Originally posted by: Moonbeam
That was great.
Originally posted by: daveymark
rofl...according to Leibowitz, 16% decrease in re-enlistment = 16% increase in recruitment? lmfao
uh...there are more serving than there are enlisting...
example: say for the state of FLorida, there are 1,000 serving and eligible for re-enlistment. 16 percent of those would not re-enlist. so 160.
say that 100 are recruited. so 16 percent more means 16 new soldiers on top of the 100.
160 = 16?
more fuzzy math thanks to Leibowitz
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: daveymark
rofl...according to Leibowitz, 16% decrease in re-enlistment = 16% increase in recruitment? lmfao
uh...there are more serving than there are enlisting...
example: say for the state of FLorida, there are 1,000 serving and eligible for re-enlistment. 16 percent of those would not re-enlist. so 160.
say that 100 are recruited. so 16 percent more means 16 new soldiers on top of the 100.
160 = 16?
more fuzzy math thanks to Leibowitz
shhh you will ruin their circle jerk.
Originally posted by: dainthomas
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: daveymark
rofl...according to Leibowitz, 16% decrease in re-enlistment = 16% increase in recruitment? lmfao
uh...there are more serving than there are enlisting...
example: say for the state of FLorida, there are 1,000 serving and eligible for re-enlistment. 16 percent of those would not re-enlist. so 160.
say that 100 are recruited. so 16 percent more means 16 new soldiers on top of the 100.
160 = 16?
more fuzzy math thanks to Leibowitz
shhh you will ruin their circle jerk.
So you're comfortable limiting post-military educational opportunities for our troops in order to force them to remain active duty? Maybe we should go one step further and eliminate the GI Bill? That way they'll have no choice at all. And as a side benefit we might boost retention numbers enough that we could stop recruiting felons and high-school dropouts.
I wonder what active duty enlisted personnel make of Bush's reasoning?
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: daveymark
rofl...according to Leibowitz, 16% decrease in re-enlistment = 16% increase in recruitment? lmfao
uh...there are more serving than there are enlisting...
example: say for the state of FLorida, there are 1,000 serving and eligible for re-enlistment. 16 percent of those would not re-enlist. so 160.
say that 100 are recruited. so 16 percent more means 16 new soldiers on top of the 100.
160 = 16?
more fuzzy math thanks to Leibowitz
shhh you will ruin their circle jerk.
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: daveymark
rofl...according to Leibowitz, 16% decrease in re-enlistment = 16% increase in recruitment? lmfao
uh...there are more serving than there are enlisting...
example: say for the state of FLorida, there are 1,000 serving and eligible for re-enlistment. 16 percent of those would not re-enlist. so 160.
say that 100 are recruited. so 16 percent more means 16 new soldiers on top of the 100.
160 = 16?
more fuzzy math thanks to Leibowitz
shhh you will ruin their circle jerk.
First question to Daveymark...
Did you pull those numbers out of your ass or your urethra?
Second question....
Since when has the increase in new recruits ever been tied to the number of actual candidates recruited instead of a comparison to the previous year's total?
Genx87....I think that you are unaware of the wrong circle jerk that is being interrupted. Hint....IT'S YOURS!!!
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Even a large number of GOP members broke ranks with the McChickenhawk on Webb's bill.
McSame and Bush seem to be comfortable clinging to their unpopular minority position, all the way to a defeat in the fall.
Originally posted by: daveymark
rofl...according to Leibowitz, 16% decrease in re-enlistment = 16% increase in recruitment? lmfao
uh...there are more serving than there are enlisting...
example: say for the state of FLorida, there are 1,000 serving and eligible for re-enlistment. 16 percent of those would not re-enlist. so 160.
say that 100 are recruited. so 16 percent more means 16 new soldiers on top of the 100.
160 = 16?
more fuzzy math thanks to Leibowitz
Because McBush knows what is good for our soldiers? :laugh:Originally posted by: Genx87
That doesnt mean the bill is good for the military.
Originally posted by: jpeyton
McSame
Originally posted by: jpeyton
McSame
Originally posted by: jpeyton
McBush
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Even a large number of GOP members broke ranks with the McChickenhawk on Webb's bill.
McSame and Bush seem to be comfortable clinging to their unpopular minority position, all the way to a defeat in the fall.
Big surprise, election year and the democrat lite party is trying to make friends with the real deal?
That doesnt mean the bill is good for the military.
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: daveymark
rofl...according to Leibowitz, 16% decrease in re-enlistment = 16% increase in recruitment? lmfao
uh...there are more serving than there are enlisting...
example: say for the state of FLorida, there are 1,000 serving and eligible for re-enlistment. 16 percent of those would not re-enlist. so 160.
say that 100 are recruited. so 16 percent more means 16 new soldiers on top of the 100.
160 = 16?
more fuzzy math thanks to Leibowitz
shhh you will ruin their circle jerk.
Originally posted by: palehorse74
A "good bill" would be one that falls somewhere between the two current proposals -- a compromise.
Why the hell is Congress incapable of doing so?!
Originally posted by: feralkid
Originally posted by: daveymark
rofl...according to Leibowitz, 16% decrease in re-enlistment = 16% increase in recruitment? lmfao
uh...there are more serving than there are enlisting...
example: say for the state of FLorida, there are 1,000 serving and eligible for re-enlistment. 16 percent of those would not re-enlist. so 160.
say that 100 are recruited. so 16 percent more means 16 new soldiers on top of the 100.
160 = 16?
more fuzzy math thanks to Leibowitz
Are you serious?
It's way worse; let's say there are 10,000 serving and eligible for re-enlistment.
16% would not re-enlist, so 1600.
Say that 50 are recruited. so 16% means 8 new soldiers on top of the 50.
1600 = 8?
See how much fun math can be when you don't have a clue?
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Because McBush knows what is good for our soldiers? :laugh:Originally posted by: Genx87
That doesnt mean the bill is good for the military.
Give me a break. It's like asking an arsonist how to fight a wildfire.
Originally posted by: eskimospy
McCain's bill gives the most educational benefits to those least likely to use them. Who gets out of the military after 12 years in to go to college!? The answer: just about nobody. Thanks McCain, you really helped out all of those 30 year old freshmen that are crawling all over our 4 year universities.