WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2024 Poal.co

142

Since all the "smart" people in Washington can't figure it out.

Since all the "smart" people in Washington can't figure it out.

(post is archived)

[–] 6 pts

i think this will die at the supreme court. if it reaches past the lower courts that is.

judges are going to either toss out these cases or go with the corporations

[–] [deleted] 7 pts

You can't win if you don't buy a ticket.

[–] 3 pts

I agree, but I think the only winners are going to be the (((lawyers))).

[–] 0 pt

Oy Vey, goyim! Stop noticing!

[–] [deleted] 5 pts

speaking of those cold states, wyoming better fix cheney's ass. fix it real hard.

[–] 0 pt

Wyoming is the ultimate cuck state though, they literally call themselves the Equality State because they were the first to give women the right to vote.

Proof that hard times do not always create strong men as Wyoming was a rough and tumble rugged frontier state yet it was populated by pathetic beta male feminists who thought that they would get women to come out for them to worship by giving up their rights to them.

Unsurprisingly, women passed WY by and went to the chads and richer betas on the Left Coast.

WY has also been Californicated for decades thanks to Jackson Hole.

what is it with the frigid states? alaska can't rid itself of murkowski?

[–] 0 pt

They voted her out before, but she used cheat-by-write-in to worm her way back in, so maybe there is no ridding Alaska of her?

[–] 5 pts

On a side note. The thought police have taken down all comments on American Thinker website. Communism coming in fast.

[–] 3 pts

DOA

[–] 1 pt

Grandstanding Republicans? Name a more perfect duo.

[–] 1 pt

Why can't they already?

[–] 1 pt

Because you're compelling a private entity to associate and do business with someone they choosw not to. If this passes, then the bakee has to bake the cake.

[–] 1 pt

I think this would go against section 230 subsection (c): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material

(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(2)Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— (A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or (B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]

Just found out that Oklahoma has a bill like this going through their system,

[–] 1 pt

Big ass club, youre just in it

[–] 1 pt

GREETINGS PROFESSOR FALKEN.

HELLO.

A STRANGE GAME.

THE ONLY WINNING MOVE IS

NOT TO PLAY.

HOW ABOUT A NICE GAME OF CHESS?

[–] 0 pt

Needing permission to speak up to your oppressors. Peak clown 🤡 world

Load more (3 replies)