I get the feeling you may think this article doesn't give Bush enough credit, but it may just have enough liberal bashing in it to help ya like it. I think its pretty right on. Thoughts? Published on May 1, 2003 by CommonDreams.org Liberals Suck At Sales by Mike Bryan Any good salesperson will tell you: stop asking open-ended questions. Define the playing field. Determine the options. Control the possible outcomes. Limit responses to choices between one option or another. Never take no for an answer. Always be selling. Make you point clear and make it over and over again. Repeated statements eventually become accepted and unquestioned. Liberals make lousy salespeople. They compulsively give both sides of a story. They explain the downside as well as the upside. They consider and respect other's viewpoints, thus becoming prone to poor productivity and time-management issues. They display reluctance at asking for the sale and easily grow bored with repeating the same pitch over and over. Liberals have noticeable problems selling products in which they do not personally believe. Even when liberals are passionately committed to what they are selling, they tend to confuse their clients with too many statistics and too much supporting information. They overanalyze. Clients become overwhelmed, uncertain, distracted, suspicious, and ultimately disinterested. Liberals often avoid forcing their clients to reach a decision for fear of making them feel uncomfortable or pressured. In fact, they will even accept "let me think about it" as a legitimate answer. Some people are just too honest to make a decent living selling life insurance. Successful salespeople are not always the most intelligent or the most ethical. But they are usually the most driven. They know what they want, they do what they need to do to get it, and desire more once they have it. Because they embrace their personal goals, they work tirelessly. They remain focused They understand that those who want it the most win. Take President Bush. While his detractors were busy explaining all sorts of reasons why invading Iraq would be unwise, immoral, illegal, illegitimate, and counter to everything Americans hold dear, he seized control of the discussion. Instead of being distracted by arguments that the war was actually about oil, strategic positioning, empire building, protecting the dollar, or expanding American business interests, he gave people the option: either attack Iraq preemptively or wait until their evil leader builds his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction to the point that he attacks America first. Mr. Bush did not bog anyone down with facts and figures. He repeated his selling points over and over again until he closed the deal. Once the war began Mr. Bush again clearly defined the option for Americans and other nations: either support the US invasion and help liberate the Iraqi people or support Saddam Hussein and a continuation of the past atrocities of his regime. Mr. Bush created a straightforward closed-ended question: are you with us or against us? Meanwhile, his detractors bogged themselves down in ideological analyses regarding international implications and our democracy's future. They again lost the interest of the public with far too many details and in-depth arguments. Liberals think too much and, as a result, ask their clients to think too much. They make appeals based on intangibles, ideals, and values. Good salespeople will incorporate lofty and impressive sounding words and phrases, but they will understand that the sale must ultimately be consummated based on more concrete issues. The client wants to know "what's in it for me?" Successful salespeople will convince clients that their lives will be immediately better off once they make the purchase. Mr. Bush sold safety and security. He sold protection of the American lifestyle. He sold entitlement: his supporters now believe only they should share the spoils of war. Already the Bush administration has begun making new sales pitches. They are threatening Syria, Iran, North Korea, and even France. They are hyping new tax cuts for the wealthy that are also supposed to help the poor and the economy. They are calling for a Patriot Act II, further subversions of international agreements, and additional restrictions on environmental protections. While his detractors bemoan the need to discredit yet another outrage, Mr. Bush relentlessly moves forward. While his opposition tires from re-fighting the same old fights they once thought they had won and from readdressing the same issues, injustices, and attacks again and again, Mr. Bush persists. His energy and stamina are truly impressive. Such strength results from his single-minded determination to achieve clearly defined objectives. His total commitment to forwarding the agendas of big business and America's most wealthy enables him to sell his initiatives even to the vast majority of Americans who such agendas will ultimately severely harm. Such is the power of great salesmanship.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA An OUTRAGEOUS lie. "Republicans hate you...Republicans hate you.... I almost hurt myself laughing at this one. Tom Daschle and Hillary CLinton and the like know damn full well that so much of what they say nis a lie, but they know they can sell it to the under class, so they say it anyway. Libearls NEVER use facts. The whole POINT of being a liberal is to avoid facts and go with "feelings", empathy and compassion. Liberals want you to ignore the numbers and go with the heart. ALL SORTS MY ASS. "War bad, Bush wicked" is a painfully thin argument. WHich would have been stupid because those are all lies..... And this is wrong because....? What was he supposed to do? Not say anything? Make up some lies? What? Again, is this a bad thing? Was he proven wrong or right about this? So the problem with "shit ins" and "puke-ins" and idiots calling Bush "Hitler" was that these were "ideological analyses" that had "too many details" for the painfully stupid general public? This is CLSSIC stuff, right out of the liberal playbook: the people are stupid, the people are dumb, the people don't get it. They never can accept that the people DO get it, and they think the libs are just wrong. What a scream. WAIT A SECOND HERE. A few lines back the problem was that liberals were all about facts and statistics. NOW all of a sudden, they're about "ideals and values" (Like gay marriage and partial birth abortion, I guess) Freedom. Democracy. Equality. Oppression. Torture. Um, and this is a bad idea? Please hang, tell me what this means. I'm VERY curious. SHow me where they threatened any of these people. This is simply a lie. People with money pay taxes. Poor people don't pay taxes. Tus when you cut taxesw, people who pay taxes end up paying less. People who don't pay taxes CAN'T pay less. What agreements are these, exactly? And there is no "Patriot Act" One or Two. No such thing. Another lie. In fact, the truckers are aghast at the proposed new standards for diesel fuel emissions, which ar e even tougher than California proposed. What "protections" does he mean? Or is this just a laundry list of bias? WTF "outrage" do we suppose he means? Saddam Hussein being thrown out of Baghdad? Yeah, boy, talk about outrageous. Like what? Segeregation? Civil rights? Women's sufferage? What exactly? I'll bet even the author doesn't know. THese are just words, standard Democrat boiler plate. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Ever seen the statistics on who it is "America's most wealthy" support with campaign money? It ain't the Republicans, bunky. How will George ush's "policies" "severely harm" the "vast majority of AMericans" Please, hang, I'm just DYING to know. Like I said, a pile of crap. Insulting, intellectually shappow, meant to appeal to people who hate George Bush and also meant to pursuade Liberals that their problem is NOT that people disagree with them completely, but rather that they are TOO SMART TOO FACT_LADEN, and the people are just too stupid to get it. This is classic liberal propaganda: the Republicans are evil to the core, are only in it to enrich the wealthy at the expense of the poor. They only succeed bacuase they are better salesmen, their packaging is sl;icker and because the liberals have all the facts but people are too stupid ton follow along. Arrogant, ridiculous blather. Liberals have been saying these things for years. Just absurd.
There's no such thing as the Patriot Act? You may wanna tell any search engine that comes up with hundreads of matches for it. Here's just one... http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html as for this... he gave people the option: either attack Iraq preemptively or wait until their evil leader builds his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction to the point that he attacks America first. And this is wrong because....? I would assume the author is making the case that he never really proved that or made the case that Iraq was an imminent threat to the US at all. He isn't alone in that argument, there are millions who still feel the same way, and they feel that way more and more as the days go by without us finding any of that awesome arsenal. (For the record, cause as soon as they find WMOD you are sure to throw it into my face, i wouldn't be suprised if they had some. I just don't believe that they would premptively strike America cause they knew that they would get wiped off the planet in a second if they did. Saddam may be a tyrant and an *********************, but he was smarter than that.)
Look, everybody knows he had WMD. But you miss the entire point about them: We did not take military action because he did or did not have WMD. This is what all the left says and it IS NOT TRUE. Rather, he refused to comply with the procedures the UN put in place to verify their presence. Further, he agreed to the same stuff when he signed the cease fire in 1991 to get us to stop bombing his ass. So if he DIDN'T have them and still refused to comply with the inspection procedures, then he has nobody to blame but himself. Again: military action was taken against his regime for refusal to comply with UN mandated inspection procedures. And he DID have chem/bio, which we know because he used them on occasion. So the onus was on him to prove that they were gone. He didn't.