Say Anything Blog

No way! I don’t bekieve I will be clicking on to check that out. That is reeeeeeally sick. Hollyweird is getting weirder everyday!

He was a conservative who was turned from the dark side by 9/11!  He started questioning the government and listening to left-wing radio!  The next thing you know he was boinking horses!  It’s all very fascinating!

Man this is weird, I love Brokeback Mountain, I’ve must have seen it a zillion times, the horses are just so....you know.

Have you guys seen this one yet? Great acting.

---

“We have a dollar that’s adjusting and I am for a strong dollar.....
Our dollar doesn’t buy as many barrels of oil as it used to and so therefore it’s more expensive for the American people”..... Bush 3/12/08

Old, Mark.  We had those photoshops up a while ago.

Zsa Zsa, don’t worry.  The links in this post don’t go anywhere gross.

---

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Well that’s comforting… What is with Hollywood?

Don’t forget—both the NEA and PBS underwrite Sundance to the tune of hundreds of thousands of your tax dollars.

Why?  So perverts can be perverts.

---

[Feet make good soup!]

PS: Rob, i don’t get the “college” link… unless it’s just an advertisement that pays you when I click through…

Am I missing something there?

---

[Feet make good soup!]

Oh shit—spammers have attacked SayAnythingBlog and inserted pay-per-hover links all over the damn place!  Rob must be being held hostage somewhere in san diego!

Help!

---

[Feet make good soup!]

Marty, when you’re contributing to some of the bandwidth expenses around here you can complain about the ads.

---

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

The monied elites fascination with perversion is an old, old story.  Marquis de Sade ring a bell?

Nah, i can complain about the ads any old time, can’t i?

---

[Feet make good soup!]

This is not the first time I have heard of this case, or openly discussed this topic. I wrote a paper for school which also included bestiality, covering the topic of the death of right and wrong.

Peter Singer, the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, has written that if the animal is not harmed, it is ethical to engage in sex with animals.

Yes you read that correctly, a professor of ethics who holds a chair posistion is telling the world that it is ethical to have sex with the family pet.

The reason I bring this up is because the liberal gay activists who are working so stridently to dilute the sacrament of marriage will say all day long that they are not doing just that. So when you point out that polygamy and interspecies marriage are the next steps in their bizarre logic, they deny deny deny.

However with even the simplest of examinations of this flawed logic, we find that movies are produced, people advocate for the sexualization of animals, and slowly we are starting to find instances of human animal marriage.

From Wikipedia “June 2003 - a nine year old Indian girl of the Santal (or ‘Santhal’ tribe of Khanyhan, near Calcutta was formally married to a dog, in order to ward off a bad omen.” Search on human-animal marriage. Another quote from the same article; “February 2006 - a Sudanese man caught having sex with a neighbor’s goat, was ordered by the council of elders to pay the neighbor a dowry of 5,000 Sudanese diners ($50) and marry the animal.”

Why not one more quote; “June 2006 - an Indian woman from Bhubaneswar, Orissa, who “who fell in love with a snake”, married the reptile at a “traditional Hindu wedding celebrated by 2,000 guests”. She claimed a bond of understanding of a kind existed between the two. The woman had previously been ill, and recovered upon offering the snake milk, during which time she fell in love. She later “converted to the animal-loving vegetarian Vaishnav sect whose local elders gave her permission to marry the cobra.”

Not only has ‘Hollywood’ lost its mind, its way and its common sense, so has the liberal elite, leadership, and the amoral among that particular side of the aisle.

Many of them, will scoff and say its blown out of proportion, or some such clagg, but in reality it is very true and of course very alarming. The same dips who think same sex marriage are just one line in the sand away from accepting one more aspect of cultural and moral decay. How far is it from a “crazy old man or woman” who wants to marry his pet dog to be happy, to someone else convoluting it into a ‘romantic relationship with his horse’?  I know for a fact that the PETA lunatics believe animals should have certain legal standing.

We are witnessing the decay of our culture, step by step, inch by inch, and every one of us pays for the failings of our society. Families suffer, and for what? So we can be ‘tolerant’ and say you can marry the same sex? You can have two wives? You can marry a goat or a dog? It’s okay to have sex with them.

It is not always easy to do the right thing, and I certainly don’t always succeed at ‘standing on the high ground’, but it is important, and we should all try. Luckily for everyone, what to do and how to do it is laid out in the bible.

I am out of time but look forward to reading more responses!

C.

Um, first of all this film is not a Hollywood film. It’s a Seattle film through and through. I’m not sure which of these two bastions of depravity you guys hate more, Sodom-Hollywood or Gommorrah-Seattle, but I just wanted to get that fact straightened out before you go on blaming this on Hollywood. I mean, get real: Hollywood is so gun-shy about this kind of thing that they won’t touch this movie with a 10-foot pole.

So anyway, on to your analysis:

He was a conservative who was turned from the dark side by 9/11!  He started questioning the government and listening to left-wing radio!  The next thing you know he was boinking horses!  It’s all very fascinating!

You don’t make any sense at all. You are blinded by your conservative-victim mentality, looking for liberal attacks around every corner and seeing them when they’re not there. Listen to yourself: You’re saying that a liberal filmmaker was arguing that it’s a good thing that this guy converted from conservatism to liberalism and then to horse-fucking? That’s nuts, man: you are nuts for interpreting his statement that way.

What the filmmaker was saying was, essentially “This guy listened to a lot of nut-jobs on the radio, and then he went nuts.” He wasn’t saying anything perjorative about conservatism at all.

You conservatives have come full circle, it seems, and have fully adopted the victim-culture that exemplified liberalism in the 1980s and 1990s, imagining that you are an oppressed minority and that everyone is trying to keep you down. I guess it all started under Clinton when you guys started becoming just as afraid of the government as the hippies used to be, but now it seems like you’re just afraid of everything.

Finally:

The monied elites fascination with perversion is an old, old story.  Marquis de Sade ring a bell?

“Monied elites”? I’d say “everybody”. This is not much of a left vs. right thing, nor a rich vs. poor thing. In fact, I would guess that there aren’t a whole lot of monied elites downloading horse-fucking videos from the Internet.

Conservatives are fascinated by perversion as much as anyone else. The difference is that liberals pretend to be merely “interested” in it as a subject of investigation, while conservatives pretend that they are disgusted by it. But in reality, both sides of the spectrum are fascinated by it and both participate in it and consume it.

Which, of course, is the whole reason why an article about horse-fucking is posted on this blog—because conservatives are fascinated by it.

Which, of course, is the whole reason why an article about horse-fucking is posted on this blog—because conservatives are fascinated by it.

Great analysis there, Freud. It’s posted here because it’s worthy of comment and criticism. I doubt very seriously if the left wing blogs would dare point at this and say that it’s wrong. Their attitude is that anything goes, anything is alright.

By the way, are you defending this piece of crap or are you just taking this opportunity to attack conservatives? If that’s the case then you need to sharpen your skills a bit.

Conservatives are fascinated by perversion as much as anyone else

This may be true. I don’t think lefties have cornered the market on porn BUT....bestiality is beyond a simple perversion. Call me old fashioned but I think that anyone who indulges themselves with sex with animals is mentally ill, not just kinked up with personal fetishes.

It’s not alright. It’s twisted and sick. Why would ANYONE think that making this guy’s freakish, twisted life into a movie was a good idea?

---

Election ‘08 - We Are So Screwed

Chris Brownell:

Peter Singer, the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, has written that if the animal is not harmed, it is ethical to engage in sex with animals.

Why do you disagree? It’s okay for humans to slaughter animals if it increases their pleasure, but not have sex with them? You aren’t making any sense.

Why do you want to deny humans pleasure?

Dave,

I hope you’re being sarcastic. If not, see my above post for an answer to your question:

Why do you want to deny humans pleasure?

Then see a shrink.

---

Election ‘08 - We Are So Screwed

Um, first of all this film is not a Hollywood film.

it was one of 16 winners at the prestigious Sundance Film Festival.

FYI The Sundance Film Festival is not in Hollywood, either. Perhaps the title “Hollywood Has Lost It’s Flipping Mind” refers to the film making industry and not its geographical location.  (See: “duh!")

---

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

Conservatives are fascinated by perversion as much as anyone else. The difference is that liberals pretend to be merely “interested” in it as a subject of investigation, while conservatives pretend that they are disgusted by it. But in reality, both sides of the spectrum are fascinated by it and both participate in it and consume it.

That’s a pretty shallow analysis.  Of course people in all areas of the political spectrum can and will be tempted by perversion.  But you seem to make a few logical fallacies: 1) That does not mean that everyone in a particular political group will be fascinated and 2) it does not mean that those on the conservative side are hypocrites because a few conservatives might be.

There is a real difference that you point out and twist for your purposes.  Yes, most on the liberal side will accept the perversion, not necessarily because they are fascinated with it, but because they are interested in removing the mores and norms that have served our society for thousands of years.  Conservatives on the other hand understand that their is right and wrong, and work towards keeping the mores and norms that keep society from falling apart.  Sure, all conservatives are tempted by the pleasures of the flesh, and some may be tempted by bestiality, but that does not mean that they do not know the difference between right and wrong or that they will automatically give in to their desires.  And the few who give in to their desires while professing disgust will be rightfully excoriated as hypocrites.  You’ll be hard pressed to find anyone on the conservative side who defended Ted Haggard.

It’s purely happenstance, of course, that a Leftist Psychologist would showcase pervsion as being okay, and to go even further, assert that we have to separate is from ought (i.e. discard our established morals) .

Hollywood, the cultural Left, those who tell our kids what is cool or not, maiking the music and the films, at soirees and wine-and-cheese ataliers, showcasing art like Piss Christ(*) and writing subtle socialist sitcoms, work to destroy Christian concepts of Right and Wrong and are the leading Moral Corrosive in the world today.

A couple years back it was underage sex with a girl in the film Lolita.  Last year is was homosexual cowboys.  Beastiality is just the latest in a constant descent into amorality championed by the entertainment industry.

Soon, if it hasn’t happened already, the film industry will release a cinematic masterpiece, a tour de force, hawking the joys and rightness of love between a man and a young boy.

* (http://www.freedomszone.com /archives/2006/09/ why_is_a_piss_christ_okay_but.php)

---

...for great justice

You’ll be hard pressed to find anyone on the conservative side who defended Ted Haggard.

Excellent point.

---

Election ‘08 - We Are So Screwed

Move_Zig, I don’t know about the “boy” part, but there was a movie with Nicole Kidman a year or so back about a woman with a boy, and then there’s the recent Dakota Fanning rape scene.

Gosh, and Hollywood wonders why I’m not buying tickets…

As long as the animal is not experiencing any pain, why would one object to bestiality? I don’t understand where you guys are coming from on this issue. It’s obvious you don’t care at all about the welfare of the animals, so why would you care what a guy wants to do with his pets in the privacy of his own home?

As long as the animal is not experiencing any pain, why would one object to bestiality?

What’s the matter, Dave? Can’t get a date?

---

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

Dave,

Just because something is legal or doesn’t harm another human or cause pain to an animal doesn’t make it right.  That’s the same logical fallacy that liberals have been trying to foist on us since the 60s.  We could legalize cocaine, marijuana and heroin for all I care, that still doesn’t make snorting cocaine right or a good thing to do.  And I still wouldn’t want the entertainment industry glorifying drug use.

It’s really funny, because on one end of the liberal spectrum, you’ve got the, “hey, man if it doesn’t hurt the horse who cares,” attitude and at the other end you’ve got the, “we gotta outlaw french fries because people are making themselves fat.” Y’all crack me up.

Eeeeeeeeeeeeuooeoooeeeooooooooowah!

What’s the matter, Dave? Can’t get a date?

This thread is GOLD! There’s sooo much here!

As long as the animal is not experiencing any pain, why would one object to bestiality?

Dave, when I think about a guy screwing a chicken up it poop/egg hole, I feel there may be reasons to illegalize it besides the discomfort of the chicken which, in reality, is something unavailable to us. We don’t know if its in pain. That unavailability, coupled with you compassion (or is it cum-passion?) for animals, should be enough to object to bestiality.
This is GOLD too:

You are blinded by your conservative-victim mentality, looking for liberal attacks around every corner and seeing them when they’re not there. Listen to yourself: You’re saying that a liberal filmmaker was arguing that it’s a good thing that this guy converted from conservatism to liberalism and then to horse-fucking?

You conservatives have come full circle, it seems, and have fully adopted the victim-culture that exemplified liberalism in the 1980s and 1990s, imagining that you are an oppressed minority and that everyone is trying to keep you down. I guess it all started under Clinton when you guys started becoming just as afraid of the government as the hippies used to be, but now it seems like you’re just afraid of everything.

Bomb everything! Before it threatens our American way of life. Everything is a socialist conspiracy! Everything is unconstitutional too! Its only a matter of time before Everything strikes again domestically. The leftists are god-less Everything sympathizers; aiders and comforters. Hee hee hee.

---

We don’t know if its in pain.

Yeah, well this thread is causing me pain, therefore it must be wrong.  Please cease and desist before I adopt a victim mentality

Dave, it’s called “contrary to nature,” and I guess we might say the same thing about the poor guy’s evident encouragement, “Air America” type radio.

Never mind the basic fact that this guy’s perversion killed him.  Doesn’t that count as something that, even in Fred Singer’s purple-sunned world, just might be seen as bad?

electnixon is offended! everyone shut up. this is totally not republican correct (RC) speech. let’s encourage informal sanctions against anyone who uses non-RC speech.

---

Sparkie:

I feel there may be reasons to illegalize it besides the discomfort of the chicken

Mind telling us what they are? Beyond a desire to rid humans of as much pleasure as possible, of course.

Dave
The chicken has no means to consent to sexual relations. Just because it puts its ass in the air when it pecks the dirt does not nec. entail consent to sex.

You seem to imply that I have a

desire to rid humans of as much pleasure as possible

…
Personally I see it as a slippery slope issue. Its a slippery slope to a society where people lay around raping pigs and chickens all day. We don’t want that now do we?

---

The chicken has no means to consent to sexual relations.

So raping animals drives you up the wall, but slaughtering them is just okey-dokey. Mr. Consistency strikes again!

The chicken has no means to consent to sexual relations. = Joke

---

Have any of you considered the possibility that the movie might not actually be a defense of this guy? It might simply be a portrait of a wacked-out crazy person, and might not glorify the guy at all. I’ll bet the filmmakers want you to come away from it thinking “Damn, that guy’s a nut job”. That’s pretty much what I assume it is—why on earth do you people assume otherwise.

Homosexuality is indeed acceptable by liberals. We think gay people are fine, and that they hurt nobody and that they don’t scare us. Pedophilia and bestiality are not acceptable by liberals. If you think otherwise—if you think we liberals think bestiality is okay—you’re a freaking delusional lunatic.

Where on earth do you people get that sort of idea? That would be the equivalent of me thinking that you conservatives think that all homosexuals should be shot, that Christianity should be made the official national faith, that pollution is good for the earth, that children should be taught that the Earth is 6000 years old, and that we should nuke everybody in every urban center on earth from New York to Paris to Cairo. It’s an ignorant and frankly childish stereotype of the left and it’s sad that you let such an irrational beleif shape your politics.

Strangely, many of you are confusing libertarians (like Peter Singer, the Professor mentioned above, or like the commenter named “Dave”, who seems a little nuts to me) with liberals. Peter Singer, and anyone who would actually rise up to defend horse-fucking, are not liberals. They are libertarians, a position which spans the liberal/conservative divide fairly equally.

Perhaps the title “Hollywood Has Lost It’s Flipping Mind” refers to the film making industry and not its geographical location.  (See: “duh!")

The whole point of Sundance is to have a film festival in which films that the “film making industry” would not support. Most of the hundreds of films that participate in Sundance, and most of the ones that win awards, do not get any support or distribution from any major film industry entity or corporation. Thus my statement that it is not a Hollywood film, neither geographically nor culturally. In short, I was not stupidly referring to Hollywood as a geographical location, I was using the term in the same way you were. So take you “duh” and shove it.

Of course people in all areas of the political spectrum can and will be tempted by perversion.  But you seem to make a few logical fallacies: 1) That does not mean that everyone in a particular political group will be fascinated and 2) it does not mean that those on the conservative side are hypocrites because a few conservatives might be.

Nice use of the “straw man” argument (a classic fallacy, by the way)! I never said either of those things. Have fun arguing against your imaginary big mean liberal enemy, but please leave me out of it unless you are going to argue against things that I actually said.

You’ll be hard pressed to find anyone on the conservative side who defended Ted Haggard.

That is not an “excellent point” at all. It’s a stupid point: Again, you’d be hard pressed to find anyone on the liberal side to defend Mr. Horse Fucker. The analogy is just dumb. Your weird idea that liberals are somehow defending the horse-fucker is completely a figment of your collective victimist imaginations.

The chicken has no means to consent to sexual relations.

Does that means Dave can stop buying them flowers and candy?

---

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

Your weird idea that liberals are somehow defending the horse-fucker is completely a figment of your collective victimist imaginations.

Spoken like a true horse-fucker…

---

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

Where on earth do you people get that sort of idea?

“you people”?? Sounds like you’ve got a nice little straw man of your own going on! There’s a wide variety of thought at Say Anything. Maybe you could try arguing against things that individuals here actually said.

(Unless by “you people” you meant to say “ewe people” and I wouldn’t dream of coming between you and your girlfriend!)

---

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

So raping animals drives you up the wall, but slaughtering them is just okey-dokey. Mr. Consistency strikes again!

I think the one who is being inconsistent is you, Davey.  You’re the one who equates eating hamburgers with the holocaust and house pets with slaves, yet here you are just fine with bestiality.

What a clown you are.

---

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

“you people”?? Sounds like you’ve got a nice little straw man of your own going on! There’s a wide variety of thought at Say Anything.

Um, I mean the people who on this very page expressed the precise ideas I was describing (people who “think we liberals think bestiality is okay") in the paragraph immediately previous.

I didn’t say “conservatives”. I didn’t say “all Say Anything commenters”. Those would be 100% straw-men, and if I had written either of those things your strawman accusation would be valid. But, instead, you’ve pulled off a strawmen yourself, accusing me of saying something I didn’t say. Nice!

“You people”, as should be obvious to anyone familiar with common English language rhetorical tropes, referred to the people who actually posted statements consistent with the idea that liberals approve of horse-fucking. Shall I enumerate who specifically I was thinking of? Okay, I will: Rob, Marty, kbiel, Chris Brownell, Pilgrim, Move_Zig, Robert Perry. All of these people explicitly said that they think that liberals support horse-fucking. Which is insane. You (Proof) have not actually said that you beleive that liberals think horse-fucking is okay, but based on your reaction I am guessing that you felt the remark was addressed to you, too. But I can’t tell. In the end, however, it’s not a straw man when I argue against things people have actually said to the people who actually said them.

You’re the one who equates eating hamburgers with the holocaust and house pets with slaves, yet here you are just fine with bestiality.

I see no reason to object to bestiality so long as the animal does not experience any pain. Why would I? Why do you?

You people always make that argument!

---

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

I see no reason to object to bestiality

That way Dave can get rejected by more than one species…

---

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

Dave, Please think about what you are saying. That is disgusting and WRONG in everyway imaginable!

Dave, Please think about what you are saying. That is disgusting and WRONG in everyway imaginable!

That’s our Dave!

---

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

---

Rob, Sorry to post this here, but the contact form wasn’t working…
Man!  You sure have your hands full!  Nevetheless, thought you might find food for thought here:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Yates/steven.htm

and here:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43820

Again, sorry to interrupt.

BTW, Planned Parenthood and PETA officials have stated that they think sex with animals is a good thing, except with chickens, as it kills the chicken.

It seems that we have gotten our mose terrible diseases from having sex with animals - doesn’t that in itself kind of settle the issue?

zsazsa:

Dave, Please think about what you are saying. That is disgusting and WRONG in everyway imaginable!

I am thinking about it. I never really bought into the conservative line of reasoning: “If it’s gross, let’s make it illegal!”. Until someone can point out who specifically gets harmed by bestiality, I see no reason to punish people who engage in it.

I see no reason to object to bestiality so long as the animal does not experience any pain. Why would I? Why do you?

Well, looking at it from your perspective, we are supposed to treat animals like we’d treat humans.  Given that animals don’t have the mental capacity to consent to sex, having relations with an animal is about equivalent to molesting a mentally handicapped person.  Or a coma patient.

Not that you’re actually serious about this line of thinking.  I suspect you’re just put this argument forward for the shock value.

---

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

It seems that we have gotten our mose terrible diseases from having sex with animals

oh have we? speak for yourself jspin!

doesn’t that in itself kind of settle the issue?

diseases from your encounters with animals does add credibility. i’m convinced.

---

Sir, I personally have never had a sexual encounter with another species.  I was talking about “us” as a species. 
But, it was a good zinger!

BTW, Planned Parenthood and PETA officials have stated that they think sex with animals is a good thing, except with chickens, as it kills the chicken.

Bullshit. You are a liar.

Prove me wrong.

And, just for the record, PETA is not a “liberal” organization. I’m not saying that jSpin said they were, but others above have implied as much. Most of us liberals think PETA is crazy.

OK, Chris, I’ll see if I can find it - I was just reading it this AM, but didn’t keep the site, so be patient.  About the liar thing - I try my best never to do so, or were you referring to killing the chicken (personal experience and all...)? 

(Boy , I hope this guy has a sense of humor!)

Chistopher Fahey! Its true, none of the libs I know fuck horses or encourage horse fucking or even think horse fucking is ok.

Still, the horse fucking fascination does lurk… the movie, Dave, jspin’s rashes, bizarre internet porn sites, that Russain Czarina who was killed trying to fuck a horse when the crane broke and they dropped it on her… woah. Moral is… Girl horse fuckers: Don’t employ cranes during your ‘pleasure time’.

You really gotta wonder about those old maids with all the dogs and cats that buy a lot of creamy peanut butter… I think, Dave, if you keep your blinds closed, you can get away with quite a bit. Might want to go out and get some Skippy, Skippy!

---

jspin, my email address is .  I know that contact link doesn’t work...I’ve been trying to fix it.

---

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Hah.

This thread brings a whole new connotation to the phrase ‘Cowpoke. ‘

The Left are dancing around this issue, and at least one is coming right out and doing their best imitation of Dr. Ruth and saying in effect that ‘”iff zee chikken likes eet und no-vun iss hurt, zen it is okay. ”

But it’s not okay.

Ours is a Judeo-Christian society with laws that stem from morality, and morality which stems from our Bible—this country having at least a 90 percent population claiming nominal Christian affiliation. 

It goes without saying that we have moral imperitives against having sex with animals, those of the same sex, those related too closely by blood (cosanguinity) and those too young, or too mentally infirm to be legally able to form consent.

It is no secret that it is the Left in it’s long march through the institutions wants to destroy religion as a guiding light.  That is not a theory, that is not for tinfoil-hatted conspiricists.  That is and has been the long-term objective of the Left. 

Once religion has been so defamed, so corrupted, so marginalized as to having no moral legitimacy, the Left are free to substitute their version of right and wrong, and this is plain for all to see on a daily basis—known to us here in the West as politically correct. If you have any doubts as to whether this is true, true venturing a Politically- Incorrect opinion in a white collar workplace or in today’s federally-controlled and Ritalin-doped schools. 

You’ll lose your job or be bounced from school.

The Left made it their business to take over the entertainment industry—and they have.  The result is daily tripe and garbage like this. 

There is no more Leave it to Beaver and heroism and manliness in the manner of John Wayne, Clint Eastwood and Charles Bronson.  Their kind are now gone from the screen, replaced by Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.

Another dodge the Left loves to take—as soon as one aspect takes on a negative connotation, is to give it a non-left label.  Here the pig-fuckingis-OK professor Pete Singer is transformed from a Leftist to a Libertarian.

PAH!

Robert Anson Heinlein would roll over in his grave.

An example of this re-labelling is WWII.  Hitler and Mussolini were Socialists. Stalin was a Socialist. But after telling the Soviet masses about the international brotherhood of socialism for so long, they couldn’t turn around and tell the workers and peasants to fight their erstwhile brothers.  The sudden change of heart took place after the joint Nazi-Soviet attack on Poland But it was the German attack on Russia—Operation Barbarossa—that really did the trick.

The Soviets couldn’t call the Nazis, their new enemies, “National Socialists” anymore.  That would cause confusion.  They adopted one of the symbols Mussolini was using to still up patriotic feelings in Italy, the old Fasces
or an old symbol of authority used by the ancient Romans.  Germans suddenly became Fascists.

What did that have to do with Germany?  Nothing, but by calling them, and any enemy, “Fascists” they had a name they could spit with contempt that didn’t have the title socialist in with the mix.

And so it is here.  The same Peter Singer offered up as an authority to say Goat Raping is Okay, is suddenly NOT Left.

But he was.

Let’s face it, the Left is the home to every power- hungrey, Earth-shoe wearing, unwashed, unshaven, dope-infested, goat-raping, boyscout molesting misfit that ever walked the Earth. 

They all get to congregate under the numerous flags and banners of the Left, where Anarchists, Tree-huggers, Rainbow- and-KY-Jellied perverts have new moral authority and validity.

Got it?

---

...for great justice

It seems that we have gotten our most terrible diseases from having sex with animals…

So it’s true then, that AIDS was started by gerbils?

---

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

So it’s true then, that AIDS was started by gerbils?

Monkeys apparently.  ONly it doesn’t kill them.

It only kills humans who have sex with monkeys (or, as it were humans who have sex with humans who have sex with monkeys).

I’m sure Chuck Darwin could explain it all to us in non-judgemental (Dave-sex approved) terms.

---

[Feet make good soup!]

Move_Zig
I thought horsefucking was a christian loophole!? I didn’t think that the bible weighed in on that one? Citation?

---

If Darwain was right..

and we are descended from Apes..

how come there are still Apes?

---

...for great justice

Chris,

You could say Singer’s take on animal rights is: You can have sex with them, but don’t eat them. How does PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, feel about its ideological father endorsing six-legged sex? PETA president Ingrid Newkirk said of the piece, “It’s daring and honest and it does not do what some people read into it, which is condone any violent acts involving an animal, sexual or otherwise.” Newkirk wants America to know that Singer does not advocate sex that kills or damages animals or requires them to be restrained. Indeed, Singer condemns sex between men and hens because it is “usually fatal to the hen.” But can an animal consent to sex?

Found it HERE, but have seen it elsewhere… will try to find the others...wish I’d thought it important earlier

Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion

Leviticus 18:23

So, for the slower among us, this means, even though your dog has given his apparent consent to ‘making love’ by humping your leg—don’t do it.

http://images.southparkstudios.com/downloads/download.php?file=/media/sounds/104/
104_dontbgay.wav

---

...for great justice

jspin,

Didn’t anyone tell the Left that you’re not supposed to play with your food?

---

...for great justice

Thanks, Move! 

This morning I found this stuff on one of Planned Parenthoods sites, but hey, I’m old and tired and it’s been a long one…

The notion of “sexual outlets” is a key component in what his disciples call the Kinsey Grand Scheme. This principle teaches six equally acceptable forms of sexual release: masturbation, nocturnal emissions, heterosexual petting, heterosexual intercourse, homosexual relations, and intercourse with animals of other species. Kinsey firmly believed that none of the forms was abnormal and each could be conducted in a healthy manner. It was only societal disapproval that caused harm. Kinsey also broadened the set of “sexual outlets” to include pedophilia. Kinsey concluded that sex with a child was healthy when both persons gave their consent. Since children are sexual from birth, he reasoned, they can benefit from any behavior that is normal and healthy.6

Kinsey had strong beliefs concerning how children should be taught about sexual issues. Along with believing that morals have no place in educating children on sex, Kinsey felt that children should be encouraged to explore their natural sexual desires.7

Although Kinsey’s research has been exposed as fraudulent, sex educators in America who are not basing their message on abstinence still use the “Kinseyan model of human sexuality."8 SIECUS and PP work jointly to ply school systems with curricula modeled on Kinsey’s research. A report by the American Legislative Exchange Council in April 2004 clearly illustrates the connection among Kinsey, SIECUS and PP. Kinsey’s studies, the report says, are “junk science” that is “taught to American children via sex education."9

HERE

You could say Singer’s take on animal rights is: You can have sex with them, but don’t eat them.

Ya think anyone ever passed this information on to Bill and Monica?

---

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Hey, Sparkie, have you read this?
Short and to the point...see what you think.

If Darwain was right..
and we are descended from Apes..
how come there are still Apes?

Move_Zig, are you joking? Do you really not understand the concept of evolution?

Chris, even Darwin admitted on his deathbed that macro-evolution was impossible.  If you want some real science about origins, there is a link in my little article about Truth

Oh, I have it…

The tune to “Doctor Dolittle’s “ If I could talk to the animals, with just a little change to the lyrics…

---

...for great justice

You could say Singer’s take on animal rights is: You can have sex with them, but don’t eat them. How does PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, feel about its ideological father endorsing six-legged sex?

First, Singer is hardly the “ideological father” of PETA, seeing as they disagree on an enormously key point: Peter Singer does not believe non-human animals have rights, while PETA does.

PETA president Ingrid Newkirk said of the piece, “It’s daring and honest and it does not do what some people read into it, which is condone any violent acts involving an animal, sexual or otherwise.” Newkirk wants America to know that Singer does not advocate sex that kills or damages animals or requires them to be restrained.

I oppose laws punishing people for actions that do not harm anyone else--victimless crimes. I oppose them because I don’t like the State restricting individual freedom. Now, since you’re all small government conservatives, why is it that you do put the State over the individual? You cry “Nanny State” when liberals ban french fries and cigarettes--do you not see that they are banning those actions for the same reasons you wish to ban bestiality? How can you not see something so obvious?

Oh my gosh, Dave! You can’t really believe having sex with an animal is not totally Twisted??? Please tell me you are kidding or are saying this just for shock value? Being a vegetarian is one thing BUT having sex with animals is quite another!

I think bestiality is gross. I also think anal sex is gross. Since neither action harms anyone else, I don’t want the government to ban them--I support individual freedom. You don’t.

I think bestiality is gross.

Sure you do.

---

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

---

I support individual freedom. You don’t.

You’re not supporting the individual freedom of the horse, Mr. Inconsistent.

---

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs: