blzrul Posted March 24, 2009 Posted March 24, 2009 hee hee.. So Bobby J, I am sure that you don't give a rat's ass down there in LOU-zee-anna about a volcano but at the very least the citizens of Alaska are probably happy there's a volcano monitoring system....as are any passengers in airplanes who might otherwise drop from the sky when they fly into an [unmonitored, and unreported] cloud of ash. What an ash.
RkFast Posted March 24, 2009 Posted March 24, 2009 hee hee.. So Bobby J, I am sure that you don't give a rat's ass down there in LOU-zee-anna about a volcano but at the very least the citizens of Alaska are probably happy there's a volcano monitoring system....as are any passengers in airplanes who might otherwise drop from the sky when they fly into an [unmonitored, and unreported] cloud of ash. What an ash. How much per "new or saved job" was spent? THAT was Jindal's point. Shut up.
blzrul Posted March 24, 2009 Author Posted March 24, 2009 How much per "new or saved job" was spent? THAT was Jindal's point. Shut up. Good point. So if 3-4 airplanes had crashed, and if even one of them was an airliner, there would presumably open up a few jobs for people on the ground (unless they were under the airliners).
DC Tom Posted March 24, 2009 Posted March 24, 2009 Good point. So if 3-4 airplanes had crashed, and if even one of them was an airliner, there would presumably open up a few jobs for people on the ground (unless they were under the airliners). So it saved three or four airplanes?
IDBillzFan Posted March 24, 2009 Posted March 24, 2009 So it saved three or four airplanes? The new administration: no airplane left behind. Capitalism, yes. Airplanes...no.
drnykterstein Posted March 24, 2009 Posted March 24, 2009 How much per "new or saved job" was spent? THAT was Jindal's point. Shut up. It's money that needs to be spent anyways dude. How much do you value the safety of Alaskan citizens?
finknottle Posted March 24, 2009 Posted March 24, 2009 It's money that needs to be spent anyways dude. How much do you value the safety of Alaskan citizens? Simply amazing how people can criticize Bush's quickly-eclipsed deficit spending and then turn around and argue with a straight face that it doesn't matter what you spend it on as long as the wheels of the economy are being greased.
drnykterstein Posted March 24, 2009 Posted March 24, 2009 Simply amazing how people can criticize Bush's quickly-eclipsed deficit spending and then turn around and argue with a straight face that it doesn't matter what you spend it on as long as the wheels of the economy are being greased. dude.. Bush was paying kurds in iraq to not fight with us. that money was mostly going overseas and not being spent in the usa.
blzrul Posted March 24, 2009 Author Posted March 24, 2009 It's money that needs to be spent anyways dude. How much do you value the safety of Alaskan citizens? Hmm now that you mention it Jindal 2012.
Alaska Darin Posted March 24, 2009 Posted March 24, 2009 dude.. Bush was paying kurds in iraq to not fight with us. that money was mostly going overseas and not being spent in the usa. Prove it.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 It's money that needs to be spent anyways dude. How much do you value the safety of Alaskan citizens? I was going to write a response, but couldn't stop LMAO :w00t:
Booster4324 Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 Prove it. I can see your point as he was talking out his ass. However, as a fiscally conservative Alaskan, what is your take on the money spent?
Wacka Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 Alaskans , unlike residents of the Chocolate City will get the hell out of there if nature threatens them.
blzrul Posted March 25, 2009 Author Posted March 25, 2009 Alaskans , unlike residents of the Chocolate City will get the hell out of there if nature threatens them. The photos in the newspapers, with all those folks in flannel wearing masks, belie that statement. Where the heck could they go - they're not equipped to function properly in civilization.
Alaska Darin Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 I can see your point as he was talking out his ass. However, as a fiscally conservative Alaskan, what is your take on the money spent? I don't really have a take because I don't know what the $140 million was actually for. Sure seems like a lot of money under the guise of "volcano monitoring". I have the same amount of apathy for the "AIG Bonus" thing. We seem to be wasting a lot of time talking about individual rain drops in a lake of wasted cash - but that's what they want us to do.
drnykterstein Posted March 25, 2009 Posted March 25, 2009 Prove it. Ack. sorry not kurds.. I get my middle east sects all mixed up. The Sunni's .. there is plenty of info if you google it. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle2413200.ece
StupidNation Posted March 28, 2009 Posted March 28, 2009 hee hee.. So Bobby J, I am sure that you don't give a rat's ass down there in LOU-zee-anna about a volcano but at the very least the citizens of Alaska are probably happy there's a volcano monitoring system....as are any passengers in airplanes who might otherwise drop from the sky when they fly into an [unmonitored, and unreported] cloud of ash. What an ash. You have no idea how government works. Earmarks are good, not bad. The budget is the budget is the budget. Either the elected official goes to represent those who elect him to get money back in his area or he is not representing them in the budget. The real issue is the budget, not discretionary spending and earmarks. Only an idiot would think that earmarks are bad. Either it's appropriated by elected officials with more control of local gov't, or it goes to the executive branch, which was never the point of a Constitution Republic. Drop all issues of "pork" and "earmarks"... does the budget go down if there aren't any of those? Go look it up.
blzrul Posted March 28, 2009 Author Posted March 28, 2009 You have no idea how government works. Earmarks are good, not bad. The budget is the budget is the budget. Either the elected official goes to represent those who elect him to get money back in his area or he is not representing them in the budget. The real issue is the budget, not discretionary spending and earmarks. Only an idiot would think that earmarks are bad. Either it's appropriated by elected officials with more control of local gov't, or it goes to the executive branch, which was never the point of a Constitution Republic. Drop all issues of "pork" and "earmarks"... does the budget go down if there aren't any of those? Go look it up. Speaking of looking up, why don't you try looking up "sarcasm". States/communities/people who benefit from 'earmarks" don't have a problem with them. They have a problem with "earmarks" that benefit OTHERS. The whole thing is a joke. Congressional reps grab money for the people they represent. That's kind of their job. But the delicious irony of a dumbass from a state that suffered so greatly from a natural disaster, complaining about money that might help some OTHER state avoid that fate...well that's just too good to let go.
Recommended Posts