Let's start with this comment from the article you failed to read:
At least the author was nice enough to include--likely by accident--a nice tu quoque fallacy to show the hypocrisy of his whole column...
Then there's this irrelevant appeal to quantity:
And, the opening paragraph includes this bit of circular citation by the author to another piece he wrote...
The link: https://www.npr.org/2020/07/12/8900...arlson-as-top-writer-quits-over-bigoted-posts
So, one op ed writer on NPR trashes another op ed political talker who is on television, and that somehow amounts to proof...
That's a lot of pointless words about your fabricated exceptions with the author. The point was and remains that Carlson's legal defense was that he is a liar and the judge's ruling stipulated that.
poor liberal assholes
I remind everyone that back when Fauci was fucking up the response to HIV there were a lot of people saying that he is a shit person.
Maybe they were right.
I didn't ask a question.
BTW, you asked me a question.
Lie. I will consider your question withdrawn then.
The Regressive Left....the stewards of this Next Dark Age.
Buckle Up.....this is so going to suck.
I warned you.
Considering that's the best contribution you can make, you don't have any pity to spare on other people.
You never had any answer anyway.
You have lost context completely. Void context. Void argument fallacy.
Sad libtards want to stifle free speech
I'll try again. What did you mean by your statement: "Such 'laws' are unconstitutional."
Here's your chance to explain.
Sadder Trumptards don't know what free speech is.
RQAA. I already answered this question. Stop asking it.
Banned From Youtube Tucker Carlson Questions Vaccine Safety
Lie. You never answered the question.
If Carlson can demand time on YouTube, shouldn't I be able to demand time on FoxNews?
RQAA