Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Leaving this here for Maizuru.

http://www.ronpaul.com/2013-02-08/ron-paul-vs-ronpaul-com/

Wow...

That was almost 3 months ago. There an update?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Leaving this here for Maizuru.

http://www.ronpaul.com/2013-02-08/ron-paul-vs-ronpaul-com/

1. I sure hope Ush doesn't close this thread because it is clearly a troll thread...but I like it.

2. Just because he does not support the "police-iness" of the UN over US affairs, does not mean he won't make use of such resources. The system is there, he can still take advantage of it whether or not he likes it. It does make him seem like a hypocrite, though.


"I prefer my pancakes without butter but they came with butter so I ate them with butter."

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
That was almost 3 months ago. There an update?

I only just heard about it.

how come really liberal people love to bash things they don't know about. what's your experience with the u.n. Symmetric? Military? I hate this far wing thing. So little knowledge. So much bashing.

Originally posted by Raisen
how come really liberal people love to bash things they don't know about. what's your experience with the u.n. Symmetric? Military? I hate this far wing thing. So little knowledge. So much bashing.

Paul-ites, Assemble!

No, I think Raisen is just a troll without any real ideology.

could be true, my post was all inference

Well, what leads me to believe that he isn't a Paulite is that he doesn't use "Ron Paul" anywhere in his post, which Paulites never fail to do.

I just saw the reactionary knee-jerk rambling with no real point and thought -- Paulite

Well I suppose there's something to that.

I think the vast majority of Ron Paul supporters are like what I was when I was briefly a Ron Paul acolyte: people who really don't grasp the implications of Ron Paul's philosophy and just embrace him because he's different from most politicians and thus must be superior.

Agreed, Paul actually still likely is the closest of any mainstream politician to where I would fall politically, but like you said, a lot of the excitement I had for him at first was about him just representing something different; like, Libertarianism doesn't exist much in Canada either.

But, ya, I think once you start looking at just how dramatic some of Paul's policies actually would be, it is hard to be that into him.

that story is pretty messed up as well... that Paul would go to any governing body rather than engage in the free-market to obtain RonPaul.com is comical, really

I found an update. The official UN response boils down to "You're a dick."

http://domainnamewire.com/2013/05/23/breaking-ron-paul-found-guilty-of-reverse-domain-name-hijacking/

http://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/paul-rdnh.pdf

From a legal standpoint I feel like Ron Paul ought to have had a real case. Ron Paul is both his name and the way he advertises his work and political activism. Apparently he also has "Ron Paul" formally registered in some way, which the UN admits several times in the report.

Ron Paul supporters in a nutshell:



I can just imagine if Ron Paul got convicted for embezzlement:
"If Ron Paul is an embezzler

than it must be a good thing to be one."

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Well I suppose there's something to that.

I think the vast majority of Ron Paul supporters are like what I was when I was briefly a Ron Paul acolyte: people who really don't grasp the implications of Ron Paul's philosophy and just embrace him because he's different from most politicians and thus must be superior.

Very honest and probably very accurate.

Originally posted by dadudemon
"I prefer my pancakes without butter but they came with butter so I ate them with butter."

I see nothing wrong with that

Originally posted by juggerman
I see nothing wrong with that

Except it's more like saying: "Butter is neither wise nor neutral, butter is full of corruption and rampant anti-pancakeism."

And then going "But hey, butter can help me swallow my pancakes, so it's okay."

Originally posted by dadudemon

"I prefer my pancakes without butter but they came with butter so I ate them with butter."
It would be more like "I prefer my pancakes without mercury on them, but they came with mercury so I ate them with mercury."

Edit: Mine's better, Rob. uhuh

Originally posted by Omega Vision
It would be more like "I prefer my pancakes without mercury on them, but they came with mercury so I ate them with mercury."

Edit: Mine's better, Rob. uhuh

Meh, okay. Just know I did it first

Originally posted by Robtard
Except it's more like saying: "Butter is neither wise nor neutral, butter is full of corruption and rampant anti-pancakeism."

And then going "But hey, butter can help me swallow my pancakes, so it's okay." Originally posted by Omega Vision
It would be more like "I prefer my pancakes without mercury on them, but they came with mercury so I ate them with mercury."

Edit: Mine's better, Rob. uhuh

Both terrible. You should be ashamed.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Both terrible. You should be ashamed.

Which one is less terrible?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I found an update. The official UN response boils down to "You're a dick."

http://domainnamewire.com/2013/05/23/breaking-ron-paul-found-guilty-of-reverse-domain-name-hijacking/

http://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/paul-rdnh.pdf

From a legal standpoint I feel like Ron Paul ought to have had a real case. Ron Paul is both his name and the way he advertises his work and political activism. Apparently he also has "Ron Paul" formally registered in some way, which the UN admits several times in the report.

I'm not sure I agree.

I don't think Paul has the rights to himself as a topic of conversation, as this page seemed to be. Maybe if they were impersonating him, or squatting on the address, I'd agree he had a case, but in this instance it is a site that has been running for 5 years talking about him as a subject, it seems like a legitimate use, the same way you can satire a public figure.

Ron Paul wanted the domain name so he could sell it back and make a profit. /ronpaulfact

Originally posted by Oliver North
I'm not sure I agree.

I don't think Paul has the rights to himself as a topic of conversation, as this page seemed to be. Maybe if they were impersonating him, or squatting on the address, I'd agree he had a case, but in this instance it is a site that has been running for 5 years talking about him as a subject, it seems like a legitimate use, the same way you can satire a public figure.

Page 8 is where Paul's best case against them is addressed by the panel.

Ron Paul claims common law trademark (so not a formal ownership like it thought) on his name. The standard for this is very clear:

"In order to establish common law trademark or service mark rights in a personal name, it is necessary for the party asserting such rights to demonstrate that the name has been used to identify goods or services in commerce, and that the public associates the personal name with a good or service provided by the person identified by the name."

Apparently political use of his name does not count so campaign merchandise doesn't qualify. Ron Paul sells books on the basis of his name, they represent his thoughts about politics and economics. People who buy these books want to know what Ron Paul thinks. They do not buy them because they want a book on politics. They buy them because they want Ron Paul's book on politics.


I do find it interesting that to claim the domain name you must specifically show bad faith, not simply rights to it.

It always amazes how many threads on this forum get made about a guy who is and will always be an absolute political non-entity.

Originally posted by Robtard
Except it's more like saying: "Butter is neither wise nor neutral, butter is full of corruption and rampant anti-pancakeism."

And then going "But hey, butter can help me swallow my pancakes, so it's okay."

I was thinking more like, "Butter is bad, mkay, because I'm fat n'stuff. So I skip out on unnecessary calories."

"The UN is bad because of X but it is not detrimental. So I skip out on it."

In either scenario, it would be hypocritical to indulge.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
It would be more like "I prefer my pancakes without mercury on them, but they came with mercury so I ate them with mercury."

Edit: Mine's better, Rob. uhuh

I don't think that works because Ron Paul does not think the UN is fatal to the US. More like, "just not good, overall."

Originally posted by dadudemon
I was thinking more like, "Butter is bad, mkay, because I'm fat n'stuff. So I skip out on unnecessary calories."

"The UN is bad because of X but it is not detrimental. So I skip out on it."

In either scenario, it would be hypocritical to indulge.



I don't think that works because Ron Paul does not think the UN is fatal to the US. More like, "just not good, overall."
Mercury isn't necessarily fatal. There was a guy in Southeast Asia who'd been taking mercury capsules for years, and one day after falling seriously ill crapped out something like half a pound of mercury. He survived.

And my impression is that Ron Paul does see the ultimate aim of the UN as that of destroying nation-state sovereignty and absorbing all nations including the US into a one world government.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Mercury isn't necessarily fatal. There was a guy in Southeast Asia who'd been taking mercury capsules for years, and one day after falling seriously ill crapped out something like half a pound of mercury. He survived.

Fair enough.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
And my impression is that Ron Paul does see the ultimate aim of the UN as that of destroying nation-state sovereignty and absorbing all nations including the US into a one world government.

"These are "fan sites" profiting off his name, not sites of his own making that he wants seized. And just like anyone else would have to do in a case like this, he's going through WIPO, (an organization that just happens to be an affiliate of the UN), to have the issue resolved."