Secret List Of 14 Words That Republicans Are Never Supposed To Use
Never say/ Instead say:
1. Government / Washington
2. Privatization/Private Accounts / Personalization/Personal Accounts
3. Tax Reform / Tax Simplification
4. Inheritance/Estate Tax / The Death Tax
5. A Global Economy/Globalization/Capitalism/ Free Market Economy
6. Outsourcing/ Taxation, Regulation, Litigation, Innovation, Education
7. Undo ented Workers/ Illegal Aliens
8. Foreign Trade/ International Trade
9. Drilling for oil/ Exploring for energy
10. Tort Reform/ Lawsuit Abuse Reform
11. Trial Lawyer/ Personal Injury Lawyer
12. Corporate Transparency/ Corporate Accountability
13. School Choice/ Parental Choice/Equal Opportunity in Education
14. Healthcare “Choice”/ “The Right to Choose”
http://www.politicususa.com/en/14-se...iticus+USA+%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
I read the beginning of the material, then the end where the 14 words are.
This was a 2006 work that analyzed what worked and what didn't. Can you show me where it was only available to republicans when Luntz worked with people of all political ideals?
As I review more of the material, I realize something said early on in it is key. That's why the democrats who use this books advice lose:
Democrats say all kinds of things, but seldom mean them.says what he means and means what he says.
Rove adds don't say "Repugs cuts fire teachers, policemen, firemen" say "Repug cuts fire union workers"
Last edited by boutons_deux; 10-31-2011 at 03:06 PM.
So, they put in things democrats said too.
The point of the writing is what works and what doesn't work in public speaking.
OP needs to relearn how to use slashes
You say all kinds of things, and always mean them, but they are seldom true.
Global Warming is referred to as "climate change"
Democrats have been pushing that line for some time, haven't they.
zosa needs to follow the link to see how the original text used slashes.
Better than in the OP. They were clearly on sides in the source material.
If you went to the original do ent, instead of what the partisan site spoon fed you, you see the format like this:
I guess I should have used the beginning of that section, from page 132:
so you guys can't handle the "/" ? ok, noted.
the article used ACCURATE/ REPUGSPEAK.
Was that visual aid still not helpful?
and trash talking the textual presentation is typical, rather than addressing the dihonest abuse of language
No you idiot.so you guys can't handle the "/" ? ok, noted.
the article used ACCURATE/ REPUGSPEAK.
Was that visual aid still not helpful?
and trash talking the textual presentation is typical, rather than addressing the dihonest abuse of language
When there are slashes in the text on one side, it needs to be separated with something else. Not a slash. They were stupid in the OP to do that, but at least they separated them with bold and normal words. You could have either done the same, or did what I did.
ignore the message, attack the message format!
ignore the message, attack the message format!
Thank you B_D, this was a very good post and it didn't have any of your usual buzzwords. Coincidence? I think not.
Holy .
Thank you B_D, this was a very good post and it didn't have any of your usual buzzwords. Coincidence? I think not.
Just tune into The Colbert Report to watch Frank Luntz get trolled. This is pretty rudimentary psychological marketing stuff, but it works. Good for the people who use it to their advantage, so sorry for the folks too stupid to see through it.
Anyone else get a kick out of WC and boutons arguing?
boutons slaps, WC jerks off between his ears.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
