kallend 1,623 #1 October 24, 2007 Soon you're talking real money: abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/25/2069610.htm?section=justin... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DZJ 0 #2 October 24, 2007 When you put it that way, terrorism seems positively inviting. It's obviously the more cost-effective way of advancing an agenda... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #3 October 24, 2007 citing Australian news sources now? 2.4T over 10 more years (and including back to 2003) isn't exactly doom. I'd be far more concerned about soldiers lives than the money. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,396 #4 October 24, 2007 >I'd be far more concerned about soldiers lives than the money. So you'd advocate pulling them out, so no more soldiers die? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #5 October 24, 2007 Quoteciting Australian news sources now? "But, but... the US media is so BIASED (whine whine whine)". But since you insist: voanews.com/english/2007-10-24-voa64.cfm money.cnn.com/2007/10/24/news/economy/cbo_testimony/?postversion=2007102412 www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21458741/ www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/10/24/cost_of_us_wars_surpasses_600_billion/6239/ rawstory.com/news/2007/Your_bill_for_US_wars_8000_1024.html www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN2450753720071024... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #6 October 25, 2007 Quote>I'd be far more concerned about soldiers lives than the money. So you'd advocate pulling them out, so no more soldiers die? I advocated that 3 years ago, when you insisted the US had an obligation to Iraq to keep feeding in bodies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #7 October 25, 2007 I saw it in the SF Chronicle. I was surprised to had to go halfway around the world for it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #8 October 25, 2007 QuoteI saw it in the SF Chronicle. I was surprised to had to go halfway around the world for it. I didn't go anywhere, I used the internet.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #9 October 25, 2007 QuoteSoon you're talking real money: abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/25/2069610.htm?section=justin What's your point? Or are you just playing "newsman" again? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #10 October 25, 2007 QuoteQuoteSoon you're talking real money: abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/25/2069610.htm?section=justin What's your point? Or are you just playing "newsman" again? Still sore over the units of mass thread? Get over it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #11 October 25, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteSoon you're talking real money: abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/25/2069610.htm?section=justin What's your point? Or are you just playing "newsman" again? Still sore over the units of mass thread? Get over it. That's it, isn't it? I bet you really wanted to be a newsman when you grew up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #12 October 25, 2007 What are we talking about here? Five... maybe ten percent of federal government spending? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #13 October 25, 2007 QuoteWhat are we talking about here? Five... maybe ten percent of federal government spending? Why don't you find out and report back?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #14 October 25, 2007 Quote Quote What are we talking about here? Five... maybe ten percent of federal government spending? Why don't you find out and report back? Find out what? Both figures are based on estimates. Of course, the 2.4 trillion estimate is less than current annual spending. Considering the estimate is looking out 10 years, it's a pretty safe bet it will be less than 10% of federal spending. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #15 October 25, 2007 Quote Quote Quote What are we talking about here? Five... maybe ten percent of federal government spending? Why don't you find out and report back? Find out what? Both figures are based on estimates. Of course, the 2.4 trillion estimate is less than current annual spending. Considering the estimate is looking out 10 years, it's a pretty safe bet it will be less than 10% of federal spending. Well, that's OK then, just peanuts, like 10% of my tax bill.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
