From: popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Conservative?  Hahaha....
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 01:38:30 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX

crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:

> In article <Luc3wB5w165w@unkaphaed.gbdata.com> popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (Wi
> >In the days of the Civilrights bill Foofarah, when every other TV 
> >appearance of Bush showed him opposing "quotas", "quotas", quotas", not 
> >to manty people actually noted that the Bill in queation did have a line 
> >that did indeed outlaw outright, quotas.
> >  This did not prevent Bush from claiming to oppose this law claiming it 
> >would establish quotas when indeed he knew full well it did not, and in 
> 
> Oh please.  The quota bill was not a quota bill because there is (he did sign
> it and it is the law) a line buried in it somewhere that says "this is a quot
> bill."  It's a quota bill because the only rational response to its
> requirements is to hire by quota.  The rationality of this response is not
> changed on whit by adding a line that says "this is not a quota bill."  It's
> like passing a law that requires Budweiser to sell for $1 per can and Coors t
> sell for $0.50 per can, then, in response to Budweiser claiming that this is 
> "Buy Coors" bill, adding a line that says "nothing in this bill should be
> construed as requiring the purchase of Coors."  It's still a Buy Coors bill
> because it creates an environment in which buying Coors is the only reasonabl
> action.  It was and is a quota bill, because not hiring by quota costs so muc
> more, and these costs are not reduced by any claims in the bill that they
> don't exist.
> 
> >fact did just the opposite.  But it went over so well politically, Bush 
> >couldn't help himself.  Your objection shows me a lot of people are still 
> >being manipulated by fearmongering fools rather than looking at this 
> >issue carefully and honestly.  This would have in no way given 
> >supercitizen status to gays.  These sort of claims rank down there with 
> >Phyllis Schlafly's claims that the ERA amendment would have mandated 
> >unisex restrooms throughout Christian America. Fatous nonsense, but 
> >people are so eager to believe the most outragous crap.
> >  That nobody ever called Bush down over his lies about Quotas and the 
> >Civil Rights Bill is a shame.  But I think is time to start pointing out 
> >the similar lies involved with Colorado's Proposition 2.
> >
> >--
> >popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
> >Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 481-3763
> >1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
> 
> 
> 
> =============================================================================
> William Crosmun
> crosmun@dg-rtp.dg.com
> 
> =============================================================================
> "No matter what the subject, there is some group which wants government
>  to regulate or  subsidize it, and  there are always those  in Congress
>  eager to take  over more power  and control.  But it  is impossible to
>  get something for  nothing.  The government  produces no goods, so  it
>  can hand out  favors to some  people only by taking  the earnings  and
>  property of others first."
> 
>                        From the Libertarian Party platform - 1992
> 
> =============================================================================


Oh Bullshit.   Quotas were outlawed in the Civil Rights Bill.  Quotas are 
indeed illegal.   Saying that quotas may be illegal but the bill can only 
somehow do it's job with quotas, is nonsense.  Quotas are indeed illegal.
End of arguement.

Pope Charles

--
popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 481-3763
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis