When we first heard of this Matt Bevin guy who's running against Mitch McConnell in the Kentucky Republican primary, the only thing we knew about him was that he was a millionaire, a tea partier, and the sort of person who calls Mitch Goddamn McConnell a big-government liberal.
The specter of parents marrying their children for tax purposes has been conjured up at least twice before, by <a href="http:\/\/gawker.com\/5993713\/jeremy-irons-thinks-gay-marriage-will-cause-fathers-to-marry-their-sons" target="_blank">Jeremy Irons</a> and <a href="http:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/society\/2013\/may\/21\/tebbit-gay-marriage-lesbian-queen" target="_blank"> Norman Tebbit</a>. Is this a thing amongst wingnuts?
More like &quot;If only you lazy reporters had anticipated the negative fallout from Mr. Bevin&#039;s words and taken corrective measures by writing something less accurate and more acceptable, none of this confusion would have occured&quot;.
&quot;<i>. . . to press for what men have always historically wanted but were rarely allowed . . . </i> Well that certainly is revealing.
Given the kinds of mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers who vote in Republican primaries here, I think McYertle should actually be concerned about Bevin. It could be a tight two-way, which of course they will both immediately come out as opposed to.
&quot;so that they can then in fact pass on certain things to that child financially and otherwise,Bevin said.&quot; We have already got that covered. It&#039;s called a Will, dipshit.
The specter of parents marrying their children for tax purposes has been conjured up at least twice before, by <a href="http:\/\/gawker.com\/5993713\/jeremy-irons-thinks-gay-marriage-will-cause-fathers-to-marry-their-sons" target="_blank">Jeremy Irons</a> and <a href="http:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/society\/2013\/may\/21\/tebbit-gay-marriage-lesbian-queen" target="_blank"> Norman Tebbit</a>. Is this a thing amongst wingnuts?
More like &quot;If only you lazy reporters had anticipated the negative fallout from Mr. Bevin&#039;s words and taken corrective measures by writing something less accurate and more acceptable, none of this confusion would have occured&quot;.
&quot;<i>. . . to press for what men have always historically wanted but were rarely allowed . . . </i> Well that certainly is revealing.
This is the test site for Hallmark&#039;s proposed line of &quot;Happy Birthday, Uncle Daddy!&quot; Cards.
Given the kinds of mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers who vote in Republican primaries here, I think McYertle should actually be concerned about Bevin. It could be a tight two-way, which of course they will both immediately come out as opposed to.
I don&#039;t know about demanding anal sex, but a lot of men do ask nicely about that option. <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/dat..." target="_blank">" rel="nofollow noopener" title="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf">http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/dat... Should we send Mark Regnerus a copy ?
&quot;so that they can then in fact pass on certain things to that child financially and otherwise,Bevin said.&quot; We have already got that covered. It&#039;s called a Will, dipshit.
He seems to be a natural at making incomprehensible and ridiculous statements. So that&#039;s something.
I give my upfist for using the word clowder.
Odd how adultery is never brought up as a threat to traditional marriage.
Or no-fault divorce.
Too late to save Oedipus.
Or the adultery leads to divorce and a second, traditional marriage. Newt and his ilk are simply being uebertraditional.
Those lying videocameras have a liberal bias.
He lost Woody Allen&#039;s vote.
It would add an interesting twist to that eternal Kentucky/Arkansas/West Virginia conundrum: If a man gets a divorce, is she still his sister?