Tom Morello Accuses Obama Of War Crimes

The RATM guitarist had harsh words for both parties, and says his vote will be swayed by their policies on poverty.

Ultimate Guitar

Tom Morello has called Republican Paul Ryan a "jack--s", but also had harsh words for President Obama who he accuses of committing war crimes.

The guitarist responded to questions about how Ryan is a big fan of Rage Against The Machine, but told Rolling Stone that Ryan just doesn't get it: "[Rage] is a band that casts the nets really wide, and that's part of the strength of the band. People are drawn to it by the music, the aggression, the rockingness of it, and then they're exposed to different ideas. Paul Ryan was a jackass before he listened to it, came out a jack--s at the end, so he missed a lot of it."

It's not the first time Morello has slammed Mitt Romney's running mate, after previously saying Ryan was "the embodiment of the machine that our music has been raging against for two decades."

Despite supporting Obama in 2008, Morello's opinion has changed:

"I drank a little bit of the Kool-Aid initially," he said. "It looked different than any other president, sounded different than any other president and then he acted the same as all the other presidents. If you have war crimes on your record, and you still continue to suck at the corporate teat like he does my hopes were higher."

If he's disillusioned with both parties, who will he vote for? He says it will come down to their policies on poverty.

"Half the country is in poverty, kids are going hungry," he said. "But those people don't have a lobby, and they don't donate to the campaign in a way that they're going to get something back for it."

312 comments sorted by best / new / date

    Is election year over yet? I don't care which musicians the politicians like and I definitely don't care which politicians the musicians like. I just like the music.
    I didn't understand the headline, it was too many words. I need it simpler, like something of the format "x slams y"
    At this point all presidential candidates have been painted so negatively the presidential candidates may as well be Yog-Sothoth vs Azathoth vs Nyarlathothep.
    Cthulhu For President Why Vote for the Lesser Evil!
    Cthulhu is good and all, but unfortunately he doesn't have a hold on the media like Yog-Sothoth and Azathoth. His numbers might match those of Nyarlathothep though, but otherwise, who are we kidding?
    Good point...but I think a Cthulhu/Charles Dexter Ward ticket would be hard to beat. Then they could appoint Nyarlathotep as Secretary of State and I bet the Middle East would get in line PDQ. And with Azathoth as Attorney General, US crime would drop to nothing.
    I concur. Cthulhu for President - the Mythos wasn't retroactively named after him for nothing!
    I think the 1st official act of the Cthulhu/Ward presidency will be to move the capital from Washington DC to Arkham.
    There are more than two options here...Gary Johnson 2012!
    I'm not American, but that guy is so on it! He totally has the financial background and the credibility, his story is epic and he himself is just a total hero.
    Yeah...Replacing the Fed Income Tax with the Fair Tax. Not gonna fly with me...
    Taxes are a big problem, but they wouldn't be such a problem if they weren't spent bombing other countries and then rebuilding them, bailing out big banks and spent trying to 'stimulate' the economy. Johnson would be far better for our country than any of the other two, who support the Federal Reserve and all the theft they partake in.
    I think its really stupid that everyone still seems to think that they can ONLY vote for ONE of two parties. Why would you settle for "The lesser of two evils" when you can just vote for a candidate that you agree with? Do any of you that are arguing over whether or not music and politics should go hand in hand or not even know of the other candidates? Wiki Gary Johnson.
    Sammy Mantis
    I posted this above already, but I guess I'll say it again. You are seriously disillusioned if you think Gary Johnson, or any other third party candidate has a snow ball's chance in hell at winning this election. Sure, you can vote for one of these candidates in some vain attempt to stick it to the Rep/Dem system, but the fact is that a vote for anyone other than Romney is essentially a vote for Obama. Don't get me wrong, I agree with what you're saying, we should have more candidates. However, most people only know what they see on television, and the media dictates who we get to see and hear from. The way they completely shunned Ron Paul earlier on in this election is a prime example.
    While you may be correct in saying GJ has no chance, you fail to see the fact that if we follow your logic and continue just choosing for lesser of two evils (or not voting) you will perpetuate this duopoly of a 'democracy' we have. If we all band together and for the next few elections vote third party (Libertarian is probably the best third option) we can make a difference and eventually get them into the debates. Longshot yes, but better than just telling people to stop wasting their votes..I rather stick to principle.
    Sammy Mantis
    I would never suggest not voting at all. I'm not even disagreeing with you, I think it would be awesome if there was a way to make this happen. I just can't see this country ever banding together enough to make this happen. The division between between conservative values and liberal values is wider right now than I have ever seen it in my lifetime, and I think we grow more divided every day. To say it would be a long shot would be a lofty understatement. It's a pessimistic outlook, I know, but also a realistic one.
    A vote for WHAT you believe is NEVER a wasted vote. Even if the odds are against you, and even if there's not a chance - that does NOT mean you should vote for somebody that you don't entirely stand behind. It's more about making a statement, This percentage of voters feel a certain way about these issues - This percentage of voters is higher than it has been in previous years = making political ground and forcing other politicians to take your issues seriously.
    Sammy, If everybody in America thought the way you did, and really wanted Gary Johnson for president but didnt vote for him because "Its a vote for Obama", then you're voting for Romney. And if you think theres any difference between the two, make my day. Tell me. A vote for Romney IS a vote for Obama because they are the same person. Just think, if everybody who agreed with Gary Johnson voted for him, HE MIGHT WIN! The logic of voting against Obama and Romney and claiming by doing so is "essentially a vote for Obama" Is like saying if I ****ed your mother, I basically fingered your ass.
    Sammy Mantis
    Thank you, you've given me a lot to think about. Just for future reference, those little packets that come in the box with your shoes? Those aren't candy, and you aren't supposed to eat them.
    He has a communist pin on his hat but he's benefited off capitalism more than any of us
    *Implying only capitalist countries sell his bands albums.
    >implying that his royalty money from RATM and Audioslave doesn't come from a record company, run by strictly capitalist principles...
    Implying you can figure out exactly what his opinion is on economic policy based on a pin...
    Chillout Tom.
    I support Obama, but I still think it's funny that if he bashes Romney or Ryan the response is generally positive, and if he bashes Obama the response is generally negative. The machine, whether it's liberal or conservative, is still the machine.
    Seriously man, fame is like the nutso smack, and suddenly they're the world's foremost expert on political science; you could fit everything these morons know about the government on the end of a needle.
    drying out
    What are you talking about, Tom has been all about politics from day one.
    This comment made me lolwtf?!? Tom Morello has a Degree from HARVARD UNIVERSITY in Social studies and has said his interest was how politics effects the poor. This comment invalid. Look it up.
    Oh-ho, so he wasn't always such a raving lunatic? Did you not read his interview responses? I have a degree in Atmospheric Sciences from the University of Washington but if in five years, I started releasing research papers on how ghosts affect tornado vorticity, I think my opinion should be utterly discounted too. 'War crimes'...come on, if you're not questioning his mental integrity after that comment, you're unfit to vote in the upcoming election.
    get out
    Do any of you have an IQ above 90 or do 'get out' retorts represent the depth of your entire intellect? Let me continue,'Tom has been all about politics from day one.' Really? Then why in the world is he spewing anti-government propaganda without the faintest regard for fact? He said 'Half the country is in poverty.' It took me three seconds to find out on Wikipedia that 15.1% of the US are impoverished. Even politicians don't spew information...34.9% off the mark. Can anyone capable of partaking in this debate convince me that Tom Morello isn't absolutely insane? I will seriously consider any intelligent reply.
    Well... that escalated quickly on topic: Tom Morello does have a degree from Harvard in the exact area he is speaking about in this interview so he is much better qualified than most to talk about the nation's poverty. And his family are politicians and he has been in politics literally his whole life to some degree as a result of that and his own interest in it.
    I appreciate the level-headed response and a little more information and I don't doubt that he IS qualified to make educated statements about politics but my complaint remains: he sounds downright crazy in this interview, he completely made up an utterly incorrect statistic, and I genuinely have no idea what he meant when he said Ryan was a jackass both before and after hearing his music. "Paul Ryan was a jackass before he listened to it, came out a jack--s at the end, so he missed a lot of it." That's not even a proper sentence and what in the hell does it mean?
    Well, he was saying that most people take some kind of message out of their music, and that they may be drawn to it because it is heavy, but leave with some kind of wisdom. In Tom's opinion, Paul Ryan just rocked out to it and missed the point of what Rage is all about.
    Well if is says so on Wikipedia, it MUST be true, I mean they don't let just anyone put information on Wikipedia. smh -_-
    Come on man...anyone can edit Wikipedia, but this info was backed by a reputable reference in the 'References' section. Don't be one of those people from 2006 who constantly bashed Wikipedia's reputability. In at least a few of my college classes, professors allowed Wiki source links in research papers because 99% of the time, it's accurate.
    Yes, because Tom being critical of politicians is just as ridiculous. This isn't Dave Mustaine we're talking about here
    I don't care if he's being critical of politicians...not very man voters are terrifically happy with how the country has been run for the last 12 years, but if the misinformation in his interview and blind stupidity of his Paul Ryan comment (despite the fact that I partially agree) don't strike readers as comments from a prodigious drug-user, I'm concerned for the music community's mental function.
    The fact that you're arguing on the internet is a testament to how pointless your comments are. Yes, I'm aware that I'm doing the same thing. But at least I'm not being all 'I'm smarter than you hur dur'. You're only twelve for one year mate, go out and enjoy it.
    Now don't get too excited but my last comment on this story will be in reply to you, yay! Your response was almost intelligent...until your 'only twelve once' quip. Life-Tip: don't stoop to that level; it's petty and you're better than that. Do you know how hard it was to not reply 'Of your mom?' to the first guy who said 'get out.' Not hard at all, BOOM, because I'm twelve and not dirty enough conceive of such objectionable thoughts.
    Dude, chill. First, Tom Morello has always been political. Second, he graduated from Harvard with honors and a degree in Social Studies, having done his thesis on student protest in South Africa. He knows what he's talking about when it comes to politics, and you obviously don't.
    >assuming because someone studied politics in Harvard means they know about politics... ::facepalm::
    Actually, it kind of does. In case you've been living under a rock, Harvard is one of the best colleges in the world, and they have fantastic political science and social studies programs. Just saying.
    I would not disagree with him, US interference on Lybia last year was pretty ****ed up...
    Im from Poland. My country was occupied by Soviet Union for almost 50 years, people were sending to preasons or work camps away form home, out ecconomy was ruined by socialism. Now when I see some guy with CCCP emblem I know they are just idiots and dont know what they are talking about. FU Morello and your red politics!
    When it comes to the presidency of the United States, it basically means voting for the lesser of two evils. Therefore vote Obama!!
    You are the perfect example of media manipulation. You do know there's more than 2 political parties right?
    Unfortunately, no one else even has a slim chance. If you want your vote to count you almost have to vote one or the other
    It has happened before lol. The point is, even if 15% of the pop votes 3rd party, that's a huge number especially in comparison of the past few years. It is more of a statement that neither party has an understanding of what the people want in this country. The reason no other party has a chance is because the GOP and the Dems have huge budgets, coupled with the fact that the media loves the rivalry. There is absolutely no reason why the presidential debate only has 2 podiums. The debate committee denies other parties like the Green party of the Libertarian party.
    Ive never voted for either of the 2 big parties, but ive never considered it throwing my vote away. How many times have you heard people say its voting for the lesser of 2 evils? If all of those unsatisfied people voted outside the 2 party system then the other parties might at least have the numbers to get them into the debates/ads/newspapers/etc and get their ideas out there and attract more voters. It has to start somewhere. Rage Against the Machine...arent they on Epic, who's owned by megahugecorp Sony? If NOFX can put out their own albums (as well as a few other bands) so can RATM. Still, Rage's 1st album rocked.
    If everyone keeps that mindset that you have, then the problem will always be there.
    wWll, i mean the problem with third parties is that even IF you did manage to get a candidate into office, nothing would remotely get passed because in Congress they're either a Democrat or a Republican. To get anything remotely done, the president would have to win the support of one of the majority parties by making some policy that in someway benefits them..... I mean third parties are a great way to bring light to undiscovered issues, but in the end, voting for a third party isnt worth it.
    Sammy Mantis
    Exactly. It's unfortunate, but any third party candidate has absolutely no chance whatsoever. You can fool yourself into thinking that you're taking some kind of stand by voting for them, but the fact is that a vote for anyone else than Romney is a vote for Obama.
    This attitude, at least displayed publicly, is part of what holds back third parties. If even their own supporters don't act like they have a chance, how will they gain more of a following?
    Wow, you are kidding right?
    In what sense am I kidding? I am an Obama supporter. But the fact is that any person who becomes President of the United States is obliged to follow certain protocols to benefit their own nations agenda. And that is either by putting sanctions, having drone attacks etc. I can guarantee you if Ghandi was an American President he would have done the same thing. Therefore whoever gets to become President will make an "evil" decision eventually no matter what. It is not possible to be President (or anything in that matter) and do everything right!
    Both Obama and Romney are awful choices for the presidency.
    Unfortunately, Congress is full of Barack Obamas and Mitt Romneys. So even if we elected a third-party candidate, they wouldn't be able to do much.
    The past 4 years have been a disaster, Obama has crippled this country and points the finger at others for his own faults. He's a hypocrite that accuses Romney of doing things he does as well. He still points blame when he said himself, if this economy isn't fixed in his first term, he doesn't deserve to be President. I'm not a huge fan of Romney, but I'd rather go with a guy who knows finances and our chances of getting this economy back is better in his hands. We've seen Obama's record, it sucks.
    Knows his finances? Have you seen his track record? His plan was to let the auto industry go bankrupt. He single handedly claims to have turned around the Olympics, when he really borrowed half a billion dollars from the federal government through earmarks (something your side of the political spectrum LOVES to talk about), with the games only profiting $100 million. The guy only knows to to exploit the financial system, not how to fix it. The recession could have been worse than it is right now. Most people have shelter, food, water, clean clothing, and most even have internet. Is this as big as a disaster as you claim it to be? Some people on this planet won't eat today, possibly tomorrow either. As someone voting for Romney, I'm sure you don't want companies outsourcing jobs so that they can save money by taking away jobs from Americans. Romney has no problem with that, and has done it with Bain Capital. Would you like me to show you my sources? He's no better economically than Obama. Socially, it's like he came straight out of the 1950's. I'd bed he still uses the phrase "the blacks" and "queers" when cameras and reporters aren't around. I mean, we already know some of the things he says when he just thinks they aren't.
    This is in response to on3andth3sam3's comment about Romney not supporting the auto bailout. The auto industry SHOULD have gone under. It's not the government's duty to help businesses that make terrible decisions. You know why people buy foreign cars? Cause they're better and get better mileage! While American companies were so focused on making bigger trucks and more powerful wasteful engines, the foreign market was looking at environmental concerns. Take for example a midsize Toyota vs. Chevy. The current V6 Camry makes 268 hp and gets 21/30 mpg (city/highway). The current V6 Malibu makes 252 hp and gets 17/26 mpg (city/highway). Shortly after the bailout, the government had the "cash for clunkers" program. I'm not going to get into how wasteful this was, but I'd like to point out that the 8 out of the top 10 selling cars from this program were from foreign countries. Plus buying American doesn't mean supporting American workers; there are lots of foreign cars that are assembled in America. Sorry for ranting
    Sorry, I was away for awhile and didn't see this. Sure they needed/do need a reform, but throwing them to private investors to do with as they please wouldn't have been the way to go. What private investor in their right mind would put money in an industry that just imploded on itself? They more than likely would have liquidated the companies for profit, leaving tons of Detroit auto-workers without a job. It's not like those just fall off of trees, especially in Detroit. I feel that in the long run the bailout was the better option.
    Speaking of hypocrisy! You know Obama, who's pointing his finger, is invested in SEVERAL companies that outsource right? You also know, the Congress Obama points his finger at was a completely Democratic held Congress for Obama's first two years in office right? And the auto know what auto company is thriving right now? Ford. They didn't take the bailout. But if we're comparing the two, like I said, I'm no Romney lover, but Obama is sooooo terrible, we have to vote Romney. No choice.
    Romney believes if I join the military and I die for my country, my husband shouldn't get the same benefits as straight soldiers spouse (actually, he doesn't plan to give my same sex spouse anything). If we adopted a child and he were to stay home and raise them, they would be left nothing but my life insurance policy, since the federal government doesn't recognize same sex marriage (a policy Romney plans to keep and enforce). That's the better of two evils? I'm not going to vote in favor of discrimination against myself.
    Ahh, there it is. Obama came out and pretended to be in favor of gay marriage and you suckers fell for it. Besides, I suppose if any special interest group...say Nambla, comes out and wants their "rights" we should give it to them right? Gimme a break.
    A child does not have the proper mental capacity to consent to sexual activity. That's very different from an adult homosexual, who DOES have the capacity to consent and is fully aware of the nature of his actions. A child molester is manipulating a child; homosexual sex and marriage is consensual. Your analogy is flawed.
    At the end of the day, they are both unnatural sexual desires. So, if a polygamist wants his rights, we should grant those too? A man with 50 wives right??
    What is unnatural about something that happens naturally? Are you suggesting that homosexuality is supernatural or something? Do you hear yourself say these things? It's going to be fun looking at people like you in 30 years the way we look at the pro-segregation morons of the 50's. You're on the wrong side of history my friend. You're troglodytic mentality is outdated. We've evolved past your bigotry.
    So wait, because people are "evolving" to this new belief means we should all change what we believe? Most moronic statement I've ever heard!
    BigMikeBDD, this is EXACTLY what you sound like, and what everyone else is currently doing to what you have to say
    There is no such thing as "unnatural sexual desires". It's not about "beliefs", it's about getting your shit together.
    no, they are uncommon desires. if the two partners are consented to be married, then they should be married. that's that.
    marriage is one man and one women. i personally dont care if two guys or two chiks want to be together because thats their thing. i dont agree with it but like i said, its their thing. but marriage is from the bible and is defined as one man and one women. Maybe the government could recognize gay couples the same as married couples for legal reasons or something but as far as marriage, refer to its origins.
    Actually, sir, marriage is not defined by the Bible. In case you didn't know, there are more religions than Christianity, and they all have their own definitions of marriage. Considering freedom of religion, marriage is an inter-belief practice. But if you want to go from the Bible, let's look at the Old Testament. If a man rapes a woman, she has to marry him. If a woman is not a virgin when she is married, she should be stoned to death. If a woman is widowed, she must marry her husband's brother. Do those sound like good ideas to you? Seriously, dude, read your book before you quote it.
    Alright. I can admit when im wrong. Bad source (stoned friend). And the old testament is ****ed up like you said. But in the new testament Jesus came along and was like "some of the shit youv been taught is wrong". For example "you have been taught an eye for an eye, but i am here to say an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" or sumthin, i forgot the exact words.and then when there was the chik who was about to be stoned and jesus goes "let he who is without sin to cast the first stone". Shit like that.
    Actually, I really don't see a problem with polygamy. If some guy wants multiple wives, I really don't care. I'm going to have one wife and be happy, he can do what he wants and be happy as long as they are consenting. And what makes homosexuality unnatural?
    You're comparing gay people with child molesters? I feel bad for you dude. Seriously man, you're sick.
    BigMikeBDD You need a filibuster proof majority in the senate (which the democrats NEVER had) to actually get anything passed. When the dems had the great majority you so often hear about, any time things started to get going, republicans in the senate just chanted that they would filibuster. So of course nothing got done, its not enough to have a majority any more, you need a filibuster proof majority.
    I'm sorry but that is quite wrong, if anything, left wing policies lead to more outsourcing. Higher minimum wage, increased levies lead to outsourcing
    Mr Winters
    Dude if I lived in America and Romney won the elections...I think I'd emigrate to Mars or something
    And he's beating Obama at all the polls. I don't think Obama is good either, but FFS...
    This may be my favorite thing ever.
    My earlier comment was in regards to Mr Winter's comment. I don't know why it got moved down here. Shouldn't there be an edit button or something.
    "if this economy isn't fixed in his first term" Do you really think that it can be fixed that quickly?
    He shouldn't have made that comment then, right?
    Have you heard of politics? The system by which people get voted into office on policy promises? Most of which cant keep? Someone's been living in a cave...
    Yeah, Romney knows how to make a buck by sending US jobs to China... thats what Bain Capital... his company, is still doing to this day. He knows how to use tax loopholes created by the rich for the rich and hides his money in the Cayman Islands so he doesn't have to pay US taxes on it. Why won't he show his tax returns? Because that elitist phuck hasn't paid any income tax for the years BEFORE he was running for the presidency. I know all the Repugnicans were saying that the unemployment figures were fixed because it dropped below 8%. By the way, how many orphans have you adopted because of your anti-abortion stance. Just another white trash useful idiot for the repugnican party.
    Obama's have investments in companies that are sending jobs overseas. They are hypocrites. Why don't you trash them...they are doing the same exact thing!
    I'm sure you have proof from your right-wing website trolling about Obamas investments. The Romney/Ryan budget cuts THREE TRILLION dollars from programs that help the poor, while your 1% buddies are paying less taxes than they were in the 1960's. Still waiting to hear how many orphans you've adopted, since you're so anti-abortion. You repugnicans are so pro-life until it comes to stepping up and taking care of those kids. Then you disappear.
    CaliforniaKid, that's not correct. We have no idea how much Romney's plan is because it's nowhere to be found. He talks about it, but there's no written plan. You just have to take his word for it, and tonight he proved his word is borderline worthless.
    BigMike, You are completely correct but this probably isn't the right place to argue about this, we are dealing with guitarists that spend half the day with their face in a bong and the other half in their keyboard. I love my guitarists but gotta admit a good few are kinda slow
    So you're not only saying that most guitarists are stupid you're also saying that the only intelligent guitarists are the ones that are also right-wing racist homophobic conservatives? ...and you're saying this on a website that is visited and maintained almost exclusively by guitarists? I don't even need to make fun of you. Good luck.
    "going with finances" in this case means "sell out what little welfare the US has and hand it to the corportations, because they pinky swore they wouldn't just take the money and leave for China". I'm not sure that's a better plan. :\
    Ghandi? I was on your side for all of about 3 seconds there, but Ghandi? Lay of the crack.
    I didn't realize it was possible for a person to be this ignorant and naive. But you sir have proven me wrong.
    I laugh every time Americans go on about how ****ed the political situation is over there. 2 words - South Africa
    That still doesn't mean the political situation isn't bad. It just means it can be much worse.
    Thats true - I'm not denying they have a bad situation; just about everywhere does. But my point, as you say, it could be much worse, and I don't think the majority know that
    is this guy done yet? sure hes a great guitar player but can he just not be happy with anyone or anything? first he writes the 99% song.. bro.. you aint no 99%! you are what the 99% would consider the 1%. vp hopeful ryan likes your music, can we just live with it without you blasting him? i like behemoth, twilight(the band guys not the book!!) and other black metal bands even though im not satanist and dont agree with the lyrics.. it happens. i guess tom just really needs a socialist president to be happy
    I mean, you can't really be neutral politically and play in a band called 'Rage Against The Machine'
    See the thing is, the 99% of OWS is not protesting against succesfull musicians. If you think that the banking cartels on Wall Street are equal to successfull musicians from California, you really need to check your logic.
    I love watching the interviews with people being asked why they vote for Obama and they just say well we need change or change is good. 80% of his supporters are brainwashed college students or people getting cigs to vote for him. I've witnessed it myself
    "Paul Ryan was a jackass before he listened to it, came out a jack--s at the end" So jackass doesn't need to be censored, but jackass needs to be censored. Wut.
    I don't care all that much for politics at this point in my life, but I still think that he has a point. Consider those drone strikes... where's the due process of law in blowing someone up half of the world away?
    You know, it is possible to love someone's music and despise their personal politics. If I based my musical likings and even movies for that matter on the political views of those involved... Well, I'd have an extremely small CD and DVD collection. I love Pearl Jam. Can't stand Vedder's politics. I love Foo Fighters. Don't agree with Dave Grohl. Hell, the Beatles are my all-time favorite band. Didn't like Lennon's politics. I even love Morello's work as a musician in both Audioslave and Rage (more Audioslave but mainly 'cause I'm a big Cornell fan). The point is I may not stand their politics, but I can still appreciate and their body of work musically and their skill as a musician. So, Paul Ryan happens to be a big Rage Against the Machine fan, despite not agreeing with their politics... It's not that hard to do, and it certainly doesn't make him a "jackass".
    You shouldn't try to make sense on the internet. The trolls will come out and get you.
    Any leader involved with the Iraq and Afghanistan war is a war criminal, Blair, Bush, Obama and unless the next president is a hippie he will be one too, people tend to forget that our army's death toll is minuscule compared to the enemy's, most of which are civilian deaths, to quote Frankie Boyle - "Basically, we are murdering a load of shepherds."
    When I went to a Tom Morello Q&A a few months back I found it funny how he was complaining that Obama isn't socialist
    Make the right choice America, Canadians count on it too. everything the POTUS does pretty much affects us
    "Living next to you [U.S.A.] is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt." ~Pierre Trudeau
    *insert polarized statement about politics in America* *insert comment about how Morello is a dick*
    "but I can still appreciate and their body of work " Seriously, UG, an edit button would be lovely.
    Am I the only one disappointed with the lack of "slam" in the title?
    A vote is only wasted if you don't vote for the best candidate. Vote third party.
    If 3rd party candidates actually had some ideas that would cause real change in a positive way, I'd vote 3rd party. As it is, most 3rd party candidates just spew how they're better because they're an "alternative", while simultaneously spewing talking points about their party.
    They do indeed talk a lot about being third party and being an "alternative." But if you think they don't have positive ideas that are different from what the other two parties are trying to give us, then you haven't actually listened to what their ideas.
    Actually, I've listened to many of their ideas. For example, I really like the ideas of the Libertarians. (I could list a few other examples, as well.) It's usually the implementation that I have an issue with.
    Care to explain what you mean by the implementation?
    For instance, the Libertarian ideal of education: From
    Education is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality, accountability and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Recognizing that the education of children is a parental responsibility, we would restore authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. Parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.
    Their implementation of this ideal is to close down public schools.
    It's odd how yesterday everyone was telling UG not to post anything else like this and now they posted an article with the same guy saying the same shit
    Oh yeah anyone else notice the fact that Tom is wearing a Communist Russia hat? People say Jimmy Page was a Nazi for wearing the Nazi officers hat, does this make Tom a commie since he is brandishing the hammer and sickle?
    All the 150 million poor people and all those kids who are "starving" are still doing better than a pretty huge portion of the rest of the world. What Tom doesn't realize is we, as Americans (and most Europeans) are the 1%. If you don't like that idea, feel free to go help people that are actually in poverty, with no clean drinking water and no food.
    There are a lot of homeless and starving people in this country. The fact that you try to gloss over that is appalling.
    There is a homeless problem in larger cities, this is true, though I disagree with the starving issue of the argument. They may not be eating well, but you can damn sure bet that, as we are not experiencing famine in the US, even those in poverty are not starving, even as homeless will refuse food but accept cash. But regardless, the amount of homeless, poverty, or even low-income is not half of the country. Like it or not, the US is still likely the richest country in the world. All I'm saying is that poor people here, although struggling, are not living in real poverty as they do not have to build their own huts, catch their own dinner and hope that the water they are giving to their kids is poisoned by something upstream.
    There are people who live like that here. But surely, on the whole, the United States is much better off. That really doesn't mean anything. You honestly think Tom doesn't know that? Please. Just because things are better here then other places doesn't mean that it cannot be better here. In fact, I'd assume that Tom would respond with the idea that it is worse that there are people suffering here because we are the richest nation in the world. That is what I'd think he would be most upset with. We have the means to house and feed every person in our country, and yet we let so many go hungry, homeless, or live in miserable conditions. That is what I would think Tom is making music about.
    I agree that he would argue that point, "Tom would respond with the idea..." though I believe he would largely for a redistribution of pretty much everything, which is a stark contradiction to the ideas of this country in that people should be free to make what they want of themselves. But honestly, having lived in Pittsburgh, LA, Denver, in the middle of South Carolina, and numerous other places largely due to the military, I've never seen vast amounts of people dying in the streets due to starvation, malnutrition, or exposure. This is why we have institutions in place such as welfare programs, a network of shelters and soup kitchens etc to prevent the suffering you are referencing. My point before is that real suffering, facing life or death in America is not very common, nor is there nothing being done about it, this society is not perfect by any means, but at the same time, there is no place I would rather live, despite some of the negative aspects.
    It's not the "1%" if America alone makes up 5% percent of the population. I'm indifferent to your point, but I just wanted to point out that 99% of the world is not in horrible condition. Although most of it is.
    1% was a symbolic number to the movement Tom got behind with Occupy, I was not arguing that all of Europe and the US are 1% of the world. If you want semantics, 80% of the world's population is believed to live on less that $2.50 a day.
    There's no all end cure to poverty people. Get over it. There will always be the rich and there will always be the poor. No policies will change that.
    100% agreed with Tom Morello here. Obama = Shit, whoever he is up against will not bring about much more or less than Obama. But then again, I thought Presidential elections in America were just popularity contests anyways, and seeing as Obama dances on TV, and gets introduced by George Clooney he is spending more time being a 'cool character' and less on actually good ideas.
    A couple of trillion dollars spent on "poverty" since the Johnson administration, and the figures are still the same. The only way for elitist liberals like Morello to achieve their idealistic goals is totalitarian socialism. Since people like him believe the average citizen doesn't know what's good for himself, he and his people will step up and figure it out for you. They'll eliminate property rights, and if you don't go along with them, there are prisons and firing squads for dealing with that. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro-they all had the same utopian notions that everyone should be taken care of. Trouble is, free people don't like being told what to do. Everyone barely gets something equally, or they die. Except, of course, the governments who keep everything for themselves.
    You realize totalitarianism and socialism don't really work together right? Morello, and other "elitist liberals" aren't calling for an elimination of property rights (that's Communism). But for you to say that liberals want to set up prisons and firing squads for those with whom they disagree is total ignorance. Although Morello can be in your face with his politics and I don't agree with him sometimes, all he is calling for regarding the "poverty" situation is that the government do more to protect those individual's rights to life and the pursuit of happiness. And yes, they may require some distribution of wealth. Socialism flame shield activated.
    Semantics aside, it all means one thing in the end: tyranny. People like Morello ultimately believe using the government as a forceful method of "distributing" wealth is acceptable-as long as it doesn't include himself of course. "Distribution of wealth" violates property rights-cash & assets are no different than land. As far ignorance goes, there's over a hundred years of history to see anything but a free society that respects the rights of the individual results in those rights being taken away. Lofty ideals aside-if you have to use the government to enforce your agenda in the end a lot of people will end up dead for it.
    tom, i feel the same way about your political views as i do on your shitty guitar playing. i never want to hear it again
    "[...]Paul Ryan was a jackass before he listened to it, came out a jack--s at the end, so he missed a lot of it." Yes, Tom, because people actually are swayed by your lyrics. Most of them don't give 2 shits about your lyrics. Paul Ryan is the same as everyone else; he likes the music and pays very little attention to the lyrics. As for the rest of what Morello's talking about...WHAT?! Where are your sources, buddy?!
    If you don't pay attention to a bands lyrics, you're completely missing the point of the entire band, unless the lyricist has gone on record saying they're complete nonsense. What's the point of Nine Inch Nails, Marilyn Manson, Slayer, Dead Kennedys, Korn, or Bob Dylan in that case? All of their lyrics have immensely deep context, and you're just going to ignore that? How does someone who does that even enjoy a concept album?
    1) Korn, Manson, and Slayer are all terrible examples. 2) RATM's lyrics are mostly expanded versions of "Fight the man!" They're also (big shocker) interpretable!
    "Yes I know my enemies They're the teachers who taught me to fight me Compromise, conformity, assimilation, submission Ignorance, hypocrisy, brutality, the elite All of which are american dreams" "Weapons not food, not homes, not shoes Not need, just feed the war cannibal animal I walk the corner to the rubble that used to be a library Line up to the mind cemetary, now What we don't know keeps the contracts alive an movin' They don't gotta burn tha books they just remove 'em While arms warehouses fill as quick as the cells Rally round tha family, pocket full of shells" Doesn't sound like complete nonsense to me. Then again, I read Fahrenheit 451. As for De La Rocha's vocal style, I think they have a term for it...I think it's this weird thing called "rapping." Everything is interpretable. But those bands are pretty clear on what you're supposed to get from their material. Those examples are perfectly defendable. Manson's lyrics revolve around his hatred for popular society, Korn's lyrics revolve around loss of childhood innocence, and Slayer's lyrics revolve around King's hatred of organized religion. They have all said so in interviews.
    Manson's lyrics are usually nonsensical. Korn's lyrics are usually the same. Slayer's lyrics are just King being a hateful ***** towards religion. No matter the theme of the lyrics, they're still terrible examples. Btw, I never said that RATM's lyrics were a bad example; however, the lyrics you posted (and just about any other lyrics in a RATM song) are basically about fighting the system (or "Fight the man!"). Their name colors their lyrics the whole way throughout. Better lyricists are guys like Dylan, who delve very deeply in many topics. Dylan's lyrics range from his drug experiences (he has a few songs about this) to fantasy ("All Along the Watchtower"), with his views on society etched throughout. As much as I hate his singing style, he is a master lyricist. Variety and substance is key. Of the musicians you listed, only Dylan has either.
    I was replying to both of you at the same time. Just because Dylan's been around for nearly 60 years doesn't mean he has a monopoly on depth. "The death of one is a tragedy The death of millions is just a statistic" The Fight Song - Manson A line I see examples of daily. But you're right. That's nonsense....
    Manson has a few songs with depth. Most are rather nonsensical in the grand scheme of things. Furthermore, I don't even like Dylan's music. I also was hardly implying he has a monopoly on depth. You make the most obvious logical errors. No offense.
    That was just one example. I can pull out another 30 off the top of my head if you want. He just seems nonsensical, but as someone with a lot of the same mental issues as Brian Warner (Manson's real name), I relate on practically every level. He's filled with hatred for everyone and everything. If you read his biography, you'll see the guy's a genius. It's actually a pretty good book on top of that. This is a serious question to you (since the other guy pretty much left and nobody reads the middle section of long ass reply sections like these): Is it just me, or do people say they like bands without really understanding them lately? I see people at concerts, and when the artist backs away from the singles, the crowd gets lost. I think if you're going to say you like an artist, you should know who they are and what they're trying to say to understand their music on a deeper level. No offense taken, after dealing with BigRedneck up there and dealing with two other debates on my facebook, my arguments are becoming a little more heated/less logical as the day progresses, haha. It's hard to keep composure when talking with people who have a legitimate prejudice against who you are. This isn't even that big of a thing. I'm a huge fan of every artist I first listed. I feel that just because the message is similar doesn't mean it's shallow, it's more in how you deliver the message.
    Go right ahead, man. List your 30. It won't convince me. I've read his biography. He's not a genius by any stretch of the word. He is smart, but he's not a genius. I found him to be incredibly lonely and rather sad. That said, I did enjoy his music for awhile.
    Is it just me, or do people say they like bands without really understanding them lately?
    Yes, of course they do. People don't usually actively listen to music (meaning they use the passive side of their brains to listen). Delivery of the message is key. And frankly, guys like Manson, Slayer, and Korn really don't deliver their message very well. They've also stayed on the same damn topic throughout most of their music career (with minor deviations, for shock value alone). That's not depth. That's the opposite of depth.
    Slayer's song about abortion? The atrocities commited by Josef Mengele? Creepy mysoginist muderers? I'm not even a hardcore fan and when I think of Slayer, that's what I think of, not the anti-religious stuff. (although you're right, that is the main focus of the band) Why does it matter that it's for shock value? People are allowed to give deeper meanings to songs than the writer/s originally intended.
    His lyrics are complete nonsense though. Plus they're annoying with the lead singers reptitious yelling.
    You should all google Vermin Supreme. He has promised to travel back in time and kill the infant Hitler with his bare hands. Hes got my vote. Vermin Supreme 2012!
    Tom Makes millions a year, maybe he could use some of that money to get a head start on helping those starving children.
    nothing better than going on UG to read the most unintelligent, argumentative, idiotic political banter on the internet. I understand the editors of this site put this shit up intentionally to rouse up controversy but god damn... No one listens to what Morello is saying or comprehends the fact that he will always be pissed off at the state of this country, because he sees America for what it is. as long as there are people, being discriminated against, going hungry at night, unemployed, dying because of a lack of proper health care, we as a nation with our limitless ingenuity and resources have failed ourselves and our future generations and have destined this country to an agonizingly slow decline filled with the political bullshit that is on display in this election
    kill it
    First off I'm a huge Tom Morello fan but doesn't he sell 10.00 dollar t-shirts at concerts for 40.00. He seems to have no problem ripping off the people either.
    So basically Obama has to choose between pissing of Morello or Mustaine? If he does for Mustaine, I'll vote for him.
    This changes my opinion of Morello, who I've been very critical of. I still don't agree with pretty much anything he says and I still think he's a hypocrite for his Occupy semi-involvement, but he's not a blind, unconditional left-wing supporter like I thought and I respect him a little more for that.
    This rage is more at the 2 party political system than Obama as an individual, just that to run for the top job you need corporate funding so you have to work for their corporate interests, not the interests of the people.
    Exactly, when both parties are being controlled by the same interests these elections are meaningless. Well, you can try voting for a third party, but a third party has never won a presidential election in US history. This is probably why Ron Paul tried to win the Republican nomination this time around.
    Dam right, the guy with the most money will almost always win, so 3rd parties dont stand a chance in hell. So i guess your just stuck with the lesser of 2 evils or the evil of the 2 lesser's
    Obama isn't enough of a commie for Tom Morello. look at that hammer and sickle on his hat, absolutely disgusting, get that commie trash out of our country.
    when things get too serious, just remember that we are talking monkeys on an organic spaceship flying through nothing.
    Is it just me or does warcrimes seems to be the favorite past-time of most American presidents?
    If all americans would think like Tom Morello, America would be paradise.
    You would think an article entitled "Tom Morello accuses Obama of war crimes" might actually explore some of those allegations...
    It probably could if Tom had decided to elaborate. As it is, all we have is Tom making vague accusations. His accusations probably wouldn't hold up very well, if he elaborated.