Would the ERA have had an even tougher time today than it did in the 1970s? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 28, 2024, 09:32:36 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Would the ERA have had an even tougher time today than it did in the 1970s? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Yes or no
#1
Yes, it wouldn't have even been sent to the states
 
#2
Yes, it would have been ratified by fewer states
 
#3
No, it would've gotten closer to ratification but still fallen short
 
#4
No, it would've passed
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 39

Author Topic: Would the ERA have had an even tougher time today than it did in the 1970s?  (Read 2421 times)
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


« on: May 26, 2015, 09:52:49 AM »
« edited: May 26, 2015, 12:20:01 PM by AggregateDemand »

If the ERA was passed again and then ratified, we'd have to kick 30% of women out of public universities and strip their maternity care rights under public healthcare statutes. Then we'd have to eliminate asymmetric child support and domestic violence statutes.

Women are a privileged and protected class. Throwing away their protections and privileges in the name of equality would be incredibly stupid, but a man has no business commenting.

By all means, get yourselves blown to pieces in a foreign military conflict.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


« Reply #1 on: May 27, 2015, 09:23:53 AM »
« Edited: May 27, 2015, 09:25:33 AM by AggregateDemand »

AggregateDemand repeats MRA talking points. Why am I not surprised?

I'm not the one who'd issue a decree mandating that both or neither participants are arrested in a domestic violence dispute. I'm not the one who'd casually discard maternity privileges in public healthcare for poor people, nor do I have a sick fetish for imagining a hypothetical daughter of mine being conscripted or randomly selected from enlisted personnel for front line duty in a combat zone.

Consider just the military component for a moment. If applicants really were selected at random for combat zones, and we did away with backdoor misogyny like physical aptitude and performance tests, what do you think would happen to female enlistment? If enlistment plummets, what happens to female access to employment, healthcare, housing, job/medical training, and education entitlements?

If you vote Democrat, you are deserving of pity on account of your mental handicap. You're not to be taken seriously.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


« Reply #2 on: May 27, 2015, 10:16:21 AM »

Okay, that's it. Either there's no way you're serious or you're an absolute sicko. What in the world would make you think it's remotely acceptable to say that about the voters of a perfectly mainstream opposing political party?

Opposition to what? Democrats cling to the world's worst entitlement system, while alleging that Republicans are all closet racists. When they can't reform their own failed healthcare system, they allege that Republicans secretly scuttled the real reforms by turning Democrats against one another. On a local level, Democrats have total and complete control of the most impoverished areas in America, yet their constituents still believe that Republicans are secretly siphoning away their prosperity by refusing to live in their Democratically-controlled hell holes.

The Democratic Party is a cult.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


« Reply #3 on: May 27, 2015, 12:05:51 PM »

You might look up the definition of cult. If you are going to go out of your way to insult those with whom you disagree on a personal level, you should at least use the correct epithets. And what is your motivation to get folks to loathe you I wonder? What purpose does it serve?  Yes, I know some on the other side are not angels themselves, but you're sprinting way ahead of most of them with your act.

People asked Radical Republicans the same question: Why do you scuttle your own agenda by demanding immediate emancipation, rather than waiting for slave states to turn free in the future?

I don't know, Torie. You tell me.

The current system is not sustainable. The lower middle class is suffering needlessly. Civility is a pointless impediment to progress. Do you think future recessions, depressions, and further issues with disparity of wealth will be civil in the future?
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.022 seconds with 13 queries.