Santorum declares war against heavy metal

[detbuch]

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."

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

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

-spence

[basswipe]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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."

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:

“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,”

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by basswipe

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 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.

[basswipe]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

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.

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.

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.

It's doubtful, as President, that he would have time, nor a staff to advise him, to press such a crusade.

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.

[scottw]

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

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.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by basswipe

The article got me to actually do some research and find out about this guy.

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by basswipe

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.

The article DID inspire me to find out more. I certainly wanted, first of all, to find out if Santorum actually said the outrageous things that he was cited as saying. How could such verbiage have escaped the nightly news, especially the left leaning analysts who don't escape an opportunity to debunk "conservatives? So when I googled it, I found the ONLY source was the article itself. And reading the comments to it in the various google entries pointed out that it was satire and no verification that he said anything remotely like the article "satirized" told me all that I needed to drop the matter. AND MOST OF THE COMMENTS ACTUALLY BELIEVED THE ARTICLE WAS TRUE. By the way, your brief initial comment when you posted the article sounded like you believed it as well, not that you took it as satire. And when "satire" creates believers it becomes more hoax than satire.

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.

As Justplugit says, tell us what you found out in actual research. If there is something actual there, THAT would be the thing which could show Santorum to be unworthy of the nomination, not inuendo or hoax.

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.

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

T 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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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

Because there is a realization deep in the more "conservative" part of the base that we have a fundamental problem in governance. That we are adrift at sea without a rudder. That depending on oneself has narrower vistas and depending on big government has none save the singular view that unrepresentative bureaucrats decide for us. There is a realization that as individuals we are becoming less relevent and that our votes are becoming more meaningless. Changes in political administration have no effect. We keep moving in the direction of financial and individual oblivion. All the wonderful things that government has given us, and promises to give us more of, just fill us with more uncertainty. The more we get, the more we need. The unelected bureacracy keeps growing to fill those needs, and it pumps out annual reams of new regulations at a clip of 80,000 pages in the Federal Register to add on top of all the old regulations. More money needs to be spent. More regulations are required. What and who are being regulated may not be known by one individual, not one congressman, not one President, not one judge. As new mandates are passed, new regulatory agencies are required to flesh out and produce actual laws to make the mandates function. We now have to pass 2,000 page bills to eventually find out what is in them. The devil in the details will be discovered when the unelected administrators create and recreate them down the road. There is an awakening deep in the base, not only that we are drifting into the mouth of a one-eyed government cyclops which constantly devours all within its reach, but that it is more and more difficult for us to avoid that reach.

There is an awakening to the realization that we are in a position now that is more threatening, by far, to our liberty than were the Founders, because we are electing our own king instead of revolting against him. They had more liberty than we do now, and that liberty rested on their self-reliance. The Constitution they made was specifically crafted to form a government that relied on a free people and designed to ensure that freedom.

There is a growing awareness of what has happened to that Constitution, and how we have drifted away from it, not through the will of the people, who thought all along that it was still our supreme law, but by a wilfull, progressive movement that despised it.

And there is a desire, deep in the base, to return to its design, its principles, and its assurance that we the people are the true sovereigns, not unelected technocrats that pretend to know what we want and need.

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?