• 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!

George Bush Book 'Decision Points' Lifted From Advisers' Books

Why not? They are quite enlightening.

They generally go over the decisions that they made during their time in office, always presenting things in a biased way to ensure they look better then they were. I perfer poli sci books writen by people like Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski, who has written some quality books. Or reading articles written by various think tanks like AEI, CFR or Jamestown for example. Some of the indepth articles are far more enlightening the having some ex politician dumb down the reasons for his actions for a mass audience
 
They are expected to put things in a biased perspective. That is the purpose of a memoir. They need to have their perspective thrown out there not only for the edification of the masses but also for the historian who can keep in mind that which was going through his or her head at the time. Political science books are interesting too, but you have to consider the mindset that people like Zbig move through. It is academic just as it is biased towards certain perspectives. I, too, also read think-tank materials and listen or watch their meetings. The problem is that in order to arrive at some of the points that political scientists arrive at, you have to dance with memoirs to gain more perspective. It is what gives political science its juice.

I'm primarily a historical perspective fellow, but have spent much time looking through works of political science to aid my historical pursuit (sometimes my historical research was purely looking at political scientists). You need these memoirs to really see what gives political science its clout. Perhaps I am just too nerdish for that too work for many people, but it's what I do.
 
Last edited:
Here is real plagiarism at its finest... and then there's Joe Biden, The King. Phony is a three dollar bill this match made in Democrat heaven.





.


Obama doesn't have an R after is name, so it's OK when he plagiarizes... isn't that right PB?
 
I thought the point was it was a poorly written book period, that it was done by a ghost writer makes it even worse ( you would expect a ghost writer to due a better job then a former politician

DING! DING! DING! We have a winner.
 
The point of the thread was that. It was merely unfortunate that this seems to be an exaggeration of an already vivid imagination by the author of the Huffington Post "blog".
 
Here is real plagiarism at its finest... and then there's Joe Biden, The King. Phony is a three dollar bill this match made in Democrat heaven.

.

A totally idiotic comparison-- not even close.
 
A totally idiotic comparison-- not even close.

True.

Biden ACTUALLY PLAGIARIZED on multiple occasions from law school to politics.

Bush wrote a book where he related stories from his advisers and some retard from huffpost flipped his ****.
 
Again, it's ironic that the liberals who accuse President Bush of being not much of a reader or a writer are also ....not much for reading or writing.
 
But pbrauer... please keep these threads coming. I do like to giggle, and sadly, tonight was the last episode of Politically Incorrect until January.

It's a good thing Michael Moore was on the panel this week! Just about everything that came out of his mouth was either wrong or just plain stupid.

Yes, count me in as well. I only click on News 2.0, and "Bias in the media" just to see what pbrauer is gunna say next.. LOL You know, it's almost like he isn't a real person? :)


Tim-
 
Well, yes, because some other, more talented people seem to have written it :D

If it's true that some anecdotes were "lifted word for word," that's just sad.

Bush takes the facts, that we read about in other works and explains how and why he came to the make the decisions that he made. His book isn't designed to be an original telling of the history, but to explain how his decision making process was shaped by those events.

Perhaps you an Pbrauer should actually read the book, then form an opinion, vice taking someone else's word for it, just because it fits your preconceived notion. But, we already know that isn't going to happen.
 
They generally go over the decisions that they made during their time in office, always presenting things in a biased way to ensure they look better then they were. I perfer poli sci books writen by people like Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski, who has written some quality books. Or reading articles written by various think tanks like AEI, CFR or Jamestown for example. Some of the indepth articles are far more enlightening the having some ex politician dumb down the reasons for his actions for a mass audience

And, there's no way Brzezinski would write a political book, that didn't make his look like a dipstick, while he was a part of one of the worst administrations in American history. Am I to actually believe that?
 
Back
Top Bottom