Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 310174 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.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#240698 May 28, 2012
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
"Lily," I have not strayed into that whole debate simply because it's out of my area of "experience/knowledge. "
Look, I know you love to dwell in minutia, but I'm not going to entertain your "need" for "being-right."
However I see you've conveniently removed yourself from that whole grouping of people who thinks that the only definitions they supply are those that matter...
If you'd stop being so nasty and obnoxious to those whom happen to disagree with you I might be more willing to "fence" with you more often. The only genuinely positive thing I can say about you is that you're one of the few "P-L'rs" who refer to us as "P-C" and not Pro-Abort, which is a term we all find rather toxic, and disingenuous.
"However I see you've conveniently removed yourself from that whole grouping of people who thinks that the only definitions they supply are those that matter..."

No "John", I haven't removed myself from it, because I was never in that grouping. I'll provide a definition that proves the PCers don't fully understand what they're trying to define. Like Chicky and her ignorance about "viability". Like Katie's ignorance about a born human still being a "fetus". I provide definitions that prove that people like them don't understand the meanings of words or terms, because they don't.

Once born, viability isn't a factor in the [abortion] issue. Once born, that human life is no longer a [fetus]. It's not rocket science, it's elementary, and they don't get it despite definitions proving both.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#240699 May 28, 2012
LadiLulu wrote:
<quoted text>
No, twit. Because I've been too busy to follow the flurry of posts from both sides.
I have often "rocked" the PC boat. Don't forget you and I met when I was PL, dear.
Ditz.
Sure Toots, you say that yet you saw enough to see the discussion on viability to say you've "shied away from" the discussion of viability. You're a pathological liar, and it's easily proven.

“Rockabye”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#240700 May 28, 2012
Badaxe wrote:
<quoted text>Actually I did respond to your limited definition of "albeit", and pointed out that it meant -not withstanding- though - although...
Again, Katie, the only definition of "viable" that is relevant to abortion laws is R v W's until it is challenged and overturned. Personally, I wouldn't blame you for backing out of this argument, there shouldn't even be an argument about it, it's case precedence, which has been reaffirmed, period.
<quoted text>That may be an underlying issue with some law makers, but than again it may just be a bias opinion to explain away the desire of most Americans, PL and PC, to protect a viable fetus. Roe v Wade explained the compelling argument of a State's interest to protect a viable fetus, and legally, that is all that matters.
<quoted text>Here Katie, from the case your link sited;
COLAUTTI v. FRANKLIN, 439 U.S.
"In these three cases,( Roe v Wade, Doe, v Bolton and Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth) then, this Court has stressed viability, has declared its determination to be a matter for medical judgment, and has recognized that differing legal consequences ensue upon the near and far sides of that point in the human gestation period. We reaffirm these principles. Viability is reached when, in the judgment of the attending physician on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of the fetus' sustained survival outside the womb, with or without artificial support."
Also from the same case "The Court rejected that argument, repeated the Roe definition of viability, 428 U.S., at 63 , and observed again that viability is "a matter of medical judgment, skill, and technical ability, and we preserved [in Roe] the flexibility of the term."
I have now sited two SCOTUS decisions, since R v W, that specifically referred to Roe v Wade's "DEFINITION" of what "viable" is. Will you now admit you and CS are wrong? Roe v Wade ,in fact, sets legal precedence, and thereby legally defines "viable" as "able to survive outside the woman's womb, albeit with artificial aide", or can you show me a decision that has defined it other wise?
Yeah, you're right. Roe v Wade certainly defined what VIABILITY means and it includes with or without medical assistance. I have never EVER stated otherwise.

What I have stated is that Roe v Wade DOES NOT change the medical definition of VIABILITY -- and THAT definition DOES NOT include medical assistance.

It appears, yet again, there is an inability on your part (and Triple L's, and Doc's) to distinguish between legal and medical.

But go ahead, if it helps you puff up and feel better about yourself, go ahead and believe yourselves to be right.

I don't care. Life is way too short to keep arguing these inane points with the lot of you. Yesterday's obits included my best friend from junior high. I could not care less what you people believe about somebody else's fetus. These fetus are not your concern. And no law should be changed to criminalize abortion in any state because some man or woman in some other state thinks they know what's best for somebody they've never met.

Think I am done here.

“Rockabye”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#240701 May 28, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
"You were trying to claim viability had no bearing on abortion -- "
No you didn't understand what I wrote, or why, and that's obvious to anyone with a properly functioning brain.
~"Viability is a term used about a fetus. Once [at the point of viability], abortion in many states is banned. How can viability be a factor in the abortion issue if viability was about being born and surviving without medical intervention? It wouldn't be, and that fact, in itself, is what proves your opinion of what viability means is utter nonsense."~
[How can viability be a factor in the abortion issue if viability was about being [born and surviving without medical intervention]? It wouldn't be,...]
That's not saying viability has no bearing on abortion, you ignorant fool. It's saying it does have bearing on abortion and is why Chicky's opinions of what viability means [born and surviving without medical assistance] is utter nonsense.
You couldn't have proven your lack of reading for comprehension, your stupidity or senseless better if you tried.
Did you or did you not try to claim "PC logic" invalid by stating viability would have no bearing in abortion?

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#240702 May 28, 2012
realkatie wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you or did you not try to claim "PC logic" invalid by stating viability would have no bearing in abortion?
Even after I re-posted what I said twice, you still have no idea what you're reading?

Viability is about a fetus with regard to the abortion issue. Chicky claims viability is [born and surviving [without] medical assistance.

Fact: viability in the abortion issue is about the [potential] to survive once born,[with] or without medical help.

IF viability was as Chicky claims, then it would have no bearing on the abortion issue, which is what proves her claims to be uetter nonsesne. Since the fact is viability is NOT what Chicky claims, it does have bearing on abortion, because viability is about the chances of survivial outside of the womb, "albeit with artifical aide".

So no, I did NOT "...try to claim "PC logic" invalid by stating viability would have no bearing in abortion..."

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#240703 May 28, 2012
realkatie wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, you're right. Roe v Wade certainly defined what VIABILITY means and it includes with or without medical assistance. I have never EVER stated otherwise.
What I have stated is that Roe v Wade DOES NOT change the medical definition of VIABILITY -- and THAT definition DOES NOT include medical assistance.
It appears, yet again, there is an inability on your part (and Triple L's, and Doc's) to distinguish between legal and medical.
But go ahead, if it helps you puff up and feel better about yourself, go ahead and believe yourselves to be right.
I don't care. Life is way too short to keep arguing these inane points with the lot of you. Yesterday's obits included my best friend from junior high. I could not care less what you people believe about somebody else's fetus. These fetus are not your concern. And no law should be changed to criminalize abortion in any state because some man or woman in some other state thinks they know what's best for somebody they've never met.
Think I am done here.
You were "done here" a long time ago. You have no ability to read for comprehension, no sense, no intelligence to reason and are irrational in your views about what [you think] you're reading or that people are saying. All you've been doing since has ben proving this fact about yourself.
hang in

Waveland, MS

#240704 May 28, 2012
Don't quit, realkatie. Well-reasoned responses make a difference!

“Rockabye”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#240705 May 28, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
You were "done here" a long time ago. You have no ability to read for comprehension, no sense, no intelligence to reason and are irrational in your views about what [you think] you're reading or that people are saying. All you've been doing since has ben proving this fact about yourself.
Oh you're so right about me, Lynne. You know best! Your logic is ALWAYS impeccable! You and Doc and Badaxe just have the knack of knowing what is best for everyone -- especially me.

I have been so stupid trying to debate according to the rules of civility. I have been such a fu(kup believing women smart enough, intelligent enough, and emotionally mature enough to determine their own outcomes. What was I thinking anyway? If you've not given your approval, then it's got to be bad.

I will leave this forum in tatters, with clothes shredded and hair pulled out because you have bested me into submission.

You win.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#240706 May 28, 2012
realkatie wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you or did you not try to claim "PC logic" invalid by stating viability would have no bearing in abortion?
For the record, don't think I didn't notice your little sleight of hand, Katie.

You 1st claimed I said viabilty "[had no] bearing on abortion", which was a lie.

Now you're trying to backpedal from your lie by asking a question. Don't think that went unnoticed.

You're now trying to change your lie by [asking] if I said "viability [would have] no bearing on abortion..." [if the claims by Chicky and you about viability were valid], by prefacing it with "did you or did you not say...", as though you understood all along what I posted.

You're so full of shit and so decpetive in discussion, but intelligent people are onto your little games.

You initially claimed that [I stated] "viability [had] no bearing on abortion". That's a lie.

IF the stupidity Chicky claims (and you support) about "viability"; meaning [born and surviving [without] artifical aide] were correct, it [would not] have any bearing on abortion.

That's not my saying viability [had no] bearing on abortion.

That's stating yours and Chicky's sesnelessness of what viability supposedly means [with regard to] the abortion issue, is utter nonsense. BECAUSE if viability meant [born and living without artifical aide], there'd be no need to discuss abortion at all. The child would already be born for, according to you pea brains, the meaning of viability to be valid.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#240707 May 28, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Even after I re-posted what I said twice, you still have no idea what you're reading?
Viability is about a fetus with regard to the abortion issue. Chicky claims viability is [born and surviving [without] medical assistance.
Fact: viability in the abortion issue is about the [potential] to survive once born,[with] or without medical help.
IF viability was as Chicky claims, then it would have no bearing on the abortion issue, which is what proves her claims to be uetter nonsesne. Since the fact is viability is NOT what Chicky claims, it does have bearing on abortion, because viability is about the chances of survivial outside of the womb, "albeit with artifical aide".
So no, I did NOT "...try to claim "PC logic" invalid by stating viability would have no bearing in abortion..."
(So no, I did NOT "...try to claim "PC logic" invalid by stating viability would have no bearing in abortion...")

^^^Misspoke. NO, I did NOT claim viability [had no bearing on abortion] as you initially claimed. That was a lie.

YES, I did claim Chicky and your "logic" was invalid by proving viability (with regard to the abortion issue)[would have] no bearing in abortion, IF viability meant [born] and surviving without medical aide].

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#240709 May 28, 2012
realkatie wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh you're so right about me,...You win.
Tell me something I don't know.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#240710 May 28, 2012
realkatie wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, you're right. Roe v Wade certainly defined what VIABILITY means and it includes with or without medical assistance. I have never EVER stated otherwise.
What I have stated is that Roe v Wade DOES NOT change the medical definition of VIABILITY -- and THAT definition DOES NOT include medical assistance.
It appears, yet again, there is an inability on your part (and Triple L's, and Doc's) to distinguish between legal and medical.
But go ahead, if it helps you puff up and feel better about yourself, go ahead and believe yourselves to be right.
I don't care. Life is way too short to keep arguing these inane points with the lot of you. Yesterday's obits included my best friend from junior high. I could not care less what you people believe about somebody else's fetus. These fetus are not your concern. And no law should be changed to criminalize abortion in any state because some man or woman in some other state thinks they know what's best for somebody they've never met.
Think I am done here.
"Yeah, you're right. Roe v Wade certainly defined what VIABILITY means and it includes with or without medical assistance. I have never EVER stated otherwise."

That's not what Chicky stated. Why aren't you letting her know she's wrong? Instead you defended what she was saying. She's been claiming RvW did not define viability, and 3 PLers proved her wrong. You said nothing.

"What I have stated is that Roe v Wade DOES NOT change the medical definition of VIABILITY -- and THAT definition DOES NOT include medical assistance."

Actually, you're wrong. It most certainly does include medical assistance. Also, Chicky said that the medical definition was what mattered, because it's doctors deciding whether or not a fetus is viable, as well as Chicky claiming RvW [did not] define viability. You're stating Chicky's wrong on both counts, so why aren't you letting her know that? Instead you've jumped on her coattails about it all, defending what she's said.

"Viability" of a fetus is about [potential to survive once born]. A "viable infant", as in [once born], is defined as the likelyhood or [potential] to sustain life independently, and it does include "given the benefit of available medical therapy".

http://medical-dictionary.th efreedictionary.c...
viable infant
Neonatology
An infant who is [***likely***] to survive {***to the point of sustaining life independently***],[***given the benefit of available medical therapy.***]

You claim one thing then it seems you think we'll forget what you claimed and you then try to change your claims.

You were going along with Chicky's unsubstantiated claims this whole time, until now.

Did you have a problem reading Chicky's posts for comprehension, or the posts of PLers that proved her wrong? Either way, there were things you obviously didn't understand.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#240711 May 28, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>

No "John", I haven't removed myself from it, because I was never in that grouping
Uh, pardon me darling but you most certainly are.
Good grief you go on and on and on and on...
What are you, eight years old?
"I'm right everyone else is WRONG! You're all BONEHEADS!"
Do you even realize just how infantile you appear?

Of course you don't.
After all, according to you, this is just another post from a PC "Bonehead."
I could not possibly care less about this collective "pissing-contest" you all are having regarding the definition of "viability."
To be perfectly honest, when I see those posts, no matter who authors them, I scroll right on by.

Repeatedly insisting that you're intelligent isn't going make it true my dear. The only ones who happen to agree with that assessment of yours would be "Sass," "NR," "Tom-Tom," and perhaps "Knit."
The sum total of their opinions comes up to a whopping quantity of less than zero as far as I'm concerned.

“Rockabye”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#240712 May 28, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>

YES, I did claim Chicky and your "logic" was invalid by proving viability (with regard to the abortion issue)[would have] no bearing in abortion, IF viability meant [born] and surviving without medical aide].
Yes you did!! And it was hilarious, Lynne. Nothing was misunderstood, nothing was mistaken, nothing was deceitful on my end. You tried to invalidate what JM refers to as "PC logic" only it didn't work!! And then you spent several posts claiming and justifying your neverending crap.

Go back to playing with Doc and BA. They're more your speed.

Ta Ta!

(oh! about you winning? i've got oceanfront property in AZ and a bridge to sell you)

(why oh why is the world full of lynnes and docs and bas when there are already too many of them while all the good ones seem to die?)
hmmmm

Scranton, PA

#240713 May 28, 2012
hmmmmm

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#240714 May 28, 2012
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...
240574

Brilliant_Chicky wrote:
<quoted text>
~"Btw, Katie, no one has to argue Badaxes claim that roe defined viability until he actually supports his claim that they did.(Where IS that cut and paste from their findings??)
He also hasn't shown that they determined 24 weeks is the beginning of the third trimester.
Lastly, since 28 weeks is the beginning of the third trimester HE should have to explain how all those states are able to move the cut off to 24 weeks if roe is still the relevant case law on when states can act as he claims, AND again, that they set 24 weeks as that point.
So far the blithering jackass has failed to support his own arguments and until he does, he can be DISMISSED!! "~

Here's Katie NOT correcting Chicky about RvW NOT defining viability.

realkatie wrote:
<quoted text>
~"I actually like to read BA's posts, Chicky. It is obvious he's still working through some finer points regarding abortion, but it is interesting to see him do it. And I was nudging him toward a better answer with the C&P above because it's discussing a case following Roe v Wade. That case determined VIABILITY. I have no part in the "feud" between the two of you. Never have, either (although sometimes i wonder if either of you realize it).

But really, I cannot be more bored about a topic because, as with all the other topics here, it's just recycled and rehashed several times over. And it usually just ends in name-calling (which is beyond boring)."~

Nowhere are you correcting Chicky about RvW NOT defining viability. Yet, in the post to Badaxe you claim, "Yeah, you're right. Roe v Wade certainly defined what VIABILITY means and it includes with or without medical assistance."

In another post http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion/T833...

240594

~Brilliant_Chicky wrote:
<quoted text>
... Just pointing out he hasn't supported his own arguments so theres no need to waste your time on them. I don't see him as trying to work anything out, only trying to defend his disproved claim re: roe..."

realkatie wrote
<quoted text>

"You're right, their arguments haven't been supported and their links (a lot of the time) end up proving you right..."~

Everything Doc, Badaxe and I have posted has been factual and backed with links proving Chicky wrong when she claimed Roe did not define viability, and wrong that the medical definition doesn't include [with medical assistance].



“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#240715 May 28, 2012
realkatie wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes you did!! And it was hilarious, Lynne. Nothing was misunderstood, nothing was mistaken, nothing was deceitful on my end. You tried to invalidate what JM refers to as "PC logic" only it didn't work!! And then you spent several posts claiming and justifying your neverending crap.
Go back to playing with Doc and BA. They're more your speed.
Ta Ta!
(oh! about you winning? i've got oceanfront property in AZ and a bridge to sell you)
(why oh why is the world full of lynnes and docs and bas when there are already too many of them while all the good ones seem to die?)
Holy cow you're either delusional, an idiot or both. You claimed I said viability [had no bearing on abortion] and that was a lie. You thought what you understood was hilarious. You understood wrong. No surprise there.

Now you're trying to claim that what was "hilarious" was that I claimed IF viability meant what you and Chicky claimed it meant,[born and surviving without medical aide], that it [would not] have any bearing on abortion. What's so hilarious about that fact, you ignorant buffon?

The bearing "viability has [on abortion] is because it's about a FETUS.
Not your delusional definition of "fetus",[born, but before 1st breath and until cord is cut]. But of the actual definition of fetus which is IN UTERO.

You think you understood, you thought it was hilarious, you tried to basckpedal from your claim are saying what I actuaslly said, which was backed by facts, was hilarious. You're a mess.

“Rockabye”

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#240716 May 28, 2012
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
"Yeah, you're right. Roe v Wade certainly defined what VIABILITY means and it includes with or without medical assistance. I have never EVER stated otherwise."
That's not what Chicky stated. Why aren't you letting her know she's wrong? Instead you defended what she was saying. She's been claiming RvW did not define viability, and 3 PLers proved her wrong. You said nothing.
"What I have stated is that Roe v Wade DOES NOT change the medical definition of VIABILITY -- and THAT definition DOES NOT include medical assistance."
Actually, you're wrong. It most certainly does include medical assistance. Also, Chicky said that the medical definition was what mattered, because it's doctors deciding whether or not a fetus is viable, as well as Chicky claiming RvW [did not] define viability. You're stating Chicky's wrong on both counts, so why aren't you letting her know that? Instead you've jumped on her coattails about it all, defending what she's said.
"Viability" of a fetus is about [potential to survive once born]. A "viable infant", as in [once born], is defined as the likelyhood or [potential] to sustain life independently, and it does include "given the benefit of available medical therapy".
http://medical-dictionary.th efreedictionary.c...
viable infant
Neonatology
An infant who is [***likely***] to survive {***to the point of sustaining life independently***],[***given the benefit of available medical therapy.***]
You claim one thing then it seems you think we'll forget what you claimed and you then try to change your claims.
You were going along with Chicky's unsubstantiated claims this whole time, until now.
Did you have a problem reading Chicky's posts for comprehension, or the posts of PLers that proved her wrong? Either way, there were things you obviously didn't understand.
What didn't you understand about the differentiations between medical and legal? That on a state by state basis, even the legal definitions follow the medical definition of VIABILITY (which was set decades before Roe v Wade was ever heard).

You guys don't know when you're out of your league. Roe v Wade loosely "defined" VIABILITY but never to the extent y'all have claimed. And it has no bearing on allowing women to lose their rights just so the state can protect a fetus.

Give it up, all of you. You guys have little understanding or real-life applicability of what you read. You have less ability to discern truth from fiction. It is much easier to pat you on the head and say you're right.

And fergawdssake, remember the KISS rule, wouldja?

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#240717 May 28, 2012
John-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh, pardon me darling but you most certainly are.
Good grief you go on and on and on and on...
What are you, eight years old?
"I'm right everyone else is WRONG! You're all BONEHEADS!"
Do you even realize just how infantile you appear?
Of course you don't.
After all, according to you, this is just another post from a PC "Bonehead."
I could not possibly care less about this collective "pissing-contest" you all are having regarding the definition of "viability."
To be perfectly honest, when I see those posts, no matter who authors them, I scroll right on by.
Repeatedly insisting that you're intelligent isn't going make it true my dear. The only ones who happen to agree with that assessment of yours would be "Sass," "NR," "Tom-Tom," and perhaps "Knit."
The sum total of their opinions comes up to a whopping quantity of less than zero as far as I'm concerned.
John, I'm not interested in your commentary about my posting style or your opinion of the facts I post about the PCers here, since your opinion is obviously biased. Apparently you can't see the infantile posting styles of the PCers here who, since i started here, have made claims of their intellectual and educational superiority over the PLers here, including your good friend Ladilulu.

Nothing you said proves I'm [not] included in the group of people who think their definitions are the only ones that matter. I'm of the group of people who ARE intelligent enough to know that words don't simply have ONE definition, and that the context of combined definitions is what determines which definition correctly applies.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#240718 May 28, 2012
realkatie wrote:
<quoted text>
What didn't you understand about the differentiations between medical and legal? That on a state by state basis, even the legal definitions follow the medical definition of VIABILITY (which was set decades before Roe v Wade was ever heard).
You guys don't know when you're out of your league. Roe v Wade loosely "defined" VIABILITY but never to the extent y'all have claimed. And it has no bearing on allowing women to lose their rights just so the state can protect a fetus.
Give it up, all of you. You guys have little understanding or real-life applicability of what you read. You have less ability to discern truth from fiction. It is much easier to pat you on the head and say you're right.
And fergawdssake, remember the KISS rule, wouldja?
"What didn't you understand about the differentiations between medical and legal? That on a state by state basis, even the legal definitions follow the medical definition of VIABILITY (which was set decades before Roe v Wade was ever heard)."

Legal and medical BOTH say the same thing.

Medical definition of viable infant:
http://medical-dictionary.th efreedictionary.c...
viable infant
Neonatology
"An infant who is [***likely***] to survive {***to the point of sustaining life independently***],[***given the benefit of available medical therapy.***]"

Legal definition of viability,:
"Physicians and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes "viable," that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. "

"Roe v Wade loosely "defined" VIABILITY but never to the extent y'all have claimed."

Another backpedal from you. First you claim to Badaxe, "Yeah, you're right. Roe v Wade certainly defined what VIABILITY means and it includes with or without medical assistance. I have never EVER stated otherwise."

NOW you claim, ""Roe v Wade loosely "defined" VIABILITY but never to the extent y'all have claimed."

"Give it up, all of you. You guys have little understanding or real-life applicability of what you read. You have less ability to discern truth from fiction."

LOL, now THAT's hilarious! You really are delusional.

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.

New York Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Boy, 11, drowns in Brentwood pool (Jun '08) 2 hr groidsmashet 49
Time to go? 2 hr VN Vet 868
News Fifth teacher accused of sex misconduct at city... 3 hr Sterkfontein Swar... 7
Add a word, Drop a word (Dec '09) 3 hr Forrest 11,887
Drop a Word, Add a Word (Jan '10) 3 hr Forrest 10,338
Run,Run, Run, The Republicans are Coming! (Jan '11) 4 hr Just Saying 1,910
News Is Hillary Clinton A New Yorker? 4 hr Just Saying 3
HILLARY will be THE BEST PRESIDENT EVER (Dec '14) 4 hr Just Saying 4,987
Yankee talk back 4, or is it 5 (Aug '08) 5 hr Paul Yanks 318,182
More from around the web

New York People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

New York Mortgages