When did South Park turn right wing

Seems like it's been forever, but that early hunting episode didn't seem so gun friendly, and that Big Gay Al ep definitely wasn't Republican friendly. When exactly did the show turn sides?

"tungstorm!" wrote in message news:5BUxb.125658$[email]...

so

friendly.

The show has always seemed Libertarian (looks like Conservative on surface, but wants everything legal with no consequences), with an overtone of personal responsibility, with another overtone above that of anarchic mania. Throw it all out for "let's tell a monster story" every once in a while.

Really, I think they're attacking sacred cows and making fun of them. The only way a side could claim unfairness would be if they had more sacred cows than another group, thus taking the South Park team more episodes to lampoon them. Religious groups (by definition) and liberal groups tend to have more sacred cows, so they get lampooned more than Conservative groups on the show. Fact of life. As a conservative who is religious, I would find more to offend me on the show than a conservative athiest. A liberal athiest should find more to be offended by than I would, but not by much. A liberal who is religious would be offended the most. Or we could all just relax.

For their political leanings, look at the South Park movie and try to find somebody who 1) isn't bashed at some point or 2) couldn't find a bit to claim as their own in a political fight. I don't think you can.

Benjamin F. Elliott

Benjamin F. Elliott wrote:

That's funny, because I am a liberal atheist and nothing on the show offends me in any way whatsoever. Could it be that you're pulling this nonsense out of your ass?

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:50:55 GMT, Charles & Mambo wrote:

"And Hillary Clinton's ass just seems to be getting bigger."

"To which Mrs. Clinton replied, 'I don't even like Vagina!' "

Seriously, they take way more shots (and rightly so, because they thrust their opinions so vehemontly into the spotlight) at liberals than anyone else.

Clydefrog wrote:

Oh, I see where the problem is: you are using the Limbaugh definition of the liberal according to which anyone who disagrees with anything any conservative stands for is automatically a liberal. Iow, the straw man liberals.

As for "thrusting their opinions vehemontly (sic)" - bullshit.

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:49:23 GMT, Charles & Mambo wrote:

Uh, instead of pulling complete and total bullshit out of your ass, how about rebutting my statement with actual facts, as I did yours?

Clydefrog wrote:

??? Facts? Quoting two lines from SP is considered "facts"?

"Charles & Mambo" wrote in message news:[email]...

The

cows

lampoon

more

more to

should

offends

out

the

liberals.

hmm, you must be the one and only liberal who doesn't believe in hate crime laws... which we all know are savage hypocrisy... or that tolerating queers means that you can still hate them.

Buckaroo Banzai wrote:

Yes, I am a fucking liberal. No, I don't aprove of hate crime laws at all. Yes, you can hate whoever you damn please as long as you don't hurt them in any way. No, I am not "the one and only liberal who etc.". Yes, Limbaugh is full of shit, even when he's full of drugs.

"Charles & Mambo" wrote in message news:[email]...

crime

queers

in

is

Yet another SHINING example of the tolerant, understanding left. Or do you belong to the militant arm of the liberal cause?

Heavyarms wrote:

What are you, on medication or something?

I belive he's OFF his medication... hehe

Who says the left is tolerant & understanding? You remind me of Rick Blaine, who went to Casablanca for the waters - you've been misinformed - probably by a gasbag like Rush.

"Gus" wrote in message news:jMVBb.39321$[email]...

all.

you

Heavyarms wrote:

They were in Webster's long before any politician decided to include them in a speech.

So now you're insisting Trey & Matt are liberals?

"Gus" wrote in message news:tKcCb.70277$[email]...

them

Limbaugh

Respect

of

mutual

opportunity

won't

"diversity"

only

I didn't say liberals made these words up. I said they were the ones who decided to use them as "buzz-words." Sort of like "diversity in the workplace" used every where Affirmative Action is enforced.

your

hour

Nope. I just stuck that in there to keep this post semi-on topic. Obviously Matt and Trey are not liberals, or they wouldn't have chosen to poke fun at liberal sacred cows such as diversity and tolerance in this episode.

Heavyarms wrote:

Oh, I get it - like "compassionate conservative" & "Saddam was behind 911". Thanks

PS: just for the record, I don't agree with hate crime laws, either.

"Gus" wrote in message news:KsvCb.99638$[email]...

<snip>

who

I'm not a compassionate conservative. I don't have much tolerance for socially or fiscally liberal beliefs. I also don't believe that it is our government's job to legislate morality to you. That is to say, I am against the "war" on drugs, I don't think that prostitution should be illegal, I was against the Texas sodomy law. I'm not saying I am in favor of this behavior, I just don't think its the government's job to tell you not to do things that don't directly harm another individual.

& "Saddam was behind

I don't think that Hussein was DIRECTLY responsible for the attacks, but I do know that he had ties to Al Q, and that there were training bases for said in Iraq.

That's very sensible. If I kill a black man and a white man, but I stated previously that I hate black men, does that make the black man more dead than the white man? Is his death more tragic than the white man's? Are my actions against the black man more reprehensible than my actions against the other man? If we are to buy into "equal protection" shouldn't both murders be treated the same?

Heavyarms wrote:

Interesting. Care to share the source, 'cause even the White House admitted they had absolutely no proof of this allegation?

"Charles & Mambo" wrote in message news:[email]...

I

admitted

When did the "White House" say that? Condi Rice in September, '02 http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/25/us.iraq.alqaeda/ "We know too that several of the detainees, in particular some high-ranking detainees, have said that Iraq provided some training to al Qaeda in chemical weapons development. So, yes, there are contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. We know that Saddam Hussein has a long history with terrorism in general. And there are some al Qaeda personnel who found refuge in Baghdad," she said. "There clearly are contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented."

Here's another good one: http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html

I think you're confusing "Saddam had ties to 9/11" (which I didn't claim) and "Saddam had ties to al Qaeda" (which even the White House has stated.)

Heavyarms wrote:

Look, man, I'll give you the benefit of a doubt and assume that you're not deliberately lying. What anyone from the Bush administration said *before* the war in Iraq is completely irrelevant - they had to justify their war machine that had been in full gear by any means necessary. Since then they admitted that the nuclear program story had been a fabrication, no WMDs have been found whatsoever and they even issued a statement about no connection of Iraq to 9/11.

Good one, indeed. The so-called evidence from the article is chock full of infamous "Mr.Powell's UN speech". This speech, if I may remind you, presented as facts the Iraqi nuclear program, as well as the full list of chemical and biological weapons that Iraq allegedly owned, tons of it, down to a milligram. Now, after these fabrications have been unmasked, we are asked to believe such bullshit as "Sudanese intelligence officials told me..."

I'm sorry, but this whole charade of phantom meetings, missing evidence, phony documents and other Wolfowitz-Rumsfeld neocon witchcraft is pathetic. They had a legitimate war on their hands and the appropriate target in Afghanistan and Al Qaeda, as well as the support of the whole world behind them. They pissed it all away on their personal and Israeli lobbyist agendas.

Personally, I have no problem removing bloody tyrants and dictators from power - good riddance, but it needs to be done in a consistent manner: either remove them all or none, don't just act as a Mossad proxy and pick and choose.

"Charles & Mambo" wrote in message news:[email]...

but

for

have

And you snipped that part of my reply out, so I'm guessing you're either not paying attention, or YOU'RE the one who is trying to lie by formaically structuring your reply posts to edit out material that might hurt your argument. I'll say it again more clearly. I DID NOT CLAIM THAT THE WHITE HOUSE STATED THERE WAS A CONNECTION BETWEEN IRAQ AND 9/11. I said that the White House has stated that there are ties between Iraq and al Qaeda. Two different statements. Here is the progression of our conversation so far (pay special attention to my very first statement):

Me: "I don't think that Hussein was DIRECTLY responsible for the attacks, but I do know that he had ties to al Qaeda, and that there were training bases for said in Iraq."

You: "Interesting. Care to share the source, 'cause even the White House admitted they had absolutely no proof of this allegation?"

Me: "When did the "White House" say that? Condi Rice in September, '02 http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/25/us.iraq.alqaeda/ "We know too that several of the detainees, in particular some high-ranking detainees, have said that Iraq provided some training to al Qaeda in chemical weapons development. So, yes, there are contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. We know that Saddam Hussein has a long history with terrorism in general. And there are some al Qaeda personnel who found refuge in Baghdad," she said. "THERE CLEARLY ARE CONTACTS BETWEEN AL QAEDA AND IRAQ THAT CAN BE DOCUMENTED." (emphasis added)

You: blather, blather, blather...Since then,...they (the White House?) even issued a statement about no connection of Iraq to 9/11.

I guess it falls back to me. I never claimed the White House ever made that statement in the first place.

<snip>

Heavyarms wrote:

So where's the problem? *You* said you *knew* that "Hussein had ties to Al Qaeda". I asked you how you knew, then you quoted a White House statement from *before* they went to war. Since they won the war, however, the White House issued a statement denying Hussein's involvement in 9/11 in any way. This after the "scandal" about the fabricated "evidence" of the WMD's and Hussein's nuclear program. I put scandal in qutation marks, because it doesn't even come close to the blow job thing of the Clinton years. Apparently, Americans only care if their president is lying to them about where he sticks his dick. If he causes people to die because of his lies, who the fuck cares...

So, to recap, you quote a White House statement, then one post later you say you "never claimed the White House ever made that statement".

My head hurts.

"Charles & Mambo" wrote in message news:[email]...

not

WHITE

the

Two

far

attacks,

for

House

high-ranking

and

in

Baghdad,"

BE

even

that

say

Here is the statement I've made "I know, based on statements made by the White House, that Iraq had TIES TO AL QAEDA."

Now pay attention, here's where we differ: You have stated, and probably rightly so, that there is no evidence that Iraq (or Saddam, which was what the poster I originally replied to stated) had TIES TO THE TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11TH.

It has been documented, on several occasions, that al Qaeda had training camps in Iraq, and that some members of al Qaeda have been granted safe harbor within Iraq in the past. That's all I'm trying to say. I'm not saying that Iraq or Hussein had a hand in plotting the attacks on 9/11. That's sort of like me saying that Ray Kroc owns MacDonald's (or did), and you thinking I'm saying he had a hand in making that Big Mac that made you sick yesterday.

On or about Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:56:04 -0600, Heavyarms made the sensational claim that:

Umm, don't think so. Saddam was a breed of muslim the Al Queda types thought was pond scum. "Ties" would probably be far overstating any relations between the two.

Heavyarms wrote:

(snip)

Absolutely.

Being white myself, I don't want some killer to decide to off me instead of some black guy who's pissed him off because the penalty's less for killing me.

"Gus" wrote in message news:_IyDb.204051$[email]...

stated

my

the

murders

That's a funny way to look at it. You may have found a new angle to attack "hate crimes" ;-)

Heavyarms wrote:

You think so? I think the entire hate crime concept divides victims into 2 tiers. For some it's bad to commit felonies on them - for the others, it's really bad to subject them to felonies. I've never seen any proposed hate crime legislation which includes me, so I've become a 2nd class citizen, ergo, off me for a lesser penalty.

The entire hate crime business is way too political - someone has to decide that a crime is "bias" related and proceed accordingly. In 1989 TPTB in NYC decided the attack on the jogger in Central part was *not* a bias crime, yet she was certainly selected because she was female. There was also testimony that they approached some sisters earlier and decided to wait for a white bitch. But that's not a hate crime, of course.

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 07:15:08 GMT, Gus wrote:

Actually not a good case, in that the teenagers convicted of the crime were recently exonerated. While they may have been doing other crimes in the park at the time, the evidence now shows that they most likely had nothing to do with the attack on the jogger. Also, NYC has had recent examples of bias crime charges which do not fit the normal white-on-black/black-on-white mold. It's not the race of the victim and perpertrators as much as the motivation behind the crime, at least the way it's being prosucuted in NYC currently.

Jeremiah

[email] wrote:

Which has nothing to do with the decisions TPTB have to make when deciding if a crime is bias related or not. There was testimony at the time concerning the remarks about leaving the sister alone & waiting for a white bitch. The victim was obviously chosen because she is female.

I disagree with the court on this one. The jogger was clearly attacked by more than one guy (there were telltale signs of gang rape), plus the ringleader, Steve Lopez, is the one who smashed her so hard with a rock it shattered her left eye socket. Lopez was not tried with the other 5 and copped a plea as soon as the others were convicted.

In what could be an L&O:SVU episode, the guy who recently came forward and whose DNA matched some from the victim goes unpunished on this crime because the statute of limitations has expired. He's in prison after being convicted of murder, though, so he isn't running around scott free.

I wonder if the new guy found her after the attack and his rape was a crime of opportunity. I find it hard to believe that one person caused all the trauma the victim suffered.

I believe Trey Parker said something like "We hate liberals and conservatives, but we hate liberals even more"

They seem to poke fun at a lot of sacred cows, on both sides.

Ron Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

"Ron" wrote in message news:[email]...

conservatives,

The quote is, "We hate conservatives, but we REALLY f*cking hate liberals."

In article ,

Well, today's episode sure proved that. :-)

- Juan F. Lara http://bellsouthpwp.net/l/a/lara6281/intro.html

"AUGH! MY GOO! MY PRECIOUS GOO!"