Skip to comments.
MORFORD: God Does Not Want 16 Kids
San Francisco Chronicle ^
| 10/19/5
| Mark Morford
Posted on 10/19/2005 7:48:41 AM PDT by SmithL
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-86 next last
To: hattend
He's unhappy because sperm and fecal matter can't produce a child no matter how many times he tries. Oh, I don't know; Seems like that's what his parents used for him...
To: LongElegantLegs
In the words of Emeril:
BAM!
Good one, LEL. LOL!!
42
posted on
10/19/2005 10:48:07 AM PDT
by
hattend
(Rum and Coke, please!)
To: SmithL
Sounds like a homosexual writer.From those who cry out for especial laws to make their life style normal.Homosexuals are truly blind.Turn from your evil ways that you maybe saved!With the venom from which you write we should write about the homosexuals who are victims
of their own lust.Did you know that most homosexuals have more than 1600 lovers in a year.Now thats normal.
43
posted on
10/19/2005 11:38:23 AM PDT
by
DelRoy
(Not perfect,just forgiven)
To: hattend
Thank you, thank you! I'll be here all week; don't forget to tip your waitress.
To: tertiary01
Seemed like one big happy, healthy family.
That's why liberals hate them so strongly. We don't see Morford or other lefties displaying this level of visceral hatred toward broken welfare "families".
45
posted on
10/19/2005 12:39:36 PM PDT
by
BJClinton
(Caliphate? Let’s Motivate!)
To: Marysecretary
I saw this family on a documentary and they are a fantastic group of people. What great parents and what great kids. They are being brought up to help their parents, to serve God, to be upstanding citizens.
--I saw this too on TV one evening and they do seem to be a wonderful family. God Bless them all.
Lauranne
46
posted on
10/19/2005 12:44:52 PM PDT
by
WasDougsLamb
(Just my opinion.Go easy on me........)
To: Ursus arctos horribilis; SmithL; mrs tiggywinkle
Not on welfare? None of our business!
47
posted on
10/19/2005 12:53:48 PM PDT
by
caryatid
(Oh, Lord, help me to learn to mind my own business ...)
To: WasDougsLamb
Aren't they great? So organized and doing such a great job in raising future good citizens.
48
posted on
10/19/2005 1:42:33 PM PDT
by
Marysecretary
(Thank you, Lord, for FOUR MORE YEARS!!!)
To: SmithL
and assuming that they will all be tragically encoded with the values of the homophobic asexual Christian rightWhere is the liberal, spiritualized, pro-sex flip side?
Looks like Miss Moford hasn't figured out how babies are made.
49
posted on
10/19/2005 1:43:35 PM PDT
by
B Knotts
To: Marysecretary
Three is the roughest number to have. I'm not sure why, but we saw it in our family (six) and most of the moms at my church agree, three is a tough number of kids.
50
posted on
10/19/2005 2:17:47 PM PDT
by
Vor Lady
(Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected?)
To: SmithL
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...You've gotta admit, though, he DID have a point there. The whole Tom-and-Katie thing....(shudder)
51
posted on
10/19/2005 2:42:20 PM PDT
by
Felicity Fahrquar
(Firm Believer in Better Living through Chemistry)
To: Grannyx4
Going from two to three was a harder transition than going from one to two. Individually, we had run out of arms, and collectively, we had run out of laps.
; )
52
posted on
10/19/2005 2:54:04 PM PDT
by
SmithL
(There are a lot of people that hate Bush more than they hate terrorists)
To: Grannyx4
I agree, three is the worst, and after five, the additional ones don't seem like much more work. It's like cats, I guess ... once you hit the Critical Mass, you can add more indefinitely.
53
posted on
10/19/2005 3:03:01 PM PDT
by
Tax-chick
("Neither the depth of despondency nor the height of euphoria tells you how long either will last. ")
To: tertiary01
Oh, I didn't know he was queer, too. That explains it.
To: SmithL
I lived near a family that had 19 children. They had 2 houses next door to each other.
55
posted on
10/19/2005 4:43:57 PM PDT
by
ViLaLuz
(Stop the ACLU - Support the Public Expression of Religion Act 2005 - Call your congressmen.)
To: SmithL
Let's see, by Democrat standards, 5 out of the 16 children should have been aborted.
56
posted on
10/19/2005 4:45:46 PM PDT
by
ViLaLuz
(Stop the ACLU - Support the Public Expression of Religion Act 2005 - Call your congressmen.)
To: ViLaLuz
I think every large family turns out one who's a total goofball, so there will probably be one Democrat in the Duggars' crew :-).
57
posted on
10/19/2005 4:55:03 PM PDT
by
Tax-chick
("Neither the depth of despondency nor the height of euphoria tells you how long either will last. ")
To: hattend
He's unhappy because sperm and fecal matter can't produce a child no matter how many times he tries.Good line!
58
posted on
10/19/2005 4:58:33 PM PDT
by
mafree
To: SmithL
And here's a one finger salute to the flamer Morford.
59
posted on
10/19/2005 5:00:57 PM PDT
by
Dan from Michigan
("My Gov'nor don't got the answer")
To: ViLaLuz
I worked with a girl who was one of seventeen: John, James, Joseph, Richard, Dennis, Daniel, Michael, Raymond, Kathy, Patricia, Michelle, Margaret, Tracy, Kathleen, Erin, Shannon, and Mary.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-86 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson