Originally posted by Splinemodel
]I think you should get some information on libertarian policy and consider this again. It is true that most people who are libertarians are extremely bold. This is largely because it's a 3rd party that also happens to have an early supporter who was eccentric and wrote bad novels. Parker and Stone are definitely bold, but the speech from Team America wasn't at all ridicule of the things you mentioned. It's more of a pan on contemporary bureaucracy in general, which they find to be overweight and more concerned about offending people than actually serving their electorate (I'd say they use "pussy" to mean effete).
Uh huh. There's certainly no evidence in Team America
that Parker and Stone are particularly concerned with "overweight bureaucracies".
Unless I missed the part where the Rummy puppet and the Michael Chertoff puppet and John Bolton puppet and the Alberto Gonzales got their heads blown off? You know, because of their effete allegiance to money and power instead of the best interests of the American people?
Or is "effete" just another "pussy/fag/liberal" synonym that can only ever apply to people with liberal politics because everybody in the Bush administration is such a swaggering macho dude?
Which, you might notice, is not really a political distinction and has more to do masculine status anxiety.
There's also an overtone concerning the fact that there seem to be people in Hollywood who would rather have America lose "the war on terror" at the cost of soldier's lives than see Bush have any success at all. This is a depraved attitude.
That's my point, right there. You start with a ludicrous right wing talking point and treat it as an objective fact, which apparently means that any grotesque burlesque of "people in Hollywood" is either "libertarian", or sharp satire, or both.
Whereas it's neither. People in Hollywood don't have any power, they don't enact policy, and they make stupidly easy targets for "satire".
So if Parker and Stone are libertarian, or good satirists, where were the hilarious barbs directed at someone like Bill O'Reilly, who surely is as pompous a windbag as you would ever want deflated? Ann Coulter? Michelle Malkin? Or what about the "all show no go" Bush admin in general?
These are people who have real power or speak for power. Don't they seem like the more worthy target, if what you are about is puncturing balloons and resisting the blandishments of the state?
Like I say, not libertarian-- just a queasy-making mixture of adolescent queer bashing, broad mockery of the powerless and a fondness for ass-kicking. Or maybe that is
The reason why liberals, I presume, think libertarians are "right wing apologists" is because it's a libertarian's duty to defend a culture/philosophy that's under assault from lesser cultures. This happens to coincide with Bush's "war on terror," although it's unlikely that you'll find a libertarian who agrees with Bush's methods or the concept of fighting foreign wars in general.
I don't really know what that means and I suspect I don't want to, but my point is not that "libertarians" are secretly "right wing" but rather that Parker and Stone are more right wing (or merely juvenile, which I suppose might amount to the same thing) than libertarian, and that their idea of themselves as treating "nothing as sacred" seems oddly lopsided, in practice.