George Bush has a Kindle - WARNING: Politics

[astra]

Now, when he got more spare time, maybe he is reading.

[plantedbypiggies]

I'm not going to touch on the politics, but I'm sure that amazon is thrilled to death that Mr. Bush has a Kindle. They may use that as a marketing tool to reach out to people in demographics they wouldn't consider before. Apple probable felt the same way when his daughters gave him an iPod.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by plantedbypiggies

I'm not going to touch on the politics, but I'm sure that amazon is thrilled to death that Mr. Bush has a Kindle. They may use that as a marketing tool to reach out to people in demographics they wouldn't consider before. Apple probable felt the same way when his daughters gave him an iPod.

With Bushes low popularity ratings I really don't think Amazon wants him as their spokesperson. I'm sure they prefer Oprah.

BOb

[JSWolf]

When Oprah says something is good, her lemmings have to have it whether it really is good or not.

[plantedbypiggies]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

With Bushes low popularity ratings I really don't think Amazon wants him as their spokesperson. I'm sure they prefer Oprah.

BOb

Not as a spokesperson -- kind of as an example.

Love him or hate him, Bush is a public figure. Attaching the Kindle to that kind of name power puts it in the forefront for association. It isn't direct association, but it would happen. I wasn't joking about the iPod earlier. I read about it a long time ago, and it would come to mind whenever I saw him on TV. That type of thing just happens.

And Oprah doesn't even go near the kind of demographics I'm thinking of. She's the furthest thing from them as you can get.

[brecklundin]

Originally Posted by Gideon

The fact that he's reading is pretty shocking....

I'll leave it at that.

+1

I mean who knew?

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by jj2me

... my guess is that there aren't that many people in the U.S with neocon sentiments. Maybe in the tens of thousands? And yet they took over the country's foreign policy. Like what you see in the movies or TV shows depicting a U.S. Govt. coup. Bush didn't seem to be one of them, just fell under their spell. Luckily, they ran into too much failure to take it up another notch..

Y'know, jj2me, that is one of the most perceptive posts I've read about Bush. I think that you are correct that Bush was not, initially, one of them.

The so-called neocon position actually used to be the majority liberal position, until Kennedy/LBJ went in to Vietnam. And it was the Republicans who had the isolationist view that we should stay out of other people's countries. But when the left wing developed it's own version of isolationism, the interventionist faction of the Democratic party migrated to the Republican party and became neocons.

I think that up until 9/11, the neocons did not have a whole lot of influence. But after 9/11, it seemed obvious that if we wanted to deal with the terrorists, we'd have to deal with the nations that gave them cover. The only cogent response came from the neocons.

Whether their running into "too much failure" was a lucky thing or not remains to be seen. I suppose it depends on whether you think that we need to continue engaging militarily with the nations providing cover for terrorism.

Now, how to tie this into eBook readers...? Do neocons use Kindles?

[fugazied]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

The funny part is that a lot of the problems that Bush left behind were inherited from Clinton.

You inherited a surplus from Clinton. One of the things that Clinton did wrong was increased deregulation of the financial markets, bowing down to lobbyists. Bush followed that with more deregulation of those markets and the finance sector destroyed itself with it's own greed.

Bush turned the Clinton surplus into an ADDITIONAL 5.7 trillion in debt. That's right he took it above 10 trillion. Your candidate was a disaster and left us with a mess. Tax cuts for the rich and trickle down economics failed, there are more people below the poverty line, more people without health coverage and the richest 2% now take home 25% of the nations income (up from around 17% in 2000).

You guys had your chance and left the country much much worse off. Wait more than a couple of months before declaring Obama a disaster please.

[RickyMaveety]

I'm shocked, I tell you ... SHOCKED!! George W. Bush can READ???

Who knew???

[astra]

I love how people tend to be a tiny part of a big crowd, even though it might be a stupid crowd. Just like a cattle herd, midnlessly.
Everyone says Bush is bad, stupid, I should say the same. Don't wanna be different and gonna join elite Bush haters wannabe club!

[Moejoe]

Divorced from the man's politics, it's hard not to see him as a fool when he made so many foolish statements in public. No, I'm not trying to fan the flames, and I have no interest in American politics, or British politics for that matter, it's all part of the same slow-moving, pointless system to me, but there's no denying the impression he made at face vaue.

On the face of the card is a smiling joker, no matter if we turn the card over and see, instead, Rodin's The Thinker.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Harmon

I think that up until 9/11, the neocons did not have a whole lot of influence. But after 9/11, it seemed obvious that if we wanted to deal with the terrorists, we'd have to deal with the nations that gave them cover. The only cogent response came from the neocons.

But with the very greatest respect, Harmon, prior to 9/11 the US had absolutely no problem funding terrorism itself. Need I remind you that in 1986 the USA was convicted in the International Court of Justice of sponsoring acts of terrorism in Nicaragua? Mr. Bush's subsequent position of it being permissable to attack states which "sponsor terrorism" was wholly inconsistent with the US's own previous actions. Pretty much every western nation funds "freedom fighters" (ie "terrorists") when it deems it expedient to do so.

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But with the very greatest respect, Harmon, prior to 9/11 the US had absolutely no problem funding terrorism itself. Need I remind you that in 1986 the USA was convicted in the International Court of Justice of sponsoring acts of terrorism in Nicaragua? Mr. Bush's subsequent position of it being permissable to attack states which "sponsor terrorism" was wholly inconsistent with the US's own previous actions. Pretty much every western nation funds "freedom fighters" (ie "terrorists") when it deems it expedient to do so.

Well said - thank you for posting this. Some of the ignorance on display here regarding the US's own actions is beyond frustrating.

[joblack]

Originally Posted by julia103

ABC News (the US network, not the Australian) aired an interview with former first lady Laura Bush this evening about life since leaving the White House. At one point the interviewer asked about how the former president was getting his email. She responded that he has a Blackberry and that he also reads books on a Kindle.

I know ebooks are becoming more widely known, but I still felt this was worthy of note. (And this has no bearing on what I thought of his politics or his tenure as president.)

I didn't know he could read ... can you get comics with the kindle?

[joblack]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

I bet y'all voted for the "change" candidate. Let's see what he's changed:

sold out to more industries;
more of his cabinet is under criminal investigation;
more deficit;
more taxes;
more form over substance.

Yep. You elected the right guy. Good work.

What you don't get. It almost doesn't matter who you vote, there are always these big semi-hidden lobbies (some would say 'secret societies' like the Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberger Group or The Trilateral Commission) behind. If you check out Obama's cabinet you see he chose a lot of people from that background.

If Obama would really change something (at least whats better for the the majority) he would end like Kennedy. The same would be with McCain ...