|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure how or why this could possibly have anything to do with domestic violence specifically. Where is the evidence that domestic violence would be curbed by such a measure? And why the distinction, if it would apply to all assaults, whether between spouses or casual acquaintances? It sounds from the snippet of Swift's statement that this is intended as some sort of deterrent for domestic violence, but where is the logic that this will be an effective means of prevention? Again, if this applies to all such assaults, why the distinction? Doesn't it seem more likely that such a measure will be just as likely to affect all perpetrators, regardless of their relationship to the victim?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I suggest that it means that as a felony it will begin to reduce the male voter rolls...and yes, a broad brush will no doubt paint outside the reasonable and practicable lines. It also is becoming apparent that the judicial system has lost its unbiased constitutional mandate. At least they won't use ducking stools. I'm moving to Costa Rica, nuts.
Send more email to GOffice@state.ma.us
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday March 06, @08:45AM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Feminist groups and individuals started infiltrating the legal and political areas many years ago. Their plan has always been to get as much control of these areas as possible and then bring about laws that correspond to their personal and political goals. In other words, they are using the law as a tool to attack men and boys; and they are getting noticeably more successful at this as every year goes by. They have now successfully corrupted the law (in their areas of operation) to the point that the courts are now often no more than rubber-stamping feminist "revenge" tactics against men as a group.
However, I believe the major lesson here is this: The majority of men have allowed this to happen to all men and boys. Only a few men ever talk back to feminists or expose their barefaced lies. The rest stay silent - terrified of speaking up. Feminists depend on this non-action to reach their next level of attack on us. Silence = more and more anti-masculine laws + more derision in the media. Every man who doesn't expose feminist lies and corruption - especially the men who work in the Media, Academia, Politics and Law, causes the next level of feminist anti-masculine activity to come into being.
JohnnyMan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday March 06, @12:34PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Good points Johnyman!
People don't realize that feminism is a collective effort of individuals working in unison and they have infiltrated every part of society. These individuals got their "training" in college and act in a manner consistent with what their radical "den mothers" told them regardless of the validity of the theories that they believe in.
If one examines the influence these people have had, it is easy to make conclude that they intend to corrupt (in their mind reform), capitalism, the empirical process, democracy, liberty, due process and the biological/sociological nature of gender.
In the media they vilify men and glorify women and always slant articles/stories into a feminist perspective . In work everyone knows there is a double standard applied to men and their conduct that isn't usually applied to women. Many family courts are now kangaroo courts governed by wacked out man haters. Our schools have become so "girl friendly" that they are biased against boys. Breast cancer research is 10 years ahead of prostate cancer, yet feminists market the idea that women are denied medical research. I could go on and on.
I say don't buy the bullshit. Speak up and be a man next time a feminist insults your gender - I do.
CJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Swift said the new law will help prosecutors crack down on those accused of domestic assault."
This statement should make every man shiver with terror. Swift is publicly acknowledging that she wants to find ways to convict the "accused" that are currently protected with due process laws. Obviously, she is preaching that to be accused is to be guilty. I believe that in the mind of Swift, the word accusation = guilty. So, for her, to be male and accused of any form of violence should result in automatic jail time.
If Swift were seeking justice, she would be seeking to simply increase the penalties for genuine DV cases and CONVICTIONS with traditional due process laws in place. I believe that her real agenda it to simply criminalize men regardless of the merit of an accusation. If further believe she would deny this agenda if confronted with it directly.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
