First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply Ben Shapiro Vs Milo Yiannopoulous And The Alt Right?
Posted 9/1/16

Punk_Mela wrote:


Hrafna wrote:


Punk_Mela wrote:

Care to mention why Ben is an idiot aside from you feel he is to hard on the left? Morgan is an idiot, Ben is definitely not, that doesn't mean I agree with everything he says but the difference is that Ben brings facts and sources to back him up in just about everything (except his opinion on Milo lol).


No, I wont bother. Good luck with your presidential election, though.


On one hand I would point out what a sad person you are for taking a position and "not being bothered" to defend or even reason for it when asked by someone who legitimately wants to know. But on the other,I happened to see some of your other posts in other threads in the time it took you to come up with that especially clever link and I am pretty convinced you are a just the ghostly manifestation of butthurt far leftists that has been sent to the internet to plague anyone who dared to reason online.


Ok.
8488 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Imoutoland!
Online
Posted 9/1/16
You know, I feel as if Yiannopoulos wants to demonstrate a point on political correctness, but Shapiro's words about people taking offense at the egregious of offenses has a point, not sure. What point does Milo want to make? I'm not quite sure I understand his view, even after watching the Reuben Report.
6165 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / 馬鹿外人
Offline
Posted 9/1/16

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

You know, I feel as if Yiannopoulos wants to demonstrate a point on political correctness, but Shapiro's words about people taking offense at the egregious of offenses has a point, not sure. What point does Milo want to make? I'm not quite sure I understand his view, even after watching the Reuben Report.


Milo's a professional provocateur; it's how he made his name.
8488 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Imoutoland!
Online
Posted 9/1/16

reaperx- wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

You know, I feel as if Yiannopoulos wants to demonstrate a point on political correctness, but Shapiro's words about people taking offense at the egregious of offenses has a point, not sure. What point does Milo want to make? I'm not quite sure I understand his view, even after watching the Reuben Report.


Milo's a professional provocateur; it's how he made his name.


I'm aware of that, but there has to be a point to his articles other than causing outrage or a circlejerk....I think.

Okay, I'm probably overguessing stuff here.
34946 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 9/1/16
Well, these gentlemen certainly haven't given me a good impression of the movement's membership and objectives. And considering Richard B. Spencer (a white supremacist) as much as outright declared in The Occidental Quarterly he's using the term to lure in more moderate conservatives and to network the diaspora of the far-right into a cogent movement I'd say I've been looking in the right places, too. And don't tell me Trump isn't involved in it all. That's bollocks. He's right in the centre of it, racist or no. He's fanning their flames and drawing attention to them, and they are ecstatic about that.

Michael Savage on civil liberties and his book, "Scorched Earth":


Of course, if she [Hillary Clinton] wins [the US presidential election] it's all over. And I list them [institutions to place under attack] in "Scorched Earth". Would you like to know the names of these extreme liberal, progressive organisations? Some of them you will know. The American Civil Liberties Union, The Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Southern Poverty Law Centre, oh, but there are many, many others that are clearly treasonous in my opinion. The number one public enemy, page 85, the head of the serpent, is the ACLU. It must be broken apart. Now, if I say that the way to do it is to start with the HUAC, House of Unamerican Activities Committee, investigation I know what's going to happen: the left wing will go insane. They'll say: "Savage, you're violating our civil rights!" They'll say: "You do not have probable cause to bring people in to investigate them." They might be right. But we need to do exactly that for our survival, alright? Tell me how a society that is open like ours, that is democratic like ours, can survive when enemies of freedom, enemies of democracy are destroying society by using the very freedoms that we have in place because of the US constitution? What would you do? This is the conundrum we are facing. These are probably the most important questions of our time. How can civil liberties be protected? And should civil liberties be put above survival? Should civil liberties be put above survival? Because with all due respect to Benjamin Franklin, who said that liberty must be placed higher than security, without security, without survival, what good are civil liberties? That's the problem. This crusade is going to lead us down roads we may not be comfortable going down, but we must go there. Page 86, "Scorched Earth".


Donald Trump sued Bill Maher for making a joke about his appeals to "birther" conspiracy theories:

http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainment-us-usa-trump-lawsuit-idUSBRE9310PL20130402

Donald Trump proposes to reinstate torture programs in violation of the 8th amendment, to subject US citizens suspected of terrorism through military tribunals in violation of the 6th amendment, declares that he will violate international law by deliberately targeting and killing civilians:


This morning they asked me a question: 'Would you approve waterboarding?" Would I approve waterboarding? Would I approve waterboarding? And I said 'Well, let me ask you a question: on the other side they chop off our young peoples' heads and they put them on a stick. On the other side they build these iron cages that they'll put twenty people in them, and they drop them in the ocean for fifteen minutes and they pull them up fifteen minutes later. Would I approve waterboarding? You bet your arse I would. You bet your arse. In a heartbeat. In a heartbeat. And I would approve more than that. Don't kid yourself, folks: it works, okay? It works. Only a stupid person would say it doesn't work. It works. They're all saying 'Oh, it has no effect. It has no effect.' I know people, that are very, very important people, and they want to be politically correct. And I see some people talking on television about 'Well, I don't know if it worked', and they tell me later on 'It works.' It works. Believe me, it works. And you know what? If it doesn't work they deserve it anyway for what they're doing. They deserve it. It works.

Donald Trump, Nov. 2015



I would do my best, absolute best, I mean one of the problems that we have and one of the reasons we're so ineffective is they're trying to, they're using them [civilians] as shields. It's a horrible thing. They're using them as shields. But we're fighting a very politically correct war. And the other thing is with the terrorists you have to take out their families. When you get these terrorists you have to take out their families. They, they care about their lives. Don't kid yourselves. They say they don't care about their lives. You have to take out their families.

Donald Trump, Dec. 2015


Video link of above quote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1eXRXL0nkk

Trump wants to deny US citizens due process and subject them to military tribunals:
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/donald-trump/article95144337.html

Behold Rick Tyler, the man behind this sign, explaining that the US should pursue white ethnic homogeneity (but he's not racist):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFhKhYdF9rA

White supremacists and fascists (neo nazis) robocalling for Donald Trump declaring that he represents their cause:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnIm2W-O0ro
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF7EpbRhxrI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUQKZEFmaOI
53114 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/1/16
Shapiro's got one thing Milo sure as heck doesn't: integrity. Frankly, whether you agree with him or not, Ben is right to highlight the dangerous precedent that's been set in our culture that we must never offend everyone, but also pointing out the disgusting juvenile crap done in the name of "freedom" when it is nothing more than trolling.

Also: anyone notice that anyone foolish enough to hitch their wagon to Trump got OBLITERATED in the primaries last night? Voted for Cruz and happy to see him not only vindicated, but utterly proven right when he said this:


“Donald is lying to his supporters. Donald will betray his supporters on every issue. If you care about immigration, Donald is laughing at you, and he’s telling the moneyed elites don’t believe what he’s saying that he’s not going to build a wall — that’s what he told the New York Times. He will betray you on every issue across the board.”


Sorry, but if you vote for the orange conman, you own him. I have no pity for the agrarian nationalist thugs who made cronyism acceptable in the Republican party I am no longer part of when they used thuggery, threats, corruption and intimidation to squelch the delegates at the convention. Sorry, but that's what communists and fascistic societies do.

And this. meanwhile, while Hillary is shown to have been "granting favors" in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation, what will surely go down as the largest money laundering scheme in history... Donald is busy lying about his talk with the Mexican president and playing media magnet so that nobody pays attention to the fact that BOTH CANDIDATES ARE UNFIT ON A MORAL, SOCIAL AND CRIMINAL LEVEL.

Instead of a contrast between two different ideologies, we are now stuck with two polished turds that are almost impossible to tell apart politically, socially and morally. The illusion of choice, indeed. Truly, this is what the founders fought for...? What a disgrace.
8488 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Imoutoland!
Online
Posted 9/1/16

DeadeyeC wrote:

Shapiro's got one thing Milo sure as heck doesn't: integrity. Frankly, whether you agree with him or not, Ben is right to highlight the dangerous precedent that's been set in our culture that we must never offend everyone, but also pointing out the disgusting juvenile crap done in the name of "freedom" when it is nothing more than trolling.


It seems its a mobcracy against a mobocracy, where people will use numbers and underhanded tactics to shut each other down, with social media shaming versus large scale troll sabotage. Granted, the internet is a platform for most of this, so I'm question how much I should care about this.

Frankly I was curious about the alt right, but it seems by making this thread I'm giving them more legitimacy. In any case, I think it is a good way to learn about internet culture....I guess.
53114 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/1/16

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


DeadeyeC wrote:

Shapiro's got one thing Milo sure as heck doesn't: integrity. Frankly, whether you agree with him or not, Ben is right to highlight the dangerous precedent that's been set in our culture that we must never offend everyone, but also pointing out the disgusting juvenile crap done in the name of "freedom" when it is nothing more than trolling.


It seems its a mobcracy against a mobocracy, where people will use numbers and underhanded tactics to shut each other down, with social media shaming versus large scale troll sabotage. Granted, the internet is a platform for most of this, so I'm question how much I should care about this.

Frankly I was curious about the alt right, but it seems by making this thread I'm giving them more legitimacy. In any case, I think it is a good way to learn about internet culture....I guess.


I assure you, as somebody who had contact with delegates, the only ones who were using underhanded tricks were the alt "right". If the American public knew half the shady things that went down at that convention, Reince Preibus would be fleeing somewhere to seek asylum.
Emtro 
1541 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 9/2/16

DeadeyeC wrote:

Shapiro's got one thing Milo sure as heck doesn't: integrity. Frankly, whether you agree with him or not, Ben is right to highlight the dangerous precedent that's been set in our culture that we must never offend everyone, but also pointing out the disgusting juvenile crap done in the name of "freedom" when it is nothing more than trolling.

Also: anyone notice that anyone foolish enough to hitch their wagon to Trump got OBLITERATED in the primaries last night? Voted for Cruz and happy to see him not only vindicated, but utterly proven right when he said this:


“Donald is lying to his supporters. Donald will betray his supporters on every issue. If you care about immigration, Donald is laughing at you, and he’s telling the moneyed elites don’t believe what he’s saying that he’s not going to build a wall — that’s what he told the New York Times. He will betray you on every issue across the board.”


Sorry, but if you vote for the orange conman, you own him. I have no pity for the agrarian nationalist thugs who made cronyism acceptable in the Republican party I am no longer part of when they used thuggery, threats, corruption and intimidation to squelch the delegates at the convention. Sorry, but that's what communists and fascistic societies do.

And this. meanwhile, while Hillary is shown to have been "granting favors" in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation, what will surely go down as the largest money laundering scheme in history... Donald is busy lying about his talk with the Mexican president and playing media magnet so that nobody pays attention to the fact that BOTH CANDIDATES ARE UNFIT ON A MORAL, SOCIAL AND CRIMINAL LEVEL.

Instead of a contrast between two different ideologies, we are now stuck with two polished turds that are almost impossible to tell apart politically, socially and morally. The illusion of choice, indeed. Truly, this is what the founders fought for...? What a disgrace.


It's honestly sad. I thought you were genuinely someone fooled by misinformation after that last post you made but I had glossed over this one. This one shows you're more, a "NEVER TRUMPET" as it were. One who will latch on to any illogical claim as long as it is negative and push it as fact, while pretending it's because you care and both candidates are evil and that's why you're not voting for your party choice.

You're just an phantom Hillary supporter, just like Ben Shapiro. Oh darn, did I just say something to make you proud of yourself? Whoops.
53114 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/3/16

Emtro wrote:


DeadeyeC wrote:

Shapiro's got one thing Milo sure as heck doesn't: integrity. Frankly, whether you agree with him or not, Ben is right to highlight the dangerous precedent that's been set in our culture that we must never offend everyone, but also pointing out the disgusting juvenile crap done in the name of "freedom" when it is nothing more than trolling.

Also: anyone notice that anyone foolish enough to hitch their wagon to Trump got OBLITERATED in the primaries last night? Voted for Cruz and happy to see him not only vindicated, but utterly proven right when he said this:


“Donald is lying to his supporters. Donald will betray his supporters on every issue. If you care about immigration, Donald is laughing at you, and he’s telling the moneyed elites don’t believe what he’s saying that he’s not going to build a wall — that’s what he told the New York Times. He will betray you on every issue across the board.”


Sorry, but if you vote for the orange conman, you own him. I have no pity for the agrarian nationalist thugs who made cronyism acceptable in the Republican party I am no longer part of when they used thuggery, threats, corruption and intimidation to squelch the delegates at the convention. Sorry, but that's what communists and fascistic societies do.

And this. meanwhile, while Hillary is shown to have been "granting favors" in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation, what will surely go down as the largest money laundering scheme in history... Donald is busy lying about his talk with the Mexican president and playing media magnet so that nobody pays attention to the fact that BOTH CANDIDATES ARE UNFIT ON A MORAL, SOCIAL AND CRIMINAL LEVEL.

Instead of a contrast between two different ideologies, we are now stuck with two polished turds that are almost impossible to tell apart politically, socially and morally. The illusion of choice, indeed. Truly, this is what the founders fought for...? What a disgrace.


It's honestly sad. I thought you were genuinely someone fooled by misinformation after that last post you made but I had glossed over this one. This one shows you're more, a "NEVER TRUMPET" as it were. One who will latch on to any illogical claim as long as it is negative and push it as fact, while pretending it's because you care and both candidates are evil and that's why you're not voting for your party choice.

You're just an phantom Hillary supporter, just like Ben Shapiro. Oh darn, did I just say something to make you proud of yourself? Whoops.


Excuse me, but who do you think you are to speak for me...? Go sit down and let me explain why you're egregiously wrong.

I've had so many fools over this election try to use the "If you're not supporting Trump you're supporting Hillary" gibberish towards me I've found myself refuting it on reflex. Okay, let's say that's true; you do realize that only works in that the inverse is also true ("not supporting Hillary is supporting Trump")...? Obviously, you can't support both of them and neither of them at the same time. So au contraire, the one whose argument is built on illogical prefaces is yours. I support NEITHER and therefore neither has my support. To claim that not supporting either is in fact supporting both is nothing more than magical thinking and non-reason born of "it's this way because we say it is".

Oh, here's the interesting think for you to consider... you do know that Hillary recieved 250k from your golden boy through the Clinton Foundation, yes...? And that she attended his wedding and then later claimed he was a bigot while Trump accused her of the same?

Face it. Both are liars, both are lawless, both are lousy human beings all around. Don't you, your family and your future progeny deserve better than two self-absorbed imbeciles to choose from in the main parties...?

Let me show you a bit of video footage, if you're not afraid to challenge your thinking, to show how logic shows NEITHER are fit for the office and how agrarian mob-think DOES NOT CHANGE THAT FACT:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qkbb4EmSC6U
Emtro 
1541 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 9/3/16 , edited 9/3/16

DeadeyeC wrote:
Excuse me, but who do you think you are to speak for me...? Go sit down and let me explain why you're egregiously wrong.

I've had so many fools over this election try to use the "If you're not supporting Trump you're supporting Hillary" gibberish towards me I've found myself refuting it on reflex. Okay, let's say that's true; you do realize that only works in that the inverse is also true ("not supporting Hillary is supporting Trump")...? Obviously, you can't support both of them and neither of them at the same time. So au contraire, the one whose argument is built on illogical prefaces is yours. I support NEITHER and therefore neither has my support. To claim that not supporting either is in fact supporting both is nothing more than magical thinking and non-reason born of "it's this way because we say it is".

Oh, here's the interesting think for you to consider... you do know that Hillary recieved 250k from your golden boy through the Clinton Foundation, yes...? And that she attended his wedding and then later claimed he was a bigot while Trump accused her of the same?

Face it. Both are liars, both are lawless, both are lousy human beings all around. Don't you, your family and your future progeny deserve better than two self-absorbed imbeciles to choose from in the main parties...?

Let me show you a bit of video footage, if you're not afraid to challenge your thinking, to show how logic shows NEITHER are fit for the office and how agrarian mob-think DOES NOT CHANGE THAT FACT:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qkbb4EmSC6U


It does not work if the inverse is true. Hillary is establishment and has the support of the current administration. She has the media and all major networks on her side. YouTube just started demonetizing videos that criticize her (they are supposed to do the same from trump videos but surprise, they only demonetized the ones that praise him). I'm not even going to list off the number off methods used to get illegal votes cast and counted for democratic nominees.

So yes, every vote not cast for her opponent is a vote cast for her. An army of lemmings can and will defeat an army of lions if all but one lion lays down and lets them have their way.

Edit:
Link to MSNBC... get a hold of yourself.
53114 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/4/16

Emtro wrote:


DeadeyeC wrote:
Excuse me, but who do you think you are to speak for me...? Go sit down and let me explain why you're egregiously wrong.

I've had so many fools over this election try to use the "If you're not supporting Trump you're supporting Hillary" gibberish towards me I've found myself refuting it on reflex. Okay, let's say that's true; you do realize that only works in that the inverse is also true ("not supporting Hillary is supporting Trump")...? Obviously, you can't support both of them and neither of them at the same time. So au contraire, the one whose argument is built on illogical prefaces is yours. I support NEITHER and therefore neither has my support. To claim that not supporting either is in fact supporting both is nothing more than magical thinking and non-reason born of "it's this way because we say it is".

Oh, here's the interesting think for you to consider... you do know that Hillary recieved 250k from your golden boy through the Clinton Foundation, yes...? And that she attended his wedding and then later claimed he was a bigot while Trump accused her of the same?

Face it. Both are liars, both are lawless, both are lousy human beings all around. Don't you, your family and your future progeny deserve better than two self-absorbed imbeciles to choose from in the main parties...?

Let me show you a bit of video footage, if you're not afraid to challenge your thinking, to show how logic shows NEITHER are fit for the office and how agrarian mob-think DOES NOT CHANGE THAT FACT:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qkbb4EmSC6U


It does not work if the inverse is true. Hillary is establishment and has the support of the current administration. She has the media and all major networks on her side. YouTube just started demonetizing videos that criticize her (they are supposed to do the same from trump videos but surprise, they only demonetized the ones that praise him). I'm not even going to list off the number off methods used to get illegal votes cast and counted for democratic nominees.

So yes, every vote not cast for her opponent is a vote cast for her. An army of lemmings can and will defeat an army of lions if all but one lion lays down and lets them have their way.

Edit:
Link to MSNBC... get a hold of yourself.


I'm very amused how you proved yourself small-minded and unreasonable just now. Did you even bother to click the link...? That was a clip from MSNBC, yes... but it featured Steve Deace, who is an argent patriot and constitutionalist who has railed against the rot in this country... no matter where it comes from.

I'm also very amused at how your only argument is essentially "he's not her, vote for him". Well, I'm not Hillary either. Would you vote for me. You aren't Hillary either, and I certainly wouldn't vote for you.

I'm also sad to see you choose a comforting lie and intellectual dishonesty over truth; you're so cravenly afraid of Hillary that you refuse to do your due dilligence of her donor, Donald Trump, for fear that you might find a truth that conflicts with your narrative.

So be it; you can vote for him if you want, but you'd be nothing but a liar to claim you're some kind of moral paragon or champion for championing one gilded turd over the other.
16725 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 9/4/16

DeadeyeC wrote:


Emtro wrote:


DeadeyeC wrote:
Excuse me, but who do you think you are to speak for me...? Go sit down and let me explain why you're egregiously wrong.

I've had so many fools over this election try to use the "If you're not supporting Trump you're supporting Hillary" gibberish towards me I've found myself refuting it on reflex. Okay, let's say that's true; you do realize that only works in that the inverse is also true ("not supporting Hillary is supporting Trump")...? Obviously, you can't support both of them and neither of them at the same time. So au contraire, the one whose argument is built on illogical prefaces is yours. I support NEITHER and therefore neither has my support. To claim that not supporting either is in fact supporting both is nothing more than magical thinking and non-reason born of "it's this way because we say it is".

Oh, here's the interesting think for you to consider... you do know that Hillary recieved 250k from your golden boy through the Clinton Foundation, yes...? And that she attended his wedding and then later claimed he was a bigot while Trump accused her of the same?

Face it. Both are liars, both are lawless, both are lousy human beings all around. Don't you, your family and your future progeny deserve better than two self-absorbed imbeciles to choose from in the main parties...?

Let me show you a bit of video footage, if you're not afraid to challenge your thinking, to show how logic shows NEITHER are fit for the office and how agrarian mob-think DOES NOT CHANGE THAT FACT:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qkbb4EmSC6U


It does not work if the inverse is true. Hillary is establishment and has the support of the current administration. She has the media and all major networks on her side. YouTube just started demonetizing videos that criticize her (they are supposed to do the same from trump videos but surprise, they only demonetized the ones that praise him). I'm not even going to list off the number off methods used to get illegal votes cast and counted for democratic nominees.

So yes, every vote not cast for her opponent is a vote cast for her. An army of lemmings can and will defeat an army of lions if all but one lion lays down and lets them have their way.

Edit:
Link to MSNBC... get a hold of yourself.


I'm very amused how you proved yourself small-minded and unreasonable just now. Did you even bother to click the link...? That was a clip from MSNBC, yes... but it featured Steve Deace, who is an argent patriot and constitutionalist who has railed against the rot in this country... no matter where it comes from.

I'm also very amused at how your only argument is essentially "he's not her, vote for him". Well, I'm not Hillary either. Would you vote for me. You aren't Hillary either, and I certainly wouldn't vote for you.

I'm also sad to see you choose a comforting lie and intellectual dishonesty over truth; you're so cravenly afraid of Hillary that you refuse to do your due dilligence of her donor, Donald Trump, for fear that you might find a truth that conflicts with your narrative.

So be it; you can vote for him if you want, but you'd be nothing but a liar to claim you're some kind of moral paragon or champion for championing one gilded turd over the other.


While Hilary is lying and having press releases calling trump a racist Trump is going over to Mexico to talk about building that wall and stopping the flow of illegal goods across our borders and shifting trade from China to Mexico. Hillary has been absent for months while Trump is out acting like a president and talking with foreign leaders. Hillary is begging people for more money....

Trump at least stands behind what he says, Hillary switches sides depending on the time of day. Look at the Pacific trade Treaty that hillary was a major supporter of and now says she is against it.
Posted 9/4/16
who are these clowns I've never heard of them?
10809 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M / Auburn, Washington
Offline
Posted 9/4/16

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

In essence, there is a difference between simply voicing an unpleasant truth to all out bigotry enshrouded in cherry picked untruths.



Yeah, basically that.

There's a level of intellectual dishonesty in modern discourse that truly offends me: if you know a thing is not true, but it supports your argument, should you say it?

What if you simply DON'T KNOW whether it's true?

I'm increasingly seeing people make arguments that they claim not to know aren't true, but when you tell them those things aren't true, they continue to make them... so I am increasingly skeptical about their claims not to know these things were false all along.

And then you have to ask the opposite question: what if something IS true, but supports the OTHER SIDE of your argument?

What if you just DON'T KNOW?

But let's look at the thing that REALLY scares me: the not knowing part.

What if you COULD know in like, fifteen seconds? Because we have the internet, and you can look shit up on it. If you're going to base your argument on something, shouldn't you look and see whether that something is true first?

Instead, people get mad and change the subject when someone else looks and finds out it's NOT true. Then they go off somewhere else and say the same thing, even though they've just learned it's not true.

Which is why I keep saying people are stupid, LIKE to be stupid, and actively try to REMAIN stupid. Because they'll say things are true when they don't actually know, could easily find out but don't, and when someone else finds out they just run away and keep saying the same stuff.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.