|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:27 PM October 14th, 2004 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm an independant, myself. I've never liked Kerry OR Bush. I had thought of voteing for Nader, but that's like trying to stop a bear with a pea-shooter. so I abandoned that idea.
I was put off a few months ago by Kerry when he made that; "I'll put justice back into the hands of women...," speech. So I was pretty sure I wasn't gonna vote for him. Then I hear him at the debates last night useing the same tired and dis-proven gender "wage gap", and said to myself; "Now there is NO WAY in Hell I am voteing for THIS guy."
He is a wussy-poopie, feminist caterer. Most of this country's problems are BECAUSE of feminism.
A vote for Kerry is a vote for FEMINISM!
I will be NO part of that.
As far as Bush is conserned, I doubt I'll vote for him either. But on the other hand he SEEMS to be the lesser of two evils. At least he isn't in leauge with the most damageing movement in this country's history.
I hope I don't start a flame war about Democrats vs. Republicans. That's not my entent.
This was just my two cents.
PS. Appearantly, while sucking up to the women's vote, Kerry doesn't seem too conserned about loseing the MEN'S vote.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kerry is doing what every politician does. He's just temporarly pandering to the majority of voters (ie: Women do make up 54% of the vote) in order to get elected. Politicians are professional "bait-and-switchers". He'll feed the greedy women of America only temporarly just so he can get their votes and become president. He won't act on the Wage Gap Myth, he'll just pedal it until he gets elected.
Hopefully he'll stop once he becomes president. Name a politician who actually keeps a promise? Thankfully a majority of presidents (even Bill Clinton)quickly ignore the Feminist Regime once they get into office. It's their *WIVES* who invite the Feminist over to the White House. The presidents are just forced to put up with it.
Every educated person, even Kerry himself, knows that the reason why women are allegedly not paid the same is because they willingly forgo the extra dollars so they can have a flexible work schedule that will allow them to leave the workforce and become stay at home mothers. When women re-join the workforce a decade later OF COURSE they are paid less, they're just starting to work again. You can't just show up to work one day after a ten year hiatus and expect to be paid an Executive's Salary.
But some gold-digging career bitches and Feminists want it that way. To hell with them.
Kerry is just fucking with the Feminists and the greedy career women buying into this so he can get elected. All Kerry is going to do for women is keep Roe v. Wade on the books. I just love Men who swindle Feminists and greedy women :-)
I'm NOT telling you who to vote for. I have chosen to vote for Kerry because I personally believe that he'll get us out of Iraq, he won't destroy Roe v. Wade, reduce college tuition (you're talking to a college kid and future law school student here--of course I want cheaper tuition), he has a brain unlike Bush (who probably snorted his away when he did all of that cocaine), and Kerry won't turn this country into some kind of Psycho-Extremist-Christian State.
Like I said earlier, Kerry is being a professional "bait and switcher". He's pandering to the women and Feminists for votes and money. He'll disown them once he gets elected (or lose). Politicians mostly do disown their supporters once they get elected.
Once they're in office why should they care anymore about their whiny base (ie: the gold-digging women and Feminists)? I sure as hell wouldn't. It's classical Machievellian Art. Thank you Machiavelli!
*Ms.Thea the Pre-Law Major, Pro-Gender Egalitarian, and Pro-Reproductive Rights Activist*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:10 PM October 14th, 2004 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
One thing that BOTH candidates DID do, that made my ears perk up, was say that SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS have to much power and sway over poitics and polititions. I hope they were being sincire.
They DO know that the N.O.W. and like minded women's groups ARE special interest groups, don't they?
Let's hope they mean THOSE special interest groups as well as any others.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:01 PM October 14th, 2004 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
"He's pandering to the women and Feminists for votes and money. He'll disown them once he gets elected (or lose)."
It didn't happen with Clinton and I don't believe it will happen with Kerry. In fact, I believe the radical/gender feminist, man hating bigots will be turned loose on society if Kerry is elected.
I voted for Clinton twice, but I've learned my lesson so I'm doing all I can to try to keep Kerry and his man hating, radical/gender feminist bigots out of office.
I'm not worried about terrorists. They only kill you. I'm terrified of radical/gender feminists. They are the real terrorists America should be worrying about, because it is their goal to make every man's life a living hell as they enslave, denigrate, batter and abuse all males.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Look I don't think Kerry's perfect--no politician is. Does the Democratic Party belong to N.O.W. and the Feminist Majority Foundation--YES!! I'm NOT a Democrat, trust me, I like the death penalty and I'm against Affirmative Action and Political Correctness Censorship.
I vote for (this will be my first election I can vote in--hooray for my nineteen year old ass) whoever I feel is the best candidate. It's my right.
My reasons for voting for Kerry despite his obviously flaws are due to the shitty job that Bush has done for the past four years in regards to outsourcing of jobs (my Dad's and Brothers' jobs may get outsourced), the war in Iraq, the abrupt and foolish changing of goals in the War on Terror (where the fuck is Bin Laden, Mister Bush?!), the hike in college tuition, the ridiculous ban on embryonic stem-cell research (nobody is going to use those embryos anyway why not use them for science?), the failure of our public school system, the threat of the draft coming back (I don't want any of you guys dying in Iraq), the intrusion of the extremist Christian-right in State and Legal matters, and the constant threats against Roe v. Wade.
You guys know good and well that I do NOT support feminism. If Bush had NOT been an ass for the past four years then I would over look his psycho-extremist Christian tendancies and idiocy, and vote for him and not Kerry. And it's not as if Republicans are all gung-ho for Men's Rights either. They're too obsessed with male chivalry and being pro-marriage conservative "gentlemen" to listen to the problems facing today's men and boys.
Once again, I'm NOT telling anyone how to vote. I'm just telling you guys why I'm voting the way that I am. It's the sky-rocketing college tuition and the fear of seeing my dad and brothers sent to Iraq that concerns me the most in this election. So please, don't hate me.
And remember it's the bitchy wives of Democratic presidents that allows Feminism to run rampant through the justice system. I think the presidents allow it because they're afraid they'll lose the women's vote or not get any sex from their wives--so sad. But as good ole Clinton taught us, presidents get their sex from other avenues :-) Good for them, way to get back at their bitchy, over controlling wives. I hope Kerry does the same. Tereasa really needs a good ego-buster--the bitch.
*Ms.Thea the Pre-Law Major, Pro-Gender Egalitarian, and Pro-Reproductive Rights Activist*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And remember it's the bitchy wives of Democratic presidents that allows Feminism to run rampant through the justice system. I think the presidents allow it because they're afraid they'll lose the women's vote or not get any sex from their wives--so sad. But as good ole Clinton taught us, presidents get their sex from other avenues :-) Good for them, way to get back at their bitchy, over controlling wives. I hope Kerry does the same. Tereasa really needs a good ego-buster--the bitch.
*Ms.Thea the Pre-Law Major Who Is Pro-Gender Egalitarianism and Pro-Reproductive Rights For Both Genders*
Well Ms Thea, evidently you are getting to know things that I (a trained Butler) got to know via our own network, namely that Clinton - despite his size advantage - was a routine Victim of Domestic Violence from his diminutive spouse, who frequently took whole chunks out of him ! ! !
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thea: I'm glad you're here, and I agree with and applaud many of your statements and sentiments. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, though.
Bush is far from perfect, but I strongly believe, based upon his record on a variety of issues, that Kerry will actively do more harm to the US both at home and abroad. I think you're making the wrong choice, but I respect (and would defend) your right to choose as you see fit.
I voted liberal when I was younger, too. :-) The liberals tend to describe a sweetness and light utopia where everyone gets helped and everybody shares everything, and if they can just pass enough laws then everything will be wonderful. It can be a seductive sales pitch but, of course, it just doesn't work that way. The liberal camp will lead the people into tyranny faster than the conservative one.
Sir Winston Churchill once said, "If you're not a Liberal when you're twenty, you have no heart. But if you're not a conservative when you're forty, you have no brain."
Ragtime
The Uppity Wallet
The opinions expressed above are my own,
but you're welcome to adopt them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:51 AM October 15th, 2004 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
I am an ex-liberal-democrat.
I learned my lesson about the democrats when they made up their so called "coalition on race".
It included ALL ethnic groups but ONE. You guessed it we American-Indians were left out, completely. Not forgotten about, not over looked, but LEFT OUT, piriod.
I later learned that it was because our people wouldn't martyr the liberal causes, as other ethnic groups freaquently do. This is especialy true of black folks. Why? I don't really know.
I guess because the democrats are always promiseing us minorities everything. But they NEVER deliver. Even after the biggest deseption of American Indians since the "Indian removal act" Most Indians baffelingly STILL largely vote democrat. I have no idea why.
However a good number of us are begining to see the deceptions of both democrats AND republicans and are going libertarian or (like me) independant. I don't know if that will improve things for us or not.
Another thing that bugs me about some of my fellow minorities, is that we only look at what a given party will do for US as a particular group. That's fine to a point. I REALLY wish some one would help solve some of the problems that we Indians face, but i feel you can advocate things like that but still also look to see if your candidate is good for the country as a WHOLE as well as whether they can help your "group".
Here in lies the problem of 'special interest groups'. They only care about what the "party" will do for THEM. Not what they will do for the country as a whole. That, to me, is un-American.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:52 PM October 14th, 2004 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Do you have a credible study that we can reference when calling or writing letters?
Warb
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some articles that may help you:
http://www.glennsacks.com/is_pay_a.htm
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/kathleenparker/ kp20010407.shtml
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/mercer6.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do you have a credible study that we can reference when calling or writing letters?
Here are a few references.
- Wendy McElroy has examined this matter. As she states, "In 2003, the U.S. General Accounting Office observed, "Of the many factors that account for differences in earnings between men and women, our model indicated that work patterns are key."
- Also, as noted in McElroy's essay, "In their book "Women's Figures" (1999), economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth and Christine Stolba meticulously compared data on the earnings of childless men and women aged 27 to 33. They found that the wage gap shrank to 98 cents."
- In addition, the July/August 2004 edition of NCFM'S Transitions has an article entitled, "The Wage Gap Myth Is Hazardous to Men's Health," by Stephen Jarosek. In the essay, Jarosek states, "A study in the May issue of American Economic Review (2003) had found that the wage gap between men and women was the reuult of lifestyle choices, and not discrimination. It was found that choice, not discrimination, is the determining factor in wage difference 97 percent of the time." In the essay by McElroy (linked above), Wendy points out numerous other factors that could account for any remaining differences.
- For a more popular discussion of the matter, see the article by Lisa Belkin, "The Opt-Out Revolution," published in the New York Times, October 26, 2003. In her analysis, Belkin points out that a number of ways in which women choose not to do the same work as men. Examples include women's decision to spend far more years than men at home with their young children and the decision by women working "full time" to work far fewer hours than men working "full time."
You can probably get the American Economic Review article through your local library (you might have to go to a university library) or by directly contacting the author.
I hope these references help.
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Christine Stolba's study is available online here as a pdf file.
I believe Farrell is coming out with a new book dedicated to this topic in January called Why Men Earn More, to try to counter the whole wage gap myth that won't die.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:39 PM October 14th, 2004 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Warren Farrell's new book is almost out. I ordered mine, but it has been delayed. I suspect they are waiting for enough orders to do a printing or something.
Click Why Men Earn More
Here is another good book on feminist economic fallacies, although I haven't read it yet either.
Click The Feminist Dilemma
The book below has already been mentioned. This book is by the same authors as the above book. The above book, The Feminist Dilemma, appears to have more info than Women's Figures, and I believe it was written subsequent to Women's Figures.
Click Women's Figures
I hope all this info and these links are correct as my mouse is glitchy, and I didn't check everything in as much detail as I like to do.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:31 PM October 14th, 2004 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
It's bad enough to ignore men's issues, but dragging out the old "76 cents on the dollar" BS is too much. The sick truth is that NOW and other anti-male hate groups are major forces in the Democratic Party. On the other hand, the Republican Party is full of "die like a man" types who think men should just shut up and provide money. I'ld like to see both parties get serious about men's lives. But right now, the Dem's are much more anti-male than the Repubs.
Kerry can go on proclaiming his wife's superiority and explaining how he's gonna make women even more superior than they already are. I'm not voting for him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kerry can go on proclaiming his wife's superiority and explaining how he's gonna make women even more superior than they already are. I'm not voting for him.
Neither am I. Even though I believe Bush is a disaster as a president, I will bring an airsickness bag to the polls with me to vote for him.
This year has moved me from a democratic leaning Libertarian to a republican leaning Libertarian. I will of course still vote for exceptionally good Democrats and against exceptionally evil Republicans.
The Democratic party has been screwing over men for quite some time. They don't want or deserve my vote. As far as I'm concerned, the Democratic party can burn.
We need to impress upon both parties that we're sick of being screwed over. If we can organize and deny victories to anti-male candidates and help pro-male candidates get elected, it would be a start.
It would be extremely helpful to organize voters by precinct and tell potential candidates how many unconditional votes they will recieve if they back our issues. Bonus points if we can pull a trick from EMILY's List where donors send checks written out to the candidate and we wrap up the checks and deliver them to the candidate. I've heard that has a big impact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...where both Bush and Kerry kowtowed to their "strong women" wives? It was nauseating. I mean, at least Laura Bush seems decent, but quite frankly, Teresa Heinz-Kerry comes off as a psychobitch. The phony self deprecation by these men about "marrying up" was painful to watch.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:55 AM October 15th, 2004 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes.
*shudder* That was VERY disturbing...,
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"So have you stopped beating your wife?"
This used to be used as a classical example of rhetorical trap question ( before PC made it improper to say such things) and this was the sort of thing that Kerry was doing.He is a much better debater and rhetorician than Bush...but that really is not saying much.
My friend, this is just one of those " issues" that you will just have to learn to put up with because those who will not face the truth of it simply will not. I am a militant trade unionist ( in fact I am on strike at the moment) and simply put scabs get what they deserve. If you are willing to settle for less...you will get less. John Kerry can sing a chourus of that feminist hymn if he wants to , but if George Bush is too stupid (which he is) to come back with the question "What could you or any other government for that matter possibly do about it?"then he deserves a black eye in the debate. I have always found that asking THAT question to any political type who gets on that rantchant changes the subject rather quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:05 AM October 16th, 2004 EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
Can someone explain why when women are the majority voters (54% according to Thea)politicians have to go after their vote?
In the UK, we always talk about the "swing" voters - the minority groups who, if they decide to vote in a particular direction, can swing the vote to one party or the other. In this case, since men are the swing group, why are politicians not chasing their votes?
When women are minority consumers (esp. around cars) we have a glut of smart woman/dumb man ads which are justified on the premise that auto makers are simply after the female consumer spend - as though men will always simply be there.....but in politics, it becomes necessary to concentrate on the majority gender.
Is it because, as usual, women's (vote/spend/attitudes/values) are perceived to be more valuable than mens? Any American male who votes for Kerry deserves whatever feminist inspired values/laws that come their way. (Note I'm not sayng vote Bush either!)
Rob
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of my favourite movies from a bygone era was "The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean" starring Paul Newman.
At the point in the movie where the decades between World War One and the Great Depression had to be bridged, the narrator (who had a heavy Texas accent) said:
" While the boys wuz over fightin' Kaiser Bill...the women NAAAAAGED the government inta givin them the vote. Straight away they made drinkin', whorin', and gambolin'...THE THREE THINGS THAT MEN MOST DEARLY LOVE TA DO!!! illegal....sigh.....and then the country went right ta Hell".
I have often used this as a discusion starter to try to show that the initial opposition to the enfranchisement of women was not strictly because they were women per-se, but rather because men opposed what the "Women's Christian Sufferage League"had as a collective political agenda. Men are Libertarians. Libertarians believe that their right to swing their fist around ends only at their neighbour's nose...and if their neighbour is sticking his nose far beyond the parameters of his own business....keep swinging.
Women on the other hand want to baby proof the world. They are control freaks...big time. They want to be their brother's keeper and their sister's chaparone. And do please note the "Christian" part of their original name. It was a bunch of neo-Puritan pricks who are also control freaks but who cannot so much as dance with a woman without becomming overcome with the lust to commit "fornication"( and who therefore ban dancing) who betrayed their brothers.
People the world over arrived at a concensus of what a crime is and what justice is centuries ago (hey it really isn't rocket science) ....women and neo-puritans have this notion that once they are in a position of legislative power they can make anything that iritates them a crime, and pre-emptively incarcerate anyone who iritates them, and there will be no undesireable consequences for doing so.
I have boiled human conflict down to a simple formula. Human conflict is NEVER about good cowboys in white hats vs bad cowboys in black hats. It is about somebody asserting control and somebody fending off a degree of control that they deem inappropriate..
So depending on which view you take...one being that conflict is caused by upstart trouble-makers who will not defer to their "betters" the other being that control freaks just don't realize that the world will manage to muddle on long after they drop dead of appoplexie and go to Hell and they really should eat some bran before they end up needing a colostomy.....aw darn I think I betrayed the fact that I'm just a little bit partizan
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
