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

  1. Oh come on.
    1
  2. Harvard isn't the government or an agent of the government. This case is based on the fact that it accepts federal funds. Up until now, its admissions were legal based on Supreme Court precedent. The other side wants that precedent overturned. Interesting case, and harder than it sounds.
    1
  3.  @samuraimath1864  Let's just cut to the chase: read the briefs. It's actually faster. Also, no court exists to enforce morals. It must rule based on law.
    1
  4.  @samuraimath1864  Also, no American university is open to the public, which makes it qualitatively different from a restaurant. In Europe, universities are open to everyone, actually, and anyone can simply audit a course. Or at least they used to be. I was there during two waves of terrorist bombings in the 1980s, and it did not occur to anyone to stop the practice of opening all lectures by the department chairs to the public. Now we just had a shutdown over a severe flu-like illness. God help us.
    1
  5.  @shirmelduggins9984  What does "a good fit" mean?
    1
  6.  @robertmadison1205  With respect to Harvard, the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with this case. Harvard is private, but accepts public funds. That's why it's in court.
    1
  7.  @studyboy5829  Ha! If any university excludes any group disproportionately, based on race or ethnicity, we can presume it is discriminating unless proven otherwise. They can't cover it up with tokenism. If 7% of the applicant pool with those achievements is admitted, provided they are white, but only 0.2% with those achievements are admitted when they are South Asian, that needs explaining all right.
    1
  8.  @Nordic_Sky  Do people really not know who the blacks are who get into Harvard, etc.? Many are Africans, or recent African immigrants. This has been true for a long time.
    1
  9.  @ssuigeneris  Great posts. I can see you know what you're talking about. Have you read the briefs in this case? I assure you, they are worth your time. I'd love to know how many veterans over the age of 25 they admit to Harvard and other Ivies. How about the decorated ones? That is certainly a mark of merit, and would increase the diversity of the class in a substantial way.
    1
  10.  @MrTodayistheday  The Harvard Law grads I've known are great. Were some difficult? Yeah, but these are lawyers we are talking about. I found most of them really fun to work with and obviously tremendous lawyers. I did not, however, work in shark settings, so my experience cannot be considered representative.
    1
  11.  @studyboy5829  I'm not saying he was passed over for something he was entitled to. I was just making the point that the existence of people of his ethnic group at a school does not by itself prove anything. I wasn't endorsing the position, I was criticizing obviously poor arguments against it.
    1
  12.  @robertmadison1205  Please read the briefs. There isn't a quicker way. The civil rights struggle, or most of it anyway, required the passage of new federal laws pursuant to the 14th Amendment "enabling clause." Before certain laws were passed, the 14th Amendment standing alone did not protect anyone from discrimination in the workplace, on common carriers, etc., and "separate but equal" was legal. We don't have a body of federal law governing private college admissions, but we do have federal funding that cannot be used in ways that are contrary to the Constitution or any federal statute. That would mean we are all forced to support what is not in line with our laws. Abortion is a perfect analogy: even during Roe v. Wade, there were federal laws prohibited use of federal funds to facilitate abortion except in certain very limited circumstances, such as saving the life of a woman with an ectopic pregnancy at a VA hospital.
    1
  13.  @robertmadison1205  Yes and no, because under the Constitution, all federal statutes are the law of the land, but all federal statutes have to have some provision in the Constitution that gives Congress the power to legislate on behalf of everyone, and preempt laws to the contrary that might exist in the states. And then of course federal laws have to be consistent with the Bill of Rights, etc. The U of North Carolina part of the case does implicate the Constitution in a way that Harvard doesn't, because it's a state school. No state can discriminate against people in any way that the Court has held to be unconstitutional. Right now, Harvard can do pretty much what it wants in deciding which of its applicants to admit, but not on our dime. Congress could probably change that, too, by invoking the 14th Amendment, but don't hold your breath! :/
    1
  14.  @robertmadison1205  Roe v. Wade was a direct constitutional challenge to all state laws banning all or most abortions, and that case struck them down. Now with Roe overturned, the states have a lot of freedom to pass whatever laws they want, up to the point where children under the age of consent are prohibited from having an abortion, and someone sues based on the 14th Amendment to ensure that they can. Same with serious threats to the pregnant woman's health or life. Etc.
    1
  15.  @robertmadison1205  The thing about news reports on major cases, is that this isn't hard to explain. It really isn't. But they almost never do.
    1
  16. ​ @rubyruby6358 Her eyes were open. She is 💯 right across the board.
    1
  17. "Near" the court or residence is the key to this law. The Supreme Court has seen legal protests of all kinds, including many huge protests against Roe v. Wade, for years. People came from all over the country to join pro-life rallies near the Court. These were all legal and First Amendment protected. Are memories that short?
    1
  18. ​ @liseklerekoper2441 Yeah, Leslie Wexner, a huge donor, withdrew all support. You remember Wexner? He was Jeffrey Epstein's closest friend and patron. That wasn't a problem, apparently.
    1
  19.  @commonsenseconservative  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
  20.  @commonsenseconservative  Calm down and spell. I watched all of it. It was a show, to impress you.
    1
  21.  @commonsenseconservative  Watch for the indictment. LOL
    1
  22.  @commonsenseconservative  BTW, I would be just as cautious in entertaining the shrieks to prosecute Trump. First, no one is above the law -- true, and most important. BUT you have to be very, VERY sure that you have the grounds to go after a former president. If you are that sure, fine. But otherwise, no. Same for Biden, once we get a grip on the Hunter mess.
    1
  23. We can start by outlawing China from buying our Treasury Bonds. Oh wait.
    1
  24. I didn't laugh, not exactly. The statute has no definition of "near." There have been decades of pro-life rallies held near the Supreme Court, all of which were protected speech and assembly. First Amendment. A lot of people are going after the First Amendment lately. Watch for that move. This looks like a good-cop, bad-cop routine with one goal in mind, and it's not to help you.
    1
  25. ​ @neplusultra4196  Where did you see and hear that happen? You heard politicians tell you it happened. Those politicians are fundraising for November. You still don't get it? Wow.
    1
  26. ​ @wubuck79 Where did you hear actual threats? Where did you see anyone prevented from going about their business?
    1
  27. ​ @ix-bi5fh What have you seen on videos that warrants heavily armed SWAT teams to come out and wrestle people to the ground? I have seen nothing of the sort.
    1
  28.  @ix-bi5fh  Were you for vaccine mandates, too? 😂😂😂
    1
  29.  @jeremiahdavis360  It's impossible to give a single figure on scores needed for admission, since admission isn't based on scores. First of all, all applications, regardless of race, are divided into legacies and "special development," before any other factors come into play. "Special development" is supposed to be for people like Olympic athletes or gifted musicians, or winners of major science or mathematics competitions, and thus based on merit, but these can also be people whose parents gave a million dollars to Harvard. You can buy your way into a private school, hon. Not directly, of course, because they could still reject you, but if you want a real leg up, the right color is green. We fight over crumbs. Passionately, over crumbs.
    1
  30.  @jeremiahdavis360  You know that, how? Do you have any idea what the black students at Ivies are like? For one thing, many are children of African immigrants, including refugee families, and many more are children of very prominent, and quite affluent, African people. You're not aware that Nigeria now has a local intelligentsia that looks to rival India's? The world is changing. You have never met these people.
    1
  31.  @jeremiahdavis360  What "college charter?" What does that refer to?
    1
  32.  @jeremiahdavis360  Not necessarily. The people whose parents are African immigrants or from prominent, wealthy African families are legacies, or "special development." The rules for admission for them are different from all other applicant pools. Barack Obama is a perfect example -- father went to Harvard, mother related to a half-dozen former presidents. Is the "special development" pool tainted? Is Jared Kushner's degree tainted? You have a strange way of looking at things. Not every black person has a father who can donate seven figures to Harvard. I don't know why you directed the comment to me, by the way. I wasn't justifying any of this. (By the way, see the letter Harvard's president wrote in the wake of the Epstein revelations. I mean, just for some larger perspective.)
    1
  33. Because they are all about filling their pockets. Kamala ran to grab a billion and spread it around, not to do this job, for which she was not qualified.
    1
  34. Because they're in it for the money.
    1
  35. Testimony is immunized. No one can sue her for defamation. But she could be fired for incompetence.
    1
  36. What makes you think these are all of non-French ethnicity? That was already not the case in the 1980s.
    1
  37. ​@tbishop4961 Of course you're right. American ignorance is more startling every day. They are all saying the same thing, even in response to other videos where it is obvious people of French descent are rioting. Is it ignorance, or a need to believe a little story they are wedded to? Or is it drugs?
    1
  38.  @davemartino5997  Because you lived in France and went to school there, and I don't mean through American junior year jazz.
    1
  39.  @LetsAllDrinkToTheDeathOfAClown  Nazi screen name? Superior eyes, maybe? The vision thing? LOL
    1
  40.  @obediahpolkinghorniii564  Nothing in the articles you linked states that one or the other hypothesis concerning COVID's origins has compelling evidence to support it. Both hypotheses remain viable, with some scientists strongly favoring one, and others considering the evidence to be balanced. Let's keep in mind that viruses are presumed to be naturally occurring, absent evidence to the contrary. The burden of proof on the lab leak side is greater (and indeed, a lab leak of a naturally occurring virus, not an engineered one, is hardly impossible -- leaks are not rare), which accounts for the language you rely on. You thought no one would read the articles or grasp what they're saying. Or that they aren't aware of the open letter of scientists to the NYTimes, etc., asking for more research.
    1
  41.  @obediahpolkinghorniii564  Wouldn't studying the effects of a class of coronaviruses in humanized mice have the potential to accelerate their natural evolutionary pathways, just as we now see new variants of COVID 19 emerging, since the time it has passed to people? Lab leak does NOT imply "man-made." Nor does it imply the virus would have tell-tail markers of engineering. The mice they use are genetically engineered. The viruses aren't, or not necessarily. It's not obvious how the viruses could mutate when introduced into the mice? They do in nature. At any rate, the moratorium on gain-of-function research was indeed lifted, in 2017. That's also a fact.
    1
  42.  @obediahpolkinghorniii564  Nice try. Now we can confirm you are making assertions BEYOND the evidence. Both articles consider both hypotheses, and do not disconfirm lab origin. For example, the latter: "More scientific data could swing the balance of evidence to favor one hypothesis over another. Obtaining related viral sequences from animal sources would be the most definitive way of revealing viral origins. For example, a future observation of an intermediate or fully formed polybasic cleavage site in a SARS-CoV-2-like virus from animals would lend even further support to the natural-selection hypotheses. It would also be helpful to obtain more genetic and functional data about SARS-CoV-2, including animal studies. The identification of a potential intermediate host of SARS-CoV-2, as well as sequencing of the virus from very early cases, would similarly be highly informative. Irrespective of the exact mechanisms by which SARS-CoV-2 originated via natural selection, the ongoing surveillance of pneumonia in humans and other animals is clearly of utmost importance." Thanks, sweets. Expert witness testimony under Daubert was a specialty of mine. 😉
    1
  43. On what basis? This is immunized, as long as she wasn't, say, bribed to do it. Although . . . Hmm.
    1
  44. The honorable thing would be a spirited defense of First Amendment freedoms, and an explanation of the scope and limits of conduct codes in light of those freedoms. But maybe they don't really care about that, huh? Maybe that's it.
    1
  45. ​ @rickbeniers667 Wrong 😂
    1
  46. Blinkin claims . . .
    1
  47.  @mary5305j  THIS
    1
  48. It is amazing how much trust there still is. I would expect a demand for better vaccines. But everyone has low expectations now.
    1
  49. They are interested in fundraising.
    1
  50. This is immunized. This is why congressmembers can do this without worry.
    1