Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson
Dude,
In criticizing the costs of his trip, the implications are that he should not take the trip because it would cost too much.
That decision could result in offending a key political and economic ally.
No one suggested to snub the Indians, but had he listened to his critics and not taken the trip, then the Indians could have felt snubbed.
A=B=C
If the trip was necessary, then there is no valid reason to criticize the costs, citing some imaginary dollar amt that is not even sensible in the first place.
and I think they were quoting $200 Billion, not $200 Million.
|
No the implication was :"it shouldn't cost that much", not "He should not go!"
If it really did cost that much he did need to listen to the critics and CUT SPENDING
Again there is a huge difference between calls to "cancel" the trip and calls to "cut spending" on the trip
Threaded Mode
