The Duggalos: Jinger and the Holy Goalie

[SMama]

13 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

What's even worse is that in at capacity ICUs, they are forced to make care decisions. If there was one vent available for use, Jeremy would likely receive it before the 70 year old in the next bed. How fucked up is that? 70 is still young, until you're next to a 30 year old covidiot.

We need an angry emoji. 😡🤬

[farmgal4]

1 hour ago, SMama said:

We need an angry emoji. 😡🤬

YES!!!

[DangerousMinds]

2 hours ago, libgirl2 said:

Or as I say practicing unsafe sex with multiple partners during the height of the AIDS era. 

And not disclosing that you are positive or that you have a habit of having unprotected sex. It’s the same to me and unconscionable.

Edited December 10, 2020 by DangerousMinds

[MaryAnneSpier]

Health isn't nearly as important as making a political and/or religious statement. These types of churches like to repeatedly say that America is a Christian nation, founded on Christian principles, favored by God. But then they turn around a cry "religous persecution" when they're asked to suspend in-person services. (They've never been told to not hold services online). Which is it? Is the USA a Christian nation or not? Statistically, those in America who identify with a religion state they're Christian, so they are still a majority. But if they're the majority and claim to have God on their side, then they can't claim persecution. You can't have it both ways, but that's the baffling mindset of these folks. 

[BigBingerBro]

[DangerousMinds]

Why the hood up? 🤣

[SMama]

Where’s Felicity?

[BigBingerBro]

22 minutes ago, DangerousMinds said:

Why the hood up? 🤣

Apparently LA had a cold snap?  Or perhaps a bad hair day? 😂

[Absolom]

It was 43 at my house this morning.  I had my hood up when I walked.  

Why take the baby outside?  Jinger looks like she doesn't need to be dragged around for photos either.  

[Oldernowiser]

Jinger looks like she no longer even remembers what sleeping is like.

[Ljohnson1987]

Jinger's birth VSE will air on 12/20. How on Earth will they get through this birth without a ton of family members looking up her lady bits? 

[farmgal4]

There’s a new podcast video up on IG.  I wonder why they haven’t posted a pic of the new baby in several days?

[Oldernowiser]

2 hours ago, farmgal4 said:

There’s a new podcast video up on IG.  I wonder why they haven’t posted a pic of the new baby in several days?

I’m guessing she’s one of those red squirming inconsolable screamers who never sleeps. (Hey, I was one.)

Also...baby acne. Just guessing.

[farmgal4]

35 minutes ago, Oldernowiser said:

I’m guessing she’s one of those red squirming inconsolable screamers who never sleeps. (Hey, I was one.)

Also...baby acne. Just guessing.

Baby acne had crossed my mind too.

[Mindthinkr]

Alleged baby acne? What...she’s not perfect? Poor poor RFP. This accessory is substandard. 

[Oldernowiser]

If she were the tiniest bit photogenic, RFP would have spun Jinger around to show the baby’s face. 

[Oldernowiser]

So I’m much too uninterested to go find the actual date, but Prop 2.0 is what, two-ish weeks old now? But only two photos since the announcement and you can’t really see the baby in either one?

This seems highly unlike RFP, especially since they have The Candle and Cap Crap Emporium to promote?

[MargeGunderson]

I’m guessing they are holding out to sell the photos to a magazine. 

[Oldernowiser]

1 minute ago, MargeGunderson said:

I’m guessing they are holding out to sell the photos to a magazine. 

I’m guessing you’re right. I naively assumed since they already pimped out the birth that would be the end of the pimpage, at least until the baby gets more interesting.

I underestimated their greed. Or at least I would have thought their delight in their new baby might override it. So, basically, I am an old softie idealist. How embarrassing.

 

[GeeGolly]

Maybe they've done the professional newborn shoot but are concerned about all the covid comments. Being unmasked in close proximity to a photographer.

Oh shit - maybe they have covid.

[Oldernowiser]

Awww, see? You’re a big softie, too...

RFP has shown only rudimentary understanding of the implications of unmasked photos. Hell, he pulled his mask down for a selfie in what supposedly was a pediatric clinic waiting room. 

Something else is up.

[doodlebug]

3 hours ago, MargeGunderson said:

I’m guessing they are holding out to sell the photos to a magazine. 

For these D list celebs, I'd think they'd need to strike while the iron is hot and that, by now, any public interest in seeing their latest baby is fading fast.  This isn't like Brangelina who could take their time and decide on the best deal; if that's what they're doing, they've missed the boat.  I doubt the public is clamoring for photos of this kid.

BTW, People mag just put a blurb in their Passages section about the birth; along with all the other celeb births, deaths, weddings and birthdays.  I don't think they even got top billing amongst the births and no photo.  Some of the more recent Duggar births have gotten at the very least a photo and a paragraph or two in a box in that section, if not a whole page.  I don't recall any celeb getting a full write up with photos once the birth was already reported in the celeb news summary.

[awaken]

3 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

Maybe they've done the professional newborn shoot but are concerned about all the covid comments. Being unmasked in close proximity to a photographer.

Oh shit - maybe they have covid.

If he doesn’t mind being seen publicly at church, has family fly in from all over, and posts himself in a peds office mask less I doubt he’d worry too much about a photographer. 

[GeeGolly]

32 minutes ago, awaken said:

If he doesn’t mind being seen publicly at church, has family fly in from all over, and posts himself in a peds office mask less I doubt he’d worry too much about a photographer. 

I just assumed the picture at the church would increase the criticism and they may be keeping their heads down for a bit.

[emmawoodhouse]

4 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

I just assumed the picture at the church would increase the criticism and they may be keeping their heads down for a bit.

He posted that unmasked picture of him, Jinger, and the baby just a few days ago. I don't think he cares.

[MargeGunderson]

7 hours ago, doodlebug said:

For these D list celebs, I'd think they'd need to strike while the iron is hot and that, by now, any public interest in seeing their latest baby is fading fast.  This isn't like Brangelina who could take their time and decide on the best deal; if that's what they're doing, they've missed the boat.  I doubt the public is clamoring for photos of this kid.

BTW, People mag just put a blurb in their Passages section about the birth; along with all the other celeb births, deaths, weddings and birthdays.  I don't think they even got top billing amongst the births and no photo.  Some of the more recent Duggar births have gotten at the very least a photo and a paragraph or two in a box in that section, if not a whole page.  I don't recall any celeb getting a full write up with photos once the birth was already reported in the celeb news summary.

Oh I agree, too late now. But I think they are still holding out hope that they get an offer.

[Minivanessa]

2 hours ago, MargeGunderson said:

Oh I agree, too late now. But I think they are still holding out hope that they get an offer.

If that's what they are doing, it's yet another example that they aren't very good at being breakout stars, influencers, shining examples of people who worship the correct Jesus, a pseudo-hip young LA couple, or whatever their persona of the week is at the moment. Which I can't be bothered to figure out because I wouldn't know or care what they are up to, except that I read this forum regularly. And that's mainly because of the Small Talk topic. Some days I just read Small Talk and Sweet Fellowship and mark everything else read without looking at it. 

[LadyChatterly]

15 hours ago, Oldernowiser said:

So I’m much too uninterested to go find the actual date, but Prop 2.0 is what, two-ish weeks old now? But only two photos since the announcement and you can’t really see the baby in either one?

This seems highly unlike RFP, especially since they have The Candle and Cap Crap Emporium to promote?

I totally read this as The Candle and Cradle Cap Emporium ... 😅

[lascuba]

On 12/10/2020 at 8:28 PM, MaryAnneSpier said:

Health isn't nearly as important as making a political and/or religious statement. These types of churches like to repeatedly say that America is a Christian nation, founded on Christian principles, favored by God. But then they turn around a cry "religous persecution" when they're asked to suspend in-person services. (They've never been told to not hold services online). Which is it? Is the USA a Christian nation or not? Statistically, those in America who identify with a religion state they're Christian, so they are still a majority. But if they're the majority and claim to have God on their side, then they can't claim persecution. You can't have it both ways, but that's the baffling mindset of these folks. 

But the thing is, Jeremy, the Duggars, and the rest of their ilk don't count anyone not of their particular persuasion as Christian. So in their minds, they are very much a persecuted minority religion.

[BitterApple]

With regards to lack of photos, I think it's one of two possibilities: a) they're holding out for $$$ or b) the kid's not cute and they're waiting for the awkward phase to pass. 

[emmawoodhouse]

4 hours ago, BitterApple said:

With regards to lack of photos, I think it's one of two possibilities: a) they're holding out for $$$ or b) the kid's not cute and they're waiting for the awkward phase to pass. 

The first picture they published showed that little Evy Jo had a distinct birthmark between her brows. I wonder if they're withholding more pictures because she isn't "perfect?"

[NotthebadVictoria]

I’m with the poster that guessed covid! I bet they do have it, and we’ll see if they can top Carlin with the post covid posts 

[GeeGolly]

9 hours ago, emmawoodhouse said:

The first picture they published showed that little Evy Jo had a distinct birthmark between her brows. I wonder if they're withholding more pictures because she isn't "perfect?"

I didn't notice that until you pointed it out. It looks like what my mom called a stork bite. They usually go away in the first year. EJ's is pretty light, I wonder if that would stop them from posting photos.

With Lissy, Jinger posted three or four pics in the first month. EJ is nearing four weeks old - I think she was born on the 22nd. It'll definitely be odd if they don't post a one month photo around 12/22.

[Snow Fairy]

9 hours ago, NotthebadVictoria said:

I’m with the poster that guessed covid! I bet they do have it, and we’ll see if they can top Carlin with the post covid posts 

I also think so

[doodlebug]

23 hours ago, lascuba said:

But the thing is, Jeremy, the Duggars, and the rest of their ilk don't count anyone not of their particular persuasion as Christian. So in their minds, they are very much a persecuted minority religion.

This is exactly true.  Jeremy and his brethren are particularly disdainful of Catholicism and do not consider Catholics to be Christians.  We're heretical spawn of Satan in Jeremy's world.  Catholicism is the largest Christian denomination in the US and, as far as Jeremy and his pals are concerned, we do not count.  They believe that only men are qualified to preach, that women aren't even permitted to teach seminarians.  That leaves out all of the denominations that ordain women and I am sure his opinion of those faiths that accept same sex relationships, let alone marriage is equally disapproving.

[Churchhoney]

56 minutes ago, doodlebug said:

I am sure his opinion of those faiths that accept same sex relationships, let alone marriage is equally disapproving.

Yes, he preached some particularly nasty, angry sermons about that too in Laredo. (He does seem to love those nasty, angry sermons...)

Among other things, he said the LGBT community is guilty of practicing "false" love. I.e., I guess, love expressed by a gay person isn't actually love at all. 

And of Christians who accept homosexual relationships as normal and don't utterly condemn them as among the worst sins, he said, "All you have to do is look at the sexual revolution pressuring them, and they cave in to a worldview that rejects God's truth and embraces popular opinion. Do you want to see the gun? Do you want to see the threatening of being burned alive? ... Look at the revolution of popular thought. Look at the postmodernism of today's culture. Look at the sexual revolution. Look at the false idea of tolerance. Look at the false definition of love."

I don't even know what that means really. It has the usual Jer level of unclarity.......(with a side of "slightly unhinged"?)

But it looks like he's saying that acceptance of homosexuality as natural and not sinful threatens society with as dire a fate as having a gun held to one's head or being burnt alive would threaten an individual? 

https://cafemom.com/entertainment/208065-jeremy_vuolo_same_sex_marriage

 

Edited December 16, 2020 by Churchhoney

[Oldernowiser]

Wow.

What an asshole.

[Suzn]

1 hour ago, Churchhoney said:

Yes, he preached some particularly nasty, angry sermons about that too in Laredo. (He does seem to love those nasty, angry sermons...)

Among other things, he said the LGBT community is guilty of practicing "false" love. I.e., I guess, love expressed by a gay person isn't actually love at all. 

And of Christians who accept homosexual relationships as normal and don't utterly condemn them as among the worst sins, he said, "All you have to do is look at the sexual revolution pressuring them, and they cave in to a worldview that rejects God's truth and embraces popular opinion. Do you want to see the gun? Do you want to see the threatening of being burned alive? ... Look at the revolution of popular thought. Look at the postmodernism of today's culture. Look at the sexual revolution. Look at the false idea of tolerance. Look at the false definition of love."

I don't even know what that means really. It has the usual Jer level of unclarity.......(with a side of "slightly unhinged"?)

But it looks like he's saying that acceptance of homosexuality as natural and not sinful threatens society with as dire a fate as having a gun held to one's head or being burnt alive would threaten an individual? 

https://cafemom.com/entertainment/208065-jeremy_vuolo_same_sex_marriage

 

I knew his position on homosexuality but it is good to read his actual words and be reminded of the hatefulness he holds.  It is so at odds with the superficial image he projects and I doubt that many people that see that superficial image have any idea what a monster he is.  I have to say there is an element of he 'doth protest too much" because the way in which he seems with his male friends always look slightly like sexual attraction.

[Oldernowiser]

2 minutes ago, Suzn said:

I have to say there is an element of he 'doth protest too much" because the way in which he seems with his male friends always look slightly like sexual attraction.

This. He seems to get much more enthused by Cade or a new blazer than he does by Jinger, no matter how blonde she gets.

Nothing nastier than a closet case with a pulpit.

1 hour ago, Churchhoney said:

Do you want to see the gun? Do you want to see the threatening of being burned alive? ... Look at the revolution of popular thought. Look at the postmodernism of today's culture. Look at the sexual revolution. Look at the false idea of tolerance. Look at the false definition of love."

I have read this three times and it still makes no sense.

If they’re counting on his preaching to get them by, they’re going to starve to death.

[Tikichick]

1 hour ago, Churchhoney said:

Yes, he preached some particularly nasty, angry sermons about that too in Laredo. (He does seem to love those nasty, angry sermons...)

Among other things, he said the LGBT community is guilty of practicing "false" love. I.e., I guess, love expressed by a gay person isn't actually love at all. 

And of Christians who accept homosexual relationships as normal and don't utterly condemn them as among the worst sins, he said, "All you have to do is look at the sexual revolution pressuring them, and they cave in to a worldview that rejects God's truth and embraces popular opinion. Do you want to see the gun? Do you want to see the threatening of being burned alive? ... Look at the revolution of popular thought. Look at the postmodernism of today's culture. Look at the sexual revolution. Look at the false idea of tolerance. Look at the false definition of love."

I don't even know what that means really. It has the usual Jer level of unclarity.......(with a side of "slightly unhinged"?)

But it looks like he's saying that acceptance of homosexuality as natural and not sinful threatens society with as dire a fate as having a gun held to one's head or being burnt alive would threaten an individual? 

https://cafemom.com/entertainment/208065-jeremy_vuolo_same_sex_marriage

 

My take on his words is a little different.   Remembering that it's a lot of hyperbole clearly intending to convince by inflaming strong emotions and fear, I could be wrong, but I think he's suggesting that people are being threatened at gunpoint or the potential of being burned alive if they don't accept LGBT/homosexuality as acceptable and right.  

[Oldernowiser]

4 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

My take on his words is a little different.   Remembering that it's a lot of hyperbole clearly intending to convince by inflaming strong emotions and fear, I could be wrong, but I think he's suggesting that people are being threatened at gunpoint or the potential of being burned alive if they don't accept LGBT/homosexuality as acceptable and right.  

Ironically, I have never been accosted by anyone with a gun or a Bic lighter who demanded to know if I support gay rights. Which I do.

However, I have been accosted several times by someone holding a Bible, getting in my face, and demanding to know if I’ve accepted Jesus Christ as my personal savior.

Go figure. 

[Zella]

.

Edited December 16, 2020 by Zella

[Churchhoney]

26 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

My take on his words is a little different.   Remembering that it's a lot of hyperbole clearly intending to convince by inflaming strong emotions and fear, I could be wrong, but I think he's suggesting that people are being threatened at gunpoint or the potential of being burned alive if they don't accept LGBT/homosexuality as acceptable and right.  

Yeah, I think maybe that was it. There are some words omitted in the quote I used.

I listened to the sermon soon after he gave it and heard them.....and I think I had a better idea of what he meant at that time......Don't remember the omitted words though, and I'm not going to listen again! .... 

Now that you say this, though, I think that the omitted part probably pointed toward the meaning you're suggesting here. 

So.....by objecting to the acceptance of homosexuality, true Christians (like him) are opening themselves up to Inquisition-level tortures at the hands of the ebil tyrannical liberals who want to destroy society and flout God and are persecuting Vuolos, MacArthurs, Duggars, etc., in order to enforce their rotten tolerance and suchlike beliefs. 

That's even worse! 

Edited December 16, 2020 by Churchhoney

[Tikichick]

58 minutes ago, Oldernowiser said:

Ironically, I have never been accosted by anyone with a gun or a Bic lighter who demanded to know if I support gay rights. Which I do.

However, I have been accosted several times by someone holding a Bible, getting in my face, and demanding to know if I’ve accepted Jesus Christ as my personal savior.

Go figure. 

To be clear, I'm not saying that's happening or even should be legitimately anticipated in the sense of reality of life as we know it in everyday American society.   My take is he's trying to whip up fear and anger to motivate "true believers"/self righteous zealots to attempt to shut down the freedoms and ideas of others.   I may be wrong, but I felt that's the strategy behind his words. 

ETA  In full disclosure, I am a Christian who would not be considered a true believer in Jeremy's understanding of faith.   I also don't accost people and demand they tell me their stance or beliefs regarding Jesus Christ or that they listen to mine.   I will discuss it with someone who expresses an interest or asks a question if the time and place are appropriate to that kind of conversation -- not appropriate at work, etc.   

Edited December 16, 2020 by Tikichick

[Zella]

And that right there is exactly why Jeremy doesn't push back when his influencer deals are cancelled. Because the people reporting him to companies for being a bigoted asshole aren't wrong. And he knows it. 

[Churchhoney]

2 hours ago, Tikichick said:

To be clear, I'm not saying that's happening or even should be legitimately anticipated in the sense of reality of life as we know it in everyday American society.   My take is he's trying to whip up fear and anger to motivate "true believers"/self righteous zealots to attempt to shut down the freedoms and ideas of others.   I may be wrong, but I felt that's the strategy behind his words. 

 

Yeah, as I now (vaguely) remember the actual sermon as preached, he was doing exactly this. And this was the main kind of emotional appeal and rhetorical activity that appeared in his sermons. 

Don't know how he preaches now, but in the Laredo sermons I heard he'd mostly just drone on. And then, in many of the sermons, he'd start trying to inflame the congregation's fear and anger to galvanize them into a fighting force for their faith, with some sort of depiction like this (or like his "Laredo is overrun with the demonic hordes of Catholics" pitch) 

 Never saw enough of the congregation's response in the videos to have an opinion of whether this kind of thing worked for him. But it did seem that this kind of pretty negative rhetoric was a staple for him, while his other main staple seemed to be kind of toneless droning. It definitely makes clear why the MacArthur heavy-judgment format appeals to Jer. He knew what he was getting into there, as he knew what he was getting into when he married into the Duggars. He's naturally sympathetic to the most annoying traits and beliefs of both, I think. 

And in the Laredo days, at least, he didn't have a very big toolbox of persuasive techniques or aspects of Christianity he spoke of.  That'll limit the kinds of churches he can -- or will want to -- be employed by, I think. 

Edited December 16, 2020 by Churchhoney

[DangerousMinds]

4 hours ago, Churchhoney said:

Yes, he preached some particularly nasty, angry sermons about that too in Laredo. (He does seem to love those nasty, angry sermons...)

Among other things, he said the LGBT community is guilty of practicing "false" love. I.e., I guess, love expressed by a gay person isn't actually love at all. 

And of Christians who accept homosexual relationships as normal and don't utterly condemn them as among the worst sins, he said, "All you have to do is look at the sexual revolution pressuring them, and they cave in to a worldview that rejects God's truth and embraces popular opinion. Do you want to see the gun? Do you want to see the threatening of being burned alive? ... Look at the revolution of popular thought. Look at the postmodernism of today's culture. Look at the sexual revolution. Look at the false idea of tolerance. Look at the false definition of love."

I don't even know what that means really. It has the usual Jer level of unclarity.......(with a side of "slightly unhinged"?)

But it looks like he's saying that acceptance of homosexuality as natural and not sinful threatens society with as dire a fate as having a gun held to one's head or being burnt alive would threaten an individual? 

https://cafemom.com/entertainment/208065-jeremy_vuolo_same_sex_marriage

 

Does he realize the “sexual revolution “ took place on the 60s? I am so confused.

[DangerousMinds]

2 hours ago, Churchhoney said:

Yeah, I think maybe that was it. There are some words omitted in the quote I used.

I listened to the sermon soon after he gave it and heard them.....and I think I had a better idea of what he meant at that time......Don't remember the omitted words though, and I'm not going to listen again! .... 

Now that you say this, though, I think that the omitted part probably pointed toward the meaning you're suggesting here. 

So.....by objecting to the acceptance of homosexuality, true Christians (like him) are opening themselves up to Inquisition-level tortures at the hands of the ebil tyrannical liberals who want to destroy society and flout God and are persecuting Vuolos, MacArthurs, Duggars, etc., in order to enforce their rotten tolerance and suchlike beliefs. 

That's even worse! 

Except we don’t want to burn or torture them in any way. I just want him to shut up 🤣.  And not even that - I don’t care what he says as long as I don’t have to hear it. And as long as he doesn’t try to push or legislate his beliefs on anyone else.

Edited December 16, 2020 by DangerousMinds

[Churchhoney]

5 minutes ago, DangerousMinds said:

Does he realize the “sexual revolution “ took place on the 60s? I am so confused.

Shows you what a hip contemporary guy he is. 

And how intellectual and well informed. 

[DangerousMinds]

2 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

Shows you what a hip contemporary guy he is. 

And how intellectual and well informed. 

Unless there was another sexual revolution I never heard about! 🤣