Rockin’ The Vote [Reader Post]

Loading

I went to a Motley Crue concert this weekend and it was absolutely awesome. Well, the music, and the show were awesome. I was just a little bit perturbed about the political undertones that played on the screens on either side of the stage, though. The porn fest that played on the screens was a little over the top, but it was expected. It was a rock concert after all. The political undertone was kind of out of line though. It’s no wonder kids are flocking after Obama if this is where they get their political educations.

During the songs, the clips showed images of former dictators ruling with iron hands, and President George Bush intermingled with them. It said over and over, “Fact: Governments control people with fear,” and it when on to show images of war, 9/11, and a flash by quote reading, “World Trade Center Building 7,” which obviously refers to the conspiracy theory that building 7 was destroyed by the U.S. government to hide a cover up of the “real” 9/11 perpetrators. While the band screamed, “Shout at the Devil,” President Bush’s image flashed on the screens, flipping off the crowd, and morphed into an image of the devil.

Rock rebellion? Of course! But it does beg the question, how much influence should a bunch of former drug addicts have on America’s political climate? And it’s not just Motley Crue! Rock bands and other performers all over the country are using their concerts and albums as a soapbox to spew their political rhetoric. Green Day, Audioslave, Antiflag, the Dixie Chicks, Ludacris, and more, use their music and their shows to indoctrinate our nations youth into a anti-nationalist fervor.

We have a whole new generation of idiots who think Che Gueverra is a hero and that Fidel Castro is misunderstood. They think that Hugo Chavez is a modern day Don Quixote and that socialism is just the cutest thing to come our way since Hello Kitty! It’s a budding electorate that doesn’t know or understand that our nation spent the better part of half a century in a cold war fighting exactly the kind of “Economic Justice” in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that they are begging Barrack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid to institute here in the United States. They think that socialism is cool because it will be “sticking it to the man,” but they don’t realize that in a socialist state, “the man” isn’t the guy with the money, he’s the guy who will tell them how to spend theirs. He will tell them where to work. He will tell them how much they will make. He will tell them what doctor they can see and what kind of car they can drive. He will tell them that in the name of “Economic Justice” they will have to sacrifice “Economic Opportunity” and “Economic Freedom!”

They were right, governments use fear to control you, but don’t forget, would be despots use fear of the government to control you. Fidel and Che used fear of the government to take control of Cuba. They then killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people for no more than to make examples out of them. Hugo used fear of the government to take control of Venezuela. He then nationalized billions of dollars of private industries, including oil and energy companies, communications companies, and news agencies. Now, he controls Venezuela’s press, and of course they only report the good things about him.

Barack is also using fear of the government to take control of America. He talks about socializing medicine and housing, raising capital gains taxes, and re-imposing the “Fairness Doctrine” that requires that radio stations give equal air time to the socialists if they give air time to conservatives. It also would require those radio stations to re-staff their management with democrats and liberals. It doesn’t, however, make the same requirement of the already left leaning network television stations, nor does it make the same requirement of the already left leaning newspaper industry. In short, once he seizes control, he plans on making sure he keeps it. The democrat controlled congress will rush take away our right to bear arms, as Castro did. They will act quickly to redistribute the wealth of hard working Americans to those that will give the democrats an iron voting block in the future, and ensure their long iron fisted rule.

America is going to hell in a hand basket and it is going fast! And do you know what? America’s youth is going to follow along smiling, because Motley Crue puts on one hell of a show.

-Wisdom

From WisdomWorld

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
11 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Widsom wondered:

‘Rock rebellion? Of course! But it does beg the question, how much influence should a bunch of former drug addicts have on America’s political climate?’

He added:

‘America is going to hell in a hand basket and it is going fast!’

Great question Wisdom. And you’re right about the hell in a hand basket part.

As noted political pundit, lynching advocate, noted racial theorist and country singer Toby Keith uttered his analysis of the Democratic candidate Barrack Obama in an interview with the esteemed (by comparison) Glenn Beck:

“I think the black people would say he [Obama] don’t talk, act or carry himself as a black person.”

Well, I don’t know what that means,” Keith drawled, “but I think that that’s what they would say. Even though the black society would pull for him I still think that they think in the back of their mind that the only reason he is in [the general election] is because he talks, acts and carries himself as a Caucasian.”

It’s a budding electorate that doesn’t know or understand that our nation spent the better part of half a century in a cold war fighting exactly the kind of “Economic Justice” in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

Why should they know? Spend all day getting drunk in college reading kaka. Schools won’t even teach basic accounting. How else are kids supposed to know where money comes from? capitalism only trives thru entrepenurialship.

Obama is the false prophet. He is bought and paid for. The Che fans will be sorry.

Every president has had critics. Great presidents rise above them.

Yes I went to the Cruefest here in St Louis. I avoided looking at their idiotic propaganda on the side oft the stage. It was a good show. I thought Papa Roach was the best out of all of them, except the Crue, even with their political propaganda.

But I do not think anyone really takes their politics from any of these people, if they do I really feel sorry for them. Why take any word from people that almost killed themselves with Heroin and alcohol.

Oh and Gregory, how will Obamassiah take criticism when he can’t even take a tough question????

I was there in San Bernadino this past Saturday too. I was quick to point out to my girlfriend that it’s entertainment, entertainment presented by the collective IQ of Musicians and Performers that are about as politically savvy as a bag of hammers. Anyone that gets their political ideology from a band of high school drop-outs and substance abusers is the first lemming that would jump off the cliff.

The music of Motley Crue has nothing to do with politics, their use of these images is an absurd, pathetic atempt to be somehow relevant. I’m not sure if Anti-Flag even writes non-political songs, so for them something like that would be expected.

Barak Obama doesn’t support the revival of the fairness doctrine. Not sure where you got that idea.

Barak Obama doesn’t support the revival of the fairness doctrine. Not sure where you got that idea.

Not so fast, Fit. If he genuinely “doesn’t support the revival,” he would have signed on and lent support to both Broadcaster Freedom Act bills presented in the Senate last summer. He did not.. and neither did any other DNC member.

Being BHO, adept at forked tongue, I do not rest easy in his carefully chosen language INRE the Fairness Doctrine… i.e., via Ortiz (his public mouthpiece on the issue)

“Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters,” press secretary Michael Ortiz said in an e-mail to B&C late Wednesday.

“He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible,” Ortiz added. “That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.”

He’s against the revival because he’s got other kinds of legislation in mind for controlling the media that will do the same…

i.e. ownership caps (a new definition of “monopoly” by Obama?)

regulations on “network neutrality”, (and who defines and enforces “neutrality”?)

and “increasing minority ownership”. (what’s this entail… telling a broadcast owner to sell to minorities to keep a “quota”??)

I think The Technology Liberation Front said it best, IMHO:

While welcome, the Obama statement was hardly a vigorous denunciation of the doctrine, or its chilling effect on speech. In fact, it doesn’t seem the senator actually opposes the rule, as opposed to not supporting its return. (Notably, he hasn’t yet signed onto the “Broadcaster Freedom Act,” which would ban its re-imposition). According to Ortiz, the reason for the senator’s non-support is that he “considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible.”

Not because it is a violation of free speech principles, or because it is insidious government censorship, not even because it is counter-productive, but because it’s a “distraction.”

A distraction from what, you ask? Other forms of media regulation of course, including, according to Ortiz: “media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.”

As has been argued many times before (including here, here, here, here, here, and here) it looks like the battle against government interference in media won’t end with the Fairness Doctrine, but will continue – and in fact is already under way — under different names.

They are very correct. The public, aware of the notable absence of “fairness” in the “Fairness Doctrine” aren’t likely to support such sweeping legislation. However the freedom of speech grab, little by little under these other legislations, are easier to sneak by an asleep at the political wheel electorate.

We have a whole new generation of idiots who think Che Gueverra is a hero and that Fidel Castro is misunderstood. They think that Hugo Chavez is a modern day Don Quixote and that socialism is just the cutest thing to come our way since Hello Kitty!

Slight correction, Wisdom. It’s not a whole new generation. It’s just the children and grandchildren of the 60s generation, raised on Joan Baez, Bob Dylan, etal. Political activism was all the rage in my youth, and permeated every genre of music. Protesting war and government was right up their with glorifying drugs. It was, after all, the 60s.

But I wouldn’t sweat it, Wisdom. Ran the rock world in a former career, and took in many Crue and other rock concerts via back stage. It’s all a show, put together by their management and created specifically to raise a reaction and participation from the crowd. Considering the tragic results of Great White’s pyrotechnics, getting a rush from a bunch of metal heads by flashing and demeaning GWB is probably a safer option.

I seriously doubt anyone forms their political opinions from a Crue (or others) show… even the young headbangers. They have SNL, Jon Stewart and Colbert for that. LOL

One of my favorite CDs is a rock opera by Queensryche called Operation Mindcrime. A misfit gets hooked up with a sweet talking man’s anarchy crusade. He joins the people to kill “corrupt” religious and political leaders in exhange for heroin. His safe house is a church with a corrupt priest and a former stripper/hooker nun that the priest has been having sex with. The lead character starts to fall in love with the nun and has second thoughts about the organization and wants to clean up his act including getting off his heroin kick. As the police close in and the organization scatters (the leader of this organization flees and is not caught in this story) the main character realizes he has lost everything when he finds the nun dead (and the police found the lead character with the dead nun and dead priest which he killed). This organization could be the model of every terrorist and some religious and political organizations. I think the Obama crew is going to find themselves backing the wrong guy and being abandoned when things go wrong just like those Al Qaeda guys in Iraq. A little bit of research and less emotion and none of those people would have been on the wrong end.

stix1972, I feel Obama is a living Commander Queeg (Caine Mutany) when it comes to questions.