|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can ALWAYS count on a politician, especially a liberal politician, to do whatever it takes to get federal funds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday October 07, @02:00PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
((("You can ALWAYS count on a politician, espesially a liberal politician, to do whatever it takes to get federal funds.")))
RPB659,
Man, you got THAT right.
And, hey, if you can score some BIG points with your militant feminist buddies, by letting THOUSANDS of INNOCENT Men die, all the BETTER!
Question...;
Could these Men, technicaly, be considered 'political prisoners'?
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday October 07, @09:40PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Republicans and conservatives have been nearly as quick as liberals to jump on the "deadbeat dad" hunts and use federal funds to do it. And in this case it took a liberal, or a moderate-liberal (Rod Wright), to write the paternity fraud bill. Not one republican in the CA legislature ever was willing to take it on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe my perceptions are all wrong but it appears that Democrats use us men for target practice for every unjust feminist law that comes down the pike, and the Republicans can't even see us. It's like us men and the issues that are killing us were invisible to them. Man, talk about taxation without representation. According to what men are enduring today, the founding fathers had no grips.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday October 07, @10:48PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
I still don't see why Democrats get scapegoated here when it took a Democrat to write this bill in the first place.
It's also both a Democrat and a Republican who are sponsoring the federal child support witch hunt bill.
Republicans are not merely turning their ears on men, they're doing alot of the same things democrats are. Look at the Bush administration's recent use of the "protect women" mentality regarding Iraq.
There's no need to create divisions here through party bashing.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's correct, there is no need to party bash here.
However, there most definitely IS a need to "ideology bash", since it the underlying ideology which has corrupted these politicians.
Consider the use of the word "liberal". Davis, indeed most Democrats (and Republicans, too) are definitely NOT liberal. Leftist, perhaps, but not liberal.
The old, classical definition of "liberal" had nothing to do with today's leftist mentality. Case-in-point: I am a liberal. A classical liberal. I'm a laissez-faire capitalist. (Which actually is a redundancy in terminology.) I'm a champion of individual rights. I believe in the supremacy of the individual as opposed to the "supremacy" of the collective. The needs of the many do NOT outweigh the needs of the few.
Who's the true liberal? I am.
Who has bastardized the term? The so-called modern "liberals", who I like to call pseudo-liberals because they are. They're fakes. They wouldn't know true liberalism if it walked up and slapped them in the face.
Let the modern pseudo-liberals embrace laissez-faire capitalism and the rights of the individual, and then and only then will they be true liberals.
Others may be content to let the term be stolen and bastardized. I am not. I've simply taken back the term, which never belonged to the fakes in the first place.
Bash this-or-that party? Nah.
Instead, bash the perverted semi-socialist ideology and its adherents who use a term they never earned or believed in the first place.
"Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins." -John Galt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday October 09, @02:10AM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
My point is partly about parties, but it's also that the men's rights movement has all types, not just conservatives. On certain issues I would be considered a "modern" liberal and not a laissez-faire capitalist, such as on land use/environment, disability rights, health care and foreign policy. I might even debate with laissez-faire capitalists or conservatives on those issues at times, but I won't do so here on this sight, and I avoid even raising those issues here because this is about men's rights and there's no need to divide ourselves up when we're already fragmented as it is.
I know modern liberals who are bigger fighters for men's rights than some conservatives and libertarians. And vice versa. I'm also just as disgusted with the democrats and leftists for their hypocrisy on gender issues as anyone here is. But if I attack them or anyone else for it, I'll attack strictly the hypocrisy on gender and not their entire platform.
Personally I think the laissez-faire libertarians have done better on men's rights than any other political party. But that doesn't mean I agree with them on everything, nor does it mean they should contribute to dividing us up by attacking other people's political backgrounds here. We are much more powerful in fighting for men's rights when we don't waste our time dividing up and arguing about left/right politics. If/when the movement grows big enough then maybe we'll be able to afford some fragmentation based on politics. But for the time being, we can't. Unity is the only way to win, for now. And that will mean focusing on men's rights and filtering out politics, as this site has been successful at doing.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday October 08, @12:27AM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Marc,
Sorry. I understand what you're saying.
If it's any consolation, I happen to BE a registered DEMOCRAT.
I'm also on record saying that I believe Republicans and Democrats to be "two sides of the same coin."
My antipathy for BOTH parties stems from my being Indian, also.
I'm not fond of the Democrats because they often try to get "minorities" to martyr their causes and agenda(s). On a few occasions American Indians sided with Democrats, but after the Democrats got what THEY wanted, they said; "Indian issues? what Indian issues?"
Not long ago, they came to "us" again. "We" said "forget it, we're not gonna Martyr your causes again." In turn they basically told us we could "go to Hell." Both Republicans and Democrats believe Indians to be the dimwitted "Ugh, Me get'um Kemosabe" stereotypes, who will fall for anything. This was illustrated, particularly the by Democrats when they tried to fool us yet again. there is a difference between being trusting and being foolish.
Republicans..., well, the Republicans WOULD hate Indians if they gave us ANY thought AT ALL.
Republicans seem to believe that, polliticaly, Indians are USELESS to them.
Also the Democrats tend to roll over for the feminists, no matter HOW illegal, twisted or un-constitutional their demands may be.
And Republicans tend to stand by submissively and LET it happen. probably because they are afraid they will be labled with the Feminist's tried, true and trusty lable, "Misogynist".
The same is likely true for Democrats. Which just goes to show just how much disproportionate power feminists, and "accomplice" women have in an un-reasonalby feminized America.
Anyway, I hope that helps you feel at least a bit better, Marc.
Although, if not, I could understand why.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday October 09, @02:27AM EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
I hear you Thundercloud and I agree.
"Also the Democrats tend to roll over for the feminists, no matter HOW illegal, twisted or un-constitutional their demands may be."
For the most part this is very true.
"And Republicans tend to stand by submissively and LET it happen. probably because they are afraid they will be labled with the Feminist's tried, true and trusty lable, "Misogynist"."
Yeah. And in some cases they actually side with feminists to further their ideiologies, such as the way the religious right joined with the radical fems to eradicate pornography, or the way some Republicans helped spread the "deadbeat dad" myths and one of them recently joined with Barbara Boxer on the federal child support bill.
The misandry is everywhere. And we have a hell of a long way to go.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't disagree with any of this, but I do submit that the Republicans would be more open-minded to supporting men's rights IF they saw a measurable voting block. Democrats are so ideologically-driven that you couldn't coerce them, as a group (there are always individual exceptions) to support men even under the threat of nuclear war.
I think the difference is this: The Republicans are driven by 1) votes and 2) chivalry (there's that word again) while the Democrats are driven by 1) ideology and 2) votes. In my estimation that makes the Republicans somewhat more malleable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is just my opinion:
I assume Radical Feminists are about 99.99% Democrat. Why is that? Could it be that Democrats are the party that carries the agenda of these darlings. Go to the Rad Fem web sites that are even NOW attacking Republican issues right and left, and tell me how many Democrats they are attacking.
Democrats are truly creatures of the political arena the same as Republicans, and are interested in everyones vote, but the most influential numbers (votes) are still most heavily weilded by the feminists and the feminist's ideology is deeply embedded in the platform of the Democratic party. It is embedded far far more deeply there, than in the platform of the Republican party. Whose pushing CEDAW? Ans. Barbara Boxer, Democratic Senator. If a radical feminist issue is actively pushed by a Republican it's an exception. If the Democrats are ever going to convince me that they are going to give more than token acknowledgement to any men's issue they'll have to show me.
Attorney General Ashcroft has just nominated two women from IWF to the National Domestic Violence Committee that are outspokenly against the male bashing abuses of the Violence Against Women Act. Regardless of his politics he has shown me something tangible. Ironically, he too is from Missouri like myself. If ordinary talk is cheap than political talk is worth less than nothing. The only thing I'll believe from any politician is action in the interest of men.
I have no loyalty to any party platform that does not support the equal rights of men. I will vote a split ticket along traditonal party lines. However, considering the outrageous inequities in justice, these days, that favors one gender over another, I do vote a straight ticket along one ideology. That ideology is men's rights. I will vehemently campaign for any politician who supports men's rights, and I will vehemently campaign against any politician that shows his predominant support to be in the radical feminist's camp.
I made the mistake of voting for Bill Clinton twice. I never saw the locomotive of his rad fem agenda coming straight at me until I was flattened on the tracks. He and his Democratic ilk championed the VAWA so I demand an enormous balancing of the accounts of justice for men right's before I will even consider a vote for anyone from his male battering camp ever again.
Very Truly Yours,
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday October 09, @10:44PM EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
The fact is, I would vote for ANY candidate(s), regardless of political affiliation, Just so long as they were fair towards BOTH women's and MEN'S civil and constitutional rights.
THAT is all anyone here is really asking for, right?
And frankly, PARTICULARLY in America, THAT should not be seen as "asking to much". But when it comes to Men's issues in general, It seems that it is, for both Democrats and Republicans.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here, here!!
Gentlemen of the Congress, I say ye Thundercloud!!
:-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday October 11, @04:06PM EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, Thank you.
I'd like to thank the Academy, My Mom and God...,
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, the Democrats are joined at the hip with the gender feminists, but there is little that Republicans or Conservatives or whatever you want to call them can do. If they were to dare to suggest equality or equal justice for men, they would be called woman haters so fast it would make their heads spin. Remember that the mainstream media is a wholly owned subsidiary of feminism, also. And the media hates the political right. (A recent study showed that 89% of the people in the media vote Democrat) They are always looking for ANY reason to bash the right, and even the perception that they might be in favor of anything that would upset the feminazis would be political death for them. I didn't mean to start a war between Democrats and Republicans, because I'm an Independant and I think that feminism is the real enemy. But keep in mind that Republicans aren't free to speak out about things like this, because they will be screamed at by the left and the media whether it's true or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And in this case it took a liberal, or a moderate-liberal (Rod Wright), to write the paternity fraud bill. Not one republican in the CA legislature ever was willing to take it on.
Actually, there are many people who find Wright to be a social moderate, and yes there were Republicans who thought that the scaled down version of AB2240 didn't go far enough. Personally I've found no link between political party and the support of men's issues. Nor have I found a link between liberal and/or conservatives supporting men's issues. Although, it is tempting to think there is a connection.
It does seem there is a link tying radical feminists into opposing men's issues. If a person is a radical feminist and support those ideals, they are most likely to opposed paternity fraud legislation. Note that equity feminist like those found in IWF, iFeminist.org, and others do support paternity fraud legislation.
Eventually, it would be nice to tally the stats on this idea to determine if there is a pattern. I'm betting there is a pattern. My unscientific observations just seem to peg this connection as obvious.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I said it before and I'll say it again:
Get out the MALE vote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but vote for who? As has been pointed out here, neither party has exactly taken up the banner of mens rights. This is only my opinion, but it seems that about the best case that can be made for either side is that at least the Republicans don't work as actively against us. Not exactly a ringing endorsement in my book. Get out the male vote would be great, but are you suggesting that men vote Republican because they're (barely) the lesser of two evils?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It actually doesn't matter, up to a point. The thing is that women vote in such larger numbers than men that men have little real voice in the electorate. The thing is, just showing up at the polls, no matter who you vote for, can make a difference.
I would point out that if you go look at the gender demographics for the 2000 presidential race, you will see that it was the MALE vote that got Dubya into office. The media reufese to say that, but the truth is that the women's vote was just about evenly divided: single women voting for Gore and married women, especially married women with children voting for Bush. The determining factor was the men.
We should be pointing this out to Bush in a big way, but unfortunately, as you've pointed out, it's not likely they'll listen. This is mostly because WE cannot motivate as cohesive voting block.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Get out the Male vote, absolutely yes.
You can get nice bumper stickers made on the web for $4.00 apiece. You can even leave them on long past the election to help get the message across. If I may borrow from your idea, and some others, I like this combo:
Real Men VOTE
Get out the Male Vote
VOTE Men's Rights
Get out the Male Vote
Sooner or later, men's vote will count.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The sad thing about all of this:
What we call "men's rights", used to be known as "human rights". Due process, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday October 09, @11:09PM EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
((("The sad thing about all this;
What we call "men's rights" used to be known as "human rights". Due process, etc.")))
Remo,
Yeah, That's true.
'problem is though, According to the feminists, and what seems to be a growing number of women, Men are NOT human.
Ergo, not deserveing of "human" rights. They rarely come out and say it, But I HAVE heared (some) feminists voice this "oppinion". So if the laws reflect the feminist ideology, and they obviously do, Then By law Men are not human.
My people (American Indians) have been dealing with the same type of "ideology" against us for over a century.
All though, at one time The government, tried to reassure us that, while my people were not "human" we were more "human" than Black people. Oh, yeah, THAT made us feel alot better.
Of course when certain un-named political parties found that Blacks often supported their "agendas", Blacks became "human" very QUICKLY!!
...Indians? Oh, as far as the Government is conserned, were still SUB-human. But just like the feminists won't generaly say that, openly, about men. Our Government won't say that openly about Indians. But it is the SAME difference.
I guess we need permmission from those in power to be Human...,
As an Indian, I've always known this.
As a Man I am learning it now.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With the veto of AB2240 Governor Gray Davis has become the proud father of a brand new “bastard” justice in California. The incontrovertible integrity of DNA evidence shows conclusively that there is no relation, whatsoever between Governor Gray Davis and justice in the area of paternity fraud. Injustice through the commission of paternity fraud now has a truly intimate kinship with this radically feminist governed politician.
It is a ludicrous miscarriage of justice by a Draconian leadership to assume that someone should pay child support for a child that DNA evidence proves is not theirs. This affront to justice and common sense is as nonsensical as assuming that some innocent person should forfeit the rest of their life for a murder or a rape they did not commit. Should it be assumed in the case of murder or rape that the grief and need for justice in society and family members may somehow be served by locking away any innocent citizen? Society's righteously indignant call for justice must never serve as an impetus to deny the rights of others who are innocent.
There is currently a project underway in the U.S. that seeks to free people who have been wrongly convicted of murder, rape, etc. by using heretofore unknown DNA evidence (www.innocenceproject.org). So far, over 100 hundred people have been freed from their wrongful convictions and sentences by the results of DNA evidence. Unfortunately, the negative impact of the amount of time lost to these victims lives staggers the imagination and can never be fully replaced. To knowingly continue to deny justice to any innocent person for any reason in light of valid DNA evidence is unthinkable and intolerable.
There is something fundamentally flawed about a system that demands us to make victims out of the innocent and falsely accused, that demands we take away the rights of the innocent and falsely accused, that demands we incarcerate the innocent and the falsely accused, that demands the innocent pay child support for children that are not theirs. The greatest system on earth, ha! A judge or an elected representative talking such nonsense today, to a person whose been falsely accused, convicted of false paternity, sentenced to pay child support, and still denied justice in light of DNA evidence, is like a pimp talking about virginity.
To deny justice to the victims of paternity fraud so the perpetrators of that fraud can continue their crimes under the guise of that being in the best economic interest of the state is unarguably one of the greatest con games ever to have been devised. If it is true that Justice delayed is justice denied then it would appear that Governor Davis is intentionally ignoring this concept to protect his bigoted conscious and now is the indisputable governor of a constant state of denial instead of the State of California.
Very Truly Yours,
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
