South Park As A Gated Community

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6
 

Not going to address the first half of your post. If you can't read, then there's no reason for me to keep repeating myself.

AkaDad:
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?

There is no protocol which states that open parks and open memorials are to be stationed with guards and barricades to prevent entry. In fact the very idea runs contrary to the concept of a "shutdown". "Shutdowns" occur when the government can't come to an agreement about what to pay for in the foreseeable future, typically because one group or another can't agree on spending cuts in certain areas. The goal of a "shutdown" is to save the government money by cutting back on the maintenance of non-essentials, such as national parks.

Except, an open park" has no fences or guards or maintenance to speak of. They're freely open for people to walk into at any time. So when you drive down to one of those parks, set up barricades in front of it, and then station guards around the clock, how is that saving any money? It's not. It's actually making you spend far more money than you need to. But that's what you have to do if you want to make a political point and turn opposition against your political opponents. That is a conscious decision made by the person with the political authority to enforce a police-based shutdown, in other words, the executive branch of government.

And as far as "do I think that Obama is purposely doing this?", let me reply by pointing out that the government shut down a major highway because you could see Mount Rushmore from it while driving. Do you actually believe that's part of a "government protocol" in case of shutdown? Or can you snap to your senses and come to the obvious conclusion that a certain someone is exerting his government authority to make life as inconvenient for people as possible, primarily to try and pressure his opponents into doing what he wants?

No, I imagine not, but either way this really needs to stop here. I'd rather not drag this discussion any further off topic. The point I was originally trying to make is that this article is basically a pathetic defense of a liberal's vitrol and hate speech by someone who is well known for his liberal leanings. It should shock absolutely no one that Bob would come to Baldwin's defense and slam South Park for daring to poke fun at him. After all, it's only okay to make fun of people when they're conservatives.

CriticKitten:
After all, it's only okay to make fun of people when they're conservatives.

Well given the sheer amount of awfulness 'Conservatives' tend to be associated with, its not so much that its 'okay' so much as its really really really REALLY easy since comedy wholly relies upon punching upward. Which is also why Conservative 'comedy' fails utterly because its not really comedy so much as bullying.

Also, I think people are reading waaaaay too much into this. All Movie Bob is saying is that South Park fails in certain regards because its perspective is limited. As a show its not really afraid to step outside its comfort zone, and can come off as meanspirted in its humor because there is not that much thought put into it given the limitations of the creators and the quick production schedule.

And you know what? It creeps me the fuck out when well paid political commentators references South Park in any shape or form as 'insightful political humor' or some such. Its not, never will, nor should it be considered as such. Yet.. it is, and when it is, its a problem.

Quadocky:
Well given the sheer amount of awfulness 'Conservatives' tend to be associated with, its not so much that its 'okay' so much as its really really really REALLY easy since comedy wholly relies upon punching upward. Which is also why Conservative 'comedy' fails utterly because its not really comedy so much as bullying.

I wouldn't say conservative comedy "fails" so much as there just aren't nearly as many good comedians that are conservative. I mean when you flip through the list of big-time comedians and look at their political leanings, the business is almost entirely liberals.

Comedy Central has multiple "fake news" shows run by left-leaning comedians, for example, but there isn't really a show out there comparable to The Daily Show or The Colbert Report.

So it's not that it "fails", it's mostly that there's just not all that much of it. Which begs the question "why so serious?"

That's actually one of the reasons I appreciate South Park, who seems much more willing to take jabs at both sides.

Zaydin:

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.

I'm not really sure you could call Trey Parker and Matt Stone left-wing or right-wing; they generally target whatever has pissed them off at the moment, or alternatively, whatever provides the most humor to mock.

Apparently being a "South Park Republican" is a thing... And, yes, it's as stupid and short-sighted as it sounds.

CriticKitten:
Not going to address the first half of your post. If you can't read, then there's no reason for me to keep repeating myself.

AkaDad:
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?

There is no protocol which states that open parks and open memorials are to be stationed with guards and barricades to prevent entry. In fact the very idea runs contrary to the concept of a "shutdown". "Shutdowns" occur when the government can't come to an agreement about what to pay for in the foreseeable future, typically because one group or another can't agree on spending cuts in certain areas. The goal of a "shutdown" is to save the government money by cutting back on the maintenance of non-essentials, such as national parks.

Except, an open park" has no fences or guards or maintenance to speak of. They're freely open for people to walk into at any time. So when you drive down to one of those parks, set up barricades in front of it, and then station guards around the clock, how is that saving any money? It's not. It's actually making you spend far more money than you need to. But that's what you have to do if you want to make a political point and turn opposition against your political opponents. That is a conscious decision made by the person with the political authority to enforce a police-based shutdown, in other words, the executive branch of government.

And as far as "do I think that Obama is purposely doing this?", let me reply by pointing out that the government shut down a major highway because you could see Mount Rushmore from it while driving. Do you actually believe that's part of a "government protocol" in case of shutdown? Or can you snap to your senses and come to the obvious conclusion that a certain someone is exerting his government authority to make life as inconvenient for people as possible, primarily to try and pressure his opponents into doing what he wants?

No, I imagine not, but either way this really needs to stop here. I'd rather not drag this discussion any further off topic. The point I was originally trying to make is that this article is basically a pathetic defense of a liberal's vitrol and hate speech by someone who is well known for his liberal leanings. It should shock absolutely no one that Bob would come to Baldwin's defense and slam South Park for daring to poke fun at him. After all, it's only okay to make fun of people when they're conservatives.

Unless I see conclusive proof one way or the other I am just as willing to believe that it's republicans forcing the shut down of open parks and then making a big deal of it, since it definitely is republicans that initiated the shut down in the first place and then turned around and blamed Obama for it.

This is a law passed by congress with heaps of debate and compromise, if you can even call John Boehner saying he got 98% of what he wanted with a smugly satisfied look on his face "compromise". The constitutionality of law was upheld by the Supreme Court. This law has thus passed all 3 branches of government and their requisite checks and balances, and yet we still need to shut down the government to stop it? Where is constitutional precedent for this? What is going on now is the epitome of political grandstanding and obstructionism during a time where dog poop has a higher approval rating than congress does, and yet congressional republicans (and you) apparently think they are in the right...

If it weren't so sad and scary THIS would actually be funny.

CriticKitten:

Quadocky:
Well given the sheer amount of awfulness 'Conservatives' tend to be associated with, its not so much that its 'okay' so much as its really really really REALLY easy since comedy wholly relies upon punching upward. Which is also why Conservative 'comedy' fails utterly because its not really comedy so much as bullying.

I wouldn't say conservative comedy "fails" so much as there just aren't nearly as many good comedians that are conservative. I mean when you flip through the list of big-time comedians and look at their political leanings, the business is almost entirely liberals.

Comedy Central has multiple "fake news" shows run by left-leaning comedians, for example, but there isn't really a show out there comparable to The Daily Show or The Colbert Report.

So it's not that it "fails", it's mostly that there's just not all that much of it. Which begs the question "why so serious?"

That's actually one of the reasons I appreciate South Park, who seems much more willing to take jabs at both sides.

As I mentioned before, 'Conservative' comedy does exist, its just not what a normal empathetic-healthy individual calls comedy. Steven Crowder for example, (good god, even typing that name makes my skin crawl) his style of comedy amounts to "Hah, homosexuals? Walking around almost naked in a gay pride parade?! I don't wanna see that! Am I right guys? *smug face*" A rational response in any case would amount to: "What the fuck is wrong with you? Are you like, four?" not laughter, never.

In some random conservative 'humor' I've seen on Craigslist they make fun of Nancy Pelosi (or hell, in some cases even invoking that name just drives conservatives up the wall) and the punchline is either that she is (not) a woman, or that she is ugly. Wow, totally hilarious right?

NOW if you want my opinion: what you are calling 'liberal' humor is in actually just plain freakin' humor in the context of culture! Conservatives don't know how to be funny because they are so wrapped up in their own bullshit that they lack humility and irony which makes it impossible for them to even be funny because they don't understand what its like to be someone other than themselves.

Hopefully somewhere in this pile of words in an answer you can have, I am fond of the last bundle before this one because it kinda just gets to the crux of the issue :V

Jarimir:
Unless I see conclusive proof on way or the other I am just as willing to believe that it's republicans forcing the shut down of open parks and then making a big deal of it

The Republicans aren't in control of the Executive Branch of the government at the moment, which is the chief executive of all the departments involved in enforcing the shutdowns. The Executive Branch is also the chief law enforcer, thus all the security doing the enforcement here, the buck stops at the White House. Congress doesn't have any direct executive control of any of these departments or agencies. I'm sorry that you don't know how your government works.

tangoprime:

Jarimir:
Unless I see conclusive proof on way or the other I am just as willing to believe that it's republicans forcing the shut down of open parks and then making a big deal of it

The Republicans aren't in control of the Executive Branch of the government at the moment, which is the chief executive of all the departments involved in enforcing the shutdowns. The Executive Branch is also the chief law enforcer, thus all the security doing the enforcement here, the buck stops at the White House. Congress doesn't have any direct executive control of any of these departments or agencies. I'm sorry that you don't know how your government works.

There couldn't have been a provision in the congressional shut down that also had security officers shut down the parks AND provide funding for those officers to enforce the shut down? Also you're assuming that everyone in the executive branch, every single one, is a Democrat even when Obama placed some Republicans and/or conservatives in key cabinet positions, nevermind any of the various lessor positions some of which may not have even changed personnel since before Obama was elected.

Like I said I want to see PROOF, not someone's politically convenient assumptions.

And if, even if some veterans, tourists, and married couples are inconvenienced or put off directly by Obama's orders, it is small potatoes compared to the 8 million women and children cut off from WIC support, and the thousands if not hundreds of thousands of federal employees that are not able to take a paycheck home to their families right now.

My sympathies will be with them and not the "tourists" and until Obama somehow does something equally that bad or worse, he will still be more in the right in my eyes even if I think this is a silly and unnecessary tactic to employ.

CriticKitten:
snip

Personally, I would say, "take your homework and shove it someplace tight and uncomfortable". Even if AkaDad happens to still be in school you are not his teacher nor do I see any qualification saying that you should be.

You almost had me with your well-cited debate. Then, my brain started working.

What is the point of giving people "appropriate compensation for their wages" when you could just be giving them WAGES for the job they should be doing and would be doing if not for this "stunt"?

What is the point of "shutting down the government" if you aren't going to shut down the government?

All these measures you linked that the House passed... did you read them? They could contain hidden measures and agendas that the Senate just finds unpalatable. Never mind the fact that this seems like backpedalling on behalf of the House Republicans.

"We want to shut down the government over this important issue! ...well maybe not shut it down that much... Can we just shut it down a little bit?"

Everyone keeps bringing up the precious veterans and that memorial. You know what? Those veterans can go fuck themselves if they think visiting a chunk of rock with words on it is more important than 8 million poor women and children getting the food they need.

Why don't you go and do the requisite homework to figure that one out. I get that we owe them our gratitude for their sacrifice and service but we need to stop acting like this is worst casualty of the whole shutdown.

John Boehner smugly said he got 98% of what he wanted out of a "compromise" on this bill and said he was satisfied with the results. Since then the House has wasted time and taxpayer money trying to repeal the compromised law he signed off on more than 40 times and is trying to hold the fate of the nation hostage now that the bill is being put into force. Why? Because it will get him and his peers re-elected in their gerrymandered districts were Tea Party candidates can still beat them out if they don't bow to their radical ideologies.

I am sorry, but the shutdown and the negative effects from it still rest squarely on the shoulders of Republicans and will continue to do so until they withdraw it.

Gorrath:

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 meant more like, he thinks the right side is Him and the wrong side is Everyone Else, which is not a great view to have.

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.

Then you'll be okay with me dismissing your opinion because you keep using the word "bashing" unironically?

The Daily Show just ran a clip of John Boehner admitting, in public, that the Republicans, not the Democrats, caused the shutdown.

They ran the clip because Fox News has been lying, nonstop, claiming that the Democrats caused the shutdown.

The thing to remember here is that rightwingers aren't wrong -- they're lying. That's the entire point. That's the problem. That's why there isn't really a "left-wing" movement since that would merely refer to a bunch of people with enough moral values that prevent them from constantly lying. It isn't a consistent political philosophy. It's just having standards. It's an incoherent group.

So argue as much as you like with someone claiming that the Republicans didn't cause the shutdown, or that we could have never known that Iraq didn't have WMDs, or that most scientists don't believe in climate change, and on and on, but understand this:

Most of the time, you're not arguing with someone who's wrong. You're usually arguing with someone who's arguing in bad faith.

Whether or not that's a productive thing to do is a different issue entirely.

Jarimir:
-snip-

Someone needs to read before he quotes.

That's all the rebuttal you deserve until you actually take the time to read the posts you're attacking.

Quadocky:
-snip-

I would say the same could be said of any political humor, to be honest, not just "conservative humor".

In general, political humor tends to require that you actually somewhat agree with the political message being projected behind the joke, otherwise it's not really all that funny.

Unless, of course, you're the sort of comedian who just points to the stupid shit that the government does and then covers your face with your hands. That sort of humor is the kind of political humor that just about anyone can appreciate.

Jarimir:
Those veterans can go fuck themselves if they think visiting a chunk of rock with words on it is more important than 8 million poor women and children getting the food they need.

Quoting this line in particular because I'd like you to sit down and think for a moment when, at any point in this discussion, anyone ever made that claim.

Then when you fail to come up with an example of someone saying that, you can kindly take your opinion and go home. I think it's absolutely disgusting when someone suggests that a veteran "go eff themselves" regardless of the context. At the very least show respect for elders, if you can't show some respect for these men and women who sacrificed so much for your sake. It's really pretty distasteful.

No one's saying you have to weep your eyes out at their inability to visit a war memorial. Nor is anyone saying that we shouldn't also be outraged at the fact that people will eventually be going without food because of this shutdown. However, I would point out that WWII vets are pushing into the 90s and it's not like they have a lot of time or money left to come back whenever they want, so saying "eff off" is pretty damn rude regardless of what political point you're desperately trying to make.

This isn't a Republican or Democrat thing, either, it's simply a matter of respect, and you're not showcasing any of it. So your opinion is meaningless as far as I'm concerned. Shoo, scat, go away. We don't need any of that here.

bobleponge:
Then you'll be okay with me dismissing your opinion because you keep using the word "bashing" unironically?

Are you still here? Why?

CriticKitten:

Quadocky:
-snip-

I would say the same could be said of any political humor, to be honest, not just "conservative humor".

In general, political humor tends to require that you actually somewhat agree with the political message being projected behind the joke, otherwise it's not really all that funny.

Unless, of course, you're the sort of comedian who just points to the stupid shit that the government does and then covers your face with your hands. That sort of humor is the kind of political humor that just about anyone can appreciate.

That is just it though, 'political humor' isn't suppose to make you laugh so much as 'cheer'. Its a weird sort of self-gratuitous affirmation of "I am right you are wrong NEENER NEENER NEENER!!"

Jon Stewart for example is a comedian because he is funny given he follows traditional humorous set ups of defying expectations. (of course when he is being serious the audience of course cheers appropriately)

But the main problem I am Having right now is with the word liberal and conservative. As either fail to describe the crux of the issues I am trying to get at. For example, the Amazing Atheist could be called 'liberal' but to me he suffers from the same problem as people like Rush Limbaugh so I don't considering him Liberal. Bill Maher is similar, the only difference is that he actually learns and changes which is at least somewhat more admirable. Mr. Limbaugh on the other hand will beat a horse dead, run it over with a truck, place a flag on it, then complain endlessly about it being dead, then start beating it again.

CriticKitten:

Jarimir:
-snip-

Someone needs to read before he quotes.

That's all the rebuttal you deserve until you actually take the time to read the posts you're attacking.

Quadocky:
-snip-

I would say the same could be said of any political humor, to be honest, not just "conservative humor".

In general, political humor tends to require that you actually somewhat agree with the political message being projected behind the joke, otherwise it's not really all that funny.

Unless, of course, you're the sort of comedian who just points to the stupid shit that the government does and then covers your face with your hands. That sort of humor is the kind of political humor that just about anyone can appreciate.

Jarimir:
Those veterans can go fuck themselves if they think visiting a chunk of rock with words on it is more important than 8 million poor women and children getting the food they need.

Quoting this line in particular because I'd like you to sit down and think for a moment when, at any point in this discussion, anyone ever made that claim.

Then when you fail to come up with an example of someone saying that, you can kindly take your opinion and go home. I think it's absolutely disgusting when someone suggests that a veteran "go eff themselves" regardless of the context. At the very least show respect for elders, if you can't show some respect for these men and women who sacrificed so much for your sake. It's really pretty distasteful.

No one's saying you have to weep your eyes out at their inability to visit a war memorial. Nor is anyone saying that we shouldn't also be outraged at the fact that people will eventually be going without food because of this shutdown. However, I would point out that WWII vets are pushing into the 90s and it's not like they have a lot of time or money left to come back whenever they want, so saying "eff off" is pretty damn rude regardless of what political point you're desperately trying to make.

This isn't a Republican or Democrat thing, either, it's simply a matter of respect, and you're not showcasing any of it. So your opinion is meaningless as far as I'm concerned. Shoo, scat, go away. We don't need any of that here.

bobleponge:
Then you'll be okay with me dismissing your opinion because you keep using the word "bashing" unironically?

Are you still here? Why?

Then why do people keep bringing them up? The fact that people keep mentioning the veterans and not the WIC program and not "Meals on Wheels" (respect your elders) and not all the workers on furlough IMPLIES that that is the most important issue/casualty of the shutdown.

Really what I need to do is make a note of your name and never respond to any of your posts/threads because you are way too quick to dismiss people and high off of your own sense of superiority, thus rendering even an attempt at conversation pointless.

I am compelled to quote you to yourself

Are you still here? Why?

Seriously, you could smugly ramble on endlessly without having to worry about sullying yourself associating with the opinions of lessor peoples on a blog or live journal or something.

Feel free to confirm my decision and make some snide remark about how it was redundant for me to express it.

Quadocky:
That is just it though, 'political humor' isn't suppose to make you laugh so much as 'cheer'. Its a weird sort of self-gratuitous affirmation of "I am right you are wrong NEENER NEENER NEENER!!"

But....it doesn't, at least not in general. I tend to laugh, mostly because I find it funny when stupidity is pointed out properly. But I'm not sure that I find myself cheering all that much. Comedy isn't really supposed to be about "who is right", it's supposed to be about having fun.

But the main problem I am Having right now is with the word liberal and conservative. As either fail to describe the crux of the issues I am trying to get at. For example, the Amazing Atheist could be called 'liberal' but to me he suffers from the same problem as people like Rush Limbaugh so I don't considering him Liberal. Bill Maher is similar, the only difference is that he actually learns and changes which is at least somewhat more admirable. Mr. Limbaugh on the other hand will beat a horse dead, run it over with a truck, place a flag on it, then complain endlessly about it being dead, then start beating it again.

Er, but the terms "liberal" and "conservative" refer to their political stances, not their comedy routines. So I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at, here.

If it's the notion that political humor isn't all that "funny", I can't say I disagree. But wouldn't it just be easier to say that? :P

Jarimir:
-snip-

I guess I wasn't clear.

That last post I made? That was me telling you that I don't care. Your posts to date display both an inability to read prior posts made by the people you're ranting at, as well as a blatant disrespect for the subject matter to begin with. So, yeah. I'm sorry, but you really don't deserve a proper reply.

But feel free to call this a "snide remark" that "confirms your decision" if that's what you need to do to feel better.

CriticKitten:

Quadocky:
That is just it though, 'political humor' isn't suppose to make you laugh so much as 'cheer'. Its a weird sort of self-gratuitous affirmation of "I am right you are wrong NEENER NEENER NEENER!!"

But....it doesn't, at least not in general. I tend to laugh, mostly because I find it funny when stupidity is pointed out properly. But I'm not sure that I find myself cheering all that much. Comedy isn't really supposed to be about "who is right", it's supposed to be about having fun.

But the main problem I am Having right now is with the word liberal and conservative. As either fail to describe the crux of the issues I am trying to get at. For example, the Amazing Atheist could be called 'liberal' but to me he suffers from the same problem as people like Rush Limbaugh so I don't considering him Liberal. Bill Maher is similar, the only difference is that he actually learns and changes which is at least somewhat more admirable. Mr. Limbaugh on the other hand will beat a horse dead, run it over with a truck, place a flag on it, then complain endlessly about it being dead, then start beating it again.

Er, but the terms "liberal" and "conservative" refer to their political stances, not their comedy routines. So I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at, here.

If it's the notion that political humor isn't all that "funny", I can't say I disagree. But wouldn't it just be easier to say that? :P

Jarimir:
-snip-

I guess I wasn't clear.

That last post I made? That was me telling you that I don't care. Your posts to date display both an inability to read prior posts made by the people you're ranting at, as well as a blatant disrespect for the subject matter to begin with. So, yeah. I'm sorry, but you really don't deserve a proper reply.

But feel free to call this a "snide remark" that "confirms your decision" if that's what you need to do to feel better.

And so you reply to me twice now to tell me you don't care. I don't believe you. You do care, you keep replying. Whatever faults I may have you seem incapable of comprehending what you yourself are saying.

Either that or I hold some weird power over you. You keep saying you want to look away but you cant...
muahahahahahaha!
<wrings hands>

Edit: Tell me that you don't care a third time, maybe I will believe you then.

BeoW0lfe:
All right children! Let's do this!

First of all, I like Bob. I work in a movie theater and take most of my recommendations from his reviews. His Big Picture shows are mostly great. But this was a bad article. Professionalism and side taking are like toothpaste and orange juice in my opinion. They don't mix.

One side is never completely right. One side is never completely wrong. The message SP sends (in my own opinion) is to take the points of each "side" and pick and choose like you're at a buffet. For example:

IN MY OPINION:

The "Conservatives" Have Right:

The Government is actually bloated, ineffectual, and destroying america's financial credibility.

Welfare should be regulated. I, John Q. Taxpayer, should not have to pay to support Shaniqua D. Babymomma having three more children and a bag of weed. However, I DO want to support Jane S. Outtaluck who just lost their job. I don't owe anyone, but Welfare has a purpose.

The Constitution is actually sacred. You may have my gun from my cold dead fingers.

The Police are for solving crimes and punishing lawbreakers. THEY ARE NOT CRIME PREVENTERS. We live in a free society. I am free to break the law, but not to escape the punishments. There is a difference that many liberals do not understand.

Illegal immigrants do not have (legal rights, they still have human rights) rights. They do not "Deserve" citizenship, medical care or protection. They chose the incorrect way to enter a country.

The "Liberals" Have Right

Keep your religion to yourself. I do not need your religious creation MYTH stated as fact in my/my children's science classes.

Your religion can have laws over your own life, however this is a Democracy, not a Theocracy, and because "God says no to gay marriage and abortion" does not mean that it should be law.

People should not be judged on race, gender, sexuality, religion... etc. However, this also applies to (oh god say it isn't so!) white heterosexual males.

Again, these are entirely my opinion, but there is a point to this. South Park does have a viewpoint that Bob accurately described as "everyone is equally wrong" but his approach in the article is wrong. Liberals are not the crying babe, they are the parent who believes that the baby is entitled to cry loudly in a public space. The BOTH deserved to be slapped. (the parent not the kid) Additionally, to reiterate what some others have said, rein in the hypocrisy. Bob has excellent points on most occasions, but when you let your political ideology bleed through into your writings, you discredit yourself somewhat.

TL;DR
The baby wasn't the liberal, the parent who wasn't doing anything was. So the slappings were equally justified.
No "side" has it all right, but if you take the points of each side that have merit, you can actually "stay in the middle" and make progress. And on the hypocritical note, Once you have ripped Family Guy a new as$hole for comparing the republicans to nazis, then you have my permission to mock South Park.

You don't need guns to be safe (just look at my country, Sweden), EVERYONE has the right to healthcare, the Republicans ARE practically Nazis, and the US Constitution was written more than two goddamn centuries ago by a bunch of rich, white, straight SLAVE OWNERS.

There you go!

Yes, correct. Everyone who disagrees with mainstream liberal philosophy as espoused by Hollywood are just disagreeing to be hipsters. There are no valid concerns with that philosophy. (It's actually a lack of a philosophy, but that's a topic for a different place/time).

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6

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