From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Keys to the election
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
	<ART.92Aug27122234@world.std.com> <l9q94fINNp3f@spim.mips.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 15:53:06 GMT

In article <l9q94fINNp3f@spim.mips.com> mpolen@suntory.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:

   Al Thompson) writes:
   |> Ankur Saha) writes:
[...]
   |> What's your point?  Are you saying her writings shouldn't be examined
   |> just because they were written in 1973?  Once something's on paper it's
   |> there forever and if you have new views it's up to you to disavow your
   |> older positions.
   |> 
   Actually, the point is that if you are going to examine her writings from
   1973, you should then not lie about them.  Both liberal and conservative
   attorneys and educators have agreed that her written opinions were badly
   misquoted and that the statements made about those writings do not in
   any way reflect the actual writings.

I have read the paper in question and the statements were not lies.  It
is true that there is a certain ambiguity, the passage in question is
badly written.  But, taken on the words themselves, a reasonable person
could conclude that that is exactly what she is saying.

   Hillary Clinton supported extending the right of judges to, in extreme
   circumstances, consider the legal rights of the child in cases where the
   judge felt the life and well being of the child was at stake.

Such a "right" of judges has long existed in this country.  For a long
time now judges, and unelected bureaucrats in social service agencies,
have acted in cases of abuse and neglect.

  She also 
   stated that the (then) current treatment of children as parental property
   were consistent with earlier treatement of indians on reservations and wives
   at a time when women were not allowed to work or vote.

   Some examples given as to cases where "rights of children to sue
   their parents" have been considered are  1) child abuse, 2) deprivation
   of medical treatment, and 3) refusal to allow the child to attend school.

Again, as I mentioned above such "rights" have existed for a long time.
The difference is that Hillary wants the child to be the one to be able
to initiate the action instead of those already empowered to do so.

   If the Republicans believe that this is radical anti-family feminism,
   please let us know.  We didn't know that your "family values" include
   uncontolled abuse of family members.

To oppose children dashing into court to sue their parents is in no way
to condone child abuse.  Again, another liberal example of "the big lie".

   |>    >The democrats made Hillary fair game when they went after Nancy Reagan
   |>    >for influencing her husband's personnel choices.  Remember the field day
   |>    >the liberals had when they found out she had an astrologer?  Sorry, they
   |>    >opened that can of worms and now they lie about it.
   |>    >
   If you don't lie about her statements, we enjoy having her record as
   part of the debate.  I am dying to hear you support the rights of child
   abusers.
   |> 

You sir are a bald faced liar.  At no time did I ever say, let alone
suggest that I support the "rights of child abusers".  Again, you are a
liar.   Are you running for the Josef Goebels award?

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42201 ca.politics:7097