Candace Owens to Sue Facebook Fact-Checker for Censoring Her Videos

[DMC]

Its what he does.
Disingenuous.

You're a bastion of wisdom and honesty, eh ELISA inventor?

80% of the time no one knows what the you're yammering on about and you get no response because of it.

[pgardn]

You're a bastion of wisdom and honesty, eh ELISA inventor?

Editor of TIME magazine playing games again.
You judging Honesty... farcical hypocrite.

[DMC]

Editor of TIME magazine playing games again.
You judging Honesty... farcical hypocrite.

Just sit on the sidelines pkaren and stfu

[pgardn]

If you do law as well as you do science, SR21 is going to force you into an anal bend over quip.
DMCircleOfTrust arbiter and Honest Broker...

[pgardn]

Just sit on the sidelines pkaren and stfu

OH.
You will remember this old child:

"make me"

[spurraider21]

So in that first post, you said it’s not a first amendment issue, it’s whether they can be sued. I then directly went into a discussion about the parameters by which they can be sued. Then after a long back and forth (where 1a didn’t come up) you randomly spit out that it’s not a first amendment issue

You paraphrase so ty. I said it's a "can they be sued" issue. Why even change my wording? Did they teach you that in law school, to create your own narrative to argue against when you cannot build an argument against the actual quote? I didn't ask if they could be sued and I didn't say it's whether or not they can be sued. Do they risk losing immunity by doing what they are doing, that's the issue. I didn't say they risk it. I said it's the issue. It is the issue as made apparent by the actions being suggested by the DOJ.

Just admit you're clueless and need to paraphrase because you don't communicate well.

such a worthless pedant

[DMC]

such a worthless pedant

You changed the wording for a reason. Notice you didn't change the wording on "it's not a 1st Amendment issue".

Just admit you drew a hasty conclusion. I have a hard time believing you struggle this much with the nuances of conversation.

[tholdren]

OH.
You will remember this old child:

"make me"

Originally Posted by tholdren

Avg ago of death in the 80s..... scary disease... unpredictable

Not very dangerous

[ElNono]

^ meltdown

[DMC]

If you do law as well as you do science, SR21 is going to force you into an anal bend over quip.
DMCircleOfTrust arbiter and Honest Broker...

OH.
You will remember this old child:

"make me"

You didn't make me so I guess I did make you sit down.

[Ef-man]

Only scary thing is how you fold so well.

Laundry services would pay big bucks for your folding secrets!

Originally Posted by tholdren

Avg ago of death in the 80s..... scary disease... unpredictable

Not very dangerous

[tholdren]

Only scary thing is how you fold so well.

Laundry services would pay big bucks for your folding secrets!

Originally Posted by tholdren

Avg ago of death in the 80s..... scary disease... unpredictable

Not very dangerous

[ElNono]

Originally Posted by tholdren

Avg ago of death in the 80s..... scary disease... unpredictable

Not very dangerous

Gossip. Post your math.

[Ef-man]

Not even Chinese laundry services fold as well as you foldren. And they have been doing laundry folding for centuries.

Originally Posted by tholdren

Avg ago of death in the 80s..... scary disease... unpredictable

Not very dangerous

[tholdren]

Gossip. Post your math.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/c....htm#AgeAndSex

[Ef-man]

So you admit defeat and fold.

About time and thank you!

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/c....htm#AgeAndSex

[tholdren]

So you admit defeat and fold.

About time and thank you!

Always right. Less than flu

[tholdren]

So you admit defeat and fold.

About time and thank you!

Always right. Less than flu

[Ef-man]

Again, you admit defeat and fold.

We all thank you!

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/c....htm#AgeAndSex

[spurraider21]

You changed the wording for a reason. Notice you didn't change the wording on "it's not a 1st Amendment issue".

Just admit you drew a hasty conclusion. I have a hard time believing you struggle this much with the nuances of conversation.

theres literally no difference between "it's whether they can be sued" or "can they be sued"

you're just flailing

[baseline bum]

フォルドレン、いちばん畳むおかま、もっとてめえのお父さんとエッチしに行け、ボケ。

[ElNono]

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/c....htm#AgeAndSex

Not your math, post your math

[ElNono]

フォルデン、いちばん畳むおかま、もっとてめえのお父さんとエッチしに行け、ボケ。

[baseline bum]

Damn, deepl.com does much better translations than Google Translate, though ultimately still a bit incorrect.

https://www.deepl.com/en/translator#...B1%E3%80%82%0A

[DMC]

theres literally no difference between "it's whether they can be sued" or "can they be sued"

you're just flailing

Then why did you change it?

If someone else is saying it (thus the quotation marks), then there's a difference. Two people are standing in the Oval Office, you pick the two. One asks the other "can they be sued?"

From that comes "let's talk to Bill Barr". So it's not about whether or not they can actually be sued currently, but did they cross a line to justify (in someone's eyes) the amending of 203 so they lose immunity.