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 02-01-2018, 11:30 AM   #91
DZ
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
DZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 2,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
How did the Dems. collude w/the Russians?

If you are in favor of releasing it bc you don't want it swept under the rug why not release the Dem. memo then? Read what the FBI director said. "we have grave concerns with material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo’s accuracy". What exactly is the FBI director saying with that statement.
The DEMS memo will also eventually come out. Sounds like we'll all get to read them soon.

DZ
Recreational Surfcaster
"Limit Your Kill - Don't Kill Your Limit"

Bi + Ne = SB 2

If you haven't heard of the Snowstorm Blitz of 1987 - you someday will.
DZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2018, 11:46 AM   #92
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 6,241
Nunes memo – actually that is funny. Didn’t we see what a sleazy person he was when Trump accused Obama of “wiretapped” Trump tower. Nunes came to Trump’s defense and lied and then later it was found out he actually got that info. from the Trump White House.
PaulS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2018, 12:11 PM   #93
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 6,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by DZ View Post
The DEMS memo will also eventually come out. Sounds like we'll all get to read them soon.
The House Intelligence Committee has voted not to make the Democratic memo public.
PaulS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2018, 12:12 PM   #94
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 6,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
there's suspicion now there was coordination with the White House in its creation.
Just saw this

On Monday, Rep. Mike Quigly (D-IL) asked Nunes if his staffers worked with the White House on his memo. Nunes originally answered the question by saying “as far as I know” no one collaborated with the White House. Ultimately, though, he refused to answer the question — perhaps suggesting that there may actually have been some collusion there
PaulS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2018, 12:38 PM   #95
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
The House Intelligence Committee has voted not to make the Democratic memo public.
Agreed, that's a bush league move, if you have nothing to hide, why wouldn't they release that.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2018, 12:59 PM   #96
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 6,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Agreed, that's a bush league move, if you have nothing to hide, why wouldn't they release that.
If the FBI has concerns, I don't want either one released.
PaulS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2018, 02:29 PM   #97
Pete F.
Master tråd morder
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 3,151
Here's the process in layman's terms if you are interested
In an article titled, “It Ain’t Easy Getting a FISA Warrant: I Was an FBI Agent and Should Know,” here’s what Rangappa wrote:

… As someone who obtained FISA warrants while conducting counterintelligence investigations for the FBI, I can attest to the fact that they not only don’t involve the White House, but the process includes too many layers of approval to be granted without strong evidence.

There are two ways to obtain a wiretap – also known as electronic surveillance – on U.S. persons (citizens and permanent residents), and both include the courts. For criminal investigations, the FBI can seek a warrant under Title III of the U.S. criminal code by showing a federal court that there is probable cause to believe the target has engaged, or is engaging in, criminal activity. This is a fairly high standard because of a strong presumption in favor of our Fourth Amendment right to privacy, and requires a showing that less intrusive means of obtaining the same information aren’t feasible.

The standard for electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, though, is a little lower. This is because when it comes to national security, as opposed to criminal prosecutions, our Fourth Amendment rights are balanced against the government’s interest in protecting the country. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) allows the FBI to get a warrant from a secret court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), to conduct electronic surveillance on U.S. persons if they can show probable cause that the target is an “agent of a foreign power” who is “knowingly engag[ing]…in clandestine intelligence activities.” In other words, the government has to show that the target might be spying for a foreign government or organization.

But even under this standard, it’s not like the FBI can just decide to stop by a FISC to get a FISA warrant after going through the McDonald’s drive-thru for lunch. To even begin the process leading to a FISA, the FBI has to follow several steps outlined in the Attorney General Guidelines, which govern FBI investigations. First, the FBI has to conduct a “threat assessment” in order to establish grounds for even opening an investigation on potential FISA subjects. If a threat exists, the FBI must then formally open an investigation into possible foreign intelligence activity.

What does this look like in practice? Well, say, hypothetically, that a group of U.S. persons seem to have not infrequent contact with diplomats known to be Russian spies, whom the FBI are already monitoring. (Pro-tip: While it’s possible that such contacts could be accidental – I mean, hypothetically, the Trump inner circle could be a riot to hang out with socially – spies, particularly Russian ones, are pretty good at what they do and don’t spend time with people unless there’s a good reason.) The FBI might determine that, if the U.S. persons have access to classified information or could otherwise be “developed” for intelligence purposes by a foreign spy service, a significant enough threat exists to open an investigation – this would require at least one layer of approval within the FBI, and possibly more if the investigation concerns high-profile individuals.

The case still wouldn’t be FISA bound. FISA warrant investigations can’t be opened “solely on the basis of First Amendment activities,” so mere fraternization, even with sketchy people, wouldn’t be enough. The FBI would have to gather evidence to support a the claim that the U.S. target was knowingly working on behalf of a foreign entity. This could include information gathered from other methods like human sources, physical surveillance, bank transactions or even documents found in the target’s trash. This takes some time, and, when enough evidence had been accumulated, would be outlined in an affidavit and application stating the grounds for the FISA warrant. The completed FISA application would go up for approval through the FBI chain of command, including a Supervisor, the Chief Division Counsel (the highest lawyer within that FBI field office), and finally, the Special Agent in Charge of the field office, before making its way to FBI Headquarters to get approval by (at least) the Unit-level Supervisor there. If you’re exhausted already, hang on: There’s more.

The FISA application then travels to the Justice Department where attorneys from the National Security Division comb through the application to verify all the assertions made in it. Known as “Woods procedures” after Michael J. Woods, the FBI Special Agent attorney who developed this layer of approval, DOJ verifies the accuracy of every fact stated in the application. If anything looks unsubstantiated, the application is sent back to the FBI to provide additional evidentiary support – this game of bureaucratic chutes and ladders continues until DOJ is satisfied that the facts in the FISA application can both be corroborated and meet the legal standards for the court. After getting sign-off from a senior DOJ official (finally!), a lawyer from DOJ takes the FISA application before the FISC, comprised of eleven federal district judges who sit on the court on a rotating basis. The FISC reviews the application in secret, and decides whether to approve the warrant.

Now, it’s true that since its inception in 1978, the FISC has approved the vast majority of the over 25,000 FISA applications it has reviewed – some estimates put the number at over 99 percent. But that’s not surprising given the extensive process described above. In fact, if some reports are true that the initial FISA applications submitted to the FISC were rejected, prompting the FBI and DOJ to change its targets to the Russian banks doing business with Trump associates rather than the associates themselves (which would only require showing probable cause that the banks are a “foreign power,” which by definition they are), then a FISA application for Trump Tower, if one exists, would have been subject to even more scrutiny than would normally be the case.

In short, the FISA warrant process is designed to protect against the very abuse of power that the President has accused his predecessor of exercising. You could even say that FISA applications go through an “extreme vetting” process before being granted – something that the Trump administration ought to support.

Pete

"No one leaves home unless home is the mouth of a shark"
Warsan Shire

Time will tell
Pete F. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2018, 02:42 PM   #98
Got Stripers
Ledge Runner Baits
iTrader: (0)
 
Got Stripers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: I live in a house, but my soul is at sea.
Posts: 4,264
Trump and his lackeys are just diverting attention and trying to discredit the FBI and DOJ; can't imagine what they are worried about. Could it be the heat in the kitchen is starting to make them sweat and Mueller is getting a little too close for comfort.

What surprises me is that nobody, even Kelly, is standing up to this effort to release something that the FBI feels should not be made public for national security reasons. It's game show White House, you get too close and your FIRED or beaten up so badly on tweeter, you just would rather move on.
Got Stripers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2018, 02:49 PM   #99
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
Here's the process in layman's terms if you are interested
In an article titled, “It Ain’t Easy Getting a FISA Warrant: I Was an FBI Agent and Should Know,” here’s what Rangappa wrote:

… As someone who obtained FISA warrants while conducting counterintelligence investigations for the FBI, I can attest to the fact that they not only don’t involve the White House, but the process includes too many layers of approval to be granted without strong evidence.

There are two ways to obtain a wiretap – also known as electronic surveillance – on U.S. persons (citizens and permanent residents), and both include the courts. For criminal investigations, the FBI can seek a warrant under Title III of the U.S. criminal code by showing a federal court that there is probable cause to believe the target has engaged, or is engaging in, criminal activity. This is a fairly high standard because of a strong presumption in favor of our Fourth Amendment right to privacy, and requires a showing that less intrusive means of obtaining the same information aren’t feasible.

The standard for electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, though, is a little lower. This is because when it comes to national security, as opposed to criminal prosecutions, our Fourth Amendment rights are balanced against the government’s interest in protecting the country. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) allows the FBI to get a warrant from a secret court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), to conduct electronic surveillance on U.S. persons if they can show probable cause that the target is an “agent of a foreign power” who is “knowingly engag[ing]…in clandestine intelligence activities.” In other words, the government has to show that the target might be spying for a foreign government or organization.

But even under this standard, it’s not like the FBI can just decide to stop by a FISC to get a FISA warrant after going through the McDonald’s drive-thru for lunch. To even begin the process leading to a FISA, the FBI has to follow several steps outlined in the Attorney General Guidelines, which govern FBI investigations. First, the FBI has to conduct a “threat assessment” in order to establish grounds for even opening an investigation on potential FISA subjects. If a threat exists, the FBI must then formally open an investigation into possible foreign intelligence activity.

What does this look like in practice? Well, say, hypothetically, that a group of U.S. persons seem to have not infrequent contact with diplomats known to be Russian spies, whom the FBI are already monitoring. (Pro-tip: While it’s possible that such contacts could be accidental – I mean, hypothetically, the Trump inner circle could be a riot to hang out with socially – spies, particularly Russian ones, are pretty good at what they do and don’t spend time with people unless there’s a good reason.) The FBI might determine that, if the U.S. persons have access to classified information or could otherwise be “developed” for intelligence purposes by a foreign spy service, a significant enough threat exists to open an investigation – this would require at least one layer of approval within the FBI, and possibly more if the investigation concerns high-profile individuals.

The case still wouldn’t be FISA bound. FISA warrant investigations can’t be opened “solely on the basis of First Amendment activities,” so mere fraternization, even with sketchy people, wouldn’t be enough. The FBI would have to gather evidence to support a the claim that the U.S. target was knowingly working on behalf of a foreign entity. This could include information gathered from other methods like human sources, physical surveillance, bank transactions or even documents found in the target’s trash. This takes some time, and, when enough evidence had been accumulated, would be outlined in an affidavit and application stating the grounds for the FISA warrant. The completed FISA application would go up for approval through the FBI chain of command, including a Supervisor, the Chief Division Counsel (the highest lawyer within that FBI field office), and finally, the Special Agent in Charge of the field office, before making its way to FBI Headquarters to get approval by (at least) the Unit-level Supervisor there. If you’re exhausted already, hang on: There’s more.

The FISA application then travels to the Justice Department where attorneys from the National Security Division comb through the application to verify all the assertions made in it. Known as “Woods procedures” after Michael J. Woods, the FBI Special Agent attorney who developed this layer of approval, DOJ verifies the accuracy of every fact stated in the application. If anything looks unsubstantiated, the application is sent back to the FBI to provide additional evidentiary support – this game of bureaucratic chutes and ladders continues until DOJ is satisfied that the facts in the FISA application can both be corroborated and meet the legal standards for the court. After getting sign-off from a senior DOJ official (finally!), a lawyer from DOJ takes the FISA application before the FISC, comprised of eleven federal district judges who sit on the court on a rotating basis. The FISC reviews the application in secret, and decides whether to approve the warrant.

Now, it’s true that since its inception in 1978, the FISC has approved the vast majority of the over 25,000 FISA applications it has reviewed – some estimates put the number at over 99 percent. But that’s not surprising given the extensive process described above. In fact, if some reports are true that the initial FISA applications submitted to the FISC were rejected, prompting the FBI and DOJ to change its targets to the Russian banks doing business with Trump associates rather than the associates themselves (which would only require showing probable cause that the banks are a “foreign power,” which by definition they are), then a FISA application for Trump Tower, if one exists, would have been subject to even more scrutiny than would normally be the case.

In short, the FISA warrant process is designed to protect against the very abuse of power that the President has accused his predecessor of exercising. You could even say that FISA applications go through an “extreme vetting” process before being granted – something that the Trump administration ought to support.
I'm assuming that those on the House Committee know all this.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2018, 02:52 PM   #100
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
I'm assuming that those on the House Committee know all this.
Which makes some of their behavior all the more dubious.
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2018, 03:03 PM   #101
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Which makes some of their behavior all the more dubious.
Not if they saw something that indicates a corruption of the process.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2018, 03:06 PM   #102
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Not if they saw something that indicates a corruption of the process.
If that was really the case why all the bi-partisan allegations of misrepresentation? Especially when the person central to the issue already has been caught pushing false conspiracy theories?
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2018, 03:13 PM   #103
Pete F.
Master tråd morder
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 3,151
Conspiracy theories?
Well, i did hear that someone was actually born in East Germany and switched at a young age with the deceased grandson of a German immigrant. Might explain the fascination with eastern European women.

Pete

"No one leaves home unless home is the mouth of a shark"
Warsan Shire

Time will tell
Pete F. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2018, 03:26 PM   #104
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
If that was really the case why all the bi-partisan allegations of misrepresentation? Especially when the person central to the issue already has been caught pushing false conspiracy theories?
Why all the conjecture by those who don't actually know what's in the memo?
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2018, 03:39 PM   #105
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Why all the conjecture by those who don't actually know what's in the memo?
The bi-partisan allegations of misrepresentation are from people who know what's exactly in the memo.
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2018, 04:09 PM   #106
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
The bi-partisan allegations of misrepresentation are from people who know what's exactly in the memo.
What makes you so sure that their interpretation is the right one? And that those who claim otherwise is incorrect?
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2018, 04:14 PM   #107
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
What makes you so sure that their interpretation is the right one? And that those who claim otherwise is incorrect?
Credibility or lack there of.
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2018, 04:21 PM   #108
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Credibility or lack there of.
That's nonsense--what you would call a deke. Credibility is in the eye of the beholder.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2018, 06:13 PM   #109
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
If that was really the case why all the bi-partisan allegations of misrepresentation? Especially when the person central to the issue already has been caught pushing false conspiracy theories?
if what you claim is true and the memo is a partisan hack job that will not be supported by the underlying intelligence and the author is a reckless partisan crazy then the release will result in the Whitehouse and Republicans effectively kicking themselves in the nuts(politically) ,...which I'd think you'd enthusiastically support

Last edited by scottw; 02-01-2018 at 06:28 PM..
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2018, 07:22 PM   #110
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
if what you claim is true and the memo is a partisan hack job that will not be supported by the underlying intelligence and the author is a reckless partisan crazy then the release will result in the Whitehouse and Republicans effectively kicking themselves in the nuts(politically) ,...which I'd think you'd enthusiastically support
In theory but that's now how social media and half ass news outlets work.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2018, 08:38 PM   #111
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
In theory but that's now how social media and half ass news outlets work.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
but most work for the democrats sooo...they have an advantage and should be able to spin the proper tale on this one

Last edited by scottw; 02-02-2018 at 04:49 AM..
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2018, 08:46 AM   #112
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 18,022
This story is getting better (or worse) by the day. It's looking increasingly like Nunes has never even saw the FISA request. The White House leaked cherry picked elements, Nunes sent a staffer to the UK to investigate the Steele contribution, was told to pound sand, he came back and made the memo up based on what the White House told them.

This is the same Congressman who completely made up the "unmasking" scandal and was subsequently called out on it.

Not in my generation have I witnessed this level of government corruption here at home.
spence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2018, 09:02 AM   #113
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 2,275

@realDonaldTrump
The top Leadership and Investigators of the FBI and the Justice Department have politicized the sacred investigative process in favor of Democrats and against Republicans - something which would have been unthinkable just a short time ago. Rank & File are great people!

Is this the united states or Some alternate universe ?

love or hate him not sure how anyone can see these tweets as acceptable or not see them for what they are another attempt at the obstruction of our justice system and current investigation from the POTUS .. the lies and misinformation are never ending
wdmso is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2018, 09:10 AM   #114
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post

Not in my generation have I witnessed this level of government corruption here at home.
are you moving back from Canada if he gets impeached?
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2018, 09:11 AM   #115
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 6,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
This story is getting better (or worse) by the day. It's looking increasingly like Nunes has never even saw the FISA request. The White House leaked cherry picked elements, Nunes sent a staffer to the UK to investigate the Steele contribution, was told to pound sand, he came back and made the memo up based on what the White House told them.

This is the same Congressman who completely made up the "unmasking" scandal and was subsequently called out on it.

Not in my generation have I witnessed this level of government corruption here at home.
Don't forget he is being accused of changing parts of the memo after it was voted on.

Character matters with the Republicans.





That is the Democrat's character.
PaulS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2018, 09:17 AM   #116
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,448
you guys are trying WAY too hard
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2018, 09:17 AM   #117
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 6,241
Damn liberal FBI.
PaulS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2018, 09:23 AM   #118
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
.

Not in my generation have I witnessed this level of government corruption here at home.
There are two sides pointing their fingers at each other. No one can come close to knowing for sure what the truth is, based on currently available facts. Let's find out the truth and react appropriately. Shockingly, you believe everything from the left and nothing from the right. That may turn out to be the reality. Let's find out.

Regarding Hilary and Trump, there is some supposed evidence of senior FBI officials acting out of political ideology, rather than a search for the truth. That would also be a level of corruption I'd think would you, but you're not bothered if Hilary was the beneficiary.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2018, 09:28 AM   #119
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
Damn liberal FBI.
You haven't seen any evidence that there were agents involved with Hilary and Trump, who might have been rooting for Hilary? McCabe's wife taking big campaign money from Democratic PACs for her senate run?

"The FBI" isn't liberal. There might be a few bad apples who had their thumbs on the scale for Hilary. Maybe, maybe not.

The left wouldn't be going berserk trying to block the release of the memo, if there was nothing there. If the memo is a Spence nothingburger, it will get spun as such on every network except one, and the GOP will look stupid.

The right would not have blocked the Democrat response if there wasn't anything there they didn't want us to see.

Who the heck knows what the truth is. Dirty stuff on all sides.
Jim in CT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2018, 09:33 AM   #120
Nebe
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Nebe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: newpawht
Posts: 20,083
Time to hit the reset button.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Nebe 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 04:50 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