Official: On this day last year thread

[Wales-Bales]

So sometimes ad hominem good, sometimes bad eh! Anyway if you have anything to support what your Epstein onanism has to do with the bollocks you posted a year then fill your boots

Well, it's the two rules of law that you clearly support and defend isn't it.

[cyril evans awaydays]

Well, it's the two rules of law that you clearly support and defend isn't it.

What do you mean by two rules of law? Quoting them would be good.

[Wales-Bales]

What do you mean by two rules of law? Quoting them would be good.

It would be a waste of time, because first you would need to be capable of thinking independently, which you have shown on countless occasions that you aren't.

[cyril evans awaydays]

It would be a waste of time, because first you would need to be capable of thinking independently, which you have shown on countless occasions that you aren't.

Ok, I'll accept one rule of law as you are obviously struggling!

[Wales-Bales]

Ok, I'll accept one rule of law as you are obviously struggling!

Just carry on with your silly little games of bumping old threads Cyril the Stalker™ while I focus on today's news

[cyril evans awaydays]

Just carry on with your childish little games of bumping old threads, while I focus on today's news

The thing about rules of law are they are on the statute book somewhere. You don't need independent thinking to find them, though if you prostitute yourself as someone who only references factual evidence to support their views then their absence could make you a little uncomfortable I suppose!

[Wales-Bales]

The thing about rules of law are they are on the statute book somewhere. You don't need independent thinking to find them, though if you prostitute yourself as someone who only references factual evidence to support their views then their absence could make you a little uncomfortable I suppose!

Maybe now is a good time to read the Jeffrey Epstein thread, and see how rules are interpreted differently, depending on who you are.