I don't find it to be an ethical practice. Ethical would be giving the website to the person that it's named after, is about, and obtained popularity/use only due to, upon request.
This also makes me beg the question - how is ronpaul.com worth 250k when this website has to be run with donations? What are they doing so right? In my experience, ronpaul.com doesn't update as frequently, doesn't have as much content, doesn't cover as many subjects, as dailypaul.com, yet one is thriving while the other needs to be run on donations?
If that is actually the case it must be due to the name difference, dailypaul is not something a person would automatically assume contains anything, let alone a bunch of information on Ron Paul, while ronpaul.com would be the obvious default for getting information on him. Most, if not all of the profit that ronpaul.com makes, is due to Ron Paul... and now ronpaul.com wants to get even more money in a big final payoff from Ron Paul. I can't see that as ethical.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of t