From: sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Conservative?  Hahaha....
Date: 8 Jan 1993 17:57:36 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu

William Barwell says:

|> 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.

A lot of people noted just that, i.e. that the law explicitly outlawed
quotas. And someone else mentioned that putting a line in the bill that
says that all quotas must be eliminated would be about as effective in
preventing employers from resorting to them to avoid lawsuits as the
Kellogg-Briand pact was at "outlawing war" (which was its stated intent).

|>   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 
|> fact did just the opposite.  But it went over so well politically, Bush 

I can't claim to speak for Bush, who has very little to speak of by way of
political principles, but there is a case to be made that the
law might have forced a number of employers to resort to quotas to avoid
financially destructive lawsuits.
 
|> 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 
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I know that. What I said was that the fact that the Civil Rights movement
deteriorated into a mindless quota-game might have helped fuel fears in 
the minds of non-homophobic (and non-Libertarian) Coloradans that the Gay 
Rights movement would also wind up in exactly the same situation. This seemed 
to me to be a case of one of liberalism's excesses looping back and biting 
it where it least expected it.

|> 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.

And I repeat, the fact that the Civil Rights movement ran off its original
noble track and became a quota-game certainly didn't help convince people
that another movement with a seemingly innocuous aim would not also go the
same route.

|>   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.

Yup, maybe so. At least part of it had to do with the wording of the Amendment,
I think. It mentioned something about disallowing any protected status, claims
of discrimination AND quotas for homosexuals (that last thing must have been what 
turned a lot of people into "yea" voters). Maybe a simple Amendment that will 
outlaw any discrimination based simply on sexual preference will stand a better
chance of passage.

|> popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)

-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh