Ron Paul hypocrisy

so ron paul is big on free trade market wants to keep government out of peoples business keep them small well he has basically proven that his principles are bull shit and threw them away and fucked his supporters over so what he has done is he decided that he wanted the domian to this website http://www.ronpaul.com when ron paul confronted the owners of the domain they asked for 250,000 in return so when confronted with this free market trade ron Paul runs to government for help and make them intervene by filing a udrp complaint to the UN against the website to make them confiscate the domain hypocrisy at it' finest.

 

That is pretty fucked up actually.

Well, Ron Paul is just another hypocritical politician like the others. His talk might sound good, but that's all it is.

I just get sick of all the gullible people who act like he's some kind of savior.

 

yeah that is pretty hypocritical. ron paul to me is someone who does his best to avoid being a hypocrite. but nobodies perfect and he has his faults like everyone else. i still trust him over any other politician.

 

This.

He wanted control over a website that bears his name? So what? Compared to what the minstream politicians are doing, Things like this are insignificant.

 

Does Ron Paul use punctuation?

 

Didn't they have a monopoly on the domain name?

Yes. I did have to squint my eyes, though.

 

sorry i'm dyslexic

 

i understand i would still rather vote for him over any democrat or republican but their is hypocrisy and then their is this this is a quote from him about the UN

"the choice is very clear we either follow the constitution or submit to UN global governance american national 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 will cease to exists"

as much as i agree with that that just proves he is completely full of shit and doesn't even follow his own polices.

 

The people he went to are the ones to decide on these type of disputes. It is in the contract which was voluntarily signed by the person who now has the website. Asking for 250k on a website that purportedly looses money?
His principles are the same and he hasn't fucked over his supporters.

 

If the web sites content was political and relating to Ron Paul, I think he is entitled to claim the name. If the site content was promoting negative comments on Ron Paul they could rename it www.antironpaul.com or something that would indicate it was not promoting him.

 

But you have to consider exactly how badly it goes against what he believes.

Stop me if I'm wrong, but doesn't he think that people should be able to descriminate based on race in businesses, and such, simply because they're not the government? Allllll that government-hating stuff, and bullshit about how the UN is going to ruin america (which is ironic, because the UN is mostly the tool of the security council, ie. US and our bully friends, to dickslap the rest of the world), and how anything but free trade is fascism... he named his son after Ayn Rand (delusional sociopathic individual who stood for the absolute right of people to have no government, and take whatever the fuck they can from whoever the fuck they want, because that's how the free market works, and people really WANT to be raped by anyone strong enough to do it), and then he runs to the UN because of people who took an economic gamble (and helped him enormously in the process, by the way, strongly supporting him for years) and then tried to cash in, even though their request was NOT particularly unreasonable, considering what they've done for him, what the domain's worth, and what he personally is worth.

Like yeah, if he was most any congressman/woman, I would not care, it would be a drop in the bucket of their hipocracy, but when he stands so defiantly against all that, it actually is a big deal. Landslides start with one grain of sand, no?

Me, I think kucinich>paul, but I admit, I try to pay no attention to politics anyways, so maybe I'm all wrong. It's just depressing lies and sociopaths, fabricating an endless series of outrages and victories.

I do understand that I'm being much harsher to him, because I have a better opinion of him. It's ironic, but I don't think it's unjust.

 

STOP!

If a private owned business were to discriminate based on race or any other reason, I think they would likely see their profit margin diminish rapidly and those who were being discriminated against would spend their money elsewhere, where their business was appreciated.

I think Dr. Paul feels that U.S. citizens should have more say than the UN in what their government does.

His son, Rand, was not named after Ayn Rand, someone you obviously express a great deal of hatred toward, and his full name is Randal Howard Paul, "Rand" simply being a shortened version of Randal.

The name "Ron Paul" being widely known politically is the basis of his claim to the domain name, and most people who would visit the site would more than likely expect it to belong to him.

Since the site claims to be a "Fan site", I would think they would be happy to give him the domain and remain contributors to the site, allowing Ron Paul to assure the accuracy of what they put on the site relating to him and/or his words/views.

 

Yeah, a private business might lose profits. But there are still businesses that would discriminate, and people who could not get what they want or need. Recall that you think healthcare should be a private business, for instance. Maybe the darkies can build their OWN hospital, and use their OWN bank, because we don't want their dark money here. And maybe they should buy the materials to do that at their OWN hardware store, and use doctors educated at their OWN medical school. Your, and paul's answer, basically says that in places with lots of shitty people (lots of places), any type of injustice the majority feels is okay, is okay.

I have read that rand is named after ayn rand. It would still make sense if his name was randal. Meh, it sounds good, and is still pretty obviously, given his political positions, a connection that he does not play down.

I don't think the free market has anything to do with what domain people would expect to belong to what. Hipforums could be a nazi site, if skip wanted

Your last expectation is clearly off. They've given him a lot, and want something in return-something that makes excellent sense, considering his free-market ideology. He should be proud of them, pulling themselves up by their free-market bootstraps and leaping at an oppertunity to make a quarter million dollars.

 

I don't think you'd find many businesses willing to discriminate, if they wanted to remain in business for long, and the competition would eat them alive very quickly.

Well, he wasn't named after her, so you should not always believe everything you read without confirming it first. I think that question had been answered some time ago, by him or Ron Paul, that he was called Randy in his youth, and that later became shortened to Rand.

When I visit www.microsoft.com or www.apple.com I think it reasonable to expect them to be run by Microsoft or Apple respectfully and not someone else in either a free market or a tightly controlled market.

If Ron Paul had been elected President they would probably have reaped the rewards expected from him, but they obviously did not provide him with a quarter million dollars of value.

 

The point isn't how well the business would do, the point is the fact that there are still places in the US where it would obviously happen, and as I just pointed out, it could quickly remove a disliked group from a position of ANY power in a small deep south type town. You couldn't even leave town if the bus station wouldn't let you in, and the gas station wouldn't sell you gas, etc. You're arguing for policies that could easily result in deaths by refusal of medical care (again, something that you think should be a private business) simply on the basis that it would be bad business. Well, in alabama it would actually be GOOD business, because you get support by being a racist fuck there.

Well sure, if microsoft or apple wants to pay for their domain names. That's how this thing works, for everybody.

I disagree, win or loose, a campaign is expensive. They had something he wanted, he should pay or bargan, in the free market. Instead he went to the very group that he's spent years (decades) railing against as taking over and destroying the US. So, brilliant tactic, giving them that much more legal function and precedent in the US, ehh? Trying to get them to sieze something from free businessmen because he wanted it -- he must love freedom.

 

Any person that is on the extreme fringe of political or religious thought , left or right, sets themselves up for charges of hypocracy. If one is SO far left or SO far right,I would suggest that it's difficult to take them seriously because most folks are closer to the middle in political/religious thought. Humans fuck up,regardless of supposed fanaticism. One slip-up of a radical ,IMO, negates the veracity of their whole "routine". Seen it again and again over the years. This country will NEVER be what the Pauls want it to be and conversly,it will NEVER be what Bernie Sanders wants it to be.

 

Regarding discrimination, I believe he's said that he would vote to pass the same laws in his state, but that the federal government was overstepping its constitutional bounds.

 

Roo,

I think you must watch a lot of TV. While there may be a rare individual or two who might discriminate and turn away customers, I don't think you would find it wide spread or last very long as they would probably also lose a large number of the customers they would not want to turn away. Consumers are free to choose where they spend their money, and if I don't like the way I'm treated by a business I spend my money elsewhere.

I don't think bus stations could discriminate as they are not usually private owned, and Doctors could lose their license to practice, so if discrimination occurred at all it would be very small private owned businesses which usually have a great deal of competition, and would probably go out of business in short order as a result.

I don't think the domain name is worth spending time on, it's his name and the site contains text attributed to have originated from him, so maybe he should just charge them for using his words on the site? I'll leave that one to be resolved between Ron Paul and who ever currently owns the domain name.

In my opinion complaining about Ron Paul only takes attention away from more important issues.

I've had my say, so if you feel this thread topic is worth wasting more time on go ahead and maybe some others will join in and help you keep it going.

 

So, you think everything should be privately owned, but you use the fact that it's not to justify letting private businesses descriminate?

Yeah, most places might not descriminate -- but we know well that some would, some openly do, such as against gay people, and make record profits BECAUSE they do.

Get the "rational actor" crap out of your head, people are not rational actors who want only money. They are vindictive, and irrational, and lots of other things.

 

That which is bought by an individual should belong to the individual. When talking about a business, it could be privately owned and operated by a single individual, or by a group of investors. I highly doubt that a business could attract and maintain a number of investors or customers if it were to actively discriminate against anyone for reasons other than their inability to pay for what the business is selling.

A small single owner business might be able to get away with doing so, but only at a cost to both reputation and income, which would provide great benefit to any who would compete without applying discrimination.

Have you never seen a case where some company executive had spoken out against some group, regarding race, religion, or sexuality, and although not discriminating against them in the business resulted in many people boycotting the business? People, are often much more effective than government mandates in bringing about social changes. I doubt seriously ANY company having stockholders would rationally decide to discriminate , and IF they did the stockholders would quickly demand it be ended, seeing their share prices drop. That's what I was talking about.

I don't know that some would indeed discriminate, and you seem to imply that "some openly do, such as against gay people, and make record profits BECAUSE they do". Can you identify who they are, the basis of your accusation, and how that is creating record profits?

Essentially you are admitting that people are quite different from one another, and what may be rational to some may seem irrational to others.
A society where individuals are allowed to exercise their individual freedom results in many societies who while they may disagree with one another in many ways do not allow their differences to alienate them from one another through the imposition of government mandates, when they (the people) can achieve the same results without relinquishing any of their freedoms to government.