Milo Yiannopoulos buries Liberalism in one minute

[James]

[chadstallion]

and Twitter banned him from their site.

[Option D]

Wow, your admiration for the pedo apologizer is concerning

[The Ugly]

Hilarious thread backfire.

Ouch.

[Dos Equis]

Wow, your admiration for the pedo apologizer is concerning

Doesn't sound like a fair criticism.  Just like it wouldn't be fair to call you on your defense of Anthony Weiner, who is being investigated for pedophilia.  

Consistency.  

[Dos Equis]

Smart guy , should still be in politics and had a real shot at being a future dem nominee for POTUS.
BUT c'mon now, when you send out pics of your trouser snake and your name is "Weiner " ,
game over 

Anthony Wiener should still be in politics?  You are a special kinda troll, no? 

[Option D]

Doesn't sound like a fair criticism.  Just like it wouldn't be fair to call you on your defense of Anthony Weiner, who is being investigated for pedophilia.  

Consistency.  

Hi-la-ri-us

I made a comment when he sent his wang pic to a 22 year old.

But speaking of consistency, did you have any threads against Milos as you did with lobs you don't agree with?

[Dos Equis]

Hi-la-ri-us

I made a comment when he sent his wang pic to a 22 year old.

But speaking of consistency, did you have any threads against Milos as you did with lobs you don't agree with?

Wait.  So you're saying you defended Weiner before knowing he might be a pedophile?  Precisely why it would unfair to criticize you. 

At the same time, you are criticizing someone for posting threads about Milo over seven months before this purported pedo clip was released. 

Definitely inconsistent.  And I know how important that is to you.   

Did I make any threads about Milo?  No.  I had never heard of him till the Berkeley riots.  I've also listened to the clips and read his explanation.  In context, what he said doesn't bother me.  Doesn't sound like he is advocating pedophilia. 

[Las Vegas]

Wait.  So you're saying you defended Weiner before knowing he might be a pedophile?  Precisely why it would unfair to criticize you. 

At the same time, you are criticizing someone for posting threads about Milo over seven months before this purported pedo clip was released. 

Definitely inconsistent.  And I know how important that is to you.   

Did I make any threads about Milo?  No.  I had never heard of him till the Berkeley riots.  I've also listened to the clips and read his explanation.  In context, what he said doesn't bother me.  Doesn't sound like he is advocating pedophilia. 

I'd only heard his name mentioned, and it caused me to think of Yanni the keyboard player.

[Las Vegas]

The gays must really dislike this guy, because he adds weight to the theory that homosexual behavior may be linked with child sexual abuse.

[The Ugly]

Weiner's a filthy pervert as well, bury all these f'n creeps.

[Soul Crusher]

The gays must really dislike this guy, because he adds weight to the theory that homosexual behavior may be linked with child sexual abuse.

He is not a communist progressive marxist greedy leech SJW - so he is hated. 

[Option D]

Wait.  So you're saying you defended Weiner before knowing he might be a pedophile?  Precisely why it would unfair to criticize you. 

At the same time, you are criticizing someone for posting threads about Milo over seven months before this purported pedo clip was released. 

Definitely inconsistent.  And I know how important that is to you.   

Did I make any threads about Milo?  No.  I had never heard of him till the Berkeley riots.  I've also listened to the clips and read his explanation.  In context, what he said doesn't bother me.  Doesn't sound like he is advocating pedophilia. 

You are exactly right. I like anthony as a politician but texting 15 year olds is a sick move.

[Las Vegas]

He is not a communist progressive marxist greedy leech SJW - so he is hated. 

But I notice that gays often become very upset if someone suggests any reason whatsoever for the behavior other than "you were born this way, like a special little snowflake"... not all of them, but many do.  Some of them are honest about possible reasons, to be fair, and those individuals are an authority on the subject imo.

[Yamcha]

Well, Bill Maher took the Milo route back in 98... (7 min mark onward)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBYM0dQ4zUU&t=420s

[Las Vegas]

No doubt Anthony Weiner could turn on others to help save himself right now, at least under normal circumstances... but unfortunately for him all his connections have shown themselves to be above the law.  What shall he do, lol.

[Dos Equis]

Not now considering all the crap he did.He disqualified himself by his own actions
BUT, if he didn't do that crap, he was a smart ,tough  democratic voice.
The party needs more tough minded, smart people .
The last thing dems need is more ultra liberal types.

He is neither tough minded nor smart.  He's an undisciplined overgrown kid and the most disrespectful politician I've ever seen.  At one point I thought Trump might be worse than him, but I was wrong. 

[Dos Equis]

You are exactly right. I like anthony as a politician but texting 15 year olds is a sick move.

I don't like anything about that guy.  He was a disgrace. 

And speaking of consistency, the people who are condemning Trump for his personality were pretty silent about Weiner. 

[Dos Equis]

Good point .

I think you'd have to agree I'm pretty fair in judging politicians on BOTH sides.
Sadly, most political junkies are in the tank for one side.

For example, some regulars on this forum may think they
are better informed and can back their opinions with linked resources.

I don't want to  get  nerdy, but they seem clueless about being guilty of
a major "no no" within the world of academic research.
In simple terms it's known as " experimental/research bias*" .

* This is when the researcher has reached a conclusion before the experimental research has begun.
Then, they cherry pick , ONLY the data and info that supports their conclusion.

I'll use a recent example of this "research bias" occurs in political debate.
Note - I'm rounding off figures and % to keep this clear and simple:

Most of us know that the original Trump travel ban of 7 nations was
found unconstitutional by the 9th circuit court.

Team Trump put out a statement stating the court had a history or being overturned by the higher court.
They declared that 80% of their cases that went up for appeal were overturned.
What they failed to include was that 99% of the time , the courts verdict stood, "as is".
Of the 1% of verdicts that were appealed, 80% were overturned.
In plain numbers, that means 0.8% of the TOTAL court decisions were changed.

When you look objectively at the TOTAL work of the court , you get a very different picture.

This happens on BOTH sides and I'll give an example of how Obama's team used some
incomplete reporting of data to make their case.

The Obama record is proud to say they were really tough on enforcing immigration law.
They give record numbers for deportations on their watch.
Problem is a good chunk of the "deportations" were little more then turned away at the border.

If your goal is to be fair and objective, you need to dig out the COMPLETE story and present all the information.

No I don't agree.  You are a gimmick.  You are a gimmick masquerading as an independent, but you are a liberal.  You voted for Hillary Clinton.  You probably voted for Obama twice.   

And your comments about the 9th Circuit are horrible spin.  The fact is they are often wrong and often overturned. 

Your comments about Obama's deportation numbers are pretty funny, because just yesterday you were talking about how tough Obama was with deportations, until I pointed out how he manipulated the numbers.  Now you're trying to act like you knew it all along?  Get the heck out of here with that nonsense.   

You are a troll. 

[mazrim]

I'll use a recent example of this "research bias" occurs in political debate.
Note - I'm rounding off figures and % to keep this clear and simple:

Most of us know that the original Trump travel ban of 7 nations was
found unconstitutional by the 9th circuit court.

Team Trump put out a statement stating the court had a history or being overturned by the higher court.
They declared that 80% of their cases that went up for appeal were overturned.
What they failed to include was that 99% of the time , the courts verdict stood, "as is".
Of the 1% of verdicts that were appealed, 80% were overturned.
In plain numbers, that means 0.8% of the TOTAL court decisions were changed.

When you look objectively at the TOTAL work of the court , you get a very different picture.

I think your brain is the only one that thought that. Sorry you took it that way. It is still a history of being overturned if 80% of the cases that continue get overturned. That's your bias showing through. Nobody thought that it was 80% of their total cases, lol.

[TuHolmes]

I don't like anything about that guy.  He was a disgrace. 

And speaking of consistency, the people who are condemning Trump for his personality were pretty silent about Weiner. 

Yeah. Wiener is shit. I thought he had some ok ideas, but then he had the downfall and to be honest, I don't support scumbags.

He was a scumbag. He just because a bigger scumbag when he started texting underage girls.

[Dos Equis]

Yeah. Wiener is shit. I thought he had some ok ideas, but then he had the downfall and to be honest, I don't support scumbags.

He was a scumbag. He just because a bigger scumbag when he started texting underage girls.

Not only sexting underage girls, but doing it with his little kid lying in the bed next to him.  Definitely a scumbag. 

[TuHolmes]

Not only sexting underage girls, but doing it with his little kid lying in the bed next to him.  Definitely a scumbag. 

Oh yeah. I forgot that part. Huge scumbag.