Oh please. You could propose a plan for health care right here in this forum, and I could label it StrangeCare - is that an insult? I just don't see it.

 

No, it wouldn't be.

 

I'll just ask this: who came up with "ObamaCare"? Who uses that phrase repeatedly? Is it Obama and his political allies, or is it his political enemies?

Oh please. You could propose a plan for health care right here in this forum, and I could label it StrangeCare - is that an insult? I just don't see it.

 

I believe it is used as an insult way more than a neutral label.

and by your definition, who exactly is grass roots? anything that gains influence will have corporations jump in and try to corrupt the process to gain an advantage.

 

The wiki lists some:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grassroots

 

From the early stages in 2009, the Tea Party had big corporate backers. It was starting out as a grass-roots reaction to Obama and the Democrats' wins in 2008, but it very quickly became something else.

And isn't the goal of a grassroots effort to gain powerful supporters?

Eventually gain is different from started and organized by. The first big rallies and protests were not formed by grass roots organizations.

 

And, again, that's fine as long as you're not pretending otherwise.

I believe it is used as an insult way more than a neutral label.

I never said it was neutral. I just don't think it rises to the level of "insult".

 

Insult is a poor description. But it's used in a derogatory manner.

Yep.

 

that was a joke. forgot to put it in green.

Insult is a poor description. But it's used in a derogatory manner.

 

just like those who say Barack Hussein Obama.

 

they say, well that his name. Yes, but they say Hussein because Hussein has a negative vibe for a lot of people. So its a way to associate the President in a negative way. "Name calling without Name Calling."

 

Those same people never say John Sidney McCain or Willard "Mitt" Romney.

just like those who say Barack Hussein Obama.

 

they say, well that his name. Yes, but they say Hussein because Hussein has a negative vibe for a lot of people. So its a way to associate the President in a negative way. "Name calling without Name Calling."

 

Those same people never say John Sidney McCain or Willard "Mitt" Romney.

Of all the things to be upset about in the political discourse, you are really going to keep going with this? Because someone said "ObamaCare"?

 

exactly.

 

and can anyone give an example of this type of name calling/association being used historically?

 

In addition, I'm sure, the way this turned out, was not 100% of what he wanted. There was a lot of horse trading going on in Congress (house and senate) that he had no control over, but in the end it was the only way to get the 60 votes they needed to overcome yet another Republican filibuster.

 

Have you forgotten 2001 to 2009?

Of all the things to be upset about in the political discourse, you are really going to keep going with this? Because someone said "ObamaCare"?

 

im trying to make a point.

its not the exact issue of "Obamacare". its the overall dialogue.

it seems like we (this country) can't have an intelligent conversation about issues/politics. We end up name calling and becoming very pety in the process. And both sides are guilty of it.

 

 

 

 

Have you forgotten 2001 to 2009?

 

what am i forgetting... any maybe I truly am. In what context was GWB's exact name used to demonize a controversial issue?

 

what am i forgetting... any maybe I truly am. In what context was GWB's exact name used to demonize a controversial issue?

 

Balta hit the biggest one already. Bush's name was attached to everything under the sun in a derogatory manner. This very recession is referred to all of the time as Bush's recession, and I can't see that being a term of endearment from the left.

Balta hit the biggest one already. Bush's name was attached to everything under the sun in a derogatory manner. This very recession is referred to all of the time as Bush's recession, and I can't see that being a term of endearment from the left.

And the 2001 recession was called the Clinton Recession. The Oil spill was Obama's Katrina.

Then by definition grass-roots efforts are incredibly rare if not non-existent since they start as small groups and later get aid from the powerful and wealthy to spread the message.

 

Either way you want to define it, it's still a "movement" that's getting a lot of participants becoming more vocal and active about their government.

Not really an incorrect statement. The only true "grassroots" movement I can think of was Ron Paul's campaign, and the early stages of Obama's campaign.

I don't agree with that. Big powerful money were not organizing the early rallies and what not - that just isn't the case. Now, these big Glenn Beck scream-and-shout hate-the-world chorus events, sure, those are backed by big bucks.

I'm not sure exactly at what point this happened, but by the time April '09 came around (funny cuz Obama hadn't been in office a full fiscal quarter yet) Fox News was blatantly promoting it without even attempting a pretense or any kind of subtlety, and mocking other networks for not promoting it.

The wiki lists some:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grassroots

 

From the early stages in 2009, the Tea Party had big corporate backers. It was starting out as a grass-roots reaction to Obama and the Democrats' wins in 2008, but it very quickly became something else.

 

I just don't see it. It's the largest and most powerful grassroots movement currently operating in the US. They are so big that it is inevitable that it would get the interest of certain money groups. Most of the groups listed in the Wiki page aren't even in the US. The one that is listed is completely irrelevant. So, if by your standards a grassroots movement must have no influence or voter base, then the Tea Party is not grassroots.

 

What I do see is that a certain people just refuse to admit that many voters have legitimate concerns with the government and it's elected officials.

I don't deny your last paragraph at all.

 

I don't deny that there's grass-roots support for the Tea Party movement. I just think it's inaccurate to say that it is or was a grass-roots movement when it was funded by large, wealthy conservative interests from the get-go. I see at as disingenuous branding and it leads to false or at least misleading promotion of the movement as something populist.

 

It's really a completely irrelevant side-track. Like I said earlier, it doesn't really matter if it's "grass roots" or not if there's enough votes.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-45-dumb...teabagger-rally

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-45-dumb...teabagger-rally

 

and i'll add a comment here too.

 

as a soon to be parent, 5 weeks and counting, I could never imagine bringing/involving my elementary school kids in politics like this. It seems creepy to me.

and i'll add a comment here too.

 

as a soon to be parent, 5 weeks and counting, I could never imagine bringing/involving my elementary school kids in politics like this. It seems creepy to me.

I'm sure when my kid is a teenager, I will encourage them to get involved. Before then, yeah, its a little creepy to have them out there holding signs saying something they don't even understand. Its manipulative.

 

I just don't see it. It's the largest and most powerful grassroots movement currently operating in the US. They are so big that it is inevitable that it would get the interest of certain money groups. Most of the groups listed in the Wiki page aren't even in the US. The one that is listed is completely irrelevant. So, if by your standards a grassroots movement must have no influence or voter base, then the Tea Party is not grassroots.

 

What I do see is that a certain people just refuse to admit that many voters have legitimate concerns with the government and it's elected officials.

 

I do think that there is a large popular tangent to this, absolutely. But a grassroots movement implies that it started from nothing - and the truth seems to be that there was some big money behind it from the start. It may have a grassroots feel to it now, but with the help of things like FreedomWorks and Fox News behind it from the start, this was astroturf that took root. There feels very little that's organic about it to me.

I do think that there is a large popular tangent to this, absolutely. But a grassroots movement implies that it started from nothing - and the truth seems to be that there was some big money behind it from the start. It may have a grassroots feel to it now, but with the help of things like FreedomWorks and Fox News behind it from the start, this was astroturf that took root. There feels very little that's organic about it to me.

 

I feel it was also orchastrated to the point where, no matter what action the Administration chose (stim spending or no stim spending) they would be out protesting no matter what.

 

It was either... stop govt spending/takeovers or create more jobs.

 

It would be interesting to ask these people, if they would have preferred no stimilus spending and a 13% unemployment rate instead?

I feel it was also orchastrated to the point where, no matter what action the Administration chose (stim spending or no stim spending) they would be out protesting no matter what.

 

It was either... stop govt spending/takeovers or create more jobs.

 

It would be interesting to ask these people, if they would have preferred no stimilus spending and a 13% unemployment rate instead?

 

I think that the last ten years, this political echo chamber that we've created has forced a situation where someone has to be constantly angry and protesting about something. The lack of civility in discourse has led to an abandonment of any moderation. I would say that this is primarily true on the Republican side, and I know that others disagree, but I feel that on the right wing that there has been a sustained lack of respect for the legitimacy of anyone holding political power than themselves. This is something that we saw rear its head sometime around 1993, and we're seeing it again now.

 

Some people will argue that these things happened in 2001 as well, and they may be correct - but the level of disrespect and unwillingness to cooperate and work together in 2001 did not reach the highest levels of the Democratic party - certainly not like they did in 2009 or in the Clinton years. There was no serious, sustained and lasting effort to impeach Bush Jr that had any legitimacy with the Democratic leadership. There were and still are polemics on both sides and there was and still is disrespect on both sides, but the difference in how that disrespect is handled on either side is fairly telling.