Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The real war on women started with religion. It put women into a subclass of humans for thousands of years and even until this day. It is because of progressives that women in certain countries enjoy freedom. Have you thanked a progressive for this?This recent headline from HuffPost bears re-reading:
"Hillary Clinton: 'I'm A Progressive, But I'm A Progressive Who Likes To Get Things Done'"
Hillary Clinton: 'I'm A Progressive, But I'm A Progressive Who Likes To Get Things Done'
This is simply ironic, given that Hillary is basing her run for the presidency on being a woman....
Progressives being supporters of women is as true as 'If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,"
1. "Richard T. Ely, the hugely influential founder of the American Economic Association and the godfather of progressive economics, explained the issue clearly, laying the groundwork for the laws that followed. His 1894 book 'Socialism and Social Reform'expressed a panic about women’s entry into the workforce:
'Restrictions should be thrown about the employment of married women, and their employment for a considerable period before and after child-birth should be prohibited under any circumstances. There should also be a restriction of the work-day, as in England, for children and young persons under eighteen, and for women. Such a limitation having beneficial effect upon the health of the community…. Night work should be prohibited for women and persons under eighteen years of age and, in particular, all work injurious to the female organism should be forbidden to women.'
[That illustrates the divide: Progressives see control of other folks' lives as their right....Americans believe in individualism and liberty.]
2. If the reference to the “female organism” sounds strange, remember that this generation of intellectuals believed in eugenics— using state force to plan the emergence of the model race — and hence saw women mainly as propagators of the race, not human individuals with the right to choose. "
Government’s War on Women: 1900–1920 | Jeffrey Tucker
3. Let's be very clear, this belief that government can and should control every aspect if the lives of the people is ingrained in every iteration of totalistic governance: Progressive, communist, fascist, Liberal, socialist or Nazi.
"For anyone who believed that government had a responsibility to plan human production (and most intellectuals at the time did believe this), the role of women was critical. They couldn’t be allowed to do what they wanted, go where they wanted, or make lives for themselves. This was the normal thought pattern for the generation that gave the United States unprecedented legal restrictions on the labor market."
Fee, Op. Cit.
Progressivism, a boilerplate big government collectivist ideology, demands control of every aspect of human endeavor, in the workplace restricting women and minorities, and in reproduction, too (eugenics).
Whenever one wishes to see what the Left is doing...check out what they charge the other side with...e.g., a "War on Women"
The real war on women started with religion. It put women into a subclass of humans for thousands of years and even until this day. It is because of progressives that women in certain countries enjoy freedom. Have you thanked a progressive for this?This recent headline from HuffPost bears re-reading:
"Hillary Clinton: 'I'm A Progressive, But I'm A Progressive Who Likes To Get Things Done'"
Hillary Clinton: 'I'm A Progressive, But I'm A Progressive Who Likes To Get Things Done'
This is simply ironic, given that Hillary is basing her run for the presidency on being a woman....
Progressives being supporters of women is as true as 'If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,"
1. "Richard T. Ely, the hugely influential founder of the American Economic Association and the godfather of progressive economics, explained the issue clearly, laying the groundwork for the laws that followed. His 1894 book 'Socialism and Social Reform'expressed a panic about women’s entry into the workforce:
'Restrictions should be thrown about the employment of married women, and their employment for a considerable period before and after child-birth should be prohibited under any circumstances. There should also be a restriction of the work-day, as in England, for children and young persons under eighteen, and for women. Such a limitation having beneficial effect upon the health of the community…. Night work should be prohibited for women and persons under eighteen years of age and, in particular, all work injurious to the female organism should be forbidden to women.'
[That illustrates the divide: Progressives see control of other folks' lives as their right....Americans believe in individualism and liberty.]
2. If the reference to the “female organism” sounds strange, remember that this generation of intellectuals believed in eugenics— using state force to plan the emergence of the model race — and hence saw women mainly as propagators of the race, not human individuals with the right to choose. "
Government’s War on Women: 1900–1920 | Jeffrey Tucker
3. Let's be very clear, this belief that government can and should control every aspect if the lives of the people is ingrained in every iteration of totalistic governance: Progressive, communist, fascist, Liberal, socialist or Nazi.
"For anyone who believed that government had a responsibility to plan human production (and most intellectuals at the time did believe this), the role of women was critical. They couldn’t be allowed to do what they wanted, go where they wanted, or make lives for themselves. This was the normal thought pattern for the generation that gave the United States unprecedented legal restrictions on the labor market."
Fee, Op. Cit.
Progressivism, a boilerplate big government collectivist ideology, demands control of every aspect of human endeavor, in the workplace restricting women and minorities, and in reproduction, too (eugenics).
Whenever one wishes to see what the Left is doing...check out what they charge the other side with...e.g., a "War on Women"
The biggest problem with your argument is still that it is based on 100 year old facts, when everyone in pants was afraid of women gaining control. The Suffragettes fought a good fight. Now what have the "progressives"/left done in the 21st century that makes them unfriendly to women? Force them to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term and spend 20 years raising the child with or without a father? Abolish Affirmative Action that gives women a leg up into good careers and high paying jobs?Progressives Louis Brandeis and Woodrow Wilson: "Control those women!"
9. "Consider the Supreme Court case of Muller v. Oregon, which considered state legislation on maximum working hours and decided in favor of the state. Oregon was hardly unusual; it was typical of the 20 states that had already passed such laws directed at women’s freedom ....
.... the text of Colorado’s law passed in 1903: “No woman” shall “work or labor for a greater number than eight hours in the twenty-four hour day … where such labor, work, or occupation by its nature, requires the woman to stand or be upon her feet.”
The decision in Muller v. Oregon, then, ratified such laws all over the country. Today, this case is widely considered the foundation of progressive labor law. What’s not well known is that the brief that settled the case was a remarkable piece of pseudoscience that argued for the inferiority of women .... That brief was filed by future Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis."
Fee, Op. Cit.
a. It was an era of Progressive domination, and Louis Brandeis made the election of the most racist Progressive, Woodrow Wilson, possible. Wilson understood that the election was between himself and TR, with Taft inconsequential. And Wilson knew his problem was to come up with a plausible alternative to TR’s Progressive program. It was the ideas of Louis Brandeis that persuaded Wilson to base his campaign on the issue of monopolies: while TR saw regulation of a necessary evil as the way, Wilson claimed that the best way to restore competition, was to destroy monopolies. (see Chace, "1912")
Brandeis and Wilson....medal of 'honor' winners in the War on Women!
The real war on women began back in the cave, when men figured out they were bigger and stronger than women and could pretty much do with them what they pleased. Otherwise, I like your thinking.The real war on women started with religion. It put women into a subclass of humans for thousands of years and even until this day. It is because of progressives that women in certain countries enjoy freedom. Have you thanked a progressive for this?This recent headline from HuffPost bears re-reading:
"Hillary Clinton: 'I'm A Progressive, But I'm A Progressive Who Likes To Get Things Done'"
Hillary Clinton: 'I'm A Progressive, But I'm A Progressive Who Likes To Get Things Done'
This is simply ironic, given that Hillary is basing her run for the presidency on being a woman....
Progressives being supporters of women is as true as 'If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,"
1. "Richard T. Ely, the hugely influential founder of the American Economic Association and the godfather of progressive economics, explained the issue clearly, laying the groundwork for the laws that followed. His 1894 book 'Socialism and Social Reform'expressed a panic about women’s entry into the workforce:
'Restrictions should be thrown about the employment of married women, and their employment for a considerable period before and after child-birth should be prohibited under any circumstances. There should also be a restriction of the work-day, as in England, for children and young persons under eighteen, and for women. Such a limitation having beneficial effect upon the health of the community…. Night work should be prohibited for women and persons under eighteen years of age and, in particular, all work injurious to the female organism should be forbidden to women.'
[That illustrates the divide: Progressives see control of other folks' lives as their right....Americans believe in individualism and liberty.]
2. If the reference to the “female organism” sounds strange, remember that this generation of intellectuals believed in eugenics— using state force to plan the emergence of the model race — and hence saw women mainly as propagators of the race, not human individuals with the right to choose. "
Government’s War on Women: 1900–1920 | Jeffrey Tucker
3. Let's be very clear, this belief that government can and should control every aspect if the lives of the people is ingrained in every iteration of totalistic governance: Progressive, communist, fascist, Liberal, socialist or Nazi.
"For anyone who believed that government had a responsibility to plan human production (and most intellectuals at the time did believe this), the role of women was critical. They couldn’t be allowed to do what they wanted, go where they wanted, or make lives for themselves. This was the normal thought pattern for the generation that gave the United States unprecedented legal restrictions on the labor market."
Fee, Op. Cit.
Progressivism, a boilerplate big government collectivist ideology, demands control of every aspect of human endeavor, in the workplace restricting women and minorities, and in reproduction, too (eugenics).
Whenever one wishes to see what the Left is doing...check out what they charge the other side with...e.g., a "War on Women"
The biggest problem with your argument is still that it is based on 100 year old facts, when everyone in pants was afraid of women gaining control. The Suffragettes fought a good fight. Now what have the "progressives"/left done in the 21st century that makes them unfriendly to women? Force them to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term and spend 20 years raising the child with or without a father? Abolish Affirmative Action that gives women a leg up into good careers and high paying jobs?Progressives Louis Brandeis and Woodrow Wilson: "Control those women!"
9. "Consider the Supreme Court case of Muller v. Oregon, which considered state legislation on maximum working hours and decided in favor of the state. Oregon was hardly unusual; it was typical of the 20 states that had already passed such laws directed at women’s freedom ....
.... the text of Colorado’s law passed in 1903: “No woman” shall “work or labor for a greater number than eight hours in the twenty-four hour day … where such labor, work, or occupation by its nature, requires the woman to stand or be upon her feet.”
The decision in Muller v. Oregon, then, ratified such laws all over the country. Today, this case is widely considered the foundation of progressive labor law. What’s not well known is that the brief that settled the case was a remarkable piece of pseudoscience that argued for the inferiority of women .... That brief was filed by future Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis."
Fee, Op. Cit.
a. It was an era of Progressive domination, and Louis Brandeis made the election of the most racist Progressive, Woodrow Wilson, possible. Wilson understood that the election was between himself and TR, with Taft inconsequential. And Wilson knew his problem was to come up with a plausible alternative to TR’s Progressive program. It was the ideas of Louis Brandeis that persuaded Wilson to base his campaign on the issue of monopolies: while TR saw regulation of a necessary evil as the way, Wilson claimed that the best way to restore competition, was to destroy monopolies. (see Chace, "1912")
Brandeis and Wilson....medal of 'honor' winners in the War on Women!
Your scandal-rag argument that Hillary was involved in covering up Bill's indiscretions notwithstanding, I've not heard much here that sounds like 2016 Progressives are hating on women.
Let's not turn this into an abortion thread. My point was that pro-choice is NOT against women's freedom. Move on.The biggest problem with your argument is still that it is based on 100 year old facts, when everyone in pants was afraid of women gaining control. The Suffragettes fought a good fight. Now what have the "progressives"/left done in the 21st century that makes them unfriendly to women? Force them to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term and spend 20 years raising the child with or without a father? Abolish Affirmative Action that gives women a leg up into good careers and high paying jobs?Progressives Louis Brandeis and Woodrow Wilson: "Control those women!"
9. "Consider the Supreme Court case of Muller v. Oregon, which considered state legislation on maximum working hours and decided in favor of the state. Oregon was hardly unusual; it was typical of the 20 states that had already passed such laws directed at women’s freedom ....
.... the text of Colorado’s law passed in 1903: “No woman” shall “work or labor for a greater number than eight hours in the twenty-four hour day … where such labor, work, or occupation by its nature, requires the woman to stand or be upon her feet.”
The decision in Muller v. Oregon, then, ratified such laws all over the country. Today, this case is widely considered the foundation of progressive labor law. What’s not well known is that the brief that settled the case was a remarkable piece of pseudoscience that argued for the inferiority of women .... That brief was filed by future Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis."
Fee, Op. Cit.
a. It was an era of Progressive domination, and Louis Brandeis made the election of the most racist Progressive, Woodrow Wilson, possible. Wilson understood that the election was between himself and TR, with Taft inconsequential. And Wilson knew his problem was to come up with a plausible alternative to TR’s Progressive program. It was the ideas of Louis Brandeis that persuaded Wilson to base his campaign on the issue of monopolies: while TR saw regulation of a necessary evil as the way, Wilson claimed that the best way to restore competition, was to destroy monopolies. (see Chace, "1912")
Brandeis and Wilson....medal of 'honor' winners in the War on Women!
Your scandal-rag argument that Hillary was involved in covering up Bill's indiscretions notwithstanding, I've not heard much here that sounds like 2016 Progressives are hating on women.
"Force them to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term and spend 20 years raising the child with or without a father?"
Bulletin: did you know the woman in question had the right and ability to deny conception of that "unwanted pregnancy"?
True story.
Further, civilized, moral individuals don't accept that said woman has the right to end the life of a separate, unique individual.
Also true story.
No different than the reasons that disqualify you to being one. No matter how much you pretend, wish or attempt to present yourself as one, you are not remotely similar to a scholar and fail to present even a college level thesis on the agendas you promote.I do not pretend to be a scholar and never have. It certainly takes more than making comments and voicing opinions or putting together cut and paste essay like works of commentary.How much proof do you need? You are comparing progressivism from the early beginning of the 20th Century to the 21th Century. Your source is an agenda writer, some would call a hack writer, who self-describes himself as a scholar but lacks the credentials of a Doctorate or a balanced body of peer-reviewed works by acknowledged economist or historians.It is true, you do give links to your sources. I happen to be a person that likes or needs to check on links and sources. Many people just breeze by them and accept them as credible and factual. I have learned from experience that your sources are very often either not credible, or distorted to meet your agenda. The people who challenge your ideas usually do it by challenging your misinterpretation or distortion of those sources. This thread is a good example of distortion. You are using a hundred-year-old thesis or concept to portray today's definition of progressivism.
If you don't like the criticism of your sources, defend them or use sources that would be accepted in an academic setting. You know full well that if your thesis were submitted at a University or College of standing much of it would be rejected because of the source material.
" I have learned from experience that your sources are very often either not credible, or distorted to meet your agenda."
So....put your dinero where you put your dinner.
Prove it.
"...an agenda writer, some would call a hack writer, who self-describes himself as a scholar but lacks the credentials..."
(sniff...) I just love autobiographical posts.
And....I see a great new avi for you in that description!
Don't wait!
"I do not pretend to be a scholar and never have."
With good reason!
No different than the reasons that disqualify you to being one. No matter how much you pretend, wish or attempt to present yourself as one, you are not remotely similar to a scholar and fail to present even a college level thesis on the agendas you promote.I do not pretend to be a scholar and never have. It certainly takes more than making comments and voicing opinions or putting together cut and paste essay like works of commentary.How much proof do you need? You are comparing progressivism from the early beginning of the 20th Century to the 21th Century. Your source is an agenda writer, some would call a hack writer, who self-describes himself as a scholar but lacks the credentials of a Doctorate or a balanced body of peer-reviewed works by acknowledged economist or historians." I have learned from experience that your sources are very often either not credible, or distorted to meet your agenda."
So....put your dinero where you put your dinner.
Prove it.
"...an agenda writer, some would call a hack writer, who self-describes himself as a scholar but lacks the credentials..."
(sniff...) I just love autobiographical posts.
And....I see a great new avi for you in that description!
Don't wait!
"I do not pretend to be a scholar and never have."
With good reason!
Even if you presented this review as a thesis on early 20th Century government attitudes towards women entering the workforce it would fail due to it being nothing more than a review of other people's works. There are no original or unique ideas being presented by you in regards to your subject matter.
Let's not turn this into an abortion thread. My point was that pro-choice is NOT against women's freedom. Move on.The biggest problem with your argument is still that it is based on 100 year old facts, when everyone in pants was afraid of women gaining control. The Suffragettes fought a good fight. Now what have the "progressives"/left done in the 21st century that makes them unfriendly to women? Force them to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term and spend 20 years raising the child with or without a father? Abolish Affirmative Action that gives women a leg up into good careers and high paying jobs?Progressives Louis Brandeis and Woodrow Wilson: "Control those women!"
9. "Consider the Supreme Court case of Muller v. Oregon, which considered state legislation on maximum working hours and decided in favor of the state. Oregon was hardly unusual; it was typical of the 20 states that had already passed such laws directed at women’s freedom ....
.... the text of Colorado’s law passed in 1903: “No woman” shall “work or labor for a greater number than eight hours in the twenty-four hour day … where such labor, work, or occupation by its nature, requires the woman to stand or be upon her feet.”
The decision in Muller v. Oregon, then, ratified such laws all over the country. Today, this case is widely considered the foundation of progressive labor law. What’s not well known is that the brief that settled the case was a remarkable piece of pseudoscience that argued for the inferiority of women .... That brief was filed by future Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis."
Fee, Op. Cit.
a. It was an era of Progressive domination, and Louis Brandeis made the election of the most racist Progressive, Woodrow Wilson, possible. Wilson understood that the election was between himself and TR, with Taft inconsequential. And Wilson knew his problem was to come up with a plausible alternative to TR’s Progressive program. It was the ideas of Louis Brandeis that persuaded Wilson to base his campaign on the issue of monopolies: while TR saw regulation of a necessary evil as the way, Wilson claimed that the best way to restore competition, was to destroy monopolies. (see Chace, "1912")
Brandeis and Wilson....medal of 'honor' winners in the War on Women!
Your scandal-rag argument that Hillary was involved in covering up Bill's indiscretions notwithstanding, I've not heard much here that sounds like 2016 Progressives are hating on women.
"Force them to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term and spend 20 years raising the child with or without a father?"
Bulletin: did you know the woman in question had the right and ability to deny conception of that "unwanted pregnancy"?
True story.
Further, civilized, moral individuals don't accept that said woman has the right to end the life of a separate, unique individual.
Also true story.
Good, you always lose and get your butt kicked in your anti-American anti-FDR threads. Regurgitate one you fantasize that you have done well on. Your delusion can be exposed and explained to you.No different than the reasons that disqualify you to being one. No matter how much you pretend, wish or attempt to present yourself as one, you are not remotely similar to a scholar and fail to present even a college level thesis on the agendas you promote.I do not pretend to be a scholar and never have. It certainly takes more than making comments and voicing opinions or putting together cut and paste essay like works of commentary.How much proof do you need? You are comparing progressivism from the early beginning of the 20th Century to the 21th Century. Your source is an agenda writer, some would call a hack writer, who self-describes himself as a scholar but lacks the credentials of a Doctorate or a balanced body of peer-reviewed works by acknowledged economist or historians.
"...an agenda writer, some would call a hack writer, who self-describes himself as a scholar but lacks the credentials..."
(sniff...) I just love autobiographical posts.
And....I see a great new avi for you in that description!
Don't wait!
"I do not pretend to be a scholar and never have."
With good reason!
Even if you presented this review as a thesis on early 20th Century government attitudes towards women entering the workforce it would fail due to it being nothing more than a review of other people's works. There are no original or unique ideas being presented by you in regards to your subject matter.
"...you are not remotely similar to a scholar...."
Well, then....you had best find some other reason why you are never......never....able to dispute my posts.
I can feel it getting close to another thread shredding the Roosevelt hagiography that you attempt to purvey.
Gonna have to destroy you and FDR again.
Oh give her and her kind a break..The forum is the only place they can talk back to a male...Good, you always lose and get your butt kicked in your anti-American anti-FDR threads. Regurgitate one you fantasize that you have done well on. Your delusion can be exposed and explained to you.No different than the reasons that disqualify you to being one. No matter how much you pretend, wish or attempt to present yourself as one, you are not remotely similar to a scholar and fail to present even a college level thesis on the agendas you promote.I do not pretend to be a scholar and never have. It certainly takes more than making comments and voicing opinions or putting together cut and paste essay like works of commentary."...an agenda writer, some would call a hack writer, who self-describes himself as a scholar but lacks the credentials..."
(sniff...) I just love autobiographical posts.
And....I see a great new avi for you in that description!
Don't wait!
"I do not pretend to be a scholar and never have."
With good reason!
Even if you presented this review as a thesis on early 20th Century government attitudes towards women entering the workforce it would fail due to it being nothing more than a review of other people's works. There are no original or unique ideas being presented by you in regards to your subject matter.
"...you are not remotely similar to a scholar...."
Well, then....you had best find some other reason why you are never......never....able to dispute my posts.
I can feel it getting close to another thread shredding the Roosevelt hagiography that you attempt to purvey.
Gonna have to destroy you and FDR again.
Oh give her and her kind a break..The forum is the only place they can talk back to a male...Good, you always lose and get your butt kicked in your anti-American anti-FDR threads. Regurgitate one you fantasize that you have done well on. Your delusion can be exposed and explained to you.No different than the reasons that disqualify you to being one. No matter how much you pretend, wish or attempt to present yourself as one, you are not remotely similar to a scholar and fail to present even a college level thesis on the agendas you promote.I do not pretend to be a scholar and never have. It certainly takes more than making comments and voicing opinions or putting together cut and paste essay like works of commentary.
"I do not pretend to be a scholar and never have."
With good reason!
Even if you presented this review as a thesis on early 20th Century government attitudes towards women entering the workforce it would fail due to it being nothing more than a review of other people's works. There are no original or unique ideas being presented by you in regards to your subject matter.
"...you are not remotely similar to a scholar...."
Well, then....you had best find some other reason why you are never......never....able to dispute my posts.
I can feel it getting close to another thread shredding the Roosevelt hagiography that you attempt to purvey.
Gonna have to destroy you and FDR again.
Good, you always lose and get your butt kicked in your anti-American anti-FDR threads. Regurgitate one you fantasize that you have done well on. Your delusion can be exposed and explained to you.No different than the reasons that disqualify you to being one. No matter how much you pretend, wish or attempt to present yourself as one, you are not remotely similar to a scholar and fail to present even a college level thesis on the agendas you promote.I do not pretend to be a scholar and never have. It certainly takes more than making comments and voicing opinions or putting together cut and paste essay like works of commentary."...an agenda writer, some would call a hack writer, who self-describes himself as a scholar but lacks the credentials..."
(sniff...) I just love autobiographical posts.
And....I see a great new avi for you in that description!
Don't wait!
"I do not pretend to be a scholar and never have."
With good reason!
Even if you presented this review as a thesis on early 20th Century government attitudes towards women entering the workforce it would fail due to it being nothing more than a review of other people's works. There are no original or unique ideas being presented by you in regards to your subject matter.
"...you are not remotely similar to a scholar...."
Well, then....you had best find some other reason why you are never......never....able to dispute my posts.
I can feel it getting close to another thread shredding the Roosevelt hagiography that you attempt to purvey.
Gonna have to destroy you and FDR again.
You always quote accurately?As I always......always....quote accuratly, link and source all material.....clearly you are lying in a feeble attempt to shield your idol.
Caitlyn Jenner Holes Out for Eagle at ANA Inspiration Pro-AmThis recent headline from HuffPost bears re-reading:
"Hillary Clinton: 'I'm A Progressive, But I'm A Progressive Who Likes To Get Things Done'"
Hillary Clinton: 'I'm A Progressive, But I'm A Progressive Who Likes To Get Things Done'
This is simply ironic, given that Hillary is basing her run for the presidency on being a woman....
Progressives being supporters of women is as true as 'If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,"
1. "Richard T. Ely, the hugely influential founder of the American Economic Association and the godfather of progressive economics, explained the issue clearly, laying the groundwork for the laws that followed. His 1894 book 'Socialism and Social Reform'expressed a panic about women’s entry into the workforce:
'Restrictions should be thrown about the employment of married women, and their employment for a considerable period before and after child-birth should be prohibited under any circumstances. There should also be a restriction of the work-day, as in England, for children and young persons under eighteen, and for women. Such a limitation having beneficial effect upon the health of the community…. Night work should be prohibited for women and persons under eighteen years of age and, in particular, all work injurious to the female organism should be forbidden to women.'
[That illustrates the divide: Progressives see control of other folks' lives as their right....Americans believe in individualism and liberty.]
2. If the reference to the “female organism” sounds strange, remember that this generation of intellectuals believed in eugenics— using state force to plan the emergence of the model race — and hence saw women mainly as propagators of the race, not human individuals with the right to choose. "
Government’s War on Women: 1900–1920 | Jeffrey Tucker
3. Let's be very clear, this belief that government can and should control every aspect if the lives of the people is ingrained in every iteration of totalistic governance: Progressive, communist, fascist, Liberal, socialist or Nazi.
"For anyone who believed that government had a responsibility to plan human production (and most intellectuals at the time did believe this), the role of women was critical. They couldn’t be allowed to do what they wanted, go where they wanted, or make lives for themselves. This was the normal thought pattern for the generation that gave the United States unprecedented legal restrictions on the labor market."
Fee, Op. Cit.
Progressivism, a boilerplate big government collectivist ideology, demands control of every aspect of human endeavor, in the workplace restricting women and minorities, and in reproduction, too (eugenics).
Whenever one wishes to see what the Left is doing...check out what they charge the other side with...e.g., a "War on Women"
Ever since the Russian Federation had accused the Williams Brothers as being men in a womans sports, I have had many doubts about the liberal war on women. We see with "BRUCE" that it is much easier for a man to outshoot a woman because of HIS upper body strength. But since LBGTQWXYZ has allowed XY to compete with XX people, this is the true war on women. The Williams brothers have stolen game after game from legitimate women, making them and their father, OBSENELY wealthy. But that is why liberals do what they do, just follow the money.
You always quote accurately?As I always......always....quote accuratly, link and source all material.....clearly you are lying in a feeble attempt to shield your idol.
I have evidence that you do NOT always quote accurately, which makes you a bloody liar, so here it comes again, LIAR;
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!
In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
"[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,
quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."
But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
"The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems."
The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the alter quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.
I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!
