Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
!!! Gay conservative Milo Yiannopoulos named LGBTQ Nation's 2016 Person of the Year !!! Gay conservative Milo Yiannopoulos named LGBTQ Nation's 2016 Person of the Year

02-13-2017 , 05:34 AM
aFrotec:

[ .] Mentally Stable
[X] Clearly Psycho

kerolol:

[ .] Mentally Stable
[X] Clearly Psycho

OK, I got it!

Last edited by NoQuarter; 02-13-2017 at 05:40 AM.
02-13-2017 , 06:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerowo
That the ACLU is protecting the civil rights of Milo? Or of people with disabilities? Why? Conservatives are the ones that tend to hate the ACLU not liberals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Victor
have ppl itt been trying to argue that milo should not be allowed to speak?

I must have missed that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aoFrantic
Real progressive hastendan tried so hard there...but completely fell on his face.

They haven't even gotten past the 1st stage of understanding what free speech and infringement thereof even means.

I though pv7 would ruin my Goodalling but it's really taken it to new levels.
02-13-2017 , 06:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtletom
You advocated violence against "Nazi's", a group in which I'm sure you would include Milo.

Does it really matter? No, when you advocate violence against people for freely expressing themselves you are truly the lowest and most vile scum that the earth has to offer. You, and the others of your ilk, are sewage. Pure sewage.

What's unbelievable to me is that I would defend your rights but I'm pretty sure you would want to kill me, or in reality, let someone else kill me for disagreeing with you. I don't hold cowards like you in much regard.
You know Hitler's literal kill count was 0, right, suicide aside?
02-13-2017 , 06:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtletom
... No, when you advocate violence against people for freely expressing themselves ...
Literally nobody has done this. Ever.

Here's the big hint: the biggest pro-nazipunch advocate doesn't do this either.
02-13-2017 , 07:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aoFrantic
Of course they wilfully did that. Literally no where else reported such. Their entire site is built on clickbait headlines of white nationalism with shoddy reporting to "back it up."

I don't even think linking to a white nationalist propaganda site should be allowed here because it wouldn't be in SE, OOT, alpha etc. But it's chezland so shrug.
Nowhere else reported it as such? I could swear Breitbart was not my source, so they didn't internally make it up. That much is clear.

Something as mainstream as Breitbart needs to get banned from 2+2 and then you wonder why we call you people regressive leftists? Your kind are a lot closer to fascism than the fascists you claim to fight.
02-13-2017 , 08:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by prana
Nope. It's because it's false bull****. Like mongidig and then some other dip**** claiming 80% of all 9th district cases are overturned by the Supreme Court. Sure, they can believe that but it's ****ing wrong.
These isolated examples do not convince me that Breitbart is any more unreliable than leftist news, as a news agency they seem to operate by the same principles as any other partisan media. They seek news that fits their agenda and report it, sometimes they get it wrong, they don't have like a secret division fabricating news.
02-13-2017 , 11:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marn
Nowhere else reported it as such? I could swear Breitbart was not my source, so they didn't internally make it up. That much is clear.

Something as mainstream as Breitbart needs to get banned from 2+2 and then you wonder why we call you people regressive leftists? Your kind are a lot closer to fascism than the fascists you claim to fight.
Breitbart isn't mainstream and isn't a valid source of information it and and infowars should be banned from 2+2.
02-13-2017 , 11:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerowo
Breitbart isn't mainstream and isn't a valid source of information it and and infowars should be banned from 2+2.
What else should be banned from 2+2?
02-13-2017 , 11:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordJvK
What else should be banned from 2+2?
sjw's?
02-13-2017 , 11:13 AM
People who get pwned so bad in an argument but claim victory and assign a bunch of actions to the other side which they didn't show.
02-13-2017 , 11:59 AM
LOL Dan you're ****ing reverting.

Nobody ever said the government should censor Milo(possible exception of chez, but that was when he was being insincere and trying to pretend to be liberal). That's all the ACLU can do. And in that ****ing interview, which you definitely didn't read, the ****ing guy from the ACLU made it clear that it was just his personal opinion and he totally understood people who disagreed.

But boy howdy given how you're TOTALLY NOT RACIST I really expect you to wind up that Klassic HastenDan wit and give wil and turtletom what for.

I'll be ****ing waiting. Imbecile.
02-13-2017 , 12:07 PM
Quote:
LOURDES GARCIA-NAVARRO, HOST:

Now we're going to turn to another issue on a lot of people's minds, free speech. The American Civil Liberties Union has raised a lot of money, $24 million in donations in just one weekend in fact, after President Trump announced his executive order on immigration. Hundreds of thousands of people were motivated by the organization's work to defend people who were detained at airports. And then this week, the ACLU expressed support for a free speech case. This one involves Milo Yiannopoulos. He's the divisive editor of the far-right website Breitbart News, and he's said things like feminism is a cancer.

He was recently supposed to speak at UC Berkeley, but intense protests led the school to cancel the event last minute. The ACLU says no matter how much you might dislike what he has to say, it's protected free speech, and that makes some of its newest supporters upset. Joining me now to talk about this is Lee Rowland. She's a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project.

Welcome to the program.

LEE ROWLAND: Hi. Thanks for having me.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: So what's the case for defending Mr. Yiannopoulos in your view?

ROWLAND: Well, the case for Mr. Yiannopoulos is the same as it would be for any speaker, no matter how despicable or offensive we might find them, which is the First Amendment protects our right to speak out on matters of public concern, to talk about things that are as offensive as the things that Mr. Yiannopoulos says without censorship by the government. And ideally, as in his case, without people physically preventing him from speaking at a place where he had every right to speak.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: So the ACLU and you specifically, actually, have received criticism on social media about this. Does the ACLU need to do a better job explaining why it's defending him and other cases like this, where someone is committing what some would consider hate speech?

ROWLAND: Well, look, I certainly understand that, especially for many of our new members, they may be surprised by the ACLU's robust First Amendment positions, but it's certainly not new. Indeed, one of our most high-profile and controversial moments in the ACLU's history was defending the rights of literal self-proclaimed Nazis to march through the streets of Skokie, a town made up largely of Holocaust survivors. What's amazing about the First Amendment is it protects us, regardless of our viewpoints, regardless of the causes we hold dear.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: But isn't hate speech different?

ROWLAND: There's no question that the things that Mr. Yiannopoulos says are unbelievably hateful in nature. But the phrase hate speech is a form of free speech. Again, in defending the rights of others to speak, whether or not we agree with them, we must all reach out and protect the speech that we most disagree with or else the First Amendment is just reduced to a popularity contest and has no meaning.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: At a time like this, when the country's so divided, many see the ACLU as a check on the Trump administration. You've been at the forefront of several important battles. Are you worried that taking controversial positions like this will erode your support, especially among new members?

ROWLAND: Well, I certainly hope not. I mean, as our - as my colleagues' incredible work as of late has shown, we at the ACLU consider ourselves the first responders for the Constitution. That's a core part of our identity here at the ACLU. And look, we often say - if you disagree with us 20 percent of the time, it means you're a thinking person. If you disagree with us 50 percent of the time, you should consider coming to work for us.

So we respect diversity. No one has to fall in line with all of the ACLU's positions. But I do believe that our defense of the First Amendment is an integral part of our fight for civil rights, for equality and liberty for all.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Lee Rowland, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU, thanks so much for being with us.

ROWLAND: Thank you very much.
Lets just quote the whole interview.
02-13-2017 , 12:09 PM
Dan, to put it another way, if you got as mad about the way the police treat black people as you get about the way college students treat Milo, maybe people would've believed you when you implausibly tried to reboot your account from Infowars goldbuggery to BernieBro anti-Clintonism.

Because it turns out, and sit down for this, Milo is no angel.
02-13-2017 , 12:11 PM
Marn has me on ignore so somebody tell him about this longstanding and reputable US news source:

02-13-2017 , 12:15 PM
turtletom,

sup bro?
02-13-2017 , 12:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerowo
Breitbart isn't mainstream and isn't a valid source of information it and and infowars should be banned from 2+2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
Dan, to put it another way, if you got as mad about the way the police treat black people as you get about the way college students treat Milo, maybe people would've believed you when you implausibly tried to reboot your account from Infowars goldbuggery to BernieBro anti-Clintonism.

Because it turns out, and sit down for this, Milo is no angel.
Neither are you. In fact, it's the barbaric nature of humanity that led people to want to enumerate in law, think most modern constitutions etc, basic civil rights. Several of those rights that you, and others in this thread, don't even attempt to demonstrate paying homage too is: 1) The right of a person to carry his own ideas and speak them freely 2) The right of that person to be free from the threat of violence. Your position is completely untenable with any kind of basic human decency. If the world swings you're way on the ideas of free speech we are in for a very bad time. The funny thing is you are so dumb you can't even view your ideas with any kind of historical context.

Bottom line is, and why you and your ilk are desperately flailing about and losing these arguments, that you, ao, kerowo, and others would gladly sit by as people were killed, maimed, or injured simply because they don't agree with you. It's disgusting. You are the dredges of the world. If we end up in the blissful utopia where people are allowed to punch "nazis", a group that looseley includes almost anyone, it won't be long until they are allowed to imprison and kill political opponents. Shame on you.
02-13-2017 , 12:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5ive
turtletom,

sup bro?
You? You are so ****ing stupid I would rather talk to my cat than try to hold a conversation with you. When I picture you talking in real life I see a mix between a Great Dane howling and a 00's emo kid hissing at me.

Come at me trolls. I'll be here to cuck you all day and night. The slam dunk train won't stop. When you hold the untenable position of THE VIOLENT OPPRESSION OF FREE SPEECH you make it really easy on me.
02-13-2017 , 12:36 PM
Turtle just crushing fools itt.

And, aofrantic is about as dishonest as a poster as I've ever seen.
02-13-2017 , 12:36 PM
And fly REALLY likes black people, everyone. Make sure everyone understands that, because he wants to feel really good about it.
02-13-2017 , 12:51 PM
Must be hard to wade into a forum where you actually need an argument and not some quack unearned pseudo moral superiority you gain simply by holding the "right" views on things. Wookie isn't here to save you little trigger warning safe space pussies when you get called out for being the violent, sewer dwelling, self proclaiming bigots that you are.

Would you guys kill Trump or Steve Bannon if given the right situation? I realize I'm veering away from Milo and "nazis" here, but I want to probe the depths of your bigotry. Do either of those two fall under the banner of "facist" or "Nazi"? Would "eating an assault charge", to quote ao, make it ok to commit violence against either one? I know the answer is yes for some of you but I'm curious if any of you have enough courage to come out and just say it.
02-13-2017 , 12:52 PM
lozl IP check STAT

Quote:
Originally Posted by turtletom
You? You are so ****ing stupid I would rather talk to my cat than try to hold a conversation with you. When I picture you talking in real life I see a mix between a Great Dane howling and a 00's emo kid hissing at me.

Come at me trolls. I'll be here to cuck you all day and night. The slam dunk train won't stop. When you hold the untenable position of THE VIOLENT OPPRESSION OF FREE SPEECH you make it really easy on me.
02-13-2017 , 12:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtletom
Neither are you. In fact, it's the barbaric nature of humanity that led people to want to enumerate in law, think most modern constitutions etc, basic civil rights. Several of those rights that you, and others in this thread, don't even attempt to demonstrate paying homage too is: 1) The right of a person to carry his own ideas and speak them freely 2) The right of that person to be free from the threat of violence. Your position is completely untenable with any kind of basic human decency. If the world swings you're way on the ideas of free speech we are in for a very bad time. The funny thing is you are so dumb you can't even view your ideas with any kind of historical context.

Bottom line is, and why you and your ilk are desperately flailing about and losing these arguments, that you, ao, kerowo, and others would gladly sit by as people were killed, maimed, or injured simply because they don't agree with you. It's disgusting. You are the dredges of the world. If we end up in the blissful utopia where people are allowed to punch "nazis", a group that looseley includes almost anyone, it won't be long until they are allowed to imprison and kill political opponents. Shame on you.
Topic: TCRA.

Go.
02-13-2017 , 12:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtletom
Must be hard to wade into a forum where you actually need an argument and not some quack unearned pseudo moral superiority you gain simply by holding the "right" views on things. Wookie isn't here to save you little trigger warning safe space pussies when you get called out for being the violent, sewer dwelling, self proclaiming bigots that you are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dereds
OSJers just post nonsense and claim the win. Very Trumpian.
Yep
02-13-2017 , 12:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtletom
Must be hard to wade into a forum where you actually need an argument and not some quack unearned pseudo moral superiority you gain simply by holding the "right" views on things. Wookie isn't here to save you little trigger warning safe space pussies when you get called out for being the violent, sewer dwelling, self proclaiming bigots that you are.

Would you guys kill Trump or Steve Bannon if given the right situation? I realize I'm veering away from Milo here, but I want to probe the depths of your bigotry.

Wait, do you want to take The Bigotry Bet?
02-13-2017 , 01:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5ive
lozl IP check STAT
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5ive
Topic: TCRA.

Go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtletom
You? You are so ****ing stupid I would rather talk to my cat than try to hold a conversation with you. When I picture you talking in real life I see a mix between a Great Dane howling and a 00's emo kid hissing at me.

Come at me trolls. I'll be here to cuck you all day and night. The slam dunk train won't stop. When you hold the untenable position of THE VIOLENT OPPRESSION OF FREE SPEECH you make it really easy on me.
You proved me right so quickly. Seems you can't even speak English.

      
m