Huckabee complaining about millionaire having baby

R

rdean

Guest
Why do right wingers, like Mike Huckabee, fight to force poor people, who they seem to despise, to have babies, but complain when a millionaire, such as Natalie Portman, has one when she could afford to take care of dozens?

How many of those poor women aren't married? Yet the right wants to force them to have a baby they can't take care of? But they complain about Portman? And she wants the kid? Can someone explain this to me?



"My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed! You’re facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don’t think too much further than that. And so what you’ve got to do is you’ve got to curtail that type of behavior. They don’t know any better.”

– Andre Bauer, lieutenant governor of South Carolina
and candidate for S.C. governor
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If the right is so concerned about those babies, why don't they adopt more?
 
Huckabee is keeping his name in the media because he has a book to sell.
He's no more running for president than I am. Like Gingrich, Huckabee is raising money to pay the mortgage.
 
Link to his remarks? Your interpretations leave a great deal to be desired.

his actual comments were about her having a kid without a husband. this is pretty much universally acknowledged to be not in the best interests of the child. The way it is supposed to work is you make a commitment, you get married, then you have a baby. In that order. Making the baby first before marriage or commitment leaves the kid unprotected.

Just because she has a ton of money is only mildly better than if she were living on food stamps in a small trailer. Money is not a replacement for a father.
 
Mike Huckabee once said that he was happy that "white guys like me" will one day be gone from America.

So I guess the babies he doesn't want are white.
 
Link to his remarks? Your interpretations leave a great deal to be desired.

his actual comments were about her having a kid without a husband. this is pretty much universally acknowledged to be not in the best interests of the child. The way it is supposed to work is you make a commitment, you get married, then you have a baby. In that order. Making the baby first before marriage or commitment leaves the kid unprotected.

Just because she has a ton of money is only mildly better than if she were living on food stamps in a small trailer. Money is not a replacement for a father.

So being a millionaire is only "mildly" better than being on "food stamps"? The child of a "millionaire" is "unprotected"? From what?

Here is your chance to take back a ridiculous and loony comment.
 
For a child to have the right kind of care requires the presence of both parents. Being born into a emotionally starved environment is as destructive as being born in an environment without groceries. In both environments, the kid will be raised stunted.

At some point adding cash does not add to the welfare of the kids. Dollars are not love, discipline, respect, or care. They can't replace what is not there.

She is bringing the kid up lacking something important. She has a lot of the needful, but has a total lack of what is necessary.
 
For a child to have the right kind of care requires the presence of both parents. Being born into a emotionally starved environment is as destructive as being born in an environment without groceries. In both environments, the kid will be raised stunted.

At some point adding cash does not add to the welfare of the kids. Dollars are not love, discipline, respect, or care. They can't replace what is not there.

She is bringing the kid up lacking something important. She has a lot of the needful, but has a total lack of what is necessary.

No, for the child to have the "right kind" of care requires the presence of "responsible adults". Besides, just because the parents aren't married doesn't mean they both aren't "present".

You know you're just making shit up. So stop already.

Besides, the point is right wingers wanting to force poor women who are probably alone to have unwanted children. We know this for a fact. Get them born and then starve 'em. That's their "unholy and mean" policy.
 
I remember when the libtards made a big fucking deal because Bristol Palin had a baby out of wedlock,, now they're pissed at Huckabee?? Fucking hilarious. fucking Pricelesss. Fucking brainless.
 
For a child to have the right kind of care requires the presence of both parents. Being born into a emotionally starved environment is as destructive as being born in an environment without groceries. In both environments, the kid will be raised stunted.

At some point adding cash does not add to the welfare of the kids. Dollars are not love, discipline, respect, or care. They can't replace what is not there.

She is bringing the kid up lacking something important. She has a lot of the needful, but has a total lack of what is necessary.
So you think Portman should give her child up for adoption as opposed to keep it and raise it herself simply because she doesn't want to marry the father.

What a bunch of moralistic bullshit.

Women are nothing but incubators in your view.
 
I remember when the libtards made a big fucking deal because Bristol Palin had a baby out of wedlock,, now they're pissed at Huckabee?? Fucking hilarious. fucking Pricelesss. Fucking brainless.

Seems you don't remember it all.

Democrats were merely pointing out the "failed" policy of "abstinence only". Bristol and Sarah absolutely proved the Democrats point. Just another failed conservative policy. So many to choose from. I just wish they were right about something.

Thanks for bringing that up.
 
I remember when the libtards made a big fucking deal because Bristol Palin had a baby out of wedlock,, now they're pissed at Huckabee?? Fucking hilarious. fucking Pricelesss. Fucking brainless.

Seems you don't remember it all.

Democrats were merely pointing out the "failed" policy of "abstinence only". Bristol and Sarah absolutely proved the Democrats point. Just another failed conservative policy. So many to choose from. I just wish they were right about something.

Thanks for bringing that up.

so you think if you abstain you can get pregnant? got it. abstaining is failing.. good one.
 
Link to his remarks? Your interpretations leave a great deal to be desired.

his actual comments were about her having a kid without a husband. this is pretty much universally acknowledged to be not in the best interests of the child. The way it is supposed to work is you make a commitment, you get married, then you have a baby. In that order. Making the baby first before marriage or commitment leaves the kid unprotected.

Just because she has a ton of money is only mildly better than if she were living on food stamps in a small trailer. Money is not a replacement for a father.

You realize that she's engaged to the father, right?
 
I remember when the libtards made a big fucking deal because Bristol Palin had a baby out of wedlock,, now they're pissed at Huckabee?? Fucking hilarious. fucking Pricelesss. Fucking brainless.

What you guys don't realize is that Huckabee's comment was a none-to-subtle dig at Palin.
 

Forum List

Back
Top