text:
|Members List
|Today's Posts
|Mark Forums Read
|Photo Gallery
|Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!
greatlakes4x4.com is the premier Great Lakes 4x4 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
|Thread Tools
|Search this Thread
|January 4th, 2012, 08:36 AM
Senior Member
Join Date: 09-22-08
Location: Commerce Twp. Michigan
Posts: 7,415
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
The Bill of Rights
Our elected government is getting bigger. Now they are going after our rights.... the bill of rights.
New Years Eve Obama signed a bill to take away our rights. And the media has not mentioned it once. I wonder why?
|January 4th, 2012, 08:38 AM
Desert Rat
Join Date: 03-09-07
Location: Memphis, Mi
Posts: 6,487
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
|January 4th, 2012, 10:44 AM
You call, we haul.
Join Date: 11-08-05
Location: Southgate, MI
Posts: 1,509
iTrader: (6)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
I wish I had the time to sit down and read the actual language of the bill. When I first heard about NDAA, I put on my tinfoil hat and said "this will NEVER pass"... but alas, here it is. XXXJ's post has a part of what I want to see.
The part that I would like, if what I'm gathering from XXXJ's quoted section holds true, is that people who are in this country illegally, with the intention of causing acts of war (ie Terrorists); they no longer have protection under the Constitution while under trial from OUR legal system.
|January 4th, 2012, 11:36 AM
Senior Member
Join Date: 07-21-06
Location: Springfield Township, Mi
Posts: 1,171
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
It's not nearly that simple...
Posted by Rep. Justin Amash
Saturday, December 17th at 9:30AM EST
On Thursday, Congress gave the President sweeping new power to detain American citizens indefinitely, without charge or trial. A provision in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) empowers the President to detain anyone who "substantially supported" groups he determines are "associated forces" of terrorists.
The provision at issue, sec. 1021, was tucked into an 1800-page conference report that was shuttled through Congress in a matter of days. Given the complexity and weight of the issue, I was interested to read House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon's post on RedState explaining the bill's detention policy. Unfortunately, the post is almost useless because it muddles two separate provisions of the NDAA.
Sec. 1021, the bill's discretionary detention provision, authorizes the President to detain persons who "substantially supported" forces "associated" with al-Qaeda or the Taliban that "are engaged in hostilities" against the U.S. or its "coalition partners." None of the quoted terms are defined. We do not know what constitutes substantial support, hostilities, or our coalition partners. Critically, the bill does not attempt to define "associated forces," either. Without knowing what qualifies as an associated force, no one can be sure they are safe from the government's detention.
Sec. 1022, the bill's mandatory detention provision, requires the President to detain members of al-Qaeda who have planned or carried out attacks against the U.S. or its coalition partners. Only sec. 1022 states that it "does not extend to citizens of the United States."
(You can read the language of both provisions in the conference report. Sec. 1021 begins on p. 653; sec. 1022 begins on p. 656.)
What's troubling is that Chairman McKeon's post gives you the impression that it defends sec. 1021—the discretionary detention provision—when, in fact, his post is all about sec. 1022, the mandatory provision. The post conspicuously defends "the provision," without referencing a specific section number. And, at the end, it includes a chart titled "Section 1021 of the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act," even though one of the two quotes in the chart is from sec. 1022, not 1021.
Sec. 1021—the provision I and other constitutional conservatives are most concerned about—is much more difficult to defend. Its expansive, undefined, and dangerous detention power goes well beyond what Congress authorized in its September 2011 Authorization for Use of Military Force (9/11 AUMF), even though the bill claims it only "affirms" the President's authority under the 9/11 AUMF. To understand how much power sec. 1021 gives to the President, consider the 9/11 AUMF's text, which Congress passed just days after the most deadly attack in U.S. history:
[T]he President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
The 9/11 AUMF authorizes force only against persons and groups who have a connection to the September 11 terrorist attacks. The 9/11 AUMF says nothing about detention, let alone the indefinite detention of American citizens.
Despite the 9/11 AUMF's plain language, the past two administrations have argued in court that the 9/11 AUMF authorizes the President to indefinitely detain certain persons the administration determines are enemies. Both administrations also have claimed the 9/11 AUMF applies to persons and groups that are "associated" with al-Qaeda or the Taliban. No 9/11 nexus is required, according to the President.
Section 1021 thus claims that it merely "affirms" the President's authority under the 9/11 AUMF, including the alleged authority to detain persons the President determines are "associated forces." While the section is framed as an affirmation, it can be viewed as that only if Congress adopted the President's expansive interpretation of the 9/11 AUMF—an action Congress never had taken before Thursday. To be clear: When the Senate passed the NDAA conference report on Thursday, for the first time in history, Congress approved the indefinite detention of persons who "substantially supported . . . associated forces."
Who could this cover? An American citizen living in Michigan makes a one-time donation to a non-violent humanitarian group. Years later, the group commits hostile acts against an ally of the U.S. Under the NDAA that just passed Congress, if the President determines the group was "associated" with terrorists, the President is authorized to detain the donor indefinitely, and without charge or trial.
NDAA proponents sometimes point to an amendment to sec. 1021, added by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, as proof that the NDAA doesn't apply to Americans. The amendment, now subsection 1021(e), states:
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
The key to subsection 1021(e) is its claim that sec. 1021 does not "affect existing law or authorities" relating to the detention of persons arrested on U.S. soil. If the President's expansive view of his own power were in statute, that statement would be true. Instead, the section codifies the President's view as if it had always existed, authorizing detention of "persons" regardless of citizenship or where they are arrested. It then disingenuously says the bill doesn't change that view.
In fact, the Senate expressly rejected a provision that would have prevented the indefinite detention of American citizens. Sen. Feinstein offered another amendment to sec. 1021 that stated the section "does not include the authority to detain a citizen of the United States without trial until the end of hostilities." That amendment was rejected 45-55. Sen. Feinstein's other amendment, which does nothing to protect U.S. citizens, passed 99-1.
Our Constitution does not permit the federal government to detain American citizens indefinitely without charge or trial. I strongly believe in protecting the country's security and equipping our Armed Forces with the tools they need to defeat our enemies. But the American people cannot support measures that, in the name of security, violate our constitutional rights.
The NDAA's backers succeeded in part because of the bill's length and complexity. And I concede that this issue takes time to understand. Over the next few months, I hope to join others who value our country's constitutional rights to block the NDAA's dangerous detention provision. Once the American public sees for itself what's included in the NDAA, I'm confident they will demand we do so.
|January 4th, 2012, 11:42 AM
Senior Member
Join Date: 07-21-06
Location: Springfield Township, Mi
Posts: 1,171
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Why would the President need to clarify this in a signing statement if it wasn't clearly written into the law already?
Statement by the President on H.R. 1540
Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012." I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.
The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa'ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.
Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.
Section 1021 affirms the executive branch's authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not "limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force." Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any "existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States." My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.
Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are "captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force." This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa'ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.
I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa'ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.
My Administration will design the implementation procedures authorized by section 1022(c) to provide the maximum measure of flexibility and clarity to our counterterrorism professionals permissible under law. And I will exercise all of my constitutional authorities as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if those procedures fall short, including but not limited to seeking the revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be unworkable.
Sections 1023-1025 needlessly interfere with the executive branch's processes for reviewing the status of detainees. Going forward, consistent with congressional intent as detailed in the Conference Report, my Administration will interpret section 1024 as granting the Secretary of Defense broad discretion to determine what detainee status determinations in Afghanistan are subject to the requirements of this section.
Sections 1026-1028 continue unwise funding restrictions that curtail options available to the executive branch. Section 1027 renews the bar against using appropriated funds for fiscal year 2012 to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any purpose. I continue to oppose this provision, which intrudes upon critical executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have successfully prosecuted hundreds of terrorists in Federal court. Those prosecutions are a legitimate, effective, and powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation. Removing that tool from the executive branch does not serve our national security. Moreover, this intrusion would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles.
Section 1028 modifies but fundamentally maintains unwarranted restrictions on the executive branch's authority to transfer detainees to a foreign country. This hinders the executive's ability to carry out its military, national security, and foreign relations activities and like section 1027, would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles. The executive branch must have the flexibility to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers. In the event that the statutory restrictions in sections 1027 and 1028 operate in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my Administration will interpret them to avoid the constitutional conflict.
Section 1029 requires that the Attorney General consult with the Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of Defense prior to filing criminal charges against or seeking an indictment of certain individuals. I sign this based on the understanding that apart from detainees held by the military outside of the United States under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, the provision applies only to those individuals who have been determined to be covered persons under section 1022 before the Justice Department files charges or seeks an indictment. Notwithstanding that limitation, this provision represents an intrusion into the functions and prerogatives of the Department of Justice and offends the longstanding legal tradition that decisions regarding criminal prosecutions should be vested with the Attorney General free from outside interference. Moreover, section 1029 could impede flexibility and hinder exigent operational judgments in a manner that damages our security. My Administration will interpret and implement section 1029 in a manner that preserves the operational flexibility of our counterterrorism and law enforcement professionals, limits delays in the investigative process, ensures that critical executive branch functions are not inhibited, and preserves the integrity and independence of the Department of Justice.
Other provisions in this bill above could interfere with my constitutional foreign affairs powers. Section 1244 requires the President to submit a report to the Congress 60 days prior to sharing any U.S. classified ballistic missile defense information with Russia. Section 1244 further specifies that this report include a detailed description of the classified information to be provided. While my Administration intends to keep the Congress fully informed of the status of U.S. efforts to cooperate with the Russian Federation on ballistic missile defense, my Administration will also interpret and implement section 1244 in a manner that does not interfere with the President's constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications. Other sections pose similar problems. Sections 1231, 1240, 1241, and 1242 could be read to require the disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications and national security secrets; and sections 1235, 1242, and 1245 would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with foreign governments. Like section 1244, should any application of these provisions conflict with my constitutional authorities, I will treat the provisions as non-binding.
My Administration has worked tirelessly to reform or remove the provisions described above in order to facilitate the enactment of this vital legislation, but certain provisions remain concerning. My Administration will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns through the design of implementation procedures and other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office.
|January 4th, 2012, 11:48 AM
Mr. Special Snowflake.
We've been over this before. A simple bill does not over rule the Constitution.
And the President does not write legislation, the legislature does that. So don't blame Obama, blame Congress.
Obama was in a "damned if he did, damned if he didn't" situation. If he signs he is accused of taking away people's rights, if he vetoes he accused of not supporting the military (the bill is actually a military funding bill). So he took a page from the Bush strategy, and signed it with a statement that he would just ignore that parts of the bill he disagreed with.
|January 4th, 2012, 01:18 PM
Desert Rat
Join Date: 03-09-07
Location: Memphis, Mi
Posts: 6,487
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Long winded interptations does not change the simple language of the bill.
Irregardless, this portion should have stood on its own separate bill.
Gitmo is a fine place to hold jihadists until the end of time. I have no problem with that.
|January 4th, 2012, 06:44 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: West Bloomfield, MI
Posts: 9,604
iTrader: (17)
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
|January 4th, 2012, 06:57 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: 07-21-06
Location: Springfield Township, Mi
Posts: 1,171
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Until someone has the balls to do what is right, they will all continue to do what is wrong. That's why we are circling the drain.
|January 5th, 2012, 06:38 AM
Senior Member
Join Date: 07-21-06
Location: Springfield Township, Mi
Posts: 1,171
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
|Thread Tools
|Search this Thread


text:
Home » Your Cart
Your Cart
Your cart is empty
Your Comments!
My kids have loved being a part of keepers. When I get stuck for an idea/project to do as a family, I pull out our keepers book for us to work on a badge. So far we enjoyed the birds badge. We made a bird house and have had fun caring for the birds this winter.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
After analyzing the previous thread, I thought it was time to issue a new thread. It was heavy in photos and verbage, and taking longer to download.
With that being said, I also re-evaluated the approach I have been using documenting this build-out, and I have decided to change direction. I am converting from a detailed verbose documentry, to a more simple photographic version. Time is precious and I rather use that time to focus on the myriad of projects I have on deck.
Here below are images test fitting of both Left Forearm and Left Shoulder Armor. The left forearm is at 95% completion. The shoulder piece has been trimmed and sanded, and the undercut Dremeled. Like the forearms, I am rebuilding the thickness of the part to be more accurate:


text:
David Walker came to Kentucky this week to tell his story of how America is drowning in debt. Walker says that faced with key deficits in budget, savings, trade, and leadership; increased foreign competition and ballooning financial obligations, the federal government is critically overextended.
Walker served for 10 years as Comptroller General of the United States, the public auditor for the country, serving three presidents. Today he is the Founder and CEO of The Comeback America Initiative and has traveled to 50 states with his message promoting fiscal responsibility.
My 'One to One' conversation with Walker touched on a number of topics. He is very intentional on what needs to be done and how quickly President Obama and Congress should act to get the fiscal crisis under control.
With all of the rancor and discord in Washington, I wanted to get Walker's evaluation of the mood in Congress and how Democrats and Republicans, who are far apart on a number of fiscal issues, could ever reach accord on these issues. Here's his take on how Congress can move forward.
Walker's appearance on 'One to One' will air this Sunday at 1 pm ET on KET and Tuesday at 7:30 pm ET on KET 2.
On Monday, Feb. 4th at 9 pm ET, KET will present a special program on the fiscal challenges facing America. We taped the program at the University of Kentucky. It was sponsored by the U.K. James W. Martin School of Public Policy and Administration and the Kentucky Business Roundtable. Besides Walker, participants included Charlie Owen, A Louisville businessman and chair of the Kentucky Business Roundtable and Brad Cowgill of the Martin School's Visitors Board. There were also questions from the audience.


text:
I'm an EFL teacher currently working in Moscow, with less than one year of experience but with a Trinity TESOL certificate and a university degree. I'm hoping to find work in Nepal or northern India next year and I was wondering if anyone had any contacts or advice.
All of the EFL positions I can find in Nepal are volunteer programs, and most of them cost money. I don't mind volunteering, but I'm not going to pay a program fee. I mainly need airfare, visa, and housing covered, and other than that volunteering is fine with me. Does anyone know of any schools or programs in Nepal I might try, or other resources?
I am also interested in teaching in India, mostly in northern India, but of course jobs are a bit scarce since India pretty much has English under control. I'm also looking for a shorter contract, hopefully 6 months but maybe up to 9. I'm hoping someone on these forums has some experience or information.
Does anyone have any advice, resources, or contacts for these areas?


text:
Re: Sunsplash
Love this shirt! I hope it wins!
Re: DINOSAUR, JR.
So so so sweet.
Re: Vote Abe in 1860
This is the best god damn shirt I have ever seen. That really needs to be made. Because I nearly The Strangers (2008)my self with joy when I saw it.
Re: Silent Seahorse
Wow, that is awesome!!!! Perfect color combination. I would love to have one.
Strange to see no comments for such a beautiful shirt.
Re: I'm beginning to rethink the whole sidekick thing.
This is my favorite shirt in the whole derby....and I love alot of the designs...but this one makes me happy!
Re: inksane in the mouse brain
thanks guys!!
Re: Deep Inside the Blender
Yay! It's back! I get another chance.
Boo, I have no money.
yvesabouchar wrote:Come on, people! Vote vote vote! I have to own at least seven of these.
Seriously, if this doesn't win this time (at least top three), I will take the lives of myself and everybody around me.
I will help! I need this shirt!
Wow, voting for at least the bottom spots in the fog must be tight - a few shirts have already popped in-and-out. I suspect the winning shirts will rack-up quite a few votes this derby.
Re: Birdsong
Let's push this one up! Seriously, it's been awhile since I have found a shirt I have really liked.
Re: The Rising Tide: Globe Warmed.
I don't remember this one, but I like it. One of my nicknames is Drewski, so you got that going for you. ;)
Lovely and kind of creepy, like it took a detour through Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark.
Re: Squeeze
Please let this print.
Re: Inspired by Dream Theater
love this one. textures and colors are gorgeous
Re: Physical attraction
great work. great colors and simplicity
Re: Float On - Now with Improved Steering Power!
seriously awesome.
Re: A Breath of Fresh Air
nice would totally buy this!
The color limitations hurts this one...a three-colored rainbow? Everybody should take their votes back.
Andy47240 wrote:I don't remember this one, but I like it. One of my nicknames is Drewski, so you got that going for you. ;)
thanks! glad you like it. I'm kinda fond of it too. :-). as well as the name drewski.
great design but totally kinda freaks me out.
coolestghoul wrote:I will help! I need this shirt!
Wait...you're going to help kill me?
Re: Go Green
Superb line work. thought this one should have done so much better than it did for the earth day derby.
Re: Lucky Number
Love this shirt!! Need it for so many reasons!!
Re: Holy Guacamole!
Thanks guys for all the support!
Some detail:
This is wonderful.
Re: Bacon Boy and the Fork of Deliciousness
hahaha, I love this one!
mjc613 wrote:When this appeared last time, we learned about the good-hearted Oriah the Ox.
She "had been reading the news and was really upset about the children in Afghanistan who have been affected by the war there. She did some research and learned about Afghans for Afghans, a project by knitters to send warm clothes and blankets to those very children.
Since the best yarn for keeping warm is wool, she asked her friend Shirley the Sheep if she could help her out. Shirley agreed to contribute wool and Oriah got out her knitting needles and went to work. Unfortunately, she is very nearsighted and started using yarn from a sheep she didn't know, but who was too polite to say anything. But word got out, and some of the sheep decided to stay in the forest until they could figure out why an ox was knitting!"
While it is much warmer now, Oriah is still knitting to get a head start and have things ready for when it gets cold in Afghanistan. Please vote for this shirt and get the word out about Afghans for Afghans.
Thanks so much mjc613 for you support, you rock!
Re: Jeeves 3000
More support here! it's amazing! +1
Re: It's a Matter of Balance
Thanks Guys!
Re: Group Hug (Version 2)
Omelets made great, it's amazing, please print more lucky!
anonymoose2 wrote:love it
seconded. I'd also like to add want it and need it.
Re: Tweets are for Birds
Ah I remember this shirt, I hope it gets through this time.
Out of the fog already, eh? Figures. Well, my favorites in each of the last three double-takes (Flying, Spaghetti, and Air) all missed out on voting before getting an EC. Fingers crossed that it happens again.
I would wear this shirt lots and lots. Please print.
walmazan wrote:hahaha, I love this one!
Thanks for the kind words! Your recipe shirts always GMV...they're brilliant!
so amazing! !he colors, effects, and design combine to produce an amazing t-shirt.
I am definitely going to stay up fri, sat, sun to buy this shirt.
Re: Florence and The Machine
I totally forgot about this design! I think this is your best design in the double take derby. I wish that your design from the "luck" derby was in this derby.
I can't wait to buy this one!
View All →


text:
|Topic Review (Newest First)
Good stuff sounds like it went very well.
Nice story.
More Beau - not SAR stuff
Well today we took Grim to the holistic vet for his blood panel, a cold laser treatment, and a general checkover - and Beau was riding shotgun because our next stop was the lake for some water training.
We got blocked in my the Christmas parade BIG TIME and we were just chatting because none of the other customers could get there. I said "do you have a digitial x-ray machine?" and she said they just got one. I had planned on not transferring Beau over to her until after he had his 2 year old OFA x-rays and finished his first year shots.
As luck would have it he was due for his first year shots {he had the rabies shot 4 weeks ago- with the old vet thinking I was way silly for not doing them all at once}....so we got him in for an unplanned appt and he got a distemper only shot (she has the individual vaccines-the least I can get at the old vet is the DAPP and a lecuture about lepto) and will go back in a few weeks for the parvo. After that, titers.
I even told her I was giving the ivomec and she was fine [no dire lectures there either]
So all in all, glad I made the switch in a serendipitous way. On the side - it was cute the vet tech gave him a treat then he kept looking at her pocket, then her eyes, back and forth. Then he threw himself on the floor in a perfect "down" and looked at her again so she could not resist. All went well - a bit squirmy on the HW test blood draw and the temperature but otherwise fine. no growlies.
We then went to water training and Beau was great on the boat and Grim got a chance to swim in the lake a little. Made Beau take it easy the rest of the day due to the shot. [I did not ask but she also gave him a homeopathic after the shot]
|Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off