[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
On Thu, 23 Apr 1998 16:31:59 -0700 "Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
>"Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>
>They instead are throwing their support to the case that is presently
>before the Supreme Court, and are going before Co
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
On Thu, 23 Apr 1998 18:25:17 -0500 Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
>Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>
>
>William J. Foristal wrote:
>
>> Hi Jackie,
>>
>> Perhaps a better question than why NOW should support Jones is why
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
On Thu, 23 Apr 1998 19:51:01 -0400 (EDT) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>
>Hi Ron,
>
>>"Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>They instead are throwing their support to the case that is presently
>>before the Supreme
"Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Funny, that someone has to be a Clinton lover if they don't go along with
>this political crap.
>
>jackief
Just about as strange (better word than funny) that someone who has been
convinced by 6 years of lies and deceit, has to be a "Clinton hater" if
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Ron,
>"Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>They instead are throwing their support to the case that is presently
>before the Supreme Court, and are going before Congress, etc and
>lobbying for harder laws concerning this.
>Sue
>
>Good for NOW. This case, supp
"Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
They instead are throwing their support to the case that is presently
before the Supreme Court, and are going before Congress, etc and
lobbying for harder laws concerning this.
Sue
Good for NOW. This case, supported by NOW, could be potentially much mo
Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
William J. Foristal wrote:
> Hi Jackie,
>
> Perhaps a better question than why NOW should support Jones is why the
> right wing whacko's, who have never cared about women's rights in the
> past, and who have tried to defeat any legislation designed t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
On Thu, 23 Apr 1998 11:51:39 -0700 "Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
>"Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>Perhaps a better question than why NOW should support Jones is why the
>>right wing whacko's, who have never cared about w
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Bill:
Patricia Ireland asked the same question this morning. She wanted to
know why the Rutherford people never backed them in the 30 years that
they needed help, and now all of a sudden want NOW's help. IMO that is
a very good question.
She said
"Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Perhaps a better question than why NOW should support Jones is why the
>right wing whacko's, who have never cared about women's rights in the
>past, and who have tried to defeat any legislation designed to protect
>women's rights, are now so concerned ab
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes:
On Wed, 22 Apr 1998 17:23:47 -0500 Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
>Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>
>
>Ronald Helm wrote: Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>
>>
>> >Sue
>>
>> That is fine with Paula most likel
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ronald Helm wrote:
>
> "Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Why is NOW membership all radical feminists?
>
> You answered your own question..."Of course, I really don't know of any
> right wing feminist
> >groups--now that is an oxymoron if
"Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Why is NOW membership all radical feminists?
You answered your own question..."Of course, I really don't know of any
right wing feminist
>groups--now that is an oxymoron if I ever heard one."
Take a look at who NOW endorsed in the last election ( na
Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ronald Helm wrote: Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
> >Sue
>
> That is fine with Paula most likely. It would have been alot like the
> Democratic National Committee, supporting her. The radical feminist left
> would hardly want to see C
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Ron:
Whether I support her or not, I have to say that she has made it this
far without them. So why would she need them now.
Sue
> That is fine with Paula most likely. It would have been alot like the
> Democratic National Committee, supporting he
"Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
It was just announced on the noon news, CBS, that NOW is not going to
>back Paula Jones. Partricia Ireland said that they don't feel that her
>case should be held up as an example of sexual harassment in the work
>place. And they didn't like the idea o
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
It was just announced on the noon news, CBS, that NOW is not going to
back Paula Jones. Partricia Ireland said that they don't feel that her
case should be held up as an example of sexual harassment in the work
place. And they didn't like the idea of th
17 matches
Mail list logo
