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

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.

[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).

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.

select * from subjects where content = 'witty'

[blhack]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[smooth wombat]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[elrous0]

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

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

[mcmonkey]

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

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

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

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

[dreamchaser]

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

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

[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'

[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'

[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'

[X0563511]

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

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

[Chris Burke]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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'

[Eskarel]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[elrous0]

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

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

[delcielo]

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

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

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

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

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

Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[jmorris42]

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

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

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[Daniel Dvorkin]

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

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

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[Anonymous Cowtard]

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

Re:Who knows, but it WAS twenty years ago

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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:Duh

[spun]

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

I downloaded once in college

[Anonymous Coward]

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

What's his record?

[Just Some Guy]

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

Re:What's his record?

[Al Dimond]

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

Re:Duh

[jameskojiro]

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

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:This gives new meaning to the phrase...

[halivar]

I believe you meant "Republican 1337".

Re:Republican Motto:

[moderatorrater]

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

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

Right wing nutjob motto

[spun]

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

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

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?

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

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:

[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: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:Republican Motto:

[evilphish_mi]

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

Re:Republican Motto:

[moderatorrater]

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

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

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

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

Re:Duh

[spun]

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

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

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

WHY THE FUCK SHOULD HE REPLY BY EMAIL?

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything you need is in the nfo, lamer!

Re:Republican Motto:

[spun]

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

Re:Republican Motto:

[moderatorrater]

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

Do you believe it matters which party you are?

[Shivetya]

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

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

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

Re:Go check your facts.

[Toonol]

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

Re:Republican Motto:

[spun]

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

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.

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:Duh

[spun]

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

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

Re:Duh

[pthisis]

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

Re:Republican Motto:

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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: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.

fairlight not just a warez group

[spir0]

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

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

Re:Republican Motto:

[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:

[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.