Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Stefanik Takes Columbia Prez To Task In Congressional Hearing On Campus Antisemitism" video.

  1. Another performance by Congress for fundraising. It worked perfectly last time.
    48
  2. Sounds like you missed the irony in her comment.
    10
  3. As long as it works for fundraising, you'll see more of it.
    7
  4. It's a private university, first of all. Second, how do you expect anyone to control the speech of 4000+ highly-educated people with, one hopes, a diversity of political views? It sounds to me as if those who actually did something wrong are facing the consequences, as they should.
    7
  5. 💯
    6
  6. Stefanik would be a joke but is, in fact, a great little fundraiser.
    5
  7. Back when a summer job easily covered in-state tuition, what was so bad about that?
    2
  8. He talks as if Israel has no agency. They are not even responsible for the killing of the aid workers, much less children in their beds.
    1
  9. See, e.g., the IDF report. Or Amy Goodman's coverage. Try.
    1
  10. Not likely. It was a proxy fight among billionaires, with the testimony being pivotal. No one would have scrutinized her work were it not for that (admittedly poor) performance when she testified. The proof? No one ever had -- not hers, and not Ackman's wife's, either. As for Stefanik, easy fundraising. What's not to like?
    1
  11. Far too often, correct.
    1
  12. Brilliant at fundraising, which is the only kind of brilliant for the contemporary politician.
    1
  13. @portlandhasbecometrash8437  She's putting on a show for her donors. She cannot not know about freedom of speech on campus, and that true threats require the assistance of law enforcement. Congress passing a resolution is performative. It has no bearing on First Amendment law and cannot put otherwise protected speech outside the realm of First Amendment law. That's just Congress expressing an opinion, not rendering speech illegal. See RAV v. City of St. Paul (a Scalia opinion).
    1
  14.  @portlandhasbecometrash8437  Let's see whether my response is deemed acceptable for your eyes by yt.
    1
  15.  @portlandhasbecometrash8437  I suggest you read RAV v. City of St. Paul, a Scalia opinion on the First Amendment. You could also read Nadine Strossen, Erwin Chemerinsky, etc., or listen to Glenn Greenwald or Amy Goodman. I think you need to. All of your questions will be answered.
    1
  16.  @portlandhasbecometrash8437  As a slogan, or an opinion, rather than a true threat? Yes it is covered by the First Amendment. As are swastikas, white hoods, etc. True threats, incitement to imminent violence, and similar acts can and should be prosecuted. And you can also sue (civil action) for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Supreme Court is clear. I'm thinking your background information is in dire need of improvement. As is your spelling.
    1
  17.  @portlandhasbecometrash8437  As a general matter, no. Not anymore than the same chant directed at Syrians, Russians, North Koreans, etc., or their leaders. You need to calm yourself, put down your screen, and open a book. RAV v. City of St. Paul; Brandenburg v. Ohio. Find out real information. Who knows? You might need to know some day. It could happen.
    1
  18. Nah. This is a performance that worked incredibly well for fundraising.
    1