Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Judged:

1

1

1

SeattleVehix44 wrote:

<quoted text>
no, its the 21st century, i just take staroid pills, get with the program!
u still defending the ANTI-choice narrative of the left? like the war on sugar, the war on christmas, or the war against church freedom, freedom of religious businesses to turn folks down?
sounds to me that liberalism can be just as ANTI-choice as us conservatives

Judged:

1

1

1

SassyJM wrote:

<quoted text> Who CARES what *relationship* the lawyer and client have. That lawyer may be defending a GUILTY person (aka hiding and therefore, excusing his crime).
THAT is okay by you? Just as long as a Priest doesn't do it?
Pfffttttt,......DISGUSTING.

Judged:

2

2

2

SassyJM wrote:

My daughters friend works for a lawyer. The policy is "don't even ask the person if they are guilty because they don't care".
They are paid to get the person off the hook-guilty or not.
DISUSTING.

Judged:

2

1

Susanm wrote:

<quoted text>
If a lawyer gets a guilty rapist off, and that person is returned to the community at large, isn't that the same as moving a priest from one congregation to another?

Judged:

1

1

1

SassyJM wrote:

<quoted text>I've never gone *there*either. Perhaps Petey could enlighten us?

Judged:

1

1

1

Ink wrote:

<quoted text>
Just because you are not proven guilty, doesn't mean that you are innocent. The conversation was about the morality of defending someone you know is guilty and getting him off not the legality of the situation. Will you find in your mind any priests who get off in court with the help of lawyers, innocent?

Judged:

2

1

SassyJM wrote:

<quoted text>Oh how lovely. Foo(l);is so kind as to educate us on what the law is. What a doll.
(Cough)
Now, can we get back to what regularly scheduled program was about?
Kthanks.
What was it again? Oh..yeah....Those who defend, hide or let criminals get away with their KNOWN crimes.

Judged:

1

1

1

cpeter1313 wrote:

So you don't believe in due process? Lawyers are there to protect their client's rights, something they do not lose just because you think they are guilty. He is not there to determine guilt or innocence; the client is innocent until proven otherwise.
Priests aren't protecting legal rights; if anything, they have been obstructing investigations. But that's okay as long as they protect the church, right? Screw the kids...oh, too late.
<quoted text>

Judged:

1

1

LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:

<quoted text> Really? Never heard of Pro Bono? Public defenders?
<quoted text>
I'm not ignoring a thing. Yes, the defense counsel's job is to if not get his client off, to mitigate the damage. That's what they DO you stupoid Skank. Its a REQUIREMENT OF OUR LAWS that EVERY MAN be given the best defense that's possible.
Sorry you dont like that. Guess you'll be moving to Iran soon. Let me know, and I'll pitch in for the rocks that will be your legal demise.

elise in burque wrote:

<quoted text>Steroids shrink your junk, Seattle. They cause impotence, too. Not good.

elise in burque wrote:

<quoted text>She doesn't get it. She just wants to figuratively strut around acting appalled. Hilarious.

Judged:

2

2

1

LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:

<quoted text>
No actually I did not you stupid shit. The other night YOU claimed I originally made the claim that you lived in other states. I did NOT make that claim at ANY time ANYWHERE on these boards since I know pretty much exactly where you life. I never said you didn't POST from other states.
YOU made the claim this morning that you have NEVER posted from another state, "not even once". I proved you wrong. Again.
<quoted text>
Actually, I proved you're a lying sack of shit. AGAIN. LOL!!
<quoted text>
Except you HAVE Lynne. You ARE the OP that posted as Lynne, and you're lying right now if you're claiming you're not.
Given that EVERYONE know's you ARE the same OP as Lynne, that's not even a question that's open for debate, its clear I proved you are a lying sack of shit when you claim you've "NEVER posted from another state. Ever".
Clearly you did.
<quoted text>
It hasn't changed since 2006 Lynniekins. I'd say a few years isn't going to make any difference.
And no, ISP's from UNREGISTERED users do NOT change once they're posted, only ones from registered users do, like yours changed when you went all coward and hid it.
Go look at old No Relevance or Skanky ISP's when they're posting as not registered. The ISP only changes after they've been banned or they change it themselves, and their OLDER POSTS ISP'S DO NOT CHANGE.
You schmendrick LOL!
<quoted text>
Lets be VERY CLEAR here dear - YOU ARE the OP who also posted as Lynne D. EVERYONE here knows it. You are not fooling ANYONE and you haven't been for a VERY long time.
My claims are about YOU, regardless of what you're calling yourself at the moment. You ARE Lynne D.
<quoted text>
And you keep backing yourself into this corner which is REALLY amusing!!
FACT: If you are NOT Lynne D, then you dont know WHAT is a lie and what isn't.
If you aint her, then YOU DONT KNOW SHIT. And THAT is a fact.
Since you ARE the the same poster that posted AS Lynne D, this is all just you feeding a delusion that you think SOMEONE is buying your bullshit.
NEWSFLASH Lynnie - nobody is. LOLOLOL!
Tho I have to admit, I'd like to know what you think you're accomplishing with this garbage. Do you think if you lie about it for a few more years, someone will magically believe you?@@
You poor, sick fool.

LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:

<quoted text>
...Go look at old No Relevance or Skanky ISP's when they're posting as not registered. The ISP only changes after they've been banned or they change it themselves, and their OLDER POSTS ISP'S DO NOT CHANGE.
...

Judged:

1

1

1

Brilliant_Chicky wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh look at DocPuppet with a new OCD chant.
Give it back, give it back, give it back. Do you stomp your widdle feet and clench you're tiny fists and get all red in the face when you do it? Does mother have to screech at you from upstairs "don't make me come down there, sonny", as if she could get out of her chair without a crane?
How sad you behave when you lose.

Judged:

1

1

Brilliant_Chicky wrote:

<quoted text>
Lol. Poor pathetic Troll. How sad your life and character is.

Judged:

1

1

1

Brilliant_Chicky wrote:

<quoted text>
Where's that cut and paste, again???

You lose.

Judged:

1

1

1

elise in burque wrote:

<quoted text>Wow, for someone who is seemingly unimpressed by me, you sure keep track of everything I write. A little creepy, pal.

Judged:

1

1

1

Katie wrote:

<quoted text>
Hi Chicky!
Am just popping in real quick with an interesting link you may have seen already. It's the legal/medical history of VIABILITY. I am done with this topic, but have a better understanding of where the PLers were coming from in claiming that Roe legally defined VIABLE. Am not sure if that's completely accurate because there already were medical definitions provided as common law, but cases following Roe have caused the definition of VIABILITY to evolve into (maybe not obsolescent) something else entirely.
And I am grateful for this so that courts cannot determine viability but leave it up to the practicing physicians. "Colautti v Franklin rejected a Pennsylvania statute that would have required physicians to protect the life of a potentially viable fetus either during or after an abortive procedure, ruling instead that the determination of viability was to be performed on a case-by-case basis.15"
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content...

Judged:

1

1

1

LadiLulu wrote:

<quoted text>
Frightening, isn't it?
It's a good thing NO ONE listens to her "advice".