Sarah Palin Seeks To Trademark Her Name

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sarah Palin Seeks To Trademark Her Name

Posted by timothy on Saturday February 5, 2011 @01:13AM from the bob-dole-doesn't-trademark-his-name dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "The LA Times reports that former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin has filed paperwork with the US Patent and Trademark Office in November to trademark her name. On her initial application, Palin listed usage of the trademark for a website featuring information about political issues; and educational and entertainment services, including motivational speaking in the fields of politics, culture, business and values. Legal experts say it is relatively unusual for politicians to formally trademark their names because they are generally not associated with commercially valuable products or services and that trademarking a name is more common for celebrities in the fields of entertainment, fashion or sports. 'Sarah is somebody who is now out of government and pursuing other activities, in particular, speaking engagements ... and it looks like she's looking to protect her name with those activities,' says attorney Claudia Ray."

329 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I fear . . . by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 01:15 · Score: 1

We are going to be subject to this woman for years and years to come.
1. Re:I fear . . . by Nimey · 2011-02-05 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  I think she single-handedly outweighs any good that McCain ever did as a Senator. To think I wanted the old goat to be president in 2000...
  
  --
  Hail Eris, full of mischief...
  
  E pluribus sanguinem
2. Re:I fear . . . by bobbuck · 2011-02-05 03:44 · Score: 2
  
  By "subject to" you mean there may be products with her branding that you may freely choose to ignore unlike the whims of our president.
3. Re:I fear . . . by Z00L00K · 2011-02-05 04:23 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  Make sure that she is disqualified from the upcoming election.
  And find every other Sarah Palin in the US and make them file a complaint to USPTO about this requiring them to not make a trade mark out of that name. I strongly suspect that there has to be a few namesakes around with that name among the 308,745,538 or so citizens of the US.
  
  --
  If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Hmmm ... by WrongSizeGlass · 2011-02-05 01:17 · Score: 4, Interesting

Does this mean she's trying to prevent others from using her name in articles/posts/blogs/etc without her approval or consent? Will she be able to use the DMCA to force removal of anything negative about her that she does't like?
1. Re:Hmmm ... by gclef · 2011-02-05 01:21 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  February is supposed to be "no Sarah Palin News Month". Please, Slashdot, honor the effort!
2. Re:Hmmm ... by publiclurker · 2011-02-05 01:28 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Well, we can still use Clueless Bitch, right?
3. Re:Hmmm ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 02:01 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  Well, we can still use Clueless Bitch, right?
  Sure, that is how I refer to Obama!
4. Re:Hmmm ... by PopeRatzo · 2011-02-05 02:16 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Sure, that is how I refer to Obama!
  Man, you see how he took that dude down? Guy was like "Sarah Palin is a Clueless Bitch" and he came back with "Nuh-uh, Obama's a Clueless Bitch!" He probably high-fived his keyboard after coming up with that witty bon-mot.
  It's basically the Sunday morning TV news talk shows, distilled to their essence.
  To be fair though, Sarah Palin is pretty much the Platonic ideal of Clueless Bitch. The first poster has accuracy going for him, if not the Oscar Wilde-like ability with the verbal comeback that the second poster showed with his "I know you are, but what am I?"
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
5. Re:Hmmm ... by drinkypoo · 2011-02-05 02:19 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Obama is provably the bitch of the powers-that-be. Sarah Palin is provably a clueless bitch, and the same kind of bitch as Obama. So what we have is a couple of little bitches, but one is ever so much bitchier than the others.
  Obama has fallen down on his promises again and again. Palin has proven her idiocy time and again. Anyone supporting either of them at this point, however, wins the absolute clueless bitch award. Palin was chosen for unelectability. Obama was chosen for his palatability. END OF LINE.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
6. Re:Hmmm ... by WilyCoder · 2011-02-05 02:21 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  ^^^ Exactly. In a thread about Palin, they want to discuss Obama.
7. Re:Hmmm ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 02:21 · Score: 0
  
  Will she be able to use the DMCA to force removal of anything negative about her that she does't like?
  That depends. Does the Digital Millenium Copyright Act apply to trademarks?
8. Re:Hmmm ... by wrencherd · 2011-02-05 02:27 · Score: 2
  
  Does this mean she's trying to prevent others from using her name in articles/posts/blogs/etc without her approval or consent? Will she be able to use the DMCA to force removal of anything negative about her that she does't like?
  Probably not. She's a public figure and in that sense she's waived any exclusivity with regard to pretty much any aspect of her public persona.
  
  I know, I know, according to Sean Penn the public doesn't "own" celebrities, but I don't believe that they can be barred or made to pay to satire or critique the activities/opinions of those same famous folk.
9. Re:Hmmm ... by tsj5j · 2011-02-05 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  DMCA is often confused with trademarks and patents.
  DMCA specifically addresses copyright infringement and DRM circumvention.
  It does not, and cannot, be used to threaten to take down a site based on trademark or patent claims alone.
  For those, you will likely need a lawyer to send a Take Down notice or file a suit.
10. Re:Hmmm ... by TheVelvetFlamebait · 2011-02-05 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  No, it means that no other Sarah Palins can enter politics without changing their names. Trademarks cannot prevent people from talking about the subject of the trademark, only preventing people to promote themselves with the subject's name in the same field.
  
  --
  You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
11. Re:Hmmm ... by Greyfox · 2011-02-05 02:46 · Score: 3
  
  Now that Ted Stephens is no longer with us, I propose "That jackass from alaska".
  
  --
  I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
12. Re:Hmmm ... by uncanny · 2011-02-05 02:46 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Can we extend it to the whole year of 2011?
13. Re:Hmmm ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 02:50 · Score: 0
  
  No, This is about money and clearly a religious spirit. Most religious put their name into a crusade or programs, church names, or in titles, that no one else would use, and don't attempt to make their business exclusive to this extent.
14. Re:Hmmm ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  I'm guessing the reason is this (NSFW).
15. Re:Hmmm ... by moortak · 2011-02-05 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  No, she couldn't. It would probably allow her to stop someone from making a Sarah Palin TV show or magazine.
  
  --
  Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
16. Re:Hmmm ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 04:29 · Score: 0
  
  Well, we can still use Clueless Bitch, right?
  Sure, that is how I refer to Obama!
  Um, you DO realize that it we have John McCain, not Barak Obama, to thank for the national embarassment that is Sarah Palin, right?
  NOW who's the Clueless Bitch?
17. Re:Hmmm ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 04:41 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  The bigger issue is why slashdot posted this story on the front page in the first place.
  Its not news for nerds, it has no bearing at all to any tech or nerd issues at all. In fact, there is no basis for posting this story unless you had some political bias and wanted to just score cheap political points.
  On short, this entire site should be no Sarah Palin news at all. Somebody please inform douchebag editors like timothy of this.
18. Re:Hmmm ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 04:57 · Score: 0
  
  No worries, she apparently tries to trademark the whole name of Sarah Palin(tm). We can still talk about Palin or Sarah all we want. The only unfortunate consequence to the Palin family comes when their relatives want to name their daughter after the better know Sarah.
19. Re:Hmmm ... by Hugh+Pickens+writes · 2011-02-05 05:00 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Trademark is a geek issue that has been discussed dozens of times on slashdot along with similar intellectual property issues like copyright and patent.
  
  The issue of why a public figure might decide to trademark their name is an interesting one and the comments today have brought forward a number of illuminating answers.
  
  As for being ideological, I strongly suspect the article would still have been published on slashdot if Barack Obama or if John McCain had decided to trademark his name.
  
  --
  Ponca City, We Love You
20. Re:Hmmm ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  Not really. GM and GE are trademarks of the respective companies. But any news article about them can mention their names without permission of the trademark owners. It does, however, prevent others from using her name as a commercial brand without her permission (so no Sarah-Palin-would-approve-this hand bags). I am not sure that I even agree with the assertion of the Slashdot headline. The best one can say now is that she is a ex-politician. She is much more active as a commercial celebrity than as a political figure. She doesn't hold an office. She is not running for an office. She (and her family members) participate in production of commercial entertainment products. The trademark in her case seems fairly apropos.
21. Re:Hmmm ... by Will.Woodhull · 2011-02-05 05:43 · Score: 2
  
  To expand on parent post: Yes, there is the argument that the public doesn't "own" celebrities; that celebrities retain a right to privacy. This applies to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck as well as to Barbara Streisand and what's-his-name, the cute little boy action figure actor who is so big on Scientology. All those guys are entitled to some degree of privacy and a certain amount of control over how their name might be used.
  But Sarah Palin has moved herself from that group to another one by her deliberate actions. By taking the oath of office of Governor of Alaska, she made herself an an elected American political figure, and that means she has given ownership of much of her privacy and all aspects of her name to the American public. There is no other way the American form of democracy can work. The right of citizens to constantly examine their elected officials and publish their findings trumps the elected officials' right to privacy. This cannot end when the term of office ends, for there is a pressing need for Americans to be able to examine their history in exquisite detail, to avoid repeating mistakes.
  That Sarah has deserted her responsibilities as Governor before her term was up does not somehow magically make her a political virgin again; the oath that she took is binding for the rest of her life, and beyond, for as long as any historian shows an interest in her. There is no term limit on that oath. She hopped into that bed; no matter how much she might wish for it, she cannot revirginize herself.
  The only way that Sarah can limit her exposure is to move to some country that has stronger protections of its citizen's privacy from journalists than is true for America. North Korea comes to mind.
  
  --
  Will
22. Re:Hmmm ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  It's comments like these (and even more those of "c*nt" and the sexually perverse) that actually push me toward the Sarah Palin camp. It's usually the proselytizers that create converts to the other side. Then I realize that she's ridiculous and feel stuck somewhere in the middle of choruses of hypocrites. Running in horror only to realize there's no way out of the quagmire. Politics have turned your brain to mush.
23. Re:Hmmm ... by khallow · 2011-02-05 06:01 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  To be fair though, Sarah Palin is pretty much the Platonic ideal of Clueless Bitch.
  And as solid proof of her "cluelessness", she's probably making more in a year than all but a minute portion of Slashdot readers. To be fair, I was planning to slam Obama, but he makes good coin too. Nothing says "clueless" like making lots of money, amirite?
24. Re:Hmmm ... by Draek · 2011-02-05 06:02 · Score: 2
  
  If your sole measure of success is the money you make, you have far bigger problems than mere cluelessness.
  
  --
  No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
25. Re:Hmmm ... by Will.Woodhull · 2011-02-05 06:14 · Score: 1
  Two points:
  
  A trademark has to be defended against becoming a generic name for a product: look at Kleenex having threatened authors of fiction with lawsuits for describing any stuff you wipe your nose with as "kleenex". If Sarah is successful in trademarking her name, she can sue anyone who is using it in a generic way. So we would not be able to say something like "Pelosi just blew it on that one, she really made a Sarah Palin of herself". Which is the most ridiculously incredible example I can think of at the moment.
  
  Sarah Palin is not an ex-politician. She took an Oath of Office when she became Governor of Alaska. That oath has no time limit on it. She remains a politician for the rest of her life, and beyond, such that any aspect of her life that could possibly shed light on why she acted the way she did while Governor are an open book to the American public. That is part of the deal when becoming an elected official in America.
  
  This is especially important wrt Sarah Palin since she is a unique figure in American politics. Never before has the Governor of a State deserted her office before end of term for no clear reason, apparently just because it wasn't the fun she thought it would be (or was there something else going on?). We really need to know why that happened. And we need to know right now, since there is now the distinct possibility (that I hope is very small but it cannot be ignored) that a future President of the USA might at some point say, "Gee, this crisis is too tough. I'm quitting; I don't like the job any more".
  --
  Will
26. Re:Hmmm ... by khallow · 2011-02-05 06:34 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  I see cluelessness right here. I didn't make that argument, hence, there's no reason for you to mention it.
27. Re:Hmmm ... by sortius_nod · 2011-02-05 09:04 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  You may not have made that argument, but you're definitely embodying the phrase clueless. Money is not a measure of success, and to try and use that to refute that someone is clueless shows your own mental lacking.
  Palin is a moron, we all know this (we as in the rest of the world). To even allow someone this clueless to be in any part of government lowers your reputation with the rest of the world (not that it can get much lower after you had Bush Jr as president).
28. Re:Hmmm ... by khallow · 2011-02-05 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  You may not have made that argument
  If you had read my post, you would see that I didn't make this argument. There is no "may" about it.
  
  Money is not a measure of success
  That would be wrong. There's a simple test. Do a considerable number of people consider it a measure of success? Yes, they do. Hence, it is a measure of success. Rather, I didn't claim it was a unique measure of success.
  
  Palin is a moron, we all know this (we as in the rest of the world).
  And what's in it for me to care what you think? There's no country in the world that routinely selects competent leaders. And Palin, compared to what the US has elected for president the last couple of times, just doesn't look that bad. I'd vote for her over Obama though I rather have better choices than Palin and Obama.
  
  As to your concern about the reputation of the US president, I just have one thing to say: Your concerns are nothing to me. I won't choose a president just so some idiot far away can feel better, for a brief period, till they rationalize another excuse to dump on the US. I vote based on what I consider best for the US and my region.
29. Re:Hmmm ... by bennomatic · 2011-02-05 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  I was thinking "Stupid Peon" which has the same scansion and uses the same initial letters.
  
  --
  The CB App. What's your 20?
30. Re:Hmmm ... by ChatHuant · 2011-02-05 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  Can we extend it to the whole year of 2011?
  Or at least to the month of November 2012?
31. Re:Hmmm ... by Archangel+Michael · 2011-02-05 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  Who is more clueless, her or all the people that keep talking about her keeping her in the spotlight she so desires?
  The fact is, she isn't in office, isn't currently running for office, hasn't run for anything since VP and that was her first national exposure. I think it is hilarious that all the left wing nutters are so freaked out about her and yet keep her in the spot light.
  As for Clueless Bitch, I'd suggest you listen to Nancy Pelosi or Janet "Big Sis" Nepolitano sometime. I find both of them scarier and more clueless than anything Sarah's said or done. But they get a pass because they are leftwingnuts.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
32. Re:Hmmm ... by matt_gaia · 2011-02-05 11:13 · Score: 2
  
  If things that random /.'s have said would push you towards voting for her, instead of running away as fast as possible after many of the inane (and frankly outright moronic) things that she has said, that just, well further frightens me about the state of our electorate.
33. Re:Hmmm ... by sortius_nod · 2011-02-05 11:48 · Score: 1
  
  That's right, because there's nothing but the US... insular nations become fascist nations.
34. Re:Hmmm ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 11:55 · Score: 1
  
  Obama is the powers that be.
  Calling Obama clueless though is not accurate. Remember how Palin didn't know Africa was a continent (Reported by Fox News too). And more recently, remember Obama's thought provoking State of the Union speech, where Obama suggested our nation needed to rally around science and technology and that perhaps these will help solve our future problems; a Sputnik moment is what we needed according to Obama.
  What was Sarah Palin's response... Sputnik bankrupted the Soviet Union. Which is completely knee-jerkish and untrue.
  Obama has not fulfilled all his campaign promises. But the other side (Republicans) don't even know the problems facing America.... or they don't care.
35. Re:Hmmm ... by PopeRatzo · 2011-02-05 12:39 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing says "clueless" like making lots of money, amirite?
  Nothing says "clueless" like someone who thinks money is a measure of any personal qualities, intelligence included.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
36. Re:Hmmm ... by PopeRatzo · 2011-02-05 12:40 · Score: 1
  
  If you had read my post, you would see that I didn't make this argument.
  You did, in fact, make that argument. You're just too big of a pussy to admit it.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
37. Re:Hmmm ... by DarkOx · 2011-02-05 12:48 · Score: 1
  
  spoken like a member of the proletariat
  
  --
  Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
38. Re:Hmmm ... by khallow · 2011-02-05 13:00 · Score: 1
  
  You did, in fact, make that argument. You're just too big of a pussy to admit it.
  Maybe you should save the internet tough guy act for someone who cares?
39. Re:Hmmm ... by das3cr · 2011-02-05 13:05 · Score: 0
  
  Bah, Clinton is the original clueless bitch from way back.
  
  --
  Hurricane Island Outward Bound
  OB
40. Re:Hmmm ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 16:06 · Score: 0
  
  fucking lol at the neocons modding this insightful
41. Re:Hmmm ... by cayenne8 · 2011-02-05 16:24 · Score: 1
  
  "If your sole measure of success is the money you make, you have far bigger problems than mere cluelessness."
  Err....and what exactly else would you use as a measure of success?
  I'm wanting to make as much $$ as I possibly can....the more money I have, the better lifestyle I can live out my years in...sounds like success to me!
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
42. Re:Hmmm ... by Jonner · 2011-02-05 16:55 · Score: 1
  
  Even if that's what she's trying to do, I don't think it'll succeed. Holding a trademark doesn't mean that all mentions of the mark must get permission. For example, I can say that I don't like the Oprah Winfrey show with no fear of a lawsuit (actually, I haven't seen it and don't care about it).
  The DMCA has no relevance, since it's about copyright, not trademark. Don't believe the lies of proponents of "Intellectual Property": copyrights, trademarks and patents have always been distinct in US law.
  I think it's most likely that, as TFA says, Palin is trying to protect her business interests, since she's not much of a politician any more.
43. Re:Hmmm ... by drolli · 2011-02-05 17:01 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, only Fox news will be allowed to report on her. This is a move to ensure fair and balanced reporting, her spokesperson will say.
44. Re:Hmmm ... by Waccoon · 2011-02-05 17:16 · Score: 1
  
  ...and his +4 Insightful.
45. Re:Hmmm ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 18:57 · Score: 0
  
  The Jackass is dead! Long live the Jackass!
  Umm, on second thought....
46. Re:Hmmm ... by Phroggy · 2011-02-05 19:02 · Score: 1
  
  Does this mean she's trying to prevent others from using her name in articles/posts/blogs/etc without her approval or consent? Will she be able to use the DMCA to force removal of anything negative about her that she does't like?
  The DMCA has nothing to do with trademarks! Get your intellectual property laws straight.
  Billy Joel® did this. Apparently if someone prints an unauthorized t-shirt with your name on it, you can sue them, but only after you've informed them of the violation and given them a chance to stop. If your name always appears with a ® symbol next to it, that counts as notification, so you can just sue them immediately.
  
  --
  $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
  $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
47. Re:Hmmm ... by rtb61 · 2011-02-05 23:48 · Score: 1
  
  Of course underlying trade marking of a name is that it must be aligned to a product and you can not trademark a name across an infinite variety of products and services.
  So it is impossible to trademark Sarah Palin human being and deny anyone using that name, even those who embarrassingly enough already have it. So it is all rather pointless as your identity is your own and is already protected and until you produce products under that name and it is that product branding you wish to protect it is all rather pointless.
  You can not steal other peoples name just because they are unfortunate enough to share it with a narcissistic idiot.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
48. Re:Hmmm ... by Phoghat · 2011-02-05 23:50 · Score: 1
  
  Legal experts say it is relatively unusual for politicians to formally trademark their names because they are generally not associated with commercially valuable products or services
  
  Firstly, Palin is nothing more than a product, and I hereby move that from henceforth on she simply be referred to as "That Woman" to prevent her bringing legal suit in articles/posts/blogs/etc without her approval or consent.
  
  --
  Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
49. Re:Hmmm ... by PopeRatzo · 2011-02-06 00:53 · Score: 1
  
  Don't be too quick to judge, friend.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
50. Re:Hmmm ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-06 01:29 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe the rest of the century?
51. Re:Hmmm ... by Foobar+of+Borg · 2011-02-06 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  Obama is provably the bitch of the powers-that-be. Sarah Palin is provably a clueless bitch, and the same kind of bitch as Obama. So what we have is a couple of little bitches, but one is ever so much bitchier than the others.
  Obama has fallen down on his promises again and again. Palin has proven her idiocy time and again. Anyone supporting either of them at this point, however, wins the absolute clueless bitch award. Palin was chosen for unelectability. Obama was chosen for his palatability. END OF LINE.
  "Who is the more clueless. The clueless bitch, or the bitch who follows her?" - Obi-wan Kenobi
  
  --
  Similar to the upcoming US election results
52. Re:Hmmm ... by Jojie_T · 2011-02-06 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  If you have a one dimensional mind then yes, maybe the measure of success is money. But along the way to "success", what did you lose? Do you consider yourself successful now? Great.
53. Re:Hmmm ... by PopeRatzo · 2011-02-06 12:35 · Score: 2
  
  I'm wanting to make as much $$ as I possibly can....the more money I have, the better lifestyle I can live
  If you equate wealth with quality of life, you will probably never have either.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
54. Re:Hmmm ... by Meski · 2011-02-06 17:32 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't that a derivative trademark, though?
55. Re:Hmmm ... by jandersen · 2011-02-06 21:01 · Score: 1
  
  Obama is provably the bitch of the powers-that-be. Sarah Palin is provably a clueless bitch, and the same kind of bitch as Obama.
  Bitch, you say? Let us consult the dictionary (here: www.etymonline.com):
  
  bitch (n.) Look up bitch at Dictionary.com
  O.E. bicce, probably from O.N. bikkjuna "female of the dog" (also fox, wolf, and occasionally other beasts), of unknown origin. Grimm derives the O.N. word from Lapp pittja, but OED notes that "the converse is equally possible." As a term of contempt applied to women, it dates from c.1400; of a man, c.1500, playfully, in the sense of "dog." In modern (1990s, originally black English) slang, its use with reference to a man is sexually contemptuous, from the "woman" insult.
  BITCH. A she dog, or doggess; the most offensive appellation that can be given to an English woman, even more provoking than that of whore. ["Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue," 1811]
  Used among male homosexuals from 1930s. Insult son of a bitch is O.N. bikkju-sonr. Bitch goddess coined 1906 by William James; the original one was success.
  I can follow the idea that Palin is a bitch - the gender matches, and it is not difficult to imagine that some may regard her with contempt.
  As for Obama - I think you are being unfair. It is cheap of the opposition to descend to any low level of obstruction and sabotage and then point fingers, saying "Look, he runs from his promises". The truth of the matter is that he has delivered a remarkable list of results against almost impossible odds.
1st Amendment by Jaysyn · 2011-02-05 01:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

$10 says she uses this as a club to try to quell speech that she doesn't like.

--
There is a war going on for your mind.
1. Re:1st Amendment by ArcherB · 2011-02-05 01:27 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  $10 says she uses this as a club to try to quell speech that she doesn't like.
  [Citation Needed] as I have seen nothing to imply that Sarah Palin wants to user violence to quell speech. However, I have heard people suggest that Fox News should lose its license. I've heard people say that talk radio should be forced to give equal time to left wing shows like Randy Rhodes that they give to right wing shows like Rush Limbaugh.
  But nowhere have I seen any evidence whatsoever that Sarah Palin, or anyone else on the right wants to use force to "quell speech that she doesn't like".
  But don't let that stop you from saying and believing it. Anything that will justify your hatred for someone who has done nothing but hold a point of view that you disagree with is a good thing, right? While it does nothing to elevate your own position, it does help knock down views that others may take over yours. Any opposing view is a threat, right?
  
  --
  There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
2. Re:1st Amendment by ScentCone · 2011-02-05 01:33 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  $10 says she uses this as a club to try to quell speech that she doesn't like.
  You need to pay more attention. It's the people on the left who are the ones who routinely look to shut down others' speech. Just count how many people scramble around looking for ways to shut her down, compared to the number of people she's said should be prevented from speaking (none, that I'm aware of). I have no interest in her as a politician, and I suspect she's no longer interested in holding office, either. She wants to be a talk brand, and trademarking her name isn't any different than Martha Stewart doing the same.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
3. Re:1st Amendment by PsychoSlashDot · 2011-02-05 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  Such as perhaps those fine people who produced "Who's Nailin' Palin".
  
  --
  "Oh no... he found the .sig setting."
4. Re:1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 01:39 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Aww, did we stwike a nerve wit the widdle neo-con?
5. Re:1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 01:40 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  How thick are you? Using her trademark registration "as a club to try to quell speech" is not a literal statement. There is no suggestion of violence. Nobody is claiming that she is somehow going to take the registration, make a knobbly club out of it (perhaps using the techniques of papier mache) and beat people she dislikes with the resultant weapon. Just in case you forgot the start of that sentence by the time you got to the end of it: NOBODY IS SUGGESTING THIS.
  Moron.
6. Re:1st Amendment by amiga3D · 2011-02-05 01:41 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You need to pay more attention. It's those in power who routinely try to shut down other's speech. Whether they are left or right seems to matter little. Power corrupts most of them it seems.
  Maybe it's just the human condition, hence the founding fathers' attempts at limiting governments power.
7. Re:1st Amendment by Jaysyn · 2011-02-05 01:43 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Just count how many people scramble around looking for ways to shut her down, compared to the number of people she's said should be prevented from speaking (none, that I'm aware of).
  No, the stupid cunt just wants to kill them instead.
  http://www.newser.com/story/106447/sarah-palin-julian-assange-should-be-hunted-like-al-qaeda-leaders.html
  
  --
  There is a war going on for your mind.
8. Re:1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 01:45 · Score: 0
  
  Doesn't playing one of Slashdot's token contrarian conservatives get boring after a while?
9. Re:1st Amendment by Goody · 2011-02-05 01:46 · Score: 0
  
  You need to pay more attention. It's the people on the left who are the ones who routinely look to shut down others' speech.
  The right does it as well. I wish Palin would speak more. She's a gift from God to the Democratic Party.
  
  --
  Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
10. Re:1st Amendment by WrongSizeGlass · 2011-02-05 01:46 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  $10 says she uses this as a club to try to quell speech that she doesn't like.
  [Citation Needed] as I have seen nothing to imply that Sarah Palin wants to user violence to quell speech.
  The club is a metaphor ... just like the ponies on /., they represent something other than their specific definitions.
11. Re:1st Amendment by Jaysyn · 2011-02-05 01:47 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly what I was thinking. I doubt she will have any luck shutting down anything from before she trademarked her name though.
  
  --
  There is a war going on for your mind.
12. Re:1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 01:47 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Glenn Beck has used this tactic in the past. It didn't work. But he tried to have DidGlennBeckRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com shut down because it violated the trademark of his name. But I'm sure if you research this further, you'll see that this tactic is tried time and again by many people of many political walks of life. I have no doubt Palin will try it at some point. Perhaps she'll reserve it for something that is exceedingly offensive or perhaps she'll sue the first liberal blogger that calls her dumb as hair. Either way it is apparent that it is a legal tactic that is irresistible to people.
13. Re:1st Amendment by WrongSizeGlass · 2011-02-05 01:48 · Score: 1
  
  Such as perhaps those fine people who produced "Who's Nailin' Palin".
  To be fair, the lighting in that movie was done very well. The back story (not to be confused with the on-her-back story) didn't get the same attention to detail.
14. Re:1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 01:51 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, referring to your opponent as "moron" goes a long way to illustrate the sophistication you bring to political discourse.
  -- Slashdot token contrarian conservative
15. Re:1st Amendment by haus · 2011-02-05 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  Other then 'Martha Stewart' has several lines of products spread over multiple categories which are sold across the nation (perhaps elsewhere, I do not know, as I really do not give a hoot). Sarah Palin produces noting other then sounds bites many of which are cringe inducing.
16. Re:1st Amendment by cyber-vandal · 2011-02-05 01:54 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  That'll be the Fox News that argued successfully that it had the constitutional right to lie to its viewers.
17. Re:1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 01:55 · Score: 0
  
  Oh hey, look, the Sarah Palin Defense Force is at it again.
  I won't even bother providing links and facts as to why Sarah is an absolute moron of a person since you will just ignore it anyway.
  I bet you probably felt sorry for her when her e-mails "got hacked by super evil hackers of the internet".
  Sometimes i feel a bit jealous of people so narrow-minded. They can live in such closed-off worlds without having a guilty conscious. (that goes for fanboys and girls of any case, really)
  I felt a bit bad for Obama, actually, now that i bring this up.
  He was all for change and everything before the election. That enthusiasm he had.
  When the poor guy got in to office, you could see that he had just broke inside. Being on the top and having to decide the fates of millions can really break a person. Hard.
18. Re:1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 02:05 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Scott Adams said it best
  When_Did_Ignorance_Become_A_Point_Of_View
19. Re:1st Amendment by Xiaran · 2011-02-05 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  I have never heard anyone try to "shut her down" from public speaking. How are they going about this?
20. Re:1st Amendment by Jackie_Chan_Fan · 2011-02-05 02:12 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  When your opponent literally is a moron, it is an accurate point that illustrates the clarity and honesty brought to the political discourse for which she should not be taking part in because she is a fucking moron.
  If you want to allow these types of carnies to game our political system for their financial gain at the cost of peoples lives and jobs... you're a fucking moron too.
21. Re:1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  Using the advantage that the superiority of your ideology gives you, why don't YOU own broadcast media so that you can reach massive numbers of people with your own point of view? Oh that's right, those who make such investments happen to share the conservative points of view. Well whose fault is that?
  I see a whole lot more complaining than I see anyone actually *doing anything about it.*
22. Re:1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 02:17 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  >>$10 says she uses this as a club to try to quell speech that she doesn't like.
  > You need to pay more attention. It's the people on the left who are the ones who routinely look to shut down others'
  > speech.
  Interesting... a post from an alternate universe.
23. Re:1st Amendment by PopeRatzo · 2011-02-05 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  $10 says she uses this as a club to try to quell speech that she doesn't like.
  I've got $20 that says she actually ends up using a club to quell speech she doesn't like.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
24. Re:1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 02:22 · Score: 0
  
  You need to pay more attention. It's the people on the left who are the ones who routinely look to shut down others' speech. Just count how many people scramble around looking for ways to shut her down, compared to the number of people she's said should be prevented from speaking (none, that I'm aware of).
  You'll be modded down for that, but it's the truth. To those asking who are trying to prevent her from talking, just watch the news. People are still trying to censor her over the Giffords shooting, despite the fact that the shooter was a left-wing radical, and his motive was Giffords refusing to talk to him.
  If you want further examples, this thread is providing tons of them.
25. Re:1st Amendment by amiga3D · 2011-02-05 02:31 · Score: 0
  
  You don't get it do you? Have you ever noticed the twisted lies that NBC and ABC throw around...or CBS when Dan Rather was at the helm? The days when their was just plain, straight factual reporting are gone. Everybody lets their ideology taint their reporting now.
26. Re:1st Amendment by amiga3D · 2011-02-05 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  Ignorance is always a point of view. It always has been.
27. Re:1st Amendment by blahplusplus · 2011-02-05 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  "It's the people on the left who are the ones who routinely look to shut down others' speech."
  Only on slashdot could this shit ever get rated insightful, the right has done plenty. Like glenn beck talking about killing michael moore, too many stupid people on the right is just insane in america. These demagogues merely fan the flames of stupid people. The problem is freedom of speech was coined before the era oft television and mass media where most people are living in worlds of illusion manufacutred by our corporatocracy. I'm not a fan of stupid people on the right or left, nor of shutting down speech... but lets not pretend hateful speech does not have consequences in an age of mass media and mass propaganda. The founding fathers of the US could never predict what science now knows about media and mass communications. I'm sure they would be horrified at what mass media was able to do to the public mind.
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctwqnkWdCJg#t=0m48s
28. Re:1st Amendment by icebraining · 2011-02-05 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  Are everyone's sarcasm detectors broken?
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
29. Re:1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 02:43 · Score: 0
  
  How thick are you?
  Moron.
  leave bristol alone, she's just defending her meal ticket.
30. Re:1st Amendment by icebraining · 2011-02-05 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  Then they're doing a terrible job, because she's the only US politician who's opinion I hear every single week without ever searching for it.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
31. Re:1st Amendment by PopeRatzo · 2011-02-05 02:45 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I've heard people say that talk radio should be forced to give equal time to left wing shows like Randy Rhodes that they give to right wing shows like Rush Limbaugh.
  No, you have not heard that. You made that up.
  You may have heard Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh complaining that people are saying that, but nobody is saying that.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
32. Re:1st Amendment by a_nonamiss · 2011-02-05 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  Let's be real here, the opponent in reference here is not literally a moron. While many persons with mild mental retardation might post to ./, I think their posts would be highly recognizable as such.
  
  Don't misuse the word literally, moron.
  
  --
  -Arthur
  Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
33. Re:1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 03:05 · Score: 0
  
  $10 says she uses this as a club to try to quell speech that she doesn't like.
  [Citation Needed] as I have seen nothing to imply that Sarah Palin wants to user violence to quell speech. However, I have heard people suggest that Fox News should lose its license. I've heard people say that talk radio should be forced to give equal time to left wing shows like Randy Rhodes that they give to right wing shows like Rush Limbaugh.
  But nowhere have I seen any evidence whatsoever that Sarah Palin, or anyone else on the right wants to use force to "quell speech that she doesn't like".
  But don't let that stop you from saying and believing it. Anything that will justify your hatred for someone who has done nothing but hold a point of view that you disagree with is a good thing, right? While it does nothing to elevate your own position, it does help knock down views that others may take over yours. Any opposing view is a threat, right?
  Whatta fucking idiot
34. Re:1st Amendment by nstlgc · 2011-02-05 03:08 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I call troll for literally interpreting "as a club" to mean something violent, but I'll bite: So I guess that when she said Julian Assange should be treated in the same way the US treats terrorists, she didn't imply use violence to quell speech?
  
  --
  I'm Rocco. I'm the +5 Funny man.
35. Re:1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 03:18 · Score: 0
  
  I can't believe no one has mentioned the lack of politic leftness in the US anyways. There quite literally is no left wing, it's all just shades of right, rendering this whole argument completely moot.
36. Re:1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 03:24 · Score: 0
  
  No, you don't, that's the entire point. You only hear what she has to say when she can be misquoted to sound like a fool.
  Only Fox News allows her to speak in complete sentences without editing what she's really saying or cutting her off to make her sound like an idiot. Every other news station uses selective editing to mock her.
37. Re:1st Amendment by PopeRatzo · 2011-02-05 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  dumb as hair
  Hair called and is really pissed.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
38. Re:1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 03:27 · Score: 0
  
  I find it funny you don't understand sarcasm.
39. Re:1st Amendment by clang_jangle · 2011-02-05 03:29 · Score: 0
  
  You're a liar and a fucking idiot. The shooter was a right wing radical, an obsessive Glenn Beck fanboi no less. Is lying all you righttards have? Sure looks that way...
  
  --
  Caveat Utilitor
40. Re:1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 03:29 · Score: 0
  
  exactly. that's why almost all of the complaints that flow in to the FCC demanding stuff be taken off the air come from conservatives. because the liberals want to shut down speech. that's why conservatives everywhere (including palin) are asking for julian assange to be 'taken out' or arrested, because they believe strongly in people's rights to say and publish what they want. also, it's the liberals that burn books.
41. Re:1st Amendment by Culture20 · 2011-02-05 03:32 · Score: 2
  
  I've heard people say that talk radio should be forced to give equal time to left wing shows like Randy Rhodes that they give to right wing shows like Rush Limbaugh.
  No, you have not heard that. You made that up.
  
  You may have heard Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh complaining that people are saying that, but nobody is saying that.
  Then pray-tell, what does the term "Fairness Doctrine" actually mean? And does your assurance that he has not heard "people" discuss this topic include non-famous people he associates with?
42. Re:1st Amendment by Culture20 · 2011-02-05 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  when she said Julian Assange should be treated in the same way the US treats terrorists, she didn't imply use violence to quell speech?
  I'm reasonably certain that classified documents don't fall under protected speech.
43. Re:1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  Actually Senators Bingaman and Sanders have both called for the reinstatement of the "fairness doctrine". I think Senator Franken has also supported it but I cannot remember specifically. Feel free to google away and do your own research before calling correct people liers.
44. Re:1st Amendment by iter8 · 2011-02-05 03:41 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I think there's enough blame to go around. Just take a look at The EFF online free speech cases to see that there are lots of folks looking to suppress somebody's speech: corporations, government, schools, etc. And that's only online. Blaming only the left doesn't get close to covering the whole collection of people with an interest in keeping someone from saying something they don't especially like.
45. Re:1st Amendment by hedwards · 2011-02-05 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  But, you can't trademark your birth name, such things are eponymous. I'm always a bit shocked at the lack of competence in some of these trademark applications. Even with a trademark, DidGlennBeckRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com would still be referencing Glenn Beck and ought to be permissible under trademark law. A more reasonable method to get it taken down would be libel, but even then I don't think they really could as it's a question rather than an assertion. Not sure what the content on the site itself was like that would figure into it.
46. Re:1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 03:49 · Score: 0
  
  $10 says she uses this as a club to try to quell speech that she doesn't like.
  I've got $20 that says she actually ends up using a club to quell speech she doesn't like.
  If it works on baby seals ...
47. Re:1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 03:50 · Score: 0
  
  Where the hell did you come up with THAT????
48. Re:1st Amendment by billeeto · 2011-02-05 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  Sarah Palin (R) Probably got the idea from fox lawyers who sued al Franken for entitling his book "lies and the lying liars who tell them, a fair and balanced account" when fox had a trademark registration on "fair and balanced". The lawsuit was a godsend to Franken for lifting his book up to the Nyt bestseller list and the judge laughed the case out of court.
49. Re:1st Amendment by Heliologue · 2011-02-05 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  The Fairness Doctrine does not say that a talk radio network must broadcast both right-wing and left-wing shows. It had nothing to do with allowing equal time, but simply required that anybody with a broadcast license give some recognition to opposing viewpoints, even if it's marginalized, ridiculed, and ignored. In other words, the Fairness Doctrine is Alan Colmes.
50. Re:1st Amendment by Heliologue · 2011-02-05 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  I think there are several millions, even billions, of people who might disagree with you.
51. Re:1st Amendment by Third+Position · 2011-02-05 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  If that's true, then what would be the point of it? I can remember when the original Fairness Doctrine was in effect. I don't remember many rebuttals ever being given by representatives of the Communist, Nazi or Libertarian parties.
  Obviously, a "fair" representation of opposing viewpoints would demand *all* opposing viewpoints be given recognition. The day that happens, I'll be on the lookout for low flying pigs.
  
  --
  American Third Position
  Finally, a real choice!
52. Re:1st Amendment by rbrander · 2011-02-05 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  Well, that's a moral argument. The practical argument is that six members of the United States Supreme Court disagreed with him on June 28th, 1971. (New York Times Company v. U.S; Chief Justice Burger and Justices Blackmun and Harlan dissented).
  The argument is wrong on another level. The call was not for publication of the leaked documents to be halted, the call was for the publisher to be treated as a terrorist, which has a much, much stronger chilling effect. Given the way that the US has "treated terrorists" (lifelong detention without charges, torture), and given that Ms. Palin is associated with calls for those treatments to continue and be pursued even more vigorously, it's a call for a publisher to be harshly physically punished for speaking, not merely prevented from further doing so. Even if publication of the leaked documents were not protected speech, calling for publication of documents to be punished with life in prison under punitive conditions without trial is a whole new level of discourse in America that I don't think Richard Nixon would have attempted.
53. Re:1st Amendment by BancBoy · 2011-02-05 04:31 · Score: 0
  
  Moron.
  Oooooh, an AC that signs his posts. Stylish.
  
  --
  [UID-HeinzIntel]
54. Re:1st Amendment by jdoverholt · 2011-02-05 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  Bad analogy--It's freedom of the press he's hiding behind, not freedom of speech.
55. Re:1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 04:34 · Score: 0
  
  She clubs ponies??? OMG!
56. Re:1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 04:36 · Score: 0
  
  It doesn't help. She sounds like a fool complete sentences or not...
57. Re:1st Amendment by Theaetetus · 2011-02-05 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  $10 says she uses this as a club to try to quell speech that she doesn't like.
  Sure, soon as you explain how selling a product with a false implied endorsement by Sarah Palin - e.g. "Sarah Palin-approved Real American Flags!" - falls under the first amendment. Commercial speech is not as protected.
  "But I didn't mean that! I meant purely political speech!"
  Yeah, and trademark law doesn't apply to non-commercial speech, so we're good here, no?
58. Re:1st Amendment by Dan667 · 2011-02-05 04:42 · Score: 0
  
  palin and other extremist conservatives often use violence in their rhetoric. The actual results speak for themselves.
59. Re:1st Amendment by siride · 2011-02-05 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  The word clearly doesn't mean that anymore and hasn't for some time. The article you linked to admits as much.
60. Re:1st Amendment by Mr.+Slippery · 2011-02-05 04:46 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  But nowhere have I seen any evidence whatsoever that Sarah Palin, or anyone else on the right wants to use force to "quell speech that she doesn't like".
  It's amazing what you can manage to not see when you keep your eyes shut, isn't it?
  Palin has suggested violence against Julian Assange, saying "Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?". Several others pundits -- mostly on the right, though I wouldn't be surprised if hear the same nonsense were to come from one or two people on the left -- has made similar calls for violence against Assange, but Palin's is particularly delicious because she then went on to make use of the leaked data to criticize the Obama administration's policy towards Iran.
  Also, "Back in 1996, when she first became mayor, Sarah Palin asked the city librarian if she would be all right with censoring library books should she be asked to do so." -- Anchorage Daily News
  And when you broaden it to "anyone else on the right", it would be pretty amazing if you hadn't heard about the mass arrests at the 2004 Republican convention. Or about Rand Paul supporters stomping a protester's head.
  
  --
  Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
  You cannot wash away blood with blood
61. Re:1st Amendment by ColdWetDog · 2011-02-05 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  I can't believe no one has mentioned the lack of politic leftness in the US anyways. There quite literally is no left wing, it's all just shades of right, rendering this whole argument completely moot.
  Remember, two lefts don't make a right. But three do.
  
  Think about it.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
62. Re:1st Amendment by Goody · 2011-02-05 05:07 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The Fairness Doctrine will never be reinstated. It's considered too Marxist / Communist / Nazi by the right. The Fairness Doctrine lives on as yet another crazy bad thing "freedom-hating libruls" are going to do, and is periodically brought up by right wing pundits to rally the ignorant masses, even though it has a snowball's chance in hell of coming back.
  
  --
  Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
63. Re:1st Amendment by jbengt · 2011-02-05 05:13 · Score: 2
  
  Then pray-tell, what does the term "Fairness Doctrine" actually mean?
  Accoring to Wikipedia:
  
  The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced. The 1949 Commission Report served as the foundation for the Fairness Doctrine since it had previously established two more forms of regulation onto broadcasters. These two duties were to provide adequate coverage to public issues and that coverage must be fair in reflecting opposing views. The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the Equal Time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the Equal Time rule deals only with political candidates.
  In 1969, the United States Supreme Court upheld the Commission's general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited, but the courts have not, in general, ruled that the FCC is obliged to do so
  It never required equal time, was dropped in the late 1980s, and with the expansion in broadcast channels available and the decline in over-the-air importance, it has become less important either way. That's not to say I would want it to be policy in our current environment.
64. Re:1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but fair is fair. To the liberal minions standards, it's hate speech, threatening speech. Remmber, these are the people that think Palin said she could see Russia from Alaska (that was an SNL skit); they would take it literally. Someone is clearly going to get hurt.
  Sort of like crosshairs on a map or reloading. Remember how that was kept in context on a 500+ comment thread.
  Anyways, this is typical /. editor attacking conservatives that has become so commonplace. And seriously, if she did use the DMCA (how exactly would that apply? she'd DRM'd herself?), she'd be an excellent test case, high profile, and likely lose. I don't see how it applies, because it's TRADEMARK not COPYRIGHT.
  btw, $10? Really? I know it's a bad economy, but you're really going out on a limb there.
65. Re:1st Amendment by cloudmaster · 2011-02-05 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  Constitutional comprehension fail. Freedom of the press is one more specific form of the general freedom of speech defined in the first amendment. It's also the same freedom used by talk show hosts, making this an incredibly apt analogy.
66. Re:1st Amendment by MightyMartian · 2011-02-05 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  Dan Rather lost his job. Can't recall the last time a major Fox journalist lost their job. It ain't an equivalent situation, my friend.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
67. Re:1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 05:49 · Score: 0
  
  I've heard people say that talk radio should be forced to give equal time to left wing shows like Randy Rhodes that they give to right wing shows like Rush Limbaugh.
  No, you have not heard that. You made that up.
  You may have heard Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh complaining that people are saying that, but nobody is saying that.
  Either you are ignorant or lying. Because I don't like to call people liars, I will assume you are just ignorant about this and I will try to help you understand. Just read about the Fairness Doctrine.
68. Re:1st Amendment by MightyMartian · 2011-02-05 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  From everything I've read, the shooter didn't seem to have any particular political affiliation at all, beyond a semi-coherent near-paranoid schizophrenic fear and hatred of government. We're talking about a mentally ill guy here, trying to ascribe broad political affiliation to him seems ludicrous. It's as bad as all those right wing retards who keep calling Obama a Marxist.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
69. Re:1st Amendment by jmac_the_man · 2011-02-05 05:58 · Score: 2
  
  Chuck Schumner, a senator from New York, has called for the reinstatement of the fairness doctrine. Here's the source
70. Re:1st Amendment by Beelzebud · 2011-02-05 06:02 · Score: 2
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXL86v8NoGk
  
  Yep just a total fabrication. You poor victimized conservatives... :(
71. Re:1st Amendment by jmac_the_man · 2011-02-05 06:07 · Score: 2
  
  It had nothing to do with allowing equal time, but simply required that anybody with a broadcast license give some recognition to opposing viewpoints, even if it's marginalized, ridiculed, and ignored..
  he Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced.
  I'm not going to link to more quotes from that article, but the "Supporters" section indicates that the Democrats that want to reinstate it want to do so to reduce the effect of right wing talk radio. Whether the original Fairness Doctrine did so or not, a modern one absolutely would be intended to.
72. Re:1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 06:08 · Score: 0
  
  Dude, which post(s) are you replying to? The $10 is from the OP, the other /. thread needs a link, and DMCA? Maybe you could use a car analogy about metaphors or cars running over ponies?
  
  If [insert name of politician] tried to trademark their name it would be mock worthy.
  
  Remmber, these are the people that think Palin said she could see Russia from Alaska (that was an SNL skit); they would take it literally.
  Sarah Palin, on her foreign policy insights into Russia, ABC News interview, Sept. 11, 2008:
  
  "They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."
  The SNL joke was that she could see it from her front lawn.
73. Re:1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 06:10 · Score: 0
  
  I have seen nothing to imply that Sarah Palin wants to user violence to quell speech.
  Yes, those targets were so non-violent. Oops, I mean surveyor's marks.
  You are an idiot. Kill yourself now, neo-con scum. Take those radical lefties with you.
74. Re:1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 06:13 · Score: 0
  
  I'm not comfortable with people being able to sue for anything that bears their name, BUT I hope she sues and sues and sues those filthy porn people that will do anything to make money. Every woman should be given the right to sue for things like this - it's disgusting. Michelle Obama is an attractive lady and if this happened I can only hope she'd sue. The hypocrisy exhibited by those who are supposedly for women's rights is outstanding. Usually they just point a finger and say "look at the misogynist Right!" which is, of course, just a way for the hypocrite to remain comfortable.
75. Re:1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 06:40 · Score: 0
  
  "The Fairness Doctrine - How We Lost it, and Why We Need it Back"
  http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2053
76. Re:1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 07:18 · Score: 0
  
  $10 says she uses this as a club to try to quell speech that she doesn't like.
  [Citation Needed] as I have seen nothing to imply that Sarah Palin wants to user violence to quell speech.
  No idea why you think anyone is suggesting that she will use violence. Perhaps you don't know the phrase "uses as a club", and think the parent means she will literally take the papers from the trademark office, bunch them together, and hit people with them. If so, please seek help.
  What is a trademark on a name good for good for, other than stopping people from using the trademarked name? Please explain what use she might have for a trademark that does not do what the grandparent suggests.
77. Re:1st Amendment by Zorque · 2011-02-05 07:59 · Score: 2
  
  It's not like there isn't precedent. She got at least one congresswoman she didn't agree with to shut up. This way she can do it without getting called out as a bloodthirsty demagogue!
78. Re:1st Amendment by ArcherB · 2011-02-05 08:09 · Score: 2
  
  And when you broaden it to "anyone else on the right", it would be pretty amazing if you hadn't heard about the mass arrests at the 2004 Republican convention [washingtonpost.com]. Or about Rand Paul supporters stomping a protester's head [go.com].
  I was in NYC in 2004 during the Republican convention on unrelated business. I saw people getting arrested. The people who were arrested were the people who blocked traffic or some other illegal act. Actually, the police were pretty forgiving. I was physically threatened directly in front of four police officers who did nothing. I didn't press the issue because I had confidence that if the idiot followed through on his threat, the police would have certainly stepped in to stop me before I did any permanent damage to him. The police's job during the 2004 RNC was to keep the peace, protect property and allow the convention to take place. When someone did something that threatened one of those three directives, like throw a brick at a bus carrying delegates, someone got arrested.
  As for the Rand Paul supporter... Try this. Of course, we can't really blame the conservative half the country on the acts of a single member. Otherwise, you'd have to call the Democratic Party a bunch of idiots based on the rants by the current Vice President.
  And speaking of the vice president, why is it so many people here say they hate Palin because she's an idiot have nothing bad to say about Joe Biden, who is not only an equal or better idiot than Palin could ever dream of becoming, but is also the Vice fucking President of the United States!!!
  
  --
  There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
79. Re:1st Amendment by ArcherB · 2011-02-05 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  I have seen nothing to imply that Sarah Palin wants to user violence to quell speech.
  Yes, those targets were so non-violent. Oops, I mean surveyor's marks.
  You are an idiot. Kill yourself now, neo-con scum. Take those radical lefties with you.
  Says the guy who is hating Sarah Palin because her "targeted" map might influence a violent act.
  
  --
  There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
80. Re:1st Amendment by iluvcapra · 2011-02-05 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  Copyrighting your own name is an important part of the sovereign citizen "redemption" process/conspiracy theory -- if you've ever heard of the gold fringe on a flag equals Admiralty court theory, or the idea that your name spelled in all caps is different from your real name, it's the same thing. Though I doubt this is exactly what she had in mind, it's quite an interesting dog-whistle to the Ruby Ridge types.
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
81. Re:1st Amendment by ArcherB · 2011-02-05 08:38 · Score: 2
  
  That'll be the Fox News that argued successfully that it had the constitutional right to lie to its viewers.
  Strange. And here you are, lying, trying to say that FoxNews won a court case that it is OK to lie. Let me explain.
  First, the report that was at the heart of the case was on a Fox affiliate, not FoxNews. However, Fox lawyers are also FoxNews lawyers, so you could possibly spin it to say FoxNews lawyers argued successfully...
  Next, the case was not about lying at all. It was about a Fox affiliate (affiliate, the same group that shows "The Simpsons", not the channel that shows "The Factor with Bill OReilly") who fired a reporter who refused to air an edited story. The reporter thought the edits made the story false, so she refused to air it and was fired. Note who said the story was false. Not Fox, not the judge, but the person who was suing after losing her job.
  From here:
  
  Clearly, the story that FOX News got a court ruling in favor of its right to "lie" in its news broadcasts has become something of a talking point among the cable news channel's detractors. There's only one problem - the story as popularly told is completely false, and is based almost exclusively on hysteria, hyperbole, and half-truths.
  There was indeed a lawsuit filed by journalists Jane Akre and Steve Wilson over their dismissal from FOX affiliate WTVT in Tampa, Florida. After that fact, however, the story is far different than how it is popularly portrayed.
  To begin with, the popular portrayal almost always omits the rather crucial fact that Akre and Wilson lost almost every one of their claims at the trial court. As the Florida Second District Court of Appeal noted in their ruling:
  
  Akre and Wilson sued WTVT alleging... that their terminations had been in retaliation for their resisting WTVT's attempts to distort or suppress the BGH story and for threatening to report the alleged news distortion to the FCC. Akre also brought claims for declaratory relief and for breach of contract. After a four-week trial, a jury found against Wilson on all of his claims. The trial court directed a verdict against Akre on her breach of contract claim, Akre abandoned her claim for declaratory relief, and the trial court let her whistle-blower claims go to the jury. The jury rejected all of Akre's claims except her claim that WTVT retaliated against her in response to her threat to disclose the alleged news distortion to the FCC.
  So it wasn't that the court found that it's OK to lie. The court found AGAINST the claims that the edits made the story false.
  But, hey! Let's not the the truth get in the way of your rant about FoxNews lying. It justifies your hatred beautifully. It would be a shame if you were to have to make up some other reason to hate FoxNews for presenting opinions that are not yours.
  
  --
  There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
82. Re:1st Amendment by jcombel · 2011-02-05 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  $10 says she uses this as a club to try to quell speech that she doesn't like.
  [Citation Needed] as I have seen nothing to imply that Sarah Palin wants to user violence to quell speech.
  
  as others have noted, "club" is figurative, not literal. one cannot club another with a trademark.
  
  regardless, among palin's first goals as mayor of wasilla was to set up a system of banning books from the library
  
  didn't go anywhere, of course. the image of a politician that has an eye on silencing speech that is troublesome to her agenda, though, has persisted
  
  citation needed? Palin Pressured Wasilla Librarian .
  step off.
83. Re:1st Amendment by amiga3D · 2011-02-05 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  Really? Dan stepped on his pecker multiple times. The final straw was the word document from the time of typewriters. The loss of credibility was just too great and it was time for his old ass to retire anyway. I'm old enough to remember the time he used actors for an anti hunting piece he did before he became anchor at CBS. It was only a foretaste of what was to come when Cronkite retired and Dan assumed the anchor desk. After years of tainted and twisted "journalism" now the left raises hell about FOX news turning the tables on them. I guess if they don't like it they can always file suit and claim prior art.
84. Re:1st Amendment by MightyMartian · 2011-02-05 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  I'll repeat. Rather lost his job. Can you point to anyone at Fox losing their jobs for similar stunts?
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
85. Re:1st Amendment by superdave80 · 2011-02-05 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine#Reinstatement_considered
  Yeah, nobody but top elected officials. Not EVERYTHING is made up by the right.
86. Re:1st Amendment by amiga3D · 2011-02-05 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  I can't think of similar stunts from any FOX anchors. No actors posing as real people or word documents traveling back in time. Go on and point one out for me. I'm open minded. I never said FOX wasn't biased. I said they weren't alone and no one really seemed to much give a shit about the major news outlets playing fast and loose with the truth until FOX showed up.
87. Re:1st Amendment by bennomatic · 2011-02-05 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, that's a new trop practically invented by Fox News, at least in the context of a news show. Reporters doing interviews and actually saying, "people are saying X" without any sort of citation. Lest someone accuse me of doing the same, the movie "Outfoxed" contains dozens of clips that show them using this technique to distribute lies without having to take responsibility. Reprehensible.
  
  --
  The CB App. What's your 20?
88. Re:1st Amendment by bennomatic · 2011-02-05 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  Ooooh, SNAP! And let's not forget, "Don't retreat, reload!" (+ rifle site iconography) in association with how to deal with politicians whose political views are in opposition to her own.
  
  Opposition. Hah. Who am I fooling? "Democrat" is not the opposite of "Republican". Maybe in concept, but in execution, today's Democrats look pretty much like Republicans from 30 years ago, and they're terrified of going any further lest the be called names.
  
  I do applaud Obama's success with HCR, but it could have gone further. Now that the GOP's taken over the house, it's not time to start conceding everything; not every GOP rep or plan is fundamentally flawed... respect those that deserve it, and differentiate where it's appropriate. I think that if Obama runs the next 18 months as if he's got no chance of being re-elected anyway and pursues what he knows is right with the same vigor with which he pursued HCR, we'll at least have some positive change. And it'll actually increase his odds of being elected, as he'll be able to point to meaningful victories rather than meaningless concession.
  
  [end soapbox]
  
  --
  The CB App. What's your 20?
89. Re:1st Amendment by bennomatic · 2011-02-05 10:01 · Score: 2
  
  Hell, there are plenty of people on this site who, when they have mod points, will use "-1 Troll" as a replacement for "I disagree".
  
  --
  The CB App. What's your 20?
90. Re:1st Amendment by bennomatic · 2011-02-05 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  No no, we don't scramble for ways to shut her down. We patiently point out the fallacies, misunderstanding and clear lack of education and compassion the things she says and does. She, on the other hand, blames the "lamestream media" when she can't figure out how to answer questions like, "what news publications do you read?"
  
  As a left-winger, I respect her right to speech, but I feel it's important that people understand that they simply can not take what she says as if it carries with it any sort of intellectual weight.
  
  Want another example beyond the Couric interviews? At one point, she ridiculed a federal government program studying, in her words, "the mating habits of fruit flies". Anyone who has taken high school biology--or at least anyone who passed it--should understand that there's a species of fruit fly (drosophilia?) which, for reasons I don't recall completely, has led to incredible breakthroughs in our understanding of how DNA works.
  
  Of course, she doesn't believe in evolution, so I guess it makes sense that she'd block information like that.
  
  --
  The CB App. What's your 20?
91. Re:1st Amendment by flyingkillerrobots · 2011-02-05 12:40 · Score: 1
  
  Insightful? Please, PLEASE, refute him with some sort of evidence rather than name calling.
  
  --
  "It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations..." -Winston Churchill
92. Re:1st Amendment by PopeRatzo · 2011-02-05 12:47 · Score: 1
  
  The most recent mention you can cite is some unknown blogger from 2009?
  It looks like the last time an elected official even mentioned the Fairness Doctrine (and if you read the quote, it's not exactly an endorsement of bringing it back) was John Kerry in 2007.
  Please. If you're going around saying that "The Left wants to bring back the Fairness Doctrine" you're just trolling.
  Nobody today wants to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
93. Re:1st Amendment by Grapplebeam · 2011-02-05 13:08 · Score: 1
  
  Ten bucks!? Wow, inflation is crazy!
  
  --
  There is no -1 Disagree.
94. Re:1st Amendment by Hazelfield · 2011-02-05 13:19 · Score: 1
  
  Dude that's a mean accusation, pls refudiate.
95. Re:1st Amendment by deniable · 2011-02-05 13:40 · Score: 1
  
  I'm reasonably certain US law doesn't apply outside the US.
96. Re:1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 14:04 · Score: 0
  
  I think she just wants a piece of Nalin' Palin.
97. Re:1st Amendment by superdave80 · 2011-02-05 15:13 · Score: 1
  
  Sen. Tom Harkin also called for the fairness doctrine in 2009
  http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0209/Sen_Harkin_We_need_the_Fairness_Doctrine_back_.html?showall
  Exactly how recent of an example do you need?
98. Re:1st Amendment by msuarezalvarez · 2011-02-05 15:28 · Score: 1
  
  This is the first funny comment I've read on /. in years!
99. Re:1st Amendment by bfields · 2011-02-05 16:56 · Score: 1
  
  $20 says she's just milking her celebrity for every dollar she can. She loves complaining about her critics. Why quell any speech that's about *her*?
  Somebody who gives up a governership for TV shows and speaking tours has little interest in actually governing. She wants to be a conservative media figure.
  Not that she'll say any of that--the possibility of a future run keeps her in the public eye.
100. Re:1st Amendment by Jedi+Alec · 2011-02-05 22:50 · Score: 1
  
  A more reasonable method to get it taken down would be libel, but even then I don't think they really could as it's a question rather than an assertion. Not sure what the content on the site itself was like that would figure into it.
  That was pretty much the whole point. Beck loves asking questions like these on his show. He doesn't outright say $politician is sodomizing small girls with wads of cash $politician made selling american secrets to $countrythatfoxnewsviewersthinkisevil, he's just asking the question and leaving it up to $politician to defend himself.
  So some folks started asking something similar about him...
  
  --
  
  People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
101. Re:1st Amendment by Jedi+Alec · 2011-02-05 22:53 · Score: 1
  
  I'm reasonably certain that classified documents don't fall under protected speech.
  So...we can expect to see the New York Times dragged into court when exactly?
  Still reasonably certain? Because you might want to check again on the difference between *stealing* and *publishing* classified documents. I'd suggest googling for something called the Pentagon Papers as a start.
  
  --
  
  People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
102. Re:1st Amendment by PopeRatzo · 2011-02-06 00:54 · Score: 1
  
  [michellemalkin.com]
  Get serious.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
103. Re:1st Amendment by PopeRatzo · 2011-02-06 00:58 · Score: 1
  
  From the 2009 article you linked to:
  
  For instance, Dick Durbin has spoken favorably of bringing back the Fairness Doctrine in the past, but when I contacted his office last week, his press secretary said that he “has no plans to introduce any legislation on the issue, nor is it even on the radar.”
  How recent of an example do you need of "nobody wants to reinstate the fairness doctrine"?
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
104. Re:1st Amendment by level_headed_midwest · 2011-02-06 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  This is Slashdot, we don't do that sort of thing here.
  
  --
  Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
105. Re:1st Amendment by dfghjk · 2011-02-06 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  "To the liberal minions standards, it's hate speech, threatening speech. Remmber, these are the people that think Palin said she could see Russia from Alaska (that was an SNL skit); they would take it literally. Someone is clearly going to get hurt.
  Sort of like crosshairs on a map or reloading. Remember how that was kept in context on a 500+ comment thread."
  No, it's not hate speech and Palin did say she could see Russia from Alaska.
  - "They're our next door neighbors. And you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska."
  Sarah Palin in Charles Gibson interview
106. Re:1st Amendment by sorak · 2011-02-06 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  But, you can't trademark your birth name, such things are eponymous. I'm always a bit shocked at the lack of competence in some of these trademark applications. Even with a trademark, DidGlennBeckRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com would still be referencing Glenn Beck and ought to be permissible under trademark law. A more reasonable method to get it taken down would be libel, but even then I don't think they really could as it's a question rather than an assertion. Not sure what the content on the site itself was like that would figure into it.
  These are people who get paid to despise and remain ignorant of our legal system. To answer your question, the site was a parody of Glen Beck's way of avoiding libel prosecutions, himself. We will sometimes spread conspiracy theories, and rather than to own up to the claim he is making he will say something like "Is so-and-so planning to do such-and-such? I'm just asking questions", while presenting poor logic to back up the assertion. So this site was filled with text like "Did Glenn Beck Rape and Murder a young girl in 1990? I don't know. I'm just asking questions."
107. Re:1st Amendment by jmac_the_man · 2011-02-06 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  For serious. The link has a VIDEO OF HIM SAYING IT. He says exactly what Malkin and I claimed he said, and she posted the video evidence. Did you even click on the link? Do your own research next time. Maybe then you won't be wrong.
108. Re:1st Amendment by PopeRatzo · 2011-02-06 10:57 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe then you won't be wrong.
  Just one question: If "some people" wanted to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, wouldn't the time to do it be when you've got the presidency, a 40-vote majority in the House of Representatives and a 60-40 majority in the Senate?
  I don't remember it happening, do you? In fact, it wasn't even brought up in either chamber, now was it? It was not brought up in the FCC, or the FDA, or the Department of Education, or the NSA. You may not be aware of this "jmac_the_man", but a comment on a Sunday morning talk show or a hypothetical response to an unknown line of inquiry, or a blog post made by an unknown progressive does not government policy make.
  Now, "jmac_the_man", I'll leave you sole possession of this thread, so you can sputter and flail and assert how there's a secret plan to impose Fairness on the unsuspecting American people, who, as we all know hate the idea of "Fairness".
  So have at it, friend, and enjoy. I'm not normally this generous.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
109. Re:1st Amendment by Mr.+Slippery · 2011-02-06 11:58 · Score: 1
  
  The police's job during the 2004 RNC was to keep the peace, protect property and allow the convention to take place.
  
  So you agree that providing false testimony, editing videotape evidence, or spying of dissident groups would not be under the police's lawful duties?
  
  As for the Rand Paul supporter... Try this.
  
  I'm not sure what that has to do with Rand Paul. If you want to learn about unions and violence, this would be a more useful link. Here is a good historical overview. For the motive behind the FUD about "union violence", see this and this.
  
  Of course, we can't really blame the conservative half the country on the acts of a single member.
  Of course. Conservatives may be, by and large, mistaken in their views, but I certainly do not wish to suggest that they all are directly responsible for the reprehensible acts of a few -- any more than everyone on the left is directly responsible for the reprehensible acts of a few.
  But that's not the proposition you put forth. Your claim was that you has not seen evidence that anyone on the right was in favor of forceful censorship. That can only be true if you are living in near-isolation from the world, or if you were -- consciously or unconsciously -- closing your mind to highly visible evidence. And you specifically named Palin; a few minutes with Google could have saved you from looking pretty ignorant there.
  
  --
  Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
  You cannot wash away blood with blood
110. Re:1st Amendment by superdave80 · 2011-02-06 17:04 · Score: 1
  
  Um, THAT guy said he doesn't want to bring it back. How exactly do you jump to the conclusion that "nobody wants to reinstate the fairness doctrine"?
111. Re:1st Amendment by Coren22 · 2011-02-07 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  You really believe health care reform was a good thing?
  Lets charge people who can't afford insurance more money for not carrying insurance...this was bad
  Lets make insurance much more expensive for those who still carry insurance...good?
  Both of those were outcomes of the HCR, I don't know what else was in that bill, as I don't have the time to actually read it, nor am I a lawyer who can read lawyer speak...
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
112. Re:1st Amendment by Coren22 · 2011-02-07 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  And speaking of the vice president, why is it so many people here say they hate Palin because she's an idiot have nothing bad to say about Joe Biden, who is not only an equal or better idiot than Palin could ever dream of becoming, but is also the Vice fucking President of the United States!!!
  And as I heard many Dems say during the election time, he's one heartbeat away from being president!
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
113. Re:1st Amendment by bennomatic · 2011-02-07 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  [Citation Needed]
  
  And no, Fox News and/or Sarah Palin do not count as citations when it comes to objective analysis on the outcomes of HCR.
  
  --
  The CB App. What's your 20?
114. Re:1st Amendment by jmac_the_man · 2011-02-08 12:51 · Score: 1
  
  If "some people" wanted to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, wouldn't the time to do it be when you've got the presidency, a 40-vote majority in the House of Representatives and a 60-40 majority in the Senate
  Supporters of the Fairness Doctrine lacked at least two of those things. According to the Wikipedia article, towards the beginning of her Speakership, Nancy Pelosi said that most of her caucus (e.g. the Democrats in the House) opposed reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, although she personally supported it. As a candidate, President Obama also said he would oppose re-instituting it when he was a candidate.
  YOU, on the other hand, said that "nobody" supports re-instituting it. Chuck Schumer is an influential Senator, and I linked to a video of him saying he supports it. He's not an "unknown progressive."
  
  American people, who, as we all know hate the idea of "Fairness"
  A substantial number of Americans do hate "Fairness," actually, but would be fine actual, no-scare-quotes attached Fairness. "Fairness" would be making sure there are fewer people who disagree with you. Fairness is that people can say what they want, and you can turn your radio away from Limbaugh or your television away from Olbermann. Censorship is wrong, but with the exception of NPR, there's no rule that you have to support any particular speech either. If enough people think that someone shouldn't be on the air, they won't make enough money and will get pulled from the air that way.
Do not be confused by houghi · 2011-02-05 01:18 · Score: 1

http://www.woosk.com/2008/10/parah-salin.html

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
What a gip by eedlee · 2011-02-05 01:18 · Score: 2

So now we cant make any more SarahPorn?
1. Re:What a gip by Greyfox · 2011-02-05 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  Get your Sarah Palin Love Doll before it's too late!
  
  --
  I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Perhaps... by Goose+In+Orbit · 2011-02-05 01:19 · Score: 1

...she's going to copy Dave Gorman, find a bunch of other Sarah Palins, and write a book/tv show around her adventures...
Maybe she's not a politician by js3 · 2011-02-05 01:20 · Score: 3, Informative

Maybe.. she's an entertainer pretending to be a politicans, infact did you know people PAY to hear the dumbest woman on the earth speak?

--
did you forget to take your meds?
1. Re:Maybe she's not a politician by dkleinsc · 2011-02-05 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe.. she's an entertainer pretending to be a politican
  Oh, you mean like Ronald Reagan? People like that make perfect figureheads.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
2. Re:Maybe she's not a politician by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 01:36 · Score: 0
  
  Avoid strange women and temporary variables.
3. Re:Maybe she's not a politician by amiga3D · 2011-02-05 01:42 · Score: 0
  
  Really! People pay to hear Pelosi speak? Amazing!
4. Re:Maybe she's not a politician by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 01:53 · Score: 0
  
  It's funny because Pelosi is a Democrat and not a Republican like Sarah Palin. Please mod parent funny.
5. Re:Maybe she's not a politician by amiga3D · 2011-02-05 02:00 · Score: 0
  
  Ah! I get it! It's expected for a Democrat to be an idiot. When it's a Republican it's funny. But really I just expect all politicians to be idiots and I'm almost never disappointed. Sometimes Sarah is ridiculous, sometimes she sounds nutty as hell but on her worst day she seldom sounds like the kind of idiot that Pelosi comes off as. Then there is Joe Biden. Picking Biden for a running mate was probably the shrewdest move that Obama could have made. It virtually guarantees no attempts at assasination. Even the KKK don't want Biden as president.
6. Re:Maybe she's not a politician by ScentCone · 2011-02-05 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  did you know people PAY to hear the dumbest woman on the earth speak?
  You're talking, of course, about Rosie O'Donnell? Or were you referring to Cynthia McKinney?
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
7. Re:Maybe she's not a politician by Sponge+Bath · 2011-02-05 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  As an entertainer, it's fitting that she trademark her name like other with the same act, such as Lady Bunny and Jackie Beat.
8. Re:Maybe she's not a politician by impos · 2011-02-05 03:10 · Score: 0
  
  did you know people PAY to hear the dumbest woman on the earth speak?
  You're talking, of course, about Rosie O'Donnell? Or were you referring to Cynthia McKinney?
  And which network is paying them for their political 'insight'? Of course they aren't pundits for the left, we wouldn't pay heed to them. Go back to your Fox News, I'm sure Hannity or Cavuto are waiting for you.
9. Re:Maybe she's not a politician by fermion · 2011-02-05 04:02 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  That is the trend right now. The issue is that when one is actually trying to effect change, people like her really screw it up. For instance Sarah Palin came to Houston to speak at a forced birther conference. The conference happened to be held just before the gubernatorial race between the socially conservative Republican incumbent and the fiscally conservative Democratic contender. Now people in Texas are pretty conservative, and while many people don't believe in forcing birth, many are capable of discussing it, even those who do not vote republican. So what did Sarah Palin do: she started with a pitch for the Governor and pretty much insulted everyone that was not going to vote for him. Now remember, Texas is conservative. Many people who voted against the Governor, Perry, did so because he is fiscal liberal(his policies of hiding fiscal incompetence resulted in 25% budget shortfall for the coming budget) while knowing full well that the legislature would remain very socially conservative. While this would mean that no laws would be passed allowed doctors to assist in the suicide of the mother so that the child might live, neither would we have an increase in the number of 12 years girls who sell themselves for lottery tickets knowing they can get a easily available and safe termination. There was not reason for Sarah Palin to promote Perry in such a venue. It did not help the plight of the unborn child. It only helped Sarah Palin the prostitute sell herself.
  And this is why mixing entertainment and politics is wrongs. Entertainment is there to encourage people to pay to here you talk. Politics is there so people can have fair representatives to protect their interests as much as possible. Sarah Palin, as an entertainer, did not protect the interest of the unborn child. She used the unborn child to line her pocket as an entertainer, and in the process reduced the possibility that we as a country can come together and discuss the issue rationally. Now, I don't want to pick on Sarah Palin. There are entertainers on all sides of all issues that are willing to harm the democratic debate to personally promote their earning potential. These people we do not need.
  
  --
  "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
10. Re:Maybe she's not a politician by rpunit · 2011-02-05 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  To call her dumb is being charitable. I would not judge a dumb person. I suspect that, like many on the right, she is a intelligent woman willfully playing to her (dumb) base.
  
  --
  It's my sick-nature you know !! http://techrc.blogspot.com
11. Re:Maybe she's not a politician by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 04:48 · Score: 0
  
  People underestimate her intelligence. She know's her marks and how to get money out of them. That stupid shit she says gets her coverage and lines her pockets all without having any responsibility to actually do anything except continue to spew.
12. Re:Maybe she's not a politician by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 05:45 · Score: 0
  
  We know already that she is a part of a world class group of jewel thieves. The 2008 election were just a ruse to cover the theft of the fourth largest diamond of the world from the Smithsonian Institution. Her speeches are meant to disguise her true position as a criminal master mind, with wide ranging technical wizardry, and produce some nice entertainment income on the side.
13. Re:Maybe she's not a politician by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 07:27 · Score: 0
  
  She certainly has your goat.
  Who is the dumb one?
14. Re:Maybe she's not a politician by ScentCone · 2011-02-05 07:28 · Score: 2
  
  Are you really this uninformed, filled with hate, bitter, and angry at the world, or do you just act that way because you think you're scoring some sort of points? Regardless, read up on paid speaking engagements, paid appearances, etc. If you really think that broadcast networks are the only ones who pay political activists and personalities to say what they say, then you're forming a world view based on a huge helping of deliberate ignorance.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
15. Re:Maybe she's not a politician by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 09:18 · Score: 0
  
  Really! People pay to hear Pelosi speak? Amazing!
  You must have some type of sick fetish involving Palin to be so defensive over the stupid bitch. Get a life.
16. Re:Maybe she's not a politician by markass530 · 2011-02-05 09:37 · Score: 0
  
  yea, she's dumb, like a fox
17. Re:Maybe she's not a politician by Nyder · 2011-02-05 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe.. she's an entertainer pretending to be a politicans, infact did you know people PAY to hear the dumbest woman on the earth speak?
  I pay my dumb women for other things, and no, talking isn't one of them.
  
  --
  Be seeing you...
18. Re:Maybe she's not a politician by witherstaff · 2011-02-05 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  The local economic club had her as a speaker last year. In this staunch Rep corner of Michigan it's also had the likes of W and his wife in the past few years. I don't know what she got paid for speaking but it could have been more than 1/2 a term of gov paid.
19. Re:Maybe she's not a politician by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 18:14 · Score: 0
  
  I did not know that people PAY to hear your mother. Thanks for the update chief.
20. Re:Maybe she's not a politician by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 22:19 · Score: 0
  
  When I was in Anchorage in '65, there was "Big Bertha" billed as 300 lbs. of quivering pulchritude.
21. Re:Maybe she's not a politician by wwphx · 2011-02-06 14:29 · Score: 1
  
  Yay! Another lover of South Park! That episode was fantastic.
  
  --
  When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
22. Re:Maybe she's not a politician by impos · 2011-02-06 17:58 · Score: 1
  
  Nowhere in my post is any hate, or bitterness, and most folks consider me pretty happy with the world. Just because you may possess these qualities doesn't mean that's how others are. I was pointing out the fact that FNC pays Palin for her punditry, and is able to reach an audience unmatched by O'Donnell and McKinney.
  BTW, if you're white knighting for Palin, I'm afraid YOU are
  
  ...forming a world view based on a huge helping of deliberate ignorance.
  p.s. that last part was an attempt at 'scoring some sort of points'
Dammit by Goody · 2011-02-05 01:25 · Score: 1

Does this mean I can't use the Sarah Palin name on my brand of specially-bred mutant jackasses I'm going to sell?

--
Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
1. Re:Dammit by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 03:34 · Score: 0
  
  Michelle Obama is available. And seems more appropriate for Jackasses.
2. Re:Dammit by Goody · 2011-02-05 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  Palin's "rebutting" of Michelle Obama's anti-obesity campaign invalidates that statement. Anyone who argues against an anti-obesity campaign under the guise of freedom and gives kids cookies at a school is political opportunist jackass.
  
  --
  Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
3. Re:Dammit by Beelzebud · 2011-02-05 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  Based on what? The fact that she's the first lady, or married to a Democrat, or that she tried to get kids to eat healthy, which in PalinLand is an assault on our liberties?
4. Re:Dammit by Coren22 · 2011-02-07 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  http://hotair.com/archives/2008/02/18/michelle-obama-hasnt-been-proud-of-america-in-at-least-26-years/
  Michelle says some dumb things too...
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Simple by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 01:26 · Score: 0

She's not a politician, she's a celebrity. She is no more qualified to be a politician than Arnold Schwarzenegger or Ciccolina.
She's also one of many recent political figures to be an IP maximalist.
1. Re:Simple by amiga3D · 2011-02-05 01:43 · Score: 0
  
  Or Obama.
2. Re:Simple by CRCulver · 2011-02-05 02:01 · Score: 1
  
  She's not a politician, she's a celebrity. She is no more qualified to be a politician than Arnold Schwarzenegger or Ciccolina.
  
  The rise of the professional politician, who needs an armload of qualifications before he is welcome in office, is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they established a country in which the political process was open to all (well, except slaves and women). Many early congressmen were pretty simple folks, not much more clued-up than Palin.
3. Re:Simple by drinkypoo · 2011-02-05 02:22 · Score: 2
  
  The founding fathers failed when they did not regulate political parties in the constitution. Now we have them anyway, and there's not enough limits on what they are able to do.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
4. Re:Simple by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 03:31 · Score: 0
  
  Are you a comedian? You're so fucking smart. Hilarious. All your posts are awesome. It's like watching Fox News right on Slashdot.
  It says a lot about Palin, whom you adore, that you can't defend her but can only retort with witty "yo' momma" comebacks. Pity.
  Bravo.
  Excuse me, I have to go read every magazine that gets put in front of me and complain about all the Supreme Court cases I disagree with that I can't remember the names of.
5. Re:Simple by Glock27 · 2011-02-05 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  She's not a politician, she's a celebrity. She is no more qualified to be a politician than Arnold Schwarzenegger or Ciccolina.
  She's also one of many recent political figures to be an IP maximalist.
  Ah, the tired talking points of the entirely clueless.
  First of all, she was a very successful office holder in Alaska. Even after being savaged by the national media, her popularity never fell below 50% when she was governor. Second, she did some pretty amazing and worthwhile things during her governorship.
  On the other hand, we have 0bama, who reads a teleprompter fairly well. He had less time in public office before becoming President, and as Senator he didn't do much besides vote "Present". We're all getting the treat of seeing how well electing 0 is working out.
  At least Sarah Palin loves America and believes in American Exceptionalism. I'd rather have her as President than 0 by a factor of about 1000.
  
  --
  Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
  Score: -1 100% Flamebait
6. Re:Simple by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 04:19 · Score: 0
  
  http://slashdot.org/~amiga3D
  Not the same Anon as parent, but he's correct: look at his posts.
7. Re:Simple by ColdWetDog · 2011-02-05 05:17 · Score: 2
  
  First of all, she was a very successful office holder in Alaska. Even after being savaged by the national media, her popularity never fell below 50% when she was governor. Second, she did some pretty amazing and worthwhile things during her governorship.
  If you define 'successful' as not getting arrested or indited, then yes. Otherwise, not so much. Remember, she was running against Murkowski Sr., an ancient, decrepit, arrogant fossil. She didn't do very much at all during her (brief) tenure and most of what actually was accomplished was done by her Lt. Governor, Sean Parnell (who is now the real governor). Her 'accomplishments' included selling Murkowski's jet and brokering some oil / gas legislation that will likely get overturned in the current legislative session because it has more holes than a MacPro.
  
  At least Sarah Palin loves America and believes in American Exceptionalism. I'd rather have her as President than 0 by a factor of about 1000.
  Palin loves herself and not much else. She's a classic demagogue-to-be. If you want American politicians to be shallow, vapid caracatures, then fine, that's your call, but most of us don't think she is suited for running anything much more complicated than a crayon.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
8. Re:Simple by amiga3D · 2011-02-05 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  I'm glad your amused. :) I don't think you read my other posts dimwit or you'd see that I don't adore Palin. In fact she seems like a nut to me. It's just hard to believe that she's so hated. She's really done mostly nothing other than be governor of Alaska and run for VP of the USA. Meanwhile we've got certified nutcases like Pelosi steadily helping fuck the country up, a whole congress of them from both sides of the aisle. Yeah I'm no Palin fan but she ain't the one putting the fucking on me right now....that nasty cunt Pelosi and her cronies in congress and her man Obama in the White House. I wish to hell Pelosi would quit politics and take her ass out to the desert in Cali for her own reality show. Have a nice day and stay anonymous there stupid.
9. Re:Simple by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 12:08 · Score: 0
  
  That was a well thought out, well reasoned, and logical response on why you love Palin so much and hate all democrats. And maybe a Republican if you are forced to act non-partisan. When was Pelosi "certified" a nutcase. Please provide a reference to where a medical doctor made this "certification."
  Congress is fucked up, but it's not because Pelosi, it's because of people like you. Republicans have your vote because all you demand is that not have a (D) after their name. You want nothing and they give you nothing. Boehner isn't going to change anything and he's in charge of the House. Hell, on day 1 he gave his excuse. He said Obama sets the agenda for Congress. BS. Congress sets its own agenda. The White House can't even intro a bill. But Boehner has already told you what he's going to do. Nothing, but he'll blame it on Obama and you'll love him for it. Congratulations, you traded one politician for another.
  I'm sure it doesn't matter what happens, you'll vote Republican from here till eternity. You'll vote for Palin so you'll have plenty of masturbation material in your mom's basement while watching Fox News. And as the country slides further down from your apathy it will all be Pelosi's fault (do you know any other Congress members?).
  Have a nice day and stay retarded, Asshat. Now go run back to the FoxNews boards so someone can tell you what to say in response.
10. Re:Simple by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 16:27 · Score: 0
  
  You're a fucking idiot, hope that helps.
11. Re:Simple by amiga3D · 2011-02-07 14:45 · Score: 1
  
  You know it's amazing what a moron you are. Because I disagree with you or don't worship Obama and Pelosi I must be a Republican? Geez! The fact is that I've stated....many times...that I think Palin is nutty and I'm not fond of most of the Repubs either. This is the problem with American Politics, everyone has their side, D or R and if anyone disagrees with them they must be on the other side. I have my side. My side is I'm tired of the ass fucking I get from BOTH sides. I want the fuckers out of my wallet. I'm sick of more and more and more and more money thrown at every problem and it just gets wasted. It's not just the Dems, when W was in there he found plenty of ways for his cronies to milk the cow just like the current figurehead is doing for his bunch. It needs to stop but you morons keep thinking that if only everyone would listen to your side it would all get better. Wise up! The 2 party shuffle is killing us. Yes, Boner is just more BS. We go from one scam artist to another. Palin is not a problem for me because she holds no office. Why waste all this hatred on someone off making money doing reality shows when we have all these clowns in congress finding ways to piss away trillions of dollars? Ah well....you keep blaming FOX news and Palin for all your problems. When the country finally runs out of money I wonder what you'll do then? Maybe you'll think about how you kept falling for the same ole shell game...nah....you'll blame a goofy ex governor and mean ole FOX news for stealing it all. Stay Anonymous there coward. No one can figure out what an ignorant little shit you are that way.
Yawn by avtchillsboro · 2011-02-05 01:29 · Score: 1

yawn....
We'll just have to call her something else by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 01:30 · Score: 1, Funny

i've been calling her "that stupid cunt from alaska"... & nobody seems to have any problem figuring out who im talking about.
1. Re:We'll just have to call her something else by amiga3D · 2011-02-05 01:38 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  It would only confuse those who don't know Pelosi is from California.
Trademarking her name... by jenningsthecat · 2011-02-05 01:33 · Score: 1, Funny

...is an effort at branding herself. And I'd be happy to help her. Can I start the fire and hold the branding iron, dear Sarah?

--
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
1. Re:Trademarking her name... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 06:41 · Score: 0
  
  Wow. Just wow. I'm guessing you're into torture porn and look like this: Comic book guy
The Summary Answers Itself... by damn_registrars · 2011-02-05 01:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

From the front page summary:

more common for celebrities in the fields of entertainment, fashion or sports
She is clearly in entertainment - how many TV shows are about her right now?

She is also in fashion - we all heard about her massive wardrobe budget when she was campaigning with McCain.

And her entertainment is sport - at least to her. She tells us about her heroic helicopter hunting trips, and her husbands awesome snowmobile races. Those definitely count as sport where she is.

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
1. Re:The Summary Answers Itself... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 06:57 · Score: 0
  
  Hmm, now what OTHER profession combines entertainment, fashion, and sport, and seeks a very public venue in which the product you're selling is a person of dubious character? Hint: it's been around at least as long as politics.
2. Re:The Summary Answers Itself... by damn_registrars · 2011-02-05 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm, now what OTHER profession combines entertainment, fashion, and sport, and seeks a very public venue in which the product you're selling is a person of dubious character? Hint: it's been around at least as long as politics.
  Are you thinking of prostitution perhaps?
  
  --
  Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
3. Re:The Summary Answers Itself... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 11:20 · Score: 0
  
  From the front page summary:
  
  more common for celebrities in the fields of entertainment, fashion or sports
  She is clearly in entertainment - how many TV shows are about her right now?
  She is also in fashion - we all heard about her massive wardrobe budget when she was campaigning with McCain.
  And her entertainment is sport - at least to her. She tells us about her heroic helicopter hunting trips, and her husbands awesome snowmobile races. Those definitely count as sport where she is.
  Maybe this is being done for legal reasons, another way to get back at Larry Flynt in case he decides to release any more sequels to his critically acclaimed film Who's nailin Paylin
It's to head off ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 01:49 · Score: 1

SarahPalinIsARetard.com
SarahPalinIsADumbCunt.com
SarahPalin ... well you get it.
Nailin Palin by grimJester · 2011-02-05 01:50 · Score: 1

Unless it's included in "entertainment services" she seems to have made a mistake. Perhaps she realized that having the trademark listed for pornography would make her a laughing stock? It's also possible that wouldn't be granted because of prior art. Does prior art count for trademarks?
1. Re:Nailin Palin by hedwards · 2011-02-05 03:47 · Score: 1
  
  Sort of, that's where eponymous words come into play, and you're not likely to get a trademark for a term that's already in use. Hence why you see all these stupid misspelled signs. They couldn't get a trademark for the name with its proper spelling so they misspelled it and there you go.
but i live in canada by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 01:56 · Score: 0

ill still make sarahpalinisaretard
and
sarahthetardPalin
Prior art by einar2 · 2011-02-05 01:57 · Score: 0

Would not the principle of prior art still permit you to speak about "failin Palin"?

Disclaimer: Swiss and therefore neutral about US politics :-)
1. Re:Prior art by Greyfox · 2011-02-05 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  Prior art relates to patents. Trademarks are a whole other IP ball game. Patents expire, trademarks do not. You must vigorously defend your trademark, or risk losing it, but you can sit on patents or copyrights for years and then suddenly decide to sue everyone who's distributed your material. Trademarks can only be registered in a certain area, hence the Apple Music/Apple Computer troubles when Apple Computer went into the music industry. I'm not sure how much room there is for parody when trademarks are involved.
  There is some wiggle room in the area the mark is registered though, so if you still want to register a "Sarah Palin Goat Breeding Service", you probably can.
  
  --
  I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
2. Re:Prior art by cvtan · 2011-02-05 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  You mean there might be TWO of her? Arrgghh.
  
  --
  Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
Wicked Witch of the West by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 01:57 · Score: 1

It would only confuse those who don't know Pelosi is from California.
She's the Wicked Witch of the West.
Geeze!
1. Re:Wicked Witch of the West by amiga3D · 2011-02-05 02:04 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Ah! I didn't know that. It's gotten to the point that Pelosi could be trademarked too. Nothing tops "We've got to pass it to find out what's in it." It just doesn't get any better than that.
need different icon for this article by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 01:58 · Score: 0

I humbly suggest that the American flag be removed as the icon for this submission and replaced with something associated with stupidity, such as a dunce cap.
It's all that woman deserves, anyway.
Additionally, trademarking has nothing to do with her activity in government, so it seems a slightly inappropriate icon in that respect as well, in my opinion.
Running for Billionaire by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 02:05 · Score: 0

Beauty Queen, VP and now Billionaire...
IANAL... by mangu · 2011-02-05 02:23 · Score: 2

I'm under the impression that a trademark must be associated with a certain product. That's why there's Linux soap. If Sarah Palin wants to register her name as a trademark, fine, that's her problem, but she cannot keep people from using it for other purposes.
1. Re:IANAL... by Heliologue · 2011-02-05 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  That's absolutely true, but it doesn't stop idiots from trying.
2. Re:IANAL... by russotto · 2011-02-05 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  If Sarah Palin wants to register her name as a trademark, fine, that's her problem, but she cannot keep people from using it for other purposes.
  
  You've failed to consider the antidilution statutes, which say that if a mark is "famous", it covers all subject areas.
Good News Everyone! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 02:23 · Score: 1

I see this as good news then, it means she won't be running for office, as a political figure CANNOT exert such control over their name usage.
Now, you still can't sell products as "Approved by [Political figure]", but pretty much anything else is fair game.
Re:Can we update Slashdots tagline PLEASE? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 02:24 · Score: 1

God forbid you conservatards have to see an opinion that differs from yours.
Please Stop by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 02:24 · Score: 1

She will never go away if everyone keeps clicking on every headline that contains her name.
Join me in avoiding her, and let's start talking about real issues.
Her daughter too... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 02:25 · Score: 0

Under the little-known trademark category: Hypocritical Speakers.
Can we breathe a sigh of relief now? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 02:35 · Score: 0

Does this mean she's not planning on running for President? Can discount that nightmare scenario from happening (although her odds of winning were fairly bad anyways). No doubt she'll try to brand herself as the Republican version of Oprah and try to get her own tv talk show to counter the liberal-biased media that she has no problem being an attention-whore for. How is she a "tea party darling" again? "Constitutional scholar" aren't words I would ever use to describe Sarah Palin (tm).
Trade marking names by rossdee · 2011-02-05 02:35 · Score: 1

What does Michael Palin say about this? - He has been around as an entertainer for a long time.
Sarah is a common womans name - I am sure there was one in the Bible.
1. Re:Trade marking names by wylf · 2011-02-05 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty sure Michael wouldn't care less about "Sarah Palin" being a trademark, just like my cousin Sarah.
2. Re:Trade marking names by Sponge+Bath · 2011-02-05 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  "I am sure there was one in the Bible."
  After a quick read of the GOP/T-Bag Abridged Bible, I can categorically refudiate that. It has only one page with the text: "God hates fags."
3. Re:Trade marking names by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 03:44 · Score: 0
  
  What does Michael Palin say about this? - He has been around as an entertainer for a long time.
  Sarah is a common womans name - I am sure there was one in the Bible.
  ...and Isacc said to Abraham "Sarah Palin is a moron"
  It's in Leviticus somewhere. Probably.
4. Re:Trade marking names by sunderland56 · 2011-02-05 05:15 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I'm sure that all the other women in the world that had the incredible bad luck to be named "sarah palin" have already changed their names.
A proud moment by twoears · 2011-02-05 02:48 · Score: 2

A proud moment for the Palin family. Scumbag Levi Johnston must be very happy he got the hell out of Dodge. Problem is, he didn't get out of Bristol in time.
1. Re:A proud moment by hedwards · 2011-02-05 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  To be fair, sleeping with a Palin is always a mistake, so I'm guessing he wasn't bright enough to no better.
2. Re:A proud moment by Grapplebeam · 2011-02-05 13:11 · Score: 1
  
  I watched him get interviewed by Bill Maher. Don't get me wrong, Bill Maher is a step short of PETA when it comes to liberal radicalism, but he's not an idiot. The kid did pretty good on the questions, and Bill loves to rip apart people that don't agree with him. So while Levi ain't no genius, he's probably smarter than the combined IQ of the Palins.
  
  --
  There is no -1 Disagree.
Remember now... by ProfanityHead · 2011-02-05 03:10 · Score: 1

This is one of the early supporters of the "Teabaggers", yes, you know, the ridiculous right wing nut jobs who called themselves "teabaggers" until one of their kids showed them urbandictionary.com and they realized it meant laying your testicles on a passed out person's face and snapping pics.
Should we expect any different from her?
1. Re:Remember now... by Glock27 · 2011-02-05 03:56 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  This is one of the early supporters of the "Teabaggers", yes, you know, the ridiculous right wing nut jobs who called themselves "teabaggers"
  Another ignorant, sophomoric idiot spouts forth. Great job.
  "Tea Partiers" have never referred to themselves as "teabaggers". That tasteless epithet splattered nastily from the various liberal talking heads on TV.
  The good news is that the Tea Party folk will have the last laugh in 2012, just as they enjoyed the 2010 crushing of the progressives. I'm amazed how many folk on Slashdot who no doubt consider themselves intelligent have bought in to the unworkable ideas of the Progressive Movement. The size and scope of government is inversely proportional to individual liberty.
  Live free or die!
  
  --
  Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
  Score: -1 100% Flamebait
2. Re:Remember now... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 04:03 · Score: 0
  
  Shit, you can't even get the reference right. I don't know what you kids do these days, but back in my day "teabagging" consisted of having your nuts sucked. Feels great.
3. Re:Remember now... by siride · 2011-02-05 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  Reactionaries are always on the losing side of history. The Tea Party will be no different.
4. Re:Remember now... by The+Second+Horseman · 2011-02-05 05:09 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah, that's great. Too bad most of the Tea Party supporters seem to be oblivious or unconcerned that a ton of the money flowing into the "movement" is actually coming from some wealthy quarters (Koch Brothers, anyone?). They have no interest in you, your common cause, or any ideology. I'd question whether or not they even really care about the country or society. Folks like that just want to stay on top. They're using the Tea Party to make sure they're unregulated - so they can do whatever they want to their workers, pollute, lower their own taxes, move money around, and make sure that anything they need - infrastructure, pollution cleanup, whatever, are being paid for by the rest of us.
  Your genuine dissatisfaction with how things are today is being used by the very people who have caused the situation to line their own pockets. Americans actually think that income is more evenly distributed than it actually is in this country today, and think it should be even more evenly distributed than they think it is. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_44/b4201008238184.htm
  Enjoy serfdom. Because to a large part of that that upper 1%, that's all most Americans will ever be.
5. Re:Remember now... by ProfanityHead · 2011-02-05 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  This is one of the early supporters of the "Teabaggers", yes, you know, the ridiculous right wing nut jobs who called themselves "teabaggers"
  Another ignorant, sophomoric idiot spouts forth. Great job.
  "Tea Partiers" have never referred to themselves as "teabaggers". That tasteless epithet splattered nastily from the various liberal talking heads on TV.
  The good news is that the Tea Party folk will have the last laugh in 2012, just as they enjoyed the 2010 crushing of the progressives. I'm amazed how many folk on Slashdot who no doubt consider themselves intelligent have bought in to the unworkable ideas of the Progressive Movement. The size and scope of government is inversely proportional to individual liberty.
  Live free or die!
  They indeed DID refer to themselves as teabaggers. The rest of the world laughed. They then learned what it meant to today's internet culture, then they tried to rewrite history.
  Like you are now.
  If they only could get spellcheckers for the ridiculous signs. BTW, why are all the teabaggers so fat? Is this a symptom of "Live free or Die"? How fat are you?
6. Re:Remember now... by Glock27 · 2011-02-07 23:21 · Score: 1
  
  Tea Partiers (and conservatives in general) aren't reactionary - just sane. ;-)
  
  --
  Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
  Score: -1 100% Flamebait
7. Re:Remember now... by Glock27 · 2011-02-07 23:29 · Score: 1
  
  They indeed DID refer to themselves as teabaggers. The rest of the world laughed. They then learned what it meant to today's internet culture, then they tried to rewrite history.
  Like you are now.
  How 'bout one citation, genius? lol
  
  If they only could get spellcheckers for the ridiculous signs.
  Plenty of the signs are fine, and furthermore correct - unlike your silly rants.
  
  BTW, why are all the teabaggers so fat? Is this a symptom of "Live free or Die"? How fat are you?
  If being fat had anything to do with having a realistic view of the world, plenty more /. folk would be be Tea Partiers.
  As for me, I'm doing great.
  At any rate, gl with achieving a more informed worldview at some point. As Robert Anton Wilson said:
  
  "It only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single idea."
  Heh.
  
  --
  Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
  Score: -1 100% Flamebait
8. Re:Remember now... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-08 02:41 · Score: 0
  
  Sane or not, they are still reactionaries.
I know Jesse "The Body" Ventura did this by brokeninside · 2011-02-05 03:37 · Score: 1

His trademark, of course, was filed while he was still purely an entertainer. Nevertheless in came in useful when he ran for governor and his opponent sent put a mailer with Jesse's likeness in his full blown wrestling regalia repleat with feathered roach clips and a boa. Ventura was able to sue to stop the mailing.
More interesting is whether such options would be viable where there was a larger conflation between political and entertainer personas. Unlike Ventura's situation there is no obvious bright line between Palin's persona as a politician and as an entertainer.
If Palin does get a trademark, I would hope that the courts would reject any trademark infingement case over references to Palin with regards to her political persona.
1. Re:I know Jesse "The Body" Ventura did this by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 11:01 · Score: 0
  
  "His trademark, of course, was filed while he was still purely an entertainer."
  The bitch (trying nor to use copyrighted names) is purely an entertainer, albeit not very entertaining.
Michael Palin doesn't have to worry by brokeninside · 2011-02-05 03:43 · Score: 1

Neither so Sarahs with any last name other than Palin. In fact even other Sarah Palins don't have to worry unless they intend to market themselves in the same industry niche as Sarah Palin. If Palin is awarded a trademark on her name, someone with the given name Sarah Palin, for example, could market him or herself as a comedian and not have to worry at all. What it might do is give Palin grounds to sue Hustler if Hustler makes a sequel to Nailin' Paylin and clearly references the persona as described by the trademark.
Worthless by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 03:57 · Score: 0

Isn't slashdot supposed to be news for nerds? Why are we talking about a person who refuses to believe in science?
Pusat Iklan Baris Gratis by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 04:00 · Score: 0

Good info ! Thanks
Pusat Iklan Baris GRATIS.com
Pasang Iklan GRATIS Tanpa Daftar, Tampil Selamanya
http://www.pusatiklanbarisgratis.com
That's a relief! by cvtan · 2011-02-05 04:04 · Score: 2

The article says Sarah is out of government. That's a big load off my mind. Now I can lump her in with other mindless celebrities like Paris Hilton and the Kardashian gaggle.

--
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
1. Re:That's a relief! by The+Second+Horseman · 2011-02-05 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  Great. Those comparisons bring to mind a sex tape. I think I just threw up in my mouth.
2. Re:That's a relief! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 05:34 · Score: 0
  
  Google "Who's nailin' palin" if you wanna get that out of your mouth. ;)
3. Re:That's a relief! by cvtan · 2011-02-05 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry. I REALLY didn't mean to go there.
  
  --
  Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
4. Re:That's a relief! by snowgirl · 2011-02-05 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  Kardashians don't come in gaggles, they come in gargles.
  
  --
  WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
pr0n by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 04:34 · Score: 0

So now the porn studio will have to re-brand a rather famous title to "Who's Nailin' P@ilin"?
Nope, distinct area of law by Theaetetus · 2011-02-05 04:37 · Score: 1

Does this mean she's trying to prevent others from using her name in articles/posts/blogs/etc without her approval or consent? Will she be able to use the DMCA to force removal of anything negative about her that she does't like?
As the name implies, the Digital Millennium COPYRIGHT Act applies to copyright law, not trademark law. With a registered trademark, she can prevent others from using her name on commercial products where there's a likelihood of consumer confusion that she's endorsing, sponsoring, or created the goods. Like, if you sell "Sarah Palin's Gun Cozy," you'll get hit with an infringement suit. If you post a blog entry saying "Sarah Palin's a greedy doofus," this is entirely outside trademark law.
Jesus fucking Christ.... by enormouspenis · 2011-02-05 05:09 · Score: 0

can Slashdot get off the fucking Palin derangement bandwagon please? WTF does this news have to do with anything but your hate for conservatives? Does this derangement permeate EVERYTHING in our society? How about a brand new post bashing George Bush and Tomcat? Maybe an article explaining how awesome free internet access under Chavez is? I thought it was news that matters....fucking childish idiots.....

--
"I didn't spend six years in Evil Medical School to be called 'Mr.Evil,' thank you very much!"
Quick - someone trademark "the Palinator" by tomhudson · 2011-02-05 05:10 · Score: 1

'Sarah is somebody who is now out of government and pursuing other activities

The Palinator ... seeing as she pretty much wrecks everything in politics that she touches.
The Dems are going to be VERY unhappy about this.
Does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 05:16 · Score: 0

that I have to pay her if I call something "A steaming pile of Palin," or say, "Darn, my leftovers have turned into a puddle of green Palin?"
Other side of the coin by Shrike9 · 2011-02-05 05:22 · Score: 0

Well, well, well. It seems as though the mob grows restless. I've heard it said conservatives are so narrow minded that their ears touch and I've heard liberals are so open minded their brains have dropped out. I think most of us are too frightened to hear things that challenge us in our comfort zones. Sarah Palin says we need to look out for ourselves, quit depending on the Gubmint, and stiffen our backs with a little pride in America. What's wrong with that? The only people I hear trying to suppress speech in America are folks like Clyburn who want to shut the likes of Beck and Limbaugh down. Franken and Air America were dismal failures because no one wants top hear all the vitriol from Rhodes, etc. I listen a little to both sides of the story -- mostly to keep tabs on both sides. Seems it would make for a more intelligent poplulace if we all do so. It's just not smart politics to let either side have too much control. Notice all the states and cities controlled by Democrats have massive debt that may go into default? Just my 2 cents.
No, no, don't let it happen... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 05:54 · Score: 0

So, what would a success in trademarking her name mean for other people named "Sarah Palin"?
Would they be obliged to change their names? Would a take-down succeed if they used their names on facebook, twitter, & maybe billboards & stationery letterheads? Inquiring minds want to know...:-)
Easier to just not report stories? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 06:09 · Score: 0

So a news organization can take the time to get her permission before reporting a story that includes her copyrighted name, or be first to press by dropping her name from marketable stories, and dropping stories explicitly about her, right?
Meaning that for the next two years we'll see stories about pro-small-business Democrats and Rockefeller Republicans, maybe a health care industry that's regulated but threatens neither providers nor patients, trivial taxes on the poor, reasonable taxes on a hypothetical middle class, and diabolical taxes on billionaire bahstads, right?
Perhaps Sarah What's-her-name could run for office in a country where the copyright laws wouldn't support this. Like one with barely any military and no significantly large businesses or oil deposits.
Maybe the Moon; she might fit nicely into the culture there.
News for nerds? Stuff that matters? by ryanisflyboy · 2011-02-05 06:19 · Score: 1

It isn't my intention to troll. Please /. editors. No more Sarah Palin stories. No one cares. That is all..
Prior art by Dcnjoe60 · 2011-02-05 06:28 · Score: 1

One only has to do a brief search of ancestory.com to see that the former governer of Alaska is not the first Sarah Palin to exist. Therefore, wouldn't that fall under prior art?
*scratchinghead by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 06:29 · Score: 1

yo, slashdot, why are you reporting ANYTHING about her?
Oxymoron by Dcnjoe60 · 2011-02-05 06:30 · Score: 1

I know the latest thing people patent is intellectual property, but wouldn't that be an oxymoron where Sarah Palin is concerned?
Wrong direction by Veggiesama · 2011-02-05 06:51 · Score: 1

If instead of campaigning on her own image, Sarah Palin spent half that time studying world history... er... if she spent that whole time studying instead of, you know, then... well...
Okay, I guess she'd need a lot more time than that to shore up her deficiencies.
Pink Ponies!!111!11 by fbartho · 2011-02-05 06:54 · Score: 1

Ponies!!

--
Gravity Sucks
Obligatory by dontmakemethink · 2011-02-05 07:21 · Score: 1

I'd still hit it

--

War as we knew it was obsolete
Nothing could beat complete denial
- Emily Haines
1. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 07:58 · Score: 0
  
  with a brick maybe
Slow news day by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 08:00 · Score: 0

Excuse me but how is this news for nerds? Is it because us male geeks all have an HD copy of "Nailin Pailin" on our hard-drives?
Nickname? by greg_barton · 2011-02-05 08:22 · Score: 2

I guess we'll have to start using her Wasilla nickname now: Nutty McNutfucker.
1. Re:Nickname? by 517714 · 2011-02-05 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  I guess we'll have to start using her Wasilla nickname now: Nutty McNutfucker.
  Palin would not object to that epithet nearly so vigorously as McDonald's
  
  --
  The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
2. Re:Nickname? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 16:01 · Score: 0
  
  I'm sorry, I don't normally comment on much here in Slashville, but I literally read your comment as I was drinking beer and laughed so hard. Probably ruined my keyboard, but thank you. Hahaha.
3. Re:Nickname? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-06 04:41 · Score: 0
  
  Using a trademarked name on an election ballot would be a problem, so its either "Nutty McNutfucker" or not appear on the ballot at all.
Good thing by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 08:31 · Score: 0

We wouldn't want any clones of her, now would we. Although I doubt anyone could produce a clone that's cheaper than the original.
I'm going to trademark air by Rooked_One · 2011-02-05 09:06 · Score: 1

and while i'm at it, might as well cover the atoms within a drop of water.
Palindrome? by G3ckoG33k · 2011-02-05 10:05 · Score: 1

Palindrome and Palindromedary too?
1. Re:Palindrome? by jarlsberg71 · 2011-02-07 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  I coined the phrase "PalinDrone" a while back with the definition of "Everything she says is just as stupid backwards as it is forwards."
  
  --
  E8B8B
Genericize it! by Dahamma · 2011-02-05 10:31 · Score: 1

That's ok, we just need to make her name a ubiquitous term so her trademark protection will be lost.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks
Culling a few from Urban Dictionary, how about:
Palin ("Pulling a"): Quitting when faced with adversity; Abandoning the responsibility entrusted to you; Quitting after realizing you can't withstand basic criticisms and complications of your job.
And.. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 10:48 · Score: 0

While she's at it, she should trademark "Intergalactic Pie-Hole", just to be safe.
Remember: Pies For Palin. Bake a pie. Send it to Sarah.
Good Sign? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 10:55 · Score: 0

Possibly an indication that she will not be running for president but seeks paid work as professional political activist/fundraiser since the move seems to indicate that she seeks to commercialize her name/brand. I.e. she is taking her name private and does not wish to be considered a public figure. If approved, I wonder how it will affect the bloggers and other supporters who use her name and image.
maybe she wants a piece of the action by Infoport · 2011-02-05 11:07 · Score: 1

maybe she wants to cash in on "Steampunk Palin" while some people are still able to keep their food down.
Steampunk Palin comic, not for weak of stomach

(ok, back to my Palin-free February)
To avoid trademark infringement, by picoboy · 2011-02-05 11:15 · Score: 2

I think we should all just start calling her "She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named".
Prior art? by tgeller · 2011-02-05 11:21 · Score: 1

Wait... there are doubtlessly other Sarah Palins. According to a web site that specializes in such things*, there are three. Couldn't any of those people -- particularly if older -- effectively squash the application? --Tom *I'm not giving the link because it has obnoxious pop-unders. You're welcome.

--
Tom Geller
1. Re:Prior art? by rubycodez · 2011-02-05 17:33 · Score: 1
  
  I'll post it, no pop-unders for me, with noscript and adblock plus http://howmanyofme.com/people/Sarah_Palin/ I would assume the other two Sarah Palin's aren't nationally known dumb ignorant cunts
Good. Let her. by rnturn · 2011-02-05 11:41 · Score: 1

Maybe that could be an excuse for the MSM to refrain from reporting on her every move. Her fifteen minutes of fame were up years ago.

--
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
No more Palin Fatigue? by niBee · 2011-02-05 12:02 · Score: 1

I wonder what Colbert... err I mean Mika Brzezinski will think of this?
She better hurry. by macdaddy357 · 2011-02-05 12:35 · Score: 1

If she doesn't get this done really quickly, Mattel will make a Caribou Barbie doll before she gets a chance to stop them.

--
How ya like dat?
Bob Dole could not trademark his name by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 14:47 · Score: 0

Even if Bob Dole wanted to trademark his name he would have difficulty since there is a real possibility of confusing him with a pineapple.
You can have that trademark, Palin ,,, by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 14:50 · Score: 0

I would not like it anyway. I would not like to be associated with a name like that .... I feel sorry for the women who do.
So... by crusher-1 · 2011-02-05 20:10 · Score: 2

If my family's name is "Palin" this means she owns the rights to my daughter if she's was named Sarah? What about the "prior" art argument? According to howmanyofme dot com there are 790,847 named Sarah, 1,178 people with the sir name of Palin, and 3 people named Sarah Palin. Do the other 3 people have to pay a licensing fee if the former governor get her patent (very likely give the behavior of the U.S. PTO of late)?
Wonderful cure for constipation! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-05 22:25 · Score: 0

I named my favorite toilet "Sarah Palin" and id'ed it with gold foil. It has solved my problems with constipation!
Other possible trademarks... by Genda · 2011-02-06 02:00 · Score: 1

Besides her name, she might also want to trademark: "Vacuous Twit, Governor Dim-Witty, Gobsmacking Imbecile, and Opportunistic Airhead." Of course this hardly distinguishes her from legions of folks (from both sides of the aisle) in D.C. these days, it just establishes her as one of many aspiring know-nothings who wants to reduce our country to a religious based fascist state.
I heard the ugliest job in Washington during the "Dubyah years" was the person who had the task of putting their hand up his rear to operate his mouth. If Sarah should get elected, its nice to know that poor guy will have work again.
What a dumbass by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-06 02:05 · Score: 0

Voldemort of the real world!
maybe this by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-06 02:41 · Score: 0

Palindrone -- that droning monologue ... I can afford to ignore.
http://www.myfreenx.info/ by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-06 04:08 · Score: 0

MyFreeNX.info | xBox Live,iTunes,Amazon,Nexon NX,and More Items all for Free!!
www.myfreenx.info
Get FREE xBox Live, Free Nexon Cash, Free Runescape Memberships! Anything you Want is Free from MyFreeNX by taking our Surveys.
It's easy to use your free time to earn some Cash or Rewards like Vouchers,Gift Cards,Game cards,custom eBay rewards .... While you certainly won't get rich quick or instantly win prizes, if you put in a bit of effort you can earn whatever you want! You can redeem points for vouchers such as Nexon NX ,Amazon, iTunes, ASOS and Xbox Live,and much more, the choice is yours.
While you learn about new products, share information about yourself, or sign up for online services, you earn points. While MOST OFFERS ARE FREE, you will also find cashback shopping and paid/trial offers - a great way to get a deal on your online purchases!
no, it is news... by airdrummer · 2011-02-06 07:06 · Score: 1

because she & the palindrones (i should tm that;-) personify the american taliban*, which poses a significant threat to the enlightenment & rationality that has brought us the modern world that enables nerds like us to exist...
* the kleenex/generic sense: fundamentalist terrorists** who want 2 drag us back 2 the middle ages:-P
** just ask george tiller:-{
signature by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-06 22:02 · Score: 0

> 'Sarah is somebody who is now out of government ...'
Can we get that in writing please? With a signature?
"forced birther" by molo · 2011-02-07 04:38 · Score: 1

This is the first time I've heard "birther" used in an anti-abortion/pro-life context. The only context I've heard "birther" before were people doubting the birthright citizenship of Obama. Lets not confuse the terms.
-molo

--
Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
yet another example of US laws out of control by Anonymous Coward · 2011-02-07 16:10 · Score: 0

yet another example of US laws out of control
Unfortunately by Geminii · 2011-02-08 03:32 · Score: 1

The name is not linked to a politically viable product.