Topic: lol Ron Paul
Anonymous A started this discussion 13 years ago #25,512
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 35 minutes later[^] [v] #388,760
> Ron Paul asks the United Nations to take what other people have worked to build and give it to him for free.
I just shit my pants laughing.
I just shit my pants laughing.
(Edited 37 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 8 minutes later, 43 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #388,762
@previous (B)
I guess that a free market economy is cool for everyone, but him. lol I love blowhard, religious hypocrites.
I guess that a free market economy is cool for everyone, but him. lol I love blowhard, religious hypocrites.
Leonidas !nBpim1wazU joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 19 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #388,768
What a hypocrite! I used to believe in what he says!
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 35 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #388,781
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 10 hours later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #389,004
@388,760 (B)
how did they work to build a domain name
the domain name company made it
@388,762 (A)
whats not free market about private dns registries on the internet wanting to please legitimate customers
how did they work to build a domain name
the domain name company made it
@388,762 (A)
whats not free market about private dns registries on the internet wanting to please legitimate customers
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 3 hours later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #389,012
@previous (D)
they offered him money for this site, he turned hem down, and asked the UN for help. Also, sup mountainman?
they offered him money for this site, he turned hem down, and asked the UN for help. Also, sup mountainman?
(Edited 41 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #389,014
@389,004 (D)
Is it a freemarket when someone offers you a product for money, and you ask the government to give it to you for free? Also, the site is already owned by people, and so they are the legitimate customers. Right?
Is it a freemarket when someone offers you a product for money, and you ask the government to give it to you for free? Also, the site is already owned by people, and so they are the legitimate customers. Right?
(Edited 31 seconds later.)
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 2 hours later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #389,032
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #389,038
@389,004 (D)
> the domain name company made it
A domain name company (fabulous.com) registered it. Are they not legitimate customers?
What the current owners worked to build is page rank and traffic around the domain name. These are things businesses and advertisers pay real money to get.
> the domain name company made it
A domain name company (fabulous.com) registered it. Are they not legitimate customers?
What the current owners worked to build is page rank and traffic around the domain name. These are things businesses and advertisers pay real money to get.
Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #389,099
@389,012 (A)
> they offered him money for this site, he turned hem down,
wtf are you retarded read this again
> and asked the UN for help
i think you'll find he didn't, but the people he asked did
> they offered him money for this site, he turned hem down,
wtf are you retarded read this again
> and asked the UN for help
i think you'll find he didn't, but the people he asked did
Anonymous D double-posted this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #389,102
@389,014 (A)
> un
> government
lolno
> squatters
> legitimate customers
thats for the company to decide
> un
> government
lolno
> squatters
> legitimate customers
thats for the company to decide
Anonymous D triple-posted this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #389,113
@389,038 (B)
> > the domain name company made it
> Are they not legitimate customers?
For the company to decide. But because they have the name of an actor, but are not the actor themselves, but are running a fan page of the actor on the plain url of the actor it is likely that they will be thought of as illegitimate.
> What the current owners worked to build is page rank and traffic around the domain name. These are things businesses and advertisers pay real money to get.
that's money they have been getting
> > the domain name company made it
> Are they not legitimate customers?
For the company to decide. But because they have the name of an actor, but are not the actor themselves, but are running a fan page of the actor on the plain url of the actor it is likely that they will be thought of as illegitimate.
> What the current owners worked to build is page rank and traffic around the domain name. These are things businesses and advertisers pay real money to get.
that's money they have been getting
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 17 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #389,127
@previous (D)
> but are running a fan page
So it's okay for public figures to take fan pages for themselves without compensation?
> that's money they have been getting
Which they worked for years to get by running a website, how is that wrong?
How is Ron Paul not selling out his principles by trying to take the domain through the UN?
> but are running a fan page
So it's okay for public figures to take fan pages for themselves without compensation?
> that's money they have been getting
Which they worked for years to get by running a website, how is that wrong?
How is Ron Paul not selling out his principles by trying to take the domain through the UN?
Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #389,152
@previous (B)
> So it's okay for public figures to take fan pages for themselves without compensation?
You seem confused. He is not taking it. The company would be ending their agreement with the fan page people and starting one with the ron paul people
> Which they worked for years to get by running a website, how is that wrong?
and which will now be ending. They had a good run.
> How is Ron Paul not selling out his principles by trying to take the domain through the UN?
You clearly dont understand what is actually happening.
> So it's okay for public figures to take fan pages for themselves without compensation?
You seem confused. He is not taking it. The company would be ending their agreement with the fan page people and starting one with the ron paul people
> Which they worked for years to get by running a website, how is that wrong?
and which will now be ending. They had a good run.
> How is Ron Paul not selling out his principles by trying to take the domain through the UN?
You clearly dont understand what is actually happening.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #389,154
Look at it like this. Let's say a cookie company decides they're going to spend 100 million dollars on a marketing campaign to increase cookie sales. A milk company catches wind of this and puts a sticker on their milk cartons that read "Don't forget milk with your cookies!" Because people love drinking milk with cookies, and the cookie company's marketing drove up the sale of cookies, the sale of milk will also go up. In economics, this is what's called a "positive externality" because cookies and milk are complimentary goods. Now, just because milk sales went up because of the cookie company's marketing campaign, that does not give the cookie company the right to say that the milk company owes them money because the milk company benefited from the cookie company's marketing.
So the argument that they're riding Ron Paul's coattails and that the site wouldn't be as popular as it is today if not for Ron Paul does not give Ron Paul the right to take the website away from them. For a politician who claims to be all in favor of the free market and the right of people to be greedy with their capital, this is disgusting.
The argument that Ron Paul is entitled to it because they're using the name "Ron Paul" is also not a good case. If I'm a Star Wars fan and I make a Star Wars fan site, and I spend thousands of dollars and thousands of hours building and maintaining that website, then I have a right to the capital that I've invested. It's not right for Disney to come along and say that they're taking control of the domain simply because "Star Wars" is in the domain name. You might disagree and say that I don't have a right to the capital that I've invested, but then you wouldn't be a capitalist if you don't believe I have a right to my capital, and that's fine. You don't have to be a capitalist and you don't have to agree with me, but Ron Paul fervently defends capitalism and claims to be a capitalist, so he's a complete fucking hypocrite for refusing to pay the site owners the fair market value and completely disregarding their right to the capital that they've invested.
So the argument that they're riding Ron Paul's coattails and that the site wouldn't be as popular as it is today if not for Ron Paul does not give Ron Paul the right to take the website away from them. For a politician who claims to be all in favor of the free market and the right of people to be greedy with their capital, this is disgusting.
The argument that Ron Paul is entitled to it because they're using the name "Ron Paul" is also not a good case. If I'm a Star Wars fan and I make a Star Wars fan site, and I spend thousands of dollars and thousands of hours building and maintaining that website, then I have a right to the capital that I've invested. It's not right for Disney to come along and say that they're taking control of the domain simply because "Star Wars" is in the domain name. You might disagree and say that I don't have a right to the capital that I've invested, but then you wouldn't be a capitalist if you don't believe I have a right to my capital, and that's fine. You don't have to be a capitalist and you don't have to agree with me, but Ron Paul fervently defends capitalism and claims to be a capitalist, so he's a complete fucking hypocrite for refusing to pay the site owners the fair market value and completely disregarding their right to the capital that they've invested.
(Edited 33 seconds later.)
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 29 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #389,155
@previous (F)
"Star Wars" in the name is one thing, but if you actually had StarWars.com it could be pretty crippling to the franchise. If you had StarWarsStormTrooperCosplayer.org it would probably not catch so much hate and not be targeted for takeovers. But since Jizzney owns it now, all bets are off.
"Star Wars" in the name is one thing, but if you actually had StarWars.com it could be pretty crippling to the franchise. If you had StarWarsStormTrooperCosplayer.org it would probably not catch so much hate and not be targeted for takeovers. But since Jizzney owns it now, all bets are off.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #389,156
@389,102 (D)
They weren't squatters, but fans and voters of Ron Paul, who actively worked to help his campaign.
They weren't squatters, but fans and voters of Ron Paul, who actively worked to help his campaign.
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 26 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #389,161
@previous (A)
Well that is true, and if that were all there was to it, it might be seen as purely corporate/political thuggery. But where the case gets tainted and blurred is when they contacted him and tried to ransom it off for a quarter million dollars. I suppose they say they weren't selling the name for a quarter million, but were selling the 'mailing list' for that. But that is a thinly veiled way of ransoming the name. It is doubtful that Ron Paul was interested in the 'mailing list' whatsoever, which has to come with the name as a package deal. If a homeless person started living in your car, but always aired up your tires and waxed it, then said he would give it back to you for free but only as a package when you buy his jar of turds for $10,000, you would probably be upset. Again, if it wasn't the direct .com of his name, it would probably not have come to this.
Well that is true, and if that were all there was to it, it might be seen as purely corporate/political thuggery. But where the case gets tainted and blurred is when they contacted him and tried to ransom it off for a quarter million dollars. I suppose they say they weren't selling the name for a quarter million, but were selling the 'mailing list' for that. But that is a thinly veiled way of ransoming the name. It is doubtful that Ron Paul was interested in the 'mailing list' whatsoever, which has to come with the name as a package deal. If a homeless person started living in your car, but always aired up your tires and waxed it, then said he would give it back to you for free but only as a package when you buy his jar of turds for $10,000, you would probably be upset. Again, if it wasn't the direct .com of his name, it would probably not have come to this.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 24 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #389,164
@previous (G)
they actually offered him the .org and when he turned that down, they offered to sell it. They never stole anything from him, and only used site to help him. Also, he would very much benefit from a mailing list of his supporters.
they actually offered him the .org and when he turned that down, they offered to sell it. They never stole anything from him, and only used site to help him. Also, he would very much benefit from a mailing list of his supporters.
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #389,175
@389,152 (D)
> You seem confused. He is not taking it.
You seem confused. He is, in fact, trying to take it.
Not only is he trying to take it, but he has filed his complaint with WIPO to do it. It would be a bit like him turning to the WTO to resolve a trade dispute.
> You clearly dont understand what is actually happening.
LOL Please enlighten me as to what is really happening. I can't wait to hear the truth.
> You seem confused. He is not taking it.
You seem confused. He is, in fact, trying to take it.
Not only is he trying to take it, but he has filed his complaint with WIPO to do it. It would be a bit like him turning to the WTO to resolve a trade dispute.
> You clearly dont understand what is actually happening.
LOL Please enlighten me as to what is really happening. I can't wait to hear the truth.
Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 24 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #389,186
@389,156 (A)
> They weren't squatters, but fans and voters of Ron Paul, who actively worked to help his campaign.
Actually, by sniping his domain name, they actually hurt hus campaign a lot. A fan/voter of Ron Paul would not do this.
> They weren't squatters, but fans and voters of Ron Paul, who actively worked to help his campaign.
Actually, by sniping his domain name, they actually hurt hus campaign a lot. A fan/voter of Ron Paul would not do this.
Anonymous D double-posted this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #389,187
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 51 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #389,195
@389,186 (D)
Wait, didn't you buy a merchandise from that site? Like that shirt that spells revolution with the word love?
Wait, didn't you buy a merchandise from that site? Like that shirt that spells revolution with the word love?
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 20 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #389,196
@389,187 (D)
> Do you know how the DNS works?
How about we assume that people on AT-clone boards are somewhat familiar with this topic.
Now, please enlighten me as to what is really happening.
> Do you know how the DNS works?
How about we assume that people on AT-clone boards are somewhat familiar with this topic.
Now, please enlighten me as to what is really happening.
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #389,224
@389,164 (A)
Offer him the .org so he can build it up and drive all that delicious typo traffic to the .com for him? Being that it is a supporter site there surely could have been some peaceful way to settle this. Ron Paul sues his supporters, while his supporters try to milk him out of a quarter million dollars. I think both sides are acting retarded and selfishly.
Offer him the .org so he can build it up and drive all that delicious typo traffic to the .com for him? Being that it is a supporter site there surely could have been some peaceful way to settle this. Ron Paul sues his supporters, while his supporters try to milk him out of a quarter million dollars. I think both sides are acting retarded and selfishly.
Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 53 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #389,226
@389,195 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
No, I did not.
@389,196 (B)
> posting on AT-clone board
> being an expert on anything
nope
@previous (G)
They're not his supporters lol. Or if they are they are mentally ill. What kind of "support" is registering a domain name someone else had, and then offering to sell it to them for hundreds of thousands of dollars, and then spreading news of your dispute all over the internet?
No, I did not.
@389,196 (B)
> posting on AT-clone board
> being an expert on anything
nope
@previous (G)
They're not his supporters lol. Or if they are they are mentally ill. What kind of "support" is registering a domain name someone else had, and then offering to sell it to them for hundreds of thousands of dollars, and then spreading news of your dispute all over the internet?
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 20 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #389,228
@previous (D)
Just because they are not officially on his pay-roll, that doesn't mean that they can't be supporters and build a website about him and be a positive contribution to the cause. Politics, after all, is about including people and representing people's voices, not just one man's propaganda. As I said previously this all could have probably been avoided if they didn't take the exact .com of his name, which can really disrupt the official campaign. If they just had RonPaulMovement.org or something I doubt this silliness would be happening.
It would be like Blackberry suing Crackberry.com for being enthusiastic about their products, except Crackberry was not idiotic enough to register Blackberry.com and use it as their site about Blackberry phones.
Just because they are not officially on his pay-roll, that doesn't mean that they can't be supporters and build a website about him and be a positive contribution to the cause. Politics, after all, is about including people and representing people's voices, not just one man's propaganda. As I said previously this all could have probably been avoided if they didn't take the exact .com of his name, which can really disrupt the official campaign. If they just had RonPaulMovement.org or something I doubt this silliness would be happening.
It would be like Blackberry suing Crackberry.com for being enthusiastic about their products, except Crackberry was not idiotic enough to register Blackberry.com and use it as their site about Blackberry phones.
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 18 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #389,230
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #389,244
@389,226 (D)
They are his supporters, and helped him win elections. Did you even read the article? I know that Ron Paul is like your new Jesus or something, but put things in perspective Mountianman.
They are his supporters, and helped him win elections. Did you even read the article? I know that Ron Paul is like your new Jesus or something, but put things in perspective Mountianman.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #389,275
Thread's been up for a day. Where are the Ron Paul + Kimmo shoops?
Anonymous I double-posted this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #389,276
"WHY AREN'T YOU DUMB MOTHERFUCKERS SPREADING THE WORD OF LIBERTY? I SHOULD BE THE BEST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY ALREADY BUT NONE OF YOU SEEM TO GIVE A DAMN!"Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 6 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,334
@389,228 (G)
> Just because they are not officially on his pay-roll, that doesn't mean that they can't be supporters and build a website about him and be a positive contribution to the cause.
Pay-roll has nothing to do with it. There are many Ron Paul supporters who actually help Ron Paul. Taking a website name that someone used to own so that you can sell it back to them for hundreds of thousands of dollars is a negative contribution to the cause.
> Politics, after all, is about including people and representing people's voices, not just one man's propaganda. As I said previously this all could have probably been avoided if they didn't take the exact .com of his name, which can really disrupt the official campaign. If they just had RonPaulMovement.org or something I doubt this silliness would be happening.
Exactly. That would be a positive contribution (assuming it was well run. If it was full of racist stuff, conspiracy stuff, terrorist threats, it wouldn't be a positive contribution. But your point stands).
> It would be like Blackberry suing Crackberry.com for being enthusiastic about their products, except Crackberry was not idiotic enough to register Blackberry.com and use it as their site about Blackberry phones.
Well, they may have reason to not like them because Blackberry would likely have relationships with the service providers that Crackberry could potentially threaten.
> Just because they are not officially on his pay-roll, that doesn't mean that they can't be supporters and build a website about him and be a positive contribution to the cause.
Pay-roll has nothing to do with it. There are many Ron Paul supporters who actually help Ron Paul. Taking a website name that someone used to own so that you can sell it back to them for hundreds of thousands of dollars is a negative contribution to the cause.
> Politics, after all, is about including people and representing people's voices, not just one man's propaganda. As I said previously this all could have probably been avoided if they didn't take the exact .com of his name, which can really disrupt the official campaign. If they just had RonPaulMovement.org or something I doubt this silliness would be happening.
Exactly. That would be a positive contribution (assuming it was well run. If it was full of racist stuff, conspiracy stuff, terrorist threats, it wouldn't be a positive contribution. But your point stands).
> It would be like Blackberry suing Crackberry.com for being enthusiastic about their products, except Crackberry was not idiotic enough to register Blackberry.com and use it as their site about Blackberry phones.
Well, they may have reason to not like them because Blackberry would likely have relationships with the service providers that Crackberry could potentially threaten.
Anonymous D double-posted this 13 years ago, 31 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,335
Anonymous D triple-posted this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,338
@389,244 (A)
> They are his supporters,
No, they are not. Supporters HELP people, not harm them.
> and helped him win elections.
No, they didn't lol
> Did you even read the article?
Did I read the article by the squatters about the squatters? What an unbiased source of info that must be.
> I know that Ron Paul is like your new Jesus or something, but put things in perspective Mountianman.
Yeah, no.
> They are his supporters,
No, they are not. Supporters HELP people, not harm them.
> and helped him win elections.
No, they didn't lol
> Did you even read the article?
Did I read the article by the squatters about the squatters? What an unbiased source of info that must be.
> I know that Ron Paul is like your new Jesus or something, but put things in perspective Mountianman.
Yeah, no.
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 56 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,345
@389,335 (D)
> still dodging questions and misquoting people
> every MM thread ever
LOL You're hopeless.
> still dodging questions and misquoting people
> every MM thread ever
LOL You're hopeless.
Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 30 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,349
@previous (B)
> can't answer a simple question
Truly pathetic. I would probably kill myself if I were you.
> can't answer a simple question
Truly pathetic. I would probably kill myself if I were you.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 52 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,361
@389,334 (D)
They didnt steal a site that he used to own, and they did help him. Jesus, are all religious people this delusional?
They didnt steal a site that he used to own, and they did help him. Jesus, are all religious people this delusional?
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,363
These people werent squatters, Mountainman. Repeating something doesnt make it true.
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 13 years ago, 40 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,381
I just found out that Ron Paul was anti UN before this happened. That's hilarious.
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,399
@389,349 (D)
I did answer your question. Then you misquoted "somewhat familiar" as "expert" and ignored it. If you have a point to make, make it.
@previous (A)
That's really the punchline to this whole affair. For a man who has repeatedly argued that the UN has no authority to make binding legal decisions in regard to the American people, running to WIPO to claim trademark protection is hypocrisy on a hilariously grand scale.
I did answer your question. Then you misquoted "somewhat familiar" as "expert" and ignored it. If you have a point to make, make it.
@previous (A)
That's really the punchline to this whole affair. For a man who has repeatedly argued that the UN has no authority to make binding legal decisions in regard to the American people, running to WIPO to claim trademark protection is hypocrisy on a hilariously grand scale.
Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 20 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,402
@389,361 (A)
> command+f steal
> 1 result
Honestly... youre retarded
> and they did help him.
Compelling argument! When faced with evidence to the contrary, just ignore it and continue to assert.
> command+f steal
> 1 result
Honestly... youre retarded
> and they did help him.
Compelling argument! When faced with evidence to the contrary, just ignore it and continue to assert.
Anonymous D double-posted this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,403
@389,399 (B)
I want you to explain how the DNS system works, so that you can either be revealed as knowing nothing about the subject, or otherwise will clear the subject up for other posters, while being forced to argue in a logical manner from then on.
I want you to explain how the DNS system works, so that you can either be revealed as knowing nothing about the subject, or otherwise will clear the subject up for other posters, while being forced to argue in a logical manner from then on.
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 10 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,405
Syntax joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,407
Far too many years of use. Ain't no Lawwweeerrr but seriously doubt after all this tyme Ron Paul has a shaky leg to stand on.
Its common practice for people to buy dot com names solely for the purpose of legal extortion and then make a huge profit by selling it to the party that really wants it.
But its truly funny that the fan club is being attacked and they are sorta in a catch 22 spot.
Its common practice for people to buy dot com names solely for the purpose of legal extortion and then make a huge profit by selling it to the party that really wants it.
But its truly funny that the fan club is being attacked and they are sorta in a catch 22 spot.
(Edited 20 seconds later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 15 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,409
@previous (Syntax)
He seems to have a reasonable claim to the domain, and it wouldn't be too shocking if he ended up winning it. That he is attempting to take it from the people who have been trying to help him get elected president -and the way he going about trying to take it- is just reallyfunny odd.
He seems to have a reasonable claim to the domain, and it wouldn't be too shocking if he ended up winning it. That he is attempting to take it from the people who have been trying to help him get elected president -and the way he going about trying to take it- is just really
Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 5 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,432
@389,405 (B)
I want you to prove that you understand it. It will provide a basis for further argumentation.
@389,407 (Syntax)
It's not a fan club.
I want you to prove that you understand it. It will provide a basis for further argumentation.
@389,407 (Syntax)
It's not a fan club.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,433
Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,456
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,467
I'm tired of domain name bs. If we insist on treating domain names as some kind of real estate than this is only the beginning. Be prepared for zoning rules, property taxes, trespass and eminent domain.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 35 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,471
Hey mountainman was Ron Paul anti UN until he needs them?
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,472
@389,402 (D)
They stole nothing and helped him with elections. He actually wants both the .com and .org please tell us why you think that they were squatters and stole anything.
They stole nothing and helped him with elections. He actually wants both the .com and .org please tell us why you think that they were squatters and stole anything.
Anonymous K replied with this 13 years ago, 50 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,478
@previous (A)
They registered the name of a prominent politician and used the guise of getting him elected to attract supporters and build a mailing list. Clearly, this was not done for the benefit of Ron Paul, but for the purpose of boosting the domain's market value into hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Obviously, if they supported Ron Paul they would give him the domain. Political supporters are expected to make financial sacrifices. This is well established fact these days.
They are extortionists looking to shake a man down.
They registered the name of a prominent politician and used the guise of getting him elected to attract supporters and build a mailing list. Clearly, this was not done for the benefit of Ron Paul, but for the purpose of boosting the domain's market value into hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Obviously, if they supported Ron Paul they would give him the domain. Political supporters are expected to make financial sacrifices. This is well established fact these days.
They are extortionists looking to shake a man down.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 9 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,481
Anonymous K replied with this 13 years ago, 9 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,483
@previous (A)
Targeted mailing list = cash in hand. You'd need to be a mental patient to believe otherwise.
If you read the letter posted on their site, which basically demands $250k in compensation for doing something they supposedly believe in, they specifically mention the mailing list as justification for the domain name's exorbitant value. They knew exactly what they were doing and therefore don't deserve one fucking dime.
Ron Paul is a great man for calling them out on their BS. I hope he wins.
Targeted mailing list = cash in hand. You'd need to be a mental patient to believe otherwise.
If you read the letter posted on their site, which basically demands $250k in compensation for doing something they supposedly believe in, they specifically mention the mailing list as justification for the domain name's exorbitant value. They knew exactly what they were doing and therefore don't deserve one fucking dime.
Ron Paul is a great man for calling them out on their BS. I hope he wins.
Anonymous K double-posted this 13 years ago, 17 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,489
@389,038 (B)
> What the current owners worked to build is page rank and traffic around the domain name. These are things businesses and advertisers pay real money to get.
That'd be nice but for the fact this "build-up" was predestined as a result of using the [candidatesname].com. Get real people. Ron Paul is THE Ron Paul. And he's the one who made it that way. Not some stupid website.
> What the current owners worked to build is page rank and traffic around the domain name. These are things businesses and advertisers pay real money to get.
That'd be nice but for the fact this "build-up" was predestined as a result of using the [candidatesname].com. Get real people. Ron Paul is THE Ron Paul. And he's the one who made it that way. Not some stupid website.
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,493
@389,432 (D)
> Sidetracking the topic by asking for explanations of tangential issues that anyone could easily research
You still haven't answered my original question, and I'm still not indulging you.
> It's not a fan club.
Aside from featuring news about Ron Paul, pictures of Ron Paul, links to purchase Ron Paul's books, links to buy things with Ron Paul's name and picture on them, keeping a mailing list of fans, and billing themselves as a fan site on the banner at the top of their site -if you leave out all those things- these guys don't look like a fan club at all. LOL
> Sidetracking the topic by asking for explanations of tangential issues that anyone could easily research
You still haven't answered my original question, and I'm still not indulging you.
> It's not a fan club.
Aside from featuring news about Ron Paul, pictures of Ron Paul, links to purchase Ron Paul's books, links to buy things with Ron Paul's name and picture on them, keeping a mailing list of fans, and billing themselves as a fan site on the banner at the top of their site -if you leave out all those things- these guys don't look like a fan club at all. LOL
Anonymous K replied with this 13 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,497
> > It's not a fan club.
> Aside from featuring news about Ron Paul, pictures of Ron Paul, links to purchase Ron Paul's books, links to buy things with Ron Paul's name and picture on them, keeping a mailing list of fans, and billing themselves as a fan site on the banner at the top of their site -if you leave out all those things- these guys don't look like a fan club at all. LOL
But this is politics, not some fucking "reality" show. Politics is above money, and that's exactly why so many rich people willingly give up massive sums of cash to advance their own political agenda.
> Aside from featuring news about Ron Paul, pictures of Ron Paul, links to purchase Ron Paul's books, links to buy things with Ron Paul's name and picture on them, keeping a mailing list of fans, and billing themselves as a fan site on the banner at the top of their site -if you leave out all those things- these guys don't look like a fan club at all. LOL
But this is politics, not some fucking "reality" show. Politics is above money, and that's exactly why so many rich people willingly give up massive sums of cash to advance their own political agenda.
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 32 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,514
@389,489 (K)
Well the argument that the site wouldn't have a following without Ron Paul is much like that surrounding any fan site. Someone else built up traffic and page rank by working to maintain that site and draw visitors. Ron Paul certainly can argue that he a claim to the domain, but why he would try to take it without compensation from people who supported him rather than sitting down and bargaining with them is puzzling.
> But this is politics
Politicians can't have fans? Despite the UDRP complaint being filed in the name of "the Honorable Ron Paul", Ron Paul has retired from politics. According to what he told Alex Jones, he wants to use the Internet to pursue his own projects now. From 2008 to 2012 (when it really was about politics) he didn't seem to mind the site being up at all.
Well the argument that the site wouldn't have a following without Ron Paul is much like that surrounding any fan site. Someone else built up traffic and page rank by working to maintain that site and draw visitors. Ron Paul certainly can argue that he a claim to the domain, but why he would try to take it without compensation from people who supported him rather than sitting down and bargaining with them is puzzling.
> But this is politics
Politicians can't have fans? Despite the UDRP complaint being filed in the name of "the Honorable Ron Paul", Ron Paul has retired from politics. According to what he told Alex Jones, he wants to use the Internet to pursue his own projects now. From 2008 to 2012 (when it really was about politics) he didn't seem to mind the site being up at all.
Anonymous K replied with this 13 years ago, 9 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,518
@previous (B)
> Well the argument that the site wouldn't have a following without Ron Paul is much like that surrounding any fan site. Someone else built up traffic and page rank by working to maintain that site and draw visitors. Ron Paul certainly can argue that he a claim to the domain, but why he would try to take it without compensation from people who supported him rather than sitting down and bargaining with them is puzzling.
He's trying to take it because they don't deserve compensation, at all. End of story. Making the claim they "built up the traffic" is just ridiculous. The traffic appeared organically because the name of the site was ronpaul.com. If they were serious about building traffic themselves they'd have named it something like tumblr or flikr. The only thing driving traffic to ronpaul.com was Ron Paul the candidate. And for that reason alone, he is right to demand it.
> Well the argument that the site wouldn't have a following without Ron Paul is much like that surrounding any fan site. Someone else built up traffic and page rank by working to maintain that site and draw visitors. Ron Paul certainly can argue that he a claim to the domain, but why he would try to take it without compensation from people who supported him rather than sitting down and bargaining with them is puzzling.
He's trying to take it because they don't deserve compensation, at all. End of story. Making the claim they "built up the traffic" is just ridiculous. The traffic appeared organically because the name of the site was ronpaul.com. If they were serious about building traffic themselves they'd have named it something like tumblr or flikr. The only thing driving traffic to ronpaul.com was Ron Paul the candidate. And for that reason alone, he is right to demand it.
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 51 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,543
@previous (K)
> The traffic appeared organically because the name of the site was ronpaul.com
Much of the existing traffic is due to inbound links to the content on the site. The current owners made the site a nexus for Ron Paul news and a resource for his campaign and supporters. This arguably wouldn't have occurred if the domain had been registered by someone who just filled it with banner ads for Viagra.
Also, I'm not sure how you can say that someone doesn't deserve to be compensated for the loss of something they have paid to use.
Again, the argument that the traffic wouldn't exist without Ron Paul is much the same as that surrounding any fan site. Does being a public figure entitle someone to take away domains run by their fans?
> The traffic appeared organically because the name of the site was ronpaul.com
Much of the existing traffic is due to inbound links to the content on the site. The current owners made the site a nexus for Ron Paul news and a resource for his campaign and supporters. This arguably wouldn't have occurred if the domain had been registered by someone who just filled it with banner ads for Viagra.
Also, I'm not sure how you can say that someone doesn't deserve to be compensated for the loss of something they have paid to use.
Again, the argument that the traffic wouldn't exist without Ron Paul is much the same as that surrounding any fan site. Does being a public figure entitle someone to take away domains run by their fans?
squeegee joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 39 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,553
I just registered Ronpaulisgay.com.
Now we play the waiting game.
Now we play the waiting game.
Anonymous K replied with this 13 years ago, 18 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,555
@389,543 (B)
They don't deserve to be compensated for the same reason a homeless guy who washes your windshield without being asked doesn't deserve to be compensated.
As you yourself said "The current owners made the site a nexus for RON PAUL news and a resource for HIS campaign and supporters." No Ron Paul, no value added to ronpaul.com. It's pretty fucking basic.
They don't deserve to be compensated for the same reason a homeless guy who washes your windshield without being asked doesn't deserve to be compensated.
As you yourself said "The current owners made the site a nexus for RON PAUL news and a resource for HIS campaign and supporters." No Ron Paul, no value added to ronpaul.com. It's pretty fucking basic.
(Edited 32 seconds later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 25 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,561
@previous (K)
So any celebrity, artist, or public figure is entitled to take control of any domain they are driving traffic to without compensating the person who owns it? That's an interesting view, but I don't think it is supported by law or is what Ron Paul is claiming in his complaint. There are plenty of fan sites on the web, and there are plenty of people who have monitized fan sites and legally turn a profit running them. Ron Paul's complaint centers around his claim to a common law trademark on his name and the domains (ronpaul.com and ronpaul.org) interfering with his rights in that regard.
So any celebrity, artist, or public figure is entitled to take control of any domain they are driving traffic to without compensating the person who owns it? That's an interesting view, but I don't think it is supported by law or is what Ron Paul is claiming in his complaint. There are plenty of fan sites on the web, and there are plenty of people who have monitized fan sites and legally turn a profit running them. Ron Paul's complaint centers around his claim to a common law trademark on his name and the domains (ronpaul.com and ronpaul.org) interfering with his rights in that regard.
(Edited 40 seconds later.)
squeegee replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,562
What about Ron Paul of Dixon, Mi.?
Why doesn't he have a right to ronpaul.com?
What about any other Ron Paul?
I know, we'll do steel cage matches for all domain registries. If you can beat out all the people with the same name, you can pay 5.99 to register the site.
Simple problems call for simple solutions.
Why doesn't he have a right to ronpaul.com?
What about any other Ron Paul?
I know, we'll do steel cage matches for all domain registries. If you can beat out all the people with the same name, you can pay 5.99 to register the site.
Simple problems call for simple solutions.
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 27 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,567
@previous (squeegee)
He would certainly have a valid reason to use the name, but I doubt he would be able to make a case for trademark rights sufficient to seize the domain. (Although, if Ron Paul of Dixon, Mi. did have such a claim and tried to take the site out of the hands of its current owners through WIPO, then I have a feeling that former Congressman Ron Paul would shout "unconstitutional!" faster than MM could ask an underage girl for a blow job.)
He would certainly have a valid reason to use the name, but I doubt he would be able to make a case for trademark rights sufficient to seize the domain. (Although, if Ron Paul of Dixon, Mi. did have such a claim and tried to take the site out of the hands of its current owners through WIPO, then I have a feeling that former Congressman Ron Paul would shout "unconstitutional!" faster than MM could ask an underage girl for a blow job.)
Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 3 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,587
@389,493 (B)
> You still haven't answered my original question, and I'm still not indulging you.
Was that question you asked after I asked mine? My question is the heart of the issue - unless you know the structure of the DNS you can not even begin to comprehend what is happening.
> Aside from featuring news about Ron Paul, pictures of Ron Paul, links to purchase Ron Paul's books, links to buy things with Ron Paul's name and picture on them, keeping a mailing list of fans, and billing themselves as a fan site on the banner at the top of their site -if you leave out all those things- these guys don't look like a fan club at all. LOL
All of which was quite profitable for them. An actual fan would have given the domain to the campaign to use. How is this even debatable?
> You still haven't answered my original question, and I'm still not indulging you.
Was that question you asked after I asked mine? My question is the heart of the issue - unless you know the structure of the DNS you can not even begin to comprehend what is happening.
> Aside from featuring news about Ron Paul, pictures of Ron Paul, links to purchase Ron Paul's books, links to buy things with Ron Paul's name and picture on them, keeping a mailing list of fans, and billing themselves as a fan site on the banner at the top of their site -if you leave out all those things- these guys don't look like a fan club at all. LOL
All of which was quite profitable for them. An actual fan would have given the domain to the campaign to use. How is this even debatable?
Anonymous D double-posted this 13 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,588
@389,472 (A)
> They stole nothing and helped him with elections. He actually wants both the .com and .org please tell us why you think that they were squatters and stole anything.
> command + f stole
> 3 results
> all you
Please be quiet now. You are an idiot.
> They stole nothing and helped him with elections. He actually wants both the .com and .org please tell us why you think that they were squatters and stole anything.
> command + f stole
> 3 results
> all you
Please be quiet now. You are an idiot.
Anonymous D triple-posted this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,589
@389,567 (B)
The federal government is not involved, this has nothing to do with the constitution. MM is a virgin you mora
The federal government is not involved, this has nothing to do with the constitution. MM is a virgin you mora
squeegee !first/o5zA joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,590
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 40 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,594
@389,587 (D)
> Was that question you asked after I asked mine?
Actually, I asked first.
> An actual fan would have given the domain to the campaign to use.
That's an interesting opinion. Are you brewing up a "No true Ron Paul supporter" argument for us?
> How is this even debatable?
Because you claim that something that fits the description of a fan site is not a fan site.
> The federal government is not involved
That was just a hypothetical scenario. I don't believe Ron Paul of Dixon, Mi. intends to claim either US or international trademark rights.
> MM is a virgin
I'll have to take your word for that.
> Was that question you asked after I asked mine?
Actually, I asked first.
> An actual fan would have given the domain to the campaign to use.
That's an interesting opinion. Are you brewing up a "No true Ron Paul supporter" argument for us?
> How is this even debatable?
Because you claim that something that fits the description of a fan site is not a fan site.
> The federal government is not involved
That was just a hypothetical scenario. I don't believe Ron Paul of Dixon, Mi. intends to claim either US or international trademark rights.
> MM is a virgin
I'll have to take your word for that.
Anonymous K replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,595
@389,561 (B)
It's not a question of a person driving traffic to a site, but of a name driving traffic because of it's association with the celebrity in question.
If they wanted a freely monetizable fansite, they should have gone with something more descriptive than ronpaul.com. Domain names are not free market property. They are regulated. If you've got a problem with that reality, use .bit domains.
It's not a question of a person driving traffic to a site, but of a name driving traffic because of it's association with the celebrity in question.
If they wanted a freely monetizable fansite, they should have gone with something more descriptive than ronpaul.com. Domain names are not free market property. They are regulated. If you've got a problem with that reality, use .bit domains.
(Edited 8 minutes later.)
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,596
ronpaul2012
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 59 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,599
poor ron paul. this is what happens when you build a presidential campaign around autists and people who believe you should never do anything that doesn't benefit yourself.
Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 9 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,600
@389,590 (squeegee !first/o5zA)
ok good point
@389,594 (B)
> Actually, I asked first.
I must have missed it! Ask again.
> That's an interesting opinion. Are you brewing up a "No true Ron Paul supporter" argument for us?
You realize that the NTS fallacy doesn't apply here, right? Calling yourself a supporter doesn't make you one. A supporter is one who supports. Preventing someone the use of their name as a domain name short of them giving you hundreds of thousands of dollars, and then mocking them publicly and repeatedly is not support.
> Because you claim that something that fits the description of a fan site is not a fan site.
Fan site posits a motivation. The motivation for this site was to make money from Ron Paul's fame.
> That was just a hypothetical scenario. I don't believe Ron Paul of Dixon, Mi. intends to claim either US or international trademark rights.
Please make your hypothetical situations relevant and applicable!
> I'll have to take your word for that.
ok then
@previous (O)
apparently the guy that owns the site is australian... dam lol
ok good point
@389,594 (B)
> Actually, I asked first.
I must have missed it! Ask again.
> That's an interesting opinion. Are you brewing up a "No true Ron Paul supporter" argument for us?
You realize that the NTS fallacy doesn't apply here, right? Calling yourself a supporter doesn't make you one. A supporter is one who supports. Preventing someone the use of their name as a domain name short of them giving you hundreds of thousands of dollars, and then mocking them publicly and repeatedly is not support.
> Because you claim that something that fits the description of a fan site is not a fan site.
Fan site posits a motivation. The motivation for this site was to make money from Ron Paul's fame.
> That was just a hypothetical scenario. I don't believe Ron Paul of Dixon, Mi. intends to claim either US or international trademark rights.
Please make your hypothetical situations relevant and applicable!
> I'll have to take your word for that.
ok then
@previous (O)
apparently the guy that owns the site is australian... dam lol
Anonymous K replied with this 13 years ago, 7 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,625
> apparently the guy that owns the site is australian... dam lol
All the more reason he'll get nothing and like it. LOL.
All the more reason he'll get nothing and like it. LOL.
Green !6OuEQ4XCO. replied with this 13 years ago, 8 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,675
@389,600 (D)
> You realize that the NTS fallacy doesn't apply here, right?
Actually, it is pretty fucking spot-on. You just keep redefining "true" fans or supporters to exclude the people we are talking about.
> The motivation for this site was to make money from Ron Paul's fame.
Unless the domain owners have come out and specifically said this, this is just your own convenient speculation.
> apparently the guy that owns the site is Australian.
The .com domain was registered through an Australian company, fabulous.com. (and the .org domain was registered through a US company) Are the domain holders themselves Australian?
> You realize that the NTS fallacy doesn't apply here, right?
Actually, it is pretty fucking spot-on. You just keep redefining "true" fans or supporters to exclude the people we are talking about.
> The motivation for this site was to make money from Ron Paul's fame.
Unless the domain owners have come out and specifically said this, this is just your own convenient speculation.
> apparently the guy that owns the site is Australian.
The .com domain was registered through an Australian company, fabulous.com. (and the .org domain was registered through a US company) Are the domain holders themselves Australian?
Anonymous B double-posted this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,676
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,678
@previous (B)
lol. I was pretty surprised to see such good arguments coming from him until I realised that it wasn't him.
lol. I was pretty surprised to see such good arguments coming from him until I realised that it wasn't him.
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 19 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,681
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Apparently there was a post as Green thread that sounded like fun when I stumbled in late last night.
Apparently there was a post as Green thread that sounded like fun when I stumbled in late last night.
Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,691
@389,675 (Green !6OuEQ4XCO.)
> Actually, it is pretty fucking spot-on. You just keep redefining "true" fans or supporters to exclude the people we are talking about.
I keep "redefining" supporters to mean people who support someone, instead of hinder them? lol dam lol
> Unless the domain owners have come out and specifically said this, this is just your own convenient speculation.
WTF? Everything is speculation. You have no way of knowing the veracity of the site admin's statements. My speculation at least makes sense.
> The .com domain was registered through an Australian company, fabulous.com. (and the .org domain was registered through a US company) Are the domain holders themselves Australian?
idk i was just trying to imply that mm ran the site
> Actually, it is pretty fucking spot-on. You just keep redefining "true" fans or supporters to exclude the people we are talking about.
I keep "redefining" supporters to mean people who support someone, instead of hinder them? lol dam lol
> Unless the domain owners have come out and specifically said this, this is just your own convenient speculation.
WTF? Everything is speculation. You have no way of knowing the veracity of the site admin's statements. My speculation at least makes sense.
> The .com domain was registered through an Australian company, fabulous.com. (and the .org domain was registered through a US company) Are the domain holders themselves Australian?
idk i was just trying to imply that mm ran the site
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 13 years ago, 32 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,695
@previous (D)
> WTF? Everything is speculation.
Can I speculate that you've run out of facts and are now powering your arguments with the power of imagination?
> WTF? Everything is speculation.
Can I speculate that you've run out of facts and are now powering your arguments with the power of imagination?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 11 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,696
(pronounced as one word) joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 48 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,699
@389,695 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
I am speculating that your statement may be speculation, but this is just pure speculatory speculation, as are my many speculataeâ„¢(pronounced as one word) that I encounter when hunting specutersâ„¢ with my specucamâ„¢ tmâ„¢. Thanks.
I am speculating that your statement may be speculation, but this is just pure speculatory speculation, as are my many speculataeâ„¢(pronounced as one word) that I encounter when hunting specutersâ„¢ with my specucamâ„¢ tmâ„¢. Thanks.
Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 2 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,719
@389,695 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
What? Could you even explain the logic behind the statement you made?
I am merely asserting that a guilty party lying does not make it so.
What? Could you even explain the logic behind the statement you made?
I am merely asserting that a guilty party lying does not make it so.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 13 years ago, 3 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,734
@previous (D)
WTF? Everything is speculation. You have no way of knowing the veracity of the site admin's statements. My speculation at least makes sense.
WTF? Everything is speculation. You have no way of knowing the veracity of the site admin's statements. My speculation at least makes sense.
Anonymous B replied with this 13 years ago, 46 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,739
@389,719 (D)
I speculate that you are a giant unicorn, and statements from giant unicorns are automatically invalid because I speculate that they are.
I speculate that you are a giant unicorn, and statements from giant unicorns are automatically invalid because I speculate that they are.
Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 7 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,797
@389,734 (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Actually retarded.
@previous (B)
> I speculate that you are a giant unicorn
Then you're an idiot... What more can be said?
Actually retarded.
@previous (B)
> I speculate that you are a giant unicorn
Then you're an idiot... What more can be said?
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 13 years ago, 37 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,800
Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 6 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,860
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 13 years ago, 58 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,870
Anonymous G replied with this 13 years ago, 21 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,877
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
Your statement about his statement stating everything is speculation being speculation is pure speculation.
Your statement about his statement stating everything is speculation being speculation is pure speculation.
Anonymous D replied with this 13 years ago, 13 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,883
doctor dreamworks md !jdTkvovFCQ joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 12 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,977
did i ever tell you the definition of insanity?
Anonymous K replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #389,979
ITT:
Some Australian motherfucker speculates he can make a quick buck by registering ronpaul.com
Ron Paul speculates he can show said motherfucker who's boss.
Rampant speculation ensues.
Some Australian motherfucker speculates he can make a quick buck by registering ronpaul.com
Ron Paul speculates he can show said motherfucker who's boss.
Rampant speculation ensues.
squeegee replied with this 13 years ago, 7 hours later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #390,004
Can't we all just agree that ron paul is no longer relevant?
His 15 minutes were over years ago. Time to change the channel. Jesus.
His 15 minutes were over years ago. Time to change the channel. Jesus.