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 » Travel Regions » USA & Canada
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

U.S. tourism may be casualty of war on terror



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old February 18th, 2005, 11:06 PM
George Greene
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Actually I am an American living near the Great Lakes.....and I often cross
the land borders into and back from Ontario w/no problems (other than the
occasional line-up on a busy weekend) at all. Have also been past those I-5
and 1-15 security checks in southern CA many times------virtually always
it's either a "wave thru" or no one is even there. The "inland: checks in
TX are usually a bit more thorough.

The "hassle" factor I was speaking of was the one in airports--hence the
preference to drive rather than fly. When flying you never know what extra
hassles you'll get going thru security, whether you'll have a 5 minute line
or a 2 hour line, the varying treatment by different screeners, etc. Easier
to drive to Atlanta than fly there, heh. And international travel thru
airports has gotta be worse with the added customs/immigration/visa/etc for
foreign visitors.

George

PTravel wrote in message
...

Are you driving across the border? From where? I've crossed into the US
from both Mexico and Canada post-9/11. Of course, I'm a citizen, but the
process didn't seem any more onerous than the usual garbage I go through
when I fly home from international travel. I agree that it's a

dog-and-pony
show, but I'm not sure that it's so horrible that it, alone, is a reason

for
avoiding the US (though I can think of other reasons just now). You do
know, don't you, that once you're in the US, there are no more security
checks if you're driving (except occassional checks on I-5 just north of

San
Diego looking for illegal aliens).


Juliana L Holm wrote in message




  #62  
Old February 18th, 2005, 11:35 PM
PTravel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"George Greene" wrote in message
...
Actually I am an American living near the Great Lakes.....and I often

cross
the land borders into and back from Ontario w/no problems (other than the
occasional line-up on a busy weekend) at all. Have also been past those

I-5
and 1-15 security checks in southern CA many times------virtually always
it's either a "wave thru" or no one is even there. The "inland: checks in
TX are usually a bit more thorough.

The "hassle" factor I was speaking of was the one in airports--hence the
preference to drive rather than fly. When flying you never know what extra
hassles you'll get going thru security, whether you'll have a 5 minute

line
or a 2 hour line, the varying treatment by different screeners, etc.

Easier
to drive to Atlanta than fly there, heh. And international travel thru
airports has gotta be worse with the added customs/immigration/visa/etc

for
foreign visitors.

George


I'm not suggesting there's no hassle factor going through immigration. I
travel internationally quite a bit, though I've never been very much delayed
on return to the US. I do question, though, the extent to which the added
security (such as it is) at US ports of entry is a discouraging factor for
tourism; it's certainly never deterred me from travelling to other countries
with relatively rigid immigration inspection, e.g. China. My personal
belief is that any dip in US tourism is a result of the overall perception
of the US in the context of its international actions of late.



PTravel wrote in message
...

Are you driving across the border? From where? I've crossed into the

US
from both Mexico and Canada post-9/11. Of course, I'm a citizen, but

the
process didn't seem any more onerous than the usual garbage I go through
when I fly home from international travel. I agree that it's a

dog-and-pony
show, but I'm not sure that it's so horrible that it, alone, is a reason

for
avoiding the US (though I can think of other reasons just now). You do
know, don't you, that once you're in the US, there are no more security
checks if you're driving (except occassional checks on I-5 just north of

San
Diego looking for illegal aliens).


Juliana L Holm wrote in message






  #63  
Old February 19th, 2005, 01:09 AM
john
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:48:11 -0800, Go Fig wrote:

In article , Alan Street
wrote:

In article , john
wrote:

Â¥ On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 06:29:30 -0700, miles wrote:
Â¥
Â¥ AJC wrote:
Â¥
Â¥ Which is no surprise to anyone. Those stories of 'everyone hating
Â¥ Americans' were made up by the Bush regime and it's associated media
Â¥ organizations to bolster nationalistic feelings in the US. Europeans,
Â¥ Asians, and others always have, and always will make the distinction
Â¥ between the US government, US corporate symbols, and individual
Â¥ American travellers.
Â¥
Â¥ What are you talking about? Bush regime and its associated media
Â¥ organizations? Are you nuts? The media is associated with the Bush
Â¥ regime? Oh man, now thats funny!! Can you tell us which media
Â¥ organizations are associated with the Bush regime??? Talk about warped
Â¥ leftist conspiracy theories gone wild.
Â¥
Â¥
Â¥ How about the Fox network for starters?
Â¥
Â¥ How about the Sinclair TV and Radio conglomerate?
Â¥
Â¥ During the last election they had a hit piece film about Kerry and
Â¥ forced all their TV affiliates to show it in prime time?
Â¥
Â¥ Do you want more?

You forgot Clear Channel :-)


What was forgotten was that Kerry was offered the chance to rebut the
charges on the Sinclair Net show... he declined... like the official
form that would open his military records.


Kerry was refused prime time coverage by Sinclair TV to rebut the
political propaganda for Bush.

The significant point is that the Sinclair FORCED their TV affiliates
to show this Bush propaganda film at prime time.


jay
Fri Feb 18, 2005


  #64  
Old February 19th, 2005, 02:12 AM
Go Fig
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , john
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:48:11 -0800, Go Fig wrote:

In article , Alan Street
wrote:

In article , john
wrote:

å´ On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 06:29:30 -0700, miles wrote:
å´
å´ AJC wrote:
å´
å´ Which is no surprise to anyone. Those stories of 'everyone hating
å´ Americans' were made up by the Bush regime and it's associated media
å´ organizations to bolster nationalistic feelings in the US. Europeans,
å´ Asians, and others always have, and always will make the distinction
å´ between the US government, US corporate symbols, and individual
å´ American travellers.
å´
å´ What are you talking about? Bush regime and its associated media
å´ organizations? Are you nuts? The media is associated with the Bush
å´ regime? Oh man, now thats funny!! Can you tell us which media
å´ organizations are associated with the Bush regime??? Talk about
warped
å´ leftist conspiracy theories gone wild.
å´
å´
å´ How about the Fox network for starters?
å´
å´ How about the Sinclair TV and Radio conglomerate?
å´
å´ During the last election they had a hit piece film about Kerry and
å´ forced all their TV affiliates to show it in prime time?
å´
å´ Do you want more?

You forgot Clear Channel :-)


What was forgotten was that Kerry was offered the chance to rebut the
charges on the Sinclair Net show... he declined... like the official
form that would open his military records.


Kerry was refused prime time coverage by Sinclair TV to rebut the
political propaganda for Bush.


No, he refused to be part of the show they were airing, he is not
entitled to his own campaign commercial paid for by Sinclair.


The significant point is that the Sinclair FORCED their TV affiliates
to show this Bush propaganda film at prime time.


That is what being a network is, just like many CBS affiliates became
(unwitting) conspirators in a fraud by CBS News against Bush.

jay
Fri Feb 18, 2005

  #65  
Old February 19th, 2005, 03:13 AM
Dave Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

john wrote:


Kerry was refused prime time coverage by Sinclair TV to rebut the
political propaganda for Bush.

The significant point is that the Sinclair FORCED their TV affiliates
to show this Bush propaganda film at prime time.


Damn, that's dirty to use facts . :-)


  #66  
Old February 19th, 2005, 04:26 AM
john
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 17:12:47 -0800, Go Fig wrote:

In article , john
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:48:11 -0800, Go Fig wrote:

In article , Alan Street
wrote:

In article , john
wrote:

å´ On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 06:29:30 -0700, miles wrote:
å´
å´ AJC wrote:
å´
å´ Which is no surprise to anyone. Those stories of 'everyone hating
å´ Americans' were made up by the Bush regime and it's associated media
å´ organizations to bolster nationalistic feelings in the US. Europeans,
å´ Asians, and others always have, and always will make the distinction
å´ between the US government, US corporate symbols, and individual
å´ American travellers.
å´
å´ What are you talking about? Bush regime and its associated media
å´ organizations? Are you nuts? The media is associated with the Bush
å´ regime? Oh man, now thats funny!! Can you tell us which media
å´ organizations are associated with the Bush regime??? Talk about
warped
å´ leftist conspiracy theories gone wild.
å´
å´
å´ How about the Fox network for starters?
å´
å´ How about the Sinclair TV and Radio conglomerate?
å´
å´ During the last election they had a hit piece film about Kerry and
å´ forced all their TV affiliates to show it in prime time?
å´
å´ Do you want more?

You forgot Clear Channel :-)

What was forgotten was that Kerry was offered the chance to rebut the
charges on the Sinclair Net show... he declined... like the official
form that would open his military records.


Kerry was refused prime time coverage by Sinclair TV to rebut the
political propaganda for Bush.


No, he refused to be part of the show they were airing, he is not
entitled to his own campaign commercial paid for by Sinclair.


Yes, you just stated the main fact:

Sinclair produced a BUSH campaign commercial for showing on PUBLIC
airwaves.

Sinclair should have its TV licenses taken away from them.


The significant point is that the Sinclair FORCED their TV affiliates
to show this Bush propaganda film at prime time.


That is what being a network is, just like many CBS affiliates became
(unwitting) conspirators in a fraud by CBS News against Bush.


CBS was dealing with a news item--NOT producing a BUSH propaganda
commercial.

jay
Fri Feb 18, 2005


  #67  
Old February 19th, 2005, 04:42 AM
miles
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

PTRAVEL wrote:

For starters, how about the columnists who were paid by the Bush
administration:


You forgot to mention what happened to those columnists.

Or, perhaps, the fake reporters who snuck in to news conferencers so they
could feed Bush questions?


Like the reporters who prepped soldiers for the town hall meeting in Iraq?

Or, simply, Fox News.


Why didn't you mention CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN?

You're a Bush hater so you just follow the propaganda headlines like a
puppet.
  #68  
Old February 19th, 2005, 04:49 AM
miles
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

PTRAVEL wrote:

I'm not suggesting that America's so-called "security" isn't an issue. It
is, however, part-and-parcel of a negative perception of the US that is the
direct result of the policies of the current administration.


When the USA was all fuzzy warm with so many in the 90's we were struck
with our guard down. Follow the money and you'll see why some decided
not to be quite as friendly behind the scenes. Oil for Food fiasco is
only a fraction. Some of those other countries have learned or will
learn the hard way of their own arrogance. Just a matter of time.
  #69  
Old February 19th, 2005, 04:56 AM
miles
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

john wrote:

How about the Fox network for starters?

How about the Sinclair TV and Radio conglomerate?

During the last election they had a hit piece film about Kerry and
forced all their TV affiliates to show it in prime time?

Do you want more?


Yes please. Do tell about CNN, CBS, NBC and ABC as well. 4 against 1?
At least when Fox puts on a pro-Bush person they almost always give
equal time to someone directly opposed in a rebuttal. Something very
rare with the other 4 media outlets. Want to discuss the newspaper
media and their take? Look at Greenspans actual comments with regards
to Bush's SS private accounts. Then look at this weeks paper stories
and see how biased they are in their reporting. Good grief. Name a
fair and balanced media outlet. There aren't any.
  #70  
Old February 19th, 2005, 04:58 AM
miles
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

TheNewsGuy(Mike) wrote:

Nope. The truth.. Just a few of the recent revelations...


Too funny. Why do you quote that BS but completely ignore the very
biased news from CNN, NBC, CBS and ABC as well as most newspapers? Fox
is biased but those other 4 are fair and balanced? Good grief.
 




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
U.S. tourism may be casualty of war on terror spamfree Air travel 333 February 26th, 2005 02:12 AM
Cruise ship contracts spout controversy !!! steinbrenner Cruises 0 October 8th, 2004 10:43 PM
Myanmar Times - Tourism in the age of globalisation utunlin Asia 0 August 4th, 2004 05:05 AM
National Geog. says Scottish Highlands beat Colorado Rockies, Key West and Yosemite for sustainable tourism Owain Europe 1 April 22nd, 2004 10:02 AM
Zanzibar - Terror, tourism and odd beliefs (from The Economist) Hans-Georg Michna Africa 1 February 20th, 2004 11:49 PM


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


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