|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bill McGaughey, author of "The Independence Party and the Future of Third Party Politics" is running as a Democrat. See here for details, albeit the author isn't a fan of his.
"He'll be the guy carrying the sign that reads "I believe in the full citizenship, dignity and equality of white males (and everyone else, too).""
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Until we have "proportional political electoral representation" instead of our current "winner take all" form of electoral representation, women and their allies (minorities-illegal aliens-etc) will have dispproportionate and unjust political and economic power.
Our current political framework is inadequate for the just preservation of the rights and liberties of males, especially Caucasian males.Neither the Republican (certainly not Bush) nor Democratic parties (no Democratic Presidential candidate that I'm aware of) are efficaciously and justly representing the rights and liberties of males, especially caucasian males. Constitutional Republican forms of government are good forms of government according to Aristotle in his book, "Politics." According to Aristotle, in this book, in democracies the "unfortunate" tend to unjustly grant themselves political power and economic power over the citizenry at large because of their
sheer electoral power. However, in both the Republican and Democratic parties, democratic
politics govern as "women, minorities, illegal immigrants, and others" represent the electoral
majority and none of the other political institutions (the courts,buracracy) in the USA,Canada, nor Great Britain, have protected the citizenry in general (especially caucasian males) from the unjust deprivation of their Constitutional Republican rights. In effect, the USA has a "democratic" form of government rather than a "Constitutional Republican" form of government in which the rights and liberties of all citizens are protected. Aristotle deemd this
"democratic" form of government as a bad form of government along with tyranny and oligarcy because it did not protect the economic and political rights of all citizens. In the
Declaration of Independence of the USA, the same stated that if the aforementioned "long chain of abuses" occur, the people have the right and duty to "abolish or alter" the form of government in question. I believe that we should do the same given the above. One means to doing the same is to replace our "winner take all" form of electoral representation with "proportional political-electoral" representation such that males can have effective political representation.
C.V. Compton Shaw
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There will never be a true "men's candidate" (apart from Farrell in Cal.) because politicians -- especially male politicians -- are too afraid to talk about men's issues for fear of upsetting women voters. Just look at the Republicans and Title IX. Bush's party was supposed to be the "man's party".
I truly believe that women politicians -- most of them at least -- provide the only faint hope for men's issues because they are not concerned about being branded "anti-women" and are often eager to prove that they are not radical feminists. Not all, obviously (Pelosi comes to mind0, but a great deal of them. Just look at the main critics of feminism today, many of them are women who have experienced and perhaps suffered from the anti-male climate in society through relationships with men that they love.
I love feminism!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday September 23, @09:04PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
"man's party".
This is man put many men to death Texas, and sent many more men to die for Saddams non-existant ties to 9/11, and the non existant WMD. He's a chickenhawk, his dad got him out of going to Vietnam while 58,000 (mostly) working class men and 8 women were sacrificed for capitalism. Not that I'm a Marxist, but let's be honest that's what the war was about.
P. George
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not that I'm in disagreement with you, but the Republicans are certainly more of a "man's party" that the Democrats.
I love feminism!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While the Republicans aren't actively pushing as many anti-men issues, they aren't doing much to get in the way of the ones the Democrats actively are, and the Republicans certaintly aren't out there fighting the good fight to repeal most of the abuses we face now.
I'm pretty disappointed with the whole lot of them, but the real problem is that we need to get some funding together (can we get 20-30 of us willing to throw $50 a month at this? Or 100 of us willing to throw $100 at it?) and get an "activation" site. Not a discussion site, not much of an information site, but a site for the express purpose of generating a ton of letters, faxes, and emails to congress and state reps every time an issue affecting men comes up? Every men's site would link to it, and every time a new issue was raised we could have several thousand letters on their way to congress within days of it being raised.
This is what I see as the most critical need of reaching these people. Perhaps we could dedicate a few chat sessions to the purpose of trying to organize the funding and get it together? It's not quite as spiff as having our own full time lobbyist, but we have this great tool that brings men together -- we need to put it to use.
Freedom Is Merely Privilege Extended Unless Enjoyed By One & All.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is not the place for Bush-bashing (or Clinton-bashing for that matter), other than as directly related to men's issues. There are many places on the Web to do this. This is not one of them.
Frank H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Though I don't "bash" politicians much, I feel that American political parties are affecting the issues I care about -- not so much, I'm Canadian -- I can certainly speak up about it on this board.
I love feminism!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday September 24, @06:31AM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
I feel you are being a bit negative. Yes, politicians are currently afraid to back mens issues because they are afraid of losing womens votes. At present, there is no corresponding "mens vote"; however, over time a "mens vote" will develop due to the heroic efforts of mens rights activists. When men start voting on mens issues, there will be no shortage of politicians willing to support mens issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pesonally I think it is funny. The fact that NOW is stuck endorsing a loser like Braun graphically illustrates how far feminists have fallen in the last few years.Maybe next they will endorse Al Sharpton. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, in a sense, it's good. With NOW associated with this woman, it is hard to see how they hope to increase their position. Still, all press is good press, and I agree, wherever fem-bots are running, men-bots :) should be as well to challenge their vitriole.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday September 24, @04:22PM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Getting endorsed by NOW used to be a big deal for a politican; however, when NOW claims they have 500,000 members, it's a lie.
The last financial audit of NOW disclosed somewhere around 55,000 paying members.
While NOW's leadership continues its banshee wail about representing American women, the numbers tell a different story.
Were it not for federal largesse and VAWA funds, NOW and many, many other feminist organizations would have already expired of their own irrelevance to the vast majority of American women and men.
Problem is, it's hard to turn off that federal money tap once any womyn's cause has started to siphon the system.
That sucking sound is your tax dollars being expropriated by the feminazi cartel, still enjoying the clout they built up over the last thirty years of political coercion.
Carol Mosely Braun in the perfect candidate for a marginal organization that has failed to recognize its own growing irrelevance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday September 26, @01:56AM EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
I went over the numbers and sources for that with a person at PR-Watch. (Not unexpected) They showed their bias by not being willing to confront another aspect of PR-abuse. They'll tell you about the Monsanto front group -- which is good to know -- but they wont report at all on the same level of lies coming from NGO's like NOW.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday September 26, @04:03AM EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
I read some stories to the effect of what you are saying a while back. That is good info for the public that can't be brought up enough. I believe Independent Women's Forum (IWF) has done significant articles on those stats you mention, and you may find some data their.
It takes time to dig out all the msinfromation, but we have tried to do that and then present the info to the public on signs, etc. I have had more than one person say, "Oh yea, where did you get that?" When I reply with such things as "CDC, DOJ, NIOSH, DOD, etc.," and then say, "Do you want to see the documents?" I have left more than one critic silent. As if they aren't shaken badly enough, and struck dumb with silence I then proceed to give them more statistical info about the deplorable conditions affecting men's lives, and usually by the time they walk off, I end by saying, "We really should do something about these things." I haven't lost too many arguements, but I think we have gotten a lot of good info into the hands of average citizens.
I mostly dig it up off the net. I want to keep working on scripting our public appearances with good info and stats.
With a candidacy to some office (as Dr. Warren F. is doing) that situation will just give us more opportunity to get good info out. Cost of filing, etc. is a factor, but I would love to run for the County Board of Supv., or City Council. It will probably wind up some lessor office, but when getting into office is not the priority, it takes a lot of the pressure off, and makes debating and public speaking a whole lot easier.
Civic groups, toast masters (as Dan or someone pointed out) are all good venues to speak up in.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
