A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Bush IS Attempting to Steal the Election



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 17th 04, 11:37 AM
WalterM140
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bush IS Attempting to Steal the Election



"Five months before the election, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris
ordered the removal of 57,700 names from Florida’s voter rolls on grounds
that they were felons. Voter rolls contain the names of all eligible,
registered voters. If you’re not on the list, you don’t get to vote."

-- GregPalast.com

47,000 of these people have -stll- --after over three years, not been placed
back on the voter rolls.

TAMPA - For the second straight presidential election, Florida's law against
former felons voting, a law grounded in Old South racism, may prevent thousands
of people from voting.
Some of those people may be legally entitled to vote. Others won't be able to
navigate the bureaucratic hurdles of the state's clemency process to get their
rights restored in time for the election.

But the state government is concentrating on removing as many former felons
from voting rolls as possible, even though critics charge that it risks
disenfranchising some who are legally entitled to vote. Meanwhile, those
critics charge, the state is dragging its feet on restoring those wrongly
removed from voter rolls in 2000.

Florida is one of only seven states with laws that prevent former felons from
voting unless they go through a long and sometimes difficult process of having
their rights restored.

That law, which wasn't enforced by the state before the controversial 2000
presidential race, caused hundreds or possibly thousands of voters - no one
knows for sure - to be turned away from the polls in 2000, some wrongly,
because of errors in a state ``purge list'' of former felons.

Today, as the 2004 election nears:

* More than 43,000 Floridians are on the waiting list to have their rights
restored, some of whom first learned in 2000, after voting for years, that they
weren't legally entitled to vote. The restoration process can take years, and
the list is growing, not shrinking.

* Hundreds of people wrongly removed from voter rolls in 2000, who never
committed felonies or whose rights had been restored, may not yet have been put
back on the rolls.

* A lawsuit charges that Florida's felon disenfranchisement is unconstitutional
and affects up to 600,000 people.

Despite all this, state officials have just sent elections supervisors in
Florida's 67 counties another list of 47,000 names of individuals who may have
committed felonies in the past, telling the supervisors to purge their rolls
again.

Some supervisors say they don't have the staff, expertise or money to do the
purge without the same kind of errors as in 2000.

Legally purged voters, meanwhile, won't find out about it until they get a
letter from an election supervisor this summer - too late to have their rights
restored for this election - or are turned away on Election Day.

The vast majority of them are black and would be likely to vote Democratic.

In Miami-Dade County, for example, blacks are 20 percent of the population but
make up 65 percent of those on the 2000 felon purge lists.

Asked why a new purge list is going out less than six months before the
election, Secretary of State Glenda Hood said it's part of establishing a
statewide voter list, as required by the state's 2001 election reform law. The
law was passed in the wake of the disputed presidential vote.

``The legislation mandated that as soon as this process [of identifying
improperly registered names] was complete, the information be sent out,'' said
Hood, a Republican and an appointee of Gov. Jeb Bush.

But Hood acknowledged ``there is no particular time line'' in the law for
sending purge lists to county elections supervisors.

Hood's staff didn't follow through on a promise to have a staff attorney call a
reporter to discuss precisely what part of the new law requires that the list
go out now.

When news of the new purge list broke about three weeks ago, it drew a chorus
of anger from civil rights advocates who had sued the state over the 2000
election problems.

``Frankly, the state should first fix the problems with people who were
erroneously thrown off in 2000 before they start on another purge,'' said
Elliot Mincberg, legal director of People for the American Way Foundation, a
liberal-oriented advocacy group.

State officials are seeking to keep the new purge list secret, but CNN is suing
to get a copy. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Tallahassee, and several news organizations
including The Tampa Tribune plan to join the lawsuit.


They Were Purged

Derek Graham, Willie Johnson and Jeffrey Key, who are black and of Tampa, were
three of the thousands of people legally removed from the voter rolls in 2000.
They have past felony records and hadn't had their rights restored.

But all three also say they had been registered, and voting, for years before
being turned away in 2000.

``When they release you, they don't tell you that you have to go through a
process to receive those rights back,'' said Key, 40, a Progress Village
homeowner with two grown children, one in college.

Key served four years in the 1980s for armed robbery and got a job on work
release with the same printing company where he is now a supervisor. After
being turned away from the polls in 2000, it took him 2 1/2 years to get his
rights restored.

Johnson, 69, a retired truck driver, served a short sentence in the 1950s for
breaking and entering, but had been voting since 1962.

He has sent an application to Tallahassee but doesn't expect to be able to vote
this year.

``If I did wrong, it's my part,'' he said. ``But I did my time. I haven't been
in trouble since; I've been working ever since.''

Graham, 38, who operates a street sweeper for the city of Tampa, remembers
voting for the Community Investment Tax in 1996. It has been 17 years since the
drug possession charge landed him an eight-month sentence. He applied 10 months
ago to have his rights restored. He hasn't heard back.

Graham and Johnson are among 43,847 Floridians waiting to have their rights
restored as of June 30, 2003.

That number has gone up from 6,437 in June 2001. As part of the settlement of
litigation prompted by the 2000 election, the state sent restoration
applications to thousands of former felons, which swamped the Executive
Clemency Office staff.

Spokeswoman Jane Tillman said the office hoped the number would decline this
year, but that depended on the Legislature approving 20 new positions for
investigators. It didn't.

The applicants may have a long wait.

David Scott Stiles of Dover, 34, a truck driver, registered to vote - legally,
he thought - after getting out of prison for motorcycle theft in 1998. In 2000,
he was purged.

Stiles applied for rights restoration in September 2002 but was just told,
nearly two years later, that his case won't be acted on in time for him to vote
this year.

``I'm a felon, I screwed up, but I paid for what I did,'' he said. ``Now it's
time for the state to do what they're supposed to do.''

One reason these voters didn't know they weren't legally entitled to vote is
that the state of Florida didn't produce felon purge lists before 1999. The law
was enforced on a haphazard basis, as county clerks of court sent criminal
records to local election supervisors.

The Legislature required state officials to begin aggressively enforcing the
law after a corrupt city election in Miami in 1997, contaminated mainly by
fraudulent absentee ballots. Investigations also found former felons voting in
that race.

In 2000, the purge list attempted to capture the names missed over the years.

It also captured the names of at least 2,120 former felons who moved to Florida
after having their rights restored in other states.

Under a 1998 court decision, the restoration should have applied in Florida.
But the names were removed anyway, along with some people whose rights had been
restored in Florida, and thousands like Graham, Johnson, Key and Stiles, who
had never had their rights restored because they didn't know they needed to.


Something Really Wonderful

Florida's felon disenfranchisement law dates from 1868, when the state produced
a new constitution to win readmission to the Union after the Civil War.

According to Florida historian Jerrell Shofner, it was added by a political
faction that sought the support of former Confederates.

A member of that faction later boasted that the new state constitution
prevented the state from coming under the influence of black people, Shofner
said.

The Brennan Center for Justice, a legal advocacy group associated with New York
University Law School, is suing to have the provision declared
unconstitutional. A trial court judge in Miami dismissed the lawsuit, but it
was reinstated in a split decision by a three- judge appeals court panel in
December. The state has asked for review by the full court.

Another post-2000 lawsuit, by the NAACP, forced the state to use stricter
criteria in producing its felon purge lists.

The lists are produced by matching lists of felons, from the Florida Department
of Law Enforcement and other sources, against the statewide voter roll. In
2000, state officials purposely used loose matching criteria to capture as many
names as possible, even knowing it would result in ``false positives'' - people
who didn't actually have felony records, said Emmett Mitchell, former counsel
of the Division of Elections.

They relied on local election supervisors to ensure accurate matches before
removing the voters. But some supervisors, with limited time and staff to
complete the task and little expertise in investigations, simply sent letters
to everyone on their lists, and then purged those who didn't respond or
couldn't provide proof they weren't felons.

That resulted in many people being wrongly removed; no one knows how many.
Under the litigation settlement, each county is supposed to report completion
of its efforts to find and re-register those wrongly removed. Only 33 of the 67
counties have done so.

Hillsborough Election Supervisor Buddy Johnson said 533 people were incorrectly
listed as ineligible former felons on Hillsborough's rolls and said those
purged have been re-registered.

Many election officials, including Kurt Browning in Pasco County, don't see the
need for disenfranchising former felons to begin with.

``If they're going to be released, we want them to be assimilated back into
society,'' said Browning, Pasco's elections supervisor. ``If they get a job,
pay taxes, why shouldn't they have the right to vote?''


Election Supervisors Concerned

Hood said the statewide voter list required by the 2001 reform law was finished
on time, in May 2002. But settling the NAACP lawsuit and devising the new
matching criteria delayed production of the felon purge list until now, she
said.

She said the names are considered ``potential matches,'' which the supervisor
must check for accuracy.

``A supervisor is going to make absolutely certain that the name should be
removed,'' and won't ``unless they have absolute proof,'' she said.

That means this year's process will be different from 2000, said State
Department spokeswoman Jenny Nash, because the burden of proof is on the
supervisor to make sure the voter is a felon, not on the voter to prove
innocence.

But the supervisors themselves aren't so sure.

Deciding whether a voter has a criminal record can be a tricky investigative
task, involving names, Social Security numbers and birth dates that are similar
but don't quite match, and checks of state or nationwide criminal records.

``I'm trying to figure out by what authority, why we have to investigate this
list of people,'' Browning said. ``It's not my job. I'm not an investigator. I
don't know what I'm doing with this stuff.''

Other supervisors, including Ion Sancho of Leon County, have said they don't
have the staff or money for investigations or the mailings or advertisements
intended to notify affected voters.

According to instructions published on the State Department Web site, if a
voter fails to respond to a letter within 30 days, the supervisor is required
to remove the name from the list. Browning said that appears to leave the
burden of proof on the voter, just as in 2000. ``I'm trying to figure out
what's different,'' he said.

``If I got a letter saying you might be a felon, I'm not going to let that
sit,'' Browning said. But some may not respond because of address changes,
misunderstanding or other errors.

``For whatever reason, the assumption is that if they don't respond, maybe they
are a felon,'' he said.

Asked whether supervisors are free to ignore the lists, Hood responded, ``I
think the supervisors are going to be very cautious that they don't eliminate
any voter from the list if they don't have absolute proof.''


Reporter William March can be reached at (813) 259-7761.


http://news.tbo.com/news/MGB7TQUZ5VD.html


  #2  
Old June 17th 04, 12:57 PM
Eagler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

he doesn't have to steal it, he has it in the bag

oh yeah, that is a real concern for most felons - their voting rights - LOL



"WalterM140" wrote in message
...


"Five months before the election, Florida Secretary of State Katherine

Harris
ordered the removal of 57,700 names from Florida's voter rolls on grounds
that they were felons. Voter rolls contain the names of all eligible,
registered voters. If you're not on the list, you don't get to vote."

-- GregPalast.com

47,000 of these people have -stll- --after over three years, not been

placed
back on the voter rolls.

TAMPA - For the second straight presidential election, Florida's law

against
former felons voting, a law grounded in Old South racism, may prevent

thousands
of people from voting.
Some of those people may be legally entitled to vote. Others won't be able

to
navigate the bureaucratic hurdles of the state's clemency process to get

their
rights restored in time for the election.

But the state government is concentrating on removing as many former

felons
from voting rolls as possible, even though critics charge that it risks
disenfranchising some who are legally entitled to vote. Meanwhile, those
critics charge, the state is dragging its feet on restoring those wrongly
removed from voter rolls in 2000.

Florida is one of only seven states with laws that prevent former felons

from
voting unless they go through a long and sometimes difficult process of

having
their rights restored.

That law, which wasn't enforced by the state before the controversial 2000
presidential race, caused hundreds or possibly thousands of voters - no

one
knows for sure - to be turned away from the polls in 2000, some wrongly,
because of errors in a state ``purge list'' of former felons.

Today, as the 2004 election nears:

* More than 43,000 Floridians are on the waiting list to have their rights
restored, some of whom first learned in 2000, after voting for years, that

they
weren't legally entitled to vote. The restoration process can take years,

and
the list is growing, not shrinking.

* Hundreds of people wrongly removed from voter rolls in 2000, who never
committed felonies or whose rights had been restored, may not yet have

been put
back on the rolls.

* A lawsuit charges that Florida's felon disenfranchisement is

unconstitutional
and affects up to 600,000 people.

Despite all this, state officials have just sent elections supervisors in
Florida's 67 counties another list of 47,000 names of individuals who may

have
committed felonies in the past, telling the supervisors to purge their

rolls
again.

Some supervisors say they don't have the staff, expertise or money to do

the
purge without the same kind of errors as in 2000.

Legally purged voters, meanwhile, won't find out about it until they get a
letter from an election supervisor this summer - too late to have their

rights
restored for this election - or are turned away on Election Day.

The vast majority of them are black and would be likely to vote

Democratic.

In Miami-Dade County, for example, blacks are 20 percent of the population

but
make up 65 percent of those on the 2000 felon purge lists.

Asked why a new purge list is going out less than six months before the
election, Secretary of State Glenda Hood said it's part of establishing a
statewide voter list, as required by the state's 2001 election reform law.

The
law was passed in the wake of the disputed presidential vote.

``The legislation mandated that as soon as this process [of identifying
improperly registered names] was complete, the information be sent out,''

said
Hood, a Republican and an appointee of Gov. Jeb Bush.

But Hood acknowledged ``there is no particular time line'' in the law for
sending purge lists to county elections supervisors.

Hood's staff didn't follow through on a promise to have a staff attorney

call a
reporter to discuss precisely what part of the new law requires that the

list
go out now.

When news of the new purge list broke about three weeks ago, it drew a

chorus
of anger from civil rights advocates who had sued the state over the 2000
election problems.

``Frankly, the state should first fix the problems with people who were
erroneously thrown off in 2000 before they start on another purge,'' said
Elliot Mincberg, legal director of People for the American Way Foundation,

a
liberal-oriented advocacy group.

State officials are seeking to keep the new purge list secret, but CNN is

suing
to get a copy. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Tallahassee, and several news

organizations
including The Tampa Tribune plan to join the lawsuit.


They Were Purged

Derek Graham, Willie Johnson and Jeffrey Key, who are black and of Tampa,

were
three of the thousands of people legally removed from the voter rolls in

2000.
They have past felony records and hadn't had their rights restored.

But all three also say they had been registered, and voting, for years

before
being turned away in 2000.

``When they release you, they don't tell you that you have to go through a
process to receive those rights back,'' said Key, 40, a Progress Village
homeowner with two grown children, one in college.

Key served four years in the 1980s for armed robbery and got a job on work
release with the same printing company where he is now a supervisor. After
being turned away from the polls in 2000, it took him 2 1/2 years to get

his
rights restored.

Johnson, 69, a retired truck driver, served a short sentence in the 1950s

for
breaking and entering, but had been voting since 1962.

He has sent an application to Tallahassee but doesn't expect to be able to

vote
this year.

``If I did wrong, it's my part,'' he said. ``But I did my time. I haven't

been
in trouble since; I've been working ever since.''

Graham, 38, who operates a street sweeper for the city of Tampa, remembers
voting for the Community Investment Tax in 1996. It has been 17 years

since the
drug possession charge landed him an eight-month sentence. He applied 10

months
ago to have his rights restored. He hasn't heard back.

Graham and Johnson are among 43,847 Floridians waiting to have their

rights
restored as of June 30, 2003.

That number has gone up from 6,437 in June 2001. As part of the settlement

of
litigation prompted by the 2000 election, the state sent restoration
applications to thousands of former felons, which swamped the Executive
Clemency Office staff.

Spokeswoman Jane Tillman said the office hoped the number would decline

this
year, but that depended on the Legislature approving 20 new positions for
investigators. It didn't.

The applicants may have a long wait.

David Scott Stiles of Dover, 34, a truck driver, registered to vote -

legally,
he thought - after getting out of prison for motorcycle theft in 1998. In

2000,
he was purged.

Stiles applied for rights restoration in September 2002 but was just told,
nearly two years later, that his case won't be acted on in time for him to

vote
this year.

``I'm a felon, I screwed up, but I paid for what I did,'' he said. ``Now

it's
time for the state to do what they're supposed to do.''

One reason these voters didn't know they weren't legally entitled to vote

is
that the state of Florida didn't produce felon purge lists before 1999.

The law
was enforced on a haphazard basis, as county clerks of court sent criminal
records to local election supervisors.

The Legislature required state officials to begin aggressively enforcing

the
law after a corrupt city election in Miami in 1997, contaminated mainly by
fraudulent absentee ballots. Investigations also found former felons

voting in
that race.

In 2000, the purge list attempted to capture the names missed over the

years.

It also captured the names of at least 2,120 former felons who moved to

Florida
after having their rights restored in other states.

Under a 1998 court decision, the restoration should have applied in

Florida.
But the names were removed anyway, along with some people whose rights had

been
restored in Florida, and thousands like Graham, Johnson, Key and Stiles,

who
had never had their rights restored because they didn't know they needed

to.


Something Really Wonderful

Florida's felon disenfranchisement law dates from 1868, when the state

produced
a new constitution to win readmission to the Union after the Civil War.

According to Florida historian Jerrell Shofner, it was added by a

political
faction that sought the support of former Confederates.

A member of that faction later boasted that the new state constitution
prevented the state from coming under the influence of black people,

Shofner
said.

The Brennan Center for Justice, a legal advocacy group associated with New

York
University Law School, is suing to have the provision declared
unconstitutional. A trial court judge in Miami dismissed the lawsuit, but

it
was reinstated in a split decision by a three- judge appeals court panel

in
December. The state has asked for review by the full court.

Another post-2000 lawsuit, by the NAACP, forced the state to use stricter
criteria in producing its felon purge lists.

The lists are produced by matching lists of felons, from the Florida

Department
of Law Enforcement and other sources, against the statewide voter roll. In
2000, state officials purposely used loose matching criteria to capture as

many
names as possible, even knowing it would result in ``false positives'' -

people
who didn't actually have felony records, said Emmett Mitchell, former

counsel
of the Division of Elections.

They relied on local election supervisors to ensure accurate matches

before
removing the voters. But some supervisors, with limited time and staff to
complete the task and little expertise in investigations, simply sent

letters
to everyone on their lists, and then purged those who didn't respond or
couldn't provide proof they weren't felons.

That resulted in many people being wrongly removed; no one knows how many.
Under the litigation settlement, each county is supposed to report

completion
of its efforts to find and re-register those wrongly removed. Only 33 of

the 67
counties have done so.

Hillsborough Election Supervisor Buddy Johnson said 533 people were

incorrectly
listed as ineligible former felons on Hillsborough's rolls and said those
purged have been re-registered.

Many election officials, including Kurt Browning in Pasco County, don't

see the
need for disenfranchising former felons to begin with.

``If they're going to be released, we want them to be assimilated back

into
society,'' said Browning, Pasco's elections supervisor. ``If they get a

job,
pay taxes, why shouldn't they have the right to vote?''


Election Supervisors Concerned

Hood said the statewide voter list required by the 2001 reform law was

finished
on time, in May 2002. But settling the NAACP lawsuit and devising the new
matching criteria delayed production of the felon purge list until now,

she
said.

She said the names are considered ``potential matches,'' which the

supervisor
must check for accuracy.

``A supervisor is going to make absolutely certain that the name should be
removed,'' and won't ``unless they have absolute proof,'' she said.

That means this year's process will be different from 2000, said State
Department spokeswoman Jenny Nash, because the burden of proof is on the
supervisor to make sure the voter is a felon, not on the voter to prove
innocence.

But the supervisors themselves aren't so sure.

Deciding whether a voter has a criminal record can be a tricky

investigative
task, involving names, Social Security numbers and birth dates that are

similar
but don't quite match, and checks of state or nationwide criminal records.

``I'm trying to figure out by what authority, why we have to investigate

this
list of people,'' Browning said. ``It's not my job. I'm not an

investigator. I
don't know what I'm doing with this stuff.''

Other supervisors, including Ion Sancho of Leon County, have said they

don't
have the staff or money for investigations or the mailings or

advertisements
intended to notify affected voters.

According to instructions published on the State Department Web site, if a
voter fails to respond to a letter within 30 days, the supervisor is

required
to remove the name from the list. Browning said that appears to leave the
burden of proof on the voter, just as in 2000. ``I'm trying to figure out
what's different,'' he said.

``If I got a letter saying you might be a felon, I'm not going to let that
sit,'' Browning said. But some may not respond because of address changes,
misunderstanding or other errors.

``For whatever reason, the assumption is that if they don't respond, maybe

they
are a felon,'' he said.

Asked whether supervisors are free to ignore the lists, Hood responded,

``I
think the supervisors are going to be very cautious that they don't

eliminate
any voter from the list if they don't have absolute proof.''


Reporter William March can be reached at (813) 259-7761.


http://news.tbo.com/news/MGB7TQUZ5VD.html





  #3  
Old June 17th 04, 10:24 PM
Pete
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"WalterM140" wrote in message
...


"Five months before the election, Florida Secretary of State Katherine

Harris
ordered the removal of 57,700 names from Florida's voter rolls on grounds
that they were felons. Voter rolls contain the names of all eligible,
registered voters. If you're not on the list, you don't get to vote."


So what you're saying is that the policies of the Democratic party appeal to
felons and ex-felons more than those of the Republican party.

Interesting

Pete


  #4  
Old June 18th 04, 09:40 AM
WalterM140
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

So what you're saying is that the policies of the Democratic party appeal to
felons and ex-felons more than those of the Republican party.


I'm saying that the Republican Party is a bunch of felons.

Walt
  #5  
Old June 18th 04, 10:08 AM
WalterM140
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

FoxNews:

MIAMI — With November's election fast approaching and the 2000 presidential
recount still in people's minds, Florida election supervisors (search) have
again begun to scramble to make sure voters there still have a right to vote.

The battleground state is one of only seven that permanently bars convicted
felons from voting. Now, that it has a new multi-million dollar database to
match voter roles to Florida convictions, supervisors are barreling through a
list of 47,000 voters to determine who is eligible to cast a ballot.

But some counties have found mistakes, prompting lawsuits and the demand for a
voter-by-voter investigation.

"We will use every single resource available to us to make sure when we finally
take someone off that list, that it is somebody who's supposed to be taken off
the list," said Theresa Le Pore (search), Palm Beach County Supervisor of
Elections.

New safeguards require disenfranchised voters to be notified immediately,
giving them time to appeal. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement (search)
is also offering aid, launching a Web site and a toll free supervisor helpline.



  #6  
Old June 18th 04, 12:08 PM
George Z. Bush
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

WalterM140 wrote:
So what you're saying is that the policies of the Democratic party appeal to
felons and ex-felons more than those of the Republican party.


I'm saying that the Republican Party is a bunch of felons.


Looks to me like lots of people have trouble understanding the meanings of
simple sentences. Also looks like most of them are Republicans hoping to make
day night, night day and one plus one to equal three.

They'd be ahead of the game if they stopped trying to translate everything they
read into something else but, like their leader who never made a mistake in 3.5
years, consider the source.

George Z.


  #7  
Old June 19th 04, 12:30 AM
ian maclure
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 08:40:07 +0000, WalterM140 wrote:

So what you're saying is that the policies of the Democratic party appeal to
felons and ex-felons more than those of the Republican party.


I'm saying that the Republican Party is a bunch of felons.


We know thats true of the Dummocrips.
I'm guessing that you are such an animule and are projecting.
That the Dummycraps thought the Daley family made the ideal
team to lead their contest of the Florida vote speaks volumes.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Juan Jiminez is a liar and a fraud (was: Zoom fables on ANN ChuckSlusarczyk Home Built 105 October 8th 04 12:38 AM
Bush's guard record JDKAHN Home Built 13 October 3rd 04 09:38 PM
bush rules! Be Kind Military Aviation 53 February 14th 04 05:26 PM
Bush has already won re-election SCE Military Aviation 11 November 19th 03 11:16 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.