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.

Santorum defines social conservative. He wants the government more involved with regulating our lives than the most liberal politicians do. He doesn't have a chance in the long-term.

Add water and air quality, food safety, work place safety, home ownership rates, money for non-necessities, etc. I wasn't around in the old days, but my very conservative 95 y.o. grandfather's opinion on this topic is that we don't realize how good we have it today and anyone who says life overall things were better 50, 60 years ago is patently incorrect ( he used different descriptors)

I understand these are your opinions, but realize, they are opinions. Crime rates, particularly against children have dropped for decades, so the playing outside thing doesn't hold water. More media now, so you hear about it. Tax rates were higher. Life expectancy dramatically higher now. I am not even going to go into the race/gender based equality because it is so far beyond any argument. Just because you didn't hear of bio-testing doesn't mean it didn't exist. So it looks like fingerprinting for bb gun purchase is about the only thing? I'm not even sure that is based on fact, but maybe where you live it is. Again, so much of the fuss these days is based on perception, rather than reality.

One last thing... your perception of the 40's and 50's is most likely the perception of a child. It is hard to compare experiences from childhood to what is happening later in life.

Water quality was excellent, used to drink out of the fishing streams 25 miles
from NY City. Food was fresh ,grown locally, except for rotenone there
were few if any other pesticides. I do agree we have better work place safety.
Too bad you weren't around we could of had a great time with Clammer.
Ask him. :hihi:

Your Grand Dad grew up, in the depression and those were tough times. But
I would assume when he talks about "how good we have it today" he is speaking
of the material and creature comforts we have compared to then.

In any event I won't recant my original posts speaking about people being use to
living with an overbareing government in a nanny state nor the fact that
values and morals dropped to the degree to bring unbelivable laws and
regulations to live by.

Your assumptions are erroneous. :)

But issues like water quality are directly related to industrial growth and government regulation.

Industry will sometimes do what's required by law and rarely nothing more.

You can't calculate the benefits of an economy built on consumerism without factoring in the side effects.

-spence

Agree Spence, but shouldn't you be taking your wife out for Valentines Day
about now. :huh: :D

Also the rise in population hasn't helped.

Numbers 7. and 8. were a later time period than justplugit's 40's, 50's, and early 60's, and the war on drugs is still on. The draft was fulfilling individual duty to protect freedom, not an imposition on freedom. Segregation in jusplugit's time period was mostly a cultural rather than a governmental issue and where it was governmental it was State rather than Federal. The elimination at State level was good, but cultural segregation still exists and may take some time to disappear, if ever. Censorship that existed was, again a local issue and dependent, again, on cultural views. No culture is free of some form of censorship. That is one of the defining views of culture--it censors that which is counter to or threatens itself. There is less banning of books today, but there are still cultural taboos, e.g.--political correctness. McCarthyism may have been an overreaction to the Communist threat, that is still debated wheather it was or not, but it was mostly a threat to a few Communists and fellow travelers not to average Americans. It was open, blatant, opposed, and temporary. Today there are subtler and more lasting threats to individual liberties that effect us all. And the testing of biological weapons was one of those abberations, more horrible than most, that occur in every generation, not some, again, threat to the liberty of average Americans.

But the higher tax rates? Tax rates have increased greatly with the onset of our "progressive" era views of the function of government, but may not have VISIBLY risen since the 40's and 50's. The Federal income tax has gone up and down and been shifted to higher brackets and been eliminated in others. Certainly, for almost half of the people the tax is lower because they don't pay it. It was spread more evenly in jusplugits era, even though it appeared that the wealthier had a high marginal rate, they paid less than now due to loopholes. So, actually, today, the middle class and above pay the burden with a greater share of their income paid by the wealthy. If that's your idea of being freer . . . fine. But the cost of government, at all levels, has risen exponentially. And what you don't see as a "visible" tax, you are paying, at a much, much higher rate today in the form of "hidden" taxes. A far greater portion of your income today either directly goes to government or is forced by government through regulation. For example:




By Clyde Wayne Crews, Ryan Young

April 25, 2011

Originally published in McClatchy News Service
Print
Email
Share


Appeared: The Sacramento Bee, The Pittsburgh Tribune, St. Paul Pioneer-Press, The Portland Oregonian, The Bradenton Herald, The West Hawaii Today, Press of Atlantic City, Desert News, Tulsa World, and Bellingham Herald.

"The federal government is on track to spend more than $3.5 trillion this year. What most people don't know is that government actually costs about 50 percent more than what it spends. That's because complying with federal regulation costs an additional $1.75 trillion - nearly an eighth of GDP. And almost none of that cost appears on the budget.

Regulation is a hidden tax that raises the price of goods. It's tempting to think that businesses bear most of the burden. But consumers are the ones who actually pay, because companies pass on their costs.

Just how regulated is the economy? The just-released 2011 edition of the Competitive Enterprise Institute's annual "Ten Thousand Commandments" study has some answers. At the end of 2009, the Code of Federal Regulations was 157,974 pages long. In 2010, 3,752 new rules hit the books - equivalent to a new regulation coming into effect every 2 hours and 20 minutes, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

An additional 4,225 regulations are at various stages of the pipeline right now.

Not all regulations are created equal. Some cost more than others. If a rule costs more than $100 million, it's called "economically significant." There were 224 of those last year - up from 174 in 2009. Agencies aren't required to say how much these regulations cost, aside from acknowledging that each one of the 224 costs at least $100 million. At a bare minimum, last year's economically significant rules alone will cost $22.4 billion. The real number is likely much larger.

The total cost of federal regulation is $1.75 trillion. That's true in terms of money. But money isn't everything. Regulation also has opportunity costs. Workers spend millions of man-hours every year filling out forms and following procedures. That time could be spent on other things instead, such as finding ways to lower costs, improve quality and increase worker productivity. When there's too much regulation, progress and innovation slow down.

There is a second opportunity cost that is often overlooked. Companies don't sit idly by when regulators propose new rules. They try to influence the process. Most companies, especially larger ones, often favor new regulations in their industries. They will pay lobbyists a lot of money to influence the rules in a favorable way - say, by handicapping a competitor.

UPS and FedEx are fighting just such a battle right now in Washington. UPS is subject to stricter labor regulations than FedEx. It could argue that it should be under the looser system, too. But it isn't. UPS wants FedEx to have to abide by UPS' stricter regulations. FedEx, naturally, is fighting back.

All the time and energy that UPS and FedEx are spending competing against each other in Washington is time and energy they aren't spending competing in the marketplace.

When government is given a lot of money and power, lobbyists and their clients will swarm to Washington to fight over a piece of the pie. This is the source of a lot of the city's corruption. The way to reduce that corruption isn't to pass more regulations. It is to repeal them. The best way to keep money out of politics is to keep politics out of money.

There are many reforms that Congress and President Obama can pass to make that happen. One is for Obama to appoint an annual bipartisan committee to comb through the Code of Federal Regulations for old, obsolete and harmful rules. They would pass their findings on to Congress, which would be required to vote on the entire package without amendment. That last step would prevent a lot of backroom dealing.

Right now, Congress doesn't vote on most regulations. The agencies pass them on their own. The problem is that only Congress can pass laws, not the executive branch. To end this regulation without representation, Congress should vote on all economically significant regulations, at least for starters.

Because even good rules go bad as technology changes, all new regulations should automatically expire after five years, like a carton of milk. If a rule turns out to be useful, Congress can vote to renew it for another five years.

Because regulation is a hidden tax, most people don't pay it much mind. They should. Even in this age of trillions, $1.75 trillion is a lot of money."


There are, of course, other hidden costs to you, the average American, caused by government that are occurring today at a greater level than in the 40's and 50's, such as the greater volume of of money being printed which inflates the economy and lowers the value of the dollar. Since the LBJ Great Society, government debt and government inflation has eroded the value of common assets, especially savings accounts.
.
As I mentioned in this and other threads, we live in an era of an administrative State which "regulates" us through hundreds of unelected independent agencies who each make decisions on how, what, who, where, and why we will act in such and such a way. The totallity of those decisions is growing exponentially with each admininistration, and it takes more of our money, and it limits, bit by bit, more of our decisions. This has only been made possible by a progressive ideology which saw the Constitution, properly, as a hinderance to Central power, and so disregarded the Constitutional limitation granting legislative ability only to Congress, and unconstitutionally delegated its regulatory power to our current regulatory agencies. Return to Constitutional rule would be a corrective to the Federal Government's excessive confiscation of wealth and its creeping encroachment on our liberty.

[QUOTE=detbuch;921144]Numbers 7. and 8. were a later time period than justplugit's 40's, 50's, and early 60's, and the war on drugs is still on. The draft was fulfilling individual duty to protect freedom, not an imposition on freedom. Segregation in jusplugit's time period was mostly a cultural rather than a governmental issue and where it was governmental it was State rather than Federal. The elimination at State level was good, but cultural segregation still exists and may take some time to disappear, if ever. Censorship that existed was, again a local issue and dependent, again, on cultural views. No culture is free of some form of censorship. That is one of the defining views of culture--it censors that which is counter to or threatens itself. There is less banning of books today, but there are still cultural taboos, e.g.--political correctness. McCarthyism may have been an overreaction to the Communist threat, that is still debated wheather it was or not, but it was mostly a threat to a few Communists and fellow travelers not to average Americans. It was open, blatant, opposed, and temporary. Today there are subtler and more lasting threats to individual liberties that effect us all. And the testing of biological weapons was one of those abberations, more horrible than most, that occur in every generation, not some, again, threat to the liberty of average Americans.

QUOTE]

Now,there is a man, Debuch,who knows the truth of history at the time!

I get a kick out of some of the younger generation who thinks that the older generation didn't know what was goin on when they were younger.Don't insult our experience, intelligence or
common sense.

Trust me we did. In my house the radio was turned on to the news
every night, the news and politics were discussed at the supper
table where the whole family ate together.
Every Sunday we would have dinner with aunts ,uncles and cousins where the news
and politics where the main topic and discussed well after dinner was over.

Neighborhood gatherings would always include talk of the news and politics.
We were well informed with newspapers, Time and Newsweek, pretty un-biased
magazines at the time.

When you read your history books, be sure you know the author, the time they
lived,and their agenda. There are a lot of pseudo-intellectuals and libertine
thinkers out there that would love to change the truth of history for their
own agendas.

Let me give a couple of recent examples of how regulation is encroaching
on our freedoms and costing us more $$$.

My son-in-law wanted to put down a 12X15ft patio with 3x3 bluestone layed
on stone dust in his backyard.
The building inspector rode by,saw the stone, and asked what he was doing.
He said he needed a permit. OK. he goes to get the permit and is told he needs
an engineering report of the backyard before he did it. Luckily he knew
an enginner who did it for $600. It cost him more for the permit and fee than
the cost of the patio.

I am putting a french drain system in my cellar for a water problem.
I need 2 permits, one electric, and one plumbing which I can understand
as the job needs to be done right and the safety factor.
However, I am told this is a Capital Improvement for my property which
will add to my tax bill for as long as I own the property!

Don't worry, there will be similar regulations coming to your neighborhood
soon.