Puterbac News Network and Political Discussion Thread

[aTm]

Trayvon Martin would still be alive today if women couldn't vote.

[Owlman]

Truthfully, I'm not. I'm arguing with those who really want to believe IB but don't why? IB, I recognize is just foolish on this and will keep with his opinion no matter what information presented that should tell him otherwise.

Well what I'm not going to do is say that you have no right to discuss something on this forum because you don't have any credentials on the matter. That is what you just did. You just wimped out owlman.

You are a lawyer. You of all people know you can sue anyone for anything. Zimmerman has a case. He has damages. Whether or not he pursues this case (and if he can actually win or not) is another matter. But he CAN sue. And there are a lot of hungry (unemployed) lawyers out there. He only needs one.

Nice try dodo, but that won't cut it here. We weren't talking about being able to sue were we? We were talking about CNN paying. Hell, I even offered to represent him if all he wants to do is sue (for a price). You aren't getting out of it with that poor attempt to recast your position.

BUSTED!

[Professor Tiger]

IB, you are on record as opposing women voting. You say they are all emotional and are incapable of objective reason.

Just curious; do you think women should also be barred from serving on juries? If women aren't capable of responsible voting, do you also think they are incapable of evaluating evidence and rendering a verdict on guilt and innocence?

I'll start munching popcorn and await your response.

[Professor Tiger]

In other news, looks like Egypt is having its second Arab Spring. I expect John McCain to call for a US invasion of Egypt any day now.

[T Dot O Dot]

IB, you are on record as opposing women voting. You say they are all emotional and are incapable of objective reason.

Just curious; do you think women should also be barred from serving on juries? If women aren't capable of responsible voting, do you also think they are incapable of evaluating evidence and rendering a verdict on guilt and innocence?

I'll start munching popcorn and await your response.

[10ac]

People talking about rioting if Zimmerman is found not guilty. Isn't that racist?

[T Dot O Dot]

not if they get dissed

[T Dot O Dot]

or if he scuffs my air jordans

[Jungle Rat]

Spacer, you should have listened when I said, "I have decided you are a fucking idiot." and moved on. For once I was right.

[Owlman]

I know IB is a fucking idiot. But some people actually believe him for some reason.

[Jungle Rat]

Then we laugh at them too.

[innocentbystander]

IB, you are on record as opposing women voting. You say they are all emotional and are incapable of objective reason. Just curious; do you think women should also be barred from serving on juries?

The majority of women are functionally incapable of understanding cause and effect. Do you agree or disagree?

Correct. They are too emotional. They should not be allowed on juries. They have a very difficult time looking at something objectively if what they are evaluating could (in some small manner) have an emotional impact on them. It is virtually impossible to have an objective, emotionless discussion, with a woman if the topic is rape, domestic violence, divorce, abortion, welfare for single moms, etc, without her getting emotionally involved and raising the volume of her voice. That is one of the reasons why people made such a big deal out of the fact that all six jurors on this Zimmerman case are women. No one would have mentioned (or even cared) if all six jurors were men. But since all we have are women, BOTH counselors are going to try their hardest to influence those women from an emotional standpoint.

I said the majority of women. Not all women are like this, but far too many women are like this. Emotions get the best of them and force women into making irrational decisions that (all too often) have lasting effects on the rest of their lives. One need only glance at the growing trends of single motherhood to appreciate that point. It is all too damning. When we simpler people Tiger, we (as human beings) understood this about women, their limited ability to reason objectively. That is why women (up until just 100 years ago) were regarded as property. A girl was the property of her father until such time as the father could give away the girl to her husband. And at that moment, the girl was now property of the husband. And she was commanded to OBEY her husband in all things. And he was responsible for looking after his wife as his property (pride of ownership, so to speak.) That is why no-fault-divorce has certainly damned our society as marriage is no longer an ownership/property relationship. It is instead renting. And you never take as good of care of something that you rent as opposed to what you own.

Tiger you know what one of the biggest complaints are from the single men in our church Bible study group when we get to talking about single women? Every single one of these men have mentioned to me (repeatedly) about how they are hedging their bets and are most likely not going to marry their girlfriends because these women (all of them) have massive amounts of credit card debt. And when I say massive, I mean over $20,000+ of consumer debt, with nothing to show for it. And these young men always the same things from their GFs, just a boat load of excuses from her as to how she got herself in that situation. But the reasoning is almost always the same thing, these women refused to think about their future when they made their purchases. They simply had to have those things (whatever they were) and they didn't care what effect it would have on their future. This is typically a female trait.

[hedge]

"Well what I'm not going to do is say that you have no right to discuss something on this forum because you don't have any credentials on the matter."

So you think anyone should listen to you if you tried to discuss brain surgery or nuclear physics? You think that pointing out that you don't have a fucking clue of what you're talking about is somehow an unfair observation?

[Jungle Rat]

This has to be a hoax. Nobody is this messed up in the head without posting from a mental facility.

[bluetick]

mother and/or ex-wife issues laced with bouts of bi-curiousity

or..some odd sport

[innocentbystander]

"Well what I'm not going to do is say that you have no right to discuss something on this forum because you don't have any credentials on the matter."

So you think anyone should listen to you if you tried to discuss brain surgery or nuclear physics? You think that pointing out that you don't have a fucking clue of what you're talking about is somehow an unfair observation?

You have linked entirely too many issues here that are not linked. Break it up...

• no one here has to listen to anyone about anything. what you should do is up to you
• anyone here has the right to discuss anything. with the internet, we are now all smart (go looking for what you need)
• anyone here is free to point out that someone is just wrong for any reason they want, but when they start talking about their credentials in the manner that Owl just did, that is pussying out

[innocentbystander]

I know IB is a fucking idiot. But some people actually believe him for some reason.

there are no "fucking idiots" (your words) in this forum

but if people do "believe me" (whatever that means) then what is the reason? you are not an idiot. you know the reason

[Owlman]

Highly unlikely they believe you now on this topic. You've proven yourself to be a fucking idiot on this topic

[innocentbystander]

Highly unlikely they believe you now on this topic. You've proven yourself to be a fucking idiot on this topic

so you've said. but just as Inigo Montoya said in the Princess Bride "You keep using that word. I don't believe you know what it means."

[aTm]

Personally, I would like IB to start writing full page blog entries to put on the site. It's gold.