Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Fox Business" channel.

  1.  @vikinglife6316  The Fox News article says, "The students must take the original Hippocratic Oath and have the opportunity to participate in the student-led initiative. In the future, each class will have the chance to create its own oath." As long as it is truly voluntary, that is called freedom of speech. If it is imposed on those who do not wish to join in, then that is a big problem. As for the Yahoo News story, I thought it was well-written. I don't know that I necessarily agree, but it provided a serious discussion of the problem and I appreciated the writer's point. She made it carefully, she did not demonize anyone, she mostly avoided slogans, and she considered other viewpoints as well. See? This isn't that hard.
    2
  2.  @mrright5817  My first thought. I'm not convinced of her story. Consider A Million Little Pieces. Consider George Santos. Consider Anna Sorokin. Consider the "babies ripped from incubators". That story was dangerous.
    2
  3. Hate speech is generally legal. There is no such category that removes speech from the protection of the First Amendment. Have you forgotten RAV v. City of St. Paul? That was an opinion by Justice Scalia.
    2
  4. Ms. Marsden -- go to law school!!! I mean it.
    2
  5. On what basis? He has no warrants in Florida.
    2
  6. Sorry, had.
    2
  7.  @joeperkins4309  What did they "aid and abet" him in doing? When they last saw him, he wasn't under arrest and had no warrants. He was free to go. Why he was not held for having Gabby's property (her van) is what I don't understand, but some intrepid reporter needs to ask law enforcement or the DA.
    2
  8.  @joeperkins4309  If they committed no crimes, they should "get away scot-free."
    2
  9. I don't think any of this is real. The neoliberal globalists know the next few years are fraught. I think they want to "lose" --- they want their opponents to be the ones holding the bag.
    2
  10. ​@londahobbs9612 "Entitlement" means you are indeed entitled to it under the existing law . . . But Congress can take it away.
    2
  11. He's in the pocket of a handful of billionaires, too.
    2
  12. THIS
    2
  13. @observer8736  Well . . . One could read the Westboro Baptist Church case, for example, as well as RAV v. City of St. Paul and the seminal case of Brandenburg v. Ohio. RAV was a Scalia opinion, and Scalia joined the opinion on the flag-burning case, Texas v. Johnson. One could start with those four cases, or any one of them, and find out.
    2
  14.  @observer8736  What happened to everyone? How could you not know she is wrong?
    2
  15. YIKES
    2
  16. The expansion of the BRICS tells you what they're thinking.
    1
  17.  @uio890138  Replied above
    1
  18.  @uio890138  Where did you see me do that? I never have.
    1
  19.  @uio890138  Who made you think this way? Be mad at them.
    1
  20. False. Everyone in the US has First Amendment protection, for everything enumerated in that Amendment. But if you don't love the Bill of Rights, and love money or anger more . . .
    1
  21. False. See, for example, the Westboro Baptist Church case, or RAV v. City of St Paul, or Texas v. Johnson. RAV was a Scalia opinion. I'd expect you to know it. 😅
    1
  22. What is wrong with Hillary?
    1
  23. Mr. Musk is an incredibly prolific con man who was charged with securities fraud by the SEC in 2018.
    1
  24.  @cisium1184  You say this about someone who has been repeatedly in hot water with the SEC, and has a major lawsuit in California over Tesla, and a major administrative complaint against Neuralink? Well, maybe you're right. People who keep getting away with things and leaving muddy water behind them must be very good at something. That's not the life most people live.
    1
  25.  @cisium1184  I agree with that. Of course you're right. Contracts, like everything, are case by case, and better be.
    1
  26.  @BoloTheOriginal  Well, that's fine. Pay for the lawsuits.
    1
  27. @BoloTheOriginal  "Manipulated?" Paying for speech has been expressly given full First Amendment protection. There is no distinction between speaking on your own accord for free, or being hired to speak. What do you think public relations agents, advertising agents, newscasters, think tanks, lawyers, political campaign operatives, etc., etc., do? Do you think DeSantis and Stefanik are not responding to donors' concerns?
    1
  28.  @BoloTheOriginal  Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) Ring a bell?
    1
  29.  @BoloTheOriginal  Did I say money isn't changing hands? Whatever happens anywhere, money is changing hands. From donors to DeSantis, Abbott, Stefanik is a river at the moment . . . But all swore to uphold the Constitution. See that happening?
    1
  30. Because once under oath, it would not have occurred to the son of two Stanford Law professors to invoke his right to remain silent.
    1
  31. What you're doing is fomenting hate toward Americans. Stop it.
    1
  32. You're right. Don't believe it.
    1
  33. It's purely your opinion that those opposing arms to Israel are "for terrorists." That's not the law. Explain the Westboro Baptist Church case, . . . RAV v. City of St. Paul, . . . Brandenburg v. Ohio. . . . RAV was a Scalia opinion, and Scalia joined the opinion on the flag-burning case (Texas v. Johnson, I believe). You're confusing the First Amendment with Miss Manners.
    1
  34.  @mustangracer5124  This one is tougher: he's a lot younger and his parents both Stanford Law. Also, no evidence he is a human trafficker, blackmailer, or double agent. Madoff lived, and you know he funneled dark money.
    1
  35. Glenn Greenwald is on tonight, talking about the First Amendment.
    1
  36. Seriously? If he had been put under oath before Congress, he wouldn't have invoked the 5th Amendment -- charged or not (yet)? WHY are you deliberately duping the American people?
    1
  37. Alleged by whom?
    1
  38.  @gregc8394  Nope. The President could prevent lifting the moratorium with a stroke of the pen. Trump was too lazy to look into it. All someone had to do was mumble "money, money, something, China ahead, something, something, biotechs want this, money" into Trump's ear and it was off to the races. (Maybe little Jared?)
    1
  39. In every other country, the "left" is saying exactly this -- we need alternatives to shutdown, we need to sit down together, we need a plan. Shutdowns are senseless. Here, the DNC destroys small business, throws people out of their homes, and jeers at them. Wow.
    1
  40. He'll leave once the fix is in for Hunter.
    1
  41. I don't think any of this is real. The neoliberal globalists know the next few years will be fraught. I think they want to "lose" --- they want their opponents to be the ones holding the bag. Every crisis makes them richer.
    1
  42. You believe her over an entire university, with a sterling reputation? Really? No need to check it out, huh? That's critical thinking. I'm not convinced of her story. It's very easy to find serious critiques of it, from years ago. Consider A Million Little Pieces, or Three Cups of Tea. Consider George Santos. Consider Anna Sorokin. (Consider the "babies ripped from incubators". That story was dangerous.) Every one of those people got something they wanted.
    1
  43. @edwinarnold4865  No, there are no "hate crimes." If an actual crime has racial, religious, ethnic hatred, etc., as its motive, the sentence can be enhanced, and usually is.
    1
  44. @JohnSmith-xu7ev  I'm not surprised you don't know. It's not explained well. I hope yt allows it.
    1
  45.  @JoshSmithDeeps  Exceptions for anyone who can force them . . . That's where things stand. :/
    1
  46.  @edwinarnold4865  Give me one example of a "hate crime" that isn't a crime except for the hate.
    1
  47. @edwinarnold4865  There is no such category of speech under the Constitution. None.
    1
  48.  @edwinarnold4865  There is no such category of speech under the First Amendment.
    1
  49.  @edwinarnold4865  There is no crime or tort of "hate speech." None.
    1
  50. @edwinarnold4865  If you actually cared to know, you could read the Westboro Baptist Church case, for example, as well as RAV v. City of St. Paul, and the seminal case of Brandenburg v. Ohio. RAV was a Scalia opinion, and Scalia joined the opinion on the flag-burning case, Texas v. Johnson. You could start with those four cases, or any one of them, and find out what the law is, and go from there. That's a distinct possibility.
    1