Monday, February 19, 2007
Preznut Wants To Fuck Osama In The Ass
I kid you not - he said it himself, according to a new book by one of Ariel Sharon's aides, Uri Dan.
Gee, after all that furor the preznut caused over the gay marriage ban, who'd have thought he would be such a proponent of sodomy with another man?
Oh, well - that's sexual fantasy for you. You never can tell what's going to turn on somebody else.
Except for wingnuts, of course. When it comes to them, humiliation, abuse, torture, and rape fantasies often do the trick. And if the "Bush wants to fuck Osama in the ass" remark doesn't convince you, check out all the masturbatory writings the wingers have penned over the need to torture, waterboard, sexually humiliate, etc.
Start at NRO and work you way to Little Green Footballs. You'll see what I mean.
Gee, after all that furor the preznut caused over the gay marriage ban, who'd have thought he would be such a proponent of sodomy with another man?
Oh, well - that's sexual fantasy for you. You never can tell what's going to turn on somebody else.
Except for wingnuts, of course. When it comes to them, humiliation, abuse, torture, and rape fantasies often do the trick. And if the "Bush wants to fuck Osama in the ass" remark doesn't convince you, check out all the masturbatory writings the wingers have penned over the need to torture, waterboard, sexually humiliate, etc.
Start at NRO and work you way to Little Green Footballs. You'll see what I mean.
Comments:
<< Home
There are some things I really don't want to think about. After some consideration, I've decided this is one of them.
reality, as usual, you reach for the ridiculous. First, Uri Dan is dead. Second, Sharon is effectively dead. Therefore, your rather bizarre claims cannot be corroborated by anyone. I don't think you expect Bush to confirm your claims. And you can be sure he won't comment on Dan's book.
Meanwhile, exactly what sentiments did you express as the World Trade Center collapsed? We knew within 24 hours that osama was behind the attacks.
Did you not demand a painful death for osama under the most humiliating circumstances? Or were you sympathetic to osama's cause.
Did you NOT shout nasty epithets calling down endless misery and death upon osama? Did you release NO curses involving osama and sado/masochistic sexual abuse in an emotional moment?
On the other hand, if I were to accept your claims of what Bush stated, I would have to ask you why his words upset you so much. Your anger over Bush's purported statement puts you at odds with important planks in the Democratic Party platform.
Since Democrats believe homosexual sex is as natural as hetersexual sex, why would you object to this purported revelation from Bush? If you truly believed in the platform of your party, you would welcome Bush into the fold, as it were.
But even your party doesn't believe its own advertising. If it did, Jim McGreevey would have remained governor of New Jersey.
Your hostility toward Bush over this issue suggests that you are hostile toward homosexuals and their practices. Since that appears to be the case, why are you a supporter of the party that revels in its identification with gayness?
Moreover, since you are so deeply upset about the deaths of 3,100 American fighters, why are you not outraged to the point of exploding by the deaths of about 1.5 million fetuses EACH YEAR IN the US?
Your concerns are wildly out of balance.
Meanwhile, exactly what sentiments did you express as the World Trade Center collapsed? We knew within 24 hours that osama was behind the attacks.
Did you not demand a painful death for osama under the most humiliating circumstances? Or were you sympathetic to osama's cause.
Did you NOT shout nasty epithets calling down endless misery and death upon osama? Did you release NO curses involving osama and sado/masochistic sexual abuse in an emotional moment?
On the other hand, if I were to accept your claims of what Bush stated, I would have to ask you why his words upset you so much. Your anger over Bush's purported statement puts you at odds with important planks in the Democratic Party platform.
Since Democrats believe homosexual sex is as natural as hetersexual sex, why would you object to this purported revelation from Bush? If you truly believed in the platform of your party, you would welcome Bush into the fold, as it were.
But even your party doesn't believe its own advertising. If it did, Jim McGreevey would have remained governor of New Jersey.
Your hostility toward Bush over this issue suggests that you are hostile toward homosexuals and their practices. Since that appears to be the case, why are you a supporter of the party that revels in its identification with gayness?
Moreover, since you are so deeply upset about the deaths of 3,100 American fighters, why are you not outraged to the point of exploding by the deaths of about 1.5 million fetuses EACH YEAR IN the US?
Your concerns are wildly out of balance.
Probably a good idea, nyc.
The quote is from Uri Dan's book, no_slappz, as reported by Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper. Therefore they're not my claims, they're in Uri Dan's book. But I guess you never let facts or reality get in the way of your deluded point of view. What's the matter, does the thought of Bushie fucking Osama in the ass disgust you? If so, take it up with Bushie, not me. He said it.
The quote is from Uri Dan's book, no_slappz, as reported by Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper. Therefore they're not my claims, they're in Uri Dan's book. But I guess you never let facts or reality get in the way of your deluded point of view. What's the matter, does the thought of Bushie fucking Osama in the ass disgust you? If so, take it up with Bushie, not me. He said it.
reality, you wrote:
"The quote is from Uri Dan's book, no_slappz, as reported by Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper."
reality, at best, Uri Dan wrote what he claimed Sharon told him about a statement made by Bush. In other words, Uri Dan did not hear Bush utter anything. Dan is passing along an anecdote, which may or may not be accurate.
Frankly, I don't care if Dan managed to acquire an exact, word-for-word quote. The possibility that Bush expressed extreme hostility toward osama via sexual humiliation is meaningless next to ahmadinejad's repeated statements questioning the fact of the Holocaust and his repeated statements expressing his desire to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.
Statements like those that pose real problems for many nations in the world have serious weight. Bush's off-the-cuff and off-the-record remarks say nothing that matters, other than his gut desire to see osama dead.
As usual, you dodged the situation by stating:
"Therefore they're not my claims, they're in Uri Dan's book. But I guess you never let facts or reality get in the way of your deluded point of view."
I see. Facts? And how do you know Dan didn't embellish a little? How do you know Sharon didn't spice up the comments?
You're remarkably credulous when Bush is attacked. You're also remarkably credulous when it comes to fabricated stories about people who have either met resistance from our government or told outrageous lies for personal benefit. Like Cesar Borja, the lying public servant who wanted to bilk the taxpayers out of healthcare coverage for his illness which he probably developed by smoking a pack a day for years and years.
You're incredulous at the fact that people will lie at the drop of a hat to get free benefits from the state.
You wrote:
"What's the matter, does the thought of Bushie fucking Osama in the ass disgust you?"
I think even you know Bush wasn't planning a Deliverance weekend with osama. But it's interesting that you present his purported expression as though it were to be taken literally when you know that such expressions in adversarial settings are never intended that way.
It's your hatred that causes your ceaseless misrepresentation of the obvious. You and korova inevitably sidestep into insupportable positions arrived at by hair-splitting and dissection of irrelevant points.
You wrote:
"If so, take it up with Bushie, not me. He said it."
You're the guy who's obsessed with your fantasy of Bush breaching Republican decorum.
Of course you never answered the question about your own initial responses to 9/11 and the various crude epithets you might have uttered. I guess if you were honest enough to reveal your own hostile statements about osama and 9/11, you focus on a few idle words from Bush would lose what little power it had.
"The quote is from Uri Dan's book, no_slappz, as reported by Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper."
reality, at best, Uri Dan wrote what he claimed Sharon told him about a statement made by Bush. In other words, Uri Dan did not hear Bush utter anything. Dan is passing along an anecdote, which may or may not be accurate.
Frankly, I don't care if Dan managed to acquire an exact, word-for-word quote. The possibility that Bush expressed extreme hostility toward osama via sexual humiliation is meaningless next to ahmadinejad's repeated statements questioning the fact of the Holocaust and his repeated statements expressing his desire to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.
Statements like those that pose real problems for many nations in the world have serious weight. Bush's off-the-cuff and off-the-record remarks say nothing that matters, other than his gut desire to see osama dead.
As usual, you dodged the situation by stating:
"Therefore they're not my claims, they're in Uri Dan's book. But I guess you never let facts or reality get in the way of your deluded point of view."
I see. Facts? And how do you know Dan didn't embellish a little? How do you know Sharon didn't spice up the comments?
You're remarkably credulous when Bush is attacked. You're also remarkably credulous when it comes to fabricated stories about people who have either met resistance from our government or told outrageous lies for personal benefit. Like Cesar Borja, the lying public servant who wanted to bilk the taxpayers out of healthcare coverage for his illness which he probably developed by smoking a pack a day for years and years.
You're incredulous at the fact that people will lie at the drop of a hat to get free benefits from the state.
You wrote:
"What's the matter, does the thought of Bushie fucking Osama in the ass disgust you?"
I think even you know Bush wasn't planning a Deliverance weekend with osama. But it's interesting that you present his purported expression as though it were to be taken literally when you know that such expressions in adversarial settings are never intended that way.
It's your hatred that causes your ceaseless misrepresentation of the obvious. You and korova inevitably sidestep into insupportable positions arrived at by hair-splitting and dissection of irrelevant points.
You wrote:
"If so, take it up with Bushie, not me. He said it."
You're the guy who's obsessed with your fantasy of Bush breaching Republican decorum.
Of course you never answered the question about your own initial responses to 9/11 and the various crude epithets you might have uttered. I guess if you were honest enough to reveal your own hostile statements about osama and 9/11, you focus on a few idle words from Bush would lose what little power it had.
I'm not upset by the quotation. I think it's funny that Bush wants to fuck Osama in the ass. I always thought he was overcompensating for something with his macho cowboy bullshit act. Maybe now we know what he was compensating for. Not that there's anything wrong with wanting to fuck another man in the ass, of course. But Osama? Sheesh!
Post a Comment
<< Home
