Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Jan 2, 2006.
interesting first paragraph, there.
So many rude and sarcastic points I could make about that first paragraph, but instead I'll just state the obvious. It's a good thing we haven't been attacked again. Judging by what happened with Katrina, we wouldn't have been prepared anyway. Despite all the gov waste... I mean, spending by the Dept. of Homeland Security. I guess it's a good thing they're screwing up so much so people are paying more attention to where their tax money is going.
How is that Alaskan bridge to nowhere going anyway?
Coupled with the last paragraph it is a much more realistic asessment of the supposed war on terror. The political realities post 911 meant that everybody got a piece of the pie, pork barrel politics at their worst. What's the chance that North Pole, AK is going to see a terrorist attack? Pretty darned small I'm sure.
The far greater threat in North Pole is the melting tundra that is destroying roads and infrastructure. But that's a whole other can of worms that bushco obviously is ignoring at Alaskan's peril. It's too bad that Stevens is only interested in repaying the oil companies who've provided him with such a cushy life up north.
i see the new rules are already being used to great benefit.
Apparently, in some people's opinions, it's his own fault for being against the Patriot Act and the wiretapping done by the NSA.
So if Vegas is being taken off the list, who else is getting the money? A quick Google search and I see a few that kinda make sense. Phoenix doesn't seem like too high risk (I guess), and certain areas of VA may not need it. Military bases notwithstanding. But there are also a few cities in CA that are fighting to keep funding. Seattle too, I've heard. And yet FL is getting more. As is NY, which I get, but I wonder if it really will be hit again. I have to wonder how much Alaska is getting.