Ok, let me try to address what I think are the main points in your post. The first point I will make is important (about the difference between opinion and fact)/ I will state my opinion and clearly label it as such. As a rule I try very hard not to make personal attacks or call names, I will hold myself to this standard throughout what I hope is a rational and respectful discussion.
1) There is a difference between subjective opinion and objective fact. If someone says "Hillary is a bigot", we should understand that this is a subjective opinion. There is no mathematical test on bigotry or common agreement across political lines on what behavior or words entail "bigotry".
Saying "several things that Hillary said contradicted the FBI report" is a statement of facts. It is important to keep the two separate. You can talk about facts and argue over the interpretation of facts. Arguing over subjective opinions isn't always a good use of time.
2) I don't really get your point about being able to "speak freely as long as your speech is correct". I don't see where anyone is being prevented from speaking freely either in public life, or here in Able2know. Media is not always fair... but the media are private organizations that for better or worse put their own spin on things without government interference. I think this is the best way to run an independent media, although it will always mean that people are upset when their side isn't represented fairly.
Am I missing something here?
3) I disagree with your view of the second Amendment. I certainly don't agree that the second amendment defends all the other rights... I feel the first Amendment is far more important. I suppose we will disagree on this basic point... I don't see how either of us will convince the other.
4) I disagree with your definition of what it means to be liberal. Given that it is conservatives who want the government to enforce laws restricting abortion, marriage and the hiring of immigrants... I don't think your definition fits at all.
I am a government moderate. I want the government to step in where it is the most efficient way for us to solve a problem. I want the government to stay out where individual rights are involved. There is sometimes a conflict between these two... which is why we have a political system to work these things out.
5) I have heard the argument that Obama has ruled by executive fiat. I have looked at the data and I don't believe there is any way to make the argument that Obama has used executive power more than other presidents.
This is a case where we can look at numbers of executive orders written by different presidents. Do you believe that this is a good way to resolve this issue? Or can you suggest an objective way to answer the question of whether Obama has used executive power more than other presidents (see George Bush or Ronald Reagan).
6) I don't see any evidence that our "blind acceptance of other cultures" will lead to terrorism. Quite the contrary, the countries that have been less accepting of other cultures have had greater problems with terrorism.
This has been an argument in the United States over the past 100 years. We have had fear of Jews, the Irish, Italians, Chinese, Japanese and now Muslims. Each of these groups have caused fear (particularly Jews, the Japanese and Italians). They were all incorporated into the US very successfully and we are a better country (in my opinion) for it.
The threat of terrorism remains extremely low in the US. Most years there are more deaths from dog bites than from terrorism (of any type). This is a true statistic that I can show you.
7) I have given you a bunch to chew on. I have given it to you, appealing to reason, without any name-calling, personal attacks. I invite you to try the same.
What I mean by speaking freely is the trend to suppress speech that is not politically correct or what the left believes to be correct. Right now it's Insidious but it does permeate the media and Society. The best places to see this is on college campuses. Here are two examples: a white guy and a black guy one liberal one conservative but both friends decide to do a radio talk show on campus. They posted Flyers with the sentence, "You can call in and talk about anything or even just to bitch about something."
They were all torn down...want to Guess what the offending word was and why? That's right...bitch...it was "sexist".
How about the guy on campus who was wearing the hat saying, "Make America Great Again" who had the hat ripped off because it was hate speech...so great now means hate.
I can go on with examples but I'm sure most people understand what I'm talking about. How far are we from laws that restrict speech? They have them in other countries that supposedly have a free Society. And that brings me to your question about the Second Amendment.
What happens if in violation of the First Amendment a law is enacted curtailing your free speech. What happens if the government refuses to acknowledge the public seeking redress. The government controls the military and the police. If the citizenry wants to rise up against a tyrannical government the only way they can do that is to bear arms. Population without arms are subjects or slaves but definitely not citizens.
As for immigrants who are allowed in this country they should be required to assimilate into our society to learn to speak English learn to adapt and accept our culture. They don't have to lose their culture but when their culture comes in direct conflict where are with our cultural norms laws and mores that's where the line should be drawn. There's a lot of sense in the old adage When in Rome do as the Romans. How would it be if they were enclaves here in the United States where Sharia law was the law... I don't see that far off from happening in places like Minnesota.
You talked of countries who are less tolerant of Cultures having more terrorism but that doesn't seem to be the case in Europe where they are extremely tolerant of other cultures and they have an abundance of terrorism.
As for the word bigotry there is a definite definition. A Bigot is someone who is intolerant of the opinions of others. In my experience the Left bolstered by the popular press are extremely more intolerant of those who do not share their worldview. This is evidenced by them automatically assigning the Right with the label racist prejudiced homophobe xenophobe islamophobe and ironically bigot.
To argue in defense of Obama's executive orders by saying that other presidents have done it too is specious. I don't have a problem with President issue an executive orders so long as they do not violate individual rights.
But the part that was so distasteful is for months Obama saying how it was unlawful it was for him to issue an executive order in regard to the illegal immigrants, how he wasn't a king, but in the end he did it so cavalierly.