CSNbbs

Full Version: Gay speaker threatened on stage by a church leader
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
I'm sure Tom will be all over this...

http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/05/24...-minister/
Man Who Threatened Milo At DePaul Identified As Church Minister Edward Ward

“The campus left constantly brands people like me as “dangerous,” a threat to student safety and wellbeing. Yet they’re the ones who are happy to threaten a gay British conservative with physical violence. Even more astonishing is the fact that Mr. Ward is apparently a Minister. I don’t think his actions today were very Christlike” said Yiannopoulos.

“Will DePaul have the courage to discipline Edward Ward for his behaviour? In a normal world they would, but there’s a nasty institutionalized habit of letting left-wing activists get away with the worst of offences. After all, despite forking out nearly a grand in security costs, they wouldn’t even stop the activists from storming the stage.”
I am sure Tom will defend Milo, cough cough
(05-25-2016 12:25 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote: [ -> ]I am sure Tom will defend Milo, cough cough

He'll I'm sure he'll find a way to spit it out.
(05-25-2016 01:20 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-25-2016 12:25 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote: [ -> ]I am sure Tom will defend Milo, cough cough

He'll I'm sure he'll find a way to spit it out.

He and his friends are probably doxing the church leader right now to dig up dirt and start a smear campaign on.
Full encounter. Cringeworthy as f*ck, so be prepared.


We have already been told that Milo Yiannopoulos is not a proper gay, and that he will get no support from the Perpetually Offended.
Look. He's Gay for pay. Not really a member or a representative of the LGBT community. Basically his career appears to be the go to guy for antigays when they need someone "Gay" to say whatever the antigays say. Violence isn't the answer, but he's no representative of the LGBT community.
(05-25-2016 01:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ]Look. He's Gay for pay. Not really a member or a representative of the LGBT community. Basically his career appears to be the go to guy for antigays when they need someone "Gay" to say whatever the antigays say. Violence isn't the answer, but he's no representative of the LGBT community.

Because you say so? Everyone has to be on same page. Next up you be telling all black people how they should vote.
Right on schedule......
(05-25-2016 01:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ]Look. He's Gay for pay. Not really a member or a representative of the LGBT community. Basically his career appears to be the go to guy for antigays when they need someone "Gay" to say whatever the antigays say. Violence isn't the answer, but he's no representative of the LGBT community.

Sadly, for you, people opposed to your intersectional world view are not identity politic junkies.

Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I do not, and unless he is talking about homosexuality that aspect of who he is never enters into it.

Typically he is attacking third wave feminism and the harm it does to men and he also attacking how the regressive left is an enemy of expression and speech.

Because I don't do identity politics I can agree with him sometimes and disagree with him at other times. You know... I can think.
There are Gay people who vote Republican. They're deluded, but usually part of the community. They usually don't support the anti Gay agenda. But more importantly, they are NOT PAID to take positions contrary to the LGBT community. Milo appears to be compensated to sell out the community.
(05-25-2016 01:35 PM)Kronke Wrote: [ -> ]Full encounter. Cringeworthy as f*ck, so be prepared.



Those hateful bigots have no idea what to do @ 10:00 to 13:00 other than act the fool and try to shut down speech. This is what happens when you stray off the liberal plantation.
(05-25-2016 01:50 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ]There are Gay people who vote Republican. They're deluded, but usually part of the community. They usually don't support the anti Gay agenda. But more importantly, they are NOT PAID to take positions contrary to the LGBT community. Milo appears to be compensated to sell out the community.

Again... most of what Milo talks about has *0* to do with being gay. That's his appeal and thats wisdom.

I said in another thread that when you share the gospel with someone it's best not to pick a pet sin. If you're talking to a homosexual about christ or you're talking to a fornicator then don't bring up that sin, we all have many sins.

I've seen a lot of Milo's talks and they don't seem to focus at all on homosexual issues. He is pro-gay marriage and he is anti-discrimination. I'm not sure what "anti-LGBT issues" you think he is paid to take.

Milo first really hit the seen with gamer gate, something that had *0* to do with homosexuality.
(05-25-2016 01:50 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ]There are Gay people who vote Republican. They're deluded, but usually part of the community.


Pure Thought Liberals are so amazed that other people could have a different opinion from them that they physically don’t want to hear different opinions. Amazing.

(05-25-2016 01:50 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ]They usually don't support the anti Gay agenda. But more importantly, they are NOT PAID to take positions contrary to the LGBT community. Milo appears to be compensated to sell out the community.

Hopefully you're encouraging all LGBT speakers who have been paid for their opinions to return their money, stat.

But you're not, are you?
(05-25-2016 02:08 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-25-2016 01:50 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ]There are Gay people who vote Republican. They're deluded, but usually part of the community.


Pure Thought Liberals are so amazed that other people could have a different opinion from them that they physically don’t want to hear different opinions. Amazing.

(05-25-2016 01:50 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ]They usually don't support the anti Gay agenda. But more importantly, they are NOT PAID to take positions contrary to the LGBT community. Milo appears to be compensated to sell out the community.

Hopefully you're encouraging all LGBT speakers who have been paid for their opinions to return their money, stat.

But you're not, are you?

Those people are being paid BY Gay people to advocate on their behalf. Milo is being paid largely by people who oppose Gay equality.

Milo is a member of the overwhelmingly anti Gay Breitbart community. He's a useful idiot to them.
(05-25-2016 02:14 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-25-2016 02:08 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-25-2016 01:50 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ]There are Gay people who vote Republican. They're deluded, but usually part of the community.


Pure Thought Liberals are so amazed that other people could have a different opinion from them that they physically don’t want to hear different opinions. Amazing.

(05-25-2016 01:50 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ]They usually don't support the anti Gay agenda. But more importantly, they are NOT PAID to take positions contrary to the LGBT community. Milo appears to be compensated to sell out the community.

Hopefully you're encouraging all LGBT speakers who have been paid for their opinions to return their money, stat.

But you're not, are you?

Those people are being paid BY Gay people to advocate on their behalf. Milo is being paid largely by people who oppose Gay equality.

Milo is a member of the overwhelmingly anti Gay Breitbart community. He's a useful idiot to them.

How are they anti gay?
So it's okay to sell out to gay people but not to straight people?
Milo doesn't meekly comply with the directives from the Gaystapo so they feel he must be ground under the heel of their bedazzled jackboots.

It's the Gaystapo way.

[Image: Z8Awngw.gif]
(05-25-2016 03:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]So it's okay to sell out to gay people but not to straight people?

He needs to be a part of the cult movement or he is not gay, he is homosexual. Tom said so himself. I told you they recruit. Reminds me of Amway.
University Admins Surrender to Violent Protesters, Shutter Event

If you know a good constitutional law professor, please introduce me to her. I’m confused about the First Amendment, and I need answers.

Until yesterday, for example, I never realized that forcibly shutting down a private speaking event was considered free speech. I was also surprised to learn that assaulting a police officer is now a form of protest. It certainly never occurred to me that making violent threats towards a speaker was a constitutionally protected right. In fact, I was pretty confident all three of these acts were illegal...highly illegal.

Yet, yesterday I saw radical protestors do all three of these things, without consequence. DePaul University administrators looked on dispassionately, as if this was an every-day occurrence. Watching this all unfold, I had to wonder for a moment whether DePaul administrators were defending some bizarre form of free speech I had never heard of.

They weren’t. They knew they were tolerating a dangerous suppression of speech, but in the face of adversity they chose to do the easy thing, rather than the just thing. As usual.

Years of inaction by university administrators has left radical student activists feeling they are immune from the law. Free from consequences, or dissenting opinions, endowed with a feeling of moral high-ground, students have taken increasingly drastic steps to suppress other opinions, and conservative opinions in particular.

I watched from the front row yesterday as a whistle-blowing “protester” stormed the stage of an event featuring conservative commentator Milo Yiannopoulos, with about a dozen more radicals following behind him. The event was privately organized by students, requiring months of planning and painstaking fundraising, but that never even factored into their heads. Administrators have handed them a bubble, a “safe space” where they don’t need to consider the impact of their actions on other students.

One protester forced a microphone out of the hands of the event’s student moderator and screamed into it. She danced to the sound of the audience’s boos, and berated a woman who came to confront her. She was screamed off the stage when she tried to appeal to the radical’s humanity, “I know your parents didn’t raise you to be disrespectful”. Her parents didn’t, but her university did.

Another protester threatened Yiannopoulos with physical violence, and yelled at disgruntled audience members to shut the #$%@ up. Other protesters blew whistles into the Public addressed system, deafening the 550 students who had travelled from across the midwest (some driving four hours or more) to see Yiannopoulos speak.

While an invited speaker was harassed and harangued by protesters, DePaul administrators cowered indecisively in a corner. Faced with a serious challenge to first-amendment rights on their campus, they were visibly frightened of confronting the protesters, who tied themselves to the”Black Lives Matter” movement.

Administrators had fought against hosting the conservative event for over three months. As they watched the event unravel, they seemed almost relieved to see the radical protesters fulfill their wishes. The rights implications were utterly lost on them. All they wanted was a nice, quiet, homogeneously-thinking campus.

Only days before the event, administrators had demanded that DePaul College Republicans, the club that hosted the event, pay hundreds of extra dollars in security costs. This was a clear breach of contract, but the organizers paid the fee under threat of cancellation. Yet, after ordering a dozen security officers, the administrators prevented them from restoring order, forcing them to stand down.

I talked to a few of the dozen Chicago police officers eventually called into the building, and they were irate. They were well-trained, and well-equipped to handle scenarios such as this. They wanted to do their job, and remove the protesters, but administrators demanded they stand passively and watch. Once again, violence prevailed over free speech on a liberal college campus, and the administration was 100% complicit.

This is an incredibly serious issue. Students who go through US universities will lead our country through a challenging future. If they are not exposed to a variety of viewpoints, they are at a serious disadvantage in meeting those challenges. This is the rare issue where leaders from both parties, including Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump all agree; yet university administrators at DePaul, and across the country refused to confront the issue, afraid to take a stand against militant activism.


When administrators told Yiannopoulos his event was done, he was fuming. He called on his supporters to go with him to the offices of DePaul’s president, to lodge a formal complaint. Five hundred people walked towards the administrative building to chants of “USA” and “Let him speak”. Fifteen minutes later they arrived at the president’s office to find his door locked and barricaded. There would be no open dialogue today.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/univ...53ae7b5ae3
Pages: 1 2
Reference URL's