In America, atheists are still in the closet

[SupaAFC]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Like when I say the UK is a monarchy, I am only technically correct based on actual facts.

Thank you for finally admitting that this is nothing but a technicality.

[ChristineM]

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text>
The Concorde was a flop the same way the shuttle was for us.
It was not economically viable as planned.
It never turned a profit , and was a prestige symbol more than anything. It was however the most awesome public transportation
ever assembled.

http://www.concordesst.com/retire/faq_r.html
“
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.
“

I.E. It made an operating profit.

Yes it was a symbol and it did what is was designed to do, fly commercial air routes at more than (twice) the speed of sound, it did that successfully for 27 years.

However overall, including development cost it was a lost leader with huge ancillary benefits. It was a building block for European co-operation and helped build Europe you see today, those benefits of that are invaluable.

[ChristineM]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
The shuttle wasn't a flop, moron.
Have you heard of the Hubble?
The Concorde was to governments interfering in a commercial enterprise that ended up FAILING.

You really are thick aren’t you?

It’s not just your syphilis screwing with you brain, or you obesity slowing you down, you actually are stupid aren’t you?

[ChristineM]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
The shuttle was NEVER planned to be "economically viable" commercial product- it was designed to be a multiple use space vehicle. There were 135 flights and if you look up in the sky a a dark night, you can see the space station that was built using shuttle.
The Concorde was funded by the governments of UK and France for the express purpose of making money.
It failed.

Wrong, again

Hey look everyone, he’s done it again.

Concorde was produced to aid Anglo French co-operation, and it was completely successful

As a by product it produced an operating profit for two commercial companies.

Go suck a lemon

[ChristineM]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Repeating the same nonsense ad nauseum doesn't make true.

Project much?

[ChristineM]

water_nymph wrote:

<quoted text>Show us where she said 'football'. Go ahead. Post the link to that post of hers.

Oh he can’t do that, because it does not exist and he would not want to make himself look so obviously liar

[ChristineM]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Follow the thread, HOney.

So you can’t prove it then, fair enough, does not really matter we all already know how you lie

[ChristineM]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Is the UK an monarchy, yes or no?

Of course it is stupid, you keep asking and you keep getting told that the UK is a monarchy – every single time you ask. My guess is that you have found something you are correct about and so you have become fixated on a good thing.

[Mikko]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope.

U.S. Gave at Least $5.3 Billion Illegal Aid to Boeing

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-31/boei...

[Thinking]

And I'm not saying you couldn't place similar allegations at Airbus' feet.

But yes, Boeing's been doing this for decades.

Mikko wrote:

<quoted text>
U.S. Gave at Least $5.3 Billion Illegal Aid to Boeing
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-31/boei...

[barefoot2626]

ChristineM wrote:

<quoted text>
Funny how you can insist that the Wright brothers INVENTED

Sun / east, UK/Monarchy, Wright Bros/ airplane

[barefoot2626]

ChristineM wrote:

<quoted text>
http://www.concordesst.com/retire/faq_r.html
“
British Airways reportedly received £1.75 Billion in revenue

Nice to have the government build your plane for you and have taxpayers pay for the gas, eh?

[barefoot2626]

ChristineM wrote:

Yes it was a symbol and it did what is was designed to do, fly commercial air routes at more than (twice) the speed of sound, it did that successfully for 27 years.

And having the taxpayers pick up the bill so the wealthy could fly, yes, if you have money, you can have a jet fly three times the speed of sound, but better is: have the taxpayers pay for for you.

And you don't have to give a rat's azz about the people who had to put up with the noise or a the pollution it dumped into the atmosphere either, after all, it was windy and the pollution would just blow around, eh?

Concorde was not successful commercially, no matter how hard you stomp your hooves, Chubby.

[Thinking]

I can see your ideological issue. If NASA and the USAF had ever received any public funding whatsoever you'd probably hate them too.

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Nice to have the government build your plane for you and have taxpayers pay for the gas, eh?

[barefoot2626]

ChristineM wrote:

I.E. It made an operating profit.

The jets were paid for by taxpayers and still lost money.

[barefoot2626]

ChristineM wrote:

Concorde was produced to aid Anglo French co-operation, and it was completely successful

Taxpayers' billions.

[barefoot2626]

ChristineM wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course it is stupid, you keep asking and you keep getting told that the UK is a monarchy – every single time you ask.

I'm not the one claiming the UK is a monarchy.

I'm not the one who confuses fictional movies with reality.

I'm not the one pretending the Concorde didn't cost tax payers billions.

I'm not the one pretending I don't weigh 18 stone, eh, Chubby?

[barefoot2626]

ChristineM wrote:

My guess is that you have found something you are correct about and so you have become fixated on a good thing.

It is helpful to remind you my positions don't change over the week and I'm not stuck trying to pretend someone who made a toy fly in the 1800 invented the airplane or that Britain wasn't desperate for the US help it got in WWI & WWII.

[ChristineM]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Sun / east, UK/Monarchy, Wright Bros/ airplane

Yes
Yes
I did not ask what you rest on your chin when you are sucking your lover

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Nice to have the government build your plane for you and have taxpayers pay for the gas, eh?

Not to clever are you?

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
And having the taxpayers pick up the bill so the wealthy could fly, yes, if you have money, you can have a jet fly three times the speed of sound, but better is: have the taxpayers pay for for you.
And you don't have to give a rat's azz about the people who had to put up with the noise or a the pollution it dumped into the atmosphere either, after all, it was windy and the pollution would just blow around, eh?
Concorde was not successful commercially, no matter how hard you stomp your hooves, Chubby.

FYI, concord was NOT subsidised when it was on commercial service you all your lying does is prove you lie.

Three quarters of a billion gross profit would see my through until retirement nicely

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
The jets were paid for by taxpayers and still lost money.

It is documented that Concorde made an operating profit, your lies arm’s

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Taxpayers' billions.

It is documented that Concorde made an operating profit, your lies arm’s

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm not the one claiming the UK is a monarchy.
I'm not the one who confuses fictional movies with reality.
I'm not the one pretending the Concorde didn't cost tax payers billions.
I'm not the one pretending I don't weigh 18 stone, eh, Chubby?

Only about ever other post
Only when you lie
Nor am I, however I am placing the profit and loss in there respective pigeonholes
No you weight 21 stone me obesity

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
It is helpful to remind you my positions don't change over the week and I'm not stuck trying to pretend someone who made a toy fly in the 1800 invented the airplane or that Britain wasn't desperate for the US help it got in WWI & WWII.

Only when you move your goalposts. An aeroplane is an Aeroplane, size does not matter. Not desperate but grateful

[Thinking]

It wasn't free.

WWII payments from the UK to the USA didn't finish until 2006.

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
It is helpful to remind you my positions don't change over the week and I'm not stuck trying to pretend someone who made a toy fly in the 1800 invented the airplane or that Britain wasn't desperate for the US help it got in WWI & WWII.