When I was a kid, I used to spend every Summer at the Jersey shore, on Long Beach Island. We lived pretty close to the Bishop's house. He liked us and bought us ice cream all the time, but he did not care much for my Dad. You see, my father used to take Duke, our German Shepherd, for long walks on the beach every morning. That very well-trained dog would only shit on the Bishop's property. The Most Reverend Joseph McShea, aghast at this disgusting behavior, confronted my father.
"Ahhh, go tend your flock!" my father retorted.
That's just one of many fond memories I have of that time. Another was going to the store to buy punks, or cattails. Too young to smoke, we were allowed to light those and walk around with them to keep mosquitoes and sand flies away. It made no difference to us that they were completely useless because we looked like smokers.
While I bought punks for a penny, another group of bigger kids bought bottles of booze. I became one of them. I learned it was a lot easier to get booze in Jersey than here in Pa.
And to me, that is part of Pennsylvania's charm. Jersey might have the ocean and beach houses with Bishops, but Pennsylvania is a place that made it hard for a kid to get drunk. It is a state that seemed to care more about its residents. It also just happens to be the state with the lowest rate of death by alcohol consumption, although it's true than drunk driving and underage drinking prosecutions are near the national average.
Because I think Pennsylvania has a more responsible approach to alcohol sales than other states, I oppose privatization of wine and liquor sales.
Although that measure has passed the House, its fate in the state senate is far less certain.
LV Labor Council President Gregg Potter, concerned about the loss of union jobs, is sending emails urging people to "Call Senator Boscola!!! and get ten of your friends to call!!" While I do not share his advocacy for public sector unions, especially when they have poster boys like two of his Vice Presidents, Jim Gregory and James Schlener, I believe his arguments on this issue make sense.
Here are his points:
So now, even O'Hare drinks the public union Kool-Aid.
ReplyDeleteNo, I don't, but I do think privatization of liquor sales is a bad idea.
ReplyDelete1 term Corbett need find himself another job as this fails and so does he... It's not broke!
ReplyDeleteAnother union shlep getting 25 an hour and a ridiculous pension for making change. Privatize the post office and drop the toll booth lackeys. While your at it, kill off the prevailing wage bull crap too. You are only worth the value you bring to the table. Stop the taxpayer supported welfare jobs.
ReplyDeleteOur benevolent state government "allows" private businesses to: sell liquor by the drink; beer by the case or by the glass; dangerous narcotic substances; and, firearms and ammunition. Oh, the horror! Why not remove all these products from the awful hands of the private sector and form public monopolies to sell them all? In fact, why trust the private sector to sell anything? That way, everyone can work for the government. Then, all those cushy government pensions would have to be paid for by...government employees! Wait, that's a great plan. Not.
ReplyDeleteI understand your point. We do impose restrictions on the sale of many substances. Most drugs can only be purchased with a prescription. Some may not be purchased at all. Of these drugs, the most dangerous one is the one that is easiest to get - alcohol. It is the biggest killer in this country. It is the cause of about 70% of our jail sentences.
ReplyDeleteWhat sets Pa. apart from other states is its willingness to regulate the sale of alcohol. I believe there is a rational basis for this regulation. Privatized, I have no confidence that a neighborhood liquor store will be as interested as the state in preventing underage sales or selling to drunks.
My opposition to privatization really has nothing to do with unions. I believe this sale needs to be regulated, just as the sale of most other drugs need to be regulated.
Let me add that our government does NOT allow the sale of ALL firearms, ammunition or drugs. There is a legitimate public interest in preventing the sale of many drugs, firearms or ammo. For example, I won't see you driving a tank to work.
ReplyDeleteI think restrictions on alcohol sales are more reasoned and justified than substances like weed, which are harmless in comparison to booze.
Stop trying to legislate morality. Alcohol purchase and consumption are legal activities and any system established to regulate them should be as least intrusive as possible. There are more responsible consumers than not, and the current system is just inefficient -- from the mandated employment of a unionized labor force that likely is paid more than necessary for the job done, to the fact that while the number of alcohol-related deaths is low in PA, the number of prosecutions for alcohol-related crimes is not (advocacy groups are just playing with statistics with this one).
ReplyDeleteIn any case, if we were thinking about the best way to set up a state government today, I think establishing a state-run liquor control board would likely be among the last concerns. Pennsylvania can more than make up the "loss" of revenue by fixing their antiquated flat tax system, a system far older than Governor Pinchot's decision to establish the LCB in the aftermath of the ratification of the 21st Amendment.
Should we have a Firearms Control Board? How about a Cigarettes Control Board? Why is alcohol special? It's far more tame than it was during the moonshine era, and the drinks of choice for most Pennsylvanians basically amounts to beer-flavored water.
I also think it's important that we clarify the alternatives to pure privatization, which I think will be ineffective as well. A modernization plan that standardizes access to liquor licenses for private dealerships without the current red tape from the LCB would be a good step at expanding access and consumer choice for this legal service.
The AEA(Allentown Education Association/teacher's union) came out publicly against the governor's plan even those it would have provided a badly needed revenue infusion for the district.
ReplyDeleteIt was all about preserving public employee union jobs. That was their priority.
Scott Armstrong
Dry drunks who become zealots are one of the worst aspects of American life. You couldn't handle your iquor and you join the Ladies Temperance union to treat adults as children to salve your own guilt. Overpaid unionized cashiers collecting pensions are not making society safer. They have no independent oversight and are never investigated. The choreography that adults must master to buy a six pack at Wegmans is ridiculous. Other states treat adults as adults. PA does not because of guilty zealots and unsustainable unions.
ReplyDeleteCongrats on your sobriety and best of luck each day. Now leave me the fuck alone.
Congrats on your sobriety and best of luck each day. Now leave me the fuck alone.
ReplyDelete7:07 AM
Thank You!
I can't put my comments in a bright yellow background but I can address them one by one.
ReplyDelete!. The transition costs include what it will cost to run the PLCB for that period of time. What isn't mentioned is that during the phase out stores will still be bringing in some cash flow just as they do now to pay for the operating costs. I could say PA will save $1.6B every year because we won't be paying for the PLCB operating costs and be just as truthful and just as disingenuous.
2. If you look beyond that one line in the CDC report you will see that for every other alcohol related statistic listed by the CDC PA does mediocre at best. One number does not give a whole picture but 30 numbers do.
3. Groups such as the majority of the citizens want privatization and the will of the people trumps everything else.
4. There aren't 5,000 people who work for the PLCB and of those that do a third are part time. The state lists these statistics. Not all would be let go since there will still be a need for administration and regulation.
5 Retail store will pay the prevailing wage based on the skill set they need. If the PLCB employees are so highly knowledgeable and trained as they claim they there will be a demand for their services just like any other job.
6. Hard to predict what employers would do but in the latest example in Washington State just 3 employers added 1200 full time jobs compared to the 900 state employees that were let go. Net employment has gone up.
7. The PLCB can't do more convenience, they are headed in the other direction. there were 692 stores in 2000 and there are 600 now, maybe a few less. It took 32 years fro the state stores to convert from counter stores to self service. At the current rate it will take over 100 years to "modernize" to the Fine Wine and Good Spirits stores. None of which address the one stop shopping that the citizens want.
8. One poll does not counter over 40 years of consistent polling showing that the people don't want the state store system, have probably never wanted the state store system. This isn't the most important thing on the agenda but if only the number one priority was the one worked on NOTHING would get done because things are always changing what number one should be. THe people have waited 80 years for for change and it shouldn't be up to 3000 clerks to prevent a state of 12.5 million from making that change.
I'll close with this fact: DUI fatalities in Washington State have gone down since privatization.
Bernie - You can buy a tank, what prevents you from driving it to work has more to do with size, weight restrictions and speed, not the fact you aren't allowed to own it.
ReplyDeleteThe UFCW, has caused likely caused countless deaths by protecting unionized employees of a bureau that never polices itself. When's the last time you read of a state store being investigated? Have they all been in 100% compliance for all these years? Or are they left alone by their unionized PALCB brethren in order not to embarrass a gang that is spending big money to keep their cashiers benefits and pensions. Other states exercise a lot more common sense in attempting to promote public safety. They are hamstrung by public unions with lots of advertising dollars.
ReplyDelete*They aren't hamstrung
ReplyDelete"When's the last time you read of a state store being investigated?"
ReplyDeleteWhat a ridiculous argument! The fact that someone has not been investigated is proof he must be guilty. Where the hell did you go to logic school?
8:16, I have a friend who owns a tank. You cannot own a operational tank. Sorry.
ReplyDelete"I'll close with this fact: DUI fatalities in Washington State have gone down since privatization."
ReplyDeleteAnd I read last night that the cost of booze has skyrocketed. The exact opposite of what was supposed to happen.
"Stop trying to legislate morality"
ReplyDeleteThis is not legislating morality, so much as it is legislating public safety. Since alcohol is far more dangerous than most banned drugs, your logic dictates we legalize them all, including heroin. You have no problem legislating morality when it comes to that, do you?
" Other states treat adults as adults. PA does not because of guilty zealots and unsustainable unions."
ReplyDeleteOr bc Pennsylvania is NOT New Jersey and cares a bit more about the safety of its residents than the Garden State.
"It was all about preserving public employee union jobs. That was their priority."
ReplyDeleteThat's the priority for public sector unions, but that does not mean it must therefore be wrong. I pretty much detest public sector unions. But I prefer to view each issue on its own merits, not on the basis of who is making the argument.
Should we have a Firearms Control Board? How about a Cigarettes Control Board? Why is alcohol special?
ReplyDeleteWe do regulate both firearms and tobacco. Alcohol is special bc it is a killer. It kills more than AIDS, TB or violence. It even causes 20,000 cancer-related deaths every year.
I have nothing against booze. Most people can drink rsponsibly, I agree. But I think the state store system is a good way of prevented the excesses and underage sales when a private liquor store is more interested in making a profit.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/11/alcohol-related-deaths-_n_821900.html
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/02/19/1608671/alcohol-cancer-related-death/?mobile=nc
8:40, in the last five years there have been four employees fired due to not scanning id in the stores. There is automatic firing of the employee and both the union and the state agreed upon the terms. In the last year and a half, five bars in West Allentown have been cited for underage drinking violations. This system is making money. A lot of money and isn't broken. Do you trust the private sector to do the right thing in reference to employees or customers? If this system was bleeding money, there may be an argument. Does anybody have a hard time getting a drink in Pa.? And Scott Armstrong,we both know that badly needed revenue would never happen as that bill is dead on arrival in the Senate. Why don't you try and promote J.Birney Crum Stadium to make money, or just sell it rather than pissing away money on a resurfacing?
ReplyDeleteGregg Potter
The cost of liquor in Washington State wouldn't have anything to do with the 27% increase in fees the legislature imposed would it?
ReplyDeleteThe WA Dept Of Revenue says that the average price is up 7% and on a downward trend and that would be due to competition.
Just my 2 cents on this. The tank question is an interesting one but if the main gun and each individual shell were licensed as a destructive device it should be legal. I wouldn't bet against it.
If UFCW wants it, it's bad for consumers. The PALCB is in charge if policing itself. That's not a good system. Why are we still paying the Johnstown Flood Tax? Wasn't that over 100 years ago? Unions and former drunks should not be making these decisions for the rest of us adults.
ReplyDelete10:21, here we go again. You support privatization simply bc a union opposes it. I'd prefer to argue the meritsbof the propsal itself.
ReplyDeleteSince the PLCB doesn't have a 100% scan policy, a fact touted by the clerks as a better way so as not to bother Grandma. How is it possible to be fired for NOT carding when the decision is up to the clerk?
ReplyDeleteSince there are no age compliance checks at the state stores it is impossible to say how many minors may have been served. Any number from 0 to 1000000 has no basis in fact, just opinion.
What a joke. The people who came up with that add should be put in jail for being dumb.
ReplyDeletePA liquor stores are awful.
Awful funny that they generate 500 million in revenue every year. This number could grow if the stores were modernized not privatized.
ReplyDeleteAfter years working in Alcohol Treatment settings, I'm 100% with you on this Bernie.
ReplyDelete100%.
Armstrong is an otherwise intelligent enough man, imprisoned by his rabid idealology.
ReplyDeleteIt a shame. It's become impossible to take him seriousely, no mater what you or Michael M. say. He has become a joke.
When you have a police enforced monopoly it isn't funny that they generate anything. The PLCB collects taxes and doesn't generate a single thing. The so called "profit" are just unspent taxes. The entire operation is a tax. Look up the definition. Government mandated, police enforced, required to pay = tax.
ReplyDeleteThey provide a regulated service that generates 500 million a year to the pa tax payer. Privatizating is a one time deal and when the money is gone it's gone. Then when your taxes go up to cover the 500 million lost per year and the liquor is not being regulated the same and sold to minors I'm sure you will be complaining about that. Liquor business works lets keep it.
ReplyDeleteYou are comparing the ease of buying booze in NJ almost half a century ago to now. Times have changed. The drinking age is now 21 (it used to be 18 in Jersey until is was raised to 21 in the 1980's). Kids just get a young adult to buy it for them.
ReplyDeleteI suggest that you visit one of PA's many institution of higher learning on a Friday or Saturday (or even Thursday) night and see what a great job the Commonwealth is doing keeping booze out of the hands of those under 21.
The owners of a private liquor store have a stronger incentive to not sell to minors. He could lose his license, and with it, hundreds of thousands of dollars in investment.
The worker in a private liquor has a stronger incentive not to sell to minors as well. He knows that one screw-up can cost him his job. The guy working in the state store is protected by his union contract and all kinds of civil service rules and regulations. Do you now how hard it is to fire a unionized public-sector employee? It often takes months or even years, and can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees.
If PLCB employees were so effective, wouldn't PA have a significantly lower rate of DUI related death than other states? If you compare PA and NJ, PA actually has a more of alcohol-related auto fatalities per miles driven than PA:
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810920.pdf
The only reason this is an issue is because a special interest, the state store employees and the union which represents them, will lose the cushy jobs that they currently have. You can make an argument against EZ-Pass due to the loss of jobs of toll booth attendants. But it is progress, because it cost less money and, more importantly, eases traffic congestion.
No I'm comparing it to walmarts selling liquor not private liquor stores because they won't be able to afford the liquor license so they won't have to worry about losing it. Cushy job? Have you ever worked at a wine and spirits store? If they privatize the stores it will be a great lose for Pennsylvania. Zero tollerance right now for the sale of liquor to a minor. You can't control minors getting liquor from an adult to the stores selling it to minors.
ReplyDeleteKevin,
ReplyDeleteYou are incorrect. I do know that Wine and Spirits Store employees can and do get fired. I mentioned that there have been four---statewide in the last five years because of the scanning issue. That is the poison pill and clerks are told this over and over. Both sides agree on this point and this is why there are so few. Do adults buy booze for minors? Absolutely and it happens outside the store on Allen street in Allentown. The purchase is made legally and unless there are stings set up, it wont stop whether this is private or public. my example was right in the west end, several bars have been penalized and two closed due to serving underage adults. Their emphasis was to make profit and this is just not so in the W &b S stores. If a storeowner is trying to make their rent, they are better off selling five bottles of Jacquins than one bottle of Grey Goose. There is more profit and volume for the same price but also more booze to an individual (s) who may or may not be able to handle it properly.
Gregg Potter
This is about union jobs; not public safety. I like the $20/hr cashiers in short sleeve dress shirts and cotton ties who don't know shit from Chardonnay.
ReplyDeleteOpposition to private sales comes from unions and those who want Prohibition back. That combination is how we end up still paying the Johnstown Flood Tax over 100 years later.
Four fired in five years statewide is a joke! You made the privatization safety point. Its time to get serious about enforcement A gang that polices itself is not a good system. Four? Seriously? That's pathetic and dangerous.
ReplyDeletePrivitization SUCKS!
ReplyDeletenot-ina-union, and I drink...
nuf said
Is there any proof that PA has significantly less underage drinking than states with private liquor stores?
ReplyDeleteWhy do some think that taxes won't be collected if the stores are private? The state has managed to figure out how to collect taxes from every other business including the 22000 licensed establishments PA already has. $384 million of that 500 was taxes. When you have a police enforced monopoly and a growing population you can expect the amount of taxes collected to increase. That has nothing to do with how good the state stores are.
ReplyDelete@ Kevin - PA places below average in underage drinking, underage binge drinking and DUI. Going by those stats the PLCB doesn't do a very good job of "control"
2:36 You can believe me or not believe me. I know the facts and if you think I am making this up, stop by and ask a store manager. And as far as employees not knowing their product, I defy you to go to the Cedar Crest Plaza Store and try and stump the employees on your knowledge of wine. I seriously doubt you will see that type of selection or knowledge at any Wal-Mart or CVS.
ReplyDeleteGregg Potter
Great Gregg but what happens if you don't want wine? Do they know what high-rye bourbons they carry? Or wheated ones? How about a smokey blended scotch or a lowland one? What vodka do you carry that is made in PA? Why is Wild Turkey American Honey in the bourbon section when it plainly says Liqueur on the label? What flavor is Slivovitz? What's the difference between Grappa and Brandy? See if they know those for starters.
ReplyDelete2:36 If these employees are so knowledgeable, and if that knowledge is so valuable, I am sure that there will be a bidding war among the newly private stores to hire these superstars.
ReplyDeleteAs far selection, I suggest that you visit a Total Wine in NJ. They have a huge selection of wine, hard liquor, and beer. They are much larger than any State Store that I have been to.
3:51 Very impressive. I've tended bar for 21 years and don't know all that. Perhaps if privatization goes through, you can impart your knowledge to Target Stores. They can use someone like you. I wonder if they will pay you the appropriate amount for your knowledge?
ReplyDeleteGregg Potter
"You are comparing the ease of buying booze in NJ almost half a century ago to now. Times have changed."
ReplyDeleteHalf a century! God, I am old.
"If PLCB employees were so effective, wouldn't PA have a significantly lower rate of DUI related death than other states? If you compare PA and NJ, PA actually has a more of alcohol-related auto fatalities per miles driven than PA:"
ReplyDeleteActually, the data show that Pa has the lowest rate of deaths caused by alcohol nationwide. But you are correct about the DUI. And underage drinking is somewhere around the national average.
I'm just an interested amateur and I already have a job much closer then the nearest Target. However, you should be able to see my point that product knowledge can go far deeper then what the state stores teach the clerks.
ReplyDelete"They are much larger than any State Store that I have been to. "
ReplyDeleteIs that supposed to be a good thing? That's one of the reasons I don't like private stores.
No Bernie the data does not show the lowest rate of deaths caused by alcohol. PA rates the best in Alcohol Induced deaths, however that is just one line in the Alcohol Related deaths category. When the entire category is looked at PA does not do nearly so well.
ReplyDeleteI see your point about product knowledge and seriously doubt that will be shared by box store management or the proprietor of a liquor store/check cashing location. I just can't picture someone waxing poetic on the benefits of a single barrel bourbon over standard Jim Beam. Guess we see where this goes tomorrow afternoon.
ReplyDeleteGregg Potter
"That's one of the reasons I don't like private stores."
ReplyDeleteNow you are just being silly. You don't like increased selection or convenience....really? The PLCB is the closest thing we have to socialism but you can always move to a third world country if big stores and lack of government control offend you.
Perhaps I am being silly,, but I do not want a gigantic liquor store. You can cross the river into Jersey for that.
ReplyDeleteIf the LCB were kept seperate from the retail operation, which was run by a proven leader in the retail industry, the 500m doubles and solves some of the social program funding issues.
ReplyDeleteLet distributors sell 6 and 12 packs and wine up to 18%ance as well as set their own hours. This will create additional tax revenue and allow for smaller distributors to grow.
Gregg - not all stores will be a big box store anymore then all state stores are outlet stores. The market will dictate and somebody will fill the void of knowledgeable service and some will fill the "knows little about the product" area. Just like any other business.
ReplyDeleteI do quite frequently and go to DE or MD too.
ReplyDeleteThere 'ya go. Let Pa. be Pa.
ReplyDelete@ Matt - so you don't want a guy who ran a failed restaurant as CEO? Political patronage for board positions not good enough for you? Privatization will fix that.
ReplyDelete@5:41, I don't like it any better than many of the so-called representatives we have in the house who are bought and paid for by any group. The thing is that there are a lot of people in this Commonwealth that truly need help, and rather than enhance what revenue streams we do have in this state, we have folks who willingly or unknowingly piss it all away via their special interests, as well as look the other way in terms of fraud. We need people to use what we have to the best ways possible. Privatization doesn't do that.
ReplyDeletePrivatization WON'T eliminate the Johnstown Flood Tax, either, folks. If you're truly after lower product prices and a better selection, selling the stores won't do it. PA is the largest purchaser of Wines and Spirits in the world. No private store has that kind of pricing power.
ReplyDelete@ Matt - PA isn't even in the top10 of wine and spirits purchasers. In the US the top spots are all taken by distributors and importers, then comes Costco for both wine and spirits. The State of Michigan is the next largest spirits buyer then PA. PA is just behind Costco in wine purchases though. At the current rate of growth Total Wine should pass PA within the next decade for both wine and spirits.
ReplyDeleteIf you truly want to see selection then take a trip out of PA and see what the private sector can do if there is the demand for it. The private sector is very good at fulfilling the wants of the public...the PLCB not so much.
Actually, Bernie, I do consider our drug laws an attempt to legislate morality. I believe in personal responsibility. If you want to smoke weed, snort coke, shoot heroine, pop pills or whatever you can think of, feel free. Don't ask me to pay for your treatment when you want to go into rehab.
ReplyDeleteThe bigger problem is that we create a prison population of non-violent offenders whose only crime was doing drugs. Our penalties are disproportionate to the "crimes" committed -- and since most of these drugs occur naturally in the environment anyway, it's clearly just the government's attempt to legislate morality. Prohibition was the exact same thing.
Yes, drugs and alcohol and cigarettes can kill. But that's a decision the individual should make for his or herself. Criminalize the sale of drugs, but regulate their distribution through public/private vendors, just like Colorado is doing with marijuana now, or like PA decided to do with alcohol after Prohibition was ended.
It's a fundamental, philosophical argument. You might disagree with it, but at least it's consistent. Personal responsibility is a beautiful thing, and for every hypothetical example you can provide to support your side, I can give you five that trump it.
"Perhaps I am being silly,, but I do not want a gigantic liquor store. You can cross the river into Jersey for that."
ReplyDeleteYes. You're being silly. Next thing you know, these drinkers will be doing all sorts of subversive things like dancing and playing quoits. Oh, the humanity. How about one in Lehigh County, Bernie? Is that far enough - across the Lehigh River and all? It's like way far away. In the absence of your own yard, I think you're manifesting an old fart's prerogative to tell kids to get off your lawn.
Warm regards,
Kevin Bacon
Kevin Bacon, You calling me a NIMBY? Well, I do plead guilty to being an old fart who's set in his ways.
ReplyDelete7:20,The problem with your argument is that those who don't exercise personal responsibility tend to hurt others. This is particularly so where alcohol is involved, much more so than with many other drugs. I don't even like Wegmans being able to sell 6-packs.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteBernie has given tons of people belief they too can get sober.
ReplyDeleteDon't make fun of something so serious and important and at times tragic to families. If he did nothing else but help a few families stop a loved one from a destructive path he is a hero. Period!
The comment at 8:53, which is a shot at another blogger by the Blog Mentor, has been deleted. His sole agenda is hate.
ReplyDeleteDiabetes and heart disease have killed more, ruined more lives, and caused more sadness than the next five killer combined. Isn't it time we restrict the sale of groceries in a state run model? Staff can ensure that certain food stuffs be kept out of the hands of those who shouldn't be eating them. Eating utensils should require licensing and background checks, as well. Others are hurt by the les responsible and everyone's health care is everyone's business now. Think of the jobs this will create. Wegmans and Monsanto won't like it. Too bad.
ReplyDeleteI understand your reductio ad absurdum argument, but in case you haven't noticed, our food is heavily regulated. Warnings, prper labelling, and in some cases, recalls are made. Believe it or not, a goverment has an obligation to protect the public.
ReplyDeleteBut Bernie, your comment at 9:18 ignores the fact that we can have reasonable regulations without having to ban everything that you might deem isn't "good for us." Government does not have an obligation to protect us from ourselves when it comes to legal activities. I do think they have an obligation to ensure we have access to the information so that we can make that decision -- we should know about the geological formations that might impact our homes if we decide to buy; we should know the health contents of food; we should know the dangers of unprotected sex; we should know the costs of smoking or drinking or doing drugs; etc. etc. But we shouldn't be told that because you don't like it that I shouldn't be able to responsibly engage it in myself.
ReplyDeleteThose independent polls are suspect. Do not know a single person who has ever been polled by one. Whom do they call?
ReplyDeleteWhat a data of un-ambiguity and preserveness of valuable knowledge concerning unexpected feelings.
ReplyDeleteFeel free to surf to my blog: G Pen Snoop Dogg