Comment: Equally...

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: No question was asked to counter it (see in situ)


Abandoning free market principles, attacking Ron Paul's fanbase, attacking things that Ron Paul himself had claimed to enjoy/respect -- none of this is "propelling the liberty movement", now.

Keep in mind, Ron Paul or Ron Paul's corner (somebody around Ron Paul, if not Ron Paul himself) brought the war to the owners of the domain. It's not the other way around.

What's more, why should the owners of be submissive? Nobody knows what the owners' situation is: may be the owners' only source of income; they might have big bills to pay; they might not even own their houses, whereas Ron Paul is a multi-millionaire and his entire family is set for generations. Asking and expecting the domain holders to just give away something that is rightfully theirs -- a priceless item for free -- that's just asking and expecting too much.

The internet-based grassroots movement helped provide Ron Paul the stage he has today particularly by doing exactly what did for Ron Paul during the election cycle, so it would be extremely stupid to start a war with his own fans, especially on the web of all places.

I mean, why would he want to attack his own base? You can't deny that it's a two-way street; you can't claim is doing wrong while ignoring Ron Paul's corner is the one kicking-off the war against his own base, can you?

Do you really believe Ron Paul would be as popular today without his Internet-based base? If Ron Paul really believed the government should steal from people for the sake of Ron Paul, do you believe he would have the stage and the mic that he has today? (I don't think so.)

For the record, I'm not entirely convinced it was Ron Paul's plan to wage war against, I think it may be some stupid lawyer's idea, probably one of Benton's remainders, but if it was Ron Paul's plan, you gotta know such a move is bad for anybody involved, especially for Ron Paul.