Bush and Obama in a Barber Shop

Postby drawscore » Sun May 06, 2012 1:37 pm

By an amazing coincidence, Barack Obama and George Bush found themselves in the same barber shop getting shaves. As they sat there, each being worked on by a different barber, not a word was spoken. The barbers were even afraid to start a conversation for fear it would turn to politics. As the barbers finished their shaves, the one who had Obama in his chair reached for the aftershave. 

Obama was quick to stop him saying, “No thanks, my wife, Michelle, will smell it and think I've been in a whorehouse.”

The second barber turned to Bush and said, “How about you sir?”

Bush replied, “Go ahead. My wife doesn't know what the inside of a whorehouse smells like.”

Drawscore

Re: Bush and Obama in a Barber Shop

Postby Kyle » Sun May 06, 2012 8:16 pm

I don't really like personal jokes, especially if they're not about the person actually in office, unless it's something they actually did.

Re: Bush and Obama in a Barber Shop

Postby mistofoleese » Sun May 06, 2012 8:43 pm

LOL

Re: Bush and Obama in a Barber Shop

Postby skybird137 » Mon May 07, 2012 1:32 am

Well, it's not surprising.

She wouldn't be expected to know anything except cooking, cleaning, and being a baby making machine for her husband.
Calling Fifty Shades of Grey a Bondage Story is like calling Titanic an Iceberg Movie...

http://skybird137.deviantart.com

Re: Bush and Obama in a Barber Shop

Postby sarobah » Mon May 07, 2012 1:46 am

Drawscore, you have made it very obvious that you are nothing more than a troll, so I really should not reply to this garbage.
Nevertheless, I shall because your racist, misogynist “joke” indicates what an appalling excuse for a human being you are.... and of course a grubby, foul-mouthed coward who thinks it’s funny to attack the wives of public figures you dislike.
If your views represent typical “conservative” opinion, then it is obvious that the motivation behind the right-wing campaign against the Obama administration has nothing to do with policy and everything to do with bigotry.
It’s interesting how in recent weeks the focus of the Republican campaign has turned to attacks on women. I guess it shows how intellectually bankrupt and morally degenerate the party of privilege is becoming as they continue to seek out new targets for their hate.
Words, like Nature, half reveal and half conceal the soul within.

Re: Bush and Obama in a Barber Shop

Postby drawscore » Mon May 07, 2012 4:06 pm

Typical socialist attack, Sarobah. Right out of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals." "Demonize that with which you disagree."

And BTW, since Obama's wife has in injected herself into the campaign - she appears in campaign ads right here on the Internet, as in "Join Michelle, and tell Barack you're in!" - she is fair game. And she isn't the only first lady or first kid(s) to be ragged on. Liberals and Democrats ridiculed Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush, and Laura Bush, not to mention the younger Bush's twin daughters, none of whom were running for office, but I suppose you didn't mind, or had nothing to say about those attacks. (And, yes, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton, and Rosalyn and Amy Carter also came under attack.)

Why don't you try and learn a little about me, before you and others make your broad generalizations about me, and conservatives in general. I come from a military background. Not old enough to have seen Vietnam, but I did spend four years in the military in the late 70's. I had a pair of cousins who did see Vietnam, and their treatment by the "liberal establishment" was, in a word, reprehensible. When they came home, they were called "baby killers," "assassins," and a lot worse. They were spit on, and had difficulty in college because they did not agree with the liberal orthodoxy of many of their professors. It didn't matter if they did the work, and if that work was good. They stood up for what they believed, and paid the price for it in grades, simply because they weren't good little Marxists, and didn't sing the praises of the Viet Cong, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro and Cuba, the Soviet Union, and Communist China.

When people treat you and your relatives like that, you have a tendency to dislike them as a group, and what they, as a group, stand for. So get off your high horse, and start thinking for yourself. Make yourself aware of how legislation and politicians will affect you and the country, rather than parroting the talking heads from MSNBC, and out of work journalistic disgraces, like Dan Rather and Keith Olbermann.

Oh, and get a sense of humor, too. That's one thing I've noticed about leftists and socialists. They have none at all when the joke is on them. Sorta reminds me of the people at the TSA.

Drawscore

Re: Bush and Obama in a Barber Shop

Postby Jack Roper » Mon May 07, 2012 4:27 pm

Here's one; a liberal, a conservative and a moderate walk into a bar. The bartender says: "Hi Mitt!"

Re: Bush and Obama in a Barber Shop

Postby drawscore » Mon May 07, 2012 5:01 pm

>>>Here's one; a liberal, a conservative and a moderate walk into a bar. The bartender says: "Hi Mitt!"<<<

Not bad. I've heard better (and worse), but not bad.

Mitt wasn't my first choice. I would have preferred Attila the Hun, but he hasn't been around since 450 a.d.

Of course, if congress would just pass a law making me king, I'd solve the nation's problems in two months. I'd probably have us at war with two thirds of the world in a week to ten days, but I'd follow Air Force General Curtis LeMay's philosophies of "bombing them back to the Stone Age," and "If we kill enough of them, they'll quit fighting."

Drawscore

Re: Bush and Obama in a Barber Shop

Postby sarobah » Mon May 07, 2012 5:41 pm

I don’t normally feed the trolls. However, at least you are making an attempt at a proper argument.

(1) I am not a socialist, so your use of the word “demonize” has a touch of irony.
Nevertheless, if hating racism, sexism and general bigotry is the mark of a socialist then I shall wear the label proudly.

(2) So “injecting herself into the campaign” makes Michelle Obama a target for racist, sexist vilification? Not for decent people.

(3) The “everyone does it” defence cuts no ice with me. Basically you are saying: “Since other people act like scumbags, I will act like a scumbag.” I have an alternative – Don’t act like a scumbag.
And before you start whining, I am not calling you a scumbag here. I am calling your actions those of a scumbag. There’s a difference. (Actually, I will give you credit. You make the same distinction – you don’t actually call me a socialist, you label my actions as socialist.)

(4) You write: “Why don't you try and learn a little about me, before you and others make your broad generalizations about me, and conservatives in general.”
Read the FIRST THREE WORDS of your post and contemplate the irony.

(5) I respect that you are a veteran, more than you want to believe, and I agree that attacks by phoney left-wingers and anti-war activists on military men and women have no place in civil society. So what makes your complaint about generalizations so ridiculous is that I am politically left-of-centre and strongly pro-military.
A few years ago, our conservative Prime Minister (whom I hated with a passion) sent Australian troops to East Timor to stop the slaughter of civilians by Indonesian militia, and even though I was just 14 at the time, I never felt so proud to be Australian. And I support our troops in Afghanistan all the way. So conflating left-wing politics with the appalling behaviour of some anti-war protesters* is one of those generalizations you condemn.
* Like the idiots who protested against the 1991 war to liberate Kuwait, who six months earlier had been cheering on the Iraqi tanks, and who cheered again when Iraq launched missiles on Israel, a non-belligerent state. You see, I judge issues and people on their merits, not their labels.

(5) “Get off your high horse, and start thinking for yourself.” And of course the ever popular “parroting.”
Oh yes, the mindless mantra of those who have nothing intelligent to bring to the debate.
Believe it or not, not everyone who hates racism and sexism cannot think for his or herself. Unless you assume that hate, racism and bigotry are the default settings for human beings. I have more faith in people.
(And I will just mention in passing the Fox News network, where “truth has a liberal bias.”)

(6) “Oh, and get a sense of humor, too. That's one thing I've noticed about leftists and socialists.”
And of course, the mindless mantra of those are caught out making tasteless “jokes.”
It is really quite simple. Racism and sexism ARE NOT FUNNY. If that is a generalization, I stand by it.

(7) “Sorta reminds me of the people at the TSA.”
Say what? You oppose the folks at TSA doing their duty to protect the nation against terrorism? Why do you support the terrorists? Why do you hate America? You aren’t one of them Muslim socialist Hitler-Stalin loving hippie commie pinko liberals, are you?
You see, now THAT is a stupid joke.
Words, like Nature, half reveal and half conceal the soul within.

Re: Bush and Obama in a Barber Shop

Postby Kyle » Mon May 07, 2012 6:11 pm

Is the joke about Michelle racist and sexist just because she happens to be a black woman or is there an actual reason for it? Not that I'm a supporter of it, as I've already mentioned, but that's stretching it a bit for me.

Re: Bush and Obama in a Barber Shop

Postby sarobah » Mon May 07, 2012 8:34 pm

I hope we can agree that it’s sexist, calling a woman a whore because of her husband’s politics.
My contentious answer for the racism accusation is that I believe that most of the bile directed against Obama is so irrational and extreme that it can only be motivated by racism.
My other answer may, I admit, also be tenuous. The image of a whorehouse and the idea that Michelle Obama is a whore is an example of racial “coding” – pushing certain buttons because they play to people’s ugly prejudices and stereotypes. Imagine this “joke” being made about Barbara or Laura Bush, or even Hillary Clinton. It simply would not work.
Words, like Nature, half reveal and half conceal the soul within.

Re: Bush and Obama in a Barber Shop

Postby Kyle » Mon May 07, 2012 9:05 pm

I'll give you the sexist one, although I guess I question it because standards for being sexist are pretty low--at least if that sexism is against women, not so much men, but that's probably a whole different discussion. I guess I've seen too many people claiming "sexist!" over every little thing lately.

But racist? It was pretty much what I thought--you assumed it from the get-go.

Re: Bush and Obama in a Barber Shop

Postby drawscore » Mon May 07, 2012 10:36 pm

If you would like to talk about racism, look no further than Obama's attorney general, Eric Holder, who dropped charges against members of the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation, after they had been caught on film, and had pleaded guilty. Or Obama, himself, saying police acted "stupidly" when they confronted a black professor, who gave the cops "attitude," rather than just showing ID, and explaining why he was in that area.

Or maybe you'd care to talk about those civil rights champions, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who were quick to come to Florida from their bases in Chicago and New York over the Travon Martin case, but when a pair of white reporters gets the crap beat out of them by a black mob in Norfolk, VA, there's not a peep out of either of them. And not one from Eric Holder, either.

Racism goes both ways.

As for sexism, while in service, I worked for a self described "tough old broad," a master sergeant, who was not in the habit of taking crap from anybody, whether they outranked her or not. She was good at her job; she took time to mentor her subordinates, and earn their respect. She knew enough about what she was doing, to be able to tell bird colonels, that it would be done her way, or she wouldn't be able to guarantee the result and/or quality. She was admired and respected. And I don't think anybody would even think of making a sexist remark around her. She would have served them their balls on hamburger buns at the next unit picnic. She was a competent and effective leader, and I'd have followed her into combat in a heartbeat.

Drawscore

Re: Bush and Obama in a Barber Shop

Postby sarobah » Tue May 08, 2012 1:53 am

Your first example has been shown to be a myth. (I won’t call it propaganda, because the manufactured outrage was too dumb to qualify as propaganda.)
Your second example (I assume you mean Henry Louis Gates Jr) is actually why I don’t particularly like Obama – he’s too wishy-washy. But how that equates to racism is beyond me... unless, of course, a dark-skinned man criticizing a white police officer is “uppity” – which to some people is seen as racist (because a “darkie” who doesn’t know his place must hate whites).

“Racism goes both ways.”
Yes, it certainly does. That is something you should think about.
But I repeat what I wrote before. Accusing other people of scumbag behaviour does not excuse one’s own scumbag behaviour. Even if Obama, Jackson, Sharpton et al. were racist, why does that give you the right to attack Obama's wife? Unless you believe ALL African Americans are racist. If that is the case, what else to you believe about ALL African Americans?

“As for sexism [etc.]”
Isn’t this where you say “Some of my best friends are feminists...”?
But more to the point... because you obeyed and respected your boss* you apparently think that gives you a free pass to make a sexist “joke.” Because I don’t see you actually denying it was sexist. Or denying that it was racist, for that matter.

* And good for you. I mean that, because I know “progressive” males who are mortified at the thought of working for a female boss.
Words, like Nature, half reveal and half conceal the soul within.

Re: Bush and Obama in a Barber Shop

Postby xtc » Tue May 08, 2012 3:04 am

I’ve been a good boy up until now and avoided meddling in private grief but . . .

Why is the word “socialist” being treated as a slur? I am a proud socialist in what is fundamentally a conservative country.

I am glad that our state education system educated me to a level above where a slum-dwelling kid from a one-parent family (a term that didn’t exist in the ‘50s) could become a teacher and, over nearly forty years, hopefully, come some way to repaying that investment.

I am glad that our National Health System replaced both my knees when the pain had become unbearable at no cost to me at the point of delivery.

I am proud to have served as a union rep. when bosses have “tried it on”. I am even proud to have been thought worthy of being positively vetted because of the company I was keeping which, ironically, included a senior (armed!) member of the security forces. Having the phone tapped was rather amusing really; some poor spook must have been really bored off his tits!

I am even proud to have been able to retire before official retirement age and still be, though not rich, at least well-off enough still to be paying taxes. That, along with paying National Insurance for so many years, is MY part of the contract.

Why is the word “socialist” being so demonised that even one who describes herself as being a “leftie” disowns the term?

Just my twopennorth. I’ll probably shut up now and leave everybody else to their blood-letting.

Wassail,
Xtc
Boxer shorts are cool,
but little speedos rule!

More by the same author: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=22729

Re: Bush and Obama in a Barber Shop

Postby skybird137 » Tue May 08, 2012 3:26 am

The problem is that there are quite a few people who are conservative, and I am using the non-political meaning, in both 'left wing and right wing' areas.

They ignore the basic concept that people can have views in more than one area. Say for example, you think that the government should have a strong military and good public health. The 'left' calls you a 'right-winger' and the 'right' calls you a 'left-winger', which means you can't win either way.

They are unable to accept that a lot of people's views are not to be pigeon-holed into a political group, and these people really are conservative in nature.

I remember hearing that the original terms for left and right wing came from the old days of kings and queens. Your ministers and advisers were on your left and right. The ones who thought it best to maintain the status quo were on your right, and the ones were normally promoted change were on the left. That way, the king could listen to all of the arguments, before reaching a decision.

It seems that when it comes to business in the UK, being 'conservative' is important. However, when it comes to the working class being 'socialist' is important. In a way, Britain is both conservative and socialist.

Even our present government is an unusual coalition, with a left wing small party supporting the right wing party, providing political and financial stability in these trying times.
Calling Fifty Shades of Grey a Bondage Story is like calling Titanic an Iceberg Movie...

http://skybird137.deviantart.com

Re: Bush and Obama in a Barber Shop

Postby sarobah » Tue May 08, 2012 5:38 am

xtc wrote:Why is the word “socialist” being so demonised that even one who describes herself as being a “leftie” disowns the term?

Ouch :o)
I don’t consider myself a socialist because I don’t think it works. I wish it did, but I believe people in general are too selfish – but maybe that’s the cynic in me. So I would describe myself as a social democrat.
The best government this country (Australia) has ever had – between 1983 and 1996 – could be best described as a centre-right labor government. Even the conservative opposition couldn’t label it socialist. It provided for social welfare (including the best retirement scheme in the world) and defended human rights in general and the rights of aborigines and workers in particular, while reforming and strengthening the economy. The secret was to be guided by pragmatism rather than ideology. Even so, it was eventually undermined by ideological factionalism within its own ranks (i.e. it was basically sabotaged by the left wing of the party) and was succeeded by arguably the most repressive and reactionary government in the past century.

The interesting thing about Australian politics is (as I think I’ve mentioned elsewhere) that it is the traditionally “conservative” parties which are pushing radical “reform” – such as rolling back the rights of workers, dismantling public education and undermining family life – while the traditionally “radical” parties are defending the old-fashioned values. It also tends to be the “conservatives” who are the fiscally irresponsible, tax-and-spend party, because buying votes is more important than managing the economy.

skybird137 wrote:They ignore the basic concept that people can have views in more than one area. Say for example, you think that the government should have a strong military and good public health. The 'left' calls you a 'right-winger' and the 'right' calls you a 'left-winger', which means you can't win either way.

Yes, this is me – which I have definitely mentioned in another post.

Even our present government is an unusual coalition, with a left wing small party supporting the right wing party, providing political and financial stability in these trying times.

The Lib-Dems have set it up so they cannot lose. If their conservative partners become too much “on the nose” they can switch support to Labour. Either way, I see them being a part of every government for the next couple of decades.
Words, like Nature, half reveal and half conceal the soul within.

Re: Bush and Obama in a Barber Shop

Postby skybird137 » Tue May 08, 2012 6:17 am

The Liberal Democrats have lost votes because of their actions, but unless the Conservative Party screw the situation up, I can see the coalition going the distance.

The Liberal Democrats have helped maintain a stable government, even at their own cost in the opinion polls. That is rare in politics, nowadays, to work for the betterment of the country, even if you negatively affect your own party's standing.
Calling Fifty Shades of Grey a Bondage Story is like calling Titanic an Iceberg Movie...

http://skybird137.deviantart.com

Re: Bush and Obama in a Barber Shop

Postby Jason Toddman » Tue May 08, 2012 7:17 am

I had thought of joining in earlier but now it's just as well I didn't. Sarobah has stated the points I wanted to make much better than I could have done myself.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Bush and Obama in a Barber Shop

Postby drawscore » Tue May 08, 2012 9:17 pm

>>>Why is the word “socialist” being so demonised that even one who describes herself as being a “leftie” disowns the term?<<<

I think it's because of its association with dictatorial regimes, as in "Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics," and the "National SOCIALIST Party." Calling someone a "socialist" is a bit more polite than calling someone a communist or a Nazi, but the implication is there. Most conservatives equate "socialist" with "communist."

That's my best SWAG (Scientific Wild-Ass Guess). If anyone has any other ideas, please, let us know.

Drawscore

Re: Bush and Obama in a Barber Shop

Postby Jason Toddman » Tue May 08, 2012 9:56 pm

This isn't a particularly recent thing anyway.
The term socialist was in disrepute even before The Soviet Union or Nazi Germany ever got started. This is because historically conservatives have usually been the ones in power (far longer than the name 'conservative' itself has existed) and have tended to oppose changes that might weaken their own political or economic power. In most times and places, this made perfect sense as such conservatism lent stability to a nation.
But when conservatism is too strict, societies stagnate. Too much liberalism would pose an equally great danger, but this has rarely ever (The Soviet Socialist Republic was little more liberal in some ways than Nazi Germany was; it was simply somewhat - and only somewhat - less murderous).
However, a moderate ratio of liberalism is essential in a society. It was liberals who created such modern inventions as the right of non-landowners to vote(men as well as women), giving workers a wage they could live on and restricting their working hours so that they could spend some free time awake without being exhausted, banning child labor, giving women the vote, giving non-whites the vote, allowing people of different races and different religions to marry, abolished slavery (I said liberals Drawscore, NOT Democrats! - I am fully aware it was the Republican Party that opposed slavery and Democrats who fought to preserve it), abolished the American version of Apartheid, and fought to preserve freedom of religion. Conservatives fought each and every one of these bitterly, just as they oppose gay marriage and birth control now.
Socialism in its purest form would be entirely a liberal concept that conservatives would oppose - with some justification too as pure Socialism is purely impractical. If you want an example of what pure Socialism would be like, read the teachings of Jesus. Not to offend anyone's religious beliefs but the core of Jesus's teachings were a God-centered form of Socialism; if you don't believe me find a red-letter Bible and read what he said for yourself - the Sermon on the Mount is a prime example of this. It sounds good... but as any practical person knows it's totally impossible to achieve!
However, I think a shift toward more Socialist policies without doing away with Capitalism is what is needed to ensure that there isn't some kind of 'revolution of the masses' that would bring down our society as surely as it brought down Russian society almost a century ago.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Bush and Obama in a Barber Shop

Postby Kyle » Thu May 10, 2012 2:23 pm

Jesus was apolitical, which can also be found in the Bible (think "give to Caesar what is Caesar's"). The things Jesus taught were to apply regardless of what type of government you had. They were to be done on an individual basis, not by the government. Saying Jesus was socialist is akin to saying Jesus wanted us to give our money to the government who would in turn redistribute it to the poor. People are supposed to give money freely, not be coerced by the government. While I'm on this, I should also point out Jesus was no capitalist either.

Re: Bush and Obama in a Barber Shop

Postby Jason Toddman » Thu May 10, 2012 10:53 pm

Kyle wrote: Saying Jesus was socialist is akin to saying Jesus wanted us to give our money to the government who would in turn redistribute it to the poor.

Sorry Kyle but your argument doesn't hold water. Socialism doesn't have to be from the government; that's just a modern-day implication (pr application) of the term "Socialism". Socialism can be a system freely entered into by a group of people and still be essentially the same.
In act the idea of government being involved even indirectly in such things was virtually unknown back then; the idea of social services being a relatively modern concept. Just cut out the government as middle-man though (which has nothing to do with the definition of Socialism anyway), and what you have is the New Testament writers saying that Jesus wanted the rich to give to the poor... a message that is stated so many times in the Gospels (and repeated in the Epistles a number of times) that I trust you can find these for yourself. The government has nothing to do with it. If the affluent 'Christians' did what the man they call Lord told them to do, any kind of government intervention would not be necessary anyway. In fact, the Bible itself condemns stinginess on many occasions; so any way you look at it any Christian who does not give much of his income to the poor is disobeying Jesus himself.
Now, regardless of what else you believe Jesus was/is (Son of God, just a moral teacher, or a complete nut), the fact remains that he preached what is essentially a God-centered form of socialism - one having to do with no earthy government (but only the Kingdom of God). The apostles themselves practiced a form of this amounting to a primitive form of communism in Acts, where they pooled together their resources and shared together; Ananias and Sapphira (in the first few verses of Acts chapter 5) were rebuked by the apostles (and supposedly punished by God with death) when they claimed to have given all they had from the sale of their house but held back some of the money for themselves. How much clearer a picture do you require? Other than the fact that they practiced this willingly (assuming the example of Ananias and Sapphira as an 'example' is not seen as Godly coercion), there's no difference between what the Apostles and their disciples did and what Socialists preach - except that the Apostles were far stricter about it!!!
Now whether you believe the Bible is the word of God or not, you can't say it didn't teach Socialism (of a sort that is), because it most definitely does! The Bible doesn't call it that of course (the term was invented long after Biblical Times), but as Drawscore likes to say (repeatedly), if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck... it's probably a duck!!!
Of course, they don't tell you this in Church... after all, everyone knows Commies and Socialists are godless atheists, right?
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Bush and Obama in a Barber Shop

Postby Kyle » Fri May 11, 2012 2:29 pm

Socialism is an economic system, and those are usually put in place by governments. Jesus preached to give freely. Whether socialists do this or not is beside the point (some will, some won't), socialist governments/economic systems in essence force you to do it. There is no charity involved when you do it or go to jail-- or worse, if you have a particularly nasty government.

Though you are correct that Jesus told His followers to give to the poor, take care of each other, etc. In a sense this could be seen as voluntary socialism. Some of Israel's government in the Old Testament had socialist tendencies (of course, if you want to use that as an example, you better start accepting a theocratic government as well, something I doubt many would go for). But socialism as a true economic system is never once supported by the Bible. It is not anti-Biblical either. No system of government or economy is shown to be inherently more "right" than another.

Re: Bush and Obama in a Barber Shop

Postby Jason Toddman » Fri May 11, 2012 10:07 pm

Kyle wrote:Socialism is an economic system, and those are usually put in place by governments.

Now, yes... but government is not part of the definition of socialism any more than capitalism is. In any case, it is quite obvious Jesus wasn't talking about governments in any of this; he was talking about individuals, and he wanted everyone of economic means to give freely. For example, when a rich man wanted to be a disciple, Jesus told him that first the man would have to give up all of his riches. But because the very idea of socialism in its more modern sense is so repugnant to people, these teachings are not only forgotten but grossly underplayed. Giving to the needy was the subject Jesus talked about more than any other, but this is totally forgotten by those in the best position today to do this - perhaps because no one wants to give away *everything* they have. Nor do I claim they should, so don't get me wrong. I am merely pointing out what *Jesus* said. His idea of giving to others was far broader (and more thorough) than anything any modern socialist would dare advocate, so if what he taught wasn't a voluntary form of Socialism, then what would you call it?
In any case, I never once said that Jesus supported Socialist governments. I never once said *I* supported them either. If you think otherwise, it is only because, like with most people do when they read the Bible, what they think is being said is filtered a great deal by their own preconceptions and beliefs and are not accurately assessing what is really being said. Ironically, Jesus himself said this was exactly the case with what the people around him believed the Biblical prophets said. People hadn't learned the true meaning of their own scriptures then, and most religious people are still making the same exact Jesus preached against now! Were he around today, he'd be just as scornful of today's religious and political leaders as he was of those of his own time. Perhaps even more so, since today's leaders often claim to be 'Christian' and supposedly follow his teachings.
Btw, understand something. I personally am not advocating either Socialism nor Christianity. I am simply pointing out how contrary it seems for supposed Christians to condemn socialism (a voluntary form of which Jesus strongly espoused) and praise capitalism (an economic system notoriously rampant with greed, which Jesus condemned vehemently). IOW modern Christians want to have their cake and eat it too. I doubt Jesus would be any more pleased with most modern Christians than he was with the Pharisees.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Bush and Obama in a Barber Shop

Postby Suestruggles » Thu May 17, 2012 6:29 am

Sorry, I'm lost here.

1. Posting a joke does not make someone a troll surely.

2. The attack is surely on Bush not Obama or his wife or Bush's wife. I thought it was describing Bush's inability to spot the real centre of an argument.

3. Given the subject of attack is Bush not Obama how is it racist, sexist or republican?

4. I am asinner who needs to be punished. I found the joke funny, as Bush jokes go that is.
Sue

Fit to be tied, wants to struggle.

Re: Bush and Obama in a Barber Shop

Postby Jason Toddman » Thu May 17, 2012 8:14 am

Suestruggles wrote:Sorry, I'm lost here.
1. Posting a joke does not make someone a troll surely.

No, but posting a joke (repeatedly, as DS does) meant to make fun of a specific person or racial group does make someone at least trollish, and DS has done this before; see his I wasted Two Stamps post ( viewtopic.php?f=23&t=14645 ), where he implies all Muslims are terrorist and all illegal immigrants are drug-running felons. Also he continually rants about how unfit Obama is for numerous but specious reasons.
How would you feel if someone posted a dirty joke about Queen Elizabeth making fun of her sexuality? Wouldn't *that* bother you?

Suestruggles wrote:2. The attack is surely on Bush not Obama or his wife or Bush's wife.

No, you missed part of the point there. The joke (as originally told) was on both Bush (for the reason you stated) and Obama (either implying his wife is a whore or that he regularly patronizes them) but, this coming from DS, you can be sure the target he was thinking of was just Obama and his wife.

Suestruggles wrote: I thought it was describing Bush's inability to spot the real centre of an argument.

that would be ironic coming from DS, but I doubt this was his intention at all although the joke (not original with him) may have intended that.

Suestruggles wrote:3. Given the subject of attack is Bush not Obama how is it racist, sexist or republican?

A faulty assumption as I said, but even if we go with it it's not particularly racist (race is not mentioned nor is part of the joke), but it is republican because it skewers a Democrat and Sexist because it implies Obama's wife is herself a whore and/or that Obama regularly commits adultery.

Suestruggles wrote:4. I am a sinner who needs to be punished. I found the joke funny, as Bush jokes go that is.

If that is all you saw in it, then your confusion is understandable. But coming from DS you can be sure there was more to it than this. In any case, there''s nothing with seeing the joke funny unless you happen to be Bush, Obama, or either of their spouses. It's assuming without question that it reflects truth that the problem lies in telling such a thing; for similar reasons that telling Polish (or other ethnic) jokes is now frowned upon. Again see DS's I wasted Two Stamps for another example of this.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Bush and Obama in a Barber Shop

Postby drawscore » Thu May 17, 2012 3:31 pm

Whether something is funny or not, depends largely on your point of view. Had I told the same joke with the roles reversed, I have no doubt we wouldn't have heard a peep out of Jason.

As for Michelle Obama looking like a "lady of the evening," maybe you missed her as a presenter at Nickelodeon's Kids' Choice Awards. Or a couple of years ago. when she wore those tight KT green slacks, where her "panty lines" were painfully obvious.

Drawscore

Re: Bush and Obama in a Barber Shop

Postby Jason Toddman » Thu May 17, 2012 4:15 pm

drawscore wrote:Whether something is funny or not, depends largely on your point of view. Had I told the same joke with the roles reversed, I have no doubt we wouldn't have heard a peep out of Jason.

Since it's extremely unlikely you would have ever done so in the first place, what does this contention prove? Nothing. For that matter, if *I* told such a joke, we undoubtedly wouldn't hear a peep out of you either. So your criticism is totally without meaning at best and smacks of hypocrisy as well.

drawscore wrote:As for Michelle Obama looking like a "lady of the evening," maybe you missed her as a presenter at Nickelodeon's Kids' Choice Awards.

No, I don't spend time watching kids' shows. I could ask why *you* do but I'll simply assume you have kids in the house or something.

drawscore wrote:Or a couple of years ago. when she wore those tight KT green slacks, where her "panty lines" were painfully obvious.
Drawscore

I don't watch TV at all, and if I did I'd find better ways to spend my time than seeking to find fault with the way other people dress.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

Re: Bush and Obama in a Barber Shop

Postby drawscore » Sat May 19, 2012 5:09 pm

>>>I don't watch TV at all, . . . <<<

You miss a lot. I watch Fox because they present both sides of the issue. I watch MSNBC to find out what the Democrats and Liberals are up to.

Drawscore