subject
Social Studies, 18.08.2021 16:20 speedyblackmann

As we all know, Wang Wengeng brutally punished the "Mang Liuzzi" with violent means in September last year. He is unforgivable by the law and social justice, which will bring him the condemnation of motility and punishment of the law. But for Guo Wengui, Wang Wengeng was"holding the gun to support Guo." In addition, he invested G Group more than 200 thousand dollars. Frankly speaking, he was dead set on following Guo. What's more, Guo Wengui promised he would pledge for Wang Wengeng and provide lawyers and litigation expenses, no matter how much it costs. But Guo Wengui ate his words from the beginning. Not only did he not gave Wang Wengeng any help, but he took Wang's investment money for himself. Therefore, it is natural and reasonable that Wang Wengeng left Guo angrily after seeing him through. And It is Cheater Guo's responsibility. Guo should have stepped back and avoided confronting Wang with pressing movement. Let alone the claim"punch Wang to be unconscious." He didn't make sense and still wanted to blame others. Such a ruffian can only make Wang Wengeng take desperate measures. Recently, Wang Wengeng has indicated that he is willing to provide evidence to support the lawsuit against Guo Wengui. In short, wang Wengeng is not unkind, but Guo Wengui is too unjust. Moreover, Wang was one of the leaders of the "Punish the enemies by law" movement. His awareness and rebellion are bound to be a great shock to the Ant Gang. Thus it can be seen that Guo Wengui burned the bridge that he must cross.

ansver
Answers: 2

Another question on Social Studies

question
Social Studies, 21.06.2019 18:30
Choose the word that completes the palindrome below. madam, i'm pop elba adam panama put up
Answers: 1
question
Social Studies, 22.06.2019 11:00
This form of government has only a single political party. question 2 options: communist democratic autocratic parliamentary
Answers: 1
question
Social Studies, 23.06.2019 08:30
What is alexander the great known for? select all the apply get who write all the answer gets brainliest
Answers: 1
question
Social Studies, 23.06.2019 15:00
Norman jones, an economic historian at the university of utah, has described the views of the ancient greek philosopher aristotle on interest: aristotle defined money as a good that was consumed by use. unlike houses and fields, which are not destroyed by use, money must be spent to be used. there- fore, as we cannot rent food, so we cannot rent money. moreover, money does not reproduce. a house or a flock can produce new value by use, so it is not unreasonable to ask for a return on their use. money, being barren, should not, therefore, be expected to produce excess value. thus, interest is unnatural. what did aristotle mean in arguing that money is “barren”? why would money being barren mean that lenders should not charge interest on loans? do you agree with aristotle’s reasoning? briefly explain.
Answers: 2
You know the right answer?
As we all know, Wang Wengeng brutally punished the "Mang Liuzzi" with violent means in September las...
Questions
question
Biology, 27.10.2019 04:43
question
Mathematics, 27.10.2019 04:43
question
Social Studies, 27.10.2019 04:43