Aren't liberals supposed to be pro-gay? Terrorists at Milo event...

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

He will be picked up soon by some TV station.
The ratings will be huge, "a former Breitbart persona goes mainstream" is what they will sell.
This has self promotion written all over it and before you know it he will be co-anchor on some CBS talkshow.
This is a brilliant move by him.

We'll see what happens. I am one who has trashed and hated on the guy as much as anyone. I just hope this experience wakes him up to the utter shittiness of the right. They will love you as long as you spew the hate rhetoric that gets them up every morning. The minute you bring your personal struggles to the table, you're dead. No place for empathy in the conservative world.

mrussel1 said:

vaggar99 said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

He will be picked up soon by some TV station.
The ratings will be huge, "a former Breitbart persona goes mainstream" is what they will sell.
This has self promotion written all over it and before you know it he will be co-anchor on some CBS talkshow.
This is a brilliant move by him.

We'll see what happens. I am one who has trashed and hated on the guy as much as anyone. I just hope this experience wakes him up to the utter shittiness of the right. They will love you as long as you spew the hate rhetoric that gets them up every morning. The minute you bring your personal struggles to the table, you're dead. No place for empathy in the conservative world.

I don't think it's shittiness by the right. They should have never taken him under their wing. He claims he was trying to make "First Amendment" type arguments and CPAC decided "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Well this was a bad call. To me, they are just righting a wrong here. The real issue is that pedophilia was the bridge too far.

I didn't hear a particular advocacy for pedophilia. It sounded more like someone who was molested by an elder telling the story in a way that didn't demonize the perpetrator.

vaggar99 said:

mrussel1 said:

vaggar99 said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

He will be picked up soon by some TV station.
The ratings will be huge, "a former Breitbart persona goes mainstream" is what they will sell.
This has self promotion written all over it and before you know it he will be co-anchor on some CBS talkshow.
This is a brilliant move by him.

We'll see what happens. I am one who has trashed and hated on the guy as much as anyone. I just hope this experience wakes him up to the utter shittiness of the right. They will love you as long as you spew the hate rhetoric that gets them up every morning. The minute you bring your personal struggles to the table, you're dead. No place for empathy in the conservative world.

I don't think it's shittiness by the right. They should have never taken him under their wing. He claims he was trying to make "First Amendment" type arguments and CPAC decided "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Well this was a bad call. To me, they are just righting a wrong here. The real issue is that pedophilia was the bridge too far.

I didn't hear a particular advocacy for pedophilia. It sounded more like someone who was molested by an elder telling the story in a way that didn't demonize the perpetrator.

In the transcripts I've read (haven't watched the video), he does appear to specifically endorse older men having sex with young teen boys, or possibly even younger though he doesn't specify age, and mocks the idea of the law requiring ages of consent.

https://www.google.ca/amp/heavy.com/news/2017/02/milo-yiannopolous-pedophilia-transcript-pederasty-video-full-sex-boys-men-catholic-priest-cpac-quotes/amp/?client=safari

oftenreading said:

vaggar99 said:

mrussel1 said:

vaggar99 said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

He will be picked up soon by some TV station.
The ratings will be huge, "a former Breitbart persona goes mainstream" is what they will sell.
This has self promotion written all over it and before you know it he will be co-anchor on some CBS talkshow.
This is a brilliant move by him.

We'll see what happens. I am one who has trashed and hated on the guy as much as anyone. I just hope this experience wakes him up to the utter shittiness of the right. They will love you as long as you spew the hate rhetoric that gets them up every morning. The minute you bring your personal struggles to the table, you're dead. No place for empathy in the conservative world.

I don't think it's shittiness by the right. They should have never taken him under their wing. He claims he was trying to make "First Amendment" type arguments and CPAC decided "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Well this was a bad call. To me, they are just righting a wrong here. The real issue is that pedophilia was the bridge too far.

I didn't hear a particular advocacy for pedophilia. It sounded more like someone who was molested by an elder telling the story in a way that didn't demonize the perpetrator.

In the transcripts I've read (haven't watched the video), he does appear to specifically endorse older men having sex with young teen boys, or possibly even younger though he doesn't specify age, and mocks the idea of the law requiring ages of consent.

https://www.google.ca/amp/heavy.com/news/2017/02/milo-yiannopolous-pedophilia-transcript-pederasty-video-full-sex-boys-men-catholic-priest-cpac-quotes/amp/?client=safari

this. he does argue that pedophilia is defined as a non-consensual sexual relationship with a child, i.e; someone who hasn't yet hit puberty. He argues that doesn't include 13 year old boys, and goes as far as to say that some boys that age would actually BENEFIT from a sexual relationship with an older man.

I suppose, in some twisted way, I can see what he MIGHT be getting at, that said relationship might help an otherwise in-the-closet homosexual male in his teens to be more confident in his lifestyle orientation and steer away from suicide, etc, but to me, that's not only a stretch, it's an extreme stretch. To suppose that an older male would have geniune intentions towards a younger, very confused and impressionable male teen, is not something I'm at all comfortable with, to put it mildly. Interchange the sexes, older woman younger woman/male, older male younger woman/male, etc, and it makes no difference to me. you simply cannot advocate for these types of relationships.

PJPOWER said:

my2hands said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

ledvedderman said:

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

cottagesteeze said:

It's funny reading the reactions of this thread. These aren't liberals. These are anarchists.

And?
I figure now's the time for liberals to turn into anarchists, given the fact that the US government seems to be aiming for a dictatorship and possible war. Isn't that basically the one of the few instances where anarchists are useful? And what the Constitution suggests in such times?

When I think about liberal anarchy, I picture a lot ill-equipped crybabies getting their asses handed to them and a lot of confusion about the lack of participation ribbons.

I wish the right would decide on what liberals are: pussies or violent anarchists. you can't have both (baseless) insults.

You are the one that called them "pussies"...Freudian slip? I just said they are ill equipped crybabies and eluded that a mass anarchist movement by them would fail patheticly and miserably. Does that make them "pussies"? I don't think so, just naive.

You have a really fucked up idea of what and who liberals are man. I mean REALLY fucked up.

That is entirely possible...but from what I've seen, not so much. Maybe it's a it's a situation of "those that speak the loudest"... Care to enlighten me? Everyone's perception is different based on experience. Maybe you can teach me what and who they really are.

I don't think it's a case of those who spoke the loudest. The marches around the world the day after the inauguration with 3+ million people involved and no arrests is what speaks the loudest. I think maybe it's a case of what makes the best story. On the left it's assholes at this Milo event getting violent or people that got out of hand on inauguration day. On the right, the racists and Nazis make the best story, not the hundreds of thousands who marched for life peacefully. Every group (liberals, conservatives, blacks, police officers, etc.) has it's bad apples. The sad thing is that bad apples make the best news and are used to fire up the other side. Every group that I listed above are made up of 99% good people, but the 1% of the bad apples are making the opposite side paint with a broad brush stroke and that is what really divided our country.

I most definitely agree with that! Which is another reason that a leftist anarchist movement would fail miserably.

how does that post reinforce that idea?

Because I only picture the extremists participating. And they are usually unorganized pansies that turn and run when it gets heavy...like in the example I posted above.

so liberal extremists are unorganized pansies, but conservative extremists are well organized tough guys? I'm not trying to be argumentative or put anything in your mouth, just trying to gauge your point here.

Not definitive, but many right wing extremists that I have encountered are ex-military pro-second amendment supporters. Many left wing extremists that I've encountered are loudmouth "it's not fair" latte drinkers...when I gauge which ones would win an actual battle...the right wingers seem to have the advantage. Of course, there are exceptions on both sides I'm sure.

the pen is mightier than the sword my friend...

and why do you always talk about right/left going to "battle"? and always equate these things in some form of physical fight between right & left like this is the 5th grae playground? would you like to see your fellow Americans get gunned down in the streets over politics? maybe you remember that Dallas shooting recently? did you think that was cool?

the issues and political questions we face as a nation will be decided peacefully by people with degrees, not guns....

Why do you "always" use infinitives? I would argue that I rarely do any of the things you mentioned above. I do not want to see my fellow Americans hurt, which is why I "always" argue against these violent forms of protest. Do you think it was cool seeing the woman bashed over the head by a flagpole at the Milo event?

I have noticed it in your posts too, practically everything comes down to a fight and liberals can't win fights.

this is good

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJhHwspZGcg

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

my2hands said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

ledvedderman said:

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

cottagesteeze said:

It's funny reading the reactions of this thread. These aren't liberals. These are anarchists.

And?
I figure now's the time for liberals to turn into anarchists, given the fact that the US government seems to be aiming for a dictatorship and possible war. Isn't that basically the one of the few instances where anarchists are useful? And what the Constitution suggests in such times?

When I think about liberal anarchy, I picture a lot ill-equipped crybabies getting their asses handed to them and a lot of confusion about the lack of participation ribbons.

I wish the right would decide on what liberals are: pussies or violent anarchists. you can't have both (baseless) insults.

You are the one that called them "pussies"...Freudian slip? I just said they are ill equipped crybabies and eluded that a mass anarchist movement by them would fail patheticly and miserably. Does that make them "pussies"? I don't think so, just naive.

You have a really fucked up idea of what and who liberals are man. I mean REALLY fucked up.

That is entirely possible...but from what I've seen, not so much. Maybe it's a it's a situation of "those that speak the loudest"... Care to enlighten me? Everyone's perception is different based on experience. Maybe you can teach me what and who they really are.

I don't think it's a case of those who spoke the loudest. The marches around the world the day after the inauguration with 3+ million people involved and no arrests is what speaks the loudest. I think maybe it's a case of what makes the best story. On the left it's assholes at this Milo event getting violent or people that got out of hand on inauguration day. On the right, the racists and Nazis make the best story, not the hundreds of thousands who marched for life peacefully. Every group (liberals, conservatives, blacks, police officers, etc.) has it's bad apples. The sad thing is that bad apples make the best news and are used to fire up the other side. Every group that I listed above are made up of 99% good people, but the 1% of the bad apples are making the opposite side paint with a broad brush stroke and that is what really divided our country.

I most definitely agree with that! Which is another reason that a leftist anarchist movement would fail miserably.

how does that post reinforce that idea?

Because I only picture the extremists participating. And they are usually unorganized pansies that turn and run when it gets heavy...like in the example I posted above.

so liberal extremists are unorganized pansies, but conservative extremists are well organized tough guys? I'm not trying to be argumentative or put anything in your mouth, just trying to gauge your point here.

Not definitive, but many right wing extremists that I have encountered are ex-military pro-second amendment supporters. Many left wing extremists that I've encountered are loudmouth "it's not fair" latte drinkers...when I gauge which ones would win an actual battle...the right wingers seem to have the advantage. Of course, there are exceptions on both sides I'm sure.

the pen is mightier than the sword my friend...

and why do you always talk about right/left going to "battle"? and always equate these things in some form of physical fight between right & left like this is the 5th grae playground? would you like to see your fellow Americans get gunned down in the streets over politics? maybe you remember that Dallas shooting recently? did you think that was cool?

the issues and political questions we face as a nation will be decided peacefully by people with degrees, not guns....

Why do you "always" use infinitives? I would argue that I rarely do any of the things you mentioned above. I do not want to see my fellow Americans hurt, which is why I "always" argue against these violent forms of protest. Do you think it was cool seeing the woman bashed over the head by a flagpole at the Milo event?

I have noticed it in your posts too, practically everything comes down to a fight and liberals can't win fights.

You are making stuff up in your head dude. Triggered? I have mocked these violent protesters plenty, but beyond that???

What did you mean he always uses the infinitive form? It's always non-conjugated verb??

PJPOWER said:

mrussel1 said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

my2hands said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

ledvedderman said:

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

cottagesteeze said:

It's funny reading the reactions of this thread. These aren't liberals. These are anarchists.

And?
I figure now's the time for liberals to turn into anarchists, given the fact that the US government seems to be aiming for a dictatorship and possible war. Isn't that basically the one of the few instances where anarchists are useful? And what the Constitution suggests in such times?

When I think about liberal anarchy, I picture a lot ill-equipped crybabies getting their asses handed to them and a lot of confusion about the lack of participation ribbons.

I wish the right would decide on what liberals are: pussies or violent anarchists. you can't have both (baseless) insults.

You are the one that called them "pussies"...Freudian slip? I just said they are ill equipped crybabies and eluded that a mass anarchist movement by them would fail patheticly and miserably. Does that make them "pussies"? I don't think so, just naive.

You have a really fucked up idea of what and who liberals are man. I mean REALLY fucked up.

That is entirely possible...but from what I've seen, not so much. Maybe it's a it's a situation of "those that speak the loudest"... Care to enlighten me? Everyone's perception is different based on experience. Maybe you can teach me what and who they really are.

I don't think it's a case of those who spoke the loudest. The marches around the world the day after the inauguration with 3+ million people involved and no arrests is what speaks the loudest. I think maybe it's a case of what makes the best story. On the left it's assholes at this Milo event getting violent or people that got out of hand on inauguration day. On the right, the racists and Nazis make the best story, not the hundreds of thousands who marched for life peacefully. Every group (liberals, conservatives, blacks, police officers, etc.) has it's bad apples. The sad thing is that bad apples make the best news and are used to fire up the other side. Every group that I listed above are made up of 99% good people, but the 1% of the bad apples are making the opposite side paint with a broad brush stroke and that is what really divided our country.

I most definitely agree with that! Which is another reason that a leftist anarchist movement would fail miserably.

how does that post reinforce that idea?

Because I only picture the extremists participating. And they are usually unorganized pansies that turn and run when it gets heavy...like in the example I posted above.

so liberal extremists are unorganized pansies, but conservative extremists are well organized tough guys? I'm not trying to be argumentative or put anything in your mouth, just trying to gauge your point here.

Not definitive, but many right wing extremists that I have encountered are ex-military pro-second amendment supporters. Many left wing extremists that I've encountered are loudmouth "it's not fair" latte drinkers...when I gauge which ones would win an actual battle...the right wingers seem to have the advantage. Of course, there are exceptions on both sides I'm sure.

the pen is mightier than the sword my friend...

and why do you always talk about right/left going to "battle"? and always equate these things in some form of physical fight between right & left like this is the 5th grae playground? would you like to see your fellow Americans get gunned down in the streets over politics? maybe you remember that Dallas shooting recently? did you think that was cool?

the issues and political questions we face as a nation will be decided peacefully by people with degrees, not guns....

Why do you "always" use infinitives? I would argue that I rarely do any of the things you mentioned above. I do not want to see my fellow Americans hurt, which is why I "always" argue against these violent forms of protest. Do you think it was cool seeing the woman bashed over the head by a flagpole at the Milo event?

I have noticed it in your posts too, practically everything comes down to a fight and liberals can't win fights.

You are making stuff up in your head dude. Triggered? I have mocked these violent protesters plenty, but beyond that???

What did you mean he always uses the infinitive form? It's always non-conjugated verb??

Sounds good, not sure why that poster "always" uses non-conjugated verbs . Better?

Then I definitely don't understand

mrussel1 said:

PJPOWER said:

mrussel1 said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

my2hands said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

ledvedderman said:

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

PJ_Soul said:

cottagesteeze said:

It's funny reading the reactions of this thread. These aren't liberals. These are anarchists.

And?
I figure now's the time for liberals to turn into anarchists, given the fact that the US government seems to be aiming for a dictatorship and possible war. Isn't that basically the one of the few instances where anarchists are useful? And what the Constitution suggests in such times?

When I think about liberal anarchy, I picture a lot ill-equipped crybabies getting their asses handed to them and a lot of confusion about the lack of participation ribbons.

I wish the right would decide on what liberals are: pussies or violent anarchists. you can't have both (baseless) insults.

You are the one that called them "pussies"...Freudian slip? I just said they are ill equipped crybabies and eluded that a mass anarchist movement by them would fail patheticly and miserably. Does that make them "pussies"? I don't think so, just naive.

You have a really fucked up idea of what and who liberals are man. I mean REALLY fucked up.

That is entirely possible...but from what I've seen, not so much. Maybe it's a it's a situation of "those that speak the loudest"... Care to enlighten me? Everyone's perception is different based on experience. Maybe you can teach me what and who they really are.

I don't think it's a case of those who spoke the loudest. The marches around the world the day after the inauguration with 3+ million people involved and no arrests is what speaks the loudest. I think maybe it's a case of what makes the best story. On the left it's assholes at this Milo event getting violent or people that got out of hand on inauguration day. On the right, the racists and Nazis make the best story, not the hundreds of thousands who marched for life peacefully. Every group (liberals, conservatives, blacks, police officers, etc.) has it's bad apples. The sad thing is that bad apples make the best news and are used to fire up the other side. Every group that I listed above are made up of 99% good people, but the 1% of the bad apples are making the opposite side paint with a broad brush stroke and that is what really divided our country.

I most definitely agree with that! Which is another reason that a leftist anarchist movement would fail miserably.

how does that post reinforce that idea?

Because I only picture the extremists participating. And they are usually unorganized pansies that turn and run when it gets heavy...like in the example I posted above.

so liberal extremists are unorganized pansies, but conservative extremists are well organized tough guys? I'm not trying to be argumentative or put anything in your mouth, just trying to gauge your point here.

Not definitive, but many right wing extremists that I have encountered are ex-military pro-second amendment supporters. Many left wing extremists that I've encountered are loudmouth "it's not fair" latte drinkers...when I gauge which ones would win an actual battle...the right wingers seem to have the advantage. Of course, there are exceptions on both sides I'm sure.

the pen is mightier than the sword my friend...

and why do you always talk about right/left going to "battle"? and always equate these things in some form of physical fight between right & left like this is the 5th grae playground? would you like to see your fellow Americans get gunned down in the streets over politics? maybe you remember that Dallas shooting recently? did you think that was cool?

the issues and political questions we face as a nation will be decided peacefully by people with degrees, not guns....

Why do you "always" use infinitives? I would argue that I rarely do any of the things you mentioned above. I do not want to see my fellow Americans hurt, which is why I "always" argue against these violent forms of protest. Do you think it was cool seeing the woman bashed over the head by a flagpole at the Milo event?

I have noticed it in your posts too, practically everything comes down to a fight and liberals can't win fights.

You are making stuff up in your head dude. Triggered? I have mocked these violent protesters plenty, but beyond that???

What did you mean he always uses the infinitive form? It's always non-conjugated verb??

Sounds good, not sure why that poster "always" uses non-conjugated verbs . Better?

Then I definitely don't understand

My mistake, I should say "absolutes". I "always" got those mixed up in English class professor, lol. Regardless, the poster's use of "always" is very very far from the truth.