San Diego GOP Chairman Alleged To Be a Fairlight Co-Founder

Airw0lf writes with a claim that appears too implausible to credit, at first glance: "If anyone remembers 'Fairlight' — one of the great groups on the warez scene, you may be interested to know that one of their leaders, Tony Krvaric, is now the chairman of the San Diego Republican Party." A similar report (on which the TorrentFreak story above draws heavily, and which is cited for the same claim about Krvaric made in the above-linked Wikipedia entry) showed up last week in The Raw Story. According to these reports, Krvaric is the same person known as "strider" in the Warez scene. I called Krvaric seeking comment; though he was unavailable, I hope he chooses to comment by email to help inform any followup coverage. A telephone receptionist at the office of the San Diego Republican Party acknowledged that she knew of the claims, but refused further comment, citing workplace rules. While she would not directly acknowledge or deny the truth of the allegations, she asked me to "remember, these are things that happened more than 20 years ago." Since some people have been penalized quite harshly (and some have been jailed) for the sort of large-scale software piracy that Fairlight enabled, it's interesting that Krvaric has enjoyed instead a meteoric rise in conservative politics.

Comments

select * from subjects where content = 'witty'

[blhack]

The guy's defense is pretty good. Basically its something along the lines of:

"Look, when I was in high school me and some friends used to trade video games with one another after school. Yes, it was stupid. Yes, it was illegal. No, I haven't been a part of that for a 20 years.".

As far as his email still being @fairlight, that is also pretty easily defendable. "Me and some friends bought our first domain name way back in the early nineties. It was a bit of a novelty and *chuckle* we were kindof a bunch of nerds. I can assure you that I keep that old email address around for purely nostalgic reasons".

TO those who think the guy should hang for this: How many of you would love the opportunity to make a difference by working in politics? Now how many of you can say that you've never logged into an IRC channel that exists for not-so-copyright-friendly reasons? Or downloaded some files from an FTP that you knew you weren't supposed to have. Howabout even set the date on your computer back a few years to use some shareware that was all the rage in the mid 90s?

Even if this guy still *IS* an active member of fairlight, try explaining what the "warez-scene" is to any non-geek and see how far you get.

And honestly, don't you all think its kindof nice to have somebody on the inside that is pretty clearly a technical person? Do you think this guy is going to have any trouble understand WHY net neutrality should even be a question? Do you think it would be hard to explain to this guy why what the RIAA and MPAA are doing is a ridiculous waste of taxpayer money?

Re:select * from subjects where content = 'witty'

[smooth wombat]

And honestly, don't you all think its kindof nice to have somebody on the inside that is pretty clearly a technical person?

Yes, it would be a welcome change from what we have now. Hopefully the San Diego arm of the Republican Party won't lose their emails detailing how to do more regime changes.

Do you think this guy is going to have any trouble understand WHY net neutrality should even be a question?

No, he understands it perfectly. But that won't make the large donations from telecoms to the Republican Party any less important.

Do you think it would be hard to explain to this guy why what the RIAA and MPAA are doing is a ridiculous waste of taxpayer money?

Considering how much money my party has wasted these last 7.3 years, I don't think being fiscally responsible enters into the equation.

Re:select * from subjects where content = 'witty'

[elrous0]

You don't "make a difference" in the Republican Party. Being a part of it is not a sign you're trying to do good, it's a sign you've sold your soul. Dick Cheney's daughter tried to play that "Well, I'm trying to make a difference" shit, even as the party steadily increased its anti-gay rhetoric to a fever pitch and sponsored more and more constitutional amendments across the country aimed at gays.

Re:select * from subjects where content = 'witty'

[mcmonkey]

Even if this guy still *IS* an active member of fairlight, try explaining what the "warez-scene" is to any non-geek and see how far you get.

How's this: the "warez scene" that grows around the underground trading of software is like the "drug scene" that grows around the underground traffic of illegal drugs. I think that will get me as far as I need to go. Non-geek != idiot.

Now, if asked to explain why a subculture that likes to think itself as intellectually superior uses language that sounds like something out of "Idiocracy," then I would not get far at all.

Re:select * from subjects where content = 'witty'

[dreamchaser]

I would tend to agree with the caveat that the Demoncrats are every bit as bad as the Repugnantcans. Some of their evil overlaps and some is different, that's all.

Re:select * from subjects where content = 'witty'

[X0563511]

They didn't "download warez" - they released them. You know, ripped and cracked it, wrote the NFO, and posted it up on usenet?

Re:select * from subjects where content = 'witty'

[Chris Burke]

I'm also not naive enough to think that allowing gays to marry would not have an effect on straight couples. They might be bigoted, they might have their head up their ass, they might be ignorant, but that doesn't change the fact that they feel the way they do about it. The anti-gay people DO think that homosexuality is wrong.

Ah, see! Right there is the huge fallacy of the whole argument right there in bold!

Gay marriage does not have any affect whatsoever on straight couples.

Gay marriage does have an affect on anti-gay bigots, regardless of whether they are married or not.

So while "pro-gay" legislation is not in any way "anti-marriage", it is anti-anti-gay.

Which is a rather trivial and meaningless conclusion when you think about it.

But of course, as I pointed out in my first post, the whole problem is that the "pro-marriage" movement is nothing but a linguistic cover for the "anti-gay" movement. The original post I replied to, and you in your last post and this post, conflate "straight couples" with "homophobes". That is simply wrong.

So yeah, once you strip away all the bullshit and get to the bottom you are simply left with "pro-gay marriage legislation pisses off anti-gay bigots". Yes that observation is true but why on earth should I care? Why should anyone who cares about the values of freedom and equality that our nation was founded on care? I don't care that it steps on your toes anymore than I care that the Civil Rights movements stepped on the toes of ignorant racists. Their "right to disagree" does not include the right to discriminate; to the extent that such discrimination is allowed, we must strive to eliminate it.

"Pro-marriage" is explicitly and actively anti-gay, because it explicitly prohibits them from getting married and enshrines discrimination in law.

If you're going to turn around and say the opposite, that they are somehow "anti-you", you're going to have to come up with a lot better than "merely knowing gays exist and can possibly get married offends me". That's your own damn problem, not something they caused other than by existing (and refusing to hide the fact that they exist to protect your delicate sensibilities).

But thank you for at least acknowledging that despite your discomfort, it is in fact none of your business whether anyone else gets married. Would that all bigots would be so enlightened, the world would be a vastly better place.

Re:select * from subjects where content = 'witty'

[Eskarel]

Your analogy is flawed. You're not forcing anyone to convert to anything, you're not making heterosexual bigots become homosexuals. You're not even forcing them to accept homosexuals or to stop being bigots.

What you're doing is preventing them from forcing other people who don't believe that homosexuality is wrong to live their lives according to someone else's values.

In other words metaphorically you're preventing anyone from forcing American Christians to convert to Islam while allowing both American Christians and Muslims to continue to exist and to believe what they already believe with equal protection under the law.

In a free country you have the right to believe anything you want to believe, however, the other guy has the same right to believe what he believes and where there is no justifiable public interest in intervening the government should not intervene in those beliefs.

What that means is not that "the government shouldn't change marriage" it's more that the government shouldn't prevent anyone who wants to be married from being married where there isn't a public interest in doing so.

That is to say if two consenting adults are doing something that isn't hurting anyone else and they want to declare in front of the world that they only want to do those things with each other and no one else and they want some tax benefits and common property rights, they should have the right to do that, and the government shouldn't have the right to tell them that their declaration is any different than anyone else's(ie that their declaration is a civil union whereas someone else's declaration is a marriage).

Re:select * from subjects where content = 'witty'

[elrous0]

Oh yes, because Republicans NEVER villianize liberals. They're just thoughtful rationalists who would never resort to underhanded populist smear campaigns to make even the term "liberal" a politically poisonous word. All that reason and civility must explain why Republicans are so well-known for their pro-science stands, polite civil discourse, and highly-educated base.

Re:select * from subjects where content = 'witty'

[delcielo]

The irony of your post is really amazing, if unfortunately typical.

Both parties demonize eachother with abandon. The bases of our 2 party system would be equally responsible for the failure of this union. The tragedy of it is that neither party base represents the people of this nation; but they foment enough anger and unrest that otherwise reasonable people end up in shouting matches or flamewars.

Roughly half of this country is Republican and roughly half is Democratic. All of them are citizens of equal standing in this country, and deserve to have their opinions heard. Neither party has more right than the other to govern in the manner they prefer. They are both responsible for serving the other half of the populous as well as their own. This notion that "My country would be better without all of you [liberal/conservative] nutbags" is not only false but willfully destructive to our union. Our nation consists primarily of people who don't classify themselves as liberal/Democrat or conservative/Republican until somebody forces that choice upon them. Ultimately, it's the baggage that those choices impose that will cause us our greatest difficulty, this notion that it's us versus them in our own country.

Liberals and Democrats don't have any corner on that market by a long shot. Your post simply typifies the exact same behavior you're complaining about.

Us and them. It will be the downfall of our nation.

Re:Republican Motto:

[Anonymous Coward]

More like: do what you want until you get caught, then lie, deny, fire someone and next time be slightly more careful.

Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[jmorris42]

Don't really care much whether the story is true or not. I'm sure the Statute of Limitations has run out. Hell, I hacked a few warez (nothing like what is credited to this dude though) myself back in the day. But Pirate Gumby don't fly the black flag anymore and I doubt this guy does either. Now if he is still active in the warez scene that would be a career ender.

This is priceless watching the slashdot hivemind try to spin this story. If it were a Dem the groupthink would be "What a cool dude! This guy probably really understands tech and will be down with fightin' the power at the *AA." Put an R after his name and "Scandal! Look how tainted the evil Rethuglicans are, how dare they mention any of our scandals, most especially those related to our Obamessiah."

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[Daniel Dvorkin]

You don't get it, do you? The sin is not, in and of itself, in being a Republican. The sin is the hypocrisy. The Republicans present themselves as the law'n'order party. Vote for us, they say, and we'll keep you safe from all those eeevil dark-skinned criminals and Muslim terrorists and hippie commie weirdos. Go to an approved church supported by your tax dollars, put no legal restrictions on the government, foot the bill for endless war, give us total control of your life, and in return the streets will be safe for God-Fearing Real Americans.

It really doesn't matter that John McCain dumped his wife (who waited for him the whole time he was a POW) for a newer model. It doesn't matter that Larry Craig likes cruising for anonymous blowjobs in men's rooms. It doesn't even matter all that much that Rush Limbaugh had to smuggle Viagra on a sex tour so he could get it up for underage hookers, and it matters only a little more that George W. Bush was a cokehead and a deserter, or that Laura Bush got away with drunk-driving manslaughter. And no, it doesn't matter at all that Tony Krvaric used to be a major warez d00d. What does matter, very much, is that the party which builds its entire platform on God and Country and Traditional Values continues to embrace these people.

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[Anonymous Cowtard]

I'm definitely not pro-Republican but why does there seem to be this notion that people are hypocrites because they change their minds about things over the years? So if I do something I stupid when I'm younger and grow to regret it and speak against it as I age, I'm a hypocrite? Hrm... here I thought I was learning from my mistakes. Are we seriously no longer allowed to grow as people and instead are expected to carry the same beliefs, world views and approaches to life from day one until the grave with no hope to grow or change?

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[mcmonkey]

why does there seem to be this notion that people are hypocrites because they change their minds about things over the years?

Buddy, I can tell the '60s were good to you. Your concepts of time are completely warped.

How is it "learning from mistakes" or "growing over the years" when, IN THE SAME SPEACH, Mitt Romney attacks those in the Middle East that are trying to establish nation governments based on religious law and then turns around and says the USA should base its government on religious law?

How is it "growth" or "change" to attack Obama for association with a man who says wacky things such as the attacks on 9/11/2001 were punishment on the USA for past mis-deeds while McCain is actively courting the support of a man who says wacky things such as the attacks on 9/11/2001 were punishment on the USA for past mis-deeds?

To say, my opinions when I was 20 are not the same as my opinions when I am 40, is not hypocrisy. To say, my opinions when talking about a democrat are not the same as my opinions when I am talking about a republican, that is hypocrisy.

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[LaughingCoder]

And it doesn't matter that Ted Kennedy killed the Cape Wind project off of Nantucket because it would ruin his view from his compound, and it doesn't matter that Robert Byrd is a former Klansman. And it doesn't matter that the Democrats claim to be pro-choice, unless that choice involves schools. There are myriad examples on both sides of the aisle. Face it, no one party has a monopoly on hypocrisy.

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[markov_chain]

This argument keeps coming up that we should forgive people because the thing they did was just "something stupid" and a "long time ago." However, the thing about those "stupid" acts is that, in absence of other sources of evidence about what a person is like, they are very good indicators indeed. How many sheep do you need to see a wolf slaughter before you will stop giving it the benefit of the doubt?

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[JustinOpinion]

I agree with you that people (especially politicians) should be allowed to change their minds, to say "I was wrong--with new data and experience, this is what I now believe." However you still must present a consistent view, and not be hypocritical. Some examples of consistent viewpoints would be:

1. I engaged in copyright infringement as a teenager. I now understand that copyright infringement is a terrible thing, and should be punished severely. I should have been punished severely as a teenager, and I will work to make sure that everyone is punished severely for copyright infringement.

2. I engaged in copyright infringement as a teenager. I now understand that copyright infringement is detrimental overall. We as a society should find ways to encourage citizens to respect copyright. However, we all understand that teenagers sometimes do ill-conceived things, so the law should not be overly harsh in dealing with these transgressions. I will work to make sure that copyright law is enforced, without its penalties being unfairly large.

3. I engaged in copyright infringement as a teenager. I now understand that copyright is a bad law, and should be radically altered. I was morally right to ignore copyright as a teenager, and I will work to change the law so that everyone can legally engage in those activities.

Any of those viewpoints is consistent (though I only agree with one of them). The problem is when politicians try to have it both ways. In this case, it seems like he wants to pass it off as some sort of small youthful indiscretion. That's fine--so long as you use your political power to make sure that others enjoy the same implicit forgiveness that you are claiming for yourself.

It would be the height of hypocrisy to claim that this youthful indiscretion was no big deal, but then vote in favor of laws making copyright law stricter (or indeed standing by and allowing other indiscreet youths to be slapped with massive penalties when you were not).

(Sidenote: For some people, #1 would only be consistent with the additional "...and I submit myself for the appropriate harsh punishment at this time." Whether or not there should be a statute of limitations on moral high-ground issues is unclear to me (e.g. a youth who is sued may still be paying off the debt 20 years later... so why shouldn't a 20-year old crime be punished?).)

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[Copid]

How about all the young Barry Goldwater Republicans? Plenty of them around now in their 50s.

I, for one, would be *delighted* if they actually started taking office and changing things instead of talking about how the Republicans that they are electing into office aren't "real" Republicans like they used to be. When you start longing for the good old days, it's a pretty good sign that you think the good old days are over. Likewise, when we start fondly remembering when the the Republicans stood for small government and fiscal responsibility, it's a strong indicator that that's not what the Republican party is any more. More power to somebody who tries to change it from within, but they need to acknowledge that at this point in history, they are the ones who aren't "real" Republicans anymore.

I'm not so quick to buy into the sudden disowning of the insane policies of the past several years by the same people who voted for them and cheered for them until they fell apart. For a while, it was looking like the word "conservative" meant, "somebody the Republican pundits approve of" rather than standing for any recognizable ideology. George Bush was a great conservative hero until his policies went south, and now he's a "fake" conservative without changing a single position.

If the Republican party can actually turn itself into the organism that it likes to remember itself as, I might well be convinced to get behind it. Until then, I see this whole, "I'm a real conservative and the people who actually run things aren't" as just a convenient way of distancing themselves from the disastrous policy decisions that they made nary a peep about when they were being enacted.

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[jmorris42]

> Go to an approved church...

Ah hem. I remember when bumber stickers asking "Is YOUR church BATF approved?" were popular. Hint: Janet Reno is not a Republican.

> It really doesn't matter that John McCain dumped his wife...

I might have to vote for the SOB but please don't assume all Republicans approve of him. As for me, while I might disapprove of his personal life, including the Trophy Heiress, my big hurdle is going to be voting for a known oath breaker. "Congress shall make no law..." is pretty damned explicit.

How the hell did we Republicans hose our nomination process so completely!

> It doesn't matter that Larry Craig likes cruising for anonymous
> blowjobs in men's rooms.

Yes it does. The Idaho Republican Party promised to recruit a primary opponent for Craig after he changed his mind (read lied) on doing the honorable thing and retiring early. If they break their word I will be watching to see if the National party has the balls to do anything.

Same goes for Sen Vitter here in LA. If a primary opponent appears I'll be voting for him/her barring some gross defect even greater than Vitter's penchant for hanging out with prostitutes. But remember that this IS Lousiana so I won't be voting for a Dem regardless because I KNOW I'll be getting a crook.

> ...it matters only a little more that George W. Bush was a cokehead
> and a deserter...

Ah, Dan Rather has company in the 'fake but accurate' camp. What's it like on Planet Crazy?

Cokehead is still a bit debatable but drunk is cold historical fact, you could have went with that and avoided conspiracy theories. Of course there is the small matter that the substance abuse issues were in fact aired prior to the election. Most people decided that he was safely on the wagon and had cleaned up his act. Unless he falls off in the next couple of months I'd say the People acted wisely. Regardless what you judge the success or failure of his administation, he didn't get drunk and do something awful.

> ..or that Laura Bush got away with drunk-driving manslaughter..

Ok, this one is straight out of the Kos fever swamps so I feel icky even quoting it. Listen, throwing personal mud, even at spouses might be political reality in a campaign but this story never came up in '00 or '04 and since Mr. Bush won't be running for elective office again it is just petty to start new rumors.

Tells me I'm probably wasting my time attempting to reason with a BDS victim. What are you guys going to do to fill that huge hole in your life currently occupied by that burning hatred? You do realize he leaves office in a few more months, right? And that whoever wins there won't actually be war crimes trials because it would suck all the oxygen out of the political environment, leaving no media attention to get any new policy going.

What's his record?

[Just Some Guy]

It's not that interesting that someone with an unconventional past rises up through political ranks. The real question for me is whether he retains any of those earlier values. Since he knows a whole lot more about copyright than most, what's his take on the DMCA etc.? Does his political record have much to say about it?

Re:What's his record?

[Al Dimond]

If a politician drove drunk all over San Diego every Friday after getting home from the bars we wouldn't call him an expert on driving. Why should we think someone is knowledgeable about copyright law just because he's violated it a lot?

Re:Duh

[halivar]

It's surprising that this doesn't get more attention, especially from a group that leans as libertarian as Slashdot: the BSA, MPAA, and RIAA are made up of companies that donate almost overwhelmingly to progressive candidates.

What surprises me is not that a tech-savvy, cartel-snubbing crypto-anarchist is in the Republican party. What surprises me is that more aren't.

PS: We should obey the law: from a moral, ethical, and religious stance I believe this. That doesn't mean the law is always right.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Libertarians all want a free ride. Basically, they want everyone else to pay for the public good of a social safety net while they horde their money for better uses, like gaming the market to keep the poor desperate enough to be a continual source of cheap labor.

Re:Republican Motto:

[moderatorrater]

Two things wrong with that: first, people are allowed to change how they believe and, indeed, most parts of their personality. Second, strict copyright enforcement is neither republican nor democrat, liberal nor conservative. It's an artificial control of the market, and as such it's bad according to the free market evangelists.

Republicans are reaching the status of Microsoft on Slashdot, getting bashed for everything whether they deserve it or not.

Right wing nutjob motto

[spun]

Do as I say or you hate America and support the terrorists.

Seriously, I haven't gotten enough flamebait moderation recently. Help me out here.

F.U.

[mcmonkey]

This is priceless watching the slashdot hivemind try to spin this story.

The republicans made an issue of what Bill Clinton was doing 20 years ago. The republicans made an issue of what John Kerry was doing 20 years ago. It's the republicans who like digging up people's past to manufacture scandal.

So when it comes out a republican might have some extra-legal activities in his past, and the official response is, "oh, well that was 20 years ago. That's not relevant now." How is it the "slashdot hivemind" to notice the hypocrisy?

How is it spin to point out that the republicans consistently do the very same things they attack others for?

Re:F.U.

[Toonol]

The republicans made an issue of what Bill Clinton was doing 20 years ago. The republicans made an issue of what John Kerry was doing 20 years ago. It's the republicans who like digging up people's past to manufacture scandal.

It's the Democrats that made an issue out of what Bush was doing twenty years ago. Both sides do it. Don't be intellectually dishonest.

Re:Republican Motto:

[spun]

Double standard. Republicans bash democrats endlessly, but whine about it whenever anyone hits back.

Republicans are allowed to say they've changed, but not Democrats. Republicans love to point out Democrat's youthful indiscretions, so turnabout is fair play.

Markets need controls, as they have known failure modes such as imbalance of information, natural monopoly, and externalities. Sharing of inventions & innovations are externalities and need to be encouraged through non market means.

REPEAT AFTER ME:

[spun]

There is no Slashdot Hivemind.

That is a phrase used as an ad hominem to try to discredit a particular point of view. Whenever you see someone use this phrase, it is a sure sign they have no better argument than appeal to emotion.

Re:REPEAT AFTER ME:

[Toonol]

Funny, since he was correct. Do you dispute the notion that the reception of the story here would have been substantially different if the story, all other things being the same, had the word 'Democrat' rather than 'Republican'? That fact alone should be cause for a bit of self-examination.

Obviously we are not all part of a 'hivemind', just in case you are being overly literal. But there is certainly a lot of ideological positive feedback looping that goes on here.

Re:REPEAT AFTER ME:

[mdmkolbe]

Whenever you see someone use this phrase, it is a sure sign they have no better argument than appeal to emotion. And that is also a phrase used as an ad hominem to try to discredit a particular point of view. Whenever you see someone use this phrase, it is a sure sign they have no better counter-argument than appeal to emotion.

Re:Republican Motto:

[evilphish_mi]

Democrats do the same damn thing. Anybody who has ever seen a political ad knows this.

Re:Republican Motto:

[moderatorrater]

Double standard. Republicans bash democrats endlessly, but whine about it whenever anyone hits back. Not really. Bashing happens back and forth, and I call shenanigans if it's unfair either way, which his statement clearly was.

Republicans are allowed to say they've changed, but not Democrats. Republicans love to point out Democrat's youthful indiscretions, so turnabout is fair play Really? Because I seem to remember President Bush getting bashed over what he was doing in Vietnam, over his alcoholism, and over many other things in his past. Seems like maybe analyzing peoples' past behavior cuts both ways.

Markets need controls Indeed they do and I never argued differently, I only said that very conservative people would tend to make that argument. Since republicans tend towards the conservative side, placing republicans on the side of copyright seems a little silly.

Just because some republicans or some democrats act a certain doesn't mean they all do, and acting like they do is counterproductive. You don't raise the level of dialogue by going to the level of the lowest common denominator.

Re:Duh

[spun]

Please. Ask any libertarian about it and they say the slack in social programs will be taken up by charity. They do want a certain amount of social security, because of the whole security aspect of it. A system with no safety net is insecure, when things get bad people will eventually revolt and that is bad for business. Libertarians just want other people to pay for that net.

Saying people disagree over whether the government is a good ROI is oversimplifying. Most on the left feel it isn't, because we are spending too much on the military, farm subsidies, and corporate bailouts. Most on the right think its not because we are spending too much on the poor.

They want to keep the poor poor enough so that they will put up with low wages and poor working conditions, but not poor enough to revolt.

Re:Republican Motto:

[spun]

Really, what media are you watching? Because from where I'm sitting, Faux News and even CNN seem to do a lot of Republican ass kissing and a lot of Democrat bashing.

Got any proof the media is pro-Democrat? Because I think you are just repeating Faux News lies.

Re:Republican Motto:

[spun]

Journalists do not control the media. Editors and owners do, and they are overwhelmingly Republican.

Re:Republican Motto:

[moderatorrater]

You're asking for proof, but you haven't been offering it yourself. Would you like to back up your claim?

Do you believe it matters which party you are?

[Shivetya]

because it doesn't. If you don't toe the line your toast.

Both of these so called parties is being wrecked by their fringe. Honestly I think the fringe does more damage to getting moderate Democrats into office than moderate Republicans getting in.

Anyone declaring allegiance to either of these parties needs to be looked at... sorry, they make corporations look good

Re:Go check your facts.

[Toonol]

I absolutely deny that the Republicans are worse than the Democrats. They're both terrible. Until people get over this irrational defense of politicians just because they happen to be in the 'correct' party, there's not going to be any substantial progress against the corruption that both parties are drowning in.

Re:Republican Motto:

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

I'm curious - Fox News or the opinion shows on Fox News channel? The biggest issue Fox seems to have is that their opinion shows are on the channel called "Fox News" - which understandably causes people to think that their news is all right-wing biased.

Re:So what did he say? Dynastic Succession...

[spun]

I wasn't assuming anything, I was TROLLING, maybe you've heard of it? I didn't say anything about cracker-dude, I was insulting Republicans in general. Once one's karma reaches the cap, what else is one supposed to do with it but blow off steam by crassly insulting one's political opponents? Insulting religious nutjobs has gotten boring, Microsoft is passe these days, what else is there?

Seriously though, I may not agree totally with the old school "fiscally responsible states rights small Fed" Repubs, but at last they aren't Neocons. I wish the Paulies and Minarchists the best of luck kicking those criminals to the curb.

Re:Duh

[spun]

Really, the left invented farm subsidies and corporate bailouts? Anything else you want to pull out of your ass while you're at it? You guys are shameless, you don't give a rats ass about the truth, it's all about whatever lies you can get enough idiots to believe. Fucking sophists.

If you aren't trying to keep the poor down in order to get yourself more cheap labor, then why do all your policies have that effect? Why is it that when Republicans get power, wages of the middle class stagnate, the poor get poorer, and the rich make out like bandits? Just coincidence, I suppose.

Re:Duh

[pthisis]

Not only that, but even if you don't get paid directly it's worth a lot to have a stable system to live and work in. People who are starving will steal to feed their families. People who are dying will steal to pay for medical care. A huge part of the reason for bare-bottom safety nets is so that society as a whole remains stable and functional, which pays especially large dividends to the rich and the settled even though the food stamps and medicaid aren't going into their pockets..

Re:Republican Motto:

[unitron]

Because I seem to remember President Bush getting bashed over what he was doing in Vietnam... Bush was in Vietnam? It must have been a super-duper top secret mission during the time when the National Guard couldn't find him.

Re:Republican Motto:

[geekoid]

"Really? Because I seem to remember President Bush getting bashed over what he was doing in Vietnam, over his alcoholism, and over many other things in his past. Seems like maybe analyzing peoples' past behavior cuts both ways."

true, a few democrats did that, but most were like "meh, that was then."

The Vietnam issue came up after the Republicans where falsely attacking Kerry. Remember Swift boat and the fact it turned out to be a lie?

If you go after someone else military career, you better be ready to defend your own.

Since Reagan. Republicans have always been stepping to the same beat. Newts little document drove that home.

Fortunatly it's starting to come to an end. Any party that 'black ball' member for giving a different opinion is bad.

Re:Republican Motto:

[urcreepyneighbor]

Faux News Here's a tip: if you want to seem objective and even-handed, don't use the meme "Faux News". Just a little bit of advice. You'll ignore it, of course, because you think "Faux News" makes ya sound witty. (It doesn't. It just makes you seem like an asshat and anyone who doesn't agree with you completely will miss any actual, honest point you've made. :))

fairlight not just a warez group

[spir0]

Fairlight were not just a warez group, but that is what people seem to remember them for now.

In fact, they were one of the greatest demogroups on the planet. They are even still active, having gone from c64, to Amiga, to PC demos. Here's a big list of Fairlight demos.

Re:Republican Motto:

[Anonymous Coward]

Jeremiah Wright says "what the fuck are you talking about, you clueless fuckstick?"

Re:A breath of change.

[electrictroy]

The statute of limitations is seven years. What some teenager did back in high school has no relevance to the 40-something person I am considering electing for office. They are no longer the same person. They've matured (not just emotionally, but also physically, as their teenage brains have matured into adulthood & better reasoning skills).