Thursday, January 26, 2006

Bush Did Speak to Jesus!

An oldie but goodie.

Posted by Jewish Atheist at 2:35 PM

17 comments:

The Jewish Freak said...

Bush met Moses in the airport. He went over to Moses and said "hello" but got no answer. Bush repeatedly tried to get Moses' attention, but to no avail. Finally feeling both frustrated and dejected, Bush said "it was an honor to see you, I just don't understand why you won't speak to me". To which Moses replied, "you must understand, the last time a bush spoke to me, I had to wander in the desert for forty years".

4:50 PM, January 26, 2006
Anonymous said...

I don't mean to change the topic (it was a good comic!), but this is an important issue:

http://www.begreatfull.blogspot.com/

10:41 PM, January 26, 2006
Laura said...

Great jokes! I always have to wonder how the supposed "christian right" reconciles it's abandonment of the needy with true Christian values? Politics is the new form of Papal Indulgences - lobbying your way into the pearly gates. It's truly sickening that these assholes are the vocal christians - but even more sickening that the good Christians let them be...

8:15 AM, January 27, 2006
Foilwoman said...

If every religious person who told me how to behave better made a point of following the charitable teachings of his or her own religion the world would be damn near perfect. When I was a waitress, you could bet the stinginess of the tip on whether or not the tipper-to-be had religious signifiers on them: cross, yarmulke, turban (oops, I have to take that back -- I never waited on a Sikh). But WWJD bracelets? Bad tippers. Cross necklaces? Bad tippers. The only religiously identifiable group that actually tipped well were the Arab states guys, and they weren't wearing "relgious" signifiers as much as cultural garb. And they tipped well so that the waitresses wouldn't immediately revert to the spilled hot coffee in lap response to overfamiliarity. There, I think I've insulted all major groups, but hey, they earned it.

1:25 PM, January 27, 2006
Sadie Lou said...

foilwoman--
That's sterotyping at it's worst. Because someone walks into an establishment with a cross necklace on you assume that #1. They're religious and #2. They're bad tippers? I could easily say that with my experience as a waitress, lesbians are rotten tippers and they are rude and demanding. That conclusion would be based on two examples. That's not very fair or realistic, in my opinion so I have reserved judging people based on my own faulty stereotypes. Do all lesbians share the exact same characteristics?
Madonna wears a diamond studded cross and sinds songs like "Like a Prayer" does this mean she's part of the religious right?
Gah.

My advise: Christians should stop wearing crosses and putting those silly fish bumperstickers on their cars to avoid being unfairly labeled by everyone else. I especially can't stand those business that include a fish logo on their business cards or shop signs--as if that automatically makes you more trustworthy. I've done business with Christians and a lot of them are shoddy workers--so, whatever.

3:50 PM, January 27, 2006
Foilwoman said...

Sadie Lou: You are right. It is stereotyping. And I shouldn't do it. And I would bet that most people with the fish on their car (rather than the delightful evolving fish with the feet common in my neighborhood) aren't necessarily "practicing" the religion they espouse, but they are linking people's observations of them to the idea that they claim to be Christian. Same with the yarmulke, the WWJD necklace or bracelet, the Sikh turban, anything. I do mean my stereotype here to be all-encompassing for all faiths. I wrote about a minister I truly loved (he was also a bus driver) on my blog a couple of weeks ago. I didn't know he was religious until well into our acquaintance. He said: "Why would I wear a cross? When we want to be Christlike, it's not the moments of the crucifixion we're aiming for or something's wrong with us. Feed the poor. Clothe the naked." I didn't agree with his religion, but I loved and respected that man.

4:17 PM, January 27, 2006
Sadie Lou said...

That's cool. I love when I hear stories of Christians breaking the stereotype. For a long time, I was confused as to why people wore a cross. "To remember what He did on the cross" is the answer I got most often.
As if I could forget?
I have a few crosses. They are something I just like to collect and not an announcement of my faith nor a reminder--I know what Christ did for me, I don't need to wear a cross.
Actions speak louder than words and in this case, louder than stereotypes and symbols too.
:)

4:49 PM, January 27, 2006
Foilwoman said...

Sadie Lou: In case you want to read about him, here's the URL http://foilwomansdiary.blogspot.com/2006/01/dramatiste-again-arrrghh-and-one-of.html. His story is under the heading "One of the Greatest Men I Have Known". The first section deals with something else entirely.

11:10 PM, January 27, 2006
Sadie Lou said...

Thanks foilwoman.

3:12 PM, January 28, 2006
snaars said...

Great blog you have here, jewish atheist. Don't know what to add at the moment. Just wanted to express my appreciation and let you know I plan to lurk around!

10:26 AM, January 29, 2006
Anonymous said...

JA I like some of your posts, but what is it about this cartoon that you think is funny or accurate?

I guess the Kos and Air America crowd are yucking away in their limousines and at their chalets at the cartoon because it makes them feel good about themselves, but the fact of the matter is that it's a cheap shot. The left complains that Bush (or Bushhitler for those who are of the leftist persuasion) is spending too much (which means he's spending too much on social programs) and then they complain about how he's not taking care of the poor. So which is it?

Another anon

2:06 PM, January 29, 2006
Jewish Atheist said...

Another anon:

Nobody on the left complains that Bush spends to much on social programs. That's absurd. What we complain about fiscally is that he completely irresponsibly lowered taxes disproportionately for the richest of the rich while also spending a fortune.

We're willing to pay for the social programs we believe are ethically necessary in a rich society. We want to tax fairly, not give handouts to the rich, and not waste our money (not to mention lives and international good will) on unnecessary wars.

3:08 PM, January 29, 2006
Jewish Atheist said...

The Republicans have long cricitized the Dems for being "tax and spend." Bush has been nothing but "borrow and spend." I should think that either side would believe that's worse.

3:12 PM, January 29, 2006
Anonymous said...

JA,

You are fallilng for Dem and MSM propaganda, hook, line and sinker. The tax cuts were for everyone including the middle class, and tax revenues have increased. As for unnecessary wars, what unnecessary wars have we been in under Bush?.
My point was that Danziger seems to be clueless. Apparently it's easier for him to take a cheap shot that to reason things out.

Another anon

5:47 PM, January 29, 2006
Jewish Atheist said...

Another Anon,

Fact: Under Bush, taxes have become much less progressive.

Fact: Under Bush, the deficit has skyrocketed.

As for the Iraq war, reasonable people can disagree about whether it was necessary or not. The Dems seem to be split.

11:02 PM, January 29, 2006
Anonymous said...

JA,

If taxes go down for everyone then what does it matter if they are less progressive? The increased deficit is because there's a war on and we have a new drug entitlement program. Deficit would have increased more under Kerry.

Actually while you and I disagree politically, I have to say that I like reading your posts on philosophical issues. My complaint was about Danziger's cartoon. I thought he was taking a cheap shot.. Maybe we can agree to disagree on that.

Another anon

1:18 AM, January 30, 2006
Jewish Atheist said...

If taxes go down for everyone then what does it matter if they are less progressive?

First, because the poor and middle classes ended up paying more than they saved when states had to make up for being underfunded by the federal government. Second, when taxes are inevitably raised again to repay the deficit with interest, the poor and middle classes will be paying more than they would have before the tax breaks for the rich.

Deficit would have increased more under Kerry.

That's a joke. Democrats clean up after Republicans' irresponsibility. The Republicans think they're going to starve the beast (the goverment) by running up deficits, but nobody (from either party) cuts spending substantially so taxes will always have to be raised again. Under Clinton, the budget was balanced, whether you give credit to the Republicans or not. Under Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II, the deficit skyrocketed.

Maybe we can agree to disagree on that.

Fair enough. :)

2:14 AM, January 30, 2006

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)