Sunday funnies
Aug.03, 2008 7:47 am |
Campaign, Cartoons, Genocide, MSM anti-life bias, Obama |
Commenting Rules
Do's
- “Criticize ideas, not people.”
- Create one original moniker and stick with it.
- Please use a unique name.
- Be civil and considerate.
- Read fully and consider carefully before responding.
Do Not's
- Blasphemy will not be tolerated.
- No swearing or slandering of others.
- No deliberate inflammatory comments.
- Do not violate another’s privacy.
- Do not threaten fellow commenters or anyone else.
- No personal, racial, ethnic or gender-based insults/slurs.
- Do not post private personal information about yourself or others.(ie addresses, phone #s)
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
SoMG,
Would you look at this website, go through the options, Operas, stars, etc…and tell me which one is my best bet…for accessibiilty, plot and performers…
My husband said he’d take me to one as an anniversary present…but I’m clueless as to which one.
http://www.lyricopera.org/calendar/index.aspx
What website?
Barack Obama said “I won’t be fullfilling God’s will unless I go out and do the Lord’s work”?
Where are the seperation of church and state police?
“Where are the seperation of church and state police?”
Seriously!
Where are the seperation of church and state police?
Good question!
Barack Obama said “I won’t be fullfilling God’s will unless I go out and do the Lord’s work”?
Where are the seperation of church and state police?
Posted by: Mary at August 3, 2008 8:52 AM
They’re all campaigning for Obamarama.
Or should I say, Obama Lama?
You guys are silly.
Don’t you know that the most cost effective solution to lifting blacks out of poverty and dependence is to give them everything and to kill their progeny? Of course, the majority of black babies killed will be from the less desirable bunch. I mean Barack didn’t abort his two daughter because apparently he and his wife were ready to support them. Isn’t that what we all want anyway…..good black people?
Why can’t you see the wisdom in this liberal philosophy?
Do you really think that we need more black babies that translates into more votes for Democrats and more welfare checks to print.
You think teaching blacks that success comes from hard work and that buying into the conservative mindset will really change things? Let’s all just get real.
Disclainer: The above is a sarcastic view of the Liberal philosophy regarding blacks revealed. I propose that Democrats, in reality, could care less about blacks, and actually use them to retain power and hence control over the black population. Heinous isn’t it when you think it through.
How do I know this? I have a lot of NE relatives who vote Democratic and under their breaths are so prejudiced against blacks it makes me sick. On the surface this is very hard to understand. However, they know that this is the price to pay to keep blacks from becoming truly successful and becoming their neighbors. If you think I’m not right, how many black neighbors do you have?
Oh, by the way, Barack doesn’t have a chance at becoming president. Why? Because there’s just too many prejudiced Democrats out there.
The best thing black Americans could do for themselves is to break away them in droves from their Democrat masters. Then and only then would they experience true freedom and success.
HisMan,
Excellent post. So sad. So true.
“…how many black neighbors do you have?”
So interesting you asked that, Hisman. I actually live in the hood, so I have quite a number of black neighbors. And Guyanese. And Brazilian, Filipino, Indian, Korean, Jamaican, Haitian (lots of those), Mexican, Puerto Rican…some whites here and there.
United Nations in my frontyard.
I could do without the drug dealing but overall we just leave each other alone. My next door neighbor is a Filipino pastor. Sweet family.
What you anti-choicers fail to realize is that if there were less poverty among African Americans
there would be less abortion too.
If Obama is elected, and aid to the poor is
increased, the abortion rate among poor blacks
would most likely plummet. This hasn’t happened
under that hypocrite Georg W Bush, who will
fortunately soon be out of office.
I’m not sure about what would happen under McCain,but I doubt that he will do more to help the poor.
Well, I don’t know who the “separation of church and state police” are, but I do know that I’m probably not one of them.
My take is, it’s ok for the president to incorporate his/her faith; after all, faith is probably a big part of their lives! So to say, “I need to go God’s work and give help to these starving children” or “God bless America” is ok by me.
What I can’t support is when (hypothetically) a president bases policies entirely on his/her faith and infringes on the citizen’s rights. For example, making policy that we all must practice a specific religion or we will be accused of high treason, or something like that.
Did that make any sense at all? =/
“I propose that Democrats, in reality, could care less about blacks, and actually use them to retain power and hence control over the black population. Heinous isn’t it when you think it through.”
HisMan, how the heck did you come to this conclusion? Based it on a few experiences involving only your relatives? Come on, you know better then to generalize!
This is one of the best talks I have ever heard! You can get a FREE CD of the talk at…
a Contraception Why Not? by Dr. Janet Smith.
(Look in the top upper left of the screen)
Make sure you order it for yourself, family and friends!
Mike
If you think I’m not right, how many black neighbors do you have?
Quite a few. Though to be honest my neighborhood is dominated by other ethnic groups — not my own. It sounds a lot like carder’s, actually. The dominant nationalities are Greek, Korean, Mexican, and Colombian, but there is a sizable population of people from various middle eastern countries, and a large black population.
It’s not the hood, though. It’s actually a great neighborhood. I mean it probably (okay, definitely) LOOKS like crap if you’re coming at it from a yard-and-porch sort of area, but as far as city neighborhoods go it’s a good one.
It’s also pretty overwhelmingly Obama territory. (Though Clinton was more popular back when she was in it.)
I don’t think poverty is all there is to it. After all, white/Hispanic women also live in poverty and yet don’t choose abortion at the same rate as black women.
What I propose will be confirmed in November.
Further, I’m old enough to know via life experience and age and understanding of solid ethical principles that people do not become truly successful and free using Liberal philosophies.
Anyone who does not acknowledge the absolute racism of the Democratic Party is either self-decieved, blind, or unwilling to recognize the truth.
The skewed abortion rates for blacks, among other things is a clear revelation of this.
If Democrats were so concerned about black people why would they not adopt a no abortion stance for blacks? Answer the question please.
I mean what else would be in the black community’s best interest in a democratic society where power is in numbers than a ban on abortion? If blacks weren’t aborted over the last 35 years how many more black voters would be out there now? I bet about 10 to 20 million. That’s significant.
Instead, Hispanics, who are prdeominanty Catholic, and do not share the same minority abortion ratios as blacks, have surpassed blacks as the dominant minority. Why do you think we have politicians who are terrfied at dealing with the illegal immigrant issues?
If blacks weren’t slaughtered like they are being slaughtered right now, both parties would have had to change dramatically instead of the racist status quo command and control agenda of the last 50 years. And this would be a better country.
Black people please wake up. The Democrats want your vote so they can control you, and at the same time destroy your future. Stop thinking short term.
Robert Berger:
You do not help the poor by murdering their kids. This is totally insane and illogical and could only be believed by a toitally deranged mind.
Besides, to be able to justify murder by saying it results in a better economic outcome is simply immoral. Since when does one’s financial status trump right and wrong?
Or perhaps you don’t undersand that it is better to be poor than to be a murderer?
And if you were right about the less poverty/lower abortion rate myth how many more trillions of dollars do we dump down this deceitful abyss? We had 8 years of the scumbag Clinton didn’t we?
Let me tell you this. Abortion is reduced by teaching people at a young age that it is wrong (and backing it up with laws against it) while at the same time teaching them the value of hard work, persaverance and that God has a good plan for their lives (or putting God back in school).
Look, if you want to live a debauched life, go ahead. Just don’t spread your lies and filth on this site or anywhere else.
You know what one of the greatest torments in hell will be? It will be that one realizes that the lies they believed resulted in other people being in hell with them.
Stephanie, 10:55am
Take a long hard look at the history of the Democrat party. HisMan has a point.
The Democrats supported slavery, Republicans opposed it.
Lincoln successor, Democrat Andrew Johnson, was an avowed racist who wanted the newly freed slaves returned to the plantations.
The KKK was founded as the terrorist arm of the Southern Democrat Party and one of the most longstanding and powerful Democrats now in the Senate is Robert Byrd, a former Klansman and klan recruiter.
Democrats opposed anti-lynching legislation, Republicans supported it.
Most recently, the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, 1964 and 1965 respectively, were passed only because of Republican support given to President Lyndon Johnson, a powerful Democrat who couldn’t bring his own party members into line. Democrats, led by the previously mentioned Robert Byrd, filibustered this legislation. If Democrats could have had their way, Black Americans would have spent more time at the back of the bus and away from the voting booth.
The real clincher is Bill Clinton, America’s “first black president” awarding J.Wm Fulbright, a Democrat senator who also filibustered the Civil and Voting Rights Acts, the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1993.
Clinton even boasts of his office in Harlem to show he’s one with black folk. Isn’t that just so white of massa Clinton? What he neglects to mention is the gov’t wouldn’t cough up the money for the more expensive uptown office he would have preferred having.
I think its easy to see where HisMan draws his conclusions. What I cannot understand is the loyalty of Black Americans to the Democrats.
Mary:
Eloquent, simply eloquent.
Carder 10:44am
I also grew up in a neighborhood and school that was a mini-United Nations. We never heard of diversity and multiculturalism but we somehow figured out for ourselves that people were of different races, religions, and ethnicities.
We didn’t have political correctness either, but somehow we managed to learn how to talk to each other.
I get such a laugh out of the issue made out of multiculturalism and diversity today, like its something new. Why, we even have “experts” in diversity and political correctness to guide us. Thankfully they weren’t around while I was growing up.
Well, let these geniuses think they’re enlightening the rest of us. I won’t let them in on the secret that the best way to live with and respect differences is not to make an issue of them in the first place.
This might force them to do something productive, like get a real job.
HisMan 12:35PM
Thank you.
But Mary, if you look at voting demographics, the trend was that many of the people who were Democracts pre-civil rights began to switch and vote Republican right around LBJ’s time. For a lot of the time before that, progressive economic policies and defending white supremacy went hand-in-hand for the Democratic party; when the Democratic party finally abandoned its attempts to oppose integration, southern Democrats abandoned the party to vote Republican in increasing numbers.
There were — and are — ‘good’ and ‘bad’ people in both parties, but it’s simplistic to say that the Democratic party of today is made of and supported by the same people as the Democratic party of the 50’s, when there has been such a major demographic shift in voting tendencies.
Alexandra,
That may have been the case. Perhaps people left the Democrat Party because of its long history of attempting to keep Black Americans in their “place”. Why would segregationists go Republican when Republicans were responsible for passing the Civil and Voting Rights Acts?
Did Republicans reinstate Jim Crow laws? Are there any Republican lawmakers who are former Klansmen?
If anything, we have seen progress in race relations in the south when people switched to Republican. It was the Democrats who kept it segregated and the black person in the second class status quo and would have continued to do so if Republicans hadn’t come to the aid of Lyndon Johnson.
Yes, there are good and bad in both parties, but history is what it is. It was Republicans who fought for the rights of blacks from post Civil War on. To their credit, Black Americans excelled in education, business, science, and the arts in spite of the best efforts of the Democrat Party to keep them in their “place”.
By the way police chief Bull Conner, notorious for turning attack dogs and fire hoses on black civil right demonstrators, Gov. George (“segregation forever”) Wallace, and Gov.Lester Maddox, who chased away black patrons from his shop. All Democrats.
Mary:
Where were pro-segregation Democrats most supported? Where did Wallace and Connor and Maddox thrive?
What political and economic platforms are supported by those demographics today?
I’m NOT saying that Republicans are racist, or that the south is racist, or anything. I’m saying it is WAY too complicated to just be like, “Oh, the Democrats are the racist party, I can’t believe black people trust them.”
Alexandra,
Obviously they were Southern governors but the fact remains they were Democrats. Why would police chief Bull Conner be a Democrat if Democrats were trying so hard to integrate the south? If other Democrats wouldn’t support them and their segregationist views, how could Wallace and Maddox get into power? How would they have any pull in their own party? Why didn’t they turn Republican and get all those “racist” Republicans to support them since Democrats were supposedly turning against them?
I didn’t say Democrats were a “racist” party, I only pointed out their history of racism, lynching, terrorism, and murder of black citizens, as well as attempting to deny civil rights to black Americans. It was Republicans who struggled on behalf of black Americans.
It remains beyond my comprehension how black Americans can give such devotion to a party that has done everything it can to devalue them as human beings.
Bobby,
What website?
DUH!
This one:
http://www.lyricopera.org/calendar/index.aspx
How do any politicians do anything that goes against the grain of their political party? How was Giuliani pro-choice? Why didn’t he just become a Democrat? How did he get elected as a Republican without conforming to Republican platforms 100% of the time?
The easy answer is that whether a person gets elected depends more on the people electing them than on the party they’re running under.
Robert said: What you anti-choicers fail to realize is that if there were less poverty among African Americans
there would be less abortion too.
If Obama is elected, and aid to the poor is
increased, the abortion rate among poor blacks
would most likely plummet. This hasn’t happened
under that hypocrite Georg W Bush, who will
fortunately soon be out of office.
I’m not sure about what would happen under McCain,but I doubt that he will do more to help the poor.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Robert,
You may be partially correct. Giving more money to blacks is not going to reduce abortion in the African American community unless the programs to reduce abortion are in place. Based on Obama’s record on abortion, it’s not going to happen if the Democrats are in the Oval Office.
Hisman: If Democrats were so concerned about black people why would they not adopt a no abortion stance for blacks? Answer the question please.
Because in no way is taking away the freedom that a black woman currently has in the matter necessarily a good thing (same as for non-black women). The black birth rate in the US is already much higher than the white, and why would a black woman with an unwanted pregnancy be concerned that the birth rate for blacks is “only” 30% higher than that for whites?
Why would she be concerned that the black population in the US “only” went up by 63% from 1973 to 2007?
And why would Democrats or anybody else think that what they want in the matter is more important than what the pregnant woman wants?
HisMan: Robert Berger, you do not help the poor by murdering their kids. This is totally insane and illogical and could only be believed by a toitally deranged mind.
Robert knows that abortion is not murder, and he also likely knows that arguments such as yours, built on false pretenses – about murder or anything else – aren’t really that big a deal. False pretenses are not “sane” not “logical, etc., and if there is derangement here, it’s not on Robert’s part….
I think protecting women and girls from illegal, unsafe abortion qualifies as “doing the Lord’s work.” But then I’m the sort of person who believes sexually active women deserve to live.
Robert knows that abortion is not murder
Then if it’s not murder, the baby must not be growing, and that must mean the baby is already dead, or a woman wouldn’t have to go for an abortion because she would have miscarried already. You don’t need to have an abortion for an already dead baby (unless we’re talking about removing the dead baby from the woman’s body, but that’s a different issue). You have an ABORTION because you don’t want something that IS alive and IS growing to continue, so you have to KILL IT in order to stop it from growing.
Get it, or does that not fit into your little rationalization of abortion Doug?
Alexandra,
Unlike the Democrats, Republicans can have opposing viewpoints on abortion and still get party support. Its called the “big tent”. I remember when Democrat Gov. Bob Casey was not permitted to speak at a Democrat convention because he was pro-life. This from the party of tolerance! By the way, you won’t hear anyone preaching to Democrats about any “big tent”. Only Republicans are expected to be this tolerant.
As to how elections are won, or lost. When David Duke, former klansman and Democrat, ran as a Republican for Louisiana governor in 1991, national GOP officials scorned him. Contrast that with the treatment ex-klansman Robert Byrd gets from his fellow Democrat colleagues who have repeatedly elected him president Pro-Tem of the senate, and who have never arranged a primary challenge against him or encouraged this one time cross burner and vociferous opponent of civil rights to get lost.
Anyway back to Louisiana, local Republicans endorsed incumbent Democrat Edwin Edwards, despite his ethical baggage, rather than support the likes of Duke. One Republican created bumper sticker said “vote for the crook(Edwards): Its important”.
Reality,
So “legal” unsafe abortion, a la Hodari,and Osathanondh to name a few, is better?
MK,
I’m not familiar with any of those operas. All I know is that Madam Butterfly is NOT for children. If that’s the one you decide to go to, make sure the little ones stay home.
Reality 1:53, I think protecting women and girls from illegal, unsafe abortion qualifies as “doing the Lord’s work.” But then I’m the sort of person who believes sexually active women deserve to live.
Then tell them not to have unsafe abortions.
Careful Doug:
The freedom to murder is no freedom at all, rather, it is the utmost example of spiritual bondage.
And to simply remind you…..ABORTION IS MURDER OF THE THE MOST COWARDICE KIND!
His man, you completely misrepresented me and missed the whole point of what I was
saying. I am not saying I WANT poor black women to have abortions. What I meant is that if more blacks in America
could escape poverty and earn a decent or better living, far fewer black women would seek and obtain abortions. Let’s face it; women who have the means to take good care of children are far less likely to have abortions.
And I do not live a “debauched” life by any means, nor do I approve of such a lifestyle. I am not promiscuous and have never fathered any illegitimate children, or even legitimate ones !
The one thng I will say about this campaign is that Obama and McCain look burnt out. Tired of answering questions,traveling, etc. These Presidential campaigns are too long, its nuts.
Unlike the Democrats, Republicans can have opposing viewpoints on abortion and still get party support. Its called the “big tent”. I remember when Democrat Gov. Bob Casey was not permitted to speak at a Democrat convention because he was pro-life. This from the party of tolerance!
And yet Bob Casey was recently elected as a Democrat. Which shows that politics, and the compromises a party is willing to make in order to cater to local demographics, are fluid and change over time. I consider this a good thing even though I’m not pro-life. I cringe to think that any political party ever supported segregation, but I cringe at a lot of things in US history.
Here is a list of pro-life Democrats currently in office:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrats_for_Life_of_America#Current_Pro-Life_Democrats
This country has done some great things and some horrible things. Republicans and Democrats alike have done some great things and some horrible things. I don’t find it astonishing at all that a black man might reasonably look at both party’s platforms and decide to vote Democrat — regardless of who ran as a Democrat 50 years ago.
Oh, and I agree with you, jasper. If someone came up to me and was like, “Choose one: Triathlon? Or presidential campaign?” I’d pick the triathlon hands-down. And I’m no athlete. (understatement of the year)
Alexandra,
No, that’s his son. I believe the father is dead. The point is why wouldn’t the Democrats let him speak? There certainly are pro-life Democrats in office, largely due to demographics as you say. They either run pro-life or lose. The Democratic leadership is well aware of this and will encourage it, so long as it puts Democrats in power. In fact, some Democrats have been more conservative than their Republican opponents. Our state long had a pro-life Democrat senator who got my vote every time.
You’re certainly right about the good and the horrible. However I remain stumped about black support for Democrats.
The Democratic leadership is well aware of this and will encourage it, so long as it puts Democrats in power.
Do you not agree that politicians should represent the people who elect them? I only brought it up because you implied that the “big tent” party is somehow so much more diverse and tolerant for allowing its politicians to be either pro-choice or pro-life. I don’t think there’s much difference between the two parties on this issue — Republicans will run a pro-choice candidate in a city where no one will vote for a pro-lifer, and Democrats will run a pro-life candidate in a state where no one will vote for a pro-choicer.
However I remain stumped about black support for Democrats.
Do you also remain stumped as to how blacks can vote for white people at all? I mean, white people were the driving force behind slavery, Jim Crow, etc, not to mention the force that fought to maintain the status quo. Sure, not all white people — and sure, almost none now — but how can you move past that and vote for a white person? Maybe because you agree with the white person, regardless of what other white people before them did. Is it any more shocking that there are black people who agree with Democrats — today, 2008 — than it is that there are white people who agree with Democrats?
I’m part Native American, and the US government has a pretty crummy track record as far as those things go. But I support my government anyway — fiercely — because that was a long time ago, and there are people saying things I mostly agree with right now, today.
I didn’t say Democrats were a “racist” party, I only pointed out their history of racism, lynching, terrorism, and murder of black citizens, as well as attempting to deny civil rights to black Americans. It was Republicans who struggled on behalf of black Americans.
It remains beyond my comprehension how black Americans can give such devotion to a party that has done everything it can to devalue them as human beings.
Posted by: Mary at August 3, 2008 1:30 PM
……………………………………….
It is ridiculous to expect blacks to vote a party line that does not represent their best interests. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 introduced by Democrat John F Kennedy, was passed by Repubs and Dems alike. While only a handful of Southern Dems voted in favor of the end to Jim Crow laws, no Southern Repubs did. Clearly party affiliations have had different agendas in the Southern States.
30 years earlier, Republican President Hoover nominated the racist John J Parker for the Supreme Court. He refused to address the NAACP and launched an investigation by the FBI into possible ‘communist’ activities within the union. Retaliation for the NAACP’s push to defeat the nomination of Parker? J Edgar Hoover was a raving racist wasn’t he? What do you suppose that said to the black community?
Hoover’s successor, Democrat Roosevelt set up a black cabinet. When you follow the history of black political interests it isn’t difficult to understand who has become the party of black interests and who has become the political successor to Jim Crow laws.
Ann Coulter has a funny column about the John Edwards baby coverup by the MSM.
http://www.anncoulter.com/
Alexandra,
Of course I believe the politicians should represent the people who elect them. All too often they allow themselves to get caught up in power and being everyone’s friend. I’m convinced that’s the reason Republicans got shellacked in 2006.
Certainly there are conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans who represent their constituents as such. Have you heard any reference though to the “big tent” when it comes to Democrats? Any criticism of their refusing to let Gov. Casey speak? Do you know of PC Republicans who have been denied the right to speak?
Concerning blacks voting for white people. What color are most of the Democrats they vote for? The driving force behind slavery? Who do you think captured and sold their fellow Africans into slavery and profitted very handsomely? Right, African kings and chiefs.
Thousands of black slaves were owned by black freedmen in the antebellum south. Native American tribes owned black slaves. Blacks and Native Americans fought for the Confederacy.
The point is Alexandra it was white Democrats who instituted Jim Crow, segregation, and formed the KKK to keep blacks in their “place”. It was white Republicans who fought to end it.
Yes given the history of the Democrat party, and that a former klansman remains, and has always been, a respected figure by his Democrat peers in the Senate, it is indeed shocking to me that black Americans would support them.
Yes the gov’t does indeed have a dismal track record where Native Americans are concerned.
@Mary: There’s a reason why I call myself “liberal” and not “Democrat” when people ask my political affiliation…nor am I a party member of any of the major political parties (though I’m thinking of becoming a registered Independent- go Peter Hutchinson!).
Rae,
Have you selected a candidate for Pres yet?
Rae, me too. I don’t really like affiliating myself with parties.
Mary — why then did you vote for the Democrat you voted for? The pro-life one you supported for so many years?
Any criticism of their refusing to let Gov. Casey speak?
Yes, I have heard criticism of that. Rightly so.
The point is Alexandra it was white Democrats who instituted Jim Crow, segregation, and formed the KKK to keep blacks in their “place”. It was white Republicans who fought to end it.
I suppose I think that the massive shift in demographics, and the split in the Democratic Party — which went from being Southern populist, in reaction to Lincoln, to garnering northern support during and after the Depression, and eventually fractured into segregationist (south) and economic (north) — means that the LABELS of who did what, more than a century ago, are not as important as who is saying what today.
You cannot remove race from just about any aspect of this country’s past. All you can do is deal with the present.
Sally 5:42PM
I agree its ridiculous for people to vote for a party that doesn’t represent their interests, that’s why I can’t understand why blacks support the Democrats.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 fell into the lap of Lyndon Johnson, JFK died a year earlier. I’ve heard it questioned if JFK had the political power to even get it passed, but that’s another debate.
Democrats in the Senate, including Robert Byrd, J.Wm Fulbright, and Al Gore Sr. filibustered the Civil Rights bill. As powerful as he was LBJ could not pull these guys into line. He needed Republican help in the House and Senate and got it. Without Republicans, black Americans would have spent more time at the back of the bus.
Political successors to Jim Crow laws?
Sally, can you tell me of any Jim Crow laws or terrorist racist organizations created by Republicans since Republicans have become more prominent in the south? Any Republican governors shouting “segregation forever”? Any Republican police chiefs turning attack dogs and fire hoses on black citizens?
Are you aware Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt did succeed in putting a former klansman on the Supreme Court? Democrat senator Hugo Black. He did this over the objections of Republican senators. Are you also aware Democrat FDR put American citizens of color(Japanese-Americans) into concentration camps after confiscating their homes and businesses?
You were saying something about the successors to Jim Crow laws, which by the way were put in place by Southern Democrats.
Rae,
The definitions of liberal and conservative change time and again. I’m not that comfortable with the terms myself. By today’s standards JFK was a conservative, back then he was liberal, or at least some people thought so. All in the point of view.
I just stick with party affiliation when discussing history.
By the way I am independent and refuse to support any party, I vote strictly for the candidate.
Alexandra 6:43PM
William Proxmire. He has since died and left office in the early 80s I believe.
I agree about dealing with the present and frankly I’m sick of people’s endless whining about what happened to their long dead ancestors. I mean, people still bellyache about the Irish potato famine for heaven’s sake. Worry about the problems we have today!
Concerning segregation, from 1865-1877 the federal gov’t protected the rights of freedmen in the former confederacy.
As the federal gov’t withdrew its troops and the Democrats took over, segregation and Jim Crow laws were established.
I agree its ridiculous for people to vote for a party that doesn’t represent their interests, that’s why I can’t understand why blacks support the Democrats.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 fell into the lap of Lyndon Johnson, JFK died a year earlier. I’ve heard it questioned if JFK had the political power to even get it passed, but that’s another debate.
Democrats in the Senate, including Robert Byrd, J.Wm Fulbright, and Al Gore Sr. filibustered the Civil Rights bill. As powerful as he was LBJ could not pull these guys into line. He needed Republican help in the House and Senate and got it. Without Republicans, black Americans would have spent more time at the back of the bus.
Political successors to Jim Crow laws?
Sally, can you tell me of any Jim Crow laws or terrorist racist organizations created by Republicans since Republicans have become more prominent in the south? Any Republican governors shouting “segregation forever”? Any Republican police chiefs turning attack dogs and fire hoses on black citizens?
Are you aware Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt did succeed in putting a former klansman on the Supreme Court? Democrat senator Hugo Black. He did this over the objections of Republican senators. Are you also aware Democrat FDR put American citizens of color(Japanese-Americans) into concentration camps after confiscating their homes and businesses?
You were saying something about the successors to Jim Crow laws, which by the way were put in place by Southern Democrats.
Posted by: Mary at August 3, 2008 6:44 PM
………………………………………………
Mary, you over simplify very complex issues concerning very diverse peoples, beliefs and economies. When push comes to shove, the ending of Jim Crow policies was spearheaded by a Democrat that undoubtedly understood the meaning of prejudice being Irish and Catholic. Rather than a Republican verses Democrat issue, it was a North verses South issue. If you think that financially ruined South wasn’t resentful of the ‘Act of Northern Aggression’, you have another think coming.
Attempting to paint a true picture of politics with a roller brush is impossible.
You might try looking into the voting records of those put into power in cities, counties, states as well as the country to understand why blacks left the Republican party in such huge numbers. That is if you are actually interested.
By the way, did you know that the vast majority of Catholics were Democrats at the time?
@Jasper: No. At this point, I don’t think I’m going to be voting for President this year. Though I’ll probably just vote for “Chuck Norris’ beard” or “Stephen Colbert”. :)
@Mary: Liberal and conservative don’t really change, what changes is what party is “liberal” and which party is “conservative”. Conservative and liberal have pretty set meanings.
“I remember when Democrat Gov. Bob Casey was not permitted to speak at a Democrat convention because he was pro-life.”
Actually, Bob Casey was not permitted to speak because he didn’t support the democratic candidate. Kind of an issue.
PIP 7:33PM
Also because he was pro-life. Gov.Casey’s PL stand was not popular with Democrats.
Rae, 7:29PM
I must disagree. People have different perspectives on these words and definitions have changed time and again. Like I said JFK was viewed as liberal, others today see him as conservative. All in the point of view :)
Rea: @Mary: Liberal and conservative don’t really change, what changes is what party is “liberal” and which party is “conservative”. Conservative and liberal have pretty set meanings.
And when you see what has happened under the recent supposed “Conservative” Administrations,” it’s enough of a joke to render all that moot.
@Mary: I suppose that’s true. Perhaps I should write up my li’l manifesto about what it means to be liberal and conservative to me, so that when I say I’m liberal people understand where I’m coming from?
@Doug: Point taken. Now please excuse me while I go LAUGH maniacally at the fact that the Republicans are always bitching and calling the Democrats “big spenders”. Bush has wasted more money than a drunk teenager using her parents’ credit card in NYC.
Sally 7:29PM
Do you mean JFK? The same JFK who’s attorney general Robert wiretapped Martin Luther King Jr.
The same JFK who preferred foreign affairs over being bothered by Dr. King and “his Negroes”.
Are you aware Sally that Republican President Eisenhower signed the GOP’s 1960 Civil Rights Act after it survived a 5 day hour filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats?
Civil rights was no brainchild of JFK’s. He happened to get caught up in the struggle being led by Dr.KIng.
I’m well aware of the animosity between North and South. Actually it was more an issue of the federal gov’t versus states rights. Republican president Eisenhower deployed the 82nd Airborne to desegregate Little Rock’s schools, over the strenuous objection of Democrat governor Orval Faubus, a man greatly admired by the way by America’s “first black president” Democrat Bill Clinton.
Please Sally answer my question. Tell me the Republican politicians at whatever level who supported segregation, Jim Crow laws, and who had actually been klansmen.
Sure I know a large number of Catholics were Democrats. That proves what?
MK –
My vote is for “The abduction from the Seraglio.” I’ve not seen it but I remember my dad listening to the music Sunday mornings. Plus it’s a comedy and it’s Mozart so how can you go wrong?
By the way, did you know that the vast majority of Catholics were Democrats at the time?
Posted by: Sally at August 3, 2008 7:29 PM
At the time abortion wasn’t legal.
Kristen,
Even the “Catholic” JFK was known to arrange a discreet abortion or two for a pregnant girlfriend. One was for Judith Campbell, who was also connected to mobsters. The most nervous abortionist ever must have been the one who aborted Campbell, pregnant by JFK, at the behest of mobster Sam Giancana.
Is anyone here involved with PUMA?
My mom is rabidly anti-obama and is voting for Mccain. This is a woman who hasn’t voted Republican EVER, but she is very upset with the way everything went down with the DNC.
I’d love to know if there is anyone her who shares her views.
Do you mean JFK? The same JFK who’s attorney general Robert wiretapped Martin Luther King Jr.
The same JFK who preferred foreign affairs over being bothered by Dr. King and “his Negroes”.
Are you aware Sally that Republican President Eisenhower signed the GOP’s 1960 Civil Rights Act after it survived a 5 day hour filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats?
Civil rights was no brainchild of JFK’s. He happened to get caught up in the struggle being led by Dr.KIng.
I’m well aware of the animosity between North and South. Actually it was more an issue of the federal gov’t versus states rights. Republican president Eisenhower deployed the 82nd Airborne to desegregate Little Rock’s schools, over the strenuous objection of Democrat governor Orval Faubus, a man greatly admired by the way by America’s “first black president” Democrat Bill Clinton.
Please Sally answer my question. Tell me the Republican politicians at whatever level who supported segregation, Jim Crow laws, and who had actually been klansmen.
Sure I know a large number of Catholics were Democrats. That proves what?
Posted by: Mary at August 3, 2008 8:00 PM
………………………………………………………………….
Eisenhower’s 1960 Civil Rights Act accomplished nothing for blacks and infuriated Southern politicians with what they saw as the Feds interference in state government. An anti-Republican philosophy. True Republicans would have left the issue of slavery up to individual states to begin with.
The 1960 Civil Rights Act was completely toothless. Blacks were legally mandated to be allowed to vote. Uh huh. If a black person was running for office. Or the black person could read. Etc etc etc. Southern states found all kinds of excuses to avoid allowing blacks to vote.
Eisenhower brought Civil Rights to the White House and then left the actual responsibility of doing something about it to his successor.
Snap out of it Mary. I never said that Kennedy was the brainchild of the Civil Rights Movement. I said that he was the spearhead of the legislation that mattered. Big difference.
What is your fascination with the Klan? If you think that bigotry and prejudice are owned by an American political party, you are very unaware indeed.
And I am interested to know what your explanation of the majority of Catholics having been historically Democratic is. Demon possession or a party that has represented the interests of immigrants.
MK –
My vote is for “The abduction from the Seraglio.” I’ve not seen it but I remember my dad listening to the music Sunday mornings. Plus it’s a comedy and it’s Mozart so how can you go wrong?
By the way, did you know that the vast majority of Catholics were Democrats at the time?
Posted by: Sally at August 3, 2008 7:29 PM
At the time abortion wasn’t legal.
Posted by: Kristen at August 3, 2008 8:07 PM
……………………………………………..
And of course they voted for Mary’s racist and immoral Democrats because abortion wasn’t legal. Thanks for your clarification Kristen.
“Also because he was pro-life. Gov.Casey’s PL stand was not popular with Democrats.”
No, mainly because he didn’t endorse Kerry. There are plenty of PL Dems being elected and Democrats for Life make a showing at the DNC’s.
Sally,
If the 1960 civil rights act was so worthless why did Democrats bother to filibuster it? 5 days and 5 hours. Sally, its the Democrats who supported slavery. They were the ones who wanted it left up to the states. They viewed the federal government as a dictatorship. Absolutely the gov’t imposing civil rights was anti-Republican!
Sure all kinds of laws interfered with the right of blacks to vote. Laws instituted by Democrats who controlled the south.
I needn’t snap out of anything Sally. Kennedy got caught up in the civil rights movement, he did nothing for it though he was in office three years before being assassinated. It was left to Lyndon Johnson.
I have no fascination with the klan, I find them repugnant. I only stated how they came into being. Do you find that a bit unsettling?
So what if Catholics supported the Democrats? That proves what? So did slaveholders and segregationists. What does that tell you?
Rae, 7:29PM
I must disagree. People have different perspectives on these words and definitions have changed time and again. Like I said JFK was viewed as liberal, others today see him as conservative. All in the point of view :)
Posted by: Mary at August 3, 2008 7:40 PM
………………………………………..
Kennedy was a liberal to all those living and breathing during the time he was alive. Some calling themselves conservative today would take extreme exception to his views of separation of church and state. I guess it all depends on your actual understanding of liberalism and conservatism in it’s historical relevance.
Whoops, I meant Clinton. Caught that one a bit late.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200504200005
PIP,
Gov.Casey was denied the right to speak at both the 1992 and 1996 Democrat conventions. The candidate both times, if memory serves me correct was Clinton, not Kerry.
Gov. Casey stated that in 1992 buttons were on display at the Democrat convention ridiculing him as the pope. These were put up by PC Democrats denigrating his pro-life stand. Gov. Casey could only wonder what became of the Democrat party he once knew.
Denied the right to speak again in 1996 he went across town and held a press conference, warning the Democrats they were making a huge blunder in refusing to stand up for the powerless (the unborn).
By the way, this was the popular Democrat governor of an electoral rich state who had won by a million votes. Just the person you would want speaking at your convention.
Sally,
My point exactly. The definitions of liberal and conservative change continuously and are more from one’s perspective than anything else.
Yes Mary I do realize I put Kerry but meant to write Clinton as I corrected above.
Regardless why would you want someone to speak at a convention about a certain candidate if they don’t endorse that certain candidate?
Harry Reid isthe Senate Majority Leader, also pro-life. Wow, really shows you how unaccepting of PLs Democrats are.
We at Acorn have been campaigning for Jeff Harris.. and I think this video demonstrates why he’s so cool XP
http://electjeffharris.com/video/FirstQuarterVideo.php
PIP,
I corrected you prior to you correcting yourself.
Gov. Casey considered abortion a key political issue for the 1992 convention. He was not given a speaking slot and in a series of news conferences he charged the party was censoring his PL views since he agreed with the party on most other issues. According to party officials he was denied a speaking slot because he opposed the Clinton Gore ticket. Several PL Democrats did speak though they did not focus their remarks on opposition to abortion and the issue was not debated as Casey had wanted. Concerning Clinton/Gore, he told the NY TImes “I support the ticket”.
“I corrected you prior to you correcting yourself.”
Huh? In what world is 10:48 before 10:39?
“Gov. Casey considered abortion a key political issue for the 1992 convention”
He also didn’t endorse the subject of the convention. Whether he wanted the convention to be an abortion debate hall or not, that wasn’t the point of the convention, and he didn’t want to be a party to it and therefore was left out. Bob Casey openly stated he didn’t endorse the ticket. I think you need to let this go. Other PL’s spoke and continue to speak, many PL Dems exist and hold positions of power, and slowly the party is welcoming more and more PL members.
PIP,
I didn’t see that you had corrected yourself, in fact I noticed it later.. Its really not an issue, I’m just trying to point out I wasn’t trying to be sarcastic. Maybe my post was delayed because of other posts. I’ve seen that happen before.
Its a matter if you believe Casey or the Democrat leadership. Given the blatant displays of anti-Catholic bigotry by PC democrats against Casey, based on his PL views, including buttons that circulated at the convention ridiculing him as the pope, one must wonder.
Yes PL Democrats spoke, and did not address the abortion issue.
I have never argued there are no PL Democrats, I have in fact pointed out that Democrats have won using the PL stand and other conservative issues against Republicans, which I consider quite ironic.
Robert:
You forever and consistently diss President Bush. You have bought into the liberal mantra that Bush lied and there were no WMDs.
Let me tell you this, It’s better that were fighting them over there than here. And the battle is being won.
How often have you heard Mr. Bush defending himself against all these unprecedented attacks during a time when an enemy is on a mission to kill us all and out way of life? Never, because he know he’s right and doing the right thing. Compare him to the coward Clinton you support having to always defend himself against his wickedness. It’s disgraceful and in my opinion a form of debauchery to support the likes of Clinton and Obama and abortion.
Just shut up about Bush will you. I’m just plain sick of the BS and I wish George Bush would for once just shut all of you whining cowards up for once.
He will go down as one of the greatest Presidents of all time along with Abraham Lincoln who was similarly unpopular during the Civil War.
“Maybe my post was delayed because of other posts”
Ah, okay.
“Yes PL Democrats spoke, and did not address the abortion issue.”
Do PC Republicans regularly make speeches about women’s right to choose at the RNC?
“Its a matter if you believe Casey or the Democrat leadership.”
I believe Casey was sincere but maybe didn’t understand the way that those things are produced and how speakers are picked. I wouldn’t know, and can only go on the reasons they say they did.
“. Given the blatant displays of anti-Catholic bigotry by PC democrats against Casey, based on his PL views, including buttons that circulated at the convention ridiculing him as the pope, one must wonder.”
I think it’s safe to say some Dems disagree with others on some issues. And although some may resort to doing offensive things, it is nowhere indicative of the entire party.
Sally,
My point exactly. The definitions of liberal and conservative change continuously and are more from one’s perspective than anything else.
Posted by: Mary at August 3, 2008 10:50 PM
………………………
Wow Mary! You went from the lack of understanding of how blacks could vote Democratic because of blah blah blah to an admission that you never had a valid point against them not doing so to begin with.
Sally,
If the 1960 civil rights act was so worthless why did Democrats bother to filibuster it? 5 days and 5 hours. Sally, its the Democrats who supported slavery. They were the ones who wanted it left up to the states. They viewed the federal government as a dictatorship. Absolutely the gov’t imposing civil rights was anti-Republican!
Sure all kinds of laws interfered with the right of blacks to vote. Laws instituted by Democrats who controlled the south.
I needn’t snap out of anything Sally. Kennedy got caught up in the civil rights movement, he did nothing for it though he was in office three years before being assassinated. It was left to Lyndon Johnson.
I have no fascination with the klan, I find them repugnant. I only stated how they came into being. Do you find that a bit unsettling?
So what if Catholics supported the Democrats? That proves what? So did slaveholders and segregationists. What does that tell you?
Posted by: Mary at August 3, 2008 10:24 PM
…………………
Mary, what I find unsettling is Americans relying on Wiki and agenda laden web sights for lazy minded ‘insight’ of American history.
On this blog, it goes hand in hand with the exact same in religous belief.
PIP,
I have heard the issue of abortion raised at Republican conventions with ensuing debates.
Republicans for Choice have certainly been vocal.
It was Republicans who talked of the “big tent” to include all viewpoints and the media certainly kept the heat on Republicans concerning the “big tent”.
Correct me if I’m wrong but did Democrats ever speak of a “big tent” and did the media put the heat on them about tolerating and welcoming opposing viewpoints on abortion?
Like I said who does one choose to believe? The truth is likely somewhere in the middle. Obviously Casey’s PL stand wasn’t winning him any friends which would account for the blatant displays of ridicule and bigotry at the convention. What did people feel so threatened about? No, I do not believe this is indicative of all Democrats.
As I pointed out previously I supported a PL Democrat senator when he ran for office. I also voted for a PL Democrat assemblywoman in our state. She got my vote every time she ran.
I certainly know PL Democrats are alive and breathing. :)
Sally 12:10am
Say what?
Sally 12:29am
I obtain my info from extensive research over the years due to my fascination with history, the more politically incorrect the better I like it.
If you have an issue with something I said, please prove it wrong.
I will correct one thing though. The gov’t imposing civil rights is indeed very Republican.
HisMan 12:09,
That was the biggest LOL of the century there, thanks for that.
I thought you were vacationing in Yellowstone, not in an alternate universe….
Mary rocks!
Mary, are you telling me that people like Guiliani regularly make speeches about the right to choose, regardless of endorsement status, at the RNC and the other republicans are okay with that?
In general, I am miniminzing my responses to individuals unless their comments require a personal retort to minimize the accusation that I am personally attacking anyone.
Mr. Berger deserved one because of gross error.
JKeller: You’re right I am an alien visiting your dream world of Liberalism, where everything is free, there are no rules, no morals, and no principles. Frankly, the animals in Yellowstone have more sense.
I don’t hate Bush. I hate what he has done to this country. He has led this country into a stupid and catastrophic situation in Iraq, and wasted untold billions of dollars that could have been used on desperately needed domestic programs which could have reduced poverty and also abortion,improved education, provided more financial aid for college and graduate students, and other things.
Although it’s not being doen by the Chicago Lyric opera this season, opera fans on this site should get CDs or DVDs of the powerful opera “Jenufa” (Yen -ufa), by the great Czech composer Janacek. It deals with a young Czech woman who has an illegitimate baby which her stepmother, who is overcome by stress and anguish kills when she cracks under the strain. The girl forgives her and marries the half-brother of the cad who impregnated her. It’s really relevant !
PIP,
I know Giuliani has long been very open about his PC stand and it is certainly common knowledge. I also know Republicans were willing to support him in the primary based on how he would choose SC justices and I believe his opposition to PBA.
Whether or not he regularly gives speeches supporting abortion I wouldn’t know. I spend as little time as possible listening to politicians.
I do know Republicans for Choice have been very vocal at conventions and the media has played this for all it is worth.
My question is do the Democrats speak of a “big tent” where all opinions on abortion are welcome as the Republicans do? Yes they may well have to tolerate PL Democrats, they do bring in the votes.
Concerning Casey, he wanted to change the party platform on abortion, but was otherwise a devoted Democrat. He was the immensely popular governor of an electoral vote rich state. Whether or not he supported Clinton, treating this man with great respect would have been a smart political move.
Given that Planned Parenthood v Casey was decided before the convention, a decision that made PC groups, a Democrat Party base, go ballistic, one can wonder if Casey was immensely unpopular because of it. Perhaps that explained the blatant bigotry and ridicule (buttons depicting him as the pope)on sale at the convention, and caused Casey to question what happened to the Democrat Party he had always known.
I’ve learned there is always an “official” version of events and a “real” one. Given the above mentioned I’m inclined to think the truth is somewhere in the middle between Casey’s version and that of the Democrat party leadership.
Mary,
And Casey has been an open PL. But, Giuliani to my knowledge has never addressed the RNC floor primarily to put out his pro-choice platform. Bob Casey had planned to do so, without endorsing the candidate. There would be no point in having him speak, if he wasn’t going to talk about the candidate. Otherwise, he could have spoken in other places at the DNC, as DFL has made a showing for many years. There have been articles on how much more accepting of Democrat PLs the party is. But I do agree that the truth is probably somewhere inbetween Casey and the DNC’s explanation.
How do you interpret the first cartoon?
PIP,
See I told ya so! It does happen, I responded to you and my post never went through.:)
I think we have to keep in mind that we are speaking of a different political era here as well.
Absolutely tolerance for PL Democrats has been growing, and I admire those PL Democrats who have fought the good fight. Also, PL Democrats draws votes. So while DNC honchos may tow the abortion line, it won’t pass up on the votes PL Democrats bring in. Unfortunately this wasn’t always the case.
PL Democrats would be tolerated, little else. The MSM, which ruled supreme, gave the Republicans guff about their PL stand, fawned over opponents of the PL platform, and questioned its wisdom. Democrats were not held to the “big tent” standard the MSM held the Republicans to since they had the great foresight to support abortion. The media fawned over PP president Faye Wattleton and gladly towed the PC line.
Casey v Planned Parenthood did not leave the PC Democrat base smiling.
Its easy to see where Democrat honchos would have been a little nervous over Casey, despite his strong Democrat credentials.
We may be shocked at such anti-Catholic bigotry and ridicule of Casey’s PL position as was displayed by buttons with Casey as the pope, however, anti-Catholic bigotry was the mainstay of the PC movement from day one, with a lot of help from the media. Its likely the perpetrators acted on what was considered at that time to be acceptable bigotry.
Because of the man Casey was, a man of conviction and loyalty to his Democrat roots, as well as the political timeframe here, and the open hostility to Casey, its not beyond reason for me to believe Casey’s account of why he was not permitted to speak. I also take into account the DNC’s explanation and like you, think the truth is somewhere in the middle.
MK, sorry to take so long to reply to your opera post.
Believe it or not I don’t think I’d go to any of them–if you’re absolutely set on the live-opera experience, ABDUCTION–but my advice is get your husband to buy you a CD of THE MARRIAGE OF FIGARO–the recording conducted by Fricsay, if you can get it, it’s hard to find–or the live performance conducted by Rosebaud if you can get it–and listen to it while reading along with the english-italian libretto, at home.
The first live opera you see should be DON GIOVANNI.
Yeah, Don Giovanni is awesome. SoMG, what do you think of Carmen by Bizet? I was in a performance of it when I was 12. I was one of the street urchins. I think MK would really like Carmen. What do you think?
Bobby B., no kidding, I sang in the chorus of CARMEN too. “Toreador, en garde, l’amour t’attend!”
I think it’s lots of fun, very accessible, and a fine choice for first opera to see, but it is not GREAT. It doesn’t keep revealing new subleties even when you know it by heart the way Mozart’s operas do.
Senator Bob Casey, Jr. (D-Pa), is the son of Governor Bob Casey. Pennsylvania is a strange state–RTLs are Catholic Democrats (their Dem loyalty is left over from the days of labor unions and Pittsburgh steel) and Republicans are pro-choice like Senator Arlen Specter.
Casey Junior claims to be RTL in order to maintain the family tradition but he’s not enthusiastic at all and I will not be surprised if he votes to break the filibuster against the Freedom of Choice Act, even though I expect he’ll vote against the bill itself.
Bobby B., the CD of DONG to buy is conducted by Furtwangler from Salzburg 1950. DonG is played by the great Tito Gobbi whom I mentioned before, the guy who specialized in sadistic, snarling, overbearing bastards such as Jago in OTELLO. Donna Anna is played by big, piercing, furious Ljuba Welitsch, Donna Elvira by Elizabeth Schwarzkopf (one of several former Nazis in this recording, which shows that everyone is redeemable), Leporello by funny-man Erich Kunz and the Commendatore by my favorite Josef Greindl.
The problem is that the keyboard player is incompetent. He consistantly screws up the recitatives (MK, “recitatives” means the bits in between the set-pieces in which the singers have short conversations with each other accompanied only by harpsicord or piano) sometimes throwing the singers off their parts. For this reason I recommend using a different recording to LEARN the piece but this is the best realization of it I know, especially the Commendatore’s music. WARNING: Sound quality is not great.
http://www.amazon.com/Mozart-Giovanni-Furtwangler-Salzburg-Festival/dp/B000006DEE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1217880400&sr=8-1
Wow, awesome! I was meaning to ask you if you sung. Were you Escamillo then? I love the duet between Carmen and Don Jose from the first act, the Parle-Moi De Ma M
Oh speaking of recitatives MK, if you purchase any CDs, MAKE SURE the recitatives are sung and NOT spoken. That annoys me soooo much when they speak the recitatives.
Bobby B, I don’t know of any recordings of Mozart’s operas where they speak the recitatives. Maybe you are thinking of the German “singspiels” (“song-plays”), which contain spoken dialogue? These include THE MAGIC FLUTE and ABDUCTION, and it annoys ME when recordings leave the spoken parts out, or worse, replace them with narrative describing what happens. Some recordings have people other than the singers recite the spoken parts, which also annoys me.
Yes I have sung in a lot of choruses. Lots of Bach and pre-Bach. Also, Mozart and Verdi Requiems. The next things I want to sing are Haydn’s CREATION and Mozart’s Coronation Mass. The Coronation Mass is really something: under pressure from the employing Archbishop to keep it short, Mozart condensed his vocal genius into twenty minutes.
My favorite thing by Bach is the Christmas Oratorio. It contains some of his most satisfying music and it’s much less pretentious than the Masses and Passions–some of it is actually (*gasp*) funny. There’s a trio for soprano, mezzo and tenor which is just devastatingly beautiful in which the tenor and soprano sing long, difficult lines together “Ach, when will the savior come?” and the mezzo keeps interrupting to say “Be quiet, He’s really already here!”.
SoMG,
This is the recording of Magic Flute that I have http://www.amazon.com/Die-Zauberfl%C3%B6te-Complete-Mozart-43/dp/B00000411O/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1217883212&sr=1-2 and they speak the recitatives. My recording of Carmen also does…. boooo… oh well…
Wow, I’ve sung Mozart and Verdi’s requiem too! I sung treble on Mozart’s and tenor on Verdi’s. It sounds like you’re still singing. I haven’t in a while.
Another thing I love to sing, I’ll sing it any time, is the Brahms German Requiem. I have no favorite recording but you should avoid the odious Herbert von Karajan.
Yes, Bobby B, the spoken parts of MFLUTE are legitimate parts of the piece.
Your recording is not bad, Kurt Moll (who recently retired) is one of the great basses of our time, big enough for opera but smart enough for lieder. Bad for Wagner–you need to bellow as a Wagner bass; Kurt Moll purrs. There’s a recording of him singing songs by Schubert which is an absolute desert-island must-own. Some of the best renditions of Schubert’s PHILOSOPHICAL songs about humanity, divinity, and death, ever. Pianist Cord Garben is a true genius.
Buy IMMEDIATELY:
http://www.amazon.com/Schubert-Lieder-for-Bass/dp/B00000596S/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1217885203&sr=8-1
Guilini is more pro-life then Casey.
( on Judges he would nominate, politicains they support, and most laws pertaining to abortion )
“Even the “Catholic” JFK was known to arrange a discreet abortion or two for a pregnant girlfriend. One was for Judith Campbell, who was also connected to mobsters. The most nervous abortionist ever must have been the one who aborted Campbell, pregnant by JFK, at the behest of mobster Sam Giancana.”
Interesting Mary…
Bobby B., I bet you’ve already guessed this but he (Kurt Moll) is also very famous for his sonorous bottom. When he sings his low D you really hear it as a full note with relaxed vibrato rather than as a pinch (you get to hear it on the lieder album I linked to above at the end of “Death and the Maiden”.) It’s really more correct to call him an infra-bass rather than a bass.
There are two videotaped performances of ZAUBERFLOTE with him as Sarastro. If you’re gonna get one make it the earlier one with Lucia Popp, well-known as Pamina and still able to sing and act like a young girl. It’s conducted by Wolfgang Sawallisch. The other one unfortunately has Kathleen Battle who’s a total fake vocal robot with zero dramatic ability and acts more like Betty Boop than Pamina. Also I always feel the Met’s too big for Mozart. He certainly never imagined a hall that size. This is more important with him because he understood vocal anatomy extremely well, (unlike for instance Bach who wrote everything for keyboard) knew just where in a phrase the singer would be feeling best or would start to run low on support or whatever. His calculations could be thrown off by the additional requirement that all singers be vocal giants. MFLUTE was written specifically for singers he knew personally, especially the parts of Sarastro and the Queen of the Night, and Schickenaeder himself (author of the libretto) played Papageno, that’s why the role is so easy. The two priests who warn Tamino and Papageno just before the Three Ladies try to get them to violate their oaths (“Bewahret euch von Weibertucken”) were first played by stage hands.
The Tamino on your recording, Peter Schreier, is extremely smart, maybe too smart (if don’t understand what I mean by that, listen to anything by Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau, a high baritone who personifies “too smart” and insisted on recording an enormous number of roles he should never have gone near. Kurt Moll is almost, but not quite, too smart– he’s smart but also sincere.) Peter Schreier also has a beautiful voice. Your females are all very competent although as I recall (it’s been a while since I listened to the recording you have) Margret Price doesn’t sound at all like a young girl. She croons, doesn’t she?
The one I don’t remember at all from your recording is Papageno. Does he succeed in making you laugh at him?
It’s very difficult to do justice to DIE ZAUBERFLOTE. It’s too heavy-and-light. The closest I’ve heard is the Furtwangler live 1949 one I told you about before and even that one suffers from heaviness in parts of Papageno’s and Monastatos’ music.
This conversation on opera is fascinating, although I know nothing about it!
“The most nervous abortionist ever must have been the one who aborted Campbell, pregnant by JFK, at the behest of mobster Sam Giancana.”
LOL Maybe the Greek ones who went to Rome and took care of Caligula’s girlfriends….
SoMG,
I can imagine. Caligula would make Giancana look saintly.
Janet, I’ll say it once again, start with Mozart/DaPonte. FIGARO for girly types, DonG for manly boys.
SoMG,
Bummer. Then I’d have to wait a whole year!
And they still might not have Don Giovanni. What’s that one about, and what was the supernatural one you talked about and what’s an English/Italian Libretto and where do I get one…?
I ain’t got no class…
My favorite thing by Bach is the Christmas Oratorio. It contains some of his most satisfying music and it’s much less pretentious than the Masses and Passions–some of it is actually (*gasp*) funny. There’s a trio for soprano, mezzo and tenor which is just devastatingly beautiful in which the tenor and soprano sing long, difficult lines together “Ach, when will the savior come?” and the mezzo keeps interrupting to say “Be quiet, He’s really already here!”.
I like that way that sounds…can I buy a CD of that and will something explain what they’re all saying??
Argh! Oi feels like Eliza Doolittle!
SoMG: 6:31,
I wasn’t asking for a recommendation, I know you’ve given them many times before. Thank you again. I appreciate it!
MK, translations and texts can all be obtained by googling. Some CD sets come with text.
Yes, MK, there is one recording of the Christmas Oratorio that far outshines all the others I’ve ever heard which is a lot and that one is conducted by Karl Richter with Gundula Janowitz, Fritz Wunderlich, Christa Ludwig, and Franz Crass. Opera fans will recognize all four soloists. Some who are not opera fans will nonetheless recognize Fritz Wunderlich, who appears on all lists of best lyric tenors ever.
http://www.amazon.com/Weihnachtsoratorium-Christmas-Oratorio/dp/B000025U4P/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1217899427&sr=8-1
WOW! That’s pretty pricey…63.00…maybe the library? I’ll check. I found a you tube video…but it’s not the same guys that said…
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=christmas+oratorio+bach&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz2&pstart=1&b=11
Fritz Wunderlich and Gundula Janowitz both have something in their voices which is best approximated by wetting your finger with water and drawing it across the surface of a large wineglass about one-third full of water. You know how people do that? You can see standing waves in the water’s surface. The sound has a sort of other-worldly crystalline vocal quality like what CS Lewis attributed to Eldils (Angels of the Lord) in OUT OF THE SILENT PLANET. When they sing together its like a church-organ with lips, except that a church organ changes from pipe to pipe as the notes change and is therefore less one pair of voices than they are.
Gundula Janowitz has only one aria but it’s a great one, a little-girl tease about how big and powerful her lord is and if He says just one word everyone she doesn’t like will cease to exist, just like that, and she’s in a couple of ensembles and conversations.
Is Franz Crass boring? Is he unemotional or just modestly reticent? Or does he merit enough interesting-points for daring to sing this impossible high-baritone part with his low-bass voice which made him famous as Sarastro? How does he avoid choking to death during “Grosser Herr”?
And speaking of “Grosser Herr”, this piece contains at least three outstanding demonstrations of virtuoso baroque trumpet-or-trumpet-like-instrument. One of which is the opening number. There’s also a number with impossibly high accompaniment for two horns. Brass players beware!
And I don’t want to give short schrift to the chorus, they’re fantastic, stately rather than boisterous but plenty joyful. You won’t be able to resist joining in the opening movement and also “Herr, wenn die stolze Feinde schnauben….” (“Lord, when the proud enemy blows his lips forward and breath-flutters them like a horse in our collective face…”)
Cartoon neglected to mention the fact that black women are more likely to die from abortion complications than others, due most likely to racist attitudes/agenda shared by so many abortionists…
Mk,
Don Giovanni is about a self-serving womanizer named Don Giovanni. Here’s the short version: Early in the opera, he murders a man for trying to defend his daughter’s virtue from Giovanni’s designs/attacks/seduction. He then seeks to seduce another serving girl (who has another, legitimate boyfriend). One of his previous conquests seeks to warn Zerlina of his true nature and intentions, only to be defamed by Giovanni. The opera ends when Giovanni, preparing to throw a banquet, mockingly invites a statue of the man he murdered earlier to come to the party. The statue speaks, and explains to Giovanni that his vic has gone to a good place where he does not need food, and urges Giovanni to repent of his debauched deathdance. Three times Giovanni is enjoined to repent so that he may join the Commendatore in heaven. Three times he refuses. At last the statue grabs the arrogant, calloused and obdurate Giovanni and hurls him bodily in to the flames of hell.
Speaking of murder victims, a recent episode of CSI Miami affirmed the humanity of the unborn. The victim was found, during the autopsy, to be pregnant. When the perps were finally caught, the point was emphasized that there were two human lives taken…
Oh Yes, MK,
G. Schirmer publishes many piano/vocal opera scores in the original language, usually Italian, (Don Giovanni, Le Nozze di Figaro, Il Barbiere de Seville, Cosi fan tutte, and others) with an English translation included.
Personally, I think a day without Rossini is like a day without sunshine; my personal favorite of his works is La Cenerentola, and you can find some great clips of a gem of a production of that opera, featuring Frederica von Stade in the title role and Francisco Araiza as Prince Don Ramiro, on Youtube.
Enjoy!!!
P.S. If you like La Cenerentola well enough to purchase a score to it, G. Schirmer does not publish that one; Ricordi does. You might also find scores at your local public library; also recordings might be available there as well.
jt, I just saw a production of La Cenerentola this past spring and I really loved it. I wasn’t familiar with it before seeing it, so I was pleasantly surprised.
I usually try to look over the translated lyrics before seeing an opera. I hate constantly flitting my eyes up and down — stage to supertitles and back to stage. I guess it’s the fact that reading the titles takes me out of the music just a bit — and the titles are so hard to ignore unless you’re already at least somewhat familiar with the translations. I’m grateful that supertitles let you know what’s going on, and all that, but I have to say I can’t help feeling like they kind of ruin the whole vibe just a bit.
An interesting article on them — apparently I’m not alone in my ambivalence:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/arts/music/06tomm.html?_r=1&ref=arts&oref=slogin
Alexandra should try CDs of complete recordings of operas, which usually come with the libretto in the original language and an English translation next to it.
Not all do this, but the recordings on major labels such as Decca, EMI, DG, Phillips, Sony Classical, and RCA BMG etc usually have this very helpful feature.
You can even get familiar with the languiages. Most DVD operas have English subtitles.
Just Thinkin’ and Robert Berger,
Thanks for the tips. I have library books due back today…I’ll look for The Christmas Oratorio…by Karl Richter…
Well, since when is it a requirement to be an opera fan to comment at Jill’s? Lol! I’m impressed!
I have a blog on classical music and opera at blogiversity.org, which has blogs and forums on a wide variety of topics.
It’s called the horn .
You can find my posts by clicking on
“recent blog posts” , or you can access it
directly from links at these two
classical music blogs blog.onopera.com
or mahlerowesmetenbucks.blogspot.com
Click on the horn . I hope you’ll find it interesting.
Wow cool Robert. Thanks for sharing, I’ll definitely check that out.
All you Rossini fans, be sure to check out his STABAT MATER. It actually makes self-flagellation fun!
It has one of the most gripping final AMEN choruses ever written. Try to get an uncut version!
“Just thinking”, you wrote: “Cartoon neglected to mention the fact that black women are more likely to die from abortion complications than others, due most likely to racist attitudes/agenda shared by so many abortionists…”
That’s right. The reason we do abortions for black women is we want them to get breast cancer.
Seriously, are you saying black women are disproportionately likely to die from abortion complications because they have a disproportionate number of abortions (that’s their decision, not the doc’s), or because their abortions are more dangerous than white women’s abortions? Do you have any documentation for that? It’s very hard to measure statistical trends in something as rare as patient death from abortion complications (fewer than one per hundred thousand abortions).
There’s a recording of Rossini’s STABAT MATER I like a lot here:
http://www.amazon.com/Verdi-Requiem-Rossini-Stabat-Mater/dp/B000JJ4G6G/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1217980822&sr=8-2
Warning: the latin is Germanic, not Italianate. “Qvi” rather than “Qui” and hard “G”s. But I think the musicians capture Rossini’s feeling pretty well. Pilar Lorengar was a living legend when this was made.
The Verdi is only fair.
“Just Thinking”, we also need to consider, what about NOT having an abortion? Do black women (I don’t like the term “African-American” because I don’t understand why it doesn’t apply to white-skinned immigrants from Africa to America) suffer disproportionately from complications of labor and delivery?
I don’t like the term “African-American” because I don’t understand why it doesn’t apply to white-skinned immigrants from Africa to America
I was in England once and my friend referred to a man as “African-American.” I was mortified and he gave us a dirty look — I don’t think he was too keen on being called an American! I was like 14 at the time and ever since then I’ve been kind of wary of the assumptions implicit in the phrase.
Elizabeth: Then if it’s not murder, the baby must not be growing
No, that’s not it.
Rae: @Doug: Point taken. Now please excuse me while I go LAUGH maniacally at the fact that the Republicans are always bitching and calling the Democrats “big spenders”. Bush has wasted more money than a drunk teenager using her parents’ credit card in NYC.
Tell you what, Girl – you’re into your 20’s now and you’re seeing what is what…..
Nothing new for decades, really, though I would add that Democrats (“Liberals”) are really no better fiscally, in general.
“I don’t like the term “African-American” because I don’t understand why it doesn’t apply to white-skinned immigrants from Africa to America”
Alexandra: I was in England once and my friend referred to a man as “African-American.” I was mortified and he gave us a dirty look — I don’t think he was too keen on being called an American! I was like 14 at the time and ever since then I’ve been kind of wary of the assumptions implicit in the phrase.
Yeah – overseas (so to speak) it would have little if any application. It’s a continuum of preference, from “negro” to “black” to “African-American” based not on internals, but externals.
What was wrong with the word “negro”?
Has anyone else here read Evelyn Waugh’s hilarious novel SCOOP?
SoMG, I figure it’s Waugh’s best novel.
Umm.. Oh heck, that’s about it. Certainly would have lots of application today,eh?
In my day the term “colored” was used, and then came “Negro”. This was used since the term “black” was viewed as deragatory. Black people then insisted on being called “black” and rightfully pointed out that there is nothing shameful about being black. Were white people called “Blanco”?
Also the term “Afro-American” came into being.
“Afros” became popular as black Americans questioned why they should straighten their hair to look white. Afros were viewed by some as blacks being “uppity”. Whites adapted the Afro and white actress Bo Derek made “cornrows” popular in “10”. Trouble was “cornrows” had been worn by blacks for generations so they were hardly new, just being worn by a white actress.
Blacks began straightening their hair again.
The term “woman/man of color” is now in vogue though this sure sounds to me like a modification of “colored”. African-American came into vogue, to me a modification of “Afro-American”. Everything old is new again.
From my observation, the term “Negro” is viewed as deragatory by some blacks, a term that denotes subservience and shame in blackness.
It’s a continuum of preference, from “negro” to “black” to “African-American” based not on internals, but externals.
“Internal”…..”external” …. what?
We aren’t talking morality here, right?
Doug, have you seen the made-for-TV version of SCOOP? I am not talking about the Woody Allen movie of the same name.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093931/
If you’re looking for classical Cds and DVDs, the best place is arkivmusic.com .
They have a humongous selection to choose
from, and a whole section devoted to opera CDs and DVDs.
You can look up anything by composer or performer alphabetically. It’s a terrific
website.
To SoMG, Re: Stabat Mater & self-flagellation: Haven’t heard the Stabat Mater yet, but recently got a copy of it to check out; however, self-flagellation, per se, does not interest or appeal to me. Redemption, deliverance, and the triumph of good over evil — the sunlight themes beaming directly through La Cenerentola and a little less directly in The Barber of Seville — do, as is the case with compassionate, sane people everywhere. Do join us at your earliest opportunity; we’d love to have you.
To whom it actually concerns,
(SoMG/DG, I’m afraid that this would seem to exclude you, seeing that Planned Parenthood has been working for years to suppress the growing number – last time I checked, it was near 30- of studies linking abortion to breast cancer. For further information on that, see abortionbreastcancer.com. PP, aka Population Police, kills far more blacks every year than the KKK did in it’s entire history–during which, incidentally, a popular speaker at meetings on their circuit was none other than PP’s foundress, Margaret Sanger.)
Re: SoMG’s question about PP doing abortions on black women so they will get breast cancer…in view of what I just said, I don’t really think PP cares much how they die, just so they do, and PP gets away with their part in it. Breast cancer, AIDS, abortion…it’s all the same to the Population control freaks. The bottom line is reducing the population; decrease the birth rate and increase the death rate; PP is happy with anything they can get away with that serves those nefarious ends. Apparently black women are more likely to die from breast cancer than white women: see http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/32100.php
RE: the increased likelihood of black women suffering and dying from other abortion complications:
see http://www.realchoice.0catch.com/library/weekly/aa020101a.htm. Other sources back this up; I first became aware of it about 15 years ago and don’t recall that source; but apparently it’s been around long enough to rank as a too little known black history fact.
Re: Racist attitudes/agenda among abortion profiteers: That anyone still doubts this in view of PP’s history and the recent sting in which one of their workers laughingly accepted designated donation offered for the express purpose of murdering more black children in utero shows just the denial/rationalization/self-justification pattern that SoMG’s repeated pro-death blather on this site has exhibited since his third post.
It’s all through the writings of Margaret Sanger, borne out in the practices of PP and other death mills since her infamous life ended; but perhaps Edward Allred, abortionist and owner of a chain of California death mills, put it most candidly and succinctly when he stated, “Population control is too important to be stopped by some right-wing pro-life types. Take the new influx of Hispanic immigrants. Their lack of respect for democracy and social order is frightening. I hope I can do something to stem that tide; I’d set up a clinic in Mexico for free if I could . . . The survival of our society could be at stake . . . When a sullen black woman of 17 or 18 can decide to have a baby and get welfare and food stamps and become a burden to all of us it’s time to stop.”
Interestingly, four years after Allred made these comments, Patricia Chac
To Alexandra,
Yes, subtitles can be distracting. One of my favorite things to do is to get a score and recording of the same opera, and sit down and follow the music in the score…then do it again, only this time read the words, if you don’t know what’s going on.
Then check out the Von Stade clips (there are also some clips from another good production with Atlanta native Jennifer Larmore in the title role; all well worth seeing and hearing.
Cecilia Bartoli also tears this role up (I mean that in the best way!) vocally, though her style is quite different from the other two – she’s not called the queen of coloratura/agility for nothing – and she seems to share an unfortunate tendency for some detracting facial movement with Kathleen Battle.
Speaking of Battle, for all her faults, I find SoMG’s comments on her acting abilities unduly harsh; some singers are more expressive than others this way, and I think Von Stade’s acting would be hard to improve on; but I’ve always enjoyed hearing Battle sing; check out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4ZktluC0Mg.
Jessye Norman shines here dramatically, as she generally does, and vocally as well; sadly, it is hard for me to listen to her sing spirituals anymore without thinking of how many little black children have been crushed beneath the wheels of the famous “bus to freedom” when it took the infamously wrong turn that the corner of human rights and moral wrongs, and mistook the barbaric wrong of abortion for a civil right. Millions of innocent black children have lost their lives, and Jessye has, for some time, sat smugly and proudly on the advocacy board of the organization most responsible for this senseless, heinous killing spree…Planned Parenthood. I hope she sees and repents before it’s too late. PP, after all, specializes in scandalizing the names of it’s targeted victims…calling them useless eaters, parasites, human weeds, non-human, vermin, “a disease”…just like Sanger did, in her eugenic duet with Adolf Hitler. Check out eugenics-watch.com…more later, I expect.
“I think protecting women and girls from illegal, unsafe abortion qualifies as “doing the Lord’s work.” But then I’m the sort of person who believes sexually active women deserve to live.”
NEWS FLASH: Pro-lifers are the sort of people who believe that women don’t have to be sexually active in order to deserve to live; satanists, however, take pleasure in murdering virgins as sacrifices; and the younger, the better, to them; because they believe that the purer the sacrifice is, the more merit/power it gets them from Satan. That is why they are so very zealous for induced abortion, viewing each and every one as a pure, human sacrifice to him. (This is NOT the work of the LORD of LORDS, Who hates hands that shed innocent blood, and all types of sexual sin because of it’s destructive impact on His beloved creation, and it is sheer blasphemy to suggest otherwise.)
Speaking of lies, the fact is that such heinous acts give Satan more power over them, not the other way on; and the credulity it must take to think that his intentions towards them are better than his intentions towards their victims is mind-boggling.
Moreover, as seen on a poster at a recent pro-life event:
SAFE AND LEGAL? THAT’S A LIE;
SEVEN TIMES MORE WOMEN DIE
At least according the pro-abortion CDC; and since there have been a number of documented maternal deaths from legal abortions that did not make it onto the CDC’s PC radar, you can bet the farm that that 700% increase is very conservative.
Prolifers have never thought that sexually active women, per se, deserved to die. Even those that Old Testament Law would have stoned are generally viewed by prolifers as Jesus would view them: the attitude is “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more”, as opposed to picking up stones…
However, those who profit financially from abortion will never tell the women to go and sin no more; because that would dry up their profits. And in 35 years of legalized abortion, at least hundreds of women have died, and thousands more injured, at the hands of abortionists, boyfriends who wanted them to get abortions, and sometimes others to whom they dared assert their real womanhood and stood up for the life of their child. The prolifers have sought to warn them of the dangers of abortion, not subject them to bodily harm, like abortionists and pharisees alike.
Get your facts straight, if only for the sheer novelty of the experience; these tired old rants have long since 1973 been thorougly discredited.
realchoice.0catch.com is a great place to start… enjoy!!! let the truth set you free!
This is where you lose me – when posts start ranting about how pro-choice beliefs = satanism. The more times you bring up the word ‘Satan’ in a debate the less credibility the argument has.
And, BTW, I guess it needs reminding that PP is a non-profit organization. If you think that the employees and health professionals who are working in the clinics are rolling in dough and couldn’t make more somewhere else, you are so very wrong. They do it because they love it and believe that they are helping the patients/women who seek them out. This rhetoric about how this is a profit-based organization is beyond me.
Hisman: The freedom to murder is no freedom at all
Very contradictory – murder is illegal by definition, so how could one have the “freedom to murder”? It wouldn’t be murder if it was legal.
just thiniking: SAFE AND LEGAL? THAT’S A LIE; SEVEN TIMES MORE WOMEN DIE
Uh, no – having an abortion is much, much safer than carrying to term and giving birth. Early enough, as when the majority of abortions are done, and the gap widens – abortion is some 70 times safer to a point in gestation, even a hundred times safer.
Doug: Murder is objectively defined as the premeditated, deliberate taking of an innocent human life. Therefore, abortion is murder, legal or not.
I at least cited a source for my claim, and can cite others: where’s yours?
Childbirth is the natural conclusion of a process set in motion at conception. Induced abortion disrupts that process, and always with some negative impact on the mother’s body and emotions. Since you, being a guy, probably have no sense of this, perhaps this analogy will help:
Think of revving your car on the interstate up to any legal speed, then slamming it into reverse. Yes, it will have some negative impact on the car; the degree depending on the condition of the car and other factors.
Danielle, Planned Parenthood makes far too much money to be taken seriously as a non-profit; that is only one of many misrepresentations they put forth in order to deceive people into going along with their agenda. But you raise an interesting point: If, in fact, some people do volunteer to participate in PP’s activities, and support the slaughter of millions of innocent babies not for material gain but just because…that hardly ennobles them or the activity they support, submit to, or otherwise participate in.
JTM, a characteristic of (some) murders in no way means that any and all such things are murder. You are using backwards logic, same as saying that a Ford is defined as an automobile, therefore, Chevys are Fords.
Anyway, murder has to be illegal, in the first place….
JTM:
1. Abortion is justifiable homicide, not murder.
2. Citing bad examples proves nothing. Case in point: the book LIME 5 which sets out to tar the USA abortion industry with bad examples but proves by the small number of bad examples it cites (after years of exhaustive searching) that the US abortion industry is pretty damn good.
3. You wrote: “However, those who profit financially from abortion will never tell the women to go and sin no more; because that would dry up their profits.”
The large majority of “those who profit financially from abortion” provide contraceptive counselling to women AFTER their abortions. Like all medical specialists, they work to prevent the indications they treat. (The silly “contraceptives increase sexual activity” argument doesn’t apply here because the women are ALREADY sexually active.)
Abortion in the USA kills fewer than one patient per hundred thousand abortions. More than ten times more than that die in childbirth.
Actually, SoMG, Carol Everett, who used to own several abortion mills, has testified that the number of women injured or killed by “safe, legal abortion” is much larger than you, or any other baby killing advocate, care to admit. Other former profiteers who have repented have confirmed her statements.
She also stated, from considerable personal experience, that many single women, having just endured the trauma and violation of induced abortion, vowed that they never wanted to go through THAT again, and said that they did not want to remain sexually active, but abstain until they were ready to have any children they might be able to conceive later. So the profiteers would not let these women out of the “clinic” without their re-sale potion, low-dose birth control pills.
Abortion is not justifiable; it is still the premeditated, deliberate taking of an innocent human life; e.g., murder. A good friend of mine, a pro-life MD, has shared several times that when he was in medical school, a pro-abortion professor of his stated that there was no such thing as a legitimate medical indication for induced abortion; and this was several decades ago. Technology hasn’t declined since then; only public morality.
Your statistics conveniently ignore both the CDC’s findings, plus the fact that there are TWO patients subjected to danger in every abortion, and at least one of them always dies, except in those rare cases where the baby survives, or the less rare cases where the woman is not actually pregnant…
And again, your source? Grow up. Repent instead of trying to rationalize your support of what is, in fact, the senseless, unjust, cruel, wholescale slaughter of innocent children, and calloused exploitation of their mothers. Denial is not a river in Egypt, and it isn’t the same as legitimate refutation.
Danielle,
Whether or not you believe in Satan’s existence, Satanism is what it is, and induced abortion is what it is. My statements were based upon my experience and knowledge of both, plus that of people I know who have had direct involvment in both. You borties never offer legitimate refutation; only denial, and/or groundless smears of the messages you don’t want to face yourselves, or don’t want others to know, or of their messengers.
Abortion is not justifiable; it is still the premeditated, deliberate taking of an innocent human life; e.g., murder. A good friend of mine, a pro-life MD, has shared several times that when he was in medical school, a pro-abortion professor of his stated that there was no such thing as a legitimate medical indication for induced abortion; and this was several decades ago. Technology hasn’t declined since then; only public morality.
Oh come on, JTM, this is baloney – there are ectopic pregnancies, etc., situations where a very relative few people would argue that abortion is the best course of action.
Doug, I believe it’s not called an abortion in the case of an ectopic pregnancy rupturing. As far as a regular ectopic pregnancy, I believe there have been births that have carried to term. An OB/GYN could speak to that better than I could.
Doug: are you an OB GYN? (It’s a simple yes or no question…)