PUSA? What is that some abbreviation for president of the United States that looks like a different word that some might think of our president's fortitude?
I think this one is a fairly common abbreviation. I normally see it POTUS, but to me it's the same difference.
Obama-rama-lama-damma-ding-dong?
I haven't seen this one, other than a hypothetical in this thread, but it's better not to use *any* nicknames for political figures, especially our own political figures. Abbreviations aren't such a big problem, in my opinion.
(The "BHO" one is fairly immature, in my opinion, and takes away from a poster's point. However, it's Obama's full name, so have at it.)
Please move further discussion of this particular topic over the "Comments / Remarks" forum, as we're getting off-topic.
I would assume one could use respectful nicknames like the Gipper or Honest Abe, but I could see why people wouldn't want that. It could even come off sarcastic with no other langauge cues.
I was thinking of that song cause lately I saw a muppet bit with all these lambs and rams singing that song. I think it was the episode with the characters from Star Wars.
You're getting at the reason why the formal restriction is only on "disparaging" nicknames. "The Gipper", "W", etc. are often said with respect, and aren't meant to insult anybody. That's why it's not necessarily practical to have bright line rules in some of these areas.
true. Spirit of the rules issues have their place. Also President Rose Bush was a stupid example. He has nothing to do with roses. Except the Rose Garden.
Are we allowed to make disparaging comments about people nobody likes, like Bernie Madoff, Stalin, and Barry Bonds? Maybe Bonds isn't universally disliked enough. If someone did this I'd just expect a non-call from the mods. Jeff's example of mods as refs is making more sense to me now
But why must we make disparaging comments? Why can't we just debate the issues based on our views, which is what 99% of the posts in the current events forum do, from both sides of the isle?
I have never once seen any action takin in the curent events forum for debunking a stance made by a political figure or poster using a fact based argument. Thats diffrent than posts like this:
It is very easy to win a discussion with liberals. Just keep pointing to the facts and eventually they will walk away. The only way they can argue is with blanket statements and twisted stats.
are not productive, and directly disparage a group for no reason with no facts. It's the same with qoutes like from the left leaning posters:
The world thought he did, but he didnt. I dont doubt that he hoodwinked everyone, because he did. Their is never a single reason for going to war, but the WMD's that he supposedly had was a large justifying reason that was advanced.
Those are both blanket statements that have no factual basis and do nothing but attempt to stir up the other side. Those are clearly not allowed, and both were dealt with (names removed because it's not important).
But well argued posts that debunk people/ polocies like this:
What it suggests to me is one more administration that is going to put corruption, patronage, and partisanship ahead of the American people. Obama has a real opportunity here -- he's got more "political capital" than any president since Reagan, at the very least -- and now he's set about a course of destroying that good will by appointing corrupt cronies to positions of power. Yes, results matter, but so does transparency, integrity, and the rule of law.
Interestingly, people weren't using the "results matter" logic when they were criticizing Bush for taking away civil rights in the name of protecting against terrorism. I've been encouraged to see the broad disappointment in this thread; if more of the American people showed the integrity of left-leaning folks like SSF4.0, nick, Chris, and others, Obama would be forced to do something about this. Unfortunately, though, most Americans couldn't care less, and that's why we're going to have one more administration of shameful government.
That gets the poster's point across and his concerns about the current political climate without resulting to namecalling, but rather relying on actually addressing the issues.
It's a fine line, polotics do get heated, and i think the mods do a good job walking it.