|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:47 PM July 29th, 2004 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
It's in no way a suprise to hear about a Democratic group excludeing men from something.
The Democrats often preach "diversity", "tolerance" and peace and love, but rarely do thet practice it on the level that they claim.
Indians aren't welcome either. in the mid 90s when then president Clinton formed his "coalition on race" every single ethnic group on the planet was included, exept ONE. You guessed it American indians. Was it an over site? did someone just forget to include us Indians? NOPE. We simply wouldn't marter the liberal Democratic causes and so they dumped us. Of course you won't see or hear anything about it in the media. The media hates Indians, too.
They hate Indians and they hate men. and they hate them for similar reasons. Both Indians and many males in general are strong willed and do not capitulate easily or believe out of hand nearly anything either political party says. Un-like alot of other groups INCLUDEING women, blacks, and homosexuals. which are the ONLY groups that the Democrats are REALLY talking about when they preach "diversity" and "tolerance". The rest of us can go screw our selves as far as the Dems are conserned. Not that the republican party is much better. But at least the Republicans don't preach about "tolerance" and then not practice it consistantly.
I was once a Democrat, myself, but when I saw what the Democrats did to my people I became a conservitive Democrat. Then recently when John Kerry said, during a speech that he wants to; "put justice back into the hands of women."(!!!??!!) I became a staunch INDEPENDANT!
If "justice" is not already firmly planted into the sweaty palms of women (ie feminists) then I don't know WHERE it is!! It sure as hell isn't in the hands of men. One look at the jusice system would show any one with a brain that.
To Mr. Kerry, all i can say is this; Justice should be put back into the hands of ALL the American people! Not just women. That is NOT what this country was founded on. Further more in order to "put justice back into the hands of women", you will first have to take it from the hands of MEN. How is THAT equality, Mr. Kerry?
The minuet Kerry made those remarks, was the very moment he lost ANY chances of getting my vote!
I doubt there is anything the Democrats can ever do to win back this American-Indian male...!
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:50 PM July 29th, 2004 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
As a black man being a democrat is almost like a birthright. When I was growing up finding a black republican was like finding a Jewish nazi. Now that I am a husband and father of twin boys I find I have nothing in common with the democrap party. In fact I can't see any reason why a man who cares about the future of this country would vote for a democrap. I don't see a lot of difference between the two parties but if I have to choose between the special interest groups of feminist, teachers, homosexuals, and lawyers; and guns, tobacco, big oil, and major corporations. I guess I'll be a cigar smoking, gun toting, SUV driving company man.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:53 PM July 29th, 2004 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
People having gotten on my case on this web site for pointing out the support for radical feminists that is abundant in the Democratic party. I voted for Bill Clinton twice and for Carter, but after having become fully aware of the man-hating agenda that is overwhelmingly driven by the Democratic party I will never vote Democrat again as long as they are so bigoted against men.
Anybody who can't see which party is actively following the radical feminist agenda hasn't done their home work or is living in denial.
It is true that the Republicans have done nothing to releave the plague of feminism, and have done there share of abusing men with child support laws, etc., but they have in no way attacked men's rights like the Femicrats. I know I used to be one.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I live in a "safe state" that is going to vote Kerry and seek to oust The Shrub.
That leaves me free to vote my conscience, which is Ralph Nader. (The only guy speaking the truth about how the Republicrats and Demopublicans are selling out this once free nation's future to offshore pay-no-taxes multinational corporations.)
I was still waffling, even though I know Kerry's solidly in the feminazi camp, until I saw Teresa Heinz-Kerry (The Ketchup Queen) at the DNC last night.
This is one whacked out female!
Perhaps the only potential First Lady for whom moving into the White House would be slumming!
After seeing Teresa in all her narcissistic glory, I have to wonder whether J.F. Kerry is the "cabana boy" of presumptive nominees.
Just how much money would you have to covet to wake up to Teresa every morning?
Oh, sorry.
I hear they have separate bedrooms.
HIS is in the guest house. Right next to the servant's quarters.
I'll pass on Kerry's "Return of Hope" for America....
And I hope he has a solid pre-nup guaranteeing a livable income after he becomes unemployed.
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:13 PM July 29th, 2004 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
You will see Hilary and Teresa, Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosie walsing the radical feminist agenda into all parts of the world using the UN as an ever more radical tool to promote militant feminism, even more radically feminist than it is now.
There will be "hell to pay," by men to an ever more castigating feminist agenda in only a few short months if the femicrats get there way.
As far as Bush, IMO, he is only the lesser of two evils. I'd vote for my dog if it would keep the rabid feminists from destroying the lives of more men. Not much of a choice when you consider my dog died a couple of years ago.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:14 PM July 29th, 2004 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
"walsing"
Opps, waltzing
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:28 PM July 29th, 2004 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
KeRrY IS a fEm.
cUt iT oUt YoU fEM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:27 PM July 29th, 2004 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:39 PM July 29th, 2004 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
what about the men sent off to die in war/s?
ALL politicians are liars and cheats...only difference is who they're lying to, to get votes...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When comparing the Democrats and Republicans, it's important to remember that the Democrats were the staunch pro-slavery party leading up to, during, and after the American Civil War. The Republicans freed the slaves.
George Wallace during his early, very racist days was a Democrat. When he ran for the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party, he proved strong around the country, not just in the southeast.
Lyndon Johnson had to rely largely on Republicans to get the Civil Rights Act passed in 1964. He was embarrassed by the opposition showed by his own Democratic Party. Here's a statement I found on this Web page. (The statement is specifically about Bill Bradley, but it relates to what I'm saying here.) I will tell you up front that this was the result of a quick search. I don't know "New Visions Commentary," but the statement agrees with what I remember from the time. Here's the statement: "The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 (p. 1323) recorded that, in the Senate, only 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82% of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the Act. This includes the current senator from West Virginia and former KKK member Robert C. Bryd and former Tennessee senator Al Gore, Sr. (the father of Bradley's Democratic opponent). Surely young Bradley must have flunked his internship because ostensibly he did not learn that the Act's primary opposition came from the southern Democrats' 74-day filibuster. In addition, he did not know that 21 is over three times as much as six, otherwise he would have become - according to the logic of his statement - a Republican.
"In the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act; 92 of the 103 southern Democrats voted against it. Among Republicans, 80% (138 for, 34 against) voted for it."
My politics have generally led me to vote Democrat over Republican. For one thing, I think it's reckless, maybe even suicidal, not to be very, very, very careful about the environment. Also, I'm very pro-gay-rights. (I'm not trying to preach or start an argument. I just want to express my concerns about the Democratic Party.)
I see a lot wrong with Bush, and I probably won't vote for him, but I've come to suspect that the Democratic Party never really left its roots as the party that supports and promotes hatred and oppression. It often seems to me that they've just switched the target of their hatred. They may well have just seen which way the wind was blowing and stopped furthering hatred and oppression of blacks and instead decided to promote hatred and oppression of men.
Hillary, Nancy, JohnJohn and many of the rest of them make me sick. I probably won't vote for Bush. I certainly won't vote for Kerry.
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I read in some forum about a poster complaining/implying that the Civil Rights Act was just fluff that had no teeth and that's why Republicans supported it in large percentages. (According to the poster, it didn't have teeth until a later amendment/law).
I'm not sure if that poster is correct or not. However, in order for that poster to be correct, I'd have to ignore the large contigent of racist Democrat Congressmen. These guys existed, it's a fact.
I think that poster also failed to keep in mind that, usually, very general laws are made first. Later, situation-specific laws are created to fix particular problems or help with prosecution. For instance, my State has a law against distracted driving: anything that would distract a driver and cause danger is illegal. However, it can be a pain in the butt to prove a violation for every court case for every set of circumstances, so other laws are created to make enforcement easier. The end result is laws against using cell phones and watching television/DVDs while driving.
I only bring this up because some people seem to like to rewrite history in a frame that suits their political position. A party's platform changes with the times. Republicans from 100 or 40-years ago are not the some as modern-day Republicans (neither are Democrats).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hillary Clinton, Nancy Reagan and John Kennedy Jr?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They may well have just seen which way the wind was blowing and stopped furthering hatred and oppression of blacks and instead decided to promote hatred and oppression of men.
Actually, the Democ(rats) still hate blacks; black MEN along with anyone else born with the dreaded XY chromosome combination.
Any MAN regardless of race, sexual orientation or economic level who would vote the Democ(rat)ticket is like a plump chicken voting for Colonel Sanders!
The Democ(rats) hate all MEN! Is there any part of this that is not understood?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:28 AM August 1st, 2004 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
"The Democ(rats) hate all MEN! Is there any part of this that is not understood?"
The more you read what's been going on in the feminist agenda over the last 30 years, the more you see how true that is. If you want a real eye opener, just try bringing up some serious men's issues at in a Femicrat setting. It's like whistling "Yankee Doodle Dandy at a KKK rally.
What man in his right mind would want to be a part of that. I used to be a Democrat, but now I bitterly despise the cruel deception and betrayal they work on all their male voters.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:52 PM July 29th, 2004 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Emily's List supports reproductive rights? Aren't men part of reproduction? Ooops, I forgot. Take his sperm and his wallet and sell him down the river.
Not surprising that Emily's List is tight with the Demo Party, along with NOW etc. The Demo's are a lot more male-hating than the Republicans, which isn't really saying much. The Repubs like men to die for their country, the Demos just want men to die.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:22 PM July 29th, 2004 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
There's a light at the end of the tunnel for privileged American women. It's the gravy train being driven by John Kerry, and females are all invited to get on board at the expense of men.
For battered and weary men that light at the end of the tunnel is that train bearing down on them at 100 MPH, and there ain't a snowballs chance in hell of getting out the way of the radical feminist locomotive powering it.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
