PDA

View Full Version : Ron should say "government" and "federal government," not "we" and "America"




Aden
08-17-2011, 06:47 AM
After watching Ron's answers in last week's debate for the sixth time, it dawned on me that he puts most of his audience (primary Republican voter) on the defensive. When he speaks on foreign policy sheeple Republicans feel like they are being personally attacked.

Examples of what Ron says:
"We do not mind our own business..."
"They attack us because we have been over there..."
"They don't attack us because we're rich and free, they attack us because we've been over there..."
"We are only over there to save face. How many soldiers have to be killed for us to save face?"

What Ron should say:
"The federal government does not mind its own business" or "Washington does not mind its own business...."
"They attack us because our government went over there..."
"They don't attack us because we're rich and free, they attack us because Washington has been over there..."
"The Feds are only over there to save face. How many of our soldiers have to be killed for Washington to save face?"

When he speaks on foreign policy he needs to make the federal government, whom primary voters say they dislike, the enemy. Ron can easily make the audience believe they are on his side, and that "we" means them and Ron, if he would start phrasing his remarks like I have outlined.

This actually works. Some of you in sales know this, and may have been taught this. People are able to sell $1,600 Kirby vacuums to housewives in trailer parks because during the presentation they say "the Hoover," instead of "your Hoover," and "our Kirby," instead of, "the Kirby."

People identify with "America." When you attack America they take it as a personal attack on them. This can be avoided by attacking the federal government, not "we" the Americans.

--------------------------


[edit]
This is from the Fox Iowa debate on December 16th. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNfruyVGOe0&)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNfruyVGOe0&

He needs to make the federal government the bad guy. Not “America,” “we” or “us.”

Paul’s answer:
“We ought to really sit back and think and not jump the gun and believe that we are going to be attacked. That’s how we got into that useless war in Iraq and lost so much in Iraq.”

Better answer:
“We ought to really sit back and think and not jump the gun and believe that we are going to be attacked. That’s how the government tricked us into a useless war in Iraq and we lost so much in Iraq.”


Paul’s answer:
“Yes. All we’re doing is promoting their desire to have it… How do we treat people with a nuclear weapon? With a lot more respect. What did we do with Libya? We talked to them we talked them out of their nuclear weapon and then we killed him.”

Better answer:
“Yes. All our government is doing is promoting their desire to have it… How do they treat people with a nuclear weapon? With a lot more respect. What did they do with Libya? The Bush Administration talked to them and talked them out of their nuclear weapon, and then the Obama Administartion killed him.”


Paul’s answer:
“They don’t come here to attack us because we’re free and prosperous. Did they go to Switzerland and Sweden? I mean that’s absurd. If you think that’s the reason we have no chance of winning this. They come here and explicitly explain it to us—CIA has explained it to us—they come here and want to do us harm because we’re bombing them… Why were we flying a drone over Iran? Why do we have to bomb so many countries? Why do we have 900 bases in 130 countries? We’re totally bankrupt. How are you going to rebuild a military when you have no money? How are we going to take care of the people? I think this wild goal to have another war in the name of defense is the dangerous thing, the danger is really us overreacting and we need a strong national defense, and we need to only go to war with a declaration of war instead of just carelessly flouting it and starting these wars so often… And your trying to dramatize this that we have to go and treat Iran like we’ve treated Iraq and kill a million Iraqis and 8,000 Americans since we went to war.”

Better answer:
“They don’t come here to attack us because we’re free and prosperous. Did they go to Switzerland and Sweden? I mean that’s absurd. If you think that’s the reason we have no chance of winning this. They come here and explicitly explain it to us—CIA has explained it to us—they come here and want to do us harm because our government is bombing them… why was Obama flying a drone over Iran? Why does he have to bomb so many countries? Why does our government have 900 bases in 130 countries? The government is bankrupting us. How are we going to rebuild a military when we have no money? How are we going to take care of the people? I think this wild goal to have another war in the name of defense is the dangerous thing. The danger is really our government overreacting and we need a strong national defense, but our government needs to only go to war with a declaration of war instead of just carelessly flouting it and starting these wars so often… and your trying to dramatize this so that our government has to go and treat Iran like they’ve treated Iraq and killed a million Iraqis and 8,000 Americans since they took us to war.”

YumYum
08-17-2011, 07:08 AM
No, "we" are responsible for what our government does, because "we" as a nation, elected the crooks who are ruining this country. I would be concerned if Ron said in the plural form "You", but he says "we", which includes himself, even though he didn't vote, nor ever agree, with the stuff our government has engaged in. "We" will all have to assume responsibility for "our" governments actions when everything collapses, just like the German people had to pay for what the Nazis did.

MRoCkEd
08-17-2011, 07:18 AM
I totally agree, aden. Saying "we" just makes people defensive.

Romulus
08-17-2011, 07:41 AM
x1000 its a subtle change in messaging that goes a long way.

yoshimaroka
08-17-2011, 07:51 AM
No, "we" are responsible for what our government does, because "we" as a nation, elected the crooks who are ruining this country. I would be concerned if Ron said in the plural form "You", but he says "we", which includes himself, even though he didn't vote, nor ever agree, with the stuff our government has engaged in. "We" will all have to assume responsibility for "our" governments actions when everything collapses, just like the German people had to pay for what the Nazis did.

Not logical.

ds21089
08-17-2011, 07:57 AM
I completely agree with you and I hope this message somehow gets to Ron. I love the guy, but you are right, putting it in those words DOES put people on the defensive and makes him seem like all of America is at fault instead of just the people in charge who are doing things that the majority of Americans don't want them to do.

The Goat
08-17-2011, 07:57 AM
No, "we" are responsible for what our government does, because "we" as a nation, elected the crooks who are ruining this country. I would be concerned if Ron said in the plural form "You", but he says "we", which includes himself, even though he didn't vote, nor ever agree, with the stuff our government has engaged in. "We" will all have to assume responsibility for "our" governments actions when everything collapses, just like the German people had to pay for what the Nazis did.

I fully understand your point, but this is a good idea to get people to not go on the offensive and to realize "we" don't have to listen to what "our government" tells us we can make up our own minds. Maybe add a line "we" will have to answer for the actions of "our government" even the ones of us who don't agree with what they do.
also, Ron saying our government would include himself since hes has been in office and considered a part of it. even if many don't want him to be.

hazek
08-17-2011, 07:58 AM
Ron should change a lot of words and ways he tries to explain certain issues or philosophies but unfortunately Ron is, as much as I love the man, a stubborn old fart who is stuck in his ways and will never change.

I have already come to terms with this and am waiting for Rand's chance.

YumYum
08-17-2011, 08:02 AM
Not logical.

Why not?

It is called "assuming responsibility". His use of "we" is a stinging message that will light the fires under our butts to wake us up to reality. When Ron Paul says "we", he is actually uniting Americans to take action, rather than dividing us, because "we", means every single American will have to pay for the consequences of what "our" government has done. For me, his message of "we" means taking responsibility for "our" government, rather than placing the blame.

This is one of the reasons I love Ron Paul, because he tells it like it is, whether we like it or not; he doesn't play "mind games".

Havax
08-17-2011, 08:03 AM
Agree with the OP. This is one of a thousand things Ron can do to enhance his message while remaining completely true to his positions.

erowe1
08-17-2011, 08:05 AM
No, "we" are responsible for what our government does.

No we aren't. One of the most insidious problems with democracy is the way it creates that impression.

llepard
08-17-2011, 08:05 AM
Strongly agree with the original post. Even better yet, say "Government Policy" has been to xxxxx........

Drawing a distinction between America, the People, and the Ideals of the Constitution, all of which are beautiful and pure, and Government policy mistakes and misdeeds is critical.

I am sure most of America would not support murdering a President in cold blood in the middle of a parade. But "Government Policy" did.

We need to be much more careful and not include certain people in the "We" that we consider to be America. If someone is a Nazi they are a Nazi. That is not American.

When people say "we" I often respond with Tonto's reply, "what's this 'we' white man".

Also, best bumper sticker I have seen in a while came from a Ron Paul meet up in New Hampshire.

"Support Our Troops. We Need Them To Overthrow The Federal Government"

If anyone knows where to buy this please let me know.

LL

YumYum
08-17-2011, 08:05 AM
I fully understand your point, but this is a good idea to get people to not go on the offensive and to realize "we" don't have to listen to what "our government" tells us we can make up our own minds. Maybe add a line "we" will have to answer for the actions of "our government" even the ones of us who don't agree with what they do.
also, Ron saying our government would include himself since hes has been in office and considered a part of it. even if many don't want him to be.

You have a good point. Maybe he should be more specific. But for some reason, when he said we I was at first offended, than it sunk in: "we" are going to be left holding the bag.

btw..welcome to the forums. :)

libertyjam
08-17-2011, 08:06 AM
Definitely! this is one of those things the right debate coach would probably fix.

Carehn
08-17-2011, 08:10 AM
I hope Ron Paul reads this. He means it and sometimes i even have to catch myself saying it. Its a huge improvement and not changing a thing about the message.

The Goat
08-17-2011, 08:14 AM
You have a good point. Maybe he should be more specific. But for some reason, when he said we I was at first offended, than it sunk in: "we" are going to be left holding the bag.

btw..welcome to the forums. :)


Thank you, very happy to be here! I'm a long time Paul supporter, already voted for him in 08 and want to do what i can to help him in 2012.

llepard
08-17-2011, 08:17 AM
I hope Ron Paul reads this. He means it and sometimes i even have to catch myself saying it. Its a huge improvement and not changing a thing about the message.

I just sent Ron and Rand an email with the first post and a link to the thread. Hopefully they will consider the idea. LL

YumYum
08-17-2011, 08:22 AM
No we aren't. One of the most insidious problems with democracy is the way it creates that impression.

In theory, you are correct, in reality, every American will be held accountable. If not, how will those who didn't contribute to this mess get out of paying down the debt? How will those of us who are against these wars go unpunished for not being drafted into the military? The list goes on.

Our government is defined as "We the people". Is that a "cliche" that is only convenient when we want things our way? No, it means that we have to assume the responsibility of our government's crimes against its citizens.

I was ridiculed because I wanted the rich Republicans who wanted these stupid wars to be held accountable for their promotion of Bush's preemptive strikes. Is it it because I believe in higher taxes? No!! It is because people should be held accountable for their actions, and when it is all said and done, the little guys and gals of America will be left holding the bag for all the crap that our politicians have done.

If "we", upsets members of this forum, it must be really be heaping "fiery coals" on those who are either in denial, or don't have a clue. "We" have to wake up to reality.

When it comes to accountability, "we" all have to "pay".

erowe1
08-17-2011, 08:28 AM
In theory, you are correct, in reality, every American will be held accountable. If not, how will those who didn't contribute to this mess get out of paying down the debt? How will those of us who are against these wars go unpunished for not being drafted into the military? The list goes on.

Our government is defined as "We the people". Is that a "cliche" that is only convenient when we want things our way? No, it means that we have to assume the responsibility of our government's crimes against its citizens.

I was ridiculed because I wanted the rich Republicans who wanted these stupid wars to be held accountable for their promotion of Bush's preemptive strikes. Is it it because I believe in higher taxes? No!! It is because people should be held accountable for their actions, and when it is all said and done, the little guys and gals of America will be left holding the bag for all the crap that our politicians have done.

If "we", upsets members of this forum, it must be really be heaping "fiery coals" on those who are either in denial, or don't have a clue. "We" have to wake up to reality.

I definitely agree that we will more or less all suffer from what they do. But so do bunches of other people around the world whom nobody would consider constituents of the regime in DC.

As for paying for the debt, I don't think the debt will ever be fully paid. At some point it will be repudiated one way or another. In the mean time, we already are paying for it, since the depreciation of our money that it causes is a tax that we pay as soon as that money gets spent, not later when the debts get paid off.

I don't accept the definition of our government as "We the People." I see that as propaganda to legitimize the regime that the Constitution established, similar to the way North Korea refers to itself as a republic.

TheViper
08-17-2011, 08:31 AM
Are you guys serious?

When he says "we", he means the the government. He's not saying "we" as in the audience in front of him. His use of "we" includes him meaning he takes accepts being part of the fault that creates the problem. That's a sign of humility, humbleness.

You guys wanting to change his message...that changes him. You're wanting him to change his principles just to elevate his electability.

erowe1
08-17-2011, 08:37 AM
Are you guys serious?

When he says "we", he means the the government. He's not saying "we" as in the audience in front of him.

I agree. But it can come across to people as we being America.

Aden
08-17-2011, 08:37 AM
I agree with you Yum that we, whether directly or indirectly through our apathy and complacency, are responsible for many evils done by the government. Many of us here probably came to the same realization as you.

However, we only have between now and Super Tuesday to get Ron elected. I believe that if Ron simply adjusted his language when talking about foreign policy, that it would win over--at least not alienate--more Republican primary voters than our money bombs and movie-preview ads ever could.

There are professionals who train workers in sales, retail and hospitality. Paul's campaign needs to contact people who know how words and language effects people, so that he can win them over to his position.

TheViper
08-17-2011, 08:44 AM
I agree. But it can come across to people as we being America.

The thing is I've never once heard anyone say, "I don't like how Ron Paul says "we" did this or that." With the "we" referring to either America or Republicans. But I have heard many people that it's refreshing to hear a politicians take responsibility alongside the criticisms he gives.

Until we hear a bunch of people complaining on this, it's an absolute non-issue. Until then, how about we keep giving the people a refreshing candidate to choose from?

ds21089
08-17-2011, 08:48 AM
The thing is I've never once heard anyone say, "I don't like how Ron Paul says "we" did this or that." With the "we" referring to either America or Republicans. But I have heard many people that it's refreshing to hear a politicians take responsibility alongside the criticisms he gives.

Until we hear a bunch of people complaining on this, it's an absolute non-issue. Until then, how about we keep giving the people a refreshing candidate to choose from?

Things like that aren't something you really complain about, but are more of something that comes across on a subconscious level. On top of that, if you emphasize how bad government is all around and specifically point the finger at them, it only helps our case for making everyone against the govt / wanting to shrink the size of it. All we hear on tv is "oh the democrats are at fault" "oh the republicans are at fault." I love when Ron Paul says both sides are at fault and explains the incapability of government, which resonates a lot better than "it's our fault"

Aden
08-17-2011, 08:50 AM
The thing is I've never once heard anyone say, "I don't like how Ron Paul says "we" did this or that." With the "we" referring to either America or Republicans. But I have heard many people that it's refreshing to hear a politicians take responsibility alongside the criticisms he gives.

Until we hear a bunch of people complaining on this, it's an absolute non-issue. Until then, how about we keep giving the people a refreshing candidate to choose from?

1.) People might not complain because it effects them on a subconscious level without them even knowing it.

2.) Plenty of people do complain. After reading your post I simply Googled "Ron Paul blame America." Do that and look at the links that come up, some as recent as a few days ago.

If Ron took my advice people would be more inclined to say that "Ron Paul blames the federal government." Not blamed "America" or "the people."

erowe1
08-17-2011, 08:50 AM
The thing is I've never once heard anyone say, "I don't like how Ron Paul says "we" did this or that." With the "we" referring to either America or Republicans. But I have heard many people that it's refreshing to hear a politicians take responsibility alongside the criticisms he gives.

Until we hear a bunch of people complaining on this, it's an absolute non-issue. Until then, how about we keep giving the people a refreshing candidate to choose from?

I haven't heard them put it that way. But the essence of that complaint is one of the biggest gripes Republicans have against him.

They accuse him of being against American exceptionalism, and blaming America for 9/11, and so on, because when he says "we," they reflexively take it to mean the American people.

hazek
08-17-2011, 09:01 AM
Definitely! this is one of those things the right debate coach would probably fix.

If he would let one help him... :(

TheViper
08-17-2011, 10:39 AM
2.) Plenty of people do complain. After reading your post I simply Googled "Ron Paul blame America." Do that and look at the links that come up, some as recent as a few days ago.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the semantics of his verbiage and you know it. It is everything to do with the actual content of his statements. The US instigating Al Queda, talk of blowback, etc... If he changed his statement from "They don't attack us because we're rich and free, they attack us because we has been over there..." to "They don't attack us because we're rich and free, they attack us because Washington has been over there...", do you honestly think that's going to suddenly change those peoples opinion of Ron Paul?

Doesn't matter if he changes the pronoun to a proper noun. It's rather silly to think that public opinion of him and his policy would be any different based on a grammatical issue that actually portrays more humbleness and honesty in his usage over self assertive fault deference with a proper noun.

Darin
08-17-2011, 10:43 AM
I'm with TheViper... I totally disagree with this.

- Darin

freejack
08-17-2011, 10:44 AM
Someone relay this point to Ron. It is critically important. As long he keeps saying "we", the media can continue to use it against him to rile up the people.

erowe1
08-17-2011, 10:46 AM
That has absolutely nothing to do with the semantics of his verbiage and you know it.

I don't see why you think that.

When they accuse him of blaming America for 9/11, they're not talking about any policy, they're talking about his words. They're focusing on something purely symbolic to them.

I think semantics has a lot to do with that. If he can word things in a way that doesn't lend itself to those charges, I don't see why he shouldn't.

TheViper
08-17-2011, 10:52 AM
I don't see why you think that.

When they accuse him of blaming America for 9/11, they're not talking about any policy, they're talking about his words. They're focusing on something purely symbolic to them.

I think semantics has a lot to do with that. If he can word things in a way that doesn't lend itself to those charges, I don't see why he shouldn't.
"They attacked us because we were over there."
"They attacked us because the government was over there."

Now imagine you are one of those people that say Ron Paul is blaming America for 9/11. How does number 2 change your perception of his content at all?


Wait, wait, wait...I think I see it now. Are you under the impression that when people say that "Ron Paul is blaming America" that they believe he is saying the American people are at fault instead of the government? This is even sillier than I first thought.

erowe1
08-17-2011, 10:56 AM
"They attacked us because we were over there."
"They attacked us because the government was over there."

Now imagine you are one of those people that say Ron Paul is blaming America for 9/11. How does number 2 change your perception of his content at all?


It makes a huge difference. I have trouble seeing why you don't think so.



Wait, wait, wait...I think I see it now. Are you under the impression that when people say that "Ron Paul is blaming America" that they believe he is saying the American people are at fault instead of the government? This is even sillier than I first thought.

To them the government represents the people. In order to break through that assumption you have to be clear about what you mean.

In fact, the same thing is true of the perception of the 9/11 hijackers. They attacked American people, because they understood the federal government to be acting on the people's behalf in what it had done in the Middle East. It's an enormously powerful misconception. And I think undermining it should be an important part of all of our rhetoric.

yoshimaroka
08-17-2011, 10:59 AM
The book that inspired Orwell's 1984 and one of the first (if not the first) dystopian books, We:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d5/WeCover.jpg

TheViper
08-17-2011, 11:02 AM
It makes a huge difference. I have trouble seeing why you don't think so.
Huge difference to whom and how?

His "we" has always meant the government. Most people recognize that given that he is in the government.

Those that rail against him for his "blame America first" stance could care less what grammar he used. To them "we" and "the government" still mean the US.

So by changing the grammar from a pronoun to a proper noun, all you do is remove his humbleness and that would have a greater negative effect on people's impression of him than any positive impression gained.

erowe1
08-17-2011, 11:05 AM
Huge difference to whom and how?

A huge difference to me and most people besides you. If he explicitly blamed the government, and the government only, then his detractors would not have a case against him at all. They would sound foolish trying to say he blamed us for what other people did without our consent.

When they accuse RP of saying something anti-American, they're doing the same thing Nancy Pelosi did when she said that those who opposed the bailouts were unpatriotic. Most of the Republicans who buy the argument when it's used against Ron Paul don't buy it when it's used against themselves on some other issue. We just need to help them see that.

TheViper
08-17-2011, 11:13 AM
If he explicitly blamed the government, and the government only, then his detractors would not have a case against him at all.

I don't think you understand his detractors. They don't say "Ron Paul needs to stop blaming the American people". They say "Ron Paul needs to stop blaming America".

They say this because Paul, rightfully, acknowledges that many of the problems in the Middle East are directly related to our foreign policy and actions. Their point lies with the idea that they believe the US isn't liable for the problems in the Middle East. So when they say "Ron Paul needs to stop blaming the US" They are trying to say that "the US didn't cause the problems in the Middle East."

Therefore, the grammatical usage of a pronoun or proper noun is irrelevant.

erowe1
08-17-2011, 11:31 AM
I don't think you understand his detractors. They don't say "Ron Paul needs to stop blaming the American people". They say "Ron Paul needs to stop blaming America".

They say this because Paul, rightfully, acknowledges that many of the problems in the Middle East are directly related to our foreign policy and actions. Their point lies with the idea that they believe the US isn't liable for the problems in the Middle East. So when they say "Ron Paul needs to stop blaming the US" They are trying to say that "the US didn't cause the problems in the Middle East."

Therefore, the grammatical usage of a pronoun or proper noun is irrelevant.

I understand them. When they say he blames America, they mean to blur the lines between the government and the people. To them "we" are at war against Al Quaeda, etc.

The sophistry is theirs, not ours. And it's a very effective tool for them.

What I'm saying is that we shouldn't play along with that game, and we don't have to. We can be perfectly clear that we blame the government and not the people, and we ought to.

If Ron Paul did that, then they would have nothing they could point to and say, "He blames America." They would have to resort to debating about whether or not the government is harming the people by pursuing policies in the Middle East that result in blowback. I don't think they'd be able to do a very good job at that.

TheViper
08-17-2011, 11:39 AM
I understand them. When they say he blames America, they mean to blur the lines between the government and the people. To them "we" are at war against Al Quaeda, etc.

The sophistry is theirs, not ours. And it's a very effective tool for them.

What I'm saying is that we shouldn't play along with that game, and we don't have to. We can be perfectly clear that we blame the government and not the people, and we ought to.
As I said before, to them it doesn't matter if he says "we" or says "the US government". Their problem is the fact that he is laying blame for the Middle East on any facet of the US...period. Doesn't matter what part of America. He can say we, us, them, government, military, Obama, etc....and it all doesn't matter because that is all still America.

He could say 'American potatoes' are the problem with the Middle East and they'll still be annoyed at him for blaming "American" potatoes.
He could say 'our potatoes' are the problem with the Middle East and they'll still be annoyed at him for blaming "American" potatoes.
He could say 'Washington potatoes' are the problem with the Middle East and they'll still be annoyed at him for blaming "American" potatoes.
He could say 'those potatoes' are the problem with the Middle East and they'll still be annoyed at him for blaming "American" potatoes.

Are you picking up what I'm putting down?

Darin
08-17-2011, 11:51 AM
I think many are reading WAY too into this. People know what he's talking about. If anything, using the word government for everything negative may do him harm... if you're a patriot you're supposed to SUPPORT government! (<- this is many peoples view)

Then he just may be treated as an unpatriotic anti-government isolationist instead of just an isolationist. People hate the word Washington, though, so if anything, that.

I really think it hits home when he says we and you in relation to war and killing. "How many more are you willing to let die!" That's a very powerful statement.

TheViper is right. It isn't going to make a difference to people. People who want to say he's anti-American, or isolationist, or whatever will say it no matter how he says it because they object to the IDEA.

I'm reading a lot of threads on here that say "He should use this word instead of that word." "Come at it from this angle, not that one." "Say is this way, not that way." If he did this, not only would it be a different message... he'd be so busy fumbling over words and remember how to say things, when to and when not to say things, that he'd never get a point across.

The problem can be found in the original post... we're watching the debates 6 times a week. It's overthinking.

- Darin

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
08-17-2011, 11:52 AM
After watching Ron's answers in last week's debate for the sixth time, it dawned on me that he puts most of his audience (primary Republican voter) on the defensive. When he speaks on foreign policy sheeple Republicans feel like they are being personally attacked.

Examples of what Ron says:
"We do not mind our own business..."
"They attack us because we have been over there..."
"They don't attack us because we're rich and free, they attack us because we've been over there..."
"We are only over there to save face. How many soldiers have to be killed for us to save face?"

What Ron should say:
"The federal government does not mind its own business" or "Washington does not mind its own business...."
"They attack us because our government went over there..."
"They don't attack us because we're rich and free, they attack us because Washington has been over there..."
"The Feds are only over there to save face. How many of our soldiers have to be killed for Washington to save face?"

When he speaks on foreign policy he needs to make the federal government, whom primary voters say they dislike, the enemy. Ron can easily make the audience believe they are on his side, and that "we" means them and Ron, if he would start phrasing his remarks like I have outlined.

This actually works. Some of you in sales know this, and may have been taught this. People are able to sell $1,600 Kirby vacuums to housewives in trailer parks because during the presentation they say "the Hoover," instead of "your Hoover," and "our Kirby," instead of, "the Kirby."

People identify with "America." When you attack America they take it as a personal attack on them. This can be avoided by attacking the federal government, not "we" the Americans.

The press is owned by the Federal government. It was once owned by our nation's secret government which was the intelligence community. Simply put, the press is out of touch with reality in regards to the people. The old terms that they once used no longer match up with the new terminology needed to explain what is truly going on.
For example, we are no longer operating as a Republic. So, we aren't being rule by a Federal government, but by Washingtonians much in the same way the Romans in the city-state of Rome were once ruled the Roman Empire. People just don't have the courage to think outside the box by matching terms with reality and sticking to them. Instead, we've got the same old nonsense going on with the press that we had going on four years ago. No. Wait. It is worse in fact.
Now that Rick Perry has entered the race, Ron Paul has been buried. The reason why is because Rick Perry reminds people of both of the George Bush tyrant oil men from Texas. The election process has always been idiotcentric in this fashion. This is why American Movements work better for the people while the general elections work better for tyranny. Will you ever see tyranny lose an election? No. Does tyranny lose out during times of American Movements? Yes.

YumYum
08-17-2011, 12:06 PM
The press is owned by the Federal government. It was once owned by our nation's secret government which was the intelligence community. Simply put, the press is out of touch with reality in regards to the people. The old terms that they once used no longer match up with the new terminology needed to explain what is truly going on.
For example, we are no longer operating as a Republic. So, we aren't being rule by a Federal government, but by Washingtonians much in the same way the Romans in the city-state of Rome were once ruled the Roman Empire. People just don't have the courage to think outside the box by matching terms with reality and sticking to them. Instead, we've got the same old nonsense going on with the press that we had going on four years ago. No. Wait. It is worse in fact.
Now that Rick Perry has entered the race, Ron Paul has been buried. The reason why is because Rick Perry reminds people of both of the George Bush tyrant oil men from Texas. The election process has always been idiotcentric in this fashion. This is why American Movements work better for the people while the general elections work better for tyranny. Will you ever see tyranny lose an election? No. Does tyranny lose out during times of American Movements? Yes.

Whether Ron Paul wins or not, we will witness this "American Movement" oust "tyranny". The responses I am reading on the internet are giving me goosebumps. This thing is exploding exponentially. "Tyranny" is scared; people from all sides of the spectrum are uniting in support of Ron Paul. My favorite response? :"I don't agree with Ron Paul's views but I respect him for being honest and courageous and not caving into the establishment. We need more leaders like him." This is where America is finally heading, and that is "genuineness" from the heart; no more plastic rhetoric.

Ever notice how all the politicians say that Washington is "broken", instead of saying the correct word "corrupted"? I can't wait for Ron to be the first candidate to publicly announce "Washington isn't broken; it's corrupt!!"

LibertyEagle
08-17-2011, 12:14 PM
I just sent Ron and Rand an email with the first post and a link to the thread. Hopefully they will consider the idea. LL

I also agree with the OP. +rep

Thank you so much, llepard, for getting this to them. +rep to you too. :)

Aden
08-17-2011, 12:48 PM
As I said before, to them it doesn't matter if he says "we" or says "the US government". Their problem is the fact that he is laying blame for the Middle East on any facet of the US...period. Doesn't matter what part of America. He can say we, us, them, government, military, Obama, etc....and it all doesn't matter because that is all still America.

He could say 'American potatoes' are the problem with the Middle East and they'll still be annoyed at him for blaming "American" potatoes.
He could say 'our potatoes' are the problem with the Middle East and they'll still be annoyed at him for blaming "American" potatoes.
He could say 'Washington potatoes' are the problem with the Middle East and they'll still be annoyed at him for blaming "American" potatoes.
He could say 'those potatoes' are the problem with the Middle East and they'll still be annoyed at him for blaming "American" potatoes.

Are you picking up what I'm putting down?


Go to a public square full of people and say the following:

"our troops are responsible for killing innocent civilians"

then

"our government is responsible for killing innocent civilians."

See which one goes over better. Even though you could argue the former is more true because the soldiers physically killed civilians, you are far more likely to anger way, way more people.

Words matter.

TheViper
08-17-2011, 12:57 PM
Go to a public square full of people and say the following:

"our troops are responsible for killing innocent civilians"

then

"our government is responsible for killing innocent civilians."

See which one goes over better. Even though you could argue the former is more true because the soldiers physically killed civilians, you are far more likely to anger way, way more people.

Words matter.

Stand before a debate audience and say: "We are responsible for killing innocent civilians."

Listen to he rest of the debate and realize every time he says "we" he means the government because he is speaking from a government representative platform.

When he says, "We didn't declare war on Libya." Do you really think he's saying 'We, the American people, didn't declare war"? Or is he saying, "We, the Congress, didn't declare war"?

Words do matter. As does grasping the concept of context. If "WE", the American people, cannot grasp the notion of words in context...we have bigger problems than who should sit in the executive office.

ds21089
08-17-2011, 01:01 PM
Stand before a debate audience and say: "We are responsible for killing innocent civilians."

Listen to he rest of the debate and realize every time he says "we" he means the government because he is speaking from a government representative platform.

When he says, "We didn't declare war on Libya." Do you really think he's saying 'We, the American people, didn't declare war"? Or is he saying, "We, the Congress, didn't declare war"?

Words do matter. As does grasping the concept of context. If "WE", the American people, cannot grasp the notion of words in context...we have bigger problems than who should sit in the executive office.

The problem with your logic is that you are giving all the listeners too much credit. Just because we have the mental capacity to grasp that concept, doesn't mean the average voter does. A lot of people vote off emotions; not just logic.

TheViper
08-17-2011, 01:11 PM
The problem with your logic is that you are giving all the listeners too much credit. Just because we have the mental capacity to grasp that concept, doesn't mean the average voter does. A lot of people vote off emotions; not just logic.

And you have the flip side of that were people respect Paul because he does include himself in his governmental critiques. Removing himself would suggest fault deference which after being principled and humble would be seen as cowardly.

But like I said, regardless of how he says it, most people that rail against him do so because he is saying America, regardless of the entity in context, is at fault and they don't like that. They don't like being told the truth. Would you want him to stop doing that too? You want him to start codling the people so they won't feel threatened by the honesty? I don't.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
08-17-2011, 01:14 PM
The problem with your logic is that you are giving all the listeners too much credit. Just because we have the mental capacity to grasp that concept, doesn't mean the average voter does. A lot of people vote off emotions; not just logic.

Unfortunately you are right which is why, after president Obama rolls over to slap us on the butt, many will choose to vote for him regardless.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
08-17-2011, 01:24 PM
Stand before a debate audience and say: "We are responsible for killing innocent civilians."

Listen to he rest of the debate and realize every time he says "we" he means the government because he is speaking from a government representative platform.

When he says, "We didn't declare war on Libya." Do you really think he's saying 'We, the American people, didn't declare war"? Or is he saying, "We, the Congress, didn't declare war"?

Words do matter. As does grasping the concept of context. If "WE", the American people, cannot grasp the notion of words in context...we have bigger problems than who should sit in the executive office.

When telling the people what they don't want to hear, one shouldn't ever expect to be elected president. Ralph Waldo Emerson wasn't ever elected president. Neither was Henry Thoreau or Mark Twain. I think Ron Paul would do better being part of an overall American Movement by delving into the philosophy of what makes the American system unique and different. Sure, I'm going to vote for him as president, but I don't see his winning as a victory. The real victory is the establishment of an American Movement.

withallmyheart
08-17-2011, 01:26 PM
Excellent observation Aden.

TheViper
08-17-2011, 01:30 PM
When telling the people what they don't want to hear, one shouldn't ever expect to be elected president. Ralph Waldo Emerson wasn't ever elected president. Neither was Henry Thoreau or Mark Twain. I think Ron Paul would do better being part of an overall American Movement by delving into the philosophy of what makes the American system unique and different. Sure, I'm going to vote for him as president, but I don't see his winning as a victory. The real victory is the establishment of an American Movement.
And this may very well be true. But doesn't change the necessity of keeping him true to his principles, convictions and grammar.

He hasn't been in Congress and running for president to please and appease. Chance that tactic now and the media will call him hypocritical thereby having a negative effect instead of positive.

liverty
08-17-2011, 01:37 PM
Aden, very much agreed.

erowe1
08-17-2011, 01:43 PM
Stand before a debate audience and say: "We are responsible for killing innocent civilians."

Listen to he rest of the debate and realize every time he says "we" he means the government because he is speaking from a government representative platform.

When he says, "We didn't declare war on Libya." Do you really think he's saying 'We, the American people, didn't declare war"? Or is he saying, "We, the Congress, didn't declare war"?

Words do matter. As does grasping the concept of context. If "WE", the American people, cannot grasp the notion of words in context...we have bigger problems than who should sit in the executive office.

I don't think you get it.

We, meaning I and most others here, can grasp the words in context. But they, meaning those who equivocate the government and the people, cover up their misdeeds with sophistry. And we do not need to give them any help with that.

Ron Paul needs to say, "Don't accuse me of blaming America when I blame the government (http://blog.independent.org/2011/01/02/dont-accuse-me-of-blaming-america-when-i-blame-the-government/)." And he needs to be able to do it in a way that is clear enough that people don't think he's backtracking on anything.

erowe1
08-17-2011, 01:46 PM
I think many are reading WAY too into this. People know what he's talking about. If anything, using the word government for everything negative may do him harm... if you're a patriot you're supposed to SUPPORT government! (<- this is many peoples view)

The view that patriotism involves supporting the government is the very thing he should speak against as explicitly as possible. When others pretend the government represents the people, he should call them out on that falsehood. When they try to use that same falsehood to paint him as unpatriotic, he should call them out on that too. People ought to know what he's talking about, so he shouldn't have to go along with them when they make it into something it isn't.

True patriotism means standing up on behalf of your people against the government that subjugates them.

America's most patriotic citizens are sitting in prison for tax evasion.

TheViper
08-17-2011, 01:53 PM
Keep in mind that him saying "we" doesn't mean "the American people". It means "the Congress and I".

You change that tone and you change the message. And while you think that lone might suddenly make people change their opinion of Ron Paul, you WILL find many that are highly irked by the changed. People like him because he's humble and doesn't shy away from taking part of the blame for what he critiques. You take that away and you take away part of what makes Paul, well, Paul.

And all that just for the appeasement of a few that have difficulty grasping the concept of context? No. Not a fair trade.

erowe1
08-17-2011, 02:03 PM
Keep in mind that him saying "we" doesn't mean "the American people". It means "the Congress and I".

We know.

But it's the way others twist it to mean the American people. Saying "the government" doesn't give them that option.

Saying what he means more clearly doesn't take anything at all away from his message.

And it would make a difference for a lot more than just a few people, as this thread has shown.

Fredom101
08-17-2011, 02:34 PM
After watching Ron's answers in last week's debate for the sixth time, it dawned on me that he puts most of his audience (primary Republican voter) on the defensive. When he speaks on foreign policy sheeple Republicans feel like they are being personally attacked.

Examples of what Ron says:
"We do not mind our own business..."
"They attack us because we have been over there..."
"They don't attack us because we're rich and free, they attack us because we've been over there..."
"We are only over there to save face. How many soldiers have to be killed for us to save face?"

What Ron should say:
"The federal government does not mind its own business" or "Washington does not mind its own business...."
"They attack us because our government went over there..."
"They don't attack us because we're rich and free, they attack us because Washington has been over there..."
"The Feds are only over there to save face. How many of our soldiers have to be killed for Washington to save face?"

When he speaks on foreign policy he needs to make the federal government, whom primary voters say they dislike, the enemy. Ron can easily make the audience believe they are on his side, and that "we" means them and Ron, if he would start phrasing his remarks like I have outlined.

This actually works. Some of you in sales know this, and may have been taught this. People are able to sell $1,600 Kirby vacuums to housewives in trailer parks because during the presentation they say "the Hoover," instead of "your Hoover," and "our Kirby," instead of, "the Kirby."

People identify with "America." When you attack America they take it as a personal attack on them. This can be avoided by attacking the federal government, not "we" the Americans.

THANK You for posting this. I completely agree. Same with Schiff, "We keep printing money, we are destroying ourselves..." It's really collectivist speak when you think about it.

Fredom101
08-17-2011, 02:37 PM
No, "we" are responsible for what our government does, because "we" as a nation, elected the crooks who are ruining this country. I would be concerned if Ron said in the plural form "You", but he says "we", which includes himself, even though he didn't vote, nor ever agree, with the stuff our government has engaged in. "We" will all have to assume responsibility for "our" governments actions when everything collapses, just like the German people had to pay for what the Nazis did.

To say that "we" elected them is false.

First, I didn't vote for any of them. So I am not "we
Second, most people do not vote. So they are not "we".
Third, anyone under 18 cannot vote.

It comes down to about 23% or so of the ADULT population that can be counted as endorsing the federal government and it's actions.

WE is wrong.

Aden
01-04-2012, 02:25 PM
/bump

Wish Paul's campaign would read this before the two debates that are coming up. Having converted dozens of necon family members and acquaintances, I can tell you that wording and presentation means a lot.

SonofThunder
01-04-2012, 02:30 PM
After watching Ron's answers in last week's debate for the sixth time, it dawned on me that he puts most of his audience (primary Republican voter) on the defensive. When he speaks on foreign policy sheeple Republicans feel like they are being personally attacked.

Examples of what Ron says:
"We do not mind our own business..."
"They attack us because we have been over there..."
"They don't attack us because we're rich and free, they attack us because we've been over there..."
"We are only over there to save face. How many soldiers have to be killed for us to save face?"

What Ron should say:
"The federal government does not mind its own business" or "Washington does not mind its own business...."
"They attack us because our government went over there..."
"They don't attack us because we're rich and free, they attack us because Washington has been over there..."
"The Feds are only over there to save face. How many of our soldiers have to be killed for Washington to save face?"

When he speaks on foreign policy he needs to make the federal government, whom primary voters say they dislike, the enemy. Ron can easily make the audience believe they are on his side, and that "we" means them and Ron, if he would start phrasing his remarks like I have outlined.

This actually works. Some of you in sales know this, and may have been taught this. People are able to sell $1,600 Kirby vacuums to housewives in trailer parks because during the presentation they say "the Hoover," instead of "your Hoover," and "our Kirby," instead of, "the Kirby."

People identify with "America." When you attack America they take it as a personal attack on them. This can be avoided by attacking the federal government, not "we" the Americans.

You are right.

Publicani
01-04-2012, 02:33 PM
Ron should change a lot of words and ways he tries to explain certain issues or philosophies but unfortunately Ron is, as much as I love the man, a stubborn old fart who is stuck in his ways and will never change.

I hate the way you said it, but i think you are right.

SonofThunder
01-04-2012, 02:35 PM
I definitely agree that we will more or less all suffer from what they do. But so do bunches of other people around the world whom nobody would consider constituents of the regime in DC.

As for paying for the debt, I don't think the debt will ever be fully paid. At some point it will be repudiated one way or another. In the mean time, we already are paying for it, since the depreciation of our money that it causes is a tax that we pay as soon as that money gets spent, not later when the debts get paid off.

I don't accept the definition of our government as "We the People." I see that as propaganda to legitimize the regime that the Constitution established, similar to the way North Korea refers to itself as a republic.

To add to this line of thinking, (and excuse me if I go full on Spooner here) I think it is totally and absolutely ridiculous to say that "we" are responsible for what the government does. If this election process hasn't shown you that we don't control who we get to pick from in elections, then there's no hope.

More important than that though, I wasn't even born when most of the freedom killing legislation was passed in this country. SO how the F is that my fault? I wasn't around in 1913. I wasn't here to vote for someone who would vote against the War and Emergency Powers act of 1933. I wasn't born when the DHHS was instituted. My parents were just getting into college when Nixon closed the gold window.

All of these things build upon themselves and generate the leviathan state that we have today. So just how in the F do you say that the actions of the government are my fault?

Aden
01-04-2012, 03:40 PM
This is from the Fox Iowa debate on December 16th. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNfruyVGOe0&)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNfruyVGOe0&

He needs to make the federal government the bad guy. Not “America,” “we” or “us.”

Paul’s answer:
“We ought to really sit back and think and not jump the gun and believe that we are going to be attacked. That’s how we got into that useless war in Iraq and lost so much in Iraq.”

Better answer:
“We ought to really sit back and think and not jump the gun and believe that we are going to be attacked. That’s how the government tricked us into a useless war in Iraq and we lost so much in Iraq.”


Paul’s answer:
“Yes. All we’re doing is promoting their desire to have it… How do we treat people with a nuclear weapon? With a lot more respect. What did we do with Libya? We talked to them we talked them out of their nuclear weapon and then we killed him.”

Better answer:
“Yes. All our government is doing is promoting their desire to have it… How do they treat people with a nuclear weapon? With a lot more respect. What did they do with Libya? The Bush Administration talked to them and talked them out of their nuclear weapon, and then the Obama Administartion killed him.”


Paul’s answer:
“They don’t come here to attack us because we’re free and prosperous. Did they go to Switzerland and Sweden? I mean that’s absurd. If you think that’s the reason we have no chance of winning this. They come here and explicitly explain it to us—CIA has explained it to us—they come here and want to do us harm because we’re bombing them… Why were we flying a drone over Iran? Why do we have to bomb so many countries? Why do we have 900 bases in 130 countries? We’re totally bankrupt. How are you going to rebuild a military when you have no money? How are we going to take care of the people? I think this wild goal to have another war in the name of defense is the dangerous thing, the danger is really us overreacting and we need a strong national defense, and we need to only go to war with a declaration of war instead of just carelessly flouting it and starting these wars so often… And your trying to dramatize this that we have to go and treat Iran like we’ve treated Iraq and kill a million Iraqis and 8,000 Americans since we went to war.”

Better answer:
“They don’t come here to attack us because we’re free and prosperous. Did they go to Switzerland and Sweden? I mean that’s absurd. If you think that’s the reason we have no chance of winning this. They come here and explicitly explain it to us—CIA has explained it to us—they come here and want to do us harm because our government is bombing them… why was Obama flying a drone over Iran? Why does he have to bomb so many countries? Why does our government have 900 bases in 130 countries? The government is bankrupting us. How are we going to rebuild a military when we have no money? How are we going to take care of the people? I think this wild goal to have another war in the name of defense is the dangerous thing. The danger is really our government overreacting and we need a strong national defense, but our government needs to only go to war with a declaration of war instead of just carelessly flouting it and starting these wars so often… and your trying to dramatize this so that our government has to go and treat Iran like they’ve treated Iraq and killed a million Iraqis and 8,000 Americans since they took us to war.”

tempest
01-04-2012, 03:46 PM
Good thread.

It's time to get more sharp. Message is most important but delivery cannot be discounted.


Ron should say "government" and "federal government," not "we" and "America" Yup.

Even if one doesn't believe it won't matter (or it won't help us) one thing is for sure: it won't hurt us.

dude58677
01-04-2012, 03:52 PM
Just like what John Stossel does.

Aden
01-07-2012, 02:56 PM
bump before the debates. I know Paul's crew watches this site!

Aden
01-19-2012, 05:09 PM
Bump. Some of Paul's language in the last debate was absolutely horrible. Make the feds the enemy tonight!!!! Not "America."

centure7
01-19-2012, 05:24 PM
+rep

After about a year of thinking these things through, I have certainly adopted exactly what you are talking about. When someone says "we" instead of "the federal government", I nearly always catch them and correct them.

sirgonzo420
01-19-2012, 05:36 PM
Agreed!

nasaal
01-19-2012, 05:57 PM
Should but never never never ever ever will. He is who he has been since at leas the 70s and will never change. That is a great thing, and to be honest if he worded things better, we probably wouldn't trust him so much.

Butchie
01-19-2012, 06:01 PM
Should but never never never ever ever will. He is who he has been since at leas the 70s and will never change. That is a great thing, and to be honest if he worded things better, we probably wouldn't trust him so much.

That's a cop out, I'd still trust him, even moreso because I'd realize he understands you have to know your audience, communicating is a big part of being a leader, some continue to confuse changing the delivery with changing the message.

cajuncocoa
01-19-2012, 06:12 PM
Agree w/OP...+1 rep!