Ron Paul wants the UN to help him steal domain names.

  • 54 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

Ron's integrity on display here.

It's good to see Ron Paul sticking by both his anti-UN and pro-free market principals, as well as showing gratitude to his grassroots supporters.

#2 Posted by ghoklebutter (19327 posts) -
Ron Paul, please go back to the hole you came from.
#3 Posted by Ring_of_fire (15653 posts) -
If he really wanted the domain, he should have accepted the free gift of the .org. It is not like they were going to use the .com as a way to bash him....disgraceful.
#4 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (3804 posts) -

I'm not surprised. 

He opposed a cancer cure. He's clearly a nut.

#5 Posted by CongressManStan (918 posts) -
Ron Paul probably isn't the one who is pursuing such a little issue like this. It's probably his staff doing it while he attends to more important things. Don't be so quick to judge just yet.
#6 Posted by DaBrainz (7630 posts) -
Even the best Republican is just the shiniest turd.
#7 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

Ron Paul probably isn't the one who is pursuing such a little issue like this. It's probably his staff doing it while he attends to more important things. Don't be so quick to judge just yet.CongressManStan

I see. So much like his self-published news letters 20 years ago he apparent still cannot control his own staff. And this man wanted us to put him in the White House?

#8 Posted by jimkabrhel (15417 posts) -

Saving the world by screwing over his supporters. Classy.

#9 Posted by DaBrainz (7630 posts) -

[QUOTE="CongressManStan"]Ron Paul probably isn't the one who is pursuing such a little issue like this. It's probably his staff doing it while he attends to more important things. Don't be so quick to judge just yet.worlock77

I see. So much like his self-published news letters 20 years ago he apparent still cannot control his own staff. And this man wanted us to put him in the White House?

To be fair it's not the US has a high standard when it comes to putting people in public office.
#10 Posted by mattbbpl (10572 posts) -
I thought we already knew this guy was full of hot air?
#11 Posted by CongressManStan (918 posts) -

[QUOTE="CongressManStan"]Ron Paul probably isn't the one who is pursuing such a little issue like this. It's probably his staff doing it while he attends to more important things. Don't be so quick to judge just yet.worlock77

I see. So much like his self-published news letters 20 years ago he apparent still cannot control his own staff. And this man wanted us to put him in the White House?

To think any administrator can control every staff member action is naive.
#12 Posted by mattbbpl (10572 posts) -
[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="CongressManStan"]Ron Paul probably isn't the one who is pursuing such a little issue like this. It's probably his staff doing it while he attends to more important things. Don't be so quick to judge just yet.CongressManStan

I see. So much like his self-published news letters 20 years ago he apparent still cannot control his own staff. And this man wanted us to put him in the White House?

To think any administrator can control every staff member action is naive.

Actions such as publishing an article or filing complaints with international bodies usually involved multiple people and multiple levels of approval. The newsletters are particularly concerning because of the timeframe involved. As far as I'm aware he didn't denounce/retract them until they became a problem. Was he unaware of what was being published under his name for all those years?
#13 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="CongressManStan"]Ron Paul probably isn't the one who is pursuing such a little issue like this. It's probably his staff doing it while he attends to more important things. Don't be so quick to judge just yet.CongressManStan

I see. So much like his self-published news letters 20 years ago he apparent still cannot control his own staff. And this man wanted us to put him in the White House?

To think any administrator can control every staff member action is naive.

Certain he can't control every little action done by his staff members, but he can definately control what gets published in his name (since he was, you know, the publisher), and he can most certainly control what legal actions get filed with international bodies in his name. If he can't then that's an alarming level of incompetence or indifference on his part.

#14 Posted by Jd1680a (5930 posts) -
Pretty sad to dumb your closest fans, all 170,000 of them, for a domain name. Ron Paul should have taken .org free gift offer.
#15 Posted by sexyweapons (5302 posts) -

I'm not surprised. 

He opposed a cancer cure. He's clearly a nut.

MakeMeaSammitch

You took that unbelievably out of context...

#16 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (3804 posts) -

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

I'm not surprised. 

He opposed a cancer cure. He's clearly a nut.

sexyweapons

You took that unbelievably out of context...

he opposed a vaccine that would cure a form of cancer women can get in their reproductive system.

That's not out of context.

He was opposing curing a form of cancer.

paulbots smh smh

#17 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

Dude is still a baller.


Why do he want a commercial website? 

#18 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

[QUOTE="sexyweapons"]

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

I'm not surprised. 

He opposed a cancer cure. He's clearly a nut.

MakeMeaSammitch

You took that unbelievably out of context...

he opposed a vaccine that would cure a form of cancer women can get in their reproductive system.

That's not out of context.

He was opposing curing a form of cancer.

paulbots smh smh

No pharmaceutics company would patient or manufacturer a cure anyway-- there's no money to be made from cures.
#19 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (3804 posts) -

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

[QUOTE="sexyweapons"]

You took that unbelievably out of context...

Fightingfan

he opposed a vaccine that would cure a form of cancer women can get in their reproductive system.

That's not out of context.

He was opposing curing a form of cancer.

paulbots smh smh

No pharmaceutics company would patient or manufacturer a cure anyway-- there's no money to be made from cures.

not sure if you're joking.

It's available now. You can go get the preventative shot tomorrow if you want.

#20 Posted by sexyweapons (5302 posts) -

[QUOTE="sexyweapons"]

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

I'm not surprised. 

He opposed a cancer cure. He's clearly a nut.

MakeMeaSammitch

You took that unbelievably out of context...

he opposed a vaccine that would cure a form of cancer women can get in their reproductive system.

That's not out of context.

He was opposing curing a form of cancer.

paulbots smh smh

Tell me the whole story...
#21 Posted by Barbariser (6724 posts) -

Meh, they absolutely deserve to be fvcked over like that, they're Ron Paul supporters after all.

#22 Posted by Laihendi (5819 posts) -
Ron Paul would not do this. Something bad is happening.
#23 Posted by DroidPhysX (17089 posts) -
Ron Paul would not do this. Something bad is happening.Laihendi
Tunnel vision'd
#24 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (3804 posts) -

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

[QUOTE="sexyweapons"]

You took that unbelievably out of context...

sexyweapons

he opposed a vaccine that would cure a form of cancer women can get in their reproductive system.

That's not out of context.

He was opposing curing a form of cancer.

paulbots smh smh

Tell me the whole story...

that's it. Paul's opposing thousands of women not getting cancer.

smh smh

#25 Posted by sexyweapons (5302 posts) -

[QUOTE="sexyweapons"][QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]he opposed a vaccine that would cure a form of cancer women can get in their reproductive system.

That's not out of context.

He was opposing curing a form of cancer.

paulbots smh smh

MakeMeaSammitch

Tell me the whole story...

that's it. Paul's opposing thousands of women not getting cancer.

smh smh

no...thats the only bit your listening to and ignoring everything else.
#26 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"][QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]he opposed a vaccine that would cure a form of cancer women can get in their reproductive system.

That's not out of context.

He was opposing curing a form of cancer.

paulbots smh smh

MakeMeaSammitch

No pharmaceutics company would patient or manufacturer a cure anyway-- there's no money to be made from cures.

not sure if you're joking.

It's available now. You can go get the preventative shot tomorrow if you want.

Prevention =/= Cure. Doctors don't cure anything-- especially in the western world.
#27 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (3804 posts) -

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

[QUOTE="sexyweapons"] Tell me the whole story...sexyweapons

that's it. Paul's opposing thousands of women not getting cancer.

smh smh

no...thats the only bit your listening to and ignoring everything else.

like what? 

an ideology that would kill thousands of women?

I'm not ignoring that.

smh smh  

#28 Posted by GreySeal9 (24118 posts) -

Ron Paul would not do this. Something bad is happening.Laihendi

lol

#29 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

[QUOTE="sexyweapons"]

You took that unbelievably out of context...

Fightingfan

he opposed a vaccine that would cure a form of cancer women can get in their reproductive system.

That's not out of context.

He was opposing curing a form of cancer.

paulbots smh smh

No pharmaceutics company would patient or manufacturer a cure anyway-- there's no money to be made from cures.

This is some grade A, unadulterated ignorance right here.

#30 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

Ron Paul would not do this. Something bad is happening.Laihendi

Clearly he would, because he is.

#31 Posted by Aljosa23 (24782 posts) -

Dirtbag racist and homophobic old man does dirtbag thing, more at 11.

#32 Posted by Rich3232 (2754 posts) -
Ron Paul would not do this. Something bad is happening.Laihendi
rofl. poor lai. his heroes are slowly collapsing before his eyes.
#33 Posted by DroidPhysX (17089 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]Ron Paul would not do this. Something bad is happening.Rich3232
rofl. poor lai. his heroes are slowly collapsing before his eyes.

ehlxld.gif

#34 Posted by Planeforger (15571 posts) -

Jesus guys, this sounds like a stock-standard UDRP claim against cybersquatters.

If you can prove that a website was registered and used in bad faith (such as them trying to scam money off people with legitimate interests in having that website), then you can take the website from them. Anyone can do this. It happens all the time.

As far as I'm aware, all .com and .org cases are handled by WIPO's Arbitration and Mediation Centre, as mandated by ICANN (the guys who manage domain name registries). They're technically part of the United Nations, but there's no other alternatives here - these guys run domain name cases by convention.

He's not making a personal appeal to the United Nations to intervene on his behalf, or anything of the sort.

#35 Posted by Laihendi (5819 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]Ron Paul would not do this. Something bad is happening.worlock77

Clearly he would, because he is.

The msm has been spreading misinformation about Ron Paul for the past 6 years and they will keep doing it until long after he is dead.
#36 Posted by Toxic-Seahorse (4119 posts) -
[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]Ron Paul would not do this. Something bad is happening.Laihendi

Clearly he would, because he is.

The msm has been spreading misinformation about Ron Paul for the past 6 years and they will keep doing it until long after he is dead.

:lol: That's really your only response?
#37 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (3804 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]Ron Paul would not do this. Something bad is happening.Laihendi

Clearly he would, because he is.

The msm has been spreading misinformation about Ron Paul for the past 6 years and they will keep doing it until long after he is dead.

you are so stupid it's amazing you can type a response.

#38 Posted by Laihendi (5819 posts) -
I don't see how anyone can have faith in the mainstream media's coverage of Ron Paul after seeing what they just did to him in the 2012 election.
#39 Posted by DroidPhysX (17089 posts) -
I don't see how anyone can have faith in the mainstream media's coverage of Ron Paul after seeing what they just did to him in the 2012 election.Laihendi
So what? As long as it's valid, it doesn't matter if the media did X or Y to Paul in 2012.
#40 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (3804 posts) -

I don't see how anyone can have faith in the mainstream media's coverage of Ron Paul after seeing what they just did to him in the 2012 election.Laihendi
This is the most serious case of cognitive dissonance I've ever seen, and I've argued with some pretty blatantly racist people.

#41 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -
Ron Paul would not do this. Something bad is happening.Laihendi
First Frodo, now Magneto. Can't trust anyone anymore.
#42 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

Jesus guys, this sounds like a stock-standard UDRP claim against cybersquatters.

If you can prove that a website was registered and used in bad faith (such as them trying to scam money off people with legitimate interests in having that website), then you can take the website from them. Anyone can do this. It happens all the time.

As far as I'm aware, all .com and .org cases are handled by WIPO's Arbitration and Mediation Centre, as mandated by ICANN (the guys who manage domain name registries). They're technically part of the United Nations, but there's no other alternatives here - these guys run domain name cases by convention.

He's not making a personal appeal to the United Nations to intervene on his behalf, or anything of the sort.

Planeforger

Nobody registered the sites or used them in bad faith. The two sites were registered by Ron Paul supporters who used the site in a grassroots effort to generate more support for Ron Paul. Support he was happy to have until now.

#43 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

I don't see how anyone can have faith in the mainstream media's coverage of Ron Paul after seeing what they just did to him in the 2012 election.Laihendi

You really need to take the blinders off dude. This isn't the mainstream media saying this, this is the people who run the two sites in question saying this.

#44 Posted by wis3boi (31186 posts) -

ITT people who still take lai seriously

#45 Posted by playmynutz (5982 posts) -
well i want playmynutz. com back if ron paul trying steal domains
#46 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

ITT people who still take lai seriously

wis3boi

I don't think anyone really takes Lai seriously, but he's good for lulz.

#47 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (3804 posts) -

ITT people who still take lai seriously

wis3boi

after shadowmoses freaked out in that g@y thread and dissapeared, there's a lack of very stupid people to get lulz from.

We need to take him seriously. Otherwise OT is less fun.

#48 Posted by wis3boi (31186 posts) -

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

ITT people who still take lai seriously

MakeMeaSammitch

after shadowmoses freaked out in that g@y thread and dissapeared, there's a lack of very stupid people to get lulz from.

We need to take him seriously. Otherwise OT is less fun.

at least shadow threatens people with violence and legal action

#49 Posted by Planeforger (15571 posts) -

[QUOTE="Planeforger"]

Jesus guys, this sounds like a stock-standard UDRP claim against cybersquatters.

If you can prove that a website was registered and used in bad faith (such as them trying to scam money off people with legitimate interests in having that website), then you can take the website from them. Anyone can do this. It happens all the time.

As far as I'm aware, all .com and .org cases are handled by WIPO's Arbitration and Mediation Centre, as mandated by ICANN (the guys who manage domain name registries). They're technically part of the United Nations, but there's no other alternatives here - these guys run domain name cases by convention.

He's not making a personal appeal to the United Nations to intervene on his behalf, or anything of the sort.

worlock77

Nobody registered the sites or used them in bad faith. The two sites were registered by Ron Paul supporters who used the site in a grassroots effort to generate more support for Ron Paul. Support he was happy to have until now.

'Bad faith' can include a number of different things, there's no bright-lines test for it. Their attempts to sell the website to him for hundreds of thousands of dollars certainly doesn't look like it is hugely in good faith. Perhaps that was their intention all along, and the rest of it was just a front? I mean, at the very least, it seems bizarre that genuine supporters of Ron Paul would be trying to fleece him like that. They also seem to be running their own store. That could be seen as an attempt to make a commercial gain on the confusion of users coming to the site (them thinking that the site and its products were endorsed by Ron Paul), which would clearly be in bad faith if true. In any case, that's for the WIPO panel to decide.
#50 Posted by Chutebox (36763 posts) -

It has integrity?