Re: Need a "warning" graphic of some kind for CDA

At 11:26 AM 2/10/96 -0600, Sten Drescher wrote:
>
>	Then why didn't the Prez announce that he was ordering the
>Justice Department to not defend the CDA provisions, like he did the
>AIDS expulsion provision in the military spending bill?

   Because it's an election year and, IMO, the topics he discussed in his
State of the Union address gave a clear message that he was going to sign
this bill.


*******************************************************
Lynne L. Harrison, Esq.   |     "The key to life:
Poughkeepsie, New York    |      - Get up;
E-mail:                   |      - Survive;
lharrison@mhv.net         |      - Go to bed."
*******************************************************

"Lynne L. Harrison" <lharrison@mhv.net> said:

LLH> At 11:26 AM 2/10/96 -0600, Sten Drescher wrote:
>>  Then why didn't the Prez announce that he was ordering the Justice
>> Department to not defend the CDA provisions, like he did the AIDS
>> expulsion provision in the military spending bill?

LLH>    Because it's an election year and, IMO, the topics he
LLH> discussed in his State of the Union address gave a clear message
LLH> that he was going to sign this bill.

	He signed the military spending bill, too.  And, unfortunately
(because of the bigotry it reflects), being painted as protecting gays
isn't going to be much better than being painted as protecting
pornography.  My point is that Clinton _doesn't_ have the same "this
provision is unconstitutional" feeling about the CDA as he does about
the AIDS provision.

-- 
#include <disclaimer.h>                               /* Sten Drescher */
Unsolicited email advertisements will be proofread for a US$100/page fee.