NationStates Jolt Archive

I didn't think Google did any political ads.

Yay, Google!

Shame on Google, I'm very disappointed in them.

Google Bans Ads That Criticize Far-Left MoveOn.org

Internet search giant Google has rejected ads that are critical of far-left advocacy group MoveOn.org. MoveOn caused a national stir last month after The New York Times gave it preferential treatment for the infamous “General Betray Us” public message.

The banned ads were placed by the campaign of Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, for her re-election. The reason given for the ads' removal was that they violated Google’s copyright infringement policy.

Click here to read The Examiner’s report. http://www.examiner.com/a-983100~Google_bans_anti_MoveOn_org_ads.html

The removed campaign ads said, “Susan Collins is MoveOn’s primary target. Learn how you can help” and “Help Susan Collins stand up to the MoveOn.org money machine.” The ads linked to Collins’ campaign Web site with a headline reading “MoveOn.org has made Susan Collins their #1 target.”

Google is a private business, not a government organization or public agency. They can do whatever the hell they please as long as it doesn't violate the nation's laws.

On top of which, banning an ad for violating copyright policies is called Covering Google's Ass. Companies that own copyrights have a large habit of throwing infringement suits at anything large and well-publicized as Google.

This is nothing new. Google has been at this leftist garp for years.

Shame on Google, I'm very disappointed in them.

Google Bans Ads That Criticize Far-Left MoveOn.org

Internet search giant Google has rejected ads that are critical of far-left advocacy group MoveOn.org. MoveOn caused a national stir last month after The New York Times gave it preferential treatment for the infamous “General Betray Us” public message.

The banned ads were placed by the campaign of Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, for her re-election. The reason given for the ads' removal was that they violated Google’s copyright infringement policy.

Click here to read The Examiner’s report. http://www.examiner.com/a-983100~Google_bans_anti_MoveOn_org_ads.html

The removed campaign ads said, “Susan Collins is MoveOn’s primary target. Learn how you can help” and “Help Susan Collins stand up to the MoveOn.org money machine.” The ads linked to Collins’ campaign Web site with a headline reading “MoveOn.org has made Susan Collins their #1 target.”

So much for free speech on Google.

I didn't think Google did any political ads.

Well now the peddling dodgy mortgages side of their business has dried up, it has to take what it can get.

Yep, they sure do. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c2coff=1&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=yUP&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=giuliani&spell=1

Huh, the things you don't notice with a properly configured adblock and hosts file.

perhaps they get more money from Moveon.org than they would ever get from whats-her-name in the story and don't want to lose a big advertiser.

In any case, I never saw what was wrong with the General Betrayus ad.

I didn't think Google did any political ads.

Yep, they sure do. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c2coff=1&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=yUP&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=giuliani&spell=1

So much for free speech on Google.

When was there ever free speech on Google?

Google statement:

The text of this ad was rejected by our system because it violated our trademark policy, not because of its political content. Under our advertising policies, companies and organizations that demonstrate that they own trademark rights can request that their trademarked terms not be used in the text of ads on Google. MoveOn made such a request, and as a result we required that this advertiser rewrite their ad and remove the trademarked terms. If ads are running on Google that include trademark terms in their text, this is likely because either the trademark owner has not submitted a complaint, or because the advertiser has been authorized to use the trademark. It is also important to note that in the U.S. we do not disable keywords in response to a trademark complaint.

http://gigaom.com/2007/10/12/google-banning-anti-moveonorg-ads/

The banned ads were placed by the campaign of Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, for her re-election. The reason given for the ads' removal was that they violated Google’s copyright infringement policy.

Trademark. Not copyright. Google has a policy of not allowing any ads that use trademark names without permission of the trademark holder.

Moveon.org is a trademarked name.

This ad used a trademarked name without permission.

Ergo these ads violated Google's policy. And since those ads violated Google's policy, Google removed them.

This woman used moveon's trademark without permission in violation of Google's policy, Google removed the ad. What, exactly, is the fucking problem here?

So much for free speech on Google.

The internet isn't America.

So you don't think there is anything the least bit wrong or unethical with implying a General is a traitor during time of war and getting a huge discount from the newspaper who ran the add?


I see no harm in telling the truth and pressuring the general to tell the truth.

Also, MoveOn.org was later charged full price.
anyway: http://mediamatters.org/items/200709220003

perhaps they get more money from Moveon.org than they would ever get from whats-her-name in the story and don't want to lose a big advertiser.

In any case, I never saw what was wrong with the General Betrayus ad.

So you don't think there is anything the least bit wrong or unethical with implying a General is a traitor during time of war and getting a huge discount from the newspaper who ran the add?

So much for free speech on Google.

Quite correct. Google doesn't let someone use trademarked words without permission from the trademark holder. Which is, you know, what they're supposed to do.

But let's not let certain things like intellectual property laws get in the way of good old neo-con righteous indignation.

Google statement:



http://gigaom.com/2007/10/12/google-banning-anti-moveonorg-ads/

Yeah. And Ebay is "only a venue".

Tripe.

Quite correct. Google doesn't let someone use trademarked words without permission from the trademark holder. Which is, you know, what they're supposed to do.

But let's not let certain things like intellectual property laws get in the way of good old neo-con righteous indignation.

There are circumstances under which you can use trademarked names without permission. This is probably one of them.

Regardless, google is a private company, it can do what it likes with its ad policy.

Google statement:



http://gigaom.com/2007/10/12/google-banning-anti-moveonorg-ads/

Well, that is understandable. Thanks for finding that as it sheds a whole new light on the matter.

So you don't think there is anything the least bit wrong or unethical with implying a General is a traitor during time of war and getting a huge discount from the newspaper who ran the add?

Of course there is nothing wrong or unethical about it for two core reasons.

Firstly, the US hasn't actually declared war, so without such a declaration, there is no war. Secondly, speech is protected by the constitution under Amendment I.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Pressuring him before he testified? Pressuring him before knowing what his testimony would be? Assuming he would lie? Implying he is a traitor? Nothing at all wrong or unethical here? :confused:


Well you can't pressure someone to tell the truth when testifying AFTER he testifies can you? You gotta think these things through man!!!!

They show in the ad where he's lied before so there's no reason to assume he wouldn't do it again.

Pressuring him before he testified? Pressuring him before knowing what his testimony would be? Assuming he would lie? Implying he is a traitor? Nothing at all wrong or unethical here? :confused:

expressing an opinion is wrong now? I thought you were a patriot.

I see no harm in telling the truth and pressuring the general to tell the truth.

Also, MoveOn.org was later charged full price.
anyway: http://mediamatters.org/items/200709220003

Pressuring him before he testified? Pressuring him before knowing what his testimony would be? Assuming he would lie? Implying he is a traitor? Nothing at all wrong or unethical here? :confused:

There are circumstances under which you can use trademarked names without permission. This is probably one of them.

Regardless, google is a private company, it can do what it likes with its ad policy.

Let me clarify something. In the context the trademark name was used, it didn't violate the law.

That being said, as you say, Google may set the policy as they choose, and so far I haven't seen one shred of evidence that this was in any way politically motivated.

The ad broke google ad policy. What is so hard to see about that?

Google is a private business, not a government organization or public agency. They can do whatever the hell they please as long as it doesn't violate the nation's laws.

On top of which, banning an ad for violating copyright policies is called Covering Google's Ass. Companies that own copyrights have a large habit of throwing infringement suits at anything large and well-publicized as Google.

It is certainly true that they can do this, but I have to grant that it does seem (at least from the article) that it is inconsistent-

Ronald Coleman, a lawyer and leading expert on online intellectual property disputes, noted that, as a private company, Google has the right to treat different advertisers differently.

But he called Google’s removal of the Collins ads “troubling.” Coleman says that there is no such requirement under trademark law and that Google appears to be selectively enforcing its policy.

“In a recent ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the notion that there is anything like a cause of action under the Lanham Act, the statue governing trademark law in the United States, for so-called ‘trademark disparagement,’ ” Coleman said. The courts have also rejected the notion that the use of a trademark as a search term is a “legally cognizable use” as a trademark use under federal trademark law, he added. Coleman is also general counsel for the Media Bloggers Association.

Google routinely permits the unauthorized use of company names such as Exxon, Wal-Mart, Cargill and Microsoft in advocacy ads. An anti-war ad currently running on Google asks “Keep Blackwater in Iraq?” and links to an article titled “Bastards at Blackwater — Should Blackwater Security be held accountable for the deaths of its employees?”

Again, you're right, they have that right to be inconsistent and certainly have a right to having an opinion. What makes it troubling is this-

Google is the 800-pound gorilla of online advertising. Over the past year, the company has acquired YouTube and online ad giant DoubleClick, making it the dominant player in the area of Internet display advertising, ads on banners, videos and other non-text-based types of ads.
While they are still a private company, they have an abnormal amount of control over information, and therefore what can be heard-which in reality is more important than what can be said. It's the dirty little secret of free speech, you have the freedom to speak, but not necessarily to be heard. For that, you have to go through gate keepers. And when one gate keeper controls so much of the opening what they do has an effect.

Just because in principle I agree with the opinion they have at the moment doesn't necessarily mean that I should turn a blind eye to the implications of what they are doing. I'm not looking at it as a 'left-right' issue as maybe the OP is, but rather a state of the media issue (again, not as 'right-left' as that so often is distracted but rather the power and control over the discourse that is surrendered even in what is supposedly the wide-open internet).

But what can you do? Compelling the organizations legally sets precedents that might be easy to abuse. I'm not going to get a lot of support for limiting the amount of control over media single entities can have. So you have to constantly bring attention to the power they have and how they are shaping the discourse.

Of course if we let it get covered in the 'left-right' debate then it just joins the rest of the noise. Ah well.

I will caveat that I have only read the single article posted in the OP so I don't make any authoritative claims on exactly whats going on, just my impression from that single article.

EDIT: See? While I typed new information came up.
The text of this ad was rejected by our system because it violated our trademark policy, not because of its political content. Under our advertising policies, companies and organizations that demonstrate that they own trademark rights can request that their trademarked terms not be used in the text of ads on Google. MoveOn made such a request, and as a result we required that this advertiser rewrite their ad and remove the trademarked terms. If ads are running on Google that include trademark terms in their text, this is likely because either the trademark owner has not submitted a complaint, or because the advertiser has been authorized to use the trademark. It is also important to note that in the U.S. we do not disable keywords in response to a trademark complaint.
I wonder if this apparently underused option to block out critical ads listed in the article.

Most of what I said stands in principle, but that policy seems clear and certainly explains the discrepancy.

Let me clarify something. In the context the trademark name was used, it didn't violate the law.

That being said, as you say, Google may set the policy as they choose, and so far I haven't seen one shred of evidence that this was in any way politically motivated.

The ad broke google ad policy. What is so hard to see about that?

Ah, so we are actually in complete agreement.

While they are still a private company, they have an abnormal amount of control over information, and therefore what can be heard-which in reality is more important than what can be said. It's the dirty little secret of free speech, you have the freedom to speak, but not necessarily to be heard. For that, you have to go through gate keepers. And when one gate keeper controls so much of the opening what they do has an effect.

Just because in principle I agree with the opinion they have at the moment doesn't necessarily mean that I should turn a blind eye to the implications of what they are doing. I'm not looking at it as a 'left-right' issue as maybe the OP is, but rather a state of the media issue (again, not as 'right-left' as that so often is distracted but rather the power and control over the discourse that is surrendered even in what is supposedly the wide-open internet).

But what can you do? Compelling the organizations legally sets precedents that might be easy to abuse. I'm not going to get a lot of support for limiting the amount of control over media single entities can have. So you have to constantly bring attention to the power they have and how they are shaping the discourse.

Of course if we let it get covered in the 'left-right' debate then it just joins the rest of the noise. Ah well.

I will caveat that I have only read the single article posted in the OP so I don't make any authoritative claims on exactly whats going on, just my impression from that single article.

Google does not maintain a disturbing amount of control over the Internet at all. It can't ban people from accessing certain websites other than through its own services. The only reason it seems Google seems to have so much is because people (lazily) rely on it through name brand recognition and ease of use. There's other search engines out there such as Yahoo!, Ligos, Ask!, MSN, so on and so forth.

This brouhaha boils down to name brand recognition and a perceived political bias that the American right-wing likes to draw upon for its favorite persecution complex politics.

Google does not maintain a disturbing amount of control over the Internet at all. It can't ban people from accessing certain websites other than through its own services. The only reason it seems Google seems to have so much is because people (lazily) rely on it through name brand recognition and ease of use. There's other search engines out there such as Yahoo!, Ligos, Ask!, MSN, so on and so forth.

This brouhaha boils down to name brand recognition and a perceived political bias that the American right-wing likes to draw upon for its favorite persecution complex politics.
You misinterpret that and ignore the amount of control it has over advertising on the internet.

Of course there is nothing wrong or unethical about it for two core reasons.

Firstly, the US hasn't actually declared war, so without such a declaration, there is no war. Secondly, speech is protected by the constitution under Amendment I.

There was no declaration of war for Vietnam either but it was one hell of a war.:(

Yes, speech is protected and they have every right to say whatever they want but that was not the point. My point is, it is very unethical to imply the General is a traitor, especially when they didn't even know what his testimony would be.

You misinterpret that and ignore the amount of control it has over advertising on the internet.

The amount of advertising that Google sells and thus "controls" is reflective of its popularity. If Yahoo! or some other Search Engine was just as popular and brandnamed like Google or even more, then their advertising income and "control" would be reflected accordingly.

Google is like the Boogeyman. It's only powerful because people believe in it.

My point is, it is very unethical to imply the General is a traitor, especially when they didn't even know what his testimony would be.

I think that was the point of the question in the ad. Additionally...it turns out that he said pretty much exactly what they thought he would say

Shocking, isn't it?

The amount of advertising that Google sells and thus "controls" is reflective of its popularity. If Yahoo! or some other Search Engine was just as popular and brandnamed like Google or even more, then their advertising income and "control" would be reflected accordingly.

Google is like the Boogeyman. It's only powerful because people believe in it.

That's the standard argument. If people didn't like Starbucks, there wouldn't be a ton of Starbucks. And since there is a grain of truth in that, it's easy to follow. But it ignores all the practices underneath that easy-sheen surface. It's not just Google, but what and who Google owns.

Heh... That's nice. Poor, poor Susan Collins. My heart just bleeds oil for her. Given her smear tactic ad campaigns of the past, I'm glad to see one get shot down.

And of course... If it's Microsoft or Google...

It's a conspiracy!

Wow...

Don't like it? Don't use Google...the wonderful thing about the free market is that if you don't like something a given company does, you can use the services of a competitor.

isn't it funny that the republican party, the champions of the free market, bitch like little fucking children when a private company does something they don't like?

Don't like it? Don't use Google...the wonderful thing about the free market is that if you don't like something a given company does, you can use the services of a competitor. And if enough people don't like it, said company will be forced to either change their policies or lose significant amounts of revenue and possibly go out of business.

isn't it funny that the republican party, the champions of the free market, bitch like little fucking children when a private company does something they don't like?

More sad than funny...just look at what happened with the Dubai ports deal, CNOOC's attempt to buy Unocal, the Doha round of free trade talks, and so on.

Mind you, there are plenty of Democrats who are as ignorant of the free market as the Republicans (or even worse, in a few cases), but it's especially concerning when the Republicans try to paint themselves as the party that cares about the market when in fact they're just as bad as anyone else when it comes to economic decisionmaking.

Why some people feel the need to reveal Google as the evil corporation it supposedly is is beyond me.

I'm surprised that people assign moral values to corporations at all. Their sole purpose is to make a profit for their owners within the confines of the law, and that's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

I find it funny that we bring this up while we're all talking in a forum that limits free speech within itself, a fact that most of us have come to terms with. Google can give advertising to who it wants. Nothing requires them to do business, or not do business, with anyone. If they had made it impossible to find her website in normal Google search, I might be concerned. But they aren't, so I'm not.

Why some people feel the need to reveal Google as the evil corporation it supposedly is is beyond me.

because if we can expose Google as left wing zealots then... erm... I don't even know

I think that was the point of the question in the ad. Additionally...it turns out that he said pretty much exactly what they thought he would say

Shocking, isn't it?

Truth and politics always are.

Shame on Google, I'm very disappointed in them.

Google Bans Ads That Criticize Far-Left MoveOn.org

Internet search giant Google has rejected ads that are critical of far-left advocacy group MoveOn.org. MoveOn caused a national stir last month after The New York Times gave it preferential treatment for the infamous “General Betray Us” public message.

The banned ads were placed by the campaign of Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, for her re-election. The reason given for the ads' removal was that they violated Google’s copyright infringement policy.

Click here to read The Examiner’s report. http://www.examiner.com/a-983100~Google_bans_anti_MoveOn_org_ads.html

The removed campaign ads said, “Susan Collins is MoveOn’s primary target. Learn how you can help” and “Help Susan Collins stand up to the MoveOn.org money machine.” The ads linked to Collins’ campaign Web site with a headline reading “MoveOn.org has made Susan Collins their #1 target.”

In addition to the fact that the pariticular ads in this case were rejected due to trademark questions, it is also a fact that Google routinely rejects ads across the political spectrum. Google has some complicated ad rules and is not part of some partisan conspiracy.

Google's ad rules complex, controversial (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/08/09/BUGAD835EP1.DTL)
Documents reveal details about what popular search engine accepts, rejects
Verne Kopytoff, Chronicle Staff Writer

Monday, August 9, 2004

Jerry Vasilatos, who sells playing cards that feature 54 reasons to defeat President George W. Bush, was shocked to see his ads on Google suddenly disappear in May. After e-mailing the search engine several times, he learned why: He violated Google's policy prohibiting ads that advocate against an individual or group.

...

Google's self proclaimed mission to make the world's information accessible is being questioned by some of its customers. The search engine bars advertisers from pitching a range of opinions and products on its Web site and on those of its partners.

Details of Google's ad policy were disclosed in internal documents obtained by The Chronicle. Subsequent interviews with the company also revealed new information about its procedures.

The specifics of Google's ad policy provides a rare look into the inner workings and complexities of creating advertising guidelines. In this case, the rules cover everything from mail order brides to escort services to political attacks.
...

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has also had some of its negative ads rejected. So too has Oceana, an environmental group that campaigned against Royal Caribbean cruise lines for alleged water pollution.

...

This is nothing new. Google has been at this leftist garp for years.

Just like reality, you mean?

Just like reality, you mean?

lol, reality.

Google has some complicated ad rules and is not part of some partisan conspiracy.

And what if were? Google is under no obligation to be unpartizan.

Shame on Google, I'm very disappointed in them.

Google Bans Ads That Criticize Far-Left MoveOn.org

Internet search giant Google has rejected ads that are critical of far-left advocacy group MoveOn.org. MoveOn caused a national stir last month after The New York Times gave it preferential treatment for the infamous “General Betray Us” public message.

The banned ads were placed by the campaign of Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, for her re-election. The reason given for the ads' removal was that they violated Google’s copyright infringement policy.

Click here to read The Examiner’s report. http://www.examiner.com/a-983100~Google_bans_anti_MoveOn_org_ads.html

The removed campaign ads said, “Susan Collins is MoveOn’s primary target. Learn how you can help” and “Help Susan Collins stand up to the MoveOn.org money machine.” The ads linked to Collins’ campaign Web site with a headline reading “MoveOn.org has made Susan Collins their #1 target.”

:D :D :D An American republican standing up to a money machine... Sorry but that made me lough hard.

This is nothing new. Google has been at this leftist garp for years.

Funny how conservatives never admit to a bias when owners of billboards, tv stations, or newspapers will run ads smearing Democrats, but prohibit ads countering those attacks, promoting liberal policies, or simply telling stories that the mainstream media won't cover.

Shame on Google, I'm very disappointed in them.

Google Bans Ads That Criticize Far-Left MoveOn.org

Internet search giant Google has rejected ads that are critical of far-left advocacy group MoveOn.org. MoveOn caused a national stir last month after The New York Times gave it preferential treatment for the infamous “General Betray Us” public message.

The banned ads were placed by the campaign of Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, for her re-election. The reason given for the ads' removal was that they violated Google’s copyright infringement policy.

Click here to read The Examiner’s report. http://www.examiner.com/a-983100~Google_bans_anti_MoveOn_org_ads.html

The removed campaign ads said, “Susan Collins is MoveOn’s primary target. Learn how you can help” and “Help Susan Collins stand up to the MoveOn.org money machine.” The ads linked to Collins’ campaign Web site with a headline reading “MoveOn.org has made Susan Collins their #1 target.”

So now I have another reason not to vote for that bitch.:mad:

The removed campaign ads said, “Susan Collins is MoveOn’s primary target. Learn how you can help” and “Help Susan Collins stand up to the MoveOn.org money machine.” The ads linked to Collins’ campaign Web site with a headline reading “MoveOn.org has made Susan Collins their #1 target.”
Is it just me or does anyone else picture an elephant standing on top of a pile of beggar looking people yelling "help, help, I'm being oppressed!" every time they hear crap like this?

because if we can expose Google as left wing zealots then... erm... I don't even know
Then neo-cons everywhere can don their hairshirts and cilice and flagellate themselves over how everyone in the world is against them and why can't the White Man get a fair chance for a change?

They spend pretty much their entire time searching and trolling through every media for the opportunity to do this.
Whatever floats their boat. It keeps them off the streets.

I see no harm in telling the truth and pressuring the general to tell the truth.


I don't see how "You betrayed us" (before you even testify) is pressuring the general to tell the truth. For example, a good 'Tell the truth' would be good enough.

I don't see how "You betrayed us" (before you even testify) is pressuring the general to tell the truth. For example, a good 'Tell the truth' would be good enough.


If you look at the ad you'll see that it wasn't a statement but a question. Paraphrased as "Will he betray us?" - You're welcome for the free translation.

If you look at the ad you'll see that it wasn't a statement but a question. Paraphrased as "Will he betray us?" - You're welcome for the free translation.

To me, as well as anyone else, the question seemed rather rhetorical.

My point is, it is very unethical to imply the General is a traitor.just what is a "traitor" ??

And what if were? Google is under no obligation to be unpartizan.

Absolutely correct. This is why this whole attempt to smear Google is stupid twiceover:

(1)Google has every right to be partisan if it wishes.

(2) Google has very deliberately not been partisan.

Pack-up the neo-con whine machine and get it the hell out of here.

leftist garp
Terribly Sexy, or Terribly Sad Leftist Garp?

:D :D :D An American republican standing up to a money machine... Sorry but that made me lough hard.

It's right up there with George W. Bush opposing the execution of a confessed and convicted child rapist and murderer in the state of Texas.

Absolutely correct. This is why this whole attempt to smear Google is stupid twiceover:

(1)Google has every right to be partisan if it wishes.

(2) Google has very deliberately not been partisan.

Pack-up the neo-con whine machine and get it the hell out of here.

True enough, but heres the thing-then what about Fox News, or that station that wanted to run what was essentially an anti-Kerry documentary. Or other things like this that come up in media all the time.

In most cases they also have that same lack of obligation (in the documentary case I believe it was a violation of some kind, but you see what I'm getting at...)

We shouldn't fall into the same trap that they do of confusing criticism with infringement. Like I already said, I buy the explination given by Google on this one (and am interested in seeing how other entities might take advantage of their right to have their names removed from critical ads), but at the same time if our information sources aren't under any obligation to be fair or non-partisan than doesn't it fall to us to shine lights in the cracks and point out, "Here they are!!!" I think the point, the first one, is not that "Google can't be partisan" but rather to call it when it is.

I'll admit that this degenerates rather quickly, and it's something that has been done rather well, the question was never phrased "Is the media 'fair'" but "Does the media have a left wing bias," the framing of the question alone was half the battle.

But if they aren't under any obligation to be fair I think we're under an obligation to be vigilant to when they are not.

Again, I'm not saying that this is the case here, but just because we 'agree' with this one doesn't mean we should dismiss it out of hand. At that point how different are we, really? The stronger point is that the policy seems clear, not that we shouldn't call partisanship when we see it just because 'they can.'

So now I have another reason not to vote for that bitch.:mad:

Don't worry. Tom Allen is gonna stomp her ass.