Ah, the founding fathers. The generation that would probably would killl Dave for being a ginger! Let's consult their wisdom, shall we?

YOU ARE AN IGNORANT FUCKWAD!

Fuck politics. Period.

Yeah!

I mean, why should we pay attention to the stuff that determines our freedoms and liberties, our taxes, how we deal with terrorists, the economy, how we choose and treat our allies, the challenges of war, poverty, public schools, etc., etc., etc.


Anyone who says 'fuck politics' deserves any bad thing they get from politicians.

I love the completely needless and irrelevant addition of the still from the above video just to make Dave look terrible. Great journalism, guys.

I bet Jeff Young did that.

looks like he just smelled the other guy's fart mid sentence.

Obama's job performance as president is much better than Mustaine's job performance on the Th1rt3en album.

If you're a democrat or republican, then you can go to hell.

Christianity, Politics, Anti Gay rants.....How Metal Dave Mustaine is, The dood pretty much destroyed himself.

80% of the country says they're Christian

50% of the country votes Republican

60% of the country opposes gay marriage

If anything, it would seems he's playing it safe. So no, you're totally full of shit.

BLAH BLAH GET REAL EVERYONE HATES CHRISTIANITY/REPUBLICANS RELIGION DONT EXIST ANYMORE UNLESS YOU LIVE IN THE SOUTH OR MIDDLE AMERICA.

Obama is the worst president ever. He only cares about taking vacations just like W Bush before him, They are both anti war etc. Hope Barack's run comes to a end very soon. It is time for a change America!!!!!!!!!

Hey riotact, I was hoping YOUR run comes to an end very soon.

most nonsensical post Ive read here today, W Bush anti war?

If you think he is the worst president ever you should try reading a book.

What would you change Riotact?
I thought you liked gay marriage cause now you can take it up the a** all day!
!

Take a look folks, this is what back peddling looks and sounds like.

dave is an honest guy and megadeth rocks \m/

The truth is that most Americans are conservative on some issues and liberal on others. As for myself, I see myself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

The reason the film, tv and music industry leans liberal is because conservatives have a history of censorship of the arts.

Sadly, it's the extremists on both sides that have the loudest voices. Too many people are only interested in bashing the other side rather than actually see how things will affect them.

I certainly don't subscribe to the my way or the highway philosophy of what is happening in Congress. To those who feel that way, I say hit the road.

I'm neither R nor D, but it's the dems that are typically pro censorship. Remember Tipper Gore and the PMRC? Her husband Al is a Democrat. Even though Repubs are usually pompous, delusional assholes, I will give them props in that they generally believe in less gov and more personal freedoms. Dems generally push for a "nanny state". Too bad we can't have a 3rd party gain steam, cuz R and D are just two sides of the same dirty coin.

...pun intended...hilarious...

Blackballed... nice choice of words, Dave.

Guy ranted about Reaganomics, US military policy, Bush 41's tax promise, Bush 43 signing detainment bills, now he rages about the current president.

Makes you wonder if he's saying what he actually thinks or he's just saying things to be contrarian and sell some records.

if anything that confirms his claim of supporting no party.

It didn't seem like a problem when The Dixie Chicks or Steve Earle would make their opinions public..... sometimes the cost of "Free Speech" is not everybody is going to like what you say and you have to deal with any of the fallout that comes with it.

That being said.... I don't care one way or another what Dave or Ted has to say AS LONG AS I HAVE NOT PAID MY HARD EARNED MONEY FOR A CONCERT NOT A LECTURE!

You probably illegally download their music. Whatever.

And the Dixie Chicks are where today???? If I recall they released an album after the ranting and it flopped, their tour didn't sell so well...

Godforbid a person of fame speaks his mind who happens to not like Obama, and a shitstorm creates itself.

But if he was another one of the sheeple sucking on the tit of Obama, nobody would flinch.

He hit the nail on the head.
"I'm not voting for the better person, I'm voting for the lesser of two evils."

Bumper sticker: We're All Fucked No Matter What 2012

And by 'people' were they thinking of enslaved black people or any other oppressed minority?

People pulling out this founding fathers shit is so tired.

I wish Dave would just play music and shut up. Hey Dave,we still can speak freely in the states and we all have the freedom to choose weather to buy your shit or not. The stupid comments you make about politics wont stop me from buying your music but rather your incessant ramblings and contradictory statements.
So just shut up and rock!

Racist prick...

Or a "Bloviating Ignoramus", as George Will so eloquently described another certain joke of a ginger...

You stupid dick. Read his book. The first guitarist he hired in Megadeth was black.

hes afraid because most musicans and people in his industry are pro barrack/crat, therefore he'd feel like a horses ass for speaking his mind and taking a stand and for a change, not going with the flow of what everyone else say or thinks around you...
modern day pure pressure, yet it should never happen, especially a guy in his 50s...

GREAT IDEA. Happy he got elected, give him a shot.

He is just not an very inspiring leader — the gay marriage and waiver on illegal immigrants under age 30 were election year stunts.

As a pure politician, he doesn't hold a candle to Bill Clinton, or even George H.W. Bush.

As an administrator, he is practically incompetent (thinking especially of AG Holder).

But he did get bin Laden and has withdrawn troops in Iraq. Credit where it's due.

FINAL GRADE for term one: D+.

Obama didn't 'get' bin Laden.

1 - The soldiers got bin Laden

2 - When Obama got word of Obama's location, he waited 16 days to OK the kill order

3 - When Bush was president, Obama opposed putting troops in the region in the first place, and the interrogation techniques used to acquire the intelligence data needed to get bin Laden


So - if Dickbag Obama had his way, our soldiers never would have been in place to kill Osama bin Laden in the first place. That is a fact.

Thank you very much for getting that corrected!

Way to many young dumb fucks here . My God!!
Just a bunch of sad ass motherfuckers thinking they know all. Pfffffffffffffffft Poor Bastards will never have a clue to the world we live in!

!!! WAKE UP PEOPLE !!!!
Fuck Obama!
Please dont be a fucking Fool and vote this trash again motherfuckers.

Thank You.

I sure as hell am not gonna vote for salesman, etch n sketch Romney.

Dave's right about Obama. Barack's so-called "Justice" department under Eric Holder tried to shut down Gibson Guitars.

Eight thumbs down? WTF people? He did go after Gibson you ignorant jackasses.

Fuck Obama! Die Kapitalist Pigs!

The shitbags that take time out of their busy days jacking off in front of the computer have graced us with their political ignorance...
Thanks for the comedy losers.
Ps America is doomed.

What Dave is really trying to say is our "fearless Leader" is a PERFECT example of why some animals eat their young!!!

"We're not similar, but we have a lot in common"....Mustaine is such an idiot. I'm not going to get into the politics thing because no matter who gets elected the country is screwed!

...obviously, Dave has been receiving some push back....

It's best to just keep this stuff to yourself, as your bound to piss off and alienate half your audience and potential business partners. Blackballed, indeed.

fuck politics....

do u have health insurance?

no.....

well your gunna be forced to have it come
2014 or you will get penalized

who says?

you're beloved Obama says

nuh uhh!!


...on a side note, if u buy into the whole
fairy tale about Obama going in
and getting Bin Laden, and then dumping
his body into the ocean....you are just stupid!
almost like believing a plane hit the pentagon

Hows about you strap on that old guitar and play some fucking music?

He would, but Dean would sue him for playing that Jackson.

YOU CAN'T MAKE ME BUY HEALTH INSURANCE! YOU'RE NOT MY REAL DAD!

HA!
that's good stuff.

Leftists hate free speech unless it's their own. If you move off of the PC Plantation, you get blackballed.

Now days, we have nothing but a bunch of snot-nosed punks (ages 18 to 28) who think I owe them. Fuck you and the Sickle & Hammer you rode in on!

Moochers.

Still blaming communism? Wow, you must be like 50 or something.

He says 'communism' because he can't use the word he really wants to use - you know, six letters, rhymes with Tigger....

... the Mustaine on heroin!

If Dave is not a Republican then I'm not the most metal dude on Bmouth.

BLACKBALLED! LIKE OBAMA! HA HA!

Dave, you're so clever! Everyone! Everyone, quick! Look how clever Dave is being!

You're so clever Dave! So very Clever!

We love you Dave! We love you! WE LOVE YOU!

AMERICA LOVES YOU!

...Gibbler

love him or hate him, he is 100% correct.

Every attempt to abolish slavery before 1776 in the northern colonies had been thwarted by THE BRITISH CROWN!
Pennsylvania and Massachusetts were the first states to abolish slavery in 1780 which would not have happened without the American revolution. Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush founded the first abolitionist society for fucks sake!

John Jay, William Livingston, Richard Bassett, James Madison, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Charles Carroll, William Few, John Marshall, Richard Stockton, Zephaniah Swift are all founding fathers that were working for ending slavery.

George Washington signed an act that banned slavery in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa.

Are you trying to tell me that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison etc were not slave owners, that they didn't own slaves?

Yes the north were the first to try and abolish it. And maybe just maybe they 'struggled' with the idea of slavery. But surely they weren't imaging that such 'savages' would be in control of the government...

you think they didnt have enough imagination? or they were more like animals to them? either way thats fucked up.

What an ignorant post. READ OUR HISTORY!

Obama > Mustaine

Key Lime Pie > Lemon Pie

he looks like hell

“I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of slavery.”
—George Washington

“My opinion against it [slavery] has always been known… Never in my life did I own a slave.”
—John Adams

“That men should pray and fight for their own freedom and yet keep others in slavery is certainly acting a very inconsistent as well as unjust and perhaps impious part.”
—John Jay

Look SusD, I appreciate that you have feelings for me, I do.
But lets examine my comment in relation to mustaine's, and perhaps your reaction to it.

Now lets give the good old boys a pat on the back for abolishing slavery, kudos. But did blacks and minorities all of a sudden have a great life in America; and furthermore how long did it take them to get the right to vote, let alone get representation in government?

I never said some of them were not slave owners. I do feel that without the founding fathers slavery would have existed longer then it did in America. The crown would not have allowed the colonies to ban slavery it would have hurt their bottom dollar.

The right to vote was granted to freed black slaves in some northern states. But what you fail to mention is that even WHITE men were not allowed to vote. Only men who owned property could vote and neither could women.

I am for freedom for all people and face it the american revolution made the world more free.

Did you know we had black representatives back then? Did you know that we had black judges also? Damn, reading history is a bitch ain't it?

Enough of this myth that ALL celebrities are liberal, or that if a celebrity espouses conservative opinions, they'll be automatically blacklisted.

Here's a list of conservative-leaning entertainers just off the top of my head:

Clint Eastwood
Sylvester Stallone
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Bruce Willis
Kurt Russell
Kelsey Grammar
John Malkovich
Mel Gibson
Jerry Bruckheimer
Michael Caine (Tory)
Alice Cooper
Joe Perry
Sammy Hagar
Lynyrd Skynyrd
ZZ Top

Yeah, their careers have REALLY suffered because of their politics.

Hell, Republicans are literally GAY for St. Reagan. They worship that demented old fool to this day like he's a demigod, and he was an ACTOR.

NO ONE is more into self-pity and erecting a bogus persecution complex than right-wingers.

Everything is always someone else's fault: "liberal" Hollywood, "liberal" college professors, "liberal" teachers unions, the "liberal" media.

So much for the "personal responsibility" canard.

Good to see that the unstable Tama Basher blew a mental fuse and went into berserker mode, posting endless, self-indulgent, abusive tirades.

You can always count on him to clog up the comments section the way eating a three-pound brick of cheddar cheese clogs up a fat Christian Southerner.

You're just mad because I'm always calling you out on your bullshit.

Flame away, flamer. I'm laughing at you.

Say what you want Dave, that's all you hear from left wingers when a Republican's in office.

You are the one who knows FUCK ALL about anarchy, mate.
Anarchy is opposed to ANY form of state but it is based on SOCIALISM. Anarchists believe that state socialism isn't "real" socialism at all, that's all. There is no "anarcho-capitalism", that's an oxymoron used only by ignorant people like you.

"One of the strangest things most anarchists become aware of when they go on-line is the existence of self-proclaimed capitalist "anarchists." Mostly based in North America, this ideology claims to be anarchist while, at the same time, vigorously supporting laissez-faire capitalism.

For almost all anarchists, this seems an utter oxymoron. Anarchism has always been associated with the left, with socialism. While opposing all forms of state socialism, anarchists have always seen themselves as anti-capitalists, as socialists. Both Tucker and Kropotkin considered themselves socialists, as did Bakunin and Proudhon. While they disagreed about many things (such as how best to end capitalist exploitation), all schools of anarchism shared a common opposition to profit, interest and rent and a common root in Proudhon's critique of private property.

The idea that there is a form of anarchism which is not anti-capitalist thus strikes anarchists as extremely strange. The idea of capitalists raising the black flag, the flag of working class insurrection and strikes, is a joke, a joke in extremely bad taste. "Anarcho"-capitalists of course disagree. It is, therefore, useful to give a short explanation of why "anarcho"-capitalism should be called "anarcho-statism" to better show its inherent contradictions."

"What's in a name?

The first line of defence of "anarcho"-capitalism is to argue that the dictionary definition of anarchy is "no government." Consequently, as "anarcho"-capitalism wants to replace the state by a free market in defence associations it must be anarchist.

This argument is obviously flawed. Many dictionaries define "anarchy" as, for example, "a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government)." [1] Needless to say, anarcho-capitalists do not use these definitions of "anarchy." So appealing to dictionary definitions is highly subjective as it involves evaluating each dictionary in turn and discarding those which are inaccurate.

This can be seen from the question of anarchism and socialism. Both Kropotkin and Tucker considered their ideas as a form of socialism. However, using typical dictionary definitions of both would result in a contradiction. Anarchism is defined as "a political theory favouring the abolition of governments" while socialism is "a political theory advocating state ownership of industry" or "an economic system based on state ownership of capital." [2] Which means that an anarchist could not be a socialist yet "anarcho"-capitalists are happy to call anarchists "anarcho-socialists." This contradiction is enough, in itself, to show the flaw in their methodology. Why should the dictionary be good enough for "anarchy" but not for "socialism"? [3]

As it stands, anarchists have rarely, if ever, argued that they were simply aiming to abolish the state. From Proudhon onward, they have stressed social and economic goals along with political ones. It is no coincidence that the first self-proclaimed anarchist book was "What is Property?" rather than "What is Government?" To limit "anarchy" or "anarchism" to just a question of the state means to ignore most of what anarchists and anarchism have aimed for. That is why anarchists generally avoid dictionary definitions for "anarchy" and "anarchism" and argue instead that it is not enough for someone to call themselves an anarchist, their ideas must reflect the anti-state and anti-capitalist principles the anarchist movement has always held.
Who cares what they thought?

That "anarcho"-capitalism abuses the history of anarchism goes without saying. What is strange that they also abuse their own self-proclaimed intellectual forefathers.

"Anarcho"-capitalists generally trace their ideology back to French economist Gustave de Molinari (1819 to1912). Given that anarchism as a political theory and movement was born in France during his lifetime, is significant that he did not call himself an anarchist nor take part in the movement. If he had considered his ideas as anarchist then surely he would have called them that. We can only conclude that it was the existence of the anarchist movement and its ideas that ensured that Molinari refused the label of "anarchist" as he did not consider his ideas part of either.

Others retroactively included by "anarcho"-capitalists in their ideology's family tree are supporters of so-called "voluntaryism." These were 19th century British individualists, supporters, like Molinari, of extreme laissez-faire capitalism. Like Molinari, they did not call their ideas anarchism or themselves anarchists. Auberon Herbert, for example, explicitly rejected the term anarchist. Another, Levy, stated that "no Individualist would every call himself an Anarchist." He also noted that while individualist and communist anarchists disagreed on many subjects "their agreement [on others] entitled them equally to the general designation of Anarchist." [5]

Significantly, Herbert, knew of, and rejected, individualist anarchism, considering it to be "founded on a fatal mistake" and would result in "pandemonium." He thought that we should "not direct our attacks - as the anarchists do - against all government, against government in itself" but "only against the overgrown, the exaggerated, the insolent, unreasonable and indefensible forms of government, which are found everywhere today." Government should be "strictly limited to its legitimate duties in defense of self-ownership and individual rights." He stressed that "we are governmentalists," aiming for a government "formally constituted by the nation, employing in this matter of force the majority method." [6]

Now, it seems significant that people "anarcho"-capitalists themselves place in their ideological tree, at best, refused to be called or, at worse, explicitly denied being anarchists. They were obviously aware of anarchism and anarchist ideas and saw that their ideas were not similar. Why "anarcho"-capitalists refuse to do the same is lost on anarchists, particularly as not doing so means they have to continually explain why they are not like the anarchists who get in the news or in the history books.

Moreover, it seems a strange form of complement to incorporate someone into your ideology's family tree while also ignoring these people's expressed opinions and say they did not understand what they advocated! Between, say, Auberon Herbert and an "anarcho"-capitalist, I think most people would agree with Herbert on what he thought his ideas should be called.
And the difference is?

It is no coincidence that "anarcho"-capitalists try to limit the definition of anarchy or anarchism purely to opposition to the state or government. This is because capitalist property produces authoritarian structures (and so social relations) exactly like the state. By focusing on "government" rather than "authority," they hide the basic contradiction within their ideology namely that the "anarcho"-capitalist definition of private property is remarkably close to its definition of the state.

This is easy to prove. For example, leading "anarcho"-capitalist Murray Rothbard thundered against the evil of the state, stressing that it "arrogates to itself a monopoly of force, of ultimate decision-making power, over a given territorial area." Then, in the chapter's endnote, he quietly admitted that "[o]bviously, in a free society, Smith has the ultimate decision-making power over his own just property, Jones over his, etc." [6]

Opps. How did the editor not pick up that one? But it shows the magical power of the expression "private property" - it can turn the bad ("ultimate decision-making power" over a given area) into the good ("ultimate decision-making power" over a given area). For anarchists, "[t]o demonise state authoritarianism while ignoring identical albeit contract-consecrated subservient arrangements in the large-scale corporations which control the world economy is fetishism at its worst." [7] It should also be stressed that capitalist authoritarianism is dictatorial in nature, with significantly less freedom than that in a democratic state.

Anarchists, obviously, wonder what the difference actually is. Why is the authority of the state considered anti-anarchist while that of the property owner is not? Rothbard did provide an answer: the state has got its land "unjustly." Thus the answer lies in whether the state legitimately owns its territory or not. If it did, then "it is proper for it to make rules for everyone who presumes to live in that area . . . So long as the State permits its subjects to leave its territory, then, it can be said to act as does any other owner who sets down rules for people living on his property." [8]

So if the state were a legitimate landlord or capitalist then its authoritarianism would be fine? Sorry? This is an anarchist analysis? The question is, ultimately, one of liberty. Anarchists simply note that Rothbard himself shows that capitalism and the state are based on the same authority structures and, consequently, neither can be considered as anarchist.

But then again, anarchists are not surprised. The liberal tradition "anarcho"-capitalism happily places itself in has a long history of sophisticated defences for autocracy based on consent. Anarchists, in contrast, have always stressed that the internal regime of an association which is the key.

That is why anarchists support workplace co-operatives as the alternative to capitalist hierarchy. Proudhon, for example, argued that employees are "subordinated, exploited" and their "permanent condition is one of obedience." Capitalist companies "plunder the bodies and souls of wage workers" and are "an outrage upon human dignity and personality." However, in a co-operative the situation changes and the worker is an "associate" and "forms a part of the producing organisation . . . [and] forms a part of the sovereign power, of which he was before but the subject." Without co-operation and association, "the workers . . . would remain related as subordinates and superiors, and there would ensue two industrial castes of masters and wage-workers, which is repugnant to a free and democratic society." [9]

The contrast between anarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism could not be clearer.
Free to choose . . . a master

The final defence of "anarcho"-capitalism is that authority associated with capitalism is voluntary, that workers consent to it. Of course, the same can be said of any democratic state. No one forces a citizen to remain within its borders. A defence of capitalist hierarchies in terms of consent logically means a defence of the state in the same terms -- particularly as capitalist property is as much the product of coercion as the state is. Moreover, given that Somalia is touted by some "anarcho"-capitalists as an example of their system, they have the same choice they usually give striking workers - if you don't like your current master, find a new one.

Yet there is a deeper objection to the "consent" argument, namely that it ignores the social circumstances of capitalism which limit the choice of the many. Anarchists have long argued that, as a class, workers have little choice but to "consent" to capitalist hierarchy. The alternative is either dire poverty or starvation. "Anarcho"-capitalists dismiss such claims by denying that there is such a thing as economic power. Rather, it is simply freedom of contract. [10]

Anarchists consider such claims as a joke. To show why, we need only quote Murray Rothbard on the abolition of slavery and serfdom in the 19th century. He argued, correctly, that the "bodies of the oppressed were freed, but the property which they had worked and eminently deserved to own, remained in the hands of their former oppressors. With economic power thus remaining in their hands, the former lords soon found themselves virtual masters once more of what were now free tenants or farm labourers. The serfs and slaves had tasted freedom, but had been cruelly derived of its fruits." [11]

To say the least, anarchists fail to see the logic in this position. Contrast this with the standard "anarcho"-capitalist claim that if market forces ("voluntary exchanges") result in the creation of "free tenants or farm labourers" then they are free. Yet labourers dispossessed by market forces are in exactly the same social and economic situation as the ex-serfs and ex-slaves. If the latter do not have the fruits of freedom, neither do the former. Rothbard sees the obvious "economic power" in the latter case, but denies it in the former.

Rothbard's position is untenable. A simple analogy shows why. Let us assume that someone kidnaps you and places you down a deep (naturally formed) pit, miles from anyway, which is impossible to climb up. No one would deny that you are unfree. Let us further assume that another person walks by and accidentally falls into the pit with you. According to Rothbard's logic, while you are unfree (i.e. subject to coercion) your fellow pit-dweller is perfectly free for they have subject to the "facts of nature" and not coercion.

It is only Rothbard's ideology that stops him from drawing the obvious conclusion -- identical economic conditions produce identical social relationships and so capitalism is marked by "economic power" and "virtual masters." The only solution is for "anarcho"-capitalists to simply say the ex-serfs and ex-slaves were actually free to choose and, consequently, Rothbard was wrong. It might be inhuman, but at least it would be consistent!
Conclusion

As Kropotkin noted about a previous generation of free market capitalists, the "modern Individualism initiated by Herbert Spencer is, like the critical theory of Proudhon, a powerful indictment against the dangers and wrongs of government, but its practical solution of the social problem is miserable -- so miserable as to lead us to inquire if the talk of 'No force' be merely an excuse for supporting landlord and capitalist domination." [12]

Much the same can be said for "anarcho"-capitalism. Anarchists would not bother themselves with it except that it calls itself anarchism. Yet, as shown, "anarcho"-capitalism makes as much sense as "anarcho-statism" -- an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. The idea that "anarcho"-capitalism warrants the name "anarchist" is simply false. Only someone ignorant of anarchism could maintain such a thing. While you expect anarchist theory to show this to be the case, the ironic thing is that "anarcho"-capitalism itself does the same.

Anarchism, as a political theory, was born when Proudhon wrote "What is Property?" specifically to refute the notion that workers are free when capitalist property forces them to seek employment by landlords and capitalists. He was well aware that in such circumstances workers sold their liberty and were exploited. His classic work is a lengthy critique of the kind of apologetics for landlord and capitalist power and property Rothbard espouses. It seems ironic, therefore, that "anarcho"-capitalism calls itself "anarchist" while basing itself on the arguments that anarchism was created in opposition to.

Ultimately, Rothbard himself proves the anarchist case that workers may be formally free under capitalism but their economic circumstances are such that freedom becomes little more than being "free" to pick a master. Capitalism, in other words, is based on economic power, which ensures that people "consent" to be subjected to authority structures identical to those created by the state. This means that a consistent anarchist, as Chomsky noted, must oppose both state and capitalism.

Opposing the latter does not mean opposing the market. Not all anarchists are communists (although most are). Capitalism is just one form of market system, one rooted in specific property rights and social relationships. For those "anarcho"-capitalists who genuinely seek a free society and still think that markets are the best way to organise an economy then the ideas of anarchist mutualism should be of interest. This is a socialist system based on "occupancy and use," where self-employed workers and co-operatives govern themselves and sell the product of their labour to their fellow workers. A society without hierarchy, exploitation and oppression -- a genuine anarchist society rather than a system of mini-states.

What will it be? Capitalism or Anarchism? As "anarcho"-capitalism itself proves, it cannot be both."

You are the one who should "open a book" every once in a while.

"...the sad thing is, instead of voting for the best man, I have to vote for the lesser of two evils."

Stop with this babbling bullshit and say what you want to say. Who could possibly blackball you? MTV? The network that that helped my generation "choose or loose"....the same network that has about as much to do with music as the Alex Jones paranoia that you have fallen in love with? The radio stations that already ignore the music you love to play?

What, you're suddenly concerned about being in Newsweek or Time...or the Huffington Post?

Maybe Newsbusters will talk to you...or Drudge.

GROW A PAIR and say what you want to say.

Who's talking about killing the guy? That's a straw-man argument.

The only people calling for violence in this thread are the conservatives.

Of course peoples' political views change. I used to be very conservative, but gradually abandoned that ideology starting with the Clinton impeachment, and then permanently with the great Bush/Cheney fuck-up of 2003.

In fact, I wouldn't say my politics changed so much as the Republican Party changed. They have gone so far to the right over the last 32 years that they're now dangerously reactionary, teetering on the brink of fascism, and threatening the stability of the entire country.

44 years ago, Obama's policies would've been considered Rockefeller Republicanism. Eisenhower, Goldwater, Nixon, Ford and Mitt Romney's father, George, would've all been driven out of today's far-right GOP with extreme prejudice.

jncnc

Obama = Bush

There is no material difference in the way they run shit...

straight into the ground

"...the sad thing is, instead of voting for the best man, I have to vote for the lesser of two evils."

This is how most people vote at every election. Sure, you have a guy you kinda like, but it's hard to find someone you totally agree with.

I don't think Obama's done that bad, it's just that everyone thought he was the Second Coming and when he didn't fix everything, they hated him that much more.

If Bush's second term had been as uneventful as Obama's first, no one would've been anywhere near as disappointed.

Everyone knows that you don't like Obama!! You've said this numerous times in past interviews!! Has your career suffered at all since these interviews?? No. Have you been black-balled?? NO!!! We think you're annoying, but no one is taking away your career!! Relax, buddy!!

And to keep this 'metal related', I don't care what Dave's political views are, I still listen to he music.

also, I kinda doubt he'd be blackballed.

I don't give a damn about your politics - just keeping on playing that badass guitar riffage.

Dave Mustaine HEROIN ADDICT AND ALCOHOLIC. Just the guy im looking at for an informed opinion on politics. Play guitar and try to sing again and then stfu.

"I'M NOT RACIST!! I HAD A BLACK FRIEND 30 YEARS AGO!!"


Dave Mustaine is a birther. All birthers are racist, whether they know it or not.. End of story.

Fuck Dave Mustaine and everyone like him.

Fuck obama!

So what? He made a mistake, and he's clean now.

Some of the greatest literature, music, movies, art and philosophizing was created by people under the influence of a myriad of different drugs.

Mustaine is clean now and is living a happy life. Good for him.

I still love his music, but his politics repulse me. However, whenever someone like say, Bruce Springsteen, speaks eloquently about political positions I agree with, I applaud him.

Because of that, it would be extremely hypocritical of me to tell Mustaine and Ted Nugent to "shut up and play your guitar"...they have a right to their opinions, but what conservatives seem to forget is that WE liberals have the right to call them out on what they say.

They're always claiming we want to stifle free speech...nothing could be further from the truth. Slamming Mustaine and Nugent for their far-right ranting isn't an attempt to censor them....it's just us exercising our First Amendment rights, as are they.

Now, as far as the Limbaugh advertiser boycott...I have mixed feelings about that. As much as I loathe the sonofabitch, he' enormously talented and has a gift for radio...but the boycott was being done through private citizen activists. It's not censorship because thej Fe government wasn't involved

I still remember laughing out loud when he said Santorum was a JFK kind of guy.

You could only get half black balled by Obama.

But seriously... Nobody gives a shit what you think about politics Dave.

"Dave Mustaine admitted that he is concerned about expressing his political views in public or in the media for fear of backlash against the band."

"It's really weird that the music industry and the film and television industry, you almost gotta be a Democrat. It's like if you're a Republican, you're kind of like a guy that people don't really wanna hear from,"

"(...) Ted Nugent. I can understand his anger. We're not very similar, but we do have a lot of things that we have in common."

"If I say how I really feel about stuff people are not gonna wanna come see us in concert or not gonna wanna buy our records."

-

Duh, and why do you think that is!? That right there ^^ should tell you you're a fucking douchebag :-) Dave, buddy; you're no "Independent" - you're as hardcore, paranoid, ignorant dumb-ass republican as they come!

You should not talk in public at all, ever, period. I love Megadeths music but I will never buy their albums or see them live again and Dave Mustaine and his drug damaged brain is the sole reason for that.

Looks like it finally came to Dave that his stupid rants are effing up his career and credibility. Better late than never I guess! But I'm still amazed that he thinks it is not normal and that he should be allowed to talk any bollocks because ''this is America'' !!!

Unfortunately that's where we are, you speak the truth about what a disaster, destroyer, liar and enemy of the state our current president is and you get "blackballed", George Orwell, call your office. Me, I don't give a shit, as a matter of fact I'm out to piss off as many leftists as possible, it's fun. I don't really stand to lose anything from it though, so it makes it easier I suppose.

thic sleazy regime is re-elected, and it gets to the point where they start monitoring the internet (wait, they already do, thanks to their cronies at Google), and start sending out their brown-shirts to, ahem, greet the "unfavorables" at their homes. To that I say, see amendment #2.

"I'm out to piss off as many leftists as possible".

Get a life. And cut the crap.

Obama isn't left-wing or a socialist, he's a puppet in the hands of multinational corporations and banks. So was Bush.

The brown-shirts have always been protectors of capitalism and private property. Hitler was no socialist, his national "socialist" party (an oxymoron) was socialist in name only, he was a right-wing extremist.

Socialism stands AGAINST nationalism (there is no "national socialism" just like there is no "anarcho-capitalism") and private property of any kind. Hitler persecuted and killed many socialists, communists and anarchists when he was ruling Germany and he dismantled all the unions. And he was all FOR private property.


"There is no academic controversy over the status of the "national socialism" term: it was a misnomer. Misnomers are quite common in the history of political labels. Examples include the German Democratic Republic (which was neither) and Vladimir Zhirinovsky's "Liberal Democrat" party (which was also neither). The true question is not whether Hitler called his party "socialist," but whether or not it actually was.

In fact, socialism has never been tried at the national level anywhere in the world. This may surprise some people -- after all, wasn't the Soviet Union socialist? The answer is no. Many nations and political parties have called themselves "socialist," but none have actually tried socialism. To understand why, we should revisit a few basic political terms.

Perhaps the primary concern of any political ideology is who gets to own and control the means the production. This includes factories, farmlands, machinery, etc. Generally there have been three approaches to this question. The first was aristocracy, in which a ruling elite owned the land and productive wealth, and peasants and serfs had to obey their orders in return for their livelihood. The second is capitalism, which has disbanded the ruling elite and allows a much broader range of private individuals to own the means of production. However, this ownership is limited to those who can afford to buy productive wealth; nearly all workers are excluded. The third (and untried) approach is socialism, where everyone owns and controls the means of production, by means of the vote. As you can see, there is a spectrum here, ranging from a few people owning productive wealth at one end, to everyone owning it at the other.

Socialism has been proposed in many forms. The most common is social democracy, where workers vote for their supervisors, as well as their industry representatives to regional or national congresses. Another proposed form is anarcho-socialism, where workers own companies that would operate on a free market, without any central government at all. As you can see, a central planning committee is hardly a necessary feature of socialism. The primary feature is worker ownership of production.

The Soviet Union failed to qualify as socialist because it was a dictatorship over workers -- that is, a type of aristocracy, with a ruling elite in Moscow calling all the shots. Workers cannot own or control anything under a totalitarian government. In variants of socialism that call for a central government, that government is always a strong or even direct democracy… never a dictatorship. It doesn't matter if the dictator claims to be carrying out the will of the people, or calls himself a "socialist" or a "democrat." If the people themselves are not in control, then the system is, by definition, non-democratic and non-socialist.

And what of Nazi Germany? The idea that workers controlled the means of production in Nazi Germany is a bitter joke. It was actually a combination of aristocracy and capitalism. Technically, private businessmen owned and controlled the means of production. The Nazi "Charter of Labor" gave employers complete power over their workers. It established the employer as the "leader of the enterprise," and read: "The leader of the enterprise makes the decisions for the employees and laborers in all matters concerning the enterprise." (1)

The employer, however, was subject to the frequent orders of the ruling Nazi elite. After the Nazis took power in 1933, they quickly established a highly controlled war economy under the direction of Dr. Hjalmar Schacht. Like all war economies, it boomed, making Germany the second nation to recover fully from the Great Depression, in 1936. (The first nation was Sweden, in 1934. Following Keynesian-like policies, the Swedish government spent its way out of the Depression, proving that state economic policies can be successful without resorting to dictatorship or war.)

Prior to the Nazi seizure of power in 1933, worker protests had spread all across Germany in response to the Great Depression. During his drive to power, Hitler exploited this social unrest by promising workers to strengthen their labor unions and increase their standard of living. But these were empty promises; privately, he was reassuring wealthy German businessmen that he would crack down on labor once he achieved power. Historian William Shirer describes the Nazi's dual strategy:

"The party had to play both sides of the tracks. It had to allow [Nazi officials] Strasser, Goebbels and the crank Feder to beguile the masses with the cry that the National Socialists were truly 'socialists' and against the money barons. On the other hand, money to keep the party going had to be wheedled out of those who had an ample supply of it." (2)

Once in power, Hitler showed his true colors by promptly breaking all his promises to workers. The Nazis abolished trade unions, collective bargaining and the right to strike. An organization called the "Labor Front" replaced the old trade unions, but it was an instrument of the Nazi party and did not represent workers. According to the law that created it, "Its task is to see that every individual should be able… to perform the maximum of work." Workers would indeed greatly boost their productivity under Nazi rule. But they also became exploited. Between 1932 and 1936, workers wages fell, from 20.4 to 19.5 cents an hour for skilled labor, and from 16.1 to 13 cents an hour for unskilled labor. (3) Yet workers did not protest. This was partly because the Nazis had restored order to the economy, but an even bigger reason was that the Nazis would have cracked down on any protest.

There was no part of Nazism, therefore, that even remotely resembled socialism."

Have fun trying to spread your bullshit.

I see socialism as a religon for athiest. You see the socialist society as some sort of utopia where everyone is equal. But you said it your self it has never happened and everytime it has been tried an oligarchy takes over. Your socialist utopia is as real as the christian idea of heaven.

Getting rid of property rights in my opinion is absurd. That makes it so much easier for an oligarchy to rob the masses and claim its for the "greater good." We all see how the world elite has hijacked the state and use it against the common man but what is the solution?

I believe the solution is voluntarism. This is based on the non-aggression principle which states the initiation of aggression is inherently illegitimate. This goes for the state as well. How is it that the state is allowed to extort money from people through taxation? The state is WE THE PEOPLE and its rights are an extention of the people but we have no right to extort from other persons so why can the state?

As long as we have a system that is based on the use of force oligarchies will always find a way to use the state to maintain their power.

Dude, you're fucking amazing. That made my head hurt.

I agree that Mustaine has the right to say whatever he wants to. But he can't whine that it will hurt his career; the fans have just as much right to express themselves, including not buying his stuff.

I also wouldn't hold the founding fathers up as a moral compass either, but that's another argument.

...no, you're carreer is not gonna suffer from saying "what you really feel" about Obama's job performance because us Megadeth fans have known for a long time what a douche you are - we care about the music and not your etirely nonsensical rants about politics, of which you don't seem to know the last bit as your stance towards anything that happens in America and/or the rest of the world seems to change with every album if not with every song.

Since Megadeth's foundation in 1983 you have been cursing every government the U.S. ever had (and there have been quite a few in the last 30 years, as I seem to recall) for pretty much the same reasons, which robs your arguments of every basis in the real world to begin with - "what you really feel" seems to have no connection to anything that actually happens..

No, Dave, you are of course free to say what you want, us Megadeth fans gave stopped listening a while ago anyways...

That being said, put out another record, everything since "The System Has Failed" has been pretty good!

The real problem with Mustaine is that he's really not a cool or likable person. He's unsympathetic. Being a dumbass born-again or bitching at other musicians, politicians or whatnot just doesn't help making him more likable.

barack 'I want to fundamentaly change America' obama. Thats one promise that he's trying to keep. Sad!! I can't remember liking ONE thing obama said in 2008, but that line ^^made me want to throw up. I voted for Clinton so it's not a democratic thing..it's a common sense thing. I just hope the obama's vacate the White house in January 2013 before obama rules on what kind of music i can listen to!!

Yeah because after saying you "want to see Rick S. in the White House", it's just doesn't make sense if people interpret that as an endorsement, huh?

What a bunch of horseshit.

Guy backpedals all the time because he knows his right wing rhetoric is extremely unpopular, and as I SAID MONTHS AGO, his fanbase is pretty much made up of liberals who made him rich. You know, those same liberals he was calling dirty scumbags not long ago during Occupy! And that didn't go well for him, did it? Of course, when it hurts your pocketbooks it doesn't make sense to kill the golden goose, huh? So much for God making you rich, huh? I wonder why we haven't seen anything more about Megalife ministries?

Now the right wingers want a Mormon in office?!?! Guys, if you don't know the history of Mormonism, google it right now if you want to read about some crazy-ass horseshit and how easily stupid people are duped into religious cults.

Nice story, Dave
Tell it to Reader's Digest

since his 1st budget.
Mustaine is a Theorcratic has been right wing Fascist.
Right wing extremist have made Fascism a viable solution in America today. Rest of the world better watch out.

Like the Dixie Chicks and Rage Against he Machine?
Leftist Dave= RUST IN PEACE
Righty Dave=13
YOU MAKE THE CHOICE.

This is the second article I've seen where you have vomited up a post of cosmic proportions.

No one wants to read a post that long, please edit thyself professor.

PLEASE edit yourself. Better yet, DELETE yourself. It had been very nice to NOT read your dumbass posts for a long time until now. PLEASE disappear for another year.

HE WAS A FUCKING PROUD,OPEN AND CARD CARRYING SOCIALIST!!!! HE BELIEVED IN POWER TO THE PEOPLE NOT THE OWNERS OF THIS COUNTRY!!!
AND WAS THE MOST ANTI-MILITARY,RELIGION,CAPITALISM AND PATRIOTISM THERE WAS!!!
Just saying Orwell was a socialist.

"When in America can't you talk freely about things that you like or don't like? And why should I have my business taken away from me because I don't like somebody?"

Here the thing, you can talk freely about it. Hang out with your friends and talk freely all you fucking want. But if you are being interviewed in the press, it's because you are a famous musician. The ONLY reason they are talking to you is because of your career. So if you then choose to discuss politics, guess what, you are going to be judge by your stupid ass comments. And you are STILL free to do so. But don't fucking whine to me if you use your fame to spread your political views and your fame suffers. Dumbfuck!

Dave's political lyrics on the early records made me a fan. His political lyrics on current records make me less of a fan.

Writing political songs is one thing, being a fucking tool about it is another.

Ha!

It's nice to know I was missed. I've never even heard of you so I find it funny that you remember me.

Sorry asshole, I'm back for good.

Of course I remember you. No one ever forgets a troll. So where have you been for the last couple of years? Did you finally get out of jail for failure to pay child support or was it possession of crack?

As somebody who looked up to your music and you as a survivor kind of person, as somebody who basically lives next door to the place your mum was born, yes, Essen, Germany, and somebody you were kind enough to play The Conjuring for back 11 years ago, can you please go away.
You've been pigeonholing yourself for the last 5 years at least, and that's not about becoming a christian - even though I find these reborn creepy - or even changing your political views, call it maturing or brainwashing, I guess it's somewhere in between.
It's about the weak arguments and the bitter-whiney person you've become. megatallica, anyone?
I am 33, have JUST the same problem with 2 neck hernias fucked, got my surgery, glad to walk, unable to bang my head which sucks when I go to a show, my work and private life suffer, recovering from a walk through hell, BUT PLEASE STOP BEING A WUSS, OR JUST GO AWAY.
right now you have NOTHING in common with the guy many, many metalheads and musicians looked up to.
And for the record, 13 is generic mediocre at best, a weak-shit album by your former standards. Remember when you wrote sth. that stood out?!

You're missing the point. I was simply exposing some people for the ignoramuses they are. You can disagree with socialism all you like, no problem, but you've gotta know what socialism is. Calling Hitler a socialist is laughable at best.

Cool. As long as you missed me. That's all that counts.

I've been busy banging your mom, but that shit gets old after a while so I'm back. (yo momma jokes never get old)

What's really flattering is that you haven't even commented on the actual article, just my triumphant return. Thank you madame. Your support means the world to me.

Well, I understand the imaginary fantasies you were having about my mom while you were getting fucked in the ass for 2 years by your cell mate in prison. Maybe you should change your name to igotfuckedintheasswhiletakingabath.

Seriously though, you should change your username to "The Outer Labia"

"Thank you madame."



You called me "madame"? I guess in jail you got used to referring to men as "madame" to help you justify fucking them in the ass! Of course, your jail mates also had to call you "madame" when it was their turn!

You wound me, madame, with your crass comments.

We'll talk again some other time when you can behave yourself.

It's been fun getting you all riled up though.

This news piece is old, but I wanted to comment on it. All I have to say, is that Dave doesn't have much to stand on. He knows it, so he is cowering like a child (he is like a grown up man child, one gets the vibe in person when meeting him ;) ). I still have some respect for him, but he needs to get his shit straight. He truly sounds confused. And I meet some born again christians that have to backpedal on what they say a lot of the time like this, especially ones who have had mental health or chemical dependency issues (one and the same of course). Someone like Portnoy has had handled his recovery in a lot smarter way (not sure of his political beliefs) and even so has Alice Cooper. So this is not about that, but about metal and politics in general. To me, no metalhead should or can be a mainstream Republican, especially one that supports someone like Santorum. The two CANNOT coexist. Its like having a jewish nazi (yes they exist) or a male man hating feminist. Its contradictory to the core. And let me explain by prefacing that I DO believe one can be a libertarian or "independent" metalhead. If Dave said he supported Gary Johnson, or even Ron Paul (well Ron Paul is somewhat social conservative but still it fits better with what Dave has talked about over the years) he would have my full respect, despite some of my own more liberal inclications. Because it doesn't contradict a lot of what Megadeth, or metal in general has supported in the past. But when you support Christian Conservatives such as Santorum, you support the same types of people who were burning your records en masse in protest of "Devil music" in the Eighties. Ok, maybe its like Elvis being banned in the 50s, only to be later accepted by Christians by the 70's, but it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Its not even about the homophobia inherent in Santorum, its the fact that Santorum has talked about popular culture and moral decay in the same way the televangelists talked about Heavy Metal. Heavy Metal (among other things) were Christian/Republican conservatives worst enemy back in the eighties and even through the nineties. And that obviously doesn't give Democrats a free pass either, though its usually more CONSERVATIVE Democrats (Al Gore was seen as a more southern conservative democrat in the Eighties, and over half of the PMRC were Republican, contrary to popular belief). But to me, Libertarianism definitely coexists with a lot of metal's values, even though that can be seen as more "conservative" in some ways (well it goes beyond those easy labels). I was under the impression in the Endgame era that Mustaine had evolved from his weird support of the war on terror and was seeing things a little bit more in a nuanced way. yes a conspiracy theory way like Jon Shaffer, but still a more nuanced way than "Traditional republican". But his support of Santorum tarnished that, along with the very mediocre music and just bizarre public statements as of late. Not to mention the boring live performances, though he handed Hammet's ass back to him during those Metallica 30th anniversary show (and i like old more practiced hammet back in tthe day)

nothing wrong with Dave bashing OBama, its just that he seems like a jackass when he puts his weight behind Santorum, especially in the weird naive way he did..

Clint Eastwood- actually said he identifies as libertarian
Sylvester Stallone- yeah..
Arnold Schwarzenegger- moderate repub
Bruce Willis- questions 9/11 govt explanations, doesn't choose to ally himself with parties anymore, has more nuanced beliefs now (his words)
Kurt Russell- (literally) card carrying libertarian
Kelsey Grammar- yeah
John Malkovich- really? didnt know
Mel Gibson- uh, well, he kinda defies explanation (and logic lol)
Jerry Bruckheimer- ok
Michael Caine (Tory)- yeah
Alice Cooper- see my comments about Mustaine, doesn't make sense to support a lot of the people who wanted you banned!
Joe Perry- yeah
Sammy Hagar- yes, but at least supports drug decriminalization (havent read his book but would be willing to bet that hes more a libertarian)
Lynyrd Skynyrd- ugh
ZZ Top- yeah


Pmrc: look on Wikipedia- John Nevius wife (republican), Susan Baker (republican), Tipper Gore (democrat, but at the time Gore was trying to gain the southern conserative vote, hence his infamous support of pro life policies during that time, and his courting of the tobacco industry. His later more "liberal" ideas were kind of more dormant then), Pam Howar (no idea what party).

I'm really sick of people always bringing up Tipper Gore when they talk about "democrats were the ones behind censorship" just to attack people who bring up the fact that things like the Meese Commision, the Moral Majority, and many other movements used for censorship were totally the brainchildren of Christian Conservative REPUBLICANS. Joe Lieberman, quit the Democrat party because he was way too conservative for it..Democrats would rather make things "politically correct" than protect children from D and D and "Devil music". People just need to get their facts straight. I hate Democrats pretty much the same as Republicans, but people need to get their shit straight, as well as their history.