Dan Rather says

Mar 6, 2019 6:05 PM

Views

147319

Likes

6004

Dislikes

173

Dan Rather says

You found that 1972 MS Word typewriter yet Dan?

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Science is about questions we can't answer, not answers we can't question.

7 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 2

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

1 of my student read a book where climate change was called 'advanced air conditioning', would Trump get it if we all called it that?

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 5

"Air conditioning is bust, we're melting the ice caps".

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 2

A process of knowledge...like reporting on forged memos before they were verified Dan?

7 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 2

GM food aren't bad

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

You know what isn’t real? The story you made up about George W Bush in the 2004 election.

7 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 2

They should call it a vaccine and watch the anti-vaxxers lose their shit

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

The king of fake news.

7 years ago | Likes 32 Dislikes 41

Maybe it was all the thoughts and prayers finally kicking in?

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

President is just happy to know there's a cure just in case he gets one from one of his hookers.

7 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 18

Is HIV transmissible through golden showers? The more you know.

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

I'm pretty sure it was prayer

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

You know what else happened? FUNDING FOR FUCKING HIV RESEARCH!!!!

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

I am a man of all disciplines of science, including the Sasha Grey type

7 years ago | Likes 55 Dislikes 16

She has made some interesting comments.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Sasha Grey 2020. Make America Gape Again

7 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 1

Science can't tell you anything about what to do with what it tells you. E.g. nuclear bombs. A cure is more than just science. It has ethics

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

7 years ago | Likes 121 Dislikes 2

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

v

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

All my tubes and wires!

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

What's the frequency, Kenneth?

7 years ago | Likes 326 Dislikes 5

Thanks for that. I never knew.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

7 years ago | Likes 34 Dislikes 2

7 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

We're best friends now.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I was brain-dead, locked out, numb, not up to speed

7 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 0

This asshole was literally run out of the news business for shilling fake news in the 2004 election. That's why he's on twitter and not TV.

7 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 2

You should check facts. I suppose you’ll try to verify on Fox News.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 5

Explain to me how I'm wrong. He said docs were authenticated by CBS but they were forged. He stepped down over it. Undoubtedly asked by CBS.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Stem cells is what it was done with.

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 2

I see more than one person referring to stem cells being used. It was a myriad of things however, stem cells amongst them. And:not a cure...

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Science is fake news if it hurts my feeling - Trump probably.

7 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 7

DAN MOTHAFUCKIN RATHER!!

7 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 9

TLDR: science good, better world

7 years ago | Likes 254 Dislikes 5

They need to get in my bionic body before I'm to old to care.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

science leads to knowledge, both of which are neutral. science created the mess we are in of perpetual nuclear threat, for example.

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

You mean that mess that kept America and Russia from engaging in all-put war?

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 3

Science is neutral. Application is what decides morality.

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

The American HIV epidemic was caused by Ronald reagan thought people should die for being gay or an addict and prevented research

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

It took him years to even mention it in public. We would probably have a cure by now if st ronnie hadn't set us back 10 years

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

three Amish people got on imgur just to downvote you claiming science is good. Nah I'm kidding the Amish are much better than these crazies

7 years ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 0

Although...now that I'm thinking about it do Amish get vaccinated? Do they see real doctors? How do they pay? To the Google!

7 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

Upon (briefly)looking into it apparently it varies by community and they are vaccinated at a lower rate but it's becoming more common.

7 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 0

They do occasionally see doctors if they can't avoid it. And they raise funds by performing labor to pay for it.

7 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

The Amish are not fools, like anti-vaxxers. Also, it’s comforting to see someone else who gets excited about totally random things to learn.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I fully support your educational journey and sharing thereof.

7 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Dan Rather not put up with bullshit.

7 years ago | Likes 159 Dislikes 40

Yeah, you should google "Killian documents" and revise your statement

7 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

Dan just creates the bullshit which is why he got his ass fired

7 years ago | Likes 45 Dislikes 1

Except for the bullshit he prints out from MS Word...

7 years ago | Likes 50 Dislikes 10

7 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 0

It's a sad day when politicians are questioning educated scientists who clearly know what they are doing.

7 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 10

Of course they should. Please note that I am talking about what should be the ideal, not what actually happens now. Politicians aren't

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 1

omniscient, and scientists aren't either. Science is an iterative process, and if they are paid by the public, then they should answer

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

legitimate questions. Ideally politicians should translate scientific law into good policy. How else are advances going to make it to

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

improve human life? There is not an infinite amount of resources, so the politicians need to weigh the merits of each situation. Now clearly

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

that doesn't happen perfectly right now, but that doesn't mean that scientists should be skepticism.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

There still is no cure for HIV. Read the actual story

7 years ago | Likes 38 Dislikes 8

Nope. I only get information from headlines.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

The first person they "cured" still has a form of HIV. The second person underwent bone marrow transplant for cancer and the donor...

7 years ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 2

I tried to add more but imgur just kept freezing. The other person had a bone marrow transplant for cancer and was a happy accident.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

... said "Yo quiero Taco Bell" and promptly drove to Taco Bell after donating the bone marrow

7 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 1

Eeeh, 'cure' means "to relieve of the symptoms of a disease or condition" which to my knowledge is exactly what has happened. Unfortunately>

7 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 2

> it includes nuking the person's immune system to a level which kills 50% of cancer patients, so it's not a traditionally "GOOD" cure.

7 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 2

No, but there are 2 people effectively cured and scientific researchers might use those examples to create a cure

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Not a "cure" but neither patient has any trace of the virus, and the first patient was what, 10 years ago?

7 years ago | Likes 19 Dislikes 0

The virus integrates into your genome, curing requires that you know there isn't a trace left as it can randomly reactivate.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Yes, this is correct which is why they aren't calling it a cure. But the first patient has been virus free since, so that is good news.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The issue is that its not a treatment that you can really use. There's a reason it's only happened twice.

7 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

Its a start, at least.

7 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 0

Sounds like a fucking cure to me! *Slaps hand on the table and twirls finger above head* let’s get a beer!

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

But there are milestones and achievements in science that are worth celebrating, and this is one of them.

7 years ago | Likes 48 Dislikes 3

Dont think he is saying we shouldn't, only pointing out hypocrisy in denying science you dont like and then praising science you like.

7 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

Yea idk why we have to immediately start fighting about it, we should just be happy we agree it's good

7 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 1

Because it's ridiculous that people celebrate the milestone while denigrating the process.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 4

Eh,worked at a place that tested the polio vaccine on horses. I can see how polio vaccines can be celebrated without celebrating horse death

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Fair enough, but I'm talking more about anti-science rhetoric. E.g. ignoring scientific consensus except when it'

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

*it's convenient* (accidentally hit enter)

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

I guess I don't understand. Are we supposed to not be happy when science brings about good things?

7 years ago | Likes 14 Dislikes 3

He's saying why do people accept it when its happy and something comforting but never when it's difficult and proves we need to change.

7 years ago | Likes 21 Dislikes 0

Science is all well and good until it costs me money or suggests I change my lifestyle. /s

7 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

You shouldn't have had to explain that.

7 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 0

There's a lot of things that shouldn't have to be explained but that's the country we live in now.

7 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

Hes stating the hypocrisy of climate change deniers such as the president celebrating a scientific achievement like hiv cure

7 years ago | Likes 17 Dislikes 5

The term climate change is just so stupid. It turns literally everything into climate change in order to force it's acceptance. Who could 1/

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 9

What about anthropogenic climate change meaning caused by humans specifically our emissions through industrialisation

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

even coin that term? The climate just changed a few minutes ago. What people need is something very specific which is why pollution is a 2/

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 7

better term. It's measurable and effective research is something that can be measured and replicated.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 8

Climate change IS measurable though. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it wrong.

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

There's a big difference between weather change and climate change. Most do not understand this difference which is why we have this debate.

7 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

Nobody sane denies the climate is changing, they question what effect humans have and poor policies that harm economies w minimal effect.

7 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 2

Recent studies show that there is about a 99.999999% (not an exaggeration) chance that humans are causing it.

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

Plenty of people deny it's changing, from here to the US senate floor

7 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

It’s because of the way the term “climate change” is used that associates with man made and how to “stop climate change” because u can’t.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 4

Only thing we can do is slow it down by minimizing influences of man made pollution. However people deny that our influence is Acceling it

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Well when EXPERTS make claims like NYC will be underwater and the Great Lakes will dry up, and they don't happen, can you blame them?

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

please direct me to the experts saying the great lakes will dry up

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Wait till they find out it was done with Stem Cells bwahahaha

7 years ago | Likes 2549 Dislikes 51

Hoo boy... hi from November 2020

5 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

You can't stop me hack-man

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Wait till you find out you can get stem cells from things other than dead babies' cord blood.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

they're gonna be steming

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Was it?

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I have a friend who has a child that was born with CP. They had a go fund me for experimental stem cell infusions at a university in the 1/2

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

States. He is almost 4 and could barely crawl before. After 3 infusions, he is lifting himself up and standing. Trying to walk. Science! 2/2

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

My only concern is where the stem cells originated.

7 years ago | Likes 21 Dislikes 33

From your mom...

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

The bone marrow of an adult donor

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

From a stem cell donor! Same treatment as for leukemia! Anyone can donate aslong as they match MHC alleles basically

7 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 3

Umbilical cords. That's why they highly recommend you bank the cord

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

That is actually a really cool concept and I wish it was more popularised

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Wait till we find out damn rather is a fraud. Oops! Too late!

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

But didn't they find out Stem cells you're talking about were actually harmful? So now they use a different kind of stem cell.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 3

Got a source, I've never heard that before, but would def. Want to read more about if true

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Can't say I do. Heard it in passing a over the past year. Didn't think much about it since.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

He said stem cells... You just assume hes referencing the wrong ones so you can correct him by saying the same thing?

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

The comment infers embryonic stem cells by its tone. CLEARLY.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

"wait til they find out it was done with stem cells" I think you're projecting

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

no I think you're just being delusional to make your point. Who's "they" and why would they care it was done with stem cells?

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

7 years ago | Likes 686 Dislikes 6

it could fix a lot of problems that large swaths of the medical industry are built around still being problems

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

because of Christian shariah like laws enforcers

7 years ago | Likes 32 Dislikes 7

Make more money in treatment than prevention

7 years ago | Likes 44 Dislikes 9

We are but these are super specific cases HIV patient has to get bone marrow transplant which is super risky and donor has to be HIV immune

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Iirc, for the cure to take hold you need a bone marrow match who also has a natural immunity to HIV which always sounded rare to me.

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Something like 10% in Northern Europeans and west Asians. Rarer elsewhere.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Who is anti stem cell?

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Gene Hackman

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I thought it was a bone marrow transplant?

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Bone marrow contains many stem cells which is the reason for it being transplanted.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Ahhh, ok. The initial comment was a bit sparse on the details, hence my confusion.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Did you even read it? This particular one was with a bone marrow transplant.

7 years ago | Likes 39 Dislikes 28

Did...did you? UK patient 'free' of HIV after stem cell treatment http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-47421855

7 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

They used bone marrow because it contained stem cells. Did you even read it?

7 years ago | Likes 48 Dislikes 4

Not embryonic stem cells though. And it was actually because they were treating their cancers. And they still need antiretrovirals. And (1

7 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

This "cure" would not work with most patients because they don't all have the same mutation that allows it to work. (2

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

The first patient isn't taking antivirals anymore. This one may not, after he's had some recovery time. Bone marrow needs to grow.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Last I read they both needed to because while it eliminated it beyond detectable ranges they are still susceptible to a different HIV strain

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

People only object to embryonic stem cells, not all stem cell research. This wasn't done with embryonic stem cells.

7 years ago | Likes 196 Dislikes 13

I have never met someone who objected to stem cell research that understood the issue to that depth. Without fail its "FETUS CELLS EVIL!"

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 5

I don't get the downvotes. Are there actually people opposed to stem cell research on grounds other than 'think of the babies'?

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Cause I've never once heard an argument against it that didn't invoke fetus stem cells.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

can we scramble embryos, and serve with toast, with a side of bacon?

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 9

american people* and even you did not make straight democracy and informed vote on it, like switzerland type. we eu aRe crAVE thE FeTUs

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

"argue that the 5-day old mass of cells is too young to achieve personhood or that the embryo, would otherwise go to medical waste anyway."

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

ask and ye shall be answered. I just replied to this comment asking this. Didn't they find out embryonic stem cells actually were harmful?

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 3

No. They just haven't resulted in as many treatments as adult stem cells have

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

I have a distinct memory of watching or reading something where some stem cell researcher was saying it was causing some form of cancer.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

I wouldn't put all my money on that memory but I recall quite distinctly them stating that embryonic stem cells were largely discredited.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Largely because embryonic stem cell research wasn't getting funding.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

That's not true at all.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Most don't know that we can get stem cells from anything else but embryos. Therefore are against all of it.

7 years ago | Likes 107 Dislikes 21

[deleted]

[deleted]

7 years ago (deleted Mar 6, 2019 10:52 PM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

[deleted]

[deleted]

7 years ago (deleted Mar 8, 2019 4:23 AM) | Likes 0 Dislikes 0

it was?

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Not sure what I said wrong. Many are unaware unassigned cells can come from other places.

7 years ago | Likes 38 Dislikes 5

Nothing you said is wrong, you are right but most people don’t know that their knowledge is limited

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Denouncing ignorance is offensive to ignorant people.

7 years ago | Likes 20 Dislikes 3

Ignorance can be cured. Stupid can't

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

I had someone legitimately get mad at me for trying to explain that not all stem cells came from embryos.

7 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Well, pluripotent, yes. Just not omnipotent cells. Those are embryonic only

7 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 1

Wasn't a method developed to revert cells to embryonic stem cells?

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent. Totipotent cells give rise to embryo and placenta. Multipotent cells are locked in to a few cell lines

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

There are people who would rather have HIV in this world than stem cells being used in any way.

7 years ago | Likes 347 Dislikes 10

And those people should be executed

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 3

No. There are people that would rather have OTHER people have HIV. When they have the disease themselves, they’re suddenly more open-minded.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 2

I’ll bet you it’s not the people who were cured

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Then by all means, give them HIV.

7 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

Let’s let those people die and move on then.

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 3

Natural selection

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Not for people. We coddle the stupid instead of letting them get themselves killed off.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

Religious lunatics tend to be inflexible and authoritarian. They are pro forced birth not pro life

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 4

That's because people still believe that stem cells only come from unborn foetuses.

7 years ago | Likes 39 Dislikes 1

Even if they did that shouldn't be a problem assuming the remains were obtained legitimately.

7 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 3

Its the controversy surrounding the harvesting and selling of aborted fetus parts, particularly with PP, and the intentions behind them

7 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 2

Some say PP providers encouraged unneeded abortions for the parts, which they would profit from.

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 4

because theres a pope who would rather people get HIV than use condoms. similar story with Christian shariah enforcers

7 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 18

I'm fine with condoms, as a Christian. I'd rather people use condoms than not and later get an abortion.

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

as another Christian, I agree.

7 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

The current Pope is actually pretty progressive. I agree with the other commenter, you need to do some research.

7 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 1

maybe its you who need to start doing some research https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/30/pope-francis-condoms-aids-hiv-africa

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 1

Okay, number 1, he didn't answer the question either way, and number 2, that article is from 2015.

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 1

T H E G U A R D I A N

7 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

There are people in this world that would rather have mass starvation than GMO animals and crops

7 years ago | Likes 199 Dislikes 4

Their are people who would rather have polio back then vaccinate kids

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

You don't need GMO crops to feed the world... And I guess you are thinking of breeding rather than GMO in case of the animals.

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 9

In most cases, the difference between selective breeding and GMO is time scale. Sure we could selectively breed a tomato plant to be 1/2

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

more insect resistant, but that would take hundreds of years. A few years in a lab and it's done. 2/2

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

No

7 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

enviro pigs, golden rice? both super beneficial to the world and to humans yet people go against it for reason

7 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

I’m taking an agriculture class rn and gmos really are great. Crops that make it so less weed killing sprays have to be used and pest...

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Resistant crops are incredibly popular because they reduce pollution and pesticide use but people hate the idea of gmos so much and it...

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Doesn’t make sense to me. They are scared of “unnatural” things but nothing in the grocery store is natural (and that’s good)

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

There are people in this world who would rather watch the world burn than accept that man is responsible for climate change.

7 years ago | Likes 86 Dislikes 10

There are people who would rather see deadly diseases return than risk their children get a disorder they would never have gotten anyway.

7 years ago | Likes 25 Dislikes 0

There are people in this world that have not smelled what the rock is cooking.

7 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

There are people in this world that would rather blame man for climate change then realize man just accelerates the natural process.

7 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 44

Natural processes? Do you really think that people who dedicate their lives to studying the climate don't factor in natural processes?

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

There are people in this word who would rather let the world burn rather than take steps to decelerate/reverse climate change just because 1

7 years ago | Likes 28 Dislikes 1

So that would be man causing climate change then? Doing something in 50 years instead of 5000?

7 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

There are people in this world that would rather claim I'm a murderer than realize I just accelerated the natural process of dying.

7 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 0

There are people in this world that don’t know the difference between then and than

7 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I mean, youre not wrong. But we accelerated it to a point that it's unmanageable by the planet. So, we're still responsible for the damage.

7 years ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 0

And if natural processes were continuing without human intervention we'd be in the midst of a nice cooling cycle. Thanks to the industrial..

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

There are people in this world who would rather watch the world burn than not watch it burn

7 years ago | Likes 25 Dislikes 4

Lmao fuck you silly

7 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

There are people in this world.

7 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0