RuamRudy

The National Statistics Office says significantly different: 31.8% of all live births were to non-UK-born mothers in England and Wales (an increase from 30.3% in 2022); this continues a general increase in the percentage of live births to non-UK-born mothers. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/bulletins/parentscountryofbirthenglandandwales/2023

This fact is oft repeated, but ignores the reality that the name is much more common among Muslims than other boys' names. Boys born to white parents tend to have a much more diverse range of names, leading to this false suggestion that Muslim births are out stripping boys of white parents.

What on earth are you wittering on about - "projected onto his own son having the same thoughts"??? If you are going to stalk my posts, try to be at least a little bit coherent in your writing please.

The poor lad needs to be left alone and be allowed to do all the stupid things that the kids of less famous parents do, without the cameras tracking his every move, and the fear of people rushing to sell their stories of him to the highest bidder. It must be difficult enough growing up as the son is such a reprehensible character as DJT, but the boy didn't ask for that. Let him be a goofy teenage boy in peace.

I think we did this yesterday morning. Cast your mind back just 24 hours or so ago to our interaction where I repeatedly asked you to highlight the words which she used to sympathise with the alleged murderer, and you repeatedly failed to do so. Let's just cut to the chase and agree that you are unable or unwilling to think for yourself, and that you let sensationalist right wing headlines guide your world view.

It doesn't matter how many times you try to repeat your same lying narrative, she didn't sympathise. She showed contextual understanding, something that I think is missing from your 2 dimensional world.

Whereas woke means to have emerged from slumber and to be aware.

I think a more important article could be headlined thus: How Corporate Greed Turned an Ordinary Man into a Suspected Killer

There is nothing dishonest about me or my posts however you are trying hard to deflect from your numerous posts where you either lied outright about Warren's statement, or you are displaying a woeful inability to actually comprehend what you read. But don't worry, I won't make you squirm any more - have a good day.

The OED defines dishonesty as "a fraudulent or deceitful act". Please provide details of where I acted either fraudulently or deceitfully. I won't ask you again to highlight the statement from Warren which expressed sympathy for the alleged murderer - I am aware that you can't, because she didn't.

You really aren't making any sense or cogent point; you are just repeating the same poorly thought out line and accusing others of dishonesty. What part of her statement expressed sympathy for the alleged murderer?

There was nothing dishonest about my posts, just as there is no empathy shown towards the alleged murderer in that statement that you are so desperately clinging onto. She is merely stating a fact that people have known since stone age times - if you poke a sleeping bear enough, don't be surprised if it attacks. Do you genuinely think that this isn't a fact of life? Of course, the right wing NY Post is going to push the line that all corporations are benevolent and it's owners are national treasures who only have our best interests at heart. It's just a pity that there are so many pliant dupes willing to repeat their lines. That's why nothing ever changes for the better.

I made no edit or censor. I posted the sentence in its entirety, and previously linked to her entire statement. Why not show your hand and make clear what you find offensive in her words. Where did she express sympathy for the alleged murderer?

What is, according to you, the "offending line"?

I know that's what she said, but nowhere has she expressed sympathy for the alleged murderer. She has suggested that vigilantism can be the result of predatory practices by unscrupulous businesses but that's not any suggestion of empathy.

What part of "violence is never the answer" are you struggling with?

Rather than just post a screenshot, why don't you do something less disingenuous and link to it so that people can see what she actually said? If one was to take your post at face value, they might come away thinking it was truthful.

I didn't see anyone suggest that healthcare doesn't require funding, however it would seem that, with the highest costs and almost 3rd world life expectancy, Americans are being short changed. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy-vs-health-expenditure

He headed up an organisation that actively sought, time and time and time again, to absolve itself of responsibility for paying for treatment for its customers when they were at their most desperate. He may have been acting within the law but that doesn't mean that it was right, moral or ethical. I don't think you need me to dig up examples of just how callous and cruel his company was, do you? News reports of denials are manifest.

It's this constant tilting at windmills that keeps the hate filled right constantly frothing with rage.

That is certainly an interpretation but not necessarily one I would agree with. You should read Elizabeth Warren's comments, above. They might help you.

My post wasn't sourced in any legal framework I know of. Interpret it as you will.

Why do you feel the need to lie about Warren? It's not as if others can't use Google. "Violence is never the answer, but people can be pushed only so far," she added. "This is a warning that if you push people hard enough, they lose faith in the ability of their government to make change, lose faith in the ability of the people who are providing the health care to make change, and start to take matters into their own hands in ways that will ultimately be a threat to everyone." https://www.foxnews.com/media/elizabeth-warren-says-killing-unitedhealthcare-ceo-warning-you-can-only-push-people-so-far

'Eat the rich' is a bit of an over simplification, but when the levers of power have been seized by immoral people, the avenues avaliable for bringing fairness to a system can be hard to find. Desperate times might, in some people's eyes, call for desperate measures.

Ironic, isn't it, that someone who was born into wealth and privilege should care about the struggles of those less fortunate than himself, whereas someone who actually grew up in a much more regular, working class environment would help perpetuate, and actually glorify the inequality and unfairness of the system that pays him millions of dollars whilst killing thousands and putting thousands more into poverty.