tip off

Jesus it’s 2013 for God’s sake! Oh wait…

36
  • 1
    paddy
    Posted Monday, 11 February 2013 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

    I can’t believe you only stole 1 joke FD.
    But today’s effort is still hilarious.

  • 2
    Plonkoclock
    Posted Monday, 11 February 2013 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

    So.. however did Pouffed Wheat ever get on the shelves??

  • 3
    Matt
    Posted Monday, 11 February 2013 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

    Shouldn’t it be “fornicatrix”?

  • 4
    19 maurice
    Posted Monday, 11 February 2013 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

    First Dog, You Are a Leg-end, good on ya!

  • 5
    zut alors
    Posted Monday, 11 February 2013 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

    The Weetb*x slogan is nothing short of inspired.

    Thingies were bound to cause major trouble right from the get-go, it’s surprising the creat0r didn’t foresee some folk might use them for all manner of mischief. Six days simply wasn’t enough time to get the prototype right.

  • 6
    Andybob
    Posted Monday, 11 February 2013 at 2:20 pm | Permalink

    Those who would would flag-er-rant be, that’s a disaster
    All faithful aussies agree, follow the pastor
    Active discouragement, must make them now relent
    Their jobs. Its our intent to see them victims.

  • 7
    zut alors
    Posted Monday, 11 February 2013 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

    I recall Babs from a Young Liberals progressive dinner back in the 1980s.

  • 8
    Posted Monday, 11 February 2013 at 2:27 pm | Permalink

    so, so good.

  • 9
    Posted Monday, 11 February 2013 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

    I love the ‘Queerios’. Bet I can’t buy them from Sanitarium.

    FD: Brilliant analogy re creeping Sharia law.

  • 10
    Posted Monday, 11 February 2013 at 2:34 pm | Permalink

    As for the Catholic church; I can hardly think they’re in any position to pass a moral judgement on anyone else at all. What is the subject matter of the present Royal Commission? Priestly paedophilia no less.

  • 11
    klewso
    Posted Monday, 11 February 2013 at 3:02 pm | Permalink

    You can bugger anyone but Off?

  • 12
    klewso
    Posted Monday, 11 February 2013 at 3:05 pm | Permalink

    And who’s this Irish(?) brother, “Pete O’Fyle”?

  • 13
    Mike Smith
    Posted Monday, 11 February 2013 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

    @Zut: send her over. And Matt, would not a fornicatrix be a portmanteau of a fornicator and a dominatrix? Not that there’s anything wrong with that, as Seinfeld rather infamously said.

  • 14
    Mike Smith
    Posted Monday, 11 February 2013 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

    & one for Klewso: http://www.lspace.org/fandom/songs/hedgehogsong.html

  • 15
    klewso
    Posted Monday, 11 February 2013 at 3:17 pm | Permalink

    And along with those hand-picked selected abuminations there’s more in Leviticus - no eating shell-fish, crustaceans, pigs, hares, camels - any number of birds.

  • 16
    klewso
    Posted Monday, 11 February 2013 at 3:22 pm | Permalink

    Does a fornisheepress qualify? Not near as dangerous.

  • 17
    Plonkoclock
    Posted Monday, 11 February 2013 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

    It is quite dangerous Klewso, if you’ve forgotten the gumboots..

  • 18
    Microseris
    Posted Monday, 11 February 2013 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

    Klewso, apparently its like electives, they cherry pick the rules they want to keep so they can exclude whatever fits with their existing prejudices.

  • 19
    klewso
    Posted Monday, 11 February 2013 at 3:49 pm | Permalink

    Plonk, I knew a bloke once - they called him Claude Balls - then I found out it was because he was one of those sort Cory Bernardi has been warning us about. He knew a few fornicatrix - but not enough obviously.
    His real name was Roger something.

  • 20
    klewso
    Posted Monday, 11 February 2013 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

    … and ALP-ha, that “breakfast” won’t be a sausage sizzle will it?

  • 21
    klewso
    Posted Monday, 11 February 2013 at 3:58 pm | Permalink

    I always thought santariums were for the “chronically ill”.

  • 22
    Andybob
    Posted Monday, 11 February 2013 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

    @klewso
    Plural of fornicatrix would be fornicatricees. It is now my ambition in life to use this term in context.

  • 23
    klewso
    Posted Monday, 11 February 2013 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

    Andy, who’s screwing this cat?

  • 24
    Matt
    Posted Monday, 11 February 2013 at 4:16 pm | Permalink

    @Mike Smith: We can only but hope she’s a savoury combination of the two. >:)

  • 25
    klewso
    Posted Monday, 11 February 2013 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

    Mike I’m partial to a bit of pheasant plucking myself.

  • 26
    Posted Monday, 11 February 2013 at 7:00 pm | Permalink

    KLEWSO: You’re on fire!

  • 27
    El Nino
    Posted Monday, 11 February 2013 at 7:04 pm | Permalink

    If I posted this on any social media I guarantee I would be fired from my work the next day.

    Excellent job First Dog!

  • 28
    klewso
    Posted Monday, 11 February 2013 at 9:08 pm | Permalink

    Puptides Venise.

  • 29
    Christopher Nagle
    Posted Monday, 11 February 2013 at 11:00 pm | Permalink

    The ability to discriminate used to be considered a positive attribute that indicated an ability to distinguish the good from the bad, and then cleave to the former and avoid the latter. That used to be a virtue in relation to everything from choosing wine to moral behavior.

    Now one might not agree that homosexuality is ‘a sin’, but if the bible says it, and it does, and you are a biblically oriented institution, well then you discriminate against it, and quite properly I would have thought.

    And why the f*ck would you want to work in an institution that brands you as a sinner who needs to repent and change his or her ways? Give me a break! You would avoid the place like the plague. Well wouldn’t you?

  • 30
    Michael Noonan
    Posted Tuesday, 12 February 2013 at 12:43 am | Permalink

    Good dog! Wonderful as always. Though I have to say, still using “Juliar” is pretty pathetic really.
    The wonderful “News Limited” cartoon panel you had printed on T shirts for me has been an amazing success. I’ve had strangers stop me in the street to take photos of it! Never has a T shirt got me so much attention.

  • 31
    Holden Back
    Posted Tuesday, 12 February 2013 at 9:53 am | Permalink

    I have a creeping suspicion that if every ‘sinner’ who worked in the Catholic hospital system failed to turn up for work, things would rapidly grind to a halt.

  • 32
    Andybob
    Posted Tuesday, 12 February 2013 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

    @ Chris Nagle
    I don’t see why being a “biblically oriented institution” or for that matter oriented to any other document, should enable employers to discriminate on a basis that would be illegal to other employers. Its a law about the labour market, not freedom of religion.

    But suppose we do allow an exemption for “religious employers”, should that exemption survive where public monies are given to the employer for the purpose of hiring people ?

    There are many people who are currently employed by religious employers who could be lawfully subjected to discriminatory treatment if their circumstances became publicly known. They may not have sought out that situation, but they are in it. Can you not see that such people are in a very awkward position if they want to complain about something; such as reporting paedophilia to police ?

  • 33
    Hominoid
    Posted Tuesday, 12 February 2013 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

    Manhandled by Lesbians”? Excellent oxymoron, FD.

    So much here to laugh at that one shouldn’t really laugh at….

  • 34
    Mark Bhardway
    Posted Tuesday, 12 February 2013 at 4:02 pm | Permalink

    Been living in Oz for the last 4 months coming from the UK, only just discovered this site and these dog in the moon cartoons.

    After 4 months of tedious media (SBS aside) its a real breath of fresh air. Bloody fantastic.

  • 35
    Posted Tuesday, 12 February 2013 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

    ANDYBOB: The whole thing stinks. But, big but, as far as women are concerned it is both sexist and ageist. The churches have the right to discriminate, -IE refuse to hire ‘potentially pregnant females’.

    Doubtless you’ve read that it is the over thirty-five year old females who are in the majority in the child-bearing stakes. After the woman in question has had one or two children she would be about forty-five years old. So, by the time she aims to be accepted into this vile scheme, {probably around fifty} she would/could be a pensioner, and receive a pensioner’s wage. Don’t you see????

  • 36
    Sandshoe
    Posted Thursday, 21 February 2013 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

    I like my Weet-B*x`how it comes. Will you say anything for a joke, Sandy. No, but I couldn’t resist that, ‘Shoe.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...