Reply With Quote
We'll have to do an FBI investigation for 3 days and issue the findings.Okay, you know more about it than I do
We still oppressed though, even if it isn't in any legal or definable or provable sense.
Okay, you know more about it than I do
We still oppressed though, even if it isn't in any legal or definable or provable sense.
We'll have to do an FBI investigation for 3 days and issue the findings.Okay, you know more about it than I do
We still oppressed though, even if it isn't in any legal or definable or provable sense.
Your response to using a word for the first time.
trying to protect your new buzzword.
No legal argument at all.
Discrimination law doesn't protect political ideologies. It protect select classes, like sex, religion, etc.
We can continue circling around the subject, but the bottom line is that there's no such thing as 'fairness' protection on political speech when it comes to private en ies.
Victimhood and woe is me is always a viable tool, it just can't be overdone, otherwise it becomes too obvious.Okay, you know more about it than I do
We still oppressed though, even if it isn't in any legal or definable or provable sense.
Like James Woods might have a case if he claimed he was banned due to being Christian. But he would have to prove that in court, and obviously his tweet is not about religion.
A better question is, why doesn't conservatives build on this momentum to create a conservative-biased Twitter clone?
I'm actually surprised media moguls like Fox or Sinclair haven't tried yet. Maybe, because they're conservative? (phun intended)
Why dont u try it? If it seems so easy to you you could become a zillionaire like Jack
Do it
They're likely violating the laws of some states in which they operate by doing it.
which states and which laws?
Lol "likely"
No they're not. You're an idiot.
Stalling and buzz words forthcoming
They have, it's the comment sections of Fox Insider and Breitbart.
You're an expert on letting dudes your wife, not the law.
Everyone knows Twitter isn't violating any laws by banning James Woods.
Everyone except you.
lol
No legal expertise needed to know you're wrong. Just base reading comprehension and the desire to do a 2 minute Google.
You're just lazier and a lot more stupid than average.
Speaking of lazy, how much does your ex-wife have to pay you in alimony each month?
Lol can't use mention function.
You're such a pussy. And you're stalling.
I've been talking directly to you, idiot.
So, how much does your ex-wife pay you in alimony each month?
Yeah, you started talking out of your ass and got called on it, so you made up more , got called on that and you're still running.
Yeah, you started talking out of your ass and got called on it, so you made up more , got called on that and you're still running.
And yet, you're here still making up.
You were wrong.
Twitter violated no laws in it's banning of James Woods whatsoever.
You couldn't even try to name a law.
Now try to distract from those simple facts.
It's a good thing you said this for a 23rd time in case people didn't know your position.And yet, you're here still making up.
You were wrong.
Twitter violated no laws in it's banning of James Woods whatsoever.
You couldn't even try to name a law.
Now try to distract from those simple facts.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
