Even if one were to review a law on the Rational Basis standard of review, that means, giving the legislature the benefit of the doubt as to its validity, sex with animals would not pass the test.

We have been seeing too many animal-bourne viruses that are posing clear and present danger to human populations, be it the Avian Flu virus, known as A(H5N1), mad cow and new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, prions, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, scrapie, BSE, CJD, CWD, TME, and TSE. It is my understanding that, in one way or another, HIV-2 in Africa has jumped from monkeys to Africans.

Many of these diseases are deadly. Some have no cure. Governments are formed, under our Constitutional form of Representative government, for the common defense (Federal) and for the health, safety, morals and welfare of the people (State).

Goat-fucking, dog-fucking, horse- or-anything-other-than-opposite-sex-human-fucking has PROVEN to be a vector to deadly, and incurable diseases.

Government would be remiss should it fail to outlaw such practices on health and safety concerns alone.

But we are not relegated to just such academic concerns. Law is very much legislated morality. It is the root of all law. Does the population have a say in how societal norms that it lives under?

Yes, that is our form of government. We elect those who reflect what we believe, and — under the way it is supposed to be — they go to the state capitols, or Washington, DC to make sure it happens.

At least that’s the plan.

I see no reason, morally, legally or ethically, why the practice of sex with animals should be considered anything other than filthy, deviant — and dangerous — behaviour.

Leftists FYI,

The rest of the regulars here have a different philosophy with regard to engaging Leftists in debate. I would venture to characterize it as friendly contempt. The result is a back-and-forth discussion and a lot of points are brought out, so in that light, the debate is useful. Otherwise it’s just a bunch of Conservatives sitting around, nodding gravely in unison — which is pretty boring.

Another aspect of this back-and-forth is what I call the PeeWee Herman-Francis exchange of insults (you’re crazy, you’re stupid, you’re a liar, you’re disgusting).

While it may be true in some contexts, I don’t have all that much time, so what little time I have to engage in discussion, I like to research my position and to provide my compatriots with information they can use in their debates — intellectual ammunition if you will.

I may have said this on several other occasions on previous threads, that it’s the rare Liberal (vs. Leftist) that I will even bother to engage in discussion.

Why?

Because anyone who has any intelligence, who, after studying history and seen the repeated inconsistencies between what the Left proclaims and what happens on the ground, the slogans that they are for the Little Guy, and in real life they practice bloody totalitarianism and have slaughtered millions, my take is that person is either self-deluded or basically evil.

To understand the Left is to understand that it is evil, here on Earth. The Gulags, the Lao Gai, the Berlin Walls, the Boat Peoples, the vChekas, the KGBs, their visceral hatred for Christianity, their wholesale embracing of all forms of addiction and deviancy … all that.. If you had any understanding and comprehension, how on God’s green Earth could you say that is was good?

I see little distinction between the different brands of Socialism. The the ones in Western Europe seem more benign, but they still are based on the premise that the Government owns and rules the people, and they are but a way-station before devolving into the more malignant forms of Socialism.

So, in my mind, to argue with a Leftist is akin to arguing with a drunkard or someone who has been brain-damaged. I see it as an exercise in futility.

For this reason, I don’t normally engage a Leftist, although once in a Blue Moon, it may happen.

That is all.

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!”)

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?

jSpin, your “references” are pretty sad, and do nothing to show that you’re not a liar.

Let’s look at your original statement again:

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.

Neither of your links even comes close to proving this statement true. Some of your accusations remain entirely unaddressed. You have not shown yourself to not be a liar.

I realize that “liar” is a harsh term. But it’s accurate. Even if we give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that you didn’t make it up out of thin air, and that you indeed had a vague memory of reading somewhere that PETA and PP endorsed bestiality, it is obvious that you still felt compelled to make up some of the details of your lie: the “killing the chicken” part, the “good thing” part, and the “officials” part. None of those things is supported by your links. You made those things up to make your lie sound more interesting. But it’s still a lie.

Stripping away those details, are you even correct in your underlying implication that either organization has *any* official position in favor of bestiality? Well, going by your links, the answer is clearly no.

In order to prove your case, you would have needed to find some official quotation, page, or document from PP or PETA saying that bestiality is good. Instead you found two right-wing web sites making specious circumstantial arguments making conspiracy-theory type chains of connection between the two organizations and the concept of bestiality.

First, your PETA “evidence”: Your link was not to a PETA site, nor to a site connected to PETA, but rather you linked to a right-wing web site quoting a conservative columnist from the liberal-leaning San Francisco Chronicle. The article is about how Peter Singer thinks bestiality is not immoral. He does not say it “is a good thing”, as you claimed. He is also, it is important to note, not a PETA official, as you would need him to be to show that you are not a liar. The article quotes a real PETA official, PETA president Ingrid Newkirk, who does not endorse bestiality herself, but rather she gives an uncomfortable defense of Singer in general. She clearly falls short of saying “Singer is a nutjob, and we do not endorse anything he says”, because PETA and other animal-rights groups think his Animal Liberation book is very inspiring.

The truth is that PETA is officially against bestiality (that’s a link to an official PETA site. as is this, this, and this). The truth is that PETA aggressively lobbies for harsh punishments for animal-rapists in case after case. The truth is that PETA is officially against bestiality. This is the opposite of what you were suggesting. You lied.

Your accusation, and your puny “evidence”, is the equivalent of (for example) holding George W. Bush accountable for his grandfather’s politics. Grandpa Bush was a big time supporter of Planned Parenthood, and was an open advocate of eugenics.

— more in next comment —

The difference between humans, and animals, is our sentience.

Aside from beastiality being disgusting and a major threat to our health as a species, it is downright stupid. What is the real difference between us and animals if we follow such base insticts and channel them into things like that? There’s no logic, no sense, nothing that makes us human in this.

Personally I think any person that would do that in any way is severely mentally ill.

California Homosexual Organization Admits HIV/AIDS is “Gay Disease”

By Gudrun Schultz

LOS ANGELES, California, October 4, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) — The Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center has abandoned a long-held homosexual activist contention by declaring on billboards posted throughout Southern California that HIV/AIDS is a “gay disease.”

According to a report by the Los Angeles Times, the Center is trying to address rapidly increasing HIV infection rates among the homosexual population by rallying the gay community to increasing vigilance against exposure to the disease. Activists for the homosexual lifestyle have, until this current development, strongly, and sometimes vehemently refused to admit that the disease is predominantly generated among homosexual men.

The ad campaign, which is also running in magazines, is in part a response to the findings of public health officials, who have noted that three out of four cases of HIV infections are found in men who engage in homosexual activity, the United Press International reported.

In 2005 US health officials reported an alarming eight percent increase in HIV infection rates in one year alone among homosexual and bisexual men. The Center for Disease Control also warned that a survey of 15-29 year old men who engaged in homosexual activity “reported that the proportion of unrecognized HIV infection was as high as 77 %.”

A report by the Public Health Agency of Canada, released in August 2006, revealed a sharp increase in HIV/AIDS infections, with 51 percent of infections found in men engaging in homosexual activity.

See the ]CDC’s report:

Yes, but in Africa, more women are getting AIDs. Here’s a theory:

This explanation— that African women are infected by rapacious men —may be convincing to the radical feminist mind, but it completely begs the question. Why does HIV in Africa disproportionately strike women?

The answer lies in the medical transmission of HIV/AIDS. The public health sector in many African countries has simply collapsed. African clinics are short of almost everything, from vaccines and malaria tablets to rubber gloves and needles. Little, if any, care is available to African men and women ill with malaria and other tropical diseases. Medical equipment, such as syringes, surgical instruments, and manual vacuum aspirators, cannot be properly disinfected before they are reused. The local blood supply is unreliable.

Bottom line, the Bible laid out behaviour that was dangerous and food which was ‘unclean’ which has subsequently been shown to make good medical sense.

Those seeking, so pugnaciously, to say that screwing a pig or goat is just peachy, ask us to overlook the vary real medical dangers of having sex with another species presents.

If they could just contract a fatal disease and keep it to themselves, I would say ‘have at it’ and we’ll consider them for the next round of Darwin Awards as they die pustulent, cancerous deaths -bye-bye.

But, they can’t and they don’t. With their deviant behaviour they endanger us all and, at the very least, as NotAmused has so cogently pointed out, they heavily burden us all in many other ways.

Society is well-advised to maintain this deviant and perverted behaviour as deviant and perverted. If it’s not criminalized in whichever jurisdiction, it should be.

Whoever said I was a conservative? Currently, I have several impulses I would LOVE to act on… If not for the fact that I have an understanding of what the effects would do to myself, and others.

Dave, all you have said so far gives me the impression that what YOU want, is the freedom to do anything without considering the consequences that effect other people as a whole. It’s the same thing with those people that have HIV, HIV-2, AIDS, or Genital Herpes, do when they keep on spreading the viruses. It’s,

“Oh damn, I have a virus, I hope it doesn’t spread to all the people I plan to have sex with in the future.”

This attitude is what spreads the viruses. No self control, and a ton of selfishness.

I trust robert108… I’ll choose to believe him, despite his not offering any reasons to do so.

NotAmused:

Currently, I have several impulses I would LOVE to act on… If not for the fact that I have an understanding of what the effects would do to myself, and others.

Great! However, you’d prefer it if you never even had that choice to make, it seems; in your world, the government just tells people the right thing to do, and if the people disagree, they get punished. It’s just totalitarianism.

NotAumsed

Oooooooo… A TYPO!!

If you don’t have a firm grasp of the English language, it’s a really, really bad idea to “correct” other people’s grammar, because you will just look even dumber than you already do.

I think you mean that we should use beastiality to ban things.

You think that because you don’t know how to read.

Wow, your lifestyle costs all of us lots of money, Dave.

And yours costs all of us freedom. It’s people like you who ban cigarettes and french fries. “Common good before the private good,” eh Comrade?
You Nanny-Staters make me sick.

Goat-fucking, dog-fucking, horse-
or-anything-other-than-opposite-sex-human-fucking has PROVEN to be a vector to deadly, and incurable diseases.

Opposite-sex-human-fucking still is the number one vector for sexually transmitted diseases. AIDS is primarily transferred via heterosexual, vaginal sex.

Now it is.

jSpin, your comments are appreciated and I am impressed. I am sure that your mistakes are not ban-worthy. I’ve said a thing or two in my time that, only after clicking “submit”, I realized were probably anecdotal at best, or possibly me stereotyping the object of my comments — that is, shaky facts. The ability to correct one’s own error is rare indeed.

And kudos to you for actually debating instead of making lame excuses.

NotAmused, you hate-filled Hatey McHatesalot. How dare you tell people who and what they may have sex with! I bet you look both ways before crossing a street AND wash your hands after using the restroom.
And yes, I am being facetious.

Hey Dave, please note the last part. He was making a joke… Of you.

Republicrats, Democans, I’m not any one of them. Neither am I in any other ‘Party’, group, nor associated with any such thing. Such association would make me accountable for THEIR actions, and I do not think that is what I want. Nor do I think that is what they would want, since I condem both ‘Parties’ and anyone who blindly supports a ‘Party’ because that party may possibly support one of your own opinions. Even if they have no intention of doing so.

What is the purpose of law? I mean, come on, really. Lately, because people do stupid things, we have been implementing laws to stop people from doing stupid, illogical, and nonsensical things for years.

Are AIDS and other viruses a good thing? HELL NO!! What are the causes? Stupid, stupid people. Not to mention the people that are currently spreading them because they can’t control themselves.

A judge is supposed to understand and implement ways to keep people from doing stupid, harmful things to themselves and others.

Anarchy is the other choice.

No, I do need to be ashamed. I violated my own maxims here. If I just shrug my shoulders and say, “oh, well…” then I might make the same mistake again soon. Besides, when one of us screws up like this we give the opposition lots of ammo. (And glee, right Sparkie?)
So I also hurt you people. Not good.
Still learning….

Dave and Chris:
Just got back and read your posts. This AM I had about 15 windows up, PETA, PP, and others. Apparently I thought I was getting info from sites I thought were ‘official’, but weren’t. I believe in honesty and accuracy and therefore, as apparently I was VERY wrong, I apologize to you and all concerned and am here to take my whipping. I assure you I did not intentionally lie, as I am not one who is given to such behavior. Nevertheless, one must be sure that one does not give out misinformation. I did. I am sorry, and ashamed at my slothness in the matter. I will be more careful in the future, that is if Rob doesn’t ban me.

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

The horse is not rational enough for it to deny consent to sexual activity. Thus, engaging in intercourse with a non-human animal (or a human animal of the same rational level as a horse–such as a coma patient or the profoundly disabled) shouldn’t really qualify as rape.

In order for one to be “raped” one must have the right to not engage in sex–if not, sex with blow-up dolls could be classified as “rape,” which is absurd.

Lastly, your objection is obviously not based on a genuine concern for the welfare of animals, or else you’d object to the widespread slaughter of animals that occurs every day on this planet. So why object?

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?

I think bestiality is gross.

Sure you do.

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

davey playing at moral superiority again?

You think it is gross, yet you say it ok as long as the government stays out of it? You believe it should be legal? Hmmm?

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

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.

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?

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?

If Darwain was right..

and we are descended from Apes..

how come there are still Apes?

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.

Thanks, Move!

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

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?

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

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!

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

That’s our Dave!

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Well that’s comforting… What is with Hollywood?

The chicken has no means to consent to sexual relations.

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

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?

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

It is my understanding [hee hee hee] that, in one way or another, HIV-2 in Africa has jumped from monkeys to Africans.

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.

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

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 rob@sayanythingblog.com. I know that contact link doesn’t work…I’ve been trying to fix it.

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.

I support individual freedom. You don’t.

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

Move_Zig

California Homosexual Organization Admits HIV/AIDS is “Gay Disease”.

And also the disease of intravenous drug users, sluts, babies of sluts, South African rape victims, and many more… To think its merely restricted to your kind is foolish, Move_Zig.