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 7, 2010 at 8:38 am
Goneville:
here is the 2010 definition of Fascism from the American College Dictionary:
“Philosophy of government that stresses the primacy and glory of the state, unquestioning obedience to its leader, subordination of the individual will to the state’s authority, and harsh suppression of dissent.
Martial virtues are celebrated, while liberal and democratic values are disparaged. Fascism arose during the 1920s and ’30s partly out of fear of the rising power of the working classes; it differed from contemporary communism (as practiced under Joseph Stalin) by its protection of business and landowning elites and its preservation of class systems. The leaders of the fascist governments of Italy (1922–43), Germany (1933–45), and … (100 of 17301 words)”
Here is the one from 1957:
“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 . . .”
Notice the shift?”
Actually what I notice Byron is you apparently don’t know the definition of the word, definition. You are showing the word history, not the definition.
You post these without comment hoping I imagine to further conceal your points in a swamp of ambiguity. Was there a point to posting the word history and then calling it the definition?
And why post the definition of fascism? I thought the question was whether the Nazis’ were socialists. How about posting the definition of the word “Nazi” from the same dictionary?
I already did and it still states that Nazism is fascism.
Now, as to your word history of fascism, perhaps you might want to look up the definition of the word “disparaged”. From your word history (that you mistakenly refer to as a definition) we see the following.
************
“while liberal and democratic values are disparaged”
************
Since you are unfamiliar with the word “disparaged” I’ll “enlighten you” if possible. It doesn’t mean embraced.
It means disrespected. To belittle. So by your own “definition” you actually make my case for me. Your example clearly states that Fascism is NOT liberalism, but in fact is the opposite.
Thus your word history that you present as a definition, makes my case. Not yours.
“Byron
Goneville:
Like I said above how do you know the intervention in the banking system did not exacerbate and extend the crisis?”
And like I said above, are you asking me if the reason the banks that were running out of money, had money, is because someone put it back?
There was a run on the banks. Perhaps you don’t know what that is.
It means everyone was “running” to the banks, to withdraw their money. If the President had not intervened, the system would have collapsed. Banks with no money are no longer banks.
By shutting down the banks for his “Banking Holiday” FDR stopped the run on the banks temporarily.
By injecting capital into the banks, he stopped it completely.
Investors returned half of their funds within two weeks of his injecting capital into the banks. Thats simple history. Conservatives love to pine about how it had impacts down the road in order to smear a democratic president. But thats just more Teabaggery nonsense. The fact is had FDR not acted, not shut down the banks and not injected capital, the system would have collapsed then and there.
That’s common knowledge to everyone not wearing a Teabag on their Mini Pearl hat.
Update 16 states now 18
The joint lawsuit led by Florida and now grouping 18 states was filed on March 23. It claims the sweeping reform of the $2.5 trillion healthcare system violates state-government rights in the U.S. Constitution and will force massive new spending on hard-pressed state governments.
South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Louisiana, Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Washington, Idaho, and South Dakota had previously joined Florida’s lawsuit.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6363NL20100407?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true
Buddha,
Sometime take a hike up to Chicago Lakes on the side of Mt. Evans, with a fly rod and a way to get a couple of the 10-12 cutthroats you’ll catch back down. Cook ’em up any way you like, and then tell me that there’s any fish or fishing that’s near as good.
I got some Trouser Trout for ya 🙂
Gyges,
Damn it.
Now I’m craving trout! lol
Gyges,
I operate under the fishing maxim, “It’s all good if it’s good eats.” 😀
Buddha,
Bass fishing’s o.k. if there’s no trout around. Salmonideas are what real fishing is all about.
Phil Hare does care about his constituents. He represents an area in Illinois that has been devastated the last 10 or more years with massive job losses.
“They’re saying, ‘Where do we get the free Obama care, and how do I sign up for that?’ ” said Carrie McLean, a licensed agent for eHealthInsurance.com. The California-based company sells coverage from 185 health insurance carriers in 50 states.
McLean said the call center had been inundated by uninsured consumers who were hoping that the overhaul would translate into instant, affordable coverage. That widespread misconception may have originated in part from distorted rhetoric about the legislation bubbling up from the hyper-partisan debate about it in Washington and some media outlets, such as when opponents denounced it as socialism.
“We tell them it’s not free, that there are going to be things in place that help people who are low-income, but that ultimately most of that is not going to be taking place until 2014,” McLean said.
Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/04/06/91696/health-care-overhaul-spawns-mass.html#ixzz0kPzCdUxc
Goneville:
here is the 2010 definition of Fascism from the American College Dictionary:
“Philosophy of government that stresses the primacy and glory of the state, unquestioning obedience to its leader, subordination of the individual will to the state’s authority, and harsh suppression of dissent.
Martial virtues are celebrated, while liberal and democratic values are disparaged. Fascism arose during the 1920s and ’30s partly out of fear of the rising power of the working classes; it differed from contemporary communism (as practiced under Joseph Stalin) by its protection of business and landowning elites and its preservation of class systems. The leaders of the fascist governments of Italy (1922–43), Germany (1933–45), and … (100 of 17301 words)”
Here is the one from 1957:
“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 . . .”
Notice the shift?
Deep down, Americans tend to believe that more care is better care. We recoil from efforts to restrict care.
Managed care became loathed in the 1990s. The recent recommendation to reduce breast cancer screening set off a firestorm. On a personal level, anyone who has made a decision about his or her own care knows the nagging worry that comes from not choosing the most aggressive treatment.
This try-anything-and-everything instinct is ingrained in our culture, and it has some big benefits. But it also has big downsides, including the side effects and risks that come with unnecessary treatment. Consider that a recent study found that 15,000 people were projected to die eventually from the radiation they received from CT scans given in just a single year — and that there was “significant overuse” of such scans.
From an economic perspective, health reform will fail if we can’t sometimes push back against the try-anything instinct. The new agencies will be hounded by accusations of rationing, and Medicare’s long-term budget deficit will grow.
So figuring out how we can say no may be the single toughest and most important task facing the people who will be in charge of carrying out reform.
So figuring out how we can say ( NO ) may be the single toughest and most important task facing the people who will be in charge of carrying out THE DUTY TO TELL YOU NO, SORRY YOU CAN’T HAVE THAT EXAM.
So instead of the insurance company telling you no, it will be the government.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/business/economy/07leonhardt.html?hp
Number of States filing suits against O Care is now 16. Arizona and Nevada have now joined in.
Goneville:
Like I said above how do you know the intervention in the banking system did not exacerbate and extend the crisis? You have given me a very simplistic response in saying money came out and money went in and the banks were fine. Have you ever stopped to consider that by bailing out the banks you encouraged the behaviour that led to the crisis in the first place? Had some of the banks been allowed to fail it would have put market discipline on the ones that remained. Bernanke and Bush made the same mistake by doing TARP.
In fact market forces were starting to take effect [in 2008] until it was clear that a bailout was coming. Had some of the banks been allowed to fail and been bought up or merged into others as was happening in September the depth of the crash would have been severe but it would most likely have been short 6-12 months [see depression after Civil War that was deep but short in duration prior to “safety nets”]. Bankers and entrepreneurs “would exhibit more caution in granting and using credit in the future. Instead, public opinion approves of giving assistance in the crisis. Then, no sooner is the worst over, than the banks are spurred on to a new expansion and circulation of credit” [1]
As you can see, but maybe you cant, you can use economic or philosophical or mathematical concepts and principles to predict events. 2+3 will always equal 5 and it doesn’t matter if it is 1933 or 2008 the principles remain the same.
So please tell me why the bail out of banks in the early 30’s did not extend and deepen the crisis.
1. Intervention No Remedy, The Causes of the Economic Crisis And Other Essays Before and After the Great Depression. Ludwig Von Mises
Well Well Well, were up to two items in common.
I can see you are trying to drag out this debate into whatever road you can, apparently to try and distract people from all the mistakes you’ve made so far. Earlier tonight you quoted a long winded excerpt from the American College Dictionary, and twisted it with your own opinions to claim it proved your point that Nazism is Socialism.
I in turn provided you with the definition of Nazism directly from the very Dictionary you just had quoted from.
That definition refuted your opinions by coming right out and declaring that it was indeed, fascism.
So the debate was over. You lost at that very moment. When you quoted from a reference material that YOU presented to be authoritative, and then were shown that your own reference material actually gave my definition of Nazism, and not yours, then that was the ball game. Everything since then has been merely an attempt by you to move the goal posts way down the field to avoid admitting you were wrong.
You quoted the American College Dictionary as proof of your opinion. The American College Dictionary says Nazism is Fascism.
It doesn’t say its “SORTA Fascism” it says Fascism.
I didn’t tell you to quote that source. You picked it.
And it irrefutably states you are wrong.
If you’d hadn’t picked the reference material yourself to demonstrate your own point then I imagine you could resort to your tin foil hat defense that “it was written by Marxists”.
While I’m sure that defense would again cause milk to spurt out of the nose of several readers, it would at least be a defense.
But quoting a source which you selectively use to opine on your unfounded conclusions and then when that source is shown to completely and unquestionably refute those conclusions, for you to just ignore that point and keep on arguing shows it is impossible to debate anything with you. Facts mean nothing, not even facts from the books you present to make your points.
From what you’ve demonstrated here tonight, as far as you’re concerned the book is right, right up to the point where it agrees with the other guy. Then you just pull up stake and start moving the goal posts on down the field.
“Byron 1, April 6, 2010 at 10:44 pm
Gertyville:
How do you know the cash infusion into the banks was what saved them, if that is what you could call it”
Persisting in calling me Gerty won’t help provide cover while you move the goal posts. This is just another of your distractions, typical of the teabag group. When someone corners your fallacies you seem to enjoy making it personal by attacking the person rather than their points. A common tactic of Teabaggers and trolls. Buddha says you’re neither, but that has yet to be demonstrated in this discussion.
As for how do I know it was the infusion of cash into the banks that kept them from being broke?
Do you see the obvious ridiculous nature of that question? You’re asking am I sure it was the money that they put back into the banks, that put the money back into the banks.
Yes Byron. The reason the banks had money after they ran out of it, was because the government put some back in. And when the government put some back in, the depositors put theirs back in.
This is simple history that you must know. If not then you shouldn’t be lecturing others on your cracked version of history but instead cracking open a book and reading some.
Byron,
Oh, methinks you base an opinion on one sample space again.
I’ll put it to you this way.
When Dave started walking? He wasn’t in the house EVER as a kid except to eat and play Nintendo.
He was fishing. Every day. Almost all day. Until he started working and, of course, found out about women and their wiles.
His choice in bait today was largely to test a new rig. He did catch two on the jig as well.
You may disapprove of the method, but I assure you he’s got skills that best just about everyone I know in two areas – fishing and welding. He’s one of those guys the DoD has used to weld lines in chemical weapons decommissioning facilities. A job with zero room for error and requiring insane welding skills. He has the exact same focus on fishing. He could charm them out of the water if he wanted to.