[at-l] OT -- Forgive me --- BUT I MUST GET THIS OFF MY CHEST . . .

[RoksnRoots at aol.com (RoksnRoots@aol.com)]

In a message dated 2/10/2006 4:07:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
s.landis@comcast.net writes:
*
*
*
Unless you can find someone else on this list to agree to that 
outrageous statement you should edit out the *we*

I wonder what the logical consequence of calling for a jihad on the list is?
*
*
*

             
             
                  If we analyzed government funding in the last decades we 
would see a large buffer for the AT was well-within affordability of the 100's 
of billions (trillions?) allocated. There are also philanthropists who have 
trouble giving away millions. So, the statement that AT protection is too 
expensive isn't really true. The more you look at available funding, and how little 
the AT gets in comparison, along with the excuses government has conditioned 
the public to accept, the more you realize the lack of adequate AT protection is 
deliberately political. I've read about expensive defense contracts being 
given for projects that weren't even requested.  If I were to worry about 
consequences, I'd be more worried about the consequences of AT members unconsciously 
backing that politic over those who challenge it for the sake of the AT.








*