Andrew Tate does Russian Propaganda on Tucker Carlson

Plum the good points about Tate you point out are in these weasels eyes bad points. They expect their women folk to protect them!

Poor Rooitwit did some research he says and landed up at Wikipedia a far left website that was bound to attack Tate. Wikipedia are not doing very well these days. 

I agree Plum let's see what the court says.

The trouble with  the very dense frot five (Let's include the hapless DA) is that they lack the ability to sift through something and filter out the false from the truth. 

They complain about Scott Ritter. If Scott Ritter says 1 plus 1 =2 they would be howling about how you can't trust Ritter because apparently he dated an under age girl.

Well I can't trust anybody addicted to very tight pink tights. Bwahahahahahaha.

I also didn't think everything Tate said aligned with my views but also acknowledge he made many excellent points. That is why people like me get to the truth and assess matters far better than any frot 5 jackass.

"they lack the ability to sift through something and filter out the false from the truth"

"you can't trust Ritter be cause apparently he dated an under age girl"

It is actually quite hilarious, but also concerning, how you constantly try and convince yourself of your own bullshit Beeno

Just because you keep repeating it, doesn't make it any more truthful ....

Hall Of Fame

10556 posts

Draad, what's not to like about the guy?

...Tate says a ton of things that I agree with.

-----------------------------------------
If someone wants to build a media personality being a misogynist, they better have a clean record in real life.

Instead, he is being investigated for rape, and numerous other sexual related crimes - let's just let that slip because there are tons of things that Plum agrees with. 
-------------------------

With such a persona of a misogynist, even if be remote chance he was innocent- many people will think he is guilty. 

And the new word of the year  goes to beenshit

thstvYatevusctraffickubg

Eagerly awaiting for this to be added to the English dictionary so I can find out WTF it means (and learn the correct pronunciation)

So Stav is basically wagging his finger and saying that it's ridiculous to for someone to have good points while also being charged with human trafficking. That is not a presumption of innocence.

No I was simply pointing out the irony of Beeno posting a thread about Donald Trump calling for the death penalty of traffickers and in another post praising the points of individual charged with trafficking. Just like how Beeno goes on about evil perverts and then keeps posting content from a convicted sex offender.

BTW the whataboutism is strong in this thread. Where have I come across that before.

"Just like how Beeno goes on about evil perverts and then keeps posting content from a convicted sex offender"

Just like how Beeno also keeps deliberately posting lies about what Ritter actually did.... protecting and defending a known convicted sexual predator.

The forum pervert.... calling others perverts

Insidious

Irrespective of how this goes, let's at least clear up some false information here....

As far as I can tell, out of the thousands of woman that worked for him, two came forward as "witnesses".

Nope... 7 alleged victims have come forward and laid charges

This is out of the literal thousands of woman that worked for him.

Nope .... less than 80 women worked for both brothers ...

Far as I understand, he made a lot of women a lot of money.

So by this reasoning, there are thousands of men that make a lot of money for prostitutes in South Africa every single day..... by using their services.......so does that give them all the right to strangle them, hold them hostage.... physically abuse them ....and also rape them at will.....

"Ritter was arrested again in November 2009[40] over communications with a police decoy he met on an Internet chat site. Police said that he exposed himself, via a web camera, after the officer repeatedly identified himself as a 15-year-old girl.[5] Ritter said in his own testimony during the trial that he believed the other party was an adult acting out her fantasy.[7] The chat room had an "age 18 and above" policy, which Ritter stated to the undercover officer.[5]

According their precepts I should never listen to any of the frot 5. They are pervs after all . Bwahahhahahahahaha

These dumbasses cant understand that Ritter views on the war are worth passing on because they are correct as events are PROVING. 

The frot 5 prefer that the lies spewed forth by the fake news Globalist media prevail. They prefer the truth was not revealed that US led NATO instigated this war and are to blame for ALL the death and destruction. They prefer that it was not revealed that Russia has won the war.

Hence their intense dislike of Scott Ritter. The joke is these pervs cant stand Ritter who they claim is a perv like them BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Hilarious stuff form the pervs!

I could care less what Ritter says about the war Beeno

It is your constant and staunch defense of Ritter, saying that he did nothing at all wrong, to any young girls, that makes you the forum pervert...

Stop deflecting and saying that it's about the war.... because it has fuck all to do with the war.

You continually state that Ritter has never done anything indecent or illegal to young girls....yet he was criminally convicted for it and went to jail.... after plenty of evidence was put forward...

So carry on deflecting and supporting your pervert.... you pervert 

How about you stop lying DA you frot vis. I said I have not investigated the matter but that somebody here said that he thought the girl was not underage. 

I obviously do not support pedophilia as all my post show. Unlike you frot 5 who are deathly quiet on the subject. 

Where is you outrage regarding abortion, about child traffickng, about grooming, about the the mutilation and sterilization of Children, of drag queens, porn in schools etc. 

I have posted dozens of articles and clips. What have the frot 5 done. The frot 5 are obviously not fighting this. 

Why one asks. The obvious answer is thst you frot 5 pervs support these crimes against children. 

Very sick people

Ritter is right about the war. Admit you hate him for this. 

Time for some honesty from the very frot frot five. 

"How about you stop lying DA you frot vis. I said I have not investigated the matter but that somebody here said that he thought the girl was not underage. "

No lies at all from me, dipshit Beeno... the proof is all ov er this forum.

Despite the ongoing proof that was supplied to you recently and regularly on this forum, you still continue to say in your posts that Ritter never did anything wrong with under age teenage girls....but he did....multiple times....and was jailed for it.

Now to me.... only someone who fully agrees and supports that kind of sick behaviour, would still continue to deny or defend it... especially when the evidence has been provided to them multiple times from various credible news sources....

No wonder you keep bringing up and discussing this topic.... I see it is very "close" to your heart...

So you are now a certified pervert Beeno.... as clearly proven by your continued actions on this forum.

No surprises for me dude...

"Ritter was arrested again in November 2009"

Yep....so let's not also forget the previous two completely separate sting operations in 2001... which led to Scott Ritter being charged with trying to meet up with another 16 year girl, who was in fact a different police officer also posing as another teenage girl..... and Scott ritter was charged with "attempted endangerment of the welfare of a child".

Just some of the charges that he was found guilty of later again....

Unlawful contact with a minor

Corruption of a minor

Indecent Exposure

Criminal solicitation 

But don't worry .... Beeno will tell you, and have you believe, that everything was fully above board... and that Scott Ritter did absolutely nothing at all wrong, in any of these recorded instances here....and that he will continue to defend what this convicted sexual predator Scott Ritter did, multiple times, over many years...to under age girls.......because someone ...somewhere.... on some very random online sports forum ..... told him that what Scott Ritter did was just a little misunderstanding.

LMFAO

So you are now a certified pervert Beeno.

& a phoney Christian

The Kangaroo court sits in judgement by the Kangaroo jury of the prudent and well informed of Ruckers Forum. LOL and more LOLS.

In the King James Version of the Bible the text reads:

As long as Epstein's client list is still sealed, no journalist or politician left or right, should be commenting on Ritter.

Whataboutism dial has just been turned to 11.

Huge difference between Epstein and Ritter, Epstein was physically involved in it, had famous joint participants, including celebrities and too hurt young ladies duped by material gains and luxuries to resist. The chickens came home to roost when these young ladies started suffering psychologically from these damaging thrusts, this went on constantly.

The Clintons were too involved in similar activities, including Satanic rituals with children, it seems by some reporting in some perverted activities just off-shore of the States.

If this is indeed true, one can shudder to think of Americas future, Biden also confessed that when was a young life saver, he had hairy legs and he enjoyed it when young kids used to stroke his hairy legs.

Ritter did wrong and he admits his inappropriate behaviour but certainly is no pedophile.

In the meantime, the world fights for disgusting acts of sodomy and oyster diving between same sexes. And progresses on to say and authorise  perverted, bi-sexuals and dispute there is no genders to our young 'uns.

If God did not spare Sodom and Gomorrah, He certainly won't spare US and the West.

Selah !

Sodom and Gomorrah - Wikipedia

"Ritter did wrong and he admits his inappropriate behaviour but certainly is no pedophile"

Yeah ok... when an adult man is repeatedly caught in police sting operations... trying to meet up with young under age teenage girls, there is nothing pedo about that...

When an adult man wanks off to what he again thinks is a 15 year old teenage girl (Which the policeman repeatedly told him) on a webcam, there is also nothing pedo about that either...

Let's just explain all this away by saying... well, back in the day, girls did marry when they were 16

Maybe you can also say that he would also not be a pedo for doing this to a 10 - 12 year old girl, because she might just be post pubescent, so sexually mature.....yeah, it really does sound normal

"but I've seen some young tarts of 15 and 16 look like 19-21 woman today"

This seems like another example of ..... well, if that's what she looks like for her age or if that is how she dresses all the time.... then she must just accept what comes her way.....

"Huge difference between Epstein and Ritter, Epstein was physically involved in it"

More shocking excuses ... it's actually sad to see

I hope you do realize that the "only" reason why Ritter was not physically involved with any young girls, was because he was caught in multiple sting operations before he could actually meet up with these "under age girls".... which is what he tried to do... more than once.

You also do realize that people that are found guilty of intending to commit a heinous crime, also go to prison .... just like the person who actually did commit the heinous crime.

Whilst there might be a difference regarding what each person was actively involved in here , the behaviour they both displayed makes them both pedos in my book ...

If God did not spare Sodom and Gomorrah, He certainly won't spare US and the West.

The Bible did not state the crimes.

Even the link reminds it, if ten righteous people were found, the city was spared.

Thinking of a city with no children is somehow hard to believe, so if there is a crime, the crime must be one a bab y, toddler can commit.

Another eventuality: the one god killed people for being of Sodom and Gomorrah. As such, any of them were criminal.

Fact that not even 10 people could be found dismissed the case for homosexuality.

"You like to generalize quite often Plum"

"Don't" 

"This is why we've always had a problem with gays"

Not sure who "we" is here.... there are a lot of people on this forum who have nothing against gay people and have many gay friends.... it has been discussed numerous times before.

"People of the same sex, consenting to sexual activity with each other, has always bothered us"

Not sure who "us" is here.... there are a lot of people on this forum who have nothing against gay people and have many gay friends, and have quite openly expressed this opinion and sentiment.

"We'd much rather be around a guy that gets drunk and fights in the bar every weekend than we would gay people"

Again, I am not sure who "we" is here.......but, if that is how you would prefer to spend your weekend... each to their own...... I would happily much rather braai with some gay friends either at their home, or mine....or go with my gay mates to the bar.

"But you guys don't like his definition of being free"

Well his definition of being free might get him locked up for a very long time, for some very serious crimes, so I will take my "free' any day.

"Tate's lifestyle is too much for most on this board"

Not me ..... much of his lifestyle I admire.... he has worked bloody hard for everything he has, even before these allegations were made against him, from even before when he was on Big Brother... and he makes some very pertinent points about serious life issues, some which I fully agree with..... but as a whole, I do not like him as an individual... and that's just my personal opinion of him.

"The guy might be innocent and he might be guilty...YOU DO NOT KNOW"

Neither do you, but you sure seem to be defending him a lot.... especially when you make comments like "Far as I understand, he made a lot of women a lot of money" .... so I have to take that statement of yours as ... well, if Andrew Tate is found guilty of rape and physical abuse.. he at least made those ladies a lot of money..... or am I reading that wrong?

"It's strange because lately I keep finding myself having to remind people to wait for facts and legal process and that life happens in the middle and not at 100% or 0%"

To be fair Plum, I would rather you remind yourself to stop constantly generalizing when making points about certain human behaviour or opinions, because it is very often incorrect... you really do assume a lot about people in general.

"Why do you guys appear so eager to pick a team and to make up your mind about things when you know that you don't have enough of the facts to do so?"

I don't need facts to determine whether Andrew Tate is guilty or not, because whether he is found guilty or not, is not in any way going to change my perception or opinion of him as a human being...

He is a prick.... so he either ends up being a criminally convicted rapist and sexual predator prick..... or he just ends up being a normal everyday average arrogant narcissistic prick

"And these are with matters that don't really concern you"

Yep... but let's at least be honest here..... almost all the posts and threads across this whole forum, over all these years,  don't really concern us or directly affect us.

However, if we don't interact, post opinions, give advice, or provide commentary or post responses... then this forum wouldn't last very long would it..... so I wouldn't exactly tell posters that the topics that we post and discuss in depth on this forum doesn't concern them.... 

"Not sure who "we" is here.... there are a lot of people on this forum who have nothing against gay people and have many gay friends.... it has been discussed numerous times before."

Human beings in general. Sure there have been pockets of history where homosexuality was allowed/promoted but in general humanity has frowned upon homosexuality. I'm not pointing a finger at anyone here.

"Not sure who "us" is here.... there are a lot of people on this forum who have nothing against gay people and have many gay friends, and have quite openly expressed this opinion and sentiment."

See above response.

"Neither do you, but you sure seem to be defending him a lot.... especially when you make comments like "Far as I understand, he made a lot of women a lot of money" .... so I have to take that statement of yours as ... well, if Andrew Tate is found guilty of rape and physical abuse.. he at least made those ladies a lot of money..... or am I reading that wrong?"

I'm telling you a fact and leaning it against an allegation. He made people wealthy versus he "may have" committed crimes. And again, I am not defending him, I posing counterarguments for the sake of discussion. I do not know the facts of the case. I'm here to discuss things, like everybody else, and somebody needs to play devil's advocate if these discussions are to be anything more than a bunch of "Innocent...no, guilty...No, no, no...GUILTY... INNOCENT...you're dumb...no, your dumb....you're also a perv.... you're stupid and dumb and a perv".

To be fair Plum, I would rather you remind yourself to stop constantly generalizing when making points about certain human behaviour or opinions, because it is very often incorrect... you really do assume a lot about people in general.

...or you are simply confusing "you" with DA the individual as opposed to the you that is the plural for populations and societies, having predominantly frowned upon homosexuality. You cannot speak in terms of any population without generalising. 

"I don't need facts to determine whether Andrew Tate is guilty or not, because whether he is found guilty or not, is not in any way going to change my perception or opinion of him as a human being...

He is a prick.... so he either ends up a guilty sexual predator prick..... or he iust ends up being a average arrogant prick"

Exactly. Hence me attempting to take us all to the next level of discussing this. Which concerns us judging people's innocence or guilt based off of our opinions of morality within free societies. 

To simplify...

Is it interesting to discuss our "want" for someone to be guilty?

The answer is, YES, it's very interesting. But it's also not a road many could/would want to travel.

"However, if we don't interact, post opinions, give advice, or provide commentary or post responses... then this forum wouldn't last very long would it..... so I wouldn't exactly tell posters that the topics that we post and discuss in depth on this forum doesn't concern them.... "

You focused on the bricks instead of the building. 

You ARE far more concerned with getting on with your family and other people around you than you are with people here...I'm sure that's true for most posters. Hence us not calling our family, friends, or colleagues pervs, idiots, morons, etc as frequently as we call each other those things here.

This leads to the larger point...the building...

"It's just that if you are as tribal as what you appear here, and while holding the bias that we all have for ourselves, it means that you likely go through life believing that you are 100% on most issues."

Perhaps it is a bit of a nuanced point I made here, and maybe it could have been worded more clearly but i think the general idea of "being tribal + biased = delusion" is accurate.

Delusion is a strong word, but what other word is there for believing that we are right most of the time?

You'll note, I used "we" above since I include myself, and humans at large, in this.

"I'm telling you a fact and leaning it against an allegation"

No Plum, you are guilty of making more assumptions again.

Andrew Tate, by his own admission, made up to $600 000 a month "from" these ladies.... not for these ladies

In many instances, as admitted by Andrew Tate himself, even Andrew interacted directly with the clients and bragged about making $4 000 a day by he himself typing sexual responses to clients for 16 hours .... so I do not see where all these ladies made so much money working for Andrew Tate

You also said that there we re thousands of girls that worked for Andrew Tate.. ...another assumption

You also said that only 2 girls laid charges against him out of the thousands that worked for him...... another assumption

You see the trend ....

"Andrew Tate, by his own admission, made up to $600 000 a month "from" these ladies.... not for these ladies"

Didn't Tate go 50/50 with them?

I remember him saying that.

It's quite possible ..... although I myself have not yet seen that stated or voiced anywhere

Andrew Tate is low-class scum of the earth . . . the kind of person only similar scum would admire.

All a bit of virtueless signalling