The (Current year) General Political/Salma Hayek discussion Thread Part V

[actaeon277]

 

[actaeon277]

 

[BigRed]

That is the first I have seen of that "town hall".

The stage had a lemon and a lemming....you can pick which is which. You will not be incorrect either way.

 

[BigRed]

Damn!

 

[actaeon277]

That is the first I have seen of that "town hall".

The stage had a lemon and a lemming....you can pick which is which. You will not be incorrect either way.

Well, there wasn't a lot of viewers for it.
Most popular president doesn't garner many views.

 

[BigRed]

Well, there wasn't a lot of viewers for it.
Most popular president doesn't garner many views.

Are you talking about the lemon or the lemming?

 

[actaeon277]

Are you talking about the lemon or the lemming?

yes

 

[actaeon277]

Damn!

I agree

 

[actaeon277]

 

[actaeon277]

 

[actaeon277]

Candace Owen's "fact checker" lawsuit dismissed because a judge ruled that NO ONE would think a fact checker calling her a "hoax" would be a factual statement.
Huh?

 

[nonobaddog]

Candace Owen's "fact checker" lawsuit dismissed because a judge ruled that NO ONE would think a fact checker calling her a "hoax" would be a factual statement.
Huh?

I thought judges weren't supposed to be that stupid.

 

[actaeon277]

I thought judges weren't supposed to be that stupid.

Stupid? Or obviously on one side.

 

[nonobaddog]

Stupid? Or obviously on one side.

Well, he is making a legal finding on what other people would think about something.
I think one sided fits very well and I think stupid does too.

 

[jamil]

Stupid? Or obviously on one side.

Can't chance letting the wrong side win one.

 

[chipbennett]

Well, he is making a legal finding on what other people would think about something.
I think one sided fits very well and I think stupid does too.

Think about the positives here:

1. Judge rules that "fact checkers" are, in fact, not factual, as a matter of public perception and - now - legal precedent
2. Judge opens the door to all manner of lawsuits (defamation, libel, tortious interference, etc.) against anyone (say, Facebook, Twitter, et al) who takes punitive action as a result of "fact checkers".

 

[jamil]

Think about the positives here:

1. Judge rules that "fact checkers" are, in fact, not factual, as a matter of public perception and - now - legal precedent
2. Judge opens the door to all manner of lawsuits (defamation, libel, tortious interference, etc.) against anyone (say, Facebook, Twitter, et al) who takes punitive action as a result of "fact checkers".

I don't think "one way" works that way in practice. Heads I win, tales you lose.

 

[nonobaddog]

Think about the positives here:

1. Judge rules that "fact checkers" are, in fact, not factual, as a matter of public perception and - now - legal precedent
2. Judge opens the door to all manner of lawsuits (defamation, libel, tortious interference, etc.) against anyone (say, Facebook, Twitter, et al) who takes punitive action as a result of "fact checkers".

I’ll believe that if and when it happens.

 

[actaeon277]

MSN

1) Why do they have authority?
2) How does this solve anything?

 

[nonobaddog]

The bidiot says cuomo should resign because he harasses too many women.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/03/bid...after-bombshell-sexual-harassment-report.html