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

  1. @grimus  That, too. What goes around comes around -- although this might have other, more sinister, roots. I only hope the investigation is honest.
    1
  2. Stefanik was the one wearing blue. Good call.
    1
  3.  @alexandriaocasio-smollett5078  Stefanik is doing it for fundraising.
    1
  4. What did the letter say that created a basis for an investigation of those organizations? Can someone write a letter about me, or about some group I belong to, and because they don't like my opinions, I can be fired from my job or removed from a class? Or, it's enough to trigger an Investigation? Just a letter, calling me a racist, etc.? I thought we were against cancel culture.
    1
  5. HSBC. Find out what the US did when it uncovered the laundering of drug cartel money. The British press wrote about it.
    1
  6. Oh my goodness. And you just reaffirmed the Dunning-Kruger effect. Seth Waxman was Solicitor General and has argued more cases before the Supreme Court than any other living person. You have no clue what he was talking about -- or that he is friends with all of these Justices, for that matter. But if you get 300+ Likes, well then, you must be right.
    1
  7.  @lukedaniell  You beat me to it. Thank GOD. This was scary.
    1
  8.  @Lucy-q1b  Try looking up the briefs and at least skim those. You might have an idea of what the argument is about if you were to take the time to step away from the YouTube and finding something real to look at.
    1
  9.  @Lucy-q1b  No, he was referring to the trial record in the case, to demonstrate that Harvard is in full compliance with the line of Supreme Court cases that permit considering race in admissions. The other side is asking the Court to overturn those precedents, straight up. That is the only issue stated in their petition for certiorari. Quite remarkable, actually.
    1
  10.  @trumpforever6706  SMH
    1
  11.  @user-xd4rs6vr4n  And who would you be, to say who belongs where? You sound like an American.
    1
  12.  @Petal4822  France has the highest marriage rate of any country in Europe between immigrants and "native"/"ethnic" French, and has for generations.
    1
  13. @Petal4822  Yes it is, lol.
    1
  14. Private college, so it actually can. That literally could tip the balance one time in 15 years, or something.
    1
  15. @abusufiansiddik567  AIPAC has been a threat to Israel's Labour's Party many times.
    1
  16. ​ @fish9905  You believe this? How is that critical thinking? I want to see some evidence.
    1
  17.  @fish9905  Oh I see. You just believe what the performance-for-fundraising Congress members spout.
    1
  18.  @Lauwit  Stefanik made money, at your expense. You don't see through it.
    1
  19. ​@Tati8796 Not all Israelis believe the existence of Israel means Palestinians must be occupied and cannot be free. Are you suggesting the slogan is literally always a dog whistle? In other words, coded speech made to sound nice but always hiding a criminal, malevolent intent? Not everyone agrees, but . . . Can you prove they are naive in that?
    1
  20.  @Tati8796  You did not answer my question. Perhaps you are responding to a different post. I asked a First Amendment question, not a geopolitics/Third World development question. Did you recognize that? Or no?
    1
  21. They are a private university. I wouldn't expect them to base admissions on those criteria.
    1
  22. If they pose a national security threat, why are we lining their pockets? Once they have money, guess what? In a free economy, they can spend it as they please short of bribery.
    1
  23. More like a coward and compulsive conformist, easily lead.
    1
  24.  @Allenrobinson9  Except that that is nonsense.
    1
  25.  @joeladams2540  No, she was unresponsive. There is no proof that she mischaracterized her public social media accounts. What she said she usually posts about may indeed be what she posts about.
    1
  26.  @kaelynn4744  No, she was unresponsive. There is no proof that she mischaracterized her public social media accounts. What she said she usually posts about may indeed be what she posts about.
    1
  27.  @Baratheon.  There is no proof that she mischaracterized her public social media accounts. What she said previously that she usually posts about may indeed be what she usually posts about, and some of the posts he asked her about are unimportant enough for her to have forgotten about them. In this hearing, she was substantively unresponsive. That is not the same thing as committing perjury. I don't understand where you all think you saw or heard "perjury on live television." How do you think US Attorneys go about bringing federal charges? Based on Facebook polls? YouTube impressions? The Senate's job is to vote, not "make her talk." I'm assuming she won't be confirmed.
    1
  28.  @Baratheon.  I'm not lying for her. Prove up your claims. I'm not supporting her for confirmation. I think most people in government are objectively unqualified by any standard. That's not the same thing as calling her a criminal because of this. If you believe she is, then you have the burden of proof -- especially if there are Bill of Rights implications. Feel free to leave keywords; I know actual links are likely to be shadowed. I am genuinely interested. If you show me it's true, I'll believe it. BTW, I had the good sense never to open FB or Twitter accounts. I only joined this when the snakes shut down the economy -- and I did so under a pen name that is a version of my real name. So, what would they do to me?
    1
  29.  @heavenlysonshine  Reported and blocked 🤣
    1
  30.  @kiyosenl.3889  No it wasn't a "blatant lie." What she said previously that she usually posts about may indeed be what she usually posts about, and some of the posts he asked her about are unimportant enough for her to have forgotten about them. In this hearing, she was substantively unresponsive. That is not the same thing as committing perjury. I don't understand where you all think you saw or heard "perjury on live television." How do you think US Attorneys go about bringing federal charges? Based on Facebook polls? YouTube impressions? The Senate's job is to vote, not "make her talk." I'm assuming she won't be confirmed. I have no problem with that. It's the screeching for criminal charges that astounds me. Man are you dim.
    1
  31.  @stevenwebster3286  Huh?
    1
  32.  @sueblood7793  I see you cleaned up the original post. Maybe you should watch for the indictment come down, LOL. Blocked.
    1
  33.  @MK-mj9gx  In my private life? First, I wouldn't be asked that question because I do not have a FB or a Twit account. Second, that is none of your business.
    1
  34.  @sueblood7793  I am a lawyer. If you had read all of my posts (and I wonder which are shadowed?), you might have picked up on that. Reading Is Fun.
    1
  35. Did they PAY her to read it? Well then why should she read it? What, you think she's a patriot or something? /s
    1
  36. We borrow from one of the BRICS to pay for war against another. Let's think this through? 🤔
    1
  37. The purpose of federal spending is to juice the market, and reward friends in general. If that wasn't obvious before the Great Recession, it should have been obvious since.
    1
  38.  @Heart2HeartBooks  This is Seth Waxman, who was Solicitor General and has probably argued more cases in front of the Supreme Court than any other living lawyer. Chief Justice Roberts went to Harvard, too. They know each other well.
    1
  39. What do you mean by blew the whistle? Asked him to resign? Or had him arrested, ruined his record, etc.? I would never arrest anyone for food theft. Never, ever. (Remember Les Miserables?) But obviously he can't stay at that job, either.
    1
  40.  @sleepfighter  Say what? You mean he reported this to the authorities? What does race or gay have to do with stealing a loaf of bread, or a bunch of grapes? Was this grape trafficking, in quantities, for profit??
    1
  41.  @sleepfighter  I'm sorry, this is an internal matter. You ask him to resign. You NEVER, and I mean NEVER, report someone for stealing food for personal consumption. It's like, a thing you don't do, since the French Revolution, since Victor Hugo wrote. What happened to moral values? Someone is getting 15 minutes of fame and a twitter storm, over this?
    1
  42.  @sleepfighter  blocked
    1
  43. Not that many, but it was shocking how US government websites were bragging about funding Ukrainian biolabs. Department of Defense funded most of them. After Nuland's testimony, they did not even take it down.
    1
  44. "Near" the court or residence is the key to the statute. Do you see a definition here? The Supreme Court has seen legal protests of all kinds, including many huge protests against Roe v. Wade, for years. Are memories that short? These are two political animals duping you. They have their own interest$ at heart.
    1
  45. She was a spousal hire. Funny how you don't know that she got her job the old-fashioned way: first, she was very good in her field. Then, she made sure that was noticed, by the right people. She married one of those people.
    1
  46.  @ccchhhrrriiisss100  She certainly was. She became an expert on bankruptcy law and the laws that pertain to personal finance, and she met her future husband at a prestigious conference.
    1
  47.  @indonesiaamerica7050  Chief Justice Roberts went to that school.
    1
  48.  @ccchhhrrriiisss100  Maybe she was very good, and she was an opportunist, too. She is a lawyer, after all. The best ones are both. (She was really very good. BTW. But as we all know, that's never enough.)
    1
  49.  @ccchhhrrriiisss100  You're making my case for me. She practiced law and was "dishonest." Okay. Now, this is a problem? How? She was a lawyer. It is (considered) a skill to present your case in the very best light possible, without technically committing fraud or deceit. Harvard law profs also practice law, or they become high ranking government advisors and officials. None of them are just "teachers." They argue Supreme Court and appellate court cases. They write books that influence the Supreme Court. Warren is a Senator. I guess you don't know any Harvard-trained lawyers? I'm not understanding your point.
    1
  50.  @ccchhhrrriiisss100  She is a leading expert on bankruptcy law, and she'll stop at nothing to promote herself. That was my original point. She has a lot in common with Hillary, only she is a much better lawyer than Hillary. Wait. Do you think hard working, highly accomplished lawyers are all virtuous, TOO?? Yeesh.
    1