Hypocritical Ron Paul betrays the Paultards, embraces the U.N.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

hahaha Paultards defending their leader for suing his supporters

oook

We are supporting Paul's intellectual property-I thought you were a Paultard.

[With you in spirit]

We are supporting Paul's intellectual property-I thought you were a Paultard.

His intellectual property? These people dedicated hours and hours of their time to get this guy votes and spread his message (albeit in a really biased way) and he wants to take them to a UN tribunal? That's just laughable. His name belongs to him, yes. The website does not and if one wants to own a domain, they purchase it. They do not take it to court, let alone one for an organization that one has bashed for decades.

I was a Paultard--until I realized that Ron Paul is a lunatic (case in point with this bizarre story) and that his followers are a collection of conspiracy theorists who listen to Alex Jones and feed off of every national tragedy that occurs in America. These people believe that everything is a human right, even the desire to commit suicide. If someone wants to commit suicide, you do not 'let them because it is their human right' you help them because that's the right thing to do.

Mainstream Libertarians have it all backwards.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

His intellectual property? These people dedicated hours and hours of their time to get this guy votes and spread his message (albeit in a really biased way) and he wants to take them to a UN tribunal? That's just laughable. His name belongs to him, yes. The website does not and if one wants to own a domain, they purchase it. They do not take it to court, let alone one for an organization that one has bashed for decades.

I won’t disagree with you on this one. I still believe the guys should be compensated, though they in no way have a right to it. If RonPaul.com was a site that was ANTI Ron Paul, I would support its right of freedom of speech to bash Paul. But since it is pro Ron Paul, they subvert themselves to him, and if they really cared about the movement, they would give the domain name back to Paul, which they had promised to do (I know this because it was on the sites banner, and I once was a fan of the website). They are simply extorting Paul, because they know he wants his domain name. A year ago, they would’ve of given it up for free. If I bought a domain name in your name, and dedicated it solely to you, in a positive connotation, the website would be your intellectual property.

I was a Paultard--until I realized that Ron Paul is a lunatic (case in point with this bizarre story) and that his followers are a collection of conspiracy theorists who listen to Alex Jones and feed off of every national tragedy that occurs in America. These people believe that everything is a human right, even the desire to commit suicide. If someone wants to commit suicide, you do not 'let them because it is their human right' you help them because that's the right thing to do.

Mainstream Libertarians have it all backwards.

While I respect changes of opinion, I must say that all of this makes me kind of sad. The Paul movement is one of the most underappreciated forces in the party. I logged thousands of hours for a candidate in my district, more than any single volunteer. And I am a Paultard. And those in the Palm Beach County GOP who openly declared their desire to purge us, where were they? Oh yeah, at Bear Lakes Country Club eating twenty five dollar rubber chicken talking about how much of a “communist” Obama is, and how “intelligent” Paul Ryan is, and how glorious is Israel, etc, listening to, but not lifting their lazy elitist fingers in support of any candidates, besides a small check that they might send. In short, the Paul supporters are the grassroots. The local Paul campaign director worked hard as a volunteer for Allen West’s ridiculously incompetent campaign.

As for the human rights/assisted suicide thing, I contend as a Christian that if somebody dies, it was the Lord calling them home, no matter what the method. So if one wants to risk their eternal life and kill themselves as a direct insult to their Creator, then by all means, do it. It is their life, and their salvation. But that is just my opinion.

*Insert stereotypical rant conclusion here.* 

[Obamanation]

Finally people are starting to realize how big of a fraud the "Liberty" movement was...

[With you in spirit]

The whole premise behind Ron Paul's campaign was to make him look like a 'sane Libertarian' (even though there's really no such thing as one) and it ended up making him look even more insane than he'd expected, despite the fact that he appeared less insane than he actually is.

[Alcon]

My existence as a person should be mine. I would be angry if somebody was profiting off of my daily activities for whatever reason. That is why the whole tabloid/paparazzi industry theoretically immoral in my opinion.

I understand that this pisses you off on moral grounds, but what legal claim are you asserting here?  Basically:

"If I bought a domain name in your name, and dedicated it solely to you, in a positive connotation, the website would be your intellectual property."

Why?  Why is it my "intellectual property," but a negative site about me is not?  Do I own my positive likeness, but not my negative likeness?  I understand revoking a domain name if someone is claiming to be, or represent you, somehow.  But what you're arguing seems so obviously ridiculous and authoritarian to me.  Under what circumstances could a web site about someone be claimed by the person about whom it is about, and under what circumstances couldn't it?  I don't understand your argument behind this at all, besides that it seems intuitively proper to you.

Also, if you give me something and I reneg on a legally non-binding promise to return it, and then want something for it, that's not called extortion.  That's called getting screwed.  It's kind of funny you call that "extortion" considering the only similarity to extortion is wanting something but resenting paying the price the seller is asking...a very odd complaint for a libertarian to entertain.

[Sopranos Republican]

Ron Paul's Presidential campaign was a huge scam.  He took millions of dollars and spent 70% of it on "transfers and administrative costs"--which every other campaign only marked about 20% of donations as, so I can only assume meant it all went to some racket that the Pauls are still living high off today.   He was the only one in the primaries with enough money to fight back the Mitt Romney Death Star campaign that went blasting opponents left and right and did nothing.

He also had nothing to do with the election of Cruz or Lee.

Absolutely right King, also when he was campaigning I just got this sense that he cared about no one. At least with Romney I felt like he was at least, somewhat compassionate. But yeah, he seems like sort of a shady character.

People like you “care” only about Americans (‘DA REAL AMERICANS”, to quote Sarah Palin). What about the Pakistani children being slaughtered with our drones?  Or what about all the people being beheaded/strung up from bridges in Mexico due in part to our drug policy enabling the violence of the cartels? How about all the African American kids in jail for months or years at a time just for minor drug violations? You don’t care about anyone.

  You need to pay attention, to what I actually say, I am AGAINST drone strikes that kill civilians, I only want drones taking out known terrorists, not people who are only suspected to be. I am for the legalization of marijuana, and I am against major penalties for using other drugs, the only people who should be face major penalties for drugs are the dealers themselves. It's absolutely absurd, that African Americans, or any other ethnic group, would have to serve time in jail for just using drugs. Now if they hurt someone else while under the influence that's a different story, but no one should be in jail just for using a drug. So before acusing me, actually see what I have to say.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Ron Paul's Presidential campaign was a huge scam.  He took millions of dollars and spent 70% of it on "transfers and administrative costs"--which every other campaign only marked about 20% of donations as, so I can only assume meant it all went to some racket that the Pauls are still living high off today.   He was the only one in the primaries with enough money to fight back the Mitt Romney Death Star campaign that went blasting opponents left and right and did nothing.

He also had nothing to do with the election of Cruz or Lee.

Absolutely right King, also when he was campaigning I just got this sense that he cared about no one. At least with Romney I felt like he was at least, somewhat compassionate. But yeah, he seems like sort of a shady character.

People like you “care” only about Americans (‘DA REAL AMERICANS”, to quote Sarah Palin). What about the Pakistani children being slaughtered with our drones?  Or what about all the people being beheaded/strung up from bridges in Mexico due in part to our drug policy enabling the violence of the cartels? How about all the African American kids in jail for months or years at a time just for minor drug violations? You don’t care about anyone.

  You need to pay attention, to what I actually say, I am AGAINST drone strikes that kill civilians, I only want drones taking out known terrorists, not people who are only suspected to be. I am for the legalization of marijuana, and I am against major penalties for using other drugs, the only people who should be face major penalties for drugs are the dealers themselves. It's absolutely absurd, that African Americans, or any other ethnic group, would have to serve time in jail for just using drugs. Now if they hurt someone else while under the influence that's a different story, but no one should be in jail just for using a drug. So before acusing me, actually see what I have to say.

What you have to realise is that the Paulites are exactly like the Tea Party -- if you disagree with them on something, then you must disagree with them on everything else, and also murder puppies.

[SPC]

The whole premise behind Ron Paul's campaign was to make him look like a 'sane Libertarian' (even though there's really no such thing as one) and it ended up making him look even more insane than he'd expected, despite the fact that he appeared less insane than he actually is.

Which is why he got 1 million more votes this time around?

[courts]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

it is of course, ridiculous. everyone remotely objective can see that. with that said i utterly fail to see how ron paul supporters are any more conspiratorial than the typical republican party supporter or 'movement conservative.' people like limbaugh, savage, d'sousza, trump, etc. are hardly paul supporters. and citing all their totally unsubstantiated (and frequently blatantly contradictory) conspiracy theories and urban legends would take up several threads. to the extent movement conservatism is coherent (which it isn't) that is a significant aspect.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

oxymoronic don't you think?

[With you in spirit]

The whole premise behind Ron Paul's campaign was to make him look like a 'sane Libertarian' (even though there's really no such thing as one) and it ended up making him look even more insane than he'd expected, despite the fact that he appeared less insane than he actually is.

Which is why he got 1 million more votes this time around?

Right and it's 45 degrees today as compared to 44 degrees yesterday. I should've worn shorts and a tank top, right?


Ghost_white, you make a good point though. The typical Paulites are no more or less conspiratorial than mainstream Conservatives (or even Liberals in some cases), but they're a tad more extreme in some of their theories.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The whole premise behind Ron Paul's campaign was to make him look like a 'sane Libertarian' (even though there's really no such thing as one) and it ended up making him look even more insane than he'd expected, despite the fact that he appeared less insane than he actually is.

Which is why he got 1 million more votes this time around?

Right and it's 45 degrees today as compared to 44 degrees yesterday. I should've worn shorts and a tank top, right?


Ghost_white, you make a good point though. The typical Paulites are no more or less conspiratorial than mainstream Conservatives (or even Liberals in some cases), but they're a tad more extreme in some of their theories.

Wearing shorts and a tank top in 45 degree weather is foreign to me here in Florida .

My existence as a person should be mine. I would be angry if somebody was profiting off of my daily activities for whatever reason. That is why the whole tabloid/paparazzi industry theoretically immoral in my opinion.

I understand that this pisses you off on moral grounds, but what legal claim are you asserting here?  Basically:

"If I bought a domain name in your name, and dedicated it solely to you, in a positive connotation, the website would be your intellectual property."

Why?  Why is it my "intellectual property," but a negative site about me is not?  Do I own my positive likeness, but not my negative likeness?  I understand revoking a domain name if someone is claiming to be, or represent you, somehow.  But what you're arguing seems so obviously ridiculous and authoritarian to me.  Under what circumstances could a web site about someone be claimed by the person about whom it is about, and under what circumstances couldn't it?  I don't understand your argument behind this at all, besides that it seems intuitively proper to you.

Also, if you give me something and I reneg on a legally non-binding promise to return it, and then want something for it, that's not called extortion.  That's called getting screwed.  It's kind of funny you call that "extortion" considering the only similarity to extortion is wanting something but resenting paying the price the seller is asking...a very odd complaint for a libertarian to entertain.

One of the key principles on Libertarianism is the right to your property, and your right to keep it. The real debate here is what property is Ron Paul's and what property is not.

A site attacking Ron Paul has the right to take the domain name that is available and turn it against Ron Paul, just like Dan Savage did with “Spreading Santorum”. Taking away a negative site would be an assault on freedom of speech. The websites intention is too, for whatever reason, to defame or attack its target.  This is legitimate.

If the site is positive, it is much different, and perhaps even sinister in a sense. If I registered Alcon.com  and made the site a collection of your best posts, and operated independently of you, you should have the intellectual property rights.

Here is an example. The year is 2016, and a now 20 year old ChairmanSanchez decides to start a grass roots movement for Rand Paul in 2016. If I go around to every live TV news interview in the area and heckle about Rand Paul, or if I desecrate the other peoples signs, etc, and embarrass the campaign while working as an independent grassroots guy, do they not have the right to stop me from working for them.

If RonPaul.com was for Ron Paul, some random guy in Montana who shares the same name, then Ron Paul’s suit would have no basis.

[courts]

Ghost_white, you make a good point though. The typical Paulites are no more or less conspiratorial than mainstream Conservatives (or even Liberals in some cases), but they're a tad more extreme in some of their theories.

honestly i agree with brtd here. you could easily argue that paul supporters are statistically less likely to believe in the sort of conspiracy theories common among the republican base. they tend to be younger, more educated, anti-war and more likely to self-id as liberal or moderate. these are not groups that typically believe in birtherism, fundamentalist conspiracies or islamic caliphate-type conspiracy theories (especially the last, for obvious reasons).

[Alcon]

One of the key principles on Libertarianism is the right to your property, and your right to keep it. The real debate here is what property is Ron Paul's and what property is not.

Yes.

A site attacking Ron Paul has the right to take the domain name that is available and turn it against Ron Paul, just like Dan Savage did with “Spreading Santorum”. Taking away a negative site would be an assault on freedom of speech. The websites intention is too, for whatever reason, to defame or attack its target.  This is legitimate.

I agree that negative speech should be protected.

If the site is positive, it is much different, and perhaps even sinister in a sense. If I registered Alcon.com  and made the site a collection of your best posts, and operated independently of you, you should have the intellectual property rights.

I understand you claim this.  I'm asking why you claim this.  Unless I am claiming falsely to be you, or claiming falsely to operate/speak as your representative, how is this an unfair use of freedom of speech?

Here is an example. The year is 2016, and a now 20 year old ChairmanSanchez decides to start a grass roots movement for Rand Paul in 2016. If I go around to every live TV news interview in the area and heckle about Rand Paul, or if I desecrate the other peoples signs, etc, and embarrass the campaign while working as an independent grassroots guy, do they not have the right to stop me from working for them.

Was RonPaul.com claiming to be working on Ron Paul's behalf in an official, authorized capacity?  Owning the domain name and advocating on his behalf alone do not constitute deception, and without proof of deception, this is such an obvious violation of the protection of freedom of speech.

[t_host1]

 My instincts of why Rep. Paul is using the agency stated, as an arbiter, may have more to do with getting the attention of the W3C and the registrars’, whom actually do the conveyance of rights to the ownership of the code that translates to human’s, “ronpaul.com”.  The W3C recognizes very few opinions and rules other than its own, while at the same time, its recommendations have leverage. The content within is the legal case - was there a reasonable arrangement even if it was unwritten. On any hand, for this issue to get too this position, the price/cost is not going to be less/free.