None of these, for some reason, include this bizarre assemblage of not-connected words and images produced by the function known as "Chris Muir," the algorithm you get when you combine a toaster, a bathtub of vanilla vodka, panty-sniffing sexism, Cheetos, and stone-bigot wingnut idiocy.
Muir has never made any sense whatsoever, but this astounds in its sheer vacuous vicious incomprehensibilty. Click to see the whole, but let's do Day By Day frame by frame, because oh dear lord, this shit is lame.
Let us ask: why?
Who is talking to whom? And why? Why the "again" regarding these cartoons?
Why has that woman stapled a raw beef and spinach bib to her dress?
Why does that man's thumb look like a happy penis?
Uh, beg pardon? Does the writer of this have any prior acquaintance with the normal usage of English pronouns?
Why is that guy wearing sunglasses indoors at night?
Why are his eyebrows so many inches above his pointless eyeglasses?
Why is he fondling his junk through his pants?
I mean, why is he fondling his dick?
WHAT the FUCK?
So. The most sane and moral policy for the President of the United States of America, going forth, in regards to foreign policy, is to tell about a quarter of the world's population that they rape children and fuck dogs.
This doesn't even rise to the level of "cartoonish." Cartoons are typically not this dumb and awful.
But this cartoon descends:
Many cartoon artists would not be content to use the exact same computer image of a smug asshole stroking his genitalia twice in the same strip, but these are the same lazybones who would not combine idiotic ancient smears with wholly invented new ones.
Or am I missing the major party child sex slaves and bestiality hook here...? Was that in "headlines"? Where? In dick-fondling lazy cartoons?
And what the fuck is going on with that woman's dress? Is that a climbing wall? Pizza vomit?
I don't even have a hypothesis as to what the intended joke here is supposed to be.
Humor has many functions, but one of them is as a kind of marker of consensus reality. If most people don't think your joke is "true," they won't laugh. But there is kind of a useful sociological corollary to this rule: if you would be flattered by a "LOL" from Glenn Reynolds, say, you completely deserve that you belong in that horrible universe.
You're included in the overall sense of "free speech protection," but only because by these liberal rules, everyone gets a trophy. You're not funny, half-bright, or remotely helping art or America.
Now, fuck off.