quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bosco

...or claiming that you support NAMBLA or whatever, if you mention Milo's name

("Debate" doesn't get any lower or any less intellectual than that) [:D]

I didn't claim you support NAMBLA
I said you support that scum Milo and HE supports them.
I also stated that a Conservative would not support such a person.


That was a whopper of a lie even for you.

its not a "lie" brainiac---its a straight forward rendering of the phrase "you support NAMBLA boy"

meaning, as written, that bosco is "boy", as in "fetch that book boy."

if you wanted to refer to milo you should have written "you support NAMBLA-boy"

hows that for "getting your ass handed to you?"

quote:

In the interview in a January 2016 episode of the podcast Drunken Peasants,[100] Yiannopoulos stated that sexual relationships between 13-year-old boys and adult men and women can "happen perfectly consensually," because some 13-year-olds are, in his view, sexually and emotionally mature enough to consent to sex with adults; he spoke favourably both of gay 13-year-old boys having sex with adult men and straight 13-year-old boys having sex with adult women.[101][102] He used his own experience as an example, saying he was mature enough to be capable of giving consent at a young age.[97] He also stated that "paedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13 years old, who is sexually mature" but rather that "paedophilia is attraction to children who have not reached puberty."[101][102]

Later in the interview, after his previous comments received some pushback from the hosts, he stated: "I think the [age of consent] law is probably about right, that is probably roughly the right age ... but there are certainly people who are capable of giving consent at a younger age, I certainly consider myself to be one of them."[101] Yiannopoulos would go on to cite his statement, that the age of consent is "probably right," when he was subsequently accused of having supported paedophilia.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

You mean if say a broadcaster's name was....hmmmm...Clinton?... You will have to face up to the fact that there are more liberals for ESPN to worry about than you minority conservatives... stop complaining and change minds....

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: areallivehuman

Strange days indeed,,, strange enough to change the broadcaster, who even knows the announcers name, or cares?

What I find interesting is that ESPN chose to make it public, why not just do it quietly, without fanfare?

Are they looking for brownie points, validation, popularity, ratings? Are their arms sore from patting themselves on the back?

quote:

He was asked nicely and politely to change.

quote:

Even thinking of it meant they were a little deranged.

quote:

His safety was threatened because his name offended their liberal sensibilities.

quote:

What I find interesting is that ESPN chose to make it public, why not just do it quietly, without fanfare?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bosco

...or claiming that you support NAMBLA or whatever, if you mention Milo's name

("Debate" doesn't get any lower or any less intellectual than that) [:D]

I didn't claim you support NAMBLA
I said you support that scum Milo and HE supports them.
I also stated that a Conservative would not support such a person.


That was a whopper of a lie even for you.

its not a "lie" brainiac---its a straight forward rendering of the phrase "you support NAMBLA boy"

meaning, as written, that bosco is "boy", as in "fetch that book boy."

if you wanted to refer to milo you should have written "you support NAMBLA-boy"

hows that for "getting your ass handed to you?"

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

Even thinking of it meant they were a little deranged.

They are Americans, so the deranged is a given.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

Oooo, as I was an English major you just dampened my panties there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

His safety was threatened because his name offended their liberal sensibilities.

No his safety was not threatened, the issue was the idea that his first play-by-play might become a source of conflict and controversy that might harm his future career, and that is exactly what happened. Like I said, you guys are an absurdist's dream.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

Well, if you had bothered to read the linked article, what actually happened is this was going to be Lee's first play-by-play, and ESPN thought that there might be some shitheads who would make a fuss over his name and so they asked him if he would like to do a different game for his debut, and he agreed and asked for a different game.
Funny how shit is not quite as bad as you think when you actually look at the facts, eh?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

Well, if you had bothered to read the linked article, what actually happened is this was going to be Lee's first play-by-play, and ESPN thought that there might be some shitheads who would make a fuss over his name and so they asked him if he would like to do a different game for his debut, and he agreed and asked for a different game.
Funny how shit is not quite as bad as you think when you actually look at the facts, eh?

Ya, funny, wink wink. The largest sports network in the world has a guy making about $70k and trying to break in. He's never been given an announcer gig before. Then the big boss comes in and says,"Bob my boy, wink wink. Wouldn't you like..."