loyola llothta
☭☭☭
stop lying asian boy and smurf also said he was running from suge and he was no shooter just a drug dealer that would throw handsAccording to Smurf an nem he ran their block.
stop lying asian boy and smurf also said he was running from suge and he was no shooter just a drug dealer that would throw handsAccording to Smurf an nem he ran their block.
Real nikkas keep they bytches in check and dont let em talk brazy to them...cause they know wassup''ex said something negative''... yeah i mean NO EX HAS EVER SAID ANYTHING NEGATIVE about their other.. lol
Facts on Facts .stop lying asian boy and smurf also said he was running from suge and he was no shooter just a drug dealer that would throw hands
So Smurf never said he hustled for 50 and 50 ran their hood you Japanese cocksucker?stop lying asian boy and smurf also said he was running from suge and he was no shooter just a drug dealer that would throw hands
No he didn't Smurf, domination and Game. Yes the game said 50 is about that lifestop lying asian boy and smurf also said he was running from suge and he was no shooter just a drug dealer that would throw hands
she's not scorned. he threatened to shoot their son and basically threw him in the bushes & blamed his mom on ig. she responded to his statements against their son. a lot of her statement was about their son.If I know one thing it's that a scorned female will say anything.
Not saying it ain't true
she's not scorned. he threatened to shoot their son and basically threw him in the bushes & blamed his mom on ig. she responded to his statements against their son. a lot of her statement was about their son.
she's more like an upset mom.
Fallacy. No source cited.
Fallacy. No source cited and he-say-she-say type of information is not valid.
Right in the legal, NY, recorded document that black child made available to the public. Which was also verified by numerous 3rd parties as being accurate.
Strawman fallacy. I never claimed that 50 told the feds who shot him.
And how does that help your case? Intentionally providing indirect, privileged information is still defined as informant behavior by every sense of the word.
Presenting you with legal, verified, empirical data detailing 50's snitching is considered as, "Just take my word for it" to you? So beside being gay, you're also retarded too?
On a side note, I think this interaction between me and you proves the point that I've been trying to make -- 50 stans can't tell the difference between information that can't be evaluated with information that can.
Yes, anyone can say 50 cent is a snitch, but in that sense your only option for response is to simply accept what the person says or reject it. Now, if data is presented that was recorded to ensure the accuracy, quality and integrity of the data, I don't need anyone to tell me if 50 was a snitch or not. I can make my mind up based on the empirical data in front of me proving that he is a snitch. Fans of woodface can't grasp this concept, which makes it impossible to reason with them.