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.
now you know that was me:
are you who I think you are?
That wasn’t Byron, That Was Me, so Now U Know
Nice Byron, but false accusations under another name won’t change the fact that the Nazi’s weren’t Socialists, and neither is the President.
A common trait of right wing bloggers is when their arguments fall flat, they stoop to attacking the man rather than the message. If you focus on the facts, rather than personal attacks, you’ll do better in a debate.
Goneville N Keys, Doc Shabbit, Gerty, 30%er, Jacob Marley……. and the list goes on.
“Byron 1, April 7, 2010 at 7:58 pm
Doc Shabbit:”
************
Byron, sorry I am Doc Shabbit. Thought that was obvious but I guess I should have announced it to you. I have two computers, one in the house and one in the shop. Names have to do with my ex. Long story. Sorry for the confusion.
***********************
“Byron 1, April 7, 2010 at 7:58 pm
that was in response to Mespo not to goneville.”
***********************
So? I never said anything about who it was responding to. I simply corrected you on who brought it up first.
***********************
“Byron 1, April 7, 2010 at 7:58 pm
“And anyway a stimulus supposedly creates jobs and giving money to the banks helps their liquidity.”
***********************
There you, moving the goal posts again. The stimulus does what its designed to do. The stimulus of the 1930’s was the banking act. No one intended nor claimed it would “cure the depression” and put everyone back to work. You’re setting a bar so high that it could never be reached.
This is a common tea bag tactic and one used by the right all the time. Just keep raising that bar. If the stimulus didn’t “fix everything” in a year or two then it “didn’t work”.
Well if you really knew something about the 1930’s then you’d know that the Banking Act was never designed to “cure the depression”. That’s why it was called the “Emergency Banking Relief Act”. Because it was an emergency. There was a run on the banks and the Banking Act was designed to do one thing. Keep the banks solvent and bring depositors money back.
And that’s what it did, and in doing so it paved the way for Glass Steagall, which as I pointed out earlier is why you now enjoy federally insured deposits.
So to claim it “didn’t work” is just parroting a famous old republican talking point, and one used by the tea baggers now that misrepresents the purpose of the act and the amazing success it did have in ending the run on the banks and bringing investors money back.
*******************************
“Byron 1, April 7, 2010 at 7:58 pm
But like goneville you don’t appear to know economics or English or higher level concept formation. It is a failing of many of your ilk.”
*******************************
My “ilk”?
What “ilk” is that?
As for not knowing economics I never claimed I did. In fact I made it clear I was no expert on the subject. That being said that speaks loudly to your own knowledge on the subject, since I know what most school kids know that FDR’s Banking Act (something most kids learn in Social Studies) ended the run on the banks and brought depositors money back to the table and also paved the way for the Glass Steagall Act, which is why we all enjoy federally insured deposits today.
So your Republican talking point that it just “didn’t work” shows you know less about it than even I.
You should have taken the draw.
Doc Shabbit:
that was in response to Mespo not to goneville.
You must not read very well. And anyway a stimulus supposedly creates jobs and giving money to the banks helps their liquidity.
But like goneville you don’t appear to know economics or English or higher level concept formation. It is a failing of many of your ilk.
So goneville replies with banking information based on my statement that the stimulus in 30’s didn’t work. 2 totally different things. I guess neither one of you could run a lemonade stand.
As far as lying outright you probably are good at that as you are misrepresenting what I said and to whom it was said.
CEJ,
As ever one lives to be of service. Now if I can only find a shrubber . . . .
LOL, a draw it is then.
Buddha Is Laughing & Goneville-n-keys et al:
Thank-you for the tutorial!
Byron,
“Alright then we’ll call it a draw!”
“But I guess I am curious as to what you think socialism is.”
Well I know what it isn’t. I know it isn’t Nazism.
“Byron 1, April 7, 2010 at 7:08 pm
goneville:
your brought up banking, so I responded. I am not moving any goal posts.”
************************
Ok, now I know why you use ambiguity.Because its the only way to keep from doing what you just did, and lie outright. YOU are the one who brought up the stimulus (aka injection of capital into banks) back in the 1930’s, falsely using the Teabag talking point of “it didn’t work”.
Here, proof you just lied.
*************************************
Byron 1, April 5, 2010 at 7:49 am
The stimulus didn’t work in the 30’s and it hasn’t worked now. Economic principles don’t change from generation to generation. Keynes was wrong then and now.
*************************************
So not only were you incorrect 2 days ago at 7:49 am, but you are now openly lying about ever saying it.
goneville:
your brought up banking, so I responded. I am not moving any goal posts.
But I guess I am curious as to what you think socialism is. In all the back and forth I dont think you ever gave your explanation of how it works.
goneville:
OK
“Byron 1, April 7, 2010 at 4:51 pm
goneville:
Ok.
By the way I am still waiting for you to comment on my thoughts on your thoughts about banking during the 30’s.”
***********************
Ok what?
Ok you’re ambiguous on purpose?
Ok you’ll start clearly stating your case instead of veiling it in a shroud of ambiguity?
Ok you see now that every reference material you’ve quoted defines Nazism is fascism, contrary to your talking point?
Your “ok” is about as ambiguous as the rest of the diatribe you package your tea bag talking points in. So I don’t know what you’re okaying.
As for waiting for me to comment on one of your off ramps to another discussion all I can say is please talk to me after you have actually addressed all of the responses that I have given you thus far, prior to moving the goal posts down the field again.
Here you go Byron
Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax
Recession, new tax credits have nearly half of US households paying no federal income tax
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1
goneville:
Ok.
By the way I am still waiting for you to comment on my thoughts on your thoughts about banking during the 30’s.
The dictionary’s you quoted from unequivocally state that Nazism is fascism. Period. End of discussion.
You cannot quote excerpts from a word history (mistakenly calling it the definition) on the one hand and falsely claim it proves your point that Nazism is socialism when the very same books ACTUAL definition says the opposite and declares it is fascism.
So the only place left for you to go is to repeat your earlier laughable Teabagger claim that Marxists wrote the dictionaries.
So repeat it and we can all enjoy a good laugh.
Here is another definition for you:
Liberalism –
“The 19th century was the century of classical liberalism. Partly for that reason it was also the century of ever-increasing economic and political liberty, relative international peace, relative price stability and unprecedented economic growth. By contrast, the 20th century was the century that rejected classical liberalism. Partly for that reason, it was the century of dictatorship, depression and war. Nearly 265 million people were killed by their own governments (in addition to all the deaths from wars!) in the 20th century – more than in any previous century and possibly more than in all previous centuries combined.
******************************
Again you demonstrate you are unfamiliar with the difference between the word history, and the definition.
And why are you posting a word history of Liberalism? Just tossing it out there without ever bothering to acknowledge or expound on the points of yours I just refuted?
Nothing that you just posted in any way changes the fact that Nazism is fascism, not socialism. So what’s the point?
Why no comments with the post. I’m just supposed to read what you found online and say “oh yea, now I see your point Byron”?
I don’t. Because its not there. You’re just constantly posting things you found online to avoid having to state your positions for all to “disparage”.
So I have a tip for you Byron. Instead of just tossing out word history’s from dictionary’s, (that you mistakenly refer to as definitions) and long winded articles you found online that don’t make your points, why not try including some commentary?
Why not simply state the point you are trying to make rather than just tossing out something you found online and saying “see it proves my point?”. Bloggers who do this are normally attempting to conceal the fact that they have no actual tenable opinion to elaborate on, or that opinion is so ludicrous(like Marxists wrote our dictionaries) that they are embarrassed to actually state it.
Just state what it is you’re trying to say when you post these comments and be clear. Don’t hide your comments in intentional ambiguity as if you knew something everyone did not. I don’t think I’m smarter than anyone here and I don’t think you are either. So don’t pretend that there’s something there that is not, just to post a response with some filler in it. Say something. Write what you mean. State your positions clearly and stop trying to conceal everything in intentional ambiguity.
I know why you do it, but its time to stop. This discussion cannot endure any more of your ambiguous meandering. State
your case clearly and concisely. Or are you afraid to because you know how ridiculous it sounds? Like “Marxists wrote our history books”, lol.
“Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid.” – Basil King
formating didnt work, socialism should be to the right of center and capitalism should be to the left of center.
Goneville:
Well thanks for pointing that out to me. Although I am well aware of what disparage means.
Here is another definition for you:
Liberalism –
“The 19th century was the century of classical liberalism. Partly for that reason it was also the century of ever-increasing economic and political liberty, relative international peace, relative price stability and unprecedented economic growth. By contrast, the 20th century was the century that rejected classical liberalism. Partly for that reason, it was the century of dictatorship, depression and war. Nearly 265 million people were killed by their own governments (in addition to all the deaths from wars!) in the 20th century – more than in any previous century and possibly more than in all previous centuries combined.2
All forms of collectivism in the 20th century rejected the classical liberal notion of rights and all asserted in their own way that need is a claim. For the communists, the needs of the class (proletariat) were a claim against every individual. For the Nazis, the needs of the race were a claim. For fascists (Italian-style) and for architects of the welfare state, the needs of society as a whole were a claim. Since in all these systems the state is the personification of the class, the race, society as a whole, etc., all these ideologies imply that, to one degree or another, individuals have an obligation to live for the state. Yet, the ideas of liberty survived. Indeed, almost everything that is good about modern liberalism (mainly its defense of civil liberties) comes from classical liberalism. And almost everything that is good about modern conservatism (mainly its defense of economic liberties) also comes from classical liberalism.”
Thus my contention that Political freedom and economic freedom are corollaries. It is also one of the reasons I am against socialism-limited economic freedom.
The bottom line is that socialism, fascism and Marxism reduce individual liberty and rights. On the continuum from total freedom to total lack of freedom socialism is here:
middle of the road
total freedom _____________|________________ Dictatorship
x socialism
x capitalism
I’ll take my x and you can have your x.