Sure. And people wishing to paint him as a leftist can convince themselves they see evidence in support of that, as well; see, for example, his stance on immigration reform and statements regarding the Treyvon Martin and Ferguson "situations".

Personally, I don't see him as a "leftist" or as a "righty"; he seems to lack the intestinal fortitude for either. I see him as more of an old-school political opportunist with a defective moral compass and a spine too week to stand up for what he claims to believe in, whatever that might be (see his evolution from "fierce advocate for gay rights" to "God's in the mix" to ... well, it's not too clear where he stands on the issue right now).

As has been said before (and roundly ignored), they're not keeping you from bringing Glass into the theatre; they just want you to turn it off and put it away. Just like your cellphone.

The problem with the premise is that it's based on the tried-and-true No True Scotsman logical fallacy, as in "no true leftie would bomb brown people." Obama may indeed be a center-rightist, but only someone preoccupied with ideological purity would reach that conclusion merely by observing his predilection for bombing brown people.

Premise: Only righties bomb brown people.
Observation: Obama bombs brown people.
Conclusion: Obama is a rightie.

...or maybe there's a flaw in the Premise.

Oh, I understand his usage. But considering the person who brought the word to national attention, he got the state wrong.

If you want to pass yourself off as a critical thinker, you probably shouldn't use refudiate in your sentences.

He didn't say he hated anyone; he said he had experience with being discriminated against based on appearance-based assumptions. You seem to be suggesting that a moderately successful person should be OK with being gouged. Pretty screwed up, if you see a difference between "he looks rich, let's rip him off (he can probably afford it)" and "he looks poor, let's spit on him (he's probably used to it)."

If you look around yourself carefully, you should be able to make out the inside surfaces of the box.

Hmm. That seemed shallow and not well-thought-out. The common usage of "SJW" is pejorative by definition. From Urban Dictionary:

"SJW: Social Justice Warrior. A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation."

Thank you for the shining example of rationality. You are surely an exemplar member of civilized society; the polar opposite of a barbarian.

Not according to the Supreme Court:

In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Supreme Court held that speech is unprotected if it constitutes "fighting words". Fighting words, as defined by the Court, is speech that "tend[s] to incite an immediate breach of the peace" by provoking a fight, so long as it is a "personally abusive [word] which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction". Additionally, such speech must be "directed to the person of the hearer" and is "thus likely to be seen as a 'direct personal insult'".

Lack of access to the First Lady's workout schedule is not what the people complaining about lack of transparency are upset about.

Funny, but there's an element of truth there. The more time you have invested in a relationship (30 years here), the more likely you are to work through problems than to throw up your hands and call it quits. Divorce is messy, expensive, and exhausting, and rarely leaves a person where they want to be.

Simple. Get someone else (e.g., the bride's parents) to pay for the wedding. The results said, "The more you spend on your wedding, the more likely you'll end up divorced."