Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
United States

George W. Bush buys anti-Bush names 231

Quite a number of people have written over the last few days, alerting us to the fact that it appears that presidential candidate George W. Bush, has bought up over 200 Internet Domain Names. The article on Zdnet says that people wanted to put a website up at, but Bush bought that, and more such as,, and even Huh-I guess it's a way of having a clue. Sort of.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

George W. Bush buys anti-Bush names

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward
  • by Anonymous Coward, and are all different sites. Woops. Someone missed a few.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    I wonder if you could register

    Better would be to do a bunch of blatantly and sincerely neo-nazi domain names, with lots of neo-nazism on 'em, and pack the meta tags with perfectly normal Bush and Buchanan crapola. (I mean, as "normal" as Buchanan gets. When he's speaking to a national audience he usually does pull up short of neo-nazism.) So anyway, suck a lot of mainstream, timid voters into a fake neo-nazi web site and have ringing endorsements of Bush and Buchanan. But make them ringingly neo-nazi endorsements. I've heard that in Louisiana, David Duke occasionally lurches up out of his slumber and endorses somebody -- who invariably falls over himself denying any association! It's wonderful. Poor Duke. (By the way, Duke is well thought of in the well-dressed middle class western suburbs of Philadelphia -- they think he got a raw deal. So much for facile assumptions (mine, for example :) about the South v. the North, eh? If Duke endorsed a candidate in Haverford, it would be warmly appreciated.)

    The right wing has gotten tremendous mileage out of painting moderate centrists as "extremist left-wing radicals". Okay, fair enough. Let's play.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    Buying internet domain names is also a form of freedom. Just because these anti-Bush people weren't smart enough to buy the domains first, doesn't mean Bush shouldn't be allowed to do so.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    As an American, I lost ALOT of faith in my country.

    I dont like how we arm militias of 3rd world countrys so we can help take over their gov

    I dont like how we police the world.

    I dont like how the politicians arent in it to better the country, but to better there own careers.

    I dont like our over-agressive capitolism-But capitolism is a great thing, if done correctly and fairly.

    They say if you dont like it, you can leave

    Well, I don't like it-I can't change it, so im moving to canada.

    Just my $0.02

    PS: If you are going to whine and cry about spelling/grammar errors, save the bandwidth and forget reminding me how terrible I am.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Your comments are just stupid.

    Settle down, no need to get frustrated.

    It's a free market economy. If Bush is smart enough to buy up those names before some anti-bush person does, then more power to him.

    Smart? For doing what, letting the bushsucks websites find another name, that is smart? That is a lame attempt.

    Yeah, free market, I buy out your company have them fire you, buy out the every company you could work for and have them deny you a job even as janator, and then when you're wife has to leave you because you can't afford to be with her, then I will take her, or give her to a friend.
    Hey!!!! Its a free market. I can buy anything with enough money, even if it is not for sale. If your wife is beautiful enough I can imagine many other rich men trying to do the same thing, we may even poll our money together just to get our turn with her.

    Let someone use their geocities account to post bad things against Bush, it just won't be as easy for people to find it.

    Exactly, its not how bush did it (buying up a lot of obvious bushsucks site names), its what it says in his actions.... "You can dislike me, but you wont be able to scream loud enough about it".

    Sure money is power, but it isn't ethics, morals, or responsibility. Sure guns give you sense of power, but they also don't give you those things, and Colorado is a good example of abuse of that kind of power. Abuse of money is another thing, personly I think it was a dumb thing he did, not only a waste of money, but also a bad message to send out to everyone.

    Either you don't live in the US (and thus don't really understand our country), or you do but really have no clue of how "free speech" and "market economy" go together.

    All right lets not be lame, I'm not saying he is not free to buy them, just like I am free to shoot you there is nothing "real" holding me back, but there are and should be moral and ethical problems with this. You should know the diffrence.

    If I was a Democrat, I wouldn't list that as a reference to some negative thing used against Bush.

    Of course not, but there are people who would be interested, just like their are people who are interested in clintonsucks sites, and the rest of the anti sites, its just human nature to look at the bad side of something, as well as the good sides. And GB obviously know this, but he his solution is not to discuss anything its to buy everything out.

    Actually your comments leave me speachless. I've never heard such a warped point of view.

    OK, then try to explain why he bought them with out getting close to my "warped point of view".
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 15, 1999 @10:43PM (#1890162)
    They also suggest that you "protect your internet
    brand name" by buying up the .net, .com, and .org version of your domain name. Isn't that a blatant violation of what .org and .net were supposed to be for?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 15, 1999 @10:50PM (#1890163)
    This is slightly off topic: I just want to remind everyone to register to vote, read up on the issues, and vote. This crap does affect you and don't be turned off by the negative advertizing which is used by both sides and which is designed to disgust people into not voting. Geeks and other independent minded people are easily turned off by this stuff. Don't get fooled, find a reason to vote and do it.
  • I agree with you - I personally own 4 domains right now - all for various reasons

    I also thing companies should be able to buy as many domains as they wish - tho I'm waiting for IPv6/IPng to grow - wonder if we'll have this domain buying spree all over again...

  • Well, the second idea wouldn't work. Once you've registered a domain, you control all the hostnames in that domain. So if somebody owns the BUSHSUCKS.COM domain, they can make,,,, whatever they want, ad infinitum.

    Oh well. Please don't encourage cracking, by the way. Cracking is bad. And it's not constructive, either. And anyone who cracks for political reasons can get in really deep doo-doo. So don't do it.
  • I agree with this completely - I think that Bush is in fact infringing on my first Amendment right to free speech. He is preventing me from saying to the u.s. citizens on the web that "Bush Sucks (dot org)"

    I think this is the real issue anyhow, not whether he dropped 14 grand with NSI just for publicity.

  • Although he did register 200 domain names, making Network Solutions, even richer, he did not pick up all anti-bush names. is still open.. Network Solutions must like this new idea, and hopes even more organizations follow it...
  • And as for good publicity vs. bad publicity, there's not much difference. Publicity is the point. Forget who said it, but "say whatever you like about me, just so long as you spell my name right."

    Apparently this time it was more interesting what he said than who he was.

  • by Micah ( 278 ) on Saturday May 15, 1999 @11:09PM (#1890171) Homepage Journal
    I've always believed that there should be strict rules for buying domain names:

    1. You must be some kind of an official organization
    2. There should be a certain number of individual computers uniquely connected to it (no virtual hosting crap)
    3. ONLY ONE domain per organization
    4. That name must say who you are

    Domain names were never intended to be used by everly little clown that wants a web site. They were intended to identify networks and to give organizations their own namespace.

    I like Bush, but this is kinda stupid. Maybe I'll vote for Alan Keyes like I did last time.
  • Images of SPACE:1999 come to mind...

  • it may be childish, but they have every right to do so. Bush has lost my vote because what he is trying to do is prevent people from being able to put up a site to rally against him. That amounts as an attempt to censor people. It won't work, not on the Internet, but the fact that he tried makes him an absolutely horrible candidate as far as I am concerned. And of course, we know Gore invented the internet right? Yeah. I'm looking for a 3rd candidate.
  • Well, is also a blatant violation of what .org is supposed to be for, but we don't complain about that.
  • However, Rob has said himself that he makes money from Slashdot. In fact, it's his only source of income, since he has no other job.
  • umm, Slashdot is a non-profit organization,

    Umm, no it's not. Slashdot is run by BSI, a company, not a non-profit organization. Rob has said himself that he makes money from Slashdot's banner ads. In fact, since Rob has no other job, Slashdot is his sole source of income.


    You remind me of a middle school student. Are you 12 or 13?
  • Posted by pennacook:

    i was thinking :)

  • ...against buying a name without intending to actually use it. It's one thing to talk about buying a name indenting to sell it to someone else who needs it (what's already illegal), but it's even worse (IMO) to buy a name just for the intent of preventing someone else from being able to use it at all and just sitting on it.

    If Bush buys, he should be required to actually use it.

  • Of course, I'm stuck in Sweden at the moment, so I don't have a clue about the potential candidates. I know that Gore doesn't have a clue, but what about George, how does he stand up when it comes to technical matters?

    It doesn't matter. A president's job has little to do with technical matters. If you think Gore hasn't a clue (he actually has the ability to borrow a clue; one wishes he would remind himself of that sometimes), then Bush would be an even bigger joke. Like his father (a man I really like, BTW -- except as a politician), George W just wants to be president; the only relevant details he has worked on so far is fund-raising and focus groups. Policies are not so worked-out at this time, i.e., they're for sale to the highest bidder, be it a special interest group or a corporation. He's ahead in the polls right now, but if the press scrutinizes his past business deals (e.g. Harken Energy, and the Texas Rangers baseball team), the voters will see that he made a lot of money from his surname and the fact that his dad was (at various times) the DCI (head of the CIA), vice president, and president. Of course, the voters may ignore all that and vote for the guy anyway; I'm sure he and his handlers will have worked out explanations and alibis for everything, or Double U wouldn't have run for prez. Are top politicians in Sweden this bad? Many top American politicians are; Bush is in the 90th percentile, with plenty of company.

    Oh. Did I forget my RANT tags again? Moderators: I have no problem with this being reduced to a -1 score :)


  • This idea isn't new. The Scientologists forced the original Cult Awareness Network to fold, via specious litigation (Scientology doesn't care about winning lawsuits, they just want to bankrupt their opponents), and then set up camp themselves as the Cult Awareness Network. So now, if you try to get information about cults via the CAN, you're actually getting information from a cult.

    You know what the funniest thing is? Go to and lookup the word "cult". "Religion" is listed as a synonym. Yes, that includes, but is not limited to: Christianity, Islam, Buddism, Rastafarianism, among many others.

    Any religiously-educated human being would know this. IIRC, the original (archaic) definition of cult was "a religion that's teaching revolves around one being" (or something close).

    I'm sure it goes without saying that the original group was religious as well, I'm not going to say what religion, but it should be obvious to most. The large cult gets trounced by a smaller cult that got slammed by the large cult. Serves the large cult right.

    I'm no scientologist either, but it disgusts me to find groups out there devotes their time to promoting their ideals through their own hypocracy and bashing others.

  • We have 6 candidates
    How about giving each 16,66667 % of the vote. Better than apathy and it sends a message to them.


    Law requires that if a candidate is not within a majority of 1/ of the vote, that all candidates will not be allowed to participate in a new election.

    So, hence, vote NONE OF THE ABOVE if you do not like exactly what you are getting now. Keep doing it until you get someone you like... More people should do this, it's not throwing your vote away if you can get the majority to understand what it means.

    And this goes for representatives and senators also. Remember that the electoral college is a good portion of the vote as well, so don't bother voting for a democrat president and a republican representative/senator, as half (i think half, someone correct me here if not) of your vote contradicts the other.

    Personally I won't vote for any political seats until I move of of this shit-for-nothing country as no matter how I vote I get screwed in the ass by someone who sees their back pocket as a more important issue than the people. Even nowadays when you vote on laws the govt doesn't agree with they try to repeal them. (See oregon and medicinal marijuana, the state legislature is still trying to repeal it, even though it passed with overwhelming majority)

    I'm ranting - so what.

  • A domain name is often used for other things than a hostname for a web site URL, hard as that may be to believe...

    Perhaps someone is using their domain name for workstation hostnames, email, a gopher server...

    Is that so bad?

    Get your fresh, hot kernels right here []!

  • It's not squatting, the domains are paid for. Squatters just re-register every X (60 or 90?) days. When NSI doesn't get the money, they release the name and the squatter re-registers.

    How could this possibly be a restriction of free speech? The domain names were open for anybody to take, the Bush guys just got to them first. You are still free to put up a site that makes fun of Bush, details why he's a bad choice, or even documents why you think he's the leader of a vampire cult. You just have to think of a name that hasn't been registered yet.
  • Hey, Jackson, sorry to hear you had all those problems with your domain name. I really love the drippy pictures. Keep up the good work!

    just joking . . .
    Beer recipe: free! #Source
    Cold pints: $2 #Product

  • All the free-speech, I-should-be-able-to-do-what-I-want rhetoric aside, it's just bad business sense to not allow more than one domain name per organization. I work for a company that has two completely different "official" domain names and various other subsidiary domain names (like, instead of, and, just to cover the bases). They're owned by the same company, but they apply to two completely different services this company offers.

    So what if you can't register the domain name you want because someone's holding it? They're not limiting you, they're just limiting your execution. If what you say is really important, people will find your information.
  • I don't think so. Frankly, I think most people will just laugh over this one (though it's a brilliant move, campaign-wise).

    This is not an attack on free speech in any way. People can still say whatever they want about him.
  • Since when does stuff like this make someone briliant? What when microsoft buys or destroys other companys is that briliant? When a criminal shoots someone in the head so they won't call the police, is that briliant? When atheletes cheat in the olympics and get away with it, are they briliant as well? When someone cheats on a math test and does not get caught, are they also briliant?

    When someone compares the buying of domain names to various illegal and/or reprehensible acts, are they being brilliant?

    Its just like saying "you can say anything you want, but you can't say it out loud".

    Oh, please. You make it sound like he's banned anti-Bush Websites. He hasn't. Yeah, now the sites are going to be something like, or maybe something a bit more obscure like Big deal.

    By the way, I suggest you read the Gnome vs. KDE flamewars sometime. Why? Take a look at all the posts. Every time the word "sucks" or "blows" or anything is used in a post, you'll notice that the person doesn't have anything worthwhile or serious to say. Those who are really trying to make a point never use language like that (I dare you to find me a serious post on the issue that has the word "sucks" anywhere in it except to quote someone else). My point: yeah, the little oh-boy-lets-badmouth-a-candidate kiddies are going to be deterred by this. But not the professionals, and not the people who actually have something to say. Bush hasn't stopped the pros. He didn't mean to do that either.
  • Its not his actions its his message. And no I did not make it sound like that, but he did take obvious sites, but let me ask you, if it was not a big deal then why did he fork out the money to do it? The only reason I can think of is to send out a message, because that makes his actions less pointless, either that or he is a fool with money (I doubt).

    You honestly think that's his message? Look, here's the thing:

    The written word is a remarkable thing. It can convey messages, calm the hysterical, heal the depressed, and so forth. It can also be a terrible weapon. Look back over the history of presidential races: especially in recent years, every candidate who runs is dragged through the dirt. Every little aspect of their lives, sometimes going as far back as childhood mistakes, is dredged up in ways which would land the dredger in jail in any other circumstance.

    No you think Bush wants that? No; he'd have to be out of his mind to want that. I doubt you'd want it either; no one does.

    Also, note the names he eliminated. "" or "," but not things like "" My point: he took the names which were explicitly defamatory, as opposed to ones which suggested actions or at least sounded professional (honestly, do you think his opponents' campaigns will use ""? No; it'll be the upstarts, the people with little vendettas and axes to grind). He's trying to save some shred of his dignity; he'll lose the rest during the race, as will all the other candidates. Can you blame him for that?
  • Why is he so worried? Unless he is bad, and is doing bad stuff, why is he so paranoid about the domain names? Who would really take a website created by a 15 year old seriously.
  • Buying up all the simple names is just going to cause the people who want to make 'bush sucks' sites to be more creative. Public figures (i.e. celebrities) are always going to have people voice their opinions against them; they should learn to deal with it. I figure it shouldn't be any different in the political context.
  • To be sure, there's all the domains out there up for grabs and the free domain hosting services- they're not going to pass up people wanting domains... This just came across as a rich SOB trying to quell any dissent- and I was going to vote for the man; now I'm not so sure.
  • All the free-speech, I-should-be-able-to-do-what-I-want rhetoric aside

    Wow, did I read that right? I hope you don't take too much offense, but I must strongly disagree with your implied point. Of all the rights in the Bill of Rights, free speech is, IMO, by far the most important (especially for those of us who spend a lot of time communicating over the internet). It certainly isn't 'mere rhetoric'.

    Read through some of the other posts on this topic and notice how some other democratic countries (Canada and Sweden are mentioned) limit the way you can register domains. Not only does this serve to limit one's speech, in some cases, someone comes up with a workaround of some sort (the Polynesian .nu domains).

    I'm no big, flag-waving, patriot-zealot, but I'm glad I'm in the US where I can register as many domains as I want for any reason (or no reason!). Do you really want the government or a corporation deciding how you can express yourself on the internet?

  • That's exactly why we need more top-level domains. .com, .net and .org just aren't enough for the general public. We need a .sucks domain for these sorts of sites. And just as how .edu sites are only given out to appropriate organizations, NS or whoever should check up to make sure that only poorly designed sites that rail against something can keep their domain.

    Dibs on
  • by cpt kangarooski ( 3773 ) on Sunday May 16, 1999 @01:45AM (#1890195) Homepage
    Oh Bush is pretty savvy on technical matters. We've been having problems with our mail server for a while, but George came over and fixed it.

    His brother Jeb, OTOH, kept trying to jam the ethernet cable into the phone jack.... Don't ask Jeb Bush to help with anything technical.
  • Two things
    First, I doubt that I will vote for someone who is squatting on over 200 domain names.

    Second, Isnt this in some way a restriction of free speech?

  • umm, Slashdot is a non-profit organization, dumbass.

  • I stand corrected, however, there are many non-profit organizations that are the sole source of some people's income...

    at the time of this writing I'm 14(I was 13 like 2 months ago), I'll be a highschool junior for 99-00...

    Though I don't see how age comes into the matter, age really is so fickle...

    I've been using linux since I was 12, and it was NOT redhat, I did my time reading HOWTOs and man pages, I got X working my first time from a CONF file I wrote completely from scratch, which is alot more then I can say about some "adults" that I know.

    There's been kids much younger then I that have gotten doctorates, and written books. Hell, wasn't Alexander the Great like 9 when he started?

  • Heh, I'm wondering why this got moderated down. I thought it was pretty funny. And I'm not opposed to bush at all.

  • Secondly, who would really use these domain names? Check out []. There's an example of somebody who did buy a similar domain name. Kinda funny page too.

  • LOL. I hope this one doesn't get moderated down like the last one. It's harmless and provides comedy relief.

  • Good, it's back up. When I posted the comment it was at -1.

  • In a perfect world, yes. I'd never run a sucks site anyway.

  • Bush is exercising his own free speech by buying the domains and pointing them at his site. I really just don't see this as a free speech issue.

  • I agree with you about the childishness, but if I was looking for an anti- website, I'd go to I'd be hoping for some actually reasonable objections to that person. I think that often I'd be able to find them (though I haven't tried that sort of thing in a while). Maybe I'm just naive, though.

  • by Perrin-GoldenEyes ( 4296 ) on Saturday May 15, 1999 @10:32PM (#1890206)
    Heh, I don't think this is really an attack on free speech. He wants to make it harder to find anti-Bush web sites. That will make it a little harder. I think it's a pretty smart move. And it makes me laugh too. Way to go, George.

  • by Perrin-GoldenEyes ( 4296 ) on Saturday May 15, 1999 @11:15PM (#1890207)
    I disagree. I think anybody should be able to own a domain name. I own I offer email addresses there to any of my friends who want them. I also offer web space to friends. My EverQuest guild's web page is on gondor. And I don't charge for any of this. I use the email address and I like having the username and domain name fit into the same literary context. I don't think there is any reason why I shouldn't be alowed to own a domain name. The great thing about the internet is that it provides a forum where anybody can exercise their freedom of speech. Owning a domain name and the computer that responds to that address makes it easier to exercise that freedom.

  • I'm not taking one side or another, but having earnings from banner ads does not imply profits. For all we know, the revenue generated by the ads is just used to offset the costs of running Slashdot. As an example, my school's dining service is supposedly a non-profit organization, but they still (over)charge us for food because they do have to pay the workers and pay for ingredients and whatnot.

    -mike kania
  • Not only are the free speech issues rather iffy here, but what can he possibly hope to accomplish? There is no possible way he can prevent someone from coming up with an original derogatory domain name (,,, etc. etc.), so he's only really intercepting people who actually think to type the name straight into their browser, rather than following a link... How many can that be?

    As for wanting the publicity, boff... I'm not sure I agree that "any press is good press". Are people really going to be more likely to vote for him, having read this?

    Incidentally, I have nothing against the man myself. I don't live in the US and have no idea of his policies, anyways. Just pointing out that this was a dumb idea.

    Steve 'Nephtes' Freeland | Okay, so maybe I'm a tiny itty

  • by Jonathan ( 5011 ) on Saturday May 15, 1999 @10:45PM (#1890210) Homepage
    So George buys up some insulting domain names. But first of all, it's not hard to come up with new domain names like that -- bushstinks, etc. Secondly, who would really use these domain names? Even fruity Al "I invented the Internet" Gore isn't so childish that he'd be interested in using them for his own sites. So what did Bush really gain by this?
  • Ok, I'm not a big politician fan, but after seeing some of Al Gore's comments, it's refreshing to see someone has some forsight. I think it's hilarious and cool. I also think that it's ashame to see all the negative comments. can't we all just get al... .. arrrrgggghh.
  • First, yeah, that's a -really- good reason to not vote for someone.

    Second, no.

  • Given that I usually get my url's from references from people I know, from a search engine, or from postings on newsgroups/slashdot, I don't see how this would stop any anti-Bush sentiment from showing up on the Internet.

    Looks like it's time to start looking for an original domain name that attacks Bush.


  • 200 web adress at 70 dollars
    200*70 = 14000

    when i grow up i want to own a monopoly
  • You will definitely have time to register and be processed. If your state has a motor voter law, then just go to the DMV and do something to your driver's license. The voter registration forms are printed on the back of most other paperwork so it's really easy to do both at the same time.

    If your state doesn't have a motor voter law, look up your town's electorial commission in the phone book, phone them for instructions on registering and just do it.

    I live in Cambridge, MA, and there are voter registration tables at street fairs and a lot of other public events. It's not exactly a normal town, since there's more registered Libertarians than Republicans in it, but even less activist towns have to let you register if you can prove:
    1. citizenship
    2. residence in the town
    3. that you have no felony convictions
  • While in some cases the * may the gist of the idea of the content in the webpage as well, I think for many of those cases, its just the most. Well. Its the most practical way of having a anti-whatever site. I mean, "ithinkclintonisimpracticalforthecountrybecauseofh" is just not gonna cut it. Especially if you hate him for lots of reasons :)
  • the problem is that it's a little too late to decide that everyone can only have one domain name. that being the case, then i think bush should be able to do whatever he wants along those lines, at least as far as others have been allowed to.

    off-topic: is keyes running again? i didn't get to vote in the last election, but he would definately be my choice for president. he's a good, honest man with whom i tend to agree on almost every issue.
  • Should be, not .org:


    JS technologies SA (MICROSFOT2-DOM)
    Rue du Centre 72
    St-Sulpice, 1025

    Domain Name: MICROSFOT.COM

  • by foog ( 6321 )
    I am sure the 200 names Bush registered only represent a very small fraction of the possibilities.
    Forcing your opponents to be more creative is not always the best way to go.
  • Saying Bush is a neo-nazi might be slander, but saying that I, as a neo-nazi, like Bush isn't illegal. This isn't very different from what Michael Moore was doing in the last election. He'd create fake organizations and send smalls donations to the campaigns from them. Clinton got a check from the National Marijuana Growers Association, for instance...
  • Use a name like "insert_name_here_is_the_greatest_human_being_in_t" and then trash that person
  • The discussion on slashdot (and elsewhere) is press he couldn't have bought any other way. It might not be worth the price, but consider the hordes of techies that Gore ticked of by inventing the internet, who were considered to be pretty solidly in his camp before that. Tough demographic to reach.

    And as for good publicity vs. bad publicity, there's not much difference. Publicity is the point. Forget who said it, but "say whatever you like about me, just so long as you spell my name right."
  • Umm, can anyone say libel? Slander, defamation, and other lawsuit possibilites abound...

    And wasn't what's his name, "This space for Rent" Byrd in the Clan back when?
  • hehe...I think I'm going to setup
  • by Monty Worm ( 7264 ) on Sunday May 16, 1999 @12:58AM (#1890225) Journal
    I mentally went on a step from this and made some interesting(ish) discoveries

    The domains [] and [] are not being used for this sort of purpose. exhibits a "coming soon" sign, and seems to have been snaffled by a speculator/hosting company.

    If I owned these domains I would be selling subdomains, and making lotsa dosh! I shudder to think of the money geeks would pay to get domains like, or People would probably play ~internic rates for subdomains there, IMHO....

    Besides, it be much more fun to tease those who only sorta get the tech, but exploiting holes in their knowledge....

  • Has anyone ever really given a damn about what .org and .net meant? Even my company has bought all three, and even some common abbreviations of it. So has Microsoft. (MSFT.NET for example.)

    Lay off. :) It's not like it really affects anyone.

  • by lightning ( 8428 ) on Sunday May 16, 1999 @08:02AM (#1890227)
    This idea isn't new. The Scientologists forced the original Cult Awareness Network to fold, via specious litigation (Scientology doesn't care about winning lawsuits, they just want to bankrupt their opponents), and then set up camp themselves as the Cult Awareness Network. So now, if you try to get information about cults via the CAN, you're actually getting information from a cult.

    That was about three years ago.

  • Erm, my heart bleeds for all the poor flame artists who will find it marginally harder to throw personal insults at someone because they disagree with his politics. Um, not. ;)

    I'd have to say that buying domains instead of sending threatening letters is a definite improvement.

  • by ToastyKen ( 10169 ) on Sunday May 16, 1999 @07:00AM (#1890229) Homepage Journal
    On that note, I highly recommend Project Vote Smart < []>.

    This non-partisan site has lots of detailed info on all the candidates and so forth, including issues responses and recent voting history. That is, if they've been a Congressman, it lists how they voted on various bills.. very good solid data. (Could use more info on those bills, though.)

    Anyway, this is the quickest way to check out tons of solid facts about various candidates.
  • by HomerJ ( 11142 ) on Saturday May 15, 1999 @10:58PM (#1890230)
    Alot of people/companies buy alot of domain names that are related to them, or can be used against them. At $35 it's an inexpensive way to protect yourself. It would be a story if he DIDN'T reg the names.

    Apple owns 100's of domain names to point to thier website, Nike owns around 500 I belive, and I'm sure there are alot of others who own that amount of domain names.

    And I'll be damned, look where takes me too.....
  • I think we should all chip in and buy Monica Lewinski one of the "suckclinton" domains. After all the work she did, and the pain and heartache she had to endure afterwords, it would be a small gesture of appreciation from the community for the months of entertainment we were afforded, mostly at her expense.

  • Yahoo! started out as two students with a web site. Requirements for "some kind of official organization" only limit access to big corporations, and that hardly seems desirable to me. However, the current domain name system is getting kind of silly. We should have dozens of top level domains, each with their own meaning and requirements. For example, there should be something like ".inc" for registered corporations, ".tmk" for registered trademarks, ".per" for personal domains (which can conflict with trademarks--the presumption would be that they are not for trade), ".alt" (anything goes like the ".alt" hierarchy). Maybe most of the 36^3 possible 3 letter TLDs should be available to make sure that no single company or individual can register all the second level names; there ought to be room for "bush.sux".
  • Just because Bush bought the domains, it doesn't mean he'll set them up to point to his campaign site... They could just point to nothing. The main goal is to prevent others from using them, not for him to use them himself.
  • Of course it is.

    First of all, the main reason for buying the domain name is to keep it out of the hands of the opposition.

    But second, it's fairly clever to have someone looking for one thing find exactly the opposite message -- like sometimes happens with various brand names, as we've seen on /. before. Consider the plannedparenthood.* domain squabble (where that name was used for an anti-abortion website). Should anyone actually type in "" (or "go bush sucks" etc.), instead of getting what they expect, they'll get the pitch.

    To be really fiendishly clever, they could direct people coming to those negative URLs to specific targeted pitches designed for people who already dislike the candidate (or other product). Focus groups could tell them what stuff works best for these people, and it's probably not the same rah-rah stuff that would be at the main home page.
  • mine too!
    way to go!
  • have people that click on the URL redirected to his original homepage? Isn't that kind of like admitting that he, in fact, sucks? Just a thought.
  • Not that I'm defending Gore-the-Internet-Inventor, but...

    I think it's revealing that Bush was willing to do something so petty just to attempt to keep people from speaking against him. It's analogous to a rogue moderator marking down messages that disagree with his opinion. Regardless of Bush's stand on "important" issues, there's no way I could vote for him after reading this, simply because it shows that he's basically a dishonorable person. He just proved himself to be just another Clinton.

  • Those were registered by Mr. Bush's proponents several years ago in order to encourage him to run for president, AFAIK.

    And he can't get, some other guy named Bush registered it in 1995 (smart guy, that one. Got his own name first!)
  • If you check out his server, you see they're running Apache/Php. Thats good enough for me. He's got my vote (I'm republican anyway).

    Of course, I'm stuck in Sweden at the moment, so I don't have a clue about the potential candidates. I know that Gore doesn't have a clue, but what about George, how does he stand up when it comes to technical matters?
  • And I'll be damned, look where takes me too.....


    No match for "MICROSFOT.ORG".

    You agree that you will not reproduce, sell, transfer, or
    modify any of the data presented in response to your search request, or
    use of any such data for commercial purpose, without the prior
    express written permission of Network Solutions.

    Now on the other hand points to

  • Bush is not trying to stifle free speech at all. He is trying to get more hits to his site. Do you really think that he can buy every conceivable domain name? What about ? How about I don't think they got that one. How is this a free speech issue? Who is stopping free speech? How are they even hindering it? The only time I would type in "bushsucks" or "goresucks" int he url box is to see if it exists. If I want real info, I go to hotbot and type "bush sucks" in the box and then the pages all show up. It's not that hard. Really.


  • I thought that the supreme court ruled 'domain sitting' illegal? What a law abiding netizen.
  • Bush registers a bunch of domain names, Proctor and Gamble (?) registers another huge number, etc... And we wonder why we're running out of domain names. It's like giving a class C to every AOL user.

    I would suggest a good rule for domain name registration authorities is that a company can have its domain name renewal denied if it hasn't made use of the name. If all a name does is point to a "Coming soon" or "Buy this domain" page for a year, then we should return it to the pile and let someone else have a go at it. Ditto when someone has a bunch of domain names point to the same page.

    Bush isn't doing anything wrong, but he's still being a jerk by buying something just to keep someone else from having it. We should work for rules that stop this sort of land-grab behavior.

    If he can't put up content on every domain name, and not just link them all to one page, then let him, but if he's just pissing all over stuff to keep other people away... Well, we don't need that bullshit on the net as well as in the physical world.
  • Wow, that's the best laugh I've had in a while. I'm not sure if that 's brilliant or silly, but I do find it amusing.

    I can imagine George and his advisors sitting around some large expensive table discussing if they want to buy I'll bet they were laughing as hard as I was.

    It says something about the power; or maybe the perceived power of the internet. It's really amazing how far it has come in the span of a few years. I was thinking back to 94 when I got my first account on Prodigy. You had to pay extra to go on the "Web" at that time and the speed coming through prodigy was horrible, but I'll bet I didn't sleep for a week.

    Now the internet seems so commonplace, having an email adr. is the norm not the execption, and major political powers are giving some serious thought on how to harness the power.

    This should be interesting.
  • 1. You must be some kind of an official organization
    So, I should have to agree to someone else's definition of organized?

    2. There should be a certain number of individual computers uniquely connected to it (no virtual hosting crap)
    Hmm, how many addresses can you map to ONE name? And wouldn't that be fun if you had to have NSI manage your subdomains.

    3. ONLY ONE domain per organization
    Lessee, there's my right foot, my left one... Is my head the same organization as my book collection? How many names do you go by personally? There's usually your first name, your last name, a nick name, insults, email aliases, handles...

    4. That name must say who you are
    And who you are must say what you do, what you sell, your interests, your history, your address, your income, your SSN, your license plate.

    Domain names were never intended to be used by everly little clown that wants a web site.
    They were meant to be used by suits to communicate to other suits, or by scientists to communicate with their peers. Clowns need web sites to look at, too.

    They were intended to identify networks and to give organizations their own namespace.
    I believe they were intended to identify addresses belonging to interfaces belonging to computers belonging to networks belonging to organizations. Well then, there are mail handlers too.

    I like bush
    hee hee
  • Let's see. One of the major American presidential contenders cluelessly claims to have created the Internet, while the other actually does some research to figure out how it works and uses it to his advantage. One throws up a site with lots of open source buzzwords in a transparent and lame attempt to get free labor out of the geek community without any understanding of that community. The other does enough research to realize which domains competitors and detractors would try to register, and takes action to mitigate the threat as quietly as possible.

    While Gore claims to be the high-tech candidate, I think Bush is the man for the geek community. Why? His actions show that instead of jumping on buzzwords and trying to jump in front of the crowd so that he can call himself a leader, Bush is actually willing to do his homework and study the nature of our world before he opens his mouth.

    Note please do not construe this post as flaim bait. This forum isn't about who supports welfare, abortion, bombing soveriegn countries, etc. It's about technology and which candidate can best drive it forward. Please, please, please, limit responses to this.
  • It's even a somewhat interesting site. Presents some pros and cons.
  • by PimpBot ( 32046 ) on Saturday May 15, 1999 @10:52PM (#1890283) Homepage
    Honestly, I thought it was kinda dumb that Bush had to do this....but I can understand his reasoning...

    Why do people in general have to create sites? Yeah, you may not like the person, but you can still let the person campaign/sell/express their opinion. Going out and just saying they suck is just childish. If you want to vent your frustrations with someone, you can find a far more adult way to do it somewhere else.

    (And I'm not associated with *any* political party...I don't agree with any of them)
  • Anyone capable of getting themselves made president should on no account be allowed to do the job.

    Douglas Adams, The Hitchikers Guide To The Galaxy
  • socialism is still a theory
    capitalism is still a theory

    Feudalism never ended. People just feel rich because of suits.

    communism is extreme socialism for control of power. Some cultures' medium of value(currency) is power.

    protectionism is extreme capitalism for control of
    money. Some cultures' medium of value is money.

    so far no culture has held value as a medium of value.

    stop trying to legislate or institutionalize good will. nothing lasts past a few generations after its inception. every generation is as far from the last generation as the next will be from it because nothing changes just the percentage of different qualities of character. stop being so ridiculously enthusiastic, it's sickening.

    Read Forever Flowing, A Captive Mind, watch "Brazil" a few times.

    "but we can still do much better..." go back to coding.
  • That's probably why you should vote... Being a dutchman this crap still affects me, but I can forget about voting in your elections.
  • And the internet was never intended to get as big as it's getting to be, or IPv4 wouldn't have had 4-byte ip#s.

    And all those old programs were never intended to be used after 2000, or they would have been Y2K compliant.

    So what?
  • by Craig Davison ( 37723 ) on Sunday May 16, 1999 @02:47AM (#1890295)
    We need some more filterable categories for stories.
    1. Domain name related stories

      These stories weren't very interesting to begin with and now they're just plain annoying. I don't care.

    2. Linux devel. kernel releases

      I care about Linux news, but not what people have to say about piddly bi-weekly kernel improvements.

    Thank you, and good night.

  • by Hobbex ( 41473 ) on Saturday May 15, 1999 @11:55PM (#1890302)
    This how the Swedish Internic has it, only registered (limited) companies can register domains, and only one a piece. The result? Well, someone discovered that the .nu domain of Nuie (South Pacific) means "now" in Swedish, so all the companies registered a hundred million domains there instead. Really smart.

    Worst part is that it's some American lawyer who manages it, not the polynesians, who gets all the money...
  • Bush is not domain sitting, domain sitting is when you buy up a bunch of domains with the intent to sell them to the people who would accually want those domains.. like buying
    anyhow, if your refering to the guy who the story says wants 300,000 (?? didn't go back and reread figure could be wrong..) then I appologize and ignore me..
  • Canada does this. They have very strict
    rules on who gets what type of domain name,
    and how many you can have. An organization
    can only have ONE domain name, and it either
    has to relate to their company name, or
    a registered trademark. So now, for example,
    you can have either or,
    but not both. You wouldn't believe the hoops
    I had to jump through to get!


"I prefer the blunted cudgels of the followers of the Serpent God." -- Sean Doran the Younger