Where did Barry's "soaring rhetoric" go?

[Oddball]

Been having a protracted online conversation with some NLP and hypnosis pros on this one over the last few days.

Seems consensus has been reached as to why the florid speeches of hopey-changey have vanished, and why they wouldn't work were they being used this time around... Turns out that the idea of "change" as floated by Obama's 2008 campaign flies in the face of numerous clinical rules on how to guide clients and subjects from point A to point B, and it appears obvious that the spinmeisters and speechwriters in the campaign today know this.

1) Know your outcome.

Change for the sake of it or oriented in terms of avoidance (i.e. quitting smoking, losing weight) sets the subject up for failure...Changes need to be specific and stated in terms of gain, to have the emotional impact that propels the subject to attain the desired objective..."Hope" and "change" are far too subjective and open to emotional interpretation of the interpreter...Result: Recipe for failure baked into the cake.​

2) The change must be under your control.

The throwaway platitude of "The change we need doesn't come from Washington. Change comes to Washington." belted out by Obama in his nomination acceptance speech tells us all we need to know here...You give up what "change" means to an outside influence, you will then almost certainly be disappointed in the manifestation of that change... In order for any change to have a personal impact, it must be under one's control so that the physical evidence the change creates is not in doubt... Expecting others to deliver to you your change, when you want it, and exactly the way you want it is as sure a pathway to failure that there is.​

3) You need evidence that the change is in fact occurring.

Not in control of your change and surprised that you end up with 15+% real unemployment for 3+ years, another $6 trillion in debt, more foreign wars, more police/snoop state, more bureaucracy, schools that still suck, $4.00 gasoline, lobbyists infesting the White House, GITMO still open, (your favorite gripe here)?...Well, that's what you get for leaving your ideas of what constitutes change in the hands of someone else, let alone someone who doesn't even know you...For millions upon millions of Americans, the change they imagined never came.​

4) No evidence = No credibility and no reason to continue the program.

Your subject doesn't get the clearly defined outcomes they desire, and you're out of a client...They'll go to the Yellow Pages and look up witch doctors.​

Long and the short of it: Even if Obama went back to the NLP/hypnosis Jedi mind trick "soaring rhetoric" speeches, the reality doesn't match the words...Hopey-changey was so much semantic snake oil...The only people who would buy into it this time around would be the Kool-Aid snorting true believers, and it would most likely turn off those who aren't....Therefore, all that remains is the scorched Earth campaign that has been waged.

 

[Foxfyre]

Do you think those voting for President Obama are voting on content, facts, or any substance other than pure emotion? Once you fall in 'love', almost anything is forgivable. Those early speeches created the relationship. And it is that infatuation that seems to remain with most of his supporters.

 

[Listening]

Do you think those voting for President Obama are voting on content, facts, or any substance other than pure emotion? Once you fall in 'love', almost anything is forgivable. Those early speeches created the relationship. And it is that infatuation that seems to remain with most of his supporters.

They just don't want to admit their affirmative action moron is a failure.

 

[del]

he was full of shit then, he's full of shit now.

just like mitt.

 

[Locke11_21]

Been having a protracted online conversation with some NLP and hypnosis pros on this one over the last few days.

Most interesting post to say the least!!

1) Know your outcome.

Change for the sake of it or oriented in terms of avoidance (i.e. quitting smoking, losing weight) sets the subject up for failure...Changes need to be specific and stated in terms of gain, to have the emotional impact that propels the subject to attain the desired objective..."Hope" and "change" are far too subjective and open to emotional interpretation of the interpreter...Result: Recipe for failure baked into the cake.​

There is alot in this paragraph. While Obama's and the Democrats change indeed sets us, the subjects up for failure, in which marxism has done every time it has been implemented, Obama's and the Democrats changes have been specific in terms of gain, that gain being a giant successful leap towards turning American into a marxist/collectivist state, while deliberately destroying our economy, employment, constitution and foundations. Obama's and Democrats "Hope" to "Change" America to a marxist/collectivist state has been far more successful than most realize. What is failure for one, is gain for another...the end justifies the means.

2) The change must be under your control.
The throwaway platitude of "The change we need doesn't come from Washington. Change comes to Washington." belted out by Obama in his nomination acceptance speech tells us all we need to know here...You give up what "change" means to an outside influence, you will then almost certainly be disappointed in the manifestation of that change... In order for any change to have a personal impact, it must be under one's control so that the physical evidence the change creates is not in doubt... Expecting others to deliver to you your change, when you want it, and exactly the way you want it is as sure a pathway to failure that there is.

Indeed, the "Change" did not come from Washington, but directly from Karl Marx, Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky and those types, from his bowing to foreign leaders to his "I'll be more flexable" comment in Russia to Chicago politics, we know from these things here the exact outside influence is, and yes...any real patriotic American is disappointed with this. We have seen a big change to class warfare, racial division, intransparency, massive corruption, a media swinging from every Democrats cock, finger pointing, fear mongering, and hate.

This "change" has been under control, and it has had an impact. The 47% that Mitt Romney referred to - the freeloaders, there is no doubt in this change with them, they love it, and for them there is no doubt. 47% are against this crap, so it is now to the point where 6% are up for grabs.

3) You need evidence that the change is in fact occurring.

Not in control of your change and surprised that you end up with 15+% real unemployment for 3+ years, another $6 trillion in debt, more foreign wars, more police/snoop state, more bureaucracy, schools that still suck, $4.00 gasoline, lobbyists infesting the White House, GITMO still open, (your favorite gripe here)?...Well, that's what you get for leaving your ideas of what constitutes change in the hands of someone else, let alone someone who doesn't even know you...For millions upon millions of Americans, the change they imagined never came.​

While these are factual evidence, they only count if the person in charge is a Republican. If you have the letter D in front of your name, always remember, you have a compliant media that will circle the wagons around you and be willing to give up their lives to further the marxist agenda. While in #3 is true, it is no big deal to the media, they ignore it. $4.00 gasoline only is a burden when a Republican is president, when a Democrat is president, "people learn to deal with it", and it is no big deal. There is no shame, Democrats and Obama for example show no shame in the massive number of people who have given up looking for work, which puts fewer people in the Labor Force Participation, which lowers unemployment. Obama and Democrats have no shame in a massive increase in people dependent on food stamps, to them it is more future votes for them as more people become dependent on government.

There is definite evidence change has occured, just not what millions of Americans envisioned.

4) No evidence = No credibility and no reason to continue the program.

Your subject doesn't get the clearly defined outcomes they desire, and you're out of a client...They'll go to the Yellow Pages and look up witch doctors.​

This is where the problem lies, the 47% Romney refers to view what Obama and Democrats have done with credibility and want to continue the program and freeload off of working people. 47% of the subjects are getting the outcomes they desire, 47% are not, 6% are unsure if they are getting the outcome they desire...and it comes down to who presents their positions in the best possible way. Hopefully, that 6% has seen the tip of the iceberg of the marxism/collectivism that Obama and the Democrats have brought upon us and will give real Americans a solid 53%.

Long and the short of it: Even if Obama went back to the NLP/hypnosis Jedi mind trick "soaring rhetoric" speeches, the reality doesn't match the words...Hopey-changey was so much semantic snake oil...The only people who would buy into it this time around would be the Kool-Aid snorting true believers, and it would most likely turn off those who aren't....Therefore, all that remains is the scorched Earth campaign that has been waged.

While reality and soaring rhetoric doesn't match the word in some ways, just remember, it does in other ways, in that Obama promised to fundamentally change America, and he definitely has...towards marxism/collectivism, class warfare, racial division and blaming everyone but himself and the marxist/collecitvist policies for the situation we are in. 47% of Americans are those Kool-Aid drinkers, whey want to freeload off of society. In conclusion, Obama's rhetoric and division is soaring high with 47% of Americans.​

 

[Oddball]

Do you think those voting for President Obama are voting on content, facts, or any substance other than pure emotion? Once you fall in 'love', almost anything is forgivable. Those early speeches created the relationship. And it is that infatuation that seems to remain with most of his supporters.

True as that may be, there are still those who bought into the rhetoric, let it paint pictures in their minds as to how the "change" was going to manifest itself, and now the reality doesn't match what they had been lead to imagine....For those people, the NLP/hypnosis language used in 2008 would be resisted and the "soaring" speeches would come across to them as so much word salad.

 

[Oddball]

Do you think those voting for President Obama are voting on content, facts, or any substance other than pure emotion? Once you fall in 'love', almost anything is forgivable. Those early speeches created the relationship. And it is that infatuation that seems to remain with most of his supporters.

They just don't want to admit their affirmative action moron is a failure.

I wasn't talking about the Kool-Aid snorters, but the "independents" that got sucked in in 2008.....Those are the most suggestible people.

 

[Foxfyre]

Do you think those voting for President Obama are voting on content, facts, or any substance other than pure emotion? Once you fall in 'love', almost anything is forgivable. Those early speeches created the relationship. And it is that infatuation that seems to remain with most of his supporters.

They just don't want to admit their affirmative action moron is a failure.

I wasn't talking about the Kool-Aid snorters, but the "independents" that got sucked in in 2008.....Those are the most suggestible people.

Some were. Hell it was compelling. I heard it but shrugged off the Marxist bait myself, and focused on things I liked to hear; i.e. transparency in government; a balanced budget; energy independence; honesty; integrity; responsibility; ending obsolete programs; etc. etc. I didn't vote for Obama but I didn't mind all that much when he won. I knew he was a liberal and would continue liberal policies, but I hoped he would be a liberal of character and responsibility along the lines of Truman or Carter. But it turned out he had none of the integrity and all the incompetence of Carter.

And it turned out that he meant none of that glowing rhetoric that sucked me in. I think many many independents who got sucked into that will not be voting for Obama this time around. But there are an awful lot of Kool-ade drinkers out there still.

 

[Oddball]

I heard it and shrugged it off because I instantly recognized as hypnotic patter.

I knew he didn't write it, couldn't have written it, and had no idea how the patterns of language he was reading off the prompter would affect the suggestible mind...His rambling and borderline incoherent inaugural speech, which was (claimed) to have been written by he himself, confirmed my suspicions.

In any case, I explained in the OP what happened to you...The reality didn't match the ideas of what "change" would look like in your life, so the patter not only wouldn't work this time around but would actually be repellant, as rapport and credibility have been broken.

Ya follow?

 

[OKTexas]

Been having a protracted online conversation with some NLP and hypnosis pros on this one over the last few days.

Most interesting post to say the least!!

1) Know your outcome.

Change for the sake of it or oriented in terms of avoidance (i.e. quitting smoking, losing weight) sets the subject up for failure...Changes need to be specific and stated in terms of gain, to have the emotional impact that propels the subject to attain the desired objective..."Hope" and "change" are far too subjective and open to emotional interpretation of the interpreter...Result: Recipe for failure baked into the cake.​

There is alot in this paragraph. While Obama's and the Democrats change indeed sets us, the subjects up for failure, in which marxism has done every time it has been implemented, Obama's and the Democrats changes have been specific in terms of gain, that gain being a giant successful leap towards turning American into a marxist/collectivist state, while deliberately destroying our economy, employment, constitution and foundations. Obama's and Democrats "Hope" to "Change" America to a marxist/collectivist state has been far more successful than most realize. What is failure for one, is gain for another...the end justifies the means.



Indeed, the "Change" did not come from Washington, but directly from Karl Marx, Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky and those types, from his bowing to foreign leaders to his "I'll be more flexable" comment in Russia to Chicago politics, we know from these things here the exact outside influence is, and yes...any real patriotic American is disappointed with this. We have seen a big change to class warfare, racial division, intransparency, massive corruption, a media swinging from every Democrats cock, finger pointing, fear mongering, and hate.

This "change" has been under control, and it has had an impact. The 47% that Mitt Romney referred to - the freeloaders, there is no doubt in this change with them, they love it, and for them there is no doubt. 47% are against this crap, so it is now to the point where 6% are up for grabs.




While these are factual evidence, they only count if the person in charge is a Republican. If you have the letter D in front of your name, always remember, you have a compliant media that will circle the wagons around you and be willing to give up their lives to further the marxist agenda. While in #3 is true, it is no big deal to the media, they ignore it. $4.00 gasoline only is a burden when a Republican is president, when a Democrat is president, "people learn to deal with it", and it is no big deal. There is no shame, Democrats and Obama for example show no shame in the massive number of people who have given up looking for work, which puts fewer people in the Labor Force Participation, which lowers unemployment. Obama and Democrats have no shame in a massive increase in people dependent on food stamps, to them it is more future votes for them as more people become dependent on government.

There is definite evidence change has occured, just not what millions of Americans envisioned.

4) No evidence = No credibility and no reason to continue the program.

Your subject doesn't get the clearly defined outcomes they desire, and you're out of a client...They'll go to the Yellow Pages and look up witch doctors.​

This is where the problem lies, the 47% Romney refers to view what Obama and Democrats have done with credibility and want to continue the program and freeload off of working people. 47% of the subjects are getting the outcomes they desire, 47% are not, 6% are unsure if they are getting the outcome they desire...and it comes down to who presents their positions in the best possible way. Hopefully, that 6% has seen the tip of the iceberg of the marxism/collectivism that Obama and the Democrats have brought upon us and will give real Americans a solid 53%.

Long and the short of it: Even if Obama went back to the NLP/hypnosis Jedi mind trick "soaring rhetoric" speeches, the reality doesn't match the words...Hopey-changey was so much semantic snake oil...The only people who would buy into it this time around would be the Kool-Aid snorting true believers, and it would most likely turn off those who aren't....Therefore, all that remains is the scorched Earth campaign that has been waged.

While reality and soaring rhetoric doesn't match the word in some ways, just remember, it does in other ways, in that Obama promised to fundamentally change America, and he definitely has...towards marxism/collectivism, class warfare, racial division and blaming everyone but himself and the marxist/collecitvist policies for the situation we are in. 47% of Americans are those Kool-Aid drinkers, whey want to freeload off of society. In conclusion, Obama's rhetoric and division is soaring high with 47% of Americans.​

Maobama has made changes in the regulatory make up of the government that will take years to sort out. The best way I can imagine to fix it is to issue an executive order and nullify every entry to the federal registry for the last 4 years. Only porblem with that is it may cause caos in the day to day operations of the government.​

 

[westwall]

I will confess to having voted for him. My reasoning was McCain really was no different in the long run and Obama would either be one of the very best POTUS's we had ever had or one of the worst. Either way I saw the country as a whole benefitting from the experience.

Were he a good one the effects would be long lasting, were he bad, the independents would see for themselves what a liberal wasteland looks like and be able to make up their minds about that road quicker.

More importantly I figured the quickness would be a benerit as that way we would avoid the lobster in the pot problem.

People are not too smart and a long slow descent into socialism would be unavoidable, this way they can see the effects quickly before it has a chance to surprise them.

 

[Foxfyre]

I heard it and shrugged it off because I instantly recognized as hypnotic patter.

I knew he didn't write it, couldn't have written it, and had no idea how the patterns of language he was reading off the prompter would affect the suggestible mind...His rambling and borderline incoherent inaugural speech, which was (claimed) to have been written by he himself, confirmed my suspicions.

In any case, I explained in the OP what happened to you...The reality didn't match the ideas of what "change" would look like in your life, so the patter not only wouldn't work this time around but would actually be repellant, as rapport and credibility have been broken.

Ya follow?

I follow but don't really agree with the mechanism in my case. I'm too much the journalist/investigator not to be jaded when it comes to persuasive speech. Sort of the old saw that a good salesman can't be sold or something along that line. So other than the concrete promises I touched on in my previous post, I wasn't buying the sales talk. And I don't buy it now, from anybody.

But what you are suggesting is that Obama did even turn out to be an empty suit devoid of principle, character, or conviction as I now see him. You are suggesting he was an innocent tool; a clueless marionette being manipulated by visible strings?

Who do you think the puppeteer is?

 

[OKTexas]

I will confess to having voted for him. My reasoning was McCain really was no different in the long run and Obama would either be one of the very best POTUS's we had ever had or one of the worst. Either way I saw the country as a whole benefitting from the experience.

Were he a good one the effects would be long lasting, were he bad, the independents would see for themselves what a liberal wasteland looks like and be able to make up their minds about that road quicker.

More importantly I figured the quickness would be a benerit as that way we would avoid the lobster in the pot problem.

People are not too smart and a long slow descent into socialism would be unavoidable, this way they can see the effects quickly before it has a chance to surprise them.

Yep, I held my nose to vote for McCain, but I did my research on Maobama and just couldn't go there.

 

[edthecynic]

Do you think those voting for President Obama are voting on content, facts, or any substance other than pure emotion? Once you fall in 'love', almost anything is forgivable. Those early speeches created the relationship. And it is that infatuation that seems to remain with most of his supporters.

Of course the Right, who didn't want Bishop Willard but are voting for him purely because they HATE Obama and/or Democrats, are not the least bit "emotional."
Once you are possessed by pure hate you can rationalize any justification for your actions.

To the wicked, everything serves as pretext.
Voltaire

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Where did Barry's "soaring rhetoric" go?

...

over your head

 

[Bigfoot]

I found it!

 

[Obamanation]

I found it!

Don't forget Tickle Me Biden...

 

[Oddball]

I heard it and shrugged it off because I instantly recognized as hypnotic patter.

I knew he didn't write it, couldn't have written it, and had no idea how the patterns of language he was reading off the prompter would affect the suggestible mind...His rambling and borderline incoherent inaugural speech, which was (claimed) to have been written by he himself, confirmed my suspicions.

In any case, I explained in the OP what happened to you...The reality didn't match the ideas of what "change" would look like in your life, so the patter not only wouldn't work this time around but would actually be repellant, as rapport and credibility have been broken.

Ya follow?

I follow but don't really agree with the mechanism in my case. I'm too much the journalist/investigator not to be jaded when it comes to persuasive speech. Sort of the old saw that a good salesman can't be sold or something along that line. So other than the concrete promises I touched on in my previous post, I wasn't buying the sales talk. And I don't buy it now, from anybody.

But what you are suggesting is that Obama did even turn out to be an empty suit devoid of principle, character, or conviction as I now see him. You are suggesting he was an innocent tool; a clueless marionette being manipulated by visible strings?

Who do you think the puppeteer is?

I'm suggesting that his ego was played up to...No big feat when you're dealing with a narcissist of his caliber...I don't know who wrote the speeches then or where they are today, I just know that the speeches aren't there now and have a strong suspicion as to why.

The "concrete promises" -which turned opt to be total lies- were there to get the skeptical like you to suspend your disbelief and pique your curiosity just long enough to let the rest of the patter in for just a moment's consideration, and that's all that was necessary....At that point, you didn't need to be one of the mindless chanting zombies...You were open to the possibility that he might actually come across, and that's all that was needed.

The greater point here being that if he were to come back with the same, or even a variation of, the old hopey-changey patter, no small amount of those who are still on the fringes of wanting to give him anther chance would be repelled, as they'd be far less inclined to suspend the disbelief and go with the flow of the rhetoric again....In technical jargon, polarity response.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Where did Barry's "soaring rhetoric" go?

...

over your head

 

[Samson]

Do you think those voting for President Obama are voting on content, facts, or any substance other than pure emotion? Once you fall in 'love', almost anything is forgivable. Those early speeches created the relationship. And it is that infatuation that seems to remain with most of his supporters.

I think Romney hit the nail on the head: 47% of voting Americans do so to protect their government cheese alotment, and a hamster would receive their vote it they though it would continue to feed them.