Costco is Pro-Republican?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2011 8:14 PM GMT
    Not sure if this is true or not, but I just returned from a Costco and the only political books were pro-republican: Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, George Bush, and Ronald Regan. Not a single book from a Democratic point of view.

    I think they had Obama's books back when. Have you noticed this too?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2011 8:53 PM GMT
    wrestlervic saidNot sure if this is true or not, but I just returned from a Costco and the only political books were pro-republican: Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, George Bush, and Ronald Regan. Not a single book from a Democratic point of view.

    I think they had Obama's books back when. Have you noticed this too?

    Suggest not having a panic about this. It's probably about business. They stock books that sell; they may find the conservative crowd to have more money and put a greater emphasis in book reading. The reading part seems generally consistent with the posters here, with conservatives more apt to cite books and liberals more apt to cite blogs.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2011 9:02 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    wrestlervic saidNot sure if this is true or not, but I just returned from a Costco and the only political books were pro-republican: Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, George Bush, and Ronald Regan. Not a single book from a Democratic point of view.

    I think they had Obama's books back when. Have you noticed this too?

    Suggest not having a panic about this. It's probably about business. They stock books that sell; they may find the conservative crowd to have more money and put a greater emphasis in book reading. The reading part seems generally consistent with the posters here, with conservatives more apt to cite books and liberals more apt to cite blogs.



    Isn't that likely because you can link to a blog or a news item in a post, while you cannot link to a pertinent passage in a book?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2011 9:06 PM GMT
    All my liberal relatives swear by Costco, so I doubt they are pro-Republican. My guess is all the liberal titles sold first, so the righty books were all that's left.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2011 9:11 PM GMT
    UpperCanadian said
    socalfitness said
    wrestlervic saidNot sure if this is true or not, but I just returned from a Costco and the only political books were pro-republican: Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, George Bush, and Ronald Regan. Not a single book from a Democratic point of view.

    I think they had Obama's books back when. Have you noticed this too?

    Suggest not having a panic about this. It's probably about business. They stock books that sell; they may find the conservative crowd to have more money and put a greater emphasis in book reading. The reading part seems generally consistent with the posters here, with conservatives more apt to cite books and liberals more apt to cite blogs.


    Isn't that likely because you can link to a blog or a news item in a post, while you cannot link to a pertinent passage in a book?

    I think RJ conservatives tend to include books more because they go into greater depth on subjects. I think they are generally better informed, as evidenced by their generally reasoned responses versus tantrums and coarse language that you see more on the left. There are a few guys on the left who will also delve into books, and they provide the best means for good discussion, but they're often drowned out.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2011 9:15 PM GMT
    antelope saidAll my liberal relatives swear by Costco, so I doubt they are pro-Republican. My guess is all the liberal titles sold first, so the righty books were all that's left.


    That is a reasonable possibility given the propensity of some of those more "populist" mentioned to decry "intellectuals" and "elitists." It seems less likely that their supporters are prone to buy books and read them, leaving their copies remaindered more so than Obama's.

    Blue collar is not the larger book-buying demographic.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2011 10:05 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    I think RJ conservatives tend to include books more because they go into greater depth on subjects. I think they are generally better informed, as evidenced by their generally reasoned responses versus tantrums and coarse language that you see more on the left. There are a few guys on the left who will also delve into books, and they provide the best means for good discussion, but they're often drowned out.


    I prefer to cite peer-reviewed journal sources, because I found books are either too simplistic or out of date.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2011 10:17 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidI think RJ conservatives tend to include books more because they go into greater depth on subjects. I think they are generally better informed, as evidenced by their generally reasoned responses versus tantrums and coarse language that you see more on the left. There are a few guys on the left who will also delve into books, and they provide the best means for good discussion, but they're often drowned out.


    Wow...condescending, arrogant, puerile...yep! You're a Republican, all right!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2011 10:19 PM GMT
    TigerTim said
    socalfitness said
    I think RJ conservatives tend to include books more because they go into greater depth on subjects. I think they are generally better informed, as evidenced by their generally reasoned responses versus tantrums and coarse language that you see more on the left. There are a few guys on the left who will also delve into books, and they provide the best means for good discussion, but they're often drowned out.


    I prefer to cite peer-reviewed journal sources, because I found books are either too simplistic or out of date.

    Understand, but you are also one of the guys who I'm sure picks up a book from time to time.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2011 10:33 PM GMT
    TigerTim said
    socalfitness said
    I think RJ conservatives tend to include books more because they go into greater depth on subjects. I think they are generally better informed, as evidenced by their generally reasoned responses versus tantrums and coarse language that you see more on the left. There are a few guys on the left who will also delve into books, and they provide the best means for good discussion, but they're often drowned out.


    I prefer to cite peer-reviewed journal sources, because I found books are either too simplistic or out of date.


    Ditto here, but you're talking about hard sciences. However, even books in soft sciences such as medicine are out of date in 5 years.

    So don't compare your journals to books about dirty and messy things like history, economics and politics where dogma rules.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 25, 2011 11:26 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    TigerTim said
    socalfitness said
    I think RJ conservatives tend to include books more because they go into greater depth on subjects. I think they are generally better informed, as evidenced by their generally reasoned responses versus tantrums and coarse language that you see more on the left. There are a few guys on the left who will also delve into books, and they provide the best means for good discussion, but they're often drowned out.


    I prefer to cite peer-reviewed journal sources, because I found books are either too simplistic or out of date.


    Ditto here, but you're talking about hard sciences. However, even books in soft sciences such as medicine are out of date in 5 years.

    So don't compare your journals to books about dirty and messy things like history, economics and politics where dogma rules.


    Actually, I'm lucky enough that my brother is an academic historian. And he does wonderful things like go to Archives, dig out documents, read and write journal articles... and reads books of course. I think dogma only holds in those fields in books written for a general audience. I have no idea why people waste their time reading them.

    I told him about the fact that some people seem to think the Nazis were socialist. He didn't stop laughing for several minutes.

    What I find distressing about a lot of people on here is their wanton lack of intellectual rigor.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2011 1:37 AM GMT
    wrestlervic saidNot sure if this is true or not, but I just returned from a Costco and the only political books were pro-republican: Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, George Bush, and Ronald Regan. Not a single book from a Democratic point of view.

    I think they had Obama's books back when. Have you noticed this too?
    They are there because no one wants to read em.. they are on the close out/bargain bin...
  • rioriz

    Posts: 1056

    Jan 26, 2011 2:23 AM GMT
    I think it is a sign of the times when we label a place like Costco in a political manner. Really what is the big deal? The Kroger in the "ghetto" on the other side of town does not carry these titles although they have many Obama stuff and very very little literature and a large selection of more Ethnic titles, while go to the one by my house and there is a better mix and a larger book section overall. I guess Kroger is saying that those in the "ghetto" don't like to read what the NYT deems intellectual reading.

    They may be catering to the neighborhood they are in or the newer released books in which the ones you listed have all new books in the past 2 months.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2011 2:24 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidMost likely hardly anyone wants to spend their hard earned money on a book written by a liberal.

    Clearly the public isn't interested in reading such books.... or listening to liberal radio shows (a.k.a. the failed Air America).... icon_wink.gif


    Progressive radio is doing fine. On the other hand, I can't recall you ever once citing a book you've read. Ever. In all this time.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2011 2:28 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    TigerTim said
    socalfitness said
    I think RJ conservatives tend to include books more because they go into greater depth on subjects. I think they are generally better informed, as evidenced by their generally reasoned responses versus tantrums and coarse language that you see more on the left. There are a few guys on the left who will also delve into books, and they provide the best means for good discussion, but they're often drowned out.


    I prefer to cite peer-reviewed journal sources, because I found books are either too simplistic or out of date.

    Understand, but you are also one of the guys who I'm sure picks up a book from time to time.


    That's completely untrue and offensive. In fact, I can't remember a single time that a conservative on here ever cited a book. I've urged many of you to read certain books and been told they weren't the "right" books. But I never hear what those "right" books are...

    Personally, I read about one nonfiction book per week and a novel or two every month. In addition to NY Times, The Nation, WSJ.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2011 2:38 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    TigerTim said
    socalfitness said
    I think RJ conservatives tend to include books more because they go into greater depth on subjects. I think they are generally better informed, as evidenced by their generally reasoned responses versus tantrums and coarse language that you see more on the left. There are a few guys on the left who will also delve into books, and they provide the best means for good discussion, but they're often drowned out.


    I prefer to cite peer-reviewed journal sources, because I found books are either too simplistic or out of date.

    Understand, but you are also one of the guys who I'm sure picks up a book from time to time.


    That's completely untrue and offensive. In fact, I can't remember a single time that a conservative on here ever cited a book. I've urged many of you to read certain books and been told they weren't the "right" books. But I never hear what those "right" books are...

    Personally, I read about one nonfiction book per week and a novel or two every month. In addition to NY Times, The Nation, WSJ.

    I have cited several, e.g. Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism (American Intellectual Culture) by Ronald J. Pestritto; Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning, Jonah Goldberg [I know this book is not held in high regard here]; The Road to Serfdom by F. A. Hayek; Black Rednecks and White Liberals by Thomas Sowell; White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era by Shelby Steele; Winners Never Cheat: Everyday Values We Learned as Children (But May Have Forgotten), Jon M. Huntsman.

    Also my comments should not be offensive to all as I was careful to point out I was not referring to everyone. Aside from the obvious posters, especially those who delight in uncouth language, there have been others who would argue a point not realizing what I was stating. I would provide links so they could at least read a few paragraphs so we could at least argue on the same wavelength, but they were too lazy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2011 7:00 AM GMT
    Did you see anything on Rush?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2011 5:03 PM GMT
    True_Blue_Aussie saidDid you see anything on Rush?


    Yes. Pubic lice and food stains...just like always.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2011 6:16 PM GMT
    Tiger Tim said
    q1w2e3 said
    Tiger Tim said
    socal fitness said
    I think RJ conservatives tend to include books more because they go into greater depth on subjects. I think they are generally better informed, as evidenced by their generally reasoned responses versus tantrums and coarse language that you see more on the left. There are a few guys on the left who will also delve into books, and they provide the best means for good discussion, but they're often drowned out.


    I prefer to cite peer-reviewed journal sources, because I found books are either too simplistic or out of date.


    Ditto here, but you're talking about hard sciences. However, even books in soft sciences such as medicine are out of date in 5 years.

    So don't compare your journals to books about dirty and messy things like history, economics and politics where dogma rules.


    Actually, I'm lucky enough that my brother is an academic historian. And he does wonderful things like go to Archives, dig out documents, read and write journal articles... and reads books of course. I think dogma only holds in those fields in books written for a general audience. I have no idea why people waste their time reading them.

    I told him about the fact that some people seem to think the Nazis were socialist. He didn't stop laughing for several minutes.

    What I find distressing about a lot of people on here is their wanton lack of intellectual rigor.


    Now this is truly funny! Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers party). Never mind that both Nazism and Fascism had their beginnings in socialism and are forms of nationalist socialism. No dogma in your post there!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2011 7:07 PM GMT
    shybuffguy said
    Tiger Tim said
    q1w2e3 said
    Tiger Tim said
    socal fitness said
    I think RJ conservatives tend to include books more because they go into greater depth on subjects. I think they are generally better informed, as evidenced by their generally reasoned responses versus tantrums and coarse language that you see more on the left. There are a few guys on the left who will also delve into books, and they provide the best means for good discussion, but they're often drowned out.


    I prefer to cite peer-reviewed journal sources, because I found books are either too simplistic or out of date.


    Ditto here, but you're talking about hard sciences. However, even books in soft sciences such as medicine are out of date in 5 years.

    So don't compare your journals to books about dirty and messy things like history, economics and politics where dogma rules.


    Actually, I'm lucky enough that my brother is an academic historian. And he does wonderful things like go to Archives, dig out documents, read and write journal articles... and reads books of course. I think dogma only holds in those fields in books written for a general audience. I have no idea why people waste their time reading them.

    I told him about the fact that some people seem to think the Nazis were socialist. He didn't stop laughing for several minutes.

    What I find distressing about a lot of people on here is their wanton lack of intellectual rigor.


    Now this is truly funny! Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers party). Never mind that both Nazism and Fascism had their beginnings in socialism and are forms of nationalist socialism. No dogma in your post there!


    Is he even for real? lol. It's like rudimentary knowledge. The only main difference to most modern socialists was that they were nationalists and were conned into believing (by Hitler) that killing certain groups of people was okay as well as waging a war against the rest of the world.

    Maybe he forgot to watch a basic documentary on the rise of Nazi Germany, never mind read a book.

    But for starters, here's a link to a basic wikipedia article on the Nazi Party:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party

    "The National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: About this sound Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (helpĀ·info), abbreviated NSDAP), commonly known in English as the Nazi Party (from the German Nazi, abbreviated from the pronunciation of Nationalsozialist[5]), was a political party in Germany between 1919 and 1945."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2011 9:52 PM GMT
    Now mocktwinkle. You do know all about how Mr Hitler was able to trick a segment of the German gay community, the left. Into putting him into power with the promise of advancement for homosexuals in Germany. OMG how they where to bully, intimidate anyone who spoke out against Mr Hitler and the Nazi's and fight in the beer halls too, like the thugs they where; all for a promise of the gay agenda being advanced.

    Then the night of the Long knives, put an end to all of that, and the advancement of the gay agenda. but......it was to late, the gay left of Germany had already helped put Mr Hitler and the Nazi party in power, and now it was time for their demise.

    So never vote for a person out for the gay vote, for their own self gain and advament, with hollow promise. We just have to look back at history to see what can happen.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2011 10:26 PM GMT
    True_Blue_Aussie saidNow mocktwinkle. You do know all about how Mr Hitler was able to trick a segment of the German gay community, the left. Into putting him into power with the promise of advancement for homosexuals in Germany. OMG how they where to bully, intimidate anyone who spoke out against Mr Hitler and the Nazi's and fight in the beer halls too, like the thugs they where; all for a promise of the gay agenda being advanced.

    Then the night of the Long knives, put an end to all of that, and the advancement of the gay agenda. but......it was to late, the gay left of Germany had already helped put Mr Hitler and the Nazi party in power, and now it was time for their demise.

    So never vote for a person out for the gay vote, for their own self gain and advament, with hollow promise. We just have to look back at history to see what can happen.


    How dare you.

    You should be ashamed of yourself. That is, if you had the capacity for that particular emotion.

    Seriously...It's obvious that you are a very disturbed individual. I had guessed you might be an alcoholic, based on many of your posts. Now, I think it goes deeper than that.

    How is the mental health care system in Australia? Do you have someone who could assist you in getting the help you need?

    Keeping you in my prayers...

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2011 10:42 PM GMT
    Let's see...who should I believe. Mock? Pattycakes? Shy? TigerTim?

    I pick TigerTim.

    -Doug

    Read it ALL
    "Nazism (Nationalsozialismus, National Socialism; alternatively spelled Naziism[1]) was the ideology and practice of the Nazi Party and of Nazi Germany.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] It was a unique variety of fascism that involved biological racism and antisemitism.[10] Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics and philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies; in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics.[11]"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2011 11:29 PM GMT
    meninlove said Let's see...who should I believe. Mock? Pattycakes? Shy? TigerTim?

    I pick TigerTim.

    -Doug

    Read it ALL
    "Nazism (Nationalsozialismus, National Socialism; alternatively spelled Naziism[1]) was the ideology and practice of the Nazi Party and of Nazi Germany.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] It was a unique variety of fascism that involved biological racism and antisemitism.[10] Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics and philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies; in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics.[11]"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism


    There is a huge difference between the actual policy and the climate that creates the authoritarianism. The "right" attempts to stop government growth because of the past risks of it going awry, regardless of what specific policies ensue, whether they are considered "leftwing" or "rightwing" doesn't really matter. The "left" constantly thinks that they can better the world through growth of government that is going to be the servant of the people and ensure that the"correct" thing is done to benefit everyone. This was the leftwing aspect of the Nazi regime. The people put their full trust in someone and a party to "do good" only to helplessly watch him destroy everything.

    Once a government or dictator acquires unstoppable power they can choose to be like Castro or Hitler or even a dictator that chooses to be benign -- it's really up to what they want. You just can't seem to get that though. I suppose nationalism is considered more rightwing, so in that sense, yes, their policies would lean far right. But it wasn't really the nationalism that made them so evil, it was the policies of intolerance, hate, murder and ultimately military expansion that created the monster it became.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2011 11:32 PM GMT
    meninlove said Let's see...who should I believe. Mock? Pattycakes? Shy? TigerTim?

    I pick TigerTim.

    -Doug

    Read it ALL
    "Nazism (Nationalsozialismus, National Socialism; alternatively spelled Naziism[1]) was the ideology and practice of the Nazi Party and of Nazi Germany.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] It was a unique variety of fascism that involved biological racism and antisemitism.[10] Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics and philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies; in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics.[11]"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism


    Maybe the "far right" by European standards icon_rolleyes.gif