Puterbac News Network and Political Discussion Thread

[Professor Tiger]

Equally comical is Professor Tiger's passion that any revelations wrt what these crooked traitorous sumbitches were up to should be disallowed because they have 'special campaign immunity.'

If a president of one party is using his intelligence services to spy on the inner staff of the other party's nominee, there had better be an EXTREMELY good reason to do so. Those wiretaps (which the Dem's and MSM denied the existence of until yesterday) had better read like...

Trump campaign official: "Sergei, if you can get Comrade Putin to deliver Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin to us, then we will win the election. If that happens, we will give you complete technical plans on the Ford-class aircraft carrier, the Virginia-class submarine, all the Russian codes that the NSA has hacked, and the identities of all the people in your government that are spying for us."

That would be worthy of a FISA and all the Democrat incontinence over Russia. If the investigations find stuff like that, then God bless them for saving us all:

But I doubt the investigations turn up anything like that. It'll probably be:

Trump campaign official: "Sergei, thanks for the specs on that promising oil field in Kamchatka that our joint exploration firm has been looking at. It really looks promising. Let's offer to buy at 15 million USD. But I'm willing to go as high as 20 if Dmitri plays hardball."

If the justification for spying on the staff of the opposition party turns out to be BS like that, then somebody needs to go to jail for weaponizing the first intelligence community for partisan purposes, just like Lois Lerner and John Koskinnen did with the IRS.

[innocentbystander]

A 50-year-old teacher woos

Woos? WOOS???? What in the BLUE FUCK is that? What is this, 1935?

If you are going condemn what I am saying, don't use meaningless, subjective terminology. It makes you sound like a feminist.

and romances a child for months -if not years- before running off with her at age of 15 and you're generally okay with it? I can't even...

You either didn't read what I wrote or maybe (just maybe) you aren't competent enough to comprehend it. What do they teach you in Alabama if not reading comprehension? I called him a criminal. That is what he is. Go back and re-read. I am not generally okay with what he did. I also said that if I were her dad (does she have a dad?????) that I would want to be alone with this guy in a room for 5 minutes. Let me assure you AA, there wouldn't be much conversation. What I said was if he had done what he did in Alabama and she was 16 (old enough to give consent in your state) we probably wouldn't have heard about this.

And well, great that you have a state law against students and teachers having sex. Would it make any difference to you if she 16 and was a student at ANOTHER school (that he didn't teach at) and she gave consent and they had sex? He wouldn't be a criminal, does that make it alright?

If they want to give him a lethal injection, I'll start the IV for free.

Mr. Internet Tough Guy!!!!!! We are soooooooo lucky to have someone like you looking out for our young, impressionable girls, who are "wooed" by such charming and sophisticated men as this pig. What a man you are!

In all seriousness, they are going to catch him. He's on the run. They will find him. $4500 is not going to keep them in anything better than sleeping in the car and peanut butter sandwiches. I'm thinking she might bolt in the middle of the night at some point. And he will do time, maybe 10 years in pound-me-in-the-ass federal prison. We have to set an example here. My only point is that geography and the fact that she was 15 (and not 16) is what made this whole thing such a federal offense. But I am still disgusted by men like this. He's not really a man.

Let me put it another way, maybe in way that you can understand. In my mind, I would think the same of him if the girl was 18. He wouldn't be a criminal, but he'd still be a deviant. He's just not a deviant that we could prosecute.

[innocentbystander]

"She went willingly with Ted and (as such) is probably not in any life-or-death danger."

I guess IB skimmed over this part of the article he linked:

"Moreover, evidence has surfaced that (Elizabeth) became fearful of Cummins' reaction to his suspension and her belief that he would punish her in some way for it," according to the court filing obtained by ABC.

I read it. I don't believe it. They have lots and lots of evidence of this girl all happy and smiling walking into WalMart with this guy. She went willingly. Doesn't make it right, but it does explain how they are still on the run.

I guess that Beauty and Beast Stockholm Syndrome kicked in a bit earlier than it usually does?

The father alleges in the court filing that Cummins picked up Thomas from her house for a meal, "threatening her that if she did not go with him she would face repercussions at school,"

Hedge, are you brain dead? That is about the most retarded excuse I've ever heard.

Your 15 year old daughter tells you that she has to go away with her 50 year old ex-teacher for dinner because if she doesn't she will face repercussions at school. How would he know that exactly unless she told him? And then she leaves with him? You are okay with this? You are going to let your 15 year old daughter go of she told you that? If you don't let her go (and I know you wouldn't, none of us would) what makes you think any other dad, would?

Come on guys, use your heads. Think about what is really going on here.

[AlabamAlum]

A 50-year-old teacher woos

Woos? WOOS???? What in the BLUE FUCK is that? What is this, 1935?

If you are going condemn what I am saying, don't use meaningless, subjective terminology. It makes you sound like a feminist.

and romances a child for months -if not years- before running off with her at age of 15 and you're generally okay with it? I can't even...

You either didn't read what I wrote or maybe (just maybe) you aren't competent enough to comprehend it. What do they teach you in Alabama if not reading comprehension? I called him a criminal. That is what he is. Go back and re-read. I am not generally okay with what he did. I also said that if I were her dad (does she have a dad?????) that I would want to be alone with this guy in a room for 5 minutes. Let me assure you AA, there wouldn't be much conversation. What I said was if he had done what he did in Alabama and she was 16 (old enough to give consent in your state) we probably wouldn't have heard about this.

And well, great that you have a state law against students and teachers having sex. Would it make any difference to you if she 16 and was a student at ANOTHER school (that he didn't teach at) and she gave consent and they had sex? He wouldn't be a criminal, does that make it alright?

If they want to give him a lethal injection, I'll start the IV for free.

Mr. Internet Tough Guy!!!!!! We are soooooooo lucky to have someone like you looking out for our young, impressionable girls, who are "wooed" by such charming and sophisticated men as this pig. What a man you are!

In all seriousness, they are going to catch him. He's on the run. They will find him. $4500 is not going to keep them in anything better than sleeping in the car and peanut butter sandwiches. I'm thinking she might bolt in the middle of the night at some point. And he will do time, maybe 10 years in pound-me-in-the-ass federal prison. We have to set an example here. My only point is that geography and the fact that she was 15 (and not 16) is what made this whole thing such a federal offense. But I am still disgusted by men like this. He's not really a man.

Let me put it another way, maybe in way that you can understand. In my mind, I would think the same of him if the girl was 18. He wouldn't be a criminal, but he'd still be a deviant. He's just not a fan deviant that we could prosecute.

1. If you don't know what "woos" means, look it up on-line. Preferably on a site with pictures and third-grade English, you ridiculous cock-gobbling idiot.

2. I stated you were "generally okay" with it because you said it was "nonsense" and that she went willingly (facts not in evidence), and palliated it with 'she will stay until the money runs out' (facts not in evidence); that you disagreed with the Amber Alert; that she was just "hopping up and down on his dick"; and finished with some mind-blowingly retarded "because she is just a year from age of consent in a different state" horseshit. She is legally a child. A child born in 2001.

3. Starting an IV does NOT take a "tough guy" - the best person I have ever known at starting an IV was a 90-lb woman. What makes the tough-guy horseshit from you sooo funny is how you talked about as her dad, "5 minutes alone with him and justice would be served". Tad Cummins would kick the living shit out of you. I doubt it would take him 5-minutes to do so, as well.

In my mind, I would think the same of him if the girl was 18.

I am not shocked you feel this way. It's seriously fucked-up, though. But it speaks well to your pathology.

In fact, this whole stream of consciousness on the rape of a 15-year-old child dovetails nicely with your "women must submit to being raped (because jebus)" and that "women shouldn't be allowed to vote"...you know, you are like the goat-herding fundamental muslims on some rocky crag outside of Kabul. The goat-herder herder has an excuse. You have none.

[bluetick]

Apparently this abduction case has filled the void for those pathetic manosphere cucks now that Westworld is finished for the season.

[hedge]

The main reason IB posted anything about this at all was so he could ventilate his sexual fantasies (the girl hopping up and down on his dick, and several mentions of federal prison rape scenarios)...

[bluetick]

Equally comical is Professor Tiger's passion that any revelations wrt what these crooked traitorous sumbitches were up to should be disallowed because they have 'special campaign immunity.'

If a president of one party is using his intelligence services to spy on the inner staff of the other party's nominee, there had better be an EXTREMELY good reason to do so. Those wiretaps (which the Dem's and MSM denied the existence of until yesterday) had better read like...

Trump campaign official: "Sergei, if you can get Comrade Putin to deliver Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin to us, then we will win the election. If that happens, we will give you complete technical plans on the Ford-class aircraft carrier, the Virginia-class submarine, all the Russian codes that the NSA has hacked, and the identities of all the people in your government that are spying for us."

These little set-pieces you devise must play really well in your own head... but maybe that's where they ought to stay. Just sayin'.

[sardis]

I think I speak for many, who have been on this board a while, that hearing Hedge put IB to the task about age of consent is laughable.

[Professor Tiger]

Tick, I've got another set piece for you. If it was discovered that outgoing VP Dick Cheney, just before left office, got FAISA warrants to spy on Houma Abbadin, which gave him access to all her communications with future POTUS candidate Hillary Clinton, would you be okay with that?

I hope that wasn't too complicated for you.

[bluetick]

heh I was going to respond but you edited out the Muslim Brotherhood and sexual perversion parts...so I'll just wait and see if this is your fantasy in it's final form.

[Professor Tiger]

The justification for a Cheney FISA on Houma will be in the follow up. Proceed.

[Professor Tiger]

Another item from the "You just can't make this up" department. At first I thought this was from The Onion, but it from HuffPo.

Could It Be Time To Deny White Men The Franchise?

The influence of reckless white males were one of the primary reasons that led to the Great Recession which began in 2008. This would also strike a blow against toxic white masculinity, one that is long needed.

A withholding of the franchise from white males, along with the passing of legislation in this period to redistribute some of their assets, will also, to a degree, act as the reparations for slavery, colonialism, and apartheid, which the world is crying out for to be paid.

Although this may seem unfair and unjust, allowing white males to continue to call the shots politically and economically, following their actions over the past 500 years, is the greater injustice.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.za/shelley ... _22036640/

The little snowflake writer of this article might be a Democrat SCOTUS nominee someday.

[innocentbystander]

I think I speak for many, who have been on this board a while, that hearing Hedge put IB to the task about age of consent is laughable.

I was wondering when someone was going to call him out....

[hedge]

I'm quite comfortable in the knowledge that, concerning women at least, my moral compass is far truer than yours...

[innocentbystander]

I'm quite comfortable in the knowledge that, concerning women at least, my moral compass is far truer than yours...

Horseshit hedge. Mine is a CONSISTANT position. Liberals, trad-cons, and wack-jobs like AA, their moral compass is all over the map. That is what happens when you spend your life eating blue pills and believing that all men are innately bad and all women are innately good.

Here is my moral compass....

• From the moment Eve told God to fuck off, ate the apple, and offered said apple to Adam, she proved that women are NOT moral agents
• As such, women have no business voting in a Democratically elected secular Republic
• As such women need to be told what to do by their Patriarch, a man that knows that God gave man a greater sex drive than he gave women
• And feminism is just Satan giving women more apples

No 15 year old boy is going to run off with a 50 year old woman. They will fuck their hottie, 24-year-old, bi-polar-1, teachers, if given the chance (and we wont prosecute her because.... she's a woman and deep down we know that women are NOT moral agents.) But the boy is not going to run away with a 50 year old woman. No way, no how. Because the boy may be ruled by his penis, but he will have the most basic level of agency ruled by common sense not even remotely evident in this case. And no 50 year old woman is going to run off with a 15 year old boy anyway.... women follow Briffault's Law:

The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place. — Robert Briffault, The Mothers, Vol. I, p. 191

In following, there are 3 corollaries:

• Past benefit provided by the male does not provide for continued or future association.
• Any agreement where the male provides a current benefit in return for a promise of future association is null and void as soon as the male has provided the benefit.
• A promise of future benefit has limited influence on current/future association, with the influence inversely proportionate to the length of time until the benefit will be given and directly proportionate to the degree to which the female trusts the male.

The 15 year old boy brings nothing to the table from a "benefit" standpoint with a 50 year old woman. The case with Tad Cummings, the 15 year old girl brings EVERYTHING he needs to HIS table.

We can't let women make decisions, make laws. Its too difficult. Their interests are entirely self-centered, what is in their OWN best interest (never what everyone else may want.) You can't found religion on that. You can't found government on that. You can't found business on that. You can't found civilization on that.

[AlabamAlum]

lmao

[innocentbystander]

lmao

laughing (and NOT arguing) was the smartest thing you could have done. it shows that you know damn well, that I'm logical and correct. and any vain effort on YOUR part to try and prove otherwise, would just make you look like an ignorant ass

[Cletus]

When you start with the premise:

'From the moment Eve told God to fuck off, ate the apple, and offered said apple to Adam, she proved that women are NOT moral agents"

everything that follows fails.

[AlabamAlum]

IB:

No, it means nothing of the sort.

Nothing about that is logical or correct. Even your interpretation of the fable of Adam and Eve is crazy. Eve was seduced by Satan himself and ate the fruit of the tree (I do not believe the Bible specified it was an Apple). So, she told Adam, and he ate, too - even though he wasn't manipulated by the Devil. And because of this and despite all the evil men do in your bible - from Adam eating the fruit, to his son, Cain, the heretics, the pharaohs of Egypt in the time of Moses, the Romans with Christ, and...well, you get the idea. But none of that matters, right? Because of the fable of Adam and Eve in your Christian mythology, all women through the millennia should have muted or reduced freedoms and Adam gets a pass?

You're a fruitcake. A primitive baboon -maybe a lemur- and you spew your fucked-up ideology as some sort of moral truth - though it is neither. I've wasted too many keystrokes responding to you.

From now on, when you engage me, my pat response to you is, "IB, you are a cock-gobbling fucktard." So, engage me ONLY if you want to see that line. Somehow, I think deep down you like being called that. Anyway, we shall see.

[innocentbystander]

When you start with the premise:

'From the moment Eve told God to fuck off, ate the apple, and offered said apple to Adam, she proved that women are NOT moral agents"

everything that follows fails.

Well.... (shrugs) ...that IS what she did. Where do you think female nature of rebellion started? When you give women life and death choices, choices that affect the lives of so many other people (like all these law enforcement agencies canvasing the Southwest looking for 50 year old Ted and 15 year old Beth) they invariably pick the bad ones. And its feminism that stipulates that we all must sit here, allow those choices to continue, and shut up about it.

Find the flaws in the following youtube....

[youtube]PlT-dq9cn7o[/youtube]

....I'll give you a hint, there are none.