Ron Paul looks to U.N. for help in website fight

page: 1
4

log in

join

posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Ron Paul looks to U.N. for help in website fight


www.washingtontimes.com

Former Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul has turned to the United Nations — an agency he’s criticized for years — for assistance in taking back the domain names RonPaul.com and RonPaul.org from a group of Libertarian supporters.
The complaint calls for the agency to expropriate the two domain names from his supporters without compensation and hand them over to Mr. Paul, RonPaul.com states.
The Texas Republican filed the complaint with the U.N.’s World Intellectual Property Organization,
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.foxnews.com
www.opposingviews.c om




posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Well this is interesting. Only but what? 3 months since he's retired as a congressman and he's asking the UN to help him with something? I have a number of questions, but the first and most important question from me is, why straight to the UN? What's wrong with American law? I'm also alittle speechless, I mean he's asking the UN for help to take over two websites, domain names? given his positions against the UN over the years? What on earth?

In any case, I'm not sure what previous arrangements he held with the owners of these two websites. In all fairness these website owners were using Ron Paul's name, but then again it was with Ron Paul's blessing because it helped him in his campaign by attracting young people on the internet, so he can't turn around now and change his tune?

A message from the owners of these websites:

The owners expressed disappointment, labeling Mr. Paul’s actions as “not cool” in a post on the site Friday that called for “our old pre-retirement Ron Paul” to return.
“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,” the statement said


www.washingtontimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


This is a little baffling... I have no idea which of my opinions to lend currently but that is because I feel it is my duty to research more. In the mean time, you left out a very important link.

Here is the RonPaul.com article that talks about it. I figure we should go right to the party involved with this. Outside information is more likely to be distorted.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Guess he wants to use that site to make money after he retires.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by PhysicsAdept
 


Well so far only rightwing slanted websites are reporting this news, so you are correct that it may be distorted. However this is Ron Paul we're talking about, who is conservative himself. The Washington times is hardly the cleanest source, there are other websites:
www.techdirt.com...
www.salon.com...

I'm waiting for this to hit the the major networks, ABC, CNN, NBC, Washington Post. It won't make the front page that's for sure, but I think given the irony in all this, I'm sure some minor article will be posted or reported through them at some point...



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Well the fact that Ron Paul is conservative doesn't mean much, due to the fact that the "right-wing" concept itself is distorted today. Of course the "conservative" people would post on it, they hate Ron Paul because he professed actual republican views and got somewhere with it.

This is sweet victory for them

As for Ron Paul himself these days... either he is frustrated and going insane or he is receiving some sort of outside influence for doing the things he is doing. The whole death of a soldier twet wasn't a big deal to me, in fact I agreed with it. But THIS... is SOOOO out of character for someone who held the same views forever. It's not like he is switching an abortion stance or something, which still would be odd... He is going what seems to be against his entire movement. His movement is strong and if you look at it in terms out what can influence them it SURE AS HELL isn't the government, not constructively anyway. This means only Ron Paul himself has ability to direct the movement elsewhere.

Don't you think that if the government wanted to demoralize and practically abolish a movement like this, this is how they would go about doing so? Just saying...



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   
I think domain name disputes fall under the jurisdiction of WIPO, which is a UN agency.

Doesn't leave him much choice.

edit on 12-2-2013 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
I think domain name disputes fall under the jurisdiction of WIPO, which is a UN agency.

Doesn't leave him much choice.

edit on 12-2-2013 by daskakik because: (no reason given)


It doesn't matter if he supposedly has "little choice", the fact he has on numerous occasions railed against the UN as an organization, and now he is using the UN and it's resources to gain ownership of two websites he had little to nothing in building himself, it's hypocrisy. Another point to be made here is this, if the UN was not an option because it didn't exist, what other option would he have then? hmm?

Another fact remains that this website, RonPaul.com, has been around for a good 5 years, and I'm not aware over the last 5 years where Ron Paul made issue with this website or the other one, yet now, conveniently after retirement, where he's not campaigning anymore, he doesn't need anybody to campaign for him anymore, he wants these website owners to give him the websites? Which are still getting hits and still making money? After they had been operating all these years with his blessing? After they had assisted his campaign in bring members to the fold? Sorry, it's (once again) not looking good given Paul's action.

I fully understand the point that if there is a website making money off you without your consent or blessing, it should be something you should address. However doing so through an organisation and it's resources that A) you had attacked all these years and B) attacking a website you had held no issue with all these years, that had been operating with your blessing, a website that you had actually benefited from at times, is hypocritical and slimy.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 

I see your point but it doesn't change the fact that if he wants something done about this then he has to go to those who have jurisdiction.

I mean he's criticized the fed as well and used dollars all his life. Are you going to call the guy a hypocrite for that as well?



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 

I see your point but it doesn't change the fact that if he wants something done about this then he has to go to those who have jurisdiction.


Obviously it doesn't change the fact he wants something done. It was never a question of him wanting this matter solved to his liking, and frankly he doesn't seem to care if it's through the UN. It does however once again demonstrate hypocrisy on his side, it shoots right through the principals he had supposedly held all these years (frankly I could see right through him before this so this is just another example).


I mean he's criticized the fed as well and used dollars all his life. Are you going to call the guy a hypocrite for that as well?


Why on earth would he be a hypocrite in this case? Considering that he never criticized the use of currency or the existence of the American dollar. Only the fact of the nature in which that currency is produced, so no, this explanation of yours doesn't fly.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 

If you say so. Honestly I don't see what the big deal is. Those who have him on a pedestal will not take him down because of this and those that want to criticize him will always find a reason.

You asked why and I gave you the answer. Whether you like the answer or not doesn't mean it isn't the truth.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Other people have a differing viewpoint than yours concerning this matter. Imo, this thread is just another "Let's bash Ron Paul" one!! How many threads on this issue are going to get posted??

Israel Anderson: Ron Paul Has NOT gone to the UN to strong-arm RonPaul.com




posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
The complaint calls for the agency to expropriate the two domain names from his supporters without compensation and hand them over to Mr. Paul, RonPaul.com states.


Ron Paul himself has had little to say about this and is waiting for the legal proceedings. Meanwhile, RonPaul.com is spewing its side of the story all over the place and that's where these articles are getting their sources. This sentence I quoted clearly states a version of the RonPaul.com dispute... as told by RonPaul.com itself! Far be it from me to suggest that we web crawlers actually WAIT a little while to hear both sides of the story.

I think it's ridiculous that fanatics have taken it upon themselves to speak in Ron Paul's name in the first place. The man is idolized beyond any degree of sanity in some corners of the web. And Fox News has never liked him, nor the libertarian "live and let live" views he represents, so it's no surprise that the Fox article that was linked is trying to paint this as some kind of huge-scale betrayal of his followers.

As the YouTube video in the previous post suggested, the owner of this website agreed to UN legal representation when he bought it through an auction in Australia. It's not like Ron Paul is going to the UN out of personal preference, here. It was the choice of the website owner, not Ron Paul. Also, this information is not hard to find. Did you even read the articles that were linked?



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Sigh...don't make me debunk this.

I will leave some of you who actually care to do your own homework (unlike the OP) with one note.

ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers).

edit on 12-2-2013 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 10:25 PM
link   
It's pretty pathetic that his supports won't relinquish the domain names to him. They claim to want to spread his messages of liberty and freedom, but don't want to give him control of the means to spread that message.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 



Originally posted by eLPresidente
Sigh...don't make me debunk this.

I will leave some of you who actually care to do your own homework



The Texas Republican filed the complaint with the U.N.’s World Intellectual Property Organization

www.washingtontimes.com...


Ron Paul supporters are angry and confused about a complaint Paul filed with the World Intellectual Property Organization, an agency of the U.N., in attempt to regain control of RonPaul.com and RonPaul.org.

www.salon.com...


Last Friday, Paul filed a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization, a department within the United Nations (an organization he has repeatedly condemned) demanding they confiscate RonPaul.com and RonPaul.org from their current owners and reassign the URLs to him,

www.dailydot.com...


In a move that's baffled and enraged his staunchly libertarian fans, three-time presidential candidate Ron Paul has asked the World Intellectual Property Organization to confiscate two domain names currently held by his supporters: RonPaul.com and RonPaul.org.

nymag.com...

Here's the actual complaint filed through this link (you're most welcome to put the tinfoil hat on and call fake):
www.ronpaul.com...

What is the The World Intellectual Property Organization again?

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is the United Nations agency dedicated to the use of intellectual property (patents, copyright, trademarks, designs, etc.) as a means of stimulating innovation and creativity.

www.wipo.int...

As for ICANN:

The UN's World Intellectual Property Organization handles domain name disputes for ICANN, and that's where the 12-term retired congressman is arguing that the people running RonPaul.com, as well as RonPaul.org, are piggybacking off his good name.

www.theatlantic.com...

Debunk what? Who needs to do their homework?



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Habit4ming
 


What a waste of my time listening to the video you linked before. The guy creates a Youtube video which is supposedly meant to debunk the fact that Ron Paul is using a United Nations agency to take ownership of the website domains, yet in the video he admits that Ron Paul is doing just that.

Seriously? And yes I am aware that he's saying in the video that this is the only way Ron Paul can take action (which I frankly don't buy personally) but that still does not change the fact that he is using a United Nations agency to take over two privately websites by force that he didn't create himself and he doesn't own.

5 years these websites operated with his full knowledge of their existence. 5 years. So now all of sudden, they're using his name without permission and he wants to take ownership of them through force with the help of the UN? I guess they're of no use to him campaign wise, so he needs to own them now himself? You know, they even made an offer to him to buy it off them and he turned it down, one example of how he did not have to go through the United nations to get ownership of the domains.

There's only so long you can make excuses for this man. The campaign is over, he's retired, he has nothing to lose, so now he's showing his true colors. Sorry folks.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 12:23 AM
link   
From what I had read, these guys paid U$ 25k for domain name 5 years ago and start promoting Ron Paul... And during this time RP didn't ask for the domain or anything else... Now the RP career is over, he want the domain back for free?





top topics
 
4

log in

join