digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Mom's Day: Soon She'll have enough Kids for 2 Teams [Pics]

chron.com — Michelle Duggar, 41, shown with her children and husband, Jim Bob, third from right, had her 17th child on Aug. 2. She's expecting again. She's been pregnant for 11 years of her life.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Zippo, on 05/12/2008, -14/+491It's a vagina, not a clown car.
    • therealkdog, on 05/12/2008, -44/+4***** i got PWNED
    • robschraer, on 05/12/2008, -6/+23well played.
      • thcobbs, on 05/12/2008, -3/+37Just like her vagina.
        • douggmc, on 05/13/2008, -0/+3 ... can you imagine what her beef curtains look like?! She must need to roll them up and use cloths pins to hold them in place before sitting down.
      • Gamer2k4, on 05/12/2008, -3/+4Because he was the first one to repeat an overused phrase that applies ONLY to situations like this?
        • thcobbs, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2Yes, exactly! And here I thought there was no hope for you.....

          /me rolls eyes
    • NgrHader, on 05/12/2008, -2/+17Unless she's selfish she'll realise that she also needs a bullpen
    • Asrrin29, on 05/12/2008, -8/+20you sir win one internets.
      • PHiZ187, on 05/12/2008, -2/+6Don't be stingy.
      • mywhitenoise, on 05/12/2008, -3/+16Why? He's just repeating the same comment that has been said the last 2 times she had a child.
        • crossmr, on 05/12/2008, -1/+5and is also one of those damn 4 chan pics..
        • HSaraiva, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3What's 4chan?
          • Vindexus, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1lurk moar?
          • Abyss666, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2Since I’m feeling generous and it looks like you really don’t know I'll let you in on the secret, it’s a popular forum considered by many to be the ***** of the internet. It’s where many memes such as rickrolling started and on any day you can find a thread on the /b random section going from truly disturbing porn to political views to cartoons and horror stories. If you have any humanity left don't go to the /b/ section. It will drain your soul.
    • gelato822, on 05/12/2008, -6/+2"Those two months are a busy time for us"
    • MalkyMalc, on 05/12/2008, -5/+39Very droll, Zippo, very droll. It's like that Groucho Marx quote: when a woman with eight kids said she 'loved her husband very much' he replied 'well, madam, I love my cigar but I take it out once in a while.'
    • kayosthery, on 05/12/2008, -4/+10At least give credit to the demotivational poster you stole that from. It's a lot funnier when you see the picture and the caption together.
    • rholland356, on 05/12/2008, -3/+8We are a country at war(s). These chillun will make fine cannon fodder.
    • EricCiccone, on 05/12/2008, -10/+2Funny, but not the first!
      http://digg.com/odd_stuff/Arkansas_woman_doubles_a ...
      http://digg.com/world_news/Woman_s_Pussy_Doubles_a ...
    • Zzone, on 05/12/2008, -2/+5seriously bitch.. Put the dick down!
    • themonkman, on 05/12/2008, -6/+10For the love of the FSM. What is the purpose of this? Why procreate like this? Your ***** humans, not rabbits. So tell me, good family of 17...what is to happen with your 17 children if both of you are to die in a car accident? What's that? The State will probably take care of them all? You mean our tax money? How are you ever going to have the funds to send each of this children to college? Not every one of them is going to get a free ride, you know? I hope this guy invested wisely, and this whole religion and finance scheme (sounds like what Scientology did) is working out for them.

      Seriously, people who think this is ok must have serious mental problems. I'm doing the exact opposite of these people. I am having NO kids. My wife doesn't want them, and I don't want them. I'm going to save tons of money, retire early, adopt if I want to, and not put any potential financial burden on the state should I meet an early demise. Vasectomy, here I come!
      • o0joshua0o, on 05/12/2008, -2/+6I agree you shouldn't go overboard, but if you have zero kids you are removing yourself from the gene pool. From an evolutionary perspective, that's an epic fail.
        • themonkman, on 05/12/2008, -3/+3Sadly we are all ***** anyways. There are no amount of children I could bring into this world that could ***** the path we are going on. I could always have my sperm frozen just in case, or donate it to a sperm bank where my genetic material may inseminate some other female.
        • Koookie, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2That's a broad topic, but evolution is gene-centered, not person-centered. More in "The Selfish Gene."
      • giogalindo, on 05/14/2008, -0/+0they're trying to make a complete basketball team. although a team consists of about 12 players so they might have to cut some.
    • KCLorelei39, on 05/12/2008, -7/+3dugg down for the 'clown car' reference, that got old at kid #12
    • smackafiyah, on 05/12/2008, -3/+2Bravo *claps*
    • Quinnius, on 05/12/2008, -2/+0http://www.flickr.com/photos/dulamae/175866636/
    • bullfrawg, on 05/12/2008, -7/+2You, and a lot of other people on this thread, seem to be as self-righteous, intolerant, misogynistic, and crude as any redneck I've ever met. I can hardly believe the vitriol I'm seeing in your post, and in most the rest of this thread as well.
      • VinceNoir, on 05/13/2008, -1/+2So you're publicly stating that you're OK with this? I hope you're not using the "it's a free country" defense...
  • therealkdog, on 05/12/2008, -112/+5Vagina Its not a clown car.
  • thwoom, on 05/12/2008, -23/+93what a bitch
    • coyote1284, on 05/12/2008, -3/+11She definately has a litter
    • cowsgonemadd3, on 05/12/2008, -17/+4What a dumb comment....she is no female dog
      • Jookly, on 05/12/2008, -3/+7but she is a bitch... on national television.
    • devila2208, on 05/12/2008, -4/+7I've seen her on TV before. She seems really nice (and organized).
      • Kennerk, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3even though her pussy's not.
      • VinceNoir, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2My money is on her husband having a large collection of secret "preggo porn". Either that or he gets off on women with HUGE vaginal openings.
  • TriZz, on 05/12/2008, -32/+19They must be Mormon.
    • TheFinaleofSeem, on 05/12/2008, -0/+29Nope. They're part of the Quiverful movement, which is more a fundamentalist branch of Christianity. Most Mormon families usually stop around 7.
      • eekfuh, on 05/12/2008, -0/+20My mormon family stopped at 4 kids, but there were an occasional mormon family with 6 or 7 kids. I couldn't understand how they could afford that lifestyle. Kids are expensive.
        • Jashobeam5, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2They spend their money wisely. They aren't in debt, and cut costs as they can. Kids are only expensive if you buy them every new thing that comes out.
      • hotpepper, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1I know only one Mormon family with 7 children. Most I know have no more than five, but usually 3 or 4.
    • saigumi, on 05/12/2008, -3/+6Christian, actually, if I remember it right.

      Before they built the new house, they had neighbors with a family of 8+. They all got together and held services with just the two families.
      • kmolleja, on 05/12/2008, -12/+8Mormons are Christian
        • tak84, on 05/12/2008, -11/+13False.
          • cdahlkvist, on 05/12/2008, -8/+6Your statement is false.

            Why do you think they are called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

            Only non-Mormon Christians deny that Mormons are Christians.

            Mormons definitely consider themselves Christian:
            http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Christian.sht ...
          • TopherT, on 05/12/2008, -2/+5It depends who you're asking.
          • tak84, on 05/12/2008, -3/+2Galatians 1:6-9
          • GiggleStick, on 05/12/2008, -3/+5I started the Church of Jesus and Puppy raping. Does that mean I'm Christian. Mormons have weird beliefs that you don't find out about until you reach "higher levels" (sound familiar? Scientology?). These aren't really compatible with most Christian doctrines. All the schisms in the Christian denomination cornucopia are nothing compared to the Mormons' actual belief system's differences with all the rest of Christianity. They couch their recruitment in terms that seem familiar to Christians, but they take them to mean very different things than the rest of Christianity.

            Despite my initial inflammatory statement, I do not hate Mormons, but I do hate their religion which has simply blinded most of them into being willing deceivers of themselves and others. And before you say, all Christian denominations' members are just as much deceived sheep, Perhaps that is true. I am neither a member of any of them nor do I think any of them are perfect. Understanding God ain't easy, and whoever says it is, is lying.
          • GUTTS, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2How can you hate something you've obviously never been party to or even experianced? Are you mormon? And if you believe that anyone who takes part in such beliefs or any given religion are decieved sheep. Then you must also hate them too right? Your denials and statements are clear as day to me and anyone else. Just another Mormon basher who has no clue. If anyone's a sheep here it's you. Know what you're talking about before opening that toiletbowl of a mouth and spewing diarrhea.
          • Jashobeam5, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2The verses you shared explains it all. People don't understand how different Mormonism is from Christianity.
    • zeiben, on 05/12/2008, -6/+12Are they Mormons? Are they not?
      Clearly this is a disagreement that could be settled by removing one "m".
  • Phlex330, on 05/12/2008, -67/+2Clown car vagina.
  • radiantstorm, on 05/12/2008, -17/+70This is just too easily of a target. STOP PRODUCING.
    • Archon810, on 05/12/2008, -6/+13Are you really shocked? It's Arkansas...
    • Sneezyx, on 05/12/2008, -2/+23Also: People who use exquisitely bad grammar. STOP WRITING.
    • sodade, on 05/12/2008, -10/+21This is how religious people will zerg the system. Idiot america here we come.
      • MalkyMalc, on 05/12/2008, -2/+13It's a well known fact that idiots outbreed braniacs by two-to-one.
        • PaisleyTeal, on 05/12/2008, -7/+0raisin?
          cracklin?
          all?
          • PaisleyTeal, on 05/12/2008, -5/+1aw, you just dug me down because you don't get the joke.
    • stoneking2312, on 05/12/2008, -14/+3I can't see why so many folks here are freaking out saying cases like this are the cause of overpopulation. Read up a little bit on the subject, the problem isn't birth rates, it's death rates.
      http://www.population-awareness.net/older.html
      • glibpaxman, on 05/12/2008, -2/+18would you suggest raising the death rate then? perhaps all people over the age of 65 could be euthanized? if that option looks too grim or unethical to you then humanity should consider controlling its birth rate.
        • stoneking2312, on 05/12/2008, -5/+1Just saying it's not cut and dry as everyone thinks. I'm not offering a solution, just both sides of the equation.
        • stoneking2312, on 05/12/2008, -4/+2Just curious, am I getting buried because I'm misinformed, using bad stats, or just stating an unpopular viewpoint?
        • mtekk, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2@stoneking2312

          The idea of artificially increasing the death rate is in most regards unethical. The easiest thing to do is control the birth rate (like all other K type species do) in order maintain a stable population.
        • sodade, on 05/12/2008, -3/+3Stoneking is right and considering that a huge percentage of medical spending on an individual is in the last year of life, I think that we should at least make it legal to ***** kill yourself. Instead of setting an arbitrary age, we should base it on medical conditions. Spending money to keep a hospital bound patient alive for a few extra months is pretty silly and I don't think that insurance should pay for it.
          • Ebulating, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3I think we should make all 65 year olds compete in a really dangerous competition with a survival rate of 5 to 10 percent. Make them EARN those social security checks!
          • Jashobeam5, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3Spoken like a young person with no concept of the value of human life. "Silly" is an insult to the final days of a human being.
    • Fuzi, on 05/12/2008, -11/+5If they can care all the kids why not lol
      • TopherT, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2Yes and no. What matters is how this affects society. Certainly overpopulation is no longer a serious problem in developed countries *Unless you count migration. What does seem to pose a problem is the quality of the education of these children and their ability to fit in with our society as a whole. If they are like FDS and give their children nothing but propaganda and kick them out the door it will be bad for society and therefor maladaptive and wrong. If their children are raised well, can interface with society and receive a good moral and factual education, the simple fact of their having many kids shouldn't be any of our business.
  • ralphodog, on 05/12/2008, -13/+36Could be worse, at least the government isn't paying for all these kids.
    • axiomflash, on 05/12/2008, -3/+63they are actually. he has health insurance from when he was a representative
    • bossm4n, on 05/12/2008, -5/+28Ever hear of a dependent?
      • troon, on 05/12/2008, -9/+3Dependant. Usually this is mispelled the other way around.
        • xstarsprinklesx, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1no.
        • Akaji, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2It's dependent...
        • ethnicman, on 05/12/2008, -0/+0You are thinking defendant. The OP had it right. Once again the english language keeps it consistent
    • gelato822, on 05/12/2008, -3/+7stimulus, what?
    • Laminarcissus, on 05/12/2008, -4/+37-- "Jim Bob Duggar, a former member of the Arkansas Legislature and an unsuccessful U.S. Senate candidate, has not been specific when asked how he supports such a big family. But he said he was guided by a seminar about 20 years ago — a system he still advocates — that blends finance and religion." --

      So he steals from his church.
      • bluesatin, on 05/12/2008, -8/+4*Cough Scientology Cough*
        • GiggleStick, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3It's probably the people that preach that the returns of giving to their church are literally 10 fold the dollars back.
      • Jashobeam5, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1The church meets in their home, and there are few members. He is not stealing, he has a job.
  • analogkid01, on 05/12/2008, -11/+80Overpopulate often?
    • Rodalli, on 05/12/2008, -2/+14SPAWN MORE OVERLORDS!
    • PunkyFeople, on 05/14/2008, -2/+0Holy *****, I almost spit my beer out laughing at this comment, that was brilliant..... overlords......
  • Gamer2k4, on 05/12/2008, -45/+10Wow, all of you clown car people are SO original.
    • curtosrules, on 05/12/2008, -3/+14doesn't matter if it was funny
      • Gamer2k4, on 05/12/2008, -4/+4But it's not funny. It stopped being funny after the last dozen or so times someone said it. You lose the humor when you repeat a joke to the same audience.
        • sharpie05, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3Or if it is just plain stupid.
        • ichbeineinrcg, on 05/13/2008, -1/+2DO A BARREL ROLL!
          That's what she said.
          3. Profit!
          ***** you, I'm an anteater

          I'm still laughing at all of them.
          • Gamer2k4, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Doesn't that just mean you're easily amused?
  • IHaveIssues, on 05/12/2008, -6/+117Jim Bob? Really? His name is Jim Bob? Too cliché.
  • rhino_rampant, on 05/12/2008, -7/+34Jim Bob? Well if it's two guys, then this kinda makes sense.
  • JeffreyLloyd, on 05/12/2008, -4/+96That will be a nice stimulus check!
    • cdahlkvist, on 05/12/2008, -1/+31I don't think these people need any more stimulation.
  • corneliusJones, on 05/12/2008, -7/+87Racing to fill the gene pool. This is why smart people need to have more kids.
    • DreKor, on 05/12/2008, -1/+23So they can invent robots to do all the menial jobs?
    • laughandsing, on 05/12/2008, -5/+9So you can make fun of them too?
    • solarweasel, on 05/12/2008, -5/+55No, the reason smart people don't have this many kids is because they're, well, they're smart!
      • corneliusJones, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2Smart enough to be out-produced by others.
    • tak84, on 05/12/2008, -14/+13Who said these people were stupid?
      • leerayIG88, on 05/12/2008, -2/+4corneliusJones?
      • laughandsing, on 05/12/2008, -19/+5Apparently if you choose to be different it makes you stupid.. People dont realize that this is a type of prejudice.
        • Jashobeam5, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2Most diggers don't realize their own prejudices, they just like to make fun of anyone that is different and hope to get others to join.
      • glibpaxman, on 05/12/2008, -1/+16stupid, no. unmindful of the larger consequences of their actions, yes.
        • laughandsing, on 05/12/2008, -9/+2How is it unmidful of consequences? And what are those consequences?
        • temjrpgh, on 05/12/2008, -1/+5The larger consequence is their tendencies are being propelled into the future. Someone who wants to be 'responsible' and not procreate (rather than adapt technologically to a larger population, or expand into space) will be evolutionary dead-ended.
        • aristotle0dude, on 05/12/2008, -3/+4What of the consequences of having a negative population growth among certain ethnic and class groups? Are you not concerned about genetic diversity? At the very least, people should have 3 children with 2 to replace the parents and 1 to counteract childless couples and untimely deaths in the general population.

          I think it is irresponsible for perfectly healthy couples to have less than 2 children if they are perfectly capable of supporting children financially.
          • ichbeineinrcg, on 05/13/2008, -1/+3There are far, far more couples with more than 2 children than there are childless couples.

            The exponential rate of population growth really demolishes your argument.
          • Lithpiperpilot, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1Agreed. A large number of births were needed back before modern medicine was invented. But now that most infants survive, human beings need to drop down to 2 children per couple, and no more. Maybe our population will stabilize around 4 billion people in 100 years, or even less people if we're lucky.
      • Psi57, on 05/12/2008, -2/+5Arkansas...
    • centran, on 05/12/2008, -1/+11go rent the movie Idiocracy
      • marx2k, on 05/12/2008, -2/+4Would you like a Carls Jr BIG ASS TACO??? Now with more.. molecules...
      • mCanada, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3OWW MY BALLS
      • corneliusJones, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3I found it terrifyingly plausible.
        • mCanada, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2I agree. Not the greatest comedy, but as a statement of our society or prediction of things to come - spot on. One word: Nascar.
  • akschnare, on 05/12/2008, -54/+1Vagina clown car.
  • FapCommander, on 05/12/2008, -9/+111Condom, use it
    • thanakar, on 05/12/2008, -4/+2"Every sperm is sacred, every sperm unique!"
      • zephyr42, on 05/12/2008, -0/+6fail.

        the quote is "every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, god gets quite irate"
  • chicoer2001, on 05/12/2008, -7/+8217 kids all with names starting with J. How uncreative;
    • nomadxx7, on 05/12/2008, -22/+9I want to see you have 17 kids and name each one originality. Then when you have trouble remembering each one of there names (especially twins) then come back here and we'll ridicule you for making it that much harder on yourself
      • analogkid01, on 05/12/2008, -3/+16I want to see you have no kids if you don't know first-grade grammar - or don't care to.
        • nomadxx7, on 05/12/2008, -8/+7Oh NOES. I fergut to putz a THEIR instead of THERE. Thx 4 helpin keap me litterat.
        • Forsakenmantra, on 05/12/2008, -1/+8So you are proud of your poor writing skills?
        • nomadxx7, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Yet you use incorrect grammar/sentence structure and get dugg up. It's simply amazing.
      • coyote1284, on 05/12/2008, -0/+21Lance, Alura, Scarlet, Duke, Destro, Optimus, Megatron, Bumblebee, Starscreem, Liono, Panthro, Cheetara, Leonardo, Michaelangelo, Donatello, Raphael, and Robert
      • bobalien, on 05/12/2008, -1/+8or he could have 1 child and have no problem remembering its name, or raising it appropriately or providing it with sufficient attention and affection
        • MCMLXXXII, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1You mean a spoiled brat?
        • Jashobeam5, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3Children are not called "it."
          • ichbeineinrcg, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Dave Pelzer disagrees.
          • bobalien, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1I apologize for not being aware of the gender of the fake child I was referring to, and from this moment forward, I will make certain to only mention gender-specific fake children in any and all future posts. Thank you for your correction.
      • Zippo, on 05/12/2008, -0/+5There are still 25 other letters in the alphabet.
    • Barackalypse, on 05/12/2008, -11/+8Not creative? Off the top of your head name 17 names that start with J and don't suck.
      • countmischief, on 05/12/2008, -0/+24John
        Jacob
        Joyce
        Jill
        Jack
        Jim
        Jackie
        Jamie
        Janice
        Jenna
        Jared
        Jennifer
        Jeremy
        Jessica
        Jason
        Jeffery
        Jordon


        • houndeyex, on 05/12/2008, -2/+6Don't forget that they decided to hyphenate some of them. Ooo, thoughtful!
        • str1fe, on 05/12/2008, -0/+18I thought you were about to say Jingleheimer when you started with John Jacob.

          Now that song's stuck in my head, thanks.
        • Kennerk, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3many times jack and john are the same. at least in my family, brother is john II, but goes by jack...
          • cdahlkvist, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1That's more likely due to his frequent visits to the bathroom for "alone time"
      • tidu, on 05/12/2008, -1/+5Where's Jecht
      • cdahlkvist, on 05/12/2008, -1/+24John-Bob
        Jacob-Bob
        Joyce-Bob
        Jill-Bob
        Jack-Bob
        Jim-Bob Jr.
        Jackie-Bob
        Jamie-Bob
        Janice-Bob
        Jenna-Bob
        Jared-Bob
        Jennifer-Bob
        Jeremy-Bob
        Jessica-Bob
        Jason-Bob
        Jeffery-Bob
        Jordon-Bob
    • sgxyay, on 05/12/2008, -3/+18My mom used to mix up me and my brother's name when she was angry at us. Both our names start with "Da". Though a few times she called us by the dog's name which isn't even close to that....
      • VinceNoir, on 05/13/2008, -2/+2Was your dog's name ***** and do you happen to have a brother named Navin?
        • VinceNoir, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1Wow. Are Digger really stupid enough to not recognize the reference to that classic comedy film: The Jerk?
    • twp219, on 05/12/2008, -0/+31She should have started with 'A' and slowly worked her way through the alphabet ending with "Xenu", "Yoshi", and "Z-Bot"
    • faithfreedom, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1Wait until they start another letter.
    • SharkyTech, on 05/13/2008, -0/+4"Janna", "Joy-Anna" and "Johannah"? Now really, thats just cheating.
  • curtosrules, on 05/12/2008, -27/+7ever heard of masterbating?
    • TriZz, on 05/12/2008, -3/+32Nope. Although, it does sound a LOT like masturbating.
      • nomadxx7, on 05/12/2008, -7/+4No no you got it wrong Trizz. It's Masterbaiting. Like fishing.
        • uptwolait, on 05/12/2008, -3/+6Seriously. Start dipping the worm in the pond, not the wife.
        • PaisleyTeal, on 05/12/2008, -2/+1At this point, she's probably like a pond herself.
  • Aidenf77, on 05/12/2008, -9/+67That's just gratuitous. I'd even go so far as to say it's a little irresponsible. I'm sure there are going to be some emotionally starved children in that family. Mom and/or dad can't pay attention to all of them.
    • nomadxx7, on 05/12/2008, -3/+19I dont think so. Usually the way larger families worked was that the oldest children could watch the younger children. I'm pretty sure that if they are raised with finance/religion that Mom and Dad are making sure the 18 year olds are helping out with the younger ones.
      • wastelander, on 05/12/2008, -1/+8But then the older ones start mating with each other and having their own kids which is just wrong! ..at least its that way with Guinea Pigs.
    • EricAnderton, on 05/12/2008, -0/+9I've seen it in action. After the oldest hits about 10 or so, the siblings begin to take care of each other. Mom and dad don't fade away, as they still have to do the stuff that the kids can't be asked to do. It actually works pretty well, provided that the parents are there for guidance and education, and that the kids get enough attention at school.
      • str1fe, on 05/12/2008, -0/+11If this is the same family I'm thinking of, I'm pretty sure they're all homeschooled.
      • faithfreedom, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2I had 5 siblings. And we had lot of funs.
    • tak84, on 05/12/2008, -4/+5Cause that's all that kids need these days... More worship from their parents.
  • Cyclozion, on 05/12/2008, -4/+35FTA:
    Jim Bob Duggar, a former member of the Arkansas Legislature and an unsuccessful U.S. Senate candidate, has not been specific when asked how he supports such a big family.

    Could he have a more redneck name?
    • timusca, on 05/12/2008, -2/+13I'm sure its Jim Robert... in any case, the big mystery to me is how he affords his family... does he sell his kids into slavery?
    • PhilliesBlunt, on 05/12/2008, -12/+4HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!, Tough guy!!! USA!! USA!! USA!!

      He's only one letter off.
      • tsunamitomi, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4The Discovery Channel has been supporting this family for the last 10 years.
    • aenima987, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3I wish my last name was Duggar.
    • smackafiyah, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2Some reason I read that as "Hacksaw" Jim Duggan
  • Quake050, on 05/12/2008, -9/+73Heh, that's gotta be like throwing a hot dog down a hallway by now.
    • timusca, on 05/12/2008, -21/+3Thanks for commenting, Stewie.
    • Zippo, on 05/12/2008, -2/+26More like a toothpick down a volcano.
    • bobalien, on 05/12/2008, -3/+17or a golf pencil down a mine shaft
    • marx2k, on 05/12/2008, -1/+6Feeding a tic-tac to a whale
    • ackermannc, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1...or rafting through the Grand Canyon.
    • motorhead9999, on 05/12/2008, -0/+0Oh hell, enough with the metaphors, its amazing the guy can get any friction in her vagina to be able to procreate....that things gotta be like a cauldron by now...just toss the ingredients in and mix.....
  • jimic79, on 05/12/2008, -6/+30seriously.. stop...... one of your kids is named Jedidiah... I want to see the father, it's gotta be Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokel from the Simpsons...
    • HanSolo69, on 05/12/2008, -1/+7Well if you looked at the article then you probably saw the picture that had the dad in it.
    • eyggg, on 05/12/2008, -0/+5Jedidiah... from 2 Samuel 12. It's the name that God himself gives King Solomon as an infant. It means "Loved by God" in Hebrew.
  • shiftty, on 05/12/2008, -5/+45the quiver is ***** FULL ALREADY
  • kyouteki, on 05/12/2008, -5/+84Too bad they'll only stop when "God wills it". They're unlikely to get a sense of reproductive responsibility before then.
    • cha5e, on 05/12/2008, -4/+20Seriously...I want to ask them "what if every couple had 18 kids?".
      Just because it's POSSIBLE doesn't mean "God wills it to be done". Lots of things are possible, but that we shouldn't do...eating McD's every meal, going on a murderous rampage...
      • mightyslick, on 05/12/2008, -1/+5If it was up to gods will she would have died on the table around her 4th 5th 6th C-section.
      • Abyss666, on 05/12/2008, -2/+1If every couple had 18 kids, we could bring back the coliseum to thin down the population.
    • countmischief, on 05/12/2008, -4/+9Don't worry by the time she's 45 she'll be spitting out Down Syndrome Drones which will thankfully not corrupt the gene pool.
      • crossmr, on 05/12/2008, -1/+8except she'll probably have 4 or 5 of those before her uterus dries up, because gods wills it.
    • thanakar, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3WTF? So what if they have a passel of kids, if they can't support them more power to them.
      • VinceNoir, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1Wow. You ***** that up royally. You're saying if they can't support their kids then they did a good job and they should keep having more so they'll have an even harder time supporting them? I don't think that's what you meant to say.
  • Jimbob200, on 05/12/2008, -2/+61I swear it's not me.
  • timusca, on 05/12/2008, -3/+34I'm guessing this family will get the record for stimulus checks... depending on how much they make, its anywhere from $5100-$6300. Of course, when you're shoveling food into a family of 19, $6300 is a piss in a bucket.
    • nickj6282, on 05/12/2008, -1/+6A few of his kids are over 18 now. If they're not in college then the Duggars won't get any stimulus cash for them.
      • Rizmaster, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3I'm guessing they're not the "college type".
        • Hraes, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2You /have/ met them? Pics or it didn't happen.
    • TheKingInYellow, on 05/12/2008, -1/+5isn't there a cap on receiving a stimulus check? i don't know what their income is but if they make more than x amount they're ineligible for the stimulus.
      • Jashobeam5, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Yes, there is a cap. I think it's under $2,000 per household.
  • greendalek, on 05/12/2008, -39/+22What BUSINESS is it of anyone's? The family can afford the kids, let 'em reproduce to their hearts' content. Why does the press even feel the need to weigh in with an opinion on this? They're not actually being a drain on my tax dollars, so let 'em be. This is no more anyone's business than a couple who deliberately opts to have NO children. Buried as irrelevant.
    • thwoom, on 05/12/2008, -9/+15in fact, why don't just encourage every one to have this many kids...

      the truth is, Christians can't convert any one any more, so the only option left is to make more of them.
    • GreenGrassyNoel, on 05/12/2008, -7/+16Having children is bad for the environment, tax dollars spent on education, on roads for an additional 17 cars on the road. Yes they will start to pay taxes at some point, but this is only if you assume that all of them will be successful and not be living off welfare due to their parents not being able to help them. I'm not saying it can't happen, but it sounds improbable to me.
      • cptshamrock, on 05/12/2008, -6/+12Living is bad for the environment, so just kill yourself.
    • analogkid01, on 05/12/2008, -3/+16It's nobody's business in the sense that they don't have to plaster themselves all over the media saying "Look at me!" However, overpopulation is a *serious* concern to anyone with half a brain, and couples like this one are directly responsible for causing the problem. That fact is what makes it anyone else's business.
      • greendalek, on 05/12/2008, -2/+8So how should this be addressed, if it's somehow "everyone's" business? Government-imposed limits?
        • subsistenc3, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3No, just think of everybody else. Who the hell needs 18 kids anyway? After the first few, they are just polluting the earth.
          • greendalek, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3How do you force someone to "think of everyone else?" And what makes your "first few" limit the correct way?
          • subsistenc3, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1I am not forcing someone to think of everyone else, and government limits seem to be a bit extreme. I was simply stating that by having 18 kids you pollutes the earth. There are already too few resources to go around. Having 18 kids will not benefit anybody.
        • Pstmann, on 05/12/2008, -3/+2How about self imposed limits, there genius.
        • douggmc, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3No limits ... not the American way. Move to China for that. But we should end the per child deduction after 2. No reason for the rest of us to subsidize their selfish (yes thats right ... it is selfish to procreate and take up resources like that in 2008) lifestyle.
          • Jashobeam5, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1You are selfish for being so egotistical as to know how many kids this family should have.
        • dagnome1984, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2Well if you don't like paying for other people's choices than welfare is the problem not these people.
      • TheKingInYellow, on 05/12/2008, -1/+6i wouldn't go so far as to say that couples like the duggars are directly responsible for overpopulation. have you driven through new orleans and seen the hundreds of single mothers with 4.5 children living in the projects? or how about any city close to the mexican border. the duggars are having children because it's their prerogative (regardless of whether or not they see the problem with it in a sociological situation). welfare recipients and illegals are mass producing for other selfish reasons.
        • douggmc, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1"Hundreds" of single mothers? Try again ... add a few zeros.
          • Abyss666, on 05/12/2008, -2/+00+0+0+0=0
            /jk
            I have to agree that people on welfare abusing the system are becoming too much of a burden on society. Personally, I believe that either women on welfare with more than one child get their tubes tied or each subsequent child reduces the amount in the welfare check.
    • wrxpert, on 05/12/2008, -6/+20Actually I believe it is every ones business. Over population is probably one of the greatest threats to our planet. It is incredibly selfish. It dose drain tax dollars.
      • greendalek, on 05/12/2008, -3/+3What suggestion(s) would you offer, then?
        • douggmc, on 05/12/2008, -3/+11) How about having some ***** personal responsibility?
          and
          2) Stopping the per child tax deduction (i.e. stop incentivizing) after 2 children.
          and
          3) No welfare beyond that allowed for 2 children.
          • katiekatekate, on 05/12/2008, -3/+01) Personal responsibility = my business, not yours. Kind of negates the argument that it's everyone else's business.
            2) Interesting...I'd have to think about this for awhile before forming an opinion.
            3) Why is it ok to punish the children for the parents' irresponsibility? My suggestion: Free birth control for everyone who wants it, funded with the money that would be going to welfare to support the unwanted kids.
    • phargarten, on 05/12/2008, -5/+22Imagine if 6.6 billion people decided to have 18 children. You think gas prices are high now? Resources are tight? Urban property values soaring? These kind of practices are unsustainable. People need a better sense of the responsibility involved in reproducing. Religion is great and all but there are realities of our environment that cannot be overlooked.
      • greendalek, on 05/12/2008, -4/+5How would you address this, then? Government regulation?
        • pakruse, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2While it sounds restrictive, it may be the only option in the end. The question is more "when" than "how" - say the current trends continue, and we have a population of 10 billion on this planet in 2060. Which is better, a government imposed limit on children, or widespread disease and famine?
        • dattaway, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2Wars, famine, and disease. Its automatic. The government is only happy to help by taxing it.
        • cdahlkvist, on 05/12/2008, -2/+5How about Personal Responsibility and Liability for starters?

          If you don't understand those big words let me make it easier: condoms or sterilization.
          • greendalek, on 05/12/2008, -3/+3How do you mandate that kind of choice in what is supposedly a free society? And who gets to decide? Or enforce?
          • wrxpert, on 05/13/2008, -1/+2Get a ***** clue. It shouldn't have to be a mandate. This should be common sense. So many people have kids (and it doesn't matter if it is 1-18 kids) and then ignore them. The kids turn out to be thugs.
    • PhilliesBlunt, on 05/12/2008, -3/+10Well, if it's nobody's business, why do I have to see these professional diaper-sniffers on the news all the god damn time? Why are they on Discovery Health always? and why are the stories always as if they've done something exceptional without discussing how stupid and irresponsible it is?

      I'll give them credit for managing to raise a family of 18 without massive debt and government handouts, but I do NOT want Jim-Bob as a Senator.
      • cdahlkvist, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2If you've ever watched the show you would know that it gives the viewer every inclination to run out and get a vasectomy or hysterectomy.

        Trust me. The show is a public service: How to not ruin your life
    • Evolutuon, on 05/12/2008, -4/+8I think its relevant. You want to compare public impact with taxes? How about the impact on the environment? The amount of food being consumed by this Single family! The amount of food being thrown away by this family! Just think, with the example the parents have given, each of those kids will probably produce 5 or more. Thus creating unnecessarily More people.
      • greendalek, on 05/12/2008, -5/+3So what would you suggest? Government-imposed limits?
        • gttim, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4How about no tax exemptions after 2. It is a lifestyle choice, be able to support them and still pay your taxes.
      • Abyss666, on 05/12/2008, -1/+0I'm, wondering about each child having 5 more kids, wouldn’t they be inclined to have less after a childhood like that?
    • houndeyex, on 05/12/2008, -3/+4These people are attention whores for money.
    • tak84, on 05/12/2008, -5/+5I hope all of you know that this neomalthusian viewpoint on overpopulation is much older than global warming. Ever since the dark ages people have speculated that if populations continue to increase there would be widespread famine, plagues and war. To say that we will not be able to produce more food than we do now is ridiculous. To say that humanity will sit idly by while we're slowly dying is shortsighted. Technology will continue to change and we will be able to feed the world better in the next generation than we were in the previous.
      • marx2k, on 05/12/2008, -1/+0Unfortunately the methods we use now to feed the people we have now makes the food itself lack taste and nutrition.
      • gobber, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2One of the better comments on this thread yet.
  • bluedostoevsky, on 05/12/2008, -19/+3notice her husband's name is jim bob. classy
  • myststrngr, on 05/12/2008, -9/+51"They will continue to have children as long as God wills it"
    Someone plug this bitch up!
    • cambob76, on 05/12/2008, -9/+3Hey lady, God is calling you a stupid bitch... I just spoke to him.
    • purplehaze420, on 05/12/2008, -3/+7Yah, seriously. It's actually disturbing in a lot of ways that someone would be that selfish, I mean we have a population problem people....
    • netant, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2Its not just the bitch's fault, jackass.
    • snoogit, on 05/12/2008, -1/+5She's already been plugged up, I'd say about 18 times now.
    • Rizmaster, on 05/12/2008, -7/+1Plug this bitch up?

      Why not just plug her. And her kids. Kill them all before they spread like the disease they are.
    • onestrawplz, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3snip jim bob too, for good measure.
    • Tweets, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3Jim Bob's wanker needs to be sliced off as well.
    • gryphon50, on 05/14/2008, -0/+0yes, let's pretend it's God's will that you keep getting pregnant. What is it, an immaculate conception??
  • MadN, on 05/12/2008, -23/+6So, Is Texas going to remove her children and explicitly grill them for months on how they sexually abused?
    Hey, they already have a precedent to remove children from any family for no reason with the raid on the FLSD compound.
    • chicoer2001, on 05/12/2008, -0/+12I dont know, maybe if they lived in Texas. They live in Arkansas.
    • GreenGrassyNoel, on 05/12/2008, -0/+7There was totally a reason, there was a report of systematic sexual abuse. Did you miss the article saying that half of those girls were either pregnant or already had children?
      • tweetsa, on 05/12/2008, -4/+6ever heard of immaculate conception? pregnant girls is not proof of sexual activity

        my wife was able to have a child when when we were dating by immaculate conception
        • Snowy, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2People who are digging him down need to get their sarcasm meter checked
        • marx2k, on 05/12/2008, -0/+0"Oh my god! I have to support a child born via immaculate conception! And... why does he look like the plumber?"
        • Abyss666, on 05/12/2008, -0/+0I have this bridge I would like to sell to you then.
        • ultar6, on 05/13/2008, -0/+0After reading the words - 'pregnant girls is not proof of sexual activity' - I can't get the dueling banjos out of my head. Go figure.
        • GreenGrassyNoel, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1I stand corrected, feel free to bury.
  • timusca, on 05/12/2008, -4/+53This is ridiculous... at this point, your kids are raising your kids. Its impossible to be able to spend any quality time with your kids individually.
    • penguinofspades, on 05/12/2008, -4/+7thats where god comes in! duh....
    • PHiZ187, on 05/12/2008, -2/+8So? It might be nice to have an older sibling to look after you, or to have the responsibility as an older sibling of watching out for the little ones...
      • eyggg, on 05/12/2008, -1/+5God forbid teenage kids learning to be responsible fathers and mothers!
        • bobalien, on 05/12/2008, -4/+2yes! exactly! god SHOULD forbid teenage kids from learning to be responsible fathers and mothers! they're TEENAGE KIDS
          • eyggg, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4When the hell are you going to teach people to be responsible parents? When they're getting ass-drunk in college?

            If you're going to teach children to be responsible adults, you do it when they're children, not when they're adults. It's the same thing about handling money and other adult social responsibilities. Having 30 year old couple who don't know how to calm a crying baby is about as stupid as having 30 year old couples who can't balance a checkbook.
          • bobalien, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2i get what you're saying, but that wasn't really my point; of course you should teach your children values, but I don't really think kids should need to raise kids in order to learn life lessons
        • PaisleyTeal, on 05/12/2008, -1/+5i don't think they're learning how to be responsible mothers and fathers from their parents' example.
      • onestrawplz, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3they don't just watch out for them, babies are handed off to the older children after six months, to essentially be mothered by an older sibling (michelle duggar explained this in an episode of their tv show). there's a difference between watching out for a younger sibling and actually taking full responsibility for them 24/7.
      • Pstmann, on 05/12/2008, -1/+6I'm glad I didn't spend my childhood being a surrogate parent. It's was nice just being a child with real parents.
    • onionoino, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2you've just found some kind of raising your kids loophole.
    • temjrpgh, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3It isn't ridiculous, the biological imperative has nothing to do with who raises the kids.
      • timusca, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2uh, how about the fact that the parents are the freaking adults here? It isn't the kids responsibility to raise their siblings...
  • soomprimal, on 05/12/2008, -6/+45Abhorrent. More stupidity playing out in the name of religion.
  • deviationer, on 05/12/2008, -25/+25this is *****. BIRTH CONTROL ***** NUTS, USE IT!.
    I think we need to goto a 1 or 2 child per family rule.
    • Barackalypse, on 05/12/2008, -11/+27Not in my country. Have as many kids as you want and can support. Not my business, not my concern. What is my concern, however, is people who seem to think they have a right to decide what others should be allowed to do. Those people need to be kicked in the nuts.
      • cha5e, on 05/12/2008, -10/+3MmmHmmm...and if everyone in your country acted as they do, the population of your country would be 3 billion a generation from now. How would you like that? What do you think your life would be like?
        Of course I know that not everyone will do that...but if enough people started to (say > 10%) something would need to be done.
        • xienze, on 05/12/2008, -1/+6We've had a "have all the kids you want" policy in America for hundreds of years and, remarkably, the population hasn't grown out of control... The thing you seem to be forgetting is that very, very few people have the desire to have more than two or three children.
          • cha5e, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3Well, thanks for proving my point. Look at a graph of population versus time. What will happen if that % increase continues indefinitely? Eventually (and I'll admit I am not qualified to assess how long it will take) there will come a time when there are more people than our farms can feed.
          • cha5e, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Sorry, I only responded to your first sentence. You do make a good point in your second sentence, which, I'll point out, I also touched on in my post that you responded to...I know that not everybody is going to go and have 20 kids - just pointing out the obvious fact that IF everyone did, we'd be screwed.
            What I'm getting at is, one could measure your weight, what you like to eat, per-acre yields of various crops, etc. and determine how much land is necessary to feed you. Someone could also calculate that there are about 10 square miles of arable land for each person in the world. Obviously, you want the amount of land AVAILABLE to feed you to be larger than the amount of land NEEDED to feed you. Those two figures can both change with time, due to a variety of factors. If per-acre land yield continues to increase, great, then a smaller area of land will be necessary to feed you. If the population increases, oh no, a smaller area of land is availble to feed you. Desertification and urban sprawl also decrease the amount of land available to feed you...or perhaps thawing tunrda due to global warming will increase it, who knows. Et cetera.
            If the increase in population outpaces the increase in yield per acre, then eventually the land area needed to feed you becomes less than the land area available. And then what? Either you don't eat, or you go and take somebody else's food, and he doesn't eat. Neither is desirable.
            Of course, if that happens, it won't be for a long time, so we don't have to care about it...right...
      • lennybird, on 05/12/2008, -4/+5finally, a comment that makes some goddamn sense.
      • greendalek, on 05/12/2008, -5/+5Well said. *applauds*
        Sometimes I think the most intelligent phrase a human being can possibly utter is "That's none of my business."
      • douggmc, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4Your flat wrong Barackalypse ... we pay collectively via taxes by means of giving these nutbags a per child tax deduction. It is my business in that regard. End the per child tax deduction and any other tax benefit for having children (or at least cap it after 2 children) and then it is none of my business.
    • analogkid01, on 05/12/2008, -2/+19An unwritten one, yes. Don't even *think* about getting the gov't involved in my reproductive choices, thank you.
      • douggmc, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1I'll quit thinking about getting involved when these nuts quit claiming tax exemptions for all 20 of their little rugrats. Its a ***** crime and it is sick.
    • superherogirl, on 05/12/2008, -4/+6yeah! let's be like china! great idea! woo!
      • marx2k, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2All China is doing is handling its own population problem. And yes, that IS a great idea. Of course, people get around it and not surprisingly there's a hell of a lot more males than females in China now. But why do you feel that it's wrong for a country to handle population issues by issuing regulations?
    • greendalek, on 05/12/2008, -3/+5Oh yeah, that'll work. And let's give the government the authority to MANDATE families to have children while we're at it.
    • NotSoHotPink, on 05/12/2008, -4/+1I don't think we should have a law about it. I just think that the state should tax the ***** out of them, or anyone else that has any similar ideas.
      • douggmc, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3Hell .. no need for laws. No need to "tax the *****" out of them either. Just take away the HUGE tax incentive by limiting the child deductions at some point ( hell ... maybe 2 children ... after that ... suck it up and pay for them themselves).
    • temjrpgh, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3You should move to China. I hear it's nice there.
      • douggmc, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2 ... with people like the Duggars ... we'll soon have our very own China here you stupid *****.
        • temjrpgh, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1I was referring to the Chinese one-child policy. Are you familiar with it?
          You should reconsider your stance on these people. What we should do as a species is come up with ways of dealing with population growth, other than stemming it. It's really strange for a species to do this to itself. Actually...it might be an evolutionary filter that the Duggars are making it through that you, and many others, are not.
  • getouttamyfog, on 05/12/2008, -3/+9If I was her husband, I'd be ***** my pants.
    • SlackerCS, on 05/12/2008, -1/+6That's what he does for fun, actually. He can't afford a Wii.
  • frankingeneral, on 05/12/2008, -13/+48This is just what we need...18 more redneck bible thumpers in this world. This could only fly in someplace like Arkansas. You would need to make 5 million to raise that many kids in New York...
    • frankingeneral, on 05/12/2008, -3/+4I was in no way commenting on what people in Arkansas are like. I was stating the fact that cost of living is significantly cheaper in areas of the midwest like Arkansas. That's a fact, not an insult. And this guy is clearly a bible thumper, and I have 0 respect for bible thumpers, be they from Arkansas or New York.
      • GUTTS, on 05/12/2008, -2/+4If you hate Bible thumpers then you must love child molesters right? Whats wrong with people believing in something? I mean my faith in God is a little shaky but I don't hate those who really believe. It's not like they're saying anything bad right? I just smile and keep walking.
        • Vaelkar, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3Thanks, now I have a great example for my english class on logical fallacies. Drive an SUV support the terrorists? Being against gun control makes you want to shoot up a school of kiddies? Not supporting reparations means you hate black people? Damn, it's good to force conclusions with no proof or even a remotely intelligent cause/effect situation.
          • frankingeneral, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Thank you for making this argument for me, and I don't hate bible thumpers, I just don't respect them. And for the record, I DO hate child molesters.
          • GUTTS, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1wow sarcasm doesn't work with idiots. who knew?
  • Neemzor, on 05/12/2008, -1/+15Soon they will have an empire...
  • ivantalboys, on 05/12/2008, -7/+87Every sperm is sacred,
    Every sperm is great,
    If a sperm is wasted,
    God gets quite irrate.
    • ascheinberg, on 05/12/2008, -8/+3Or irate. Either one.
    • analogkid01, on 05/12/2008, -10/+8Hindu, Taoist, Mormon
      Spill theirs just anywhere
      But God bestows who treat their
      Semen with more care...
  • chancesarent, on 05/12/2008, -21/+12Did anyone happen to mention her vagina isn't a clown car? ZING!
    Damn, a half-dozen people? Really?
  • bossm4n, on 05/12/2008, -8/+58Proof of Idiocracy.
    • sanosuke001, on 05/12/2008, -1/+9that was my first thought, too

      these people: lets pop a couple more out

      smart people: do i really want my children living in a world like that? lets not have any
      • thanakar, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Its our job to change the world, she's creating her own little army to tackle the job.
    • phyx726, on 05/12/2008, -1/+8Its got what plants Crave, its got electrolytes!
  • timusca, on 05/12/2008, -1/+29"We've had three in January, three in December. Those two months are a busy time for us," Michelle Duggar said, laughing.

    Sounds to me like March and April aren't busy enough... and how exactly do you find time to have sex with that many kids around?
    • superherogirl, on 05/12/2008, -2/+18thats the "sexual education" part of their homeschooling...
  • ehsteve23, on 05/12/2008, -13/+2http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=oVvPfq0MoaQ

    not a rick roll...
    • SlackerCS, on 05/12/2008, -1/+5Not a rick roll, but it is ***** that has nothing to do with this. Thanks!
  • mooseontheloose, on 05/12/2008, -18/+10omg im so outraged *NERD RAGE* *INSERT CROTCHFRUIT COMMENT*

    who gives a *****, really?
    • cluckcluck, on 05/12/2008, -2/+7it's incredibly irresponsible to add that many people to a population that is already struggling to support itself.

      that's why people care.
      • netant, on 05/12/2008, -3/+1Unbelievable. There is actually a cow on digg who is burying that sentiment down.
      • mooseontheloose, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2Yep, 17 out of 6.5 billion makes a huge difference.

        Also, since when do Americans have problems supporting themselves? For that matter, since when should my decision to have offspring be based on anything but my own ability to support them?
  • dynamited, on 05/12/2008, -4/+33What the hell is on their mind? And how does he find a " blend of finance and religion." ???? Is there some social security loophole he's exploiting?

    They need a big house..... they need alot of food... they consume alot of water and electricity.... they need money for clothes / consumables.... where is he getting all this money from? One or two kids are enough to dry up your savings account.... hows 17 helping?
    • 4rp4n3t, on 05/12/2008, -3/+9What's on their mind? Well - *****, mostly, I guess...
      • mywhitenoise, on 05/12/2008, -1/+5I doubt it. They probably have the most boring sex imaginable. Have you ever had sex with a religious nut? Probably not, since you'd have to wait until marriage.
    • cha5e, on 05/12/2008, -1/+9Their parenting and financial resources probably are like a pyramid scheme...the younger ones can only be cared for because the older ones are enlisted to do so, etc. Of course we all know what happens eventually to every pyramid scheme...
    • Sippi, on 05/12/2008, -2/+15Certain networks helped donate the 7000 sq ft house to them, in return they were allowed to film them and make a show out of it. These selfish assholes sold themselves to the networks as a reality tv show. So between this, and buying food in bulk from donations and handing down cloths to the next child they are able to provide for all the children.

      If you remove all the donations, and all the "hook-ups" form the tv networks and local churches they would all starve.
    • GoldieK, on 05/12/2008, -5/+1Well, is it better to feed millions in Myanmar & Darfur? Feed your own healthy children in your own country!
    • onestrawplz, on 05/12/2008, -0/+5he somehow was able to declare his house a church (because he's an ordained minister, and how the ***** do you round up 17 kids to go to church? you'd need like, a school bus), so they don't pay property taxes on it, which helps a lot financially.
  • PseudoThink, on 05/12/2008, -4/+12Arkansas + "Jim Bob" + religious zeal
  • Discola, on 05/12/2008, -9/+23Hotdog in a hallway? I think by now its a toothpick in a mineshaft!
    • topherbook, on 05/12/2008, -10/+8Hot dog in a hallway? More like an average-sized penis in a well-worn and noticeably roomier vagina! Eh? Am I right? Anyone?
    • bendo420, on 05/12/2008, -2/+1i actually laughed out loud
  • SaraSu, on 05/12/2008, -3/+10So this would be my nightmare. What was she thinking?
  • Zippo, on 05/12/2008, -6/+61Seriously, guys, when Dad said go forth and have children, he meant have a family, not make a mob.
    Signed, Jesus.
  • pconrey, on 05/12/2008, -30/+11Since when is having a large family a bad thing? If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all. Mr. & Mrs. Duggar, congratulations on your coming child. May your joy and happiness continue, and let no one discourage you from achieving your dream.
    • mywhitenoise, on 05/12/2008, -9/+6...fag.
      • pconrey, on 05/12/2008, -11/+3Nope, wrong guess. I'm happily married with three incredible kids of my own. Thanks for playing.
  • bb112266, on 05/12/2008, -10/+5It is hard work and a lot of money to raise a family that big, but I am sure that history in the USA does not make this family the first one. I wish them all the luck. These days they will need it.
  • Raedyn, on 05/12/2008, -5/+36At least she puts out!
    • ViktorVaughn, on 05/12/2008, -2/+12But I'm willing to bet she won't allow herself to enjoy it.
    • houndeyex, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2These people have sex for reproduction only I'm pretty sure.
    • Zippo, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4Yeah, once every 9 months.
    • Envark, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2Being subservient to her husband, she has no say in the matter.
      • Jashobeam5, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1You really don't understand a Christian marriage.
  • jayscot, on 05/12/2008, -40/+19One thing note is that these are good clean law-abiding citizens. They are not interested in the trashy hedonistic living that most of you are.

    Another thing to note is that people like this are reproducing at a higher rate than people like you (most Diggers)...most of you here on Digg seem support killing your babies if it's not convenient. This article seems to spell doom for your way of thinking. Of course you would have to have a family and reproduce (to counter this)...and raise them with your way of thinking...then of course you would begin to reconsider your way of thinking...when you see the value of life and morality. Kind of sad for you isn't it?

    Maybe there is a God to be worshiped.
    • Metman, on 05/12/2008, -4/+9ROFL - Well great at this rate another 2.3 million kids and she just might make a dent in the lives that were taken in the name of your 'god'.
      Though, thanks for the laugh - I needed it this morning.
    • stygyan, on 05/12/2008, -4/+7God said to have kids, but that was when there was only Adam and Eve in the whole world. There was no lack of resources.
      • Jashobeam5, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2So, God wants people to STOP having kids? Really? You got a verse to back that up? Psalm 127:4-5 Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one's youth. 5 Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when they contend with their enemies in the gate.
    • CynicSight, on 05/12/2008, -5/+11Shut up, you preaching tool.
    • drmangrum, on 05/12/2008, -4/+8Maybe their god needs to teach them to use birth control.
    • phargarten, on 05/12/2008, -3/+12After I was able to reread and decipher that mess of a comment, I am inclined to say that you, just like many other narrow-minded and blind followers, are failing to understand the circumstances that this world faces. The distaste for a family like this is not because they arent aborting their babies (because Lord knows they could use birth control), but it is about the impact this kind of activity has on the other 6.6 billion people in the world. Unyielding procreation is expensive. It exacerbates the already increasing strain experienced in essential resource markets: gas, food, health, physical space. 2 people making 18 is just not sustainable. China and India are growing at alarming rates and have provided an enclosed case study for growing populations and the outcome isnt looking good. This isnt about life but it is about morality. Is it really moral and ethical to contribute to the most fundamental and significant problem facing our planet. We have too many people, unsustainable practices and not enough resources. Think. Go get educated.
      • ViktorVaughn, on 05/12/2008, -1/+5Why can't you open up your heart and let God in?

        Are you too much of a trashy hedonist?

        Your way of thinking is GOIN' DOWN, brother. We're gonna BRING THE PAIN and body slam the Holy Spirit into your life and then you'll see that responsible procreation is just another tool of the devil.
      • BassJunkie, on 05/12/2008, -4/+6I really can't see the problem with her having 18 children. You say she is contributing towards overcrowding? Because a few extra children make so much difference in the grand scheme of things! besides there are plenty of couples who choose not to have children so just look at it as if she's having 4 or 5 couples children....but then I'm probably biased as I already have 5 children and think they've done a great job with their kids!
        • orlyfactor, on 05/12/2008, -1/+6Oh, that's OK then. If they can have a "few" extra (15 is a few now?) then that's OK. Oh wait, now Billy Joe and Mary Sue want to do it, and so do their friends? And their friends' friends? How about this. I'll go into a bank, and since they have SOOO much money, I'll just take a little for myself, they have enough to go around, it won't contribute to the problem if only *I* do it.

          Your logic is flawed and yes, you are biased. The Earth is OVERPOPULATED with people and cannot sustain many more, so by having more and more kids, you're ruining not only the lives of other, but theirs as well. What kind of parent would do that?
        • GUTTS, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2How can you say that lives are being ruined? I mean I don't get it. Was there something in that article that I missed? Live and let live. Judge and be judged.
    • cha5e, on 05/12/2008, -3/+9You are correct that those who believe in having lots and lots of children will of course outnumber those who believe in (as I choose to word it) being prudent in deciding how many children to have. Making the (not 100% accurate) assumption that one's children will inherit one's stance on this issue, you're right, that does spell doom for the "don't have tons of children" mindset. How sad our world would be if what you predict were to come to fruition, though. If the average couple were to have even 1/3 the number of children these people have, what would the world's population be in 30 years? In 100 years?
      I'll call the generation of people who are grandparents today "generation A", the generation of people who are parents but not grandparents today "generation B" and the generation of people who haven't had kids yet "generation C".
      Just doing some rough numbers...6 billion people in the world. Worldwide, generation C is the largest of the three, and generation A is the smallest. I'll guestimate at:
      Today:
      Generation A: 1.8 billion
      Generation B: 2.0 billion
      Generation C: 2.2 billion
      Now, hypothetically, if every couple has 6 kids, 30 years from now it'll be:
      Generation A: died out
      Generation B: 2.0 billion
      Generation C: 2.2 billion
      Generation D: 6.6 billion
      World population: 10.8 billion
      60 years from now:
      Generation B: died out
      Generation C: 2.2 billion
      Generation D: 6.6 billion
      Generation E: 19.8 billion
      World population: 28.6 billion
      Okay, admittedly, 6 kids per couple is a pretty large number to choose. What about with 3 kids per couple, on average?
      Today:
      Generation A: 1.8 billion
      Generation B: 2.0 billion
      Generation C: 2.2 billion
      In 30 years:
      Generation A: died out
      Generation B: 2.0 billion
      Generation C: 2.2 billion
      Generation D: 3.3 billion
      World population: 7.5 billion
      In 60 years:
      Generation B: died out
      Generation C: 2.2 billion
      Generation D: 3.3 billion
      Generation E: 5.0 billion
      World population: 10.5 billion
      ...etc. Ask yourself this: How many people can the Earth support? Obviously technological advances will increase that number somewhat as time goes on. Obviously people like you and I will live in rich countries and have better lifestyles than those in poorer countries, which is not "fair". Perhaps someday we will establish large colonies on other planets. But the fact remains that, for now, there are about 197 billion square miles of land on earth, about 30% of which is arable, meaning today there is about 10 square miles of arable land per person. Will we still survive if we reduce that by 10%? 50%? 90%? I don't know, but eventually there is a point when that answer is "no". And what happens then?
      • netant, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Kill them all and let God sort them out.
      • cha5e, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2And for the record, I am a "good clean law-abiding citizen" as well...except for that speeding ticket I got last month. But I'd hardly call that "hedonistic".
    • bobalien, on 05/12/2008, -2/+5is parading your freak show family around for the media not hedonistic?
    • pudly, on 05/12/2008, -2/+1wow you just couldn't be more wrong, its sad really
    • gobber, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2You would think that people would be more aware of the dangers facing Russia and Japan with their declining birth rates and the misery China has with their one child policy.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 162 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.