|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday October 20, @05:47PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
the report is still libelous against warren farrell and other people in the fathers rights movement. it refers to farrell as an incest advocate. download the fathers rights history section of the report for more defamatory comments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday October 20, @10:22PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
I searched briefly and couldn't find a reference to Warren. If you have a link to that please provide it. If there's a libel suit I know who might be able to help.
MA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday October 20, @11:10PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
* I searched briefly and couldn't find a reference to Warren. If you have a link to that please provide it. If there's a libel suit I know who might be able to help. *
It is in the History of the Father's Rights Movement section. here (warning, this is a large by dial-up standards PDF)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday October 21, @12:18AM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm doing searches but not finding it. Yes it is large, for my system at least. Can you cut and paste the Warren Farrell part for me?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday October 21, @12:50AM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
The only part I found is "Warren Farrell, who has espoused questionable views on incenst." This alone doesn't appear enough for a libel suit. Is there more?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the portion they're refering to is this:
"It appears that the main objective of the majority of fathers’ rights groups is to avoid or decrease child support payments. The Alliance for Non Custodial Parent’s Rights, which promotes incest advocate Warren Farrell’s book on its website, calls child support unconstitutional."
Of course, the slick way for them to weasel themselves out of this libelous statement is to say "But what does he advocate about incest? They never said he was an advocate FOR incest."
"Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins." -John Galt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday October 21, @12:30PM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, I'll look into this one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday October 21, @01:53PM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
It is SILL libelous!!
Farrell should quit being a "nice guy" about this and sue the boxer shorts off these idiotic Mar-fems and the panties off their pet fem-boys!
GEEZE!
I say WHENEVER dealing with the Marx-fems, You MUST go for the "juggular", other wise you will NOT win against them!
They have "public sympathy", the federal Government and the media in their back pocketts.
In a war where you are 'out-gunned' by your enemy, You don't win against them by being "nice".
The feminists NEVER play by the "rules". That is how EVIL wins. That is it's nature.
And that is why the feminists keep winning...,
Thundercloud.
"Hoka-hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are they planning to sue Father's Rights advocates for just using their FREEDOM OF SPEACH or do I misunderstand something?
HERE
If they sue us they can well win, and it will set an EXTREMELY DANGEROUS precident for elimination of freedom to criticize feminism within the next 10 years. Please take it seriously.
PUNISHMENT AND CRIME
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John is quite right to note those feminists are systematically attacking our most fundamental rights as men. Clearly, they are carrying out an attack on our freedom to peaceably assemble in men's only groups. Now they want to criminalize men if they become activists. Men better take note of this fact.
1. Identify the parties responsible for the perpetuation of problems related to false syndromes, “fluid” joint custody laws, evaluations and counsel for children. Establish the connection between those parties and fraudulent nonprofit continuing education and support organizations (Fathers’ Rights groups) and sue under statutes for RICO vis a vis conspiracy to violate the rights of women. (See “Pictorial Systems Map,” chapter 4 of this report.)
This is some nasty stuff. Sounds like N.O.W. is getting more paranoid. They want to use criminal statues to violate the right of men to assemble and organize. They want to stop all new scientific studies that document syndromes that feminists dislike. For the feminist, if an illness is politically incorrect then they want the power to legislate and prosecute it out of existence. Men had better take note and start unifying into one large group.
2. Along with damages suit, sue for declaratory relief, making Parental Alienation Syndrome, mandatory joint custody, mandatory psychological evaluations and mandatory mediation unconstitutional. Challenge the constitutionality of the Family Law Act as amended in 1992 due to lack of procedural due process protections and other constitutional violations, including the false presumption that physical and/or legal joint custody is in the best interests of the child.
This statement is most notably a statement of hate directed at fathers. It goes along with the long standing feminist ideal that women don't need a man to raise a child. They just want their money. Besides that, these feminists believe men are disposable when the money runs dry. IF they could they would shovel all broke men into a giant grave and cover them. Then they would sue another more wealthy man for child support. This family report as sponsored by N.O.W is one of the greatest sources of male hate of our time.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It amuses me to read the rhetoric used by CANOW and other feminist groups that attack fathers. My attempt here is to create an essay or an argument that can be used to counter these attacks. Feel free to add to or refine them.
The parent who was the main childcare provider should not gain sole custody in a divorce. Dual-custody should be assumed as a ground and only be modified on a case by case basis where circumstances warrant it by potential risk to the children. The duties of a parent in a pre-divorce situation has no bearing on how the secondary parent will participate as a childcare provider in post-divorce relationship. While in a pre-divorce situation one spouse may not take on an equal share of the childcare burden, this is often due to them being the primary wage earner. If dual custody is not assumed then the wage earner will be forced to focus on wage-earning role even more than before to supply child support. This will limit their available time even more than before. Forcing one parent work longer hours is no less discriminating than forcing another parent to handle all the childcare responsibilities.
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just a question. If freedom to publis anything critical of gender feminists goes the same way some other civil rights have gone, would you stop your activism, or would you violate the laws? As for myself I could pretend to be brave before these freedoms are taken away.
PUNISHMENT AND CRIME
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday October 21, @02:31PM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
John,
Me, personaly, I would NOT give up my Men's activism!
If these rights to free speech against feminists are "taken" away from us, Then the time for 'talk' and 'reason' will be at it's end.
And the time for civil war will begin. If this should occur, I will be right there next to my fellow men. (and any decent women.)
I do not take my comments LIGHTLY. I MEAN what I SAY!
Remember the Jews were anialated after freedom of speech was denied them. My people, (American Indians) who at the time, also had NO freedom of speech were also anialated.(spelling?)
The point is, The VERY moment ANY group is denied FREE SPEECH, especialy to speak out against another "group" of people, Then ANYTHING can be done to that "group" denied free speech!! ANYTHING at all!
Once Men are denied free speech, it WILL be the begining of the end for us!
And make NO mistake about it, there is a movement by the Feminists, to have this happen. And they have the "power" to make the Government comply.
Allready, Men's free speech has been compromised. What do you think "political correctness" is all about.
The family courts thrive on feminism. the Government is tainted by it as well.
And you'll notice the media is a grand propaganda tool for feminism. The EXACT same way it was used for propaganda to gain "sympathy" for the Nazi cause against Jewish people, and against my people, 100 years ago.
Simply rob a people of saying "ouch", and then you can say 'you're not hurting them.'
So, yes. I am a Men's activist untill the bitter END.
To paraphrase Charelton Heston; 'The feminists will take my freedom of speech, only when they pry it from my cold, dead hands...,'
And that is the ONLY way. I hope you and others feel the same.
BTW, My signature-phrase, "Hoka-hey!", is an old Cheyenne war saying. It means, "It is a good day to die." They said it during the war against Gen, Custer. The connotation is to mean, that one is willing to die for one's people, for one's cause and for what is right, If THAT'S what it takes.
So,in the case of fighting for Men's free speech, I say, "HOKA-HEY!"
Thundercloud.
"Hoka-hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Was it Patton who said: "It's not your job to die for your country; it's your job to make the other guy die for his country" ??
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday October 22, @02:25PM EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
((("Was it Patton who said; "It's not your job to die for your country: it's your job to make the other guy die for his country"??")))
frank,
Yeah, it was Patton. (at least, I'm pretty sure it was.)
While I'd rather NOBODY had to "die", I think Patton was on to something there.
I just wish the Government, both local and federal, would simply up-hold the constitution and the bill of rights for EVERYONE, like they're supposed to.
The part that makes me the maddest is the fact that those in political power KNOW what those 'documents' say and what they MEAN. Yet they turn right around and violate them knowingly and intentionaly. Then tell the rest of us what they are doing is perfectly "constitutional".
The constitution GUARANTEES the rights of ALL Americans.
How, then, can they violate the U.S. constitution, VIOLATEING those guaranteed rights, of any 'group' or individuals (in this case, men) and then with a straight face, tell us they're acting CONSTITUTIONALY?
It just boggles my mind.
Sorry, I know I get carried away sometimes.
I love my country, and I just can't stand to see it hurting, like it is now...,
Thundercloud.
"Hoka-hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In another thread, a couple weeks ago, I think, we talked about whether or not any of the national political parties supported "men's rights" and as I recall, the conclusion was that no, neither party supports men's rights, that the Democrats were ideologically bound to the feminists and the Republicans were bound by the "women's vote."
One thing I have to say about the Republicans, or should I say the conservatives, is that their interpretation of the Constitution is more constructionist, which is to say that they look at it as meaning exactly what it says and they aren't as prone to "interpretation" of the words and judicial activism or "legislating from the bench." They ARE bound by their own misguided notion of chivalry, and that is difficult to get past, but in the end, I think if you can remove the issue of the "women's vote" then you can get them to listen to Constitutional arguments based on the 14th Amendment and the wording of things like Title IX.
I think that, if the Republicans win control of Congress and the conservatives get their way with the courts, then:
1) VAWA has a better chance of being rolled-back and a more fair replacement can be passed,
2) Roe vs Wade will be rolled-back and father's may again have shared, court-sanctioned choices in parenting,
3) Title IX will be interpreted as benefiting BOTH genders instead of being interpreted as only benefiting girls/women.
Then, of course, we COULD start working on the "male vote" !!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday October 23, @01:41PM EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
frank,
Personally, I'm a registered Democrat.
But if getting things done for men's rights means voteing 'Republican', then by gum, THAT'S exactly what I'll do!
I rarely vote "straight ticket", anyway.
By the way, folks, I personaly DO NOT get offended when some on this site do a bit of Democrat-bashing. The way things have been going lately, escpecialy with the Democrats supporting the militant feminists on everything, I understand your feelings, believe me.
Hmmm, Maybe It's time for me to go 'independant'(?)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka-hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've often thought about starting my own political party because none of the current parties serves my needs.
- I'm a free marketer, but I'm generally in favor of a little regulation of business,
- I'm generally against raising taxes at the federal level for social spending and in favor of it for defense (including economic defense),
- I'm generally more isolationist than most of the recent administrations, but I think we made a SERIOUS mistake in abandoning our 'humint' capability since the late sixties,
-I tend to be a bit of an environmentalist and I think we need to leave enough of the planet for our kids to live off of; I also happen to think that we could, as a nation, rid ourselves of most of our addiction to fossil fuels without significantly dampening the economy,
- I tend to think the United Nations is useless as tits on a bull, but I also think we can't stop trying,
- And I tend to be more of a constructionist than anything else when it comes to the Constitution.
Anyone who agrees with me is welcome to contact me at fhujber@hotmail.com. We'll put together a manifesto and start to circulate it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We're here already. We're called "Libertarians."
- I'm a free marketer, but I'm generally in favor of a little regulation of business,
Corporations who recieve the benefiots of incorporation should expect it to come with strings, otherwise stay a proprietorship.
- I'm generally against raising taxes at the federal level for social spending and in favor of it for defense (including economic defense),
National Defense is one of the few legitimate functions of government.
- I'm generally more isolationist than most of the recent administrations, but I think we made a SERIOUS mistake in abandoning our 'humint' capability since the late sixties,
...avoid entangling alliances....
-I tend to be a bit of an environmentalist and I think we need to leave enough of the planet for our kids to live off of; I also happen to think that we could, as a nation, rid ourselves of most of our addiction to fossil fuels without significantly dampening the economy,
And entangling us with alliances too, eh?
- I tend to think the United Nations is useless as tits on a bull, but I also think we can't stop trying,
Get U.S. out of the UN.
- And I tend to be more of a constructionist than anything else when it comes to the Constitution.
What part of "Shall make no law" is difficult to understand?
Pax.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday October 25, @01:05PM EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
We're here already. We're called "Libertarians."
I didn't know you were a Libertarian, Gonz. I see you in a much better light now. Glad to know other Libertarians are here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday October 26, @08:42PM EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
yeah lots of people who say they are libertarian do not give me the impression that they are online but that just may be the nature of the internet where you are not able to see facial expressions and stuff like that. the only thing libertarians have in common with each other is their tolerance of the individuality of others and lots of people in activist forums do not strike me as being that way
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Simply rob a people of saying "ouch", and then you can say 'you're not hurting them.'
That's it in a nutshell. It's worth remembering, however, that never before in the whole of human history has a communication medium like the internet existed. No political or social system was ever devised or designed to deal with its consequences. Most people in positions of power have little or no technical knowledge or education, and are essentially stuck in the world of thirty years ago in terms of their relationship with technology. For these people the internet is something to do with geeks and pornography, and is perhaps an alternative to the telephone and postal service for sending messages to people they already know. Their ideas about censoring what people can say are grounded in this poor understanding - hence the leftist lament that the internet is 'right wing', when in fact the internet is 'normal' and the leftists are an increasingly extremist and unrepresentative minority. In an act of techno-ignorant wishful thinking, these people try to convince themselves that the internet doesn't really matter, or that it can somehow be controlled or filtered. The reality is that the internet - which is still very much in its infancy - has the potential to undermine any and every oppressive, abusive, manipulative political or social system that may develop. You only have to look at how this site brings people together. It raises issues that are deliberately ignored by a mainstream media hamstrung by a narrow list of obsessions handed down by the self-styled social revolutionaries of thirty years ago.
As the men's movement grows, feminists will naturally become more anxious and extreme. That they have lied practically from the start, and engaged in an extensive programme of defamation and denigration of men and so-called 'patriarchal' social structures, is beyond dispute. They have engineered a series of scams - including the DV, divorce and 'child support' industries - designed to divert public resources into their own pockets. They have spent thirty years devising as many ways as possible to poison the most fundamental and important relationships in society - those between men and women, and those between adults and children. And this was no secret conspiracy, discussed in private between initiates. You can go to practically any bookstore in the western world and find an entire selection of their lies and poison, or just turn on the TV or open a newspaper. There isn't a closet big enough to contain all the skeletons the feminist movement has amassed! So, of course they're going to start getting worried as more and more men wake up to the fact that they don't have to put up with this crap from these charletans. But the more they try to suppress us, the more they will reveal themselves. Thirty years of feminism and men are still expected to put up with pain and misery for someone else's benefit? It's as if the real sexual revolution hasn't happened yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday October 22, @02:49PM EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
Uberganger,
As usual, you have a real way of 'speaking to my heart'.
Yeah, the Marx-fems, indeed, do feel they MUST get "laws" imposed to "shut men up".
If not, we will expose the very lies, of theirs, you spoke of. And in order for the "feminist movement" to continue, they simply CAN NOT allow that to happen.
Well..., They have NO CHOICE in that anymore.
B.T.W. The Marx-fems are fond of calling our country a "Patriarchy". But in a "Patriarchy", doesn't that mean that Women are not allowed a voice or even to VOTE? (Am I wrong, on that?)
If so, then aren't the feminists trying to errect a MATRIARCHY?!? By simple definition, they certainly MUST be, if they are trying to take away men's "voices".
This is something I have heared the feminists deny, on numerous occasions. This is likely another one of the feminist's "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" ploys.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka-hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday October 21, @07:56PM EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
"PROPOSED SOLUTION"
"1. Identify the parties responsible for the perpetuation of problems related to false syndromes, “fluid” joint custody laws, evaluations and counsel for children. Establish the connection between those parties and fraudulent nonprofit continuing education and support organizations (Fathers’ Rights groups) and sue under statutes for RICO vis a vis conspiracy to violate the rights of women. (See “Pictorial Systems Map,” chapter 4 of this report.)"
My Reply:
All of the following statements are intended as sarcasm, personal opinion, belief or allegation, and may not reflect your truths or realities. Under the constitutional privilege of free speech to which all Americans are entitled you be the judge as to what you believe or disbelieve to be truth and reality, and by all means in the interest of truth, liberty and freedom feel free to openly rebuttal my beliefs, personal opinion, sarcasm, or allegations.
Freedom of speech in the U.S. constitution provides that every American has the right to peacefully hold a peaceful, dissenting viewpoint. Is it now proposed that truth can only be determined for all time through an action of litigation? Will the decision resulting from such litigation determine for all time whose version of the truth will be the officially permitted government speech, and will all other versions of the truth then be silenced and punished under color of law?
In my opinion we men have already had a number of constitutional rights stripped away from us by the agenda of the radical feminists, especially the right to equal justice under the law. It now appears that the next attack will be freedom of speech. It appears completely ironic to me that this organization should be proposing this recommendation, considering my perception that fabrication of misinformation has historically been the forte and modus operandi of the more radical feminists. If this recommendation becomes law, freedom of speech will be gone forever, truth will no longer be allowed to be debated in open forum. Instead it will be determined in a court room, and all dissenting viewpoints after the ruling will forever be quashed and subject to the harsh penalty of a new un-American law.
If this recommendation should become law I would like to see some men’s rights activist lawyer(s) then go after the individuals who perpetuated the Super Bowl Myth that helped get the VAWA passed. I think that the people who helped conceive and perpetuate that misinformation (to help get VAWA passed) should then be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Additionally, it appears to me, that there exists today a virtual lock out to any unbiased domestic violence information gathering at battered women’s shelter’s. I had better say this while I can, before I no longer have the constitutional right, “It appears to me that those places have become nothing more than fraudulent generators of statistical information used to get more money to support a prejudiced and unaccountable domestic violence industry.” It is my opinion that those places are long, long overdue for deep and thorough, independent audits of their revenue spending, and more importantly their statistical methodologies. In the future if certain “proposed solutions” are implemented will valid contradictory findings to held beliefs be suppressed by lawsuit, because they do not support a certain philosophy or ideology? Will research that supports a certain viewpoint be the only reports that are allowed to be published and disseminated? It certainly appears that is being proposed, and that is shocking in this supposedly free country.
On a grander scale, it appears to me that there is a pervasive modus operandi being displayed that has long existed throughout the breadth and depth of radical feminism. I perceive the agenda of radical feminists has not been about the will of the people or truth as it is perceived by the vast majority of the citizenry. It appears to me the agenda of the radical feminists has been about misinformation and litigation that has been tailored to fit their viewpoint, and thereby further their cause. It appears to me that what the radical feminists cannot accomplish at the ballot box they seek to accomplish through intimidation, lawsuits, court rulings and the appointment of activists judges who will support their agenda. It appears that they have contributed to creating a virtual road block for new judicial appointments by filtering out any judges not completely in step with their viewpoints. Never before in the history of America have we faced such a crisis in the appointment of judges, apparently all thanks to the radical feminist and their liberal left ilk.
It appears to me that if this recommendation to quash free speech is carried forth, truth will become relative to what the lawsuits of the radical feminists allow us to say. Will even our feeble mail to our elected representatives be used to oppress us if we issue some statement that is not in line with the radical feminists propaganda version of truth? May I ask how far “big sister,” plans to go with her Orwellian and Draconian, social reconstruction?
Dear God, I sincerely pray that you will send an endless stream of Men’s Rights lawyers into this arena to seek equal justice under the original constitution of the United States of America so that we men do not continue to see our constitutional rights as men stripped away from us one by one by a terrorizing foe that lives among us, and is completely un-American, and does not tire of seeking to do mischief to men of goodwill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All of the following statements are intended as sarcasm ...
The sad part is that your comments are not at all sarcastic. John Leo discusses lack of freedoms, including laws against freedom of speech, in his October 14, 2002 article titled "Well-meaning coercion is sign of our times" (his article can be found at www.townhall.com). For example, he writes:
In Canada, censorship is almost a national sport, like lacrosse and hockey. In Saskatchewan last year, a newspaper was fined for publishing an ad that quoted Bible verses on homosexuality. For this human rights violation, the Saskatoon StarPhoenix and the man who took out the ad had to pay $1,500. Presumably if the authors of the Bible had been available for trial, Saskatchewan would have dealt sternly with them, too.
Sweden is about to forge ahead of Saskatchewan by passing a constitutional amendment banning all speech or materials opposing homosexuality. When it does, remarks that offend gays could bring a jail term of up to four years. Christians would not be allowed to speak out against homosexuality, even in churches.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday October 22, @02:53PM EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
...and so begins the 4th riecht.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Identify the parties responsible for the perpetuation of problems related to false syndromes,....and sue under statutes for RICO vis a vis conspiracy to violate the rights of women.
Wendy McElroy has a very timely article on Battered Woman's Syndrom at MND:
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/stories/mcelroy102302 .htm
CANOW might just be blowing smoke when they threaten to sue for false syndroms. They stand to lose some of their most sacred cows if sueing for false syndroms becomes fair game. That is, if the courts have the courage to escape from NOW's back pocket.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
