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?"
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.
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
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...