Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Full story: Newsday 306,190
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
Ocean56

AOL

#284394 Feb 17, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
What exactly is your problem? You are on here using a made up name while complaining that we are too. You're starting to act creepish and too interested in our personal information.
Exactly. People who solicit PERSONAL information really creep me out. It's NONE of their bleeping business.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#284395 Feb 17, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are saying I'm dumb and you're smart, and that if anyone does an internet search about hindus worship cows, then absolutely no websights will say that SOME hindus DO worship cows, correct?
If you googled "Hindu's worship cows" and ignored the first dozen pages where effectively EVERY site acknowledges that they do NOT worship cows - then yes, you're dumb. Worse - you're being DELIBERATELY dumb.

If you recall, this is what many have tried to tell you - you ignore what you're being told and being shown, in your strange quest to alienate posters.

THe very first link that comes up, says:

http://www.religionfacts.com/hinduism/things/...

"Hindus do not worship the cow"

The second site listed - a Hindu site - says:

http://www.nhsf.org.uk/index.php...

"Hindus don't worship cows. We respect, honour and adore the cow. By honouring this gentle animal, who gives more than she takes, we honour all creatures.

Hindus regard all living creatures as sacred - mammals, fishes, birds and more. We acknowledge this reverence for life in our special affection for the cow. At festivals we decorate and honour her, but we do not worship her in the sense that we worship the Deity."

This is not unlike your attempts to demean and dimminish other's views of their faiths. Perhaps you should become familiar with the Nostra Aetate in which the Vatican affirms the validity of other faiths.

In your own stubbornness, you not only alienate posters, you alienate your own faith.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#284396 Feb 17, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course now the basta@rd has to actually see the post.
When I brought up one of Doc's past eff-ups he told me to forget the past. Funny coming from him, doncha think?
Now ? Didn't the "bastard" see the post originally and have it removed ? The bastard's just seeing it NOW ? Make up your mind. Which is it ?

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#284397 Feb 17, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously my posts existed so your claims that I didn't answer you, or that it's my "MO" to leave your questions unanswered, was quite wrong. Again you forget how I tracked down one of my past posts answering one of your questions that you claimed I didn't answer, and proved you wrong back then.
What we really have is your "MO" of claiming your questions are going unanswered...and being wrong.
You were wrong that first time you claimed I didn't answer your question, and I proved it by digging up my unanswered post.
You were clearly wrong this time when you claimed I didn't answer your current question, as you well know.
You were wrong when you claimed I didn't provide the post number when you asked for it.
And you were wrong with the whole "took the bait/it wasn't bait per se" debacle.
What we have is a clear pattern of you being wrong quite often.
I can only go by what I see. If the alleged answer to my post is not visible to me, how am I to know you actually did answer ?
Only in hindsight, in consideration of evidence of post removal, will I admit I was wrong. But I'll never apologize for having said I never saw the posts....because I never did.
Obviously you were wrong about me removing the posts. So it appears there is enough wrong to go around for everyone.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#284398 Feb 17, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, their paranoid ideas about all that displayed just how irrational the PC nutcases are. Not once did they consider any rational explanation. It went stupid to completely irrational in 1 sec flat.
Logic would have told them, certain people here are not afraid to respond to posts. Why would they think others would report them and have their posts removed, and for the reasons they suggested? Because that's what they would do, and those would be the reasons why.
True. Haven't some of them actually admitted to reporting posts and trying to get some PL's bounced ?
I've demonstrated nothing but a willingness to answer and answer directly any question directed at me. Certainly cannot say the same for others ( Bitter, Tinker Bell, etc ). Now all of a sudden I'm going to be the one having posts removed ?
feces for jesus

Bellmore, NY

#284399 Feb 17, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are saying I'm dumb and you're smart, and that if anyone does an internet search about hindus worship cows, then absolutely no websights will say that SOME hindus DO worship cows, correct?
No, I said you're insane. You blab on and on about things you don't know about, like starving children and hindus worshipping cows. Then again, the American use of the word worship has swayed from it's original meaning, but you wouldn't care to know about any of that either.

Maybe you can find a blog by a religous nut, like yourself, that says that Hindus worship cows, but that still won't be true. Do you ever check your sources or are do you just believe whatever you read...... as long as it fits into your world view and your beliefs?

Perhaps a very small percentage of Hindus might worship a cow. It's not as if I am in the Hindu nation taking a census of each person. I will not rule out the possibility. This is called keeping an open mind; something you know very little about.
feces for jesus

Bellmore, NY

#284400 Feb 17, 2013
The Prince wrote:
<quoted text>
eYt here you are promoting your pagan hate for all Chrisitians. They love you and pray for you. You are undeserving but that is waht Chrsitians do. You are a pagan and will never understand that. Satan has you now.
awwww, poor baby Tom Tom doesn't like people questioning the BS in his religion. Go cry to your zombie god, nancyboy.
Anonymous

United States

#284401 Feb 17, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
If you googled "Hindu's worship cows" and ignored the first dozen pages where effectively EVERY site acknowledges that they do NOT worship cows - then yes, you're dumb. Worse - you're being DELIBERATELY dumb.
If you recall, this is what many have tried to tell you - you ignore what you're being told and being shown, in your strange quest to alienate posters.
THe very first link that comes up, says:
http://www.religionfacts.com/hinduism/things/...
"Hindus do not worship the cow"
The second site listed - a Hindu site - says:
http://www.nhsf.org.uk/index.php...
"Hindus don't worship cows. We respect, honour and adore the cow. By honouring this gentle animal, who gives more than she takes, we honour all creatures.
Hindus regard all living creatures as sacred - mammals, fishes, birds and more. We acknowledge this reverence for life in our special affection for the cow. At festivals we decorate and honour her, but we do not worship her in the sense that we worship the Deity."
This is not unlike your attempts to demean and dimminish other's views of their faiths. Perhaps you should become familiar with the Nostra Aetate in which the Vatican affirms the validity of other faiths.
In your own stubbornness, you not only alienate posters, you alienate your own faith.
Yes, but feces keeps bringing up the hindus, when I always said "SOME " worship cows. If you go past many post you get to some.

I don't view religion, like hair styles, and that what ever works for you is fine.
I've always viewed religion as either a way to save mankind from what he deserves or it was fake. I just went for years thinking anyone who worshipped anything was an idiot, and was taught to believe the garbage.
(IT IS NOW MY OPINION) based on what I experienced personaly, that their is a God, and one God. I also believe in the word of God as the bible, not the quran or book of mormans, etc.

If someone would like to tell me about their faith in their god, then that would be great, but so far all I've been getting from (MOST), is people who claim to not to believe in any god, but wants to tell me all about my God.
feces for jesus

Bellmore, NY

#284402 Feb 17, 2013
_Bad Axe wrote:
<quoted text>Wait a minute moron, your name, "Feces for Jesus" is disrespectful and intolerant of other's beliefs. You rant about bible thumpers yet you're no different in your attack on their beliefs. What makes you think your beliefs, or understanding, is so superior to others that you offer "feces" to theirs? You're just an intolerant, hypocritical POS, no different than those you hate.
Thing is, I don't come on here ranting about what I believe as if it is absolute truth. If I choose to call out religious wackos on their BS, and you don't like it.... then too bad.

Feces for jesus is here: Please enjoy


oh, and go eff yourself.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#284403 Feb 17, 2013
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Appreciated.
Would it be fair to say your use of the "legal strict definition of viability" could become practically limitless, as medical technology advances.
Theoretically I guess so. I believe even the SC in Casey vs PP acknowledged that the limits of viability were moving earlier in pregnancies as medical technology advanced.
But something like an artificial womb would change everything...and not just the concept of viability. Abortion would likely not even be an issue anymore.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#284404 Feb 17, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but feces keeps bringing up the hindus, when I always said "SOME " worship cows. If you go past many post you get to some.
No, you NEVER get to any that say "some" worship cows, since by their faith's belief, THEY DO NOT WORSHIP COWS.

Period.

You may have found sites by morons that are making that claim, but since its NOT a factual claim, its simply more bullshit on the internet.

If you bothered to actally try to LEARN something about that faith, you'd know that to be true, and stop tying to DEMEAN THEIR FAITH by ignoring the facts.

You're so busy trying to invalidate OTHERS faiths, you're ignoring the facts.

AGAIN, this is what you claimed you would "try" not to do anymore, yet you're not even trying, you're just repeating the same bullshit and trying to justify it.
If someone would like to tell me about their faith in their god, then that would be great, but so far all I've been getting from (MOST), is people who claim to not to believe in any god, but wants to tell me all about my God.
You're lying. Again. I personally have tried to tell you about MY faith, the Jewish faith, and you've ignored it. Numerous times. In fact, you've tried to deman the Jewish faith in the process. You're ignoring everything you're being shown about the Hindu religions, you've ignored everything STO and others have tried to speak to you about regarding THEIR Christian faith, because YOU dont like it and dont believe in it.

Because YOU dont believe in it doesn't invalidate the facts about their beliefs. But AGAIN, you're so busy ignoring what you dont like, you miss the big picture.

Why am I NOT shocked that you're not only incapable of learning something new, but that you dont practice what you preach?

When it comes to faith, its not about YOU, its about the INDIVIDUAL.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#284405 Feb 17, 2013
Doc Degall wrote:
<quoted text>
Theoretically I guess so. I believe even the SC in Casey vs PP acknowledged that the limits of viability were moving earlier in pregnancies as medical technology advanced.
But something like an artificial womb would change everything...and not just the concept of viability. Abortion would likely not even be an issue anymore.
I have to respectfully disagree. Abortion would certainly be an issue, because there are women that wouldn't want to have their ZEF transplanted. It would open another option, but it wouldn't eliminate many of the issues themselves.
SapphireBlue

Orlando, FL

#284406 Feb 17, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, I'm not tired of the President speaking up for women at all. The regressive Republicans are the ones who think women are second-class citizens. They make that obvious whenever they come up with new ways to restrict abortion rights for women who WANT them.
So which feminists are saying "knock it off, Mr. President?" Specifics would be helpful.
Well, see, that's just not true. Women have been equal on the playing field for a fairly long time now. A few have even made a run for the presidency and more than a few are in positions of leadership in every aspect of government. Women are respected as much as men in the medical field which didn't use to be the case decades ago. Women are just as athletic and some even more so than men in the sports arena. A few have flown into space and quite a few run big corporations.

This president wants you to believe something that is not true for no other purpose than to cause derisiveness and to create something that simply doesn't exist.

He is actually diminishing the massive strides made in women's rights over the past decades by pretending it never happened.

So the question is why would he do this? The women's movement was a hard fought victory and a thing of the past. No one has been complaining or is even complaining now. Except this president.

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#284407 Feb 17, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
A woman getting an abortion pre-1973 is breaking the law.
Master of the obvious. We know.( Not in all states, by the way )
A woman protesting against the law is not breaking the law. She is exercising her right to work to change an existing law.
Again.....obvious.

The law was in fact changed, by SCOTUS. What about this don't you get?
Not a thing. Except for one minor thing. None of this has anything to do with my original point, which was....

You said you defended a woman's freedom to choose WITHIN THE LAW. Then you went on to question how anyone could have an argument with such a laudable creed. Yet the fact is you would have NOT professed to live by such a laudable creed pre-1973. In fact, "I" could have said that I lived by such a creed prior to 1973....and you would have had a major argument with it. THAT was the point.
You had two chances to answer and you failed. You no longer have to.........I answered for you.
I never said a fetus is not alive,
You implied it did not meet some criteria for being considered to be alive. Then went on to say that it did not meet the definition of "life".....which brings us back to the original point. The fetus is no doubt a live and developing human. It is the PC that have established the subjectively chosen point at which that life is worth anything or is worthy of protection. How sanctimoniously and self righteously in violation of the fundamental right to life can you be that you would consider the right to privacy as the basis for dictating when a human life should be worthy of protection ?

or a developing human. A z/e/f does not have rights. A woman has rights. A born baby has rights.
To give the z/e/f rights would then revoke rights from women. A woman is a born human being, a z/e/f is not born yet.
The civil rights of the born are already restricted in cases where innocent human life is at stake.
Guppy

Englewood, FL

#284408 Feb 17, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. People who solicit PERSONAL information really creep me out. It's NONE of their bleeping business.
You must have something to hide. The paranoia on here is off the charts. Everyone is so afraid. It's comical. What is everyone afraid of?

Have you done prison time?

“Game on !”

Since: Aug 09

nyc

#284409 Feb 17, 2013
LiIrabbitfoofoo wrote:
<quoted text>
I have to respectfully disagree. Abortion would certainly be an issue, because there are women that wouldn't want to have their ZEF transplanted. It would open another option, but it wouldn't eliminate many of the issues themselves.
Point taken.
SapphireBlue

Orlando, FL

#284410 Feb 17, 2013
grumpy wrote:
<quoted text>Wouldn't Jesus be "politically corect" today" Wasn't he crucified for being a rebel?
Yes, he definitely was considered a rebel during his day. But if you go back and read some of the scriptures in the four gospels of the New Testament you will find he was rebelling against the political correctness perpetrated by the Jewish religious leaders of his day.

They, too, wanted to silence the opposition.

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#284411 Feb 17, 2013
SapphireBlue wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, see, that's just not true. Women have been equal on the playing field for a fairly long time now. A few have even made a run for the presidency and more than a few are in positions of leadership in every aspect of government. Women are respected as much as men in the medical field which didn't use to be the case decades ago. Women are just as athletic and some even more so than men in the sports arena. A few have flown into space and quite a few run big corporations.
This president wants you to believe something that is not true for no other purpose than to cause derisiveness and to create something that simply doesn't exist.
He is actually diminishing the massive strides made in women's rights over the past decades by pretending it never happened.
So the question is why would he do this? The women's movement was a hard fought victory and a thing of the past. No one has been complaining or is even complaining now. Except this president.
Once again, you're full of crap. If you think nobody has been or IS complaining, you're either blind or stupid. Personally, I vote for a bit of both. The "glass ceiling" very much still exists. Women very much still make less than men for the same jobs. There's men that want to control women's medical decisions, while dont you DARE challange theirs.

Get real sister. Maybe YOU are okay with the status quo, but normal women are not.
Guppy

Englewood, FL

#284412 Feb 17, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
I've had an internet stalker, back when I was young and naive and using my real name. Never again. My posting name is a permutation of elements in my real name, and I had someone actually look up a "c peter" in Indianapolis, which of course wasn't me.
<quoted text>
Internet stalker? It's funny how you make up stories. You have a real talent for that. You don't fool me, though.

Young and naive? You are still naive.

It wasn't you because you don't live in Indianapolis. Gee, no brainer. How would you possibly know someone was trying to find you? Rolling eyes and shaking head.

Paranoid much?

Since: Feb 07

Location hidden

#284413 Feb 17, 2013
Junket wrote:
<quoted text>
Sandy packed more of a wallop, personally speaking. She was quite a horror. Meanwhile this one, Charlotte or Nemo (why two names?) was only a big white messy inconvenience. Price we pay for living in New England.
(I've had a couple of years to study Lily's posting manner. She reminds me of one of the Three Mistakes. Must be right, no matter what. Makes me wonder what happened to the Lily child that turned her into such a prideful and generally unpleasant adult. I think she's more to be pitied and not despised.)
Personally, I thought Charlotte was a better name. Nemo is too nautical and better suited for a hurricane.

What is sad about Lily is she seems to have no idea just how obnoxious she is, and I sincerely hope she isn't this unpleasant IRL. She has the abrasive personality of a defiant toddler.

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.

Hollywood Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min fetch almighty 1,124,288
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 11 min JOEL 69,950
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr Earthling-1 47,470
Mrs. Bush: History will vindicate her husband (Jun '08) 6 hr VeganTiger 54,518
Miami Is the Second Worst Place to Raise Kids i... 10 hr WE JUST DONT CARE 31
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 20 hr Grau 68,634
the outlaws motorcycle gang in south Florida is... (Feb '11) 20 hr Streetrunner 229
Hollywood Dating
Find my Match

Hollywood Jobs

Hollywood People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Hollywood News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Hollywood

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]