Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

 
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 3 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
Old 05-01-2013, 09:12 AM   #61
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
How about the 1 million families in Iraq who had family members die due to the bush administration's lies? How do you think they feel?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I'm sure they are devastated. And if President Bush did indeed lie about starting that war, he should be punished for the pain and suffering he caused. He hasn't been so punished, because no sane person believes that he lied about the war because his goal was to make money. He (and many liberal Democrats) were "wrong" about WMDs. That doesn't mean they lied.

However, President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton are not charged with looking out for the welfare of families in Iraq. They are charged with protecting and representing American interests. Failing to provide available help to Americans under fire, and then blaming the attack on another American citizen who made a dopey video, are serious charges that need to be investigated. There's abundant evidence that suggests gross incompetence, as well as a possible cover-up.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 05-01-2013, 09:24 AM   #62
Nebe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Nebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Libtardia
Posts: 21,553
Agreed. Your point is valid.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Nebe is offline  
Old 05-01-2013, 09:26 AM   #63
Nebe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Nebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Libtardia
Posts: 21,553
Completely off topic. Halliburton charges the us government $75 for a soldier's single load of laundry in Iraq.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Nebe is offline  
Old 05-01-2013, 10:59 AM   #64
justplugit
Registered Grandpa
iTrader: (0)
 
justplugit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: east coast
Posts: 8,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND View Post
My hope is, this is what is driving the investigation, and not that it is not driven by the threat of Hillary in 2016, because the right recognizes she is a formidable candidate...
LOL, still can't figure how Hillary went from one of the most criticized and unlikeable persons on this forum and in general 6 or 7 years ago, to now becoming a formidable candidate in 2016.

Must be because the disaster unfolding with the current administration suddenly makes her look good.

" Choose Life "
justplugit is offline  
Old 05-01-2013, 11:11 AM   #65
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
The issue Spence, is that you (and 99% of the media) would have us move forward by ignoring lies and incompetence when it comes from anyone with a "D" after their name. If there is new evidence that the Secretary Of State lied under oath, that's worth exploring. You don't think so, simply because of what party she is affiliated with.
I've asked before, where's the "new evidence?"

The same document alleged by the House report was already part of the Mullen investigation.

-spence
spence is offline  
Old 05-01-2013, 11:26 AM   #66
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by justplugit View Post
When questioned about the 4 new whistle blowers this morning at his news conference, he said he "wasn't aware of it."
I guess that should be the end of it for you.
If people bring credible new information to the table then it should be evaluated. That being said, the opinion of a whistle blower may just be another piece of information.

From what I've read so far they're talking about a claim some special ops troops that were training in the EU that could have potentially gotten there in 4 or so hours.

Is this new information? We've known there were troops in Europe all along...do you not think the independent investigation didn't look at options and how response alternatives were evaluated?

For the whistle blower to have any impact they have to show there was a feasible option on the table, not just a group that is pissed they didn't get sent in.

-spence
spence is offline  
Old 05-01-2013, 11:53 AM   #67
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
I've asked before, where's the "new evidence?"

The same document alleged by the House report was already part of the Mullen investigation.

-spence
Yes, you have asked that before, and I answered. That you choose to dismiss my response for political convenience, does not mean I didn't respond.

Now, we have administration employees saying they were pressured to keep quiet. I don't recall hearing this before, so that might be new evidence.

The Mullen report said there was no help available to send. That is contradicted by multiple special operations warriors, who say they were stationed close enough to have rendered aid during the 8 hour firefight. Nothing to see there, I guess, because your hero has already been exonerated.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 05-01-2013, 02:32 PM   #68
justplugit
Registered Grandpa
iTrader: (0)
 
justplugit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: east coast
Posts: 8,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
If people bring credible new information to the table then it should be evaluated. That being said, the opinion of a whistle blower may just be another piece of information.

From what I've read so far they're talking about a claim some special ops troops that were training in the EU that could have potentially gotten there in 4 or so hours.

Is this new information? We've known there were troops in Europe all along...do you not think the independent investigation didn't look at options and how response alternatives were evaluated?

For the whistle blower to have any impact they have to show there was a feasible option on the table, not just a group that is pissed they didn't get sent in.

-spence
Spence, be honest, would you be of the same opinion if this was the same
issue under Bush and Rice?

" Choose Life "
justplugit is offline  
Old 05-01-2013, 03:00 PM   #69
RIROCKHOUND
Also known as OAK
iTrader: (0)
 
RIROCKHOUND's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Westlery, RI
Posts: 10,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by justplugit View Post
Spence, be honest, would you be of the same opinion if this was the same
issue under Bush and Rice?
Fair question.
Would your/Jim's be the same?

Bryan

Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
RIROCKHOUND is offline  
Old 05-01-2013, 04:28 PM   #70
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND View Post
Fair question.
Would your/Jim's be the same?
Yes. I don't like it when anyone (regardless of party) sends people to harm's way, rejects requests for extra security, refuses to send them aid when under attack, and then lies about what happened to protect their political careers.

I cannot believe I have ever posted anything that would make anyone think I am so blinded by ideology, that I wouldn't be critical of something like this. Unlike someone else here, I have been critical of those in my party when they earn it. and justplugit is even more level-headed than I am.

Rockhound, have you ever seen me thoughtlessly defending a conservative, despite substantial evidence? I doubt it.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 05-01-2013, 07:28 PM   #71
justplugit
Registered Grandpa
iTrader: (0)
 
justplugit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: east coast
Posts: 8,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND View Post
Fair question.
Would your/Jim's be the same?
Fair also, but I would like to see Spence's answer to my question before commenting.

" Choose Life "
justplugit is offline  
Old 05-01-2013, 08:27 PM   #72
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by justplugit View Post
Spence, be honest, would you be of the same opinion if this was the same
issue under Bush and Rice?
I've never claimed Bush lied. I'd place Rice in the same boat as Powell, trying to do the right thing but surrounded by others who had an agenda. I'd note they've both been publicly ostracized by the Admin insiders.

Also, just as the Senate investigated Benghazi it investigated Iraq as well. Phase 1 found the Intel was bogus and Phase 2 (after repeated attempts by the GOP to kill it) found 10-5 that the Administration made repeated claims as fact that weren't supported by actual evidence.

-spence
spence is offline  
Old 05-01-2013, 08:34 PM   #73
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Yes, you have asked that before, and I answered. That you choose to dismiss my response for political convenience, does not mean I didn't respond.
No, you've responded that you "think" there's new evidence...not that there IS new evidence.

Quote:
Now, we have administration employees saying they were pressured to keep quiet. I don't recall hearing this before, so that might be new evidence.
Funny how that story never really made Drudge and now has even slipped off the front page of Fox News.

The timing with the House report can't just be a coinkidink can it?

Quote:
The Mullen report said there was no help available to send. That is contradicted by multiple special operations warriors, who say they were stationed close enough to have rendered aid during the 8 hour firefight. Nothing to see there, I guess, because your hero has already been exonerated.
First, there was no 8 hour firefight, this is a matter of record.

Second, just because people think they can get there after the fact--and I'm sure they would have gone--doesn't mean the leadership is A) aware of this in time and B) agrees with the wisdom of that decision.

Or are you calling Admiral Mullen a liar? Perhaps you just think he's incompetent?

-spence
spence is offline  
Old 05-01-2013, 08:42 PM   #74
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
No, you've responded that you "think" there's new evidence...not that there IS new evidence.


Funny how that story never really made Drudge and now has even slipped off the front page of Fox News.

The timing with the House report can't just be a coinkidink can it?


First, there was no 8 hour firefight, this is a matter of record.

Second, just because people think they can get there after the fact--and I'm sure they would have gone--doesn't mean the leadership is A) aware of this in time and B) agrees with the wisdom of that decision.

Or are you calling Admiral Mullen a liar? Perhaps you just think he's incompetent?

-spence
"just because people think they can get there after the fact--and I'm sure they would have gone--doesn't mean the leadership is A) aware of this in time"

OK. So if a vicious firefight is taking place, IN YOUR OPINION, it's too much to ask that the leadership be aware of what help is available to send in. I'm sure Obama knew where Jay-Z was at the time, and he knew what shape the fairways were in at his club...but whether or not help is available to superb Americans fighting for their lives?

Spence says back off, the President isn't omnipotent.

Got it.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 05-01-2013, 08:51 PM   #75
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Spence -

It gets a little tiring when I constantly respond to all of your questions, and when I ask a tough one, you choose not to answer. So here it is.

Everyone knows that Hilary lied through her teeth when she claimed that she was under sniper fire on an overseas trip. And rational person knows that it's a load of crap thatshe only made that claim because she was tired.

So Spence, please tell me...how is it, that this lie, doesn't undermine her credibility?

Good luck..
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 05-02-2013, 04:22 AM   #76
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
QUOTE NEBE

"Liberals are capable of independent thought and can see the big picture and separate the good from the bad and weigh their judgements. Liberals are mostly very educated and are in careers that use their creative minds."



"liberals".....as I read this stuff and listen to the news of the day I just don't see any evidence of this....maybe the "creative" part of their minds allow them to delude themselves into believing things that help maintain their odd worldview.... I see no independent thought...mindless regurgitation.....little recognition of good and bad except as it pertains to political designation.....really bad judgment and there are plenty of "very educated" people who don't have a shred of common sense....most are elected "liberal" democrats elected by "liberals".....

we have the worst economy in terms of growth in 84 years...lowest home ownership....highest dependence on food stamps and disability benefits....Obamacare is an unmitigated disaster and the ripple effect is devastating.......our foreign policy is a disaster, we are apparently importing and funding terrorism through our generous social programs and we have "liberals" like Chris Matthews and some here who were desperate to portray in the early going, the Marathon Bombing as almost certainly a lone wolf probably white tea party type upset over having to pay his taxes and not at all likely tied to islamic extremism when all common sense pointed to islamic extremism....

I think "liberals" tell themselves....delude themselves into believing Eben's description in many cases....which ultimately makes them a danger to themselves and others.....


Jim, if you were arguing with a brainwashed cult member he'd tell you that you were, in fact, the one who is wrong, has everything upside down, and suggest that you have some nefarious reason for unfairly attacking his leader

Bengazi is just another unfair attack on Dear Leader...move along........

Last edited by scottw; 05-02-2013 at 05:14 AM..
scottw is offline  
Old 05-02-2013, 05:29 AM   #77
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
QUOTE NEBE

"liberals" like Chris Matthews and some here who were desperate to portray in the early going, the Marathon Bombing as almost certainly a lone wolf probably white tea party type upset over having to pay his taxes and not at all likely tied to islamic extremism when all common sense pointed to islamic extremism....

......
I ponder this often...why do so many (not all) liberals bend over backwards to deny the connection between Islam and Islamic extremists? Why is the Fort Hood attack referred to as "workplace violence", when we all know the shooter was yelling "Allah Hu Akhbar" (Allah is great) as he was killing our soldiers? The administration has dropped the phrase "war on terror"...We're not at war with Islamic jihadists? They seem to be under the impression that we are at war...

How do you begin to win a war, when you won't admit who the enemy is?
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 05-02-2013, 07:20 AM   #78
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
OK. So if a vicious firefight is taking place, IN YOUR OPINION, it's too much to ask that the leadership be aware of what help is available to send in. I'm sure Obama knew where Jay-Z was at the time, and he knew what shape the fairways were in at his club...but whether or not help is available to superb Americans fighting for their lives?

Spence says back off, the President isn't omnipotent.

Got it.
I never said such a thing. As in most of these threads, you're responding to what you think I believe rather than reading what I'm actually saying.

-spence
spence is offline  
Old 05-02-2013, 08:52 AM   #79
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
I never said such a thing. As in most of these threads, you're responding to what you think I believe rather than reading what I'm actually saying.

-spence
You said the administration might not have known that help was available. Let me ask you, so that I'm not putting words in your mouth. If 4 superb Americans died because Obama never bothered to ask if help was available, is that acceptable to you?
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 05-02-2013, 09:18 AM   #80
Nebe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Nebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Libtardia
Posts: 21,553
because of the instant news cycle, we all expect instant answers and instant results. Its a shame about what happened, but i dont think it is reasonable to expect that there was a possible instant response to the situation. Thats just my take on the matter.
Nebe is offline  
Old 05-02-2013, 10:05 AM   #81
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
because of the instant news cycle, we all expect instant answers and instant results. Its a shame about what happened, but i dont think it is reasonable to expect that there was a possible instant response to the situation. Thats just my take on the matter.
Here's my take, which isn't that difefrent from your take...

Those former Navy SEALs fought for their lives, for several hours.

Now, I know we can't expect that every single person in a dangerous post, will have a division of Marines across the street waiting.

However, we know this particular fight lasted for hours. We know that some special forces folks have said that they could have been sent to Libya, and gotten there in time to help - that may or may not be true, but that's what some soldiers are saying.

If help is available...even if you don't send them rushing in, you at least get the pieces moving, so that if you decide to send help, they are standing by as closely as they can safely get to.

Jimmy Carter could not have possibly bungled this any more...

Also, I don't expect instant answers. But I don't expect a cover-up, nor do I expect to close the book until we have all the answers. Brett Baier (who is not a partisan hack) had a soldier on who says he was close enough to have been sent to the annex before it was over. Others are saying they were pressured to keep quiet. Those things need to be looked into.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 05-02-2013, 10:53 AM   #82
buckman
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
buckman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 4,834
Blog Entries: 1
It's been pointed out before and it's clear to this point that the administrations and The sec of states response was all about 4 more years and not about 4 human lives
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
buckman is offline  
Old 05-02-2013, 11:55 AM   #83
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Everyone knows that Hilary lied through her teeth when she claimed that she was under sniper fire on an overseas trip. And rational person knows that it's a load of crap thatshe only made that claim because she was tired.

So Spence, please tell me...how is it, that this lie, doesn't undermine her credibility?
From what I've read there was a threat of sniper fire and her aircraft used standard evasion techniques as a precaution and they were even issued flack jackets. So it's not like the idea of a threat was made up, she just stretched it and mischaracterized what ultimately happened.

She also had to deal with the fallout. Did it damage her credibility? Yes, but that's not so say credibility can't be rebuilt. In the grand scheme of things this wasn't a huge event...it got play because of the election.

You seem to want to establish a trend of Clinton being a pathological liar to suit your narrative. I think the reality is there's a sufficient body of serious work to offset that assertion.

-spence
spence is offline  
Old 05-02-2013, 12:03 PM   #84
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
You said the administration might not have known that help was available. Let me ask you, so that I'm not putting words in your mouth. If 4 superb Americans died because Obama never bothered to ask if help was available, is that acceptable to you?
I love it, now you're asking people to defend hypothetical situations.

Perhaps Obama was too stoned to even think about it...did you consider that?

-spence
spence is offline  
Old 05-02-2013, 12:25 PM   #85
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
From what I've read there was a threat of sniper fire and her aircraft used standard evasion techniques as a precaution and they were even issued flack jackets. So it's not like the idea of a threat was made up, she just stretched it and mischaracterized what ultimately happened.

She also had to deal with the fallout. Did it damage her credibility? Yes, but that's not so say credibility can't be rebuilt. In the grand scheme of things this wasn't a huge event...it got play because of the election.

You seem to want to establish a trend of Clinton being a pathological liar to suit your narrative. I think the reality is there's a sufficient body of serious work to offset that assertion.

-spence
Seriously, are you OK?

In the situation we are discussing, Hilary's claim was not that she travels under routine threat of sniper fire. If she said that, no one would deny that.

That's not what she said. Am I going too fast for you? That's not what she said, so there was no reason for you to bring it up.

Here is what she said...

"I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

According to you, she didn't lie. Rather, "she just stretched it and mischaracterized what ultimately happened."

You should work in PR for people like Hilary and Lindsay Lohan and Osama Bin Laden. As long as someone agrees with you on political issues, you are physicalluy incapable of calling them out for egregious and immoral behavior.

"You seem to want to establish a trend of Clinton being a pathological liar to suit your narrative"

Not a pathological liar...rather, pathologically immoral. I recall scandals involving FBI files, Whitewater, this bold-faced lie, travelgate. Then there is her loving husband...So I'm not "trying to establish" this pattern of moral bankruptcy - I'm just pointing out the irrefutable facts...facts for whicj you will do anything to deny or mitigate. You are the one bending over backwards to adjust the facts to fit your political narrative (that narrative being that it's wrong to kill convicted murderers, but it's OK to slaughter unborn babies), not I.

"She also had to deal with the fallout"

What fallout? Not from the likes of you. She got promoted to SecState. Maybe not the best position for someone who is so disconnected from reality that she think sse has been shot at when she hasn't. What if she is sitting across from the president of Mexico, and she falsely accuses him of trying to shoot her?

This lie, by the way, was a slap in the face to the security personnel at the arrival site (2 of whom were friends of mine) who risked their lives to secure the area surrounding her arrival site. They risk their lives to keep her safe, and she shows her gratitude by saying that they are incompetent. Classy.

I just can't figure out how you can support her so blindly, and not feel like you need to take a shower. She's repugnant.

Last edited by Jim in CT; 05-02-2013 at 12:31 PM..
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 05-02-2013, 01:20 PM   #86
Nebe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Nebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Libtardia
Posts: 21,553
Sounds like your a little biased Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Nebe is offline  
Old 05-02-2013, 01:50 PM   #87
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
Sounds like your a little biased Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
The lady said she was shot at by snipers, which never happened.

I said she lied, which she clearly did.

Spence siad she "mischaracterized" what happened.

And I am the one who is biased. Got it.

My wife likes blown glass, is that what you do? Do you have a website?
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 05-02-2013, 02:12 PM   #88
Nebe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Nebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Libtardia
Posts: 21,553
I said your biased because you knew the security team. If I had to wear a flak jacket after my plane was doing funny maneuvers, I'd think I was under fire as well... However. Under the risk of fire is different than under fire.
Yes I have a website. Google "the glass station Wakefield rhode island"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Nebe is offline  
Old 05-02-2013, 03:52 PM   #89
justplugit
Registered Grandpa
iTrader: (0)
 
justplugit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: east coast
Posts: 8,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post

Also, just as the Senate investigated Benghazi it investigated Iraq as well. Phase 1 found the Intel was bogus and Phase 2 (after repeated attempts by the GOP to kill it) found 10-5 that the Administration made repeated claims as fact that weren't supported by actual evidence.

-spence
So in that case, your previous statement, "How many investigations do you need", wouldn't apply as they had your so called 2 phases.
I would say in any investigation you should be open to any and all information that will lead to the truth and rule out the bogus. You can't know the whole truth until all information is investigated.
There is very good reason to continue the investigation in Benghazi as one of the characters involved was facing re-election a month later and would have been negatively affected by the outcome if this were called a terrorist attack, and the other character wanting it to appear she did a stellar job in the position she held lead to a Presidential run in 2016.

Common sense would say both would want to stonewall info if they didn't do their jobs, or open the flood gates of info if they had done a stellar job.

" Choose Life "
justplugit is offline  
Old 05-02-2013, 04:04 PM   #90
justplugit
Registered Grandpa
iTrader: (0)
 
justplugit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: east coast
Posts: 8,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
The lady said she was shot at by snipers, which never happened.
Yes she did, but her lying isn't important to liberals. They will give her a
pass because maybe something traumatic happened in her past and she could
be rehabilitated. Like Spence says, credibility can be rebuilt.

" Choose Life "
justplugit is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not 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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com