This one named political commentator is telling people he is about to lose his home if they don't lend him money. If you say no to him, then expect a verbal barrage online.
The very definition of obnoxious whiny bitch. Pretending to be a champion for free speech when all he does is spew hateful shit and whine. Oh, and ask for money. Gee, wonder why he's not getting paid. Wassamatta, ho? Johns ain't buyin'?
@Brayson: Milo’s a bully who constantly pleads voctimhood when faced with consequences of his decisions. A lot of us don’t like Perez all that much either.
@Braydon: It’s still great then, too. Life would be so boring if everyone had one point of view, so I’m all for free speech, but it doesn’t come with freedom from consequences with private individuals.
And anyway, freedom of speech does come with freedom of association. And I choose not to associate with bullies, especially bullies who then whine about being victimized when their speech does cause others to dislike or disassociate with them.
Milo is a paedophile apologist and misogynistic prick. I thought he had been iced out of the right-wing twatterati after he was trying to normalize *gay men grooming young boys?
*I know the majority of gay men are not paedophiles.
Milo didn't wander off the plantation. He wanted to be one of the overseers and he wasn't prepared for the smackdown of people who already knew they were free.
He's a gay man who appeals to the alt-right by spewing the same shitty, hateful BS they think in order to get their money, and him being homosexual allows them to say they're not homophobic (even though they are).
He got his account yanked by Twitter for being a hateful prick consistently.
Milo wrote honestly about his early gay sex life, he started young and didn't have a problem with that, and everyone went crazy. People from both the left and the right, but mostly the left, who already didn't like him because he provokes for a living used this against him so now you get highly triggered asshats calling him a "pedophile" when he's not. He's a devoted free speech guy and, therefore, not twitter- friendly. Those wusses. And, yeah, this blind is probably him.
Ha. Hahaha. Yes, as long as that "free speech" gets him lots of press and gigs to talk demeaningly about the gay community and progressive people, that gets him lots of press and gigs to talk demeaningly about the gay community and progressive people, and so on, and so on...
+1 Amartel, He was talking in particular about being with an older man when he was at the age consent for that country. As if the term "chicken hawk" just magically came from the gay community for no particular reason. He also joked about his own molestation, because that was how he preferred to deal with it. He said he never wanted his life to be defined by such a horrible experience, to have such power over him.
The gay community already gets shit on constantly from the straight community ALL.THE.DAMN.TIME.
We surely aren't going to tolerate one of our own shitting on the gay community and the institutions that support the gay community, especially if he's doing it for his own singular monetary gain.
Heterosexuals, support his grifting if you want, but we won't.
You're confused. We only get sweaty at the gym or a tropical vacation destination (usually with a delicious cocktail), and the only whipping that happens is consensual, in a sex room or the Folson Street Fair. And Milo fully embraces his assigned name - Kuntis Krusty.
You must be thinking of the putdowns you receive from your other incel friends.
The right loved Milo until he started saying things that implied acceptance of pedo crap and that was when he was cut off. So clearly the right is not as prejudice as some of you all claim. But I mean it is understandable that that was where the line was drawn. And anyone who isn't a celebrity that is still on Twitter is clearly a facist as group think is the requirement to be on that platform.
Yes, please keep telling yourself that it was a single admission and conservatives never had any idea of what he thought prior, and they were SHOCKED enough to remove him from Breitbart.
Bull.Crap.
A quick Google search makes it clear that he was happy to use STRAIGHT age-of-consent impropriety by liberal people as a talking point to bash liberal people.
A quick Google search makes it clear that he was happy to use GAY age-of-consent impropriety by liberal people as a talking point to bash liberal people prior to 2016.
Breitbart and conservatives didn't give a flying fig what he thought about the issue as long as it was to bash liberal people because he never criticized conservatives accused of underage impropriety.
Because in 2016, he got a little bolder. Through several interviews, he made it clear he was perfectly OK with same-sex age-of-consent impropriety between men and boys. It was just a "coming of age" process and completely natural and normal. He joked about it with Joe Rogan on his show. He talked openly about being taken advantage of at 14 by a Catholic priest as if it was a normal thing.
What did the right say? Nothing. This is when he was being banned from Twitter and criticized from a host of liberal outlets, but yet he still suckered Simon & Schuster into a $250,000 book deal.
But 2017, when he extended this idea to straight people, that age-of-consent laws were arbitrary from a live-streamed video that probably no one would even know about... conservatives suddenly were SHOCKED. But for a single 16-year-old liberal Canadian girl feeding the video to a better known conservative outlet, this live stream would probably have stayed private, and conservatives could pretend his ideology was about those horrible gay people and/or "libertarianism."
Keep telling yourself the right simply had no idea about his views until 2017. Keep saying that it was about pedophilia generally and that he was a convenient scapegoat the right could live with as long as he bashed liberal people.
Geraldo?
ReplyDeleteMilo
ReplyDeleteThe very definition of obnoxious whiny bitch. Pretending to be a champion for free speech when all he does is spew hateful shit and whine. Oh, and ask for money. Gee, wonder why he's not getting paid. Wassamatta, ho? Johns ain't buyin'?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLOL!
ReplyDeleteMilo.
ReplyDeleteStunning how someone who's been running a grift for so long is so broke tbh
+++1
DeleteYou're saying Laura Southern didn't lend Milo money? It all makes sense now.
ReplyDeleteMilo wandered off the rainbow plantation, he had to be ruined.
ReplyDelete@Brayson: Milo’s a bully who constantly pleads voctimhood when faced with consequences of his decisions. A lot of us don’t like Perez all that much either.
ReplyDeleteYeah free speech is great until you hear something you disagree with.
ReplyDelete@Braydon: It’s still great then, too. Life would be so boring if everyone had one point of view, so I’m all for free speech, but it doesn’t come with freedom from consequences with private individuals.
DeleteAnd anyway, freedom of speech does come with freedom of association. And I choose not to associate with bullies, especially bullies who then whine about being victimized when their speech does cause others to dislike or disassociate with them.
Isn’t America super?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI don't feel sorry for any celebrity who can't pay their home loan(s).
ReplyDeleteThey make enough money to live on. Yet, no one ever made it mandatory they over buy and then can't maintain.
Crying crocodile tears is all this is.
Only bullies think opinions should have consequences.
ReplyDelete@Thot That can be a bullying tactic, yes. Which is why I never said a damn thing about “should.”
DeletePutting words in other peoples’ mouths for negative effect, now, that’s just bullying plain and simple.
Turns out looking favorably upon priests raping children doesn't pay much.
ReplyDeleteFuck Milo. What a thorough asshole.
ReplyDeleteMilo is a paedophile apologist and misogynistic prick. I thought he had been iced out of the right-wing twatterati after he was trying to normalize *gay men grooming young boys?
ReplyDelete*I know the majority of gay men are not paedophiles.
Who's Milo, and what makes him so especially deserving of personal loans?
ReplyDelete@Brayson87
ReplyDeleteMilo didn't wander off the plantation. He wanted to be one of the overseers and he wasn't prepared for the smackdown of people who already knew they were free.
I was thinking Rush
ReplyDelete@Shakey
ReplyDeleteHe's a gay man who appeals to the alt-right by spewing the same shitty, hateful BS they think in order to get their money, and him being homosexual allows them to say they're not homophobic (even though they are).
He got his account yanked by Twitter for being a hateful prick consistently.
Milo wrote honestly about his early gay sex life, he started young and didn't have a problem with that, and everyone went crazy. People from both the left and the right, but mostly the left, who already didn't like him because he provokes for a living used this against him so now you get highly triggered asshats calling him a "pedophile" when he's not. He's a devoted free speech guy and, therefore, not twitter- friendly. Those wusses. And, yeah, this blind is probably him.
ReplyDelete@Amartel "He's a devoted free speech guy..."
ReplyDeleteHa. Hahaha. Yes, as long as that "free speech" gets him lots of press and gigs to talk demeaningly about the gay community and progressive people, that gets him lots of press and gigs to talk demeaningly about the gay community and progressive people, and so on, and so on...
https://spectator.us/fall-milo-yiannopoulos/
+1 Amartel, He was talking in particular about being with an older man when he was at the age consent for that country. As if the term "chicken hawk" just magically came from the gay community for no particular reason.
ReplyDeleteHe also joked about his own molestation, because that was how he preferred to deal with it. He said he never wanted his life to be defined by such a horrible experience, to have such power over him.
The Gay community doesn't cotton to a Polemicist who colors outside the lines. Just ask residents of Wilton Manors. They're rabid.
ReplyDeleteglad to hear this!
ReplyDelete@DaveDixter
ReplyDeleteThe gay community already gets shit on constantly from the straight community ALL.THE.DAMN.TIME.
We surely aren't going to tolerate one of our own shitting on the gay community and the institutions that support the gay community, especially if he's doing it for his own singular monetary gain.
Heterosexuals, support his grifting if you want, but we won't.
That community sure sounds like a plantation, good thing he didn't resist his assigned name too.
ReplyDelete@Brayson87
ReplyDeleteYou're confused. We only get sweaty at the gym or a tropical vacation destination (usually with a delicious cocktail), and the only whipping that happens is consensual, in a sex room or the Folson Street Fair. And Milo fully embraces his assigned name - Kuntis Krusty.
You must be thinking of the putdowns you receive from your other incel friends.
The right loved Milo until he started saying things that implied acceptance of pedo crap and that was when he was cut off. So clearly the right is not as prejudice as some of you all claim. But I mean it is understandable that that was where the line was drawn.
ReplyDeleteAnd anyone who isn't a celebrity that is still on Twitter is clearly a facist as group think is the requirement to be on that platform.
@sandy2319
ReplyDeleteYes, please keep telling yourself that it was a single admission and conservatives never had any idea of what he thought prior, and they were SHOCKED enough to remove him from Breitbart.
Bull.Crap.
A quick Google search makes it clear that he was happy to use STRAIGHT age-of-consent impropriety by liberal people as a talking point to bash liberal people.
A quick Google search makes it clear that he was happy to use GAY age-of-consent impropriety by liberal people as a talking point to bash liberal people prior to 2016.
Breitbart and conservatives didn't give a flying fig what he thought about the issue as long as it was to bash liberal people because he never criticized conservatives accused of underage impropriety.
Because in 2016, he got a little bolder. Through several interviews, he made it clear he was perfectly OK with same-sex age-of-consent impropriety between men and boys. It was just a "coming of age" process and completely natural and normal. He joked about it with Joe Rogan on his show. He talked openly about being taken advantage of at 14 by a Catholic priest as if it was a normal thing.
What did the right say? Nothing. This is when he was being banned from Twitter and criticized from a host of liberal outlets, but yet he still suckered Simon & Schuster into a $250,000 book deal.
But 2017, when he extended this idea to straight people, that age-of-consent laws were arbitrary from a live-streamed video that probably no one would even know about... conservatives suddenly were SHOCKED. But for a single 16-year-old liberal Canadian girl feeding the video to a better known conservative outlet, this live stream would probably have stayed private, and conservatives could pretend his ideology was about those horrible gay people and/or "libertarianism."
Keep telling yourself the right simply had no idea about his views until 2017. Keep saying that it was about pedophilia generally and that he was a convenient scapegoat the right could live with as long as he bashed liberal people.