• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Should there be consequences for PACs that don't stand up for free speech?

Going to predict that very few conservatives show up to this thread
 
This board has been taken over by [Redacted].
 
MysteryMen said:
Going to predict that very few conservatives show up to this thread
Click to expand...

They're probably too busy knowing the difference between a public university the pretends to care about free speech and a private organization acting on wholly different information.
 
jhmd2000 said:
They're probably too busy knowing the difference between a public university the pretends to care about free speech and a private organization acting on wholly different information.
Click to expand...

and they said no one could be more wrong than Plama.
 
jhmd2000 said:
They're probably too busy knowing the difference between a public university the pretends to care about free speech and a private organization acting on wholly different information.
Click to expand...

Or, they are just too busy coming up with factual misstatements to differentiate between their team and somebody else.

It's okay to admit when conservatives do fucked up stuff. Its also ok to admit when you got the facts wrong and a school didn't actually suppress free speech.

I mean, I recognize that finding your place in President Trump's America is a tricky thing (on the one hand, you don't really want to support an authoritarian populist who may not have even ever read the Constitution and is a greater threat to conservative orthodoxy and ideals than any person in recent memory, on the other hand, TAX CUTS and piss-off liberals!!!!!). But, you are probably going to get the tax cuts anyway, so you might as well preserve some credibility.

For example, you can feel free to: (1) criticize Milo for supporting pedophilia; (2) criticize CPAC for not doing their homework on Milo; and/or (3) recognize that a purportedly "conservative conference" who couldn't come up with a better credentials for a keynote speaker than "he makes liberals mad" is painfully bereft of ideas. It will be a good bonding experience for everyone on the boards, and allow you to differentiate yourself from the true Trumpsuckers on the boards.
 
bcobbdeacs said:
Saw him on Bill Maher Friday night, was not overly impressed.
Click to expand...

I actually thought Maher did a really good job with the interview. Didn't take Milo's bait, and then hit him hard on his own hypocrisy's] and Milo's real bullshit points. I have always like Real Time, they do a good job.
 
WFcatamount22 said:
I actually thought Maher did a really good job with the interview. Didn't take Milo's bait, and then hit him hard on his own hypocrisy's] and Milo's real bullshit points. I have always like Real Time, they do a good job.
Click to expand...

Maher can be a condescending prick, but I feel like that show has gotten a lot better in the past few years.
 
Tough L for some of the "conservatives" on here after these comments from mainstream conservatives fell right in line with the LIBERAL ELITES on these boards:

Bill Kristol, the editor-at-large for the conservative Weekly Standard, said the invitation to Yiannopoulos was "despicable."

Ned Ryun, a board member for the ACU, likewise objected to the decision. He said on Monday morning that members of the board were not consulted on the decision.

"While I'm all for free speech, there is such a thing as vile, hateful speech that does not deserve a platform," Ryun tweeted.

Jonah Goldberg, a senior editor at the conservative National Review, described Yiannopoulos as "a promoter and apologist for the 'Alt Right,' a white supremacist coalition that seeks to be the alternative to mainstream conservative movement."

"That in itself should be the only red flag CPAC needs,"

Following the decision to disinvite Yiannopoulos, Goldberg responded with something close to an eyeroll.

"Apparently the racism and anti-Semitism wasn't a deal breaker," Goldberg said.
Click to expand...
 
ImTheCaptain said:
and they said no one could be more wrong than Plama.
Click to expand...

And then you came along.
A) His name is "Milo", not "Milos". Let's at least get you there.
B) The disturbing video revelation came well after Cal cancelled the event. So I've got you down for 0-2 on this one. Probably should quit now.
 
Strickland33 said:
Click to expand...


You guys are so desperate to hand them out, sitting on the Election Day-sized stockpile. It's quaint. But there is a difference between a political statement you don't agree with and endorsing sexual abuse. Where did we lose you? Electoral College Derangement Syndrome is no joke.
 
jhmd2000 said:
And then you came along.
A) His name is "Milo", not "Milos". Let's at least get you there.
B) The disturbing video revelation came well after Cal cancelled the event. So I've got you down for 0-2 on this one. Probably should quit now.
Click to expand...

Good to know the CPAC draws its line at child molestation, NOT overt racism, sexism, and white supremacy.
 
jhmd2000 said:
And then you came along.
A) His name is "Milo", not "Milos". Let's at least get you there.
B) The disturbing video revelation came well after Cal cancelled the event. So I've got you down for 0-2 on this one. Probably should quit now.
Click to expand...

The revelation by CPAC? Sure. I'm pretty sure that January 4, 2016 came before the Berkeley event, though.



You should probably take the L.
 
Has it been mentioned that the video has been on YouTube since last April and that there have been plenty of articles written about Milo's "relationship" with his priest and his pro-pedophilia stance?
 
Maybe the CPAC should have done their homework instead of trying to STICK IT TO THE LIBERAL ELITES before bringing Milo to keynote their convention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top