The problem is that the leaders told us that if you got the vaccine you would be immune and not get COVID. The performances of the politicians and medical professionals mandating masking and then seeing them only putting them on right before they went on stage, and continuing to do all of the things the "common" folk weren't allowed to do ruined all of the their credibility. Of course people are going to question all of the recommendations from experts after that.
And whom do we hold responsible for the severe reactions and deaths of babies that get the shots you seem to so desperate for the government to enforce? The reality you want is government overreach and a removal of individual choice.
They did commit a crime by crossing the border illegally. Illegals are free to leave the country on their own and not deal with any of this, in fact they are paid to do so. The idea that removing people who entered America illegally and sending them back is the same as systematically exterminating an entire race of humans is so dangerous and makes any discussion with people who think like you such a waste of time. It's rhetoric like yours that encourage people like the Tyler Robinsons or that sniper who attacked the ice facility.
This is disgusting hyperbole. Nazis killed millions of innocent people; a nation enforcing border laws by asking illegals to leave or removing them when they don't is not that.
You don't need to have an opinion on everything. Clearly you don't care about this or you would spend the time watching some of his videos or reading his articles that expound on his "controversial" statements. It's ok to just say "I don't know" rather than thinking you're well informed because Wikipedia says so.
Sure, the context was a poll that asked Americans "Is it OK to be white?" with about half of the black participants saying they either disagreed or weren't sure. A bit of Scott's elaboration is near the bottom: https://cbsaustin.com/news/nation-world/poll-finds-over-a-qu...
Because the dead can't respond or defend themselves. That's why you don't do it.
And it's the framing of the statement that is the problem. They didn't say "I disagreed with Scott" or "I didn't like Scott"; they framed it in a way that made it seem like truth. "the entire arc of Scott Adams is a cautionary tale" makes it seem like he did something wrong and there is some universal truth to be had, when it's really just this person disagreed with Scott's political views. It's persuasion, which ironically I think Scott would have liked.
You don't need to as they aren't banned and your local bookstore likely already has a shelf right up front of all of these books for purchase.
I am against the banning of books from purchase or from public libraries, however banning books in schools is not that. It is gatekeeping this information from young and impressionable minds, just like we do with movies, games, drugs, all sorts of things. Things that may have negative consequences on developing minds.
You may disagree with what books are banned or why, but allowing unsupervised exposure of elementary aged children to sexually explicit and graphically depicted books such as Gender Queer is not appropriate. If a child wants access to this, their parent or adult can buy it for them or rent it from the public library.
You might actually be referring to yourself. Homeschoolers are better educated, more likely to get into college, and have better socialization skills than their publicly educated peers.
This comment is so disingenuous. Few and rare?? Why would you frame it like this? Homeschoolers are better educated, more likely to get into college, and have better socialization skills than their publicly educated peers.