America - The Official Thread

[McLaren]

Before you dismiss it outright, remember that Yiannopolis is already a political radical. He decries anyone who disagrees with him as someone who hates free speech, which is in itself a way of stifling free speech. He's trying to intimidate opponents into silence, and the idea that people might hate what he stands for has clearly never occurred to him. So unless he's the personification of free speech - which he's not - he's a radical. And judging by the public image that he has crafted for himself, he's got the makings of a Messiah complex.

That could be applied to the UC Berkley students that resorted to aggressive protesting & violence as a means to silence Milo from speaking.

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.

After that display you put on in the "Most Opinionated Member" thread, that couldn't define you any more.

It's clear as day you've completely embraced that asinine behavior from that thread that was you "joking".

 

[TRGTspecialist]

The temporary immigration ban has been, er, temporarily banned (at least some of the provisions anyway). Administration expected to appeal naturally.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38864253

 

[xyloscissor]

That could be applied to the UC Berkley students that resorted to aggressive protesting & violence as a means to silence Milo from speaking.

Wait just a sec, does he not debate people openly in a forum of free speech without smacking people with iron pipes and smashing windows and starting fires and masing his opponents? I don't recall him running anyone out of building fearing for their lives, but I'm new to all this Milo stuff.

The temporary immigration ban has been, er, temporarily banned (at least some of the provisions anyway). Administration expected to appeal naturally.

PM already posted that, it was expected tbh because the Judiciary is a part of our checks and the Supreme Court can measure the argument against The Constitution. I posted some time back when some were up in arms that I don't believe Trump can lose the argument because the main reason we have a Federal Government is for National Defense, and that is what will be argued.

Here, I will show you why. This is from The Federalist Papers, 45. James Madison.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States. If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS. The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained. The powers relating to war and peace, armies and fleets, treaties and finance, with the other more considerable powers, are all vested in the existing Congress by the articles of Confederation. The proposed change does not enlarge these powers; it only substitutes a more effectual mode of administering them.

What we are seeing now is an attempt to reverse the order, lets have a large federal government tied up in the lives of everyday citizens and allow the states to decide matters of defense. It's not going to fly in the courts.

 

[McLaren]

Wait just a sec, does he not debate people openly in a forum of free speech without smacking people with iron pipes and smashing windows and starting fires and masing his opponents? I don't recall him running anyone out of building fearing for their lives, but I'm new to all this Milo stuff.

On the money.

The particular line about Milo trying to "intimidate" anyone into silence is pure irony. Only the Left-swinging protestors have been shown as the ones who will go as far as to purposely block people from going about their own lives to spread their message. And if you cross their block, you can be sure you will be berated in some way b/c crossing = not with them. Pray tell who is trying to intimidate who again into being silent.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

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.

That's not the point, when the right wing media portrays it in such a way that their unstable viewers go find a gun and shoot up a medical clinic and those inside...that's a problem. Don't care how much you disagree with something that is legal and operating in that nature, you don't go shoot up the place, where innocent people work or happen to be for one reason or another.

As for what he is, I'm aware, he's a loud and at time obnoxious yet poignant voice that is also a mix of comedic jabs in political debate. If comedians like those seen in various places can make very harsh critical obnoxious yet poignant arguments about the right and even left get a pass why is this guy not the same light.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The particular line about Milo trying to "intimidate" anyone into silence is pure irony.

He says that anyone who disagrees with him hates free speech. Nobody gets the opportunity to disagree with him because by doing so, they "hate free speech". So they can either keep quiet and let him dominate the political discussion, or they can speak up and be branded as being opposed to your rights. It's a lose-lose situation, and intimidation.

Pray tell who is trying to intimidate who again into being silent.

I'm not trying to intimidate the right into being silent. I just want the right to hold themselves to the same standards that they expect of the left. If they really do believe in free speech, then they should allow the left to speak freely, rather than shout "YOU HATE FREE SPEECH! YOU HATE FREE SPEECH!".

The abortion thing is a very difficult question.

I think it's pretty easy, myself. It should be absolutely, unequivocally legal in cases where a child is conceived during a rape, where bringing the pregnancy to term means a mother's life is placed at risk, or in cases where the foetus is born with a genetic condition that means its life will be short and agonising (I remember seeing a documentary years ago where a man confronted protesters outside an abortion clinic; his child was going to be born with its legs fused together and its internal organs missing or improperly developed - had it been born, it would only have lived a few days in excruciating pain).

In all other cases, abortion should be legal because I believe in a woman's right to choose - but I don't believe that the choice should be limited to abortion or carrying the child to term. Instead, federal funding should be put into community services; rather than aborting an unwanted pregnancy, the child could be carried to term and put up for adoption.

 

[xyloscissor]

That's not the point

I thought the point was the law recently passed on a state level. "men rape their wives and sue them if they abort" That was the claim and I proved it false.

I think it's pretty easy, myself. It should be absolutely, unequivocally legal in cases where a child is conceived during a rape

Read much? I posted the law and what you are saying is completely false. Be serious. A rape victim needs to be treated emotionally, psychologically, and physically as soon as possible. there is no reason she should have to wait until a butcher job is required.

 

[mustafur]

A little ironic coming from the guy who couldn't be bothered to back up his claims that Trump's EOs so far are only being done in the spirit of undoing the evil of Obama.

Well he has to keep up the post rate, he might explode otherwise.

 

[xyloscissor]

Well he has to keep up the post rate, he might explode otherwise.

Oh I just now saw the post from @huskeR32, only because I had to 'show hidden content' did I see it(I knew you were responding to someone I didn't see). I looked back at the post and tbh don't care to respond to it.

I am right in telling PM there is a huge difference between an immigrant taking an oath and americans reciting the pledge. There really is no dispute and the reasons why should be clear. The fact he ignores the facts is not a surprise. We have never been told to hate and fight our political adversaries in a helter skelter way that @prisonermonkeys suggests as he tries to form his argument.

I have even gone to lengths to point out how our two party systems works and when it was formed, ignored as well and again no surprise.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Apparently Trump has set a new record: the shortest time from being inaugurated to receiving a majority disapprival rating. It took Obama 936 days to do it. Trump achieved it in 8.

A rape victim needs to be treated emotionally, psychologically, and physically as soon as possible.

And she can be. But if it is discovered that she is pregnant as a result of the rape, and if she decides that she wants to have the pregnancy terminated, then the law should allow her to have an abortion. It wouldn't be dictating when the procedure would need to be completed; it would merely pave the way for her to have an abortion without fear of legal repercussions.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I thought the point was the law recently passed on a state level. "men rape their wives and sue them if they abort" That was the claim and I proved it false.

What the heck are you talking about...? Where at any point did I ever talk about this or did it hold any relevance to my post on how all political violence falls under the same umbrella, and doesn't get a chance to be cherry picked just because of ones political orientation.

 

[McLaren]

He says that anyone who disagrees with him hates free speech. Nobody gets the opportunity to disagree with him because by doing so, they "hate free speech". So they can either keep quiet and let him dominate the political discussion, or they can speak up and be branded as being opposed to your rights. It's a lose-lose situation, and intimidation.

Nobody gets the opportunity to disagree with him? Then he wouldn't allow Q&As after his speeches in which opposing views to speak towards him, now would he?

He doesn't allow people to debate him during the speech because there is not enough time in the day to debate every single thing he says after he says it. Hence why he repeatedly tells people, even those who like him, to wait til' he's finished to debate.

So, perhaps the reason he tells people like you to be quiet is because you run your mouth making things up.

I'm not trying to intimidate the right into being silent. I just want the right to hold themselves to the same standards that they expect of the left. If they really do believe in free speech, then they should allow the left to speak freely, rather than shout "YOU HATE FREE SPEECH! YOU HATE FREE SPEECH!".

Cnsidering how often the Left protests openly, it appears free speech is quite easily allowed by the Right.

Your head is so far in the sand to understand the irony of your posts however, because Milo was not allowed to speak freely himself without threats of violence.

 

[xyloscissor]

What the heck are you talking about...?

This.

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

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I have even gone to lengths to point out how our two party systems works and when it was formed, ignored as well and again no surprise.

You have a habit of editing content into your posts after you have initially added the post to the thread. Ordinarily, I should get a notification of this, but it seems that if I am already in the thread, the software assumes that I can see it and no notification is issued.

So, perhaps the reason he tells people like you to be quiet is because you run your mouth making things up

Or perhaps he doesn't want to hear it, and knows that if he waits until the end, he can say "well, we're out of time" and end the discussion early.

 

[Com Fox]

He says that anyone who disagrees with him hates free speech.

Wrong, did you not read my post or do you actually have me on ignore Like I said before HE HAS Q&A SESSIONS AFTER HIS SPEECHES FOR AN OPEN DISCUSSION.

I don't think you've watched any Milo speeches when someone interrupts him, they are mostly just yelling facist, hate speech and booing. That's not honest and fair disagreeing that's trying to shut up the opposition and even if someone interrupted peacefully, Milo does respond properly and syas why he disagrees, he doesn't say that anyone who disagree's with you is against free speech.

but you might've put me on ignore so me posting this is pointless

 

[xyloscissor]

You have a habit of editing content into your posts after you have initially added the post to the thread

I'm working on that 👍

I don't edit after someone posts however and if I do, I go back and point it out, I'm sure you've seen it. Not trying to "trump" you I'll try to retag you @prisonermonkeys and see if that helps.

Crap I'm going to do it again oops.

do you actually have me on ignore

I have a handful, it's not because I dislike them personally but usually conversing with them is not constructive. I use it more of heads up as to who I am replying to before I consider them the same way I do the others. I have PM on that list

I simply want to make sure I take the time to see who I'm addressing.

 

[McLaren]

Or perhaps he doesn't want to hear it, and knows that if he waits until the end, he can say "well, we're out of time" and end the discussion early.

It's a shame he doesn't actually do that, then or there wouldn't be videos of him replying to people who ask him about feminism, Islam, BLM, etc.

Wrong, did you not read my post or do you actually have me on ignore Like I said before HE HAS Q&A SESSIONS AFTER HIS SPEECHES FOR AN OPEN DISCUSSION.

I don't think you've watched any Milo speeches when someone interrupts him, they are mostly just yelling facist, hate speech and booing. That's not honest and fair disagreeing that's trying to shut up the opposition and even if someone interrupted peacefully, Milo does respond properly and syas why he disagrees, he doesn't say that anyone who disagree's with you is against free speech.

but you might've put me on ignore so me posting this is pointless

He's not ignoring you. Your posts don't allow him to edit it down to a couple sentences so he can make his baseless point.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I'm working on that

You're not doing anything wrong. It just seems to be an oddity in the software that, if it weren't for you, we probably wouldn't even be aware of.

He's not ignoring you.

Actually, I am. But it has nothing to do with this thread, or even this subforum.

 

[mister dog]

That's not the point, when the right wing media portrays it in such a way that their unstable viewers go find a gun and shoot up a medical clinic and those inside...that's a problem. Don't care how much you disagree with something that is legal and operating in that nature, you don't go shoot up the place, where innocent people work or happen to be for one reason or another.

Huh i'm a bit lost here, which shooting are we talking about exactly?

 

[xyloscissor]

Huh i'm a bit lost here, which shooting are we talking about exactly?

These convos go fast don't they? You responded to a specific abortion complaint with a more broad opinion and that's how fast things change.

It all fits in in my opinion though because of the whole. Liberals riots and break the law over political things, while I don't consider conservative to be represented by the right wako there are points to be made all around.

There is a faction of U.S. radical Christians that shoot up abortion clinics, there is no place for that in america.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

This.

Once again what the hell does that have to do with my post and discussion?

 

[Imari]

Let's listen to the hateful white supremacist himself:

Holy 🤬 guys, what is happening to your country? I just watched the first minute of footage of the riot, and that's terrifying.

All politics aside, a country which has reached this level of public anger must be a pretty scary place to be. It'd be all to easy to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and have your head kicked in for wearing a red sweater or something silly.

Or perhaps he doesn't want to hear it, and knows that if he waits until the end, he can say "well, we're out of time" and end the discussion early.

What the snot are you talking about? People giving speeches are under no obligation to answer any questions, and it's generally good practise not to take them in the middle of the speech because otherwise you'd never finish.

As a teacher, you know that sometimes you just have to tell people to shut up and listen and you'll deal with any other questions when you're done speaking.

Answering questions afterwards is a good idea and pretty considerate on the part of the speaker. Again, they're never going to answer all the questions because they probably have other places to be and have to do pesky things like eat and sleep, but I can respect people that attempt to make an effort to engage with their audience that way instead of simply dropping their speech and leaving.

 

[xyloscissor]

Once again what the hell does that have to do with my post and discussion?

If I'm not mistaken, and I'm usually not, we were discussing one particular law concerning abortion on a state level. If you were addressing something else so what? It very much was the point but you used it to run off in another direction.

On an unrelated note it seems to me you like to complain more about how people communicate than what is being communicated. I'd rather speak about the issues than he said she said, just me most likely.

Let's get back to this abortion thing if you would like, ridiculous claims made by a silly website, a concern was raised, I quoted the actual law and what it says. If anything it would have been logical to complain about outlawing that type of abortion or any type.

Would you rather falsehoods are considered as fact to cement what I presume to be an all out objection to any sort of abortion restriction at any time? Because to me that sounds like emotion over substance.

"men can rape their wives and sue them for aborting" no that is not what the bill says. You "ok, well everyone is an idiot because I am right. I know you don't mean it and I apologize in advance if it sounds offensive because it is not my role.

 

[Danoff]

I'm not trying to intimidate the right into being silent. I just want the right to hold themselves to the same standards that they expect of the left. If they really do believe in free speech, then they should allow the left to speak freely, rather than shout "YOU HATE FREE SPEECH! YOU HATE FREE SPEECH!".

They actually do hate free speech if they're attempting to violently suppress it by setting things on fire, throwing rocks, launching fireworks, beating people up... There's a difference between letting someone speak freely, and letting them get away with violently intimidating everyone else.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Yiannopolous is the public face of the alt-right movement. "Anyone who disagrees with us hates free speech" has been their mantra for some time now. It pre-dates the protests.

 

[McLaren]

The man should come out & say he identifies religiously as a Muslim (but objects to the disapproval of gays & subjecting of women).

Think about it. A white, gay, Muslim man who dates a black man. Folks like you wouldn't know what to do with themselves.

Holy 🤬 guys, what is happening to your country? I just watched the first minute of footage of the riot, and that's terrifying.

All politics aside, a country which has reached this level of public anger must be a pretty scary place to be. It'd be all to easy to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and have your head kicked in for wearing a red sweater or something silly.

The best advice is to just avoid anything political or hope no one tries to pressure into talking about it. There was talk after the election last year that a lot of people supported Trump, but did not want to admit such in public for fear of being branded. It's still sort of like that except the man won.

 

[mustafur]

Yiannopolous is the public face of the alt-right movement. "Anyone who disagrees with us hates free speech" has been their mantra for some time now. It pre-dates the protests.

Examples?

 

[Com Fox]

Yiannopolous is the public face of the alt-right movement.

I know you're ignoring me but figure other people might be interested, but Milo isn't apart of the "Alt-right", he's constantly denied it and only the media and several other people have claimed he was but he never identified himself as apart of it.

Montage is shown in this joke video he made:

 

[Danoff]

Yiannopolous is the public face of the alt-right movement. "Anyone who disagrees with us hates free speech" has been their mantra for some time now. It pre-dates the protests.

That sound was the distinct lack of "the protesters are wrong, and should be locked up for the destruction they've caused".

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

If I'm not mistaken, and I'm usually not, we were discussing one particular law concerning abortion on a state level. If you were addressing something else so what? It very much was the point but you used it to run off in another direction.

No I wasn't at all, and it isn't "so what", you've been quite mistaken in many moments of this thread and others like it with the fall back claim of "this place is so fast paced, you can't keep up" (paraphrasing). In reality if you don't know the source of the discussion and how it led up to the current comment you're approaching that you somehow think has to do with something you'd said earlier (when it doesn't), then actually go look at the source. We all go back to the original post of discussion to make sure we know what's going on before making are opinions so we don't like silly.

On an unrelated note it seems to me you like to complain more about how people communicate than what is being communicated. I'd rather speak about the issues than he said she said, just me most likely.

Do show me where in fact. If you have noticed several members in this very thread come against PM on both sides, and do so with noting that he is someone not to take serious due to one particular event/thread. And overall fringe like arguments he has in other various threads.

Let's get back to this abortion thing if you would like, ridiculous claims made by a silly website, a concern was raised, I quoted the actual law and what it says. If anything it would have been logical to complain about outlawing that type of abortion or any type.

If it were what I was talking about in the first place in any sort of way, then sure. Just cause abortion came up doesn't mean it all segues into this broad hive discussion.

Would you rather falsehoods are considered as fact to cement what I presume to be an all out objection to any sort of abortion restriction at any time? Because to me that sounds like emotion over substance.

What? How are you extrapolating commentary on a law and portion of discussion I never even talked about, quoted, or gave mind to? Then ask me a question on said law even though I never talked about it.

"men can rape their wives and sue them for aborting" no that is not what the bill says. You "ok, well everyone is an idiot because I am right. I know you don't mean it and I apologize in advance if it sounds offensive because it is not my role.

What? Are you sure you didn't quote the wrong person, no where at all did I make this claim or talk about this law, if you don't mind I'd like for you to go back and see the origin of this discussion I've had with PM and Mister Dog and then come back. If you want to pretend I did talk about this law when I have not in any capacity then I'd remind you of AUP.

@jake2013guy surprised you liked a post, just because it underlined something you posted, even though said post was directed at a person who never even argued for or against the law in question.