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

High-profile conservative Candace Owens has announced she's filing a lawsuit against the third-party fact-checkers used by Facebook who censored her account this past August, according to Just The News.

Owens said Facebook issued a strike against a video she shared of a doctor talking about COVID-19.

''They said only information that they agree with about COVID-19 ... was acceptable," Owens said.

Owens' account was also demonetized, which will keep her from making money on her page.

"It is time to fact-check the fact-checkers," Owens said in a video. ''I think the fact-checkers are cowards. I think [Facebook CEO] Mark Zuckerberg is a coward, and I love that I am on his platform raising money to go after his fact-checkers.''

USA Today and Lead Stories FactChecker fact-check content on Facebook. The fact-checkers apply ratings to content and apply labels includin ''false,'' ''misleading'' or ''missing context.''

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW42rOXOev0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trill Clinton

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW42rOXOev0

---

These businesses filming and recording blacks tap dancing and running/jumping are ran by....Jews.

Why not instead join the successful path of hispanics & asians and buy into the "white supremacist" system?

Lol Facebook is a private company that can do, tag or ban how the fuck they want. You're not happy with Facebook, don't use it or go create your own social media.

(I'll sue ST's owners to the full extent of the law if they censor this post!)

Publicity stunt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPB

Lol Facebook is a private company that can do, tag or ban how the fuck they want. You're not happy with Facebook, don't use it or go create your own social media.

(I'll sue ST's owners to the full extent of the law if they censor this post!)

---

3 party fact checkers can not

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ducks

3 party fact checkers can not

---

Of course, they can. They're also private companies that can use whatever criteria they want to tag content. You don't agree with those criteria, don't use Facebook.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPB

Lol Facebook is a private company that can do, tag or ban how the fuck they want. You're not happy with Facebook, don't use it or go create your own social media.

(I'll sue ST's owners to the full extent of the law if they censor this post!)

---

That's why we should have passed net neutrality, forcing private internet companies to maintain a degree of fairness and equality.

There needs to be an entire social media platform for Trumptards so they can all lie to each other. At some point they would learn the value of facts. Yes does not mean no. Or go ahead with the alternative facts. It would be great to watch rallies take place at wildly varying coordinates in the Atlantic Ocean during a hurricane.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Millennial_Messiah

That's why we should have passed net neutrality, forcing private internet companies to maintain a degree of fairness and equality.

---

socialism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Millennial_Messiah

That's why we should have passed net neutrality, forcing private internet companies to maintain a degree of fairness and equality.

---

You mean a controlled Internet where people in charge could decide what's fair and equal...? No, thanks. Ask 100 people, and depending on their views and beliefs, you'll get complete different answers about what's fair and equal.

Internet is fine as it is and is no different than TV or newspapers with their different views and sensibilties.

You don't like Facebook or Twitter, then go create your own social media with your own terms of services cos you won't force them to use whatever criteria YOU will judge as fair and equal.

But you can still ask Fox News to maintain a "degree of neutrality".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Millennial_Messiah

That's why we should have passed net neutrality, forcing private internet companies to maintain a degree of fairness and equality.

---

You don't know what net neutrality means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leemajors

You don't know what net neutrality means.

---

He also doesn’t know his party is the one that didn’t want net neutrality.

Conservatards really have a habit of complaint about the shit their politicians do and don’t do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leemajors

You don't know what net neutrality means.

---

:lol they are so fucking stupid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPB

You mean a controlled Internet where people in charge could decide what's fair and equal...? No, thanks. Ask 100 people, and depending on their views and beliefs, you'll get complete different answers about what's fair and equal.

Internet is fine as it is and is no different than TV or newspapers with their different views and sensibilties.

You don't like Facebook or Twitter, then go create your own social media with your own terms of services cos you won't force them to use whatever criteria YOU will judge as fair and equal.

But you can still ask Fox News to maintain a "degree of neutrality".

---

yeah, and be lucky to get what, 17 followers in a year? That's a ridiculous argument.

All of the members of the oligopoly on one side of the aisle is a major problem that must be fixed. New entrants just don't have a chance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Millennial_Messiah

yeah, and be lucky to get what, 17 followers in a year? That's a ridiculous argument.

All of the members of the oligopoly on one side of the aisle is a major problem that must be fixed. New entrants just don't have a chance.

---

Sucks that conservatives are stupid and suck at coding. Rather than ask for affirmative action to compensate for the fact Silicon Valley has no right wing talent, maybe conservatives should change their platform.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPB

You mean a controlled Internet where people in charge could decide what's fair and equal...? No, thanks. Ask 100 people, and depending on their views and beliefs, you'll get complete different answers about what's fair and equal.

Internet is fine as it is and is no different than TV or newspapers with their different views and sensibilties.

You don't like Facebook or Twitter, then go create your own social media with your own terms of services cos you won't force them to use whatever criteria YOU will judge as fair and equal.

But you can still ask Fox News to maintain a "degree of neutrality".

---

Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider".

If the company is going to act as editors for the content, they could be in effect taking on responsibility as publishers for the content. Imagine your phone provider started doing this, bleeping out words and ending phone calls when you say things they don't find credible or acceptable. That too is a private business.

:lol you agree to their terms of service when you make an account. you have no rights on FB. fucking retarded MAGA crew needs to realize that the first amendment does not apply to a website

It's not a 1st Amendment issue. It's a "can they be sued for their content" issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Millennial_Messiah

That's why we should have passed net neutrality, forcing private internet companies to maintain a degree of fairness and equality.

---

How are you talking out of your ass about literally every topic?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will Hunting

Sucks that conservatives are stupid and suck at coding. Rather than ask for affirmative action to compensate for the fact Silicon Valley has no right wing talent, maybe conservatives should change their platform.

---

71% of Tech employees in the Valley are foreign born. You Americans are too dumb and or busy parading around town for our "rights"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FrostKing

71% of Tech employees in the Valley are foreign born. You Americans are too dumb and or busy parading around town for our "rights"

---

Shit or get off the pot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FrostKing

71% of Tech employees in the Valley are foreign born. You Americans are too dumb and or busy parading around town for our "rights"

---

:lol "our"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

It's not a 1st Amendment issue. It's a "can they be sued for their content" issue.

---

So if Twitter flags your post as misleading, you can sue them on the grounds that the tag is defamatory. Good luck proving that up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

:lol "our"

---

Biden revealed his immediate Executive Orders - more foreigners

:lol @ black Americans further buried down the ladder

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider".

If the company is going to act as editors for the content, they could be in effect taking on responsibility as publishers for the content. Imagine your phone provider started doing this, bleeping out words and ending phone calls when you say things they don't find credible or acceptable. That too is a private business.

---

The responsbility you're talking about is only concerning law infringement (copyright, defamation, incitement to hatred, xenophobia, pedophilia...), not political or philosophical views.

Facebook is just a website with its own TOS, like this board. Nobody forced you to register there and you accept the rules doing so. If you get banned from ST for infringing their TOS, you won't go sue their ass because you don't think they're "fair and equal"...

They're are plenty of right wing forums all over the web that will only accept people from their views. Should they been sued for not being "fair and equal"?

And let's be honest, Freedom of speech on Twitter and FB is huge.

Oh fuck, I still got caught debating about nonsensical shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FrostKing

Biden revealed his immediate Executive Orders - more foreigners

:lol @ black Americans further buried down the ladder

---

:lol either way you lose.:tu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

:lol either way you lose.:tu

---

I am above you on the progressive hierarchy

Enjoy, privileged slave owner

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FrostKing

I am above you on the progressive hierarchy

---

If you declare your place on the progressive hierarchy, the progressives already defeated you.:tu

If you're struggling with being a white man, that's just pathetic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider".

If the company is going to act as editors for the content, they could be in effect taking on responsibility as publishers for the content. Imagine your phone provider started doing this, bleeping out words and ending phone calls when you say things they don't find credible or acceptable. That too is a private business.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

So if Twitter flags your post as misleading, you can sue them on the grounds that the tag is defamatory. Good luck proving that up

---

If Twitter becomes the arbiter of content, they could lose their exemption for lawsuits for things like defamation - they have illustrated they are willing and able to censor and tag content based on things other than legality. Your response is a strawman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will Hunting

---

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission, evaluating the case under the state's anti-discrimination law, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, found that the bakery had discriminated against the couple and issued specific orders for the bakery. Following appeals within the state that affirmed the Commission's decision, the bakery took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a 7–2 decision, the Court ruled on narrow grounds that the Commission did not employ religious neutrality, violating Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips' rights to free exercise, and reversed the Commission's decision. The Court did not rule on the broader intersection of anti-discrimination laws, free exercise of religion, and freedom of speech, due to the complications of the Commission's lack of religious neutrality.

I guess we'd have to see how this played out in court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPB

The responsbility you're talking about is only concerning law infringement (copyright, defamation, incitement to hatred, xenophobia, pedophilia...), not political or philosophical views.

Facebook is just a website with its own TOS, like this board. Nobody forced you to register there and you accept the rules doing so. If you get banned from ST for infringing their TOS, you won't go sue their ass because you don't think they're "fair and equal"...

They're are plenty of right wing forums all over the web that will only accept people from their views. Should they been sued for not being "fair and equal"?

And let's be honest, Freedom of speech on Twitter and FB is huge.

Oh fuck, I still got caught debating about nonsensical shit.

---

Defamation isn't illegal. It's a tort. But neither is xenophobia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

If Twitter becomes the arbiter of content, they could lose their exemption for lawsuits for things like defamation - they have illustrated they are willing and able to censor and tag content based on things other than legality. Your response is a strawman.

---

no, they wont. they would only be liable if they are the producer of the specific content at issue. it's not an all-or-nothing "are you a publisher or a platform" question, its specific to the communication itself

just because they choose to moderate some posts (lets say, people spamming n word have their tweet deleted) doesnt suddenly mean theyre liable for everything any other user can say

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

no, they wont. they would only be liable if they are the producer of the specific content at issue. it's not an all-or-nothing "are you a publisher or a platform" question, its specific to the communication itself

just because they choose to moderate some posts (lets say, people spamming n word have their tweet deleted) doesnt suddenly mean theyre liable for everything any other user can say

---

Not sure why you need strawman and bifurcation in your responses so much. The issue is being looked at now for the reasons I mentioned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

Defamation isn't illegal. It's a tort. But neither is xenophobia.

---

defamation is illegal. it's just not criminal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

Not sure why you need strawman and bifurcation in your responses so much. The issue is being looked at now for the reasons I mentioned.

---

you said twitter could lose its exemption from lawsuits under section 230, and i'm saying that it's not the case except for only the specific communication in question. ie if twitter flags a comment as false, they could be held liable if that warning label is in and of itself defamatory... but that doesnt suddenly mean theyve lost their general 230 protections

if i started a youtube channel tomorrow i'd also have protection under 230 if some shithead leaves a defamatory comment in my comment section. even if i have control over the comments through moderation, i wont be held liable for content produced by somebody else. there's nothing i could do that would cause me to lose that protection, generally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

defamation is illegal. it's just not criminal.

---

Ok thanks Philo. I thought I covered that with "tort", but get your money's worth from your degree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

Ok thanks Philo. I thought I covered that with "tort", but get your money's worth from your degree.

---

:lol you said it wasnt illegal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

you said twitter could lose its exemption from lawsuits under section 230, and i'm saying that it's not the case except for only the specific communication in question. ie if twitter flags a comment as false, they could be held liable if that warning label is in and of itself defamatory... but that doesnt suddenly mean theyve lost their general 230 protections

if i started a youtube channel tomorrow i'd also have protection under 230 if some shithead leaves a defamatory comment in my comment section. even if i have control over the comments through moderation, i wont be held liable for content produced by somebody else. there's nothing i could do that would cause me to lose that protection, generally.

---

Rationalize it all you want. Then comment once they've lost their immunity. I've learned that arguing with you is pointless since you don't respond to what was said, and instead paraphrase with strawman comments that are easier to attack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

Rationalize it all you want. Then comment once they've lost their immunity. I've learned that arguing with you is pointless since you don't respond to what was said, and instead paraphrase with strawman comments that are easier to attack.

---

you're just not liking the answers i'm giving.

there's simply no scenario the entity of twitter loses all 230 protections (no matter how flagrant any particular abuses are) absent an amendment of the statute. they just might not have immunity as to specific content at issue if it is found they were the ones who published said content. just because they have the ability to moderate comments doesnt mean they are going to start being treated as publishers of every tweet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

you're just not liking the answers i'm giving.

there's simply no scenario the entity of twitter loses all 230 protections (no matter how flagrant any particular abuses are) absent an amendment of the statute. they just might not have immunity as to specific content at issue if it is found they were the ones who published said content. just because they have the ability to moderate comments doesnt mean they are going to start being treated as publishers of every tweet

---

"Your readers' comments, entries written by guest bloggers, tips sent by email, and information provided to you through an RSS feed would all likely be considered information provided by another content provider. This would mean that you would not be held liable for defamatory statements contained in it. However, if you selected the third-party information yourself, no court has ruled whether this information would be considered "provided" to you. One court has limited Section 230 immunity to situations in which the originator "furnished it to the provider or user under circumstances in which a reasonable person...would conclude that the information was provided for publication on the Internet...."

This is what I am referring to, this scenario. By selectively blocking or tagging posts as suspect, the service could be seen as selecting the content they accept, ergo pushing their own messages via filter. I think it would have to get down to specific cases and be illustrated that some censored/tagged comments were no more alarming than some others from the other side that were not tagged or censored. I think they could lose their immunity if they are producing a political message through censorship. Do they have the right? Sure, but that doesn't give them immunity.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justi...30-legislation

So this would be the only issue, not a 1st Amendment issue.

But no, you're responding to your own paraphrasing and strawman arguments unless you quote me directly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trill Clinton

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW42rOXOev0

---

You ain't black (literally).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurtacular

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

"Your readers' comments, entries written by guest bloggers, tips sent by email, and information provided to you through an RSS feed would all likely be considered information provided by another content provider. This would mean that you would not be held liable for defamatory statements contained in it. However, if you selected the third-party information yourself, no court has ruled whether this information would be considered "provided" to you. One court has limited Section 230 immunity to situations in which the originator "furnished it to the provider or user under circumstances in which a reasonable person...would conclude that the information was provided for publication on the Internet...."

This is what I am referring to, this scenario. By selectively blocking or tagging posts as suspect, the service could be seen as selecting the content they accept, ergo pushing their own messages via filter. I think it would have to get down to specific cases and be illustrated that some censored/tagged comments were no more alarming than some others from the other side that were not tagged or censored. I think they could lose their immunity if they are producing a political message through censorship. Do they have the right? Sure, but that doesn't give them immunity.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justi...30-legislation

So this would be the only issue, not a 1st Amendment issue.

But no, you're responding to your own paraphrasing and strawman arguments unless you quote me directly.

---

i never mentioned the first amendment, you're strawmanning now

and the language you quoted comes from the trump admins' proposal to amend the statute, which is specifically the caveat i gave in the post you just quoted

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

you're just not liking the answers i'm giving.

there's simply no scenario the entity of twitter loses all 230 protections (no matter how flagrant any particular abuses are) absent an amendment of the statute. they just might not have immunity as to specific content at issue if it is found they were the ones who published said content. just because they have the ability to moderate comments doesnt mean they are going to start being treated as publishers of every tweet

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

It's not a 1st Amendment issue. It's a "can they be sued for their content" issue.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

So if Twitter flags your post as misleading, you can sue them on the grounds that the tag is defamatory. Good luck proving that up

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

i never mentioned the first amendment, you're strawmanning now

and the language you quoted comes from the trump admins' proposal to amend the statute, which is specifically the caveat i gave in the post you just quoted

---

:lol Philo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

:lol Philo

---

Right. I never brought up first amendment. Thanks for confirming

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

Right. I never brought up first amendment. Thanks for confirming

---

But I did and it's what you first responded to :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

But I did and it's what you first responded to :lol

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

Its what he does.
Disingenuous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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 shitty. 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pgardn

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 fuck you're yammering on about and you get no response because of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pgardn

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

---

Just sit on the sidelines pkaren and stfu

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

Just sit on the sidelines pkaren and stfu

---

OH.
You will remember this old child:

"make me"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

You paraphrase so shitty. 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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pgardn

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

^ meltdown :lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pgardn

OH.
You will remember this old child:

"make me"

---

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

Only scary thing is how you fold so well.

Laundry services would pay big bucks for your folding secrets!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tholdren

Originally Posted by tholdren

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

Not very dangerous

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tholdren

Originally Posted by tholdren

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

Not very dangerous

---

Gossip. Post your math.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tholdren

Originally Posted by tholdren

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

Not very dangerous

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Gossip. Post your math.

---

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

So you admit defeat and fold.

About time and thank you!

:tu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tholdren

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ef-man

So you admit defeat and fold.

About time and thank you!

:tu

---

Always right. Less than flu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ef-man

So you admit defeat and fold.

About time and thank you!

:tu

---

Always right. Less than flu

Again, you admit defeat and fold.

We all thank you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tholdren

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

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

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。

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tholdren

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

---

Not your math, post your math

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

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。

---

:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

:lol

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

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? :lol

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

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

---

Etching his father isn't a bad thing, if his father is made of glass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

Then why did you change it? :lol

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.

---

because i was typing from memory, not copy/pasting. there was no substantive difference and you're flailing. now you're trying to make the conversation about this instead of 230. its understandable why.

This woman is just a pathetic huckster. Candace in 2015 had a website in which she was anti-Trump and called him racist. Also said she wanted to see the Tea Party die. The website didn't do so well so a year later she becomes a hardcore conservative. People's beliefs can and do change in life but it doesn't change that quickly within 1 year. Candace just found it easier to make money off of conservatives than it is with liberals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daslicer

This woman is just a pathetic huckster. Candace in 2015 had a website in which she was anti-Trump and called him racist. Also said she wanted to see the Tea Party die. The website didn't do so well so a year later she becomes a hardcore conservative. People's beliefs can and do change in life but it doesn't change that quickly within 1 year. Candace just found it easier to make money off of conservatives than it is with liberals.

---

Dunno about that. Ask Gaythan here... went from BernieBro to Trumptard in like a week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Dunno about that. Ask Gaythan here... went from BernieBro to Trumptard in like a week.

---

I would say Gaythan probably has mental illness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daslicer

I would say Gaythan probably has mental illness.

---

touche

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

because i was typing from memory, not copy/pasting. there was no substantive difference and you're flailing. now you're trying to make the conversation about this instead of 230. its understandable why.

---

:lmao

Even after I told you it wasn't the same, you continued to "type from memory"? Does the quote button not work for you?

Keep excusing your sloppiness.

(message board martinet lol)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

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

---

well I guess that makes your “make me” flags, white ones old man.

Can a brother get some more emojis please...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

:lmao

Even after I told you it wasn't the same, you continued to "type from memory"? Does the quote button not work for you?

Keep excusing your sloppiness.

---

psychology today reader proclaiming sloppy on another poster.
this is truly funny.
keep going old man. Nature v.nurture

now claim I won a Nobel Prize to make yourself feel better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

:lmao

Even after I told you it wasn't the same, you continued to "type from memory"? Does the quote button not work for you?

Keep excusing your sloppiness.

---

you want to talk about this instead of your misunderstanding of 230. i get it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

you want to talk about this instead of your misunderstanding of 230. i get it.

---

You still think I was making a prediction :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

You still think I was making a prediction :lol

---

no you just misunderstood what 230 protections are

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

no you just misunderstood what 230 protections are

---

I didn't care what they were. Talk to the DOJ. I only said what the issue is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

I didn't care what they were. Talk to the DOJ. I only said what the issue is.

---

https://media.tenor.com/images/17b25...0111/tenor.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trill Clinton

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW42rOXOev0

---

funny how the blacks who want prosperity for you and others are the ones you label as traitors to your race. how fucking sad and blind you truly are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurraider21

https://media.tenor.com/images/17b25...0111/tenor.gif

---

Keep creating narratives and arguing with yourself Philo :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by koriwhat

funny how the blacks who want prosperity for you and others are the ones you label as traitors to your race. how fucking sad and blind you truly are.

---

Stay out of black folk business. Fuck you and Coondace Owens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trill Clinton

Stay out of black folk business. Fuck you and Coondace Owens.

---

whatever racist to your own and others. that's what disinfo will do to you; dumb you down into the exact reoresentation of what you hate and despise which are racists like yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by koriwhat

whatever racist to your own and others. that's what disinfo will do to you; dumb you down into the exact reoresentation of what you hate and despise which are racists like yourself.

---

Shut up bitch

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trill Clinton

Shut up bitch

---

whatever racist fool