Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
274 reviews now.
375. Can't say I agree with rate-bombing the guy.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- I don't think this Doctor likes Obamacare
I don't think this Doctor likes ObamacareFollow
375. Can't say I agree with rate-bombing the guy.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Looks like he pissed a lot of people off.
Jophiel wrote:
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
274 reviews now.
375. Can't say I agree with rate-bombing the guy.
No, it sort of trivializes the issues. Oh well.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Samira wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
274 reviews now.
375. Can't say I agree with rate-bombing the guy.
No, it sort of trivializes the issues. Oh well.
But people get to feel better about themselves by trying to make the doctor look like he's incompetent to the uninformed public.
This is only the beginning. Obamacare is scaring off potential doctors left and right.
I actually really appreciate it when people tell me up front not to show them my *****. It saves us some awkwardness and insincere apologies.
knoxxsouthy wrote:
This is only the beginning. Obamacare is scaring off potential doctors left and right.
Mostly just right.
I'll be here all weekend. Please, tip your waitresses; she's workin' really hard tonight.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Samira wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
274 reviews now.
375. Can't say I agree with rate-bombing the guy.
No, it sort of trivializes the issues. Oh well.
Which is a shame, because it's trivial enough as it is.
Nope, my doc has a big ol' Obama poster in his office (his office office, not the waiting room or any of the patient rooms. I saw it when the door was open and I walked past.)
While there are undoubtedly some doctors who agree with this guy, I believe the majority of them take their oath seriously and treat their patients regardless of the way their political leanings bend.
Hey, if nothing else, this might encourage some up and coming young Republican docs to go into geriatric medicine, since folks over 65 are WAY more likely to have voted for McCain. Geriatric medicine has the most critical shortage of trained doctors and specialists (last estimate I heard was under 6,000.)
While there are undoubtedly some doctors who agree with this guy, I believe the majority of them take their oath seriously and treat their patients regardless of the way their political leanings bend.
Hey, if nothing else, this might encourage some up and coming young Republican docs to go into geriatric medicine, since folks over 65 are WAY more likely to have voted for McCain. Geriatric medicine has the most critical shortage of trained doctors and specialists (last estimate I heard was under 6,000.)
catwho wrote:
Hey, if nothing else, this might encourage some up and coming young Republican docs to go into geriatric medicine, since folks over 65 are WAY more likely to have voted for McCain. Geriatric medicine has the most critical shortage of trained doctors and specialists (last estimate I heard was under 6,000.)
Plus, they're already covered by socialized medicine, so hey. No conflict.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
catwho wrote:
While there are undoubtedly some doctors who agree with this guy, I believe the majority of them take their oath seriously and treat their patients regardless of the way their political leanings bend.
Wow! Nice false dilemma! So any doctor who agrees with this doctor doesn't take their oath seriously? Really?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
catwho wrote:
While there are undoubtedly some doctors who agree with this guy, I believe the majority of them take their oath seriously and treat their patients regardless of the way their political leanings bend.
Wow! Nice false dilemma! So any doctor who agrees with this doctor doesn't take their oath seriously? Really?
Any doctor that would be willing to turn away patients because of their political beliefs would be taking their oath seriously?
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
gbaji wrote:
catwho wrote:
While there are undoubtedly some doctors who agree with this guy, I believe the majority of them take their oath seriously and treat their patients regardless of the way their political leanings bend.
Wow! Nice false dilemma! So any doctor who agrees with this doctor doesn't take their oath seriously? Really?
Nice straw man, that's not what she said.
TirithRR the Eccentric wrote:
Any doctor that would be willing to turn away patients because of their political beliefs would be taking their oath seriously?
Except that he stated clearly in the article that he is not turning anyone away, much less asking people what their political affiliation is. He put up a sign. If some people read the sign and then choose not to utilize his services, that is their choice.
He's not violating his oath. He is not turning patients away. He's expressing his opinion about a bill passed by Congress. That's free speech. What part of that did you fail to get?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Siesen wrote:
gbaji wrote:
catwho wrote:
While there are undoubtedly some doctors who agree with this guy, I believe the majority of them take their oath seriously and treat their patients regardless of the way their political leanings bend.
Wow! Nice false dilemma! So any doctor who agrees with this doctor doesn't take their oath seriously? Really?
Nice straw man, that's not what she said.
That's exactly what she said. She presented two exclusive options:
1. Doctors who agree with this guy (the doctor in the story)
2. Doctors who take their oath (presumably, the hippocratic oath) seriously.
Ok. Technically, if you interpret the pronoun "them" in the second clause as referring to "doctors who agree with this guy", you could say that she's not creating a false dilemma. But then the sentence makes no sense at all. I can only assume she didn't mean to say that most doctors who agree with this doctor take their hippocratic oath seriously. The pronoun "them" clearly was meant to refer to "doctors" in the first clause and be used to distinguish "doctors who agree with this guy", from "doctors who take their oath seriously".
Unless you have some other interpretation? What do you think that sentence means if not that? More importantly, what did Cat mean when she wrote it?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
He's not violating his oath. He is not turning patients away. He's expressing his opinion about a bill passed by Congress. That's free speech. What part of that did you fail to get?
You can express free speech and still violate the oath.
I didn't see anything on the sign saying "lol, just kidding, come on in all you socialist commie *****!"
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
Quote:
That's exactly what she said. She presented two exclusive options:
1. Doctors who agree with this guy (the doctor in the story)
2. Doctors who take their oath (presumably, the hippocratic oath) seriously.
Ok. Technically, if you interpret the pronoun "them" in the second clause as referring to "doctors who agree with this guy", you could say that she's not creating a false dilemma. But then the sentence makes no sense at all. I can only assume she didn't mean to say that most doctors who agree with this doctor take their hippocratic oath seriously. The pronoun "them" clearly was meant to refer to "doctors" in the first clause and be used to distinguish "doctors who agree with this guy", from "doctors who take their oath seriously".
Unless you have some other interpretation? What do you think that sentence means if not that? More importantly, what did Cat mean when she wrote it?
1. Doctors who agree with this guy (the doctor in the story)
2. Doctors who take their oath (presumably, the hippocratic oath) seriously.
Ok. Technically, if you interpret the pronoun "them" in the second clause as referring to "doctors who agree with this guy", you could say that she's not creating a false dilemma. But then the sentence makes no sense at all. I can only assume she didn't mean to say that most doctors who agree with this doctor take their hippocratic oath seriously. The pronoun "them" clearly was meant to refer to "doctors" in the first clause and be used to distinguish "doctors who agree with this guy", from "doctors who take their oath seriously".
Unless you have some other interpretation? What do you think that sentence means if not that? More importantly, what did Cat mean when she wrote it?
Catwho was referring to "doctors who agree with this guy." It should be obvious to anyone who understands basic grammar.
Edited, Apr 5th 2010 12:20pm by kiworrior
kiworrior wrote:
Catwho was referring to "doctors who agree with this guy." It should be obvious to anyone who understands basic grammar.
We deals with its own in the appropriate way, thank you very much.
Recent Visitors: 212
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (212)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- I don't think this Doctor likes Obamacare
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC