A 20 DAY PERSUASION

Power Of Persuasion

About the author: Learning to persuade and influence will make the difference between hoping for a better income and having a better income. Beware of the mistakes persuaders commit that cause them to lose the deal. Go to www.PreWealth.com and explode your income!

Source: http://www.isnare.com/?aid=115727&ca=Jobs

Frequently Asked Questions

1. QUESTION:
   Please help!. Advertizement! I need YOU!?
   Read and take thorough notes about the following terms:

   Name-Calling, Glittering Generalities, Euphemisms, Transfer, Testimonial, Plain Folks, Bandwagon, and Fear
   2. Visit "Powers of Persuasion: Poster Art from World War II" from the National Archives and Records Administration site. This site includes great background information about the power of persuasion during war time.

   Powers_of_Persuasion
   (You must click on picture of Uncle Sam)
   This site reminds us that "Words, posters, and films waged a constant battle for the hearts and minds of the American citizenry just as surely as military weapons engaged the enemy."

   View at least two posters from part one and at least two posters from part two. Pay careful attention to the images and the text in each poster. As you do, think about the events of the time.

   Im suppose to do a question interview on what YOU think of this. Please people, keep it simple and share your thoughts.

   LINK: http://www.grassrootsjournal.org/canvas-article-02.htm

   http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/powers_of_persuasion/powers_of_persuasion_home.html

   • ANSWER:
     I think it is pretty cool. Grassrootsjournal rocks!

2. QUESTION:
   A question for Secular Capitalists?
   I'm a Christian, and i am also a firm believer in Capitalism.

   Recently, in my reading of some articles on the net pertaining to and supportive of Capitalism, i found many Secular Capitalists are of the persuasion Religion, particularly Christianity, is averse to their economics. They cite the concept of ''altruism'' (the axiom one should give resources to the unfortunate) as being evidence of Christianity's diametric opposition to free economics.

   Now i don't know about other religions, but i believe Christianity's economic focus centers on Capitalism. Check these verses out:

   II Thessalonians 3: 8 - 12
   8.'' Neither did we [the Apostle Paul and his aides] eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you: 9 Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us. 10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. 11 For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. 12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread. (Notice ''own bread,'' not the 'states bread, and particularly vs 10.''

   Exodus 20:15
   15 ''Thou shalt not steal.'' (Why would God give such a directive if he didn't intent for man to own private property?)

   Exodus 20:17
   17 ''Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.'' (Obviously, its rather hard to covet ''any thing that is thy neighbor's'' if the state control people's resources.)

   Exodus 20:2
   2 ''I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.'' (In Egypt, the Israelite were forced to work for the State, a primitive form of taxation. The Bible defines this as ''bondage.'')

   Matthew 20: 1 - 16
   1 For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard.

   2 And when he had agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard.

   3 And he went out about the third hour, and saw others standing idle in the marketplace,

   4 And said unto them; Go ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will give you. And they went their way.

   5 Again he went out about the sixth and ninth hour, and did likewise.

   6 And about the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing idle, and saith unto them, Why stand ye here all the day idle?

   7 They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard; and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive.

   8 So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the labourers, and give them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first.

   9 And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny.

   10 But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny.

   11 And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house,

   12 Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day.

   13 But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny?

   14 Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee. (self-explanatory i think. Note: This was a parable Christ himself told.)

   15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?

   16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.

   II Corinthian 9:6
   But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully. 7 Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.

   I think these verses indicate God support Capitalism because it permits more private philanthropy. Not the state.

   Furthermore, Capitalism, according to Anne Rynd, is based on the right to life, a central tenant of Christian Ethics. In addition, such a social system is conducive to less government, another biblical concept. If government becomes bloated, controlling every aspect of our lives, it replaces God. Capitalism is more economically just than socialism, and God, comparably, is a God of justice.

   therefore, no matter what the bleeding-heart Christian left may say, capitalism is the only economic system aligned to the Bible. as a christian, i would not support any other.

   All quotes were from the King James Versi
   OPM, i suggest you leave the interpretation of the Bible to non-secular people. The Bible is not just a religious book. It speaks on science, economics, globalization, and many other issues.

   Science originated (as we know it today) in Europe because of the Reformist Protestant Theology/philosophy.

   • ANSWER:
     I am in total agreement.

     The loony "Jesus was a socialist" people must be speechless.

3. QUESTION:
   what is your reflection on this article?
   Rebuilding the economy with green jobs

   It’s not all the change our environment needs, but it sure is a good start. Consider the environmental benefits of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act signed by President Obama on Feb. 17:

   • A 68 million-ton reduction in the pollution that causes global warming,

   • A 15-million barrel per year reduction in the nation’s oil consumption, and

   • The creation of 1.5 million green jobs.

   Environment California worked with our congressional delegation to strengthen the measure to these historic levels. We pushed to increase funding for green jobs and remove subsidies for coal and nuclear power.

   Moving forward, Environment California is working to give President Obama the support he needs from the California congressional delegation and from the public. We are also pushing Sacramento to continue to lead the way by tripling California’s renewable energy mandate to 33 percent by 2020 and to require California’s biggest global warming polluters to pay to pollute, funneling those funds into clean energy solutions.

   The fight for green jobs
   As Congress debated the stimulus package, Environment California staff fought off repeated attempts to cut funding for clean energy and green jobs.

   In the weeks before the law’s passage, more than 20,000 of online activists from Environment California and other members of the Environment America federation took action. They urged Congress to keep the president’s recovery plan clean and green. Our supporters also contributed more than ,000 to help run ads on Facebook, TheHill.com and the Washington Post online, to hold House Republican leader John Boehner accountable for his attempts to slash green job-creating provisions from the bill.

   In the days leading up to the vote, Environment California staff coordinated a massive face-to-face persuasion effort on Capitol Hill, meeting with Reps. Dorris Matsui (Sacramento), Susan Davis (San Diego), Maxine Waters (Los Angeles) and others.

   Nearly billion for clean energy
   Our work paid off. The final bill invests billion in clean energy, billion in energy efficiency, and billion in green transportation, including:

   • Extending and expanding “recession-proof” renewable energy incentives, which will prevent 61 million tons of global warming pollution per year and create or protect 670,000 jobs; and

   • Providing billion to help more than 1 million Americans weatherize their homes, a step that will prevent 2 million tons of global warming pollution and create 375,000 jobs.

   what do you think about this?

   • ANSWER:
     Wow, where do I start?

     First of all I'm all for measures to prevent pollution of the earth. The problem I have is that the science behind global warming is still very much in debate. There is no consensus that CO2 gases have any impact on global warming yet this article mentions global warming pollution and global warming polluters like that is a given. Environmentalists continue to ignore the evidence shown that the earth has actually been cooling for the past 5 years without a reduction in CO2 gases and that the earth has undergone numerous periods of time when it was both warmer and cooler than "normal". Also, I thought the new name for global warming was "global climate change" which could then explain away snow storms, tornadoes, or any other naturally occurring phenomenon.

     As to the "green" jobs, you don't make improvements by hiring additional activists and lobbyists under the guise of calling those "green" jobs. Also, throwing money at just one sector of the overall energy business (renewal energy) is just ignorant to say the least. There is a fixed amount of money within the US economy overall at least until the Federal Government steps in and borrows additional money from China. That fixed amount of money provides for health to all industries is dictated by the laws of supply and demand. The Government steps in and upsets that balance every day by selecting a favorite portion to bestow large sums of cash. This might appear to help that one sector of the economy but it does so at the expense of all the other sectors. In other words, the Government promoting "green" jobs and renewable energy does more harm than good by taking away jobs from other portions of our economy plus placing huge amounts of debt onto those who actually pay income taxes.

     Also, the final straw for me was the phrase "to create or protect 670,000 jobs". That comment sounds really knoble with placing the word "create" in front or "protect". However, at the end of the day you won't be able to show proof that you "created" one single job as in so doing you will be destroying 10 other jobs in the process.

4. QUESTION:
   Response to the US Vs UK military questions?
   Just read this article. It came out of the most anti-American newspaper in the world. The Guardian... That being said, even these idiots can not deny the scope of American power.

   Oh yeah...There is no way Britain could even begin to dream about winning a (hypothetical) war against America.

   Read up on the US Military - no one even comes close. This isn't opinion...its fact.

   -------- American power

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

   Armed to the teeth

   Is Bush's awesome increase in military spending a reasonable response to the afermath of September 11, or is he creating a force almost too powerful for its own good? Peter Beaumont and Ed Vulliamy report

   Is America too powerful for its own good?

   You can have your say online here.

   Observer Worldview

   Sunday February 10, 2002
   The Observer

   There is a United States special forces dog-handler who meets journalists, diplomats and aid workers off the UN flight to Kabul. His job is to search luggage and ensure the security of US troops in Afghanistan. He is short, gingery and aggressive. His skills at persuasion are limited to shouting at the milling crowd: 'Stand back! Stand back! My dog will bite!'
   Last week that phrase had become the defining motto and operating credo for the military and foreign policy of the Bush administration. Already President George W. Bush has put Iran, Iraq and North Korea on notice as terrorist-sponsoring nations at the centre of an international 'axis of evil', despite the CIA's recent evidence that none of them was in the business of threatening the United States at present.

   Article continues

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

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

   Last Monday, to back that explicit threat, he announced an increase in US military spending of 15 per cent, the biggest in 20 years, more than double the military spending in all of the European Union. The rise will be billion (£26.5bn) this year, billion next year and 0 billion over the next five years, rising to a staggering two trillion over the next five years.
   Even this is not enough for General Richard Myers, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. They want the US defence budget to increase at an even faster rate.

   What all this means is clear. Troubled by the 11 September attacks and buoyed by the ease of the war against Afghanistan, Bush's message to the 'evil doers' of the world is that he has a dog; that it is very big, getting bigger, and certainly it will bite.

   The puzzle about the latest rise in defence spending is that America at the beginning of the 21st century is already not so much a superpower as a behemoth on the world stage. Economically dominant, it enjoys military and cultural power unrivalled since the days of the Roman emperors, as the American author Robert D. Kaplan reminds us in his new book, Warrior Politics.

   Typically, it has been left to the French, traditionally suspicious of US global hegemony, to find the best words to describe it. Gigantisme militaire they call it, in a phrase that describes both the scale of America's ambitions and also a pathological condition: an organism grown so large it is sick.

   The question the rest of the world is asking itself is: Who is the enemy America is arming itself so against? And why?

   'Ostensibly,' says one European diplomat, 'this is about security. But quite how a massive increase in defence spending is supposed to prevent another terrorist attack remains unclear. Instead this seems to be about repairing the bruised American psyche after 11 September. America's powerlessness in the face of this attack requires big gestures and reassurances, even if they are counter-productive and meaningless.'

   Indeed, some analysts say, if it is security that America seeks it is better sought in dialogue with potentially threatening states, rather than in reinforcing the idea already held by many anti-US groups that it is an evil empire bent on world domination.

   Cynics have identified more overtly self-serving strands in the Republican obsession with America's defence. The 'war' rhetoric, as some US liberal commentators have pointed out, serves a purely domestic Republican agenda in the post-11 September mood of national paranoia: to win Bush a second presidential term and, in the shorter term, regain Congress.

   The reality - even before the latest proposed increases in military spending - is that America could beat the rest of the world at war with one hand tied behind its back. The requirement that US armed forces be able to fight two fully fledged wars with two separate adversaries simultaneously may recently have been dropped, but only because it would be hard pushed to find two such equal foes to fight.

   A single US nuclear-powered carrier group - which forms around the USS Enterprise, for example, with a flight deck almost a mile in length and a superstructure 20 storeys high - concentrates more military power in one naval group than most states can manage with all their armed forces. America has seven of these battle groups.

   It is not just the scale and power of these weapons systems. The reach of US arms, too, is awesome. When the USS Kitty Hawk was sent with its accompanying warships from Yokohama to the Gulf for the war against Afghanistan, it covered 6,000 miles in just 12 days to be transformed into a vast floating forward attack station for thousands of US special forces.

   Its B-52 bombers can fly and refuel across the world armed with cruise missiles that can be fired hundreds of miles away from hostile skies, the missiles themselves directed to their targets by satellites in orbit.

   And America's supremacy in bombs, planes, satellites, tanks and real-time intelligence have made the prospect of US casualties remote, except in the event of cock-up or disaster. And, significantly, as the world's only economic hyper-power, it can afford this level of militarisation.

   But against all this even the manufacturers of America's arms - like the aviation giant Lockheed-Martin - have been struggling for a decade or so to define the threat its top-shelf jets will be battling in the skies, being forced in one memorable presentation to show the European Eurofighter as a potential adversary.

   So why the need for more and better military power? Even military analysts are baffled. 'The rise in US military spending,' says Dan Plesch, senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, 'ought to be compared to the decision in the First World War to order up more cavalry when the first wave had been mown down by machine-guns.

   'The US has no competitor in high-tech military equipment. And what it is spending its money on is mostly irrelevant against the knives used to carry out 11 September. The bombing of Afghanistan has created the illusion of victory.'

   Professor Paul Kennedy at Yale University calculates that the US now spends more each year than the next nine largest national defence budgets combined. Indeed America is responsible for about 40 per cent of the world's military spending.

   The new defence expenditure will be paid for by a freshly dug deficit and cuts to every other federal spending programme - including social security, Medicare and urban renewal - apart from tax breaks loaded heavily in favour of the upper-income brackets. Amid all this, military might has emerged as the central tenet of America's new power, the defining feature of the Bush administration.

   Already it is causing alarm, even among America's closest allies in Nato, where Lord Robertson, the usually unflappable secretary-general, has been moved to warn some members that unless the declining European defence expenditure is reversed then Europe - and the Europeans in Nato - are in danger of becoming military pygmies.

   It is not a prospect likely to worry the military hawks in the Bush administration, who favour unilateralism over alliance. Indeed the Nato alliance, built to counter the rival superpower conflict of the Cold War, is already almost redundant, some diplomats claim.

   'Will the Americans ever fight a war through Nato again?' asks Carl Bildt, former Swedish Prime Minister. 'It's doubtful. The United States reserves the right to itself to wage war, and dumps on others the messy, expensive business of nation-building and peace keeping'. And the Afghan war has not only put the US in sole command of the world, but fundamentally reshaped the architecture of international alliances. Central Asia is splattered with new American fortresses; the Pacific and Indian oceans are patrolled by aircraft carriers and accompanying fleets of awesome size.

   • ANSWER:
     Your question is far too long to bother reading but at the start i think you said that no other military comes close to the US.
     Can i remind you that the Vietnamese beat you easily and you are not winning in Iraq

5. QUESTION:
   Liberals, conservatives, Democrats, republicans, do you agree with this?
   Please, if you take the time to read these excerpts, (or maybe the full article) please give me your honest assessment as to whether you believe these things to be true.

   I'm very conservative, but I'm not looking to bash anyone here, I want to know if people of all political persuasions find these credible.

   begin excerpts...
   All intelligent political analysts have known since Ancient Greece that the Tyrannical State always arrives on gentle cat's paws, as Plato and others put it, after it had been used so effectively by Peisistratus to build the first full-blown tyranny in Athens ...The Tyrant always arrives as the Great Friend of the People promising them new freedoms and a vast cornucopia of free goodies. Peisistratus was lucky enough to have new loads of silver to mint real coins to buy the submission of the masses for a while, expand trade and prosperity

   ...The Republicrat Party, now dominated by the Demo Wing of the Party, is now using those vast new powers to rapidly seize control of all the major segments of American society – from health care to environmental controls which will rule ["regulate"] all corporations and individuals. All of this is being denied absolutely and all the symbols of freedom and equality and justice are being waved furiously in the Big Media by the Party to deceive the masses of ignorant "dupes," as the professional politicians think of them.

   ...The Big Media are all Republicrat Corporations. Even Disneyland and GE own huge tv-network news departments and work under the aegis of the Party and the vast regulatory agencies the Party uses to control them.
   The Media now have almost no serious, honest analysts of what is going on in the US and around the world ...

   ...Obama swore with religious fervor to end all these Bush II tyrannies and has expanded them all relentlessly, even the insane Rendition program of kidnapping and torturing people in other nations around the world, which make the Gestapo powers look like the German Old Ladies Aid Society...

   ...The Big Media conspire with the politicians at the top creating the New Freedoms by relentlessly NOT reporting on what is going on behind the Big Lie Fronts, by disappearing all truth speakers like Machiavelli, by distracting the masses of dupes with vast explosions of sex and violence circuses, and by giving a patina of normalcy to what is going on. They focus immense attention on petty Con Men like Madoff working within the US Financial System at the top who only steal tens of billions and, thereby, totally distract mass attention away from the tens of trillions stolen and destroyed by the Fed, Treasury and other "regulators" working with the Big Banks and their Secret Banking System...

   ...Almost everything in America can now be censored in the Media as a "violation of national security" or by simple disappearance and stigmatization as "Crazy." ...

   ...and of immense Big Lies by the Obama Demos in their first half year of power, similar to what we saw and wrote about in immense detail and analyzed in the years of the Bush II Repub explosion of secret police and military tyrannies here and around the world. ...

   ...in 1913 the US launched the Federal Reserve System which began by expropriating the freedom of hard money, banking and finance. It immediately engineered the vast WWI inflation, the Crash of the early 1920's, the vast inflation of stocks and some real estate markets, the Great Crash of 1929 and the Depression lasting about twelve years. FDR in 1932 expropriated gold and a monetary, hard, free currency and the Fed and many vast new financing agencies began building the immense Paper Citadel in the US which has produced about 2000% inflation and the secret concentration of money, finance, wealth and power at the top of the Big Banks and their armies of subsidiary corporations

   Google it...Original Article: Quietly Building the Totalitarian State in America, With the Full Complicity of the Big Media
   by Jack D. Douglas

   • ANSWER:
     Well, freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one...

     And, no longer are Republicans arguing with Democrats about whether government should be BIG or SMALL.
     Instead they are at odds over WHAT KIND of BIG GOVERNMENT the USA should have.
     Independent
     A:~)