Why are Tea Party folks called 'Activists' while OWS supporters are labeled 'Protesters' ?

[Chipper Chat]

Here are some piks of those dear, sweet, peace-loving 'activists':
.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28639.html
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ-oAhS8JrIrqta_44lz550B70A9YlXqL54fT3nynyH6qmQDdfF




Tea Party Protests: 'Ni**er,' 'Fa**ot' Shouted At Members Of Congress

[Warren Stupidity]

1. Their asses are on average 50% larger?

that is my guess.

[NRaleighLiberal]

2. Because the Tea stuff was astro-turfed/sanctioned by corporate...

meaning MSM.

And OWS is grass roots/scares the crap out of the powers that be

at least that's my suspicion.

It's all about the spin to influence the public perception. Follow the money.

[hack89]

3. I suspect because they are actively involved with the political process

and are identified with a particular cause, party or position. That's how the term seems to be generally used.

The tea baggers are a political movement - OWS as a whole isn't as far as I can see.

[FarCenter]

11. The Tea Party are political activists trying to take over the Republican Party grassroots apparatus

The Occupy movement does not seem to be trying to take over the Democratic Party.

The Occupy movement also uses the term "protest" to describe itself.

Sunday, November 20th:
2:00pm: 24 hour "Occupy Bloomberg's Mansion Drum Circle Protest And Love-In Art Show " in front of Billionaire Bloomberg's massive mansion on 17 East 79th Street. Details Here

http://occupywallst.org/

[The Doctor.]

16. Fox talking points aside,

One of the things that you're obviously not keen on discussing is how these two very different groups were generated.

First of all, you DO realize that the 'Tea Party' was a corporate-sponsored movement while OWS is entirely the opposite, right?

[hack89]

17. I was just referring to how the media generally uses the terms.

you seem to be taking my comments very personally - perhaps you need to find a forum that doesn't allow a wide range of views. Echo chambers are very soothing I have heard.

[The Doctor.]

18. Woah, slow down there trigger.

Nothing personal going on. Just asked a question.

I do find it interesting that you believe the notion that the Tea Party is not a corporate sponsored movement is merely a 'different view'. It's one thing to to be outside of an 'echo chamber', it's entirely another to be outside of reality.

So is there an actual reason you believe that the 'Tea Party' was not corporate sponsored, or were just ducking the question?

[hack89]

19. So "Fox talking points" is not an insult? Pull the other one.

of course the TP is corporate sponsored.

[The Doctor.]

20. See, that wasn't so hard to answer, was it?

Thing is, the 'Tea Party' isn't a 'political movement' in any greater sense than any corporate lobbying effort is. OTOH, OWS is as much a political movement as any attempt to change the paradigm or status quo. If you do not believe that OWS movement is a political movement, then by the standard you've imposed, neither was the Equal Rights movement.

If your criteria requires a leader, then the Tea Party cannot be considered a 'political movement' either as they had dozens of opportunists but no actual 'leader', as evidenced by the many different factions much as we see with OWS.


But your original response begs this question; "What makes you think that OWS isn't 'actively involved with the political process'?

[hack89]

21. The Civil Rights movement succeed because it directly influenced the political process.

They worked.very hard to lobby Congress and the White House. They also collaborated in drafting key legislation. I think the civil rights movement is.an excellent model for OWS.

For all your disdain for the Tea Party, let's not forget that they have convinced millions they are a legitimate grass roots movement. They can muster just as many people as OWS and.they have real political power - they have to be respected as an enemy.

[The Doctor.]

22. Hah. What a crock.

The Tea Party barely has the wherewithall to tie its shoes without corporate direction. It can't 'muster' shit and the only 'real political power' it has is giving cover to corporate-sponsored politicians. That's why the teabaggers will never actually get what they want.

OWS, otoh, has 'real political power' because any politician they get behind won't need corporate cash and will do the will of their actual constituency.

[hack89]

25. Believe what you wish

we will see who is right next November.

[The Doctor.]

26. I believe in demonstrable reality and what can be arrived at through sound reasoning thereupon.

Therefore, I'm spot on the money and we will indeed 'see' next November.

[hack89]

27. If you say so. nt

[The Doctor.]

28. I just did.

Since you understand that the Tea Party is a corporate creation, then you must understand that it is no more a 'political movement' than any lobbying group is.

OWS has all the earmarks of an actual political movement, and is just as valid as those in the past which were also ignored at first, but then embraced by policy makers.

[hack89]

29. Would you like another opportunity for the final word? nt

[The Doctor.]

30. Sure, why not?

Are you trying to say you don't have anything to say? Didn't realize.

[hack89]

32. No - just curious how far I can string you along. nt

[The Doctor.]

33. Or I you.

You may, of course, have the last word as you've had nothing to say for a while now.

[hack89]

34. After your bombastic boast of reality and reason

there was not much left for me to say.

Experience tells me that people that flat out tell me how brilliant they are aren't really worth engaging. Smug arrogance is an effective shield against reason.

[The Doctor.]

23. Dupe.

[Tippy]

4. And too, the 1% can buy anything they want....

[NNN0LHI]

5. Ever notice the wealthy who are mentally ill are never described that way?

If you are rich it is described as eccentric behavior.

No one who is poor with mental illness ever gets described as exhibiting eccentric behavior.

Just one of the perks of being wealthy I guess?

Don

[baldguy]

6. Because if the Teabaggers understood they were promoting the interests of the corporatocracy

they might demand that they get paid.

[The Doctor.]

12. That's a joke right?

No sentence that states 'the Teabaggers understood...' can be serious.

No, these people are stupid and utterly clueless about who put them up to their idiocy and how.

[RoccoR5955]

7. Because they're RepubliCONs, of course! n/t

[Martin Eden]

8. Anti-Capitalist Activists

That's how The Economist magazine refers to them.

[City Lights]

9. The corporate media manipulators are part of the 1%.

It's in their best interests to present the Teabaggers as "activists," and the OWSers as "protestors."

[Occulus]

10. For the same reason Yahoo News called African Americans "looters" after Katrina

but said white people were "finding" food.

Someone please post a screenie of that, I have to get ready for work soon...

[Chipper Chat]

15. Here it is. I remember this shocking story.

[mmonk]

13. Simple answer. The people OWS are protesting fund the "Tea Party",

much of the media, and campaigns of the politicians.

[txwhitedove]

14. Pfft, cause they didn't have an awesome drum circle.

[Arkana]

24. Better to be called "protesters"

because that's exactly what they're doing--protesting income inequality.

[Youth Uprising]

31. I hadn't noticed that subtle framing by the MSM.

Nice catch.

[RZM]

35. How much does it really matter?

Personally I don't consider 'activists' to be any better or worse than 'protesters.' I'd bet if you focus-grouped the two words you'd get approximately even results and maybe even a slight advantage toward 'protester,' since some people associate 'activists' with tunnel-vision zealotry and 'protesters' with opposing injustice (Arab Spring, 1989, Tianamen Square, etc.)