Tuesday, February 12, 2013

"I Got 15 Kids & 3 Babydaddys-SOMEONE'S GOTTA PAY FOR ME & MY KIDS!!!"

via Anonymous

Not sure I buy Anon's argument that there's a contradiction between being anti birth control and also anti lots of kids. See, Freepers are also anti-sex. Especially out of marriage. Especially for women. Especially poor women.

So this thread may not have much of a double standard, but it does have some quality rage.

Starting with the post itself:

Yes, random youtube 15 kids lady is totally exactly what Obama voters are like.

cherry knows all you need to do is stop having sex. Also those super-cheap vasectomies!
.how about closing your legs and getting your boyfriend clipped for responsibility...
ZirconEncrustedTweezers has the same solution, with a bit mroe contempt:
You wouldn’t be in this mess to begin with if you’d kept your legs together, you dumb slut. (Yes, I know in the inner city they call them something else, to which I reply that hoes get paid for it.)
Albion Wilde thinks we had it right when women were property:
In the colonies, men who abandoned their children were severely punished; and we all know about the "Red Letter A" and the ducking stool for women.

Now? Pfffft.
Uhh...did you READ The Scarlet Letter? That "A" wasn't exactly awesome... pgkdan knows the way to end the large entitlement state is with a large police state:
The state needs to take the kids, sterilze her and castrate the baby daddy’s. I’m sick of this shit!
Catholic Canadian thinks the problem is that single mothers have it too easy:
The end game of feminism is to remove the shame of being a single mother. Now it is lauded and single mothers are presented as heroes. Single men should stay away from single mothers. Do not date them, do not give them the time of day. Single mothers want daddy gov’t to replace fathers. Fathers are systematically run out of their children’s loves by sinful single mothers and the family courts.
Aria thinks this woman is part of a Democratic plan, somehow...
I’m sure the rats look on the bright side - those 15 kids are all future rat voters.

Read that JFK’s executive order allowing public sector unions was intended to provide a money stream to the Democrats forever. This isn’t really that much different - encouraging poverty provides an voting stream to the Democrats.
Slang for the 21st Century

Gimmies - Welfare Moms who want everything
Ghosts - Gang Bangers
Dims - The Dimocrats that think this lifestyle is just great.
cripplecreek's sister was on welfare, but was the one deserving one on it.
Out of 5 kids I suppose my sister did pretty good to end up with only 1 daughter like that. My sister lived on welfare herself for a while but recognized it as a crutch and has worked the same job for a decade.

My sister’s kids have two fathers. Daddy number 1 is a worthless piece of trash but husband number 2 is there in the home. He isn’t perfect, working part time jobs on and off but he doesn’t use drugs or drink. Most important he is there and taking an active role in parenting.
Clearly, such a story is not repeatable for Obama voters.


  1. That is the crux of it, Ozy. They are anti-sex.

    Boil their arguments down and that's what you get.

    1. I remember one years ago who angrily denied that he and his wife had ever done anything as perverted as oral sex.

  2. There are some happy Freepers but there are so many Freepers who seem to have problems with women. If I were a kid in school and needed a project, I think I could prove handily that Freepers are guys who have not been successful with the women in their lives.

    The tricky part would be this: how does it translate into tin foil conservatism.

    1. Either: Conservatism isn't sexy, so conservatives don't get laid; or: unsexy people tend to be conservative. Which mechanism is stronger? Do the effects of one enhance the other?

      Where is my grant money?

    2. So, if we do a Venn diagram of conservatism and anal sex do the circles ever intersect?

    3. Only in bathroom stalls of airports.

  3. Funny how GraceG uses slang from a Star Trek DS9 episode with a theme the poster would probably find repugnant:

    The crew of the Defiant is thrown back in time to 2024 on Earth. The United States of America has attempted to solve the problem of homelessness by erecting "Sanctuary Districts" where unemployed and/or mentally ill persons are placed in makeshift ghettos.

    The captain ends up taking the place of the man who historically led the revolt and demands that the government dismantles the Sanctuary Districts and provides aid to the people who have been locked away. A very "Occupy" episode.