Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday 305,714
Thousands of abortion opponents marched from the National Mall to the Supreme Court on Tuesday in their annual remembrance of the court's Roe v. Wade decision. Full Story

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#243996 Jun 16, 2012
The post that started the "real life" stupidity by Foo and other PCers:

http://www.topix.net/forum/news/abortion/T833...
#243934

LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Psssssssst....STUPID......he's not claiming anything about what he knows of her life - he's stating facts that are based on reading her POSTS. His FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE of her posts are NOT hearsay.
But by your OWN "rationale" - YOU dont have direct knoweldge of her life either. In FACT, you have LESS than anyone here, some of us who actually DID know her OFF this forum and "IRL".
Thus, by your OWN "logic", YOUR comments aren't even hearsay, they're just pure bullshit.
IF you're NOT "Lynne D" that is.
And since you ARE, and we've ALL read your crap over the years, we KNOW you're full of shit.

"he's not claiming anything about what he knows of her life - he's stating facts that are based on reading her POSTS. His FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE of her posts are NOT hearsay."

Lil Lily: "Hey bonehead, it certainly is hearsay unless and until he provides the posts which would prove what he's actually stating facts. Otherwise, it's just his word about what SHE allegedly posted about HER life.

Foo: "In FACT, you have LESS than anyone here, some of us who actually DID know her OFF this forum and "IRL"."

You mean "real life" like [online] in e-mails. That "real life?" LOL That's not "real life" pea brain. That's still cyberspace.

In order for you to stop looking so stupid, you would need to stop posting on matters, words, topics you don't know anything about, and stop posting lies."

http://www.topix.net/forum/news/abortion/T833...
#243948

Foo replies:
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
"Well lets see. I know where you live, I have pictures of your home, you, your grandkid, your family. I know when you moved, I know about your history with the abusive pedophile as you told ME about it outside the forum (because you wanted to "clarify" your comments here), I know what your husband (former?) does (did) for a living and what you claim to have done. I know a great deal you wish I didn't about your life until early 2008 Lynne. I'd say that's as "real life" as it gets..."

Lil Lily: "lol. Again, all you would "know" is what that person shared via cyberspace, and what you're presenting is "hearsay", because you have no way to verify that what was sent to you wasn't photos of some other people the person knew, that they were claiming was them and their own family, or that what was written was the truth.

You wouldn't know because you don't "know" them "in real life". You haven't met them face to face or had anything to do with them, their family their lives in person, which is what reasonable people consider "real life", bonehead.

Epic fail."


(cont.)

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#243997 Jun 16, 2012
Cont.)

That was making the point that as much as Foo wants to claim anyone here would know people they've never met "in person" in "real life", NO ONE can possibly prove that what they're being shown or told (via cyberspace) is the truth. For all anyone knows who has NOT met Foo in person, she could be a MAN. Fat slobbering man who sits at her computer bitching about others because she's a miserable fat slob. Can anyone who's never met her in person prove she is? No. Can we prove she isn't? No.


Can anyone prove that what's sent in e-mails to us from people we have never met is a person's real name, real photos, real info about themselves? No. The person would have to be seen as "credible" to believe what they're sending and saying. Based on the fact that Foo is so sure that what was sent to her is real, she's admitting she believes Lynne to be [credible]. Speaks volumes and Foo doesn't even realize that much. lol

But, that has nothing to do with "real life". Anyone who hasn't met Foo in person doesn't really know Foo in "real life", and she doesn't know anyone she hasn't met face to face either. Whatever people post here could ALL be lies. Based on the lack of credibility proven of the PCers who chronically lie, the chances are good they're lying their asses off about themselves and their real lives, and we can't prove they're not. We can just choose not to believe it based on their lack of ability to be truthful when being confronted on the lies they post.

Which is exactly why CD posting some alleged medical chart of his, and stating he bikes 28 miles a day, it's not something he can prove, and not something anyone with any integrity in discussion would believe he's being truthful about. Based on the fact that he can't back any claims he posts when the proof of his claims would be right in the thread, he has no credibility with people who do have integrity in discussion.

Same holds true for the PLers who have consistently posted the truth and proved they were posting the truth. PCers can't back their claims of what PLers post. PLer back their claims of what PCers post. Very easy to see who's credible and who isn't.

Even if anyone here showed photos of someone they got in e-mails and made a claim of who the person supposedly would be, it still wouldn't be proof that it's the actual person, because they have never met the person face to face. For all they would know, it's someone's sister, or cousin, or best friend, or photos they took from google etc.

Point is, the one who receives that sort of thing via cyberspace has no way of knowing or proving that is or isn't the person they claim it is. Which is why Foo saying she knows someone "in real life", whom she has never met face to face or spent time with "in real life" is ridiculous. Making threats about exposing photos of someone also isn't proof of anything, except that the one making the threats is desperate to try to prove something she can't possibly prove to anyone who has never met the person she speaks of. As well as proving she's desperate to shut me up here, and using threats about someone else to try to do that.

That's the point I was making. But, leave it to the PC drama squad to blow it all out of proportion and do what they do best; create a whole other story line of fiction from something so simple, truthful and is common sense that I said. Then, they use their fictional story line to cast outlandish false accusations about someone that has nothing to do with what was said or pointed out. Ridiculous behavior from ridiculous people.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#243998 Jun 16, 2012
That all started because FACT: CD made a claim about what was supposedly posted by someone here in the threads, and he was unable to back his claim with the person's actual words. It's only "hearsay" from CD.

Foo jumped and tried to prove that what CD said wasn't hearsay, and the fool then claimed something about "real life" when it is only cyberspace, and off she went on her ridiculous tangent about "real life", thern making threats about exposing someone's info or pics. lol

Why? All because CD claimed something about a PL poster that he could not back with proof, and I challenged him to prove his claim.

That's how FOO and other PC boneheads turn something that's perfectly rational into something mind bogglingly irrational. No matter what I posted, the girl got more and more irritated and irrational. She's a mess.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#243999 Jun 16, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>My mother had a cousin in Greece with whom I corresponded as a girl. We became pen pals. We exchanged photos. I drew him pictures. He sent me photos of Athens and the islands, and an album of Greek music. We never met; he died before we had an opportunity to meet. Was he not real to me and I to him?
Of course he was real to you. He was your mother's cousin. lol. Obviously you people can't grasp anything simplistic, so you certainly wouldn't grasp anything complex either.

What I spoke of had nothing at all to do with anyone people in our real lives would know. It had to do with STRANGERS who don't know a person in real life and only know them through cyberspace.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#244000 Jun 16, 2012
Foo saying "YOU dont have direct knoweldge of her life either. In FACT, you have LESS than anyone here, some of us who actually DID know her OFF this forum and "IRL"" is ridiculous. "Off this forum" and just in e-mail is still cyberspace. It's not knowing someone in "real life". lol My prior posts explain why that is, for simpletons who couldn't figure it out on their own and who like to create dramatic bullshit claims and accusations out of nothing.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#244001 Jun 16, 2012
Proof of what I'm saying; predators who pretend to be 14 year olds wanting to hook-up with 14 yr olds. They "get to know" each other via cyberspace and after awhile they meet up, only to have the girl be a victim of a child rapist.

What's that new program that features these guys getting caught? Neither really "knew each other" in real life, even if they coresponded for years through chat or e-mail.

I would think adults would realize this is the truth and not argue with me about it. But leave it to irrational pea brains like Foo to do just that.

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#244002 Jun 16, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course he was real to you. He was your mother's cousin. lol. Obviously you people can't grasp anything simplistic, so you certainly wouldn't grasp anything complex either.
What I spoke of had nothing at all to do with anyone people in our real lives would know. It had to do with STRANGERS don't know a person in real life and only know them through cyberspace.
We had a couple of posts there which actually pertained to abortion. So much for you being
here only to stand up for the little unborn children, eh?
Jose

United States

#244003 Jun 16, 2012
Cuidado wrote:
<quoted text> You don't appear to mature or stable to be raising children. Your fear is apparent. I'm convinced after viewing your comments,that you're not equip to even care for yourself. Being a professional doesn't mean that you are emotional stable. Just sayin
Great. An ESL dropout thinks they are qualified to tell people whether they should raise kids or not.

Madre de dios!

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#244004 Jun 16, 2012
Her dirty laundry is directly responsible for the hole in the ozone layer.
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, so that's what that climate change thingy is all about, eh?

“mama & baby”

Since: Oct 10

Pro Choice is Pro Life!

#244005 Jun 16, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>What? lol. You never "said" born? Maybe not right out, but what else would, "surviving without medical assistance" which is your claim, mean, you pea brain?
Thanks for admitting you LIED about my position!! Why'd you do that, Lynne? You've made that same claim a few times before and I explained it to you each time YET you keep right on lying you pathetic POS.

You are an ADMITTED LIAR. AGAIN.

Gawd your stupid. Are you claiming that viability only happens at the moment of birth? I guess you really are that ignorant.

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#244006 Jun 16, 2012
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
And exercise you don't even have to get out of bed to do...how can you beat that!
It burnd calories and is fun at the same time.. A total work out :)

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#244007 Jun 16, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
The EPA has forbidden it.
<quoted text>
As they would have had to close down Topix and declare it a superfund site :->

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#244008 Jun 16, 2012
Kathwynn wrote:
<quoted text>
It burnd calories and is fun at the same time.. A total work out :)
Those fundies don't know what they're missing!

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#244009 Jun 16, 2012
Brilliant_Chicky wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not my claim, liar. That's what you made up, because your an idiot skank.
Viability means able to live normally. Period. That's a FACT.
That's not a fact. Viability is about [potential] to survive outside of the womb, with or without medical assistance. Doc and I have schooled you on that so often, with the proof, that if you still haven't understood, you have no intelligence at all.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#244010 Jun 16, 2012
Brilliant_Chicky wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said born. I wonder why she keeps lying about that? Oh I know. We proved SHE'S WRONG.
You only proved you're idiots who have no intelligence.

Chicky: "I never said born."

Brilliant_Chicky wrote:
<quoted text>
~"That viability means able to [live without assistance]. That [preemies born] at the threshold of viability are given assistance to [reach viability] where no assistance is needed. A full term healthy newborn is born viable."~

I see the word "born" there.
Brilliant_Chicky wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for admitting you LIED about my position!! Why'd you do that,...? You've made that same claim a few times before and I explained it to you each time YET you keep right on lying you pathetic POS.
You are an ADMITTED LIAR. AGAIN.
Gawd your stupid. Are you claiming that viability only happens at the moment of birth? I guess you really are that ignorant.
I didn't lie about your position. Your position has always been that "viability" is about born and surviving [without] medical assistance. What kind of stupidity are you trying to pull now? lol.

Here comes the little twists and turns trying to baffle with bullshit and lie about what's said, Chicky, "Are you claiming that viability only happens at the moment of birth? "

No, I'm not claiming that at all. Never claimed it, never will claim it since viability is about a FETUS before birth, and about its [potential] to survive once born, with or without medical aid.

YOU are the one who claimed viability is "able to [live without assistance]. That [preemies born] at the threshold of viability are given assistance to [reach viability] where no assistance is needed."

You were wrong then and still wrong now, and no, I haven't lied about your position at all.

Epic fail.

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#244011 Jun 16, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>We had a couple of posts there which actually pertained to abortion. So much for you being
here only to stand up for the little unborn children, eh?
She is here the narcissism.. Other wise known as the Lynne D Denial Hour. It run in day long marathons..

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#244012 Jun 16, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
Her dirty laundry is directly responsible for the hole in the ozone layer.
<quoted text>
And I hear tell it has caused glaciers to melt and might even be responsible for the coming zombie apocalypse..

Ok so maybe not melting glaciers...

“...sigh”

Since: Nov 09

Smithtown, NY

#244013 Jun 16, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>200 miles on a bicycle in 7 days isn't that time consuming. Do you go to the gym or exercise in some way?
Her 300 lb., smoking, drinking hubby goes. Constantly. At least, that's where he SAYS he's going.

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#244014 Jun 16, 2012
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
Those fundies don't know what they're missing!
You are right.. You have to get sweaty with that full body work out. You can not burn off those calories by feeling of guilty.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#244015 Jun 16, 2012
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not difficult to do. I don't believe even YOU understand what you're talking about.
<quoted text>
Surviving AND developing...which I clearly stated...more than once.
You can't cherry pick one instance where I may not have included "developing" and then try to claim the only criteria is survival.
So by my criteria thay are NOT viable as they do not have the ability to survive and further develop independent of the mother's womb.
<quoted text>
Yes they would be as they'd have the ability to survive and further develop INDEPENDENT of the mother's womb.
<quoted text>
I've never dodged any one of your ridiculous points. Make a point. Ask a direct question. I'll answer it.
<quoted text>
No they're not. Not now anyway.
<quoted text>
As well he should, if that artificial womb technology did not exist.
<quoted text>
No it wouldn't. It only would if the technology existed that would enable that fetus to survive and further develop outside the mother's womb.
<quoted text>
No it wouldn't. Not if that technology did not exist.
Are you going somewhere with this ?
<quoted text>
The point you said was my " assertion that what is not viable inside the woman's womb is viable outside."
I never made any such assertion. NEVER.
I challenge you to point out where I did. If you do I tell ya what I'll do...even though I've already answered it...I will answer your "state sanctioned illegal abortion" question again.
You can't pass that one up, eh ? Ya dope ya.
STO wrote: "If that womb were artificial, wouldn't the frozen embryo meet your criteria for "viable"? Of course it would. No different than 10 weeks gestation you already agreed met your criteria, if the technology existed."

Doc's reply: "Yes they would be as they'd have the ability to survive and further develop INDEPENDENT of the mother's womb."

Thanks for finally conceding the point. Took long enough.

You say an embryo can fall under the definition of viability, given the hypothetical (artificial womb).

My very simple point that you have yet to grasp is you have narrowed the criteria for viabiliy to a definition that has no basis in the reality of physiology.

An embryo if located in a woman't womb is not viable, nor is it viable in an artificial womb. The reason it would be in the artificial womb is to give it the environment where it can reach viability. If it were truly viable, that environment would be unnecessary. That's been my point all along. But you go ahead and stick to your definition and the preposterous postition it puts you in.

Embryos are viable, he says..but only if they develop outside of a female. Talk about absurd.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Entertainment Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Catholic Charities refuses to place children wi... (Jun '11) 4 min nOdiOs 826
Michael Jackson Talks Perfection, God in Odd 'B... 7 min goodvibrations 3
Abby Lee Miller of 'Dance Moms' will visit York... 21 min amw 7
A poisoned imagination? 33 min OnlyPatchWork 12
Is it morally wrong to view leaked nude celebri... 44 min Athenesword 307
We are not alone in the universe, Canadians bel... (Jul '12) 46 min Illegal Aliens 87
What's your favorite movie of 2014? 1 hr Little Red Feathe... 299
•••
•••

Entertainment People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••