Doctor to Patients Who Voted for Obama: Get Your Treatment Elsewhere

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

How much is enough?

Still having that reading problem?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

How much is enough?

Still having that reading problem?

How much extra do you pay in taxes each year? Or even just this last cycle is fine.

In percentage is fine.

Private charity, etc doesn't count. It has to go to the government for whatever they choose to use your extra. So, what was your overpay?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

Quote

How much is enough?

Still having that reading problem?

How much extra do you pay in taxes each year? Or even just this last cycle is fine.

In percentage is fine.

Private charity, etc doesn't count. It has to go to the government for whatever they choose to use your extra. So, what was your overpay?

Not that it's any of your business, but I could have reduced the amount by around $x,000 where x is my business.



If everyone in the USA did the same we would have had a budget surplus from 2001 to 2008, and enough left over to cover the current deficit.

What have YOU done PERSONALLY to help with the deficit? Whining doesn't count.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Not that it's any of your business, but I could have reduced the amount by around $x,000 where x is my business.



If everyone in the USA did the same we would have had a budget surplus from 2001 to 2008, and enough left over to cover the current deficit.

What have YOU done PERSONALLY to help with the deficit? Whining doesn't count.

I think that's great - when you get that 'contribution' up to 90% then I know you put your money where your politics are. I believe you are sincere in your politics, just incorrect - I won't demonize that.

Me personally? I vote for candidates that commit to reduce the deficit. It's an honest difference in philosophy - I believe if I give Congress more money, they'll spend that and want even more. You beleive that if you give them all your money and mine, that they'll become responsible with it.

We can see who's correct in the long term....

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Not that it's any of your business, but I could have reduced the amount by around $x,000 where x is my business.



If everyone in the USA did the same we would have had a budget surplus from 2001 to 2008, and enough left over to cover the current deficit.

What have YOU done PERSONALLY to help with the deficit? Whining doesn't count.

I think that's great - when you get that 'contribution' up to 90% then I know you put your money where your politics are. I believe you are sincere in your politics, just incorrect - I won't demonize that.

Me personally? I vote for candidates that commit to reduce the deficit. It's an honest difference in philosophy - I believe if I give Congress more money, they'll spend that and want even more. You beleive that if you give them all your money and mine, that they'll become responsible with it.

We can see who's correct in the long term....

I vote for candidates that I feel will will actually reduce the deficit, not just the ones that give lip service. Of course I used to buy lip service too, it takes a while to see which party/candidates will likely do what.

Put it this way and here's a hint, those politicians who raise taxes, or leave them high are the ones who have historically done + things for the deficit/debt. If you vote for tax cutters, you are voting for deficit/debt ammassers.

- Eisenhower, Clinton were amongst the best

- Reagan, GWB were the worst

Any argument?

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Well as long as it works for you....

wow... so much time on your hands. and attacking the poster instead of the post... I seriously thought you were Lucky there when I hit reply.

Yeah lots of time on my hands.. weather really sucks..a huge storm rolled in off the Not So Pacific Ocean... And I did not have anything better to do than point out that unlike the morons in the rePUBICtard party who voted for the fellow traveller moron who tanked our economy.. that... not everyone is fooled so easily as all the rePUBIClowns who voted for said moron.

Face it he fooled all yall TWICE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A

Shame on all of yall

[1969912 0]

It snowed here in Pullman yesterday.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Me personally? I vote for candidates that commit to reduce the deficit. It's an honest difference in philosophy - I believe if I give Congress more money, they'll spend that and want even more. You beleive that if you give them all your money and mine, that they'll become responsible with it...

Nope - I believe that no candidate of either party can cut spending regardless of what they promise. History is on my side in this. Neither Reagan, nor Bush I nor Bush II could do it despite promises. When Bush I inherited Reagan's deficit he was forced to renege on his lip reading promise. Bush II had a friendly Congress for several years and all they did was increase the deficit even when the economy was in fairly good shape.

Too many sacred cows in government spending - it will NOT be cut significantly over the long haul. The only solution is on the revenue side.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Me personally? I vote for candidates that commit to reduce the deficit. It's an honest difference in philosophy - I believe if I give Congress more money, they'll spend that and want even more. You beleive that if you give them all your money and mine, that they'll become responsible with it...

Nope - I believe that no candidate of either party can cut spending regardless of what they promise. History is on my side in this. Neither Reagan, nor Bush I nor Bush II could do it despite promises. When Bush I inherited Reagan's deficit he was forced to renege on his lip reading promise. Bush II had a friendly Congress for several years and all they did was increase the deficit even when the economy was in fairly good shape.

Too many sacred cows in government spending - it will NOT be cut significantly over the long haul. The only solution is on the revenue side.

Altho I agree that taxation is the way to shore up the overall fiscal picture, GHWB cut spending slightly and Clinton did so quite a bit.

History proves your point, as the top tax brkt was inteh 90%+ from 1945 to 1961ish the debt fell several years. As it hit the 70% the debt dropped 1 year and as FR cut them from 70% to 28% it shot thru the roof. we have decades of evidence to support your claim, however, Clinton would have cut the debt had he been given 1 more year even with the top brkt at only 40%. Of course, as I said, he cut spending and had huge receipts.

[kallend 2,148]

Clearly 90% is way too high, and the current levels are too low.

Since nothing succeeds like success, I'd suggest the rates in force in 1999, and reinstate the estate tax at a non-trivial level.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Clearly 90% is way too high, and the current levels are too low.

Since nothing succeeds like success, I'd suggest the rates in force in 1999, and reinstate the estate tax at a non-trivial level.

Sue, it was 94% at teh peak of WWII and we were still running deficits, but then they left it about there thru the Eisenower years and the debt fell, not just the deficit. Anyway, I think 40% is toolow, it worked because Clinton cut spending and we had the .com boom, so I think 50-60% top brkt is about right.

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Well, thank goodness for now it's not against the law....kind of the free speech thing in the US Constitution.


Free Speech

Last I checked free speech had a relationship between the government and all citizens. The AMA and the Hypcratic oath are administrative.....too bad, so sad. So yes, the government could not prosecute him for hanging that sign, however the AMA or whoever licenses doctors in his state could act. As well, if alib was already being seen by him, that lib entered his office for an ongoing care issue and then he toild that doctor he voted for Obama and hopes for the HC Bill, there is a, "Just add water" conflict of interest that could lead to big lawsuits. I mean, that doc could hardly keep seeing him on a doc-patient basis, so would that doc have to pay for his transfer to another doctor?

The doctor is an idiot, I wouldn't want any pro or anti HC Bill BS posted on my docs door....of course this is hypothetical as I'm not in teh class that gets to have the luxury of HC.

What do you mean by "transfer"; do they charge a fee to change doctors where you live?

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Well, thank goodness for now it's not against the law....kind of the free speech thing in the US Constitution.


Free Speech

Last I checked free speech had a relationship between the government and all citizens. The AMA and the Hypcratic oath are administrative.....too bad, so sad. So yes, the government could not prosecute him for hanging that sign, however the AMA or whoever licenses doctors in his state could act. As well, if alib was already being seen by him, that lib entered his office for an ongoing care issue and then he toild that doctor he voted for Obama and hopes for the HC Bill, there is a, "Just add water" conflict of interest that could lead to big lawsuits. I mean, that doc could hardly keep seeing him on a doc-patient basis, so would that doc have to pay for his transfer to another doctor?

The doctor is an idiot, I wouldn't want any pro or anti HC Bill BS posted on my docs door....of course this is hypothetical as I'm not in teh class that gets to have the luxury of HC.

What do you mean by "transfer"; do they charge a fee to change doctors where you live?

Gee, I don't know, I'm an American so I don't have HC right now. But there would be the burden of relocating to a new doctor, hoping he/she could dial on with your history, etc. There could easliy be fees attached for a transfer that is as the result of a doctor shirking his fiduciary duty for his clients over politics.

See, if your auto mechanic turned into a tea bagging tool, you might have to get a new mechanic, no fiduciary duty attaches. Your doc doesn't have that luxury and needs to be your doctor absent things like he/she retires or other justifyable reasons. He/she might be able to drop you if they are narrowing their practice with fair notice, I don't know the rules and they probably vary by state, but just because you wake up with a stick up your ass violates the fiduciary duty that you owe your patients. Obviously Dr Dickhead knew this and after telling any Dems to go fuck themselves, he followed by saying, "awe shucks, I'll still see you." That is pathetic, I would file a complain with teh state lic board and file suit for any other damages if I were a patient. If I were an employee of his, I would at least record the matter and basically own him after that.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Some guy at work gave him the idea the US Const was a majic wand with blanket coverage.

Sort of like you thinking the 1st Amendment (a prohibition against GOVERNMENT) will somehow shield you from a libel suit?

Quote

Don't listen to that guy, he'll get ya in trouble.

Indeed - that's why we don't listen to you.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Sort of like you thinking the 1st Amendment (a prohibition against GOVERNMENT) will somehow shield you from a libel suit?

I've never thought or written that. Show me or look, once again, unfounded.

Quote

Indeed - that's why we don't listen to you.

LOL, Mikey, my legal knowledge dwarfs yours. I beat 2 lawfirms in a civil action during arbitration, I was a process server for 9 years, BS in Justice, etc.... I still keep in touch with lawyer friends. I don't give advice, I'm not an attny, but I have a well-grounded understanding of civil, criminal and administrative law.

Funny story, I took a paralegal class last fall, the teacher was a city prosecutor for a small jurisdiction, so he was contract and not full-time; he also teaches law school on the side. Anyway, issues came up and I disagreed in class, I was right 3 of 4 times. Of course attny arrogance prohibited him from conceeding, but I would go home after class and cite the statute, data or whatever the issue. He's a good guy, knew more than I did/do about the law, but I did get him on 3 points. Thing is he works with small kangaroo ct BS, so he is insulated from trial cts. and he knew squat about civil actions.

So yea, I can hang with most attnys, it really is BS like has been illustarted in many movies, they get a dimploma from teh highest school possible and hang it as high on the wall as possible and try to intimidate you. All they do is learn a little language, a few processes and then tehy lean on you. IF you have the merits in your corner you will generally prevail.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Sort of like you thinking the 1st Amendment (a prohibition against GOVERNMENT) will somehow shield you from a libel suit?

I've never thought or written that. Show me or look, once again, unfounded.

Post 41: "The 1st is really very weak and you can be sued for libel easily"

Quote

Quote

Indeed - that's why we don't listen to you.

LOL, Mikey, my legal knowledge dwarfs yours.

Your fantasy, Lucky, live it like you want to.

Quote

I beat 2 lawfirms in a civil action during arbitration, I was a process server for 9 years, BS in Justice, etc.... I still keep in touch with lawyer friends. I don't give advice, I'm not an attny, but I have a well-grounded understanding of civil, criminal and administrative law.

Which, of course, is why lawrocket keeps handing you your ass. I can believe the "BS" part of your claim, though.

BTW, am I supposed to be impressed by your bragging on yourself, or something? If you're the legal hotshot you seem to think you are, why are you still turning wrenches?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Andy9o8 2]

Mine's bigger.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Post 41: "The 1st is really very weak and you can be sued for libel easily"

Right, so how did I say or infer that the 1st can shield a person from a libel suit????? I'm saying that the 1st could never shield a person from a libel suit. I think you read into that that I'm sayign if the 1st were stronger it could protect a person from a libel suit. Meikey, Mikey, Mikey, read all the other stuff I've written in this thread and otehr swhere I clearly state the US Const has a 1-way relationship between the gov and a citizen, that should put to reat any ridiculous inferrence that the 1st could ever shield a person from libel suit. Now celebrities have a diminished right to be left alone in the press, but that's a bit obscure.

I don't owe you constitutional rights and you don't owe me them; the gov owes both of us them so how could a person try to be shielded from a libel suit as another person makes a libelous statement claiming the 1st as a defense? Where there's no duty, there's no claim or defense.

Quote

Your fantasy, Lucky, live it like you want to.

Yea, I've rwad your legal guesses, incl the one above.

Quote

Which, of course, is why lawrocket keeps handing you your ass.

Show examples.

Quote

BTW, am I supposed to be impressed by your bragging on yourself, or something? If you're the legal hotshot you seem to think you are, why are you still turning wrenches?

Didn't LSAT well
Not a racial minority
Not from a rich family

A guy like you, who I can guess never stepped foot on a college campus, doesn't understand the political dynamics behind academia, so it would be futile to try to impress it upon you.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Mine's bigger.

I could work with a guy like Andy. What kind (area) of law do you practice. out of curiosity.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Post 41: "The 1st is really very weak and you can be sued for libel easily"

Right, so how did I say or infer that the 1st can shield a person from a libel suit?????

"The 1st is really very weak and you can be sued for libel easily"

Quote

I'm saying that the 1st could never shield a person from a libel suit.

The first isn't DESIGNED to shield a person from a libel suit - that's the point.

Quote

I think you read into that that I'm sayign if the 1st were stronger it could protect a person from a libel suit.

Incorrect.

Quote

Meikey, Mikey, Mikey, read all the other stuff I've written in this thread and otehr swhere I clearly state the US Const has a 1-way relationship between the gov and a citizen, that should put to reat any ridiculous inferrence that the 1st could ever shield a person from libel suit. Now celebrities have a diminished right to be left alone in the press, but that's a bit obscure.

You're correct in a sense - the BOR is a restriction on GOVERNMENT and not individuals. As to your celebrity issue, you do not have an expectation of privacy in a public place.

Quote

Quote

Your fantasy, Lucky, live it like you want to.

Yea, I've rwad your legal guesses, incl the one above.

Too bad you have SUCH problems with comprehension, then.

Quote

Quote

BTW, am I supposed to be impressed by your bragging on yourself, or something? If you're the legal hotshot you seem to think you are, why are you still turning wrenches?

Didn't LSAT well
Not a racial minority
Not from a rich family

I'll give you the LSAT, marginally - the others are excuses, not reasons.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Nope - I believe that no candidate of either party can cut spending regardless of what they promise. ........... The only solution is on the revenue side.

I agree today's politicians are incapable of cutting spending. So we need something new - the only long term solution is on the spending side. Focusing solely on the revenue side is an admission of failure. And self fulfilling.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Mine's bigger.

I could work with a guy like Andy. What kind (area) of law do you practice. out of curiosity.

I got my start in penile law.
Eventually I came to realize: it all is.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Mine's bigger.

I could work with a guy like Andy. What kind (area) of law do you practice. out of curiosity.

I got my start in penile law.

Ah..... a divorce lawyer..

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

If you vote for tax cutters, you are voting for deficit/debt ammassers.

cutting taxes without cutting spending is pointless

the spending is the issue - borrow and spend vs tax and spend still both get you nowhere

reduce spending to balance the budget - reduce taxes to increase net revenue

right now? cutting spending would be the big dial to turn. Leaving taxes alone to assess the impact on the economy.

too many chefs stirring the pot

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

"The 1st is really very weak and you can be sued for libel easily"

Right, I'm saying that you can be sued for libel, the 1st can't protect you and I see you eliminated my other previous asertions that there is no protection from one person to another as far as the US Const, I guess you cherry-pick like your hero, GWB.

Quote

The first isn't DESIGNED to shield a person from a libel suit - that's the point.

That's right, it's designed to establish protection via the gov to a citizen, not from a citizen to a citizen, as to what the bound and limits of expression can be. Also that the gov won't establish a religion, we see how worthless that is as the pledge contains the word, "god" (we know that means Jebus and his queer dad) and it is mandated in public schools - we see what a meaningless joke the US Const is at every turn.

Quote

Incorrect.

No, you're taking a statement like: "The 1st is really very weak and you can be sued for libel easily" and trying to then interpret into it that what I mean was that if the 1st were stronger, it could shield you from a civil suit of libel. What I'm saying is that it won't reach anywhere near protecting a person from a civil suit; that's not it's intention. Again, the US Const only has a relationship between the gov and person, how can that intervein between 2 persons? My, Mikey, your imagination works in really neat ways, perhaps you should write fiction with all that spare time you have.

Quote

You're correct in a sense - the BOR is a restriction on GOVERNMENT and not individuals.

In a way, but the flip side of that is that restriction on government is that it gives supposedly inalienable rights to individuals, so yours is a pessimistic view rather than global. For example, part of the 5th restricts a gov from requiring a person to testify against themselves, OTOH it permits a person the ability to not testify against themselves. So I see your tea baggerish perspctive, but I look at it form teh other end. Isn;t it funny how people become paranoid of gov when their party isn't in representing control? I see it happens on both sides.

Quote

As to your celebrity issue, you do not have an expectation of privacy in a public place.

Even a regular person has no expectation of privacy in public, the exception is with of course restrooms, which aren't really public unless it's a public restroom - still privacy is expected. And with audio conversations via wire and probably wireless. Katz v Ohio dealt with a payphone that was bugged w/o a warrant: People have privacy, not places, so bugging w/o a warrant was not allowed. That's an old case - 40+ years - but still relevant as far as I know. Things in teh law aren't like Lawrocket likes it: right or wrong / black or white; it's bizzare to hear a lawyer speaking in terms of absolutes, as teh law is anything but.

Quote

Too bad you have SUCH problems with comprehension, then.

I was warned by Bill for saying that to you, I wonder if that will happen to you?

Quote

I'll give you the LSAT, marginally - the others are excuses, not reasons.

From a guy that has never stepped foot on a university, hell, a community college. I feel so blessed that you are marginally giving me the LAST bump, thank you so much. W/o looking it up, you couldn't tell me the least about the LAST.

As for the minority bump, all the case law that affords minorities the bump in points, they can score as I did and get in and get a full ride as well. It was mostly a bunch of crusty ole white dudes that did that, so I hold nothing against racial minorities getting a freebee; I would.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratz_v._Bollinger

The University of Michigan used a 150-point scale to rank applicants, with 100 points needed to guarantee admission. The University gave underrepresented ethnic groups, including African-Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans, an automatic 20-point bonus on this scale, while a perfect SAT score was worth 12 points.

Yes, I know you're wrong again, that's ok.

As for not from a rich family, there are ABA schools that require no minimum LSAT, but are 25k/yr+, counting expenses, I would need 50k/yr for 3 years to do law school, IOW's, prohibitive.

In the early 70's when women were allegedly so injured, we had Title 9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX Giving women the bump and a free ride into and thru law schools/grad schools. Now that they have achieved equality, that is gone as evidenced by the U of M case. Again, nothing against the women who took advantage of that, I would too, just the knee-jerk reaction the ugly sides of America create new ugly sides.