HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ilana@kiowa.scd.ucar.edu (Ilana Stern)
Subject: Re: Liberal President, but conservative amendment voting?
Organization: NCAR/UCAR
Distribution: co
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 22:33:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.220614.3194@claven.ucar.edu>, woods@claven.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) writes:
> In article <1992Nov4.175948.17993@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> farrow@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (J. Scott Farrow - CU Computing Network Services) writes:
> >Particularly, I'm referring to the approval of amendments 1 and 2, and the
> >no vote on amendment 6.
> 
> This is almost a strict Libertarian agenda, oddly enough. I think Clinton
> over Bush is explainable partly by the strict Republican anti-choice stance
> (as are a lot of the local state races unseating Republican incumbents)
> and partly by the current bad state of the economy (which always makes
> it tough for an incumbent President to win reelection).

On the other hand, the gambling amendments all failed miserably, and
I would think the Libertarian view would be the opposite.

I was discussing this with a friend earlier.  I think it's a reflection
of the Republican Party moving too far to the right, alienating Coloradans
who are mostly centrist Republicans.  They support abortion rights and
support the environment far more than the (current) mainstream Republican
Party (although they think the Sierra Club's too radical).  Clinton 
didn't terrify them because he's a moderate Democrat (a la Tsongas, who
also did well in the primaries here), although I'm sure a lot of them
held their noses (or voted for Perot, or even Marrou).

I see this not only in the passage of #1 and the defeat of #6, but in
the passage of #8 and #10, and in the general defeat of pro-life 
candidates.  

As far as #2, I agree with Greg that those who voted for it were 
clearly embarrassed about it, as they lied to the pollsters -- nobody
expected it to pass.  Maybe Gary can say something about whether
it's a LP viewpoint -- I would think that its overrule of "home rule"
would be contrary to the Libertarian view.  I suspect that the emphasis
(in the written amendment) on "protected status" made people think that
it really was a "special rights" issue and not a discrimination issue.
If it had been worded "Should there be a state law prohibiting communities
from passing laws to forbid discrimination against homosexuals?" I don't
know if the outcome would have been the same.

-- 
/\     There may be honor among thieves, but there's none among politicians.
  \_][ <--NCAR Ilana Stern dod#009 r.b. cliff swallow ilana@ncar.ucar.edu    
      \______________________________________________________________________
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: kauff@neit.cgd.ucar.edu (Brian Kauffman)
Subject: Re: Amendment #2
Organization: Boulder CO
Distribution: co
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:35:17 GMT

ag> = Andrew Gerber
ag> Who will the CFV target next?  Unmarried straight couples living together?
    Jews?  Blacks?  

Suppose you were denied housing specifically because:
a) you are a card carrying member of the ACLU
b) you are an unmarried straight couple
c) you are an unmarried single parent
d) you are a homosexual
e) you are Jewish
f) you are black

What's the difference in options for legal recourse?

-Brian
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: rosinski@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Jim Rosinski)
Subject: Re: A reason to be VERY concerned about November 3rd.
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: co
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 01:25:37 GMT


Regarding the sales tax increase for schools (Amendment 6, which failed), I
wrote: 

>>Insufficient funding is *not* the problem.  Lack of competition is.

rcw@teal.csn.org (Robert C. White Jr.) responds:

>This is so wrong I can't believe it.  If competition is the basis for
>the improvement of schools, then the ones with the best basket weaving
>electives are going to win.

I find this kind of "We know what's best for you" arrogance offensive.
Parents aren't qualified to judge which school provides the best education
for their child.  If they were, then all we'd have would be "basket-weaving"
being taught in school.  Unbelievable.

>I will [get figures from my brother who's a principal which show that the
>tax increase is necessary] next time I'm down to Lamar.  Speaking to him the
>other night, 
>he will lay off the instrumental music teacher in the next phiscal
>year.  I hope you ammendment 1 people are happy with yourselves.

This is an all too common tactic employed by the advocates of big
tax-and-spend government.  "Don't cut my funding, or I'll eliminate your
favorite program".  The solution: remove their legal monopoly on the
production of whatever commodity is involved, in this case education.

>Specifically, what numbers would you like to know?

Numbers which can explain, for example, why a huge tax increase is necessary
when private schools already deliver a vastly superior product at almost half
the cost (I posted these figures earlier).

>>I am really sick of high-horse know-it-alls who want to take
>>other people's money because *they* have a better use for it.
>
>This rather silly position could be taken on any spending issue.

I was not making a general statement about people who argue for tax
increases, but rather a specific reference to the kind of "We know what's
best for you" arrogance of which you seem to be so fond (see example in
paragraph 1, above)

>There are a number of things that need to be done to reform
>the [educational] system, but just like in Russia, the entrenched
>bureaucracy will be  
>the last thing to leave the education system.  They hold the power, and they
>are pulling down huge salaries.  Therefore, the kids are
>going to suffer first.  That's the reality.

I take it then, that you voted in favor of vouchers (Amendment 7)?


Jim Rosinski

Newsgroups: co.politics
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Liberal President, but conservative amendment voting?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 03:39:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.175948.17993@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> farrow@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (J. Scott Farrow - CU Computing Network Services) writes:
>Particularly, I'm referring to the approval of amendments 1 and 2, and the
>no vote on amendment 6.

I'm not sure I'd call voting down a 2% tax increase "conservative".
I'd use a word like "sane"... (By the way, I know it said "1%", but
there is a matching funds law: For every $55 the state puts into
schools, local governments _must_ provide an additional $45. A 1%
state tax would have mandated a ~.85% local tax.)

                                             Frank Crary
                                             CU Boulder
From: elesatz@diana.cair.du.edu (Eric LeSatz)
Newsgroups: co.politics
Subject: Re: Amendment #2
Date: 8 Nov 92 08:10:50 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: University of Denver, Denver, Colorado

In article <1de4ejINNev0@marvin.solbourne.com> gerber@solbourne.com (Andrew Gerber) writes:

>Regardless of the wording of Amendment 2, it is a stab in the back for
>gay people through the state of Colorado.  It is saying that Colorado
>doesn't value gay people.  A recent Dept. of Education study estimated
>that up to 50% of all teens who commit suicide are gay.  People will
>die because of the passage of Amendment 2.  Will it take a fatal
>gay-bashing to persuade Colorado voters that gays are discriminated
>against?  I hope not.

Yeah right Bubba! And I'm going to die because Clinton was elected and
is going to tax the hell out of me. If you wanna talk gay bashing I
can give you a 100 better ways than saying that sexual orientation is
not a basis for having minority status. BTW, what am I? Straight? Gay?
Bi? I'll send you a GIF of my picture and you can mail me the correct
answer.

>#2 was not about "special rights".  If Amendment 2 sticks, people can
>be fired or thrown out of their apartments just because they are gay.
>These are the facts.  Having a place to live and a job are not
>"special rights"  

This is what the media and homosexual groups want you to believe.
Fortunately Colorado voters were intelligent enough to read the
Amendment and see that your comment above is bullshit. Under the U.S.
Constitution, everyone is guaranteed equal rights. The reason you are
so upset about this is because your next move was to get gay quotas in
the workplace/housing and you just took a step backwards.

Eric
______________________________________________________________________________
|__Eric LeSatz_________________[]{}__I've got seven in the clip and one______|
|__elesatz@diana.cair.du.edu___[]{}__in the chamber. Will that be enough??___|
|__lesatz@phakt.usc.edu________[]{}__If it ain't, I'm in BIG trouble!!_______|
|______________________________[]{}__________________________________________|
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: Amendment #2
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: co
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 18:25:04 GMT

p > Pablo
gs> Gary Strand

gs> [I]f the apartment I'm renting is actually in my own house, I should have
    the right to discriminate against potential renters by any measure I
    choose. This was disallowed by the Boulder law, which was a mistake, IMO.

p > actually, boulder's ordinance allows churches, small businesses, and people
    renting rooms in their home or residing in a unit of their apartment build-
    ing to discriminate all they wanted.  is that okay?

  I've heard otherwise. Same-dwelling units were excluded.

  In any case, it's perfectly OK by me. If you were gay, and Will Perkins want-
  ed to rent a room in your house, would *you* want to rent to him? Giving the
  government the power to outlaw *all* "discrimination" (I use quotes because
  too many times the "proof" of discrimination is very questionable) is a two-
  edged sword.

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: wolniewi@boulder.Colorado.EDU (WOLNIEWICZ RICHARD H)
Subject: Re: Sales tax - 3.3 kept by merchant (not)
Reply-To: wolniewi@boulder.Colorado.EDU (WOLNIEWICZ RICHARD H)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:56:50 GMT

A quick note on this sales tax kept by the merchant.  My understanding
(from when I was applying for a business license) is that keeping the
percentage is only allowed when the payments are made on time and
correctly.  It may well be that this is done to encourage small businesses
to play by the book.  Sales taxes are remarkably easy for many businesses
to avoid paying, particularily small mail-order companies when they make
a sale in-state.  By encouraging compliance, Colorado likely ends up
saving enforcement costs, keeping payments timely (thus reducing interest
costs to the state), etc.  I don't know if this all pays for itself, but
this approach is not without any reason.

Richard Wolniewicz
wolniewi@cs.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Mo Clinton
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 05:53:55 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.191456.20596@claven.ucar.edu> woods@claven.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) writes:
>What most everyone fails to see is the magnitude of the Federal
>deficit.  There is no way EITHER major party candidate could have hoped
>to fulfill all of his campaign promises. He may be a fascist and for that
>reason I would never have voted for him but Perot is right about one
>thing: the deficit monster will kill us if we don't kill it first, and
>that is going to mean radical spending cuts *and* more taxes.

Actually, an extremely good idea for reducing the national debt is
in the Libertarian party platform: The federal government ownes
about 30% of the land in the United States, and some of it is
_extremely_ valuable (for instince, the Presidio: Several square
miles of land in downtown San Francisco; a Marine base, with 
_miles_ of beachfront property just south of Los Angeles.) Alot 
of the land is fairly useless (un-irrigated desert in Nevada, miles
from the nearest road), but there are _trillions_ of dollars of
sellable property. I don't see any reason why the government
couldn't sell off the land, and take a big bite out of the
debt.

The national _deficit_, as opposed to the debt, is a political not
a financial problem: It could be solved simply by cutting 
spending, if the political will to do so existed. No amount of
political will, however, will make the money we currently owe
disappear. (The issue of the deficit would also be much easier,
if we didn't have the interest on the debt to pay... Another 
reason to reduce the debt by selling off government assets.)

                                          Frank Crary
                                          CU Boulder

Newsgroups: co.politics
From: weverka@spot.Colorado.EDU (Robert T. Weverka)
Subject: Re: Mo Clinton
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 11:05:33 GMT

In<1992Nov8.055355.511@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> Frank Crary writes:
>
>Actually, an extremely good idea for reducing the national debt is
>in the Libertarian party platform: The federal government ownes
>about 30% of the land in the United States, and some of it is
>_extremely_ valuable (for instince, the Presidio: Several square
>miles of land in downtown San Francisco; a Marine base, with 
>_miles_ of beachfront property just south of Los Angeles.) Alot 
>of the land is fairly useless (un-irrigated desert in Nevada, miles
>from the nearest road), but there are _trillions_ of dollars of
>sellable property. I don't see any reason why the government
>couldn't sell off the land, and take a big bite out of the
>debt.
>
Let's see we'll start by selling off Yellowstone, Estes Park, and
Mount Rushmore.  That alone ought to bring -billions- of dollars
in to cut the debt.  Now, how much was the debt again ? 


Newsgroups: co.politics
From: fielden@spot.Colorado.EDU (j. a. fielden)
Subject: Re: #2 - bad for business too
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:05:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.090811@eklektix.com> rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn) writes:
>Well, it took less than a day for the first sign of an organized boycott of
>Colorado business from outside the state, based on Amendment 2 passing.
>
>This was predictable.  We've already seen what happened with Arizona and
>MLK Day.  Amendment 2 is a major embarrassment to the state, and the rest
>of the country isn't likely to let us forget that soon.
>
>[cynicism++]
>    Moreover, in the current depression, you look for ways to gain business
>    advantage.  One way is to convince people to patronize your business
>    instead of the other guy's.  What better way than to find a reason to
>    boycott the other guy?  "Hey, you gonna buy from the rednecks in Colo-
>    rado?  You hear what they did?"
>[cynicism--]
>
>This was also pretty stupid, for a state like Colorado (with such a strong
>economic dependency on tourism, i.e., external business) to enact a
>provision like #2.
>
>[None of this is meant to belittle the importance of #2 on people's lives,
>which goes much deeper than business success!  But I wanted people to think
>about this additional effect of Colorado having just portrayed itself as a
>bunch of closet bigots.]
>-- 
>Dick Dunn    rcd@raven.eklektix.com   -or-   raven!rcd    Boulder, Colorado
>	...Simpler is better.

 Yes, I agree. But I have this little picture in my head of CFV saying
"Well if they're homosexual we don't want them visiting our state 
anyway! They can just keep their money we don't want it." 

Come to think of it -- wasn't on of Tebedo's big points about how
"rich" gays and lesbians are? Not much foresight eh? Look at what
happened to Idaho and Arizona and Louisiana(abortion, MLK, and abortion).


It's a shame that the rest of us are going to suffer also as a result
of these(CFV) people. Too bad they can't be the only ones affected  by any 
drop in money coming into Colorado as a result of admendment 2.
From: sog@craycos.com (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: co.politics
Subject: Re: Biblical persp. on homosexuality: also Christian responsibility
Date: 7 Nov 92 07:08:39 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation

In article <Bx9GAw.5Ko@da_vinci.it.uswc.uswest.com> ron@eatdust (Ron Schweikert) writes:
>
>"Impose" is a foreboding word.  Why is it that when Christians raise issues
>and try to bring them to awareness of the populace it is "imposing our will"
>but when non-christians do it is just "public service" or whatever!?

I would say that legalizing the deprivation of livelihood or housing goes
beyond "bringing awareness." If someone sought to do the same to you I'd
feel just as strongly. By all means, proclaim your views...but please don't
legalize the abuse of those who disagree with you. And don't pretend that
such abuse is somehow in their best interest.

Steve

No, I don't speak for Cray Computer - why in the world would you think I did?
From: McGuire@solbourne.com (Jim McGuire)
Newsgroups: co.politics
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2
Date: 13 Nov 1992 10:22:28 -0700
Organization: Solbourne Computer, Inc., Longmont, CO
Distribution: co
NNTP-Posting-Host: solcat.solbourne.com


gs> Gary Strand
gs> My ideal world would contain no such protections for anyone. If you want to
    fire me because I'm white, male, and het then that's your right. If I want
    to fire you because you're female, gay, bi, a poor dresser, whatever, then
    that should be my right.

(in a later post):
gs>  It all depends on how we agree what "rights" there are, doesn't it? I don't
    include housing, employment, medical care, &c as "rights". I do include
    free speech and the freedom of association (and the concomitant freedom of
    dissociation) as rights.

In your "ideal" world, workers have no free speech, since they can be fired
for supporting Perot when the boss supports Qualye.  Workers have no freedom
of association, since if the boss sees them with an "undesirable", they can
get fired too.  To keep a job in this "ideal" world, workers would be essentially
slaves to the bosses every whim.

A real ideal world would contain protections for everyone, but these protections
would never need to be used.
-- 
Jim McGuire			Solbourne Computer, Inc.
McGuire@Solbourne.COM		1900 Pike Road
				Longmont, CO 80501
Speaking for Myself Only!	(303) 678-4311
From: kguinn@diana.cair.du.edu (Kip J. Guinn)
Newsgroups: co.politics
Subject: Post Election Nerves
Date: 4 Nov 92 19:57:53 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: University of Denver, Telephone Services

I'm glad Clinton won.  As a Democrat, I've never been part of a large victory
like this.  I should feel elated.

But strangely, I don't.  The problems loom too large.  Perot still rings
in my head (because what he had to say was correct), the Reagan/Bush
legacy is morass, and the Congress incumbents sit pretty.  I'm very
concerned about the deficit, the social issues facing us (after years
of neglect from Reagan/Bush), etc--but I find myself being more concerned,
at this point, with the way we run the government.

Three large issues that must, must be address by Clinton are (IMHO):

1)  Election Reform.  (I'm not holding my breath).
2)  Congressional Reform.  The *arrogance* of exempting themselves from
    civil rights, sexual harrassment, and fair employment legislation
    absolutely galls me.  The sheer size and number of staffers, etc.
    is a huge drain on us both in money and inertia...
3)  Balanced Budget Amendment.  It's the only hope--they won't do it
    themselves...

With a little distance now, I also find myself feeling just a tad sorry 
for Bush, who, in the end, wound up paying the price of the Reagan
years, and, through continuing the same themes and practices (like 
shadow operations--Iran/Contra, Iraqgate, etc), ruined his shot at a
two-term presidency.

I hope Clinton works out.  I also hope Quayle goes far, far away.  :-)

Kip
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: bwg@teal.csn.org (Bryan Griffin)
Subject: Re: Liberal President, but conservative amendment voting?
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Distribution: co
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 03:14:07 GMT

In article  <1992Nov4.220614.3194@claven.ucar.edu>woods@claven.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.175948.17993@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> farrow@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (J. Scott Farrow - CU Computing Network Services) writes:
>>Particularly, I'm referring to the approval of amendments 1 and 2, and the
>>no vote on amendment 6.
>
>This is almost a strict Libertarian agenda, oddly enough. I think Clinton
 As someone else pointed out, Libertarians would have approved the gambling
amendments, and the school voucher amendment. 
  I would not label amendment 2 as libertarian. In general libertarians
feel that people have a right to do whatever they want, including discriminate,
even if we personally find their actions repugnant. Unlike the Republicans
and Democrats we don't feel it is right to legislate morality for other 
people, or to force them to conform to our particular idea of "good", or
proper behaviour, or whatever. Legislating against discrimination is just as
much legislating morality as legislating against abortion would be. Where
should the line be drawn? Should the government have a right to count your
friends and decide if you have the right mix of people? What decisions does
the government have a right to intrude on, and why?

 Libertarians take social tolerance one step further than most people. We 
are willing to tolerate people who have different opinions of who they choose
to hire or associate with than we do. We don't feel an urge to violently 
force them to be tolerant of others. The problems need to be solved through
education and changes in societal values, not legal force. The Libertarian
party is pro-choice on everything, even things we may personally disagree 
with. 

 Now, given this background I need to explain why every Libertarian I know 
voted against amendmant 2. The problem is that it singles out one group 
to take away protection from. If any group is protected from discrimination,
then all should be. If one group is left out, they all should be. Attacking
one minority group like this seems to be in itself discrimination. Libertarians
may not want laws governing private sector discrimination, however the 
government should not be allowed to discriminate. It should treat all people
equally. Also of course most of us disagree with the agenda of the people
pushing the amendment. Rationally perhaps that shouldn't matter, only the
amendment itself should, but it does have an impact.

 It may be that the laws we'd like to get rid of may only be able to be
removed incrementally, however we should not unfairly remove one group
before the rest. We need to incrementally reduce what is protected, not who.

Bryan Griffin
bwg@csn.org
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: cuffell@spot.Colorado.EDU (CUFFELL TIMOTHY MICH)
Subject: Re: Amendment 2
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 23:51:03 GMT

>
>  Why would you want to work at such a place? There are other jobs, and unless
>  you're a masochist, working at a place where the only thing keeping you from
>  being fired is an ordinance like the kind Boulder, Denver, and Aspen have
>  is pretty dumb. And, how many employers can really afford firing all their
>  gay employees willy-nilly, since they "can" now?

Why would you want to work in such a place?  To eat, to pay bills, etc., just
like anyone else.  But I will remember you wisdom next time one of those
scary Negro people start trying to get jobs where I work.
>
>Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
>strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF


-- 

-Tim Cuffel
Newsgroups: co.politics