Considering your bad grammar and spelling and the fact that you clearly don’t understand what ‘Marxism’ means—among other words and phrases, I don’t think you’re in any position to argue about what any word means.
And yes, please cut back on the coffee; you’re becoming more and more incoherent.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mowing Down Marxists is as much fun as I kno
QED? Queers Eat Dirt?
You seriously don’t know what QED means?
Look at Mike's friends. They just change their sex and run for president.
That’s not what queer means. Also, what “friends” are you talking about?
Defamed has a LOT of meanings. There's your meaning, my meaning, and God's meaning, just to name a few. Techdirt defames a lot of people. What a hint? Shityard. Look it up.
In the legal sense, there is only one, and it’s the only one that matters in this context. And I don’t think God determines what words mean.
Are you throwing stones? Do you live in a glass house? Are you crying wolf? Are the pigs going to blow your house down? Those are the questions that haunt me before I can fall asleep. Especially when I drink too much coffee in the evening.
I suggest you cut back on the coffee then. Like right now, since that meant absolutely nothing. Same with the stuff you said afterwards.
Re: Re: Re: Mowing Down Marxists is as much fun as I know how to
Did you know that fictional people and figments of one’s imagination can lie? It happens all the time.
Also, that’s not a legal argument. A legal argument would require a reference to a law or something like that. What you made might charitably be called a philosophical argument or a linguistic argument, but not a legal one.
Re: Mowing Down Marxists is as much fun as I know how to have
Talk. Talk some more. Say a lot. I'm happy to hear it. I've got a dozens of individuals who have contacted me about Techdirt slander and defamation. Soon, 230 will be gone, and Techdirt will be liable for everything said here. Maybe not soon, maybe now.
Until then, you got nothing.
Also, it should be noted that even without §230, it’s highly unlikely that Techdirt would actually be found liable for others’ comments given how hands-off they are about moderating them.
I made a lot of money and had a lot of fun last time. Next time will be even better.
Last time? You mean the Shiva lawsuit? The one Techdirt won? How is that a success?
Tehdirt Marxists are fun to litigate against.
Setting aside that there doesn’t appear to be any real intersection between any of the political beliefs or stances held by anyone at Techdirt and Marxism—meaning that Techdirt Marxists don’t actually exist—last I checked, the only time someone actually litigated against Techdirt or any of its members (current or former) was the Shiva lawsuit, which—again—Techdirt won! So how can you say they’re fun to litigate against?
They are morally bankrupt godless depraved animals, without guilt, remorse, self-awareness or common decency. Fortunately, I am an attorney, so none of that bothers me.
That says more about you than anything or anyone else, and it’s not really good.
Aside from the Hulk Hogan verdict—which is well known—and the Stormy Daniels defamation lawsuit—which I know happened, do you have any evidence that those things actually happened? (That does include the allegations about Mike.) And if the alleged 2017 action against Univision and Telemundo ended in failure (which you implicitly conceded was possible), then why should we care?
Also, you seem to be claiming some sort of affiliation with Harder or his firm. If so, then how are you affiliated with them, if you don’t mind me asking. I don’t need anything specific, but are you an associate, partner, paralegal, secretary, assistant,… what?
Regarding the alleged thing with Mike at the end, what was the supposed case supposedly about? Just being a “degenerate dickhead” isn’t enough to sue or be sued over; what specific law and action/policy was this supposed lawsuit over?
Also, regarding the alleged 2019 lawsuit on behalf of Shaun White, why would it matter if any of the three named individuals were transsexuals?
Two terms connected by an “or” need not be entirely distinct from each other. As long as it’s possible to have one and not the other, “or” is perfectly fine to use here.
Obvious troll is obvious, but I could use some practice after having taken a break for a while.
What evidence do you have that Facebook is a parent company to Techdirt?
Where might others actually view this footage you found?
Even if true, that only means that it’s less trouble to fire whites than blacks because the former are less likely to sue for discrimination than the latter, which is true. It doesn’t mean that whites get fired more often than blacks or that there is any official policy to do so. It also suggests that any bias is in the legal system or how it’s used rather than in Facebook’s hiring practices, and it’s not political bias.
What does that have to do with this article?
Unless you’re soliciting for someone else or are using a pseudonym, it would appear your name is Allum Bokhari, making it odd that you posted as an AC. Regardless, what you’re doing is advertising in someone else’s comment section, which is frowned upon in most internet fora. Plus, considering Techdirt’s small size, I highly doubt that there’d be many insiders with a bone to pick with the site.
This does appear to be a case of improper joinder. Here’s what I think is the issue.
Nunes is suing Twitter under multiple causes of action, including shadowbanning and for not removing the defamatory content or something. Since Twitter is the defendant for both causes of action, and both have the same plaintiff, joinder is proper. Then, since one of the causes of action involves Twitter’s behavior regarding Devin Nunes’ Cow, there is one act involved, so joinder is proper.
But Carome argued that procedurally, Twitter didn’t have to answer questions at this point in the case, while Marshall said state law might suggest otherwise.
Doesn’t matter. Federal law trumps state law, and federal law makes all those questions moot, so Twitter doesn’t need to address those allegations.
Actually, I believe that what’s being claimed is that Activision would depict GM’s in-house counsel as non-profit corporate lawyers in GTA10 (which doesn’t make much sense either, but it’s very different from saying that Activision or its lawyers are nonprofit).
In this case, “third party vote” means “vote for someone other than the two nominees from the two dominant parties in American politics”. Just because you’re voting for them because you think they’re the best fit doesn’t mean your vote isn’t also a third party vote.
Also, even if we lived in a country where party didn’t matter with regards to electability, what possible good could it do to vote for someone who, according to the US Constitution, is not eligible to serve as President anyways? I mean, you could do it, but what would be the point?
As for abolishing the current party system, to the extent that’s feasible, it’s a very long-term goal, while the 2020 election is in less than half a year. Trump is causing immediate and long-term harm now and shows no signs of stopping while he’s in office.
And the fact is that you failed to refute PaulT by excluding survivors who were shot or beaten and those who were killed by means other than gunshot wounds (including George Floyd). You also failed by not citing specific article(s) for your claims.
And regarding accusations, I believe you shot first here.
On the post: Charles Harder Tries And Fails To Censor Another Book About His Most Famous Client, The President
Re: Re:
Considering your bad grammar and spelling and the fact that you clearly don’t understand what ‘Marxism’ means—among other words and phrases, I don’t think you’re in any position to argue about what any word means.
And yes, please cut back on the coffee; you’re becoming more and more incoherent.
On the post: Charles Harder Tries And Fails To Censor Another Book About His Most Famous Client, The President
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mowing Down Marxists is as much fun as I kno
You seriously don’t know what QED means?
That’s not what queer means. Also, what “friends” are you talking about?
In the legal sense, there is only one, and it’s the only one that matters in this context. And I don’t think God determines what words mean.
I suggest you cut back on the coffee then. Like right now, since that meant absolutely nothing. Same with the stuff you said afterwards.
On the post: Charles Harder Tries And Fails To Censor Another Book About His Most Famous Client, The President
Re: Re: Re: Mowing Down Marxists is as much fun as I know how to
Did you know that fictional people and figments of one’s imagination can lie? It happens all the time.
Also, that’s not a legal argument. A legal argument would require a reference to a law or something like that. What you made might charitably be called a philosophical argument or a linguistic argument, but not a legal one.
On the post: Charles Harder Tries And Fails To Censor Another Book About His Most Famous Client, The President
Re: Mowing Down Marxists is as much fun as I know how to have
Until then, you got nothing.
Also, it should be noted that even without §230, it’s highly unlikely that Techdirt would actually be found liable for others’ comments given how hands-off they are about moderating them.
Last time? You mean the Shiva lawsuit? The one Techdirt won? How is that a success?
Setting aside that there doesn’t appear to be any real intersection between any of the political beliefs or stances held by anyone at Techdirt and Marxism—meaning that Techdirt Marxists don’t actually exist—last I checked, the only time someone actually litigated against Techdirt or any of its members (current or former) was the Shiva lawsuit, which—again—Techdirt won! So how can you say they’re fun to litigate against?
That says more about you than anything or anyone else, and it’s not really good.
On the post: Charles Harder Tries And Fails To Censor Another Book About His Most Famous Client, The President
Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Only I'm allowed to use that.'
Aside from the Hulk Hogan verdict—which is well known—and the Stormy Daniels defamation lawsuit—which I know happened, do you have any evidence that those things actually happened? (That does include the allegations about Mike.) And if the alleged 2017 action against Univision and Telemundo ended in failure (which you implicitly conceded was possible), then why should we care?
Also, you seem to be claiming some sort of affiliation with Harder or his firm. If so, then how are you affiliated with them, if you don’t mind me asking. I don’t need anything specific, but are you an associate, partner, paralegal, secretary, assistant,… what?
Regarding the alleged thing with Mike at the end, what was the supposed case supposedly about? Just being a “degenerate dickhead” isn’t enough to sue or be sued over; what specific law and action/policy was this supposed lawsuit over?
Also, regarding the alleged 2019 lawsuit on behalf of Shaun White, why would it matter if any of the three named individuals were transsexuals?
On the post: Charles Harder Tries And Fails To Censor Another Book About His Most Famous Client, The President
Re: Re:
Two terms connected by an “or” need not be entirely distinct from each other. As long as it’s possible to have one and not the other, “or” is perfectly fine to use here.
On the post: Goldman Sachs Created A Font, But You Are Forbidden By Its License To Critique Goldman Sachs Using It
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt CAUGHT by Project Veritas!
Is there a point to all that?
On the post: Goldman Sachs Created A Font, But You Are Forbidden By Its License To Critique Goldman Sachs Using It
Re: Techdirt CAUGHT by Project Veritas!
Obvious troll is obvious, but I could use some practice after having taken a break for a while.
What evidence do you have that Facebook is a parent company to Techdirt?
Where might others actually view this footage you found?
Even if true, that only means that it’s less trouble to fire whites than blacks because the former are less likely to sue for discrimination than the latter, which is true. It doesn’t mean that whites get fired more often than blacks or that there is any official policy to do so. It also suggests that any bias is in the legal system or how it’s used rather than in Facebook’s hiring practices, and it’s not political bias.
What does that have to do with this article?
On the post: Devin Nunes' Lawyer Tells Judge To Ignore Section 230, Because Twitter Is Anti-Devin Nunes
Re:
This does appear to be a case of improper joinder. Here’s what I think is the issue.
Nunes is suing Twitter under multiple causes of action, including shadowbanning and for not removing the defamatory content or something. Since Twitter is the defendant for both causes of action, and both have the same plaintiff, joinder is proper. Then, since one of the causes of action involves Twitter’s behavior regarding Devin Nunes’ Cow, there is one act involved, so joinder is proper.
I’m just guessing, though.
On the post: Devin Nunes' Lawyer Tells Judge To Ignore Section 230, Because Twitter Is Anti-Devin Nunes
Doesn’t matter. Federal law trumps state law, and federal law makes all those questions moot, so Twitter doesn’t need to address those allegations.
On the post: New York Legislators Dump Law That Allowed PDs To Withhold Officers' Disciplinary Records
Re: Barrack Fucking Obama's Friend and Mentor, DipWeed
And we care because…?
On the post: Federal Court Affirms Activision's First Amendment Rights In Using Humvees in 'Call Of Duty' Game
Re: HumVee and My Testimony on Capital Hill
Despite claiming otherwise, nothing you said had anything to do with video games. And that’s probably the least dumb thing about your comment.
On the post: Federal Court Affirms Activision's First Amendment Rights In Using Humvees in 'Call Of Duty' Game
Re: Re:
Actually, I believe that what’s being claimed is that Activision would depict GM’s in-house counsel as non-profit corporate lawyers in GTA10 (which doesn’t make much sense either, but it’s very different from saying that Activision or its lawyers are nonprofit).
On the post: Trump Campaign Is So Pathetic It Claims CNN Poll Is Defamatory; Demands Retraction
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In this case, “third party vote” means “vote for someone other than the two nominees from the two dominant parties in American politics”. Just because you’re voting for them because you think they’re the best fit doesn’t mean your vote isn’t also a third party vote.
Also, even if we lived in a country where party didn’t matter with regards to electability, what possible good could it do to vote for someone who, according to the US Constitution, is not eligible to serve as President anyways? I mean, you could do it, but what would be the point?
As for abolishing the current party system, to the extent that’s feasible, it’s a very long-term goal, while the 2020 election is in less than half a year. Trump is causing immediate and long-term harm now and shows no signs of stopping while he’s in office.
On the post: Trump Campaign Is So Pathetic It Claims CNN Poll Is Defamatory; Demands Retraction
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It was a joke.
On the post: Ron Wyden Explains Why President Trump (And Many Others) Are Totally Wrong About Section 230
Re: Re:
The fact you called those comments slanderous only demonstrates that you don’t know what words mean.
On the post: Stop Asking Marvel To Keep Cops From Wearing Masks With 'The Punisher' Skull On It
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why should we care?
On the post: Stop Asking Marvel To Keep Cops From Wearing Masks With 'The Punisher' Skull On It
Re: Re: Re: Lying by omission
And the fact is that you failed to refute PaulT by excluding survivors who were shot or beaten and those who were killed by means other than gunshot wounds (including George Floyd). You also failed by not citing specific article(s) for your claims.
And regarding accusations, I believe you shot first here.
On the post: Stop Asking Marvel To Keep Cops From Wearing Masks With 'The Punisher' Skull On It
Re: Re: Re: Have the last couple of weeks taught us anything?
So, he has absolutely nothing to do with anything he’s talking about?
On the post: Trump Campaign Is So Pathetic It Claims CNN Poll Is Defamatory; Demands Retraction
Re: Re:
So CDs and Blu-Rays are not included? I smell a loophole!
Next >>