Posted 1 year, 0 months ago in 
3 votes. Average 3.67/5
Loading ...
A recent letter says Mesa County is in the dark ages. That includes Delta County as well. We voted for McCain also.
I contend we were a minority of people who saw the “change” Obama represents as wrong for America and voted their minds. Perhaps if you lived where I did, New York state for over 50 years, you’d have recognized the “change” as politics gone bad.
As for Mr. Buescher, he was voted out for many reasons. One not often mentioned, he voted to allow men to access ladies’ public rest rooms if they dressed like women. He got what he deserved.
It’s time to come together as Americans, not be party minded and see to it the man elected does a good job for everybody and hold them accountable. Whatever happened to the line in our Constitution, “for the people, by the people”? God help us if he’s just another Democrat looking to expand the power of government.
GARY HERBY
Delta
5 Responses to “Not everyone is looking for Obama’s ‘change’”
Posted November 11th, 2008 at 7:17 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
That controversial vote is often mentioned where his voters actually live. Perhaps before you worry about men dressing up and atacking helpless girls, you should worry about the pedophiles who don’t dress up and atack the helpless boys
Posted November 11th, 2008 at 9:24 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“As for Mr. Buescher, he was voted out for many reasons. One not often mentioned, he voted to allow men to access ladies’ public rest rooms if they dressed like women. He got what he deserved.”
This is another clear example of the success of the Mesa County Republican party at disseminating lies. They are very good at it. The notion that SB 200 allowed anything remotely akin to the letter writers’ claim was, as I recall, disputed by the Republican Attorney General of this state. But the author apparently does not feel the need to listen to anyone but the Republican Party mouthpieces that are willing to mislead anyone about anything if it will help them win elections. Amendment 58 is another good case in point.
Posted November 11th, 2008 at 11:14 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
From SB 200
“Prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in
the following areas:…..Places of public accommodation”
“”SEXUAL ORIENTATION” MEANS A PERSON’S ORIENTATION TOWARD HETEROSEXUALITY, HOMOSEXUALITY, BISEXUALITY, OR TRANSGENDER STATUS OR ANOTHER PERSON’S PERCEPTION THEREOF.”
“24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation.
It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, RELIGION, sex, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written or printed communication, notice, or advertisement THAT indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual’s patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of disability, race, creed, color, RELIGION, sex, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.”
To begin with, how could anyone support a bill that contains such a run-on sentence? That being said,
1. Sexual orientation is defined as whatever you perceive it to be.
2. Public accommodations are included in the provisions.
3. That includes facilities.
dc may think that this is a lie, but I see a bill that is a lawyer’s dream. It is so vague that judges will have the ability to interpret the law in whatever way they want. The case law involving this legislation will eventually determine who is right and who is wrong. If Bernie did not intend to make women’s facilities open to cross-dressing men, he would have been wise to include some additional clarifying language regarding that point.
Posted November 12th, 2008 at 9:20 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bernie’s loss was by the narrowest of margins in an election where all other Democratic candidates were trounced. That is a clear indication that many Republicans voted for him. He didn’t lose this election because of the bathroom issue. He lost it because he lost the vote of the business community. And that’s too bad.
Posted November 12th, 2008 at 9:31 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish,
You are correct, I think, about the election dynamics. My response was to the comment in the letter. Nothing posted by Sullivan justifies that comment. I will stick with the interpretation of the Attorney General.
I have heard Ms. Bradford speak on several occasions and I am not impressed with her knowledge or experience. I only hope she will rise to the challenges of the office and not be an embarrassment to the western slope. It would also be helpful if she will think for herself and not just be Penrys’ toad.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.