Biden and Obama: Bad for Dads
Gordon Finley, PhD has a piece at Mens News Daily entitled: Obama/Biden: Escalating the war on fathers and families:
Remember, Senator Biden is the guy willing to give ex-wives free attorneys to help in their divorce cases. As I asked in a post here:
It is obvious that Biden does not have men's interests at heart. If he is willing to throw aside men's constitutional rights and due process in order to look chivalrous and get votes from women, what else is he willing to do?
Tragically — but true to the radical feminist agenda — the Obama/Biden Democratic ticket portends an escalating war on boys, men, fathers, and families. On Father’s Day 2008, Sen. Obama could have spoken on any number of topics. His choice was to castigate African-American fathers and blame fathers, and fathers alone, for the ills of the African-American family.
He called upon African-American fathers to be more involved in their children’s lives (certainly a worthwhile call) but he also castigated them for failing to endorse “responsible fatherhood” which essentially means signing up for 18 years of overly highly calculated child support. Economists understand, but Sen. Obama ideologically overlooks, the reality that child support currently is calculated at a level far above what the majority of fathers — including poor and unemployed fathers — actually are capable of paying or that children require (see W. S. Comanor, The law and economics of child support payments, 2004).
Remember, Senator Biden is the guy willing to give ex-wives free attorneys to help in their divorce cases. As I asked in a post here:
Why should only women get "free" attorneys basically provided by the government? What about low income men who cannot get custody of their children or men who are falsely accused of domestic violence--where is their free attorney? Isn't this unfair?
It is obvious that Biden does not have men's interests at heart. If he is willing to throw aside men's constitutional rights and due process in order to look chivalrous and get votes from women, what else is he willing to do?
Labels: men's rights (or lack thereof), politics
posted by Helen at 7:44 AM
14 Comments:
I recall once on Face the Nation, Biden was asked how a filibuster of Janice Rogers Brown could be justified given she was just confirmed by the U.S. Senate for an appellate court judgeship. Biden's exact answer was: "Because a circuit court judge is bound by stare decisis. They don't get to make new law."
It's truly sad that someone in Congress as long as him, and who is our likely next president, can be so ignorant of the purpose of the court.
What does this have to do with the war on this pair being bad for dads? Well, they'll appoint 2 or 3 justices that will serve for 2 or 3 decades. Anything that, for whatever reason, they can't get past congress can get implemented through judicial tyrrany.
At the risk of repeating my self, "responsible fatherhood" actually means paying the prostitute what she wants, or at least what the legal system will allow her to get. This is a direct consequence of Roe v. Wade giving the women a second choice about whether sexual intercourse should result in 18 years of responsibilty for a child, while the man is allowed only one choice.
Then there is always the problem of what if the woman is lying, the child isn't actually his and the man is stupid enough to trust her, at least until it is too late.
Mention these two issues to women and the same women who demand that men sit there, quietly listening to women and validating their feelings, suddenly find all sorts of reason why any male complaint about female behavior is really "male violence against women"
Democrats are the party of the feminazi hypocrites. Republicans are only a little better.
More information is being published online about Biden, ranging from his views on the War on Drugs, to his views on copyright law. The one thing that is clear about this man is that he is a statist monster who always sides with the "screw the individual" position. Compared to him, most of the Republicans look weak on giving the federal government massively expanded surveillance powers, and that's just one of many examples that doesn't include all of the ingenious ways he has altered the drug laws to maximize the ability of police to seize property and imprison people who are, objectively speaking, not even part of the drug trade such as concert organizers.
Anyone who cares about liberty needs to wake up and smell the coffee on the Obama ticket. This goes for liberals too. The promised HopeChange is essentially a more liberal version of the same old crap that we got under Bush, but with a nastier edge on some issues such as this one.
Come on, guys! Don't you know that men are responsible? Responsible for all the problems of the world.
The only way a liberal male politician can validate himself it to blame men for as many problems as possible. And, of course, the liberal MSM goes right along with this.
Well, I think the idea that chivalry resides in defending women in anything they do is a misconception, and a poorly contrived one at that, of what chivalry really is. It's about being a man, not a supplicant.
I refer to the Oath of the Round Table:
"Then the King established all the knights . . . and charged them never to do outrage nor murder, and always to flee treason, and to give mercy unto him that asketh mercy . . . and always to do ladies, damosels, and gentlewomen and widows succour; strenthen them in their rights, and never to enforce [rape] them, upon pain of death. Also, that no man take no battles in a wrongful quarrel for no love, nor for no wordly goods. So unto this were all the knights sworn of the Table Round, both young and old." ( Le Morte Darthur: The Winchester Manuscript. Sir Thomas Mallory. Ed. Helen Cooper. Oxford UP, 1998. P. 57.)
What this oath means is to do what's right, to be faithful, to defend the rights of the helpless and less advantaged, to conduct oneself as a gentleman, but moreover to not engage in battles out of misguided passion or for personal gain.
That's chivalry. It's not about defending women in everything they do. Rather, it has to do with strengthening the rights of ladies, damsels, gentlewomen, and widows. It has nothing to do with bestowing rights upon sluts, whores, aldultresses, and bitches that they do not have and do not deserve.
Only the weakest of men and women believe otherwise.
Seen this?
http://www.spike.com/about-show/27085
Gawainsghost:
Women are just human beings. They aren't goddesses. I am in favor of basic civility and courtesy that I would extent to a man or a woman. Beyond that, you are simply brainwashed.
When you inherit the money down the road that you keep bragging about, you are going to be plucked like a Christmas goose if you don't get some more sense beforehand about what women are really about.
Yes, I really mean that and I've seen it too many times in the past.
According to Boortz, Biden thought McCain was a good VP choice for John Kerry.
I knew Biden was the one to be chosen by Obama a long time ago. I think most of us did.
What the liberal left doesn't seem to understand is the democrats want to take rights away, and have all beholden to them for anything, everything. Even the liberals running around in this country can't want that........can they?
If Biden really does get all women free lawyers for divorce, what will be the ramifications of that? Women will get married only to get divorced and get half of what they have no right to in the first place, if marrying out of fraud. The real winners will be the lawyers. You just know they are salivating to beat the band.
Marriage is dead in this country if Obama and Biden get in. DOA on inauguration day.
Marriage is dead in this country if Obama and Biden get in.
Yes, and McCain respects the institution of marriage - when it's convenient.
By the way, the politicians know this, and press forward with it anyway.
That's why we won't see a fence. Just like the English soldiers in days of old got the first night with the new wife of a Scotsman, only turned sideways. Politicians don't care who they rule over, as long as it is someone. The people (except liberals) are becoming too smart for them. They need fresh blood.
By the way, to be clear, Biden and Obama don't give a shit about woman's rights--they care about their own power and stripping from either sex for whatever excuse is fine with them.
And yet, this will never be mentioned on any of the major TV networks or radio shows or in any of the major newspapers or magazines.
視訊做愛聊天室avdvd-情色網ut13077視訊聊天A片-無碼援交東京熱一本道aaa免費看影片免費視訊聊天室微風成人ut聊天室av1688影音視訊天堂85cc免費影城亞洲禁果影城微風成人av論壇sex520免費影片JP成人網免費成人視訊aaa影片下載城免費a片 ut交友成人視訊85cc成人影城免費Ａ片aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片小魔女免費影城免費看 aa的滿18歲影片sex383線上娛樂場kk777視訊俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片85cc免費影片a片免費看A片-sex520plus論壇sex520免費影片85cc免費影片aaa片免費看短片aa影片下載城aaaaa片俱樂部影片aaaaa片俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片台灣論壇免費影片免費卡通影片線上觀看線上免費a片觀看85cc免費影片免費Ａ片aa影片下載城ut聊天室辣妹視訊UT影音視訊聊天室 日本免費視訊aaaa 片俱樂部aaa片免費看短片aaaa片免費看影片aaa片免費看短片免費視訊78論壇情色偷拍免費Ａ片免費aaaaa片俱樂部影片後宮0204movie免費影片av俱樂部aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片 杜蕾斯成人免費卡通影片線上觀看85cc免費影片線上觀賞免費線上歐美A片觀看免費a片卡通aaa的滿18歲卡通影片sex520免費影片免費 a 片免費視訊聊天jp成人sex520免費影片
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
Post a Comment
<< Home