Massachusetts Apparently The First State To Let You Officially Register As A Pirate Party Member
from the if-you-do-that-sort-of-thing dept
I’m not a member of any political party. I even hate the term “independent.” When I was first eligible to register to vote, oh so many years ago, the voter registration form told me to check off “Democrat,” “Republican” or “Independent.” There may have been other options, though I don’t remember them. Instead I just skipped that section entirely, and I later received a confirmation of my voter status, which brilliantly listed my party as “BLANK.” Since then, I tend to consider my political party to be BLANK and I’m pretty happy with that. However, for those who do like to align yourselves with a particular political party, James O’Keefe writes in to let us know that apparently Massachusetts is the first state in the US that will allow people to officially register as a Pirate Party member. Apparently, the state needs to approve political parties before they can become “recognized.” While The Pirate Party has receive some attention, and been able to get two members elected to the European Parliament, it really has not received much attention stateside. I do think that the party pushes some important points concerning internet freedom, free speech and against censorship.
Filed Under: massachusetts, pirate party
Comments on “Massachusetts Apparently The First State To Let You Officially Register As A Pirate Party Member”
USA is lost
no offense but go ahead and stand up and say your a file sharing infringer , prove it and watch what happens to you in the USA.
THAT’S why its a sham party
your better off getting a gun and shooting all the actors and musicians you can.
Re: USA is lost
I’m suing you for medical expenses in making laugh so hard, I passed out, fell over, and hit my head.
Re: USA is lost
I am unsure which worries me more: the fact that you are unable or unwilling to educate yourself about what the pirate party stands for, or the fact that you seem okay with someone being persecuted for their political party.
Either way, you need to step back and assess who you are as a person, I think.
Re: Re: USA is lost
Not to mention he advocates the mass murder of Actors and Musicians? He should be on the FBI’s watch list. He’s obviously ill.
Re: USA is lost
This demonstrates why the Pirate Party is a good party with a bad name. I have to admit I can understand why a lot of people would jump to these kinds of conclusions about it.
Re: Re: USA is lost
But just how accurate is the name? It’s always funny to ask the pirate party members about the folks driving boats off Somalia. They’ll always say, “Oh we’re talking about file sharing.” But they can’t bring themselves to condemn holding people hostage for money. They can’t bring themselves to condemn stealing physical goods.
It’s always funny to talk to the pirate party about some Porsche parked in a rich guy’s drive way while the rich guy is on vacation. Would it be okay to drive it if you put gas in before returning it? After all you’re not denying the rich guy the use of it. Their eyes often sparkle as they imagine driving that Porsche for free.
The last time I mentioned the situation off the coast of Africa or Malaysia to some Pirate Party folks, they tried to dodge the question by debating whether the Somali pirates were forced to do what they do because of racism or classism or any other ism they could latch on to. First they would blame the fact that there was no government in Somalia and then they would blame some government for making the pirates take to the seas.
Re: Re: Re: USA is lost
Well, by bringing up Somalian pirates, you are the one playing games. You know perfectly well that has nothing to do with the Pirate Party, and that there are no real parallels between digital piracy (infringement) and piracy on the high seas. Trying to connect the two is just trying to distract from the real topic of debate and conflate an economic issue with a life-or-death human rights issue. It’s a meaningless question. So you don’t exactly score constructive criticism points for that one.
Were I a member of the pirate party, I would refuse to answer that question too. Just like mainstream politicians often refuse to answer questions about crackpot conspiracy theories, or questions that are completely off topic, or questions that are intentionally inflammatory. That’s the correct way to deal with a political attack disguised as an inquiry.
As far as your assertion that pirate party members cannot bring themselves to condemn the theft of physical goods, well, I can’t say I’m really buying your anecdote on that. And as far as your comparison to a Porsche, quit being stupid: you know damn well that driving a Porsche doesn’t compare to copyright infringement, and that your replace-the-gas analogy is beyond flimsy.
So basically, I don’t care how pirate party members have responded to your questions about somalia because that has absolutely nothing to do with the Pirate Party. But thank you for demonstrating why I dislike the name Pirate Party: it allows people like you to spew pointless, obfuscating bullshit like this and think that it’s actually relevant somehow.
Re: Re: Re:2 USA is lost
“it allows people like you to spew pointless, obfuscating bullshit like this and think that it’s actually relevant somehow.”
You make a lot of statements like this. Have you considered an anger management class? I think you might really benefit from it.
Nobody likes an asshole or a yappy dog.
Re: Re: Re:3 USA is lost
Have you considered an anger management class?
No but I have considered building a script to block all of your comments.
Re: Re: Re:4 USA is lost
There exists an anti-Darryl script. I can’t remember who created it, but if you can’t find it I will repost.
Re: Re: Re:5 USA is lost
The problem with TAM is that he isn’t even confident enough to use a consistent alias anymore.
What we need is WATSON technology – every time its language processing algorithms fail to find any meaningful patterns whatsoever, you block the comment.
Re: USA is lost
What?
Your comment is a sham. The pirate party is not.
Your comment is not even an accurate phrase. What exactly is a “file sharing infringer?”. I vote pirate party. Does it mean there’s proof? Am I suddenly a “file sharing infringer?” When do I get my settlement letter?
“piracy”, as it is called today, is actually free speech. All those people fighting against piracy are fighting *for* censorship.
Re: Re: USA is lost
All those people fighting against piracy are fighting *for* censorship.
Right. And the pro-censorship/anti-piracy people also have a Sith mentality about it too: “Either you are with us or against us.”
Middle ground seems to be a foreign concept to them.
Re: Re: Re: USA is lost
Actually, I think that everyone around here doesn’t believe in any middle ground. I get called a “copyright maximalist” because I believe in some enforcement. Do I care about 70 year old art? Nah. Do I care about someone loaning a book to a friend? Nah. Do I mind if you read a book over my shoulder? No. But I do get upset about these websites that make free copies for thousands of their so-called closests and dearest friends. I’m happy that some folks are getting sued in court and I don’t think that someone who owns a copyright is a troll just because they want to enforce it.
Essentially any enforcement of a copyright is suspect around here.
Re: Re: Re:2 USA is lost
somehow you must either have a crucifixion complex or you are deluding yourself about your viewpoints.
i have stated time and time again that enforcement of copyright is a valid concept and also stated time and time again that many aspects of how that enforcement goes well beyond what is constitutionally allowed and yet people dont run around calling me a maximalist. but then i also dont run around agreeing with unconstitutional activities undertaken by agents of the country sworn to uphold that same constitution either…
i would say you are also a bit confused between what constitutes a troll and someone who believes in valid enforcement of valid IP law.
Massachusetts parties
They’re an odd thing. Someone who didn’t claim to be the Democrats or Republicans used to get set to “independent” – until the Independent Party came along. Now they’re “unenrolled”.
At last check there were something like nine parties in Massachusetts, ranging from the two main ones, the libertarians, Green party, and the “Larouche Was Right” party is still kicking around.
Re: Massachusetts parties
Well, that settles it. As of now, I’m starting the ‘UnEnrolled’ political party.
Re: Re: Massachusetts parties
Maybe I should start a Keg Party to add some life?
Re: Massachusetts parties
Nothing beats The Rent is too Damn High party.
Re: Massachusetts parties
You can see a full list here.
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepar/paridx.htm
Easy identification for the feds
Why does that sound like “If you’re a pirate and need to be investigated by the US government, please check ‘Pirate Party’, and an agent will be with you shortly to put a bullet in your brain for illegal piracy.”?
Re: Easy identification for the feds
score another point for ‘would be incredibly funny if it weren’t so damn believable’
I’m a fan of their platform… up to the point where they think personal copyright infringement should be legal. Still, it’s better than the major parties, who want even thinking about copyright infringement to be as illegal as possible.
Party time
There have been several times in the US past when the political parties got far out of sync with the people. When that happens we often get third parties starting up. If the third party starts to grow, one of the major parties subsume the third party and adopt its stance. We have seen something like that on the far right with the Tea Party. The left and middle seem to be lacking in such a movement at the moment. Perhaps the Pirate Party will take on that role. Heaven knows that the Democrats are far out of sync with their constituents on the left and in the middle. This could get interesting.
Re: Party time
So we might actually get a choice!?
Holding breath hoping for real change…….. Passed out waiting.
What kind of ‘democratic’ system demands that you specify which party you’re going to vote for?
Doesn’t that eradicate the concept of a secret ballot?
Re: Re:
As Mike’s story demonstrates, it does not “demand” it, it simply gives you the option. And there is nothing forcing you to vote along party lines: you can list your affiliation with the Democrats and still vote for all the Republican candidates (or vice versa) if you like.
Re: Re: Re:
Not always, in Kentucky since I’m a registered Dem I cannot vote on some of the state and local positions since only Reps are in those positions (not primarys).
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also independents cannot vote except in Presidential elections.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
hmm well, being from Canada i’m not clear on all the details, but I know that registering as a party member doesn’t “lock in” your vote ahead of time.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“i’m not clear on all the details”
But willing to talk out of my ass.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
No, I’m willing to assert the things I do know, while admitting the things I don’t know.
You should try it sometime. It’s called “adult conversation”
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Also independents cannot vote except in Presidential elections.
That’s not accurate. And if that’s happening in Kentucky, then whatever law is involved is unconstitutional.
All registered voters (regardless of party), can vote in any general election for all federal, state, and local offices. Also, should any special elections be held (such as if a Congressman leaves office before his/her term is up), all registered voters can vote in that.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Thank you for clarifying. I didn’t want to say anything because I definitely don’t have all the facts, but nothing about what Sean said there sounded right to me at all…
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
lolwut?
you have some rather strange [and very wrong] ideas of what you are allowed to vote on as an independent/undeclared…
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Are we talking Kentucky, or nation-wide? You do realize these things vary by state?
Most states, though, you can’t vote in any primary unless you’re a member of that party. It’s too keep people from stuffing the ballot box of the opposing party with votes for a bad candidate, so that they’re own candidate wins.
Re: Re:
Depending on the state you live in, registering yourself with a party allows you to vote in primary elections for that party. Primaries are where members of the same parties run against each other to see who gets to appear on the ballot in the general election.
You’re under no obligation to vote your party affiliation.
In other news, Mike Masnick packs up and moves to Massachusetts.
Re: Re:
In other news, AC is apparently reading an entirely different post than the rest of us or has zero reading comprehension skills.
Oh wait… that’s not news.
Re: Re:
So long as you’re paying…After all, Mike LOVES a free ride. -.-
Disenfranchised yourself
Here’s the real scoop on party registration with your electoral board — it lets you vote in the primary for that party. By choosing blank, you’ve said I don’t want to vote in the primary and that is really dumb. In some areas the primary is the real election, people running for office switch parties before starting a campaign because they know the end election always goes blue or red or green.
And no joining a party doesn’t mean you have to vote for them. You can vote for anyone you wish. The only time it matters to the election board is the primaries – i.e. the primaries are closed elections where dems can only vote for dems.
I really hate seeing people think they’ve made a smart decision saying they registered independent. It’s really the dumbest political choice you can make.
Re: Disenfranchised yourself
So to avoid ‘making the dumbest political choice you can make’
You check a box that says Democrat. Primaries come around and the only candidate that is even close to aligning with your ideals happens to be a republican and loses in the primary that you couldn’t vote in but the Democrat that you wanted to elect as sheriff got your primary vote. so much for that plan
Re: Disenfranchised yourself
Except in MA politics, that’s not even remotely true as you can pick up a ballot for any primary and change back to your original status the same day.
Or it used to be that way – now you can vote in a primary and your party affiliation automatically resets to what you had declared before.
Re: Re: Disenfranchised yourself
well to be fair In Massachusetts there really is only one party to choose from most of the time anyways 😉 getting better slowly but not by much
Re: Disenfranchised yourself
Here’s the real scoop on party registration with your electoral board — it lets you vote in the primary for that party.
In some states, not all. And in those states you can only vote in that one primary.
By choosing blank, you’ve said I don’t want to vote in the primary and that is really dumb.
I would appreciate you not calling me “dumb” for my beliefs in voting. I do not think it’s dumb not to vote in primaries of parties who I disagree with more than I agree with.
In some areas the primary is the real election, people running for office switch parties before starting a campaign because they know the end election always goes blue or red or green.
Which kind of shows the pointlessness of registering for a party, doesn’t it?
And no joining a party doesn’t mean you have to vote for them. You can vote for anyone you wish. The only time it matters to the election board is the primaries – i.e. the primaries are closed elections where dems can only vote for dems.
But it also provides more power to those parties, as they can highlight just how many people are “in” that party. The single useless vote towards the lesser of however many evils in a party I disagree with is worth a lot less to me than not giving either party another “member,” which they can use to suggest they have popular support.
I really hate seeing people think they’ve made a smart decision saying they registered independent. It’s really the dumbest political choice you can make.
That’s your opinion, and I believe you are wrong.
Re: Re: Disenfranchised yourself
I would appreciate you not calling me “dumb” for my beliefs in voting.
I’ll have to agree. A person has the right to do whatever they wish in the polling booth. It’s one of the great things about our nation.
But Scott, feel free to call Masnick dumb for his delusional, Limewire-era musings on all other subjects. You certainly have my blessing.
Re: Re: Disenfranchised yourself
Mike, I think you should consider, from a game-theory perspective, how misplaced your feelings are. Those you disagree with are much happier to have you largely non-particapatory, than voting against them but somehow “counting” on the rolls of a particular party.
Just cuz a stat gets quoted by reporters (% of registered repubs vs dems) doesn’t make it an especially important number, and would think you, more than most, would appreciate that.
Re: Re: Disenfranchised yourself
So Mike, what is the benefit of registering as BLANK? Especially in states without open primaries? Does it give you a warm fuzzy feeling inside? I can’t think it would do much more. And yes I did carefully choose the word “dumb” for independents/blanks; it’s really meant to get you and your readers to think a little.
I really don’t want you encouraging people to follow the same path as your BLANK. Everyone in the US with an ounce of intelligence should register with some party. Do note that I am not encouraging any particular party! Pick whichever party you please and change your party affiliation whenever you see fit. Also note that I cannot comment for elections outside the US.
As to open primaries, I think they are a horrible idea. They mainly lead to stuff like republicans voting in the dem primary for Hillary, assuming she couldn’t carry the general. Overall, I don’t really want taxpayer dollars going into the primary, but I can’t come up with a better scheme. Without an electoral board overseen election they would be non-transparent backroom cabal selection of the party cantidate. Any reasonably sized party is allowed to participate in their own closed primary — non party or BLANK members have no business voting in the primaries.
Please go vote in the BLANK primay and let us know how your candidate does. Or better yet register for a legitimate party and vote in their primary.
Re: Disenfranchised yourself
isn’t picking a party (using your reasoning) just the lesser evil? By picking one, you’ve automatically locked yourself out of all other primaries.
Also, your chain of logic really depends on what state you’re in, some states have open primaries…
Wait a second. Let me get this straight: in the USA (land of freedom and Democracy and all that), to register yourself to vote you have to spell out your political preference?
For what purpose? Statistics?
I don’t meant to diss your country. I’m just trying to understand this (we don’t have none of that way over here).
Re: Re:
>>I’m just trying to understand this
As a previous poster noted, the only real meaning it has is designating what primary election you vote in. It used to be that if you wanted to switch parties, you had to skip voting in a primary election that selects the candidates for each party. Now most states allow you to change parties at any time, but you can only vote in one primary per election cycle.
There are a lot of political games played with switching parties for primaries. Voters often vote in the opposite party primary to vote for a weak candidate in hopes of having an easier opponent in the main election. Republicans have a reputation for doing this a lot, and it is often encouraged by right-wing radio pundits. During the last Presidential election people like Rush Limbaugh were telling Republicans to cross over and vote for Hilary Clinton to keep Obama tied up and spending money in primary contests. Democrats cross over, but it is usually lower profile because left-wing talk show personalities (rare, but they exist) like to pretend they are above politics.
Of course, cross-over strategies tend to backfire, but that is a whole discussion in itself.
I think because of cross over voting, registration status does not carry much weight. If someone is listed as a party member they might truly be of that party, or they might have been a crossover voter.
Re: Re:
the very short and clear answer is:
no you are not required to do so but you are free to register as a member of a specific political party should you choose to do so.
i have decided that i too will have a political affiliation of BLANK. seems much better than all the other choices.
I will for one...
Be part of the Pirate Party. I don’t agree with anyone that is why we need far lefts, far rights to even the teeter totter.
I really should start the KEG party…or the TOGA party…maybe even the Geek Squad Party…
Yes I live in Mass and no I really wont be apart of the Pirate party. I vote for who ever annoys me the least.
Mass forces party affiliation
This is interesting. I moved to Mass after the 2008 election. And when they asked for party affiliation I chose independent I believe. But in order to vote in a primary you have to choose a party and apparently, though it hasn’t happened to me yet, if you choose to vote in a particular primary you become registered as that party. So not a system I like.
It would be interesting to see if the pirate party could go places in MA. I mean in certain districts I could see some local people getting elected, but I can’t imagine that they’d ever really get someone further then deputy secretary or something like that. Maybe a sate politician, but no one on the federal level yet.
Got a clue, Mike, you're a Democrat
I’m mostly basing this, recently, off your post about (and regurgitating of a NYT op-ed) the drive to de-fund NPR and relating that, somehow, incongruously, to advertising money spent on NASCAR.
That was, best case, lazy reporting (or reflexive regurgitating) and worse case reflective of deep (and apparently unacknowledged) biases.
I lost a lot of respect for you there, and I’m still annoyed that you never responded to the large number of commenters pointing out the disconnect. (at least, you hadn’t as of a few days ago, I haven’t checked it recently)
Re: Got a clue, Mike, you're a Democrat
Wow, you americans really are blinded by the two-party system aren’t you…
Saying “I’m not affiliated with any political party” is not saying “i have no beliefs that align with any political party”. Quit being so desperate to label stuff – you miss too many nuances that way.
Re: Re: Got a clue, Mike, you're a Democrat
Well, there’s a strong argument to be made that in a none-parliamentary system, such as ours, injecting a 3rd party really does muck things up, often granting the majority votes to a group that actually hold a minority view, leading to a very much reasonable and literal “if you’re not with us, you’re against us….” sort of attitude.
But really I was just being snide, and accusing him of being a liberal, which can indeed cover a whole spectrum of parties and non-parties (I’m libertarian myself, which is socially liberal on many topics) due what I see as biases revealed by his earlier undefended (and un-retracted) position.
SO there.
Re: Re: Re: Got a clue, Mike, you're a Democrat
I’m still not sure what has you so annoyed about the PBS story that you want a retraction. Yes, there’s a difference between donations and advertising, but that’s really not the point: the point is a distinct governmental commitment to NASCAR. We aren’t talking about a general army advertising budget, one that also covers a media buy team who decides where the money will be most effectively spent – we are talking about a long-running public/private partnership that dedicates a bunch of money to NASCAR without any real confirmation that it’s worth it (and indeed some serious doubt about that, given that the other branches of the military have abandoned NASCAR advertising)
There is, without a doubt, plenty of room for debate – but it hardly seems as egregious as you are saying.
Re: Re: Re:2 Got a clue, Mike, you're a Democrat
I would have accepted either an (hopefully intelligent) defense or a retraction.
What annoyed me so much the equivocating of several hundred million dollar subsidizing of a network widely accused of political bias, that really should have been able to survive on it’s own in the market anyway (even if via donation) with an otherwise completely apolitical ad spend ten or twelve million dollars, that fits market norms.
It’s really pretty dishonest, actually to seriously compare the two in any substantive way.
Re: Re: Re:3 Got a clue, Mike, you're a Democrat
well, for one thing, that’s not what equivocating means (don’t let the equ- root fool you)
but on to your actual point, I do see why you would take issue with equating those things, but I don’t think the original post was attempting to do that – it was pointing out what seemed like an implicit hypocrisy of motive, not a direct hypocrisy of action. And I think that’s a valid observation, because it seems a little naive to call NASCAR sponsorship “completely apolitical”
Re: Re: Re:4 Got a clue, Mike, you're a Democrat
You’re right, I meant “equating”. “Equivocating” has a much nicer ring, though…
Back to point, well I disagree pretty directly. I think the NYT Op-ed was saying they were the same thing, and then Mike was echoing that.
As far as NASCAR political, well, I suppose nothing can truly be said to be neutral in this world. Sure, I imagine they have a more right leaning audience (if only do to regional popularity). That’s arguably what makes them a good venue for the army to recruit. But the organizers of the sport don’t take any particular political position (unless we’re counting “support the troops”?). NPR on the other hand has biased reporting to a degree, that many consider it to stray into political advocacy.
I guess the central difference, is that if NPR was selling ads, I wouldn’t have any problem with them buying those ads, much as the census did for all those other stations (well, I might if it still came to 20% of NPRs budget, that would be weird). But that’s not what’s happening. The federal government SPONSORS public broadcasting, in the traditional sense (not in the much looser sense of buying ads) and it’s Wrong. It actually represents, over the years, democrats funneling tax dollars into what amounts to soft-voiced campaign fund.
Re: Re: Re:5 Got a clue, Mike, you're a Democrat
Well, I can certainly see the distinction. But I think it’s fair to make the argument that there are some real similarities as well.
Re: Re: Re:6 Got a clue, Mike, you're a Democrat
Between $12M and $450M?
Between buying ads and outright paying for 20% of a company’s budget?
That’s a real similarity?
Re: Re: Got a clue, Mike, you're a Democrat
As an american, and I would like to think an open-mined one I hate the two party system, but it is what we have to work with. The thought of a political free for all sounds enticing. I think we would end up with someone far more middle of the road and willing to compromise than our current polarized set of legislators, but money is needed to win elections, and most of the money is with either of the two main parties. (I will call whats her name from HP losing in CA as a fluke in the whoever spends the most wins)
Re: Re: Re: Got a clue, Mike, you're a Democrat
Problem is that third parties in otherwise close races tend to make the candidate they ideologically disagree with the most tend to win, as they pull away voters ideologically similar party.
Think Nader or Perot, or indeed what would have happened if the tea party had struck out on it’s own, rather than trying to reform the Republican party.
This can be solved with more complicated voting systems (first, second, and third favorites) but neither of the major parties would want a such a system. At the moment, no matter what, they at least come in second.
Re: Got a clue, Mike, you're a Democrat
I’m mostly basing this, recently, off your post about (and regurgitating of a NYT op-ed) the drive to de-fund NPR and relating that, somehow, incongruously, to advertising money spent on NASCAR.
So by holding a single position supported by just a few Democrats (many voted against it), and in the same post supporting a position supported by many Republicans (that the gov’t shouldn’t fund NPR), that makes me a Democrat?
Yeah, right.
That was, best case, lazy reporting (or reflexive regurgitating) and worse case reflective of deep (and apparently unacknowledged) biases. I lost a lot of respect for you there, and I’m still annoyed that you never responded to the large number of commenters pointing out the disconnect. (at least, you hadn’t as of a few days ago, I haven’t checked it recently
Wait, you lost a lot of respect for me for lazy reporting (which it was not, by the way), and then you make the incredibly intellectually dishonest statement above that I’m a Democrat for holding a position that a small number of Dems hold?
Yeah. Okay.
I stand by the original post. I don’t think the government should be spending money on either thing, and I feel it’s worth pointing out the disconnect. Of course, they’re not the exact equivalent, but both involve taxpayer funds going to things that the government shouldn’t be spending money on, in my opinion.
You later call yourself a libertarian, but you have no problem with the government spending money on these things?
Re: Re: Got a clue, Mike, you're a Democrat
I admit (did admit, above) that calling you a democrat was hyperbole–it was a more inflammatory way of calling you a liberal, which I do stand by.
And yes, it was lazy reporting. You just accepted the op-ed writer’s statement of equivalency, without looking into the details. Or, worse, if you did look into the details, then you actually understood the mis-characterization you were making. I doubt that’s actually what happened, though.
“Not the exact equivalent”?!? They’re wildly dissimilar!
Let’s look at this critically. I can tell you what I mind about the spending on NPR&PBS (keep in mind I’m a huge NOVA fan)
1) It’s gov money going to an organization at least partly has a political agenda. 2) It’s subsidy, into an otherwise Robust Market.
Now, what, Mike, is wrong with the (40x smaller) spend from the army to NASCAR? As a libertarian, I admit in the need for a military, in fact it’s one of the few responsibilities I see the federal government as having. That military has to recruit, which as a practical matter, is going to involve an ad campaign. NASCAR is part of that ad campaign, and I’m not especially interested in micromanaging how the army spends it’s marketing dollars.
What, exactly, is your problem with that money spent in that way? Pleas, tell me.
Re: Re: Re: Got a clue, Mike, you're a Democrat
Why did it not preserve my name? anyway, that was me.
Re: Re: Re:2 Got a clue, Mike, you're a Democrat
me, Matt Bennett, I mean, why doesn’t that post retroactively?
Re: Re: Re: Got a clue, Mike, you're a Democrat
It’s gov money going to an organization at least partly has a political agenda.
Say whatever conspiracy theory you want about liberal or conservative bias in media, but NPR and PBS are the least politically slanted organizations I can imagine.
Only small amounts of government money actually go to NPR (not sure on how much PBS gets). 92% of NPR’s budget comes from individual donations, grants, and business underwriting.
It’s subsidy, into an otherwise Robust Market.
Broadcast TV and radio is anything but robust. The vast majority of stations are owned by 5 or 6 huge conglomerates.
And call me selfish, but NPR is the only tolerable station (to me) in Charlotte (which is the 20th largest city in the country). Without NPR, I’d be stuck with the tons of country music stations, conservative talk radio stations, religious stations, and a few R&B and rap stations. My ears would rebel and try to kill my brain without NPR on the drive to/from work.
Re: Re: Re:2 Got a clue, Mike, you're a Democrat
Sir, you’re free to have your opinions, I do not share them.
But here’s the thing, I’m sure you see Foxnews as horribly biased (and I’m not trying to tell you they’re neutral) compared to NPR’s supposed aloofness. That’s cool, if you don’t like Foxnews, you’re free not to watch them, denying them ratings and thus ad revenue. You can boycott Foxnews at any time. Heck, you can even ask your cable carrier not carry them. Doubtful to work, but if sufficient percentages of the customer base agreed with you, it would.
I, however, am not free to boycott NPR at all. A good 20% their budget is paid for by me, whether I like it or not. And that sir, is a travesty.
Re: Re: Re:3 Got a clue, Mike, you're a Democrat
I, however, am not free to boycott NPR at all. A good 20% their budget is paid for by me, whether I like it or not. And that sir, is a travesty.
First, its much less than 20%.
Second, I guarantee that a hell of a lot more money from my taxes goes to things I don’t support than what goes from yours into NPR.
That’s cool, if you don’t like Foxnews, you’re free not to watch them, denying them ratings and thus ad revenue.
Interestingly enough, if I want any kind of cable TV service, some of my money ends up going to Fox News.
Re: Re: Re:4 Got a clue, Mike, you're a Democrat
SO much wrong here. 20% is the figure quoted in all the recent news. GO argue with the newspapers.
What, you thought NPR was the only thing I thought the government shouldn’t be spending money on?
About FOX, like I said, you’re free to try to get your cable company to not carry them, but regardless, it’s not the government making you pay for them. Also, that money is pittance compared to what ads (which are derived from ratings, which is derived from your viewership) brings in.
You need to try harder with you arguments.
Re: Re: Mike..........
So, look, Mike, I don’t feel you really responded to any of my criticisms here.
All you did was say “Yeah, right” several times to my calling you a democrat (which was, I have admitted, a bit of hyperbolic trolling on my part, you’re a liberal by instinct, your political affiliation is as you wish.)
You didn’t really rebut anything else I have said. Saying “It was not lazy reporting” is not a rebuttal by the way.
By contrast, I think I responded fully to everything you leveled at me. (The anonymous, but logged in post, directly after, was mine. You know there are better comment systems out there, right?) Don’t you owe me the same?
The Ninja Party is so stealthy they are only rumored to exist.
Re: Re:
well said.
Pirate Party name is hopeless
Pirates are murderous thieves on the high seas. I want a party that stands for promoting the well being of our society and everyone in it particularly by rolling back the power and privilege of corporations. Copyright is out of control as are patents and contract law. These things need fixing. The Pirate Party just isn’t a name that evokes fixing anything, only defiance.
PPCA
Member of the Pirate Party of Canada here! I’d like to make a few points:
– Being a member of the Pirate Party is not about breaking copyright laws; instead it’s about to changing those laws.
– The PP’s mission is to reform laws regarding; Copyright & Access to Culture (e.g. the DMCA), Privacy, Patent Law, Net Neutrality, Open Government / Open Access, and Free Speech / Free Press.
– We were labeled “Pirates” by those who wished to villify us, and so we decided to instead embrace the name and turn it into something positive. It’s also an attempt to illustrate the absurdity of labeling what millions of regular people do every day as “piracy”.
– The Ninja Party doesn’t stand a chance.
https://www.pirateparty.ca/about
http://pirate-party.us/page.php?8
Re: PPCA
Okay, it’s about changing the laws. Can you condemn the Somali pirates who kidnap people and hold them for ransom? Aren’t they working to right the wrongs caused by international racism and hundreds of years of colonial oppression? Aren’t they fighting to stop the wholesale plundering of their fish? Do you have a well-articulated position on maritime piracy? Are there any occasions when it’s okay to board a ship and take control?
Re: Re: PPCA
The Pirate Party doesn’t have an official stance on Somalian pirates, as far ask I know.
Personally, I don’t really know enough about the situation to have a real opinion. From what I do know, I believe that this came about in part due to a devastated fishing industry as a direct result of the Somali government allowing the world to dump it’s nuclear waste off Somalia’s shores. The people are now desperate and have turned to actual piracy. I guess I can sympathize but I don’t feel I can condone harming innocent people.
Like I said earlier though; when you look at real maritime piracy and compare it with what the recording industry would call “piracy”, it’s such a stark contrast that the absurdity of doing so becomes immediately clear. For that reason the name “Pirate Party” is almost satirical in nature. At least it is to me.
@# 9 then @14 then @22 @43
allow me to comment from my perspective being a hacker and pirate.
A) i was very much involved in the Canadian party up until they would not stand up for non commercial file sharing.
B) A) gets them technically labeled anti-p2p and i posted such on the united hackers association website.
C) these techno morons that were and are running it allowed me to register a irc chat and then when they pulled this anti-p2p crap i kicked htem out of the channel i registered.
THEY LABELED ME ON THERE SITE A HACKER OF THERE IRC.
FUNNY.
Then they reversed that anti-p2p because it appears i have more pull in the file sharing and hacker community….go figure.
Maybe i should start in canada…
THE REAL PIRATE PARTY.
@14 and yes i love the fbi we hackers in the uha have had a lot of fun when your fbi invaded canada in 99 attacking our servers and being unable to exploit your way in simply dossed us. ITS why i support Anonymous and all his/her/it’s endeavors against repressive free speech , COPYWRONG, and patents on software and drugs. YOUR killing just as many or more then all the actors and musicians that do support it. So lets get rid of you shall we. The world would truly be better off. NON violent has not worked. Show me it can and i’ll retract the statement.
@22 huh when did piracy become ONLY what i say, not what i do and not what i can do. I see those freedoms no longer exist in the USA, hence my statement ( which yes was a bit of sarcasm but by sounds of it maybe it should be taken at full value)
@43
“- Being a member of the Pirate Party is not about breaking copyright laws; instead it’s about to changing those laws.”
So when a law is unjust and downright wrong you go along with it and just stand around with two others yelling how awful it is and do little to nothing to do anyhting?
I make no such distinction of YOU being a pirate or even a file sharer , you even say as much you are not form the quote above. WHY would a file sharer thusly vote for you when you do not even condone non commercial file sharing.
I guess my lesson on you last time was not clear Canadian pirate party , perhaps i need again to spread the word of your anti p2p message?
Maybe I can hack another irc channel i register myself?
I consider it slander and defamation of character to be labeled a pirate of any kind in Canada when there is a blank media levy.
IT was tried on music and a judge agrees that music is legal. NOW if we could get hollywood to take the risk of going after me downloading tv and movies and placing htem on blank media with a levy we could end that debate too.
THEY DONT WANT TO TAKE THE RISK YA SEE.
AM I evil bad guy for seeing 16.7 cents levy as a alternative to paying 29.95 at futureshop that i saw in 2005?
Re: @# 9 then @14 then @22 @43
So lets get rid of you shall we. The world would truly be better off. NON violent has not worked. Show me it can and i’ll retract the statement.
Woah there, cowboy… let’s not draw our guns over IP legislation just yet, okay?
Re: @# 9 then @14 then @22 @43
“the Canadian party … would not stand up for non commercial file sharing.”
It says the opposite right on the PPCA website: “We?ll shorten copyright terms and reduce their scope to prohibit commercial copying only.” https://www.pirateparty.ca/about So I’m not sure where you get the idea they are anti-p2p. Maybe you were speaking some individuals who don’t support p2p, but the Party as a whole clearly does.
“So when a law is unjust and downright wrong you go along with it and just stand around with two others yelling how awful it is and do little to nothing to do anyhting?”
That’s pretty much how politics work, yes. The PPCA _is_ a political party after all, I’m not quite sure what else you’d expect from one?
“I make no such distinction of YOU being a pirate or even a file sharer , you even say as much you are not form the quote above.”
Let me be clear then: I am a Pirate and a File Sharer. I didn’t join the PPCA to share files though – I could do that before I joined. I joined the PPCA to help change laws so doing so is undeniably legal.
“WHY would a file sharer thusly vote for you when you do not even condone non commercial file sharing.”
I’m not a candidate, just a member. I’m not running in any elections or looking for people to vote for me. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
Awesome
I live there, and I will be enrolling in the pirate party.
Change happens progressivly, those that choose not to enroll are pushing forward the date that we will have a peaceful internet again.