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

  1. I'd love to know how many veterans over the age of 25 they admit. How about the decorated ones? That is a merit-based criterion and would really increase diversity.
    1
  2. ​ @plzsavethebeez743  Because her stocks quadrupled during the plan demic.
    1
  3. Maybe you should take the time to read about the First Amendment. Start with Brandenburg v. Ohio, then RAV v City of St. Paul.
    1
  4. HE JUST SAID : "force her to admit" SORRY, BUB -- we have a Fifth Amendment. Your role isn't to make her talk, it's to vote her down based on her answers or nonanswers. I'm glad she stood up for free speech. Showed some backbone.
    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. Her testimony is immunized, but she could be fired. He's wrong about "defamation" in the technical sense.
    1
  7. For what?
    1
  8. The first sentence of the description of this video says "opening remarks." So . . . this lady risked her life for her country, and you can't read a sentence before you criticize her. Here's a question: why should anyone lift a finger for you, much less be willing to give their life to protect you? Help me with this. Seriously, . . . no one wants to be law enforcement, no one wants to be a nurse (few want to be doctors, and all the exams for lawyers were made easier), no one wants to be a teacher, no one wants to come into the office on a daily basis . . . you're sanguine, huh? No worries? LOL Keep it up.
    1
  9. ​ @JC-vf7zs 😂😂😂😂😂😂
    1
  10.  @RS-oq4wu  I can make predictions, too. I can tell you are a white American. Europeans don't think like you. 🤣
    1
  11. Performative Campaign fund raising
    1
  12. So . . . Johnny Depp isn't your darling anymore.
    1
  13. They can't be an officially recognized student organization, but if they want to open an independent chapter in town, right down the street, and they can afford it, they can.
    1
  14. Interesting what you see that no one else does. Why is that?
    1
  15. Where did you see evidence that any student group made terrorist threats? Is a bare claim in a letter enough? I thought we were against cancel culture.
    1
  16.  @peterardison5930  Oh good. So someone can 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. Wonderful. I better not cross anyone with beaucoup bucks.
    1
  17.  @peterardison5930  What law was broken? Before you answer, read Brandenburg v. Ohio. Then try R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul.
    1
  18.  @peterardison5930  Jesus loves readers.
    1
  19.  @odeleya1768  YES IT IS protected speech, because it isn't a true threat unless imminent violence is actually threatened or incited. I suggest you do some reading, since you care so much (paraphrasing Socrates right there). Start with Brandenburg v. Ohio. It's the most important case. Next, R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (about cross burning and swastikas, etc.; a Scalia opinion) Find out what our rights are . . . before we lose them. Before they become quaint.
    1
  20.  @odeleya1768  I really am chagrined that people are this quick to give up rights. I'm starting to wonder how we ever got them in the first place. RAV is a case where a St. Paul ordinance banning cross burning, swastikas and similar symbols was struck down as unconstitutional. A liberal decision? No, a Scalia opinion, with concurrences from Justices who came to the same conclusion using different reasoning. IOW, solid First Amendment law. Don't be so easily led. Did you support mandates, too? Were you scared and everything?
    1
  21.  @odeleya1768  White people can say the police in the George Floyd case did the world a favor. I hear that one all the time. Do you correct them, or no?
    1
  22.  @AEMoreira81  Thanks for this!! Will read it immediately. With all the anti-free speech warriors around, there is no time to waste. :(
    1
  23. @hammer44head  Yes, I know why the university professors agreed to appear. And what does Congress propose? To stop funding? The agency through which they distribute the funding can be sued if the funding is denied on a discriminatory basis, in violation of free speech, and so forth. This is for fundraising. It worked super well last time.
    1
  24. @walterhahn4130  Do you think a complex criminal case concludes with a verdict in a matter of weeks? Or does it take more than that? Congress can order an independent investigation and can bring articles of impeachment. Let's see what they do, besides perform for campaign fundraising purposes. Say, why no release of the JFK assassination archives, from nearly three generations ago?
    1
  25. I don't place great importance on anyone's personal life. I have no idea why anyone would.
    1
  26. No, he's standing up to rotten little fundraiser Stefanik. FINALLY. Not one president of an Ivy showed any backbone.
    1
  27. ​@robertaccorsini4663 Personnel matters are confidential. He has every right to testify to that fact.
    1
  28. ​@MissMU-xi3kh Finally, someone stood up to Stefanik and showed some backbone.
    1
  29. I am soooooooo sick of this. Did they catch all of them?
    1
  30. ​ @J.J.8790 Catholics always got ashes on Ash Wednesday. You never lived in a big city?
    1
  31.  @TPR-wx1yj  But if it gets Likes on YouTube, then he's an Influencer. Just kidding.
    1
  32.  @mitchyoung93  Exactly. See, for example, Slavery By Another Name, by a Wall Street Journal reporter named Douglas Blackmon. His book started as a WSJ article. We had "separate but equal" for generations. It was only when nearly everyone who had had enslaved grandparents had already died that the US started making progress on equality. The brief on the other side of this case talks about 20th century prejudice against Asians, which has no bearing on the Civil War in any respect. They also claim that whites are by and large the group favored over Asians, not that blacks are. Blacks are barely a double-digit percentage at Harvard, and that includes the children of prominent Africans who are studying in the US, or whose families are recent immigrants to the US. It has zero to do with the civil war.
    1
  33. ​@BishopVampire69 Oh that made sense.
    1
  34. ​@cplmpcocptcl6306 There most certainly is a measure of free speech in public schools. See Tinker v. Des Moines. You don't shed your constitutional rights at the schoolhouse door.
    1
  35. ​ @cantthinkofaname750  "Hate speech," so-called, is legal.
    1
  36. "Donna" 😂😂😂😂😂 except it's sad
    1
  37.  @letsbeclear2013  The Lancet and Nature from 2017 and 2018 reported on the fact that the moratorium on gain-of-function research was lifted in 2017. These are scientific/medical journals. Precisely how much money from our taxes went to such research, de facto, before the moratorium was lifted and after, is one more thing we are entitled to know, but don't.
    1
  38. Also, note that these articles date from well before the pandemic. That's also important. :/
    1
  39.  @obediahpolkinghorniii564  Who is doing that?
    1
  40. Not a good analogy. They all had to know literature, languages, and very advanced mathematics. Their education was not a joke.
    1
  41. ​@yl9154 That's because you had an American education. You know nothing about other peoples.
    1
  42. @yl9154  Not really meant as a criticism of you, but just an observation. Anyone who has lived any length of time in any other country is struck by the differences and their perspective shifts dramatically.
    1
  43. Oprah interviewed her and allowed her to promote her book.
    1
  44.  @FamilyManMoving  Nothing to do with the constitution with respect to Harvard. Harvard is a private university and can run its admissions pretty much however it wants. (Not so for University of North Carolina, obviously.) What Harvard cannot do is accept public money while doing it. At least, that is the posture of this case. Harvard is arguing that their admissions process fully conforms with existing Supreme Court precedent, which allows limited use of race to meet certain goals, and that that precedent should not be overruled. The other side is expressly asking the Supreme Court to overrule that line of cases. Fascinating argument, actually. The briefs are worth your while if you're interested in this stuff. I'm going to reread them tonight.
    1
  45.  @FuddOnFirearms  You don't have a constitutional right to go to Harvard. Harvard is private, so it has First Amendment-protected freedom of association.
    1
  46.  @deponensvogel7261  This is a case about federal funding, at least with respect to Harvard. It is not about the 14th Amendment.
    1
  47.  @deponensvogel7261  I did, too, and I agree.
    1
  48.  @FamilyManMoving  I was struck by the fact that the other side's petition only presented one request -- that the governing precedent allowing for limited use of race in admissions be overturned. Wow! By the way, the lead counsel is from U of Chicago, and he once studied to become an astrophysicist. He does patent law, I believe, in addition to this.
    1
  49. @a.wadderphiltyr1559  If your business is small enough, yes, actually. Each of these issues has a federal statute that governs the practice for private actors. It's the government that cannot create any job, benefit, etc., and decide to exclude based on race.
    1
  50. Read the opinions and you'll know.
    1