This ties directly to what the author was talking about in the introduction. The way we see the efforts and accomplishments of a targeted group depends directly on which perspective we take it. Someone may serve the needs of some people, but not all of them. 

Maybe if more people think in the same way as described earlier on in this introduction, then there would be less of a reason for people to hate government. Sometimes, it takes the ability to look at multiple perspectives to understand something. 

It's kind of sad that this tax reform has disintegrated. This obviously loops back to the topic we discussed in class about the author of this article. People may hate the government because after they finally agree to pass something they don't follow through and insure that the law is continuing to live on and be supported. 

Is he arguing that all reforms destroy policies? That seems to be an overstatement. 

It's kind of funny to see how US policy changes from year to year, especially when looking at the clinton administration to the following bush administration. 

I actually am in the middle of preparing for a persuasive essay for my public speaking class, so I found everything in this article interesting. While all the listed methods prove to be effective, I have to disagree with the 'When to Say It' section. It almost seems like a cheap way to persuade, kind of like cheating. Since they brought up Greek philosophers in the end, I'll call on Plato to back me up on my opinion. He believed that the Sophists, who first taught persuasion and speaking, told their students ways to abuse rhetoric and such to convince their audience. Plato found this as a fallacy, since he believed that you should be able to convince people with truth, and not tiny tricks. 

That's almost unfair... being born into poverty. The sad part is it's hard to move up and get an education, since you end up getting so invested in helping your family that going to school isn't even an option.

So how did McAllen find itself serving to that group? 

When he started talking about the fact that ideas became infectious, he totally captivated my attention. I see ideas in the same way; and the way he explained it made it so interesting! But when he got into the part about memes, I kind of got confused, since my frame of a meme is that of my generation, rather than what he was talking about. 

I thought the reason Boehner dropped the deal was because of a last minute disagreement him and the president had. Or is this pointing at that exact reason? 

I don't get how it is self-fulfilling though... 

What exactly is considered a social topic? ...."found that social topics accounted for 65 percent of speaking  time among people in public places." Is it just the personal stories?

Something about using this word doesn't seem appropriate in the context of people who are active. Whenever a writer uses this word, depending on its context, I usually think less of the author. 

See, this is one of the problems with widepread media campaigns... they often give people the wrong idea about what is really happening and what is the real state of people. It won't be easy to integrate into campaigns, but people need to be aware of the big picture, not just segments of it. 

This is good perspective to gain; if you go even deeper into this persons research, you would have to see how different cultures see political ideologies differently.

So is this trying to suggest that as more people vote for a particular candidate it changes the ethos of the candidate and the way people look at them?

It seems that priming and framing have a lot in common. I can tell though that from the information I get from this article, framing is more about molding your opinion over time while priming is more about getting a one time reaction from a person. 

Doesn't stone define negative freedom the way this passage describes positive freedom? Or is this just a different perspective?

I wonder how this research would have been better if they tested females as well.

I feel like the reason for this is just because the mug probably costs more and in that sense people will value it. But then again, doesn't chocolate provide instant gratification (and repetitive gratification for that matter)? Wouldn't that be more desirable?

So Rawl believes that their will be inequalities socially and economically in a just society, but everyone deserves to have a chance to climb socially/economically? Or does everyone have the same advantage? How is this different from Nozick?