|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just saw this on CNN as well, that Kerry pledged to fix the "wage gap." As much as I think Bush has fucked up, that seals the deal for me to vote Libertarian. Fuck 'em both.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
but gawd does he need a good bitch slap in the face for that one.
Stupid pandering politicians.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I'm still voting for Kerry scudsucker. But you're right, Kerry does need a good bitch slap.
Better yet, bitch-slap Tereasa!
But I must say Kerry is doing a good job of making the greedy bitchy women believe he's going to "end the wage gap". My reasons for voting for him are totally different as most of you know.
Because I know that there's *NO WAGE GAP*!!! My reasons have to deal with the war, outsourcing, the job market, keeping Roe v. Wade immaculate and free from tampering, and international relations.
Still it sucks to know that whenever we vote for a president, we get their bitchy wives.
Why couldn't Kerry be a childless bachelor?!
Maybe if he wasn't pussywhipped by a wife (and his damn bitchy daughters), he wouldn't be doing this "wage gap" myth pandering. I bet it's Tereasa whose behind this wage gape myth pandering.
Not only do we get the bitchy wives and daughters, we get the bitchy wife's and daughters' politics. And we watch these bitches as they abuse and batter our presidents with emotional/psychological/mental/physical violence.
And the bitches even abuse our presidents by surpressing their (our presidents') male heterosexuality by threatening 'no sex' until they bend over backwards for the greedy bitches of this country.
Kerry is a domestic abuse victim!!! Tereasa Heinz Kerry is a batterer!!!
Hell I was expecting Kerry to focus on securing the African-American vote, Veteran vote, the Young People vote, the Gay Community vote, and the Working Class/Labor Union vote. I would have had no problem with that. It's the bending over backwards for the gender feminists that pisses me off about Kerry. I really hope he wakes up and realizes that he's a puppet for these gender nazis.
*Ms.Thea the Pre-Law Major, Pro-Gender Egalitarian, and Pro-Reproductive Rights Activist*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And the bitches even abuse our presidents by surpressing their (our presidents') male heterosexuality by threatening 'no sex' until they bend over backwards for the greedy bitches of this country.
If I was unfortunate enough to be married to Teresa Heinz-Kerry, I think that a threat of "no sex" would be perfectly fine with me. I'd get out of the marriage - no amount of money would be worth it.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Still it sucks to know that whenever we vote for a president, we get their bitchy wives.
Ron Jeremy in 2008!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If Kerry is elected, I hope he has an affair with every damn intern (even male intern) in the White House, just to spite Tereasa.
That ought bruise the bitch's ego a bit.
And how bad does a wife have to be in bed in order to drive her originally hetero-husband to seek intimacy with another man? (Not that I'm anti-homosexuals/bisexuals. I do NOT care who people have sex with so long as they're consenting adults).
But oh man, if Kerry were to have sex with a male intern in spite of Tereasa, I would die laughing.
*Ms.Thea the Pre-Law Major, Pro-Gender Egalitarian, and Pro-Reproductive Rights Activist*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:31 PM October 24th, 2004 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
Ya ever notice that Kerry looks alot like HERMAN MUNSTER...?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:12 PM October 24th, 2004 EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
"Ya ever notice that Kerry looks alot like HERMAN MUNSTER...?"
also:
Lurch from the old Adams Family T.V. show
Gomer Pile
Goofy
I heard that Lurch was his nickname when he was in the military.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I'm still voting for Kerry...
It's the bending over backwards for the gender feminists that pisses me off about Kerry. I really hope he wakes up and realizes that he's a puppet for these gender nazis.
The problem is that he won't, because once he is installed in office he will be beholden to them, so putting him in the presidency is basically the death blow to any hope that men have of getting politicians to address their issues.
He will spend the entire 4 years if he is elected, sucking up to them to insure that he gets re-elected. And, he will have to really suck up because he will have alienated so many males in his pandering to women that he will be as tied to his radfem base as Bush is tied to the religious right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:43 PM October 24th, 2004 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
Here in lies the problem, for me, personaly.
On the one hand I don't feel I can vote for Kerry, because of what he will more than LIKELY do to what rights we men have left, in this country.
I don't feel I can vote for Bush because as a traditional Indian I am very pro enviroment. And it is my oppinion that Bush may damage the enviroment. (Maybe, Maybe not, I don't know.)
I feel it is my DUTY as an American to VOTE, though. Despite that I am thinking of not voteing at all. I can't vote for the "lesser of two evils", because either way I vote, I feel i will be voteing for evil, one way or another.
If I vote Bush I sell out my heritage, my spirituality and my ancestors.
If I vote Kerry, I sell out my brothers, and indirectly my sisters AND children will suffer from the feminist pandering Kerry. ESPECIALY young BOYS!
It's like trying to decide which leg to cut off, the left one or the right one.
Either way, in the end you will still be missing a leg no matter WHAT the choice is. You will still be in the same situation.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have a similar (though not identical) issue with both the Republicans and Democrats.
As I'm a federal government employee, voting for a Republican (at the federal level at least) can be a threat to my job security. I used to support them at all levels of government until 1994 when Newt Gingrich was elected Speaker of the House on the basis that this would restore morality and values to America - the "Contract with America." The hypocrite then went and had an affair while his wife was in the hospital. The fact that this led to budgetary concerns resulting in me being in a Reduction in Force in my agency also tended to turn me away from the Republicans toward the Democrats (that is, until 2002 when I started voting for Republicans again below the federal level). Also, even though I managed to stay in my agency by taking a lower grade job in another division in another state, the Republicans shut down the government twice, and we were furloughed.
I'm also pro-environment as well, and the Republicans often aren't that way, except for some who are moderates (the Teddy Roosevelt variety, and he was 100 years ago).
My issue with Democrats should be obvious as I posted this article - their pandering to the women's voting bloc by allowing the radical anti-male feminist agenda to steamroller over legitimate men's rights and interests.
I had a lot of internal arguments with myself over this, and found that the best way to resolve it was to vote Republican at the state and local level, where a lot of laws affecting men are made (even the CU Board of Regents is an elected position in Colorado, and the Republican candidate made the most sense regarding how to handle the recruiting scandal). Also, there's no threat to a federal job at the state level.
At the federal level, I decided to vote Libertarian for President and the U. S. House and Senate. This is due to Michael Badnarik's endorsement of non-custodial parent's rights. I wrote to the candidates for the Senate and House in my district, and received a very well thought out response from Richard Randall (for Senate), and a supportive one from Norm Olsen (District 2). It may seem odd that I'd vote for a party that would severely cut federal jobs (like my own). However, I consulted the World Almanac and found that the Libertarians only received 0.37% of that national vote in 2000. So, I'm doing this to make a statement. As Colorado is likely to give all its electoral votes to Bush by a margin of several percent, a few extra Libertarian votes probably won't affect that result.
Also, at the state level, I have been campaigning for Republican Jessica Corry for District 19 Senate. The incumbent Democrat, Sue Windels, voted against an anti-paternity fraud bill back in March. I sent Jessica Corry an email questionnaire with several questions related to men's issues. Within two hours I received a great response, particularly regarding the paternity fraud issue. That was back in early September, and I have been campaigning for her ever since - walking precincts and even writing a letter to the Denver Post when they endorsed Sue Windels (it was printed). Sue Windels only won by a small margin last time - there was a Libertarian candidate that time that may have tipped the balance to Windels (sometimes a third party can be a spoiler too, so one has to use discretion). This time it's just the Republican versus the Democrat. It will be interesting and rewarding to see if my efforts tip the balance in favor of Corry.
It's a complex logic, but I hope it works this time.
Finally, I looked at other third parties, and found that they consist mainly of the Green, Reform, and Constitution parties (apart from the Libertarians already mentioned). The Green party is to the left of even the Democrats (feminism is one of their tenets), and the Reform party is actually populist and liberal. The Constitution party would be the only viable alternative to the Libertarians for men's advocates. They might be a good choice for those who are Christian and conservative. They only got 0.09% of the vote in 2000, however. I left out the Socialist and Socialist Workers party for obvious reasons. And the Natural Law party, while they have some good ideas (base politics on scientific or natural law), has declined even as a third party.
Just make sure you let the candidate or party you vote for know why you're voting for them.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:31 PM October 25th, 2004 EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder how many of us have to deal with this same dilema. Im from Canada and evolved politically as a traditional Liberal. Always looked to reason and balance when supporting political issues.
But with the advent of political correctness the very core of traditional liberalism has been basterdized to serve the venomous rantings of all special interest groups, not just female ones.
So the only movement that ive been able to continously support has been the enviromental one, and yet they have also managed to spawn the hard line animal rights movement, with its own willingness to engage in terrorist acts.
I think its time to forge a new political movement. A contrarian party. Devoted to the principle that since all current political movements have evolved into their complete opposites, the only true way must be the opposite yet again.
The right is now firmly in control of economic issues and the thinking that surrounds them. The left on the other hand is now firmly in control of all social issues and the thinking that surrounds them. I say we reverse that.
A party that promotes an enviromental, socially conscious approach to economic issues, and at the same time firmly supports an individualist libertarian approach to all social issues. Its time for the contrarians to unite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beautifully stated. If only we could realize it. This is a goal for us to work toward - the individualist libertarian approach. I think I'm an ex-liberal contrarian. Thanks, whoever you are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:53 AM October 26th, 2004 EST (#49)
|
|
|
|
|
"New parties have come to prominance in the US more than once in the past. The Republican Party came into being and leadership largely, though not only, over abolition of slavery. Maybe men's rights activists should become more active in the Libertarian Party. We don't need to agree with everything that they stand for today, because we could guide the party's development as it grows."
It's a little late to get any real results for this present campaign, but it has definite possibilities for the future. I think voter registration would be the 1st fundamental move. If you had large numbers of people suddenly dumping their parties and registering as Libertarians it would be noticed even in an off election cycle, and next election could be far more significant. Given the present disillusionment with both parties, their is no better time to start then right now.
I would hope that equity feminists as well as mensactivists could find a lot of accomodation under such a tent. Libertarians are opposed to groups that are exploitive of others so if would be a great place to strive for freedom and equality for men and women. Having the balance of others there who tell you, "Wait a minute those are my toes being stepped on is good counter balance to let you know the need to share and care as well as promote liberty (individual and national)." Such a party would definitely be a difficult place for the warlike, "bullmoose," radical/gender feminists to beat up on men with their big stick.
Maybe they could finally start their own party too, just called "the bullies," and their motto could be, "speak loudly, carry a big stick, and beat men with it." Nah, their getting far too much traction lurking under the folds of the democrat's big tent. I think we'll continue to see them there for a long time to come.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:37 AM October 27th, 2004 EST (#62)
|
|
|
|
|
If Kerry gets in, then H Clinton has no hope of getting elected for at least 8 years. If Bush stays in, I guarantee that Hilary will run in 2008, and no one will vote for Cheney.
Think about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:08 PM October 27th, 2004 EST (#63)
|
|
|
|
|
"I guarantee that Hilary will run in 2008, and no one will vote for Cheney."
Hopefully, they will be voting for John McCain and Rudy Giuliani.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Every study we've ever seen shows that when tenure, experience, skills and other factors are considered, men and women's pay is roughly equal.
Therefore, to "fix" the perceived wage gap (i.e. the infamous 60cents to 80cents in the dollar gap), Kerry would have to ensure that a woman with less skills, experience, or tenure or whatever was given the same money as a man with more skills, experience or tenure or whatever.
Thus, when said woman actually attains the same level of skill, tenure experience or whatever as that of our example man, surely she would now be earning a lot more than said man for the same level of experience etc etc.?
If this is not the case, Kerry will have to accept that when all relevant factors are considered, the "wage gap" does not exist.
On this basis, I'd love to hear him explain how he'd "fix" the "wage gap"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Therefore, to "fix" the perceived wage gap (i.e. the infamous 60cents to 80cents in the dollar gap), Kerry would have to ensure that a woman with less skills, experience, or tenure or whatever was given the same money as a man with more skills, experience or tenure or whatever.
This is precisely what Kerry plans on doing. It can't work in a free market, because employers would simply hire the best people to do the job at the best price. In a free market, if women did the same job as men for about three-fourths the pay, employers would fire all the men and hire only women. But the practice of forcing employers to pay women more than men for the same work can be crammed down people's throats by the government. I've already seen numerous examples of this already in government and university jobs. Kerry wants to make the practice far more common, and rest assured that, if elected, he'll do it.
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But the practice of forcing employers to pay women more than men for the same work can be crammed down people's throats by the government. I've already seen numerous examples of this already in government and university jobs. Kerry wants to make the practice far more common, and rest assured that, if elected, he'll do it.
I can attest to that, being a federal government employee. A lot of men feel that women are promoted to higher GS levels in order to meet diversity quotas. I had a NIGHTMARE of a female supervisor a few years ago who was nasty and inept at managing people (except for her female "pets"). She once said at a meeting "We're sending [you all] to diversity training - there's too many white males in [our agency]." What a sow.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can relate to Steve's remarks about what happens when an organization ends up with a feminist as its "leader."
My worst experience was at a Midwest college that hired a female, African-American feminist as its president.
Over the course of ten years, she proceeded to systematically feminize the administration and faculty through blatently discriminatory hiring practices.
Department chairs when she was hired were 50%-50% women and men. Today it's 80% female, as is the excutive administration -- 7 women, 2 men.
Of course she also used the "diversity" scam to force college employees to attend workshops conducted by the most vile radical lesbian feminists on campus -- you guessed it, the feminazi vanguard from the Women's Center.
This same president would meet on Sundays with her all-female kitchen cabinet at her home, where bashing the male employees of the college was commonplace.
At one point during my stint there as a CIO for technology services, I was ordered by her to hire only females and minorities.
I told her that would be no problem, so long as they were the best-qualified applicants, and reminded her of the illegality of her instructions.
Then began her behind-the-scenes campaign to make my professional life miserable. I left some months later for a position that paid 30% more.
The gender fascists are still in control of this fine institution, the female president's compensation package makes her one of the top ten highest paid government employees in the state, and she just signed a new five-year contract to continue her reign of terror.
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:07 PM October 23rd, 2004 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
On page 101 of The War Against Boys by Christina Hoff Sommers she writes, "In 1997, she received the Heinz Award(emphasis mine) for "tranform[ing] the paradigm for what it means to be human."' The "she" Hoff Sommers is refering to is Carol Gilligan.
I voted for Bill Clinton twice, but after seeing who is really supporting the war against boys and men I won't be voting Democrat unitl they change their Heterophobic, man-hating ways. VAWA came into being under Bill Clinton's administration, and the DOJ should really be keeping statistics on all the men who have commited suicide as a result of false accusations. I still remember too all the child care witch hunts against men that were staged by Janet Reno.
Kerry supports the radical/gender feminist movement so if you think life is hell with over 750 women's studies centers on college campuses running thousands of women's studies classes just wait until Kerry gets in. If you think over 270 women's commissions are not enough, while there is only one men's commission struggling to survive in New Hampshire just wait until John Kerry gets in.
If you want to see more and more Dads commiting suicide after having their kids stolen (as well as their salaries) just wait until John Kerry gets in.
We need George W. Bush to protect us from man-hating Democrats like John Kerry as much as we need him to protect us from any other terrorists.
Sincerly, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...but its idiocy to put 100% of your ire on a party that's 80% beholden to feminists, and giving no flack whatsoever to the other party that just happens to be 70% beholden to feminists.
VAWA came into being under Bill Clinton's administration
Alright Ray, are you English or retarded? As I've pointed out to you before the VAWA was co-sponsored by a Republican and was almost unanimously passed by Congress, which was under Republican control at the time.
Go back in time and take out every single Democrat in the entire country, and guess what would have changed? Not a god damn fucking thing. We would still have the VAWA, we would still have states treating child support as a cash cow, we would still have men being treated as expendible meatbags.
Ray, either pull your head out of your ass and lay the blame where it belongs, at the feet of politicans of both parties, or you are just a nieve fool who's only contribution to the men's movement will be pissing off people who might have helped you in the first place. Nothing like burning your bridges before you come to them.
We need George W. Bush to protect us from man-hating Democrats like John Kerry as much as we need him to protect us from any other terrorists.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. You ignore the fact that Bush's Attorney General, John Ashcroft, had a nice little pogrom for "deadbeat dads", just about all of whome obviously lived in poverty and weren't capapble of making the ordered payments. So much for "protecting men", eh Ray? Or are you going to try to blame that one on Kerry too?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:39 AM October 24th, 2004 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Democrats are responsible for the plague of radical/gender feminism that is destroying the lives of so many men in America today, and they are responsible for the lies and deceptions that got VAWA passes as well as pushing VAWA down the throats of everyone. It was Democrats who created VAWA, then pushed and pressured for its passage with the help of the radical/ gender feminist man haters in their party.
We see radical/gender feminism clearly in the platform of John Kerry and we do not see it in the platform of George W. Bush no matter how much you try to distort his record. If you want to see what conservative women look like I suggest you go to the web sites of the Independent Women's Forum and the Conservative Women for America. They clearly make a liar out of you when it comes to clarifying what conservatives stand for and don't.
Clearly, it is Scarry John Kerry and his Democratic ilk who back the politics of the radical/gender feminsts and certainly not the Republicans. The influence of the Democrat man-hating feminists in our country is strong and yes I do blame the Democrats for the way they have set up, vilified and pressured conservative politicians to go after Dads. It is radical/gender feminist Democrats who are the man hating bigots who drive all the abuse against men in America today, and it is foul mouthed, intolerant, hate monger bigots who spread lies about Republicans while ignoring the man hating that is the direct product of the radical/gender feminists in the Democrat party.
Supporters of Democrats, on issues that affect men, are so vile they can only engage in ad hominem attacks to try to defend the vile degeneracy with which they treat men, especially heterosexual men.
You can engage in ad hominem attacks all you want, but the truth will still be the truth no matter how much you spew femicrat lies like those coming out of the mouth of John Kerry (man-hating bigot, traitor, communist supporter).
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and they are responsible for the lies and deceptions that got VAWA passes as well as pushing VAWA down the throats of everyone.
Ray, Ray, Ray. EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN ON RECORD VOTED FOR VAWA!!! Its a simple, undeniable FACT that Republicans are every bit as responsible for the VAWA as the Democrats were. Just how stupid can you possibly be? As I said before, even if Democrats didn't exist at the time, the VAWA still would have been overwhelmingly passed by the Republicans.
George W. Bush no matter how much you try to distort his record
Talking about facts is distortion? John Ashcroft, President Bush's Attorney General, went on a nationwide "deadbeat dad" hunt. I think it was even linked to on this site. Deal with it.
The influence of the Democrat man-hating feminists in our country is strong and yes I do blame the Democrats for the way they have set up, vilified and pressured conservative politicians to go after Dads
What, conservatives are suddenly brainless zombies incapable of putting up a fight? The only zombie around here is you. The GOP has made Law & Order issues part of their central platfrom for decades. Going after "deadbeat dads", "abusive husbands/boyfriends", and "date rapers" is bread and butter to a Law & Order candidate. Not to mention the traditional, conservative value of protecting women, wether it be from violence or from disease. So the GOP eats up the bullshit hamburgers served by NOW *every* bit as fast as the DFL does.
Supporters of Democrats, on issues that affect men, are so vile they can only engage in ad hominem attacks to try to defend the vile degeneracy with which they treat men, especially heterosexual men.
Wow, you are such a pathetic fool that its funny. In just one breath you complain about ad hominems, then say "supporters of Democrats, on issues that affect men, are so vile". No contradiction there.
The problem that I have with you is not that you dislike Democratic politicians for pandering to feminists. The problem that I have with you is that you smear all Democrats as being in the back pocket of NOW, which we are not, and that you will go to ludicrous lengths first deny and then defend the GOP's equally bad treatment of men. You are a man who would say the Nazies are too racist while proudly campaigning for the Klu Klux Klan. You are a complete fool who would self-distruct the men's movement if put in charge of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:06 AM October 25th, 2004 EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
It is interesting how you attack people instead of issues in a bullying type tactic, but the facts remain that it is man hating democrats like John Kerry who are destroying Fathers and men in this country to satisfy the pandering man hating lies of radical/gender feminists. The democrats are leading the abuse of men in this country through the institution of laws, and a campaign of hate and deception that begins on our college campuses.
It appears that all, make that all, of the taxpayer funded, women's studies programs on all of our college campuses are solidly in the Kerry man hating camp. It appears that all, make that all, of the women's commissions, and domestic violence commissions are solidly in the man hating Kerry camp. It appears that all the supporters of the man hating sexual harassment industry are in the scarry Kerry camp. It appears that all of the heterophobic man haters are in the Kerry camp.
The war on Fathers and men is a war that is led, I repeat led, by the democrats, and no matter how nasty mouthed or personally insulting the attacks on people who point this out I will not relent in pointing out that John Kerry is a man hating bigot, and a traitor to his country. The traitor point is clearly documented and legal action will I pray be forthcoming to try this traitor for the evil he did against Amercia and the vets who served in Vietnam. Legal action or not John Kerry will always be a traitor to the majority of the vets who served in Vietnam. Do you want that kind of vile human being to be the leader of America and the Commander in Cheif of our armed forces? I pity any person serving in the armed forces of the U.S. under John Kerry, and yes given that it is men mostly dying in combat, I pity mostly those noble men who are already being exploited by radical/gender feminist man hating democrats like all those who have pushed and are pushing domestic violence laws.
In a previous, post I posted on this site all the democrats who bragged on their sites about the passage of VAWA, their bill, in their words. Funny I could not find that on any Republican site, but you are welcome to post that here instead of just lying foul mouthed accusations. VAWA was legislation that was originated by democrats (femicrats like John Kerry), and they shoved VAWA down the throats of everyone else.
I voted for Bill Clinton twice who signed VAWA, but I have seen what support for man hating democrats brings onto the innocent heads of Fathers and men, and I hope that enough people will see that also to save American Fathers, men. children, families and yes women from the vile programs of the man hating democrats (femicrats).
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:22 AM October 24th, 2004 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Scudsucker:
"a nice little pogrom for "deadbeat dads",
Kerry will continue to follow the lead of the Democrat party in driving Dads from their families. Here in his own words is proof of that,
"We believe that the middle class is the backbone of this country and that hard-working women are the bedrock of our families,"
Why didn't Kerry say that Dads are the backbone of the family, the bread winner, the leader, the moral guidance, etc.?
Here's another man hating Kerry statement from the article,
"He also indulged in a bit of male-deprecating humor, agreeing with his wife Teresa Heinz Kerry that "women are really the managers of chaos. They pick up the pieces after us guys."'
Kerry is not self-deprecating, he is male deprecating, and his Democrat party has been aggressively doing that for decades.
From the article,
"...said his Republican rival could learn something about hard work from their daily struggle."
Why does Kerry not mention the hard work that men do, the love the have for their family? Why does he not point out the long hours that men put in at work, plus the hours they spend keeping the cars going, mowing the lawn, triming the trees, repairing the driveway, fixing the plumbing, the electrical, the HVAV, the roof, the house paint, etc., not to mention the long hours they too put in to house work. In the area of family Kerry is a divider not a uniter. Kerry does not see Fathers in their families. Kerry is the ultimate Deadbeat government official who will cleary further destroy the lives of Dads. That is the policy pioneered by the radical/gender feminist women's movement sheltered under the "big tent" known as the Democrat party. Kerry will help women to be wards of the nanny state, and it will be paid for by the slavery of Fathers and men who earn every penny of the dollar they get. That is clearly a key point that is not seen by scarry Kerry or any of his Dumbocratic radical/gender feminist ilk.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that Ray and Scudsucker both make some valid points. While I certainly do think the Democratic Party in general is more anti-male than the Republicans, it isn't by much. They both seem to compete against each other in seeing which can be the most anti-male.
That being said, I'll be voting for Bush in a few days, but it won't be enthusiastically. In this case it truly is a matter of determining which is the "lesser of two evils".
Or put another way, if the Democrats and Republicans could be rated on "asshole factor" by a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the worst, I would say they rate as follows:
Republicans: 8
Democrats: 10
The Republicans might be better, but it ain't by much.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think part of the reason for supporting the Republicans is that they are not as tied to feminists as the Democrats. Feminists are a major part of the Democratic party, while those Republicans are seen as enemies to those feminists. I think the hope here is that it might be easier to convince Republicans to vote against certain feminist legislation. While some Democrats might go against feminist interests, many Democratic political candidates support feminists (or are supported by feminists) and so would be less likely to vote against those interests.
Republicans have voted in support of feminist leglislation, such as VAWA, but it seems to be out of chivalry more than anything else (and some questionable statistics). So, if we could just convince them that feminists don't necessarily have the best interest of the country in their plans, there might be some good change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:58 PM October 24th, 2004 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
Konovan-
Thank you. You may have just helped me to decide who to vote for.
But either way I vote, I will definately be holding my nose...!
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consider the women in these two Skull 'n Bones stars' (er... "every man" presidential candidates') lives and personal shaping...
George W. has the oh-so-demure Laura, ex-librarian and teacher, who apparently "got around" quite a bit before their nuptials. (Rent the DVD "Mean Girls" if you want to get an insight into her adolescent background.)
To her credit, Laura kicked his ass, got him dried out off the booze, flushed the coke down the toilet, and made the necessary ultimatums.
After all that behavioral reconditioning,"coming to Jesus" was the only way left to restore domestic tranquility.
John F. Kerry has built his lifestyle on the laudable ability to persuade very wealthy women to marry him. ( No obvious castration anxiety has been evident in his public persona, though it's been rumored that he prefers the guest cabin at the mansion...)
Interesting that Kerry Wife No. 1 has apparently been accepted into the FBI's Witness Protection Program, where she's enjoying a year of voluntary silence.
Teresa Heinz Kerry, who's donated millions of her inherited Ketchup fortune to feminist causes, may have the distinction of being the only nominee for First Lady in our nation's history for whom living in the White House would be abject slumming!
When Hollywood (or, more probably Cinemax) makes "The John Kerry Story..." Adam Sandler will play Kerry and Jeanine Garaffolo will be Teresa.
Neither candidate running for "the highest office in the land" (excluding that of the next Mrs. Bill Gates) has uttered a single sentence during the entire campaign that would provide any evidence that men's rights issues have even hit the remotest part of their radar screens.
Anyhow, I'm voting for Ralph Nader.
He appears to have no babes in the closet with dress stains and in fact may be celibate.... qualities I fully endorse in a credible candidate for the Commander-in-Chief of FemAmerika!
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I've considered voting for a Libertarian candidate and I probably will, on a local level (give them some support). It seems that some/a lot of them use logic and reasoning to make their decisions and don't automatically accept the feminists' words as gospel.
Of course, just as Greens are related to Democrats, so are Libertarians related to Republicans (both Republicans and Democrats are trying to get those third party candidates on the ballot in each state to undermine each other). If I'm lucky, I might find a libertarian in Republican's clothing and support him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Republicans might be better, but it ain't by much.
That's my point exactly. Its lunacy to reserve 100% of your ire for somebody who rates a 10 on the jerk factor and enthusiastically throw your support to somebody who gets an 8, rather than calling both groups to task.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why thank you Captain Obvious for pointing out that Kerry panders to feminists. Most politicians do. You are a fool not because you bitch at the Democrats for pandering to feminists, which they do, but because you throw all your support to Republicans who pander to feminists almost as much as Democrats.
If you want to stop being a total fool, bitch at both parties for their pandering and vote Libertarian, the party that truly wants to stay out of social issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How about bitching at both parties and voting for independents who don't pander to feminists, and may even support men's issues? At least then you wouldn't be supporting laissez faire capitalism, (AKA corporate fuedalism).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm still undecided as to whom I'll vote for. I'm kind of liking William Hall, ( http://hall2004.com ), though I wish I knew more about his position on feminist or men's issues. If you're interested in more choices, there's a fairly good list of them here. http://www.politics1.com/p2004.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:44 PM October 25th, 2004 EST (#40)
|
|
|
|
|
"...you bitch at the Democrats for pandering to feminists, which they do, but because you throw all your support to Republicans who pander to feminists almost as much as Democrats.
It appears Scudsucker and NOW are strongly supporting the same candidate Kerry, but NOW seems to disagree with Scudsucker that Republicans are supporting "radical feminists here ."
In fact Attorney General Ashcroft appointed two members of IWF to the National Domestic Violence Advisory Council. Nancy Pfotenhauer of IWF and one other lady where appointed to that council. The wife of Vice President Chenny (Lynn Chenny) was one of the founding members of IWF. Ironically, Ashcroft did that after I wrote him a strong multipage letter telling him he was getting terrible advice about domestic violence from his advisors. I seriously doubt my letter was all that precipitated his actions.
I too am a member of IWF.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"We need George W. Bush to protect us from man-hating Democrats like John Kerry as much as we need him to protect us from any other terrorists."
Bush hasn't done a very good job of protecting us from terrorists. We've had snipers, anthrax letters, planes being hijacked and used as weapons, large militant groups joining forces with Al Qaeda, how could he have done any worse? Not to mention that Bush, at the very least, committed treason by participating in covering up the fact that the Air Force was ordered not to protect us on 9-11, and probably knew about it ahead of time. In fact, if Al-Qaeda wasn't already aware that we would not intercept the planes, I doubt they would have attempted that attack. It's sort of like executing a plan to rob Fort Knox that can only work if there are no security guards there at the time. Without prior knowledge that the security guards wouldn't be there, no intelligent people, (and the planners for Al Qaeda are intelligent), would act on it. The right-wing spin that "Nobody had ever attempted that on American soil so we weren't ready for it" might have sounded like "Nobody had ever tried to rob Fort Knox at night before so we didn't know we needed a security guard during those hours" if that had been the actual target. Ignoring of course that having a security guard during those hours was the policy already in place for 60 years prior to 9-11.
No, we don't need a traitor who has participated in a terrorist attack against us to protect us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:33 PM October 25th, 2004 EST (#39)
|
|
|
|
|
"We've had snipers, anthrax letters, planes being hijacked and used as weapons, large militant groups joining forces with Al Qaeda,"
Sure have, welcome to 4WG (4th Generation Warfare). That's the tactic presently being applied to us in this attack on America by terrorists. 4WG does not put up a military force to counter another military force, rather they go around the military and hit at civilian targets and use terror fully as a weapon. It is a style of warfare that makes a standing army rather inefficient in opposing the shadowy, loosely aligned organizations that practice 4WG. You criticize the President for not protecting us from terrorists but actually he is. We have not had another terrorist attack of the 4WG type, and he has succeeded in engaging the terrorists in Iraq in a way where the are concentrating and coming at our strong military instead of our relatively defenseless civilian population. Still, I would not be surprised to see a sleeper cell blow a nuke in some American city at a time they choose. I sure hope I'm wrong about that, but that's the nature of 4WG.
War of any kind is as always a horrible, imprecise and messy business, and even one life is one to many to waste in war. However, the just over 1000 we have lost in Iraq is still extremely small in historical military terms. It is still far less the thousands we lost on 9/11 to the 4WG attack.
Lastly, yes John Kerry is a traitor in my book and many other veterans books, for negotiating with a representative of the Viet Cong in Paris, while he was still in the military (among other things). I have heard some veterans groups are planning action against Kerry if he wins or not. I've already contributed to them and pray they succeed. It has to do more with a justice and a balancing of the books than anything. I am told the crime of treason has no statute of limitations, and as far as Kerry's war record... Well, I won't deny him that, just say that Benedict Arnold had a far, far, far more distinguished military career in service to America than John Kerry ever dreamed of.
The other nonsense you are babbling about regarding the events of 9/11 are nothing but hysterical nonsense with no basis in fact. If you have something more substantial please present it or refrain from maligning an honorable and distinguished patriot.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"You criticize the President for not protecting us from terrorists but actually he is."
Before Bush, almost no terrorist attacks, since Bush a steady stream of terrorist attacks, at least one of which all evidence suggests he participated in.
"We have not had another terrorist attack of the 4WG type"
Except for the snipers, the anthrax letters, some recent fireletters, and who knows what else the media hasn't chosen to report.
"and he has succeeded in engaging the terrorists in Iraq"
We weren't attacked by the terrorists in Iraq, just like we weren't attacked by the flankers in Sweden. Just because two groups use the same military tactic doesn't mean you can be ambiguous in describing them. I don't think there even was any anti-US terrorism in Iraq before our invasion, in which we used "Shock and Awe" and killed many innocent civilians, (isn't that terrorism?). Certainly the cadets fresh out of boot camp who would told to interrogate the Iraqi civilians without given any specific instructions as to how to go about doing that or being monitored at all by anyone nope, nosiree, making the decision completely on their lonesome to use torture didn't help prevent more anti-US terrorism from springing up. I wonder how that will affect the way US prisoners are treated when they become POWs?
"Still, I would not be surprised to see a sleeper cell blow a nuke in some American city at a time they choose. I sure hope I'm wrong about that, but that's the nature of 4WG."
Aside from getting a nuke, it wouldn't be too hard to pull off. It does make you wonder why they aren't using other methods right now to do more large-scale attacks. I mean if you're willing to kill yourself anyway, it wouldn't be too tough to get an AK-47 and head to any major foot traffic area and start firing into the masses for a while.
"War of any kind is as always a horrible, imprecise and messy business, and even one life is one to many to waste in war."
Is this a commercial? It seems about as sincere as the last make-money fast system I heard about. Or do you really believe that pointing out that war is bad and human life is precious provided additional depth and insight here? Personally, I think you said it for political reasons.
"However, the just over 1000 we have lost in Iraq is still extremely small in historical military terms. It is still far less the thousands we lost on 9/11 to the 4WG attack."
First - I don't believe we've only lost 1000 in Iraq, and secondly it wasn't Saddam who attacked us on 9-11 so there is no reason to compare those numbers. A more reasonable comparison would be how many US lives have been and will continue to be lost due to us invading Iraq, especially in the manner we did, versus how many would have been lost if we hadn't. Well, I suppose we all thought that those numbers would have been greater since all of us *cough* believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction *cough* except people whose arguments you would have called "babbling" and "hysterical nonsense".
"Lastly, yes John Kerry is a traitor in my book and many other veterans books, for negotiating with a representative of the Viet Cong in Paris, while he was still in the military (among other things)."
Oh how damning. What was he negotiating? Was he negotiating a peace treaty? Was he negotiating a hostage trade? Was he negotiating a cease fire? Was he negotiating the price of a watch? Seems your sense of treason might have shades of political bias.
"I have heard some veterans groups are planning action against Kerry if he wins or not. I've already contributed to them and pray they succeed."
And yet you are totally unconcerned about Bush's actions regarding 9-11. I honestly think you could have incontrovertable proof of his complicity and you still wouldn't care, he's part of the right-wing team after all, nothing else is important. John Kerry made an undescribed negotiation 30 years ago and suddenly your up in arms, could it be because he's left-wing by any chance?
"It has to do more with a justice and a balancing of the books than anything."
Suuuuure it does. I'm sure you would be just as outraged if Bush had negotiated with some Viet Cong guy about something during the war, (rather than going AWOL that is).
" I am told the crime of treason has no statute of limitations, and as far as Kerry's war record... Well, I won't deny him that, just say that Benedict Arnold had a far, far, far more distinguished military career in service to America than John Kerry ever dreamed of. "
Just say that that is an obvious piece of propaganda and not a logical arguement. Besides, why do you think attacking Kerry helps support your claim that Bush isn't a traitor?
"The other nonsense you are babbling about regarding the events of 9/11 are nothing but hysterical nonsense with no basis in fact."
The facts are quite clear and very simple.
1. The Air Force is charged with defending our skies
2. If a plane deviates from it's flight plan and doesn't immediately correct it or get a new plan from an air traffic controller the Air Force planes are supposed to be in the air within 90 seconds to intercept if need be. This has been the case since the 1940s.
3. Fact 2 has been demonstrated time and time again, most notably in the Payne Stewart incident.
4. The entire Air Force disobeyed those standing orders on 9-11.
5. The entire Air Force doesn't disobey standing orders unless given an order to do so.
6. If the planes had followed the standard procedure, 9-11 wouldn't have happened.
7. The terrorist attack plan could not have worked unless our Air Force disobeyed the standing order to intercept, and the Al Qaeda leaders almost certainly knew this.
8. Because they attempted the attack anyway, it seems most likely that Al Qaeda knew ahead of time we were not going to defend against it.
9. Dick Cheney mentioned having to give an order to the Air Force to go ahead and launch the planes to Newsweek shortly after 9-11.
10. Despot Bush repeatedly blocked investigations into 9-11.
11. All of these facts strongly indicate that some one or some ones who are high ranking officials in the US government ordered the planes to stay grounded and got word to Al Qaeda that it was ok to attack, and that Cheney had some knowledge of this, and that despot Bush is protecting that person or group. This is treason.
"If you have something more substantial please present it or refrain from maligning an honorable and distinguished patriot."
Bush is a traitor who participated in an attack against US civilians. He has no honor, is only distinguished by his repeated spectacular failures, and may be the least patriotic person ever to disgrace this country by setting foot in it. He has demonstrated no moral integrity or regard for honesty whatsoever, has repeatedly sacrificed the interests of the people for the interests of and I quote "Some people call you the wealthy, the elite, I call you my base", and is probably brain damaged as a result of all his extensive drug use. If anybody deserves to be maligned, it is him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:58 PM October 26th, 2004 EST (#52)
|
|
|
|
|
R "You criticize the President for not protecting us from terrorists but actually he is."
H “Before Bush, almost no terrorist attacks, since Bush a steady stream of terrorist attacks, at least one of which all evidence suggests he participated in.”
================================================== ===================
Before Bush we had many terrorists attacks. Did you ever hear of the 1st world trade center bombing or the attack on the USS Cole, PanAm flight 103 blown up over Lockerbie. The circumstances surrounding TWA flight 800 are still so suspicious they did a show on the History channel, Conspiracy series. Rocket propellant found on seats, several eyewitnesses saw distinct streaks going up to the plane, hum. There are other events, and there is a long history of terrorism against America going back many years and many Presidents. I remember a U. S. Navy serviceman beat to death on a plane hijacked to Lebanon. I remember people being walked to the door of another hijacked airliner (one American woman as I recall) and executed and their bodies thrown on the tarmac below somewhere in Europe. There was also that guy they caught at the Canadian border (The Millennium Bomber) heading to LAX for a little new millennium terrorist attack in Los Angeles.
================================================== ==================
R "We have not had another terrorist attack of the 4WG type"
H “Except for the snipers, the anthrax letters, some recent fireletters, and who knows what else the media hasn't chosen to report. “
================================================== ==================
Certainly not of the scale of 9/11. The History Channel had a show this past week on those letters, and the belief is that it was a disgruntled employee or employees of ARMIID (government bio weapons facility) did that. The show alleged too many security issues would be breached if the culprit was fingered.
================================================== ==================
R "and he has succeeded in engaging the terrorists in Iraq"
H “We weren't attacked by the terrorists in Iraq, just like we weren't attacked by the flankers in Sweden. Just because two groups use the same military tactic doesn't mean you can be ambiguous in describing them. I don't think there even was any anti-US terrorism in Iraq before our invasion, in which we used "Shock and Awe" and killed many innocent civilians, (isn't that terrorism?). Certainly the cadets fresh out of boot camp who would told to interrogate the Iraqi civilians without given any specific instructions as to how to go about doing that or being monitored at all by anyone nope, nosiree, making the decision completely on their lonesome to use torture didn't help prevent more anti-US terrorism from springing up. I wonder how that will affect the way US prisoners are treated when they become POWs?”
================================================== ==================
Ever hear of Ansar Al Islam (Al Qaeda training camp in northern Iraq), ever hear of Abu Musab Al-Zarquawi (trained at Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan)? Isn’t he that guy in Iraq who is claiming credit for all those beheadings and the general insurgency? “A statement attributed to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s militant group declared allegiance to al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden on Sunday.” (sorry just cut and pasted that on from a headline). and lets see wasn’t it Sadaam Hussein himself who was giving something like $25,000.00 apiece to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers who blew themselves up. Oh that’s right that’s right were just looking at Al-Qaeda terrorists and U.S. targets. Forget all the terrorism support by Sadaam. It’s all pretty hard to keep separate isn’t it?
I agree with you about the treatment captured western people in Iraq can expect following the debacle of Abu Ghraib.
================================================== ==================
R "Still, I would not be surprised to see a sleeper cell blow a nuke in some American city at a time they choose. I sure hope I'm wrong about that, but that's the nature of 4WG."
H “Aside from getting a nuke, it wouldn't be too hard to pull off. It does make you wonder why they aren't using other methods right now to do more large-scale attacks. I mean if you're willing to kill yourself anyway, it wouldn't be too tough to get an AK-47 and head to any major foot traffic area and start firing into the masses for a while.”
================================================== ===================
Yes, we both forgot to mention the three people murdered in Los Angeles at the airport at the El-Al ticket counter. The man immigrated to the U.S. from Egypt. The U.S. initially denied terrorism, although Israel claimed it was. I recall a fairly recent news story documenting the guy had “links.” Well son of a gun, do Google search and look what you find, here . “LAX Gunman Reportedly Met Twice with Bin Laden's Second in Command” I think that’s a point for me on this question, but a point for you on one of the above items.
================================================== ===================
R "War of any kind is as always a horrible, imprecise and messy business, and even one life is one to many to waste in war."
H “Is this a commercial? It seems about as sincere as the last make-money fast system I heard about. Or do you really believe that pointing out that war is bad and human life is precious provided additional depth and insight here? Personally, I think you said it for political reasons.”
================================================== ===================
Yes, I really did think that pointing out that war is bad and human life is precious provided additional depth and insight here. You are entitled to your opinions. It’s just hard for me to write as I sit here in my capitalist excesses. My lazy boy recliner, that I had stuffed with hundred dollar bills is getting really lumpy. I’ll just have to throw it away and buy a new one (sarcasm). Most people get that look when they enter my hovel, then I offer them a place to sit on the floor.
================================================== ===================
R "However, the just over 1000 we have lost in Iraq is still extremely small in historical military terms. It is still far less the thousands we lost on 9/11 to the 4WG attack."
H “First - I don't believe we've only lost 1000 in Iraq, and secondly it wasn't Saddam who attacked us on 9-11 so there is no reason to compare those numbers. A more reasonable comparison would be how many US lives have been and will continue to be lost due to us invading Iraq, especially in the manner we did, versus how many would have been lost if we hadn't. Well, I suppose we all thought that those numbers would have been greater since all of us *cough* believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction *cough* except people whose arguments you would have called "babbling" and "hysterical nonsense".
================================================== ===================
#1 Your first point about the deaths is purely unfounded conjecture, but to help you make your point more effectively you should have argued how many horribly maimed men we have allowed to survived as a result of our advanced medical technology. The brain injuries alone (probably as a result of IED’s) are shocking, not to mention all the missing limbs.
#2 I believe I made some al Qaeda ties above, but there’s another that ties in here - subcontracting WMD’s .
“...does it constitute a failure not just of intelligence, but also a failure of policymakers and policy-level managers of the intelligence communities in the West to allow or encourage an examination of the Iraq situation within a broader strategic context?”
All you Kerry buffs need to really chow down on this next line from the above article,
“However, there were numerous failures to maintain the total secrecy of his actions at an operational intelligence level. This may have been inevitable, given the scope of the WMD programs being conducted in Libya, for example, where an estimated Iraqi workforce of up to 20,000 scientists, engineers and workers were engaged in WMD and missile development, and in other countries, such as Mauritania (intended as a launch site for ballistic missiles to threaten the US), where Iraqi intelligence officials were conducting aspects of the strategy.”
By the way there were a whole string of articles on this topic, that came up when I did my Google search so do read some more please.
Dang, that next one is really long and this rebuttal is getting too long so make that part B please.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:28 PM October 26th, 2004 EST (#54)
|
|
|
|
|
Here are the fixed links.
#1 I recall a fairly recent news story documenting the guy had “links.” Well son of a gun, do Google search and look what you find, here .
#2 I believe I made some al Qaeda ties above, but there’s another that ties in here - subcontracting WMD’s .
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, it looks like you deleted most of your message, ( I assume on accident ), before I had a chance to reply. However I will comment on your links.
"#1 I recall a fairly recent news story documenting the guy had “links.” Well son of a gun, do Google search and look what you find, here . "
Look what you find here, here, here, and here!
Next time you're trying to find credible information, you might want to avoid sites with photographic proof of aliens and their spaceships.
As for link #2, FreeRepublic.com is known for being an extremely biased site, and I don't find their case "Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction, just not in Iraq!" all that convincing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:49 AM October 27th, 2004 EST (#57)
|
|
|
|
|
It's all there, but as usual it's you who, & Kerry, who don't take the time to explore in depth. I replied to everything you wrote and I deleted nothing.
I still don't understand how any Mensactivist could support someone as overtly hateful to men's issues as John Kerry obviously is. Could we have some closet radical/gender feminist, Kerry supporters on this site?
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"It's all there, but as usual it's you who, & Kerry, who don't take the time to explore in depth."
Hmmm, I somehow missed it. I see it now, so obviously I was wrong. By the way, can you name one thing Bush has done wrong since he's been president? He can't.
"I still don't understand how any Mensactivist could support someone as overtly hateful to men's issues as John Kerry obviously is. Could we have some closet radical/gender feminist, Kerry supporters on this site?"
I'm sure the Kerry supporters on this site support him because when they look at his position on all the issues, not just the men's issues, his position fits best with their own. Or at least, I hope that's the case and that they aren't simply thinking of him as the less evil of 2 choices, when in fact there are many more choices than that. Either way, I won't be assuming anyone is a feminist here just because they support Kerry.
And in case you're wondering, he doesn't get my support mainly because he is unfriendly to men's issues. Call me egotistical but my vote needs to be earned, and fitting into the category of "Anybody but Bush" doesn't quite cut it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:00 PM October 27th, 2004 EST (#66)
|
|
|
|
|
Re: LAX terrorist links to Al Qaeda:
"Next time you're trying to find credible information, you might want to avoid sites with photographic proof of aliens and their spaceships."
Hombre:
Okay here
"Beverly Hills attorney Richard I. Fine, representing the Aminovs, charged in his complaint that the city had failed to provide any police presence at the terminal and that it took officers 15 minutes to respond to the shooting.
Should the city reject the claims within the 45-day deadline, Fine said he would bring a lawsuit in federal court. The case could be expanded to target Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda terrorist organization and tap assets frozen by the U.S. government.
Shortly after the July 4 attack, the London-based Arab newspaper, Al-Hayat, published an article indicating that Hadayet had met with Bin Laden’s top aide in 1995 and 1998."
and here alleging somewhat different terrorist connections,
"Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, who killed two people Thursday at Los Angeles International Airport, was a radical Muslim extremist involved in terrorism, the respected Israeli intelligence Web site DEBKA.com reported today.
"During his ten years in the United States, he was a secret operative of the Egyptian Jihad who maintained undercover links to the same Jihad cell in Brooklyn, New York, as the 'blind sheikh' Abdul Rahim Rahman and Ramzi Yousef. Both are doing time for perpetrating the first attack on the New York World Trade Center in 1993," DEBKA said."
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It wasn't links between LAX and Al Qaeda that were in dispute it's the supposed link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:32 AM October 29th, 2004 EST (#72)
|
|
|
|
|
"It wasn't links between LAX and Al Qaeda that were in dispute it's the supposed link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda."
Did you miss this? Go back to where this is posted for the source, and there is another source there also.
Ray
"Shortly after the July 4 attack, the London-based Arab newspaper, Al-Hayat, published an article indicating that Hadayet had met with Bin Laden’s top aide in 1995 and 1998."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Certainly not of the scale of 9/11."
I've analysed that a bit from a strategic point of view, and it seems that if Osama is trying to do the same thing to the US that he thinks he did to the USSR, (force us to leave the middle east because it would be too expensive to stay there), it makes some sense for him to wait a period of time between each large scale attack. After all, he wouldn't want the US population to grow numb to it and stop throwing money into war and defense. Taking out his rival Saddam and increasing middle east hatred towards America was probably about the best thing he thinks we could have done for him.
"The History Channel had a show this past week on those letters, and the belief is that it was a disgruntled employee or employees of ARMIID (government bio weapons facility) did that. The show alleged too many security issues would be breached if the culprit was fingered."
Terrorism regardless. I'll admit I'm not sure of the numbers, but it seems I've heard about more attacks on the US since Bush took office than before he took office.
"Ever hear of Ansar Al Islam (Al Qaeda training camp in northern Iraq), "
Yes. They were in the land controlled by the Kurds, whom Saddam did not support and tried to exterminate.
"ever hear of Abu Musab Al-Zarquawi (trained at Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan)?"
I haven't heard that he trained with Al Qaeda, but yes, I've heard of the man who is in control of Fallujah.
"“A statement attributed to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s militant group declared allegiance to al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden on Sunday.”"
I first saw that in the Star Tribune. Then I heard other reports on various news shows. The most striking thing about every report I heard on it the day the information was first reported, is that they all claimed the source being some guy claiming to be al-Zawqawi on a website, and none of them questioned that!!! For all they know that was me. It seems more than suspect that suddenly a claim made on some website is considered good enough fact checking for the associated press. Could it be that with the election coming up Bush needed some kind of reason to say we went into Iraq?
"and lets see wasn’t it Sadaam Hussein himself who was giving something like $25,000.00 apiece to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers who blew themselves up. Oh that’s right that’s right were just looking at Al-Qaeda terrorists and U.S. targets. Forget all the terrorism support by Sadaam."
What about all the terrorism against Palestinians by Isreal? Isn't America paying them? Oh that's right, we're just looking at Muslim terrorists and their targets. Forget all that terrorism supported by the US.
"Yes, I really did think that pointing out that war is bad and human life is precious provided additional depth and insight here. You are entitled to your opinions."
It is my opinion that you are smart enough to know that stating the obvious didn't add much to the conversation, other than to try and dissuade accusations of chickenhawkery being levied against you.
"It’s just hard for me to write as I sit here in my capitalist excesses. My lazy boy recliner, that I had stuffed with hundred dollar bills is getting really lumpy. I’ll just have to throw it away and buy a new one (sarcasm). Most people get that look when they enter my hovel, then I offer them a place to sit on the floor."
Errrr, I think you selected the wrong track on your right-wing standard reply machine. We aren't discussing economics here, nor have I given you any reason to think that I either believe you are rich or would condemn you soley for that.
"1 Your first point about the deaths is purely unfounded conjecture, but to help you make your point more effectively you should have argued how many horribly maimed men we have allowed to survived as a result of our advanced medical technology. The brain injuries alone (probably as a result of IED’s) are shocking, not to mention all the missing limbs. "
When you can't trust the media, conjecture is all you have, and with all the regulations on what the media can tell us about the war we can't trust our media. That aside, I didn't bring up the wounded because 1st I assumed you already knew and 2nd because I didn't want to add another unnecessary tangent to this.
"#2 I believe I made some al Qaeda ties above,"
You tied al Qaeda to the Kurds, not to the Saddam. It's kind of like blaming the US for harboring al Qaeda pilots because they trained at a flight school in Florida. In both cases, the government was not supporting them.
" but there’s another that ties in here - subcontracting WMD’s ."
Free Republic? I don't trust that radical site, and I trust it even less when I note that every single footnote that shows where they got the information for the story is a link to another page on that site!
"All you Kerry buffs need to really chow down on this next line from the above article, "
Thankfully I'm not a Kerry buff.
"By the way there were a whole string of articles on this topic, that came up when I did my Google search so do read some more please. "
I did a quick search on the words Iraq, Libya, and nukes, and found a lot of sites, but after checking the first page and not finding any others making the same claims I really don't want to spend more time searching for it. Either you have links to credible sites that list something besides themselves as the source of this information or you don't. I'm not going to go look and see if I can find some for you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:20 PM October 26th, 2004 EST (#53)
|
|
|
|
|
R "Lastly, yes John Kerry is a traitor in my book and many other veterans books, for negotiating with a representative of the Viet Cong in Paris, while he was still in the military (among other things)."
H “Oh how damning. What was he negotiating? Was he negotiating a peace treaty? Was he negotiating a hostage trade? Was he negotiating a cease fire? Was he negotiating the price of a watch? Seems your sense of treason might have shades of political bias.”
================================================== ===================
article here “John Kerry met twice with representatives of the North Vietnamese government during the Vietnam war, in separate visits to Paris over the span of more than a year - and planned a third meeting before he left the leadership of the anti-American protest group Vietnam Veterans Against the War.” John Kerry was with VVAW (Vietnam veterans against the war at this time. Given the disrespectful cover of his book The New Soldier where he mocks the U.S. flag raising on Iwo Jima (flying the U.S. flag upside down), and all his other activities (throwing “his medals” in the trash), winter soldier scandal, it appears the pattern would indicate antiwar activity, but maybe they were just exchanging baseball cards.
picture here Let’s see, They were called Vietnam Veterans Against the War, John Kerry was a member, he was in the armed forces, he was there, they have an established history of undermining the Vietnam war effort, and they’re meeting with the enemy, hummm.
I just couldn’t find that picture I’ve seen of Kerry in Paris standing beside that Viet Cong woman, and I so much wanted to post it here.
================================================== ===================
R "I have heard some veterans groups are planning action against Kerry if he wins or not. I've already contributed to them and pray they succeed."
H “And yet you are totally unconcerned about Bush's actions regarding 9-11. I honestly think you could have incontrovertable proof of his complicity and you still wouldn't care, he's part of the right-wing team after all, nothing else is important. John Kerry made an undescribed negotiation 30 years ago and suddenly your up in arms, could it be because he's left-wing by any chance?”
================================================== ===================
The 9’11 commission after thorough investigation does not support your claim above, and neither do I. Your claim is nonsensical propaganda, but isn’t it peculiar that Kerry will not allow republication of his book, The New Soldier? The real question is what is John Kerry hiding from the American people?
================================================== ===================
R "It has to do more with a justice and a balancing of the books than anything."
H “Suuuuure it does. I'm sure you would be just as outraged if Bush had negotiated with some Viet Cong guy about something during the war, (rather than going AWOL that is).”
================================================== ===================
Bush's Guard service recycled at election time
“Chairman Terry McAuliffe, who in February accused Mr. Bush of being "AWOL" in the Guard, this week vowed that Mr. Bush's tenure as a fighter pilot will be a main Democratic crusade — day in, day out — until the Nov. 2 election.
"It's going to be on the table from now until November 2," Mr. McAuliffe told reporters this week as new press reports surfaced questioning the devotion of Guard Lt. George W. Bush.
"These new documents show the president did not serve honorably, and they did not have all the documents out."‘
Isn’t that the same bogus “new documents,” that Dan Rather and CBS swore by until they had to admit they were forgeries? Wow, I can’t believe you’d even want to bring that embarassing liberal media debacle to anyone’s attention!
================================================== ==================
R “I am told the crime of treason has no statute of limitations, and as far as Kerry's war record... Well, I won't deny him that, just say that Benedict Arnold had a far, far, far more distinguished military career in service to America than John Kerry ever dreamed of."
H “Just say that that is an obvious piece of propaganda and not a logical arguement. Besides, why do you think attacking Kerry helps support your claim that Bush isn't a traitor?”
================================================== ===================
#1 It is a logical arguement. Why the double standard between the behavior of Benedict Arnold and that of John Kerry?
#2 Actually, you are the one who attacked Bush with nonsensical claims, when it was brought up how John Kerry has traitorously betrayed his country. You are the one who is spouting pure propoganda against our President.
================================================== ===================
H "The other nonsense you are babbling about regarding the events of 9/11 are nothing but hysterical nonsense with no basis in fact."
The facts are quite clear and very simple.
1. The Air Force is charged with defending our skies
2. If a plane deviates from it's flight plan and doesn't immediately correct it or get a new plan from an air traffic controller the Air Force planes are supposed to be in the air within 90 seconds to intercept if need be. This has been the case since the 1940s.
3. Fact 2 has been demonstrated time and time again, most notably in the Payne Stewart incident.
4. The entire Air Force disobeyed those standing orders on 9-11.
5. The entire Air Force doesn't disobey standing orders unless given an order to do so.
6. If the planes had followed the standard procedure, 9-11 wouldn't have happened.
7. The terrorist attack plan could not have worked unless our Air Force disobeyed the standing order to intercept, and the Al Qaeda leaders almost certainly knew this.
8. Because they attempted the attack anyway, it seems most likely that Al Qaeda knew ahead of time we were not going to defend against it.
9. Dick Cheney mentioned having to give an order to the Air Force to go ahead and launch the planes to Newsweek shortly after 9-11.
10. Despot Bush repeatedly blocked investigations into 9-11.
11. All of these facts strongly indicate that some one or some ones who are high ranking officials in the US government ordered the planes to stay grounded and got word to Al Qaeda that it was ok to attack, and that Cheney had some knowledge of this, and that despot Bush is protecting that person or group. This is treason.”
================================================== ===================
Wow, that’s really incredible. Have you gone to the news media with that yet? If not you really should. No, seriously, do go to the news media with that, and please post all reponses here too.
================================================== ===================
R "If you have something more substantial please present it or refrain from maligning an honorable and distinguished patriot."
H “Bush is a traitor who participated in an attack against US civilians. He has no honor, is only distinguished by his repeated spectacular failures, and may be the least patriotic person ever to disgrace this country by setting foot in it. He has demonstrated no moral integrity or regard for honesty whatsoever, has repeatedly sacrificed the interests of the people for the interests of and I quote "Some people call you the wealthy, the elite, I call you my base", and is probably brain damaged as a result of all his extensive drug use. If anybody deserves to be maligned, it is him.”
================================================== ===================
Well that certainly is an appropriate description of Senator John F. Kerry, only I would have just said “citizens” not “civilians.” Don’t the Kerry’s also have more money than the Bushes?
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“John Kerry met twice with representatives of the North Vietnamese government during the Vietnam war, in separate visits to Paris over the span of more than a year - and planned a third meeting before he left the leadership of the anti-American protest group Vietnam Veterans Against the War.”
Just because a writer for the extremist neocon online zine Newsmax.com claims a group is anti-American doesn't make it so. They spout so many horrible labels at anyone whose politics they disagree with it's absurd to take any of those labels seriously. By the way, is he being called a traitor here because he was against the war, or because he tried to do something about it, (even though that something did not hurt the US)?
"Given the disrespectful cover of his book The New Soldier where he mocks the U.S. flag raising on Iwo Jima (flying the U.S. flag upside down),"
Flying a flag upside down is a military signal of distress which is generally interpretted as meaning "we need help over here". I'm not familiar with that technique ever being used as a signal of disrespect, usually they just burn the flag if they want to do that.
"they have an established history of undermining the Vietnam war effort"
If you have something substantial to demonstrate that please post it. (Notice I didn't simply dismiss your claim as nonsense and propaganda without looking at your data.)
"The 9’11 commission after thorough investigation does not support your claim above, and neither do I."
My claim is supported by the facts I mentioned earlier. That the 9-11 commission, appointed by Bush, composed of his friends and those whose political careers are dependant on Bush's decisions as well as how they are portrayed by our extreme right-wing media failed to find any guilt in the Bush administration is not telling. That Bush blocked both attempts at private investigation, made several attempts to block the creation of a 9-11 commission, and was uncooperative with the commission however is telling.
And the fact that you don't support my claim is irrelevant, the facts do support it as I demonstrated earlier. But I notice you didn't even deny my claim that, "I honestly think you could have incontrovertable proof of his complicity and you still wouldn't care, he's part of the right-wing team after all, nothing else is important.", and I suspect it's because you're still deciding whether there is anything wrong with that position before you deny it.
"Your claim is nonsensical propaganda,"
My claim is sensible. I broke it down almost into direct syllogisms already. If I've made a logical error in how I've gone from one point to another please highlight it. If one of my claimed facts is false, please provide evidence to show us. Why merely accuse me of nonsensical propaganda when you can actually prove it, eh?
"but isn’t it peculiar that Kerry will not allow republication of his book, The New Soldier? The real question is what is John Kerry hiding from the American people? "
Nice diversion.
"#1 It is a logical arguement. Why the double standard between the behavior of Benedict Arnold and that of John Kerry? "
I didn't say Kerry's war record precludes him from being a traitor. That double standard was never made. You pointing out that BA had a distinguished military career to rebuff that point is a strawman argument, and an attempt to just use the words Kerry and Benedict Arnold close to each other a lot to influence people's perception. Pure propaganda as I said before.
"#2 Actually, you are the one who attacked Bush with nonsensical claims, when it was brought up how John Kerry has traitorously betrayed his country."
Syllogistic strings which lack logical fallacies are sensible. And my attack on Bush was not based on your attack on Kerry, ( hint, I don't like Kerry and I'm not voting for him ), but based on you talking about that traitorous anti-American pig as if he were a hero. And if you're wondering why I've defended Kerry a few times here it's because your attacks on him are so ridiculous, "He talked to the enemy and tried to end the war!", oh how horrible.
"You are the one who is spouting pure propoganda against our President."
As opposed to "against a construction worker". I guess as president of the US, his actions should be more free from criticism, examination, and peer review than that of a construction worker. And no, simply dismissing my claims and calling them propaganda has still not advanced your attempts at defending our fuhrer. Some people might have noticed you haven't disputed any of my points, only my conclusion. They might think that maybe the history of the Air Force intercepting off course planes, the videotaped footage showing they didn't show up, and the near-admission by Cheney that they were ordered not to does lead to the conclusion that Bush participated at the very least in the coverup of his administrations involvement in the attack. Or they might just say "go team go" and dismiss any criticism in the usual way, by not debating the points, calling it propaganda, and trying to find some liberal candidate to accuse of the exact same things in order to confuse the conversation.
"Isn’t that the same bogus “new documents,” that Dan Rather and CBS swore by until they had to admit they were forgeries? Wow, I can’t believe you’d even want to bring that embarassing liberal media debacle to anyone’s attention!"
There was plenty of other evidence out there proving Bush's time as AWOL prior to that trojan horse was delivered to the DNC camp via the hands of a republican agent.
Read up. "In 2000, a group of former Alabama guardsmen offered a $3,500 reward to anyone who could remember serving with Lt. George Bush. Nobody came forward."
Read more.
Here's a good breakdown of Bush's payroll records while he was in the air force which show when he was training AND what time he was creditted for making up. There are 5 missing months. Where was George?
A blogger whose included links detailing the questions of George's absence.
Whether the letter Dan Rather reported on was true or not, it's message was. George Bush went AWOL.
"Wow, that’s really incredible. Have you gone to the news media with that yet?"
The same news media that failed to tell us that Bush was the first president in history to skip the traditional inaugural walk to the white house out of fear of the thousands of protestors gathered around and throwing eggs at the limosousine that drove him to the white house? The same news media that reports on the latest nationwide polls by either 1- saying Bush is in the lead, 2 - saying nothing, or 3 - saying Bush has regained the lead? The same right wing media which makes Squealer from Animal Farm look true and unbiased? I don't think they're interested.
"Well that certainly is an appropriate description of Senator John F. Kerry, only I would have just said “citizens” not “civilians.” Don’t the Kerry’s also have more money than the Bushes?"
Nah, you're being too harsh on Kerry. Sure he's very feminignorant, and he is too big a pussy to stand up to the neocons who hang out in forums like the FreeRepublic.com, and yes he does pander to wealthy special interests more than to the American people, but to put him in the same category as Bush is an uncalled for insult to Kerry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:52 AM October 27th, 2004 EST (#58)
|
|
|
|
|
So far you've done a pitiful job of making your points after I refuted them. Keep trying it is a learning process.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:09 PM October 27th, 2004 EST (#65)
|
|
|
|
|
"Read up. "In 2000, a group of former Alabama guardsmen offered a $3,500 reward to anyone who could remember serving with Lt. George Bush. Nobody came forward."
Read more.
Here's a good breakdown of Bush's payroll records while he was in the air force which show when he was training AND what time he was creditted for making up. There are 5 missing months. Where was George?"
You should spend a little more time on Men's News Daily so as not to be so ill informed on these issues, here
You have nothing on Bush except your own liberal bias.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"So far you've done a pitiful job of making your points after I refuted them. Keep trying it is a learning process."
You've got a lot to learn about logical reasoning before you catch up to me junior. You haven't refuted anything, and now you're simply trolling. If you could have shown a logical fallacy in the syllogistic string I gave you, or that one of the base facts it included were false you should have, and you also shouldn't need me to tell you that's what "refuting" consists of, (hint: hand-waving, arrogant dissmissals, and attacking Kerry doesn't refute ANY criticism EVER MADE of Bush). You haven't refuted it. You can't refute it. Like the traitor Bush, you're wrong and can't admit it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:27 PM October 27th, 2004 EST (#64)
|
|
|
|
|
"You haven't refuted it. You can't refute it. Like the traitor Bush, you're wrong and can't admit it."
The truth is you are presenting just more liberal crackpot fictionalizing of events to fit your liberal Bush hating ideology. If your so sure of what you say, take it to CBS or the New York Times so I can read about in more detail as I'm waiting the check out line at the grocery store.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The truth is you are presenting just more liberal crackpot fictionalizing of events"
Which part was fiction, that the Air Force is supposed to intercept off-course flights to defend our airspace, or that they didn't do it? Why don't you demonstrate how it's fiction instead of simply claiming it is? That's right, you can't. And you don't care either. Bush is a Republican so he can kill all the Americans he wants to and still have your support.
"to fit your liberal Bush hating ideology."
Reduced to trifling ad hominems already? Whether I have a liberal ideology or not is irrelevent to whether Bush participated in covering up his administrations assistance in the 9-11 attacks, (or worse).
"If your so sure of what you say, take it to CBS or the New York Times so I can read about in more detail as I'm waiting the check out line at the grocery store."
You'll see it next to the articles about the disparity in sentencing for men and women. Or does the media not print what doesn't fit their agenda?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"You should spend a little more time on Men's News Daily so as not to be so ill informed on these issues, here"
How does reading their propagandish distortion of the facts help keep someone well-informed? You might think you're more well-informed because you read more of the mainstream news, but I think I'm more well-informed because I don't believe the obvious lies they tell.
"You have nothing on Bush except your own liberal bias."
The Air Force disobeyed the standing order to intercept the planes on 9-11. We all watched it happen. There are millions of witnesses. We've got it on video. We've got Cheney practically admitting to it in Newsweek. We were successfully attacked by a plan that wouldn't even have been launched had the terrorists been unaware that our military would stand down. How much evidence do you f---in need? None of these concerns have been addressed since 9-11, and we haven't even mentioned the other things like all the American Airlines stock that was sold short a few days before the attack, or that these flight school dropouts were executing hairpin turns with 747s that could only be done by computerized flight programs which Osama probably lacks the capacity to make.
No Ray, it is you who has nothing to offer in Bush's defense, (and indeed you've offered nothing thus far except for trying to argue that we shouldn't look at the facts), except your own neo-con extremist bias and hatred of liberals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:38 AM October 29th, 2004 EST (#73)
|
|
|
|
|
R "If your so sure of what you say, take it to CBS or the New York Times so I can read about in more detail as I'm waiting the check out line at the grocery store."
H "You'll see it next to the articles about the disparity in sentencing for men and women. Or does the media not print what doesn't fit their agenda?"
Certainly a horrible comparison. The liberal media has no problem printing false Bush Hating stories as we are seeing everyday, but not the truth as your 2nd item so please take your crackpot theories to those crackpot liberal rags so journalists with better access than I can debunk this foolish nonsensical myth about our good and honorable President too. Shame on you and all the other liberal Bush haters for lying so close to our election.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:49 AM October 29th, 2004 EST (#74)
|
|
|
|
|
"The Air Force disobeyed..."
Your liberal media has no problem printing false Bush Hating stories as we are seeing everyday, so please take your crackpot theories to those crackpot liberal rags so journalists with better access than I can debunk your foolish nonsensical myths. Shame on you and all the other liberal Bush haters for lying so close to our election.
Stop trying to destroy Bush with your hateful lies and thereby enhance the chances for Hanoi John Kerry who sold our troops out in Vietnam and is selling our troops out in Iraq today. If that radical/gender feminist supporter gets in office men's lives in America will become a living hell as never before imagined. I dread to think of the nutcase radical/gender feminists he will appoint. The war on men will wage as never before. The Presidency is not meant for that traitor (John Kerry), but it is meant for George W. Bush, our good and honorable President.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:45 PM October 24th, 2004 EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
Kerry scoffed at Bush's repeated assertion in their first debate that the presidency was "hard work."
"Before the president complains about his job, he ought to come here and spend the day with you," he said. "He might learn something about how, day after day, the women of this country juggle so much with such grace and strength."
The usual heartless fembitch response. Being US president today is an extraordinary difficult job. I think it's much difficult than what most women (and men) do.
But look at the general pattern. A man dares to speak about the difficulties in his life -- the tough job, the crushing child support payments, the lack of contacts with his children.... and his pain is ignored. Instead, the response is some bizarre competitive pathetic whining: "My life is tougher than yours, I have it worse than you. Poor, poor me!" That's a sick response. Wake up! Men suffer! Just recognizing this truth is a step toward actually treating men like human beings.
John Kerry, honorary feminazi.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:10 PM October 24th, 2004 EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a website that has a letter posted alleged to be from the founder of the Libertarian Party here
"The election of John Kerry would be, far more than is commonly realized, a catastrophe."
and
"His wife’s foundations have funneled millions of dollars into far-left organizations that are virulently hostile to America and libertarian principles. Not only would these foundations continue to lack transparency to the American people, they would be given enormous vigor in a Kerry administration."
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I completely agree with Thundercloud's comment about choosing between the lesser of two evils.
If men's rights were the only issue, I would say vote Bush, but I think despite everything there are bigger fish to fry right now.
Politicians know they can't fight the election on every issue, and they can't campaign in every state, so they need to prioritise. Kerry is saying what he needs to say to attract female floating voters. Yes, he's pandering to feminist-media led prejudices, yes it's cheap, but I understand it. It's the feminist-media led prejudices we need to change. The rest will follow.
The political Left is so dominated by feminist theory that it is completely constipated with it. We need to transform the Left by forcing it to acknowledge that men, heterosexuality, and fatherhood do actually have a place in the world. However, that's going to take time, and it won't happen until the Left finally sees feminism for the crypto-nazi scam that it really is.
In the meantime, the neocons are a very dangerous bunch. Deal with that first. Please.
Don't get mad. Get organised.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:01 PM October 25th, 2004 EST (#38)
|
|
|
|
|
Who says Republicans support VAWA? Attorney General John Ashcroft appointed Nancy Pfottenhauer and another lady from the IWF (Independent Women's Forum) to be on the National Domestic Violence Advisory Committee.
Here is NOW's comment about these conservative women here . Don't miss the part crediting Lynn Chenny (wife of Vice President Chenny) with being one of the founding members of IWF.
"IWF's record. The group strongly opposed the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), has worked to weaken gender equity in education programs, and criticized the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), in part because it would require participating governments to enforce laws assuring equal pay for equal work, maternity leave with pay and child care facilities for working mothers."
I'm a member of IWF too. Whoever says Republicans and Democrats are alike on men's issues really hasn't done his homework.
Christina Hoff Sommers is affiliated with IWF too. She's one of the people who has gone around lecturing at colleges. Remember her she's the lady who blew the whistle on Sheila Kuehl, Democrat, CA Senator about the famous Super Bowl Sunday myth Kuehl started in Pasadena, CA.? Hoff Sommers also wrote The War on Boys and Who Stole Feminism.
California is probably the single strongest Democrat camp in the U.S. and Kerry really wants to promote the feminist cause. When Kuehl's Senate seat is up in two years in CA, what position will she get in the Kerry adnministration alongside Pelosi, Boxer, and all those other radical/gender feminists?
To tell you the truth I'm having a really hard time seeing how any true mensactivist could support any of the democrats running for office these days.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know what you're saying, Ray. To a large extent, the problem with Republicans (as far as men's rights) is that to some extent they support chivalry -- the flip side of radical feminism. On the other hand, the IWF is one of the strongest voices of reason regarding gender issues, and the IWF is closely associated with the Republican Party. Actually, I still sometimes kick around the idea of writing in Nancy Pfotenhauer, the president of the IWF, for president.
The Republicans, however, do have some serious problems regarding men's issues. Dick Cheney, for instance, has said that he would support the Equal Rights Amendment only if it were modified to specifically state that women would not be drafted. Nevertheless, the IWF is strong, increasingly powerful, and to a large extent fair minded, though I have trouble with some of what they state and do.
It's funny. I think that to a large extent the men of both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are spineless twits, who often don't dare to act without first seeking female approval. The women of the parties are the ones who stand out. The women of the Democratic Party are, to a very large extent, radical feminists, while the women of the Republican Party are to a large extent anti-feminist and rather fair-minded.
My problems with the Republican Party, however, go far beyond men's issues. Frankly, from everything that I've read, it's the Libertarians who make the most sense.
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:10 PM October 25th, 2004 EST (#46)
|
|
|
|
|
"Dick Cheney, for instance, has said that he would support the Equal Rights Amendment only if it were modified to specifically state that women would not be drafted."
Interesting, I know the CWA (Concerned Women for America), another right wing women's group, has come right out and said they oppose the draft for women.
"It's funny. I think that to a large extent the men of both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are spineless twits, who often don't dare to act without first seeking female approval."
We are 100% in agreement on that. Today I was reading a little of Herb Goldberg's pioneering men's rights book from the mid 70's, The Hazards of Being Male. It was somewhat nostalgic, but what really impressed me is that men haven't gained hardly a thing in the way of bettering their status as men since the 70's, whereas women have gained a lot (a good deal at the expense of men).
We certainly live in tumultuous times as this Presidential race proves - - - daily.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:55 PM October 25th, 2004 EST (#43)
|
|
|
|
|
I just got an email from Glenn Sacks as I'm sure many of you have, or will soon, that he is endorsing the Libertarian candidate, Michael Badnarik for President of the United States.
Glenn's endorsement is cogently presented and I highly respect his choice in this very tumultuous race. The Libertarian candidate, Michael Badnarik, appears to be the most attuned to the issues that are destroying the lives of Fathers and men.
Goto the HisSide link on this site to listen to Glenn's show from last night and see why Michael Badnarik says a vote for him is not a vote wasted.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:12 PM October 27th, 2004 EST (#67)
|
|
|
|
|
John Kerry's female Viet Cong (Commie/Femmie) friend (Nguyen Thi Binh) who he met with in Paris wasn't in Paris the entire time the Peace Talks were going on, according to this alleged, Declassified Dept. of Defense document I found on the internet today here .
It seems she was spending time at a hospital where NVA or Viet Cong soldiers who were "crippled" or "blind" were being euthanized.
On page 3 of the document I printed out it says she was addressing an assembled group of "seven first aid women" and she said the following, "The work of the nation must come before that of the household."
John Kerry came back to the United States from Paris and "advanced Madam Binh's new 7 point proposal to end the war. here
"Kerry is a modern era Benedict Arnold. Like Arnold, Kerry was a hero to both sides in a war." here
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:31 PM October 27th, 2004 EST (#68)
|
|
|
|
|
John Kerry's meeting with Communists broke U.S. law, here .
Here's the communist (Viet Cong) woman Kerry met with on one occasion, here .
FBI files show Kerry met with communists more than once here .
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry I've been away, but the flu is a bitch. Anyway, soon as I've kicked it, I'll come right back here to keep up the neocon smackdown on your sorry ass.
I see your lame little brain just can't handle the fact that Republicans are just as capable of misandry as Democrats are. So instead you drag up whatever dirt you can find on the Net. And your links are crap anyway. What authority did Kerry have at the time to make promises on behalf of the U.S.? None. If you have no authority to promise anything or make compromises, you aren't negociating. You're pleading. And pleading is not illegal. Bitch.
Off to bed. I'll be back to debunk whatever other moronic bs you've come up with by then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:45 AM November 2nd, 2004 EST (#76)
|
|
|
|
|
"And pleading is not illegal. Bitch."
Giving aid and comfort to the enemy certainly is, and it certainly appears he was trying to work against America in his negotiations with the Viet Cong representatives.
For one who is so critical of my debating skills I find it appalling that you should engage in profanity in your ad hominem attack, and as far as fevered brains, I'm sorry to hear you have the flu.
"misandry as Democrats"
The radical/gender feminist camp is camped solidly under the big tent of the Democrat party where I use to dwell until the radical attack on men under the Bill Clinton radical/gender feminist years. It is the Democrat party that is leading the war against men, and you need look only at the comments made by John Kerry pledging to support the "wage myth" and to support domestic violence programs for women to see where he and the Democrats are.
So far you've offered nothing of substance in support of your misinformed viewpoints. Instead of communicating addled words through your fevered brain, maybe you should go to this site and get your "moronic" viewpoints enlighted IWF Decries Use of Misleading Statistics on Wage Gap - here , and IWF Assails Radical Feminist Group's Charge - here and Feminism: Not Just for Radicals see that Republicans want only equality for men and women not Femisupremacy as the Demicrats do. This group had Lynn Chenny as a founding member and Christina Hoff Sommers (The War On Boys) as a speaker/supporter.
It is clear that in working to help women this group does not buy into the Democrat female victimization hype, and it does not attack men to make gains for women.
If you are really a men's activist, why do you support so many things that hurt and destroy good men like all those things coming out the addleded thinking of the radial/gender feminist supporting Democrat party?
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
