Some here in the south are starting to learn the truth about these repuke scumbags.

[Elwood P Dowd]

Letter to the editor of the Opelika-Auburn, Alabama newspaper.


Letter: Why did Rogers vote against satellite upgrades?

By Opelika-Auburn News reader

Published: May 09, 2011


Maybe U.S. Congressman Mike Rogers could explain to all Alabamians his (reported) vote against $700 million in funding for needed upgrades of aging weather-reporting satellites while protecting $5.5 billion in subsidies and foregone royalty payments for Big Oil.

It has been reported that NOAA forewarned such funding cuts could halve the accuracy of precipitation forecasting. Who could have anticipated the tornado devastation recently experienced in our state, but we all are fully aware of the continuing threat duly supported by our weather history.

Where was his mind when he (reportedly) voted against funding for this satellite-upgrade so important to saving lives of his constituents?

Joseph P. Griffey

Auburn


Voice your opinion by posting a comment.
Sort newest to oldest


Posted by bears2010 on May 10, 2011 - 11:08 a.m.

If this is indeed the case I strongly urge the people to vote him out of office. Clearly has the oil company money in his pockets. I think it is quite sad if indeed he voted this way as more warning and better forecasting can save lives during bad weather.

Posted by bob36830 on May 9, 2011 - 8:06 p.m.

This is the same moron who is voting to sell off ham radio frequencies, severely impacting the amateur radio service to make money. Short sighted loser seems to be his pattern. I have a new pattern for him--ex-congressman.

[atreides1]

1. But will this translate into voting him out of office?

People have short memories, and the elections are still over a year away...and voters have been known to change their tunes!

[Elwood P Dowd]

2. I don't know, but

he was originally elected in 2002 by a very thin margin. There were also some strange voting results from areas that normally went Dem.

[Shandris]

3. Maybe a little, but for as obvious as it is that he doesn't have their interests at heart...

...remember that these people also believe that all the stories of corporate excess, corporate greed, and abuse of corporate power are just 'the occasional bad apple' and that the corporate model overall is still superior. Just because they turn on one Republican, they give him the Bad Apple Syndrome, but in no way does it mean they've reconsidered their lifelong beliefs about Republicans in general.

I didn't truly experience my change of heart from conservative to liberal until I exposed myself, defense mechanisms down, to a heated debate between a liberal versus about thirty conservatives in a Yahoo Chat room, and actually gave the guy the benefit of the doubt and took the time to look up the links he was posting in his debate (one of which would eventually lead me here). It was a long process of soul-searching and questioning, and one I probably wouldn't have made it through without support from other liberals who, despite knowing my conservative beliefs and very tumultuous inner rage, also knew I had the makings of a strong, caring liberal at heart. But before then, it was ~always~ the 'Bad Apple Syndrome'. It's the only way to keep any kind of cognitive dissociation for them.

[pacalo]

4. Thanks for sharing that. It deeply impresses me when someone can be open-minded enough

to weigh both sides & actually change one's overall stance. It's not often in today's deeply divisive political climate to find people willing to do that, which is all the more impressive. Usually it costs a Republican a personal or financial tragedy to see that it is the Democratic party that would make their lives a little less difficult.

:toast: