The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

On-Topic Missouri Republican’s Controversial Remarks Regarding “Legitimate Rape”

White Eagle said:
Oh, does God talk to you? Better watch it that's how Bachmann got started.
Click to expand...

Isn't that also how Christine 'I'm not a Witch O'Donnell' learned about not rubbing one out?
 
Yves said:
The idea that rape victims cannot get pregnant has a long medical history including some medieval laws (UK)

The Science section of The Guardian has a brief article on Akin and the history of the "legitimate rape" concept. Akin might have been exposed to the concept in divinity school, adding some unsupported science later on.
Click to expand...

It is just too typical that Akin would believe some medieval clap-trap.

Does he also believe that a woman who bears twins was impregnated by her husband's brother if the husband can only record a single act of coitus that resulted in the pregnancy?

And if he is listening to the claptrap about female physiology that he learned from some boy buggerer in Theology Skool....well, don't mind me if I snort derisively.

The real problem is that he's only saying out loud what a lot of white christian Republican males are already thinking. "Bitch was asking for it...and enjoyed it...that's why she's up the stump."

Go Team Romney.
 
rareboy said:
It is just too typical that Akin would believe some medieval clap-trap.

Does he also believe that a woman who bears twins was impregnated by her husband's brother if the husband can only record a single act of coitus that resulted in the pregnancy?..
Click to expand...

Well they do believe that VIRGIN birth results in god-children.....

Not really a stretch when you take that into account.
 
Virgin births are best left to holy men, not hollow men.

There's a difference.

Not much, but polls clearly show.... lol
 
Jack Springer said:
supporters = pacs

I hope Aiken or whoever it finally is goes after Claire's past -- there is much there.

I think Aiken made a stupid statement and hope he withdrawals. Too bad the dem's were never rough on a guy like Ted Kennedy who had very little regard for women and was even involved in the death of one.
Click to expand...

No actually a candidate spending their own campaign money is different than a PAC and like I have posted numerous times no PAC has reported spending to the FEC irt your claim. You were right she did make attack ads that evidently made conservatives feel good about Akin (which is amusing in itself) but I do not see making an ad that touts demolishing medicaid, pell grants and repealing Obamacare as significantly promoting someone. In fact that is quite the opposite when you do not hold the view that those things should be eliminated. Regardless of that opinion, there was no PAC support for ads it was McCaskill campaign monies. Something the Democrats have demonstrated over and over which is being upfront with who is paying for the message versus the hidden donators to republican PACs. Oh and Romney's failure to disclose what his appointees will be required to disclose to congress should a fantasy land occur and he be elected.
 
chrisrobin said:
In an earlier post, I said I was in favor of Akin staying in the race because what he said is virtually the same as what is contained in the RNC platform. In today's NYT, Maureen Dowd expresses the same thought better than I ever could...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/o....html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120822
Click to expand...

it won't change anything either way.

palin called for a third party candidate to run against him if he refuses to bail. That wont save them either.

Claire keeps the seat, Harry keeps his job, and the senate stays in the hands of the Dems.
 
I'm going to predict that Aiken will ask that his name be removed from the ballot in a week or so when he sees no new money coming in -- he'll see the writing on the wall.

Bruner will get the nomination from the MO republican party.

Bruner is rich, McCaskill is filthy rich. The race will be tight and very dirty.

BostonPirate said:
it won't change anything either way.

palin called for a third party candidate to run against him if he refuses to bail. That wont save them either.

Claire keeps the seat, Harry keeps his job, and the senate stays in the hands of the Dems.
Click to expand...
 
^^

maybe a little -- but not much. I heard on local radio that he only got $3000 as of yesterday.

He won't appear on any talk shows in KC -- only national and a few STL ones.

He just hasn't admitted it yet. He's gone.

... maybe he thinks he's a democrat.
 
The deadline has passed. To get him off the ballot, a judge needs to convene in the process on behalf of the candidate. Also the deadline to replace his name on the ballot with a GOP committee selection has passed.

They can try to run someone against him as a third party candidate, but it would have to be a write in campaign. We all know what happens when a lawyer from each side needs to personally validate each vote... meaning they read it and concur that the write in name really belongs to whom.

Lawyers will get to decide on penmanship quality, and which ballots are valid write ins based on legibility of the handwriting... its a nightmare.

He really is the GOP candidate for that state, and its even difficult for HIM to quit now.

McCaskil will keep the seat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top