![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 16 to 40 of 44. Go back in thread:
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"
Posted by AuntieMel on March 10, 2006, at 12:53:44
In reply to Re: Can u help... » wildcard11, posted by AuntieMel on March 10, 2006, at 12:49:11
The "you" in what I said is just the way I talk. I didn't mean any particular "you"
Posted by wildcard11 on March 10, 2006, at 12:53:52
In reply to Re: Can u help... » wildcard11, posted by AuntieMel on March 10, 2006, at 12:49:11
yes and thank you... i just feel that Dr.Bob interpreted it another way than what it was meant to mean. over, done with and thank you again..
Posted by wildcard11 on March 10, 2006, at 12:54:34
In reply to Re: one more thing, posted by AuntieMel on March 10, 2006, at 12:53:44
Posted by zeugma on March 10, 2006, at 15:18:10
In reply to Re: Can u help... » AuntieMel, posted by wildcard11 on March 10, 2006, at 12:53:52
I must say, like Sen.Arlen Specter when confronted with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' responses to questions about the constitutionality of President Bush's actions, that this thread "defies logic and plain English."
If you are pro Hitler and I am Jewish, then you wish to exterminate me.
If you are pro Saddam and I am a Marsh Arab, then your 'pro' attitude towards him meant that my extermination weighed little with you (a group he exterminated in the early 80's when Donald Rumsfeld was supplying him with chemical weapons meant as a realpolitik deal to keep Iran in line, Mr. Rumsfeld felt that if Saddam used these generously supplied weapons to reduce Iraq's ethnic diversity, that was Mr. Hussein's own business).
If you are a person who thinks Donald Rumsfeld is a competent man, then you are able to rejoice in his statement that Iraq "is not in civil war at the present time, by most experts' calculations" (question: How many experts did it take to figure out that the U.S. Civil War had begun?)
I am pro-Vermont, I think it is a beautiful state that everyone should visit, and I am pro-impeachment, and if I only leave the details vague, as Mr. Rumsfeld does as to whether Iraq is now or ever will be in a state of civil war, then I will never break the civility rules, because I will say PRO-, PRO-IMPEACHMENT, IMPEACHMENT IS AN INTERESTING THING, but leave who is being impeached, and for what reasons, as mysterious and impenetrable as a White House press conference.
Which, by the way, is part of the reason I detest said denizens of the White House. And so I will not make my language as meaningless and CIVIL as theirs. Wishing that Saddam Hussein can list among his crimes 9/11 may make certain segments of this board happy, even juibilant, but we will wind up wishing away our own minds, as it appears numerous people have already, not referring to anybody on this board, Auntie Mel has done as good a job as possible at making a contradiction plausible, I do not say that invidiously, because literally NO ONE could make sense of the policy of this Politics board, except Mr. Rumsfeld, who knows how to supply chemical weapons but relies on experts to define 'civil war' and 'torture', when what is really being tortured (besides hapless U.S detainees and Iraqi Army prisoners) is our dignity and any sense of justice.
"Live free or die"
and visit the Green Mountain State while you're at it, it's quite beautiful.
-z
Posted by zeugma on March 10, 2006, at 16:01:23
In reply to Re: Can u help... » wildcard11, posted by zeugma on March 10, 2006, at 15:18:10
for giving me heart in this difficult time--
Vermont Paper Embraces Impeachment Push The Nation
Fri Mar 10, 11:44 AM ET
The Nation -- When five Vermont towns voted for resolutions urging Congress to impeach President Bush, there were many in the media who dismissed the move as purely symbolic. But the local daily newspaper in southeastern Vermont, the 130-year-old Brattleboro Reformer, takes a different view.
"In a place where elections can't be stolen and the spinmeisters have no effect, people in five Vermont towns stood up and said, "Enough!" the Reformer editorialized, adding that, "This nation can't take another three years of failed policies, reckless wars and a pervasive culture of corruption and cronyism. Vermont has led the way in the past. We can do it again. We hope Tuesday marks the beginning of a nationwide debate over the continued legitimacy of the Bush presidency."Here's the entire editorial:
In Vermont, we take great pride in our tradition of direct democracy and how we can have a say not just in how things are run in our towns, but also on bigger issues like war and peace. Last year, more than 40 towns across Vermont approved a nonbinding referendum regarding the deployment of the Vermont National Guard in Iraq.
In doing so, Vermont became the first state to debate the deployment of the National Guard.
This year, five Vermont towns went beyond the Iraq war to take on the architect of it -- George W. Bush.
In Newfane, Marlboro, Putney and Dummerston, as well as the central Vermont town of Brookfield, town meeting voters approved a measure to demand that our Congressman, independent Bernard Sanders, file articles of impeachement to remove Bush from office.
That isn't surprising, considering the state's tradition of using Town Meeting Day to consider issues beyond road repair and school funding.
In 1974, several Vermont towns had town meeting votes calling for the impeachment of Richard Nixon. In the early 1980s, Vermont gave the nuclear freeze movement a kick-start with town meeting votes that eventually inspired other states to debate the need for more nuclear weapons. The vote on impeachment Tuesday follows this pattern of voting locally to act globally.
As Dan DeWalt, the Newfane Selectboard member who started this whole process by getting an impeachment article on Newfane's town meeting warrant, told reporters Tuesday, "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."
In a place where elections can't be stolen and the spinmeisters have no effect, people in five Vermont towns stood up and said, "Enough!"
Sadly, Sanders won't be introducing articles of impeachment. He said Tuesday that Republican control of Congress makes it "impractical to talk about impeachment."
We disagree. More than two dozen House members have co-sponsored a resolution calling for the formation of a select committee that would make recommendations regarding impeachment. Sanders ought to join that group and forcefully push for impeachment proceedings to begin.
This nation can't take another three years of failed policies, reckless wars and a pervasive culture of corruption and cronyism. Vermont has led the way in the past. We can do it again. We hope Tuesday marks the beginning of a nationwide debate over the continued legitimacy of the Bush presidency.
_____________________________thank you wildcard for your reminders of what this country means
-z-z
Posted by wildcard11 on March 10, 2006, at 22:32:35
In reply to for wildcard, posted by zeugma on March 10, 2006, at 16:01:23
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 11, 2006, at 12:53:38
In reply to for wildcard, posted by zeugma on March 10, 2006, at 16:01:23
> failed policies, reckless wars and a pervasive culture of corruption and cronyism.
Sorry, but please respect the views of others and be sensitive to their feelings. Even if you're quoting someone else. I've asked you to be respectful and sensitive before, so now I'm going to block you from posting for a week.
But please 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 wildcard11 on March 11, 2006, at 13:18:05
In reply to for wildcard, posted by zeugma on March 10, 2006, at 16:01:23
I STRONGLY disagree w/ a block here...He posted a written editorial and i have seen many others do the same...Politics is not all roses and this is very unfair IMO. It is okay to publish an article in support of Bush but not one against???? How is that fair politics or fair discussion? I just do not understand. I get offended at certain posts praising Bush but they are allowed so why is this not??? Why even have a politics board then? I just do not understand....i would appreciate it if you could help me understand b/c i don't?! Thx
Posted by 10derHeart on March 11, 2006, at 17:52:24
In reply to Dr. Bob (((z))), posted by wildcard11 on March 11, 2006, at 13:18:05
> It is okay to publish an article in support of Bush but not one against????
Have there been any of these? I didn't do a thorough search going back more than a few months, but I went back a bit and couldn't find one....?
>>I get offended at certain posts praising Bush but they are allowed so why is this not???
Could you show me one of those posts? I am totally NOT trying to argue with you or be disrespectful in any way. I am asking a completely serious question. I hear in your recent posts you're frustrated and confused and perceive a double standard. If that's true, it is a problem I'd want to help address, too. But I went searching also for a 'praise-the-President' post and again, couldn't find one.
Of course, the thing is, I suppose even if I found one, I can't think of a way to help with your being offended by a 'praising' post. I mean, assuming it generally supported and said good, positive things about the President or policies. Because that use of words usually isn't uncivil or insensitive, whereas the 'against' stuff, by it's nature, tends more to break the rules. Posts have to stay fairly focused on the positive and on solutions, I think is what Dr. Bob is trying to get across. Or at least, point out the negatives you see without accusation, put downs, name-calling, and so forth.
It's NOT easy to do when we are having strong feelings and not used to this kind of expression.
>>Why even have a politics board then?
If I recall correctly, it was started in order to move the heated and sometimes upsetting [to some] posts off the Social board, as [some] posters were beginning to feel uncomfortable reading those kinds of things there.
I know, that's not what you meant ;-) Sorry - but I thought I'd mention it 'cause I wasn't sure if you were babbling back before this board existed at all...
Posted by agent858 on March 12, 2006, at 18:32:02
In reply to Re: blocked for week » zeugma, posted by Dr. Bob on March 11, 2006, at 12:53:38
i'll miss you :-(
Posted by Jakeman on March 12, 2006, at 19:57:13
In reply to Wildcard11, posted by 10derHeart on March 11, 2006, at 17:52:24
Let's say someone makes this post:1) "Bush is a wonderful president"
and someone else posts this:2) "Bush is a terrible president"
Who do you think would get the PBC?
Poster #2 could even preface their statement with "I think.." but, from my experience, it would not help.
Now why can't we all just be more positive? Because this IS about politics, which reflects the real world which is postive and negative and various shades in between.
warm regards- Jake> > It is okay to publish an article in support of Bush but not one against????
>
> Have there been any of these? I didn't do a thorough search going back more than a few months, but I went back a bit and couldn't find one....?
Posted by wildcard11 on March 12, 2006, at 20:06:14
In reply to Re: Wildcard11 » 10derHeart, posted by Jakeman on March 12, 2006, at 19:57:13
****Now why can't we all just be more positive? Because this IS about politics, which reflects the real world which is postive and negative and various shades in between.
EXACTLY my point~thanks ;o)
Posted by AuntieMel on March 13, 2006, at 10:37:52
In reply to Re: blocked for week » zeugma, posted by Dr. Bob on March 11, 2006, at 12:53:38
I found the editorial to be quite interesting, more for what it said about Vermont than what it said about the president.
I would have had a problem with posting an edited version of what someone else wrote. If I had written it, I wouldn't have wanted someone else to edit it for me.
So just what would be a good way to post it? If a link to the editorial was supplied there would still be a problem, right? And the information about how the towns there go global was *very* interesting - too much so to not post.
Posted by wildcard11 on March 13, 2006, at 10:59:44
In reply to Re: blocked - question » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on March 13, 2006, at 10:37:52
very well said. i agree wholeheartedly!
Posted by Damos on March 13, 2006, at 14:54:50
In reply to ((((((((((((((((((z))))))))))))))))))), posted by agent858 on March 12, 2006, at 18:32:02
I'll miss you too mate. I'va always really appreciated your posts and learned a lot from them and you.
Take good care okay.
Damos
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.