"You give me back my name or I will sic the UN on you." |
Paul was interviewed by Conservative radio show host Alex Jones at the beginning of January and said he wished he had control of RonPaul.com. It's not an uncommon wish. Everyone wants to own theirname.com. The site was registered by his fans years ago, though it's unclear who exactly owns the domain. Ownership have protected their identity from public searches. Regardless, Paul supporters have used the site as an organizational tool to help the popular libertarian since.
The proprietors of RonPaul.com say they reached out to the retired politicain and offered him RonPaul.org as a free gift, but if he "insisted" on owning RonPaul.com then they would sell it to him. There was a catch, though. It would be part of a "liberty package" with the site's 170,000 person mailing list for... wait for it... $250,000. They think the price is totally worth it:
"The value we put on the deal was $250k; we are getting our mailing list appraised right now but we are confident it is easily worth more than $250k all by itself. Claims that we tried to sell Ron Paul “his name” for $250k or even $800k are completely untrue, and there is little doubt that our mailing list would have enabled Ron Paul to raise several million dollars for the liberty movement this year. It would have been a win/win/win situation for everyone involved."
But Paul did not respond to their generous offer. Instead, he went to the United Nations' World Intellectual Property Organization to file a 13 page complaint asking for control of both domains.
Oops! Paul's opting for legal action is notable because he's spoken out against the U.N. in the past. They generally aren't very popular among libertarians. They aren't so bad now that he wants control of his own name's website.
And now his fans are pissed:
"Back in 2007 we put our lives on hold for you, Ron, and we invested close to 10,000 hours of tears, sweat and hard work into this site at great personal sacrifice. We helped raise millions of dollars for you, we spread your message of liberty as far and wide as we possibly could, and we went out of our way to defend you against the unjustified attacks by your opponents. Now that your campaigns are over and you no longer need us, you want to take it all away – and send us off to a UN tribunal?"
Ron Paul's supporters did not reach there distrust of the UN all on their own, Ron Paul led them there with statements like this:
- Its global planners fully intend to expand the UN into a true world government, complete with taxes, courts, and a standing army.
- The choice is very clear: we either follow the Constitution or submit to UN global governance. American national sovereignty cannot survive if we allow our domestic laws to be crafted by an international body.
- Like any government or quasi-government body, the UN is rife with corruption and backroom deals. Worst of all, it serves as a forum for rampant anti-Americanism.
Personally I have NEVER understood the Ron Paul attraction. But it has been widespread, mostly because of his anti-war stances and desire for us not to get involved in the conflict that happen in other countries. I agree with that as well, but then Paul loses me when he talks about returning the country to the Gold Standard or suggests that government has virtually no role to play in the lives of the American people.
Clearly he is somewhat of a lunatic, and the evidence for that is in the first few lines of this post:
Paul was interviewed by Conservative radio show host Alex Jones.
You don't get much more fringe, or outright insane than Alex Jones, who many of you may remember from his venom spewing defense of the 2nd Amendment on the Piers Morgan show.
I think that for those Ron Paul supporters who are still clinging to the ridiculous belief that Paul, or his son, actually have a shot at becoming President of this country this will serve as a long overdue wake up call.
For the rest of us it is just an affirmation that Paul is essentially full of shit. Which is really not much of a shocker.
LOLWROTF. Sweet, sweet irony.
ReplyDeleteYou are taking one participant's outline of the dispute as true. This venue is required for any disputes by the rules the site owner, not Paul, agreed to in registering the site. Paul would be against this UN agency having jurisdiction but it is the only place he can bring a dispute as things stand.
ReplyDeleteCome back when you have your law degree, 9:18. The "rules" you are referring to, if they exist, would be between the site owner and the domain registrar or site host. The site owner (the Paulites) can't restrict US court jurisdiction over a dispute with Ron Paul through their unilateral actions and without a contract with Ron Paul agreeing to a dispute resolution procedure.
DeleteThere is no contract between the site owner and Ron Paul, hence Ron Paul's "sad." If Ron Paul wants the domain, he should man up (or woman up) and buy the domain. That's the American way. As to being entitled to ronpaul.com, why did Paul not make that claim 6 years ago? Look up "laches" or "sitting on your rights like an arrogant wimp letting someone else do all the work or make all the investment thinking you can swoop in years later and snatch it away only it's too late."
Good for Paul for ignoring the offer.
DeleteI think Paul just wants the site names, not the mailing lists they are wanting to package with the names. It's nice that Paul isn't interested in grifting $ out of that large of a targeted email listing. If he were, the $250k would be a financial bargain. Going to the UN was dumb, but Paul doesn't employ a team of attorneys and consultants to guide his every move. He made a big dumb mistake here though in contacting the UN if he were ever concerned about criticism. He merely wanted control over his name, and wasn't willing to be extorted to get it. No harm, no foul.
This is like the hooker who said you could have sex with her for free if you merely agreed to buy a picture of her in her little nighty for $500.
You turn her down and she yells to everybody that you were trying to rape her because you wanted to screw her against her will, because of course her 'will' is contingent on doing payng customers only.
Much ado 'bout nuthin'.
>>Much ado 'bout nuthin'.
DeleteYou just described the entire right wing outrage machine!
Rand Paul Says Ashley Judd is Attractive, Articulate and Doesn’t Represent Kentucky
ReplyDelete...Asked about Karl Rove’s negative ads against Judd in Kentucky, Rand said, “Part of politics is making sure people know about who you are running against. Ashley Judd’s a famous actress, she’s an attractive woman, and presents herself well, and from what I understand, is articulate. But the thing is, she doesn’t really represent Kentucky.”
I guess Rand’s Kentucky doesn’t want to be represented by an attractive, articulate woman. Or maybe it’s that Rove’s GOP PAC Crossroads painted Judd out to be a radical liberal from Tennessee who loves ObamaCare because you should really “know” who is a Muslim Kenyan socialist without a birth certificate, rather than focusing on the people who are still clinging to the Affordable Care Act as a get out the vote tool even though they know they can’t overturn it. After all, the last thing Republicans can afford is to have actual policy discussions with voters.
Rand also offered up his peculiar brand of Tea humor, “When I heard Ashley Judd might run for office I thought maybe it was Parliament since she lives in Scotland half the year.” Oh, European boogeywoman! Good one, Senator.
http://www.politicususa.com/rand-paul-ashely-judd-attractive-articulate-represent-kentucky.html
At least Ashley and her family are from Kentucky, unlike that moldy stained reverse-direction carpetbagger from TEexas.
DeleteThere are alot of wacky Ron Paul supporters. I can understand him wanting to protect his name and prevent bad activities from happening under his name. However, I feel that he should of paid them for the control of, the right of the site, and list of the supporters, that have become members. The way that he chose to handle the situation, was just hypocritical. Hard to see anyone supporting his name, in the future.
ReplyDeleteAt some point, I think that, Rand Paul, thinks that he have a chance at the Presidency. I'm till trying to figure out, how he obtained any political position.
Obama’s Reelection is Literally Destroying Fox News
ReplyDeletePresident Obama’s reelection has had a devastating impact on Fox News. Ratings are down, viewer trust is at an all time low, and now the network is caught in the middle of a Republican civil war.
Republicans and right wing media have become fond of claiming that President Obama is out to destroy the Republican Party, but no other media organization has suffered greater damage from the president’s reelection than Fox News. But it wasn’t Obama that wounded Fox; rather, it was a series of absurdly poor decisions that left the network reeling.
As the Republican Party’s demographic base has shrunk, Fox News has followed. The recent news that FNC (Fox News Channel) registered their lowest ratings with the 25-54 demographic in 12 years is not a surprise. During Obama’s first term, Roger Ailes and company have geared their programming towards the newly radicalized base of the Republican Party. They ran wild with anti-Obama rhetoric and conspiracy theories. The daily Fox News message that the country really didn’t like Obama was one of the main reasons that the Republican Party went into the 2012 election thinking that they could nominate anybody and win. While Fox embraced the quest to make Obama a one term president with gusto, the rest of the country still liked Obama. Fox News alienated everyone who wasn’t a hard core conservative with their extremism. As a result, many moderate people stopped watching Fox.
However, the biggest problem for Fox News is that they were wrong. FNC was so blinded by their partisan mission that they got the 2012 election completely wrong. They were wrong about Obama’s vulnerability, wrong about Romney’s victory, wrong about who would show up to vote, wrong about Republicans retaking the Senate, and most importantly, they were completely wrong about the direction of the country. The success of Obama’s tax message, the popularity of ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and his action on immigration were a clear signal that the country was moving left. Instead of injecting a bit of reality into their coverage, Fox News kept trotting out people like Sarah Palin and Dick Morris to tout the inevitability of Romney’s victory. Viewers reacted to Fox’s propaganda-over-facts attitude by giving the network their lowest trust ratings ever. Except for the political right, viewers don’t trust Fox.
The third wheel to fall off the Fox News juggernaut is the now out in theopen civil war between the Republican Party establishment and the tea party.
http://www.politicususa.com/obamas-reelection-literally-destroying-fox-news.html
I figured he was arrogant, but wow; not even an attempt to cut a deal; my way or the highway? I think we dodged another bullet.
ReplyDeleteOne more into the dustbin of history, and here’s hoping he drags his no-talent son along with him.
Below is what Ron Paul had to say about the United Nations while in office:
ReplyDeleteThose bureaucrats are not satisfied by meddling only in international disputes, however. The UN increasingly wants to influence our domestic environmental, trade, labor, tax, and gun laws. Its global planners fully intend to expand the UN into a true world government, complete with taxes, courts, and a standing army. This is not an alarmist statement; these facts are readily promoted on the UN’s own website. UN planners do not care about national sovereignty; in fact they are actively hostile to it. They correctly view it as an obstacle to their plans. They simply aren’t interested in our Constitution and republican form of government.
The choice is very clear: we either follow the Constitution or submit to UN global governance. American national sovereignty cannot survive if we allow our domestic laws to be crafted by an international body. This needs to be stated publicly more often. If we continue down the UN path, America as we know it will cease to exist.
http://www.ronpaul.com/2013-02-08/ron-paul-vs-ronpaul-com/
Ron Paul's position on non-intervention in foreign affairs align him pretty closely with the John Birch Society. Paul has also been accused of anti-semitism and racism over the years as he has been attacked by the anti-Palestinian groups which advocate the US's unquestioned support of Israel's apartheid policies toward the Palestinians, in addition to Israel's provocative acts toward Iran, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, and any other Arab country or group in the Middle East.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Paul politics that our country should act in its best interests first, and take more of a hands-off, moderate position toward the state of Israel and its activities, because Israel has used its own terrorism networks, assassination and kidnap squads abroad, and propaganda to alienate itself while bullying fellow countries in the ME. No, israel isn't always wrong in its approach or activities, but often they are, and having big brother (the US) there standing with them every time makes them bolder and more provocative than if they had to stand on their own. Nothing anti-Semitic about right and wrong.
Paul is also firmly against the UN, as are the Bircher conspiracists, but I get lost in the weeds a little on some of the more nefarious conspiracy theories in the anti-global stuff. Anti-Fed Reserve, Pro-gold standard,etc---that is all classic Bircher stuff.
Paul has been a truth-teller for many years about America's meddling in other countries through our CIA and Intelligence Agencies, as proven by declassified documents in the past decade. That is the real reason there has been such a coordinated effort to smear him and paint him as a Village Idiot or a loon. He hasn't helped himself at times, and he's been burned by some of his associations ( for instance, with the aforementioned Alex Jones), but he does tell the facts that can be verified about our foreign policy missteps. I'm skeptical of anything without proof, and Paul has been helpful in sourcing some of these things hidden in archives bc corporate media is unwilling to embarrass their financiers. That's just business and I understand their motivations are economic, because there is tremendous pressure to maximize shareholder value in the corporate world, and almost all news is corporate-owned. No stretch to understand why the MSM would position Paul as a kook. But I digress.
Since I haven't done the research on all of his UN rants myself to separate facts from exaggeration, I can't comment directly on the veracity of all of his positions. But there's no denying that that Paul was right about Iraq, before, during, and after the public "debate" to conquer the country, and he was one of few who did not waver despite being called a traitor and a crazy person. And I believed him because many of the things he was saying about the incestuous relationship between our corrupt military industrial complex and the bankers who have helped them scam our country have proven to be true by my own research.
Iran 1954 and 1980
Iraq 1980-1990
Afghanistan
Turkey
Bolivia
Peru
Chile
Tibet
Laos
Vietnam
Syria
Egypt
Lybia
Columbia
Panama
Chile
Honduras
Etc.
G, don't fall victim to the anti-Paul piling on that's driving this issue. Paul is who he is, but he's not a greedy sellout trying to grift or steal something by bullying. Many of his "supporters" also support crazy shit that Paul would never endorse or even acknowledge, and some of those are trying to exact a little revenge. And their voices will be amplifies to those who have been threatened by Paul's revelations about the corrupt nature of our govt representatives as they serve their masters, the Romneys, Koch Bros, Defense Contractors, Corp and Financial fraud.
Just keep an open mind and seek the facts yourself where you are able. That's all we can do, but it's enough if we do it together and limit our unreserved trust to those who have earned it over the long-haul.
I believe Ron Paul also opposes a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. I always wondered why young people would support him knowing that.
ReplyDeleteYoung people support Ron Paul because of his libertarian pot positions. And I think he got a lot of support because of his Iraq War opposition. Also, a lot of his supporters are idealistic and naive and continue to see the world in terms of black and white and are on the social fringes. They hate government because they hate society and they hate society because society has rejected them.
DeletePaul's personal position is that he is not personally in favor of abortion. Has he personally performed abortions himself, as an OB/Gyn? I honestly don't know. But I do know for a fact that he does not favor allowing the government to have a say in restricting awoman's right to choose birth/abortion/adoption/whatever.
DeleteHis words have been twisted to distort what really matters, and that is whether he supports the law as it stands now. And the answer is YES, he does.
Paul has always supported the rights of individuals to make those choices, and many others as a Libertarian.
You are correct, he has fought against legal abortions and he's another racist southerner.
DeleteBullshit, 11:02. Ron Paul is very anti-choice and considers anti-choice to be the libertarian position.
DeleteRon Paul supporters are a funny lot...mostly young people that only seem to hang on to him as some sort of defacto human embodiment of the truly libertarian beliefs that are so easy to espouse when one is so young and naive....
ReplyDeleteWait until they have a life crisis (e.g. having health insurance denied after they get cancer)...they'll cry for the protections of a bigger government they currently seek to eliminate
Gryphen, Ron Paul is not a supporter of Alex Jones's craziest conspiracies. Jones is a supporter of Paul because some of the issues that Paul has championed fit neatly with some of Jones' larger conspiracy theories. Jones expands on Paul's unpopular truths to use them as the grain of salt needed to sell his conspiracy phenomena. Paul has been virtually shut out of MSM, for the most part, because he's never been reluctant to tell the truth about the corrupt relationships between financial institutions, defense industry, government and media. For instance, Paul's name is only mentioned in ridicule on Fox, even when he's undeniably right on an issue, because he was calling Bush, Cheney, Rummie and the other chicken hawks out as war criminals if they invaded Iraq. I cannot disagree with Paul on his position then and now on these critical events in our nation's history that will affect all Americans and our kids for many years to come.
ReplyDeleteDon't shoot the messenger because he's limited to certain vehicles to get his word out. That's exactly what the GOP and Fox do every day, and that'stwist the President referred to recently about the GOP punishing anyone who cooperates or talks to the other side. That's why R's are afraid to go on anything but Fox or conservative media bc they'll be skewered. They can't be reasonable and they can't broaden their base by talking to Rachel, who is always reasonable and respectful, to discuss policy issues without getting hammered. Selling a book, they might get a pass, but that's it.
Not saying Paul is right on every issue, because no one is right on every issue. This story looks like a non-story by those who have been groomed and encouraged to paint Paul as a kook.
There's more nuance here than meets the eye, so please consider who benefits from Paul "looking bad". I'm not a Paulbit by any definition any more than I am a "worshiper of The One, our President" (who I support strongly with only a few reservations like the drones issue), but I know Paul has some very insightful positions on important things that are filtered from us. I know, because I have sought out those words and discussions and verified his positions, and his ideas are consistent with many of my own values and ideas. And yours, too, if you'll look directly to his work and beyond the scorn from interests from the left AND right that seek to silence his message through ridicule and restricted access to the public at large.
Gryph, give it some thought and think about what the really important issues are that Paul has pushed and examine your own personal positions, and I'm certain there is more commonality that you will realize at a quick glance. That's all I've done.
Paul has done nothing but live off of campaign funds for decades. He has never done anything but grift, much like SP.isit from Paul supporters?
DeleteBTW why don't I ever get political visit from a Paul supporter? Could it be because I'm not white?
Gryph, my apologies for the O/T, but ugh.
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/ReidMeRude/status/300662529028403200/photo/1
"A friend met Sarah Palin today..."
"ugh" is right! Her glasses are crooked...the wig looks like it was slapped on her head at the last minute...she looks OLD and completely clueless...she really should do something about that hairline...and whatever hotel she's staying at I hope they fumigated the room after she left! LOL!!!
Deleteawwww... she's even wearing a girlie Smith & Wesson tee...
Deletehttp://www.smith-wesson.com/wcsstore/SmWesson2/upload/images/products/detail_md/36650_md.jpg
Wow! Sarah is already short and usually wearing heels of some sort, so that person is teeny tiny standing next to Sarah.
DeleteAnd damn, she DOES look so OLD now. Really.
Ron Paul obviously hates the free market and capitalism...
ReplyDeleteThis is the thing with ALL conservatives...
ReplyDeletetheir convictions only last as long as it doesn't apply to them!
Poor Ron wants his named website. as a trophy to remember how the GOP treated him and that he lost his bid to run for POTUS. Hey, I bet Baldy would part with one of hers for a lot less. Wave a fifty dollar bill and wink, Ron!
ReplyDelete