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

Republican Motto:

[spun]

Do as I say, not as I do.

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.

Re:Republican Motto:

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that's pretty much a politician motto. Still, I don't think I'd hold teenage computer crimes against a Republican or Democrat candidate. I don't think anyone could run for office if you were required to have never been young and foolish (or 1337). At least he wasn't out selling crack and shooting cashiers (as far as we know).

Re:Republican Motto:

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, as long as he didn't get a BJ

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.

Re:Republican Motto:

[OutSourcingIsTreason]

Well, as long as he didn't get a BJ

and was careful to delete his old e-mail messages.

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.

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:Republican Motto:

[Bryansix]

Bologna. The real double standard is the way the media challenges everything Republicans lay claim to and assume all bad press about Republicans is true while they assume all good things about Democrats is true and challenge anything negative. The funny exception to this is that Hillary Clinton gets scrutinized by the media all the time. Maybe they think she's a Republican in disguise?

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:

[moderatorrater]

About five years ago they did a study of what candidates journalists and other members of the media supported, and they pretty consistently supported democrats. It's possible that's changed recently, but I doubt it.

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?

Re:Republican Motto:

[spun]

It's from the same damn study you mentioned! I guess you didn't read that part though.

Re:Republican Motto:

[jav1231]

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. Faux News...hehe...that's funny..no really. Actually, you know what it's "punny!" Get it? I can do it too! This is fun. No! This is "pun!" I did it again! I'm so clever!

Asshole.

Re:Republican Motto:

[Chris Burke]

The funny exception to this is that Hillary Clinton gets scrutinized by the media all the time. Maybe they think she's a Republican in disguise?

Rush thinks the media is giving Hillary a free pass and has since she started her presidential bid.

But then again Rush is a cook, and I think a little obsessed with the Clintons.

Re:Republican Motto:

[spun]

Cry more, n00b.

Re:Republican Motto:

[Tenebrousedge]

I don't suppose you'd regard Media Matters as being authoritative? Last time I was reading they were covering both sides of the smearfest, but things may have changed. Things seem to be pretty conservative whether or not they're republican or democrat.

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:Republican Motto:

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps if had blown things up and spent several years in jail as did Willian Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn, he could would be admired by the slashdot crowd as a friend and supporter of Barack Obama.

Re:Republican Motto:

[Miseph]

"Rush is a cook"

i think you mean "kook"... cooks are the guys in the white coats and the silly hats who work in restaurants and blow coke, kooks are the fat guys in cheap suits who work in radio and pop pills.

Re:Republican Motto:

[Chris Burke]

No, I mean cook! You should try his barbecued shrimp! It's got the oxycotin right in the seasoning.

Re:Republican Motto:

[Guppy06]

"Two things wrong with that: first, people are allowed to change how they believe and, indeed, most parts of their personality."

That doesn't absolve them of responsibility for their past actions. What's the statute of limitations? Can a case be made that his actions continue to "make available" illegal copies of software today? Is he going to engage in hypocrisy about whether his own illegal actions should be prosecuted?

"Second, strict copyright enforcement is neither republican nor democrat, liberal nor conservative."

Democrat, Republican... this isn't some random voter who happens to be registered with one party or the other, he's a man of power and responsibility within his chosen party, having more sway in his party's political stance on any number of issues, including software piracy, than 99.999% of the posters here.

Regardless of party, this is an example of someone with political power being held to a different standard than the proles. The BSA and FBI aren't kicking in his front door, waving drawn guns around, seizing everything from his laptop to his toaster oven, and shooting his dog. A judge isn't being told about how he had the "equivalent of 187 CD burners" in his possession. DHS isn't coming out with "evidence" that his software piracy helped to fund al Qaeda.

Democrat or Republican, the stance of both parties on intellectual property is the same. As such a central figure in the Warez scene (past or present), by all rights he should currently be treated as if his last name was Gotti. But as he "just happens" to be a higher-up in one of the Beloved Parties, so far he "just happens" to be getting away with it with less than a slap on the wrist.

Re:Republican Motto:

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, as he calls it, the "oxy-coatin'".

Re:Republican Motto:

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Because I seem to remember President Bush getting bashed over what he was doing in Vietnam,

That's an interesting memory, because President Bush got bashed over not going to Vietnam.

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:

[flewp]

I hear using oxycontin as seasoning helps numb the taste buds. Good for when eating crow, and/or one's own foot.

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. :))

Re:Republican Motto:

[spun]

You're new so I will point out that there is an old tradition here at Slashdot that few even mention anymore. It's called Troll Tuesday. Welcome to Slashdot!

Re:Republican Motto:

[urcreepyneighbor]

Every day's Tuesday, man.

Re:Republican Motto:

[Z34107]

What if this guy were a Democrat instead? Would it be hypocrisy, or "Hooray, somebody knowledgeable about computers is in politics"?

So, famous internet hacker is GOP chairman. Watch out, Diebold...

Re:Republican Motto:

[spun]

Yes, but the interesting Trolls all come out today. Or Thursday; there was a great Rift between the Trolls some years back. And then there's us reconciliationists who just Troll on any day starting with a 'T.'

Re:Republican Motto:

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Republican Motto:

[workindev]

No, Democrats brought up his national guard service in the 2000 election, which prompted the Bush campaign to release documents proving his honorable discharge. It wasn't until 2004 when the Democrats forged some documents to try and make it an issue again.

Re:Republican Motto:

[workindev]

Double standard. Republicans bash democrats endlessly, but whine about it whenever anyone hits back. This is 1/2 right. The other half of this truth is that Democrats bash Republicans endlessly, but whine about it whenever anyone hits back. Of course, which half of truth you get depends on the political persuasion of the person you are asking.

Re:Republican Motto:

[smittyoneeach]

Oh, there are some Inconvenient Truths about the hypocrisy charge and politicians of every stripe, shade, and aroma.
I refer to my little plastic composter drum as "Congress", the worms living therein as "Politicians", and their product as "Legislation". A truth one surely doesn't want to handle without gloves.

Re:Republican Motto:

[Mix Master Nixon]

She IS a Republican in disguise. That's the problem. Well, that, and decades of Bush/Clinton rule. That's an even bigger problem.

Re:Republican Motto:

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, now *that's* a well-reasoned reply that refutes his point entirely. Or not.

So he's right...you're an asshat.

Re:Republican Motto:

[dangitman]

It wasn't until 2004 when the Democrats forged some documents to try and make it an issue again.

Hmmm... you'd think something like that would be in the news. Got any evidence of that?

Re:Republican Motto:

[nguy]

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.

Quite wrong. To free market evangelists, copyright is intellectual property and strict copyright enforcement protects private property. In different words, strict copyright enforcement is what makes a free market in intellectual property possible. That is quite consistent with their beliefs. Strict copyright enforcement does not interfere with the market itself (e.g., Disney still can screw consumers any way they want).

The debate is about whether we want to have intellectual property in the first place.

Re:Republican Motto:

[Anonymous Coward]

You're kidding, right?

Re:Republican Motto:

[alexgieg]

Quite wrong. To free market evangelists, copyright is intellectual property and strict copyright enforcement protects private property.

Wrong. And I say that because I am a free market evangelist. For us, government must have no say on how the market works, i.e., on what people value, how much they value it, why they value it etc. Copyright is a a state-granted monopoly on, among other things, how you use your own property, by preventing your from using that book you purchased anyway you want together with that scanner of yours, printer of yours, DVD burner of yours etc. Thus it is, by definition, interference in the free workings of the market, and as such something we're opposed to.

Now, of course you'll find out there "free market evangelists" that aren't full blown free market evangelists, since they theorize their evangelism not on the "freedom of choice" principle, but on that of "social utility". In other words, utilitarians don't defend the free market by itself, but only as far as it's more useful than, say, central planning. Were someone to appear in front of them proving central planning was more useful to society, they'd defend it all the same. A proper free market evangelist, on the other hand, always places freedom in front, and would contend that even if central planning was in some sense "better" (whatever that means), it would still be a source of less freedom, thus something he'd be opposed to.

Copyright is only defensible from the utilitarian perspective, via the argument you know of: "Who would want to write new books, write new musics, develop new medical drugs, create new software etc. without the system of patents and copyright protection? Think how bad society would be in that case!" A true free market evangelist doesn't care about any of this. He cares about the fact that, through copyright, government has another way to shape how you use your own property, i.e., to shape your behavior, to limit your freedom. This is what we'll always fight against.

Re:Republican Motto:

[nguy]

And I say that because I am a free market evangelist. For us, government must have no say on how the market works,

Just because you fancy yourself a "free market evangelist" doesn't mean you are one.

A proper free market evangelist, on the other hand, always places freedom in front, and would contend that even if central planning was in some sense "better" (whatever that means), it would still be a source of less freedom, thus something he'd be opposed to.

You're confusing free market economics with libertarianism. You're an economically naive libertarian, not an advocate of free markets.

Re:Republican Motto:

[alexgieg]

You're confusing free market economics with libertarianism. You're an economically naive libertarian, not an advocate of free markets.

Nope. This is simple. A "market" is what happens when a minimum of two individuals want to exchange what each produced. A "free market" is when they can proceed with the exchange without the interference of a 3rd party. The end.

Re:Republican Motto:

[dangitman]

The post I was replying to said it was "the Democrats" who forged the documents. The link you provide gives no evidence that the Democratic Party was responsible for any such forgery. Further, it also says that there is no forensic evidence of any forgery. So, where is the evidence that the Democratic Party forged these documents?

Re:Republican Motto:

[hey!]

Oh, I'm all for change, forgiveness, leniency towards to folly of youth and all that. It's not principled tolerance, however, to grant those things to yourself and your friends, but deny them to others. That's just hypocrisy.

As people age, they become more conservative. That's a fact of life. People who have made the transition like to assert that with age comes wisdom. Speaking as somebody who has watched his peers aging from being on his left to being on his right, I can't endorse this as proof that conservatives are more wise than liberals. I don't see any evidence of my cohorts breaking out in heretofore unsuspected wisdom. Their mature conservatism is as intellectually rotten as their youthful radicalism.

They've really remained the same as ever, it's just their circumstances that have changed. When you don't have power and money, the obvious position is that the system is broken. When you don't have much to tax, then taxation seems like no big deal. When you have more than your share of power and money, then the system appears to be working. When you have lots of things to be taxed, taxation looks a lot different.

This is not to say that taxation isn't sometimes a bad thing; or that the system doesn't work some of the time. It's not to say that the well trod path from young turk to old guard isn't taken by many who in their age are wiser than in their youth. But most of the people on this path haven't really changed in any fundamental way.

The dead giveaway is hypocrisy, aggressive and self-righteous hypocrisy. It's that absolute certainty that the world owes you and your friends a break for your youthful foibles, and you owe the world nothing in return, not restitution, not even extending the same considerations to others you demand for yourself.

People like that have not really changed. Their political views have always been narrow and narcissistic, reflecting nothing more than their belief in their personal entitlement.

Re:Republican Motto:

[hey!]

Actually, I think you got the Bush/Vietnam thing wrong.

He was bashed for not changing. It wasn't that he was a draft dodger who is now a hawk, he was a hawk all along. And even that wasn't enough. He acted as if he was entitled to special treatment and he still hasn't confronted that attitude.

Nobody seriously goes after Bush for being clean and sober after a youth of drug and alcohol abuse. It comes up in this context: he hasn't changed enough. He still operates by lying and denial, he still gets by by manipulating the news rather than changing the facts.

So it's not a double standard when people criticize Bush for his youthful foibles, because they are really criticizing him for being the same. If Jesus helped him quite snorting coke and drinking, that's good, but it seems to me that he's also co-opting Jesus into playing the role his dad and cronies used to play. Dad's money and influence kept Bush from experiencing the consequences of his irresponsible behavior, and now it's Jesus who makes him, in his own eyes, infallible in ways that his fellow mortals are not. The theological platitudes about the imperfectability of Man ring hollow in the mouths of those who believe in Bush as a divinely appointed leader. They don't read their Old Testament very carefully, either.

Re:Republican Motto:

[rewinn]

I thought you were cleverly combining "Crook" "Coot" and "Cock" in a sort of diskeyboardlexia.

Re:Republican Motto:

[nguy]

A "free market" is when they can proceed with the exchange without the interference of a 3rd party. The end.

You know, you can invent your own definitions for everything, but that doesn't make your definitions valid.

Here are actual definitions (emphasis mine):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market

A free market is a market in which prices of goods and services are arranged completely by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers.

http://canadianeconomy.gc.ca/english/economy/freemarket.html

A free market economy is one where scarcities are resolved through changes in relative prices rather than through regulation.

"Free market" refers only to the fact that people set prices freely. Free markets wouldn't even exist without extensive government interference: governments enforce contracts, governments create the infrastructure where economic activity takes place, governments issue money, and governments protect property. And governments create a free market in intellectual works through copyright (whether that's a good idea is another debate, unrelated to free market economics).

What you want is libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism, neither of which even necessarily results in a free market economy. You just like to call your position a "free market" position because that sounds so much less offensive than the actual name for what you espouse.

Re:Republican Motto:

[Chris Burke]

I thought you were cleverly combining "Crook" "Coot" and "Cock" in a sort of diskeyboardlexia.

Ah, see, there was your mistake. ;)

Re:Republican Motto:

[alexgieg]

"Free market" refers only to the fact that people set prices freely. Nope. You err because you take "price" as being built upon "money", and worse, "money" as being only that is issued by a central bank. Neither of these two equalities is true.

In the first case, if I sell you one apple in exchange for two bananas, the price of the apple is two bananas. Thus, price without money.

In the second case, if my neighborhood stages a huge swap garage sale in which everyone attributes a number of "points" to the goods they want to let go, and they all exchange their goods based on those points, you have money outside of any central bank.

In both case, no government gets involved.

As for your other points, they can all be solved upon from a myriad of social constructs. For instance, except for the "protect property" function, all of them are in the realm of civil relations. And civil relations, in lots of places, eras and peoples, was managed by arbitration, custom an non-governmental religious authority. But it's surely true, and I must agree with you in this aspect, that nowadays governments use to take responsible for most of them.

What you want is libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism Nope, although I like both concepts, I find them unfeasible. My own preference is for minarchism. Taking from your list, I'd say that I believe a government must exist for enforcing contracts and protecting property, but not for the other aspects.

Re:Republican Motto:

[nguy]

Nope. You err because you take "price" as being built upon "money", and worse, "money" as being only that is issued by a central bank. Neither of these two equalities is true.

I did no such thing. I just pointed out that the definition of free market only refers to the ability to set prices freely, nothing else. The government could require you to do all your contracts by wearing lederhosen and yodeling in Bavarian and it would still be a free market.

In both case, no government gets involved.

Even if your example were valid, so what? I'm not saying that the definition of "free markets" excludes the ability of having transactions without government interference, I'm saying that it doesn't require absence of government interference, except in a narrow and specific sense.

But your example is wrong anyway. Barter in the US has a monetary value and is taxable. Furthermore, the fact that people don't just hold you up at gunpoint and take your goods, and that the goods they barter with you generally don't kill you, is a result of government restrictions.

Taking from your list, I'd say that I believe a government must exist for enforcing contracts and protecting property, but not for the other aspects.

Sure, governments don't need to do any of the other things, and personally I'd also prefer if they stopped doing some of them. But when they do engage in them, it's still a free market according to the standard definition. You can argue against these other governmental activities, but you can't argue against them with free market arguments.

Re:Republican Motto:

[alexgieg]

I did no such thing. I just pointed out that the definition of free market only refers to the ability to set prices freely, nothing else. The government could require you to do all your contracts by wearing lederhosen and yodeling in Bavarian and it would still be a free market. This is price interference! Selling itself isn't an act free of costs. Neither is the government requiring you to do something free of cost. Thus, once the government requires you to do something before you can sell, your selling cost goes from 'x' to 'x+y'. And if your cost for selling a good goes up, this changes the minimum you can sell that good for, what means your whole price structure is changed. Indirect as it might be, this is still interference in your ability to freely set your prices.

Furthermore, the fact that people don't just hold you up at gunpoint and take your goods, and that the goods they barter with you generally don't kill you, is a result of government restrictions. The government itself holds me at gunpoint and takes my goods. Admittedly it does so arguing that by it being the one that does so is less costly to me than some random guy doing it, that by doing it in small amounts spread over time I suffer less, and that (on a democracy, at least) part of the money ends up being used in my benefit. But that doesn't change the nature of the relation: there's someone that is all powerful when compared to me, and he commands me. What means we have a line that goes from almost total command to almost none. Almost none is better than any other option, and this includes economic relations and exchanges.

Sure, governments don't need to do any of the other things, and personally I'd also prefer if they stopped doing some of them. But when they do engage in them, it's still a free market according to the standard definition. This you call "standard definition" is better called "Keynesian definition". Economics goes back hundreds of years, and just because one Economics school happens to be the most influential in your country, and thus the most quoted around, doesn't mean the technical definition it uses in its theories is being better than the more general one from which it was derived.

Re:Republican Motto:

[Moridineas]

Ah, so when somebody says "republicans act this" it can refer to anybody who self-identifies as a republican, but when somebody else say "democrats act this way" it's scandalous and false because there's no evidence that the Democratic PARTY leadership directly did something? Come on, nobody is claiming that the Democratic party leadership created those fake documents, however a number of democrats (private citizens even) were involved in the creation and propagation of the news story.

And if you can read the wikipedia article and come away saying "there is no forensic evidence of any forgery" I've got to conclude that you are being either due to your partisan nature or unconsciously being very intellectually dishonest.

(btw, try downloading the graphic of the letter, and type the same text into MS word. then overlay in photoshop/gimp/whatever. when I did this with office 2003, it was a 100% match. Wordperfect did not match at all. you really think a typewriter from 30-40 years ago is going to match?)

Re:Republican Motto:

[Moridineas]

How's Rush a crook? I'll give you (more than a little!) obsessed with the Clintons, but I don't know about his being a crook.

Re:Republican Motto:

[Moridineas]

Democrat or Republican, the stance of both parties on intellectual property is the same. As such a central figure in the Warez scene (past or present), by all rights he should currently be treated as if his last name was Gotti. But as he "just happens" to be a higher-up in one of the Beloved Parties, so far he "just happens" to be getting away with it with less than a slap on the wrist. Were you aware that a number of members of the fairlight warez group HAVE been arrested in the past decade? Do you think it's possible that maybe--assuming strider is one and the same as the man in this article (which it certainly seems he is!)--that he hasn't been active in 20 years and there's absolutely no evidence to the contrary?

In any case, since you DID ask about statute of limitations (before ranting about how they should go after this guy as if he were a murderer and racketeer) google the No Electronic Theft Act. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that 5 years is the limit. So, your question is answered, and you don't have to be upset anymore about alleged injustices! :-)

Re:Republican Motto:

[Anonymous Coward]

This is price interference! Selling itself isn't an act free of costs.

Indeed, it isn't free of costs. So what?

And if your cost for selling a good goes up, this changes the minimum you can sell that good for, what means your whole price structure is changed. Indirect as it might be, this is still interference in your ability to freely set your prices.

You can still freely set your prices to whatever you want to. The costs imposed by the government may make it rational for you to choose different prices, but that's the whole point of a free market. For example, a common use of the free market is for the government to make the cost of some good or service so high that "the market" will come up with better alternatives.

The government itself holds me at gunpoint and takes my goods.

Again, that's completely irrelevant to the question of free markets, and your statement mostly just suggests that you are a libertarian or anarcho-capitalist ideologue.

This you call "standard definition" is better called "Keynesian definition"

There is nothing Keynesian about it, it's the standard definition of "free market".

and just because one Economics school happens to be the most influential in your country

You have no idea what my country even is.

Re:Republican Motto:

[dangitman]

Ah, so when somebody says "republicans act this" it can refer to anybody who self-identifies as a republican, but when somebody else say "democrats act this way" it's scandalous and false because there's no evidence that the Democratic PARTY leadership directly did something?

No, I'm not saying anything like that. I'm saying that people should be accurate in what they say, and the original statement was intended to mislead for partisan purposes. I have no love for Democrats, just truth.

Come on, nobody is claiming that the Democratic party leadership created those fake documents,

The post by workingdev that I replied to said exactly that. Why do you think I am making these posts? Because somebody made a clearly false statement for political reasons.

I don't think that pointing out facts makes me partisan.

And if you can read the wikipedia article and come away saying "there is no forensic evidence of any forgery" I've got to conclude that you are being either due to your partisan nature or unconsciously being very intellectually dishonest.

Why? The article itself says there is no forensic evidence. What is partisan in any way about saying that? It's the truth.

(btw, try downloading the graphic of the letter, and type the same text into MS word. then overlay in photoshop/gimp/whatever. when I did this with office 2003, it was a 100% match.

And of course, that is not forensic evidence and doesn't actually prove anything.

Of courrse something suss was going on with that story - but there has been no legal investigation - just a bunch of speculation on blogs and by self-proclaimed type experts.

There has never been a real investigation into who committed the forgery and why. Yet people automatically say "The Democrats did it" - when it could have just as easily been a Republican that started it - or a mercenary, or somebody with a completely different motive outside of politics.

This whole stroy reeks, because it is all based on speculation, and everybody just sees what they want to see, nobody seems interested in seriously finding the truth.

Re:Republican Motto:

[Moridineas]

The post by workingdev that I replied to said exactly that. Why do you think I am making these posts? Because somebody made a clearly false statement for political reasons. I've reread the post, and I think if you are interpreting "Democrats" or "the Democrats" as meaning solely the official Democratic party leadership, you are off base, I don't see it. Just read the rest of the thread for context!

I don't think that pointing out facts makes me partisan. No, but your (or my!) interpretation of the facts can certainly act as a good indicator of partisan stances!

Why? The article itself says there is no forensic evidence. What is partisan in any way about saying that? It's the truth. It's wikipedia, I could edit it right now to say that the preponderance of the evidence makes it a clear forgery. Doesn't mean that it is, or that it isn't. What I said was, if you can honestly read all the evidence presented in the post (and include what I told you you can try as an experiment with your very own copy of Office 2003) and conclude there's no evidence of a forgery, I think that's very dishonest.

Now, if you want to look at it differently, flip your statement around, there's absolutely zero forensic evidence that the letters ARE real.

There has never been a real investigation into who committed the forgery and why. That's not really true. If you mean a police investigation, I believe that's accurate. But a number of news organizations DID investigate. For instance read the wikipedia page about Bill Burkett.

I'm not claiming, nor do I believe that the official Democratic party leadership sanctioned the forgery. I do believe that a democrat planned it (Burkett)--this is debatable, and that another highly partisan news reporter--Rather--jumped all over the story with doing any proper investigation for partisan reasons. I don't think Rather's role is debatable at all.

Re:Republican Motto:

[workindev]

No, I'm not saying anything like that. I'm saying that people should be accurate in what they say, and the original statement was intended to mislead for partisan purposes. I have no love for Democrats, just truth. Nonsense. It is universally accepted that the documents came from Bill Burkett, who is a Democrat. It is not untruthful to point that out.

But I do find this accusation interesting considering it comes off a thread where the actions of a single man 20 years ago are being used as the basis of the "Republican Motto" today.

I don't think that pointing out facts makes me partisan. But ignoring facts does.

Why? The article itself says there is no forensic evidence. What is partisan in any way about saying that? It's the truth. Unfortunately, forensic evidence isn't possible here because Burkett claims to have burned the originals. Hmmm. Why would he do that?

But plenty of evidence was presenting proving that the only machines that were capable of making that kind of typeface in that time period were far too expensive and difficult to operate for a secretary in a dusty national guard office.

There has never been a real investigation into who committed the forgery and why. Yet people automatically say "The Democrats did it" - when it could have just as easily been a Republican that started it - or a mercenary, or somebody with a completely different motive outside of politics. And it could have been the aliens who mistakenly beamed it to the wrong planet. And it could have been a million drunk monkeys typing on a million keyboards who accidentally produced the documents. Or it could have been a 7th grade reading paper that was accidentally turned into a leading Texas Democrat.

Dammit! We just don't know for sure!

This whole stroy reeks, because it is all based on speculation, and everybody just sees what they want to see, nobody seems interested in seriously finding the truth. Indeed.

EPIC LULZ

[Anonymous Coward]

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

A breath of change.

[Ceiynt]

Well, at least someone with a crimal background is getting into politics rather then a politition getting into criminal activities.

Re:A breath of change.

[Anonymous Coward]

Politicians are all criminals one way or the other, so nothing changed for him :)

Re:A breath of change.

[bubbl07]

known as "strider"

Criminal? I thought he was a ranger from the North...

Re:A breath of change.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, at least someone with a crimal background is getting into politics rather then a politition getting into criminal activities.

Well with the GOP, you typically get both.

I'd say him pirating makes him a really bad supply-sider, but since the GOP leadership is actually ALL about piracy (especially when it comes to liberating our tax dollars into their own pockets), his history just gives him a tons of gooper street cred.

Re:A breath of change.

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that they helped mandate that Electronic Voting become the norm, is it really any suprise that the GOP would be looking for assistance amongst the Warez community? Not to absolve the Democratic Party of anything, after all as long as they remain in use each election will have the opportunity to become the bot fight of the century.

*This software haxxored by P1uckt43v0t3

Re:A breath of change.

[lysse]

Cross-cultural exchange only works if it's a 2-way process.

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).

Re:A breath of change.

[ShadowsHawk]

You and I are not John Q. Image is everything to a politician.

Re:A breath of change.

[electrictroy]

Even John Q. Public should realize that teenage foolishness is something everybody has done. Mr. Public probably did his fair share of things he's are not proud of, and yet today are mature responsible adults.

What's next?

We start punishing politicians because they stole cookies out of mommy's cookie jar?

And yet...

[quag7]

It still hasn't gotten weird enough for me.

***TRIAD*** for DEPARTMENT of HOMELAND SECURITY!

Re:And yet...

[vecctor]

Everyone is of course entitled to their opinion, but I prefer the security policies of RAZOR 1911.

Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Democrats are for big-media and Hollywood. Republicans are not.

Re:Duh

[spun]

Republicans and Democrats are both for protecting the interests of big money. Can you name any Republicans advocating for copyright reform?

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

[jameskojiro]

He is more of a Libretarian Republican who are good folks in my book.

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:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Republicans and Democrats are both for protecting the interests of big money. Can you name any Republicans advocating for copyright reform? Ron Paul?

Re:Duh

[tverbeek]

What's so surprising about this? The modern Republican party is full of people who believe that anything that gets in the way of the Free Market is evil, and that includes intellectual property rights. He's probably no different from a hippie who grows up and settles down a little, then gets involved in the Democratic party as watered down, centrist version of their half-baked youthful idealism.

Re:Duh

[MrHanky]

Libertarians are the kind of people who think comments like the above are "insightful", which means they are not.

Re:Duh

[Kadin2048]

> they want everyone else to pay for the public good of a social safety net

Um, I'm pretty sure Libertarians are against the existence of a taxpayer-supported safety net in most cases, so I'm not sure how you think this translates into wanting "everyone else to pay for one." They don't want it to exist, period, meaning that they obviously don't want to pay for it. Whether they want other people to be able to pay for it (voluntarily, perhaps), or whether they're against it more fundamentally, is a bit more complex.

90% of political disagreements basically boil down to fundamental differences of opinion as to whether government is a good deal for what you pay. Socialists and leftists mostly feel that you get a good ROI for your tax dollar; supporting a larger government makes sense when taken from this premise. Libertarians and true conservatives don't feel that it's money well spent, and would cut government to the bare minimum on this basis. (Incidentally: 'progressive' tax policies that increase the marginal tax rate based on income pretty much guarantee that the wealthy will always be mostly conservative, since they'll end up paying more for basically the same services.)

One of the reasons political discourse in the U.S. is so unproductive (IMO, anyway) is because there's too much emotional rhetoric and very little discussion about the fundamental issue, which is whether or not most people are getting a good deal for what they're paying.

Re:Duh

[Ethanol-fueled]

Speaking of big money, could he get the Chargers to win just one super bowl? Pretty please?

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:Duh

[bob.appleyard]

90%? Really? A slight exaggeration, perhaps?

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, bullshit. Of course many people don't get a good "ROI" on their taxes. But you know what, I'm living and working in Germany now, happy to pay fairly large sums of money into health insurance, into the pensioner's fund, into unemployment insurance. Because while I know I'll probably never reap massive personal benefits from these, I like to live in a society that gives a shit about people who aren't at the top. Have some basic fucking human compassion.

Re:Duh

[uniquename72]

The modern Republican party is full of people who believe that anything that gets in the way of the Free Market is evil Either you don't know what the free market is, you don't know what 'modern' means, or you have no concept of any Republican stances on economic issues.

There haven't been any free-market Republicans around in decades. Of course, there haven't been any fiscally conservative Republicans around in decades, either.

Re:Duh

[uniquename72]

From the Wall Street Journal in 2005:

The MPAA's political action committee, meanwhile, has steered 77% of its contributions to Republicans this year. 23% isn't so overwhelming, is it?

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Socialists and leftists mostly feel that you get a good ROI for your tax dollar; supporting a larger government makes sense when taken from this premise.

Not really - unless you consider the pro-war crowd to be leftists.

'progressive' tax policies that increase the marginal tax rate based on income pretty much guarantee that the wealthy will always be mostly conservative, since they'll end up paying more for basically the same services.

Not really - the slightly wealthy tend to obsess about taxes but the extremely wealthy have enough money that taxes don't affect them.

Re:Duh

[meta-monkey]

Slashdot does not lean libertarian.

Re:Duh

[rprycem]

I am in the Republican Party, after a few years of being in the Libertarian... and I am running for Congress as the Republican nominee in the Second Congressional District of Maryland.

www.richardmatthews.org

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Are you kidding me? The left *invented* farm subsidies and corporate "bailouts" (read nationalization).

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."

And we also drink the blood of little black kids to wash down the endangered condor egg omelet.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

90% of political disagreements basically boil down to fundamental differences of opinion as to whether government is a good deal for what you pay

not quite. all government officials like power and control and money, some just lie about it to fool those folks not bright enough to actually hold them accountable for what they *do* instead of what they *say*. i can't be too mad at republicans, though. when they say "greed is good," the go out and act like it while the democrats say greed is bad and then go out and act all greedy.

republicrats and demicans are all out for the same things - power, control, wealth, fame, keys to public trough and the ability to monetize the aforementioned goals.

yes, it *is* that simple, and i don't care which definition of *is* you use.

they use the "my team vs. their team" approach to keep your numb minds idle while they loot america for personal gain.

this couldn't be more obvious.

only a narcissistic, sociopathic liar can get elected - nobody with a conscience could tell the lies these politicians tell every day of their lives with such a straight face.

think about it.

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:Duh

[Stephen Ma]

Libertarians fall into two general categories: those who know that a libertarian state will quickly morph into fascism or feudalism, and are eagerly looking forward to it; and those who are too stupid to realize this.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

And since those people will be taken car of by the 'state', those people have no incentive to make them selves better. Every soceity would be better if there was a time limit to the hand outs. Say 3 years. After that the free ride ends. People should be trying to make them selves better, not sitting back and taking the handouts.

Re:Duh

[Mike1024]

(Incidentally: 'progressive' tax policies that increase the marginal tax rate based on income pretty much guarantee that the wealthy will always be mostly conservative, since they'll end up paying more for basically the same services.)

Of course, people with larger incomes will pay more tax for the same services even with a flat percentage income tax.

You could have a poll tax (Constant $ amount from everyone), but they tend to be unpopular with the poor, who tend to outnumber the rich.

Re:Duh

[jejones]

So in the end the "safety net" boils down to "give me your money or I'll steal from you/mug you/etc." So much for claims of ethical superiority.

Re:Duh

[spun]

OH SNAP! Tell it like it is, Stephen, tell it like it is.

There is really only one workable style of free market Anarchism, and that is distributism. Personally, I favor the Anarcho-syndicalist approach, but they both boil down to the workers controlling the means of production. And that is something you never hear the Libertarians talking about. Or rather, they just assume it will happen magically when evil government steps out of the way. Unfortunately for them, history is not on their side.

Re:Duh

[jmorris42]

> 90% of political disagreements basically boil down to fundamental
> differences of opinion as to whether government is a good deal for
> what you pay.

No. Democrats/Socialists/Liberals/Progressives/etc believe taking OTHER people's money is a good way to get a free ride. Those who believe "Thou shalt not steal" and "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods" are good ideas regardless of whether you buy the whole book it comes with tend to disagree.

But the problem for elective governments to fall into the bread and circuses trap is old. Now we have a new 19th Century twist, something Thomas Sowell explained years ago in "The Vision of the Annointed." Sanctimonious twits who feed on the egoboo they get from the idea that they are better than the common masses and it it only by their superior enlightenment and rule that the masses don't descend back into cannibalism. The idea is of course totally opposed to self government in that it holds that the common man is an idiot, which is why their first task is always to eliminate the ability of the People to vote em out... while retaining the forms of elections.

Re:Duh

[pthisis]

There's definitely an ethical component to "we don't want the poor/elderly/sick/children dying on the streets", but there's also a fair bit of "it's in our interests to stabilize things and disincentivize crime".

Lots of money gets spent (from police and defense to welfare and education) to try to stop unethical behavior in the first place and make society on the whole less dangerous, more economically sound, etc.

If you think that welfare is only motivated by trying to do good for all the needy, you're deluded; that's a part of it, for sure, but only a part.

It is, however, different from the extortion scenario you outline. If we decide to fund police to stop crime, that's a lot different from people coming to us and saying they'll commit crime unless we pay them for protection. And I don't think many people have said "fund welfare or I'm going to come loot your house"--society decided that a minimum stable safety net was good for lowering crime, without flagging that Tom and John were going to attack us if we didn't pay them.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

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. You mean libertarians don't want to force anyone to pay for it.

Re:Duh

[tverbeek]

Just because you don't encounter any free-market Republicans in your circles, and don't see too many of them on the floor of Congress, doesn't mean they don't exist. That's a classic logical error.

Re:Duh

[davolfman]

The real advantage is when you're the government you can MAKE people pay for the services. This is important to note as it allows services to exist that would otherwise never happen or be a barely functioning charity at the best.

Re:Duh

[Eskarel]

The US already has such a system. The problem with it is that a lot of people suffer who aren't at fault in that kind of scenario(offspring of loser parents, people with genuine disabilities, folks who have just suffered a long string of really bad luck, or who need assistance to retrain themselves after their skill set has become obsolete).

I've always sort of reckoned that the kind of useless losers who become welfare cheats or as we call them over here dole bludgers, would, if forced into employment, simply become a useless burden on an individual employer as opposed to the government and that society would pay for the salary of that useless incompetent anyway.

A lot of people use the safety net for the things it's supposed to cover, and the things it's supposed to cover are very important. The people who misuse it are largely going to be a drain on society no matter what you do with them, and even if it were ethical to let them starve to death, and even if they weren't likely to turn to a life of crime(though being an effective criminal usually involves a greater deal of togetherness than most of this lot can manage) punishing them is likely to punish others in their family who might potentially not be complete and total losers.

In other words, I don't feel bad paying to help people in need, most of the people who aren't really in need were just going to take my money in another way and children shouldn't have to suffer any more than they already have to just because their parents are wastes of oxygen.

Re:Duh

[mister_slim]

The problem is not so much the emotional rhetoric, but the binary political system which presents every problem as a dichotomy, which leads to that emotional rhetoric. Somehow it turns out most issues aren't black and white.

Re:Duh

[dangitman]

You expect us to believe that Ron Paul is a Republican? You've got to be kidding.

Re:Duh

[dangitman]

Please explain how one can simultaneously support the Republican Party, and also support free markets. It doesn't make any sense. If such people exist, then they are clearly insane.

Re:Duh

[dangitman]

Uhhh, since when did the BSA, MPAA or RIAA donate anything to progressive candidates?

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the Left did start it in America: The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 and The Commodity Credit Corporation, both signed into law by Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) as a part of the New Deal.

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'

[p0tat03]

Not to mention... If we're not willing to prosecute embezzlers, liars, and war profiteers from our government... Who are we to prosecute someone for *gasp* downloading warez?

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

[Anonymous Coward]

That's all well and good, but from what I understand this guy is a really good game cracker. Not sure how well that translates to voting machines, but he does have access to them... *adjusts tinfoil hat*

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'

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Depends on what the payout is. Don't underestimate hypocrisy.

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'

[Scrameustache]

try explaining what the "warez-scene" is to any non-geek and see how far you get. Internet pirates, hackers and virus writers, who support terrorism through the distribution of violent paraphenalia detailing how to make IEDs, the very same kind killing our brave soldiers in Iraq AND hardcore pedophilia images too shocking to even describe.

Think of the children!

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

[Hatta]

"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.".


Well then, Mr. Krvaric, that should put you in an ideal position to understand the idiocy of hundred thousand dollar fines for copyright violation. There are tens of thousands of teenagers and college students out there who may well have their lives ruined because of a youthful indiscretion. Don't you think these kids deserve a chance to turn their lives around, like you had? How are you going to fight to give them that chance?

If you think hundred thousand dollar fines are unjust, what are you going to do to eliminate them? If you think hundred thousand dollar fines for copyright infringement are just, when can we expect your payment?

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'

[Toonol]

The problem is that all your points are voided on Slashdot by one consideration: The guy's a Republican, and there's an awful lot of knee-jerking going on here. Most people here have picked sides, and support 'their side' with the same unthinking loyalty normally reserved for sports teams.

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

[Nikkos]

Both parties have sold their souls. For the republicans it's to the extreme religious nuts who are anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-science. For the democrats it's to the socialists who want equal outcomes and lack of personal responsibility, they're also anti-gun and anti-science. (You don't think reduced expectations coupled with continuing higher wages and less accountability for teachers makes our kids smarter do you?)

If you are that divisive on every topic, you're the exact reason America has so many problems. Instead of trying to find solutions and work together you're just a rabid frothing-at-the-mouth zealot unwilling to even think for yourself.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

If the guy's defense is so good, then why is he stonewalling answering questions about his involvement? If his participation is as benign as you claim, then why not be forthcoming with the press?

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

[pragma_x]

I'm inclined to agree with you.

Republican or not, you have to admit, it's kinda neat to see someone active in politics that has references on pouet.net.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

People like you are the reason so much denial of service took place in the 1990s.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

I see, so Pro Marriage legislation is anti-gay. Would that make all the Pro Gay legislation anti Marriage?

If not, why not?

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

[couchslug]

"TO those who think the guy should hang for this: "

Don't hang him UNLESS he turns into an RIAA sock puppet. If he does, wrap it around his head like the proverbial
"tire iron".

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Generalize much? This idiotic diatribe is 5+ insightful?

You know, the democratic party, as a whole, sucks just as much. The last 2 years, Pelosi and friends were playing politics to get in the White House and have not been doing the job they were elected to do: end Iraq War, etc.

Since there are only 2 viable parties of to be elected, you can very much make a difference as a Republican and not sell out your principles.

See also:
Ron Paul

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

[Chris Burke]

I see, so Pro Marriage legislation is anti-gay. Would that make all the Pro Gay legislation anti Marriage?

If not, why not?

Because "pro marriage" legislation is explicitly anti-gay, in that it denies homosexuals the ability to get married. It's only "pro" heterosexual marriage, and actively "anti" gay marriage.

Whereas "pro gay" legislation would allow homosexuals to marry, and has no impact whatsoever on the marriages of heterosexuals. So it is not in any way "anti" anything.

It's really not that hard, but it requires looking past the most shallow of surface layers.

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

[Chris Burke]

You know, the democratic party, as a whole, sucks just as much. The last 2 years, Pelosi and friends were playing politics to get in the White House and have not been doing the job they were elected to do: end Iraq War, etc.

Oh, nonsense. The Democratic party sucks a lot, but not just as much as the Republicans. The Democrats have failed to make any progress toward getting us out of Iraq in the last two years, while the Republicans have spent the last 6 doing everything they can to entrench us further.

Spineless cowards owned by corporations, brazen warmongers owned by corporations. In my opinion there is very much room for one to suck worse than the other.

This notion that if two guys have done bad things, then they are automatically just as bad regardless of what those things actually were, is a foolish notion and has been actively damaging our ability to reason.

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

[blhack]

Whereas "pro gay" legislation would allow homosexuals to marry, and has no impact whatsoever on the marriages of heterosexuals. So it is not in any way "anti" anything. Yes it is.
Not all of us look at marriage as some prize that can be won on a reality show, or some tool that should be manipulated to pursue an agenda.

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

[statemachine]

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 see the picture you're trying to paint, but it has the wrong focus. Tony Kvaric was not just some impressionable young member, he is the co-founder of Fairlight. To correctly expand your analogy about the "drug scene," it would be as if Pablo Escobar of the Medellin Cartel had come to the USA and become a Democratic Party leader.

I'm all for people changing, but Tony Kvaric hasn't admitted anything yet. Without that, he's a huge hypocrite because he hasn't shown us he's incapable of change.

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

[statemachine]

...hasn't shown us he's capable of change.

Bah, that type of day, you know?

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

[Serge_Tomiko]

This is ultimately why liberals fail and will bring this country to civil war.

Conservatives tend to believe liberals are wrong about human nature and the proper function of the state. Liberals believe conservatives are evil.

Think about this long and hard. How long do you really think civilized society can continue when we have people like you shouting their mouths off how evil conservatives are?

The answer is quite simple - it can't last. What is most comical about this is that I have never met a liberal who has any real capacity to fight a civil war. Not only that, your favorite oppressed minority of the day is not only a tiny part of the population but doesn't even reproduce!

Anyway, for your own sake, I'd stick to slightly less inflammatory rhetoric. And, I live in New York City and know quite a few gay professionals. You know what? They are all Republicans. They could care less about gay marriage, but they sure as hell care about the hordes of morons on welfare and high taxes used to ensure those hordes vote for the whining Democratic candidate of the year.

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

[Chris Burke]

Not all of us look at marriage as some prize that can be won on a reality show, or some tool that should be manipulated to pursue an agenda.

No, not all of us, but you certainly do. You view marriage as a reward for your heterosexuality, and are using it as a tool in your anti-gay agenda.

The only thing pro-gay legislation is "against" is the anti-gay agenda.

I would love to hear you argue otherwise, by explaining how two homosexuals getting married affects your marriage negatively in any way shape or form.

But thank you for making it clear just how explicitly the "pro marriage" view is in reality nothing but a purely "anti gay" view. The support is helpful.

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'

[pthisis]

Not all of us look at marriage as some prize that can be won on a reality show, or some tool that should be manipulated to pursue an agenda. That's true. Most people look at it as a private commitment between two individuals or as a religious commitment in front of God. In the former case, the individuals should be the ones deciding what it means. In the latter case, the religion should be free to define what marriage is without being controlled by the government. In neither case does the government have a compelling public interest.

Now, if we were discussing adoption rules, parenting obligations, or other situations where a minor is involved then there very well may be a compelling public interest, but the so-called "defense of marriage" laws apply based on the standing between two individuals (without children or with), and don't apply to individuals who have children but don't marry.

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

[blhack]

Ah slashdot. :)
Look, I'm not anti-gay marriage. At all. I don't agree with it, i don't LIKE it, but I also don't think that it is my, or any other person's place to dictate to somebody whether or not they're "married". 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. They DO. They might not be right, but in their own minds, they are. So, if you pass legislation that gays MUST be allowed to marry, you ARE effecting the people who are anti-gay. You obviously don't like their right to disagree, and I can understand that, but what you need to understand is that the rest of the planet does not share your views. Change something and you are going to be stepping on somebody's toes.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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? No and no. Do I think his morals will fold immediately when presented with an opportunity to advance his political career in exchange for looking the other way? Yes and yes.

He's a republican. He poses in front of an image of Ronald Reagan. Party before country, every time.

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

[blhack]

Yes, exactly.

My point is that it isn't the place of the government to tell people that their views are wrong.

Take a racist, ku klux klan asshole. You (hopefully) and I both agree that he is a jackass, but it is his RIGHT to be a jackass. That is what people seem to be losing touch with here. The people who are anti-gay are jerks, but it is their right to BE jerks.

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'

[geekoid]

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

then why is it still your party?

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

[Copid]

You obviously don't like their right to disagree, and I can understand that, but what you need to understand is that the rest of the planet does not share your views. Change something and you are going to be stepping on somebody's toes.

Frankly, I don't see how that's "stepping on somebody's toes" any more than American Christians are "stepping on the toes" of Muslim theocrats in the Middle East (to raise a favorite bogey man of a crowd who also tends to be vociferously anti-gay marriage) by not converting to Islam. Sure, I suppose that technically something that they're doing is pissing them off for no justifiable reason, but that's about a far as it goes. It should be pretty obvious to an uninterested observer who is in the wrong.

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

[Copid]

Conservatives tend to believe liberals are wrong about human nature and the proper function of the state. Liberals believe conservatives are evil.

I don't think that you're comparing analogous colors of the spectrum with that one.

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

[Trauma_Hound1]

Bullshit.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

My moral failings are not at issue, he's running for office so his are. Stop spinning and deal with it. In addition, we're not talking about a three kid operation swapping store-bought copies of software, we're talking about Fairlight.. get some damned perspective.

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.

It has taken me between 30 and 60 seconds in the past to explain what a "warez group" is. I'm not sure what the problem is here. Maybe you just suck at explaining technical issues to non-technical people?

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

Sure, as long as it's somebody with a decent moral compass to go with the technical background.

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?

So basically the fact that he deprived software companies of profit in the past makes him perfect to translate as to why it's acceptable to deprive music companies of profit now. I don't agree with the MPAA or RIAA tactics, but if this guy runs his mouth on the subject (and I have no doubt he will) it will definitely be a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

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

[blhack]

I don't see how that's "stepping on somebody's toes" any more than American Christians are "stepping on the toes" of Muslim theocrats in the Middle East by not converting to Islam. Its not. Its the same thing.

My point is that mandating that gays be allowed to marry would be the same as forcing American Christians to convert to Islam. YOu're pissing off one group of people to appease another.

By mandating that gays be allowed to marry, you are forcing the anti-gay group to accept homosexual marriage. By NOT allowing gay marriage, you are forcing homosexuals to accept that they are not allowed to marry.

Currently the anti-gay group has the majority, and because of this gay marriage is not allowed. If the anti-gay group ever LOSES the majority and gays are allowed to marry, then they have two choices: A) Live in a country which accepts gay marriage B) Leave.

Gays currently have the same choices.

Are you suggesting that we should force the majority to accept your views simply because YOU think they're right?
It should be (and currently IS) up to the people to decide.

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

[smooth wombat]

Because I like to piss them off by not voting for who they think I should vote for and return their surveys indicating how wrong and stupid their policies are.

Whenever asked, I relentlessly harp on their narrow-minded, rights-infringing, budget-busting policies and laugh as they thrash about trying to justify how they've strayed so far from their supposed principles and now coddle religious nutjobs whose goals are similar to ones we're fighting in Afghanistan.

I figure if nothing else, they'll never contact me asking for money.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

When asked about his past, he said that it was stupid and that he hasn't been involved in that sort of thing for 20 years. So, the real question here is whether this politician "has changed" in the sense of "has become a hypocrite," and now believes that the RIAA should be allowed to wreck people financially without any evidence other than an IP address that showed up on a server somewhere, or not.

I don't know where the guy stands, but I'm a little bit concerned that he seems to be disavowing his past. He wouldn't be the first politician to advocate locking people up for what they themselves used to do, if that's where he comes down on the issue.

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

[homer_ca]

You're missing the point. The two parties' ideologies leave them open to different criticisms. If it was a Democrat, people would blame Democrats for being "soft on crime". If it was a Republican, people would call him a hypocrite because Republicans "tough on crime" in a knee jerk way.

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

[p0tat03]

Good point, my mistake. Though... somehow I still think we have bigger fish to fry.

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

[mdmkolbe]

If his participation is as benign as you claim, then why not be forthcoming with the press?

The same reason I don't automatically reply to every troll on slashdot. Sometimes it's not worth getting wrapped up in answering every accusation.

Wait! Was your post a troll? Doh!

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

[Goldsmith]

You may want to look at what the republican party in SD is doing before you assume they're all gay-bashing. The republican mayor, Jerry Sanders, is basically running the local party, and he's been very progressive, supporting gay marriage and publicly calling for more gay rights in general. There are people who DO make a difference. Try being open minded, not so fanatical.

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

[Copid]

My point is that mandating that gays be allowed to marry would be the same as forcing American Christians to convert to Islam. YOu're pissing off one group of people to appease another.

I see what you're saying, but the way I see it, it's more like telling the Muslim theocrats that they should ignore the fact that other people are living their lives differently than they might. You're not forcing anybody to do anything.

To continue down the road of broken analogies, let's say you're reading a book, and some guy on the other side of the country wants to use the force of government to prevent you from reading books. He's imposing his will on you in that case. It could legitimately be said that you're imposing your will on him by not submitting to his will, but the two complaints are hardly symmetrical.

By mandating that gays be allowed to marry, you are forcing the anti-gay group to accept homosexual marriage. By NOT allowing gay marriage, you are forcing homosexuals to accept that they are not allowed to marry.

That's absolutely true, and I resent the idea that we're "stepping on toes" in any legitimate sense any more than interracial couples are "stepping on the toes" of the local Klan chapter. Yes, in the most literal sense, they are. The local Klan members are going to have to live with the unbearable burden of knowing that somebody did something icky that doesn't affect them in any measurable way. But back in reality where we have to make fair-minded policy decisions, we have to move beyond the idea that any time two parties disagree, neither one has a legitimate case and we might as well choose randomly.

Are you suggesting that we should force the majority to accept your views simply because YOU think they're right?

I'm not saying exactly that. I don't want to force anybody to accept my views. I want to prevent people from enshrining their views into law unless there's a legitimate state interest, and I want to see any laws that were passed without such an interest repealed. I haven't seen any evidence of a victim or a legitimate state interest in preventing homosexual couples from marrying, so while I respect peoples' right to want to kick gays around, I don't see any reason for them to be allowed to use the government to do so. Are you suggesting that, for example, Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided?

The idea of "majority rule no matter how much it tramples the rights of the minority" simply doesn't work. There's a reason the US Constitution was written with an eye toward preventing a 51% majority from running roughshod over the 49% minority. As they say, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for lunch."

What's the correct answer? As far as I'm concerned, the government either needs to start doling out marriage contracts fairly or it needs to get out of the marriage business entirely. If there's no way a government could possibly use a power equitably, then giving it that power will cause only heartache.

It should be (and currently IS) up to the people to decide.

How far do you push the idea of unchecked majority rule? State run religion? Anti-miscegenation laws? Confiscation of all of the property of an ethnic minority? Concentration camps? I'm having visions of a protester with a sign in front of some sort of death camp being met with, "But, maybe that's just, like, your opinion, man!"

Interesting timing for this conversation, given that Mildred Loving died a few days ago.

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

[blhack]

I'm glad you get what I'm saying.

The problem is that I think it is much much MUCH more that a 51% majority that doesn't think gay-marriage is okay.

As much as i really WANT it to be true that gay marriage doesn't effect straight couples, I really think it does. Straight couples feel threatened by gay ones. Because of this, marriage can be looked at (by them) as something that is THEIRS. It is their own special little club, and only they are invited.

Some people are old school. Some people hate turning on the TV and seeing 20 something MTV real-worlders sleeping with everything that moves because to some people, that is something that is supposed to be "special" (although, I think sentiment is a concept that is pretty much dead in the eyes of most people). These are the people that hate seeing couples divorce and having it just be "no big deal, yeah we just separated", or having intimacy reduced to things like swingers clubs.
I know, I know mod -1 "Catholic"..but its just who I am.

To these people, marriage is a way of separating themselves from everyone else. Its a way of making them feel like their relationship is "real", not just empty, physical thing.

So when you allow gays to marry, yes, you ARE taking something away from them. Its not a completely harmless act.

I know that sucks, but thats where the anti-gay-marriage group is coming from.

Then there is me....I don't agree with gay marriage (like I said, i'm catholic, yes you're allowed to hate me for that if you want to), but I certainly don't want the government telling me what I can do in my bedroom, and similarly don't think it has any place telling anyone else what they can do in theirs. I also don't think that it is the government's place to tell a group of people that they aren't allowed to marry.
So yeah, gay marriage seems weird to me, and I don't like it. However, I will completely respect a gay couple's right to marry, and I think that everyone else should to.
Just because I disagree with it, doesn't mean that my views should be FORCED upon anyone else.

I know this doesn't make much sense, but I'm about 2 gin an tonics between "awake" and "asleep".

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'

[Threni]

> So when you allow gays to marry, yes, you ARE taking something away from them. Its not a completely harmless act.

It's harming no-one. You have to demonstrate harm. You know what harm means, right? I don't mean pretend harm, like "ooh, you've hurt my feelings". I mean like cancer, or a punch in the mouth.

Hmm.. a punch in the mouth for anyone who pretends they're harmed by someone else's harmless activities. You know, that's a pretty good platform for a candidate to run on...

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

[dangitman]

So, how does allowing gay marriage eliminate their right to be jerks?

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

[Anonymous Coward]

The warez scene is NOT like the drug scene for numerous reasons. Also most of the warez sites that you visit do not expect you to pay. They do not give you death threats if you dont pay. Peoples lives arent ruined by warez. Piracy has helped a lot of small time directors and musicians make a name for themselves...

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

[stephanruby]

I see the picture you're trying to paint, but it has the wrong focus. Tony Kvaric was not just some impressionable young member, he is the co-founder of Fairlight. To correctly expand your analogy about the "drug scene," it would be as if Pablo Escobar of the Medellin Cartel had come to the USA and become a Democratic Party leader.

Your comparison is exaggerated. Pablo Escobar is a mass murderer, not just some high-profile smuggler.

Fairlight and its founders haven't tried to kill anybody (as far as I know). If you want to compare anybody to Pablo Escobar, compare high ranking members of the Republican party. Henry Kissinger, Oliver North, Caspar Weinberger, (possibly) Ronald Reagan, etc. Those Republican leaders weren't just mass murderers in South America, making tens of thousands of people disappear, they also used drug trafficking in the Americas as a way to finance their covert black ops throughout the rest of the World.

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

[Jarik_Tentsu]

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. Mmm...I'd say there is a difference. The smoke and mirrors are the same, but how often do software crackers do it for money? The drug scene is based around groups like this extorting the public and poor, while cracker groups generally extort big companies or whatnot.

~Jarik

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

[Stiletto]

As much as i really WANT it to be true that gay marriage doesn't effect straight couples, I really think it does. Straight couples feel threatened by gay ones. Because of this, marriage can be looked at (by them) as something that is THEIRS. It is their own special little club, and only they are invited.

You keep making this generalization, but it's not true.

What you mean to say is, "Some straight couples feel threatened by gay ones." Particularly, the bigoted ones.

Show me one straight couple that is offended by the fact that two dudes from Boston they've never met are married, and I'll show you two couples who don't care in the slightest.

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

[Serge_Tomiko]

Thanks for thinking.

You're wrong.

As I said, I live in NYC and grew up in a very liberal neighborhood (Park Slope).

I've heard it all.

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'

[Anonymous Coward]

Republican, enuf said.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot to mention "... And the proceeds go directly to fund anti-American Islamic Muslim Iranian Terrorists who want to blow up your children in your churches!"

- R

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:select * from subjects where content = 'witty'

[Copid]

You're wrong.

Zing.

As I said, I live in NYC and grew up in a very liberal neighborhood (Park Slope).

Yes, your posts reek of the sophistication of one well-versed in crazy liberal political discourse. Far be it from me to challenge your credentials.

I've heard it all.

I suspect that you either haven't "heard it all" or you simply weren't listening. You seem to be comparing the insane wing of one side to the thoughtful mainstream of the other. That doesn't fly.

The idea that conservatives are uniformly some sort of analytical would-be philosopher kings and liberals are all a bunch of screaming lunatics is the hallmark of somebody who simply hasn't been paying attention to the real discussions. A quick run through the comments at dailykos.com doesn't give you a real picture of the debates or the players any more than reading some of the batshit insane rants at townhall.com or worldnetdaily.com. If that's what you were getting from your friends in Park Slope, let me be the first to suggest that you should have surrounded yourself with smarter friends.

Frankly, the narrative of "We legitimately think they're wrong and they just think that we're evil" falls into its own trap of painting a complex set of positions and a wide variety of people as a black and white melodrama. If you honestly haven't heard anybody defend a liberal political position with legitimate arguments instead of anti-conservative rants, I think that you'd be getting ahead of yourself in applying for a job as a thoughtful and well-traveled political commentator. Don't quit your day job.

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

[Serge_Tomiko]

Frankly, the narrative of "We legitimately think they're wrong and they just think that we're evil" falls into its own trap of painting a complex set of positions and a wide variety of people as a black and white melodrama. If you honestly haven't heard anybody defend a liberal political position with legitimate arguments instead of anti-conservative rants, I think that you'd be getting ahead of yourself in applying for a job as a thoughtful and well-traveled political commentator. Don't quit your day job.

Liberals can certainly defend their positions with legitimate arguments, but generally don't.

I'm not basing this on the internet per se, although that is highly relevant in this day and age. My opinions are based on the 2004 Republican National Convention protests. The nuts handing out political fliers all over the city. Propaganda produced by the likes of Michael Moore. My own education in a major university. The endless parade of media personalities. Lets not forget the hordes of hipsters with their "I hate Republicans" signs, clothing, and tattoos. We even have anti-conservative graffiti here in NYC.

Last but not lease - I've personally had to deal with liberals accuse me of a wide variety of bad things. I've been told I hate the poor despite the fact I'm not particularly wealthy. I've been told I hate minorities, despite the fact I'm hispanic. I've been told I hate gays, despite the fact I'm friends with a few prominent gay men.

I've never in my life heard a conservative in real life say anything like that to a liberal. I've never met a conservative teacher, nor seen conservatives take to the streets as a show of force, nor seen any graffiti espousing conservative political beliefs.

The list goes on.

My point is just this - these kinds of things signal a breakdown in civil society. The political antipathy today is far greater than it was in say 1860, and probably even the 1960s - especially since the segregationists in those days were democrats.

If you are truly interested in peace, then I suggest you personally work to ameliorate this hostility as I try to do when it is shoved in my face. If I'm wrong, what do you have to lose? Nothing. There just isn't any reason for it.

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

[Serge_Tomiko]

You obviously don't know what irony is.

Why don't you tell me all about my ironic post. I'd love to hear it. I say this honestly, when I could have easily trolled you into divulging your true feelings.

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

[blhack]

Thank you for saying this.

I've been telling my liberal friends something along the same lines for YEARS.
If you want to sit at the big kid's table, you're going to have to stop acting like a child, stop with the stupid, inflammatory bumper stickers, the "IMPEACH BUSH!" bullshit, all of it. Just STOP!

Start arguing like an adult and people might take you seriously. People like Jon Stewart and Michael Moore are betraying their own cause by allowing themselves to be a public face for the party, and using the stage to act like a jackass.

We NEED to have serious discussions right now or those 20 something kids with too much time and no real cause to get behind are going to start looking for SOMEBODY they can disagree with enough to start a fight.

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

[Copid]

Liberals can certainly defend their positions with legitimate arguments, but generally don't.

And you went to a "major university"? Do they give refunds?

I'm not basing this on the internet per se, although that is highly relevant in this day and age. My opinions are based on the 2004 Republican National Convention protests. The nuts handing out political fliers all over the city.

Well, it's a good thing that conservatives never do crazy stuff like that.

Propaganda produced by the likes of Michael Moore.

I applaud your even-handed assault on divisive political propaganda.

My own education in a major university.

I'm going to guess that you majored in something technical and didn't spend much time in classes that discuss public policy. Getting the flavor of academic political analysis based on fliers and student club activities doesn't count.

The endless parade of media personalities.

Again, a landscape entirely dominated by liberals.

Lets not forget the hordes of hipsters with their "I hate Republicans" signs, clothing, and tattoos.

I can't imagine conservatives being so crass.

We even have anti-conservative graffiti here in NYC.

Ah, yes, vandalism. A tactic completely isolated to the left.

Last but not lease - I've personally had to deal with liberals accuse me of a wide variety of bad things. I've been told I hate the poor despite the fact I'm not particularly wealthy. I've been told I hate minorities, despite the fact I'm hispanic.

For what it's worth, I believe that I've been accused of being anti-American, even though I am an American. I've also been accused of wanting "the terrorists" to win, even though I go to work every day and specifically work on projects designed to help catch them, which is more than most of the population is doing.

I've been told I hate gays, despite the fact I'm friends with a few prominent gay men.

You mean that people were--gasp!--making a rude and unfair assumption about you based on the actions of extremist elements whose political positions you happen to sometimes share? Say it ain't so! What kind of jackass would do that? Then again, does it bother you that the party you support has done such a good job of cynically exploiting anti-gay sentiment with their "protect marriage" propaganda?

I've never in my life heard a conservative in real life say anything like that to a liberal.

Well, you're presumably out of college, so I'm guessing you're old enough to have spent some time in bars. I just don't know what to say to that except to applaud your choice in bars.

I've never met a conservative teacher...

What "major" university did you say this was, again?

...nor seen conservatives take to the streets as a show of force...

No, I suppose that when conservatives do it, it's called protesting and not "taking to the streets as a show of force."

My point is just this - these kinds of t

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

[Serge_Tomiko]

And you went to a "major university"? Do they give refunds?

I really don't see how that is relevant to my general opinion that liberals don't defend their viewpoints. Obviously, what little attempt is made is in the academic sphere.

Well, it's a good thing that conservatives never do crazy stuff like that.

While my company blocks that site, the url indicates it's about an abortion protest. They do exist, but the scope and scale of the 2004 national convention protests far exceeds anything that ever has happened with an anti-abortion protest. Firstly, you have the entire issue of protesting the political convention of a party. This strikes at the very heart of our political system, and reaks of riots between political factions in the late Roman Republic. It is one thing to protest specific political issues, it is quite another to protest an entire political party engaging in what should be a sacred exercise of our party system. Secondly, the civil disobedience was ridiculous. I lived in Brooklyn at the time and had to go to work that Saturday. It was the summer and it was a beautiful day, so I decided to bike in. I had to walk my bike across the Brooklyn Bridge. Why? The protestors were blocking the pedestrian walkway on the bridge! Why? It served no purpose but to inconvenience cyclists like myself and tourists. That said, the number of protests for liberal causes vastly exceeds the number of anti-abortion protests that occur in some communities in this country. So, to summarize, I'm not saying conservatives never protest. I said that liberals think conservatives are evil, and the same is not true for conservatives. Some conservatives think abortion is wrong, and attack THAT ONE ISSUE. Some may even attack, literally, those who are performing abortions. What they don't do is go up to every person with an Obama button and say "You're an evil baby killer!". Do you see the difference? You've actually supported my argument.

I applaud your even-handed assault on divisive political propaganda.

I'm not a Rush fan, but the guy has an AM radio program. He had a television show that aired at 2 in the morning for a few years in the 1990s. He is hardly a significant figure. I'm talking about the hollywood stars, the endless movies with political themes, not to mention the major media outlets (with the exception of fox news of course). Lets not forget the great stalwarts of liberal media like the New York Times and kin, which fortunately are failing at a record pace. Liberal politics infect the entirety of entertainment. I have to listen to rock starts saying "fuck Bush", hollywood stars pushing the next greatest political indoctrination film (ie Children of Men), the regular news pushing the latest destined to fail social program of the month, the list is seriously endless. Yeah, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage (nominally conservative, btw), and Billy O'Reilly. That's all you got though. Who the hell else is there? How do those four people compare to the hordes of actors, musicians, and other entertainers desperate to save us from the evil conservatives? What's worse about this discussion though, is you still have missed my point. While you are parroting typical liberal nonsense about that quartet of evil, you'll be hard pressed to find anything from those people who claim that liberals are evil.

I'm going to guess that you majored in something technical and didn't spend much time in classes that discuss public policy. Getting the flavor of academic political analysis based on fliers and student club activities doesn't count.

I studied economics at Columbia. You are quite mistaken.

I can't imagine conservatives being so crass.

Never seen anyone on the street with stuff like that, and I live in a city of 8 million people. While it exists on the internet, I don't think it's popular.

Ah, yes, vandalism. A tactic completely is

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

[delcielo]

Troll away, if you feel like it. I couldn't care less.

The irony is that of you demonizing the opposition for being a demonizing bunch of whiners. It's a bit of a pot and kettle situation that you didn't appear to get. And it's the root of what's tearing our country apart. It's a zero sum game. Both parties need to start serving the majority of our populous, and stop serving their narrow bases.

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

[pthisis]

My point is that it isn't the place of the government to tell people that their views are wrong.

Precisely. The government shouldn't be defining marriage at all--they shouldn't be banning it, nor allowing it. It's not a government question. Let the individuals and religions involved define what marriage means in their religion or to them.

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

[Copid]

I really don't see how that is relevant to my general opinion that liberals don't defend their viewpoints. Obviously, what little attempt is made is in the academic sphere.

I'm just noting that most people I know managed to be exposed to a fairly wide variety of well-considered viewpoints in college and you seem to have missed out on that.

While my company blocks that site, the url indicates it's about an abortion protest. They do exist, but the scope and scale of the 2004 national convention protests far exceeds anything that ever has happened with an anti-abortion protest. Firstly, you have the entire issue of protesting the political convention of a party. This strikes at the very heart of our political system, and reaks of riots between political factions in the late Roman Republic. It is one thing to protest specific political issues, it is quite another to protest an entire political party engaging in what should be a sacred exercise of our party system.

I think you're missing a very important point here: The protest was as large as it was because we're mired in an ill-conceived war. Compare that to any disturbances of the 2000 RNC and you'll find that the big factor was not generalized blind hatred but an actual issue, just like the abortion issue. That issue just happens to be one of the most important issues that a government can face. I was less surprised about the backlash against our Republican-led foreign policy than I was about the surprising lack of backlash against the Democratic Party's part in it. In short, painting one as an issue protest and another as blind lashing out is simply nonsense.

Some conservatives think abortion is wrong, and attack THAT ONE ISSUE. Some may even attack, literally, those who are performing abortions. What they don't do is go up to every person with an Obama button and say "You're an evil baby killer!". Do you see the difference? You've actually supported my argument.

Since you weren't able to access the link, I'll summarize the specifics of the protest: It was a bunch of obnoxious nutbags bum-rushing a showing of Horton Hears a Who. I'll leave it to you to explain the relevance of the target audience of small children and Disney aficionados. Alternately, we might also agree that sampling the reasonableness of mainstream political beliefs from protesters is not likely to yield accurate results.

I'm not a Rush fan, but the guy has an AM radio program. He had a television show that aired at 2 in the morning for a few years in the 1990s. He is hardly a significant figure.

Please name 3 other people who you consider minor figures who have a weekly listenership of between 12 and 22 million (depending on sources) and at least one book that spent a half a year on the NY Times bestseller list.

I'm talking about the hollywood stars, the endless movies with political themes, not to mention the major media outlets (with the exception of fox news of course). Lets not forget the great stalwarts of liberal media like the New York Times and kin, which fortunately are failing at a record pace.

I know, I know. Liberal media. Massive conspiracy of news organizations to spin the news.

Liberal politics infect the entirety of entertainment. I have to listen to rock starts saying "fuck Bush", hollywood stars pushing the next greatest political indoctrination film (ie Children of Men), the regular news pushing the latest destined to fail social program of the month, the list is seriously endless.

Yes, I'm sure that Children of Men (and, perhaps, Horton Hears a Who!) is a major threat to our political discourse, just as Chuck Norris and Pat Boone are. Why do I get the strange feeling that mainstream conservatives would be less than thrilled to take ownership of Ted Nugent's behavior?

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

[YourExperiment]

try explaining what the "warez-scene" is to any non-geek and see how far you get.

"Groups of people who illegally pirate computer software for profit, costing the economy billions."

Okay, so it's not true, but just watch how far I get.

This gives new meaning to the phrase...

[Anonymous Coward]

..."the Republican elite".

Re:This gives new meaning to the phrase...

[halivar]

I believe you meant "Republican 1337".

Re:This gives new meaning to the phrase...

[Nimey]

Don't. Do. That.

{shudder}

Democrat motto.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do as I say, not as I do. And don't you dare disagree with me or you're a homophobic, racist, hater.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellent points. Maybe we can finally enter an age where we exchange wars for demo coding contests.

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

[Scrameustache]

This is priceless watching the slashdot hivemind [...] most especially those related to our Obamessiah." Parent is obviously a troll.

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[Daniel Dvorkin]

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?

Not at all, and that were what Krvaric were doing, no problem. But that's not what he's doing; instead, in typical Republican fashion, he's blowing it off and suggesting that it must be Those Evil Lefties making an issue of it for Their Own Nefarious Purposes.

From the Raw Story article:

"Apparently there's a hit piece floating around on me, 'exposing' my wild high school, teenage years where I was in a computer club where we swapped Commodore 64 games (similar to how kids swap mp3 music files these days)," he wrote Monday. ... "I don't know who is spreading this," he concluded, "but just wanted to let you know what's going on out there. Likely it's someone who wants us to take our eye off the ball in 2008, be it the democrats, labor or someone else. Either way, we're not going to let them get away with it. Thanks for your leadership." ... Strider was asked in an interview if he had any regrets about his hacking days. "No," he replied.

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

The Republicans present themselves as the law'n'order party.

Of course they do, that is how the protection racket works. Of course the Democrats offer you niceties instead, at about five cents in value out of every dollar they get from you, rather like going to a fancy restaurant where the atmosphere is real nice and you pay a lot for those few juicy nibbles on your plate.

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

BS. This man is an individual. No one individual supports everything the Republican party supposedly stands for. There is no hypocrisy involved unless this man is both still involved with Fairlight and is pro-copyright in politics.

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

[TubeSteak]

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? He's a hypocrite because he's doing a song and dance routine about his involvement in an international warez group.

You don't have to be religious to believe that admitting your mistakes is should be a critical part of putting them behind you.

He won't come clean about his past mistakes because he's afraid of the fallout.
Avoidance of responsibility doesn't seem like a character trait you want in your gov't representative.

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[Kadin2048]

Some Republicans present themselves as "the law'n'order party". However, you're making a mistake to treat all self-identified conservatives, or even all Republicans, as part of a uniform, monolithic entity. There are pretty deep schisms within the Republican party; actually it's pretty amazing that it keeps ticking along at all without imploding. (I have my doubts that it will survive with its current leadership intact if McCain loses.)

There's a wing of the Republican party that's borderline Libertarian (including being pro-choice), there's a large section that's pretty bluntly theocratic/authoritarian, and there's a substantial middle that's driven by financial and business concerns and is pragmatic when it comes to everything else.

I don't really care for them as an organization since the authoritarians seemingly took over, but I think you're dangerously oversimplifying. They do not "buil[d] [their] entire platform on God and Country and Traditional Values," one section of the party presents their platform to one (rather large) slice of voters that way. I can assure you the Rockefeller Republicans don't present the party to the NYC banking elite -- who are a major source of donations -- that way. Similarly, Democratic candidates courting votes in the Midwest aren't singing the same tune as Feinstein and other apparachiks do when they pass the hat around Hollywood.

The best way to understand the Republican party on the national level (and the Democratic party also) is not as a single entity, but as an agglomeration of smaller factions with wildly differing ideas about how government ought to work. They form a united front and attempt to create a plank out of self-interest and because they think that's the most effective way to promote their agendas, not true ideological agreement on many issues.

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Manslaughter is not a simple *mistake*.
2. Most of the examples by the parent happened recently not in the subject's younger years.

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[scipiodog]

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.

I am always amazed at how the anti-Republican bias comes out in this way.

The rabid concentration on "God, Country, Traditional Values" is a more recent development in the Republican party.

It wasn't always like this - Regan started the trend (trying to capture the evangelical crowd) to some degree, and it went into overdrive with the current President.

The Republican party was truly about limited government, and protecting freedoms. But, it was protecting freedoms FROM BEING TAKEN AWAY BY THE GOVERNMENT.

People seem to forget that not so long ago (the 1960's!) the Democrats were FOR segregation, and the Republicans were AGAINST it. Yet now, somehow Democrats are "the only ones with a conscience" and the Republicans are the "Racist bigots."

Traditional Republicans that I know are outraged at the current state of the party. The blind faith, the Patriot Act, massive overspending, foreign interventionism, and big government are about as UN-Republican as you can get.

No points for guessing who I voted for this time!

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

[rprycem]

You don't get it... I am the Republican nominee for Congress in the second congressional district of Maryland. Look me up, www.richardmatthews.org. I do not represent any of the stereotypes you just stated.

I am for getting rid of the size and scope of our federal bureaucracy.
I am for the rights of the individual being protected.
I am for strict constitutional government.
I want us out of Iraq ASAP.
I want to repeal the Patriot Act.
I think government has no business in marriage.

I am a regular guy, a Slashdot user of many years. I am a System Administrator by trade. I am embraced by the Republican Party in my District.

Republican is just a label. The Party platform is changeable by the members of the party at any time. I aim to do that in my own little neck of the woods.

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

hmmmm...and your comparing him to the Clintons? Murder, land scams, hookers, drugs...etc..etc.
Or to Obama...America hater, radical, liar, drug user/seller, property scams...etc..etc.
These are the people you embrace?
Don't even say that they all do it, because that is a cop out, and you know it!
If fact, your statement is a little lacking on facts...

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[Copid]

Simple question, then: If the trend that changed the party from what it was to what it is today started nearly 30 years ago, at what point do you decide that the Republicans of today are the actual Republicans and those of yesterday are... well... gone? We're talking about a time frame that exceeds the lifespan of a good chunk of the voting age population. I'm all for looking back on history of lessons, but I'm not exactly thinking about Abraham Lincoln's policies when I go to the voting booth these days.

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[AvitarX]

I would go as far as to say that if he believes current copyright law is good and reasonable he is a hypocrite.

His statements imply he does not think swapping MP3s is a big deal, but under current law what he did (cracking and trading software) is a serious thing. To treat is as no big deal, and then support laws that make it such is hypocrisy.

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[PixelScuba]

People seem to forget that not so long ago (the 1960's!) the Democrats were FOR segregation, and the Republicans were AGAINST it

Right... and now those same Democrats are Republicans.

It doesn't matter that traditional republicans are angry about the party (and rightly so), the party itself ahs clearly gone on to court the Jesus vote without really giving a damn about condemning countries for religious rule of law... and then spouting that they want the US to be a religiously founded country.

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

oh god. this. sorry to fark out on slashdot. but this!! thisthis!.

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[SoulRider]

This can actually be explained by the fact that the Southern League (the people that started the civil war, the kkk and loudly and proudly murdered Lincoln) changed from being Democrats to Republican in '64 when Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act. I personally think Kennedy was killed over the Civil Rights Act by these very same people (they killed one president already). Nixon with his "Southern Vote" agenda played into this paradigm shift of the southern league to get him elected. Bush was also courting the same crowd with his "NASCAR Vote" campaign. All in all things started getting a bit crazy in the Republican party right around or a few years before 1964.

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[sdguero]

So Spitzer wasn't a hypocrite?

You can throw rocks from your glass house all day, but the fact remains that ALMOST ALL POLITICIANS ARE HYPOCRITES REGARDLESS OF POLITICAL PARTY.

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[Dave Walker]

Ye Gods, you're daft!

"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."

I usually vote republican when I can't vote libertarian, although I did just vote for Kentucky's new Democrat governor.

"Law'n'order" has absolutely nothing to do with the way I vote. "Stay the hell out of my life and get your frickin' hands out of my wallet" has EVERYTHING to do with the way I vote. Seems a lot of /. readers bemoan the evils of the government, but are all too willing to vote for the very candidates that will give them MORE big government. I just don't understand it.

So I mostly vote the lessor of evils. And that's usually a republican, although this time around there's not a dime's worth of difference between Obama, Clinton & McCain.

I'll probably vote McCain, just because he can probably postpone the food riots a couple of years longer than either of the Donkeys. But I'm really beginning to doubt that I'll die a natural death.

And I'd go tit for tat with you about personalities, starting with Teddy Kennedy's underwater date and ending with, well, it hasn't ended yet. But that's useless. We'd just be talking past each other without a chance of ever convincing the other of ANYTHING. So we'll just have to agree to disagree.

But grok on this while we're waiting; I vote the way I vote because I want a government that will leave me the fsck alone. Not because of law 'n' order. Not because of a religious belief. Not because of Muslims or hippies (I'm still known to take an occasional toke, and my hair is longer than that of most of the women I work with).

And BHO, HRC & McCain don't want to help me, they want to CONTROL me.

As I said, I don't hope to convince you here. Hell, I can't even convince my own wife. But... Peace out, dude.

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Moderators,

If you think this whackjob is insightful, you are as whacked as he is.

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[Just Some Guy]

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.

Here's something that might surprise a lot of people: the current Republican leadership has a lot of us rank-and-file party members fit to be tied. Now, I'm certain that a lot of Republicans think Bush is the greatest thing since Napster v1, but the people I've personally spoke to think that he (and those like him) are nuts. We want freedom. We want smaller government - including reducing the military and corporate subsidies. We want the right to live our lives as free adults and do whatever makes us happy with other adults.

I don't know anything about Krvaric and his policies. Maybe he's a Bushist neocon. That's certainly possible. Still, there's a big possibility that he's as sick of the current fiasco as you and I are and truly wants something different. Don't assume that (R) automatically means "corporate overlord" because it doesn't. I understand how the higherups give that impression, but it's just not universally true.

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Heaven forbid anyone on Slashdot think you were Pro-Republican.

Good thing you posted anonymously, or the stain would forever taint your karma.

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to the Republicans who are happy to order a meal and then skip out on the check, leaving their children at the table to pay for it.

The same Republicans who lower taxes, increasing the deficit, then borrow to cover, increasing the debt, thereby increasing the interest rates, which increase the deficit.... But hey! We lowered your taxes by a dollar (and ours by $1,000,000). Don't you love us?

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[scipiodog]

Actual Republicans of yesteryear gone?

Hardly - a person in their late teens in the mid 60s would be in their late 50s now.

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

As a matter of fact, some of them are even having a significant impact (not in a good way, I admit) on current US politics. Hillary Clinton was a "Goldwater Republican" back in the day. Of course, she turned to the dark side..

Regardless, we're not talking about Lincoln or the Civil War here - it's recent history and there are plenty of people actively around from that time. They're not gone. Just silent, corrupted, or jaded into apathy.

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

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." Except that someone already made a "What a cool dude!" post. He even posted it before your post.

Enjoy spouting "hivemind" with your ears covered whenever a story on /. includes the word "Republican."

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[Anonymous Cowtard]

I'm not sure where you get that I'm giving one party a pass over the other in my post aside from my pre-emptive statement that I'm not pro-Republican. In honestly, my post was less about supporting one particular person and more about being tired of what seems to be a new norm in decrying people for holding a stance today that, when they were younger, they may have once not supported. I never once gave a pass for any of those instances you listed, nor did I imply that having viewpoints that are diametrically opposed one day to another or, as you mention, one sentence to another, were acceptable.

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.

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Traditional Republicans that I know are outraged at the current state of the party.
Change parties (or become independent). The intelligent ones did this after Nixon.

Yet now, somehow Democrats are "the only ones with a conscience" and the Republicans are the "Racist bigots."
Because the intelligencia decided to go with the party that wasn't criminal. The Democrats evolved. The Republicans just switched to being the Wolf in Sheep's Clothing Party.

For those who disagree with too many positions of the Democrats, make your own party. Leave the "die-hard" Republicans to fester in their own feces.

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[sycodon]

Right... and now those same Democrats are Republicans.

When did Robert Byrd switch to the Republican party?

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[Omestes]

insightful != something you agree with.

I don't agree with him, but he has the right to his opinions, as much as I (or you) do.

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Senator Robert Byrd was a Democrat in the KKK and I've seen black people come to his rescue. Ted Kennedy killed a girl while on a drunk driving rampage, fled the scene and got a slap on the wrist. How about all of those wealthy Democrats in the entertainment industry driving gas guzzlers, eating meat, and living high class while preaching that we should all live in a classless society. Bill Gates has probably donated more than any of those people combined.

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

I like your list, but I need clarification on one item:
I am for strict constitutional government.

Do you believe our (the People's) rights are enumerated by the Constitution and its amendments, or is it simply an explicit list that allows the government to do certain things?

Can I slander someone because a strict view of the First Amendment would allow this?

Can I possess howitzers, rocket propelled grenades, missiles, etc., because "arms" is not limited in scope in the Second Amendment?

Does simply running the opposite direction from police (without a crime being evident) instantly invoke probable cause under the Fourth Amendment?

Would you abolish the Federal Reserve System, because the Constitution doesn't say that the federal government can have one?

Are you an "originalist" a la Justice Scalia?

Originally, only white property owners could vote. And black slaves were allowed and counted fractionally. Without the subsequent amendments, would you have allowed this to continue?

If you have a more nuanced view of these issues, please reconcile that with "strict."

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[workindev]

Actually, what seems to matter is your complete inability to comprehend the fundamental principles behind the Republican party along with your flawed analysis of who the Republicans "embrace".

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you think a single person can single-handedly change policy and platform of a large and established party?

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[dangitman]

So, if you believe all those things, what are you doing supporting the Republican party and standing in their name?

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[YttriumOxide]

My post has little to do with the person you're replying to, but I really wanted to throw my views in on some of the supposed "bad" things you're attributing to people.

...Clintons? Murder, land scams, hookers, drugs...etc..etc.
...Obama...America hater, radical, liar, drug user/seller, property scams...etc..etc.

Murder = bad
Land scams = bad
Hookers = not bad unless bad things are involved (e.g. child prostitution, forced prostitution etc)
Drugs = Depends on the drugs, but I'm strongly in favour of legalisation of anything that isn't both very addictive and very harmful (either/or is okay, with sufficient warnings and age limit, but not both. If it's neither, it should be at least as freely available as alcohol)
America hater = good, in the right context. I don't care if it's "offensive" to some people's views, but hating the current state of affairs is exactly the right attitude to have in order to effect positive change. If you believe everything is going fine and there are no problems (i.e. You don't "hate" anything about the current state of affairs), then you won't do much to improve thing.
Liar = bad
Drug user/seller = depends on the drugs, as above.
Property scams = bad

Also note that I don't actually know the details of most of the points you raise with regard to the people you're referring to (as I'm not an American, nor do I follow American politics very closely (and the "political entertainment" even less so)), so some of these things may be better/worse depending on circumstance.

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[mgblst]

Oh, I really think you're wrong.

I think it is Statue of Limitations.

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[mgblst]

So what does what you just said have to do with the reality of what is happening in this situation.

I do something I stupid when I'm younger

Ok, we all can see this ...and grow to regret

Where is the evidence of this?

it and speak against it as I age

And this...no there is none. Doesn't it bother you that you seem to have skipped this important bit of information, and cunnigly framed the problem as something completely differently?

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Is Rush Limbaugh for ending the public policy against some drugs despite his arrest for obtaining (and presumably injesting) painkillers without a prescription?

Btw, despite it being 20 years ago, the San Diego GOP chair says he has no regrets about what he did. Does not sound like the passage of time has resulted in him understanding breaking the law is wrong.

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[mlund]

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. John McCain's entire personal life was basically annihilated by being imprisoned by the Communist North Korean Military Dictatorship and extensively tortured over the course of years. The man gets released and attempts to recover himself and reintroduce himself to society. His marriage didn't survive it. Not even his ex-wife holds that against him. Trying to pass that off as "guy dumps faithful wife for younger model [because he's a shallow, lustful jerk]," robs your argument of credibility.

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[cheezedawg]

Its pretty clear that you are not actually arguing about "Republicans". Instead, you are arguing about a cartoon characature of what you think those rascally Republicans are.

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

I waited more than 24 hours, but you haven't answered my questions on what "strict constitutional government" means to you. It's nice to say "strict" but many who say "strict" really aren't.

So I'm still waiting on a reply. I'm really hoping that you're simply on vacation.

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

You still didn't reply even after 72 hours of time. This makes me believe you're just giving lip service, rather than give reasoned and concrete answers.

Your website is vague too, but the few examples you give wouldn't qualify you for "strict constitutionality." It's time to drop that soundbite from your campaign if you value your ethics and constituents.

I downloaded once in college

[Anonymous Coward]

But I never installed. It was a diffent time back then. We were innocent.

Re:I downloaded once in college

[maxume]

Did you download in your pants?

Re:I downloaded once in college

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a grain of truth to that, though. I've got all kinds of software, but I have probably only used about 10% of it. I don't know why I keep it all around; I guess I figure one day I'll get around to it or maybe I'll need it (in the case of system-recovery software). I think people just like to collect things.

Re:I downloaded once in college

[TubeSteak]

But I never installed. It was a diffent time back then. We were innocent. Dude, it's okay to download, as long as you delete it within 24 hours.
/puff, puff, pass, delete

Re:I downloaded once in college

[spun]

You see, back in those days, drugs... I mean warez were different. Nowadays you can catch all kinds of viruses from warez, and the money all goes into the pockets of terrorists and pedophiles. But back in the day they were just cool, and fun, and no one got hurt. Just say no to warez!

Re:I downloaded once in college

[typicallyterrific]

I downloaded but never inha^Winstalled!

There is no contradiction here

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no reason why someone can't be a Republican and also see a need for social, political, enviromental, or economic change.

Both Large U.S. Parties are Involved

[ctdownunder]

Both Republicans and Democrats are involved in big business. And that means big money and big corruption. Finally, some real crime is needed to bring home the bacon.

Look out Hillary!

[neildiamond]

Here's a candidate with REAL experience, not just married to someone with it!

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:What's his record?

[Just Some Guy]

Piracy is a lot more premeditated than drunk driving. If that politician organized fleets of drunk drivers, knowing it was generally held to be illegal, I'd imagine that you could consider them an expert on driving law. Especially if they never got convicted for having done it.

Re:What's his record?

[sycodon]

No, you'd call him Ted Kennedy on vacation.

Ba dum da!

it'll be interesting to see what he does

[theprophetofmephisto]

i'm going to be following his positions now, as i'm really curious what kind of tech-related positions he'll be taking. i mean, what kind of net neutrality position will he take? that's the kind of stuff that, assuming he succeeds, will open the door for other techie politicians to actually get into the field, rather than the current bunch of technically inept imbeciles that currently populate most higher offices.

FTL FTW

[dave562]

Those guys had some quality releases. Wasn't one of the founders of Razor 1911 involved in some political issues a few years ago too?

Re:FTL FTW

[DigitAl56K]

Fairlight group have earned their place on my personal "heroes" list.

Their demoscene releases are really classy productions, unlike many other scene releases that are just a mix-and-match rehash of old demo effects. If you are interested you should check out Track One, Come Clean, and Media Error as just a few examples.

Captures can be found on YouTube if you have problems running them yourself, TrackOne may report a missing D3D .dll file. You can find copies of it in their other releases, just drop it in the same folder.

Re:FTL FTW

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this modded troll? It provides context to some completely legitimate and impressive works from Fairlight.

WTF? Is it just me?

[zappepcs]

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. Is it just me that remembers some of the OTHER criminals the GOP has working for them, never mind running for office?

WOW

Lots of innuendo

[moseman]

but not many (if any) facts. Come back with some evidence.

Cheap shots:

[should_be_linear]

- I guess his primary objective will be to ban Atari ST computers.
- I am glad for Fairlight but did Northstar made it to goverment already?
- If he can program all Amiga specialized chips in his demos, he can run any city in the world easily.
- I will vote him only if he promise free copy of Photoshop for all, with license key generator.
- For whatever reason, his speech always ends with "Greetings to" section.

Re:Cheap shots:

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't wait to see his political ads!!

Wow, all those fx in one VBL! And check out that Star Wars scroller!

Re:Cheap shots:

[Anonymous Coward]

simply brilliant

Re:Cheap shots:

[Zwerker]

- I will vote him only if he promise free copy of Photoshop for all, with license key generator. Surely you mean Deluxe Paint?

Re:Cheap shots:

[Anonymous Coward]

- I guess his primary objective will be to ban Atari ST computers.

Well, we all know the Amiga ruled supreme...

- I am glad for Fairlight but did Northstar made it to goverment already?

They're in the swedish government apparently looking after piratebay...

- If he can program all Amiga specialized chips in his demos, he can run any city in the world easily.

True enough. They were the days when you didn't need 1gb of graphics memory to create a 3d world and the blitter was spaceage!

- For whatever reason, his speech always ends with "Greetings to" section. /me watches for any other politicians with a Greetings to section.

mod up

[PadRacerExtreme]

Oh how I wish I had mod points......

He knows assembly, hye can code clean code!

[jameskojiro]

Hopefully he will take the same approach with writing bills if he ever gets a political office. I would love to see what his code... errr laws can do.

That would be some tightly written legislation!

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.

Re:Right wing nutjob motto

[Faylone]

Oh, you gotta do better than that, how about... Macs Suck! Linux is for communists hippies! Bill Gates is Jesus!

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.

[Scrameustache]

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?

Trolls say divisive things that are easily proven wrong.
Don't feed the trolls.

Re:F.U.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the republicans who like digging up people's past to manufacture scandal. yeah it's a good thing the democrats would never stoop so low. just ask reverend wright.

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:F.U.

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot to add in .... "The Republicans are making an issue about Obama's past 20 years in that church"

Re:F.U.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because if it was a Democrat the general slashdot consensus would be one of approval for this individual's actions in the past. People would be glad to see that someone who is quite tech minded and even had a hand in activities that were illegal copyright law is in a position of political power. They'd praise him for having helped spread software for free, with no personal gain, like a modern day robin hood.

I would actually be very interested to see how the responses to this story would differ if all mention of any kind of party affiliation were removed from the blurb at the top of the page. You would find a very different tone in the responses on here, and you can't claim otherwise without deluding yourself.

Re:F.U.

[FredThompson]

Yes, I agree with the "don't feed the trolls" post. I'm throwing in a little true history to illustrate just why this post is trolling...

There wasn't much digging involved given John Kerry trumpeted himself as a humble decorated war hero. HE made an issue of what John Kerry was doing 20 years ago (aid and comfort for the Sandinistas) and 30 years ago (Winter Soldiers). He was challenged with documented proof and refused to provide proof to counter the claims. To this day he still hasn't released his service records which would help to settle the issues of how he got 3 Purple Hearts in such a short period of time and how he received medals for which he was not qualified, among other issues. His time travel comments and claims of hunting deer by crawling on his belly didn't help him, either. Kerry has a 30-year history of supporting Communist causes and subverting US sovereignty.

Bill Clinton dodged the draft and has a history of sexually predatory behavior, among other things.

For the most part, Kerry and Clinton provided their own baggage and lied about it. Of course, "that depends on what your definition of, 'is', is."

Just as this guy's past is a valid issue when evaluating his character for an elected office, so was their character when evaluating how suited they were to be Commander in Chief of the most powerful military ever and executive officer of the US. The stakes are high WRT a person's history when it comes to positions of authority. He probably wouldn't survive a tight race for a legal authority position.

The lunatic left claims "hypocrisy" at the Republicans but never themselves. There is some truth to that because the Democrats hold less strict levels of accountability than the Republicans. The Republicans practice repentance, not absolution of responsibility.

If the statues of limitation are expired, so be it. He still has the "black mark" on his history. He'll have the responsibility of that for the rest of his life. That doesn't make him an untouchable nor does it mean he is unqualified for leadership positions. It means there are limits on what he can achieve.

Re:F.U.

[mgblst]

To be fair, it is not just the republicans that do this. The democrats do this to each other, witness Clinton vs Obama. The fact is that when the prize is so great, they will each do whatever they can.

Re:F.U.

[Anonymous Coward]

The biggest difference is that this guy was a LEGAL MINOR (17 years old) in High School 20 years ago - not in a Governor's Office or Vietnam 20 years ago and now trying to use his experiences / performances in those positions (Governor / Military Officer) as qualifications for an elected office.

Persecution complex much?

[AdamThor]

Sounds like some of my fellow commenters are expecting this guy to get screwed over this. I don't find myself hoping for that, however. I simply would like to know what his IP views were back in the day, what they are now, and how he reconciles the two. I want to know his position.

Copyright law? Get a clue.

[Anonymous Coward]

You all are missing the point.

This individual is involved in picking what voting machines are purchased for the district.

Electronic voting machines.

Hackable electronic voting machines.

If I was a Democratic party official I would be filing restraining orders against this guy having anything to do with e-voting systems... or even better, pushing hard for machines that produce voter-verified paper trails.

See more here: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5945

Re:Copyright law? Get a clue.

[nurb432]

Like he would have direct access to them at all.

Normally its a totally different agency that deals with the elections to avoid fraud, regardless if its paper or electronic.

Slander

[DigiShaman]

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.

Congrats, you just slandered three people in one post. FUCK YOU Daniel!

Re:Slander

[Daniel Dvorkin]

I could be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure truth is a defense against charges of slander.

Maybe you should choose a better class of people to idolize?

Re:Slander

[DigiShaman]

You're wrong, trust me, you are. The only "truth" is a snippet of information blown completely out of proportion. For the most part, it's hyperbole if not outright BS.

Just because it's controversial doesn't mean it can't be slanderous too.

Re:Slander

[slimjim8094]

Not commenting on the validity of any of it (except that I do know that Bush was pretty into coke at one time)

But regardless of how it's said, if Bush did do coke, if Limbaugh did smuggle Viagra, if Barbra did get acquitted for manslaughter on a DUI...

Then it's not libel. It happened, so it's not defamatory. It can be intended to harm or portray someone badly, but if it's true then, well, they can't get all uppity about somebody using it to attack them.

Now if somebody was making stuff up... then it's libel and you can rip their throat out.

Again, not discussing validity of any of the statements.

Go check your facts.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're lucky if half of them are correct, or at least truly in the context that you've chosen to force them into.

And, FWIW, there's plenty of hypocrisy to be found on any side of the party lines.

Re:Go check your facts.

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Everything I said is well-documented. And while it's true that their are plenty of hypocritical Democrats (and Libertarians and Greens and what-have-you) the Republicans are really taking it to a whole different level these days. To deny this is to deny reality.

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:Go check your facts.

[Serge_Tomiko]

I really don't see how you can "smuggle" Viagra.

It's an over the counter drug in most of the world.

In any event, your post is bullshit for that reason alone. You have no proof regarding underage prostitutes - using viagra and hiring prostitutes is legal in much, if not most of the world. What does that mean? You have no documentation and thus everything else you wrote is highly suspect.

Re:Go check your facts.

[Anonymous Coward]

Moron. If you can't tell the difference then you are effectively brain dead. Have you ever had to pay for gasoline in your entire fucking life?

The insane jump in gas price is primarily caused by increasing uncertainty in the Middle East and the falling dollar. Both of these are direct effects of the useless war.

The dollar is dropping like a rock because we are inflating our currency with war spending. We've already wasted over 600 BILLION DOLLARS. We are in debt past our eyebrows with no end in sight.

How can you say there is no difference? Do you think that we would be in this sorry state if Gore was president? He would have never started a war against the wrong fucking country.

Either you are a Bush supporter, or an equally mentally deficient libertarian. Whoever the fuck modded you up is from the same shallow end of the gene pool.

Listen up you dumb fuck. The USA, and a lot of the rest of the world, is going to be eating a huge pile of shit because of Bush and his monumental stupidity. There are already food riots and people are starving and fighting. And all you can say is that the Republicans and Democrats are the same.

When the economy tanks I hope get kicked out on the street and end up sleeping in a cardboard box. Then maybe you will start thinking and realize that there are real world consequences when a bunch of corrupt moral degenerates ruin a country.

Re:Go check your facts.

[Anonymous Coward]

are you just ignorant of the fact that electing someone from a certain party brings with them the policies and appointments of the party?

politicians are who they hire.

Re:Go check your facts.

[mgblst]

I think that ALL parties should be banned. Why can't we just have independents running, making up their own mind about issues, not towing a party line. That way, if someone wanted to play the system, they woul d have to get to over 50% of individuals, not just the party leaders.

Re:Go check your facts.

[Toonol]

Moron. If you can't tell the difference then you are effectively brain dead... Either you are a Bush supporter, or an equally mentally deficient libertarian. Whoever the fuck modded you up is from the same shallow end of the gene pool.... Listen up you dumb fuck... When the economy tanks I hope get kicked out on the street and end up sleeping in a cardboard box.

Yes, I'm a moron, I'm a moral degenerate. Thanks for sharing all your enlightenment, Ghandi.

Re:Go check your facts.

[delcielo]

"Moron. If you can't tell..."

I've been spending time on the aggregate sites and found I was missing Slashdot, so today I came back.

Feels like home already!

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:

[spun]

Bullshit, look at the moderation of comments here. He is not correct, and if this guy had been a Democrat, the situation would have been similar.

Re:REPEAT AFTER ME:

[Copid]

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'?

Perhaps in general, but I think that in this case the Slashdot reaction to government intellectual property policy would trump even its partisanship.

Re:REPEAT AFTER ME:

[Anonymous Coward]

THERE IS NO SLASHDOT HIVEMIND

Re:REPEAT AFTER ME:

[Omestes]

Oddly, I doubt it.

As Slashdot has not unified politics, we also don't have any unified stand on IP. Read one of the ever-so-prevalent RIAA stories, and see how divided that issue is. Its around 50/50 between the "Infringement = theft = capitol punishment" crowd, and the "Piracy is a god given right" folk.

Politically I'd say the various flavors of libertarians are slightly more prevelant than other flavors, followed by Democrats, Republicans, and Anarchists. Not to mention the refreshing smattering of old-fashioned Socialists. This is of course biased, since a small but significant portion of us aren't even American, thus the American labels don't really apply.

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:REPEAT AFTER ME:

[spun]

Hey, you've seen the skit I refer to in my sig, cool!

Re:REPEAT AFTER ME:

[Anonymous Coward]

Drone:30222

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:

[mgblst]

Agree these is no slashdot hivemind, but there is deinately a bias here, and there is nothing wrong with that. It is to be expected in such a site as this, tech heavy, leaning towars openness, etc...

It is only when we deny the bias that these is a problem. But I think we have a rich community of people with all sorts of beliefs, some here even like Microsoft!

Re:REPEAT AFTER ME:

[Anonymous Coward]

There SURE IS Slashdot "acceptable groupthink" though.

Whenever you see someone railing against comments about the hivemind, its a sure sign that they've just had their sacred ox gored by someone who decided to use that phrase.

If you think Slashdot is a balanced forum of opinion, in which all sides of equal merit are treated equally... then, sir...

YOU
ARE
AN
IDIOT

An outright lie and vote grab by GOP

[plasmacutter]

The day a republican adopts a hobby as progressive as pioneering a warez group is the day he ceases to be a republican and becomes something else.

The republicans face a huge issue in the '08 election as Obama has pretty much locked up the young vote in this country, and has mobilized more funds from individual citizens than bush AND kerry did in '04 from all their corporate cronies.

This false little leak only proves that all politicians do know that downloading is an accepted and practiced activity among people ages 11-30, and that theyre trying spread this rumor to try to fool people into thinking they'll have a softer line on copyright if elected.

Re:An outright lie and vote grab by GOP

[Toonol]

The day a republican adopts a hobby as progressive as pioneering a warez group is the day he ceases to be a republican and becomes something else.

Libertarian?

Re:An outright lie and vote grab by GOP

[ClientNine]

So let me get this straight-- you are claiming this is a lie based on what, the fact that you don't like Republicans?

A tad weak. Plenty of right-leaning folks in the old Warez school. It's only changed because it's done by younger kids nowadays, and like all younger kids they lean to the left. Back when most pirates were in their mid-20s or older it was a much more libertarian crowd.

Re:An outright lie and vote grab by GOP

[plasmacutter]

no, i'm basing it on the fact the republican party has not failed since the reagan era to favor those with the most money.

to republicans corporations and other established wealthy interests are rightful crowned aristocracy who can do no wrong, and anyone who has fallen on hard times is there because they are either lazy or god hates them, and therefore man should hate them.

No republican, therefore, would start a counter-establishment warez group. it would just "smack of communism"

Libertarian is one thing, but libertarian is FAR from the republican M.O., which has for a very long time combined the fiscal irresponsibility of the democrats, the disdain for the common man of the corrupt "mega mega rich" robber barrons, and the oppressive and invasive policies of the religious right moral crusaders and the intolerant bigots who defected to the party when the democrats dropped the "dixiecrat" platform in the mid 20th century.

GOP is *NOT* conservative

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't call the GOP "conservative". They are as liberal as democrats. The GOP is what's known as "neo-con" which are really democrats in disguise who are trying to tap the conservative voting population. They have a few conservative tendencies, but all in all, they are bad news.

Some infamous neo-cons:
George Bush
John McCain

A true conservative wouldn't have penned "No child left behind", they'd be writing bills to get the government out of education, where it has no business sticking it's nose. They'd also have set up an "Ellis Island" for Mexican immigrants a long time ago so they could speed up the immigration process and turn them into a tax revenue stream instead of the ridiculous system we have now where you have to break the law to get into the country, and even if you can do it legally, it takes 5 years and many thousands of dollars to get a permanent visa.

The only conservative belief these people have is a soft spot for Christianity.

They give "conservative" negative connotations. There isn't a real conservative in the entire GOP.

If there were real conservatives in Washington, I'd have a lot more money to send my kid to a decent school, instead of paying for people that don't even want to be there. The section 8 housing developments wouldn't be comprised of 350k townhomes with garages, while the people who are paying for them live in comparative poverty.

Calling the GOP conservative gives the real conservatives a bad name.

-AC

Why the outcry?

[Opportunist]

A criminal going into politics? Where's the news?

Look on the bright side, at least he kinda has to understand what he votes for when another law about "that whole computer stuff" comes up.

MOD PARENT UP for Atari ST Ban!

[Lije Baley]

Damn I wish I had some of my unused mod points about now...

ex warezer?

[nurb432]

He's got my vote.

And remember, you can never really leave the family.

IOIYAAR

[Bassman59]

"It's OK if you are a Republican."

Are we talking about the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm no longer a Republican because they no longer believe in a free market/individual rights. As far as IP, the market isn't vetting the issue, they are going to the government for extra laws and protections. If copyright was rational and government would stay out of it, then things would be better.

As someone already mentioned, Reps and Dems are both guilty as to IP laws, both support the businesses in this area.

Status quo...

[actionbastard]

I'm sure he's making huge donations to the GOP from all the proceeds from the sale of those 'pirated' Commodore 64 game cartridges.
'Drink-or-Die' was the epitome of the warez scene. They are dead.
All that follow are teenagers who fantisize they are Kevin Mitnick, if they even know who he is.

There are bigger, more dangerous, criminals prowling the halls of our legislative institutions.
This guy is just a dumbass with a questionable past.

WHY THE FUCK SHOULD HE REPLY BY EMAIL?

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything you need is in the nfo, lamer!

NSF did not charge for domain names

[Anonymous Coward]

"Me and some friends bought our first domain name way back in the early nineties."

It wasn't until the registrar was COMPLETELY turned over to NetSol did money need to change hands, at the tune of $100 for 2 years (minimum) of a .com. NetSol started charging (or rather, the NSF stop subsidizing) in September of 1995. There's no way he could have BOUGHT it in the early nineties.

Domain Name: FAIRLIGHT.COM
Created on: 21-Dec-94

It's domain-by-proxy, so still more tom-foolery.

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:Do you believe it matters which party you are?

[geekoid]

Reagan made the Republican Fringe mainstream.

Now the fringe are people who want accountability and fiscal responsibility.

Re:Do you believe it matters which party you are?

[rubypossum]

Amen! Hurrrumph! Hurrumph!

Society is falling to pieces and people are mired in party politics? My god man! Why? Who gives a damn which party a person is from or whether they are charismatic or ugly or even have bad math skills. It's the ideas stupid! Lets get things done!

Cheers.

Speculative bias

[MSTCrow5429]

...it's interesting that Krvaric has enjoyed instead a meteoric rise in conservative politics.

It is? Why? I am curious if the slaphappy author is even familiar enough with politics to understand one could more easily argue that there is no contradiction in the proposed scenario from a conservative position.

All Republicans are not the same

[Anonymous Coward]

Anymore than all Democrats are anti-American Black Liberation nutjobs because of rev Wright.

In fact 126,000 of us in PA proudly voted for a Republican who is not John McCain and wants to stop policing the world, snooping up our skirts, and wants Americans of all lifestyles to live as free as the constitution promises.

I suspect this fairlight guy is closer to my man Ron than he his to any of your citated examples of Republican loons.

I Call shenanigans

[KutuluWare]

I called Krvaric seeking comment

Clearly this story is a hoax. No slashdot editor would EVER stoop to -- well -- EDITING a story before posting it!

The good news is, even if Krvaric doesn't comment on this story in time to be relevant, he'll have at least 9 more tries over the next month as the story gets reposted.

Cue Druid II theme music...

[Anonymous Coward]

and then watch Rutig Banan or some other c64 FLT-demo.

What safety net?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I was 70 or 80, I might get a safety net. But the "safety net" I'm paying into is less sustainable than the oil supply. And that is before a dime is dropped on iraq, universal health care, or the green revolution. And way too many of the receipts get pissed away in the general fund. The safety net is no more than the illusion of safety the TSA provides us. And that doesn't even count the deficits at the state and local levels. And ANY politician that was willing to pass on the actual costs of this safety net would either never get elected or get tarred and feathered if he did.

And on keeping the poor poor, the east coast rust belt city I live in has been keeping the poor poor for decades and there have never been any Libertarians or even Republicans running the show. A status quo progressive monoculture seems perfectly able to do that job all on their own.

So what did he say? Dynastic Succession...

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Do as I say, not as I do.

So what did he actually say? Or are you just ASSUMING he quacks the same duckspeak you believe all Republicans quack?

In case you hadn't noticed, there's a war of dynastic succession going on in the GOP. The Constitutionalists, Libertarian Minarchists, and a plethora of other freedom-loving people (mainly inspired by Ron Paul) are attempting to wrest the party from the death-grip of the neocon faction. It's just getting started, and it's already getting very ugly. (See _The Revolution - a manefesto_ - just out and #1 on Amazon.)

Now I have no idea whether Tony Krvaric himself is a "Ron Paul Republican". But that group is large, largely young, and (so far) mostly internet-connected. And their ideology is a close match to that of many of the denizens of Slashdot.

So don't be surprised to see a LOT of people with reps like Tony's in the Republican party in the near future. Complete with mud-slinging campaigns against them, as the powers-that-be try frantically to keep hold of the political machinery.

It's definitely true

[Moth Boy]

Try looking at his website on www.archive.org. Krvaric had it blocked within a few days of the story on rawstory being picked up and talked about on some local San Diego forums. There are also old pics of Krvaric as Strider that are clearly the same guy. After he founded Fairlight, his "legitimate" business was to sell devices to make illegal copies of games. There are strong indications that at a minimum he maintained ties to Fairlight until very recently, if he wasn't actively involved. What I am much more interested in is how an immigrant born in Sweden of immigrant Croatian parents, becomes the head of the Republican party in the 7ty largest city in the US only 4 years after being a naturalized citizen. The man has been eligible to vote in exactly 1 presidential election. There is a much bigger story here than whether you think it was cool or not that he dabbled (at the very least) in the warez scene.

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.

Hacking the vote

[Anonymous Coward]

Some things you just don't want to outsource. Like custom patch development for Diebold/PES voting machine.

The problem with non-geek interpreters

[Anonymous Coward]

Parsing the word 'leeching' as if it were 'trading' is just wrong. It's not a technical word and the characterization of the "warez scene" as such is unfair.

Fairlight, Razor 1911 and various other groups didn't advocate piracy and expressly urged "traders" to buy the games they play. If I could obtain no-CD-check executables for the multi-player online games I have purchased in the past years without the threat of a EULA violation/revocation of my legitimate license, I would. I might have even paid a premium for them if they had been available at the time, just for the convenience. Now I just don't bother playing new video games on the PC.

If it's a good game, it will still be fun even after the copy-protection nazis have shuffled off to the next front in their war.

Looks like him

[CrazyKen]

I'm not sure of the credibility of this site but the picture there sure looks like him at a younger age, and the bio information says he lives in San Diego and is a member of the republican party. Additionally, if you use the Google cache page, it says that his real name is "Tony".

Regardless of whether it's him or not, people change. We've all done stupid things when we were young. I just hope that, if he's confronted about it, he doesn't try to lie. Hell, he can put it the same way Clinton did when people asked if he smoked marijuana. "I cracked software but didn't distribute it". That last part is a joke. :-)

Is dredging the past valid politcs?

[jmorris42]

> The republicans made an issue of what Bill Clinton was doing 20 years ago.

A few differences should be noted. Nobody (nobody serious at least) was going after Clinton for random youthful indescretions. The reason he was flamed over admitting to smoking dope was because it was a canonical example of Clinton doublespeak. For a counter example, Obama admits to doing some coke and to date it hasn't been an issue[1] because he didn't try some lame ass "I didn't inhale" stunt.

Most of the other charges were about misconduct while holding elective office and I hope you aren't arguing that that is ever off limits. Besides, history has vindicated those concerns. The charges were that the Clintons (package deal then and now) were prone to petty corruption and Bill was a serial sexual predator who used his office to get blown.

When the history books are eventually written, the first Clinton era will be noted for a) Bill's baby gravy on Monica's blue dress and b) a pattern of petty criminality from the travel office on the way in to selling pardons and pilfering the White House on the way out. If there is space left they might get around to mentioning NAFTA, welfare reform and Hillary's failed attempt at socialized medicine.

> The republicans made an issue of what John Kerry was doing 20 years ago.

Not exactly. John (I served in 'Nam!) Kerry made his military service the centerpiece of his presidential campaign. Are you asserting that it is now off limits to challenge a candidate's official life story? Especially when a majority of the people who served in the same area were willing to go on the record to challenge his version of history, the topic was fair game. Now mix in his overt acts of treason[2] when he came back and you have some real substance to present to votors looking to make a choice even if the events happened in the past.

[1] Ok, some Clinton goon tried to get a racebaiting bank shot from it by floating the 'was he a drug dealer' thing but everyone pronounced that lame and he got promptly sacked.

[2] I want to hear the argument that his actions didn't lend aid and comfort to declared enemies of the United States during a time of war. Even worse was this his accusations were lies and he either knew them to be lies or is a fool.

Grammar Police...

[Anonymous Coward]

Meteors don't rise...

(pet peeve, sorry)

And now /. will become pro-copyright

[ClientNine]

Pirates are heroes, unless they are Republicans, in which case they are suddenly considered thieves. Disappointing, yet predictable. If this guy was a Democrat the slashdot crowd would be crowing about how this is a great example of how people who abuse intellectual property are really productive citizens, etc etc.

Embarassing.

And let me guess-- like most posts pointing out the left-leaning hypocrisy so rampant here in the last five years or so, this will get modded as 'flamebait'. :/

Re:And now /. will become pro-copyright

[YttriumOxide]

And let me guess-- like most posts pointing out the left-leaning hypocrisy so rampant here in the last five years or so, this will get modded as 'flamebait'. :/

No, if it gets modded flamebait, it'll be because we've all read posts like yours a million times, and not only do you know it, but the only reason you'd post it again is to encourage flames - so your post is both the epitome of flamebait, as well as redundant.

Personally, I couldn't care less what this guy's political leanings are - there are scarce few posts on this story that concentrate on anything else, but those that do are really quite interesting.

Re:And now /. will become pro-copyright

[ClientNine]

No, if it gets modded flamebait, it'll be because we've all read posts like yours a million times, and not only do you know it, but the only reason you'd post it again is to encourage flames - so your post is both the epitome of flamebait, as well as redundant.
Ah, so it is impossible that perhaps I'm concerned about a technical news increasingly becoming the second incarnation of DailyKos instead of News For Nerds? Thanks for clarifying. Redundant or not, it bothers me that the spin on stories is increasingly mainstream-liberal rather than niche-techie, and I will point it out when I see it.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

The Constitutionalists, Libertarian Minarchists, and a plethora of other freedom-loving people (mainly inspired by Ron Paul) are attempting to wrest the party from the death-grip of the neocon faction. It's just getting started, and it's already getting very ugly.

And they are going to lose. Because all one of the neocons has to do is say "boo! gay marriage!" and their "base" bleats in lockstep all the way to the ballot box.

The GOP is essentially enduring within a *faction* of the party the problems of diverse opinion that plague the *entireity* of the Democratic party.

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

[Ungrounded Lightning]

I wasn't assuming anything, I was TROLLING, maybe you've heard of it?

Of course you were. But it gave me a nice launchpad for MY rant. B-)

Seriously, though. With the largest, fastest growing, most successful (so far), ideological, pro-freedom movement in modern politics trying to kick the bums out using the mechanisms of the REPUBLICAN party, while the Democrats are continuing more of the same old same old, the the knee-jerk "Rs bad, D's good" might need some revision in the next few years. B-)

I wish the Paulies and Minarchists the best of luck kicking those criminals to the curb.

Thanks.

But while you're at it, why don't you join in? The more the merrier. (And the faster and farther we can kick 'em.)

One of the nice things about a pro-freedom agenda is that it doesn't require ideological homogeneity. Sign up for "Don't hit first." and the rest of your idea system can be all over the map. B-)

Similarities between Warez and Political scenes?

[SageLikeFool]

This just shows that many people within politics feel that it is just another game to be hacked/cracked.

Regardless of party affiliation, if this allegation is true it is too bad. He probably did a lot less damage to society as a Warez group leader then he could )at least theoretically) do while gaming the system as head of a political party.

Swing and a miss

[ralph1]

What they fail to see is why. Those wares leave backdoors my guess so they can send GOP spam.

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:fairlight not just a warez group

[haaz]

thanks for the clarification. I distinctly remember Fairlight's demos on various C64 games. In fact, I can't specifically remember which games they were, but the demos stand out. (I didn't even remember they were called "demos" until reading the above comment!)

Those were the days -- raw artistic talent that would crush 90% of the crap you see on YouTube nowadays.

(ahhh, crap, I'm gunna get Rickrolled® for that, huh?)

Re: fairlight not just a warez group

[gabrieltss]

Fairlight also was in the Amiga scene. I have a bunch of their grfx/Music demos for the Amiga. And a quite a few of their music MODS. Anyone remember Northstar/Fairlight demos? Thanks to my still running Amiga 2000 I can still enjoy them. Along with UAE on Linux I can enojy them on the PC as well. Hey a pirate as a kid and a pirate (politician) as an adult. Where is this wrong? I lived through the 80's/90's pirate/demo scene with c64's and Amiga's It was very huge in Europe when I was there. The pirate/demo groups had some of the MOST talentend programmers of the time. Many of them moved on to bigger and better things. Many of them just teenagers at the time went right from high school to working for commercial game companies. Heck even when I was 22 at the time I thought I was a hot shit 'C' programmer but I met a number of kids that ran circles around me in Europe. The fact is you HAD to be a programmer to REALLY crack software. Using someone else pre-written crack tools didn't count. You had to know how to dissassemble, use memory monitors, hack assembly and use an assembler etc.. Some really good stuff came out of that time. Gone are the days of Northstar, Fairlight, Tristar, Red Sector, The Crusaders, Vision Factory, Razor 1911, Kefrens. There was some GREAT stuff that came of the "scene" not just warez - I still have TONS of the demos and soundtracker mods from that time.

Re:fairlight not just a warez group

[ymgve]

thanks for the clarification. I distinctly remember Fairlight's demos on various C64 games. In fact, I can't specifically remember which games they were, but the demos stand out. (I didn't even remember they were called "demos" until reading the above comment!)

Those were the days -- raw artistic talent that would crush 90% of the crap you see on YouTube nowadays.

(ahhh, crap, I'm gunna get Rickrolled® for that, huh?)

Those are called "intros", not "demos". Demos are completely standalone and have nothing to do with games at all.

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

[spun]

The real ideological difference lies in what qualifies as "hitting first," and also what qualifies as "freedom." For instance, should people be free to own more real estate than they themselves can work, and charge rent for said real estate? If people have that freedom, is it "hitting first" for them to withhold food from workers who have no other means of support than working for them at whatever wage they offer?

In a system with total individual freedom and strong property rights, what is to keep the most ruthless from leveraging the power that accumulated wealth has to influence markets, and using that power to keep other people dependent on them? Is economic coercion "hitting first?"

If people do have the right to own more land than they themselves can work, then isn't it also a freedom for a group of people to, say, call themselves "The United States of America" and make up some rules regarding what others can do with "The United States of America's" land? After all, isn't that really nothing more than land owned by a group of individuals?

There is a lot of difference in ideology even amongst people who subscribe to the ideals of freedom and not hitting first. So much so that different camps within that group all seriously question the other sides' commitment to those ideals. You know, the whole rift between individualist anarchism and social anarchism.

Let me draw you a diagram.

[spun]

Consider the simplified case of three property owners, A, B, and C. Here's what their property looks like:
AAA
ABC
CCC
Now, A and C make an agreement not to buy any of Bs goods or sell anything to B. B doesn't own enough land to support him and all his family living there. He doesn't have enough land for an airport, or a helicopter. A and C won't let him on their property, and they won't let anyone else deliver anything to him over their property either. B and his family starve to death, then A and C split his land between themselves.

Please, explain how this scenario or more complex variants of it would not be commonplace in a true libertarian system. "Force" is more complex than libertarian philosophy likes to admit.

Re:Let me draw you a diagram.

[doyoulikeworms]

OH GOD. The Czech Republic is fucked!

Re:Let me draw you a diagram.

[mdmkolbe]

What you describe sounds more like anarchism than libertarianism. Not being a libertarian myself I don't want to put words in their mouth, but I will note that "Free Market" does not mean "Unregulated Market".

It is one thing to say that the government shouldn't only be a referee and not an active player. It is another to say there should be no referees.

Re:Let me draw you a diagram.

[Sean0michael]

This is a terrible case, especially because it is grossly simplified. It would be extremely easy to see how something so extreme would not be "commonplace". But I'll work with what you've provided.

B has options. B could sell the land to either A or C, or perhaps some third party D(if this is at all like the real world, there is probably someone else besides A and C who sees value in the land). Either A or C should be equally interested in splitting the land with B, since they are eager to split it with each other. I'm sure that, at the right price, B could sell all of it to either A or C exclusively -- if they want some of the land, why wouldn't A or C want all of it now instead of waiting for a family to slowly starve to death, then having to deal with the remains, only to split it with the other?

To attach the example, the restraint placed on B such that neither A nor C will let anyone deliver anything to B over their property is irrational. Surely B has a way to get to the local farmer's market, or for his children to go to school, or for his wife to buy goods. It is not reasonable to entertain that A and C can collectively cut off B from the outside world. Even if this is so, B would almost certainly risk trespassing in order to save his family from starvation.

The land isn't enough "to support [B] and his family living there", so it can't be that great a value. It isn't big enough for a helicopter, so clearly it is rather small. Since it is apparently being used for agriculture, either crop prices are high or there isn't any commercial value for it (especially if it is cut off from the public by A and C). Neither A nor C would have a great interest in the land if it has little value. They have even less motivation to split it! It would be more rational for either A or C to pay the pittance that the land is worth and have B take his family somewhere else.

In a true libertarian system, or any system other than the one you described, B has access to goods and services provided by other parties, because a Libertarian system would foster many competitors to meet the needs of A, B, and C. B wouldn't be starved to death. The scenario is too extreme to be at all "commonplace".

Re:Let me draw you a diagram.

[spun]

You get to the crux of my argument in your last paragraph, and then you don't address it. The question is larger than the picture given, of course, and it is this. Money is a form of power, power can be used to gain money. Where are the checks and balances? You see the question is not only about property boundaries, but other forms of financial manipulation and control.

How does B get goods and services when his neighbors won't let him on their land? Or in the larger picture, how does he avoid unfairness when a cartel of large players seek to corner the market in a certain good? Or when they use any of the various modes of market failure to game the system, what then?

The only recourse you fellows propose is a simplified legal system where any poor sot is going to be able to find a pro bono lawyer the equal of the moneyed interests he is going up against. Or, Plan B, let him give in and accept an unfair deal because he has no choice. Nice.

Re:Let me draw you a diagram.

[dangitman]

But how do you have a "free market" if there is a referee controlling things? Either Libertarians are lying about their wish for a free market, or their philosophy doesn't work.

Re:Let me draw you a diagram.

[mdmkolbe]

Like I said, the term "free market" has a very specific technical meaning. It comes from economics and, among other things, it requires that buyers and sellers don't coerce each other and that they don't form cartels. Thus the need for a referee to prevent them from doing that. This referee generally shouldn't be a player (i.e. should not be buying to selling goods) and should not control the market other than the minimum necessary to ensure it continues to be a "free market".

A true "free market" may in fact be very heavily regulated. A good examples is the stock exchange which is very tightly regulated by the SEC to prevent this such as insider trading (which violates the non-cartel and equal knowledge aspects of a "free market").

Maybe the Libertarians are using the wrong term when they say they want a "free market". I don't know, but I would very highly recommend taking a college course on economics as you will discover that a lot of political arguments are actually boneheadedly miss-guided. (E.g. ask an economist about how luxury taxes end up taxing the poor more than they do the rich who buy luxuries.) Being well informed about the basics of economics should be considered a civic duty.

Re:Let me draw you a diagram.

[dangitman]

Thus the need for a referee to prevent them from doing that. This referee generally shouldn't be a player (i.e. should not be buying to selling goods) and should not control the market other than the minimum necessary to ensure it continues to be a "free market".

OK, so how is that even possible? Everybody is involved in the buying and selling of goods, unless one lives outside of society, eating only the fruit that falls from trees that nobody owns, or something.

What's the point of discussing the "free market" when it is obviously such an unrealistic fantasy that will never exist?

Re:Let me draw you a diagram.

[rewinn]

OK, so how is [[a referee]] even possible? Everybody is involved in the buying and selling of goods, unless one lives outside of society, eating only the fruit that falls from trees that nobody owns, or something.

1. Not everyone participates in every market, e.g. the referee in the stock market should not be allowed to trade in the stock market. Thus it is not that difficult to set up fair referees (although of course market participants may seek to subvert them.)

2. There are some unavoidable markets, e.g. the market for clean air. However, typically referees in clean air market referees at the wholesale level (e.g. factories belching pollutants) but consume retail (one breathe at a time); thus the conflict of interest, while not absent, is minimal.

3. Conflicts of interest can be minimized by the use of objective standards and auditting; a referee is less likely to accept bribes if there is a referee of referees.

4. It is not necessary to actually achieve an ideal, such as "bug-free software" or "free market", for it to be worth striving for.

because downloading music = HARD DRUGS kiddies!

[plasmacutter]

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.

Because we all know disagreeing with oppressive copyright laws which our founding fathers came within a hair's breath of explicitly prohibiting in our constitution is the same as distributing substance proven to be extremely hazardous to our health.

If only warez groups were similar to drug cartels. then any lawyer which sent out a dmca notice would wake up one morning to his family skinned and hung from the ceiling

Re:because downloading music = HARD DRUGS kiddies!

[Anonymous Coward]

His point was that the parent said that you couldn't explain the warez scene to common folks in a way that would make them care. He did so by making the drug connection. He did not state that the believed it was true, just that that is how it *could* be described.

Posting anonymously since I've moderated..

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

[Captain Splendid]

n case you hadn't noticed, there's a war of dynastic succession going on in the GOP. The Constitutionalists, Libertarian Minarchists, and a plethora of other freedom-loving people (mainly inspired by Ron Paul) are attempting to wrest the party from the death-grip of the neocon faction. It's just getting started, and it's already getting very ugly

Such a nice fantasy. Shame it'll never happen. When the Christian Right "rump" disengages and forms its own party, I'll believe you. Remember, they believe they've had thousands of years of persecution to harden their pragmatism.

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater!

[Anonymous Coward]

Weird to see this story "break" on /., but anyhoo....

Tony started FLT in the 80s. Yes, they cracked (very different to "hacked") the copy protection on a bunch of games, mostly on the c64. At the time it was not explicitly banned in Sweden I believe.

We were teenagers. We were interested in computers. The warez and demo scenes were an outlet. Noone made any money from it. None of us could have actually afforded to buy the games anyway. It was a social activity, coding demos and snailswapping disks with foreigners. The large majority of games I copied were never even loaded once. It was like collecting stamps.

Dont confuse it with the modern, dirty, movie and mp3 warez scene. This was something altogether different.

The thing is, Strider is a bright and thoughtful guy. If something he did 20 years ago comes back to haunt him now, and ruins an otherwise distinguished career, there is no justice.

The First Rule of Slashdot Hivemind:

[Anonymous Coward]

You do not talk about Slashdot Hivemind.
And the second rule is, if this is your first time here, you HAVE to troll.

Republican - 31337?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a "former" 31337. And I am now a republican. Does that make me 3133+3?

Yes I am 0-day indeed.

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

[DMUTPeregrine]

It's post like these that keep spun on my friends list. He starts out trolling and ends up writing a series of reasoned, informative replies that actually advance the discussion. His posts all get modded up to +5, and his goal of burning karma utterly fails. This is clearly due to the effect of hot grits (the traditional breakfast of Tuesdays) warming the devourer and making his disposition friendlier.

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

[spun]

Oh shit, someone noticed what I'm up to. That's it, I gotta change my routine! I think I'll go troll boingboing for a while, Cory needs a good pranking.

You're just upset because...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're just upset because he made something out of himself. Stop being a PIR8 and go do something productive. How nice of you to post the guy's history on Slashdot.

Yet another Rep. HYPOCRITE

[Jane Q. Public]

Yes, I did read the posts above about this.

It is one thing to say, even as GWB did, "I made a mistake in my younger years." It is quite another thing to pretend that it never happened, and that others are out to get you in a smear campaign for merely mentioning it. And even GWB was guilty of gross hypocrisy when he said it was just a youthful mistake, and then helped pass laws to put other "youths" in prison for multiple years for the same "mistakes". But this is even worse.

I am TIRED of, and ANGRY about, seeing all these ball-less Republicans who profess to do no evil, while they send the children of others off to die in foreign lands for their own corporate and personal profit. Even if he is not a supporter of this "non-war", he is following the typical recent "ball-less Republican" profile, so he would be bound to get lumped in with the rest if/when the lynching finally came around, if people ever got that pissed off. From what I read these days, some are pretty close.

I can accept dastards. I can accept con men. At least those can be dealt with in a straightforward manner. But I believe there is a special place in Hell for true hypocrites like this guy.

And please, you people who call yourselves Republicans, don't write back and say that the Democrats are just as bad. Bullshit. That might have been true in the past, but within the last 8 or 10 years or so, that simply is not so. The Republican party as a whole (yes I am generalizing) have really set a record and earned a special reputation. Why they, themselves, do not seem to see the disdain with which others look at them is a mystery to me.

JEW RULE THE MEDIA

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=30

Fox News

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

The Moody memos offer daily direction to the news staff about how they're to report stories. An example is a memo telling them, in reference to the President, "His political courage and tactical cunning ar[e] [wo]rth noting in our reporting through the day". Collection of Fox News memos. A classic Moody memo.

The author of the Willie Horton ad is now the president of Fox News.

Re:Fox News

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Interesting reading, but probably worth noting that they were in reference to Fox News Channel, not broadcast Fox News from what I could see. (Though I could not read the salon.com article, looks like I need to be a subscriber)

Give me a break

[ODiV]

So when you were doing it it was pure and harmless fun, but now "the scene" is "dirty".

Nostalgia sure isn't what it used to be.

Re:Give me a break

[Anonymous Coward]

Its was a bunch of teenagers copying 5.25" DDSD disks and swapping them via regular post.

Wasnt exactly the seedy profit-driven warez scene that is around today.

If you werent there, you cant really comment I guess. Nostalgia aside, it really was very different.

Re:Give me a break

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when has the warez scene been profit driven? The few renegades who sell are an exception afaik. Why would anyone buy warez when it can be downloaded for free? Hello?

I really don't see the big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, I'm pirating this thing called Linux right now.

hello?

[rubypossum]

Your deep profundity intrigues me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

But seriously, I'm NOT a Republican and I can see that your comment is drenched in anti-Republican hate. Get over it already. Let's unite to STOP FARM SUBSIDIES! Starting with food based ethanol that will cause the death of countless people because they can no longer afford food.

Why is this comment not marked Troll? It is an utterly vacuous collection of assertions which only serve to entrench partisanship in a discussion which could otherwise be informative.

At least have the decency to promote your ideas instead of your party.

Cheers

And how do you know what fairlight is?

[Anonymous Coward]

You people who know of fairlight are most likely people who pirated software back then. How else would you know of the group? It sounds like many of you have no room to talk. I mean, if this guy were a marxist or libertarian, your comments would probably be different anyway, right? Geesh. And yes, I owned a C-64 and clattering 1541 back then too.

Re:And how do you know what fairlight is?

[Zhe Mappel]

I mean, if this guy were a marxist or libertarian, your comments would probably be different anyway, right? Geesh.

What a lovely idea if the head of the San Diego GOP were revealed as a Marxist!

Indeed, I would say, "There's hope for San Diego yet!"

Interesting, but not surprising

[jandersen]

it's interesting that Krvaric has enjoyed instead a meteoric rise in conservative politics. People change their attitudes and beliefs when they get older, sometimes radically so. But I don't think their basic personality can change much - if you are bold, enterprising and feel that the rules don't apply to you when you are young, then you are likely to be the same way when you get older. And while "conservative" according to the dictionary means something like "someone who wants to preserve the existing", in American politics it more often seems to mean "reactionary, narrow-minded and selfish" - whereas "libertarian" means "reactionary, open-minded and selfish" ;-). (Note to the reader: This is of course meant as a sophisticated joke)

A young person who is a leader of organized SW piracy, for lack of a better word, probably doesn't feel that the rules apply to him - same goes for a surprising number of politicians; his perspective on the world is probably not the widest, and he probably sees himself as a "revolutionary" - the distance from "revolutionary" to "reactionary" is surprisingly short, so there is nothing strange in such a person becoming a politically conservative.

Now, before anybody gets going with how much of a communist I am, and what should be done to that kind of people, with a piece of rope and a tall tree, I would like to state that I am a conservative, in the traditional sense: I would like to conserve the good, old things (such as our beautiful nature), I would like to see us return to the good, old, traditional values, like personal freedom, responsibility and accountability, equality under the law, simple decency in dealing with others, and so on. Now, please go ahead and hang me.

picture of the young Strider.

[Anonymous Coward]

check out this older picture of strider.. http://noname.c64.org/csdb/scener/?id=974
and compare it to
http://tonykrvaric.com/
that might give you an idea if this is strider or not ;-)

Too bad then

[Anonymous Coward]

"Because I like to piss them off..."

Well, that's too bad for you then, they really don't care about you or who you vote for.

My man...I imported from you!

[MrHyd3]

TONY! I remember importing 64 warez off my man in exchange for recorded radio cassette tapes....you go Strider! -- Walkman (ABYSS,AAB,SONIC)

You're wrong

[hassanchop]

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

This is demonstrably wrong.

Married couples pay different taxes than unmarried couples. With a large increase in the number of married couples (as a result of gays who could not previously marry) the tax burden of married straight couples will be affected.

Whether that will be a positive affect or not is irrelevant, you said "Gay marriage does not have any affect whatsoever on straight couples" which is, as I have shown, wrong.

This is not the only example of why you're wrong, just an obvious one.

That calls into question the accuracy and validity of your opinions on the subject, as anyone with an opinion worth considering wouldn't make an easily refuted, demonstrably wrong claim like you did.

Re:You're wrong

[Chris Burke]

I hypothetical tax increase targeted specifically at married couples due to the fraction of the 10% of the country that is gay getting married is not in any way "demonstrable". If you had any refutation to anything I said worth considering, you would have come up with something that was actually demonstrable and not hypothetical. As if your follow-on logic that making such a point directly infers that anything else I say is wrong. That is a demonstrable logical fallacy, and thus by your own faulty logic you are not worth listening to.

Re:You're wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, so you are saying we should keep discriminating against gay couples that wish to marry so as to save money for the tax breaks for the married heterosexual couples?
How about we save even more money and do away with the whole marriage thing altogether? I mean, that does follow from your argument. At least then it would be fair.

No, YOU are missing the point

[hassanchop]

people would call him a hypocrite

Despite the fact that you and others like you think this is a criticism, you are wrong.

I would expect thinking, rational people to occasionally change their position on a subject based on the circumstances.

The idea that once a person has taken a position that they can't change, or risk being called a "hypocrite", is ridiculous. It's a cheap trick people like you use when you don't have a real argument.

Hypocrisy isn't always a bad thing, you're just not smart enough to realize when it is and isn't.

Re:No, YOU are missing the point

[homer_ca]

So we should be tough on crime except when it doesn't make sense to be tough on crime? You sound like a Democrat already!

Re:No, YOU are missing the point

[hassanchop]

So we should be tough on crime except when it doesn't make sense to be tough on crime

We are already, Mr. Smarty-pants. Go visit a juvenile court room sometime.

However, your point has fuck all to do with what I said. Reread it so you don't completely misunderstand my post again.

Funny, your quote makes your post a lie

[hassanchop]

Those Evil Lefties making an issue of it for Their Own Nefarious Purposes.

No he didn't, liar. He said, in YOUR quote

"be it the democrats, labor or someone else"

YOU added the retarded bit about "Evil Lefties making an issue of it for Their Own Nefarious Purposes". The difference is not subtle, and you did it intentionally because you have an axe to grind.

Why lie?

Fox News motto - our opinion is news

[gosand]

I'm curious - Fox News or the opinion shows on Fox News channel?

Please explain the difference.

Re:Fox News motto - our opinion is news

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

I think you may have been trying for 'funny', but just in case I'm misjudging: Fox News is broadcast on local Fox affiliate stations, same as NBC, CBS, etc. Fox News Channel has little news, and much opinion.

Ah yes...

[McNihil]

This is good news. Very good news. In fact it has made my day!

MOD PARENT UP

[zooblethorpe]

I particularly liked this bit:

Being well informed about the basics of economics should be considered a civic duty.

There's just entirely too much noise and nonsense about how policy should work out that is ultimately based on terrible misconceptions of how economics work out.

On the flip side, it's also important to note that a lot of economic theory out there is pure bollocks, so it's hard sometimes to know what to read. It seems like the more recent authors (not pundits, but actual economics geeks like the pop author Steven Levitt of Freakonomics , the heavier-duty Amartya Sen, or Samual Bowles and Herbert Gintis of Democracy and Capitalism ) might have a better handle on the way things actually operate in messy and chaotic human systems, rather than just in non-existent ideal conceptual models à la mode de Modernism...

Cheers,

s/Korean/Veitnamese

[mlund]

Yeah, trying to juggle two articles - one of modern North Korea and one on Vietnam from 30 years ago is a breeding ground for terrible typos.

"Sending the children of others off to die"

[mlund]

What a total pile of 1960's hold-over horse shit.

Our military is 100% volunteer. Our soldiers are adults, capable of making their own decisions - not "children," conscripts, or helpless victims being chewed up by "the war machine."

By the by, John McCain has kids in the Armed Services - some of whom have gone to the action in the Middle East. He just doesn't wave them around like trophies for his political ambitions.

Their decision to serve, to give of themselves in helping their fellow Americans and their fellow human beings in Iraq and Afghanistan speaks to THEIR credit and their courage - not necessarily John McCain's character.

Re:"Sending the children of others off to die"

[Jane Q. Public]

You are correct to that extent... it is volunteer. But if anything, that puts things in an even worse light, doesn't it?

Headline: "GWB sends mercenary army to do his dirty work. But not only does he pay private company workers more, he has proposed to cut the pay of those mercenaries."

So, if you insist, fine. But that turns our patriotic, good old boys (and girls) in green, ready to give their lives for their country, into an unpatriotic, underpaid commercial police force, dedicated to giving their lives if necessary for a meager paycheck.

Man, you sure know how to ruin someone's day. I preferred it the other way, but you sure are convincing.

Re:"Sending the children of others off to die"

[mlund]

You are correct to that extent... it is volunteer. But if anything, that puts things in an even worse light, doesn't it? Not unless you've got a poorly pre-conceived notion as to the work our servicemen and servicewomen have been doing in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our reenlistment rates for units deployed to Iraq out-pace many of our units at home and in less active foreign posts. When asked "Why?" the most common answers involve a desire to complete the mission and to help the Iraqis achieve safety and freedom in their own homes. There are a heck of a lot easier ways to make a pay-check, but few that present such an opportunity to make a positive difference in the lives of so many people. The personal sacrifices our soldiers have made from adoptions to risking life and limb outside their regular duties show an amazing amount of empathy for regular people in Iraq. Read some of the field reports from Michael Yon or Michael Totten some time.

So, if you insist, fine. But that turns our patriotic, good old boys (and girls) in green, ready to give their lives for their country, into an unpatriotic, underpaid commercial police force, dedicated to giving their lives if necessary for a meager paycheck. The only thing that does that is an irrational bias to reject any possibility (let alone factual evidence) that the work that coalition soldiers are currently doing in Iraq could be to the benefit of the Iraqi people as well as the U.S.A.. The overwhelming majority of our soldiers aren't monsters, they aren't victims, and they aren't mercenaries - except in the minds of some truly unfortunate individuals.

Re:"Sending the children of others off to die"

[Jane Q. Public]

Man, you must know some soldiers that I do not! But I do know some, including an Army Captain who was stationed for a long time in the former palace in Baghdad.

Of those I know, only one has done two tours. The rest all wanted the hell out of Iraq as soon as they could manage it, and even left the military (where possible) when the government started making noise about sending people back.

With that one exception, they invariably told me that the conditions were terrible, that their equipment was inadequate, that the natives do not want us there, and that they no longer believe the Government stories about why we are there.

So you are wrong: there ARE things other than "irrational bias" that can influence my opinion. You can cite all the statistics you want (wherever they came from), but I will stick with what I was told by the vast majority of people I know who were there. There is nothing irrational about that.

Strider is a 2-bit Snapshot cracker and importer.

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously who cares. He has no technical skills or coding ability.

Check out his claim to fame: http://noname.c64.org/csdb/scener/?id=974

Worthless like every other republican.

Cheers!

You are wrong again, provably

[hassanchop]

I hypothetical tax increase targeted specifically at married couples due to the fraction of the 10% of the country that is gay getting married is not in any way "demonstrable".

There is nothing hypothetical about it. Married couples pay different taxes than non-married couples, it's in the law. Again, nothing hypothetical about it.

More married couples = a change in current tax burdens. It's irrefutable, and yet still you try.

If you had any refutation to anything I said worth considering, you would have come up with something that was actually demonstrable and not hypothetical.

I did, you just can't reute it, so you refuse to acknowledge it. That doesn't make you right, it makes you stubborn and obtuse.

As if your follow-on logic that making such a point directly infers that anything else I say is wrong.

YOU said, and I quote "does not have any affect whatsoever" which means that ANY affect makes you wrong. I demonstrated an irrefutable change that will occur as the LAW REQUIRES IT ALREADY, and your response to that was "it's hypothetical". That is of course, wrong. If couples get legally married, the law will change their tax burden. That cannot be argued. A change in their tax burden will also change the tx burden of others. That also cannot be argued.

Hence, your desire to paint it as "hypothetical" when what you mean is "I have no refutation, so I must pretend I'm right and your irrefutable point is hypothetical"

That is a demonstrable logical fallacy

ANd yet you failed totally to demonstrate ANYTHING.

Do married couples pay the same taxes as non-married couples? YES OR NO?

Can a large change in tax collection be reasonably expected to impact everyone who pays tax? YES OR NO?

The answer to both is yes (unless you're so married to your point that you insist on pretending otherwise like you have) so yes, you are WRONG.

and thus by your own faulty logic you are not worth listening to.

In other words, after attempting to paint my point as hypothetical and failing, and attempting to call me out for a logical fallacy you can neither name nor demonstrate, you find a ridiculous excuse to avoid admitting you are wrong.