Comments by Ray
Page 1 of 2 | Next
Posted on June 28 at 2:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Good points olypopper :) Completely agree with you.
Posted on June 27 at 7:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Agree with you. If the shot was legal, good hunting!
Posted on June 26 at 8:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
By the way, I do agree with the following: rebates upon proof of heating-fuel purchase (s). That would end all the arguments and the complains about military members.
On Palin has it
Posted on June 26 at 8:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
BenEFits: Is is possible that those GIs living in military housing will receive the $1,200? I don't really know. But I also don't know about the following:
-AK residents (students) living in the dormitories at UAA and UAF
-Residents in assisted living
-Residents who pay rent from Welfare money
-Residents who just pay rent
-Residents who own homes
-Legal residents receiving unemployment compessation
-Folks other States who just became legal residents of AK
-Dependents of military members
My point is as follows: why to pick only on the military? There are all sorts of people living in housing for the poor, and most don't pay for heating, since their rent is highly reduced and paid by the State.
On Palin has it
Posted on June 25 at 10:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Regardless of how some of us feel about the military, students attending the University from the lower-48, people who work in Alaska during the summer months, etc.: By law those who qualify for receiving a PDF check can. No ifs, no buts about it.
Some students become residents of Alaska and stay here, some leave. Some native-born Alaskans stay here, some leave. In other words, civilians and GI's come here and stay, while some leave. It still does not matter, since there are set guidelines to qualify for a PDF check. Sooo, why not put our emotions aside and stop complaining about military members when these are not the only ones who may stay or leave? Military members are a minority compared to the hordes of civilians and their families who arrive to Alaska each day to collect Welfare, and eventually PDF checks. A good portion of the local economies depend on the cash spent by the military, and its members and dependents.
Don't believe me? Look around the shopping malls, supermarkets, car dealers, etc.
On Palin has it
Posted on June 14 at 2:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Excellent news! Lots of people will move to Fairbanks, which in turn should somewhat compensate for the folks with fixed-incomes leaving Fairbanks because of the high price of heating fuel. Also, lots of University and other workers (with good-paying jobs) will leave to work on the pipeline to make more money. AND, leaving behind job openings for city fellows like me to fill :)
Posted on June 9 at 9:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
That's some outstanding news. Nice to hear that Paolo has gotten some recognition relating to his research.
On Retired Alaska pipeline foreman uncovers Machu Picchu mystery
Posted on May 26 at 10:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks God for global warming! Just imagine trying to farm the land under a few hundred feet of ice (which could very well be the case during an ice age)?
On Energy ideas
Posted on May 9 at 10:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ah...! The Borough Assembly has plugged a crack on the dam with chewing gum? If they wanted to do anything about the problem, they would have lowered the already high property tax years ago. However, they would not do such thing because that would break their ballooning budget.
Also, while residents are trying to save some money by burning wood to heat their homes, what is the Assembly planning? Answer: more EPA restrictions on emissions from wood stoves and fireplaces!!
What Major and the Assembly should have done long ago was to work with Anchorage and gas companies to get natural gas to Fairbanks. It only costs around $250.00 per month to heat a house in Anchorage, while is costs around $600.00 to accomplish the same around Fairbanks.
Page 1 of 2 | Next
Posted on July 3 at 10:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Funny how we behave in the US. We don't want ANWR open for oil drilling, while all sorts of nations all around us are into oil drilling. Just look a Russia, Venezuela, Mexico, Brazil, Canada, and several Middle Eastern nations. Russia is not only drilling next to the US, but are slowly claiming the North Pole region closest to their motherland. In fact, the Russians have already dropped Russian flags claiming certain regions of the North sea's bottom that are supposed to hold large deposits of oil. Should the US just roll over and die economically? Besides, what keeps the AK's economy going, hot air?
It doesn't matter who pushes for opening ANWR, be it a Republican or a Democrat.
On Opening ANWR a centerpiece of Stevens' energy strategy