Politics 2017 Part 3

[Malcador]

 

Well sex changes aren't like boob jobs, really.

 

This is the outrage du jour? http://m.ocregister.com/articles/beach-743100-beaches-people.html

Yeah I posted that two pages ago. Like I said, it's a non-existent problem. There are many and more miles of beach in that state with affordable and even free accommodations once you get it through your head Santa Barbara, LA, San Jose, etc are going to be expensive and Cosa Mesa and other small towns are not. I grew up in Florida and I can tell you for a fact it is a hell of a lot more expensive to stay in Miami Beach than Crescent Beach but when you are standing on the sand looking at the ocean they both look identical.

Didn't notice the link at the bottom of your post, weird. Well, not a non existent problem, just not that severe to the people affected and not like you give a toss. Partly aimed at improving existing low income housing, anyway. Price of being in a society I guess (added bonus of spinning up libertarians as well )

[213374U]

The Oroville Dam was built by CALIFORNIA Department of Water Resources as part of the CALIFORNIA State Water Project to provide irrigation and electric power to San Joaquin Valley (which is in CALIFORNIA). I missed the part where the FEDERAL Government had anything to do with that. The State of California has the 2nd highest state tax burden in the Unites States. Seems to me Sacramento should be using the money taken from the sweat and labor of it's citizens and fixing it's infrastructure rather than wasting it trying to subsidize low cost beach accommodations. Besides California has some 1400 KM of coastline, there are MANY places where it is inexpensive to vacation. In fact there are many National and State Parks on the ocean that cost almost nothing to visit. Rather than solve problems that sound good but are not really problems perhaps the folks in Sacramento should do what they are supposed to be doing.

 

You won't get any argument from me that fixing the dam should be a higher priority. That being said, the bill was introduced on January 30th, and the dam failed a week later, so the timing just doesn't work as you presented it.

 

Regardless, the bill is a response to research by UCLA that found that, on average, going to the beach is not affordable for many some certain an amount of Californians. Your counterpoint that "you lived in Florida and you could go to the beach" is simply not how research is discredited. Read the report, find flaws with it if you must, and make an argument based on that. Apparently California has a longstanding legislative commitment to make coastal access a reality for everyone. You might disagree with that but that's a different topic.

 

I appreciate your perspective that "nobody should get a dollar they didn't work for", but if you're going to have any taxes at all, that's pretty much a given. I don't like taxes either, but the alternative is abolishing the social contract as it is. You down for that?

Edited February 21, 2017 by 213374U

[Gfted1]

The more that I think about it, the more I realize how badly Im getting screwed by driving myself to work 5 days a week. Check it out: 1) It costs me ALMOST $30 PER WEEK for gasoline 2) annual depreciation of my vehicle due to Illinois roadways 3) ALMOST $1000 PER YEAR for auto insurance 4) ALMOST $10 PER WEEK in assorted road tolls. It literally costs me money to go to work! If papa Illinois would kindly take these burdens off my plate it would be greatly appreciated.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

But dammit I don't think taxpayers should have to cover nose jobs, boob jobs or sex changes!

 

Even if it literally costs a fraction of a cent to you, as an individual taxpayer?

 

It's the principle. If it costs a penny, I WORKED for that penny. I earned it. Every dollar someone gets without working for someone else worked for without getting it.

 

 

I'm glad that your principles are so important to you that you feel personally offended if a fraction of a cent of your tax money goes toward helping people who have been diagnosed by multiple licensed professionals who agree that their symptoms literally can't be alleviated in any other way.

 

I mean, those fancy-ass psychiatrists might consider the treatment to be necessary, but by God, you worked an entire fraction of a second* for that money, you really had to pour your blood and sweat into it, so you definitely know better than those parasites who never worked an honest day in their entire lives!

(The intense study required to successfully complete pre-med, followed by four years of med school, followed by three to eight years of residency technically doesn't count as work.)

 

*Based on average annual income data for electrical engineers, assuming two weeks of vacation, it takes 0.78 seconds of work for one to gain a penny. And we're not even talking about an entire penny, just a small fraction of that!

[Zoraptor]

Yes, but a great one. If you go to someone else's country, and they require you to humiliate yourself, you have a full right to tell them gfy.

 

Depends. Realistically the whole trip was done for stunt value rather than to shore up Le Pen's somewhat shaky diplomatic credentials and that will certainly play well to her base, but it also illustrates that she will have problems if elected dealing with the large number of ex French colonies that are muslim and where a Christian isn't constitutionally always the President as in Lebanon. Her meeting with kind of moderate but currently Saudi puppet Lebanon PM Saad Hariri didn't exactly go well, either, and not due to any veil wearing. She doesn't have any problems appealing to her base anyway and is a shoe in for round 2, but she needs basically every Fillon supporter to then vote for her and there stunts are less helpful.

 

Kind of a low bar for great. Of course, opens one up to have that turned against you when you tell another "When in Rome.."

 

Yeah, but most people who use a 'When in Rome' type argument (for their own country/ immigrants) are actually using it as a cultural superiority argument rather than a cultural acceptance argument. Practically all the potential Le Pen supporters would think "When in France, do as the French do. When in Lebanon... you should also do as the French do, because we're just the best and our values are better than yours" more than anything else. And from that point of view the hypocrisy inherent in wanting immigrants to adopt your culture but not wanting to adopt any else's when in their country doesn't matter.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Yes, but the French aren't moving to Lebanon, if they were you'd have a point. It's like Mexicans waving Mexican flags in US but try that **** in Mexico with an American flag.

[Guard Dog]

 

The Oroville Dam was built by CALIFORNIA Department of Water Resources as part of the CALIFORNIA State Water Project to provide irrigation and electric power to San Joaquin Valley (which is in CALIFORNIA). I missed the part where the FEDERAL Government had anything to do with that. The State of California has the 2nd highest state tax burden in the Unites States. Seems to me Sacramento should be using the money taken from the sweat and labor of it's citizens and fixing it's infrastructure rather than wasting it trying to subsidize low cost beach accommodations. Besides California has some 1400 KM of coastline, there are MANY places where it is inexpensive to vacation. In fact there are many National and State Parks on the ocean that cost almost nothing to visit. Rather than solve problems that sound good but are not really problems perhaps the folks in Sacramento should do what they are supposed to be doing.

 

You won't get any argument from me that fixing the dam should be a higher priority. That being said, the bill was introduced on January 30th, and the dam failed a week later, so the timing just doesn't work as you presented it.

 

Regardless, the bill is a response to research by UCLA that found that, on average, going to the beach is not affordable for many some certain an amount of Californians. Your counterpoint that "you lived in Florida and you could go to the beach" is simply not how research is discredited. Read the report, find flaws with it if you must, and make an argument based on that. Apparently California has a longstanding legislative commitment to make coastal access a reality for everyone. You might disagree with that but that's a different topic.

 

I appreciate your perspective that "nobody should get a dollar they didn't work for", but if you're going to have any taxes at all, that's pretty much a given. I don't like taxes either, but the alternative is abolishing the social contract as it is. You down for that?

 

 

 

The Oroville Dam was built by CALIFORNIA Department of Water Resources as part of the CALIFORNIA State Water Project to provide irrigation and electric power to San Joaquin Valley (which is in CALIFORNIA). I missed the part where the FEDERAL Government had anything to do with that. The State of California has the 2nd highest state tax burden in the Unites States. Seems to me Sacramento should be using the money taken from the sweat and labor of it's citizens and fixing it's infrastructure rather than wasting it trying to subsidize low cost beach accommodations. Besides California has some 1400 KM of coastline, there are MANY places where it is inexpensive to vacation. In fact there are many National and State Parks on the ocean that cost almost nothing to visit. Rather than solve problems that sound good but are not really problems perhaps the folks in Sacramento should do what they are supposed to be doing.

 

You won't get any argument from me that fixing the dam should be a higher priority. That being said, the bill was introduced on January 30th, and the dam failed a week later, so the timing just doesn't work as you presented it.

 

Regardless, the bill is a response to research by UCLA that found that, on average, going to the beach is not affordable for many some certain an amount of Californians. Your counterpoint that "you lived in Florida and you could go to the beach" is simply not how research is discredited. Read the report, find flaws with it if you must, and make an argument based on that. Apparently California has a longstanding legislative commitment to make coastal access a reality for everyone. You might disagree with that but that's a different topic.

 

I appreciate your perspective that "nobody should get a dollar they didn't work for", but if you're going to have any taxes at all, that's pretty much a given. I don't like taxes either, but the alternative is abolishing the social contract as it is. You down for that?

 

First of all the study. You did not read my comment on the beaches in Florida closely enough. I pointed out that there is a big difference in price between visiting Miami Beach and Crescent Beach, or Satellite Beach, or Jensen Beach. I could go on. If it is not affordable to go to Miami Beach, go to one of the 2062 other public beaches or coastal parks between Pensacola and Jacksonville. The study pointed out it costs $135-$265 per night for hotel stays on the coast. Fine Now drop everything south of Santa Barbara and the San Jose/San Francisco are and re-calculate the average. I'd wager is drops by at least 30-40%. If it is too expensive to stay at Laguna or Coranado there are still over 1400 KM of coast line, 167 state parks (36 of which have camping and beach access), 14 National Parks (4 of which have beach access and camping) that have sun sand and face the same ocean as Mission or La Jolla for a hell of a lot less money. And the state does not need to spend a nickel to figure that out. This is government nannyisim wasting money and time.

 

Now, as to your second point. It is tiresome to hear the juxtaposition of notions that anger over wasted taxes means opposition to all taxes. Taxes are a necessary evil. And they are evil. They are theft. My home and my land are paid off. I own the title and deed to both. Yet every year I write check to the Tipton County Tax Collector for over $4k because if I don't they will take both away from me. Makes you wonder if I really own it or just squat here at the sufferance of the state. But things are how they are. Roads, police, fire departments, State Parks, and indeed my own salary must be paid for so I pay my share. The same goes to the percentage Uncle Sam takes out of my paycheck every two weeks. But it boils my blood as it should everyone's, when that money I worked for is wasted, spent frivolously, used to bomb people I have nothing against, or given to feckless crybabies who could take care of themselves but choose not to. And do not twist that into some sociopathic aspersion on the "social safety net".  There does need to be one and indigent people should be assisted to some extent. Primarily in ways that help them back on their feet. Not that turn them into a permanent poverty stricken underclass that can do nothing and get a check better people worked hard to provide. 

 

I recall a long time ago. 1995 give or take. I was working in South Florida. I was working a low paying job and attending school at night (that I paid for myself). I stopped in the grocery store with just $36 left in my checking account. I spent $30 on groceries that I hoped would last two weeks. Ahead of me in line was a young couple who bought a full cart of wonderful things I could not even afford and pulled out a big book of Food Coupons (what they called food stamps back then. Now they get a debit card. Don't want to poor dears to feel bad)  to pay for it all. I didn't pay them much mind until I got into the parking lot and say them loading all that wonderful bounty into a nicer truck than I could ever afford to own. Here I was literally working myself to death trying to improve my situation and these two, late 20's and healthy looking, and just living for free on everyone else. That is just wrong.

[Azdeus]

The more that I think about it, the more I realize how badly Im getting screwed by driving myself to work 5 days a week. Check it out: 1) It costs me ALMOST $30 PER WEEK for gasoline 2) annual depreciation of my vehicle due to Illinois roadways 3) ALMOST $1000 PER YEAR for auto insurance 4) ALMOST $10 PER WEEK in assorted road tolls. It literally costs me money to go to work! If papa Illinois would kindly take these burdens off my plate it would be greatly appreciated.

 

Hmm...

1) Pfft! Weak! I pay 57$. Then again, that only gets me 36 litres of 95 Oktane petrol. =(

2) Yeah, I want this too. The salt used on roads here eats metal like noones buisiness!

3) I've got a much older car than you though, so my insurance is much lower at 370$/year. But I drive a non interesting car from '98.

4) That's what I'd have to pay per day if I worked in the mail department.

 

But, atleast in this shia-law controlled communist hellhole gives me ~1000$ back in tax returns for the fuel

[Gfted1]

Hmm...

1) Pfft! Weak! I pay 57$. Then again, that only gets me 36 litres of 95 Oktane petrol. =(

2) Yeah, I want this too. The salt used on roads here eats metal like noones buisiness!

3) I've got a much older car than you though, so my insurance is much lower at 370$/year. But I drive a non interesting car from '98.

4) That's what I'd have to pay per day if I worked in the mail department.

 

But, atleast in this shia-law controlled communist hellhole gives me ~1000$ back in tax returns for the fuel

Heh, I'm 99% joking. I mean, sure Id like to not have to work, but that's not my lot in life.

 

1) 95 octane! Are you driving a jet fighter? I use 89 octane.

2) Not so much this year (knock on wood) but usually during the winter the only clean part of my car is two graceful arcs on my windshield. The rest is coated with salt.

3) I'm way over-insured. I still carry full coverage even though the car has been paid off for years. Never know when youre going to get hit by a meteorite!

4) That's pretty cool that you get to write off your commute.

[HoonDing]

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

But dammit I don't think taxpayers should have to cover nose jobs, boob jobs or sex changes!

 

Even if it literally costs a fraction of a cent to you, as an individual taxpayer?

 

It's the principle. If it costs a penny, I WORKED for that penny. I earned it. Every dollar someone gets without working for someone else worked for without getting it.

 

 

I'm glad that your principles are so important to you that you feel personally offended if a fraction of a cent of your tax money goes toward helping people who have been diagnosed by multiple licensed professionals who agree that their symptoms literally can't be alleviated in any other way.

 

I mean, those fancy-ass psychiatrists might consider the treatment to be necessary, but by God, you worked an entire fraction of a second* for that money, you really had to pour your blood and sweat into it, so you definitely know better than those parasites who never worked an honest day in their entire lives!

(The intense study required to successfully complete pre-med, followed by four years of med school, followed by three to eight years of residency technically doesn't count as work.)

 

*Based on average annual income data for electrical engineers, assuming two weeks of vacation, it takes 0.78 seconds of work for one to gain a penny. And we're not even talking about an entire penny, just a small fraction of that!

 

I wasn't planning on justifying this nastiness with a response but what the hell. I am feeling combative today. Reading this you make it sound as if I have some problem with gender reassignment as a valid medical treatment. I don't. I couldn't care less either way. If someone thinks this will make them happy and a doctor and psychiatrist agree then by all means go for it. But lets not confuse this with what health insurance is supposed to be about. Health insurance is about keeping people alive and healthy. It is not intended for "elective" things like this, or a nose job, or a boob job. And yes they are all the same kind of thing. I'm more than happy to provide tax money to pay the salaries and benefits of public servants but this is not a liver transplant, or a broken bone repair we're talking about here. This is personal elective procedures that are no one's problem or business but the patient and the cost of which should be borne by the patient. If it was my son or daughter and this is what they needed to be happy I'd pay as much or all of it if I could. But I nor anyone else OWES that to anyone. 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

 

 

But dammit I don't think taxpayers should have to cover nose jobs, boob jobs or sex changes!

 

 

Even if it literally costs a fraction of a cent to you, as an individual taxpayer?

It's the principle. If it costs a penny, I WORKED for that penny. I earned it. Every dollar someone gets without working for someone else worked for without getting it.

 

I'm glad that your principles are so important to you that you feel personally offended if a fraction of a cent of your tax money goes toward helping people who have been diagnosed by multiple licensed professionals who agree that their symptoms literally can't be alleviated in any other way.

 

I mean, those fancy-ass psychiatrists might consider the treatment to be necessary, but by God, you worked an entire fraction of a second* for that money, you really had to pour your blood and sweat into it, so you definitely know better than those parasites who never worked an honest day in their entire lives!

(The intense study required to successfully complete pre-med, followed by four years of med school, followed by three to eight years of residency technically doesn't count as work.)

 

*Based on average annual income data for electrical engineers, assuming two weeks of vacation, it takes 0.78 seconds of work for one to gain a penny. And we're not even talking about an entire penny, just a small fraction of that!

I wasn't planning on justifying this nastiness with a response but what the hell. I am feeling combative today. Reading this you make it sound as if I have some problem with gender reassignment as a valid medical treatment. I don't. I couldn't care less either way. If someone thinks this will make them happy and a doctor and psychiatrist agree then by all means go for it. But lets not confuse this with what health insurance is supposed to be about. Health insurance is about keeping people alive and healthy. It is not intended for "elective" things like this, or a nose job, or a boob job. And yes they are all the same kind of thing. I'm more than happy to provide tax money to pay the salaries and benefits of public servants but this is not a liver transplant, or a broken bone repair we're talking about here. This is personal elective procedures that are no one's problem or business but the patient and the cost of which should be borne by the patient. If it was my son or daughter and this is what they needed to be happy I'd pay as much or all of it if I could. But I nor anyone else OWES that to anyone.

We're not talking about a boob job though, we're talking about people who have been diagnosed by multiple authorites and that the surgery is in the authorities opinion the only treatment that will work. It's not like some guy woke up and wanted to get his **** chopped off for ****s and giggles, it's mlre akin to treating a schizo who is a danger to themselves.

[Malcador]

Yeah but again you are equating it with a boob job but trans people have an argument it is something more necessary. Not just to make them happy. But oh well.

 

 

I find it funny I spend the same amount per week on transit that Gfted1 does on gas

[Azdeus]

Heh, I'm 99% joking. I mean, sure Id like to not have to work, but that's not my lot in life.

 

1) 95 octane! Are you driving a jet fighter? I use 89 octane.

2) Not so much this year (knock on wood) but usually during the winter the only clean part of my car is two graceful arcs on my windshield. The rest is coated with salt.

3) I'm way over-insured. I still carry full coverage even though the car has been paid off for years. Never know when youre going to get hit by a meteorite!

4) That's pretty cool that you get to write off your commute.

1) The higher the octane the less risk of knocking at higher compression ratios of the cylinders, the higher compression ratio the better efficiency.

The lowest available in Sweden and most of Scandinavia iirc is 95, 98 is also available and E85 has 104.

 

2)

 

3) Traffic and theft, can't get full insurance on mine anywhere. *Sob*

 

4) It's pretty neat, but there are alot of caveats; You must save atleast 2 hours of commuting time compared to public transport, and you have to spend atleast ~1100$ before you're eligible to write anything off. And they keep increasing the amount too. Last year it was ~1k$, next year they've increased it again to 1200$ and you're only able to deduct from the funds you go over the limit. Then again, they keep increasing the petrol tax, we're at something like 1.2$/Litre now.

They really want to stop people from commuting.

 

I wasn't planning on justifying this nastiness with a response but what the hell. I am feeling combative today. Reading this you make it sound as if I have some problem with gender reassignment as a valid medical treatment. I don't. I couldn't care less either way. If someone thinks this will make them happy and a doctor and psychiatrist agree then by all means go for it. But lets not confuse this with what health insurance is supposed to be about. Health insurance is about keeping people alive and healthy. It is not intended for "elective" things like this, or a nose job, or a boob job. And yes they are all the same kind of thing. I'm more than happy to provide tax money to pay the salaries and benefits of public servants but this is not a liver transplant, or a broken bone repair we're talking about here. This is personal elective procedures that are no one's problem or business but the patient and the cost of which should be borne by the patient. If it was my son or daughter and this is what they needed to be happy I'd pay as much or all of it if I could. But I nor anyone else OWES that to anyone.

 

It's a really serious situation, and we are in the vast majority of cases talking about keeping people alive. It's not something you can shrug off, it constantly hangs over you and pulls you into depressions. Transgendered people have huge problems with depressions and suicide, and these surgeries help them.

 

Edited February 21, 2017 by Azdeus

[Drowsy Emperor]

I truly wonder if they do, because for all the seemingly plausible justifications in favor of doing them, the end result is just not meant to be. You can get away from a lot of things in life, but not from yourself.

 

Eg. Chelsea Manning suicide attempt way after surgery. 

[213374U]

First of all the study. You did not read my comment on the beaches in Florida closely enough. I pointed out that there is a big difference in price between visiting Miami Beach and Crescent Beach, or Satellite Beach, or Jensen Beach. I could go on. If it is not affordable to go to Miami Beach, go to one of the 2062 other public beaches or coastal parks between Pensacola and Jacksonville. The study pointed out it costs $135-$265 per night for hotel stays on the coast. Fine Now drop everything south of Santa Barbara and the San Jose/San Francisco are and re-calculate the average. I'd wager is drops by at least 30-40%. If it is too expensive to stay at Laguna or Coranado there are still over 1400 KM of coast line, 167 state parks (36 of which have camping and beach access), 14 National Parks (4 of which have beach access and camping) that have sun sand and face the same ocean as Mission or La Jolla for a hell of a lot less money. And the state does not need to spend a nickel to figure that out. This is government nannyisim wasting money and time.

 

Now, as to your second point. It is tiresome to hear the juxtaposition of notions that anger over wasted taxes means opposition to all taxes. Taxes are a necessary evil. And they are evil. They are theft. My home and my land are paid off. I own the title and deed to both. Yet every year I write check to the Tipton County Tax Collector for over $4k because if I don't they will take both away from me. Makes you wonder if I really own it or just squat here at the sufferance of the state. But things are how they are. Roads, police, fire departments, State Parks, and indeed my own salary must be paid for so I pay my share. The same goes to the percentage Uncle Sam takes out of my paycheck every two weeks. But it boils my blood as it should everyone's, when that money I worked for is wasted, spent frivolously, used to bomb people I have nothing against, or given to feckless crybabies who could take care of themselves but choose not to. And do not twist that into some sociopathic aspersion on the "social safety net".  There does need to be one and indigent people should be assisted to some extent. Primarily in ways that help them back on their feet. Not that turn them into a permanent poverty stricken underclass that can do nothing and get a check better people worked hard to provide.

 

No, I did read your comment. I just don't understand why you assume that the ~75% of Californians surveyed are retards and won't just go for cheaper lodging outside of the premium areas, if they want to go to the beach, choosing instead not to go at all. The report states that getting to the beach is actually one of the bigger hurdles (the other being a dearth of available economy accomodations). Thus, the farther they have to go, the greater the cost.

 

Yes, California has 1,400 km of coast, but that's not a terribly relevant bit of data because coastline doesn't mean beach, beach doesn't mean accessible beach, and accessible beach doesn't mean publicly accessible beach. See here. To no one's surprise, the most densely packed beach access points correspond to the most expensive areas.

 

If you want to wager that averages would "drop by at least 30-40%" if you drop the areas south of Santa Barbara and the SF Bay (any other areas you'd like to exclude?), I think you would lose, considering that Pismo Beach, another data point in the survey was $187 per night on average. Still far, even if you reduced it by 40%, from the $82 a median income Californian beachgoer is willing to pay, according to the study. It is known that when reporting in this fashion, people tend to underestimate values, but still.

 

And I'm not trying to twist your stance on taxes. It's funny because I agree that taxes are theft -- they are after all taken by force, with no recourse. But what you consider wasteful and frivolous, to someone else is rightful and fair. It's a subjective matter that inevitably leads to people getting dollars they haven't worked for, from people that worked for but didn't get them.

 

 

Eg. Chelsea Manning suicide attempt way after surgery.

 

Are you psychic? Manning hasn't undergone surgery yet.

Edited February 22, 2017 by 213374U

[Drowsy Emperor]

So its just the appearance change? I presumed he went through the whole thing.

Edited February 22, 2017 by Drowsy Emperor

[Malcador]

Plenty of other things that could have pushed Manning to attempt suicide, at least in prison.

[213374U]

So its just the appearance change? I presumed he went through the whole thing.

 

The Army approved the op in late 2016, but no precise date so far. Not sure he's even getting HRT, probably is, because that's usually required before getting signed off for surgery. And they recently made him cut his hair to comply with prison regulation or something. Dude was apparently rather unstable even before being imprisoned, but I'm no authority.

 

I wonder. If instead of making the outtie an innie, the issue could be "fixed" with brain surgery, would folks be more accepting of that being paid for with taxpayer money? In the end it's a surgical procedure either way, is it really important what part of the body they are operating on?

[Elerond]

So its just the appearance change? I presumed he went through the whole thing.

 

Most of the transition is done via hormone therapy, which actually does most of the changes in the body. Actually surgery is mainly needed for artificial genitalia. Although some people want to use surgery to remove or enhance their masculine/feminine qualities or make transition faster, as hormone therapy takes several years if it even works in first place and don't kill the person or fail to cause visible changes.

[BruceVC]

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/bombthrower-milo-yiannopoulos-belated-backlash-article-1.2978256?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NydnRss+%28Top+Stories+-+NY+Daily+News%29&utm_content=Yahoo+Search+Results

 

Shame poor Milo, resigning from Breitbart. The guy is a disgrace and a bigot and its about time, I cant see him achieving much now and he should fade from the public limelight 

 

He had the audacity to support  pedophilia when he said 

 

“I’m grateful for Father Michael, he boasted, saying that he wouldn’t be as skilled at sex if not for the man who had violated him " 

 

 

I know Milo was a personal hero for some members like Sharp_one but guys its time to find new role-models 

[Malcador]

Nah, he'll just pimp his Patreon. Plenty of suckers for him around

Edited February 22, 2017 by Malcador

[Hurlshort]

 

The funny thing is it doesn't. The suicide ratio is higher after the sex change so the procedure increases the chance of trans people killing themselves.

 

 

That belongs in the alternative facts thread. 

 

http://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-was-lyle-shelton-right-about-transgender-people-and-a-higher-suicide-risk-after-surgery-55573

[BruceVC]

Nah, he'll just pimp his Patreon. Plenty of suckers for him around

I see he also lost his book deal, my day is getting better and better 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2017/02/20/milo-yiannopoulos-loses-his-book-deal-with-simon-schuster-amid-growing-outcry/?utm_term=.6cdbf5548344

[BruceVC]

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/bombthrower-milo-yiannopoulos-belated-backlash-article-1.2978256?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NydnRss+%28Top+Stories+-+NY+Daily+News%29&utm_content=Yahoo+Search+Results

 

Shame poor Milo, resigning from Breitbart. The guy is a disgrace and a bigot and its about time, I cant see him achieving much now and he should fade from the public limelight

 

He had the audacity to support pedophilia when he said

 

“I’m grateful for Father Michael, he boasted, saying that he wouldn’t be as skilled at sex if not for the man who had violated him "

 

 

I know Milo was a personal hero for some members like Sharp_one but guys its time to find new role-models

Bravo Bruce for victim blaming.

Milo was a victim and if this kind of remarks helped him to deal with the trauma then I have no problem with that.

I don't see this comment any more outrageous or supportive of pedophilia than Sarah Silverman, Jeff Dunham, Anthony Jeselnik and legion of others comedians who make this kind of jokes at regular basis.

 

Let's be clear the story has nothing to do with people wanting to fight pedophilia it's a cynical excuse to attack Milo.

 

Besides he appologized for poor choice of words:

http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2017/02/21/milo-apologizes/

 

I personally hope he will be ok.

 

 " I personally hope he will be ok "     

 

You joking right, tell me you joking right?  Oh wait you not joking ....

 

 

So you think his comments about pedophilia are not uncommon, so please give me an example of someone in the public limelight who had been abused by a child molester and made an utterly reprehensible comment like " I am glad I was abused because thats why I am so experienced at sex " ...and I want actual real comments they made similar to this 

 

 

I look forward to your examples