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 Ľ Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk Ľ 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:

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 09-13-2018, 04:31 PM   #1
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,344
the left likes their anonymous sources, now one aimed at Kavanaugh

so near the end of the hearings, Sentor Feinstein takes a page out of the lefty Clarence Thomas attack playbook, and lobs a vague, anonymous accusation at Kavanaugh, saying she turned the anonymous letter over to federal officials. reports indicate it had something to do with something that happened when he was in high school.

he has the right to confront his accuser, letís hear it and be done with it. is this just a desperate tactic to delay the vote until after the midterms? if so, shame on her. if itís legit, letís get to it, and dump him if we need to. why wait until the last minute, why make it so vague? i think i can guess.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2018, 10:27 PM   #2
The Dad Fisherman
Super Moderator
iTrader: (0)
 
The Dad Fisherman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Georgetown MA
Posts: 16,251
They're getting ready to #MeToo the crap outta him
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
The Dad Fisherman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2018, 04:53 AM   #3
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,690
i'm pretty sure she is undead
scottw is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2018, 06:13 AM   #4
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman View Post
They're getting ready to #MeToo the crap outta him
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Yep.

Reports are that Feinstein has had the letter since July, yet curiously waited until the last moment of his confirmation hearing do drop this "bombshell". Reports also say that she gave it to the FBI, who essentially said "big whoop" and aren't doing an investigation based on what's in there. Too bad her ally Strzok isn't there anymore.

We are beyond broken, both sides are guilty (though not equally guilty, not even close), and I just don't know what unites us anymore, short of another ISIS attack.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2018, 07:25 AM   #5
Nebe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Nebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: newpawht
Posts: 20,171
if he raped someone... whatís the problem ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Nebe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2018, 08:17 AM   #6
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 6,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
We are beyond broken, both sides are guilty (though not equally guilty, not even close), and I just don't know what unites us anymore, short of another ISIS attack.
You constantly say that yet are the most divisive person here.
PaulS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2018, 09:37 AM   #7
Pete F.
Master trŚd morder
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 3,454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Yep.

Reports are that Feinstein has had the letter since July, yet curiously waited until the last moment of his confirmation hearing do drop this "bombshell". Reports also say that she gave it to the FBI, who essentially said "big whoop" and aren't doing an investigation based on what's in there. Too bad her ally Strzok isn't there anymore.

We are beyond broken, both sides are guilty (though not equally guilty, not even close), and I just don't know what unites us anymore, short of another ISIS attack.
ďAmericans see beyond the far-left fear mongering. Senators should do the same. We should evaluate @POTUSís nominee fairly, based on their qualifications. And we should treat this process with the respect and the dignity that it deserves. #SCOTUSNomination.Ē
tweeted by Mitch McConnell
Just like Merrick Garland?

Pete
In life, it's important to know when to stop arguing with people and simply let them be wrong.
Pete F. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2018, 10:09 AM   #8
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
“Americans see beyond the far-left fear mongering. Senators should do the same. We should evaluate @POTUS’s nominee fairly, based on their qualifications. And we should treat this process with the respect and the dignity that it deserves. #SCOTUSNomination.”
tweeted by Mitch McConnell
Just like Merrick Garland?
Or like Bork or Thomas or . . . we are in the full blown development of a politicized Supreme Court. Like the rest of our governmental process, the Court has become unhinged from the principles on which it was founded.

Without principled foundations, most human endeavors, be they political, religious, scientific, economic, personal, they are doomed to lack of direction, relevance, meaning, or lasting purpose.

Can someone name or describe what is the foundation, with its principals and legal framework, of Progressive government?
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2018, 11:06 AM   #9
Slipknot
Super Moderator
iTrader: (0)
 
Slipknot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Middleboro MA
Posts: 16,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Can someone name or describe what is the foundation, with its principals and legal framework, of Progressive government?
I'll take a shot at that

To work toward the goal of everyone being completely equal in every way even if it takes ignoring the rule of law so that poor criminals can steal from those who have. Elect officials who will change the constitution to achieve goal. Find judges to judge against constitution as it is meant to be interpreted. Once certain rights are taken away, then total power can be achieved and utopia will be upon us and everything will be rainbows and unicorns.

Another words, fantasyland

The United States Constitution does not exist to grant you rights; those rights are inherent within you. Rather it exists to frame a limited government so that those natural rights can be exercised freely.
Slipknot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2018, 12:14 PM   #10
Pete F.
Master trŚd morder
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 3,454
You probably can find some of the horrible things Progressives want here:
https://progressive.org/op-eds/we-ur...cation-171219/
But perhaps some of those things are not so bad

Pete
In life, it's important to know when to stop arguing with people and simply let them be wrong.
Pete F. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2018, 12:27 PM   #11
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe View Post
if he raped someone... whatís the problem ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
And your evidence that he raped someone, is what, exactly?
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2018, 12:30 PM   #12
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
ďAmericans see beyond the far-left fear mongering. Senators should do the same. We should evaluate @POTUSís nominee fairly, based on their qualifications. And we should treat this process with the respect and the dignity that it deserves. #SCOTUSNomination.Ē
tweeted by Mitch McConnell
Just like Merrick Garland?
Obviously, what happened to Garland was a purely political move by the GOP. However, they didn't accuse him of assaulting women. They just denied him a hearing. The American people, in free and open elections, chose to give Senate control to the Republicans. I think it's fair to assume that they didn't do so, to let Obama tilt the court to the left. If we wanted that, we would have left senate control in the hands of the democrats.

Even Ginsberg spoke out against Kavanaugh's hearings.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2018, 01:34 PM   #13
The Dad Fisherman
Super Moderator
iTrader: (0)
 
The Dad Fisherman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Georgetown MA
Posts: 16,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
And your evidence that he raped someone, is what, exactly?
Well if a 40 year old letter doesn't prove it, I just donít know what does.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"If you're arguing with an idiot, make sure he isn't doing the same thing."
The Dad Fisherman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2018, 01:49 PM   #14
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,174
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Can someone name or describe what is the foundation, with its principals and legal framework, of Progressive government?
Hmmmmm, bone colored parchment, about 24 by 29 inches, starts with a plural pronoun and has some really cool signatures.
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2018, 01:51 PM   #15
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slipknot View Post
I'll take a shot at that

To work toward the goal of everyone being completely equal in every way even if it takes ignoring the rule of law so that poor criminals can steal from those who have. Elect officials who will change the constitution to achieve goal. Find judges to judge against constitution as it is meant to be interpreted. Once certain rights are taken away, then total power can be achieved and utopia will be upon us and everything will be rainbows and unicorns.

Another words, fantasyland
I think this is spot on, especially the part about the Founding Fathers seeking equality for men rather than those pesky monarchies. Freaking progressives
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2018, 02:37 PM   #16
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman View Post
Well if a 40 year old letter doesn't prove it, I just donít know what does.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
An anonymous, 40 year-old letter at that. Which a US Senator, who brags about being a feminist, sat on for 2 months and did exactly nothing with it.

I say we skip the trial, and go straight to his sentencing.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2018, 02:43 PM   #17
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
I think this is spot on, especially the part about the Founding Fathers seeking equality for men rather than those pesky monarchies. Freaking progressives
They didn't seek equality of outcome, but of opportunity. We have a long way to go to equalize the opportunity.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2018, 09:28 PM   #18
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman View Post
They're getting ready to #MeToo the crap outta him
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Bullsh*t charges of sexual harassment, will make this charge, as meaningless, as charges of racism now are.

I heard that Kavanaugh said "nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah" when he was in kindergarten, we better have the FBI check it out.

These people are a joke. A pathetic joke.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2018, 09:42 PM   #19
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,344
65 women who knew Kavanaugh in high school, penned a letter vouching for his character. They signed the letter, they weren't anonymous.


did any of the democrats here, a single one, speak out against what Feinstein did here? Before the hearings, the FBI did a background check. Why didn't Feinstein give them this letter, then?
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2018, 11:00 PM   #20
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Hmmmmm, bone colored parchment, about 24 by 29 inches, starts with a plural pronoun and has some really cool signatures.
The plural pronoun "We" (the people) in that parchment refers to the entire population of citizens. All the people will have their inalienable rights, whether natural or given by a creator, thus beyond the reach of government, protected from government overreach by the rest of the Constitution which follows that all inclusive pronoun.

The Progressive idea is that there are no natural or inalienable rights. "All" of the people's rights are given by government. The Progressive plural pronoun replaces the constitution's plural pronoun. Government and its administration is the provider and protector of "all" rights, not nature, or the Constitution. The operative "we" is the government bureaucracy. At best, re the citizens, the "people" are the 51% (or more) who create the appearance of popular power by voting to accept and give legitimacy to the administrators who rule them. The other 49% (or less) are not the "people." Their desire to own other rights or inalienable ones is denied. They don't count among the ruling we. They are merely loser persons.

The framework, or structure, of Progressive governance is not the Constitution. The essence of Progressive political philosophy is to move beyond the Constitution's founding principles, which it claims are outdated and too limited to serve present needs. The idea is to progress with history, to be responsive to the zeitgeist.

In his essay, "Liberalism and Social Action," (1935), one of the founders of the Progressive movement, John Dewey foreshadows a major technique that future Progressives would use to circumvent and basically destroy or make moot the Constitution. He inserts the notion that the Constitution provides, in the most general way, for "public welfare". He distorts the Constitution's words "general Welfare of the United States" by divorcing his notion of generalized welfare from the particular means of particular welfares stated in the enumerations that follow the clause. So the notion is created, simply by verbal magic, that the Federal Government is given license to legislate and spend money on all forms of "public" welfare. This notion would be followed with a vengeance by later Progressive administrations, sanctioned by like minded Justices, through the use of the "general Welfare" clause to legislate all manner of social welfare schemes including an entire "Great Society" boondoggle.

Dewey argues, in effect, for interpreting the "consequences" of legislation rather than its legal constitutionality. This leads directly to the Progressive school of jurisprudence which must not be stuck on interpreting the law, but considering, in the jurists' opinion, what would be the consequence of their decisions. Especially in light of current public opinion (presumably the 51% or more). Using various social and societal philosophies that followed Locke and are more "progressive," he debunks the whole notion of inalienable law, natural law, or any supernatural law.

In speaking of "earlier" (classical) liberals, Dewey says that their supposed (in his opinion) "disregard of history took its revenge. It blinded the eyes of liberals to the fact that their own special interpretations of liberty, individuality and intelligence were themselves historically conditioned, and were relevant to their own time. They put forward their ideas as immutable truths good at all times and places; they had no idea of historic relativity, either in general or in its application to themselves."

This all, of course, was a seminal idea that eventually expressed itself in the notion of a "living" Constitution. It also gives rise to the current idea that words must be "interpreted" in light of what they mean today. So, for example, what liberty meant to the Founders may not be a practical liberty today. It would not effectuate actual liberty by today's standards. He distinguishes between legal liberty and "effective" liberty. New conditions, he says, create the need for a new social organization.

He claims that "such a social order cannot be established by an unplanned and external convergence of the actions of separate individuals each of whom is bent on personal private advantage."

Dewey contends that the individual is "freed" by social planning. It obviously follows that social planning is the province of government. And expert government planners, not natural or inalienable rights, are the source of "effective" liberty.

Frank Goodnow, an earlier Progressive theorist, echoed similar references to history being the arbiter, the judge and jury of how society should be organized. He questions older notions of private rights. He says, in his essay "The American Conception of Liberty" (1916), "insistence on individual rights may have been a great advantage at a time when a social organization was not highly developed, it may become a menace when social rather than individual efficiency is the necessary prerequisite of progress. For social efficiency probably owes more to the common realization of social duties than to the general insistence on privileges based on individual private rights . . . the sphere of governmental action is continually widening and the actual content of individual private rights is being increasingly narrowed . . . The efficiency of the social group is taking on in our eyes a greater importance than it once had . . . We have come to the conclusion that man under modern conditions is primarily a member of society and that only as he recognizes his duties as a member of society can he secure the greatest opportunities as an individual."

Goodnow, president of John Hopkins University at the time, recognized that educating the people about his concepts of social organization would be the task of the American educational system. In his essay he says "we teachers are in a measure responsible for the thoughts of the coming generation . . if . . . it is the social group rather than the individual which is increasing in importance, if it is true that greater emphasis should be laid on social duties and less on individual rights, it is the duty of the University to call the attention of the student to this fact, and it is the duty of the student when he goes out into the world to do what in him lies to bring this truth home to his fellows."

Goodnow shaped the model for our latter day university activist teachers and students.

At the same time but a bit earlier, Woodrow Wilson, our second Progressive President, noted that the Constitution was founded, in his opinion, on a static rather than a changing view of law, government, or society. He was an early proponent of government, and society, and even the Constitution, being living organisms. As such, he was against the Constitution's system of checks and balances as in his notion that "No living thing can have its organs offset against each other as checks and live." And "All that progressives ask or desire is permission to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle." He believed "that no line can be drawn between private and public affairs which the State may not cross at will; that omnipotence of legislation is the first postulate of all just political theory . . . socialism and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same. They both rest at bottom upon the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members. Men as communities are supreme over men as individuals . . . limits of principle there are, upon strict analysis, none."

Wilson said stuff like this about the future under his progressive notion of societal and governmental structure where "there will be the family [of citizens] in a great building whose noble architecture will at last be disclosed, where men can live as a single community, cooperative as in a perfected, coordinated beehive".

He questioned how it would come to be--"But the means? The question with me is not whether the community has power to act as it may please in these matters, but how it can act with practical advantage--a question of policy. A question of policy primarily, but also a question of organization, that is to say of administration."

That is to say, what we have become--an unconstitutional administrative State. And the brute force of such a State was thoroughly realized in the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

But the irony of that Progressive "success" is that it was not a result of the historical progress that was supposed to have happened. The Great Depression, contrary to the notion that Progressive administration would cure economic ills, lasted throughout the FDR regime and was supposedly ended by the very thing Progressives had claimed was their reason to unshackle government from its founding limtations--war against a tyrannical, bloodthirsty government. History was supposed to have arrived at a time when the people did not have to fear government. The previous great war was supposed to be the one to end all wars. Even the despotic Russian czarist regime was toppled by a people's revolution of social justice after that war. A revolution that Progressives applauded. After FDR's anti-constitutional imposition of political administration over the constitutional rule by elected representation, the Progressive era waned and seemed to come to an end under the force of its own misconceptions of history and humanity.

But it's back now with new shiny hopes and transformations. And its assault on the Constitution is as strong or stronger than ever. And its honest promoters absolutely admit their animosity to that ancient, "outdated" parchment you speak of. They have written and continue to write books and articles espousing the abandonment of the Constitution. One of FDR's "Brain Trust," Rexford Tugwell, admitted that their creation and administration of the New Deal was accomplished and validated by a Progressive Court through torturing and twisting the "meaning" of the Constitution out of all recognition. He even wrote a lengthy new constitution that could replace the old one. It was mostly a detailed list of administrative duties and powers of a Progressive administrative State. Justice Ginsburg said that for countries which want to write a constitution she would not recommend the U.S. Constitution as a model. A few years back Scottw posted an article by a constitutional law professor, Louis Seidman, advocating constitutional disobedience. David A. Strauss wrote a book that questioned whether the Constitution is necessary. There are several other books and articles on the same theme. They admit that the Constution is, basically, not followed anymore. But who reads such books?

The idea that the Constitution is the foundation, with its principals and legal framework, of Progressive government is ridiculous.

In truth, the Progressive belief that historical relativity is a foundation contradicts the meaning of words such as "foundation" or "principle." History, as Progressives see it and use it, abolishes all foundations, and political notions of relativity debunk all principles.

Your attempt at answering my question "Can someone name or describe what is the foundation, with its principals and legal framework, of Progressive government?" is either a troll or just plain ignorance. Or maybe you swallow the wrong color pill.

Last edited by detbuch; 09-21-2018 at 09:43 AM..
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2018, 03:53 AM   #21
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,690
it's amazing how much you have to explain to a know it all
scottw is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2018, 08:10 AM   #22
Slipknot
Super Moderator
iTrader: (0)
 
Slipknot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Middleboro MA
Posts: 16,485
It's amazing that the know it all still doesn't get it.


It makes me want to join the school committee in my town so I can see for myself what the hell is going on with our education system firsthand and try to right the ship.

The United States Constitution does not exist to grant you rights; those rights are inherent within you. Rather it exists to frame a limited government so that those natural rights can be exercised freely.
Slipknot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2018, 09:39 AM   #23
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,174
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
The Progressive idea is that there are no natural or inalienable rights. "All" of the people's rights are given by government. The Progressive plural pronoun replaces the constitution's plural pronoun. Government and its administration is the provider and protector of "all" rights, not nature, or the Constitution.
I think you're caught up in your own extremism, as have many conservatives who take progressive ideas to their limits in an attempt to justify themselves.

Can't say I know anyone who wants government to be the source of our rights and I'd wager most who ascribe to progressive ideas would either. That doesn't exclude progressive thinking from a constitutional framework.
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2018, 09:54 AM   #24
Pete F.
Master trŚd morder
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 3,454
Interesting article
Progressives have lost power in Washington. Every national institution now lies in the hands of the Republican Party. Given the slim chances of Democrats’ winning back Congress in 2018, many think that the best progressives can do is hunker down for the next four years, blocking legislation on the Hill and challenging it in court. It’s a depressing picture for those on the left. No one wants to be a member of a party whose “victories” are all in the kill, whose only role in national politics is that of the gadfly.

But if progressives can simply look outside the Beltway, they will find that they still have access to one of the most powerful weapons in politics: federalism. Using the power they wield in states and cities across the country, progressives can do a good deal more than mourn and obstruct. They can resist Washington overreach, shape national policies, and force the Republicans to compromise. Cities and states have long been at the center of the fight over national values. And it’s time progressives recognized that federalism isn’t just for conservatives.

Unfortunately, the moment one mentions federalism many progressives stop listening. The language of “states’ rights” has an ugly history, invoked to shield slavery and Jim Crow. Federalism’s checkered past led political scientist William H. Riker to remark in 1964 that “if one disapproves of racism, one should disapprove of federalism.” Even today, many progressives think of federalism as a parochial anachronism, better suited for stymieing change than for effecting it.
But they are making a mistake. This is not your father’s federalism. These days, state and local governments are often led by dissenters and racial minorities, the two groups progressives think have the most to fear from federalism. And this has allowed them to not only take advantage of the enormous power that federalism confers within their own cities and states, but to affect national debates, influence national policy, and force national actors to the bargaining table. Their success shows that federalism is a neutral and powerful tool for change, not an intrinsically conservative quirk of U.S. government.

https://democracyjournal.org/magazin...a-users-guide/

Pete
In life, it's important to know when to stop arguing with people and simply let them be wrong.
Pete F. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2018, 10:14 AM   #25
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
I think you're caught up in your own extremism, as have many conservatives who take progressive ideas to their limits in an attempt to justify themselves.

Hey, man, can you actually have a discussion, or must you resort to merely making a proclamation? What you "think" here is not backed up by a train of thought that leads to a conclusion. What you "think" lacks substantive thought. It's basically ad hominem accusation.

But it is what I expected you would do . . . if you replied at all--an extremely limited and thoughtless attempt to dismiss.


Can't say I know anyone who wants government to be the source of our rights and I'd wager most who ascribe to progressive ideas would either.

Why can't you say it? If you don't know if any of the people (Progressives?) you know believe or want something, does that mean that Progressives therefor must not believe or want it? If you don't know, how do you arrive at an opinion? What do Progressives believe is the source of our rights? On what information would you place your wager?


That doesn't exclude progressive thinking from a constitutional framework.
Could you explain and elaborate what you mean by this proclamation? It seems to have the germ of an actual discussion.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 07:53 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