2007-10-24 02:33:36 · 19 answers · asked by PNAC ~ Penelope 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Typical con. Don't ask what you can do for your people. Ask what you do for yourself.
2007-10-24 02:45:53 · answer #1 · answered by Holy Cow! 7 · 6⤊ 3⤋
Hmmmm, 3 million people in the affected areas, only a tiny loss in percentge of total homes in the county.....I don't know,perhaps you could buy all of our homes and rent some U-hauls for us....and find us jobs...and let us live with you for a while untill we get settled. Oh, I get it this was a pithy comparison of why we should not leave Iraq.....sory the war and the wildfires are two separate things. But....perhaps we should simply invade dan Diego...fire all the police and disband the civil infrastructure and occupy the entire area with our army. We can randomly search san Diego homes at will and without warrants. We can have our army set up strict checkpoints and pull back all civil rights. The San Diegans will throw roses at our troops and welcome them with open arms...wait, that may not work......
2007-10-25 20:53:42 · answer #2 · answered by tk 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Did you ever examine my different answer to this similar question you revealed this morning? Did Bush reason the fires? Are we in San Diego to get rid of Schwarzzenegger and quell the incipient "Northern CA/ Southern CA dichotomies? Did we ought to invade California? EDIT to Sahara: the guy arrested up to now is being booked on a cost of arson, which does no longer be if someone carelessly tossed a butt out the window. i change right into a smoker, the following in Arizona, and all of us understand (and that i understand Californians understand it besides) no longer to toss out a lit cigarette or experience or inspite of. As many fires as CA has had and as many acres burnedover the years, in simple terms an extremely mind useless conservative ought to toss a smoke out the window in CA- the fines are astronomical (besides, are you able to call a clean vehicle popping out both this year or contained in the destiny which even comprise an ashtray familiar characteristic anymore?) besides, you could't SMOKE in California on your vehicle (if there's a baby in there too). in simple terms more suitable of that Republican administration Republicans "hate" yet keep balloting for. Tone down your rant until eventually you already know whats happening.
2016-10-22 22:30:54 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is the most ignorant and illogical "comparison" I've ever seen. Fires are a force of nature; war is ALWAYS created by humans beings.
Wars can be avoided; fires, frequently less so. According to firefighters in SD, more airbourne assistance would have nipped these fires in the bud, and maybe without so many resources tied up in unnecessary wars, they could have had them.
I don't condone having homes and buildings in tinderbox areas like this one, but that's the U.S. goverment; expand the tax base by any means possible.
You should be ashamed for asking this "question".
2007-10-24 02:53:56 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
We have been pulling out. Many have been evacuated. Do you want them burned alive? In some cases pulling out and letting the fire burn is the right thing to do. In other cases it is not. I believe the experts know what they are doing and we should let them do it. By the way the California National Guard has been called in to help out. It is going to be harder for them because they have fewer people and far less equipment because what they need has gone to fight Bush's little war.
2007-10-24 03:00:01 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Well, as Claire (Molly Ringwald) tearfully mugged for the camera in "The Breakfast Club": "...but sometimes it's just so (spoken whiny and tearfully)...hard !!!"
Yes, I think we should pull out of San Diego, but wait until victory is just around the corner. That's the strategy the Libs want to pursue in Iraq.
2007-10-24 04:50:49 · answer #6 · answered by pachl@sbcglobal.net 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Only if we started the fires and are keeping them burning by being there.
2007-10-24 03:18:40 · answer #7 · answered by mommanuke 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It's not New Orleans.
Can't pull out if there are white people in trouble.
2007-10-24 03:02:46 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No but your daddy should have. LOL Just joking I couldn't resist. Apologizing in advance it was just too easy to make a joke.
2007-10-24 02:44:27 · answer #9 · answered by Jared G 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
So far 1 has died but there could be more and worse is that this could be a firefighter.
But, you know, this is how liberals treat Iraq so maybe we should apply the same logic to the liberal southern California area. Do you think they would understand? I don't.
2007-10-24 02:43:39 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 5⤋
We should "pull out" any support to rebuild.
I'm sick of my tax dollars going to people who live in marginally inhabitable area's.
SoCal is a water scarce area, why should be the American Public PAY to rebuild in a marginal area.
Same goes for New Orleans.
I want my FEMA money.
2007-10-24 02:37:35 · answer #11 · answered by joe s 6 · 6⤊ 6⤋