It’s political, it’s not a debate, so it ends up here because I think it’ll end up here eventually…
Weak, rjung. Really weak.
I thought this one from some Farker was good.
What’s the difference between Vietnam and Iraq?
Bush had a plan to get out of Vietnam.
That’s how I think it would happen if Jesus were running against the Republicans (if no one knew it was him and for some reason he got involved in politics).
That Jesus looked scary.
rjung, are you getting some sort of kickbacks from reeder?
I thought it was great. That’s exactly what Bush has done to Kerry. And to Jesus, for that matter.
I laughed. And I’m forwarding that link around.
I usually don’t hesitate to condemn partisan stupidity… But that was pretty funny and spot-on. 
I liked it also. But I will say that John Kerry is no Jesus Christ. 
I feel like David Ortiz with a 3-0 count:
“But unlike Bush, at least he’s not the Antichrist.”
The crowd roars. David points to the heavens as he rounds the bases.
Pretty funny, IMO. But the bible quote “Do not resist one who is evil. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other.” is misinterpretted.
From the statements structure, it appears that turning your left cheek is in a way defiant to evil; i.e., “don’t do this, BUT do this”. This is how it was explained to me:
In biblical times, one tried to avoid using the left hand to do most tasks, as it was considered sinister or evil. But to strike someone on their right cheek you would need to use either a left hook or a right backhand. Since they wouldn’t use their left, the strike that Jesus speaks of is a right backhand. But backhanding someone was a sign of a superior admonishing a lesser.
Then, to offer them your left cheek, your asking them to hit you again. But again, since they wouldn’t use their left hand, they would have to hit you with a right hook. This type of hitting was only done among social equals.
So what the original quote is saying is: “If someone treats you as an underling, insist that they treat you as an equal.”
The Left is sinister and evil?
More proof that lessons of the Bible are not applicable to modern times.
Ahahaha World Eater, thanks for that one…I will be telling everyone who will listen…
I’m still laughing 
I gotta stop though so I can call my mother and make her day!!
I got this in an email a while back and thought it was hilarious and oh-too-true.
Ayuh, it ain’t just a biblical thing, though – look up the etymology of “sinister” some time. It’s a bit of a giggle.
That’s a fascinating interpretation, and I admit it’s not one I’ve heard before.
How do you reconcile that with the Christ’s lauding of meekness and servanthood?
In a similar vein:
Q: Whats the difference between Jane Fonda and George Bush.
A: At least Jane Fonda went to Vietnam
I’ll try to remeber some more jokes to lighten up this thread before the theologians take hold
Actually “sinister” means “left”. So does “gauche”.
If you guys are looking for blatantly partisan, very funny anti-Bush comedy, might I recommend Tom Tomorrow?
His best stuff is his recurring parallel earth theme:
The 2000 American election on parallel earth
A quirk in the election laws accidentally elects a cute little dog to the parallel American presidency
Cute little dog decides to invade Liechtenstein
Cute little dog beginning to lose popularity
Beginning of Parallel America’s 2004 election
Cute little puppy performs badly in 2004 presidential debate
So **rjung[/bn] advocates for a theocracy in America? Whodathukit?