Looks like my boy got disinvited from CPAC. Damn.

Why no CPAC?

quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:
My opinion: He was afraid to let Milo speak. I'm sure he watched Youtube videos, and knows that Milo is smart, and very quick witted. It was a fight that Maher dodged.

Maher is also smart, but I listened to his opening monolog. Not very funny, and Maher doesn't believe a word of it: That Trump is a Hitler wanna be, very dangerous, totally incompetent. He was pandering to the audience.

Milo says what he believes. Passionately.

It was no match on that basis as well, so Maher just didn't give him a chance to put two sentences together. Then he threw that punch after the bell-- "Get off the Trump train"-- and ran to his panel.

A really douchebag performance.

I thought this summed up my reaction pretty well too.

Midwest guy,

Some conservatives and of course the leftists are trying to paint Milo as a pedophile.

I have read Milo's lengthy disavowal of the podcast. He claims that it was edited to make it sound like he was saying things he never actually said. Would leftists do such a thing?



And he denounces pedophiles in no uncertain terms, having been, he says, a victim of pedophiles.

Fallout from the podcast: His book deal was canceled, and there is talk that he might be fired from Breitbart.

Whether the tape was doctored or not should be clear soon.

quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:
I have read Milo's lengthy disavowal of the podcast. He claims that it was edited to make it sound like he was saying things he never actually said. Would leftists do such a thing?



And he denounces pedophiles in no uncertain terms, having been, he says, a victim of pedophiles.

Fallout from the podcast: His book deal was canceled, and there is talk that he might be fired from Breitbart.

Whether the tape was doctored or not should be clear soon.

I am not sure if this is the podcast/show that they are referencing. Discussion starts around 55:35 into podcast. I am not comfortable with a lot of what he says here. Having sex with a older man is not a coming of age event for a 14 year old boy in my mind.

I can understand a just under 18 and just above 18 having sex, but not a 14 and 28 year old.

I just listened to the whole podcast, and I have to say, it doesn't seem to me that this could be a case of deceitful editing. It is too extensive. It is not at all a matter of, say, deleting "What is his race?"

Keep in mind, I listened prepared to give Milo the benefit of every doubt....

Listen for yourself:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new...ia-article-1.2977071


It's pretty disgusting.

(Yes, that is the podcast I linked here, Skins.)

Well, that's just wonderful.

Christ, Milo...

I wonder how many on the left that will cry out for Milo's head due to being a "pedophile" are also the sort who would advocate clemency for Roman Polanski?

Milo's reply on Facebook to the Pedophilia thing:

I am a gay man, and a child abuse victim.
I would like to restate my utter disgust at adults who sexually abuse minors. I am horrified by pedophilia and I have devoted large portions of my career as a journalist to exposing child abusers. I've outed three of them, in fact -- three more than most of my critics. And I've repeatedly expressed disgust at pedophilia in my feature and opinion writing. My professional record is very clear.
But I do understand that these videos, even though some of them are edited deceptively, paint a different picture.
I'm partly to blame. My own experiences as a victim led me to believe I could say anything I wanted to on this subject, no matter how outrageous. But I understand that my usual blend of British sarcasm, provocation and gallows humor might have come across as flippancy, a lack of care for other victims or, worse, "advocacy." I deeply regret that. People deal with things from their past in different ways.
As to some of the specific claims being made, sometimes things tumble out of your mouth on these long, late-night live-streams, when everyone is spit-balling, that are incompletely expressed or not what you intended. Nonetheless, I've reviewed the tapes that appeared last night in their proper full context and I don't believe they say what is being reported.
I do not advocate for illegal behavior. I explicitly say on the tapes that I think the current age of consent is "about right."
I do not believe sex with 13-year-olds is okay. When I mentioned the number 13, I was talking about the age I lost my own virginity.
I shouldn't have used the word "boy" -- which gay men often do to describe young men of consenting age -- instead of "young man." That was an error.
I am certainly guilty of imprecise language, which I regret.
Anyone who suggests I turn a blind eye to illegal activity or to the abuse of minors is unequivocally wrong. I am implacably opposed to the normalization of pedophilia and I will continue to report and speak accordingly.

And his initial statement on the matter:

A note for idiots (UPDATED):
I do not support pedophilia. Period. It is a vile and disgusting crime, perhaps the very worst. There are selectively edited videos doing the rounds, as part of a co-ordinated effort to discredit me from establishment Republicans, that suggest I am soft on the subject.
If it somehow comes across (through my own sloppy phrasing or through deceptive editing) that I meant any of the ugly things alleged, let me set the record straight: I am completely disgusted by the abuse of children.
Some facts to consider:
1. I have outed THREE pedophiles in my career as a journalist. That's three more than any of my critics and a peculiar strategy for a supposed pedophile apologist.
(a) Luke Bozier, former business partner of Louise Mensch
http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/...o-founder-embroile…/
http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/...uke-bozier-arrested/
(b) Nicholas Nyberg, anti-GamerGate activist who self-described as a pedophile and white nationalist
http://www.breitbart.com/…/lea...gate-critic-sarah-…/
(c) Chris Leydon, a London photographer who has a rape trial starting March 13 thanks to my reporting.
http://www.breitbart.com/…/tec...ling-chris-leydon-…/
2. I have repeatedly expressed disgust at pedophiles in my journalism.
http://www.breitbart.com/…/her...-progressive-left-…/
3. I have never defended and would never defend child abusers, as my reporting history shows. The world is messy and complicated, and I recognize it as such, as this furore demonstrates. But that is a red line for any decent person.
4. The videos do not show what people say they show. I *did* joke about giving better head as a result of clerical sexual abuse committed against me when I was a teen. If I choose to deal in an edgy way on an internet livestream with a crime I was the victim of that's my prerogative. It's no different to gallows humor from AIDS sufferers.
5. National Review, whose journalists are tweeting about this, published an article defending Salon for giving a pedophile a platform.
6. I did say that there are relationships between younger men and older men that can help a young gay man escape from a lack of support or understanding at home. That's perfectly true and every gay man knows it. But I was not talking about anything illegal and I was not referring to pre-pubescent boys.
7. I said in the same "Drunken Peasants" podcast from which the footage is taken that I agree with the current age of consent.
8. I shouldn't have used the word "boy" when I talked about those relationships between older men and younger gay men. (I was talking about my own relationship when I was 17 with a man who was 29. The age of consent in the UK is 16.) That was a mistake. Gay men often use the word "boy" when they refer to consenting adults. I understand that heterosexual people might not know that, so it was a sloppy choice of words that I regret.
9. This rush to judgment from establishment conservatives who hate Trump as much as they hate me, before I have had any chance to provide context or a response, is one of the big reasons gays vote Democrat.
10. In case there is any lingering doubt, here's me, in the same interview the other footage is taken from, affirming that the current legal age of consent is about right: "And I think the law is probably about right. It's probably roughly the right age. I think it's probably about ok. But there are certainly people who are capable of giving consent at a younger age. I certainly consider myself to be one of them, people who were sexually active younger. I think it particularly happens in the gay world, by the way."

^^^Watch the video. Maybe I am not understanding correctly, but it sure sounds like he says certain people are OK to have sex with a 13 & 28 year old. I believe the one I linked is the original full podcast.

I really like Milo and like JustJoe I watched it hoping to find that it was exaggerated, edited, or taken out of context, I was prepared to give him every benefit of the doubt because it's his edgy style. I really can't come away from that comfortable with supporting him at this point.

Hopefully someone can tell me I am wrong, but it really sounds like he says some disturbing things there.

Well, Milo's a libertarian. He's smart, insightful but unbounded by what one would consider to be within conservative limits.

I've always seen him as someone in a side pasture from the main herd. That he would have non-conventional views is really not surprising.

Homosexual is a bridge that some can't accept but favoring or being seen as favoring pedophilia is a bridge too far.

It will probably be used as the next visceral reason to keep him off campuses and from speaking. When he defends himself by saying that some less than 18 year old males are capable of giving consent will not be reassuring to some.

Milo spoke himself into this so he'll no doubt try to speak himself out. As Nero's world burns, he'll no doubt fiddle on.

My wife thinks his book would be a hit on Amazon, though.

I don't care one whit about his rationale and he can come up with any excuse he wants, but someone coming out and publicly saying "I'm grateful for Father Michael. I wouldn't give nearly such good head if it wasn't for him", is not someone that I want carrying the conservative flag.

Good riddance.

As I listened to the podcast I grew more and more disgusted. And angry. (And I am, if in any category, more or less libertarian.) Sure, it's wrong to have sex with children-- but this particular little sexy boy right here is fine. Hell, he came on to me, the little slut. Jerry Sandusky might have thought this way. Men who rape little girls think and talk this way.

I was a great fan of Milo, and if somehow, through extraordinary technical manipulation, he was made to appear to say disgusting things that he never really said, no one will cheer louder.

But if Milo has raped boys, lock him up. Pearls and all. I don't give a shit how smart and quick witted he is. Sandusky was a defensive football genius.

Looks bad. This is why I don't venerate people. We'll see how this pans out, but I cringed while watching the video. Shame too. He was dangerous to the Left, but if he actually advocates man/boy/child sexuality, he's off my radar and I hope he flames out.

I'm not a cheerleader for Milo. I'm not even a big fan. I like the guy's message, and I love the fact that he pisses off the left so much.

I listened. I wasn't offended or outraged at anything he said.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by parabellum:
[/QUOTE] [FLASH_VIDEO]

Hmmm, reddit is on it again...

Feet of clay.