Obama is basically president - Let's post in this thread about the election result.
384 replies, posted
[QUOTE=ArchAngel]New world order
More like new world border
:([/QUOTE]
EVERYONE RUN, HE'S IN ON THE SCHEME
Black helicopters, right? You've heard about them, black helicopters? Yeah, they're on, they're on whisper mode, so you can't hear 'em till they've already gone! You know?
[QUOTE=ArchAngel]That they used hypnotic speech...? Uh-uh. Not like Obama's doing it. His speeches are essentially nothing but pace-and-lead. Stacked language. Transfer of emotion. Hypnotic metaphor. Hypnotic imagery. It's all designed to give an emotional high and put reason to the side so he can speak more to the subconscious. That's why he says "I WILL be the next President" and "YOU ALL HAVE CHOSEN me." Incedibly presumptuous language, no? Arrogant. No one in the crowd ever complains though. He just tells them what to believe.[/QUOTE]
That's the purpose of speeches in general. McCain did that, Hillary did that, Bush Jr did that, JFK did that, Hitler did that, Winston Churchill did that, Julius Caesar did that, everyone who has ever given a speech has done that to some extent.
It's called rhetoric, there's college courses on it.
[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda]That's the purpose of speeches in general. McCain did that, Hillary did that, Bush Jr did that, JFK did that, Hitler did that, Winston Churchill did that, Julius Caesar did that, everyone who has ever given a speech has done that to some extent.
It's called rhetoric, there's college courses on it.[/QUOTE]
There is a difference between the rhetoric of other figures and the hypnotic undertones of Obama's speeches.
[QUOTE=PyrofiliacV3]hey look what just got dugg:
[img]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3279/3006416363_95ef8de914_o.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
Thumbs up!
[QUOTE=ArchAngel]There is a difference between the rhetoric of other figures and the hypnotic undertones of Obama's speeches.[/QUOTE]
Really? Because Obama sounds like just any other charismatic speaker.
What untold power is exerting over humankind by being charismatic? And if it works on the weak minded, why did he win by so small a margin? And even then, why were none of the obviously gullible McCain supporters become turncoat?
[QUOTE=Endzone]Really? Because Obama sounds like just any other charismatic speaker.
What untold power is exerting over humankind by being charismatic? And if it works on the weak minded, why did he win by so small a margin? And even then, why were none of the obviously gullible McCain supporters become turncoat?[/QUOTE]
Yes. You are absolutely right. He sounds just like every other charismatic speaker.
That is the point. The entire premise of Ericksonian hypnosis is that it is hidden within normal speech, making it nearly INDISTINGUISHABLE from speech that does not contain hypnotic commands. That is the ADVANTAGE of Ericksonian hypnosis, which makes it MORE EFFECTIVE than traditional hypnosis because the patient DOES NOT KNOW they are being hypnotized and does not know to consciously resist. I've given links to information about Ericksonian hypnosis. The pdf document itself might be informational if you gave the actual body of the text a chance.
I use Dvorak on a Qwerty keyboard so I capslocked instead of bolding, I wasn't shouting at you so you know. It's just difficult to find the brackets without backspacing.
As for the turncoat thing ... hypnosis works best on young voters and those who are very intelligent. It has to do with the effectiveness of mental distraction on creativity centers and logical centers of the brain in the young and the intelligent. Someone posted a breakdown by IQ of the states and votes ... the and the high IQ-average states all voted for Barack while the low IQ-average states all voted for McCain. And we all know that Barack is an idol among young voters like me. I had a schoolgirl crush on him.
Hypnotism?
It is little more than simple suggestion that appeals to the subconscious. Any good speaker does this. If you call what Obama does 'hypnotism,' then I guarantee that you are hypnotized at least 3 times on any given day.
Wait, if it's nearly indistinguishable, then what's the proof that hypnosis is being done here?
It sounds more like a made up concept to explain something about themselves.
In the interest of you guys making more informed replies, since you seem to be determined to pull info out of your ass when that doesn't work here,
Wikipedia time. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_H._Erickson[/url]
[quote]Erickson believed that the unconscious mind was always listening, and that, whether or not the patient was in trance, suggestions could be made which would have a hypnotic influence, as long as those suggestions found some resonance at the unconscious level. The patient can be aware of this, or can be completely oblivious that something is happening. Erickson would see if the patient would respond to one or another kind of indirect suggestion, and allow the unconscious mind to actively participate in the therapeutic process. In this way, what seemed like a normal conversation might induce a hypnotic trance, or a therapeutic change in the subject. It should be noted that "[Erickson's] conception of the unconscious is definitely not the one held by Freud."[6][/quote]
"Erickson maintained that trance is a common, everyday occurrence. For example, when waiting for buses and trains, reading or listening, or even being involved in strenuous physical exercise, it's quite normal to become immersed in the activity and go into a trance state, removed from any other irrelevant stimuli. These states are so common and familiar that most people do not consciously recognise them as hypnotic phenomena"
"Because Erickson expected trance states to occur [b]naturally and frequently[/b], he was prepared to exploit them therapeutically, even when the patient was not present with him in the consulting room. He also discovered many techniques for how to increase the likelihood that a trance state would occur. He developed both verbal and non-verbal techniques, and [b]pioneered the idea that the common experiences of wonderment, engrossment and confusion are, in reality, just kinds of trance.[/b]"
[quote]Erickson maintained that it was not possible to consciously instruct the unconscious mind, and that authoritarian suggestions were likely to be met with resistance. The unconscious mind responds to openings, opportunities, metaphors, symbols and contradictions. Effective hypnotic suggestion, then, should be "artfully vague", leaving space for the subject to fill in the gaps with their own unconscious understandings - even if they do not consciously grasp what is happening. The skilled hypnotherapist constructs these gaps of meaning in a way most suited to the individual subject - in a way which is most likely to produce the desired change.
For example the authoritative "you will stop smoking" is likely to find less leverage on the unconscious level than "you can become a non-smoker". The first is a direct command, to be obeyed or ignored (and notice that it draws attention to the act of smoking), the second is an opening, an invitation to possible lasting change, without pressure, and which is less likely to raise resistance.[/quote]
Now from the pdf:
[quote]“Sixteen months have passed (pause) since we first stood together on the steps of the Old State
Capitol (pause) in Springfield, Illinois.(pause) Thousands (pause) of miles have been traveled.
(paused) Millions of voices have been heard. (pause) And because of what you said (pause) because
you decided that change must come to Washington (pause); because you believed (pause) that this
year must be different than all the rest (pause); because you chose (pause) to listen not to your
doubts or your fears (pause) but to your greatest hopes and highest aspirations (pause), tonight we
mark the end of(pause) one historic journey (pause) with the beginning of another (pause) – a
journey (pause) that will bring a new and better day to America. (pause) Because of you (pause)
tonight, I can stand here and say that I will be (pause) the Democratic nominee (pause) for President
of the United States of America.”
The analysis below explains what Obama is really doing, and what message your subconscious mind is
actually receiving and why.
First, again the unnaturally slow speech as discussed, which forces you to hang on his every word, creating
focus. Notice how his pauses are designed to have you reflect and ponder, and have your mind wander
during each pause. As your mind wanders, his words echo in the subconscious mind while your conscious
mind is left hanging. This technique is designed to strain your critical factor’s efforts until it gets tired, and
begins to tune out, leaving your subconscious mind in his hands, unprotected.
While he starts out ultra-slow, his plan is to guide you by slowly accelerating his speech to the point where
he increases volume, raises emotion, and delivers the lead. This is almost like how a horseracing announcer
starts out speaking slow when the horses take off from the staring gate, and by the final stretch he is yelling
and speaking very rapidly. Just like how a horserace announces builds excitement in his audience to
promote the emotion-charged intensity and betting. It is not accidental. It is done and learned and rehearsed
to manipulate us. He brings the listeners into trance with this process. Subconsciously, the raising of rate of
speech, volume, and emotion send the message that all of the before is building up to his grand finale of the
paragraph, the lead, e.g. that he will be President. However, while a horseracing announcer does it once per
race, Obama in his speeches repeats this roller coaster again and again while combining it with complex
hypnotic pacing and leading, anchoring, and other manipulative subconscious techniques. The
repetitiveness is also hypnotic.126 This is all part of the hypnotic trance induction.
Again, like all of Obama’s major speeches, he starts off from the beginning using hypnotic storytelling.
Storytelling e.g., of standing on the old steps together, traveling thousands of miles, having heard millions
of voices. It is not only magically captivating, but as discussed, is a textbook hypnosis induction.127 It
makes your conscious mind imagine things and drift off to another time and place using imagination – an
altered state of consciousness and fundamental tool of hypnosis.128 Listening to this, you have no option but
to strain your conscious mind trying to figure out what comes next, while using your imagination to follow
along through his images and stories. This helps bring the usually protected subconscious mind to the
forefront, making it vulnerable.
He not only forces you to focus, and asks you to use imagination, but he has you count numbers, e.g.,
“sixteen months”, “thousands of miles”, “millions of voices heard.” Firstly, “one of the techniques
employed by hypnotists in inducing or deepening a trance state in a client is that of having the client
count.”129
Now here is where it gets really interesting. Obama uses the following key hypnosis technique, now his
fourth separate and distinct fundamental hypnosis technique in just his first paragraph. He applies a
dominant hemisphere distraction technique precisely as taught by Erickson’s three dimensions of
hypnosis.130 Distraction is a common and fundamental technique in hypnosis in which the dominant
hemisphere is distracted by the language its job is to process. The dominant hemisphere is sent on an
assignment using the linguistic processes and imagination. The critical factor is thus occupied, to make the
non-dominant hemisphere and subconscious more susceptible to suggestion.131
Here is how it works. He asks you to imagine sixteen months, so you do. You follow where the storyteller
takes your mind and so you try to imagine thousands of miles, and continue following along where he leads
you. However, the conscious mind cannot imagine a million voices, the number is too big132, though
Obama tricks you with the first two numbers into trying, by leading you down a path of increasingly
difficult concepts to imagine consciously. Notice how cleverly he leads you down a path which causes the
dominant hemisphere to be distracted, and tune out of trying to do exactly what he is asking you to do.
Your mind tries to imagine a million and is distracted, sent off on an assignment it can’t perform, tuning out,
and exposing your subconscious mind. This is a calculated and pre-scripted hypnotic induction technique,
and the only specific and logical explanation that makes any sense for what he is saying. Does this seem a
bit too unlikely to be coincidence? What other purpose for this could there be for this language to be
delivered exactly this way? What is he even talking about?
Then, right after the distraction, notice the causality linking statements, FIVE of them, back to back,
“because of what you said... because you decided change must come to Washington... because you believed
that this year must be different... because you chose to listen to your doubts not your fears... because of
you” - all pacing and leading techniques with the causation already embedded, with the paragraph ending
with the words “President of the United States” as the effect brought about by all those “becauses,” thereby
becoming subconsciously linked. The most powerful linking statement “because” according to Dr. Erickson
and every covert hypnotist cited in this document, is used not once, but five times, connecting Obama’s
concepts to the lead, not that he is the democratic nominee, but “President of the United States,” the only
words of that sentence he can be seen using pointing down hand gestures for. This is something nobody
would never notice without an understanding of pacing, leading, and causality linking statements, but now
that it is pointed out it certainly seems more than odd that he is using the word “because” so obtrusively.
Why would anyone set up sentence structure for any concept this way? (Because A, because B, because C,
because D, because E,...therefore X) Concepts are never set up to be communicated this way. It is too
difficult to follow and impractical, and there is no purpose for it. Not unless one had a very specific purpose
for using the word “because.”
Now let’s look at his use of hypnotic programming words: “decided”, “believed”, and “chose.” (other
hypnotic programming words include “realize”, “know”, “understand”, and so on.) These are hypnotic
programming words because instead of convincing you rationally until you actually decide, or believe, or
choose, the hypnotist simply puts you in trance, distracts your dominant hemisphere, and implants the
command into your subconscious. He hypnotizes you and simply tells you that you chose, that you believe,
that you decided. Implantation of this word is more powerful than hours and hours of convincing you
rationally. It is neither simply presumptuous nor coincidence that he is telling you what you decided,
believed, and chose. So these words stand out in your mind, he places the most minute emphasis on
“decided”, then a much larger emphasis on and pause after “believed”, and then a huge emphasis on and
pause after “chose.” Some of these concepts are in the past tense, and that is also effective, sometimes even
more so, because telling us prior our mind states may make them even deeper.
Obama uses “because” before each of these programming words because you must accept the premise in
order to be able to follow the concept to the end and understand it. That’s why starting with five separate
“because”s leading to one later “therefore” does not other than hypnotically make good communication
structure. Because normally it tries to get you to accept precursor concepts before you even know what they
are connected to - before you even know what the alleged actual concept being communicated is.
Now let’s look at the pacing used in this same paragraph. “Tonight Minnesota” is a pace, because it is
tonight, and he is in Minnesota. “Primary season has finally come to an end” is a pace because it is
obviously true. Standing together and voices heard may help pace the audience because that is what they
are doing literally, standing there and hearing the voices of the crowd. “You decided change must come to
Washington” is a pace, because it is something we all know is needed – almost nobody can disagree with
that. However, when you accept that, the hidden meaning to accept is that Obama should be President.
“This year must be different than all the rest” is a pace, because literally every year is different. When you
accept that, you also accept his hidden meaning, that this year will be different because Obama will become
President. “I can stand here and say” is again a literal pace because he is standing there and saying
something.
Also notice how, because of the five “because”s, he not only connects these concepts to the lead, but
connects these concepts to each other. Starting with a literal pace, he connects standing there hearing
voices, to wanting change to come, to this year being different, which he connects subconsciously to your
greatest hopes and highest aspirations, to back again to another literal pace, the fact that he is standing there
saying something. He doesn’t even need to know what your greatest hopes and highest aspirations are, and
he doesn’t even need to care. He has linked your greatest hopes and highest aspirations, no matter what
they are, as sure as he is standing there speaking, to him being the President of the United States. That’s
how hypnosis works. it doesn’t get you to believe, it tricks your subconscious mind into accepting the word
“believe.”
Now let’s look at his perfectly timed hand gestures for the same paragraph. His hand gestures with his right
hand give essentially the same thumb and forefinger hand gesture starting precisely at the words “believe
(that this year should be different than all the rest)”, and “chose.” He does not, however, do this hand
gesture, if it is truly for innocent emphasis, for what you normally think he would, the alleged message, e.g.
“change must come to Washington”, not for “greatest hopes and highest aspirations”, nor for “a new and
better day for America”, nor does he do that gesture for “I will be the democratic nominee.” While he uses
this hand gesture at some other parts, from the beginning, he doesn’t use them at all until, and then primarily
for “believe”, and “chose.” Then, as he says “democratic nominee” his hands appear motionless form this
video, and he emphasizes and points downward for the word “President.”
Sources
also:
[url]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-[/url]
9183467268654370243&ei=u77jSIS0ApHqqAOqrNCXCw&q=obama+speech+St.+Paul+&vt=lf
126 The Power of Conversational Hypnosis, Clifford Mee and Igor Ledochowski
127 There are four chapters on Hypnotic Storytelling in Conversational Hypnosis, The Power of Conversational Hypnosis, Clifford
Mee and Igor Ledochowski, “How to Destroy Resistance With Stories” as well as a cheat sheet on using hypnotic storytelling to
break resistance.
128 Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H. Erickson, M.D. Volume 1, p60, Inquiry with Aldous Huxley
129 Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H. Erickson, M.D. Volume 1, p187
130 Erickson’s three dimensions are: Pacing and distraction of the dominant (language) hemisphere; 2. Utilization of the
dominant hemisphere, language processing which occurs below the level of awareness; 3. Accessing of the non-dominant
hemisphere;
131 Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H. Erickson, M.D. Volume 1, p13 – “[Erickson’s] overall strategy while
conducting trance inductions appears to have these three dimensions. 1) pacing and distraction of the dominant (language)
hemisphere; 2) Utilization of the dominant hemisphere, language processing which occurs below the level of awareness; and 3)
Accessing of the non-dominant hemisphere.” See also, p137, “The induction of the altered state of consciousness called trance
requires and implies the distraction and/or utilization of what Milton calls the conscious mind.”
132 One cannot imagine all the grains of sand on a beach individually. you can imagine a lot of them, or the beach, but the
conscious mind cannot process numbers of that size.
133 Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H. Erickson, M.D. Volume 1, p165, discusses how a single surface structure
communication can have not only different, but multiple “deep structure” representations to the subconscious mind.
134 A subconscious deletes parts of communication that it does not understand or are incomplete. For example, “It seemed like an
impossible task” – since it is unclear to whom it seemed impossible, there is no way for the subconscious to comprehend the
meaning of it, so all that the subconscious takes away from this sentence is “task.” [/quote]
[b]Edit:[/b]
[url]http://files.filefront.com/Obamas+Use+of+Hidden+Hypnspdf/;12295419;/fileinfo.html[/url]
This is the PDF
Finally, I would like to say, READ THE FUCKING MANUAL. Ericksonian hypnosis is NOT REGULAR HYPNOSIS. If you've never heard about it, then you don't know what you are talking about when you pull that information out of your ass. You don't.
This is bullshit and purely based on speculation, it provides no proof.
'night all. I think it's time for me to retire.
[QUOTE=ArchAngel]That's because it's a tiny snippet of a 67-page document.
But let's face it. You're a die-hard Obama supporter. I know that. We're not going to have a face-value review here when it comes to you or a lot of people here and that's fine. I wouldn't expect it.[/QUOTE]
Well looking at it objectively, there is still no proof at all, and I don't think it's hard to convince a die-hard McCain supporter that Obama is hypnotizing people.
This is all speculation. Not to mention, you have to have a vivid imagination.
Yeah you can have that one I'm not arguing anymore
I'm not a die-hard McCain supporter. Check my post history. I've NEVER approved of anything republican and I don't like mccain at all. I think Palin is a rabid bitch. I loved Obama before I read this.
Or can only golds check post histories. Anyway. I celebrated when Obama won. I'm anything but a Republican. Their party is a party of hate and a rich man's party and trickle-down economics does nothing but benefit the rich.
And the proof that you want, the logical conclusions anyway, are in the body of the pdf. It's a 67 page document. You have to read most of it to get it. You have to be willing to invest some time or you don't get the facts that are in it.
Pretty much this explains obama:
[img]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2093/2366264957_7301d88653.jpg?v=0[/img]
[b][highlight](User was banned for this post (Reason: Racist) [event] 133638 [/event])[/highlight][/b]
[QUOTE=ArchAngel]Yeah you can have that one I'm not arguing anymore
I'm not a die-hard McCain supporter. Check my post history. I've NEVER approved of anything republican and I don't like mccain at all. I think Palin is a rabid bitch. I loved Obama before I read this.[/QUOTE]
So you read a theory and are accepting it blindly that accuses other people of accepting things blindly.
In fact, this article seems to do the same hypnotizing that Obama does.
I mean, It would only be fair to assume so.
[QUOTE=thisispain]So you read a theory and are accepting it blindly that accuses other people of accepting things blindly.
In fact, this article seems to do the same hypnotizing that Obama does.
I mean, It would only be fair to assume so.[/QUOTE]
No, in essence you grossly misrepresented the situation because I don't think you even glanced at the pdf so you have no fucking idea what's inside it.
And you're disregarding the fact that I've done my own research, Wikipedia and hypnotism websites to see what conversational hypnosis was about. Anything but blind.
And I checked every source that I could.
You did realize that the document listed quite a few sources ... didn't you? You just kind of pull things out of your ass, old boy. I fact-checked against every campaign speech and video they listed, pored through transcripts ... I've spent about 24 hours of active research on this.
[QUOTE=ArchAngel]No, in essence you grossly misrepresented the situation because I don't think you even glanced at the pdf so you have no fucking idea what's inside it.
And you're disregarding the fact that I've done my own research, Wikipedia and hypnotism websites to see what conversational hypnosis was about. Anything but blind.
And I checked every source that I could.
You did realize that the document listed quite a few sources ... didn't you? You just kind of pull things out of your ass, old boy. I fact-checked against every campaign speech and video they listed, pored through transcripts ... I've spent about 24 hours of active research on this.[/QUOTE]
Wow, don't accuse me of not reading anything. Ruins your credibility not mine.
Now, the problem with this is that there's no evidence that hypnosis is happening, the PDF is just talking about conventional things in speech and gluing pieces together.
All "conspiracy theories" are exactly that, evidence from nowhere being clued together.
Now, when we use LOGIC!, we should get things into perspective.
And logically, none of this makes sense. This means that I was so-called hypnotized. How do I know I'm hypnotized? Am I at all hypnotized?
If I was aware of it, doesn't that mean I shouldn't be affected by it as the article says?
Isn't it much more likely that people just like what he has planned and that he's charismatic?
If he has researched this, why have people not voted for Obama?
Why are people aware of this so-called hypnotism not hypnotized?
Putting these together, it doesn't make sense one bit. And I don't see how any one intelligent can believe this.
[QUOTE=thisispain]Wow, don't accuse me of not reading anything. Ruins your credibility not mine.
Now, the problem with this is that there's no evidence that hypnosis is happening, the PDF is just talking about conventional things in speech and gluing pieces together.
All "conspiracy theories" are exactly that, evidence from nowhere being clued together.
Now, when we use LOGIC!, we should get things into perspective.
And logically, none of this makes sense. This means that I was so-called hypnotized. How do I know I'm hypnotized? Am I at all hypnotized?
If I was aware of it, doesn't that mean I shouldn't be affected by it as the article says?
Isn't it much more likely that people just like what he has planned and that he's charismatic?
If he has researched this, why have people not voted for Obama?
Why are people aware of this so-called hypnotism not hypnotized?
Putting these together, it doesn't make sense one bit. And I don't see how any one intelligent can believe this.[/QUOTE]
Yes, there is ... There is evidence listed. It's interspersed throughout the text. For a small sample I'd suggest viewing the Republican video called The One, for the part at the end. It's Obama using overt hypnotic suggestion.
You can be aware of hypnotism and still be hypnotized. It's a case of choice at that point. Who in god's name would have known about this at the time of the vote? That's just silly. It's not like was widespread then, and still isn't now.
Well, then. This is going nowhere fast ... which is exactly what I expected. I did something though, which is what I needed to do. I'm afraid that all there is to do is shut up and watch, and wait. *shrug* I knew there was no victory to be found here.
[QUOTE=ArchAngel]Yes, there is ... There is evidence listed. It's interspersed throughout the text. For a small sample I'd suggest viewing the Republican video called The One, for the part at the end. It's Obama using overt hypnotic suggestion.
You can be aware of hypnotism and still be hypnotized. It's a case of choice at that point. Who in god's name would have known about this at the time of the vote? That's just silly. It's not like was widespread then, and still isn't now.
Well, then.[/QUOTE]
There's a difference between speculation and evidence. Simply interpetation is all this article implies, and it fails to answer any of its logical problems.
And you cannot be aware of hypnotism and be hypnotized.
If you were hypnotized to only bark instead of speaking, and knowing that you were actually hypnotized, couldn't you speak instead of barking and then wouldn't that in a sense, break the spell?
[b]Edit:[/b]
Also, Occam's Razor.
[b]Edit:[/b]
[QUOTE=ArchAngel]Yes, there is ... There is evidence listed. It's interspersed throughout the text. For a small sample I'd suggest viewing the Republican video called The One, for the part at the end. It's Obama using overt hypnotic suggestion.
You can be aware of hypnotism and still be hypnotized. It's a case of choice at that point. Who in god's name would have known about this at the time of the vote? That's just silly. It's not like was widespread then, and still isn't now.
Well, then. This is going nowhere fast ... which is exactly what I expected. I did something though, which is what I needed to do. I'm afraid that all there is to do is shut up and watch, and wait. *shrug* I knew there was no victory to be found here.[/QUOTE]
This is going nowhere fast because it has nowhere to go to. You are asking us to believe something without evidence and frankly, things that are quite silly in nature.
If McCain would have won, would McCain also have hypnotized his masses?
[QUOTE=thisispain]There's a difference between speculation and evidence. Simply interpetation is all this article implies, and it fails to answer any of its logical problems.
And you cannot be aware of hypnotism and be hypnotized.
If you were hypnotized to only bark instead of speaking, and knowing that you were actually hypnotized, couldn't you speak instead of barking and then wouldn't that in a sense, break the spell?
[b]Edit:[/b]
Also, Occam's Razor.
[b]Edit:[/b]
This is going nowhere fast because it has nowhere to go to. You are asking us to believe something without evidence and frankly, things that are quite silly in nature.
If McCain would have won, would McCain also have hypnotized his masses?[/QUOTE]
On the first part, I shall now happily refute that with hypnotic-suggestion self-help tapes. And you are aware of the hypnotist in front of you saying that you are going into a trance until you are in a trance. Hmm.
And I am asking you to read a 67 page document (and in those 67 pages there are actually bits and pieces of evidence) and do research, and trying to persuade you on those grounds. Yeah, it's not perfect and there's some things that don't hold up. But there's a hell of a lot that makes sense when you look at things from a larger perspective.
Silly is relative. It's silly to you because you're convinced that Barack is Yes We Can and Change We Need and Hope and all the things he's ever said, and you're absolutely unwilling to budge from that position.
And what logical problems do you see?
By the way I'm about to go to bed... It's nearly four here.
[QUOTE=ArchAngel]On the first part, I shall now happily refute that with hypnotic-suggestion self-help tapes. And you are aware of the hypnotist in front of you saying that you are going into a trance until you are in a trance. Hmm.[/QUOTE]
But if I'm in a trance and I'm aware of it, am I not self-aware of the trance, and I know that being in a trance means I'm not forced?
[QUOTE=ArchAngel]
And I am asking you to read a 67 page document (and in those 67 pages there are actually bits and pieces of evidence) and do research, and trying to persuade you on those grounds. Yeah, it's not perfect and there's some things that don't hold up. But there's a hell of a lot that makes sense when you look at things from a larger perspective.[/QUOTE]
I read it, it makes assumptions on no grounds.
[QUOTE=ArchAngel]
Silly is relative. It's silly to you because you're convinced that Barack is Yes We Can and Change We Need and Hope and all the things he's ever said, and you're absolutely unwilling to budge from that position.[/QUOTE]
No, that's fucking retarded.
This is the two positions.
1. Obama is a politician that people voted for because they agreed with him.
2. Obama is a 1st class hypnotist that people voted for because he hypnotized them.
Which ones makes the most assumptions? 2. Which one is least likely? 2. Which one is by logic, correct? 2. Which one makes sense? 2.
So fuck your ridiculous ideas and your fucked up arguing, because I'm sick of being insulted with not only your frankly insipid "evidence" but also the constant badgering and that I have to accept that lack of proof is proof.
Maybe you should sleep over it, because your head isn't working right.
[QUOTE=thisispain]But if I'm in a trance and I'm aware of it, am I not self-aware of the trance, and I know that being in a trance means I'm not forced?
I read it, it makes assumptions on no grounds.
No, that's fucking retarded.
This is the two positions.
1. Obama is a politician that people voted for because they agreed with him.
2. Obama is a 1st class hypnotist that people voted for because he hypnotized them.
Which ones makes the most assumptions? 2. Which one is least likely? 2. Which one is by logic, correct? 2. Which one makes sense? 2.
So fuck your ridiculous ideas and your fucked up arguing, because I'm sick of being insulted with not only your frankly insipid "evidence" but also the constant badgering and that I have to accept that lack of proof is proof.
Maybe you should sleep over it, because your head isn't working right.[/QUOTE]
Huh. Night then.
[QUOTE=ArchAngel]Huh. Night then.[/QUOTE]
Guess what, I'm tired too, it's fucking 2 o clock here.
[QUOTE=thisispain]Guess what, I'm tired too, it's fucking 2 o clock here.[/QUOTE]
Right-o. Don't let me keep you.
And thisispain wins again. Go figure.
[QUOTE=Dabu]And thisispain wins again. Go figure.[/QUOTE]
Fffffuuuuuu
I have a reputation as liberal argumentative asshole to uphold.
[QUOTE=thisispain]Fffffuuuuuu
I have a reputation as liberal argumentative asshole to uphold.[/QUOTE]
It's frustrating, since both you and ArchAngel are fantastic at arguing and you both are on my favorite members list. As a double whammy, I agree with both of you to varying degrees.
The solution: RAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGEEEEEEEEE
So why are you guys bitching about mumbo jumbo?
REBUTTAL, motherfuckers!
I think the big problem is that the material is so involved. The proof is demonstrative and illustrative. This whole pdf is one big illustrative essay, basically, and has no real obligations of proof other than illustration which is where thisispain is fundamentally wrong (and which my material provides in ABUNDANCE).
There are five or six examples given in the text of the pdf, of introductory paragraphs of Obama's speeches and other snippets. These are all analyzed in-depth, several pages to each paragraph dedicated to searching out hypnotic constructs within the paragraphs. All methodology is acceptable within the field of psychology... I don't know why thisispain has suddenly decided that hypnotherapy is witchcraft v:)v
Anyway, suppositions are made, but these are rational suppositions, and they are two: one, we are working within the field of Ericksonian hypnotherapy and the terms and methodology used within is legitimate and effective, and two, Omama's desire is to be President of the United States, and his actions on the campaign trail are a manifestation of this desire.
With just these two rational suppositions, we lay the foundation for a rational set of ideas which support themselves and are intertwined.
Why does the expository, illustrative, demonstrative nature of my material make it any less legitimate? It works within a legitimate, proven field and draws its material from the very same. Its suppositions are rational and the conclusions drawn from this are sound when working within its proven field.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.