South Park As A Gated Community

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

The political tangent in here is off-topic but I'm throwing in my two cents:

AkaDad:
They campaign and get elected on those sound bites. Their philosophy is anti-government and pro-free market. How is repeating what Conservatives say ludicrous? That governing philosophy was the reason they opposed Social Security, Medicare, child labor laws, minimum wages, environmental protections(even though a river caught on fire because it was so polluted), banking regulations, unemployment insurance, welfare, and civil rights laws. Basically, the things which made America a better place.

Ahahahaha! Oh gods, it sounds like you read this straight off of a cue card handed to you by the Democrats. Do people still actually believe this? That one party in the country is full of virtuous saints and the other is full of demons who hate everyone who isn't an old white male? I'm so amused that people like this not only exist, but then they actually want to pretend they know anything about politics.

As I type this, Conservative Republicans have shut down our government

Wrong. The Republican-led House passed no less than three different spending plans, each of which was progressively more lenient and attempted to negotiate with the Democrats in the Senate (they went from "defund Obamacare" to "delay it" to "cut corporate and Congressial exemptions on it"). And then, after the shutdown happened, they attempted to pass several small-scale bills to fund smaller parts of the government to reduce the damage.

The Senate shot every single House proposal down. The Senate, to date, has passed only one bill and is stubbornly insisting that their bill be passed. On top of this, the Democrat-led executive branch is attempting to enforce this "shutdown" by intentionally making life as inconvenient for people as possible. That's why we have incidents like the WWII memorial (which is an open park with no fences or guards) being barricaded and stationed with guards to prevent 90-year-veterans from seeing their own monument, and being threatened with arrest if they even show up. Or any of the other ones provided above. Or the fact that they're closing down ocean coastline under the same stupid pretenses. They're spending more money to enforce this facade of a "shutdown" than they would be normally spending.

So....who's really being the obstructionist here?

CriticKitten:
The political tangent in here is off-topic but I'm throwing in my two cents:

AkaDad:
They campaign and get elected on those sound bites. Their philosophy is anti-government and pro-free market. How is repeating what Conservatives say ludicrous? That governing philosophy was the reason they opposed Social Security, Medicare, child labor laws, minimum wages, environmental protections(even though a river caught on fire because it was so polluted), banking regulations, unemployment insurance, welfare, and civil rights laws. Basically, the things which made America a better place.

Ahahahaha! Oh gods, it sounds like you read this straight off of a cue card handed to you by the Democrats. Do people still actually believe this? That one party in the country is full of virtuous saints and the other is full of demons who hate everyone who isn't an old white male? I'm so amused that people like this not only exist, but then they actually want to pretend they know anything about politics.

As I type this, Conservative Republicans have shut down our government

Wrong. The Republican-led House passed no less than three different spending plans, each of which was progressively more lenient and attempted to negotiate with the Democrats in the Senate (they went from "defund Obamacare" to "delay it" to "cut corporate and Congressial exemptions on it"). And then, after the shutdown happened, they attempted to pass several small-scale bills to fund smaller parts of the government to reduce the damage.

The Senate shot every single House proposal down. The Senate, to date, has passed only one bill and is stubbornly insisting that their bill be passed. On top of this, the Democrat-led executive branch is attempting to enforce this "shutdown" by intentionally making life as inconvenient for people as possible. That's why we have incidents like the WWII memorial (which is an open park with no fences or guards) being barricaded and stationed with guards to prevent 90-year-veterans from seeing their own monument, and being threatened with arrest if they even show up. Or any of the other ones provided above. Or the fact that they're closing down ocean coastline under the same stupid pretenses. They're spending more money to enforce this facade of a "shutdown" than they would be normally spending.

So....who's really being the obstructionist here?

I guess it's a bad thing "reading off the Democrats cue cards", but it's perfectly fine when you repeat Republican talking points about the shutdown.

The Democrats passed the ACA when they had the majority. Obama campaigned on it in the last election against the guy who campaigned on repealing it and Romney lost by 5 million votes. The Democrats also gained seats in both chambers. If Americans wanted it repealed they would have given the Republicans full control. The law was passed and funded, if the Republicans want to repeal the law they're going to need to become the majority again, not hold the budget hostage and extort concessions from the Democrats on their signature legislation. If the Dems give concessions on this, what's going stop the Republicans from not raising the debt ceiling until Dems pay off their extortion demands? That's not how you run the government. You can try and blame this on Democrats, but this shutdown is wholly on the Republicans.

If life is inconvenient for people, then the Republicans shouldn't have shut down the government.

There's no point arguing anymore if you're going to be disingenuous.

Ihateregistering1:

I wasn't trying to be condescending, you really need to do more research.

Social security: Approximately 110 Republicans in the house at the time: 85 voted for it, 15 voted against it (rest didn't vote or not present).

You failed to reconcile the fact that he pointed out that the STATE of Texas has a balanced budget, not just Houston.

Massachusetts has had Conservative Governors as well (remember Rick Scott?).

Iraq War: Over half the Democrats in Congress voted for the Iraq War, so I'd hardly say that they lockstep opposed it.

The EPA was signed into law by an Executive Order from Richard Nixon, a Republican.

Welfare: Even most Democrats admit that Welfare was a disaster until the welfare reforms of the late 90's, which were pushed by Republicans.

"Our largest expenditure is on Defense, but try getting them to cut the Pentagon or defense budget."
For starters, our largest expenditure isn't on defense, we spend more on both Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security. 2nd, Democrats were in office during essentially all of our biggest Military expenditures, including WW2, Korea, and Vietnam. A Repub was in the house during Iraq/Afghanistan, but like I already mentioned, a majority of Democrats voted for both of those wars.

"Conservatives rightfully rant about our debt, but the problem is they try to blame it on all on Liberal spending, when in fact the majority of our debt was passed by Conservative presidents."
It's Congress that has "power of the purse", so debt falls more to them than anyone else. Since libs usually use the Reagan era onwards to point out this fact, feel free to check out this chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Public_Debt_Ceiling_1981-2010.png
As you can see, debt increases much faster when we have a Democratic controlled Congress.

"Conservatives also talk about intrusive Government while passing laws that intrude into our lives."
Agree 100%

"This whole argument that both sides are bad isn't really true and all it takes is some research to see it."
I agree on the research part.

The funny thing about this is that I don't even consider myself Conservative, but it drives me nuts when people are so brainwashed with the "My side good!!! Other side bad!!!!" ideology that they'll believe anything there told. It's like people who will continue to insist that vaccines cause autism, no matter how much research you put in front of them.

Oh, and the Democrats shut down the Government 7 times during the Reagan era.

First, I'd like to say thanks for being civil in your responses.

I don't have time right now to go over everything you said, but I'd like to quickly make a couple corrections. A majority of Democrats voted against the Iraq war. In context of the debt, defense is our biggest expenditure since SS and Medicare are funded by the payroll tax which doesn't contribute to the debt.

While Nixon did establish the EPA, Republican presidential candidates, in the last election, are on record saying they want to abolish the EPA, which is nuts, frankly.

Lastly, my original comment was Conservative vs. Liberal governing. Doesn't it make sense that anti-government politicians who want to eliminate government and privatize its functions are going to do a shittier job as opposed to the politicians who don't hate government and want it to succeed? Liberal government isn't perfect by any stretch, but compared to conservative governments, it's a lot better.

MarsAtlas:
I mean, did you even finish watching the NSA episode? It pointed out the hypocrisy of people demanding less government surveillance but still plaster their personal information all over the net

I haven't seen the episode, so maybe they phrased the view differently than you just did now, but I can tell you the fallacy of it: people choosing to share their personal information is different than the government deciding it can read your emails, listen in on your phone calls, etc. without seeking your consent (or even letting you know about it).

I have to say, I've enjoyed South Park since it began but there are times I get tired of the 'Everyone's wrong in their own way' stance because, akin to Bob's argument, it smacks of false equivalency. The idea that not having an opinion or taking an 'a pox on both your houses' view of conflicting sides in an argument is somehow wiser or more mature than believing in something is just infantile. I'm not saying there aren't some cases where it's acceptable to ignore an issue (as opinionated as I am I keep the entire Israel/Palestine issue at arm's length for a variety of reasons), and in many cases having a greyer, nuanced opinion is more thoughtful and admirable than a reflexive liberal or conservative one.

But South Park, intentionally or not, has helped cultivate an entire movement of "Both sides are assholes, so I'm just going to stay away from all of it, as if I'm above it." in most/all things. There's nothing unique or insightful about saying that Democrats can be just as partisan as Republicans, and all-too-often trying to say that both parties are equally extremist or equally stubborn simply shows you aren't paying attention.

It's the fans of South Park that bother me. I don't expect the show to change its approach, and I can't blame Parker and Stone for having their viewpoint, even if I disagree it at times. But people who have apparently taken the 'Both sides are wrong' message to heart and praise the show for saying what they want to hear? That's just ridiculous. It's similar to how I, an unabashed liberal, am bothered by other liberals/Democrats who praise The Daily Show and The Colbert Report for preaching their views because they make fun of Republicans. Whatever Stewart and Colbert's actual politics may be, they're not dyed-in-the-wool activists who want to see the Republican party taken down (anybody remember the Rally to Restore Sanity and it's 'both sides need to tone down the rhetoric' message?). They're just comedians using current events as material, and because the Republican party so often touts its craziest, more reactionary members, that's where they get their material.

Just because a comedian makes fun of people you don't like doesn't mean they're on your side. It probably just means they know how to play to the audience.

Shadowsetzer:

ValSmith61:
Once again, Bob shows what a massive f**king hypocrite he is by calling out South Park, yet he gives shows like the Simpsons & Family Guy a free pass when they use their "privilege" to insult people, simply because he agrees more with the far-left leanings of Groening and McFarlane.

Bob, you are just a worthless hypocrite. And you're still wrong for supporting drone warfare.

Maybe chill out and just say you disagree, instead of throwing out profanity and character attacks? You've been on the site long enough to know you hate Bob, so just don't watch/read his stuff.

Well, there's always train-wreck fascination. Perhaps he was trying to save us from what he saw as Moviebob Propaganda.

AkaDad:
I guess it's a bad thing "reading off the Democrats cue cards", but it's perfectly fine when you repeat Republican talking points about the shutdown.

Republican talking points? Bwahaha.

No no, you seem confused. There's a difference between facts and talking points.

All of what I've said is on the public record. It's unmitigated fact.

It's fact that the House has passed three different measures in a span of two weeks in an attempt to prevent the shutdown. It's public record, every major news outlet has reported as much. Here's an article from the Washington Post which directly states that the House passed three separate proposals. The Senate, to date, has passed only one.

And after the shutdown occurred, they passed several resolutions trying to fund separate parts of the government and provide pay for workers affected by the shutdown. Here's a recent bill, which passed with unanimous support from both parties in the House, which allows for furloughed workers to receive appropriate compensation pay for their lost hours.

Furthermore, it's fact that the Senate has rejected all proposals by the House to date. Their votes are a matter of public record. They have rejected every proposal from the House. Here's a link to one such rejection. Your homework for tonight is to go look up the other two and write a paper about how it's dishonest to pretend that three separate bills don't exist for the sake of towing a political party line. And it's fact that the Senate has done nothing to put forth measures to provide for the families of federal workers impacted by the shutdown. I don't see any proposals to help federal workers coming from the Senate, do you? That's because the Senate hasn't bothered, and can't be bothered with it. They're too focused on these "all-or-nothing" hardball tactics to pass smaller, common sense measures that would provide emergency funding for groups that need the money now.

Third, it's fact that the government, under the charge of the executive branch, has been closing down locations that, under normal circumstances, should be unaffected by the shutdown. In fact, they're spending more money to shut the government down than they would to keep it open in some places! Take, for example, the WWII memorial in Washington. This memorial is an open park-like memorial with no fences or guards. At the start of the shutdown, barricades were erected and guards stationed there to keep people out of the memorial. How is that saving us money? And worse, WWII vets are being denied access to their own memorial, and even threatened with arrest if they attempt to show up there. Oh, but surely the administration isn't doing this intentionally, right? Nope! The Obama administration was well aware of the veterans' plans to visit the monument, and a request put forth by Representative Palazzo to allow them to visit was rejected. Why? Because that way he could point fingers at the Republicans for why the memorial is closed. It's all about political points.

All of these things can be proven, there are articles all over the web verified by multiple sources. Unless you're going to try and claim that all of the news sources I've just listed are Republican-based news organizations (which would be very amusing, since most of them are in fact the opposite), then you can't possibly try to pretend that what I've said is false. These aren't talking points, these are FACTS.

No, what you said, that's what talking points look like.

-the rest-

I'm not blaming Democrats for the shutdown. You need to get your reading glasses out.

I place the blame for the consequences of the shutdown squarely on two bodies of government:
1) The Senate, for refusing to compromise with any of the ideas put forth by the House
2) The White House and Obama, who are purposely attempting to make the government shutdown as inconvenient for people as possible in a pathetic attempt to score political points.

It's got squat to do with political parties, really, and more to do with a collection of people being far too stubborn and unwilling to negotiate.

There's no point arguing anymore if you're going to be disingenuous.

I couldn't agree more. If you're going to deny the facts of the situation, then there's no point in paying any attention to you.

I'm pretty sure neither the baby nor the angry man actually represent anything. It's just an anecdote set up to demonstrate a point.

The angry man and the baby are both annoying to the other passengers. But while a baby crying isn't something anyone can really do anything about, because crying is just a thing babies do, the angry man is a full-grown adult who should really know better than to have an argument with his girlfriend on speakerphone on a crowded bus.

The overall point is that not everything warrants being attacked equally.

"How dare he disrupt everyone with an argument with his girlfriend." Is a reasonable complaint. You don't have to argue where everyone can hear you.

"How dare she have a baby and bring it on a bus." Is not a reasonable complaint. Maybe her car is in the shop. Maybe she can't afford a sitter, or to take her child to daycare. Maybe she doesn't even have a car. Maybe there's no father. We just don't know.

Callate:

"Chef was a robotic child molester all along!" ...Yeah, guys, that's hilarious. What is this, the Mafia? You walk away, you can expect a bullet to the back of the head?

So... I'm just throwing out a wild guess here but... You didn't actually watch the episode at all, huh? Just read somewhere about how they treated Chef in the episode, allowing bias and all to jump into some conclusion, huh?

Here buddy, let me actually tell you what happens, because frankly its obvious you don't know.
1) Chef got bored, decided he'd look into some clubs for adventure.
2) Chef joins SUPER adventure club, who believes in molesting little children to live forever, they promptly brainwash him.
3) Chef comes home, and instead of singing about laying women by the fire, its children. The South Park gang get worried.
4) They look into it, and start trying to get Chef back to normal. Cue black female stripper with gigantic arse, Chef is saved.
5) Super Adventure Club kidnaps Chef to reintegrate him into the fold, kids pursue, fighting breaks out and Chef falls off a bridge, presumed dead.
6) As a damn well bloody obvious reference to Star Wars 3, Chef is shown being turned into a (again, painfully obvious) reference of Darth Vader.

So sorry fella. You're sadly very wrong on that part. It never in the slightest claimed Chef was any of that during the entirety of the series up until that point.

So, a thread about South Park has devolved into a left wing/right wing (or dem/repub) argument five pages in.

I can't tell if that is ironic or meta. It's probably neither since I only have a tenuous grasp on what either of those words mean.

I like how everyone saw "Hey, this show I like a lot and find consistently funny has a negative aspect I'd like to talk about" and interpreted it as "I hate this show and everything about it because it makes fun of liberals."

The Escapist Forums: Where Reading Comprehension Goes to Die

AkaDad:

Ihateregistering1:

I wasn't trying to be condescending, you really need to do more research.

Social security: Approximately 110 Republicans in the house at the time: 85 voted for it, 15 voted against it (rest didn't vote or not present).

You failed to reconcile the fact that he pointed out that the STATE of Texas has a balanced budget, not just Houston.

Massachusetts has had Conservative Governors as well (remember Rick Scott?).

Iraq War: Over half the Democrats in Congress voted for the Iraq War, so I'd hardly say that they lockstep opposed it.

The EPA was signed into law by an Executive Order from Richard Nixon, a Republican.

Welfare: Even most Democrats admit that Welfare was a disaster until the welfare reforms of the late 90's, which were pushed by Republicans.

"Our largest expenditure is on Defense, but try getting them to cut the Pentagon or defense budget."
For starters, our largest expenditure isn't on defense, we spend more on both Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security. 2nd, Democrats were in office during essentially all of our biggest Military expenditures, including WW2, Korea, and Vietnam. A Repub was in the house during Iraq/Afghanistan, but like I already mentioned, a majority of Democrats voted for both of those wars.

"Conservatives rightfully rant about our debt, but the problem is they try to blame it on all on Liberal spending, when in fact the majority of our debt was passed by Conservative presidents."
It's Congress that has "power of the purse", so debt falls more to them than anyone else. Since libs usually use the Reagan era onwards to point out this fact, feel free to check out this chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Public_Debt_Ceiling_1981-2010.png
As you can see, debt increases much faster when we have a Democratic controlled Congress.

"Conservatives also talk about intrusive Government while passing laws that intrude into our lives."
Agree 100%

"This whole argument that both sides are bad isn't really true and all it takes is some research to see it."
I agree on the research part.

The funny thing about this is that I don't even consider myself Conservative, but it drives me nuts when people are so brainwashed with the "My side good!!! Other side bad!!!!" ideology that they'll believe anything there told. It's like people who will continue to insist that vaccines cause autism, no matter how much research you put in front of them.

Oh, and the Democrats shut down the Government 7 times during the Reagan era.

First, I'd like to say thanks for being civil in your responses.

I don't have time right now to go over everything you said, but I'd like to quickly make a couple corrections. A majority of Democrats voted against the Iraq war. In context of the debt, defense is our biggest expenditure since SS and Medicare are funded by the payroll tax which doesn't contribute to the debt.

While Nixon did establish the EPA, Republican presidential candidates, in the last election, are on record saying they want to abolish the EPA, which is nuts, frankly.

Lastly, my original comment was Conservative vs. Liberal governing. Doesn't it make sense that anti-government politicians who want to eliminate government and privatize its functions are going to do a shittier job as opposed to the politicians who don't hate government and want it to succeed? Liberal government isn't perfect by any stretch, but compared to conservative governments, it's a lot better.

A few things:
You are half correct. The majority of Democrats in the House voted against the Iraq War (82 yeas to 126 nays) but the majority of Democrats in the Senate voted for it (29 yeas to 21 nays).

Social security does contribute to the debt (take it away Politifact):
http://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/statements/2012/dec/10/jeanne-shaheen/social-security-doesnt-contribute-national-debt-sa/
The original idea was that it would 'pay for itself', but now it hasn't been able to for quite some time. You must remember that when Social Security was passed, life expectancy in the United States was much lower. People are living much longer beyond their retirement than was originally expected or planned, and thus the ability to fund the project has become severely curtailed.

"Doesn't it make sense that anti-government politicians who want to eliminate government and privatize its functions are going to do a shittier job as opposed to the politicians who don't hate government and want it to succeed? Liberal government isn't perfect by any stretch, but compared to conservative governments, it's a lot better."
Not in the slightest. A politician who caters to public-sector unions, and who insists that the Public-sector will do it better in spite of research to the contrary, is going to be far worse than a politician who turns something over to the private sector and says "let the people decide". Now, it's not always that simple, and in certain circumstances their are things the public sector does better, but it is foolhardy to simply say "oh you're a conservative so you hate everything related to the Government". There's a big difference between favoring small Government and favoring Anarchy.

Wow, it's the typical game site forums in here. Jesus F. Christ, people. While I find the politics of the USA fascinating and kinda funny, in a scary sort of way, this is not the place to argue about such things.
On topic, South Park often picks a side. I don't see it being neutral very often. Hell, the 2 released episodes of the current season are clearly supporting one side, even though in one of them it's the side of the obnoxious asshole (Cartman).

Dammit, I try to avoid anything Bob that isn't about movies, cartoons and comics. Figured this was safe and he might have something to say that wouldn't make me wish this site would disappear forever and Bob and Yatzhee would just go on their own damn sites so I wouldn't have to come here for their output.

I thought it was safe and I clicked and then Bob started going on about privilege.

He wants to blast South Park for the gall to slam someone else for their free pass, and then turn right around and prattle on about privilege, because luckily, he's in the privileged position to have the correct political views of right now and therefore he's just plain better than other people. Complaining about them no longer targetting special interest groups? They haven't stopped, the only thing that's changed is now you find yourself in one of them, and as always, it's all fun and games until the sights are aimed at you.

"Of course its fine to insult Right thinking people and stuffy conservatives on their views and right them off and generally act like bigots towards, because we're liberal, so we're right when we do it. But you aren't allowed to have a go at us! You're too privileged to speak and be heard!"

~~~~~~

Also, the analogy is stupid, people patting Bob on the back for that are absurd. If South Park can be said to slap anyone it's metaphorically. The analogy only actually fits with reality if the obnoxious guy on the bus shouts at the baby to shut up and then does the same for the man.

But the babies crying so loud and it's so wrapped up in its own little world and it's so coddled by the controlling circumstances that it can't even understand the larger world, let alone hear what its trying to say and see itself as it is and be ashamed.

bobleponge:
I like how everyone saw "Hey, this show I like a lot and find consistently funny has a negative aspect I'd like to talk about" and interpreted it as "I hate this show and everything about it because it makes fun of liberals."

Because Bob is very well known for his highly liberal leanings, and that's literally the ONLY reason he's committing this attack.

It's got little to do with "reading comprehension" and more to do with connecting the dots. Bob is a known liberal who thinks Family Guy is creative and witty humor that is under-appreciated by the world (even when it's comparing McCain's supporters to Nazis without a shred of joking tone to it), but jumps on South Park as getting a "free pass" in the media after it attacks a liberal for a string of violent homophobic Tweets. Connect the dots.

Of course he's not going to say "I hate this because it mocked a liberal", no one EVER comes right out and admits that they dislike something because it attacked someone from their political leanings. No, they manufacture an alternative excuse to attack it instead, and then use said excuse as a shield against criticism when people point out that the attack in question is clearly along party lines.

The fact of the matter is, the people who are calling this out as a politically-based attack are the ones who know Bob much better than you do. Because it's rather exceedingly obvious that politics are, in fact, what this is really all about.

Tombsite:
Just to troll all of the people claiming that we should stick to the middle.

Some people want evolution to be thought in schools and some want intelligent design thought. Is it really acceptable to stay in the middle and allow both?

And yes you have extremist on both sides. I have seen some very extreme atheist talk about this subject :p

Certainly you should teach both. Of course, intelligent design is not science by definition and shouldn't be taught in science class, but there isn't really any clear or decisive evidence of abiogenesis either so you probably shouldn't be teaching that in science class either. Abiogenesis vs creationism would be an interesting topic for a debate club or philosophy class or something along those lines though.

Not the reaction you were hoping for, was it? =p

CriticKitten:

-the rest-

I'm not blaming Democrats for the shutdown. You need to get your reading glasses out.

I place the blame for the consequences of the shutdown squarely on two bodies of government:
1) The Senate, for refusing to compromise with any of the ideas put forth by the House
2) The White House and Obama, who are purposely attempting to make the government shutdown as inconvenient for people as possible in a pathetic attempt to score political points.

It's got squat to do with political parties, really, and more to do with a collection of people being far too stubborn and unwilling to negotiate.

There's no point arguing anymore if you're going to be disingenuous.

I couldn't agree more. If you're going to deny the facts of the situation, then there's no point in paying any attention to you.

Boehner just did an interview that shows you're wrong.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But Mr. Speaker, he says -- and he said it publicly on many occasions, that you came to him back in July and offered to pass a clean government funding resolution, no Obamacare amendments, that was $70 billion below what the Senate wanted. They accepted it. And now, you've reneged on that offer.

BOEHNER: No, clearly there was a conversation about doing this.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Several conversations.

BOEHNER: Several. But--

STEPHANOPOULOS: And you offered a clean resolution.

BOEHNER: But I and my members decided the threat of Obamacare and what was happening was so important that it was time for us to take a stand. And we took a stand.

And there ya go. The Republican shutdown in a nutshell.

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/week-transcript-house-speaker-john-boehner/story?id=20476180

Republicans were warned about the inconveniences that would result from a government shutdown.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/10/congress-was-warned-the-shutdown-would-delay-military-death-benefits/280299/

It's ok to admit you were wrong.

cursedseishi:
So sorry fella. You're sadly very wrong on that part. It never in the slightest claimed Chef was any of that during the entirety of the series up until that point.

You're right. I was relying on memory of a description from an article in a news magazine which I believed to be accurate, and given the availability of all the episodes online, that's a poor excuse.

I do still think that Chef's death and resurrection could have been handled with more grace, but I recognize that the portrayal wasn't as I described. I apologize.

It's been truly fascinating the debate thats formed in this thread, and its interesting to see where it hasn't devolved to. I think Movie bob is completely entitled to his opinion and the truth is I feel like even though his point of view expressed in this article is easily traced back to his bias that is fully unleashed on his youtube channel, I wish he'd leave South Park alone. I loved the first 3 seasons of family guy, but I left it alone when it really started to get didactic and condescending. I still come back for an episode or two but Bob really needs to do the same.... or not.

You should not that Movie bob pulled a Fox News on us and said something that is pretty divisive because it gets him an insane amounts of views.

Hell I've posted in this thread 3 times... and no one is talking to me...

Well done Tallyrand.

CriticKitten:

bobleponge:
I like how everyone saw "Hey, this show I like a lot and find consistently funny has a negative aspect I'd like to talk about" and interpreted it as "I hate this show and everything about it because it makes fun of liberals."

Because Bob is very well known for his highly liberal leanings, and that's literally the ONLY reason he's committing this attack.

It's got little to do with "reading comprehension" and more to do with connecting the dots. Bob is a known liberal who thinks Family Guy is creative and witty humor that is under-appreciated by the world (even when it's comparing McCain's supporters to Nazis without a shred of joking tone to it), but jumps on South Park as getting a "free pass" in the media after it attacks a liberal for a string of violent homophobic Tweets. Connect the dots.

Of course he's not going to say "I hate this because it mocked a liberal", no one EVER comes right out and admits that they dislike something because it attacked someone from their political leanings. No, they manufacture an alternative excuse to attack it instead, and then use said excuse as a shield against criticism when people point out that the attack in question is clearly along party lines.

The fact of the matter is, the people who are calling this out as a politically-based attack are the ones who know Bob much better than you do. Because it's rather exceedingly obvious that politics are, in fact, what this is really all about.

It would be great if the gaming community could move past the idea that any and all criticism constitutes an "attack" or "bashing."

"lol he's just bashing this thing I like for no reason, therefore I can dismiss his opinion and my worldview remains unchallenged lol"

If I were to "connect the dots" on your post, I'd say you're an over-defensive self-professed libertarian who is comforted by the idea that everyone is wrong (except you of course!), and reacts angrily whenever someone suggests that in a lot of cases there is actually a right side and a wrong side.

AkaDad:

Brian Tams:
The more I read stuff from Moviebob, the more apparent it becomes that he believes conservatism in any form is completely evil, whereas Liberalism is the savior of the earth.

Bob, you do understand that both ideologies have flaws, right? How come, whenever a show dares to take a shot at the Democratic party, you're always there to discredit it? And yet, when Family Guy, a show that compares the GOP with Nazism (as other posters have already pointed out), you'll defend it with your dying breath?

Newsflash: Both parties are just as full of political scumbags as the other. Nobody on this planet deserves a free pass from criticism, not you, not South Park, not Family Guy, and not Democrats/Liberals (or Conservatives).

I'm sure you're a very nice guy in person, but I just can't understand this righteous position you've taken.

Has Bob ever said that he believes conservatism in any form is completely evil, whereas Liberalism is the savior of the earth? I've never heard him say that, so either you're psychic or lying.

I've been following politics for over 30 years, I've seen both governing philosophies at work, and if you compare Liberal governance to Conservative governance, Liberal governance has better outcomes. Compare The People's Republic of Massachusetts to any Conservative state in the south for proof.

So wrong i do not even know where to begin you need to do some fact checking, seriously.

And texas would like to have a word also, one of the most right states out there, one of the few states to have a budget surplus, where cali, ohio, pa are left states and all their economies are in the crapper.

bobleponge:

If I were to "connect the dots" on your post, I'd say you're an over-defensive self-professed libertarian who is comforted by the idea that everyone is wrong (except you of course!), and reacts angrily whenever someone suggests that in a lot of cases there is actually a right side and a wrong side.

Your description of the person you responded to is interesting to me. On the one hand you suggest that, because you believe he is libertarian that he also thinks he's right and everyone else is wrong. Then you continue by suggesting that in most cases there is actually a right and wrong side. I find this interesting because your latter statement seems to muddle the point of former one. Certainly, if he feels he is right and other people are wrong, he does subscribe to the idea that there is a right and wrong side.

I think it is telling that each side (there are more than two after all) believes that their side is right, obviously right and that whomever disagrees is inept, ignorant or incapable. It seems to me that there often is a right and wrong side, but only insofar as it relates to perspective. The subjectivity of one's own viewpoint makes the right and wrong of a situation seem obvious and the inability of people to empathize with the subjective viewpoints of others makes those others seem either idiotic, ignorant or insane.

This sort of relates back to Bob's problem with South Park. He seems to view the situation as one where there are only two sides and so that third party who is making fun of both sides is, therefore, not really a side of their own with their own ideas and beliefs. This is made all the more clear by portraying one side of being worthy of derision while the attack on the other is wholly unjustified and, in fact, so out of proportion as to be insane. His whole description basically boils down to the idea that there is a right side, a wrong side and a group that isn't really a side, they are just crazy people who don't agree with him.

While I wouldn't say that one should react 'angrily' to the suggestion that there is usually a right and wrong answer to dilemmas, I would suggest one should be extremely skeptical of anyone who is claiming there are. I would say that in most cases there are not clear cut right and wrong answers because we cannot possibly know the full consequences of any given action. The whole reason we have debates over these things is because there isn't a clear cut answer, and that the consequences of any action we might take will probably be negative for someone somewhere. This is why all sides are so keen on downplaying the consequences of the action they want to take and over-stating the consequences of their opposition's preferred action plan.

I realize that is a wall of text to respond to a single statement, but I am responding as much, or more, to Bob's ideas as your own.

AkaDad:

CriticKitten:

-the rest-

I'm not blaming Democrats for the shutdown. You need to get your reading glasses out.

I place the blame for the consequences of the shutdown squarely on two bodies of government:
1) The Senate, for refusing to compromise with any of the ideas put forth by the House
2) The White House and Obama, who are purposely attempting to make the government shutdown as inconvenient for people as possible in a pathetic attempt to score political points.

It's got squat to do with political parties, really, and more to do with a collection of people being far too stubborn and unwilling to negotiate.

There's no point arguing anymore if you're going to be disingenuous.

I couldn't agree more. If you're going to deny the facts of the situation, then there's no point in paying any attention to you.

Your partial reply

You seem to be ignoring the very extensive and cited first part of his post which clearly shows you to be wrong, because that doesn't fit your talking points. Try again.

AkaDad:
It's ok to admit you were wrong.

But I'm not, so I won't.

You seem to think that a single interview disproves the existence of ALL of the evidence I compiled in that post.

It doesn't. All of that stuff still happened. And you still don't have an answer for any of it.

You can go back to "ignoring me", now (i.e., digging through news articles for even the slightest snippet of information to "prove me wrong", instead of actually ignoring my posts like you said you were going to). Or, if you'd prefer, you can just admit to being mistaken and not having any facts behind your argument. As you said, it's ok to admit you were wrong.

bobleponge:
"lol he's just bashing this thing I like for no reason, therefore I can dismiss his opinion"

Yeah, that's pretty much what's happening here.

Oh, you meant it ironically? Too bad. I didn't.

Bob's bashing has absolutely no grounds in reality, as several other people have also pointed out in this thread, some in greater detail than I have. And the fact that this is the same man who has come out as saying that he still considers Family Guy (which is, unarguably, a highly liberal cartoon made by a highly liberal writer) to be creative and witty and vastly underrated by the internet is not an irony lost on anyone here.

Bob's just angry that a fellow liberal has rightfully been taken to task for comments he made that were both grossly intolerant and inappropriate.

If I were to "connect the dots" on your post, I'd say you're an over-defensive self-professed libertarian who is comforted by the idea that everyone is wrong (except you of course!), and reacts angrily whenever someone suggests that in a lot of cases there is actually a right side and a wrong side.

Er, this makes absolutely no sense.

If I'm right and everyone else is wrong, wouldn't that imply that I *do* believe in both a right side and a wrong side? Or does that make too much sense for you?

Really, if you're going to bother with petty ad hominem in lieu of having an actual point, you may want to make certain that the insult makes sense, first.

CriticKitten:

AkaDad:
It's ok to admit you were wrong.

But I'm not, so I won't.

You seem to think that a single interview disproves the existence of ALL of the evidence I compiled in that post.

It doesn't. All of that stuff still happened. And you still don't have an answer for any of it.

You can go back to "ignoring me", now (i.e., digging through news articles for even the slightest snippet of information to "prove me wrong", instead of actually ignoring my posts like you said you were going to). Or, if you'd prefer, you can just admit to being mistaken and not having any facts behind your argument. As you said, it's ok to admit you were wrong.

bobleponge:
"lol he's just bashing this thing I like for no reason, therefore I can dismiss his opinion"

Yeah, that's pretty much what's happening here.

Oh, you meant it ironically? Too bad. I didn't.

Bob's bashing has absolutely no grounds in reality, as several other people have also pointed out in this thread, some in greater detail than I have. And the fact that this is the same man who has come out as saying that he still considers Family Guy (which is, unarguably, a highly liberal cartoon made by a highly liberal writer) to be creative and witty and vastly underrated by the internet is not an irony lost on anyone here.

Bob's just angry that a fellow liberal has rightfully been taken to task for comments he made that were both grossly intolerant and inappropriate.

If I were to "connect the dots" on your post, I'd say you're an over-defensive self-professed libertarian who is comforted by the idea that everyone is wrong (except you of course!), and reacts angrily whenever someone suggests that in a lot of cases there is actually a right side and a wrong side.

Er, this makes absolutely no sense.

If I'm right and everyone else is wrong, wouldn't that imply that I *do* believe in both a right side and a wrong side? Or does that make too much sense for you?

Really, if you're going to bother with petty ad hominem in lieu of having an actual point, you may want to make certain that the insult makes sense, first.

The Republican speaker admits they had a deal with Senate through a compromise. He then renegs and shuts down the government because the Republicans have to take a stand over Obamacare and you're still going to put blame on the Democrats?

Ok, I'm done with you.

*skips the thread that is largely off topic now* I get the distinct feeling that Trey Parker and Matt Stone are the only ones anymore that don't take South Park seriously. And that's really sad, but not because of them. Their indiscriminate satire has nothing to do with taking up some sort of social or political ideal and waving it triumphantly, nor have I ever got the impression that they feel they must do it in equal measure to everybody. They're comedians mining for gold where ever they think they can find it.

Ponyholder:

ValSmith61:

amaranth_dru:
snip

Exactly. But Bob doesn't see things that way. He only thinks people should be mocked if they don't agree with him politically, even if the people he sides with are wrong. Bob is just a cynical, narcissistic, hypocrite.

I love how you created an account just so you can insult Bob, yet don't want your actual account to get warnings. Be a man and take the warnings instead of hiding behind a false account.

You have brought great shame to this noble gaming interet forum with thine duplicitious posting by violating the spirit if not the letter of the posting guidelines. Is nothing sacred to you? Have you no honor good sir? Come and face me like an e-Man knave!

cerebus23:

AkaDad:

Brian Tams:
The more I read stuff from Moviebob, the more apparent it becomes that he believes conservatism in any form is completely evil, whereas Liberalism is the savior of the earth.

Bob, you do understand that both ideologies have flaws, right? How come, whenever a show dares to take a shot at the Democratic party, you're always there to discredit it? And yet, when Family Guy, a show that compares the GOP with Nazism (as other posters have already pointed out), you'll defend it with your dying breath?

Newsflash: Both parties are just as full of political scumbags as the other. Nobody on this planet deserves a free pass from criticism, not you, not South Park, not Family Guy, and not Democrats/Liberals (or Conservatives).

I'm sure you're a very nice guy in person, but I just can't understand this righteous position you've taken.

Has Bob ever said that he believes conservatism in any form is completely evil, whereas Liberalism is the savior of the earth? I've never heard him say that, so either you're psychic or lying.

I've been following politics for over 30 years, I've seen both governing philosophies at work, and if you compare Liberal governance to Conservative governance, Liberal governance has better outcomes. Compare The People's Republic of Massachusetts to any Conservative state in the south for proof.

So wrong i do not even know where to begin you need to do some fact checking, seriously.

And texas would like to have a word also, one of the most right states out there, one of the few states to have a budget surplus, where cali, ohio, pa are left states and all their economies are in the crapper.

Let's compare Mass vs. Texas.

Median Household Income: Mass - $65,339 U.S. - $51,371 Texas - $50,740

Median Family Income: Mass - $82,977 U.S. - $62,527 Texas - $59,765

Per Capita Income: Mass - $34,907 U.S. - $27,319 Texas - $25,359

Poverty rate: Mass - 10.1% Texas 16.2%

Health Care: Mass 3.4% without coverage Texas 23.8% without coverage

Murder rate: Mass 2.2 per 100,000 Texas 4.4 per 100,000

Mass has better sports teams :D

Unemployment rate: Mass 7.2 Texas 6.4

GDP per capita: Mass ranks 6th Texas ranks 7th

Teen pregnancy rates: Mass 42/1,000 Texas 85/1,000

Mass has the lowest divorce rate in the country.

Mass has some of the best schools in the country. Harvard and MIT

The rest of Conservatives states have worse outcomes than Texas.

Like I said, "Liberal governance has better outcomes. Compare The People's Republic of Massachusetts to any Conservative state in the south for proof."

CriticKitten:

AkaDad:
The Republican speaker admits they had a deal with Senate through a compromise. He then renegs and shuts down the government because the Republicans have to take a stand over Obamacare and you're still going to put blame on the Democrats?

You still can't read, I see.

So I'll just quote myself from the last post I made, in the hopes that maybe you'll try to read it this time.

I'm not blaming Democrats for the shutdown. You need to get your reading glasses out.

I place the blame for the consequences of the shutdown squarely on two bodies of government:
1) The Senate, for refusing to compromise with any of the ideas put forth by the House
2) The White House and Obama, who are purposely attempting to make the government shutdown as inconvenient for people as possible in a pathetic attempt to score political points.

It's got squat to do with political parties, really, and more to do with a collection of people being far too stubborn and unwilling to negotiate.

I've established multiple times that it's not about political parties, and yet you keep insisting that I'm specifically blaming Democrats. Yet I pointed out in one of my previous posts that several of the House-led bills passed with bipartisan support, including one to provide "back pay" to furloughed workers.

So basically, you've confirmed once more to everyone in this thread that you're not even reading my posts. You're just desperately grasping for straws to base your argument on, when there is an abundance of evidence that runs contrary to your talking points.

Ok, I'm done with you.

You said that two posts ago. So why are you still replying to me? :)

Is this elementary school debate club, where he who gets the last word must be right simply because they shouted real loud over the other kid and thus were the last person to say anything?

I've provided confirmation from multiple sources, both left and right leaning media outlets, which all confirm that what I have said is fact. You have not only refused to "prove" anything you've said, you've purposely made every effort to completely ignore that abundance of evidence and to act like none of it exists.

Sorry, but you're wrong. You "lost" the "debate". Now please, bow out with grace.

I originally said "As I type this, Conservative Republicans have shut down our government."

You then say, Wrong. The Republican-led House passed no less than three different spending plans, each of which was progressively more lenient and attempted to negotiate with the Democrats in the Senate (they went from "defund Obamacare" to "delay it" to "cut corporate and Congressial exemptions on it"). And then, after the shutdown happened, they attempted to pass several small-scale bills to fund smaller parts of the government to reduce the damage.

The Senate shot every single House proposal down. The Senate, to date, has passed only one bill and is stubbornly insisting that their bill be passed. On top of this, the Democrat-led executive branch is attempting to enforce this "shutdown" by intentionally making life as inconvenient for people as possible. That's why we have incidents like the WWII memorial (which is an open park with no fences or guards) being barricaded and stationed with guards to prevent 90-year-veterans from seeing their own monument, and being threatened with arrest if they even show up. Or any of the other ones provided above. Or the fact that they're closing down ocean coastline under the same stupid pretenses. They're spending more money to enforce this facade of a "shutdown" than they would be normally spending.

So....who's really being the obstructionist here?

Anyone who reads that is going to think that you're partially blaming Democrats. Then you say you're not blaming them.

Do you think Obama is calling all up all the departments and telling them to make people's lives inconvenient or is there protocols that are followed when the government shuts down?

As Stan would say "I've learned something today":

1) Bob still finds the show funny but from a seemingly, more begrudged perspective.

2) A lot of people see South Park differently than I do.
For the record I have always seen it as ideologically optimistic rather than liberally non committal. The gang are representative of human nature: Cartman represents the negative being greedy, spoilt, lazy, narrow minded and cruel; Kenny is the self destructive with nods to the animalistic; Stan is logical, diplomatic, intelligent and insightful, making him the higher reasoning; and Kyle is the positive as he is (usually) kind, generous, spiritual and empathic. The gang needs all four to be complete just as we do.

3) Political followers (just like their elected officials) spend more time using statistics and dogma to discredit their opponents than they spend discussing the issues in question.

4) Escapist mods should look at thread hijacking as I would guess that two thirds (minimum) of these comments are political debate rather than discussions on Bobs views or South Parks ideology/philosophy.

CatmanStu:

4) Escapist mods should look at thread hijacking as I would guess that two thirds (minimum) of these comments are political debate rather than discussions on Bobs views or South Parks ideology/philosophy.

This always happens, I keep coming back to this post because I'm baffled at the random political rants. Seriously, I don't what sort of person would go on a rant about how one side of a government/whatever is evil. Perhaps it's because I live in Australia and the most emotion I tend to find above apathy is annoyed at the government and no "better" side, just less worse.

But anything with America and Politics immediately devolves into a school-grade hissy fit with histrionics, ridiculous 'fact' dropping, blaming and rants.

I love that you think people who are not aligned with a particular ideology will just slap the taste right out of a baby's mouth. It shows your incredible ability to be just as myopic and obtuse as the right wingers you oh so love to criticize.

It just goes so well with your psuedo-liberal ideology. Do you ever tire of being the Michael Savage of the left?

AkaDad:

cerebus23:

AkaDad:

Has Bob ever said that he believes conservatism in any form is completely evil, whereas Liberalism is the savior of the earth? I've never heard him say that, so either you're psychic or lying.

I've been following politics for over 30 years, I've seen both governing philosophies at work, and if you compare Liberal governance to Conservative governance, Liberal governance has better outcomes. Compare The People's Republic of Massachusetts to any Conservative state in the south for proof.

So wrong i do not even know where to begin you need to do some fact checking, seriously.

And texas would like to have a word also, one of the most right states out there, one of the few states to have a budget surplus, where cali, ohio, pa are left states and all their economies are in the crapper.

Let's compare Mass vs. Texas.

Median Household Income: Mass - $65,339 U.S. - $51,371 Texas - $50,740

Median Family Income: Mass - $82,977 U.S. - $62,527 Texas - $59,765

Per Capita Income: Mass - $34,907 U.S. - $27,319 Texas - $25,359

Poverty rate: Mass - 10.1% Texas 16.2%

Health Care: Mass 3.4% without coverage Texas 23.8% without coverage

Murder rate: Mass 2.2 per 100,000 Texas 4.4 per 100,000

Mass has better sports teams :D

Unemployment rate: Mass 7.2 Texas 6.4

GDP per capita: Mass ranks 6th Texas ranks 7th

Teen pregnancy rates: Mass 42/1,000 Texas 85/1,000

Mass has the lowest divorce rate in the country.

Mass has some of the best schools in the country. Harvard and MIT

The rest of Conservatives states have worse outcomes than Texas.

Like I said, "Liberal governance has better outcomes. Compare The People's Republic of Massachusetts to any Conservative state in the south for proof."

http://money.cnn.com/calculator/pf/cost-of-living/
That 50k average is equivalent to making 72k in Boston when you adjust for cost of living. Plus, you have to take into consideration the 5.3% income tax, whereas Texas has none. You do get some bonus points on it being a flat tax rate, something a lot of libertarians would like to see happen federally.

You have MIT, we have Baylor and SMU, along with the Texas Medical Center (which as I mentioned before also happens to be the largest medical complex on Earth). We also have a larger and far more diverse population, meaning more disparity just on sheer numbers, accounting for the above statistics.

Look, we're both number 1 somewhere.
http://www.forbes.com/best-states-for-business/list/

I've lived all over the northeast in my life, with my most time spent in Baltimore. The only thing I miss is the occasional white christmas/new year, and the proliferation of ex-new yorker owned sub/pizza shops, but it's a fair trade for much lower cost of living, and less stressful life overall that I found up north. Keeping much more of my paycheck is nice too.

To part amicably however, I'll cede that Massachusetts is lovely in the fall. If you've never been to Texas, however, do yourself a favor and come down to Houston sometime in the winter. Head to Bellaire and have yourself some of the best vietnamese food this side of the Pacific, and some authentic mexican food.

Wow... this may be the single worse thing Movie Bob has ever produce. And that's saying something. He's so stuck up in his political beliefs, it makes me ill. Mat and Trey are wrong, essentially, because they don't agree with Movie Bob. If a piece of fiction agrees with his political beliefs, he heaps mountains of praise on it, regardless of whether or not the actual film was good. Look at Elysium. The film was heavy handed, poorly written, poorly acted nonsense. But because it had a pro healthcare message it got a glowing review. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the politics, the film itself was bad.

I'm sorry bob, sometimes both sides really are horrible. In this case, The Democratic and Republican parties have been running the same candidate for years. Obama is Bush 2.0. Romney, Mccain, and Gengritch are all the same as Obama. That's the point South Park was always trying to make, because no matter who you vote for, you don't really have any actual choice at all. You have the illusion of choice. What difference does your vote make when the candidates are the same person? The episode in question highlights this with a protagonist who realizes the truth, and the saddest thing is everyone else is fanatical that their candidate is the right choice.

I'm sorry, but Trey and Matt aren't the ones with a political agenda or a skewed vision of reality...

LetalisK:
*skips the thread that is largely off topic now* I get the distinct feeling that Trey Parker and Matt Stone are the only ones anymore that don't take South Park seriously. And that's really sad, but not because of them. Their indiscriminate satire has nothing to do with taking up some sort of social or political ideal and waving it triumphantly, nor have I ever got the impression that they feel they must do it in equal measure to everybody. They're comedians mining for gold where ever they think they can find it.

It's pretty obvious that Matt or Trey don't take South Park they had a whole episode "Funnybot" poking fun at anyone who would take comedy seriously.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here