Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannitty are awesome news reporter - Page 21

Inuyasha · 12-06-05, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deegan

Isn't capitalism great, I think so.

Even the communists think so, look at China. Let's hope they don't try to buy the Cubs. Then again....

Donkey1499 · 12-06-05, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hipsterdufus

Let's hope O'Really doesn't send the troops into SanFransico.
You know O'Really single handedly brought down gas prices didn't ya?

Actually, I'd take the troops OUT of San Francisco, since the San Franciscans don't want em' anyways. Seems kind of a waste to me. Why stay where you're not welcome? And then, when San Fran comes under attack by Canada (that'd be a shocker) we'll just say, "Oh, but you didn't want us, sorry!"

Mikkel · 12-06-05, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donkey1499

Actually, I'd take the troops OUT of San Francisco, since the San Franciscans don't want em' anyways. Seems kind of a waste to me. Why stay where you're not welcome? And then, when San Fran comes under attack by Canada (that'd be a shocker) we'll just say, "Oh, but you didn't want us, sorry!"

Not only would it be a shocker, it would be impossible. Canada's standing forces are at 55,000. They couldn't have sent troops for the Iraq war effort even if they had supported it. Most of their troops are designated on UN peacekeeping missions or stationed in Afghanistan. Most of their equipment is outdated ant their organization and funding is severly lacking. If they tried to invade San Francisco, they'd probably be rebuffed by the SFPD. (Guess who recently wrote a paper on Canada's post 9/11 military posture?)

Donkey1499 · 12-06-05, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikkel

Not only would it be a shocker, it would be impossible. Canada's standing forces are at 55,000. They couldn't have sent troops for the Iraq war effort even if they had supported it. Most of their troops are designated on UN peacekeeping missions or stationed in Afghanistan. Most of their equipment is outdated ant their organization and funding is severly lacking. If they tried to invade San Francisco, they'd probably be rebuffed by the SFPD. (Guess who recently wrote a paper on Canada's post 9/11 military posture?)

But it would be funny though. Especially if Canada then went and invaded Turkey and named Chicken instead. That'd be hillario!

Mikkel · 12-07-05, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donkey1499

But it would be funny though. Especially if Canada then went and invaded Turkey and named Chicken instead. That'd be hillario!

It would definately catch them by surprise. I mean, I'd be surprised.

Inuyasha · 12-07-05, 12:12 AM

If Russia attacks Turkey from the rear Greece will help.

Mikkel · 12-07-05, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inuyasha

If Russia attacks Turkey from the rear Greece will help.

That is the funniest military invasion joke I've ever heard (not that I've heard too many military invasion jokes).

Donkey1499 · 12-07-05, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inuyasha

If Russia attacks Turkey from the rear Greece will help.

Brilliant!!!! 71 Kudos to you. Spend em' wisely now. You don't want to spoil your dinner.

cnredd · 12-07-05, 02:37 AM

I don't think I've ever heard "Canada" & "military posture" in the same sentence before...

hipsterdufus · 12-09-05, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donkey1499

Actually, I'd take the troops OUT of San Francisco, since the San Franciscans don't want em' anyways. Seems kind of a waste to me. Why stay where you're not welcome? And then, when San Fran comes under attack by Canada (that'd be a shocker) we'll just say, "Oh, but you didn't want us, sorry!"

OK - using that line of reasoning can they also decide to not pay the defense portion of our budget? It looks like that would be a 48% tax decrease.

Quote:

HOW THESE FIGURES WERE DETERMINED

hese figures are from a line-by-line analysis of detailed tables in the “Analytical Perspectives” book of the Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2006. The percentages are federal funds, which do not include trust funds — such as Social Security — that are raised and spent separately from income taxes. What you pay (or don’t pay) by April 15, 2005, goes to the federal funds portion of the budget. The government practice of combining trust and federal funds began in the 1960s during the Vietnam War, thus making the human needs portion of the budget seem larger and the military portion smaller.

“Current military” includes Dept. of Defense ($427 billion), the military portion from other departments ($106 billion), anticipated “supplemental allowance” ($25 billion), and an unbudgetted estimate of supplemental appropriations ($85 billion). “Past military” represents veterans’ benefits plus 80% of the interest on the debt. Analysts differ on how much of the debt stems from the military; other groups estimate 50% to 60%. We use 80% because we believe if there had been no military spending most (if not all) of the national debt would have been eliminated. For further explanation, see box at bottom of this page.

http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm