verslibre wrote:The definition of anything Milo says in public. So that's now the fault of the journalists? That's rich, dude.![]()
I don't know what you are trying to say, so I will just repeat my point again.
Milo's statement about journalists getting gunned down was not a public incitement to violence.
The observer headline said he was "encouraging violence."
But it was a text to a reporters.
So who was Milo encouraging to commit violence? The reporters? Against themselves? You fell for click-bait.
verslibre wrote:The proprietor of the Red Hen isn't a notorious attention whore. Obviously. But it's mushroomed, regardless.
You said: "But Sanders' being politely asked to leave a privately owned/run restaurant is a bigger deal."
A national figure being asked to leave a restaurant based upon her beliefs is newsworthy. A text by a notorious troll is not.
Do you think every rude text should be front page news? Or just ones by unemployed Breitbart drag queens like Milo?
verslibre wrote:Nice try, buddy. You said I don't read the links I post. That's in the Observer article. Scroll down. It's right in there. FYI, the "subject" was and is: The guy is an asshole. You can't call him an attention whore AND be defensive for him. His image is a carefully cultivated one.
I'm not being "defensive" of Milo. I'm just calling out a bogus story. Somebody sending a text message is not news.
verslibre wrote:Whatever. Your bias is showing. The same thing happened to Biden years ago. Nobody blinked.
I've already said that a private business should be able to decline service. I don't care if it's Biden or Sanders. Not the issue.
It's funny how you view the world through binary dem vs. republican blinders tho.
verslibre wrote:You do, because you feel compelled to comment on the matter. Maybe you feel defensive for him.
Here's the deal..you fell for a bogus story w/out reading it. The media relies on gullible dunces like you.