|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ive been following this case a bit and it is simply unreal. She didn't run him over once, she ran him over three times I think...once reversing and hitting him again! There are eyewitnesses that testified to this. If she gets acquited there needs to be a riot.
Listen to what the daughter says in the article:
Lindsey Harris also told jurors that her stepmother had told her just before her father's death that "she could kill my father for what he's done and get away with it."
She knows how biased the laws are. She knows her butt is covered. She needs to fry. She is a cold-blooded murderer.
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
She is a cold-blooded murderer.
If she is acquitted, every man in the country should realize that the government is a fascist, cold-blooded murderer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Acquittal and level of punishment isn't up to the government.
This is not entirely true. Judges have discretion in advising juries. They also have influence in sentencing. Judges should be required to advise juries to avoid considering the genders of the accused and the victim. They should also advise juries that for a given crime, women are typically given far lower sentences than men and that this is a travesty of justice. Sentencing guidelines, laid out by the government, should be putting an end to anti-male sentencing injustices, but they are not.
These duties lie with the government, and the government is not innocent of the travesties of justice that occur in the courts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, the situation you describe is presently the case, though it wasn't the intent of the Founders. Originally, judges were merely employees--the jury, a panel of their employers, the Citizens, whose "duty" it is to know the law, so they wouldn't need judges to "instruct" them.
In the original Republic, it was the Citizens who were the "nobility," the judges, politicians et al. our servants. Of course this has been completely turned around, and judges now consider themselves a wholly superior order of being whose asses must be kissed at all times. But no one is to blame for this development but the Citizens themselves, who have abandoned their duties to the Republic they themselves founded, and left it to the tender mercies of the very same parasites and tyrants our ancestors shed so much blood to escape.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 11, @12:44PM EST (#68)
|
|
|
|
|
Hence the sign which reads (if I can ever get past the filter on this web site that filters out all caps):
FEMINIST TRAINED
COPS & JUDGES
BATTER MEN
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday February 15, @06:07PM EST (#70)
|
|
|
|
|
of your own meanspirited negative and blatantly biased attitudes.
That, and you were all WRONG.
Funny I don't see ANY of you cheering the new awakening of the masses, or going on about the victory for men everywhere.
Figures that you'd be as bad as the feminists you bash.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK guys, we really need to reconsider our attitude about this. I mean Clara Harris claims that David Harris said that she was fat.
If you click on the first photo to the right on the above-linked page, you'll see an enlarged picture of Clara Harris crying. Come on guys, are you going to hold women and infants responsible for their actions? I mean, look at how the poor little baby is crying. Do you really believe that women and infants are responsible for their actions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, American Justice, Law & Odor... don't you love that clean American program? Where the lawyers don't fuck their clients, only one another?
Amazing our progress into the 21st century at that Great Society promise of eGALatarian justice.
The women are weak when applying for a felony in the courts. And strong & can bust butts with the best of men when applying for the fire department--usually she applying for Chief.
Hire her as an astronaut or as missle launcher for a nuke. She sure has no problem there, she says, with PMS or menopause or postpartum depression. That is, none of the above problems until she runs over a nation or needs six months off paid for depression or a slight case of sociopathic schizophrenia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday February 09, @10:38PM EST (#54)
|
|
|
|
|
This reminds me of something I said a while back.
'Women, at least in this country, are the "007 gender". LICENSED TO KILL.'
Thundercloud.
(Yeah, I'm back...,)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday February 10, @01:38AM EST (#58)
|
|
|
|
|
T.C.
Welcome back, we missed you. I heard a rumor that you had been abducted by space alien feminists, but I am happy to see that, the story was greatly exaggerated.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Welcome back, we missed you. I heard a rumor that you had been abducted by space alien feminists
He was. And he whipped their butts.
Welcome back, Thundercloud. I've missed your cultural insights and your humor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 11, @08:56AM EST (#65)
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, Ray.
I missed you guys too.
No, No space alien feminists.
Actually I died. ...But I got better.
Really though, My entire computer went kaput, and I had to get a new one.
But it's good to be back again.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday February 10, @10:53AM EST (#61)
|
|
|
|
|
Again guys ...
Do you want to tolerate this situation without DOING something? Or do you want to strike back, in a safe way that hits our Masters who have put this on us less than wealthy men?
Observe the March 6 work slowdown! Mourn the day Kennedy started strip mining our rights as humans for votes. March 6, 1961. Work S L O W L Y and hit them where it hurts. Every year. And think of 42 years of second class citizenship.
rosa
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rosa, What are you talking about? Did I miss something? Who are you trying to punish? Your employer? Our employers are responsible for our problems? The person who hired us and is paying us a wage in exchange for our work... after we went to them and asked them to? Man, sounds like you need some serious unbrainwashing!!! I'm for accountability, but we have the power to fire our employers at any time if we don't like our situation with any particular one. Am I out in left field? Is there a thread here that I'm missing? Dittohd P.S. If we slow down our work and our boss fires us and hires someone else to replace us, who is hurt more? Us or our employer? Duh!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday February 07, @05:04PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
SJones wrote:
the standard punishment, which the story doesn't mention, is 'counseling' and no jail time.
However, at least at 13:43 PST on 2/7/2003, the article said
"two to 20 years in prison."
Let's wait and see what happens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frankly, even I will be surprised, though outraged, if she gets off. She'll probably be convicted and given a far lesser sentence than a man would be given, if he committed the same crime against his wife.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IF the system nails her, it'll be with tacks.
No matter 2 or 20:
Out sooner than she can put on makeup, good behavior, maybe write a book while she's spending several months. who knows, she may even sell the movie rights. a little therapy, have an affair with her health-care professional.
Not only that she'll get out rich. That is, if her bloody shark attorney does not get it all. Even collect on the insurance for the car she wrecked while adjusting her dentist's dental work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday February 10, @01:30AM EST (#57)
|
|
|
|
|
"Not only that she'll get out rich." "Even collect on the insurance for the car she wrecked while adjusting her dentist's dental work."
Considering that she asked for a refund from her private investigator a few days after she murdered her husband, I would say that what you have said here is highly likely. In the sordid world of the bitter wife, jealous rage and money have prominent places.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday February 07, @05:21PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Sudden passion is a mitigating factor, not a defence. If the jury finds the defendant acted under the sway of sudden passion the sentencing range is reduced; he is not acquitted. It does not mean counselling. It is not applicable to women who commit horrible crimes only.
(see eg http://www.wisecounty.com/themuse/JaneNelson.html)
Thanks for drawing our attention to this case. It's a pity your report was riddled with tendentious errors.
cheers,
sd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday February 07, @06:40PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for pointing that out sd. I agree. The statements made in the post on the main page were full of hyperbole and lacking fact. One needs only to read the actual story linked to in order to discover that. No wonder no one takes us seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday February 07, @10:42PM EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
You said "The feminazi's consistently exagerate facts and statistics and they have no trouble being taken seriously."
Are seriously suggesting that you want us to be like them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are seriously suggesting that you want us to be like them?
I think he's stating that hyperbole doesn't necessarily discredit a movement.
Get a handle, dude.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday February 08, @12:50AM EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
You wrote: "I think he's stating that hyperbole doesn't necessarily discredit a movement. "
If you had seen Glenn Sacks on the O'Reilly Factor tonight you might change your opinion. He did not do well at all. In fact he was practically run over because his thoughts were completely unorganized and he was unable to express them without resorting to hyperbole. His columns are better than that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you had seen Glenn Sacks on the O'Reilly Factor tonight you might change your opinion.
Blah, blah, blah! Anonymouse. Get a handle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Anonymouse" is right. Those who represent a movement and then use some form of a lie, e.g., hyperbole, discredit that movement.
Please refrain from using childish comments against someone who doesn't agree with you.
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Anonymouse" is right. Those who represent a movement and then use some form of a lie, e.g., hyperbole, discredit that movement.
Please refrain from using childish comments against someone who doesn't agree with you.
I don't agree. Lies and hyperbole have often been effective in promoting movements. In this they have a similarity to the use of violence -- the violence of the American Revolution that advanced representative govenment; the violence of race riots in the '60s that brought to the forefront of national consciousness the plight of inner city blacks; the violence of the Stonewall riots that helped unite and advance the gay rights movement. I don't support hyperbole, lies, or the use of violence, but I'm not blind enough to imagine that they never advance a movement.
As for my comment, it has nothing to do with AU disagreeing with what I believe. It has to do with armchair activists, who don't even have enough commitment to use a handle and who feel they can come down from on high to criticize true, effective activists like Glenn Sacks.
Such armchair activism is nothing but hot air, a bunch of blah, blah, blah.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday February 08, @01:34PM EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
You wrote: "Please refrain from using childish comments against someone who doesn't agree with you."
Thank you Josh but you won't change his mind. He obviously did not see Sacks on O'Reilly. The man was completely run over and now the entire men's movement was labeled by the host as "a bunch of fat men sitting around drinking beer and bitching about child support."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone who thinks that one person represents "the men's movement" or that any one person can discredit "the men's movement" ought to quit right now. There will always be a radical fringe. There will also always be true activists, and there will always be cowardly, self-important armchair activists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
now the entire men's movement was labeled by the host as "a bunch of fat men sitting around drinking beer and bitching about child support."
If this type of sweeping generalization based on one performance by one man bothers you, then you aren't even worthy of the title, "arm chair activist."
Glenn Sacks is a champ.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday February 08, @04:23PM EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
Read the posts again. Anonymous did not say those things. The host of the show did. The show is watched by millions. O'Rielly is a champion for millions. Do you really think America isn't going to form an opinion based on what he says about the men's movement? Then you are naive.
Glenn Sacks is a champ.
No one except the host of the O'Rielly show said differently. Learn to choose your battles. No one takes you seriously when your response to losing arguments is "get a handle" in the case of anonymous users or "I don't have time to respond to you" in the case of users with handles.
Sorry but that is the truth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No one takes you seriously when your response to losing arguments is "get a handle" in the case of anonymous users or "I don't have time to respond to you" in the case of users with handles.
Get over it. It's time to fight this battle in a forthright fashion. Stop hiding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday February 08, @05:48PM EST (#39)
|
|
|
|
|
First you called yourself a liar. Now you call yourself forthright. Which is it? You can not be both.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First you called yourself a liar. Now you call yourself forthright. Which is it? You can not be both.
For the record, maybe I'll ignore this lump. I doubt anyone else is interested.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas, Arm-Chair Activist is about as close as it can come! I've been laughing till tears ran down my face.
I'm always amazed when people talk about how "radical views" or "Extreme positions" won't change anything. Really? Especially in our system of jurisprudence? Observe in any court how lawyers react.
I'll give credit where credit is due, and on this point the pheminazis have their shit together. They are always on the offensive, they never retreat, they never concede a point, and they never assume a battle is won just because it's won. They're successful in spewing their filth and poison, not because it's true but because they know how the system works and they have taken the time to learn to play it.
Imagine this, if you will. A man files a lawsuit over sexism. He loses. He's out money. Hundreds of men file. Only one wins.
We've a precedent that now those other x99 men can file appeals on.
Hmmmmmmmm. But, hey, by all means though, lets play chivalrous and fight our battles with the pheminuts on the terms they dictate. We'll be the better men for it.
Suuuuuuuuuuuuuure.....
Absolutely staggering. You know, it's not that great a leap in intuitive thought, folks. Politics is won with rhetoric, with sophistry, with propaganda. Truth? It's a laudable goel. But it's and end, not a means.
The pheministas have proven that.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday February 09, @03:53PM EST (#47)
|
|
|
|
|
Gonzo wrote:
"They're successful in spewing their filth and poison, not because it's true but because they know how the system works and they have taken the time to learn to play it."
My reply:
I just made another new bumper sticker (what else is new). I thought it might be a little harsh, but my 1st reaction was, "right on." It's the classic skull and cross bones (white) with a black back ground. Off to the side is the space for you to put your message. My choice was:
FEMINIST LAWS
ARE POISON
I'm working on my next big sign in my backyard as we speak and it says:
FEMINIST LIES
MAKE BAD LAWS
I protested in front of the court house in one city last Thursday collecting signatures on a letter requesting a Men's Commission and sent the people follow up letters yesterday inviting them to our group (NCFMLA). A day or two after my root canal this week I hope to go to another city with a bigger court house and do it again.
I'm nowhere near the level of knowing how to play the system as well as the Feminists do. It remains to be seen how well Dr. Clara Harris will fare, but judging by the posts I see here, no one is holding their breath that she will get what a man would in a similar case. I need to get more plywood, but may move the following saying up in the rotation of signs I'm doing. It addresses what we are saying here:
FEMINIST TRAINED
COPS & JUDGES
BATTER MEN!
I think that honestly bespeaks the double standard system of injustice that treats men as 2nd class citizens in so many areas, so many cases.
Gonzo also wrote:
"But, hey, by all means though, lets play chivalrous and fight our battles with the pheminuts on the terms they dictate. We'll be the better men for it."
My reply:
I love your sarcasm. We must always conduct ourselves within the boundaries of the laws of the land, but other than that, "there are no rules in love and war," and even fewer rules in our struggles with the "pheminutcase" laws that we men are struggling with for our very lives.
As a survival tactic to the heavy handed pheminut predation that we live under, we must become as wily and keen sighted as any other heavily pursued and preyed upon species, or we will continue to experience even greater loses.
What is ironically missing in the men's movement today is the awareness in all men of their own vulnerability. It is voluminously tragic that the main vehicle of getting the message out is still the rapacious victimization that the pheminuts are committing against the whole male gender. Are men only capable of coming to a full awareness of their vulnerability after they are irreparably victimized by our evil, feminist trained and dominated system of law?
In California it is a practice of the Fire Dept's. and Forestry Service to sometimes light backfires to fight a raging all consuming blaze (fight fire with fire). Water drops are helpful and sometimes work, but when things are clearly out of control and running amuck a higher level of acceptable effort must be expended to contain and abate the destructive forces. In America today many men have already succumbed and been consumed by the evil ravages of feminism, some have escaped the flames, but many more are still obliviously unaware of the perils they live in.
Whatever your level of personal awareness may be to this threat to all males, we live in desperate times of the highest danger to our existence. Personally, the war on terrorism is a side show, a secondary distraction. The terrorism of Feminism has already raised my terror alert level to condition red a long time ago.
As the hate factories of feminism continue to devour new male victims and spew out their ashes, new male victims will continue to awaken to their sudden devastation: sadder, wiser and broke (in every sense of the word).
Yours Truly, Burnt Butt Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good post Ray and many thanks for your energy in getting out there and protesting. I am finding myself in the position to make a few signs myself and would greatly appreciate hearing any tips you might have about materials and process. I was hoping I might save a few mistakes by hearing how you have done things? Many thanks. And yes, they will be used against the femmies.
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday February 09, @06:58PM EST (#51)
|
|
|
|
|
I just made another new bumper sticker (what else is new). I thought it might be a little harsh, but my 1st reaction was, "right on." It's the classic skull and cross bones (white) with a black back ground. Off to the side is the space for you to put your message. My choice was:
FEMINIST LAWS
ARE POISON
I'm working on my next big sign in my backyard as we speak and it says:
FEMINIST LIES
MAKE BAD LAWS
I protested in front of the court house in one city last Thursday collecting signatures on a letter requesting a Men's Commission and sent the people follow up letters yesterday inviting them to our group (NCFMLA). A day or two after my root canal this week I hope to go to another city with a bigger court house and do it again.
I'm nowhere near the level of knowing how to play the system as well as the Feminists do. It remains to be seen how well Dr. Clara Harris will fare, but judging by the posts I see here, no one is holding their breath that she will get what a man would in a similar case. I need to get more plywood, but may move the following saying up in the rotation of signs I'm doing. It addresses what we are saying here:
FEMINIST TRAINED
COPS & JUDGES
BATTER MEN!
Nice work Ray. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday February 09, @07:40PM EST (#52)
|
|
|
|
|
Tom:
I found a place where I get 1/2" - 4' X 8', finish grade, exterior plywood for $15.00 a sheet. I think they called it Luvon and said it was a type of Mahogany. They said it was good for outside signs. I special ordered 6" and 8" stencils at Staples, also smaller sizes in stock, but I'm still looking for the easiest way to do the lettering. Overspray is a major problem using spray paint so now I have good small brushes and carefully paint the letters using the stencils. Vinyl lettering is probably still better, but I'm try to do all this as cheaply as possible. I'm still learning too.
It gets a little pricier to do what I'm describing next.
I also go to makestickers.com to get bumper stickers. This site is great. They have a wide selection of images and you pick the wording. I have a lot of fun with this site. Prices vary a lot with the quantity you buy. Buy only a couple until you're sure they're acceptable. Get feedback from reliable friends. I'm lucky to have the input of the guys at NCFMLA. When I get a bumper sticker that's really good. I make a quantity, but often I just buy two. I have about 50 different ones I've made. I mount one of each saying on a 20" X 40" "sturdy board." Sturdy board is actually the name for a fairly, strong, light weight type of poster board available at Staples (office supply store). I mount twenty different ones on a 20" X 40" sturdy board for tabling.
I also take bumper stickers I really, really like and go to Kinko's (photo copy store) and have them blown up into 18" X 24" posters ($29.00 each). This gets expensive quickly. The actual size of the blown up bumper sticker image on the poster is only 10" X 22." These I take tabling also. They look really sharp.
I also scanned a WWII purple heart that I own and inserted it into a Microsoft word document, then took it to Kinko's and had it made into a 18" X 24" poster. Above it I wrote: 99.99% A MEN'S CLUB, and below it: WHERE IS EQUITY. I really wanted to write WHERE ARE ALL THE RADICAL FEMINISTS below it, but wise counsel said this may be a little too much in your face for the fringe feminists to take at the protest march so I went with the more diplomatic wording. We used a bunch of these posters along with our written signs in the protest march we attended. We were primarily challenging the disproportionate role of men in the military death functions. Don't worry we provoked plenty of controversy among the fem's. that day even being diplomatic. We were diplomatic, but we did not shirk from our message.
One of our members had a T-shirt made from one of our NCFMLA bumper stickers at Kinkos and also made a 8 1/2 X 11 table display out of bumper stickers. We all wore the T-shorts the day of the march.
I even have 7 bumper stickers on the back of my station wagon.
I've had personalized pencils made from sites I've found on the interntet. One says NCFMLA.ORG and has red, white and blue patriotic decoration on it. A 2nd printing from another personalized pencil site is plainer, just one color, but has more writing. It says NCFMLA.OEG and EQUAL JUSTICE FOR MEN. These are cheap enough we give them out like candy when we table.
We also created our own NCFMLA flyer in Word and it's posted on the NCFMLA website under flyer. We pass these out when we table.
I'm probably forgetting something, but that's it in a nutshell.
I actually have all the stuff I table with set up so that I can strap it all down on a dolly with bungee tie downs and roll however many blocks I need to where we want to set up.
Setting up in front of a court house with this stuff has been my ultimate experience with freedom of speech, and you are certainly at one of the premier spots where the major damage is being done to men in this society.
We have a lot of opportunity for activism here in L.A., but guys should do it legally, however they are able, and can afford to do it. It is one of your most basic American rights. If you've been violated by the system activism of some acceptable kind may be the healthiest form of therapy that you can find.
Good Luck and Have Fun,
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many thanks Ray for all of the info. I had to laugh about the 1/2 by 4x8 piece of plywood! How much does that baby weigh??? I think we are going to need to go on foot for a while and will need to travel light. I wonder about a large sign that is not so heavy. Any ideas?
I love the bumper sticker and pencil sites idea. Can you leave the urls??
Your expertise is deeply appreciated.
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday February 09, @10:54PM EST (#55)
|
|
|
|
|
Tom:
I new I was forgeting something. I kind of forgot one little detail. The 4' X 8' sign goes in the 7' bed of my truck with a little piece cut off near the tail gate so it fits. I have a 3/4" sheet of plywood cut to fit the bed of the truck, then I made a couple of stands for the plywood to fit into. It's all screwed together and reinforced with metal braces. It fits and works really well. I have had it on the freeway several times with no problems. Yes, it would be a little hard for even two guys to carry those 4' X 8' babies around. In a big city like L.A., with all those cars, it really makes for good exposure for NCFMLA.
I've even cut a plywood piece to cover my tailgate. It says:
NATIONAL COALITION
OF FREE MEN
NCFMLA.ORG
It looks better than this, because of different size stencils and centering, accent lines, etc.
As far as protest signs, I should have mentioned them 1 st. They are the basics of activism. I've made mine with sturdy board, stencils and magic markers, and I think they look really good. I don't have much talent when it comes to lettering free hand so stencils are critical for me. I like to do black lettering on the white sturdy board, and key words, that I want to emphasize, I print in Red. I think it makes the whole sign more attention getting too. If it's all black lettering it just doesn't seem to "jump off the page" as much. I know we have at least 25 or more signs in our repertoire now, and we'll need to come up with some new Father's issues signs for our rally coming up on Father's day.
I have never in my over 50 years of life been a street portester, but I'm living proof it's never too late to start. So far in the past year I've been to two, big, formal protests, where we publicized men's issues, and I think I've gone out about 15 or more times by myself protesting on the streets of L.A. Somtimes my protest consisted of nothing more than driving my truck down to the big intersection and parking it with all the signs displayed, putting flyers under the windshield wipers (next to a take one sign). I even put a sun shade in the front windsheild saying NCFMLA.ORG. At this point I go home and take a nap or do my yard work or go shopping, etc. Protesting with the truck I also drive it when I have errands to do, but always try to park it on a public street so as not to offend merchants.
Getting back to the posters. If price is a concern, and I don't know too many people for whom it is not an issue, then cardboard and some magic markers are a great way to go.
I'm sure there are other good ideas out there that I haven't thought of. Improvisation and creativity are a bonus in getting peoples attention, and I certainly would welcome any ones idea. I have already been out there with sayings on signs that came from postings I've seen on this web site. Thanks to all the contributors to mensactivism and especially to mensactivism itself.
When I was at the Gov't Ctr. last week another protester was there, and he had all of these cardboard boxes with sayings on them(unrelated to men's issues). He covered them with white paper poster board and he had a variety of nice lettering making his sayings. He must have know a sign printer. He stacked them up in some kind of order. Later he changed them around. It didn't look like something I'll be trying any time soon, but whatever works for you and your comfortable with is probably best. Whatever gets the word out about men's issues, and the crisis that men face daily is something we all should try to do as best we can.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The feminazi's consistently exagerate facts and statistics and they have no trouble being taken seriously.
By whom? By themselves, to be sure.
Are seriously suggesting that you want us to be like them?
For my part, no. If we act like them, they've won. What, after all, is the First Ignoble Truth of Feminism? That there is no significant difference between men and women--i.e. between us and them. If we behave like them, their point is proven.
If those who claim to represent "men" behave just as childishly and irresponsibly as those who claim to represent "women," nobody will get out of this cesspit. My point is that one of the things men are for is to strive and inspire humanity to better itself. If the best we can offer is more of the same garbage they are spewing, then we truly have nothing to offer them, and they are right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday February 08, @12:52AM EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
You wrote: "If those who claim to represent "men" behave just as childishly and irresponsibly as those who claim to represent "women," nobody will get out of this cesspit. My point is that one of the things men are for is to strive and inspire humanity to better itself. If the best we can offer is more of the same garbage they are spewing, then we truly have nothing to offer them, and they are right."
I think that is very well stated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday February 07, @05:33PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
From http://www.click2houston.com/hou/news/stories/news -192910020030122-140121.html
Potential jurors were asked a variety of questions, including how they felt about infidelity.
About two dozen of 73 potential jurors said yes Wednesday when prosecutor Mia Magness asked if anyone, particularly women, could emotionally relate to the defendant, Clara Harris.
"Any married woman can," one potential juror said.
When Magness asked the jurors," Is there anyone here who has already concluded this is sudden passion without hearing testimony?"
About a dozen jurors answered, "Yes."
One in six jurors admits to being so biassed that they already decided the woman acted under sudden passion, simply based on the news that he was having an affair.
"Is there anyone here who believes because he cheated he deserved it and had it coming?" Magness asked.
Two jurors, a man and a woman, replied, "Yes
And two (presumably of the 59 remaining after those who answered yes to the preceding qestions had been dismissed) believe that a man who has an affair deserves to die.
55% percent of respondents to Click2Houston's online poll side with Harris.
cheers,
sd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
She needs to fry. She is a cold-blooded murderer.
Sorry, I don't agree. I don't think anyone "needs to fry." That's a barbaric sentiment. Precisely the problem with our "justice" system--not to mention our society as a whole--is that there's too much sentiment in it, too little clarity. Nor do I think she's a "cold-blooded murderer." She killed a man, yes, but I see no reason to believe that she deliberately planned to do so, which is what "cold-blooded" means. Unless everything she says is a lie--and I see no reason to think so, not to mention the principle of "presumption of innocence" which is basic to our (though not to any other) system of law--clearly she was distraught. She allowed herself to be overcome by passion, and killed a man as a result. If we in turn kill her with our passion, what are we?
Given what she was going through, I'm entirely willing to believe that she was not fully aware of what she was doing, and I can certainly understand her weeping in court as it becomes unavoidably clear to her how she has irreversibly changed her life by allowing herself, in a moment of passion, the woman's prerogative of acting on her feelings. Whatever the outcome of the game she's currently playing in court--which is mostly being scripted by the high-powered, grandstanding lawyers and other parasites who run the legal system--in her heart she knows she has incurred a debt, and the debt must be paid. She may not have the dimmest idea of how, or when, but she will carry the burden until it is discharged.
Lord, what a mess! What that man did to her was outrageous and despicable. I can't help wondering why she married him, and why, after he'd shown his colors, she debased herself so thoroughly in the attempt to "win him back." Quit her job, scheduled breast-enhancement surgery, etc. She's not a bad-looking woman. When I read about this, and look at her face, I feel like crying myself. So much suffering! Jesus wept, indeed.
And what about the other woman? In a more honest time, she'd have been called a "home wrecker." Nowadays such women seem to get off with little or no comment. After all, what this comes down to is two women fighting over a bone, er, "man" who really doesn't seem to have been worth a hill of beans.
Nevertheless, none of this is rightly the concern of the judicial system. A human being, however despicable, was killed. The purpose of a system of justice--recall that Justice is represented as holding a set of scales--is to return the world to balance.
What can balance the taking of a life? Only, it seems to me, another life. A life is worth a life. If a life is not worth a life, what is your life worth? Or the life of the one you love?
However, though this may seem self-contradictory, I oppose the so-called "death penalty." "Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?" is a serious question that must be answered by anyone who supports this idea. The only legitimate reason for killing is self-defense against an immediate deadly threat. Anyone, even an employee of the State, who kills for any other reason incurs the debt of killing. In karmic terms, an executioner is also a murderer. The Commandment does not say "Thou shalt not kill--unless thou have a license from the State."
So what shall be done with those who kill? The libertarian solution is some form of banishment: not vengeance, not punishment, but a practical solution to the problem posed by someone who has demonstrated that e is unwilling to live by the rules that society must support to survive. By this I mean real banishment to some kind of situation where the killer has no further opportunity for human relationship, as e has demonstrated es contempt for the most basic law of relationship, i.e. "Do not kill."
[Note: e, es, em: gender-neutral pronoun.]
In our present situation, there is really no place outside the worldwide society in which we live, to which someone could be banished. Thus imprisonment appears to be the only option. But not as "punishment," nor as a "country club." For one who has killed, in a case where there is no doubt, perhaps imprisonment for life, in solitary confinement in a bare cell, with some arrangement so the prisoner may pay the cost of es upkeep by doing some work--e.g. trading something for the food supplied through a slot in the (permanently closed) door. And also some provision which would allow the prisoner to commit suicide if e so elected. Such a person already has blood on es hands, and has the right to choose if e shall pay es debt in this way. It might be argued that someone else has a "right" to take the killer's life, but if in so doing the other would become a killer emself, it does not seem like a "right" worth exercising.
As a Buddhist, it is my understanding that any debt I incur will eventually have to be paid, in this lifetime or another. Putting myself in that position, I would want to get it over with as soon as possible, i.e. within this lifetime. Perhaps my own death (but not by any other's hand, which would then impose upon em the debt of having killed) would be the appropriate balancing, or perhaps some sort of life devoted entirely to the service of others. Or a life of absolute solitude. In earlier times, a murderer could take refuge at the altar of a church, symbolically placing emself outside of the ordinary world, like a totally renunciate monastic. Such a person is spoken of as "dead to the world." But in any case, if I have killed, whether by clear intent or through negligence (and I consider acting on "sudden passion" a form of negligence, i.e. irresponsibility), my life is forfeit.
As for the question of "sudden passion" and its relation to matters of gender, I was amused recently to read the following in a novel about a judge in 18th century England:
"He kept saying over and over again, 'She shouldn't be tried at all. A woman ain't got guilt the same as a man!' I know what he means, and I must say that in some ways he's right. Women, in this society--perhaps in all societies--have what you might call 'diminished capacity.'" --Sir John Field, 18th century British magistrate (Bruce Alexander, An Experiment in Treason, Putnam, 2002)
This is the traditional thinking, and one of those privileges which feminists, despite their cry for "equal treatment," apparently want to keep for themselves. That women want to have their cake and eat it too may not be new, but what is new is that men are taking their irrational, unworkable demands seriously.
I looked up "diminished capacity" (which is, I believe, the legal term for what is commonly called the "insanity defense") in Black's Law Dictionary (1991 edition):
Diminished capacity doctrine. This doctrine recognizes that although an accused was not suffering from a mental disease or defect when the offense was committed sufficient to exonerate him from all criminal responsibility, his mental capacity may have been diminished by intoxication, trauma, or mental disease so that he did not possess the specific mental state or intent essential to the particular offense charged.
(Interesting to note that my 19th-century Bouvier's Law Dictionary has no entry for "diminished capacity.")
Personally, I don't think so. In order to have a sane society, those who are considered to be adults, i.e. entitled to act as free agents, must be held responsible for their actions. Anyone who is of chronological age and has enjoyed the privileges of adulthood must be considered an adult. If some can get off with an excuse, pretty soon everyone is crowding the door, doing their best to be included in the same category. And we have what we have now, a society in which being a "victim" is the most honored status.
When a crime is committed but the committer is let off on some excuse, there is a kind of hole created in the fabric of society, a bill that has not been paid. Actually, it will be paid, unconsciously, by everyone else, in the form of a society in which, ultimately, nothing can be counted on. Eventually, enough such discrepancies will destroy the fabric of a society.
jd, whoever you are, you make some good points. If "sudden passion" is not an excuse for this woman's actions, then neither should we, who claim to be men, act out of passion in our responses to this terrible tragedy. It is true that the news article nowhere says that she will get off, only that she might get two to 20 rather than life. Whatever you may think of this, it is irresponsible to misquote the story, or "exaggerate for emphasis" in such a matter.
However, the story of "Watkins" referenced by jd is an example of how feminism in its quest for "equality" has dumbed everyone down to its own lowest common denominator: if women can get off with such an excuse, it's only fair that men should be let off too. Perhaps feminism's stated goal is truly impossible? Maybe women are simply incapable of acting, and being held responsible, as adults. But if so, then someone has to do it, and we should return to the "bad old days" when at least men were held responsible, even if women were not. And women should be kept "in their place," where their inability to be responsible can do the least damage.
55% percent of respondents to Click2Houston's online poll side with Harris.
That's the trouble with democracy, and why this was intended to be a Republic, ruled by laws, not by the changing whims of the daily majority--including women, who are, after all, the absolute majority in the population. It was precisely to avoid this situation that women were not included directly among the electorate when the Republic was established.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
She killed a man, yes, but I see no reason to believe that she deliberately planned to do so
From the article: "Lindsey Harris also told jurors that her stepmother had told her just before her father's death that 'she could kill my father for what he's done and get away with it.'"
If Clara Harris made that statement before confronting her husband with his lover, then she was planning the murder and she is a cold-blooded murderer.
As for not wanting anyone to fry, there are a lot of government sanctioned injustices that I don't want anyone subjected to. Unfortunately, many of them will not come to an end until women suffer the same injustices as men.
she knows she has incurred a debt, and the debt must be paid.
Don't bet on it. Though she may not get away with it, she's hoping to get off easy because she's female. For a given crime, women are consistently given far less severe sentences than men. The fact that she expects to get off easy is clear from the statement (provided she really made it) "she could kill my father for what he's done and get away with it."
I don't have the time to read the rest of your post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just watched a piece on this trial on Fox news and there are nine women on the jury. However, there was a trial attorney who was asked if this was an advantage for her. His answer? He said that the women on the jusry were likely to deal with her more harshly than the men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He said that the women on the jusry were likely to deal with her more harshly than the men.
This fact crops up time and time again. Women really are not men's enemies. Feminists are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas said: "This fact crops up time and time again. Women really are not men's enemies. Feminists are."
Amen Thomas.
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If Clara Harris made that statement before confronting her husband with his lover, then she was planning the murder and she is a cold-blooded murderer.
I still don't think so. I'd take the daughter's testimony as evidence that Clara was already in a non-rational state, which is not surprising, given the rest of what I've read. She'd already lost her head when she swallowed the guy's ridiculous criticisms (your bust is too small, etc.) and quit her job, scheduled breast surgery, and all the other desperate stuff she was doing in the insane hope of "winning him back." She was nuts. Certainly she was a hot-blooded murderer, but not a cold-blooded one. There's a difference--though again, it is not an "excuse."
But nor is there any excuse for the way this man treated her. Who taught her to put up with this kind of treatment? She is a tragic figure precisely because she lacked the strength of character not to get into this situation, and now must pay for what she did.
As for not wanting anyone to fry, there are a lot of government sanctioned injustices that I don't want anyone subjected to. Unfortunately, many of them will not come to an end until women suffer the same injustices as men.
What the government does is the business of those who run it, who will have to answer to their Creator for their actions--as will I, so I do my own thinking, and support only what I feel I will be able to justify when that time comes. The Buddha said, "Hatred does not cease by hatred."
The fact that she expects to get off easy is clear from the statement (provided she really made it) "she could kill my father for what he's done and get away with it."
I was not describing the superficial level of her conscious thinking, which is doubtless entirely occupied with getting "away with it," if possible. My point was that at a deeper level, like all of us, she knows the truth. I do believe women have souls--if anyone does.
I don't have the time to read the rest of your post.
As can be seen from your misunderstanding what I wrote. Actually, I didn't have time to write it either, which is partly why it's so long. The present subject pushed a button connected to an essay I've been thinking about for a long time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I continue to believe that she had awareness of her actions and intentionally ran over the husband. The daughters statement leads me to believe that. The fact that the daughter was in the car also says that she didn't run helter skelter to the auto and jump in in a moment of passion...she had enough time to let the daughter into the car. Was her judgement impaired? I am sure it was. Anyone who would do this is obviously impaired. But that does not excuse her from murdering this man. BTW when I say "fry" I mean be prosecuted to the nth degree. I think you are assuming my meaning here a bit.
If the genders were reversed this conversation would not be taking place. If a man was upset about his wife having an affair and he got into his car and ran over her THREE times, the last time backing over her, he would get the worst sentence he could get. He wouldn't have the option to cry in court and appear a victim. etc etc etc.
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If a man was upset about his wife having an affair and he got into his car and ran over her THREE times, the last time backing over her, he would get the worst sentence he could get.
Just to be fair, Cathy Young in her column on this subject cites the case of a man who shot his adulterous wife and her lover, and based his defense also on "sudden passion." He was let off with (I believe) a suspended sentence (that, or a very light sentence). His name was Jimmy Dean Watkins, and I was eventually able to find an old story about this.
Young notes that this outcome was met with outrage from feminists, and if Clara Harris is able to get off on this basis, we should be outraged, too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Who taught her to put up with this kind of treatment?"
Driving Instructor?
Ack!
Non Illegitimi Carborundum, and KOT!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday February 08, @05:28PM EST (#38)
|
|
|
|
|
You know what? The way he treated her lasted as long as she sat and listened to him.
Give me a break. Abuse is a two way street, one to dish it out, one to take it. She had a choice to tell him to take a hike, and she did not.
Phil, it is very obvious you are trying to place your beliefs on this society, but unfortunately the two are not very compatable. Quite frankly, given human nature, one would be kinder in taking a person's life than in completely isolating them for the rest of their life. Complete isolation is the most severe punishment.
The whole balance thing is a theological debate, not a legal one.
Legally, she committed murder. And she was stupid enough to do it in broad daylight with witnesses. So even if she was distressed, I do not believe that was an excuse. She should also be charged with endangering the welfare of a minor...she had his daughter in the car! Can you imagine what that poor girl is going to have to deal with?
Jen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The way he treated her lasted as long as she sat and listened to him... The way he treated her lasted as long as she sat and listened to him.
Thank you, Jen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The way he treated her lasted as long as she sat and listened to him... The way he treated her lasted as long as she sat and listened to him.
Oops!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But nor is there any excuse for the way this man treated her. Who taught her to put up with this kind of treatment? She is a tragic figure precisely because she lacked the strength of character not to get into this situation, and now must pay for what she did.
It is possible that she went over the edge because of her husband's infidelity, but please note that that kind of speculation cuts both ways. As one early commentator on this case stated, "Mr. Harris may have had his reasons for falling out of love with the woman who allegedly mistook him for a speed bump."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nor do I think she's a
"cold-blooded murderer." She killed a man, yes, but I see no reason to believe that she deliberately planned to do so
Well there are the alleged statements to her step-daughter prior to the incident. If the step-daughter's reports are truthful then the defendant was at least considering the possibility of killing her husband some hours before her sudden access of passion.
You seem rather keen to exculpate the female in this case.
cheers,
sd
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday February 07, @09:03PM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
I predict that she will get off on the grounds that the car made her do it. Silly men, everyone knows women can't help themselves, unless of course their hand is in your wallet. Oh yea, or unless their foot is on the gas and your in their sights.
Ran over him three times huh? Does she have a problem with stuttering too? Poor woman, THERE's NO EXCUSE FOR ACCUSSING A WOMAN OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. Men or so insensitive. Why did he have to die so slowly and make her run over him 3 times. It's all his fault.
Not so Sincerely Yours, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday February 08, @06:16PM EST (#40)
|
|
|
|
|
I heard MSNBC headline this case this afternoon as "The Mercedes Murder." You were right, the car did it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday February 09, @04:19PM EST (#48)
|
|
|
|
|
I have only seen one article referring to this case as domestic violence (last paragraph), and it was by Cathy Young and posted on MND. It's still there.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/adi/N339.burstmedia.com/ B922384;sz=468x60;click=http://www.burstnet.com/ad s/ad9687a-map.cgi/BCPG15780.31974.32845/BURSTURL=; ord=29509?
(no spaces)
I sent it to this web site (mensactivism), but for whatever reason it didn't get posted. No problem.
Funny how that term (domestic violence) has so frequently been omitted in this case. Has anyone ever heard this referred to as domestic violence in any other sources? "THERE's NO EXCUSE FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE," unless of course it happens to be a female committing it, then you can just excuse it and call it something else (Mercedes Murder). It still appears highly politically incorrect in most circles to challenge the sacred myth that it is only men who committ domestic violence.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday February 09, @11:54PM EST (#56)
|
|
|
|
|
March 6, 1961, less than 2 months after the WW2 "Greatest Generation" came to power, Kennedy issued the first Decree of "Affirmative Action". This was a black day for those of us under 21 or unborn.
All white men in the USA need to celebrate this day by a *SEVERE WORK SLOWDOWN*. This March 6 and *EVERY* March 6 until we have our civil rights back.
Do not work hard at all -- show up but do little. Some sand in the gears might not hurt. Let them know we want our rights back.
3/6/61 -- a day that will live in infamy!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some sand in the gears might not hurt.
I heartily recommend "The Monkey Wrench Gang," by Edward Abbey. It's a delightful, inspiring read.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 11, @09:01AM EST (#66)
|
|
|
|
|
Can Indians join in?
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First of all, I oppose any violence 100%. I think Clara
Harris should be convicted of premeditated murder. I am
also surprised that in 2003 when the policy is zero tolerance
for violence, she can use the jealousy defense. That defense
is not even a dubious claim of self-defense but an outright
excuse for a brutal murder.
What surprises me even more is that many reporters
are taking her side. These reporters seem to be motivated
by nothing except extreme hatred of men, and absolute
lack of ethics and compassion. When Blake's lawyers
tried to blame the victim it caused an outrage. Why is blaming a
male victim so acceptable in our society?
In 2003 no man would be able to use "passion"
defense in crimes much less then murder. And I agree with
zero tolerance for violence 100% -- but why is the principle
not applied to women?
And in my opinion many men are far more outraged
then Clara Harris was. Can a man who kills his cheating
wife expect to get away with it in 2003? Definitely
not. The one case where a man in Texas killed his wife
who both cheated and mentally tormented him got probation
caused huge outrage -- and rightly so.
Can a man falsely accused of a crime use sudden
passion defense if he commits violence against his
accuser or accuser's lawyer? Of course not -- a man freed
from California's death row in 1990's found himself
back on the death row after committing a crime against
those responsible for his wrongful conviction.
Can a sensitive man driven to insanity by continuous
stream of male bashing and extreme man hating in the media
use sudden passion defense if he commits a crime against a
media person and get a lighter sentence for it? Of
course not! In all cases of men stalking or harming
public figures, the offenders got severe punishments.
Regardless of how cruel, hypocritical and misandrist
that media person is.
Can a man treated unfairly by divorce court
claim sudden passion if he commits a crime against a
judge who blatantly disregards US Constitution? Of course
not. Men who committed such crimes in 1990-s automatically
got life (or death).
A man in any of these circumstances will be treated
as a violent criminal and get maximum punishment. Regardless
of how much he suffered, or how much "sudden passion"
he had. Why not Clara Harris?
If Clara Harris's brutal murder of her husband
will be reduced to manslaughter, it will show once again
that in USA there is one set of laws for men and another
for women. Despite the legislature's *PROMISE* of equal protection.
PUNISHMENT AND CRIME
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday February 10, @04:16PM EST (#64)
|
|
|
|
|
John wrote:
"What surprises me even more is that many reporters are taking her side. These reporters seem to be motivated by nothing except extreme hatred of men, and absolute lack of ethics and compassion."
My reply:
I recently heard Jeraldo Rivera on Fox News refer to this murder of Dr. David Harris as "comic." On the same show he was villifying Scott Peterson, Laci Peterson's husband. She's the missing Modesto, CA woman. He was saying all kinds of things about the likelihood of his guilt. Talk about unfair and unbalanced. Fox News is plainly and simply idiotic, when it comes to presenting a fair and balanced presentation of any issues involving gender.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 11, @09:32AM EST (#67)
|
|
|
|
|
Something else.
I've noticed that the news media, when reporting on this story keeps stressing that she killed (not murdered) her "CHEATING HUSBAND".
also they keep repeating, to the point of exhaution, the fact that Dr. Harrisson's own family is testifiying on Clara Harrison's behalf. Saying things like "She [Clara] is a good mother."
Okay, Who freaking CARES what kind of mother she is? and what difference does it make, whether or not Dr. Harrison was a "CHEATIN' HUSBAND"?
WHERE, I ask, does the law say you can murder some one because they are un faithful, or because you are a "good mother"?
Show me ONE instance where people were showing sympathy for a man that murdered his wife because she was cheating on him, or because he was a good father.
'Doesn't work that way, now DOES it?!?
So, here we go YET AGAIN with a woman who murders a man, who will 'boo-hoo', make every excuse in the book and then get away with it or get some lame sentance. We've all seen it happen time and time again.
Will it be different this time?
Maybe.
But I doubt it. I really do.
John said he is suprised that so many reporters are takeing Clara Harrison's side.
I'm not.
That's USUALY what happens whenever a woman murders a man.
The reporters rarely come right out and say it. But you can alaways tell by HOW they report it, that they are saying; "The bastard DESERVED it!"
Their reporting speaks for it's self.
How many reporters would EVER describe such a grisly murder as "comic" if a man had done this to a woman...?
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
