Ron Paul asks the UN to steal RonPaul.com from the paulbots


#1

Well, who didnt see this coming

Back in May of 2008, when Former Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), a group of the Libertarian congressman’s supporters noticed that he had never secured RonPaul.com or RonPaul.org and decided to buy them and launch a fan site supporting his political endeavors. Five years and two failed presidential bids later, Paul wants the domains for himself.

The group behind the sites announced Friday that Paul had filed a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization, “a global governing body that is an agency of the United Nations” to “expropriate the two domain names from his supporters without compensation.”

Previously, the group had offered to give Paul the RonPaul.org domain as a free gift as long as they could keep RonPaul.com for their use. When he rejected that offer, they proposed to sell Paul both domains along with the 170,000 person email list for $250,000, an offer he also rejected

Ron Paul Wants RonPaul.com So Badly That He’s Asking The UN For Help | Mediaite


#2

Bwahahahahah!!! :howler:


#3

Assuming the above is true …

Domain name squatters have, in the past, fared poorly in Federal court when businesses (I think Fry’s Electronics went through this process) act with reasonable promptitude. Even allowing some time for a reasonable amount of backing-and-forthing, nearly 5 years’ delay doesn’t seem exactly timely. And why Rep. Paul would pursue this through a UN agency rather than US courts eludes me.


#4

I guess Paul’s “freedom” rhetoric only applies to himself, the rest of us should be subordinate to our own government and to the U.N. while viewing our own property as just things we are stewards over as long as the collective permits us this privilege.


#5

I can’t WAIT for the Ron Paul supports to come out in defense of THIS one.


#6

They arent exactly domain name squatters. Ron Paul never had RonPaul.com, paulbots registered it over a year after Paul had started his 2008 presidential campaign. He clearly had no interest in it and it wasnt just a place holder it was clearly used by the paulbots for a purpose


#7

Actually, the meaning I attached to “domain name squatters” is exactly fits what was done in this case. Using the Fry’s Electronics case as an example (and posting from memory), some one beat Fry’s to the punch in registering “Frys.com”. Fry’s sued, and Fry’s ended up winning. The two dissimilarities I see in this current situation are that Fry’s is a business rather than a politician (probably not at all relevant), and Rep. Ron Paul waited a long time before taking legal action (possibly complicating or even fatal to his case, were it in Federal court).


#8

It will be fun to see them twist themselves into all kinds of stupid explanations of what Ron Paul REALLY meant by this legal action.


#9

And the hillarity of Ron Paul going to the UN for protection is lost on most?
Surely, what a jest!


#10

Fry’s got a default judgement thats a bit different than winning the suit.


#11

[quote=“2cent, post:9, topic:38175”]
And the hillarity of Ron Paul going to the UN for protection is lost on most?
Surely, what a jest!
[/quote]That’s what I got out of it too. Quite a comical irony.


#12

Ron is getting old, and might be suffering from early stages of dimensia.


#13

A default judgment means Fry’s won the case. That they won because the guy didn’t show up - not the only domain name squatter case in which he was a defendant, BTW - doesn’t change the fact that Fry’s won the case.

On the other hand, Fry’s lost a 2007 suit in which they claimed the rights to frys.us, because “frys” is a very generic word. That would not have been an issue had Ron Paul sued to get the rights to ronpaul.com and ronpaul.org.

I get the humor/irony of Ron Paul going to the UN. I’m just leaving the needling to others.


#14

exactly they didnt win on the merits of the case, so claiming it as an example of a business triumphing over a “squatter” (the guy was using it to sell french fry making machines) is correct but misleading.


#15

Okay. What were his earlier excuses?


#16

I said this back during the primaries, when it seemed like he only talked about the same thing no matter what the question was.


#17

I think he’s wrong. I like Ron Paul just fine. I think he’s wrong. It’s easy to do when folks are wrong. I’ve never had a problem saying Ron Paul is wrong. I think People Eating Tasty Animals should still have its peta.org domain name too (instead of People Eating Tasty Animals), but the government didn’t. It was wrong, and Ron Paul is wrong.

Why does anyone who supports or supported Ron Paul have to defend this?

I think a lot of you are wrong on different things. I still like most of y’all. I’d even support some of you for office. What does that mean?

BTW:
Ron Paul Calls on United Nations to Confiscate Domain Names of His Supporters

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?


#18

:rofl::rofl::rofl:


#19

Theres a difference between this and thinking someone is wrong on a political issue. This is an action contradictory to pretty much every thing Ron Paul has ever said.


#20

[quote=“UNTRugby, post:19, topic:38175”]
Theres a difference between this and thinking someone is wrong on a political issue. This is an action contradictory to pretty much every thing Ron Paul has ever said.
[/quote]I supported and voted for President Bush. Am I supposed to defend his contradictory activities? Or shall I call it wrong when it’s wrong?