Trang chủ arrow Nhật ký
 
 
A+ | A- | Reset
Menu
Trang chủ
Nhật ký
Sổ lưu bút
Gallery
My Flash
Flash sưu tầm
Nhạc Việt
Nhạc Quốc tế
Funny Corner
Trò chơi
MMS Blog
Liên kết web
Giới thiệu website
Tìm kiếm
Sơ đồ site
Liên hệ
Others
Flickr Photos
GoogleX
Google Maps
Tin tức
Thời tiết
Wapsite
BMI
My Links
Yahoo! 360° Blog
Flick! Albums
Miblog (Tumblr) Blogs
Yahoo! Messenger
Bookmark and Share
Than phiền về bình luận

Cảm ơn bạn vì đã than phiền về nội dung của bình luận sau tới quản trị website.
Xin hoàn thành mẫu nhỏ sau và click vào nút gửi đi để thực hiện than phiền.

Tên:
 
E-mail:
 
Lý do than phiền
 
 
 

Bình luận trong câu hỏi
>>Er that would be l
Viết bởi Dexiitho website, lúc 13-04-2014 12:29
>>Er that would be like saying the aaorppch taken by the prosecutor, who is for the death penalty, to not prosecute Chia is not Chia's idea but is part of the pro death lobbyist! >>Fail. The defence represents VK. The prosecution does not represent Chia. Furthermore, the defence lawyer is part of the anti-death campaign lobby. He is not just VK's lawyer.As for being willy nilly, it is anti-Death penalty campaigners who are the ones who are arguing Chia can be prosecuted with the willy-nilly-whatever evidence there may or may not exist. The prosecution on the other is not willing to prosecute unless VK testifies. This is consistent with the practice of innocent until proven guilty. Looks like it is the anti-Death penalty campaigners who are already saying Chia is guilty, when there's not enough evidence, no thanks to VK's unwillingness to testify. So who's the willy nilly party here? http://rypccbzg.com [url=http://ntordjc.com]ntordjc[/url] [link=http://vpyxzvfgqk.com]vpyxzvfgqk[/link]
 
 
 
Clicky Web Analytics