In America, atheists are still in the closet

[Mikko]

Double Fine wrote:

<quoted text>
And full of busty blondes.

most of them are fakes ;)

[Thinking]

737s are naff, though. Ugly little planes.

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Go away, troll.
"United Airlines and US plane manufacturer Boeing have announced a "historic" order for 150 Boeing 737s Thursday in a deal worth up to $14.7bn (£9.5bn).
The order was announced in Chicago, corporate home for both companies, and is a major victory for the US firm against arch-rival Airbus.
United has ordered 100 of the new Boeing 737 Max 9 planes and 50 Boeing 737-900ER aircraft and taken an undisclosed number of options for additional aircraft.
Boeing said the deal meant it had now received more than 10,000 orders overall for aircraft from the 737 family making it the "undisputed best-selling jetliner in the world".

[RHill]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
There is no such thing as a democratic monarchy.
Save up and buy a dictionary.
PS: The UK has no Constitution.

Just want you to know ... it's really tough watching someone's mind go like this. You are the one suggested "constitutional monarchy" as the more descriptive term for UK's government. You are the first (perhaps in Human History) to bring "democratic monarchy" into a discussion. Your moments of clarity are becoming fewer and further between. Sad.

[ChristineM]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
PS: funny how the previous qualifying sentence fell off.
Here is the entire quote:
"How much profit did Concorde make for British Airways?
On average Concorde made and operating profit of £30-50 Million a year for British Airways in the boom years where many passengers were travelling first class. British Airways reportedly received £1.75 Billion in revenue for Concorde services against an operating cost of around £1 Billion. Air France made a much smaller profit. "
We have always know you were and are a liar, it's nice that you allow me an opportunity to prove it so frequently.
In the boom years...
And that isn't considering the tax subsidities, billions of dollars from France and the UK, where tax payers picked up one third of the actual cost.

Say what? is you syphilis playing you up worse than usual?

The ENTIRE paragraph makes you look silly, why the hell do you think I posted the link?

That is why I FIRST quoted the ENTIRE paragraph, only after you decided to pick and choose did I home on a particular section of the paragraph that you had chosen to ignore.

You really don’t know much about the UK economy do you

The development of Concorde was a public works program, it cost money, the taxpayers paid, that’s what happens with pubic works programs. Let’s face it, the same model was used for the development of the US 2707. In the UK 700 companies and 25000 people and were employed on Concorde development project in the UK alone. Every one of those 25000 people paid tax at around 3 times the rate of comparable US workers.

Although cancellation of the project was discussed it would have cost around the same co cancel it as to continue with the hope of getting a return on the investment. The UK and France chose to continue. Unlike the American 2707 which was cancelled at a cost to the US taxpayer similar to the development cost of Concorde. So suck a lemon.

Operation of concord was NOT tax funded, how much that upsets you does not really matter. You can rant and rave, you can stomp and shuffle, none of that will change facts.

British Airways said in the mid 80s that they would have bought another 2 or 3 if they had been available, hence proving that the airlines could operate the aircraft at a profit.

[ChristineM]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
sun rises in the east...

So sorry that FACTS upset you so much, actually no I’m not, I think it’s great.

[ChristineM]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
"in the boom years"...
"State subsidies kept the Concorde going, but the handwriting was on the wall, especially after a Concorde crashed on takeoff at Charles de Gaulle airport outside Paris in July 2000, killing 113 people. Commercial service finally ended in 2003."
"Converted into today’s prices each Concorde has cost the British and French taxpayer about £1 billion. In addition to its Paris/London - New York routes, Concorde’s main source of income is
flying luxury charters – sometimes simple loops around the Bay of Biscay with a glass of champagne for people who want to be able to say that they have experienced supersonic flight.
And the subsidy continues; the £6000 return fare from London to New York paid by business travellers is tax deductible. Claims by BA or Air France that Concorde operates at a profit rest on the fact that they acquired the planes at zero cost; the two national carriers were given the planes by governments embarrassed by the complete absence of commercial purchasers. Inconventional accounting terms Concorde can never make a profit."

Concord was not subsidised when it was in commercial operation.

Development cost over 1.1 Billion, money well spent

Say what? Maybe airfares are tax deductible in the US but they have NEVER been tax deductible in the UK

So sorry that FACTS upset you so much, actually no I’m not, I think it’s great.

The Boeing 2707 was a total loss for US tax payers, go suck a lemon

[ChristineM]

water_nymph wrote:

<quoted text>Not only does he become fixated on the few correct things he posts, but he lives in the past. He argues about things that happened 75 years ago and can't let go of them.
The reason he can't talk about things in today's world is that he is here 24/7 posting about the past.

This the only way he can get attention

[barefoot2626]

Mikko wrote:

Sweden is a democracy with a Constitution

Official Name: Kingdom of Sweden

Government Type: Constitutional monarchy.

Head of State--King Carl XVI Gustaf

[barefoot2626]

ChristineM wrote:

<quoted text>
Say what? is you syphilis playing you up worse than usual?
The ENTIRE paragraph makes you look silly, why the hell do you think I posted the link?

The sun rises in the east.

The Concorde was not a commercial success. The plan was for 1,800 jets, only 16 were finally flown commercially.

I know: math isn't your forte, yours, apparently, is one night stands. That figure would be less than one percent of the airliners were actually built.

The Concorde was a government boondoggle and it cost the taxpayers billions of dollars; every single passenger mile flown was subsidized by tax funds.

It isn't hard to turn a "profit" if you don't take into account the actual costs.

[barefoot2626]

ChristineM wrote:

You really don’t know much about the UK economy do you

Clearly I know more than you, dear, you want to insist the Concorde was "profitable" but you want to pretend the BILLIONS of dollars that were used to develop and build the Concorde fell from the sky.

Profit, you stupid skanque, means the Concorde would return more dollars than it cost.

Happy to see your PROOF that these tax dollars were return to French and UK tax payers.

[Mikko]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Official Name: Kingdom of Sweden
Government Type: Constitutional monarchy.
Head of State--King Carl XVI Gustaf

Sweden is a parliamentary democracy, which means that all public power proceeds from the people. At the national level, the people are represented by the Riksdag (Swedish parliament) which has legislative power. The Government implements the Riksdag's decisions and draws up proposals for new laws or law amendments.

[barefoot2626]

ChristineM wrote:

Let’s face it, the same model was used for the development of the US 2707. In the UK 700 companies and 25000 people and were employed on Concorde development project in the UK alone.

BILLIONS OF TAX DOLLARS, Skanque.

HAHAHAAHAHAHAH!

"The development costs of Concorde were around £1.134 billion, which was funded by the UK and French governments. The cost to build the 16 production Concordes was £654 million of which £278 million was recovered through sales returns (this included spares, technical support, etc.). This debt was also funded by the 2 governments. "

Skanque:
Costs:£1.134 billion plus £654 million.
Minus:£278 million...

Hmmmmm.

[Mikko]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Official Name: Kingdom of Sweden
Government Type: Constitutional monarchy.
Head of State--King Carl XVI Gustaf

yup
nope
yup

http://www.government.se/sb/d/2853

[barefoot2626]

RHill wrote:

<quoted text>
Just want you to know ... it's really tough watching someone's mind go like this. You are the one suggested "constitutional monarchy" as the more descriptive term for UK's government.

You will see I put QUOTES around the term as it is used by others, not by me.

But quotes or not: it is a monarchy- and a "constitutional" monarchy (that is to say, those monarchies that have a written constitution but that are monarchies) are still-- pay attention- MONARCHIES.

I understand: you NotBots are in the position of acknowledging (yet again) the facts support me, and not you.

[Thinking]

Some people define democracy as securing less votes than your opposition but winning in a dubious court of law.(USA 2000)

Mikko wrote:

<quoted text>
Sweden is a parliamentary democracy, which means that all public power proceeds from the people. At the national level, the people are represented by the Riksdag (Swedish parliament) which has legislative power. The Government implements the Riksdag's decisions and draws up proposals for new laws or law amendments.

[barefoot2626]

Mikko wrote:

<quoted text>

nope

Yep.

Explain what "Kingdom of Sweden" means.

Over here in the English-speaking world, it means that you are officially a kingdom meaning your head of state is a monarch.

[Thinking]

So Sweden is a democracy.

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

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Official Name: Kingdom of Sweden
Government Type: Constitutional monarchy.
Head of State--King Carl XVI Gustaf

[Mikko]

"Sweden's Head of State is the nations supreme representative but has no political powers."

http://www.government.se/sb/d/2853/a/21785

[Mikko]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Yep.
Explain what "Kingdom of Sweden" means.
Over here in the English-speaking world, it means that you are officially a kingdom meaning your head of state is a monarch.

you love to be wrong all the time about sweden!

"Sweden is a parliamentary democracy, which means that all public power proceeds from the people. At the national level, the people are represented by the Riksdag (Swedish parliament) which has legislative power. The Government implements the Riksdag's decisions and draws up proposals for new laws or law amendments."

official state website http://www.government.se/sb/d/2853

[barefoot2626]

ChristineM wrote:

<quoted text>
Concord was not subsidised when it was in commercial operation.

Of course it was.

BA bought the jets from the government for less than what they cost.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH!

The plan was for (up to, depending on which dreamer you care to quote) 1,500 airliners of which 20 were built of which 16 were actually used of which NINE were eventually sold at a loss.

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH!