America hasn't declared war for over 70 years because, politically speaking, it's actually easier to send a quarter million troops into a country than it is to declare war against it. Which is why it's strange that someone at Fox News declares a new war every 11 seconds. They use that word so desperately and often that if you taught a child that "war" meant "HELP!" he would produce perfect Fox News copy every time you dropped him in a well. Here are some of the greatest military campaigns ever fought by this fair and balanced army.
If Obama goes longer than five minutes without thanking God, someone at Fox News accuses him of religious warfare. If he hides an egg too prominently, they consider it an insurgent strike against Easter. If he wears pants, the Fox headline reads, "Obama Hiding Paddle Marks Given by Erotic Kenyan Deathgods?" They tell viewers every day how persecuted they are as Christians, but they share the most common religion in a country where you're allowed to worship anything. In fact, the only way a Christian can really suffer in America is by spending hours every day searching news feeds for any scrap of Christian persecution. So I guess from their strange perspective, being a Christian is, in fact, a pain in the ass.
One of the biggest Fox News stories of last year was about Obama directly attacking the Catholic church by requiring health care providers to provide birth control. Since we're dealing with actual statistics here, this is the perfect story to help get a baseline on what this news organization considers a "direct attack." There are about 78 million Catholics in the country, and 2 percent of them still practice the rhythm method. From that small but very pregnant group, about 0.0000001 percent own insurance companies. Among those, let's say 80 percent regulate their company based on God's infallible administrative policies. Now, I only do insurance statistics as a hobby, but according to my numbers, this particular war on the Catholic church affected the lower half of approximately one specific guy. Instead of calling all those belligerent religious pundits into the studio, maybe they could have taken up a collection to reimburse that guy for the condom.
I get that each day is a struggle for Christians trying to survive in this rarely non-Christian environment. You probably haven't heard of it, but Real America has been fighting for a holiday known as "Christmas" for decades. Because of secular attacks, Christmas now only takes up 25 percent of all human time. If you think there is a War on Christmas, you're at best a shitbrained nutbag, yet highly educated Bill O'Reilly has said several times that the war was real and his side won. Unfortunately, winning an imaginary war only you can see is like jerking off into a tube sock and bragging that you sweet-talked it into anal.
I don't know why the privileged are always trying to convince us they're victims. There's certainly a dignity in surviving a hardship, but not when you brought it on yourself and all you did was complain about it. The only real plight of the white Christian is that he has an impossible amount to prove. It's why we're the only race that hunts ghosts and chases Bigfoot.
Muslim community center managers and Holocaust survivors can't understand what poor Christians go through when they see a Christmas tree being called a "holiday tree," but that kind of sarcasm isn't fair. Everyone's idea of struggle is different, and Fox News is a mouthpiece for rich white people who have the very firstest of First World problems. Somebody's life always sucks more than yours, and all complainers sound like vaginal lubricants when you add the context of actual misery. For instance, when you fuss about a roommate who can't figure out how to wash a dish, there's a Burmese roommate who can't figure out how to disarm a land mine. So instead of mocking Fox News for being dramatic pansies, I'll examine their position.
The best way to tell if someone is a passionate activist or a contentious f**k is to examine their endgame. Let's see what conservatives get if they "win" the war on Christmas. Say a town is under siege by bored atheists to remove a baby Jesus from a state park's Nativity scene. Those godless protestors are obviously seeking out their own oppression where there is none, but so is Fox News, so that's a wash. And to be honest, the Fox people always seem unsatisfied with the number of baby Jesuses. Last year, the Obamas' Christmas card featured his dog instead of his Insecure Lord, and Fox News called it, no bullshit, Christmas Under Attack!
A cute dog frolicking in pure Christmas snow? Not in my God's America, Hadji.
If you've had your toothpaste taken away by airport security or received a parking ticket for being an inch over some line, you get why Christians are upset. We live under thousands of nitpicky regulations designed to protect you, but they're mostly used by sad little bitches to ruin your day. And if you're hassling someone over a Jesus, "little b***h" might be a generous way to describe you. Now, there's no elegant policy for dealing with broken, horrible people. If you're a self-important jackass, you demand that Jesus stays in the manger, but that makes your religious organization look like both pushy dicks and whiny victims while wasting time that could have been spent on any hundreds of activities that express a Christian value. Plus, even if you convince some official to bend the rules for your plastic Jesus, you've helped no living person do or learn anything. So clearly Christmas isn't being defended for any kind of "good."
So is it a freedom argument? Kind of. You could always find a 5-year-old if you need "freedom of religion" explained, but it doesn't quite mean you get to leave babies laying around wherever. Conservative or not, no one wants to win the argument that religions are free to do whatever and f**k you. And remember, they are grown-ass people at Fox News -- they're not really dumb enough to think that everyone can just be Christian and like it. That means the War on Christmas is only them trying to come out on top in tribal warfare they themselves are manufacturing. And philosophically speaking, when your sense of social responsibility extends only to blindly "winning" for your side at all costs, you're not exactly enlightened. You're closer to the chimpanzee word for "ass parasite."
In America, 99 percent of the money belongs to about 300 men. Those men are certain you want their money, and if you've ever wanted money for any reason, they're probably right. It's turned the rich into paranoid hoarders, and for some reason they pay Fox News to tell us all about it. For example, they warn that if the rich are forced to pay more taxes, they might fire all of America's employees out of sheer pettiness. They refer to billionaires as "job creators" instead of "human hunters." They call it a War on Success if you apply basic economic theories to the financial crisis. And they accuse you of communism if you notice that any of this is retarded. Hell, they may claim that I declared a War on Grammar for this not say end of sentence right.
And if he didn't, would that make us, like, dumbasses?
After dozens of articles, I still wasn't sure how or why the liberals would destroy the rich, so I searched around their site for more information. I found this ...
Jesus, Fox News, I can't even tell which of us is the confused one anymore.
Obama is often criticized for having done nothing while in office, yet according to Fox News, he's declared war against nearly all known words and objects-- especially the kind you can burn for fuel. Coal, natural gas, oil ... he will destroy them all, because he hates jobs and electric bills. Obama supports cap-and-trade policies that make power suppliers pay for the amount of pollution they produce. It's these same policies that force conservative leaders to buy a $3,800 carbon credit whenever they pass a Chick-Fil-A sandwich.
As you may have noticed by now, these "wars" aren't really anything close to wars. Emissions trading is about creating a financial incentive to cut down on pollutants. Admittedly, this absolutely sucks for the coal industry, which is based on turning lumps of rock into black clouds of emphysema. Burning coal for energy is barely more efficient than lighting your face on fire to poach an egg in your mouth. But what if you don't believe in global warming and think the environment is some fruity thing God put here for bulldozer races? It must seem like mindless, job-destroying evil then, right?
So let's forget about the environmental argument. When the Earth has a problem with us, it'll stop being a coward and make Godzillas. For most conservatives, the only concern is jobs. Who cares if it's hard to fix a hole in the ozone layer? So is filling out unemployment papers. If Obama cured all mortality tomorrow, Fox News would accuse his office of attacking mortuary cosmetologists. Still, they're right -- restrictions on fossil fuels remove cushy jobs from the coal mining community. Forcing a power plant to pay for its pollution is like taxing Pizza Hut for the size of its customers -- you cut down on sludge runoff, but everyone gets fired. The unemployment issue gets more complicated when you consider that for every coal worker who loses his job, two people live longer from lack of air pollution. What are coal states supposed to do to maintain their way of life? Give miners jobs as hit men and have them murder everyone who would have died of pulmonary disease? s**t, let's hope they don't think of that.
In May of last year, the worst conservative fears had come true -- our president announced that he didn't care if gay people got married. You or I might call that apathy, or maybe basic human decency. Fox News, of course, called it a War on Marriage. Brave husbands around the nation took one last look at their wives before devouring one another's defeated yet eager penises. The straights had lost the war, and with it their right to an uncocked mouth. "I never knew unconditional surrender could feel so good," the straight husband said through frothy lips still moist from their first bite of dick. His words were given only a whisper of a response. .. the heterosexual husband tongue probing his butthole remained as silent as a garden slug.
There's no real cute way to break down the main conservative argument -- that same-sex unions somehow cloud the concept of traditional marriage. They obviously don't. If some guy married a baseball glove full of Jell-O, they'd still recognize you and your wife as the regular married couple and him as the maniac arguing with a gooey catcher's mitt. How ugly is your wife that you need to oppress millions of innocent people in order for us to tell the difference?
Conservatives have proud traditions in this country that they "fight" to protect, and what that basically means is that they think they can still be racist and homophobic if they do it carefully. Nobody at Fox News truly cares about "attacks on traditional marriage." If they did, they'd spend all their time complaining about divorce, which is f*****g exactly that every time it happens. If you're not complaining about divorce or interracial marriage or why you're not allowed to shut your woman up with a stick, then you don't care about marital traditions. You just hate gay people. Or more specifically, devoted, loving gay people. If you deny that, yet still want to deny them rights, then fine -- I guess you're saying all men are created equal except for homos. Most of us can't pretend to be that stupid simply to protect our unconfronted homophobia, though.
I don't want this article to spark a lot of shallow political arguments. I know some of you out there want to ruin the lives of gay couples for noble, non-political reasons. If you're one of those people and reading this now, I respect what you're doing for this nation. And I'm sure your mother's abortion doctor is relieved to know that the "biggest mistake of his career" defied the odds and learned to read.
In the War on Fossil Fuels, it was easy for Fox News to pick sides. They saw those poor coal mine owners and oil executives getting picked on and knew they had to help. How do conservatives know which side to take in a war on food, though? Last year, that tyrant Michelle Obama was looking to cut down on childhood obesity by making school lunches more healthy. Now, we know Fox News will fight for sandwiches when they hurt gay people, but will they fight for sandwiches when they hurt fat kids?
Their War on Meat proved that no matter who they are fighting, Fox News always sides with sandwiches. Here is how the fight went down: The first lady proposed reducing fatty dishes and increasing the portion sizes of vegetables. Naturally, the Fox Nation handled this story with all the tact of a man arriving at a singles volleyball game nude and asking who else has herpes. As one columnist said, "Obama's USDA is creating a nation of vegetarians, by regulation. Take that cattle ranchers!" It's funny he mentioned cattle ranchers, because those words are exactly how you tell a rancher that one of his cows has kicked you in the head.
Calling healthy eating a war is stupidly crazy, but is there any hidden wisdom to be found in these right wing tantrums? Not even a little bit. If you see Michelle Obama helping obese children and you worry about the feelings of ramrod operators, XXXL underpant manufacturers, or asthma inhaler salesmen, you're being a contrary political a*****e because you've forgotten how to be anything else. And despite what the contrary political assholes at Fox News say, no one is fighting a war on cheese, sugar, chicken, soda, salt, or panini.
We must all do our part.
Governments don't regulate your soda size because they're tyrants. They do it because it's nicer than calling you fat and waiting for you to pop.
At the end of last year, most of the Internet put this mess of an article on our Facebook pages so we could make fun of it with our friends. It was written by a woman named Suzanne Venker who read a study that claimed men were losing interest in marriage. She suggested that women were to blame because "women aren't women anymore." All in all, she did a great job, considering that a fertility clinic janitor swallowed most of her before she left the test tube.
In any other publication, this article would have been called "I'm Checking to See if My Freshman Gender Studies Teacher Actually Reads These." On FoxNews.com, it was of course called "The War on Men." Suzanne was mocked relentlessly for her conservative-to-no values, her unfocused writing style, and her dingbatty idiocy. A week later, she wrote the rebuttal piece, "Let's Call a Truce in the War on Men." In it, she explained that the reason her article didn't make sense was because it "was supposed to be a teaser for [her] upcoming book, How to Choose a Husband and Make Peace With Marriage."
I've had my differences with the ethics and laziness of FoxNews.com before, but I don't even know what to call it when you start an editorial article and then ask your readers to go buy a book if they want to hear your f*****g point. That's why I'd like to respond to Suzanne's failure with a joke. Suzanne Venker walks into a bar and takes out her penis. To find out how the bartender reacts, please buy my upcoming book, "I Was Talking to the Mustache, s**t!" and Other Dick Joke Punchlines.
Republican lawmakers get all the intercourse they require from one another in public restrooms, so it's left them with no need for sexually active women. They think ovaries are the parts of the turkey that minorities eat. If you show Republican congressmen a picture of the female reproductive system, they tell you that's no way to tie a bow tie. They sometimes mix up the words "rape" and "Wednesday." Yet despite all this, they've decided they should legislate everything a woman does with her vagina.
As you've noticed from this article, when the Democratic government tries to regulate or deregulate anything from cars to junk food to killing bald eagles, it's called a war. When the Republican side does it, it's so totally not. They spent a lot of last year trying to convince viewers how ridiculous it was to refer to all these cervix-oppressing laws as a War on Women. Personally, I think referring to any of this political bickering as war is useless hyperbole. When you want the law to transvaginally ultrasound a woman before terminating her pregnancy, that's more like cockblocking than warfare. Still, it's way closer to war than some fussy atheist renaming a Christmas parade. Although both of those situations will give you a real good look at pussies.
Before the 20th century, most of the world was a toilet.
If a woman is annoyed at a seemingly innocuous string of words, there's probably a reason for it.
In fantasy there is a diversity of possibility ... and an overabundance of the same ol' sexist tropes.
It's hard to end a TV show satisfactorily.