Air France? Ptui!

Stephen Farrow wrote:
Tchiowa wrote:
Stephen Farrow wrote:

Quiz for you. What happens when you increase spending and cut taxes?

Answer: The economy improves and tax collections rise. The US currently
has record high tax collections and a budget deficit that is so low
compared to GDP that we could qualify for the Eurozone while France
couldn't. All this despite the economic loss of 9/11 and the wars.

Keep trying, but you're losing when you disparage the Bush economic
record. It's stunningly good.

Sure, I guess, if you're wearing a blindfold.

Or if you can count. Full employment. Steady growth. Low deficit.

I note you did not dispute any of my specific points about the economy.
And for good reason. You can't.

mrtravel wrote:
Tchiowa wrote:

Interesting to see the reaction when you are nailed completely and
don't have an answer. Kind of like John Kerry did yesterday. Made a
dumb statement, got nailed for it, and started name-calling.

Nonsense. I understood what Kerry meant as soon as I heard him say it.
He was talking about Bush getting us into Iraq. It would make no sense
taken otherwise. Kerry, of all people, would not say something
derogatory about the soldiers themselves. If you believe he words were
about anyone but Bush, then you certainly don't know Kerry.

You missed my point. I accept Kerry's explanation because, as you point
it, it makes more sense.

But he did mis-speak. And rather than apologizing (which he did today)
he started the name calling routine. Just as did the poster I responded
to.

Calif Bill wrote:
"mrtravel" wrote in message
...
Tchiowa wrote:

Interesting to see the reaction when you are nailed completely and
don't have an answer. Kind of like John Kerry did yesterday. Made a
dumb statement, got nailed for it, and started name-calling.

Nonsense. I understood what Kerry meant as soon as I heard him say it.
He was talking about Bush getting us into Iraq. It would make no sense
taken otherwise. Kerry, of all people, would not say something derogatory
about the soldiers themselves. If you believe he words were about anyone
but Bush, then you certainly don't know Kerry.

Why would he not say anything bad about the soldiers themselves? Would not
be the first time he trashed them.

There are a couple of reasons why many people aren't buying his
explanation.

First, a comment like "if you're not too bright you end up in the
military" (which is how the statement was interpreted) is very much
along the lines of Kerry's elitist thinking. He served in the military
only long enough to say he did so that he could pursue his political
ambitions. He has always looked down on the "little folk".

Second, his explanation was that he was making fun of Bush's
educational experience (implying that Bush didn't do well at
university). That doesn't make any sense because Bush and Kerry both
went to the same University at approximately the same time and Bush got
better grades than Kerry.

Tchiowa wrote:
mrtravel wrote:

Tchiowa wrote:


Interesting to see the reaction when you are nailed completely and
don't have an answer. Kind of like John Kerry did yesterday. Made a
dumb statement, got nailed for it, and started name-calling.

Nonsense. I understood what Kerry meant as soon as I heard him say it.
He was talking about Bush getting us into Iraq. It would make no sense
taken otherwise. Kerry, of all people, would not say something
derogatory about the soldiers themselves. If you believe he words were
about anyone but Bush, then you certainly don't know Kerry.


You missed my point. I accept Kerry's explanation because, as you point
it, it makes more sense.

But he did mis-speak. And rather than apologizing (which he did today)
he started the name calling routine. Just as did the poster I responded
to.


In all fairness, the Bush camp started with the name calling.
With the number of Bush speaking mistakes, it was a bit like the pot
calling the kettle black, when the pot is much blacker.

Tchiowa wrote:

He served in the military
only long enough to say he did so that he could pursue his political
ambitions. He has always looked down on the "little folk".

And Bush's service record?????


Second, his explanation was that he was making fun of Bush's
educational experience (implying that Bush didn't do well at
university). That doesn't make any sense because Bush and Kerry both
went to the same University at approximately the same time and Bush got
better grades than Kerry.


What makes you think he was referring to Bush's university education?

mrtravel wrote:
Tchiowa wrote:

He served in the military
only long enough to say he did so that he could pursue his political
ambitions. He has always looked down on the "little folk".

And Bush's service record?????

Relevance to the post?

Kerry is an elitist. He looks down on the "great unwashed".

Second, his explanation was that he was making fun of Bush's
educational experience (implying that Bush didn't do well at
university). That doesn't make any sense because Bush and Kerry both
went to the same University at approximately the same time and Bush got
better grades than Kerry.


What makes you think he was referring to Bush's university education?

He was talking to university students, he referred to getting a college
education and now says he was making fun of Bush when he said those
things.

mrtravel wrote:
Tchiowa wrote:
mrtravel wrote:

Tchiowa wrote:


Interesting to see the reaction when you are nailed completely and
don't have an answer. Kind of like John Kerry did yesterday. Made a
dumb statement, got nailed for it, and started name-calling.

Nonsense. I understood what Kerry meant as soon as I heard him say it.
He was talking about Bush getting us into Iraq. It would make no sense
taken otherwise. Kerry, of all people, would not say something
derogatory about the soldiers themselves. If you believe he words were
about anyone but Bush, then you certainly don't know Kerry.


You missed my point. I accept Kerry's explanation because, as you point
it, it makes more sense.

But he did mis-speak. And rather than apologizing (which he did today)
he started the name calling routine. Just as did the poster I responded
to.


In all fairness, the Bush camp started with the name calling.

Well, no. The "Bush Camp" started saying the remark was offensive and
the Kerry should apologize. Kerry responded with personal attacks about
"doughy" people and "stuffed shirts".

Geoff Miller wrote:
mrtravel writes:

Nonsense. Whatever the outcome of the war, we would have had trading
partners. After all, we trade with Japan and Germany now.


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.


--
ant
Don't try to email me;
I'm borrowing the spammer du jour's addy

Geoff Miller wrote:
simply because
anti-Americanism is fashionable among the international chattering
classes at the moment.

At the moment?

--
ant
Don't try to email me;
I'm borrowing the spammer du jour's addy

"Tchiowa" wrote...

.
Now we have a responsibility to make sure that Iraq doesn't fail as a
nation. Funny that the Left seems to want that to happen.


(Adjusting to Bottom Posting, a form which escapes the limited intellectual
and mechanical capacities of Quigley.....)


"Question Quigley" wrote ...


What do you mean "WE?"

It is a Right Wing war so let the Right Wing fight it.


Quigs, old fellow....Did you compose that line when you were still a member
of the French Parliament back in early 1940?

Most would consider that Saddam's government, along with the Taliban, al
Qaeda, etc., make up the "Rightest" of wings, while the current government
in the US is about as Moderate Centrist as can be, barely a shade of two to
the "right" of the predecessor regime under Boy Clinton, too dead-set on
being loved by all - all the girls and even the boys - to have much
ideological commitment, but amazingly ready to call down fire on aspiring
plants or desert compounds as a method of avoiding/delaying inevitable
confrontation.

Meanwhile, a century of "the Left" has certainly accomplished a
lot.....playing footsie with the USSR in the 1920s/30s (at the cost of 15-20
million dead from the excesses of that brand of state socialism), hiding
under the bed from the "National Socialistss" and fascists as they grew in
ability to slaughter millions and swallow much of a continent, then
quivering and quavering everytime knowledgeable Westerners confronted the
USSR. Certainly, it was Western economies, policies and political
philosophy which finally toppled the USSR, but without four decades of the
threat of massive military retaliation, the bear would have gobbled up most
if not all of Western Europe (and been far less vulnerable to economic
collapase).

TMO