Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday 305,824
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

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#247075 Jul 3, 2012
Brilliant_Chicky wrote:
<quoted text>
I notice that you failed to LINK the POSTS.
What else did you notice genius ? Did you notice I gave you the post #? Can't fake that.
What are you insinuating anyway ? That I made it up ? That I somehow altered your own words ?
What other numbskull says "jeezefuckinglouise your stupid" when they're 100% wrong ?
Why is that, Loser? If you have the text why don't you have the link?
Find the LINK, Doc Puppet.
Does this work ? Ya dope ya.

http://www.topix.com/forum/nyc/T833PCEP80MM49...

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#247076 Jul 3, 2012
SassyJM wrote:
<quoted text> You're a bore? You take life on an anonymous forum too seriously? Hey listen, when abortion is beijg discussed...then yeah...be serious but otherwise...I mean, lighten up francis. Sheesh.
I don't take anything on here seriously...least of all you. Think about taking your own advice.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#247077 Jul 3, 2012
SassyJM wrote:
<quoted text> Who said she said that?
First of all, she isn't IN the south.
Ask your friends here. THEY called her a "filthy racist" for months. In fact,Michelle even told her that she would have been better off aborting then to have a Grandma like her.
Ask them......go on....I want to see them deny it.
What about lalas racist remarks about "dirty filthy latinos" ?
Hey, didn't you just tell me..."You take life on an anonymous forum too seriously? Hey listen, when abortion is beijg discussed...then yeah...be serious but otherwise...I mean, lighten up francis. Sheesh." ?

So take your own advice, okay.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#247079 Jul 3, 2012
SassyJM wrote:
<quoted text>Quit suckin up already.
Unlike you Skanky, I dont have to suck up, certainly not to Rach.
Who are YOU "miss Ive been stalking,attacking and harrassing Lynne for six years-NON STOP" of ALL people to tell another that they shouldnt be at war with someone on here..?
Where did I tell anyone to not be at war with anyone else?

You seem to just pull this garbage from your behind and run with it.
Who CARES who YOU hold in high regard @@
Next.......
Skanky, since only a very few other idiots hold YOU in regard (assuming they dont just find you a useful tool...) I'd say more care about who I hold in high regard than who YOU hold in high regard. Especially given the quality of scum YOU seem to think deserves ANY regard.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#247080 Jul 3, 2012
Brilliant_Chicky wrote:
<quoted text>
The argument was that Roe DEFINED viability.
They did. They defined viable for the purposes of abortion statutes. Courts and legislators do it all the time, that is they establish legal definitions of a term for the purpose of that law.
We're not the only ones that use the term "the court defined..."

http://telling-secrets.blogspot.com/2011/11/w...

"The Roe decision DEFINED "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid," adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."

Huh ? The Roe decision did what ???
I said NOTHING about precedent because THAT WASN'T PART OF YOUR CLAIMS UNTIL AFTER I PROVED IT DID NOT DEFINE VIABILITY AS "ALBEIT WITH SUPPORT" OR AT "24 WEEKS" WHICH IS WHAT BADSTUPE CLAIMED AND YOU KEPT SPOUTING.
So tell us now about precedent. Do you agree now that RvW established legal precedent for the definition of viable ?
You must since CD said it did and you said what CD said is "exactly" what you said..."over and over".
I am getting a kick out of watching you LIE though.
Shows how weak you are.
Prove what you are saying by providing the links, ahole.
Sure. Post # 246470

http://www.topix.com/forum/nyc/T833PCEP80MM49...

CD said that RvW established legal precedent for the definition of viable. He said they took their definition from medical experts' definition. And you said that what he said is exactly what you said ! So you agree that the legal and medical definitions of viable include "with medical assistance".

So tell us again.....then where does YOUR definition of viable fit in ?

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#247081 Jul 3, 2012
SassyJM wrote:
<quoted text>Hey blue :)
Yeah, foo is like a rabid dog. She lacks any resemblance of self-control. She comes on here to people please anyone who will have her. The rest whom she cant manipulate, get her wrath. She's a sad soul really.
She escorts babys to their death INSTEAD Of actually helping needy and poor women have a chance at keeping their babies. She also ridicules abused women.
She's a mess.
And you're a known liar Skankdawg. I've certainly never worried about people pleasing, and one doesn't have to manipulate others when there's truth involved. Unlike with you, where you have to suck up to other fools to just get by here.

And no, I have NEVER in my life escorted any babies to their deaths, and I regularly help needy and poor women have not only a chance to keep their babies if they so CHOOSE, but I help them to make their own EDUCATED decisions regarding their pregnancies unmolested and unaffected by lying sacks of shit like you.

Problem with you is that your agenda and views are SO flawed that you can't even MAKE an argument without outright lying. Its just one of the ways you show how pathetic you are.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#247082 Jul 3, 2012
SassyJM wrote:
<quoted text> Who said she said that?
First of all, she isn't IN the south.
Ask your friends here. THEY called her a "filthy racist" for months. In fact,Michelle even told her that she would have been better off aborting then to have a Grandma like her.
Ask them......go on....I want to see them deny it.
What about lalas racist remarks about "dirty filthy latinos" ?
Skanky, you're a lying sack of shit.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#247083 Jul 3, 2012
SassyJM wrote:
<quoted text> You not only support and advocate killing humans in the womb wyou also escort them to their deaths.
You LIVE on here defending and justifying killing as choice.
Stop lying Skanky. I dont defend OR justifying killing anyone.

I defend and advocate for women to be FULLY educated and make their OWN CHOICES.

You're against that, simply because you know damn well that if they're educated properly and in an unbiased manner, they will often not make the choices YOU WANT THEM TO MAKE. And that's why your kind are always failures. You NEED women to remain ignorant for your agenda to succeed, and you hate that people like me will make sure that you fail at EVERY turn.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#247084 Jul 3, 2012
SassyJM wrote:
<quoted text>No dear wthe saying is Land in florisa and the JOKE is that it ends up swamp land. DUH!!!
Believe me,.....people fall for it everyday. Im there to bail them out.
Lol
@@ You're a moron Skankdawg.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#247085 Jul 3, 2012
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Foo's been picking on Lynne for six years-NON STOP, ya say?
Well, hell....
How could that be possible if Lynne says she's not here?
lol
Glad someone else picked up on Skanky's tossing Lynnie under the bus. AGAIN. ROFLMAO!

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#247087 Jul 3, 2012
Brilliant_Chicky wrote:
Here is an idea.
If you area against abortion, NEVER, EVER, have one.
Nope, that doesn't work. That attitude epitomizes selfishness. It's no wonder you can relate to it.
You're asking those who sincerely believe that abortion kills an innocent human life to adopt the attitude " well as long as human life that is related to me is OK that's all that matters. I'll just turn my back on the fact that it's open season on life that is not related to me."
How perfectly, predictably and disgustingly self centered.
Well....what would you expect from someone who accepts money from an organization that they believe promotes pedophilia.

Give the money back !!!

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#247088 Jul 3, 2012
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps because you could avoid making an ass of yourself.
Again.
<quoted text>
Since he made bigoted comments to me in this thread, the answer is HERE if you bothered to read them Lynne you fkin MORON.
<quoted text>
Lynnie, I made you a promise a LONG time ago, and reiterated it many times, that I would take EVERY opportunity to spotlight your ignorance and stupidity on every occasion I could.
And you make it SO easy after all. And speaking of "A Confederacy of Dunces", this quote fits you PERFECTLY:
"'It's not your fate to be well treated,' Ignatius cried.'You're an overt masochist. Nice treatment will confuse and destroy you." Pg. 367
<quoted text>
So that makes overt racism okay?
Jesus Lynne you're as stupid as he is. The two of you sound like children "WELL HE STARTED IT FIRST....."
<quoted text>
Yet not ONE person here has resorted to personal insults based on racism. Nobody has "dished out" ignorant comments about people's race BUT him.
But its not shocking that you're trying to justify it. You'll justify ANYTHING as long as you can suck up to someone you think is on your "side".
<quoted text>
Then perhaps its YOU that should take your OWN advice and "refrain from posting anything if you don't have an answer."
ROFLMAO You idiot.
<quoted text>
I have no problem with people asking questions "toots", but I DO have a problem with assholes like you who admit you can't be bothered to read the posts, then ask STUPID questions that a simple reading would have answered.
"Perhaps because you could avoid making an ass of yourself.
Again.
Since he made bigoted comments to me in this thread,..."

The making an ass of yourself part is projection.

Damn you're a stupid person. I didn't say racist or homophobic remarks were the types of things I considered what poster's were doing just to "get under people's skin". I meant the annoying stupid childish posts, just to annoy.

Also, I asked because I suspected it was directed to you but wanted to be sure. And sure enough, the first idiot to answer the post was YOU.

Guess what, Toots. According to YOUR logic used here, if he's only directing his comments to YOU, it's only to YOU and not all Jews or homosexuals. Same with Zach. No matter how ugly they are with what they say, it's only directed to ONE person and from waht you've said before, that makes it okay.

Just like when you attack someone who was abused. Attack someone who miscarried due to the abuse. You're vicious and try to claim it's only about ONE person, so that makes it all okay. Even though people who aren't idiots know the things you say are things that ALL abuse victims would see as being said about each one of them.

That's how stupid and blind you are. You claim you're only making comments about ONE person and not all abuse victims, so it's okay under that condition. Stupid logic, but using it for when someone does something like that to you, or to Petey, it doesn't seem to be something you agree with then. Then the self-righteous indignations come flying through your fingertips, and you start calling the person names as though they're posting about all jews or all homosexuals.

You're an idiot and one of the biggest hypoorcrites here. You can dish it but can't take it without acting making a stupid ass of yourself, because what you do to others here is the same thing, you ignorant buffoon.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#247089 Jul 3, 2012
SassyJM wrote:
<quoted text>Quit suckin up already.
Who are YOU "miss Ive been stalking,attacking and harrassing Lynne for six years-NON STOP" of ALL people to tell another that they shouldnt be at war with someone on here..? Who CARES who YOU hold in high regard @@
Next.......
lol. I hadn't seen that. Good catch.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#247090 Jul 3, 2012
Katie wrote:
Still the same ol', same ol' here, huh? Ah well.
:)
Yep....same ol' same ol'. You still haven't provided a definition of viable that defines it exclusively without medical assistance.....and 10 months later you STILL haven't provided one single solitary speck of proof to back up your assertion. Proof you said I had made EASY for you to find.

Yep. Same ol' same ol'.

Happy Wednesday !!!

Since: Jun 08

Atrisco Village

#247091 Jul 3, 2012
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Foo's been picking on Lynne for six years-NON STOP, ya say?
Well, hell....
How could that be possible if Lynne says she's not here?
lol
Oopsy!

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#247092 Jul 3, 2012
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
Doc, I only wish that your assumption about me being wrong about not addressing my post in which I disagree with Chicky,
It's not an assumption....it's a fact. She never acknowledged it (#244592) let alone responded to it.

would also extend to what you should be assuming is right about a medical definition of viability being silent about medical assistance.
If a definition of viability is silent about medical assistance then it is NOT defining viability explicitly WITHOUT medical assistance.
That is not an assumption either.
Why is it that you can make the distinction with my post (despite the fact that I did address it), and you can't about the definition I posted? I know; the latter is not convenient for you and the former is.
You lost me here. What exactly are you saying ? The issue wasn't YOU addressing it. The issue was you saying (not so) brilliant chicky addressed it. She DID NOT.
Even she claims she addressed it. I challenged her to show me where and......? <crickets>

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#247093 Jul 3, 2012
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, that's what you'll need, not what is required to say. And your example is terrible. There are many ways to get to California from New York. There is only one criteria for a fetus to be viable and that is the 50/50 litmus test alone. If your example said "I have the ability to fly to California" then you'd probably be right, because it's not explicit whether you're flying as a passenger or a pilot.

But the definition I posted lays only one requirement; being able to survive outside the womb.
And I....as anyone else....can interpret that as with or without medical assistance. If it defined viability explicitly WITHOUT medical assistance, there would be no room for that interpretation.
This isn't a difficult concept.
Now find me a definition of viable that defines it explicitly WITHOUT medical assistance.
You've already agreed that medical assistance isn't a requirement for viability, so why are you being so ambivalent and asking for explicitly when you know the lack thereof does not mean medical assistance is inferred?
The lack thereof also does not infer that the need for medical assistance precludes viability. And there are those on here ( they know who they are ) who still believe that the need for medical assistanc eprecludes viability. To them I still say.....show me a definition that explicitly defines it only WITHOUT medical assistance.

“The one who knows”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#247094 Jul 3, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
You're an idiot and one of the biggest hypoorcrites here. You can dish it but can't take it without acting making a stupid ass of yourself, because what you do to others here is the same thing, you ignorant buffoon.
Sums it up pretty well, I think.

“The one who knows”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#247095 Jul 3, 2012
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
@@ You're a moron Skankdawg.
Foo, chill out, bud.
GuerreroRay

Chicago, IL

#247096 Jul 3, 2012
as Anthony explained I am in shock that some people able to earn $6455 in a few weeks on the computer. did you see this web link http://widg.me/NbuKe

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 11 min Chimney1 117,285
Why They Hate Obama (Aug '13) 12 min dirtclod 12,039
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 13 min Karma is a_______ 1,114,720
Obama to broaden US effort to combat militants 14 min Logan 557
Who do you side with in Ferguson? 14 min Mugsy 5,618
Ferguson Police Are Being Relieved Of Their Dut... 14 min redeemer 3,169
New fear: What happens in Ferguson if no charges? 16 min Fergutroit Missouri 747
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 20 min Uncle Tab 155,255
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 32 min Cheech the Conser... 265,379

US News People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE