Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

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

Posted by timothy on Tue May 06, 2008 02:46 PM
from the appears-to-be-the-case dept.
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.
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Your Rights Online: Operation Fastlink Cracks Down on Warez 1052 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Beginning yesterday morning, law enforcement from 10 countries and the United States conducted over 120 searches worldwide to dismantle some of the most well-known and prolific online piracy organizations. Among the groups targeted by Operation Fastlink are well-known organizations such as Fairlight, Kalisto, Echelon, Class and Project X, all of which specialized in pirating computer games, and music release groups such as APC. The enforcement action announced today is expected to dismantle many of these international warez syndicates and significantly impact the illicit operations of others."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Ceiynt (993620) on Tuesday May 06 2008, @02:52PM (#23316120)
    Well, at least someone with a crimal background is getting into politics rather then a politition getting into criminal activities.
  • And yet... (Score:5, Funny)

    by quag7 (462196) <deepspace@dataswamp.net> on Tuesday May 06 2008, @02:53PM (#23316134) Homepage
    It still hasn't gotten weird enough for me.

    ***TRIAD*** for DEPARTMENT of HOMELAND SECURITY!
  • by blhack (921171) on Tuesday May 06 2008, @02:56PM (#23316190)
    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?
    • 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 [atimes.com].

      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.

        • 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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      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.
      • 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.
      • 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: (Score:3, Interesting)

        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
      • by Serge_Tomiko (1178965) on Tuesday May 06 2008, @05:07PM (#23317970)
        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.
        • by elrous0 (869638) * on Wednesday May 07 2008, @08:54AM (#23323312)
          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.
                • 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: (Score:3, Insightful)

                      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 Chri

    • 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: (Score:3, Informative)

        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 [wikipedia.org] of the Medellin Cartel had come to the USA and become a Democratic Party leader.

        I'm all for
  • 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."
    • 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.
      • by Anonymous Cowtard (573891) on Tuesday May 06 2008, @03:21PM (#23316548)
        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?
        • 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.
        • by mcmonkey (96054) on Tuesday May 06 2008, @03:37PM (#23316806) Homepage

          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: (Score:3, Insightful)

          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?
        • by JustinOpinion (1246824) on Tuesday May 06 2008, @04:25PM (#23317478)
          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: (Score:3, Informative)

        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
          • by Toonol (1057698) on Tuesday May 06 2008, @03:54PM (#23317060)
            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: (Score:3, Insightful)

              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 smal

    • F.U. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by mcmonkey (96054) on Tuesday May 06 2008, @03:17PM (#23316496) Homepage

      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?

    • REPEAT AFTER ME: (Score:5, Insightful)

      by spun (1352) <loverevolutionary@noSPAM.yahoo.com> on Tuesday May 06 2008, @03:27PM (#23316652) Journal
      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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 06 2008, @02:57PM (#23316238)
    But I never installed. It was a diffent time back then. We were innocent.
  • 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?

    • by Al Dimond (792444) on Tuesday May 06 2008, @03:44PM (#23316924) Journal
      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?
  • by should_be_linear (779431) on Tuesday May 06 2008, @03:06PM (#23316354)
    - 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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 06 2008, @03:23PM (#23316594)
    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
  • by spir0 (319821) on Tuesday May 06 2008, @06:50PM (#23318928) Homepage Journal

    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 [wikipedia.org] 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 [pouet.net].

    • Re:Duh (Score:5, Interesting)

      by spun (1352) <loverevolutionary@noSPAM.yahoo.com> on Tuesday May 06 2008, @02:57PM (#23316232) Journal
      Republicans and Democrats are both for protecting the interests of big money. Can you name any Republicans advocating for copyright reform?
          • Re:Duh (Score:5, Informative)

            by Kadin2048 (468275) <slashdot.kadin@xoxy. n e t> on Tuesday May 06 2008, @03:28PM (#23316684) Homepage Journal
            > 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.
            • > 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 i
              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                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..
    • by moderatorrater (1095745) on Tuesday May 06 2008, @03:13PM (#23316450)
      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.
        • by evilphish_mi (1282588) on Tuesday May 06 2008, @03:31PM (#23316718) Homepage
          Democrats do the same damn thing. Anybody who has ever seen a political ad knows this.
        • by moderatorrater (1095745) on Tuesday May 06 2008, @03:31PM (#23316728)

          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.
          • by unitron (5733) on Tuesday May 06 2008, @06:01PM (#23318518) Homepage Journal

            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.
    • 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.