|
Florida is the least affordable place to live in the U.S.
Unless you want to live in trailer https://www.cbsnews.com/news/florida...o-naples-rent/ Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
now, let’s take a quiz. do you think real estate is soaring in FL because nobody wants to live there, or because many people want to live there. the state doesnt control real estate prices. Supply and demand dictates real estate prices. The state does control the fact that taxes are low, which is a big reason why. housing is in demand. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
“Florida’s population is growing faster than any state other than Texas.” A quote from your article. and you say i’m lying when i claim that states are growing the fastest. You’re absolutely precious. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
You ever been to Floriduh?
If suburbia isn’t your thing, I don’t suggest living there. It seems some people like living on top of each other. F that Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
https://c.tenor.com/Ba1mSkjYlmcAAAAM...rles-blind.gif Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Faced with a steady stream of horror stories about the impact of abortion bans on patients suffering failed pregnancies, anti-abortion advocates have retreated into a paranoid conspiracy theory that doctors are trying to "create viral stories making abortion bans look culpable."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
You drinking kool aid again? you say i’m lying when i claim that states are growing the fastest. Ya ok ! of course I never mentioned nor did you ever mentioned which states are growing faster in this thread. you just keep repeating your lie and keep insisting and keep saying their moving to red states because of politics You can’t even keep track of what you said or where . seeing you post so much nonsense Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
you said i was lying. then you posted an article saying that TX and FL are the two fastest growing states It’s quite interesting talking to you. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
|
When Missouri doctors terminate a pregnancy because of a medical emergency, they must report their decision to the state. Then prosecutors review it and decide whether or not to charge them with a criminal violation of the state's abortion ban.
Because medicine is a topic in law school Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Love the fetus, could care less about the baby and mom.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/28/u...-services.html States With Abortion Bans Are Among Least Supportive for Mothers and Children They tend to have the weakest social services and the worst results in several categories of health and well-being. By Emily Badger, Margot Sanger-Katz and Claire Cain MillerGraphics by Eve Washington July 28, 2022 How Women and Children Fare States hostile to abortion fare worse on a variety of health and well-being outcomes, while states supportive of abortion rights tend to have a more generous social safety net. WHERE ABORTION IS ... OUTCOME BANNED OR LIKELY TO BE (24 STATES) UNLIKELY TO BE BANNED (20 STATES) Children in poverty Pct. below poverty line 18.5% 14.8% Uninsured women Pct. of women of reproductive age without health insurance 15.7% 9.0% Uninsured children Pct. of children without health insurance 7.2% 3.6% Low-birthweight babies Pct. of babies born weighing less than 2.5 kg (5.5 lbs.) 8.8% 7.7% Teen births Births per 1,000 females age 15 to 19 21.2 12.1 Infant mortality Deaths per 1,000 live births 6.3 4.7 Maternal mortality Deaths per 100,000 live births 25.2 15.0 POLICY BANNED OR LIKELY TO BE (24 STATES) UNLIKELY TO BE BANNED (20 STATES) Paid family leave Offer paid family leave 0 STATES 11 STATES Expanded Medicaid Expanded Medicaid under Obamacare to cover poor, childless adults 15 STATES 20 STATES Min. wage above $7.25 Above the federal floor 8 STATES 19 STATES Universal pre-K Committed to offering universal pre-K 6 STATES 6 STATES Groups with larger rates are highlighted. The table excludes data from six states — N.C., Fla., Kan., Pa., Va. and Mont. — where the future legal status of abortion is least clear. In Mississippi, which brought the abortion case that ended Roe v. Wade before the Supreme Court, Gov. Tate Reeves vowed that the state would now “take every step necessary to support mothers and children.” Today, however, Mississippi fares poorly on just about any measure of that goal. Its infant and maternal mortality rates are among the worst in the nation. State leaders have rejected the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion, leaving an estimated 43,000 women of reproductive age without health insurance. They have chosen not to extend Medicaid to women for a full year after giving birth. And they have a welfare program that gives some of the country’s least generous cash assistance — a maximum of $260 a month for a poor mother raising two children. Mississippi embodies a national pattern: States that have banned abortion, or are expected to, have among the nation’s weakest social services for women and children, and have higher rates of death for infants and mothers. According to a New York Times analysis, the 24 states that have banned abortion (or probably will) fare worse on a broad range of outcomes than states where abortion will probably remain legal, including child and maternal mortality, teenage birthrates and the share of women and children who are uninsured. The states likely to ban abortion either have laws predating Roe that ban abortion; have recently passed stringent restrictions; or have legislatures that are actively considering new bans. The majority of these states have turned down the yearlong Medicaid postpartum extension. Nine have declined the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion, which provides health care to the poor. None offer new parents paid leave from work to care for their newborns. “The safety net is woefully inadequate,” said Carol Burnett, who works with poor and single mothers as executive director of the Mississippi Low-Income Child Care Initiative, a nonprofit. “All of these demonstrated state-level obstacles prevent moms from getting the help they need, the health care they need, the child care they need.” How States Rank on Measures of Well-Being for Women and Children Poverty and mortality measures for mothers and babies are worse in states that have banned abortion or are likely to do so. BETTER RANK WORSE RANK 10th20th30th40th Banned or likely to ban abortion STATE UNINSURED WOMEN MATERNAL MORTALITY INFANT MORTALITY CHILD POVERTY Miss. 48th 45th 50th 50th Okla. 49th 37th 46th 41st Ala. 38th 48th 48th 45th Ga. 45th 43rd 45th 38th Ark. 33rd 50th 47th 46th La. 28th 46th 49th 49th S.C. 37th 44th 44th 42nd Tenn. 34th 47th 43rd 43rd Texas 50th 34th 21st 39th S.D. 42nd 25th* 37th 26th Mo. 40th 38th 34th 30th W.Va. 13th 32nd* 40th 44th Ariz. 39th 42nd 20th 37th Wyo. 47th 16th* 35th 13th Ohio 16th 28th 42nd 36th Ind. 30th 41st 39th 23rd Ky. 15th 49th 18th 47th Mich. 9th 23rd 36th 34th Idaho 44th 19th* 10th 15th Wis. 11th 4th* 29th 22nd N.D. 19th 33rd* 38th 2nd Neb. 26th 40th 19th 7th Utah 31st 7th* 17th 3rd Iowa 2nd 8th* 14th 16th May ban abortion STATE UNINSURED WOMEN MATERNAL MORTALITY INFANT MORTALITY CHILD POVERTY N.C. 43rd 27th 41st 40th Fla. 46th 29th 30th 33rd Kan. 36th 30th 33rd 24th Pa. 10th 15th 25th 32nd Va. 25th 31st 24th 18th Mont. 23rd 35th* 12th 25th Unlikely to ban abortion STATE UNINSURED WOMEN MATERNAL MORTALITY INFANT MORTALITY CHILD POVERTY N.M. 32nd 14th* 23rd 48th Nev. 41st 22nd 26th 31st Ill. 20th 9th 32nd 29th Del. 14th 17th* 31st 28th Alaska 35th 39th* 16th 14th Maine 27th 3rd* 15th 20th Calif. 22nd 6th 4th 27th Md. 12th 21st 28th 9th R.I. 5th 18th* 22nd 21st N.Y. 7th 24th 5th 35th N.J. 29th 36th 3rd 11th Ore. 17th 12th* 8th 17th Colo. 24th 11th 11th 5th Hawaii 4th 10th* 27th 8th Wash. 18th 26th 7th 12th Conn. 8th 20th* 6th 19th Minn. 6th 5th* 13th 6th N.H. 21st 1st* 1st 1st Vt. 3rd 2nd* 9th 4th Mass. 1st 13th 2nd 10th Ranks with asterisks are based on fewer than 20 deaths and may be unreliable. States with identical values are assigned sequential rankings in alphabetical order. Many anti-abortion activists have acknowledged that improving the health and livelihoods of mothers and young children is an important goal for their movement: “This has been my lecture to the pro-life movement for the last year,” said Kristan Hawkins, the president of Students for Life. “No woman stands alone in the post-Roe America.” But in many of these states, skepticism of government aid runs as deep as opposition to abortion. And racism has played a role over generations in weakening safety nets for all poor residents, researchers and historians say. Studies have repeatedly found that states where the safety net is less generous and harder to access tend to be those with relatively more Black residents. That has further implications for Black women, who have a maternal mortality rate nationally that is nearly three times that of white women. State Policies That Support Women and Children States where abortion is expected to remain legal are more likely to have enacted policies that benefit families. Banned or likely to ban abortion STATE EXPANDED MEDICAID PAID LEAVE MIN. WAGE+ UNIV. PRE-K Miss. ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ S.C. ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ Tenn. ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ Texas ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ Wyo. ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ Ala. ✕ ✕ ✕ ✓ Ga. ✕ ✕ ✕ ✓ Idaho ✓ ✕ ✕ ✕ Ind. ✓ ✕ ✕ ✕ Ky. ✓ ✕ ✕ ✕ La. ✓ ✕ ✕ ✕ N.D. ✓ ✕ ✕ ✕ S.D. ✕ ✕ ✓ ✕ Utah ✓ ✕ ✕ ✕ Wis. ✕ ✕ ✕ ✓ Ariz. ✓ ✕ ✓ ✕ Ark. ✓ ✕ ✓ ✕ Iowa ✓ ✕ ✕ ✓ Mich. ✓ ✕ ✓ ✕ Mo. ✓ ✕ ✓ ✕ Neb. ✓ ✕ ✓ ✕ Ohio ✓ ✕ ✓ ✕ Okla. ✓ ✕ ✕ ✓ W.Va. ✓ ✕ ✓ ✓ May ban abortion STATE EXPANDED MEDICAID PAID LEAVE MIN. WAGE+ UNIV. PRE-K Kan. ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ N.C. ✕ ✕ ✕ ✕ Pa. ✓ ✕ ✕ ✕ Fla. ✕ ✕ ✓ ✓ Mont. ✓ ✕ ✓ ✕ Va. ✓ ✕ ✓ ✕ Unlikely to ban abortion STATE EXPANDED MEDICAID PAID LEAVE MIN. WAGE+ UNIV. PRE-K N.H. ✓ ✕ ✕ ✕ Alaska ✓ ✕ ✓ ✕ Hawaii ✓ ✕ ✓ ✕ Ill. ✓ ✕ ✓ ✕ Minn. ✓ ✕ ✓ ✕ Nev. ✓ ✕ ✓ ✕ N.M. ✓ ✕ ✓ ✕ Conn. ✓ ✓ ✓ ✕ Del. ✓ ✓ ✓ ✕ Maine ✓ ✕ ✓ ✓ Md. ✓ ✓ ✓ ✕ Mass. ✓ ✓ ✓ ✕ Ore. ✓ ✓ ✓ ✕ R.I. ✓ ✓ ✓ ✕ Vt. ✓ ✕ ✓ ✓ Wash. ✓ ✓ ✓ ✕ Calif. ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Colo. ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ N.J. ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ N.Y. ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ States that have committed to universal pre-K but have not yet implemented it are included. States with minimum wage+ are those that guarantee more than the federal $7.25 hourly minimum. Social spending is not the only answer to poverty and poor public health, and some in the anti-abortion movement stress that they want to help women and children — just not with more government spending. But there is a strong link between state policy choices and outcomes for mothers and children, researchers have found. Perhaps the clearest example is health insurance. Numerous studies have tied it to improved health and financial security for poor Americans. Since 2014, states have had the option to expand their Medicaid programs to cover nearly all poor adults, with the federal government paying 90 percent or more of the cost. But nine of the states planning to ban abortion have not expanded it, citing opposition to Obamacare, which Republicans have long vowed to repeal; a disinclination to offer health benefits to poor Americans who do not work; or concerns about the 10 percent of the bill left to state governments to finance. “Closing the Medicaid gap is the first and best option for women’s health care,” said Allison Orris, a senior fellow focused on health policy at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Since 2021, states have also had the choice to expand Medicaid to cover women for a full year after a birth instead of two months. Just 16 states have declined to do so or opted for a shorter period — all but three of them are also banning or seeking to ban abortion. Women who are poor and pregnant are eligible for Medicaid across the country, and the program pays for four in 10 births nationwide. But health experts say it also matters that women are covered for an extended period after birth, and for the years leading up to pregnancy. Conditions like diabetes, cardiovascular disease and substance abuse can lead to pregnancy complications and poor infant health. Research suggests that Medicaid expansion can reduce maternal mortality. Medicaid also pays for contraception. ImageThe case against Jackson Women’s Health Organization clinic in Jackson, Miss., wound up ending Roe v. Wade. Mississippi ranks last in the nation in infant mortality. The case against Jackson Women’s Health Organization clinic in Jackson, Miss., wound up ending Roe v. Wade. Mississippi ranks last in the nation in infant mortality. Credit...Rogelio V. Solis/Associated Press Paid family leave and subsidized child care are another example. None of the states that have banned abortion (or are likely to) guarantee parents paid leave from work to care for and bond with their newborns. Just 11 states and the District of Columbia do. Paid leave has been shown to benefit infants’ health and mothers’ physical and mental health as well as their economic prospects. In most states, there is no guaranteed child care for children until they enter kindergarten at age 5. Subsidies available to low-income families cover a small segment of eligible children, ranging from less than 4 percent in Arkansas (which now bans abortion) to more than 17 percent in Vermont (which passed abortion rights legislation). In many states, the subsidies also present a conundrum: Parents are required to work to get them, yet they can’t find or start work without child care. Some states add other obstacles. Mississippi requires single mothers to file for child support from fathers before they can receive subsidies. Also, a job paying minimum wage — which is not higher than the federal floor of $7.25 in 20 states — doesn’t necessarily pay enough to cover even subsidized care. Support for families is different in some states once children are 3 or 4. Thirteen states and the District of Columbia offer or have committed to offering universal preschool. Unlike with other family benefits, anti-abortion states are roughly as likely as other states to offer public preschool. Six of those 13 states ban abortion or probably will. “This is consistent with a view that education is a public responsibility,” said Steven Barnett, senior co-director of the National Institute for Early Education Research at Rutgers, while other safety-net programs “fall outside the accepted sphere of public responsibility in the conservative states.” Poorer states may have fewer resources to fund benefits like parental leave, or state supplements to the federal earned-income tax credit. But what they choose to do with federal grants can be revealing, said Zachary Parolin, a professor of social policy at Bocconi University in Milan who has studied how states use the broad discretion given to them by the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families welfare program. “You can’t say Alabama gives very little cash assistance for low-income families with children because it can’t afford” the program, Mr. Parolin said. “It has a TANF program, and it’s primarily funded by the federal government.” But in 2020, Alabama spent only about 8 percent of its welfare funds on direct cash assistance to families. Mississippi spent 5 percent. Instead, states often spend these grants on a wide range of other programs like pro-marriage advertising campaigns and abstinence-only sex education (in 2020, a state auditor in Mississippi found that the state misspent millions of federal welfare dollars, including on speeches that were never delivered by the former quarterback Brett Favre). Mr. Parolin’s research has shown that states with larger Black population shares tend to spend the least on cash assistance, widening the poverty gap in America between Black and white children. The Times analysis similarly found that states likely to ban abortion devote a smaller share of welfare funds to basic assistance. States with less generous safety-net programs also frequently use complex rules and paperwork to further limit access to benefits, said Sarah Bruch, a professor of social policy and sociology at the University of Delaware. States could help women and families, she said, not just by investing more in the safety net, but also by making it easier to find and use. Angela Rachidi, a senior fellow studying poverty and safety-net programs at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute, said the government has some role to play, but not alone: “We have a broader responsibility as a society — employers, churches, community organizations — to ensure moms feel they can bring those kids into the world.” Evidence so far suggests that those organizations will struggle to meet the growing need. After the Supreme Court decision, other governors banning abortion trumpeted their commitment to pregnant women and children. “Being pro-life entails more than being ‘pro-birth,’” wrote J. Kevin Stitt, the governor of Oklahoma, in an executive order signed July 11. Oklahoma ranks among the bottom 10 states on measures of child poverty, infant mortality and the share of women of reproductive age without health insurance. In Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott said in a statement that the state has “prioritized supporting women’s health care and expectant mothers in need.” He pointed to Texas’ decision to offer mothers six months of postpartum Medicaid coverage. But the state declined the full year of coverage offered by the federal government. Texas has also used techniques to purge children from Medicaid coverage for paperwork lapses. It has a higher rate of uninsured children and women of reproductive age than any other state. In its legislation restricting abortion, Texas set aside $100 million over two years for a program that connects women with counseling, education and supplies, called Alternatives to Abortion. That funding pales in comparison with another benefit, which Texas has declined — the estimated $6 billion in federal funds each year that it’s losing by choosing not to expand Medicaid. |
BLEUSTATESAREBETTER.com
|
Quote:
if there’s one thing i hate, it’s babies after they’re born. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
many people would rather the state take less of their money, because then they have more money to get for themselves, whatever they need. i’m not saying there aren’t cultural challenges in the deep south, as there are cultural challenges in the big cities. Here’s what i’m saying. I could move to FL tomorrow. If i did so, I’d save more than 15k a year in state income taxes. that’s not counting many other savings, gas taxes, municipal car tax, etc. In addition, the public universities in FL are about $12k a year cheaper than UCONN. I’d save an absolute fortune. And there are nice, quiet suburbs where i could enjoy a similar quality of life Many many people are realizing what i realized. The only reason i don’t go is that my parents live a mile away and i like being near them in their old age. Not many people feel that obligation, which is why so many are moving to places where life is a lot easier $15k more in my pocket every single year, PLUS save a fortune on college? That ain’t peanuts, Paul. Similar savings in NH and the suburbs of Charlotte and Nashville. and i can’t think of a single thing i get for that premium i pay here in CT, that i wouldn’t get in a nice suburb of NH, NC, SC, TN, or FL. i pay a fortune more to live here, and i honestly don’t know if a single thing i get that i wouldn’t get in any of those places. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Not sure where you got your 15K figure from but it appears you still might be better off in CT.
State Mean Household Income New Jersey $114,691 Connecticut $113,031 Massachusetts $111,498 Maryland $111,417 California $106,916 Hawaii $103,780 New York $101,945 Virginia $101,746 New Hampshire $99,165 Washington $98,983 Alaska $98,606 Colorado $96,970 Minnesota $93,925 Illinois $92,395 Utah $91,292 Delaware $90,092 Rhode Island $89,093 Texas $87,260 North Dakota $85,476 Pennsylvania $84,849 Oregon $84,258 Georgia $82,406 Wyoming $81,880 Nevada $81,496 Vermont $81,233 Arizona $80,779 Wisconsin $80,674 Florida $80,286 Nebraska $80,208 Kansas $80,009 Iowa $78,411 Michigan $78,400 Ohio $76,958 North Carolina $76,940 South Dakota $76,240 Maine $76,227 Missouri $76,060 Indiana $75,025 Tennessee $74,750 Montana $74,190 Idaho $73,810 South Carolina $73,520 Oklahoma $72,695 Louisiana $71,001 Kentucky $70,144 Alabama $69,842 New Mexico $69,077 Arkansas $66,557 West Virginia $63,680 Mississippi $62,835 |
Quote:
can you tell me what i’m getting for the hundreds of thousands of dollars extra i give to the state if CT? i asked you that before, you said “services.”. i asked you to elaborate, and i didn’t see you respond. we do have that busway that nobody rides. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
higher salary. Look at any salary type stat (aver, median). Much higher in CT.
What you are not getting in Ct is less $ spent on babies and their moms. You're an outlier. |
If it was as simple as red v blue then West Virginia, Louisiana and Mississippi wouldn’t be losing population
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
can now move to a cheaper state and keon their salary. it’s demonstrably false to say i’m an outlier. ive worked at aetna, travelers, and the hartford, ive never heard of an existing employee being forced to take a pay cut when they move to another state. job postings for new hires will often have higher salaries in blue states. but those salaries are usually then portable You’re just wrong and making stuff up. Yup, that extra $$ spent on moms and babies has eliminated all the problems in Bridgeport and hartford. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
I also showed you the average salary (the article had median salary which is a better stat) is far higher in Ct than many of the red states - higher than the 15K you said you would save by moving. You're an outlier bc most people aren't in a position where they can have their wives stay home to care for their kids bc of their salary (while making some sacrifices). Same as me where my wife and I could pay our mortgage off in 20 years and never have to borrow $ for cars. Most people can't do that these days. I recognize that, I'm not so sure you do. |
Quote:
Then YOU are the outlier. Even if that's true, if your salary stayed the same but future raises were lower, what's the effect of smaller future raises compared to no income tax and much cheaper college education for your kids? "How am I making things up when I showed you stats that shows the states that are trying/banning abortion all seem to spend far less $ on babies and the moms?" You showed that results are different FOR PEOPLE CURRENTLY LIVING THERE. That doesn't mean if I moved to TN, I'm going to eat fried twinkies all day and take meth and stop caring about my kids' education. You're also assuming that the state is the reason for the difference in results. That's a big, big assumption. Paul, if I wanted the state to take care of me, you're right, I'm better off in CT than I am in FL or TN. But if I want to work hard and be left alone, I'm way better off elsewhere. This is why CT is losing people like me. CT is great if you're wealthy, and better than the south if you want to live off the state. For people between those two extremes, financially you're WAY better off in a well run red state. Americans are seeing that, and acting on it. When you make a city or state as attractive as possible for people who don't want to take care of themselves, and as difficult as possible for people who want to be left alone, this is what you get. You admitted that the only "service" I get in CT that I wouldn't get elsewhere, is better welfare. Well, that's not a reason for me to stay and fork over hundreds of thousands of dollars to the state that I'd get to keep if I moved. And others see the same thing, and are fleeing. |
Quote:
|
CEO of Goldman Sachs said basically same thing as my boss. He said if you're not coming in to NYC don't expect NYC salaries.
|
Quote:
People wouldn’t be moving to these states if their salaries got slashed. there’s the proof paul. people are moving because they expect their lives will improve. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
oh i get why guy don’t want to discuss states. If i were a liberal, it’s the last thing I’d want to discuss. but looking at states tells a story. if the people you say are neglected by their state are really neglected, why don’t they move? some people make unhealthy or unproductive choices, some people make better choices, it has very little to do with what the state does. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
You're assuming that salary is due to the state. I can destroy that, by saying, correctly, that huge numbers of people move from CT to cheaper states and keep their same salaries. The CT state government doesn't set median salary in the state. "And If I was a cons. the last thing I would want to discuss is any stats showing how bad the conser. states are." Hollis and Brookline (in NH) are bad? Franklin TN is bad? The suburbs of Charlotte (like Fort Mill, SC) are bad? WDMSO posted a link that said FL had the hottest real estate price growth in the nation. That cannot happen in a bad state. Rich people from CT who move to FL, don't turn into swamp hillbillies. The state government doesn't influence that. People decide that for themselves. "Look at the median salaries." My salary would stay the same. Other people's salary is their concern. "Taxes are only one aspect." True. Red states also offer cheaper college, utilities, food, gas, etc. And even if you live in a place with crappy schools (which you don't have to), you can use your tax savings to go to catholic school. I posted a study from US News and World Report. The public high schools in Franklin TN and Hollis NH were ranked way higher than the public high school in Southington CT where I live. Way, way higher. What I can get in some red states - Same exact salary, lower taxes, better schools. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:04 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com