HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Acknowledge-To: <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:14:50 GMT
From:         james p mcbride <BRIDEC92@IRLEARN.UCD.IE>
Subject:      RE: 'President Clinton'

On Thu, 5 Nov 1992 13:00:59 EST jcs said:
>

[mature discussion of Clinton's election omitted B-)]

>now, i would like to know more about this "liberal dumb ass name"
>of James. While i know several James's, some of them liberal,
>some of them dumb and most of them asses, i would hardly say
>that the name connotes (denotes?) 'liberal dumb ass'ness...
>
>anyone want to speak up on this? Jamie? Jimbo? james?

Well, judging by the after-effects of a chilli the other day, my
ass is anything BUT dumb at times.  As for the liberal charge, I admit,
mea culpa, whatever.  I do hold left of centre views, and I'm rather
proud of it.  Always have been, always will be.  Don't know if it's
anything to do with the name, you'd have to talk to my dad, Vladimir
Illych Mc Bride, or my uncle Fidel.   B-)

>
>jcs "i had a dog named james, and he was dumb, but he was very
>      conservative.  He was  a toy poodle and had a tiny little
>     brain, so he was a republican"


jAMES
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:57:50 -0500
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Pat Buchanan and ACT-UP/RI

>From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET

>>Legally speaking, the separation of church and state (OK, Robert,
>>for you it is "The Congress shall pass no law .........")
>>only applies to the state and not to the church.  That is, the state
>>cannot interfere with the church but the church can interfere with
>>the state as much as it wants.
>
>I'm pretty sure KAT is right on this.  If I remember right, tax exemption has
>been upheld by the Supreme Court under the first amendment and the
>not-for-profit argument didn't have anything to do with it.  Of course, I'll
>defer this one to the Jamie, logic-and-legal czar, since I have no idea what
>the name of the case was.

The only case I know of having to do with church tax exemption is
Walz v. Tax Commission, 1970.

The case was a challenge to a property tax exemption granted (in New
York State) for property with solely religious uses. The challenge
alleged that providing such an exemption led NY on the road to the
establishment of a religion. The Court disagreed, basically saying that
(a) the purpose of the exemption was not an "establishment" purpose, and
(b) the effect of the exemption would not lead to too much entanglement
of the State with the church.
(The Court uses the word "entanglement" a lot in Religion cases.)

The general principle was used later in other cases, I think.

I do not believe that the first amendment actually prohibits
the taxation of churches. In fact, I always thought that churches
were tax exempt for exactly the same reason that many other
charitable organizations are. But Rick George has hinted that
this is not exactly right, so I look forward to seeing what
he says tomorrow.

Jamie

p.s. Julie is pretty much right, but not exactly, about which kinds
of non-profits are tax exempt. An organization can be "political"
and still get non-profit tax exempt status. It can't LOBBY, though.
Amnesty International is tax exempt, though its work is OBVIOUSLY
political. Contribute today! Get a deduction for 1992!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:26:22 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: World View of America
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>Julie:
>South Africa is not Iraq or Cuba and comparing it to them is spurious
>at best.

	I wasn't comparing them to SA.  I was using them as evidence that
economic sanctions are ineffective, even when you can get a large number of
nations (Cuba) and almost the entire world (Iraq) to sign up for them.

> Maybe if economic sanctions are ineffective, you can explain
>to me why it is illegal in South Africa to advocate divestment. By
>South African law, it is illegal to make any statement advocating
>divestment.  Bush Tutu has been made a permanent exile from South
>Africa because of this law (Lousy editor-- that should have been
>"Bishop Tutu" hmm... :-)), as have many other individuals.  So tell
>me why the South African government would spend its time and energy
>jailing and arresting people who advocate divestment if it has no
>real impact.

	Does SA need a reason to outlaw anything?  Totalitarian regimes will
outlaw anything that they see as a threat, or an impedement to their rule.
Nazi Germany outlawed abortion, but I wouldn't use that to try and prove that
outlawing abortion is good/necessary/legal.

	IMO, the only real issue over the sanctions is would they be
cost-effective (providing benefit to the minorities in SA without causing undue
economic harm).

	I see no reason to cut off the noses of minority South Africans to
prove how politically correct we are.

Brett'
From: erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: "President Clinton"
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:08:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

550? Really Jonathon? WOW! 550 out of literally thousands of economists.
That sure is something to be proud of!! I can't help but wonder if you'll be
quoting that stat in '96 when the poor become poorer and the middle class
become the working poor. I can't help but wonder if you'll recite that stat when
welfare goes thru the roof, when intrest rates shoot thru the roof and when
inflation reaches an all-time high. Will I hear you tell me about these
brilliant economists when unemployment reaches a level about 10% and when
thousands lose their jobs due to the Clinton economic "plan"? Will I once
again hear that magical 550 number when our national debt climbs at a higher
rate than before? Oh no Jon! You'll not cling to those stats when these times
come. You'll be saying how you didn't vote for Clinton or how you would rather
someone else won the election. You'll not be quoting your marvelous stats.
Economists are not foolproof, take what they say with a grain of salt. If you'd
like me to further discuss the fallacies of Clinton's economic plan, I'df be
more than happy to.
--Steve
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 11:33:24 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: The Catholic Church & Politics

>Now your turn to tell me how Planned Parenthood has been involved in Politics
>except through being the target for anti-abortionists wrath.

I didn't hear as bogus arguments about abortion at the PP fundraiser I
attended earlier this week, but they sure think that PP is involved in
politics other than the fetus fracus.

Challenging someone support certain claims is counter-productive.  For
one, there's no obligation to respond to challenges, let alone on the
challenger's terms.  People who don't understand that "need a life".

For two, there's no upside to making such a challenge.  If the
challenged responds competently, the challenger looks dumb.  If the
challenged is generally incompetent or ignores it, a failure means
nothing.

-andy



--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Organization: Marshall University
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: _IN%"POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 09:32:00 -0400
From:         "Michael J. McCarthy" <YEA003@MARSHALL.MU.WVNET.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Flag Burning

Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:56:29 GMT
From: "(JASON STEVEN EUCULANO)" <jse2@NS1.CC.LEHIGH.EDU>
>
>P.S.  Anyone watch the movie "Red Dawn?"  Tell me it didn't make you think at
>least a little bit...........

        I deleted the other message, but so far we know that Jason forms his
political beliefs on Tom Clancy's _Cardinal in the Kremlin_ and _Red Dawn_.  I
think these statements contain their own response.

-------------
Mike McCarthy                   "An hungry historian spent a hour and an half
Marshall Univ. History Dept.    hasking an hundred friends habout indefinate
Huntington, WV 25755, USA       harticles.  An history of the event made 'er
YEA003@Marshall.WVNET.Edu       an happy camper."
YEA003@MARSHALL.BITNET                  -- Jamie Drier, An Philosopher
From: jse2@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JASON STEVEN EUCULANO)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: lets see a show of hands...
Date: 7 Nov 92 18:34:09 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <POLITICS%92110608112264@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>, GE777009@BROWNV
M.BITNET (jcs) writes:
>anyone who thinks that "Jayce" and "steve" are the same
>person, wave your hand so i can count you.
>
>jcs
>
My hand is waving with a certain finger protracted from the others...Hmmm...
Do you know what I mean????
                                            Jayce

                                            
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU"
X-VMS-Cc: JULIE
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:56:00 EST
From:         Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Just when you thought it couldn't get any weirder...
Comments: To: POLITICS%OHSTVMA.BITNET@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

Lee:

Why don't you think Reagan would "secretly turn his back on the Republican
party in the privacy of the voting booth?"  You say that is "not his style."
What _is_ his style?

--Julie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 15:09:58 CST
From:         erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Subject:      Re: "President Clinton"
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

See my other reply. Also, my jokes are NOT sexist. Get a grip!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 13 Nov 1992 10:07:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Deleted Emails

>>Say the trains are 300mi apart and they travel at 50 mi/hour.  Say
>>the fly travels at 100 mi/hr.  It takes 3 hours for the trains to
>>collide during which the fly is travelling at 100 mi/hr.  That
>>gives us 300 mile traveling distance for the fly.  See, it didn't
>>take von-KAT or an infinite series to solve this problem.

ummm, just wondering.....where's the fly when the trains collide?
does he get squished?
this is upsetting to me, i shoo flies out rather than swat them.

>But I still like my "never" answer best :)

me too. i didn't have to worry about the fly with your answer.

-linda (its friday its friday its friday-countdown begins at noon)

>Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sun, 8 Nov 1992 11:31:00 EST
From:         PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Pat Buchannan and ACT-UP/RI
Comments: To: politics@ohstvma.bitnet

X-News: drew bit.listserv.politics:30589

>From: Song Weaver <JULIE@DRYCAS.CLUB.CC.CMU.EDU>
>Subject:RE: Pat Buchannan and ACT-UP/RI
>Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 23:59:00 EST
>Message-ID:<tfilt380300@drew.edu>

>Paul:
>
>I don't care what Catholics practice or preach on their own.  However,
>the Catholic Church is active on a POLITICAL front in opposing gay
>rights as a LEGAL issue.  They are active in helping to activate
>legislation which affects ME, not just Catholics, and that is why
>I am opposed to many efforts of the Catholic Church in regards to
>issues about AIDS and Sexuality in general.
>
>--Julie

Julie:

The Catholic Church is not as active as you would believe.  In Oregon,
why don't you see where the Catholic Church stood of the homosexual
initiative, you would be shocked.  Catholics do not hold power in this
country as an institution.  The Christian Coalition is not a Catholic
Organization (although some members are Catholic).  I have not seen
one instance when the Catholic Church has effected policy.  Both Susan
Molinari and Mario Cuomo are Catholics, and the Church is vehemently
against their pro-choice stance, but it has not caused them to change.
Furthermore, I see a huge anti-Catholic sentiment out there in the
country, and I have liberal friends of mine who agree, and ACT-up sees
the Church as an easy target.  The only activity the Church does is
peaceful marches preaching pro-life.  The Catholic Church is not
affiliated with Operation Rescue.  In general, the Catholic Church is
not as politically active as several people believe.  Tell me a piece
of Catholic legistaion?

-Paul
Catholic and Proud
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 22:19:40 -0400
From:         MIKE <8612775@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMASTER.CA>
Subject:      Re: 1996

sorry just trying a new terminal.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 11:54:32 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: Re: my life with the thrill kill cult

>>3.  northern ireland.  this one baffles me even more, 'cause they aren't
>>    fighting about christianity so much as denominationalism.
>
>It's not really about denominationalism either, although the
>denominational labels are generally used. It's about the
>constitutional status of Northern Ireland - whether it should be part
>of the Republic of Ireland or the Uhited Kingdom.

A FOAF who had "ran guns" to some of the parties involved claims that
the IRA isn't interested in reuniting Ireland.  He also says that the
Irish aren't all that supportive of the IRA; that if they had to
choose between permanent partition and reuniting Ireland by means of
IRA action, they'd go with partition.  (In other words, said Irish did
want to reunite Ireland, but only by certain means.)  Since the IRA
did have some role in Irish independence, that suggests that they
think that the IRA has changed.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
From: 8612775@SSCVAX.CIS.MCMASTER.CA (MIKE)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: Calooh! Callay!
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:35:01 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Martin
>If you thought that quayle "sucked", wait until Clinton and Gore start
f**king up big time.

What can I say essentially you are right but it gets lost in the translation
There's no need for that language and it doesn't look well upon you or the
rest of us conservatives on the list. So please refrain.
   Thanks
      ----mike....
From: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Re: Oliver North for Senate
Date: 11 Nov 92 00:27:00 GMT
Reply-To: acm@Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: grendal.corp.sun.com

In article <01GQZP18CNZC002YVN@drew.drew.edu>,         PSICILIA@DREW.BITNET writes:
 >>From: "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@VAX1.UMKC.EDU>
 >>What a travesty! An admitted criminal (I don't care if he beat the charge) AND
 >>a sanctimonious twit to boot elected to the Senate? Charlie Robb sure isn't
 >>Mr. Nice Guy, but Ollie North OR Pat Buchanan to replace him really would
 >>further dishonor the Senate in the public's eye. VMS
 > 
 > Remember, he is an alledged criminal.

No, he is not an alleged criminal, he fully admitted to committing criminal
acts.  He was convicted and that conviction was then overturned.  But the
fundemental truth remains that Oliver North admitted under oath to having
committed criminal acts.  Becoming a criminal is a result of committing
criminal acts, not of being convicted.  Here we have someone who came out
in public and stated that he had committed acts that he knew were illegal
(shredding documents that might be used as evidence).

I do hope you are not suggesting that no criminal acts were committed because
no one was convicted?

						Andrew MacRae
						
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 09:57:32 -0500
From:         MARTIN FOX <FOXML@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: "President Clinton"

>Listen DICK, You talk about grammar and spelling, don't you know that proper
nouns (for example your dumb liberal ass name).  So shut up.
>                                        Jayce

THAT was entirely inappropriate, Jayce, and illustrates your total intolerance
and immaturity.  This list is not for flaming -- it's for the exchange of
ideas.  If you intend to make insults, do it on another list.  Although
some witty exchange is a welcome amusement, to call someone a "DICK" is
utterly unacceptable.  Telling someone to "shut up" is equally unacceptable
on this list.  If you want to spread your ideas, you must do so without
insults such as these.  Otherwise, you have no place on POLITICS.

-Martin
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 12:11:32 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      A Moronic Joke!

Say, we exiled our recent list morons, or as our list president
would say, village idiots, to a more appropriate list.  Say, we
exile them to USAloveitorleaveit-L, what would happen to the
average IQ of POLITICS and that list?

I'll post the answer in a few minutes.

--KAT (yet another interesting average problem)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 09:06:17 -0500
From:         STK1236@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU
Subject:      Re: Oliver North for Senate
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

What about Marion Barry and the woman involved in the welfare scam.  I can't
remember her name right now or where she is from.  I think it's Illinois

-Rich
From: YEA003@MARSHALL.MU.WVNET.EDU (Michael J. McCarthy)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: history staff, other stuff, val.
Date: 7 Nov 92 00:18:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Organization: Marshall University
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: _IN%"POLITICS@UCF1VM.BITNET"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:43:17 EST
From: Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>

>  (Although I do wish you would
>refer to the 1860's invasion by one of the names other than
>C.W. ;-)

        Please note that this fills our virtual president's allottment of
historical references to that event for the next calendar year.

Mike "Nobody is above the law" McCarthy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 13:54:39 EDT
From:         Evelyn Duncan <R3EJD@AKRONVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: "President Clinton"
              4 Nov 1992 12:49:10 CST from <erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU>

On Wed, 4 Nov 1992 12:49:10 CST <erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU> said:
>Gores daughters offer a better chance of getting a date...I heard the comment
>recently that the Clintons, unlike many of the recent past presidents, do not
>have a family dog. Another friend stated that perhaps Chelsea could fill
>that role...(laughter).

I really don't understand people like this:  people who make fun of another's
looks, intellect, ancestry, handicaps, etc.  Don't they realize that they
could be in that person's place?  After all, we never know what's going to
happen in the next minute:  the person who makes fun of another could be in
an explosion and have half of his face blown off.

Evelyn Duncan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 01:45:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject: Re: gays in military (Canada)

Mike:

        Didn't Question 9 go further than simply banning promotion?  Correct me

if I make a mistake - but didn't it kind of mandate that homosexuality be taught
as an abberant, "sick" lifestyle?  That's a long was from live and let live.

-T.


"A religious belief is a signpost pointing the way to the truth.  When you cling
 to the signpost you are prevented from moving toward the truth because you
 think you have it already."

                                -Anthony DeMello, _Taking Flight_
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 19:05:53 CST
From:         erteltsa@ALPHA.HENDRIX.EDU
Subject:      Re: "President Clinton"
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

I don't like sexism either. How you can call my joke sexist really
bewilders me! Did you not se my joke about Bill looking old? Why is it that
every time anyone makes a joke about a female they are stereotyped as
'sexist'? I find YOUR reply to be stereotypical of the feminist reply to
any negative remarks made about females: 'it's sexist.' Perhaps if I were
a female and made the same remarks then I would not be sexist. If this is true
then it is YOU who condone a sexist attitude.
No, I don't like sexism. I think it's aweful that songwriters, script writers,
and authors have discriminating attitudes. However it is just as bad for you
to point the finger at me and call me a male chauvenist pig when, in reality,
you know absolutely noting about me. For you to call me sexist reflects back
on your own prejudices. Please refrain from labeling me as a bigot until you
fully know and understand my motives and attitudes. Until that time, you have
no right to judge. Think about it

"All are equal, none are superier; everyone is less than they think of
themselves, all are better than some think of them."
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 10:10:47 -0400
From:         I can't drive 55 <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: "President Clinton"
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>Oh, I get it, you mean Gennifer!  I think she'll be allright after
>reaping in 6 figures for her lies in the Star and a million Plus for
>a repeat of those, plus a spread in Penthouse.

	What makes you think she lied?  After all, that is Bill Clinton on the
other end of the phone laughing as Gennifer says "...it's too bad I can't tell
them how good you are at eating pussy..."

	So Anita is a paragon of truth and Gennifer is a cheap hussy?  At least
Gennifer was smart enough to make tapes.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU