• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Borders to Shut Down

NGNM85 said:
Sad. They were my favorite bookstore. I guess now I'm stuck with Barnes & Nobles...
Click to expand...

I have grown rather fond of Booksamillion. Great manga section.
 
NGNM85 said:
Sad. They were my favorite bookstore. I guess now I'm stuck with Barnes & Nobles...
Click to expand...

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.
 
StillBallin75 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Singularity said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Singularity said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Kal'Stang said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.



Kal'Stang said:
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...
Click to expand...

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:
1Perry said:
Because it wasn't positive towards Obama?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Singularity said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
MrVicchio said:
Borders to Shut Down - WSJ.com

As an avid reader and book buyer, this makes me most sad.
Click to expand...

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.
 
1Perry said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Singularity said:
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?
Click to expand...

Kal'Stang's point is that the government has no business butting in for one company but not the others. Nobody in government jumped in the save Enron or those other companies. the BUT BUSH arguement is the ultrapartisan arguement especially when you refuse to address the actual complaint.

The complaint is not "why not help Borders" but "why not help Borders when you have jumped in to help others". I'm sure you can understand the difference.

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.
Click to expand...

I've not seen him ever defend what Bush did BUT Bush is not the president. Bush currently can not carry out hypocritical policies. Now do you want to address why it is that Obama can jump in and save one company and not the other or do you just want to continue with the arguement, BUT BUSH?

So, given all this, now you can see why I pointed out the ultrapartisanship displayed in that original comment.[/QUOTE]
 
1Perry said:
Kal'Stang's point is that the government has no business butting in for one company but not the others. Nobody in government jumped in the save Enron or those other companies. the BUT BUSH arguement is the ultrapartisan arguement especially when you refuse to address the actual complaint.
Click to expand...

No. I clearly illustrated exactly why his statement was ultrapartisan. His post was clearly a slam at Obama in a thread that had nothing whatsoever to do with our current President, and his subsequent arguments offer weak - if any - justification for it. While I appreciate your attempt to help clarify, I understood his position perfectly, and besides, it doesn't really change anything.

If he was after a more balanced approach, he would have demonstrated this by acknowledging the real culprits in both administrations, rather than finger pointing at just one.

1Perry said:
I've not seen him ever defend what Bush did BUT Bush is not the president. Bush currently can not carry out hypocritical policies. Now do you want to address why it is that Obama can jump in and save one company and not the other or do you just want to continue with the arguement, BUT BUSH?
Click to expand...

No, that's not the argument at all. His attempt to portray the current President as the one who is at fault for the bailouts while simulataneously ignoring the previous administrations involvement here displays not only ultrapartisanship, but is not correct. He clearly stated that Bush had no involvement with the bailouts (his exact words in that post were, "...I brought up the simple fact that Bush never tried to bail out any companies.". This is in error, as it was President Bush who did just that).

His earlier ultrapartisan comment aside, if anything, you should both take away from this thread the knowledge of what parties are responsible here for the sake of accuracy when engaging in future debates on the subject.

Thanks.
 
You know, I really misunderstood this thread. When I saw the title, I thought that our illegal alien problem had permanently ended. LOL.
 
Singularity said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why should I blast Bush if he is not the one in charge? Should I also blast every other president that is not in charge? What is the point in blasting someone 2 years after they are no longer in charge? Is that going to do any good? If so what?

Singularity said:
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.
Click to expand...


And Bush's plan failed...and wasn't directed directly at companies but at buying up distressed assets. A round about way of helping companies yes. But it wasn't directly. But all that aside I didn't approve of that either. But again, Bush is no longer in charge. Hasn't been for over 2 years. So why should I bring him up?

Singularity said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually if you are calling me partisan you should know, or study up at least, on my posting history as Bush is not the one in charge. So again, why should I bring him up? Obama did his own bailout plan that called for directly supporting private buisnesses. As such I need only direct my comments at him as he is also the one in charge and his bailout plan more is more directly related to this subject and my point than Bush's bailout plan.

Singularity said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes Bush is the one that started the bailout crap. Where does it say that Obama had to follow in his footsteps? In fact wasn't Obama's whole campaign was based on NOT being like Bush? That he was going to "change" how things were done? Obama did his own bailout plan. Trying to bring Bush into this as the one that started it all is to do nothing more than deflect from that fact.
 
Man...I'm really wondering when people are going to start hold Obama responsible on the things that he has done instead of trying to bring up Bush all the friggen time. :p
 
Kal'Stang said:
Why should I blast Bush if he is not the one in charge? Should I also blast every other president that is not in charge? What is the point in blasting someone 2 years after they are no longer in charge? Is that going to do any good? If so what?

And Bush's plan failed...and wasn't directed directly at companies but at buying up distressed assets. A round about way of helping companies yes. But it wasn't directly. But all that aside I didn't approve of that either. But again, Bush is no longer in charge. Hasn't been for over 2 years. So why should I bring him up?
Click to expand...

Well for one, it would back up your assertion that your comment wasn't ultrapartisan, which is now something that can definitively be proven not only by your failure to mention our former President, but your padding of it all in this particular post. Seriously - "[it] wasn't directed directly at companies but at buying up distressed assets. A round about way of helping companies yes. But it wasn't directly"? In addition to that being totally false (it was directly targetting companies, and it was a direct - not roundabout - way of bailing them out), the fact that you are continuing to make excuses for the former administration should tell anyone reading your post exactly what you're trying to do here.

What you need to take away from this thread is that Bush is just as responsible as the very President you are blasting. Your failure to do that, as well as your attempted justification here, is exactly why I labelled your post as ultrapartisan, and correctly so. You did not know that the former President was responsible for the bailouts, and attempted to pin the whole thing on Obama ("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." Kal'Stang, Post #55) . If you learn nothing else from this thread, you should learn that your belief here was wrong.



Kal'Stang said:
Actually if you are calling me partisan you should know, or study up at least, on my posting history as Bush is not the one in charge. So again, why should I bring him up? Obama did his own bailout plan that called for directly supporting private buisnesses. As such I need only direct my comments at him as he is also the one in charge and his bailout plan more is more directly related to this subject and my point than Bush's bailout plan.
Click to expand...

I don't have to study up on your posting history to recognize an ultrapartisan comment when one is posted. If you don't wish to be called out on it, don't post it. If you are against the bailouts, you should have mentioned the one who was responsible for them first. Your failure to do so when prompted tells me all I need to know about your comment, and why I labelled it so.



Kal'Stang said:
Yes Bush is the one that started the bailout crap. Where does it say that Obama had to follow in his footsteps? In fact wasn't Obama's whole campaign was based on NOT being like Bush? That he was going to "change" how things were done? Obama did his own bailout plan. Trying to bring Bush into this as the one that started it all is to do nothing more than deflect from that fact.
Click to expand...

The important thing is that you have now learned from your previous error. In this post, you say "Yes Bush is the one that started the bailout crap". In post number 55, you claimed the opposite: "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."

Now you are free to go forth a more enlightened debater on this subject. Use your new found knowledge wisely.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Man...I'm really wondering when people are going to start hold Obama responsible on the things that he has done instead of trying to bring up Bush all the friggen time. :p
Click to expand...

Probably when the folks that hold Obama responsible acknowledge the faults of the previous administration.
 
DiAnna said:
Blame E-books. The Authors Guild, et al, saw this coming a decade ago, when otherwise unpublishable writers began flinging their crap on line to sell via the internet. To compete, successful writers had to offer their own works as E-books. The moment a cheap, portable, convenient E-book reader hit the market, the fate of nearly all bookstores was sealed. As a writer myself, it breaks my heart to say it but the day isn't far away when paper books will be relegated to musems and trash heaps. It's the end of an era. :(
Click to expand...

I saw it coming too, and you can buy used books real cheap on Amazon... Paying the shipping is the only thing though.
 
Jeezy said:
For a second I thought you meant like...the country's borders.
Click to expand...

What's up with that new avatar... that's kind of funny
 
Fiddytree said:
Blaming e-books is premature. I blame places like Amazon where you can get any book you want (generally unlike my experiences at even the bigger stores), generally quicker (because you have to "order" it in store), cheaper (because they don't charge MSRP, and if used, much cheaper), and so on. If it is an older text, you are in luck, cheaper it will generally be. Granted, there are issues with that, but it's damn true.

There's a used book store around here that I peak my head into every now and then. I picked up a couple of older civics textbooks for high school kids circa 1950s, books regarding the writing style and methodology of Historians, old political memoirs, a few copies of the quarterly "The Historian" or "The History Teacher."
Click to expand...

The only thing these stores have on Amazon is you can walk into a bookstore, pick up a book, read a few pages, and want it asap. With Amazon you have to wait on it to be shipped, which is disappointing. You're also less likely to grab something a little different on Amazon too, just because you can't browse through a book the same online.

Other than that, you can find a lot of short stories online for free. I started reading Lovecraft that way, and it makes me look like kind of busy at work. Can't get away with reading a book or Kindle at work. :)
 
Singularity said:
Well for one, it would back up your assertion that your comment wasn't ultrapartisan, which is now something that can definitively be proven not only by your failure to mention our former President, but your padding of it all in this particular post. Seriously - "[it] wasn't directed directly at companies but at buying up distressed assets. A round about way of helping companies yes. But it wasn't directly"? In addition to that being totally false (it was directly targetting companies, and it was a direct - not roundabout - way of bailing them out), the fact that you are continuing to make excuses for the former administration should tell anyone reading your post exactly what you're trying to do here.
Click to expand...

Apparently you totally missed the part where I said "But all that aside I didn't approve of that either." Why is that? What? Do you want a two paragraph post of calling Bush out everytime someone blasts Obama? Seriously...start holding Obama accountable for HIS crap and stop trying to shift the blame to Bush. Bush is not the one in charge. He is not the CiC. He is not the one sitting in the White House. He is not the one that passed the bailout crap that we had in 2009. He is not the President of the United States anymore and hasn't been for 2 years plus. Get over Bush.

Singularity said:
What you need to take away from this thread is that Bush is just as responsible as the very President you are blasting. Your failure to do that, as well as your attempted justification here, is exactly why I labelled your post as ultrapartisan, and correctly so. You did not know that the former President was responsible for the bailouts, and attempted to pin the whole thing on Obama ("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." Kal'Stang, Post #55) . If you learn nothing else from this thread, you should learn that your belief here was wrong.
Click to expand...

Last I looked Bush's signature was not on the bailout plan that was passed in 2009. You know...when the current president was in office? You know...the president that ran on the campaign trail that he was not Bush? You know...the President that ran on the slogan of "change"?

I will ask you again. What is the point in blasting Bush when he is no longer in a position to do anything? Just to make you feel good? Sorry, I'm not here to make you feel good. What Bush did is in the past. As I said before I didn't like it then but there is no reason that I should continue to beat a dead horse.


Singularity said:
I don't have to study up on your posting history to recognize an ultrapartisan comment when one is posted. If you don't wish to be called out on it, don't post it. If you are against the bailouts, you should have mentioned the one who was responsible for them first. Your failure to do so when prompted tells me all I need to know about your comment, and why I labelled it so.
Click to expand...

Why should I have mentioned Bush first? Is he the President today? Is he the one that passed the latest bailout plan? No? Then why should I bring up Bush?

BTW, all you had to do from the very begining is ask me about my standing on Bush's bailout plan from the very begining instead of calling me ultrapartisan and and supposedly joking about me and the other person being birthers and crap. But instead you automatically went on the offensive accusing me of crap that is just not true. Even 1Perry attempted to show you the truth but you basically ignored him saying "nuh uh!".

Singularity said:
The important thing is that you have now learned from your previous error. In this post, you say "Yes Bush is the one that started the bailout crap". In post number 55, you claimed the opposite: "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."
Click to expand...

I have learned something. That you just can't let Bush go and realize that Obama is the one in charge and calling the shots and is the one responsible for the latest bailouts.
 
Ockham said:
Look at the bright side... this may be the reemergence of the small book store. If all the nincompoops go out and buy kindles to read books, the small book reseller will have an opportunity to get amounts of good quality hard back and used books. The superstores sort of took the intimacy out of books and those of us who love paper books may once again have an opportunity to go to a local book store and buy books without the superstore hubub.

Barnes & Noble is probably the last brick and mortar super book reseller. Any other ones left?
Click to expand...

We in Denver are blessed to have one of the world's largest independent bookstores, The Tattered Cover. A Denver institution since 1970.

Tattered Cover - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
When I first clicked this thread I thought they were going to stop letting Mexicans come through our southern border. Anyway, I never thought Borders would be going bankrupt until I read this tread. ~11,000 people will be out of work adding more strain to this economy but I can see why. I ordered a book from them 3 weeks ago and they sent it DHL... Which is another company 6 feet in the grave.

Maybe I'm the only one left who orders psychical books and not a digital .pdf but nothing compares to folding the page, highlighting, and writing in your book... Or reading your book without worrying about the battery running out of power. How about lending your book to a friend after you read it..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom