Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Democrats Republicans Idle Politics Technology

Democratic Super PAC Buys Newtgingrich.com 630

Posted by samzenpus
from the dirty-domain-tricks dept.
netbuzz writes "The purchase of newtgingrich.com by a Democratic Super PAC — and the use of it to highlight Newt Gingrich's political weaknesses — is either amusing or a dirty trick, depending on your politics and your view of the Republican presidential hopeful. In either case, however, it is a cautionary tale about the importance of controlling your brand online, a task that is about to get more difficult for everyone thanks to the impending expansion of generic top-level domains."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Democratic Super PAC Buys Newtgingrich.com

Comments Filter:
  • It's on a randomizer (Score:3, Informative)

    by Toe, The (545098) on Thursday December 22, 2011 @09:02AM (#38458788)

    Try it a few times: http://newtgingrich.com/ [newtgingrich.com]

  • Re:Dirty trick (Score:5, Informative)

    by parallel_prankster (1455313) on Thursday December 22, 2011 @09:07AM (#38458836)
    dicks.com actually takes me to dickssportinggoods.com. I agree with your other points though.
  • by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Thursday December 22, 2011 @09:24AM (#38459024)

    Just tried the link http://newtgingrich.com/ [newtgingrich.com] and up comes freddiemac.com

    Looks like it is on a rotating forwarder. The briefest of examinations suggests that it sends people to a URL from this list:

    http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/12/gingrichs-campaign-still-looks-awful-lot-book-tour/45977/ [theatlanticwire.com]
    http://www.greektravel.com/ [greektravel.com]
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/gingrich-senior-aides-resign/2011/06/09/AGN77VNH_blog.html [washingtonpost.com]
    http://www.tiffany.com/?siteid=1 [tiffany.com]
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaZFfQKWX54 [youtube.com]
    http://www.freddiemac.com/ [freddiemac.com]
    http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/09/11/60353/gingrich-porn/ [thinkprogress.org]
    http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=654836 [intrade.com]

    I think it is great. I'd think it was funny if it happened to any politician, or any public figure really.
    At a minimum it is funny because of all the people who will get their panties in a wad over it.

  • Re:Dirty trick (Score:5, Informative)

    by Attila Dimedici (1036002) on Thursday December 22, 2011 @09:29AM (#38459082)
    I take issue with you saying that Sheila Jackson Lee is the dumbest of the dumb, that title clearly goes to Representative Hank Johnson (the Congressman who was concerned that deploying too many troops to Guam might cause the island to capsize).
  • by dkleinsc (563838) on Thursday December 22, 2011 @10:08AM (#38459486) Homepage

    In that though you should be a big supporter of those Tea Party Republicans who will vote down any tax raises. They are standing by their guns and sticking to their promises even though they are obviously bad for the United States.

    You mean how they just voted to reject extending the payroll tax break? After that move, you can't credit those guys with being consistent.

  • by squidflakes (905524) on Thursday December 22, 2011 @11:00AM (#38460078) Homepage

    At what point is anyone demanding you give your money to them? Your taxes go to paying for goods and services that are, for the most part, publicly available. The military doesn't stop Soviet tanks from rolling over your house but allow them to roll over mine because you're in a higher tax bracket. The CDC doesn't spend more researching cures for diseases that I have because I take fewer deductions.

    All of this money goes to services for ALL of us, not just some of us. If you lost your job and became destitute, YOU TOO could apply for social assistance. If you go to the airport YOU TOO get to board an aircraft that travels down a runway and gets directed by air traffic controllers through safe airspace all paid for by me, you, and everyone else in this country.

    Taxes aren't theft, they are part of our social contract. Hell, even posting on /. over the internet has been made possible by the tax dollars of our parents going to fund DARPA projects.

    If you think this social contract amounts to stealing, then by all means, move somewhere else that is more suited to your personal desires.

  • by squidflakes (905524) on Thursday December 22, 2011 @11:03AM (#38460094) Homepage

    1.) Don't confuse federal taxes for state and local taxes.
    2.) Have you checked your tax rate lately? I bet you'll be pleasantly surprised to find that it is lower than it has been in quite a few decades.

  • by tkrotchko (124118) on Thursday December 22, 2011 @11:18AM (#38460272) Homepage

    The total tax rate including federal, FICA, state, local, sales, real estate and nuisance taxes are considerably higher than ever.

    Also keep in mind that you're comparing tax rates without considering the effects of inflation on wages.

    If you look at the tax rates on someone making $175K in 2011 you have to compare with the tax rates of someone making $30K in wages in 1950.

    Plus, people making less than $50K largely pay little or no federal income tax today.

  • by Fned (43219) on Thursday December 22, 2011 @12:09PM (#38460818) Journal

    Great post. One nitpick:

    The phrase "A rising tide lifts all boats" is absolutely true.

    No, no it's not. Not even in the literal sense.

    A far more accurate phrase would be: "A rising tide lifts only those boats that aren't sinking."

  • by cusco (717999) <brian...bixby@@@gmail...com> on Thursday December 22, 2011 @12:09PM (#38460820)
    Social security is self-funding, and will continue to be as long as the politicians keep their grubby hands off it. It's not part of the Federal budget, and including it as though it were is dishonest at best.

    Medicare WAS mostly self-funding until the drug cartels got their way with an enormous unfunded giveaway to their bank accounts. They spent a few hundred million buying both political parties, and the ROI has been astounding. I don't think they ever expected to do that well in their wildest dreams.

    The military could get slashed in half and we'd still be spending more than the next five countries combined. We could cut the Pentagram budget by 80 percent and still be the largest spender on war toys in the world. Most years if you graph the military budget and the US deficit the two amounts are amazingly close.
  • by DragonWriter (970822) on Thursday December 22, 2011 @12:11PM (#38460848)

    Except that they voted it down because they want a full year tax break...

    So do the House Democrats. So do the Senate Democrats. So do the Senate Republicans. So does the President.

    Democrats, disagree with Republicans, on other policies aside from the payroll tax holiday extension, some of which are directly related (e.g., offsetting tax increases or spending cuts to account for the lost revenue expected from extending the payroll tax holiday) and some of which are tangential but which parties are trying to use the popular payroll tax holiday as a lever to force the other side into agreeing to (e.g., accelerating approval timeline for the Keystone XL pipeline.)

    The Senate, by an 89-10 vote, approved a 2 month extension of the payroll tax holiday along with a comprise mechanism for covering the cost of the short extension and with some agreements on some of the peripheral issues, to address the fact that the expiration of the tax holiday was rapidly approaching and to provide some time for more negotiations to reach a compromise on the remaining details to accompany a longer-term extension.

    and the Senate Democrats refuse to even vote on the bill that the House already passed supporting the full year tax break.

    The Senate has already debated a full year tax break and failed to reach a consensus on the funding and other peripheral issues. They already know where the positions are of everyone in the Senate are right now on those issues, and know that neither the version of those issues in the House bill nor any other version has sufficient support to pass the Senate right now. Which is why, after extensive discussion and negotiation around the full-year extension requested by the President, the Senate passed the interim 2 month extension to provide time to reach a deal on a longer term extension, a goal which has nearly-universal support in the Senate, but where key differences on implementation details remain that would be fatal to any particular bill until they are resolved.

  • by dwye (1127395) on Thursday December 22, 2011 @12:36PM (#38461162)

    I mentioned this to a friend who is a Professional Engineer - that's the proper term for a Civil Engineer. The fact that people get killed when people like him screw up is the reason that it would be a criminal expense for him to even claim to be a Professional Engineer without the proper license.

    No, a Professional Engineer in one licensed in his/her state. Most engineers are not, whether they are Civil Engineers, or any other type. Most of the Professional Engineers that I have met were Mechanical Engineers, as it happens, but could be Chemical, Electrical, Nuclear, Welding, Aeronautical, or whatever other type you can remember. However, it would be a criminal offense for your friend to claim to be a Professional Engineer in any of the subtypes other than Civil, just as my friends could not legally claim to be Professional Civil Engineers.

  • by AngryDeuce (2205124) on Thursday December 22, 2011 @01:52PM (#38462262)

    The tax and regulatory environment, domestically, is the environment in which business must either turn a profit or close its doors. Contrary to your delusional rant, the tax and regulatory environment is *everything* to a business that must turn a profit to survive.

    Funny, we seemed to be doing just fine until Reagan and his deregulation bullshit came around. Our main economic problems then stemmed from OPEC arbitrarily doubling the price of a barrel of oil, and that was simple greed on their part.

    Yes. The lack of demand, due to higher cost, due to higher taxes and more regulation, compared with places like China, with lower costs and fewer regulations.

    Lack of demand as in "how many people can afford to even buy a fucking iPad in the first place?". People that are struggling to pay their mortgage aren't buying consumer goods or services. What's the first thing people start cutting when they're hurting financially? The lawn service, the cable bill, eating out, buying electronic toys, upgrading the television, the newest BluRay releases. Wealth doesn't trickle down, but we can see with our own eyes what happens when it ceases trickling up because they don't have any at the bottom. If it wasn't for the explosion of credit in the 90's and 00's, we would have felt the effects of this shit much sooner. People still couldn't afford the shit they were buying, but it was a fuck of a lot easier for them to charge it then.

    Due to high taxes and regulation, they move jobs to China ( and other lower cost environments ) via outsourcing and someone else makes the widgets.

    No, they moved the jobs to China to increase their profits because the drive towards globalization in the 80's made it cheaper to produce over there than here. In countries with more protectionist measures in place, like Canada, and Germany, you see that the global recession hasn't fucked them nearly as bad as we have been. Allowing business to import goods without paying an import tax is what crippled our economy, not fucking regulations. Before that, they had no choice but to follow the regulations, and guess what? Everybody did just fine. They continued to get rich (just not as rich) and their employees were able to actually afford the shit they were producing.

    Besides, there are good regulations. Unless you want another Love Canal [wikipedia.org], for instance, there needs to be regulations and stiff penalties for polluting. Do you want to live in polluted shit like they do in many parts of China? As always, out of sight, out of mind; pay no attention to the river that's fucking burning due to all the pollutants in it. [wikipedia.org]

    Every rich asshole knows you don't get rich by consuming things. You get rich by producing things for a profit.

    Only if there is someone to buy the shit they're making. The less disposable income the middle class has, the less of the shit they're producing gets sold. Henry Ford deliberately paid his employees very well (for the time) to be able to afford the cars they were making. When people make shit wages they don't have the money to buy the crap. It doesn't matter how cheaply they can produce the crap, if people are struggling, they're not gonna buy it.

    No matter how rich you become, you're only going to need one fucking toaster, and that's never going to change. Throwing more money or opportunity at "Job Creators" doesn't effect demand for their product at all. Only throwing money at the consumers so that they can continue consuming is going to do that. Once they have the disposable income to go to movies, and go out to eat, and buy new flat-panels, the wealth trickles right the fuck up. For better or for worse, we're a consumer culture. You want to make things better, give people

Life is a game. Money is how we keep score. -- Ted Turner

Working...