"SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa at (no spam) HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:hrmdnSwDOrOvrG_XnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d at (no spam) posted.cpinternet...

"Johnny Carton" <ziggy at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:BWpIm.2104$Zu5.1633 at (no spam) newsfe24.iad...


Palin is George Bush with tities.

And you're just the nipple without the titty

So suck me, hahahaha.

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:49:19 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_real at (no spam) bogus.net> wrote:

But it turns out that the book money is small potatoes compared to
what Gore could earn from his various eco-friendly investments. As a
partner at Silicon Valley venture capital heavyweight Kleiner Perkins
Caulfield & Byers, Gore is poised to reap hundreds of millions from
investments in the companies that will benefit from the government's
increased emphasis on green technology. According to The New York
Times's John Broder, Gore could become the world's first "carbon
billionaire."

A good idea, eh?
Go thou & do similar.

Stupidity does not pay well, does it?

On Oct 31, 9:19 pm, Winston_Smith <not_r... at (no spam) bogus.net> wrote:
Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 30, 10:21 pm, Winston_Smith <not_r... at (no spam) bogus.net> wrote:
Cliff <Clhuprichguessw... at (no spam) aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
 I wrote "marketing Palin".

Tell a lie often enough and someone will believe it.  You wrote "the
neocons & wingers were marketing Palin".  But they are not.  You are
full of shit.- Hide quoted text -

But of course they are Winston.

If you really don't realize that then I am disappointed in your
judgment.

What judgment is that?  

The Bush had a shitty economy or that Obama has a shittier economy?

That Bush was engaged in an illegal war or that Obama wants to
escalate it?  

That jobs were disappearing under Bush or that they are disappearing
faster under Obama?

That Bush had open borders or that Obama wants to keep them open and
add amnesty as a sweetener?

That Bush tortured illegally or that Obama is trying to make torture
legal?

That Bush passed the Patriot Act or that Obama wants to keep it?

That Bush set up a nation wide phone tap system or that Obama wants to
keep it?

That Bush loved to ram unpopular legislation through by locking out
the other party or that Obama not only does it but brags about it?

That Bush gave away the public treasury to Banksters or that Obama has
seen him and raised him?

Or perhaps you object to my use of the words ObamaCare, ObamaMotors,
ObamaMortgage, ObamaBank, and ObamaEquity for the industries our boy
has nationalized in just a few short months?

Lie much?

Try settling on one of your so called issues and perhaps we can
discuss it.

Too_Many_Tools <too_many_tools at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 31, 9:19 pm, Winston_Smith <not_r... at (no spam) bogus.net> wrote:
Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 30, 10:21 pm, Winston_Smith <not_r... at (no spam) bogus.net> wrote:
Cliff <Clhuprichguessw... at (no spam) aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
I wrote "marketing Palin".

Tell a lie often enough and someone will believe it. You wrote "the
neocons & wingers were marketing Palin". But they are not. You are
full of shit.- Hide quoted text -

But of course they are Winston.

If you really don't realize that then I am disappointed in your
judgment.

What judgment is that?

The Bush had a shitty economy or that Obama has a shittier economy?

That Bush was engaged in an illegal war or that Obama wants to
escalate it?

That jobs were disappearing under Bush or that they are disappearing
faster under Obama?

That Bush had open borders or that Obama wants to keep them open and
add amnesty as a sweetener?

That Bush tortured illegally or that Obama is trying to make torture
legal?

That Bush passed the Patriot Act or that Obama wants to keep it?

That Bush set up a nation wide phone tap system or that Obama wants to
keep it?

That Bush loved to ram unpopular legislation through by locking out
the other party or that Obama not only does it but brags about it?

That Bush gave away the public treasury to Banksters or that Obama has
seen him and raised him?

Or perhaps you object to my use of the words ObamaCare, ObamaMotors,
ObamaMortgage, ObamaBank, and ObamaEquity for the industries our boy
has nationalized in just a few short months?

Lie much?

Try settling on one of your so called issues and perhaps we can
discuss it.

The one issue is Obama. I say he is a disaster.

Bush ended his term about one year after it became obvious to the
average guy that the processed food stuff had truly hit the fan and
Bush was correctly hated and despised for the disasters he brought on.

Obama has been in office about one year. His great plans have done
nothing at best, probably actually hurt. In any case he has zero to
show for any initiative. He does read teleprompter much better than
Bush. That's his good point.

Obama = Bush.

"Winston_Smith" <not_real at (no spam) bogus.net> wrote
Too_Many_Tools <too_many_tools at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

Try settling on one of your so called issues and perhaps we can
discuss it.

The one issue is Obama. I say he is a disaster.

Bush ended his term about one year after it became obvious to the
average guy that the processed food stuff had truly hit the fan and
Bush was correctly hated and despised for the disasters he brought on.

Obama has been in office about one year. His great plans have done
nothing at best, probably actually hurt. In any case he has zero to
show for any initiative. He does read teleprompter much better than
Bush. That's his good point.

Obama = Bush.

And what makes you think Obama's policies have hurt?

"Ed Huntress" <huntres23 at (no spam) optonline.net> wrote:
"Winston_Smith" <not_real at (no spam) bogus.net> wrote
Too_Many_Tools <too_many_tools at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:

Try settling on one of your so called issues and perhaps we can
discuss it.

The one issue is Obama. I say he is a disaster.

Bush ended his term about one year after it became obvious to the
average guy that the processed food stuff had truly hit the fan and
Bush was correctly hated and despised for the disasters he brought on.

Obama has been in office about one year. His great plans have done
nothing at best, probably actually hurt. In any case he has zero to
show for any initiative. He does read teleprompter much better than
Bush. That's his good point.

Obama = Bush.

And what makes you think Obama's policies have hurt?

Are you telling us that they have helped?

ROFL is right! You fabricate a mess of numbers out of nothing more than
your fevered imagination and you want me to balance the books for you?

Gore makes us think that the only reason for all this apocalyptic
global warming gloom and doom is for him and some of his friends to
make a fast buck. And do it by looting the public treasury courtesy
of Obama and the D Congress.

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:55:56 -0600, Jim Alder
jimalder at (no spam) ssnet.com> wrote:


ROFL is right! You fabricate a mess of numbers out of nothing more
than
your fevered imagination and you want me to balance the books for you?

You haven't explained why you count lot sales of
2500-5,000 books given away free for subscriptions or
deals in TownHall, Faux Snooze, Moonie Times, World Nut
Daily, The American Spectator, Human Events, or dozens
of other rightwing propaganda mills

THen claim "best seller"

Wait, what? That's the fucking liberals' battle cry. They want to
make it against the law to think bad thoughts.

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 08:46:53 -0500, "lab~rat >" <chase at (no spam) cheeze.net> wrote:

Wait, what? That's the fucking liberals' battle cry. They want to
make it against the law to think bad thoughts.

Do you have bad thoughts?
About doing what, exactly?

smorgas at (no spam) board.com> wrote in message
news:v3e7f55uj5h74acpb9klo2ss14lj7bmdfn at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:55:56 -0600, Jim Alder
jimalder at (no spam) ssnet.com> wrote:


ROFL is right! You fabricate a mess of numbers out of nothing more
than your fevered imagination and you want me to balance the books
for you?

You haven't explained why you count lot sales of
2500-5,000 books given away free for subscriptions or
deals in TownHall, Faux Snooze, Moonie Times, World Nut
Daily, The American Spectator, Human Events, or dozens
of other rightwing propaganda mills

THen claim "best seller"

These loons are 'depressed' when they can't grab their ankles for some icon.

Book still has pre-production costs. Say $3.50 x 1.5-million = $5.25
million. Book still has marketing costs. Say $1.00 x 1.5-million =
$1.50 million (dropped from $2 ea) Book still has printing costs. Say
$3.00 x 1.5-million = $4.50 million. Book will pay <how much?> in
royalties to Palin? Zero (do the math--if you can). Advance of
$1.5-million (estimate) vs royalties.

She gets whatever the contract says she gets. It's the publishers
problem whether their deal makes or looses money. I guess you are too
liberal to understand finance and contracts.

Total publisher payout = $12.75 million for 1.5-million
books in the initial run.

Revenue = ????

Why don't you tell us? ROFLMAO !!!

ROFL is right! You fabricate a mess of numbers out of nothing more than
your fevered imagination and you want me to balance the books for you? You're
ridiculous. "Pre-production costs" are not "per book". It is the amount
involved in designing THE book, cover, jacket, etc. That amount is divided by
the number of books sold, not the other way around. The same can be said of
marketing costs, at least partially. I assume a publisher would spend more
marketing a best seller like this one, or perhaps it requires less marketing
spending given all the free publicity it gets in the news and word-of-mouth.
She is no doubt also getting free advertising via her facebook page, which has
almost a million onlookers, reportedly.

Are you claiming I created the "what it costs to publish a

Royalties and printing costs are per book.

No more payments to Palin until the original publishing of
1.5-million books has sold over $12.75 million.

Palin received a $1.25 million advance. Unless she was very generous in
her dealings with the publisher, she should get over $4 per book, which means
after 300,000 or so are sold, her advance is covered. The publisher is not
giving the books away to Newsmax subscribers. Newsmax makes their money back
from the subscriptions. That's Republican math.

You would think that even they could figure out that when you're losing
money on a book that you think you're going to be stuck with, you don't
lower
the price even further to get still more orders before you even place your
order to the publisher.

Man! Their thinking is so convoluted I'm not sure it made sense the way
I
put it.

Your Republican't business math and ideology strikes again.
You don't know what a "profit margin" is, so how could you
figure they suffer a loss or make a profit?

You said a "publisher margin". I didn't know what you meant. I know what a
profit margin is, dimwit.

You can't do the math, and it shows.

Your math is about 80% fabrication. That makes it hard to follow.

They are stuck with trying to sell their proclaimed initial
run of about 1.5-million books and getting back their
initial layout of $12.75-million (= $8.50/book).

They aren't required to recoup an amount you have fabricated.

However, the publisher will save money on marketing and
promotion because Palin is avoiding almost everywhere with
an airport and a significant population. She is going on a
bus tour to smaller towns for about three weeks or so to
promote her book--and that seems about it. The only major
city on her tour is essentially the last stop--Chicago, to
be on Oprah. ROFLMAO !!!

She's appearing on Oprah (not sure where you see humor in that, but you
seem to laugh at the strangest moments) the day BEFORE the release date. Why
would one go on a book tour to book stores that didn't have the book yet?

says the book tour has been announced, and it is now less than two weeks
till the release date, so where you get the 'three weeks ending with an Oprah
appearance' I don't know. Perhaps the same place you get your other numbers?

On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:45:41 -0500, Cliff
Clhuprichguesswhat at (no spam) aoltmovetheperiodc.om> puked:

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 08:46:53 -0500, "lab~rat >" <chase at (no spam) cheeze.net> wrote:

Wait, what? That's the fucking liberals' battle cry. They want to
make it against the law to think bad thoughts.

Do you have bad thoughts?
About doing what, exactly?

Why? Want to see if I'm thinking something I should be locked up for?

These Lefties aren't happy unless they're talking about taking it up the
ass.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

leftwing cocksuckers like you are an excellent thermometer on hate and
hatemongering.