Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "CBS Evening News" channel.

  1.  @jamestoney6599  Who said anything about "Antifa" being "right?"
    2
  2. They did a terrible job and were unprepared. They did not defend the First Amendment or the welfare of their students. They don't believe in either. What is wrong with them? How could people in this position be this poor?
    2
  3. This is what happens when people think they are owed a paycheck.
    2
  4. And here I thought we were sick of cancel culture.
    2
  5. @MJLOVEnow  She has got the best public relations in the world. And where Weinstein is concerned, she is nowhere near the worst offender. Everyone who saw benefit in their relation to Weinstein turned a blind eye. She probably knew a lot less than, say, George Clooney did --- or any actor, for that matter.
    2
  6. It can be First Amendment protected --- this happens to be true --- but they clearly have no idea how or when, or why, because they don't really care about the First Amendment. It was plain as day. I was stunned.
    1
  7. ​​ @2genders-tk2ue  Having people who are supposed to uphold the First Amendment (at university, no less) incapable of articulating the law or caring about free speech very much is a far bigger problem. How is it possible that almost no one knows what free speech is?
    1
  8.  @MrGameadd1ct  Look. Their performance was abysmal, but the issue was, in light of the FACT that these private universities have CHOSEN to embrace First Amendment freedoms, under what facts and circumstances would their STUDENTS face discipline for speech? Can you, um, . . . follow? You know, your rights might be at stake one day, or your kid's. Or something. But I'm sure you never say anything wrong ever.
    1
  9. This is what happens when countries are turned over to WEF and Davos control.
    1
  10. ​@shaneoberdier They did a terrible job, because they don't really care about the First Amendment, or the welfare of students on campus. They don't care, and didn't think they needed to know. No one like this should be admitted to Harvard, much less "lead" it. They don't stand for anything except their own paychecks. That, they are interested in.
    1
  11.  @lynneryczek9089  They are to someone who is purely emotional and has lost their rational abilities.
    1
  12. THANK YOU
    1
  13.  @thedizzyunicorn  They chose to embrace the full panoply of First Amendment freedoms. They did not have to, though in some states, they may be required to. But in general, they did not have to. Do you believe universities, private or public, should be bastions of First Amendment freedoms? "Yes or no?" 🤣🤣
    1
  14.  @jordanmc27  You're the one who lost the plot.
    1
  15.  @jordanmc27  "Feel[ing] safe is priority #1 over anything else?" Okay, I admire you for that admission. Wow, has the world changed.
    1
  16.  @jordanmc27  You cannot have a demonstration that takes over a classroom, or a dormitory, or an administration building, or a library, no matter how lovely your words may be. Those are restrictions on the time, place, and manner of the manifestation, not on the political viewpoint it advances.
    1
  17.  @jordanmc27  The laws governing free speech in the compulsory education setting are in any case somewhat different than at college. If you truly care, Nadine Strossen and Ewin Chemerinsky wrote absolutely beautiful books on campus freedom of speech. Both are Jewish, by the way. A lot of great writers are.
    1
  18.  @thedizzyunicorn  Hold me accountable how? Spell it out. People have a First Amendment freedom not to associate with me, but if a university has pledged not to punish protected speech, I get to graduate. Do you think anyone who uses the N word with its usual meaning, or the C word, should be expelled? That would leave a lot of fraternity houses half empty.
    1
  19.  @jordanmc27  No, those were examples of supposed "consequences."
    1
  20. @jordanmc27  Exactly. If you say things people consider abhorrent, they can decline to interact with you. They can consider you unhinged, unreliable, morally repugnant --- but they probably cannot break their contracts with you, especially the contracts that promised no punitive consequences for political speech.
    1
  21. @jordanmc27  Do you drink to excess? Or is it generally too hard for you to gleen abstract principles from examples? You can only think at a very low level of abstraction, rather than consider how we treat other constitutional rights?
    1
  22. @jordanmc27  The contract is between the students and the universities when they matriculated. No, they can't have disappearing and reappearing constitutional rights like the smile on a Cheshire cat.
    1
  23. @jordanmc27  Why would that mean the university has to punish its students for protected speech? To make the atmosphere more congenial to the children of the mega donors? Is that their condition for donations -- that they can dictate the content of the student body's speech? That they can demand surveillance recordings, names, and addresses of students who are attending demonstrations they don't agree with? What if they donate hundreds of millions? Shouldn't they get a say in what goes on? Is THIS what you believe?
    1
  24.  @thedizzyunicorn  That's because your emotions override your logic, and . . . Wait. Dizzy unicorn. Okay. Never mind.
    1
  25.  @jordanmc27  That's not how ridiculous is spelled.
    1
  26. @jordanmc27  Your discomfort with my speech isn't accorded a global veto, but it is true that some people can coerce a veto. Massive concentrations of wealth can do that. If you seriously think the Harvard brand has been damaged, that is a JOKE. They did lose one huge donor: Leslie Wexner. That's right, that Leslie Wexner. Jeffrey Epstein was his dear friend and protégé. So, we started with principles, and in the end it all came down to 💰. I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked, shocked!
    1
  27. @thedizzyunicorn  I'm a trilingual civil rights lawyer who attended a major university in Europe 30 years ago. Yes, their system is generally better somehow, but I can't quite understand why they are so inspiring. Maybe money isn't their godhead quite yet. I'm sure they'll get there. On their own, or pushed.
    1
  28.  @thedizzyunicorn  💰 = 💩
    1
  29. @tanyagitman5926  To paraphrase Norman Finkelstein, teaching students to love to think is their first priority. Everything else flows from that. Discrimination is itself thoughtless and impedes thinking, and tolerating discrimination is a violation of Title VI. But Title VI exists to support free and equal opportunities for education. Education is teaching students to love to think. See how that works?
    1
  30.  @tanyagitman5926  What a grim view of life you have. Maybe you're right. It's all about comfort and safety, like a giant nursing home.
    1
  31. @JimBob-jr5up  My mind was just blown. Liz Magill is an eminent lawyer. Her father was a federal appellate judge. She went to Yale and University of Virginia and she clerked for Justice Ginsberg. That's creme de la creme. And she is incapable of coherently stating and defending First Amendment freedoms. Now I've heard everything. This is serious, but not for the made-up reasons we're supposed to think. There is grave incompetence across the board, starting at the top. We're not going to have peace anytime soon. Who are the peacemakers? (I thought she was a sociologist.)
    1
  32.  @tanyagitman5926  James Baldwin called American a giant kindergarten, lol. He couldn't live here.
    1
  33. @patrickhenry2845  The goal of that congressional hearing was simpler still. 💰 (fund raising) I'm sure it was successful. Articulation of First Amendment principles, not so much. But that doesn't pay, does it? You don't even get Likes for that.
    1
  34. @JimBob-jr5up  This Unicorn fellow points out that this is really all about money, like he just revealed a hidden truth about the world to us. "Money?! Gosh, that never once crossed my mind!!" 🤣🤣🤣 It's about money and safety. And comfort. We want the highest paying customers to feel comfortable. 🤣🤣🤣🤪 I'm pretending to joke but this is serious. Money is at stake here.
    1
  35. ​ @Truth_or_Jer Ah, half smart. Yes, as a private university, it has no obligation to embrace the full panoply of First Amendment freedoms, but it has chosen to embrace them. Supposedly. It could have chosen speech codes over free speech --- but it didn't. Speech codes can be tricky, too; no Palestinian flags means no Israeli ones, either. No Palestinian scarves? So, no Star of David, either. Maybe. (One's political, the other religious? Hmm.) That's when Title VI of the Civil Rights Act comes in. That's how Harvard, a private university, got in trouble discriminating against Asian students in admissions.
    1
  36.  @kennybachman35  I wonder if my good posted was canceled, lol.
    1
  37.  @Truth_or_Jer  Was my post in_vi_si_bled? I wonder? Answered your objection. They CHOSE to embrace the First Amendment. Now they have to be consistent and coherent.
    1
  38.  @skysurfer5cva  Oh, this cut and paste. These private universities CHOSE to embrace the First Amendment and all of the jurisprudence that comes with it. It's true they did not have to, but they made that choice. Do you believe students at all universities should enjoy the full breadth of the protections accorded by the First Amendment? "YES or NO???"
    1
  39.  @skysurfer5cva  But these private universities have made the policy choice not to be more restrictive than what the Constitution provides. That is their commitment to their students. PEN America has an article on campus free speech. Why don't you shift gears and go read that? It explains everything.
    1
  40.  @skysurfer5cva  Because you already know you're wrong? That's why?
    1
  41.  @skysurfer5cva  Oh, I get it. More money is at stake at the private universities. Of course!! More tuition, more mega donors, more better salaries upon graduation . . . Silly me. They should all just shut up and count their money. They're so stupid to get involved in politics anyway, they'll lose out on working on Wall Street.
    1
  42. Japan is about to host the Olympics, but without the public as spectators. Why is their vaccination rate among the lowest in the developed world? It is almost as low as Russia's, though lately they have increased their rate of vaccination.
    1
  43. When you are too weak and greedy to defend yourselves against WEF and Davos control, then blame some scapegoat. Beige immigrants will do nicely.
    1
  44. And beer.
    1
  45. ​ @silentmajority8365 Don't worry, the rat line fixed that for you. /s
    1
  46. @gopinggop  Um, John Coltrane? The great modern European composers in the classical tradition were profoundly influenced by jazz, starting with Debussy. Why are you so jealous of black people? I don't want to try to imagine, I don't want to go there, . . . But you kind of did.
    1
  47. Hate speech does not exist as a category of unprotected speech under the First Amendment. If I were a billionaire, I'd send a copy of Nadine Strossen's book to every household. The real disgrace is that a university president does not know the First Amendment, much less really care about free speech. Short of fighting words, true threats, and incitement to imminent violence (or speech in furtherance of a crime, such as in criminal conspiracy), speech would have to be harassment directed at some individual in a personal way to be subject to discipline. Chants praising Hamas generally don't qualify, unless they are targeting a particular person. Laws against cross burning have been repeatedly struck down. In America, you can fly any flag, or burn it.
    1
  48. ​ @bsquared4604 There is no general law against lying.
    1
  49. ​ @bsquared4604 A lot of unethical things are not criminal for all that. And some unethical things will get you fired from your job or excluded from the classroom, but they cannot be prosecuted or censored.
    1
  50. Well then it is pointless to tell people to arm themselves against active shooters, isn't it? I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm asking you to think this through. This victim had every reason to believe Rittenhouse was an active shooter, and in return for his heroism, he loses most of the muscle in his arm. If Rittenhouse contributed to the circumstances that confused this victim about Rittenhouse's true intent, then Rittenhouse cannot claim complete self defense. You cannot contribute to creating the need to defend yourself, then say that you were just defending yourself. This case is close. Rittenhouse had no business having that weapon. He was carrying illegally. That is a fact.
    1