posting the original tenents of the National Socialist Workers Party from 1925 to make the same claims they did to socialism. And then you ask how that is propaganda. You’re using their claims to make your claims, literally stepping in for Horst Wessel to chant the Nazi war song.
What you’re doing is evident. Trying to smear me, President Obama and any other liberal as a Socialist first, then tying socialism to the Nazi’s, hence trying to identify us as Nazi’s. Well Byron, Nazis were not infamous for their giving out free health care to the people. And they were not tried for their inclusiveness of all the people. They did not teach social justice but in fact the opposite, social injustice. They persecuted races, the handicapped, the mentally ill and the old and infirmed. In fact they murdered many of them to save resources for the “worthy”. This is not socialism on any scale or by any defintion of the word. So you are wrong on every level.
The Nazi party claimed to be socialists to attract a wide segment of the population by showing a seemingly healthy alterntive to the Weimar Republic. They did not PRACTICE socialism. They claimed it.
Just like you’re claiming it now.
From Josh:
“If you voted for Obama,” said Stewart, “this man will not touch your penis. But if you voted for McCain, he’ll touch your penis.”
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/jon-stewart-on-fl-urologist-if-you-voted-for-obama-this-man-will-not-touch-your-penis-video.php?ref=fpb
IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman told reporters yesterday at the National Press Club that the government plans on punishing those who don’t purchase government health care by confiscating their tax refunds.
http://dailycaller.com/2010/04/05/irs-chief-buy-health-insurance-or-lose-your-tax-refund/
“And how does saying the Jews were German change anything? ”
Because Byron, you stated this.
********************************
“Byron 1, April 5, 2010 at 6:31 pm
Goneville:
National Socialism was only to include the German race. ”
********************************
Someone had to explain to you that the Jews were also Germans.