Printable View
no? How is that getting down to a more personal level?Quote:
Originally Posted by WebHead
Kerry had to sell himself. Let me ask you, if you are buying a house, and dealing with a real estate agent, would you like to have someone there to show you around, or you gonna just go to a website and buy it?
Hey wait, 99% of who reads Kerry's website?
And I dont read everything you write, you forget I had you on ignore for quite some time for exactly the reasons I outlined.
Ah,... you're right. Point taken. Bottom line: Bush had a better sales pitch than Kerry and/or Kerry didn't have a good sales pitch and/or Kerry had a lousy sales pitch. Hmmm,.. interesting thought. Never heard it put that way before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Larommi
Ok,.. well you got me there. And being a sales rep formerly, I should know this. :p
No I mean,.. 99% of people look at websites (not specifically Kerrry's). And yes 99% is a made up number, but it's just to make a point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Larommi
kQuote:
Originally Posted by WebHead
Hey,.. btw Lar,.. you really hit the nail on the head with that thought about who had the better sales pitch. That is good creative thinking, I've never heard it worded that way by anyone and it's really making me realize how Bush has managed to win 2 terms of the presidents office. In fact,.. it's almost enough to give me a sense of closure on this whole thing. Yeah,.. this is good. Thanks for the insight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Larommi
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigmodius
I heard this stock rose 25 points in one day alone!
I have to defend Webby here. Its not such a bad thing to refer people to your website for more details. Dick Cheney did something similar in the VP debate to refer to Factcheck.org.Quote:
Originally Posted by WebHead
With limited time to speak, referring to a written source for more information at the end of your time is a good thing.
*lin*
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigmodius
The people I spoke to were not out specificaly for those reasons. They were out to defeat Kerry. The Democrats lost this on their own by spouting BS on a daily basis and underestimating the public's ability to seek the truth in many situations.
Though I agree that a large majority of people are very homophobic I really don't feel that was what played the biggest role here. The people I spoke to in line were there to defeat Kerry because they knew he would raise taxes and were afraid to have him as commander in chief.
Gotta to agree with ILTU. The folks I know who voted for Bush (I actually only know 2 Kerry voters up here) voted for him for the reasons that ILTU stated + some just didn't feel a connection or I guess a warm fuzzy with Kerry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WebHead
No, the nail is kerry stating that he would show you how he could do things without raising taxes then diverting to a different subject and then stating, go to my website and then stating "Thants how we've show that we can do this".
If you go to his web site you can see what he's for but not how he wants to do anything!
FYI, the people are NOT against having heath care for all, they just don't want to pay half of their salary to get it.
The people are not all terrified of terrorists, they just don't want Kerry to be the guy who protects us.
Etc.
Webbie, you have no one to blame for this loss but people like yourself that kept pounding away with lie after lie after lie that people could simply turn on a radio to hear disproved. You and the others in the Democrat party severely underestimate the will and brainpower of a lot of folks. They are simply rejecting ANYTHING you say, even if it's true because of the inundation of lies being told by Democrats. There is your answer.
I see this race as an affirmation that there are enough of us paying attention to facts and checking up on things and rejecting those who spout BS to get elected. The 3.5 million person margin says that George Soros can't buy an election and the American PEOPLE run this country.
Most people are already paying half of their salary to tax and health care, esp those with a family. The health care also rises at a much sharper percentage then either tax or the pay.
My company's healthcare just got a lot worse in the last couple months. One of my coworker's is on medication for Crohn's disease, he just found out that he now has to pay 700 dollars every three months when it used to be 30 dollars per refill. That's a lot of money when you only take home 1000 dollars every two weeks and you are already just barely getting by.
He's probably just a dumb lazy person that doesn't want to work and live off the system tho. Screw him.
No they are not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleetus
GF:
$25,000 / year
$400/ month for her and child for $4800
ME:
$38,000 / year
$100 / month for me for $1200
Total is $63,000 and $6000 so that's less than 10% $63,000 - ($63,000 x 25% income tax) = 47,2500 - 6000 = $41,250 to pay for food and rent and car, etc.
If the government gets it then you pay about 45% in income taxes like canada does.
$63,000 - ($63,000 x 45% income tax) = 34,650
See, in the end, I loose $$$$$ so much so that I can't feed the girls or keep my car or have a roof. And don't tell me that the tax rate won't be that high because it would be because we will not let the quiality slip of the finest health care system in the world.
Very well said.Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovetheusers
It is notable how the common perception of the Republican party is 'big money' but the Democratic 527's had massive amounts of money this time and really accomplished next to nothing with it.
It is also interesting to hear all the posts complaining about the election being won based on values & faith.
So...the election was won based on the very things that our Founding Fathers used.
Imagine that.
*lin*