Slashdot Mirror
Howard Dean to Guest Blog for Lawrence Lessig
Ethanol writes "Starting Monday, Professor Lawrence Lessig (whom we all remember from Eldred v. Ashcroft) is going on vacation, and his weblog will be guest-hosted by Democratic presidential candidate Governor Howard Dean. Could this be a sign that a serious contender for President (tied for first for the nomination in the latest polls) has his head screwed on right about copyright law?"
Hi dumbshit. "Socialist welfare states" like oh, say Canada or many european countries are doing pretty damn well.
Glad that its not for his facial expressions ; )
There are two kinds of egotists: 1) Those who admit it 2) The rest of us
So we care about this why??
Dean is a socialist, openly so at that. He is about the last person in the world you want associated with your agenda if you want to be taken seriously.
If you don't like Bush then at least vote for a serious contender like Liberman or Kerry. Voting for Dean is a vote for socialism and state control over everything. You haven't seen big brother until someone like Dean takes control.
A democratic shrill candidate wanna be filling in for Lessig. I respect Lessig less now. It's akin to Jerry Springer filling in for Peter Jennings.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
As long as you're not a fucking republican.
If there were any justice in the world we'd round up all republicans, put them on an island and let them try to fuck each other over until they are no more. Since only white males need apply (we'd leave the tokens like Uncle JC Watts out) they would be gone in one quick generation.
A party that holds Regan, Bush (if he was so good why wasn't he re-elected?), GWBush, Thurmond, Lott, Army, etc, as their idols is of no use to anyone.
Ever wonder why when a democrat is in office things generally go well? Less war, less poverty, less crime, less republicans. Better policy.
when you only have leftist answers availible, you only get leftist choices.
That poll is a pure scam. IT says I support Dean %52.
But I'm a supporter of human rights, I support liberty, freedom and oppose socialism.
Thus Dean, and all other fascists (like Bush) are the antithesis of what I support. Yet this survey says I support bush %68 as well.
I imagine they get to post numbers like "Libertarians who took our poll supported dean %52!" and "Republican support Dean %70!" and crap like that.
For most of those questions, only leftist answers were there. For insance, on gun control the two choices are a Gun ban organization and a gun control organization (The NRA is pro-gun control, like howard dean). There were no organizations that support the basic human right for my teenage daughter to defend herself from a rapist. Let alone those who support the second ammendment (Which merely recognizes, NOT GRANTS, the RKBA).
I could go on and on. I bet Dean is pro-drug prosecution, anti-gay rights, and pro-socialism. Just like all the democrats we've seen in recent years. (There really is no difference between the parties-- two flavors of the same agenda.)
I will not vote for anyone who does not take a %100 pro-human rights stand.
And that means, they must end slavery (eg: taxation, where %50 of the time we work for massa state rather than ourselves)-- they must respect the right to defend oneself. The right to marry who one wants (Clinton signed and 2/3 of the democrats voted for that anti-gay marriage law! ) The right to free speech (violated by the "campaign finance reform") the right to privacy (violated by the patriot act-- which drew wide support from democrats and republicans both).... and end US adventurism abroad (another policy the democrats nad republicans both support).
Americans Laugh at Iraqis only getting to vote for Saddam Hussien, ignorant of the fact that they don't have democracy either-- you only get two choices (because third parties are barred from running effectvie campaigns and have to sue for the right to run).... and your two choices are identical.... they just make a lot of hot air about differences.
And you buy it! IF you stand for human rights-- or even just the Bill of rights-- and you vote for Dean you are a hypocrite. Same if you vote for Bush.
Don't keep electing these guys who arrogantly violate their promises and cliamed positions and then rub your noses in it. And dont' be one of the brownshirts goose steppign around demanding political correctness and insisting that Bush is evil, but all the democrats who voted RIGHT ALONG WITH HIM are somehow different.
Wake up, people!
Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23
I also love all these hollywood high school dropouts calling Bush (MBA Harvard) dumb.
I love Bush. I love his plain no nonsense talk. I love his convictions, he would not state false information, he would however, as one who is charged with the responsibility and security of 100's of millions of Americans err on the side of caution and prudence.
You can't judge a man by what his enemies say about him, you can judge though, by who his enemies are. When I look at the round table of Democrats opposing him, it warms my heart to know that GW is in charge and not some socialist anti-american, "lets be like Europe" twits.
Two more positive election cycles for the GOP and that will put the nail in the coffin of the social fascists who hijacked the Democratic party. Then we can get back to real elections where both parties politely disagree, but at least represent America.
" Well there's the obvious invasion of Yugoslavia and installing a US friendly leader who dissolved the country into Serbia and Montenegro, and was then promptly assassinated."
Now that's what I call spin!. Bravo!.
"But there's also the enforcing of murderous sanctions that were, up until the second Iraq invasion a few months ago, killing 5000 children each month (UN and WHO numbers). "
The sanctions were immorall, hideous and downright evil. Clinton did not initiate them. Although he did not lift them either he did ease them up a bit.
"And the bombings in the illegally enforced no-fly zones which included the bombing and killing of dangerous and deadly sheep."
Also illegal, immoral and evil. Also unfortunately a policy he inherited. He should have stopped it but it's worth noting that the bombings increased markedly as soon as Bush took over.
"Of course there's also helping turkey massacre 30,000 kurds. "
Bill Clinton did not "help turkey". That's just a plain old lie. The Turks have been plagued with kurdish terrorism for years. This too is a long standing issue that has been going on for decades. Kurds routinely exploded bombs in crowded cities like Istanbul, burned forests, kidnapped and killed civillians. This is not nearly one sided as you present it. Finally I would not take the word of a socialist party web site as the absolute word on any issue let alone this one.
"Giving the draconian and terrorist government of Colombia billions in military aid."
Mostly to fight drugs. Again I disagree with the policy but he inherited that one too.
" Increasing weapons sales to Indonesia and trying to cover for them, and delay the UN in acting to stop the massacre in East Timor."
Please don't mention East Timor without also mentioning Kissinger, perhaps the most evil war criminal of all time.
Really the things you mention are simply leaving in place policies he inherited. There would have been massive opposition to changing any of them given a republican congress. Could you imagine if CLinton tried to stop the sanctions or stopped money to columbia? It would have been a stupid fight to get into and he would have lost anyway. Why waste political clout when you know you are going to lose?
War is necrophilia.
Do you really believe, in your heart of hearts, that lying about a blowjob under oath is worse than lying about a nuclear threat in the State of the Union Address?
Your appeal to emotion is totally irrelevant. For one thing, the CIA "passed" the information to Bush. If the CIA says something is true, then you pretty much have to believe them. Your "heart of heart" statements assumes that Bush knew the CIA was wrong (which I don't know HOW he would know this information). Secondly, the reported information may still be correct. IF you've not been following the issue closely (which is completely forgivable) you might want to check the front page of a news site...let's say the BBC. You'll notice that the British government STILL maintains that there was some kind of Uranium attempt. So who's right and who's wrong? I'm guessing that YOU are not right given that you don't have access to CIA reports or Bush's inner thoughts.
And as a funny aside, you'll note that despite my mentioning how it totally wasn't an issue that dealt at all with morality, it is a liberal who yet again attacks a Republican because he is immoral [by some definition that I apparently don't realize]...let me guess, he's stupid too? We get it already, all democrats are both smarter and more moral than Republicans...
Not quite. But since you didn't bother to make the argument, let me present it for you. As governor of Vermont, Dean alienated many Progressives and Liberal Democrats through his sometimes-extreme fiscal conservatism (including cuts in taxes and state spending). He's also got a mixed to conservative record on gun rights, welfare, and Israel/Palestine.
You're right that Dean has been presented (and to some degree, presented himself) as much further to the left than his record shows. To call him a moderate, however is to miss the mark. If his Vermont record was centrist, it was centrist by Vermont standards, a politically idiosyncratic state represented by an independent self-avowed socialist in the U.S. House (Bernie Sanders). And it's a record that also includes being the first and only governor to sign legislation providing for same-sex civil unions, as well as a bill radically revamping public school funding to make it more equitable. Moreover, Dean has been a forceful and articulate critic of the Bush administration, including its foreign policy, while the establishment candidates (Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt, and Edwards) merely stick their fingers in the air, nervously tempering their rhetoric from week to week.
Personally, I'm a cautious supporter. I volunteered for Nader in 2000, and I'd be much happier with Dennis Kucinich (who doesn't have a chance in hell of winning the nomination), but we desperately need a revitalized Democratic Party that's actually willing to stand for something if this country is to have any hope of moving away from the disastrous path Bush & co. have placed us on.
Red All Over: Rambling Missives from an Aspiring Revolutionary
A *democrat* will be filling in for him! Who in the world would have ever guessed? I really don't pay much attention to Lessig, but my impression is that he's your typical full-of-themselves professor, and a socialist to boot.
John Kerry is a Joke!