Slashdot Mirror
Sanders Campaign Accused of Trademark Bullying By Web Site (buzzfeed.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Buzzfeed is reporting that "An online merchant has accused the Bernie Sanders campaign of 'trademark bullying'. after a Bernie 2016, Inc. attorney sent him a cease and desist letter regarding t-shirts, mugs, and sweatshirts depicting the candidate with historic communist leaders..." The t-shirt's designer tells Buzzfeed "He didn't seem to be the type of candidate, the type of guy, who would do something like this... I would think Bernie, or one of his staff members will step in and put an end to it. It appears to be pretty silly."
In January Ars Technica reported that lawyers for the Sanders campaign had demanded their logo be removed from pages on Wikipedia -- before later withdrawing that DMCA notice.
In January Ars Technica reported that lawyers for the Sanders campaign had demanded their logo be removed from pages on Wikipedia -- before later withdrawing that DMCA notice.
Just waiting on the "Top 10 ___" articles now.
I tried to argue this, but the site is so clearly full of douchbags and jerkoffs that I don't even care.
Guy does not think he is a communist (hint: "democratic socialist" is not the same thing) Neither is "socialist") Random website he knows fuck all about uses his name and image without endorsement or permission, and... TRADEMARK BULLYING.
Fuck, no.
The douchebag is strong here: and that's not with the Bernie campaign.
Either way its not a story.
It's called branding, and any public figure needs to control their brand regardless of how honest or honorable the offender might declare themselves. You can't just let people do whatever they want with your brand, even if that brand is yourself. Otherwise Trump will do it as the precedent has been set. Really, some T-Shirt guy is mad because he's trying to profit off of something he has no right to? This isn't even a story.
"He wrote in the blog that that lead counsel for the Sanders campaign told him that Garvey, Schubert, Barer sent the demand letter without any consultation with the Sanders campaign."
If that's the quality of advisers that Sanders is attracting, he's got a problem with his ability to identify good staff.
Actually no, since all the weapons are on one side. And all the money. And all the food. So a civil war would be short and miserable for city dwellers.
There are a lot of posts here defending Sanders. I guarantee that if Trump's campaign did anything like this, Slashdot would be crucifying Trump. Of course, Trump doesn't do those things at all. He's happy to argue with anyone and take whatever punches are thrown his way. For a candidate who has a lot of support from nerds, Sanders sure does like to abuse trademark law and the DMCA.
Looks like Hillary's campaign to "Disqualify and Defeat" Bernie has finally reached Slashdot.
Way to propaganda, guys.
is he a bad person for not wanting some opportunitist to earn a quick buck on shifting t-shirts with Bernie's face propped up next to communist leaders? Would you be fine with someone putting your face next to Hitler's on t-shirts and earning money off of it? If not, why should Bernie be? Because he's a public figure?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Stone
methinks someone ought to trademark the White House, else some chicom may 'steal the IP'
Yeah, because you have proof that Bernie did this himself and not some idiot lawyer?
Fact: most lawyers are idiots or scumbags.
Fact: Many lawyers are both.
Seems to me that guns are on both sides.
On the democrat side because they need leverage against the corporate boogeyman taking over their government and enacting a corporate police state.
On the republican side because they like guns and need leverage against a statist boogeyman taking over their whatever.
Not at all an anti-Bernie political insinuation.
Gotta make sure comrade Sanders gets his cut!
Well, apparently in the summary there is no link to the source. I thought our new Slashdot overlords were going to do that from now on? So I took it upon myself to do so, to let everyone judge for themselves. Don't want to see the original graphic that sparked this discussion? Why not? Afraid of the truth?
Here is Liberty Maniacs main page at libertymaniacs.com. The link to the shirt that Bernie's Brownshirts are trying to shut down is here. The other shirts on the site are mocking Donald Trump "We Shall Overcomb", the NSA "the only part of the government that listens", a T-shirt depicting police officers beating the shit out of a citizen, another Trump "Idiocracy", Trump again mocking his hair, "Carlin was Right", "I'm Ready for Oligarchy", a stormtrooper with the words "Support the Troops", a picture of that one guy in the crowd with his arms crossed refusing to Heil Hitler, and Hillary for Prison. Oh, and the Sanders "Bernie is my Comrade" parody.
Seriously, if anyone has a problem with this site, I really don't see it. Most of the merchandise is clearly mocking the Right, with only two there that the Left could possibly be offended about. And honestly those are probably just there to cover their bases and not lose any sales. The Sanders one is pretty uncreative, I mean it's an obvious joke to add his face to the famous "parade of Marxists" seeing as Bernie's own views are quite close to theirs. Don't believe me, ask real-live Marxists what they think about him. Spoiler alert: he's not far enough left for their taste. Anyone who wants to suppress T-shirt is just a thin-skinned asshole who can dish out the mockery but not take it. Guess what: that sort of thing cuts both ways. Feel the Bern!
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
this comments is just test for moderation, no need to be posted.
No, they know the liberals type are hypocrite. Hoarding gun for the planed cleansing, while promoting disarming everyone else.
Actually we have proof to the contrary. The article explicitly states that the lawfirm did this without the instruction or consent of the campaign that hired them. The seller actually said he is confident that Bernie would put a stop to it as soon as he is informed.
It will be telling to see if that prediction turns out to be accurate.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
This guy is making a profit, by using someone elses' likeness without their permission, making false political statements about them, and could actually be harming Sanders' campaign... and he doesn't seem to understand that he's being wrong at all. The guy making the T-shirts is a douchebag - he is exactly the reason why the law exists, and he should be shut down. Asshat
And it has a logo? Seems rather un-Bernie. As does the suit. It's also unsustainable, parodying the likeness of a Presidential candidate is protected speech.
Actually since the military is way more conservative than most of America....
And guns don't help if you don't have any food.
Trademarks MUST be enforced. You snooze, you loose. This is standard. This is the law. If they do not react, they loose their trademark. e.g. Walkman used to be a trademark, but they did not react, so now it isn't anymore.
This is a bout trademark and that I can get behind. If it were copyright, that would be completely different.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Until you step on someone's lawn.
Satire.
Dude can sell these t-shirts all he wants because they are satire and that's a protected form of speech. If it wasn't, Weird Al, MAD Magazine, etc would have been out of business a long time ago.
Okay i can see your tanks and stuff and raise you by https://www.victoriassecret.co...
What the fuck is this? And why is it here?
:T:R:A:N:S:
It depends on if you're talking about the officers or the enlisted men.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Either the lawyers stop this without it hitting the press (not this time) or Bernie gets to publically slap lawyers on the wrist. It's win-win.
In the real world though, the lawfirm either broke their contract or were allowed to go after anything they deemed infringements within the instructions and with consent.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Pretty much everybody but the very top brass (presidential appointees). That's how we got this whole "women in combat" and "gay integration" thing. Needless to say it will go away instantly with a Republican president.
The asshole works for a Hillary PAC.
Her supporters seem to be desperate.
Pretty much everybody but the very top brass
So basically all the Gomer Pyle's then.
That's how we got this whole "women in combat" and "gay integration" thing. Needless to say it will go away instantly with a Republican president.
Didn't go away with the second Bush, considering women have been piloting combat aircraft since 1993.
And Women flying AH64 Apaches who kill from above with 30mm cannons and Hellfires.
And gay people have been fighting for this country ever since this country was founded.
I own two different T-Shirts having fun at his expense. One is him depicted as "Weekend at Bernie's", the other the other is a mixture of Bert and Ernie. Neither, as far as I know, have been C&D'd.
I have a Korean teacher. Ever time she tries to say election, it comes out as "erection".
I meant in ground forces. I'm not so much as an idiot as to say women don't usually make better pilots.
The Trump and the Trump campaign "loves the poorly educated" (his words not mine) - the Trump campaign TARGETS these persons seeking to recruit. Most of these folks are unable to distinguish between communism and socialism if in fact they even know these are two very different things.
Major mistake on my part!!!
I thought they were looking for examples of Hillary
. For trump....
Referring to illegal immigrants coming from Mexico and Central America he said lot of them were criminals, drug users or rapists before they came to the USA.
Wanted to build a wall, fence would be the term Democrats prefer, to ensure the border of the USA.
After one of the terrorist attacks from a muslim immigrant he said the USA should not allow any muslim immigrants in until Congress had figured what was going on and what happened.
You must have contempt for the people in the military to think that they would fire on their brothers and sisters who simply want the constitution to be upheld.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
I give a shit. Me, right here.
You asked, I answered. Why do I give a shit? Because political speech, and parody, are protected under the first amendment.
I have no idea what the rest of your post is on about, but you might see a doctor about adjusting your medication.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Yeah, because there are absolutely no Democrats that ever saddle up with big business. No wait, the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination is exactly that.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
There have been women Marines for quite some time, and many male Marines are very respectful, if not outright fearful of them.
You don't want to screw around with a WM.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
I would hope so, because it's a shit case. It's clearly political satire / parody, which is free speech.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
I certainly agree that they are. The sale of T-shirts is not protected by the first amendment. But others have successfully made millions off of parody so lets set that aside a moment as well.
The nature of trademark is such that if one doesn't attempt to defend it when violations are brought to one's attention it dilutes the trademark. It isn't like copyright or patents where you can selectively enforce.
It's important that stories like this are widely publicized so that the public can see the true face of Sanders before it's too late.
Yes, the "true face" of Sanders is what you are fiercely concerned with. In fact, it's evident that anything which might reinforce your preconceived notions is more important for you to regurgitate on your own jumbo screen - even if it handily shows you are completely misinformed.
Senator Sanders had nothing to do with this incident other than having the competence to hire a law firm which is diligent in doing their job.
The fact is - the only thing the law firm is defending is the Sander's campaign's logo and if you had even a passing understanding of copyright law, you would understand that this is something they have to do.
But keep screwing that chicken in the hopes that maybe someday you'll get eggs.
The flamebait. What a f***ing buffoon. Poor baby.
Bernie's problem is that he's gone on camera so many times saying he's a democratic socialist, that he has to keep running with it. I'm sure he would prefer to drop the whole idea, especially considering (this article is case and point) that the general public really is confused about what all these terms mean. So what he's doing here is trying to scare someone that, presumably, is having some success selling these tshirts that intentionally misrepresent his position. Is this smart? Without knowing the exact situation all can say is probably not. Best case scenario, the guy backs down and closes the doors - most likely he just removes the logo and uses the cease and desist for marketing to sell more shirts - and worst case they are forced to take this to court during an election. I would make some changes in my campaign staff over this one.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I will tell you one thing that is in the constitution, which is that armed rebellion is treason.
Islam isn't a race, illegal immigration isn't a race.
It is surprising that you were modded up.
https://twitter.com/ChrisDudle...
So true; it also depends what branch of the service. Air Force pilots (i.e. officers) have a well-deserved reputation for being douches that goes back decades; while there's currently a raging epidemic of evangelical fundamentalism occurring (particularly among cadets at the Academy in Colorado Springs), during 'Nam they tended to be merely racist, insecure Southern-fratboy hotheads. Naval aviators, on the other hand (particularly carrier pilots), were known for being a lot more cool, calm and collected...
So let me get this straight. Someone makes a shirt that associates Sanders with Stalin. Sanders, who is trying to win a presidential campaign, uses the same trademark laws that everyone else uses to make him stop doing it. Think of the children!!
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
Sanders campaign isn't completely carbon neutral? Sanders campaign used closed source software?
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
The first amendment only protects you from government. Sanders campaign is not a government entity and can act as they are acting within their rights. It's up to a court to decide the outcome, and THAT COURT can not prevent speech, but can uphold trademark.
These are a lot of issues from the last civil war. It is just at some point the Democrats became Republicans and the Republicans became Democrats.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Politicians are always two-sided. You've only shown that hypocrisy and stupidity is adamant on both sides, except one side is more forthright clown (conservatives) while the other side likes playing a righteous person on the outside but is an Orwellian snake on the inside (liberals).
Frankly, weapons or not, i am more for keeping a balance of power between government and corporations and fear both for different reasons. As things stand, corporations have more money and power than the government, and can easily use the technology they create and supply to the government in order to blackmail and subvert the governing collective.
On the opposing hand, UK is an example of a kind of government i fear in terms of Western examples, albeit it could be argued that they are also kissing corporate ass.
I may not be a huge Sanders fan, but Sanders frankly is comedy gold. So if you are going for funny, it ain't that hard. But placing pictures of him next to Stalin like they were buddies isn't even the slightest bit funny. Even if you're trying to poke fun at your own ignorance for not being able to tell the difference between anybody to the left of you and a Communist, that's just sad, not funny. So clearly, humor was not the goal here.
This isn't comedy; its straight up character assassination. If his lawyers don't try to go after it while he's running for high office, they aren't doing their jobs.
There were some Navy and Marine troops at the tech school I attended during my stint. I will never forget seeing a formation of mixed sex marines stomping past a formation I was in. The WM's had arms bigger than my legs and honestly the only way they stood out from the males was that they were shorter on average.
"Your paltry pistol ain't doing shit against a military arsenal."
A "military arsenal" which performs well against other large armies in the open field but has not done well against armed civilian populations. It managed a costly draw against North Korea, lost to the Viet Cong, and lost even to the ragtag Taliban.
There is absolutely no law banning communism, just like there is no law saying you can't put a white sheet over your head and march down the street with the KKK.
How in the fuck is this scored Insightful?
It's Insightful because it's unfortunately true. Check out this gem of American history: the Communist Control Act of 1954. You can also download the text from the Government Publishing Office. It very explicitly states that, according to law, anyone in the Communist Party is considered to be attempting to overthrow the government, and shall be punished according to the law of Internal Security Act of 1950.
Now you might be able to make the claim that if you generally believe communist principles but aren't part of the established Party, this won't apply to you. But I think that effectively takes away your rights to organize, does it not? Still effectively a ban on the idea, if nothing else.
Or maybe it was Kevin A. Strom. Either way:
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize"
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Parodies are protected speech
Not quite. Parodies are an affirmative defense.
An affirmative defense that the First Amendment requires courts to recognize. When the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a second successive extension of a subsisting copyright term in Eldred v. Ashcroft, it also held that fair use and the unprotectability of ideas constitute the implementation of the First Amendment in copyright law. So you're both right: free speech is protected, and an affirmative defense is how this protection is asserted.
Check out this gem of American history: the Communist Control Act of 1954
From the article: "In 1973 a federal district court in Arizona decided that the act was unconstitutional".
So, I open the local paper, and I see a cartoon in the op-ed section that clearly shows a candidate's trademark...
Yes, I know the diff between a purely commercial activity and a newspaper opinion, but think about it - why is commercial activity suddenly not 'speech' just because it is a commercial activity?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Freedom of speech only protects you from your government, not from a private person or corporation
Protecting a citizen from the government includes protecting a citizen from enforcement of copyright or trademark laws enacted by the government.
Calling Sanders a Marxist is a crime because you are accusing him falsely of engaging in criminal behaviour.
Which U.S. law considers Marxism to be "criminal behaviour" and hasn't been ruled unconstitutional?
The sale of T-shirts is not protected by the first amendment.
But what is printed on the T-shirts is protected.
The nature of trademark is such that ...
What trademark? As a public figure, Bernie's likeness is not protected. If McCall was using a specific logo of Bernie's campaign, there might be an issue, but if you look at his website, that doesn't appear to be the issue here. He also has T-shirts ridiculing Trump and Hillary.
Has anyone actually called Trump 'Hitler' ?
You mean other than Adam Tod Brown in his article "5 Ways Donald Trump Perfectly Mirrors Hitler's Rise To Power"?
The frightening part isn't Sanders himself. It's the people who surround him, the ones who will receive patronage positions if the worst happens and he is elected President. It's like a who's who of the hate-filled Left. A law firm is just the tip of the iceberg, there are some seriously scary people who are staunchly pro-Sanders and will be in the government if he wins. We're talking about people who consider Venezuela and Cuba success stories.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
there is no parody exception to trademark law
Then how did Fox get away with MADtv's iRack sketch? Was it the addition of a stem to the logo?
The single person running the Liberty Maniacs website has an update on the DMCA linked/blog page (not the product page), not on the product page, detailing that this was sent by the Sanders Campaign lawyer without consulting the Sanders campaign. As is typical in this scenario, it's an overzealous lawyer and an overzealous "my free speech is being trampled on, authoritarians! Buy more to stick it to the man!" Never mind that he's obviously using the opportunity to generate eyeballs for his site and burying as far down(blog page, halfway down in the posting as an *update) as he can the fact that it isn't the campaign, but their lawyer doing this.
As always the truth lies somewhere in the middle. My guess is that the campaign lawyer is just following the normal course of action as he sees to protect his client. I wouldn't be surprised to see this silently go away as a small misunderstanding since, if Bernie really understands the youth the way he claims, this wouldn't bother him.
The first amendment only protects you from government. Sanders campaign is not a government entity and can act as they are acting within their rights.
Said "rights" were created by the government.
THAT COURT can not prevent speech, but can uphold trademark.
A court cannot uphold a trademark if upholding a trademark would unduly prevent speech.
Trademark law is trumped by the constitution and it's amendments. Free Speech prevails as long as it is within the accepted bounds (not endangering public by yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, etc.)
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
In Soviet Russia the Bern feels you.
Would you care to name names?
Sanders doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell, so I've lost most interest in the election at this point.
What's disappointing is Bernie's campaign in general. First, it's really shitty that the media has pretty much nullified much of his efforts but the gaffes are pretty rough to accept. He's not done a very good job at campaigning, not at all. I first noticed it when he allowed the microphone to be taken and the BLM folks to interrupt him.
I really like him - I've even met him. I'm very likely to still vote for him. I've sent his campaign some money. But, even with what the media has done to his campaign - he's NOT helping. Well, more accurately, the folks he has supporting him and working for him are not helping. It's much easier to campaign in small States and he really does seem an ill fit for the national campaign trail.
He's going to be yet another politician that I've voted for who hasn't a shot in hell at winning. I find that oddly comforting. I've only voted for the winning candidate, in the presidential election, once - and I've voted every chance I got since 1978.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Because trademark has exception of fair use. Commercial use of trademark (the very thing that it is designed to protect against) does not fall under those exceptions. Newspapers and news media have alot more protection against copyright and fairuse claims as long as they don't overdo it if you haven't noticed under current law.
Every Marine is, first and foremost, a rifleman. That includes the Lady Marines. The Lady Marine will have also had MCT. Fuck with a Lady Marine at your own peril.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
To be fair, that's because you're using the wrong definition of lost. But yes, the military/government would have a very hard time dealing with an armed insurrection. Politically, it simply would be impossible. They can not, for example, drop a bunch of Hellfire missiles into downtown Boston and expect the rest of the planet to not intervene.
At any rate, Korea, Viet Nam, and even the Taliban lost the military war vs. the US. You're using the wrong definition when you say the US lost those conflicts.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Interesting, I wouldn't have taken you to be a commie.
Skimming the article, I don't see where he says he was donating *any* of the profits to the Sanders campaign. That sounds like a not-unreasonable reason for the lawyers.
mark "can I sell Mickey Mouse t-shirts without cutting Disney in?"
Well, you've got to consider what Bernie is running against. I am a staunch Conservative but given a choice between Bernie and Hillary I'd be grateful to vote for Bernie.
Which U.S. law considers Marxism to be "criminal behaviour" and hasn't been ruled unconstitutional?
the Communist Control Act of 1954 signed into law by Eisenhower.
You can argue whether it WOULD be ruled constitutional
A federal district court in Arizona has ruled the CCA unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court has not yet overturned this district court's ruling.
My definition of 'lost' is: we invaded, we threw in huge numbers of troops, which were worn down and eventually we had to withdraw the survivors, leaving the enemy in possession of the field and the Oppressed Peasants exactly as oppressed as they were before we invaded. What definition would you prefer?
You, Sir, are not a patriot.
I bought 2!
off his image, first. Like this is a bad thing? You use my face, you ask me first. When you don't and I object, that is not bullying. So, to bad your ill gotten money stream is screwed.
What trademark? As a public figure, Bernie's likeness is not protected.
Lanham Act, 43: FALSE DESIGNATIONS OF ORIGIN, FALSE DESCRIPTIONS, AND DILUTION FORBIDDEN
(a) Civil action
(1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which—
(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person,...
shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.
I don't see "unless the another person is a public figure" in there, do you?
> The nature of trademark is such that if one doesn't attempt to defend it when violations are brought to one's attention it dilutes the trademark. It isn't like copyright or patents where you can selectively enforce.
You might want to ask the EFF about that:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...
See, this is why you read the *case law* and not just the statutes themselves. Otherwise you'd miss the fact that there's a fair use defense for trademarks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"A nonowner may also use a trademark nominativelyâ"to refer to the actual trademarked product or its source. In addition to protecting product criticism and analysis, United States law actually encourages nominative usage by competitors in the form of comparative advertising"
"The fair use defense in trademark law is not precluded by the possibility of confusion, according to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004."
Those were all proxy wars versus a much more well-funded opponent. See also Charlie Wilson's War. And in point of fact, the exact same thing was true during the Revolutionary War. The French bankrolled the American Revolution, provided arms, gunpowder, cannon, an unjustifiably celebrated sixth-rate frigate, a moderate army, and the world's second-largest navy.
If you don't have an army and don't have a powerful nation-state backing your cause, you're going to get massacred, no matter how well armed you think you are.
You mean like the Kent State shooting where the military actually did fire on their "brothers and sisters"?
I'm lookin' at the t-shirt pic right now and it is just an image of a generic old man wearing glasses next to the bust images of those of bad political ides past with the tagline " Bernie is my comrade" underneath. Implied to be that of Sanders, this is political parody at best. At most the shirt should be discounted for such poor likeness. Geez fella, put some effort into the artwork, someone is supposed to wear that.
As a whole, lawyers don't really have the grasp of politics they think they do, and are bound to fuck up royally if not given proper oversight. So yeah, the Sanders campaign has fucked up, but not in the manner it would seem on first glance.
You are right: Lies are weapons, liberal have most of them and you can't pry them out of their mouths...
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
He and his wife honeymooned in the USSR. He's a frequent visitor to Cuba. Makes one wonder if he would claim to be a Communist if that wasn't such a politically unpopular title in the U.S. I wouldn't consider a picture of Sanders next to Stalin to be funny at all. I'd consider worrisome.
No. I think you're mistaken here. Purposely mistaken. One the National Guard was far less professional in 1970 then it is now. And second we're talking about civil war - active combat and not a few scared, unprepared kids panicking under pressure and lack of professional leadership.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
You give a shit because you're an idiot. Putting someone side by side with one of the worst mass-murderers in history, as if they were pals or their ideas had anything to do with each other, isn't parody.
It's plain libel, unless you truly believe that a future president Sanders is going to institute a massive system of forced labor camps in Alaska or somewhere, (yes, I know GULAG was originally a Trotsky thing, but it's Stalin who ultimately formed the system) and begin to assign the Secret Service quotas of people to be executed, arrested and / or interned every month for no other reason than to spread fear among the rest of the population.
Stalin is not a joke. If you think so, you're positively retarded, or at least historically ignorant to the point where there's no difference.
I like how that comment doesn't name anyone, or even provide any source of who is going to be appointed. I don't think such a source exists, because I don't think Bernie has filled his cabinet at this point, but still I like the complete lack of substance to go along with the fear you're spreading. Well done, that's exactly how political trolling should work. Bonus points for terms like "if the worst happens" and "hate-filled Left" (including the capitalization of "Left").
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
So if those students had been armed and the guardsmen had orders to shoot, that would have made them LESS likely to fire? Now you're just being silly.
Perhaps you should avoid saying things like 'Nobody has called Trump "literally Hitler"' until you actually Google it
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Yeah I mean look how we just nuked the shit out or Iraq and Afghanistan right? I love dummies who think their tanks and bombs would pacify a us population in revolt.
That said delusions of such a revolt are equally silly far right wing nut fantasies.
Use of a public figure's picture in a satirical fashion is OK. Satirical use of a campaign logo is OK. However if the logo is used in a satirical way in a product being sold...that's not OK.
So all the guys need to do is change the "Bernie" logo to just text or something that doesn't look as much like the official campaign logo, then all will be fine.
Yes. I misspoke. If it gets to active civil war I think a large part of the military will desert/retire/ join forces with their brothers and fathers who are standing up to tyranny.
I do not think military will be an active part of subverting the constitution. I think they will refuse to follow orders. I know too many people who are/were active. The members of the military that I know of (yes a very small percentage of the total) are very respectful and mindful of the constitution and balance of powers; many have complete contempt for the portion of the populace that want to turn this country into a European Nanny State in which people are subjects of the government as opposed to citizens of.
You know the type. The type that votes for and supports the Nancy Pelosi "you have to pass the bill to know what's inside the bill."
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
That's not much of a choice, but I know how you feel. Given the choice between Hillary and Satan, Satan would get my vote.
Bernie is not quite Satan; he's just a sad little man with fucked up ideas that have never worked. I do believe he loves the country and that's more than I can say about the current resident of the White House.
As someone who will likely be *very* financially impacted by a Sanders' win for presidency, I have to tell you, he's the best chance you have. Your country is crumbling around you, you appear to not notice, and needs repairs. This is going to take additional funds. This is going to take allocating funds wisely. This is going to take someone other than the other candidates that you're being offered.
It's my country too but, should I need to, I've the means to leave or even not be impacted much - regardless. Tax avoidance is both legal and remarkably simple. I don't generally avoid my taxes because that would be a shitty thing to do. I do avoid some of them, the ones I don't personally prefer to pay, but I most generally pay them all. I typically reduce my tax burden to the maximum allowed by donating to charitable causes, in case you're curious. I also don't actually have to spend much money on myself and have learned the power of incorporation, accountants, and a business-oriented lawyer. If you're really curious, I don't mind the taxes so much as I mind how they spend them.
At any rate, you really are *likely* to be better of with Sanders than you are with any other candidate that's actually in the running at this time. You may not like his politics but, really, congress isn't going to let him get away with much. You'd also be hard pressed to find anything that you can feel comfortable saying about his politics on that Jumbotron that you mentioned, unless you're rather inhumane. What, are you going to stand up there and say, "Yes, I want poor people to suffer because I won't contribute an extra $5.00 total, per year, in taxes to help send them to school so that they can better themselves!" You're gonna feel proud to stand up and say that? Really?
Hell, chances are good that you don't even pay much in taxes. Some near 50% of you pay nothing in Federal taxes and very little in State taxes. (Everybody pays some taxes. Of course, the percentage paid is actually worse for the poor people.)
Seriously, I'll get taxed a few more percentage points. That actually adds up to a bit of money. I'm okay with that so long as they spend it wisely. Improving things and making things better in the long-run are what I'd call "wisely." I don't know about you but I kind of prefer the idea of a better future for more than just myself. Me? I'll be all set, thanks. I'll be likely to vote for Sanders because I want *your* kids to have a greater chance at fiscal improvements and because, truth be told, it takes a bit of capital for you to make the most of your freedoms and to appreciate your liberties. Poor people might be free but there's fuck all they can do to enjoy it.
What's that saying? The one about how the law, in its magnanimity, makes illegal for both poor and rich alike to sleep under the bridge?
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Are pussies.
No. Kent State was almost entirely an issue of unprofessionalism. Unprofessionalism in part of the national guardsmen who shot their weapons and unprofessionalism of their commanders.
We're facing a much different situation here. It's not simply a case of "have weapons" or "not have weapons." We're talking about whys and wherefores here. The guardsmen are not robots (and that's why I think we're going to have more and more non-human guardsmen. One they won't panic, and two they will follow immoral orders). And that is the key issue: The guardsmen at Kent State were not ordered to fire into the crowd. They panicked. I don't think that guardsmen (especially a far more professional guard) will fire into a crowd of people who are not causing physical harm to property (unlike the BLM movement) and are not threatening their neighbors.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
I saw a skull try to stop a .308 once. It didn't end well for the skull. Sounds like you are looking at little green men and thinking your plastic butter knife is the bomb. Unfortunately the difference between make believe and reality is often just what is still there when you open your eyes.
The nature of trademark is such that if one doesn't attempt to defend it when violations are brought to one's attention it dilutes the trademark. It isn't like copyright or patents where you can selectively enforce.
On one level you're right. On a deeper lever you're completely wrong.
Yes, it's true that leaving your trademark undefended can cause you to lose it. But there's an alternative to shutting down every use you find: You can simply grant gratis licenses. Not only does this ensure that your trademark remains undiluted, but it even allows you to exercise a non-trivial amount of control over usage because you can attach strings to the license grant. Even if the trademark use isn't actually infringing, as long as you keep the strings relatively light people are highly likely to follow your guidelines just because it's easier than getting lawyers involved, and because they appreciate that you're trying to work with them.
In a case like this, the campaign might even get some good press out of it if they worded the license letter in a suitably humorous way. Sending C&D letters merely out of an obligation to "defend the trademark" is dumb, and shows an extreme lack of creativity.
All of this assumes there actually is a trademark to defend, which other posters have called into question.
The first amendment only protects you from government. Sanders campaign is not a government entity and can act as they are acting within their rights.
It's the government that defines and (partially) enforces trademark and copyright law. The fact that they're doing it on behalf of a private entity doesn't change the fact that it's a government action to suppress speech. What does matter is that the constitution specifically authorizes Congress to implement intellectual property rights legislation, so there's something of a conflict between the original text and the first amendment. But Congress and the courts have attempted to balance the issues, and the result is that there are first amendment-related limitations on the scope of intellectual property rights.
At this point, I should mention that I have a photograph of myself standing next to the first President Bush. I am not a Republican.
I also have a picture of myself, in my Dress Blues, standing right next to President Carter. I am not a Democrat.
There are pictures of me with drug dealers, artists, common criminals, and even a few other famous people.
There's even a picture of me with a cousin of a man named Aidid. I can assure you, I am not a war lord. I was, on the other hand, in Somalia at the time - purely tourism and educational. I'd sent a bit of money and then was curious about it as I'd not known much more than Black Hawk Down and the news around that from back in the late 1980s and early 1990s. So, I went and it was rather eye opening but that's a story for another day.
Then, I'll go so far as to say that Sanders is nominally a member of the Democrats. You can look that up. However, he's quite squarely (politically) in the camp that would be known as the SP-USA/SPA, or whatever they're calling themselves this week - the Socialist Party of America/United States of America. I seem to recall there being a blurb about an American Socialist Party - which is another animal entirely, or so I understand. I am only passingly familiar with the first and not the latter and have no idea if they ever got off the ground but I had a "friend" who was ranting about them for quite a number of years.
At any rate, you can't just assign things to Sanders that aren't true and then try to insist that others be honest. Well, you can, but that's not actually very intellectually honest - now is it? No, Sanders is a member of the Democratic Party. That's the facts and that is only the facts. However, if he were in a more representative party then he'd almost certainly be in the Socialist Party of America though, it'd be in ill-fit with the latest changes within the party, he'd actually fit into the Libertarian Party as a Socialist Libertarian.
You can't just say that he's a member of a party and leave it at that - and expect to have an honest conversation or debate. That's not a valid debate tactic - though it's likely to win against those who aren't actually able to think logically and reason themselves to a good rebuttal. So, I'll give you that - credit where credit is due. However, you're not debating idiots. Well, okay... I'm unfamiliar with the parent poster so it's possible that you are. It's not likely, however.
That said, I shan't spam but I'm in the process of working on a site that encourages and tries to facilitate intelligent discourse *and* civil discussion. It's still very much in the beta stage but if you're interested then let me know by email or whatnot. I do not necessarily agree with your political views but it'd be a pretty boring site if we all agreed, now wouldn't it?
However, I'd agree that Communism is the most murderous of political ideologies in modern times. It might even be the most murderous ever - though I'm not sure if that holds true if we go by percentages. There were some REALLY aggressive tyrants in ye olden days who did some serious damage to population numbers in their respective regions. They may have Communism beaten in a per capita sense but surely not in totality.
I'd agree that Sanders is Socialist but not Communist. He even does us the favor of identifying as a Socialist - and I'm disheartened that he sticks with the Democrats as opposed to being more honest. I'd actually respect him a bit more if he were to represent the Socialist Party of America instead of riding the coattails of the Democrats.
So, I agree that that group might be Communists and such is immaterial.
I do not agree that he is a member of that group, currently or in the past. (So far as I know, he's never been a member. Association with is not membership or even implied acceptance or agreement.)
Communism is very murderous and an absolutely horrific idea in groups larger than, maybe, 150 to 200 people.
Oh sure, Communism sounds good on paper but it's bullshit in reality. It would only work if everyone agreed and that's not going to happen so it has to rely on force. Any governance by means of force is generally going to allow fewer liberties than are just. Fortunately, Sanders is not a Communist.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
The U.S. military did not "lose" to the Viet Cong. It essentially wiped them out. The peace then negotiated with the North Vietnamese was then not defended by the worn out US political establishment, and the North Vietnamese regular forces staged an invasion in defiance of the agreement they signed; an invasion which the US civil leadership declined to engage.
For that matter, the US did not "manage a costly draw" against North Korea. It fully achieved its objective against North Korea quite speedily, after which the Chinese invaded and were fought to a draw though they vastly outnumbered the US forces.
Learn some history, for gosh sake. Don't make absurd claims.
Re the Taliban, you make a goddam good point, though that was a chicken-shit commitment on the part of the US.
Sure enough. It shows that he doesn't have the best advisors. For instance, in his last debate with Hillary it was obvious she already knew the questions and had her responses canned while the questions were obviously new to him. She or someone in her campaign has an insider. You will also notice she has the last chance to speak on each question.
There were a number of points where he could have hit her hard. When she attacked him on his gun control stances in the past he could have roasted her support of international arms deals with countries that donate to the Clinton foundation. There were at least a half dozen other points were he could have slammed her and the voice in his ear should have said as much.
Have never worked? Bernie promotes a return to the only sort of economic policies that have ever worked in the US. What the R party is pushing has only been tried to a significant degree twice the first time it led to the great depression and the second time the great recession.
His "commie" programs wouldn't even return taxation to Carter administration levels.
So like law enforcement routinely violating the 4th amendment through civil assets forfeiture at the point of a gun?
C&D letters to people with blatant fair use arguments could be a creative way to get the job done. They reply making an argument for fair use, you file that away, and now you have a record of defending your trademark.
;)
As to whether or not there even actually is one, being a public figure does not negate his ability to file trademarks that is false. I have no idea if he actually has or not, looking would require more shits than I can spare for this issue.
Is there a picture of yourself giving a speech at a podium, while President Bush looks at you (admiringly)? Probably, not...
Ok, to rehash. You agree that Communism is evil, that's a relief. You seem to agree, that DSA are Communist enough to taint any member — if he is a member.
But you insist that:
The first point is not entirely relevant, so I'll just point out, that Sanders is constantly identified as "an Independent" — he is caucusing with Democrats in Senate, but he is not one of them. The usual state/party designation next to his name is (VT, I.).
He is running for a Democratic Party nomination this year, but that's neither here nor there. Ron Paul ran for Republican nomination several times, but he is a Libertarian...
Now, is he a member of DSA? Here is my evidence:
With so much evidence, it is way past time he repudiated their support, don't you think? Unless he welcomes it, of course. Far less evidence was ever presented, that Donald Trump was a KKK-member, for example, before angry voices and sneaky interviewers demanded, he "repudiates" that organization. Talk about "intellectual honesty"...
Even if a stubborn juror may insist, the above evidence does not convict Bernie Sanders of being a Communist beyond reasonable doubt, there is certainly enough to rule against him on the slightly lower preponderance of evidence standard. He is a Communist alright...
Lastly, about your (and others') attempts to distinguish between Communism and Socialism... The distinction is without difference — Socialism is merely Communism-lite.
But even if you disagree, who would want a Hugo Chavez — another "Socialist not a Communist" — to become President of their country? Because, other than the late Presidente's anti-Semitism, the Senator's ideas are indistinguishable from his...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The thing is, I think the Sanders campaign (and nearly every campaign I can think of, back into the mists of history) want to control their message. If this t-shirt dude is off message, or distracting, or even a supporter but with flawed PR instincts, they have both a right and an obligation to shut him down.
Being called a Communist is, in the US context, like being called a murderer. It's repellant and political kryptonite. Even if done in fun, or satire, or whatever, it can only damage an active campaign. It makes no difference if the t-shirt dude thinks "it's obviously a joke" or if they feel they are being discriminated against in some obscure manner.
The right thing for t-shirt dude to have done was to ask permission first. I'll bet a day's pay that didn't happen. Because the answer would have been No and either t-shirt dude takes the hint, or decides to defy the Sanders campaign anyway.
Have never worked? Bernie promotes a return to the only sort of economic policies that have ever worked in the US.
High tax and heavy regulations worked from 1945 to about 1975 because of unique circumstances. The rest of the world had been turned to rubble in WW2, oil was cheap, and the dollar was dominant. That world no longer exists. We are not going to bring it back with cargo-cult economics.
The policies that Bernie advocates are used in other countries. For one example, look at France. They have rigid labor markets, lots of regulation, strong unions, government run steel mills, etc. All the things that Bernie wants. They also have a stagnant economy, over 10% unemployment, and unsustainable deficits. For another example of what happens when liberals get everything they want, look at Detroit.
True about the fraction, but a lot of right wingers are over armed.
Play Command HQ online
...you *dense* motherfuckers. It's rather likely this wasn't C&D over trademark as much as it was a crappy smear campaign they wanted to put a stop to. "Parody protection" isn't something you can invoke willy-nilly because you think it might be funny.
Actually - I was talking about science and scientists.
With science -I can make guns, or bombs. You can't however, make science out of guns and bombs.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
A skull can't stop .308 sure... it can do better.
It can design a more powerful weapon.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Hating on many races is MORE racist than hating on just one.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
You really don't need a more powerful weapon but good luck designing something, building it, and employing its use before the 1.05 seconds it takes for a travel 1000 yards accurately.
Of course there are better caliber rifles now. The 7mm is outstanding as a sniper rifle but the availability of the .308 is simply unmatched in both rifles and ammunition that can be had easily.
The difference is simple and stark. No matter what weapons you have brains can always make better ones. But no weapon can make better brains.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
the ignorance and fear is strong with this one
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
btw, no, we don't consider Venezuela or Cuba success stories, but thanks for putting words in ours mouths.
im sure you don't mind if I return the favor and state that you consider the imploding economies of Kansas or Oklahoma success stories too?
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
I think you are missing the point. Your brain stops working when you are dead from sitting there thinking about the better weapons and someone introduces your skull to an existing weapon.
You need to watch more MacGuyver and less A-team dude. There are a thousand ways to win a gunfight and only the dumbest one involves having a gun.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Seems to me there is a pattern amongst the Sanders campaign to try to stifle freedom of speech from anyone who would criticize them. This is just yet another fine example of that. If the T-shirt maker was making t-shirts that were complimentary to the Sanders campaign you better believe they wouldn't say a word.
Ironically, this is exactly what a communist/socialist dictator would do: squash any criticism as forcefully as possible. At least Bernie only has lawyers rather than an army of secret police -- for now.
Say a statute S enacted by a legislature L, be it Congress or the legislature of any of the several states, makes an act A into a crime, but a higher law such as the Constitution denies L power to enact S. Then anyone who intends to perform A has standing to sue the Attorney General of the same jurisdiction for an injunction against enforcement of S. Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123. For example, a Communist party would have standing to sue AG Loretta Lynch for an injunction against the CCA.
The following may be a bit of a stretch, but a defense to defamation could include assisting such a suit and getting the defamation case put on hold until the statute's constitutionality can be decided.
Oh noes... i bet you have a copy of the anarchist cook book too.
I'm pretty sure we can discount the rest of what you say. BTW the A team never killed anyone.
>I'm pretty sure we can discount the rest of what you say.
Feel free to do so, I have neither the need nor the desire to convince or impress you. Just consider this. We both know there are bad people in the world with guns. I do not feel the need to own one to keep myself safe from them. You may think me foolish, but I think you a coward. I can't imagine why one would think you would need a gun to defend yourself from gunmen... and I have the science backing me up, all studies bar none find that guns are absolutely terrible for self defence. It's not just a cowardly solution - it's a horribly ineffective one.
>BTW the A team never killed anyone.
I never said they did - it is actually quite remarkable how they could fire thousands of bullets at people and never hit anybody. I was merely contrasting somebody who relied on lots of heavy arsenal with somebody who relied on outsmarting his opponents because he hated guns.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
I prefer a more unbiased, honest, and accurate definition which is not so binary. Politically we tied in North Korea and, maybe, in Viet Nam. You might also want to read up how we got there - we were basically cleaning up after the French. What we did in Viet Nam was give the South Vietnamese, at their behest, aid against the NVA invading military. What we did was stop helping them out militarily and they failed to defend themselves.
In Iraq, we certainly won that - both politically and militarily. How'd we win it politically? We were asked to leave. We removed the person in power, as we said, and gave the people the chance to govern themselves. We gave them the chance to put the ex-leader on trial, they did so and decided to hang him. We let them pick their next government and write regulations of their own choosing. They chose poorly.
Again, we were cleaning up after colonization mishaps and further border drawing done by the Europeans. There probably wouldn't be many of those problems had they not stripped them bare of many assets and traditional leadership and then placed arbitrary borders where there were none prior and made up whole countries that never existed before. That was, the end of it, done by the League of Nations - it's important to note that the US was not a member of the League of Nations. It's also important to note that they failed to actually follow the important steps of the Monroe Doctrine which led to things like WWII - but that's a topic for another day. Though, it should also be noted that their failing to do so was what allowed the Soviet Union to expand as much as it did pre-WWII and still has lasting impacts to this day.
History didn't begin in 1990. You're also being bombarded, possibly willfully subjecting yourself to, very biased media and history reporting that borders on dishonesty if not outright being dishonest at times. So, if we're going to have a meaningful and honest discussion about the wars then it's probably imperative that you acknowledge that terms like winning and losing are really subjective, hardly ever accurate, and very seldom clearly delineated.
For example, if you look at the German economy today and realize that they had their nation rebuilt for them, modernized for them, and done at almost no financial cost to them (the rebuilding aspect) one could actually make a logical claim that the German *people* were the victors of WWII. Numerically, they didn't even lose that many people when you compare their losses to the number of casualties suffered by the allies. If you're aware of their financial state, since WWI and actually prior to that while their King was still pretending that a monarchy was a good idea, and then look at them today - you could easily say that the people of Germany came out of WWII better than anyone else except maybe the people of the United States. However, taken the US' state of affairs into account, over the longer term, you might say that they ended up better off as an average or for the majority of people. Certainly, some Americans came out of it very wealthy and have retained that wealth.
So, it really depends on how you want to look at it. Look at Viet Nam since. Look at them now. Look at Viet Nam for the past 50 years. Look at their GDP, quality of life, level of liberties and even freedoms, and their place on the international stage. You really want to say that they won? Really? Do they look like they're on the winning side? They're just now starting to turn into an almost reasonable standard of living - and that's mostly because they've allowed people to engage in capitalism again. Do you really want to say that Viet Nam won that war? By what metric? The description you gave isn't even really all that accurate and it fails to take a whole lot of other things into account. By almost every meaningful metric, the US won that war - including the number of dead and wounded.
However, it was a catastrophe on the political side. Even then, we came out of it about as well as we could have barring complete and
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I'm not. Neither is Sanders.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Oh, absolutely. He's being trashed and trashed hard in this campaign. I really do want to avoid saying this but I am going to...
I've not normally a conspiracy theorist kind of person. I think I've got the posting history to demonstrate that I'm not. I'm pretty well grounded and don't usually speculate about things that are impossible to disprove nor do I think there are giant conspiracies that we don't know about and all that sort of stuff.
However...
This just seems too much like a perfect storm. At nearly every turn, he's stymied or suffers from some sort of gaffe. That's a bit too convenient, if you ask me. There's no way he'll get the nomination, none. The DNC will not nominate Sanders - they weren't going to nominate him even if he had the majority of populous support. And, he doesn't - by the way. He might have had the populous but he never had the chance.
It's unfortunate because he's the best choice you've got. Me? I'll be fine. I'm more than well protected and insulated from even fairly major political upheavals. Even if the entirety of the US' economy failed, even if the value of the US dollar dropped to zero, I will be fine. I'm pretty diversified and have enough hard assets to ensure that I'll be just fine - even if there's a complete failure of the social system, justice system, or government. I'll be okay.
So, Sanders means I'll pay a bit more in taxes. I have never minded taxes. I have always minded them being spent the way they are spent. For the average citizen, for the regular person, for the Average Joe and his wife Normal Mary (with their 2.23 children named Jeffery and Alice) Sanders is the only realistic choice. If anyone thinks otherwise then they're basically saying that the Status Quo is fine or they're saying that Trump is a realistic option. I find both laughable - though Trump might be an amusing option and he'd be mostly harmless. I do not believe Trump is Hitler, for example.
As a matter of fact, if Bernie and Donald were to run on the same ticket, I'd vote for 'em. Hands down, no questions asked, my vote would go for Trump. I think if the Republicans fuck over Trump (he "deserves" the nomination as he's seemingly earned it) and the Dems do what they're already doing (which is preventing Bernie from even getting a shot) then I have every reason to suspect that if Sanders and Trump ran on the same, an Independent, ticket then they'd win - hands down and by a huge margin. At least as things stand now.
Unfortunately, the electoral college would then take their turn and the popular vote would probably.... Well, no... They'd pretty much have to. Sanders and Trump, together, would win by a landslide. The electoral college would have to vote that way or the country would erupt in violent riots within an hour. I seriously believe that they'd win, in that situation. I'm half-tempted to try to make contact with one or both of them. I do actually have a few political connections but they're fairly distant, not really friends, and I'm not sure if they'll really be able to get a message in front of either of them. I just don't have that kind of clout. :( I don't know anyone who does, either.
I...Umm... I don't suppose you've got that kind of clout and want to run a message to 'em on my behalf? :D
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Hmm... Where to begin? I have checked your citation and, using the preponderance of evidence - that akin to a civil trial, I'd still not say that he is "more likely than not" to be a member of the DSA. Not even remotely. He's much more akin to the Socialist Party of America in stance, in case you're curious.
Now, to address the real concern. Socialism is not necessarily Communism-lite. It certainly can be, it can be full fledged Communism or whatever you'd like to call that practiced by Stalin. (I prefer "Stalinism" if you're curious.)
See, not everyone is a crazy zealot with binary thinking. Some people actually are able to realize that any one political ideology will not work in its "pure" form. Simply put, you can not have (realistically, and all evidence demonstrates this to be true) a pure democracy. You can not have a pure communist, socialist, or any-ist government.
Thus, it's very legitimate to say that some are more socialist than others. It's fair and legitimate to say that some are more democratic than others. It's fair to say that some are more capitalist than others - seeing as we're going to need to realize that economic models also come into play.
There are those who are so zealous that they think pure communism is a good idea. They're retarded. There are others who think that pure socialism is a good idea. They are also retarded. In fact, there are varied degrees of socialism - just like there are varied degrees of democracy, capitalism, etc.... For example, the United States is less socialist than France by a wide margin. India, in practice - if not nominally, is much more capitalist than America.
This is the part you're missing and that's because you're a crazy zealot. Just because you see things in black and white, in binary, does not mean that everyone does. It's odd that you see things that way because you're otherwise intelligent. No... There are very few, comparatively, zealots and even fewer are actually in positions where they've been elected. They've been making compromises for years, for example.
Which leads me to this...
Not only is Sanders distinctly NOT a communist but he's really not nearly as socialist as you seem to think. He's not advocating things like government control of the means of production at a greater level than it already is. (By extension, by taxation and regulation, you could already say that the government *is* in control of the means of production, but it's a matter of degree.) It is fair, honest, and accurate to say that Sanders is a socialist. It is not fair, accurate, or honest to say that he's a hard-line, zealous, tyrannical, socialist. It's actually okay to say that he's "a bit" or "a little" or "quite a bit compared to me" socialist or whatever.
Dude, no... Not everyone is some sort of binary zealot who is hell bent on only one thing. It's communist to have things like communally shared property or communally paid services. It's democratic when they let them vote for one of several approved candidates. It's socialist to have a fire department or a hospital that is partially funded by taxes. It's capitalist when they used physical currency and paid different jobs different salaries.
The world is not a binary place. The world is not black and white - it's full of not just grays but multiple colors. Is Sanders a socialist? Sure. He's also a capitalist. He's also a believer in democracy. He's also got some communist traits. Most everyone on the planet does because they've realized that no one pure political or economic ideology is going to work. It never has, it never will, and there's no reason to even try it because it always ends very poorly when you have zealots, of any kind, in power. From Chavez to Idi Amin. From Stalin to Hitler. From Pol Pot to Khadaffi. Zealots in power, of any stripe, don't mix. We know this.
Sanders is not a zealot.
I know you're too smart to believe that he's a zealot. I am pretty sure you don't really believe that he's a communist in any meaningful fashion. I coul
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
You do understand that they are fictional tv shows for entertainment only right? There is nothing remarkable about it.
As for your need for a gun for self defense. I don't think i ever said you needed one. In fact, there are a lot of things you can do to avoid self defense altogether. But you have ignored most of that already so you will likely be unprepared and dead if someone takes you up on your provocation. The thread is about one political ideology attacking another. If it became reality, you wouldn't last long unless you hid in a bunker somewhere. Smart but also a cowardly move.
Actually history shows that everytime that ideology has ever attacked the other anywhere in the world it lost. Badly. I see no reason to expect the next time to be any different.
Its like the myth of how the NAZIS disarmed the jews. It never happened and the Jews were waging an armed resistence against the NAZIs throughout the war. If they hadnt the holocaust may well have succeeded.
Most things conservatives believe are myths
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
I see.. history is a myth, the a team is real, and a skull with a bullet hole through it can out think a brain with a gun.
Tell me. What happens when the guy with the gun is just as smart if not smarter than you?
I never suggested history is a myth - just that you are ignorant of it, and what you think history is - is mostly mythological.
I never once suggested the A-team or MacGuyver was real, that was your strawman, I merely suggested that the values taught in the latter are more valuable than those taught in the former. Fiction does teach values and those values are most certainly real.
And the thing about a smarter brain than yours is - you will never manage to PUT a bullet through it. It's smart enough to avoid being in the path of bullets (and I don't mean by any kind of supernatural means - I just mean by knowing how to not be where you think it is). It takes a real idiot to get killed by a gun - with the sole exception of crowd shooters and snipers, but those are rather exceptional cases.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Lol.. you have no clue about my thinking of history. The one part i revealed to you in another thread, you whole heartedly agreed with me about - FDR 'sinternment camps.
Keep walking yourself into that hole you are digging. It is funny to see you floundering.
So you think it is smart to stay inside and hide. Well beware the ides of March. We are specifically talking about sniper shootings. A .308 is accurate and deadly at over 800 yards out and was a go to military sniper rifle for quite a while and is still in service in some countries.
That was a plural "you" referring to conservatives in general, not you in particular. But historically - whenever conservatives and liberals have been at war -the conservatives have lost. In the US the most obvious example would be the civil war. A major factor in that victory was access to a lot of highly educated people - who tend to make good generals because they tend to be good at coming up with better tactics.
>So you think it is smart to stay inside and hide
I did not say "stay inside" - I am talking about stealth and superior tactics, not cowardice. With stealth and superior tactics an underarmed and outnumbered force can, and repeatedly has, defeated forces that both outgunned and outmanned them. Ironically - a sniper would count as stealth - but there are even better stealth tactics one might use.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
You are just too funny. In the civil war the south for the most part had superior generals. The north was getting it's ass kicked until Sherman went total war and completely destroyed everything in his path that even pretended to have sympathy for the south. Grant was able to destroy their supply lines and basically win through superior numbers and attrition but only after Sherman burned out a huge portion of the south.
But i guess if you think destroying everything in your path and sending more people to die is what you consider a product of intelligence, I bet your think highly of hirohito and ho chi minh. Oh well.
It doesn't much matter whether I like what they did or not. I'm a pacifist who rejects the idea that any war can be just unless you were attacked first so much as I agree with the idea of the abolitionists I don't believe it justified a war. Had I been Lincoln I would have LET the South secede and then gave an open-border policy to any runaway slaves who wanted to come live as free men in the North.
What matters is - they won. The superior tactic, by definition, is the one that wins - no matter how horrifying it may be. There aren't any un-horrifying tactics in war - so a matter of degree is not a persuasive argument to me.
Lets take another example to clarify that point. The 2nd Anglo-Boer war of 1899-1902. During the first year of the war - the Boers held their own against the British in fairly typical combat and won most battles (they had won the 1st was just a decade earlier). The British then responded with overwhelming numbers. At the start of the war their soldiers outnumbered the Boers 3-to-1. By the 1900 it was 10-to-1.
The Boers switched tactics to a form of guerilla warfare that relied on their superior knowledge of the land, stealth skills honed as hunters, highly skilled sniper abilities (long before sniper rifles existed - these guys could hit a coin a 500 yards with a Mauser - a product of their environment, if you couldn't kill an antelope at 1000 yards with a single bullet you didn't get to eat) and turned the utter lack of discipline and extreme individualism into a strength rather than a weakness by keeping attack forces tiny (2 to 3 people). The guerilla phase of the war was absolutely won by the Boers.They would attack British lines, kill 5 to 10 soldiers and disappear without the British company ever knowing where the shots were coming from.
At this point Britain sent a general named Kitchener. Kitchener was one of history's great bastards. He looked at what was happening and realized that the guerilla tactic only worked because those scattered, tiny companies had the support of the local population. The women and children on the farms who could supply them food. So his answer was to remove the local population. He burned the land to the ground (this was actually when the term "scorched earth" was first coined - his name for the tactic) and captured all the civilians and put them in concentration camps (history's first example of those). 27-thousand women and children died in those camps.
That broke the Boer's backs. Many of them were widowers now. Many had lost their children. They all lost their farms... within a year they surrendered.
Kitchener was one of the worst bastards to ever lead an army, one of the most brutal, and if there had been a Geneva convention back then would certainly have been tried for crimes against humanity... but his tactic worked, he won. And I say that as a descendent of those Boers. I had family who died in those camps. I may despise what he did, but I can't deny it's efficacy.
There is an ironic sting in the tail of that bit of history. The boers did not know this but word had gotten back to Britain about what Kitchener was doing - and the British people were absolutely furious. They deemed this scandalous. The election of 1901 was an absolute landslide against the incumbents - the public was adament that Britain must end the camps and end this war even if it meant giving up on annexing the Boer republics.
If the boers had held on just a few more months - they would have won and had they known this they may have. On the other hand - it would have been a pyrrhic victory because their culture may well have been extinct in a few more months.
Beating them took a tactic so brutal that the general who used it very nearly lost the war because his own government was about to end the scandal - but ultimately, it worked, and Britain won the war. They lost the peace however, the aftermath of that scandal left Britain on the backfoot in subsequent negotiations and the Boer republics were effectively self governing by 1910.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
What, I wonder, does "being a party member" mean, in your opinion? If decades-long cooperation with the party and the party itself calling one "a member" is not enough, what will? Do you need him to also openly announce membership — and will remain unconvinced until then?
Yeah? So, if Trotsky prevailed back then, you think, it would've all been somehow different? Maybe in some details, but it still would've been both evil and destructive.
What do you call Venezuela? "Chavizm" replaced by "Madurism"? You've not read Marx enough I see — the man made it abundantly clear, how unimportant an actual single person is, compared to the "historical process". The weak Socialism is followed by hard Communism — it is happening in Venezuela right now. Once you allow the glorious Collective to overrule the silly and cantankerous Individual, it is all downhill and no amount of "Democratic" qualifiers will help.
I don't care, if he is or not — what you are saying is that he'll likely fail to bring about, what he promises. But that's irrelevant: a sympathizer of a patently evil ideology can neither be mentioned in a polite company other than with disdain, nor voted other than against — regardless of whether he is personally deemed to have a sufficient zeal to repeat the gruesome acts of the earlier followers of the same evil.
Whether Bernie Sanders deliberately wishes for America to suffer the destruction already exemplified by Russia, Cuba, and Venezuela, or is too stupid to realize, that's what his ideas will lead to, it is his Communist sympathies that make him a Communist (as exemplified by his decades-long association with DSA — whether you call it "membership" or not). There is no upside in supporting him — at best he will fail to accomplish what he promises. The downside, however, is an abyss.
No, you don't need to eat poison to have "a healthy diet". I ate enough of the Socialist arsenic growing up in the USSR to build up tolerance, but I'd rather my children didn't have to suffer through it at all. A wise man can learn from other people's mistakes without repeating them himself. Wise up.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
words have meanings.
the word I'm thinking of now is "illiterate idiot".
as in, you, because of your continued inability to learn actual definitions to the concepts you deride. it is not communism-lite.
communism is a form of socialism, not the other way around.
hierarchy in classification and definitions matters.
continued reading of Mi's posts will show you that he isn't interested in facts.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.