Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 87

Thread: Borders to Shut Down

  1. #51
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:54 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,312
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Borders to Shut Down

    Quote Originally Posted by NGNM85 View Post
    Sad. They were my favorite bookstore. I guess now I'm stuck with Barnes & Nobles...
    I have grown rather fond of Booksamillion. Great manga section.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  2. #52
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Borders to Shut Down

    Quote Originally Posted by NGNM85 View Post
    Sad. They were my favorite bookstore. I guess now I'm stuck with Barnes & Nobles...
    honestly I like both. My feeling is that Borders failed because they didn't jump on the e-book train soon enough. At least B&N has the nook, which is great.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  3. #53
    Professor
    NGNM85's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Last Seen
    11-10-17 @ 11:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    1,571

    Re: Borders to Shut Down

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    honestly I like both. My feeling is that Borders failed because they didn't jump on the e-book train soon enough. At least B&N has the nook, which is great.
    I have yet to jump on the E-Reader bandwagon. Many titles are still unavailible, or they are actually more expensive than the paperback, which really defeats the purpose.
    Economic Left/Right: -7.25, Authoritarian/Libertarian:-7.13
    All over the place, from the popular culture to the propaganda system, there is constant pressure to make people feel that they are helpless, that the only role they can have is to ratify decisions and to consume. -Noam Chomsky

  4. #54
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Borders to Shut Down

    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    That's good, but again, not why his post is ultrapartisan.
    Because it wasn't positive towards Obama?

  5. #55
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,858
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Borders to Shut Down

    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    So like I said, you just admitted that you would blast Obama for bailing out Borders, but here you are in this thread blasting Obama for not bailing out Borders. Your earlier opinion was that he should have bailed them out to save jobs, yet you admit that you'd be demonizing him if he did just that. You're attempting to rationalize this by adding "well, he should at least be consistent" and going on to say that consistency is a good quality, yet if he was consistent here, then he'd still meet with your disapproval on this issue.

    That makes no sense, and you've offered nothing to refute my claim about your ultrapartisan post.
    What I am doing is showing how he is being hypocrtical and one of the reasons that the bailout was a bad idea to begin with. By bailing out companies he has opened the door for other companies to demand and expect a bailout. And they would be with in thier rights to demand it and expect it for the simple fact that the Federal Government is not suppose to play favorites. They are suppose to be neutral. By Obama not fighting to bail out this company he is also going against what he said when he bailed out the other companies...that of trying to save jobs in order to help/save the economy. From what I understand Borders is a fairly big company that employs 10 thousand some odd people. While sure that is not anywhere near the amount of people employed by GM it is still in no way a small number.

    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    No offense, but I don't know you or your posting history. While you've obviously been here a while and contributed many forum posts, I have no idea of your political lean outside of this thread. I addressed your post as ultrapartisan, because that's exactly what it is. I did not address you personally as ultrapartisan.
    Then perhaps you shouldn't be calling others something when you have no idea what those people are like? Especially when you are using the term incorrectly. You first accused me of being a birther and of believeing that he followed the religion of islam. When I refuted that bit of idiocy you still continued to call me partisan..sorry, ultrapartisan. (sorry but it was idiocy...you yourself just said that you didn't know my posting history so why would you claim that I was something that had nothing to do with this thread?) By calling me ultrapartisan you are assuming that I am against Obama just because he is a Democrat. (You even tried to show me as being partisan because I didn't ask the same question of Bush. But failed when I brought up the simple fact that Bush never tried to bail out any companies.) When I refuted that you still continue to call me partisan. But the definition of partisan is...

    1: a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person; especially: one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance
    2 a: a member of a body of detached light troops making forays and harassing an enemy
    b: a member of a guerrilla band operating within enemy lines
    Merriam-Webster Dictionary ~ Definition of Partisan

    As I am not with any particular party and my lean under my name clearly shows that I am Independent your continuous use of the word partisan is completely wrong.

    Am I against Obama? Most certainly I am. But I certainly am not against him because of some party affiliation. I am against him because I do not like the huge majority of his policies. It is quite possible to be against the POTUS because of just his policies. You are basically trying to make something out of my posts that is clearly not there in order to write off what I am saying. You are of course quite free to write off what I am saying, that is your perogative. But I would certainly appreciate it if you stop attributing something towards me which is just not true.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  6. #56
    Hung like Einstein
    Singularity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,058

    Re: Borders to Shut Down

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    What I am doing is showing how he is being hypocrtical and one of the reasons that the bailout was a bad idea to begin with. By bailing out companies he has opened the door for other companies to demand and expect a bailout. And they would be with in thier rights to demand it and expect it for the simple fact that the Federal Government is not suppose to play favorites. They are suppose to be neutral. By Obama not fighting to bail out this company he is also going against what he said when he bailed out the other companies...that of trying to save jobs in order to help/save the economy. From what I understand Borders is a fairly big company that employs 10 thousand some odd people. While sure that is not anywhere near the amount of people employed by GM it is still in no way a small number.
    Actually what you are doing here is simply trying to rationalize your ultrapartisan comment. You yourself said it - you are opposed to the bailouts, but by not bailing out Borders, you are opposed to that as well. This is a lose-lose for our CIC in your eyes, and since there is no avenue that he could take to win your approval here, it's reasonable to assume that you entered this thread to simply bash on the President. In addition, you dodged my comment about Gee Dub. If you were as non-partisan as you claim to be, and if you really despise the gub'mint for not being 'neutral', then you must have had an absolute field day with Cheney and the no bid contracts back in '04. When I listed the bankruptcies that took place under our former President's administration, you turned the conversation back to Obama without any mention of Bush's involvment in and support of such an endeavor back in '08.

    So, we can answer the following question. What do you call blasting the current President for not bailing out Borders, and admitting that you despise the bailouts and would also disapprove of Obama if he engaged in such an action while simultaneously ignoring the fact that Dubya is just as guilty as Obama here? I'd label any such comments as definitely ultrapartisan.



    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Then perhaps you shouldn't be calling others something when you have no idea what those people are like? Especially when you are using the term incorrectly. You first accused me of being a birther and of believeing that he followed the religion of islam. When I refuted that bit of idiocy you still continued to call me partisan..sorry, ultrapartisan. (sorry but it was idiocy...you yourself just said that you didn't know my posting history so why would you claim that I was something that had nothing to do with this thread?) By calling me ultrapartisan you are assuming that I am against Obama just because he is a Democrat. (You even tried to show me as being partisan because I didn't ask the same question of Bush. But failed when I brought up the simple fact that Bush never tried to bail out any companies.) When I refuted that you still continue to call me partisan. But the definition of partisan is...
    First off, let me correct you on a little history. Bush presented his $700 bailout proposal to Congress back in '08. For sake of any future debate on the subject, it would behoove you know that President Bush - not President Obama - is the one who got the bailout ball rolling (source: Poll: Most Americans Against Bush's Bailout Plan - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum - FOXNews.com). All Obama is guilty of doing is supporting (and continuing) the Bush proposal. Right or wrong, both are to blame.

    Secondly, I don't need to know your post history nor who you are as a poster to recognize an ultrapartisan comment when one is presented. And I didn't accuse you of being a birther or labelling our President as a Muslim. I made a joke about your ultrapartisan comment, saying that if you are going to engage in such silliness, you could at least add those two things to make it humorous for the rest of us. Perhaps we should dissect both your comment and my reply in order to get us both on the same page.

    Anyhow, after this post, I am going to assume that you realize why your earlier comment was ultrapartisan, that President Bush was the one behind the bailouts, and that you will avoid any such errors or ultrapartisan comments in any future debates.

    Thanks.
    Last edited by Singularity; 07-21-11 at 08:27 AM.

  7. #57
    Hung like Einstein
    Singularity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,058

    Re: Borders to Shut Down

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    Because it wasn't positive towards Obama?
    This thread is only a few pages long. Perhaps it would be easier to simply go back and reread both our comments, then I can answer any questions that you have.

  8. #58
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Borders to Shut Down

    Quote Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
    This thread is only a few pages long. Perhaps it would be easier to simply go back and reread both our comments, then I can answer any questions that you have.
    I've read the entire thread. I then asked why you accused the poster of ultrapartisanship? If anyone is participating in that it is you. Enron? What does Enron have to do with any of this?

    I'd be happy to join in and note that GM had little to do with saving jobs but Kal'Stang wonders why since Obama says he saved those jobs why not save these 11,000 jobs also? That's a lot of jobs is it not?

    Involving the government where it does not belong is going to lead to questions like this. Not liking something that a president does can only come from ultrapartisanship?
    Last edited by 1Perry; 07-21-11 at 08:36 AM.

  9. #59
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: Borders to Shut Down

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    Borders to Shut Down - WSJ.com

    As an avid reader and book buyer, this makes me most sad.
    This doesn't make sad at all.

    As has been stated by DiAnna, the paper book industry has been hit incredibly hard by e-books. Even before then, they had been reduced by the internet and webpages.

    Borders couldn't adapt. However, B&N has been. They now sell the Nook e-reader and people can download e-books from their stores or from their home computer. Being able to download e-books from the store doesn't sound like a big deal - until you realize that not everyone of the Baby Boomer generation and older are not all computer literate. So they can still drive down to the store and get their Nook uploaded with B&N books and still use the store.

    Also, B&N, I predict, will become less of your typical "book store" and more of an internet cafe for bibliophiles. B&N stores won't make much of their money by selling books - rather, they will make it by selling coffee and sandwiches and snacks for the people at their cafe.

    So while Borders closes B&N will be fine. And it doesn't seem fair to lament the loss of a big book store when newspapers and the music industry have been suffering far worse since the proliferation of the internet.
    Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.

  10. #60
    Hung like Einstein
    Singularity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,058

    Re: Borders to Shut Down

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    I've read the entire thread. I then asked why you accused the poster of ultrapartisanship? If anyone is participating in that it is you. Enron? What does Enron have to do with any of this?

    I'd be happy to join in and note that GM had little to do with saving jobs but Kal'Stang wonders why since Obama says he saved those jobs why not save these 11,000 jobs also? That's a lot of jobs is it not?

    Involving the government where it does not belong is going to lead to questions like this. Not liking something that a president does can only come from ultrapartisanship?
    And I chimed in by listing the bankruptcies under Bush's Administration (hence answering your Enron question), and made the observation that, since bankruptcies also occured under the former President's administration, would it not be accurate for him to label Bush as being "against saving jobs" since he didn't bail them out as well? He subesequently ignored this and continued in with Obama, incorrectly attributing the bailouts as all Obama's doings, and not acknowledging that Bush was the one who implemented the bailouts - not Obama. Add to this that he is both against the bailouts yet would dislike it if Obama bailed out Borders, then there is nothing that the President could do in this situation to meet with his approval.

    So, given all this, now you can see why I pointed out the ultrapartisanship displayed in that original comment.

Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •