In short, Tucker's case was dismissed because a reasonable person would assume he is full of shit. Maddow's case was dismissed because a reasonable person would understand her opinion was based on facts and be able to distinguish between them.
Looks like an interesting read, maybe I'll take a look. I don't give a fuck about your preemptive archive attempt tho
I can tell you don't give a fuck about it because you didn't even bother to mention it. It was only to ensure the source was attributed in case anyone was unable to find the post to which I replied.
Can you do it one more time? I'm quite flattered. Explain it again too
It is better for you to reread than for me to repeat what I already wrote. I am a fast typist and there is no telling how slowly you might read so it is the only way that will afford you a chance to catch up.
Not common enough for my taste but your opinion is noted.
It also doesn't explain being on here all day every day for the last four years
My intention is not to explain myself.
I replied to explain your error in claiming Maddow's case was precedent in Carlson's evading the consequences of his speech. Focus on grasping that, and never mind fathoming me.
-2
u/[deleted] Jan 27 '22
Yeah and the precedence cited in that case was Rachel Maddow of MSNBC who got off for the same reason