Slashdot Mirror
Political Cybersquatting Or Free Speech?
Although plenty of people have purchased politically linked domain names as a form of protest in the past, now they're being used as part of organized campaigns. In Maryland's 8th district Congressional race, Republican candidate Charles R. Floyd purchased three domain names (VanHollen2004.com/net/org) that one might think would represent Democrat incumbent Rep. Chris Van Hollen. Instead, these sites carry criticism and a bit of mockery. Floyd says Van Hollen should've registered these domain names himself, and previously used the same tactic in the primary. Is this cybersquatting, or is it a fair expression of political speech?
Only the person with the most money will be able to hold the domain in any legal kerfuffle. Look at what happened to etoys.com.
And I would never vote for anyone who would do it.
Garg
Garg
Alumnus, Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters
What a despicable act. If I were in that area of the country, I wouldn't vote for that guy no matter what...he's definitely missing some morality genes someplace. Dummy.
The sites are about Van Hollen, so yeh, however if he hypes himself too much then it does become cyber squating, as he is using the domain name to mislead people alone.
This is just wrong. But I can't really think of a fair way of going about fixing the problem. Do you force people to give up their domain names because they are misleading? Tough to say.
It's clearly cybersquatting, but the real question is whether cybersquatting can/should be protected as freedom of speech.
Why not? Companies do this to each other at any chance they get. People make money by registering domain names and selling them at inflated prices to companies you'd expect to own them. Still when I go to a site that's not what I'm expecting e.g. looing for a proxy server it bugs me. So it's probably turning voters against him.
The site in question
I think people should look at this before commenting.
Story
Personally, I think our Government should be given a slap and made to hand the domains over. They've obviously done it as a form of political canvassing, and it's plain wrong.
fraudulant misrepresentation? Seriously, if I went to VanHollen2004.[com|net|org] I would expect to get something official for the 2004 campaign for Van Hollen, just the same as I would if i went to Bush2004.[com|net|org] or kerry2004.[com|net|org] (which both work). When you cant get ahead on your own merits, trash your competitors.
Having said that, I'm not thrilled with the tone U.S. politics has taken over the past 20 years or so with all the mud slinging, and I think this is (potentialy) just another few feet down that same slipery slope. I say potentially because I haven't seen the pages that were put up yet. It could be "honest politics" where one candidate is merely pointing out the voting record of another. However in this day and age I am inclined to doubt it.
"Like fire and fusion, government is a dangerous servant and a terrible master."~RAH
Informationsuperhighwaysquatting. Now then... where's my prize?
HAND.
now, I doubt this domain was paid for by the democratic candidates... but GeorgeWBush.ORG is the mock site, the real site is .com
?SYNTAX ERROR IN LINE 42
Do not believe all you can see on the Internet, the info there is mostly "Free" as in "without mandatory value".
Trolling using another account since 2005.
As long as the sites make it clear (either implicitly or explicitly) that they aren't controlled by Van Hollen or his people (which seems to be the case) then it's free speech.
OTOH a simple link to Van Hollen's actual website wouldn't go amiss. Not as a matter of legality, just as a case of not being a complete jackass. But this is politicians we're talking about, so there's not much chance of that.
I'm not in the US, so maybe this is fine there, but to me this sounds very much like libel (at least what I understand libel to mean :)).
:)
If it was simply the case that the Republican registered the sites, on which disparaging comments are made about a political opponent that would just be the sleazy but unfortunately acceptable face of politics. But since he registered domains which might reasonably (by my definition of reasonable anyhow) be taken to be connected with the Democrat and such disparaging statements are then made it sounds like a case could be made for unfairness, and whatever law that then entails.
Is this any different to registering www.microsoft.com (for example) and then writing Bill Gates hate-speech all over it?
Please note that I have no political stance to take on the issue of US politics, so please don't interpret anything I have said as a political attack on either candidate
Daar is nie 'n lepel nie
Cybersquatting is a fair expression of political speech.
It's a dirty, underhanded, shrewd thing to do.
I'm surprised more politicians hadn't thought of this sooner.
Unless we actually enforce policies on what each top level (and lower) domain is named and contains, this sort of behaviour is just the extreme case of a broken/misfeatured system.
Personally, I think the cybersquatting shows a lack of class. I voted against Van Hollen in the last election, but I don't condone what his opponent is doing for one reason, in that you shouldn't work to silence your opponent in a political election in a republic.
Floyd is wrong on this one, big time. By attempting to suppress Van Hollen's website and ideas, he's tarnishing his own reputation.
"We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
and almost as in beer. He's paying his two cents for the domain name, then saying his piece. Now he even gets a free plug on /., which will even give him a Google bump.
This is no more offensive than a TV ad, since I just press 'mute' if I don't want to hear it. In this case, I can just click away.
There may be some secondary backlash when Floyd supporters or undecideds go to VanHollen2004.org and find Floyd's rhetoric.
It doesn't harm anyone, since "LastName2004.org" is clearly political.
sigs, as if you care.
Any politician who claims that his opponent "votes for terrorists" instantly loses any credibility with me.
Squatted
So long as the holder of the domain makes it clear he is not affiliated with the compaign that the URL would imply, I don't see a problem with it. Looking over this site, I think it's sufficiently clear that it's not actually being run by the candidate being mocked.
On the other hand, looking over this site and seeing how it's done make me dislike Floyd more than Van Hollen. But I'm not in that district, so...
I don't see how this is significantly different than www.gwbush.com (currently defunct), although gwbush.com was a bit cleverer.
...take a LOOK at the website?
Sorry, but tatements like "simply using that domain name in iteslef is misleading" underestimates people. Yes, even the slow ones.
Look at the site. It clearly says it's "unofficial". The summary at the top of the screen says it's trying to tell the "true" version of "my opponent's" positions. It's pretty clear this is NOT an official site of the campaign in question, and I can't imagine anyone mistaking this for the campaign's official site.
If, on the other hand, they WEREN'T upfront about who was running the site, and buried that on the bottom of the page, and said things like "My position on..." implying official campaign sponsorship, this would be another matter entirely.
Sure, someone trying to find the campaign's official site might stumble on this. But if they think this is it after getting there, then they've got "reading comprehension" issues....
What they need is a new writer. The writing just sucks . . . much below 8th grade. I wouldn't vote for him on that alone, much less the cyber-squating issue.
Karl Rove once spent a lot of time and money buying up anti-Bush domain names, then redirecting them to the Bush webpage.
I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
However, I support the actions of the man who once registered "peta.org" and then set up a site entitled, "People Eating Tasty Animals." :) He'll always be an inspiration it me. Wish he had enlisted the help of the EFF or someone to defend his free speech rights on that one.
PETA's actions offend and disturb me.
http://unquietmind.com/cybersquat.html
What is your take on this sites view of the issue?
Chris Williams clw7500nc@gmail.com
Domain names aren't as important as they were in the 1990's. If you want to find something on the web, you go to a search engine now. I think that typing fooblab.com in the address bar and hoping for the best went out of style when porn sites starting parking redirect pages everywhere.
http://gwbush.com/ has been parodying Bush since before the last election. (unfortunately, the site is down right now as the maintainers are "too busy working to defeat george bush"). too bad.
This guy should get an endorsement from Eddie and Alex. And his platform could be:
For
Unethical
Cyber
Kludges
Yeuch!
Sure, you can add the political slant to it, but I don't think it matters.. the 2600 folks already showed us domain registration to express an opinion, even when the domain includes a trademarked name, is ok by the courts: http://www.fordreallysucks.com/
I mean, how far do we take this? Is van Hollen automatically entitled to *all* domains that might be remotely associated with his campaign? If van Hollen had himself purchased vanhollen2004.com, would we be having this conversation if the opponent has set up vanhollen-2004.com?
The website is real. It's not a "buy me for megabucks!" squatter. It says right up front that it's not an official Chris van Hollen site. There's nothing misleading about it, except for the little trick of the name itself.
Whether it's ethical, or "right," is another question entirely. But I'd rather these stupid tricks play out on the internet, where I can choose not to surf to a website, than on the streets, where all those damned (and illegal) campaign signs show up every year making it almost impossible to see around corners, if you're in a small car.
Are they afraid they might succumd to the lure of Fidel unless there's a ban on travel there? "Gee, Martha, I was this close to going to Cuba today, but thanks to God and the republicans, I was turned away at the airport. Just imagine, I might have seen gay clones going on a wild rampage of the streets of Havana. The horror!"
If that's the case, I hope he votes for a permanent travel ban for all citizens of the 8th district going anywhere, because quite frankly, we in the rest of the world don't want them to escape out of their little reservation.
Money for nothing, pix for free
As for cybersquatting, yes this definitely sounds like it. WIPO has the following criteria in determining if someone is cybersquatting.
- Is the domain name identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights?
- Does Respondent have no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name?
- Was the domain name registered and used in bad faith?
- Has the Complainant engaged in reverse domain name hijacking?
I think the main point in this is #3. A quote from a similiar issue talking about issue 3 is... (From here)Not exactly the same, but I think it has the same feel as this situation. I'd personally not be completely against this except for the quote "loyd says Van Hollen should've registered these domain names himself" that just makes me angry and (imo) is ridiculous. I use the same forum name on many forums (except this one) should I be forced to register it to stop someone from one day creating a hate-site about me?
I really believe the next generation of search engines/browsers will make remembering URLs unnecessary, fixing the current problems with cybersquatting.
As an analogy, when I was growing up, I could remember four or five dozen phone numbers of friends/family/whatnot. Now, I could list about three. I would speculate that my great-grandmother could do the same with mailing addresses, yet now my mom would be lost without using mail merge for her Christmas cards.
I, personally, don't know exactly how we are going to jump past bookmarks and Google, but I have no doubt some creative UI engineer with figure it out, since the same problem has been solved before.
Cybersquatting is not really to biggest issue, either. The more basic problem is commonality of names. What does the company 'Delta' mean to you? Travel? Electronics? Faucets? Power tools? It's like asking what 'Dave Smith' means. There are many in the phonebook, but only one or two are significant to you and your cellphone knows the difference.
What we have today is like the first generation of speeddial. That improved, and so will browsers. It won't be long before your browser can make a decent guess at where you actually want to go. (No, that is not a Microsoft plug...they just happened to hire a good slogan writer. "Where do you want to go today" is a very futuristic question.)
Free speech protects content not containers, a website registration doesn't constitute free speech since it's not even speech, it's what you do with the website that's free speech. Cybersquating it is, free speech has nothing to do with it...
I just took a look at the site, completely expecting to see mudslinging on the same level as a television commercial, but was pleasantly surprised.
While I doubt how much of the information is truthful, the page does inform you several times that it's not Van Hollen's official site and in fact they even link to his official site in the navigation menu.
View it while you can, though, because as candidates start taking the Internet seriously as a campaign medium, you won't see to many "civil" sites like these left.
Apparently this Van Hollen votes for "Terrorists" according to the site.
How's he do that then?
I can't believe this sort of thing is happening on the internets.
would this site violate Mr. Slave's right to register his own domain name?
From my experience, if somebody else grabs a domain before you do, it's tough luck on your part, unless you wanna pay a lawyer... (and nobody wants to do that)
When do you get to the point where something like that becomes slanderous or libelous? I know if it's true it probably can't be considered defamatory, but political rhetoric and truth rarely overlap. (At least it seems these days)
I won't hold anything a politician's supporters do against him/her, because lots of reasonable people have crazy supporters. But if the person themselves is behind dirty tricks, I'd definitely hold that against them. Whether it's decisive depends on the other issues involved, but in my mind it's prima facie evidence that the person is more of a politician and demagoguge than an honest representative, and so they'd have to really excel in other areas to overcome that handicap and win my vote.
In this case, I don't think I'd ever vote for someone who used fear-mongering about "terrorism". There are legitimate worries, but it's our leaders' job to put them in perspective and calmly work to resolve them, not to work people up into a hysteria and play on them for political gain.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Many of you who think this is unethical: Answer honestly, would you have a problem with this site if it were a Democrat lampooning a Republican? Do you have a problem with gwbush.com, or is it okay because you agree with its anti-Bush politics?
Is Whitehouse.org cybersquatting or free speech?
I don't agree with the practice. Its deceptive at the very least and I think we've already got more than enough deception (spin) going on already.
You can always count on a person or group to play up their positive aspects, but its really gotten out of hand in the last few years. Certainly mud slinging has always taken place, but its gotten progressively more vicious over the last thirty years. I mean what does it say when one party habitually refers to their opponents as "mean spirited." Yeah, sure...what exactly does that make you for calling them names then?
Well, it probably is cybersquatting in the spirit of the law, but is it actually? The TLD has an integer included, not just the candidates name. Additionally, perhaps there are more than one person with that name. Of course, the content does disparage the candidate, which is a determining factor, but free speech is free speech. If the year was not included I'd say it was a 'slam dunk', but I guess this is just a free throw. Perhaps a new TLD (i know, i know) like ".anti" or ".con" - for people to express counter-points and still rank in page aggregators, would help. How about ".rep" or ".dem" or ".gdi" or ".grn"? Bottom line, it's a politician, I don't trust him already.
Stuff that matters.
You know, after Sammy took over, the group just wasn't the same. They may have been an OK band for the time, but it just wasn't they same. They should have changed their name or something. But dude, that guy that came in after Sammy? WTF was up with that?
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Its one thing to register the domain names in question. Its another thing to actually have traffic to those domain names. In this case hes had an abundance of free publicity and the search engines/slashdot affect would do the site a world of good. Generally this wouldnt have been the case with out the large press/publicity/scam campaign that is currently occuring.
maybe I should register a few thousand political domain names.. then link them all to eachother.. create a post on slashdot mentioning it.. then change the content on the pages to something thats worth while.. then the search engines will redirect viagra requests.. oops i mean legit traffic to my site.
My understanding of cybersquatting is that, in order to fit that label, you must intentionally acquire a domain name that is obviously intended to (mis)represent someone else (individual or organization). In this case, a politician is knowingly purchasing domain names -- with public money, no less! -- that is specifically intended to (mis)represent opposing candidates.
You will not catch me verbally supporting or voting for any candidate who uses my taxdollars to purchase someone else's domain name and use it against them.
I think this is akin to the practice of campaigns buying up web adresses like Georgebushsucks or kerryblows, etc. Granted it's not exactly the most tactful approach, and he's not trying to sell it back to anyone. Cybersquatting only motivation is the monetary gain from selling the domain back to someone. I just think this was a distasteful, ugly, albeit LEGAL, tactic that will eventually work its way out via voter backlash.
Cliff Claven
K.E.G. Party Chairman
Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
Take for instance gwbush.com for the period from about 1999 to 2001. This was a great, but completely parody-related, website making fun of Bush. The RNC demanded that the webmaster, Zach Exley, give up every domain that he had registered. He refused. They threatened to sue him but to my knowledge never did so. Then the Republicans bought every single domain they could possibly think of that had words such as Bush-Sucks in it. They have since sold most of these domains back to the random public, but the fact that a major political party tried to suppress criticism through massively buying domain names against third parties is amusing to me. This has been going on for some years now, obviously.
well, according to this site he votes for terrorists. very interesting indeed.
This looks like a credible source to me. It's obvious the second you notice the chicken suit photo.
I remember a while back when someone had bought up a set of domain names that were common mistypes of regular websites. These were set up with the intent of forwarding people to pornagraphic websites. Those sites were shut down because of the hazard to children who may come across them.
In reality is this any different? The site names mislead you as to their content and force you to take the time to download it even when the designer of the site knows that you have no actuall interest in what he has placed there.
I keep reading a bunch of "definitions" of cybersquatting relying solely on the intent to sell a domain name back to its intended owner, but there's more to it than that according to US law:
According to the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, cybersquatting is registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name with bad-faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else.
Yes, intent to profit has a lot to do with it, but bad-faith intent is all that's necessary for such activity to be considered cyber-squatting. Punishments are only much worse for those intending to profit from it. Besides, since when is profit limited to money? The additional attention via registering your political opponent's namesake domain name allows extra persuasion of voters, and that's a profit... or else, what is your definition of profit?
First, he shouldn't have .com or .net, since he isn't a commercial entity or network provider....
Second, having said that, the right to have a domain name isn't the same thing as the right to deceive people. Sure, he has the right to the domain name, assuming that he registered it and didn't register something that was trademarked. Even so, he does _not_ have the right to use that domain (or any domain) to try to decieve people into believing that the material represents someone else. I haven't looked at the web site in question, but I get the impression that it is not deceptive. Thus, no problem.
So how long till the democrats want to buy http://www.bushisaterrorist.com/ ?
If he violates anything as important as this, he can't be trusted with anything smaller like Congress.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Here in Montgomery County, Maryland, where Van Hollen is the incumbent Representative, I read a month back in a local newspaper (Gaithersburg Gazette, I think) of a complaint that someone had changed signs that were placed along the road to direct persons to a Van Hollen town meeting, leading them away from the meeting. Also someone called the place where the meeting was to take place and tried to convince the owner that he had double booked the room. People attending the meeting returned to their cars to find Van Hollen bumper stickers covered with Floyd bumper stickers.
Perhaps Floyd himself wasn't involved with this. But if he were, his opinion on cybersquatting is not worth a cent.
I really believe the next generation of search engines/browsers will make remembering URLs unnecessary, fixing the current problems with cybersquatting.
As an analogy, when I was growing up, I could remember four or five dozen phone numbers of friends/family/whatnot. Now, I could list about three. I would speculate that my great-grandmother could do the same with mailing addresses, yet now my mom would be lost without using mail merge for her Christmas cards.
I, personally, don't know exactly how we are going to jump past bookmarks and Google, but I have no doubt some creative UI engineer with figure it out, since the same problem has been solved before.
Cybersquatting is not really to biggest issue, either. The more basic problem is commonality of names. What does the company 'Delta' mean to you? Travel? Electronics? Faucets? Power tools? It's like asking what 'Dave Smith' means. There are many in the phonebook, but only one or two are significant to you and your cellphone knows the difference.
What we have today is like the first generation of speeddial. That improved, and so will browsers. It won't be long before your browser can make a decent guess at where you actually want to go. (No, that is not a Microsoft plug...they just happened to hire a good slogan writer. "Where do you want to go today" is a very futuristic question.)
I think what bothers me most about this, is the use of .com, .org and .net. I don't think any candidate should use .com, unless they're trying to sell a product or service, other than trying to sell themselves in politics. I think there should be a .pol or something for political discussion, conjecture, or campaigning. The governing bodies selling the domain names should require proof (ie business license etc) before selling a domain name. Citizens can use .us or whatever the equivalent is for their country, businesses have their outlet, and politicians can use .pol. Unfortunately, I think that would add to the overhead for those in control of domain names and also would raise the question of what to do with the names already out there.
It's easy to stand out when the general level of competence is so low.
...your own personal name? Might be a solution there.
if it were a liberal it is ok, since it is a republican, this is cyber squatting.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
The site had the reverse effect on me - it was poorly constructed, including numerous typos.
The accusations just seem silly - "Votes for: terrorists"?? If you really want to put together a site like that, you should at least substantiate the accusations.
After reading through that crap, I went and looked at Van Hollen's real website, and was actually impressed with his biography and Congressional resume.
The guy who registered the site has the right to do so, I think -- he's just being stupid and seeming petty to the voters.
I received spam a number of weeks ago from Charles Floyd with many of the same vague accusations against Chris Van Hollen. While I think it's great that candidates are utilizing the Internet, I wish they'd use more aboveboard tactics than Spam and cybersquatting.
Domain names are just pointers to IP addreses. It's a handle, or street address, or telephone number. Technically speaking, I don't belive in "Cybersquatting," to me it's like Ford suing a company that has the phone number 1-800-BUY-FORD.
Now, if you register the domain ford.com and you pretend you are Ford, I can see a problem there.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
There ought to be a law. Won't somebody please think about thinking about the children?
It's both... the idea of free speech guarantees that both and idiot or an asshole can say or do what they want to do as long as it doesn't impede the rights of another.
Since, in this case, the candidate doesn't have the right to any domain he wishes except through normal, fair and public channels, he loses. He really should have been savy enough to consider purchasing domains that benefit him instead of this rival.
Should have gotten VanHollenSucks.com thats the way others have gotten around the squatting.
Van Hollen is no white knight of morality, either. The guy launched more attack ads in the DC area than I'd ever seen before. There was no reason whatsoever that Connie shouldn't have been voted back into office - she was moderate and made good decisions.
As for this: if it's got to do with Van Hollen in 2004, they can use vanhollen2004.com legally. Even if he is being a bastard about it.
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
This is cyber-squatting, and a pretty cut and dry case of it as well. A new low guys, a new low.
I hate sigs.
How would this be any different than making up political posters that look just like his but say the he supports nun abuse.
It is cyber-squating and should be treated as such. He can put his website up with any other free domain that does not total miss lead people.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I am a candidate for State Representative (Green Party) and the first thing I did when I decided to run was to register a bunch of domains to minimize chances of this happening to me.
Unfortunately it is impossible to think of all the possibilities, and the more you think of the more it costs.
There is some sort of tradeoff and risks you have to take in this sort of battle. The campaign doesn't really have a lot of time to worry about shutting these things down (with election deadlines looming), and certainly as a third party candidate we don't have any money.
Also, web sites are still not terribly effective ways to market to most voters. For example, in the district I'm running in, there are 110,000 voters (plus who knows how many new ones?).
My website draws maybe 100 hits on a good day.
Even if I got that hit rate for an entire year, and even if we assumed they were all hits from people in my district, that would still leave over 95% of the voters who didn't bother to check it out.
An even smaller percentage might hit anti-me campaign sites....
O=='=++
The courts have ruled: you may mock politicians, but not televangelists.
Please you people, don't make up these silly reasons about how "despicable" this is. Politics is dirty. Your guy is on the receiving end, and that's what you don't like.
Cut the intellectual dishonesty. Remember, you're the "end justify the means" crowd.
If it's a Democrat doing this to a Republican, then it's good. If it's a Republican doing it to a Democrat, then it's bad.
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
Both Maryland and Montgomery County law require that political signs be placed only on private property and only with the consent of the property owner.
In both the primary and now in the general election, Floyd has been placing political signs on highway medians, at other places on highway rights-of-way, and in places that if they are private property are clearly placed without the consent of the property owner. He was told about it in the primary and it has continued in the general, so he knows he is wrong.
On both the URLs and the campaign signs, Floyd has shown he is willing to violate both law and ethics to get what he wants. In Congress he would be be a serious ethics violation waiting to happen.
There is no place for people like him in positions of leadership such as Congress or anywhere else.
Well, it's not "cybersquatting". And I wouldn't call it a fair expression of speech. But I would say that the actual letters in a domain name should never ever be fair game for trademark, copyright or otherwise. It's like telling a website whose domain name is "YouCSD.com" that they're violating the "UCSD" trademark. There's no reason for domain names to be protected by anything, and it's not very practical to pretend that there is.
If aspiration is a virtue, achievement cannot be a vice.
But in this case, it's a Democrat making fun of a Republican, so it's ok.
I'd disagree with your specific restrictions. However, I'd suggest requiring that any such political site include a "Paid for by the Joe Blah for Senate Campaign" on each page, with a link to a web page version of the usual "I'm the candidate, and I approve this message". If put up by a PAC, use "Paid for by Citizens Against Jim Mumble", with a link to a page stating the group's charter, directorship, and business office. If put up by a private citizen, "Paid for by BillyBob Doe", linked to a page informing people that they are doing this as a private citizen, saying whether they are a registered voter, and if so, noting if they are registered in a precinct that will vote on this election.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Those that think it cybersquatting - obviously do not have a clue of what they are talking about.
Or are informed lawyers being paid to act dishonestly for corrupt overreaching corporate trademark holders in another case.
www.WIPO.org.uk
World Intellectual Piracy Organization - not associated with corrupt UN World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO.org)
What about the guys squatting on georgewbush.net and .org? www.georgewbush.com is the officially endorsed site of President Bush, but dubya's team wasn't smart enough to pick up the .net and .org versions.
:)
I just figured I would show that this tactic is non-partisan
The Fat Man Walks Alone
Free speech is about the idea that one is not kept from speaking. A single domain is enough to assure that you get your message out. Grabbing many of them starts to monopolize the stage, and robs free speech from the person who might otherwise respond.
This political situation seems to me to be different than the commercial one in which someone with a tradename ACME might legitimately grab ACME.com, ACME.net, and ACME.org to prevent dilution of the mark.
I happen to think the Freedom of Speech is often better analyzed as the Freedom to Hear. Under this analysis, it's the public's right to hear the alternative point of view that's in jeopardy.
The Supreme Court has generally taken the position that, where feasible, the answer to Bad Speech is More Speech. That is, if the injured party has rebuttal time, the public stage can play out the debate. (The Supreme Court has yet to hear a definitive case in which someone's right to respond is simply drowned in an infinite capacity of one side to outflame the other, but no doubt it will ultimately happen.) Grabbing too many "obvious" domain names, while it doesn't keep the targeted person from responding, does hide the targeted person's response, and seems to me even to edge toward fraud.
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
I am a voter in Van Hollen's congressional district. He won office two years ago from an incumbent very liberal Republican on the platform that wasn't much more than "I am a democrat, she isn't." Our district is so overwhelmingly democratic as to make this other guy's campaign a joke. In spite of squatting Van Hollen sites, whatshisface is still going to lose...
Why wasn't this question asked about Google. OOOhhh, that's right... The Good Company thing.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
...to this clown's violation of the Lanham Act (Section 43- false affiliation or endorsement), and of any relevant CT laws regarding the "Right of Publicity." The aggrieved party should be able to get injuctive relief at a minimum.
It might be libel, but until it's proven libelous, it's speech. Cybersquatting is usually defined as buying a domain name in order to sell it back at huge cost. As far as I've heard, this guy isn't trying to make money off of the domain name.
2600 registers domain names like www.fuckcbs.com. They do this partly as a political statement, partly cause they can, and partly cause they're kind of jackasses and like to get cease and desists to show they're not afraid of the big bad man. But it's definitely free speech.
I mod down pyramid schemes in sigs.
So, we are redefining squatting?
registering disney.com back in 88 in the hopes that later, when disney became aware of the internet they would want the name is squatting.
Seeing that hillary might be a contender and registering hillary2008.com for the purpose of expressing ones disagreement with her platform is NOT squatting. She is perfectly free to register hillary08.com, hillary.com, hillaryusa.com, votehillary.com and hundreds of other domains.
Maybe if one were to register a significant portion of these domain names, thus preventing someone else from coming up with an easy to remember alternative there would be reasonable grounds for complaint. Such tactics could backfire as well, in a political campaign.
A countrary opinion or political opponent shouldn be allowed to have it's own 'catchy' URL. It's a sword that cuts both ways and these days, doesn't a candidate and hs campaign show a lack of savvy if they don't exploit this. One might construe a similar lack of savvy in other areas.
That said, some creative work and bennie.com will show up on the first 50 pages of anyone looking for info on schwartz, even if he has registered schwartz.com
Well, currently there are no rules in place that the URL has to correspond to whatever you decide to put on the website (www.freepuppies.com could be a site used to sell... oh, i don't know... law enforcement gear). Seems to me that VanHollen2004.com/net/org is vague enough that it COULD be an anti-VanHollen site, which anyone would have the right to build. The fact that users interpret the URL to be pro-VanHollen is irrelevant. dep
"hey, could you pass me a paper towel? er.. I mean... DEPLOY ABSORBTION PANEL!"
I think it would be funnier if he linked to the Van Halen site.
Maybe he's just a gigolo.
I'm just a gigolo and everywhere I go
People know the part I'm playin'
Paid for every dance, sellin' each romance
Ooh, what they're sayin?
There will come a day, and youth will pass away
What'll they say about me?
When the end comes I know they'll say just a gigolo
And life goes on without me
Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
You have no moral right to a URL. In the event Blightthepower Avenue was built (unlikely, but hey) I wouldn't have a right to demand a plot of land for myself without paying for it. Nor would I have the right to stop someone else building there. Same with a URL. I say open the whole thing up and let nature take its course. "Cybersquatting" is a concern only for big business (tough) and for lawyers out to event new billable activities (tough).
Plays violent online games as: Nerfherder76
This is the worst kind of squatting as it is deliberately being used to disinform voters. He should be jailed and fined. Trust me, that's what he'd be calling for if the situation was the opposite...
I definitely can believe the dirty low-down methods that politicians will do to get elected. The problem with americans is that they don't do the proper thing and elect the morally qualified individual. Instead they let the ads brainwash them. I for one have stopped viewing the ads. At the very least, if I see one by chance, I'd look up its source and verify whether or not it's truthful.
PS. Please slashdotters, Learn to spell definite correctly, especially if you use it as single word subject.
(I'm a Libertarian, but this is my district)
That's the reason I didn't link directly to the domains in question. I gave each candidate a link to their main site, and the names of the questionable domains but no direct links to them. Didn't want to give them an unfair boost in Google.
http://wipo.int/ is typically who you go through to resolve probelms with domains, however someone's name isn't really "intellectual property"
It also costs upwards of $2000 to start a dispute, which really isn't a problem for a Dem. or Rep. party member, however they would have a hard time proving a name is intellectual property.
As long as it's not libel (printed slander, aka lies) the domain owner should be fine, even if he does need a lawyer.
Someone ready the EFF batphone!
Yes, I am a smart ass; it's better than the alternative.
If he got his viewers by lying (using similar domain names in hopes of someone making a mistake is essentially a Trojan), I wouldn't count it as free speech. They have a right to speak, but the audience doesn't have a duty to listen.
Cybersquatting is only morally wrong if you register a domain for no reason than to sell it later.
In this case, I see no harm done to anyone.
If you're gonna take someones name and write crap about them at least make it look good!
If you're rich and powerful and have enough money to sue the people using your name, it's cybersquatting.
If you're a poor nobody, who cares?
When I'm not impersonating a glorified light bulb holder online, my name is Deborah. I'd love to use Deborah.com or at least see it used for something other than pr0n. But I'm a poor nobody, so who gives a shiat?
The name is also biblical (which few people know, but Deborah was a tough enough chic back in the B.C. days to rate a couple of chapters in the male dominated Good Book). Now all Debbie is known for is the mark she made on Dallas.
I guess that's part of the point as well though. If you're known well enough for people to be googling you or think that your name should equal dotcom somewhere in the netaverse, then maybe just maybe, the person who feels they're being maligned should be master of their own domain.
Doesn't ICANN have anything to say about this?
Maybe ICANN can create a new Domain Level such as:
-- OOM (Opponent-Originated Material)
-- SLM (Slanderous/Libelous Material)
-- ICP (Idiotic Corrupt Politician)
A politico decides to use the NAME of his opponent or nemisis in a WEBSITE!? It's not as if his constituents wrote a BOOK. This is an act of pure disengenous conduct. The damned politician should change the name of the site, surrender it, and make restitution. Even IFF Van Hollen himself is a jerk. But, Van Hollen also should not form a site USING an opponent's name. The site name memorability should not confer abuse of a name not owned or described by the content or target. maybe it should be renamed:
"MyCampaignAgainstVanHollenByPrickJerkPolitico"
Why should this asshole be able to do this? If WE did it to some company, they'd use (read: abuse) the DCMA or some other law and force our ISP into complying with a C&D/take-down order.
Pricks like that set a bad example for the masses, and incite and deserve this type of language and sentiment I am using.
To go further, ANY politician like that needs to be WHACKED (across the head with a broom stick a couple of times) and told to apologize.
As for "All's fair in love and war and politics...", the public should not be misled in writing or in audio/visual presentation just to win a goddam election.
This is probably a good reason to:
-- review cutting the salaries of career politicians
-- severing their lobbyist and donor ties
-- prohibiting their riches from being used to mislead the public or procure a seat in office
-- remove their medical/dental/retirement packages
-- forcing them to do non-paid community service
-- removing financial incentive in serving in office.
When elected, umm, SE-lected officials out-earn their "subjects", something is terribly WRONG.
((slighly off topic...)
Too bad Wesley was gimped in the above URL. Some politicians need to be subject to that, considering the number of them signing on to draconian arrest proceedings that set our court and legal system back to the year 1060 or so.)) Selective access to court... Sheesh.
Say, as a test, without WRITING it or "making it so" in word, I'll say in VOICE: Substitute Wesley's name with Floyd's name, with Van Hollen doing the dirty deed. Actually, since floyd is doing the nasty, Van Hollen can HOLLER as he attacks Floyd's pink.
Now, I guess virtually-bleeding pink will come after ME....
(DAMN! Those brownies must still be affecting me... Or, too much MSG in my Miso Soup and Udon Noodles...)
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
??
I'm not picking you YOU, TrentL, but I am just seething right now. We could go further and ask:
========
Any politican who uses scare tactics and lies to take a feckless/apathetic nation to war has no credibility with me, and would not be allowed a seat in the same lifeboat with ME.
=========
Cretins who tell the world:
"Either you're WITH us or you're AGAINST us!"?
don't deserve to be in office. Their/his/(her, if ever the US GROWS UP and has a female president) kind of rhetoric or bellicose stance endangers many nations not directly targets of politicians.
=========
Politicans who GAIN from our screwed up energy policy, who's names go back decades with relatives of terrorists should not even be running or on tickets, for their deep and obvious, non-tangental connections undermine credibility of the wretched incumbent?
==========
Politicians who cannot admit mistakes, who put their person articles of faith ahead of the greater good of the people and of the world deserve NO place in leadership, and deserve no place in power.
(Now, I said all that knowing humans are flawed. Unfortunately, to fight some of these corrupt pricks means engaging them on the same tactics they use. The trick is "How do I do the right thing, and at the end of the day wash that shit of theirs off of me and off of others not deserving to be slung upon?")
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
And, HE is the president.
e le terious
Curious/furious/delirious/injurious/imperious/d
George is his proxy.
Are we still in hurricane season?
Irreverent/irrelevant/unintelligent Question:
Should Florida and Texas votes be counted this year?
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
The funny thing is that this question didn't come up when the site http://whitehouse.org/ opened or when http://bush2004.com (or .net or .org) opened. This just doesn't sound like an agrument on principle. I'm so used to seeing sites like this, that I've really stopped caring. It's the same as the X-sucks.com domains, but deceitfully subtle. This is just another case of the net not being the most reliable place to find information.
The real answer in the case of campaigns is to set up a campaign site at local, state and federal levels that serves as a (very) small site or forwarding service to the candidates' official site. It should be a service provided to anyone on the ballot in a race. (Put third party rants below.) If you go any where else, you could get the candidate's site, a supporter's site, a basher site or even a beer company site.
davidseyes asks:
:-D
Should Florida and Texas votes be counted this year?
Definitely! I'm voting in both those states (among others) and I want my votes to count!
"The plural of anecdote is not data" -- Bruce Schneier
Which reminds me... Who is that consumer union that wanted to yank/jerk F9/11 from the theatres?
.357 casually shoots ET in the rib/s, and almost costs Earth her place in existence...
Where are they now, when one of their own is basically committing trademark infringement AND advertising/slandering a peer-competitor? Maybe they're a union OF conSUMPTION, rather than a union FOR conSUMERS (who, which we are, really just consumption junkies...)
Seems these politicos cannot remember "fair and sports(man)like conduct." Oh, I guess they watch too much football and hockey (if it doesn't bleed it doesn't lead. Played with too many Tonkas and GI Joe dolls or maybe even pelleted cats, birds, and such...
"leaders"? I sure as hell don't claim them. It's time to "delouse the house." (Note: I didn't say 'search and destroy' or 'tag and frag' or the like...)
If any ET's asked me:
"HWhoo/hwhere are your hleeders?"
I'd respond with:
"The ones to be purged or the ones to be reformed or the ones to be decapitated, turned into dogfood?
(and, if I'm the measure of humanity's worthiness, I guess we'd all go down the galactic garbage wormhole/target range...)
You see, ET, in case you've missed out on those waves and signals we've been pumping into space the past several decades, the ones worth saving are too few in number to be heard, and too powerless to effect REAL change. But, if you play "Mars Attacks" here and there, and issue some threats that if more progress isn't made, more capitols and "leaders" will be summarily called to answer, maybe, just maybe the world would be grateful. Sometimes, ETthe only way to get rid of cockroaches is to fumigate, bulldoze, and rebuild. Cockroaches are TENACIOUS, hairy, and nasty as hell. More unsavory than crocodiles and snakes. Crocks and snakes CAN kill you, but roaches make you sick, destroy your food, make you unwelcome in your own home... Do you REALLY want to waste time with Earth? Help us or DESTROY us, but don't leave it the way you found it. We're well overdue for an overhaul, maybe a permanent magenetic halo to technologically set us back about 500 years, limit our ability to pollute or manifest-destiny the cosmos..."
(Venting... always in word, not in any action...)
Watch "The Returner"... A sick bad guy with a
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
it's WRONG!
Freedom of speech only applies to Democrats, silly!
10 MD
HEHEHEHEH...
In BOTH!?
Well, thanks a lot. I guess MotorVoter and Voting and Travel ID cards will be quicker in arrival. Even if you have homes in two or more states, i thought the IRS compels filers to declare only ONE permanent/primary home. (I am sure you're just being silly, right? heheh....)
Anyway, make sure your vote is not via Diebold. One or none of them might be cast in reality.
No, wait, if you DO vote in multiple cities, maybe others will, too. If diebold is undermined, they'll be "DieAgonized"...
Make sure Jeb gets the current convict list so you won't be disenfranchised. Make room in those janitor closets...and relocate the Registrars' offices out of the predicted hurrican paths.
Oh, and don't forget to join hands around the table and conduct the Daily/Morning Prayer in the Oval office/Situation/Briefing room before conducting the taxpayers' work....
(GODDAMN, those brownies are PERSISTENT!)
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
I agree, and anyone who's actually read The Anticybersquatting Protection Act of 1999 would agree as well.
The act mostly applies to business names and trademarks; the only restriction it makes for the registration of personal names is that you cannot register someone else's name, and then attempt to sell it back to them for financial gain. You can be as misleading and "unethical" as you like. I would think that using only someone's last name (as in VanHollen2004) would ensure that an individual couldn't come after you.
Now, it would be a different matter if Chris Van Hollen had declared or registered "VanHollen2004" as a trademark; indeed, if he has, the VanHollen2004.com/net/org certainly belong to him, in keeping with the Act.
Regarding libel, it would be a tough case. VanHollen would have to prove that the statements made by Floyd are "a false statement of fact. Since name-calling, hyperbole, or exaggerated and heated words cannot be proven true or false, they cannot be the subject of a libel or slander claim." (from the Libel Defense Resource Center In addition, since the subject of the "libel" would be a public government figure, it would be even more difficult: "Public figures, such as government officials, celebrities, well-known individuals, and people involved in specific public controversies, are required to prove actual malice, a legal term which means the defendant knew his statement was false or recklessly disregarded the truth or falsity of his statement" (also from the LDRC).
In short, it's clearly in the realm of free-speech. You may disagree with the tactics, but they are legal and protected, not just by Amendment I, but by thousands of subsequent legal cases.
- ben
Oh I agree. Any politician who takes a month-long vacation before the biggest intelligence fuck up in our nation's history, and then has the balls to campaign on his response to said fuck up, does not deserve my vote.
I call it just being an asshole.
Shortly after Edwards was named John Kerry's running mate, it was noticed that a man named Kerry Edwards had already purchased the domain name "www.kerryedwards.com". Offers were quickly made to purchase the domain from him because of the Democratic ticket. In the end he ended up putting it up for sale, but had he been more attached to his website should he have been forced to give it up to the Democratic party? What if he was a Republican and wanted to make a site that supported George W Bush for president? Do Kerry and Edwards have any less of a right to kerryedwards.com than Van Hollen had to VanHollen2004.com?
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
Your post illicited this thought, under what conditions would this be cybersquatting, free speech, or fraudulaunt misrepresentation?
Cybersquatting:
Looking to make money off the sale of the domain to the campaign.
Having no interest in the political process other than disrupting it.
Having an interest in the political process but intent on disrupting it.
Lack of other availble domains that would be construed as belonging to a candidate. (If you last name was Bush, but not related to The Bushes, your options may be limited.)
Free Speech:
Satire/humor.
Selling an unrelated yet similiarly named product (Buy my VanHollen 2004 Vacuum Cleaner, it sucks big time!)
A personal website whose purpose isn't commercial or political.
Fraud:
Claiming to be an official VanHollen website and posting incorrent information.
Presenting false/libelous information from a political opponent who has a vested interest in the outcome of the election. (IIRC, some politicians, even presidential candidates, have successfully sued for slander/libel, but it's usually way after the fact/election).
This is an incomplete list, and of course, IANAL. But I really think this is a case the FEC should get involved in because a)it could be potentially libelous, and b) the politician who's running the site has a vested interest in the race (as opposed to a "group of concerned citizens").
Despite being moderately conservative (at least in the libertarian sense), I'm not voting for Mr. Bush.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
One thing a lot of people don't remember or know is that for over 20 years now, about 19 or 20 before 9/11, the State Department, FBI, CIA, and others have been telling the Senate/Congress (the opposite of PROGress) that Belfast, Khobar, and Israel/Palestine-like terror events would arrive in the US. Not a matter of IF, but WHEN.
Another thing is that peole too lightly let the airlines off the hook. And, when the necessary changes DID take place after 9/11, many passengers and taxpayers who DON'T fly but still have w-2 wages are paying for the PHB, please-the-shareholder airline officials who for so long refused to reinforce cockpit doors. In our country, despite engineering marvels such as rocketry, long-span bridges, tunnels, skyscrapers, deep-diving subs and more, so many disaster-capable things STILL are engineered to the lowest costs despite the great potential for abuse. I'm talking about flimsy-assed cockpit doors that El Al and some other airlines don't allow, and didn't for decades.
More, we still don't truthfully know if the terrorists crashed the plane over PA, or if the pax bungled it after regaining control. I mean, if the Pax got it back, then wouldn't SOMEbody aboard have flown a flight sim and realized that lack of landing skills means stay aloft as long as fuel permits, and then call for help? Didn't anybody on that plane watch "Airport 77" (I think that's the one where Charlton Heston wire-lined into the plane to get back the cockpit after a Cessna struck the cockpit and killed or blinded the flight crew? I don't expect that regular airlines own personnel could do it, but special forces in various nations I believe DO train for the recoverable situation.
I think the pax likely were SHOT down, probably because they couldn't figure out how to use the comms gear. Or, the interceptors's pilots peered into the cockpit and either saw a struggle, or saw non-uniformed people in the P/CP seats. Even if that is not the case, did that PA flight fly erratically, as if recovering people struggled to stay aloft? Some people I talked to suggested the Ts, sensing failure, drove it into the ground to cause SOME sort of loss of life. I honestly don't buy that the pax got into the cockpit, fought like hell to get it back, only to drive it into the ground to prevent it being used as a missile. If they got THAT far into the cockpit with time to fly the thing into the ground, why not beat the shit out of the unauthorized flyers, yank them from the seats, and keep the plane in the air? Were III in the seat, unable to use the radio correctly, I'd at LEAST rock the wings, yaw the thing, and look for the wing/formation lights and make gestures out the window if the fighters formed up off either side of the cockpit.
ID checks will only drive the Ts deeper into the darkest of crevices, which they achieve another side goal: Get the US government to undermine civilians' expectations or long-held rights. By forcing (or encouraging) the government to invade/encroach upon/restrict our "rights", they give the government ammunition to "squelch" dissenting view, for the suspicious or fearful will just avoid rocking the boat.
The fallacy, as I see it, is that by encouraging the US government to rigidize the ID system and squelch opinion, the Ts deny themselves freer anonymity and mobility. That assumption, tho, stirs up a good number of other questions, such as:
-Was 9/11 a deviation from another "script"?
-was 9/11 planned, but only partially carried out, but the result of shitty airline CEOs who couldn't be troubled to spend an extra $200 per door at MANUFACTURE/OUTFITTING time?
-WHY did not the US step back and take a loooong, gooood, haaaard look at it's foreign policy and compare it to Israel and ask, "Well, if ISRALE had only 1 or 2 ATTEMPTED hijackings that to date have never been successfully repeated, and they have a SMALLER footprint of imperialism (by will, power or business practices) then why the HELL are not WE, the USofA, the hated imperialist of imperialists, ordering our airliners to make themselves non-hijackable...
Those are just a few questions....
(When will the brownies and sugar wear off?)
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
In the 60's many people (noteably the FBI) did exactly that (soemtimes they didn't even rip off the mask). By sending hate-filled letters in the name of one anti-vietnam group to another or posing as members and then carrying out some crime they sought to discredit the peace, and civil rights movements.
In the last election people posing as community members were reportedly circling through some neighborhoods encouraging people to remember to vote on November 3rd. Or warning them that they would face arrest at the polls unless they had no traffic tickets, back-rent, etc.
Basic political sleaze.
The domain used to belong to the Representative, but he (or his dormant campaign staff) forgot to renewal.
You may not agree with it, but I have my rights and having a easy-to-remember domain name certaintly helps people find it. I make no representation that it's "Duke's" website.
it's just a sick system.
it's not about what one wants to do (e.g. nothing), but about what king of wrong things the other wants to do (obviously everything).
this is a very bad alternative to what the other wants to do and why the first is better at it.
i for one don't want to vote for the least terrible option...
Privacy is terrorism.
anybody want the domain? shoot me a note... i was going to put something libelous together, but realized i don't have the time... it's temporarily being forwarded to johnkerry.com. reply to this thread if interested.
I don't see much difference between this and Michael Moore's F-9/11 movie. Both are designed to mislead and misinform.
When millions disappear from earth, it's not aliens, it's the rapture.
If someone purchased a domain name that is not his name but some other candidate's then the question is why did he do that? Legal issues aside, what did he hope to gain from such domain-name that was not his name but his opponent's? Obviously, one doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that he did that for a political gain. That said, it is a political game par excellence. Does it serve the public in some meaningful way?, probably not and it is misleading as well, so there's no value here for the society at large. Therefore, it is just that: a political ploy to gain advantage by any means. That also most likely shows that the person has no well-grounded social agenda of his own and tries to gain advantage by any means necessary.
IP was invented for the sake of lawsuits.
It's a simple extension of the cheap-a$$ T.V. ads politician's run during election season. The really good thing is this: I don't have to be subjected to their view, as I won't go to a politician's website to get the skinny on them. Doing so exposes one to a slanted view of the politician in question -- now either for OR against.
I'll say the same thing I do about the T.V. ads. Quit spending money (possibly my own tax dollars) to give me twisted facts and figures. I'll always prefer an objective NPR or PBS report or public debate to re-processed, faction-spun data.
Insensitive Clods.
As for whether or not it serves the public in any meaningful way, I can show you millions of websites that do not serve the public. Should they all be taken down as well?
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
We could make him think twice about it when he gets his badwidth bill:
http://www.vanhollen2004.com/
http://www.vanhollen2004.org/
http://www.vanhollen2004.net/
Sick 'em Slashdot!
Best Comment Today.
I lost faith in the "Great American Democracy" with the election of dogma-byte Ron. DemRep or RepDem and Independent have gone for profit over patriotism, lie-hawking over truth-telling, faith-based politics over Honor-based service,....
... these weak-character thespian-politicians reflect very poorly upon our ancestors (like FDR, Abe, Washington, many others ... Jackson, Jefferson, Marshall, Patton, ...) and deserve only the deference and dedication to duty due the "President of The United State of America". Yes, I would give my life for any "President of The United State of America", but giving my life for the "USA Constitution" and all that the "USA Constitution" defines as vital to our common interest does not demean me. This truth is fact for all Warriors on any battlefield defending family, friends, ideals, and welfare of their nation/culture, their honor cannot be impugned by the pettiness or evil of their leaders.
... I see no need to waste my time voting. I am observant of a rising "Big Brother" reality, I am not cynical of Democracy and Capitalism, but both need a well educated and responsible public to thrive and/or survive.
President B-Grade Actor, President Clueless George, President Philanderer Willie, and now President Smug George
Until we can disenfranchise corporate-communist, birthright-plutocrats, and religious-fascists from our USA democratic government, and restore competitive and innovative capitalism to our economy
OldHawk777
Reality is a self-induced hallucination.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
"Van Hollen did not oppose Sadam paying suicide bomber families $25,000 for murdering innocent citizens in Israel"
That sounds like voting for terrorists to me. If some desperate person knows his family is going to be taken care of if he has blown himself to bits he might just go do it. And he might not even have been a Muslim (or pick your flavor) fanatic when he decided to do it.
Of course "...did not oppose..." is pretty vague. If Van Hollen were not present (for legitimate reasons) for that vote then it's a smear.
My inital comments (see grandparent) not withstanding, this Web site looks like legitimate politicol advertising to me.
"Like fire and fusion, government is a dangerous servant and a terrible master."~RAH
"Van Hollen did not oppose Sadam paying suicide bomber families $25,000 for murdering innocent citizens in Israel"
What is the context for this? Did someone say "hey Van Hollen, do you think it's ok that Sadam pays suicide bomber families?"
Just because someone votes against a bill, It doesn't mean they are against everything that bill supported. I could say "George Bush thinks it ok to torture people inlcuding boiling them alive." I can say this since Uzbekistan is part of our "Coalition of the Willing" and Bush touts them as allies. I could say this, but that would be dishonest. You could probably find similar arguments for most people in Washington and say they all "vote fore terrorists" --- This argument is ridiculous.
-- john
Did you bother read past the first three lines before you jumped down my throat? I noted that Van Hollen could have had ligit reasons for "not oppose"ing those payments and that "not oppose" was weasle worded, tho I didn't say so in so many words.
"Like fire and fusion, government is a dangerous servant and a terrible master."~RAH
Is this political comment or parody?
http://www.moveonplease.org
Just to clarify... While (sad) Max Cleland did indeed lose three limbs while serving in the military on behalf of our country while in the country of Vietnam, none of these were during a combat battle.
If I recall correctly, he jumped out of a helicopter on a mission, saw a grenade laying in the spot from where the helicopter took off, thought to himself "That must be my grenade" as they had fallen off his web gear before and then picked it up.
While I do not wish to diminish the tragedy of what happened, there is a difference between what may be implied in the statement that "[he] lost three limbs in Vietnam" and what really happened (in his own words.)
--
WWJD? JWRTFM!