Reply With Quote
Eggs Actly.is that what you think is happening?... so naive
derp disregards everything you tell him because you haven't taken the redpill bro
he just knows stuff. its common knowledge.
Derp is for dunking on. Nothing more
But nothing like WC who knows just like *SNAP* there it is! The answer.is that what you think is happening?
derp disregards everything you tell him because you haven't taken the redpill bro
he just knows stuff. its common knowledge.
Eggs Actly.is that what you think is happening?
derp disregards everything you tell him because you haven't taken the redpill bro
he just knows stuff. its common knowledge.
Derp is for dunking on. Nothing more
Yea-hah! Egg actorz in da hizzay!
Among industrialized nations, we're nothing special.
http://data.worldjusticeproject.org/#
If you actually look at the breakdown (here: http://data.worldjusticeproject.org/#/groups/USA), what really kills the US are 3 items: discrimination, accessibility & affordability and labor rights.
Not really surprising, but also doesn't invalidate what I said.
Actually, it does. Affordability affects James Woods too. He may have made some decent income in his day; but his coffers are no match for a giant corporation.
That's because there's no case. If there would be a sliver of a case, he'll have law firms lining up to represent him. The fact that they are a giant corporation also means a bigger payday.
At any rate, affordability is certainly an issue, especially not just James Wood, but your average American, I can certainly agree with that.
Your case is very overstated. James Woods may have a winnable case; but that doesn't mean the numbers say he should go for it. Nor does it mean it's going to be a big draw for law firms.
wishcasting. James Woods has no case.
if he did, an enterprising lawyer would be willing to spend his own money on it.
Sorry, but lawyers don't pass on winnable cases when the payout could be in the millions. Heck, they take those pro-bono, with legals fees contingent on winning the case.
It doesn't even need to be Woods. If they think they have a winning shot at it, they'll seek out any Twitter user in a similar position and likely try a class action, where the payout is even bigger for them.
One of the very few good things about living in an extremely litigious society is that there's little room for error, especially in contract law.
Let's put it this way, non-winnable doesn't mean that twitter isn't in violation. Their lawyers would muddy the waters with conjecture this and we did that to others that. It's still painfully obvious that twitter is ideologically discriminating. And nobody is saying the payout is in the millions in the second place.
In violation of what?
That would be the sub le for the Chump Era of posting.
Nope.
Explain the law Twitter is breaking, derp.
Don't worry, blake; being a cuck is legal last I checked. One even took runner-up in a presidential nomination race in true cuck fashion.
What law are you saying Twitter broke, derp?
James Wood is no different than your average panelist/guest in CNN/Fox News. They're going to opine what they can, sometimes they're gonna get their microphone shut down, sometimes they'll cut them off to commercials, sometimes they won't let them talk.
Can you sue CNN or Fox for that? No you can't. It's a private business, it's their platform and part of the condition of being on their platform is that you're going to stick to their rules and decisions.
The only gray area (not that gray, it's actually enforceable) is outright protected class discrimination. You know, sex, religion, race, national origin, etc.
Stalling
No. People have a reasonable expectation that their ideologies aren't going to be suppressed when using Twitter.
You're working way too hard to explain something so simple to an empty-headed twit. The people teaching apes to paint don't have to use this much effort.
What law are you referring to. Quit stalling.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
