This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:12 PM October 1st, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I'll admit this past week I called attention to a few other facets of VAWA that destroy men's lives (since it appeared it was the end of our RADAR campaign).
Considering I've pretty much said my two cents to Sen's. Biden, Boxer, amd Feinstein I'll await Monday's alert and follow it closely.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by johnnyp on 02:32 PM October 1st, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
I wrote a letter to my two senators and my rep - all three are repubs.
I got a letter from one of the senators and it was a canned response that he supported VAWA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:52 PM October 1st, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
The link below is a press release from Sen. Jon Kyl's office (R - AZ.), explaining the purpose of the so-called "DNA Fingerprint" amendment that has been attached to the Senate's VAWA bill.
The intent is to make it possible for police to collect DNA samples from anyone they arrest, and create a massive database of DNA records.
If you read the entire press release, the DNA database concept grew out of serial rapist/killer cases where DNA evidence acquired at crime scenes could not be matched to suspect's DNA, because the suspect's DNA samples had never been taken.
Hence, the implied connection to VAWA.
If that's the goal, to enhance identification resources for law enforcement, why not just pass a law requiring a DNA sample from every infant upon birth?
(Press Release excerpt) - "Originally introduced as the DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005, Kyl’s amendment would remove current barriers to maintaining data from criminal arrestees, making it easier to include their DNA samples in the National DNA Index System (NDIS), where the samples can be compared with crime-scene evidence."
Link at -
http://kyl.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=245432
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:21 PM October 2nd, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
AU asks, "If that's the goal, to enhance identification resources for law enforcement, why not just pass a law requiring a DNA sample from every infant upon birth? "
Women in no way want to be held to the standard of correctly identifying the father of a child. So, they will always oppose DNA samples at birth.
Women know full well that large numbers (millions) are committing paternity fraud. Only women can be the primary instigator of that serious criminal activity. Women know they should be in jail and that paternity fraud is a very serious form of child abuse. Children are routinely damaged for life when they learn they are victims of paternity fraud.
Most of the feminist that are victims of paternity fraud go into denial and claim there was no abuse. It is no different than a child of a molestation claiming it is normal to have sex with an adult. These feminists are quite ill, and they are in power.
In addition, do you really believe that men will tolerate having 10% of all pussy’s put in jail? Not unless they are quite ugly. Men want the easy pussy that only an excess of women can provide, and women want the free money. Men want other men in jail and killed in war because they know that pussy is easier to get. Women want the money and attention that killing other men will get them.
The practice of making women criminally immune from criminal prosecution is an old American tradition that goes back centuries. It happened in part because so many men have died in war and because when men came to America there were hardly any women. Women literally laugh at men that demand equal accountability. Why should they be held equally accountable when they can have all the money and special rights that men will give them for pussy?
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|