The Mental Militia Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8   Go Down

Author Topic: planning for TSHTF  (Read 74310 times)

Hollywoodgold

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 845
  • You can trust them to be them...
Re: planning for TSHTF
« Reply #60 on: September 25, 2008, 10:31:31 pm »

fyi: INTJ thread


Junker:

 

We might agree that there are forces in motion which might take us "there" but I remain optimistic that unlike post WWI Germany, we have a foundation of law widely accepted and embraced by the People. They/we just do not yet recognize the thin thread from which our cherished rights now dangle. I believe our military will not follow the JBT and the more minds and hands reach out with reason, the more likely that I will be correct. We must avoid the Balkanization of our society as we experienced in the 60's.



BR/DS

In the past I read quite a lot of books on the Weimar Republic and the events leading up and including the Nazi takeover.   A constant refrain in all of these books was this,  how could this happen in Germany ?  They had a long established respect for law and a foundation of law and a grand civilization.  Culture, science, art, education, all of it.  It was all swept away. And the psychopaths took over.   

 I don't think Americans have any "greater foundation of law widely accepted and embraced by the people" than Germany did.

Given the right conditions, I think those cattle cars and camps can and will happen.


Jamie:

I was referring to the conditions imposed on Germany under the Treaty of Versailles. Germany was beaten down by its provisions and a nation was unable to grow out of the post war malaise engendering the Third Reich. The Kaiser's policies and military wrought destruction on his adversaries but hell was unleashed in the name of National Socialism in Germany. Today we lack the punitive force of the V-Treaty which was my point, perhaps poorly made.

BR/DS
Logged
"Democracy must be something more than
two wolves and a sheep voting on what to
have for dinner."

jamie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1971
Re: planning for TSHTF
« Reply #61 on: September 26, 2008, 09:49:07 am »

While it's true that the u.s. isn't under the same type of crushing burden as the Versailles treaty, I think one could substitute the crushing burden of what is going on now, which will only get worse.  Every day brings more bad news and what is unfolding is very, very bad.

Alll the pieces are in place from the so called patriot act to all the subsequent ones. A totalitarian takeover seems to be exactly what they want.  All of the legislation in the past several years points in that direction.

And I'll just repeat my initial point,  I don't think americans will resist it anymore than the Germans did. The Versailles treaty notwithstanding.

The Defense Authorization Act of 2006, passed on Sept. 30, empowers President George W. Bush to impose martial law in the event of a terrorist "incident," if he or other federal officials perceive a shortfall of "public order," or even in response to antiwar protests that get unruly as a result of government provocations. . . .
It only took a few paragraphs in a $500 billion, 591-page bill to raze one of the most important limits on federal power. Congress passed the Insurrection Act in 1807 to severely restrict the president's ability to deploy the military within the United States. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 tightened these restrictions, imposing a two-year prison sentence on anyone who used the military within the U.S. without the express permission of Congress. But there is a loophole: Posse Comitatus is waived if the president invokes the Insurrection Act.

Section 1076 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 changed the name of the key provision in the statute book from "Insurrection Act" to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act." The Insurrection Act of 1807 stated that the president could deploy troops within the United States only "to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy." The new law expands the list to include "natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition" -- and such "condition" is not defined or limited. . . .

The story of how Section 1076 became law vivifies how expanding government power is almost always the correct answer in Washington. Some people have claimed the provision was slipped into the bill in the middle of the night. In reality, the administration clearly signaled its intent and almost no one in the media or Congress tried to stop it . . . .

Section 1076 was supported by both conservatives and liberals. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the ranking Democratic member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, co-wrote the provision along with committee chairman Sen. John Warner (R-Va.). Sen. Ted Kennedy openly endorsed it, and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), then-chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, was an avid proponent. . . .

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, warned on Sept. 19 that "we certainly do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law," but his alarm got no response. Ten days later, he commented in the Congressional Record: "Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy." Leahy further condemned the process, declaring that it "was just slipped in the defense bill as a rider with little study. Other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals."

As is typical, very few members of the media even mentioned any of this, let alone discussed it (and I failed to give this the attention it deserved at the time), but Congressional Quarterly's Jeff Stein wrote an excellent article at the time detailing the process and noted that "despite such a radical turn, the new law garnered little dissent, or even attention, on the Hill." Stein also noted that while "the blogosphere, of course, was all over it . . . a search of The Washington Post and New York Times archives, using the terms 'Insurrection Act,' 'martial law' and 'Congress,' came up empty."
Bovard and Stein both noted that every Governor -- including Republicans -- joined in Leahy's objections, as they perceived it as a threat from the Federal Government to what has long been the role of the National Guard. But those concerns were easily brushed aside by the bipartisan majorities in Congress, eager -- as always -- to grant the President this radical new power.

The decision this month to permanently deploy a U.S. Army brigade inside the U.S. for purely domestic law enforcement purposes is the fruit of the Congressional elimination of the long-standing prohibitions in Posse Comitatus (although there are credible signs that even before Congress acted, the Bush administration secretly decided it possessed the inherent power to violate the Act). It shouldn't take any efforts to explain why the permanent deployment of the U.S. military inside American cities, acting as the President's police force, is so disturbing. Bovard:

"Martial law" is a euphemism for military dictatorship. When foreign democracies are overthrown and a junta establishes martial law, Americans usually recognize that a fundamental change has occurred. . . . Section 1076 is Enabling Act-type legislation-something that purports to preserve law-and-order while formally empowering the president to rule by decree.
The historic importance of the Posse Comitatus prohibition was also well-analyzed here.
As the recent militarization of St. Paul during the GOP Convention made abundantly clear, our actual police forces are already quite militarized. Still, what possible rationale is there for permanently deploying the U.S. Army inside the United States -- under the command of the President -- for any purpose, let alone things such as "crowd control," other traditional law enforcement functions, and a seemingly unlimited array of other uses at the President's sole discretion? And where are all of the stalwart right-wing "small government conservatives" who spent the 1990s so vocally opposing every aspect of the growing federal police force? And would it be possible to get some explanation from the Government about what the rationale is for this unprecedented domestic military deployment (at least unprecedented since the Civil War), and why it is being undertaken now?

UPDATE: As this commenter notes, the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act somewhat limited the scope of the powers granted by the 2007 Act detailed above (mostly to address constitutional concerns by limiting the President's powers to deploy the military to suppress disorder that threatens constitutional rights), but President Bush, when signing that 2008 Act into law, issued a signing statement which, though vague, seems to declare that he does not recognize those new limitations.

UPDATE II: There's no need to start manufacturing all sorts of scare scenarios about Bush canceling elections or the imminent declaration of martial law or anything of that sort. None of that is going to happen with a single brigade and it's unlikely in the extreme that they'd be announcing these deployments if they had activated any such plans. The point is that the deployment is a very dangerous precedent, quite possibly illegal, and a radical abandonment of an important democratic safeguard. As always with first steps of this sort, the danger lies in how the power can be abused in the future.

Copyright ©2008 Salon Media Group, Inc.
Logged

Hollywoodgold

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 845
  • You can trust them to be them...
Re: planning for TSHTF
« Reply #62 on: September 26, 2008, 10:37:51 am »

While it's true that the u.s. isn't under the same type of crushing burden as the Versailles treaty, I think one could substitute the crushing burden of what is going on now, which will only get worse.  Every day brings more bad news and what is unfolding is very, very bad.

Alll the pieces are in place from the so called patriot act to all the subsequent ones. A totalitarian takeover seems to be exactly what they want.  All of the legislation in the past several years points in that direction.

And I'll just repeat my initial point,  I don't think americans will resist it anymore than the Germans did. The Versailles treaty notwithstanding.

The Defense Authorization Act of 2006, passed on Sept. 30, empowers President George W. Bush to impose martial law in the event of a terrorist "incident," if he or other federal officials perceive a shortfall of "public order," or even in response to antiwar protests that get unruly as a result of government provocations. . . .
It only took a few paragraphs in a $500 billion, 591-page bill to raze one of the most important limits on federal power. Congress passed the Insurrection Act in 1807 to severely restrict the president's ability to deploy the military within the United States. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 tightened these restrictions, imposing a two-year prison sentence on anyone who used the military within the U.S. without the express permission of Congress. But there is a loophole: Posse Comitatus is waived if the president invokes the Insurrection Act.

Section 1076 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 changed the name of the key provision in the statute book from "Insurrection Act" to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act." The Insurrection Act of 1807 stated that the president could deploy troops within the United States only "to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy." The new law expands the list to include "natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition" -- and such "condition" is not defined or limited. . . .

The story of how Section 1076 became law vivifies how expanding government power is almost always the correct answer in Washington. Some people have claimed the provision was slipped into the bill in the middle of the night. In reality, the administration clearly signaled its intent and almost no one in the media or Congress tried to stop it . . . .

Section 1076 was supported by both conservatives and liberals. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the ranking Democratic member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, co-wrote the provision along with committee chairman Sen. John Warner (R-Va.). Sen. Ted Kennedy openly endorsed it, and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), then-chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, was an avid proponent. . . .

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, warned on Sept. 19 that "we certainly do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law," but his alarm got no response. Ten days later, he commented in the Congressional Record: "Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy." Leahy further condemned the process, declaring that it "was just slipped in the defense bill as a rider with little study. Other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals."

As is typical, very few members of the media even mentioned any of this, let alone discussed it (and I failed to give this the attention it deserved at the time), but Congressional Quarterly's Jeff Stein wrote an excellent article at the time detailing the process and noted that "despite such a radical turn, the new law garnered little dissent, or even attention, on the Hill." Stein also noted that while "the blogosphere, of course, was all over it . . . a search of The Washington Post and New York Times archives, using the terms 'Insurrection Act,' 'martial law' and 'Congress,' came up empty."
Bovard and Stein both noted that every Governor -- including Republicans -- joined in Leahy's objections, as they perceived it as a threat from the Federal Government to what has long been the role of the National Guard. But those concerns were easily brushed aside by the bipartisan majorities in Congress, eager -- as always -- to grant the President this radical new power.

The decision this month to permanently deploy a U.S. Army brigade inside the U.S. for purely domestic law enforcement purposes is the fruit of the Congressional elimination of the long-standing prohibitions in Posse Comitatus (although there are credible signs that even before Congress acted, the Bush administration secretly decided it possessed the inherent power to violate the Act). It shouldn't take any efforts to explain why the permanent deployment of the U.S. military inside American cities, acting as the President's police force, is so disturbing. Bovard:

"Martial law" is a euphemism for military dictatorship. When foreign democracies are overthrown and a junta establishes martial law, Americans usually recognize that a fundamental change has occurred. . . . Section 1076 is Enabling Act-type legislation-something that purports to preserve law-and-order while formally empowering the president to rule by decree.
The historic importance of the Posse Comitatus prohibition was also well-analyzed here.
As the recent militarization of St. Paul during the GOP Convention made abundantly clear, our actual police forces are already quite militarized. Still, what possible rationale is there for permanently deploying the U.S. Army inside the United States -- under the command of the President -- for any purpose, let alone things such as "crowd control," other traditional law enforcement functions, and a seemingly unlimited array of other uses at the President's sole discretion? And where are all of the stalwart right-wing "small government conservatives" who spent the 1990s so vocally opposing every aspect of the growing federal police force? And would it be possible to get some explanation from the Government about what the rationale is for this unprecedented domestic military deployment (at least unprecedented since the Civil War), and why it is being undertaken now?

UPDATE: As this commenter notes, the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act somewhat limited the scope of the powers granted by the 2007 Act detailed above (mostly to address constitutional concerns by limiting the President's powers to deploy the military to suppress disorder that threatens constitutional rights), but President Bush, when signing that 2008 Act into law, issued a signing statement which, though vague, seems to declare that he does not recognize those new limitations.

UPDATE II: There's no need to start manufacturing all sorts of scare scenarios about Bush canceling elections or the imminent declaration of martial law or anything of that sort. None of that is going to happen with a single brigade and it's unlikely in the extreme that they'd be announcing these deployments if they had activated any such plans. The point is that the deployment is a very dangerous precedent, quite possibly illegal, and a radical abandonment of an important democratic safeguard. As always with first steps of this sort, the danger lies in how the power can be abused in the future.

Copyright ©2008 Salon Media Group, Inc.


Jaime:

I am not disagreeing with the adverse impacts to our freedoms resulting from the PAtriot Act. Not at all. I am also now aware, via Yorick's post, of the 1rstBCAT being assigned to NorComm and this is very bad news. My original comment was intended to differentiate an externally imposed force of social change from "less detectable" incremental changes caused by internal changes. In that regard, the Germans had a bogeyman with which it was easy to rile up the populace. In our current situation, other than the war on "Terror", absent the clear and present threat so to speak, most people cannot see the danger within and at the same time, aren't as motivated by the external threat to put on brown shirts.

I understand that that may change and the thread here discussing "snitches" may very well be a plausible direction here in the US, albeit a very dire one. It may very well be that the threat justifying the ignoring of the Possee Comitatus Act will be the internal resistance to the Bankster takeover of the country now underway. I think this is what you are talking around and in that regard we are in agreement.

BR/DS
Logged
"Democracy must be something more than
two wolves and a sheep voting on what to
have for dinner."

TFA303

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20
Re: planning for TSHTF
« Reply #63 on: October 28, 2008, 12:59:38 pm »

fyi: INTJ thread
Junker:
 
Jamie:

I was referring to the conditions imposed on Germany under the Treaty of Versailles. Germany was beaten down by its provisions and a nation was unable to grow out of the post war malaise engendering the Third Reich. The Kaiser's policies and military wrought destruction on his adversaries but hell was unleashed in the name of National Socialism in Germany. Today we lack the punitive force of the V-Treaty which was my point, perhaps poorly made.

BR/DS

Much of the influence from the Versailles Treaty lay in its humiliation of the Germans; it made a leader who promised a return to greatness and self-respect sound very appealing. I would suggest that our descent from superpower/hyperpower status could very well sting just as much as the War Guilt Clause did, with similar results.
Logged

Hollywoodgold

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 845
  • You can trust them to be them...
Re: planning for TSHTF
« Reply #64 on: October 28, 2008, 01:26:14 pm »

fyi: INTJ thread
Junker:
 
Jamie:

I was referring to the conditions imposed on Germany under the Treaty of Versailles. Germany was beaten down by its provisions and a nation was unable to grow out of the post war malaise engendering the Third Reich. The Kaiser's policies and military wrought destruction on his adversaries but hell was unleashed in the name of National Socialism in Germany. Today we lack the punitive force of the V-Treaty which was my point, perhaps poorly made.

BR/DS

Much of the influence from the Versailles Treaty lay in its humiliation of the Germans; it made a leader who promised a return to greatness and self-respect sound very appealing. I would suggest that our descent from superpower/hyperpower status could very well sting just as much as the War Guilt Clause did, with similar results.

TFA:

I believe that to be a plausible outcome. If the Dems morph into National Socialism then they will likely have the power to implement such a scenario. Will they morph? I don't know but they seem far too keen on pleasing the UN than expressing National supremacy.


DS
Logged
"Democracy must be something more than
two wolves and a sheep voting on what to
have for dinner."

Okie1

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9
Re: planning for TSHTF
« Reply #65 on: May 25, 2009, 06:30:29 pm »

Hello, Im new here also and have lurked about reading and learning.Im an army vet in my middle age.Somewhere above the half century mark.I read a lot of good input in these threads nd agree with a lot of what is said.Im not nearly as articulate as a lot here though.I tend to agree with JJ in his thinking that a lot of active duty would turn out on our side.Im hopeful of this anyway because it would make for better odds for us.Even if im wrong i look back at vietnam and remember how long we were there and even though we won most of the battles,at the end of the day we withdrew from the field and hence we were not the victors.We lost to a peoples army that toiled
without rest it seems for their objective and beat a modern army that was better financed better armed and so on.So i tend to think all is not lost whichever way it might go.
Logged

knobster

  • Moderator Group
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4059
  • Come and take!
Re: planning for TSHTF
« Reply #66 on: May 25, 2009, 07:18:21 pm »

Hello, Im new here also and have lurked about reading and learning....

Welcome!  You'll find enough information here to keep your brain going full-bore for three lifetimes.
Logged
You will not rise to the occasion; you will default to your level of training.
In God we trust, everyone else bring data.

jamie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1971
Re: planning for TSHTF
« Reply #67 on: May 25, 2009, 09:01:35 pm »

Hello, Im new here also and have lurked about reading and learning.Im an army vet in my middle age.Somewhere above the half century mark.I read a lot of good input in these threads nd agree with a lot of what is said.Im not nearly as articulate as a lot here though.I tend to agree with JJ in his thinking that a lot of active duty would turn out on our side.Im hopeful of this anyway because it would make for better odds for us.Even if im wrong i look back at vietnam and remember how long we were there and even though we won most of the battles,at the end of the day we withdrew from the field and hence we were not the victors.We lost to a peoples army that toiled
without rest it seems for their objective and beat a modern army that was better financed better armed and so on.So i tend to think all is not lost whichever way it might go.

I agree with you Okie1. I would add that the U.S. military has learned a lot about counter-insurgency in the last few years. You can bet that they will employ everything they have learned, propaganda, disinformation, political means, control of the media and every other CI technique. Pretty much like they do now,only accelerated.  It won't just be about force and raw power.  I'm just saying.
Logged

jamie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1971
Re: planning for TSHTF
« Reply #68 on: May 25, 2009, 10:15:31 pm »

Quote
the U.S. military has learned a lot about counter-insurgency in the last few years.

Indeed.  I remember reading a Worldnetdaily article back in 2002/01 about how our buddy Saddam knew how to operate his forces to defeat the "US Military" as well.  It was said that groups of only three would make the day by dressing in "plain clothes" like t-shirts at the side of the road.  Perhaps that's where we were duped into thinking it would be a cakewalk?

Please expand on this.

Peace and Respect

I am not sure what you are asking. I am just saying that the U.S. military has learned a lot about counter insurgency in the last eight years. And they will use these techniques against any insurgency.

If you don't believe that they have learned a lot then why do many people think the u.s. has won in Iraq? They haven't but people believe that.

They now understand that Fallujah was a mistake. They understand that a counter insurgency can't be won with force. 

That is what petraeus and the new counter insurgency manual was all about. They just fired the commander in Afghanistan for not going along with the approved counter insurgency methodology.

I don't think they will succeed but the point I was trying to make is, in this kind of conflict they now have years of experience.

It is important to recognize that.
Logged

OOSpool

  • Guest
Re: planning for TSHTF
« Reply #69 on: May 25, 2009, 10:17:52 pm »

Not really asking anything.  Just a thought!  I agree, they have changed the manuals and made the experiences different.  I'm just thinking out loud...Everyone should see how the militaries of the world change technology and time and how they do it.  Back in my day, we didn't have remote-controlled-drones on the borders, does that make me weaker?  Awareness is always key, what one does about it is an even better way toward freedom...

It brings back memories...

Peace indeed!
« Last Edit: May 25, 2009, 10:24:00 pm by OOSpool »
Logged

dogsledder54

  • Guest
Re: planning for TSHTF
« Reply #70 on: May 25, 2009, 10:46:08 pm »

even though we won most of the battles,at the end of the day we withdrew from the field and hence we were not the victors.We lost to a peoples army that toiled
without rest

Yes. They were fighting for their HOMES. AT HOME. Very important point. (Even tho I understand the nobility of those fighting for THEIR freedom- that is the U.S. troops and the ARVN) But fighting for SOMEONE ELSE'S freedom rarely works, IMHO.


I agree with you Okie1. I would add that the U.S. military has learned a lot about counter-insurgency in the last few years. You can bet that they will employ everything they have learned, propaganda, disinformation, political means, control of the media and every other CI technique. Pretty much like they do now,only accelerated.  It won't just be about force and raw power.  I'm just saying.

I must disagree. IMOpinion, Any troops fighting or attempting to round up and/or control U.S. Americans
(see Miss Teen South Carolina : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww )
will be doing something completely alien to them- that is fighting or rounding up U.S. AMERICANS.never mind.  WE ARE ALL FREAKING DOOMED !


What a beautiful skyscraper. and the top floor completely empty.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2009, 10:48:35 pm by Private Joker »
Logged

Pragmatic1

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15
Re: planning for TSHTF
« Reply #71 on: May 26, 2009, 09:20:21 pm »

Hello, Im new here also and have lurked about reading and learning.Im an army vet in my middle age.Somewhere above the half century mark.I read a lot of good input in these threads nd agree with a lot of what is said.Im not nearly as articulate as a lot here though.I tend to agree with JJ in his thinking that a lot of active duty would turn out on our side.
A week ago I would have disagreed. After seeing Oath keepers, I can now agree. It was like a breath of hope into my lungs.
Logged

Freelee

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15
Re: planning for TSHTF
« Reply #72 on: October 26, 2009, 12:54:00 pm »

I have only been on here today. I grew up in a fairly poor family had land we farmed and was taught how to use the land. I will be returning staeside soon and have to start preapring for when it happens. Unfortenately Im low on cash but thank god for having friends who will help me. when I get home. This site has been a huge help already. Im researching guns laws in my state, looking for a nice piece of land up in the mountains. Looking for a job already. Saving some extra cash. Since I had my eyes opened to this society(people who want to survive when it gets bad). Things I hadn.t thought of Im doing now.
Logged
Live today as if the shit will hit the fan tomorrow.

OLD TIRED RN

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1823
Re: planning for TSHTF
« Reply #73 on: October 26, 2009, 07:51:31 pm »

Welcome aboard there Freelee.  Great to have you with us. Hope and trust you'll stick around a while and benefit greatly from the learning and association available here. Just ask away when ever you need help.  No dumb questions here.  Whatever you want to know has probably already been asked and/or someone else wants to know. 

Looking up gun laws of your home state.............What state would that be??

               I'm from west Tennessee.  How close are you? Would be great to meet/eat if you are nearby.
               I'm kinda limited now due to misfortune, lots of health problems.
Logged
When freedom fails, the best men rot in filthy jails, and they who cry APEASE APEASE are hanged by those who they tried to please.

Freelee

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15
Re: planning for TSHTF
« Reply #74 on: October 27, 2009, 04:27:52 am »

Welcome aboard there Freelee.  Great to have you with us. Hope and trust you'll stick around a while and benefit greatly from the learning and association available here. Just ask away when ever you need help.  No dumb questions here.  Whatever you want to know has probably already been asked and/or someone else wants to know. 

Looking up gun laws of your home state.............What state would that be??

               I'm from west Tennessee.  How close are you? Would be great to meet/eat if you are nearby.
               I'm kinda limited now due to misfortune, lots of health problems.

I will be moving back to Colorado when I come home currently in europe. I will be till febuaryish. Thanks for the warm welcome I will be sticking around reading, learning and hopefully not asking to many stupid questions. I like tennesse its beautiful country full of helpful people. My car broke down there once and a Family helped me get the parts to fix it and even gave me a place to stay the night. Its rare to find people like that. Have a great day.
Logged
Live today as if the shit will hit the fan tomorrow.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 8   Go Up