Brent Bozell's culture column is early this week, since the MRC HQ is buzzing and bustling toward our big 20th anniversary gala on Thursday night. If you want to see it live, we will have a webcast. Brent's column mocks a new compilation of essays titled "South Park and Philosophy," edited by Robert Arp, a professor at Southwest Minnesota State University. You know the drill: take a crude and simplistic pop-culture phenomenon and try to make it sound philosophically deep. It's like standing in a mud puddle and pretending it's the Pacific Ocean. Here's a sample:
How do professors like this stoop to the bizarre idea that children can be enlightened by a show that labors to fit 160 uses of the S-bomb into a half-hour? A show that delights in having Jesus Christ defecate on President Bush with his “yummy, yummy crap”? How can you elevate that into the idea that watching “South Park” should really be seen as a correspondence course, like Newt Gingrich’s “Renewing American Civilization” series?
Story Continues Below Ad ↓[Professor William] Young insists we’re supposed to be wiser than what’s obvious, what’s staring at us and screaming at us from the TV set. We’re supposed to be swept along by the siren song of Sigmund Freud, who argued that the use of vulgarity is merely verbalizing the drives and desires that we often repress, and that laughter at crude jokes allows us to release our harmful inhibitions. “This is what makes the show’s crudeness so essential,” Young argues. It creates a “space” for discussion which keeps us from transforming our repression into violence or social exclusion. “South Park” is, in his estimation, as one of his headings declares, the “Talking Cure for Our Culture.” It’s much more like a communicable disease.
Young then attempts to argue that “Terrance and Philip,” an infantile cartoon within the infantile cartoon, is really one of the better offerings in television: “Is Terrance and Philip really more vapid, crude, and pointless than ‘Jerry Springer’ or ‘Wife Swap’? Is it more mindless than Fox News, ‘The 700 Club,’ or ‘Law and Order’? The answer is no.” He then claims what offends South Park critics is “not that the show is vulgar and pointless, but that it highlights the mindlessness that is television in general.”
This is where Young really makes a joke out of himself. Everything on television is mindless in general, and he can make no fine distinctions? To be charitable, comparing “Law and Order” to “South Park” is roughly equivalent to comparing Einstein to your garden-variety grade-school class clown. Or your favorite professor to this walking insult to academe.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Maybe a cartoon is just a c
March 28, 2007 - 09:40 ET by sarcasmoMaybe a cartoon is just a cartoon; even if it manages to upset both the left and the right politically, while managing hardly-ever to upset ME. Heh heh heh.
JMR
it is a cartoon, a cartoon NO
March 28, 2007 - 11:42 ET by Interested and concerned CDNit is a cartoon, a cartoon NOT for children. it takes the piss out of everybody and ultimately the sensible ones, the people who are most understanding are the kids, save for Cartman who represents the worst of both ends of the spectrum.
the show is brilliant. Subtle when suitable and over the top when required.
South Park
March 28, 2007 - 09:45 ET by rubylensThough I am loathe to contradict the esteemed Mr. Bozell, I have to defend the professor's thesis to some degree. I do think South Park has demonstrated something verging on sheer genius in the subtlety of its social commentary at times. There is more than one level to this crude cartoon. There's the overt potty humor that appeals to the masses, but there really is a deeper layer (or two, or three) at work that is some of the best social satire I've seen in a very long time. Not every episode is a gem of this sort, but every once in awhile, they really knock one out of the park.
Depsite is vulgarity, irrever
March 28, 2007 - 09:47 ET by GalvanicDespite is vulgarity, irreverence, and over-the-top material, South Park has its merits regarding commentary on contemporary mass-mediated America. The show tends to hit the Left as hard as the Right, and rips the mass media and our contemporary standards of "celebrity" to shreds.
That having been said, however, I can't see constructing college courses around it. And based on what I've seen and heard from its creators, I think they'd say that these professors are taking South Park way too seriously.
And how do these cartoonist
March 28, 2007 - 09:58 ET by sarcasmoAnd how do these cartoonists come up with such timely excellence (sorry Limbaugh-fans, but there's just no other word for some South Park episodes -- especially some of the ones that annoy you!)? Libertarian politics & Apple computers (at least Rush gets one outta the two right!).
JMR
Yes, Professor Arp has a fake
March 28, 2007 - 10:35 ET by Tim GrahamYes, Professor Arp has a fake interview with Trey Parker and Matt Stone at the book's end where they mock the concept of the book and denounce it as full of "s--- pieces." In the interview, Arp isn't shy about his political views, as in this fake exchange:
That would seem to leave out Sarcasmo.
Being left-out is nothing n
March 28, 2007 - 10:42 ET by sarcasmoBeing left-out is nothing new for libertarians, and (see Michael Moore's dishonest "documentary," where he placed a racist & racially-inaccurate faux-South Park slap against the very NRA which in reality helped to arm black deacons against the KKK) neither is fakery involving South Park from those with a political agenda that's distinctly not-libertarian.
JMR
South Park
March 28, 2007 - 11:26 ET by rubylensThat's a fantastic fake exchange! I can totally believe that this is exactly what Trey and Matt might say to this guy. Why? Because it's totally making fun of the liberal mindset that says everything--everything--bad that happens is the fault of George Bush and the GOP. It's ridiculous to say that Bush is responsible for Kenny's death every episode, and by pointing that out, they would be pointing out how ridiculous it is to think that Bush is responsible for every single other bad thing that happens in the world. It's a subtle mockery of Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS). The professor surely realizes this, despite his certain liberalness. Kudos to him for capturing the brilliance of South Park's creators, even in a fake interview!
While owning every season on
March 28, 2007 - 11:43 ET by Liberally IneptWhile owning every season on DVD, I can speak with some authority on the BDS.(Bush Derangement Syndrome) If you were to go back to the episode when Cartman and Stan stole a boat and busted the damn that flooded the town, it was made clear that the first order of business was to place the blame as opposed to stopping the flood. Like most episodes, Matt and Trey nailed it right on the head! They take all points of view to the point of obsurdity to the extent that would make Rush blush. Needless to say, if you watch regularly and never get offended, then you probably don't have a pulse. The new episode tonite has all the makings for a South Park classic. Cartman (anti-hippie) is playing the character of Jack Bauer and Hillary (hippie) is coming to town. I can't wait!!!
Well it's no Beavis and Butt-
March 28, 2007 - 09:51 ET by Hero SquadWell it's no Beavis and Butt-head, that's for certain.
*****
"Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine no possessions?'" - Elvis Costello
How about Ren and Stimpy?Now
March 28, 2007 - 09:58 ET by Airforce_5_OHow about Ren and Stimpy?
Now there is a great study of contemporary Philosophy.
I don't know, the episode S
March 28, 2007 - 09:52 ET by liberal_bug_zapperI don't know, the episode Smug Alert really had liberals pegged. They may stoop to name calling and foul language, but they have gained my respect as satirists and social commentators by their lambasting everyone.
It's usually one side or the other, take, oh, the 1/2 hour news hour vs the Daily Show. South Park beats them both in my position because they're specific to one ideology.... and South Park destroys them all. Plus, I just love how Cartman is constantly playing on the conservative stereotypes and how all Hollywood types are cast as utter useless morons and vain self absorbed busybodies.
They help me to laugh at things I might not normally laugh at, and they're not hateful... distasteful at times, sure, but not once have I seen a show that oozed malice. This is not something you can say about most leftist philosophers today.
____________________________________________________
"Hippies. They're everywhere. They wanna save the earth, but all they do is smoke pot and smell bad." ~ Eric Cartman
Matt Damon!(Sorry, that was f
March 28, 2007 - 10:27 ET by Hero SquadMatt Damon!
(Sorry, that was from Team America.)
*****
"Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine no possessions?'" - Elvis Costello
Hear, hear, HS!I, too, think
March 28, 2007 - 11:32 ET by Roger the ShrubberHear, hear, HS!
I, too, think Mr. Bozell is off-base with this piece. South Park takes aim at both sides of the aisle, with a passion.
It's not media bias when everybody gets skewered...
Maybe it's just me but . .
March 28, 2007 - 10:00 ET by terrigMaybe it's just me but . . .regarding South Park and the episode where Jesus goes to the restroom on the President--the point was that this would be shown in the US and the Christians were not going to go out and kill people like the Muslims did after the cartoons. They had a drawing of Mohammed and Cartoon Network censored it. They've done a lot of things that isn't exactly pc but I love this show. However, the prof is wrong if he thinks Fox is mindless news but says nothing about CNN or MSNBC or the MSM and L & O is so far to the left it makes my head want to explode if I happen to be somewhere where it's being watched (like my parent's house).
You make some great points -
March 28, 2007 - 10:34 ET by PeskyDaneYou make some great points - I definately cringe at some of the stuff they do on Jesus - but one of Parker and Stone's driving principles is to demonstrate that Christians will not riot and go on killing orgies around the globe.
Philosophy can be brutal to r
March 28, 2007 - 12:01 ET by KC MulvillePhilosophy can be brutal to read (disclaimer: I have a master’s degree in philosophy; I speak from experience here), but I resist the impulse to dress it up to appeal to teenagers. The whole idea is not to appeal to teenagers but to challenge them. We don’t want to attract college students; we want to provoke them. Trust me, they can take it. Pandering to popular culture to help “sell” philosophy is perhaps the most anti-philosophical impulse there is.
Philosophy leads to an awareness of absurdity, and therefore humor. Philosophy is funny. However, the reverse is not true. Funny isn’t philosophical. South Park can be funny. That doesn’t make it philosophical.
The problem with selling philosophy through popular culture is that it comes with a price. Culture is only partially intellectual. Culture is also extremely affective and subliminal. The messages sent by bastions of popular culture usually have little intellectual weight, but they make up for it with powerful subliminal appeals. It isn’t intellectual to see desperate housewives trolling for sexual affairs on a suburban street, but it does subtly communicate that the vows of marriage mean nothing. South Park is funny, but its not-at-all-subtle message is that all authority is absurd. The show goes out of its way to ridicule authority figures, especially religious leaders. Much of the show’s humor is crass and vulgar mockery. They never advance an intellectual reason to dispute any specific authority; they just mock all authority for the fun of it. Now, if you don’t take it seriously, it can be funny. But if you take it seriously, and teach it as philosophy, you metastasize the mockery into anti-philosophy.
Leave it alone. Let it be funny, but nothing more than that.
Something tells me that SP hi
March 28, 2007 - 12:17 ET by liberal_bug_zapperSomething tells me that SP hit a nerve with you at some point. For someone who has a masters in philosophy, you sure seem unwilling to take a more philosophical look at the underlying themes. They don't disregard authority, they just espouse another kind of authority. They espouse the authority of the self. They scold Americans in almost every episode for abdicating authority over their own children to anyone else but them, and then complaining when their children vocalize different values than what are traditionally their own.
Do you remember their spoof on the 9/11 conspiracy nuts.... they didn't stoop to making the President look bad, but actually made him look kinda good as if he understood all conspiracy nuts would easily fall for the conspiracy if just given enough rope to hang themselves with.
You and I have vastly different views on philosophy. Philosophy should be for the time it is discussed in. While some of what Plato wrote is useful, much of it is from a time long past, and asks questions we already know answers to, or worse, postulates about socialism when what we know now negates much of what Plato wrote after his fawning at the idea of the radical egalitarian socialist state.
Philosophy is for us now... we muse over what will or should be, and we do it in ways we can understand. Plato too had his own contempt for those he felt were beneath the status of the intellectual, such as he and his fellow philosophers.
Is that what you're saying? Matt Stone and Trey Parker are beneath true philosophers?
____________________________________________________
"Screw you guys, I'm going home." ~ Eric Cartman
Well, you make several points
March 28, 2007 - 13:00 ET by KC MulvilleWell, you make several points for me. Let me address the following ones:
“They don't disregard authority, they just espouse another kind of authority.” Espousing is not philosophy. South Park doesn’t present a rational account of why particular authorities are suspicious, which is what philosophy demands. South Park isn’t philosophy. It’s a comedy show, which uses mockery as the source of its humor. My point is, fine, but leave it at that. That isn’t philosophy. (Not everything has to be philosophy!)
“They espouse the authority of the self.” I suspect you’ve confused the word “authority” with “autonomy.” The phrase “self-authority” is an oxymoron … an internal contradiction. But if we assume that South Park espouses self-autonomy, that was exactly my point. That’s one of the not-so-subtle messages that South Park conveys, all without an ounce of explanation. They just do it for the fun of it. Fine, but that’s not philosophy.
“Do you remember their spoof … “ No. I’m not a regular watcher. I’ve only caught a few episodes. Now, that leaves me open to the charge that since I haven’t completely seen every episode, how can I know that South Park doesn’t explain itself intellectually? Guilty as charged. If South Park has detailed their intellectual argument, please alert me to that episode and I’ll watch. (I don’t mean that to sound snarky, liberal_bug_zapper. BTW, I appreciate that you aren’t being personal or antagonistic … I hope you find my response the same.)
“You and I have vastly different views on philosophy. Philosophy should be for the time it is discussed in.” OK, but you’ve explained why you believe what you believe. That’s philosophy. I don’t agree with your assertion, but at least you’ve offered an explanation. That’s philosophy.
On the other hand, South Park is a comedy show. It doesn’t offer explanations. It offers jokes. Leave it at that.
South Park Philosophy in 3 words.
March 28, 2007 - 13:13 ET by sarcasmoHell, I'll sum-up the philosophy behind South Park in three words (which, come to think of it, can also explain how SP gets panties into a knot all the way from Brent Bozell to the far-left feminists they also like to skewer!). "Leave Us Alone." Pretty simple, in theory, but hard to do if, in practice, you're addicted to control-freakery. Of course, now someone's bound to tell me that "Leave Us Alone" isn't a 'real' philosphy. I'll just say this: "Keep knotting all those panties that need it, Trey and Matt. You're cool guys."
JMR
You keep saying that South
March 28, 2007 - 14:23 ET by liberal_bug_zapperYou keep saying that South Park isn't philosophy, so we've established what you believe philosophy isn't, but we need to establish (for the sake of argument) how you believe philosophy should be defined; please be succinct.
____________________________________________________
"Hmmmm not bad.... ACK!!!" ~ Socrates
This website isn't a philoso
March 28, 2007 - 18:12 ET by KC MulvilleThis website isn't a philosophy forum. The point was that South Park is just a comedy show, and to magnify it into something deeper is just a cheap stunt. That point is made. My personal reflections on philosophy would take up much more room and time than anyone here would care to offer. However, if you wish to learn more about philosophy, I'd suggest we start with a course in logic.
How about your local community college?
KC... could you be more con
March 28, 2007 - 20:38 ET by liberal_bug_zapperKC... could you be more condescending?
I don't need to study philosophy or logic as it is my humble opinion that those are both utterly useless majors for a university or college and I'm a little above the age of a child.
My self study of older philosophical styles includes many required readings of university courses like Plato, Descartes, Nietzsche and Thomas Jefferson just to name a few. I just finished reading Plato's the Republic again. My friends and I tend to have some very deep conversations comparing Western and Eastern philosophers like Plato vs Lao Tzu (of Chinese Taoism). But we do it because we like it, not for a grade or for someone elses approval. We've also started including South Park as a source.
Here is what I was looking for from you... Philosophy is a doctrine or belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school and is the rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics. Simple, to the point. There is nothing confusing or above anyone's level of understanding at NewsBusters about philosophy.
Which is why South Park is a form of philosophy.
Oh, and not answering my question directly as if I just wouldn't understand, or trying to say that you're not answering because it would be too long just shows a disrespect that is uncalled for.
____________________________________________________
"I don't hate black people. I hate hippies. " ~ Eric Cartman
I’ll submit this publicly
March 29, 2007 - 01:27 ET by liberal_bug_zapperI’ll submit this publicly for you and expose you for the arrogant condescending fraud you are. Learn to read bozo, and learn to understand reactions to being told that one must go back to school before they are worthy of your conversation…they won't be all "Oh, you are wise, forgive my ignorance... no... it will be more like, piss off you arrogant prat!
You said;
And I responded;
Which to any intelligent person reading, could have easily been read as a rebuke to you, a vain person who seemed to enjoy talking down to someone who was asking a simple question as if they were a child? And I never said that the courses were worthless, just the majors. We have no need for self anointed priests of logic and wisdom talking down to us plebes as if we're a bunch of morons, yet it oozed from your prose with every sardonic and vain sentence you typed.
If there was any doubt in my mind that you were a conservative or liberal, I now know that you are most definitely a liberal. Only a cowardly liberal would attack in the shadows with little or no actual intelligent response.
As for your piss poor understanding of philosophy, I also know you either do not have a masters in philosophy, or you bought it off the Internet you fraud.
You can take your drivel and superior attitude elsewhere. I’m not going to play nice…I’m here to bust your chops boy. (How’s that for chutzpah?)
Hey, I'm fine with declarin
March 29, 2007 - 03:14 ET by sarcasmoHey, I'm fine with declaring victory, especially since I'm an obvious winner in all this. :) I distilled South Park's philosophy down to three words, which bear repeating around nonlibertarian political hangouts like this, so I will: "Leave Us Alone." Again, it sounds simple in theory, but that little 3-word philosophy gets difficult for control-freaks of the left AND the right in practice. This explains exactly-why South Park gets the control-freak lobby's collective panties into a nice, bipartisan knot and at the same time it explains why people like me enjoy the 'toon.
JMR
I'm not really with Liberta
March 29, 2007 - 05:32 ET by liberal_bug_zapperI'm not really with Libertarians as they are way too extreme on a few issues I hold dear.
I'm really a middle of the road conservative (between conservative and libertarian.... not liberal).
For example, I don't agree with their open borders policies which would drown America in a sea of people who want our culture dead.
I don't agree with a blanket 'anything goes' right to privacy as there is no right to privacy in the Constitution and I don't agree with the 'anything goes because of the 9th Amendment' crowd. I mean, do they agree that MANBLA has a right to exist and that men can have sex with little boys if both parties agree?
What Libertarians think about Abortion also goes against what I believe. They talk about Freedom and Responsibility, but then go on to legitimize the choice of an abortion... when all it is is murder. Sorry, but choice happens when the woman says 'yes' or 'no'. Now I'm all for morning after pills as long as they're used within 36 hours of conception for rape and incest victims, but other than that... nadda.
On taxes, I think that there should be some, but the government needs to be artificially restrained to 3% of GDP forever. Whatever they can do with 3% of GDP is what they can do... and of course, if they waste the money, we can boot them from office. I also think that all term limits, including those for President need to be lifted. I'm against any form of referendum as direct democracy is as bad as Soviet Tyranny.
I think South Park is closest to Libertarian ideals, but they differ in the same areas that I do.
____________________________________________________
"I’ve learned something, too: selling out is sweet because when you sell out, you get to make a lot of money, and when you have money, you don’t have to hang out with a bunch of poor asses like you guys. Screw you guys, I’m going home." ~ Eric Cartman
Well, I mentioned a three w
March 29, 2007 - 06:35 ET by sarcasmoWell, I mentioned a three word distilled cartoon philosophy more than the Libertarians, but since you brought us up....On borders, libertarians these days seem to be all over the map, at least if you look at Dr. Paul's record (which the media sure won't help you do) it's quite tough on illegal immigration. We'll have to disagree on the 9th, I find a right to privacy/be-left-alone in the Ninth Amendment in the explicitly vague language, and I think those who don't see that would prefer not to debate it with me. And I'm pretty sure it's NAMBLA-with-an-"N", but AFAIK Libertarians in the party & out have always said "adults only" for sex so I'm not sure how the media managed to get you to associate them with us, maybe it's our free speech absolutism? Speech -- even offensive speech from Nambla-types -- is another matter, so we always get associated with the speech we're defending when all we're defending is the right to be an idiot in many cases. Libertarians have no position on abortion because we're all over the map on the issue (again, see Dr. Paul, an OBGYN who delivered >4000 babies, because again, the news media sure as hell won't tell you a thing about him!) And suffice it to say that we disagree on taxes & especially on spending, and on how to vote them lower. I want a drastically more austere government than most people here, and the way there is through lower borrowing-&-spending behavior, as well as lower taxes. What big government is currently doing to future generations fiscally is every bit as immoral as every abortion since I was born combined, in my book. That's true even if media-preachers don't want to discuss it nearly as much (as you probably gathered, I'm not much of a fan of organized religion, just as they're not fans of people who think for themselves like me!).
JMR
Ok, I didn't know the NAMBLA
March 29, 2007 - 08:25 ET by liberal_bug_zapperOk, I didn't know the NAMBLA thing.... I think those people are nuts and all belong behind bars. As for free speech, I think free speech should come with responsibility for what you say. For example, would you agree that if you threaten to kill someone, that should not be protected speech? I'm going to assume that's the case.
The fact that Libertarians are all over the map does not bode well for the Libertarian party. What I think it means is that you'll lose every time. This is why I've been more comfortable with the Republican party.
Now about taxing vs abortion, I think there is a little bit of a moral equivalence being given to the wholesale murder of innocent babies, and debt. That's like comparing apples to flamethrowers.
While I may not be a fan of organized religion, as long as they remain voluntary... I'm cool with that. If Christians really followed the teachings of Christ... they'd be some pretty safe people to be around. However, the same cannot be said of Muslims.
____________________________________________________
"Seriously, you better stop being so poor or else I’m gonna start huckin’ rocks at you." ~ Eric Cartman
?? A threat is the initiati
March 29, 2007 - 08:43 ET by sarcasmo?? A threat is the initiation of force, so I fail to see how I've advocated that, ever... The Nambla idiots are idiots, but it's not their speech that's illegal (yet!) it's the behavior they advocate. Idiots have a first amendment right to be idiots, and saying-that != advocating the idiocy they advocate. And the fiscal comparison to abortion, while stark, was meant to get attention. Yeah, they're different, but equally-deadly for the victims' futures in the end. And as far as Christians really-following the Bible goes, I'd probably be close to orgasmic if they started thinking about tithes & tax-rates at the same time. In fact, I doubt Republicans want what I want along with many large-L Libertarians, which is to move tax-time to votin'-time instead of as far-away from it as possible, like it is now...
JMR
Point missed
March 28, 2007 - 13:41 ET by ApacheThe Jesus Christ defecating on Bush has been taken way out of context and true conservatives should well understand the point the cartoon was making. That was the same episode where they couldn't show Mohammed doing something really mundane. Remember the media idiots sympathized for the extremists and pulled the newspaper cartoons of Mohammed. This was all mocked in that episode. Mohammed is shown on tv and everyone in town is in fear of what will happen to them. So at the end Al Queada says it will get its revenge by showing that skit where an image of Jesus defecation on Bush is part of it. Yet we didn't burn down our villages and kill each other over it. While it showed something we would find offensive, it was really making fun of the islamic extremists.
The funniest thing was a loud mouthed "conservative" guest host on MSNBC just finished plugging his book which denounced political correctness and then jumped to this story where he denounced south park for a short clip taken out of context.
Unfortunately, South Park is about as close to a conservative sided satire as you can find on TV. Minus maybe the half hour news hour.
Agreed. And let's keep some
March 28, 2007 - 13:53 ET by sarcasmoAgreed. And let's keep something in mind here with the "as close as" part, too...I am forced to put up with constant, daily, hour-by-hour antiLibertarian bias in the "serious" news media. I think people's panties -- left and right -- can somehow-survive a bit of pro-libertarian bias in one little cartoon. Plus I'm still feeling a little bit triumphant for distilling SP's philosophy down to three of my favorite words. :) And now I'm just praying they'll find a way to cover this.
JMR
One of your fellow bloggers
March 28, 2007 - 16:33 ET by WhichWingOne of your fellow bloggers posted this about South Park. I thought she was trying to "make it sound philosophically deep."
I am a "south park conse
March 28, 2007 - 17:11 ET by tweakthetrollI am a "south park conservitive". I see things like the writers do....good always wins in the end and bad is always punished. Very little grey area here. I identify with Butters Scotch the most.
South Park isn't FOR children...
March 28, 2007 - 18:25 ET by Guy Arthur ThomasSouth Park is a social satire...a parody...and it isn't for CHILDREN. Yes, some parodies and satires are for children...this one isn't and it is quite poignant. Of course satire shouldn't be compared with political science books...apples and oranges...but in it's context South Park generally does a superior job satirizing the excesses of our culture.
Shut up and blog! If you claim to be a conservative, please don't disgrace yourself and conservatism by thinking and arguing like a liberal. Go Rudy!
oh, it's social satire !
March 28, 2007 - 18:33 ET by tumbler_2007I see; just satire.
Like that painting of Christ's Last Supper; a hound dog celebrating the first Eucharist with his pooch apostles all faithfully assisting. The twelve canines and Our Lord.
Nothing reprehensible about these sweet kisses blown at the Son of God. By a raft of devils. Is there?
Crumbler...
March 28, 2007 - 18:36 ET by Guy Arthur ThomasPal, you need a vacation...really. You are just going off over anything and on a crusade against everything. Siesta time brown.
Shut up and blog! If you claim to be a conservative, please don't disgrace yourself and conservatism by thinking and arguing like a liberal. Go Rudy!
advice from guy, art & tom
March 29, 2007 - 11:37 ET by tumbler_2007Yeah; um in Paris late April, Rome & Florence later.
But comments in this thread are appreciated (I think) by others besides atheists, non-Christians and idots with multiple personalites like you three.
If you call me a crusader, I don't mind. I've been called much worse things by brighter guys than yourself & your alter egoes. Explain please, what is Siesta time brown--? Wait-- Don't explain. Go home, your mother is waiting up all night for you boys. This thread's for adults.
Hey Brent, I think you comple
March 29, 2007 - 00:31 ET by ferrarimanf355Hey Brent, I think you completely miss the whole point of South Park. Is it disgusting and foul? Sometimes it is. But most of the time, it's damn good satire, really. Look at things through that angle, and you'll start to see the brilliance of the whole thing.
Oh, and Brent, please stop it with the "cartoons are for kids!" lie. I really should show you Neon Genesis Evangelion one of these days...
Uzumaki/Ayanami '08. Because a ninja and an Eva pilot can govern the nation better that what we have now...