Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Rebel HQ" channel.

  1. Wait. You don't know why she cannot maintain a suit against them? Really? Remember all those years when you thought our civil rights were "excessive?" Yeah, well . . . here we are. I predict she will get this dismissed on free speech grounds, but she'll have to do it on her own dime.
    17
  2. Did you notice how lazy the prosecutor was? All that was said was boilerplate, with no attempt to prove up the facts of this case. They're used to winning without working for it. 😮
    14
  3. And did you notice how lazy the prosecutor is? All that was said was boilerplate. They are used to winning without proving up the facts. That is a risk to everybody.
    6
  4. 💯
    4
  5. I support Riley.
    3
  6. It is free speech. It is far too vague to be a true threat.
    3
  7. ​ @rickywinder7730 This helps us all.
    2
  8. I would look, too. Is it real? That's what would attract my curiosity.
    2
  9. What do you mean? He's rich.
    2
  10. ​@Henry-i5h Not at all. I support her. Who decided those would be her choices in the first place? But her politics have nothing to do with it in any event. Even j_erks have rights. BTW, the video is right: Americans harm Americans.
    1
  11. ​@Henry-i5h I don't think it's funny. Injustice is injustice.
    1
  12. If only.
    1
  13. ​ @scottyjohnson3120 Chavin pled guilty to federal charges.
    1
  14. ​ @scottyjohnson3120  Chauvin pled guilty to federal charges.
    1
  15. ​ @rubengutierrez-w5s The Biden family pardons are rather interesting as well.
    1
  16. It's not a true threat. Inform yourself about your free speech rights, before they become nothing more than the plot of a cute period piece.
    1
  17.  @scottryals3191  Maddow was fine with them when they were censoring in favor of her agenda. They'll flip again, but not to our side.
    1
  18. This isn't a true threat. Learn First Amendment rights, before we lose them. I appreciate why BCBS reported her, and why they wanted police to check it out. That's reasonable. But now that they KNOW she isn't a threat, why are they still pressing charges? It's a civil matter: maybe they can drop her from coverage, sue her for intentional infliction of emotional distress of their customer service rep, and leave the criminal justice aparratus out of it. Our taxes are paying for this. Not BCBS. We are paying. AS USUAL.
    1
  19. @litac5433  Because it's far too vague. She stated nothing that indicates that she intends to do anything. And what is coming "next?" Being denied health care just like she was, when they themselves need it most? That's not a threat, it's a solid prediction. Also, when she said something about "karma," what do you think that implied? First Amendment law on true threats is clear. If you had bothered to look up the law, you might have saved yourself the time wasted to post this.
    1
  20.  @litac5433  Not mad, lazy. You have a magnificent First Amendment, but you can't be bothered to look it up.
    1
  21.  @litac5433  Still don't care to read about the meaning of "true threats" under the First Amendment, huh? Then I guess you won't know. Give me a break. People have said and done far worse to me. I handled it just fine.
    1
  22.  @litac5433  Bad behavior isn't always a crime. Justice Jackson just explained that, when she agreed with the Supreme Court's conservatives that certain federal statutes could not be used against the January 6th protesters, even though much of what they did was wrong, obviously. More fun reading.
    1
  23. Is taking "too long" to get your license out "resisting?" Do you know what words mean? "You are threatening people." According to MY definition, you are. 😂
    1
  24. Davos, Bilderberg, Jackson Hole
    1
  25. It's not a true threat. It's too vague, under First Amendment law.
    1
  26. ​ @Squee898  Correct. And asking for a lawyer is sufficient. You can refuse to talk to them. What you cannot do is lie. That's why it's always safer to decline to talk to them. You could get nervous and blurt something out that might be considered untrue. Never lie to LE, or risk telling them a partial truth.
    1
  27. Rachel Maddow has something to say about it? The same billionaires were pushing her line until yesterday. All she and her cohorts need to do is win big, with a real candidate.
    1
  28. Technically, it is not a true threat. Learn First Amendment law before it becomes quaint history.
    1
  29. That isn't a true threat. It's far too vague. She didn't indicate she had any intention of doing anything. She didn't even specify what was "next." The rep on the phone being denied health coverage when they themselves need it most? That's not a threat, it's a solid prediction. She also said something about karma at some point. That's like saying I'll pray for you that you don't . . .
    1
  30. They were DNC creeps until just yesterday. Musk even signed permission for a transition.
    1
  31. ​ @Squee898 Judges have absolute immunity for their judicial acts.
    1
  32. I still don't know why people think they can defeat the world's biggest liar by lying harder.
    1
  33. ​ @daralic2255 Perfect. Thank you.
    1
  34.  @litac5433  No basis in evidence. Contradicted by all available evidence.
    1