HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: Liberal President, but conservative amendment voting?
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: co
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 22:04:17 GMT

jf> J. Scott Farrow

jf> Am I the only one confused by the seeming contradiction of Coloradoans vot-
    ing for a Liberal President, yet voting down the more liberal amendments, 
    and approving the conservative ones?

  Coloradans like having a 50/50 government, thus we have a Republican legis-
  lature and a Democratic governor, and a Democratic senator and a Republic-
  an senator, and until yesterday, 3 each of Dems and Reps for our US repre-
  sentatives. Perhaps a government battling itself can't expend the effort to
  battle us.

jf> I'm glad I'm graduating in May. I hate to wonder what CU's tuition will 
    be like next year. Hell, they'll probably slap us with a mid-year raise
    out of fear for the future.

  CU's tuition will continue to rise regardless of state funding. They'll
  charge whatever they think the traffic will bear, and make up for fewer
  in-state students with much more profitable out-of-state students. CU is
  acting more and more like an Ivy League school instead of a decent state
  university. Pity.

jf> For the record, I voted for Clinton, against amendments 1 & 2, and for 
    amendment 6.

  I voted for Marrou, for 1, against 2, and against 6. I'm most pleased with
  the failure of 6, since the schools have plenty of money, it's simply mis-
  managed, and I also have enjoyed Roy Romer (aka Roy Ream-Us) lose all that
  political capital he expended on 6. Maybe we will get lucky and Slick Willy
  will take Romer to DC with him.

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
From: tjreynol@zephyr.cair.du.edu (five left and cut!)
Newsgroups: co.politics
Subject: Re: After amendment 2 (was Re: What happened...)
Date: 6 Nov 92 03:56:39 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: University of Denver

In article <1992Nov5.231953.15246@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:

>  Only three locales are affected by amendment 2, Denver, Boulder, and Aspen,
>  and I wonder what positive effect their anti-discrimination laws have real-
>  ly had. All three places are more liberal than the state average, so it
>  seems to me that their ordinances were rather superfluous.

If I recall correctly, Denver and Boulder were the only areas that voted
NO by any signifigant margin, perhaps by any margin at all.

>--
>Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
>strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF


TIm
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: v042517@stortek.com (Vince Dugar)
Subject: Mo Clinton
Organization: Storage Technology Corp.  Louisville, CO
Distribution: co
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:16:26 GMT


It occured to me yesterday -- I was watching a lady being interviewed
after coming out of the polling place.  When asked how she made her
choices, she said she used the "eenie meenie miney mo" method.  "Mo"
ended up on Bill Clinton.

So I think we should call him Mo Clinton.

And let's honor the media (the most *powerful* political party) for
it's incessant slant against G Bush and blatant love affair with Bill
C.  It's a shame when so much of America voted the way they were told
to think by the liberal media.

I'm willing to bet that the 5% margin of victory for BC can be
explained as people who voted for this "cross your fingers" candidate
without *any* idea of what they were getting us into.

-- 
Vince Dugar                 | CIS: 71011,2657
Boulder, Colorado           | Opinions expressed are my own.
Vince_Dugar@stortek.com     | "Wise men still seek Him."
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: Rob Gordon <rgordon@convex.COM>
Subject: Co. Springs Town Hall Re:#2
Originator: rgordon@pixel.convex.com
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 18:28:48 GMT
Distribution: co.politics
Reply-To: rgordon@convex.COM (Rob Gordon)
Organization: CONVEX Colorado Springs, CO
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

For Co Springs and vicinity eyes only:

Citizens Project and EPOC are holding a town hall
meeting to discuss #2.

Time : 7pm
Place: Unitarian Church, corner of Tejon and Dale streets
       Co. Springs

I received a call about this from a Citizens Project volunteer.
It does not sound like there is a formal agenda but from what I 
can gather, the meeting will update folks on legal battle over #2.

If you would like more info try calling CP 719-685-9899


Newsgroups: co.politics
From: rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2: The First Fatality
Organization: eklektix - Boulder, Colorado
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 08:50:34 GMT

gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
...
>  It does not deny homosexuals equal rights. It denies the the ability of the
>  state to create quotas for gays, or give gays minority status, and it denies
>  gays the use of the legal system to correct alleged cases of discrimination.
>  It does not permit gay-bashing.

Gary, does your stupidity come naturally, or do you work at it?

"This does not permit X; it only denies any use of the legal system to
protect against X."

Substitute for X; see what you get.  If you substitute something silly like
"drooling", it comes out OK.  If you substitute "theft", it looks bad.
Where does it begin to matter?  It matters when the action is something
that one person can do to harm another.  The fact that there's no law
against drooling isn't a problem; we can cope with it.  If there weren't a
law against theft, it would (probably!) be a serious problem.  So, it comes
down to whether you think denying people housing and/or jobs is a "problem"
worthy of our concern.

Maybe, if you like big government, it's OK.  If you want people to be
denied jobs and end up on welfare, and in public housing, you can find
some perverse justification.
-- 
Dick Dunn    rcd@raven.eklektix.com   -or-   raven!rcd    Boulder, Colorado
	...Simpler is better.
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: quotas and amendment 2
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:01:52 GMT

p > Pablo

p > quota preferences: even if they had been asked for, which they hadn't,
    it's laughable to think they could be enforced (or that companies ins-
    tituting a voluntary quota system could make it work).  how do you fig-
    ure out how many of your current employees are gay?  ask them?  try to
    figure it out on your own?  

  If it's so hard to figure out if an employee is gay or not, then why are so
  many people worried that gays will be fired in great numbers now that #2 has
  passed? It's one or the other -- employers know who's gay, so they can be
  fired, or quotas for gays can be created; or employers don't know who's gay,
  so they can't be fired, and quotas for gays cannot be created.

p > so, if you want to stick to the issue on amendment two, discuss discrim-
    ination against people based solely on their sexuality (excuse me, homo-
    sexuality, not heterosexuality), and whether or not it should be legal.

  I happen to believe that a person ought to be allowed to discriminate using
  sexual orientation as their sole metric. Same with race, gender, age, phys-
  ical or mental handicap, Vietnam-era veteran status, height, weight, appear-
  ence, marital status, whatever.

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
From: jvilhube@diana.cair.du.edu (Jan Vilhuber)
Newsgroups: co.politics
Subject: Re: Amendment #2
Date: 8 Nov 92 19:21:00 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: University of Denver, Denver, Colorado

In article <1992Nov8.081050.29193@mercury.cair.du.edu> elesatz@diana.cair.du.edu (Eric LeSatz) writes:
>                                                       Under the U.S.
>Constitution, everyone is guaranteed equal rights. 

And that is exactly why amendment two is un-constitutional.
I as a heterosexual male now have MORE rights than my homosexual
counterpart.

>			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.
>
a) pure speculation on your part, Eric.
b) not the case. All gays want, is to be considered human beings just like
 you and me. Why is that so hard to understand.

And for the record, Eric: When's the last time you had a discussion about
this topic with a group of gays? You sound just like this homophobe
roommate I used to have.
(For the record: I've been discussing issues like this one with some 
gay friends of mine. I'm am not a homophobe. Live and let live)

-- 
 Jan Vilhuber            | Internet: jvilhube@du.edu or jvilhube@[130.253.1.4]
 (The skydivin' Bass)      | Bitnet  : jvilhube@DUCAIR
--------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: gerber@solbourne.com (Andrew Gerber)
Newsgroups: co.politics
Subject: Re: Amendment #2
Date: 9 Nov 1992 09:07:49 -0700
Organization: ParcPlace Boulder
Distribution: co
NNTP-Posting-Host: marvin-gw.solbourne.com

In article (whatever) (Gary Strand) writes:

>ag> Andrew Gerber
>ag> 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.
>
>  No, it doesn't. *All* it says is that individuals cannot use legal recourse
>  if they have been discriminated against (or believe that they have been dis-
>  criminated against) because of their homosexuality...

And then he later responds:

>
>ag> Who will the CFV target next?  Unmarried straight couples living together?
>    Jews?  Blacks?  
>
> No-one, for the time being, I suspect. Their agenda appears to be based sole-
> ly on homophobia, and I doubt they have the imagination to attack additional
> groups.

Get a clue. (I have a whole pile of them here, if you want one).

Regardless of the wording of #2; regardless of what it really does,
the agenda of CFV is anti-gay.  The response of the gay community,
and the gay-positive straight community, has to be one of outrage and
anger.  No matter what CFV may say, they represent the Fundamentalist
Right and would be very happy to see all the gay people in Colorado
die or leave the state.  You admit that CFV is motivated by
homophobia. Can't you then understand the reaction that Yes on 2
has generated? 

The wording of #2 is really a side issue.  It's the goals and purpose
of those who put #2 on the ballot which is of major concern.

[And in a later posting, Gary Strand makes the following response]

>tc> [B]ecause I happen to have a lot of pink dress shirts, I now have a legit-
>    imate fear of losing my job under amendment 2.
>
>  Why do work where you do, then? That's like a black working for the KKK. Is
>  being out of a job, no matter how great the pay (and lousy the conditions)
>  really that bad? It's not my fault you're a masochist.

Wake up! Very few people have the options to change jobs rapidly.
Schoolteachers with tenure.  Policemen with pensions.  Saying "get a
new job" is hopelessly naive, and shows just how out of touch you are
-- 
/-----------------------------------------------------------------/
/ Andy Gerber		     / gerber@solbourne.com [for a while] /
/ ParcPlace Boulder, formerly Solbourne Software Business Unit    /
/-----------------------------------------------------------------/ 
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: wilbanks@spot.Colorado.EDU (Wendell Gee)
Subject: The END of Colorado?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:57:53 GMT

I hate to be a nay-sayer, but Colorado has suceeded in knocking itself into
the dark ages with a mere four votes. It this the end?

If my out of state tuition rises by $2,000 dollars or more a semester, I'm
moving to Oregon or Washington. I can't afford to stay here when there will be 
no money for higher ed, becuase it will all be moved to fund primary and 
secondary education.

Last Californian out of Colorado, please turen out the lights.
-- 
Dylan Wilbanks, Classics major, AND NOW Environmental Conservation!
Hobbes:"Why do we always play war and not peace?"|Currently at:
Calvin:"Too few role models."                    |Box 1143
Ren-n-Stimpy in '92! Vote for a real cartoon!    |Boulder, CO 80306
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: woods@claven.ucar.edu (Greg Woods)
Subject: Re: Mo Clinton
Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR Boulder, CO
Distribution: co
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:14:56 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.191626.23299@stortek.com> v042517@stortek.com (Vince Dugar) writes:
>I'm willing to bet that the 5% margin of victory for BC can be
>explained as people who voted for this "cross your fingers" candidate
>without *any* idea of what they were getting us into.

I think a more likely explanation is that people were voting for
a candidate without any idea of what they were getting into, but as
a vote AGAINST George "Read My Lips, I'm a Liar" Bush (not that
Clinton isn't just as likely to break the  "no more taxes on the
middle class" promise as Georgie was...)

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. But what
the hell, we sure kicked Saddam Hussein's butt, didn't we? :-(

--Greg
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: pcr@alumni.cs.colorado.edu (Pablo)
Subject: Re: quotas and amendment 2
Organization: None of your damn Business.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 03:52:07 GMT

In article <it'sintheheader> gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>
>  I happen to believe that a person ought to be allowed to discriminate using
>  sexual orientation as their sole metric. Same with race, gender, age, phys-
>  ical or mental handicap, Vietnam-era veteran status, height, weight, appear-
>  ence, marital status, whatever.

wow.  the prosecution rests, and suggests to the
court that enough rope has been payed out to this
deponent already.  especially if he believes that
employers and landlords should be allowed the same
freedom of discrimination.  

the law of the land has been distancing itself from
such bigotry.  i predict that it will continue to
do so, a successful disinformation and hate campaign 
in colorado notwithstanding.

oh, and remember.  nothing's been repealed in boulder,
denver, and aspen, because nothing's changed in the
state constitution.  discrimination won't be legal
until january 4th, 1993.  if someone's been waiting
for #2 to pass so they can reveal their bigotry (not
that they were willing to in the polls, of course),
they'll just have to wait a little longer.

                                              paul crook
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn)
Subject: Bush league (was Re: Mo Clinton)
Organization: eklektix - Boulder, Colorado
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 08:43:53 GMT

v042517@stortek.com (Vince Dugar) writes:
>And let's honor the media (the most *powerful* political party) for
>it's incessant slant against G Bush and blatant love affair with Bill
>C.  It's a shame when so much of America voted the way they were told
>to think by the liberal media.

Right, let's not forget to blame the "liberal media" for the fact that the
Bushman couldn't even win against a weenie like Clinton.

The media were far kinder to Bush (and especially to Quayle) than any
rational person could explain.  Bush ran his entire campaign on attacks
against Clinton; his one dread was that his own actions would be examined.
When has any incumbent tried so desperately to avoid any scrutiny of his
performance (or, in Bush's case, lack of it) ... and when has the media
been so obliging???  The *only* thing that Bush showed anyone he believed
in, over the past four years, was that he wanted to be President and would
do or say anything, truth and reality not intervening in the slightest, to
become and remain President.

If the media hadn't coddled Bush and pussyfooted around, he wouldn't have
had *any* electoral votes.

They were too kind to Clinton.  They gave Bush an overdose of benign
neglect.  In spite of some posturing, they really sucked up to Perot (one
of the shadiest characters *ever* to try to buy an election).  And, as
usual, they ignored the minority candidates.
-- 
Dick Dunn    rcd@raven.eklektix.com   -or-   raven!rcd    Boulder, Colorado
	...Simpler is better.
Newsgroups: co.politics
From: rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn)
Subject: Re: Liberal President, but conservative amendment voting?
Organization: eklektix - Boulder, Colorado
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:16:46 GMT

(J. Scott Farrow - CU Computing Network Services) writes:
>Am I the only one confused by the seeming contradiction of Coloradoans voting
>for a Liberal President, yet voting down the more liberal amendments, and
>approving the conservative ones?

Random guess: The presidential vote may be just an expression of dis-
approval of Bush-league government.  (Perot got a lot of votes too.)  You
can probably find a lot of folks who voted for Clinton solely because of
concern over the Supreme Court.

>I'm glad I'm graduating in May. I hate to wonder what CU's tuition will 
>be like next year. Hell, they'll probably slap us with a mid-year raise
>out of fear for the future.

1.  Tuition will continue to increase.  The percentage of CU budget paid by
tuition will continue to increase.  These predictions should be about as
startling as a prediction of warm dry weather next August.

2.  Maybe someday CU will start thinking a little more about how the money
gets spent.  Maybe the frenzy of building on campus (edifice complex:-)--
which has been non-stop since CU got an enrollment limit a couple decades
ago--will eventually slow down.
-- 
Dick Dunn    rcd@raven.eklektix.com   -or-   raven!rcd    Boulder, Colorado
	...Simpler is better.
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Mo Clinton
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:07:59 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.110533.23685@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> weverka@spot.Colorado.EDU (Robert T. Weverka) writes:
>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 ? 

Actually, this is part of the Libertarian's platform: But they stipulate
selling the parks to people like the Sierra Club. It's arguable
that such groups would take better care of the parks than the government.
(You certainly wouldn't have leases given for oil drilling...)
I'm nto sure I agree on this point, but...

However, this is unrelated to my point: Selling off such government
property as beach-front military bases in southern California. As
far as the military is concerned, they need a beach, with certain
geographic properties. It doesn't have to be on a trillion dollars
of land. Selling it and relocating the Marines wouldn't cause any
real damage to the intended purpose, and would reduce the bedt.

                                                Frank Crary
                                                CU Boulder
From: birchall@pilot.njin.net (Shag)
Newsgroups: co.politics.amend2.discuss
Subject: Re: co.politics.amend2.discuss
Date: 11 Nov 92 20:14:28 GMT
Distribution: co
Organization: Screaming in Digital, the Queensryche Digest

glenn@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (GLENN ROBERT ALAN) writes:

>Does this newsgroup have national distribution?  According to the machine I
>post news from, this newsgroup has only statewide distribution.

>I totally agree.  Amendment 2 is a very serious issue, and has far-reaching
>ramifications as far as liberty and protection from discrimination go in
>this country.  

1) I'm receiving this newsgroup in New Jersey, so, probably.

2) The media here has reported that the Governor of Colorado, and Mayor of
   Denver are opposed to the amendment, and that one of the US Representatives
   from Colorado has promised to work for a federal lesbigay-rights law.

-Shag

-- 
Shag                    | Operator, ShagNET | Editor of "Screaming in Digital" 
birchall@pilot.njin.net |  Rutgers / NJIN   |  The Queensryche E-mail Digest 
birchall@njin.bitnet    | dialup access for | queensryche-owner@pilot.njin.net
shag@most.other.places  | Burlington County | Anything Queensryche, every week
Newsgroups: co.politics.amend2.discuss
From: blough@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Eric Blough)
Subject: Re: 8/16/92 NYT article: Oregon measure 9
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 18:25:26 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.154443.11900@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fowlerc@boulder.colorado.edu writes:

>Did it pass?  

No, Oregon measure 9 was defeated, I think by a 55% to 45% margin.

Eric
From: fowlerc@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (John C. Fowler)
Subject: Re: 8/16/92 NYT article: Oregon measure 9
Reply-To: fowlerc@boulder.colorado.edu
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 15:44:43 GMT

From co.politics.amend2.info:

In article <1992Nov12.102644.13016@colorado.edu> blough@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Eric Blough) writes:
>In November, voters in Oregon and Colorado will decide on citizen-initiated
>measures that would remove legal protection for homosexuals.  But Oregon's
>initiative is far more extreme.  It would require the state government to 
>actively discourage homosexuality, teaching that it is a moral offense
>similar to pedophilia, sadism and masochism.

Which leads to the obvious question:

Did it pass?

[Sorry, I don't get to hear the news that often...]

-- 
John C. Fowler, fowlerc@boulder.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: co.politics.amend2.discuss
From: gina@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (Gina Cherry)
Subject: Welcome to amend2.discuss
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 04:25:51 GMT

Welcome to the amend2-discuss@cs.colorado.edu mailing list...

This mailing list was set up for people who are interested in discussing
issues relevant to the passing of amendment 2 in Colorado.  If you are
only interested in information (vs. flame wars), subscribe to:

amend2-info@cs.colorado.edu

Complaints, comments, questions to:

amend2-mod@cs.colorado.edu

All mail that gets sent to amend2-discuss@cs.colorado.edu will also
be posted to co.politics.amend2.discuss.  We encourage you to use the
mailing list as opposed to the news group so that those of us who
don't have access to news can benefit from the discussion.

One main rule applies for now:  PLEASE THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU WRITE
AND WHO IT MIGHT OFFEND BEFORE YOU SEND IT!  BE COURTEOUS, PLEASE.
Newsgroups: co.politics.amend2.discuss