The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: He probably is grateful, and

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: And BECAUSE it's the default (see in situ)

He probably is grateful, and

He probably is grateful, and now he wants the domain name. I don't see any inconsistency there.

Maybe it does demand a premium price, or maybe it will be ruled that it demands no price. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I sufficiently know the precedent involved to say what the outcome will be, but I don't sleight anyone for using the mechanisms of the 'system in reality' as opposed to the 'idealistic system of non-reality' that people would prefer Ron Paul use. Just because he's against this or that law doesn't mean he doesn't, in reality, have to abide by it.

Just like I don't find people who 'abuse' tax loopholes to be unethical - they are doing what they have to, what everyone else can and does do, and if they don't they fall behind relative to everyone else. If anything is unethical it's the rules of the game, not its players. If the game allows steroids and you're the only one not taking them, you're losing on purpose - if the game disallows steroids and you use them anyway, you're cheating. Ron Paul is not cheating by going to the UN because everyone, in his circumstances, has to go to the UN.