|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:47 AM March 8th, 2004 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
If John Kerry gets elected and runs a gender feminist agenda like that he should also pass a euthanasia law for men. I know he won't, because he and his gender feminist ilk need their male slaves.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:31 AM March 8th, 2004 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Kerry is the typical democratic feminist suck-up, repeating all the necessary lies to hold the female victimologist vote.
The problem I have is that I believe Bush is seriously damaging the economy and the credibility of the US throughout the world. And yes, I think the election was stolen.
I'm also not convinced that the republicans are doing anything of substance to oppose the gender feminist agenda.
I voted Nader last time, but this time I have to make a decision about who I think will damage the country less. Guess I'll decide in November.
TLE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:11 AM March 8th, 2004 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
"The problem I have is that I believe Bush is seriously damaging the economy......"
Therein lies the explanation for the abscence of a "mens vote" to balance the womens vote. Men will not vote primarily on gender issues. They will vote primarily on economic issues, foreign policy issues etc. Women WILL vote primarily on gender issues. They will support a feminist candidate even though they may disagree with that candidate's stance on every other issue. Kerry knows that he will not lose a single vote by trumpetting the feminist cause. Men who have been destroyed by feminism will still vote for him because they don't like the other candidates foreign policy , economic policy etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kerry knows that he will not lose a single vote by trumpetting the feminist cause.
Then he is wrong. I'm tired of the Democratic party taking my vote for granted just because I'm a woman and a feminist, and simply assuming all feminists think alike and walk in lockstep. I voted for Clinton (twice) and Gore (based on his environmental stance) .... but don't see anything to support in Kerry. He's a status quo kind of guy. At least Bush is shaking things up and making some progress on issues that matter to me... even though I don't agree with him on some things. And the Republicans don't take my vote for granted.
Voting is indeed a dilemma, it always is for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At least Bush is shaking things up and making some progress on issues that matter to me...
What, like driving the debt up and the economy down, throwing people in jail without a trial, and launching us into war all willie nillie?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At least Bush is shaking things up and making some progress on issues that matter to me...
What, like driving the debt up and the economy down, throwing people in jail without a trial, and launching us into war all willie nillie?
The Bush administration failed to use its veto power to keep congressional spending (by Republicans and Democrats) under control. Of course, if it had, Liberals would be blaming the administration for "cutting critical programs." Also, as I'm sure you are aware but will not admit, the deficit relative to GDP is not as large as it has been in the past.
As for the economy, it is nearly booming. Only a liberal news media and others obsessed with intolerance and hatred towards the administration would want you to believe the opposite. I know you don't think so but the media is extremely liberal (90% vote Democratic). By almost all measures, the economy is planted in firm growth. One can always focus on the positive and/or negative aspects of any issue. It is the glass half full or glass half empty syndrome. In this case, the economy is 90% full. The media elects to focus on the 10% that is empty, or even appears to be empty. It is why they now, for the first time, essentially ignore the BLS household employment survey and instead focus almost entirely on the payroll survey, which ignores much of the new employment that occurs following a recession. It makes the economy sound worse than it is, so they use these data (they selectively do this with men and women's issues, as I'm sure we all would agree).
Bush inherited a recession. The recession wasn't caused by Clinton, Greenspan, or anyone else. It happened. It was part of the natural business cycle. Business investment in the late 1990's was over extended, more so than at any time in at least the last 150 years. The fact that the recession was so mild and that the fundamental strength of the economy is so good (even with 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq) is a testiment to our capitalist system and to the positive economic reinforcement (e.g., tax cuts) promoted by the Bush administration.
Bush didn't launch the United States into war "all willie nillie." That is an absurb statement. This is not to say that the United States and it's allies should have invaded Iraq.
The United States et al. invaded Iraq for well-defined reasons. Saddam Hussein was a perceived threat. To quote Bush, "I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." No, wait. John Kerry said that in 2002. Bush actually said, "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." No, wait. Ted Kennedy said that in 2002. It was Bush who said, "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." No, that was Nancy Pelosi.
The United States invaded Iraq because of the threat from Saddam Hussein. A threat considered valid by essentially everyone, including the United Nations, the French, and Russia. Right or wrong, Bush took action to remove that threat.
Saddam Hussein was not a nice person. He killed hundreds of thousands of his own and other people. It is widely accepted that he, personally, committed murder in his youth. As a result of Bush's actions, the mass government-sponsored slaughter of humans in Iraq has stopped, or is at least greatly reduced.
George Bush, along with everyone else, saw a grave threat from Saddam Hussein. Bush took action.
Feel free to respond, but it is unlikely that my schedule will permit me to either read a response or engage in a discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Bush administration failed to use its veto power to keep congressional spending (by Republicans and Democrats) under control.
No, he can't even keep his own spending in check. How many huge tax cuts has Bush pushed for? How many times has he even tried to cut spending to make up for even a portion of the lost revenue? Yeah, thats what I thought.
As for the economy, it is nearly booming. Only a liberal news media and others obsessed with intolerance and hatred towards the administration would want you to believe the opposite.
Yadda yadda. Why don't you try talking again when the number of net jobs lost under the Bush administration isn't still in the millions. It doesn't matter if the stock market rebounds if we're still down a couple million jobs. But then I guess only those with a blind ignorance of the facts and blind adoration for the president would believe otherwise.
I know you don't think so but the media is extremely liberal (90% vote Democratic).
Uh huh. Care to offer any kind of basis or logic for that statement? I wont be holding my breath, as the "biased liberal media" is a myth. And don't bring up feminazies, because the conservative media buys their crap every bit as much as the rest of the press does. The simple fact is that most American media just sucks, and presents the news rather than covering it. The media is just as happy to misrepresent liberal issues and people as they are conservative ones.
In this case, the economy is 90% full.
Jobs.
The media elects to focus on the 10% that is empty, or even appears to be empty
National Debt.
It makes the economy sound worse than it is
Jobs. Jobs. Jobs. As I said before, come back once a couple million have been created.
Bush inherited a recession. The recession wasn't caused by Clinton, Greenspan, or anyone else. It happened. It was part of the natural business cycle.
Wow, I'm honestly impressed that you didn't try to pin this all on Clinton. However, even before he was sworn in, he was doing a dubious job on the economy. During the Florida fiasco, part of his PR was demanding that the issue be laid to rest before the economy weakened and went into recession. If you're a president, you don't talk down the economy.
Bush didn't launch the United States into war "all willie nillie." That is an absurb statement.
Not really. You'd think that after Vietnam, this country would have learned to not rush into war, unless you are Absolutely Sure it is the right thing to do. Saddam, imminent threat? We can't wait for the U.N., we have to invade *right now*? Where's the anthrax? Where's the nerve gas? I would think that having all your justifications for war turning out to be crap would qualify it as "willie nillie".
To quote Bush, "I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." No, wait. John Kerry said that in 2002.
You missed all the quotes from Secretary Albright and Secretary Cohen during the Clinton administration! Seriously, this is the standard Republican bait and switch, and that dog don't hunt. If the boy cries wolf, and you believe the boy, is it your fault if you repeat the lie? Now if you want to call John and Ted bandwagon jumpers, go ahead. But only the administration had the best access to current intelligence. That, and the most important thing is: Bush is the commander and chief, and he wanted this war. The buck stops with him.
The United States invaded Iraq because of the threat from Saddam Hussein. A threat considered valid by essentially everyone, including the United Nations, the French, and Russia.
Sure. Thats why everyone but Britain was gung-ho on the invasion, right?
He killed hundreds of thousands of his own and other people.
Much of what he did as the United State's pet dictator when he was opposing the Ayatollah in Iran. Its going to be veeery interesting if Saddam gets an open international trial, because of the amount of dirty laundry he knows about.
It is widely accepted that he, personally, committed murder in his youth. As a result of Bush's actions, the mass government-sponsored slaughter of humans in Iraq has stopped, or is at least greatly reduced.
Which would be wonderful if that was Bush's justification for the war. It wasn't. And we might not know for another 20 years or so if Iraqi's, and the rest of the world, would be better of if Saddam had been left in place. The country could easily boil over into civil war, a la Yugoslavia after its break up, and/or give rise to another hard line Islamic government that supports terrorism, a la the Taliban or Iran cira 1980. Either situation could kill more people and do more to endanger the rest of the world than if we had simply left him in power.
Feel free to respond, but it is unlikely that my schedule will permit me to either read a response or engage in a discussion.
Which is why its too bad that mensactivism doens't have some of the newer Slash code available. On sites with the newer code, once you log into the main page, it will tell you that people have replied to your posts. But its all good, I'll still be here. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, I'm honestly impressed that you didn't try to pin this all on Clinton. However, even before he was sworn in, he was doing a dubious job on the economy.
Should be:However, even before he was sworn in, Bush was doing a dubious job on the economy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:35 PM March 9th, 2004 EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
You've outlined a lot of my objections with the pro-Bush view of the world. It's beyond me how even 44% of people can support what has been going on.
As far as news, we are barely informed by the media which focuses on Michael Jackson, Martha Stewart, gay marriage, and someone's tit at the superbowl.
I also don't know of an entire liberal network which is the equivalent of Fox News. Oh yeah, I forgot, they're fair and balanced. Conservative apologists are everywhere. Scarbourogh, O'Reilly, Hannity, and even Dennis Miller with his chimp are there every day telling us what to think.
That doesn't automatically put me in the Clinton/Kerry/whoever camp. It's all a big joke that isn't very funny.
TLE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Which of the two do you think is more likely to whore himself out to the anti-male femelitist voting bloc?
Kerry?
Or Bush?
The democrats have been unreservedly and loudly in the femelitists' pockets for years, and I see absolutely no sign of them changing anytime soon.
I estimate the odds for men's issues advocacy as being noticeably better where the republicans are concerned, if only because of the opposition aspect. The times they are a'changing, in case you hadn't noticed. The younger generation is becoming more and more neocon all the time -- 'South Park Republicanism', it's called.
So. I have a suggestion for you. Rather than beating up on Bush, republicans, and conservativism, which only serves to make me dismiss you as just yet another liberal moonbat negative campaigner, why not go spend your resources in a generative fashion by working for Kerry and within the democrats to make them more favorable towards men's issues, and thereby attractive to me?
You see, Bush and his side have thoroughly disgusted me with their meaningless support for a marriage-related constitutional amendment that they fully well know will never, ever pass Congress.
Thus, as an INDEPENDENT, if Kerry and the democrats and liberals had something better to offer me, I'd be after it like a shot. The problem is, they don't. They turn my stomach with their consistent anti-male femelitist pandering and negative campaigning and endless hypocrisy.
And your own criticisms likewise only make me turn away in disgust at your inability to place men's issues ahead of your partisan prejudices.
It's really very simple. If you want to persuade me, drawing me in is far more likely to be effective than driving me off is.
I am not pro-Bush. But after the past thirty years of hypocrisy and pandering to anti-male femelitism, I am so primed to reject the democrat and liberal viewpoint that it's not even close to funny. And now, their transnational progressivist agenda scares the living hell out of me, and I want no part of it.
Make them attractive to me, and you'll have accomplished something. Try to make the opposition unattractive to me, and all you'll have accomplished is making yourself and your side unattractive to me.
It's just that simple. You need to grow past the limited tactical concept that this kind of partisan negative campaigning against Bush, the republicans, and conservativism in general, is at all persuasive to independents like myself. We're sick of it. It just makes us turn you off and look for mature dialogue.
And we're finding it with the neocons.
Please think about this. I am not interested in debating or arguing this with you. And trying to make me do so will only indicate how badly you're not listening to me.
Ack!
Non Illegitimi Carborundum, and KOT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Which of the two do you think is more likely to whore himself out to the anti-male femelitist voting bloc?
Kerry?
Or Bush?
Oh, without a doubt, Kerry is going to do more pandering. What I love about neocons though, is how they blame this all on the democratic party and vote solidly republican, even though the GOP hasn't done men any(check the sponsors) favors either. Idiots.
The younger generation is becoming more and more neocon all the time
Well I sure hope not, since being a neocon means having a dead brain and no concept of logic, reasoning, or consistency.
'South Park Republicanism', it's called.
Uh huh. And I suppose you just ignored all the anti war and pro gay themes on the show?
So. I have a suggestion for you. Rather than beating up on Bush, republicans, and conservativism, which only serves to make me dismiss you as just yet another liberal moonbat negative campaigner,
"Beating up", eh? I suppose you are one of those lazy ass, armchair patriot neocons who thinks that questioning the president (providing he's a republican, of course) is un-American? Lets go through the main subjects of my last post:Undisputed fact: Bush pushed for enormous tax breaks.
Undisupted fact: he launched two very costly wars in Iraq and Afganistan.
Undisupted fact: the economy went into a recession
Undisupted fact: Bush made no attempt whatsoever to either roll back his tax cuts OR slash spending to make up for the lost revenue
Undisupted fact: Bush's reason for invading Iraq was because Saddam possesed WMD's and was an imminent threat to world security
Undisupted fact: no stockpiles of WMD's have been found.
Undisupted fact: millions of jobs have been lost.
Undisupted fact: Bush is the Commander and Chief and the responsibility of going to war rests on his shoulders.
why not go spend your resources in a generative fashion by working for Kerry and within the democrats to make them more favorable towards men's issues, and thereby attractive to me?
Rather than making demands on other people, how bout you get off your own ass and get politicians to recognize men's issues?
And your own criticisms likewise only make me turn away in disgust at your inability to place men's issues ahead of your partisan prejudices.
Blah blah blah. Its called not being a single issue voter. I also care about the economy, reckless wars and national security, and Bush gets dubious to failing marks in all three of those.
I am not pro-Bush. But after the past thirty years of hypocrisy and pandering to anti-male femelitism, I am so primed to reject the democrat and liberal viewpoint that it's not even close to funny. And now, their transnational progressivist agenda scares the living hell out of me, and I want no part of it.
What do you do then, vote Liberterian? Name a single peice of pro-feminist legislation, and chances are VERY high that it has a Republican co-sponsor. Or how about all the dead beat dad crackdowns from Republican govenors and Republican states attorney generals. It's like saying the Republicans are too beholden to special interests, so you'll only vote Democratic, retardedly ignoring all the special interest groups the Democrats are beholden to. Both parties roll over for the feminazies, deal with it.
It's just that simple. You need to grow past the limited tactical concept that this kind of partisan negative campaigning against Bush, the republicans, and conservativism in general, is at all persuasive to independents like myself. We're sick of it. It just makes us turn you off and look for mature dialogue.
And we're finding it with the neocons.
Oh, I see, you're a comedian. Here's some choice quotes from "mature neocons" for you:"Two things made this country great: White men & Christianity. The degree these two have diminished is in direct proportion to the corruption and fall of the nation. Every problem that has arisen (sic) can be directly traced back to our departure from God's Law and the disenfranchisement of White men." - State Rep. Don Davis (R-NC), e-mailed to every member of the North Carolina House and Senate, reported by The Fayetteville Observer, 08-22-01"There are some who feel that, you know, the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring 'em on. We have the force necessary to deal with the situation." - George W. Bush, The Chicago Tribune, 07-03-03 "The fact of the matter is that this (increased American casualties) is a sign of the success of our operation, not its failure." - Ralph Reed, GOP strategist, on MSNBC's program 'Hardball,' 10-28-03 "We're going to keep building the party until we're hunting Democrats with dogs." - Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas), Mother Jones, 08-95 "Emotional appeals about working families trying to get by on $4.25 an hour are hard to resist. Fortunately, such families do not exist." - Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas), House Majority Whip, during a debate on increasing the minimum wage, Congressional Record, H3706, 04-23-96 "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to The New York Times building." - Ann Coulter, The New York Observer, 08-26-02 "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors." - Ann Coulter, at the Conservative Political Action Conference, 02-26-02
And finally, saving the best for last "I'm the commander—see, I don't need to explain—I don't need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the President. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." - George W. Bush, Washington Post, 11-19-02 And comments like this are the rule rather than the exception. Like I said, no logic, reasoning or consistency.
Please think about this. I am not interested in debating or arguing this with you. And trying to make me do so will only indicate how badly you're not listening to me.
Why, because you're not opinionated, you're just always right? Looks like I just proved you wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
. . .just proved me *right*.
You're not listening to me.
Ack!
Non Illegitimi Carborundum, and KOT!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I like Bush's stand on free trade, against abortion and against judicial activis, to name a few. I disagree with him on a constitutional ammendment to limit marriage, open immigration. I wasn't gung-ho for the war with Iraq but I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Now I'd like to give him a chance to conclude it. He started it, he should be allowed to finish it. I don't trust Kerry could do better but he could do a whole lot worse than Bush as far as Iraq.
I like that Bush will take stands, even very unpopular ones, right before an election. Even when I don't agree with him, at least he has guts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:08 PM March 10th, 2004 EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
p.george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feel free to join me in voting for "None of the Above".
If a candidate or a website, like MSN, has a women's issues site but not a men's issues site, I complain to them and then stop using their site. Currently I can't vote for any of the existing candidates and I would vote for myself, but I am not 35 yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:06 PM March 8th, 2004 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
It is because the democratic party is rife with people like John Kerry (The french looking candidate) that I quit the democratic party.
I say we take back the Wussy-poopie crown from Toad Goldman and give it to Kerry (The french looking candidate) Because Kerry (The french looking candidate) is a bigger Wussy-poopie than Goldman.
I am of course an independant now. I can't go with the republicans because I am (sorry) an enviromentalist. and the republicans don't seem to care about that OR Men's issues.
The democrats not only don't care about men but seem to want to destroy them, as well.
John Kerry (The french looking candidate) is a prime example of this. In my oppinion Kerry (The french looking candidate) represents EVERY THING that has gone wrong with my once beloved party.
So, no. No votes from me for democrats like John Kerry. (The french looking candidate) The only vote he'll get from me is a vote for "King of the Wussy-poopies".
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You do know which party has produced all the chicken hawks, don't you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:57 AM March 8th, 2004 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
A liberal Democrat and staunch anti-feminist for decades, I've had to choose between two evils for years. But if you're only considering gender politics, then for strategic purposes it might be wise to chose Kerry.
Why? Because Bush in '04 very well might lead to President Clinton (Hillary) in '08! For starters imagine a cabinet-level Office of Women's Issues. HELP!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:10 PM March 8th, 2004 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
There was a time that I WOULD have voted for a female for president.
But the way things are now, NO WAY!
I especialy would never vote for 'Hitlery Rotten Clinton'.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:46 PM March 8th, 2004 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:42 PM March 8th, 2004 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
You might take a look at the Constitution Party. As for myself, I'm leaning toward Bush, because the economy IS recovering, but more because I think I can rely on him to appoint judges to the Federal Bench that are more constructionist, thereby cutting down on the judicial activism that's been responsible for all the judicial support that the feminists have received over the years.
However, the Constitution Party does look more supportive of men's rights (or at least the Fourteenth Amendment).
Frank H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:54 PM March 8th, 2004 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Frank,
Tell us more, please.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:31 PM March 8th, 2004 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Their Web site is: http://constitutionparty.org/
They have a national candidate for the Presidency whose name is Michael Peroutka, a Maryland (*cough*) lawyer. His campaign has their own Web site at: http://www.peroutka2004.com/
They have state committees in most of the fifty states, but do not, as yet, have thier candidate on the ballot in all fifty.
They will appear to many to be very conservative. But I will say that if they are true to the Constitution, which they appear to be dedicated to, they may well be a better answer than either the Republicrats. Those with Libertarian tendencies may have little to fear.
Frank H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
judicial activism
Judicial activism, translated into English, means "any decision we don't like". Well, the Supreme Court got into a little "judicial activism" that benefited Bush immensely, when they overruled the Flordia Supreme Court back in 2000. Nevermind that the selection of the members of the Electoral College is purely a state matter, and the SC didn't really have any business interferring. But of course its only JA if liberals do it.
If silence has ever been deafening, it was the moment millions of Republicans shut up about states rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judicial activism, translated into English, means "any decision we don't like". Well, the Supreme Court got into a little "judicial activism" that benefited Bush immensely, when they overruled the Flordia Supreme Court back in 2000. Nevermind that the selection of the members of the Electoral College is purely a state matter, and the SC didn't really have any business interferring. But of course its only JA if liberals do it.
The 7-2 and 5-4 decisions by the US Supreme Court overruled the 4-3 decision by the (all Democrat) Florida Supreme Court that overruled a lower court that found, shockingly enough, that Florida election law should be obeyed. In esssence, the lower court ruled that "you can't make it up as you go", or in this case, "you can't keep changing the rules until Al Gore has enough votes."
It's ironic that the judicial activism you claim for the US Supreme court in fact overturned the judicial activism of the Florida Supreme Court. The Florida court didn't like the result, so they tried to change it. It is amusing to see Liberals decry the 7-2 and 5-4 decisions, when it is these same courts that consistently support Liberal issues, even when these issues are opposed by the vast majority of people.
The most disturbing aspect of the court decisions in 2000 was the obvious political nature of the outcome. The decisions where essentially along party lines. This demonstrates that the courts are a political, rather than judicial, body. This is the meaning of judicial activism. It is the imposition of moral and personal views on legal decisions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In esssence, the lower court ruled that "you can't make it up as you go", or in this case, "you can't keep changing the rules until Al Gore has enough votes."
Wrong. The basic summary of the states rulings were, that if you have the right to vote, you have the right for that vote to be counted. And if you want to talk shenanigans, how about the 90,000 people wrongly scrubbed from voter lists, the Republican election workers who were allowed to take home some 2,400 incomplete Republican ballots and complete them, or counting all the overseas ballots that were sent after the election was already over.
This is the meaning of judicial activism. It is the imposition of moral and personal views on legal decisions.
Uh huh. But again, they only bitch about it when it suits them. You don't see too many conservatives bitching about how the SCOTUS hasn't met an abusive search and siezure by police that it doesn't like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"...it was the moment millions of Republicans shut up about states rights"
One of the problems with screaming about states rights is the apparent willingness of the federal courts, most especially the Ninth Circus, to give very loose interpretation if the provisions of Article 1, Section 9, regarding interstate trade, which allow the federal government to interfere in the states rights. For example, I believe that's where the SCOTUS gets their justification for affirmative action. On the subject of gay marriage, Article 4, Section 1 can be used to require every state to recognize the marriage contracts enacted by any other state, a gay marriage enacted in Vermont MUST be recognized by California even though gay marriage is illegal in California.
Usta be that the Federal bench would push back on these things, but the Ninth Circus has been largely responsible for some rather loose definitions that have resulted in severe degradation of states rights.
So don't blame the conservatives for the loss of states rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So don't blame the conservatives for the loss of states rights.
Oh, I don't. What I do blame conservative politicians for though, is the hypocracy of claiming to the champion of states rights, except for when it suits them. Latest example: Massachusetts and gay marriage. Rather than respecting the state over the issue, conservative politicians are going to be pushing for an amendment to the the Constitution that would overrule any state on the issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Rather than respecting the state over the issue, conservative politicians are going to be pushing for an amendment to the the Constitution that would overrule any state on the issue."
Yes, they are. And I agree with them. (Fundamentally, I believe in the traditional definition of marriage, but putting that aside for a moment...) The courts demonstrated with their decision on the Texas sodomy case that they're quite willing to 'find' justification for just about anything that pleases them. Leaving the Texas sodomy laws in place would have validated states rights. The SCOTUS could have simpl declined to take the case and left the decision in the hands of the Texas legisature and the Texas courts. But they accepted the case and chose to rule on it. Amendment 10 of the Constitution delegates all power not explicitly claimed in the Constitution to the states. But the SCOTUS found some creative 'solution' to the problem of how to declare the Texas statute unconstitutional.
The Amendment to define marriage is a perfectly reasonable response to an unreasonably liberal court. It is, however, unfortunate that they should have to go this far to define marriage when it's definition prior to this time was broadly understood and accepted.
It would be fine with me if they did leave it to the states, but there is no guarantee (in fact, it seems highly unlikely) that the federal courts will allow states rights to stand on this issue. I remind you that the conservatives would much prefer the states rights approach. They believe they have no choice, and it would appear that their anti-gay-marriage stand is supported by a two-thirds majority of the populace. So it's not just the Christian Right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Having watched every moment of every proceeding related to this which was televised, I think the moment which defined the entire issue is when one of the justices asked the atty arguing Gore's case - "If, the Florida legislature had made the same changes in law that the rulings by the SCOFLA made, would that have violated the provisions of the federal election code?" The lawyer's response was priceless - "I never thought of that."
There were two primary legal issues involved. 1) the 'safe harbor' clause which stipulates that as long as election results are certified within a specific period of time that they are immune from later legal challenges. 2) The legal principle that the election must be decided under laws in force AT THE TIME OF THE ELECTION. The day after election day, the legislature cannot pass a law that changes the way the votes are counted for that election. Maybe for all future elections, but not for THAT election.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Canada has what are probably the most high benchmark wage equity legislation in the world and yet the Government of Canada in it's role as employer fought their own employees for fourteen years and paid a feminist lawyer 26 million dollars in fees for the fight. When the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the public servants the Government of Canada commited the militant cynicism of paying the back wages with part of the proceeds of the unilaterally confiscated pension fund surplus (that is still before the courts...same feminazis defending the Government's cynicism). When challanged to defend the ongoing existance of SOW in the wake of the hate watch fiasco Sheila Copp's more or less said that SOW would continue to be a facet of the Canadian Government until wage equity had been acheived.....well here is the reality wake up call....in much the same way that it is a lot easier to legislate health and saftey standards in the workplace than it is to enforce those regulations (let's face it employers have their employee's families as hostages) THERE IS NO PRACTICAL WAY IN HELL FOR ANY GOVERNMENT TO ENFORCE OR ACHEIVE WAGE EQUITY!!!! Greater justice in the realm of wages IS and ALWAYS HAS BEEN championed by the union movement. PERIOD. SIMPLE AS THAT. LIKE IT OR NOT. So if my working sisters want wage equity, you should get yourselves a union membership and a good pair of walking shoes with nice thick soles and be prepared to put some milage on the picket lines just like me and my brothers did....contrary to feminist legend our employers DID NOT measure our dinks and give .25 cents per hour more for each inch of length. I will be more than happy to walk that picket with you just like I always have...but save the bitching for the negotiating table where it belongs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:08 PM March 8th, 2004 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
Wage equity? The quickest road to that is to give husbands some choice besides being a wage slave to support the woemyn hitched to him. If woemyn work more, and men less, then wages will equalize.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The wage equity game is yet another game of numbers,numbers that are manipulated to provide feminists with the outcome that their activism requires.
The last study on the matter that i saw was reported on CNN as well as CBC and both networks took the same basic approach of reporting the conclusion of the study.But at one point CNN in a 30 second blurb went a little further and reported the approach of the study as opposed to just its outcome.
The setup of the study was to measure the average wage of women when compared to "white Men".The problem with this approach is fairly easy to see.When we hand pick the segment of men to average we have hand picked the result.They chose to ignore all male minorities in the study because minorities on average earn less but of course they included female minorities.
These are the sorts of number games that are seen in every feminist study.In fact a few years ago i remember a news conferance where women were attempting to describe the wage gap by comparing the wages of north american men to the average wages of women around the globe.But that approach was so transparent that even the CBC reporters were questioning it.
"All you fascists bound to lose" - Woody Guthrie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neither the femicrats or the republicans are male-friendly. They simply don't see men as a block of voters who will help or hurt them. We need to change that perception. You can help do that by attending the Men's Congress to be held this June 18th-19th. Take a stand!
Mens Rights 2004 Congress
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
