Slashdot Mirror


South Park Creators Have A New Film

Vince C writes "Trey Parker and Matt Stone are back to filmmaking again. No, it is not a South Park movie and no they are not acting. In fact, it is a totally different media... marionettes. Yep! Puppets folks. They are making Team America:World Police. If you liked the original Thunderbirds and hate the live action remake but also love comedy sticking it to our current government then you are going to love Matt and Trey's new project. Trailer and more info at the movie's site."

446 comments

  1. Southpark is GO! by BarryNorton · · Score: 3, Funny

    F*** you, I'm just big boned, me lady!

    1. Re:Southpark is GO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is parent modded a troll? Parker always used to say yes me lady as and the other part was obivously cartman, might not be hilarious but hardly a troll.

    2. Re:Southpark is GO! by BarryNorton · · Score: 1

      Thanks, dude. I'm never posting Sunday morning again - the moderators have issues! (I'd like to think it's because they've been out for a heavy Saturday night and their judgement's still impaired, but it seems more likely that they're just jealous that someone else might have...)

  2. fuck this by Neotrantor · · Score: 5, Funny

    i want to see it for free as a refund for baseketball

    1. Re:fuck this by SpryGuy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hey, now... I really liked BASEketball. Not as good as Orgasmo, perhaps, but I still thought it was quite funny.

      --

      - Spryguy
      There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
    2. Re:fuck this by mbourgon · · Score: 1

      They actually had very little to do with Baseketball. (I know - I agree the movie sucked). They wound up being in it accidentally, they were trying to make ends meet while they saw if South Park would make it. Naturally, when South Park did big, before the movie came out, they re-labeled it as a Matt & Trey movie to make the most of their new celebrity stars.

      --
      "Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
    3. Re:fuck this by Teknogeek · · Score: 1

      Look, this isn't about the eighteen dollar ticket money anymore. This about being able to hold bad filmmakers responsible. This is just like when we got our money back for BASEketball.

      --
      I mod down anyone who uses M$ in their posts. I like to live on the edge.
  3. Just saw the preview by Anamanaman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just saw the preview. Can't wait! Seems like Matt & Trey love being the only conservatives/libertarians in hollywood. Expect to see a lot of Michael Moore/Barbara Steisand bashing. Should be great

    Guess this explains why they haven't produced a damn south park episode in so long!

    1. Re:Just saw the preview by Akai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually my bet is everyone is a target. Matt and Trey have happily attacked all sides in south park, so I expect that BushCo will be in for at least as much abuse as the "Liberal Elite" in this one.

      --
      Please send all UCE to scally@devolution.com so I can f
    2. Re:Just saw the preview by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drew carey is VERY libertarian...

      And I seem to remember this big muscle bound fool win californias governor position

      You Vag..

    3. Re:Just saw the preview by Three+Headed+Man · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      I am disturbed at how you use the term conservatives/liberatarians. We're not like them! Libertarians look to reduce the size of the government, and conservatives want to reduce the size of the government except for the military. Neither us, nor them, have succeed to date, although we haven't been given a chance.

      Libertarian thought is loved and embraced on slashdot.

      Conservative thought is moderated as flamebait. I guess the community produces only what the community wants to hear.

      --
      I'm probably at the karma cap. Mod up a funny troll instead, it lightens the mood :)
    4. Re:Just saw the preview by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Makes you wonder how they could be accepted. The (very few) hollywood/tv types I knew in L.A. were vurrrrry correct about everything. They wouldn't dream of doing a project with anyone who disagreed with their beliefs.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    5. Re:Just saw the preview by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wtf? Did you see the same preview I did? These guys are typical liberal to the core.

      If only we had people taking support for the government to the same level as their bashing then we might have some national unity.

    6. Re:Just saw the preview by DankNinja · · Score: 0

      Yeah...but it really doesn't take a conservative to recognize that Streisand and Moore are both f*cked up in the head. People seem to like them because of the "Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend" logic.

    7. Re:Just saw the preview by DankNinja · · Score: 1

      There is a *huge* difference between libertarian and liberal.
      http://www.impel.com/liblib/intro.html
      This contrasts them rather concisely.

    8. Re:Just saw the preview by Angostura · · Score: 1

      As a left-leaning liberal (and that's not necessarily a term of abuse in the UK), I have to say that this looks likely to be very, very funny and I'm looking forward to it.

    9. Re:Just saw the preview by Anamanaman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, I consider myself a pragmatic libertarian, in that, I vote republican.

      Basically libertarians have to choose whether they care more about social issues (then vote democrat) or economic issues (then vote republican). Or throw your vote away (vote libertarian).

      I used conservative/libertarian interchangable when talking about hollywood because everything is pretty much straight up liberal/socialist coming out of that neck of the woods.

    10. Re:Just saw the preview by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 5, Informative

      hehe. Since when did Matt and Trey become conservative. Matt was in Bowling for Columbine ;)

      --
      "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
    11. Re:Just saw the preview by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      conservatives want to reduce the size of the government except for the military.

      That's true as an ideal, but it hasn't worked out very often in practice if by conservative we're talking about republicans. They're too tied to the church to really accomplish any of their goals. Instead we get things like the war on drugs, and more and more government to police morality. Libertarians don't care if your girlfriend takes the morning after pill or if you smoke a joint on the weekend, republicans do.

    12. Re:Just saw the preview by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Matt and Trey are libertarians and like 99% of the libertarians out there despise the wacko leftist fucktards many times more than they could ever despise any republican.

    13. Re:Just saw the preview by maxpublic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hate to break it to ya, but the 'new' republican party seems to be just as much in favor of big government as the old democratic party. Other than religion and gun control, it gets harder and harder to tell the two parties apart with each passing year.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    14. Re:Just saw the preview by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I think it was Trey who was in Bowling for Columbine. Remember, he was a STUDENT AT COLUMBINE! To understand where he is coming from, you would have had to live in Littleton Colorado. Sure the religious right is whacko... but really, aren't we all? Or... aren't THEY all? The left is just as whacky. Trey saw a chance to go after gun-nuts and make a goofy historical statement about scared white people. That fit MMoore's agenda, so they were off to the races.

      Also, if you know that Trey left Littleton to go to CU Boulder, where he met Matt, well, that is night and day. Believe me, Trey has seen it all and lived it all: Hellmouth, Columbine, Boulder (Berkeley-esque), Hollywood, Orange County... don't even try to pin him down... he could talk the talk of any old side he felt like. He is an excellent satirist because he has seen almost every face of absurdity that exists in America.

    15. Re:Just saw the preview by mongbot · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Sorry, pal, but "conservative" is defined as anything that protects the status quo. On this basis, Libertarian philosophy, which idealizes economic rights at the cost of social and human rights, is one of the most conservative political viewpoints out there. It's sole function is to justify the growing inequality and social polarization between rich and poor.

      Libertarians claim to support individual rights, yet they are obsessed with destroying the federal US government, an institution that has successfully safeguarded individual rights and democracy over the last 200 years. Libertarians proudly support corporations, many of which are massive collectivist organisations that treat individuals like dispensable components. Libertarians have a religious belief in the power of the "free market", which even economists realize fails in many circumstances.

      Liberatiarians are really, at core, no different from communists. Communists want everything in the hands of one institution: the government. Libertarians want everything in the hands of another: the market. Both are profoundly anti-democratic.

    16. Re:Just saw the preview by rokzy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I don't think you know what Communism is. Your attempt to reduce the situation to a nice single line compare and contrast therefore fails.

    17. Re:Just saw the preview by mongbot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have actually read Marx and Engels, unlike many who claim to know what Communism is, so I guess your presumption is wrong. Communism involves the control of the means of productions by the proletariat, usually in the form of workers council, which, in practice, equates to centralized government control. Any questions?

    18. Re:Just saw the preview by 1u3hr · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I used conservative/libertarian interchangable when talking about hollywood because everything is pretty much straight up liberal/socialist coming out of that neck of the woods.

      Give me a break, For every Michael Moore there's a thousand flag-waving "My Country Right or Wrong" types making stuff like Pearl Harbor, We Were Soldiers, etc ad nauseaum.

    19. Re:Just saw the preview by mongbot · · Score: 2, Informative

      Notice I said "in practice". In the Soviet system all production was centrally planned in the form of a massive central budget that involved tens of thousands of commodities. There was a government department, Gosplan, that decided how much of every commodity should be produced and the price that the commodity should be sold for. Actual Russian consumers had no say in what and how much should be produced, leading to massive disparities in price (e.g. oil was cheap but there was a 2-year waiting list to buy a car).

    20. Re:Just saw the preview by CrowScape · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'd like to see how, considering Trey Parker has said Bush isn't in the film. Normally when they make fun of someone, they characature them. If Bush isn't going to be shown, he's unlikely to be made fun of, at least all that much. But hey, it's nice to see the story submitter jumping to conclusions that aren't supported by the facts.

      --
      common sense: noun
      What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
    21. Re:Just saw the preview by rokzy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You cannot argue what Communism means from the policies of the Soviet Union, which was never Communist and never claimed to be.

      Even if you're factually right you still cannot equate "in practice" to original intent. Your statement of "Communists want everything in the hands of one institution: the government" is equivalent to "Free speech advocates want barely legal girls to be seduced into making pornography" just because free speech in practice leads to pornography.

    22. Re:Just saw the preview by Epistax · · Score: 1

      I am a tad confused about your description of them as conservatives and libertarians. They make obvious political messages through many of their shows and they don't seem libertarian, and certainly usually take the liberal route.

      Old people should not be able to drive if they are a risk. This is both liberal and non-libertarian.
      South Park shows that America was founded on hypocrisy. The conservative ideal is that America was founded perfect and the founding fathers are infallible. The US is also regularly made fun of throughout the series, something that conservatives a more likely not to enjoy. [liberal]
      The show isn't anti-homosexual (not by a long shot). [liberal]
      Pro stem cell research (although this message is garbled a bit by the plot.) [liberal]
      Lawyers are a nuisance. [liberal]
      Big business is bad, unless that business is good. Relatively neutral and this is a good message. Too bad Star Bucks doesn't fit their example.
      In the episode where people come back from the future, conservatives are shown as extremely stupid. The boys figure out that taking a Green initiative is the solution but quit when they figure out it is too "gay" (read: difficult).

      Anyway you can take the message from many shows because they usually make it blatantly obvious, almost to a fault. I actually prefer the episodes that don't teach a political lesson. Other lessons are OK. I want an Awesome-o robot.

    23. Re:Just saw the preview by ZoneGray · · Score: 1

      I recall a quote by one of them that went, "I hate conservatives. But I really fucking hate liberals."

      Seems to jive precisely with what I see on South Park, and what I see in the trailer. Some on the right complain about the language and such, but most conservative pundits seem to like the show's message.

    24. Re:Just saw the preview by NeedleSurfer · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You tell me!
      And that's just for politics

      Yesterday, big mistake, I brought forth constructive criticism about the Linux distro wolrd...

      ouch

      karma bonus droped right away and in no time my flamebait moderation had to be to good to me cause it got rated overrated, I mean...
      I was THAT close to be banned ;))

    25. Re:Just saw the preview by clifyt · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "Actually, I consider myself a pragmatic libertarian, in that, I vote republican."

      I can see this...Libretarians are generally more attached to the republicans for some reason...

      "Basically libertarians have to choose whether they care more about social issues (then vote democrat) or economic issues (then vote republican). Or throw your vote away (vote libertarian)."

      Ok, now this is where I don't get it? Vote Republican for the economic issues? Did you not understand what the last 3 Republican administrations have done? I'm not saying anything is wrong with them...I thought Reagan was a great president all in all and George, Father of the King, wasn't half bad (he wasn't half good either).

      All in all, none of these guys did anything for the economic side of the Republican party. George the First put us on course for doubling our debt. What? No new taxes? This was *AFTER* the cold war was fought and won. I can forgive Reagan for his part in it, because it was because of the final push of his spending that finally killed the former soviet republics (he shouldn't get all the credit as most conservatives give him -- if it weren't for him, it would have taken another 10 years, but they would have gotten to the same place).

      But now, King George...he was the whole reason I finally got off my ass and switched political affiliations. Pragmatically, Clinton has done more for the economy than the Republicans have in my lifetime (be that only 30 some years). A liberal cocksuckee that didn't give a fuck about religion that pissed off all the social conservatives because of his philanderings. The lowest growth in gov't in the last 50 years.

      And quite honestly, even with Bushie's tax cuts, I'm still paying a lot more towards the gov't. Mainly because I'm not doing my gawd given part of having a dozen children and raising them in a socially conservative way. Its amazing that having a child is now no longer a personal choice, but one that has to be shared with the rest of the country. I pay more per child to go to school than any one in my state that has children (well on average).

      In my state, they claim it costs around $750 to put a child through public education. Bushie past a law early on that gives parents a $500 discount. Lets see, if you just take the one issue, the now spend $250 per child towards my $750. I don't want to hear any bullshit that it costs more to raise a child -- thats a personal choice. Remember -- we are talking purely from a libertarian standpoint -- nothing else.

      So, what *HAVE* the republicans done from a economic standpoint that would make Libertarians happy? Nothing. They have their own social programs that are getting spent even if they don't want to call it that. Its welfare for folks that make personal choices.

      I don't ever want to hear Bushie talk about smaller gov'ts...I'm starting to think he was brought up in one of those one two many types of languages, but inversely proportioned because the every time he says smaller, it means more gov't agencies replicating what others are already doing.

      So...if you want to vote Republican for the social issues, you have my respect (I don't understand it, but I respect it). If you want hard economics, get someone in like Clinton again and put a rotating list of chubby chicks under his desk.

    26. Re:Just saw the preview by Rhone · · Score: 3, Interesting

      South Park does a great job of making fun of everybody--which is good, because every side of our political system deserves to be made fun of relentlessly.

      However, if you pay close attention, despite South Park episodes happily making fun of both sides of an issue, they often end up agreeing with the more conservative side (think Libertarian-conservative, not necessarily Republican-conservative).

      Take the Cripple Fight episode (the one where Big Gay Al gets kicked out of Boy Scouts for being gay). While the episode relentlessly makes fun of those who would keep gay people out of Boy Scouts, in the end, Big Gay Al himself proclaims that as a private organization, Boy Scouts has a right to not hire him because of his sexual orientation.

      And then there's the Underpants Gnomes episode (with the Starbucks knockoff) you mention, which ends up giving us the message that big businesses are successful because of smart business practices and because they serve consumers better than little businesses, and it's thus okay when they trample little businesses that can't compete.

    27. Re:Just saw the preview by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is, unity to republicans means no dissenting thought. Your way or no way.

    28. Re:Just saw the preview by Joey7F · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      The reason Libertarians are more "attached" to Republicans is that there are several fiscally-conservative-socially-liberal members of the GOP.

      That more or less describes me.

      There are only a couple of ProLife democrats, one tried to speak (PA govenor, I think?) at the 1996 DNC convention, and all hell broke loose among the delegates.

      Also, I feel like I can vote Republican because I don't believe anything will change on the social issues anyway, and, they aren't nearly as important to me :)

      --Joey

    29. Re:Just saw the preview by Colonel+Cholling · · Score: 1

      Lawyers are a nuisance. [liberal]

      Why? Lawyer-bashing is pretty much a bi-partisan sport. Liberals tend to criticize corporate attorneys and prosecutors, while conservatives hate ACLU lawyers and anyone who uses an insanity defense.

      --

      I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
    30. Re:Just saw the preview by Ath · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Wow. You should be banned from watching South Park because you are too stupid. In your cited examples, the "lesson learned" is actually doing two things. First, it is making fun of the way sitcoms always have to spout off some lesson at the end of the show. Second, it is making fun of the whole concept that there is a right answer to most issues. The so-called right answer inevitably comes down to a person's own views, which bias how we each look at situations.

      The idea of trying to stick Trey and Matt into some political category is ridiculous. They make fun of everything and clearly show that they don't find anything beyond reproach. That's why many of us love their comedy, not because we think they agree with our particular political bias.

      The only problem is that morons like you come along and "see" that Matt and Trey are really making some moral statement that reinforces your own biases. I mean, if you can watch the Underpants Gnomes episode and read into it a pro big business message, you are using some concentrated crack. Who knows if Matt and Trey feel that way and who cares if they do, but they sure didn't stick the message into the episode to teach you that lesson.

    31. Re:Just saw the preview by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "flag-waving "My Country Right or Wrong" types making stuff like Pearl Harbor, We Were Soldiers, etc ad nauseaum."

      Why would any flag waving type cast ben aflack or freaking alec baldwin in Pearl Harbor? I think your description of the movie makers is clearly flawed.

    32. Re:Just saw the preview by grimdonkey · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Who the fuck is moderating here?. I am giving you this post as an example of what offtopic means. It would be flamebait too if your stupid ass could post a response.

      These things make me understand the importance of metamoderation.
    33. Re:Just saw the preview by mr.mighty · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, it was Matt. He didn't talk about how he went there, he talked about how Columbine was a rival high school.

    34. Re:Just saw the preview by MarsDefenseMinister · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      There's still a difference.

      Republicans believe in spending government money to advance the interests of rich people. They get us to go along with it by saying it'll trickle down.

      Democrats believe in spending government money to advance the interests of everyone. This upsets Republicans because when you spread the money around like that, it helps a lot of people a little, but nobody gets rich.

      That seems to be a pretty accurate description of how each side spends money. Let's face it - the Republicans say they are all for reducing the size of government, but they grow it instead.

      --
      No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men.-Ronald Reagan
    35. Re:Just saw the preview by DJTodd242 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Besides, the Soviet Union wasn't a communist country. As Marx writes, every country that adopts communism must go through a period of socialism first. It was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

    36. Re:Just saw the preview by thewiz · · Score: 2, Funny

      You mean we have TWO political parties in America?
      I always thought we had only ONE.
      Wow, you mean we have a choice?

      --
      If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
    37. Re:Just saw the preview by Directrix1 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Come on, everyone's doing it. Become a libertarian.

      --
      Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
    38. Re:Just saw the preview by metamatic · · Score: 1

      Perhaps if you recognized that there are both left wing and right wing libertarians, you might be able to come up with some cogent arguments.

      As it is, it's as if you were ranting about "Christians idealizing economic freedom and destroying the federal government".

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    39. Re:Just saw the preview by metamatic · · Score: 1, Insightful
      The reason Libertarians are more "attached" to Republicans is that there are several fiscally-conservative-socially-liberal members of the GOP.

      I hate to break it to you, but there are a lot of fiscally conservative socially liberal democrats too. Did you miss the whole Howard Dean thing?

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    40. Re:Just saw the preview by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Seems like Matt & Trey love being the only conservatives/libertarians in hollywood.

      Moron. Don't you remember That's My Bush?

    41. Re:Just saw the preview by metamatic · · Score: 1

      Actually, those episodes I have no trouble with. Freedom of speech and association are liberal ideals, and Starbucks doesn't have any trouble making money here in the People's Republic of Cambridge.

      No, there were two South Park episodes I saw as having a really overt conservative bias.

      The first was the smoking episode, where basically the entire episode argued "smoking is just a harmless hobby, people enjoy it, let them keep enjoying it". It completely ignored any consideration or mention of how the tobacco companies intentionally made the cigarettes more addictive, covered up evidence that their product was killing people, and so on. Sure, I accept the ultimate argument that people should be allowed to smoke so long as I don't have to take part--but to ignore such important malfeasance by the corporations is intellectually dishonest.

      The second was the episode where people learn to eat by shoving food up their asses. The whole thing turned out to be an elaborate set up so that they could have a scene where the adults sit around giving entirely legitimate arguments for separation of church and state in the US, while crap spews from their mouths (literally). If that is really the best counter-argument Matt and Trey could come up with, that's pretty sad.

      [Now cue someone to mock the idea that comedy should have any requirement for intellectual honesty. Bonus points if it's someone who has previously criticized Michael Moore for the exact same failings.]

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    42. Re:Just saw the preview by weave · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      I don't see how you can say Republicans are fiscally conservative. Maybe the old ones, but the new ones seem to have this crazy idea that the only way to cut government is to starve it to death through deficit spending.

      Also, government is getting larger all the time, all in the name of fighting terrorism.

      I'm sick of both of them, that's why I want gridlock. If any one party controls it all, government grows like hell. So I'm waiting to see what happens when election day grows closer. If it looks like republicans will keep control of congress, I'll vote for Kerry. If it looks like Democrats will regain control, I'll vote for Bush.

      Government works best when it's not working.

    43. Re:Just saw the preview by 88NoSoup4U88 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "Who knows if Matt and Trey feel that way and who cares if they do, but they sure didn't stick the message into the episode to teach you that lesson."

      Then why do you care so much if he is interpreting those episodes that way ?

      As with all forms of 'art' : It's in the eye of the beholder.

    44. Re:Just saw the preview by pohl · · Score: 3, Informative

      But in the trailer, there's a long list of names, (presented as though they are actors) followed by "...are all going to be really, really mad when they see..." George W. Bush is one of those names. While it's possible that Bush will not be directly caricatured, the movie must contain something that would make him really, really mad...or it would violate all of those laws against false advertising that...oh, wait. Nevermind.

      --

      The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...

    45. Re:Just saw the preview by Joey7F · · Score: 1

      Howard Dean still supports the federal government expansion of social programs. But your point is made, there are democrats that match that description, but I would argue there are more on the Right than on the Left.

      --Joey

    46. Re:Just saw the preview by bishmasterb · · Score: 1

      Yes you do have a choice:

      Dempublicans or Libertarians

    47. Re:Just saw the preview by LGagnon · · Score: 1

      If they were making fun of sitcoms for trying to prove a point, wouldn't they have stopped doing so after only a few episodes? After all, a joke is only funny after the first few times you see it, and this one doesn't even have any humor to it.

      And look at the episodes as a whole. The apposing side to the "lesson" is ridiculed a lot more than the side for it. At the same time, the opposite side's opinions are never fully fleshed out, making it biased in favor of the "lesson". By the end, after the "lesson" is made, nobody is still apposing it. They try to show their view as been universally correct when in reality it wouldn't have worked that way. It's obvious bias, whether you want to admit it or not.

    48. Re:Just saw the preview by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Basically libertarians have to choose whether they care more about social issues (then vote democrat) or economic issues (then vote republican).

      Maybe if you're posting "Frequency"-style from 6 or 7 decades ago. If you vote Republican in 2004, you aren't a "pragmatic libertarian" any more than someone who votes for the Socialist Worker's Party is a "left libertarian". Neither party is "pro" individual rights as far as voting records go. If you use political rhetoric as the basis for voting, you are quite gullible. There are roughly equal numbers of liberty-minded individuals in both parties, and in both parties they constitute a minority. If you think you're being practical and that your vote will *eventually* move the USA in the direction away from statism, you're rationalizing and self-deluding. And if you're willing to ignore this Republican administration's assault on the Constitution to promote them as the "libertarian" choice, you're unethical.

      To paraphrase Badnarik: If you're unjustly imprisoned and have a 48% chance of getting lethal injection, 50% chance of electric chair and 2% chance of escaping, which is the "pragmatic" choice?

    49. Re:Just saw the preview by sevenofnine · · Score: 1

      So by your standards kenny shouldn't get killed in each episode, since its repetitive?

    50. Re:Just saw the preview by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Wow. You should be banned from watching South Park because you are too stupid.

      And you from posting. There is a pretty obvious bias in most South Park episodes. That you in some almost magical way manage to miss this is on its own quiet pathetic, but that you have to go on Slashdot and ridicule those who can see it is just sad.

      Matt and Trey are making an immense amount of moral statements. There is indeed a "lesson" in most episodes. They have even admitted to it in interviews, and I remembered wondering why they even had to say it since it's so obvious. Now I know. It's because of people like you. You're so dumb it absolutely boggles the mind.

    51. Re:Just saw the preview by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Given Republcian policies... under Bush we have a huge budget deficit (just like under the last three Republicans), eroding civil rights, strong opposition to individual freedoms and civil rights (FMA anyone?), gross expansion of government size and power, huge new entitlements, etc....

      I find it hard to understand how a libertarian could support Bush or his administration in any way. It's more of a 'nanny-state' than Clinton's government was in many ways.

      I mean, if you really care about economic issues, look again at the Democrats: balanced budgets, smaller government growth than any other administration in recent memory, better economy, more jobs... and compare that to the last several Republican administrations, with the huge and balooning budget deficits, loss of jobs, crappy economies, etc.

      Why again do you associate economic issues with Republicans?? The historical data just doesn't back that view up.

      The current administration isn't really Republican, it's neocon. And it's the worst possible mix of everything else, imho. No sensible libertarian should be backing the Bush administration in any way.

    52. Re:Just saw the preview by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the record, there are many fiscally conservative, socially liberal members of the Democratic party too, myself being one of them.

      And pro-choice means that you're allowed to have a choice. I'm pro-choice even though I'd prefer abortions weren't necessary. But it's a complex topic, and the fact is, one size cannot fit all. No two people agree on this issue, even those that think they do. There are too many shades of gray, and we've seen that prohibition in this issue doesn't work. "Pro-Choice" is not "pro-abortion" in any way. It is, in fact, the compromise position. It's saying that this is a topic that is too complicated for a govermnet-mandated one-size-fits-all solution. It's the non-fascist solution, if you will. You can be pro-choice and be against abortion. It's perfectly consistent. You make the choice for yourself, and let other people make their choices. It's really an issue that is between the mother, the father, the family, the clergy, and the diety of the people directly involved.

      And as for the fiscally conservative point: the great irony here is that the Clinton administration was one of the most fiscally conservative and responsible administrations in the last 40 years, not to mention one of the more friendly to businesses (large and small) without actually trampling on the rights of individual citizens (for me, that's an important line).

    53. Re:Just saw the preview by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I have read Marx and Engels and am somewhat skeptical of your claim to have done so. Communism by their definition certainly did not involve centralized control- a state of communism would be achieved only after such centralized control withered away. Socialism was one step more advanced than capitalism iaccording to Marx/Engels theory, intermediate between capitalism and communism, and socialism as envisioned by Marx and Engels did allow centralized governmental control.

      The US and the west may have called certain governments 'communist' but the USSR called themselves Socialists (Hint: it's the second S in that English translation.) China calls itself socialist, as does Cuba, etc.

      I can't think of a government which has actually called itself communist- to do so would miss the point of the word even more than most governments usually do. The political party in a Socialist state typically calls itself a communist party, but that's an expression of a claim to hold to the ideal of communism, not a claim that they are operating a communist form of government.

      Communism has never existed in practice (and is likely so counter to human nature that it will never exist) so what is this nonsense about 'in practice'? Can you name a government that claimed itself to be communist, as opposed to being mislabeled that by others?

    54. Re:Just saw the preview by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      He isn't killed in each episode anymore.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    55. Re:Just saw the preview by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Expect to see a lot of Michael Moore/Barbara Steisand bashing.

      Uh..yeah, sounds great. Stick it to Streisand - she's topical and worthy. Who'll get it next - Nixon?

    56. Re:Just saw the preview by geekanarchy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You should know by now that there is only one party in the US government and that the reason it goes under two different names is to give the illusion of choice.

    57. Re:Just saw the preview by FunkSoulBrother · · Score: 1

      To paraphrase Badnarik: If you're unjustly imprisoned and have a 48% chance of getting lethal injection, 50% chance of electric chair and 2% chance of escaping, which is the "pragmatic" choice?

      I can't believe someone on a geek website would buy that kind of flawed math. Just becuase the libertarian candidate gets 2% of the vote does not mean he stands anywhere near a 2% chance of being elected.

    58. Re:Just saw the preview by Moofie · · Score: 1

      You mean it might be possible to disagree with BOTH sides of the "political spectrum"? What a staggering realization! Next, you'll tell me that /. readers are not a monolithic consciousness, and is actually a bunch of humans with opinions that might be different from one another!

      Stop the fucking presses!

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    59. Re:Just saw the preview by Moofie · · Score: 1

      You saw what happened to Howard Dean, right?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    60. Re:Just saw the preview by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      economic issues (then vote republican)

      this is a little bit too pat, isn't it? just because someone calls himself a republican or democrat (or whatever) doesn't actually mean ... anything. plenty of people who have been in the republican party way longer than W are really pissed off with what he's done in the name of "conservative values" - tax cuts for the wealthiest etc. are NOT what it's about.

    61. Re:Just saw the preview by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sick of both of them, that's why I want gridlock.

      a day will come when you realise how wrong you are.

    62. Re:Just saw the preview by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "As with all forms of 'art' : It's in the eye of the beholder."

      because most art is trying to make some kind of statement or relay some sort of idea and THEN let the viewers interpert from there.

      there are not too many ways to 'interpert' this famous bit of art/photography, and I am sure that was intentional.
      http://www.gallerym.com/pixs/photogs /pulitzer/page s/vietnam_napalm.htm

    63. Re:Just saw the preview by popular · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Escape from that catch phrase hell and actually test that argument. Obviously, you need more than just a handful of 30 second spots and a daily sound bite on the evening news.

      For better or for worse, you have to know that the US would be in a very different situation today, if Al Gore were president.

    64. Re:Just saw the preview by mmkay76 · · Score: 0

      They may seem just as much in favor of Big Government, but they're also in favor of me having a big fat wallet. That's why I like them (more). Yeah, I know that leads to inflation, but eventually America is going to have to wake up to the fact that giving money to the federal government is just like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. (thanks P.J.)

    65. Re:Just saw the preview by Baldrake · · Score: 1

      Did you actually see "We Were Soldiers?" That was a powerful anti-war film. While the soldiers were clearly patriotic, it could not have been more clear how much pain and suffering results from sending our troops into battle.

    66. Re:Just saw the preview by MilenCent · · Score: 1

      Of course, which is why Matt agreed to be interviewed by Moore in Bowling for Columbine.

      Hey, wait a minute!

    67. Re:Just saw the preview by Trolling4Dollars · · Score: 1

      Awesome post. It hits the nail on the head about exactly why I can't agree with the libertarians. They actually have faith in other people's abilities, whereas I have none.

    68. Re:Just saw the preview by mbourgon · · Score: 1

      A term I heard a year or so ago, it seemed to be an update of the Republican Party Reptile The term: South Park Republicans.

      And personally, I think this movie will be a hoot. The original premise was "a shot for shot remake of The Day After Tomorrow, but with puppets", because puppets talking about homeland security are funny. And there's something to be said about making fun of Hollywood celebrities sharing their views with the world.

      --
      "Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
    69. Re:Just saw the preview by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok this is not at all flamebait, of course it will piss off the Reps but when you get down to it, both parties are of course doing stuff for themselves, but the Dems are trying to help the whole of society and the Reps are mainly helping the rich to avoid paying their taxes and just helping their own families.

      If you can't see that, if you can't see that the Reps are keeping their money safe (by deflecting taxes etc) then you must have your head in your ass.

      I'm not saying that the Dems are perfect, Clinton bombed the shit out of Kosovo and he lied under oath (well squirmed more like) but the fact is that the majority of the wealth in the US, like most countries, is concentrated in the top 1 or 2%. By taxing those who earn shitloads, we can fund things such as basic healthcare, unemployment benefit and education. Are they not human rights?

      If you sincerely believe that everyone in society (including those in the most precarious of positions) should fund their own lives then you are heartless.

    70. Re:Just saw the preview by metamatic · · Score: 1

      Yes, hundreds of thousands of ordinary Democratic voters supported him, he got a record turnout at his speeches and appearances, collected millions of dollars in small contributions... and then he was eliminated by the DNC and the media.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    71. Re:Just saw the preview by Darby · · Score: 1

      I expect that BushCo will be in for at least as much abuse as the "Liberal Elite" in this one.

      The National Review or The New Republic, or one of those had a review where thay said the left takes it much harder than the right in the movie.

      Can't remember the link.

    72. Re:Just saw the preview by mqduck · · Score: 1

      You're partly right. Marx and Engels used the word "Communism" as interchangable with "socialism." The distinction, even in the 19th century, was rather confused. Only Communists knew that the ultimate goal was communism, while sharing a principal agreement on the medium-term goals with other socialists.

      It really wasn't until Lenin layed out the first real-world "blueprint" for a socialist society that the difference between a "socialist society" and a "communist society" became more clearly defined as they are today. Incidentally, Lenin was also the one responsible with renaming the Marxists as "Communists" again, by creating the first Communist Party (which the Bolsheviks eventually named themselves). This ironically might have something to do with the modern-day confusion about the terms in common speach in the West, using such incorrect terms as "Communist countries" to describe the USSR, Cuba, etc..

      --
      Property is theft.
    73. Re:Just saw the preview by mqduck · · Score: 1

      As I said in a post above, that is NOT what Marx wrote. Only later did Lenin make the clear distinction between "communist society" and "socialist society." Marx used the terms much more vaguely. To use the modern terms that you just described, Marx generally spoke as if communism was the ultimate goal, and what we know call "socialism" was just an incomplete form of the transition to communism.

      I'm really tired of people trying to correct others on Marx when they don't know Marx themselves. Here's a rule of thumb: anything you learned about Communism from anyone other than the Communists themselves has a 60% chance of being wrong.

      --
      Property is theft.
    74. Re:Just saw the preview by _Potter_PLNU_ · · Score: 1

      It's frustrating to see that quote misquoted so much. The Stephen Decatur quote is: "Our country. In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but our country right or wrong!"

      In my view, there is a _big_ difference between the actual quote and the "My country Right or Wrong" characterization of those (like myself) who feel what we are doing in regards to Terrorism is the right thing to do. I think the Decatur quote puts it very nicely how I feel.

      I don't know if I'd say We Were Soldiers is a flag waving movie. It was more of a movie showing the courage and dedication of those trained to defend our way of life, and the pains and sorrows they had to face. Same could go for Black Hawk Down. I don't see them as anti-war or pro-war, but more talking about the soldier rather than the country.

      --
      "Hard work never killed anyone." -- Some Dead Guy
    75. Re:Just saw the preview by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      I don't know if I'd say We Were Soldiers is a flag waving movie. It was more of a movie showing the courage and dedication of those trained to defend our way of life,

      Yes. Exactly. Except Vietnam was not about "defending [your] way of life". It was about defending the incredibly corrupt Saigon govenrment against revolution. Not that the Vietnamese communists were saints at all, but protecting foreign people against oppression has never been an American priority. By reducing a war or even a battle to individual acts of (American, exclusively) heroism, it delivers the message that American soldoers = American people == good, foreigners == evil. That was about the most simple minded war movie I've seen since John Wayne humg up his green beret.

    76. Re:Just saw the preview by Three+Headed+Man · · Score: 1
      I thought Reagan was a great president all in all and George, Father of the King, wasn't half bad (he wasn't half good either).
      The King? His father was named Vernon. What are you smoking?
      --
      I'm probably at the karma cap. Mod up a funny troll instead, it lightens the mood :)
    77. Re:Just saw the preview by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm helping destroy Slashdot, 10 "Unfair" mods at a time. You can get three or four in if you refresh slashdot regularly. You'll get mod points more frequently, and will help destroy the system. And it's not like it's that much of an investment of your time.

      And when you post messages like this, check the "Post Anonymously" button, to help save your Karma.

      -Sincerely, Three Headed Man.

    78. Re:Just saw the preview by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah one question... huh?

      So you've read Marx and Engels. That only proves you have an academic conceptual "claim to know what Communism is." That is, you've stared at some words in a book and you've re-typed them in an aphoristic slashdot post.

      Whoop-De-Dooo! Expert thee.

    79. Re:Just saw the preview by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The National Review or The New Republic, or one of those had a review where thay said the left takes it much harder than the right in the movie."

      I think that the South Park creators have come across over the years as being more conservative than liberal: like a more equal-opportunity and more profane version of P.J. O'Rourke. Like O'Rourke (and Dennis Miller) they are of the conservative wing that has nothing to do with the "Religious Right".

    80. Re:Just saw the preview by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What annoys the crap out of me is that most people with libertarian labels seem authoritarian.

      Which brings me to the question of voting Democratic or Republican...

    81. Re:Just saw the preview by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which asshat marked that offtopic?

      The guy had a well reasoned point. He was explaining the liberal philosophy in regular terms. Some fascist wants to make sure no one will ever see it(already posted AC)? So very wrong.

      Never let the liberal be heard! It's the only way to freedom! Wait, did you just say liberal? That's a dirty word!

      I know, I know -1 here too...

    82. Re:Just saw the preview by Moofie · · Score: 1

      If Michael Moore is writing comedy, why is he always shrieking about what an honest documentarian he is? He can't have it both ways. Either he's an important director of documentary films (and should be criticized for lack of scholastic rigor) or he's writing comedy, and should give back his Academy Award.

      Me? I happen to think he's an asshole, and I don't care what he does. Of course, that probably makes me some pro-Bush neocon, right?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    83. Re:Just saw the preview by mefus · · Score: 1

      You must not have noticed how Hollywood did everything in its power to divorce itself from Moore and Fahrenheit 911.

      It's an important movie, I urge you to pirate a copy or whatever (to avoid having to give a liberal your dime), but see it!

      --
      mefus
      In Open Society, GPL Software frees YOU!
    84. Re:Just saw the preview by metamatic · · Score: 1

      Where do you get the strange idea that a factually accurate documentary can't be funny?

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    85. Re:Just saw the preview by Moofie · · Score: 1

      That's not the argument I'm making. His documentary can be funny, that's fine. If, however, he wants to escape criticism because it's funny, he needs to not pretend to be a documentarian.

      I don't think that's what Moore is trying to do, but it is what one of the posters was trying to argue.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    86. Re:Just saw the preview by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      Did you actually see "We Were Soldiers?" That was a powerful anti-war film. While the soldiers were clearly patriotic, it could not have been more clear how much pain and suffering results from sending our troops into battle.

      Of course I saw it. The pain and suffering depicted was purely American, all caused by the evil Vietcong (who were actually defending their homeland from foreign invaders). The American soldiers were all heroic. It was a fantasy.

    87. Re:Just saw the preview by Tlosk · · Score: 1

      If you had to distill Libertarianism down to a single belief, it's that people have a right to do with their time and property what they wish.

      Most political parties in some domain or other want to force people to use their time and property in the way they themselves see fit. Whether it's Democrats who want to see people spend their time and property supporting their ideal of society economically (helping the poor, cleaning the environment, educating the masses, etc). Or Republicans who want to force people to live their lives according to religious mores (sexuality, drug use, patriotism, abortion, etc).

      The same is true for most 3rd parties as well, they have their own particular agenda and have no qualms about using force to get other people to do as they think best. I don't doubt the individuals have good intentions, and really think that they are doing what is best in the long run, and that the means is justified by the end goal.

      Libertarians aren't working toward some ideal society, or trying to stamp out the "evils" of modern living. They believe there are fundamental rights that should be recognized and respected held by all human beings.

      Now a lot of benefits flow from that recognition, but you have to understand that allowing people the freedom to succeed also means that on an individual level they will also have the freedom to fail. Freedom without consequences is no freedom at all.

      I honestly don't know if a true Libertarian society is possible, there's an awful lot of people out there that will fight tooth and nail to be able to enforce their own ideas of how people should spend their time and dispose of their property. Both liberals and conservatives alike. But please don't confuse them with Libertarians, it's a tragic misunderstanding to say such a thing.

    88. Re:Just saw the preview by McPierce · · Score: 1
      I have actually read Marx and Engels, unlike many who claim to know what Communism is, so I guess your presumption is wrong. Communism involves the control of the means of productions by the proletariat, usually in the form of workers council, which, in practice, equates to centralized government control. Any questions?

      Yes, just one. Do you understand that what you've described is socialism? You may have read the books, but did you truly understand them?

      --
      Darryl L. Pierce "What do you care what people think, Mr. Feynman?"
    89. Re:Just saw the preview by jejones · · Score: 1

      They actually have faith in other people's abilities, whereas I have none.

      You don't trust other people, but somehow, those people who are entrusted with the coercive power of government, they are somehow ennobled? I don't quite follow that...

    90. Re:Just saw the preview by Rhone · · Score: 1

      The idea of trying to stick Trey and Matt into some political category is ridiculous. They make fun of everything and clearly show that they don't find anything beyond reproach.

      Yes, I know they make fun of everybody--geez, I started my original post by saying that. Matt and Trey are cool enough that they can make fun of all sides of an issue, but that doesn't mean they don't have their own views.

      As for sticking them into political categories--the only category I would stick them into is the category that at least one of them has already admitted to: http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0105/parker.html

  4. Labelled already as liberal traitors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    And the White House has already called it abhorrent that someone's making fun of the War on Terror...

    No, really (this is just one reference; Google finds many more).

    1. Re:Labelled already as liberal traitors by ErikZ · · Score: 1, Troll


      Yeah, I'd imagine those who are responsible on making sure no new terror attacks happen, are a bit touchy on the subject.

      I can hardly wait for the responses from cancer ward patients when the next movie makes fun of cancer. Those guys need to lighten up!

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    2. Re:Labelled already as liberal traitors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find your use of sarcasm to condemn humor quite hilarious.

    3. Re:Labelled already as liberal traitors by ArcticCelt · · Score: 1

      That's right because politicians never use tragedies like 911 in their personal political interests so they can tell others what's wrong and what's right to speak or make fun about.

      --

      Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
    4. Re:Labelled already as liberal traitors by the+gnat · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Yeah, I'd imagine those who are responsible on making sure no new terror attacks happen, are a bit touchy on the subject.

      I'd be a bit more sympathetic if I thought the Bush administration actually gave a crap about anything other than getting re-elected and cutting taxes. I really do care about the War On Terror, which is why I'm not voting for Bush. (Of course, I'd feel better if Kerry showed some sign of caring too, but at least I don't think he'll go out of his way to start yet another war just for the hell of it.) You don't have to be a whiny leftist to despise Bush; I'd like nothing better than seeing Al Qaeda blown to pieces, but the current administration didn't have the balls to finish the job.

    5. Re:Labelled already as liberal traitors by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about?

      I'm explaining why someone might be pissed about the movie. Maybe you're responding to someone else's post?

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    6. Re:Labelled already as liberal traitors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      but the current administration didn't have the balls to finish the job.

      What do you mean?

      Al Qaeda is in shambles (just yesterday Pakistan arrested six major Al Qaeda players), one major terrorist state has been liberated and either Syria or Iran will also fall if Bush gets the second term. The war is going well as it is and a change of the commander-in-chief will only slow it down.

      As far as domestic issues are concerned, I'm very excited about the prospect of fair taxation at last!

    7. Re:Labelled already as liberal traitors by ErikZ · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So, your response to the Bush administration not fighting terror vigorously enough...is to vote in an administration that won't do anything?

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    8. Re:Labelled already as liberal traitors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he's not fighting the war vigorously enough, but he's also flailing way to much in the wrong directions and causing far more damage to the US than the terrorists ever could have with his incompetence. That's why I'm voting for Kerry.

      It's been 3 years since the 9/11 attacks. Bin Laden is still at large, we've toppled one country based on false accusations (if you say they deserved it, I won't argue with you, but the way it was done has hurt america far too much). Absolutely nothing has gone right. We have far more enemies than we did 3 years ago, and we as a nation are constantly looking over our shoulder waiting for the next attack. It is a very dark time in American history, and we have Bush to thank.

    9. Re:Labelled already as liberal traitors by aftk2 · · Score: 1

      Actually, the gist of the idea was, were all other things equal, it'd be better not to elect a warmonger.

      But I suppose that's why you're modded as flamebait...

      --
      concrete5: a cms made for marketing, but strong enough for geeks.
    10. Re:Labelled already as liberal traitors by ArcticCelt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I was just pointing out that the ones who where the firsts to complain and who are right now "pissed off" are the politicians and that I think it's kind of hypocritical to say to the people how the subject of terrorism should be used in a movie when they are continuously using it in the interest of their personal campaigns.

      In my opinion humor is a valid medium to communicate social or political messages and opinions and I don't think it should be directly or indirectly censured. When we look back in history we can see that comedy as been continuously used in literature and on stage to denounce injustices or promote new ideas and event start revolutions.

      --

      Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
    11. Re:Labelled already as liberal traitors by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      "Actually, the gist of the idea was, were all other things equal, it'd be better not to elect a warmonger."

      How do you get that from what 'thegnat' posted?

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    12. Re:Labelled already as liberal traitors by Tlosk · · Score: 1

      If you're going in the wrong direction, moving faster isn't going to help you get where you should be going.

      Bush is wasting literally hundreds of billions of dollars on actions that are not only not addressing why terrorists are attacking us but are making us more vunerable in the process.

      Kerry has shown little inclination of moving where we need to go, but at least he won't sink us that much further in debt while greasing the wheels toward further tragedy the way Bush/Cheny are.

      It wouldn't surprise me if Bush has good intentions, but in the real world it's outcomes and consequences that matter, not intentions.

    13. Re:Labelled already as liberal traitors by moonbender · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Al Qaeda is in shambles

      Is it? Who cares? There are plenty of idiots to fill their places. Certainly more than 3 years ago.

      one major terrorist state has been liberated

      Mission accomplished, eh? Not exactly the impression you get watching the news.

      and either Syria or Iran will also fall if Bush gets the second term

      They will "fall"? What's entailed by that? Nation-wide anarchy? Terrorism? Tens of thousands killed by weaponry, hundreds of thousands starved to death? Proliferation of arms that were previously in the hands of the respective government? Sounds great.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    14. Re:Labelled already as liberal traitors by moonbender · · Score: 1

      Probably from

      "(Of course, I'd feel better if Kerry showed some sign of caring too, but at least I don't think he'll go out of his way to start yet another war just for the hell of it.)"

      Main Entry: warmonger
      Pronunciation: 'wor-"m&[ng]-g&r, -"mä[ng]-
      Function: noun
      : one who urges or attempts to stir up war : JINGO

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    15. Re:Labelled already as liberal traitors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was wondering if this was actually made fun of in the episode from Season 6 - T&P Movie Trailer (asses of fire?). Russel 'Crone' is going around fighting people, when he decides that being a great actor (the greatest of them all), like other great actors, he should take up a cause. SO he decides to fight cancer.

      "Well, we couldnt FIND cancer, but we found someone WITH cancer!".. Russ. punches the guy hooked up to a IV and goes take that u pussy cancer.

      War on Terrorism - Iraq has terrorists?

    16. Re:Labelled already as liberal traitors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait...What do YOU mean?

      And the terrorist killings have stopped too right? oh no wait...its just grown bigger, bet you didnt see that coming eh?

      Terrorist state liberated?
      Are you watching the same news that i am? or is yours cencored to the point of being sick?
      And Syria, Iran. Could you please NOT start another war and kill innocents just because your "commander-in-chief" is down with penis envy or whatever it is. PLEASE.

      Oh and on the tax issue, i wont even go there.

    17. Re:Labelled already as liberal traitors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting fact: After we declared war on Japan in 1941, Japanese attacks on Americans increased. Honestly, check it out. I know, surprised the hell out of me too. I thought when you declared war the other side just put down their weapons and went home.

    18. Re:Labelled already as liberal traitors by bergeron76 · · Score: 1

      These guys are very Republican, and it looks like this is a pro-Bush propaganda film. Think it's any coincidence this is coming out in October?

      --
      Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
    19. Re:Labelled already as liberal traitors by mattACK · · Score: 1

      You need to quit sucking the cock of the GOP. To say that Kerry wouldn't do anything is just crap, akin to saying Bush == Hitler.

      --


      "My God, this must be a truly remarkable corn chip, to be so widely and confidently touted."
    20. Re:Labelled already as liberal traitors by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      One of these days, some clear-headed policymakers will take a look at the root causes of terror. Terrorists aren't a bunch of bored, toothless losers sitting around waiting for someone to attack. They're people that see great injustice in their country as a *direct result* of the actions of another country. The US exploits countries like Iraq for cheap oil because their government is easy to disrupt and puppet dictators are relatively easy to install. See Saddam Hussein as the best example of a CIA-installed dictator. Why was Saddam so bad? Because he had to be. There are too many chaotic factions that will do anything to get their hands on the power he held. Just take a look at the current quagmire to get an idea of the dam of insurgence he successfully held back for decades. Most people that are bombing and killing in Iraq right now are *not* Iraqis.

      Don't you think the Iraqi people, by and large, want peace and stability like everyone else? Nobody cares who's at the top of the food chain as long as they can do business and lead a happy life. Saddam was loved by most for the simple fact that he kept the country on an even keel and allowed the public a modicum of success and a window to the future. I'm not praising Saddam or justifying his methods, but he did keep Iraq in one piece long enough for people to feel their families have a future.

      One of these days, probably 20 to 30 years from now, we'll move towards a hydrogen economy, and all of this drama will seem like a bad footnote in the history books. Without funding, terrorists can't complete complicated objectives like training and synchronizing a large scale attack. Cut off their money and they wither and die. Without the need for oil (of which the US is the world's biggest consumer) the Middle East will no longer be relevant.

    21. Re:Labelled already as liberal traitors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you do not have to blow people up to be "fighting terror", you may have noticed that there are dozens of countries that do not have to worry about being one of the main targets of various terrorist organizations. We simply need to to reduce the reasons for them wanting to attack us and not this does NOT mean appeasement.

    22. Re:Labelled already as liberal traitors by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 1

      Most people that are bombing and killing in Iraq right now are *not* Iraqis.

      Then they are outside terrorists and an affliction on the Iraqi people. And what was it you typed above about They're people that see great injustice in their country?

      Saddam was loved by most....

      You're nuts. Saddam's political faction represented a clear minority of the people in Iraq.

      Without the need for oil (of which the US is the world's biggest consumer) the Middle East will no longer be relevant.

      That's a pretty ugly position to take. You're pretty much saying 'they can all go to hell' when the need for oil is gone. What ever happened to the idea of human rights?

      --
      resigned
    23. Re:Labelled already as liberal traitors by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      Don't be so naive. The United States only takes action when our interests are at stake, rarely at the urging of other nations that are in trouble. Bosnia was one of the few times we had nothing at stake besides our reputation.

      I'm not proud of the way our government behaves, or the attitude it takes, but you have to face the truth. The truth is that if the Middle East didn't have oil, nobody, including the UN, would give a rat's ass about their internal affairs. As long as there's a need for fossil fuel, the countries containing mass quantities of it are important.

      Don't forget that the current administration's direct involvement in Iraq also stems from really bad intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction, which of course were never found. Saddam's whole thing about not letting the UN search was just a stunt to keep his neighbors guessing. If his neighbors thought he had WMD's, they wouldn't poke him with a sharp stick. That's the way politics work in that region. Why do you think India and Pakistan are in such a hurry with their nuclear programs? Iran is also on the boat. If you carry the bigger stick, other countries won't monkey with you. But now that his stick was found to be false, look at the parties the neighbors are having with our men and women in the military, and with the Iraqi people. Roadside bombs! AK47 ambushes! RPG surprises for helicopter crews! Now you see what crapflood Saddam held back for so long. The day our military pulls out is the day hell really breaks loose there, and that's why we've been so slow to transition.

      Oh and just as a footnote, personally I respect the Iraqi people and all people generally. However, what I wrote isn't based on my own personal beliefs, it's based on the actions and attitudes of the current administration here in the US. If they really cared about human rights they would have done something about Tibet decades ago.

    24. Re:Labelled already as liberal traitors by rpresser · · Score: 1

      Of course Bush isn't Hitler. Bush is Nehemiah Scudder.

    25. Re:Labelled already as liberal traitors by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      Actually, that was exactly what I meant - in addition to which, I simply don't trust Bush. Even in comparison to the usual big-government policies of the Dems, Bush seems obsessed with expanding the power and influence of government over my life.

      So I view the choice between Bush and Kerry as the choice between the guy who'll probably kill me, and the guy who'll probably get me killed. And since the Libertarians are, rhetorically speaking, smoking weed out on the quad (particularly on this issue), and I don't really like them anyway, I'm voting for Kerry. If McCain had won four years ago, maybe my choices wouldn't suck so much.

    26. Re:Labelled already as liberal traitors by Moofie · · Score: 1

      For me, it's not their vigor that I object to. It's their targeting.

      The American populace is, by and large, not comprised of terrorists. So why are most of the laws passed to "fight terrorism" directed at the American populace?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    27. Re:Labelled already as liberal traitors by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Do you have any substantiation for your claims, or are you just waving your dick around?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    28. Re:Labelled already as liberal traitors by aggiefalcon01 · · Score: 1

      one major terrorist state has been liberated ... Mission accomplished, eh? Not exactly the impression you get watching the news.

      Then don't base your opinions on what you see on the news--neither CNN nor FNC. Instead, try reading some blogs of Iraqis in Iraq talking about what's going on. Or blogs of soldiers in Iraq talking about what's going on. Want truth? Go to the source

      --
      Global warming is neither science, nor politics. It is a religion.
  5. Sweet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As long as it lives up to Baseketball's legacy, it'll be awesome...
    I've gotten sick of Eddie Murphy, that Austin Powers guy and Jim Carrey lately, it'll be awesome to get some new(old) talent into the movie scene ^_^

    I mean, cmon, Austin Powers 3, Shrek 2 and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind(well, _I_ laughed at the hallucinations) have been trying to give the Comedy genre a coup de grace

  6. Stick it to the current government? by ErikTheRed · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From the rumors I've heard and interviews I've read, they hardly make fun of Bush at all... most of their sarcasm is directed towards Hollywood celebreties that have "opinions" (err... groupthink) relating to foriegn affairs...

    --

    Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
    1. Re:Stick it to the current government? by brett42 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Since pretty much every episode started with Bush being unaware of an important issue, then taking a stupid stance on it, I wouldn't really call the character intelligent. He did seem like a typical sitcom character, but on a national scale.

      <obvious cheap shot that I feel compelled to take(of course using lame psuedo-html to denote)>
      Of course, the character might have seemed pretty intelligent compared to the original.
      </obvious cheap shot that I feel compelled to take(of course using lame psuedo-html to denote)>

    2. Re:Stick it to the current government? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "opinions" (err... groupthink)

      sounds like most internet forums

    3. Re:Stick it to the current government? by FyRE666 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      From the rumors I've heard and interviews I've read, they hardly make fun of Bush at all...

      Dude, look at the title of the film... The whole damned movie is aimed at making fun of that idiot's foreign policies...

    4. Re:Stick it to the current government? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, look at the title of the film... The whole damned movie is aimed at making fun of that idiot's foreign policies...

      Dude, watch the trailer for the film... The whole damned movie is aimed at making fun of the Hollywood Elite.

    5. Re:Stick it to the current government? by dmaxwell · · Score: 1

      I don't know. In the episode I remember, he wanted to prove to his old college buddies that he was still cool. The sitcom Bush winds up pouring household chemicals into a lethal-injectee's IV on national television. The Bush on the show didn't really come off terribly intelligent to me. At best, he may have been slightly less stupid than other characters.

  7. In the words of cartman by grahamsz · · Score: 0

    Sweeeet

    1. Re:In the words of cartman by relativePositioning · · Score: 1

      Schaaweeeeet

      In this episode of Nancy Drew we find that Nancy got sand trapped in her shoe while walking on the beach. This may explain how...

      --

      "I'm a loner Dottie, a rebel."
      - Pee Wee Herman
  8. I just don't understand... by iamdrscience · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I cannot fathom what made the producers of Thunderbirds think that it would be a good idea to do it as a live action movie and not with puppets. Thunderbirds' whole fucking gimmick was the puppets. Without the puppets it would have just been another mediocre, wholly forgetable kids action cartoon.

    1. Re:I just don't understand... by Andrew+Aguecheek · · Score: 1

      I seem to remember that Anderson originally wanted it to be live action, but couldn't afford it and got stuck with puppets. What annoys me is the way they got rid of the blue cardboard hats and coloured sashes, WTF were they thinking?

      --
      Tomorrow, I may eat another house plant
    2. Re:I just don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I understand exactly (but unfortunately cannot explain how), and I can sum it up in five characters:

      $$$$$

      To elaborate: the whole thing was a barefaced moneymaking exercise.

      They broke even, actually before release, from sponsorship from Ford (BMW/Rolls-Royce would not touch them with a ten-foot barge-pole and besides, Ford offered more - hence, Lady Penelope's car being a Ford) and to a lesser extent, Shell. They plugged it like hell in everything they could; one of the most commercially plugged movies I've seen in the last 5 years. I mean, shit, I'm actually impressed. They even got those nice Busted lads to drum up a quick title tune for them, which made the, uh, B-side of a double-A-side for their latest single 3am. <grin>

      They didn't give a damn about the quality of the movie, as long as it sold. This time they were actually hardcore enough to sell out even before the movie was released.

      It's justified like this: For every two or three good movies, they need two or three cash-cows to raise immediate funds for them, because the backers actually don't even like movies, see it purely as a short-term investment, and expect returns, and are quite happy to dictate things on their terms.

      They figure it's better to let the backers run wild, tell them what to do and ruin and turn into a total moneymaking "summer blockbuster", say, every even movie so they can go do what they want every odd movie.

      Sometimes I think Hollywood is another planet.

      Disclaimer: This is not an official response from anyone. Duh. Of course. Just something I, uh, overheard. (walks off whistling)

    3. Re:I just don't understand... by microTodd · · Score: 1

      Hehe...actually, a sequel series was make that WAS a wholly forgettable animated series.

      http://www.80scartoons.net/toons/tbirds2086.html

      --
      "You cannot find out which view is the right one by science in the ordinary sense." - C.S. Lewis on Intelligent Design
  9. Re:Why not by bobobobo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Actually it's supposed to skew both sides pretty evenly. Supposedly they really stick it to Michael Moore in the film, along with a bunch of other left-leaning celebrities.

  10. Lemmiwinks by DankNinja · · Score: 1, Informative

    This is semi-related, but I heard a rumor that Comedy Central was not going to show the "Lemmiwinks" episode of South Park anymore. This came shortly after the FCC crack down on Clear Channel, et al.

    1. Re:Lemmiwinks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Ooooh, Jesus Christ.

    2. Re:Lemmiwinks by Cereal+Box · · Score: 1

      I would doubt it, seeing as how Comedy Central has been showing the uncut South Park movie every couple of weeks.

      What's more likely is that the show never finished production before the first half of the new season finished, pushing it up until the second half starts in October.

    3. Re:Lemmiwinks by Mr2001 · · Score: 1

      The FCC doesn't regulate content on cable channels.

      --
      Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
    4. Re:Lemmiwinks by hexag · · Score: 0

      Apparently the Lemmiwinks episode was canned because it was awful. Which means it must have REALLY sucked, what with the latest series being by and large AWFUL, except Good Times With Weapons, which made me laugh so much I made my girlfriend wet her self...

  11. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  12. An excellent idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting
    Hey, you just gave me an idea.

    As a European, I am all for Kerry's election. That baboon (yes, I do have a visceral hate for his anti-intellectual "folksyness" and I-am-on-a-mission-from-God biblethumping) of a president needs to go NOW. If he and his neo-con treaty flouting, warmongering and prisoner-torturing cronies get four more years, the entire world will be in ruins and what's left is being governed by right-wing militant theocracies.

    Too bad we cannot contribute money to Kerry's campaign, but maybe we could gang up and buy internet ads...

    1. Re:An excellent idea by nyseal · · Score: 1

      I, for one, am glad you're a European and have no say in the matter. I CAN contribute money to a campaign and your stated opinion just doubled my contribution. Thanks!

      --
      [SIG] Remember Mattel handheld games?
    2. Re:An excellent idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America is A#1

      Funny..North koreans will probably tell you their country is #1, So will the Chinese etc. Always nice to see how easely people can be conditioned by their governments and media. There is no #1, just a big mess that is the world.

    3. Re:An excellent idea by Tuirn · · Score: 1

      And of course that is a great reason to throw money at him. Since he's only raised 1/4 Billion dollars so far, he might run out. http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/summary.as p?ID=N00008072

      --
      Klein bottle for rent - inquire within.
    4. Re:An excellent idea by nyseal · · Score: 1

      Right.....and if it's on opensecrets.org or in a valid Google search, it must be true...right? Thank God for the internet, where else wuold I get my 100% true factoids?

      --
      [SIG] Remember Mattel handheld games?
  13. Guest Stars?! by LqqkOut · · Score: 3, Funny
    I hope there's a steamy nude scene with that hottie Lady Elaine... Whoah! Nevermind she's been supplanted by the nubile Queen Sara

    Free Related Link... No, uh, strings attached!!!

    --

    -- In Soviet Russia, radio listens to YOU!

    1. Re:Guest Stars?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lady elaine is t3h h0t

      im serious

  14. From the South Park movie by Zorilla · · Score: 0

    Parker and Stone have made jokes about the government, and not surprisingly, have done a Windows joke in the South Park movie.

    General: "Fucking Windows 98! Get Bill Gates in here!"
    (Gates is escorted in)
    General: "You told us Windows 98 was supposed to be faster!"
    Bill Gates: "Well, it is faster - over 5 times-" *BANG*

    --

    It would be cool if it didn't suck.
    1. Re:From the South Park movie by cfuse · · Score: 1

      Both times I saw the movie, that scene caused spontanious applause from the entire audience.

  15. Huh? by Copperhead · · Score: 3, Insightful
    For a second, I thought I was at Ain't It Cool News!

    How exactly is this news for nerds? Yeah, I'm looking forward to the movie, but I'm not looking for information about it on slashdot.

    --
    Your reality is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever. - Baron Munchausen
    1. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ironic coming from a guy with a movie quote in his /. sig. I think you kinda answered your own question without even trying.

    2. Re:Huh? by dipipanone · · Score: 1

      How exactly is this news for nerds?

      All nerds are teenage boys who live in their mom's basement.
      All teenage boys who live in their mom's basement love South Park.
      Ergo, news about a movie from the makers of South Park = news for nerds. QED

    3. Re:Huh? by da_fiend · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nerds also often have interests outside computers. This nerd for one appreciated the link.

      No more open source/*nix news pls.

    4. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad about that armed squad of gunmen holding pistols to your head and forcing you to read the story.

      Asshole.

    5. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



      What I dont understand is how this was modded '5 Insightful', and its *this* far down in the thread. Think about it.

  16. The best thing by iamdrscience · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The thing I like the most about Matt Stone and Trey Parker's shows/movies is the extraordinary balance they generally provide. They make fun of the ridiculousness of all political perspectives. They make fun of people on the left, people on the right, liberals, conservatives, etc.

    And that's really the way it should be, because both "sides" in politics are, for the most part, composed of reasonable people, the problem is the people to the extremes of both sides.

    1. Re:The best thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been watching episodes of "Penn & Teller: Bullshit!" recently, and the politics are very similar. They've gone after lefties (PETA, rabid environmentalists) and right-wingers (creationists, Bible-thumpers) in equal measure. It's nice to have such quality shows available that cater to my personal feelings - too bad I don't have cable, or even a TV.

      The best approximation, by the way, would be the bumper sticker that says "Nuke The Unborn Gay Baby Whales For Jesus."

    2. Re:The best thing by iamdrscience · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ha! That's actually very interesting because I've actually just begun watching Bullshit in the past few days myself and I was also thinking about the ways they're similar. They cover a lot same ground with a few episodes being almost scarily similar (i.e. the "Talking to the Dead" episode of BS vs. the "John Edwards is the Biggest Douche in the Universe" episode of SP). I was planning on trying to match every episode of P&T:BS with an episode of South Park that covers similar ground to see if it could be done (off the top of my head, they both had episodes which dealt took a similar view about second hand smoke laws). But yes, above those direct similarities, both shows do generally give a mostly balanced view, attacking the deserving shysters and bullshitters of all types. They're two of my favorite shows for sure.

    3. Re:The best thing by sqrt(2) · · Score: 2, Funny

      too bad I don't have cable, or even a TV.

      You got the brain implant too eh?

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    4. Re:The best thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, Penn and Teller are cool libertarians too. Bible thumpers, wacko leftist michael moore/moveon.org need to be bashed regularly. Too bad Hollyidiot is too full of groupthink to do more of it.

    5. Re:The best thing by maxpublic · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      because both "sides" in politics are, for the most part, composed of reasonable people

      I would amend that as "composed of unreasonable people". Seems to make a whole lot more sense.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    6. Re:The best thing by Cyno · · Score: 1

      I agree. I think people are the problem. So the solution is obvious.

      And yes, I know I am evil.

    7. Re:The best thing by espressojim · · Score: 1

      That's funny. I thought P&T were pretty freakin' biased. They had an idea they wanted to present, and they present it in an over-the-top manner, where it's clear that they aren't presenting the other side of the argument.

      For example: They had the chiropractors (etc) are all scammers. So, they interview a very small number, and show you ONE crazy guy who's ripping people off. But they don't present many people who are not acting the same way.

      Armed with a little critical thinking, you'll start to see the holes, and misrepresentations in what they present. They don't lie, per se, as much as misrepresent. I find their show to be so irritating because of this that I can't watch anymore (and I saw all of season 1).

    8. Re:The best thing by iamdrscience · · Score: 1

      Oh certainly, Penn and Teller is an opinion show, not a balanced examination of the issues. What I was saying is that their show tackles issues of all types and doesn't specifically attack one viewpoint (i.e. "the right" or "the left"). As for your specific example of the show featuring chiropracters, they actually do mention specifically that there are chiropracters who are legitimate and can help to relieve back pain. Perhaps this could have been emphasized more, but they clearly do say it. What they were meaning to point out is that some chiropracters represent their profession as an appropriate treatment for everything, not just back problems.

    9. Re:The best thing by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      They cover a lot same ground with a few episodes being almost scarily similar (i.e. the "Talking to the Dead" episode of BS vs. the "John Edwards is the Biggest Douche in the Universe" episode of SP).

      You'll notice, incidentally, that Penn actually refers to John Edwards as 'the biggest douche in the universe': it seems P&T were aware of the similarity here :-)

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  17. Bipartisan Bashing... by thermopylae300 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Actually Parker called in to Matt Drudge's radio show to dispute that this film was just another attack on Bush. Drudge Report: Team America

    Marionette puppets are used throughout the film to mock terror threats, and media figures who dominate the nation's airwaves. But Parker and Stone save most of the mocking for left-wing pundits and Michael Moore.

    "Bush is not even in the film," Parker said Sunday night from Los Angeles during the DRUDGE REPORT radio broadcast.

    "I would ask that people wait and see it, before passing a judgement."

    --
    Before the invention of eruptions, lava had to be carried down the mountain by hand and thrown on sleeping villagers.
    1. Re:Bipartisan Bashing... by Megane · · Score: 1
      It was from them calling in that I really want to see this. It sounds kind of like The Thunderbirds Go To the Middle East.

      What started all this "movie will be bashing Bush" crap was people who had an early shot of some guy in the movie and ASS-umed that it was supposed to be Bush.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  18. Ah, finally... by iamdrscience · · Score: 4, Funny

    From stop-motion construction paper cut-outs to stupid looking puppets. How far we've come!

    1. Re:Ah, finally... by Frambooz · · Score: 1

      erm, most of the South Park episodes are made in $$$$ 3D application Maya, also widely used by nearly every big SFX house in the world. Emulating paper cut-outs, how far we've come!

      --
      No encryption can withstand the power of the Lucky Guess.
    2. Re:Ah, finally... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Hmmmm...I wonder if the message is more important than the medium? Staggering notion, that...

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  19. No Thunderbirds required... by iamdrscience · · Score: 1
    If you liked the original Thunderbirds and hate the live action remake but also love comedy sticking it to our current government then you are going to love Matt and Trey's new project.
    Umm, yeah, I'm not sure liking Thunderbirds is actually required to enjoy this movie.
  20. Hah.. by bmantz65 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Can you say, "Puppet Sex?"

  21. Re:Europeans for Kerry 2004 -fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google Ads, of course.

  22. ThunderBIRDS? by iamdrscience · · Score: 4, Funny

    Screw Thunderbirds, this would be even cooler if it were in the style of Thundercats.

    I mean, besides the obvious fact that Thundercats was a cooler show, cats kill birds, it's a fact of nature. Plus, you know, there's Cheetara.

    1. Re:ThunderBIRDS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd vote for Thunderfox...

  23. Re:Europeans for Kerry 2004 -fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I volunteer my bank account and my time for the cause.

    Just keep pouring in the money, I'll take care of it...

  24. Memo to all movie websites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    I do not want to install flash. I should not need a browser plugin to learn about your movie. At least provide an html version. And jesus quicktime is not the only format out there. If it wasn't for the hacked version of that codec I would never see any movie trailers.

    1. Re:Memo to all movie websites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like my internet like god intended it, text and pictures. Installing flash means I subject my self to a whole new variety of advertisements with sound and stupid animations. Sites using nothing but flash, especially movie sites bring me closer and closer to suicide each time I view them. I don't want to fuck with an animated piece of garbage.

    2. Re:Memo to all movie websites by sqrt(2) · · Score: 2, Informative
      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    3. Re:Memo to all movie websites by dipipanone · · Score: 4, Funny

      I like my internet like god intended it, text and pictures.

      What do you mean, text and pictures? God didn't intend there to be no pictures on the net.

      Now go and download yourself a copy of Lynx or STFU.

    4. Re:Memo to all movie websites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like my internet like god intended it

      It's spelled "g-o-r-e."

    5. Re:Memo to all movie websites by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 3, Funny

      If you're still stuck on a platform where you have to "install" Flash, maybe your problems run deeper than you know.

      Join us in the 21st century.

      --

      I write in my journal
    6. Re:Memo to all movie websites by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      Is STFU a new text-based browser? Where can I download it?

    7. Re:Memo to all movie websites by dipipanone · · Score: 1
  25. "sticking it to the current government" by rd_syringe · · Score: 2, Informative

    Apparently, the submitter hasn't read the response from the creators where they plainly state that they skewer the left more than they do the right. Even the trailer says as much.

    Trey and Matt are libertarians who despise both Republicans and Democrats (and rightly so).

    1. Re:"sticking it to the current government" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, it's michael's "intentions" that matter here, not the results.

  26. Re:Europeans for Kerry 2004 -fund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You, sir, will go far with your helpful attitude.

  27. Their response by rd_syringe · · Score: 1, Informative

    They were hardly called "liberal traitors." Nice hyperbole on your part. Nonetheless, they quickly responded that the Bush administration should actually wait and see the film--it criticizes the left more than the right. They are libertarians who despise both parties.

    1. Re:Their response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Like if people actually LISTENED to Howard Stern before rushing to judgement based on nothing other than heresay. Or when religious leaders were up in arms over a show called _Wife Swap_. The pastors thought wives would change husbands and have torrid love affairs with other men. Blasphemy! Meanwhile, that's not what the show was about at all... In America, we jump to conclusions first and ask questions later. You should feel guilty and frightened all of the time in America. THat's how you are conditioned. That's why our military spending is so large. That's why the T-word cannot be spoken in public. We fear getting sued. We fear the government is taking too much control over our lives. We fear big business is steamrolling us. We fear the rich are squeezing the poor. We fear whatever the news wants to tell us, like toxic molds, or Africanized killer bees, or poisonous candy on Halloween. We fear... the black man! With so much to fear, it's a wonder the country functions at all. No wonder people are willing to spend hundreds of dollars a month on TV bills so they can stay inside the comfort of their house where no one will harm them.... except for the radiation from their TV, microwave and cell phone which will give them cancer... or the high-carb, high LDL foods that will make them fat... or the show they are watching that is warping their brain to want to kill people, beat animals and have promiscuous sex.

      I wouldn't worry though. Because you can take a pill that will sedate you and prevent you from worry, stress, depression and any other feeling you have, brought on by society.

    2. Re:Their response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be taken in by this idiot--he has accounts under the names bonch and Overly Critical Guy. He has a history of astroturfing for Microsoft, bashing anything Open Source, using lies and half-truths to get modded up, karma whoring, and the usual trolling (under his bonch account, he got a troll posted to the front page of Slashdot).

      All you have to do to check the veracity of this is to look at the posting history of his two old personnae (linked above) and his current one to figure it out.

      Please do not mod this jerk up--every time you do the Slashdot S/N ratio goes down while bonch/Overly Critical Guy/rd_syringe just laughs at you.

      This has been a public service announcement

  28. Mods? by rd_syringe · · Score: 0

    Why on earth is this "flamebait?"

    1. Re:Mods? by Anamanaman · · Score: 0

      Slashdot speech police say that referencing politics is a thought crime

    2. Re:Mods? by fleener · · Score: 1

      You must be new here. You're flamebait if the moderator disagrees with your viewpoint. It's a ping-pong match watching messages get modded up and down 10 times in a day, only to have them end up where they started.

  29. Re:hmm, that's strange... by natd · · Score: 1

    You couldn't see it in Mozilla? Works fine in Safari so it's not just an IE job... Go directly to apple.com/quicktime and find it there I guess. It's worth seeing ;)

    --
    Only big ligs use sigs.
  30. Re:Why not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I was talking about Taco and crew. Parker and Stone are entertainers, and they know it. The /. bunch are falling into the trap of believing thier own bullshit.

  31. Bush isn't even in the film by rd_syringe · · Score: 2, Informative

    According to Terry and Matt, he's not even in it.

    1. Re:Bush isn't even in the film by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cheney is though, I saw the trailer this weekend when I saw Without A Paddle.

    2. Re:Bush isn't even in the film by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's Trey, you fucking moron.

  32. Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course he isn't... They only actors are puppets!

    1. Re:Yeah... by metamatic · · Score: 1
      Of course he isn't... They only actors are puppets!

      You mean Cheney isn't pulling Bush's strings?

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  33. Re:You say... by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What good do the libertarians do besides being the political equivalent of apple fanboys? Is there even a point to your posturing and complaining? Doesn't look to me like you guys actually do anything besides complain.

    I think you answered your own question. One of the main things the American third parties accomplish at this point is to provide a viewpoint apart from the kneejerk opposite reaction that will be found in the other second party. Much of the party platform of both Republicans and Democrats is formed because it's the opposite of what the other party wants, not on the merit of whatever it actually means. Opinions coming from outside both sides at least have a slightly better chance of getting into consideration than the same idea might have if proposed by whatever party the person in question is in opposition to.

    --
    Everything will be taken away from you.
  34. Re:how is apple supporting the open source communi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ummm AC for fear of modness but I thought this guy has a valid point, how do you play the .movs from the wonderful "opensource-supporting" apple?

    Realplayer/helix had theora support before most of the gpl/community players did. I think there is an argument for dissing out apple here. Even turbolinux was able to licence wmv codecs for their distro, and powerdvd is on linux too.

    Anyway, how do we watch the trailer on linux?

  35. Re:hmm, that's strange... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    "the movie's website is completely blank! Guess they didn' want us mozilla users to see it, oh well...."

    It runs fine in Moz. But maybe someone like you should use IE. Or a Mac. Or maybe a crayon.

  36. That's my Bush! was fantastic.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of these days, Laura.. I'm gonna PUNCH YOU IN THE FACE!!

    1. Re:That's my Bush! was fantastic.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God I miss that show. This was supposed to be the president that was remembered because he had an entire show to mock him. Now Mr. 1206 SAT has a shot for reelection. Damn you, world.

    2. Re:That's my Bush! was fantastic.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that I'm implying Bush is a genius, but taking a shot at someone for a (relatively) low score on a standardized test is dumb. It's something Bush would probably do.

      Man, I can't even remember what I got on the SAT. I think it was in the 1400s...

    3. Re:That's my Bush! was fantastic.. by wonkavader · · Score: 1
      I too, really miss That's My Bush.

      I was horrified when they took it off, immediately after 9/11/2001. Dissent ends when things get bad? HUH? That's when we need it most.

      And I actually liked George Bush. Not that inarticulate imposter they had playing him on the news, but the real one I saw every week on his show. That real George Bush was an OK guy. The fake one on the news was both uninteresting and... well, scarey.

      I felt much better about our leadership when That's My Bush was on.

  37. OW, MY EARS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Holy crap man, whoever the fuck decided that the site should play music and have a helicopter flying by at like 200% volume deserves to be shot. I've sat here and checked, the sounds on that page play over twice as loud as any other sounds I can get my computer to play... But that could partly be just because my ears are still ringing...

  38. I don't feel like installing flash... by bkhl · · Score: 1

    ...so if someone would post a direct link to the trailer, that would be appreciated.

    1. Re:I don't feel like installing flash... by Jade+E.+2 · · Score: 1
    2. Re:I don't feel like installing flash... by kyhwana · · Score: 5, Informative
      --
      My email addy? should be easy enough.
    3. Re:I don't feel like installing flash... by cortana · · Score: 1

      How did you extract the 'real' movie URL from the stub movie that can't be played without the oficial QT player?

    4. Re:I don't feel like installing flash... by kyhwana · · Score: 2, Informative

      ;)
      If you open up the normal .mov that it links to (in firefox, use "view page info") there's a filename, which will be "filename_m480.mov"
      The filename being the same as the normal .mov, just replace the normal/first .mov with that.
      Usually it's just blah_m480.mov which "blah_480.mov" "links" to.

      Unfortuantly, I can't get mplayer to play the audio with that, but quicktime alternative/mediaplayerclassic in windows plays it ok.

      --
      My email addy? should be easy enough.
    5. Re:I don't feel like installing flash... by cortana · · Score: 1

      Nice. Audio works fine here, perhaps the output from mplayer will help you:

      http://nopaste.php-q.net/79703

    6. Re:I don't feel like installing flash... by dtfinch · · Score: 1

      When I tried to view the trailer I got that problem too, but managed to get it working. I had built mplayer before installing the codecs, and everything played fine but the quicktime, which was lacking audio. The mplayer output said I didn't have all the quicktime codecs. I had the codec though. Running ./configure again but with all the codecs already installed and rebuilding fixed it. It seems to check for a certain few codecs at configure time.

  39. How's your news by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wish the blurb would have mentioned the recent dvd release of How's Your News, which Matt and Trey funded. The basic premise is that a group of people with various mental disabilities go on a tour of America and interview people along the way. They're not prompted at all, they and the people interviewed are the only ones you ever see. Which is one of the cool things about it, they're just out there being themselves and having fun. It's really facinating seeing their reactions and those of the people around them as the interviews progress, or they check into a hotel, or pick up a hitchiker. The movie's not easy to describe as much of it comes down to the tone rather than the premise. There's a link to an interview on This American Life on their site which gives a better picture than I'm able to.

    --
    Everything will be taken away from you.
  40. Stick to south park by centipetalforce · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    It's the only thing the;ve done right, and the only thing they will ever do right. They need to make new episodes.

    1. Re:Stick to south park by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What aboot BASEketball? Are you implying that this was not the most awesome movie ever?

  41. Re:worrisome by golgotha007 · · Score: 3, Informative

    George Bush and buddies *are* in the film. Watch the trailer.

    Not a flamebait in the least, I am not pro anyone. However, it appears that some moderators are paranoid about these particular truths; I don't blame them.

    How about this for an example:

    Two individuals wore anti-Bush T-shirts on the president's July 4 rally. The pair were taken from the event in restaints after revealing T-shirts with Bush's name crossed out on the front and the words "Love America, Hate Bush" on the back. They were restained, publically humiliated and charged with trespassing (charges later dropped).
    Wow, not unlike something the Russian politburo would have done in the 70's or 80's, hmm?

    How's that for freedom of speech.

  42. Re:worrisome by Mr2cents · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hmm.. a movie about the reactions to 9/11 and the president is not even in it. Maybe that's the insult?

    --
    "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
  43. I say.. by andr0meda · · Score: 1

    .. we sue them. What you, Steve ?

    --
    With great power comes great electricity bills.
  44. Marionets are NOT Puppets by mrjb · · Score: 4, Informative

    Marionets are different from puppets. Marionets have wires, puppets are directly hand-controlled.

    Hybrids of those are possible of course, and they exist too -- Muppets. They got both someone pulling their strings AND someone's hand up their ehrm... back. What a way to make a living.

    --
    Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
    1. Re:Marionets are NOT Puppets by Hogwash+McFly · · Score: 3, Funny

      So I guess the fairly common phrase 'Puppet Strings' is a bit of a misnomer then?

      --
      Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
    2. Re:Marionets are NOT Puppets by norkakn · · Score: 1

      puppet PPronunciation Key(ppt)
      n.
      A small figure of a person or animal, having a cloth body and hollow head, designed to be fitted over and manipulated by the hand.

      A figure having jointed parts animated from above by strings or wires; a marionette.

      A toy representing a human figure; a doll.

      One whose behavior is determined by the will of others: a political puppet.

      so it looks as though a marionet is a sub division of puppet

    3. Re:Marionets are NOT Puppets by pohl · · Score: 1
      As much as I loathe spelling-nazis, the word is "marionettes". It's also worth noting that the following entries for "puppet" disagree with your classification: puppet, puppet.

      Both of those resources take contributions, so if you can cite a more definitive source you can get them corrected.

      --

      The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...

    4. Re:Marionets are NOT Puppets by sky289hawk1 · · Score: 1

      "It's not quite a mop, and it's not quite a puppet..." -- Homer Simpson

    5. Re:Marionets are NOT Puppets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dad, what's a muppet?

      Well, it's not quite a mop, and it's not quite a puppet.....

  45. Re:I cant wait. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    sorry mcfly, but Matt and Trey are libertarians and despise wacko leftist morons (John Kerry) 100x more than they hate Bush.

  46. Re:I'm proud of the fact that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Way to go, judge something that you haven't seenmore then five minutes of.

  47. Being Matt Stone and Trey Parker by dr_eaerth · · Score: 3, Funny

    Puppets, eh? I hope they do the right thing and hire the best puppeteer in the world, John Malkovich.

    1. Re:Being Matt Stone and Trey Parker by kurgan_cyberdude · · Score: 2, Informative

      Malkovich WAS the puppet, John Cusak was the best puppeteer in the world.

      --
      -- In a World without Walls and Fences, who needs Windows and Gates? --
  48. Re:You say... by maxpublic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What good do the libertarians do besides being the political equivalent of apple fanboys?

    So instead we're supposed to engage in groupthink, join the Borg, and "be one" with one of the two major parties - despite the fact that we disagree with both of them on a number of fundamental issues?

    Nice attitude, that.

    Max

    --
    My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
  49. The worst thing, in my view... by Jack+Zombie · · Score: 0

    They make fun of the ridiculousness of all political perspectives. They make fun of people on the left, people on the right, liberals, conservatives, etc.

    In other words, they're afraid of taking a position and standing by it. Since they make fun of EVERYONE, nobody can accuse them of having a liberal/conservative bias, because nobody can figure out what exactly they stand for. The only message that comes through is "everybody is wrong, don't trust anyone".

    This wouldn't be so bad if the criticism was actually justified, but most of the time it's just incredibly stupid things like "lets tear down the rain forest because it's filled with bugs and environmental groups annoy us" or "lets make corporations look good because all the slack they get annoy us" or "lets make Native Americans look bad on national television (but never blacks or latinos... that would be racism, heh) because people thinking highly of them annoy us". They're just like Tom Green in their mentality, they'd call their own mothers dirty sluts for no good reason and people would hail that as "social criticism" when it's just the way they are and think.

    --
    "You should never doubt what nobody is sure about." -- Willy Wonka
    1. Re:The worst thing, in my view... by gangien · · Score: 1

      In other words, they're afraid of taking a position and standing by it. Since they make fun of EVERYONE, nobody can accuse them of having a liberal/conservative bias, because nobody can figure out what exactly they stand for. The only message that comes through is "everybody is wrong, don't trust anyone".

      This is insightful? this is what almost all media does for 1. 2 WHy should they take a stance? 3. It's wrong to make fun of things?

      Come on.

    2. Re:The worst thing, in my view... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      lets make corporations look good because all the slack they get

      That word... I do not think it means what you think it means.

    3. Re:The worst thing, in my view... by Jack+Zombie · · Score: 1

      1. http://www.imdb.com and broaden your world view.
      2. Because they like to view themselves as social/political commentators, and that's what social/political commentators do. Which is my point, if they don't have a message, then they're just some slapstick comedians and should just stop trying to make social/political satires.
      3. See 2.

      --
      "You should never doubt what nobody is sure about." -- Willy Wonka
    4. Re:The worst thing, in my view... by sielwolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not blacks and latinos? I can't tell if this is a joke or not but they've had episodes about both groups several times ("Fat Butt and Pancake Head" "Here Comes the Neighborhood" "Krazy Kripples") along with the Chinese, Japanese, gay, and the handicapped.

      --
      What is music when you despise all sound?
    5. Re:The worst thing, in my view... by wfberg · · Score: 1

      In other words, they're afraid of taking a position and standing by it. Since they make fun of EVERYONE, nobody can accuse them of having a liberal/conservative bias, because nobody can figure out what exactly they stand for. The only message that comes through is "everybody is wrong, don't trust anyone".

      They mostly make fun of people who're breaching good old non-partisan values like "don't be a hypocrite", "fair play", "thou shalt not bear false testament" etc.

      I fail to see how that's not taking a stand.

      And I fail to see why you should only criticise people who you're not politically allied with. To me that smacks of hypocrisy. And not a little bit of blind stupid faith, or noticing a splinter in some one's eyes whilst having a beam in your own..

      This wouldn't be so bad if the criticism was actually justified, but most of the time it's just incredibly stupid things like "lets tear down the rain forest because it's filled with bugs and environmental groups annoy us" or "lets make corporations look good because all the slack they get annoy us" or "lets make Native Americans look bad on national television (but never blacks or latinos... that would be racism, heh) because people thinking highly of them annoy us".

      Gee, I seem to remember that episode when Timmy went to join a gang.. And that episode when succesfull Hollywood black people suddenly all moved into Southpark on a whim. The episode where Cartman's hand channeled Jennifer Lopez ("I like burrito's!"). The black kid is called "Token". Not to mention the fact that their highschool cafetaria chef is an over-amorous Isaac Hayes..

      But perhaps you didn't notice those episodes ripping on blacks or latino's because those stereotypes are truthful in your eyes? Or perhaps you're bitching about Southpark without having watched it? (Come on! Chef is in almost every episode!)

      --
      SCO employee? Check out the bounty
    6. Re:The worst thing, in my view... by Jack+Zombie · · Score: 0, Troll

      You misinterpreted my words. I didn't wrote that blacks and latinos weren't represented in South Park. What I meant was that, in the wacky politically correct world of the U.S.A., nobody seems to notice the irony that while South Park creators act racially conscient by portraying black Afro-Americans and latinos as sucessful/intelligent/cool characters, and denouncing the fact that the cultural melting pot that is America is more akin to olive and water, with discrimination against blacks and latinos still being common... Then they go and portray Native Americans as deceitful snake oil sellers that take advantage of their cultural heritage for monetary purposes. The point is, while it is seen as bad and racist to denigrate blacks and, to a lesser degree, latinos, they don't have any problem doing that to other ethnical groups.

      It's pure hipocrisy to satire the american society as being racist, and then go and be racist yourself.

      --
      "You should never doubt what nobody is sure about." -- Willy Wonka
    7. Re:The worst thing, in my view... by Jack+Zombie · · Score: 1

      They mostly make fun of people who're breaching good old non-partisan values like "don't be a hypocrite", "fair play", "thou shalt not bear false testament" etc.

      I fail to see how that's not taking a stand.

      And I fail to see why you should only criticise people who you're not politically allied with. To me that smacks of hypocrisy. And not a little bit of blind stupid faith, or noticing a splinter in some one's eyes whilst having a beam in your own..


      I agree, and what I was trying to express before, but couldn't quite word, is that the South Park creators don't limit themselves to ridicule what is wrong with a person/situation, but also what is right with it. They make fun of EVERYTHING, good or bad, and that is what I meant when I called them cowards for not standing for what they believe.

      Gee, I seem to remember that episode when Timmy went to join a gang.. And that episode when succesfull Hollywood black people suddenly all moved into Southpark on a whim. The episode where Cartman's hand channeled Jennifer Lopez ("I like burrito's!"). The black kid is called "Token". Not to mention the fact that their highschool cafetaria chef is an over-amorous Isaac Hayes..

      But perhaps you didn't notice those episodes ripping on blacks or latino's because those stereotypes are truthful in your eyes? Or perhaps you're bitching about Southpark without having watched it? (Come on! Chef is in almost every episode!)


      You misinterpreted my words. I didn't wrote that blacks and latinos weren't represented in South Park. What I meant was that, in the wacky politically correct world of the U.S.A., nobody seems to notice the irony that while South Park creators act racially conscient by portraying black Afro-Americans and latinos as sucessful/intelligent/cool characters, and denouncing the fact that the cultural melting pot that is America is more akin to olive and water, with discrimination against blacks and latinos still being common... and then they go and portray Native Americans as deceitful snake oil sellers that take advantage of their cultural heritage for monetary purposes. The point is, while it is seen as bad and racist to denigrate blacks and, to a lesser degree, latinos, they don't have any problem doing that to other ethnical groups.

      It's pure hipocrisy to satire the american society as being racist, and then go and be racist yourself.

      --
      "You should never doubt what nobody is sure about." -- Willy Wonka
    8. Re:The worst thing, in my view... by gangien · · Score: 1

      Well 1 of mine was inaccurate. I should of said something like a lot of media commentary, which tends to be mostly critcal of things as opposed to suggesting ideas.

      In respnse to your other point, so what? You still havent' answer why they should take stance. There's no reason for them too. Ever seen jibjab? www.jibjab.com is quite funny, because it points out faults of both candidates. It makes it more enjoyable when you feel you are not trying to be convinced of some stance.

    9. Re:The worst thing, in my view... by iamdrscience · · Score: 1

      I think you're confusing hypocrisy with intentional irony.

  50. "Our" current government? by Gothmolly · · Score: 4, Funny

    What about the rest of the world, you insensitive clod!

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:"Our" current government? by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      I keep hearing about this "rest of the world", but I've never seen it. Either it doesn't exist or doesn't matter.

      I'm going back to sleep.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    2. Re:"Our" current government? by rthille · · Score: 1

      Just give Bush a few more years and 'our' current government will be 'your' then government. :-(

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    3. Re:"Our" current government? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must not be paying attention.

      NR

    4. Re:"Our" current government? by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      I keep hearing about this "rest of the world", but I've never seen it. Either it doesn't exist or doesn't matter.

      Beyond our land there only be dragons and the end of the world. Those who speak of other place, other ways and a notion of a round globe are heretics. We can only call what we have 'freedom', since there is no other land to compare to our shackled ways.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  51. Re:how is apple supporting the open source communi by dipipanone · · Score: 1

    Anyway, how do we watch the trailer on linux?

    Seems to me that you should be blaming the film makers, not Apple, but you could look here to start with.

  52. Some counter examples by gad_zuki! · · Score: 3, Insightful

    >vurrrrry correct about everything

    Like that piece of war porn The Jessica Lynch story?

    Or how they pulled the Reagans?

    Or how dissenting voices regarding the Iraq invasion were barely heard?

    Or how a Hollywood star is now the governor of California and a Republican.

    Or how media ownership is concentraed into the hands of a few vocal conservatives?

    Or how F9/11 got dropped by Disney and was in "can't find a distributator" mode for a while?

    Or how every "history" movie (especially WWII) is ahistoric and highly pro-American. With the exception of Vietnam movies.

    Or how the Pentagon will lend Hollywood any equipment they want but they get to edit the script for right-wing pro-military ahistory "patriotic correctness?"

    Or how TV was quick to digitally remove the twin towers from every skyline as not to upset anyone?

    Or how shows that tackle history in an honest and non-partisan way only exist on PBS?

    Or how Malkin can go on TV and say Kerry shot himself for his medals? Or how Anne Coulter can openly call Liberals treasonous and demand the deaths of muslims and coverting them to Xtianity. Both of whom are still on the pundit short list for other shows.

    Or how only a satiric comedy show (the Daily Show) can actually break and frame issues in a manner which isn't corporate media ass-kissing?

    Yeah, its pretty PC lefty out there! You many know some liberals in the industry, but it doesnt make a difference if their bosses (who dictate policy and bias and call the shots) are conservatives like Rupert Murdoch, Rev Moon, etc.

    1. Re:Some counter examples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And those few owning the enitre Hollywood are mainly jews.

      How would you like it if they were all Nazis?

    2. Re:Some counter examples by InsaneGeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >Like that piece of war porn The Jessica Lynch story?
      And? What you a sadist and prefer to only see bad shit happening all the time? I can't believe you are expecting any kind of "high art" film when it's in the same group as "Not without my baby", "The Long Island Lolita Story", etc. really you might want to come down to reality with your expectations

      >Or how they pulled the Reagans?
      Or maybe it was more like, the viewers we get paid to get in don't like to see a guy in late stages of alsheimers kicked when he's down with issues that they can't verify. And see above and relate the truthfullness of previous shows and how public might react to kicking around an old man who's brain is gone.

      >Or how dissenting voices regarding the Iraq invasion were barely heard?
      They were heard all the time, they just didn't make any convincing arguments. There wasn't a day that went by that I didn't see "protestors" in a newspaper, etc. The only problem was they were saying "Bush=Hitler" and "Oil Grab", nobody was saying they didn't have WMD, didn't hear it from France, Germany, Arab states, etc. If the best statement a person could give was to call a person another name (and extreme at that) with no facts you WILL get ignored.

      >Or how a Hollywood star is now the governor of California and a Republican.
      Because of the extreme failing by the Democratic parties group. That's like saying almost the whole US shifted to Dem after Nixon since a conservative didn't get voted in

      >Or how media ownership is concentraed into the hands of a few vocal conservatives?
      And? Are you saying that dissenting opinion isn't on TV? I see desent all the time; maybe you ought to look at TV more as a device for those owners to make more money then as a public service. Every single one of them is there to make money, maybe in reality the public will spend more money on advertisers when they are told America is a piece of shit or maybe the public wants to just sit back and be entertained without a whole lot of cerebral work going on. So hop back to reality, TV is about money not about anything else.

      >Or how F9/11 got dropped by Disney and was in "can't find a distributator" mode for a while?
      Again, and? Disney told Moore a year before he announced anything that they weren't going to be distributing it. There's no possible way that movie was not going to get picked up, it was all a very well crafted publicity stunt.

      >Or how every "history" movie (especially WWII) is ahistoric and highly pro-American. With the exception of Vietnam movies.
      So you are saying that to be liberal you've got to be anti-american? That america should have actually lost those wars?

      >Or how the Pentagon will lend Hollywood any equipment they want but they get to edit the script for right-wing pro-military ahistory "patriotic correctness?"
      Comeon now that's about as stubid as you can get, what you are asking is akin to going to Ford company telling them you are making a film on how dangerous their fuel tanks were and asking for them to give you a couple of vehicles. Seriously what are you expecting there?

      >Or how TV was quick to digitally remove the twin towers from every skyline as not to upset anyone?
      I'd say that actually was more of a traditional left "PC" tactic than anything else
      Or how shows that tackle history in an honest and non-partisan way only exist on PBS?

      >Or how Malkin can go on TV and say Kerry shot himself for his medals? Or how Anne Coulter can openly call Liberals treasonous and demand the deaths of muslims and coverting them to Xtianity. Both of whom are still on the pundit short list for other shows.
      Or how Moore can go and make film, books, etc that basically say Bush and Saudi Arabia conspired to kill 3000+ Americans because he wants some oil. He's now significantly richer and on the even shorter list for the shows.

      >Or how only a satiric comedy show (the Daily Show) can actually break and frame issues in a manner which isn't corporate media ass-kissing?
      Maybe because shows on TV really isn't there for the "good of the public" but to get a nice big check.

    3. Re:Some counter examples by isa-kuruption · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or how they pulled the Reagans?

      Public opinion "pulled" the Reagans off CBS. Viewers of CBS threatened to boycott the network, including it's advertisers, and because CBS's revenue is based on the money it makes from it's advertisers, it felt best to hand it over to Showtime (who's money is made based on subscription rates) where it was shown many times. There is no "conspiracy" here, just the facts of cold, hard cash.

      Or how dissenting voices regarding the Iraq invasion were barely heard?

      Because "all the people" that mattered were not dissenting, including people like oh.. John Kerry... who was for the war just as much as the President was. However, he heard PLENTY of how dissent from the French and the Germans in this time period.

      Or how a Hollywood star is now the governor of California and a Republican.

      Not the first, probably won't be the last. However, remember Arnold is married to a Kennedy and is socially liberal while economically conservative. Bush did not support Arnold during his run, and therefore, now, Arnold is not supporting Bush. So, this has less to do with a "ring wind conspiracy" as you would have us believe and more to do with getting Grey Davis out of office for being an idiot.

      Or how media ownership is concentraed into the hands of a few vocal conservatives?

      I don't know where you get your information. Ted Turner? Hardly a conservative. Yet, he owns several networks. This has nothing to do with politics. Although you conspiracy theorists would like us to believe that "big media" is controlled by the right in order to convince us there isn't a liberal bias in the media (which there is).

      Or how F9/11 got dropped by Disney and was in "can't find a distributator" mode for a while?

      Again, that's about money... Disney was threatened with a boycott of it's products, and when it came down to the cold, hard cash... they backed away. However, it was the Miramax "brothers" who saved the day and gave us that enlightened film produced by Michael Moore... (yeah, right, enlightened....)

      Or how every "history" movie (especially WWII) is ahistoric and highly pro-American. With the exception of Vietnam movies.

      Why wouldn't a histoical movie of WWII be highly pro-American? If you remember, the US was attacked without cause on December 7. Not only was the war effort in response to that unprovoked attack, but it was also to remove from power one of history's worst criminal to humanity, Adolf Hitler, who had killed millions of Jews. Now when you consider that the effort the US took both militarily and industrially to pull off such a thing, it should make one sit back and awe at the pure ability of a people to come together for a common goal.

      Or how the Pentagon will lend Hollywood any equipment they want but they get to edit the script for right-wing pro-military ahistory "patriotic correctness?"

      I'm sorry, but I would not lend Michael Moore by computer to check his webmail if I knew he would then turn it against me somehow because I used Mozilla instead of MSIE. And the Pentagon does not lend, it leases... and 99% of the time it's either footage and not equipment itself.

      Or how TV was quick to digitally remove the twin towers from every skyline as not to upset anyone?

      Yeah, this was nuts... but it was Hollywood. Again, it's the cold, hard cash that influenced this one.

      Or how shows that tackle history in an honest and non-partisan way only exist on PBS?

      Considering PBS is, at least partially, federally funded, it's strange you would say "gov't influences history" and then say "except PBS, they're cool". I dunno... seems odd.

      Or how Malkin can go on TV and say Kerry shot himself for his medals? Or how Anne Coulter can openly call Liberals treasonous and demand the deaths of muslims and coverting them to Xtianity. Both of whom are still on the pundit short list for other shows.

    4. Re:Some counter examples by Elkboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The world's most oil-thirsty nation invades the nation with the world's second largest oil reserves.

      You don't have to wear a tinfoil hat to be suspicious about that.

      It's a whole different matter to say the war was only started for oil though.

    5. Re:Some counter examples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The only problem was they were saying "Bush=Hitler" and "Oil Grab", nobody was saying they didn't have WMD, didn't hear it from France, Germany, Arab states, etc.

      Actually, that is what was being said. The whole point of Powell going before the United Nations was to show the world our case for WMD. And he failed.

      The world, and much of the U.S., was unconvinced that compelling evidence was there. The non-believers (remember the Freedom Fries?) were mocked. And there was much name-calling about how they were cowardly, or were corrupt and only trying to cover shady deals.

      And even now, the administration is making the intelligence community out to be the scapegoats, when so many were not convinced. What does that say about the President's judgement?

    6. Re:Some counter examples by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      Or how TV was quick to digitally remove the twin towers from every skyline as not to upset anyone?

      Is there a webpage that lists these? The intro to Law and Order (the original, not the clones) is one I can think of.

    7. Re:Some counter examples by Quill345 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      >Or how dissenting voices regarding the Iraq invasion were barely heard?
      They were heard all the time, they just didn't make any convincing arguments. There wasn't a day that went by that I didn't see "protestors" in a newspaper, etc. The only problem was they were saying "Bush=Hitler" and "Oil Grab", nobody was saying they didn't have WMD, didn't hear it from France, Germany, Arab states, etc. If the best statement a person could give was to call a person another name (and extreme at that) with no facts you WILL get ignored.
      Actually there were plenty of people saying that they needed to see more evidence of WMD before goint to war. The NY Times admitted recently that many of these articles were given less prominent space than articles that just reported the facts on the war effort. Here a some link for you: :http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/st ory/0,7792,857271,00.html>
      >Or how every "history" movie (especially WWII) is ahistoric and highly pro-American. With the exception of Vietnam movies.
      So you are saying that to be liberal you've got to be anti-american? That america should have actually lost those wars?
      When did he say that? Or are you just trying to discredit him through bad argument? He simply said that you don't have to be pro-American all the time, you can expose some of the problems with our efforts. Self-criticism can be used for the betterment of the country. Pro- and anti- are strong opposites, but not everyone has to be as polar, as you'd like to make it seem.
    8. Re:Some counter examples by walterbyrd · · Score: 1



      And right after the war the USA pulled up the oil tankers and stold Iraqi oil, right? The same way the USA did 13 years ago, correct? The same thing the USA did with Libia, wasn't it?

      Where the hell do people get this "blood for oil" cr@p? Oil prices in the USA are up - way up. The USA oil pipeline has never benefitted from USA military action in the mid-east.

      I have always felt the USA action in Iraq was unjustified. But the USA didn't do it for oil.

    9. Re:Some counter examples by Chris+Carollo · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Or how Moore can go and make film, books, etc that basically say Bush and Saudi Arabia conspired to kill 3000+ Americans because he wants some oil. He's now significantly richer and on the even shorter list for the shows.
      I'm not a huge fan of Moore's one-sided rhetoric, but he's certainly never said that Bush had specific knowledge of the attack before it happened and was a coconspirator in its execution. He's been very critical of a lax attitude that allowed it to happen and extremely critical of Bush's reaction to it, but you're putting words in his mouth. Please provide a quote with a credible source.

      Now, speaking about Ann Coulter, she said: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." In the same article she advocates carpetbombing Muslim countries (and thus knowingly killing innocent civilians). And yet she remains a top conservative pundit.
    10. Re:Some counter examples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GE owns NBC, Viacom owns Comedy central.

    11. Re:Some counter examples by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      People get the blood for oil concept from the simple fact that hey, we charge money for 'rescuing' your ass. In the US government's estimation, every dollar we spend 'liberating' Iraq can be paid back with their precious oil reserves. Same thing happened with Desert Shield/Desert Storm. As part of reparations of war, we got cheap or free oil for a period of time. You may remember $1./gal gas just after Desert Storm. Since the current operation isn't considered complete, oil prices are still high. After all, Haliburton and friends are paying big dividends to US and other workers to get the oil flowing our way. Each and every employee there is getting a shitload of hazard pay for driving around in a war-torn chaotic country.

      You've got to get to a newspaper sometime. Television isn't a good source of information because the average viewer has a short attention span and everything meaningful must be compressed to 3 second soundbites.

    12. Re:Some counter examples by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      The Spiderman trailer was another example of this. It originally debuted on the web with Spidey netting helicopter between the Twin Towers..if memory serves..or he was just swinging between them. Either way, it was altered and re-released.

    13. Re:Some counter examples by FlopEJoe · · Score: 1
      Just a couple rebuttles:

      'Or how they pulled the Reagans?'

      What does that even mean? Who pulled the Reagans and what does it mean to pull a Reagan?

      'Or how dissenting voices regarding the Iraq invasion were barely heard?'

      I thought there were and are plenty of critical stories of the war. And very little of the thousands of schools, courts, and police stations we helped built. The dosens of rape rooms and torture chambers we shut down. The tens of thousands of bodies uncovered in mass graves.

      'Or how media ownership is concentraed into the hands of a few vocal conservatives?'

      Excluding Ted Turner, I assume.

      '...TV was quick to digitally remove the twin towers from every skyline...'

      This a conservative trait? I'm not liberal and I'm against messing with history like that.

      'Or how Malkin can go on TV and say Kerry shot himself for his medals?'

      Gotta call bull on this one. She quoted the Swift Boat book that they were self inflicted wounds. self inflicted != shot himself. The shouting Matthews kept trying to put the words "shot himself" in her mouth.

      'Or how only a satiric comedy show (the Daily Show) can actually break and frame issues in a manner which isn't corporate media ass-kissing?'

      I'm sure you don't mean you're getting your news from the Daily Show.

    14. Re:Some counter examples by aka-ed · · Score: 1
      It was thought we could waltz in and double the output of Iraq oil. Turned out it's not so easy.

      Of course, more oil means cheaper oil. Cheaper oil benefits the largest consumer (the US). It's not "stealing" just "good business."

      Meanwhile it looks like the era of cheap oil may be over forever. Just as nations like China and India were starting to get an appetite for it. Too late! We ate it all.

      --
      I survived the Dick Cheney Presidency 7 to 9 AM 7-21-07
    15. Re:Some counter examples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The world's most oil-thirsty nation invades the nation with the world's second largest oil reserves. You don't have to wear a tinfoil hat to be suspicious about that.
      No. You just have to be a dumbass.

      Do some research on the current investigation into the UN "Oil for Food" program if you really want to know who profited from Iraqi oil. Here's a hint: it wasn't the United States.

      Blood for oil? More like "Corpses for Money", which was Europe's approach to Iraq.
    16. Re:Some counter examples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's been very critical of a lax attitude that allowed it to happen and extremely critical of Bush's reaction to it, but you're putting words in his mouth.

      Yes, critical of a 7 minute delay out of the sitting President who was in a reading session with grade schoolers. But he wasn't critical of a certain Senator that's running for President named John Kerry that sat stunned for 45 MINUTES during the same scenario. Gee, I wonder who did better in that situation?

    17. Re:Some counter examples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sex & the City zoomed in to a part of the still not showing the twin towers.

    18. Re:Some counter examples by Chris+Carollo · · Score: 1
      But he wasn't critical of a certain Senator that's running for President named John Kerry that sat stunned for 45 MINUTES during the same scenario. Gee, I wonder who did better in that situation?
      Again, do you have a source for that information? (It's not that hard to google for a source to back up your claims, folks).

      As far as comparing the two, one is the President and Commander in Chief. You'd hope that he would begin gathering information and taking action immediately when it has become clear that his country has come under attack. Instead, he sat dumbfounded for seven minutes and later justified it with the exceedingly weak argument that he "didn't want to alarm the children" by leaving his photo-op early. Source here.

      Even if Kerry did sit stunned for 45 minutes, what exactly was he supposed to do? As far as I know he had no control over anything that could have helped the situation. Unlike President Bush, it was neither his job nor responsiblity to act on the event.
    19. Re:Some counter examples by Mullen · · Score: 1

      You can still see the Simpsons episode where Homer and family goto New York to recover his car parked at the Twin Tower Plaza.

      So, no, not every show has given in to "Political Correctness".

      --
      Linux O Muerte!
    20. Re:Some counter examples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are some fscking dumb arguments coming from the Kerry camp and allow me to observe honestly that this picayune griping is the dumbest.

      Nobody gives a fsck what Bush did for 7 FSCKING minutes after receiving word of the events. He was reading to children and so -- instead of alarming them -- he finished then did what he had to do.

      Almost 300 days in office and you're griping about 7 minutes? America is NOT tuning in...

      It makes Kerry look very, very small; no smaller than say his repeated retellings of his "war heroism" -- on the heels of having derided and slandered his fellow soldiers in that same war upon his return. Real men don't dwell on accomplishments twenty years ago; only aging HS quarterbacks who've done nothing since do that... oh, yeah, and I guess limp do-nothing Senators.

      http://www.communistsforkerry.com/

    21. Re:Some counter examples by Chris+Carollo · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      Nobody gives a fsck what Bush did for 7 FSCKING minutes after receiving word of the events.
      On the contrary, this display of inaction is potentially very damaging to the Bush camp, despite how much the Bush apologists would claim otherwise.

      I would certainly hope that ANY President, when told that his contry is under attack, would immediately excuse himself from whatever photo-op he is involved in. It is his responsibility, more than anyone else in the country, to gather information, talk to other high-ranking officials, develop a plan, and put it into action. The fact that he did nothing for seven minutes is simply inexcusable to me and belies an apalling lack of leadership.

      Even more galling is are the lame excuses for the delay. "Not wanting to alarm the children" is absurd, he could have -- and should have -- simply said that there was something that he needed to attend to and exused himself. Not a single child would have been alarmed in the least.

      As far as Kerry's war record...are you sure you really want to start comparing it against that of Bush? Doesn't seem like he'll stack up well there.

      As far as your use of the word "slander", that would require the information to be known false and intended to cause harm. Can you demonstrate either of those in Kerry's testimony?
    22. Re:Some counter examples by 3l1za · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Dude, you do not live in the fucking real world.

      There are arguments to be made against Bush and this one isn't it.

      Aren't you smart enough to see that the American people as a whole STILL support the way Bush handled 9/11? And when Kerry himself whines about what Bush did for 300 to 420 seconds, it makes him look like a first class asshole. Er, makes him look like MORE of a 1st class asshole since his going on and on about his 16 weeks in Viet Nam twenty years later when many men who served longer and were braver don't breathe a word about it.

      Even JFK -- the real one, J. Effin' Scary's hero/idol -- never talked about his experiences in WW II and totally dismissed self-deprecatingly intimations that he, Kennedy, was a hero. That's because the guy had class.

      Something your snowboarder who blames his tumbles on the slopes on nearby Secret Service men (everyday folk, them) couldn't even begin to immitate.

      Look, boy Kerry is a gigolo, just a gigolo, everywhere he goes, people know the tune he's playing... November's gonna be great.

    23. Re:Some counter examples by Erik+Hollensbe · · Score: 1

      I don't know where you get your information. Ted Turner? Hardly a conservative. Yet, he owns several networks. This has nothing to do with politics. Although you conspiracy theorists would like us to believe that "big media" is controlled by the right in order to convince us there isn't a liberal bias in the media (which there is).

      Not that I agree with this bullshit conspiracy crap any more than you do, but Ted Turner was recently bellyaching about how he had no power over his networks anymore and that the credibility of them has gone down the toilet due to corporate corruption.

      I'm pretty sure it was even featured on slashdot.

    24. Re:Some counter examples by Erik+Hollensbe · · Score: 1

      We have a running joke at the office...

      Anytime someone refers to france or french anything, we rearchitect the statement to use the word "freedom" instead.

      That publicity stunt did more to discredit the current administration for me than the whole "ashcroft covering lady liberty with a curtain" did on a symbolic scale.

    25. Re:Some counter examples by njpomeroy · · Score: 1
      Class A retard alert. No the original poster, not me.
      Like that piece of war porn The Jessica Lynch story?
      ..and the countless unproven, unsubstantiated speculation about whether it was staged, even after it was shown to be a genuine rescue.

      Or how they pulled the Reagans?
      ...due to consumer pressure against an obvious character-assassination hit-piece by an anti-Reagan producer/driector.

      Or how dissenting voices regarding the Iraq invasion were barely heard?
      ...absolute bullshit. I couldn't pick up a paper in the bay area without seeing "Bush=Hitler" signs and lionizing Black Bloc anarchists in the "protests." All this with no mention that the protests were organized and funded by the Workers World Party (self-proclaimed anti-american communists)

      Or how a Hollywood star is now the governor of California and a Republican.
      ...and he was just better the least popular governor in recent history. He's a social liberal, and by some conservatives a "Republican in Name Only."

      Or how media ownership is concentraed into the hands of a few vocal conservatives?
      ...oh yeah, and George Soros, Democratic lap dog, loudmouth, and fear monger is not using his billions of dollars to fund moveon.org TV commericals, and (the thoroughly unpopular) Air America radio.

      Or how F9/11 got dropped by Disney and was in "can't find a distributator" mode for a while?
      ...and Michael Moore knew since the beginning of the deal that the Buena Vista wasn't distributing it. He only mentioned it after crying "censorship" to the gullable media. When he was called on the lie, he admitted he knew it DIsney wasn't distributing it from the beginning.

      Or how shows that tackle history in an honest and non-partisan way only exist on PBS?
      ..including fawning documentaries of Middle East dictators and white-washed histories of Islam.

      Or how Malkin can go on TV and say Kerry shot himself for his medals? Or how Anne Coulter can openly call Liberals treasonous and demand the deaths of muslims and coverting them to Xtianity. Both of whom are still on the pundit short list for other shows.


      Malkin never said it; Matthews put that in her mouth. Read the transcript, illiterate. Who could defend Ann Coulter? We'll also ignore all the left-liberal pundits who predicted an American banana republic because of the tax cut (Krugman), or left-liberal darlings Rall and Oliphant slandering Jews, soldiers, and POWs and getting kudos rather than censure.

      Or how only a satiric comedy show (the Daily Show) can actually break and frame issues in a manner which isn't corporate media ass-kissing?

      Ah. this explains your idiocy and near sightedness. You get your news from the Daily Show. I also bet you get you talking points from CrossBalls and your BBC news from Flying Circus.

      Yeah, its pretty PC lefty out there! You many know some liberals in the industry, but it doesnt make a difference if their bosses (who dictate policy and bias and call the shots) are conservatives like Rupert Murdoch, Rev Moon, etc.


      What a load of shit. Sorry, I'm speechless at this willful ignorance.
    26. Re:Some counter examples by poofyhairguy82 · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      For instance, did you know the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, the 527 group of Vietnam vets who supposedly served with Kerry, and who has claimed he was a liar regarding his war record, were not even mentioned in the NY Times until just a couple days ago when they ran a story about how the Bush-Cheney campaign could be breaking the law by illegally supporting this group? Although unfounded, the NY Times had no problem picking up on it to bash Bush, but when it came to reporting what the book said about Kerry.... silence....

      The NYT was right to ignore those Swiftboat Liers. "There were three swift boats on the river that day in Vietnam... three officers and 15 crew members," said Mr Rood. "Only two of those officers remain to talk about what happened... One is John Kerry... who won a Silver Star for what happened... I am the other."

      The Swiftboat guys are still sore a Kerry for starting an Anti-Vietnam War group. They are not a credible source.

    27. Re:Some counter examples by otis+wildflower · · Score: 1

      Or how they pulled the Reagans?

      Because it was slanderous crap?

      Or how dissenting voices regarding the Iraq invasion were barely heard?

      Err, they weren't heard because they were shrill and whiny.

      I fucking HATE shrill whiners.

      Or how a Hollywood star is now the governor of California and a Republican.

      And a pro-choice immigrant?

      Or how media ownership is concentraed into the hands of a few vocal conservatives?

      How many times does Rupert Murdoch appear on TV as compared to, say, Charlie Rose?

      Or how F9/11 got dropped by Disney and was in "can't find a distributator" mode for a while?

      And how the resulting controversy absolutely torpedoed the film at the box office?

      Or how every "history" movie (especially WWII) is ahistoric and highly pro-American.

      So we need more films glorifying Nazis? I figure Leni Riefenstahl had the market cornered on that, but whatever floats your boat, dude...

      Or how TV was quick to digitally remove the twin towers from every skyline as not to upset anyone?

      Or else leave them in everywhere to provide something that will upset everyone to the point where they start burning down Dearborn and Jackson Heights in an anti-Arab pogrom?

      Or how shows that tackle history in an honest and non-partisan way only exist on PBS?

      Which is funded by the selfsame government you crank off against? Hmm...

      NEWSFLASH: Communism lost. Get over it. Try finding something constructive to do besides whining shrilly, because the last thing this world needs is yet another shrill whiner. We already have Columbia University and UC Berkeley.

    28. Re:Some counter examples by Elkboy · · Score: 1

      Yes, oil prices are up and so are the revenues of big oil.

      You didn't think the idea was that you was to benefit from the war, did you? Where's the money in that?

    29. Re:Some counter examples by chartreuse · · Score: 1

      Bzzzt! Ted Turner doesn't own any networks any more, he sold them to Time Warner. Comedy Central is owned by Viacom and Time Warner, who don't own NBC (that would be GE). (Try that Google search-thingy sometime, an enquiring mind like yours could probably find real info there.) And those Viet vets can't even keep their stories straight.

      I looked at just three of your assertions and they're false, which doesn't bode well for the rest of them. ...Enough wasted time for one night. Thanks for playing, and be sure to tip the teachers at your indoctrination center!

    30. Re:Some counter examples by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

      >>People get the blood for oil concept from the simple fact that hey, we charge money for 'rescuing' your ass.

      Last I heard, the USA forgave Iraq's $87B debt. Even if the USA did ask for payment, or partial payment for war debts; it's not as if the USA is stealing oil, or making some great profit.

      I do not support USA mid-east policy, but this "blood for oil" idea is idiotic.

    31. Re:Some counter examples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhm, she says a LOT of things 'toungue in cheek'
      style. Are you sure you learned to read properly?

      No, really, are you?

    32. Re:Some counter examples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, everybody with an intelligence gathering
      agency was telling us that they DID have them.
      Heck, even your butt-buy (or is that the other
      way around) Clinton said they did when HE was
      in office. Ditto for Algore. They BOTH said
      Iraq was a danger and that Iraq had WMD. And
      Iraq DID have them. We all know it. They used
      them against Iran and they used them against
      the Kurds in the nothern part of Iraq itself.
      You haven't seen the bodies laying in the streets
      video footage? IT WAS ALL OVER TV WHEN IT
      HAPPENED! WMD does NOT just mean nukes, dolt.
      And Saddam's kids won't be throwing people into
      plastic shredding machines for fun anymore either!
      Guess that didn't bother you as much as me having
      a burger for lunch though, right? Or driving an
      SUV? Or owning a gun?

      One thing we can agree on now, unless you really
      are stupid, is that Iraq is NO longer a threat.
      Now, get a clue, get a life, and GET OVER IT!

      P.S. Actually, I had sushi for lunch. And it
      was GREAT! ;^)

    33. Re:Some counter examples by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      Not making some great profit? Are you really that blind? The $10-$15 dollar per barrel premium that's added to each and every oil shipment is a speculative tax, i.e. not the result of a real crisis but in anticipation of one. It's caused by jittery execs taking advantage of a situation like this to fatten profits. There's no shortage. There won't be a shortage. But we're paying through the nose for it like there is. Some industry insiders were quoted recently as saying the speculative tax bubble should burst soon, but who knows. As long as we need gas, they can stab us for it.

      Regardless, we pay the lowest price for fuel in the world (well, except for Iraq, which pays pennies per gallon) so we still have nothing to cry about in the global scheme of things. Ask any european or Brit that pays upwards of $7.50 per gallon how good we have it. Yet they are geographically closer to the ME than we are. Why do we get such an enormous discount? Do we have lower fuel taxes? To a certain extent yes, but what other reasons could cause us to get enormous fuel discounts? Something to ponder.

    34. Re:Some counter examples by aggiefalcon01 · · Score: 1

      I looked at just three of your assertions and they're false, which doesn't bode well for the rest of them.

      Examples, please?

      --
      Global warming is neither science, nor politics. It is a religion.
    35. Re:Some counter examples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Or how they pulled the Reagans?"

      you mean how the public spoke & had the network drop it? oh wait i forgot freedom of speech = good unless it's a differing idea then bad, silly me...

      "Or how dissenting voices regarding the Iraq invasion were barely heard?"

      i suppose you don't bother to read the newspaper or see the news huh?

      "Or how F9/11 got dropped by Disney and was in "can't find a distributator" mode for a while?"

      it's pure & total bullshit, it was a stunt check your facts

      "Or how TV was quick to digitally remove the twin towers from every skyline as not to upset anyone?"

      that's the PC machine at work...duh..

      "Or how shows that tackle history in an honest and non-partisan way only exist on PBS?"

      LOL you're funny

      "Or how Malkin can go on TV and say Kerry shot himself for his medals? Or how Anne Coulter can openly call Liberals treasonous and demand the deaths of muslims and coverting them to Xtianity. Both of whom are still on the pundit short list for other shows."

      freedom of speech again...I guess since their opinion is diff from yours they shouldn't be allowed to speak right?

      it's soooo damn funny that libs scream about freedom of speech until someone has a differing idea then they're real damn quick to try to crush that persons right...

    36. Re:Some counter examples by tbannist · · Score: 1
      Or how every "history" movie (especially WWII) is ahistoric and highly pro-American. With the exception of Vietnam movies.

      Why wouldn't a histoical movie of WWII be highly pro-American? If you remember, the US was attacked without cause on December 7. Not only was the war effort in response to that unprovoked attack, but it was also to remove from power one of history's worst criminal to humanity, Adolf Hitler, who had killed millions of Jews. Now when you consider that the effort the US took both militarily and industrially to pull off such a thing, it should make one sit back and awe at the pure ability of a people to come together for a common goal.

      It would help if you addressed your attention to the entire sentence not merely the part you'd like to respond to, perhaps you are unaware of what "ahistoric" is supposed to mean?

      There's a huge problem when history is being rewritten (changed) to enlarge and enliven the role of the United States. It's not the pro-American sentiment that's the problem it's the modification of history to justify it.
      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
  53. Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A movie made for me, my parents didn't let me watch south park (too contraversial) but my dad was the one who e-mailed me the link for this movie first about a month ago, and I though slashdot was current).

  54. libertarians? by gad_zuki! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Parker and Trey both recieved public aid to goto college at the the University of Colorado.

    Both are now multi-millonaires with very little in common with you and me. If they have a philosophy its contrarianism and vulger/shock humor. To hold them up to anything else is being a bit pretentious about their work, which is as anti-pretentious as it gets.

    1. Re:libertarians? by NeedleSurfer · · Score: 1

      The amount of money you have has nothing to do with your philosophies. If you were born poor and lived poor a huge part of your life then you'll remember the frustrations and motives that made you do your best so that you aren't poor anymore. You'll probably want to fight against what was pissing you off. That's why lotery is somewhat dangerous, you always have the chance that a very conservative institution gives a huge amount of it's own weapon to a leftist. I have no problem with the leftist using the money, that doesn't make him less leftist...

      Those guys might not have anything in common with you and me now but contrary to GWB and co they once had everything to do with you and me, that's why they don't need to own media channels or control them to get their message accross, a simple movie and people will go to it instead of it going to the public...

    2. Re:libertarians? by 88NoSoup4U88 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      "To hold them up to anything else is being a bit pretentious about their work, which is as anti-pretentious as it gets."

      As Rembrandt's Nightwatch (Nachtwacht) was showing how people were living at that time ; Southpark is giving a very good contemporary look at today's society.

      I'm not saying that a piece of art like the Nachtwacht is on the same levels as Southpark ; but merely the uses and effects of different forms of art , made knowingly , -or- unknowingly so by the creators.

    3. Re:libertarians? by Erik+Hollensbe · · Score: 1

      I don't remember who for sure, but I'm pretty sure it was Al Gore who once said (a long, long time ago, and this is a paraphrase at best), "Democrats are elected by the poor, laws are created to help them get rich, and then they vote for Republicans."

      While I have seen cases which confirm and deny this statement, it just goes to show that one cannot pigeon-hole anyone. It's very easy for someone to forget their roots, we see it all the time amongst celebrities.

  55. s/slack/flack/g by Jack+Zombie · · Score: 1

    You're right, I meant "flack", thanks for pointing that out.

    --
    "You should never doubt what nobody is sure about." -- Willy Wonka
    1. Re:s/slack/flack/g by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You're right, I meant "flack", thanks for pointing that out.

      Yeah, sorry. I knew what you meant.

  56. Re:hmm, that's strange... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I couldn't see it in Mozilla (1.7 under linux) either. I right-clicked on the video box and selected Settings and got a box that appeared to be asking permission to access my camera and microphone. It was set to Deny be default.

  57. Re:how is apple supporting the open source communi by Kristoffer+Lunden · · Score: 1
    wget http://movies.apple.com/movies/paramount/team_amer ica/team_america_m480.mov
    mplayer team_america_m480.mov
    Minus the slashdot added spaces, of course.
  58. Lady penelope by Neo-Rio-101 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Lady Penelope.... now that's a bird I wouldn't mind thundering! Seriously though, I Matt and Trey are usually really good at finding good targets to aim at - evidenced by South Park ... so I'm looking forward to this.

    --
    READY.
    PRINT ""+-0
  59. Re:I'm proud of the fact that by kurgan_cyberdude · · Score: 1

    I agree with him. That show is utter garbage. I have tried to watch episodes, and found it so bad that I was deeply troubled for hours afterward. He did himself a favor only watching 5 minutes of it.

    --
    -- In a World without Walls and Fences, who needs Windows and Gates? --
  60. Re:I cant wait. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Yes, and people who like Bush usually find marionette shows to provide deep and insightful analysis of world events. This should be a big win all round!

  61. How original! by rjamestaylor · · Score: 3, Insightful
    • also love comedy sticking it to our current government
    How refreshing! It is so hard to find a comedic medium willing to "stick it" to "our current governement." What an artistic risk!


    (sarcasm, of course.)

    Truly, could anything be more formulaic than a punkish slam at out Government? I don't care what you think of "our government" -- there is no lack in this overrun category. In web terms, a plot line attacking GWB is like a website in 1998 having "Pamela Anderson" in the META tags. Lame.

    --
    -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
    1. Re:How original! by rjamestaylor · · Score: 1

      Just for clarity, I am only responding to the contributor's writeup here on Slashdot. I know nothing of the producers (never watched SouthPark) or the actual piece. The sense of glee and "wow -- someone willing to stick it to our Gubment" elicited my reaction.

      --
      -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
  62. Cannibal! The Musical by SpaceRook · · Score: 3, Informative

    I recommend Trey/Matt fans check out Cannibal! The Musical. If you liked the musical numbers in South Park, you'll love this one. Some great squibs, also. Trey's horrible acting and 80's hair (even though the movie was made in the 90's) are hilarious. Don't let a slow start fool you. Listen to the drunken commentary track, too.

    1. Re:Cannibal! The Musical by Kayne_McGladrey · · Score: 1

      Saw that at Bumbershoot in 2002. Very, very funny, though not a bit political. I've never considered Stone & Parker to be political - they seem willing to just produce comedy that pushes the limits of taste.

  63. MOD PARENT UP by grendelkhan · · Score: 1

    Right on the money.

    --
    Wu-Tang Name: Half-Cut Skeleton Get your own Wu-Na
  64. Jaws hitting the floor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't wait to hear the left's jaws hit the floor when they go into this film expecting another Moore-love-fest (like the submitter seems to think).

  65. Re:I cant wait. by leon.gandalf · · Score: 1

    Thats the gist of it. Not fond of Bush but damn... you would have to try hard to find a worse choice than Kerry..... maby Ted (hickup) Kennedy.
    Kerry = flip flop flip flop... what the hell does he stand for?
    Bush = At least he does what he says.

    http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/14muslimconf licts.html/

  66. here is a NYT article with more info by SmellsLikeFish · · Score: 1

    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/22/movies/22WAXM.ht ml?8hpib

  67. Didn't You Know That... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Conservatives are your friends.

  68. Wrong about Malkin by jayrtfm · · Score: 4, Informative

    >>Or how Malkin can go on TV and say Kerry shot himself for his medals?

    from her site (http://michellemalkin.com/archives/000418.htm)

    Here is how I responded verbatim:

    "Well yeah. Why don't people ask him more specific questions about the shrapnel in his leg? There are legitimate questions about whether or not it was a self-inflicted wound."

    Matthews frantically stuffed words down my mouth when I raised these allegations made in Unfit for Command that Kerry's wounds might have been self-inflicted. In his ill-informed and ideologically warped mind, this transmogrified into me accusing Kerry of "shooting himself on purpose" to get an award.

    I repeated that the allegations involved whether the injuries were "self inflicted wounds." I DID NOT SAY HE SHOT HIMSELF ON PURPOSE and Chris Matthews knows it.

    Only someone who had not read Unfit for Command would interpret what I was saying the way Matthews did. The book raises questions by vets, many of whom were with Kerry, about whether there was or wasn't enemy fire during the Dec. 1968 incident that led to his first Purple Heart (Patrick Runyon is quoted in a Boston Globe account on p. 35 saying "I can't say for sure that we got return fire or how [Kerry] got nicked. I couldn't say one way or the other. I know he did get nicked, a scrape on the arm.") and whether the injury came from a self-inflicted wound after he caught a tiny piece of shrapnel when he fired a grenade from his M-79 grenade launcher too close (p. 36); whether or not there was "intense rocket and rifle fire" during the Feb. 1969 incident that led to his second Purple Heart (Rocky Hildreth, officer of an accompanying boat on Dam Doi Canal that day, says there was no "intense rocket and rifle fire" on p. 78); and whether the shrapnel wound in his buttocks, which Kerry says he sustained in March 1969 and led to the awarding of his third Purple Heart, was the result of a mine explosion while on a mission or from a wound from his own grenade that he set off too close to a stock of rice he was trying to destroy (p. 87). See also pages 30-31. I was trying to get to these points, but Matthews would not let me finish a sentence.

    1. Re:Wrong about Malkin by Erik+Hollensbe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What's sad about all this crap is that not only is his political agenda not getting across because he's paying so much attention to it, his opponent's political agenda isn't getting across either.

      As a result, if that's what they want me to pay attention to, I'm going to pay attention to the guy who's trying to get his viewpoints and solutions out there so at least if I don't agree with him 100%, I have a good idea of what he's going to do for the next 4 years.

      I'll write in or vote for Nader, or no one at all - unless I start hearing things that give me the ability to consider the other candidates.

      Do I care if that gives Bush another 4 years to fuck up this country? Nope. Kerry did it to himself and let down a whole political party (which consists of lot more voters than appointees), I'm not letting that guy get 4 years to do it. At least I know how Bush is going to let me down, and I make a slim chance for Nader to get elected less slim.

      Of course, neither of the major parties are going to ever consider something like run off voting, which gives the voter more power at the poll booth.

    2. Re:Wrong about Malkin by quax · · Score: 1

      Clip can be found here

      I may add that to me as a German it is just utterly puzzling what seems to be politcally important to the US these days. Don't you have a current war to worry about? What is it with all these silly Vietnam rehashes?

    3. Re:Wrong about Malkin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>What is it with all these silly Vietnam rehashes?
      as opposed to silly WWII rehashes?

    4. Re:Wrong about Malkin by quax · · Score: 1

      Your point being? I can not remember an election in Germany in my lifetime (I am 33) were WII played any role.

    5. Re:Wrong about Malkin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are the perfect excuse making apathetic Nader voter. Kerry's platform is right on the web on his official site. Why are you watching TV expecting them to read it line and verse for you?

      Not to mention Nader has been gettin Republican help and funding just to throw this election. You might as well vote Bush at this point. Sorry, but your "two parties suck/are the same" sure as hell isnt true, never war, but was a meme the GOP and Nader got to work to get people like you to get their boy in. It worked. Thanks for four more years of Bush. Hope you're not of draft age. Hope hard.

    6. Re:Wrong about Malkin by jejones · · Score: 1

      What is it with all these silly Vietnam rehashes?

      The problem, for Kerry anyway, is that that's all there is to him, unless you count his ego, belief in his superiority to "little people" (Google Kerry and "DYKWIA" ("do you know who I am?") for more on that), and his skill at marrying rich women.

      So, Kerry and the Democrats have nothing better than to endlessly remind us all of Kerry's four months in Vietnam (he spent more time than that in the Navy, but only four months actually in Vietnam--see, initially, when Kerry volunteered for it, swift boat duty was out at sea relatively safe; it was once they were sent inland for far more dangerous tasks that Kerry quickly got his three Purple Hearts and got the heck out of Dodge), so that those opposed to Kerry's election find that their best bet is to show Kerry as not the hero he paints himself as.

    7. Re:Wrong about Malkin by quax · · Score: 1

      I still fail to see the relevancy. Didn't Bush manage to skip Vietnam altogether? Not that I think that matters much either - rather seems to have been a smart thing to do IMHO.

      Doesn't Kerry have any opinions on current issues that he can run on e.g. Iraq, patriot act, economy etc.?

  69. Re:worrisome by Keebler71 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually, the rally was a private party so technically they can kick out anyone they wish... and if I were a republican, I doubt I would want hecklers at my private party either. I'm not sure it has anything to do with freedom of speech. If it were a public event I would completely agree with you.

    --
    "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
  70. You proved his point by Monx · · Score: 2, Insightful
    >Or how dissenting voices regarding the Iraq invasion were barely heard?
    They were heard all the time, they just didn't make any convincing arguments. There wasn't a day that went by that I didn't see "protestors" in a newspaper, etc. The only problem was they were saying "Bush=Hitler" and "Oil Grab", nobody was saying they didn't have WMD, didn't hear it from France, Germany, Arab states, etc. If the best statement a person could give was to call a person another name (and extreme at that) with no facts you WILL get ignored. ...
    >Or how media ownership is concentraed into the hands of a few vocal conservatives?
    And? Are you saying that dissenting opinion isn't on TV? I see desent all the time


    You just proved his point. There were plenty of people with strong arguments against the war. The mainstream media only showed you folks that would be written off as nut-jobs. It's a variation on the straw-man argument. The media showed you that the opposition was a bunch of loons who only know how to yell and wave signs; but it ignored the reasons why these people were protesting just as it ignored the more intellectual opposition to the war.

    People who complain about the liberal media don't know what liberal means. The media in this country is far to the right of the media in most nations.
    1. Re:You proved his point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep that is true. But also remember that 2/3 of the countries on this planet have dictatorial govenments. So compating us to them is a non-starter.

    2. Re:You proved his point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, please. Do you really think the grandparent poster was comparing US media with media in North Korea? Pull your head out of your ass.

    3. Re:You proved his point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "People who complain about the liberal media don't know what liberal means. The media in this country is far to the right of the media in most nations."

      your point being that because the media in other countries are more liberal than the already liberal media here that the media here is in fact not liberal?

      Yeah that is sound logic if you ask me, end sarcasm.

      The funny thing is you say their was plenty of people with strong arguments against the war, yet you yourself provide no argument. Again a tatic used by those against the war without providing any actually argument.

      Did you actually follow the media during the war? Did you watch shows on cnn, msnbc, abc, nbc, cbs. Hardball, 60 minutes, nightly news, LKL. They all had individuals who presented arguments against going to war, many had them on nightly. The end result was as the parent said, no facts = ignored.
      Of course if I followed this rule I should in fact ignore you, since you did not present any FACTS as well.

      Thinking critical is not hard to do and getting information from mutliple sources is not either. Their is no excuse to not read papers such as www.jpost.com and www.gulfnews.com and etc. to get a truly global view on situations. With this being said most who read the mainstream media with a critical eye can not deny that bias exist throughout, however its rather obvious this currnet bias leans far more to the left for most news sources than in any other directioin. Watch CBS, ABC, MSNBC, and CNN during the upcoming election. Notice how all the announcers will use the words "we" when a democrat wins a state. We implies myself included and is not a coincendence.

    4. Re:You proved his point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny that you would name www.jpost.com and not Al-Jazeera(sp).

      And as far as FACTS go in the run-up to the Iraq war.. False intelligence was being used by the pundits & government figures as FACTS. The anti-war side had no real intelligence, as well as no false intelligence. Exactly what FACTS were they supposed to resort to? I remember the findings of the UN Weapons Inspectors were "complete garbage" as far as the pro-war pundits were concerned.

      Go read The Economist, a recent issue has a synopsis of the Senate report on Intelligence failings in Iraq. It lays it all out, even getting into the quality of intelligence sources. GWB&Co laid out the reasons for war using the intelligence sources of the least reliablity, choosing sources that sometimes weren't even based in Iraq, like ex-Iraqis living abroad.

      You had Rummy and Cheney and Bush and Blair standing up saying 'WE KNOW THIS IS TRUE'. The anti-war side screamed "LIES!", but of course there are no FACTS to that.. /sarcasm

      Perhaps the bias shouldn't be looked at as left vs. right. It's far more us vs. them. Or should I say US vs the world?

    5. Re:You proved his point by quax · · Score: 1

      Some pre-war arguments against the war:

      1
      2
      3

      This is just a short sample of some of the thoughts I had when this ill conceived war started.

      Then again it was easier for somebody to see this when not solely exposed to the US media.

  71. Re:worrisome by Paulrothrock · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Yes, but when there are hecklers at a Kerry event, he mocks them, or uses them as evidence that he's a real threat to the Bush administration. Just because your candidate isn't swift enough to publicly humiliate them on his own doesn't mean they should be handcuffed and carried away.

    Poor Georgie, he might find out that people don't like him!

    --
    I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
  72. This isn't new... or funny by EvanKai · · Score: 0

    First, this isn't new. I blogged it 3 weeks ago asking if Trey Parker and Matt Stone really think now is the time for a comedy about terrorism?

    Maybe there's some deep moral meaning to this film, but from the small amount I've seen, the all white Team America is fighting darker complected marionettes around the world. Are they going to put a "This film is dedicated to the US service men and women who have lost their lives fighting terrorism..." message and then think everything is alright?

    I'm guessing the friends and families of 957 killed and 6,497 wounded (and counting) in Iraq aren't going to find this movie very amusing.

    In a Variety interview Matt Stone said, "This will probably piss off everyone in town, and might well be our swan song."

    I think he's right.

    1. Re:This isn't new... or funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those who feel somberness is inherently respectful are usually the ones who don't get the joke.

    2. Re:This isn't new... or funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      By neglecting to include the 11,000 Iraqi dead in your figures, you have invalidated any credibility your post might have had. Making fun of terrorism is tasteless. Making fun of the War on Terror is fun: it provokes conservatives into making clown noises.

    3. Re:This isn't new... or funny by aka-ed · · Score: 1
      You blogged it! Wow, and at an URL that includes your name!

      How dare /. celebrate the work of Parker and Stone when your accomplishments are so much greater!

      --
      I survived the Dick Cheney Presidency 7 to 9 AM 7-21-07
    4. Re:This isn't new... or funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, those families might not. But I sure as hell will.

    5. Re:This isn't new... or funny by EvanKai · · Score: 1

      I read /. for the New(s) for nerds... if I wanted to read month old news, I'd get a paper copy of Wired. The trailer has been on Apple's QuickTime site for weeks. It topped out on Blogdex around that time as well.

      I stand by my original post... that post is not news and that movie is in poor taste.

  73. Re:worrisome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, not unlike something the Russian politburo would have done in the 70's or 80's, hmm?


    Big mistake-- liberals are supposed to compare conservatives to Hitler and/or nazis, not communists. It's clearly stated on page 358 of the Liberal Guidebook for Debate Against Conservatives, right after the section titled "accuse your opponent of starving the nation's children, elderly, minorities, disabled, and puppies."

  74. The Puppet Factor by TellarHK · · Score: 1

    Well, nerds apparently are the ones finding the Thunderbirds revival interesting, and it seems as though a fair number of Slashdot nerds seem to lean toward the right...

    I call it all because of the Puppet Factor(tm). Geeks like Thunderbirds, and Geeks like Bush, so I figure it's all about the puppets.

  75. nc17? by sPaKr · · Score: 1

    Rumors on drudgereport and other shakey sites say the movie is being rated nc-17 for 'puppet sex'. Now thats just awsome, marrionette pr0n has got to be a new frontier. Lets see if they cut it out or down for a R. The uncut directors edition DVD is going to F'ing kick ass.

  76. Re:worrisome by Kamel+Jockey · · Score: 1

    How's that for freedom of speech.

    Oh please, how can anyone say that GWB is quashing anyone's right to dissent when Farenheight 9/11 has grossed over $100 million? Go to any bookstore these days and you'll find literally whole sections of material dedicated to Bush-bashing. How would that be possible if Bush was somehow quashing dissent?

    On the other hand, John Kerry is trying to get a book made by one of the Swift Boat Vets, Unfit For Command banned... why isn't anyone accusing him of quashing those who don't agree with him?

    --
    In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
  77. Re:Idiot by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

    well, we still managed to slashdot the apple trailer site...

  78. The most interesting thing... by abkaiser · · Score: 2, Funny
    All talk of "libertarianism vs. conservatism" or "marionettes vs. puppets" aside, the part I found interesting was reading the "About the Film" section, page 2, talking about Matt and Trey:

    "But they've never before done it with marionettes."

    ...and there was no joke immediately following!

  79. NC-17 rating... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i read on drudge that this film is expected to receive an NC-17 rating...

    just an fyi...

  80. Re:Why not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's sad that it takes a film to stick it to the liberal left. But that's the liberal media for you.

  81. OB Berke Breathed Quote by tb3 · · Score: 1, Funny

    "I'd be a libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging whiners."

    --

    www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance

  82. It's wierd. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to like the show and watch every episode. Now, I will only watch it if I'm channel surfing and happen to hit it, and then only for a few minutes. Maybe my tastes have changed, but it just doesn't seem as good as it used to be. It seems much more childish and immature than I remember it. The last episode I can remember fully watching was the one where Cartman kills Kyle's parents and serves them in a soup. Must have been at least a year ago, probably more.

  83. Re:worrisome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "On the other hand, John Kerry is trying to get a book made by one of the Swift Boat Vets, Unfit For Command banned... why isn't anyone accusing him of quashing those who don't agree with him?"

    Um... because you're lying?

  84. There is more than just left and right by IncohereD · · Score: 1

    hehe. Since when did Matt and Trey become conservative. Matt was in Bowling for Columbine ;)

    And Michael Moore was in the NRA! What the hell is your point? Moore has often tried to distance himself from the left.

    Check out Political Compass. See, for instance, - On the standard left-right scale, how do you distinguish leftists like Stalin and Gandhi? It's not sufficient to say that Stalin was simply more left than Gandhi. There are fundamental political differences between them that the old categories on their own can't explain.

  85. What the fuck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are a fucking pussy. Next time your dad wants to make you his bitch, try taking a huge shit on his pillow. This will let him know that this is your territory. You will then become the alpha male, and the household will follow you.

  86. Throw away your vote? by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The average US citizen probably has 20, possibly now even 30, votes in their lifetime.

    A vote is only thrown away when you don't vote.

    Vote against your principles only if you think voting for your principles would result in some catastrophic intrusion in your life, but I don't think Bush vs Gore was such an event, nor do I think Bush vs Kerry is also such an event.

    1. Re:Throw away your vote? by OWJones · · Score: 0

      The average US citizen probably has 20, possibly now even 30, votes in their lifetime.

      Uhm, 18 + 30 = 48? People don't make it to be 50?

      I think you meant to say "about 60", since, you know, there is an election every year. It's just that a lot of them are for local offices rather than Congress or the President.

      -jdm

    2. Re:Throw away your vote? by gmhowell · · Score: 0

      I think you meant to say "about 60", since, you know, there is an election every year.

      Since, um, you know, you're a moron. Enough US citizens get slagged for not knowing about the rest of the world, but you're such a tool, you don't know about the rest of the US. Where I live, elections every two years, unless there is a special election called.

      30*2+18=78

      Just about spot on for the life expectancy of people in the US.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    3. Re:Throw away your vote? by OWJones · · Score: 1

      Enough US citizens get slagged for not knowing about the rest of the world, but you're such a tool, you don't know about the rest of the US. Where I live, elections every two years, unless there is a special election called.

      Now that you've proved that you're the alpha-male by calling me a "tool", what state do you live in that only has elections every other year?

      -jdm

    4. Re:Throw away your vote? by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Maryland. Every other year. It varies by county. Check for both St. Mary's and Charles. I believe Garret and Allegheny are also biannual.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    5. Re:Throw away your vote? by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

      lol yeah. I was only doing the math for President :)

    6. Re:Throw away your vote? by Trolling4Dollars · · Score: 1

      I think it might vary a lot from state to state based on population. Where I live, we have elections/votes/polls every year. Sometimes even two or three per year. I'm counting elections that are local, county, state or national as well as special elections. So where I live, I could have at least 60 elections in my lifetime but more than likely closer to 80-90. Of course I guess it depends on what your definition of "election" is. For me, it's when I have to go bitching and moaning to the voting booth and punch some guy named chad.

    7. Re:Throw away your vote? by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Same thing here. Where I live, if I hit 30 elections, it means I'm 78 years old. Local elections are scheduled for even numbered years. We haven't had a special election in at least 25 years. That's fairly normal.

      It does vary from state to state, and not pointing this out shows the ignorance of the parent to my original post.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  87. Re:I cant wait. by TomHandy · · Score: 1

    Generally it primarily takes a moron to continue insisting on the same thing even after evidence shows it not to be true, and to continue doing the same thing anyway. Morons show an incapacity to learn from their mistakes, or admit when they were wrong about something. It is more difficult to listen to new evidence and admit you are wrong about something.

  88. independent candidate == perennial loser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please vote for Kerry this November. I'm not trying to deny anyone the right to vote for whoever they want, but I don't think most of us can stand "four more years".

    1. Re:independent candidate == perennial loser by squarefish · · Score: 1

      I'm not trying to deny anyone the right to vote for whoever they want, but I don't think most of us can stand "four more years".

      I think you're a little mistaken here because if anyone is going to prevent us from living "four more years", it's bush.

      so if you want "four more years", please vote for Kerry. I think that's what you meant.

      ;)

      --
      Creationists are a lot like zombies. Slow, but powerful and numerous. And they all want to eat our brains.
  89. Re:You say... by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 0

    So instead we're supposed to engage in groupthink, join the Borg, and "be one" with one of the two major parties - despite the fact that we disagree with both of them on a number of fundamental issues?

    Sigh.

    Yes. You are supposed to participate in the political process despite the fact that you disagree with people. Wandering off and forming your own "my way or the highway" political party that nobody in his right mind would ever support is not a good way to participate in democracy. It's exactly the same as refusing to vote, only you're being snooty about it.

    I deeply, deeply disagree with the Republican party on a number of important issues: education privatization through vouchers and charters, capital punishment, embryonic stem cell research, the Medicare entitlement, and so on. But you know what? I'm a Republican anyway. On those issues where I disagree with the party platform, I talk and write and try to persuade. When I get outvoted, I wait until the next time around and then talk and write and try to persuade again.

    It wasn't that long ago that I could have written the same paragraph substituting the word "Democrat" for "Republican." Until 2001, I was an active member of the Democratic party, even though I disagreed with the platform on some key points (Social Security, abortion, fetal stem cell research). But since 9/11, the Democratic party has slowly, gradually gone completely insane, so I started going to the other meeting.

    Ours is a participatory system. If you don't want to play nice with the other kids, that's fine, but don't get all uppity about how the system has failed you. You have failed the system.

    If you want to be a dumbass about how our system works, that's fine. It's a free country. But I think it's pretty lame to opt out and then try to spin it into some kind of moral high ground.

    --

    I write in my journal
  90. Remember "That's my Bush" ?? by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    Not exactly sucking up to the Bush administration, as I remember.

    Ever see Matt and Trey interviewed about their polical views or opinions of Bush? They are not exactly the total conservitive Bush lovers you may think.

    1. Re:Remember "That's my Bush" ?? by Senator_B · · Score: 1

      I remember hearing that they had planned to do the show mocking who ever became president after the 2000 election. Due to the who recount ordeal, the show ended up being delayed by about a month or so. It could have very easily been That's my Gore.

    2. Re:Remember "That's my Bush" ?? by aka-ed · · Score: 1
      Which indicates that they thought both Gore and Bush were douchebags. Still doesn't make them Bushites.

      --
      I survived the Dick Cheney Presidency 7 to 9 AM 7-21-07
  91. Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The preview for this film has been out for weeks.

  92. Re:I cant wait. by mattACK · · Score: 1

    Well put. It is idealogues who are incapable of changing their positions that got us in this position in the first place.

    --


    "My God, this must be a truly remarkable corn chip, to be so widely and confidently touted."
  93. Spin Cycle by The+Monster · · Score: 2, Informative
    Or how Malkin can go on TV and say Kerry shot himself for his medals?
    You mean how she can go on TV to promote her book, but only if first she'll do a segment talking about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad campaign and the accompanying book Unfit for Command which includes the idea that two of his Purple Heart injuries were the result of Kerry firing a machine gun and lobbing a grenade at nearby targets, which were so close that he actually caught shrapnel indirectly from his own actions.

    You'd never know that from Chris Matthews' shameful attempt to portray her response to Willie Brown's comment about shrapnel circumstances as an accusation that the self-inflicted wounds were deliberate. Having set up this straw man, rather than allowing her to explain the details (he seems unable to allow anyone to speak for five seconds without interrupting them) he followed by cancelling the segment to discuss her book, which would have been good TV.

    --

    [100% ISO 646 Compliant]
    SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.

  94. Re:worrisome by Chris+Carollo · · Score: 1
    On the other hand, John Kerry is trying to get a book made by one of the Swift Boat Vets, Unfit For Command banned..
    I've never heard that -- got a credible source?
  95. "Liberal" Media by Monx · · Score: 1

    your point being that because the media in other countries are more liberal than the already liberal media here that the media here is in fact not liberal?
    Liberal and conservative are relative things. When used as an absolute, i.e. "the media is liberal," you must agree on a scale. My point in saying that the media here is considered conservative by others was to illustrate that the scale used to measure conservatism and liberalism in this country is skewed to the right to begin with. From the outside, the argument that the American media is liberal looks about as silly as an argument between a pair of ants over whose hill is higher would look to a human.

    The funny thing is you say their was plenty of people with strong arguments against the war, yet you yourself provide no argument.
    You'll note that just as I did not provide any arguments about the war, I did not provide any arguments against the cancellation of Futurama. This is because I was neither writing about the war nor about Futurama. I was arguing about the characterization of the protesters provided by the mainstream media. In my previous post I was not arguing against the war, so I did not provide any arguments against it. The same goes for this post.

    1. Re:"Liberal" Media by sp0rk173 · · Score: 1

      Liberal and conservative are relative things. When used as an absolute, i.e. "the media is liberal," you must agree on a scale.

      What? Things in life are actually relative?! Hah. Next you're going to tell me the earth is round! Pshaw!

      This is my main turn off to the conservative mindset - the simplification of complex systems; that there are indeed only two sides to an issue, and thus there is a black answer and a white answer. And since white rhymes with right, and white is also mostly associated with good, the right answer must be the white answer, and thus the good and correct one. Unfortunately things don't work that way. The world is a complex self-correcting system, completely organic, dynamic, and full of nuances. Here ends my little rant, and the stroking of my own already fully satiated sense of self-justification.

  96. Ironically... by cherokee158 · · Score: 1

    ...this trailer for a film that celebrates the freedom of speech in a BIG way has so much DRM that I cannot even save it to my hard drive.

    Why? Are they afraid I might promote their film without their permission?

  97. Politics on slashdot by nrc · · Score: 1


    Reading about politics on slashdot is like reading about technology on politicalforum.com. The only thing funnier than some of the opinions is what geeks will mod to "Insightful".

  98. Rectoencelopathy by toddhisattva · · Score: 1
    Or how dissenting voices regarding the Iraq invasion were barely heard?

    What's the weather like, so far up your own ass?

    How could you miss eight months of "he's rushing to war?" How could you miss the Useless Nations discussions and votes? How could you miss the opinions from CNN ABC NBC CBS PBS NPR MSNBC Reuters and AP?

    It's always the same: Leftists don't observe, neither do they think. Only a willful ignoramus could have missed the crapflood of protest led by the media.

    1. Re:Rectoencelopathy by Erik+Hollensbe · · Score: 1

      Wow.

      You disagree with him, so you insult him, make a point (filled with name calling), and then make a broad, generalized statement to finish out your point.

      And you're supposed to be better than he is?

    2. Re:Rectoencelopathy by Merovign · · Score: 1


      Some people get tired of responding to the same BS 365 days a year.

      Makes 'em grumpy.

  99. Re:You say... by maxpublic · · Score: 0, Troll

    But you know what? I'm a Republican anyway.

    But ya know what? I don't give a shit. Just because you lack the balls to take an alternative route doesn't mean that I have to cut mine off as well.

    If that doesn't work for you, well then, fuck off. It's a free country, or so I'm told.

    Max

    --
    My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
  100. Re:I cant wait. by leon.gandalf · · Score: 1

    Yes, well it has been proven that Saddam was a terrorist threat... though his support of Al Quaida and the like. Just because he did not direcly plan 9/11 does not mean he did not indirectly fund it. The only county with a more solid link to terror is IRAN. It is sad that the Democrats would have us WAIT while Saddam continued to defy the weak UN and further fill mass graves with those who dare speak up. Just remember that the person who spoke the loudest of the threat of Iraq and stated the need for the removal of Saddam was KERRY. http://www.rnc.org/

  101. There is no DRM on the trailer by Animats · · Score: 1

    You can save and play both the Flash file and the QuickTime file. Full-screen, even. What's the problem?

    1. Re:There is no DRM on the trailer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that he/she is a total douchebag and a complete fucktard.

  102. Re:I cant wait. by Fancia · · Score: 1

    Support of Al Qaeda? That's simply not true. Al Qaeda couldn't stand Hussein's regime and wanted nothing to do with him. Hussein's government was secular, and Al Qaeda disapproved rather heartily, since they were in favour of an islamic government.

    --

    Bít, zabít, jen proto, ze su liska!
  103. common misconception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was written and directed by the naked gun guys. Matt and Trey just starred in it.

  104. You might wanna check your facts.... by kajoob · · Score: 2, Informative

    Matt Stone is a Republican and Trey Parker is a libertarian.

    I saw an interview with Matt where he professed his Republicanism, and here is an article about Trey Parker's letter writing campaign and endorsements of Libertarian candidates.

    Oh and their appearence in Bowling for Columbine? One thing about Michael Moore, if you agree with his views or not, is that he is extremely deceptive with his filmmaking. They didn't make the "History of the USA" cartoon that is in the movie. Michael Moore wrote the cartoon and gave you the impression that the South Park folks had done it by inserting clips from the real South Park in the rest of the movie, interviewing Matt Stone in the movie before the cartoon is shown, and having Harold Moss animate the cartoon in a style that mimics South Park's style. So the interview with the guys pretty much stands on it's own as "South Park and Littleton kinda suck." I don't know how you get "We're flaming liberals!" out of that.

    They do tend to stick it to both sides though, I forget which of then said, "We hate conservatives. But we really fucking hate liberals."

    --
    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
  105. Re:I cant wait. by leon.gandalf · · Score: 1

    The Enemy of your Enemy is thine freind.

  106. When Matt was asked his political views he said... by supervillain · · Score: 1

    "I hate conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals." -Matt Stone

  107. Re:worrisome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    John Kerry campaign spokesman says the book Unfit for Command, because it contains "proven falsehoods" about the candidate's Vietnam War record, should be removed from bookstore shelves.

    Here's your source, now STFU.

    Or are you now, pedantically like a limp-wristed liberal (or a Doublespeak pusher), claim that "asking to remove books from bookstore shelves" != banning.

    Get stuffed; your candidate sux.

  108. I posted on this by MadScie · · Score: 1

    I posted on this Twenty-one days ago at Watching the Watchers, and it was completely ignored. Now, a month later, it gets attention. Bullshit.

    --


    It's all about the game. There is nothing else. http://watchingthewatchers.org

    ~MadScie
  109. Re:worrisome by Chris+Carollo · · Score: 0
    Here's your source, now STFU.
    Hey, no need to be a dick. I just asked for a source. Why the attitude?

    Regarding the book in question, if contains statements that are provably false and is intended to damage the Kerry campaign (which it clearly is), it's libelous and the Kerry campaign could sue for its removal. Sadly, a court decision would surely take until post-election, after which the damage is already done. As much as calling for its removal irks my first-amendment tendencies, does he have any other option?

    In any case, I find it a bit odd that Kerry is the evil one here, given that the Bush camp is the one that appears to be selling a libelous book.
  110. Don't forget their earlier one-off work.... by dev2718 · · Score: 1

    ...and of course, I refer to the 'Princess' series. Warning--most definitely not work safe.

  111. yay flamewars! by gwoodrow · · Score: 1

    Wow... nowadays all it takes to start a flamewar is just to say "government" or "bush" and they come out of the woodwork!

    I saw the trailer a while back when it first came out. I'm excited - it's going to be hilarious I'm sure.

    But in the meantime, I thought I'd try to keep the debate going with these equally important points:
    Pinko! Republican Fat-Cats! Can't say "nuclear!" Tax cuts! Dirty Sanchez! Streisand! Coulter! School vouchers! Fahrenheit 9-11! Heinz Ketchup! War Hero! Communist! Boycott! Treason! Terrorist sympathizers! Immoral! Abstinence! Penile implants!

    So THERE!

  112. Re:I cant wait. by Daetrin · · Score: 1
    The Enemy of your Enemy is thine freind.

    So since Bin Laden is our Enemey, and Sadam was Bin Laden's Enemy, then Sadam was our friend? Seems like a poor way to treat a friend. Or does that mean that Sadam was our enemy and Bin Laden is our friend?

    Believe it or not it _is_ possible to have three people or three groups of people who all hate each other.

    Another example, i hate Bush, and i have a pretty poor opinion of Micheal Moore too. Does that make Micheal Moore and Bush friends?

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  113. Puppet porn been done before by santiago · · Score: 1

    Puppets and/or marionettes having sex has been done before. If you do not value your sanity, watch Let My Puppets Come, an eye-bleed-causing piece of trash from 1976 full of hardcore puppet porn. It's so terrible, IMDB apparently refuses to list it. If for some reason you feel compelled to track down and watch this monstrous, obscene crime against humanity, be aware that there's several different cut that vary wildly in length, from 45 minutes to over 100 minutes.

  114. Re:worrisome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the Kerry campaign could sue for its removal

    They won't though.

    Why not? Because in so doing, the court would demand to see Kerry's entire service records, thus making them public record. And Kerry doesn't want those seeing too much sunshine. . .

    "The Bush camp" isn't "selling a libelous book:" (1) the man selling it is a registered Democrat and has been speaking out against Kerry's faux heroism for twenty some years... long before Bush and the profits from the book will be going to some military or veterans group, (2) the book isn't libelous. Until Kerry sues for libel and wins, your statement is just unproven hot air.

    Kerry goons were trying to get the book banned. You got your source.

  115. Whoa, old news. by doppleganger871 · · Score: 1

    Freakin' Drudge had these guys on his radio show about a week ago. Uh... I would have submitted it, but hey, I though even THAT was too old for slashdot, guess not. Mod down please.

  116. Re:I cant wait. by leon.gandalf · · Score: 1

    Point taken. However Saddam did support terrorism. He has USED WMDs in the past. Can't use what you do not have. AND WOULD HAVE HAD NO PROBLEM SUPPLYING TERROR GROUPS WITH THEM. Most if not all of his weapons programs were sent to Syria. i.e long rang missles and nuclear program parts.

  117. an ignored example: by hitchhacker · · Score: 1

    Ron Paul, (R. Texas)
    Before the Iraq war in 2003, he posed are series of questions that other congress critters should ask themselves. Read them here

    I didn't hear any serious debates about it anywhere.

    -metric

  118. What a crock of shit--but it got modded up anyway by rd_syringe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As usual, the liberal mantra of "oppressed dissension" is a paranoid lie invented to make Bush look bad.

    Or how they pulled the Reagans?

    The script for the movie was almost entirely falsified. They portrayed everybody in a negative light and even implied Reagan was completely senile. CBS pulled the show after fan complaints--the government didn't do a thing. CBS could have gone ahead and aired it if they wanted to. Fuck, man, Barabara Streisand's husband was playing Reagan!

    Or how dissenting voices regarding the Iraq invasion were barely heard?

    This is the most laughable claim in your list. Protesters were "barely heard?" Are you freaking kidding me? Every channel on TV aired protester opinions, all the newspapers--even a feature film "documentary" that made $100 million. There are endless liberal smear books on the market right now. You're completely lying, and you know it.

    Or how a Hollywood star is now the governor of California and a Republican.

    What this has to do with anything, I have no idea. Just a random jab for no reason.

    Or how media ownership is concentraed into the hands of a few vocal conservatives?

    Most of the media is liberal, according to all the polls.

    Or how F9/11 got dropped by Disney and was in "can't find a distributator" mode for a while?

    Yeah, it was dropped LAST YEAR. Moore was told about it way back in 2003. Gee, he brought it up right before Cannes as some sort of conspiracy, I wonder why?

    Or how every "history" movie (especially WWII) is ahistoric and highly pro-American. With the exception of Vietnam movies.

    Another irrelevant lie. Not every history movie is ahistoric and highly pro-American. Not only have you not viewed every history movie, but I could list endless films that contradict your claim.

    Or how the Pentagon will lend Hollywood any equipment they want but they get to edit the script for right-wing pro-military ahistory "patriotic correctness?"

    Care to cite a single example for this false claim?

    Or how TV was quick to digitally remove the twin towers from every skyline as not to upset anyone?

    What the FUCK does this have to do with the left OR the right wing? It was done out of sensitivity for 2,000 people being lost in New York. It's not a right-wing conspiracy to wipe out the twin towers in an episode of Friends. Jesus H. Christ.

    Or how shows that tackle history in an honest and non-partisan way only exist on PBS?

    "Honest and non-partisan way" = liberal or anti-American. PBS is well-known as a liberal station. You just demonstrated your bias, lol.

    Or how Malkin can go on TV and say Kerry shot himself for his medals?

    She didn't. Another complete lie. This is why liberals are frowned upon by the majority of the folks. It's not about issues anymore, it's about personal vitriol toward people you actually HATE because you disagree with them.

    Or how Anne Coulter can openly call Liberals treasonous and demand the deaths of muslims and coverting them to Xtianity.

    Yet another complete lie. Care to cite a single quote or example?

    Or how only a satiric comedy show (the Daily Show) can actually break and frame issues in a manner which isn't corporate media ass-kissing?

    Funny, since Comedy Central ran ads for Fahrenheit 9/11 an average of EVERY FIVE COMMERCIALS. John Stewart and Stephen Colbare are--you guessed it--self-proclaimed Democrats.

    As a matter of fact, before every taping (as well as in interviews), Stewart always expresses his surprise that people view the Daily Show as a non-biased source of news analysis. It is not.

    Yeah, its pretty PC lefty out there!

    Hollywood is liberal. This is common knowledge. A journalism poll showed that the majority of journalists are liberal.

    You many know some liberals in the industry, bu

  119. NO, he's not by rd_syringe · · Score: 1

    George Bush and buddies *are* in the film. Watch the trailer.

    No, he's not. Terry himself said so on Drudge's radio show as well as in the New York Daily News. I watched the trailer weeks ago.

    1. Re:NO, he's not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, fuckface... it's TREY! Who the fuck is Terry?! You're such an assface.

  120. Re:What a crock of shit--but it got modded up anyw by kubrick · · Score: 1

    and even implied Reagan was completely senile

    Given that I saw him falling asleep while being interviewed on Australian television in the mid-1980s (and Nancy elbowing him more and more vigorously to wake him up), that's not too far from my memory of the times.

    --
    deus does not exist but if he does
  121. I Learned Something Today by prattboy · · Score: 2, Funny

    I learned something today. /.-er's will argue about anything. How can we figure out what side of the political spectrum Matt and Trey are on? What would Brian Boitano do in this situation?

  122. Re:What a crock of shit--but it got modded up anyw by Color+Gray · · Score: 1

    Yet another complete lie. Care to cite a single quote or example?

    Her book is called "Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism"

    As for the second part:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter09130 1.shtml

    Airports scrupulously apply the same laughably ineffective airport harassment to Suzy Chapstick as to Muslim hijackers. It is preposterous to assume every passenger is a potential crazed homicidal maniac. We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now.

    We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.


    Write it off as hyperbole, tongue-in-cheek, whatever, but she did say it.

  123. Re:worrisome by Keebler71 · · Score: 1
    Just because your candidate isn't swift enough to publicly humiliate them

    From the parent:

    and if I were a republican, I doubt I would want hecklers at my private party either

    --
    "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
  124. Anne Coulter is an Uber-Bitch by poofyhairguy82 · · Score: 1
    As usual, the liberal mantra of "oppressed dissension" is a paranoid lie invented to make Bush look bad.

    Don't need it. Bush looks bad enough to the world as it is.

    This is the most laughable claim in your list. Protesters were "barely heard?" Are you freaking kidding me? Every channel on TV aired protester opinions, all the newspapers--even a feature film "documentary" that made $100 million. There are endless liberal smear books on the market right now. You're completely lying, and you know it.

    The protesters aren't heard on the News. They are seen. That is a big difference. Few media outlets explained the protester's reasoning. The same thing happens during IFM/World Bank riots. Its about marginalizing the issues.

    Most of the media is liberal, according to all the polls.

    I bet so. If you count every employee, then of course news stations are liberal. The janitors are liberal. The beat writers are mostly liberal. Where it matters, though, the media organizations are very conservative. The marketing department (which sits on the editorial boards of some News Organizations )is conservative. And most importantly, most of the major media companies have conservative CEO's and owners. Disney, News Corp., Warner. All have conservative leadership. Sure there are some random Teds, but most of the liberal tycoons (especially Ted) have been marginalized the past couple years.

    Yeah, it was dropped LAST YEAR. Moore was told about it way back in 2003. Gee, he brought it up right before Cannes as some sort of conspiracy, I wonder why?

    Um, because that is when his movie started getting major media publicity. You know, when the most people are listening.

    What the FUCK does this have to do with the left OR the right wing? It was done out of sensitivity for 2,000 people being lost in New York. It's not a right-wing conspiracy to wipe out the twin towers in an episode of Friends. Jesus H. Christ.

    Do we erase freeways because tens of thousands of people die on them every year? No. Highway death is a gritty fact of life. So was 9/11. Dealing with something is one thing, erasing it is a whole different story.

    "Honest and non-partisan way" = liberal or anti-American. PBS is well-known as a liberal station. You just demonstrated your bias, lol.

    Every organization has some sort of bias. What should he have named? I like the BBC for the same function personally.

    She didn't. Another complete lie. This is why liberals are frowned upon by the majority of the folks. It's not about issues anymore, it's about personal vitriol toward people you actually HATE because you disagree with them.

    Oh, and that's a lot freaking better than conservatives calling dissenters unpatriotic? I think its sick that conservatives are tearing apart Kerry's service anyway.

    The only living man to actually see Kerry's actions has come out against the Swiftboat Group.

    With conservatives is all "support your troops," unless one of them runs for president as a Democrat of course!

    Yet another complete lie. Care to cite a single quote or example?

    Sure

    I quote from the article she wrote:We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.

    _

    _

    Funny, since Comedy Central ran ads for Fahrenheit 9/11 an average of EVERY FIVE COMMERCIALS. John Stewart and Stephen Colbare are--you guessed it--self-proclaimed Democrats.

    As a matter of fact, before every taping (as well as in interviews), Stewart always expresses his surprise that people view the Daily Show as a non-biased source of news analysis. It is not.

    1. Re:Anne Coulter is an Uber-Bitch by rd_syringe · · Score: 1

      Dont need it. Bush looks bad enough to the world as it is.

      Maybe if you believe what Michael Moore tells you.

      The protesters arent heard on the News.

      Yes, they are, and you're 100% wrong. It's really that simple. During the original war protests, you couldn't go a day without seeing full-on footage and media reports, day after day.

      I bet so. If you count every employee, then of course news stations are liberal. The janitors are liberal. The beat writers are mostly liberal. Where it matters, though, the media organizations are very conservative.

      No, they are not. Polls taken have already proven that the actual journalists--not the janitors and beat writers (snicker)--report themselves as liberals who voted for Gore in 2000.

      The marketing department (which sits on the editorial boards of some News Organizations )is conservative. And most importantly, most of the major media companies have conservative CEO's and owners. Disney, News Corp., Warner. All have conservative leadership. Sure there are some random Teds, but most of the liberal tycoons (especially Ted) have been marginalized the past couple years.

      Hollywood is the most liberal multi-billion dollar organization in existence. Your point crumbles into dust.

      Um, because that is when his movie started getting major media publicity. You know, when the most people are listening.

      ROFL. Right. Days before Cannes, Moore suddenly comes out accusing Disney of dropping him when Disney informed him that they wouldn't be distributing his film a whole year before, and it's just because "that's when people were listening." Why don't you just bend over and let Moore forcefeed you whatever he wants you to believe?

      Do we erase freeways because tens of thousands of people die on them every year? No. Highway death is a gritty fact of life. So was 9/11. Dealing with something is one thing, erasing it is a whole different story.

      Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with either the left or right wing. Your brain operates on bizarre, unrelated tangents even I find difficult to relate to.

      Every organization has some sort of bias. What should he have named? I like the BBC for the same function personally.

      You call PBS non-partisan. I point out PBS is very partisan. Suddenly you shrug it off as "every organization has bias." LOL. I'm sure you don't say the same when baselessly criticizing Fox News, right?

      Oh, and thats a lot freaking better than conservatives calling dissenters unpatriotic?

      Like Kerry's wife did, then subsequently denied to a reporter and told him to "shove it" when confronted with her lie?

      I think its sick that conservatives are tearing apart Kerrys service anyway.

      I bet you don't think it's sick when liberals tear apart Bush's service, or finance a multi-million dollar "documentary" to help pay for Moore's second mansion in upstate New York. No, I fully expect that you have a double standard when it comes to these things, because one side happens to align with your belief system. That, my friend, is called sheepish bias.

      The only living man to actually see Kerrys actions has come out against the Swiftboat Group.

      A complete lie, as usual. Let's conveniently not mention Van O'Dell, shall we? Next time, do your homework instead of believing what MoveOn.org tells you to believe.

      With conservatives is all support your troops, unless one of them runs for president as a Democrat of course!

      Funny, seeing as how Kerry voted against armor and supplies for our troops and came out smearing his fellow veterans after the war. Not what I call supporting your troops. Are you aware he actually went back after firefights and re-enacted the battles after fetching a video camera?

      Who the freak said it was a good source of info?

      The post I replied to, genius.

      The parent mentio

    2. Re:Anne Coulter is an Uber-Bitch by poofyhairguy82 · · Score: 1
      Maybe if you believe what Michael Moore tells you.

      Or maybe I read that when I check out international news. But who cares what the world thinks, right?

      Yes, they are, and you're 100% wrong. It's really that simple. During the original war protests, you couldn't go a day without seeing full-on footage and media reports, day after day.

      A http link would served you well there.

      No, they are not. Polls taken have already proven that the actual journalists--not the janitors and beat writers (snicker)--report themselves as liberals who voted for Gore in 2000.

      Who cares, the owners are conservative! Power goes down in an organization, not up!

      Hollywood is the most liberal multi-billion dollar organization in existence. Your point crumbles into dust.

      Hollywood and the Media Industry are not one and the same. Hollywood is a town full of morons. The Media Industry is a bunch of corporations run by conservatives on wall street.

      ROFL. Right. Days before Cannes, Moore suddenly comes out accusing Disney of dropping him when Disney informed him that they wouldn't be distributing his film a whole year before, and it's just because "that's when people were listening." Why don't you just bend over and let Moore forcefeed you whatever he wants you to believe?

      Moore never made this claim. It was obvious to me.

      Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with either the left or right wing. Your brain operates on bizarre, unrelated tangents even I find difficult to relate to.

      Maybe if you would read what I write instead of think about new accusations, then you would understand my meaning! Who says I am a representative of liberals or anyone else?

      You call PBS non-partisan. I point out PBS is very partisan. Suddenly you shrug it off as "every organization has bias." LOL. I'm sure you don't say the same when baselessly criticizing Fox News, right?

      Hey. Fox News is a biased organization too, like all the rest. And this is the first time I referred to it!

      Like Kerry's wife did, then subsequently denied to a reporter and told him to "shove it" when confronted with her lie?

      Who says she represents liberals either?

      I bet you don't think it's sick when liberals tear apart Bush's service, or finance a multi-million dollar "documentary" to help pay for Moore's second mansion in upstate New York. No, I fully expect that you have a double standard when it comes to these things, because one side happens to align with your belief system. That, my friend, is called sheepish bias.

      When have I said any of these things about Bush. I freaking voted for him in 2000. You make lots of generalizations. Bad ones.

      A complete lie, as usual. Let's conveniently not mention Van O'Dell, shall we? Next time, do your homework instead of believing what MoveOn.org tells you to believe.

      Again, hyperlinks are your friend!

      Funny, seeing as how Kerry voted against armor and supplies for our troops and came out smearing his fellow veterans after the war. Not what I call supporting your troops.

      There is a difference between support and blind obedience.

      But most of the owners and CEOs are conservative.

      No, they're not. A complete falsehood. From the brothers at Miramax to George Soros to all the celebrity millionaires in Hollywood. Hollywood is Liberal City, USA. Just look at all the baseless vitriol when Mel Gibson decided to (gasp!) make a movie about Jesus.

      Who cares if actors and producers are mostly conservative? Especially when the CEO's in New York are all conservative. Wall Street is conservative alley!

      No, I don't. In fact, they don't make a single difference at all other than annoying normal Americans.

      And they seem to blind you to the truth.

      Rupert Murdoch used to get accused of being a liberal when he ran a newspaper in Australia because he dared publ

    3. Re:Anne Coulter is an Uber-Bitch by rd_syringe · · Score: 1

      You didn't dispute a single thing I posted. All you said was, "B-but CEOs are conservative! Gotcha!" Hollywood is liberal. Get over it; move on.

    4. Re:Anne Coulter is an Uber-Bitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YHBT. YHL. HAND.

      Love,
      rd_syringe (aka Overly Critical Guy aka bonch)

    5. Re:Anne Coulter is an Uber-Bitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YHBT. YHL. HAND.

      Love,
      rd_syringe (aka Overly Critical Guy aka bonch)

    6. Re:Anne Coulter is an Uber-Bitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Post that from one of those logged-in accounts and I'll believe you... otherwise you're just the AC that's been slagging off those accounts for trolling. :)

  125. Re:worrisome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    dont go trying to smear Communism because your Plutocracy is out of control.

  126. Wake Up America!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My fellow Americans. Our country is in a state of crisis, but the cause of the c
    risis does not come from outside. It comes from within the United States. It com
    es from within our own government. It comes from among our own friends neighbor
    s and relatives. People of all walks of life have had their integrity compromis
    ed by the promises of wealth from big business and corporations. The time has co
    me to show the monsters that control our corporations who this country really be
    longs to. Business and money have never been the sole objective of the American
    people. Our dream was that of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Howe
    ver, it has been perverted by the manipulation of the natural trait of greed tha
    t lives within every one of us. Take a look at yourself. A good long look. Have
    you succumbed? (I believe Twirlip of the Mists has) Have you been compromised?
    (Certainly Twirlip of the Mists has been compromised) Do you believe that the f
    astest and best way to succeed in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is
    to make a lot of money? If so, check your thoughts carefully and read on...

    Money is merely a tool, and a poor one at that. It has many failings. The bigges
    t failing is that it cannot buy you the primary American goals. It cannot bring
    you more life. You only have a certain length of life given to you and you must
    use it as effectively as possible to make life better for those around you. Libe
    rty is something you have to work for every day, it is not something that you ca
    n just buy with money. Of course, we all know that money can not now, nor will i
    t ever buy you true and lasting happiness. Money is also not a lot of good to yo
    u once you shuffle off this mortal coil. As they say, "you can't take it with yo
    u". Money is a dead tool which is likely to make your life more miserable the mo
    re you become addicted to attaining as much of it as you can. Money is a tool th
    at you cannot control. Quite the contrary, it is used to control you. This inter
    feres with the liberty that each and every American should expect and demand fro
    m our society.

    Sadly, the United States and it's citizens have been damaged. The average Americ
    an has been duped into believing that if only they could become wealthier, they
    would be happier, freer and have a more prosperous life than anyone else. But we
    alth is a limited resource. Consider this fact. The things that we need to live
    (food, water, air, shelter), if evenly split among every human on the planet wou
    ld bring us back to the stone age. As much as the money lovers would have you be
    lieve that wealth is not a "zero sum" game, it is. There is not enough wealth t
    o go around for everyone.

    As a true American with real American ideals, I am sincerely imploring you to re
    ally consider what America is really aupposed to be about. We aren't about busin
    ess or profit. We aren't about being the world's police force. We certainly aren
    't about being a police state (which we have veered towards in a short time due
    to a few greedy and selfish men like Twirlip of the Mists). If you are a real Am
    erican, then you believe that every man, woman and child on this planet deserves
    a fair shot at life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Because, in essence,
    a true American who upholds fairness to all people regardless of race or sex is
    the ideal of what a human being should be.

    With that said, let's change the regime this fall. Vote for Kerry to get Bush ou
    t. Do your part to balance every conversation that is contrary to true American
    beliefs. Wherever you see someone supporting the current administration, make
    sure that the opposite voice is heard just as loudly and just as clearly. Peopl
    e like Twirlip of the Mists cannot be allowed to speak without rebuttal. Provid
    ing the opposite view at every turn is true fairness at work. This is a true Am
    erican ideal. Although people like Twirlip of t

  127. Re:What a crock of shit--but it got modded up anyw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YHBT. YHL. HAND.

    Love,
    rd_syringe (aka Overly Critical Guy aka bonch)

  128. Re:What a crock of shit--but it got modded up anyw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YHBT. YHL. HAND.

    Love,
    rd_syringe (aka Overly Critical Guy aka bonch)

  129. MODS: TROLL ALERT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't be taken in by this idiot--he has accounts under the names bonch and Overly Critical Guy. He has a history of astroturfing for Microsoft, bashing anything Open Source, using lies and half-truths to get modded up, karma whoring, and the usual trolling (under his bonch account, he got a troll posted to the front page of Slashdot).

    All you have to do to check the veracity of this is to look at the posting history of his two old personnae (linked above) and his current one to figure it out.

    Please do not mod this jerk up--every time you do the Slashdot S/N ratio goes down while bonch/Overly Critical Guy/rd_syringe just laughs at you.

    This has been a public service announcement

  130. MODS: TROLL ALERT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't be taken in by this idiot--he has accounts under the names bonch and Overly Critical Guy. He has a history of astroturfing for Microsoft, bashing anything Open Source, using lies and half-truths to get modded up, karma whoring, and the usual trolling (under his bonch account, he got a troll posted to the front page of Slashdot).

    All you have to do to check the veracity of this is to look at the posting history of his two old personnae (linked above) and his current one to figure it out.

    Please do not mod this jerk up--every time you do the Slashdot S/N ratio goes down while bonch/Overly Critical Guy/rd_syringe just laughs at you.

    This has been a public service announcement

  131. Boycott? by thomn8r · · Score: 1

    Honestly, when has a boycott of a company the size of Disney, NBC, CBS, ever made any sort of a difference to their bottom line? I've never seen a press release to the effect "3rd quarter profits were down 80% because of a consumer boycott..."
    I think it's just a convenient excuse.

    1. Re:Boycott? by isa-kuruption · · Score: 1

      A boycott in French goods, specifically wine, have contributed to a drop of nearly 30% of sales for French wineries in 2003. That's pretty significant. (not saying the boycott was the only cause, but one of them... in 2002, French wineries saw a drop of 11%)

  132. Im excited! by Thrymm · · Score: 1

    "You're excited? Feel these nipples!" - Bob Costas in Basketball.

    1. Re:Im excited! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean BASEketball