And that effected you how? It really didn't so why are you concerned? Maybe because it was a question of morality, right and wrong? Well, how do you define immorality?
so, you think women having the right to vote and blacks being able to eat at the same place as whites is simply a "political agenda"? Funny I thought those things were taken care of by amendments to the constitution. Damn I need to get on top of those history revisions.
I'm not the one using the term, you are...and you are still refusing to define it. The hell if you are not.
but almost everything you write is an advocation of your view of morality.
through your warped perspective, I have no doubt that you see it that way...myself, I don't equate rights with morality...although they are related in some ways
Whatever happened to the ERA amendment?
it got defeated in 1974...too bad too...I marched for it.
through your warped perspective, I have no doubt that you see it that way...myself, I don't equate rights with morality...although they are related in some ways
through your warped perspective I have no doubt you believe this. but then you believe in a lot of lies.
what social engineering that required everyone to be treated equally would you object to?
Another example of you not getting it. That is not what would have occured. Certain judges would be instituting living wages and other idiotic theories. It well could undermine the entire country.
I am sure you understand the ulterior motives of those that promoted it to.
and what would those be?
making sure that women got the same pay for the same work?
yea...that's ulterior.
I understood the motives of the people promoting it...they were the same motives as the people who promoted women's right to vote back at the turn of the century...nothing devious or ulterior about it...just trying to make things equal for everyone.
making sure that women got the same pay for the same work?
But you know that is not what they want. They wanted to compare jobs and set pay scales based on their own view of what is valuable and who whould get what. That isn't freedom.
I understood the motives of the people promoting it...they were the same motives as the people who promoted women's right to vote back at the turn of the century...nothing devious or ulterior about it...just trying to make things equal for everyone.
You are either gullible or a liar. Have your pick.
But you know that is not what they want. They wanted to compare jobs and set pay scales based on their own view of what is valuable and who whould get what. That isn't freedom.
no...at the time, if you compared jobs and pay scales, you would find that they were already based on a view...a view that women weren't worth as much and that men should get more for the same thing. That isn't equality.
all the ERA would do is prevent these decisions that were already in place from continuing to be made based on what sex a person was.
no...at the time, if you compared jobs and pay scales, you would find that they were already based on a view...a view that women weren't worth as much and that men should get more for the same thing. That isn't equality. You can't compare different jobs and that is exactly what the socialists want. What you want is tyranny. And you profess to be for freedom. Bah!!!
all the ERA would do is prevent these decisions that were already in place from continuing to be made based on what sex a person was. No it wasn't.
You mean you havent ever just been sitting around with friends, and started talking about what you all do for a living, comparing them to eachother, and comparing your pay with one another's?
You mean you havent ever just been sitting around with friends, and started talking about what you all do for a living, comparing them to each other, and comparing your pay with one another's?
So who is going to make the decision who gets paid what? the courts?
You can't compare different jobs and that is exactly what the socialists want
I'm talking about the same jobs.
What you want is tyranny. And you profess to be for freedom. Bah!!!
You call a law that says you can't dicriminate against someone based on what sex they are "tyranny"? I see. And you think that being able to discriminate against someone based on what sex they are is "freedom"? Got it.
So who is going to make the decision who gets paid what? the courts?
the same people would make the decisions...just they can't base those decisions on what sex someone is....it's no different than preventing those decisions being made on the basis of what color the person was.
I never run low on dopes...I can always log in here and get my fill of dopes like you
And that effected you how? It really didn't so why are you concerned? Maybe because it was a question of morality, right and wrong? Well, how do you define immorality?
so, you think women having the right to vote and blacks being able to eat at the same place as whites is simply a "political agenda"?
okay
I'm not the one using the term, you are...and you are still refusing to define it.
so, you think women having the right to vote and blacks being able to eat at the same place as whites is simply a "political agenda"? Funny I thought those things were taken care of by amendments to the constitution. Damn I need to get on top of those history revisions.
I'm not the one using the term, you are...and you are still refusing to define it. The hell if you are not.
and an amendment happens over a long period of time according to you.
I have not used the term "morality" or immorality" except to reference your using it.
and an amendment happens over a long period of time according to you.
Indeed they do. it is called thinking through a problem before ramming through a solution that later you may live to regret.
I have not used the term "morality" or immorality" except to reference your using it.
You are correct that you have not used the term but almost everything you write is an advocation of your view of morality.
Whatever happened to the ERA amendment?
through your warped perspective, I have no doubt that you see it that way...myself, I don't equate rights with morality...although they are related in some ways
it got defeated in 1974...too bad too...I marched for it.
through your warped perspective, I have no doubt that you see it that way...myself, I don't equate rights with morality...although they are related in some ways
through your warped perspective I have no doubt you believe this. but then you believe in a lot of lies.
Whatever happened to the ERA amendment?
what a crock the ERA was. we should all be thankful that it has never been ratified.
why is that?
all it said was that everyone should be treated equally regardless of what sex they are.
what's wrong with that?
all it said was that everyone should be treated equally regardless of what sex they are.
what's wrong with that?
It would have been just another tool for liberal judges to experiment in social engineering.
what social engineering that required everyone to be treated equally would you object to?
what social engineering that required everyone to be treated equally would you object to?
Another example of you not getting it. That is not what would have occured. Certain judges would be instituting living wages and other idiotic theories. It well could undermine the entire country.
I can't get what you don't give
and this has what exactly to do with the ERA?
and this has what exactly to do with the ERA?
Nothing. That was the point.
so, you use something that has nothing to do with the ERA to say why you think the ERA was a crock?
uh...okay
let's try this again...not using examples that have nothing to do with the ERA, why do you think the ERA was a crock?
all it said was that everyone gets treated equally.
because the whole point of the amendment was to give the courts a new tool to use in the culture war.
this makes no sense...other than to show that you are paranoid.
do you think that everyone being treated equal is "culture war"?
the whole point of the amendment was to insure that everyone was treated equally.
did you burn your bra too crabs?
my jock
and I told a Preist not to call a woman a harlot, since she was, you know...my mom.
I was just a kid, but I recall the ERA wanted to give special treatment to women in particular, that's what was wrong with it.
Even my Father, a lefty union man, was against the ERA.
well...I don't see any "special" rights in it...it's a very short, straightforward document...
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
the whole point of the amendment was to insure that everyone was treated equally Can you say gullible?
well...I don't see any "special" rights in it...it's a very short, straightforward document...
GULLIBLE!!!!!!
"appropiate legislation"...you could drive a Mack truck thru that door.
"the provisions of this article. "
and all those provisions are is....
equality
you wouldn't want to upholding the provision of equality?
I see.
you wouldn't want to upholding the provision of equality?
But that was NOT the intent.
what part of this don't you understand?
what part of deception and ulterior motives don't you understand?
If you want to blindly trust the politicians, then go right ahead crabs.
actually, to not have a law to protect everyone's rights equally is what is "blind trust".
I understand the ulterior motives of opponents of equal rights
I understand the ulterior motives of opponents of equal rights
I am sure you understand the ulterior motives of those that promoted it to. But you just can't acknowledge it
and what would those be?
making sure that women got the same pay for the same work?
yea...that's ulterior.
I understood the motives of the people promoting it...they were the same motives as the people who promoted women's right to vote back at the turn of the century...nothing devious or ulterior about it...just trying to make things equal for everyone.
making sure that women got the same pay for the same work?
But you know that is not what they want. They wanted to compare jobs and set pay scales based on their own view of what is valuable and who whould get what. That isn't freedom.
I understood the motives of the people promoting it...they were the same motives as the people who promoted women's right to vote back at the turn of the century...nothing devious or ulterior about it...just trying to make things equal for everyone.
You are either gullible or a liar. Have your pick.
he's thinking about it.
no...at the time, if you compared jobs and pay scales, you would find that they were already based on a view...a view that women weren't worth as much and that men should get more for the same thing. That isn't equality.
all the ERA would do is prevent these decisions that were already in place from continuing to be made based on what sex a person was.
no...at the time, if you compared jobs and pay scales, you would find that they were already based on a view...a view that women weren't worth as much and that men should get more for the same thing. That isn't equality. You can't compare different jobs and that is exactly what the socialists want. What you want is tyranny. And you profess to be for freedom. Bah!!!
all the ERA would do is prevent these decisions that were already in place from continuing to be made based on what sex a person was. No it wasn't.
You cant compare different jobs?
You mean you havent ever just been sitting around with friends, and started talking about what you all do for a living, comparing them to eachother, and comparing your pay with one another's?
You mean you havent ever just been sitting around with friends, and started talking about what you all do for a living, comparing them to each other, and comparing your pay with one another's?
So who is going to make the decision who gets paid what? the courts?
I'm talking about the same jobs.
You call a law that says you can't dicriminate against someone based on what sex they are "tyranny"? I see. And you think that being able to discriminate against someone based on what sex they are is "freedom"? Got it.
no what wasn't?
the words are right there...that's what they say.
the same people would make the decisions...just they can't base those decisions on what sex someone is....it's no different than preventing those decisions being made on the basis of what color the person was.
So who is going to make the decision who gets paid what? the courts?
Did I even mention anything about deciding who gets paid what?? Where the hell did you get that, out of my comment?
All I said was that people are able to compare jobs to someone else's...
Crabby, aren't you infringing upon a persons rights by saying they can't discriminate against someone?
someone ELSE
you are protect the rights of the person being discriminated against
your rights do not extend to denying someone ELSE'S rights.
Wrong again crabs. A judge can deny a person's freedom. There's your extension.
for infringing on SOMEONE ELSE'S rights.
any other reason is oppressive.