Toy Story 3 and the Tea Party Movement

How concerns about lost liberty are filtering into mainstream culture.


Is Toy Story 3 a parable for today's deep political discontent?

Think about it. A slick sloganeering teddy bear convinces a gaggle of beleaguered toys that he holds the key to a brighter future. The toys, longing for leadership after years of broken promises and incompetence, uncritically submit to the teddy bear's vision.

Before long, even non-Ivy Leaguers like Mr. Potato Head, Rex, and Slinky catch on. All creeds of plaything are forced to sacrifice liberty and happiness for the collective good—as imagined by a technocratic leader, his feckless vice-leader (a Ken doll), and their muscle (a giant baby doll).

First there is concern and then anger and then revolt. Even Barbie—having shown no interest in political activism for more than 50 years—unleashes the best line in the history of animated films: "Authority should derive from the consent of the governed, not from the threat of force!"

Naturally, that's the lesson the screenwriters for Toy Story 3 were trying to convey to the American people. Though, admittedly, my 6-year-old had a somewhat different interpretation of Pixar's creation. Then again, she's a hopeless bleeding heart.

I, on the other hand, need this. Before children, a movie theater was a place for me to escape into flimsy narratives, hyper-violence, and juvenile bromances.

Today? Is there no end to the foibles of humankind? Why, Daddy, do we have this ghastly habit of refusing to treat monsters and ogres as equals? Why won't humans let rats run restaurants? Why are we bigoted against superheroes, the elderly, chimps, bears, children, robots, and aliens? Why do corporations destroy mom and pop outfits and ruin entire planets for kicks?

In light of most animated movies, the message of Toy Story 3 appealed to me. And I would have allowed that my ideological interpretation was way off had I not read about a growing trend in popular culture—namely commercials—that seeks to tap into our tea party.

In one spot, villainous redcoats are on the march—ready, no doubt, to snatch more liberty from colonists—when they are met head-on by a phalanx of Dodge Challengers with American flags flying. A narrator intones, "Here are a couple things America got right: cars and freedom."

This would have been the greatest commercial to hit television since Joe Isuzu was lying. But Chrysler is, as any genuine American already knows, a bailout recipient unqualified to preach the freedom agenda. (Though, it has been reported that the car company, aware of this duplicity, tried to save some dough by using costumes left over from a Mel Gibson movie—doubtlessly The Patriot and presumably outfitted with real bloodstains.)

The burst of new ads featuring Founding Fathers has prompted much discussion. "Marketing consultants," a Washington Post piece states, "say the ad is one indication that the movement's anger and energy have become part of the cultural conversation, making it a natural target for admakers."

Yikes. "Cars and freedom" are an indication that "anger" is driving a national conversation? Doesn't everyone think that cars and—at the very least—freedom are good ideas?

It's not surprising that animation and commercials are the most sensitive to public trends. It was the mild poke at religious fundamentalism by South Park that illustrated how dangerous religious extremism can be to free expression. Family Guy and The Simpsons regularly opine on sensitive areas of race, religion, and culture that others never would dare touch.

Perhaps inadvertently, it was Audi's "Green Police" Super Bowl spot—featuring law enforcement officials confiscating batteries and arresting enviro-scofflaws—that most effectively poked fun at environmentalists.

It is a matter of time before concerns about liberty begin to filter into mainstream popular culture. The clues are everywhere; a remake of the greatest work of film in the 20th century, Red Dawn, is under way, and so is a production of Atlas Shrugged.

Is Toy Story 3 part of that movement? Let me engage in a bit of wishful thinking and say: Of course it is.

David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Denver Post and the author of Nanny State. Visit his website at www.DavidHarsanyi.com.


NEXT: Bad Movies Make Bad Law or, Is Storm Squirters 2 or Milk Nymphos *That* Kind of Movie?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Does that make Barbie the racist agitator?

    1. No, she’s an agitated racist. Important distinction.

      1. “Libertarianism is hard!”

        1. So is Zionism. I wish David Harsanyi would be a consistent Zionist and move to Israel.

        2. I get hard for Barbie…

          1. Me too. Unfortunately, it’s just a hard flat spot.

      2. The Tea Party movement should publicly denounce Barbie to appease the NAACP.

  2. I really dont see what all the fuss about Toy Story 3 is.


    1. There were no milk enemas. Duh.

      Jesus, get with the program anon bot.

      1. I’m afraid the bots may become self aware. We must destroy them before it’s too late.

  3. The tea party movement is unquestionably cartoonish. I think Harsanyi is finally on to something.

    1. Shut up and get back to licking my balls.

      1. ^—-more accurate

        1. Maybe he had his balls modded to an inline configuration to enhance aerodynamics?

          1. I’m Egyptian.

        2. Wrong. 8============================D

          Is more accurate.

          1. mine is not representative of actual size like yours. Mine is of the scale 1/16″ = 2″

            1. No it isn’t 🙁

            2. You should see it on my 8 foot monitor.

              1. my scale holds true on your 8 foot monitor.

              2. It’s not the monitor, it’s the resolution.

    2. Max is right – you stupid Bush redneck teabaggers.

      To you – “freedom” is a 35% top marginal rate while “tyranny” is a possible 39% top rate – never mind the fact the top rate vacillated from 70-90% during the Ike and Nixon years.

      Max is just too polite to call your teabag idiocy for what it is.

      Lets accept a 40% top rate and cut costs back.

      And I will always hate redneck Creationist teabaggers.

      1. My posts make more sense at freerepublic.com but I prefer the irony of posting here.

      2. “Teabag” count = 3
        “Redneck” count = 2
        Mention Bush = check
        And don’t forget “creationist”

        Well done!

        Let me guess – you’re a Yankee east coast elitist progressive liberal douchebag puppy fucker, aren’t you?

        You evidently have “Bush redneck teabaggers” confused with the majority of people who comment here. A reasonable mistake; I can see how you … actually, not it’s not. Geez, come to think about it, I guess you really are just an incredibly stupid fuck.

        1. I have commented here for years – you piece of shit.

          Like always I stand for –

          Voter participation.
          Hayek and Rand.

          So stuff it your fucking ass – Bush redneck!

          1. LOL — quoth the angry sterotyping ranter, “I stand for Reason…so stuff it your fucking ass.”


        2. Shrike took a wrong turn at Daily Kos. His shitty intellectual GPS said “Arriving at destination” when he got near Reason.com. He thinks he’s at FreeRepublic.com.

          At first we tried telling him that, but now we just don’t have the heart to see him disappointed, so we’ve just sort of let him post here.

          We think of him as a kind of retarded mascot. He dances around in his big chicken suit yelling random cheers. He just sort of… shows up. We don’t have to pay him anything… and the little kids just love him.

          1. here for you once again, dipshit.

            Voter participation.
            Hayek and Rand.

            You’re a fucking tone-deaf idiot, Paul.

        3. furthermore – if Reason had the nads to run such a poll…. I would like to know the poster breakdown on —-

          1- conservative Creationist theocrat


          2- liberal science-based secularist.

          1. If I give you this $5 bill, will you just spend it on booze and pills, or will you put it to good use?

            1. That is your counter argument?

              You complete the conservative ignorance paradigm, Paul.

              Would you offer Warren Buffett or Bill Gates a Fiver?

              1. If they showed up on my doorstep, muttering, insane, and drunk, yes, I probably would.

                Well, actually no, because they probably wouldn’t put it to good use.

                I would probably try to ascertain who their case worker is, and see what I could do to help through that channel.

              2. Besides, my wife told me that a clinician should never try to argue someone out of their insanity.

                Let me try another tack:

                I’m sorry that you feel that Rush Limbaugh has listening devices in your eyeglasses, shrike. When was the last time you ate?

                1. Paul wins, shrike, as usual, loses.

          2. …Because obviously, there is no other choice. So pick the barrel you will get bent over right?

            2- is also analagous to Technocrats, the very people who murdered “selfish traitors” by the millions in China, Cambodia, Vietnam, South America, Africa, and the Former U.S.S.R by accident or design.

            There is a third way Shrike. And probably thousands of other ways. Maybe you science types should experiment and see what works better than your de facto favorite “Give me your fucking money you goddamn piece of shit so I can ban drugs, kill brown people, pay unnecessary bureaucrats, promote terrible education, and devalue the very money I just took from you.”

            1. I don’t want anyone’s money. I just despise theocrats.

              And there are 1-Repubs and 2-Dems.

              There is no “third way”.

              The LP is a total failure.

              1. I want everyone’s money. I hate all you apostates for not worshiping my Messiah.

                There are 1-loving & caring liberal Democrats and 2-Nazi Space Monster Rethuglicans from Hell.

                There is no “third way”.

                The LP belongs in category 2.

                1. fake shrike – you should at least give me a handjob.

          3. Because, God knows you HAVE to be one or the other. Can’t have anyone interfering with shrike’s manichaen divvying of the world.

    3. Freedom = Fantasy.

    4. Max, you left your brain in your dresser, again.

  4. The toy story movies should have a lego like entity that is an evil borg like hive mind collective.

    1. “I am Locutus of Duplo”

  5. Proeling is hard!

  6. “Authority should derive from the consent of the governed, not from the threat of force!”

    I loved that line. Also, it was reminiscent of Dennis’ (Eric Idle) line from “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”:

    “True executive authority derives from a mandate from the masses; not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

    1. Help! Help! I’m being oppressed!

      1. Ah! Now we see the violence inherent in the system!

    2. It was Michael Palin, not Eric Idle.

      Python FAIL. You are hereby ordered to watch The Holy Grail 5, no 3 times.

      1. He must be a king! He hasn’t got shit all over him!

      2. Of all the times I’ve been wrong here, this is the most embarrassing. I’m truly ashamed and humbled.

        1. What’s this, then? “Romanes eunt domus”? People called Romanes, they go, the house?

          1. LOCATIVE! LOCATIVE!

            I loved that scene. Reminded me of Latin class.

            1. Me too. “How many Romans?!”

              1. Ad plus accusative! Only people who have taken Latin know how friggin’ funny that scene was.

      3. Real punishment would be to make him watch Jabberwocky.

        1. I’ve seen it. I beg the court to sentence me to time already served.

  7. I can’t take anyone seriously who only became concerned about our “liberty” since Obama got elected. Clinton and Bush laid the groundwork for where we are today, Obama so far has done nothing more than use the tools he inherited. Yes, that makes Obama an opportunist and a bad guy, but the reality is that the pace of the loss of our civil rights has slowed the past two years.

    1. Do you have a graph?

      1. Veronique will get right on that!

    2. Slowed?

      I don’t remember having to buy health insurance under Bush. I’m not team red, or blue, but jiminey crickets if you object to the patriot act but consider the healthcare crap to be a slowing of the erosion of our rights, you sir ar crazy.

      1. You don’t pay Medicare taxes? How did you manage to do that?

      2. Maybe he means the rate of growth has slowed?

        Not sure I agree with that either, but still, it’s a classic mistake.

    3. People become aware of their loss of freedom at different times and for different reasons. Some of us in 1970; but one’s longevity as a libertarian is no reason to question the authenticity of those who took longer to wake up.

      1. Yeah, like when their preferred political party is out of power. I call those people assholes, because that’s what they are.

      2. Jeanne Garofalo says, “You racist! Where were you protesting government spending 8 years ago under Bush!? You know nothing about the REAL tea party!”

        A 16 year old highschool student replies, “Touch?, Garofalo, I should have been taking lsd and protesting Bush instead of learning 3rd grade math. What was I thinking?”

        Garofalo, “You learned 3rd grade math? Well that’s more than these racist redneck teabaggers know. It’s all hatred of a black man being president! “

        Same highschool student, “At least Barack Obama is easy to listen to; I listened to him speaking for hours and I forgot that he was even black”

        Garofalo, “See! you’re a racist! It’s just what a typical teabagging racist moron would say!!!”

        Highschool student, “Actually, that was Chris Matthews who said that”

        1. lol. i once quoted thomas sowell, attributing the quote to him, and the response was that he was just another white patriarchal child of privilege spouting off on race. lol

    4. I think it goes back further than Clinton or Bush -> goes back to Teddy Roosevelt and Woody Wilson with other notable characters between then and now, most notably Herbie Hoover, Frankie D and Lindy Johnson.

      1. I think it goes back to Abe Lincoln. The first tyrant in American History. The southern states had every right to secede from the union. I am not advocating slavery, unless of course it’s consensual, but our founding documents give clear authority to the people to replace a government that they feel is abusing them. Lincoln got what he deserved.

        1. And so did the South when Sherman burned the place down. Southerners ought to love Lincoln. Without him, they would have gotten their own country and ended up with a war against the North over the Western territories or worse a slave revolt.

          And any society that enslaves 1/3 of its population is by definition tyrannical. For the South to call Lincoln a tyrant is rich to say the least.

          1. Remember, it was Lincoln’s government that allowed those states to keep people enslaved. Until is was politically expedient to free the slaves in states under rebellion. But not the slaves working on the capital dome. And, I am not from the south. I call Lincoln a tyrant because he forced people to remain under a government by force of arms. It would have been better to let them go and face that slave revolt. It would have saved a lot of blood and treasure.

            1. Lincoln could not free the slaves working on the capitol dome by executive order, he could issue such an order for the territories in rebellion.

              Lincoln in that case respected the constitutional limits on his authority while inexorably changing the government’s endgame policy at the same time. Yet somehow you that to justify calling him a tyrant.

              1. Oh yeah, he respected his constitutional authority except for habeus corpus and some other stuff. But when it came to freeing slaves he has to follow the law. Good Stuff.

                1. “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

                  So was the Reb in “Johnny Reb” short for “Rebecca,” or something else?

          2. Good point. More importantly, an independent south would have been an economic backwater stuck in an agrarian cash-crop export rut that wouldn’t have been dragged up by the north’s industrialization.

            1. How is that our problem in the north? Let the market decide.

            2. I suspect that, actually, the situation would have played out even worse. Both the North and the South would have been politically corrupt economic backwaters as the great powers of the time played them off against one another and run roughshod over both.

          3. He’s a paleocon John. He doesn’t understand that forming nations based on enslaving non-whites isn’t okay.

            1. Actually I do understand that. I am only fiscally conservative and an advocate of limited government. Vote with your feet people. If you don’t like the govt down south move north like a civilized person.

              1. And now that I think on it…wasn’t this government formed on enslaving non-whites? Shit, I guess we aren’t the greatest country ever.

                1. And now that I think on it…wasn’t this government formed on enslaving non-whites? Shit, I guess we aren’t the greatest country ever.

                  Of course. That’s why the revolution against England (which allowed slavery to exist in the colonies) began in New England, that vast center of slave trading. You really need to read the history of the U.S. *before* it became the U.S., preferably a comprehensive history, not the Reader’s Digest version of the Cliff Notes you ‘might’ get in school.

            2. There was a nation formed that was based on enslaving non-whites? Jeez, where did that happen?

        2. If it’s consensual it’s called employment….or roleplaying.

          1. Or indentured servitude.

          2. When it’s consensual we just call it a good time.

        3. our founding documents give clear authority to the people to replace a government that they feel is abusing them

          Where is that in the Constitution? The Declaration of Independence is not the founding document of this country and it is not law.

          1. You don’t consider the Declaration of Independence to be one of the foundational documents of our republic??? OK. My bad. I guess we don’t declare these truths to be self-evident.

            1. Oops my bad. It’s when in the course of human events. Right there is where the South derived the right to get the fuck out of the Union.

              1. While you’re correct, “Lincoln Sucks” is exactly the type of exclamation that keeps people from taking the LP seriously. They’re not ready for that yet, so lets keep it on the Dee El for now, kay?

                1. I thought I was. This is a Libertarian site after all.

          2. Secession can never be lawful – by its very nature. No government ever anywhere would ever allow the lawful disintegration of itself. The founding fathers themselves were unlawful in seceding from the British rule. So, you cannot say that it was unlawful and declare victory because you are missing the point. Did they have the right to declare their independence based on the spirit of the nation and in the tradition of the founding of that nation? This is the crux of the matter. Whether you like their reasoning for seceding is irrelevant. The fact is that the south acted no differently than the colonists and Lincoln acted no differently than the than King George III. So, to call George III a tyrant is to call Lincoln a Tyrant. That is no moral bias, just application of a consistent standard of judgement.

            1. And if you would like further comparison, one of the policies that England was unhappy about was that there was still slavery in the colonies. They had abolished slavery much earlier and considered it barbaric and evil.

              1. So, the English were upset we the colonists during the Revolutionary War because they had slavery–which the British thought was barbaric and evil–hence their plans to ban it 57 years after the war started?

              2. Yeah, if by “much earlier,” you mean four years before the Declaration of Independence (i.e., when Lord Mansfield handed down the decision in Somersett’s Case).

                1. I have wikipedia too, you should cite them.
                  Yes, 4 years before would be a big deal because any law passed in England should have been effective in the colonies – which the king considered to be part ENGLAND. Do you think that the Feds would be upset if after 4 years Texas still hasn’t recognized or followed a sweeping federal law?

              3. What the frag? England didn’t abolish slavery until 1834. You can look it up. Please.

                Jefferson, btw, included a line blaming England for instituting slavery in America in his first draft of the Declaration of Independence. The South Carolina delegation went ape, and they took it out.

            2. No government ever anywhere would ever allow the lawful disintegration of itself.

              I guess I missed the civil war in which Czechoslovakia fought to keep control of Slovakia back in 1992. Not the mention the one in 1991 where the Soviet Union resisted secession by the Russian, Byelorussian, Ukrainian, Azerbaijan, Georgian, Armenian, Uzbek, Kazakh, Kirghiz, Tajik, Turkmen, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, and Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republics.

              1. Ok, true enough…but how many decades of bloodshed and economic collapse preceeded that dissolution? They didn’t just take the USSR to court and sue for freedom or just send in the proper paperwork to be notarized. Gorby was forced to allow it due to the Soviets not having the will or money to continue its hegemony.

                Czechloslovakia was not a secession but rather a splitting. It is entirely different. The sentiment remains accurate.

                1. Whether Czechoslovakia was a secession or a splitting, it was certainly a “lawful disintegration”, to use the term I was responding to.

                  Oh, and as for the Soviet Union, contrary to your initial statement, secession *was* lawful, and was explicitly made so by the Constitution of the USSR.

                  1. what fucking point are you arguing? The soviets fought bloody battles for years to keep its union from dissloving. And no, splitting is not the same as secession. Secession is where one piece breaks off from the whole – splitting is where the whole doesn’t exist anymore and and all of the pieces are then something different altogether – come to think of it that is what happened to the USSR. There is a big difference. If you still don’t understand go read wikipedia or get someone to read wikipedia to you.

      2. Where’s Coolidge when you need him?

    5. Of course, the rate has slowed down… because there are far fewer left to lose. The pool has gotten smaller

      1. wouldn’t this mean the rate has increased? Less total liberties to lose but still losing the same amount means higher rate lost…

        1. Only if you mean a rate of proportion of liberties still held being lost. If it’s a simply rate of liberties lost then…

          Then I’ve kinda gone a little too far with this already.

          1. SEE that’s why we need a graph.

            1. +4

    6. Clinton and Bush laid the groundwork for where we are today, Obama so far has done nothing more than use the tools he inherited.

      We know. Unfortunately what you fail to realize is that he was elected on the promise that he wouldn’t use the tools he inherited. That lasted about 3 minutes.

    7. He would like to speed up the pace, but even leftists know gun control is an issue that will cause self-inflicted pain should they pursue it.

      But he hasn’t given up entirely. He is worse on wiretapping:
      excerpt: “Previously, the Bush Administration has argued that the U.S. possesses “sovereign immunity” from suit for conducting electronic surveillance that violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). However, FISA is only one of several laws that restrict the government’s ability to wiretap. The Obama Administration goes two steps further than Bush did, and claims that the US PATRIOT Act also renders the U.S. immune from suit under the two remaining key federal surveillance laws: the Wiretap Act and the Stored Communications Act. Essentially, the Obama Adminstration has claimed that the government cannot be held accountable for illegal surveillance under any federal statutes.”

      …and then there is this secret prison. Did secret prisons exist under Bush? The only thing worse than no right to a fair trial is no right to fair trial and no indication as to where you are. North Korea type stuff going on under Obama:

      Plus a half dozen or so other more minor liberties slaps that have been featured here.

    8. I can’t take anyone seriously who only became concerned about our “liberty” since Clinton.

  8. PAGE TWO:

    Is Toy Story 3 part of that movement? Let me engage in a bit of wishful thinking and say: Of course it is.


    1. They can’t put all that on page one. It would crash teh internet and PEOPLE WILL DIE!!!!!1!111!!!!

    2. I fucking should have known better than to click on the Page 2 link. Dammit…

    3. Thanks for saving me the click!

  9. There were actual claps from audience members when Barbie said that in the mostly full theater when we saw it. Not a ton, but enough to make me smile.

    1. Saw the movie at the drive in, people clapping and honking horns when that line came out. It made me smile a bit too!

  10. What is the political undercurrent if you watch it in 3D?

    And since all three Toy Story movies were pretty darn good, does that mean we should have stuck with electing Kennedys? Or Bushes?

  11. “Cars and freedom” are an indication that “anger” is driving a national conversation? Doesn’t everyone think that cars and?at the very least?freedom are good ideas?

    What the fuck country are YOU living in?

    Perhaps inadvertently, it was Audi’s “Green Police” Super Bowl spot?featuring law enforcement officials confiscating batteries and arresting enviro-scofflaws?that most effectively poked fun at environmentalists.

    “Inadvertant” would be right. The message of that commercial was “the Green Police will be here eventually, so you might as well buy this damn car now and get it over with.”

    1. Uh, yeah, that’s why they made it so over the top. Complete with incandescent-bulb-sniffing ferrets in the roadblock scene.

      1. Sorry, they were anteaters. The point stands.

  12. On a side note, has any seen the campaign “Libertarians for Sarah Palin”?! That deserves a WhatTheFuck.

    Also the beginning of Toy Story 3 is clearly an allusion to the War in Afghanistan.

    1. There’s a giant flying pig in Afghanistan?

      1. They killed it during the Swine Flu epidemic that wasn’t.

      2. There’s a giant flying pig in Afghanistan?

        I thought Muslims had some kind of phobia about pigs (at least the Taliban would). Wouldn’t they shoot it down pretty quick?

    2. I hope you’re kidding…on both points.

    3. Why is that a WTF? How many other nationally-known politicians who have a chance of getting elected nationally (sorry, Ron Paul) are more sympathetic to at least the economic positions of libertarians?

      1. Because Sary Palin is an anti-liberty evangelical witch-doctering theocrat who can’t name a newspaper or SCOTUS case?

        Do you have a fucking brain?

        1. Who’s Sary Palin?

          1. The rancid meathole McCain blew his campaign on.

            1. If they are wearing off in the afternoon, maybe you should consider time-release anti-psychotics.

              1. You are jealous of my exquisite prose, aren’t you?

                I can tell by the lack of substance in your comment. Rather than defend the Creature from Wasilla you turn ‘ad hominem’.

                She is yours. I hope the vacuous cunt runs along with another vacuous cunt – Huckabee.

                Vacuous cunts nationwide will be vexed.

                1. Sarah Palin: The Geraldine Ferraro of modern presidential politics.

                2. Is that you, joe?

                  1. Me? I posted in the Joe years.

                    Joe is polite.

                    I am not polite in the least bit. In fact, I make it a point to be impolite.

                    I am sick of conservative redneck liars.

                    1. I am not polite in the least bit. In fact, I make it a point to be impolite.

                      See, your style, rather than leading to anything resembling productive, enlightening or even entertaining debate, leads only to me and most of the others here – who are NOT the conservative rednecks you allege – wanting to punch you right in the cunt for being such a whiny asshole douchebag.

                    2. Speak for yourself. I don’t want to punch shrike! It’s like watching I Am Sam done up in an MST3K format.

                    3. If you support conservatives of the 2010 ilk then you are a redneck POS.

                      I rest my case.

            2. So she holds no public office.

              1. I guess what I’m trying to say is, you seem to put in a lot of energy into your hatred for this Sarah Palin character.

                In essence, it would be like me spending years bitching about that goddamned Geraldine Ferraro. I mean, god that rancid bitch!

                You do realize that you’re foaming at the mouth about someone who holds no public office, has no legislative power, and has little to no sway over the political discourse?

                Oh fuck. I just lost. By even engaging in the argument (which, I’m not really sure what the argument is), I’ve lost.

                I will not engage in arguments over logic with muttering homeless people.

                I will not engage in arguments over logic with muttering homeless people.

                I will not engage in arguments over logic with muttering homeless people.

                1. +1

          2. I’m Sarah’s evil sister, and writer of her best lines. Hockey mom and a pit bull, lipstick? Yeah, that was me.

          3. the problem with sarah palin, wasn’t her metannarrative. it was her complete lack of substance. she has as much gravitas as cheez whiz. her STORY is great (hockey mom, cool husband, neato job history, lack of elitist pretension, etc.) but … there is no there there, so to speak.

            1. “she has as much gravitas as cheez whiz”

              Nice. I approve.

              1. Hint: Cheez whiz has more effect on my life’s outcomes than Sarah Palin. Why are we still talking about her?

                1. Who am I kidding, Cheez Whiz has more effect on my life’s outcomes than Sarah Palin AND Swine Flu together.

                  1. and both are good to eat? heh-heh

            2. It worked for Barry, didn’t it?

            3. I agree with shrike on her being an evangelical fool, though your language leaves something to be desired.

              1. Fair – but hang around.

                The puny 2% of libertarians are just as polarized as the public is.

                1. Don’t mind me. I’m just using my rancid meathole on my Messiah again. He loves to spray it full of his mayonnaise.

              2. personally, i don’t care if a politician is an evangelical fool… i care if they try to insert their religion into policy.

                evangelical fools can be dems OR repubs… recall that prez carter was an evangelical and quite a destructive fool.

              3. You’re a rancid meathole just like that faggot Andrew Sullivan.

                1. hahahahha!

                  I used that term for Mooselini.

                  Find some originality someday, cuntprick.

            4. “…it was her complete lack of substance. she has as much gravitas as cheez whiz…”

              This sounds like a lot of politicians (both D and R) that really are in elected positions of power.

        2. Okay, shrike, since you’re so obviously more enlightened and sophisticated, why don’t you specifically identify for us exactly what Ms. Palin has done or advocated that would impose religion on the hapless public.

      2. And 2nd amendment and jury nullification and the right to see someone with a bit of hots on TV every night.

      3. Sarah Palin has more of a chance of getting elected nationally than Ron Paul?

        Don’t think so.

  13. Toy Story 3 is not a kiddie film. All that existential angst and sadastic teddy’s.

    Come to think of it, was that bear an amalgam of Teddy Kenndy (Lotsohuggin) and Robert Byrd?

    1. That bear WAS Teddy Kennedy. Really, I’m convinced he’s not dead after seeing that.

  14. There’s a giant flying pig in Afghanistan?

    He is en route.

    If you catch my drift.

    1. LOLOLOL

  15. When you spend your formative years learning to be a race hustler…

    Obama: al Quada are racist:


    In an interview earlier today with the South African Broadcasting Corporation to air in a few hours, President Obama disparaged al Qaeda and affiliated groups’ willingness to kill Africans in a manner that White House aides say was an argument that the terrorist groups are racist.

    1. Clearly. I mean, is there any place in NYC more densely populated with black folks than the financial district?

      1. al Quada? Racist!

        Israelis suspicious of me? Racist!

        Tea Party? Racist!

        New Black Panther Party intimidating voters? Nothing to see here.

        1. You stupid fuckhole. The Bush DOJ dropped the criminal case in Jan 09.

          The civil case is weaker.

          Go suck off Limbaugh (King of the Rednecks).

          1. The circle is complete. He said “Limbaugh”.

            1. I thought that was his safe word.

              1. At least you guys had some fucking idea of what that post meant.

                1. Ska – I normally have no patience with ignorants like yourself. But –

                  The Bush DOJ dropped the CRIMINAL case against the Black Panthers in jan09 for lack of a “victim”. No one at that Philly precinct claimed “intimidation”.

                  Limbaugh – the true underclass redneck that the NFL owners did not want around – lied about the circumstances.

                  Good for the NFL owners. Limpy is a total scumbag.

                  Now do you get it?

                  1. So are you condoning what the New Black Panthers did there?

                    1. Please quote me on your misperception.

                      It should be easy – its a few comments above.

                      You dumbass.

                    2. Yes. Yes I am.

                    3. I suck off New Black Panthers on a regular basis while killing cracker babies.

                    4. fake shrikes… you are too kind to me.

                      You suffered through the Bushpig. You beat your meat to Cheney. You tweaked your tits to Rove.

                      My point – you are all scum.

          2. You lying sack of cat puke. Are you really that intellectually dishonest? or do you think if you spout random shit no one will question The Shrill, Spoklesman of Mediocrity that you are?

            From the Washington Post:

            …Election Day 2008, King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson dressed in black uniforms of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, whose website recently made such statements as, “the white man has kept us deaf, dumb and blind, and used every `dirty trick’ in the book to stand in the way of our freedom and independence.”

            The men stationed themselves near the entrance to a polling place in a largely black neighborhood. Shabazz carried a nightstick. Their actions quickly came to the attention of police, who told Shabazz to leave but allowed Jackson, a certified poll watcher, to remain.

            Shortly before President George W. Bush left office, the Justice Department filed a civil lawsuit against the two men, the New Black Panther Party and its leader, Malik Zulu Shabazz. The defendants never responded to the government’s lawsuit, which had the same effect as a guilty plea.

            Before any penalties could be handed down – and after Obama appointed Eric Holder to run the Justice Department – charges were dropped against everyone but Samir Shabazz. The court prohibited him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of any Philadelphia polling place through 2012.

            The Justice Department has explained this decision by saying that Jackson was a certified poll watcher who did not carry any weapons, that the New Black Panther website denounced the actions in Philadelphia and that the group had no national plan to intimidate voters.

            Adams says it should have been an open-and-shut case and that numerous “career” Justice Department attorneys – as opposed to those who come and go with each administration – agreed that the New Black Panthers clearly intimidated voters.

            He wrote that some people see selective enforcement of civil rights laws “as a backdoor way to achieve reparations for slavery and discrimination. If the American public won’t tolerate monetary reparations, which they won’t, then a one-way approach to civil rights laws is seen as the next best alternative.”

            “This aggressive one-way approach toward the civil rights laws is central to understanding why the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party was dismissed by the Obama Justice Department,” he wrote….

        2. Obama, you spell al-Qaeda the same way as John does! What a coinky-dink!

          1. And, uh, the same as Gobbler did in the original post.

    2. NFTA: Mr. Obama went on to say al Qaeda needs to kill an equal number of white people to prove they’re not racist.

      1. Bejahend aktion.

    3. Well, I bet they feel ashamed of themselves now. Oh, wait, maybe this is a signal to terminally stupid progressives that it’s ok to be opposed to the murderous, ultraconservative religious lunatics, even though they’re a minority and opposed to Christianity and Israel?

      1. Sure you’re not talking about Wahhabi Muslims? I suck them off regularly too. I love how they’re not redneck racists and rancid meatholes.

  16. That point was being made in some commentary I was reading. It’s not until they kill black folk that this guy see them as racist.

    If you’re raised to be a race hustler, then you’re gonna see racism everywhere. Real or not.

  17. Doesn’t it take years to animate these things? Wouldn’t this film have been written during the Clinton Administration? First term?

    1. At least a few years, yes, but not that long ago.

    2. It doesn’t take more than 4 years.

    3. Back when cartoons were all hand drawn, it would take years.

      I believe with computer animation this process has been sped up significantly.

  18. Red Dawn was ok but it was ridiculous, I wouldn’t call it great.

    1. Part of its greatness stems from its ridiculousness.

      The rest is the magic of Swayze.

      1. Let’s not forget to give Harry Dean Stanton credit for “AVENGE ME!!!”

    2. Red Dawn was Great Camp.

      1. Well, there used to be a billion of us.

      2. Well, there used to be a billion of us.

        1. 600Mn screaming Chinese….

          it’s the difference between a lot of nukes and an asteroid the size of Texas

          1. It was as if millions of Chinese voices suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced.

      3. After I got done watching it, I thought it was intentionally ironic.

        1. it’s campy AND it pisses uber liberals off. i read a great screed on how awful and “reagan’esque” it was over at DU the other day.

  19. The TS franchise is Pixar, no? Of course it’s a subversive libertarian plot.

  20. Doesn’t everyone think that cars and?at the very least?freedom are good ideas?

    There’s something about a train.

  21. Every time an article runs two pages, and there’s only one sentence on the second page, Matt needs to lose a fingerprint.

  22. Really, the Obamatron rant about AQ being racist is self-parodying.

    They seem equally concerned that AQ doesn’t seem to have an affirmative action program to bring blacks up the terrorism ladder than they do with AQ blowing up a bunch of Africans.

  23. actually, part of the magic of swayze is turning that which is ridiculous into greatness, albeit ridiculous greatness

    no clearer example of that than roadhouse.

    tagline: The dancing’s over. Now it gets dirty

    granted, the presence of sam elliot gave him a LOT of help


    Steve: Being called a cocksucker isn’t personal?
    Dalton: No. It’s two nouns combined to elicit a prescribed response.
    Steve: What if somebody calls my mama a whore?
    Dalton: Is she

    1. If you watch the credits for Roadhouse, Sam Elliot’s moustache had it’s own personal assistant.

      1. it’s a union thing

  24. Pixar has made some of the greatest movies. I have loved them all.

    Bugs Life is an awesome libertarian flick.

    1. So is Wall-E.

      1. Oh, so we’re all fat now, huh?

        1. Probably, but I was referring to the post-apocalyptic wasteland.

    2. Bug’s Life is a knock-off of a knock-off of Seven Samurai. It’s the least of the Pixar firmament. But that’s still better than most.

  25. If you’re going to redo movies ’til you get them right, why bother with Red Dawn? Remake Midway instead. It was almost good.

    Atlas Shrugged? That sounds like one long, long, long movie I’ll never pay to watch.

  26. The Bush DOJ dropped the CRIMINAL case against the Black Panthers in jan09 for lack of a “victim”. No one at that Philly precinct claimed “intimidation”.

    And DOJ continued with its civil case, which was dropped by the Obama administration after it got a default judgment. Ponder that, shriek. The Obama DOJ actually won its case, and THEN dropped it.

    1. Shut up, Christfag! Go get Fox news to tell you what to think.

      1. Stop it, R C! You’re making his widdew head asplode with actual facts and stuff.

      2. ahhh – another imitator. I am proud of fake shike. and…

        the reason I will never alter my moniker.

        1. Is that your dick you’re waving at me, R C?

          Get in my belly!

    2. so Dean, you question a win for your side?

      You got your default judgement. I don’t like these guys either.

      But this is pure desperation on conservative’s part.

      You have a chubby for Willie Horton again.

      1. Don’t make eye contact, RC.

        1. Look at me when I talk at you, Foxfag!

  27. Best line in the hx of animated films: “When everyone is super, noone will be.”

    1. I’m pretty sure you mean “If everyone is special, no one will be.” There’s a nuanced difference there.

      Also, even if everyone can get super-powers, I still want them. 🙂

      “If everyone is special, then no one is” — Ayn Rand watches The Incredibles”

      1. Thanks. I couldn’t remember whether the line was “special” or “super”, and mentally tossed a coin. It’s the best either way.

      2. Actually, IIRC, during one of Syndromes many monologues, he was explaining how he’d sell his inventions so that everybody could be super, and said pretty much exactly what Robert did.

        At a different point, ‘Dash’ was talking with his mother, ‘Elastigirl’, and they were using the term ‘special’ during that conversation.

      3. Also, even if everyone can get super-powers, I still want them. 🙂

        Unless everyone else’s super powers are more super than yours.

    2. Maybe. I look at it more like, “when everyone has the ability to shoot lasers out of their eyes, regenerate, turn invisible, and lift a thousand pounds without breaking a sweat; then everyone has the ability to shoot lasers out of their eyes, regenerate, turn invisible, and lift a thousand pounds without breaking a sweat.

      “If everyone is special, no one will be.” means that instead of rejoicing in the actual improvement in people’s lives by giving them superhuman abilities, you embrace some sort of twisted inversion of the justifiably mocked progressive obsession with ensuring equality over ensuring quality of life. Where the egalitarian fanatic would see everyone eating dirt to guarantee that we’re equal, the anti-egalitarian would keep everyone else from getting out of the dirt just so they could retain whatever minor superiority they had managed to obtain.

      I can understand criticism of people that demand to be treated as equals without behaving as equals, but Syndrome’s plan to give people superpowers was a pretty piss poor analogy. That’s like saying that the inventor of the car was a bastard for letting everyone go faster than Olympic sprinters. Besides, Syndrome -was- a super, unless we’re going to kick Tony Stark, et al out of canon.

      1. or to quote gilbert (or is it sullivan. i always get that backwards) “if everybody’s somebody, then noone’s anybody.

  28. Atlas Shrugged the movie has been in the works ever since it was written.

  29. WhyTF does everything about liberty (govt = force) have to be the province of the tea party? I’m pretty sure there are a lot of political/economic movements that pre-date the anti-TARP tea party by, oh, a couple hundred years. At least one of them led to the creation of this very magazine. Also, those movements tend to have evolved from free thought, not FoxNews rating pushes and red team propaganda.

    But aside from facts and history, yes, liberty is obviously the exclusive domain of the tea party. What I really want is another political party whose Venn diagram 95% overlaps an existing party and which evinces grassroots but is basically propped up by MSM telling me what to believe and who to vote for. Where do I sign up? David Harsanyi must know…

    1. WTF the fuck are you bitching about?

  30. Best scene was at the end when they read the note and notice it is Ken’s handwriting.

  31. …a remake of the greatest work of film in the 20th century, Red Dawn, is under way…

    Second greatest, after Blade Runner.

    1. No, third greatest. After Baby Geniuses and Baby Geniuses 2.

      1. what about Rambo III?

        1. What about Death Wish III ?

  32. The clues are everywhere; a remake of the greatest work of film in the 20th century, Red Dawn, is under way, and so is a production of Atlas Shrugged.

    What movie of the second half of the 20th century isn’t being remade?

    1. ishtar? gigli?

  33. What ever happened to posting cogent remarks? All I see are adolescent obscenities posited as intellectual remarks. How about some pithy (not pissy) comments instead of inane vulgarities.

    1. you came to the wrong place for that

  34. Isn’t posting one line on a second page bad for the environment or something?

  35. Bottom line: The Tea Party movement is obviously not advocating institutionalized racism like segregation, white superiority in the free-market, or that other races are 3/5ths’ a human being.

    So who gives a shit if some of their supporters are bigots? What are you, bigotphobic? Bigot!

    Simply put, there ARE racists involved with the Tea Party.. obviously. I know some of them in my own family for christ sake. Get them rednecks talkin’ about them damn blacks and you won’t hear the end of it….

    So what?

    You see a bunch of rednecks, you know you can squeeze some racism out of some of them… Just like I’ll bet my life that members of the NAACP, in their own time, have no problem whatsoever shit talking the evil white man.

    It’s just the way shit is man,

    The question is, what does it actually have to do with the ideas set forth? It’s the whole “morals in music” argument if you ask me. Why listen to good rock ‘n roll when the guy singing beat his wife….

    Clearly it was musical composition that needs to be protested, not wife beating.

  36. You think Red Dawn was “the greatest work of film in the 20th century”? Red Dawn was the Paranoid-Conservative equivalent of Blaxploitation. It was a DUMB movie. I liked that the Reds were the bad guys, but Hollywood has produced better movies about dogs who wear sunglasses.

    You’re bloviating…or being sarcastic.

    As for Toy Story 3, I DID see the link between Lotso’s ‘the-strong-toys-must-take-it-for-the-rest-of-us’ (paraphrased) approach to progressive dictatorship and…well, progressive dictatorships. My first spark of hope for the message came when he explained how the ultimate toy society is one where there is no private ownership of toys, but sharing b/w all the new children who come in (read: collectivism). Milton Friedman would have loved this movie.

    It wasn’t as awesome as when The Dark Knight indisputably ended with the message that you don’t compromise with terrorists (“Perhaps both Bruce and Mr.Dent believe that Batman stands for something more important than the whims of a terrorist, Miss Dawes, even if everyone hates him for it.”), but I appreciated the obvious reference anyway. ‘Some toys are more equal than others’, heh!

  37. Of course the founding fathers are prominent in ads…you can’t rail against them without being called a commie…you almost have to agree with anything they say.

    They have iphone apps too (Tea Party Power Pack and Tea Party memo) and they are technosmart.

    I think too many people underestimate the power being wielded here. Wake up and smell the tea.

  38. But aside from facts and history, yes, liberty is obviously the exclusive domain of the tea party. What I really want is another political party whose Venn diagram 95% overlaps an existing party and which evinces grassroots but is basically propped up by MSM telling me what to believe and who to vote for. Where do I sign up? David Harsanyi must know…

    David Mayer
    geo news | books

  39. It’s not surprising that animation and commercials are the most sensitive to public trends.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.