mnealtx 0 #151 April 4, 2010 Quote Quote I got my start in penile law. Ah..... a divorce lawyer.. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #152 April 4, 2010 QuoteQuoteNope - 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. Really? Then why can we go thru history since WWI and see that when taxes are lowered: - class disparity grows - Debt usually rises - Corporate corruption is more likely and when the opposite is true the inverse occurs? I think you're trying to custom fit this together rather than objectively look at history and draw a conclusion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #153 April 4, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote 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. Right, so you were criminal defemse / prosecution? Are you something else now? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #154 April 4, 2010 QuoteI think you're trying to custom fit this together rather than objectively look at history and draw a conclusion. That means a lot from the master. ... 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #155 April 4, 2010 Quote cutting taxes without cutting spending is pointless They really are 2 seperate animals. They are generally established in diff bills at diff times. Historically, regardless of spending, higher taxes = less debt and more economic stability. Few kajillionaires, which breaks our hearts. BTW, you must be a huge fan of Clinton then; he did both. Quote the spending is the issue - borrow and spend vs tax and spend still both get you nowhere Right, to libertarians. Taxing is the issue for liberals. Objectively controlling both is the key and cutting our military is neccessary for both. I just don't hear any R's saying that and very few Libertarians saying that, perhaps it's because they are basically the same thing. Quote reduce spending to balance the budget - reduce taxes to increase net revenue Show me where this has ever worked. You can't. Reagan cut taxes and tax revenues increased. problem is that spending was astronomical, so that was the reason tax revenues increased. Clinton reduced spending, but increased taxes and tax eceipts skyrocketed. Your theory is a fantasy. Quote right now? cutting spending would be the big dial to turn. Leaving taxes alone to assess the impact on the economy. So then letting the banks fail and the economy fix itself with GD type numbers would have been the answer? I see. Quote too many chefs stirring the pot Who's stirring the pot? Obama and teh Dem congress and look at the GD - type mess that has been averted. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #156 April 4, 2010 QuoteQuoteI think you're trying to custom fit this together rather than objectively look at history and draw a conclusion. That means a lot from the master. So no response? Ok. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #157 April 4, 2010 QuoteQuote"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. Then why tie the two together in your post, Lucky? I guess you lie like your hero, Obama. QuoteQuoteThe 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. The mention of God in the pledge isn't 'an establishment of religion', Lucky - not that we expect you to be able to understand THAT, either. QuoteQuoteIncorrect. 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. Wrong - you'd do a WHOLE lot better if you just read what I said without all the assumptions. QuoteWhat I'm saying is that it won't reach anywhere near protecting a person from a civil suit; that's not it's intention. It doesn't speak to a civil suit at all - it is a restriction against GOVERNMENT. QuoteAgain, the US Const only has a relationship between the gov and person, how can that intervein between 2 persons? It doesn't, that's the point - something you STILL can't seem to figure out. QuoteMy, Mikey, your imagination works in really neat ways, perhaps you should write fiction with all that spare time you have. I get all the fiction I need reading your posts. QuoteQuoteYou'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, No "in a way" at all - that's it entirely. QuoteQuoteToo 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? Dunno - why don't you go whine that someone insulted you, like you usually do? QuoteQuoteI'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. More ASSumptions from Lucky. QuoteI 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. Other than it's an admission test to get into law school, you mean? Nope, outside of that I don't really give two shits about it. QuoteYes, I know you're wrong again, that's ok. If you'd tested well enough on the LSAT, you wouldn't have needed the 'bump' - nice try. QuoteAs 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. 25k for 3 years is 75k, Lucky. Funny how that's so prohibitive for you, but evidently so cheap that you slammed Nightingale about it - why's that, Lucky?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #158 April 4, 2010 QuoteThen why tie the two together in your post, Lucky? I guess you lie like your hero, Obama. I didn't tie them together, in fact, I established the 1st could not offer protection against civil libel suit. Mike = the king of abstraction. No where did I say the 1st could be used as a defense to a civil libel suit. QuoteThe mention of God in the pledge isn't 'an establishment of religion', Lucky - not that we expect you to be able to understand THAT, either. To people who like it there, sure. Those same people woiuld scream if any religion was introduced that was Jebus-loving, fucked up Christianity. QuoteIt doesn't speak to a civil suit at all - it is a restriction against GOVERNMENT. That's right, which is why I said the 1st won't protect you from a civil libel suit; don't know how I can make that more clear. Again, let's not be absolute here, I bet there's a case or two where a person has successfuly used the 1st as a defense in a libel case. I don't know of them but the law doesn't work like binary. All I'm saying is that on its face, the US Const is designed for gov restrictions and citizen rights and liberty. I understand that you only want to see the gov restriction side, as you are pissed your party in marginalized thus the gov must be corrupt. When you party gets back in prominence, you will be pro-gov once again. QuoteIt doesn't, that's the point - something you STILL can't seem to figure out. Then why did I write it, let alone write it before you did? I apparently can figure it out. BTW, I'm so lucky to have a guy liek you w/o any college to explain to me how these things work. QuoteDunno - why don't you go whine that someone insulted you, like you usually do? Yea, it must be me, I'm still trying ot figure out the rules thingy where sometimes the exact same comment is a PA, yet other times it is not - it must be me. QuoteNo "in a way" at all - that's it entirely. Right, since you're pessimistic and pissed that your party is nill, the gov is all bad and needs to be restricted, once your party comes back into prominence, it's all about freedoms. QuoteMore ASSumptions from Lucky. h did you have to give someone a ride to a comm college once? Brag to us your vast collegiate experience. QuoteOther than it's an admission test to get into law school, you mean? Nope, outside of that I don't really give two shits about it. But you want to give me the ok that I didn;t do well on it. I see, an authority w/o knowledge. QuoteIf you'd tested well enough on the LSAT, you wouldn't have needed the 'bump' - nice try. And that's my point, either: - Test well - Be in a racial minority group - Have rich parents We can all say, but if.... the reality is that I didn't fit any group, hence I'm screwed. Grad schools are not objective. Quote25k for 3 years is 75k, Lucky. Funny how that's so prohibitive for you, but evidently so cheap that you slammed Nightingale about it - why's that, Lucky? She got a partial ride, in fact as I recall, I think she said they paid a good part or all of it, just expenses she had to borrrow. And I'm guessing she did well enough on the LSAT to not have to go to Florida Coastal or the one in San Diego @ 25K/yr, so her tuition was 5-10k/yr that was basically paid for as I recall. And you can live cheaper than 25K/yr depending upon where you live. For her it's a blessing, a tax writeoff when she needs one. Again, I would be glad to go into debt to get into law school and I may, probably not tho, getting too old to be worth it. Still, rich brats get a free ride and an academic free ride in some cases, just look at JFK Jr; took him several times to pass the Bar. Still wanna argue there is no exclusive preference? Racial preference? Didn 't think so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #159 April 4, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteI think you're trying to custom fit this together rather than objectively look at history and draw a conclusion. That means a lot from the master. So no response? Ok. It's a response in kind - no more, no less ... 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #160 April 4, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI think you're trying to custom fit this together rather than objectively look at history and draw a conclusion. That means a lot from the master. So no response? Ok. It's a response in kind - no more, no less It's a response in absentia - we get it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,644 #161 April 4, 2010 Quote reduce taxes to increase net revenue G.W. Bush disproved that theory pretty well. His tax cuts decreased net revenue (in constant dollars) per capita.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrophyHusband 0 #162 April 5, 2010 QuoteYea, well his client's welfare is in jeopardy, so I would like to see admin action from the AMA or the state lic board. AAs well any legitimate civil suits should be given fair hearing. why do you keep mentioning the AMA? they have absolutely zero authority. given that less than a third (most of the figures i could find range from 17%-22%) of doctors even belong to the AMA, odds are that he doesn't even belong to the organization. given the AMA's stance on obamacare, i would bet that he is not a member. "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #163 April 5, 2010 QuoteQuoteYea, well his client's welfare is in jeopardy, so I would like to see admin action from the AMA or the state lic board. AAs well any legitimate civil suits should be given fair hearing. why do you keep mentioning the AMA? they have absolutely zero authority. given that less than a third (most of the figures i could find range from 17%-22%) of doctors even belong to the AMA, odds are that he doesn't even belong to the organization. given the AMA's stance on obamacare, i would bet that he is not a member. Just threw it out as a possible authority. I also stated, several times, the state lic board; I'm sure you agree they have authority and they might frown on his behavior. So what do you think, was it unprofessional? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #164 April 5, 2010 QuoteQuoteThen why tie the two together in your post, Lucky? I guess you lie like your hero, Obama. I didn't tie them together, in fact, I established the 1st could not offer protection against civil libel suit. Being the high powered legal expert that you are, you CERTAINLY knew that the 1st never should have been mentioned in the first place, so why do it in the first place? Quote Mike = the king of abstraction. No where did I say the 1st could be used as a defense to a civil libel suit. Nice strawman, seeing as how I never said that. QuoteQuoteThe mention of God in the pledge isn't 'an establishment of religion', Lucky - not that we expect you to be able to understand THAT, either. To people who like it there, sure. Those same people woiuld scream if any religion was introduced that was Jebus-loving, fucked up Christianity. Thanks for proving the last phrase of my statement. QuoteQuoteIt doesn't speak to a civil suit at all - it is a restriction against GOVERNMENT. That's right, which is why I said the 1st won't protect you from a civil libel suit; don't know how I can make that more clear. Then why mention it in relation to a civil suit in the first place, Mr. Legal Expert? QuoteAgain, let's not be absolute here, No, lets. QuoteI bet there's a case or two where a person has successfuly used the 1st as a defense in a libel case. Find 'em. QuoteQuoteIt doesn't, that's the point - something you STILL can't seem to figure out. Then why did I write it, let alone write it before you did? I apparently can figure it out. BTW, I'm so lucky to have a guy liek you w/o any college to explain to me how these things work. Evidently, you are. QuoteQuoteNo "in a way" at all - that's it entirely. Right, since you're pessimistic and pissed that your party is nill, the gov is all bad and needs to be restricted, once your party comes back into prominence, it's all about freedoms. Wrong - it's the same regardless of what party is running the show. QuoteQuoteOther than it's an admission test to get into law school, you mean? Nope, outside of that I don't really give two shits about it. But you want to give me the ok that I didn;t do well on it. I see, an authority w/o knowledge. I'm following your lead, but I'm sure I'll NEVER be able to catch up on the vast number of subjects that you're an authority with no knowledge of.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrophyHusband 0 #165 April 5, 2010 QuoteJust threw it out as a possible authority. I also stated, several times, the state lic board; I'm sure you agree they have authority and they might frown on his behavior. i think the state medical licensing board has better things to do than worry about a guy who put up a sign. i'm unsure of the scope of their authority, but i doubt it extends this far into how a doctor runs his business. they can "frown" on it all they want, but that really means nothing. btw, doctors can and do "fire" their patients at will. their "feduciary duty", as you put it, extends so far as to refer their patients to another doctor of similar ability and that's it. you also heve mentioned several times lawsuits. what are the damages? correct me if i'm wrong here, but doesn't someone have to have been hurt in some way (financially or physically) to have a successful lawsuit? how has someone been hurt here? how many lawyers do you think would take on this case pro bono? Quote So what do you think, was it unprofessional? yes, i do think it was unprofessional, but in the pantheon of unprofessional acts, this is pretty minor. also, the area he practices in is pretty solidly conservative. i wouldn't be surprised if it actually attracted more patients than it turned away. "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #166 April 5, 2010 [Beavis] Heh heh heh.... He said "pantheon". Heh heh heh. [/Beavis] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #167 April 7, 2010 Quote "I'm not turning anybody away — that would be unethical," Dr. Jack Cassell, 56, a Mount Dora urologist and a registered Republican opposed to the health plan, told the Orlando Sentinel on Thursday. "But if they read the sign and turn the other way, so be it." So tacky, but within his rights. Just as people had the right to boycott Prop 8 contributers. Why would you consider a boycott of Prop 8 contributers tacky? It makes sense to financially support companies who, if they make political contributions, do so to match your ideals. There are many companies to choose from, and it's at the core of capitalism to vote with your dollar if you don't like a company's business practices. That said, a sign on the doctor's door about politics is tacky. Posting a neutral letter to his patients inside his office detailing how the bill would affect his practice and their health care prior to the adoption of the bill might have been more appropriate. Education is always better than alienation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #168 April 7, 2010 QuotePosting a neutral letter to his patients inside his office detailing how the bill would affect his practice and their health care prior to the adoption of the bill might have been more appropriate. We had that from our Dentist - sorta The insurance was low balling him - he sent a letter to his customers stating his costs are more than they pay and notified the customers that they'd have to pay the difference - other options were switch companies or change dentists... it was done nicely rather than "If you have Metlife: Get your Treatment Elsewhere" but in content pretty much the same message ... 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #169 April 7, 2010 Quote... 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 affilliation... 1. Last I checked, most doctors are not federal employees, so this would be irrelevant. 2. States and the federal government do have statutes prohibiting discrimination, but most if not all do not include "political affilliation" as a protected status. For example, in California the protected statuses for employment are gender, race, age, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status, pregnancy, disability, or other protected status under state or federal law (for example, whistleblowers, etc...). 3. In another post, you ramble on about "fiduciary duty" saying "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." And you're quite wrong. "According to American Medical Association policy on terminating the physician-patient relationship, physicians do have an obligation to support continuity of care for their patients. They have the option of withdrawing, but they cannot do so without letting the patient or any of the patient's relatives responsible for care know far enough in advance so there is time to find another physician." So, as long as the patient is given sufficient notice to allow the patient to find a new physician, a physician can drop a patient. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
futuredivot 0 #170 April 7, 2010 Don't dispute lucky-he's an expert on everything. Don't take my word for it, just ask him. Just in case you missed it Lucky-You sort of just got you ass handed to you-see there's a difference between knowing, and thinking that you know. So-write the damn check already and quit whiningYou are only as strong as the prey you devour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #171 April 7, 2010 Quote "I'm not turning anybody away — that would be unethical," Dr. Jack Cassell, 56, a Mount Dora urologist ... Note he's a urologist, not a gynecologist. Ergo, he'd rather see dicks than pussies, thus this sign makes sense. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
