• http://www.facebook.com/ginrikuzuma Morino Ginrikuzuma

    They are just defaming his name. I just went to the owner’s FB page and he is just talking trash about RP. I’m glad I never liked the page and I’m glad people are “un-liking” the page

    • http://www.facebook.com/electrictroy Troy Heagy

      ronpaul.com appears to be censoring posts now. They erased three of mine supporting Ron Paul. That’s all I need to know about their honesty (or lack thereof). They are trying to control the discussion to support their “he sucks” narrative. Bunch of Aussie foreigners is what they are.

    • http://www.facebook.com/electrictroy Troy Heagy

      FROM LEW ROCKWELL (edited): “Ron is not using the State, but is seeking to have ICANN enforce its own rules against cybersquatting….. Because the RP.com guys registered Ron’s name in Australia, the international arbitration option must be used.

      “–Why did Ron wait so long to bring this claim? He did not feel he could do so as a public official. Once he became a private citizen again, he was freed.

      “–This fight is not about so-called intellectual property, since it involves private agreements.”

      “–Is Ron “attacking his own supporters” by his action? No. Apparently, the RP.com people have never given a dime to any of his campaigns nor educational efforts. Instead, they are attacking Ron. Some supporters.”
      .

  • Ed

    Spot on.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Jason311 Jason Gambit Foreman

    I never believed RonPaul.com’s claim. I unsubscribed from both of their websites yesterday.

    • Trutherator

      This will happen in crescendo. They grabbed the name, incredulous that they got it so cheap for what they planned to get out of it. Claims of pure motives are belied by the money demands and the insulting offer of the dot-ORG. Every Internet geek knows the value of dot-COM vs. dot-ORG.

      Government-granted monopolies on DNS index entries do not make it “private property”. Especially since these guys have to renew this claim annually, or semi-annually or whatever it is.

      • Trutherator

        http://www.trutherator.wordpress.com for more analysis on the libertarian issues relating to this. I was surprised that most people did not think past the propaganda blast from the domain name “owners” claims. Is this ICAHN thing truly a “free market” thing? I think not. Do we pile dirt on Ron Paul for using a federal reserve note for his business? Then why buy into the stupidities hurled at him on this one.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=521338043 Tc Boston

    Arbitration or not – its underhanded that RP is trying to wrest the domain from those holding it now – they bought it fair and square and have developed it on their own – there is a financial burden they would have to deal with if they were forced to relocate as well as the fact that what people have dealt with at the domain from the time that they bought it at auction has everything to do with the brand that they’ve developed. 250k IS a fair price and i think their other offer for the .org domain was rather selfless. i think israel anderson would not be so protective of RP’s actions if it were he who was forced to sell a domain that he cultivated…. this flies in the face of libertarian principles of keeping the fruits of one’s labor.. or that there are too many bureaucratic laws… or free market in general – the domain isn’t bare bones and these guys at ronpaul.com are just squatting in the hopes to sell the domain – they actively developed it. defend RP if you want – i think his crap staff has more to do with this decision to go to arbitration than RP does – either way – its bad form and i’m sorely disappointed in him – and your support in this video makes me think that you’re out of line as well

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003526419876 KC Ted

      They have already been using derogatory “sensational” article titles to attract hits and sell Ron Paul merchandise. Maybe he’s not keen on being denigrated, for selling his name printed on hoodies, cell phone covers, t-shirts and dozens of other items?

    • http://twitter.com/ScottBieser Scott Bieser

      Cultivate, schmultivate. The RonPaul.com people were riding a bandwagon that was created and fueled by Ron Paul’s Presidential campaigns, without actually being part of the campaigns and subject to Paul’s oversight. Now that the campaigns are over they want to cash in? Fuggedaboudit.

      • conspiracygirl

        There is another way to look at this. Much of the success of Ron Paul’s campaign was due to the efforts of people like those at ronpaul.com who donated their time, talents, and money to spread his message. For instance, the money bomb was not Ron Paul’s brainchild. It was the idea of supporters. Ron Paul had no problem with ronpaul.com using his name and likeness because he was the ultimate beneficiary. The idea of central oversight in a libertarian campaign is kinda self-contradictory anyway.

        • http://www.facebook.com/electrictroy Troy Heagy

          ronpaul.com doesn’t have any original content (at least none I can see). So their investment is minimal.

          Plus when they move to another domain like ronpaul_fan.com, they will lose nothing. They will still have their site & be able to sell tons of overpriced goods.

        • Adam Raisch

          Are you saying that you would not have supported Ron Paul if their was no RonPaul.com or if Ron Paul himself owned it during his campaign?

          • Adam Raisch

            In addition to my question above: A man or woman should receive support on principle not on popularity. Isn’t that what his campaign was all about? If you followed him for any other reason than you did not get the picture!

        • Trutherator

          He left them alone during the campaign probably to avoid detracting from the campaign. Campaign over, life after Congress.

    • http://www.facebook.com/electrictroy Troy Heagy

      >>>”they bought it fair and square and have developed it on their own”

      The Australian owners also signed a contract that if the domain name was a trademarked named, then they will be forced to give it up. They agreed to those terms….. they are bound by the contract (a concept even the Libertarian party supports). Them having to giveup the trademarked ronpaul.com is no different than back in the 90s when some people had to giveup mcdonalds.com, walmart.com, et cetera. It’s in the terms of service

      • http://www.facebook.com/shawnkhall Shawn K. Hall

        Actually, it is. McDonalds and Walmart are actual trademarks. Ron Paul is not. You can check this yourself at uspto.gov

        • Guest

          Incorrect. A person’s name is a common-law trademark.

      • Tracy N.

        I have no qualms about how he is going about it, but the fact that he is
        doing it in the first place is wrong. Whether the owners bought the
        site for personal gain or not, they bought it fair and square and if RP
        wants it he needs to buy it fair and square. His name isn’t trademarked,
        so he has no case. He should not be trying to take this site without
        paying for it. I love Dr. Paul but thats total bullshit.

    • Trutherator

      They’re not “keeping the fruits of their labor” only, unless you ignore the fact that part of the investment was grabbing the name from the Government-blessed monopoly-licensors that claim ownership of the ronpaul.com name and every other name in the DNS indexing system.

      No doubt Ron Paul looked at the rules, consulting somebody savvy and figured he had a recognized claim to the name.

      Even for those libertarians who have an argument with government monopoly grants of copyright, patent, and even trademark, which includes me, instead of siding with the guys who “bought the name rights first” from the monopoly granting agency, should say it’s up for grabs. We should realize in the kind of inter-network that would have grown up in an anarcho-capitalist world, there would be no dispute here, it would be moot. But an understanding of the technical issues educates this a little more: there would be no dispute because the free market would figure out how to hide the technical issues that force the copyright.

      The result would be an easy marking of which Ron Paul you wanted to get to.

      Even the hide-bound White Pages was a better monopoly naming system. Just go get the number for which which Ron Paul you were looking for.

      ronpaul-dot-com will fade away. There are lots of people in lots of Ron Paul and libertarian forums that are saying they are getting out of ronpaul.com. The owners “won” their case with what they called the United Nations, maybe they’re feeling “vindicated”, but their selling price will plummet eventually.

      The free market eventually wins. People don’t go to ronpaul.com for whoever the anonymous guys are that “own” it, they go there for Ron Paul. When they realize he is not there, it won’t last. I never found it before in fact…..

  • Tyler

    please substantiate the owner of robpaul.com. everywhere i check list the following owner

    http://who.godaddy.com/whois.aspx?k=9fNTPv/v2UpFaHd+bR8ITCeWp01I3an5Xayr+T54RkfhUC1GdDHfuUn/FB+mPkxU&domain=ronpaul.com&prog_id=GoDaddy

    • Tyler

      ronpaul.com*

  • conspiracygirl

    Yeah, Israel, I get that. It was never about ICANN, at least for me (since I understood that part). For me it is about that idea that Ron Paul seems to believe he is entitled to property that someone else purchased, and should be able to take it without compensation. I’m very sorry that he let these names expire, but y’know, in the market sometimes when you snooze, you lose. It’s a hard lesson. It doesn’t mean that those who did buy the thing that you later wish you’d bought are bad guys. Ron Paul didn’t seem to think they were bad guys when all their work served to benefit his campaign.

    I donated a great deal of money to the Ron Paul campaign, not without personal hardship, and expected it to be used on the campaign. Instead he had about 2 million bucks left over. I feel he should have returned that money to his donors — perhaps by returning it to those who donated the final 2 million dollars — or maybe the first 2 million — or whatever. Since he hasn’t done that, perhaps he could just chock it up to experience and negotiate with Tim to buy this domain name. Using the money that other people donated to him shouldn’t be that painful. Alternatively he could accept their offer to give him ronpaul.org. There is nothing magical about the .com TDN.

    • justsomeguy151

      There is the matter of a an agreement that ronpaul.com AGREED TO and signed. So yr full of it.

    • SmartL

      If these people were really “supporters” of Ron Paul, they would have sold the website to him for $1. Wouldn’t you?

    • Trutherator

      It’s not “property”, it’s a domain name system of index entries matching formatted names to IP addresses as stored in DNS servers across the world.

      The monopoly-granted judges of how it’s done at ICAHN decide, as they have done. This is NOT a “property” issue. This is an issue of “who owns the name”, and ICAHN has previously decided to give the name for the entry to its “rightful owner”. First of the criteria seems to be considered trademarks, IIRC they’ve gone further than that. Of course another consideration, a big one to them, is, who registered first.

      I believe they’ve recognized “natural” trademark law.

      In a truly anarcho-capitalistic world, in the tech arena, in my opinion, you wouldn’t have such confusion. There’s no confusion, for example, in having five hundred John Smiths in one city and all of them having a different phone number.

      With DNS protocol, you get just ONE name per IP address. That’s real convenient for us IT guys, saves a lot of extra programming and saves the boss some money, but so what. In the phone books (they still exist) you expect there to be multiple listings for the same name, different numbers. Different addresses to look it up.

      They could have done that with a DNS protocol, still could. Call information 411, they say “I have five listings for John Doe in Podunk, Arkansas.”, then they ask for an address or something else to get more specific. Or, you can do what your application does under the covers if it uses “overloading” of classes or calls to functions, meaning go down the list, match other criteria, and see if it’s the one you want.

  • Fred Autonom

    Even if that mailing list was worth $250,000, Ron Paul doesn’t need it. He likely has most of those names. And I’m offended that ronpaul.com would try to sell their mailing list anyway and use that as leverage in the liberty community. Yeah, we should be ecstatic that they’re willing to make a buck off our private information.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jonathan.winning.9 Jonathan Winning

    This most likely boils down to the fact that Ron Paul doesn’t like that someone is using his name to make a profit. Even if they ARE selling things with his name and getting his message out, they are raking in money using his name. Nobody would like that no matter who they are. I could be wrong, but I looked and didn’t see anything telling us that any amount of the money made goes to Ron Paul, his campaign, or C4L. From what I can tell it’s all pure profit (not counting overhead) to the website’s owner and to me that is a huge issue. He is probably attacking RP now because he might lose a huge revenue stream.

    • http://twitter.com/NetRebellion OpenRebellionUS

      That is Exactly whats happening here. After being a web marketer for the last 10 years, I know for a fact that the ICANN procedure is completely normal. It IS somehow connected to the UN (because a large number of TLD’s ( domain name extensions) are actually foreign countries (.US, .TV .IN etc). This guy is freaking because hes going to have to give up his income stream, and move on.

    • http://twitter.com/isabellaliberty Liberty Bell

      very well said Jonathan Winning,could not have said it better my self.Thank you for your comment.

    • conspiracygirl

      When did libertarians start loathing profit…?

  • EaDiot

    Puuuhleeez Ron Paul talks the talk he just doesn’t walk the walk! The only person who had a signed agreement and ran a site dedicated to Ron Paul and his supporters was the owners. A true libertarian would resolve this matter man to man FULL STOP. You can paint a pig any colour you want it is still a pig! If the owners were merely holding the name and ransoming it like has been done in other cases maybe and it’s only a small maybe on my part would I be in agreement with Ron Paul’s decision for following the ICANN dispute resolution process before being a true libertarian.

  • mlee

    The ONLY thing he can do? No, he could negotiate with the owner and offer to BUY the domain at a mutually agreed price.

    • SmartL

      Done. Price went from half a million to a quarter of a million. Ridiculous.

  • ThatLibertyGuy

    Following pre-determined, agreed upon procedures was once considered the upright path. Now you are likely to be branded a thief(as in trying to ‘steal’ a nomination) or a bully(as in ‘strong-arming’) because you follow the rules. I am more and more convinced that our only hope in these dark days is that God is on His throne and prayer changes things.

    • Adam Raisch

      Amen! I think because Ron Paul does not follow the status quo, people believe he is anti-law. Nothing could be further from the truth. He believes in laws driven only by absolute necessity. Those that follow after the GOD GIVEN rights of life, liberty, and PROPERTY!

  • ahallock

    Yes, the domain owner agreed to the registration terms. But pursuing the domain name dispute process isn’t RP’s only option. He could, you know, actually have a conversation with the guy, form a relationship. Who knows, maybe they could build out the next version of the site together. Also, ICANN uses trademark ownership as one criterium for resolution, which is a Statist tool.

    • YouAreRight

      I agree. Plus, it’s pretty clear the domain owner hasn’t even violated the ICANN registration terms. Anyone with any background in copyright law understands Ron Paul has no chance at winning, except through legal intimidation.

      Ron Paul is wasting his–and our–time and energy. He needs to buy the domain or move on instead of allowing his grassroots to expend their valuable resources arguing amongst ourselves when we could and should be fighting oppressive government. Ron Paul’s post-election behavior is embarrassing to our Ron Paul Revolution.

      • SmartL

        You are OBVIOUSLY not a Ron Paul supporter.

        • EaDiot

          Actually he may not be a Ron Paul supporter but he certainly sounds like a True Libertarian! And the asking price of $250k was for their mailing list and RonPaul.org their argument is that the website is established with links to and from it and in the interest of Ron Paul would kill many posts linking back to it. By allowing them to develop the site Ron Paul gave tacit agreement to the site and gave it some form of legitimacy. Personally I believe Ron Paul should be in discussions discussing the way forward with the owners for the site and driving the site’s efforts. Mano el mano.

          • rpflix

            Considering that Ron Paul will already have 100% of the names on that list and many more, the list has no value to Ron Paul. To someone else it might, but not to Ron Paul.

      • Trutherator

        Anybody with some knowledge in copyright law understands that this domain name dispute has nothing to do with copyright law. Nothing. Just because the government-guaranteed monopoly-granted ICAHN decided way back when that government-granted trademarks should count –sometimes– in disputes, that’s why trademark does “inform the adjudication”, you might say.

        BUT they gave themselves extra arbitrary say-so by leaving enough wiggle room for a kind of “common law” trademark, that RP or his advisers figured he had a right to it.

        It’s probably better this way. With the passage of time, and as more detail comes out, I think it’s kind of like what he did with an insider’s information from Congress. He would rather educate the public than start a political or legal battle with the powers that be he can’t win, so he did not denounce the dirty laundry of his colleagues that he could have. He keeps the high ground. I suspect the current “owners/squatters/licensees” did a more underhanding thing than we know, and RP is just avoiding an unproductive scandal, and letting time pass, and concentrating on doing what he can to get his message out.

        And let’s face it, that man deserves to make all the money he can from his name and reputation than all the movers and shakers in Congress, and certainly for what he has done for the world, more than those unknown squatters who will quickly try to fade into anonymity.

    • SmartL

      They already tried to talk. They went from half a million to a quarter of a million. They are ONLY concerned about money. If they were truly supporters of Ron Paul, they should just give him his own name back.

    • Trutherator

      Nah, ahallock, the current licensees (not “owners”) of the “domain-name” DNS index entry, did not want to “have a conversation”, they immediately “offered” to give it up as long as they got their money, and insulted Ron Paul with the offer of the dot-org. That was a poison pill setup by guys who were obviously more tech-savvy than Ron Paul (and whoever may have advised him), because (1) if he accepted the offer of the dot-org, these guys could make claim that it was an implicit agreement on the dot-com, and (2) if he refused it they could claim a reverse domain-name hijacking claim, which they did. Maybe they think that should protect them from a lawsuit by Ron Paul.

      Instead they will be forgotten and they will eventually become despised among Ron Paul supporters as they begin to understand the government-monopoly issues here, and the technical realities involved, and that the Internet is NOT a free-market governed system. Even though it feels like a free speech zone sometimes.

    • Trutherator

      The current licensees did not want a “relationship”. After they heard he was sorry he didn’t snatch up the ronpaul-dot-com name, what I have read I think is that they contacted him and tried to sell it to him. First, for a half-million dollars, then for a quarter-million dollars. Don’t call them greedy, they just wanted some recognition for their labors. That’s a conversation killer. “For a half-a-million, we can talk. And we can throw in the mailing list, too.” Wow, so generous.

      So as part of their PR blitz, they said they “would have” given it to him free if he had only expressed appreciation for their efforts. Oh, yeah, right. And I was born yesterday. If it’s true that none of the money they collected actually went to the Ron Paul campaign or PACS that relate to the kinds of issues he raised, then RP’s reaction would have been “what efforts”? People buying T-shirts?

  • Journalistic Revolution
  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=4905714 Brian Parsons

    Think about it… one word, NEWSLETTERS. Exactly why Ron Paul would want control over his “brand”.

  • Stuart Herold

    RonPaul.com Booted me off after 4 yrs on their FB page. Bunch of A-holes.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=690784465 Steve Luce

    Israel, domain names are bought and sold every day with as much regularity and informality as buying or selling a motorcycle. ICANN generally allows anyone to buy any domain name and keep it unless the domain is of a long established iconic brand name such as ford.com or goodwill.org. Saying that the owners of ronpaul.com agreed to the possibility that ICANN might rule Ron Paul a cultural icon, which I doubt will happen, is stating an obvious yet irrelevant fact. Dr. Paul is a great person and he’s my hero, but he’s not following his own philosophy in this instance.

    • Adam Raisch

      Ron Paul believes in the right to litigation does he not? He also believes in the upholding of laws does he not? He also believes in the rights of personal property does he not? I think he is fully following his personal philosophy is he not?

      Their are first in use rights and namesake rights that are relevant to .coms. ICANN has to arbitrate based a third party utilizing a namesake for it’s personal profit. Just because you, or anyone else, view the purchase of a domain as trivial does not make it so.

  • something1448

    it’s extortion. i hope the son-of-a-bitch never sees a dime.

    • conspiracygirl

      No offense, but selling something for a price, even a high price, is not extortion. Forcing people to buy something they don’t want is extortion — such as when unions use the threat of violence to force people to become union members and pay union dues. Or like when the Mafia uses threats of violence to force people to buy their “protection.” This was just a plain ordinary business deal, in which Ron Paul wanted something the other party didn’t really want to sell, and so they asked a rather steep price.

      • voiceofreason

        What right did they have to it in the first place? They were trading and profiting on HIS name. That’s a clear violation of the non-aggression principle. There are a few so-called libertarians who don’t seem to understand the philosophy they claim to espouse. RP is in the right and the rp.com owners are in the wrong. They shouldn’t get a penny, and he should be able to sue them for trading on his name.

        • ExposerOfHypocrisy

          um… RonPaulFlix is also trading and profiting on HIS name. According to you, this is a clear violation of the non-aggression principle and Ron Paul should be able to sue RonPaulFlix for trading on his name. You are clearly not a “voiceofreason”; you are a cotton-headed lemming.

          • rpflix

            FLIX has no trading, nor profit. So no. The webserver alone costs $180/month. The google ads make about $22/month.

          • EaDiot

            The fact that you may be running at a loss does not mean you are not trading. Trade is trade and you confirmed there is some form of income already. QED.

  • http://twitter.com/skewsto Robert James

    The asking price of $250k seems a little extortive, but it’s not uncommon for domains to sell for that kind of money. With that said I suggest we unsubscribe from ronpaul.com to drive down the value and launch a MONEY BOMB to fund the purchase for Dr. Paul!

    • Trutherator

      I like this idea.

    • Trutherator

      I never subscribed anyway….

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Rosemary-Malloy/100002166199056 Rosemary Malloy

    At this point it’s hearsay . What has Ron Paul said about this? Have we heard anything from Ron Paul on this?

    • SmartL

      He authorized the document to get his name back. What else does he need to say?

  • http://twitter.com/isabellaliberty Liberty Bell

    Thank you so very much for this video! Explains everything I needed to know.I just knew they were trying to bad mouth Ron Paul.

  • conspiracygirl

    I guess I don’t understand why Ron Paul is unwilling to purchase this domain name. If this particular domain name is critical to his future plans then, like, buy it! His campaign had about 2 million dollars left over. He wouldn’t even have to spend money that came from his own pocket.
    I donated a great deal of money to the Ron Paul campaign, not without personal hardship, and expected it to be used on the campaign. Personally, I feel he should have returned the leftover money to his donors — perhaps by returning it to those who donated the final 2 million dollars — or maybe the first 2 million — or whatever. Since he hasn’t done that, perhaps he can just negotiate with Tim to buy ronpaul.com. Using the money that other people donated to him shouldn’t be that painful. Alternatively he could accept their offer to give him ronpaul.org. There is nothing magical about the .com TDN. When people google info about Ron Paul they google Ron Paul, not ronpaul.com.

    • Trutherator

      When we donated to the Ron Paul campaign, we were all donating to the Ron Paul CAUSE. Ron Paul did not have unrealistic expectations about the “chances” for winning or for fair treatment, and if you did, that’s nobody else’s fault. It was pretty obvious it was no level playing field, and nonetheless the result was the education of a new generation about the principles of liberty, connecting in their minds the warfare state and the welfare state, giving them an example of an “incorruptible” Congressman (according to any lobbyist including Abramoff), and also inspiring a new movement that has taken over parts of the Republican Party. He forced the issue of the Fed into the political discussion and made the world safe to cry out, End The Fed!

  • http://www.facebook.com/jim.untershine Jim Untershine

    Marketing weenies trying to capitalize on the good works of others. These bottom-feeders should learn a trade and try to make a name for themselves and use it as a domain name. If Tim truly respected Ron Paul he would gladly relinquish the domain name in the name of saving it from the other money grubbing retards who would have used the system to hold it for ransom.

  • Fred Autonom

    If Ron Paul is such a hypocrite and a bully and so horrible, why would they want to keep the site and continue to sell Ron Paul merchandise? Wouldn’t that make the site owner a hypocrite?

  • http://www.facebook.com/MikeBBlack Michael Burgess Black

    There is a free market solution to this instead of forcing the clause of the contract that was involuntary and placed there because of government intervention with contract. Ron Paul has a right to challenge the domain name because of existing law. Law that does not follow the concepts of natural law. the free market solution is to force him into selling via a boycott. a statement that affiliating with or buying from ronpaul.com until ownership has transferred negatively impacts the liberty movement as ron paul would better manage and make use of such a resource No one is buying or visiting ronpaul.com but Ron Paul supporters. he has every legal right under current law and contract. however there is a good better best situation here. and i would not say supporting a government forced contract even classifies as good when you can make an example of how the free market can actually work without big brothers interference.

  • J Fournier

    Could the owner of ronpaul.com have gotten the domain name without “voluntarily” going along with ICANN’s rules?

  • http://www.facebook.com/electrictroy Troy Heagy

    ronpaul.com appears to be censoring posts now. They erased three of mine supporting Ron Paul. That’s all I need to know about their honesty (or lack thereof). They are trying to control the discussion to support their “he sucks” narrative. Bunch of Aussie foreigners is what they are.

  • James

    I think it is odd how emotional people are getting over this. I think RonPaul.com’s characterization over the complaint is over the top (particularly over the forum choice, which is outside Dr. Paul’s control), but it’s not like they don’t have something of a point. The substance of the complaint seems a little weak. Dr. Paul didn’t mind there existence when he was in office and running for office (when he benefited from their publicity). And I don’t blame them for being a bit peeved when he wants to come in and pull out the rug from underneath them without proper payment (which could have been determined though more negotiations). It’s not like they had just registered the site and parked it. They built something there that has real value.

    • YouAreRight

      Exactly correct!

    • SmartL

      They’ve already made tons of money off of his name. What is “proper payment” for your own name? If they really supported him as they said, they would give it to him for nothing. C’mon.

    • Trutherator

      It apparently has “real value” to them as long as they can profit from Ron Paul’s name. It was Ron Paul’s labor that gave it value, and gave value to his own name, otherwise they would not care to keep it anyway. An offer for half a million? That’s bad faith, and it shows they want to get something from the fact that they have “rights” under their lease on the name from the monopoly that actually does “own” the entire DNS system.

      We have a charter from the quasi-United Nations monopoly! Your name belong to us!

  • James Kauzlarich

    A good argument.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Joshua-Hollenbeck/1661854046 Joshua Hollenbeck

    Pennsylvania residents: http://gunrightspa.com/

  • Trutherator

    DNS names are entries in an index used by a TCP-IP protocol. ICAHN is the true owner of this system, using the definition of “property” that von Mises supplied in his book on Socialism. (See mises.org). They are the rulers of who can use the index entry for a given name. ronpaul.com guys only get a “lease”. Pay up is one rule. Another are the other rules agreeing to give it up if they decree that somebody else gets it according to their rules. Except when they make a decree against their own rules. s