you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]FreedomUltd 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

No, you didn't address what they said.

Know what else you didn't address?

Trump appointed judge: "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."

LMAO!

[–]SaidOverRed 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You: "You won't look at this!"

Me: Looks at it. "Here are my comments on some quotes."

You: "You didn't look at this random part! Politifact is the divine holders of Truth!"

Me: "No they aren't. Care to meet this threshold of evidence?"

You: "No! Besides, a lawyer said TC uses comedy! That means it's all lies! LOL!!!"

Me: "I've played your game. Either be serious, or I won't bother."

You: "Here's an unrelated quote without context. LMAO!"

Me: "Normally I'd stop, but your trolling has amused me. Did you really think I wasn't going to dig up whatever crap you're obsessed with? Here's your scooby snack:

Here's the honest context that you dishonestly did not give: https://lmgtfy.app/?q=%22Fox+persuasively+argues%2C+that+given+Mr.+Carlson%27s+reputation%2C+any+reasonable+viewer%22 for the first hit so you can ctrl+f so you can get the justia link for the pdf which concludes that the specific words TC said "are not actionable as defamation". Now, aside from the obvious fact that a legal defense will go with whatever is easiest, rather than whatever is the TRUTH, care to give primary sources for why anyone would give a flying fuck about someone being salty and bringing a (frivolous) court case in order to attack (a political rival)? I mean, other than being like you and just hating the guy you don't like on TV.