Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Liberalism - Philosophy of Intolerance?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Liberalism - Philosophy of Intolerance? Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Liberalism - Philosophy of Intolerance? - 8/17/2006 12:34:41 PM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline 		Somewhere along the line liberalism evolved. It isn’t good enough that all people are equal, it is necessary to make some people more equal. It’s a good idea to wear a helmet when riding a MC, let’s make it a law that everyone has to wear a helmet. I used to smoke, but realized it’s bad for me and the people I’m around; let’s make it illegal for anyone to smoke around anyone else. These are “liberal” ideas?

I used to think I was a liberal. I thought it was defined as being liberated from personal freedom restrictive laws. Liberal to me represented freedom. Freedom from restrictive laws, free to act and behave as my nature moves me. Being liberal meant that I should appreciate the situation and the history of the black people and fight for their human rights of equal employment and housing even if I wasn’t black. I remember one college professor defining the liberal philosophy as the willingness to fight for a freedom you didn’t want or need but fought for anyway. He said there are no “bad” freedoms. I’m realizing that many now think there are “bad freedoms” and yet they still like to label themselves liberal.

There are some that go beyond the belief of “bad freedoms” right to intolerance. They say they are liberal, and will not tolerate anyone or any position not theirs.

It’s not an effective political strategy. Need an example? The liberal arm of the Democratic Party voted out Senator Leiberman in the Connecticut primary. Running as an “Independent” Senator Leiberman now leads both the Republican and Democratic candidates by over 20%. The result is bad on two fronts. One, it polarizes the Democrats, the other is the Republicans see this as an issue to be exploited in 2008.

I see liberal intolerance as the worst case for the future of US politics. If I were a card carrying right wing Republican, I may see it as the best case; but there is the point. As much as I looked for a reason NOT to vote for George Bush on the second term I was offered no choice. My biggest fear was realized, and for the most part un-acknowledged. No, it wasn’t the Iraq War. I supported our efforts after 9/11 to kill the source of that attack. I even believed and still believe that Saddam had intent to use WMD’s even if he was lied to by his advisors about actually having them. But I never wanted US blood to be shed on the ground long term on an Israeli agenda or for the altruistic task of bringing “democracy” to a people who didn’t know the definition of the word. No, my fear is now reality.

During his second term President Bush had the opportunity to appoint 2 new Supreme Court Justices. John Roberts Jr., the Chief Justice, could be there for the next 30-40 years. My children’s children will be subject to his decisions. These two additions were not “liberal” men. Regardless of how we vote the ultimate law of the land is now in the hands of a court where only two members were appointed by Democrats. It’s a good thing that David Souter didn’t turn out to be the conservative that President Bush the first thought he would be or the situation would be worse.

Therein is the dilemma we face. Without tolerance the polarization will get increasingly worse. Ideals that we have in common such as opposition to government mandated morality should be beyond political identification. Based upon observation of behavior current liberal satisfaction comes from name calling and finger pointing at the opposing views. It speaks to me of having no substantive argument. It does not generate voting confidence of the electorate majority. Maybe it worked in electing a sixth grade president but does not play in a US national election.

Prejudice is supposed to be a right wing, if not Republican trait. There should be no assumption of a person’s abilities or his philosophy. If a person stands before you as a black man/woman; I don’t think anyone here would tolerate any prejudicial assumption. Yet there is no outcry that I observed when Republican and Nazi became synonymous on a thread posted to this site. There is no way I can ever have a dialog with a person who equates black with any racial stereotyping. I feel the same with anyone placing the same prejudicial judgment on Republicans. I’m not a registered Republican yet I see the association representing ignorance beyond naiveté of documented Nazi atrocities. The goal of the Nazis was to eliminate anyone and any thought that didn’t agree with their philosophy. Who more closely represents and acts under that philosophy today?

It appears today that being Liberal means you are intolerant. It means you are against the results of current positions but it doesn’t require alternative solutions. It’s an easy task to tell me what you are against. As easy as predicting a loss in 2008 if the Democrats run on a platform based upon liberal intolerance and exclusivity. My biggest fear is that if the current trend of liberal intolerance continues, 2008 will resemble 2004 regarding having a viable alternative to the current political status quo.
I hope liberals go back to their roots and maybe I can be one again. All that’s needed is to show their founding property of being willing to fight for a freedom that they don’t need or want, and come to tolerate the truth that the universe doesn’t spin around them.
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Liberalism - Philosophy of Intolerance? - 8/17/2006 12:43:51 PM   
caitlyn


Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline 		Everyone is intolerant Mercnbeth.
 
Conservatives see liberals as intolerant, because those damn liberals don't agree with them.
 
Liberals see conservatives as intolerant, for the exact same reasons.
 
Moderates see both as intolerant, because they can't understand why they see each other as so intolerant.
 
Conservatives and liberals see moderates as intolerant, because they can't seem to pick a side and stick with it.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Liberalism - Philosophy of Intolerance? - 8/17/2006 12:56:34 PM   
Alumbrado


Posts: 5560
Status: offline 		'Liberal' is a label no more useful than 'Christian'....and like Christianity, liberalism has become most often represented by the beliefs and actions of its most hypocritical adherents.
Despite their protestations, the pseudo-liberal people are simply people, and cannot be immune to the failings that afflict every other group of people,  to include greed, ego, fear, irrationality, group think, leader worship, powermongering, etc.


(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Liberalism - Philosophy of Intolerance? - 8/17/2006 1:05:55 PM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline 		I see myself as on the libertarian left and ironically feel more comfortable with the libertarian right than with the ideological left because I feel I can bat the ball around with libertarians and know arguments will be listened to.

I think liberals in the US are the same as the left in Europe (different terminology) and if they are ideological then I really don't have time for them. I consider my personal freedom far more important than an ideology. I detest people who think they know what is best for me because their ideology says so. There is really only one response to ideology and that is to kick against it whether from the right or left.

Ideology is at best a guide, at worse a tyranny and this last decade or so ideology has become a tyranny and blinds people to practical solutions to problems that are there. People just have to think out of the ideological box. Ideology just drags us all deeper in the mire. Both the ideological left and right are to be fought against.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Liberalism - Philosophy of Intolerance? - 8/17/2006 1:18:20 PM   
MistressLorelei


Posts: 997
Joined: 11/7/2005
Status: offline 		Personally,  I see far more name calling and finger pointing coming  from the conservatives....  though I am a liberal, and the conservatives will disagree... see the problem?

Defining freedom seems to one of the major problems we are having.   Is it really possible for every single person to have total freedom?  And if not, whose freedom comes first, where do the rights of one person stop, and the other person's rights begin? 

The warantless wiretapping problem for example.  Conservatives want to do it, without consideration for anyone...  and yes, liberal me, says it's not okay to just wiretap anyone and everyone without reason (warrant)... if a conservative considers me intolerant... so be it.  Perhaps some of the intolerance in liberals (as noted by conservatives) is in the fact that liberals want freedoms also, and often these freedoms are discredited by conservatives.  Who's right?  It depends  on who you are asking.

I wish there was a way for everyone to reach a middle ground, but more and more, it seems impossible.  The sides seem further apart than ever... and I don't think it's just a liberal problem.

Sidenote: 
Wiretapping is fresh in my mind, as a Federal Judge ruled today that it is unconstitutional for the government to wiretap with freewill.... that's why I used it an example.  It could have been a number of things.   http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14393611/

< Message edited by MistressLorelei -- 8/17/2006 1:27:04 PM >

(in reply to caitlyn)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Liberalism - Philosophy of Intolerance? - 8/17/2006 1:50:44 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline 		Comming from an Irish Catholic working class neighborhood in the Boston area I used to consider myself a "Liberal" too a few decades ago.
If my parents were alive today they'd never vote for the Democratic party candidates!
What a bunch of anal-retentive assholes!
The way they're going very soon there'll be more people in the libertarian, Constitution, and Green Partys than Democrats!
They're dying out and I'm glad!

(in reply to MistressLorelei)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Liberalism - Philosophy of Intolerance? - 8/17/2006 2:05:05 PM   
MmakeMme


Posts: 682
Joined: 7/29/2006
From: NC
Status: offline 		The long and the sort of it is that there is an extreme lack of common sense on all fronts. We've got to get over seeing everyone as a victim of everyone else. We've got to start taking personal responsibility for dumping hot coffe in our own laps and for choosing to smoke and for the enjoyment of overindulging in foods laden with fat.

I saw a commercial the other night that said I might be entitled (see that - entitled) to a court settlement if I lost money in the stock market. What the FUCK is that? Have we gone so crazy? What's next? Am I entitled to a settlement if I can't pay my bills, am on public assistance, and have lost money playing the lottery????? ~ fume ~

Sorry. Too much coffee. (Or maybe just enough.)

_____________________________

Happiness is not something ready made. It comes from your own actions. ~~ Dalai Lama

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Liberalism - Philosophy of Intolerance? - 8/17/2006 2:16:01 PM   
MistressLorelei


Posts: 997
Joined: 11/7/2005
Status: offline 		 

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Comming from an Irish Catholic working class neighborhood in the Boston area I used to consider myself a "Liberal" too a few decades ago.
If my parents were alive today they'd never vote for the Democratic party candidates!
What a bunch of anal-retentive assholes!
The way they're going very soon there'll be more people in the libertarian, Constitution, and Green Partys than Democrats!
They're dying out and I'm glad!


Wait a second Popeye ... the OP states clearly that the liberals are the finger pointers and namecallers!!!

Perhaps, the liberals are not the only ones who could be considered intolerant. 


To Merc & beth,

I respect most everything you say, and I like your presence on the boards... you know that...but I wanted to note, that in my opinion... your OP shows a bit of intolerance in itself.  If the liberals would behave your way.... the correct way, then you would revert back to being a liberal?   Perhaps, in your mind liberalism isn't what it was once.... maybe you are right, and maybe it's because times have changed and the attitudes of each party had to adjust a bit with it.... but stating that liberals should realize the universe doesn't spin around them, and then stating that the party should change because we are currently wrong in our policy....in my mind oozes of intolerance.

Each party thinks they are more correct... or we would only have one party.

Be well just the same.


(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Liberalism - Philosophy of Intolerance? - 8/17/2006 2:20:04 PM   
Dauric


Posts: 254
Joined: 7/13/2006
Status: offline 		       "DEATH TO THE FANATICS!"

There's extremist liberals extremeist conservatives, and yes, extrimist moderates (the ones who hold on to a "Center position" no matter what, even if there isn't one)

Any extremist sees members of other extremist positions to be "Intolerant". It's the classic mirror syndrome: When held up an example of themselves in reverse, they cannot tolerate that which they see. Happens to us all at one point or another.

$0.02,

Dauric

(in reply to MmakeMme)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Liberalism - Philosophy of Intolerance? - 8/17/2006 2:38:27 PM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline 		DEATH TO THE FANATICS

MINOR IRRITANTS TO THE MODERATES

WHO CARES ABOUT THE APATHETICS

(in reply to Dauric)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Liberalism - Philosophy of Intolerance? - 8/17/2006 2:48:01 PM   
Chaingang


Posts: 1727
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
Somewhere along the line liberalism evolved. It isn’t good enough that all people are equal, it is necessary to make some people more equal. It’s a good idea to wear a helmet when riding a MC, let’s make it a law that everyone has to wear a helmet. I used to smoke, but realized it’s bad for me and the people I’m around; let’s make it illegal for anyone to smoke around anyone else. These are “liberal” ideas?


This first paragraph is *SO* hilariously preposterous that I simply had to comment.

Firstly, your idea of more equal is simply incorrect. It reeks of a failure to understand how rights and the ethic of reciprocity work. See here: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=540600 Your rights simply do not extend to a position of superseding the rights of others in a public space. How is this news to you? How long have you struggled with an alternative erroneous worldview?

Example: I am slam-dancing down the street. I am grooving silently to my MP3 player while moving down the street knocking down people by punching and kicking them. Do I have the right to do such a thing? I mean, those stupid people I flattened to the ground saw me coming didn't they? They could have moved to the other side of the street. Aren't my liberties sacrosanct? Why should I have to alter my behavior to suit the needs of others?

Because they have the same rights I do on the "rights of way." We all have the right to be left alone as we make our way around town. When each of us makes our way down the street we have an expectation to be free of harm from airborne dangers created by others, overloud music, violence, being pissed on, etc. In sum, if someone pointedly does something to bother us they have violated the most fundamental right each of us has to be left alone.

The idea of the right to be left alone is not a "liberal" policy. It is a concept fundamental to our system of government and enshrined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Second, the idea that the helmet law was passed as part of some "liberal" agenda is equally hilarious. I mean, what the fuck? It never occurred to you that the real powers behind such laws might be...uh...uh...uh...the insurance companies attempting to limit the amount of payouts they sustain by limiting the kinds of damage people might suffer in motorcycle accidents? I don't see some big social agenda at stake there, I see insurance industry dollars fluttering out the window. It's corporate cocksucking, plain and simple. Members of both parties do plenty of that.

The only reason "the people," liberals and conservatives alike, might possibly care about the use of motorcycle helmets is if we had national health-care and the dollars lost would be at the expense of taxpayers. In which case we would all be our brothers' keepers - which currently we are not.


_____________________________

"Everything flows, nothing stands still." (Πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει) - Heraclitus

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Liberalism - Philosophy of Intolerance? - 8/17/2006 2:57:06 PM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline 		"The only reason "the people," liberals and conservatives alike, might possibly care about the use of motorcycle helmets is if we had national health-care and the dollars lost would be at the expense of taxpayers. In which case we would all be our brothers' keepers"

.......would America be a better place if the public really did have a stake in how healthy everyone was?

(in reply to Chaingang)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Liberalism - Philosophy of Intolerance? - 8/17/2006 3:06:46 PM   
Dauric


Posts: 254
Joined: 7/13/2006
Status: offline 		*See's philosophy carrying a container of worms, hides can opener.*

$0.02,

Dauric.

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Liberalism - Philosophy of Intolerance? - 8/17/2006 3:17:00 PM   
Chaingang


Posts: 1727
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
.......would America be a better place if the public really did have a stake in how healthy everyone was?


In truth, I think they actually do already have such a stake - but the only way to express it appropriately is to encourage healthier living choices. I wouldn't want to contemplate a world where we couldn't have explorers, rock-climbers, extreme sports types, recreational drug use, hunters, what-have-you. Every activity has some level of risk, we therefore have to accept that no one can be made perfectly safe at all times.

I think national healthcare is a good idea. I support public schools because I want everyone to have more or less equal access to a good education regardless of economic status - but I don't have kids, so it's not some kind of obsession with me or anything. I just think paying more in taxes for such a benefit is worth it because it encourages the success of future generations. Society therefore prospers as a whole. Likewise, I support national healthcare for the exact same reason, it's a public good. Access to healthcare encourages a healthier society of hopefully productive individuals free of the indignity of having to suffer emergency illnesses or bankruptcy because of poor health. We can spread the cost and society benefits as a whole.

But I don't support any kind of invasive public right to pry into individual choices regarding diet, drug intake, sexual behavior, or any recreational activities. It takes all kinds to make a world.


_____________________________

"Everything flows, nothing stands still." (Πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει) - Heraclitus

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Liberalism - Philosophy of Intolerance? - 8/17/2006 3:23:31 PM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline 		Tolerance is subjective, it comes from within and it is the individual's judgement on who should be afforded tolerance.

Should someone of a different race/sexual persuasion/religion/culture be afforded tolerance - in my opinion yes (unless there is an act committed that doesn't deserve tolerance - innocent until proven guilty).

Should someone who advocates bombing people be tolerated - no, because, in my opinion, it is blatantly supporting murder.

So, it all comes down to your personal values, what you believe in, how you want to see the world work - if a person believes foreign life is cheap then he/she will tolerate Government bombing campaigns.

In terms of the ideological left. You'll have to explain this because I know people who are fully comitted to the principles of the left and are also fully committed to humanitarianism, social justice and are also very active in the anti-war movement. So, I'd love to hear about the dangerous left who are currently the only ones in Britain prepared to make a stand against the slaughter.

Regards

(in reply to Chaingang)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Liberalism - Philosophy of Intolerance? - 8/17/2006 3:47:58 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline 		There are liberals that are one hell of a lot more tolerant than I am, it is why I do not consider myself a liberal, I consider myself a radical. I am radically against those who harm others through corporate malfescence, I am against those who squander our nations's resources for personal profit. I am radically against corporate control over our government. I am radically against wars we start on a pretext of self defense. I see nothing but a race to the middle (the middle can be defined by "what is good for big multi-national corporations), not true shifts in ideology that discuss what is really going on that is selling the American people down the river. I have more in common with some libertarians than I do with democrats... I am not a member of any party. I do not want to be.  I would rather they control the government, but I do not see that much of, or a substantial difference between the parties and the interests they serve.

According to political tests, like MC, I am a left libertarian.. another person's label, not one I care to apply to myself. To be honest, I do not care if people wear seat belts if they are adults, or helmets as adults, or even smoke themselves to death... their choice as long as it isn't hurting me. I do not care what they believe, what they do with their genitals, who they do it with, as long as they are not bothering me. I do not agree with hate speech laws either, I can tell someone to shut up, or leave where they are spewing BS. I have said that I wish they would illegalize smoking on another thread, but deep down, I do not care if they do or not, although it is a sad thing to see someone die from smoking...

I think drugs should be legal too, just regulate where people do them so the rest of us do not have to deal with people while they are loaded. People should not be allowed to willy nilly disturb the peace. We have to have some sort of social contract with each other after all, and every society defines the social contract.

As far as Lieberman, the Republican from Connecticut ( say this sarcastically of course), democrats in that state had a right to band together and decide not to vote for him based upon his record. If enough felt that way who are we to tell them that their freedom to choose whom they wanted was wrong? Their state, their party, their choice. They have that freedom to choose how liberal they want to be, or that supporting anyone that supported the war is not the best course for this country. I am not voting for Feinstien for the same reason, and I would not be surprised to see many in both parties go the way of Liberman.. it is time to hold them accountable.. and by gosh I am all for accountablity!

Going back to your intolerance point. You seem to be lumping all liberals together into one group and judging them, which is a stereotype, and is rather intolerant too..  I think liberals have been way too tolerant, and this country is so far right of center it is on its way to many of the things that earmarked National Socialism. I think that some people feel that Republicans are like Nazis, some of them are.. I had the misfortune of dating one conservative that told me "Hitler wasn't all bad". I left his presense right after he said this... he defined himself, I didn't define him.

< Message edited by juliaoceania -- 8/17/2006 3:50:46 PM >

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Liberalism - Philosophy of Intolerance? - 8/17/2006 3:56:22 PM   
Daddy4UdderSlut


Posts: 240
Joined: 4/2/2005
Status: offline 		I don't think it's very productive to have an "us versus them" discussion regarding liberals versus conservatives...

At least in the US, it's been adequately pointed out that the country has been growing increasingly polarized for some time now along these lines.  Pitting one half of the country against the other half... isn't very useful.

I know of at least two forces that have been identified that contribute to this trend, both of which are problematic because it's been shown by psychologists that most people at least, seek out reinforcement for what they already believe.
1. The increasing fragmentation and specialization of media - in the good old days, everyone watched the same few channels, which necessarily provided centric views of events to appeal to the broad audience.  Today, specialized, ie, highly biased sources of information, are attracting the bulk of the audience's mindshare.
2. The increasing geographical partitioning of Americans into communities of like minded people

The kicker is, that the same research that has shown that people seek out reinforcement of viewpoint or bias, also has shown that this kind of selective listening inherently results in even more extreme viewpoints, because opposing views are simply excluded from the discussion.

It's not good.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Liberalism - Philosophy of Intolerance? - 8/17/2006 4:08:39 PM   
Arpig


Posts: 9930
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: Increasingly further from reality
Status: offline 		What is now termed conservative is in fact lukewarm liberal, and what is now called liberal is in fact lukewarm socialist.

_____________________________

Big man! Pig Man!
Ha Ha...Charade you are!

Why do they leave out the letter b on "Garage Sale" signs?

CM's #1 All-Time Also-Ran


(in reply to Mercnbeth)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Liberalism - Philosophy of Intolerance? - 8/17/2006 4:24:32 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline 		Well Liberals and Democrats are not helping them selves by letting people like Barbara Streisand and George Soros into their midst.
The Libs need to do a lot of purging.

(in reply to Arpig)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: Liberalism - Philosophy of Intolerance? - 8/17/2006 4:59:48 PM   
Mercnbeth


Posts: 11766
Status: offline 		The OP is a question. The answers seem to indicate the answer is yes. Most of the responses weren't liberal examples of inclusion that I expected but rather examples of conservative intolerance or repression. Followed closely by rationalized spin indicating that liberal intolerance is the result of conservative control over such issues as health coverage. Is the consensus reciprocity of intolerance appropriate? Who will that generate as an alternative candidate from either side?

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
Well Liberals and Democrats are not helping them selves by letting people like Barbara Streisand and George Soros into their midst. The Libs need to do a lot of purging.


Popeye,
If the "right" or conservatives have Anne Coulter as their representative, the same applies.

Your Catholic background also hit home with me. I remember the day I became "liberal". On a sunny day in May 1968 the “Poor People’s March” strolled 100 yards by the front door of my Trenton, NJ Catholic grammar school. The nuns escorted us to the street and there we stood watching Ralph Abernathy lead a peaceful group of people on their way to Washington DC for equal rights. Mr. Abernathy was at the front of the march because earlier that year Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was killed.

I remember going home that day to my union leading, factory worker, father and my school administrator mother and as respectfully as I could as the age of 12 asked why they would be against black people being treated as we expected to be treated regarding issues of work, education, and places to live. I don’t remember their response. In a hard core, first generation Italian/Sicilian household the question most likely got a response directed to my mother by my father along the lines of “What the hell are they teaching in that school?!!!!” I know I wasn’t strong enough to get into any debate with them, but I remember to this day being on the side lines of that march and thinking that equality shouldn’t be race specific. By the way, growing up I was told that I was a Democrat. It was in the same context of being told I was a Yankee fan. No other option would be accepted as long as I lived under their roof. Dad said we weren’t, and would never be, rich enough to be Republicans. He hasn't voted Democratic since 1976.

But the real reason I picked upon you as the reply to person is that I always wanted to know what time is it on the watch in your picture?

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Liberalism - Philosophy of Intolerance? Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094