Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Running Commentary -- Presidential Address 5/15/06  
User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1293 times:

(Summary -- Rush and telegraphic paraphrase. [Italiczation provided to highlight summary and descriptive nature of posting. Comments are in bracketed italicized boldface.])

The President is outlining the problems brought by illegal immigration. He adds a proviso: Immigrants are good people.

Objectives: U.S. must secure its borders. [Aha -- first use of term "illegal immigrants".] He's describing how he's sent home six million illegal immigrants. Acknowledges deficiencies. Calls on Congress to provide dramatic increases in manpower and funding. New manpower: 6,000. He says he will have doubled the size of the border control. More high-tech will be used. But, he says, this will take time.

As new Border Patrol agents are be trained, there will be 6,000 National Guardsman deployed in support roles in conjunction with several Governors. They will not apprehend illegal aliens. This interim arrangement will last for one year.

Every illegal alien must be returned home.

We must end the "catch and release" program in favor of such alternatives as detention. Foreign governments must take back their illegal emigrants. Deterrent value as word spreads of this new initiative.

Secondly, a temporary worker program. [Here we go. This is a nonstarter with me.] Temporary workers must return home after the terms of their stay.

Thirdly, employers must be held to their obligations not to hire illegal aliens. Must be a better verification system, including a new identification card for every legal worker.

Fourth, illegal immigrants already here should not be given an automatic path to citizenship. ["Not"? Interesting....] We should not, however, engage in mass deportations. Rather, illegal immigrants should be made to pay a meaningful penalty, pay taxes, hold jobs, and otherwise pay their debt to society, to demonstrate their suitability to become citizens; approval for citizenship would not be automatic.

Fifth, cultural assimilation is to be expected on issues of language, knowledge of American history, and so forth.

The President is asking Congress to present him with a comprehensive immigration bill. Civility is required. America is a nation of immigrants, etc.

Heartwarming story about brave Marine who asked to become a U.S. citizen. America is the hope of many, etc. "We trust in our country's genius."

[Not a great speech, by any measure. Disappointing. Not enough. His "path to citizenship", while not automatic, is still too generous. Illegal immigrants should be required to leave the country before applying for citizenship.]


[Edited 2006-05-16 02:26:38]

61 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAsstChiefMark From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1262 times:

I think that was one of the best speeches he's ever given. As far as the content, it's a start. There's a lot to be hashed out, but at least we know where he stands.

Mark


User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1250 times:

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 1):
I think that was one of the best speeches he's ever given. As far as the content, it's a start. There's a lot to be hashed out, but at least we know where he stands.

I certainly welcome his attention to this issue, but I disagree that mass deportations should be ruled out of hand. As this juncture, it's a matter for interpretation whether his program in fact proposes them, despite what he said. If citizenship is not automatic, then it stands to reason that a significant number of those who do not qualify for citizenship would have to go.

Further, I believe the Senate version of the proposed bill would require that those illegal immigrants here for less than two years must be deported. This could include hundreds of thousands.

I suppose it depends on what is meant by "mass deportation".

[Edited 2006-05-16 02:34:04]

User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20552 posts, RR: 62
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1247 times:

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 1):
As far as the content, it's a start.

Yes, finally. I do wonder how they're going to rotate 6,000 NG in and out of duty every two/three weeks. This seems like a real weak spot in the plan (especially in light of Bush not funding the build-up of border patrol officers authorized by Congress two years ago). My earlier stated support for the NG to play a part didn't envision a rotation at all.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offline11Bravo From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1718 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1236 times:

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 1):
I think that was one of the best speeches he's ever given. As far as the content, it's a start. There's a lot to be hashed out, but at least we know where he stands.

I agree Mark, very good for a Bush speech. I can't stand the man, but at least it's a start.

Quoting Dubya (Thread starter):
Thirdly, employers must be held to their obligations not to hire illegal aliens. Must be a better verification system, including a new identification card for every legal worker.

This is the nexus of this issue really. We cannot change the dynamic of illegal immigration without effectively addressing the demand side of the market. Bush's well established record of supporting big business has dominated so much of the domestic policy arena, it's a little hard for me to think he's going to really crack down on violators. I'll believe it when I see it.



WhaleJets Rule!
User currently offlineBushpilot From South Africa, joined Jul 2007, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1230 times:

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 1):
As far as the content, it's a start. There's a lot to be hashed out, but at least we know where he stands.

I think its to little to late, if he was serious about this war on terror, and more interested in keeping us safer he would have done this Sept12,01. Instead he was more interested in the latino vote. Nothing like a lame duck president to try and clean up the mess after it has been spilled and stuck to the kitchen floor.
If he is going to post 6,000 NG members, is that enough? Nope. Another half assed attempt to do something that should have been done a long time ago. If he was going to do this, make it at least a division...per border state. I see him making the same mistake as he did in Iraq with not having enough troops to do the job needed when they are needed.


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1187 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 3):
I do wonder how they're going to rotate 6,000 NG in and out of duty every two/three weeks

Since the 6000 Guardspersons are but some 3% of the total Guard Force, Army and Air Guard, having the troops available isn't necessarily the issue . . . but the numbers in each state present a problem.

Guardmen from other states could patrol the borders in any of the Southwestern States, but . . . it would require an interstate Memorandum of Understanding between the two states, since the Guard works under the Command of the Governor . . . .

Now, if the Troops are Federalized, then this is not an issue as they would now fall under Rummy and the DoD and PotUS.

. . . .

All in all a decent speech, a good start in illegal immigration that should have happened 40 years ago . . . we'll see how this goes and if it is effective.

My gut feeling . . . it's not enough. Using the troops solely as support isn't going far enough. They should be right out on the border with the Border Patrol. IMO we haven't effectively increased our forces on the border by simply moving some Border Patrol agents out of offices and into a few vehicles. The troops have some of the most sophisticated equipment known for GSR (Ground Surveillance Radar) and Night Vision, and if I understand correctly, that won't be used.

Still, it's a start.

Now, other than the troops . . .

I'm glad there was definitely a mention that Illegal Immigrants will NOT be granted citizenship automatically . . .

I'm glad the businesses the knowingly employ them will take a hit - I'm skeptical about how effectively this will be enforced.

The guest worker program has to be effective and workable, and when the jobs done, the worker goes home. That keeps the workers employed and keeps them legal . . . seems to me it's a win/win.

Lastly, the Cultural Assimilation . . . that's a hot ticket for me. Perhaps we can start displaying the US Flag at some of our schools again??? Perhaps I'll be able to hit a 7/11 and be able to communicate with the clerk? If I moved anywhere in the world, I'd be expected to assimilate into the culture . . . why should it be different here?


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20552 posts, RR: 62
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1179 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 6):
Since the 6000 Guardspersons are but some 3% of the total Guard Force, Army and Air Guard, having the troops available isn't necessarily the issue . . . but the numbers in each state present a problem.

I understand that part, but I'm also looking at the logistics of sending NG troops from all over the nation to the border every couple of weeks. It was my assumption, possibly naively, that the proposal would be funding each state's troops to do longer term tours.

After I did my first post, one of the TV pundits calculated this out to involving some 300,000 troops over two years.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1173 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 7):
I understand that part, but I'm also looking at the logistics of sending NG troops from all over the nation to the border every couple of weeks. It was my assumption, possibly naively, that the proposal would be funding each state's troops to do longer term tours.

Hmmm, I think that pundit (just like most of them) is using fuzzy math . . .

6000 troops, rotated every 90 days, for three years is only 72000 troops . . . where the hell that pundit got 300000 I'll never figure out.

Logistically, it will be a tad difficult, but not doable.

They will likely bring their own vehicles. But things such as lodging, fuel, maintenance, etc can be handled at National Guard bases that are prevelent throughout each state.

Maybe Halliburton will get the feeding contract  duck .

The logistics wil lbe a hurdle, but definitely easier than some believe. The difficulty IMO will be troops morale . . . more time away from home . . .


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20552 posts, RR: 62
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1172 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 8):
6000 troops, rotated every 90 days, for three years is only 72000 troops . . . where the hell that pundit got 300000 I'll never figure out.

Hmm, I heard every two weeks in the speech, which is the number a few have been tossing around. I'd have to check the transcript to be sure.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1166 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 9):
Hmm, I heard every two weeks in the speech, which is the number a few have been tossing around. I'd have to check the transcript to be sure.

Every two weeks . . . .

Well that ups the ante - and IMO is not doable . . . . you'd have more troops moving from home to the border than you'd have on the border.

BUT, there's a reason for that. . . . under federal law, and troops mobilized for over 179 days automatically begin to recieve "benefits", commensurate with their federal rank and status.

Furthermore . . . the National Guard has a two week Active Duty period they serve each year. The government may anticipate using this two week period for border duty. Bad call IMO, as they should use that two week period for preparations for deployment to the big sand box . . .

However. . . I'm not running this show.

Should we consolidate our conversations into one thread or the other?  wink 


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20552 posts, RR: 62
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1164 times:

Well, let's remember not to believe everything we hear on TV (even if a congressman says it too, LOL):

From the speech:

"The Guard will assist the Border Patrol by operating surveillance systems analyzing intelligence installing fences and vehicle barriers building patrol roads and providing training. Guard units will not be involved in direct law enforcement activities that duty will be done by the Border Patrol. This initial commitment of Guard members would last for a period of one year."

No clear determination on the length of each deployment.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 10):
Should we consolidate our conversations into one thread or the other?

Yes, please. How about the other?  Smile



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1154 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 11):
Yes, please. How about the other?

 checkmark 


User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1153 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter):
Not a great speech, by any measure. Disappointing.

Really? You were disappointed with Bush... I don't think that makes my list of shockers.

Now, the exact opposite... that would be stunning indeed.


User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1113 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 6):
If I moved anywhere in the world, I'd be expected to assimilate into the culture . . . why should it be different here?

As socially liberal as I am, I have to say because we are a bunch of PC Panzies. I am game with calling people of African decent African Americans, Cubans Cuban Americans, Indians Hindi's and American Indians Native Americans, but God Damn it, if your serving me a Slurpie I want to hear your communication that is intended for me in effing ENGLISH!!!

http://img94.exs.cx/img94/2640/Engli...h_Motherfucker_Do_You_Speak_It.jpg

[Edited 2006-05-16 12:45:43]

User currently offlineGilligan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1088 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter):
As new Border Patrol agents are be trained, there will be 6,000 National Guardsman deployed in support roles in conjunction with several Governors.

Read support roles. That could mean anything but he specifically said they would not be patrolling. So theoretically they could be passing out water and food. My guess is they will be operating ground surveillance radar sights and helping to set up the electronic wall that has been mentioned many times.

Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter):
Thirdly, employers must be held to their obligations not to hire illegal aliens. Must be a better verification system, including a new identification card for every legal worker.

This must happen to avoid mass deportations which would look incredibly bad in the world press. If a temporary worker card can be issued in their home country with tamper proof technology, and employers are required to buy the equipment to read it, then illegal workers will have no choice but return home to obtain the card. The penalty for an employer not using the system has to be severe though if it is to achieve it's stated effect.


User currently offlineWestWing From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2134 posts, RR: 7
Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1075 times:

Quoting Dubya:
Illegal immigration puts pressure on public schools and hospitals, it strains state and local budgets, and brings crime to our communities.

Do illegal immigrants, statistically speaking, commit more crimes than US Citizens?



The best time to plant a tree is 40 years ago. The second best time is today.
User currently offline11Bravo From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1718 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1060 times:

Quoting Gilligan (Reply 15):
This must happen to avoid mass deportations which would look incredibly bad in the world press. If a temporary worker card can be issued in their home country with tamper proof technology, and employers are required to buy the equipment to read it, then illegal workers will have no choice but return home to obtain the card. The penalty for an employer not using the system has to be severe though if it is to achieve it's stated effect.

Well said. I find it very heartening that there is such apparent solidarity on the issue of illegal immigration from almost all points of the political spectrum. I hope our politicians take notice of that unity and start formulating truly effective policy to deal with the problem. Too often in the past this issue has been addressed with utterly useless policy. That needs to change.

It is very rare indeed that Gilligan and I agree on much at all. Opponents of immigration reform would be well advised to understand that this is a problem that virtually all Americans are determined to fix regardless of their political leanings.



WhaleJets Rule!
User currently offlineRedngold From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6907 posts, RR: 44
Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1049 times:

My impression of the speech:

No wonder people are accusing our government of racism and classism in immigration. He failed to mention - not even once - "our nothern boundary" - which is longer and less stringently patrolled.



Up, up and away!
User currently offline11Bravo From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1718 posts, RR: 10
Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1040 times:

Quoting Redngold (Reply 18):
He failed to mention - not even once - "our nothern boundary" - which is longer and less stringently patrolled.

That's probably because the subject of the speech was illegal immigration not border length or patrol density. Our border with Canada simply isn't relevant to the discussion of illegal immigration. Only a small handful of people cross that border illegally. If that were true with our southern border, we wouldn't have an illegal immigration problem.



WhaleJets Rule!
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1040 times:

Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter):
As new Border Patrol agents are be trained, there will be 6,000 National Guardsman deployed in support roles in conjunction with several Governors. They will not apprehend illegal aliens.

Then WTF is the point of having them there?!?!?

There should be 30,000 troops on the southern border. That's 3 divisions, one of which is completely online at any one time, the other two on other shifts or in rotating reserve. That should provide 2 sets of eyes for every crossable mile of border, taking into account backup and HQ functions.


User currently offline11Bravo From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1718 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1035 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 20):
There should be 30,000 troops on the southern border. That's 3 divisions,

Not to pick nits, but that would be approximately two US Army divisions.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 20):
That should provide 2 sets of eyes for every crossable mile of border

Have you ever been to the US-Mexico border? There are huge portions of it where terrain and cover would render that sort of density completely ineffective.



WhaleJets Rule!
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12502 posts, RR: 46
Reply 22, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1034 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 14):
God Damn it, if your serving me a Slurpie I want to hear your communication that is intended for me in effing ENGLISH!!!

Si senor! stirthepot 



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1030 times:

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 21):
Not to pick nits, but that would be approximately two US Army divisions.

You're right. An American infantry division is bigger than 10K

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 21):
Have you ever been to the US-Mexico border? There are huge portions of it where terrain and cover would render that sort of density completely ineffective.

That's right. Some places are almost uncrossable. But you spread them out accordingly. Big Bend won't need so many, but you put a guy every 200 yards in southern california.

My point is that sending 6,000 troops, not all of whom will be on duty (sleeping, on leave, whatever), is almost as bad as doing nothing. If you are going to do it, do it right, not half-assed.


User currently offlineDrDeke From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 830 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1023 times:

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 17):
I hope our politicians take notice of that unity and start formulating truly effective policy to deal with the problem. Too often in the past this issue has been addressed with utterly useless policy. That needs to change.

I don't think that most Republican nor Democratic politicians actually want to stop illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is, after all, good for the rich who can hire illegal immigrant labor at illegally cheap rates.

-DrDeke



If you don't want it known, don't say it on a phone.
25 11Bravo : I agree. I think it's very questionable whether that would have any effect at all. More broadly, I think physical border control probably shouldn't b
26 Post contains links Dragon-wings : I was reading this article at cnn http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/16/immigration/index.html and in the second to last paragraph it says "No more t
27 Dragon-wings : One more question. Are these troop going to be permanent? Or just temporary until they can hire more boarder patrol agents?
28 Post contains images ANCFlyer : Did you not read any of this thread or any of the links? One Year Program.
29 Dragon-wings : Thanks. And your right I should of read the thread more carefully.
30 ANCFlyer : Apologies for jumping on you . . . Was reading the AA Hits the Pentagon threads and answering three threads at once . . . . trying NOT to let my BP e
31 AeroWesty : Sen. Ted Kennedy on the floor of the Senate today: "I agree with the President."
32 Post contains images ANCFlyer : maybe that'll shut Nancy Pelosi's shit hole as she spouted about how bad this idea is . . .and Aahhhnold doesn't like, neither does Bill Richardson .
33 Post contains links Redngold : The problem is that, as logical as it seems to you to not comment on the northern border, it seems logical to the new "largest minority group" in the
34 11Bravo : I understand what you're saying, perhaps Bush should have said something about the northern border as well to be PC, but that doesn't change the real
35 Post contains links AerospaceFan : Just as I suspected -- the President has only contributed to a sense of alienation among his base, and there are those on the left who criticize him a
36 Post contains images Cfalk : Stop pulling the race card without any legitimate cause. Canada and the US have similar standards of living. You do not have millions of Canadians cr
37 AerospaceFan : Agreed. Clearly the issue is not race, and should not be. I question whether Hispanics can be deemed a race, at any rate. As I understand it, even as
38 Post contains images Gilligan : Well he said they will not be on patrol, rather they will be operating in support roles that he left undefined. There are certainly large areas where
39 AeroWesty : Have you ever hired a domestic, so you'd be familiar with the process?
40 Gilligan : Nope, that doesn't change the fact that they are out there though. Come on down to Houston and I'll drive you through the Post Oak section someday ab
41 AeroWesty : Well the point is is that domestics don't line up outside Linens N Things, like day laborers line up outside Home Depot. If you understood how domest
42 Gilligan : A "fair" amount does not imply a majority. Since no true numbers are available I go by what I see. What I see here in Houston is a fair amount by my
43 AeroWesty : "Those people". LOL Regardless, it appears there is less of a want to understand the issue rather than validating a misconception, so I will let it l
44 Corsair2 : Bush again is proving himself to be a moron. These illegal immigrants are doing all the shit jobs that us Americans don't want to do. After all, who w
45 Cfalk : Not so much as someone who spouts off simplistic propaganda slogans. That's a myth. You can get any job done, as long as you are willing to pay a dec
46 Corsair2 : Any president who hires a comedian to do immitations of himself for PR is a moron! Case closed.
47 Post contains links Georgetown : Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 4): We cannot change the dynamic of illegal immigration without effectively addressing the demand side of the market. This is o
48 Georgetown : For whatever reason, the spellcheker put a ton of "n"s into my post. Sorry!
49 Gilligan : What do you do, spot at Dover Air Force Base? And how would you know they are all 20 year olds? Guess the President can do something you can't, focus
50 Post contains links AerospaceFan : I think that one must also take into account that illegal immigrants may also be a not inconsiderable net cost to society, and to, for example, the S
51 Redngold : You misunderstand. I do not think that it is a pure issue of racism or classism, but even your contrast about "standard of living" adds fuel to the f
52 Cfalk : Since when did "open society" mean "open border"? Open society means tolerance of different opinions and cultures. It has absolutely nothing to do wi
53 Post contains images Redngold : Controlling the borders, not just the southern border. We're going in circles here. I just wanted to put in my , considering that I had illegal immig
54 AerospaceFan : I'm in favor of cracking down on the northern border, too. However, the southern border is the place where nearly a million illegal immigrants are sai
55 Post contains links Dragon-wings : There was a report on NBC Nightly news tonight that said illegal immigration is not the problem on the northern border, the problem on the northern b
56 AerospaceFan : I think you're right. On second thoughts, we should focus a bit more attention to the northern border. And, recalling that the President has decided
57 Georgetown : That number is a cost federally (used to work on the hill on this very issue). Irntend to fall on the right side of the isle, and I will agree that i
58 AerospaceFan : Georgetown, thanks for your reply. I would say that folks should have to go back to the border, in a large number of cases, and apply from outside the
59 Slider : He talks so much and says so little. Damn shame--this country is screaming for leadership and has none. Just political triangulation. Troops on the bo
60 AerospaceFan : So true, Slider. And here he is grandstanding at Yuma, AZ. Frankly, I wish he would listen to the people who constitute his base rather than whoever i
61 DrDeke : Yeah, the situation itself is asinine. Doesn't mean it's not true. -DrDeke
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Bush's Speech - 9/15/06 posted Fri Sep 15 2006 17:40:03 by Usnseallt82
Bush Address Sept 15 - Your Thoughts posted Fri Sep 16 2005 03:28:35 by ANCFlyer
Official '06 U.S. Midterm Election Thread posted Mon Nov 6 2006 21:10:03 by Falcon84
'06 Midterm Elections & The Supreme Court posted Sun Oct 29 2006 19:54:51 by N174UA
The '06 Midterms: GOP Losing Middle Class posted Fri Oct 27 2006 20:38:01 by Falcon84
How To Install Running Lights? posted Wed Oct 25 2006 21:52:32 by Tu204
Running Windows On A Mac posted Sun Oct 15 2006 22:15:24 by Alias1024
Anyone At The Mac Expo 28/10/06 In London? posted Sun Oct 15 2006 02:50:03 by Jkw777
BHM Meet 4 Nov 06 Part 3 posted Sat Oct 14 2006 14:26:40 by ANCFlyer
10-12-06: A Day That Will Live In Infamy.... posted Thu Oct 12 2006 20:32:23 by Falcon84