're women. Yeah, you know, but we're not arguing the definition of words. We're just saying that biological men, they're stronger and so there's a risk and sort of an unfairness to the women. But they're women. They're women. It's a definition. By definition. Say it, say it, say it. They're women.

And then they do the same thing with January 6th. They start with, first let's agree that this is an insurrection. Well actually almost nobody who was there or maybe some tiny percent would have thought of it that way. Almost everybody who protested on January 6 thought that they might be stopping an insurrection. So really it would be closer to the opposite of an insurrection, a protest perhaps. Oh it's an insurrection. It's an insurrection. They're called women. They're called women. Security guarantees.

So once you see the pattern that Republicans argue about what works, you know, what are the motivations, what are the incentives, what does the system look like, that's how Republicans argue. And then the Democrats argue definitions, which is not even an argument. It's literally what a child would do. But but but you said you you said you take me to ice cream. I know but it's raining and the car is broken. But you said. You said. I know it's just I can't because the car is broken but we'll go tomorrow. But you said. You said. It's just a child argument over and over again.

Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian is joining a group trying to see if they can put together a purchase deal for TikTok. I don't know how many groups there are looking at it now but they're pretty serious people. So if the most serious people can't make a deal to buy TikTok, who can?

A post by John Stossel. And if you didn't know this, I knew this, but it kind of fits into the stories today. So this is an old, old story but he mentions, John Stossel does, that the New York Times covered up Stalin's famine when he was starving people. Stalin was, while millions starved. Now why did the New York Times cover up one of the crimes of the century, starving millions of people? Why would they cover that? Well it turns out that their star reporter Walter Duranty, but also his colleagues, they liked communism's utopian promises, this is John Stossel writing, and the status he got when his exclusive interviews, he could do exclusive interviews with Stalin. So literally the New York Times was ignoring the biggest story happening, the most horrible, incredibly bad thing, and it was because the reporter sort of thought maybe communism is a good deal and you know if you get past this maybe it'll all work out.

Now isn't it great that the media used to be completely fake and that's all fixed now? You know I always think that if you don't know anything about history everything looks different. If you knew that for sure, no doubt about it, that our major media platforms historically had all been fake, they were either controlled by the CIA or in this case probably wasn't the CIA but just somebody wanted to lie because it was good for him or it worked into his philosophy, can you even imagine what changed enough that this wouldn't still be the case? Was there magic? Was there some magic after th