Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

-Michelle- wrote:

<quoted text>
When Nana started posting on Topix, she spoke of her bi-racial grandchildren. I took what she said in the wrong way as I thought that *she* had an issue with having bi-racial grandchildren. I said something to the effect that perhaps it would be better that a woman chooses abortion as opposed to bringing bi-racial children into a family that has a racist mentality. Being that I have dealt with a lot of hardcore racism growing up(as my family was the only Mexican family in an all white neighborhood and I went to Catholic grammar school that had a few Latino children enrolled), I could not imagine having to deal with that kind of intolerance from your own family.

Thanks for the clarification, Michelle.

-Michelle- wrote:

Anyways, as Nana and I began to talk and get to know each other, I seriously misunderstood the point she was trying to make. She loves her grandbabies very much and has no issues with their racial background. She was speaking about how some folks in society, especially down South, view biracial children and the things they may experience due to their racial background. I do not recall her using any racial slurs when speaking of her grandbabies or using any racial slurs towards anyone else for that matter.

I don't believe she ever has. Of course, JM is free to prove me wrong by providing the posts (but she won't -- she's always failed at backing up her BS).

-Michelle- wrote:

Being that I have met Nana on here, have spoken to her on the phone and have met her in person,

Um...yeah....I seem to remember that. To this day, still LMAO!!!!!!!!!!

-Michelle- wrote:

I can honestly say that she is good people, she has a good heart and I'm proud to call her my friend.

As am I.

C Hamilton wrote:

<quoted text><snipped>
<quoted text>Um...yeah....I seem to remember that. To this day, still LMAO!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, that day shall forever live in infamy, LMAO!! ;o)

bluestreak prime wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't know who this Skanky individual is, I wasn't invited here by anyone having such a nick. Try again.

Why should I try again. The Skank admitted she invited you here to troll. In fact, YOU admitted you ONLY came here to start shit with LNM.

http://www.topix.com/forum/source/am-new-york...

Never said I wasn't interested, I just said that I was invited.

Actually, you've made it VERY clear you have no interest in the topic, and that you're ONLY here at the request of The Skank.

You pushed a few boundaries, I smelled some blood in the water, and acted accordingly.

So AGAIN I ask - for the FOURTH time now, what boundaries EXACTLY did I push that had you immediately go for the racist comments?

And how EXACTLY did ANYTHING I say make you think that anti-semetic comments would be "acting accordingly". Especially given that your bullshit about the SCOTTISH name "Irving" has NOTHING to do with anything Jewish?

Frankly, it speaks volumes that you IMMEDIATELY went somewhere so ignorant and racist, as you've apparently done before like a little 10 year old brat.

Interesting, because your pals Seven and Pluto seems to be very selective over which comments to highlight regardless of the party ultimately responsible.

So someone ELSE is "RESPONSIBLE" for YOUR ignorant, racist, bigoted comments?

Really??

Please, KEEP trying to justify your stupidity and overt racism. Its amusing to watch you dig your hole deeper.

-Michelle- wrote:

<quoted text>
When Nana started posting on Topix, she spoke of her bi-racial grandchildren. I took what she said in the wrong way as I thought that *she* had an issue with having bi-racial grandchildren. I said something to the effect that perhaps it would be better that a woman chooses abortion as opposed to bringing bi-racial children into a family that has a racist mentality. Being that I have dealt with a lot of hardcore racism growing up(as my family was the only Mexican family in an all white neighborhood and I went to Catholic grammar school that had a few Latino children enrolled), I could not imagine having to deal with that kind of intolerance from your own family.
Anyways, as Nana and I began to talk and get to know each other, I seriously misunderstood the point she was trying to make. She loves her grandbabies very much and has no issues with their racial background. She was speaking about how some folks in society, especially down South, view biracial children and the things they may experience due to their racial background. I do not recall her using any racial slurs when speaking of her grandbabies or using any racial slurs towards anyone else for that matter. Being that I have met Nana on here, have spoken to her on the phone and have met her in person, I can honestly say that she is good people, she has a good heart and I'm proud to call her my friend.

You speak for MANY of us here Michele - Nana is one of the best women I know, an amazing person and I too am proud to call her friend.

Its sad that the Skankdawg is SO out of touch with reality, that she feels a need to lie about someone that's not been here for well over a year now, espeically when MOST here know the truth of what happened.

lil Lily wrote:

<quoted text>
Exactly. They seem to think that just because someone they target doesn't see their posts, that it means they aren't stalking or harassing the person.

Since you ARE the person being discussed LYNNE, nobody's stalking or harassing you. YOU COME HERE, nobody has chased you down over the last seven years. You threatend to leave, you LIE about leaving, but you dont leave.

You come here and LIE incessently about pretty much everything, including who you are, you're too much of a coward to own your own history here, and you PATHETICALLY act as if you're NOT the same poster using a different name, when EVERYONE knows the truth.

You're called on your lies, you're outed about your complete cowardace, and nobody will allow you to talk down to others as if you're so much better than they are - with the history YOU have.

That's not "stalking", its POSTING on a public message board.

Dont like it? Then do what you've been threatening for years - leave. I guarantee you never have to hear ANY of this again.

But you wont. You THRIVE on the negative energy directed at you. You love it. You've proven that every time.

lil Lily wrote:

<quoted text>
You people really are mind bogglingly STUPID. lol. Too bad you boneheads can't read for comprehension and can't understand what anything means. Honestly, you fools are a laugh a minute.

Psssssst, Lynnie - its not us that's mind "boggingly" ((snicker)) stupid.

We read for comprehension just fine. That's always been YOUR downfall that we do.

lil Lily wrote:

<quoted text>
"When I direct my DIRECT comments to you, I dont preface them with racist or bigoted commentary."
How stupid are you, for real? lol

Given the discussion was ABOUT RACISM AND BIGOTRY, and YOU claimed that BB and that other idiot's comments were ONLY bigoted and racist as directed to ONE person - and you were WRONG, I'd say its YOU that's stupid Lynniekins.

I never said you prefaced it with those things. What I said was exactly what I meant. What someone directs to you is just to YOU.

Except it WASNT just to me Lynne you dumbass.

Same as what you direct to others is suppoisedly just to THEM.

No "THEM" Lynne. YOU. Singular. YOU, period, NOBODY ELSE.

Do you really delude yourslef into believing anyu racist or bigoted commentary is more nasty than the shit you say about a person who was abused?

When you make it abundantly clear that you INVITE the abuse? That you revel in it? Yes, I'd say its MUCH more nasty that bigoted and racest commentary, the kind that leads to the deaths of kids today, and has led to the deaths of MILLIONS over time in JUST this century.

You're a bigger narcissist than I thought if YOU think otherwise.

You're only fooling yourself, Toots. The sensible people here know that comments can not be directed to just one person, when it's about a topic that affects far more than just one.

How many people reading here think they were so mature at 15 that they could handle a relationship with a PEDOPHILE, who ended up in a MUTUALLY ABUSIVE relationship with that PEDOPHILE, and "murdered" (by YOUR fuckedup logic) at LEAST 2 "children", and did NOTHING to protect them? How many are STILL making excuses and playing victim about it over 30 years later, and acting like they're better than anyone else?

This isn't about the TOPIC of abuse, its about YOU and your lying hypocricy and cowardace.

I have at NO time EVER made ANY blanket comments about victims of abuse that were negative. Not once. ALL of my truthful comments are about YOU. Period.

You can TRY to make this about others, but rest assured, its ONLY about you. Just as you want it to be.

lil Lily wrote:

<quoted text>
lol She didn't throw anyone under the bus. It's you PC boneheads that don't understand anything you read. I knew exactly what she meant. Obviously you and the other pea brains didn't.

Actually, we understood just fine. And we dont have to twist it to make it "mean" anything other than exactly what was said.

LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:

<quoted text> Why should I try again. The Skank admitted she invited you here to troll. In fact, YOU admitted you ONLY came here to start shit with LNM.
http://www.topix.com/forum/source/am-new-york...
<quoted text>
Actually, you've made it VERY clear you have no interest in the topic, and that you're ONLY here at the request of The Skank.
<quoted text>
So AGAIN I ask - for the FOURTH time now, what boundaries EXACTLY did I push that had you immediately go for the racist comments?
And how EXACTLY did ANYTHING I say make you think that anti-semetic comments would be "acting accordingly". Especially given that your bullshit about the SCOTTISH name "Irving" has NOTHING to do with anything Jewish?
Frankly, it speaks volumes that you IMMEDIATELY went somewhere so ignorant and racist, as you've apparently done before like a little 10 year old brat.
<quoted text>
So someone ELSE is "RESPONSIBLE" for YOUR ignorant, racist, bigoted comments?
Really??
Please, KEEP trying to justify your stupidity and overt racism. Its amusing to watch you dig your hole deeper.

Once again, you have me at a disadvantage, as I know not who you are referring to, regarding some poster named Skank or Skanky or Skankgog, or whichever.

bluestreak prime wrote:

<quoted text>
Once again, you have me at a disadvantage, as I know not who you are referring to, regarding some poster named Skank or Skanky or Skankgog, or whichever.

I'd say you're obviously playing stupid, but I suspect you're not playing. Leaving of course only 'stupid'.

Clearly you DO know Skankdawg, since it invited you here, and both of you admitted it.

The Skank has been known by that nic here for years. Perhaps you should catch up.

bluestreak prime wrote:

<quoted text>
Once again, you have me at a disadvantage, as I know not who you are referring to, regarding some poster named Skank or Skanky or Skankgog, or whichever.

And isn't it intersting that once again you like to lay blame on others for YOUR racism, but can't seem to actually answer the question posed to you.

So AGAIN I ask - for the FIFTH time now, what boundaries EXACTLY did I push that had you immediately go for the racist comments?

Especially given your bullshit about the "Irving being a Jewish name" has been proven to be complete nonsense, given its SCOTTISH origins and all....

What 'boundaries' SPECIFICALLY did I "push" that had you leaping for the anti-semetic comments?

Not that I think its a huge leap for you - more like a hop, as you seem to favor racist and bigoted comments suitable for a 10 year old child who doesn't know any better, then claim "s/he started it first" like an even younger bratty child....

First of all, christ didn't say a word against gays or abortion. Secondly, he said a helluva lot about caring for the poor--which is what these women were focused on doing. Thirdly, I don't see anywhere that they actively supported SSM or choice. They just attended to people in need. How unchristlike of them! Where did they dis other nuns or priests?

pupsilicious wrote:

<quoted text> hey, ladida, do you realize these women are spiritually married to Christ? These women who are supposed to serve Christ, are doing the most evil, the most vile by supporting abortion and contraception, gay marriage under the impression they serve the poor and the rest of the nuns don't or priests mind you. these nuns are in schism because they go against Christ's teachings . Also if you do your research, the women who call themselves nuns, Brides of Christ , you know are very liberal and have no new novitiates while the more orthodox Orders do.

I think nuns in community property states should sue the church for half its income, since the money is supposed to be god's anyway. And then they should get trial separations so they can see other deities if they wish.

Long Night Moon 13 wrote:

<quoted text>
A fantasy marriage to a man who has been dead for over 2000 years? And their job as nun/widows to this long dead guy...is to serve him? That's what their service to their Christian religion means? How sad and pathetic.
BTW, you also go against "Christ's teachings" so who are you to point a finger at those nuns? They have the courage to break from the herd and follow their own minds and hearts. I say bravo for them!

"Jalapeno's cooter"... Now that's an image I won't soon forget, even with therapy.

Thanks...?

-Michelle- wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey La! How are you? How's the weather? It's hotter than a jalapeno's cooter here in Chicago! I was going to take the kids to see a ballgame but the heat is intolerable. Even the dogs don't want to go outside, lol.:o)

Oh yes, the great christian loophole, "Everyone fails to live up to Christ's teachings sometime in their lives..." That's an easy excuse to use when you just don't even try to do so. If you aren't following his most important commandments, then why do you demand others do so?

Jesus also said that his laws were for his followers only, so you should have no problem with non-christians aborting and being gay, right?

pupsilicious wrote:

<quoted text> Everyone fails to live up to Christ's teachings sometime in their lives, but Christ still loves us dearly, we are human and make mistakes all the time, the apostles did and had bad tempers. Another thing Christ is God. so following what God said about homosexuality etc still goes. Christ doesn't have to label anything, Remember what he said , whatever you do to the least of your brethren you do to Me. so.... aborting an unborn child is aborting Christ you should say. God knew you way before you were even conceived. God also knows when you are going to kick the bucket, the exact second. Why should Christ throw around modern terms when He lived? You know you uphold an extremely evil and vile act that God condemns, killing the least of your brethren, nothing could be more worse than that because you destroyed an Image of God.

cpeter1313 wrote:

I think nuns in community property states should sue the church for half its income, since the money is supposed to be god's anyway. And then they should get trial separations so they can see other deities if they wish.
<quoted text>

I think they should propose open marriage or, even, better, swinging. You knkw, put some spice into the marriage.

cpeter1313 wrote:

"Jalapeno's cooter"... Now that's an image I won't soon forget, even with therapy.
Thanks...?
<quoted text>

LMAO!! I usually say "hotter than a habanero's coochie", as a habanero is way more hotter than a jalapeno. However, most folks are more familiar with jalapenos then habanero's so I like to keep it simple. ;o)

LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:

<quoted text>I'd say you're obviously playing stupid, but I suspect you're not playing. Leaving of course only 'stupid'.
Clearly you DO know Skankdawg, since it invited you here, and both of you admitted it.
The Skank has been known by that nic here for years. Perhaps you should catch up.

Not playing stupid, nor am I a stupid person. I never said that anyone with the nick of Skankdog or any variation of that name invited me. Indeed, I never even revealed who invited me. I don't have dealings with anyone using the nick of Skank or any variation thereof. Perhaps if you used that person's actual nick, I might be able to adress your statements that much more efficiently.

cpeter1313 wrote:

First of all, christ didn't say a word against gays or abortion. Secondly, he said a helluva lot about caring for the poor--which is what these women were focused on doing. Thirdly, I don't see anywhere that they actively supported SSM or choice. They just attended to people in need. How unchristlike of them! Where did they dis other nuns or priests?
<quoted text>

On TV. Yes they do suport SSM, choice and women ordinations. And read the bible, you will find that Christ did mention how sinful killing is and how bad men laying with men and women laying with women is wrong.

Another thing Petey, ALL Catholics are to help with the poor. We are an outward religion, we are taught to do this because we see the face of Jesus in everyone who is less fortunate and the most meek and vulnerable , which is the old and the unborn. We don't need a bus to get this done.