On Apr 2, 6:48=A0pm, JSM <ekrub...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Apr 2, 8:32 pm, "Bon moody" <B...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > IF earmarks are wrong, =A0why does congress say its legal, =A0Its a
sham=
e when
> > Alaska Beats the crap out of other states politicians they start
crying,=
> > even though it is 100 percent legal, =A0Senators and Congressman are
vot=
ed in
> > to work for the people of their state, =A0if you don't like it, pass a
l=
aw!
> > quit your crying and moaning, Big Babys suck!
>
> > "JSM" <ekrub...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
>news:1642388c-bfe6-41fd-b36f-7a3f986af644@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > > I'm just a little curious Jerry, can you show me how any of these
> > > projects helped 'you' personally?
> > > ****k barrel spending or 'earmarking' is good for Alaska according to
> > > Jerry. =A0Lets see, earmarking cost the government 17.2 billion
dollar=
s
> > > last year, so just what percentage of that did Alaska get?
> > > $59,100,000 for upgrades to the Pacific Alaskan Range Complex in Red
> > > Flag. =A0Does anybody know what that is? =A0I suspect it is a
retireme=
nt
> > > fund for TS. =A0$4,000,000 for the Northern Line Extension, Northern
> > > line of what? =A0Extend the railroad from NP to Delta? =A0The
governme=
nt
> > > has no business trying to run a railroad. =A0"The proposed rail line
> > > would provide freight and potentially passenger rail services
serving
> > > commercial interests and communities in or near the project
> > > corridor." =A0For Cris Sake, they don't do passenger service where
the=
y
> > > already exist. Why would this be any different. =A0The railroad has
be=
en
> > > pretty much turned over to the tour industry. =A0$3,200,000 for
HAARP
> > > (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program), which has received
> > > $109.1 million in ****k since 1995. =A0Yeah right, blasting away at
the=
> > > Ionosphere with radio waves has done us all a lot of good. =A0This
> > > project was listed as a joke 10 years ago. =A0I expect a law suit
from=
> > > little green men for making them sterile and TS will fund it.
>
> Neither of you have a clue, do you? =A0Say you wanted a car but you
> couldn't afford one. =A0So your wife goes out and buys you one anyway.
> So now you think your wife is the most wonderful person in the world
> because she bought you a car. =A0do you follow that? =A0 does it make
any
> fiscal sense to you? =A0 Actually, to be more accurate it goes like
> this. =A0It would be nice to have a car but you can't afford it so your
> wife goes out and buys you a car, a truck and a boat. =A0I'll just bet
> you would think that was the most wonderful wife in the world...- Hide
quo=
ted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your post is absurd. I tried to explain to you the situation in
Alaska. The Federal Government owns most of Alaska and the federal
money spent in Alaska primarily benefits the Federal Government.
When Texas became a state, the Federal government had to buy Texan
land, but when Alaska became a state Alaska was granted 107 million
acres of land because the Federal Government owned all of Alaska prior
to statehood. Today, the State of Alaska is acutally smaller than
Texas and slightly larger than California when State owned and private
owned land is considered.
One of the reasons the military is big in Alaska is because they have
lots of land to exercise on. Fort Greely covers a very large area and
that is where the Army conducts many exercises. Also the people of
Alaska like the military being here. There are also many retired
military people living here.
|
