But it's not all that matters when determining honesty or character.
He is apparently lying whenever he claims to be board certified, since from the evidence it is not a real board. "Wifey says I am" is not board certified as any reasonable person would understand the term.
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 81
Rand Paul was certainly not the only ophthalmologist upset with the ABO.
A quick google search popped up this complaint from 2004...
http://www.ophmanagement.com/article.aspx?article=86179
It even mentions Paul's NBO. The complaint was not that doctors had to be recertified. And Paul was certified, and recertified, with the AMO for several years.
The implication that he created his own certification board because he didn't want to have to go through a recertification is preposterous. It was an anti-establishment move, and not one uncommon for someone like Paul.
A quick google search popped up this complaint from 2004...
http://www.ophmanagement.com/article.aspx?article=86179
It even mentions Paul's NBO. The complaint was not that doctors had to be recertified. And Paul was certified, and recertified, with the AMO for several years.
The implication that he created his own certification board because he didn't want to have to go through a recertification is preposterous. It was an anti-establishment move, and not one uncommon for someone like Paul.
First
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2002
- 10,518
- 271
- 136
Except he was required to, hid said fact knowing full well it's entirely frowned upon (for good reason), and wouldn't even talk about it publicly for fear of sounding as out-of-touch as he did when he said private business owners should be allowed to preach racist practices because the free market would simply weed them out naturally.
Frankly, to claim this is anti-establishment is pretty bad excuse-making when Rand knowingly brought back this made-up from the dead specifically to avoid recertifying.
Last edited:
Yeah an "anti-establishment move". Please, neither he nor his father are "anti-establishment". This was clearly a move to avoid recertification. He then lied about it.
Nice to know you'll do anything possible to lie for your candidate. That's pretty establishment.
It's also nice to know you continually dodge the gold items above.
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 81
Prove it.
In fact, it was the senior members of the ABO who were avoiding recertification.
My candidate, huh? How is that? I don't live in Kentucky. And beyond that, there are a handful of things Rand has said with which I disagree.
Because your argument is absurd. Everything Ron Paul stands for would, if implemented, decrease the value of gold relative to the US dollar. Your implication that Ron Paul shouldn't be able to purchase gold because of his congressional position is obtuse. Gold doesn't increase in value relative to the USD because of Ron Paul's positions, it increases because of Greenspan's and Bernanke's positions. Now if you were making the same argument for Bernanke, you may have a point. But you aren't, and thus, you don't.
Who's confusing licensing and board certification but you?
No one's saying he's not licensed that I've seen. He lied that he's board certified.
werepossum
Elite Member
- Jul 10, 2006
- 29,873
- 463
- 126
You're intentionally confusing the point. Had he said the ABO is useless political bullshit and refused to be board certified I'd support him - THAT would be anti-establishment and Libertarian. Had he created a true, open and verifiable alternative to the ABO - that honestly and openly worked to make medicine better - I'd support him. THAT would be anti-establishment and Libertarian. From the available evidence it appears quite certain that he did neither. Instead he appears to have created a sham board that allows him to reap a reward (board certification) without its required effort (continuing education and its documentation.) That is NOT Libertarian or anti-establishment, it's just a scam.
It's entirely possible that I am wrong, but all the available evidence points otherwise. If you are considering investing your money in the First National Bank of Rand and then discover that it is merely a P.O. Box and that all the officers are family, then it's up to Rand to prove that it isn't just a scam. Claiming to have a bank (or a medical certification organization) in a post office box requires some proof, else a reasonable person will naturally assume it is a scam.
He has not lied about being board certified, he is just not specifying which board certified him. It is amusing, because this is an example of how someone can use a free market system to fool people. Board certification is unregulated, so what he did is legal. But, it seems very dishonest because almost no one in the public knows enough to recognize that Paul's board certification is coming from Paul himself.
The irony of Rand Paul abusing an unregulated market.
Werepossum has it spot on with his response to you.
If he had said certification is a scam, I won't do it, that would be anti-establishment. Making up your own BS certification and calling yourself "board certified" to fool people is just BS.
It's equivalent to me making a college called GarfieldtheCat College, and posting on my resume about how I have a PhD. I just won't mention where I got it from. (Hmmm, Rand Paul = Derek Smart!) Anyone looking into it would immediately conclude that I get a PhD from a diploma mill.
Ditto with Rand Paul. He tried to create a BS board so he could claim "board certification".
Heard an interview with Dr. Paul this morning. He explained it perfectly and IMHO makes him even more of a great candidate.
He and 200 other young doctors were peeved at the good ole boys club that the older eye doctors didn't have to get certified so they formed their own. Bravo Dr. Paul. Instead of being part of the problem you and the other doctors were part of the solution. You absolutely rock and We The People of Kentucky will welcome you as our new Senator along with Mitch McConnel to take this country back and stop the obama agenda.
He and 200 other young doctors were peeved at the good ole boys club that the older eye doctors didn't have to get certified so they formed their own. Bravo Dr. Paul. Instead of being part of the problem you and the other doctors were part of the solution. You absolutely rock and We The People of Kentucky will welcome you as our new Senator along with Mitch McConnel to take this country back and stop the obama agenda.
What you don't seem to get is that no medical board is the law of the land.
If Rand Paul's board is BS, then they're all BS.
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,816
- 1,126
- 126
Sadly for you your agenda is 100x worse and the moderates in the country see right through your bullshit. So good luck taking back what was already taken from you in 2008. Please come back in November and let us know how well your taking back the country routine worked out for ya.
If only my sarcasm meter wasn't displaying 0% . . . but you're completely serious, aren't you?
That might almost be plausible, except for making his wife vice president and father in law secretary, and letting the organization shut down until he revived it again to cover his own lapsed certification.
No, the evidence still points to this being a sham board to let him unfairly claim certification.
Yes, he has lied.
We've long since established in popular discussion that lying includes intending to deceive with trying to use words in a way that will lead people to false conclusions.
For example, if I say to you a drug is FDA-Approved, but don't tell you that FDA means my friend Fred says it's ok and stands for 'Fred's Don't Ask' approval, because FDA has an understood meaning, it's a lie. As the AMA has said, ''board certified' means official boards, apparently AMA-endorsed - and creating a phony board with your family has no purpose other than to mislead people to some false conclusion that you are certified by a board of other doctors, when you are not certified by a board in any real meaning of the phrase.
Remember when Clinton told the public he 'did not have sexual relations with that woman'? He had a much stronger case than Paul - he was using an actual phrase defined at his trial, and had the point of excluding sexual intercourse, but most of his defenders agreed he lied because his intent was to deceive based on people assuming the phrase 'sexual relations' included anything with genitals or an orgasm, even if we pointed out the 'mitigating' facts making his lie not quite the same as the basic black and while lie.
Paul's is basically the black and white lie.
That's not amusing. If you shoot a policeman, did you just prove in as amusing way that the system of police is broken?
If you put up false posters saying the election is on a different day, and cause a lot of voters not to vote, did you just amusingly prove some point about elections not working?
No, the sleaziness of Paul lying.
By the way, righties I'm a licensed doctor (made the license myself). I can treat your family and you will only appluaud my getting around the 'old boy's network' right?
After all, isn't that 'free market', and no the government doesn't go punishing doing that, which costs money they take from innocent people at the point of a gun.
The 'public interest' in having qualified medical people is none of government's business, by your ideology. So normal people get some quality protection, and you offer none.
Under the normal people, the cases of really unqualified care are relatively rare, while under your policy they'd greatly increase. But you go on defending why you're right.
That's what ideologues do. This is just one of many thousands of things 'real Librtarians' would break, but let that emotion 'I don't like government' override any rational position.
That is basically how it works - reinforced emotion to condition you to reinforce irrational views. Racists might think of something that emotionally makes them not like blacks - "just imagine a black man raping a white woman, man I'm pissed" - Libertarians just simplistically 'hate almost all government'. They may get caught up in fancy words about 'states rights' to defend segregation and 'pure constitution' to defend libertarianism, but that's just irrelevant cover for the ideology.
After all, isn't that 'free market', and no the government doesn't go punishing doing that, which costs money they take from innocent people at the point of a gun.
The 'public interest' in having qualified medical people is none of government's business, by your ideology. So normal people get some quality protection, and you offer none.
Under the normal people, the cases of really unqualified care are relatively rare, while under your policy they'd greatly increase. But you go on defending why you're right.
That's what ideologues do. This is just one of many thousands of things 'real Librtarians' would break, but let that emotion 'I don't like government' override any rational position.
That is basically how it works - reinforced emotion to condition you to reinforce irrational views. Racists might think of something that emotionally makes them not like blacks - "just imagine a black man raping a white woman, man I'm pissed" - Libertarians just simplistically 'hate almost all government'. They may get caught up in fancy words about 'states rights' to defend segregation and 'pure constitution' to defend libertarianism, but that's just irrelevant cover for the ideology.
CallMeJoe
Diamond Member
- Jul 30, 2004
- 6,938
- 5
- 81
...and only seven of those 200 young doctors joined the new board they formed?
That's a stretch, even given your famous credulity.
Also, I'll remind you once again, you and Mr. Jingles don't constitute "We the People", no matter how popular he was in Mouseville.
He's also written a 1000 word response to the courier-journal explaining it, signed by most of the members of his ophthalmology board. There's a lot more than 7.
Surprise, they refuse to print it. Also he is still WAY ahead in the polls, this isn't doing any damage here in KY. You should drive around the state, huge rand paul signs in people's yards.
I've said for years that the fools who fall for authoritarian type demagogues are more vulnerable after their side crashes and burns (Bush) to the next radical.
This is sort of the same point made in "It Can't Happen Here", a 1930's book about how the US could be seduced by such a figure taking the US to fascism.
So it's no surprise a radical ideological demagogue like Rand Paul can get rabid followers.
werepossum
Elite Member
- Jul 10, 2006
- 29,873
- 463
- 126
Bullshit. I applaud industry groups self-regulating, although I don't think they can completely replace government regulation. But there is a huge difference between an industry group providing a service to everyone involved - doctors, patients, hospitals and insurance companies - and an industry group providing a service only to the doctors. While Dr. Paul didn't technically lie when he said he was board certified, he was certainly being dishonest. By his standards I can start my own board and state that I too am a board certified ophthalmologist with just as much legitimacy, even though I don't even know the names of most of the equipment. The ABO, right or wrong, has standards and requirements that must be satisfied to receive its certification. The NBO, as far as we can tell, has none. Even though neither is the law of the land, one serves a purpose to others and one does not - at least as far as we can tell.
Garfield's point about a diploma mill is exactly right. The NBO offers "board certification" for a fee only, at least as far as we can tell. A diploma mill offers a degree for a fee only. Both offer a certain amount of cover and respect for money, neither will allow you privileges restricted under the law.
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
^ sure, there are fools offering blind allegiance to Obama, McCain, both Clintons, Palin, and in this thread to Paul.
It's one thing to support a candidate, but to pretend even their flaws are really mavericky fightin' the power is just sad.
It's one thing to support a candidate, but to pretend even their flaws are really mavericky fightin' the power is just sad.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
Bwuhahaha
So, again, who's confusing licensing with board certification?
Fern
Bwuhahaha
So, again, who's confusing licensing with board certification?
Fern
You missed the point - reading comprhension error.
I used licensing in my *analogy* that was facetious, to make the point, that applies to any 'central authority', licensing or board certification.
That has nothing to do with my comments about Paul, which were specific to his *board certification* claims, which you appeared to have confuse with claiming he was *unlicensed*.
Hey, we don't even need to send him to the Senate. If he doesn't get elected, he'll just make his own senate... It's just the way he rolls....
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter