Best Jokes (continues)

There's a new waitress at the vegetarian restaurant. I've never seen herbivore.

Police have told schools to look out for men posing as snow cleaners.

There names are Jimmy Shovel & Garry Gritter

I was anxious to see what the worms would taste like ; I sat there with bated breath.

Mahatma Gandhi walked barefoot most of the time, which produced an impressive set of calluses on his feet. He also ate very little, which made him rather frail and with his odd diet, he suffered from bad breath. This made him a super callused fragile mystic vexed by halitosis.

A baby seal walks into a club.

Newspaper left as a doormat: These are The Times that dry men's soles.

My neighbour rang my doorbell at 2-30 last night, can you believe it 2-30!!
Luckily I was still up playing my bagpipes

I've found out the reason that women ask so many questions.
They have an extra why chromosome.

If men can't multitask how come I can brush my teeth and piss over the floor and toilet seat at the same time?

If women are so good at multitasking, how come they can't have a headache and sex at the same time?

I hear Thailand has its first female Prime Minister..........hmm  ???
Are they sure about that?

aht:  I am sorry you were offended, and will apologize profusely to any of my UK friends (or mere acquaintances) who are offended by someone's having the effrontery to hold different political opinions than they themselves do.  I do lean to the right, primarily because I do not feel that any nation can continue to borrow 41 percent of every dollar it spends.  Although I consider President Obama to be the worst offender in that regard, be assured I strongly opposed the exessive spending of President Bush. 

Now, as to my comments about former President Clinton:

1.  While occupying the position of leader of the free world, he attempted to take advantage of his position to have sexual relationships with several women.

2.  Monica Lewinsky was a White House intern and therefore an employee of Clinton's.  Having sex with her, even with her consent, was a violation of the sacrosanct rule against Federal managers engaging in sexual harrassment.  I personally knew of such managers who did far less than Clinton who were punished.  He, of course was not.

3.  Here, like it or not, is what he did:  He had her in the Oval Office during conversations with several world and national leaders.  During his conversations, he lowered his trousers and underwear and she performed oral sex for him. 

4.  He assisted her in filling out a false, sworn, affidavit which his lawyer later used in his defense.  This is known as obstruction of justice.

5.  While under oath, he lied in depositions.  This is known as perjury.

When asked why he engaged in these practices, he said: "Because I could."   The man is a hypocrite, a liar, and a disgrace to the office he held--without regard to his party.  Yet he remains the darling of Democrats who refuse to hold him accountable.  In fact, while I think most Republicans certainly have their failings, they usually hold their own accountable--whereas Democrats usually set up one standard for their own and quite another for their opponents.

So if the truth is "ugly" to you, I am deeply sorry.  As for the UK, I think there are many people in that Kingdom who would agree with me.  No doubt there are many more, such as yourself, who would not.  I respect their (and your) opinions even as you apparently do not respect mine. 

I wish you well and best regards,

Russ

1. 

Dear Russ,

Was not Clinton the indiscretion between the Bushes?

I am a small "c" conservative Brit, and am occasionally worried by the right in the USA! But USA politics worry me from left to right! I am sure that in the USA British politics raise an eyebrow or two from left to right as well ...

Even if no two counties shared so much of their values as the UK and the USA ...

ATB from George

France's new missille, called 'The Fonctionnaire", is a disaster.

It doesn't work, and you can't fire it.

George,

All extremist positions are worrisome--and I agree that there are some real winners on the right as well as the left--here as elsewhere.  It is unfortunate that, for whomever one votes or with whatever position one associates oneself, there are going to be some really, really embarrassing bedfellows.  I voted for Hubert Humphrey against Nixon and for Reagan.  I supported President Bush and feel the jury is still out on the Iraq War.  But my main disappointment with both his administrations was the heavy spending--not just war related.  Now my chief problem with the current administration is that we are being spent into oblivion. 

I personally was brought up to believe in the proposition that people can disagree--even on political or religious issues, and still like--or even love--each other.  Politics in the United States is probably more polarized than at any time since the Civil War (or as we benighted denizens in "rural Texas" as aht characterizes us, would call it "The War of Northern Agression. "  But we are probably more polarized right now than folks in the UK or the part of Europe that is still solvent. 

Here is one example of how difficult it is to find a comfortable set of friends in politics: While I am a fiscal conservative and also subscribe to the belief that we must remain strong militarily against the arrival of the next Hitler or Stalin, I am, on many social issues, more in the camp of the left.  I believe (with one major exception) that the decision to bring a foetus to full term is the decision of the woman and the woman alone.  (The exception is that in my mind, she damned well needs to make up her mind prior to the onset of the third trimester when the foetus becomes a viable child.  This is where  I draw the line.)  For this, my "conservative" friends call me a baby killer or a murderer, whereas my "liberal" friends think I am a religious zealot--not withstanding that I am an atheist!

What I most fear about the current administration is that the President and his Chicago core have to be, far and away, the most astute politicians in the history of this or any other country.  He has put together a coalition of people who either look to the Federal government for much or most of their support or, lacking the need for such support, can only feel good about themselves if they support the growth of government to take care of their poorer colleagues.  Specifically, I see that we are coming to the point where we will have a majority of American citizens (it's already at 47 percent) who pay no Federal taxes whatsoever, and therefore have no incentive to encourage their elected officials to do anything more than create and expand entitlements.  This mentality, taken together with the notion that we should not stop illegal immigration but also should not require a picture ID to vote, will lead us to a point where the Democratic coalition in this country will be unstoppable.  The one virtue of the two party system has been that at least there was, every few years, a movement to "...throw the bastards out."  When that disappears...

What's a mother to do?

While I am as true blue and American as you can find (now that John Wayne has passed on), I have to say that as the years go by, I more and more favor the Parliamentary form of govenrment.   While the UK--England in particular--has at least as much in your history for which to apologize as do we, there is, at least since the breakup of the Empire, a far greater degree of real civility among you Brits than I can credit to me and my fellow Americans. 

I sincerely regret that our current President saw fit to rid himself of the bust of Sir Winston which was a gift to our nation.  I apologize as an American for that calculated insult.

Best regards, 

Russ

Dear Russ,

Though I have never voted Labour, I exchange my vote between Liberal and Conservative to throw the bastards out when they have become too comfortable  I can be one of the few who considered a Con/Lib co-alition ideal at the last election here. I voted Con as otherwise the Labour man would have got in ... He introduced the Bill to ban foxhunting ...

On abortion, I am a natural Roman Catholic and would vote to would ban it tomorrow, even if I am CoE/Norwegian Lutheran by upbringing ...

Well if two men or women want to get into bed together privately, than is fine by me, but please, there is no reason to pretend that marriage [in the Biblical sense] is possible between two of the same sex. A Civil arrangement is not a religeous thing, and is acceptable in my view in the Legal sense! If two people people want to couple up for life why deny them the advantages of a legal coupling?

I think most Brits would forgive your President for not keeping Sir Winston, but I find it sad ..

ATB from George

George,

I suppose the only thing that keeps us from getting in trouble for being off topic on the jokes board is that so many would consider our political positions humorous. 

I think we would agree on much, while honorably disagreeing on much as well.  I completely agree on the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.  It is sad that gay relationships were for so long penalized as criminal in this country (though it was almost never enforced).  I am fine even with recognizing "civil unions" for purposes of insurance, and survivorship, but what I find unacceptable is for groups of gay people and their supporters to try to force recognition of "marriage" down the throats, as it were, of the rest of society.  There are some time-honored institutions--such as slavery--that one would not want to hold sacred today, but there are, after all, logical reasons behind marriage as being recognized as between a man and a woman.  (I'm thinking of offspring here.)

Every institution has its faults.  Take for example the traditional family in which the man was the dominant figure and the sole breadwinner.  Few would argue for going back to a situation in which women did not have equal rights.  That having been said, the breakup of the traditional family--not to mention that of the churches--has had negative consequences as well.  Nothing is simple--but politicians--especially great politicians such as President Obama make their hay by simplifying their message--blacks versus whites--rich versus poor.  Don't get me wrong: all politicians do this, but Obama, together with his mentor Saul Alinsky--is the master.

I have been called a racist several times for not supporting the policies of the President.  The argument falls on deaf ears that it would be the height of racism if I failed to honestly state my opinions of those policies because he is black and I might be given a label.

(Besides, I wanted Condoleeza Rice to be president so I suppose anyone who didn't like HER policies is a racist!)

Best regards,

Russ

I wanted Colin Powell to stand. He really would have been great, viewed from across the big pond!

ATB from George

I too was a big supporter of his, but became disillusioned by his non-support of his own party.  I understand that what I considered to be traitorous behavior could also be construed as putting integrity before politics.  But I am uncomfortable with a man who claims to be a member of one party wholeheartedly supporting the leader of the opposition.  I could certainly understand any black man in the U.S. for supporting another black man for President--whether that act is racist, I will leave to others to judge.  But it strains things a little when he has been a leader in the opposition party.  Perhaps he should have expressed his disagreement with President Bush by renouncing his Republican affiliation and just saying he is now a Democrat.  I may be wrong, but I detect a bit of santimoniousness in General Powell. 

The part that would be amusing if it were not so sad was that the black "leadership" such as the reverends Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton pretty viciously attacked the General before he announced he was supporting Obama.  It was said that he was an "Uncle Tom," a "house negro", an "Oreo", and that he was not a true "black" American because of his West Indian heritage.  These same worn out ways of describing blacks who do not toe the Democratic Party line are trotted out for any black who happens to be conservative.  It matters not that President Obama's own black heritage comes, not from ancestors who were held in bondage, but rather from Africa itself, many of the tribes of which sold members of defeated tribes to British slavers who then sold them to American plantation owners.  But the President is forgiven for not being a "real" black because-----you guessed it--because he is a Democrat. 

Best regards,

Russ

Dear Russ,

I expect you know that Winston Churchill was firstly a Conservative, then an official Liberal, and then again a Conservative!

One may well consider that one's views were formerly not those one holds today, and one may well be forgiven for even another change of heart! Provided one is not Trolling! Some people said that WSLC had no judgement, but as it proved his judgement had a remarkable finesse in spite of some rough edges along the way!

ATB from George

Has anyone heard any good jokes lately?

Don't sweat it Russ, the biggest difference between Republicans & Democrats is the spelling.

"If voting made any difference, they wouldn't let us do it." - Mark Twain

JR: I promise on my part that this will be my last political shot fired on the jokes thread (for this go-around at least.)  Then, if we want, George and I can create our own thread here in the looney bin!

George: I was aware that he had switched, though not how many times.  But you make my point!  Presumably Sir Winston came out and said what he was switching to.  I only want General Powell to say he is now a Democrat!

One thing in Powell's favor--he himself refused to run!

I consider Sir Winston, along with Julius Caesar, to be one of the two greatest men who ever lived.  And yes, I acknowledge that great men are not necessarily saints.

Best regards,

Russ