Consider - President Obama's middle name is Hussein - but most people who underline his middle name are right wing jerks trying to portray Obama as something foreign and alien to America. Now they usually defend themselves, if challanged, by pointing out that this in fact his middle name (which it is) -but it's still a right wing tactic (and kind of an ugly one at that).

I don't know about Obamacation - but if it is the language of the right wing, than why use it? Or what ideas are contained in the word Obamacation that can't be expressed in other ways?

Bryant

I would have voted to hide it.

Sid

And the community will decide if your word is acceptable at DU.

I expect that sometimes it will be hidden and sometimes it won't.

Go for it. Use it to deride Obama over and over. Let's see how that works out for you.

Sid

A vacation you take funded entirely by other people and at the most inopportune times.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Obamacation

I just googled the term on DU, and the entire first page of results is posts BY YOU or people replying to you. In every case, you are criticizing the President's education policy.

Given this history, your claim that it is neutral seems disingenuous to me. What are you hoping to accomplish when you use the term?

Are you sure you're replying to #5:>>>It's a politically neutral term. As is "Reaganomics". n/t>>>>

A "politically neutral term"? It is to me. In exactly the same way that Reaganomics is/was.

>>>"I just googled the term on DU, and the entire first page of results is posts BY YOU or people replying to you. In every case, you are criticizing the President's education policy.">>>>>

I have a very low opinion of the president's ideas about education, and do not pretend otherwise. I write often about it and sometimes use the term in question to identify "the educational policies of the Obama administration." ( NB: Often I do NOT use it.) I have a very low opinion of Newt Gingrich's ideas about education. I have a very low opinion about Jeb Bush's ideas about education. I criticize them all and can find little or nothing to distinguish among the three sets of ideas. ( If you can identify significant philosophical differences among them... feel free to take this opportunity to identify those differences.)

Hence your google experience.

>>>Given this history, your claim that it is neutral seems disingenuous to me>>>>

1. It's a neutral term. 2. I don't like the aforementioned ed policies. 3. That it seems disingenuous to you is unfortunate but not particularly relevant to the question of whether or not my choice of terminology in this regard should be interfered with.

>>>What are you hoping to accomplish when you use the term?>>>>>> Communication. Concise, precise, economical communication.

ON EDIT: I'm going to make this version a less confrontational.

Admittedly, you are a critic of the president's education policy. This is important, because it is the context in which you are using the term "Obamacation".

Now, you can make the argument that "Obamacation" is neutral with a straight face because it combines two neutral words "Obama" and "education." But I think this argument is disingenuous, and I think you know it is disingenuous. I believe that you would not use that term if you approved of the president's education policy. The reason why critics of policies use words like these is in order to create a knee-jerk negative impression in the mind of the listener. It imparts no useful information, and is therefore the opposite of communication.

Many people who read it are going to make an inference about your intentions when you use the term. You can claim it was not intended, but the perception is there. If you want to communicate effectively and efficiently, you need to understand that. If your intent is to express disapproval, then you have succeeded. But if your intent is to be neutral, you have failed. I think we both know what your intent is.

Calling something "ridiculous" doesn't make it ridiculous.

I've had 10,000 post here since 2003. probably 5,000 on the topic of education... public schools specifically.

You can google and get yourself an education in that regard, lickety-split. If you don't have time ( or interest) look at my post to Bravenak ( #16, I believe) in this thread.Covers the main themes.

Apples, apples, apples :

>>>One of the reasons I come to Democratic Underground (besides the fact that it is my job) is because I want to get a break from people who call the president "Barry Soetoro" or refer to the estate tax as the "Death Tax" or who call Hillary Clinton "Hitlery." ) >>>>>>

...and oranges.

May not be true in your case... but i always get the feeling that when I'm arguing a public ed issue with an Obama-ed ( is that less "offensive"? I truly don't know. Such exquisite sensibilities are involved here. My goodness!) advocate or apologist , that I'm talking to a public school virgin, if you will. People that either went to private school, sent their kids to private schools and have basically never set foot in public school and WON'T. EVER. ( A certain president comes to mind... as well as a host of other prominent school reformers: Gates, Duncan, Rhee, Bush, Jonathan Alter, Davis Guggenheim, Cathy Black. You can go on for pages with the names of these people) and promoters of..... okay now.... here it goes.....get ready for it....... "that specific constellation of policies associated with the Presidency of Barrack Obama, 2009 to present. In other words Obamacation)

I don't have that kind of time ... and increasingly don't have that variety of patience. Sooo..... no offense..... educate yourself. ( You can do it ,Skinner: you changed you LGBT-banning policy a few years ago in large part, if I may say so, at what seemed to me my urging. And explanation. And your willingness to be flexible and change your mind.)

You're off base here, also; but frankly I don't have the energy to explain the history of the world anymore... particularly on the topic of education. You'll have to educate yourself. Suggestion: ( if memory serves: you had a fine looking baby a few years back; I think I remember the pic ) Enroll him/her in an urban public school. The kind that the current president... in his absolute, tabula-rasa certainty that he knows how to fix something with which he's had absolutely no life experience... is in the process of ... ahem... "reforming."

Live with THAT a while and then tell me about Obamacation, Obama-ed, or whatever the heck kind of shorthand, if any, you decide you wish to permit.

They did. Here we are. Your rules.

And why should Democrats use disparaging terms to describe the policies of a democratic president?
I mean your free to do so, and others are free to call you out on it.
I don't remember right wingers using the term Reaganomics much, but I may be too young.
I thought they used ' supply side economics' and even ' trickle down ' to describe his policies.

>>>And why should Democrats use disparaging terms to describe the policies of a democratic president? >>>

It's not necessarily disparaging.


>>>I mean your free to do so, and others are free to call you out on it. >>>

Agreed on both counts. But the effort to BAN it is what concerns me.


>>>I don't remember right wingers using the term Reaganomics much, but I may be too young.>>>

They did. I was there. ( I'm not young.) It's a neutral term.


>>>I thought they used ' supply side economics' and even ' trickle down ' to describe his policies.>>>

For the most part THEY used "supply side"; WE used "trickle-down". Everybody used Reaganomics. ( I'll define that as well: the economic policies of the Reagan administration.)

If we are going to structure the posting "norms" ( NB: I didn't say "rules.&quot here around questions of what Fox News does or does not say... DU might as well close down.

I've been posting here since 2003. No one ( NO ONE ) in their right mind thinks I am in any way a "right winger."

You've got this whole issue completely upside down. ( Relax; you're not the only one.).

My criticism of OBAMACATION is precisely that it SELLS OUT to the right wing. It is the abandonment of traditional MAINSTREAM , PROGRESSIVE AND LIBERAL ideas about public school education in America and the adoption in their place of traditional, discredited RW ideas about "market-based school reform". The manifestations of which we see everywhere now... under OBAMACATION . I use this word because it describes better than any other single term the constellation of BAD ideas that the current president has put into motion:

To wit: RTTP --- his signal ed initiative: which involves privatization, union-busting, scripted teaching, domination of the entire profession by a one or to billionaires who discretely undermine the integrity of research and the odious and dishonestly packaged Common Core (State) Standards.

These are Obama's *personal* contributions to school "reform" which is actually real reform's BIZARRO-world opposite. Every preexisting form of school corruption and dysfunction is .....far from remedied by the above........ in fact, EXACERBATED; sometimes exponentially, by..... here I go again... OBAMACATION.

Sums up my feelings better than I could.
I can understand your criticisms of Education policy. I don't doubt your liberal credentials at all.
It's just that once I've heard ( obamacation) it 20 times on fix and friends I tend to doubt its usefulness.

I didn't find it used in a positive way at all. Most of the places it was used were talking about the President's vacations in a negative way, implying that he was flaking off at our expense. Those references came from right-wing sites.

I also saw it used in reference to the President's educational policies, which is how it was used in that OP. Those references were also derisive, not supportive.

Almost universally, using Obama as a prefix to some other word has been used in a negative way by the right. Until the President adopted "Obamacare" as a positive thing, it was used in a negative way by those who oppose any form of assistance in healthcare.

Given the general negative use of Obama-anything, it's no wonder that people think it's a negative usage.

My question for you: Did you mean to use it in a supportive way when discussing the Administration's educational policies? If not then you're using it in a pejorative way. This is Democratic Underground. Think about it.

>>>Almost universally, using Obama as a prefix to some other word has been used in a negative way by the right. Until the President adopted "Obamacare" as a positive thing, it was used in a negative way by those who oppose any form of assistance in healthcare>>>>>>>.

I have no idea when or if the president adopted anything. I do know... and thank you for confirming... that "I Love Obamacare" bumper stickers that I see all around here should NOT BE ASSUMED TO BE ANTI OBAMA. ( Good grief. I can't believe this discussion.)

>>>Given the general negative use of Obama-anything, it's no wonder that people think it's a negative usage.>>>

People are free to assume all kinds of things about anything they wish to assume, both on and off DU. They don't have ... or OUGHT not have... a right to censor other DUers use of a particular term... even if they believe... or CLAIM to believe.... that it is a component part of some kind of sinister but otherwise poorly defined "rw meme".

>>>>My question for you: Did you mean to use it in a supportive way when discussing the Administration's educational policies? If not then you're using it in a pejorative way. This is Democratic Underground. Think about it.>>>>>

I hope you read the thread. I am against the Obama administrations education policy. AT THE SAME TIME, "Obamacation", like "Reaganomics", is a politically *neutral* term.

I did NOT use it in a supportive way. Question for YOU: Do I *have* to?

Remember: it's Democratic Underground. Not Obama Underground. *Democratic* Underground. *Democratic*

It seems to me, that a good way to avoid facing the substance of a painful but monumentally important issue ( in this case, abysmally bad federal education policy) is to create an ersatz "issue" over nomenclature and nonsense.

I'm surprised otherwise intelligent and rational people would fall for it.

*Democratic*.

Such asinine alerts really bog down the jury process.