Quote Of The Day: Heidi Montag Thinks Birth Control Is Evil

writergirl
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 11:22 am: [report]

Oh, God.  This means she is going to spawn?

crustee
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 11:27 am: [report]

I 100% believe her.  Who wouldn’t take Heidi Montag’s advice?

likeOMGkbye
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 11:29 am: [report]

Everyone has to have 3 kids to stabalize the population? That is the dumbest thing I have heard all week. Does this mean they will be the next 18 kids and counting? Because then I’m fleeing the country.

Ogbu
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 11:30 am: [report]

Oh, sorry.

That smell is the speidi #&@$% on my shoe I just read through.

Annika Harris
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 11:30 am: [report]

So I guess either she and Spencer are planning to procreate soon or they’re using the rhythm method, which I thought was against her religion also.

She has a great idea, though, let’s increase our population by making babies people can’t afford.

Ginger
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 11:30 am: [report]

If anyone on this planet needs to prevent themselves from breeding, it is Heidi Montag.

TOO_DOPE
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 11:36 am: [report]

Too bad she wasnt on bc long enough to… you know, become suicidal. Because everyone knows that bc makes you want to kill yourself. PLEASE! If anything bc makes me want to LIVE for sexy times w/o worrying about getting pregnant! Be responsible. Don’t be ignorant.

Annika Harris
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 11:39 am: [report]

My period makes me want to commit suicide sometimes and I only get it a few times a year thanks to BC.

B
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 11:40 am: [report]

O.M.G… Why did she have to say that? She seriously just ruined my day- I can’t sleep at night knowing that there are people this stupid roaming around freely.

onionne
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 11:41 am: [report]

@ B, and the best part is that her vote counts just as much as yours or mine.

Chebs
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 11:45 am: [report]

What about the people who have more than 3 kids?  Could I “claim” someone else’s extra kids for population purposes?  Could we say that 3 of Jon and Kate’s kids count for Speidi, in hopes that they won’t procreate then?  They’re already covered, they wouldn’t have to worry about not contributing to depopulation!

... I feel dumb now.

DancerNinja
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 11:48 am: [report]

Heidi is a self-absorbed, completely irrelevant, moron with the IQ of a hot dog. People have her on shows to raise their ratings, probably knowing people watch her to see a train wreck in action.

robertsmithshairspray
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 11:50 am: [report]

@ DancerNinja, I agree, she’s really self absorbed. It’s a good job most people don’t care about what she has to say, because she always takes her own views as what’s right, just just what’s right to her. It’s silly. What happened to celebrities being talented and mysterious?

avalari
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 11:52 am: [report]

All of a sudden Jessica Simpson steps down as “Stupidest Blonde Celebrity Famous for Nothing” and a new contender comes forward…

Unohoo
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 11:58 am: [report]

My IQ dropped 10 points just reading that crap.

Jessica Wakeman
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 11:59 am: [report]

I can’t believe I’m not trashing something Heidi Montag is saying, but in defense of what she said about the Pill being bad for women’s bodies(sort of), some feminist activists think the Pill, especially the earliest versions of it, are terrible for women. The most famous among them is a woman named Barbara Seaman, the author of The Doctor’s Case Against The Pill. You can read about here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Seaman I’m not saying I agree with with this, but I’m just putting it out there as an idea.

joyy
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 12:06 pm: [report]

@JessicaW - yes, she is *partially* correct, just a tiny bit, about the negatives of hormonal birth control, but there are MANY types of birth control out there, and even if the earlier forms of what we know today were destructive in certain ways to certain extents, things have improved GREATLY.  All drugs have side effects.  Birth control is no different.

cbaum
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 12:23 pm: [report]

a- As if Heidi would go off the pill and instead ask Spencer to wear a condom. And as if Spencer would agree to that (not even a chance).

b- I’ll take my birth control advice from a doctor, not Heidi Montag thankyouverymuch.

c- @Ginger. Concur, my friend, concur.

emflow
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 12:33 pm: [report]

@ Jessica - We’ve also com a long way from the early forms of hormonal birth control. Actually that’s the most disturbing thing about Heidi’s blather - she’s got some stuff based on fact but she takes that veers off into total craziness.

emflow
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 12:36 pm: [report]

Ugh - typos, sorry.

drummrgirl
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 12:57 pm: [report]

I think one day if I just happened to meet Heidi Montag and then, i don’t know, maybe had some sort of spasm which caused me to punch her directly in her little rat face, I wouldn’t feel guilty.

sam04
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 01:03 pm: [report]

Ohhhh wow.  I love how dramatic she is.  MOST women on BC suffer from depression?  I’d be depressed if I wasn’t being a responsible sexually active person and ended up preggo.  I need to stop reading stuff like this because it makes me sad that there are actually such stupid people in the world.

saysay
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 01:12 pm: [report]

She is an ass. Plain and simple. I love how she’s preaching the word of God to all her twitter people, yet she’s posing in Playboy, has had multiple plastic surgeries and was living with her d-bag of a husband before they were married.  Last time I checked those sorts of things are looked down upon in most Christian communities. Yay for hipocrites.  I wish people would start ignoring her nonsense.

retro chic
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 01:13 pm: [report]

Dismiss her—don’t dismiss her—but for the “right” reasons. I think she’s one of the “fresh and young” enlisted by conservative GOP interests to revamp the Party’s image to draw new right-wing voters for 2012. This stuff works—believe it or not—don’t underestimate their influence on the underprocreating “straight-white-is-right” population they’re directing their message to. Call me cynical, but conservatives are masterful in the art of strategic image-making and promotion of their issues and candidates.

joyy
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 01:18 pm: [report]

@retro chic - sounds about right.

retro chic
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 01:27 pm: [report]

@joyy: glad to know I’m not the only one.

subpar
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 01:55 pm: [report]

Carrie Prejean, Sarah Palin, Heidi Montag, Meghan McCain, Elizabeth Hasselbeck, Ann Coulter, and Michelle Malkin for the win. If revamping the republican party fails, they could always start a basketball team.

kmatter
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 03:07 pm: [report]

um… did she really say that? honestly, i had to read it again (after blinking multiple times to make sure i wasn’t imagining something that stupid) and it’s still hard to believe that there’s anyone that ridiculously IGNORANT!!! wow… i’m almost awed O_o

Sonic
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 03:11 pm: [report]

Ignorant people like her make me wish there was some sort of checks-and-balances system to ensure they aren’t allowed to spawn.

jerseygrl
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 04:37 pm: [report]

You have to take a test before you can drive….....isn’t it scary that there is no test to become a parent???

writergirl
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 05:15 pm: [report]

@retro chich—even the Republicans aren’t *that* stupid.

snap
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 05:47 pm: [report]

@annika - I don’t think the “rhythm method”—and by that, I think you mean the Fertility Awareness Method—is against any religion.  Even Catholics allow and recommend it!

Kati-Anne
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 05:50 pm: [report]

“I felt like God was telling me that this was something just created by the government that is really bad for my body and I was just getting sick…”
Not to be rude, but I think that’s called paranoid schizophrenia.

landesign
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 06:33 pm: [report]

@retro. I usually like your posts but, I don’t what is dumber, Montag’s comments or you trying to connect her to Republicans. The vast right wing conspiracy. She was enlisted to ‘revamp’ the GOP’s image? My gosh, I don’t know why I even read this crap. Later

retro chic
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 07:11 pm: [report]

@writergirl—yeah, maybe Heidi is self-appointed (an unwelcomed coincidence), or has been floated out there, but hasn’t received the actual embossed invitation yet… who knows? Either way, they’ll cut her loose after this one!
_____________

But, my impression, tho, is she’s on-message with the conservatives/GOP’s: “The ‘right’ people aren’t having enough kids,” ie, fresh voters. Heidi’s anti-BC rhetoric uses all the familiar Party scare tactics and buzzwords: “devalues women… causes depression… cancer… sterilizes… most women are suicidal” to assert it. That stuff panders to the fears in all women, and in some cases, their ignorance. It’s powerful, sweeping stuff and can be highly successful. I always remember the “G” in GOP stands for Grand.

And I don’t think Repo constituents have the corner on stupid, that’s for sure—both sides can be *that* and blind to some degree. I think we’re just seeing a lapse in the GOP’s ordinarily masterful cohesiveness and image of relevance to *something.* As a Demo, it’s just fun to have the tables turned and watch *them* scramble for a change. For an avid people-watcher and child of a “mixed” marriage, ie, Repo/Demo, it makes for high entertainment; no offense meant to either side, j/s.

@subpar: funny.

shannac02
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 07:20 pm: [report]

FALSE FALSE FALSE! Please do NOT take Heidi Montag as a spokesperson for today’s young GOP!!!! Ugh. She’s an idiot.

Antiquity
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 07:31 pm: [report]

@Retrochic- I liked your comment. So true. My dad and my little sister are big right-wing talk show radio listeners and they believe anything they hear without even fact checking. So I can understand how Heidi being on the Alex Jones show is going to help boost the conservative holier than thou image with the younger gen.s who idolize idiot celebs.

hellosunrise
wrote on July 2 2009 @ 08:58 pm: [report]

for the love of god make it stop.

Oliveira
wrote on July 3 2009 @ 12:06 am: [report]

Is it me or was Heidi a “celebrity endorser” for McCain/Palin?

jerseygrl: I always thought the pregnancy test should have more difficult questions

I Go To 11
wrote on July 3 2009 @ 12:52 pm: [report]

@Oliveira: I believe you are correct in her “celebrity endorsement” of McCain. It’s all making sense now…

Between her, Jessica Simpson and Paris Hilton, I don’t know who’s the dumbest “celebrity” blonde. They’re giving us blondes with brains a bad rap, and it really irks me.

retro chic
wrote on July 3 2009 @ 01:25 pm: [report]

@ Oliveira/@ I Go To 11: Heidi endorsed McCain? ‘splains a lot, Lucy. Probably made him run for The Hills—er, away from them.

apologies

MichelleS1017
wrote on July 3 2009 @ 02:28 pm: [report]

dear heidi montag,

f**k off : )

shannooonski
wrote on July 3 2009 @ 11:10 pm: [report]

let’s see what she says after she’s barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen!
birth control RULES!

Smartinez1990
wrote on July 3 2009 @ 11:19 pm: [report]

Heidi…ugh! I totally agree with SaySay’s post.

readerlady
wrote on July 4 2009 @ 09:43 am: [report]

God help any Speidi Spawn.  Those two are a walking advertisement for involuntary sterilization.

Yes,@ Um No, even the Catholic Church recommends the Rhythm Method.  That’s why it’s known as Vatican roulette.

@retro chic - I like your theories.  Unfortunately, I think you are right on the money.

_jsw_
wrote on July 4 2009 @ 10:01 am: [report]

Fortunately, the 2012 race leaves us plenty of time for her to get pregnant (if she isn’t already), complain about all the problems with being pregnant and having a baby, and then have Spencer leave her for someone on birth control. After a few Jerry Springer appearances, she’ll be a Democrat. Then _we’ll_ have to deal with her. Ugh.

retro chic
wrote on July 4 2009 @ 10:34 am: [report]

@readerlady: Did you get a chance to see Palin’s resignation speech? “There needs to be *more* ‘Trigs’ (her baby’s name) in the world—not less.” Eh, maybe she bumped into Heidi at Starbucks.

Palin resignation video:
http://www.thefrisky.com/post/246-yeah-so-sarah-palin-resigned/

@_jsw_: Don’t despair. On the bright side, she’s cute, and will have more cute children. Reality TV is always looking for more talent. Also, last line. Who’s “we’ll?” clarify more please?

_jsw_
wrote on July 4 2009 @ 11:01 am: [report]

@retro chic: Sorry, the “we” meant Democrats. I’m a moderate independent, but since we’re effectively a two-party-and-no-one-else system, for now that makes me a Democrat. I pick issues, not parties, but come voting time, I have to choose parties, not issues. The majority of the people I vote for turn out to be Democrats. Nevertheless, I always end up feeling a bit nauseous no matter how I vote.

And as for Heidi Heidi Heidi Ho? You’re right, she is cute, and maybe I can catch her on the rebound in a year or two. Relationships with intelligent women are such a hassle, what with the whole “independent thought” and “we’re equals” thing; it’d be nice to be with someone and know that I was always right. I hope she has nice feet, though, what with having to see her barefoot all the time in the kitchen.

readerlady
wrote on July 4 2009 @ 12:16 pm: [report]

@retro chic - No, I didn’t see/hear Palin’s comments.  As a former Special Ed. teacher, I can only shake my head in dispair.  Granted, children with Downs Syndrome are very sweet natured and loving, and many are high functioning, but they have so many physical limitations along with their intellectual limitations.  It’s sinful and criminal to wish that on anyone.

writergirl
wrote on July 4 2009 @ 12:51 pm: [report]

Heidi did endorse McCain, but wasn’t, from what I could tell and “official” backer—meaning the campaign didn’t acknowledge it.  Thank God.

@Retro Chic—I was a staunch Republican until halfway through Bush Jrs. first term.  Their alliance with the right wing conservatives was the start of the turn off and over the course of the Bush Administration, Palin getting the nod for VP, and the continued, deepinging associates with the Right Wing Conservatives, Ive moved into Independent mode. 

The party needs to break away from the right wing conservatives as the party is now loosing all of the moderate Republican’s Reagan brought in.  Until it does, it will not be able to reallign its base.

The Republican’s right now are where the democrats were toward the end of Clinton’s second term.

Unfortunately, the Right Wing Conservatives are too big an influence (they MUST have pictures of Karl Rove screwing the devil) for there to be a break.  As such, I will probably be changing my registration to Democrat soon.  And unfortunately, I’ve seen so many of “us” who were young Republicans break away as a result of the Right wing conservatives and the way the party is headed. 

I have to wonder if they will be able to last if they don’t make that change and kill that alliance.  Or if it is too late?  The right wing conservatives are strong and a large organization in and of itself.  I don’t think they can match “moderates” but they will drive the Republicans, eventually to third-party status.

retro chic
wrote on July 4 2009 @ 01:40 pm: [report]

@_jsw_: //Nevertheless, I always end up feeling a bit nauseous no matter how I vote.// Me too, for more reasons than that.

Re: your previous //Fortunately, the 2012 race leaves us plenty of time for her to get pregnant…// Oops, I misread your Heidi for a Sarah (missed the Spence). Hence, my “she’s cute” response—which in time may still hold true. What with all the Gov-Love scandals these days, Springer is on high-alert.

Re: Heidi Ho. Hee-hee. Both her right feet will be perfectly pedicured, just for you. And, that’s assuming she knows where—or what—a kitchen is. cheers

retro chic
wrote on July 4 2009 @ 02:00 pm: [report]

@writergirl: ooh, didn’t see yours. Good one. You know, I was thinking about redressing that, glad you did. Look, I understand the Party disassociation. Both sides do it—one with conservatives, the other with liberals. In addition to the overgrowth of extremes, there’s the problem with both teams using whatever means/groups to get their issues and candidates pushed thru while looking the other way in what starts as an unholy alliance, degrading into gritting tolerance, at best. So, if it’s no longer productive or tolerable, a third party must happen, combining both, imo: The Purple Team.

writergirl
wrote on July 4 2009 @ 04:47 pm: [report]

@retro chic—unfortunately purple wouldn’t work.  While Republicans are not happy with the party’s deep-seated alliance with the Right wing conservatives, they aren’t *that* turned off where they are stomping for gay rights.  Purple would remind them of Jerry Falwell’s remarks re: Tinky from Teletubbies.

It would have to be: Team Yellow.  Good neutral color.

readerlady
wrote on July 4 2009 @ 06:57 pm: [report]

LOL!  I agree that we need a third party.  I’m registered Dem, because I tend to vote that way most of the time, but I’m not a flaming liberal.  I’m not a conservative, either.  I guess I’m socially liberal up to a point - I believe in morals and personal responsibility, but I also believe that ones personal choices are just that - personal - as long as they are legal.  It’s not my place to tell others how to live their lives, although I’ll gladly share my faith and beliefs with anyone who WANTS to hear them.  Fiscally, I’m more conservative, but I’m not a fan of Reaganomics or “the Shrub’s” philosophy - if he has one,other than enriching his cronies, that is.There’s got to be some common ground somewhere.  This country is becoming more and more polarized.  I blame the Repos mostly, with their philosophy of “if you aren’t with us 100% you’re the enemy”, but there’s plenty of blame to be spread around on both sides.  I think we women should band together and start our own party.  Call it team yellow, or tan or beige or some other neutral color, and campaign on getting the job done, not lining our pockets or pandering to the special interest groups.

_jsw_
wrote on July 4 2009 @ 07:10 pm: [report]

@readerlady: Please don’t leave us men out of your party. A few of us aren’t so bad. However, I’d be very much in favor of a basic test requirement for membership - some proof of knowledge of political/government basics, rough ideas of important current events, etc. It’d also be nice if we could test to ensure that new members weren’t aroused by Rush Limbaugh.

However, once you start imposing minimum standards, you’d keep the party too small to be effective. Damned Catch-22s.

readerlady
wrote on July 5 2009 @ 01:24 am: [report]

@jsw - Oh, I wouldn’t leave men out.  As far as I’m concerned, anyone with common sense and the willingness to actually LISTEN to others would be welcome.  ITA re the Limbaughburgers.  Also the catch 22 of imposing minimum standards.  Maybe a required Civics course instead?

writergirl
wrote on July 5 2009 @ 06:59 am: [report]

@readerlady and jsw—where do I sign up?  Good point about Limbaugh.  He scares me.  He actually used to have valid points (years ago) then he went on drugs and well, remember that old add?  This is your brain on drugs with the scrambled eggs?  I think we can hold ol’ Rush up as a prime example.

Yes, the Republicans, I will agree are probably more to blame for the polarization of the country. (My father would roll over in his grave if he heard me say that) mostly because NONE of them, Limbaugh followers or not, seem to be able to step away from the issues and examine them from both sides—at least the older generation, like those who are in their 60s on up.  You can not get them to see the other side of the coin and they are unwilling to even consider that there might be a better way.

I guess that’s how change gets started though.  Those of us who want it start rebelling against the status quo.

Should make Thanksgiving at my house interesting.  Again.

_jsw_
wrote on July 5 2009 @ 07:44 am: [report]

@writergirl - I agree about Limbaugh. As with many commentators, I think he started out with good points and valid observations, but then the fame and attention got to him, and now the only opinions he professes are the ones he knows will gain him even more adulation from his followers. Also, yes, agreed: change starts with rebelling against the SQ.

So, where does the line form?

readerlady
wrote on July 5 2009 @ 08:04 am: [report]

@jsw - I think I’ve been at the head of that line for most of my life, LOL.  ITA with you and writergirl about Limbaugh.  I think he’s always been an obnoxious jerk, but he did have some important things to say at one time.  I never agreed with him, mind you, but he could provoke some thoughtful discussions.  Now, though, he’s the posterboy for hidebound bigotry and intolerance.  No one could have a valid opinion or any intelligence unless he/she agrees with him, according to his followers.  People like him scare the crap out of me.  They incite the nutburgers and then stand back and disassociate themselves from the fallout.

Who’d a thunk that Speidi could provoke a civil and thoughtful political discussion?  Goes to show you that even vapid and shallow people have a purpose in life, VBG.

retro chic
wrote on July 5 2009 @ 08:51 am: [report]

@reader/writer/jsw: Yep. True, true. Rebellion against the status quo is the only way—real (r)evolution happens in bursts, imo. But, that means stealing the Status Quo’s game book and doing it better, ie, grassroots and in the streets (and all media). Hijack and brand a few choice words and phrases to ignite people’s anger (Obama did)—people have to be really mad to endure long enough. Hey, they did it best and it works (too many ex. to name)—I don’t think ideas and compromises and solid plans are enough.

Employ peoples’ anger; create and rebrand an image (no, bare feet and blonde wigs are not required). It’s so basic. Politics it’s all about understanding Human Nature, something we’re realizing only lately. Paint the stale or harmful policies of the Repos and the Demos for what they have been—Used Cars sold by used car salesmen. 

ps: anyone hear reactions to Palin, or political stuff at July 4th bbq’s?

retro chic
wrote on July 5 2009 @ 08:54 am: [report]

@readerlady, lol, Yeah, Heidi does have a purpose after all. My profile sounds very similar to yours, but ultimately,  I will always shoot for the moon and keep the bar raised, since a society is measured by its social conscience (how it preserves personal rights and takes care of its weakest, ie, children, aged, and sick) *WHILE* exhibiting productivity and personal/fiscal responsibility. It can be done on common ground, as you said. I’m a pragmatic idealist, shall we say. Compromise will inevitably play out, as it should, but I always shoot for the moon first.

retro chic
wrote on July 5 2009 @ 09:00 am: [report]

@writergirl, Thanksgivings are tough? My mom was a Demo, my dad (still living) is a staunch Repo (they div). Every night at the dinner table was a treat. He only last month relaxed the quivering anger in his voice about my continued treasonous voting acts in ‘08. So, I hear it all the time. You’re right about the over 60s, too. Blind and stubborn. Esp blind.

Btw… about color. You’re so right. Purple would be quite problematic. Barney has been called into question, too, tho, no one knows his true “affiliation.” Yes, I *do* like yellow. Yellow is an optimistic, yet neutral color, but I do fear the Military would object, and SpongeBob would cause yet another debacle for the same reasons you named for purple. Oh, and beige. Designers and PR folk would have a hissy-fit. Maybe if the yellow had a goldish tone, or maybe a bit of green mixed in to satisfy everyone. Fiscal responsibility and everyone’s rightful place in the sun for a healthy, thriving planet.

I Go To 11
wrote on July 5 2009 @ 02:25 pm: [report]

@ political discussion above (since there were several involved!): My dad is a staunch Republican. He absolutely “cannot” (more like “flat-out will not”) vote anything that isn’t Republican Party. It gets ridiculous listening to him sometimes, especially when he has a Green Party supporter for a daughter.

I really don’t understand why anyone would align themselves with one ideology/party/etc. and refuse to entertain the idea that maybe, just maybe, someone on a different “team” has a valid point to make and perhaps even some improvements to the current situation. As I mentioned, I’m a fan of the Green Party, but I’m willing to hear arguments from more than just them. I base my vote on issues, not necessarily parties or people, so it’s a foreign concept to me to stick with one side only, come hell or high water. Maybe it’s a generational thing. Maybe at one time there was a purpose to join a particular party and go with whatever they said. But in today’s society, I don’t see how that can possibly work anymore. We have so much diversity, and with the lightning-fast speed at which we get information, it’s easier to see many different points of view than it was in generations past. I think that if people were just a little more open to differences of opinion, we’d all be better off; that’s the optimist in me, though. Oh well, one can always hope and pray that one day we’ll actually have our crap together, right?

landesign
wrote on July 5 2009 @ 02:50 pm: [report]

@IGoTo11.  At last a rational, common sense post without all the generalizations and snide remarks.
I share your opinion and hope you keep your healthy attitude, and are not swayed by those who feel if you repeat insulting generalizations, they must be true.

writergirl
wrote on July 5 2009 @ 04:23 pm: [report]

@retro chic—How about Lime Green?  *The* new, hip popular color amongst designers, and it would show up really well on the electoral map.

@Igotp11—The resons I affiliated with one party before were because I believed in their ideals more so than I believed in the other party’s ideals.  At that time when I registered.  Now, I don’t necessarily believe either party is 100% right, but find myself more closely alligning with the D’, than I do the R’s.  I’d change my affiliation permanently simply because I would want to vote in the primary elections.  To do that, you do need to be registered one way or the other.

That doesn’t mean I would now shun R’s—I wouldn’t.  I would vote in the general election based on the person, not the party.  Which is how I’ve been voting the last nine years anyway.

readerlady
wrote on July 5 2009 @ 05:29 pm: [report]

@ retro chic.  As an over 60, I resemble that remark!  GG.  Seriously, I don’t think it’s an age thing so much as a stubbornness thing.  Some people just can’t admit that they could possibly be wrong.  I think you’ll find that many of us who grew up in the 60’s and early 70’s are quite astute and willing to listen.  Many of us are very fed up with the status quo, too.  We’ve seen too many of the things we worked for and marched for and, in some cases, died for, perverted for the personal gain of some corrupt slimeball, to be complacent.  So don’t give up on us.  We aren’t the enemy.  And at least SOME of us don’t believe that all 20ish and 30ish folk are selfish, self-absorbed idiots as has been prtrayed by some media sources.

@writergirl - I like lime green.  Actually, I like most shades of green, but Lime Green is vibrant, eye-catching and the color of life.

As I mentioned earlier, I’m a registered Demo, because I tend to vote that way more often, and in my state, one must declare a party affiliation in order to vote in the primary elections.  However, I do vote for Repos, too.  In fact, this past election, I voted for more Repos than Demos locally.

To plagiarize from our POTUS - YES WE CAN!

retro chic
wrote on July 5 2009 @ 07:04 pm: [report]

@readerlady: haha, OK, Norm Crosby. Now, take a deep cleansing breath… no, you definitely *don’t* resemble that remark. The “over 60s” comment was one of agreement with writergirl’s (10th comment above this) re some Repos in our *own* lives, just to clarify (mine), so share the love! Plus, I’m not that far behind, prob my brother’s age—about a half-generation. I had a nearly front-row seat by the battles and strides made, directly instilling a sense of duty and desire to preserve them. I, like you, mentioned the stubborn factor, up there somewhere. No one’s giving up on anyone or is the enemy. And, check our recent comments that evolved into creative compromise and common ground, that is, between all the tongue-in-cheek sarcasm. I didn’t mean for this comment to be all about reining in your’s, but there it is. Hope it helps. Again, breathe…

@writergirl: Yes, lime works!—Jerry F can just deal with fresh green fruit, and ponder the next conspiracy to be perpetrated by “Dipsy” from above.

@landesign: That Old Chestnut of dismissal, “The vast right-wing conspiracy”? Not “rational,” no “common sense,” “snide,” “My gosh, I don’t know why I even read this crap. Later,” because you disagree? It’s wasted here. You’re mad. I don’t blame you, so hang in there, and offer your thoughts as well as your criticisms. High-spirited tongue-in-cheek sarcasm welcome, too!

readerlady
wrote on July 5 2009 @ 07:32 pm: [report]

@retro chic - I was just yanking your chain!  I didn’t take what you said seriously, and I didn’t mean for you to take (most, anyway) of what I said seriously.  Major problem with the written media - difficult to convey tone.  Anywho - I’m really enjoying this lively, intelligent and coherent discussion!  I see so many blog comments and letters to the editor, etc. that are so totally incoherent or else they resort to name calling and demonizing the opposing opinions.  Who was it who said “Sir, I disagree with everything you say, and I will defend to the death your right to say it.”?  ITA!

retro chic
wrote on July 5 2009 @ 08:56 pm: [report]

@readerlady: ah, yes… dreaded *tone.* I always enjoy a worthy, lively discussion too — yanking or no yanking. But do I get to keep the “20ish and 30ish” age as a parting gift? My 12-year-old would really appreciate its cool-factor. And it might help abate the certain Pangaea that will become my body/parts without increasing exercise — except, nothing’s moving North. cheers

writergirl
wrote on July 6 2009 @ 05:06 am: [report]

@retro and reader—Lime green it is. 

@readerlady—the over 60’s comments referred to the people in my family as well.  They seem firmly entrenched in their beliefs and they won’t budge from their position.  Maybe it is stubborness.  Whatever it is, I avoid political discussions at all costs with them.  OR….I hog the entire bottle of Pinot for myself at Thanksgiving.

Honestly…if you hadn’t stated your age, I never would have categorized you as such.  Definately a different tone from the people in my life.

BlueVibe
wrote on July 6 2009 @ 10:08 am: [report]

The population NEEDS to decrease, dear.  I’m not a tree-hugging Greenpeace fan, but the planet would be better off supporting a smaller population.  The economy will just have to adjust.

I figure that this is the closest any situation will get to two alleged wrongs making a right.  If you’re too religious to use birth control, you’d better also be too religious to have sex outside of marriage.  At least have the common decency not to bring children into unstable relationships.  If you’re going to backslide on the sex part, backslide on the birth control part, too.  Take responsibility for yourself.  (I still can’t believe how many of my self-proclaimed Christian high-school classmates got pregnant because “birth control is wrong.”  Funny how cherrypicking transgressions only applies to my heretical religious ideas and not to their premarital sex.)

(I personally, am not opposed to premarital sex, but I’m also a big fan of birth control.)

Perceptible
wrote on July 6 2009 @ 10:12 am: [report]

Has she ever been pregnant? Has she ever cared for an infant? Let alone several children? Let’s have her pop out her “required” 3 kids and see if she’s up for no birth control.

Then again, we’d probably be better off if she didn’t procreate.

jimnist10
wrote on July 6 2009 @ 10:52 am: [report]

Can the Frisky follow E!‘s lead and stop talking about them or at least refer to them a la Chelsea Handler-style as “Simplex 1” and “Simplex 2”? I mean, they really are like herpes! They never go away!

Iammina
wrote on July 6 2009 @ 10:02 pm: [report]

Good for Heidi, I can’t think of anyone that I would like to see perpetually pregnant than Heidi. I hope she has at least ten. However, I am willing to bet my sugar daddy’s Ranch that after she dropped one eight pound kid she would be taking those birth control pills for life.