Leftwing tolerance

by Guest Wed Nov 15, 2017 6:53 am

First topic message reminder :

That's your lot isn't it sassy??

Looks like steroid freaks aren't the only ones who hate transgenders.

Looks like the tolerant left hate them too

by Guest Sat Nov 18, 2017 8:39 pm

Original Quill wrote:
sb wrote:that doesn't really answer my question does it??

i asked which of the worlds top 5 economies are socialist??

No it answers your question. If you were to ask which is the best cat, the Bluejay or the Robin, I would be compelled to first point out that neither of your options are cats.

I am not trying to sell socialism, just correct some misconceptions. Socialism is a dynamic, not a nation nor an economy.

Once you understand fully, socialism sells itself.

yeah you did answer me

none of the top 5 are socialist, not even communist china or former communist Russia want anything to do with a socialist economy.

that's how well socialism works.

youre not the only person on earth who "really" understands what socialism is quill, im sure the doctors and lawyers in Venezuela digging in the garbage bins understand it much better than you do

anyway i have my answer

by Original Quill Sat Nov 18, 2017 8:47 pm

sb wrote:the government and the top "1 percenters" own everything. people don't want to work for nothing, they want to better themselves and have better lifestyles and more options, socialism doesn't allow for the advancement of the individual since its "the people" who are the priority.

That is because profit goes to the owners of the tools of production. When we give the tools to the producers of production, the profit goes to the worker, and the 1 percenter becomes more like the 99 percenter.

Yes, people want to better themselves, and how better to do that than to give them back what was taken from them: the means of their production? When they replace the capitalist, with real ownership, they will have the options that were taken from them. Socialism doesn’t inhibit advancement of the individual, it allows all individuals the opportunity to share in the benefits of production.

by Guest Sat Nov 18, 2017 8:48 pm

Original Quill wrote:
sb wrote:socialism doesn't work because it makes slaves of people, it enforces equality at the bottom ie everyone is equally impoverished except those at the top, because lets be honest quill, "the people" as you say, will never be allowed to OWN anything, they will only ever be allowed to work for what they "own".

Socialism does neither. Technically, socialism is the return of the tools of production to the producers of production. Industrialism has created scales of economy that make it impossible for the single worker to own the tools of production. That doesn’t prevent either government, or production councils, from banding workers together to create ownership of the tools.

When corporations band investors together, does that create slaves of them? Is it attempt to impose equality? Socialism is an alternative to capitalism inherent in corporations. Worker’s councils are just a way to keep it among the producers, so that all the value goes to the rightful people.

You are smitten with Cold War images of socialism, merely because the Soviet Union was the enemy at the time of your upbringing. If you get over those preconceptions, you begin to realize that it's just an alternate mechanism of organizing perfectly happy people.

corporations are private enterprises and don't exist in socialism

so when corporations band investors together its under a capitalist model and is reward based.

socialism doesn't transfer the wealth made by a corporation (which would normally be held by a select number of board members and investors) to "the workers", it keeps that wealth at the top, same way capitalism does

the wage divide between those at the top and those at the bottom is astronomically large in socialism, much much bigger than it is under capitalism

under capitalism there is a upward curving arc between those at the bottom and those at the top with varying degrees of wealth, under socialism the arc is a straight line upwards, starting at poverty and ending at luxury

Zimbabwe and Mugabe are perfect examples

by Original Quill Sat Nov 18, 2017 8:50 pm

sb wrote:yeah you did answer me

Yes I did. Much more thoroughly than the question you asked. You omitted to ask about the full scope of the issue. I supplied your omissions for you.

by Original Quill Sat Nov 18, 2017 9:01 pm

sb wrote:corporations are private enterprises and don't exist in socialism

so when corporations band investors together its under a capitalist model and is reward based.

Corporations are just another organization, aimed at furnishing what socialism could provide. Corporations exist to supply capital for tooling. They aren’t necessary in a socialist system, because the workers band together (ie, democracy) to furnish their own tools.

Perhaps I should ask, what do you have against democracy and self-determination inherent in the socialist system? Why do you want to keep the tools of production away from the producers? Is it perhaps because that’s the way you steal their value in the production process?

by Original Quill Sat Nov 18, 2017 9:21 pm

sb wrote:socialism doesn't transfer the wealth made by a corporation (which would normally be held by a select number of board members and investors) to "the workers", it keeps that wealth at the top, same way capitalism does

By definition, you are talking about an oligarchy. If the profit doesn’t go to the producers, by definition it is being stolen. So you are not talking about socialism, but some other form of organization of production.

sb wrote:the wage divide between those at the top and those at the bottom is astronomically large in socialism, much much bigger than it is under capitalism

Not nearly so large as the wage divide between those at the top of corporations and those producers at the bottom. The guys at the top are the 1 percenters that we keep hearing about. The producers are the ‘also rans’.

As far as wage differentials between occupations, which is more valuable? The art of the doctor? Or the art of the worker? Wages are always a matter of adjustment. I know some plumbers making more that some lawyers. You negotiate those differences.

However, the corporate head produces nothing. He receives compensation for maximizing his own interests and that of his cronies. That is unconscionable and superfluous in the production process. He's dead weight.

by Original Quill Sat Nov 18, 2017 9:32 pm

sb wrote:under capitalism there is a upward curving arc between those at the bottom and those at the top with varying degrees of wealth, under socialism the arc is a straight line upwards, starting at poverty and ending at luxury

Zimbabwe and Mugabe are perfect examples

Curve or straight line? Think it through. The curved line progression means that the wealth quotient increases exponentially as the scale goes up. In other words, the rich get richer. That is what rich people want for themselves…to keep it all at the top. That’s where the 1 percenters come from.

That is hardly an equitable principle…or anything anyone should be proud of. Add to that the fact that you are talking about the production curve going down as one rises in the wealth chain, and you see how depraved that system is. They are economic freeloaders...they receive higher compensation for less and less production.

by Raggamuffin Sun Nov 19, 2017 3:27 pm

Didge wrote:
WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Gelico the jelly-bellied racist hippo'...

What a grand cartoon image that description conjures up !!!

No she is not the hippo, ha ha, but that did make me laugh though..and she is crossing more and more over tot he dark side everyday, that if for sure. I mean I do not mind criticism, but the constant same lame replies telling me "I am talking crap" really are boring and tedious. I mean why on earth is she reading my replies if she thinks they are crap? Clearly she is that interested to read them. I love her to bits, but she don;t half be a suck up at times to smelly.

Someone else is a hippo.

I will give you a clue

How childish - it's time you grew up Didge and realised that you need to work on your personality.

by 'Wolfie Sun Nov 19, 2017 3:52 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Socialism does neither. Technically, socialism is the return of the tools of production to the producers of production. Industrialism has created scales of economy that make it impossible for the single worker to own the tools of production. That doesn’t prevent either government, or production councils, from banding workers together to create ownership of the tools.

When corporations band investors together, does that create slaves of them? Is it attempt to impose equality? Socialism is an alternative to capitalism inherent in corporations. Worker’s councils are just a way to keep it among the producers, so that all the value goes to the rightful people.

You are smitten with Cold War images of socialism, merely because the Soviet Union was the enemy at the time of your upbringing. If you get over those preconceptions, you begin to realize that it's just an alternate mechanism of organizing perfectly happy people.

corporations are private enterprises and don't exist in socialism

so when corporations band investors together its under a capitalist model and is reward based.

socialism doesn't transfer the wealth made by a corporation (which would normally be held by a select number of board members and investors) to "the workers", it keeps that wealth at the top, same way capitalism does

the wage divide between those at the top and those at the bottom is astronomically large in socialism, much much bigger than it is under capitalism

under capitalism there is a upward curving arc between those at the bottom and those at the top with varying degrees of wealth, under socialism the arc is a straight line upwards, starting at poverty and ending at luxury

Zimbabwe and Mugabe are perfect examples

You are both an idiot and a liar, SmellyBumTrollski'...

Enjoy making this crap up as you go along, do you ?

P.S. Mugabe has always been a right-wing dictator; and always will be a right-wing nutter..

by Guest Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:54 pm

Original Quill wrote:
sb wrote:corporations are private enterprises and don't exist in socialism

so when corporations band investors together its under a capitalist model and is reward based.

Corporations are just another organization, aimed at furnishing what socialism could provide. Corporations exist to supply capital for tooling. They aren’t necessary in a socialist system, because the workers band together (ie, democracy) to furnish their own tools.

Perhaps I should ask, what do you have against democracy and self-determination inherent in the socialist system? Why do you want to keep the tools of production away from the producers? Is it perhaps because that’s the way you steal their value in the production process?

youre going around in circles

what is a corporation??

its a bunch of workers who banded together to buy their own tools and workplace, and then grew from a small business to a corporation

the original workers who banded together in the first place, would simply be the board members of the corporation.

that's because socialism doesn't work like that, the workers don't band together to buy their own tools, those tools are bought and owned by the biggest corporation of all - the government, that's what nationalization means quill.

so your socialist idea is nothing more than capitalism in practice.

by Guest Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:40 pm

Original Quill wrote:
sb wrote:socialism doesn't transfer the wealth made by a corporation (which would normally be held by a select number of board members and investors) to "the workers", it keeps that wealth at the top, same way capitalism does

By definition, you are talking about an oligarchy. If the profit doesn’t go to the producers, by definition it is being stolen. So you are not talking about socialism, but some other form of organization of production.

sb wrote:the wage divide between those at the top and those at the bottom is astronomically large in socialism, much much bigger than it is under capitalism

Not nearly so large as the wage divide between those at the top of corporations and those producers at the bottom. The guys at the top are the 1 percenters that we keep hearing about. The producers are the ‘also rans’.

As far as wage differentials between occupations, which is more valuable? The art of the doctor? Or the art of the worker? Wages are always a matter of adjustment. I know some plumbers making more that some lawyers. You negotiate those differences.

However, the corporate head produces nothing. He receives compensation for maximizing his own interests and that of his cronies. That is unconscionable and superfluous in the production process. He's dead weight.

not so

socialism affects all of society, so the wage divide extends across all sectors, in socialism EVERYONE is at the bottom apart from the government and union leaders who are the 1% of socialism, which means that in reality the wage gap is much larger since those who make up the 1% of socialism would be proportionally smaller than those who make up the 1% of capitalism yet the wealth held by that 1% would be relatively speaking the same, making the 1% of socialism much wealthier than the 1% of capitalism since there the same amount of wealth would have to be distributed among less people

in capitalism the "wage gap" exist between two groups - "the top 1%" and then "everyone else"

the difference between socialism and capitalism is that under the capitalist system "everyone else" enjoys an incremental wage gap which is based on individuals occupation and is therefore flexible and changeable.

take your example of the doctor and the plumber

its far from a typical situation, but that is the beauty of capitalism, you can pull yourself up and earn more than those typically considered above you, under socialism that is not possible.

under socialism, the government would pay for educating the doctor and the plumber thereby providing the "tools" for both to carry out their respective trades, in return the plumber and the doctor would not be allowed to go to work to for themselves but rather they will find themselves in government owned and run institutions and paid a stipulated wage based on their value as workers and the amount it cost to train them.

neither the plumber nor the doctor would keep the fruits of their labour since they owe a debt to the government for providing them with their skills and this would be reflected in the wage they are paid, socialist govts don't operate on goodwill they don't train doctors and plumbers and then let them to work their debts off as indentured servants before releasing them

under socialism you are an indentured servant FOREVER, the debt owed to the govt will never be repaid.

under capitalism the doctor and the plumber pays for his own education, carries his own debt and is free to find work wherever he choose for whoever he choose. hard work is rewarded and that is why the plumber can earn more than the doctor

You would never be paid what you are worth as a doctor under socialism, and no matter how hard the plumber worked he would never earn more than a doctor.

under socialism CEO's and board members are called ministers and union leaders

by nicko Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:19 pm

Very well put Smelly !

by Original Quill Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:23 pm

sb wrote:socialism affects all of society, so the wage divide extends across all sectors, in socialism EVERYONE is at the bottom apart from the government and union leaders who are the 1% of socialism, which means that in reality the wage gap is much larger since those who make up the 1% of socialism would be proportionally smaller than those who make up the 1% of capitalism yet the wealth held by that 1% would be relatively speaking the same, making the 1% of socialism much wealthier than the 1% of capitalism since there the same amount of wealth would have to be distributed among less people

1. First error: Why do you say “everyone is at the bottom” in a socialist system? You have a lot of excess-baggage with your ideas on socialism.

Socialism is not a way of life, or some psycho-scientific film about the machines taking over the world. It is merely an economic system. It goes this way: (1) Industrialism has changed the tooling in the modern era, so that the once-artisan—today we call him a worker or producer—with his hammer and chisel, now has to work via a sheet metal press, a smelter, or a huge factory floor; (2) economies of scale—or, costs to you—remove those tools from the artisan, worker or producer, though as worker, he is still the real, hands-on artisan; (3) capitalism has intervened and amassed the capital to purchase the tooling; (4) the worker is transformed from artisan to little sheeple, with no creative input, no individuality, and no control.

Socialism is not some New World Order. It aims to simply put the tools back in the hands of the artisan. It reunites da Vinci with his hammer and chisel. If the tools are too great, or too expensive, then the workers band together to purchase and share them. It doesn’t even have to be a government; they can band together as clubs or guilds.

Why, if you have no trouble with capitalists banding together to form corporations, do you tremble at workers banding together to do precisely the same thing, for the same reason? What, in your mind, is the difference between a corporation and a trade guild?

Czechoslovakia tried it with Workers Councils…like trade guilds. They were opposed by the Soviets in 1968, as you know—further proof that the Soviet Union was not a socialist state, but a totalitarian state. The Soviets were opposed to real socialism as much as they were opposed to capitalism.

by Original Quill Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:29 pm

sb wrote:in capitalism the "wage gap" exist between two groups - "the top 1%" and then "everyone else"

2. Second error: Why? Socialism is about production, not wages. Certainly, the workers’ councils want the best for their members, but socialism sees the way to that end in regaining the tools of production.

Wages are a collateral matter.

by Original Quill Sun Nov 19, 2017 11:46 pm

sb wrote:the difference between socialism and capitalism is that under the capitalist system "everyone else" enjoys an incremental wage gap which is based on individuals occupation and is therefore flexible and changeable.

take your example of the doctor and the plumber

its far from a typical situation, but that is the beauty of capitalism, you can pull yourself up and earn more than those typically considered above you, under socialism that is not possible.

3. Third error: Socialism has little to say about any wage distribution. Wages are not the concern. Socialism is about the means of production…specifically, acquiring the means of production.

Any economic system, it seems to me, strives to achieve equality…including an equitable wage distribution. This is derived from the fundamental question: why favor anyone? The default option seems to be equality. The only exception that I can think of is the capitalist system, which wishes to keep the worker down so that he can be utilized.

But that is because capitalism is uniquely built upon selfishness. For the capitalist advocate, it’s a zero-sum game, so the more the little guy can be trampled under, the more that is left over for the capitalist. But that’s selfishness, and socialism is predicated on mutual cooperation. Socialism tends toward equality, because there is no bias toward inequality as there is in capitalism.

by Original Quill Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:08 am

sb wrote:under socialism, the government would pay for educating the doctor and the plumber thereby providing the "tools" for both to carry out their respective trades, in return the plumber and the doctor would not be allowed to go to work to for themselves but rather they will find themselves in government owned and run institutions and paid a stipulated wage based on their value as workers and the amount it cost to train them.

4. Fourth error: Actually, socialism is a response to industrialism, not education. The talent of the physician or the plumber is a part of the artisanship.

The tooling of which I speak would be, in that case, the expensive radiology machines, expensive bio-mechanical equipment, and of course the hospital itself. Or, it's equivalent in the plumbing industry.

by Original Quill Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:17 am

sb wrote:neither the plumber nor the doctor would keep the fruits of their labour since they owe a debt to the government for providing them with their skills and this would be reflected in the wage they are paid, socialist govts don't operate on goodwill they don't train doctors and plumbers and then let them to work their debts off as indentured servants before releasing them

5. Fifth error: You assume that a guild would do as a corporation would do: keep the proceeds for itself, calling the surplus, profit. But the guild need not duplicate the selfish tendencies of the capitalist system.

There are a lot of ways to do it. Suppose the production unit simply borrows or rents the equipment at use value? That’s perfectly equitable. There a million different way in which it could be done.

by Original Quill Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:23 am

sb wrote:under socialism you are an indentured servant FOREVER, the debt owed to the govt will never be repaid.

6. Sixth error: Nonsense. Again, you have acquired your knowledge about socialism from the Cold War propaganda mill. On the contrary, one of the great criticisms of the capitalist is that it turns the artisan into a robot...known as a worker. We don't speak of their lives with any compassion ore sensitivities. They are unemployment numbers. Wage earners. Heads of households. But they are no longer human beings.

Restoring their dignity by making them producers and craftsmen, gives them back their individuality as well as their character as real humans.

by Original Quill Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:56 am

sb wrote:under capitalism the doctor and the plumber pays for his own education, carries his own debt and is free to find work wherever he choose for whoever he choose. hard work is rewarded and that is why the plumber can earn more than the doctor

You would never be paid what you are worth as a doctor under socialism, and no matter how hard the plumber worked he would never earn more than a doctor.

under socialism CEO's and board members are called ministers and union leaders

7. Seventh error: As I read along with your ideas, it is apparent that you have been watching a horror film from circa 1952…the year of the great propaganda rising. You are not describing socialism; you are describing Robbie the Robot, in Forbidden Planet.

You may be confused by what was happening in the Soviet Union in those days, although even the Soviets were not as bad as you make them out to be. Plus, the Soviets were not socialists, especially after what the did to the true socialists in Czechoslovakia in 1968. You are steeped in a script. You are describing authoritarianism, or a variant known as totalitarianism...tainted a little bit by The Day the Earth Stood Still.

I would advise, if you really want to engage in knowledgeable conversation about the subject, that you get your head out of those Classic Comic books and read up on the theory and history. May I suggest, A Short History of Socialism, by George Lichtheim. It’s only 365 pages long.

by 'Wolfie Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:59 am

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

By definition, you are talking about an oligarchy. If the profit doesn’t go to the producers, by definition it is being stolen. So you are not talking about socialism, but some other form of organization of production.

Not nearly so large as the wage divide between those at the top of corporations and those producers at the bottom. The guys at the top are the 1 percenters that we keep hearing about. The producers are the ‘also rans’.

As far as wage differentials between occupations, which is more valuable? The art of the doctor? Or the art of the worker? Wages are always a matter of adjustment. I know some plumbers making more that some lawyers. You negotiate those differences.

However, the corporate head produces nothing. He receives compensation for maximizing his own interests and that of his cronies. That is unconscionable and superfluous in the production process. He's dead weight.

not so

socialism affects all of society, so the wage divide extends across all sectors, in socialism EVERYONE is at the bottom apart from the government and union leaders who are the 1% of socialism, which means that in reality the wage gap is much larger since those who make up the 1% of socialism would be proportionally smaller than those who make up the 1% of capitalism yet the wealth held by that 1% would be relatively speaking the same, making the 1% of socialism much wealthier than the 1% of capitalism since there the same amount of wealth would have to be distributed among less people

in capitalism the "wage gap" exist between two groups - "the top 1%" and then "everyone else"

the difference between socialism and capitalism is that under the capitalist system "everyone else" enjoys an incremental wage gap which is based on individuals occupation and is therefore flexible and changeable.

take your example of the doctor and the plumber

its far from a typical situation, but that is the beauty of capitalism, you can pull yourself up and earn more than those typically considered above you, under socialism that is not possible.

under socialism, the government would pay for educating the doctor and the plumber thereby providing the "tools" for both to carry out their respective trades, in return the plumber and the doctor would not be allowed to go to work to for themselves but rather they will find themselves in government owned and run institutions and paid a stipulated wage based on their value as workers and the amount it cost to train them.

neither the plumber nor the doctor would keep the fruits of their labour since they owe a debt to the government for providing them with their skills and this would be reflected in the wage they are paid, socialist govts don't operate on goodwill they don't train doctors and plumbers and then let them to work their debts off as indentured servants before releasing them

under socialism you are an indentured servant FOREVER, the debt owed to the govt will never be repaid.

under capitalism the doctor and the plumber pays for his own education, carries his own debt and is free to find work wherever he choose for whoever he choose. hard work is rewarded and that is why the plumber can earn more than the doctor

You would never be paid what you are worth as a doctor under socialism, and no matter how hard the plumber worked he would never earn more than a doctor.

under socialism CEO's and board members are called ministers and union leaders

You are so full of shit, Smelly...

You just keep on making up more and more lies, the further you go..

You obviously know zero about economics and politics -- yet you keep on spouting total bullshit, while arrogantly presenting to be the site expert on both..
Leftwing tolerance - Page 4 2686688521

* Under a proper/genuine socialist system the top manager of a particular business might make 5 or 6 times the minimum wage earned by the lowest full-time worker; (Want to make more profit on top of your salary ? Then, under a genuine "socialist" system, you can invest in privately purchased or leased land, extra productive capacity, value-adding, upgrading -- one of the basic differences between true socialism, and either communist or corporatist dictatorships..).

* These days we are see some corporate CEOs being paid over a thousand times the lowest paid workers -- even more when they have "off-shored" production into China, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Thailand..

* Zimbabwe has never been a "socialist" state -- it went from being part of South Africa, to being a corporate owned British colony under Cecil Rhodes and his successors, and became a totalitarian dictatorship ruled by right wing twats, with financial backing from different corporate fools (after all, the military under Mugabe had to get money from somewhere, to stay in power for 37 years..).

* The fact that Mugabe labelled himself a "Marxist- Leninist" during the 1970s is irrelevant -- his subsequent despotic right-wing military-backed regime put the lie to that rubbish. Leftwing tolerance - Page 4 1399249160

by Guest Thu Nov 23, 2017 9:43 am

by Original Quill Thu Nov 23, 2017 4:30 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:

Leftwing tolerance - Page 4 Quote-make-the-lie-big-make-it-simple-keep-saying-it-and-eventually-they-will-believe-it-adolf-hitler-53-9-0958

by Fred Moletrousers Thu Nov 23, 2017 4:47 pm

Original Quill wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

A minor point, because they were both nasty bastards, but wasn't the originator of the second quote Herr Doktor Josef Goebbels?

by Cass Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:25 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

A minor point, because they were both nasty bastards, but wasn't the originator of the second quote Herr Doktor Josef Goebbels?

Yes it was.

by Fred Moletrousers Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:57 pm

Cass wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

A minor point, because they were both nasty bastards, but wasn't the originator of the second quote Herr Doktor Josef Goebbels?

Yes it was.

I have always believed that the full quotation was:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

by Cass Thu Nov 23, 2017 6:02 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Cass wrote:

Yes it was.

I have always believed that the full quotation was:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

That sounds about right, but I’m traveling at the moment and can’t get to my books!

by Guest Thu Nov 23, 2017 6:19 pm

Original Quill wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

Is that the strategy you're using with the "Russian collusion" story

by Original Quill Thu Nov 23, 2017 6:36 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Is that the strategy you're using with the "Russian collusion" story

Which strategy are you talking about?

Seems to me Special Prosecutor Mueller is doing a fine job. He is currently looking to indict presidential son-in-law, Jered Kushner. That's the strategy I like.

by Guest Thu Nov 23, 2017 8:21 pm

Wow

You've moved well beyond the keep saying it point, and have graduated into the "believe it" stage

by Original Quill Thu Nov 23, 2017 8:41 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:Wow

You've moved well beyond the keep saying it point, and have graduated into the "believe it" stage

Yep. But I never moved. Wink

by Guest Sat Nov 25, 2017 4:26 am

by Original Quill Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:58 pm

Haha...you pay to play. cheers

by Sponsored content

Leftwing tolerance

Leftwing tolerance

Re: Leftwing tolerance

Re: Leftwing tolerance

Re: Leftwing tolerance

Re: Leftwing tolerance

Re: Leftwing tolerance

Re: Leftwing tolerance

Re: Leftwing tolerance

Re: Leftwing tolerance

Re: Leftwing tolerance

Re: Leftwing tolerance

Re: Leftwing tolerance

Re: Leftwing tolerance

Re: Leftwing tolerance

Re: Leftwing tolerance

Re: Leftwing tolerance

Re: Leftwing tolerance

Re: Leftwing tolerance

Re: Leftwing tolerance

Re: Leftwing tolerance

Re: Leftwing tolerance

Re: Leftwing tolerance

Re: Leftwing tolerance

Re: Leftwing tolerance

Re: Leftwing tolerance

Re: Leftwing tolerance

Re: Leftwing tolerance

Re: Leftwing tolerance

Re: Leftwing tolerance

Re: Leftwing tolerance

Re: Leftwing tolerance

Re: Leftwing tolerance

Re: Leftwing tolerance

Re: Leftwing tolerance