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

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Excellent observation Aden.

 

[TheViper]

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]

Aden, very much agreed.

 

[erowe1]

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." 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

/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]

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.