Posted on 02/20/2017 10:42:51 AM PST by johnk
According to Townhall’s and frequent Fox News contributor Guy Benson, controversial Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos has been disinvited from speaking at the upcoming Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in DC, a report that was quickly confirmed by the ACU Chair.
Milo will be disinvited from #CPAC, I’ve just been told.
— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) February 20, 2017
Yiannopoulos’ initial invitation drew criticism, especially after a questionable clip emerged on social media revealing the Breitbart editor appearing to at least “advocate” for pedophilia. The clip, which was first put online by The Reagan Battalion, quickly made the rounds Sunday; Yiannopoulos says in the video:
Aw, thank you!
I don’t think I’ve ever disagreed with you and I highly respect you. That said, in this case you are wrong, IMO.
That interview is just plain sickening.
10. In case there is any lingering doubt, here's me, in the same interview the other footage is taken from, affirming that the current legal age of consent is about right: "And I think the law is probably about right. It's probably roughly the right age. I think it's probably about ok. But there are certainly people who are capable of giving consent at a younger age. I certainly consider myself to be one of them, people who were sexually active younger, think it particularly happens in the gay world, by the way."The homosexual men whose unwelcome advances I repelled when I was 13, 14, and 15, would have agreed wholeheartedly with Milo that I was capable of giving consent. Milo's words can be interpreted as an attempt to delegitimize age of consent laws, coming immediately after he stated his support for such laws. Which is it? Should the laws not apply to precocious teenagers?
Milo, you strongly condemned pedophilia. Good. If you have also condemned pederasty, I have not seen that. I'd like to see it.
Dammit Milo, why did you do this? I think you may have to do a personal reset, starting with the words "I have made a huge mistake. I have massively disappointed my fans."
I still count myself as a fan, but...
> “What if your son were gay?
That’s what conversion therapy is for. That was one reason why I liked Michele Bachmann so much, she and her husband were big proponents.
And there are a lot of nevertrump scumbags and gop-e apologists who can’t wait for the next circular firing squad to attack one of our more effective speakers.
Thank you for your prayers.
Don’t go al soft on us, Laz. This is a great object lesson on why the left wins and in the long run, will likely continue to win. It’s very simple. It’s a concept called loyalty. Something that our side of the street has yet to truly figure out.
Milo is an exceptionally talented voice for our side. Of course the opposition is going to try to take him out. Like sunset following sun rise, it’s that predictable.
So the opposition tries to take him out and what does our side do? It starts getting a case of the vapors. Over what is likely nothing. There was no unequivocal statement here like”I support pedophilia and think it’s a great thing.” Quite the contrary. Yet our side is focusing on the accusation, not the more obvious attempt to take out one of our own.
The left understands that. They rarely allow one of their own to be thrown to the wolves. Take Anthony Weiner as an example. The guy is caught sexting. Resigns. And then in a matter of months is running for mayor. If there hadn’t been the second scandal (and third), he would probably be back in office. The opposition didn’t abandon him until it became clearly untenable to continue to support him.
Contrast this with how Milo is being treated for what appears to be, at worst, sloppy language. He’s already been disinvited from CPAC, and is well on his way to becoming an instant pariah because of an obvious hit campaign. Defended by his side? Not in a million years. Protecting and defending one of our own is just not something conservatives do. Certainly not when smarmy self-righteousness is an option.
And then we wonder why our candidates and appointees won’t bother to fight the easily winnable fights. There is a very good reason why: they know they’re on their own. They know they’ll be thrown to the wolves by their so-called “allies” the moment the heat comes on.
I said this many years ago and it’s still true: I’d rather have a democrat division in front of me than a republican squadron behind me.
I do. Can’t you read?
Which is not the full definition. Do you really want to run with that?
Sometimes. And sometimes not. We should find out which.
“Clarifying” a moral outrage doesn’t minimize the outrage. You really want to defend a guy saying sex with 13 year olds is ok?
In the context of that specific reply, it was. However I have posted longer posts on the issues, just this evening.
He was speaking for himself, what he perceived to be his willingness to consent, not that he’d be out looking for 13 year olds.
That having been said, he is still wrong in believing he was mature enough to consent. He goes on to say he was molested at 13 and lost his virginity 14, right?
My take on it is that the abuse he suffered messed him up mentally and one of the ways he seems to deal with being molested is by trying to take away the molester’s power.
When you see an arch conservative site like Free Republic have posters defending an openly homosexual man you know we are headed the way of Rome. Down the drain...
All homosexuality is caused by the molestations and grooming or neglect of boys. It was a priest, Milo stated-—and he was 13 or 14 and didn’t reveal who the pedophile priest was......How evil is that? And how “shocking” is it that a young boy “loves” the attention and the feelings that occur when someone plays with his genitals at puberty? How evil and sick is that? Just like the little boy harems in Afghanistan where old men make the pretty boys dress like girls, and dance and they have orgies with the boys. Guess what? The boys love it—all the attention and the special gifts, etc. They long to be picked to be in the group of “pretty” boys. When they grow up they lust after other males, boys and goats.....and they hate women.
Just like in all the slave-pagan, homosexual “cultures” like Sparta and with the Samurai and like the Luciferean/Freemason elites do in basements for their satanic rituals to Ba’al. They use boys for sexual recreation.
Adults molesting children is evil, it isn’t funny, (as Milo was laughing and saying how “good” and “fun” it was for him) and it isn’t “nothing” because it will warp that child for life, as it warped Milo, where he mocks God constantly with his actions and dress, mocks males, and mocks women. (I don’t think that is funny).
The effect of molestation of children will warp that child’s future relationships and fixate them into a narcissistic and puerile age so they will be incapable of maturity and love of true diversity, “the Other”.
All behaviors are learned and habituated. You are never born with a desire to put an organ into an anal cavity or animal—that is learned by the culture surrounding the kid and you could warp the sexual identity of any child very easily with a toxic culture, like they do in Afghanistan.
Here is a bit of information from the 4ChAN board showing the what was going to happen to Milo the DAY BEFORE it happened.
This is not really about Milo. It is going after Breitbart/Bannon then guess who?
https://twitter.com/CatlinNya/status/833828671022571521
So right. Look at this tweet that shows the plan to attack Milo the day before it happened on 4 Chan.
https://twitter.com/CatlinNya/status/833828671022571521
Good find!!
Someone needs to tweet that to Breitbart/Milo, Ann Coulter, etc.
I jumped into the later part of the thread and saw your post #336..
"I accept him at his word when he says THREE TIMES that sex with 13 year olds doesn’t qualify as pedophila. It does."
The "it does" could indicate that you thought it does qualify as Pedophilia.
I tried to see what earlier comments you may have made and traced a discussion back to post #85 ...
Be accurate and fair. Milo said on his Facebook page that
1) the term “boy” in homosexual jargon does not mean “underage” but is just a common term;
2) He has disavowed any and all sex with minors.
It’s important that we include all of the information on this.
Which I find an entirely sensible and helpful post.
Post 336 seemed to contradict post 85.
Two possible reasons presented themselves,
either in the course of the thread, you had for some reason changed your mind
or post 336 had an unintentional ambiguity
...should we add the possibility that I can't read to the list? ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.