He may not have posted about it on his Facebook...but he did post about it on Breitbart, I linked to the article earlier in this thread.
That's so very true. Yet most on the left still don't see the bias. The lack of tolerance being shown here should be called out, all from the party of tolerance. Naturally, the media won't cover that, either.
I can't figure out why a 2-time college dropout with no academic qualifications and a glorified internet troll is being invited to speak at multiple universities. I'm all for diversity of thought but you'd think they could find someone better than him, unless the seminar is titled "How to Become Internet Famous".
LOL. I went onto her twitter and reminded her, and indicated that she is simultaneously advocating that the 2nd amendment still applies today.
I don't disagree there. But wouldn't the proper response simply be to not go listen, rather than go on a rioting rampage? Be interesting to see if this makes him even more Internet Famous. Sadly, I know where I'd put my money.
This is the key here. He didn't even speak, so what was the rioting for? Nothing... Not that breaking the law would be justified even if he did, but that's what makes this more about free speech, and the right to speak. Apparently, not at UC Berkeley, which is a bastion of liberal thought. Why not simply exercise their right of free listening, and not listen? Or, why not petition the school administration for better speakers? Instead, what we have is people so angry at a speech that wasn't even given that they went on a rampage. Making one wonder who/what drove them to that?
you sound like Clinton blaming everyone else for her loss except the people responsible. It's funny how you say Milo "inflames" emotions when these "suckers," as you called them, actually lit **** on fire. Why don't you call it like it is, they're not suckers they're criminals!
He's a nihilist if there ever was one--and not the fun kind looking for Lebowski: https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-america-divided/milo-yiannopoulos/
I don't understand this response. You're still talking about blame. I'm giving credit. MY is just owning everybody. What's there to be mad about?
he's super anti-Islam because he's gay. he's not shy about it at all, he HATES Islam's views/actions against homosexuals. It takes it a bit too far for me but there is some truth to the lack of progress in Islam on matters like homosexuals and woman. Islam, like most archaic religions, is for men by men.
i'm not mad, i'm embarrassed for them. ask the anarchists why they so mad at someone who didn't utter a single word because his free speech was not protected. and milo shouldn't get credit for anything. he wanted to speak and couldn't. the anarchists get all the credit for violating the constitution and all the blame for the damage they caused.
I'm quite sure that's not what I typed. When you hear yourself or something else and not what someone communicated, it is a major failure in communication. But perhaps you are confusing me with someone else? Nevertheless... Here is my positions. The student has the right to peaceful protest. The violence protest is a reaction to Milo. The cause of the violence is the inability of the protesters to understand how Milo is who he is, what is an appropriate response, and how violence is ultimately self-defeating.
Milo got exactly what he wanted - what could have been easily ignored has been turned in to a major national news event by the idiotic extremists on the left.
Lol, he should be anti-Christian too then, but we know logic isn't his strength. He asks for a cap on women in math/science but is against Affirmative Action. 0 logic used here.
