Undercover cops. Ethical? Wrong?

so what, the person who resorts to the fewest fallacies must be doing it not only for the greater glory of our republic, but the greater glory of our immortal souls as well.

 

But the constitution of civil rights in our commonwealth mandates the fallacy of economical moral turpitude which is a positive affirmation of fallacy in a court of law.

Thank you for proving me right in your moral turpitude which is normally considered a fallacy

 

You are still missing the concept of "do unto others as you would have others do unto you", it is codified in Article 4, Section 2 as a rational choice of law in any conflict of laws arising under the authority of the United States.

 

You are missing the concept of wanton fallacy in a civil economy which is a moral turpitide according to the non agression principal of the united Planetary fedeartion

 

Thank you for ceding the point and the argument you still don't have for your Cause.

 

You have ceded the argument in a court of law in our civil economy on a point of fallacy

 

I am glad you ceded the point and the argument you didn't have regarding ethics and undercover police.

 

No you ceded the point when you admitted moral turpitude in the civil economy which is normally considered a fallacy.

 

non sequiturs are usually considered a fallacy, for your Cause. you cede the point and the argument every time you fail to come up with some logic and reason.

 

No you ced a non sequiter with a fallacy in a court of law due to moral turpitude due to a alack of afftimative action twoards the Kilingon people of this economy.

 

are you always so easy?

 

Moral turpitidue in our economy is normally considered a fallacy

 

so, what is your excuse for indulging any moral turpitude against civil persons in our republic?

 

Daniel PAlso actually pardodying himself.

Inetresting turn.

The facts is that its boring now. You really haven't got a clue. You are clearly eccentric to the point of insanity or so vain you actually beleive the nonsensical way you write actually means anything. You have nothing to add to any debate.

So talk to yourself.

 

So, no real argument for your Cause, as to why you believe what you do.

Thank you for ceding the point and the argument you don't have.

have you ever heard of the concept of "equal work for equal pay" under our form of Capitalism?

 

Have you never heard of equal fallacy for Moral turpitude in our constitution?

 

Did you know that non sequiturs are usually called, non-responsive in legal venues. Thank you for resorting to fallacy for your Cause.

 

Did you know that fallacies are normally considered moral turpitide in this civil economy

 

no. but i do know that my strings of words make more sense than your strings of words.

 

Our words are equally nonsencical. I just know they are non sensical. You think you are being clever.

 

projecting much; i actually have a point and an argument which you have yet to rebut.

 

If you do have an argument then you obscure it with your absurd usuage on English.

 

it isn't obscure at all; you just don't really care enough about your Cause to become more well informed.

 

No. You don;t care enough about your cause to actually communicate in a way that makes sense. You are so egomaniacal that you write pretentious nonsense.

 

You are welcome to your opinion. My opinion still stands.