Great . . . now who do I vote for?

Lilavati

Arbitrary and Capricious
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
7,644
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
47
Location
Alexandria, VA
#1
Was going to hold my nose and vote for Ron Paul in the VA primary. Yes, he has long standing ties with the worst sort of bigots . . . but since he has zero chance of winning the general election, I was going to vote for him because of the things he says that I do like. Since I live in VA, my choices are Paul or Romney . . . I couldn't vote for Santorum or Gingrich if I wanted to . . . or, for that matter, Mickey Mouse, Abraham Lincoln, or the zombie of Ronald Reagan. So, given the choice between the man I absolutely can't stand and the man who says a few things I like, I was going for that guy.

At which point, he manages to insult not only me, but my mother.

But sort of along the line of the pills creating immorality, I don’t see it that way. I think the immorality creates the problem of wanting to use the pills.
No, Mr. Paul. My mother used birth control throughout her marriage. That's why I'm an only child. She used it with her husband of now near 40 years. My mother is not immoral, you SOB.

Then there are all the young married couples who are putting off children because they can't afford them.

Fine, I'm not married to my fiance of 12 years. Insult me. Go ahead. I'm sure I don't live up to your standards, though I'm hardly a raging slut and never was.

But don't you dare insult my mother.
 

sparks19

I'd rather be at Disney
Joined
Jul 7, 2005
Messages
28,563
Likes
3
Points
38
Age
42
Location
Lancaster, PA
#3
maybe I read that wrong. I didn't read that as if any woman who ever takes birth control is immoral so I'm just not seeing how it's an insult to mothers everywhere (well not mine... she had everything removed when I was born lol)

Crude thing to say? I suppose so but I didn't read it as any woman in a committed relationship wanting to take birth control is immoral. I read it as Birth control isn't going to cause immorality. it's the immorality that causes the use of birth control. then I took that part to mean young girls not in a committed relationship using birth control so they could sleep around. I know I did my fair share of that as a teen and I'm very lucky I came out the other end relatively unscathed because I certainly wasn't always safe about it. right or wrong I just didn't read it the same way everyone else did.

but it is early and I haven't finished my first coffee and by this early point in 2012... I already don't care anymore lol I can't vote anyway
 

zoe08

New Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2006
Messages
5,160
Likes
0
Points
0
Age
37
Location
Texas
#4
I have used the pills more for regulation and to avoid cramps, but also for bc during my marriage.

However I don't really take that much offense to the statement, because I do agree that pills "do not cause" immorality. Not everyone who chooses to use it is immoral, but it does make being immoral more acceptable because people can use the pill and sleep around without much chance of getting pregnant.

Now I don't think any candidate is really a great choice. I really think the republicans have kind of screwed themselves with their choice of nominees. And likely Obama will be re-elected. I absolutely refuse to vote for Gingrich, I haven't studied Santorem or Romney enough, but am planning to vote for Paul if he gets it, which I doubt he will. So if I'm not sure I'll be able to vote republican, I may have to vote independent....but I'll have to study on those too.
 

Doberluv

Active Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2004
Messages
22,038
Likes
2
Points
38
Location
western Wa
#5
I wouldn't get bogged down with those types of things, but concentrate on his political views...what his philosophy is for our country as far as the over-all...gov. spending, economy, freedoms, degree of gov involvement, foreign policy...those kinds of things. If he said something that came out off color, well....to me that's not going to make or break our country.
 

Beanie

Clicker Cult Coordinator
Joined
May 17, 2006
Messages
14,012
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
39
Location
Illinois
#6
I took it the way sparks took it.

But this is supposed to be a surprise? Ron Paul frequently says kinda bizarre stuff. It's sort of his modus operandi, isn't it?
If this is really the first thing he's said that's offended you, you're miles ahead of most people...
 

Jules

Magic, motherf@%$*#!
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
7,204
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
42
Location
Indiana
#7
I am going to go nuts if I hear one more man talk about BC and how it effects women/girls. Pills are not going to cause immoral behavior, just as condoms are not causing immoral behaviory. These statements sound like the catholic church in africa, and we all know how well that is going.

And yes, I would not vote for someone who makes judgments about things he shouldn't- that tells you what they truly think about freedom.
 

Lilavati

Arbitrary and Capricious
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
7,644
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
47
Location
Alexandria, VA
#8
Well, he's right that the pill doesn't cause immorality, but the converse isn't true either.

I understood it to imply that if it weren't for immorality, we wouldn't need the pill. Which is BS. Now, he may have meant that women not in a relationship wouldn't need birth control if they weren't immoral, but then he's making the mistake that virtually all of these men (and most of them are men) keep making: that the only women who use birth control are young girls sleeping around, and they are certainly the only ones who would need financial assistance to afford birth control. Married women don't use it, or if they do, they can easily afford it. All of which shows, at the very least, that these men do not live on earth.

Honestly, I'll probably still vote for the guy in the primary, but its not like I have much choice. The other choices are stay home or vote for, gag, Romney. They don't make clothespins tight enough to hold my nose to vote for him.

Which leads me to another pet peeve . . . VA keeps selling not allowing write ins and having tough requirements for its ballot as being about the candidates. Wrong, Virginia. In the end, its the Commonwealth telling me, its citizen, that I may vote for choice A, or choice B, and may not vote for any one else. If I don't like that, I don't have any other option. Now, I have no intention of voting for, say, Gingrich, but it pisses me off to NO END that Virginia is telling me that I CANNOT do so if I wished.

Edit:

This
And yes, I would not vote for someone who makes judgments about things he shouldn't- that tells you what they truly think about freedom.
We can debate all day about subsidized birth control and religious freedom . . . but this has rapidly turned into a discussion about birth control, period. Which I can't believe we have having in 2012. But leaving that aside, the freedom to control my own fertility is pretty much core to my freedoms as a woman, and, unlike abortion, it doesn't implicate the rights of anyone else. Anyone who questions that freedom is a threat to my most basic rights (that means YOU, Santorum), and I am very disappointed that Rep. Paul doesn't seem to understand that freedom either.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
4,381
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Midwest
#9
I don't think he's saying women who use pills are immoral. I'd like to see the context in which this was said.

I'm guessing it has much to do with the recent (non issue IMO) of church backed hospitals being required to cover BC with their employee based health plans and the "outrage" it caused.

I think he was saying BC doesn't make you immoral. just like owning a gun doesn't make you a murderer or having a bottle of wine in your house doesn't make you a drunk or alcoholic. But some people will certainly seek out certain things that "help" them with their issues. The pill certainly helps people sleep around with less babies, a bottle of wine will help those wanting to get drunk and a gun will definitely aid in someone wanting to kill somone.

but the simple act of being available or used doesn't make them immoral because millions more use them everyday in ways I think most of us could consider to be well within "moral limits" whatever they may be.
 

*blackrose

"I'm kupo for kupo nuts!"
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
7,065
Likes
3
Points
38
Age
33
Location
WI
#10
I think I understand what he was trying to say (as Sparks said)...but I don't agree with what he said.

I'm in a committed relationship, but not yet married. I just recently started taking birth control pills because having a baby right now is not really in the cards. Am I having sex outside of marriage? Yes. Does that make me immoral? Some people think so. Would I be taking the pill even if I was married to him (thus, "not being immoral")? You bet. Even if we eloped tomorrow, that isn't going to change our situation - a baby still would not work. And until the time we decide that bringing children into this world is what we want to do, I will continue to be on bc.

So, this:
I understood it to imply that if it weren't for immorality, we wouldn't need the pill. Which is BS. Now, he may have meant that women not in a relationship wouldn't need birth control if they weren't immoral, but then he's making the mistake that virtually all of these men (and most of them are men) keep making: that the only women who use birth control are young girls sleeping around, and they are certainly the only ones who would need financial assistance to afford birth control. Married women don't use it, or if they do, they can easily afford it. All of which shows, at the very least, that these men do not live on earth.
And I applaud this:
We can debate all day about subsidized birth control and religious freedom . . . but this has rapidly turned into a discussion about birth control, period. Which I can't believe we have having in 2012. But leaving that aside, the freedom to control my own fertility is pretty much core to my freedoms as a woman, and, unlike abortion, it doesn't implicate the rights of anyone else. Anyone who questions that freedom is a threat to my most basic rights (that means YOU, Santorum), and I am very disappointed that Rep. Paul doesn't seem to understand that freedom either.
 

Xandra

Active Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
3,806
Likes
0
Points
36
#11
As much as I'm not too stoked by him saying that (slut-shaming), I read it as him actually defending the pill... which is good.
 

sparks19

I'd rather be at Disney
Joined
Jul 7, 2005
Messages
28,563
Likes
3
Points
38
Age
42
Location
Lancaster, PA
#12
yeah I'd like to see the context too but right now as I read it I take it as

"the pill doesn't cause immorality. The immorality is already there and the pill is just used as an aid" and that's not entirely untrue. I don't get that he was saying every single woman who ever takes the pill is immoral although I can see how it could be taken that way. it just wasn't what I took away from it the first time I read it.
 

Lilavati

Arbitrary and Capricious
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
7,644
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
47
Location
Alexandria, VA
#13
Context:

Better than it initially sounded . . . I'm no longer insulted as much as thinking . . . clueless. But then, he's responding to crazy man Santorum, so . . . <shrug>.

KING: Welcome back to the Mesa Arts Center and the Arizona Republican Presidential debate. Let's get right back to questioning the four contenders for the Republican nomination. We take a question now from cnnpolitics.com. You can see it up on the screen here.
Since birth control is the latest hot topic, which candidate believes in birth control, and if not, why? As you can see -- it's a -- it's a very popular question in the audience, as we can see. Look, we're not going to spend a ton of time on this but it is -- please.
GINGRICH: Can I just make a point?
KING: Sure. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: These guys are giving you some feedback here, John.
KING: I see that. I see that.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think they're making it very clear.
GINGRICH: No, I think -- look, I think there's -- I want to make two -- I want to make two quick point, John.
The first is there is a legitimate question about the power of the government to impose on religion activities which any religion opposes. That's legitimate.
(APPLAUSE)
KING: Sure is.
GINGRICH: But I just want to point out, you did not once in the 2008 campaign, not once did anybody in the elite media ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide. OK? So let's be clear here.
(APPLAUSE)
GINGRICH: If we're going to have a debate about who the extremist is on these issues, it is President Obama who, as a state senator, voted to protect doctors who killed babies who survived the abortion. It is not the Republicans.
(CROSSTALK)
ROMNEY: John, what's happened -- and you recall back in the debate that we had George Stephanopoulos talking out about birth control, we wondered why in the world did contraception -- and it's like, why is he going there? Well, we found out when Barack Obama continued his attack on religious conscience.
I don't think we've seen in the history of this country the kind of attack on religious conscience, religious freedom, religious tolerance that we've seen under Barack Obama. Most recently, of course --
(APPLAUSE)
ROMNEY: -- most recently requiring the Catholic Church to provide for its employees and its various enterprises health care insurance that would include birth control, sterilization and the morning-after pill. Unbelievable.
And he retried to retreat from that but he retreated in a way that was not appropriate, because these insurance companies now have to provide these same things and obviously the Catholic Church will end up paying for them.
But don't forget the decision just before this, where he said the government -- not a church, but the government should have the right to determine who a church's ministers are for the purposes of determining whether they're exempt from EEOC or from workforce laws or labor laws.
He said the government should make that choice. That went all the way to the Supreme Court. There are a few liberals on the Supreme Court. They voted 9-0 against President Obama. His position --
(APPLAUSE)
ROMNEY: -- his position -- his position on religious tolerance, on religious conscience is clear, and it's one of the reasons the people in this country are saying we want to have a president who will stand up and fight for the rights under our Constitution, our first right, which is for freedom of religion.
KING: So let's focus the time -- let's focus the time we spend on this on the role of the president and your personal views and question the role of government.
And Senator Santorum, this has come up -- yes, it has come up because of the president's decision in the campaign. It's also come up because of some of the things you have said on the campaign trail. When you were campaigning in Iowa, you told an evangelical blog, if elected, you will talk about what, quote, "no president has talked about before -- the dangers of contraception." Why?
SANTORUM: What I was talking about is we have a society -- Charles Murray just wrote a book about this and it's on the front page of "The New York Times" two days ago, which is the increasing number of children being born out of wedlock in America, teens who are sexually active.
What we're seeing is a problem in our culture with respect to children being raised by children, children being raised out of wedlock, and the impact on society economically, the impact on society with respect to drug use and all -- a host of other things when children have children.
And so, yes, I was talking about these very serious issues. And, in fact, as I mentioned before, two days ago on the front page of "The New York Times", they're talking about the same thing. The bottom line is we have a problem in this country, and the family is fracturing.
Over 40 percent of children born in America are born out of wedlock. How can a country survive if children are being raised in homes where it's so much harder to succeed economically? It's five times the rate of poverty in single-parent households than it is in two-parent homes. We can have limited government, lower tax -- we hear this all the time, cut spending, limit the government, everything will be fine. No, everything's not going to be fine.
There are bigger problems at stake in America. And someone has got to go out there -- I will -- and talk about the things.
And you know what? Here's the difference.
The left gets all upset. "Oh, look at him talking about these things." You know, here's the difference between me and the left, and they don't get this. Just because I'm talking about it doesn't mean I want a government program to fix it.
That's what they do. That's not what we do.
(APPLAUSE)
KING: Congressman Paul?
PAUL: As an OB doctor, I've dealt with birth control pills and contraception for a long time. This is a consequences of the fact the government has control of medical care and medical insurance, and then we fight over how we dictate how this should be distributed, sort of like in schools. Once the government takes over the schools, especially at the federal level, then there's no right position, and you have to argue which prayer, are you allowed to pray, and you get into all the details.
The problem is the government is getting involved in things they shouldn't be involved in, especially at the federal level.
(APPLAUSE)
But sort of along the line of the pills creating immorality, I don't see it that way. I think the immorality creates the problem of wanting to use the pills. So you don't blame the pills.
I think it's sort of like the argument -- conservatives use the argument all the time about guns. Guns don't kill, criminals kill.
(APPLAUSE)
So, in a way, it's the morality of society that we have to deal with. The pill is there and, you know, it contributes, maybe, but the pills can't be blamed for the immorality of our society.
(APPLAUSE)
KING: Governor, please.
ROMNEY: John, you know, I think as Rick has just said, this isn't an argument about contraceptives, this is a discussion about, are we going to have a nation which preserves the foundation of the nation, which is the family, or are we not? And Rick is absolutely right.
When you have 40 percent of kids being born out of wedlock, and among certain ethnic groups the vast majority being born out of wedlock, you ask yourself, how are we going to have a society in the future? Because these kids are raised in poverty in many cases, they're in abusive settings. The likelihood of them being able to finish high school or college drops dramatically in single-family homes. And we haven't been willing to talk about this. And when we have programs that say we're going to teach abstinence in schools, the liberals go crazy and try and stop us from doing that. We have to have a president who's willing to say that the best opportunity an individual can give to their unborn child is an opportunity to be born in a home with a mother and a father. And I think --
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
4,381
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Midwest
#14
Thank you for highlighting it, I didn't see that at first and got thru Newt's ****, and was about to quit. Reading such mindless drivel was making me wanna get a gun and use it on myself :)

Then I saw the red and quickly skipped the rest.
 

Kat09Tails

*Now with Snark*
Joined
Jun 10, 2010
Messages
3,452
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Upper Left hand corner, USA
#15
I find that I very rarely agree with a politician about everything. There are a few things that are deal breakers but for the most part a one off isn't the end of the world.

That said, I'm not voting for any of these GOP candidates nor Ron Paul. If this is the best the right can come up with I know where my vote is going.
 

Jules

Magic, motherf@%$*#!
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
7,204
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
42
Location
Indiana
#16
... But who is he to indicate that sleeping around is immoral? And what constitutes sleeping around? Having sex with different men once a week? Twice? Four times a month?

It doesn't matter what I or you, or even he personally thinks... But to stand on a public forum and to, again, judge women... That is unacceptable to me.
 

sparks19

I'd rather be at Disney
Joined
Jul 7, 2005
Messages
28,563
Likes
3
Points
38
Age
42
Location
Lancaster, PA
#17
I don't know... who is anyone to say anything is wrong. who are we to say he is wrong... who is he to say what he thinks is wrong...

We all operate on our own moral compass. how else do you determine right from wrong? Does everyone's moral compass match? no of course not but Who is he to say what is immoral? I don't know... a human being?

Agree or disagree he has every right to feel and believe the way he does. but I don't even really feel like THAT was the point he was trying to make. I think it's just what everyone is fixated on. I didn't read it as him making the point that out of wedlock sex was immoral or sleeping around was immoral. It seemed to me the point he was making that birth control doesn't make people immoral but rather the immoral people are already immoral and seek out the birth control as an aid... and I believe that is true. That doesnt' mean I think everyone who ever uses birth control ever is immoral but I definitely can see it being used as an aid for those that wish to seek "immoral behaviour". I only say that because I was one of those people. Whether you agree or not... my behaviour when I was younger was not on the moral high ground, IMO. I definitely used birth control as an aid so that there would be less chance of consequence from my behaviour. It did NOT however CAUSE my behaviour. it was just a tool and I think that was his point and I don't see what the big hullabaloo is.
 

Beanie

Clicker Cult Coordinator
Joined
May 17, 2006
Messages
14,012
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
39
Location
Illinois
#18
I don't know... who is anyone to say anything is wrong. who are we to say he is wrong... who is he to say what he thinks is wrong...

We all operate on our own moral compass. how else do you determine right from wrong? Does everyone's moral compass match? no of course not but Who is he to say what is immoral? I don't know... a human being?
:hail::hail: Agreed.
 

Skivvies

New Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2010
Messages
359
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Wheaton, IL
#19
... But who is he to indicate that sleeping around is immoral? And what constitutes sleeping around? Having sex with different men once a week? Twice? Four times a month?

It doesn't matter what I or you, or even he personally thinks... But to stand on a public forum and to, again, judge women... That is unacceptable to me.
I agree so much. It kind of boggles my mind that birth control is even an issue. And I agree too that we need more input from women and less from men on this subject.
 

Jules

Magic, motherf@%$*#!
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
7,204
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
42
Location
Indiana
#20
My point was that, of course, everyone has their own moral "opinion". And he can have his opinion in his own four walls. But to stand in front of the nation and to judge and label women because of his own beliefs... Eh, to me, that's a different story.


Anyway, I guess this is fitting.

 

Members online

No members online now.
Top