Santorum declares war against heavy metal
 

I certainly won't be voting for this idiot.Read on:

My favorite part is metal causes lactose intolerance.Geez now I know why I can't drink milk.The "brand new" bands he named have all been around for 30+ years,this guy is clueless.

queue up violent video games

The article is a total satire. That you fell for it shows how the public is susceptible to false information even when it is as blatantly idiotic as this article is. Imagine how we are channeled into believing stuff by more subtle propaganda that is actually sprinkled with bits of "truth."

Well, I could certainly see Santorum saying pretty much all of this in 1985 :hihi:

-spence

Of course its satire.Do you really think that I believe my lactose intolerance is caused by Iron Maiden?

Actual quote from his speech that shows this guy is an idiot:
He is well known for his crusades against certain forms of music,television and video games.Satirical articles like this need to be put out there otherwise people wouldn't even bother to find what any said candidates views are.I would assume any semi-intelligent voter would see pass the bs and seek out the truth.

Btw if that were an article about Pat Robertson that article would be 100% believable.

I'm not sure I'd say that satire "needs" to be put out at all. Just listening to Santorum speak himself and you'll hear plenty that might be of concern...

Repub's I know who live in his former district laugh at the idea of him as President.

-spence

he's a lunatic .....either way

Pols. further trying to divide the country.

Metal heads vs non metal heads:smash:

i dont blame him. Next target is the Mullet and denim jackets. :uhuh::devil2:

he and Ozzy bring dead babies home from the hospital for different reasons...



*New* bands like Black Sabbath?... wow..swore I heard of them in like 69 or 70??

I couldn't give a rat's tuckus what Santorum's views are about heavy metal, nor would a satirical article inspire me to find out. Because I don't see the relevance that has to do with being President. If he has a "crusade" against it, that will only gain traction with the rest of us if it has merit. It's doubtful, as President, that he would have time, nor a staff to advise him, to press such a crusade. The fact that "Satirical articles like this need to be put out there" to stir people's interest in his views indicates that there's not much there to care about--unless you're offended. I suspect that every candidate has some personal quirk that offends somebody. If that disqualifies him regardless of how much better he might be in your view on his actual philosophy and politics of governance than whom he opposes, and if that is how most folks vote, it's no wonder that politicians have to be such plastic phonies to get elected.

Why even bother debating the Republican candidates? The Republicans have failed to provide a candidate that will be able to beat Obama.

So then it is actually about the candidate and not the policy?

I think Romney has a good shot of beating Obama if he doesn't screw it up. The others in the running...not so much.

While unlikely there's still the chance of somebody else getting in...considering how difficult a time Romney is having gaining escape velocity...the odds on this are going up.

-spence

Sounds like Santorum must be rising in the Polls. :)

LOL, a quote on music is the start of the dirt to come ?

Ya JD, we should just bring the election to a halt and give the Pres.
another 4 years for his B-Day along with another set of golf clubs. :hihi:

What about pac-man and hoola hoops? Are those also dooming our country?

food stamps being spent in strip clubs is a major scourge

its' amazing what we define as "rights" these days...

..Washington Footing the Cell Phone Bill for Millions of Low Income Americans

By BRAD TUTTLE | Time.com – Wed, Feb 8, 2012.

Last year, a federal program paid out $1.6 billion to cover free cell phones and the monthly bills of 12.5 million wireless accounts. The program, overseen by the FCC and intended to help low-income Americans, is popular for obvious reasons, with participation rising steeply since 2008, when the government paid $772 million for phones and monthly bills. But observers complain that the program suffers from poor oversight, in which phones go to people who don't qualify, and hundreds of thousands of those who do qualify have more than one phone.

Last summer, a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review story shed some light on a government program that relatively few Americans knew existed. (Read more about it here.) The Lifeline program provides low-income Americans with free cell phones (basic ones such as those made by Tracfone, not smartphones) and covers up to 250 free minutes each month. As many as 5.5 million residents in Pennsylvania alone could qualify for the program, which is funded primarily by the Universal Service Fund fee added to the bills of land-line and wireless customers.

.................................

I don't own a cell phone..I get along just fine....I have no idea why we have to pay for people's cell phones...I guess it's a basic right :uhuh:

I certainly made the statement somewhat in jest. The discussion is interesting but I just can't imagine Romney beating Obama. The Primary candidates are doing much of the job for the Democrats with all their mudslinging.

I don't know JD, it could help more than hurt, the same mud will be slung before the campaign ends regardless of who is slinging it, old mud(news) tends not to stick as it is often thought of or smartly characterized by the recipient as "old", I think voters tend to discount issues that the think have been previously debated, also, the nominee will have had ample time in many debate formats to have dealt with the particular issue....Obama is going to have to defend his record, and no matter how hard he tries to hide it he is very prickly and does not like to be questioned..particularly after nearly 4 years of being king...the economy, regardless of how they fudge the unemployment numbers is not doing well and the forecast for gas prices, unemp, housing etc...are not likely to show any real improvement that he'll be able to point to and that most people will believe...that's what he has to convince voters of...the Middle East is a time bomb and Europe is on the edge of disaster and there is a lot of simmering unrest here all of which the MSM seems to ignore in addition to numnerous administration scandals....will 4 more years of Obama and his policies make things better economically and with regard to our freedoms or will we continue this sluggish crawl toward massive government dependence and government intrusion and is that what the voters desire and accept as "better" ?

You missed the whole point of my second post.It has nothing to do with his views on heavy metal.And if an article or speech about a candidate regardless of whether its satire or not doesn't inspire you to find out more that's a shame.

It has nothing to do with being offended,you still don't get the point.His views on current culture in America is a direct reflection of his actual philosophy and politics and if those views are being exposed in a satirical article so be it.The article got me to actually do some research and find out about this guy.

That's what the 1st lady( or 2nd lady)is for.Tipper got warning labels put on records and video games.The congressional debates costs the taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars and in the end the guy holding the pen that signed it into law was the president.What came out of it all...nothing,kids were still listening "bad" music and playing Grand Theft Auto.

Knowledge is power.

Originally Posted by basswipe
Actual quote from his speech that shows this guy is an idiot:“If you listen to the radio today, many of these brand new, so-called heavy metal music bands like Black Sabbath, Venom, The WASP and Iron Maiden use satanic imagery to corrupt the minds of young people,”

Knowledge is power.-basswipe

it definitely is :uhuh:

Did Rick Santorum Declare War on Heavy Metal? Nope

By David Emery About.com February 11, 2012

An article claiming that presidential candidate Rick Santorum gave a speech recently in which he condemned heavy metal music as "Satanic" and the "single most dangerous force in America today" has sparked an outbreak of viral indignation on Facebook and Twitter, despite the fact that there's no public record of such a speech, and the article, credited to blogger Keith Spillet, is transparently satirical.

"If you listen to the radio today, many of these brand new, so-called heavy metal music bands like Black Sabbath, Venom, The WASP and Iron Maiden use satanic imagery to corrupt the minds of young people," Santorum supposedly told attendees at a fundraiser in Valdosta, Georgia last week. According to Spillet's account, the conservative Republican went on to call for the "internment" and "forced re-education of metalheads," who would be required to listen to "values based" music promoting the American way of life and the free market, and "sing the chorus to at least one Celine Dion song."

Some Facebook responders clearly get the joke, but at least as many seem to be buying the spoof hook, line, and sinker. "Oh and this is the same guy that 'will declare war on Iran if elected.' What a big bag of f***," railed one poster this morning. "I've lost all hope in America," lamented another. Still another wrote, "Metalheads, time to vote Democrat!"

This is not the first time (nor will it be the last) that gullible folks have taken fictitious quotes attributed to politicians as gospel, of course.

Seriously BW, enlighten me as to where and what you found out
in your research.

The office of President has the power of the bullypulpit. He can try to persuade or influence. But, at least constitutionally (the way it was written), he cannot legislate. If you think that Santorum is stupid enough to waste time on trying to influence Congress to pass laws to suppress heavymetal music, then you really do think he is stupid. Before a President would waste any political capital on something like the Tipper thing, or the Michelle healthy eating thing, there usually has to be a general feeling in the public for it. Neither have I seen this big push to reform heavy metal from the public, nor from Santorum. If he has spoken about what he believes are some effects from this type of music, that is a far cry from personal opinion to Federal legislation. This just sounds like what Spence refers to as high quality dirt.

On the other hand, when modern Presidents act "progressively" by unconstitutionally legislating through regulatory agencies, as Obama does via EPA regulation, that is another matter. What is encouraging about Santorum, is his professing to revert to Constitutional governance.

We seem to be hearing a lot of that from the Republican candidates.

I'd be willing to wager that if the GOP wins the election the new POTUS has a very difficult time reconciling their election year rhetoric on Federal Stimulus with their behavior...

-spence

No doubt you would win that wager. The entrenched bureacracy--with its power and tenure, and its easy cover as scapegoat for Congress so that when it does unpopular things our representatives and Presidents can shrug their shoulders and point to them and say they did it, not me--this administrative state will be difficult to dismantle. It will have to be done bit by bit over a long time. It might not be possible. Enough people are still blind to its grip or even of its existence. Our whole Federal system, including the judiciary, have been corrupted from a Constitutional system to an administrative one. The only real difference between parties the past handful of decades has been in degree. The base is demanding a true difference. May not happen. But those who believe that our major problems are a result of abandoning the Constitution, understand that returning back must be attempted. And that it will be very difficult, if it is even possible. If it can't be done, it won't matter if the so-called Republican party is destroyed by trying. We will just keep drifting about by bureaucratic whim, maybe even to some point where we are so broke and disfunctional as a society, that the "administrators" will have to take a less "benevolent" tack in their direction. And, then, maybe a century or two later we can have another revolution. Or maybe we can, before such another revolution is necessary, we can rediscover the blessings of free markets and capitalism, and entrepeneurs, and the fresh air of casting off an overbearing government that must direct our lives--maybe like the Chinese are starting to discover in a little way. But why go through all that if we already had it?

Bingo. I think there are so many people in our country who are so used to living with
an overbearing government in a nanny state they don't know the difference
between it and how great it is to live without it.
They don't know any better, unless they lived in the 40's, 50's and early 60's.

really? the govt was less overbearing in the 40s, 50s, and 60s?
lets see, how about..

1. The draft
2. Higher tax rates
3. Segregation
4. McCarthy-ism
5. Rampant censorship
6. Testing of biological weapons on civilains and military
7. The war on drugs
8. FBI on John Lennon, Louie, Louie, etc

Granted the govt is still sticking too much of its nose in my business (see my cupcake rant) but I think I have more freedom now that I ever did.

This is because it conflicts wih wearing silk hose and garters. They rip to easily in the mosh pits.

1.The draft- guys volunteered with pride to serve their country.
2.Tax rates- you may be right, prolly the general average was 20%
over an $8 or $10,00 income when an income of $5-$8,000 was a great salary.
Majority were 1 family income, as most women were homemakers.
Plus we were fighting a war in Korea, "police action" pfft., and then the Vietnam
War starting early 60's.
3.Segregation- I went to an 1800 student city high school and there was no
segregation, never saw a fight or problem because of race. Yes in the South.
4. Mc Cartyism- yes, there was a great fear of Communism.
5. Rampant censorship- Rampant? of what?
6.Testing of biological weapons- only one I knew of was troops witnessing
a nuclear test several miles from the test sight.
6.The war on drugs- Never heard or saw anyone taking drugs until the
mid 60's, when the crime rate went through the roof.
7.FBI on Lenon- again mid late 60's.

As a generalization the average citizen wasn't affected by any of the above.
People were friendly and always willing to help out, no class dsitinction, a man's
word was as good as his bond, kids were free to play 12 hours a day outdoors without
fear, you could buy a BB gun without being finger printed, people were proud of their
country and on and on.
The 60's and all it entailed started our country down the wrong road.
Morals and values deteriorated and so the unbelievable amount of laws
regulations we live with now. Just my experiences.
If everyones memory was erased today and they woke up tomorrow,
they would think , hey this is pretty good. Fouties, fifities and early sixties
were the best and most free times to live, imho.