Milo Yiannopoulos

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

You can probably thank Rush Limbaugh for helping to establish this as the new Republican norm. To justify a dishonest, manipulative and conspiracy theory led process as sound governance should terrify everyone. Sounds more like Putin/RT.com every day.

What do you mean by "this"? And, you probably haven't noticed, whatever Republican "norm" you're referring to, Rush Limbaugh and the Republicans are not tight lately. He has been criticizing their norm for quite a while. It has been a fairly ineffective norm.

And "conspiracy led process"? Are you trying out for a tin hat? And the Republicans are the conspirators? So there was no conspiracy to mislead us with the Benghazi video narrative? Hillary did not conspire to use a private server to keep us from knowing exactly what she was doing? And don't spout that she didn't do anything illegal crap. What difference, at this time, does it make whether it was illegal, immoral, stupid, negligent, or downright silly. She kept what should be public knowledge secret. She knew what she was doing. She was warned against it. There is no valid reason for her to do it. Reductio ad absurdum. Yeah, the conspiracy led process under which the Clintons have governed and memed their entire career should terrify everyone.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Obama didn't fund raise through memes

Sure he did. Memes is a fairly new linguistic notion. But "memes" have been around since the beginning of human consciousness. And most people have been doing things through memes ever since then. It's just lately that someone has coined a word for it.

and Hillary's use of email -- while we all agree wasn't a good idea -- has been a manipulated story from day one, most importantly how the conspiratorial alt-right has influenced the mainstream media.

You're a product.

Yeah, she manipulated the story from day one. And the mainstream media is mostly at war with the alt-right, which is no more conspiratorial than Progressives, Democrats, Republicans (including your favorite--Neo-cons), BlackLlivesMatter, or any other political group or movement.

How about if you actually comment on the video that I posted on, and is the subject of, this thread rather than being a product of conspiratorial Progressive evasiveness and resorting to memes such as "conspiratorial" or "manipulated story".

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by JohnR

So - you posted a statement on how Milo was in a twitter war with Leslie Jones and next to that you posted a photo that in this context could be construed as racist (and in other contexts not btw), in such a ways as to lead people thinking - myself included - that Milo posted the image with the ape. Did you knowingly do this or was that an accident? I spent 20+ minutes looking (I looked some more) for that image and could not find one instance where Milo used it (I don't follow Milo on twitter so I never would have seen it in realtime).

What I see is him being harsh on Leslie for the GB remake and I see her responding against Milo as whitey (drops my opinion of her a little) and him getting tossed.

So in short, if I did not spend 20+ minutes figuring this out I might have made the assumption that Milo posted that photo of the Ape - but that is not the case?

I am glad you did some research unlike others and I was happy to inform you it wasn't him but one of his followers ( as i said who carry his water) the moment you asked your question ... I also posted a link to the news story and the photo.. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-from-twitter/ no attempt to mislead .. it was taken for the story I should have provided the link in the 1st post

the photo was also framed in a question .. do all who support this Milo support this style of speech ( personal attack) hiding behind we need less political correctness ..

[wdmso]

So you tried to post the photo as if Milo posted it, got corrected by john and then switched to

sorry you are not correct I posted a Photo from a news story.. and then I asked if you support that type of Free speech ... and no answer was given

John asked a question and was answered see how that works

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

So you tried to post the photo as if Milo posted it, got corrected by john and then switched to

sorry you are not correct I posted a Photo from a news story..

I apologize for misinterpreting your juxtaposition of the photo with the rest of your post. Perhaps, you should have noted, in the first place, that it was not Milo's post? Your text would have been more coherent that way. Perhaps, you can see how a reader could have "interpreted" it the way John and I did?

That's the problem with "interpretation" outside of the text. Similar to the problem of imposing personal opinion on the text of the Constitution.

and then I asked if you support that type of Free speech ... and no answer was given

John asked a question and was answered see how that works

I'm going to stick to your text. In the first instance, you asked if I"enjoy calling their insults.. Free speech . . ." In this instance, you say you asked if I support "that type of Free speech. . ." So, unless I'm missing something, or misinterpreting you again, it seems that you have evolved from recognizing their insults merely as free speech, to recognizing it as a "type" of free speech. In the first instance, it was not clear whether you even considered their insults as free speech or merely if I enjoyed calling it free speech.

My answer is that I support free speech. That is supposed to include insults. It's irrelevant if I enjoy it or not. That's the way I see how it works.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I am glad you did some research unlike others and I was happy to inform you it wasn't him but one of his followers ( as i said who carry his water) the moment you asked your question ... I also posted a link to the news story and the photo.. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-from-twitter/ no attempt to mislead .. it was taken for the story I should have provided the link in the 1st post

the photo was also framed in a question .. do all who support this Milo support this style of speech ( personal attack) hiding behind we need less political correctness ..

The problem is when people post stuff like this, many won't research it (I research a lot of topics) and people believe too much of what they read without verifying.

But this is a deeper problem, too much superficial discourse and not enough substantial discourse.

Originally Posted by wdmso

So you tried to post the photo as if Milo posted it, got corrected by john and then switched to

sorry you are not correct I posted a Photo from a news story.. and then I asked if you support that type of Free speech ... and no answer was given

John asked a question and was answered see how that works

I support just about any free speech. I might not support the message but I support the ability to have that message. (You backed it up with your service )

I don't support the KKK (I loathe them) but I support their right to free speech - and quick go to jail when they screw up. I don't support BLM but I support their right to protest (until they go illegal).

When free speech is curtailed (common from the left BTW - seen a college campus lately?) we all pay for it.

Originally Posted by detbuch

I'm going to stick to your text. In the first instance, you asked if I"enjoy calling their insults.. Free speech . . ." In this instance, you say you asked if I support "that type of Free speech. . ." So, unless I'm missing something, or misinterpreting you again, it seems that you have evolved from recognizing their insults merely as free speech, to recognizing it as a "type" of free speech. In the first instance, it was not clear whether you even considered their insults as free speech or merely if I enjoyed calling it free speech.

My answer is that I support free speech. That is supposed to include insults. It's irrelevant if I enjoy it or not. That's the way I see how it works.

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

It was sarcasm dude, learn to recognize it.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Then your sarcasm is a product.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

Then your sarcasm is a product.

No, I'm Irish.....it's my heritage
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So there was no conspiracy to mislead us with the Benghazi video narrative?

Not according to 7 investigations.

Hillary did not conspire to use a private server to keep us from knowing exactly what she was doing?

If that were really the case why would she have ever used email to communicate with other government employees? As I've said before, if her primary goal was really secrecy she would have never mixed personal and private email.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Not according to 7 investigations.


If that were really the case why would she have ever used email to communicate with other government employees? As I've said before, if her primary goal was really secrecy she would have never mixed personal and private email.

Her obviously stupid and careless use of her private email server came out of those investigations .

My understanding of the timeline is that she destroyed phones and deleted emails after being subpoenaed by the Congress . I'm sure your understanding is quite different . Are you surprised that the Clintons own a hammer?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Her obviously stupid and careless use of her private email server came out of those investigations .

You're changing the question.

My understanding of the timeline is that she destroyed phones and deleted emails after being subpoenaed by the Congress . I'm sure your understanding is quite different . Are you surprised that the Clintons own a hammer?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, I'm sure Clinton was out behind the shed like old John Henry just smashing away.

From what I've read an admin was asked to clean up her email archives a year earlier, forgot, had his oh bleep moment then did it after the fact. Clinton knew nothing about it.

Don't you render your electronics useless when you recycle them so nobody can get your personal data? Do you have a hammerless method to do this to a phone?

[ecduzitgood]

How many were simply lost?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood

How many were simply lost?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Always possible but the FBI recovered most if not all the work emails from her server as well as just looking into the accounts who sent/received. That's the thing, if you're trying to hide things you don't email them around.

Here's a gem, of the 15,000 recovered only 1 about Benghazi was new and it was someone praising her service

"Please extend to the Secretary my congratulations for her testimony today before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I watched with great admiration as she dealt with a tough and personally painful issue in a fair, candid, and determined manner,"

“I was especially impressed by her ability to turn aside the obvious efforts to politicize the events in Benghazi, reminding Americans of the tremendous sacrifice made by Chris Stevens and his colleagues but also insisting that our ability to play a positive role in the world and protect U.S. interests requires a willingness to take risks.”

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/politi...ton/index.html

We need another investigation.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

You're changing the question.


Yes, I'm sure Clinton was out behind the shed like old John Henry just smashing away.

From what I've read an admin was asked to clean up her email archives a year earlier, forgot, had his oh bleep moment then did it after the fact. Clinton knew nothing about it.

Don't you render your electronics useless when you recycle them so nobody can get your personal data? Do you have a hammerless method to do this to a phone?

I use my phone for both my work and my private email. Now who's the genius?… Me obviously . because the woman you want to be president couldn't figure it out . Ik
On phone number three since the bag phone , yes I'm that old , and I have my old ones still .
Pretty good considering I'm more tech than Hillary and she had 13 phones and a few iPads.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Always possible but the FBI recovered most if not all the work emails from her server as well as just looking into the accounts who sent/received. That's the thing, if you're trying to hide things you don't email them around.

Here's a gem, of the 15,000 recovered only 1 about Benghazi was new and it was someone praising her service



http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/politi...ton/index.html

We need another investigation.

Everything stated above is total bull#^&#^&#^&#^& 👍
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Always possible but the FBI recovered most if not all the work emails from her server as well as just looking into the accounts who sent/received. That's the thing, if you're trying to hide things you don't email them around.

Here's a gem, of the 15,000 recovered only 1 about Benghazi was new and it was someone praising her service



http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/politi...ton/index.html

We need another investigation.

CNN said last nit hat according to the FBI report, the original request to delete the emails came before the subpoena. But after the subpoena was delivered to team Clinton, the IT company told them "we haven't deleted these emails yet, what do you want us to do", and Team Hilary said "go ahead and delete them."

And if Hilary can't grasp that a "C" means classified, then can you seriously claim she is up for this job?

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by JohnR

The problem is when people post stuff like this, many won't research it (I research a lot of topics) and people believe too much of what they read without verifying.

But this is a deeper problem, too much superficial discourse and not enough substantial discourse.




I support just about any free speech. I might not support the message but I support the ability to have that message. (You backed it up with your service )

I don't support the KKK (I loathe them) but I support their right to free speech - and quick go to jail when they screw up. I don't support BLM but I support their right to protest (until they go illegal).

When free speech is curtailed (common from the left BTW - seen a college campus lately?) we all pay for it.

I guess this is where we differ I support free speech until that freedom is used with the intent to stoke hatred promote violence by one group against another or attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation and thats where I separate my support for free speech when that speech's only function is ATTACK ...

Milos post on twitter wasn't to promote an idea .. there was no bigger message from Milos or his followers it was all attack , humiliate and insult a singular person .. and thats just wrong no matter who its done to

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by wdmso

I guess this is where we differ I support free speech until that freedom is used with the intent to stoke hatred promote violence by one group against another or attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation and thats where I separate my support for free speech when that speech's only function is ATTACK ...

Milos post on twitter wasn't to promote an idea .. there was no bigger message from Milos or his followers it was all attack , humiliate and insult a singular person .. and thats just wrong no matter who its done to

If for example I was to say...Don't burn our #&*$ down we need our #&*$ take that #&*$ to the suburbs, burn their #&*$ down we need our weaves.

https://youtu.be/2ukE60gaRIk

Or how about...."Burn this mother#&$*er down" referring to the city.

https://youtu.be/MLlDzWt7TPc

What do you suggest for a penalty?

What about Hollywood, would scripts and actors be exempt? Would existing movies that have what you consider objectionable language have to be destroyed so they can't been seen again?

Would Broadway be exempt or would plays like West side Story need to be prohibited?

Won't this disproportionately effect the non Caucasians who write and produce the majority of rap songs, I suppose it will mean no more royalties for offensive lyrics that are currently producing income for that sector.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

CNN said last nit hat according to the FBI report, the original request to delete the emails came before the subpoena. But after the subpoena was delivered to team Clinton, the IT company told them "we haven't deleted these emails yet, what do you want us to do", and Team Hilary said "go ahead and delete them."

And if Hilary can't grasp that a "C" means classified, then can you seriously claim she is up for this job?

Jim, you're using quotes again for items that aren't quotes.

As for the C marking, it doesn't mean classified. Even Comey said it wouldn't be reasonable for a person to understand the sensitivity of the information based on that marking alone. And even with that, State said it was marked incorrectly.

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, you're using quotes again for items that aren't quotes.

As for the C marking, it doesn't mean classified. Even Comey said it wouldn't be reasonable for a person to understand the sensitivity of the information based on that marking alone. And even with that, State said it was marked incorrectly.

Really....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-handling.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Everything stated above is total bull#^&#^&#^&#^& 👍
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Because it doesn't fit your narrative of Hillary as a Bond villain?

How come they keep releasing, releasing, releasing and nothing sticks? Is your lack of faith in our best investigators that bad?

[spence]

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood

Really....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-handling.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you read any of this stuff before you post it?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Because it doesn't fit your narrative of Hillary as a Bond villain?

How come they keep releasing, releasing, releasing and nothing sticks? Is your lack of faith in our best investigators that bad?

Yes
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, you're using quotes again for items that aren't quotes.

As for the C marking, it doesn't mean classified.

No, it means "Confidential" which is a classification.

The FBI described what it found:

"The FBI identified three email chains, encompassing eight individual email exchanges to or from Clinton's personal email accounts, which contained at least one paragraph marked '(C),' a marking ostensibly indicating the presence of information classified at the CONFIDENTIAL level."

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by spence

Do you read any of this stuff before you post it?

What is your point.
She didn't know what she was signing or......
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

No, it means "Confidential" which is a classification.

The FBI described what it found:

"The FBI identified three email chains, encompassing eight individual email exchanges to or from Clinton's personal email accounts, which contained at least one paragraph marked '(C),' a marking ostensibly indicating the presence of information classified at the CONFIDENTIAL level."

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They asked Comey directly if someone would know this was classified by those markings alone and he said no. Clinton says she doesn't even remember seeing it.

Hell, I don't get 1/2 the emails she did at work and I probably don't read fully more than a fraction and couldn't recall 90%. And I'm for the most part not relying on surrogates to execute my work. Clinton's being held to an impossibly high and unprecedented standard.

And she's still leading by a wide margin

More from those wacky left winger Clinton lovers at the FBI.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/im.../07/comey2.pdf

[The Dad Fisherman]

Stop making excuses.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

They asked Comey directly if someone would know this was classified by those markings alone and he said no. Clinton says she doesn't even remember seeing it

And she's still leading by a wide margin

Actually she doesn't even recall having any instructions or training on classified information. Does that sound normal to you ?

Also she's not leading at all anymore.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Also she's not leading at all anymore.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Electoral college. Come on Buck...

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Always possible but the FBI recovered most if not all the work emails from her server as well as just looking into the accounts who sent/received. That's the thing, if you're trying to hide things you don't email them around.

If you're trying to hide things you delete them. The FBI shouldn't have had to recover her work emails. They should not have been deleted.

Here's a gem, of the 15,000 recovered only 1 about Benghazi was new and it was someone praising her service



http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/politi...ton/index.html

We need another investigation.

No, Spence, another investigation would reveal that you sent that email.