Aha! An error in your logic! If we smash the TV first, we can't tune to the Travel channel to see where we should go.
u gotta c the show. it will explain everything. just ask tyler, he's special. grab a few dimes, roll a fatty and turn on mtv2. its bound to come on before you come down. its actually quite entertaining, but almost entirely unwatchable when i'm sober.
Personally, I have more trouble with people who call themselves libertarians but somehow come off as right wing apologists, which is where "South Park" loses me (although I think it can be screamingly funny at its best).
The "pussy/dick/asshole" speech in "Team America" made it clear that Messrs. Parker and Stone save most of their contempt for those they consider "pussies", which they define like a 12 year old boy-- anyone that acts like a "girl", which, as we all know, is a characterization that is pretty much interchangeable with the current right wing take on "liberals".
So these particular "libertarians" have no use for anyone who is "emotional", anyone who appears "thoughtful", anyone who advocates for something other than short term gratification, and, most importantly, anyone who tells me what I can and cannot do.
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). 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. 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.
Quote:
Also, the "libertarian" distinction is meaningless. If you call yourself "libertarian" you either don't really agree with the big tenets or you're a monster. It's nothing more than a haven for "legalize it"s and disgruntled conservatives.
No, it just means that you think the economy should be free-market and the social responsibility of the individual shouldn't be the concern of the government. The government should exist to protect ideals, not people. The reason why you see a lot of disgruntled conservatives these days is because the Republican party now spends out of control and does little to protect anything.
]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.
Quote:
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 libertarianism?
Quote:
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.
I used to only watch the Simpsons but something went wrong. I didn't even see it happen gradually. I jumped a few seasons and it was like someone had fired the original talent and they'd hired a bunch of people who they told to keep the show the same.
The voices on the show sound labored now. Homer seems to be trying to act dumb instead of just being dumb and it doesn't work. The voices are getting quite whiney now too and the scenarios are pathetic. What the hell was that N'Sync on the boat one all about?
I don't even watch the newer episodes now because I'm just tired of seeing them. Hopefully they won't screw up their upcoming movie but if they do they should just end it once and for all.
These days I prefer to watch Family Guy, American Dad and sometimes South Park. I don't mind the crude humour in those shows. In fact, the more I watch them, I think that puts me off the Simpsons more because it looks tame in comparison.
How would you end a show like the Simpsons though? Nearly every other show that is very popular tends to have a small set of main characters. Friends had the main 6 characters, Frasier had about the same. The Simpsons has tons.
Amen, addabox, something that always bothered me about Team America was that it took this platform from which a wonderful cultural satire could be launched and ended up with an extended attack on meaningless people (Alec Baldwin, in particular).
Now, mssrs Parker and Stone don't owe anyone anything. They were not obliged to make a more cutting and intelligent political statement with their puppet scat sex movie, but it is still valid to critique their choices.
Quote:
No, it just means that you think the economy should be free-market and the social responsibility of the individual shouldn't be the concern of the government. The government should exist to protect ideals, not people.
That last sentence is telling, especially if one bothers to read the United States Constitution or think of life that exists beyond one's own situation.
Where libertarianism falls apart is that it is, as I said before, monstrous (fend for yourself and expect help only at the whim of others). Either that or it abandons libertarian principles and becomes a run-of-the-mill liberal republican party with some side gripes (legalize weed, duuuude).
You may mock the legalization efforts but doing so will do more to help the inner cities than any welfare program. Note: I have never smoked pot or done any other drugs.
Last night's South park was especially disappointing. It had potential with out the Al Gore part. Who the hell hates Al Gore that much? They make Al Gore behave and look like some bumbling moron while Bush (in the Family Guy episodes a few weeks back) is portrayed like some cool lovable baddie.
You may mock the legalization efforts but doing so will do more to help the inner cities than any welfare program. Note: I have never smoked pot or done any other drugs.
I think most liberals and democrats are for the legalizing of most substances. I do appreciate the libertarian viewpoint that what you do in your own life/bedroom is your own business as long as it doesn't interfer with anyone elses. It's a notion that should be widely accepted.
Last night's South park was especially disappointing. It had potential with out the Al Gore part. Who the hell hates Al Gore that much? They make Al Gore behave and look like some bumbling moron while Bush (in the Family Guy episodes a few weeks back) is portrayed like some cool lovable baddie.
LAME.
I was also very upset with the episode. South Park is one of my favorite shows and it just disappointed me. Its hard to think who hates Al Gore that much.
I was also very upset with the episode. South Park is one of my favorite shows and it just disappointed me. Its hard to think who hates Al Gore that much.
Maybe people mistake him for the guy that can't spell 'potato'.
Comments
Originally posted by Ebby
Aha! An error in your logic! If we smash the TV first, we can't tune to the Travel channel to see where we should go.
u gotta c the show. it will explain everything. just ask tyler, he's special. grab a few dimes, roll a fatty and turn on mtv2. its bound to come on before you come down. its actually quite entertaining, but almost entirely unwatchable when i'm sober.
can you say, "smash the state"?
Originally posted by addabox
Personally, I have more trouble with people who call themselves libertarians but somehow come off as right wing apologists, which is where "South Park" loses me (although I think it can be screamingly funny at its best).
The "pussy/dick/asshole" speech in "Team America" made it clear that Messrs. Parker and Stone save most of their contempt for those they consider "pussies", which they define like a 12 year old boy-- anyone that acts like a "girl", which, as we all know, is a characterization that is pretty much interchangeable with the current right wing take on "liberals".
So these particular "libertarians" have no use for anyone who is "emotional", anyone who appears "thoughtful", anyone who advocates for something other than short term gratification, and, most importantly, anyone who tells me what I can and cannot do.
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). 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. 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.
Also, the "libertarian" distinction is meaningless. If you call yourself "libertarian" you either don't really agree with the big tenets or you're a monster. It's nothing more than a haven for "legalize it"s and disgruntled conservatives.
No, it just means that you think the economy should be free-market and the social responsibility of the individual shouldn't be the concern of the government. The government should exist to protect ideals, not people. The reason why you see a lot of disgruntled conservatives these days is because the Republican party now spends out of control and does little to protect anything.
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 libertarianism?
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.
The voices on the show sound labored now. Homer seems to be trying to act dumb instead of just being dumb and it doesn't work. The voices are getting quite whiney now too and the scenarios are pathetic. What the hell was that N'Sync on the boat one all about?
I don't even watch the newer episodes now because I'm just tired of seeing them. Hopefully they won't screw up their upcoming movie but if they do they should just end it once and for all.
These days I prefer to watch Family Guy, American Dad and sometimes South Park. I don't mind the crude humour in those shows. In fact, the more I watch them, I think that puts me off the Simpsons more because it looks tame in comparison.
How would you end a show like the Simpsons though? Nearly every other show that is very popular tends to have a small set of main characters. Friends had the main 6 characters, Frasier had about the same. The Simpsons has tons.
You are all heretics and hate America.
Now, mssrs Parker and Stone don't owe anyone anything. They were not obliged to make a more cutting and intelligent political statement with their puppet scat sex movie, but it is still valid to critique their choices.
No, it just means that you think the economy should be free-market and the social responsibility of the individual shouldn't be the concern of the government. The government should exist to protect ideals, not people.
That last sentence is telling, especially if one bothers to read the United States Constitution or think of life that exists beyond one's own situation.
Where libertarianism falls apart is that it is, as I said before, monstrous (fend for yourself and expect help only at the whim of others). Either that or it abandons libertarian principles and becomes a run-of-the-mill liberal republican party with some side gripes (legalize weed, duuuude).
LAME.
Originally posted by BR
You may mock the legalization efforts but doing so will do more to help the inner cities than any welfare program. Note: I have never smoked pot or done any other drugs.
I think most liberals and democrats are for the legalizing of most substances. I do appreciate the libertarian viewpoint that what you do in your own life/bedroom is your own business as long as it doesn't interfer with anyone elses. It's a notion that should be widely accepted.
Last night's South park was especially disappointing. It had potential with out the Al Gore part. Who the hell hates Al Gore that much? They make Al Gore behave and look like some bumbling moron while Bush (in the Family Guy episodes a few weeks back) is portrayed like some cool lovable baddie.
LAME.
I was also very upset with the episode. South Park is one of my favorite shows and it just disappointed me. Its hard to think who hates Al Gore that much.
Originally posted by geo06
I was also very upset with the episode. South Park is one of my favorite shows and it just disappointed me. Its hard to think who hates Al Gore that much.
Maybe people mistake him for the guy that can't spell 'potato'.
Maybe people mistake him for the guy that can't spell 'potato'.
possibly