• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The financial cost of Osama ?

You know how much a good airport groping used to cost? And now they are FREE!!!.
The search for Osama is making us money.
 
I'd only count the cost of Afghanistan/pakistan operations. Iraq was Bush's personal vendetta.
 
We would probably have saved magnitudes more lives dumping it into medical research, that's long since been an analysis.
 
Self, self, self; that's what's wrong with America.

What about poor Pakistan? Room and board for a decade, that can't have been cheap!
 
Are they not appropriate there ?

I have no idea, because I have no idea why they are there. The sentence would be fine without them so I infer that you used them to connote some meaning. What that meaning is, I do not know. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it.
 
Anti terrorism has to be the sector of the economy with the largest growth rate EVER.

So, hunting Osama was good for us all. Now, for the good of the economy, who will we be going after?
 
Whatever you're told, or whatever is guessed, do you think it would be too much?

If you bought something without a price tag on credit, when you eventually learn the cost do you think it would be too much?
 
Well, since "search for bin Laden" is not a book title, then HG must have meant that he was quoting somebody else. That is why they are called 'quotation marks'.

See, I put it in quotes, because I was quoting HG.

I put " 'quotation marks' " in single quotes because I wanted the reader to consider those words as in combination, as a single thought. The I put the phrase in quotes in the latter sentence because I was quoting myself.

Grammatically specking, there is no such use as "scare quotes" for that punctuation. Of course I used quotes here, to show that other people do use the phrase "scare quotes" to justify the improper use.
 

Back
Top Bottom