Your argument is the antithesis of logic. So you're saying that we should stop arguing for them to be let into the country because they're... right wing?
You can't just "cut out steps". That's essentially short cutting the law and opens up a whole new can of worms regarding fair trials.
Making them spend the rest of their life in a grotty prison where they'll likely be beaten by other inmates is a much harsher punishment than a quick and relatively painless death.
They're all tragic incidents, for sure, but in the case of the Nanking Massacre, I think it's not seen as shocking since it wasn't the Japanese government directly seeking out a particular race to purge.
Of course, they were killing Chinese people, but not necessarily because they were Chinese - but because they happened to be at war with the Chinese. If they had been at war with, say, Korea, then it may have been the "Seoul Massacre" or something along those lines. In a nutshell, they weren't genocidal killings.
In my opinion, I think the Holocaust is remembered more than other genocides because it was the first major incident of genocide in history (in terms of sheer scale, obviously there had been genocides throughout history). It was also a significant part of a World War, which gave it further coverage and it was therefore more widely known of than, say, the Armenian genocide of 1915-1917.
I lean more in support of the Palestinian people, however saying "let's kick out all the Jews" makes you just as bad as the Israelites saying "let's kick out all the Palestinians."
The solution shouldn't be about picking sides, it should be about uniting the two sides.
Though, considering your name and previous posts, I imagine you're not so much in support of the Palestinians as you are in objection to the existence of the Jewish people.
Did you SEE the crusades? How do you KNOW they even WERE?
Did you SEE the Roman Empire? How do you KNOW they even EXISTED?
Did you SEE Gandhi die? How do you KNOW he didn't LIVE to his NINETIES?
I'm sorry, there's no point putting this lightly: holocaust deniers are scum of the Earth. Adolf Hitler himself could be resurrected and confess to your face that the holocaust happened and you'd all still call it a "Jewish conspiracy".
No martial arts, no, I think health and safety rules at the school would have prevented that.
Football, tennis, rugby, gymnastics, athletic sports like running, javelin, etc.
Dodgeball was always the most fun though...
I assume you're American so I'm not sure what the curriculum is like there, but in England physical education (P.E.) is more comprehensive. I remember when I was at school, we played dodgeball and other similar "fun" sports at most a few times a year.
Really? Interesting that you rounded up communists and socialists and sent them to concentration camps, then.
How so?
.......................................
So you do support gay rights, then? Your comment would imply that you do, despite not personally agreeing with it.
Is it a bad thing that I put someone's right to have equal opportunities and treatment, despite the way they're born, above the right for you right wing loons to carry murder devices?
Owning or not owning a gun is a choice which one can live without very easily. Just look at the vast majority of countries who don't have guns and are absolutely fine.
Homosexuality, however, is a natural thing which occurs in some humans. It's along the same lines as race and gender. Sorry, but my right to exist trumps your guns. I'm sure the very idea that gays shouldn't be treated like filth makes you froth at the mouth, though.
Does gay people having rights affect or hurt you in some way?
Guns were invented during the 14th century specifically as a method of more efficient and deadly warfare.
There are air rifles designed for nothing more than target practice, of course, but that's a denomination of guns themselves.
A vehicle is designed for travel, but different types of vehicles have different purposes for travel. A lorry is designed for delivering goods rather than people, for example.
Just because a few guns (in the MODERN era) are designed for target practice doesn't mean that guns, in and of themselves, weren't initially and still are made for the main goal of killing and harming other human beings.
I've got to applaud how you manage to bring up abortion in every single debate, regardless of how irrelevant it is to the topic.
As long as the topic isn't about abortion, Trump, gun control or any of the other dozens of topics we already argue about every. Single. Fucking. Day.
Something more unique, please.
Hi Mint, it's a subject which a lot of people get confused by so there's no need to feel ignorant about it.
Whilst yes, Judaism is a religion, it's also a lot deeper than that. The Jewish people are what's known as an "ethnoreligious group" which essentially means that their ethnicity is defined by a combination of both heritage and DNA, and a common faith between Jews.
However, this does not mean that you need to be simultaneously ethnically Jewish and religiously Jewish to be a Jew.
People are often confused because, yes, it's true that anyone can convert to Judaism, follow its teachings and be considered "Jewish". However, whilst that person may be a Jew in the religious sense, they are not descended from Jewish ancestors such as the Israelites, or... the Ashkenazi Jews.
Equally, one doesn't need to actually follow the religion of their heritage to be considered Jewish. It's literally a part of your DNA whether you follow scripture or not. Excon might even partake in traditionally Jewish holidays and celebrations despite not being religious, like how I still celebrate Christmas and Easter despite not being a Christian.
Fun yet disturbing fact: Hitler actually had the gestapo measure people's noses to find out if they were Jewish or not. Isn't one of the main signifiers of an ethnicity common physical traits?
If you're still curious, Wikipedia can probably explain it better than I can:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
We need people like Putin to defend democracy from dictators.
We need someone who arrests, bullies and kills political opponents to defend democracy? Funny, because that sounds like the complete antithesis of democracy to me.
Like you said in your other comment, politics and ideologies aren't linear and fixed.
Liberalism isn't really something you can base a government off of on its own, but you can combine ideas from it with conservative ideas, or socialist, or left-wing, etc. You can definitely be a socially liberal conservative.
Oh, I was just clarifying what you meant, not trying to criticise your argument. Perhaps I shouldn't have pressed the "dispute" button, I'm just rather in the habit of doing that to you now.
I don't think it shouldn't be taught, however I'm on this side because I don't think it should have to be taught.
If cursive has anything to do with intellect, it's likely a very small difference. We learnt it briefly at school but I didn't take to it and quickly abandoned it. It's just not a style of writing which works for me, or for many other people (I know very few people who actually write using cursive).
There's much more important subjects which could be taught in the time wasted on teaching kids how to be "proper" in their handwriting.
Oh, not to mention, cursive looks like utter shit and is practically unreadable.
They certainly cross over. I wouldn't call them opposing, but I definitely wouldn't call them the same.
Most forms of socialism would agree with social liberalism, however economic liberalism (if we're going by the modern use of that term) is kind of... all over the place. Modern liberalism doesn't really address the economy, it's more about social rights and values.
Socialism, however, is more economical in its thinking, though some of those economics do cross over into the social aspects of a country.
doesn't know hardly anything
So they do know a lot of things?
But what if I'm a Hindu, and I claim my Gods are all The Supreme and Ultimate Reality™?
How can you claim your one God is the true The Supreme and Ultimate Reality™? There must be a misunderstanding.
A document which was forged after the first claims. As I mentioned in my other comment, I don't think that everyone who was duped by the forged birth certificate is racist, however the movement itself is founded on racial prejudice.
It was racial. The whole movement was intended to undermine him based on his race, even though there was no actual evidence to show he was born anywhere other than Hawaii apart from the fact that his father was born in Kenya.
I stand by my belief that if Obama were fully white, the birther movement wouldn't have been a thing.
I don't think everyone who believed the lies is a racist, however it's undeniable that the claim itself originated in racial prejudice. "Oh, he's black, we should take advantage of that by making some random unfounded claim that he was born in Africa."
Both should be legal.
It's our bodies, no one should be dictating what we do and do not put into them.
Yes, back when the Democrat party leaned further right. Any educated person should know this.
I wasn't even surprised when I saw the news. Anyone could have predicted this; record high stocks are almost always followed by massive falls.
It's exactly what happened before the Great Depression. Stocks were high right before the crash.
He's trolling my man
.......................................
Um, no they don't? The claim was completely fabricated based on racial prejudices.
Malik Obama didn't start the claim, he only continued it to gain attention and to spite his half-brother.
The difference between Obama and Cruz is that Cruz actually was born in Canada. The claim wasn't made because of his race, it was made because there's actual factual evidence that it's true.
The birther movement, however, was completely unfounded and had no factual basis. There's not a single piece of evidence other than forged documents that show that Obama was born in Africa.
Maybe God isn't, but it's definitely easy to mock you...
........................................
Learn to read. That isn't what I said.
What am I saying? I don't expect you to use more than 0.1% of your brain, outlaw.
Once again, I'm not an atheist. I think you need to start using your brain before typing, Tzar.
The first guy said "Well there's a lot of people that ought to be sterilized according to Donald Trump, so sure". Now, I'm not denying it could be real but I would expect Trump supporters to try to moderate such a quote (e.g. "it sounds like he's exaggerating for effect" etc.). I also would expect him to voice his opinion on it, not say, to paraphrase: "what you said is indeed Donald Trump's opinion so I agree".
Normally I'd agree, but considering some of the things I've seen and heard Trump supporters say, it wouldn't shock me.
One can ask a first question to gauge the person's intellect (which takes less than 1 minute) and if the interviewee is stupid continue, if not abort. This is how a lot of academic surveys are done: the first question establishes if the participant is appropriate for the study to continue and most participants may only answer the first question.
That's not a proper interview though.
Exactly. It's why videos like this are completely pointless. They're taking quotes out of context and directly telling someone that they're from a different person.
If those quotes don't literally say "I want to burn all black people" or something to that extent, the person hearing them is going to put them into their own context based on Obama/Trump/Hitler/whoever.
I don't think the Trump supporters in that video are fake, but they're definitely chosen specifically out of a variety of interviews (though 100 is far too many, as a trainee journalist you can take my word for it that 100 interviews is far beyond what we have time for, lmao).
What a fascinating video, thanks for sharing!
Here's a similar video, but with Trump supporters praising Hitler quotes thinking that they're from the Donald himself:
Do you think that telling people to kill themselves is a valid rebuttal to their opinion? Do you think it does you any favours?
Where's the correlation?
.......................................
It's actually from "Tzar's Dictionary of Bullshit Definitions"
How is that a contradiction?
I'm personally against late term abortions, but I support the legal right despite my moral qualms.
You failing to grasp a simple concept isn't me being in denial.
Admitted what? I've not denied anything, I've been very transparent with you.
What is it that I'm apparently denying?
Wow, that's astonishing! And there I was thinking you were living a double life. That would be a lot more exciting... like if Batman had prehistoric political views.
That would certainly explain his repetitive rants and liberal use of the caps lock button.
The impact and influence of Greek philosophy is still felt today. I think everyone's already said this - and it is simplifying the two kingdoms quite a bit - but I would agree that Rome's influence was military based, whilst Greece's influence was based on culture and philosophy.
You could debate on which is more important, but I'd definitely lean more towards culture.
One thing's for sure though, they both enjoyed gay sex, so they're both good in my book.
History isn't your strong point, is it bront? Rome was not "destroyed because of their immigration policies", that's one of the most ludicrous things I've ever heard you say.
They were destroyed by foreign barbarians, but the Romans didn't let them in. They weren't immigrants, they were invaders. The Romans never accommodated them or gave them a place to stay, they were attacked right off the bat.
FromWithin, why do you have two equally active accounts? Are you suffering from some sort of split personality?
That would be odd considering you act the same on both accounts.
But the definition of "black" is the supreme ultimate absence of colour. If black is the supreme ultimate absence of colour, and the supreme ultimate reality is true, then surely the supreme ultimate reality must be black, and therefore black is the supreme ultimate reality?
I've never heard either of those terms used before, other than by conservatives using them to claim that liberals are using them.
Bet you wish you could use that "ban" button, huh?
.......................................
Stop denying what you support
I'm not denying anything. I've expressed my view to you plainly and clearly, yet you seem to be just ignoring it and hearing what you want to hear.
Please don't insult our intelligence trying to deny it.
Don't insult my intelligence by being an utter fuckwit. Is that too much to ask?
What is the criteria? I'm curious.
.......................................
Thanks for providing the info.
I'm personally against late term abortions anyway, however one can understand the desire to have one.
I'm a firm believer in quality of life, and there are some disabilities which result in a child being completely unable to participate in daily activities without help (these are not the "Special Olympics" children you're talking about).
I don't think aborting a child with disabilities because of their condition is a particularly great reason to have an abortion, and I feel adoption would be a "nicer" alternative, but regardless I stand by my belief that our bodies shouldn't be regulated by the government. Women should be able to choose what to do with their bodies whether what they do is "right" or "wrong".
I think there's a subjectivity to intelligence. As I said, I don't really know anything about Fresco, but I'm sure he's vastly more intelligent in his field than Marx.
That said, Marx would be more intelligent in his field than Fresco... likewise, Plato more intelligent than Fresco and Marx in his field.
The issue with comparing intelligence (especially between figures who weren't even alive at the same time) is that it's not really testable or empirical. People specialise in certain subjects and have more knowledge about that subject than someone with less experience in it.
Why do you think I'm nomenclature, may I ask?
................................
"I'm not racist", he says as he uses a racially derogatory term.
The point is, those philosophers I named (and Marx) worked in very different fields to Fresco. They weren't scientists, they were essentially sociologists and philosophers. For their ideas to be applied practically, it would require a complete change in society - a revolution perhaps.
In fact, Marx's ideas HAVE been applied. He may not have engineered any inventions himself, but his influence has been massive on the world (whether you think that influence has been positive or negative). Same with the philosophers I mentioned.
You don't need to physically build an invention/idea to be intelligent.
sapiosexual
Uh... I don't think that word means what you think it means.
You know that I know that you are nomenclature.
No? At least, I hope I'm not, maybe you know something I don't...
I can see you made this debate in order to undermine Marx and praise Fresco rather than engage in a decent discussion.
Only an idiot spends their time defending Marx while never exploring Jacque's ideas even though you know he exists and he is clearly much better.
I gave my perspective on the person I knew better. It would be irresponsible of me to start writing about a man I know little about. I am neither praising Marx nor criticising Fresco.
Gag me with a severed horse cock and call me a komodo dragon.
Eloquently put, though it doesn't negate the fact that Marx is widely renowned as an economist regardless of political opinion.
Capitalism was already rising by the time he "predicted" it.
He predicted how it would grow and what it would do to benefit the economy pretty much flawlessly, which may seem obvious now, but, well... that's pretty much thanks to him and the other economists of his time.
Does practicality make one more intelligent? Aristotle, Socrates, Plato and the like were also just philosophers and writers, not engineers or creators. Would you say that makes them less intelligent than someone such as Bill Gates, who made his ideas a reality?
Everyone is, as Grenache stated.
He's a victim of biased media, however he's not the first and he won't be the last presidential candidate having to face being the victim of something. Obama, especially, was a victim of false racist claims about his birthplace.
Interesting question, though difficult to answer.
I don't know much about Fresco so I can't add much to this discussion, however Marx was one of the greatest and most influential economists of all time. He essentially predicted the rise of capitalism and the positive effects it would have on the economy, which - whatever your political leanings - you have to applaud him for.
A lot of Marx's work as an economist is overshadowed by what he's best known for, that of course being the Communist Manifesto.
You spent your entire response denying supporting the abortions of late term viable Special Need's babies (which by the way is the majority of late term abortions), and then you end it saying you support their choice!
I didn't say I don't support them, I said that whatever my opinion is on whether I myself would do it, I believe it should ultimately come down to the woman. It's her body, her burden.
which by the way is the majority of late term abortions
Do you have a statistic for this?
then you end it saying you support their choice!
It's really quite common. I've seen a lot of women say that whilst they, personally, would never get an abortion, they are pro-choice because they understand that every circumstance and every person is different, and ultimately it should come down to the woman to decide.
BE HONEST ONCE IN YOUR LIFE!
I'm always honest. I've expressed my view on this subject multiple times on this site - to you and to others - yet you still seem incapable of wrapping your head around a very simple idea.
You're calling an entire race lazy but ignoring the obvious socioeconomic aspects which lead to under achievement. Stop acting like America is some sort of meritocratic utopia.
But... that wasn't my point, or my argument? You're randomly jumping from one thing to another, desperately ranting about something that isn't even relevant.
All I've said is that black history month is a remembrance and celebration of black American history. It's there as a way of educating the current generation on the atrocities of the past, and it acknowledges the horrors that went on in the past. I've not made any points about how we should feel guilty or responsible for the actions of our ancestors, or tried to justify "laziness, lack of executive capacity to form coherent governments and their inability to exercise the necessary self discipline to apply themselves to formal education."
Sounds like you're a bit insecure about this whole black history thing. Don't let it go to your head. You seem to be getting very frustrated over a very simple matter.
It's must be pointed out that all other ethnic groups from the many nations that go to make up the Asian and White communities can come to America, work hard, prosper and become an asset to their adopted country.
Those ethnic groups weren't enslaved for centuries then targeted by segregation laws in America, though. History has a huge effect on culture, and the fact that it has only been 53 years since black people gained the right to vote in the US shows just how fresh this issue still is.
Replace 'oppressed' with 'partially discriminated against' and you may have a point,
Yeah, damn, that whole slavery and segregation thing was pretty minor partial discrimination, amirite?
THE LEFT ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT SUPPORT THE FREEDOM OF COMMUNITIES TO DISPLAY NATIVITY SCENES ON PUBLIC LAND.
I'm "the left", and I do, as would the vast majority of fellow left-wingers.
Yes, you support killing late term viable special need's babies for being diverse! This is barbaric and shows the Left intolerant hypcorisy!
No? I don't support late term abortions. They're a very small minority of actual abortions, stop acting as if every single woman who gets an abortion is getting it at 9 months.
I don't support aborting children "for being diverse" (it's extremely manipulative of you to use language like that, especially considering everyone on this site knows how little you give a shit about "diversity"), but at the end of the day, it's the woman's choice as it's her body and she's the one who's going to live with the decision.
I NEVER attack a person for being homosexual.
Objectively wrong
It's a celebration and remembrance of the history and culture of a group of people which has been oppressed for the majority of American history.
The Left is made up of socialists who have no core values. They are drven by whatever further's their socialistic agendas.
You don't know what socialism means.
The Left says it hates censorship, and then they censor our community's freedoms to display a nativity scene during Christmas.
No we don't.
They say they care for a woman's protection againt rape, yet they take away the freedom of a woman to carry conceiled hand guns for protection.
Pepper spray and pocket knives exist, and are vastly more effective.
They say they care about Black people, but support laws that would force Black owned businesses to cater KKK conventions.
Sorry, what?
They say they care for our Special Need's children, while keeping it legal to test for and kill viable Special Need's babies for merely being diverse. NO INCLUSIVITY if you look or act differently.
*keeping it legal for a woman to have control over her body. If she wants to abort a child because of special needs, that's her right whether I think it's morally correct or not.
Liberals are complete phonies and shows how lost people become without Christ's wisdom.
HAHAHAHA, I'm sorry, excuse me? FromWithin preaching about "Christ's wisdom"? The same FromWithin who constantly attacks and insults me and others on this site for their sexual orientation and political beliefs?
Yet you used the phrase incorrectly, as you called the UK an idiocracy which it is clearly not. Even you used American examples when talking about "trash culture".
But I wasn't referring to the KKK, I was referring to the white supremacist march which happened just last year. I'm talking about the sub-culture as a whole, not one tiny group within it.
1) technically you are buying a human being and thats called slavery
If they force the baby into manual labour for no pay then sure... but that's not what's happening in this scenario.
2) many young women would do this to pay for their studies, and legallly it is not different than prostitution because they are dispensing sexual favors against remuneration
I don't think you quite understand the concept of artificial insemination.
Even if they did have sex with the woman, it's not prostitution because they're not paying for sexual favours. They're helping out a friend who cannot biologically produce children. It's charity, and I think it's one of the most noble things someone can do for another person.
3) payment is made before baby is born, so that mother can sustain financially the fact of no being able to work for some time, what if she wants to keep the child? Are we going to send the police to forcefully take a baby from its mother?
... then they take the baby and pay the money back. It's really that simple.
The child will know having two dads is not the natural way of things,are you going to tell him he's been bought?
No, you tell him the truth that it's perfectly acceptable for two men to raise a child together and that the woman who gave birth to him did it for them out of generosity.
filiation is one of the main cores of law, since you are "destroying" or filiation you are destroying all the other concepts that are linked to it, such as inheritance, familial support, education etc , and they will destroy the other concepts that are linked to them (this might be a little technical, but it is crucial for this question)
You're not destroying anything. It's really very, very simple: the two parents (or one parent) looking after the child raise that child the best they can, and then the parents choose for themselves who their inheritance goes to. Inheritance isn't bound by law to go to your biological children.
children need a mother and a father
Why? I think this has been proven enough times to be wrong.
PMA (medically assisted procreation) is leading the way to GPA (gestation for others)
What's the issue with this?
One of its greatest arguments is that marriage is built on love wich isnt true
Sorry, what? Marriage isn't about love? Perhaps in the 12th century you'd have a point, but the reasons as to why people get married are vastly different from feudal times.
Destroys the fidelity associated with marriage
What? How?
and the BBC
What's unethical about the BBC? I'm not the biggest fan of it, but at least it doesn't blatantly and knowingly make up facts and events like FOX and CNN do.
Because he left the KKK in 1943, and spent the majority of his political career apologising and making amends for it.
"In that case, right wing culture is all about white supremacists marching with tiki torches."
Ah, so we're adding "illiterate" to your list of many vices. Please, show me where in that sentence I mentioned the KKK.
"That's not the American way" is a pretty weak argument. I don't care what your "way" is, I care about a fair and ethical press.
Did the mean British bully beat the shit out of you on the playground when you were a kid, by any chance?
But, I'm not talking about freedom of speech. I'm talking about freedom of the press.
Everyone, personally and socially, has the right to do all of those things. The Press, however, feeds the public information, and that information should be correct.
It's what we have in the UK and we don't have a tyrant. You seem to think that unless you have COMPLETE freedom, you're living in a dictatorship.
Exit Through The Gift Shop, Kidulthood, Carol, The Lobster, Tyrannosaur, Fish Tank, Eden Lake, The Selfish Giant, 45 Years, Snatch, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Man On Wire, The Queen, The King's Speech, Moon, We Need To Talk About Kevin, Monsters, In The Loop, Skyfall, Slumdog Millionaire, 12 Years a Slave, Shaun of the Dead, At World's End, Children of Men...
Oh don't get me wrong, I think it's a very weak argument on its own and there's much better justifications for abortion, I was just clarifying what they meant. I completely agree with you, though.
But the harms and costs are then given to someone who can handle them, as opposed to someone who is not in the position to.
After birth, the baby is no longer completely reliant on its mother, and in fact, doesn't even need its own biological mother to thrive.
That is not the case when it is still in the womb.
I'd certainly be happier at seeing his supporters on this site sob rather than continue to spout their nonsense.
That said, I live in the U.K. so my life wouldn't be directly impacted either way 🤷♂️
See, people who believe like you are a much greater threat to freedom of speech and the press than Donald Trump.
How? Because I believe the press shouldn't be purposefully manipulating, deceiving and misinforming people for their own corporate and political agendas?
So what? There were talks of him being President for 30 years before being on tv.
Yeah. So what? Literally, what point are you trying to make? Do you even have a point or are you being argumentative for the sake of it?
The point was that it was your point, not mine. You brought it up. You. Nicolas Millhouse Cage.
You used the phrase "idiocracy" to refer to the UK. I said that America fits that bill more. You went off on some rant about me being a hypocrite with a logical fallacy.
OF course he doesn't care about fair media, and why should he?
Of course he cares about getting good publicity, and why shouldn't he?
Because a good leader should be attempting to change things he thinks are wrong, not relishing in it because it benefits him.
Fair media is extremely important. It means there's less "fake news" and blatant lies in the news. The media needs to be held accountable for intentionally spreading false facts.
I never pinned the concept of being pro-celebrity on the right, I merely stated the correct, objective fact (I know you don't like those) that the current president is a right wing celebrity.
The theme was vaginas.
No, it wasn't, there was no mass theme. Some people just chose to wear vagina costumes. Anyway, why is that a bad thing? Let people do what they want, it doesn't affect you in any way... or are you just too insecure to look at a woman's private parts?
There are 3,000 members of the KKK nationwide
OK? What has that got to do with anything? I didn't mention the KKK.
it donates often to leftist politicians
No it doesn't.
and their marches usually consist of very few people.
Again, when did I mention the KKK? How is the numbers in their marches relevant?
Leftists use vulgar words and sentences constantly.
Black ass ni--er! Black ass ni--er! Kill those pigs ! Kill those pigs! Pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon! Pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon"!
And then leftists buy up their music like it's the last day they'll have a chance to by the millions.
Right wingers go buy music from Garth Brooks.
And how is Garth Brooks superior to other musicians? Because he doesn't swear?
Music is completely subjective. I'm not a huge fan of modern hip-hop, but it's pathetic to target a political group for music that some of them might listen to.
You're making a ludicrous exaggeration and lumping all left-wingers into one group.
If he really cared about fair media, he'd be calling out both - but he doesn't care about the media being fair, all he cares about is getting good publicity and pissing off the left.
And that's somehow better? Painting a shit red doesn't make it a rose.
The president has a right to say whatever he wants too
Of course.
him calling out the fake news is in no way shape or form a demand for censorship.
I didn't say it was.
The media has been lying about Trump very consistently since he announced his candidacy.
Indeed they have - the media, on both sides of the political spectrum, have been lying to fit their own agenda. It's not specific to the left wing media.
Wearing vaginas in a women's march while carrying children and yelling obscenities and death threats over microphones to rabid leftist crowds.
Music awards shows trashing the President's tone
You're attributing what a small minority of people do at protests and awards shows as "left wing culture"? In that case, right wing culture is all about white supremacists marching with tiki torches.
then singing and rapping music that uses the the "F", "S", and "N" word.
They're not "trashing" him because he swears you moron, they're trashing him because of how he speaks and how he uses those swear words. No correlation.
The Brits don't own tooth brushes.
A recent joint study [between University of London and Harvard] showed the average American person was missing 7.31 teeth compared to 6.97 in Britain, which is significantly higher. Further studies also showed that Britain topped OECD countries for good teeth, with only 0.7 missing or filled teeth in its 12-year-olds (the testing age generally used by the industry) compared to 1.3 in the U.S.
