|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would start with her first statement, that the law ensures that every child has a "designated father". I would ask why, if that's what the goal is, do "family" courts work so hard to remove fathers from their childrens' lives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday September 26, @04:28PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Because "it's" about control over men, not REAL concern for children...
feminism is sexism
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday September 26, @05:47PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
What does it means to be "guy legally
designated as father"? It means guy the state tags as go-to man for money. Totally disgusting. Men, we have nothing to lose but our chains!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday September 26, @05:52PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
What does it means to be "guy legally
designated as father"? It means guy the state tags as go-to man for money. Totally disgusting. Men, we have nothing to lose but our chains!
I think I'll hang mine on the wall as a constant reminder of the struggle for freedom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It seems to me she is using reasoning something like this:
This is how the law has been constructed for a very long time in the past. Therefore, the law should remain because it is "tradition" (and then she supplies the reasoning behind the tradition being some common good foundations).
While I understand that precidence is a strong part of Law, it needn't be a benchmark for discussions of social change. If that were not the case, we would not have seen changes such as the abolition of slavery, and the 19th Ammendment. In other words, tradition, how things have always been done, no matter how sound the reasoning of the past, needn't deter us from moving to the future. As a woman I would think she would understand that implicitely. Yet she doesn't mention this seeming inconsistency in logic.
Furthermore, she completely disregards the millions of children born outside of marriage (unless that part was not included in the excerpt).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Furthermore, she completely disregards the millions of children born outside of marriage (unless that part was not included in the excerpt).
It is understood that she is implicating this group when she states, "And there have been other instances where the law has made the decision, this will be the father, and that has not been necessarily (she smiles at the default paternity fraud victims in the audience) fair..."
First, she covers the case where there is a marriage, and next she speaks and smiles at the other types of paternity fraud victims who have testified on how paternity fraud has devastated their lives.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Marc Angelucci on Thursday September 26, @07:24PM EST (#7)
(User #61 Info)
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, and how ironic that such an adamant supporter of radical social change would suddenly tout antiquity as a good reason not to change a policy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday September 26, @08:23PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
It is now more obvious than ever what their argument is and how to defeat it.
They know what they are arguing for is wrong - the problem is it WILL hurt some women and children to make paternity fraud illegal... naturally if many fathers don't have to pay child support anymore because they aren't legally the father, there will be a lot of families that no longer have the steady income from this support. Finding the real father now is certainly not guaranteed.
Yes, it will hurt some women and children - there is no doubt.
Does that mean we shouldn't correct this injustice? Of course not.. it will be painful initially - but the idea behind making anything illegal is to discourage it! In the future, women will be less likely to lie about paternity if it is true that they will ALWAYS get caught. But we have a potential for thousands of current families to lose support, so people are afraid to change the law...
Unless you believe men should be martyrs always, the "best interest of the child" simply doesn't justify this kind of fraud and injustice.
And if it was about "fatherhood being more than just biological".. ok, take away the CS order and allow the men to decide if they should pay, or what kind of relationship they should have. Fatherhood may not be just biological, but that does not justify the government to force it on those that are NOT biological.
It is ALL about the check, or we wouldn't even be having such a debate.
This elected person who is supposedly representing us in government is really only representing woman.. she expects men to make the sacrifice.. doesn't see anything wrong with sacrificing men at the alter as long as women's current economic position isn't somehow threatened. Men need to realize this and that any politician - man or woman - who insists on polarizing the sexes even further and making legislative judgements based on sexism, should NOT be in office. We must speak with our votes, and organize to have her REMOVED.
Feminism is a special interest group for women... it doesn't matter the cause, it must help women... if it hurts men unfairly it doesn't matter as they should be happy to sacrifice for the "good of the child/woman"...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
" They know what they are arguing for is wrong - the problem is it WILL hurt some women and children to make paternity fraud illegal... naturally if many fathers don't have to pay child support anymore because they aren't legally the father, there will be a lot of families that no longer have the steady income from this support. Finding the real father now is certainly not guaranteed.
Not necessarily. I doubt any paternity fraud law would be made retroactive.
Yes, it will hurt some women and children - there is no doubt.
Not that many unless the law is retroactive, which I doubt it will be. In the end it will help because it will make intentional fraud less likely in the future. So I don't think the "hurts women and children" argument is valid on a number of fronts.
Does that mean we shouldn't correct this injustice? Of course not.. it will be painful initially - but the idea behind making anything illegal is to discourage it! In the future, women will be less likely to lie about paternity if it is true that they will ALWAYS get caught. But we have a potential for thousands of current families to lose support, so people are afraid to change the law...
Not unless proponents insist the law be retro-active. In which case I suggest the proponents are shooting themselves in the foot by decreasing the support for the bill as well as opening themselves up to the charge of "hurting women and children" which can only hurt the cause. It is not necessary from a tactical standpoint to do this and indeed retro-active laws are rare.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
" They know what they are arguing for is wrong - the problem is it WILL hurt some women and children to make paternity fraud illegal... naturally if many fathers don't have to pay child support anymore because they aren't legally the father, there will be a lot of families that no longer have the steady income from this support. Finding the real father now is certainly not guaranteed.
Not necessarily. I doubt any paternity fraud law would be made retroactive.
Yes, it will hurt some women and children - there is no doubt.
Not that many unless the law is retroactive, which I doubt it will be. In the end it will help because it will make intentional fraud less likely in the future. So I don't think the "hurts women and children" argument is valid on a number of fronts.
Does that mean we shouldn't correct this injustice? Of course not.. it will be painful initially - but the idea behind making anything illegal is to discourage it! In the future, women will be less likely to lie about paternity if it is true that they will ALWAYS get caught. But we have a potential for thousands of current families to lose support, so people are afraid to change the law...
Not unless proponents insist the law be retro-active. In which case I suggest the proponents are shooting themselves in the foot by decreasing the support for the bill as well as opening themselves up to the charge of "hurting women and children" which can only hurt the cause. It is not necessary from a tactical standpoint to do this and indeed retro-active laws are rare.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, it will hurt some women and children - there is no doubt. Does that mean we shouldn't correct this injustice? Of course not.. it will be painful initially - but the idea behind making anything illegal is to discourage it! In the future, women will be less likely to lie about paternity if it is true that they will ALWAYS get caught. But we have a potential for thousands of current families to lose support, so people are afraid to change the law...
What we need to bear in mind is the "but for this then that" test. But for the mother of the child lying about the possibility of their being more than one father, there would not be any resulting harm to the child or the falsely named father.
Only a mother knows if there is a possibility of their being another father. It should be her sole legal and moral obligation to disclose that fact. If the mother fails to do so, the consequences to the child and man are so severe that justice demands criminal penalties.
Note that it is impossible for the law can cause harm to the child and man. Only the mother can cause that harm by her actions. This idea that the law will cause harm to the mother and child is a feminist lie. It is a very powerful lie that must be disputed and laid to rest.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EXACTLY!
It is wrong to take money from someone for what they did not do. Period. There is no justification. It's a moral gimme.
Anyone who argues to the contrary is arguing that it is right to commit a patent, bald-faced, injustice.
I agree it shouldn't be argued to be made retroactive. For now. This can be the thin entering wedge that gets that in later.
All this "But the chiiiiiiiiiiiiildreeeeeeen" crap needs to be dismissed with the idea that it isn't the issue. The issue is a blatant injustice and a wrong being committed.
There is no right way to do a wrong thing.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday September 28, @02:28AM EST (#43)
|
|
|
|
|
Right, Gonzo.
I mean, we (men and women) are either equal or we are not.
It's enrageing to me, that the courts and even our own Government, continue to say that the sexes are TREATED equaly under the law, Yet if that were SO wouldn't that be reflected in the LAW it's self?
Any person with a lick of sence can see that the exact OPPOSITE is reflected in the law.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka-hey! It is a good day to die!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that "sexism," a term that could be used to describe Sheila Kuhel's behavior, is way to mild a term to describe so virulent a hate monger bigot. With the kind of "SYSTEMATIC," orchestrated hatred that Sheila Kuhel is showing towards heterosexual men and boys, in her endlessly waged legislative war against their constitutional rights, there is only one term that is accurate enough to describe her blitz krieg of bigotry. "HATE CRIME" is that term. This transcript proves that Fraulein Kuhel is well qualified to give lessons to a Hitler or a group of radical feminists on how to effectively demonize, torment, and wipe out a group of people (the heterosexual male gender).
It is evident that it is Sheila Kuhel's mission to make all heterosexual men and boys into 2nd class citizens so let me be the first to say, "Californians, divided we stand!" May no man or boy in California support Sheila Kuhel, or the party that supports her intolerant sexist endeavors targeting heterosexual males.
It is ironic that Sheila Kuhel, who should be building peaceful societal bridges between the homosexual and heterosexual communities, between the female and male genders, should be so insensitive to the tolerance and justice that is needed to do that. Unfortunately, we find Ms. Kuhel adept and comfortable in practicing her virulent and personal brand of bigotry against all males.
To call this monster a representative of the people would be a misnomer. She is clearly the mouth piece of only the special interest groups she chooses to serve at the expense of all others she is suppossed to represent.
Very Truly Yours,
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This would be a great topic for this site to follow. I honestly could careless what this Senator was saying. I have no doubt that she is not alone in her feelings that a child (and its mother) need a means of provision. Since our system of welfare (another topic in itself) is inadaquate to provide for basic means men are expected to fill this gap.
In my personal assessment of men in our society (and many other societies) this expectation to be the provider is at the root of many issues.
[ie. Risk taking behavior, suicide, poor health, crime]
The question that this representiative fails to answer is why should MEN be expected be sole gender to fill this void. Using the same logical arguement that is currently being used to force men into paternity women who give up a child for adoption should be required to pay for their child as well. ("fathers" are still expected to pay when a woman remarries and the children have a "father" figure are they not?)
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday September 26, @11:53PM EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
Tony.
Isn't it interesting that the feminists are the very people who decry "Gender-role-assighnments", yet they demand that MEN and men ALONE, live up to the very thing they claim they're against, "gender-role-assighnments"!!
It would be laughable if it weren't so creepily absurde.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka-hey, It is a good day to die."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Could this topic have continued coverage? Also could a list of those elected individuals who are supportive of it be listed somewhere along with those that are not.
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Could this topic have continued coverage? Also could a list of those elected individuals who are supportive of it be listed somewhere along with those that are not
Tony,
There is LOTS more to come. We are just getting started. I'm ordering all of the information from the hearings that I can get my hands on. Currently, we are focusing on just Kuehl and her lies. After I get the next tape, I'll have the rest of Kuehl's comments. From what I can gather, her testimony landed her in hot water. People got really pissed. That’ll become apparent when I post her defensive posture that she took at the following hearing on 8/13/2002.
For now, we need the public to become informed on the level of subtlety that feminists are using in their bigoted arguments against men. Currently, I'm preparing a document that demonstrates the construct of Old English Law. I'll be contrasting Keuhl's lies with those facts. From what I’ve finding, none of what she says is supportable. It’s all outright lies....every word of it.
Warble.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with this sentiment. But I wouldn't limit it to heterosexual men. Alot of gay and bisexual men are fathers too, and this applies to them as well. I know a bisexual father who has experienced some of the worst gender-based mistreatment imaginable in family courts. Kuehl may be more biased against heterosexual men than gay and bisexual men, but her biggest bias is against men period, and the policy she espouses here targets all men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's examine this a little bit from a moral perspective. The argument is essentially that John Doe is responsible for Child X's upbringing (in the form of money), despite the fact that he isn't Child X's biological father.
However, isn't this essentially what we do with the welfare system? The law says "You are responsible for helping end poverty, hunger, homelessness, etc..., despite the fact that you didn't put those people in that position. Therefore, a portion of your wealth will be redistributed, at the point of a gun if necessary, to those people."
Sure, there are some differences, but the core of both arguments is essentially the same: You are responsible for making someone else's life livable. You are responsible for providing their living and basic needs. And you have no choice in the matter, to the extent that the State will initiate the use of physical force against you if you resist.
This actually goes beyond men's rights, women's rights, or children's rights. Ultimately the question must be asked "Am I my brother's keeper?"
Why should someone have the right to initiate physical force against me for the purpose of obtaining wealth which they didn't earn? I'm not talking about a true biological father or mother being required to pay child support. They brought the child into the world, and as such are morally responsible for providing for said child until they come of age. But why should John Doe be required to pay for a child which he didn't father? Why should John Doe be required to provide sustenance for the homeless person, the hungry person, the invalid person? If he didn't cause those afflictions, then is he morally responsible for ending them?
Perhaps Senator Kuehl needs to get a copy of Atlas Shrugged and read it. (And take it to heart.)
"Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins." -John Galt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can agree to pay for others if everyone else who has a job (men and women) agree to do the same, that what welfare is to me. This issue, however, is something completely different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But what if somebody doesn't agree to? Why should he/she be forced to?
Yes, the two scenerios are different, but at the heart they're essentially the same: you are responsible for helping someone out of a situation which you did not put them in.
"Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins." -John Galt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All this reminds me of a good quote from Atlas Shrugged:
"The man in Roomette 7, Car No. 2, was a journalist who wrote that it is proper and moral to use compulsion 'for a good cause,' who believed that he had the right to unleash physical force upon others - to wrech lives, throttle ambitions, strangle desires, violate convictions, to imprison, to despoil, to murder - for the sake of whatever he chose to consider as his own idea of 'a good cause,' which did not even have to be an idea, since he had never defined what he regarded as the good, but had merely stated that he went by 'a feeling,' - a feeling unrestrained by any knowledge, since he considered emotion superior to knowledge and relied solely on his own 'good intentions' and on the power of a gun."
"Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins." -John Galt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think you (and millions of others) misunderstand welfare. Welfare to people, to countries etc is not an altruistic gesture. We have welfare so that we can live at a level of comfort and security and health and aesthetics that we deem fit. Welfare is more for us, and more akin to kicking in money for road repair and infrastructure construction and maintenance.
We don't want to be accosted on the street by hungry, diseased, crippled people. We don't want to see starving children, beggars. We don't want children who don't have any opportunities and grow up to run in criminal packs and gangs (as much as we can prevent that). We don't want to see squatter settlements of people living in cardboard houses with no water, sewer, or electricity. We don't want diseases crossing over from the people with no health services to ourselves (a big reason why we fund AIDS curbing plans in developing countries where newer strains of AIDS are mutating and moving around).
If you want to see what it looks like to have no social welfare system visit cities like Cairo, Rio, Delhi, Manila, Khartoum.... etc. Personally, I don't think Americans want to deal with the consequences of eliminating welfare. You can't hide the consequences. They're in your face daily and they're not pretty. Americans like things pretty, tidy, and with a semblance of order. You can't have that without some kind of welfare system.
Therefore, welfare is not in the end about helping poor people, or irresponsible people. It is about maintaining our quality of life to certain acceptable standards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You seem to do a good job of saying "we don't want...." without anyone actually granting you the priviledge of speaking for "us". I certainly didn't, and I most certainly am part of "us". Of course, you could respond "You mean you want to see hungry people?!?!?!?" No, but that's not the point. I didn't grant you the right to speak for me, so please don't take that right when it's not yours.
You also seem to do a good job of attempting to take welfare from the "altruism" category and assigning it to some other category. But in a sense you are right. Altruism at the point of a gun isn't altruism: it's a contradiction.
The point still stands: Why should I be responsible for getting someone out of a bad situation when I didn't put them there? Why should Hungry Person X demand help from me? On top of that, why should Hungry Person X have the right to initiate physical force against me for the purpose of taking a portion of my wealth which he/she didn't earn?
If you're willing to point the gun at me, are you also willing to pull the trigger?
"Random females with causeless incomes flitter on trips around the globe and return to deliver the message that the backward peoples of the world DEMAND a higher standard of living. Demand- of whom?" -Atlas Shrugged, p. 955
(And before you go off on a tirade about the inherent sexism of the "random females" quote, just remember that it was a FEMALE who wrote it, Ayn Rand.)
The situation is still essentially the same. If Hungry Person X can demand that he/she receive a portion of your wealth at the point of a gun, despite the fact that you didn't cause his/her situation in the first place, then why shouldn't Jane Doe be able demand that you pay for her child's welfare, at the point of a gun, even if you didn't father the child?
Both scenerios are morally reprehensible.
"Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins." -John Galt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You miss the point entirely. You are not "obligated" to do anything to help others. This is a strawman.
The idea is that you cannot control all the forces in the world which will affect your quality of life by sticking your head in the sand, moving to the wilderness, living in a cave, etc. In fact, unless you go live on an uninhabited island (and maybe not even then) what others do will affect your life, your quality of life.
You cannot simply declare that reality is not reality because you don't like it. If you are denying that what others do doesn't affect your life one iota, I'd like to see some evidence of that.
Our country spends billions of dollars around the globe trying to affect outcomes that will negatively affect us (or we perceive that they will). We don't WANT to spend all this money. We don't OWE all this money. We are making a calculated pragmatic plan to spend money to avert circumstances down the road, which we (rhetorical we) deem unfavorable to us.
There is a fair amount of debate/disagreement between the isolationists and the interventionists on this. However, even the isolationists have come to understand the inter-relatedness of everyone on the planet. What others do does affect us, whether we choose to admit it or not. It then becomes a matter of what we will tolerate and what we won't and what we are willing to spend to uphold our standards of living. Naturally there is debate on these matters. I personally don't agree with how every dollar of my tax money is spent either. I doubt anyone does.
I'm suggesing that Americans on the whole (maybe not you individually) can't and won't tolerate the consequences of eliminating welfare entirely.
I also submit that if we did eliminate welfare entirely, we'd end up redistributing our wealth anyway. We'd end up spending the same or probably a lot more, on police, personal security, prisons, disease control, etc. And we'll live a lot less free. Personally, having lived in areas where there is no viable social safety net, I'd rather spend the money on prevention.
This is only tangentially related to the paternity issue not directly corollary. It seems to me the solution to paternity fraud is quite simple and that is to go to system of requiring biological parents to care for and support the kids the co-create. With today's technology, this should not be a difficult task to determine who is a biological parent. The question of "fraud" is a throwback, very nearly a moot issue already. Coming soon (IMO) I doubt paternity fraud will even be an issue, though fraud laws are a necessary interim step.
In order to get there though it would be necessary to look at the bigger picture. If we don't as a society care enough to require parents to support/care for their children to certain minimum standards, then it will indeed become a societal problem we'll have to deal with down the road. Why procrastinate? Why not just push along the concept of parental responsibility NOW? It's not really "for the children" (children don't stay children) but it is in the best interst of "society", for all of us to put in place positive social systems with the intent of mitigating negative social outcomes.
It's a pay now or pay later sort of thing (IMO). It's not a sentimentalization of children/childhood that these concepts come from. Throughout history people have recongized the correlation between children and the immediate future. This seems obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nobody said that your actions don't affect others. However, that being said, that isn't to say that your actions will necessarily cause a detrimental effect on others. If you haven't caused harm, why are you being required to fix it?
It's also very telling that you have avoided the most pertinent question I raised: Why do you have the right to initiate physical force against another person for the purpose of "fixing" a problem he/she didn't cause? The use of force is the central point of this whole discussion.
Do you have the right to initiate physical force against someone who didn't aggress against you? No you do not.
Put your gun away and then we'll see just how benevolent you really are. ("You" being a general term.)
Don't point the gun at me unless you're going to pull the trigger.
"Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins." -John Galt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why do you have the right to initiate physical force against another person for the purpose of "fixing" a problem he/she didn't cause? The use of force is the central point of this whole discussion.
What do you mean by physical force? Taxes? Please explain.
Okay, say we eliminate welfare and no more tax monies go for welfare. Do you think your taxes will be reduced? Do you think you will be able to live free of physical force?
I've given my opinion. I think taxes and personal expenses would go UP for things like increased policing, personal security, prisons, insurance premiums of all kinds, more defensive health care initiatives.
It makes not one smidgeon of difference if you did or did not "cause the problem". None. Problems exist whether you caused them or not. Saying you didn't cause them is a throwaway statement. So what?
Example: I don't cause a drunk driver to hit me, but the result is the same. I'm affected. I'm either dead or injured. Whether I "caused" a person to drink and drive is immaterial to the outcome. I still have to "pay" for the consequence of their actions. Ask a dead or injured person if they would rather pay for prevention methods to get more drunk drivers off the roads or be dead or injured but have their pocket full. I bet they'd rather have paid up front on the chance that maybe the problem could have been prevented (even though they didn't "cause" the problem in the first place).
The issue you're not accepting is that you share the planet with approx 6.3 billion people. You are forced to live with the consequences of other people's actions whether you "caused" their problems or not. Do you want to try to mitigate their negative impacts on you or not? It's a simple choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne, spare me the word games, because I refuse to play them. You know exactly what I mean by "use of force".
You're a very intelligent person. You're not dumb, even though you're trying to play it.
The only justification for the use of force against someone is self-defense. The State pointing the gun at someone for the purpose of wealth redistribution is NOT self-defense. Now your next response will probably be "But if you don't help someone in need, isn't that a form of aggression?"
No it isn't. You yourself said earlier that I'm not obligated to extend aid.
Put your gun away, and then we'll see just how benevolent you really are.
"Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins." -John Galt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The answer is: No.
I had an interesting way to get rid of troublesome wino beggars when I lived in Chicago. First one that came up to me, I told him to get away or he'd be picking up his teeth. If he did anything except move back, I hit him. Hard. Casually. And walked away without even looking at him.
Not one other bum came up to me. After a while, and hitting only a couple, they'd fade away into the woodwork when I walked from where I got off the El.
People who handed out one quarter got them flocking to them. Asking - DEMANDING - for another quarter - a dollar - whatever.
We're a rich country with boatloads of opportunity, not some backwards semi-theocracy half wasteland country. I see want ads chock full daily. There's plenty of work - we're importing labor, for God's sake.
Make those who can do so find work. Or starve. Stop rewarding them for not only finishing last, but for refusing even to run the race.
Free will and capitalism is not just about reaping the rewards for right choices and investments. It's also about suffering the consequences of bad choices and investments. Without both, the system breaks down. It may sound cold, but it is how it works. It's social Darwinism at work, weeding out the unfit. Those who can, become the alpha. Those who can't serve the alpha - or die.
Remove the risk, and you make the reward meaningless, and striving for the prize a pointless expenditure of effort. This is what socialism is.
Horrifyingly blunt, I know; but with this cold system comes the intellect and the conscience - we get charity. Not cheap and easy grace, but individuals helping individuals who are worthy of help. You don't find this in socialism.
People tend to scorn those who lack compassion, and be secretly amused and contemptuous at the gullibility of bleeding hearts who let themselves be conned. As well, they respect the truly compassionate - and cast out those who will not live in society and pull their weight. This is well, good, and natural.
Socialism makes of everyone a parasite.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No I don't know what you mean by use of force. It would be helpful if you are talking about taxes or what?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taxes are force. Refuse to pay your traxes next year. See if they don't come after you with guns.
Give me your money, or I will kill you.
What is the difference? Majority vote? Whoopee. Let's reinstitute human sacrifice my majority vote, and it will be right? Let's re-institute the enlavement of non-whites by majority vote and it will be right?
After all, society and the duly elected representatives approve them....
If I am forced to do or refrain from doing something at penaly of the loss of the life and/or freedom of me or mine, I am being coerced with violence.
ALL political power comes from the barrel of a gun.
Since depriving someone of life or property by force is wrong, the only way it can be justified is as a lesser of two evils - by exercising the power of the gun over someone who initiates the exercise of force.
Such a thing is a sin of deed, not thought, word, or omission.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday September 28, @04:01AM EST (#48)
|
|
|
|
|
Lorrianne.
This is not gonna be easy for me to say. It is kind of personal, but here goes.
Currently I am un-employed. Frankly I have been for about a year, now.
I lost my job because my employers had a BIG problem with Indian people. I was harassed constantly at this job. When I filed complaints I was told in effect to go screw myself.
While every other person at my place of employment was allowed to wear anything that reflected their culture and/or spirirtual beliefs, I and I alone was forbidden to do so.
Finaly, when I would not comply with my employers' demands to "stop being Indian" I was fired. I have learned that ALOT of people have a problem with Indians, hence my trouble finding employment a-new. Alot of non-Indians simply will NOT (for the most part) employ Natives. It is a very BIG and universal problem for us as a whole, both in America and Canada.
My point being...,
Despite all this, I personaly do not hold all non-Indians accountable for the situation I am in.
I do not ask for government-sponsored assistance.
I do the best I can for myself. Local churches have been happy to help me, as well as non-profit "institutions" that are in place to help people in my position. My family also helps me when it can. (Indians are big on family unity.) I do not expect ANY ONE to get me out of a situation they did not cause.
Why should some white man or black man who had NOTHING to do with my termination have to pay for the racist acts of the white and black people who did?
I could very easily just sit here at home on my butt, say ALL whites and blacks are evil, and therfore ALL of them must pay me money and stuff for it. or just SOME white or black person must pay me, It doesn't matter which one as long as a member or those two races are paying me money for the bigotry of just a small hand full of their respective ethnic group.
No, what I do is, I keep looking for work and hold MYSELF responsible for doing just that.
True, I did not put myself in this position. But as long as I have a brain and the will to do so, I can and WILL get myself out of it. WITHOUT makeing anyone pay for the mis-deeds of others. To do so is un-fair and IMO, wrong.
So, again the question is, Why should ANY man pay for a child he did NOT father?
Ansewer; HE SHOULD NOT.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My grandfather came to the U.S. from Germany in the 1890's and settled in Missouri.
I have been called a yankee, a damn rebel (Missouri was a divided state in the civil war). I have been called a Nazi, almost totally since coming to Los Angeles, but I have never been to Germany in my life. My cousin was killed in Normandy, France a month and a half after landing at Omaha Beach (not the 1st landing).
I could go on, but you get the idea. From what both you and I are saying, I think it would be impossible for anyone born to get through life without experiencing prejudice against them.
The solution is equal justice, not more prejudice like the kind Gray Davis and She Lie Kuhel are showing to the male gender who are victims of paternity fraud. Heredity is not a crime, but historically hate monger bigots have demonized and targeted those groups not empowered to defend themselves and reeked havoc in their lives.
Gray Davis and She Lie Kuhel are only the most recent in a long line of exploitive hate monger tyrants to further their comfortable lives through the criminal dispensing of pain and misery into a dehumanized sub group within a population.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem is there is no moral foundation to law in Lorainne's scenerio.
Lorainne said earlier that it's basically irrelevant whether you "caused the problem or not". You are expected to help fix it so as to keep costs low in the future and help prevent future problems.
However, from a moral perspective, it most certainly DOES matter whether you "caused the problem or not". To make someone pay to fix something he didn't break is inherently immoral. How is the State going to guarantee that the person be made to do it? Under threat of force, i.e. the point of a gun.
Don't be fooled by Lorainne's claim of ignorance about the phrase "use of force". She knows full well what that means and the implications.
It reminds me of a messageboard discussion I had with a socialist in Denmark regarding taxes. I told him that the government has the moral obligation to stop wasting the taxdollars they already get from us before they even think of raising taxes. Eliminate the waste first, then talk about raising taxes. Don't demand more from me when you waste what you already get.
The socialist replied that he felt government had no moral obligations, other than to serve the people. Governments waste money because, well, that's just the nature of government. But they still have the right to raise taxes despite their waste of what they already get.
Notice the phrase "no moral obligations" regarding government. In other words, law doesn't need to have a moral foundation. Morality only applies to the individual, not to the collective. The collective can do whatever it wants by simply declaring it for the "public good".
It's the same in Lorainne's scenerio. Redistribute wealth now so as to make Society a better place in the future. It doesn't matter that it's inherently immoral to make someone pay to fix something they didn't break. The only consideration is whether or not the public benefits. Sure, you didn't "break" it, but that's irrelevant. You should still be made to fix it.
Same with forced paternity of non-biological "fathers". It doesn't matter that you didn't father the child, you should still be made to pay. After all, it's "for the children" and will make Society a better place, right? Right? Morality doesn't enter into the equation.
If you don't have a moral foundation for your laws, you don't have any foundation at all.
"Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins." -John Galt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"It doesn't matter that it's inherently immoral to make someone pay to fix something they didn't break. The only consideration is whether or not the public benefits. Sure, you didn't "break" it, but that's irrelevant. You should still be made to fix it."
"Same with forced paternity of non-biological "fathers". It doesn't matter that you didn't father the child, you should still be made to pay."
My Reply:
This "pay for the public good" concept does exist in law in various areas, but it is meted out in those other areas with an emphasis on fairness far more than it is in the area of paternity fraud.
Big rigs pay exorbitantly higher highway taxes and fees than cars, because they use and destroy the roads more.
Income tax is based on the amount of income you make? Some will say that the rates are higher for the higer incomes, but those higher incomes seem to make better use of deductions to offset that. It is a very arguable point, who pays proportionally more, in the area of income tax.
In most areas of law sentencing is supossed to be proportional to crime. Another arguable point, since many more male minority members of society are incarcerated than anyone else. Also, harsher sentencing for male victims than female for the same crime.
In the area of paternity fraud there is not even the illussion of fairness (equal justice) to the male victim, when considering his rights against the rights of the woman or the child. Clearly, Gray Davis and She Lie Cruel are saying that men are not created equal compared to the rights of the later two.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Look if you're going to complain about paying taxes I really have a disagreement with you. You wouldn't be sitting there at your computer in a free country, probably in a decent house, with good food, a car, decent roads ....... ad infinitum.
Proposing that you shouldn't pay taxes is unrealistic argument and empty ranting (IMO). Anyway, you have the right to work within the system to get taxes eliminated. Go for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why should some white man or black man who had NOTHING to do with my termination have to pay for the racist acts of the white and black people who did?
They "should" (if they were smart) care enough to get involved and make things better. Sitting around doing nothing and saying about everthing that's amiss "It's not my fault" is just a very stupid and shortsighted personal philosophy (IMO). I don't owe anyone anything, but then I am not owed a decent life in a decent society either. It's a two way street. I can sit back and enjoy the quality of life this society affords and not give a damn about anyone else. That's my perogotive. However, it's ingrateful, shortsighted, and ultimately I'm freeloading off of the people who do care enough to make the society I live in better.
No, what I do is, I keep looking for work and hold MYSELF responsible for doing just that.
True, I did not put myself in this position. But as long as I have a brain and the will to do so, I can and WILL get myself out of it. WITHOUT makeing anyone pay for the mis-deeds of others. To do so is un-fair and IMO, wrong.
Okay, it's wrong, so what? But we still all have to live in this society together like it or not. There are a certain amount of people who either can't or won't take care of themselves. What are we to do with them? Shoot them? IMO we have no choice but to work toward the betterment of all society if for no other reason that it is better for ourselves, for our quality of life.
So, again the question is, Why should ANY man pay for a child he did NOT father?
He shouldn't. I agree with you. That wasn't what this (Am I My Brother's Keeper) portion of the thread was about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem is there is no moral foundation to law in Lorainne's scenerio.
Morality has nothing to do with it!!! The question is whether or not it is a smart move to ignore others you share society with.
Lorainne said earlier that it's basically irrelevant whether you "caused the problem or not". You are expected to help fix it so as to keep costs low in the future and help prevent future problems.
I didn't say "expected". I said it makes sound logical rational sense to prevent future problems.
Look, go live in some other countries where there is litte spent on social welfare and community infrastructure and get back to me. Tell me which country you'd rather live in. Tell me which country you feel safer in, more comfortable in. All this that we have does not come for free. But don't take my word for it, go out and see for yourself. I've lived in countries where there is no social welfare and it's every man (or woman) for himself .... there is grinding poverty, disease, random senseless violence, no rule of law, roads you can't drive, water you can't drink, and a generally miserable existence even for the better off (who are prisoners in their better off enclaves). That's what you get for nothing. That's what you get for not having social systems and no theory of everyone working together for betterment of society as a whole.
However, from a moral perspective, it most certainly DOES matter whether you "caused the problem or not".
No it does not. If a criminal breaks into your home and kills you and your family for your microwave and CD player, your "morality" is worth zilch. You're dead and your toaster oven and CD player is gone. But hey, you can go out on your high horse knowing you didn't cause the problem. Me I'd rather be alive and living in relative security and peace.
To make someone pay to fix something he didn't break is inherently immoral. How is the State going to guarantee that the person be made to do it? Under threat of force, i.e. the point of a gun.
Then move to a cave and don't use anything that was built for the common good. Don't send your kids to school and don't buy food you didn't grow. Don't take medicines or go to the doctor. Don't call the police or ambulance if you get in trouble. Don't drive on the roads you don't want to pay for or drink the clean water you didn't purify. In short don't live in society which you don't want to support.
Don't be fooled by Lorainne's claim of ignorance about the phrase "use of force". She knows full well what that means and the implications.
I asked a simple question which you still haven't answered. For some reason you think it's cute to be cagey. But hey, if you don't say what you mean you never have to defend it. I understand where you're coming from.
It reminds me of a messageboard discussion I had with a socialist in Denmark regarding taxes. I told him that the government has the moral obligation to stop wasting the taxdollars they already get from us before they even think of raising taxes. Eliminate the waste first, then talk about raising taxes. Don't demand more from me when you waste what you already get.
Shrug. Good idea. We all should lobby our government to spend tax monies wisely. Who in the world would be against that?
The socialist replied that he felt government had no moral obligations, other than to serve the people. Governments waste money because, well, that's just the nature of government. But they still have the right to raise taxes despite their waste of what they already get.
WE are the government. So the entire agument above is a red herring. If we put up with waste, and are too lazy to stop it, we get the government we deserve.
Notice the phrase "no moral obligations" regarding government. In other words, law doesn't need to have a moral foundation. Morality only applies to the individual, not to the collective. The collective can do whatever it wants by simply declaring it for the "public good".
Yadda, yadda, yadda. First off you had this discussion with someone else who presumably didn't live in the USA which is a capitalist system. Even so, there are a lot of things that can only be accomplished by large scale programs. Our goverment is US. We are resposible to run it and get what we want out of it, which for the most part we do ((IMO) in the way of infrastructure to run a capitalist system. Is it perfect? Hell no. But it's better than anything anyone else has come up with so far.
It's the same in Lorainne's scenerio. Redistribute wealth now so as to make Society a better place in the future. It doesn't matter that it's inherently immoral to make someone pay to fix something they didn't break.
It doesn't matter. You still have to pay anyway when society breaks down. You'll pay one way or the other. You seem very naive about reality.
The only consideration is whether or not the public benefits. Sure, you didn't "break" it, but that's irrelevant. You should still be made to fix it.
Who else is going to fix things? Irresponsible people? The people who break things?
Same with forced paternity of non-biological "fathers". It doesn't matter that you didn't father the child, you should still be made to pay.
Not my position.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Morality has nothing to do with it!!! The question is whether or not it is a smart move to ignore others you share society with."
-You just made my point for me.
"No it does not. If a criminal breaks into your home and kills you and your family for your microwave and CD player, your "morality" is worth zilch. You're dead and your toaster oven and CD player is gone. But hey, you can go out on your high horse knowing you didn't cause the problem. Me I'd rather be alive and living in relative security and peace."
-Yes it does, but one will never convince you otherwise since you don't feel the need to apply morality to your laws anyway.
"Then move to a cave and don't use anything that was built for the common good. Don't send your kids to school and don't buy food you didn't grow. Don't take medicines or go to the doctor. Don't call the police or ambulance if you get in trouble. Don't drive on the roads you don't want to pay for or drink the clean water you didn't purify. In short don't live in society which you don't want to support."
-No, I'd rather live in a society where people deal with each other as traders, rather than looters using force to get what they want/need. You can live in the cave if you want to.
"WE are the government. So the entire agument above is a red herring. If we put up with waste, and are too lazy to stop it, we get the government we deserve."
-No we are not the government. This is a republic, not a democracy. We elect the government, but we are not the government. Unfortunately you are right: We (collective "we") do seem to be too lazy to elect leaders who spend money wisely. But then, we usually elect leaders who feel as you do that laws don't need a moral foundation.
"Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins." -John Galt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, I have more of a gripe with people who think they have the right to initiate physical force against me to obtain something they didn't earn.
"Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins." -John Galt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I asked a simple question which you still haven't answered. For some reason you think it's cute to be cagey. But hey, if you don't say what you mean you never have to defend it. I understand where you're coming from."
-BTW, as for not answering your question about the use of force, I'll let you put 2 + 2 together and come up with it for yourself. You seem to value people looking up to your superior intelligence. Put that brain to work.
Do the math.
"Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins." -John Galt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne:
MY OPENING PARAGRAPH
"This "pay for the public good" concept does exist in law in various areas, but it is meted out in those other areas with an emphasis on fairness far more than it is in the area of paternity fraud."
SO
I wasn't complianing about taxes. As I cleary stated in the opening paragraph I was merely using them as a simple example of how the law strives for fairness in its spirit, and tried to show that in the different ways these common laws were applied. I also pointed out that there were critics on both sides because very little in law is perfect. These were examples of how law strives for fairness as contrasted to present laws (or lack thereof) addressing paternity fraud.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Morality has nothing to do with it!!! The question is whether or not it is a smart move to ignore others you share society with."
-You just made my point for me.
"No it does not..."
MY 2 CENTS ON ALL THIS:
A lot of things are being said in this give and take so I'm only going to make one point (hopefully). I think a lot of what is being said is parallel in intent, but the methodology to bring about the result is vastly different.
On the one hand I see the arguement that we should be socialistic and address problems before the come breaking into our houses and destroying our live.
On the other hand I see the viewpoint that it is intrusive and unjust to make people responsible for problems they did not create, and burden them with government and laws and regulations and guidelines and bureaucracy, and, oh yes, exorbitant taxes or support payments.
In many ways it's the classic Democrat vs. Republican idelogoical battle, or Soicalistic values vs. (The society that governs least governs best).
Well let me be blunt and say we certainly have seen what Gray Davis and Sheila Kuhel have given us in the area of paternity fraud. The extremely unfair intrusion of government into the lives of non-biological fathers in the area of paternity fraud drives me away from the freedom stifling oppression of those two Democrat's socialistic, back breaking, male bashing agenda. Even so, there are still many things I admire and respect about the Democratic party. O.K., not that many, I was just trying to be generous and inclusive, and I honestly did vote for Bill Clinton twice. What a gross mistake!
Sorry politicians, I can't say it's nothing personal. It's very personal. I'm not an uncharitable person. I guess the bottom line is that I loose that warm, fuzzy, heart felt feeling of giving charitably when some politician is holding a gun to my head and saying, "You are the designated, nonbiological benefactor. Pay up or die, scum."
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ray, Yes and I concur. The contsst between this paternity fraud issue (as cast by people like Khuel) is stark in contrast to most "common good" arguments, such as infrastructure costs, defense, education, and even farm subsididies.
I agree that there is not even a whisper of acknowledgement towards "fairness" being applied in law considering that today it is quite possible to determine a man's paternal status. Tactically, paternity fraud activists have complete command of the high ground. The unfairness of what is being proposed is just too blatant for the majority to stomach no matter how many "common good" arguments are trotted out.
Quite apart from it being unfair, I am quite dumbfounded how some people would apply themselves to such a lost cause with such fervor. Anyway, I expect "paternity fraud" to be an anchronism soon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday September 29, @03:20AM EST (#74)
|
|
|
|
|
I think I got too personal, long-winded and maybe too preachy. (My bad.)
Let me try it again, this way, Lorianne.
Okay, Say a woman walks up to me and punches me square in the face. I'm hurt and demand restitution. But we can't find the woman who hurt me. so instead, "we" go after YOU, and make YOU pay for the assault. "We" go after you simply beacause I was attacked by a WOMAN, You are a Woman too (I pressume) so as long as someone from the same gender that hurt me pays we call it "Justice".
Of course that would NOT be justice. It would by it's very nature be INJUSTICE.
But THIS is the same "logic" that the courts apply to MEN and paternity cases.
I hope that clarifies what I'm saying.
(I think I even understand it now.)
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-No we are not the government. This is a republic, not a democracy. We elect the government, but we are not the government. Unfortunately you are right: We (collective "we") do seem to be too lazy to elect leaders who spend money wisely.
With all due respect I disagree. While it is true that we are supposed to have a representative form of government in the form of a republic, that model of government no longer fits. We don't even a democracy.
In a representative form of government, the representative will protect the interest of their group. Unfortunately, that no longer happens. Representatives only pay attention to special interest and lobbyist. This means that without groups of people organizing into special interest groups they will not have a voice in our government.
Currently, we have foreign national, big business, and feminist groups running the government. Masculist groups have only just begun to organize in a meaningful way to influence the government.
Currently, our form of government follows the elitist model where only the empowered obtain representation. Women are empowered by billions in taxes that go to subsidize their special interest groups who then lobby the government.
Men have no such form of representation and funding. The feminists have literally left men in the cold as they continue to criminalize men and create gender specific laws that make women immune to criminal prosecution in paternity fraud, false accusations, murder, and more. Therefore, it is up to us to organize on our own and force the issue. We have to organize and cram our interests down their throats. We have to force-feed the bastards in government. That is the only way to restore a modicum of fairness in our government.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quite apart from it being unfair, I am quite dumbfounded how some people would apply themselves to such a lost cause with such fervor.
And so we have an example of a feminist who believes she is morally superior tacitly admitting that paternity fraud is a wrong for which women should be criminally punished.
Then she turns around in her usual bigoted way and calls everybody involved in the men's movement a bunch of losers working on a lost cause.
What a feminist bitch! It's to be expected though. Feminists will not give up their right to defraud men and commit numerous criminal acts with impunity easily.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"And so we have an example of a feminist who believes she is morally superior tacitly admitting that paternity fraud is a wrong for which women should be criminally punished.
Then she turns around in her usual bigoted way and calls everybody involved in the men's movement a bunch of losers working on a lost cause.
What a feminist bitch! It's to be expected though. Feminists will not give up their right to defraud men and commit numerous criminal acts with impunity easily."
That really isn't surprising when you consider the basis for her beliefs: no basis at all.
Consider the statements she's made to me regarding having a moral foundation for laws. At the heart of her ideology is the idea that laws need no basis for right and wrong. After all, morality is simply right vs. wrong and how to define them. When laws no longer have to have a moral base, when they no longer have to be based on what's right and proper, then anything goes. As long as it's for "the public good", the collective can do whatever it wishes.
What escapes her notice (or she conveniently ignores) is that without a moral code to found our laws on, the "good" cannot be defined. What is "good" without a standard to base it on?
Such is the way with much of feminism. Consider the battered women's shelters, for example. Most are taxpayer funded, yet keep their doors closed to men. It matters not to them that men are forced to help pay for those services. As long as they can declare it for "the public good", men can be exluded. Make men pay, but don't give them access to the services for which they paid. "Morality is irrelevant!"
Of course, when somebody cries that morality is irrelevant, they usually have already lost the moral argument, and as such wish to draw attention away from it.
No doubt Lorainne will respond with another tirade about how morality doesn't matter, about how I'm not thinking of the future, about how I don't care for other people, about how helping other people is really helping myself, about how she still doesn't understand what I mean by "use of force", etc.....
Blah blah blah blah.....
"Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins." -John Galt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"And so we have an example of a feminist who believes she is morally superior..."
Incidentally, I doubt she feels she is morally superior. After all, to her, morality is irrelevant. She doesn't feel the need to have a moral basis for her beliefs. (Nor do laws apparently.)
"Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins." -John Galt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warble you misstated what I said. It is the people working AGAINST paternity fraud laws (the opposition) who are applying themselves to the lost cause. Please reread my post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am not opposed to "morality" but I don't put as much stock in it as you do. In practice it is not an abosulte. It is only an absolute in philosphy books and religious texts.
At least in part, the social contract and rule of law prevent some things (or mitigate them) on their own by means of detterance. It is proper that they be based on a set of "moral" values ... but who's.
These are arbitrary things. The social contract, even if built upon a "moral" foundation, can erode super-duper fast. Look at Nazi Germany, Rwanda, Cambodia, Palestine, Sudan etc. etc. It depends on who is defining "morality".
An appeal to the best interest of all people is a more solid foundation. It is marketing. Promoting that Plan X will yield a more peaceful, prosperous future for the maximum number of people is a better selling point than "morality" (which is arbitrary, look at the "moral" laws of some place such as Nigeria). This is the basis of our welfare laws, not moralistic altruism. Welfare is not for those recieving, it is for those giving. We are trying to map out a better future for everyone, not just those at the bottom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday September 27, @12:18AM EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday September 28, @04:07AM EST (#49)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks T.M.M.
But I can't bear to look at Kuehl on a full stomach.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your humor is welcome and a heart lightening diversion, but alas the sad reality is that you are far to kind in caricturing a monster like Sheila Kuehl. Something more demonic and insane would be more honest. Still, your comic diversion is appreciated.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday September 29, @03:30AM EST (#75)
|
|
|
|
|
((("But put a nice natural paper bag over her head and you'll save the Earth two ways.")))
Now I know why you are called the "MADCAP" misogynist.
That WAS funny! Thanks for the laugh! (^_^)
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday September 29, @03:34AM EST (#76)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, Ray.
Actually, I HAVE to laugh at "people" like Kuhel.
If I ever stop laughing at them, I'll be crying instead. Crying for the pain, and misery Kuhel and her ilk have caused so many innocent people.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday September 29, @06:08AM EST (#79)
|
|
|
|
|
Madcap Misogynist.
I could'nt resist useing the link you provided to view a picture of Kuehl. I was expecting a snarling, grimmaceing photo of her, But that's not quite what I found.
I'm glad I went though, I needed another good laugh.
I won't spoil it for anyone by saying what I saw there, But rest assured it's funny.
Good one 'Madcap'.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday September 29, @06:39AM EST (#80)
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, I thought I knew what Kuel looked like. but it turns out I was thinking of some one else.
So I did a "GOOGLE" image search on her, and saw her. All I can say is...:
NOOOOOOO! God in heaven, HELP us!! YAAAARRGH!! ICK! P-TOOIE!
She looks like Alfred E. Newman on steroids, for cryin' out loud!
Or she looks like that little boy from "ET. the extraterestrial", after a botched sex-change operation.
Geez, I'm gonna need rabies shots from just haveing LOOKED at her photo.
Are we SURE she is a WOMAN?!?
I mean, she makes Godzilla look like Carmen Electra!
In the words of the late Red Foxx,(as Fred Sanford) "UUUGLYY, Ester!!"
Usualy I don't think how a person looks reflects what they are like inside but in Kuehl's case...,
Thundercloud.
"Hoka-hey! It is a good day to die!"
(and after seeing Kuehl, I nearly did.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday September 27, @09:33AM EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
The perplexing array of conflicting and extraodinary double-standards now shines clear-- I see the underlying reason for all this:
The gov't is doing all it can to discourage marriage and/or reproduction by making the terms so intolerable and unfair to men that the last thing we want to do is get married/reproduce.
It's all perfectly clear to me now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The gov't is doing all it can to discourage marriage and/or reproduction by making the terms so intolerable and unfair to men that the last thing we want to do is get married/reproduce. "
Its about right. Im not sure why thats all. Oh well the rightwing doesnt seem to mind. Could it be just left wing right wing politics all along?
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday September 28, @02:45AM EST (#44)
|
|
|
|
|
You're definatly on to something, there, Dan.
Left-wing, right-wing.
Same coin, two different sides. but the same coin.
Personaly, Never in my life, have I ever seen an Eagle that could fly properly without both the "left-wing" and "right-wing" working together in concert.
A fitting analogy for our government, I'd say.
"If voteing could really change anything, it would be made illegal."
(Russell Means. leader of the American Indian Movement.)
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
" ...the last thing we want to do is get married/reproduce. "
And you know, it's working, too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I doubt the government has any concious policy to discourage reproduction - cannnon-fodder and labor are always required.
However, think of it this way - women, as a group, tend to prefer security over innovation rather more than men. Marriage tends to place women at risk in that men are not (and cannot be) 100% reliable. Neither are governments, but they are more reliable and demand less, from the POV of the individual woman, than does a man. No need to treat the other partner as an equal, for one thing. A government check offers security without the need to surrender selfish desires in support of a partnership, and requires only that the woman support the government organizations that pay her.
Bureaucrats, OTOH, need to justify their jobs, and in order to do so, require a population that requires their services. Women are a better population than men to serve, as they are less inclined to stray from the pattern - that "security" thing again. So naturally, bureaucrats would be supportive of initiatives that extend their power and continue a pattern that makes their jobs secure.
Governments want public support - votes, demonstrations in the street, or simple passive acceptance, but some form of support. They can't exist without it. Governments want reliable support. Governments can offer women security of some form, whether money, AA, or other preferments, in exchange for continued support.
Men, as a group, are more willing to act, more willing to innovate, and more willing to take risks. Women cannot feel secure with someone who is willing to take risks for improved conditions - threatens their security. Bureaucrats don't like serving a population of men that might find a way to no longer need their services - threatens job security. Governments want a population that supports them and that they can control - substantial disagreement with government policies can bring down the most oppressive government, nothing a government wants to risk. Men as a population can be difficult to control and predict, partly because they have fewer and more diverse "handles" by which to control them. Men might hurt or damage government control in the name of abstracts like Civil Rights, Personal Freedom, or Equality Before The Law. Risky. Women as a group are more easily controlled and a sufficiently large population that men need not be catered to, any more. Great for women, bureaucrats, and governments!
As for the rest of us, (men and children)....oops.
This sweeping genralization was brought to you by
tparker
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zubaty was right.
What happens to governments, though, is that they grow and ferment for awhile and then they get oppressive (are we there yet?) and then they get kicked out of power: there's a revolution. It'll happen here, and I don't suspect it will be peaceful, but I hope I'm wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What happens to governments, though, is that they grow and ferment for awhile and then they get oppressive (are we there yet?) and then they get kicked out of power: there's a revolution. It'll happen here, and I don't suspect it will be peaceful, but I hope I'm wrong.
I hope you are, too, but I fear you might not be.
tparker
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Women as a group are more easily controlled and a sufficiently large population that men need not be catered to, any more. Great for women, bureaucrats, and governments!"
Whats so stupid is, eventually they will want something and the oppresion that was once laid on men (which may have become sublimely enacted) will eventually go after the next group , namely women. Women will be completely defenceless against the higharchy. They have submitted willingly. No advancement for women as a group has occured whatsoever. This is not innate to women however; this type of dependancy can happen to any interest group. This is why 'white men' as a group are so often vilified by democrates. Who ironically happen to be for the most part 'white men'. Its all just left wing right wing politics and our rights and freedoms are the battlefields.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abandon all hope all ye who enter the “People’s Republic of Kuehl,” where every American dream is a nightmare, for every American male who is automatically a slave to her communist state.
If Sheila Kuehl applied her same "legal logic" used for paternity fraud to all male members of society who have any kind of extended family, a form of Social Security could be expanded to cover all those females and children who are down and out for whatever reason, and all those who are male could be enslaved and made to pay their way. What a minute that’s already largely what’s happening, and she’s defending it and working to expand it.
Taken a step further under her continued efforts, it is not difficult to envision that one could become financially responsible for indigent female friends, or indigent children, because they are the privileged needy and have a right to happiness. A man's ability to pay, and the fact that he is not created equal, or entitled to equal justice under law, could necessitate that he open his deep pockets up to those who glom onto him through becoming acquainted with him through merely the normal course of casual social interaction.
I really think her comments, taken in their context, can be construed to be a social precedent for family responsibility to any vague "family relations."
This bizarre thinking of hers should be well publicized to show the wackiness of this “commie psycho femibabble." In her zeal to abuse men she has over extended her authority to serve the just needs of the people she represents and has entered the ranks of "tyrant dictator," clearly trying to force her fascist, prejudices onto every male member of California society.
Anyone who would dare to pass off the above scenarios as the “hysterical machinations of a delusional mind” needs merely to take a look at the voting record of Ms. Kuehl to see that such a perception does apply accurately, not to the author of this letter, but to the author and promoter of the agenda that Sheila Kuehl has foisted onto the grievously abused male citizens of the State of California.
Sheila Kuehl is the primary author and promoter of the overtly hateful bigotry that seeks to deny male victims of paternity fraud the justice they are due. Only a fool would seek to deny such righteous victims their due justice.
Very Truly Yours,
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday September 28, @03:05AM EST (#47)
|
|
|
|
|
I couldn't agree with you MORE, Ray.
I am usualy very careful not to throw the word "evil" around. But in the case of sen. Kuehl,
I don't think I am being un-duely "judgemental" when I say, I believe her to be just that. plain, outright EVIL.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday September 27, @07:51PM EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
I'd like to see random women forced to pay child support. After all you don't need a man. Any income will do. Why limit yourself to one gender when biology has nothing to do with parenthood anymore? Think of the children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, at one time we were taught that to be color blind was politically correct, although I don't think that is still the current fashion of political correctness.
Perhaps now is the politically correct time for the gender blind phase of paternity fraud to begin. Will the frauds in government please step forth so this can begin. Don't be shy, we know your hypocrisy knows no bounds. If a prostitute can wear white to the wedding our politicians should have no trouble committing to this gender equal inclusivity.
You, Governor Davis step up to the plate. You've already more than proven how meaningless a word justice is to you when you vetoed AB2240.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
California Governor Davis has vetoed AB2240 which would have granted relief to a limited group of paternity fraud victims.
While all of the reasons for the veto are not clear, it is said that he opposed personal service in paternity matters. Personal service would have stopped the problem where the wrong person is served and not notified of the hearing.
The opposition claimed that personal service would not make a difference and that men, being the evil depraved beings that they are, would just seek to evade personal service.
Not surprisingly, the opposition was freely permitted to obscure the issue of paternity fraud and the serious nature of this gender specific crime against men and their families. This of course is a big disappointment. But it is not surprising that this spineless individual would veto this bill in an election year.
This fight is not by any means over. We have just begun. Any future legislation on the matter will have to include criminal penalties.
I will post more on this later as we learn of the details on why the bill was vetoed by stick-it-to-em-Davis.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Son of a bitch! Warble let's talk. We need to get that bastard voted OUT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday September 28, @02:53AM EST (#45)
|
|
|
|
|
NO, NO. I think we should VOTE for Davis.
...as king of the WUSSY-POOPIES, that is.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday September 28, @02:56AM EST (#46)
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, wait, I forgot, you don't VOTE for a KING.
Well, we should vote for him as SOME kind of Wussy-poopie leader, any way.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc,
I'm already talking to the Bill Simon camp. I've explained that we have videos of their lies and historical records to prove they are telling lies. We have testimony of how the state has sponsored paternity fraud and destroyed families. We have women that can talk about how L.A. County uses a system of extortion to seize wages from men.
We literally have democrats on record characterizing this system as one of "state sponsored extortion" (Haynes 8/6/2002). We have the opposition admitting on record that there is a problem with paternity fraud (Ackerman, 8/6/2002). We have testimony in the assembly that characterizes the analysis as bigoted. We have Kuehl sneering at the victims and telling them that it’s good for the system to commit fraud.
We have historical records from Blackman that explain how women were allowed to be immune from prosecution in criminal offences. We have the documents from the first feminist convention that openly admit that women are immune from criminal prosecution.
Simon would be wise to use this opportunity to paint Davis as supporting state sponsored paternity fraud. He can literally put children on T.V. to tell of how their lives are damaged because of this form of fraud. He can get women on T.V. that will tell of how California is extorting money from their husbands and destroying their families. We have men that can tell of how their homes are lost due to state sponsored paternity fraud. This fight is not over! It has just begun! Watch out Davis! Your support of paternity fraud will not go unnoticed. We are talking with the Simon camp about your support of state sponsored paternity fraud. Your ass is toast! You have lied and made false allegations about his business interest. Simon will not forget how you lied on T.V. to falsely claim he is a criminal. He will want to get even. If the Simon camp has half a brain they will realize that they can paint Davis as being anti-family and pro-state extortion.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is great. Nice job bro. This will only unite us even more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warble, if you have contact with a large group of men who have been victims of paternity fraud, perhaps you could suggest legal action. If DNA tests can disprove paternity, then why can these women not be sued for fraud? If women stood to lose more than they fraudulently seized, maybe they would think twice before committing the fraud. But, that might involve too many cases and too many lawyers to be effective, so what do you think of a class action suit against the state for fraud? The victims could pool their resources on one or two good lawyers (even though some might consider that an oxymoron) and stand a better chance than going it alone. At the very least it would cause some media attention to the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...perhaps you could suggest legal action. If DNA tests can disprove paternity, then why can these women not be sued for fraud? If women stood to lose more than they fraudulently seized, maybe they would think twice before committing the fraud.
RPB659,
This is a VERY GOOD question. It took me a great deal of effort and research to find the correct answer to this question. One of the greatest problems men face in today’s culture is that we lack historical perspective. We need to look at the history of our Common Law and the woman’s movement to draw an understanding on why women are effectively immune from criminal prosecution in many instances, and to understand why we have such great sentencing disparities when women commit a crime as compared to men.
In examining the history of marriage law I find that it breaks down to the following categories: 1) Duty of care in marriage, 2) Duty of care taken to assure the biology of the father’s children, 3) The serious criminal nature of committing paternity fraud to extort property, 4) A presumption of legitimacy of the children, 5) Non-legitimacy of children after a divorce, 6) Provision of care of illegitimate children, 7) The woman’s freedom to commit crime, 8) The claim of woman’s moral superiority to men by feminists, 9) Outdated stereotypes, 10) Current need for new paternity law.
Like I said this is a complex issue to understand. Without a historical perspective the public fails to understand the importance of criminalizing paternity fraud. Currently, our schools are so feminized that there is no longer a solid historical perspective taught on how marriage has evolved as an institution. That is why “She LaKruel” and other feminist can openly lie to the public, claim there is still a patriarchy in the marriage, and the public accepts their lies without question. The patriarchy was done away with long ago when women won the right to vote. In a patriarchy, women do not have the right to vote are participate in political office. They are considered inferior to men. Today that is no longer the case except in a few conservative churches. Even there the woman have rights that cannot be denied or thwarted by the church. Thus we find the patriarchy is indeed a thing of the past. It is only due to the ignorance of the public that feminists are able to openly lie and claim that a patriarchy is still in place.
Duty of care in marriage:
It has long been a historical rule that parents were held responsible to care for the needs of their biological children. It is considered uncivilized for parents to abandon children and fail to care for them. Blackstone writes, “The duty of parents to provide for the maintenance of their children is a principle of natural law…but by their own proper act, in bringing them into the world: for they would be in the highest manner injurious to their issue, if they only gave the children life, that they might afterwards see them perish. By begetting them therefore they have entered into a voluntary obligation, to endeavor, as far as in them lies, that the life which they have bestowed shall be supported and preserved. And thus the children will have a perfect right of receiving maintenance from their parents … that the establishment of marriage in all civilized states is built on this natural obligation of the father to provide for his children; for that ascertains and makes known the person who is bound to fulfill this obligation: whereas, in promiscuous and illicit conjunctions, the father is unknown ; and the mother finds a thousand obstacles in her way…” (Blackstone).
Basically, this is stating that by the force of nature there is a duty and responsibility of parents to care for their child. They cannot have children, abandon them, and ignore their responsibilities. This is unlike other cultures in the world that do not recognize natural law. In other cultures, like some tribes in Africa, the children can be abandoned or buried alive if the parents cannot support the children.
Today, natural law, as a means to establishing a foundation for law, has been largely abandoned. In its place is relativism and that states that there is no absolute right or wrong. It argues that we must consider the culture and their social customs prior to making a judgment. So, in effect, relativist condemn those that would look down on African tribes for committing infanticide and would state such persons are ethnocentric and judgmental to condemn such an act.
Relativists argue that it is perfectly moral and legal to perform infanticide within a cultural context because there is no law in their culture against such a practice. For the relativist, there is no such thing as natural law. Basically they claim that all law is the fabrication of culture and humans. From the perspective of a relativist we find that biology is of no effect and should have little or no influence in determining the father of a child.
Duty of care taken to assure the biology of the father’s children:
There has always been a concern on the part of humans to assure that a child be the biological offspring of the parents. It has also been understood that outside of the bounds of marriage, that there is a greater level of uncertainty in determining who is the father of a child. Nevertheless, our culture uses marriage as a means of covenanting two individuals to be faithful to each other.
The purpose of this was to assure that the children would be properly cared for. This is reflected in Old English Law when Blackstone writes, “And the reason of our English law is surely much superior to that of the Roman, if we consider the principal end and design of establishing the contract of marriage, taken in a civil light; abstractedly from any religious view, which has nothing to do with the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the children. The main end and design of marriage therefore being to ascertain and fix upon some certain person, to whom the care, the protection, the maintenance, and the education of the children should belong; this end is undoubtedly better answered by legitimating all issue born after wedlock, than by legitimating all issue of the same parties, even born before wedlock, so as wedlock afterwards ensues: 1. Because of the very great uncertainty there will generally be, in the proof that the issue was really begotten by the same man; whereas, by confining the proof to the birth, and not to the begetting, our law has rendered it perfectly certain, what child is legitimate, and who is to take care of the child.”
Notice that there is great concern reflected in the law for the biology of the father’s children. There has never been a time where a man was required to care for another man’s child when it can be proven that another man fathered the child in question except in the last thirty years, and that transition took place with the introduction of the pill.
Serious criminal nature of committing paternity fraud:
It is surprising to learn that there was concern over the issue of a woman being able to use a child to defraud men out of their property. This crime was considered so serious that the crime of paternity fraud carried the penalty of death. Blackstone notes, “And this gives occasion to a proceeding at common law, where a widow is suspected to feign herself with child, in order to produce a supposititious heir to the estate: an attempt which the rigor of the Gothic constitutions esteemed equivalent to the most atrocious theft, and therefore punished with death.”
Later that law was overturned. We no longer put women to death for stealing property from men in the form of child support. In fact, there is no law that holds women accountable for this form of theft. This lack of accountability has been one of a great coupe de taught of feminism.
It was predicted that this would happen early in the feminist movement by B.V. Hubbard (1915) when he writes, "Feminism proposes the financial, industrial and domestic independence of women from men,-'to be free to give love wherever it is natural,' 'To be free to choose the father of her own children'....The example and practice of the Feminist and Suffraget is for disorder, disobedience, anarchy and chaos." And so we find that Hubbard was right. The feminist’s were highly successful in establishing the current practice of woman being able to defraud any man without a legal consequence.
A presumption of legitimacy of the children:
We are able to trace the concept of the legitimacy vs. the illegitimacy of child back to the Roman Empire. This principle is literally thousands of years old. It has long been recognized that children who have no father will suffer. For this reason, where there is a marriage, the children were presumed to be the legitimate biological offspring of the father. Blackstone observes, “As if the husband be out of the kingdom of England (or, as the law somewhat loosely phrases it, extra quatuor maria) for above nine months, so that no access to his wife can be presumed, her issue during that period shall be bastard t. But, generally, during the coverture access of the husband shall be presumed, unless the contrary can be shown; which is such a negative as can only be proved by showing him to be elsewhere: for the general rule is, praefumitur pro legitimatione.”
A key difference in those days, as compared to today’s culture, was that men had an extraordinary power to assure the biology of their children. A woman was not so much as permitted to go to a theater without the permission of her husband. Nevertheless, despite the ignorance of Sheila Keuhl where she testifies, “But the law, rather, on its own made some decisions about the security of children in saying for instance; where there is a marriage we will declare that the husband of the mother is the father of the child. We don’t care whether he was nor not. We don’t want to hear about that. We will just declare it.“
Obviously, the law has always cared who is the biological father of the child and has always provided men with a way out of the presumption of parentage where there was infidelity. There were no time limits. That is something new that feminists have introduced into law. It was done to limit the rights of men in determining the biology of their children.
The husband has almost always historically been afforded the capability of being able to deny the biology of the child and the responsibilities if he could prove the child was not his. This was of course extremely difficult because there was no genetic testing in those days. There would literally need to be an admission of infidelity on the part of the wife, or there would need to be witnesses of the infidelity on the part of the wife to prove the child was not his.
Illegitimacy of children after a divorce:
After a divorce, there is no longer the level of certainty in determining who is the father of a child. The man is absolved of the presumption of paternity. It was understood that women were free to have sexual relations with many man. Blackstone records the lifting of this assumption when he records that, “In a divorce a menfa et thoro, if the wife breeds children, they are bastards; for the law will presume the husband and wife conformable to the sentence of separation, unless access be proved: but, in a voluntary separation by agreement, the law will suppose access, unless the negative be shown.” Thus it is understood that the man no longer has any power over the woman to limit her social activities in preventing other men from getting her pregnant.
Provision of care of illegitimate children:
It has always been the case that a woman may get pregnant outside of marriage. This was a serious problem because there had to be care in determining who was the father of the child. It was understood that the man could not be permitted to avoid his responsibility to care for a child that might result from their sexual relations. Blackstone records how this problem was resolved when he writes: “The method in which the English law provides maintenance for them is as follows. When a woman is delivered, or declares herself with child, of a bastard, and will by oath before a justice of peace charge any person having got her with child, the justice shall cause such person to be apprehended, and commit him till he gives security, either to maintain the child, or appear at the next quarter sessions to dispute and try the fact. But if the woman dies, or is married before delivery, or miscarries, or proves not to have been with child, the person shall be discharged: otherwise the sessions, or two justices out of sessions, upon original application to them, may take order for the keeping of the bastard, by charging the mother, or the reputed father with the payment of money or other sustentation for that purpose.”
Note that because of the presumption of the woman’s moral superiority to men that a woman would be believed by default. The accused man would be presumed guilty as charged unless he could prove otherwise. Unless the man could prove through credible witnesses that the woman was seeing another man, he would be assigned to support the child. This practice of course leaves the door open to the woman to create all kinds of criminal acts with impunity. For example, a woman could falsely name a wealthy man and collect child support.
The freedom of women to commit crime:
Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England observes that, "...in some felonies, and other inferior crimes, committed by her, through constraint of her husband, the law excuses her: but this extends not to treason or murder
This means that the husband would be found guilty of the woman's crimes if she claimed she was acting under the coercion of the husband. It is a kind of "the devil made me do it" argument. Obviously, women played this to their advantage.
We also have records from "The First Convention Ever Called to Discuss The Civil and Political Rights of Women" which record explicitly complains that,"He has made her, morally, an irresponsible being, as she can commit many crimes with impunity, provided they be done in the presence of her husband. In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master - the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastisement.
An outdated stereotype of female moral superiority:
We find the outdated stereotype of women's moral superiority being echoed at the conference in their resolutions when they state, Resolved, That inasmuch as man, while claiming for himself intellectual superiority, does accord to woman moral superiority, it is pre-eminently his duty to encourage her to speak, and teach, as she has an opportunity, in all religious assemblies.
This is the first American feminists public statement of the well-known stereotype. In this stereotype, women claim that they are morally superior human beings as compared to men. This outdated stereotype is still widely believed and is even widely taught today. Indeed, we find our churches stating that women tend to be more spiritual than men. NOT! This of course is simply a form of bigotry that works against men and plays a role in women's being able to continue committing criminal acts with impunity. We find the same sort of bigotry in our educational systems and government. It is rampant and widespread.
Need for new law:
We see that there is a pattern on the part of feminists to claim that they are morally superior humans to men. Many men also happen to agree with this stereotype. For these men, it is like a victim abuse claiming that they are responsible for an assault. These men fail to realize that men have done many moral goods in our culture. They fail to realize how men perform self-sacrifice for the greater good and the moral fortitude that is demanded to make such sacrifices.
Women know that they have the power to oppress men in paternity fraud matters. It was by design that women gained this right. Feminist gained this perverse right because it was historically permissible for women to commit crimes with impunity, and they believe that they should be able to continue doing so. This assumption is of course based on the bigoted feminist notion that they have moral superiority to men. The roots of that bigoted notion are deeply entrenched in American culture.
Because of the presumption of moral superiority on the part of women, they have been successful in passing laws that permit rampant paternity fraud in our culture. Through the mechanism of paternity fraud, celebrities like Lisa Bonder are able to legally extort huge sums of money from wealthy billionaires like Krekorian by intentionally falsifying paternity test results.
Further, the State of California is exploiting these traditions to increase the prevalence and level of extortion and fraud by women against men. One-way is done is by refusing to properly serve notice to men of a paternity hearing. For example, Steve Eldrid at the Senate Committee of Judiciary Hearings represented The Child Support Directors Association of California on August 6. 2002. He claims to be an attorney. He states, “…the issue as to personal service, we object to any action in this bill that would make child support judgments served under any different realm than other actions under the code of civil procedure.”
After being questioned on this outrageous stance by Senator Escutia he equivocates by saying, “…We…want the most accurate and personal service is the most accurate. Currently, all civil actions can be served either by personal service or by substitute service. If there’s a problem with that….”
Obviously, there is a problem. Steve Eldrid acknowledges that personal service is the most accurate method of notification and claims that they want the most accurate form of personal service. But wait a minute, Eldrid just stated that the Child Support Directors Association of California objects to personal service!
Eldrid cannot have it both ways. Both statements cannot be true. One of the two statements must be a lie or false. That is how the Child Support Directors Association of California attacks the rights of men in California. They put people like Eldrid in front of the Senate Committee of Judiciary to use sophistry, seek to confuse clear issues, and they openly contradict themselves to attack men and their families.
In conclusion, it is clear that woman have historically enjoyed immunity from criminal prosecution. This has been extended and evolved into a serious form of fraud that harms men, women, and children. We see families being torn apart due to the effects of women having the freedom to commit paternity fraud without any legal consequence. We see children having their lives destroyed because of the effects of paternity fraud. We see men decimated by greedy women who seek to legally extort tax-free funds in the form of child support. We see major special interest groups that represent feminist’s interest, who are known to hate men, seek the further the exploitation and destruction of these innocent victims no matter what the costs to their families and children. There is literally a great industry built up upon the practice of paternity fraud by women.
It is therefore the paramount duty of all good men and women that if women are to have equal rights, that there should also be equal responsibilities. Women should not be held immune to prosecution as a result of their criminal activities. They should not be permitted to pass these criminal values to their children and raise a corrupt generation. We need good legislation that will stop the wholesale destruction of innocent and good people.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc:
While your at it, I suggest you talk to Bill Simon (regardless of the partisanship factor).
The enemy of my enemy is my enemy.
Clearly, Gov. Davis is the enemy of men, and has sent a message that the woman's vote in California is far more powerful and important than any valid issue a man can lay before his throne.
Are California men a bunch of spineless, politically correct, feminist ideologues? It certainly appears that's what the Governor thinks of most men in his state. Personally, I find that immensely insulting. Good or bad, the polls will tell all.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, will do Ray. Political party will not matter. Due to urgency I vote on men's rights first. Other issues will have to step aside. I know some green party members who are starting to say the same. When it comes to men's rights I'm blind to political parties.
I think you have the "enemy of my enemy" wrong, no? :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Opps! The enemy of my enemy is my "friend." Did I make a Freudian slip or what? I guess somedays it just seems like everyone is the enemy of men's rights. I should never forget the importance of always striving to make and keep friends first.
How much male bashing does one need to receive before he can validly claim "battered male syndorme" as an excuse?
I'm reminded of something I was taught in the military. I actually liked saying this. When one was caught in a mistake, instead of explaining or making feeble excuse, the words, "No excuse sir!" were spoken instead. There was a certain mindless, macho nobility in not pleading for mercy or justice no matter what the facts of innocence were.
This sexist, American, double standard for men and women (in a nutshell)seems to pervade our culture: #1 Men, "no excuse for anything" #2 Women, "I'm special, a victim, any excuse will do to relieve me of responsibility."
I digress. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and friends that you don't have to compromise too heavily for are your truest allies and friends.
Regards,
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"(she smiles at the default paternity fraud victims in the audience)"
First she makes a lie of the highest law of the land, "all are created equal" and "equal justice for all," but that's not enough for her, not only does this hate monger bigot dispense tyranny and injustice to the demonized male gender, she does it sadistically with a smile.
Very Truly Yours,
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday September 29, @03:42AM EST (#77)
|
|
|
|
|
She is a patronizing, Hateful monster.
Like I said, she makes me SICK to my stomach, Ray.
(by the way, GOOD nick-name for her, "She lie Crule." it FITS her.)
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vocabulary and language are a fluid ongoing process. Dictionaries are constantly in needed of updating as the words that people use become accepted into the language as "merely acceptable" or even "proper" to use. "Ain't" gave Enlish teachers a fit for decades, but it is now in the dictionary.
Is it possible that if "She Lie Cruel" does not change her ways over the coming years, that someday you may see her name as a synonym for misandry?
The most recent example I can give of a political figure's name acquiring a definition due to certain political circumstances surrounding the person is "Borking." He was nominated for some high government position (supreme court?), but was never appointed due to an innovative opposition strategy. A popular variation of his name, now descirbes the process used to defeat his appointment. He was "Borked."
...and then there's that all time classic political achronym "fornication under consent of the king" (no need to spell that one). Allegedly, to the best of my knowledge, this old English law made allowance for the King to have his way with the bride the night before the wedding. A few of the paternity defrauded daddies may have even used this achronym upon hearing of the veto of AB2240 by Gov. Davis, although this achronym is still considered to be a slang expression in our dictionaries of acceptable language.
All things considered, the power of the "Karma" contained in the common man's injustice should not be underestimated in the inexplicable way it transends the physical world to bring a novel, token reckoning for the bitter disfranchisment visited on their vexed spirits. Om!
Grace and Peace to You All,
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday September 29, @07:07AM EST (#81)
|
|
|
|
|
Ray.
You're right. Her name SHOULD be a synoym for misadry.
And her face should be a synoynm for UGLY, too.
This woman wasn't just hit with an "ugly stick", She was hit by an "ugly FOREST"!
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ray wrote:
..and then there's that all time classic political achronym "fornication under consent of the king" (no need to spell that one).
The origins of common phrases and words (etymology) is a particular hobby of mine, so I just wanted, with all respect to Ray, to set the record straight on the origins of this very popular old word.
Fuck, which is sometimes described as an Anglo-Saxon word, is in fact not that old in its current form. It does not appear in writing until the early 16th century. However, there is a personal name which pops up in records from the late 13th century, John le Fucker, which indicates that the word was around at least at that early time in some form. It's possible that it was not recorded in writing prior to the 16th century because it was in fact considered obscene.
No matter what its written status, few etymologists disagree that the word is of Germanic origin, although no one can say precisely whence it came. The word first appeared in Scotland, perhaps indicative of a Scandinavian source; there is, after all, the Norwegian dialectical fukka "copulate" along with the Swedish dialectical focka "copulate, hit" and fock "penis".
Oh, and by the way, this word is simply not an acronym; the widely popular explanations that the word derives from Fornication Under Consent of the King or For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge are absolutely incorrect.
(from Take Our Word For It , a wonderful weekly etymology 'web-zine.')
While 'f*ck' itself has little to do with feminism, it's useful to know that there are various feminist canards that originate in 'revised' or outright false etymologies. These falsehoods are usually an attempt to add a veneer of historical authenticity to the 'patriarchy' myth.
A good example is the women's studies assertion that the word 'history' derives from 'his story,' which they claim as proof that history is solely the story of men, and that the story of women would be known to all and shine forth like a beacon of goodness if it hadn't been suppressed, repressed, etc, by jealous, evil, cruel (etc, etc) men.
The claim the 'history' derives from 'his story' is just plain ludicrous. It actually derives, in English at least, from the French histoire (story). French doesn't even have the words him, her, his, or hers -- these are of Germanic/Scandinavian origin. French uses il, elle, etc for personal pronouns.
Another bit of PC feminst revision is the utterly false claim that the expression 'rule of thumb' comes from a law that permitted a man to beat his wife so long as he used a stick no bigger around than his thumb.
Actually it derives from the fact that the thumb was a commonly used unit of measure for many things in the days before such things as standardized weigths and measures were common. The inch is based on the average size of a thumb from the knuckle to the tip. A yard is the distance from your nose to your thumb with the arm outstretched (useful for measuring fabric and still in use today). The afformentioned 'law' never existed.
Ragtime
The Uppity Wallet
The opinions expressed above are my own,
but you're welcome to adopt them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday September 29, @08:22PM EST (#87)
|
|
|
|
|
Ragtime.
I brought up the "rule of thumb" hoax in another thread.
I know it was de-bunked by some one or some ones, But I can't find information on who it was. Would you happen to know?
I remember it was sometime in the late 80s or early 90s when the feminists started spreading this particular un-truth.
When it was shown to be FALSE, the feminists didnot make any RETRACTIONS but they DID quit saying it. (for the most part.)
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Thundercloud. Here's what I have on the "Rule of thumb" hoax.
---
The "Rule of Thumb for Wife-Beating" Hoax
Feminists often make that claim that the "rule of thumb" used to mean that it was legal to beat your wife with a rod, so long as that rod were no thicker than the husband's thumb. Thus, one constantly runs into assertions like this:
someone might want to be careful using "rule of thumb" in a sarcastic way. my criminal law teacher at UCLA noted that rule of thumb started in England for punishing wives who cheated on their husbands. the rule was that the rod used to beat them could not be thicker than one's thumb(!).
However, Christina Hoff Sommers documents how the link between the phrase "rule of thumb" and wifebeating is a feminist-inspired myth of recent vintage. In her book "Who Stole Feminism" (NY: Simon & Schuster, 1994, p. 203) Sommers writes:
...The 'rule of thumb' story is an example of revisionist history that feminists happily fell into believing. It reinforces their perspective on society, and they tell it as a way of winning converts to their angry creed...
The 'rule of thumb', however, turns out to be an excellent example of what may be called a feminist fiction. Is is not to be found in William Blackstone's treatise on English common law. On the contrary, British law since the 1700s and our American laws predating the Revolution prohibit wife beating, though there have been periods and places in which the prohibition was only indifferently enforced.
That the phrase did not even originate in legal practice could have been ascertained by any fact-checker who took the trouble to look it up in the Oxford English Dictionary, which notes that the term has been used metaphorically for at least three hundred years to refer to any method of measurement or technique of estimation derived from experience rather than science.
According to Canadian folklorist Philip Hiscock, "The real explanation of 'rule of thumb' is that it derives from wood workers... who knew their trade so well they rarely or never fell back on the use of such things as rulers. instead, they would measure things by, for example, the length of their thumbs." Hiscock adds that the phrase came into metaphorical use by the late seventeenth century. Hiscock could not track the source of the idea that the term derives from a principle governing wife beating, but he believes it is an example of 'modern folklore' and compares it to other 'back-formed explanations.' such as the claim asparagus comes from 'sparrow-grass' or that 'ring around the rosy' is about the plague.
We shall see that Hiscock's hunch was correct, but we must begin by exonerating William Blackstone (1723-1780), the Englishman who codified centuries of legal customs and practices into the elegant and clearly organized tome known as Commentaries on the Laws of England. The Commentaries, a classic of legal literature, became the basis for the development of American law. The so-called rule of thumb as a guideline for wife-beating does not occur in Blackstone's compendium, although he does refer to an ancient law that permitted "domestic chastisement"....
In America, there have been laws against wife/husband beating since before the Revolution. By 1870, it was illegal in almost every state; but even before then, wife-beaters were arrested and punished for assault and battery. The historian and feminist Elizabeth Pleck observes in a scholarly article entitled "Wife-Battering in Nineteenth-Century America":
It has often been claimed that wife/husband-beating in nineteenth-century America was legal... Actually, though, several states passed statutes legally prohibiting wife/husband-beating; and at least one statute even predates the American Revolution. The Massachusetts Bay Colony prohibited wife-beating as early as 1655. The edict states: "No man shall strike his wife nor any woman her husband on penalty of such fine not exceeding ten pounds for one offense, or such corporal punishment as the County shall determine."
[Pleck] points out that punishments for wife/husband-beaters could be severe: according to an 1882 Maryland statute, the culprit could receive forty lashes at the whipping post; in Delaware, the number was thirty. In New Mexico, fines ranging from $225 to $1000 were levied, or sentences of one to five years in prison imposed. For most of our history, in fact, wife/husband-beating has been considered a sin comparable to to thievery or adultery. Religious groups -- especially Protestant groups such as Quakers, Methodists, and Baptists -- punished, shunned, and excommunicated wife/husband-beaters. Husbands, brothers, and neighbors often took vengence against the batterer. Vigilante parties sometimes abducted wife-beaters and whipped them.
Just how did the false account originate, and how did it achieve authority and currency? As with many myths, there is a small core of fact surrounded by an accretion of error. In the course of rendering rulings on cases before them, two Southern judges had alluded to an 'ancient law' according to which a man could beat his wife as long as the implement was not wider than his thumb. The judges, one from North Carolina and one from Mississippi, did not accept the authority of the 'ancient law.' The North Carolina judge refered to it as 'barbarism,' and both judges found the husband in the case in question guilty of wife abuse. Nevertheless, their rulings seemed to tolerate the notion that men had a measure of latitude in physically chastising their wives. Fortunately, as Pleck takes pains to remind us, they were not representative of judicial opinion in the rest of the country.
In 1976, Del Martin, a coordinator of the N.O.W. Task Force on Battered Women, came across a reference to the two judges and their remarks. Neither judge had used the phrase "rule of thumb," but a thumb had been mentioned, and Ms. Martin took note of it:
Our law, based upon the old English common-law doctrines, explicitly permitted wife-beating for correctional purposes. However, certain restrictions did exist... For instance, the common-law doctrine had been modified to allow the husband "the right to whip his wife, provided that he used a switch no bigger than his thumb" -- a rule of thumb, so to speak.
Ms. Martin had not claimed that the term "rule of thumb" originated from common law. Before long, however, the "ancient law" alluded to by two obscure Southern judges was being treated as an unchallenged principle of both British and American law, and journalists and academics alike were bandying the notion about. Feminist Terry Davidson, in an article entitled "Wife Beating: A Recurring Phenomenon Throughout History," claims that "one of the reasons nineteenth century British wives were dealt with so harshly by their husbands and by their legal system was the 'rule of thumb'" and castigates Blackstone himself. "Blackstone saw nothing unreasonable about the wife-beating law. In fact, he believed it to be quite moderate."
These interpretive errors were given added authority by a group of scholars and lawyers who, in 1982, prepared a report on wife abuse for the United States Commission on Civil Rights, Under the Rule of Thumb: Battered Women and the Administration of Justice -- A Report of the United States Commission on Civil Rights_. On the second page, they note: "American law is built upon the British common law that condoned wife beating and even prescribed the weapon to be used. This 'rule of thumb' stipulated that a man could only beat his wife with a 'rod not thicker than his thumb.'" It went on to speak of Blackstone as the jurist who "greatly influenced the making of the law in the American colonies [and who] commented on the 'rule of thumb,'" justifying the rule by noting that "the law thought it reasonable to intrust [the husband] with this power of... chastisement, in the same moderation that a man is allowed to correct his apprentices or children."
The publication of the report established the feminist fable about the origins of the term in popular lore, and the misogyny of Blackstone and "our law" as "fact." Misstatements about the "rule of thumb" still appear in the popular press.
That same 1993 Time magazine article that popularized the nonexistent March of Dimes study on domestic violence and birth defects and reported that "between 22% and 35% of all visits by females to emergency rooms are for injuries from domestic assaults" also cited new York University law professor Holly Maguigan: "We talk about the notion of the rule of thumb, forgetting that it had to do with the restriction on a man's right to use a weapon against his wife: he couldn't use a rod that was larger than his thumb." Professor Maguigan's law students would do well to check their Blackstone.
---
Ragtime
The Uppity Wallet
The opinions expressed above are my own,
but you're welcome to adopt them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ragtime,
Thanks for an informative expository. Men are going to have to know their history in this war to fight back. It is the only way we'll have a solid foundation to combat the constant mistatements of the Kruehl's in the world.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday October 01, @12:23AM EST (#94)
|
|
|
|
|
Ragtime.
Thank you for the thorough response.
The kicker is, I READ Ms. Sommer's book years ago. That must be where I learned about the whole thing, I just forgot. THANK YOU for refreshing my memory as well!
Something else.
I think WOMEN would've been getting off EASY if the "Rule of thumb" thing were true.
As someone brought up before in another thread Abraham Lincoln was battered by HIS wife.
No "rule of thumb" for Mary Todd Lincoln..., What she used to clobber poor Abe with was ALOT wider than a THUMB. She smashed him in the face with a 2x4 board.
Funny, how THAT got lost in "HIS-story"!
Hmmm, I wonder if there was a law saying it was okay to beat you husband as long as the "weapon" was "No wider than a 2x4"?
Well, NOW a days it seems the law permmits a Woman to beat Her husband with WHATEVER the hell she wants.
(Then pay $500 to a BATTERED WOMEN'S SHELTER! Just like Tawny Kitaen.)
Sorry, I got carried away, there. 'Guess I was due for a RANT.
Any way, Thanks again.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka-hey! It is a good day to die!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thundercloud:
I believe it was a piece of firewood, but what the heck. I'll bet a dozen doughnuts that Abe probably coudn't have told you that it was even a piece of wood when he was seeing all those stars.
The book is titled: The Inner World of Abraham Lincoln, by Michael Burlingame The story is in Chapter 9. The title of Chapter 9 is, The Lincolns' marriage: "A Fountain of Misery, of a Quality Absolutely Infernal" On Sunday, I put 350 flyers on cars in a local park that had Abe's tired old haggered face on the front. Under it, it said, "The 1st Presidental victim of domestic violence."
It was quite a site to look back in my rear view mirror and see hundreds of cars with our message on. Lets take it too the streets, but as the lawful, intelligent, peaceful gentlemen that we are.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday October 01, @09:47PM EST (#100)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I knew it was SOME kind of a peice of wood.
Either way it got the (dirty) job done.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ragtime:
First off, let me apologize for being intentionally devious in the trickery I unravel below, the trickery that I've used to make my point. The reason I used such devious methodology was to train men to be aware of the depth of deviousness that we are dealing with in radical feminists like She Lie Cruel. Does this sound all twisted up yet? If not, or if so, please read on for further clarification.
The trap I set for myself to be caught in by a subsequent anonymous email has been sprung better by you, Ragtime, than I could have done myself. You speak accurately and intelligently. You are a shrewd fellow, but what seemed straight to you was twisted with a trickster's intent by me to say even more.
What in the heck am I talking about? Simply this, "I really felt the need to make a powerful statement about a tactic routinely employed by radical feminists that I call “STRATEGIC LYING.”" I’d like to find a better term, but that will have to suffice for NOW. It works like this, if you start an outrageous lie that sounds credible, and that will serve your schemes, what difference does it make that your caught lying and have no credibility or integrity if your fabrication is so imaginative and powerful that it takes on a life of its own in folklore and is believed and repeated in wide circulation, and thereby serves and promotes your schemes long after it is completely discredited.
Ragtime: The etymology (origin) of the slang word we have been discussing is as you have accurately stated. http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/fuck.htm
I am caught in the error of spreading a myth. Trapped by someone who knows the truth. At the very least people will be more cautious when they listen to me, or will they?
This word we speak of, the "F" word, has historically served no political purpose that I’m aware of, but it certainly has taken on a life of its own in folklore and is believed and repeated in wide circulation like another popular myth from modern times, a myth that was spun with devilish intent and effect by our very own "She Lie Cruel."
The SUPER BOWL SUNDAY myth has its very own Sheila Kuhel (SHE LIE CRUEL) fem-connection, which brought it to life (gave it a life of its own) and gave it immortality. http://scc.losrios.cc.ca.us/~carrolb/superbowl.htm l and http://www.iwf.org/pubs/exfemina/January2000b.shtm l and http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/superbowl.htm
Type Super Bowl Myth in a good search engine like Google and you can find many more articles covering this topic.
What a way to start your political career. Elected on the power of a lie, and never held responsible for that lie. This freak should be practicing her true talents in a circus instead of the public arena. Better yet, I would feel more comfortable if she were doing hard time in a maximum security prison for the criminally insane. The egregious nature of the damage done to men’s lives by the insidious lies of this proven scam artist are inestimably immense.
I hope that this exercise, intended to illustrate the deviant behavior of radical feminists like She Lie Cruel, has helped to make more lucid the understanding of the sinister evil that is routinely employed by these harpies to deceive and abuse men as a group. Why do they abuse thusly? For the enrichment of a group of very, very evil people (mostly radical feminists), but now also the male Governor of the 5th largest economy in the world (Gray Davis of California). It's all about prejudice, hate, greed, and power. The employment of such overt lying fills a huge ego need in these perverts to show the depth of their disrespect for their targeted victims (the male gender). Who would ever have believed that a group as evil as the KKK, or as demon possessed as the Nazi's could actually wield so much control over the government of such a huge state?
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The SUPER BOWL SUNDAY myth has its very own Sheila Kuhel (SHE LIE CRUEL) fem-connection, which brought it to life (gave it a life of its own) and gave it immortality. "A Major Le Kreuhl Lie"
Ray,
I never made the connection that Kruehl, the woman that created the Super Bowl Sunday Lie, was the same person in the Senate that created the lie of "the law never cared about paternity fraud." This simply isn't true.
It has only ben in the last few years, under the direction of feminist legislatures, that the law has become so corrupt.
Jesus Christ! This bitch never stops! She just gets more sophisticated at telling her lies. Every man must learn that Kruehl is one of the great enemies of men's rights. She is dangerous and she is powerful.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday October 01, @12:33AM EST (#95)
|
|
|
|
|
Warble and Ray.
I see "She lie Kruhel" as a FEMALE version of General Custer, only she hates MEN not Indians. (OK, She probably hates us Too.)
Maybe it's time all of us Men had our own version of the battle at"Little big horn"...?*
*legaly, not LITERALLY!
Thundercloud.
"Hoka-hey! It is a good day to die!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The premeditated treachery of this man hating automaton is mind numbing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thundercloud:
We're trying to document our efforts in paternity fraud, domestic violence, men's rights on WWW.NCFMLA.ORG
Today three of us went to a meeting of the Los Angeles County Domestic Violence Training Committee. We were there from Noon to 3 p.m. and much discussion was exchanged. A man formerly asscoiated with the probation dept. and batterer's programs headed the meetng. There was another man and two women who seemed to be regulars of the committee judging by their demeanor. A couple of other women came in late who worked at some battered women's shelter
In a nutshell the man heading the meeting said that to change the status quo of d.v. law, once it has been accepted, requires that the burden of proof is on those who want to change it. We presented documentation, but they are resistant to change.
I talked a lot. At the end as we were chatting he told me I was not a good listener. I told him there was no place for a battered man who needs healing to go and talk, because of the feminist hijacking of the d.v. industry, and that what I had said in the meeting needed to be said, because of all the bias, unfairness and inequities that exist in the d.v. industry.
I also told him that I may not be welcome at future meetings, but as God gives me breath I will not go quietly away and will pursue the truth of this issue doggedly till the day I die.
I apologized to him, because at one point when addressing the inequities of baterer's programs I may have "stepped on his toes," but I did not consider that an apology for the content of what I said. Metaphorically speaking, people's toes get stepped on when they park them in a walkway.
In this case, because he was involved in a batterer's program that is unfair to men many of whom shouldn't even be in batterer's programs, because of false police reports, mandatory arrest laws, and just outright d.v. bigotry toward men in the law doesn't mean that people shouldn't harshly criticize batterer's programs, because it might hurt his feelings.
In some ways we're probably reinventing the wheel, and in others we may be innovaters. One things for certain we are definitely the ACTIVE part in MEN'S ACTIVISM. As I drove home from the meeting in the slow rush hour traffic I watched the cars hanging on my rear right and rear left as they read the new bumper stickers I had made at an internet site. One says, THERE'S NO EXCUSE FOR FALSELY ACCUSSING ABUSE, another says, FALSELY ACCUSSING ABUSE IS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, and another says, WWW.NCFMLA.ORG
General Custer was a good advocate of the status quo of injustice in his time, and those who were aggrieved by the abuse of the government of that day had no avenue of appeal or remedy for their unjust treatment.
All men in American society are truly like the indians of that time, but we will use the advances in technology and communication to press our cause in the arena of their own hallowed halls of justice, rather than allow them to make us feel so hopeless that we must resort to the desparate measures those honorable men visited on General Custer and his troops. And oh yes we will take it to the public (to the streets) to seek justice in the court of public opinion as well all fully within the bounds of the law.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He was nominated for some high government position (supreme court?), but was never appointed due to an innovative opposition strategy
Innovative opposition strategy?? They lied, called names, lied some more, then when good people came to his defense they turned their ugly attacks and lies on them, too. Pardon me if I have adjectives (along with exclamations and expletives) other than innovative for their "Borking".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No apology needed. Your assessment of the facts jog my memory, and are far more accurate than my foggy recollection and soft soaping.
Regards,
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Innovative opposition strategy?? They lied, called names, lied some more, then when good people came to his defense they turned their ugly attacks and lies on them, too.
It gets damn pretty hard not to utilize these same tactics of the opposition when we see people like Kruehl, Ackerman, Goldsmith, and Eldrid being permitted to spread misinformation on a massive scale to defeat a bill that would bring justice to innocent victims simply because those victims are men.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday October 02, @02:05PM EST (#103)
|
|
|
|
|
True, Warb.
But my guess is, that She lie Kruhel and people like her, believe that Men are "Born suspects", therefore cannot be "Innocent".
She lie Kruhel and her ilk see this as punishing all Men for being evil because to her that is what all men are. they don't deserve justice.
This is a good example of some one seeing the speck in the eye of another, while ignoreing the PLANK in their own eye.
Maybe that's why she's a BLOCK-head.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
