Which is a real possibility if Republicans take as bad a beating at the Polls as the Beloved Leader Bush seems to be setting them up for.
Should we trust women again to get it ratified? Considering how dismally they failed before? Or should us guys take over the campaign and do it right this time?
2007-10-21 07:37:42 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Gender Studies
It's really me, SWM. But I borrowed the tie dye from the old lady. I lean toward Hawaiian shirts. Read my answers and judge for yourelf if I'm a hippie
2007-10-21 07:58:26 · update #1
I don't know if it matters of it's own accord, Moondancer. But, Republicans are already on record as being against Military pay raises, veterans--in more ways than one, Fiscal Responsibility, Human Rights, a National Security policy that does more than lock the barn door in case the horse decides to come back and kids.
Wouldn't hurt to have them on record as being against Equality too.
2007-10-21 08:04:22 · update #2
A lot of good answers so far, up to and including Squirrel Cage. But everybody is ducking the question.
Do women have the Political Savvy it's going to take to Ratify ERA? Having been there, I feel that they did the cause more harm than good last time.
Smart of you to hunker in the bunker on this one, Raji.
2007-10-21 08:37:53 · update #3
Thanx, DFA. I knew I could count on the 101st to dig in and take a stand.
2007-10-21 08:45:41 · update #4
Keep in mind that it was through the efforts of women that the ERA failed. Thankfully, there numbers have considerably lessened.
2007-10-21 12:03:00 · answer #1 · answered by Rio Madeira 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
O golly, Mad... really, truly. Do you think you can find some big, strong men who would help us poor, little women get that old.... um, what's it called again?... oh, yes... Equal Rights Amendment... ratified (ewwww... what a scary word... RAT-ified)? Why, you sweet thing! Oh, and while they're at it...... do you think, maybe.. one of them... could change that silly flat tire on my car? Huh? I'd try to do it myself... but, it's such a yukky job.... and I might just break a nail turning the thingy on the what'sit. You know I'd be soooo very grateful..... Don't ya, handsome?
(Psssst.... Hey, Mad.... Know what? I think you just fell for the oldest trick in the book. Caught one, girls!! Awwwww, don't get mad, Mad. I'm just havin' a little fun with the paradoxical part of your question....)
Anyway, truth is..... I don't think the ERA has a chance of being ratified.... not at this time, anyway. (No, not even if the guys take over!) There's a war on... which may eventually involve Iran... and, as DFA explained so well... (No BS intended.. NEVER, where DFA is concerned)... troops are getting royally shafted. (Not the first time, btw.) So, it's unlikely that women will push for anything that, even remotely, smacks of a draft that would include them. Also, looking back at the last two Presidential elections, it doesn't seem that tax-funding of abortions has gained much popularity over the years... particularly, in some (crucial?) states. Plus, you know, SOMEONE (OK, Schlafley... who else?) is going to bring up that same-sex marriage issue. And then, there's the big business issue... and so on... and so on.... and, enough said?
2007-10-23 06:17:33 · answer #2 · answered by 1staricy2nite 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Nah, witch, he is not on his own, I am with him.
Nah... Madpol... it will be the usual scenario with the usual suspects playing the usual roles. The ERA will be trotted out and paraded as the harbinger of the newly established *new order* for consumption by the masses. Pounding of chests and posturing will follow with vehement support for the ERA proclaimed (cynically) by all. Women will make belligerent noises about how it is time and pledge unwavering support.
The next stage will be orchestrated by business interests which obviously do not want ERA in any shape or form. Backstage deals will be made and after the smoke clears and the dust settles the smoke and mirror show will be produced for the masses showing how ERA would be *bad for business* and *bad for America*, but of course in a way as to allow the opponents of the ERA to wrap themselves in the flag and appear ultra-patriotic. Then, business as usual will follow with whining noises from ex-proponents expressing their *disappointment* while the business interests willl exchange high fives and the old boy network's backs will be sore from back slapping.
Sorry, I am just too cynical Madpol and have seen this dog and pony show one time too many.
as the old Arab saying goes: "the dogs bark and the caravan goes on its way"
No, women do not have the political savvy and are afraid to take a definitive stand, they will not do that, not this time around.
BTW, before I go too far, we are talking about the Ecumaniacal Rifle Association (ERA), no ? :):):)
EDIT: SQUIRREL, you mean Repubs are NOT against veterans ? Are you sure? please witness spending 1.5 BILLOIN/WEEK on Iraq while voting down 1.9 billion for VA Hospital improvements ? have you ben inside one of those hospitals ? sending our bravest into unnecessary war ?, not giving them equipment to do the job ?
not allowing TV coverage of caskets coming back home because it would be *disrespectful*? not giving vets the health care they deserve ? good god, man, where have you been ? Also, when asked why he did not serve in VN, our esteemed VP answered: "I had better things to do than getting shot at", now that is REAL respect, Oh, vetoing the health insurance for underprivileged children is also OK by you ?
Should I go on ?
2007-10-21 15:38:02 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I am not sure that Republicans are against all you claim they are against, Steve buddy. I think certain repubs are against what you mentioned. you are taking pols positions out of context. Translation, these pols might very well be trading favors as almost all pols do to curry favor, votes and power and/or money for whatever means they are mostly looking for.
I think you understand what I mean but you also let your prejudices poison your outlook on politics. To be fair, the pols also poison most of us in their misguided zeal to get what they want.
ERA wont make it through this time either. The supporters have not done enough groundwork to get it done yet. Eventually it will get ratified, but not this time around. We have Iraq, terrorism, the economy and much more to deal with before we will get around to a "ahem" lesser important subject like equal rights. lol
Eileen has a valid point. Shriner is funny.
2007-10-21 15:24:46 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Considering the thumbs down I took on the last one of these I tried to have a little fun with I'm bravely taking a stand firmly behind RAJI.
2007-10-21 16:28:00 · answer #5 · answered by balloon buster 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think the ERA is completely unnecessary because current law encompasses everything that'd be in it. The constitution should not be amended redundantly, particularly in this case where the only result I can anticipate that it will provide more leverage for "but it's unconstitutional!" lawsuits. What will the ERA provide that current law does not?
2007-10-21 15:04:53 · answer #6 · answered by Eileen 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I don't think it matters. I doubt if the ERA will even get that far. People simply don't believe it's necessary. And certainly Phyllis Schafley will rise from the grave with her horde of flying monkeys and shoot it down again.
PS I think you're cute.
2007-10-21 14:54:49 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
*Putting on Flack Vest, helmet, and stepping OUT of the line of fire on this one*. LOL You're on your own on this one, Mad.
BB,
Raji the Green Witch
2007-10-21 15:05:14 · answer #8 · answered by Raji the Green Witch 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Why do we need the ERA?.
2007-10-21 14:55:02 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
ERA...earned run average? I don't get it.
2007-10-21 15:03:05 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋