"Amway Man" effect

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I've gone into many debates about this--curious as to what people think.

[Nym90]

Probably 2 to 5 percent. Most people don't know all that much about Amway I wouldn't think, at least not the particulars of how they operate.

I personally have very little respect for the company as it is essentially a pyramid scheme. I'm not sure it should even be legal.

[Gabu]

The what?

[Alcon]

The what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amway

It is a deplorable organisation, really.

[MaC]

Social security exists and people don't have a problem with it.  Why is Amway a big deal?

[Gabu]

The what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amway

It is a deplorable organisation, really.

I know what Amway is, but what is the "Amway Man Effect"?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amway

It is a deplorable organisation, really.

I know what Amway is, but what is the "Amway Man Effect"?

The % that Dick DeVos will lose in the election solely because he is the AmWay Man

[WalterMitty]

Probably 2 to 5 percent. Most people don't know all that much about Amway I wouldn't think, at least not the particulars of how they operate.

I personally have very little respect for the company as it is essentially a pyramid scheme. I'm not sure it should even be legal.

i agree.

but id very reluctantly support him over granholm.

[Nym90]

Social security exists and people don't have a problem with it.  Why is Amway a big deal?

No one has ever claimed that you are going to get rich off of Social Security.

[J. J.]

It was found not to be "illegal," and if it were a true scheme, it would have collapsed decades ago.

DeVos, however, does have a Canadian conviction for tax evasion; that won't help.

[Nym90]

It was found not to be "illegal," and if it were a true scheme, it would have collapsed decades ago.

DeVos, however, does have a Canadian conviction for tax evasion; that won't help.

Well, they primarily sell marketing materials and make most of their money through fees paid by the reps and in buying the kits rather than in the actual sale of products, and most of the products they do sell are to the reps themselves. They don't really truly have a product, they just resell things from others and people pay them to hear presentations about how rich you will get if you can sign up other reps and to convince you that you are a loser and a quitter if you don't stick with the program even if you aren't making any money at first. It's a thoroughly dishonest way to make money.

As a general rule, any job in which you have to pay money in order to get hired or in order to keep your job is a scam.

[J. J.]

It was found not to be "illegal," and if it were a true scheme, it would have collapsed decades ago.

DeVos, however, does have a Canadian conviction for tax evasion; that won't help.

Well, they primarily sell marketing materials and make most of their money through fees paid by the reps and in buying the kits rather than in the actual sale of products, and most of the products they do sell are to the reps themselves. They don't really truly have a product, they just resell things from others and people pay them to hear presentations about how rich you will get if you can sign up other reps and to convince you that you are a loser and a quitter if you don't stick with the program even if you aren't making any money at first. It's a thoroughly dishonest way to make money.

As a general rule, any job in which you have to pay money in order to get hired or in order to keep your job is a scam.

The courts do not agree with that assessment.  I do not sell it, but I have used some of the products and have been happy with them.

[Nym90]

It was found not to be "illegal," and if it were a true scheme, it would have collapsed decades ago.

DeVos, however, does have a Canadian conviction for tax evasion; that won't help.

Well, they primarily sell marketing materials and make most of their money through fees paid by the reps and in buying the kits rather than in the actual sale of products, and most of the products they do sell are to the reps themselves. They don't really truly have a product, they just resell things from others and people pay them to hear presentations about how rich you will get if you can sign up other reps and to convince you that you are a loser and a quitter if you don't stick with the program even if you aren't making any money at first. It's a thoroughly dishonest way to make money.

As a general rule, any job in which you have to pay money in order to get hired or in order to keep your job is a scam.

The courts do not agree with that assessment.  I do not sell it, but I have used some of the products and have been happy with them.

Yeah, I know it's technically legal. I'm not really sure if it should be, though, and the reputation of the company doesn't help Devos in his campaign.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It was found not to be "illegal," and if it were a true scheme, it would have collapsed decades ago.

DeVos, however, does have a Canadian conviction for tax evasion; that won't help.

When was the tax evasion--and why--U.S. Govt. cooperates with people convicted in other countries (my uncle got his license taken away for not paying a bogus Canadian ticket [the cop was pulling over Americans saying they were going 40 KPH over, and they had a harder time arguing not being from canada]--so the U.S. govt. took his license away).

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It was found not to be "illegal," and if it were a true scheme, it would have collapsed decades ago.

DeVos, however, does have a Canadian conviction for tax evasion; that won't help.

Well, they primarily sell marketing materials and make most of their money through fees paid by the reps and in buying the kits rather than in the actual sale of products, and most of the products they do sell are to the reps themselves. They don't really truly have a product, they just resell things from others and people pay them to hear presentations about how rich you will get if you can sign up other reps and to convince you that you are a loser and a quitter if you don't stick with the program even if you aren't making any money at first. It's a thoroughly dishonest way to make money.

As a general rule, any job in which you have to pay money in order to get hired or in order to keep your job is a scam.

The courts do not agree with that assessment.  I do not sell it, but I have used some of the products and have been happy with them.

Yeah, I know it's technically legal. I'm not really sure if it should be, though, and the reputation of the company doesn't help Devos in his campaign.

So why is it that when courts clear a REpublican, the Dems. argue it, but when Clinton was cleared of perjury you were mad that he was even put on trial?

[Nym90]

It was found not to be "illegal," and if it were a true scheme, it would have collapsed decades ago.

DeVos, however, does have a Canadian conviction for tax evasion; that won't help.

Well, they primarily sell marketing materials and make most of their money through fees paid by the reps and in buying the kits rather than in the actual sale of products, and most of the products they do sell are to the reps themselves. They don't really truly have a product, they just resell things from others and people pay them to hear presentations about how rich you will get if you can sign up other reps and to convince you that you are a loser and a quitter if you don't stick with the program even if you aren't making any money at first. It's a thoroughly dishonest way to make money.

As a general rule, any job in which you have to pay money in order to get hired or in order to keep your job is a scam.

The courts do not agree with that assessment.  I do not sell it, but I have used some of the products and have been happy with them.

Yeah, I know it's technically legal. I'm not really sure if it should be, though, and the reputation of the company doesn't help Devos in his campaign.

So why is it that when courts clear a REpublican, the Dems. argue it, but when Clinton was cleared of perjury you were mad that he was even put on trial?

Um, because they are two very different things.

I would have supported a censure of Clinton, but to waste the country's time and energy on impeachment was ridiculous.

And what Amway does hurts a lot more people than Clinton ever did.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It was found not to be "illegal," and if it were a true scheme, it would have collapsed decades ago.

DeVos, however, does have a Canadian conviction for tax evasion; that won't help.

Well, they primarily sell marketing materials and make most of their money through fees paid by the reps and in buying the kits rather than in the actual sale of products, and most of the products they do sell are to the reps themselves. They don't really truly have a product, they just resell things from others and people pay them to hear presentations about how rich you will get if you can sign up other reps and to convince you that you are a loser and a quitter if you don't stick with the program even if you aren't making any money at first. It's a thoroughly dishonest way to make money.

As a general rule, any job in which you have to pay money in order to get hired or in order to keep your job is a scam.

The courts do not agree with that assessment.  I do not sell it, but I have used some of the products and have been happy with them.

Yeah, I know it's technically legal. I'm not really sure if it should be, though, and the reputation of the company doesn't help Devos in his campaign.

So why is it that when courts clear a REpublican, the Dems. argue it, but when Clinton was cleared of perjury you were mad that he was even put on trial?

Um, because they are two very different things.

I would have supported a censure of Clinton, but to waste the country's time and energy on impeachment was ridiculous.

And what Amway does hurts a lot more people than Clinton ever did.

How was the impeachment of Clinton rediculous?  Would you say we should just pardon all perjurers?  What's the point of making it illegal if we don't punish it.
And so what if they are two different things?--same principle: partisan BIAS!

[Nym90]

It was found not to be "illegal," and if it were a true scheme, it would have collapsed decades ago.

DeVos, however, does have a Canadian conviction for tax evasion; that won't help.

Well, they primarily sell marketing materials and make most of their money through fees paid by the reps and in buying the kits rather than in the actual sale of products, and most of the products they do sell are to the reps themselves. They don't really truly have a product, they just resell things from others and people pay them to hear presentations about how rich you will get if you can sign up other reps and to convince you that you are a loser and a quitter if you don't stick with the program even if you aren't making any money at first. It's a thoroughly dishonest way to make money.

As a general rule, any job in which you have to pay money in order to get hired or in order to keep your job is a scam.

The courts do not agree with that assessment.  I do not sell it, but I have used some of the products and have been happy with them.

Yeah, I know it's technically legal. I'm not really sure if it should be, though, and the reputation of the company doesn't help Devos in his campaign.

So why is it that when courts clear a REpublican, the Dems. argue it, but when Clinton was cleared of perjury you were mad that he was even put on trial?

Um, because they are two very different things.

I would have supported a censure of Clinton, but to waste the country's time and energy on impeachment was ridiculous.

And what Amway does hurts a lot more people than Clinton ever did.

How was the impeachment of Clinton rediculous?  Would you say we should just pardon all perjurers?  What's the point of making it illegal if we don't punish it.
And so what if they are two different things?--same principle: partisan BIAS!

I said I supported a censure. That's a punishment.

With perjury, the specifics of the offense should be taken into consideration. Yes, it was illegal and thus there should be a punishment, but not removal from office, especially considering how much of the country's time and energy was wasted on the trial which could have been devoted to solving other far more important problems.

I don't see why it's partisan bias. I'm simply of the opinion that Amway's business practices do more harm than lying about sex. If Bush lies about an affair, I won't support his impeachment either, and I would oppose a company run by a Democrat who does what Amway does.

[Nym90]

Amway IS legal, but that does not mean that it is moraly right.  Dick DeVos is a slick salesman who can sell ice cubes to Eskimos.  He is doing the same with smooth ads on our airways.  For those of you in MI, watch them carefully. If you are like me and know a bit about sales, you can see what I mean.  Watch how he acts like you are his friend.  He wants to sell you a product except this time it is himself.  And not unlike Amway, there is nothing in it for you.

The ONLY reason Amway is legal is because there are no dues or cost obligation to the associate other than his or her foolishness for falling for the scam. 

You sell soap, you get others to sell soap, pretty soon the pool is diluted, and you make no money.  However, the DeVos's now have a large customer base for their product, and the cycle keeps going.  It is planned this way so that you lose and they win, and in the end you cost them nothing. 

Please take head and set your partisianship aside.  I lean to the left but call myself an independent because I am not stupid enough to vote for a Democrat just because he or she is a Democrat.   In other words, for the Republicans out there, don't just vote for Mr. DeVos because he is a Republican and because he is not Jennifer Granholm. 

Sure, most people are not familier with Amway anymore, but they will be before this campaign is over.  They will also be familier with school vouchers, Bush policies that Mr. DeVos supports, among other right wing agendas and connections which are losers in MI.  When the dust settles, I predict that Mr. DeVos will be lucky to reach 40% of the vote with only hard core Republicans voting for him.  A reverse of the "98 campaign between Engler and Feiger.

I think that Devos will do quite a bit better than Fieger did, and that the race will be close, but otherwise I agree with everything that you have said.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It was found not to be "illegal," and if it were a true scheme, it would have collapsed decades ago.

DeVos, however, does have a Canadian conviction for tax evasion; that won't help.

Well, they primarily sell marketing materials and make most of their money through fees paid by the reps and in buying the kits rather than in the actual sale of products, and most of the products they do sell are to the reps themselves. They don't really truly have a product, they just resell things from others and people pay them to hear presentations about how rich you will get if you can sign up other reps and to convince you that you are a loser and a quitter if you don't stick with the program even if you aren't making any money at first. It's a thoroughly dishonest way to make money.

As a general rule, any job in which you have to pay money in order to get hired or in order to keep your job is a scam.

The courts do not agree with that assessment.  I do not sell it, but I have used some of the products and have been happy with them.

Yeah, I know it's technically legal. I'm not really sure if it should be, though, and the reputation of the company doesn't help Devos in his campaign.

So why is it that when courts clear a REpublican, the Dems. argue it, but when Clinton was cleared of perjury you were mad that he was even put on trial?

Um, because they are two very different things.

I would have supported a censure of Clinton, but to waste the country's time and energy on impeachment was ridiculous.

And what Amway does hurts a lot more people than Clinton ever did.

How was the impeachment of Clinton rediculous?  Would you say we should just pardon all perjurers?  What's the point of making it illegal if we don't punish it.
And so what if they are two different things?--same principle: partisan BIAS!

I said I supported a censure. That's a punishment.

With perjury, the specifics of the offense should be taken into consideration. Yes, it was illegal and thus there should be a punishment, but not removal from office, especially considering how much of the country's time and energy was wasted on the trial which could have been devoted to solving other far more important problems.

I don't see why it's partisan bias. I'm simply of the opinion that Amway's business practices do more harm than lying about sex. If Bush lies about an affair, I won't support his impeachment either, and I would oppose a company run by a Democrat who does what Amway does.

It's partisan bias for the same reason as the "Bush lied 1000's died campaign" (and I don't claim to know your position on this)--any time a Rep. makes a mistake or tells 1% less than the truth, the Dems. pounce on him, but let Dems. get away with it.

Maybe it's just because I'm so used to everybody in my family (other than immediate) who just hates Democrats, tha any time one is criticized it comes across as bias.

If this was not your intent, I am truly sorry.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Amway IS legal, but that does not mean that it is moraly right.  Dick DeVos is a slick salesman who can sell ice cubes to Eskimos.  He is doing the same with smooth ads on our airways.  For those of you in MI, watch them carefully. If you are like me and know a bit about sales, you can see what I mean.  Watch how he acts like you are his friend.  He wants to sell you a product except this time it is himself.  And not unlike Amway, there is nothing in it for you.

The ONLY reason Amway is legal is because there are no dues or cost obligation to the associate other than his or her foolishness for falling for the scam. 

You sell soap, you get others to sell soap, pretty soon the pool is diluted, and you make no money.  However, the DeVos's now have a large customer base for their product, and the cycle keeps going.  It is planned this way so that you lose and they win, and in the end you cost them nothing. 

Please take head and set your partisianship aside.  I lean to the left but call myself an independent because I am not stupid enough to vote for a Democrat just because he or she is a Democrat.   In other words, for the Republicans out there, don't just vote for Mr. DeVos because he is a Republican and because he is not Jennifer Granholm. 

Sure, most people are not familier with Amway anymore, but they will be before this campaign is over.  They will also be familier with school vouchers, Bush policies that Mr. DeVos supports, among other right wing agendas and connections which are losers in MI.  When the dust settles, I predict that Mr. DeVos will be lucky to reach 40% of the vote with only hard core Republicans voting for him.  A reverse of the "98 campaign between Engler and Feiger.

I have some problems with your analysis:

1) I honestly see it as a negative move for Granholm to play the Amway card (at least negative if she herself plays it)--It will look like personal attacks, and I think she could lose (and gain some, but not as many) fence voters.

2) I still see no correlation between a failed school vouchers campaign from 2000 and a Gubernatorial election in 2006.

3) I have to say that in my mind, he will get 50%, if not low 60's, but I have been criticized for that--I'll wait 1 more month and may bring it down.

I have to agree with you on this--if Bush can't get his approval rating up, that will hurt DeVos (and all Republicans around the nation)--so that is the one area that would make me change my mind; however, hopefully he will be able to bring the a.r. back up to at least 50% come November.  I honestly can see him sacrificing some of his positions to get it up, to help the party, otherwise we could lose the Senate.

[Nym90]

Devos in the low 60's? Yeah, that's quite unrealistic, even more so than the prediction of Granholm being in the low 60's. There's no way this race could possibly be a landslide Engler/Levin type win for either side.

I doubt Bush can get to 50 percent by election time, but into the 40's is realistic, and this may well be enough to at least save the GOP House and Senate majorities, even though both would be significantly reduced in size. And it certainly would help in races like this where Bush's current numbers are a huge drag on the GOP ticket nationwide, though especially in the "blue" states.

[MaC]

Also, did you know that Dick DeVos has critisized Michigan social studies teachers saying that they teach children the ability to think critically about their government!!!! 

Sources?  If this is true, he's lost my vote!

[HardRCafé]

I still say that Mr. DeVos will loose by a decent margin.

Is "loose" a Kevin Smith joke or something?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Devos in the low 60's? Yeah, that's quite unrealistic, even more so than the prediction of Granholm being in the low 60's. There's no way this race could possibly be a landslide Engler/Levin type win for either side.

I doubt Bush can get to 50 percent by election time, but into the 40's is realistic, and this may well be enough to at least save the GOP House and Senate majorities, even though both would be significantly reduced in size. And it certainly would help in races like this where Bush's current numbers are a huge drag on the GOP ticket nationwide, though especially in the "blue" states.

What about finding Zarquowi today?  That honestly could bring it up to the higher 30's maybe 40's in my mind--but the Dems. are downplaying it!