Bush's Book being discounted yet?
*VFW*
"produced"
--
Karma, What a concept!
Jeff Thies
> well, I still don't think I'll buy it. I bought almost nothing he
> "produced"
Haven't seen it yet. I have read many of the books written by his
"staff". W never let thinking things through get in the way of making a
decision. Hey, when you know you are right, why consider other
possibilities, let alone consequences.
Enjoy the interviews and buy the book with your discounted 2011 calendar.
Jeff
Michael Black
> well, I still don't think I'll buy it. I bought almost nothing he
> "produced"
I thought every book was discounted at this point, if you went to the
right bookstore. The exceptions might be the obscure books from obscure
publishers that have to be specially ordered. Otherwise, The Big Chains
tend to discount books and the Big Internet Bookstores discount even more.
And apparently places like Costco often have really good deals on books,
the problem being they only sell a small selection of books so they are
bound to be what is a hot seller.
A library is also a place to get a book without paying. Chances are
people do want to read the book, so chances are good it will be at the
local library, now or very soon.
If you want it cheaper, then you have to wait. Wait for it to come out in
paperback. Or wait until the people who just have to have it Right Now
and are willing to spend full price (or the discounted full price) have
read it, and then have nothing to do with it other than give it away, to a
friend or to a community group that will sell it at a sale to raise money.
That may take a while, but maybe not; look for used book sales, rummage
sales and even garage sales. Of course, if you want it fast, are willing
to spend more money on it (but not the discounted full price) and can't be
bothered expending the effort to find it cheap, you can go to a used book
store where you'll spend more than you would at a used book sale or garage
sale, but less than the discounted full price.
Or wait for Christmas, someone might give it to you then.
Some books sell so many copies that you can actually find them lying on
the sidewalk, waiting for someone to come along and take it home.
Michael
*VFW*
Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
I've "discounted" bush.
and he wasn't even president.
Dick was .
and;
In article
<353bca24-10a1-4ceb...@r29g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Intrepid <Intre...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> <
> < BOOK SIGNING AT LEVINWORTH
> <
> http://blogs.app.com/saywhat/files/2008/11/bush-jail.jpg
> <
> =================
> <
> http://gal.darkervision.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/bush-pet-goat-book-upsi
> de-down-photo.jpg
> <
> It is inconceivable that a President who apparently can't read and has
> a flawed memory has written a book.
> <
> YOU FOOLED US ONCE . . .
> http://www.travisredding.com/bush-911-jetfuel-wtc-laff.jpg
> <
> ===========================
> <
> < BUSH BLEW IT THE MORNING OF 911
> >
> < By BILL MAHER
> Published Aug.12, 2004 by the NY Daily News
> <
> John Kerry has waded into an issue raised by Michael Moore in his film
> "Fahrenheit 9/11," namely, President Bush's sitting for seven minutes
> in a Florida classroom after being told "the country is under
> attack."
> <
> Republicans are waxing indignant, of course. But the criticism is
> richly deserved.
> <
> The fact that Bush wasted 27 minutes that day -- not only the seven
> minutes reading to kids but 20 more at a photo op afterward -- was, in
> my view, the most outrageous thing a President has done since Franklin
> Roosevelt tried to pack the Supreme Court.
> <
> Watergate was outrageous but it still did not carry the possibility of
> utter devastation, like a President's freezing at the very moment we
> needed his immediate focus on an attack on the United States.
> <
> This is an issue about the ultimate presidential duty, acting in an
> emergency. If nothing else in Washington is nonpartisan, this should
> be.
> <
> But it is not. Republicans are tying themselves in knots trying to
> defend
> Bush's actions that morning. The excuses they put forward are absurd:
> <
> He was "gathering his thoughts." This was a moment a President should
> have imagined a thousand times. There is no time in the nuclear age
> for a President to sit like Forrest Gump "gathering thoughts" after an
> attack has begun. Gathering information is what he should have been
> doing.
> <
> From the White House press secretary: "The President felt he should
> project strength and calm until he could better understand what was
> happening."
> <
> I agree that gaining a better understanding of what was happening
> should have been his goal. What I don't get is how that goal was
> reached by just sitting there instead of getting up and talking to
> people. Is he a psychic? Was he receiving the information
> telepathically?
> <
> "He didn't want to scare the children." Vice President Cheney has said
> of Kerry, "The senator from Massachusetts has given us ample reason to
> doubt the judgment he brings to vital issues of national security.
> <
> "So Kerry's judgment is suspect, but at a moment of national crisis,
> Bush's judgment
> was: Better not to scare 20 children momentarily than to react
> immediately
> to an attack on the country!
> <
> If he had just said, "Hey, kids, gotta go do
> some President business -- be good to your moms and dads. Bye!" My
> guess is that the kids would have survived.
> <
> I cannot see how someone who considers himself a conservative can
> defend George Bush's inaction. Conservatives pride themselves on being
> clear-eyed and decisive. They don't do nuance, and they respect
> toughness.
> <
> But Bush choked at the most important moment a President could have.
> <
> We're lucky Al Qaeda had done its worst by the time he pulled himself
> away from the photo op. Next time, it might not be that way.
> <
> ====================
> <
> A Brief Editorial
> By Ed Conrad
> <
> UNLESS, OF COURSE,PRESIDENT BUSH KNEW EXACTLY WHAT WAS HAPPENING
> <
> The overwhelming physical evidence indicates tha indeed he did.
> <
> <
> If there's indeed a "Smoking Gun" that proves beyond ALL easonable
> doubt that there was a government conspiracy responsible for the
> horror of 911 -- and the horrific aftermath
> of the on-going war in Iraq -- this video is it.
> <
> FAKE 911 CRASH FOOTAGE FROM HELICOPTER
> <
> Plane Appears Out of Nowhere,
> Nose Goes through South Tower
> <
> http://videos.wittysparks.com/id/2568693725
> <
> SMOKING GUN (Part II)
> http://www.911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
> <
> EXPLOSIVES FOUND IN WTC DUST
> http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Niels+Harrit&hl=en&emb=0&aq=f#
> <
> http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
> <
> http://cipshare.com/NielsHarrit_org/
and some q/s?
now the only questions to answer are;;
Who did the insider trading against involved Air Lines?
Was it a coincidence that the Air defenses were "down" that day?
Why did WTC # 7 do down into it's "footprint"?
How did two of the planes exceed design function?
Why did the gov. not want any investigations into 9/11?
What if Muslims did not do 9/11?
Who did?
Who "benefitted"?
Was it War for Oil.?
Would killing 3000 be nothing to the War for Oil boyz? or an opening
battle?
And what is in store for those that got rich on the deaths of so many
innocents?
Do you believe in Karma?
Bob F
> well, I still don't think I'll buy it. I bought almost nothing he
> "produced"
As it's reported now, ho just copied significant parts of it from others
writings anyway.