Ron Paul Runs Crying to the UN (to screw his own supporters)

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."

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."