What's more important: Safe bridges or a new football stadium?

Great question. Reminds me of another one I made a couple of months ago and no one was able to answer: "What's more important? Soldiers in Iraq dying or Anna Nichole Smith and Britney Spears?"

Once again, the importance and attention is given to insignificant things and the critical things that need primary attention are simply overlooked.

Safe bridges of course. The government shouldn't be in the business of building football stadiums.

stamford bridge is better looking but that doesn't make it good. stamford bridge is the worst stadium because the fans don't even cheer for their own team. I'm a Chelsea fc supporter but I hate stamford bridge. And the fans are fu@kin' losers because they always support fulham when it is chelsea vs fulham at stamford bridge. Anfield is better because the fans support and scream for liverpool with everything they got. That type of chanting and support boosts up a lot even a player is tired and unable to run anymore in a game.

Depends who you ask....Stadium if you are a Viking but bridges if you ask me. Heck, without a good bridge how would we get to any stadium whether it be new or old?

I would say safe footbal stadium because there was a recent accident where some one had put some explosives in footbal stadium... people bearly didn't die.

Safe bridges!

safe football stadiums!

For $448 billion USD you could have both plus a whole lot of other neat stuff.

Iraq has cost Minnesota $10 billion USD alone.

Kind of makes you think about your priorities doesn't it?

*

bridge

Safe bridges of course.

But, that doesn't mean that a community cannot choose where to spend their money.