A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travelling Style » Air travel
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Air France? Ptui!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #391  
Old November 6th, 2006, 10:18 AM posted to rec.travel.air,rec.travel.europe,misc.consumers,soc.culture.french,alt.gossip.celebrities
Tchiowa
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,374
Default Air France? Ptui!


mrtravel wrote:
Tchiowa wrote:
mrtravel wrote:

Geoff Miller wrote:


ant writes:

: Absolutely. Trade is a two-way street: other countries need our
: commerce as much as we need theirs.



You have a point. We'd all be lost without McDonalds.



If you really believe American trade is limited to McDonalds, you're
too ignorant to be allowed to participate in public debate.


So, Geoff.. Since you think King George has been so good for the
economy, what do you think of the huge increase in the National Debt
since he took office, due to his love of deficit spending?



The budget deficit as a percentage of GDP is among the lowest in the G7.


I was comparing it to the previous administration, not the other
countries of G7


You have to compare it with what is good. A zero deficit is not always
good. Further, comparing it with previous or subsequent administrations
is not necessarily an indicator of whether or not it is good. So your
question simply muddies the issue.

  #392  
Old November 6th, 2006, 11:20 AM posted to rec.travel.air,rec.travel.europe,misc.consumers,soc.culture.french,alt.gossip.celebrities
Markku Grönroos
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,095
Default Air France? Ptui!


"Tchiowa" kirjoitti
legroups.com...


Very dishonest response. As he said, he did *not* blame Clinton or his
administration. The fact that Bush inherited an economy in recession is


Perhaps you homo trim the list of receiving groups a bit. You are
crossposting this **** to travel groups. stay away from travel groups.


  #393  
Old November 6th, 2006, 06:43 PM posted to rec.travel.air,rec.travel.europe,misc.consumers,soc.culture.french,alt.gossip.celebrities
mrtravel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 105
Default Air France? Ptui!

Tchiowa wrote:

You have to compare it with what is good. A zero deficit is not always
good. Further, comparing it with previous or subsequent administrations
is not necessarily an indicator of whether or not it is good. So your
question simply muddies the issue.


I didn't say it was always good, but at some point you can't continue to
overspend, and we have reached that point, especially if your spending
is partially due to a war that you should not still be involved in.
In the BEST picture, the US State Department says that 2/3 of the
Iraqi's don't want us there. In nearly sense of the word, we are "losing".
  #394  
Old November 6th, 2006, 06:43 PM posted to rec.travel.air,rec.travel.europe,misc.consumers,soc.culture.french,alt.gossip.celebrities
mrtravel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 105
Default Air France? Ptui!

Markku Grönroos wrote:

"Tchiowa" kirjoitti
legroups.com...


Very dishonest response. As he said, he did *not* blame Clinton or his
administration. The fact that Bush inherited an economy in recession is



Perhaps you homo trim the list of receiving groups a bit. You are
crossposting this **** to travel groups. stay away from travel groups.


Didn't you just do that?
  #395  
Old November 6th, 2006, 10:43 PM posted to rec.travel.air,rec.travel.europe,misc.consumers,soc.culture.french,alt.gossip.celebrities
TOliver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 195
Default Air France? Ptui!


"mrtravel" wrote in message
. com...
Tchiowa wrote:

You have to compare it with what is good. A zero deficit is not always
good. Further, comparing it with previous or subsequent administrations
is not necessarily an indicator of whether or not it is good. So your
question simply muddies the issue.


I didn't say it was always good, but at some point you can't continue to
overspend, and we have reached that point,


That's a judgement call on your part. Some, especially economists, might
with good reason claim that the threshold is (based on precedent) somewhat
higher, both from a standpoint of the current annual deficit as a percentage
of GDP/GNP or as compared to total national debt.

Personally, I'm far, far more concerned with looming ever-larger deficits
from the Medicare program, incurable without forcing the young to pay far
more for their elders' ills.


especially if your spending is partially due to a war


Even the most conservative of economists have never had much trouble in
advocating piling up deficits during wartime - especially since losing
causes a lot of debt to disappear in the inferno while (at least in the good
old days) victory allowed some recouping.


that you should not still be involved in.


Again a judgement call, in my eyes, the inevitable consequences (if worse
hadn't ensued) of our joint, collective (Remember the "Coalition") to finish
the affair at the end of Gulf War I.


In the BEST picture, the US State Department says that 2/3 of the Iraqi's
don't want us there. In nearly sense of the word, we are "losing".


I'd accept a rewrite, using your Freudian omission of "every" to say we are
not currently doing much "winning" (but then in a far more - at least in
political and international eyes - cause among the Afghans, we are not only
no longer winning, but losing ground.

I'm sure that in 1945, substantially more than 2/3 of either the Japanese or
the Germans would have preferred that we neither came nor stayed. We were
wise enough to understand that worse fiascos than paralleled our pullout in
1919 would occur in Germany and that in 1945, a large, ornery vacuum filler
would have welcomed our departure from two prospective additions to his
larder. Pulling out of Iraq sounds good but reality suggests (a) some type
of autonomous Kurdish state certainly likely to cause the fragile secular
government in Turkey to be overtaken by a more fundamentalist Islamic regime
dead set on devouring Kurds within Turkish Borders and in the Kurdish
fragment of Iraq, (b) a Shia section of Iraq achieved by shooting, bombing,
dissecting or transporting several million Sunni (mostly to desert sites
without food, water, or giving a damn), and (c) an Anbar/Anwar province,
beholden to Syria, filled with the surviving Sunni, and serving as a
training/recruiting/organizational HQ for Al Qaeda and related endeavors.

I have no little respect for Tchiowa, his mainsail reefed to run as close to
the wind from the right as he can claw, just as I've continued to ignore
those who target you for attacks that surpass even my hyperbole involving
idiots' mothers given to practicing commercial transactions in the form of
knee tremblers in dark, dank alleys. Unlike most of them, you're capable of
rational discourse and argument and know something of air travel, as well.
Both of you are hardy pragmatists, but in his case, the cynical edge has too
acutely sharpened and narrowed his perspective, while yours is dulled by
lack of exposure to anything beyond the Pablum of the modern media. But
compared to most of the posters here, ranging from the outright cretinism to
some obviously typing behind there backs with their arms encased in
straightjackets by the attendants of the institutions to which their parents
had them committed (or should have) when they realized just what
monstrosities to which they had given birth and sustenance.

Long ago, briefly, but not near briefly enough, and before it became so
bloodily serious as it did, I went to a war, liked nothing of what I saw,
and became convinced that it was unwinnable, not because we would not give
our very best, but that our allies, the locals in whose behalf we were
struggling, had a less than sincere commitment to the purpose we envisioned
as joint and merited. Then as now, we misjudged the folks whom we meant to
aid, not understanding that as a group or groups they were unwilling,
unmotivated and unlikely to make the sacrifices, compromises and
accommodations necessary to survive as a country.

I've become increasingly convinced that along with our prewar reliance upon
an Iraqi dissident movement as crooked as a desert sidewinder, a wartime
decision to disestablish the Iraqi Army, and an unwillingness to admit that
having disestablished that portion of the US military dedicated to
occupation and military government in about 1950, we didn't have the means
or the capacity to control circumstances. Add our (USAian) continued
incapacity to ever view any event, place or belief system in any perspective
but our own, and we were pretty muchly f*cked going in, and the odds of
success grew longer my the minute.

TMO


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
France, Belgium Publish Carrier Blacklist Earl Evleth Europe 2 August 30th, 2005 02:35 AM
Air France jet landed too far down the runway, probe finds Fly Guy Air travel 38 August 9th, 2005 07:30 PM
Air France / KLM "merger"gets go-ahead Sjoerd Air travel 5 February 11th, 2004 10:39 PM
France Turning Its Back on 'Le Halloween' Earl Evleth Europe 25 November 13th, 2003 12:30 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.