Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "When Glenn Greenwald Just Doesn't Get It" video.

  1.  @pipopipo6477 Exactly. Can't picture Seder doing any such thing. Greenwald is in real danger right now, from a real fascist.
    8
  2.  @jocksharerock7318  Say. I have an idea. WATCH THE WHOLE PROGRAM BEFORE YOU JUDGE. Or at least watch substantial excerpts. Might be a good idea.
    7
  3. What happened to him is that he is being systematically misrepresented for not quashing a story about Biden's son that could have hurt Biden. Expect this to continue.
    6
  4.  @LP12576  This channel attracts haters.
    5
  5. What happened is he just got an excerpt taken entirely out of context.
    5
  6.  MD JG  Then why does he need bodyguards to protect him from Trump's buddy Bolsonaro?
    4
  7.  @ish7957  These are well-documented facts. Most of the story fell apart. It nevertheless made money for those who pushed it the hardest, much like Fox News makes its money.
    4
  8. This podcast focused on First Amendment law and its limitations in protecting free speech. Impeachment was a brief side issue, not the main topic. The free speech discussion was one of the best I've heard in a long time. Three of the four people on were distinguised lawyers, so it was on a level. Why does Sam do this? He is smart and cute. I don't get it.
    4
  9. Too bad. You might learn something real about free speech.
    4
  10. They didn't "release this little clip." You had to "curate" it. The podcast was about the First Amendment, and its limits in the current media landscape as a protection of freedom of speech. It was not about impeachment. Also, for some reason, the color of this clip is way off. How bizarre.
    4
  11.  @antonyhanson4479  Now who do you mean? I was referring to the hate heaped on Greenwald. Truly unwarranted.
    3
  12. Really? I thought that was the Snowden talking point. Or Assange, which REALLY makes zero sense . . .
    3
  13. These are like a bunch of religious factions with prescribed liturgy, dogma, and excommunication. Aren't you worried yet? I would be.
    3
  14.  @persebra  Um, I'm using modal verbs?
    3
  15. Nope. Watch the whole thing. It's about the First Amendment.
    3
  16.  @TheUntaintedTreble  If you were to watch the actual podcast, Greenwald talks about a case where the NAACP was blamed for the violence of third parties and the Supreme Court overturned the verdict against them on free speech grounds. If this were not the law, BLM activists could have been sued just last summer and ruined.
    3
  17.  @Zatzzo  Hint: the topic wasn't impeachment at all.
    3
  18. It's even simpler. This podcast was an in-depth discussion of the First Amendment and its limitations for protecting free speech in the age of Big Tech. Zephyr Teachout was on as well, and it was great. The program wasn't about Trump or impeachment. This excerpt was pulled out of context.
    3
  19.  @ish7957  And most of the MSM reporting was deliberately wrong. I say "deliberately" because when parts of the story fell apart, corrections were either buried or not made at all. Instead, MSM newscasters who pushed it got rich. "Hey? What's not to like?"
    3
  20. This podcast hosted by Briahna Joy Gray was a great program on the First Amendment. It wasn't even about impeachment. Do you really not understand how something can be taken out of context? It could be done to you, you know.
    3
  21.  @j0j0dartiste21  Produce one indictment that involves some form of combination or cooperation with Putin or other Russian government actors. Just give us a link, or search term.
    3
  22.  @j0j0dartiste21  Who is excusing Trump? I want to see him impeached and thoroughly investigated, and his gauleiters from the insurrection prosecuted.
    3
  23. Watch a bigger excerpt than this tiny clip, maybe?
    3
  24.  @misterdemocracy3335  Then Sam should shut up and find a real topic to comment on. Something he actually did watch. What a tool.
    3
  25. I don't believe he didn't watch it. That clip was not released on their free YouTube channel. The substantial excerpts that were released by Briahna and Virgil were about the central topic: the First Amendment, not the insurrection or the impeachment. It was a great discussion, too. Very nuanced and legally sophisticated.
    3
  26.  @nohbuddy1  That Greenwald defended the destruction of the rainforest.
    2
  27. Here is Glenn denouncing the destruction of the Amazon rainforest, on his twitter feed. The link might be taken down, as those complicate monitoring for TOS violations, etc.
    2
  28.  @variousthings6582  If we exaggerate the threat and pass laws that further trample on civil liberties, we will harm ourselves. We know, in large part thanks to Glenn's work, that we are under constant surveillance. So how did the January 6 marauders get past all of that intelligence? How is it that so many police forces are infiltrated, for that matter? Why do quasi-fascist gangs have allies on the inside?
    2
  29.  @variousthings6582  I don't think we disagree all that much. The point was, the January 6 attempt at insurrection is more likely to curtail the freedom of the people at large, and do nothing to prevent future actions of the same kind, if we are not vigilant and very, very careful. We are already under surveillance. So, how did January 6 happen? We know there is right-wing militia infiltration in police departments. Why aren't they being rooted out? All of this stuff is already illegal.
    2
  30. You know what the actual TOPIC of this program was, that MR chose this excerpt from? The First Amendment and the Tech Giants power over speech. The whole issue of their being private actors which nevertheless have quasi-governmental roles in our lives (not to mention monopoly power) was discussed better than I've heard it discussed anywhere recently. I think it's time to care a little more about free speech. The main topic wasn't impeachment at all. That wasn't the context.
    2
  31.  @TheUntaintedTreble  Have you ever opened a law book? Or listened to an oral argument? Most of the recent recordings of Supreme Court arguments are available for free online. Hypotheticals is exactly how the Justices pose their questions. Better revise your grading scheme.
    2
  32.  @alex_roivas333  I can see you haven't read Nadine Strossen on hate speech. Those laws are used against the left. She is hardly alone to point that out.
    2
  33. Don't hold your breath.
    2
  34.  @Zatzzo  I guess you'll have to watch a substantial portion, if not all, of the program to find out.
    2
  35. I suggest you watch more than these few minutes/seconds. The TOPIC was the First Amendment and the Tech Giants power over speech. The whole issue of their being private actors which nevertheless have quasi-governmental roles in our lives (not to mention monopoly power) was discussed better than I've heard it discussed anywhere.
    2
  36.  @ish7957  Numerous stories fell apart. You must not have followed that fiasco. Getting people used to lying, trash talking, and making money off of such a risible performance seems to be what you advocate. No wonder Alex Jones (who lost a major defamation suit, thank God) comes to YOUR mind. You may be on the verge of losing your country. You might want to pause and think about it.
    2
  37.  @ish7957  The mark on what? The podcast was lengthy, and it was about the First Amendment. Did you watch it, or just this "curated" version -- which was not generally released, by the way? Sam had to dig for this tiny, off topic excerpt. Check it yourself.
    2
  38.  @jogiff  I think it's official. MR has the worst comments.
    2
  39.  @jogiff  You don't know what you're talking about, and you are engaged in the most rank defamation. Why are Americans so prone to shameless lying all of a sudden? (Can economic, political, and social implosion be far behind? Students of history have reason to be concerned.)
    2
  40.  @jogiff  You keep lying for some reason. All the key communications on that resignation were immediately published.
    2
  41.  @jogiff  And Greenwald's article turned out to be right.
    2
  42.  @jogiff  Why are you imitating Trump's communication style if you oppose him? Including the compulsive lying . . .
    2
  43.  @misterdemocracy3335  I'm not mad. I don't like injustice. Are you all right with it?
    2
  44.  @misterdemocracy3335  "It feels like" (Huh?) It's not about feelings. It's about facts -- which are no longer popular in America, for some reason. These are like a bunch of religious factions with prescribed liturgy, dogma, and excommunication. Aren't you worried yet? I would be.
    2
  45.  @misterdemocracy3335  Why did you bother asking the question in your first post, then, if you had no interest in a variety of answers?
    2
  46.  @misterdemocracy3335  Not very logical: Sam got to pick the clip in which he speaks. Glenn didn't.
    2
  47.  @misterdemocracy3335  Damn, are all Americans alike? I haven't made a white friend in this century. LOL
    2
  48.  @drewfleming5584  c'est toi qui es FOU
    2
  49. @Countess Fenring Why do you lie? And who said a word about "owning Chomsky"? Posting on the wrong thread again, are we?
    2
  50.  @sirius1696  Yeah, because he doesn't know. Sam knows. /s
    2
  51.  @hughmac13  Well, Glenn and Zephyr, who were both on the program, are lawyers specializing in the First Amendment. Your remarks show gaps in knowledge. The US Constitution is not a Napoleonic code. You can't read the Bill of Rights and know what you can count on being able to say or do. (Example: 1st Amend. says "Congress shall make no law . . . " So, can governors issue declarations that limit speech? Can a president? Or how about the 4th Amend.? Can police seize your cell phone without your permission? What if it's on the floor of your car and they heard you planning an apparently illegal act before you dropped it? There were no cell phones or cars in the 18th century.) You might want to rethink your position.
    2
  52.  @antonyhanson4479  EXCELLENT! ;D
    1
  53.  @nohbuddy1  Prove it up.
    1
  54.  @ddavis3599  How can someone who was never an American be a traitor? Neat trick. I guess "we" rule the world.
    1
  55.  @ddavis3599  So he's a traitor to which country, according to this American? Under which law is he betraying which country? Someone else looking to extradite him now?
    1
  56.  @ddavis3599  So, are you with the January 6th insurrectionist wannabees, or are you part of the lunatic fringe that is forming in the opposite camp? That you would shoot all three of them and me as well, if you could, is no longer something I doubt. Nice job.
    1
  57.  @mckenzie.latham91  Yes he was.
    1
  58. He quit. He didn't have to. All the documents leading up to his decision to resign were made public. I have never seen so much lying.
    1
  59.  @WestLightz  What? You mean insisting on fairness is a Peterson move? No, guilt by analogy like you just did is Peterson all the way.
    1
  60.  @youtubeisawebsite7484  That the program was an in-depth examination of the First Amendment and free speech in general, not simply as a legal matter but also culturally. Impeachment was not the issue they were addressing. It was a sidebar.
    1
  61. Anyone who doesn't watch the entire broadcast after this excerpt and judges Greenwald is in bad faith. For the record, I think Trump and his gauleiters cannot be allowed to get away with what they did.
    1
  62.  @TheUntaintedTreble  You just made no sense at all. Nor did you respond to what I said. Nor did I say or suggest what you put in quotes. Why bother?
    1
  63.  @variousthings6582  Most of "Russiagate" fell apart. Russia hatred is alive and well.
    1
  64.  @TheUntaintedTreble  Judges, especially at the Supreme Court, do pose questions as hypotheticals. That's the most common form of questioning employed, to understand the full ramifications of a given position and what sort of precedent it would set for a class of future cases.
    1
  65.  @LP12576  He decided not to understand. Don't waste your precious time.
    1
  66.  @LP12576  Nadine Strossen wrote about this in her book on hate speech. She gave examples of every hate speech law that ended up being used against the very people it was supposed to protect. It shocked me, I can tell you.
    1
  67. This tiny excerpt was what was misleading. What was its purpose, now that you mention it?
    1
  68. The program with Briahna and Glenn focused on the First Amendment, not impeachment. This excerpt was misleading.
    1
  69.  @jocksharerock7318  The issue is whether Greenwald is a "reactionary." That issue was addressed.
    1
  70.  @LP12576  Trick question. There is very little thinking going on here . . .
    1
  71.  @LP12576  Agreed.
    1
  72.  @mckenzie.latham91  He left The Intercept. She writes for it.
    1
  73. Taking snippets is bad enough, but all right, they are at least accurate, though the color is mysteriously off. But why the misleading intro? This was NOT a podcast on impeachment at all, but a program about free speech and the limits of current First Amendment law to protect it. Why not say, "an interesting program on free speech took an odd turn?" Okay. You have a right to your opinions, but not to your own facts.
    1
  74.  @misterdemocracy3335  You know he didn't find this clip, don't you? He created this excerpt. There is no such clip posted on the Bad Faith channel. Look for yourself. Don't be so easily played.
    1
  75.  @misterdemocracy3335  You really think no one will ever smear you? If they covet your job, look out. Hey, this is Amerika!
    1
  76.  @misterdemocracy3335  WAIT A MINUTE. Are you mad because I said Sam was cute? He is. I don't get why he stoops to this. Don't be mad.
    1
  77.  @Rage_Harder_Then_Relax  Well, by that measure Jordan Peterson is a genius. And Brittney Spears is better than Mozart.
    1
  78.  @mckenzie.latham91  Watch the actual program, or at least a sustantial segment. See what it was really about. Anything can be twisted. And like First Amendment advocates say, you could be next.
    1
  79.  @hughmac13  Anyone can learn.
    1
  80.  @hughmac13  Then make sure to read Nadine Strossen, before you're persuaded to support "more legislation." That's all I can say. We once had a First Amendment. I'm not sure it will stick around after Trump.
    1
  81.  @hughmac13  For your information, the First Amendment did not apply to the states until well into the twentieth century, and there was no argument to apply it beyond restricting what the federal government could do before the Fourteenth Amendment was passed. Nor did I impute to you positions you didn't take. That wasn't the point -- and never is, when hypotheticals are posed, modal verbs are used, counterfactuals serving as hypotheticals are mentioned to point out substantial risks, etc. The problem is, you DON'T know what you're talking about. We had much greater free speech rights before the 9/11 attacks, and before social media harrassment became ubiquitous. The very fact this government has been trying to extradite Assange is an assault on the Bill of Rights.
    1
  82.  @hughmac13  Then read Strossen. Find out exactly where we stand with free speech. Or read Chemerinsky. One of these should be palatable to you.
    1