Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday

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.
Comments
249,961 - 249,980 of 305,485 Comments Last updated 6 min ago

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#266011 Nov 24, 2012
Carbon-12 wrote:
Non Relativus wrote:
Libtard pundits are saying Obama has 55% chance of being re-elected. George Stephanopolous was all giddy the other day when reporting on a poll of prospective women voters (heavily in favor of Obama over Romney at this juncture).
Regardless, I predict Romney will win by 3-4% points in Nov. If election was held today, Obama might take it by 1-2% points.
Here are considerations for November:
1) Obama's women support will neutralize after contraception mandate situation works itself out. He energized female base, but forgot that in order to keep them energized he must not back down. He will be forced to concede because of Constitutional violations. The women will turn on him, thinking he turned on them (he set himself up like dope...he promises, but can't deliver).
2) Late June will likely bring bad news for Obama's health insurance mandate. His prize law that he spent TWO YEARS working on while unemployment numbers continued to rise will come back to bite him in his skinny ass. He listened to Pelosi and Reid, and didn't focus on the biggest issue in American households. That's called "piss poor leadership."
3) The Israel-Iran situation could change his chances irreversibly. If Israel attacks Iran w/out U.S. support, gas prices will sky rocket more than they already have. Obama will be blamed b/c of managing the Mideast crisis ineffectually.
4) Conservatives/Republicans have not yet gathered around one candidate yet. It's been a primary campaign that required chaos to settle some things between grass-roots conservatives, and establishment Republicans. When the dust settles & it becomes Romney v. Obama, forces will collect to remove the buffoon from office.
I do realize this country is filled with moronic libtards who are dumb enough to buy into Barack's nonsense (even after his pathetic record) but I'm not going to bow to the libtard pundits & their arrogant (read: wishful thinking) predictions.
So, there's that.
Carbon-12 wrote:
I will put this post aside, and we can look and see if you do any better this time than you did last election. Because it is fair to put some skin in the game:
Romney has such incredibly low enthusiasm, and a bad history (both recent and earlier) I am going to say it is not going to be very close. The Republicans take Texas, and no other big electoral vote state. Indiana goes to Obama.
Pure speculation: Gut feeling is that John Roberts is going to upset you.
_________
I am pretty happy with my answer. Your predictions were worth what I thought they would be. I do hope you will play again in 2015.
LOL! Bravo!!

I see something dragged the carrion back into the forum, and Lynne is in her glory as she thinks she has a playmate back. What worthless pieces of shit they both are.

I wonder how happy is that pretty much ALL of his predictions went down the sewer with him, after all, its good company for him.

More and more states are passing SSM laws, Obamacare is going forward and the world ISN'T ending. Go figure.

chip...chip...chip....

BTW, did you see this latest in the saga of the RCC's ignoring the molestation of children? This one may be the worst in history (so far...)

http://www.montrealgazette.com/literacy/raise...

Given the RCC took NO ACTION against Murphy, the one priest that molested over 200 children in his years in the RCC - it will be interesting to see if they ignore this too.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#266012 Nov 24, 2012
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you agree w/ slave owners subjective belief that blacks were 2/3 persons?
Nobody believed that you idiot. That was about taxation, nobody claimed that slaves were 2/3 persons. DAMN you're stupid No Relevance.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#266013 Nov 24, 2012
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Fetuses are considered homo sapiens in most states when legal homicide is involved.
Uh no. First ofs no such thing as "legal homicide" thus your point is both moot and stupid. As usual.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#266014 Nov 24, 2012
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
A human is a synonym for a human being.
You support the intentional & brutal killing of an innocent & defenseless human.
You spend hours promoting this evil act.
Pathetic.
Nonsense. Human being is a religious/philosophical concept, not scientific.

I don't support abortion at all.

Also, I've hardly been on this thread in ages, and haven't even debated abortion with anyone in almost as long.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#266015 Nov 24, 2012
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Purple Queen: Do you get what subjective even means?
________
Do you agree w/ slave owners subjective belief that blacks were 2/3 persons?
Do you agree w/ Nazis subjective belief that Jews weren't persons?
Catch my drift?
Both groups are human beings w/ a right to life. And, so are those human beings in the womb.
If you're referring to the 3/5ths Compromise, that was about taxation and representation, Moron, not personhood.

Wherever it was you went to school, you were abysmally taught.

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#266016 Nov 24, 2012
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't you have a cemetery to dance in?
Aww looky, the little fool was trying to say something.. What is that little feller.. You have no relevance to a woman making a choice concerning her body or pregnancy. Why you are right about that fact.

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#266017 Nov 24, 2012
Carbon-12 wrote:
Non Relativus wrote:
Libtard pundits are saying Obama has 55% chance of being re-elected. George Stephanopolous was all giddy the other day when reporting on a poll of prospective women voters (heavily in favor of Obama over Romney at this juncture).
Regardless, I predict Romney will win by 3-4% points in Nov. If election was held today, Obama might take it by 1-2% points.
Here are considerations for November:
1) Obama's women support will neutralize after contraception mandate situation works itself out. He energized female base, but forgot that in order to keep them energized he must not back down. He will be forced to concede because of Constitutional violations. The women will turn on him, thinking he turned on them (he set himself up like dope...he promises, but can't deliver).
2) Late June will likely bring bad news for Obama's health insurance mandate. His prize law that he spent TWO YEARS working on while unemployment numbers continued to rise will come back to bite him in his skinny ass. He listened to Pelosi and Reid, and didn't focus on the biggest issue in American households. That's called "piss poor leadership."
3) The Israel-Iran situation could change his chances irreversibly. If Israel attacks Iran w/out U.S. support, gas prices will sky rocket more than they already have. Obama will be blamed b/c of managing the Mideast crisis ineffectually.
4) Conservatives/Republicans have not yet gathered around one candidate yet. It's been a primary campaign that required chaos to settle some things between grass-roots conservatives, and establishment Republicans. When the dust settles & it becomes Romney v. Obama, forces will collect to remove the buffoon from office.
I do realize this country is filled with moronic libtards who are dumb enough to buy into Barack's nonsense (even after his pathetic record) but I'm not going to bow to the libtard pundits & their arrogant (read: wishful thinking) predictions.
So, there's that.
Carbon-12 wrote:
I will put this post aside, and we can look and see if you do any better this time than you did last election. Because it is fair to put some skin in the game:
Romney has such incredibly low enthusiasm, and a bad history (both recent and earlier) I am going to say it is not going to be very close. The Republicans take Texas, and no other big electoral vote state. Indiana goes to Obama.
Pure speculation: Gut feeling is that John Roberts is going to upset you.
_________
I am pretty happy with my answer. Your predictions were worth what I thought they would be. I do hope you will play again in 2015.
Worth reposting.. LMAO..

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#266018 Nov 24, 2012
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL! Bravo!!
I see something dragged the carrion back into the forum, and Lynne is in her glory as she thinks she has a playmate back. What worthless pieces of shit they both are.
I wonder how happy is that pretty much ALL of his predictions went down the sewer with him, after all, its good company for him.
More and more states are passing SSM laws, Obamacare is going forward and the world ISN'T ending. Go figure.
chip...chip...chip....
BTW, did you see this latest in the saga of the RCC's ignoring the molestation of children? This one may be the worst in history (so far...)
http://www.montrealgazette.com/literacy/raise...
Given the RCC took NO ACTION against Murphy, the one priest that molested over 200 children in his years in the RCC - it will be interesting to see if they ignore this too.
There just seems to no end to that horror. And yet, knutter, will defend the catholic church to her dying day.. Despicable.
HUSKER

Muscotah, KS

#266019 Nov 24, 2012
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't you have a cemetery to dance in?
Time for kathyboi to go sky clad.

“Live in purple”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#266020 Nov 24, 2012
Kathwynn wrote:
<quoted text>
Good catch.. I doubt NR really comprehends what a fool he makes of himself here.
That's what makes him so laughable!

“Live in purple”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#266021 Nov 24, 2012
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Purple Queen: Do you get what subjective even means?
________
Do you agree w/ slave owners subjective belief that blacks were 2/3 persons?
Do you agree w/ Nazis subjective belief that Jews weren't persons?
Catch my drift?
Both groups are human beings w/ a right to life. And, so are those human beings in the womb.
Hon, the only *drift* I'm catching from you (phew!!) is the stank of ignorance! YOU were going on about the term "being" not slaves and Nazis. YOU used the term subjective in reference to the term "being". Pleeze try to stay on your own topic!!
katie

Federal Way, WA

#266024 Nov 24, 2012
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course I understand what "subjective" means.
Intentionally killing another innocent human being for subjective reasons will get you life in prison.
Rephrased with accuracy, what you mean is -- Being convicted of murder may get you life in prison. Nuance is not your strong suit.

“Proud to be a Wiccan Priest”

Since: Jul 09

Jonesboro AR

#266027 Nov 24, 2012
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
HUSKER: Time for kathyboi to go sky clad.
____
"A woman accidentally stabbed herself in the foot with a 3-foot-long sword while performing a Wiccan GOOD LUCK RITUAL at a cemetery in Indiana"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25803777/ns/us_ne...
[Insert Joke Here]
and today there was another case of child abuse out of the catholic church..

That is deplorable and sick. Only made worse by the despicable action of those that defend the catholic church. Such as knutter.
grumpy

Haverstraw, NY

#266029 Nov 24, 2012
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody believed that you idiot. That was about taxation, nobody claimed that slaves were 2/3 persons. DAMN you're stupid No Relevance.
Actually you're both wrong.
1) The plantation owners wanted to count each slave as 1 person. The Northerners didn't want the slaves counted at all.
2) This led to the 3/5 compomise, not 2/3.
3) The issue was Congressional representation, not taxes. Because representation in Congress is based on population, counting slaves as whole people would show a higher population and thus more representation in Congress.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#266030 Nov 24, 2012
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
You failed to address the actual point of personhood being subjective...and the historical (& contemporary) deadly results.
Blacks were considered 3/5 persons. Yes or no? Yes. "But they were considered 3/5 persons for taxation and representation!" Answer is still yes: They were considered 3/5 persons.
Next..........
Not for themselves. ONLY for the purposes of taxation and representation for the states.

I didn't address it, because someone else already had, when they pointed out that the slaves, and the Jews were not living inside someone else.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#266036 Nov 24, 2012
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Bitner: Human being is a religious/philosophical concept, not scientific.
Homo Sapiens is Latin for Humans(synonym: Human beings). I'm glad you like Latin, but it's okay to translate into English.
I said nothing about "Homo Sapiens". What ARE you babbling about?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#266037 Nov 24, 2012
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Bitner: "I don't support abortion at all."
You support a woman's right to choose to intentionally kill the little human in her womb.
Same difference.
You lean on a coping mechanism which perversely permits you to be a proabort, while not feeling like a "bad person".
Epic Fail.
Again.
"You support a woman's right to choose to intentionally kill the little human in her womb."

Wrong. I support a woman's RIGHT to make her own CHOICE regarding her own pregnancy.

No coping mechanism needed. YOU, on the other hand, must twist my position in your lame attempt to make me look like a bad person.

You fail, every time.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#266038 Nov 24, 2012
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
"slaves, and the Jews were not living inside someone else."
I see. So you discriminate to death based on temporary living location. Thanks for clarifying.
LOL, utter bullshit. But really, no one is surprised, coming from you.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#266043 Nov 24, 2012
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Bitner: I said nothing about "Homo Sapiens".
A Homo Sapien is the Latin translation for a human (synonym for human being).
YOU said a human is a religious/philisophical term.
I just proved you wrong.
Again.
No, you proved yourself wrong. I've been saying "human", not "Homo Sapiens". Obviously, you've got me confused with someone else.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#266044 Nov 24, 2012
No Relativism wrote:
<quoted text>
Quick question:
Can someone be authentically against terrorism, while at the same time support al Qaeda's CHOICE to engage in terrorist acts?
Yes or no?
You're comparing apples to oranges.

Terrorist acts are an infringement on the rights of others. Also, illegal in this country. A woman making her own choice regarding her own pregnancy, is neither.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Baltimore Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 15 min Stu Rumsfeld 1,101,337
The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 2 hr Buck Rohde 18,891
One Action Movie Can Damage a Mind for Life 10 hr RuffnReddy 7
gay hookup in maryland Sun mdtowson 5
Md. Governor Does Illegal Immigrants Another Fa... Sun wild child 2
Atlantic fish management research to be address... Sun Will Jones 1
15 homeless single moms in Osceola get housing ... (Dec '08) Sun Crodriguez 20
•••
•••
•••

Baltimore Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Baltimore People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Baltimore News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Baltimore
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••