Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Christian Conservatives

Can't make this up!

SFGate
Who are you to judge? Who are you to say that the more than slightly
creepy 39-year-old woman from Arkansas who just gave birth to her 16th
child yes that's right 16 kids and try not to cringe in phantom vaginal
pain when you say it, who are you to say Michelle Duggar is not more
than a little unhinged and sad and lost?

And furthermore, who are you to suggest that her equally troubling
husband -- whose name is, of course, Jim Bob and he's hankerin' to be a
Republican senator and try not to wince in sociopolitical pain when you
say that -- isn't more than a little numb to the real world, and that
bringing 16 hungry mewling attention-deprived kids (and she wants more!
Yay!) into this exhausted world zips right by "touching" and races
right past "disturbing" and lurches its way, heaving and gasping and
sweating from the karmic armpits, straight into "Oh my God, what the
hell is wrong with you people?"

But that would be, you know, mean. Mean and callous to suggest that
this might be the most disquieting photo you see all year, this bizarre
Duggar family of 18 spotless white hyperreligious interchangeable
people with alarmingly bad hair, the kids ranging in ages from 1 to 17,
worse than those nuked Smurfs in that UNICEF commercial and worse than
all the horrific rubble in Pakistan and worse than the cluster-bomb
nightmare that is Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise having a child as they
suck the skin from each other's Scientological faces and even worse
than that huge 13-foot python which ate that six-foot alligator and
then exploded.

It's wrong to be this judgmental. Wrong to suggest that it is exactly
this kind of weird pathological protofamily breeding-happy gluttony
that's making the world groan and cry and recoil, contributing to
vicious overpopulation rates and unrepentant economic strain and a
bitter moral warpage resulting from a massive viral outbreak of
homophobic neo-Christians across our troubled and Bush-ravaged land. Or
is it?

Is it wrong to notice how all the Duggar kids' names start with the
letter J (Jeremiah and Josiah and Jedediah and Jesus, someone please
stop them), and that if you study the above photo (or the even more
disturbing family Web site) too closely you will become rashy and
depressed and you will crave large quantities of alcohol and loud
aggressive music to deflect the creeping feeling that this planet is
devolving faster than you can suck the contents from a large bong? But
I'm not judging.

I have a friend who used to co-babysit (yes, it required two sitters)
for a family of 10 kids, and she reports that they were, almost without
fail, manic and hyper and bewildered and attention deprived in the
worst way, half of them addicted to prescription meds to calm their
neglected nerves and the other half bound for years of therapy due to
complete loss of having the slightest clue as to who they actually
were, lost in the family crowd, just another blank, needy face at the
table. Is this the guaranteed affliction for every child of very large
families? Of course not. But I'm guessing it's more common than you
imagine.

What's more, after the 10th kid popped out, the family doctor
essentially prohibited the baby-addicted mother from having any more
offspring, considering the pummeling endured by her various matronly
systems, and it's actually painful to imagine the logistics, the toll
on Michelle Duggar's body, the ravages it has endured to give birth to
roughly one child per year for nearly two decades, and you cannot help
but wonder about her body and its various biological and sexual ... no,
no, it is not for this space to visualize frighteningly capacious
vaginal dimensions. It is not for this space to imagine this couple's
soggy sexual mutations. We do not have enough wine on hand for that.

Perhaps the point is this: Why does this sort of bizarre hyperbreeding
only seem to afflict antiseptic megareligious families from the
Midwest? In other words -- assuming Michelle and Jim Bob and their
massive brood of cookie-cutter Christian kidbots will all be, as the
charming photo suggests, never allowed near a decent pair of designer
jeans or a tolerable haircut from a recent decade, and assuming that
they will all be tragically encoded with the values of the homophobic
asexual Christian right -- where are the forces that shall help
neutralize their effect on the culture? Where is the counterbalance, to
offset the damage?

Where is, in other words, the funky tattooed intellectual poetess who,
along with her genius anarchist husband, is popping out 16 funky
progressive intellectually curious fashion-forward pagan offspring to
answer the Duggar's squad of über-white future Wal-Mart shoppers?
Where is the liberal, spiritualized, pro-sex flip side? Verily I say
unto thee, it ain't lookin' good.

Perhaps this the scariest aspect of our squishy birthin' tale: Maybe
the scales are tipping to the neoconservative, homogenous right in our
culture simply because they tend not to give much of a damn for the
ramifications of wanton breeding and environmental destruction and
pious sanctimony, whereas those on the left actually seem to give a
whit for the health of the planet and the dire effects of
overpopulation. Is that an oversimplification?

Why does this sort of thoughtfulness seem so far from the norm? Why is
having a stadiumful of offspring still seen as some sort of happy
joyous thing?

You already know why. It is the Biggest Reason of All. Children are,
after all, God's little gifts. Kids are little blessings from the Lord,
the Almighty's own screaming spitballs of joy. Hell, Jim Bob said so
himself, when asked if the couple would soon be going for a 17th rug
rat: "We both just love children and we consider each a blessing from
the Lord. I have asked Michelle if she wants more and she said yes, if
the Lord wants to give us some she will accept them." This is what he
actually said. And God did not strike him dead on the spot.

Let us be clear: I don't care what sort of God you believe in, it's a
safe bet that hysterical breeding does not top her list of desirables.
God does not want more children per acre than there are ants or mice or
garter snakes or repressed pedophilic priests. We already have three
billion humans on the planet who subsist on less than two dollars a
day. Every other child in the world (one billion of them) lives in
abject poverty. We are burning through the planet's resources faster
than a Republican can eat an endangered caribou stew. Note to Michelle
Duggar: If God wanted you to have a massive pile of children, she'd
have given your uterus a hydraulic pump and a revolving door. Stop it
now.

Ah, but this is America, yes? People should be allowed to do whatever
the hell they want with their families if they can afford it and if
it's within the law and so long as they aren't gay or deviant or
happily flouting Good Christian Values, right? Shouldn't they? Hell,
gay couples still can't openly adopt a baby in most states (they either
lie, or one adopts and the other must apply as "co-parent"), but
Michelle Duggar can pop out 16 kids and no one says, oh my freaking
God, stop it, stop it now, you thoughtless, selfish, baby-drunk people.


No, no one says that. That would be mean.

  #2   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Christian Conservatives


wrote:
Can't make this up!

SFGate
Who are you to judge? Who are you to say that the more than slightly
creepy 39-year-old woman from Arkansas who just gave birth to her 16th
child yes that's right 16 kids and try not to cringe in phantom vaginal
pain when you say it, who are you to say Michelle Duggar is not more
than a little unhinged and sad and lost?

And furthermore, who are you to suggest that her equally troubling
husband -- whose name is, of course, Jim Bob and he's hankerin' to be a
Republican senator and try not to wince in sociopolitical pain when you
say that -- isn't more than a little numb to the real world, and that
bringing 16 hungry mewling attention-deprived kids (and she wants more!
Yay!) into this exhausted world zips right by "touching" and races
right past "disturbing" and lurches its way, heaving and gasping and
sweating from the karmic armpits, straight into "Oh my God, what the
hell is wrong with you people?"

But that would be, you know, mean. Mean and callous to suggest that
this might be the most disquieting photo you see all year, this bizarre
Duggar family of 18 spotless white hyperreligious interchangeable
people with alarmingly bad hair, the kids ranging in ages from 1 to 17,
worse than those nuked Smurfs in that UNICEF commercial and worse than
all the horrific rubble in Pakistan and worse than the cluster-bomb
nightmare that is Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise having a child as they
suck the skin from each other's Scientological faces and even worse
than that huge 13-foot python which ate that six-foot alligator and
then exploded.

It's wrong to be this judgmental. Wrong to suggest that it is exactly
this kind of weird pathological protofamily breeding-happy gluttony
that's making the world groan and cry and recoil, contributing to
vicious overpopulation rates and unrepentant economic strain and a
bitter moral warpage resulting from a massive viral outbreak of
homophobic neo-Christians across our troubled and Bush-ravaged land. Or
is it?

Is it wrong to notice how all the Duggar kids' names start with the
letter J (Jeremiah and Josiah and Jedediah and Jesus, someone please
stop them), and that if you study the above photo (or the even more
disturbing family Web site) too closely you will become rashy and
depressed and you will crave large quantities of alcohol and loud
aggressive music to deflect the creeping feeling that this planet is
devolving faster than you can suck the contents from a large bong? But
I'm not judging.

I have a friend who used to co-babysit (yes, it required two sitters)
for a family of 10 kids, and she reports that they were, almost without
fail, manic and hyper and bewildered and attention deprived in the
worst way, half of them addicted to prescription meds to calm their
neglected nerves and the other half bound for years of therapy due to
complete loss of having the slightest clue as to who they actually
were, lost in the family crowd, just another blank, needy face at the
table. Is this the guaranteed affliction for every child of very large
families? Of course not. But I'm guessing it's more common than you
imagine.

What's more, after the 10th kid popped out, the family doctor
essentially prohibited the baby-addicted mother from having any more
offspring, considering the pummeling endured by her various matronly
systems, and it's actually painful to imagine the logistics, the toll
on Michelle Duggar's body, the ravages it has endured to give birth to
roughly one child per year for nearly two decades, and you cannot help
but wonder about her body and its various biological and sexual ... no,
no, it is not for this space to visualize frighteningly capacious
vaginal dimensions. It is not for this space to imagine this couple's
soggy sexual mutations. We do not have enough wine on hand for that.

Perhaps the point is this: Why does this sort of bizarre hyperbreeding
only seem to afflict antiseptic megareligious families from the
Midwest? In other words -- assuming Michelle and Jim Bob and their
massive brood of cookie-cutter Christian kidbots will all be, as the
charming photo suggests, never allowed near a decent pair of designer
jeans or a tolerable haircut from a recent decade, and assuming that
they will all be tragically encoded with the values of the homophobic
asexual Christian right -- where are the forces that shall help
neutralize their effect on the culture? Where is the counterbalance, to
offset the damage?

Where is, in other words, the funky tattooed intellectual poetess who,
along with her genius anarchist husband, is popping out 16 funky
progressive intellectually curious fashion-forward pagan offspring to
answer the Duggar's squad of über-white future Wal-Mart shoppers?
Where is the liberal, spiritualized, pro-sex flip side? Verily I say
unto thee, it ain't lookin' good.

Perhaps this the scariest aspect of our squishy birthin' tale: Maybe
the scales are tipping to the neoconservative, homogenous right in our
culture simply because they tend not to give much of a damn for the
ramifications of wanton breeding and environmental destruction and
pious sanctimony, whereas those on the left actually seem to give a
whit for the health of the planet and the dire effects of
overpopulation. Is that an oversimplification?

Why does this sort of thoughtfulness seem so far from the norm? Why is
having a stadiumful of offspring still seen as some sort of happy
joyous thing?

You already know why. It is the Biggest Reason of All. Children are,
after all, God's little gifts. Kids are little blessings from the Lord,
the Almighty's own screaming spitballs of joy. Hell, Jim Bob said so
himself, when asked if the couple would soon be going for a 17th rug
rat: "We both just love children and we consider each a blessing from
the Lord. I have asked Michelle if she wants more and she said yes, if
the Lord wants to give us some she will accept them." This is what he
actually said. And God did not strike him dead on the spot.

Let us be clear: I don't care what sort of God you believe in, it's a
safe bet that hysterical breeding does not top her list of desirables.
God does not want more children per acre than there are ants or mice or
garter snakes or repressed pedophilic priests. We already have three
billion humans on the planet who subsist on less than two dollars a
day. Every other child in the world (one billion of them) lives in
abject poverty. We are burning through the planet's resources faster
than a Republican can eat an endangered caribou stew. Note to Michelle
Duggar: If God wanted you to have a massive pile of children, she'd
have given your uterus a hydraulic pump and a revolving door. Stop it
now.

Ah, but this is America, yes? People should be allowed to do whatever
the hell they want with their families if they can afford it and if
it's within the law and so long as they aren't gay or deviant or
happily flouting Good Christian Values, right? Shouldn't they? Hell,
gay couples still can't openly adopt a baby in most states (they either
lie, or one adopts and the other must apply as "co-parent"), but
Michelle Duggar can pop out 16 kids and no one says, oh my freaking
God, stop it, stop it now, you thoughtless, selfish, baby-drunk people.


No, no one says that. That would be mean.


What the heck business is it of the SF Gate columnist if these people
want to have 50 kids? Why doesn't either side ever figure out that you
can't impose your personal values on other people? Crap like this makes
me ashamed to think the author probably calls him/herself a liberal.

Betcha a buck if you asked the writer of this piece to list the major
shortcomings of conservatism it wouldn't take him long to list
"intolerance". :-(

  #3   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Christian Conservatives


wrote:
wrote:
Can't make this up!

SFGate
Who are you to judge? Who are you to say that the more than slightly
creepy 39-year-old woman from Arkansas who just gave birth to her 16th
child yes that's right 16 kids and try not to cringe in phantom vaginal
pain when you say it, who are you to say Michelle Duggar is not more
than a little unhinged and sad and lost?

And furthermore, who are you to suggest that her equally troubling
husband -- whose name is, of course, Jim Bob and he's hankerin' to be a
Republican senator and try not to wince in sociopolitical pain when you
say that -- isn't more than a little numb to the real world, and that
bringing 16 hungry mewling attention-deprived kids (and she wants more!
Yay!) into this exhausted world zips right by "touching" and races
right past "disturbing" and lurches its way, heaving and gasping and
sweating from the karmic armpits, straight into "Oh my God, what the
hell is wrong with you people?"

But that would be, you know, mean. Mean and callous to suggest that
this might be the most disquieting photo you see all year, this bizarre
Duggar family of 18 spotless white hyperreligious interchangeable
people with alarmingly bad hair, the kids ranging in ages from 1 to 17,
worse than those nuked Smurfs in that UNICEF commercial and worse than
all the horrific rubble in Pakistan and worse than the cluster-bomb
nightmare that is Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise having a child as they
suck the skin from each other's Scientological faces and even worse
than that huge 13-foot python which ate that six-foot alligator and
then exploded.

It's wrong to be this judgmental. Wrong to suggest that it is exactly
this kind of weird pathological protofamily breeding-happy gluttony
that's making the world groan and cry and recoil, contributing to
vicious overpopulation rates and unrepentant economic strain and a
bitter moral warpage resulting from a massive viral outbreak of
homophobic neo-Christians across our troubled and Bush-ravaged land. Or
is it?

Is it wrong to notice how all the Duggar kids' names start with the
letter J (Jeremiah and Josiah and Jedediah and Jesus, someone please
stop them), and that if you study the above photo (or the even more
disturbing family Web site) too closely you will become rashy and
depressed and you will crave large quantities of alcohol and loud
aggressive music to deflect the creeping feeling that this planet is
devolving faster than you can suck the contents from a large bong? But
I'm not judging.

I have a friend who used to co-babysit (yes, it required two sitters)
for a family of 10 kids, and she reports that they were, almost without
fail, manic and hyper and bewildered and attention deprived in the
worst way, half of them addicted to prescription meds to calm their
neglected nerves and the other half bound for years of therapy due to
complete loss of having the slightest clue as to who they actually
were, lost in the family crowd, just another blank, needy face at the
table. Is this the guaranteed affliction for every child of very large
families? Of course not. But I'm guessing it's more common than you
imagine.

What's more, after the 10th kid popped out, the family doctor
essentially prohibited the baby-addicted mother from having any more
offspring, considering the pummeling endured by her various matronly
systems, and it's actually painful to imagine the logistics, the toll
on Michelle Duggar's body, the ravages it has endured to give birth to
roughly one child per year for nearly two decades, and you cannot help
but wonder about her body and its various biological and sexual ... no,
no, it is not for this space to visualize frighteningly capacious
vaginal dimensions. It is not for this space to imagine this couple's
soggy sexual mutations. We do not have enough wine on hand for that.

Perhaps the point is this: Why does this sort of bizarre hyperbreeding
only seem to afflict antiseptic megareligious families from the
Midwest? In other words -- assuming Michelle and Jim Bob and their
massive brood of cookie-cutter Christian kidbots will all be, as the
charming photo suggests, never allowed near a decent pair of designer
jeans or a tolerable haircut from a recent decade, and assuming that
they will all be tragically encoded with the values of the homophobic
asexual Christian right -- where are the forces that shall help
neutralize their effect on the culture? Where is the counterbalance, to
offset the damage?

Where is, in other words, the funky tattooed intellectual poetess who,
along with her genius anarchist husband, is popping out 16 funky
progressive intellectually curious fashion-forward pagan offspring to
answer the Duggar's squad of über-white future Wal-Mart shoppers?
Where is the liberal, spiritualized, pro-sex flip side? Verily I say
unto thee, it ain't lookin' good.

Perhaps this the scariest aspect of our squishy birthin' tale: Maybe
the scales are tipping to the neoconservative, homogenous right in our
culture simply because they tend not to give much of a damn for the
ramifications of wanton breeding and environmental destruction and
pious sanctimony, whereas those on the left actually seem to give a
whit for the health of the planet and the dire effects of
overpopulation. Is that an oversimplification?

Why does this sort of thoughtfulness seem so far from the norm? Why is
having a stadiumful of offspring still seen as some sort of happy
joyous thing?

You already know why. It is the Biggest Reason of All. Children are,
after all, God's little gifts. Kids are little blessings from the Lord,
the Almighty's own screaming spitballs of joy. Hell, Jim Bob said so
himself, when asked if the couple would soon be going for a 17th rug
rat: "We both just love children and we consider each a blessing from
the Lord. I have asked Michelle if she wants more and she said yes, if
the Lord wants to give us some she will accept them." This is what he
actually said. And God did not strike him dead on the spot.

Let us be clear: I don't care what sort of God you believe in, it's a
safe bet that hysterical breeding does not top her list of desirables.
God does not want more children per acre than there are ants or mice or
garter snakes or repressed pedophilic priests. We already have three
billion humans on the planet who subsist on less than two dollars a
day. Every other child in the world (one billion of them) lives in
abject poverty. We are burning through the planet's resources faster
than a Republican can eat an endangered caribou stew. Note to Michelle
Duggar: If God wanted you to have a massive pile of children, she'd
have given your uterus a hydraulic pump and a revolving door. Stop it
now.

Ah, but this is America, yes? People should be allowed to do whatever
the hell they want with their families if they can afford it and if
it's within the law and so long as they aren't gay or deviant or
happily flouting Good Christian Values, right? Shouldn't they? Hell,
gay couples still can't openly adopt a baby in most states (they either
lie, or one adopts and the other must apply as "co-parent"), but
Michelle Duggar can pop out 16 kids and no one says, oh my freaking
God, stop it, stop it now, you thoughtless, selfish, baby-drunk people.


No, no one says that. That would be mean.


What the heck business is it of the SF Gate columnist if these people
want to have 50 kids? Why doesn't either side ever figure out that you
can't impose your personal values on other people? Crap like this makes
me ashamed to think the author probably calls him/herself a liberal.

Betcha a buck if you asked the writer of this piece to list the major
shortcomings of conservatism it wouldn't take him long to list
"intolerance". :-(


The trouble is, population excess isn't good for the environment, etc.
They will need a whole landfill for themselves just to get rid of the
diapers. Excessively large families are a burden to schools. They don't
pay any more school tax for one kid, than they do for 16, but the
burden on the system is 16 times greater.

  #4   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Christian Conservatives


wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Can't make this up!

SFGate
Who are you to judge? Who are you to say that the more than slightly
creepy 39-year-old woman from Arkansas who just gave birth to her 16th
child yes that's right 16 kids and try not to cringe in phantom vaginal
pain when you say it, who are you to say Michelle Duggar is not more
than a little unhinged and sad and lost?

And furthermore, who are you to suggest that her equally troubling
husband -- whose name is, of course, Jim Bob and he's hankerin' to bea
Republican senator and try not to wince in sociopolitical pain when you
say that -- isn't more than a little numb to the real world, and that
bringing 16 hungry mewling attention-deprived kids (and she wants more!
Yay!) into this exhausted world zips right by "touching" and races
right past "disturbing" and lurches its way, heaving and gasping and
sweating from the karmic armpits, straight into "Oh my God, what the
hell is wrong with you people?"

But that would be, you know, mean. Mean and callous to suggest that
this might be the most disquieting photo you see all year, this bizarre
Duggar family of 18 spotless white hyperreligious interchangeable
people with alarmingly bad hair, the kids ranging in ages from 1 to 17,
worse than those nuked Smurfs in that UNICEF commercial and worse than
all the horrific rubble in Pakistan and worse than the cluster-bomb
nightmare that is Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise having a child as they
suck the skin from each other's Scientological faces and even worse
than that huge 13-foot python which ate that six-foot alligator and
then exploded.

It's wrong to be this judgmental. Wrong to suggest that it is exactly
this kind of weird pathological protofamily breeding-happy gluttony
that's making the world groan and cry and recoil, contributing to
vicious overpopulation rates and unrepentant economic strain and a
bitter moral warpage resulting from a massive viral outbreak of
homophobic neo-Christians across our troubled and Bush-ravaged land. Or
is it?

Is it wrong to notice how all the Duggar kids' names start with the
letter J (Jeremiah and Josiah and Jedediah and Jesus, someone please
stop them), and that if you study the above photo (or the even more
disturbing family Web site) too closely you will become rashy and
depressed and you will crave large quantities of alcohol and loud
aggressive music to deflect the creeping feeling that this planet is
devolving faster than you can suck the contents from a large bong? But
I'm not judging.

I have a friend who used to co-babysit (yes, it required two sitters)
for a family of 10 kids, and she reports that they were, almost without
fail, manic and hyper and bewildered and attention deprived in the
worst way, half of them addicted to prescription meds to calm their
neglected nerves and the other half bound for years of therapy due to
complete loss of having the slightest clue as to who they actually
were, lost in the family crowd, just another blank, needy face at the
table. Is this the guaranteed affliction for every child of very large
families? Of course not. But I'm guessing it's more common than you
imagine.

What's more, after the 10th kid popped out, the family doctor
essentially prohibited the baby-addicted mother from having any more
offspring, considering the pummeling endured by her various matronly
systems, and it's actually painful to imagine the logistics, the toll
on Michelle Duggar's body, the ravages it has endured to give birth to
roughly one child per year for nearly two decades, and you cannot help
but wonder about her body and its various biological and sexual ... no,
no, it is not for this space to visualize frighteningly capacious
vaginal dimensions. It is not for this space to imagine this couple's
soggy sexual mutations. We do not have enough wine on hand for that.

Perhaps the point is this: Why does this sort of bizarre hyperbreeding
only seem to afflict antiseptic megareligious families from the
Midwest? In other words -- assuming Michelle and Jim Bob and their
massive brood of cookie-cutter Christian kidbots will all be, as the
charming photo suggests, never allowed near a decent pair of designer
jeans or a tolerable haircut from a recent decade, and assuming that
they will all be tragically encoded with the values of the homophobic
asexual Christian right -- where are the forces that shall help
neutralize their effect on the culture? Where is the counterbalance, to
offset the damage?

Where is, in other words, the funky tattooed intellectual poetess who,
along with her genius anarchist husband, is popping out 16 funky
progressive intellectually curious fashion-forward pagan offspring to
answer the Duggar's squad of über-white future Wal-Mart shoppers?
Where is the liberal, spiritualized, pro-sex flip side? Verily I say
unto thee, it ain't lookin' good.

Perhaps this the scariest aspect of our squishy birthin' tale: Maybe
the scales are tipping to the neoconservative, homogenous right in our
culture simply because they tend not to give much of a damn for the
ramifications of wanton breeding and environmental destruction and
pious sanctimony, whereas those on the left actually seem to give a
whit for the health of the planet and the dire effects of
overpopulation. Is that an oversimplification?

Why does this sort of thoughtfulness seem so far from the norm? Why is
having a stadiumful of offspring still seen as some sort of happy
joyous thing?

You already know why. It is the Biggest Reason of All. Children are,
after all, God's little gifts. Kids are little blessings from the Lord,
the Almighty's own screaming spitballs of joy. Hell, Jim Bob said so
himself, when asked if the couple would soon be going for a 17th rug
rat: "We both just love children and we consider each a blessing from
the Lord. I have asked Michelle if she wants more and she said yes, if
the Lord wants to give us some she will accept them." This is what he
actually said. And God did not strike him dead on the spot.

Let us be clear: I don't care what sort of God you believe in, it's a
safe bet that hysterical breeding does not top her list of desirables.
God does not want more children per acre than there are ants or mice or
garter snakes or repressed pedophilic priests. We already have three
billion humans on the planet who subsist on less than two dollars a
day. Every other child in the world (one billion of them) lives in
abject poverty. We are burning through the planet's resources faster
than a Republican can eat an endangered caribou stew. Note to Michelle
Duggar: If God wanted you to have a massive pile of children, she'd
have given your uterus a hydraulic pump and a revolving door. Stop it
now.

Ah, but this is America, yes? People should be allowed to do whatever
the hell they want with their families if they can afford it and if
it's within the law and so long as they aren't gay or deviant or
happily flouting Good Christian Values, right? Shouldn't they? Hell,
gay couples still can't openly adopt a baby in most states (they either
lie, or one adopts and the other must apply as "co-parent"), but
Michelle Duggar can pop out 16 kids and no one says, oh my freaking
God, stop it, stop it now, you thoughtless, selfish, baby-drunk people.


No, no one says that. That would be mean.


What the heck business is it of the SF Gate columnist if these people
want to have 50 kids? Why doesn't either side ever figure out that you
can't impose your personal values on other people? Crap like this makes
me ashamed to think the author probably calls him/herself a liberal.

Betcha a buck if you asked the writer of this piece to list the major
shortcomings of conservatism it wouldn't take him long to list
"intolerance". :-(


The trouble is, population excess isn't good for the environment, etc.
They will need a whole landfill for themselves just to get rid of the
diapers. Excessively large families are a burden to schools. They don't
pay any more school tax for one kid, than they do for 16, but the
burden on the system is 16 times greater.


A 16-kid family is an anomaly. Doesn't matter whether it's a liberal or
conservative family. Yes, if every family had 16 kids we would have to
build a lot more schools and raise taxes substantially to fund them.
For every family that has more than the politically correct two kids,
there's a large number of offsetting households that choose to remain
childless, often in order to acquire greater amounts of more expensive
consumer goods.

Having kids is like marriage. The state needs to keep its nose out of
it.
How can anyone say "The state has no right to tell homo. couples that
they cannot form a household with the same legal status as a het.
couple" and then turn around and declare, "The state has some business
dictating how many kids a couple can have, when they can have them,
what they should name them, etc."?

We just need to leave people alone to live out their lives if they're
not really hurting somebody else. Let the churches decide who can
participate in the religious sacrament of marriage and let individual
couples decide how many kids they want to have.

Personally, I think having 16 kids is just plain wrong and I doubt that
the kids get the type of quality individual attention that they might
need to grow up to be healthy and productive adults......but that's my
personal opinion and the right of people to decide to have anywhere
from zero to as many kids as they can crank out of the womb before it
shuts down should be respected, not criticized.

  #8   Report Post  
The One and Only Smithers
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Christian Conservatives

Kevin,
Is Harry still giving you your marching orders? Kick those feet a little
higher please.




wrote in message
oups.com...

PocoLoco wrote:
On 19 Oct 2005 09:01:56 -0700, wrote:

At least there's a daddy. Check out the figures for births in Washington
DC.
Looks like a few Democrats may have problems along the same lines.
--
John H

What are you saying, there John? That only democrats have babies out of
wedlock? Be specific.



  #9   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Christian Conservatives

What do you care Guzzi-boy??

on the other hand, one of you one the planet is enough

  #10   Report Post  
Bill McKee
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Christian Conservatives


wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Can't make this up!

SFGate
Who are you to judge? Who are you to say that the more than slightly
creepy 39-year-old woman from Arkansas who just gave birth to her 16th
child yes that's right 16 kids and try not to cringe in phantom
vaginal
pain when you say it, who are you to say Michelle Duggar is not more
than a little unhinged and sad and lost?

And furthermore, who are you to suggest that her equally troubling
husband -- whose name is, of course, Jim Bob and he's hankerin' to be
a
Republican senator and try not to wince in sociopolitical pain when
you
say that -- isn't more than a little numb to the real world, and that
bringing 16 hungry mewling attention-deprived kids (and she wants
more!
Yay!) into this exhausted world zips right by "touching" and races
right past "disturbing" and lurches its way, heaving and gasping and
sweating from the karmic armpits, straight into "Oh my God, what the
hell is wrong with you people?"

But that would be, you know, mean. Mean and callous to suggest that
this might be the most disquieting photo you see all year, this
bizarre
Duggar family of 18 spotless white hyperreligious interchangeable
people with alarmingly bad hair, the kids ranging in ages from 1 to
17,
worse than those nuked Smurfs in that UNICEF commercial and worse than
all the horrific rubble in Pakistan and worse than the cluster-bomb
nightmare that is Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise having a child as they
suck the skin from each other's Scientological faces and even worse
than that huge 13-foot python which ate that six-foot alligator and
then exploded.

It's wrong to be this judgmental. Wrong to suggest that it is exactly
this kind of weird pathological protofamily breeding-happy gluttony
that's making the world groan and cry and recoil, contributing to
vicious overpopulation rates and unrepentant economic strain and a
bitter moral warpage resulting from a massive viral outbreak of
homophobic neo-Christians across our troubled and Bush-ravaged land.
Or
is it?

Is it wrong to notice how all the Duggar kids' names start with the
letter J (Jeremiah and Josiah and Jedediah and Jesus, someone please
stop them), and that if you study the above photo (or the even more
disturbing family Web site) too closely you will become rashy and
depressed and you will crave large quantities of alcohol and loud
aggressive music to deflect the creeping feeling that this planet is
devolving faster than you can suck the contents from a large bong? But
I'm not judging.

I have a friend who used to co-babysit (yes, it required two sitters)
for a family of 10 kids, and she reports that they were, almost
without
fail, manic and hyper and bewildered and attention deprived in the
worst way, half of them addicted to prescription meds to calm their
neglected nerves and the other half bound for years of therapy due to
complete loss of having the slightest clue as to who they actually
were, lost in the family crowd, just another blank, needy face at the
table. Is this the guaranteed affliction for every child of very large
families? Of course not. But I'm guessing it's more common than you
imagine.

What's more, after the 10th kid popped out, the family doctor
essentially prohibited the baby-addicted mother from having any more
offspring, considering the pummeling endured by her various matronly
systems, and it's actually painful to imagine the logistics, the toll
on Michelle Duggar's body, the ravages it has endured to give birth to
roughly one child per year for nearly two decades, and you cannot help
but wonder about her body and its various biological and sexual ...
no,
no, it is not for this space to visualize frighteningly capacious
vaginal dimensions. It is not for this space to imagine this couple's
soggy sexual mutations. We do not have enough wine on hand for that.

Perhaps the point is this: Why does this sort of bizarre hyperbreeding
only seem to afflict antiseptic megareligious families from the
Midwest? In other words -- assuming Michelle and Jim Bob and their
massive brood of cookie-cutter Christian kidbots will all be, as the
charming photo suggests, never allowed near a decent pair of designer
jeans or a tolerable haircut from a recent decade, and assuming that
they will all be tragically encoded with the values of the homophobic
asexual Christian right -- where are the forces that shall help
neutralize their effect on the culture? Where is the counterbalance,
to
offset the damage?

Where is, in other words, the funky tattooed intellectual poetess who,
along with her genius anarchist husband, is popping out 16 funky
progressive intellectually curious fashion-forward pagan offspring to
answer the Duggar's squad of über-white future Wal-Mart shoppers?
Where is the liberal, spiritualized, pro-sex flip side? Verily I say
unto thee, it ain't lookin' good.

Perhaps this the scariest aspect of our squishy birthin' tale: Maybe
the scales are tipping to the neoconservative, homogenous right in our
culture simply because they tend not to give much of a damn for the
ramifications of wanton breeding and environmental destruction and
pious sanctimony, whereas those on the left actually seem to give a
whit for the health of the planet and the dire effects of
overpopulation. Is that an oversimplification?

Why does this sort of thoughtfulness seem so far from the norm? Why is
having a stadiumful of offspring still seen as some sort of happy
joyous thing?

You already know why. It is the Biggest Reason of All. Children are,
after all, God's little gifts. Kids are little blessings from the
Lord,
the Almighty's own screaming spitballs of joy. Hell, Jim Bob said so
himself, when asked if the couple would soon be going for a 17th rug
rat: "We both just love children and we consider each a blessing from
the Lord. I have asked Michelle if she wants more and she said yes, if
the Lord wants to give us some she will accept them." This is what he
actually said. And God did not strike him dead on the spot.

Let us be clear: I don't care what sort of God you believe in, it's a
safe bet that hysterical breeding does not top her list of desirables.
God does not want more children per acre than there are ants or mice
or
garter snakes or repressed pedophilic priests. We already have three
billion humans on the planet who subsist on less than two dollars a
day. Every other child in the world (one billion of them) lives in
abject poverty. We are burning through the planet's resources faster
than a Republican can eat an endangered caribou stew. Note to Michelle
Duggar: If God wanted you to have a massive pile of children, she'd
have given your uterus a hydraulic pump and a revolving door. Stop it
now.

Ah, but this is America, yes? People should be allowed to do whatever
the hell they want with their families if they can afford it and if
it's within the law and so long as they aren't gay or deviant or
happily flouting Good Christian Values, right? Shouldn't they? Hell,
gay couples still can't openly adopt a baby in most states (they
either
lie, or one adopts and the other must apply as "co-parent"), but
Michelle Duggar can pop out 16 kids and no one says, oh my freaking
God, stop it, stop it now, you thoughtless, selfish, baby-drunk
people.


No, no one says that. That would be mean.


What the heck business is it of the SF Gate columnist if these people
want to have 50 kids? Why doesn't either side ever figure out that you
can't impose your personal values on other people? Crap like this makes
me ashamed to think the author probably calls him/herself a liberal.

Betcha a buck if you asked the writer of this piece to list the major
shortcomings of conservatism it wouldn't take him long to list
"intolerance". :-(


The trouble is, population excess isn't good for the environment, etc.
They will need a whole landfill for themselves just to get rid of the
diapers. Excessively large families are a burden to schools. They don't
pay any more school tax for one kid, than they do for 16, but the
burden on the system is 16 times greater.


A 16-kid family is an anomaly. Doesn't matter whether it's a liberal or
conservative family. Yes, if every family had 16 kids we would have to
build a lot more schools and raise taxes substantially to fund them.
For every family that has more than the politically correct two kids,
there's a large number of offsetting households that choose to remain
childless, often in order to acquire greater amounts of more expensive
consumer goods.

Having kids is like marriage. The state needs to keep its nose out of
it.
How can anyone say "The state has no right to tell homo. couples that
they cannot form a household with the same legal status as a het.
couple" and then turn around and declare, "The state has some business
dictating how many kids a couple can have, when they can have them,
what they should name them, etc."?

We just need to leave people alone to live out their lives if they're
not really hurting somebody else. Let the churches decide who can
participate in the religious sacrament of marriage and let individual
couples decide how many kids they want to have.

Personally, I think having 16 kids is just plain wrong and I doubt that
the kids get the type of quality individual attention that they might
need to grow up to be healthy and productive adults......but that's my
personal opinion and the right of people to decide to have anywhere
from zero to as many kids as they can crank out of the womb before it
shuts down should be respected, not criticized.


As long as society does not have to support the family via welfare, it is
totally their choice. Stupid choice IMO, but it is their choice. I argued
years ago, that the child deduction on taxes should be 3-4 kids. I had a
neighbor with 10 kids, he made probably the same amount as me, but I paid a
lot more taxes as we had zero children at the time. A lot more. It did
cost more than the $600 credit to raise the children, but that should be his
choice.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
OT About Conservatives [email protected] General 0 October 13th 05 02:27 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:53 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 BoatBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Boats"

 

Copyright © 2017