why we think he sucks.
Because progressive jerks like you want to run our lives, Mccain; that's why.
Speaking of which, Democrats pushing faked-up groups to claim "We gun-owners want more gun control laws."
So why can't DHS transfer some of what they bought to Border Patrol?
Due to budget concerns and ammunition availability, we will not be
getting issued any proficiency ammunition for next quarter. In addition
to these reductions, we are also being limited to qualification ammo
only. What this means to you is that you will not receive the normal
150 rounds for practice and we will not have any extra ammunition for a
combat course following normal qualifications.
The whole e-mail at the link.
And think about that line: quarterly they've received 150 rounds for practice; how many do you go through?
If the left was honest, they'd say "Screw the Koch brothers, we only want OUR money involved in politics!"
But they don't say that, do they?
That's because Obama WANTS energy to become unaffordable to most.
David Hemenway; because gun bigotry also seems to require a level of stupid that's sometimes awful to behold.
Gee, why would the BATFEIEIO want such a database, hmmmm?
Now the grass is demanding attention. Because if I don't cut it before the next rain, I'll have a section of shortgrass prarie out there.
9 comments:
So why can't DHS transfer some of what they bought to Border Patrol?
Well, Border Patrol is DHS, so it's not even really a transfer.
But remember that the fact of a procurement contract is not the same as the fact of having gotten the supplies ordered.
Has even one round of the stuff people were hyperventilating about last year been delivered yet?
Grass... it's still snowing where I live, and the day temperatures just barely climb above the freezing point of water. I would dearly love to have some global warming right about now. They promised!
Sigi, no idea; and that is a good question. Personally have no doubt they have delivered a lot, real question would be how much?
Marja, well, yeah, they lied.
And for here, that in April would be beginning-of-new-ice-age-type weather.
I'm not convinced this weather isn't the first glimmers of new glaciation here, while this is not uncommon in most parts of Finland it's unusual where I live. :D Well, maybe not a glaciation, but possibly something like the cold snap of the little ice-age. The last time people starved to death in these parts happened around 1867 - 1868 when the summer was cold enough that the crops died. After that it has been getting warmer, but we do live so damn far north that things will get really miserable if we get anything like that again. When they first started to talk about global warming it sounded something that would be quite good for us (if it was real, I had my doubts even back then). Alas... Come on guys, put another log in the fire, maybe it will yet happen if we really work at it. :)
There have been people talking about trends indicating a cooling period for years; mostly called names and yelled at because that idea doesn't fit the preferred narrative.
And yeah, if there were a warming period going on, well, it was during a warm period that the Sahara region was last grassland...
It's only the past few days that the still dormant grass here (in england!)has emerged from a full covering of snow.
We've still plenty of drifts, the snow up the sides of the road is still the height of a car roof, the road over the hill was blocked again over the weekend and it was snowing yet again last night.
come back global warming, all is forgiven!
Perhaps you English should start planning frost fairs on Thames ice again. :D
I'm not actually a complete denialist, I suppose human activities may have had some effect on the climate. Mild effects, and ones which actually would probably have been good for most of us (longer growing seasons and all that, possibly delaying that next glaciation which_is_GOOD), so the panic state we should be in, if you listen to news people and politicians and those scientists who are in this wagon, is uncalled for. Watch, study and adjust if necessary, and the adjustments should not be trying to play with the climate, but something like trying to encourage farmers in areas which seem to be benefiting to start growing more (which most of them would presumably do even without government interference) and perhaps, at most, something like putting some restrictions on some activities on areas where things may be getting a bit worse than they were before, or ease moving away for people living there (there are some islands which have been losing some of their land to the sea, I think, but again, whether that is because the seas are rising or just the normal erosion sea causes...). But do not try to implement changes which do not have any noticeable effect on the damn climate anyway, just make life difficult for people, especially ones in the lower economic classes, by raising prices.
Hasn't it been amazing how many of the warmenists will scream "We don't know what we may be doing, so we have to stop mining/fossil fuels/reproducing/whatever NOW!" have such fondness of ideas for ideas to actually TRY to screw with the climate?
It's like we don't know enough so we have to stop doing things they don't like, BUT we somehow know enough to majorly TRY to screw with the environment?
Amen to that.
Post a Comment