Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 309933 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.

feces for jesus

Bellmore, NY

#284262 Feb 16, 2013
SapphireBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
See, the thing is...I used to be arrogant and prideful just like you apparently are now. I used to think it was all a bunch of hooey just like you apparently do now.
Truthfully, I still have to work on humbleness at times when it comes to dealing with political correctness and its poison and those who spread it. But I apologize if it comes across as arrogance. It isn't meant to.
These are truly trying times, aren't they?
You're oh so humble when it comes to religion, aren't you? Spare us your bull.
feces for jesus

Bellmore, NY

#284263 Feb 16, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
God the Son asked God the Father, what could be done to save the human race.
God the Father and God the Son knew the system that they had set into place for after sin entered the world. There was only one way to remove sin, and that was a blood offering, but these offerings would only "cover "or "move ahead " the sin debt, so God the Son told God the Father, that He was willing to leave their Heavenly realm, and come and dwell among men "people ".
Since Sin is transferred through the man, then they chose a virgin named mary, who would carry out this Godblessed amazing deal for humans.
God told mary that His son would be called Jesus "in english ", and He allowed His Son to come yo to earth, and be born of a virgin, live a sinless life "since we cannot ",and died on the cross for our Sin.
He payed the debt we owed .
He died so that we can live.
His precious blood was applied on the mercy seat of God the Father, and when God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost looks at one that has been born again, from above they only see a person who is covered by that precious blood, provided by God the Son for the glory of God. Amen :)
For the preaching of the gospel is foolishness to those who perish :(
What is a Holy Ghost? Seriously? Is a spirit a ghost? Are the soul and spirit the same thing? All you have is spiritual jargon. Empty words with no substance behind them.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#284264 Feb 16, 2013
I don't hate women; some are beneath contemptas individuals. You, for example.

Gay = effeminate? Should I stereotype women = idiots? You, sure, but ALL women?

Katie has my respect; has anyone ever respected you?
Guppy wrote:
<quoted text>
That Hurts!
Just because you love men, doesn't mean you have to Hate women.
Did you see the advertisement on Topix for ballet flats? You should get a pair or two, they would feature you. Hope they make your size. Leopard would be flattering, you could wear them with your skinny jeans.
Live a little and walk on the wild side.
I think you have a (not so) secret admirer. Her? name is Katie and she likes to defend you. She takes pity on you when she feels you have lied. Can't imagine why. It is kind of sweet. Do you have room in that closed off heart of yours for her? It could be that she is a he! That would make more sense. Ah, Love is in the air!
I think you have finally found someone to love you. Thank the lord.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#284265 Feb 16, 2013
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
"Lily," you are such an obnoxious personality that I usually simply scroll past your posts without bothering to read them.
It's the same-old same-old from you anyway; you people are boneheads, you people are stupid, you people can't read for comprehension, you people are OWNED by us, the PC are all idiots, blah, blah, blah...
All I saw from your PC friends since I started here has been; "you bitch", "you moron", "you c**t", "you liar", "you f'kn this or that", "you're a slut", "drug addict", "Lynnie, Lynniekins, LyinLynnielilyslut" blah blah.

I gave in kind, only not to the vulgar degree the PCers have, and when I have called someone on their shit, they see that as abusive, while they are being verbally abusive to others. Nothing from you about that, John boy.
I didn't see anything from you calling the PCers obnoxious, hypocrite. Selective blindness seems to be a habit with you. I've been obnoxious to those who have been vulgar toward PLers and who have lied about PLers.
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
There's a fair portion of the PL side that believe a fertilized egg is a "person."
That's a lie. They haven't called a fertilized egg a "person". A human life, the woman's child yes, but not a "person". If you're going to try to make a point, you might want to stick to facts, and noit make up stuff like that, otherwise you're displaying a lack of credibility.
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>This is usually founded on religious principles regarding the creation of an "immortal soul." They also believe that abortion at any of the z/e/f stages is about "killing a person/baby," otherwise, why all the fuss about MAP? You're trying to twist wording here to suit your preferences; nobody's actually called a fetus a "z/e/f."
Again not a "person", but yes, they believe it's a mother having her own developing child killed. That's not all PLers, and point taken about their beliefs about MAP.

However, there isn't going to be a surgical abortion until the woman knows she's pregnant, and that doesn't happen in zygote stage, which is what I was talking about. We're talking about abortion, and that's usually about an embryo or fetus. So the dishonesty about it is coming from the PC camp. Zygote stage has nothing to do with surgical abortions.
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll assume you're an adult who drives a motor-vehicle. Do you believe that the DMV serves a useful purpose by requiring that drivers are licensed and insured? That their vehicles are registered and pass safety inspections? Do you agree that speed-limits, laws against driving while intoxicated or otherwise impaired by some ingested substance serve a worthwhile purpose?
You're trying to compare laws about driving to laws about killing a human life? That doesn't make sense.
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
There is nothing contradictory about reasonable restrictions regarding the development of the unborn and the limits on the abortion thereof. What you're presenting as "contradictory" is a false argument...unless you're arguing that we ought to live in a "lawless" land. However, that's not what you're arguing--you'd like to see abortion outlawed.
I always find it interesting that conservatives, who rant, rail, scream about government intrusion always want that very intrusion when it comes to "sexuality/personal relationships," and reproductive "rights."
Killing a human life isn't about "sexuality/personal relationships", and it's not about "reproductive rights" either. The right to reproduce or not begins and ends BEFORE the sex act. Once a pregnancy occurs, a human life has been produced, and it's no longer about "reproduction", but about destroying the developing human life. When a woman finds out she's pregnant, that human life's heart is beating. Abortion is stopping a beating heart in a tiny human body. Yes, I would like to see that being illegal.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#284266 Feb 16, 2013
WTF? Scientists do know why it happens. They also know the early fetus doesn't have a human heart; it has in essence a tube that pushes blood through. The 4-chamber human heart develops later. Who carees? A born person can be brain-dead and still have a heartbeat. Anencephalic babies can have enough of a brain stem to keep the heart going.
carol wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you call a developing baby with a beating heart with working organs and sucks its thumb a human being?
The human heart starts beating on its own in the first half of the first trimester.
Scientists, for the life of them, can't figure out why or how that happens.
Obskeptic

Livonia, MI

#284267 Feb 16, 2013
SapphireBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
Children and adults can recount events going on around them long after they were pronounced dead.
Many recount conversations by those attending them and objects in a room that couldn't have possibly been seen from their vantage point before they died.
This simply can't be ignored or explained away.
Modern research on near-death experiences have come from several academic disciplines including medicine, psychology and psychiatry. Among them are the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, British Journal of Psychology and American Journal of Disease of Children.
However, cases of NDEs go back to ancient times and Plato.
The whole part of the deal that a God hating liberal or atheist is unable to grasp is the greatest gift he has given us, and that is free will. All that he asks is that we love him, because he loves us. He is not with us to influence or decide for us our own fate, that is our part of the journey to manage. It is up to us to accept or reject his love, and many choose to forsake him. Those would certainly not be the first to do so.
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#284268 Feb 16, 2013
SapphireBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
You're probably too young, but I remember a time in the late 60s and early 70s when girls who got pregnant - several who were in my class - had to drop out of school and hope the guy would marry her - which, surprisingly, many did back then - or get enough money to fly to New York for an abortion which was inconvenient and attached with a sense of shame.
The Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v Wade was very narrow and restrictive when it came to abortion. But once Pandora's box is opened, it usually flies wide open. That's where we are now.
Ironically, the woman represented as Roe is now a pro-life activist.
Abortion should be an issue for each state to decide and should still be inconvenient and attached with a sense of shame.
Unfortunately, it has become a war cry for the empowerment of women. It's time they - and we - humbled ourselves instead.

[QUOTE who="Katie"]<quot ed text>
Abortion is an issue decided individually by states. The federal umbrella covering abortion is during the first twelve weeks of pregnancy. No questions asked, no reasons needed to terminate an unwanted/unhealthy pregnancy. As it should be. Since 98% of all annual abortions are performed during this time, the PLM needs to stop sucking the goop off that spoon and start living in reality.
Roe v Wade also protects women from forced abortion. Don't forget that in your misplaced zeal to overturn it, criticize it, or otherwise disrespect all it does for women you will never meet or know in your life time or beyond.
(is this Janice?)
_Bad Axe wrote:
<quoted text>You just contradicted yourself Katie, you said that abortion is an issue decided individually by states, but only as long as they adhere to the guidelines set by the federal government/SCOTUS decisions. So it's not decided by states as the poster suggested it should be, right?
I was responding to SB who claimed RvW was "narrow and restrictive" and pointed out the first twelve weeks of pregnancy is off limits to everyone in the country but the pregnant woman. That means it's not as "narrow and restrictive" as SB claimed it is.

If you see that contradicting the fact that from that point on, states can individually decide how to deal with the abortion procedure(s), then that's how you see it. I am not sure what it has to do with the discussion, though.
<quoted text> So, again, you are saying that 98% of all abortions are protected by the federal government/SCOTUS decisions? I believe the poster said that abortions should be regulated by states and you argued that they are.
Then you've misunderstood what I posted.
<quoted text>Katie, I've seen you say this before, but before Roe v Wade abortion was illegal, in most cases, so the government wasnt looking to abort fetuses. I may be wrong on this and am honestly asking to learn something about it here. Can you provide some examples of where the government forced a women to have an abortion prior to R v W, and where Roe v Wade specifically addressed this issue?
I did not ever make a claim that "government forced a women to have an abortion prior to R v W". Therefore I don't need to "provide some examples".

Roe v Wade specifically addresses the issue of women having personal privacy and bodily autonomy over their pregnancies. The case from FL was provided to you last year in a different thread. Do you remember? Where the mentally unstable girl was legally able to refuse the abortion being forced upon her by her caregivers? I'm sure the court's ruling will provide you with the insight you seek, BA.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#284269 Feb 16, 2013
John's argument has nothing to do with the hypocrisy from PC about restrictions on abortion at viability, or about their claims that a fetus doesn't have rights.

Either PC believes that women should have "personal autonomy" and "medical privacy", or they don't. Agreeing with restrictions at viability contradicts that view.

PC believing that a fetus doesn't and shouldn't have equal rights to a woman, is contradicted by the PCers who agree with restrictions on abortion at viability.

PCers who believe women who kill their born children are monsters, while believing a woman having her child in utero killed is just excercising her right not to reproduce,(even though her developing child has already been produced), are people who ignorantly contradict themselves at every turn.

John's post didn't state anything that proved that was incorrect.
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#284270 Feb 16, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
I don't hate women; some are beneath contemptas individuals. You, for example.
Gay = effeminate? Should I stereotype women = idiots? You, sure, but ALL women?
Katie has my respect; has anyone ever respected you?
<quoted text>


Wow,
SapphireBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
You're probably too young, but I remember a time in the late 60s and early 70s when girls who got pregnant - several who were in my class - had to drop out of school and hope the guy would marry her - which, surprisingly, many did back then - or get enough money to fly to New York for an abortion which was inconvenient and attached with a sense of shame.
The Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v Wade was very narrow and restrictive when it came to abortion. But once Pandora's box is opened, it usually flies wide open. That's where we are now.
Ironically, the woman represented as Roe is now a pro-life activist.
Abortion should be an issue for each state to decide and should still be inconvenient and attached with a sense of shame.
Unfortunately, it has become a war cry for the empowerment of women. It's time they - and we - humbled ourselves instead.

[QUOTE who="Katie"]<quot ed text>
Abortion is an issue decided individually by states. The federal umbrella covering abortion is during the first twelve weeks of pregnancy. No questions asked, no reasons needed to terminate an unwanted/unhealthy pregnancy. As it should be. Since 98% of all annual abortions are performed during this time, the PLM needs to stop sucking the goop off that spoon and start living in reality.
Roe v Wade also protects women from forced abortion. Don't forget that in your misplaced zeal to overturn it, criticize it, or otherwise disrespect all it does for women you will never meet or know in your life time or beyond.
(is this Janice?)
Wow, Cptr (and back atcha), is Guppy pouting because your post wasn't linked? I saw it, read it, and thought how similar it was to my own childhood. We had a big family. Most the women were educated and worked as nurses. Sometimes I even went to work with my mom or gramma. Probably wouldn't be legal these days, though.

Do you think Guppy's ever had anyone's real respect?
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#284271 Feb 16, 2013
oops! ignore SB's post up there with Cptr's. not sure how it got there. haven't quite figured out all the bugs in Windows 8 yet.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#284272 Feb 16, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
All I saw from your PC friends since I started here has been; "you bitch", "you moron", "you c**t", "you liar", "you f'kn this or that", "you're a slut", "drug addict", "Lynnie, Lynniekins, LyinLynnielilyslut" blah blah.
I gave in kind, only not to the vulgar degree the PCers have, and when I have called someone on their shit, they see that as abusive, while they are being verbally abusive to others. Nothing from you about that, John boy.
I didn't see anything from you calling the PCers obnoxious, hypocrite. Selective blindness seems to be a habit with you. I've been obnoxious to those who have been vulgar toward PLers and who have lied about PLers.
<quoted text>
That's a lie. They haven't called a fertilized egg a "person". A human life, the woman's child yes, but not a "person". If you're going to try to make a point, you might want to stick to facts, and noit make up stuff like that, otherwise you're displaying a lack of credibility.
<quoted text>
Again not a "person", but yes, they believe it's a mother having her own developing child killed. That's not all PLers, and point taken about their beliefs about MAP.
However, there isn't going to be a surgical abortion until the woman knows she's pregnant, and that doesn't happen in zygote stage, which is what I was talking about. We're talking about abortion, and that's usually about an embryo or fetus. So the dishonesty about it is coming from the PC camp. Zygote stage has nothing to do with surgical abortions.
<quoted text>
You're trying to compare laws about driving to laws about killing a human life? That doesn't make sense.
<quoted text>
Killing a human life isn't about "sexuality/personal relationships", and it's not about "reproductive rights" either. The right to reproduce or not begins and ends BEFORE the sex act. Once a pregnancy occurs, a human life has been produced, and it's no longer about "reproduction", but about destroying the developing human life. When a woman finds out she's pregnant, that human life's heart is beating. Abortion is stopping a beating heart in a tiny human body. Yes, I would like to see that being illegal.
Fair enough--there's enough "blame" to go around for people on "both" sides of the proverbial "aisle" to be considered "obnoxious."
You--personally--have a penchant for wallowing in it--IMO...
I feel I've been rather considerate and "understanding" of the PL posters who are likewise; "Susanm, Old Lady, Pup-C, Rachel..." There are others I simply can't call them to mind at the moment.
No that statement is not a lie;
http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/04/us/mississippi-...
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2009/02/18/...
Granted that's just TWO examples of the PL effort to get "personhood" legislation passed, but they're hardly the only ones...

My comparison makes perfect sense; you're insisting that PC folks should endorse the murder of born children: i.e. "if you're in favor of this, you HAVE to be in favor of THAT!"
http://www.topix.com/forum/nyc/T833PCEP80MM49...
All I'm offering to refute that is that, "hey, if you're in favor of freedom of driving, why should you endorse "restrictions" on it?"

You wanna keep going...?
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#284273 Feb 16, 2013
SapphireBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
It most definitely is a war cry. A big part of Obama's platform and the reason he won a reelection was based on this war cry.
Sadly enough.
Are you, too, getting tired of this president continually talking about women as if any of us ever thought we were second-class citizens before he came on the scene? What's up with that? Even feminists are starting to say knock it off, Mr. President.
I disagree and do not see women's civil rights as a "war cry". What makes you think it is?

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#284274 Feb 16, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
John's argument has nothing to do with the hypocrisy from PC about restrictions on abortion at viability, or about their claims that a fetus doesn't have rights.
Either PC believes that women should have "personal autonomy" and "medical privacy", or they don't. Agreeing with restrictions at viability contradicts that view.
PC believing that a fetus doesn't and shouldn't have equal rights to a woman, is contradicted by the PCers who agree with restrictions on abortion at viability.
PCers who believe women who kill their born children are monsters, while believing a woman having her child in utero killed is just excercising her right not to reproduce,(even though her developing child has already been produced), are people who ignorantly contradict themselves at every turn.
John's post didn't state anything that proved that was incorrect.
Quite correct!

My post had nothing whatsoever to do with the whole "viability" issue that's been beaten-to-death on here. Personally, I doubt I can offer a "reasonable" post to it since there seem to be so many differing opinions as to what "viability" actually means.

"Lily," if this whole scenario were as simple as an "if-then," or an "either-or," don't you think we'd have come to a satisfactory conclusion to it by now?

There is NO contradiction in believing that a woman whom murders her child is a "murderess" while a woman who undergoes an abortion is not.

We simply "see" things from a different perspective.
As I said before, this is where the whole argument about where "personhood" begins arises.
Does it occur at the moment of conception, or does it occur at some "later" moment?

“Don't forget to”

Since: Sep 09

smile

#284275 Feb 16, 2013
We should take a peek at our northern neighbor. Canada has liberal abortion laws and yet...

"...36.9 per cent decline in Canada's teen birth and abortion rate between 1996 and 2006, according to a report released today by the Sex Information and Education Council of Canada."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/parenting...

**********
More restrictions? Backwards thinking.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#284276 Feb 16, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
STO: "You disagree with Doc. You are asserting that 'viability' of an infant would be about potential of the newborn infant to survive 'without medical help.'"
No Doc and I don't disagree. We both completely understand the definition of viability and that it includes with medical help.
You and Katie mix up viable/non-viable fetus with viable/non-viable infant. I don't, and haven't seen Doc do it either.
Viability in the abortion issue is about the potential of a FETUS to survive outside of the womb, with or without medical help. That potential is determined while that fetus is still in utero. That determination isn't about an already born infant. Viability of an already born infant is also about POTENTIAL, and when doctors see a potential for that born infant to survive with medical help,
Last line, here, you say:

"Viability of an already born infant is also about POTENTIAL, and when doctors see a potential for that born infant to survive with medical help..."

But before, in your prior post, you said, and I quoted you ver batim:

"That's not the same as viability of a newborn infant, because the newborn infant is already ~outside of the womb~, so it would be about potential of the newborn infant to survive without medical help."

lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>they'll give the child that help. It's "viable" enough for doctors to determine it's worth TRYING to help it survive.
"Capable", "ability" are words in the the definitions of "viable" and "viability". Guessing you and Katie don't understand the meanings of those words either.
Neither [capable] nor [ability] mean "absolute", or "definite" survival with or without medical help.
If the fetus is deemed viable (which it would be while still in utero), and given medical help once born and then dies, it obviously wasn't a viable fetus...or viable born infant.
I don't see where Doc's and my views differ, except in the minds of peoplke who don't understand the definition of viability and that it pertains to a fetus.
I think you are confusing the use of the word "viable" as it can pertain to anything (like an idea or a means of communication or a strategy)-- as opposed to specifically the medical status of a fetus or infant.

You completely contradicted yourself, as evidenced in your own words shown above.
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#284277 Feb 16, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
John's argument has nothing to do with the hypocrisy from PC about restrictions on abortion at viability, or about their claims that a fetus doesn't have rights.
Either PC believes that women should have "personal autonomy" and "medical privacy", or they don't. Agreeing with restrictions at viability contradicts that view.
PC believing that a fetus doesn't and shouldn't have equal rights to a woman, is contradicted by the PCers who agree with restrictions on abortion at viability.
PCers who believe women who kill their born children are monsters, while believing a woman having her child in utero killed is just excercising her right not to reproduce,(even though her developing child has already been produced), are people who ignorantly contradict themselves at every turn.
John's post didn't state anything that proved that was incorrect.
Give some reasons why you believe it's contradictory? I have already read some people's claims they do not agree with restrictions because these do remove women's full autonomy and privacy. So please provide something beyond that.
Anonymous

United States

#284278 Feb 16, 2013
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
Try giving the book "Heaven is for Real" a read. The child was very young when he passed away and came back, with a story that would have been impossible to make up.
All who knew me, before I was saved would say the same thing.
Anytime a guy goes from only saying anything about God is when he was cursing, to not being able to stop talking about God pretty unbelievable.

Anyone can stop drinking or doing drugs, although not easy, but only God can take a life heading in one direction and turn it around on an instance.
Katie

Spanaway, WA

#284279 Feb 16, 2013
Junket wrote:
We should take a peek at our northern neighbor. Canada has liberal abortion laws and yet...
"...36.9 per cent decline in Canada's teen birth and abortion rate between 1996 and 2006, according to a report released today by the Sex Information and Education Council of Canada."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/parenting...
**********
More restrictions? Backwards thinking.
Thanks for this info, AJ.

(hope you are having a fantastic weekend)

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#284280 Feb 16, 2013
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Fair enough--there's enough "blame" to go around for people on "both" sides of the proverbial "aisle" to be considered "obnoxious."
You--personally--have a penchant for wallowing in it--IMO...
I feel I've been rather considerate and "understanding" of the PL posters who are likewise; "Susanm, Old Lady, Pup-C, Rachel..." There are others I simply can't call them to mind at the moment.
No that statement is not a lie;
http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/04/us/mississippi-...
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2009/02/18/...
Granted that's just TWO examples of the PL effort to get "personhood" legislation passed, but they're hardly the only ones...
My comparison makes perfect sense; you're insisting that PC folks should endorse the murder of born children: i.e. "if you're in favor of this, you HAVE to be in favor of THAT!"
http://www.topix.com/forum/nyc/T833PCEP80MM49...
All I'm offering to refute that is that, "hey, if you're in favor of freedom of driving, why should you endorse "restrictions" on it?"
You wanna keep going...?
John: "No that statement is not a lie;"

I apologize, I thought you were talking about what PLers here have said.

John: "My comparison makes perfect sense; you're insisting that PC folks should endorse the murder of born children: i.e.'if you're in favor of this, you HAVE to be in favor of THAT!'

You have that backwards. It's 'if you're [against] this, but not against that there's a contradiction'.

John: "All I'm offering to refute that is that,'hey, if you're in favor of freedom of driving, why should you endorse "restrictions" on it?' "

Still isn't a reasonable comparison, especially since freedom of driving isn't freedom to have your own child in utero killed, but also because of what I said in next post to you.

~Either PC believes that women should have "personal autonomy" and "medical privacy", or they don't. Agreeing with restrictions at viability contradicts that view.

PC believing that a fetus doesn't and shouldn't have equal rights to a woman, is contradicted by the PCers who agree with restrictions on abortion at viability.

PCers who believe women who kill their born children are monsters, while believing a woman having her child in utero killed is just excercising her right not to reproduce,(even though her developing child has already been produced), are people who ignorantly contradict themselves at every turn.~

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#284281 Feb 16, 2013
Junket wrote:
We should take a peek at our northern neighbor. Canada has liberal abortion laws and yet...
"...36.9 per cent decline in Canada's teen birth and abortion rate between 1996 and 2006, according to a report released today by the Sex Information and Education Council of Canada."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/parenting...
**********
More restrictions? Backwards thinking.
You will immediately CEASE in your attempts to subvert the "good" folks here with your "Liberal" propaganda!
Everyone "knows" that Canada is fast-becoming a 4th world power rivaling only the "Republic of Pilau."
;P

How've you been "A-J?"

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.

Hartford Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min Grey Ghost 1,234,130
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 11 min OzRitz 53,490
News Police say Conn. pastor's shooting may be linke... 1 hr Reverend Alan 12
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 8 hr TRD 70,035
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) Tue Bam 19,928
Review: Nirenstein Horowitz And Associates (Sep '12) Tue hrichard91 37
News Pastor Shot Outside Connecticut Church While Pu... May 25 BUSTER CRABBE 1
More from around the web

Hartford People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]