I wonder where it is?

I liked the ep about how global warming was just a scare story, and also the later ep about how global warming was true after all, but the important thing was that 'the libs' were 'so smug', which made them dumb and lame.

It's misleading to try and pinpoint where they sit on the political spectrum, because that assumes it's a straight line between right and left. There are plenty of side-roads and back-woods on that trail, easy to get lost. Matt and Trey's first allegiance is to fart jokes and pissing off whoever or whatever group has revealed a tendency toward self-indulgent over-sensitivity this week (Republicans, democrats, scientologists, catholics, movie stars etc. etc.) They aren't on your team, they're on their own exclusive team of two.

doesn't mean the show isn't hilarious sometimes.

At least that's how the show works when it's funny.

When it's not funny is when Matt and Trey mistake their clever rudeness for some degree of moral or intellectual superiority and see fit to talk down or preach to their audience (as they've done on issues from both sides of the political fence). This is what's been referred to as them being too far up their own asses, and it's a very accurate assessment of their biggest flaw as creators (hell, even they've acknowledged it).

Their funniest episodes mock situational stupidity. The mocking of ideological stupidity is better left to the likes of Colbert and Stewart.

-They don't take an identifiable 'side' to any argument. the real strength of good satire is exposing the silliness of adhering stubbornly to one polar end of an issue, when it's so clearly controversial for a reason.

The added cherry on top is when they succeed in this process by getting you to ask the right questions for yourself, without leading you around by the nose. Sort of like Socrates, or Columbo.

Liberals always reference thier ancestors, which in a way is a strong argument, but the world is a very differnt place, not just in a geo-political sense, but in very simple terms as well. The human population has essentially doubled since my illiterate Irish grandparents were let off at the wrong port. Also, Libs tend to frame the issue in terms of economic or racial themes, which are also real, but on the grand scale, more of a side-effect to the larger issue, and not the source of the controversy.

Conservatives, on the other hand, when the Libs are wrong about them and it isn't just a race issue, are clinging to an idea of what this country is (or any western democracy) that doesn't really exist, and arguably never did. There is a hefty dose of nationalsim, not patriotism, in thier argument, that has less to do with 'conserving' a pure idea of America and smells more like greed and fear.

What we understand as immigration has changed radically in it's definition from generation to generation, and the change is ongoing. It's up to us, right or left, to first attempt to comprehend that change and deal with it realistically as a culture, and a civilization. The phenomenon isn't going anywhere.

Can't wait for upcoming eps where Obama is an insane evil demon, and McCain wears a silly hat. Oooh, non-partisan! "Both sides get it from SP" = BS.

And I say that as a card-carrying Nazi.

I'm still laughing. Great show. You haters have no sense of humor!

That said a recent episode of Silent Witness featured a plot line about an illegal being sick with a hemoragic type fever, Lhassa or Ebola type.

That gave me pause over the whole illegal support thing. Legal immigrants are immunized and checked for health issues.

At least I hope to fucking god they are.

Disease is the worst thing we can expect from mans encroachment on a shrinking environment and a global village. Read the Coming Plague sometime. Scary shit.

Also, CorpseRide. Put down that book of political buzz words. You could have somebody's eye out with that thing!

Except Pat Robertson, he is a hoot.

I mean, the newest season of "24" is about as joe six pack as you can get. It's well-acted and directed still, but the players who would in reality play a much bigger role (multinationals, the world bank, among others) are non-existent. It's a fantasy, corporation-free world where the decision-makers make decisions because they WANT to, not because they're blackmailed by shadowy corporate forces. Fantasy indeed. Just like the corporations want us to believe.

Anyway, thank you South Park!

But when he had the chance to go to war he pussied out! He actively dodged his turn at the draft. Rolling Stone chronicled his story many, many years ago.

Ted has no fucking right to mention ANYTHING war related because he chose NOT to die in combat!

http://www.imdb.com/title/t t0065213/

But enough about his sometimes awesome, sometimes middling musical career. As patriotic as Uncle Ted claims to be, he pulled a nasty stunt to evade Uncle Sam during the Vietnam War. In a July 15, 1990, Detroit Free Press interview, Nugent crowed about how he managed to dodge the draft. He claims that 30 days before his draft board physical, he disavowed personal hygiene. The last ten days he ingested nothing but junk food and Pepsi, and with a week to go until the physical, he stopped using the bathroom altogether. When the big day came, he had been living in excrement-caked and urine-stained pants. Always the hero, however, Nugent reassured the Free Press, “But if I would have gone over there, I’d have been killed, or I’d have killed all the Hippies in the foxholes. I would have killed everybody.”

Why is it ALL the neo-con faux conservatives are DRAFT DODGING Chikenhawk scumbags?

Better luck next time, my brutha...

It's simple, you're conservative if you are for smaller (or no) government. Bush is almost as much of a liberal as FDR in this respect. Liberals equate conservatism with being pro-war. But if you look at who brought us all the big wars, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy & LBJ, and even Clinton seemed to bomb a new nation every week, then you'll see that war is mostly a big government liberal endeavor. Bush is a neo-con and the founders of the neo-con movement were well known Trotskyites. It's no surprise they say one thing and do the other. Most true conservatives I know, consider him even worse than Clinton. I don't even know how there are any liberals left when I've never once seen government not fuck things up. They're all secretly thinking, "well if I were in control, things would be different."

I use to think Matt and Trey were conservative in the libertarian sense (meaning actual conservatives), but somewhere over the past couple of years, they just proved to be republicans (think radio-show style). They like to hate on liberals and although I'm no fan, I too preferred it when they use to make all sides look retarded. That was always the charm of the show to me. A bunch of "innocent" kids seeing the retardation of the world for what it is when the adults were too much part of the problem to see it themselves.

wanting no government doesn't make you a conservative, it makes you an anarchist. It is true that a lot of folks that call themselves conservative these days don't fit the bill, since they're the same people who blindly follow the administration and have no problem with relinquishing their civil rights. True conservatives challenge their goverment, and keep a close eye to make sure they aren't getting up to any monkeybusiness in our name. Strangely enough, what I would call a 'true Liberal' believes the same thing.

Just because there are examples in history that have so-called "liberal" administrations during times of war doesn't mean the war is a liberal endeavor. You may as well say that War was invented by America, it makes as much sense. War is something that every culture on earth has experienced, either as agressor or victim. Trying to pin it down to one homegrown ideology from the last century is a little weird. Making the leap from the Neo-conservative movement to Trotskyism is waaay out there, but I applaud you for trying. I guess in terms of 'permanent revolution' you're on to something, but following your original logic that conservatives aren't always real conservatives- Marxists from 1920's Russia would have little in common with the average American Liberal today. If anything, the neo-cons were perhaps studying how not to end up in exile for pushing radical change through a society in political flux.

"They're all secretly thinking, 'well if I were in control, things would be different.'"-- To true, that made me laugh.

Your last point is right on. I'm watching the '24' epsiode right now, back to it.

They're pretty hit and miss as a show though.

The defining feature of these guys political stance is anti-lib contraryism, dressed up like non-partisan libertarian "common sense" via some gently affectionate ribbing on superficial aspects of some conservatives.

On the issue of the serious erosion of actual liberties going on right now... uh, enough politics suddenly, time for another poop joke instead, hehe.

as such, I only enjoy the non-political episodes. The one where they fake Butters' death is amzing.

The term is meant to be more of a casual indication of beliefs than a strong partisan label. While South Park co-creator Matt Stone is a registered Republican, co-creator Trey Parker is actually a registered member of the Libertarian Party. Also, Parker and Stone declared All in the Family producer Norman Lear, who helped write a few episodes of South Park [1] and founded the liberal pressure group People for the American Way, as one of their heroes. As the show's co-creator, Matt Stone, sums it up: "I hate conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals." [2] Such sentiments were reflected in their movie Team America: World Police. In August 2006 Trey Parker, Matt Stone and Andrew Sullivan headlined a conference in Amsterdam hosted by the libertarian monthly magazine Reason. During an on-stage interview with Reason editors Nick Gillespie and Jesse Walker, Stone and Parker reaffirmed their discomfort with labels while acknowledging that their political views could be described most accurately as libertarian. John Tierney documented the declaration on the pages of the New York Times a few days later in a column called South Park Refugees. "South Park Libertarians," an edited version of the interview, appeared in the December 2006 issue of Reason.

If you look to any news source outside of Fox or CNN, you know that even Iraqis who speak a single word of english on the street are in danger of being murdered by their fellow countrymen. And here's John McCain telling Wolf Blitzer that they could walk down the street together as safely as any city in America.

bullshit.

Anarchism is conservatism, taken to it's extreme. Just as communism is liberalism taken to it's extreme. Now I know there is a breed of socialist anarchism out there. But that's such a contradiction in terms that I simply dismiss it.

As for war, you don't just have to look at the American example. Stalin, Mao, Hitler (National Socialist Party, despite some who consider him a conservative) are a whole bunch of other examples. You can't wage war without a strong, authoritarian state. And strong, authoritarian states do not reflect conservative ideals. Liberals want to make everyone think and act like them and that ultimately results in calls for war.

Now your average college liberal is a different breed, and I agree with you that the true liberal probably has more in common with the true conservative, than either have in common with republicans or democrats. I think most college liberals just haven't realized yet that they'll never be in charge and the money that's appropriated from them every April 15th will never go to the causes that are important to them. They're simply unjaded.

As for the Trotskite connection, google Irving Kristol, the acknowledge founder of the neo-con movement. He claims to have had a political conversion, but he was once a leading member of the fourth international. Maybe his conversion was sincere, but when Bush is hiring ex-heads of the KGB to staff homeland security and pissing the constitution away, then I have to believe that the neo-con movement isn't conservative at all. Regan use to say the same thing about the Bush Sr. until he was forced to take him as a running mate. There was no support in the republican party for the neo-con movement until fairly recently.

If you like these kinds of debates, you should check out the podcasts (mp3 downloads) at freetalklive.com. One guy is pretty much a full out anarchist and the other is a republican turned libertarian who isn't as extreme. They have good debates and attract an almost even mix of liberals and conservatives as their audience. They're usually rated in the top three podcasts at podcastalley.com. And like the South Park creators, they have no sacred cows.

We have talked about the queen thing briefly

My god man, you can't be serious. Hitler used the word 'socialist' in his party name to appeal to the working poor in Germany at the time who associated socialism with a worker's revolution. (an attractive notion to a people that had been reduced to economic ruin by the last war) Hitler's intent was propagandistic manipulation, the Nazi's had absolutely nothing to do with socialism beyond this thin connection, and EVERYONE figured that out even before the war started. The only people that still try to use the 'socialism' thing in the Nazi name as some kind of rationale for identifying them as some kind of 'liberal' abberation are OUT TO LUNCH. The Nazis were an example of an extreme right wing ideology, no one denies this.

alright, on to the rest of your post, just had to get that off my chest.

There are a few things in your post that we could probably debate all day, (anarchism as an extreme form of conservatism, I would argue that it's an extreme form of liberalism) but I've got work to do. Thanks for the talk, and I'm glad we didn't devolve into senseless name-calling.

Dude buy a clue and Google Bakunin or Kropotkin. Obviously you know shit about Anarchism.

Conservativeism, todays conservativism not REAL kind, taken to the extreme is Fascism!

Real Liberalism is a form of Anarchism. Take your pick from the Bakunin or Kropotkin flavors.

Don't any of you people know modern history?

There are no people with plans in modern day politics.

There are an abundance of people suckling at the corporate tit.

And they ain't doing shit to change the US or World for the common man, the masses we the FUCKING people!

I'm sick and tired of Democrats claiming to be "progressive". I'm a goddamned Liberal. I'm NOT represented by either of the dynamic duo parties.

Only those with MONEY are.

Is that they're so unorganised.

ba-dum-bump.