![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 44. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by zeugma on March 7, 2006, at 21:18:53
more of my civics lesson: New England is where freedom began, AND WE WILL HAVE IT:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Four Vermont Towns Back Bush Impeachment By DAVID GRAM, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 12 minutes ago
NEWFANE, Vt. - In a white-clapboard town hall, built circa 1832, voters gathered Tuesday to conduct their community's business and to call for the impeachment of President Bush.
"In the U.S. presently there are only a few places where citizens can act in this fashion and have a say in our nation," said select board member Dan DeWalt, who drafted the impeachment article that was placed on the warning — or official agenda — for the annual town meeting, a proud Yankee tradition in New England."It absolutely affects us locally," Dewalt said. "It's our sons and daughters, our mothers and fathers, who are dying" in the war in Iraq.
The article, approved 121-29 in balloting by paper, calls on Vermont's lone member of the House, independent Rep. Bernie Sanders, to file articles of impeachment against the president, alleging that Bush misled the nation into the Iraq war and engaged in illegal domestic spying.
Other cities nationwide have taken up resolutions calling for Bush's impeachment, notably San Francisco. But the sentiment has rarely spread to rural America — unless you're talking about Vermont, known for bucking politics as usual.
At least three other southern Vermont towns, spurred by publicity about Newfane's resolution, endorsed similar resolutions during Tuesday's meetings: Dummerston, Marlboro and Putney.
In Newfane, the impeachment item came at the end of a roughly four-hour meeting Tuesday morning that was devoted mostly to the local affairs of the town of 1,600.
Among the other items discussed was whether the town should fix some of the 100-year-old sidewalks in the village.
The impeachment discussion took up more than half an hour, reflecting the intense interest in the topic and something of a division over whether the town meeting was the appropriate place to debate it.
Ann Landenberger argued that it was appropriate. "As a teacher I can't say to my kids that what happens on the national level doesn't affect us at the local level," she said. "Would that we could all be in a cocoon, but that is not the case."
Greg Record, a justice of the peace, said in an interview after the meeting that the town is made up of people from the "far left," and he criticized the amount of time and attention such advisory votes get.
"We spend more time on these things than on a million-dollar budget item," he complained.
The president did have his supporters during the debate.
Lenore Salzbrun defended Bush, saying she had close friends who died in the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "I am so grateful that our president didn't just put his head in the sand ... and did go out and fight," she said.
Sanders issued a statement saying that although the Bush administration "has been a disaster for our country, and a number of actions that he has taken may very well not have been legal," given the reality that the Republicans control the House and the Senate, "it would be impractical to talk about impeachment."
Jim Barnett, chairman of the Vermont Republican Party, said Sanders should reject the resolution: "We should not be impeaching presidents just because we disagree with them."
Posted by wildcard11 on March 7, 2006, at 21:20:11
In reply to Vermont calls for Bush impreachment, posted by zeugma on March 7, 2006, at 21:18:53
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 7, 2006, at 21:38:47
In reply to about time... (nm) » zeugma, posted by wildcard11 on March 7, 2006, at 21:20:11
> about time...
Please respect the views of others and be sensitive to their feelings.
But please also don't take this personally, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by teejay on March 8, 2006, at 6:06:46
In reply to Re: please be respectful and sensitive » wildcard11, posted by Dr. Bob on March 7, 2006, at 21:38:47
You are seriously curtailing wildcards right to free speach here. He is fully entitled to air his view and did so without being insulting or rude.
In my opinion, it would be helpful if your civility rules were adapted so they didnt include people who are outside the babble community.
I fully agree that many who post here are sensitive to criticism or have low self esteem and need some care and protection, but I'm far from convinced the bunch of liars and crooks we have elected to run our countries qualify for such cosseted treatment.
I'd appreciate your thoughts on this matter Dr Bob ( that is opposed to the usual silence which in itself is uncivil)
TJ
Posted by wildcard11 on March 8, 2006, at 10:19:43
In reply to Dr Bob, posted by teejay on March 8, 2006, at 6:06:46
i was quite surprised also and don't quite understand the post from Dr.Bob but i have my opinion and stand by it regardless. it's just a shame i cannot REALLY write what i think..lol thanks though and ps~i'm a she ;-)
Posted by teejay on March 8, 2006, at 20:03:29
In reply to Thanks TJ » teejay, posted by wildcard11 on March 8, 2006, at 10:19:43
"ps~i'm a she ;-)"
Oops, my mistake......it was the pint of lager and moustache that threw me ;-))))
TJ x
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 8, 2006, at 21:00:31
In reply to Dr Bob, posted by teejay on March 8, 2006, at 6:06:46
> You are seriously curtailing wildcards right to free speach here.
Yes, different points of view are fine, and in fact encouraged, but freedom of speech is limited here.
> In my opinion, it would be helpful if your civility rules were adapted so they didnt include people who are outside the babble community.
The issue isn't really Bush himself, it's people here who support him.
> the bunch of liars and crooks we have elected
Please respect the views of others and be sensitive to their feelings. The last time you were blocked it was for 1 week, and this time I'm making it for 2.
But please also don't take this personally, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by caraher on March 9, 2006, at 8:01:56
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » teejay, posted by Dr. Bob on March 8, 2006, at 21:00:31
> > In my opinion, it would be helpful if your civility rules were adapted so they didnt include people who are outside the babble community.
>
> The issue isn't really Bush himself, it's people here who support him.I understand and fully expected this explanation. But anyone who might be triggered by goofy Canary Islands wordplay or exposure to the existence of criticism of a government *posted to the politics board* has no business reading a board devoted to politics! And can easily avoid the distress by not doing so.
If someone were posting criticisms of the US president on Social or some other board I'd be 100% behind these PBC/PBS warnings. Those who might be sensitive about criticism (or worse) of people or causes they believe in might be blindsided if such posts appeared elsewhere. But this is *Politics*! I don't believe for a moment that "civility" and politics are incompatable; but no ordinary person's understanding of "civility" extends so far as barring light-hearted humor or fact-based criticism of political leaders in a forum where the topic is understood by all who enter to be *POLITICS*.
By the way - and I'm not being flippant - I feel very disturbed emotionally by the fact that the minority of Americans that polls say approve of President Bush's performance is as large as it is. Yet the very last thing I'd find reasonable would be to be "protected" from feeling put down or oppressed by pro-Bush posts on a *POLITICS* board, even given that it exists under the overall umbrella of a site with "civility" rules to protect people from emotional triggers. Yet it seems that evenhanded application of the civility rules, as defined by the way they seem to be applied to protect Bush supporters, might demand this.
Here's a hypothetical (and bear in mind, I'm *NOT* equating anyone to a Saddam or his party, but simply exploring what the limits to discourse are). If this were a pre-2003 and Babble had a large number or Iraqi participants would a post saying Saddam had gassed his own citizens draw a PBS/PBS out of concern for Baathists on Babble? How about a statement that there was corruption in his government? How about a statement that the war on Kuwait was a mistake? Or a statement that Hussein should destroy any WMDs and submit to unfettered UN inspections to certify the dismantling of such weapons programs?
While I know that follow-ups are supposed to be redirected to Admin, I cannot help but see this as a political issue as well as a Babble administrative issue.
Posted by wildcard11 on March 9, 2006, at 8:33:08
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by caraher on March 9, 2006, at 8:01:56
i agree strongly that there needs to be some leeway on politics w/o PBC/PBS's. if i want to be able to post my opinion of a *leader*, president of the country that i live in, i am fully aware that there will be people that feel different and post their support of that person. there is always a line where yes, the civil guidelines play a factor but not for statements/facts for the public that are posted in newspapers and on CNN, etc., or even light hearted humor. i get so wound up in watching what i say that my point gets lost. my above PBS was b/c i agreed w/ VA and the impeachment process that was a published article?! I do not agree w/ that but just my opinion..TJ, talk to you when you get back...
Posted by wildcard11 on March 9, 2006, at 16:57:01
In reply to Too much???, posted by wildcard11 on March 9, 2006, at 8:33:08
Posted by zeugma on March 9, 2006, at 18:19:22
In reply to Too much???, posted by wildcard11 on March 9, 2006, at 8:33:08
> i agree strongly that there needs to be some leeway on politics w/o PBC/PBS's. if i want to be able to post my opinion of a *leader*, president of the country that i live in, i am fully aware that there will be people that feel different and post their support of that person. there is always a line where yes, the civil guidelines play a factor but not for statements/facts for the public that are posted in newspapers and on CNN, etc., or even light hearted humor. i get so wound up in watching what i say that my point gets lost. my above PBS was b/c i agreed w/ VA and the impeachment process that was a published article?! I do not agree w/ that but just my opinion..TJ, talk to you when you get back...
wildcard, i agree completely. I will tell whoever is interested in the state of the U.S. a brief story, and then I must go. I was reading my local newspaper, and stories describing events and actions much like those wildcard saw on CNN (I do not know what channels those hurt by her post watch, or what newspapers they read; perhaps the ones in which Donald Rumsfeld has been busy planting stories). And in between these appalling and disturbing stories, and angry editorials, there was an advertisement for a theme park. Set in Colonial Williamsburg, where one can play a game called "rebellion against oppression."
as if our history is now a theme park and our struggles reduced to the price of admission.
no more from me.
and consider the example of vermont.
-z
Posted by tealady on March 9, 2006, at 22:48:04
In reply to Too much???, posted by wildcard11 on March 9, 2006, at 8:33:08
Hi Wildcard,
Nice to meet you.
I agree.
Posted by tealady on March 9, 2006, at 23:05:17
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by caraher on March 9, 2006, at 8:01:56
Surely in looking through the majority of posts on this board and the censorship applied the answer that it is fine as long as it is the "non pro Bush" side that you apply such comments to?
I still think DrBob should step back before reacting , swap the term for Bush or someone pro-bush to something like "Hitler", "Saddam Hussein", "Stalin", "Ida Amin" , the leader of Iran ..
and see if it the sentence is still uncivil to him, then its uncivil.
If its fine then.. well it was fine with Bush (or political supporters) in it.
Unfortunately for the whole board I think, I think Dr Bob has a problem here.. and is not prepared to do this.
By siding with pro-Bush(which he had always before admirably held himself above), he can no longer arbitrate without outright discrimination, causing much hurt and "offence", humiliation and even anger.
Eventually, in the disempowered ,where it really does have life and death consequences it causes acts of terrorism. Why Dr Bob chooses to run one board of this previously excellently run forum like this has been a mystery to me ..and from comments ,many other thinking mature people too (ok they're have previously been normal human judgement errors or debatable points here and there).
Viewing this politics board has caused me to have strong feeling of being hurt, stung, discrimination, humiliation, feelin like giving up, hurt by th arrogance and stunned by those who desire top remain ignorant and yet still have their views considered gospel.. but I guess that has always been human nature.DrBob can choose to throw away America's greatest achievement..free speech and have a one sided political "Praise for Bush"forum.. but he should warn people of this in his header!!
He is causing a lot of discomfort and frustratio, as wellas fooling himself if he thinks a fair open discussion can precede with censorship of any opposing views.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060111/msgs/604754.html
I still think the heading of this board should warn it is NOT a open political board. Only pro-Bush views will be tolerated.I cannot see why DrBob cannot see why discrimination against any non pro-bush statements is not offensive in itself. and someone saying they are offended by a statement they disagree with is also offensive,... way more offensive than the statement. Instead of being offended that person should leave or openly state how they fell and what their experience and understanding is ..and only THEN can a genuine understanding happen. only then can tolerance, compassion and a feeling of community be foster. Only with free speech. To deny and throw away such a liberty as free speech .. ..THE best thing the US has, leaves me in a stunned astonishment. You cannot value it enough. in my book. My country does not have the same degree of free speech as in the US. I know of one board owner who went to jail for something that a poster posted.(in my country)..so far this hasn't happened(and unless the laws are changed for the worse due to terrorism issues can't happen) in US based boards. :-). Good you really have free speech and it really does apply to this forum. None of us need fear being jailed or worse for what we write, and even better ..DrBob does not need to fear for his life either based on what we write. In my books it takes a lot of being "offended" to throw that right away!
I do agree with prime time TV and no personal attacks and respect to listen and consider each persons view though. Just treating each other with decency and giving a fair go to all.
The politics board has caused me , and I think I can speak of others too, to feel upset by the outright discrimination practised and to lose respect, at least in part, for our very esteemed board owner and main moderator.Itseems to also encourages the feeling of superior ignorance? .. arrogance?.. nothing is quite the right word??which appears to be displayed and causes the hurt that is felt and eventually causes the lashing out that happens.. like Sept 11th. I did expect Sept 11th, but I fear it represents only the smallest fraction of what is felt by the majority in the world.
To censor efforts by those who are merely wasting their time trying to explain what is happening and how people are being affected and perhaps providing some warning..well most the some J*ps didn't know about the war either until the nuclear bomb was dropped, most the Germans didn't realise what Hitler was really like... but they had no way of finding out.AN idea I'm putting up for consideration here:-
Consider if the US didn't in practise as is thought by some almost control the UN (or ignore it if it doesn't conform to its wishes).
Would Bush and some military personnel may be just as guilty as Hitler and generals,Saddam, Yugoslav leaders both political and military etc.? . Should they be tried for war crimes too? Shoul Bush take the ultimate responsibility for the treatment of civilians by his troops?
Or is that just helping people out.. liberating them?
Why has the US got the right to define what is a war or not a war but a fight against terrorism?
Does the US just redefine what a war it invades(or aid) a country?
Does the Geneva convention really apply to US soldiers and civilians ? Has it been outlived now?
Did anyone see what some towns look like, say some of the footage of Italy at the end of WWII .. after the US liberates the towns? Or look at Vietnam villages? or even neighboring countries thru which communists might travel?Has anyone heard what is being taught to schoolchildren about the US in some non US countires? about US imperialists? Why would they be teaching that?
Maybe the next generation will have weapons that will be able to reach the US? Probably its just too far away technically to be achievable?
So most in the US will never really know what it is like to be liberated or invaded or aided or whatever the term is for having a country, foreign in every respecti (culture, language, goegraphy) bomb them with a show of strength and think they are justified in doing so?
This board has caused me way too much distress. I just keep getting drawn back here by alter posters who stary here ..like TEEJAY ands DECLAN ..and them get themselved banned.. mainly for having an opposing point of view to the pro-Bush side... and they are not Nth-American ..either of them.But I do realise that all US citizens do not think identically and will never hold the views and actions of some against all of the US individually..as seemed to be done with the Germans in Germany after WWII ..and even now.
There was a strong desire there to make them see what had been doen.
I really do like most of the posters here as individuals and realise some in the US are concerned.
I also know people who voted for Hitler that I liked and respected. They explained to me how, at the time, he seeemed like he was doing so much for the country... taking them out of a great depression that did hit Germany worse than most countries(due to the opressing rules put on germany after losing WW1), giving the workers paid holidays every year, affordable reliable cars (the VW), full employment etc.Please don't take this personally! I have met many nice people on this board, but staying on the politics boards make me realise how great the rift has become. I hope it is only here!!
I sincerely wish people can discuss their views openly in other places in the hope of achieving some understanding on all sides, for the whole world sake.Jan
Posted by tealady on March 9, 2006, at 23:53:11
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » teejay, posted by Dr. Bob on March 8, 2006, at 21:00:31
With foresight, you knew I'd disagree :-)
"Yes, different points of view are fine, and in fact encouraged, but freedom of speech is limited here."
No.. differing points of view are only find if they are not of an "anti-Bush" persuasion.
They are find if they are pro anything..even pro Bush's political competitors.
Gore(or a Bush competitor) is fine, I realise, so in that it is not outright discrimination.. but ANY view or link or thought that is negative Bush is not allowed. (as this may "offend" he Bush supporters)However it seems fine for negatives against other political sides to be expressed, so its not the negatives that are being discriminated against; e.g.. it's been fine to be anti-Saddam .
I still believe everything I posted before about stating something about only expressing pro-Bush statements at the top of board still applies, as well as everything I said on deleting the board.It actually does "offend" me when someone is "offended" by an statement that is anti-Bush, and is not prepared to listen to the opposing side ask for aid in understanding the opposing side, and try to comprehend where they are coming from.
I do understand freedom of speech may be limited. Is this because of some terrorism act application curbing freedom of speech if anti-Bush sentiments are expressed or just your own political views?
The majority of readers here would not be strongly pro-Bush. Gore was pretty close a while back..and then there's the non-us readers too. Not sure of the numbers. I'm dead sure your IP's don't say Pro-Bush or neutral or Pro-other party Bush not in.. If I had to guess the majority of readers here would not be strongly pro-Bush though.. maybe even less than 20%?
The bias that is being applied FOR the pro-Bush does in some cases actually offend those who are not strongly pro-Bush... probably the majority of readers?
The bias for "pro-Bush supporters" in the moderation of the political board has been inconsistent with your excellent moderation of others boards (well in the main, and you are only human after all:-), and has left me quite baffled.
Humour is, was, a way of alerting to a problem.. always has been, always will be>
Its' not until recently with the Danes and Muslims suggested to be moderated .. oh and the babble politics board too :-)
I guess there was an unsuccessful attempt to outlaw it in France before the revolution,to stop the wrongful and digusting comic strips Marie Antoinette..and from another European country again. However I think things may have worked out better for the French nobility is they had instead ben taken as an early warning system.But here the humour here has been decent, prime time TV stuff.. at least what you leave on the board has been :-).
I think the posters may have been politely trying to diffuse the build-up here, even if subconsciously, as well as try to make a small point as well as bring a smile to all and lower the simmering feelings of frustration and hurt being felt.
I won't be wasting my time here any more.
It IS time-consuming.
I have already cut down time spent.
There are always some posters who seem really nice and I feel I may be able to help, but maybe I'm no help anyway. Definitely will never vist this politics board or admin board again!! even to read.. even if a guy I like a lot is banned for a couple of weeks.Sorry to hear of you ban TJ (:-
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20060304/msgs/618181.html
Jan
Posted by wildcard11 on March 9, 2006, at 23:56:36
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » caraher, posted by tealady on March 9, 2006, at 23:05:17
i read several posts on here and it appears to be acceptable to say *xxx* is a good president BUT what if i were to say that i find that offensive? so my question is, why can one say *xxx* is good, etc., but i cannot say that i disagree w/ *xxx*? just wondered...
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 10, 2006, at 3:23:20
In reply to Re: blocked for 2 weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by tealady on March 9, 2006, at 23:53:11
> anyone who might be triggered by goofy Canary Islands wordplay or exposure to the existence of criticism of a government *posted to the politics board* has no business reading a board devoted to politics! And can easily avoid the distress by not doing so.
>
> Here's a hypothetical ... If this were a pre-2003 and Babble had a large number or Iraqi participants would a post saying Saddam had gassed his own citizens draw a PBS/PBS out of concern for Baathists on Babble?
>
> caraherI'd rather welcome people who are easily triggered than send them elsewhere.
If there were a large number of Iraqi participants here, it would be even more complicated.
--
> there is always a line where yes, the civil guidelines play a factor but not for statements/facts for the public that are posted in newspapers and on CNN, etc., or even light hearted humor.
>
> wildcard11This isn't a newspaper, so what's appropriate for one isn't necessarily appropriate here.
--
> No.. differing points of view are only find if they are not of an "anti-Bush" persuasion.
> They are find if they are pro anything..even pro Bush's political competitors.
> Gore(or a Bush competitor) is fine, I realise, so in that it is not outright discrimination..That's the idea, be pro-something. Instead of being anti-something bad, be pro-something better.
> I do understand freedom of speech may be limited. Is this because of some terrorism act application curbing freedom of speech if anti-Bush sentiments are expressed or just your own political views?
>
> JanNeither, it's because I think it's more civil.
Bob
Posted by wildcard11 on March 10, 2006, at 6:21:15
In reply to good point » tealady, posted by wildcard11 on March 9, 2006, at 23:56:36
****i read several posts on here and it appears to be acceptable to say *xxx* is a good president BUT what if i were to say that i find that offensive? so my question is, why can one say *xxx* is good, etc., but i cannot say that i disagree w/ *xxx*? just wondered...
hey Dr. Bob~i saw you read these posts but didn't comment on this one. and why is it better to be pro something than not?? or am i not fully awake yet???
Posted by wildcard11 on March 10, 2006, at 6:24:30
In reply to Re: the civil guidelines, posted by Dr. Bob on March 10, 2006, at 3:23:20
***That's the idea, be pro-something. Instead of being anti-something bad, be pro-something better.
maybe i interpreted this wrong?. that could be like saying anti-abortion is bad but pro abortion is good?? just an example~not saying one is worse or better...thx
Posted by AuntieMel on March 10, 2006, at 9:32:44
In reply to Here is what you said, posted by wildcard11 on March 10, 2006, at 6:24:30
If you said you were for a woman's right to choose it would be civil.
If you said you want to save the unborn it would also be civil.
They are opposing viewpoints, but they are both "pro" something.
I think we have all be so hyper-exposed to negative attack adds we have to be extra vigilant to *not* use the same type of language.
I am not a Bush supporter. I didn't vote for him and I disagree with many of his policies. I think that the Patriot act runs the risk of being used to take away our civil rights. I would like the non-warranted wire tapping to be examined by someone well versed in constitutional law. I think the war in Iraq dilluted our forces from what endangers us more than Iraq ever did.
And I think all those *issues* are open for discussion if we stick to the issues.
I also think it's really good practice for us to learn how to tell the difference. Then maybe the media attack ads will quit working and they will quit using them.
Posted by 10derHeart on March 10, 2006, at 9:38:52
In reply to Re: Here is what you said » wildcard11, posted by AuntieMel on March 10, 2006, at 9:32:44
Posted by 10derHeart on March 10, 2006, at 9:39:52
In reply to Extremely well-expressed :-) (nm), posted by 10derHeart on March 10, 2006, at 9:38:52
Posted by gardenergirl on March 10, 2006, at 9:49:54
In reply to good point » tealady, posted by wildcard11 on March 9, 2006, at 23:56:36
> i read several posts on here and it appears to be acceptable to say *xxx* is a good president BUT what if i were to say that i find that offensive? so my question is, why can one say *xxx* is good, etc., but i cannot say that i disagree w/ *xxx*? just wondered...
My brother-in-law said that he believes that Bush might be considered to be one of our greatest presidents ever.
I disagree.
gg
Posted by wildcard11 on March 10, 2006, at 11:04:22
In reply to Re: Here is what you said » wildcard11, posted by AuntieMel on March 10, 2006, at 9:32:44
me understand what i got the PBS/PBC for in replying to zeugma. i said 'about time' in regards that Vermont was taking a step that i agreed with. i don't see what i am missing..thanks
Posted by AuntieMel on March 10, 2006, at 12:49:11
In reply to Can u help... » AuntieMel, posted by wildcard11 on March 10, 2006, at 11:04:22
Ok, but remember I'm just discussing the language (semantics) and not your position.
I think the phrase "about time" sounds to most people to be dismissive - and ... well, consider
Someone says to you "Joe got a haircut" and you reply "about time." A lot of people would translate that to "he really looked like poo"
Now if you had said "good points" or something like that - it implies more that it's something worth looking at.
Does this make sense?
Posted by AuntieMel on March 10, 2006, at 12:51:32
In reply to Re: good point » wildcard11, posted by gardenergirl on March 10, 2006, at 9:49:54
> i read several posts on here and it appears to be acceptable to say *xxx* is a good president BUT what if i were to say that i find that offensive? so my question is, why can one say *xxx* is good, etc., but i cannot say that i disagree w/ *xxx*? just wondered...
You can say I disagree. You just can't say "xxx is a bad president"
The first - the way I take the rules - says that you don't agree, but *allows* the other person their view. The second one says "you're wrong and I'm right"
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.