DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on December 24, 2010, 11:33:15 AM
-
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/ItsZep/Media%20Logos/9737df46.jpg)
Bush's memoir sells 2m copies in a month -
nearly as many as Bill Clinton's sold in six years
By Daily Mail Reporter
23rd December 2010
Former U.S. President George W Bush's memoir has sold an astonishing two million copies
since it was released in early November - and it's not even in paperback yet.
'Decision Points', published both in hardcover and e-book form, is flying off the shelves,
the Crown Publishing Group says.
By contrast, former president Bill Clinton's memoir, 'My Life', has logged sales of 2.2million
copies since it was first published in 2004.
A spokesman for Crown called the performance remarkable.
He claimed he could not think of any other hardcover nonfiction books in 2010 that had sold
even one million copies, much less two.
In 'Decision Points,' Mr Bush recounts the inner workings of the White House and his administration
following the September 11 attacks, including decisions that led to the wars in Afghanistan in Iraq.
He recounts parts of his childhood, speaks lovingly of his family and wife, and wonders about how
history will judge him.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/12/23/article-1341229-09C0F2C8000005DC-765_224x352.jpg)(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/12/23/article-1341229-02B565A40000044D-221_224x352.jpg)
Gotcha, Bill: Mr Bush's book, left, has sold nearly as many copies
in a month as former President Bill Clinton's has in six years
-
Every presidential book will always sell a lot of copies, because libraries order them.
A large number of books of this sort are purchased for gifts. They are not bought by those who read them, but as gifts for others. I hardly think that sales figures are related to the content or readability of the book.
Juniorbush was secretive throughout his time in office. Clinton was far less secretive. Most of the Monica Lewinsky story was hashed to pieces in the press.
This is related to the phenomena by which rightwing talk radio has more listeners than leftwing radio. It has to do with the psychology of the personalities involved.
I have no real desire to read either book, other than excerpts published in magazines.
-
I hardly think that sales figures are related to the content or readability of the book.
So if what you say it's even across the board then how do you explain Bush selling more books in a few months compared to Clinton over 6 years? Don't bother explaining it, or shall I say don't bother with the XO spin and shuffle. We have all heard your BS before.
-
Yeah, first you ask me to explain it, then you tell me that you won't believe anything I say. But that is par for you, as you are not a rational being.
As I said, a large number of these books are gifts. Rightwingers need people to tell them how to think. They need preachers to tell then what to worship and how, they need Rush to tell them what to think, and they like to quote people they think are important, like Juniorbush.
Bush ran an administration that acted in extreme secrecy. Clinton less so.
I see no serious significance in Juniorbush's book outselling Clintons. I bet Bush;s book hits the yard sales and closeout sales sooner. I have seen Going Rogue at four remainder sales and two yard sales already.
In any election Clinton would easily trounce any Bush.
-
Either Liberals are few compared to Conservatives , or Liberals read little compared to conservatives.
or
Liberals are reading Bush book.
-
During the Bush administration we had 9/11, the start of the wars in Afghanistan, and Iraq, hurricane Katrina, and an almost total collapse of the American financial system. I suspect that that list might have something to do with the sale of the book.
bsb
-
Interesting things happened during the Clinton administration also, includeing wars that we won.
But why would you buy a Clinton book when the author is a well established liar , better to buy the Bush Book which is a lot less likely to be a fictional account.
-
Man bites dog.
-
I think that the Clinton string of scandals wrung all of the interesting out of him early.
Too much examination and explanation ahead of the book, didn't everybody feel that they knew that story ?
-
Clinton was hardly more fictional than Juniorbush. But it is accurate to say that there was less mystery involved in what Clinton did than in what Juniorbush did.
When he said "I did not have sex with that woman", the reality is that he could have accurately said "I did not have sexual intercourse with that woman".
-
Clinton was hardly more fictional than Juniorbush. But it is accurate to say that there was less mystery involved in what Clinton did than in what Juniorbush did.
When he said "I did not have sex with that woman", the reality is that he could have accurately said "I did not have sexual intercourse with that woman".
No , to be perfectly true ,he would have had to say, that he did not have vaginal sexual intercourse with that one woman , Monica Lewenski.
-
Sexual intercourse is pretty much always vaginal. There are other words for other sorts of acts.
I do not believe that it was illegal, nor particular deleterious to the country, if not for the tons of moralistic publicity it generated.
Still, he should have not done it, because surely he knows what a bunch of moralistic puritans Americans are.
-
Sexual intercourse is pretty much always vaginal. There are other words for other sorts of acts.
I do not believe that it was illegal, nor particular deleterious to the country, if not for the tons of moralistic publicity it generated.
Still, he should have not done it, because surely he knows what a bunch of moralistic puritans Americans are.
So Homosexuals can't have intercourse?
-
No, they can have anal intercourse (aka buggery) or oral sex.
sexual intercourse requires two sex organs, as I am sure you are aware.
-
No, they can have anal intercourse (aka buggery) or oral sex.
sexual intercourse requires two sex organs, as I am sure you are aware.
Seems as if I have had this arguement with Gannemede.
I was in agreement with you that there is only one real sex act.
-
Homosexuals may FEEL the same sensations as heterosexuals, but that does not mean that they perform the same exact act.
Clinton broke no laws when he got oral sex from Lewinsky.It was unwise from the standpoint of his wife and family and from the political standpoint.
Lewinsky did not want to divulge anything, and had no obligation to divulge anything. She was told that she could be sent to jail if she did not talk,and that was a lie.
No one should ever fail to call for a lawyer at the very moment that it becomes apparent that they are suspected of any crime. They should clam up and call for a lawyer. Police and FBI interrogators can be counted on to use every sort of devious trick to use people.
-
Homosexuals may FEEL the same sensations as heterosexuals, but that does not mean that they perform the same exact act.
Clinton broke no laws when he got oral sex from Lewinsky.It was unwise from the standpoint of his wife and family and from the political standpoint.
Lewinsky did not want to divulge anything, and had no obligation to divulge anything. She was told that she could be sent to jail if she did not talk,and that was a lie.
No one should ever fail to call for a lawyer at the very moment that it becomes apparent that they are suspected of any crime. They should clam up and call for a lawyer. Police and FBI interrogators can be counted on to use every sort of devious trick to use people.
You are not saying that there is one real sex act and everything elese in in imitation?
If Monica Lewenski had not spoken up for herself Clinton cronys were prepared to brand her and dump her and assinate her caricter in a sort of offensive defense. She was truely warned about this by Linda Tripp , who was it that told her that she could be jailed? I don't think that being jailed would be likely , she probly could have sheltered in the fifth admendment , did te Judge demand her testimony?
-
Monica Lewinsky did nothing illegal. It is not against the law to give anyone a blow job, at least for free.
The worst thing that could have happened would be that she would be banished from the White House. The Clintons certainly had no motive for denouncing her for anything. They certainly would have preferred her to just go away rather than to have any sort of fuss made about this.
As I said, everyone, always, should clam up and ask for a lawyer from the first mention that they could be prosecuted for anything.
-
Was she handed a supeona?
-
I don't think she was issued any subpoena. The special prosecutor simply badgered her into an interview, which became a very nasty interrogation.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Tripp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Tripp)
There is a devil in the details.
-
Linda Tripp was pondscum, and probably still is.
Lewinsky should have asked for a lawyer immediately. There is no way that anyone can claim that they were committing perjury when they were being illegally recorded. The wiretap would have clearly been inadmissible as any sort of evidence. Any lawyer would have told her to lose that dress, or have it cleaned.
-
Linda Tripp was pondscum, and probably still is.
Yea, how dare she not step up and lie, like she should have. What a witch
-
No, she had no obligation to say one damned thing.
-
And when the fit was about to hit the shan, she was supposed to lie. That witch
-
Linda Tripp was pondscum, and probably still is.
Lewinsky should have asked for a lawyer immediately. There is no way that anyone can claim that they were committing perjury when they were being illegally recorded. The wiretap would have clearly been inadmissible as any sort of evidence. Any lawyer would have told her to lose that dress, or have it cleaned.
How would cleaning that dress have benefited Monica Lewinski?
-
Monica should have clammed up and said nothing to anyone, as her sex life was her own business. Cleaning the dress would have prevented her from having had it subpoened and risked being charged with perjury. There was no benefit in her having that dress as evidence.
-
>>No one should ever fail to call for a lawyer at the very moment that it becomes apparent that they are suspected of any crime. They should clam up and call for a lawyer.<<
Absolutely. Particularly when it's the moral police.
bsb
-
There is nothing legal that could have been done to Monica that was worse than what she got. Their threats to put her in jail were groundless, they could have done nothing like that. If she had had a lawyer, that would have been the end to the entire matter.
-
There is nothing legal that could have been done to Monica that was worse than what she got. Their threats to put her in jail were groundless, they could have done nothing like that. If she had had a lawyer, that would have been the end to the entire matter.
She could have got the caricter assination that Clintons other "bimbos" got, includeing the ones he merely propasitioned.
-
I believe that Monica became far more infamous than any of the other women.
Some of the other women were obviously lying. I don't think Monica lied, she was a victim. And she should have clammed up and demanded a lawyer the very moment anyone suggested that she could be prosecuted for anything.
I will agree that it was unwise for Monica to give BJ's to Clinton, and it was wrong for him to accept them. But neither act was criminal, and neither act harmed the US so long as it was confidential and personal.
-
Once we learned that Clinton was lieing and that his staff had a procedure in place for handleing "bimbo eruptions" , why should we start thinking that any of these women were lieing?
-
You cant choose when under Oath what is ok and what is not ok to lie and/or mislead about
Otherwise all defendants caught giving false & misleading statements could claim they thought the question was inappropriate.
It does not matter what Bill Clinton gave "false and misleading statements under Oath" about...
What matters is according to a sitting US Federal Judge he did give "false and misleading statements under Oath".
If that is allowed when a defendent so chooses our judicial system falls apart.
-
Why would not all of them be lying, each for their own benefit?
I don't think Monica lied. As I said, she was simply a victim, who did not demand the attorney to whom she was entitled.
The others, I fail to see what differnce it makes. Certainly none to me.
Clinton was a great man and a great president, and he simply made one mistake.
Juniorbush did nothing but screw up.
-
Why would not all of them be lying, each for their own benefit?
I don't think Monica lied. As I said, she was simply a victim, who did not demand the attorney to whom she was entitled.
The others, I fail to see what differnce it makes. Certainly none to me.
Clinton was a great man and a great president, and he simply made one mistake.
Juniorbush did nothing but screw up.
When was Monica L. the accused?
She was called to be a witness, and as you point out the courts should allow all witnesses to avoid telling the truth .
-
She was told that if she did not testify against Clinton, they would send her to jail for a long, long time. This was untrue. They lied to her. She could not be charged with perjury because she said nothing about her famous blowjobs to Tripp under oath.
At that point, she should have clammed up and asked for a lawyer.
-
She was told that if she did not testify against Clinton, they would send her to jail for a long, long time.This was untrue.
You do realize that if you're subpoenaed to testify and you do not show up, you will have an arrest warrant issued for you and will serve a long prison term, don't you?
-
But again, there was no crime. They cannot call a person to testify as a witness to a crime if there is no crime. Monica did not break any law by giving Clinton a blowjob, nor did he commit one by getting one.
Again, Monica needed to demand a lawyer IMMEDIATELY. They lied to her. A lawyer could have pointed all this out.
-
But again, there was no crime.
There IS if you lie UNDER OATH. There does not have to be a crime committed, when giving testimony UNDER OATH.
-
Duh!
Duh!
Duh!
Monica demands and attorney and thereby there is no hearing, because there is no legal reason to call for one, since no one has lied under oath.
-
Which is why she wasn't charged with such duh
-
But as I said the was THREATENED with this, which is why she said anything at all.
I am through with this.
-
That's for sure
-
If memory serves, Lewinsky filed a false affidavit and also solicited Linda Tripp to perjure herself. I am not sure whether this happened before or after she met with Starr's people. Nor am I sure whether this was before or after she pressured Clinton to get her a job in NYC. I believe Bill Richardson was tasked with interceding on her behalf with the folks at Revlon. Somewhere in the mix Vernon Jordan was also involved.