Dave Mustaine: Obama one of the most divisive presidents we've ever had

[AuH20]

Dave keeps it real most of time, unlike his celebrity peers.

http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=165143


When asked about the ongoing "Occupy Wall Street" protests assailing income inequality, joblessness and big banks, Mustaine said, "I think it's really dreadful what's happening. The buck stops with the president of the United States. He's the most powerful person in the world. He's also the most divisive president we've ever had. I've never, in my 50 years of being alive, listened to an American president try and turn one class of people against another class of people. I've never — never — heard a president say, 'Go down and join the protesters down at Wall Street,' knowing that there are Nazis down there, knowing that there are people down there who are trust-fund babies, that are super, super wealthy and they're going down there and pretending that they really care; they just wanna be part of the 'movement.' And the fact that that whole protest that's going on down there, it's costing the police $125,000 a day. And they're not raising any money for that. Who's paying for that? The taxpayers. What I would like to do is really help these guys get organized, but I don't think there's anybody there that you would be able to talk to about getting organized. If anything, if those guys wanna protest, protest on the steps of the White House, not on Wall Street."

[Aratus]

its a zoo?

[dannno]

The buck stops with the president of the United States. He's the most powerful person in the world.

http://28.media.tumblr.com/L1KgEo8HtmynrtfejxkJhzDGo1_500.jpg

[AuH20]

Dave should open for a Ron Paul rally with a new tune like this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RINKkevpKsc

[HOLLYWOOD]

Mr Megadeath... PUPPET

It's a racket that keeps both establishments in their monopoly... everything else is a distraction for the peasants to gripe about.

[mczerone]

Dave keeps it real most of time, unlike his celebrity peers.

http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=165143

I think Dave is about 95% there, but quotes like this show he still has 5% to go:
And the fact that that whole protest that's going on down there, it's costing the police $125,000 a day. And they're not raising any money for that. Who's paying for that? The taxpayers.

The protestors aren't costing the taxpayers anything. The City (monopoly govt) gets its rocks off by bringing out their mounted patrols to corral the people around and inserting rabble to cause trouble. The City could send the cops home, and these protestors could largely patrol themselves. For all their variation in economic theories, I'm entirely confident that the movement is focused on staying peaceful (of course many wish to delegate some violent actions to the govt to redistribute wealth, but they know better than to start smashing and looting to try to recompense themselves).

Just like he's telling the protestors to stop blaming the banks and start blaming the govt, he needs to stop blaming the protestors for these costs and start blaming the govt.

[satchelmcqueen]

mustaine is very much like us. i dont know if he supports ron, but i bet it wouldnt take much for him to. id almost bet he does.

id love to see him have a rally for ron and play some of his political songs.

hook in mouth, we the people, washington is next, holy wars, stuff like that

[John F Kennedy III]

Peace Sells

[Zippyjuan]

Both parties are divisive. Neither is willing to try to compromise on any issue lest they be seen as "traitors" to their party or "flip floppers". Used to be a time when members would be seen actually talking to somebody in the other party.

[osan]

Both parties are divisive. Neither is willing to try to compromise on any issue lest they be seen as "traitors" to their party or "flip floppers". Used to be a time when members would be seen actually talking to somebody in the other party.

Oh jeez, there's that dirty little four-letter word again.

Are you suggesting people should compromise on basic principles? This is analogous to compromising with a stranger who wishes to amputate both of your arms and legs. You, being a compromising kind of guy, strike an agreement for one arm and one leg. Problem solved.

Compromise becomes problematic and a non-starter when the issue is question is the trespass of one upon the territory of another. Violations of my rights, I assure you, will not be compromised. You will stop trespassing or I will stop you, whatever it may take to do so.

How is that for compromise?

[pacelli]

If Obama is one of the most divisive presidents we've ever had, how come no democrats are challenging his 2012 campaign? Where the fuck are the democratic debates?

[Zippyjuan]

Oh jeez, there's that dirty little four-letter word again.

Are you suggesting people should compromise on basic principles? This is analogous to compromising with a stranger who wishes to amputate both of your arms and legs. You, being a compromising kind of guy, strike an agreement for one arm and one leg. Problem solved.

Compromise becomes problematic and a non-starter when the issue is question is the trespass of one upon the territory of another. Violations of my rights, I assure you, will not be compromised. You will stop trespassing or I will stop you, whatever it may take to do so.

How is that for compromise?
Comprosise is the only real way to get legislation passed. Neither party controls enough seats to do what they want to do on their own. The choice is to get nothing you want through vs getting some of what you want in exchange for some of what the other side wants. Reagan was very good at this. Better to get some of your programs through than none of them. Otherwise nothing is changed.

Would you suggest to Ron Paul that if offered the option of getting a fiscally responsible budget through which was balanced but included some tax increases as a compromise vs continuing to have massive deficits like today he should reject the deal on principle and let the debt soar or should he still try to get the balanced one? I think he would reluctantly take the balanced budget if he felt that was the best deal he was going to be able to get.

Ron Paul would not have control of both houses of congress if he were president so unless he was willing to make some compromises on issues, he may find it impossible to get ANYTHING he wants accomplished.

[osan]

Comprosise is the only real way to get legislation passed.

Firstly: your statement generally presupposes a need to pass legislation. The principles of liberty are well in hand by those who are clued in to them. All that is required is for the rest to buy the clue. Where basic and inherent human rights are concerned, no legislation is required. Therefore, no compromise is so much as tolerable, much less required. Your reasoning fails based on invalid premises.

Secondly, and very much secondarily, any issue for which legislation may be justified is necessarily not related to fundamental human rights. Compromise in such affairs is, therefore, possibly acceptable though not necessarily so. I would also add that any "compromise" in the formulation and passage of such legislation that leads to a condition where by the rights of individuals are violated in even the smallest measure is morally repugnant and thereby void as per the first point, above.

Q
E
D

Thank you for playing.


Neither party controls enough seats to do what they want to do on their own. The choice is to get nothing you want through vs getting some of what you want in exchange for some of what the other side wants. Reagan was very good at this. Better to get some of your programs through than none of them. Otherwise nothing is changed.

More catastrophic failure of reason. There is a wall against which all people eventually press where pragmatism must end and principle stand firm if principle is to have any meaning and value at all. This mentality of pragmatism with which persons such as yourself appear to be so taken is a product of fear; the fear of losing what you have or not getting what you think you want. No offense, but this is a cowardly position, beset on all sides by a grasping that betrays the basis of fear upon which the lives of such persons appears to be based. For such people, "winning" is more important than doing what is right. Better to sell oneself out in terms of principles and the promises of freedom than to "lose" - to not get what one wants. For my money, it is better to fight to the bitter end, true to one's principles and in courage of their convictions than to sell oneself out for the promise of the gilt cage of pretty slavery at the whim and deign of another who, by virtue of one's capitulation, is raised to the status of master standing above the self made slave. Those who presume to master others should be stopped, even if they must be killed in the process. That is my unequivocal opinion on the matter.


Would you suggest to Ron Paul that if offered the option of getting a fiscally responsible budget through which was balanced but included some tax increases as a compromise vs continuing to have massive deficits like today he should reject the deal on principle and let the debt soar or should he still try to get the balanced one?

False dichotomy. Nice try, but you will have to do far and away better than that to draw me in. I don't play that game. Been around too long to fall for that and I am a little too smart. But thanks for the invite.


I think he would reluctantly take the balanced budget if he felt that was the best deal he was going to be able to get.

I hope we will have the opportunity to test your hypothesis for real sometime after '12.

[Zippyjuan]

Firstly: your statement generally presupposes a need to pass legislation.

Without legislation passing, you cannot change anything. If Ron Paul was president and did not sign any legislation, things would be exactly the same as they are now. Unless he ruled by decree and executive orders. If that is to be the outcome then it won't matter if he is elected president or not. He needs laws changed and you cannot change laws without legislation. "If you support me on this issue, I will help you out on an issue important to you". If nobody is willing to compromise, nothing gets done. If your offer is all or nothing, chances are in a severely divided political system like we have now then the most likely outcome will be nothing.

"We didn't accomplish anything, but we stood on our principles so we won!" Did you actually win anything? Actually you lost because you ended up supporting the status quo. (I don't literally mean you or anybody in particular here- it is just a generic "you").

[KingRobbStark]

You'd think Lincoln was the most divisive.

[mczerone]

Peace Sells

... And I'm buying.

[AuH20]

You'd think Lincoln was the most divisive.
I think he meant over the last 50 years and it could be accurate. Obama goes out of his way to belittle political opponents during national addresses which are historically absent of such attacks.

[osan]

Without legislation passing, you cannot change anything.

Strictly speaking, that is not quite true, but your point is still taken. You are speaking positively and I was in a more normative voice. From my standpoint, it is legislation that got us into this rank mess in the first place - a combination of the flaws of humans and a pretty, yet weakly written Constitution. The latter is eminently correctable but I am not at all sure about the former.

As to positive abilities to achieve substantive change without compromise, that has yet to be proven in practice, particularly with all the big noise Obama is making about going around Congress. If perchance he tries and gets away with it, then a precedent will have been set whereby Ron Paul could do the same... though I believe he would not because he is an honest and principled man who probably believes in the authority of the Constitution as he outwardly professes. It would be hardly seemly for him to ignore the dictates of a framework he claims to want to return to primacy.

I would also cite the rather grim economic picture into which his presidency would be thrust from day one. If it gets much worse, one President Ron Paul may have the angry voices of a hundred or more million Americans behind him when he says "off with their heads" to the Fed, Dept. of Ed., and so forth. If he is thwarted by, say, democrats for his first two years, they may not survive the mid-terms as was the case last time. A Paul presidency would have a lot of force behind it if for no other reason than the dire and decaying outlook for the nation's prosperity. I also think there are a LOT of people in the USA who are absolutely fed up with this "security state" bullshit that has been foisted upon us, what with the gutting of the BoR through PATRIOT, shitty authoritarian policy, secret executive orders, the militarization of police departments, insane foreign policy, corporatism running utterly amok, and so on. I grant that there is a huge population of parasitic sorts just champing at the bit to be good slaves and get their free bone from Uncle Barack, but I am not convinced that given the opportunity, a Paul presidency could not bring this nation back and well away from the precipice. I am not quite convinced that he would have to do a whole lot of compromising, especially after his first victory or two, after which the naysayers would be proven wrong, the sky not having fallen, and the new sense of optimism emboldening freedom loving people across the nation. The rest can sit on the sidelines and wring their hands if that is what they want. To hell with them.

Once awakened to real hope, the large minority of freedom loving Americans stand to become a force with which to be reckoned and who the vermin in Congress might not dare cross. It is hard to say, but I look forward to the day when we get to see just how it works out.

You may be right... you may not be. Lets get him into office and see. How does that grab you?

[Todd]

If Obama is one of the most divisive presidents we've ever had, how come no democrats are challenging his 2012 campaign? Where the fuck are the democratic debates?

For several reasons....

One may be that nobody wants to be the guy/gal to tackle the "racist" meme that one will inevitably get who challenges him.

I think it also comes down to the fact that very few sitting Presidents ever get challenged anymore because the men our two party systems choose to be the nominee don't represent anywhere near as much of a critical thinker as Presidents past. They are little walking talking teleprompter reading mouthpiece robots for the establishment

he can be as devisive as he wants as long as the boat doesn't get rocked too much.

[Zippyjuan]

You may be right... you may not be. Lets get him into office and see. How does that grab you?
Sounds good to me!

[AuH20]

Dave was on with AJ yesterday:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=i_yoFLEBOeI


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tykQobtpFkY

[Rael]

Can't believe Dave Mustaine is 50. Now I feel old.

[NewRightLibertarian]

Dave is spot on.


If Obama is one of the most divisive presidents we've ever had, how come no democrats are challenging his 2012 campaign? Where the fuck are the democratic debates?

They dare not question the dear leader.

[heavenlyboy34]

Both parties are divisive. Neither is willing to try to compromise on any issue lest they be seen as "traitors" to their party or "flip floppers". Used to be a time when members would be seen actually talking to somebody in the other party.
In public, yes. But behind congressional doors, they're basically the same. That's why the same lobbyists lobby both parties, and tend to be successful.

I actually much prefer gridlock in congress rather than compromise. Gridlock keeps them from passing onerous legislation for the most part. I think it was Mark Twain who said, "No man's life, liberty, or property is safe when congress is in session".

[heavenlyboy34]

Can't believe Dave Mustaine is 50. Now I feel old. +1. I saw him at the Black Sabbath reunion in 1999. Time flies. :eek:

[AuH20]

http://www.metalhammer.co.uk/top-posts/dave-mustaine-the-government-is-destroying-the-us/


“My current fixation is that I’m sadly mesmerized by watching the news and how the government is destroying this country,” he says of his homeland. “It’s pretty obvious to me that they’re trying to get rid of the middle class. It also seems like we’re moving more towards a single world currency, and I find that very frightening.

[osan]

Peace Sells

It does? Then why do we have what essentially amounts to endless warfare?

What am I missing?

[AuH20]

It does? Then why do we have what essentially amounts to endless warfare?

What am I missing?

It's sarcasm. The entire title of the song is a poke at the establishment. Peace Sells, But Who's Buying? Actions speak louder than empty words.

[liberty2897]

Rust In Peace... still my favorite album to work to after all these years!