King

Don't get so down bro. I look like a turtle but I found a pretty girl that still uses a cellular device from 2005. You just have to look elsewhere.

You do realize Fox news is the most watched news station in the US? The mainstream left isn't on the left, they are where republicans used to be just a few decades ago. I can't defend anyone who opposes free speech, and yes there are some on the real left that feel it is justified to restrict speech, but ironically they do it on non government platforms, i.e twitter/private media companies and corporations. The rebels on the right love to scream free speech but only if it serves their interests, i.e discussions on racism or climate change. Yet, even more ironically than what I mentioned above from the left, they will support suppression of speech through state backed channels, i.e criticism of Israel or silencing whistler blowers. I mean the right fights for private enterprises being accorded more rights than humans yet whines when they exercise them. Basically most people are just hypocrites, we really need to stop focusing on the left or the right and talk about issues and values. I personally am a very strong advocate for free speech, this even includes hate speech, it should all be out there exposed in the open, short of direct incitement to violence.

I don't see how Sowell's position isn't self serving though, it is part of the same ideology he parrots which encourages servitude to the rich, it gives him enormous credibility and backing from a major centre of power in the US. People like Sowell are pretty dangerous though, because they are so selective with their 'facts'. For example he will go on to talk about how government intervention post the great depression hindered recovery because the unemployment rate didn't change, completely ignoring all the relevant context. It is very easy to cherry pick facts on a small discussion on TV. As far as people like Candace and her opinions being valid, sure in some context they are valid, but she isn't interested in improving the black community. It is blatantly obvious because the black community isn't receptive to her. Her job is to satisfy the audience on the right that is already on her side, just that they get to see a black person validate their positions. Not sure what you mean by influencing the top? I don't think anything influences them other than their own greed, they set the agenda whether it is for fox news or NY Times. It is true NY Times serves as a paper to keep the elite somewhat informed, but so does the Wall St journal on the right, since the US is after all a business run society. All this focus on individual rights and responsibilities sounds nice but its primary purpose is to suppress any collective efforts to create movements from below that can drive change. Outlets like Fox news play a major role in keeping people segregated and fragmented.

When it comes to the personalities in question things are indeed simple. You only really have to hear their viewpoint on a couple of topics and you can easily deduce their point of view on virtually every other political topic. They also get a lot of exposure on the other side of the mainstream spectrum. Sowell and Ovens would be celebrated as guests on Fox which still has the most viewership of any network. I do agree that the non mainstream voices are suppressed though but that is by design and is pretty much the case in most troubled societies on earth.

Sowell is an ideologue, he has no notable contributions to economic research given how famous he is on the right. He is another one of those intellectuals trumped up by the Chicago school of economics as a mouth piece for Hayek/Friedman inspired market obsessed propaganda, backing policies that pretty much destroyed Latin America. I would take anything he says with a grain of salt. Candace Owens is another typical attention seeking media personality the right loves to prop up. Some of the messages these people bring forward are somewhat useful although unoriginal, the problem is they simply lack credibility just like most other personalities on the mainstream airwaves.

Jonathan Brown has got to be the most overrated Muslim Western scholar out there. In his essays he just rambles on all kinds of tangents, offering very little of substance. Unfortunately he comes off quite arrogant as well. It's sad that the Muslim community lacks quality scholarship in the West.

The opposite. You don't want to know what your wife really looks like without it.

Find a Muslim girl on your own, hopefully she likes you enough to convince her parents. Easier option - find a revert to marry.

And you sound like a mouth piece for Iranian government's propaganda machine. Reading your posts is like reading some childish and laughable press TV article.

Don't be so harsh on yourself, It's normal, girls like nice things. I would focus on his ambition and work ethic though rather than the gifts.

Because we make them laugh and don't judge them like other women do.

Who cares about gifts? I've never gifted my girlfriend anything and she still loves me to death.

Tough position to be in but at the very least you shouldn't rush into this marriage. It's totally reasonable on your part to expect at least some effort on his part towards something tangible. If he cares about you and his future then he should be able to demonstrate this on some level. You should make this clear and have practical discussions because marriage goes far beyond love and emotions.

So? You are doing the same thing, instead of discussing the aforementioned ill treatment of Muslims in India (which you can do something about), you bring in Pakistan (which you cannot change). It doesn't matter the country, whether India Pakistan or Iran, we generally like to deflect and focus on our adversaries.

As @Sumerian has pointed out, the right approach was to say they did not know and were investigating. To deny was to lie. Also, you shouldn't be looking at other countries when determining what is right and wrong.