Do Not Vote For Kerry

[antonin]

Let's not forget that Kerry is married to Teresa Heinz
who was responsible for giving, through her family
foundation, $250,000 to Geraldine Jensen of ACES.

This was a reward for doing great things for society
like increasing child support.

All the time Ms. Jensen was denying her own children
access to their own father and his family.

I would not even consider Kerry as a father or family
friendly candidate for the office of President. Elect
him and we will all be in the toilet and hear the
swirling flushing sound that was created by his
democratic predecessor Clinton that is responsible for
signing into law the current federal statutes on Child
Support.

[Sherry1]

nm

[richiejay]

Sorry, he is the lesser of 2 evils IMHO

[antonin]

I am not trying to engage in a political debate.  I am only referencing issues that affect fathers, NCP's, domestic violence agendas, and the like. I believe the Democrats have a stronger record of passing legislation that hurts fathers and NCPs in general.

I was not advocating voting for Bush. I simply stated, "Do not vote for Kerry." It was your inference that I meant "Vote For Bush." I am looking into voting Libertarian, as they are the only party that I have ever heard mention fathers' rights in family court. It is their view that the person who initiates the divorce should not be awarded custody. I need to look into this further, though.

I can assure you I will not be voting for Bush, Kerry or Nader.

If you want to get some background on ACES and decide for yourself if you would
support a candidate with ties to this group, you can listen to a debate between the new executive director of ACES and a fathers' rights leader (from Detroit, where I live) tonight on Glen Sacks:   http://www.hisside.com/

[richiejay]

thanks for the info...frankly, they're all a bunch of liars.

[Kitty C.]

It stands for 'None Of The Above'.  In this instance, if Bush and Kerry were on the ballot, there would be THREE choices:  B, K, and NOTA.  If NOTA got the majority vote, those candidates are scrapped and we try again with new ones, until we get someone in there we DO want.

Because there's nothing I despise more than voting for the lesser of two evils.  And not voting at all is just as bad..........

[AuntieB]

As a Veteran, I am voting for Kerry. I can't hold my husband responsible for MY actions, so why should we down Kerry for his wifes actions? Did you blame Hillary for the Clinton scandel? No!!!

I watched the Bush State of the Union and not once did he mention Veterans. He is pro-war...Clue to you...we have lost over 900 of our kids in Iraq, not to mention the thousands that have already lost there lives during this war.

2 questions for you?

1) Do you think men should be controlling their wives?

2) Where's Osama?

[antonin]

You are a grand master of non-sequiter. You have switched subjects, pre-empted logic and made conclusions on statements that I did not make in the first place.  

I stated:  "I am not trying to engage in a political debate." This is what you are trying to do. This will be my first and last response to your post.

I also stated: "I am only referencing issues that affect fathers, NCP's, domestic violence agendas, and the like. I believe the Democrats have a stronger record of passing legislation that hurts fathers and NCPs in general."

So a discussion of veterans, the war and all the other issues you brought up have nothing to do with the thread of my original post or discussion.

I also stated: "I was not advocating voting for Bush." So why you elected to go off on Bush in reaction to my post does not follow from the remarks I made about Bush.

I do not think that men should be controlling their wives. The inference I was making that since the Kerrys are married, it is likely they share similar beliefs about issues.

What in the hell does my post have to do with Osama?

Here's one of the illustrious results of our child support system that ACES and the rest of the thugs (including Kerry's wife) helped make stronger:

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/news/042004_local_childsupport.html

Kerry does not really need any help from his wife. His political agenda has a long history of anti-father, anti male bias. He helped co-author the Violence Against Women Act.

Here is a direct quote from Kerry's official website:

"He cosponsored and helped pass the Violence Against Women Act. "

In case you are not familiar with its effect on men, families, and custody, see:

http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/r/rowles/02/rowles121702.htm

http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/c-e/davis/03/davis040303.htm

http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/r/roberts/03/roberts092903.htm

Kerry's website has an entire section devoted to women's issues. If you can find me one statement by Kerry that he in anyway cares about father's issues, I will vote for him.

Please don't accuse me of hating women. I hate the laws that allow amoral women to use those laws to steal a man's kids and his property.

So...go ahead and have at me. As previously stated this is my first and last reply to you.

I am a veteran, also. I am a veteran of the biggest, most brutal war ever waged in the annals of history: THE WAR AGAINST FATHERS.

[amanda]

 To go slightly off topic here, you said you agreed more with the liberitarians, and you even stated the whole "whoever files for divorce should not get custody" Why is that better than automatically giving mothers custody? Isn't that similar to discriminating against fathers for no reason other than being male? I think we should be voting for those who want every case judged on a case by case basis. Just curious.

[antonin]

The laws are unfair and must be changed. There can be no fair decisions on a case by case basis with unfair laws. Unfair laws favor one person over the other from the get-go. For an analysis of the unfair laws and how they work see:

http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/a-b/baskerville/02/baskerville111202.htm

Here are two arguments presented on the following link. The first is for the presumption of joint physical custody. The second is for "the defendant gets the child."

http://www.conservativetruth.org/opinionet/archives2/ccsb1/ccsb13.htm

I think personally I'd go with the first one (presumption of joint physical).  This assumes joint physical unless one parent is "unfit," There are many laws like that trying to get on the books and some on the books. Most of them are flawed. Here is my analysis of those flaws based on several petitions I've read:

"The operative phrase here is "substantial equality," which does not appear anywhere in the proposed petition language. The terms that are used are "JOINT LEGAL and JOINT PHYSICAL custody" These can mean anything and are not redefined in the petition to mean anything other than what they mean now in family court.  Any attorney will tell you "JOINT PHYSICAL CUSTODY," can mean 80/20, 70/30, etc. etc. etc. It is just a term without any specific definition. Before I obtained substantial equality in my parenting time, I had "JOINT PHYSICAL CUSTODY." My parenting time was 3 weekends per month, a far cry from substantially equal placement."
Also, the standard for evidence to prove a parent unfit must be "clear and convincing," not a "preponderance of the evidence." This standard of proof would require more substantiality than just unsupported allegations."