America - The Official Thread

[Com Fox]

He wants society to go in the opposite direction to the way that it is heading. And I know enough about him to know that he's dangerous.

As someone who watches Milo no, from his speeches he wants to get rid of these ideas of Political Correctness which in most cases I do agree but I also disagree on some (especially in the religion department)

. Anybody who claims that people who disagree with them hates free speech as a means of pre-emptively silencing them has the potential to do untold damage.

Again no, he talks about those who resort to violence, rioting and rudely interrupting peoples speaking in order to stop them from speeking. Milo has a Q&A section after every speech where you're allowed to peacefully discuss with him and he never claims that anyone who disagrees with him is against free speech and answers usually respectively with a hint of jokes as well.

Yiannopolous is clearly trying to position himself as the lone voice of reason trying to save society from itself

No, not really, never hear him say anything like that during his speechess.

- and anyone with an ounce of common sense should be able to see just how dangerous he is.

my sides...

 

[Danoff]

Anybody who claims that people who disagree with them hates free speech as a means of pre-emptively silencing them has the potential to do untold damage.

You're clearly talking about the rioters and not the speaker here right? What's dangerous is not universally, unequivocally, absolutely condemning violent acts used to silence someone... no qualifications.

Where's the outrage? We don't mind having outrage over a few crass statements here and there, but none is reserved for a violent mob trying to suppress ideas?

 

[xyloscissor]

These same types of people who travel around rioting anything they don't like surely are the same one's promoting fake hate crimes. I'd say those two things alone are much more dangerous to our country than anything Milo can do.

This idea is nothing more than mob rule, any size mob as long as it's on the left should be listened to so they can get their own way. Much like a child on the floor kicking and screaming because his ice cream is chocolate and not strawberry.

I wonder if this is the kind of thing they've been asking for lol.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...s-since-1960s-spur-states-to-pursue-crackdown

https://www.yahoo.com/news/milo-yia...the-white-house-press-briefing-042400735.html

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Wait, wait, wait... people still listen to Tucker?

 

[Danoff]

He's a gay jew who has a thing for black men.

Let me get this straight, he wants to screw the black man and you can't see how that's racist?

 

[Com Fox]

Let me get this straight, he wants to screw the black man and you can't see how that's racist?

Not sure if a joke

When I said he has a thing for Black men, he prefers to date black men.

 

[jake2013guy]

Headline's slightly misleading but not liking this series of America. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ctims-husbands-second-trimester-a7561066.html

 

[Danoff]

Not sure if a joke

When I said he has a thing for Black men, he prefers to date black men.

Yes, it was a joke.

 

[Carbonox]

All that ruthless criticism of Milo brought to us by @prisonermonkeys, and at the same time, not once has he showed any willingness to decry Antifa.

That's concerning.

 

[mister dog]

That's the one thing about all this that I do agree with, I find it hard to see how he's a white supremacist. However, like I said in my posts in regards to this and other things yet again the common factor is media's play and responsibility they must take when deciding how to frame things.

CNN has to take blame, MSNBC has to take blame and so does Fox. Because Fox has sparked such things as making it okay to vilify abortion doctors and certain other people that would be considered in their eyes, on the left to the point that nut jobs act on what is said. If it weren't for freedom of the press, I'd say pass around more access to liable but I doubt it would fix the problem and just send it the opposite end of the spectrum.

The abortion thing is a very difficult question. I myself don't know if i'm for or against. I do think it shouldn't be encouraged though in cases when it relates a normal pregnancy but that's another topic.

He's a gay Catholic of Jewish decent that criticizes Islam, SJW's, radical feminists and groups like BLM with valid arguments IMO. It's pretty ridiculous how the mainstream press copy pastes that he's a white supremacist.

 

[xyloscissor]

Headline's slightly misleading but not liking this series of America. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ctims-husbands-second-trimester-a7561066.html

Slightly?

The bill makes dismemberment abortion illegal, that is it's sole purpose. Let's take a look at what it says about rape, and what it says about who can seek compensation and why. I will highlight it to make it clear. That is site you linked must be complete trash. Anyway...

11 (d) This subchapter does not prohibit an abortion by any other method
12 for any reason, including rape or incest.
13
14 20-16-1804. Civil remedies — Attorney's fees.
15 (a)(1) A cause of action for injunctive relief against a person who
16 has purposely violated this subchapter may be maintained by:
17 (A) The woman who receives or attempted to receive a
18 dismemberment abortion in violation of this subchapter;
19 (B) A person who is the spouse, parent, or legal guardian
20 of the woman who receives or attempted to receive a dismemberment abortion in
21 violation of this subchapter; or
22 (C) A current or former licensed healthcare provider of
23 the woman who receives or attempted to receive a dismemberment abortion in
24 violation of this subchapter.

So a rape victim is fully allowed to have an abortion without any repercussion as long as it is not dismemberment as defined by the law. A spouse can sue his wife if she attempts to or receives an illegal abortion? Or can the spouse be sued because she broke the law?

Where do these people come up with such wild crap?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

That's concerning.

So now you're going to try and shame me into doing what you want? If I acquiesced, how on earth would that have any value? You would immediately spin it as my trying to save face. Meanwhile, you're free to criticise Antifa but ignore Yiannopolous whereas I am expected to criticise both in equal measure. How about you start practicing what you preach?

All that ruthless criticism of Antifa brought to us by @Carbonox, and at the same time, not once has he showed any willingness to decry Yiannopolous.

That's concerning.

But I'm not holding my breath. Thank you for definitively proving what I have long known: that nothing you say is worth my time or attention.

 

[Carbonox]

So now you're going to try and shame me into doing what you want? If I acquiesced, how on earth would that have any value? You would immediately spin it as my trying to save face. Meanwhile, you're free to criticise Antifa but ignore Yiannopolous whereas I am expected to criticise both in equal measure. How about you start practicing what you preach?


But I'm not holding my breath. Thank you for definitively proving what I have long known: that nothing you say is worth my time or attention.

The issue is not with your criticism of Milo, but your complete lack of it against a group engaging in political violence.

I guess I shouldn't hold my breath either, given you're the same guy who earlier vocally took the side of the violent immigrant gang rather than the camera crew being assaulted.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

You mean the camera crew that went looking to get assaulted and then complained that they got assaulted?

 

[mister dog]

You mean the camera crew that went looking to get assaulted and then complained that they got assaulted?

You seriously need to learn how to put some water in your wine. There are times when I'm wrong too. I might be perceived as being on 'the far right' nowadays, but I like to talk with arguments and you don't have any in this case. It is a last desperate attempt at trying to shift the blame whilst you know the left is acting crazy.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

All this talk of fake news, and when we do get something that was obviously staged, everyone wants to believe it because it's convenient.

Meanwhile, Trump's immigration ban has been overturned (for now) by the courts:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-04/donald-trumps-travel-ban-temporarily-blocked/8241266

 

[Tornado]

I don't recall any obviousness of intent being proven. I remember it being insisted.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Then check your memory again.

 

[Tornado]

So, no, it hasn't then; since if it had you would have been rubbing where it was in everyone's faces already.

 

[mister dog]

Try to argue with the guy:

 

[prisonermonkeys]

So, no, it hasn't then

It has. The full version of the video has been posted before. You're welcome to go and find it if you like.

 

[Com Fox]

It has. The full version of the video has been posted before. You're welcome to go and find it if you like.

*Makes a claim

*People ask for any sort of evidence

*Tells them to find it.

. It's not our job to find something you say exists.

 

[Tornado]

So, again, it hasn't; since if it had you would have been rubbing where it was in everyone's faces already.

 

[mister dog]

Apparently one man who was beaten up by that mob was saved by a UFC fighter Jake Shields:

http://mmajunkie.com/2017/02/why-ws...s-stepped-between-a-mob-and-a-trump-supporter

 

[Northstar]

You mean the camera crew that went looking to get assaulted and then complained that they got assaulted?

So "They were asking for it!" is now a valid excuse for committing a crime?

 

[xyloscissor]

So, again, it hasn't; since if it had you would have been rubbing where it was in everyone's faces already.

It's not a liberal's concern if the facts are facts or not, as long as the misinformation furthers their just cause, it's all good. This is a reason conservatives in this country fight an uphill battle, doing the right thing and being honest is not so good at all.

So "They were asking for it!" is now a valid excuse for committing a crime?

Like a girl in a sexy dress is asking for whatever she gets as well?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

So, again, it hasn't; since if it had you would have been rubbing where it was in everyone's faces already.

If you really believed that I was doing it out of spite, then it would have occurred to you that I just wanted to send you off on a lengthy search to find it.

So "They were asking for it!" is now a valid excuse for committing a crime?

I didn't say that. If, by assaulting the camera crew, the man was guilty of a crime, then so too are the camera crew guilty of a crime - fraud - by setting it up.

If you ask someone to punch you in the face, you can't call it a crime because you got punched in the face. Remember Rodney King? The public were convinced that he was the victim of police brutality because the media aired an edited version of the footage, ostensibly because the first seconds of tape were too blurry. However, the complete version of the tape supported the police officers' account of the traffic stop.

 

[xyloscissor]

If you really believed that I was doing it out of spite, then it would have occurred to you that I just wanted to send you off on a lengthy search to find it.

No one gets away with that on this site, someone should tell you to redact it as fact and state it as opinion, or you provide the proof.

I'm not going to search it to prove you wrong, it's an old story and tbh I've never cared for 60 minutes anyway, sounds like a show you might be more interested in watching.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

sounds like a show you might be more interested in watching

"60 Minutes" is mostly about pensioners getting ripped off by dodgy tradies, local councils being unfair in issuing parling tickets, and the evils that immigrants bring into the country.

 

[Northstar]

If you ask someone to punch you in the face, you can't call it a crime because you got punched in the face. Remember Rodney King? The public were convinced that he was the victim of police brutality because the media aired an edited version of the footage, ostensibly because the first seconds of tape were too blurry. However, the complete version of the tape supported the police officers' account of the traffic stop.

I wouldn't know if that's the case in this instance as somebody hasn't posted the video yet.