South Park hits the nail on the head

[The Central Scrutinizer]

"If I have to choose between a douche and a turd, I just don't see the point" - Stan Marsh


I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[pgwenthold]

OTOH, it was probably the boringest South Park ever made. I don't think I laughed once during the whole show.

 

[HarryKeogh]

"If I have to choose between a douche and a turd, I just don't see the point" - Stan Marsh


I couldn't have said it better myself.

of course the world isn't black and white. There are countless shades of gray inbetween. One may be less of a douche than the other is a turd...or vice versa.

Of course, if you truly believe everyone running is completely incompetent and capable of doing nothing right and you disagree with all of their platforms I agree, vote for no one. But if you think one has the chance of doing a better job than the other (no matter how slight) I feel you should vote for them.

and I forgot South Park had new episodes coming up. Fortunately they'll repeat it 80 times before the next episode.

 

[Suddenly]

"If I have to choose between a douche and a turd, I just don't see the point" - Stan Marsh


I couldn't have said it better myself.

I dunno, it depends on what you are going to do with these items.

In certain situations I can identify a clear and rational preference, but I will leave the details to your imagination...

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

OTOH, it was probably the boringest South Park ever made. I don't think I laughed once during the whole show.

Really? I had the opposite reaction. I laughed my ass off!!!

 

[merphie]

If there is a douche' and a turd up for election isn't it our fault for not getting someone better in the primary or not voting for a third party?

 

[Tony]

If there is a douche' and a turd up for election isn't it our fault for not getting someone better in the primary or not voting for a third party?

Not necessarily.

 

[merphie]

Not necessarily.

So we vote for the douche or turd and pat ourselves on the back?

 

[Suddenly]

So we vote for the douche or turd and pat ourselves on the back?

Maybe realize that all candidates (all people for that matter) are douches and turds and anyone who really thinks any different is a fool or a coward looking for an excuse to avoid taking a stand to help determine the direction of the body politic so he can later disclaim any responsibility?

 

[Number Six]

It was a good episode. Not the funniest but definitely far from most boring IMO. I got plenty of laughs and the message was great too. For those who didn't see it, the moral didn't stop at "I shouldn't have to vote if my choices are a douche and a turd." Rather, it was that even though having to choose between a douche and a turd sucks, if that's what pretty much every election is going to be like then you should go ahead and vote instead of abstaining.

The debate (moderated by Jim Lehrer) between the giant douche and the turd sandwich was good, as was when they first introduced the mascots and brought them out to the pumping music. And the Puff Daddy stuff was good, especially the song, which had me laughing like h***. The PETA compound was good too. And even though they ripped on PETA, it was a PETA guy that ended up giving the final moral to Stan.

 

[merphie]

Maybe realize that all candidates (all people for that matter) are douches and turds and anyone who really thinks any different is a fool or a coward looking for an excuse to avoid taking a stand to help determine the direction of the body politic so he can later disclaim any responsibility?

Why would I adopt such a negative view of the world?

 

[Brown]

OTOH, it was probably the boringest South Park ever made. I don't think I laughed once during the whole show.

That was my reaction, too. On the whole, pretty lame.

 

[Suddenly]

Why would I adopt such a negative view of the world?

My point isn't negative per se. You can feel free to think that everyone is just dandy and wonderful and perfect if you chose.

The point is that assuming that these major candidates are significantly worse than the third party candidates or the population at large is in my opinion a device used to justify avoiding making a choice.

The negativity here is a result of the wildly high expections of the these candidates as well as a lack of critical scrutiny as to the claimed flaws of same. We demand that they be superhuman and then eagerly accept any evidence, no matter how flimsy, that they are not. Then people go and vote for a nut like Badnarik as a "protest" against what they see as crappy candidates

They call it a protest, I call it avoiding moral responsibility. Whatever.

 

[Tony]

So we vote for the douche or turd and pat ourselves on the back?

Huh? All I was saying is that is isn't really our fault. We don't control the electorial system, the parties do.

 

[Suddenly]

Huh? All I was saying is that is isn't really our fault. We don't control the electorial system, the parties do.

Who controls the parties?

 

[merphie]

My point isn't negative per se. You can feel free to think that everyone is just dandy and wonderful and perfect if you chose.

I take people one at a time and determine my opinion of them on an individual basis. I make no assumptions.

The point is that assuming that these major candidates are significantly worse than the third party candidates or the population at large is in my opinion a device used to justify avoiding making a choice.

Perhaps. The independent for senate here is a jewel. She once claimed the government put a chip in her brain.

The negativity here is a result of the wildly high expections of the these candidates as well as a lack of critical scrutiny as to the claimed flaws of same. We demand that they be superhuman and then eagerly accept any evidence, no matter how flimsy, that they are not. Then people go and vote for a nut like Badnarik as a "protest" against what they see as crappy candidates

They call it a protest, I call it avoiding moral responsibility. Whatever.

What is the alternative? Who demands they be super human? I only wish they were a good human.

 

[merphie]

Huh? All I was saying is that is isn't really our fault. We don't control the electorial system, the parties do.

We do control the system. If the majority of people voted for a third party the two main parties would not have control. They get their control through the people.

 

[hgc]

While Stan Marsh is a smart kid, I don't see that this is an earth-shattering or valuable insight. It's just the same old cop-out from politically uninterested people.

While the major party candidates may have problems, there is no way for either of them completely acceptable to a large number of people. The Republican and Democratic nominees head up huge constuency coalitions (that's what those parties are) and thus have to compromise, from the perspective of almost any individual, on a great many issues.

I was watching O'Reilly last night, and he had on social scientist of some sort discussing why so many people don't vote. This guest was explaining that while people like O'Reilly grew up in an environment where understanding politics and government policy, and voting, was encouraged, many people don't. Thus they lack what she called a "wide political spectrum" in their thought processes. It wouldn't occur to them how important voting is. Of course O'Reilly, disdaining nuance and subtlety as usual, said that non-voters are just lazy, and if they think the choice is between the "lesser of two evils," they should make the choice anyway and vote. It's their duty as citizens.

It's not often I agree with O'R over Stan Marsh, but this is one case.

 

[Number Six]

Stan Marsh didn't agree with O'Reilly on that point at the beginning of the program but he did by the end of the program.

 

[merphie]

While Stan Marsh is a smart kid, I don't see that this is an earth-shattering or valuable insight. It's just the same old cop-out from politically uninterested people.

While the major party candidates may have problems, there is no way for either of them completely acceptable to a large number of people. The Republican and Democratic nominees head up huge constuency coalitions (that's what those parties are) and thus have to compromise, from the perspective of almost any individual, on a great many issues.

I was watching O'Reilly last night, and he had on social scientist of some sort discussing why so many people don't vote. This guest was explaining that while people like O'Reilly grew up in an environment where understanding politics and government policy, and voting, was encouraged, many people don't. Thus they lack what she called a "wide political spectrum" in their thought processes. It wouldn't occur to them how important voting is. Of course O'Reilly, disdaining nuance and subtlety as usual, said that non-voters are just lazy, and if they think the choice is between the "lesser of two evils," they should make the choice anyway and vote. It's their duty as citizens.

It's not often I agree with O'R over Stan Marsh, but this is one case.

I believe the comment is simple truth. Many people I have talked to (including on this forum) have suggested they are voting for Kerry/Bush just because they are voting against the other person. That is sad. We should be voting for the person we want in office. If there is no good choice then there is a problem.