Sarah Palin's Book Is Already on Clearance
Cliff
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/10/23/sarah-palin-book-cheap-amazon.aspx
LOL
And it's not even published yet !!!
--
Cliff
Harry Callahan
news:48i5e51td14q0psna...@4ax.com:
>
> http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/10/23/sarah-palin-bo
> ok-cheap-amazon.aspx
>
> LOL
> And it's not even published yet !!!
How good is your book doing?
--
"I know what you're thinking. Did he fire six shots or only five? Well, to
tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. But
being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and
would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I
feel lucky? Well, do ya punk?"
Hawke
> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
> news:48i5e51td14q0psna...@4ax.com:
>
>> http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/10/23/sarah-palin-bo
>> ok-cheap-amazon.aspx
>>
>> LOL
>> And it's not even published yet !!!
>
> How good is your book doing?
Whether or not the price is being cut already the book has done what it
was supposed to do, make Sarah Palin rich. This book, which was ghost
written, was nothing more than a vehicle to shovel money to Palin by the
right wing political machine. It is guaranteed to sell plenty of copies
because numerous right wing groups will be making bulk buys of it for
their institutions and organizations and the "faithful" will also buy
it, although it's a wonder where they will get the money when so many of
them are out of work. Needless to say they'll find the money somehow. So
you have a book Palin didn't write, an organization that orchestrated
the whole thing, a witless following that will buy anything with her
name on it even though she wrote none of it, and in the end she gets
what she wanted, millions. You have to hand it to the republicans. They
really are charitable to their friends. Too bad they aren't that nice to
the public.
Hawke
Jim Alder
>
> http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/10/23/sarah-palin-
book-cheap-amazon.aspx
>
> LOL
> And it's not even published yet !!!
Another Liberal with no clue about business. Could it be a coincidence?
"Also called clearance sale. the disposal of merchandise at reduced prices
to make room for new goods: He bought the coat for half price at a clearance."
Since they have no inventory of this book yet, this is not a clearance. It
is a pre-release sale because if they get paid before they even have to order
them, they risk nothing. You people are all idiots, and Newsweek knows it.
They could tell you absolutely anything and you would swallow it up like the
dumb suckers you are.
--
So, how's that whole "hopey - changey"
thing working out for you so far?
HH&C
> Harry Callahan wrote:
> > Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
> >news:48i5e51td14q0psna...@4ax.com:
>
> >>http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/10/23/sarah-pal...
> >> ok-cheap-amazon.aspx
>
> >> LOL
> >> And it's not even published yet !!!
>
> > How good is your book doing?
>
> Whether or not the price is being cut already the book has done what it
> was supposed to do, make Sarah Palin rich. This book, which was ghost
> written,
Like Barry's books? Or like his thesis?
"D"
wrote:
> http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/10/23/sarah-pal...
>
> LOL
> And it's not even published yet !!!
> --
> Cliff
Get some help!!!
Maybe some meds will help that obsession!!
Gerald Abrahamson
Yet another clueless Republican't--with no idea about how
business really runs. That is no coincidence.
Since they have no inventory of the book, there is no reason
to put it on pre-release sale. Anybody with a brain will
cancel their "pre-buy" at the old high price and re-buy at
the new, low price--which means all sellers lose that nice
fat juicy profit. The only time they do that is when there
are too many books overhanging the market--which means there
are too many of that loser book. And the only way to dump a
loser is at a low price (selling to rock-bottom-price
customers and dumping the rest to remainder re-sellers).
So, let's see.....
The book isn't even out yet, but it is already massively
discounted (below cost?--per IDB) in order to move it (i.e.,
before any profitable sales have concluded--because there
are no books to ship [yet]). So, they sell it below
cost--and make it up in volume? Nope. Reaganomics
failed--and so did Bushonomics. Palinomics obviously doesn't
work either.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/19/target-joins-walmart-vs-a_n_326435.html
The article states resellers pay about 50% of retail for a
book. Which means they are selling it below cost--and they
are including shipping as well (further increasing losses).
Michael A. Terrell
I saw one of Obama's books at a Dollar tree store the other day for a
buck.
--
The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!
Cliff
Seems like they pre-ordered inventory & it's a disaster.
With Palin what did they expect?
--
Cliff
Cliff
You have your order in for several copies at list price, eh?
LOL ....
--
Cliff
Jim Alder
news:njs7e55gq1u7p6er5...@4ax.com:
They expect leftwingers to lie about it and not understand commerce.
And sure enough...
Cliff
They make up for their losses per book with volume, right?
--
Cliff
Jim Alder
news:j7f8e5hhr9fcv6ch4...@4ax.com:
What are they paying per unit?
RBnDFW
You shoulda bought it and then sent it to Bill Ayers to autograph
Cliff
Clearly either too much or about what it's worth (very little).
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Cliff forgot to mention that it's not only Palin's
>book.
True.
She got a famed racist to write it for her IIRC.
CAN she write?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>In fact she's in rather good company on the list of discounted
>authors.
Others are older books long published I suppose ....
Can you spell anachronism?
Hers is remainderd before publication ... LOL ..
--
Cliff
Cliff
> Wal-Mart, Amazon and Target are making loss leaders out of
>bestsellers
Palin is a GREAT loss leader !!!
Sort of like the head lemming ...
Palin+Cheney in 2012 !!!
--
Cliff
Michael A. Terrell
RBnDFW wrote:
>
> Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> >
> > I saw one of Obama's books at a Dollar tree store the other day for a
> > buck.
>
> You shoulda bought it and then sent it to Bill Ayers to autograph
Its probably still there. :)
Jim Alder
news:b3bde55nqs263btfn...@4ax.com:
In other words, you don't know so all your wild ass guessing about their
losses is bullshit.
Cliff
>Can you spell hot draw used as a loss leader to get them in the store?
Palin: Loss Leader.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:38:50 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Wal-Mart, Amazon and Target are making loss leaders out of
>>>bestsellers
>>
>> Palin is a GREAT loss leader !!!
>> Sort of like the head lemming ...
>
>I'm sure you are much more astute at marketing that WalMart and
>Amazon. What do those upstart amateurs know about it?
Thought the neocons & wingers were marketing Palin.
--
Cliff
Cliff
So how much should she sell for?
(Many rethugs go to jail for that but .... )
--
Cliff
Jim Alder
news:mj1ge5tonf4jc7g70...@4ax.com:
I'm not selling them. I (We) don't know how much they cost wholesale.
> (Many rethugs go to jail for that but .... )
If you're going to add your gibberish after'thought', you should probably
finish the sentence for those of us who don't get your hate speech.
Cliff
>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:02:43 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>>>On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 18:38:50 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In fact she's in rather good company on the list of discounted
>>>>>authors.
>>>>
>>>> Others are older books long published I suppose ....
>>>> Can you spell anachronism?
>>>> Hers is remainderd before publication ... LOL ..
>>>
>>>Can you spell hot draw used as a loss leader to get them in the store?
>>
>> Palin: Loss Leader.
>
>If you are asking me what I think of Palin... She is a moron. She
>is an opportunist. If you want to be very kind she can best be
>described as trailer trash.
>
>That said, the fact is she has a following. It's growing. Her book
>will be a best seller and the marketers know that her name will draw
>people to their stores and they will make money because of her.
I don't know why anyone would pay a penny for a remaindered book whining
about the daughter's boyfriend and actually ghost-written by a racist.
Conservative family values? Like gummer's?
>The radical left Obamabots can't stand to recognize those simple
>facts. If the reaction in this thread is any indication, your heads
>are about to explode if she gets one more bit of attention. And of
>course she will.
She's funny !!
>Save yourselves the embarrassment of saying no one cares and
>predicting that she will disappear into the woodwork because,
I hope not.
>like her
>or not, she is not going away and neither are the folks that support
>her.
>
>Heck, she just might out Messiah the big ObamaGod.
Try some reason.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Who's selling her books? Wal-Mart, Amazon and Target. And the other
>book sellers are bitching that they will not be able to get top
>dollar when the book reaches the shelves. But little Cliffie knows
>more than any of those upstarts. Right?
I wrote "marketing Palin".
--
Cliff
Cliff
>> So how much should she sell for?
>
> I'm not selling them. I (We) don't know how much they cost wholesale.
Selling Palin.
--
Cliff
Gerald Abrahamson
<jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not selling them. I (We) don't know how much they cost wholesale.
>
About $14 to $15 using the ~50% of retail figure (~$30).
So, let's see Republican't business math.....
Cost $14 (low side) and sell for $9 = loss of $5 per book
just on the selling price. Does not include inbound shipping
cost, which adds to cost and increases loss/book.
Then add the outbound shipping cost, so loss of about $9 per
book shipped to customer by mail ($3.99 book rate from
USPS).
And they are going to "make it up in volume"....
>
> So, how's that whole "hopey - changey"
> thing working out for you so far?
Going pretty good, especially for the people of the US and
the world. So far, Palin is history--and Obama will easily
win re-election against Failin' Palin/Bachmann 2012. Now,
the only question is who will drop the next kid--momma or
one of her daughters (and if so, which daughter). Check with
your Vegas bookie to get the odds <g> !!!
Jim Alder
news:nnaie5h3bcpm9rp65...@4ax.com:
Thank you for making your meaningless responses as brief as possible. Quite
a timesaver.
Jim Alder
news:q96je5tpqph0odfkd...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:00:29 -0500, Jim Alder
> <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm not selling them. I (We) don't know how much they cost wholesale.
>>
>
> About $14 to $15 using the ~50% of retail figure (~$30).
If you look again at the article where you read that statistic, you'll see
that it says "usually" about half of retail. This is a pre-order thing, not
the 'usual.'
> So, let's see Republican't business math.....
Since you're starting from a false premise, let's not bother.
> Cost $14 (low side) and sell for $9 = loss of $5 per book
> just on the selling price. Does not include inbound shipping
> cost, which adds to cost and increases loss/book.
>
> Then add the outbound shipping cost, so loss of about $9 per
> book shipped to customer by mail ($3.99 book rate from
> USPS).
>
> And they are going to "make it up in volume"....
>>
>> So, how's that whole "hopey - changey" thing working out for you so
>> far?
>
> Going pretty good, especially for the people of the US and
> the world.
I don't think they know that, judging by Obama's approval ratings.
> So far, Palin is history--and Obama will easily
> win re-election against Failin' Palin/Bachmann 2012.
Thanks for your vision of the future, Nostra-dumbass.
> Now,
> the only question is who will drop the next kid--momma or
> one of her daughters (and if so, which daughter). Check with
> your Vegas bookie to get the odds <g> !!!
Keep an eye on the National Enquirer for your latest gossip on the subject.
--
Cliff
>You wrote the "neocons & wingers" were doing the marketing. They are
>doing the buying. Wal-Mart, Amazon and Target are doing the marketing
>and they realize they can bring in a lot of buyers with the Palin
>book.
I wrote "marketing Palin".
HTH
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>news:nnaie5h3bcpm9rp65...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:00:29 -0500, Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> So how much should she sell for?
>>>
>>> I'm not selling them. I (We) don't know how much they cost wholesale.
>>
>> Selling Palin.
>
> Thank you for making your meaningless responses as brief as possible. Quite
>a timesaver.
Indeed.
http://anchorage.craigslist.org/ads/1443452226.html
http://anchorage.craigslist.org/ads/1443439108.html
http://anchorage.craigslist.org/ads/1433349259.html
--
Cliff
Cliff
>smo...@board.com wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:07:51 -0700, Winston_Smith
>><not_...@bogus.net> wrote:
>>
>>>That said, the fact is she has a following. It's growing. Her book
>>>will be a best seller and the marketers know that her name will draw
>>>people to their stores and they will make money because of her.
>>
>>A "following"
>>
>>Can't be very good to be part of a following of fools
>
>I didn't characterize them one way or the other. I just pointed out
>they exist and they will be a political factor. It is foolish to
>pretend they don't exist or that they won't have an effect.
The idiot vote.
Sell them a pack of lies ... ort he same ones again ... by then
they may have forgotten .......
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:07:51 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net> wrote:
>
>>>That said, the fact is she has a following. It's growing. Her book
>>>will be a best seller and the marketers know that her name will draw
>>>people to their stores and they will make money because of her.
>>
>> I don't know why anyone would pay a penny for a remaindered book whining
>>about the daughter's boyfriend and actually ghost-written by a racist.
>
>You can't write anything without a cliche political shot can you?
>Sadly limited in your mental facilities you seem to be.
>
>I'll type real slowly for you. I t ' s n o t a r e m a i n d e r .
>I t ' s a h o t b o o k t h a t r e t a i l e r s a r e
>f i g h t i n g o v e r.
Trying to dump at below cost as they got fooled into ordering
so many ....
--
Cliff
Gerald Abrahamson
<jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>Gerald Abrahamson <jer...@visi.com> wrote in
>news:q96je5tpqph0odfkd...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:00:29 -0500, Jim Alder
>> <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>> About $14 to $15 using the ~50% of retail figure (~$30).
>
> If you look again at the article where you read that statistic, you'll see
>that it says "usually" about half of retail. This is a pre-order thing, not
>the 'usual.'
>
So you are acknowledging the publisher is selling the books
at a loss--and making it up in volume? Or what? There is no
incentive for the publisher to sell "below cost" before it
is released--unless they know they have a loser on their
hands. Then they dump it fast at a loss now--or else take
even bigger losses later. Which loss do you choose?
>
>> So, let's see Republican't business math.....
>
> Since you're starting from a false premise, let's not bother.
>
Republican't business math is a false premise !!! Now we are
beginning to get somewhere !!
And it is publicly admitted and officially documented, too.
Now, for the really important question. Is Republican't
NC/CNC/computer/normal math any less effective (or
different) than their business math (which is a documented
"false premise")? Republican't business math does not
produce any profits. Does Republican't
NC/CNC/computer/normal math produce usable parts--or are all
parts certifiably "scrap ready" when produced?
>
>> Cost $14 (low side) and sell for $9 = loss of $5 per book
>> just on the selling price. Does not include inbound shipping
>> cost, which adds to cost and increases loss/book.
>>
>> Then add the outbound shipping cost, so loss of about $9 per
>> book shipped to customer by mail ($3.99 book rate from
>> USPS).
>>
>> And they are going to "make it up in volume"....
>
The point you have seemed to have missed is the obvious one.
Most intelligent customers (hmmmm, does that represent the
typical Walmart customer?) will not make a special trip to
Walmart just to buy the book. They will already be heading
to Walmart--so Walmart has reason to incur a loss trying to
bring in someone who is already coming to the store. Same
for Target. Amazon is different because they don't have a
bricks-and-mortar store--so their loss per book is harder to
calculate. For Amazon, it could be a legitimate loss-leader.
Because to hit the "free ship" point, customers have to
spend a minimum amount ($25? more?) and her book is only
$9--so Amazon does have the opportunity to recoup at least
part of their loss in additional sales they would not
normally make. However, neither Walmart nor Target have that
opportunity to recoup their loss because they are selling to
customers who are already coming to their store (hence, no
additional, profitable, sales made "above and beyond" what
they normally expected to make in terms of sales/profits).
I know this is hard (impossible) for you to follow because
it is real-world "how to make a business profit" logic and
math--and you have publicly posted "Republican't business
math" is a "false premise".
>> Now,
>> the only question is who will drop the next kid--momma or
>> one of her daughters (and if so, which daughter). Check with
>> your Vegas bookie to get the odds <g> !!!
>
> Keep an eye on the National Enquirer for your latest gossip on the subject.
>
We now know your secret source of insider information thanks
to your revelation. But does your bible, the National
Enquirer, give the odds--not the gossip?
Jim Alder
news:31ale5hfnk00jbphv...@4ax.com:
Ok, so now you're a perv. So?
Gunner Asch
wrote:
>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>news:31ale5hfnk00jbphv...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:18:10 -0500, Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>>>news:nnaie5h3bcpm9rp65...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:00:29 -0500, Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> So how much should she sell for?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not selling them. I (We) don't know how much they cost wholesale.
>>>>
>>>> Selling Palin.
>>>
>>> Thank you for making your meaningless responses as brief as possible.
>Quite
>>> a timesaver.
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> http://anchorage.craigslist.org/ads/1443452226.html
>> http://anchorage.craigslist.org/ads/1443439108.html
>> http://anchorage.craigslist.org/ads/1433349259.html
>
> Ok, so now you're a perv. So?
Or simply a transsexual prostitute.
Gunner
Jim Alder
> Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>
>>Gerald Abrahamson <jer...@visi.com> wrote:
>>> Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>> About $14 to $15 using the ~50% of retail figure (~$30).
>>
>> If you look again at the article where you read that statistic, you'll
see
>>that it says "usually" about half of retail. This is a pre-order thing, not
>>the 'usual.'
>>
> So you are acknowledging the publisher is selling the books
> at a loss--and making it up in volume? Or what?
How can you possibly extricate that meaning from the words I typed above?
Since you seem to find verbosity a proper substitute for intellect, I guess I
will have to explain in niggling detail.
As I said, your figure of 50% is for 'usual' buying and selling by
retailers. In other words, retailers replenishing their inventory of books
already in print. Publishers need to keep books warehoused for such deals,
meaning they had to print them 'on spec'. (meaning, 'spec'ulating that someone
will buy them in the future) They don't print more books every time someone
orders a dozen or a hundred of one particular title. This warehousing
increases their cost and hence the wholesale price. Simple enough?
Now we come to "Going Rogue" which has not been released yet and won't be
for more than another couple weeks. Which means they haven't been printed yet.
Yet people are already ordering (and paying for) them and Amazon is also
ordering and paying for them. So the publisher can print and sell them without
storage or economic risk. Since it is also a best seller, they are selling as
ton of them. So they cut their profit per unit, and rake it in in volume.
Amazon uses the same strategy. Since they're paying less, they sell for less
and draw in more sales.
So if buying "Going Rogue" from the warehouse costs you $14.50 (that's the
real 50% of $28.99, not $14 or $15, which I guess is Democrat math?), what
does it cost to buy a book that hasn't been printed yet? We don't know. What
does it cost to print a book? I don't know, do you? The cost of ink and paper
and binding, mostly. Since it's all done by machine, labor per unit has to be
pretty miniscule. So what's the material cost?
I'm guessing not very much in the big picture. Why? Because the Kindle
version, which involves no materials and no shipping, also costs $9 at Amazon.
So let's say that the actual production of a book costs $7. Since the
printer/publisher has a million unit pre-order from Amazon. So if they charge
Amazon $8 for their pre-production order, they make a million without risk.
Amazon also makes a million without risk. As you said, there's no free
shipping without buying something else. Besides which, shipping is tax
deductible.
That's as clear as I can make it. If you still don't get it, go back to
school.
> There is no
> incentive for the publisher to sell "below cost" before it
> is released--unless they know they have a loser on their
> hands. Then they dump it fast at a loss now--or else take
> even bigger losses later. Which loss do you choose?
Then why print it at all? Why cut the price, which will only generate more
sales and still higher losses? They aren't 'dumping' a book they haven't
printed yet.
The rest of your post is just you pretending to not understand, much like
the previous part of your post. So I'll stop here.
--
Jim Alder
news:51dme51kte2unkkg7...@4ax.com:
And how is that not a perv?
> Gunner
Too_Many_Tools
> Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
> >On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:57:17 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_r...@bogus.net> wrote:
> >>I didn't characterize them one way or the other. I just pointed out
> >>they exist and they will be a political factor. It is foolish to
> >>pretend they don't exist or that they won't have an effect.
>
> > The idiot vote.
> > Sell them a pack of lies ... ort he same ones again ... by then
> >they may have forgotten .......
>
Maybe.
But it worked twice for Bush.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
> >>Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
> >>>On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:07:54 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_r...@bogus.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Thought the neocons & wingers were marketing Palin.
>
> >>>>Who's selling her books? Wal-Mart, Amazon and Target. And the other
> >>>>book sellers are bitching that they will not be able to get top
> >>>>dollar when the book reaches the shelves. But little Cliffie knows
> >>>>more than any of those upstarts. Right?
>
> >>> I wrote "marketing Palin".
>
> >>You wrote the "neocons & wingers" were doing the marketing. They are
> >>doing the buying. Wal-Mart, Amazon and Target are doing the marketing
> >>and they realize they can bring in a lot of buyers with the Palin
> >>book.
>
> > I wrote "marketing Palin".
>
> neocons & wingers were marketing Palin". But they are not. You are
> full of shit.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
But of course they are Winston.
If you really don't realize that then I am disappointed in your
judgment.
TMT
Cliff
>Nice attempt to spin it and salvage the bogus statements you made
>earlier. The problem is you are full of shit.
I've not read the ghost-written book.
From what I've heard though perhaps it would have been better
as a comic book.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>news:31ale5hfnk00jbphv...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:18:10 -0500, Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>>>news:nnaie5h3bcpm9rp65...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:00:29 -0500, Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> So how much should she sell for?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not selling them. I (We) don't know how much they cost wholesale.
>>>>
>>>> Selling Palin.
>>>
>>> Thank you for making your meaningless responses as brief as possible.
>Quite
>>> a timesaver.
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> http://anchorage.craigslist.org/ads/1443452226.html
>> http://anchorage.craigslist.org/ads/1443439108.html
>> http://anchorage.craigslist.org/ads/1433349259.html
>
> Ok, so now you're a perv. So?
"Selling Palin."
HTH
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Nice attempt to spin it and salvage the bogus statements you made
>earlier. The problem is you are full of shit.
So they will make up their loss per book in volume, eh?
How much more will they have to drop the asking price?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Tell a lie often enough and someone will believe it. You wrote "the
>neocons & wingers were marketing Palin". But they are not. You are
>full of shit.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/11/william_kristol_eyeing_role_as.html
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/10/sarah_palin_overheated_conserv.html
[
In the summer of 2007, two cruise ships rented out for conservative passengers
and stocked with the staffs of the Weekly Standard and the National Review
docked in Juneau. Pundits from both magazines were entertained for lunch at the
Governor's mansion, with Palin in high heels �walking around this big Victorian
house with rough Alaska floors," acting as a one-woman welcoming committee.
Particularly smitten with Palin were the Standard's William Kristol (who went on
to be an early advocate for her as a V.P. candidate), and the Review's Dick
Morris. But they were not the only ones by far:
Standard editor Fred Barnes recalled being �struck by how smart Palin was, .....
]
HTH
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Gerald Abrahamson <jer...@visi.com> wrote:
>
>> Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Gerald Abrahamson <jer...@visi.com> wrote:
>>>> Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> About $14 to $15 using the ~50% of retail figure (~$30).
>>>
>>> If you look again at the article where you read that statistic, you'll
>see
>>>that it says "usually" about half of retail. This is a pre-order thing, not
>>>the 'usual.'
>>>
>> So you are acknowledging the publisher is selling the books
>> at a loss--and making it up in volume? Or what?
>
> How can you possibly extricate that meaning from the words I typed above?
>Since you seem to find verbosity a proper substitute for intellect, I guess I
>will have to explain in niggling detail.
>
> As I said, your figure of 50% is for 'usual' buying and selling by
>retailers.
Perhaps they saved on costs by printing this one on toiletpaper.
Sounds like a good idea ..... dual use technology ....
--
Cliff
Gerald Abrahamson
<jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>Gerald Abrahamson <jer...@visi.com> wrote:
>
>> Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Gerald Abrahamson <jer...@visi.com> wrote:
>>>> Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> About $14 to $15 using the ~50% of retail figure (~$30).
>>>
>>> If you look again at the article where you read that statistic, you'll
>see
>>>that it says "usually" about half of retail. This is a pre-order thing, not
>>>the 'usual.'
>>>
>> So you are acknowledging the publisher is selling the books
>> at a loss--and making it up in volume? Or what?
>
> How can you possibly extricate that meaning from the words I typed above?
>Since you seem to find verbosity a proper substitute for intellect, I guess I
>will have to explain in niggling detail.
>
So far, I have seen little in terms of your responses
containing facts. I am providing facts. You can't refute
them.
>
> As I said, your figure of 50% is for 'usual' buying and selling by
>retailers. In other words, retailers replenishing their inventory of books
>already in print. Publishers need to keep books warehoused for such deals,
>meaning they had to print them 'on spec'. (meaning, 'spec'ulating that someone
>will buy them in the future) They don't print more books every time someone
>orders a dozen or a hundred of one particular title. This warehousing
>increases their cost and hence the wholesale price. Simple enough?
>
Therefore, the cost to the publisher for this NEW, AS-YET-
UNPUBLISHED book (i.e., NOT an existing/already-published
book) is HIGHER than an already-published book. So, they
need to charge more to recover those initial start-up costs.
>
> Now we come to "Going Rogue" which has not been released yet and won't be
>for more than another couple weeks. Which means they haven't been printed yet.
>Yet people are already ordering (and paying for) them and Amazon is also
>ordering and paying for them. So the publisher can print and sell them without
>storage or economic risk. Since it is also a best seller, they are selling as
>ton of them. So they cut their profit per unit, and rake it in in volume.
>Amazon uses the same strategy. Since they're paying less, they sell for less
>and draw in more sales.
>
The publisher still has to recover those initial costs. So,
the cost per book (to the publisher) remains relatively high
until those costs are recovered via higher-priced sales to
resellers. Those higher-prices sales don't happen if the
publisher dramatically cuts the cost to the resellers BEFORE
release--which is what we are seeing now.
>
> So if buying "Going Rogue" from the warehouse costs you $14.50 (that's the
>real 50% of $28.99, not $14 or $15, which I guess is Democrat math?), what
>does it cost to buy a book that hasn't been printed yet? We don't know. What
>does it cost to print a book? I don't know, do you? The cost of ink and paper
>and binding, mostly. Since it's all done by machine, labor per unit has to be
>pretty miniscule. So what's the material cost?
>
$14.50 is the 50% point, but the reasonable range is $14-$15
because the figure given was "about half". I used $14 each
in order to minimize the loss per sale--not maximize it. And
that figure did NOT include shipping costs.
>
> I'm guessing not very much in the big picture. Why? Because the Kindle
>version, which involves no materials and no shipping, also costs $9 at Amazon.
>
Saves a lot--but only because it is direct to the consumer
via Amazon. Marketing cost is the same ($2 each) and
pre-production costs are the same ($3.55 each). Royalties
are the same ($4+). Total cost = $9.55+ unless the royalties
are reduced to zero until enough Kindle volumes are sold to
make up the difference. But remember, profitable Kindle
sales get eaten by hard-copy sales made at zero profit. And
a Kindle is expensive and easy to lose (happened to some
people I know)--and no way to recover a lost Kindle.
>
> So let's say that the actual production of a book costs $7. Since the
>printer/publisher has a million unit pre-order from Amazon. So if they charge
>Amazon $8 for their pre-production order, they make a million without risk.
>Amazon also makes a million without risk. As you said, there's no free
>shipping without buying something else. Besides which, shipping is tax
>deductible.
>
So what if shipping is tax deductible? It is still a
non-recoverable hard cost [cash] expense. And the point you
seem to have missed is there are TWO shipping costs. #1 is
from publisher to retailer. #2 is retailer to consumer.
#1 can not be gotten around by the retailer. #2 is avoided
for "in-store" purchases. #2 can also be offset by charging
for shipping OR (in the case of "free" shipping), the
consumer buys other items that ARE profitable and thus
offset (some or all of) the cost of "free" shipping.
>
> That's as clear as I can make it. If you still don't get it, go back to
>school.
>
Here is real info on book publishing costs:
http://ireaderreview.com/2009/05/03/book-cost-analysis-cost-of-physical-book-publishing/
1. Book Retail Price: $27.95
2. Retailer (discount, staffing, rent, etc.) � $12.58.
That�s 45%.
3. Author Royalties � $4.19. Exactly 15%.
4. Wholesaler � $2.80. Exactly 10%.
5. Pre-production (Publisher) - $3.55. That�s 12.7%.
6. Printing (Publisher) � $2.83. Translates to 10.125%.
7. Marketing (Publisher) � $2. That�s approximately 7.15%
>
>> There is no
>> incentive for the publisher to sell "below cost" before it
>> is released--unless they know they have a loser on their
>> hands. Then they dump it fast at a loss now--or else take
>> even bigger losses later. Which loss do you choose?
>
Adding just #5 + #6 + #7 (above) yields a hard cost of $8.38
to the publisher to print the book. Then add shipping costs
from the publisher to the resellers (50-cents per book in
truckload quantities--IF it gets that low), royalties (#4 =
$0), wholesaler and retail discounts (#2=$0 & #4= $0), and
MSRSP (#1= $28.99 vs $27.95 per the example, so adjust all
costs shown UPWARDS slightly to account for the price
variance).
Adding $8.38+$0.50/book shipping = $8.88/book HARD COST
delivered to the reseller. No other costs or royalties paid
(then add on the slightly higher costs for a more-expensive
book)--so it is being sold at/below real hard cost.
>
> Then why print it at all? Why cut the price, which will only generate more
>sales and still higher losses? They aren't 'dumping' a book they haven't
>printed yet.
>
Exactly. I don't see "publisher margin" in that list of
costs--do you?
>
> The rest of your post is just you pretending to not understand, much like
>the previous part of your post. So I'll stop here.
>
ROFLMAO !! Can't imagine why....
Interesting how there is no group-related math response.
Jim Alder
news:h16oe5p5554n1fh0b...@4ax.com:
THAT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING, CLIFF!!!
Jim Alder
news:n3ape59uf8aj9p86f...@4ax.com:
As big an asshole as you are, 400 pages wouldn't last you very long. Now go
away.
Jim Alder
Gerald Abrahamson <jer...@visi.com> wrote:
> Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>
>>Gerald Abrahamson <jer...@visi.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>> About $14 to $15 using the ~50% of retail figure (~$30).
>>>>
>>>> If you look again at the article where you read that statistic, you'll
>>>> see
>>>>that it says "usually" about half of retail. This is a pre-order thing,
not
>>>>the 'usual.'
>>>>
>>> So you are acknowledging the publisher is selling the books at a loss--and
>>> making it up in volume? Or what?
>>
>> How can you possibly extricate that meaning from the words I typed above?
>>Since you seem to find verbosity a proper substitute for intellect, I guess
I
>>will have to explain in niggling detail.
>>
> So far, I have seen little in terms of your responses
> containing facts. I am providing facts. You can't refute
> them.
What facts have you supplied? All I see are stupid questions. I don't know
why you're even concerned about this book, since you seem unable to read.
>> As I said, your figure of 50% is for 'usual' buying and selling by
>>retailers. In other words, retailers replenishing their inventory of books
>>already in print. Publishers need to keep books warehoused for such deals,
>>meaning they had to print them 'on spec'. (meaning, 'spec'ulating that
>>someone will buy them in the future) They don't print more books every time
>>someone orders a dozen or a hundred of one particular title. This
>>warehousing increases their cost and hence the wholesale price. Simple
>>enough?
>>
> Therefore, the cost to the publisher for this NEW, AS-YET-
> UNPUBLISHED book (i.e., NOT an existing/already-published
> book) is HIGHER than an already-published book. So, they
> need to charge more to recover those initial start-up costs.
WHAT?! That doesn't make even a little sense! Try to read without
interrupting.
Almost all of those expenses are divided by the number of units sold or
printed, so what you're giving are the prices for an average book, not a best
seller and not a pre-release sale.
These two would probably remain the same no matter how many books are sold
or if they were pre-sold or not.
3. Author Royalties � $4.19. Exactly 15%.
6. Printing (Publisher) � $2.83. Translates to 10.125%.
Personally, I'd be really surprised if Palin gets $4 per book sold. But
maybe.
>>> There is no
>>> incentive for the publisher to sell "below cost" before it
>>> is released--unless they know they have a loser on their
>>> hands. Then they dump it fast at a loss now--or else take even bigger
>>> losses later. Which loss do you choose?
>>
> Adding just #5 + #6 + #7 (above) yields a hard cost of $8.38
> to the publisher to print the book. Then add shipping costs
> from the publisher to the resellers...
Look. I'm not going to turn this into a research project, nitpicking the
entire publishing industry, just so you can convince yourselves that this
best-seller is a loser because you don't like Palin. Your conclusion makes no
sense.
>> Then why print it at all? Why cut the price, which will only generate
more
>>sales and still higher losses? They aren't 'dumping' a book they haven't
>>printed yet.
>>
> Exactly. I don't see "publisher margin" in that list of
> costs--do you?
I don't know what that is, and it certainly doesn't answer my question.
>> The rest of your post is just you pretending to not understand, much
like
>>the previous part of your post. So I'll stop here.
>>
> ROFLMAO !! Can't imagine why....
I just TOLD you why!
Whatever that means.
John R. Carroll
> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:21:18 -0700, Winston_Smith
>> <not_...@bogus.net> wrote:
>>> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>>>> I wrote "marketing Palin".
>>>
>>> Tell a lie often enough and someone will believe it. You wrote "the
>>> neocons & wingers were marketing Palin". But they are not. You are
>>> full of shit.
>>
>> http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/11/william_kristol_eyeing_role_as.html
>> http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/10/sarah_palin_overheated_conserv.html
>
> provided a cite to anything of any kind in several rounds of posts.
> You just kept on misquoting yourself.
>
> NOW you went surfing and found something from a liberal rag that you
> think possibly shows your comment in a better light if we care to wade
> though the crap of their propaganda? Hit a nerve did I?
P.S. Don't miss out on this offer! Remember, you'll get your issues of HUMAN
EVENTS delivered to your mailbox, plus your hardcover copy of Sarah Palin's
Going Rogue.
For instant service, call us toll-free at 888.GO.RIGHT (888.467.4448). Click
here to get started today.
--
John R. Carroll
Gerald Abrahamson
<jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>
>Gerald Abrahamson <jer...@visi.com> wrote:
>
>> Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Gerald Abrahamson <jer...@visi.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> About $14 to $15 using the ~50% of retail figure (~$30).
>>>>>
>>>>> If you look again at the article where you read that statistic, you'll
>>>>> see
>>>>>that it says "usually" about half of retail. This is a pre-order thing,
>not
>>>>>the 'usual.'
>>>>>
>>>> So you are acknowledging the publisher is selling the books at a loss--and
>>>> making it up in volume? Or what?
>>>
>>> How can you possibly extricate that meaning from the words I typed above?
>>>Since you seem to find verbosity a proper substitute for intellect, I guess
>I
>>>will have to explain in niggling detail.
>>>
>> So far, I have seen little in terms of your responses
>> containing facts. I am providing facts. You can't refute
>> them.
>
> What facts have you supplied? All I see are stupid questions. I don't know
>why you're even concerned about this book, since you seem unable to read.
>
The cost breakdown of publishing a book. Since you don't
have a clue about book publishing, maybe you should look
there before posting any more. You are only making yourself
look more and more foolish.
>
>>> As I said, your figure of 50% is for 'usual' buying and selling by
>>>retailers. In other words, retailers replenishing their inventory of books
>>>already in print. Publishers need to keep books warehoused for such deals,
>>>meaning they had to print them 'on spec'. (meaning, 'spec'ulating that
>>>someone will buy them in the future) They don't print more books every time
>>>someone orders a dozen or a hundred of one particular title. This
>>>warehousing increases their cost and hence the wholesale price. Simple
>>>enough?
>>>
>> Therefore, the cost to the publisher for this NEW, AS-YET-
>> UNPUBLISHED book (i.e., NOT an existing/already-published
>> book) is HIGHER than an already-published book. So, they
>> need to charge more to recover those initial start-up costs.
>
> WHAT?! That doesn't make even a little sense! Try to read without
>interrupting.
To you, it would not make sense. You use Republican't math,
not real-world math. Palin's book is a NEW book, therefore
all prep work and costs for a NEW, AS-YET-UNPUBLISHED book
will be incurred. Unless, of course, you can tell us how all
those costs can be avoided. In which case, I would bet ANY
amount the big book and newspaper publishers would LOVE to
learn how to avoid all those large, expensive pre-production
costs in order to become more profitable more quickly.
Therefore, please tell us which (if any) of those major
publishers (including Rupert Murdoch--ROFLMAO !!) are using
your "cost saving" system--and thereby saving billions and
billions of dollars every year? How could you possibly NOT
allow the publisher of Palin's book to save that money--and
thus allow the book to be sold at an even LOWER price?
>
>>> Now we come to "Going Rogue" which has not been released yet and won't
>be
>>>for more than another couple weeks. Which means they haven't been printed
>yet.
>>>Yet people are already ordering (and paying for) them and Amazon is also
>>>ordering and paying for them. So the publisher can print and sell them
>without
>>>storage or economic risk. Since it is also a best seller, they are selling
>as
>>>ton of them. So they cut their profit per unit, and rake it in in volume.
>>>Amazon uses the same strategy. Since they're paying less, they sell for less
>>>and draw in more sales.
>>>
Since there are no initial costs (using your system), Palin
just made millions more--or was it her publisher? Or was it
you? No one seems to be able to determine where the money
went.... If you had gotten the money, then you would have
declared that income to the IRS.... But that didn't happen.
And no one in the publishing industry is telling the world
about how they saved all that money using your system....
>
>> The publisher still has to recover those initial costs. So,
>> the cost per book (to the publisher) remains relatively high
>> until those costs are recovered via higher-priced sales to
>> resellers. Those higher-prices sales don't happen if the
>> publisher dramatically cuts the cost to the resellers BEFORE
>> release--which is what we are seeing now.
Still no refutation of the following real facts:
>> So what if shipping is tax deductible? It is still a
>> non-recoverable hard cost [cash] expense. And the point you
>> seem to have missed is there are TWO shipping costs. #1 is
>> from publisher to retailer. #2 is retailer to consumer.
>>
>> #1 can not be gotten around by the retailer. #2 is avoided
>> for "in-store" purchases. #2 can also be offset by charging
>> for shipping OR (in the case of "free" shipping), the
>> consumer buys other items that ARE profitable and thus
>> offset (some or all of) the cost of "free" shipping.
>>>
>>> That's as clear as I can make it. If you still don't get it, go back to
>>> school.
Looks like you dropped out long ago--and they wouldn't let
you back in.
>>>
>> Here is real info on book publishing costs:
>>
>> http://ireaderreview.com/2009/05/03/book-cost-analysis-cost-of-physical-
>book-publishing/
>>
>> 1. Book Retail Price: $27.95
>> 2. Retailer (discount, staffing, rent, etc.) � $12.58.
>> That�s 45%.
>> 3. Author Royalties � $4.19. Exactly 15%.
>> 4. Wholesaler � $2.80. Exactly 10%.
>> 5. Pre-production (Publisher) - $3.55. That�s 12.7%.
>> 6. Printing (Publisher) � $2.83. Translates to 10.125%.
>> 7. Marketing (Publisher) � $2. That�s approximately 7.15%
>
> Almost all of those expenses are divided by the number of units sold or
>printed, so what you're giving are the prices for an average book, not a best
>seller and not a pre-release sale.
>
> These two would probably remain the same no matter how many books are sold
>or if they were pre-sold or not.
A pre-release book still has full production AND
pre-production costs against it. Plus, there are the
ADDITIONAL costs of the ACTUAL writer of the book--not just
Palin's ongoing commissions. Then you also omitted all the
costs of marketing and promotions. Ah, did you figure out a
way to avoid those costs ALSO? WOW !!! Obviously
true--because you did NOT include that cost in your list
(below):
>
>3. Author Royalties � $4.19. Exactly 15%.
>6. Printing (Publisher) � $2.83. Translates to 10.125%.
>
> Personally, I'd be really surprised if Palin gets $4 per book sold. But
>maybe.
>
>>>> There is no
>>>> incentive for the publisher to sell "below cost" before it
>>>> is released--unless they know they have a loser on their
>>>> hands. Then they dump it fast at a loss now--or else take even bigger
>>>> losses later. Which loss do you choose?
>>>
>> Adding just #5 + #6 + #7 (above) yields a hard cost of $8.38
>> to the publisher to print the book. Then add shipping costs
>> from the publisher to the resellers...
>
> Look. I'm not going to turn this into a research project, nitpicking the
>entire publishing industry, just so you can convince yourselves that this
>best-seller is a loser because you don't like Palin. Your conclusion makes no
>sense.
Uh, you were the one questioning what it actually costs to
produce a book. Now you have them in front of you and you
suddenly don't like the numbers--because they show the book
is being sold BELOW COST (because cost includes Palin's fee
per book).
>
>>> Then why print it at all? Why cut the price, which will only generate
>more
>>>sales and still higher losses? They aren't 'dumping' a book they haven't
>>>printed yet.
>>>
>> Exactly. I don't see "publisher margin" in that list of
>> costs--do you?
>
> I don't know what that is, and it certainly doesn't answer my question.
You don't know what a "margin" is in business? ROFLMAO !!
Now THAT is Republican't thinking--and math !!! Are you SURE
you represent the "Party of Business"? Or are you the "Party
of Monkey Business"?
>
>>> The rest of your post is just you pretending to not understand, much
>like
>>>the previous part of your post. So I'll stop here.
>>>
>> ROFLMAO !! Can't imagine why....
>
> I just TOLD you why!
>
>>>>>> So, let's see Republican't business math.....
>>>>>
>>>>> Since you're starting from a false premise, let's not bother.
>>>>>
>>>> Republican't business math is a false premise !!! Now we are
>>>> beginning to get somewhere !!
>>>>
>>>> And it is publicly admitted and officially documented, too.
>>>>
>>>> Now, for the really important question. Is Republican't
>>>> NC/CNC/computer/normal math any less effective (or
>>>> different) than their business math (which is a documented
>>>> "false premise")? Republican't business math does not
>>>> produce any profits. Does Republican't
>>>> NC/CNC/computer/normal math produce usable parts--or are all parts
>>>> certifiably "scrap ready" when produced?
>>>>>
>>>> I know this is hard (impossible) for you to follow because
>>>> it is real-world "how to make a business profit" logic and
>>>> math--and you have publicly posted "Republican't business
>>>> math" is a "false premise".
>>
>> Interesting how there is no group-related math response.
>
> Whatever that means.
Let's see, this is in the CNC newsgroup.
So, pre-production costs would be ALL the costs of getting
and winning a production order for a new part (book). The
shop (publisher) has to figure out how to make the part
correctly AND at a cost the buyer finds acceptable.
Those costs include (but are not limited to):
A. shop overhead,
B. engineering--figuring out how to make the part,
C. estimating--cost and time info,
D. various material costs,
E. production time(s) for various machines and processes,
F. production processes,
G. jigs,
H. fixtures,
I. tooling,
J. set-up,
K. and lots more.
So, you have a LOT to learn yet. Only problem--they won't
let you back into school. And you don't DIY--ah, THAT
explains "Republican't math and logic" !!!!
cop welfare
> same thing.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
"Thanks for accepting that Bush and Obama are just about the
same thing." ws
so where does that leave you.
Cliff
Perhaps you would like to get other books by
the same author ....
http://www.amazon.com/Lynn-Vincent/e/B001JSDNHY/ref=sr_tc_img_2
http://gawker.com/5371146/sarah-palins-ghostwriter-pals-around-with-racists-and-wackos
--
Cliff
Cliff
>> Here is real info on book publishing costs:
>>
>> http://ireaderreview.com/2009/05/03/book-cost-analysis-cost-of-physical-
>book-publishing/
>>
>> 1. Book Retail Price: $27.95
>> 2. Retailer (discount, staffing, rent, etc.) � $12.58.
>> That�s 45%.
>> 3. Author Royalties � $4.19. Exactly 15%.
>> 4. Wholesaler � $2.80. Exactly 10%.
>> 5. Pre-production (Publisher) - $3.55. That�s 12.7%.
>> 6. Printing (Publisher) � $2.83. Translates to 10.125%.
>> 7. Marketing (Publisher) � $2. That�s approximately 7.15%
>
> Almost all of those expenses are divided by the number of units sold or
>printed, so what you're giving are the prices for an average book, not a best
>seller and not a pre-release sale.
Amazing !!!
And when you multiply the PER BOOK costs by the number of books ... ?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>A pre-release book still has full production AND
>pre-production costs against it. Plus, there are the
>ADDITIONAL costs of the ACTUAL writer of the book--not just
>Palin's ongoing commissions.
Plus paying the actual author.
http://gawker.com/5371146/sarah-palins-ghostwriter-pals-around-with-racists-and-wackos
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>news:h16oe5p5554n1fh0b...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 12:14:51 -0500, Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>>>news:31ale5hfnk00jbphv...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:18:10 -0500, Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>>>>>news:nnaie5h3bcpm9rp65...@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:00:29 -0500, Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com>
>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So how much should she sell for?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not selling them. I (We) don't know how much they cost
>wholesale.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Selling Palin.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for making your meaningless responses as brief as possible.
>>>>> Quite a timesaver.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed.
>>>>
>>>> http://anchorage.craigslist.org/ads/1443452226.html
>>>> http://anchorage.craigslist.org/ads/1443439108.html
>>>> http://anchorage.craigslist.org/ads/1433349259.html
>>>
>>> Ok, so now you're a perv. So?
>>
>> "Selling Palin."
>
> THAT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING, CLIFF!!!
"Selling Palin."
--
Cliff
Cliff
You are opposed to conservation & dual use technology?
Why?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:21:18 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net> wrote:
>>>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>>>> I wrote "marketing Palin".
>>>
>>>Tell a lie often enough and someone will believe it. You wrote "the
>>>neocons & wingers were marketing Palin". But they are not. You are
>>>full of shit.
>>
>> http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/11/william_kristol_eyeing_role_as.html
>> http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/10/sarah_palin_overheated_conserv.html
>
>You wrote none of this prior to your erroneous remark.
I'm not at fault for you not knowing much.
Who did you think chose & marketed her?
Fairys? SureShot?
She'd be easier to manipulate than that idiot bush.
>You never
>provided a cite to anything of any kind in several rounds of posts.
You did not think. Not my fault.
>You just kept on misquoting yourself.
Quoting exactly if I quoted.
>NOW you went surfing and found something from a liberal rag that you
>think possibly shows your comment in a better light if we care to wade
>though the crap of their propaganda? Hit a nerve did I?
I already knew about it. What did you think??
Don't you pay any attention at all?
--
Cliff
Jim Alder
news:u7dte552h2cuh4gg2...@4ax.com:
I take it back. It means you're an idiot.
Cliff
You bought, eh?
LOL ...
--
Cliff
Gerald Abrahamson
Free if you subscribe.
ROFLMAO !!!
Now THAT is below cost.
Book still has pre-production costs.
Book still has marketing costs.
Book still has printing costs.
Book will pay <how much?> in royalties to Palin? Zero (do
the math--if you can).
Jim Alder
news:avi3f55pf3l5hbtli...@4ax.com:
> http://w3.newsmax.com/a/sarahbook/?PROMO_CODE=8F2D-1
>
> Free if you subscribe.
>
> ROFLMAO !!!
>
> Now THAT is below cost.
Yep, but it will draw a lot of subscribers.
> Book still has pre-production costs.
> Book still has marketing costs.
> Book still has printing costs.
> Book will pay <how much?> in royalties to Palin? Zero (do
> the math--if you can).
>
--
lab~rat >:-)
<jer...@visi.com> puked:
She gets a kickback from NewsMax.
To get your "free" book, you have to pay 50 bucks.
Why does Sarah Palin scare you pussies so much?
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?
lab~rat >:-)
puked:
>Gerald Abrahamson <jer...@visi.com> wrote in
>news:avi3f55pf3l5hbtli...@4ax.com:
>
>> http://w3.newsmax.com/a/sarahbook/?PROMO_CODE=8F2D-1
>>
>> Free if you subscribe.
>>
>> ROFLMAO !!!
>>
>> Now THAT is below cost.
>
> Yep, but it will draw a lot of subscribers.
I wonder why they don't offer Obama's dopey book that Bill Ayers wrote
for him..?
The Master
> She gets a kickback from NewsMax.
>
> To get your "free" book, you have to pay 50 bucks.
>
> Why does Sarah Palin scare you pussies so much?
Because in the liberal world, you have women that are strong and ugly, or
beautiful and weak. Palin, a strong and beautiful woman, scares the shit
out of them... They are used to ugly asses like Hitlary.
Jim Alder
news:8in3f59hddcv67gvo...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:13:51 -0600, Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com>
> puked:
>
>>Gerald Abrahamson <jer...@visi.com> wrote in
>>news:avi3f55pf3l5hbtli...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> http://w3.newsmax.com/a/sarahbook/?PROMO_CODE=8F2D-1
>>>
>>> Free if you subscribe.
>>>
>>> ROFLMAO !!!
>>>
>>> Now THAT is below cost.
>>
>> Yep, but it will draw a lot of subscribers.
>
> I wonder why they don't offer Obama's dopey book that Bill Ayers wrote
> for him..?
Someone said they saw it on the bargain table for a dollar the other day.
That may be a clue.
TinLizziedl
tar...@nospam.sdf.lonestar.org.nospam says...
Many of us who choose to let others live their own lives without the
government mandating what is acceptable in their bedrooms dislike her
because she is an almost perfect cult heroine for those of you who feel
you must have a government that mandates everything you do in your
social life.
I view her as a brainwashed syncophant of the evangelical christian
social concervative movement. Yes, she's good-looking. Articulate?
Not so much. Fairly typical closed-mind views, without any reasoned
explaination why the government simply must discriminate against those
of us who are homosexual and those concerned about humanity's
environmental impacts. She is not even willing to consider abortion in
cases of medical necessity. My wife would have died if she had not had
a mid-term abortion, and two OB/GYNs agreed. Anyone who actually
believes they have the moral and ethical "right" to ban any and all
abortions is someone who actually believes in Darwinian Evolution rather
than any form of honest Christianity.
She's a potential lightening rod that may be charismatic enough to
convince bigots all around the nation to forsake common sense and
decency. Anyone who believes they have the God-Given Right to legislate
in my wife's or daughter's womb is insane. IMHO, the only people who
should have a vote on abortion are those who have been molested, raped,
subjected to incest, forced to have one to survive.... The rest of us
should have a moral duty to keep the option available for these women so
they can choose.
One of the reasons Government exists is to protect the rights of it's
citizens, both the Majority and the Minorities. The social conservative
movement is not about protecting anyone. Except possibly the bastard
spawn of rapists....
--
Tin Lizzie
"To delight in war is a merit in the soldier, a dangerous quality in the
captain, and a positive crime in the statesman." - George Santayana
Michael A. Terrell
"lab~rat >:-)" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:13:51 -0600, Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com>
> puked:
>
> >Gerald Abrahamson <jer...@visi.com> wrote in
> >news:avi3f55pf3l5hbtli...@4ax.com:
> >
> >> http://w3.newsmax.com/a/sarahbook/?PROMO_CODE=8F2D-1
> >>
> >> Free if you subscribe.
> >>
> >> ROFLMAO !!!
> >>
> >> Now THAT is below cost.
> >
> > Yep, but it will draw a lot of subscribers.
>
> I wonder why they don't offer Obama's dopey book that Bill Ayers wrote
> for him..?
The one that was liqidated to dollar stores & fleamarkets?
--
The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!
The Master
>>> Why does Sarah Palin scare you pussies so much?
>>
>> Because in the liberal world, you have women that are strong and ugly, or
>> beautiful and weak. Palin, a strong and beautiful woman, scares the shit
>> out of them... They are used to ugly asses like Hitlary.
>>
>
> Many of us who choose to let others live their own lives without the
> government mandating what is acceptable in their bedrooms dislike her
> because she is an almost perfect cult heroine for those of you who feel
> you must have a government that mandates everything you do in your
> social life.
Interesting... You see, I'm not a democrat because of the fact that "many
of us who choose to let others conduct their own business without the
government mandating what is acceptable in their boardrooms dislike
liberals like Hillary Clinton because she is an almost perfect cult
heroine for those of you who feel you must have a government that mandates
everything you do in your economic life."
Yes, the republicans wish to mandate morality, but the democrats wish to
mandate the economy. With the two major parties, you cannot have one
partly free without over regulating the other. What if a party allowed
for both to be free at the same time? This is the attraction of the
Libertarians.
However, that doesn't take away from the fact that Palin is one hot GMILF.
***
George Bush left horse shit on the floor of the barn. Barack Obama is
"cleaning up the mess" by smearing more horse shit all over the rest of
the barn, so the floor will no longer seems messy.
S.top
O.bama's
S.ocialism
Gerald Abrahamson
<ch...@cheeze.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:50:28 -0600, Gerald Abrahamson
><jer...@visi.com> puked:
>
>>http://w3.newsmax.com/a/sarahbook/?PROMO_CODE=8F2D-1
>>
>>Free if you subscribe.
>>
>>ROFLMAO !!!
>>
>>Now THAT is below cost.
>>
>>Book still has pre-production costs.
>>Book still has marketing costs.
>>Book still has printing costs.
>>Book will pay <how much?> in royalties to Palin? Zero (do
>>the math--if you can).
>
>She gets a kickback from NewsMax.
>
>To get your "free" book, you have to pay 50 bucks.
>
>Why does Sarah Palin scare you pussies so much?
She is not as bright as GWB--and you still have no clue....
Nobody has yet "trickled down" on you all that "economic
prosperity" promised by GWB under Bushonomics (Reaganomics
II). Why don't you start with the $1T in cash that was to
fund the SSTF. After all, this was the money that was to be
left over AFTER paying all the other govt bills.
Found those WMDs in Iraq yet? How about OBL ("Wanted: Dead
or Alive")? Jobs? Banks (Lehman or Bear-Stearns)? Insurance
companies (AIG and many others)? Car companies (GM,
Chrysler)? Plus, total taxes on families went up under GWB,
not down.
Too_Many_Tools
Still $4.95 too much. ;<)
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> Gerald Abrahamson <jerr...@visi.com> wrote innews:avi3f55pf3l5hbtli...@4ax.com:
Hey... that whole "hopey - changey" thing is still working out just
great. ;<)
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:50:28 -0600, Gerald Abrahamson
Because she is a Cougar. ;<)
And she can see Russia from where ever she stands.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
wrote:
Nope.
Because liberals are hetrosexual while conservatives are gay.
And Sarah is an aging Cougar who is desperate for a real man.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> "lab~rat >:-)" <ch...@cheeze.net> wrote innews:8in3f59hddcv67gvo...@4ax.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:13:51 -0600, Jim Alder <jimal...@ssnet.com>
> > puked:
>
> >>Gerald Abrahamson <jerr...@visi.com> wrote in
> >>news:avi3f55pf3l5hbtli...@4ax.com:
>
> >>>http://w3.newsmax.com/a/sarahbook/?PROMO_CODE=8F2D-1
>
> >>> Free if you subscribe.
>
> >>> ROFLMAO !!!
>
> >>> Now THAT is below cost.
>
> >> Yep, but it will draw a lot of subscribers.
>
> > I wonder why they don't offer Obama's dopey book that Bill Ayers wrote
> > for him..?
>
> Someone said they saw it on the bargain table for a dollar the other day.
> That may be a clue.
>
> --
> So, how's that whole "hopey - changey"
>
> - Show quoted text -
I saw in it a public toilet last week.
They had ran out of toilet paper.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> In article <Pine.NEB.4.64.0911042012340.23...@sdf.lonestar.org>,
Well said.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
wrote:
Palin's best years are far behind her.
Awhile back a young actress made some comments about Palin and Paline
reacted over the top...a sign of an aging woman who is jealous of
those who have what she might have once had.
If Palin is run for President in 2012 (I pray that she is), she will
be THREE YEARS OLDER and age is not treating her well now.
TMT