New Page 1
On Facebook | Twitter: @blairsville_com | Online Forums | About The Site | Contact Us | What's New! | Keyword:  
We Support Our Troops
Home   Happenings   Drop By...   Stay Awhile...   About Blairsville

Username:
Password:
 
Save Password
Please review our Usage Policies.

No members are currently in the forums and 11 visitors.
BoeBro Ventures, Inc. and Blairsville.com does not provide legal advice or services. The information here is provided by Blairsville.com members and is not verified for truthfulness or accuracy. You should consult a legal professional regarding any legal issues.
 All Forums
 Local Politics and related issues
 Alcohol by the drink
 New Topic  Topic Locked
Page: 
of 29
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
coosa creek

USA
39313 Posts

Posted - 06/22/2006 :  4:16:06 PM  Show Profile
There was a ballot put in the paper a few years back, asking if people wanted liquor. I know for a fact that the ballots were passed out at a church and its' members were told how to vote. I was told this by a member of that church who worked for us at the time. (Unless he was lying to us, which I have no reason to believe he was)

Go to Top of Page

why

USA
2072 Posts

Posted - 06/22/2006 :  4:41:49 PM  Show Profile
I know this is partly off subject and I'm sorry.

Has anyones church (preacher) just came out and said if you don't vote no you are going to hell???? The pastor getting up and preaching against it is not telling you how to vote, no one can tell you how to vote because they arn't in the voting booth with you. You have to vote your own conscience or conviction. If the preacher preachs against adultry, it's still my option to go ahead and commit it. I'm not going to get into the arguement as to wheither I'm talking apples and oranges or what is or is not a sin in the bible. I asked a preacher once what was worse, sitting in the church and thinking and wanting to be hunting or actually skipping church and going hunting. His answer was for him it was worse to skip church. I say they are very much the same. My presence or absence in the building called a church has very much less to do with my salvation than my beliefs and acceptance of forgivness.

It could be worse, you could be of a religion that didn't allow electricity or clean shaven men or women without bonnets or vails. To them these things are wrong, to others it's alcohol, to some it's pork, to some it's beef, I remember one couple (a preacher and wife) who changed from Baptist to Methodist because they liked to dance.

What if we were voting to make the age of consent 12 and the churchs had signs out against that, would you be against those signs. If we were voting for or aginst hunting on sunday and my church was against it I would have to vote for it. Some times thats all the opertunity I have for certain areas.

Either you want alcohol by the drink or you don't, don't blame the churchs for their beliefs and if the preacher gets up and preaches on the dangers of john barley corn, remember he's not trying to make you miserable because you can't drink with your supper, he's trying to preach his beliefs.

All this may or may not make any sence but it is just what came out when I started typing.


whyGo to Top of Page

ShadowMan

USA
4158 Posts

Posted - 06/22/2006 :  5:41:04 PM  Show Profile  Visit ShadowMan's Homepage
Why, I really appreciate the clarity you bring to your arguments. It's a rare gift you have.

Shadow

This is my kirttimukhaGo to Top of Page

fawn

USA
2223 Posts

Posted - 06/22/2006 :  6:25:24 PM  Show Profile  Visit fawn's Homepage
Makes sense to me. I believe that no matter what some people tell other people to do, 99% of the voters will follow their own conscience when they vote. That's what makes this country great. Your vote is by secret ballot.

Go to Top of Page

Wildflower

USA
4528 Posts

Posted - 06/22/2006 :  8:00:42 PM  Show Profile
Can a person belong to both a church AND a political movement???

If people inside a church feel so strongly about an issue that they want to influence votes, why not join a political action group OUTSIDE the church?

That way, church is church, and politics are politics.

I think churches are there to address private behavior and ethics and should not tell people how to vote from the pulpit.

If there was a vote to lower the age of consent to 12, the churches would not need to lift a finger, because there would be so many people politically organizing OUTSIDE the churches to stop it.

WildflowerGo to Top of Page

mad4martinis

USA
13730 Posts

Posted - 06/23/2006 :  08:15:39 AM  Show Profile
I can tell you that a couple we know were attending the "big" church in town and stopped attending when they had gone to the service & all that was being "taught" was about the alcohol vote. "please grab a sign on your way out". They were horrified and haven't been back since.

I liked the ad in the paper that was about other things in this world that kill. Hopefully, people will get the message.


**There is no truth except the truth that exists within you. Everything else is what someone is telling you**Go to Top of Page

why

USA
2072 Posts

Posted - 06/23/2006 :  08:58:20 AM  Show Profile
In earlier times the church was the center of most activities in the country. When a meeting was needed it was held at the church, (didn't you watch Little House on the Prarie or Thunder Road), seriously in the mountains the church was the meeting place for the community. If something threatened the livelyhood, the health or the way of life it was discussed in the church. This may have been in a special meeting not a part of the service but the church was the center.

WF, as I said above I do not believe this is a political issue, it is an emotional issue, a moral issue and/or a personal gain issue.
The only politics involved in this issue are those who stand to profit. Some have said that you should not vote from your emotions, does this hold true on the issue of imminent domain (I actually spelled that right the first time, the other one is spelled eminent, aint that weard), should we use logic and say for the good those who want the added revenue of a development or mall we should take the little old 98 year old lady's farm that has been in her family for 200 years???? Or should we use our emotions and morals and leave the lady to live out her years knowing that her greedy reletives will probably sell as soon as she passes anyway.

As for joining a political action group, most of the mountain people arn't joiners, a political action group would be a joke to most of us. Sounds like something that they would have in California.

As for the ad in the paper, the "FOR IT" people now have their sign. You don't even have to go by your "Church" to pick it up.
Although I agree with a lot that was said in the ad, specally about guns, (see I have my own privite causes) I don't agree with the overall stand, BUT, I DO NOT have a problem with someone placing the ad. I am supprised that those who will profit from this have not staged a more agressive fight in the public.

Churchs have always preached against the "evils of alcohol" from the early churchs, to the churchs of the old west, to the churchs of the thirtys, to the present day churchs. If drugs are ever legalized they will preach against them then as they do now. To those who are for sales they can't see this as a moral issue, to those against they see it almost only as a moral issue. To the church any moral issue is fair game.

whyGo to Top of Page

Wildflower

USA
4528 Posts

Posted - 06/23/2006 :  10:54:37 AM  Show Profile
Why,

Well, SOME churches have preached against alcohol for a long time, but by no mean have ALL churches historically done this.

It comes down to a difference in denominations and their differing interpretations of the bible.

You asked if any of us has ever witnessed an alcoholic with "the shakes". Actually I've only witnessed one with that problem.

Does that mean I have not known people who were alcoholics?

NO! I've known plenty of people who were alcoholics. They all followed the same pattern - they went to work and did their jobs with no hint of their problem.

So how did I know they were alcoholics?

When work was over, THEY DRANK A TON EVERY SINGLE NIGHT OF THEIR LIVES WITHOUT FAIL. These people would sooner miss a trip to the grocery store for actual food, than allow their supply of alcohol to lapse. They end most of their nights in front of the TV completely wasted.

These people always have alcohol in their home, even when their refrigerator is bare because they need to go grocery shopping.

And guess what? There is NOTHING you can do about these people.

Alcohol is LEGAL in this country and they will drive as far as need be to get it. Their biggest concern is having a constant supply available in their home.

So, I ask you, how is allowing restaurants to serve wine by the glass going to impact these people?

If an actual alcoholic goes out to eat, they are brownbagging right along with those who don't have an alcohol problem. But a restaurant can't STOP them from continuing to drink once they show signs of intoxication.

If you vote "YES", they can.

At any rate, most of the time, these people just drink AT HOME where they don't come under public scrutiny. The only time the public takes notice of them, is when they decide to get in their cars and drive drunk.

It's delusional to think that you are protecting these people by voting "No". They will do whatever it takes to keep a constant supply of alcohol around their homes.

That's what I know about alcoholics.

So, no, it doesn't just come down to money. It comes down to common sense.

Knowing what I do about how an alcoholic operates, I just don't see any actual benefits to the vote "No" position.

In fact, voting "Yes" gives the restaurant a fighting chance to stop a person from getting intoxicated.

WildflowerGo to Top of Page

daughterofconfederate

USA
29728 Posts

Posted - 06/23/2006 :  11:17:12 AM  Show Profile
quote:

In earlier times the church was the center of most activities in the country. When a meeting was needed it was held at the church, (didn't you watch Little House on the Prarie or Thunder Road), seriously in the mountains the church was the meeting place for the community. If something threatened the livelyhood, the health or the way of life it was discussed in the church. This may have been in a special meeting not a part of the service but the church was the center.

WF, as I said above I do not believe this is a political issue, it is an emotional issue, a moral issue and/or a personal gain issue.
The only politics involved in this issue are those who stand to profit. Some have said that you should not vote from your emotions, does this hold true on the issue of imminent domain (I actually spelled that right the first time, the other one is spelled eminent, aint that weard), should we use logic and say for the good those who want the added revenue of a development or mall we should take the little old 98 year old lady's farm that has been in her family for 200 years???? Or should we use our emotions and morals and leave the lady to live out her years knowing that her greedy reletives will probably sell as soon as she passes anyway.

As for joining a political action group, most of the mountain people arn't joiners, a political action group would be a joke to most of us. Sounds like something that they would have in California.

As for the ad in the paper, the "FOR IT" people now have their sign. You don't even have to go by your "Church" to pick it up.
Although I agree with a lot that was said in the ad, specally about guns, (see I have my own privite causes) I don't agree with the overall stand, BUT, I DO NOT have a problem with someone placing the ad. I am supprised that those who will profit from this have not staged a more agressive fight in the public.

Churchs have always preached against the "evils of alcohol" from the early churchs, to the churchs of the old west, to the churchs of the thirtys, to the present day churchs. If drugs are ever legalized they will preach against them then as they do now. To those who are for sales they can't see this as a moral issue, to those against they see it almost only as a moral issue. To the church any moral issue is fair game.

why


Why, UBB agrees on the churches reasoning. He dont care if it comes or not personally and said if it comes good for some reasons, if it dont, good too.

He made mention of all the facts you posted as a matter of fact ^^^ regards to your post I quoted.. he also said that the church owns lotsa land through out the world and not because they just buy it to have gain but they work it and use it for needy people and more.

He also said this famous quote, WHATEVER ANYONE SAYS AGAINST THE CHURCH OR AGAINST ANY PERSON.. IF THEY CAN LIVE WITH IT..

The signs do not in fact just stand at church buildings was another fact he pointed out. They are at businesses around the area and at peoples homes... not all are church goers either.. and it seems that someone has mentioned on here that SOME churches are distrubuting these signs but it wasnt mentioned that business are as well and so are some political figures.. seems stones are cast about here at churches only cause one person stands firm in their CHRISTIAN love with God.. and seems that just because that one church member recognized that the church had the signs as well.. that has been attacked because its here but why isnt the stones cast on the non church goers and the businesses themselves is what hunny asked me and I couldnt tell other than the only reasoning I can see from sitting here and thats because some just dont wanna persue those business because they arent here on the forums to bicker back.. some may feel more stronger about alcohol and have a different personal relationship.. but The Church is Gods house and to make a mockery or debate on what the true intentions of Gods house is just because the goers choose to walk against the political eye or the fact that some dont need alcohol while others find several different uses for it.. Hunny made alota sence to me and while I still choose to vote for the by the drink ... I see more now than ever why one would choose not to vote for it.

I dont see why it should shake the ground and cause such an uproar for anyone to publisize that they are against it, in relation to this. If those signs sway anyone, it just means that those it may sway wasnt all for it to begin with. Just like ANYTHING else coming here..

I agree with hunny although he will more than likely not vote at all on this because he said he just didnt care and it was not that major of an impact wether it was here.


We make a living by what we get, we make a life by what we give.
Sir Winston Churchill


Go to Top of Page

nativelady

USA
11126 Posts

Posted - 06/23/2006 :  1:01:32 PM  Show Profile  Visit nativelady's Homepage
Doc, I liked what you put! UBB and Hubby sound the same on this. We both seen pro's and con's of the issue. We talked about it only ONE time, we neither one drink recreationally anymore or socially anymore so in reality its nothing to us whether it passes or not. It's our Personal Beliefs just as you said Doc. Doc, Topaz, and Why and I are pretty much from the same grounds here. We've all lived here all our lives, we know who makes the moonshine. Heck, I'll be honest and tell you my Granny on my Dad's side bootlegged many years ago to raise her kids, she was a church going woman with 7 kids and the sad thing was, Her husband was an alcoholic so she left him but then dispensed the venom to the public to feed her kids. Do I say she was wrong to do this? No, if my kids were starving and needed food, I'd probably sold it myself, and all the other illegals in between just to feed my kids. But this is not the issue at hand now, we have jobs here. There is welfare for the mothers of children whose husbands take off and leave them hanging.

Why, I have witnessed what you have seen. No sir, not a pretty sight. Not at all. I worked with women who had the shakes at the end of the day because that "drink" was calling ....Young women and older women. I have seen homes just in my area be so deprived because the alcohol was a neccisity and the children's clothing and food wasn't. The mother too afraid to speak out because he abused her because of the drug flowing through his veins and be hospitalized for it only to return to the mechanic he is to repeat the situation again. This is actually not what I am speaking of in this alcohol dispute of Voting No, and I am sure Why, isn't either. It's AGAIN a personal issue just the same as all of you see it a Personal Issue to have it here. There are reasons behind every PERSONAL issue we state. Some like to "throw gas" on the fire to make it more "heated" while others state their beliefs and others dont want it so they can brown bag freely. Either way, to each is own.

Now on to the churches that ALL THESE WHO HAVEN"T ATTENDED, the church is NOT telling people HOW to vote. First Baptist nor First Methodist is NOT telling ANYONE HOW TO vote! I find that almost comical because first of all, I know many members from each. It's being taught and talked about in the pulpits of WHAT alcohol CAN do and WHAT it can LEAD to and then, its also being used with scripture. Because what it boils down to, some can hold their own with alcohol with one drink, this is true. But how many of you have seen people who drink daily drink ONLY ONE? I haven't. And Yep, I've been around it and involved with people who do it. It's not saying that ONE drink is going to hurt anyone, it's basically saying that there are people out there who cannot go and drink one and leave the restaurant. Probably a few. Zero Tolerance is here now in the law. Drinking ANY and being behind the wheel will land you with a DUI. I understand the fact that they (the restaurants) wont serve it if they are getting intoxicated, well, pardon me for being ignorant, but how do they know when they are getting intoxicated. I carried on a conversation with a man just this past weekend, who blew a LETHAL .34......he was hospitalized for it. He was walking DRIVING and could talk just like I am right now. How will they KNOW? They won't. And basically, they will go out the doors and drive anyway. Nothing will be inforced except maybe hiring a feller who "patrols" them. LOL! Yeah right......

"Christianity is not a religion; it is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ."Go to Top of Page

why

USA
2072 Posts

Posted - 06/23/2006 :  1:19:39 PM  Show Profile
WF the alcoholic is only a part of the problem, no you are not going to keep them from drinking. This vote will be only a start, we will be voting again on package or by the bottle sales soon, or maybe the powers to be can find a way around the next vote, after all they may think, the people voted alcohol the first time I'm sure the would go along with package sales so ther is no reason for a vote.

"So, no, it doesn't just come down to money. It comes down to common sense." Sorry my common sence says it does come down to money, why go to the trouble of serving alcohol if it's not for money. How many restruarnts serve food for a reason other than profit.

Those people who were alcoholics and worked hard each day anyway are called functioning alcoholics, some are called weekend alcoholics. Just because their alcoholism doesn't keep them from working doesn't make it any less a problem for the family or anyone else who has to be involved with them when they are drinking. Working will not keep you from ruining your liver or other health problems. I have seen the credit card problems of some of those people who go out to eat and run up a $50 bar tab several nights a week and have to resort to cutting back on other things to pay their credit card bills.

Got to go to work now, talk more later

whyGo to Top of Page

Wildflower

USA
4528 Posts

Posted - 06/23/2006 :  2:21:26 PM  Show Profile
I understand the fact that they (the restaurants) wont serve it if they are getting intoxicated, well, pardon me for being ignorant, but how do they know when they are getting intoxicated? . . . How will they KNOW? They won't.


It's a question of degree isn't it?

Right now, the restaurant has zero authority to do anything.

Voting "yes" at least gives them something. At least they could stop them from total excess.

Although, as has been stated, most people don't go to restaurants to "get drunk" because it's just not cost effective.

I have been a big restaurant-goer all my life and have NEVER witnessed it.

A bar is another story.


WildflowerGo to Top of Page

Wildflower

USA
4528 Posts

Posted - 06/23/2006 :  2:28:56 PM  Show Profile
And lets not forget . . .

Vote "Yes" and the restaurants would be LIABLE.

Right now, they are NOT LIABLE.

This fact causes my failure to understand the reasoning behind the "No" vote. It seems counterproductive to the goal of keeping drunk drivers off the road.

WildflowerGo to Top of Page

daughterofconfederate

USA
29728 Posts

Posted - 06/23/2006 :  2:39:08 PM  Show Profile
Ok, now not trying to be.. whatever you perfer to call this but LIABLE ... sounds to me like an opening introductory for a bunch of law suit happy folks but I will say that I dont care what authority another has on one person, there are law breakers and there are PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY! Id hate to know that a restr. would be LIABLE for a persons actions of their own mind.. and that restr. having to pay the price for what the actions of the persons mind decides to sip or not sip or guzzle.. and what about the amount they consume BEFORE they get to the restr.? Ok now I am making sence to myself only probably but now I worry for the restrs. being sued over someone elses stupidity in false judgement! EIK!


We make a living by what we get, we make a life by what we give.
Sir Winston Churchill


Go to Top of Page

mad4martinis

USA
13730 Posts

Posted - 06/23/2006 :  2:44:12 PM  Show Profile
Doc, it seldom happens but it's been like that for years, all over.
Same as someone leaving your house drunk & they get into an accident or hurt someone, or worse kill someone. You're liable. Grab the keys and take them home, or hopefully they came with a D.D.
That's why some bars will give the D.D. free cokes for the evening.


**There is no truth except the truth that exists within you. Everything else is what someone is telling you**Go to Top of Page

daughterofconfederate

USA
29728 Posts

Posted - 06/23/2006 :  2:47:01 PM  Show Profile
Sad isnt it? See one of them thangs Ill never understand. sigh!

DD.. Now I use to always be a DD and I also wrecked while DDing.. because I had two that were highly intoxicated in the front of the vehicle trying to guide me with their arms and hands on where the road was... yep! Hard to see them ditches when ya have floppy arms and hands in your face!lol but not lol! Luckily no one was hurt, and sadly, I was 15 yrs old without license at that time but was the sober one of the bunch!


We make a living by what we get, we make a life by what we give.
Sir Winston Churchill


Go to Top of Page

Wildflower

USA
4528 Posts

Posted - 06/23/2006 :  2:49:18 PM  Show Profile
DoC,

Maddy is right.

You may be alarmed at what "liable" implies, but that has been the law everywhere alcohol is served.

I can't help but think that the main reason this issue is so objectionable for so many natives, is because they've never lived anywhere where restaurants serving drinks is the norm.

It's just not that big a change.

WildflowerGo to Top of Page

Wildflower

USA
4528 Posts

Posted - 06/23/2006 :  3:00:09 PM  Show Profile
Why,

It comes down to a lot of things - not just one. It comes down to common sense, profits, and improved safety.

As far as concern about alcoholics, I'd rather put the money into tough fines/prison AND/OR AA counseling and support.

Worrying about a restaurant serving wine, or a package store being closer or further away, is small potatoes in the battle of alcoholism. Those things never stopped anyone from getting alcohol.

In fact, if you were to make all of Georgia and the surrounding states alcohol-free, they would still get their hands on it by hook or by crook.

Put the money into AA and tough fines.

WildflowerGo to Top of Page

daughterofconfederate

USA
29728 Posts

Posted - 06/23/2006 :  3:00:58 PM  Show Profile
You are probably right about many of the people and then some, it wouldnt matter cause they have dealt with the alcohol in bad ways too.

I have lived in other parts and worked at a bar and grill before so I am not immune I guess..

That one I worked at, I racked up in tips and made more in one night than most wait staff makes in a week here.. so that can be called greed but it also paid my bills at the time to live and survive.

The bad part of that was no limits to drinks other than what the Bar tender felt was enough which usually meant authority and ATF were called.. most of the times.. the ones who came to the bar tho would sit and drink and Id watch them leave and guess what, drive outta the parking lot. I SAY MOST.. MEANING PROBABLY 75% of the bar attendees. Now this is MY experience with BARS not restrs. The restr. part of it, people would order a drink with their meal and that would be that.. They werent there to get to drunk, they would sip it along the meal time frame and thats all it would amount to. I saw nothing wrong with that part of it.. at all. It was the ones who came in drunk and or just came in to get drunk or drunker.. and let me tell ya, those drunks ya deal with on a wait staff basis are either crying (thats ok and I felt their pain even sober) or perverts (I HATED THOSE MOST) or people who wanted to fight and tear the place down ( If they had seen themselves on candid camera, theyd not gotten so stupid) and then there was the folks who got drunk and got happy go lucky who hollard FREE BIRD.. them types were ok as long as they didnt try to pull ya into the macerana however ya spell that while you had a serving tray on your palm!

So it really does take all kinds and Ive seen people who hadnt had a drink one and act all them ways.. alcohol does intensify things a bit tho.


We make a living by what we get, we make a life by what we give.
Sir Winston Churchill


Edited by - daughterofconfederate on 06/23/2006 3:03:00 PMGo to Top of Page

why

USA
2072 Posts

Posted - 06/23/2006 :  4:30:52 PM  Show Profile
I'm not saying that not passing this will stop an alcoholic from drinking, if someone wants to drink there is nothing we can do to stop them. Law enforcement can do little more than they are doing now but we will have more on the streets. If I were going to drink I would go to where ever and get it and take it home and drink. But some people don't think as I do, they will drink and then go home or somewhere else.

I have to report that I HAVE seen people in restaurants drink too much. This is not the usual case but it happens. If I'm not mistaken a restaurant that allows brown bagging is liable to a certain extent in that they let the alcohol be consumed on their premise.

I've lived and worked all over, I've been in the dives of seaports and Florida border towns, the backwoods bars of Alabama, the Fine restaurats of DC, Atlanta, Memphis, Nashville and other high dollar places. Any place with a stand up bar is a bar wheither it's one of the O'Charlies types, like Applebees or Outback types, like Longhorns or such. Most motels-hotels in the larger cities have lounges that serve food but their main income comes from alcohol if they were checked close.

Again, I could care less if the county ever makes a dollar on alcohol sales, Union County is not struggling to servive, we are making enough money now to do anything we need. We may not be fulfilling the wants of the money grabers and the we had it back home types but we have everything we need here. No your taxes will not go down if this passes, this will just add to what the money men can spend.

I'll be glad when this is over which ever way it goes, I just hope two or three years down the road we are not looking at problems that
arise from it's passage.

By the way, learned sence is what keeps you from hitting your finger the second time with a hammer, common sence tells you not to hit it the first time.

why

Edited by - why on 06/23/2006 4:32:54 PM

Edited by - why on 06/23/2006 4:36:51 PMGo to Top of Page

Wildflower

USA
4528 Posts

Posted - 06/23/2006 :  8:03:21 PM  Show Profile
Well, the vote isn't for stand-alone bars. I could understand if folks in Union County wanted to draw the line there and keep it in the full-service restaurants alone.

However, Towns County has FIVE places where you could choose to go and just drink.

But we don't have more drunks on the road than Union. What do you make of that?

WildflowerGo to Top of Page

Wildflower

USA
4528 Posts

Posted - 06/23/2006 :  8:09:48 PM  Show Profile
That's what I want someone to tell me . . .

If it's going to be so bad for Union, where is the bad effect in Towns?

What? Do you think we are living in hell over here?

WildflowerGo to Top of Page

Wu


1452 Posts

Posted - 06/24/2006 :  12:25:37 AM  Show Profile
I believe as people progress and become more informed, the dis-information some people push, has less and less effect.

wu

Go to Top of Page

daughterofconfederate

USA
29728 Posts

Posted - 06/24/2006 :  04:31:05 AM  Show Profile
Now Wu, thats very informative and makes perfect sence!


We make a living by what we get, we make a life by what we give.
Sir Winston Churchill


Go to Top of Page

MiddleAgeCrazy

USA
1435 Posts

Posted - 06/24/2006 :  09:40:31 AM  Show Profile
Win, Lose or draw in the county, I'm almost sure it will win in the city. Then everyone will try to be anexed into the city.
Mark my words.

Go to Top of Page

Topic is 29 Pages Long:
  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10
 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
 
 New Topic  Topic Locked
Jump To:

Blairsville, Georgia - home in the North GA Mountains

2002-2007 BoeBro Ventures, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000

2002-2009 BoeBro Ventures, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Usage Policy