Reply With Quote
No need. Your definition covered my point beautifully just like I said it would.
Covered the others too.
Don't remember your owning yourself so completely tbh.
It's funny.
DMC's syntax gets more formal when he's losing.
Then he breaks.
No need. Your definition covered my point beautifully just like I said it would.
Covered the others too.
Don't remember your owning yourself so completely tbh.
It's funny.
The fact I had to explain it to you says all I need to know about you and your colostomy bag.
Your shtick is to keep interrupting until someone gives you the time of day, then just go all Mouse stupid until the other person goes to sleep.
Chris hints at it all the time ITT.
So does Derptacular.
Nathan89 seems more focused on the "Mexicans," but Chris is close behind.
You weren't responding to him.
Contextually clear, or should be. Have you read through the thread?
I commented through much, so caught much along rhe way.
We're taking about Sharia, 'member?
We're having a fluid, unmoderated, wide ranging adult conversation, please try to keep up!
You didn't have to.
I explained it all before you even ramped up your semantics machine.
So you have to turn to your narratives.
No, I was done arguing anything when I predicted exactly what you would do.Your shtick is to keep interrupting until someone gives you the time of day, then just go all Mouse stupid until the other person goes to sleep.
The fact I have to explain this to you proves you're just being a .
DMC is never talking about the topic of discussion.
He has no opinion or belief.
He's simply a troll.
He's simply a walking corncob.
Corncobbing it up all over the place.
He wants people to think he's up your ass for some reason.
Motor mouth doing motor mouth things.
Hard to take too personally, mainly it's pathetic.
He used to be a pretty good poster, now he just gnaws ankles pretty much.
OIC, just saw the comment in the other thread.
Ha. The previous take still obtains.
It's gauche to beg for attention.
this is a salient point.DMC and his lil' buddy want to pretend binding arbitration is not and has never been a thing ever.
If, subject to a contractual bond, people bind themselves to arbitration in disputes, this is a normal legal condition in our system
If halal for employment contracts and TOS for goods and services, why not in marriage and family law,, if all parties agree?
.
Ever talked to Roman Catholics about annulment?
It's an imperfect analogy, but works roughly the same.
Divorce isn't really a thing. You have to get it annuled if you want to be remarried and remain in the church.
This is the part where religious law can become the law in our system. When people agree to binding arbitration
In our system, it is an ordinary condition of employment to limit one's rights contractually. So it goes in family life, if one so chooses.
Yeah, it's legal, binding and internationally recognized.
BUT IF WE'RE NOT EXECUTING ADULTERESSES IT DOESN'T COUNT
Freedom of religion.
So long as you're white and have a North American pedigree.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
