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:

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 02-16-2021, 11:39 AM   #1
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 6,637
Biden border surge could be 1.4++million illegal crossings/year

Former ICE director says illegal border crossings at the current rate could be 1.4 million in a year, and become astronomical if the Remain in Mexico policy is abandoned. Not to mention the huge added burden on containing covid 19.

“I wrote an op-ed for Fox News seven months ago and I said if Joe Biden became president, we would lose the border and it’s happening,” Homan replied. “The surge is already there. Now, you mentioned those numbers, but the truth is, it’s almost 4,000 crossings a day because Border Patrol isn’t adding [the ones who got away]. So there’s a way they count footprints in the sand and vehicle stop. So it’s about 4,000 a day. Now, you times that by a month, that’s 120,000 month, which is 1.4 million a year.”

“And that’s why Title 42 is still in place for single adults. Once [the Remain In Mexico policy] stops adhering to Title 42, the numbers will be astronomical. And we knew this will happen because all the promises Joe Biden has made and he continues to make. And you know, so this isn’t by accident. This is by design. This is an open border strategy. He has bowed to the left, we lose the border.”

"Biden previously promised to eliminate immigration restrictions put in place by the Trump administration, including the Remain in Mexico policy, which requires asylum seekers to remain in Mexico while they wait for their U.S. court hearings."

https://thegreggjarrett.com/former-i...urce=Hootsuite

Last edited by detbuch; 02-16-2021 at 01:43 PM..
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2021, 02:58 PM   #2
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 9,292
Ah, more supposition and conjecture?
Be very afraid
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/08...latin-america/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Pete F. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2021, 05:08 PM   #3
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 6,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
Ah, more supposition and conjecture?
Be very afraid
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/08...latin-america/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Your article is entirely an exercise in supposition and conjecture. It is a "hope" that things will go well . . . whatever "well" is supposed to be. It is a cluster of the kinds of compassionate and hopeful policies that have not solved the problem of millions of illegal crossings before and under which those crossings continued and grew larger. It actually makes millions of illegal "migrants" out to be desirable.

The article I posted had actual numbers of illegals crossing now, which if continued would result in millions more. We are restricted to wearing masks and social distancing, but it's OK to encourage untested millions from high Covid frequency areas to cross over in super spreader groups and roam through the country at will. And if the Remain in Mexico policy is abandoned, the numbers will go dramatically up.

As has been mentioned several times on the forum, if we want to import needed immigrants, we can do so sanely by accepting legal, vetted, immigrants from various parts of the world. Encouraging mass, illegal, unvetted, migration from a small and backward part of the world, especially in massive numbers before previous ones have totally assimilated, is a horrible way to do it.

Are you in favor of encouraging those flows of caravans that we were having and are now making a comeback? Do you think we actually need them?
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2021, 10:20 PM   #4
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 9,292
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Your article is entirely an exercise in supposition and conjecture. It is a "hope" that things will go well . . . whatever "well" is supposed to be. It is a cluster of the kinds of compassionate and hopeful policies that have not solved the problem of millions of illegal crossings before and under which those crossings continued and grew larger. It actually makes millions of illegal "migrants" out to be desirable.

The article I posted had actual numbers of illegals crossing now, which if continued would result in millions more. We are restricted to wearing masks and social distancing, but it's OK to encourage untested millions from high Covid frequency areas to cross over in super spreader groups and roam through the country at will. And if the Remain in Mexico policy is abandoned, the numbers will go dramatically up.

As has been mentioned several times on the forum, if we want to import needed immigrants, we can do so sanely by accepting legal, vetted, immigrants from various parts of the world. Encouraging mass, illegal, unvetted, migration from a small and backward part of the world, especially in massive numbers before previous ones have totally assimilated, is a horrible way to do it.

Are you in favor of encouraging those flows of caravans that we were having and are now making a comeback? Do you think we actually need them?
More baloney
Don’t worry you’re all set, your plan worked. 34% of Americans are scared.
McConnell hates Trump. Trump hates McConnell. That’s very good news.
Putin’s happy
Trump will continue to receive funding
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"I don't believe that he (the former guy) should be playing a role in the future of the party or the country."
Liz Cheney
Pete F. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2021, 11:48 PM   #5
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 6,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
More baloney
Don’t worry you’re all set, your plan worked. 34% of Americans are scared.
McConnell hates Trump. Trump hates McConnell. That’s very good news.
Putin’s happy
Trump will continue to receive funding
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
If this blather is all you can come up with, why do you bother? Is this some kind of stupid game?
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2021, 09:21 PM   #6
Ian
Idiot
iTrader: (0)
 
Ian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Glastonbury, CT
Posts: 2,276
We’ll need more than that if we’re gonna beat the Russians in the next election... open that pipe Joe!!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Ian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2021, 07:26 PM   #7
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 9,292
Come on, even Ted Cruz crossed the border seeking a better life for his children
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Pete F. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2021, 10:15 PM   #8
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 6,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
Come on, even Ted Cruz crossed the border seeking a better life for his children
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Legally.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2021, 12:01 PM   #9
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 9,292
I get it now. Ted and Heidi Cruz wanted their children to be safe, to have basic sanitary services like heat and running water, to leave behind a third-world apocalyptic nightmare for a safer place. Like so many parents before them, they decided to cross the Mexican border.

"I don't believe that he (the former guy) should be playing a role in the future of the party or the country."
Liz Cheney
Pete F. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2021, 01:48 PM   #10
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 6,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
I get it now. Ted and Heidi Cruz wanted their children to be safe, to have basic sanitary services like heat and running water, to leave behind a third-world apocalyptic nightmare for a safer place. Like so many parents before them, they decided to cross the Mexican border.
Where did you get that?
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2021, 01:55 PM   #11
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 9,292
There’s plenty more

When he “liked” a porn post on Twitter, Rafael “Ted” Cruz blamed a staffer.

When the people he incited stormed the Capitol, he blamed the left.

When GOP policy left TX without power, he blamed wind.

And when he snuck off to Cancun during a crisis, he blamed his kids.

And he wishes he could have snuck across the border.

He’s the only Rafael Cruz that could have gone to Mexico for 17 hours and not spent the next 17 being interrogated by ICE and DEA.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Pete F. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2021, 02:30 PM   #12
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 6,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
There’s plenty more

When he “liked” a porn post on Twitter, Rafael “Ted” Cruz blamed a staffer.

When the people he incited stormed the Capitol, he blamed the left.

When GOP policy left TX without power, he blamed wind.

And when he snuck off to Cancun during a crisis, he blamed his kids.

And he wishes he could have snuck across the border.

He’s the only Rafael Cruz that could have gone to Mexico for 17 hours and not spent the next 17 being interrogated by ICE and DEA.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
What does all that biased and disputable "get" have to do with the legality of going to Cancun. Did he cross the border illegally? If he did, he should be prosecuted and either imprisoned or fined or returned to where he came from. As should all illegal border crossers.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2021, 06:50 AM   #13
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 9,292
Ted’s shortest Spring Break was obviously him seeking a refuge from the conditions in the USA
Refugees are not illegal immigrants per USA and international law
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Pete F. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2021, 11:36 AM   #14
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 6,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
Ted’s shortest Spring Break was obviously him seeking a refuge from the conditions in the USA
Refugees are not illegal immigrants per USA and international law
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Ted didn't break any law. He did not try to sneak across the border and make some incognito residence in Mexico. If he had, Mexico would have jailed him and deported him.

There is a process for refugees to enter. Clandestine unvetted caravans is not part of the process.

You seem to be advocating for millions of folks being able to sneak in and settle here. And seem to be saying that all of them are "refugees." Immigrating to another country in order to make a better life does not qualify for refugee status.

You seem to be saying that borders, or at least US borders, are what is illegal or just plain wrong.

Do you advocate for anyone just walking in and setting up residence? Do you believe we should accept a constant flow of millions of people because they were impoverished in the place from whence they came? There are around 700 million people worldwide who are impoverished. Should they all be allowed to, unannounced, come on in?
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 10:57 AM   #15
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 6,637
https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/03/...idered-crisis/

There is a catastrophic crisis that could add another quarter of a million to the population of illegal aliens in this country in less than a year.

According to former officials in the Obama administration, the standard for a border crisis was 1,000 attempted crossings a day. Who was on the team that set that standard? President Joe Biden—then vice president—and Alejandro Mayorkas, then deputy secretary, and now secretary, of homeland security.

When the Trump administration ended, the U.S. was deporting more people than were illegally coming into the country. In less than a month under Biden, the number of people illegally coming into the country is more than 6,000 per day—that’s six times the crisis level as set by the Obama team.

According to a source with knowledge of what’s happening at our southern border, the Border Patrol, in one day, encountered 4,700 people trying to illegally enter the U.S. About another 900 were observed but not detained. In addition, another 400 were detained and sent back. This volume is straining resources at the border.

And it is not just the numbers. This is fueling a public health crisis. One source in the Department of Homeland Security estimates 15%-25% of people who illegally cross the border are COVID-19-positive. According to a recent press report, asylum-seekers, which the president has also let in in record numbers, are testing positive for COVID-19 after being released by the Border Patrol.

And the numbers are fueling a public safety crisis. According to one report, human traffickers are so overwhelmed with business they are using wrist bands to keep track of their clients.

The cash that flows into the pockets of cartels and transnational gangs in turn fuels their opioid business, which poisons and kills our neighbors and children, as well as many other nefarious activities that make our communities less safe.

At a time when state and local government are stretched to provide services to their citizens and unemployment reminds high, the federal government is dumping the flood of illegal immigrants into communities across the country.

Finally, this flood is feeding a humanitarian crisis. Encouraging illegal immigration fuels a number of dangers that put the lives of migrants at risk. A dramatic example of that just happened in California, where over a dozen illegal immigrants were killed in a traffic accident, having been unsafely packed in a van driven by smugglers.

If these dramatic consequences don’t add up to a crisis, then the Titanic is still just running late. Yet, the secretary of homeland security has said there is no crisis. On camera when asked by a reporter, the president of the United States said there is no crisis.

In fact, in one week, the administration said there is no crisis, reportedly drafted a supplemental appropriation request to deal with the crisis, and blamed the crisis on former President Donald Trump.

The president should be honest with the American people. There is a crisis. The crisis was caused by a raft of open border policies rapidly implemented by this administration (such as stopping construction on the border wall and promoting amnesty for illegal aliens), which in affect are advertisements to attract more illegal immigration.

The president should immediately put a stop to implementing initiatives that proactively attract illegal immigration.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 11:19 AM   #16
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 9,292
After the previous administration spent 4 years making things worse in Central America, what would one expect?

JUNE 5, 2020 11:21 AM PT
WASHINGTON — If the president of a country is implicated in running a massive drug-trafficking network, you might think that would be a disqualifier for receiving U.S. aid.
But not if the country is Honduras and the Trump administration holds the purse strings.

The State Department in recent days has quietly certified Honduras and its two Central American neighbors, El Salvador and Guatemala, for millions of dollars in U.S. aid, despite each country’s failure to demonstrate progress on human rights and good governance.

In documents filed with Congress and reviewed by The Times, State Department analysts reported limited success in the countries’ efforts to improve human rights, police practices and governance, or in curbing corruption and violence.

Where the three received the highest marks, however, was in their cooperation with President Trump’s immigration policies, designed to drastically reduce legal and illegal migration from Central America to the U.S..

“The certifications reflect the ‘glass half full’ approach,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) , who follows Latin America closely and is a veteran member of the Senate Appropriations Committee. “There are glaring examples of not only failing to meet the conditions in U.S. law, but actively seeking to undermine them. It makes a mockery of the process.”

U.S. law has for a couple of decades made some foreign aid contingent on advances in human rights and other issues, which is why the State Department is required to make its annual assessment.

At stake is about $500 million for each of fiscal years 2019 and 2020 to be divvied among the three countries. (The 2019 fiscal year ends Sept. 30). Several months ago, Trump threatened to cut the aid for lack of cooperation on immigration.

Business Advisory: What you need to know about Cybersecurity PAID CONTENT
Business Advisory: What you need to know about Cybersecurity
By M-Theory Group
Chant Vartanian, Chief Strategy Officer

The case of Honduras, critics say, is especially egregious.

President Juan Orlando Hernandez, a dedicated ally of Trump, was an unindicted co-conspirator in a U.S. federal case against his brother, Tony. Tony Hernandez was found guilty in Manhattan in October of running what the indictment called a “state-sanctioned,” multimillion-dollar drug-trafficking network that sent tons of cocaine to the United States.

In the trial, prosecutors and witnesses linked the president to the operation, although he was never charged and has denied wrongdoing. A separate federal indictment filed in Manhattan on April 30 accuses a former senior Honduran police commander, Juan Carlos Bonilla, of conspiring to import cocaine to the U.S. “on behalf of” President Hernandez, who allegedly benefited from the profits.

In the State Department’s certification, the Tony Hernandez trial is mentioned only once and the Honduran president’s connection is not mentioned at all.

A State Department official defended the findings while acknowledging high-level corruption remained a problem in Honduras.

“Extremely serious challenges remain, including credible information that the most senior levels of the government received money from narco-traffickers,” said the official, from the Western Hemisphere affairs bureau, on condition of anonymity in keeping with administration protocol.

“Much work remains to be done in Honduras,” the official said. “Without U.S. assistance, we would likely see backsliding on the progress that has been made.”

Hernandez’s government also drew international criticism for its decision to close down a highly regarded anticorruption agency sponsored by the Organization of American States. The agency had launched numerous investigations into powerful Hondurans and was successful in important prosecutions, including of a former first lady and former mayor of Tegucigalpa, the Honduran capital.

In January, Hernandez ignored pleas from international diplomats and civil rights organizations to not abolish the panel, known formally as the Mission to Support the Fight Against Corruption and Impunity in Honduras, or MACCIH.

At the time, State Department officials lobbied intensively for Hernandez to preserve the anticorruption group but ultimately were defeated.

MACCIH was modeled after a United Nations-created anticorruption agency in Guatemala, which was similarly scoring investigative victories only to be closed down by then-President Jimmy Morales, who gave international investigators 24 hours to leave the country.

“What we see in Central America is a series of blows to the rule of law, as institution after institution intended to investigate corruption is shut down by the people being investigated,” Rep. Norma Torres (D-Pomona), the only Central America-born member of Congress, said when MACCIH was closed.

The State Department official who spoke to The Times for this article said officials were “disappointed” at the Honduras decision, but hopeful that other entities created by the government may be able to take up investigations.

In their certification report, State Department officials cite the Hernandez government’s “robust” cooperation on immigration, its 148% increase in arrests of migrants in 2019 and the 90% drop in Hondurans being captured by the U.S. Border Patrol from May 2019 to February 2020.

Diplomats, academics and others who study Latin American and immigration policy say the Trump administration appears to be willing to look the other way on other issues in exchange for cooperation on immigration. But those other issues, such as human rights and violence, in fact are major generators of migration.

All three countries have entered controversial agreements with the Trump administration to take back Central Americans who have attempted to enter the U.S. illegally, and to allow repatriation of citizens attempting to apply legally for asylum in the U.S. Under international convention, people fleeing their homelands out of fear of persecution or death should be allowed to apply for asylum and remain in the country where they make the application, in this case the U.S.

The agreements have allowed the U.S. to essentially end asylum, reversing generations of practice, while migrants are forced to wait not in the U.S., but in Mexico or Central American countries with some of the highest homicide rates in the world.

“Instead of building the rule of law and institutions of accountability, the administration has let those be undermined in return for governments giving full support to stop people from leaving,” said Andrew Selee, president of the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute and an expert on Latin America.

“The impetus is so strong on immigration that they [administration officials] are willing to give governments that cooperate a pass on things that would have caused alarm bells in another moment,” Selee said.

Hernandez, the Honduran president, was elected to a second term, after he oversaw changes in the law to allow his reelection in late 2017, a questionable victory that triggered days of deadly demonstrations in the country. The U.S. quickly recognized the Hernandez victory, ignoring the conclusions of international election monitors who detected widespread fraud.

Both El Salvador and Guatemala have newer presidents, respectively, Nayib Bukele, inaugurated a year ago, and Alejandro Giammattei, who took office in January.

Much like Honduras, the countries were given mixed assessments in the State report, but praised for their halting of immigration. Those measures have drawn considerable domestic protest.

"I don't believe that he (the former guy) should be playing a role in the future of the party or the country."
Liz Cheney
Pete F. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 02:04 PM   #17
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 6,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
After the previous administration spent 4 years making things worse in Central America, what would one expect?
I would expect the current administration to adhere to or create policies that control the border and reduce illegal immigration to a minimum, not create policies that encourage more illegal immigration which even far exceeds in numbers what the leaders of this current administration once considered a crisis.

Your article tries to lay blame on the Trump administration for somehow being the cause of corruption that has existed in central America for decades. Central America was receiving the aid in question before Trump arrived, and illegal immigration was a crisis then, before Trump. Trump negotiated to bring that immigration down to minimal numbers. Biden policy is reverting to the Pre-Trump crisis and worse.

Whatever self-described wonderful policies previous administrations had, did little, if anything, to stop the corruption in Central America, and those previous U.S. administrations, as well, did little, if anything, to stop illegal immigration from south of the border.

We've been told for decades that our meddling in Central America was the problem. Decades of foreign aid was part of that meddling. I believe that the solution for corruption in those countries must be solved from within. We have been throwing billions of dollars in foreign aid to various parts of the corrupt world and having most of that money wind up in the pockets of its corrupt leaders.

If we want to nation build, we can't do it merely by stuffing money in their greedy wallets. And, anyway, we are warned that we don't have the right to nation build around the world.

So if Trump actually got something of benefit, such as greatly reducing illegal immigration from Central America, that's money well spent.

The people of Central America need to solve their own problems--have their own revolutions. Constantly depending on the US as a safe place for multi-millions of their populations does not solve the problems in their home lands, and it creates problems here. Much of the world is under some form of tyranny. Much of the world needs revolutions to occur. Running off to America exacerbates the problems, both there and here. It doesn't solve them.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 03:36 PM   #18
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 9,292
Yea, we’re going broke.
And we got to be the wealthiest country in the world with an isolationist foreign policy, right?
Giving money to Central American elected mobsters and criminals with no strings other than keep your people from leaving is about as far from Reagan’s foreign policy as you can get.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Pete F. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 05:52 PM   #19
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 6,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
Yea, we’re going broke.
And we got to be the wealthiest country in the world with an isolationist foreign policy, right?

What isolationist policy? Is asking member states of NATO to contribute their agreed upon financial share an isolationist policy? Seems very engaged as policy, not isolationist. Is asking China not to steal US intellectual property and putting tariffs on products manufactured in China (with which Biden admin. agrees works) isolationist policy? Seems very engaged to me. Was restructuring NAFTA an isolationist treaty. Seems very engaged to me. Was creating separate trade deals with Viet Nam, South Korea, the UK, Japan, and others isolationist actions? Seem very engaged to me. Was meeting with North Korea regarding its nuclear ambitions isolationist? Was Sanctioning Russia and Iran isolationist? Was helping to create peace agreements in the Middle East an act of isolation?

Giving money to Central American elected mobsters and criminals with no strings other than keep your people from leaving is about as far from Reagan’s foreign policy as you can get.
The money was already being given. It was an ongoing policy from previous administrations. And much of it was already going to corrupt elected officials. And wasn't doing much of what it was supposed to do. As is the case with a great deal of foreign "aid." Wasn't doing much for us other than virtue signaling. Since most foreign aid money is a form of bribery to make countries act the way we want, Trump actually getting something worth wile for the U.S. is a plus.

And as for your reference to Trump's policies being far from Reagans, Biden mostly publicaly opposed Reagan's policies, even though what Biden proposed and lobbied for was similar to Reagan in its support of military, para-military, "far right" solutions.

Since you like to argue by posting lengthy articles, here's one for you and anyone interested in our political engagement in Central and South America which, in respect to Biden, the article spells out in detail. Biden's history of political involvement with countries south of our border has not been beneficial to those countries--quite the contrary. And his current border policies are not beneficial to the U.S:

https://covertactionmagazine.com/202...is-presidency/

An interesting, but only a small fraction of the damning commentary in the article:

"The 'Salvador solution' entailed paramilitary and death-squad activities and state-sanctioned terrorism. Biden knew all about this as he had backed money and training for El Salvador’s death squads in the 1980s. Despite mostly opposing Reagan’s foreign policy in Central America, Biden said there was a “need to send U.S. military equipment to the region [Central America].'"

Last edited by detbuch; Today at 08:59 PM..
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 09:20 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