Lucky...

Yep, because they want the gov to take care of them and fight their fights Pussy's = no self reliance in this instance Gee, I'm self-reliant and I'm the furthest from a Republican; there goes your theory. I can point out several other people who are Dems and very self-reliant as well I can point to R's who are welfare whores too, so that deduction is ridiculous. As for fighting fights, I went up against 2 law firms in a 5-year court battle, I was pro per, I'm a fighter, moreso than you I'm sure, so am I a pussy for using a state courtroom and state enforcement to collect? I guess if we hang our heads and walk walk away we're tough, if we fight we're pussies. In your definition, apathy = tough, activism = pussy. To that I say Actually then, tea baggers are pussies, according to you, they're fighting for their agenda rather than just laying down; pussies according to you. You are getting twist lessons from kallend now People like you want the gov to give them stuff that other earn Pussy's I receive nothing, my taxes give money to the Military Industrial Complex that I and others earn. You don't have an issue with that, but you do with HC, the bailouts, etc. So you don't have a problem with redistribution, something you label as pussy-like, you have a specific problem with redistribution to anything social.

As I pointed out in another thread. Political correctness is a form of STFU and is one of the biggest dangers we have to our constitution. No different than Obama speaking of Limbaugh and Beck Right and in some circles calling Reagan a fascist pig PI. Hell, the Alexander Haig thread drew some criticism as PI. The, "Is Satan calling Cheney home" thread drew a ton of it, so WTF is your point? The diff is that I'm not a sworn HC provider with a FIDUCIARY DUTY to my patients. Since I posted this before and no one looked it up I will post. WHat it is the HIGHEST standard of care, a doctor owes it to his/her patients, a lawyer to his/her clients, etc.: http://definitions.uslegal.com/b/breach-of-fiduciary-duty A fiduciary duty is an obligation to act in the best interest of another party. For instance, a corporation's board member has a fiduciary duty to the shareholders, a trustee has a fiduciary duty to the trust's beneficiaries, and an attorney has a fiduciary duty to a client. A fiduciary obligation exists whenever the relationship with the client involves a special trust, confidence, and reliance on ithe fiduciary to exercise his discretion or expertise in acting for the client. The fiduciary must knowingly accept that trust and confidence to exercise his expertise and discretion to act on the client's behalf. When one person does agree to act for another in a fiduciary relationship, the law forbids the fiduciary from acting in any manner adverse or contrary to the interests of the client, or from acting for his own benefit in relation to the subject matter. The client is entitled to the best efforts of the fiduciary on his behalf and the fiduciary must exercise all of the skill, care and diligence at his disposal when acting on behalf of the client. A person acting in a fiduciary capacity is held to a high standard of honesty and full disclosure in regard to the client and must not obtain a personal benefit at the expense of the client. So when Dr. Maggoted fuck is sued for malpractice, he will be hearing this term until his 2" dick falls off. His lawyer will be downplaying it, the plaintiffs will be constantly bringing it up and the courts will uphold and recognize it as judicial notice (another term for you to not look up). And that doesn't yet recognize his duty to his employees/perspective employees. The stupid POS is opening a pandora's box that could keep him in court for years. Just as a lawyer can't just drop a client w/o great cause, a doctor has a sort of duty to see a patient with ongoing issues unless there is cause; political difference is not recognized as cause. Of course the client can fire the doc or lawyer whenever he/she wants, but it's a 1-way street. As for duties, fiduciary is the highest, standard duty of care is the lowest, it's the basic duty you owe everyone walking down the street. The acts Dr Dickhead exhibited could warrant punitives if the acts were severe enough, depending upon the subsequent acts and outcomes. This is not Virginia City in 1853, at least in reality.

As I pointed out in another thread. Political correctness is a form of STFU and is one of the biggest dangers we have to our constitution. No different than Obama speaking of Limbaugh and Beck So when is Limbaugh going to leave the country as promised? When: - The oxycontin runs out - All Parkinson's patients quit "faking" it - All top notch black athletes quit getting the "social concern" bump - And when all taxes are finally repealled. So...never.

Yep, because they want the gov to take care of them and fight their fights Pussy's = no self reliance in this instance Gee, I'm self-reliant and I'm the furthest from a Republican; there goes your theory. I can point out several other people who are Dems and very self-reliant as well I can point to R's who are welfare whores too, so that deduction is ridiculous. As for fighting fights, I went up against 2 law firms in a 5-year court battle, I was pro per, I'm a fighter, moreso than you I'm sure, so am I a pussy for using a state courtroom and state enforcement to collect? I guess if we hang our heads and walk walk away we're tough, if we fight we're pussies. In your definition, apathy = tough, activism = pussy. To that I say Actually then, tea baggers are pussies, according to you, they're fighting for their agenda rather than just laying down; pussies according to you.

I don't think any amount of language will convince him of the obvious. Some guy at work gave him the idea the US Const was a majic wand with blanket coverage. Don't listen to that guy, he'll get ya in trouble. He probably still thinks if you go to a hooker and ask her, "Are you a cop?" She says she is not and now if you proposition her that = entrapment. Again, DON'T LISTEN TO THAT GUY; IT'S NOT ENTRAPMENT.

Within his rights, but ethically repugnant and a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the Hippocratic Oath. I don't think doctors take the Hippocratic Oath anymore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath Regardless, the AMA or more likely the state Medical Licensing Board would frown very heavily on that and issue an admonition. I don't think they would ever revoke for that, but if a patient complained of malpractice and it was then discovered the good doc was advertising anti-Dem signage, they could put together a case where the doc intentionally gave inferior care to the Dem and then revoke. Admin actions are the worst, ast they usually have a jury of a few older professionals, with the FAA it's the elder DOT judges. It's just all the jeopardy of a criminal and civil court with the due process of < a traffic court. It really is a bad idea to fuck with them.

Are you not one of those who always argues the "christian" point of view? I guess you feel this is a good way to exibit those attributes. Do you think the lord would have acted in this manner? There you go assigning a point of view to a poster. I have never stated my politics, just supporting the rights of the doctor to post his sign. Are you not one of those who always argues the "christian" point of view? I guess you feel this is a good way to exibit those attributes. Do you think the lord would have acted in this manner? There you go assigning a point of view to a poster. I have never stated my politics, just supporting the rights of the doctor to post his sign. How about this angle, idiot posts his sign, one of his employees tells the good doctor that he/she voted for Obama. Now what? The sign wasn't directed at the employee, but he/she is offended and fears retibution, feels uncomfortable, etc. http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-orientation_parent_marital_political.html See the can of worms now? In the federal government the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), as amended, prohibits federal employees who have authority to take, direct others to take, recommend or approve any personnel action from discriminating against applicants and employees on the bases of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, disability, marital status or political affiliation and from discriminating against an applicant or employee on the basis of conduct which does not adversely affect the performance of the applicant or employee. Furthermore, a wise person with medical experience might want to go apply to the good doctor and get hired, then as they accept the position, tell the asshole that they voted for Obama; I hope that's not a problem. Of course if this is a 1-party state, have this recorded and as the good asshole breaks into a tyrade, make sure and get a good, clean copy for discovery and the hefty settlement offer, follow by asshole's gag order agreement. This is how you shutdown assholes 101. Again, if I were his lawyer, I would tell him to quit being a dick and to rip that sign down, deny he posted it, it was punk kids I guess. Go get a shrink and get help or he will be writing me big checks. It's a shame you weren't born 100 years ago, you might have liked it better then. Now that is a federal employee staute, but there might be private employer EEOC laws, federal or state. Either way, filing a lawsuit could still be fruitful to at least get the moron to stop. Likely a jury would be so disgusted that they would give some judgment and besides, the judge can award what he/she wants. Point is, why fuck with it? To be a braindead spiteful dick and earn a nasty reputation, become a civl=il lawsuit target for that matter or any subsequent matter? Thsi would be brought up as a charactyer assassination if he were ver sued and doctors get sued occassionally.

Shockingly bad analysis for a man with a college degree. Capital gains are only realized when someone closes their position. For the long term holders, that 50% gain didn't even get them back to where they started in 2007 as the slide began. The wiser (and not unemployed) started buying last year, but have not sold. Strawman. Who said anything about timing? Timing is irrelevant. Someone who bough in 2006 still has no gains. Your presumed pool of capital gains taxes is as illusionary as the federal surplus of the past decade. Besides, that tax revenue is already spoken for, and then some, by the ongoing needs of our government. Like I said, piss poor analysis on your part. BS, there will be some profit-takers that cash out. In this economy more than ever; cash is king and many will take it and run. Then there's GWB's expiring tax cuts that will bring up revenues, you do realize that was the issue that brought up the increasing market, right?

Are you not one of those who always argues the "christian" point of view? I guess you feel this is a good way to exibit those attributes. Do you think the lord would have acted in this manner? Right, the party of family values decides who they will and who they will not see based upon political affiliation ....would you expect less?

So then the Republican congress were pussies for impeaching Clinton? I would say just hypocritical idiots, but I'll go with pussy if you want. Then they toughened up when Scooter Libby was criminally prosecuted for the same thing. I see, we can transpose whatever we want and flip-flop in good Republican fashion. And it's teh State Lic Board's license, IDC what you think, that is the way it is. Well at least I only appear that way. So this is your misdirection to avoid the question? Here it is again: I guess uttering the words, "Faggot" "Jew bastard" and "nigger" are also signs of being tough too, huh? Same concept, it's bias. As a person, go for it, as a licensed doctor, lawyer, social worker, boss at a workplace, etc there is zero room for any kiond of bias and that is federally protected. Ok, great, that is the right of you and me as individuals, but as licensed professionals you will have a brief career if you make a habit of wearing this on your sleeve. I don;t write the rules, I just explain them to those who don't seem to have a handle on them. Not at all, I'm 240 and can take care of myself very well. At work they call on me to do the tough, teh nasty shit, so you can sit there with your manicured nails and talk all that, it just looks silly.

I know, just think of the good ole days before Brown vs Board of Education, Roe v Wade, Loving v Virginia, Mapp v Ohio, etc.... Now those were the days of freedom and liberty.

It's fun to have a, "shoot from the hips" style of shithouse lawyer, layment approach to the US Const, but it just doesn't wash outside of barroom cicles. One mor etime: THE US CONST HAS A 1-WAY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE US GOV AND A CITIZEN. Is that clear or are we just gonna keep saying that any and all speech is protected and therefore can be made? We had several of you in my early Justice classes, I have a BS in Justice. Try going into a courtroom and yelling shit. Try telling the judge he's a douchebag in a very calm, reserved manor. Basically the 1st and free speech says you can decide the what, the gov decides teh when and the where. I remember my 1st justice class, the teacher asked what the most important amendments were. I immediately said, "The First Amendment." He said, "no." I then said, "the 2nd." He again said it was not. He said teh 4th and the 14th were, of course I thought, BS. He's right. The 1st is really very weak and you can be sued for libel easily or if you disparage a judge in writing or verbally, the 1st won't help. Now I realize you're gonna keep clammering the 1st on thsi issue and I'm ok with that; I'm used to laypeople, but here is my previous post, if you care to learn a thing or two pm me or ask in public. I'd like to hear any lawyers pipe in on this as to its application to a federal 1st protection. I'm sure they would agree with me. You didn't address my post, here it is with highlights: Yes, the US gov could not prosecute, persecute him for this; you're arguing a moot point. But you cannot use the constitution as an affirmative defense in an administrative action against his license to practice or a civil suit where a patient became ill and sued for malpratice. Hell, ya have all ya need for negligence or intentional infliction of distress of some kind. All of his patients should immediately tell him they voted for Obama and they basically own him. He has to cut them or continue to see them under the belief thatthey will receive substandard care ala conflict of interest. You can ignore it all day, it won't change. Freedom of speech is not a blank check to walk up to a strange girl and call her a whore, a black person and call him a nigger, a gay person and call him a faggot. In fact, they even aggravate these offenses by calling them hate crimes, at least the latter two. Some people need to take a justice class or two, don't get too excited about the US Const, it really is overstated and any claim must have a federal apsect to it, you can't just scream "CONSTITUTION" evertime you get stuck; it's not a blank check. OK, most people misunderstand the US Const, I was in traffic court years ago and a defendant said he had the right under the constitution to have a shaded license plate lense on it, Ok, so can we understand the constitution before we wave it around, whether it is all we have or not, you can't just wave it and expect a free pass. If you read the first it has nothing to do with this issue. No one is saying he could be criminally tried for hanging the sign, but he could be revoked as a licensed doctor and/or sued for malpractice, perhaps even some form of discrimination, altho that works under protected classes and political parties aren't that.

As I posted, political parties are not directly covered as protected classes, but the AMA and State Lic Board doesn't want to give the indication of impropriety and would immediately intervene. It's not the kind of discrimination that is covered by federal anti-discrimination laws, it's more like the kind that builds a great civil lawsuit and that tells admin agencies they need to intervene.

As someone who works in the medical industry... A physicians practice is his private business. He is responsible to to keep it afloat and turn a profit just like any other small business owner. Many physicians don't take patients that are apart of the state funded program medicaid. Why? Too much paperwork and too little reimbursement; if they even get reimbursed. And your point is? Point is he thinks a doctor can ignore the AMA, the state licensing board and any civil lawsuit; doctors are above that. How's the weather up on that high horse? A physician in private practice is totally free to post that sign in his window and also free to make his/her own decisions on who he/she will or will not treat. I think it's stupid and the guy would lose my business, but who knows maybe he's crazy like a fox. He sure is getting a lot of free publicity. Right and then post a sign that reads, "No niggers, faggots or Jews." Welcome to the 21st century; enjoy your stay. Furthermore, what if I were a patient of his and had been for years, then I see that sign? It's not as if I can go to a new doctor w/o a lot of hassle. He's showing me that he has a predisposed bias to Dems/libs and I might worry that he knows I am one, therefore I either have to switch docs or continue going to him and worry. And if womething happens to my care, I would wonder if he gave me insufficient care due to my political leanings. The doc's lawyer would be shitting thru his teeth telling the idiot to yank it down and say some punk kids hung that up as a joke. As for free pub, teh axiom about there being no such thing as bad pub worls for actors and such, not docs. I don't think you understand administrative actions.

Right, so that means the Dems aren't looking so bad. We are, at least our system of election works that way. Of course enter thej electoral college and we're a bastardized democracy. Here come the representative Republic fanatics. We elect our representatives in a quasi- democratic way.

If someone objects he's gonna take the fucking sign down, make apologies and pay for transfer of patients if they care not to be seen by a Nazi.

As someone who works in the medical industry... A physicians practice is his private business. He is responsible to to keep it afloat and turn a profit just like any other small business owner. Many physicians don't take patients that are apart of the state funded program medicaid. Why? Too much paperwork and too little reimbursement; if they even get reimbursed. And your point is? Point is he thinks a doctor can ignore the AMA, the state licensing board and any civil lawsuit; doctors are above that.

Read my profile, it's not real. Ok, on to the thread.... You didn't address my post, here it is with highlights: Yes, the US gov could not prosecute, persecute him for this; you're arguing a moot point. But you cannot use the constitution as an affirmative defense in an administrative action against his license to practice or a civil suit where a patient became ill and sued for malpratice. Hell, ya have all ya need for negligence or intentional infliction of distress of some kind. All of his patients should immediately tell him they voted for Obama and they basically own him. He has to cut them or continue to see them under the belief thatthey will receive substandard care ala conflict of interest. You can ignore it all day, it won't change. Freedom of speech is not a blank check to walk up to a strange girl and call her a whore, a black person and call him a nigger, a gay person and call him a faggot. In fact, they even aggravate these offenses by calling them hate crimes, at least the latter two. Some people need to take a justice class or two, don't get too excited about the US Const, it really is overstated and any claim must have a federal apsect to it, you can't just scream "CONSTITUTION" evertime you get stuck; it's not a blank check. OK, most people misunderstand the US Const, I was in traffic court years ago and a defendant said he had the right under the constitution to have a shaded license plate lense on it, Ok, so can we understand the constitution before we wave it around, whether it is all we have or not, you can't just wave it and expect a free pass. If you read the first it has nothing to do with this issue. No one is saying he could be criminally tried for hanging the sign, but he could be revoked as a licensed doctor and/or sued for malpractice, perhaps even some form of discrimination, altho that works under protected classes and political parties aren't that. Now, care to address the issue?

As someone who works in the medical industry... A physicians practice is his private business. He is responsible to to keep it afloat and turn a profit just like any other small business owner. Many physicians don't take patients that are apart of the state funded program medicaid. Why? Too much paperwork and too little reimbursement; if they even get reimbursed. Look up, "fiduciary duty" and tell us about that.

Yes, the US gov could not prosecute, persecute him for this; you're arguing a moot point. But you cannot use the constitution as an affirmative defense in an administrative action against his license to practice or a civil suit where a patient became ill and sued for malpratice. Hell, ya have all ya need for negligence or intentional infliction of distress of some kind. All of his patients should immediately tell him they voted for Obama and they basically own him. He has to cut them or continue to see them under the belief thatthey will receive substandard care ala conflict of interest. You can ignore it all day, it won't change. Freedom of speech is not a blank check to walk up to a strange girl and call her a whore, a black person and call him a nigger, a gay person and call him a faggot. In fact, they even aggravate these offenses by calling them hate crimes, at least the latter two. Some people need to take a justice class or two, don't get too excited about the US Const, it really is overstated and any claim must have a federal apsect to it, you can't just scream "CONSTITUTION" evertime you get stuck; it's not a blank check.

"If you voted for Obama … seek urologic care elsewhere. Changes to your healthcare begin right now, not in four years." "I'm not turning anybody away — that would be unethical, but if they read the sign and turn the other way, so be it." Lame about-face on his part when called on it, wasn't it. It's a disclaimer that would fall flat on it's face as an affirmative defense in a civil trial, or a criminal trial I guess. WHat would happen of you hung a sign on your door first day of class that read, "If you voted for McCain, you might want to think about dropping thsi class?" Now, what would happen if you hung this sign 1/2 way thru teh semester? How about right before finals? Of course too late to drop; kinda an easy A for the offended. Wouldn't it be stupid for a professor to do that and even tenure wouldn't save a professor from that. This is such a 'tarded' thread

"If you voted for Obama … seek urologic care elsewhere. Changes to your healthcare begin right now, not in four years." "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 is not a "tie" situation where one washes the other, this is a matter of professional conduct that is HEAVILY monitored by the State MEdical Boards and the AMA. I have my prereqs for RN and we had classes on this that there ZERO TOLLERANCE for dividing your care based upon bias of any kind; RACIAL, GENDER, AGE, POLITICAL OR ANY CRITERIA. I must be a liberal pussy to feel that way. I will graduate to RW maggoted zealot when I grow up.

Because it's pretty much a given that they wouldn't confront him face to face but would instead find someone else to fight their battles. Sorry-I'm having a low tolerance for pussies day. So your deduction is that liberals are pussies? Brilliant and a medical proessional hanging a bias-filled sign on his ddoor that is likely to offend about 1/2 of his clients is your definition of tough? I guess uttering the words, "Faggot" "Jew bastard" and "nigger" are also signs of being tough too, huh? That is, if you dislike gays, blacks and Jews. Hey, don't be a pussy, just blurt out how ya feel, caution to the wind. Can you now understand why peopel have strayed from the right????

Posting an obvious bias is also unethical as per the hypocratic oath. If ya wanna split hairs and walk lines, go fuck with the AMA and/or state lic agency. 2 admins I don't fuck with are the IRS and the FAA, everyone else is pretty much fair game. Admin fuckings hurt more than judicial (Superior Ct)fuckings in most cases. The state bar has to permit a lawyer to practice, the State Medical Board has to permit medical doctors to practice, the state police officer licensing agency has to license cops to act as law enforcement, the FAA has to permit people to fly, wrench, issue PMA's, TSO's, DER's, DAR's, DFE's, DME's, etc. The sign was pure stupidity, he should just go tea bag somewhere.

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.