|
|
|
|
|
by jackvalentine
1285 days ago
|
|
Then don't introduce the term in to the conversation. You're shockingly dishonest in your rhetoric by doing so. To quote you before: > One can argue that the original contract is tantamount to a slave contract, thereby null and void at the outset. |
|
"You're shockingly dishonest"
Are your panties truly in a bunch over this thread, or are you just feigning your "shock"? It matters not; either is laughable.