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

  1. Are we supposed to support a blatantly unconstitutional law because MTG opposes it? 😂
    140
  2. ​ @USEismydream  The bill is unconstitutional.
    125
  3. ​Talking bs is protected by the First Amendment.
    94
  4. Telephone only
    38
  5. That sounds weird but it's true. There are no thought crimes, and speech that isn't a true threat or a call to violence or conspiracy to commit a crime is usually protected by 1A.
    15
  6. Kanye is a genius. It makes me sad that people treat him as though he weren't intelligent. I don't agree with him, either. That's not the point.
    12
  7.  @MarkMphonoman  Do you feel sorry for the vaccinated people who are hospitalized?
    11
  8.  @kellyfowler6426  Did you actually believe most unvaccinated people are nuts? Has the media convinced you of that?
    11
  9. When I watch that January 6th clip, I have to wonder to what degree oxycontin played a role.
    11
  10.  @Time4me2change  Honestly, hating on someone in the hospital!
    9
  11. ​@Mixedworld.58 is young. Think about what the Carters were doing 40 years ago. Jimmy was 59, actually, and Rosalynn 56.
    9
  12. Antisemitic speech is constitutionally protected unless (1) it rises to the level of a threat or incitement to violence, when it can be a crime; or (2) occurs in a workplace in violation of Title VII, or in a classroom or dorm in violation of Title VI, when it can be a tort. This is very simple.
    9
  13. If most of these people never bother their hideous heads over how old a teenage girl is, and whether she is of age yet, would not shock me in the least. They consider themselves entitled. Everything Gaetz himself says shows it.
    9
  14. @justinstephenson9360  The definition of incitement is very narrow, and the US has no thought crimes, or prescribed personal associations. Its laws against discrimination apply to the workplace, school, public spaces, means of transportation, and so forth. You can say whatever you want -- you can even agitate for repealing Title VII and Title IX. That's your First Amendment right.
    9
  15. Does anyone wonder exactly how reporters and camera crews get into patients' rooms? What sorts of consent are needed? We still have HIPPA. Is there an incentive offered to waive all privacy protections?
    8
  16. In most states, I know that once you have probable cause to arrest, you can obtain a court order directing him to submit to a DNA test.
    8
  17.  @bloppysloppy2283  Not even a software engineer. Just someone with a nose for business whose mom was serving on a board with a top IBM exec. BTW, when Paul Allen developed a highly treatable form of cancer, that software "engineer" tried to shove him out of his job.
    7
  18. This law is blatantly unconstitutional.
    6
  19.  @squamish4244  He kept saying he was only speaking for himself, but we all know it does not come across that way. If he were only speaking for himself, he could keep the (essentially private) information with his next of kin and call it a day.
    6
  20. @Ashnesss  "She must be . . . " stop right there.
    6
  21. "I don't know if a no-fly zone will bring a nuclear war." --- that's a humanitarian message? No wonder video game images were passed off as coming from this war.
    6
  22.  @bmell1252  I know a woman who has decided to decline the vaccine, and has volunteered for a COVID monoclonal antibody study which starts September 3. She is not being unfair to you. EDIT: She herself has been a cancer patient. I forgot about that.
    5
  23. He seems irrational. Supporting a no-fly zone even if it risks a nuclear war? Delirium! An immediate cease-fire needs to be negotiated.
    5
  24.  @martinpike803  The power plant wasn't bombed.
    5
  25.  @Roller_Ghoster  Of course my statement makes sense. Look at what OTHER countries are doing. I heard an interview with Dr. Eric Topol, one of the most pro-vaccine, activist doctors around, and HE called the US approach overly "vaccine-centric." I learned from him that Germans and Dutch just go to their pharmacies and pick up home COVID testing kits, for free, and that they have tracing protocols. I like Dr. Topol, he's clearly really smart and an honest guy. He might be right, he might be wrong, but he sure isn't lying. Look, a lot of other countries are doing better -- or lying. Don't you want to know what's going on with this? Look at the numbers in other parts of the world. Many places with lower vaccination rates have less disease, and many places with high vaccination rates have a lot of breakthrough infections. This is no time for more dumb politics.
    5
  26. Who said they haven't?
    5
  27.  @iClone316  Read the EUA vaccination release form, slowly, then tell me whether a healthy person under 30 is clearly wrong in wanting to see full FDA approval first, AND getting tested weekly in the meantime, etc. If I had a teenager, it's what I'd probably suggest to them.
    5
  28. Now that one vaccine is FDA approved, certainly reevaluate and be willing to take it.
    5
  29.  @gcelosegui  Precisely. You're also free to talk about it in most contexts, too.
    5
  30.  @subobing3551  That's not the point. Actually, it occurs in one of America's finest poems: Robert Lowell, "For the Union Dead." Black stand-up comics use it, too.
    5
  31.  @happilydivorced7777  WOMEN support each other?? That's the biggest gaslighting in the world.
    5
  32. @erincoco612  If a gag order is needed to protect legal process, then obviously absent the order, the speech is NOT prohibited.
    5
  33. The videos where Hotez FLATLY contradicts HIMSELF repeatedly and acts as a political shill instead of a doctor seal the deal for me.
    4
  34. ​@steelcom5976 RFK Jr is willing to debate conspiracy theorist Peter Hotez , of course.
    4
  35. @maggiemaloney8599  Because Brandenburg v. Ohio. Because Watts v. United States. Because Virginia v. Black. Because it is absolutely settled law that you cannot criminalize even the most odious speech unless it constitutes a true threat of imminent harm or incites imminent violence. You can't even ban cross burning or calling for revolution unless it meets one of those criteria, evincing intent to cause an imminent breach of the peace or to intimidate a particular person or group of people who are present when you said those words, or performed those acts (for symbolic or expressive conduct). It's not a gray area. It is unconstitutional.
    4
  36. @maggiemaloney8599  There is no contradiction between complaining of discrimination and not wanting it criminalized. I've been discriminated against plenty of times. It never crossed my mind to want someone charged with a crime over it. How ridiculous. If I have a viable lawsuit, it's my job to bring it.
    4
  37. Johnson & Johnson was phased out in my region.
    4
  38. Thank you for this. Of course there is a time when certain diseases should not be treated aggressively, if at all. That time is not age 75 for all forms of cancer. Good lord!
    4
  39.  @Viconius  Agree. You can see what happened to these people. They are unwell. Remember, this was done to them, too. This was forced on all of us, and not everyone can resist such incessant fear-mongering. Not everyone is psychologically strong. If I had had a living elderly parent, I would have been sucked in, too. I know that. I have mercy for these people. I just wish they would get help, instead of still hectoring the rest of us.
    4
  40. A lot of people don't. They do not understand how cutting a tape can completely misrepresent what was said.
    4
  41. The bill is blatantly unconstitutional. It's not even close. Congress is ignoring its oath to support the Constitution. This law is a shameless fundraising gimmick.
    4
  42. Yes, but what if someone whacky like MTG is against it? Don't the Cool Kids have to be for it? 😂
    4
  43. Well, but talking about MTG is so much more important. I mean, what's an amendment here or there?
    4
  44. @erincoco612  The First Amendment certainly does prohibit government from making hate speech illegal:  Brandenburg v. Ohio; Watts v. United States; RAV v. City of St Paul; Virginia v. Black --- those are just a few of the cases that say so. It is absolutely settled law that you cannot criminalize even the most odious speech unless it constitutes a true threat of imminent harm or incites imminent violence. It's not a gray area. It's unconstitutional.
    4
  45. @erincoco612  I just cited four Supreme Court cases. In two of them, cross burning could not be prosecuted under local laws prohibiting it, in Virginia and in St. Paul, Minnesota. That's because the law as written or as applied was struck down as unconstitutional.
    4
  46. I am sick to death of all of these politicians grandstanding. We need real science and real answers, and I no longer expect to see either.
    4
  47.  @wyskass861  WHO takes Putin's word? THIS ISN'T A GAME.
    4
  48. What is the source of this?
    4
  49. Columbine was 25 years ago. The students who survived are in their 40s. Columbine was not first.
    3
  50. There's a very important reason why that is objectively true: your marital partner is your next of kin. If anything happens to you and you can't make decisions for yourself, guess who does? They better love you, or like and respect you, and have ethics.
    3