New Re-cut "FOR LIBERTY" artwork, critique needed

[Romulus]

Thanks! That original stencil font is good for signs, but I don't care for the hard edges and gaps making up the letters in the cover artwork. The lettering we used is similar in shape to the original stencil but a little less "in your face".

I disagree.. I think that stencil font/logo represents this movement and grassroots perfectly. It's authentic. Oh well.. I'll still buy a copy.

 

[Sentinelrv]

Adam, do you have any idea when the finished version will be put online for viewing?

 

[AdamT]

Great suggestions so far, and I have a few to add.

1. You need to settle on whether or not you are going to capitalize "grassroots." You have instances where it is capitalized, and instances where it is not. Perhaps you mean the capitalized one to be a proper noun because it is short for "the Ron Paul Movement Grassroots," but the way it is now seems a bit inconsistent to me.

Made capitalized throughout.

2. You are worried about space, so I have some suggestions to parse down your verbiage.

Consider changing...



...to...



Please note that there were some cosmetic changes (removing the line break in “groundbreaking” and moving the comma to the inside of the quotation marks around “Ron Paul Movement,” etc.) but there were also deliberate content changes. The only capitalized words are now Ron’s name and the word “Movement,” with the obvious exception of the first words in each sentence. Words like “Establishment” and even “Liberty” should not have been capitalized in their current context. The only way I could see getting around this is making “liberty” another color or font, at which point I believe it would get way too busy.

Did some of this, thanks for that.

To be strictly accurate, “PATRIOT Act” should be CAPs as it stands for the sinister sum of its parts. I can understand leaving this out in order to save space. I would also wash those questions of some of the more suggestive words if the goal is really to get people to think and then read. Words like “invasive” tend to give the answer away.

CAP'ed PATRIOT. LOL at "it stands for the sinister sum of its parts"

“Why is the U.S. the ‘policeman of the world’ when it’s bankrupting our nation with overseas wars?” could use a rewrite. It’s also a dangerous way to phrase this question. It makes it sound like, if the nation suddenly got a few trillion extra dollars, it would be a good idea to go to war. Consider “Why is the USA engaged in unconstitutional wars that bankrupt our nation yet make us no safer?” or some variety of that sentiment.

Changed to a similar variety.

The last question needs that apostrophe removed. Every other question begins with the contraction spelled out, but that last one got lazy and it looks out of place. I take issue with the use of “Establishment” again, and would rather it looked something more like “What is so important about having a grassroots candidate for president in 2012?”

Fixed beginning of lazy last line haha.

RonPaulFilm.com is no longer a valid site. Make sure it is before you go printing more of these things.

Yes, we bought the domain a few months ago but haven't put up the new site yet

I agree that the front should get the rEVOLution logo right. There seems to be no reason not to. I would also consider making “recut” large enough to read without squinting.

Made "RE-CUT" more visible.

Moving along to the inside…

Strictly speaking, starting off with a number is a poor way to start a paragraph. You also do not need “U.S.” before “Congressman” as it’s implied, and you have “(R-Texas)” there just to back it up. Once again I offer a rewrite:

Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) is the leading advocate for freedom and limited government in our nation’s capital, earning him a national following winning him eleven elections. Dr. Paul’s record for upholding his oath to support and defend the Constitution is unmatched by any modern politician. He served honorably as a flight surgeon in the Air Force, and as a pro-life Ob/Gyn has delivered over 4,000 babies. In 1976, he was one of four congressmen to endorse Ronald Reagan --- and the only one to receive President’s Reagan’s endorsement in return [*** Fact check needed ***]. He and his wife Carol have been married for over 50 years, and their eldest son Rand Paul has been elected to serve as U.S. Senator in Kentucky.

Implemented some of this. Good suggestions.

I would not list particular liberty websites here. His official website, the Facebook, Twitter, and whatever else that relates directly to the campaign should stay, together with the RonPaulFilm information, if that site is made valid.

Removed grassroots sites added official Twitter and Youtube.

(to be continued)

* I have a massive migraine. If I missed something, or did something wrong, I am hoping someone will pick up on it.

You rock! Thanks so much.

 

[AdamT]

Adam, do you have any idea when the finished version will be put online for viewing?

We have a custom song being composed and recorded in the next few days, waiting for that to finish up the new ending. Then will post. Check early next week...fingers crossed.

 

[AdamT]

Updated artwork with many of MelissaWV's suggesstions. Melissa, would you be able to do a new once-over and see if you're satisfied

Front & back



Inside panel L & R

 

[SLSteven]

Great work! A couple of alternatives...


Dr. Paul's 11-term record....is unmatched....politician, and....

He was one of only four congressmen...

...Rand Paul recently won election to ....

What is otherwise known as inflation... -> What some term inflation... or What some call inflation...

...Eisenhower warned of...

He will bring the troops home

The Federal government routinely and daily violates...( replacing on a daily basis)

...have pushed up care costs and socialist schemes and involuntary "charity"...

As a physician, Ron Paul will work...

Since Obama's win, national protests have persisted. The growing distrust of government and its reckless policies of Keynsian spending continues to drive this now widely known "Tea Party Movement"

 

[AdamT]

+rep thanks for the input.

 

[MelissaWV]

Will give it another look on the weekend. I have a series of unfortunate injuries that make me a less-than-good proofer at the moment.

* * * You should read up on what USA PATRIOT Act stands for if you never have, AdamT. I am not kidding when I say it's the sum of its sinister parts.

If you wanted to get super perfect, it would be the "USA PATRIOT Act," with the 2001 being unnecessarily confusing since bits and pieces have been tweaked or renewed over the years.

Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001.

 

[Esoteric]

Overall, it's very well written. A few tweaks:

"As a physician, Dr. Ron Paul would work to repeal the "Obamacare" legislation, and eliminate over-regulation so that the [allowing a true] free market system [to] function without government interference.

"People took to the streets around the nation spreading the Liberty messages of Ron's Campaign. message of liberty being championed by the Ron Paul campaign."

"widely known as the "tea party movement", driven by the growing mainstream distrust of the government and its reckless policies of keynsean spending spending policies." (Most Non-Ron Paul supporters don't know what this means, and this is not the place to introduce a new term that wasn't previously defined).

Just a few suggestions!

 

[civusamericanus]

We have a custom song being composed and recorded in the next few days, waiting for that to finish up the new ending. Then will post. Check early next week...fingers crossed.

I'm really excited, I hope to see it available next week!

 

[Bryan]

I think it would be wise for us to work to establish some principles / "best practices" for written promotions, I'll start a new thread for that. In general, there is a big difference that is needed in presentation when information is just being pushed one-way vs. there being a back-and-forth dialog. With the former, there needs to be much more thought put into the work.

Here are some of my principles for "one way" communications- after that are my specific mark-ups.


Principle: Do not speak out against specific elements that do not have 100% agreement, unless you can properly justify why it is being attacked. This is key because you will otherwise get your audience to think "Why is that bad?"

Principle: Speak to the true issues behind the name or banner that something is put under. For example, it's not that Social Security is inherently bad, the real issue is that people are forced into it- and that is the key element to point out.

Principle: Don't advocate solutions that can be seen as reckless, far-fetched or dangerous. The proper back story is sometimes needed for Dr. Paul's solutions, make sure it's there if needed.

Principle: Don't talk above the average American, so don't try to sound smart by using fancy words. Why? It will sound too political, and they can't relate to it personally.

Principle: Leave no room for debate on the facts / claims you make.


-----

Suggestions (you asked ):


Bio: I agree that is would be better to say that Reagan endorsed him.

Title: "The Dollar, Bailouts..." Change to "Dollar Stability"
Just saying "The Dollar" isn't something to care about, "Dollar Stability"- we care, that is the issue. Most no one cares about the fed, but still hit them with it in the text.

This section also has almost nothing about the Bailouts, so drop it from the title. It would be a better fit in "Taxes & Government Spending" so "Taxes, Bailouts & Government Spending".

The section is about the dollar, but by saying "to fund overseas wars" it makes it more of a foreign policy issue, and is too divisive. The real issue isn't the overseas wars, it's the wasteful spending overseas, so it could be replaced with something like "As the Fed points money out of thin air to sustain massive foreign spending".. or similar.

Or just pull these parts out, so it reads "As the Fed prints money out of thin air the purchasing power of the dollar goes down..." This is actually much better as it sticks to the point.

The end of this paragraph sounds like pandering to me, "resulting in higher food and gas prices." Just say "resulting in higher prices, from food, to gas and more."

Is: "correctly warned that Fed policies"
To: "correctly warned for years that Fed policies" -- adds credibility.

Is: "and has championed the call to audit and abolish the Fed"
This leaves one without an understanding of why and what would then happen. I would suggest a change to: "and has championed the call to audit and abolish the Fed and replace it with sound money" - this further puts the Fed in the "bad" corner, and suggest a good way forward.

Is: "TSA outrageously groping"
Drop "outrageously"- it sounds too sensationalist. Try to stick with well stated facts.

Is: "trampling rights via the PATRIOT Act." - see principles. This doesn't explain why the PATRIOT Act is bad. As many think it's great, this is a problem. So change it to: "trampling rights with warrantless searches..." or "trampling rights with warrantless searches under the PATRIOT Act..."

Do not say "U.S. Empire" -- this will turn people off thinking, "Huh? We're not an empire?!" Maybe call it "A Strong and Sensible Foreign Policy"

Is: "Our current policy of foreign interventionism often does"
To: "Our current policy of nation building and policing the world often does" -- these are two elements that people don't like. "Interventionism" is too mixed in its meaning, could be good or bad.

Is: "Is our global adventurism bankrupting America?"
To: "Is our foreign policy bankrupting America?" -- this is they key point, is more broad, and not antagonistic. Maybe include something about the billions of foreign aide we pass out.

Is: "He would bring the troops home and end unnecessary wars". This sounds too leftist, and antagonistic. Even saying "He wants to end unnecessary wars and bring troops home." is cleaner.

Is: "as it struggles to climb out of what some economists call..."
drop "what some economists call" - don't think it adds much and is an appeal to authority.

Is: "abolish the IRS and replace it with nothing!"
See principles. This sounds too extreme and unrealistic. It could be stated more friendly, such as "He wants to reduce spending so that the IRS can be abolished."

Is: "The federal government routinely violates virtually every clause of the Constitution" - again, this sounds sensationalist and is very debatable too.
To: "While the Fed government routinely violate the Constitution, Dr. Paul has worked to revive its significance into mainstream America" or similar. Drop the "Why do..." sentence.

Is: "have no place in a Constitutional Republic."
To: "have no place in a free society." -- see two principles.

Is: "As a physician" -- this adds no value here, drop it, or reword to make it read in such as way that is it clear that because he is a physician he is better qualified to move forward.

Tea Party section- I'm not crazy about the wording. 12/16/07 doesn't matter to anyone. Suggested example: "On the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, Ron Paul's supporters raised a record setting $6.2 million for his campaign as they took to the streets around the nation to spread the message of liberty."

Put quotes around "Keynesian", no one knows what Keynesian is so they can't relate to it. Quotes softens it up so it sounds like you are using borrowed language and putting you on the same level as the reader. Or replace with "its reckless uncontrolled Keynesian-style spending" -- here again, you are painting Keynesian as a negative. Or, just don't bother to say Keynesian at all since most people won't ever be able to correlate it with anything else later.

 

[AdamT]

Overall, it's very well written. A few tweaks:

"As a physician, Dr. Ron Paul would work to repeal the "Obamacare" legislation, and eliminate over-regulation so that the [allowing a true] free market system [to] function without government interference.

"People took to the streets around the nation spreading the Liberty messages of Ron's Campaign. message of liberty being championed by the Ron Paul campaign."

"widely known as the "tea party movement", driven by the growing mainstream distrust of the government and its reckless policies of keynsean spending spending policies." (Most Non-Ron Paul supporters don't know what this means, and this is not the place to introduce a new term that wasn't previously defined).

Just a few suggestions!

+rep, thanks for that, added some of your suggestions.

 

[AdamT]

Latest version of the inside panels, getting close to being finished.

 

[AdamT]

I think it would be wise for us to work to establish some principles / "best practices" for written promotions, I'll start a new thread for that. In general, there is a big difference that is needed in presentation when information is just being pushed one-way vs. there being a back-and-forth dialog. With the former, there needs to be much more thought put into the work.

Here are some of my principles for "one way" communications- after that are my specific mark-ups.


Principle: Do not speak out against specific elements that do not have 100% agreement, unless you can properly justify why it is being attacked. This is key because you will otherwise get your audience to think "Why is that bad?"

Principle: Speak to the true issues behind the name or banner that something is put under. For example, it's not that Social Security is inherently bad, the real issue is that people are forced into it- and that is the key element to point out.

Principle: Don't advocate solutions that can be seen as reckless, far-fetched or dangerous. The proper back story is sometimes needed for Dr. Paul's solutions, make sure it's there if needed.

Principle: Don't talk above the average American, so don't try to sound smart by using fancy words. Why? It will sound too political, and they can't relate to it personally.

Principle: Leave no room for debate on the facts / claims you make.


-----

Suggestions (you asked ):


Bio: I agree that is would be better to say that Reagan endorsed him.

Title: "The Dollar, Bailouts..." Change to "Dollar Stability"
Just saying "The Dollar" isn't something to care about, "Dollar Stability"- we care, that is the issue. Most no one cares about the fed, but still hit them with it in the text.

This section also has almost nothing about the Bailouts, so drop it from the title. It would be a better fit in "Taxes & Government Spending" so "Taxes, Bailouts & Government Spending".

The section is about the dollar, but by saying "to fund overseas wars" it makes it more of a foreign policy issue, and is too divisive. The real issue isn't the overseas wars, it's the wasteful spending overseas, so it could be replaced with something like "As the Fed points money out of thin air to sustain massive foreign spending".. or similar.

Or just pull these parts out, so it reads "As the Fed prints money out of thin air the purchasing power of the dollar goes down..." This is actually much better as it sticks to the point.

The end of this paragraph sounds like pandering to me, "resulting in higher food and gas prices." Just say "resulting in higher prices, from food, to gas and more."

Is: "correctly warned that Fed policies"
To: "correctly warned for years that Fed policies" -- adds credibility.

Is: "and has championed the call to audit and abolish the Fed"
This leaves one without an understanding of why and what would then happen. I would suggest a change to: "and has championed the call to audit and abolish the Fed and replace it with sound money" - this further puts the Fed in the "bad" corner, and suggest a good way forward.

Is: "TSA outrageously groping"
Drop "outrageously"- it sounds too sensationalist. Try to stick with well stated facts.

Is: "trampling rights via the PATRIOT Act." - see principles. This doesn't explain why the PATRIOT Act is bad. As many think it's great, this is a problem. So change it to: "trampling rights with warrantless searches..." or "trampling rights with warrantless searches under the PATRIOT Act..."

Do not say "U.S. Empire" -- this will turn people off thinking, "Huh? We're not an empire?!" Maybe call it "A Strong and Sensible Foreign Policy"

Is: "Our current policy of foreign interventionism often does"
To: "Our current policy of nation building and policing the world often does" -- these are two elements that people don't like. "Interventionism" is too mixed in its meaning, could be good or bad.

Is: "Is our global adventurism bankrupting America?"
To: "Is our foreign policy bankrupting America?" -- this is they key point, is more broad, and not antagonistic. Maybe include something about the billions of foreign aide we pass out.

Is: "He would bring the troops home and end unnecessary wars". This sounds too leftist, and antagonistic. Even saying "He wants to end unnecessary wars and bring troops home." is cleaner.

Is: "as it struggles to climb out of what some economists call..."
drop "what some economists call" - don't think it adds much and is an appeal to authority.

Is: "abolish the IRS and replace it with nothing!"
See principles. This sounds too extreme and unrealistic. It could be stated more friendly, such as "He wants to reduce spending so that the IRS can be abolished."

Is: "The federal government routinely violates virtually every clause of the Constitution" - again, this sounds sensationalist and is very debatable too.
To: "While the Fed government routinely violate the Constitution, Dr. Paul has worked to revive its significance into mainstream America" or similar. Drop the "Why do..." sentence.

Is: "have no place in a Constitutional Republic."
To: "have no place in a free society." -- see two principles.

Is: "As a physician" -- this adds no value here, drop it, or reword to make it read in such as way that is it clear that because he is a physician he is better qualified to move forward.

Tea Party section- I'm not crazy about the wording. 12/16/07 doesn't matter to anyone. Suggested example: "On the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, Ron Paul's supporters raised a record setting $6.2 million for his campaign as they took to the streets around the nation to spread the message of liberty."

Put quotes around "Keynesian", no one knows what Keynesian is so they can't relate to it. Quotes softens it up so it sounds like you are using borrowed language and putting you on the same level as the reader. Or replace with "its reckless uncontrolled Keynesian-style spending" -- here again, you are painting Keynesian as a negative. Or, just don't bother to say Keynesian at all since most people won't ever be able to correlate it with anything else later.

Great suggestions, working on getting some of this worked in. +rep

 

[AdamT]

Bio: I agree that is would be better to say that Reagan endorsed him.

I need the wording for this. Has to be around the same amount of words that are there now.

 

[AdamT]

Suggestions (you asked ):


Bio: I agree that is would be better to say that Reagan endorsed him.

Need the wording here. Not sure of the exact historical events. Reagan endorsed him in a Congressional race, right? How to word this so it's relevant to today?

Title: "The Dollar, Bailouts..." Change to "Dollar Stability"
Just saying "The Dollar" isn't something to care about, "Dollar Stability"- we care, that is the issue. Most no one cares about the fed, but still hit them with it in the text.

This section also has almost nothing about the Bailouts, so drop it from the title. It would be a better fit in "Taxes & Government Spending" so "Taxes, Bailouts & Government Spending".

Changed it to Dollar Stability and removed Bailouts from the heading.

The section is about the dollar, but by saying "to fund overseas wars" it makes it more of a foreign policy issue, and is too divisive. The real issue isn't the overseas wars, it's the wasteful spending overseas, so it could be replaced with something like "As the Fed points money out of thin air to sustain massive foreign spending".. or similar.

Done.

The end of this paragraph sounds like pandering to me, "resulting in higher food and gas prices." Just say "resulting in higher prices, from food, to gas and more."

Done.

Is: "correctly warned that Fed policies"
To: "correctly warned for years that Fed policies" -- adds credibility.

Done.

Is: "and has championed the call to audit and abolish the Fed"
This leaves one without an understanding of why and what would then happen. I would suggest a change to: "and has championed the call to audit and abolish the Fed and replace it with sound money" - this further puts the Fed in the "bad" corner, and suggest a good way forward.

This kind of gummed it up, and made it hard to fit "the only presidential candidate" in there. Want that in there for sure. If you have wording to include this, please post.

Is: "TSA outrageously groping"
Drop "outrageously"- it sounds too sensationalist. Try to stick with well stated facts.

Done.

Is: "trampling rights via the PATRIOT Act." - see principles. This doesn't explain why the PATRIOT Act is bad. As many think it's great, this is a problem. So change it to: "trampling rights with warrantless searches..." or "trampling rights with warrantless searches under the PATRIOT Act..."

Got this worked in.

Do not say "U.S. Empire" -- this will turn people off thinking, "Huh? We're not an empire?!" Maybe call it "A Strong and Sensible Foreign Policy"

Done, although I did like the "vs" in there, to kind of contrast the two opposing views.

Is: "Our current policy of foreign interventionism often does"
To: "Our current policy of nation building and policing the world often does" -- these are two elements that people don't like. "Interventionism" is too mixed in its meaning, could be good or bad.

Done. Good one.

Is: "Is our global adventurism bankrupting America?"
To: "Is our foreign policy bankrupting America?" -- this is they key point, is more broad, and not antagonistic.

Done.

Is: "He would bring the troops home and end unnecessary wars". This sounds too leftist, and antagonistic. Even saying "He wants to end unnecessary wars and bring troops home." is cleaner.

Re-worded as suggested.

Is: "as it struggles to climb out of what some economists call..."
drop "what some economists call" - don't think it adds much and is an appeal to authority.

Disagree on this one, saying "economists" adds credibility IMO. Left for now.

Is: "abolish the IRS and replace it with nothing!"
See principles. This sounds too extreme and unrealistic. It could be stated more friendly, such as "He wants to reduce spending so that the IRS can be abolished."

This was bugging me too. Re-worded to sound less extreme....while still saying the same thing haha.

Is: "The federal government routinely violates virtually every clause of the Constitution" - again, this sounds sensationalist and is very debatable too.
To: "While the Fed government routinely violate the Constitution, Dr. Paul has worked to revive its significance into mainstream America" or similar. Drop the "Why do..." sentence.

Done, good one.

Is: "have no place in a Constitutional Republic."
To: "have no place in a free society." -- see two principles.

Done.

Is: "As a physician" -- this adds no value here, drop it, or reword to make it read in such as way that is it clear that because he is a physician he is better qualified to move forward.

Someone had suggested adding in "physician" in there, but I do see how it serves little good in the context. Removed.

Tea Party section- I'm not crazy about the wording. 12/16/07 doesn't matter to anyone. Suggested example: "On the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, Ron Paul's supporters raised a record setting $6.2 million for his campaign as they took to the streets around the nation to spread the message of liberty."

Agree this could be worded a little better, however I want the 12/16/07 date in there so people have a frame of reference when this all started. Left for now.

Put quotes around "Keynesian", no one knows what Keynesian is so they can't relate to it. Quotes softens it up so it sounds like you are using borrowed language and putting you on the same level as the reader. Or replace with "its reckless uncontrolled Keynesian-style spending" -- here again, you are painting Keynesian as a negative. Or, just don't bother to say Keynesian at all since most people won't ever be able to correlate it with anything else later.

Changed the wording slightly like suggested. Posting an updated image in a minute.

 

[AdamT]

With Bryan's suggestions. Got a Reagan quote in there too vs the endorsement thing.

 

[Esoteric]

With Bryan's suggestions. Got a Reagan quote in there too vs the endorsement thing.

Looking great!

The Reagan quote seems weak to me. maybe the "We need to keep [Ron Paul] fighting for our country" part of the quote would be better than the poorly structured sentence that is currently there.

 

[Bryan]

Looking great!

The Reagan quote seems weak to me. maybe the "We need to keep [Ron Paul] fighting for our country" part of the quote would be better than the poorly structured sentence that is currently there.

How about: Ronald Reagan had endorsed Dr. Paul calling him an "outstanding leader".

And I would put that after the "4,000 babies" line.

 

[TruckinMike]

//