The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central Ron Paul seeks UN assistance

Ron Paul Is Feuding with His Fans



UN!

Ron Paul!

Over open market transaction dispute.

LOLOLOLOL

You needed more proof that Ron is a senile hypocrite wack-job? Some of what the man says make sense. Actually a lot of what he says is sound but that doesn't mean that everything he does is gospel, as the Paulites seem to think.

I believe there are some newsletters of his from the 90's that highlight his wack-a-doodle mentality.

His son, on the other hand, seems to have his ducks in a row. Let's just hope that the hereditary senility doesn't set in for a few more years.

Now, the article:
AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA Alex Jones is about as conservative as Sini. He's a complete conspiracy theory boob who thinks that our politicians eat babies roasted in gold leaf. He is on record backing all kinds of far left whacko organizations just because they agree with one of his conspiracy theories. No principles at all.

Any organization willing to use quotes from some one with as little credibility as Jones (while not pointing out how little credibility he has), deserves the same lack of credibility conferred upon them. If they want to be taken seriously, a little research would have given them the Paul quote from a reasonable source. Either they want to associate Paul's ideas with Jones the whack-a-do, or they are so journalisticly inept that they can't be bothered to do real research. You decide.

Ron Paul is a human, like any other. I havent passed any judgement on the case yet, too often a facile case is made by a person's detractors and tossed out for the peanut gallery.

Lots of people think Social Security shouldn't have been implemented for example, yet since they are forced to play under that system rightfully collect what they are entitled to.

If Paul has a case (which I am not certain of, not having take the time to actually look in depth) and the only means of redress happens to be an international body, then I could hardly fault him for going that route. Doing so , and having to do so could in fact strengthen not invalidate his insistence that the current international regulatory paradigm was a bad idea to begin with.

Yes it does, but this recent incident makes one doubt if Ron Paul was making sense intentionally or by accident.

If story to be believed, then Ron Paul is nothing but a populist playing its audience. Clearly, if he practiced what he preached he would not have attempted to involve an international agency, acting through extension of goverment authority, to what should have been open-market transaction. He is, no matter how charitable you are in interpreting, is trying to seize private property by force.

His action is inconsistent with the ideology that he has preached about.

I take with a huge grain of salt any story Gawker breaks regarding a politician that does not conform to their neo-progressive worldview.

If the site was owned by another guy names Ron Paul, or promulgated an unaffiliated business or message then on the face of it Ron would be certainly in the wrong. However, since the site owners in question made their site and their money entirely by using the likeness of the politician Ron Paul the issue becomes a lot murkier.

If the site owners in question were abusing Ron Paul's name to propagate a message that sounded like in some regards, but was not, Ron Pauls message, and did so in a way that implied that it was in fact Ron Pauls message - then I believe Ron is morally entitled to redress - and such would be consistant with his - though not all of his supports' - world view.

As Ron has long held forth the Constitutional principle that citizens have a right to petition the govt for redress of grievances, and using a domain name and message that falsely gave the impression of speaking for you - and making money while doing it - would certainly be a firm moral ground for such a grievance.

As usual, people who hold no understanding of the ideologies and principles in play make facile judgements that suit their own prejudices.

So much for Derid's rallying against government violently taking over private property.

Uh huh. I can honestly say, it is rare to find someone more intellectually dishonest than you. You must work hard at it.

The website does not belong to Ron Paul, if he wants it he should pay going market price for it.

Trying to take it away via goverment intervention flies against everything he preached and stood for up to this point.

So if I understand it right, Ron Paul's actions say to follow Libertarianism, but only for as long as does not personally inconvenience you.

Well, nice. Where do I sign up? In this case, I am too Ron Paul's kind of libertarian.

This is not some "Big Govt" ploy. The owner of the domain signed a contract agreeing to ICANN arbitration in the event that the name was disputed. Ron Paul is simply following the agreed upon procedure, laid out in *contract* that the new domain owner signed, to contest the ownership. Again, things like contract are important libertarian cornerstones.

Well, Ron Paul has filed a dispute. You can try to make it sound like Big Govt all you want, but we both know the truth.

Dont you ever get tired of trolling by giving the impression that you dont know anything about anything? Or are you really as ignorant of the world as you make it appear on these forums?

I know my preferred form of trolling is not to intentionally and repeatedly make myself look stupid, but to each their own I suppose.

Ron Paul is not party to that contract, nor does he have any valid claim to the domain, not being a unique Ron Paul, just one of the better known.

Your denial is understandable, with Ron Paul turning to be a phoney prophet of libertarianism faith.

On of the key gospels of libertarianism is freedom from coercion, especially when applied to private property. Ron Pauls actions go directly against this key principle, he is trying to coerce legitimate owner into less desirable deal with legal action.

This leaves us with two possibilities:

1. Libertarianism is flawed in some aspects
2. Ron Paul is acting against principles of libertarianism

Pick your poison.