Quoted from CICERO

But don't the actual ophthalmologists need to be board certified?  Just curious how the first board of ophthalmologists were certified.  Who is the first eye guru that certified everybody.

This really needs explaining???  Really???

OK.  No doubt in the past there were those (like Paul) who just read a book and decided they were
ophthalmologists.  Their work was substandard and possibly dangerous for their patients.  
A set of standards was determined to insure that the term "ophthalmologist" met certain minimum
requirements.  Board certified.

Quoted from Box A Rox

This really needs explaining???  Really???

OK.  No doubt in the past there were those (like Paul) who just read a book and decided they were
ophthalmologists.  Their work was substandard and possibly dangerous for their patients.  
A set of standards was determined to insure that the term "ophthalmologist" met certain minimum
requirements.  Board certified.

This Paul guy must have a bunch of injured patients and malpractice lawsuits without being board certified.  

Quoted from CICERO

This Paul guy must have a bunch of injured patients and malpractice lawsuits without being board certified.  

His most recent medical malpractice pay off was for $50,000 in 2010.  Lucky for his patients, Paul is now
a full time US Senator.

Quoted from Box A Rox

His most recent medical malpractice pay off was for $50,000 in 2010.  Lucky for his patients, Paul is now
a full time US Senator.

Wow!  Only if he was board certified he wouldn't have malpractice lawsuits, since anybody board certified never has malpractice lawsuits filed against them.  

BTW...Is this the same Paul guy that performed free eye surgeries in Haiti?(and when I say free, I don't mean paid for with taxpayer money)

Quoted from CICERO

Wow!  Only if he was board certified he wouldn't have malpractice lawsuits, since anybody board certified never has malpractice lawsuits filed against them.  

BTW...Is this the same Paul guy that performed free eye surgeries in Haiti?(and when I say free, I don't mean paid for with taxpayer money)

Yes.  Hatians tend not to file malpractice suits, especially when the malpractice is for free.

As far as TaxPayer Dollars???  I would guess that much of Paul's education was paid for by the taxpayers.

Quoted from Box A Rox

Yes.  Hatians tend not to file malpractice suits, especially when the malpractice is for free.

Only if the Hatians knew he wasn't board certified by the proper board.  They probably would have denied his charitable services.  What a predator this Paul guy is.  I'm definitely not going to vote for him.

Quoted from CICERO

Only if the Hatians knew he wasn't board certified by the proper board.  They probably would have denied his charitable services.  What a predator this Paul guy is.  I'm definitely not going to vote for him.

LMAO!  YOU DON'T VOTE FOR ANYONE!
But I will definitely not vote for him.

being 'board certified' just means there is different legal lingo

what the public doesn't understand is that medicine is NOT an exact science....

being board certified or accredited means one is lucky enough to do business with such-and-such company because they
'paid their dues'...THAT'S A FACT

board certified is just another cronyism promoted by the government under the guise of safety

you see, when you go to your board certified MD now, they ask you "do you have a gun in your home".....that's a government mandate
so you can stay board certified and get paid by the insurance 'company' aka:government.....and if you're a good MD your
malpractice bill will be subsidized.....

Quoted Text

Sen. Rand Paul is having a devil of a time figuring out how to circumvent Kentucky's law that forbids a
candidate to run for two separate positions on the same ballot.
Senator Rand Paul, a sort of libertarian, law and order type conservative is trying to circumvent
Kentucky's state that says a candidate can only run for one job on the same ballot. This means
that if he does decide to run for President then he has to give up his Senate seat.

Typical Libertarian... Laws apply to others, the little people, not to me!  

Quoted from Box A Rox

Sen. Rand Paul is having a devil of a time figuring out how to circumvent Kentucky's law that forbids a
candidate to run for two separate positions on the same ballot.
Senator Rand Paul, a sort of libertarian, law and order type conservative is trying to circumvent
Kentucky's state that says a candidate can only run for one job on the same ballot. This means
that if he does decide to run for President then he has to give up his Senate seat.

Typical Libertarian... Laws apply to others, the little people, not to me!  

Typical false statement.

Feel free to provide proof that it is typical for Libertarians to state that laws don't apply to them.

Damn that Rand Paul for wanting to use what congress is for

Rand Paul: War Against ISIS 'Illegal Until Congress Acts'

Senator Rand Paul continues to insert his unconventional views into the nation’s foreign policy debate as the 2016 presidential contest gets closer.

The Kentucky Republican has unveiled a proposal that would officially declare war against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS. The move is an attempt to both rein in presidential war powers and better define the fight against the extremist group that has brutally captured northern portions of Syria and neighboring Iraq.

In addition to declaring war, Paul’s proposal sets limitations in the fight against ISIS, including limiting the use of combat ground forces except when Americans are in “imminent danger,” intelligence reasons or for specific high value topics. Those constraints put Paul at odds with other potential GOP nominees who have derided the president for ruling out ground troops.

    “Right now this war is illegal until Congress acts pursuant to the Constitution and authorizes it,” Paul said in a statement.

In September, President Barack Obama expanded the fight against ISIS, promising to “degrade and destroy” the group. Congress left town to campaign for the midterms before debating and authorizing the expanded war against ISIS, and GOP leaders have indicated that they likely won’t take up the authorization debate before next year.

Paul maintains that the Constitution says it is Congress’ job to declare war.

“Right now this war is illegal until Congress acts pursuant to the Constitution and authorizes it,” Paul said in a statement.

Paul’s resolution also attempts to limit previous war authorizations -- used by both Obama and his predecessor George W. Bush -- to justify the use of expanded missions and new conflicts. It would end the 2002 authorization for war in Iraq – a war that is technically over despite a recent increase in the U.S. troop presence there to curb the expansion of ISIS. Paul’s measure would also add an expiration date to the 2001 war authorization for Afghanistan - or forces Congress to reauthorize it every year.

While he will push for the Senate to act during the lame-duck session, he has not received any commitment from Senate leaders. His aides say Paul has spoken with Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine, who has also been advocating for a new war authorization, about his idea.

Paul’s proposal is his latest attempt to shape a foreign policy with positions that often don’t fit inside an ideological box. For instance, last spring, he held up the nomination of John Brennan, the nominee to head the CIA, because of the U.S.’s use of drones.

His opponents within the GOP have not been shy about criticizing him. After comments surfaced of him accusing former Vice President Dick Cheney of pushing the Iraq War because it would benefit Halliburton, his former employer, Rick Lowry, editor of the conservative National Review Online, wrote that that position is “a staple of the left.”

While Paul’s foes label him an “isolationist,” he’s worked to brand himself as a “realist.” But as the aspiring presidential candidate faces the realities of a hawkish Republican Party, he has softened some his views. He walked back previous budget proposals that ended financial support for Israel, for example, and he has modified his staunch opposition to intervention after Russia’s usurpation of Crimea.

But he hasn’t completely lost his edge. In September, he remained adamantly opposed to arming Syrian rebels, a position that put him at odds with most of his Republican colleagues.

He even took to the Senate floor during the September debate over Syria to suggest that more hawkish members of his party “never met a war they didn’t like.”
First published November 24th 2014, 12:51 pm

Rand Paul Calls ISIS War ‘Illegal,’ Urges Congress To Reclaim Power
9:16 AM 11/10/2014


Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul isn’t mincing words — he calls the military actions taken against the terrorist group known as ISIS “illegal” and says it must either stop or President Barack Obama needs to come to Congress to get authorization to continue it.

The War Powers Act allows the President to act militarily for 60 days before seeking congressional authorization, after which he has 30 days to seek authorization or end the action. That 90-day window has now passed.

As Sen. Paul put it:
    I believe the president must come to Congress to begin a war. I also believe the War Powers Act is misunderstood; President Obama acted without true constitutional authority even before the 90 days expired, since we were not under attack at that time.

    But in either case, this war is now illegal. It must be declared and made valid, or it must be ended.

    Congress has a duty to act, one way or the other.

Paul did not reserve all his criticism for the president; he also had choice words for Secretary of State John Kerry. Kerry “became famous as an anti-war liberal decades ago,” he wrote. “That same man is now probably the most visible liberal proponent of unlimited war-making powers, as a member of this administration.”

But Paul’s criticisms were not limited to Democrats. In a veiled swipe at Arizona Sen. John McCain, with whom Paul has had many disagreements, Paul writes, “Prominent Republicans from the interventionist wing of the party parrot and applaud Kerry’s position. If ever there was too much bipartisanship, it would be the bipartisan acceptance of unlimited presidential war-making power.”

Paul is not saying military action against ISIS is unjustified, he states the exact opposite, in fact. But it’s the process through which it is being conducted that troubles him. He sees it as a separation of powers issues and encourages his fellow senators and representatives, particularly conservatives, to reclaim the power to make war, explicitly given them by the Constitution. He concludes his piece by writing:

    It’s time for conservatives to say enough is enough. Obama’s commandeering of Congress’s powers—from making war, to remaking our health-care system—has to stop. There needs to be an across-the-board, consistent defense of the constitutional separation of powers. Nothing less will win the day. That should include this current battle in the Middle East. Taking military action against ISIS is justified. The president acting without Congress is not.