Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 310472 comments on the Newsday story from Jan 22, 2008, titled Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision. In it, Newsday reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#242486 Jun 9, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
^^Psycho liar. lol
You "DEFY" me to prove? Like I wouldn't be up for the challenge to find the proof I know for a fact is here? lol.
Then DO it Lynne. Oh wait, you can't, because you're a lying sack of shit.
I think it's great that you give so many opportunities for PLers to prove you're a pathological liar.
That's YOU projecting now. But feel free to PROVE it by PROVING your claim that **I** claimed YOU (posting as Lynne D) live in Bangor Maine OR that **I** EVER said you live in "Idaho or somewhere".
Now remember you just mentioned "Brewer Maine", for the next time I mention some area in Maine that you claim about Lynne.
I'm not claiming a thing, it was YOUR ISP. Here's you discussing it:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/THT7...

**I** have NEVER mentioned ANY place specifically that you live, tho I DO know where that is.

YOU claimed I mentioned it, then PROVE it bitch. For once in your PATHEIC existance, PROVE WHAT YOU CLAIM.

Oh wait - you CANT, since I NEVER at ANY time on ANY forum did what you're claiming.

Seem's YOU are the pathological liar Lynne D.
lol. Keep my mouth shut? About the things [you] post here and I'm [not] lying about?
Except you ARE lying about claiming **I** EVER at ANY time "mentioned" where you live OTHER than the state of Maine, which was your ISP before you became a fuckingcoward and hid your ISP, just like you're doing now.
You think your silly threats are effective? Hell no, Toots. If you and your friends are going to try to accuse me of supposedly "slipping up" and "proving" I would only know something if I was Lynne, or accuse me of lying as to where I get the information I use in my posts about her; I'm going to post the truth, as I always do, and as I have this time.
(cont.)
Except you're NOT posting the truth Lynne, and you NEVER do and EVERYONE here knows it.

So again, YES, I DEFY you to show where I've EVER "mentioned " Bangor Maine to you, about you, or on this forum, EVER -***EXCEPT in private email***, when you sent me a picture of Stephen King's gates. YOU didn't live there, and I NEVER at any time claimed you did. You forgetting you sent me pictures of your "NEW" home, and where it is?

Hell Lynniekins, I just took a look back at some old mails, and I even know who built your house and the square footage. You forget you liked to brag.

Now AGAIN, given I KNOW where you live (or lived when you moved to the new digs back in 2007), I would NEVER have claimed you lived in Bangor OR ANYWHERE ELSE (as you also claimed when you LIED). But yeah, PROVE IT.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#242487 Jun 9, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
(cont. to Foo)
What are you getting your feathers all ruffled about to where you think it's appropriate in any way to get so forceful in your denials...of the TRUTH I posted, bonehead?[you] ARE the one who mentioned Maine 1st, then your other PC friends spoke of it as well, and [you] are the one who mentioned Bangor 1st. I absolutely CAN prove it.
Then back up what your big mouth is claiming instead of your continual verbal diarrhea that says NOTHING.
So yeah, you're the one who brought up Bangor, Maine
Again, you're lying, but feel free to PROVE IT.
and is how I knew Lynne was from Maine. Michelle asked me how I knew and I told the truth.[you] posted it.
Except I did NOT post it. You "knew it" because you ARE Lynne D and you know damn well what your ISP was.
I mentioned the pictures you sent me of Stephen King's gates, and HE lives in Bangor. I NEVER said YOU lived there you dumbass.
Let me refresh your poor memory, bonehead.(Liars can't keep track of their lies and you people keep proving that.] Do you recall a conversation here quite awhile back, in which you were trying to prove that what you were saying [about a topic of discussion at the time](can't recall what it was about, it was your obsessive stupidity claimed], and the proof could be found in certain books? At which time you looked into book stores in the [Bangor] area and specifically stated that the certain is in book stores in [the Bangor area], and suggested I call them to find out to prove your claims? You did all that believing you could prove anything about your claim. You used the "Bangor area" as being [the area] Lynne lived. Yes,[you are] the one who mentioned [Maine] and you mentioned [Bangor] having to do with Lynne. It's not rocket science to put the 2 together, nor is it a lie to claim you mentioned "Bangor, Maine".
WTF are you babbling about?
AGAIN, I at NO time mentioned YOU LIVED IN BANGOR MAINE as you are claiming. Not once, not in ANY way, shape or form.
YOU claimed I said SPECIFICALLY that you lived in Bangor, and I did not. YOU claimed SPECIFICALLY that I said you " lived in Ohio or Idaho or something like that", and AGAIN you're FLAT OUT LYING.
Dont forget Lynne, you have POSTED from another state in the past, twice that I know of - but I have NEVER mentioned that here to you or to ANYONE else since you have been posting under THIS name.
The ONLY way you'd know that is because you ARE Lynne D, something everyone here already knows.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#242488 Jun 9, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
It's ALL right in the thread and I do provide proof of what I claim, unless you idiots admit what I said is true. Either way, works for me.
Once again for the stupid Lynne, I dont remember the conversation, but I know for a fact I did NOT EVER AT ANY TIME say you lived in Bangor Maine, which IS WHAT YOU CLAIMED.

You ALSO claimed that I said you lived in "Idaho" or whatever, I'd like to see you back up THAT lie as well. Was that ALSO in this "bookstore" discussion you claim we had?

Its a pity you cant just admit you misspoke, because you make yourself look like a complete ass.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#242489 Jun 9, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>Lily spends more time explaining herself than anyone I have ever experienced. Her problem is that she cares so much what everyone thinks of her. Someone effed her up bad as a kid.
SOme might say they didn't f'her up bad enough.

She seems to think anyone here takes her seriously, besides the Skank, and even SHE doesn't take her seriously. Lynnie is a useful idiot, a tool for some others to play off of, but not much else.

Personally, I Think its amusing as hell to wind her up and see how long she spins. She's still as easy as she was as a teen apparently.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#242490 Jun 9, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
"Except I said you're NOT from Bangor you complete and utter dumbass."
Yes, recently pea brain. I wasn't talking about what you said recently.
"At NO time have I EVER claimed you were from Bangor as you claimed."
Is that the loophole you're going to try to latch onto, something I misspoke?
You didn't misspeak. You flat out lied. Then you followed that LIE with post after post of MORE lies trying to justify your FIRST lie. NOW you're trying to claim you misspoke, and somehow its MY fault for not understanding your "misspeaking"??? ROFLMAO!!!!!! You're sick in the head bitch!.

Thiis is a prime example of your lack of education and inablity to think and speak clearly and succently.

You made TWO claims. One was that I said you lived in Bangor Maine, when in FACT I NEVER did at ANY time in the history of this forum. Period.

Your SECOND lying claim, was that I said you "came from Ohio or Idaho or something like that".

I never said that either. Not in ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM.

But keep lying Lynne. Keep talking about yourself in the third person. We KNOW you're mentally ill already, perhaps this is a full fledged schizophrenic episode brought on by your incessent and constant lies about who you are and your history here.

Only mentally ill folks talk about thenselves in the third person as you do.

And make no mistake Lynne, nobody's fooled by this or any of your other bullshit.

And make no mistake about this too Lynne, I and others WILL take what you say and toss it back in your stupid face time and again, JUST like we've been doing since 2006.

You're so focused on being an ass, on lecturing on ad nauseum about how much you dont care (for page after page and day after day, yet you never shut up....) that you dont bother to actually think before you write, and then you STILL dont think before you hit post. And THEN you bitch when YOUR OWN WORDS are thrown back at you when you LIE.

You may be in your late 50's, but you're still the same spoiled brat you were when you were slutting around as a teen.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#242491 Jun 9, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
How about you 1st concentrate on denying you [mentioned] Bangor in reference to "Lynne",(which is what my claim to Michelle was, about you). Deny you spoke of Bangor when talking about book stores in that area.
THEN I'll go about proving you not only mentioned Bangor, but that you changerd your tune as to where Lynne lived or lives, and claimed it was some other state altogether.
As I've said a dozen times now, PROVE IT.

I'm not saying the bookstore discussion didn't happen. I do very vaguely remember telling you, under one of your names, to call a bookstore in Maine, but at NO time did I say you lived there.

And I NEVER AT ANY TIME said Lynne lives in ANY other state, you're simply FLAT OUT LYING about that.

But go ahead bitch, prove it.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#242492 Jun 9, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
Elise's posts serving no purpose here except to prove she's got her eyes focused on me and my posts for no other reason than to post stupidity that accomplishes nothing.
Actually, it accomplishes a lot, for one thing, it shows how easy you are, and provides more laughter at you for so MANY of us here!!

ROFLMAO!

On the other hand, YOU just took the time to repost ALL of her posts, cementing the lie to your denials that you dont care.

You truly are a dumbass Lynne.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#242493 Jun 9, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Whether I said you [mentioned] Bangor in that first post, or misspoke and posted to you that you said [from Bangor], it makes no difference. YOU posted the words [Maine] and [Bangor][in reference to Lynne] and that's what I claimed, which is the truth. Deny it. lol
You may have "misspoke" but the FACT is you claimed that I said you lived IN BANGOR SPECIFICALLY, and you ALSO claimed I said you lived in other states, and I did NOTHING of the kind.

Perhaps you'd "misspeak" less if you attempted to THINK more. You moron.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#242494 Jun 9, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
Foo: "In fact, your earliest postings back in 2006 showed you being in Brewer Maine, and they still show that."
Okay, lol, prove that. Provide an "earlier post from Lynne in "2006" that says "Brewer, Maine". It'll be interesting to see what you come back with.
I just did. Posted showing where YOU were discussing it actually.

LOL You're so easy.

“docendo discimus”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#242495 Jun 9, 2012
Conservative Democrat wrote:
<quoted text>
What you're arguing is that because Roe v. Wade made a mention that viability can be as early as 24 weeks, all states are to define their abortion laws based on the concept that viability is at 24 weeks. And that simply isn't the case.
No, I'm not arguing that at all, and you know it, but because you're losing your ridiculous argument you are twisting what I'm saying. Any State can base their arguments that viability can be as early as 24 weeks, based on the Roe v Wade decision, and some have. Now, argue that and dont twist my words.
Conservative Democrat wrote:
Florida's abortion law, for example, makes no definition of viability at 24 weeks. In fact, in the definitions section of Chapter 390 Florida statutes, what is defined as the period "after 24 weeks," is the third trimester, not viability. What you're failing to grasp is that while SCOTUS opined on the point of viability,
this is a portion of the opinion that isn't binding on the states, and pursuant to the 10th Amendment, the decision of what will be the point after which a legal abortion is not be allowed, belongs to the states.
No, another twisted argument, it's not that Roe v Wade's definition is not binding when it comes to individual State's abortion laws, it's that Roe V Wade did not mandate that every state must proscribe abortion at "viability". Are you confused with that or are you trying to confuse with that? I've never argued that R vW mandated proscribing abortion at "viability".
Conservative Democrat wrote:
Nebraska is a perfect example. No abortion is allowed after 20 weeks, and viability has no bearing on that decision..
I dont believe that the Nebraska law has been challenged in the SCOTUS yet. Please show me the case and where that decision has set aside Roe v Wade's decision, which set the point where a State can proscribe abortion at "viability" as it defined it.
Conservative Democrat wrote:
Maybe you should say something to many on your side of the fence who believe it is.
And what is my "side of the fence" CD? The only line (or fence, as you say) I draw is what I see as legally defined, above personal opinion.
Conservative Democrat wrote:
The point at which the compelling interest shifts from the woman to the state, is no indication that her right to privacy is affected in any way. It only indicates the point at which the states can restrict her right to an elective abortion, in the interest of preserving potential life.
.
Yeah, so you agree with me? Where have I said anything different than this? Her right to privacy is no longer the "compelling" argument after viability, but that doesnt mean her rights dont exist any more than the State's rights dont exist in the early stages when the woman's right to privacy is the more "compelling" argument.
Conservative Democrat wrote:
Actually, you made both arguments.
12 states? Wow. How many states in the union? You'd think that if your point is accurate, and RvW made a demarcating point of what viability is, and/or when a fetus becomes viable, ALL states would have such law..
Wow, this from an attorney? Let me explain something, Roe v Wade defined WHAT "viable" is, it also defined that as the point WHEN states COULD proscribe abortion, but it never mandated that state MUST proscribe abortion at it's definition of "viable". 12 States have laws that put R v W's definition of variable, and it's mention that it may occur as early as 24 weeks, as it's basis to proscribe elective abortion at "viability" or 24 weeks.
Your last futile argument was that I said a fetus MUST require artificial aide to be considered "viable", now you are trying to say that I am saying that all states MUST require abortion be proscribed at "viability"?
If you want to argue with me , than argue with what I'm saying and quit twisting my words, alright?

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#242496 Jun 9, 2012
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>No, I'm not arguing that at all, and you know it, but because you're losing your ridiculous argument you are twisting what I'm saying. Any State can base their arguments that viability can be as early as 24 weeks, based on the Roe v Wade decision, and some have. Now, argue that and dont twist my words.
<quoted text>No, another twisted argument, it's not that Roe v Wade's definition is not binding when it comes to individual State's abortion laws, it's that Roe V Wade did not mandate that every state must proscribe abortion at "viability". Are you confused with that or are you trying to confuse with that? I've never argued that R vW mandated proscribing abortion at "viability".
<quoted text> I dont believe that the Nebraska law has been challenged in the SCOTUS yet. Please show me the case and where that decision has set aside Roe v Wade's decision, which set the point where a State can proscribe abortion at "viability" as it defined it.
<quoted text>And what is my "side of the fence" CD? The only line (or fence, as you say) I draw is what I see as legally defined, above personal opinion.
<quoted text>Yeah, so you agree with me? Where have I said anything different than this? Her right to privacy is no longer the "compelling" argument after viability, but that doesnt mean her rights dont exist any more than the State's rights dont exist in the early stages when the woman's right to privacy is the more "compelling" argument.
<quoted text>Wow, this from an attorney? Let me explain something, Roe v Wade defined WHAT "viable" is, it also defined that as the point WHEN states COULD proscribe abortion, but it never mandated that state MUST proscribe abortion at it's definition of "viable". 12 States have laws that put R v W's definition of variable, and it's mention that it may occur as early as 24 weeks, as it's basis to proscribe elective abortion at "viability" or 24 weeks.
Your last futile argument was that I said a fetus MUST require artificial aide to be considered "viable", now you are trying to say that I am saying that all states MUST require abortion be proscribed at "viability"?
If you want to argue with me , than argue with what I'm saying and quit twisting my words, alright?
Do you really expect CD to post with any degree of honesty and/or integrity?

“docendo discimus”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#242497 Jun 9, 2012
elise in burque wrote:
<quoted text>I don't see why it's so important to you or them to convince each other. I agree that the definition of fetal viability is of utmost importance. I just don't care if an irrelevant knucklehead or two on Topix don't get it after it's been explained to them for a week or three.
Anyway, I'm not trying to stop your fun, I was just posting a comment to RC. Peace.
First of all, I probably came off as being rude to you, I apologize.
I'm not sure which "knucklehead" you see as not getting it, I'm arguing the "legal" definition as put forth in R v W and asking for precedence to prove other wise. I just simply have not seen anyone show such yet, they just babble on about how they are right with nothing more than their opinion when legal precedence is against them.
Tell me Elise, what is your take on this? Did R v W legally define WHAT"viable" is?

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#242498 Jun 9, 2012
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you really expect CD to post with any degree of honesty and/or integrity?
"Sue," I think that's a bit harsh.

In the time that I've "known" "C-D" I think he's posted with a great deal of integrity and honesty.
He says what he "feels" is right, and stands by his assertions.

You do the same, as do I, as do some of the other posters on here...

“docendo discimus”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#242499 Jun 9, 2012
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you really expect CD to post with any degree of honesty and/or integrity?
No more than I expect an intelligent, and honest, conversation with CS. I think he feels he owes me one because he didn't understand what the definition of "assualt" was in Florida. Whatever, some are slow to learn who you can BS and who you can not.

“docendo discimus”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#242500 Jun 9, 2012
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
"Sue," I think that's a bit harsh.
In the time that I've "known" "C-D" I think he's posted with a great deal of integrity and honesty.
He says what he "feels" is right, and stands by his assertions.
You do the same, as do I, as do some of the other posters on here...
Really? So when he asserts that arguments from me and Doc are that a fetus MUST require "artifical aide" to be considered "viable", or when he suggests that my arguments are that R v W mandates States to proscribe abortion at viability, we should consider him as honest, even though he obviously intentionally twists what is said? Tell me, did you see my discussion with him when he portrays himself as a Florida prosecutor and suggested the victim of domestic abuse was equally responsible as the abuser if she returned, innocently, to the abusive relationship? Did you see him fail to understand what the definition of "Assault" was in Florida?
People can pretend to be what they are not here, I understand that, but to brag about how much better they are than others, like he has, well, yeah, we'll call him on that!

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#242501 Jun 9, 2012
I had an interesting conversation with a friend of mine the other day. We were talking about the RC church and their covering up abusive priests.

One of the points that was brought up is: What is the difference between one priest covering up the abuse of another priest, and a lawyer defending a person who admits that they commited a crime? Their guilt would be considered "privileged"and "confidential" information in both cases

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#242502 Jun 9, 2012
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>Really? So when he asserts that arguments from me and Doc are that a fetus MUST require "artifical aide" to be considered "viable", or when he suggests that my arguments are that R v W mandates States to proscribe abortion at viability, we should consider him as honest, even though he obviously intentionally twists what is said? Tell me, did you see my discussion with him when he portrays himself as a Florida prosecutor and suggested the victim of domestic abuse was equally responsible as the abuser if she returned, innocently, to the abusive relationship? Did you see him fail to understand what the definition of "Assault" was in Florida?
People can pretend to be what they are not here, I understand that, but to brag about how much better they are than others, like he has, well, yeah, we'll call him on that!
Unfortunately this thread could be a "case study" in the art of twisting words. It happenens on both sides, sometimes accidently but more often deliberately, and each side tends to turn a blind eye to the twisting on that happens from people on their side of the issue.

“docendo discimus”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#242503 Jun 9, 2012
Kathwynn wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently you need to join the birther cause na dbe an nother Orlyntaitz.. the Opinion is is not The Decision of the court.
The Opinion talks about how the Decision was made. it is not The Decision.
I now really understand how the republican/teabagger/birther stay in business. Fools like you just keep right on believing in any fool thinmg that is sold to you by the far right.
Sheesh you can take any part of the Opinion out of context, but it is still not the Decision any more than the Concurrence or the Dissent.
LOL, your a simpleton Kathy, that's understood, and it's why us Republicans, and teabaggers dont want you running the country.
Let me put it to you this way, if a man was convected of a sex crime, and later DNA proved him innocent, would the "Decision" keep him in jail even tough HOW the decision was reached was overturned?
"Fools like you" shouldn't vote, for the better of our country.

“docendo discimus”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#242504 Jun 9, 2012
Susanm wrote:
<quoted text>
Unfortunately this thread could be a "case study" in the art of twisting words. It happenens on both sides, sometimes accidently but more often deliberately, and each side tends to turn a blind eye to the twisting on that happens from people on their side of the issue.
Yeah, I agree, well said. That's why I respect, but not always agree, with your posts. I know that you are speaking from your heart, and mind, with less regard for what people think about it. An honest, and respectable trait.

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#242505 Jun 9, 2012
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, I agree, well said. That's why I respect, but not always agree, with your posts. I know that you are speaking from your heart, and mind, with less regard for what people think about it. An honest, and respectable trait.
Thanks BA, I respect you as well.

I would be interested in your thought about my post #242501.

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.

Fort Lauderdale Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr sonicfilter 1,274,451
News Missing 5-year-old Florida girl likely was abdu... (Feb '09) 3 hr Smartpantz 97,460
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 4 hr IB DaMann 54,488
News Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 15 hr Norbert of Norview 71,944
Review: Bellagio Condo (Apr '11) Wed Matt P 10
Review: Law Offices Of George Castrataro (Feb '15) Wed From NY 139
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) Wed TRD 70,155
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Fort Lauderdale Mortgages