South Park As A Gated Community

[Nepenthe87]

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.

 

[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.

 

[DonTsetsi]

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).

 

[Schadrach]

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

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

 

[AkaDad]

-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.

 

[Callate]

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.

 

[Kameburger]

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.

 

[cerebus23]

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.

 

[Gorrath]

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.

 

[tangoprime]

-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.

"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.

 

[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.

 

[SOCIALCONSTRUCT]

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!

 

[AkaDad]

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

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."

 

[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?