South Park 3/11: "The Ring"

[Freudian_Slit]

@BrainGlutton

That’s exactly what I was talking about in this aborted thread.

And that was before Mickey came on.

Well, they’ve already showed the guys jerking off dogs and had Ike have sex. Is that really going any further?

[ftg]

@Least_Original_User_Name_Ever

What does it say about me that the only shows that I bother to watch these days are The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and South Park?

You need new batteries in your remote?

[Johnny_L.A]

@ftg

You need new batteries in your remote?

In the first episode of Coupling (‘Unflushable’) Steve discovered Susan’s remotes were all out of batteries.

[ftg]

@Johnny_L.A

In the first episode of Coupling (‘Unflushable’) Steve discovered Susan’s remotes were all out of batteries.

I don’t really want to continue the hijack, but that’s the second episode: “Size Matters”. Hurumph.

[Sean_Factotum]

We heard you the first time, Flander.

[Icerigger]

Brent Bozell is after that episode. I guess he didn’t like it.
South Park must be doing something right.

Six months later, the sleazy Comedy Central cartoon “South Park” picked up where MTV left off, beginning their thirteenth season of imbecility on March 11 with an entire episode mocking purity rings and the Jonas Brothers. Comedy Central liked it so much that they replayed it weeknight after weeknight.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/entertainmentcolumn/2009/col20090319.asp

[mobo85]

The thing about Bozell is that he can never stay on one subject- his columns always seem to jump from one thing to another. The first two paragraphs are an introduction, the third comments on Russell Brand’s purity ring joke, the fourth makes a reference to the South Park episode, the fifth, sixth (okay, the sixth is really a sentence), and seventh go back to Brand and his change of heart, and only then does he go into the focus of the column itself. Not to mention the fact that he missed the whole point of the episode (as he and his buddy Bill Donohue often do when it comes to things like this)- the Jonas Brothers and their purity rings weren’t the villains, Disney was for their selling of the abstinent brothers as sex symbols, thus sending mixed messages. I agree that the way they poked fun at it was a little confusing and it is indeed unfair to claim that the purity rings are a Disney marketing ploy as opposed to a personal choice, but the message is not “abstinence is bad” but “it’s wrong to make young girls hot and bothered while at the same time telling them to avoid sexual urges.” (Heck, even Bozell’s organization itself complained to Disney about the Jonas Brothers hosting an episode of the sexy 90210, which appears to show that even they think the Brothers are nothing more than Disney puppets.)

[Flander]

I’ve reported someone seems to have posted under my log in.

[Marley23]

@Sean_Factotum

We heard you the first time, Flander.

@Flander

I’ve reported someone seems to have posted under my log in.

If it’s not obvious to anybody else in this thread, I’ve removed two posts made under Flander’s name.

[Flander]

Thank you very much, Marley.