Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

If You're Not Doing This, the Freepers Will Destroy You!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
freeandbrave Donating Member (108 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 03:27 PM
Original message
If You're Not Doing This, the Freepers Will Destroy You!
Edited on Wed Feb-16-05 03:49 PM by freeandbrave
Framing Tactic: Respond with 'Value-Based' Answers

By Tom Ball

02/16/05

http://www.politicalstrategy.org/archives/001158.php

First, what are 'value-based' answers?

A: They are answers that:

* Establish your position on the issue at hand
* Frame the issue in a way that elicits a specific context and vision based on your core values. That vision will then be the one within which the issue is evaluated by observers.

Important: 'Yes' and 'No' are not value-based answers and should almost never be used when discussing serious issues.

Technique: Regardless of the framing of a question, give your answer as a statement of your position -- one that you want everyone to hear. Do not play into the questioner's traps by dignifying their heavily spun questions. By directly addressing the question, you will lose and a framing opportunity will be lost.

And, avoid using their language at all costs. If discussing taxation, do not use the term 'tax relief', 'death tax', or 'marriage penalty'. If discussing abortion, do not use the term 'partial-birth', and so on. Using their language elicits, legitimizes, and strengthens their frames, not yours. In addition, by using their language, you subject yourself to a constant evaluation of your position through the filter of their frame. this is the last thing you want.

Take, for example, the issue of 'same-sex marriage':

Suppose you are a supporter of banning gay marriage and you are asked the following questions:

1) Do you support gay marriage?

2) Do you think the freedom to marry who you want is a matter of equal rights under the law?

3) Do you believe God approves of gay marriage?

Never fall into the trap of a loaded question. Do not give a yes/no answer, and do not entertain the implication of ridiculous questions like #3. Instead, respond with value-based answers.

In this case...

Conservative (Strict Father) Value-Based Response: "I believe that marriage is by definition, between a man and a woman and therefore anything else is not marriage."

Now suppose you are a person opposed to banning gay marriage. If you were asked similarly loaded questions, you should answer with this:

Progressive (Nurturant Parent) Value-Based Response: "I believe in equal rights, period. I don't think the state should be in the business of telling people whom they can or can't marry. Marriage is about love and commitment, and denying people the right to marry is a violation of human dignity."

Regarding specific attention to the right's attempts to create a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, you could go further by saying something to this effect:

"According to our Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." It is clear that this nation was founded on the premise of equality. It is also clear that the founding fathers at no point intended for a second-class citizenry to be instituted into the Constitution of our nation. Such a notion is profoundly un-American"

Even from this lone example, it's easy to see how addressing the issues this way could create a paradigm shift in national perception.


Advantages of using Value-Based Responses

Such value-based responses hold numerous advantages over 'non-value-based' answers:

1) Invincibility - Since it is a statement of your belief rather than the direct answer to their loaded questions, is much easier to defend. People appreciate and respect personal opinions based on an established and consistent set of principles and values. No one can tell you that your opinion is wrong or unprincipled. However, a 'yes' or 'no' answer leaves you open to numerous indefensible accusations and criticisms, real or imagined.

2) Framing - Answering with your own language and frame allows you to define the context within which observers will make their own judgments about the issue. You have painted a picture and they will use that picture as a base for current and future decisions. You are framing the debate. Answering 'yes' or 'no' simply gives fodder for manipulated and warped (and perhaps disingenuous) interpretations by the questioner and onlookers. Don't give them that opportunity.

3) Language - With everyone addressing issues in this way, a common language and set of frames are repeated and infused in the minds of Americans. Under those conditions, your language and frames become accepted as the normal language for that particular issue -- and in turn, establish a base frame whenever the issue is discussed.

Summary:

1) Answer questions with statements of your position on the issue.
2) Frame your answer in such a way that it reflects your core values
3) Use language that is 'our own'. Do NOT use their language.
4) Do not use 'yes' or 'no' answers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Us vs Them Donating Member (725 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 03:33 PM
Response to Original message
1. Thank you for this link!
If only our effing pundits would read this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freeandbrave Donating Member (108 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. You Should ALSO READ THIS!!
If you like this one piece, you should also check out the:

"Political Strategy Framing Project", which to my understanding, was just started about 2 weeks ago.

http://www.politicalstrategy.org/archives/001118.php

And also the...

"Political Strategy Tactical Assault Project"

http://www.politicalstrategy.org/archives/001067.php

Actually the entire site is quite exceptional, but that's up to you to browse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KurtNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
2. Good stuff
Welcome F&B! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BOSSHOG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 03:35 PM
Response to Original message
3. I've been
looking them in the eye, poking them in the chest and kicking them in the ass. That strategy hasn't failed me yet. The best way to piss off a conservative is to tell the truth, loudly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #3
19. This isn't about pissing anyone off. It's about...
...not letting them destroy us.

NGU.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BOSSHOG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #19
35. "Not letting them destroy us"
Is that why I spent 24 years in uniform supporting and defending the constitution - so they could destroy "us?" I'm afraid not! I'll piss off whomever I want to piss off and I'll do my damndest to ensure conservatives don't destroy anything. I've been there Warrior, please share with me your exploits. Tell me all about your efforts to prevent anybody from destroying anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. Yeah, whatever.
Edited on Wed Feb-16-05 08:27 PM by ClassWarrior
Thanks for kicking the thread, anyway.

NGU.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freeandbrave Donating Member (108 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-17-05 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #3
42. The Truth will not set you free... READ THIS!!
One of the common misconceptions that has held back the progressive agenda is the mistaken belief that the truth will set you free.

Please read this post to gain a better understanding...

http://www.politicalstrategy.org/archives/001117.php

Coming out of Denial

I used to be fond of the belief that the 'facts are on our side' and therefore, we have the true advantage since the 'truth shall set us free'. As we progress, you will discover that the truth will only set those free who are willing to accept it. In short, objective truth often takes a distant back seat to a person's established frame.

In fact, Progressives have traditionally fought for the vote based on 4 primary (and mistaken) beliefs:

1) The truth will set you free: We believe that 'if only the people knew the truth' about Bush…or about Republicans... or about the tax structure, etc., then they would change their minds and join us on our progressive quest.

2) People will vote in their self-interest: We believe that if someone lost their job as a result of Bush's policies, or lost benefits from a social program because it was cancelled due to Bush's tax cut to the top 1% of income earners, then they would join us.

3) Political campaigns are like marketing campaigns: We believe (at least our political representation in Washington does) that a campaign should be run like a product is sold. The candidate is the product and the candidate's platform is the product's attributes. Target the attributes to the needs of the 'client' (the electorate) and you will have a successful 'product'.

4) Media access is what we need to retake the nation: Although certainly part of that quest, it is neither its driver nor its primary focus. Indeed, if we promote a compelling message based on our values, then it will be easier to take back the media.

All of these assumptions are wrong. We've been sprinting down this path -- the wrong path -- ignoring the fact that people vote for those with whom they identify often regardless of the 'objective truth', against their 'self interest', regardless of whether the product has the attributes they need, and without regard to the media access of the candidates or their message.

Frames rule over facts!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 03:35 PM
Response to Original message
4. Thanks for posting this
I'm generally suspicious of proscriptions on how we should express ourselves, but there aer a lot of good ideas here to consider.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freeandbrave Donating Member (108 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. Nice website...
...!! Keep up the great work!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lady lib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
5. This is good. I'm bookmarking it.
Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. Never answer the question they ask.Answer the question you wish they asked
I forget where I heard that.

Thanks for posting this.

I've already forwarded it to some people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #13
21. Excellent advice.
That's what framing's all about.

NGU.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lisa0825 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 03:43 PM
Response to Original message
6. ''And, avoid using their language at all costs.''
I have been telling people this for years!!! I ALWAYS correct liberals when I hear them use term like "partial birth abortion." It drives me MAD when they fall into the trap of using freeper lingo!!!

Great post, and welcome to DU!!!:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr_Spock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
7. Excellent post.
I know I've been trying to consistently answer questions with statements based on my belief system. Statements that do not even acknowledge the language they used - unless to humiliate the questioner for using such inflammatory language. Like "hey, they're the nutty one for asking such a question - I'm just a person with a strong and moral belief system". Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sunnystarr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 03:56 PM
Response to Original message
8. Send this to all Dem pundits and all Dem members of Congress
then to the DNC and every other Dem outlet. They all need the lessons presented there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SmokingJacket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
9. Yes, but....
this is exactly what DEMS HAVE BEEN doing. The sample answer for "Do you support gay marriage?" is almost EXACTLY what Kerry said during the debates. And he gets creamed by people saying he's wishy washy.

Frankly, I think avoiding a Yes or No answer when you MEAN a yes or no is a TERRIBLE idea. It sounds like mushy-mouthed crap.

Is this why people hate Dean, because he won't play these games of footsie?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freeandbrave Donating Member (108 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. I Don't Know...
...I think Dean is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but I also think he is the master of the 'Value-Based' response.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SmokingJacket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #11
30. Perhaps...
I admit I am turned off by the phrase "values-based" -- what about an honest answer?

Dean gives the most direct and honest responses of any politician I've ever heard -- they certainly don't come off as calculated or "framed."

But heck... maybe he's just that good.

;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xxqqqzme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #11
31. Dean's answers @ his press conference
on Saturday were a framing masterpeice. I'm certain Lakoff was beaming. He did not allow the reporters 2 get away w/ defining him. He even reframed some of the questions. When he replied to a 'some people' type question, that he would no lomger respond 2 blind quotes, that loud cheer came from my house. Then 3 or 4 questions later another doofus asked the same thing - Dean: I'm not responding to blind quotes - next! He may teach reporters how 2 ask real questions 2 get real answers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #31
38. I loved that!
That was great. :bounce: I loved how he got a straight answer's and no b.s. I think that's the best way to go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RealDems Donating Member (230 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. You're right...
I should've read your post before posting almost the exact same thing a minute ago...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spiffarino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. No.
Sorry, I couldn't resist. :evilgrin:

Yes and no are effective only under very limited conditions, and they aren't the conditions one is likely to face in a political discussion. It's one of the reasons Tweety's show is so difficult for me to watch; he asks for yes or no responses to his loaded questions as if it were a legitimate thing to do.

NEVER respond directly to a loaded question! If you respond with an answer based on your core beliefs, it is not being wishy-washy. The intellectual framework should be up to the individual answering. It is up to the listener to determine if is a valid framework. That's a bad thing?

Kerry's problem, like so many politicians, is that he tried to be on both sides of too many issues. That is not a values-based position and is therefore easy to destroy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freeandbrave Donating Member (108 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. Spiffarino..
...You are absolutely on target. Good Work!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spiffarino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. Awww....
:blush:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SmokingJacket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #17
26. I agree that demanding yes or no answers is a bad way to have a dialogue.
I just reject the idea of avoiding Yes and No when they are the RIGHT answer.

Comes of just like the gobbledygook the Repubs are always spouting...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spiffarino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #26
39. Where I think we agree here
...is that there's nothing wrong with taking a firm position on principle. Deal? :D:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #9
22. Dean endorses this strategy. He wrote the forward to...
..."Don't Think of an Elephant," an excellent primer to framing.

NGU.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RealDems Donating Member (230 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 04:56 PM
Response to Original message
15. Disagree with part of this...
The yes/no part. I believe it should be mandatory that every answer given by politicians starts with Yes or No. When I hear a politician respond to a question without starting with a direct answer, I tune out the rest of the statement.

Example 1:

Q: Do you support the President's plan to privatize social security?
A: My main interest is in protecting social security...

Example 2:

Q: Do you support the President's plan to privatize social security?
A: No. Our goal should be the protection of social security....

I just think the second way is stronger
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spiffarino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #15
24. I'll say it again
In some cases a yes/no response will work. It does in your example. More likely, the question would probably go like this:

FOX News: The President has a plan to give people a chance to control their own money by letting them set up personal accounts for their retirements. Do you think that's a bad thing?

CNN: What do you think of the President's plan to create personal accounts that people can invest themselves?

Democracy Now: President Bush wants to privatize Social Security. Is his true intent to save the system, or is it merely a plan to destroy it?

Most questioners don't want to give a politician or a pundit an opportunity to answer clearly if it will fit the responder's known opinions on a topic. They want to front-load the questions with innuendo; just check out ANY Fox "News" interview with a lefty and you'll see what I mean. That's why framing the debate yourself is a sad but necessary part of being in politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinnie From Indy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 05:01 PM
Response to Original message
18. Great stuff! What about "petulant child"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spiffarino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 05:20 PM
Response to Original message
25. Nominated and
:kick:'ed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mulethree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 05:54 PM
Response to Original message
27. gag
Necessary - perhaps. But it's sad and disgusting that we should need to do this. It's still mental trickery to manipulate peoples frame of thought. It's still avoiding a straight answer. Its still sidestepping a question and answering a different question of your choosing. All things I hate when marketers and politicians do them.

I would suggest, if possible, an older way that may come across more honest and less sleazy.

Re-state the question. The premise is - "do I understand your question correctly"? Then you can state it on your own terms and likely get the questioner to reinforce that the two phrasings do express the same question. Then you can give a straight, concise answer and come off as more honest and less sleazy than the questioner. You might even get them to stop loading their questions.

"you're asking if I think that two people who have a loving, committed relationship have a right to get married?" Yes I do, and I don't see why it should matter what their genders are.

I guess it's not that different, just more reliance on rephrasing while keeping a direct-sounding answer and not completely sidestepping.

I think it's part of W's appeal. He often gives very direct answers and comes across as honest. Of course a lot of his questions are softballs or already spinning the right way for him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GiovanniC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-17-05 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #27
47. That's What Rumsfeld Does
Edited on Thu Feb-17-05 01:20 PM by GiovanniC


If you don't like the questions, ask yourself a better one.

REPORTER: "Secretary Rumsfeld, the most recent casualty numbers indicate that 1,469 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq. Last month casualties were at a rate of around 4 per day. Is this an indication that this war has been poorly planned and executed?"

RUMSFELD: "Do I think the Iraqi people wanted elections? Sure I do. Do I think the elections will make Iraq more stable? You bet. Are terrorists bad people? I think we can agree that they are."

REPORTER (with great admiration): "Those are the best answers EVER, sir!" (begins fellating Rumsfeld)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalifer Donating Member (652 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 05:55 PM
Response to Original message
28. My Answers Are:
1) Yes
2) Yes
3) God? Who is God?


:P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pam-Moby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 05:55 PM
Response to Original message
29. Thanks for the link.
This is great stuff. I will use it. :think:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 06:04 PM
Response to Original message
32. Speak for yourself. Most Freepers can't debate their way
out of a paper bag.

I understand where you're coming from, but I fear the people you're most concerned about "reaching" with this stuff are beyond hope.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freeandbrave Donating Member (108 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-17-05 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #32
40. I'm Guessing that the people....
...Being targeted by the author are mainstream America, not the Freepers. The title of this post was just used to make the point of our need to arm ourselves in a fight against the right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU GrovelBot  Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 06:04 PM
Response to Original message
33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##
==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PROGRESSIVE1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
34. Beautiful website!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 08:30 PM
Response to Original message
37. Thank you for this
Some of this will definietly help me in the future. I also have to learn not to be as emotional because then I just get pissed off and leave the debate and for all I know they could think they "won." Thanks for this. Another thing is no "talking points."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al-CIAda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-17-05 09:21 AM
Response to Original message
41. Ourstanding.
Very good work

:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John_H Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-17-05 10:30 AM
Response to Original message
43. Good points, but I hope dem surrogates don't read it.
They apparently already view their jobs as much too complex. Their job is not to answer questions at all. Their job is to repeat identical talking points over and over until it sinks in. And they do this no matter what the question is or who's asking it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freeandbrave Donating Member (108 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-17-05 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #43
44. Well, you know it's "Hard Work"
being them, very, very hard work. Real hard work. Real hard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CitySky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-17-05 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
45. another example (my attempt here)
Don't know how many of you are following the Churchhill thing, the prof from CO, but the MSM has basically viscerated the guy and we have on our hands a witch-hunt threatening academic freedom.

So if someone asks, "so you're a liberal -- you don't think that guy who compared the twin towers workers to Nazis should be fired?"

the value-based response is something like:

"The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech precisely BECAUSE we are tempted to 'shut out' ideas that we disagree with. You've heard the quote, 'I may not agree with a word you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.' Freedom of the press and academic freedom are our rights as Americans, and no way do I think we should toss them away over this guy."

What do you think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CitySky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-17-05 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
46. PS
Please contribute to the the "Frame the Debate" Group here on DU to help us brainstorm this type of stuff. Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freeandbrave Donating Member (108 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-17-05 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. Where do I find it?
I would like to contribute.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CitySky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-17-05 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. in the DU "Forums" page, click "DU Groups"
then click "Frame the Debate Group."

It helps to have read Lakoff's "Don't Think of an Elephant."

Also there is a link that lets you add it to "My Forums" so that whenever you're logged in it will show up on your Forums page.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 09:27 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC