# Start Here > Ron Paul Forum >  RonPaul.com asking $250K for the domain???

## green73

Writes Lew Rockwell: 




> The other day, the nice young couple who registered LibertyPaul.com offered to give it to Ron. On the other hand, those who registered RonPaul.com are no longer asking more than $800,000. They've cut their price to $250,000. For his own name.

----------


## kathy88

> Writes Lew Rockwell:


I thought they were genuine supporters?

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> I thought they were genuine supporters?


Genuine cybersquatters.

----------


## brandon

Can't say I blame them. Paul only needs to give 5 speeches at his 50k rate to be able to pay off the website. Not a bad deal.

----------


## tsai3904

> Can't say I blame them.


Yea given how many years they've worked on the site and given how much some of Ron's campaign consultants got paid, it doesn't seem that wild.  I don't understand why Lew would post private negotiations though unless he's trying to ruin their reputation or shame them into lowering their price.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yea given how many years they've worked on the site and given how much some of Ron's campaign consultants got paid, it doesn't seem that wild.  I don't understand why Lew would post private negotiations though unless he's trying to ruin their reputation or shame them into lowering their price.


^this.  Common folks.  Paid campaign staff couldn't be bothered to take a few hundred bucks to reserve this domain name indefinitely and you want to be made at someone who worked hard on the site exercising their free market rights?

----------


## qh4dotcom

> Genuine cybersquatters.


Nope, they bought the site from someone else whose name is also Ron Paul.

Was the original first owner a cybersquatter?

----------


## PatriotOne

250k?  I bet Ron changes his name before he pays 250k for a website.

----------


## green73

> Nope, they bought the site from someone else whose name is also Ron Paul.
> 
> Was the original first owner a cybersquatter?


They have said that they purchased it after it had expired, so as not to let it "fall into enemy hands."

----------


## Romulus

Free market.. the guy has clearly put a lot of work and kept it up.

----------


## sailingaway

well, he put work into it.  I'm sorry if Ron doesn't get it, but I do think he should just give back the .org one, as a supporter (not that he has to under the law), his site would only benefit from any confusion in any event, as it always has, and he put no work into that.

----------


## Confederate

> Can't say I blame them. Paul only needs to give 5 speeches at his 50k rate to be able to pay off the website. Not a bad deal.


No, because he'd get taxed 36%, plus 12.4% payroll tax, plus 0.9% Obamacare surtax on earnings above $200,000 ($250k if he files jointly with Carol), plus state income tax if he gives the speech in a state that charges it...

----------


## itshappening

They have built an awesome website there.  250k is a lot of money but i am sure something can be worked out .

If the Mises institute is involved that is good to hear because I would trust Lew Rockwell to run it and to keep it active and registered on behalf of Ron.

----------


## sailingaway

> No, because he'd get taxed 36%, plus 12.4% payroll tax, plus 0.9% Obamacare surtax on earnings above $200,000 ($250k if he files jointly with Carol), plus state income tax if he gives the speech in a state that charges it...


plus I suspect travel with his private plane is in there since he CAN'T use the porn scanners and gets groped every time he gets on a plane, given his metal knees.

----------


## itshappening

Does Ron not have money in his campaign account? 

Surely they can just use that to pay for it, then the campaign can "donate" it to the Mises institute .

----------


## Confederate

> plus I suspect travel with his private plane is in there since he CAN'T use the porn scanners and gets groped every time he gets on a plane, *given his metal knees.*


Ron is a transhumanist?

----------


## qh4dotcom

> They have said that they purchased it after it had expired, so as not to let it "fall into enemy hands."


RonPaul.com has never been allowed to expire...it was bought on Ebay.

You must be talking about ronpaul2008.com...that was allowed to expire.

----------


## tsai3904

> Does Ron not have money in his campaign account?


His campaign still had over $1 million at year end.

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcd...495820/846613/

----------


## itshappening

> His campaign still had over $1 million at year end.


Jesus, they can just use that then and find some way of donating it to the Mises Institute.

----------


## sailingaway

> Does Ron not have money in his campaign account? 
> 
> Surely they can just use that to pay for it, then the campaign can "donate" it to the Mises institute .


there are strict limits on what you can do with campaign funds, you can't just use it to travel the world.

----------


## itshappening

I also think it's bad that Lew Rockwell is posting private information, sometimes I wonder what the people around Ron are doing .

----------


## itshappening

> there are strict limits on what you can do with campaign funds, you can't just use it to travel the world.


I never said to use it to travel the world.  They can use it to buy "RonPaul.com" then immediately transfer it and donate it to the Mises Institute.

----------


## The Free Hornet

1) What is a likely return on this investment?

2) How do search engines negate the value of having a cool domain name?

3) Why not just wait until ICANN is whoring out ".ronpaul" (a TLD avoiding the need for .com) at much lower prices? - current costs might be ~$200,000

----------


## Confederate

> His campaign still had over $1 million at year end.
> 
> http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcd...495820/846613/


I don't think it would be proper for him to use campaign funds for a private business venture...

----------


## green73

> RonPaul.com has never been allowed to expire...it was bought on Ebay.
> 
> You must be talking about ronpaul2008.com...that was allowed to expire.


You're right. I went back and reviewed their statement...




> over the past few years we acquired various domain names that were either passed up or allowed to expire by Ron Paul’s staff (including RonPaul.com...

----------


## sailingaway

> Ron is a transhumanist?


He was an athlete.  Won state in High School in the .220, near the world record, got a full athletic scholarship which he accepted -- then when he had a sports injury and blew out his knees, he turned back the scholarship even though they were willing to go through with it, hoping he would get better. He didn't want to take it, thinking he likely wouldn't be able to perform, so he worked his way through the local college, Gettysberg, instead.  He did get better, and competed in college, but the knees they had for replacement back when he was in high school were what they were.  Swimming and bike riding are his sports for a reason.

----------


## Confederate

> He was an athlete.  Won state in High School in the .220, near the world record, got a full athletic scholarship which he accepted -- then when he had a sports injury and blew out his knees, he turned back the scholarship even though they were willing to go through with it, hoping he would get better.  He did get better, but the knees they had for replacement back when he was in highschool were what they were.  Swimming and bike riding are his sports for a reason.


I knew he had a knee injury, didn't know he had to get surgery for it.

----------


## FindLiberty

$5,000 not 1 cent more, it's just not worth it IMO.

----------


## sailingaway

> I never said to use it to travel the world.  They can use it to buy "RonPaul.com" then immediately transfer it and donate it to the Mises Institute.


I don't know if they can use it to buy RonPaul.com but if Ron bought it I certainly think he should keep it. He could ask the Mises Institute to manage it for him, and pay them a fee if appropriate (or let them use it themselves for agreed upon purposes of their own), but if he is building up the equity, he should own it, imho.

----------


## itshappening

> I don't think it would be proper for him to use campaign funds for a private business venture...


What else are they going to do with it?  Buying a domain name like RonPaul.com would be a legitimate use of campaign funds IMHO.  

What the Mises Institute do with it I suppose could be open to question.  They don't have to use it to sell his speaking services. They could use it as an outlet to host all his historically important speeches and material - forever.

----------


## sailingaway

> What else are they going to do with it?  Buying a domain name like RonPaul.com would be a legitimate use of campaign funds IMHO.  
> 
> What the Mises Institute do with it I suppose could be open to question.  They don't have to use it to sell his speaking services. They could use it as an outlet to host all his historically important speeches and material - forever.



Your or my opinion don't matter about legitimate use. The allowed uses are specified in FEC regs.

----------


## itshappening

> Your or my opinion don't matter about legitimate use. The allowed uses are specified in FEC regs.



I don't know what the FEC regs are but surely they allow you to acquire and buy domain names

----------


## Confederate

> I don't know what the FEC regs are but surely they allow you to acquire and buy domain names


Not for private/commercial use and gain.

----------


## itshappening

> Not for private/commercial use and gain.


He wouldn't be commercially benefiting if the Mises Institute ran it.

----------


## sailingaway

> I don't know what the FEC regs are but surely they allow you to acquire and buy domain names


For a specific type of entity allowed by FEC regs, yes.  He may not be planning that kind of entity, he already has Campaign For Liberty.

----------


## green73

> Not for private/commercial use and gain.


Is RP going to be running a for profit enterprise?

----------


## Matt McGuire

Good for these guys. They made a smart investment (not to mention the website they built), and they deserve compensation, imho. That domain is worth a lot of money. I certainly wouldn't low ball it

----------


## sailingaway

> He wouldn't be commercially benefiting if the Mises Institute ran it.


Now you not only want to say what he should do with his money, but also what kind of a business he should run and how he should run it.  I suspect there is something specific he wants to do.

----------


## sailingaway

> Is RP going to be running a for profit enterprise?


That isn't the only limit.  There are specific things you CAN do and EVERYTHING ELSE is not ok.

----------


## green73

> That isn't the only limit.  There are specific things you CAN do and EVERYTHING ELSE is not ok.


Sorry, I wasn't addressing what was written above. Just curious about this one point.

----------


## itshappening

> Now you not only want to say what he should do with his money, but also what kind of a business he should run and how he should run it.  I suspect there is something specific he wants to do.


it's one way of acquiring it using campaign funds, as long as he's not benefiting. 

If he wants to use it to advertise his speaking services and other commercial activity then yes, it should come out of his own pocket I suppose.

But if I was Ron Paul i'd be concerned about making sure RonPaul.com was being run forever by someone like the Mises institute - long after i'm gone (Ron is in his 70's). It's an historically important domain.

----------


## Lucille

> well, he put work into it.  I'm sorry if Ron doesn't get it, but I do think he should just give back the .org one, as a supporter (not that he has to under the law), his site would only benefit from any confusion in any event, as it always has, and he put no work into that.


I agree.  Give or sell him .org.

----------


## sailingaway

> Sorry, I wasn't addressing what was written above. Just curious about this one point.


We are all waiting for his announcement and he is taking his own sweet time about it.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> Free market.. the guy has clearly put a lot of work and kept it up.


It's also the free market at work if Ron Paul refuses to pay this person a dime.

----------


## sailingaway

> It's also the free market at work if Ron Paul refuses to pay this person a dime.


Yeah, I could see Ron thinking some price was worth it, but I don't see where $250,000 is remotely in that range.  Ron can come up with another EASILY REMEMBERED url and make it big.

----------


## belian78

There's a difference between getting just compensation, and gouging the price because you can.  These folks can consider themselves Ron Paul people all they want, they reek of sleazeball to me.  $5000-$15,000 at most would be workable, but a quarter million dollars for a damn website?  Screw that.

----------


## jbauer

> There's a difference between getting just compensation, and gouging the price because you can.  These folks can consider themselves Ron Paul people all they want, they reek of sleazeball to me.  $5000-$15,000 at most would be workable, but a quarter million dollars for a damn website?  Screw that.


Isn't it worth what someone is willing to pay?  Why do you get to set that limit?  I bet walmart.com would cost quite a bit more.

----------


## belian78

> Isn't it worth what someone is willing to pay?  Why do you get to set that limit?  I bet walmart.com would cost quite a bit more.


I'm not claiming to be able to set any sort of limit, I'm giving my opinion on how much a website would be worth.  My opinion is also no one in their right mind would pay a quarter million dollars for a freakin website.

----------


## K466

> I also think it's bad that Lew Rockwell is posting private information, sometimes I wonder what the people around Ron are doing .


What if he has permission, or it is public information?




> I'm not claiming to be able to set any sort of limit, I'm giving my opinion on how much a website would be worth.  My opinion is also no one in their right mind would pay a quarter million dollars for a freakin website.


Right because you don't have that much need for any particular domain name. Ron Paul sort of does in this case. Though it might not be a quarter million dollars worth of need. He may negotiate a much lower price, and walk away if it fails.

----------


## belian78

> Right because you don't have that much need for any particular domain name. Ron Paul sort of does in this case. Though it might not be a quarter million dollars worth of need. He may negotiate a much lower price, and walk away if it fails.


And I never said there's anything illegal about asking that price.  Sure they have every right to put that price tag on that website.  But I also have every right to call them sleazeballs for gouging the price.

----------


## itshappening

> There's a difference between getting just compensation, and gouging the price because you can.  These folks can consider themselves Ron Paul people all they want, they reek of sleazeball to me.  $5000-$15,000 at most would be workable, but a quarter million dollars for a damn website?  Screw that.


they paid $25,000 for it off ebay in 2008.  Ron could have done that but he had incompetent campaign staff. 

He has turned it into quite a high traffic website (there are hundreds of comments in the blog posts) and he's selling tshirts, books, etc. from it so he's obviously making some revenue.  There's also the mailing list and social sites (100k likes on facebook), he's done a good job with it to be honest.

Maybe 250k is high but you have to factor into account that it's also a business with revenue and a high traffic website now so its value is only increasing.  

Ron should buy it and gift it to the Mises Institute using his campaign funds in my opinion.  Thus he preserves his legacy and the Mises Institute can use it as a marketing tool.  I can think of no better and important use of his left over campaign funds than buying RonPaul.com.  But like in 2008 I suspect he will pass up the opportunity.

----------


## brandon

> $5000-$15,000 at most would be workable, but a quarter million dollars for a damn website?  Screw that.



It' not like they are squatting on an undeveloped domain. They put a lot of work into the site and very well might be making $5000+ per month  in revenue from the site. They have over 100k like on facebook which is an enormous amount and worth a $#@! ton of money. Why would they give that up? They aren't running a charity.

----------


## ChristianAnarchist

how about "ronpaul.LIBERTY"

----------


## eleganz

Everyone has different levels of support. For instance I would give it up to Ron without hesitation for FREE and I'm sure many others across the nation would do the same.

----------


## Expatriate

> It' not like they are squatting on an undeveloped domain. They put a lot of work into the site and very well might be making $5000+ per month  in revenue from the site. They have over 100k like on facebook which is an enormous amount and worth a $#@! ton of money. Why would they give that up? They aren't running a charity.


Brandon is probably the owner.  j/k


Seriously though, even if the current owners are making money off the site and have invested a lot of time and effort, if they are real supporters they would offer it for a HELL of a a lot less, especially to the guy whose NAME they are using to make money.

You can go on and on about how this is the free market and Ron doesn't deserve it due to incompetence or whatever your point is, but the fact of the matter is that Ron Paul is currently the strongest and most respected voice in favor of liberty and the free market, and the person with the best chance of making a difference for the better. If the people who are using his name as their domain were true believers and not just greedy opportunists, they would offer his own name to him as a gift or at least for a great deal less than they are asking, since they would want to do whatever they could to help him bring back what originally made America great. 

Don't forget the people that are dying in foreign countries right now, being tortured in secret prisons, the people/kids that are being bombed with Hellfire missiles from drones etc. These are all things that RP opposes and would better be able to bring attention to if he had access to that domain name, and meanwhile some gougers are trying to ask a ridiculous price for it, while some people on this site defend their actions and say that they are good people.

_Supporting the free market does not mean that you have to approve of what people do with it._ It's perfectly in line with free market principles for some guy to stockpile emergency food and then charge $10,000 per meal during a famine. However that does not mean I cannot call him exactly what I see him as; a despicable gouger and a greedy opportunist. 

Believe it or not, the free market has ways of punishing people like this and compensating decent folk. Some call this reputation, or stature within the community. When he's in a bad spot, do you think people would be more likely to stick out their necks to help the guy who had previously charged $10k per meal, or someone who had always been kind and helpful to others? I know the current system in place has a way of negating such natural consequences, what with the government-enforced social safety nets and other ways of forcing individuals to help those they would rather not, but my point stands.

Make note of "supporters" like this. These are the fair-weather friends and the summer soldiers within our movement, and they would just as soon fight you if the money was good enough. Never, ever stick your neck out for such people.

----------


## Rudeman

Thanks for posting this, I emailed Lew offering both www.realronpaul.com and www.ronpaul.co to Ron. It may not be www.ronpaul.com but they're both are for free and I'd imagine $250k could go a long way in developing whatever he plans on doing. Hopefully Lew responds.

----------


## itshappening

There is no way he should give it to Ron, he paid at least 25k for it originally! 

They should try and work something out but Lew Rockwell is putting that in jeopardy by posting publicly about it.  Keep the channel of communication open and see what develops. 

RonPaul.com could be a tremendously historical website and marketing tool for the Mises Institute.  Ron has $1m in a campaign account.  Work something out.

$250k could be a good price, though I think it's a little high.  In another 5 years it might be worth double.

----------


## SpreadOfLiberty

> Jesus, they can just use that then and find some way of donating it to the Mises Institute.


I would buy space for infomercials with that money.

----------


## Bodhi

I believe what he is doing with RonPaul.com (not 100% sure) is frowned upon by ICANN and RP could file a UDRP and get the name for the cost of filling the UDRP which I think is in the neighborhood of $2,000 or so.  From what I have read in the thread, the original owner was also named Ron Paul.  He would have grounds to keep it as long as he did not associate it with "our" Ron Paul or make it a fan site that is not monetizing off of the Ron Paul's name. 

 In it's current use, that is a Ron Paul fan site that is profiting from Ron Paul's name, I don't think that is allowed.  Fortunately for the owner, RP probably won't go after him, but I think he could.  For example, you could not own the name MichaelJackson.com and have a MJ fan site that profit's from his name, you would be sued in an instant.  Or say you had the name Tiger Woods and registered TigerWoods.com you could make a site for personal use, even for profit as long as it had nothing to do with Tiger Woods the golfer, but if you made it into a site selling golf clubs you could run into trouble.

Anyway, I think that is how it works, again I'm not 100% on that and I'm not a lawyer.

At least though, they are doing something good with the domain name and spreading the message.  At the end of the day it is just free publicity.  Looks like they are doing a good job on the site, so if RP is cool with it, more power to them.  At the end of the day, I think RP is about spreading the message of Liberty, seems they are doing that.

----------


## fcreature

I find it ironic that people who supposedly support the free market want to sit here and rage about how someone wants to be paid for something they own. How many of you have actually bought and sold valuable domains before? What are you basing your judgments on? I've bought and sold premium domains in the high $xx,xxx range. I actually know the value in domains, do you? Do you know how much the owner paid for this domain? Ron Paul could have purchased it but didn't. Do you know how much work was put into the development of the website? Are you aware of the SEO value the domain may offer? The fact is that no one here knows the information that determines the value of this domain. No one knows what the owners would be giving up. We all love Ron Paul, but stop judging people for wanting fair compensation. I'm sure the domain owner has had opportunities to sell the domain for plenty to the opposition. 

Let the domain owner charge his asking price and let potential buyers either accept or decline. No need to judge.

If you want to see real price gouging look at some of the services provided to the campaign in 2012 FEC reports.

----------


## itshappening

> I believe what he is doing with RonPaul.com (not 100% sure) is frowned upon by ICANN and RP could file a UDRP and get the name for the cost of filling the UDRP which I think is in the neighborhood of $2,000 or so.  From what I have read in the thread, the original owner was also named Ron Paul.  He would have grounds to keep it as long as he did not associate it with "our" Ron Paul or make it a fan site that is not monetizing off of the Ron Paul's name. 
> 
>  In it's current use, that is a Ron Paul fan site that is profiting from Ron Paul's name, I don't think that is allowed.  Fortunately for the owner, RP probably won't go after him, but I think he could.  For example, you could not own the name MichaelJackson.com and have a MJ fan site that profit's from his name, you would be sued in an instant.  Or say you had the name Tiger Woods and registered TigerWoods.com you could make a site for personal use, even for profit as long as it had nothing to do with Tiger Woods the golfer, but if you made it into a site selling golf clubs you could run into trouble.
> 
> Anyway, I think that is how it works, again I'm not 100% on that and I'm not a lawyer.
> 
> At least though, they are doing something good with the domain name and spreading the message.  At the end of the day it is just free publicity.  Looks like they are doing a good job on the site, so if RP is cool with it, more power to them.  At the end of the day, I think RP is about spreading the message of Liberty, seems they are doing that.


That's true, the commercial use might be frowned upon by a panel in a UDRP. 

This is from a domain attorney:

-
So, the bottom line is, a fan site may be defensible from attack in a UDRP proceeding, but only if a few guidelines are carefully observed in setting up the site. The further a registrant strays into commercial activity, the less likely it is that a UDRP panel will agree with the argument that the site is making fair use of the trademark.

http://bretmoorelaw.com/2011/08/fan-sites-the-udrp/
-

----------


## gerryb1

> $5,000 not 1 cent more, it's just not worth it IMO.


You want the present owner to take a loss on his investment?

Why did none of you complainers on here buy it when it was available?  Anyone on this forum knew it was available and could have purchased it.

----------


## Bodhi

> Why did none of you complainers on here buy it when it was available?  Anyone on this forum knew it was available and could have purchased it.


When did that happen?

----------


## gerryb1

> Yeah, I could see Ron thinking some price was worth it, but I don't see where $250,000 is remotely in that range.  Ron can come up with another EASILY REMEMBERED url and make it big.


IF the site is currently generating $5,000 a month(just throwing a number out there, it could be more, it could be less), what would the value of the domain be in your opinion?

----------


## dancjm

It's totally fair, it's his and he can charge for it.

On the other hand, I would give it to Paul as I Kind of feel I owe him and he has earned it.

Part of Paul's message is one of selflessness and generosity, and I would also want to take the opportunity to show in my deeds just how much that message has inspired me.

----------


## satchelmcqueen

so what? they did a good service for ron for FREEEEEEE!!! id hate for someone to call me out if i decided to get rid of my ron paul youtube page after ive busted my ass for 6 years promoting liberty. 

lew is dead wrong here and im ashamed of him. these people have a great site from what ive seen and i see nothing wrong with the price. even a 5 million, its their page to sale as they want. id just hope they check into whom ever buys it and it doesnt get into the wrong hands. even at that, all one can do is trust. 

years ago during the early years of the net (late 90s) a fan of The Undertaker grabbed that domain name cause he liked the wrestler. the wwf then threatened the guy with legal action until he caved and GAVE it over to them. very sad and wrong imo. 


> Writes Lew Rockwell:

----------


## Tpoints

> They have built an awesome website there.  250k is a lot of money but i am sure something can be worked out .
> 
> If the Mises institute is involved that is good to hear because I would trust Lew Rockwell to run it and to keep it active and registered on behalf of Ron.


Not nearly as good as dailypaul or this one. 250K is definitely too much. With today's Google results, twitter, and youtube videos, it's very easy to get more traffic than a good domain name. Keeping a domain registered and active costs less than $10 a year, so anybody who wants to, can. The Ron Paul 2008 campaign was foolish to let ronpaul2008.com expire.

----------


## itshappening

> When did that happen?


I remember in 2008 there was an effort to acquire it.  The guy who previously owned it was "Ron Paul consultant" or something and had a basic webpage up.  He was getting loads of traffic and inquiries and decided to put it on ebay where the current owners purchased it for $25,000

----------


## itshappening

> Not nearly as good as dailypaul or this one. 250K is definitely too much. With today's Google results, twitter, and youtube videos, it's very easy to get more traffic than a good domain name. Keeping a domain registered and active costs less than $10 a year, so anybody who wants to, can. The Ron Paul 2008 campaign was foolish to let ronpaul2008.com expire.


Don't underestimate the power of the domain, it's the best Ron Paul domain out there and it's already number 2 on google for "Ron Paul" and he's built an active community around it. 

That said he is clearly using commercial activity beyond a normal fan site so if it ever went to arbitration he would have a tough time defending it.

----------


## Tpoints

> I remember in 2008 there was an effort to acquire it.  The guy who previously owned it was "Ron Paul consultant" or something and had a basic webpage up.  He was getting loads of traffic and inquiries and decided to put it on ebay where the current owners purchased it for $25,000


Ok, that starts to make sense now. If they actually paid $25,000 for it, they'd want more than that if they sell it. But $250,000 is still way too much.

----------


## qh4dotcom

I own ronpaul.NAME

Dr. Paul can have it if he contacts me

----------


## itshappening

The bigger problem is RandPaul.com, that needs to be acquired by Rand right now before the same mistake is repeated.

It amazes me all the money the Paul's have spent on consultant's and they don't do the basics.

----------


## Tpoints

> Don't underestimate the power of the domain, it's the best Ron Paul domain out there and it's already number 2 on google for "Ron Paul" and he's built an active community around it. 
> 
> That said he is clearly using commercial activity beyond a normal fan site so if it ever went to arbitration he would have a tough time defending it.


If he can prove how much money he's made off of it, that's another story. Until then, it might as well be $2.5M. But yeah, that's his Catch 22 so to speak, if he says he's made money off of it, arbitration would probably hurt him, if he can't show he's made money off of it, he can't justify the price tag. 

You have a point. I take some of it back. I'm surprised RonPaulforums.com isn't on the first page of Google for Ron Paul, or paul.house.gov isn't either.

----------


## Tpoints

> The bigger problem is RandPaul.com, that needs to be acquired by Rand right now before the same mistake is repeated.
> *
> It amazes me all the money the Paul's have spent on consultant's and they don't do the basics*.


Doug is too busy with more important things! His campaign would rather sue the anonymous youtube user.

----------


## Expatriate

> I'm surprised RonPaulforums.com isn't on the first page of Google for Ron Paul, or paul.house.gov isn't either.


Has Josh has done much SEO?

----------


## sailingaway

> Has Josh has done much SEO?


if RonPaul.com bought all those others and has them all pointing towards ronpaul.com, that's a lot of authority on the internet, as I understand it.

----------


## Tpoints

> if RonPaul.com bought all those others and has them all pointing towards ronpaul.com, that's a lot of authority on the internet, as I understand it.


I believe the pointers themselves have to have some authority, otherwise that would be too easy.

----------


## pacelli

I thought Lew Rockwell would applaud the free market at work here?

----------


## sailingaway

> I believe the pointers themselves have to have some authority, otherwise that would be too easy.


I thought some of them used to have a lot.  RonPaul.org was Ron's web page for decades, I believe.

----------


## Dystopian

Maybe Jesse Benton can give back one of his weekly salaries for it?

----------


## pacelli

> Maybe Jesse Benton can give back one of his weekly salaries for it?



LOL!!!

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I thought Lew Rockwell would applaud the free market at work here?


Why should being in favor of the free market require applause for every outcome that it produces?

----------


## fr33

> I believe what he is doing with RonPaul.com (not 100% sure) is frowned upon by ICANN and RP could file a UDRP and get the name for the cost of filling the UDRP which I think is in the neighborhood of $2,000 or so.  From what I have read in the thread, the original owner was also named Ron Paul.  He would have grounds to keep it as long as he did not associate it with "our" Ron Paul or make it a fan site that is not monetizing off of the Ron Paul's name. 
> 
>  In it's current use, that is a Ron Paul fan site that is profiting from Ron Paul's name, I don't think that is allowed.  Fortunately for the owner, RP probably won't go after him, but I think he could.  For example, you could not own the name MichaelJackson.com and have a MJ fan site that profit's from his name, you would be sued in an instant.  Or say you had the name Tiger Woods and registered TigerWoods.com you could make a site for personal use, even for profit as long as it had nothing to do with Tiger Woods the golfer, but if you made it into a site selling golf clubs you could run into trouble.
> 
> Anyway, I think that is how it works, again I'm not 100% on that and I'm not a lawyer.
> 
> At least though, they are doing something good with the domain name and spreading the message.  At the end of the day it is just free publicity.  Looks like they are doing a good job on the site, so if RP is cool with it, more power to them.  At the end of the day, I think RP is about spreading the message of Liberty, seems they are doing that.


Yep if Ron wasn't a libertarian he could have a pretty good case but it would be hypocritical; since he is Mr Libertarian.... Judging from what I've read he could sue for not only the domain for every cent made off the domain and/or any damage done to the name brand that could be determined. Since the current owner isn't another Ron Paul and they are clearly promoting a certain Ron Paul. But that type of lawsuit is not the way to be if you are for liberty.

----------


## RickyJ

> Yea given how many years they've worked on the site and given how much some of Ron's campaign consultants got paid, it doesn't seem that wild.  I don't understand why Lew would post private negotiations though unless he's trying to ruin their reputation or shame them into lowering their price.


Right, it is worth at least that much and is much more beneficial and a enormous deal compared to the salary paid to Jesse Benton. I am imagine JesseBenton.com isn't worth squat.

----------


## Tpoints

> I believe what he is doing with RonPaul.com (not 100% sure) is frowned upon by ICANN and RP could file a UDRP and get the name for the cost of filling the UDRP which I think is in the neighborhood of $2,000 or so.  From what I have read in the thread, the original owner was also named Ron Paul.  He would have grounds to keep it as long as he did not associate it with "our" Ron Paul or make it a fan site that is not monetizing off of the Ron Paul's name. 
> 
>  In it's current use, that is a Ron Paul fan site that is profiting from Ron Paul's name, I don't think that is allowed.  Fortunately for the owner, RP probably won't go after him, but I think he could.  For example, you could not own the name MichaelJackson.com and have a MJ fan site that profit's from his name, you would be sued in an instant.  Or say you had the name Tiger Woods and registered TigerWoods.com you could make a site for personal use, even for profit as long as it had nothing to do with Tiger Woods the golfer, but if you made it into a site selling golf clubs you could run into trouble.
> 
> Anyway, I think that is how it works, again I'm not 100% on that and I'm not a lawyer.
> 
> At least though, they are doing something good with the domain name and spreading the message.  At the end of the day it is just free publicity.  Looks like they are doing a good job on the site, so if RP is cool with it, more power to them.  At the end of the day, I think RP is about spreading the message of Liberty, seems they are doing that.


so I can make a site and profit off Ron Paul's name as long as I don't have the obvious domain ronpaul.com ?

----------


## Tpoints

> Yep if Ron wasn't a libertarian he could have a pretty good case but it would be hypocritical; since he is Mr Libertarian.... Judging from what I've read he could sue for not only the domain for every cent made off the domain and/or any damage done to the name brand that could be determined. Since the current owner isn't another Ron Paul and they are clearly promoting a certain Ron Paul. But that type of lawsuit is not the way to be if you are for liberty.


yeah, he'd never do that!

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr...-attack-283026

----------


## RickyJ

> plus I suspect travel with his private plane is in there since he CAN'T use the porn scanners and gets groped every time he gets on a plane, *given his metal knees.*


Ron Paul has metal knees? I never heard of this before.

----------


## jcannon98188

> There's a difference between getting just compensation, and gouging the price because you can.  These folks can consider themselves Ron Paul people all they want, they reek of sleazeball to me.  $5000-$15,000 at most would be workable, but a quarter million dollars for a damn website?  Screw that.


My friend, if you think $15,000 is a lot of money for a website domain name, you are sadly mistaken. Domain names are hot items. You can flip domain names (especially ones like ronpaul.com) for a TON of money. This is a price set by the free market. This guy isn't a sleezeball. He made a smart investment. It is no different then him buying gold and refusing to sell it for a low price just because someone famous wanted to buy it.

----------


## green73

> Ron Paul has metal knees? I never heard of this before.


Yeah. It was their excuse to molest him a lot.

----------


## green73

All this rhetoric about free markets on this thread is a bit shocking. Who says we can't criticize poor taste? These people are supposedly dedicated to RP and now they want him to pay this exorbitant price? $#@! off.

----------


## Tpoints

> All this rhetoric about free markets on this thread is a bit shocking. Who says we can't criticize poor taste? These people are supposedly dedicated to RP and now they want him to pay this exorbitant price? $#@! off.


is it better if they said it's not for sale at any price?

----------


## Tpoints

> *There's a difference between getting just compensation, and gouging the price because you can.*


No, there isn't. "Price gouging because you can" is precisely the price you pay for private property, free market, and how a price is determined to be just. 

Either they justly own the domain or they don't. If they do, they can ask for any price they want, and we may agree the domain isn't worth that much, so don't pay that price, let somebody else waste their money, or let them wait and see long they'll take to make back their initial investment.

----------


## fr33

I wouldn't pay that much for it and tbh the site isn't all that good how its being run.

----------


## RickyJ

> I wouldn't pay that much for it and tbh the site isn't all that good how its being run.


Ron Paul might not buy it, he doesn't need to, there are plenty of other domains he can use besides .com. I would have bought it a long time ago if I were him, before he even announced he would run for president in 2008. Apparently he didn't have the right advisors then or he would have. They don't have to sell it, and since they put a lot of time into it and they are making money off it then they deserve to be compensated somewhat for their investment in it and their loss of revenues from selling it. Ron Paul is a public figure, they are grassroots supporters and have a right to support him as they see fit. They did lower the price they would sell it for quite significantly, still 250 grand is a lot, but only less than half the amount that was paid to Jesse Benton, so it must be put into proper perspective. I think it is a good deal honestly, and I think Ron will buy it.

----------


## Tpoints

> Ron Paul might not buy it, he doesn't need to, there are plenty of other domains he can use besides .com. I would have bought it a long time ago if I were him, before he even announced he would run for president in 2008. Apparently he didn't have the right advisors then or he would have. They don't have to sell it, and since they put a lot of time into it and they are making money off it then they deserve to be compensated somewhat for their investment in it and their loss of revenues from selling it. Ron Paul is a public figure, they are grassroots supporters and have a right to support him as they see fit. They did lower the price they would sell it for quite significantly, still 250 grand is a lot, but only less than half the amount that was paid to Jesse Benton, so it must be put into proper perspective. I think it is a good deal honestly, and I think Ron will buy it.


I don't think it's a good deal at all. But whoever does is free to buy it.

----------


## RickyJ

> I don't think it's a good deal at all. But whoever does is free to buy it.


I seriously doubt the owner of that domain is offering it at that price for just anyone, that is probably a special offer for Ron Paul only. 

Yes, it is still a lot of money, but comparing it to a "mittromney.com", I can guarantee you Mitt would have paid much more than that for a domain name like that.

----------


## Tpoints

> I seriously doubt the owner of that domain is offering it at that price for just anyone, that is probably a special offer for Ron Paul only. 
> 
> Yes, it is still a lot of money, but comparing it to a "mittromney.com", I can guarantee you Mitt would have paid much more than that for a domain name like that.


if it was during campaign season, then maybe (it helps when you're the republican nominee). but since it's not, the value of it dropped severely. It comes back to this, if Ron & his staff care that much about having a nice domain, they'd never let ronpaul2008.com, ronpaul.org, expire. since they did, it's pretty clear they don't care that much (unless there are election laws that force them to abandon them)

I don't see how anybody can monetize a domain like that one to justify a $250,000 cost. I'd be very surprised if the ronpaul.com owner even made back his alleged 25,000 investment.

----------


## qh4dotcom

> I believe what he is doing with RonPaul.com (not 100% sure) is frowned upon by ICANN and RP could file a UDRP and get the name for the cost of filling the UDRP which I think is in the neighborhood of $2,000 or so.  From what I have read in the thread, the original owner was also named Ron Paul.  He would have grounds to keep it as long as he did not associate it with "our" Ron Paul or make it a fan site that is not monetizing off of the Ron Paul's name. 
> 
>  In it's current use, that is a Ron Paul fan site that is profiting from Ron Paul's name,


RonPaulForums.com is doing exactly the same thing as RonPaul.com...it's a fan site that is monetizing off of the Ron Paul name...should Ron Paul file a UDRP and go after them too?

Lots of other domain name owners are profiting from the Ron Paul name....ronpaulproducts.com, ronpaulmarket.com, etc....should Ron Paul file a UDRP go after them too?

Besides, Ron Paul was a publicly elected official so his name and image is in the public domain...you have the right to profit from public domain....I can write a book about Obama and I wouldn't owe him a penny from any profit I made.

----------


## RickyJ

> if it was during campaign season, then maybe (it helps when you're the republican nominee). but since it's not, the value of it dropped severely. It comes back to this, if Ron & his staff care that much about having a nice domain, they'd never let ronpaul2008.com, ronpaul.org, expire. since they did, it's pretty clear they don't care that much (unless there are election laws that force them to abandon them)
> 
> I don't see how anybody can monetize a domain like that one to justify a $250,000 cost. *I'd be very surprised if the ronpaul.com owner even made back his alleged 25,000 investment.*


I would be surprised if they hadn't of made that back by now. If Ron doesn't want it then I highly doubt they are going to let anyone else buy it. If they got it for a mere 25 grand then it was a steal. I certainly would have bought it for that price.

----------


## Tpoints

> I would be surprised if they hadn't of made that back by now. If Ron doesn't want it then I highly doubt they are going to let anyone else buy it. If they got it for a mere 25 grand then it was a steal. I certainly would have bought it for that price.


Let's ask him how much he's made  No, if Ron doesn't want it, he doesn't care, end of story. Not wanting other people to have it is a given, and it's always going to be the case if you don't have it. If somebody else thinks they can make $250,000 off of that domain when Ron is retired and not even running elections anymore, let them.

Hey, if you think it's a steal, make an offer, you might get it yourself!

----------


## RickyJ

> *Let's ask him how much he's made * No, if Ron doesn't want it, he doesn't care, end of story. Not wanting other people to have it is a given, and it's always going to be the case if you don't have it. If somebody else thinks they can make $250,000 off of that domain when Ron is retired and not even running elections anymore, let them.
> 
> Hey, if you think it's a steal, make an offer, you might get it yourself!


Go ahead, if it is under $25,000 then I would be very surprised.

----------


## RickyJ

> I also think it's bad that Lew Rockwell is posting private information, sometimes I wonder what the people around Ron are doing .


I agree, Lew shouldn't talk about it if it suppose to be private information. Also one has to consider that it may not even be correct information if neither Ron Paul or the ronpaul.com site owner will comment about it.

----------


## Tpoints

> I agree, Lew shouldn't talk about it if it suppose to be private information. Also one has to consider that it may not even be correct information if neither Ron Paul or the ronpaul.com site owner will comment about it.


Yeah, that's what I wonder too, if it's even accurate.

----------


## itshappening

> RonPaulForums.com is doing exactly the same thing as RonPaul.com...it's a fan site that is monetizing off of the Ron Paul name...should Ron Paul file a UDRP and go after them too?
> 
> Lots of other domain name owners are profiting from the Ron Paul name....ronpaulproducts.com, ronpaulmarket.com, etc....should Ron Paul file a UDRP go after them too?
> 
> Besides, Ron Paul was a publicly elected official so his name and image is in the public domain...you have the right to profit from public domain....I can write a book about Obama and I wouldn't owe him a penny from any profit I made.


No you don't, there are lots of UDRP cases of celebrities winning domain names. Ron Paul would be no different.  The panel are likely to take a dim view of the commercial activity and award it based on that.  He could lose of course who knows, but the owner would have to defend it and the panel would decide.  Celebrities mostly win those cases, the ones who don't are where the owner has no commercial activity on the site.

----------


## qh4dotcom

> No you don't, there are lots of UDRP cases of celebrities winning domain names. Ron Paul would be no different.  The panel are likely to take a dim view of the commercial activity and award it based on that.  He could lose of course who knows, but the owner would have to defend it and the panel would decide.  Celebrities mostly win those cases, the ones who don't are where the owner has no commercial activity on the site.


You missed the point...celebrities are not publicly elected officials...their name and image are not in the public domain...you don't have a right to profit from their name and image. Ron Paul is different....he was a publicly elected official so anyone can use his name and image and profit from him.

You didn't address this...so let me repeat it again

RonPaulForums.com is doing exactly the same thing as RonPaul.com...it's a fan site that is monetizing off of the Ron Paul name...should Ron Paul file a UDRP and go after them too?

Lots of other domain name owners are profiting from the Ron Paul name....ronpaulproducts.com, ronpaulmarket.com, etc....should Ron Paul file a UDRP go after them too?

----------


## Tpoints

> You missed the point...celebrities are not publicly elected officials...their name and image are not in the public domain...you don't have a right to profit from their name and image. Ron Paul is different....he was a publicly elected official so anyone can use his name and image and profit from him.
> 
> You didn't address this...so let me repeat it again
> 
> RonPaulForums.com is doing exactly the same thing as RonPaul.com...it's a fan site that is monetizing off of the Ron Paul name...should Ron Paul file a UDRP and go after them too?
> 
> Lots of other domain name owners are profiting from the Ron Paul name....ronpaulproducts.com, ronpaulmarket.com, etc....should Ron Paul file a UDRP go after them too?


I think his point is, that if your domain is hisorhername.com you may have a UDRP case if it's confusable as an official, personally authorized site. hisfans.com or hisnameforum is less likely to cause such confusion, so UDRP probably won't bother with them.

----------


## qh4dotcom

> I think his point is, that if your domain is hisorhername.com you may have a UDRP case if it's confusable as an official, personally authorized site. hisfans.com or hisnameforum is less likely to cause such confusion, so UDRP probably won't bother with them.


No such confusion can exist since the RonPaul.com site clearly states it is a fan site

"Copyright © 2008 - 2016 RonPaul.com. This website is maintained by independent grassroots supporters. It is not paid for, approved or endorsed by Ron Paul."

----------


## itshappening

> You missed the point...celebrities are not publicly elected officials...their name and image are not in the public domain...you don't have a right to profit from their name and image. Ron Paul is different....he was a publicly elected official so anyone can use his name and image and profit from him.
> 
> You didn't address this...so let me repeat it again
> 
> RonPaulForums.com is doing exactly the same thing as RonPaul.com...it's a fan site that is monetizing off of the Ron Paul name...should Ron Paul file a UDRP and go after them too?
> 
> Lots of other domain name owners are profiting from the Ron Paul name....ronpaulproducts.com, ronpaulmarket.com, etc....should Ron Paul file a UDRP go after them too?


Most celebrities would take a liberal view of fan sites but if it's the actual name and they want it , they have the common law trademark and can go after it based on that. There are many UDRP cases where this has happened, about 90% of them go to the celebs.

Ron is a celebrity, whether he's publicly elected or not.  In fact being publicly elected makes him more of a public figure and would strengthen his case to a UDRP panel.  Ron is unlikely to want RPF or whatever.

----------


## itshappening

> No such confusion can exist since the RonPaul.com site clearly states it is a fan site
> 
> "Copyright © 2008 - 2016 RonPaul.com. This website is maintained by independent grassroots supporters. It is not paid for, approved or endorsed by Ron Paul."


Whether it states that or not is irrelevant.  It's a fan site with commercial activity and there are plenty of cases where those have been awarded to complainants in UDRP cases..

----------


## Tpoints

> No such confusion can exist since the RonPaul.com site clearly states it is a fan site
> 
> "Copyright © 2008 - 2016 RonPaul.com. This website is maintained by independent grassroots supporters. It is not paid for, approved or endorsed by Ron Paul."


That is true, however, if there was a cybersquatting case, that notification won't get you off anywhere, since cybersquatting is explicitly bad faith and obviously not approved by or endorsed by the 'victim'.

----------


## Tpoints

> Whether it states that or not is irrelevant.  It's a fan site with commercial activity and there are plenty of cases where those have been awarded to complainants in UDRP cases..


I think it has more to do with whether the 'victim' or plaintiff intends to profit on his own, and upset that the squatter is taking what he believes is his own. This ultimately becomes more of a trademark case than a personal name issue. And this is solely on a domain name level, as it's still assumed the best way to find a site is via domain, such a concept is starting to dying off. 

I'm just preaching to choir from now on, but (if a person isn't using a domain with celebname.com) there is nothing you can do if somebody is good at SEO and makes a non-official site higher ranking, higher traffic and higher profit than your own official, approved site.

----------


## Rudeman

Is Randpaul.com for sale? I went on godaddy and it said it was on auction until 2-4-13 9:18:00 AM PST with minimum bid set at 10k. Apparently 6 bids have been made so I'd imagine that would mean it's at more than 10k.

Just thought I'd let people here know. Maybe someone should contact Rand Paul's peoples aka Matt Collins. 

Edit: Sent a pm to Matt.

----------


## FrankRep

*Ron Paul Consulting*





http://web.archive.org/web/200702040...w.ronpaul.com/

circa 2007

----------


## itshappening

> Is Randpaul.com for sale? I went on godaddy and it said it was on auction until 2-4-13 9:18:00 AM PST with minimum bid set at 10k. Apparently 6 bids have been made so I'd imagine that would mean it's at more than 10k.
> 
> Just thought I'd let people here know. Maybe someone should contact Rand Paul's peoples aka Matt Collins. 
> 
> Edit: Sent a pm to Matt.


Someone needs to urgently get that to Rand.

----------


## Rudeman

I edited my post to reflect that I sent a pm to Matt. I'm not sure if he has contact with Rand or not. I don't use Facebook otherwise I'd send Rand a message there.

2 screenshots I took:

----------


## S.Shorland

Lew is trying to bring moral indignation to bear.It's just a ploy.If they can't deal,Ron will just have to have another domain be his home.

----------


## newbitech

look if none of ya have figured it out yet, let me explain it plainly.

The reason the media and his opponents couldn't figure out how RP was successful on the internet is because no one around Ron Paul had those answers!  6 years, later, do you think anyone around RP has those answers?

250k you need 2,500 people to drop 100 bucks to get Ron Paul a .com that matches his name.  All he would need to do is pass around a bucket where every he goes that says "taking my message online, need help to raise funds for internet presence."

And BAM!  domain name is his, AND if he plays his cards right, he could probably pick up a couple of really really good webmasters for a couple of years as part of the deal.


Oh, and I can guarantee that if the owner of this domain name were malicious with the site AND made that offer to Ron, we'd all have that 250k before kickoff this evening..

----------


## Tpoints

> Someone needs to urgently get that to Rand.


again, why do you assume 1) he cares 2) his people don't know 3) if neither of the above, does he deserve to know?

----------


## Tpoints

> look if none of ya have figured it out yet, let me explain it plainly.
> 
> The reason the media and his opponents couldn't figure out how RP was successful on the internet is because no one around Ron Paul had those answers!  6 years, later, do you think anyone around RP has those answers?
> 
> 250k you need 2,500 people to drop 100 bucks to get Ron Paul a .com that matches his name.  All he would need to do is pass around a bucket where every he goes that says "taking my message online, need help to raise funds for internet presence."
> 
> And BAM!  domain name is his, AND if he plays his cards right, he could probably pick up a couple of really really good webmasters for a couple of years as part of the deal.
> 
> 
> Oh, and I can guarantee that if the owner of this domain name were malicious with the site AND made that offer to Ron, we'd all have that 250k before kickoff this evening..


exactly, getting $250,000 isn't the hard part, whether he needs it and wants it ultimately is what matters (and guess what, if Ron and his staff don't want it, the value of that drops dramatically).

----------


## Tpoints

> Lew is trying to bring moral indignation to bear.It's just a ploy.If they can't deal,Ron will just have to have another domain be his home.


there's no shortage of domains his trusted people once owned, or people who support him are willing to hand right over. But hey, if he doesn't care, you can't force him to have a site.

----------


## itshappening

Rand needs to shell out whatever it takes to get Randpaul.com before an even bigger mistake is made.

----------


## Tpoints

> Rand needs to shell out whatever it takes to get Randpaul.com before an even bigger mistake is made.


nobody is stopping you from buying it up and selling it to him at cost. Probably should just notify Lew Rockwell so he won't post another rant 5 years from now.

----------


## itshappening

> nobody is stopping you from buying it up and selling it to him at cost. Probably should just notify Lew Rockwell so he won't post another rant 5 years from now.


I dont have a spare $20k !

----------


## Tpoints

> I dont have a spare $20k !


I think you do, you just don't think it's worth that much (I don't either)

----------


## itshappening

> I think you do, you just don't think it's worth that much (I don't either)


It's worth that much to Rand though, and there's 6 bids on it so obviously some other people have the spare cash and are looking at cashing in.

----------


## Tpoints

> It's worth that much to Rand though, and there's 6 bids on it so obviously some other people have the spare cash and are looking at cashing in.


how do you know that? If you know that, you should have no problem finding the money, buying it up, and selling to Rand, surely he'll pay you fair price since it's worth that much to him, right?

----------


## itshappening

> how do you know that? If you know that, you should have no problem finding the money, buying it up, and selling to Rand, surely he'll pay you fair price since it's worth that much to him, right?


I told you, i dont want it and I dont have the spare cash.  All my money is tied up and i'm not interested but i'm sure someone will be.  That's why I hope Rand can outbid them and acquire it.

----------


## Tpoints

> I told you, i dont want it and I dont have the spare cash.  All my money is tied up and i'm not interested but i'm sure someone will be.  That's why I hope Rand can outbid them and acquire it.


I hope whoever gets it wants it and makes use of it. I don't know how he'll make his money back short of Rand buying it.

----------


## itshappening

> I hope whoever gets it wants it and makes use of it. I don't know how he'll make his money back short of Rand buying it.


That's their aim isnt it?  it's glorified cybersquatting.  

Desperately hoping Rand or RandPAC can get it.

By the way, it was registered in 2006.. very odd because not many people knew Rand then..

----------


## Michigan11

Well whatever site Ron wants to setup doesn't matter really. It doesn't need to be Ronpaul.com. But thinking about all of this I would love to see a RandDaily site setup to draw away from daily Paul and what that has become. But with a better forum setup like here. Could be big and big time

----------


## awake

Don't pay it...the market price will collapse. Who says 250,000 is the market price? It takes a willing buyer and seller. Also, Ron's legacy will fade as do many legacys...The domain name and price has only one way to go: down.

----------


## itshappening

> Don't pay it...the market price will collapse. Who says 250,000 is the market price? It takes a willing buyer and seller. Also, Ron's legacy will fade as do many legacys...The domain name and price has only one way to go: down.


Ron Paul is an important historical figure and it will likely be a valuable domain name for years to come, especially when he's not around anymore.  Personally I hope the Mises Institute can get their hands on it thereby preserving this great man's legacy for all time.

----------


## qh4dotcom

A very relevant Facebook post regarding RonPaul.com

http://www.facebook.com/LewRockwell/...51327181848859




> If Ron Paul could hire competent people, he would already own the damned thing. They are supporters who bought it at an auction, while his staff, as usual, ignored all the pleas from the grassroots to buy the damned thing for Ron. 
> 
> No sympathy for him at all in this. The people that bought it kept the domain from falling into neocon hands, they spent their time and their money using the site to do nothing but support Ron and his message, and this is the thanks they get. No wonder libertarianism turns off so many people.
> 
> If Ron had any sense, he'd hire them to run the site. That's the win/win solution. But selling it to him would mean it will be run badly. If you doubt that for one second, check out his recent Facebook posts. I suspect this is just another effort by those close to him to cash in on his name, now that the campaign well has run dry.





> The story is this: another guy named Ron Paul owned it. He wasn't a fan and wouldn't sell it until the 2008 campaign was winding down. Then, he put it on eBay because they couldn't get on touch with Ron through the campaign.
> 
> I was one of the people calling and emailing the campaign. I had Benton's cell phone number - I personally left him messages. I called the office several times, I emailed the eBay listing to every Ron Paul contact I could find. The people that bought it did him a favor. Seeing millionaire Lew snark about the price they're asking is salt in the wound. Why the hell didn't he buy it back then, either?

----------


## green73

> A very relevant Facebook post regarding RonPaul.com
> 
> http://www.facebook.com/LewRockwell/...51327181848859


Apparently Ron has no sense.

----------


## sailingaway

Ron didn't grow up with the internet, and doesn't really know it, just that he can get news on it.

----------


## Tpoints

> A very relevant Facebook post regarding RonPaul.com
> 
> http://www.facebook.com/LewRockwell/...51327181848859


Lew Rockwell might not have 250,000, but he certain has more than 5 or 10 grand. If he wants it, he can negotiate.

----------


## qh4dotcom

> Lew Rockwell might not have 250,000, but he certain has more than 5 or 10 grand. If he wants it, he can negotiate.


He should have bid on the domain when it was 10 times cheaper and being auctioned on Ebay back in 2008.

----------


## green73

//

----------


## eleganz

> A very relevant Facebook post regarding RonPaul.com
> 
> http://www.facebook.com/LewRockwell/...51327181848859


Sounds exactly like the talking points you always made regarding this website stuff. 

Seriously though 250k !? Lmao

----------


## NorfolkPCSolutions

$#@! this.  It won't matter in the least going forward whether Ron Paul speaks from ronpaul.com, ronpaulrevolution.com, or youstupiddipshitsyoucouldhaveelectedmebutNOOOyoura  nacocksuckingcarboncopyofbarackobamain2012sofuckyo  u.net - the message will still get out, Ron Paul will still take his rightful place in history, and in the end, it's up to folks like us to drive traffic to the site if we support the man and his ideas.  That's no matter what the web address is.

$250k is too goddamn much.  For $#@!'s sake, if the guy is a supporter, he oughta just give the domain to Paul, and accept a paid position as a webmaster or something.  Besides, isn't there a thread from '07 about this $#@!tarded conversation?  Jesus, I'm going back to the Super Bowl.

$#@! the Ravens.

----------


## itshappening

> A very relevant Facebook post regarding RonPaul.com
> 
> http://www.facebook.com/LewRockwell/...51327181848859


Benton was always bad around then, he seemed to improve though and didn't harm Rand that much though I think Rand would have won in Kentucky no matter what, even Benton couldn't screw that up.  

The sad thing is they're repeating the same mistake with Randpaul.com, they never learn but they're happy to take $10k/month in salary rather than bid that amount on the premier domain names for their client and when there are ample funds from donors in campaign accounts (or PACs).  

Seriously, Rand can give the Hemp commission 50k but can't secure Randpaul.com?  I can't believe it. 

The same incompetent people who surround Ron are now with Rand sadly and they're ready to screw up Iowa 2016 like they did Ron Paul 2008 (missing database on eve of vote!).

It's one of our biggest potential headaches because you can bet the opposition will have seasoned campaign staff mostly from the Bush years working on their campaigns and out-foxing the incompetents at every turn.

----------


## sailingaway

> $#@! this.  It won't matter in the least going forward whether Ron Paul speaks from ronpaul.com, ronpaulrevolution.com, or youstupiddipshitsyoucouldhaveelectedmebutNOOOyoura  nacocksuckingcarboncopyofbarackobamain2012sofuckyo  u.net - the message will still get out, Ron Paul will still take his rightful place in history, and in the end, it's up to folks like us to drive traffic to the site if we support the man and his ideas.  That's no matter what the web address is.
> 
> $250k is too goddamn much.  For $#@!'s sake, if the guy is a supporter, he oughta just give the domain to Paul, and accept a paid position as a webmaster or something.  Besides, isn't there a thread from '07 about this $#@!tarded conversation?  Jesus, I'm going back to the Super Bowl.
> 
> $#@! the Ravens.


that last url wouldn't work because there is a space in it.

----------


## NorfolkPCSolutions

Well, I wouldn't want to see that domain go on the market for 250 $#@!ing grand, so I broke the link.

Four words: Super.  Bowl.  Jim.  Beam. 

We didn't need lights on to watch SF get the $#@! kicked out of them, it's pointless - as is any concern over whether or not traffic will flow to Ron Paul's new site, regardless of domain name.

Damn squatter is a damn squatter.

----------


## green73

> $#@! the Ravens.


This

----------


## Tpoints

> He should have bid on the domain when it was 10 times cheaper and being auctioned on Ebay back in 2008.


If he cared enough, yes. Most likely he didn't know, AND didn't care. Again, the very fact Ron Paul Inc let RonPaul.org, RonPaul2008.com expire, tells it all.

----------


## Tpoints

> $250k is too goddamn much.  For $#@!'s sake, if the guy is a supporter, he oughta just give the domain to Paul, and accept a paid position as a webmaster or something.  Besides, isn't there a thread from '07 about this $#@!tarded conversation?  Jesus, I'm going back to the Super Bowl.
> 
> $#@! the Ravens.


If he paid good money for it, he probably couldn't just hand it over for nothing. As for "accepting a position", you assume they are hiring, I think everybody knows there's no shortage of volunteers eager to help Paul with any website stuff, but his company would prefer to overpay their own handpicked person.

----------


## Tpoints

> $#@! the Ravens.

----------


## RickyJ

> Ron didn't grow up with the internet, and doesn't really know it, just that he can get news on it.


There are many people that did not grow up on the Internet, in fact most people alive today did not grow up on the Internet. I did not grow up on the Internet and I am not that old. Not growing up on it though has in no way stopped those people from using, understanding it, and even developing web pages for it. Ron might choose to remain ignorant about the Internet, but it is to his determent and he really should reconsider. Age is not a barrier to Internet usage, there are 100+ year olds using the Internet.

----------


## Tpoints

> There are many people that did not grow up on the Internet, in fact most people alive today did not grow up on the Internet. I did not grow up on th Internet and I am not that old. Not growing up on it though has in no way stopped those people from using, understanding it, and even developing web pages for it. Ron might choose to remain ignorant about the Internet, but it is to his determent and he really should reconsider. Age is not a barrier to Internet usage, there are 100+ year olds using the Internet.


anybody who has used the internets on a regular basis knows that having a short domain is nice. even if Ron doesn't use the internet, there's no reason his staff don't know this, it's just most likely they don't care.

----------


## RickyJ

> anybody who has used the internets on a regular basis knows that having a short domain is nice. even if Ron doesn't use the internet, there's no reason his staff don't know this, it's just most likely they don't care.


Yes, his staff apparently didn't care about him winning either. But here we have Lew Rockwell making a big deal about this, he obviously sees the value of having this domain name, and thinks he or Ron should be able to get it for a cheaper price. The question then is why doesn't Ron's staff give a damn? I think it is either Ron was never serious about winning, or they were intentionally sabotaging his campaign. I think it was intentional sabotage.

----------


## Tpoints

> Yes, his staff apparently didn't care about him winning either. But here we have Lew Rockwell making a big deal about this, he obviously sees the value of having this domain name, and thinks he or Ron should be able to get it for a cheaper price. The question then is why doesn't Ron's staff give a damn? I think it is either Ron was never serious about winning, or they were intentionally sabotaging his campaign. I think it was intentional sabotage.


why doesn't Ron's staff hire Lew is a better question (I bet it's because they know, they all know, that either Lew is better staying to run a 501c3, or that if Ron can't win anyway, why hire a person that has to give up his tax exempt status)

----------


## angelatc

> Yea given how many years they've worked on the site and given how much some of Ron's campaign consultants got paid, it doesn't seem that wild.  I don't understand why Lew would post private negotiations though unless he's trying to ruin their reputation or shame them into lowering their price.


That's exactly it.

Paul hired staffers that screwed this up, and now he's using Lew, long known to be a ghostwriter, to incur the wrath of the cult.  It's quite unbecoming.

----------


## Tpoints

> Yea given how many years they've worked on the site and given how much some of Ron's campaign consultants got paid, it doesn't seem that wild.  I don't understand why Lew would post private negotiations though unless he's trying to ruin their reputation or shame them into lowering their price.


shaming them into lowering is not a bad idea at all, IF YOU CAN MAKE IT HAPPEN.

----------


## angelatc

> Yes, his staff apparently didn't care about him winning either. But here we have Lew Rockwell making a big deal about this, he obviously sees the value of having this domain name, and thinks he or Ron should be able to get it for a cheaper price. The question then is why doesn't Ron's staff give a damn? I think it is either Ron was never serious about winning, or they were intentionally sabotaging his campaign. I think it was intentional sabotage.



It's not just the dotcom - they lost the .org he was using.  C4L seemed to be doing most of the posting before it expired.  

I don't think we can have it both ways. They can't be simultaneously inept and ingenious saboteurs...my vote is for simple ineptness.

----------


## angelatc

> shaming them into lowering is not a bad idea at all, IF YOU CAN MAKE IT HAPPEN.


It's just a $#@!ty thing to do.

----------


## Tpoints

> It's just a $#@!ty thing to do.


I think it's a great thing to do if it gets the impact you want, if it backfires or has no effect of lowering the price, it just makes you look sour grapesy

----------


## Tpoints

> It's not just the dotcom - they lost the .org he was using.  C4L seemed to be doing most of the posting before it expired.  
> 
> I don't think we can have it both ways. They can't be simultaneously inept and ingenious saboteurs...my vote is for simple ineptness.


indeed! don't attribute malice to that which incompetence or stupidity is suffice.

----------


## angelatc

> I think it's a great thing to do if it gets the impact you want, if it backfires or has no effect of lowering the price, it just makes you look sour grapesy


\

It's not a good way to do business.  It's bullying.

----------


## fr33

What we need is evidence that Ron would be able to keep the domain and manage it.

I'd agree with anyone that says he's not the best manager. I do blame the people under him more because they know more about the internet and should have been able to control these domain issues.

But Ron's retirement seems to mean that all he really needs is 1 central domain. No more elections and $#@!. I want him to have a nice strong domain and focus on it.

----------


## eleganz

> \
> 
> It's not a good way to do business.  It's bullying.


I would do the same thing, in fact I did do the same thing before.

I've said multiple times that "I" would give it to RP for free.  Thats the reason why we're all here.  I'd feel like $#@! if I made any money I didn't have to make from the liberty movement.  Taking money from the future of the liberty movement is REGRESSIVE.  No, not cool Ron Paul stickers, shirts, badges, or beach towels being sold to happy supporters who really want those products.  RP.com owner should be at least be reasonable.  250k is not reasonable, sure RP may be worth million+ but those funds are likely not liquid asset as his riches are in his gold stocks.  

I saw people post on Lew's fb post for being 'non free market' and saying Ron is rich from the campaign.  Those people are goddamn $#@!ing retarded and I don't curse too much on RPF.  We have plenty of intelligent people in the liberty movement but many of them are just plain stupid.

----------


## angelatc

> What we need is evidence that Ron would be able to keep the domain and manage it.
> 
> I'd agree with anyone that says he's not the best manager. I do blame the people under him more because they know more about the internet and should have been able to control these domain issues.
> 
> But Ron's retirement seems to mean that all he really needs is 1 central domain. No more elections and $#@!. I want him to have a nice strong domain and focus on it.


The win/win is for him to work out a deal with the people who put their money as well as their hearts into it.  Using Lew to whine by proxy doesn't bode well for a happy ending though.

----------


## Tpoints

> The win/win is for him to work out a deal with the people who put their money as well as their hearts into it.  Using Lew to whine by proxy doesn't bode well for a happy ending though.


I really don't think Ron is using Lew to whine about it, I think it's more likely Lew is whining on his own.

----------


## angelatc

> I would do the same thing, in fact I did do the same thing before..



That doesn't mean it's not a $#@!ty way to do business. It's being a bully.  I know you'd give it to him for free. But since you didn't cough up 25k (or whatever the auction amount was) that's not a choice you get to make.  

And if I had coughed up $25k for it, worked on developing it for 6 years, then got this kind of crap from a man I idolized....I can pretty much guarantee I wouldn't give it away. My price would be going up, not down.

That's just no way to treat people.

----------


## angelatc

> I really don't think Ron is using Lew to whine about it, I think it's more likely Lew is whining on his own.


Really? Then how (and why) does Lew know the amounts that they're asking for?  Ron Paul isn't stupid, and Rockwell is one of his best friends.  This is a leak, designed to put pressure on the people that own the website.

And they still don't even directly acknowledge us....they play us like fiddles.

----------


## Tpoints

REPaul.org is still available, RonEPaul . anything are all available, just saying.

----------


## Tpoints

> Really? Then how (and why) does Lew know the amounts that they're asking for?


either because Lew asked himself, or Ron told him, but Lew is the whiner, Ron isn't whining. Those are all plausible explanations, Ron whining isn't impossible, I just think it's unlikely.

----------


## angelatc

> REPaul.org is still available, RonEPaul . anything are all available, just saying.


Sure, but RonPaul.com is the premium site.  Which is why we begged the campaign to invest in it.

----------


## RickyJ

> I would do the same thing, in fact I did do the same thing before.
> 
> I've said multiple times that "I" would give it to RP for free.  Thats the reason why we're all here.  I'd feel like $#@! if I made any money I didn't have to make from the liberty movement.  Taking money from the future of the liberty movement is REGRESSIVE.  No, not cool Ron Paul stickers, shirts, badges, or beach towels being sold to happy supporters who really want those products.  RP.com owner should be at least be reasonable.  250k is not reasonable, sure RP may be worth million+ but those funds are likely not liquid asset as his riches are in his gold stocks.  
> 
> I saw people post on Lew's fb post for being 'non free market' and saying Ron is rich from the campaign.  Those people are goddamn $#@!ing retarded and I don't curse too much on RPF.  We have plenty of intelligent people in the liberty movement but many of them are just plain stupid.



Would you rather let Ron's staff screw it up? The grassroots was the main reason Ron got the votes he did, his campaign didn't do much and even hurt the efforts of the grassroots. I think ronpaul.com is in very capable hands right now and there doesn't need to be change in ownership at all.

----------


## angelatc

> Would you rather let Ron's staff screw it up? The grassroots was the main reason Ron got the votes he did, his campaign didn't do much and even hurt the efforts of the grassroots. I think ronpaul.com is in very capable hands right now and there doesn't need to be change in ownership at all.


Sure - there's no good reason that Ron Paul can't hire these guys to run the site.  That would be the win/win.  But I think this is some relative or the C4L wanting to cash in for themselves.

----------


## Tpoints

> Sure, but RonPaul.com is the premium site.  Which is why we begged the campaign to invest in it.


Maybe when Doug, Israel, Ronnie make money off their Isagenix business, they can buy it up  Doug DID say he got a check for $46K, so unless it declines, he'll be able to buy it in about 5 months

----------


## Tpoints

> Would you rather let Ron's staff screw it up?


No, I don't. And I know his staff doesn't screw up, they're good at what they do, just look here. http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2012...ivil-liberties

----------


## eleganz

> That doesn't mean it's not a $#@!ty way to do business. It's being a bully.  I know you'd give it to him for free. But since you didn't cough up 25k (or whatever the auction amount was) that's not a choice you get to make.  
> 
> And if I had coughed up $25k for it, worked on developing it for 6 years, then got this kind of crap from a man I idolized....I can pretty much guarantee I wouldn't give it away. My price would be going up, not down.
> 
> That's just no way to treat people.


If I bought it for 25k and made that 25k back and then some, it would be a zero hesitation move to give it to RP for free.

My main point is that 250k is unreasonable, the thought of taking 250k from Ron trying to spread his message, would never even cross my mind.

I mean, seriously people think about it.

Ron refused his pension, didn't work with lobbyists, just bought a new home (wasn't his house for sale last year?) and most of his money is likely tied up in his stocks.  I don't think 250k comes easy for Ron Paul.

----------


## qh4dotcom

> Ron refused his pension, didn't work with lobbyists, just bought a new home (wasn't his house for sale last year?) and most of his money is likely tied up in his stocks.  I don't think 250k comes easy for Ron Paul.


Like someone else said...RP could ask Jesse Benton to give back some of his inflated salaries back...RP could ask Benton to take a mortgage on that mansion he lives courtesy of the grassroots....after all it's Benton's fault and incompetence that Ron Paul does not currently own the domain right now

http://www.facebook.com/LewRockwell/...51327181848859




> If Ron Paul could hire competent people, he would already own the damned thing. They are supporters who bought it at an auction, while his staff, as usual, ignored all the pleas from the grassroots to buy the damned thing for Ron. 
> 
> No sympathy for him at all in this. The people that bought it kept the domain from falling into neocon hands, they spent their time and their money using the site to do nothing but support Ron and his message, and this is the thanks they get. No wonder libertarianism turns off so many people.
> 
> If Ron had any sense, he'd hire them to run the site. That's the win/win solution. But selling it to him would mean it will be run badly. If you doubt that for one second, check out his recent Facebook posts. I suspect this is just another effort by those close to him to cash in on his name, now that the campaign well has run dry.





> The story is this: another guy named Ron Paul owned it. He wasn't a fan and wouldn't sell it until the 2008 campaign was winding down. Then, he put it on eBay because they couldn't get on touch with Ron through the campaign.
> 
> I was one of the people calling and emailing the campaign. I had Benton's cell phone number - I personally left him messages. I called the office several times, I emailed the eBay listing to every Ron Paul contact I could find. The people that bought it did him a favor. Seeing millionaire Lew snark about the price they're asking is salt in the wound. Why the hell didn't he buy it back then, either?

----------


## qh4dotcom

> It's not just the dotcom - they lost the .org he was using.  C4L seemed to be doing most of the posting before it expired.  
> 
> I don't think we can have it both ways. They can't be simultaneously inept and ingenious saboteurs...my vote is for simple ineptness.


Oh, it can be both

Paul Festival was intentional sabotage, not incompetence.

Allowing extremely valuable domains like ronpaul.org and ronpaul2008.com to expire is incompetence, not sabotage.

----------


## qh4dotcom

By the way, I happen to own ronpaul.NAME
Lew Rockwell was lamenting on his Facebook post about Dr. Ron Paul not having his name...I am willing to give Dr. Paul his .NAME for free...all he has to do is contact me

----------


## Tpoints

> Like someone else said...RP could ask Jesse Benton to give back some of his inflated salaries back...RP could ask Benton to take a mortgage on that mansion he lives courtesy of the grassroots....after all it's Benton's fault and incompetence that Ron Paul does not currently own the domain right now


Jesse is family, so that'll never happen. I don't think it's solely on Jesse, Kent, Ron himself and Doug probably are also responsible.

----------


## Tpoints

> Oh, it can be both
> 
> Paul Festival was intentional sabotage, not incompetence.
> 
> Allowing extremely valuable domains like ronpaul.org and ronpaul2008.com to expire is incompetence, not sabotage.


Paul Festival has nothing to do with Paul Inc, so what are you talking about? I agree with the last sentence (and I'll add again, unless there are election laws that forbid them continuing to use them)

----------


## qh4dotcom

> Paul Festival has nothing to do with Paul Inc, so what are you talking about? I agree with the last sentence (and I'll add again, unless there are election laws that forbid them continuing to use them)


You didn't hear about Jesse Benton's sabotage of Paul Festival?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...enton+sabotage

----------


## Tpoints

> You didn't hear about Jesse Benton's sabotage of Paul Festival?
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...enton+sabotage


Sabotage something that Paul Inc didn't do, yeah. But what does that have to do with...what sounded like, sabotaging Paul Inc or Paul's election run?

----------


## RickyJ

Seriously, anyone that can't see Benton was a paid agent of the opposition after taking the job with McConnell isn't paying attention. Ron probably wanted to fire him sooner, but didn't because of his grand-daughter and the bad press it would generate. But once the election was over, he did fire him as far as I am concerned.

----------


## Tpoints

> Seriously, anyone that can't see Benton was a paid agent of the opposition after taking the job with McConnell isn't paying attention. Ron probably wanted to fire him sooner, but didn't because of his grand-daughter and the bad press it would generate. But once the election was over, he did fire him as far as I am concerned.


Did he fire him? I don't think it's fair to say he was a paid agent, but he is family, after all. I don't see how Ron can care about bad press given the alternative and the results.

----------


## eleganz

> Like someone else said...RP could ask Jesse Benton to give back some of his inflated salaries back...RP could ask Benton to take a mortgage on that mansion he lives courtesy of the grassroots....after all it's Benton's fault and incompetence that Ron Paul does not currently own the domain right now
> 
> http://www.facebook.com/LewRockwell/...51327181848859



Those are horrible solutions that are not realistic in the least.

Yes I saw you quote that already, it sounds like the same talking points you've been repeating over and over and over again here in RPF.

It may have been incompetence and it may have been that none of them knew there would be a 'liberty movement'.  None of them even knew if there was going to be a 2012 run.

----------


## Tpoints

> Those are horrible solutions that are not realistic in the least.
> 
> Yes I saw you quote that already, it sounds like the same talking points you've been repeating over and over and over again here in RPF.
> 
> It may have been incompetence and it may have been that none of them knew there would be a 'liberty movement'.  *None of them even knew if there was going to be a 2012 run.*


If that mattered, then it makes no sense now to get the ronpaul.com domain.

----------


## RickyJ

> Did he fire him? I don't think it's fair to say he was a paid agent, but he is family, after all. I don't see how Ron can care about bad press given the alternative and the results.


Yes I think he was fired from C4L. Of course he officially resigned, but only because the only other option would be getting fired. Ron gave him an option and he chose wisely to resign.

----------


## RickyJ

> If that mattered, then it makes no sense now to get the ronpaul.com domain.


Ah, but there is 2016!

----------


## Tpoints

> Yes I think he was fired from C4L. Of course he officially resigned, but only because the only other option would be getting fired. Ron gave him an option and he chose wisely to resign.


Is it possible he just resigned because he was better paid at the new job?

----------


## Tpoints

> Ah, but there is 2016!


oh, you know that already?

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

The site earns it's income primarily through the sale of merchandise it its store.  If you look at the store itself they have a lot of items, and those items appear to be selling at a pretty high clip.  For example the Ron Paul Revolution T Shirt has over 1600 reviews.  That's a lot of shirts sold (considering the fact that most people don't post a product review after purchasing a product).  They also make money from serving Google ads, and based on the volume of traffic the site does, I would suspect they make a decent amount for the space.

At the end of the day the site is a business, and the owners are making what appears to be a nice living from that business.  No one in their right mind would walk away from that without being compensated for the value of the business and for future earnings.  From all that I can gather, 250K is a steal.

----------


## Tpoints

> The site earns it's income primarily through the sale of merchandise it its store.  If you look at the store itself they have a lot of items, and those items appear to be selling at a pretty high clip.  For example the Ron Paul Revolution T Shirt has over 1600 reviews.  That's a lot of shirts sold (considering the fact that most people don't post a product review after purchasing a product).  They also make money from serving Google ads, and based on the volume of traffic the site does, I would suspect they make a decent amount for the space.
> 
> At the end of the day the site is a business, and the owners are making what appears to be a nice living from that business.  No one in their right mind would walk away from that without being compensated for the value of the business and for future earnings.  *From all that I can gather, 250K is a steal.*


buy it if you think it's a steal! (with election over, what money they made during election season is of little prediction what they will continue making now)

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> buy it if you think it's a steal! (with election over, what money they made during election season is of little prediction what they will continue making now)


Let's say for example you were the site owner and projected that post election you would earn 100K per year from the site, how much would you sell it for?

Personally, I have no interest in owning and operating a web business though.  My business, at this stage of my life, is in real estate rentals.

----------


## Tpoints

> Let's say for example you were the site owner and projected that post election you would earn 100K per year from the site, how much would you sell it for?
> 
> Personally, I have no interest in owning and operating a web business though.  My business, at this stage of my life, is in real estate rentals.


per year for how many years? there's huge difference between 5, 10, and 20 years. But since you're buying it up and paying upfront, it'll discount it greatly.

You have no interest in making money off a steal? :P My point was basically, put your money where your mouth is, if it's a steal, you should have no problem finding money, and even hiring a person to manage it. If you think it's too much work for too little pay, it's NOT a steal. A steal by definition is a very small price for a very high payback, I don't think anybody (not even you) believes it is.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> per year for how many years? there's huge difference between 5, 10, and 20 years. But since you're buying it up and paying upfront, it'll discount it greatly.
> 
> You have no interest in making money off a steal? :P My point was basically, put your money where your mouth is, if it's a steal, you should have no problem finding money, and even hiring a person to manage it. If you think it's too much work for too little pay, it's NOT a steal. A steal by definition is a very small price for a very high payback, I don't think anybody (not even you) believes it is.


Again, I have no interest because it is not an area in which I am invested in at the present time.  I am retired.  That doesn't mean that I cannot evaluate what is potentially a good deal and what is not.  I spent my entire life buying businesses, so I have a lot of experience in this realm.  But just because I happen to see a good deal here doesn't mean I have any interest in getting involved in it.  There are businesses for sale here locally all the time.  I have the capital, but I do not purchase anything because I am not interested in working anymore.  I put my years in, the rental property game is enough to keep me happy at this stage of life.

As far as the pricing of businesses, that varies depending on the industry.  The space in which I operated in was typically earnings times 4. I am unsure what the multiplier for e-commerce businesses such as this is.  But my guess would be 3.

----------


## Tpoints

> Again, I have no interest because it is not an area in which I am invested in at the present time.  I am retired.  That doesn't mean that I cannot evaluate what is potentially a good deal and what is not.  I spent my entire life buying businesses, so I have a lot of experience in this realm.  But just because I happen to see a good deal here doesn't mean I have any interest in getting involved in it.  There are businesses for sale here locally all the time.  I have the capital, but I do not purchase anything because I am not interested in working anymore.  I put my years in, the rental property game is enough to keep me happy at this stage of life.
> 
> As far as the pricing of businesses, that varies depending on the industry.  The space in which I operated in was typically earnings times 4. I am unsure what the multiplier for e-commerce businesses such as this is.  But my guess would be 3.


Multiplier being 3 or 4 is based on the expectation that they'll make X dollars for how many years (obviously not 2, and obviously 20 years and 10 years would vary greatly)?

"potentially a good deal " isn't the same as a steal, is it?

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Multiplier being 3 or 4 is based on the expectation that they'll make X dollars for how many years (obviously not 2, and obviously 20 years and 10 years would vary greatly)?
> 
> "potentially a good deal " isn't the same as a steal, is it?


No one buys a business based on what they will make in 10 or 20 years.  So that is a moot point.  The price of a business is typically based on annual earnings times a multiplier which varies for different types of businesses.  Sometimes, but not always, equipment, goodwill, etc is also added to that value.  The large majority of the businesses that I purchased, I could look at recouping by initial investment in about 3 to 4 years; less if I was able to improve on the bottom line, which I typically did.

A site that is as large as ronpaul.com and with the high price & volume of the products they are selling is making some nice cash for sure.  So when you take that into consideration along with the goodwill value of the name itself & it's search engine positioning, then I see no problem with them asking 250K for this.  I think the 800K number that was originally put out there was probably high, but without seeing the books of the business it is hard to make a call on that.  Personally, I have no idea why he dropped his price so much without a counter offer, but it is his negotiation not mine.

----------


## Tpoints

> No one buys a business based on what they will make in 10 or 20 years.  So that is a moot point.


Ok, so how many years DO they expect? Certainly not 2. People buy houses and land and even timeshares based on the belief that it'll pay off and perpetually save/make them money 10, 20, 30, 40, even 100 years if their children inherit it. So how is a business any different?




> The price of a business is typically based on annual earnings times a multiplier which varies for different types of businesses.


But you wouldn't do that if you were only expecting the annual earnings for 2 years. 




> Sometimes, but not always, equipment, goodwill, etc is also added to that value.  The large majority of the businesses that I purchased, I could look at recouping by initial investment in about 3 to 4 years; less if I was able to improve on the bottom line, which I typically did.


Ok. So you recoup your investment in about 4 years, meaning you paid roughly 3-4x of the annual earnings? But you only paid that because you expected to make money beyond 4 years, and not a business that ends in 4 years, because you didn't buy a business to merely break even in 4 years,...right? 




> A site that is as large as ronpaul.com and with the high price & volume of the products they are selling is making some nice cash for sure.  So when you take that into consideration along with the goodwill value of the name itself & it's search engine positioning, then I see no problem with them asking 250K for this.  I think the 800K number that was originally put out there was probably high, *but without seeing the books of the business it is hard to make a call on that.*  Personally, I have no idea why he dropped his price so much without a counter offer, but it is his negotiation not mine.


We'd all love to see the books. So until then, I don't see why/how one can put a price tag on it.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Ok, so how many years DO they expect? Certainly not 2.


This situation is different because Ron Paul is not buying ronpaul.com to keep selling shirts and serving Google ads.  But that does not change the fact that the owner of the site can continue on as is and earn money from the site.  




> But you wouldn't do that if you were only expecting the annual earnings for 2 years.


Who is only expecting the earnings for two years?  I am not sure what you are questioning.





> Ok. So you recoup your investment in about 4 years, meaning you paid roughly 3-4x of the annual earnings? But you only paid that because you expected to make money beyond 4 years, and not a business that ends in 4 years, because you didn't buy a business to merely break even in 4 years,...right?


Correct.  A business like ronpaul.com does have a different lifespan than other businesses.  But again, that is for the owner to decide.  With Rand potentially running, and with Ron Paul still planning on being in the spotlight the owner may feel that the site has a good number of years left to make money.  




> We'd all love to see the books. So until then, I don't see why/how one can put a price tag on it.


And you never will see the books.  But anyone with a fair amount of knowledge of business can evaluate what something is worth.  He has over 500 product choices in his store, combine that with the traffic the site is getting and there is no question money is being made here.  The owner would be foolish to walk away from this without being well compensated.  

He could very well say "screw you" keep the site and keep earning revenue from it for as long as it can continue on.

----------


## Tpoints

> This situation is different because Ron Paul is not buying ronpaul.com to keep selling shirts and serving Google ads.  But that does not change the fact that the owner of the site can continue on as is and earn money from the site.


Isn't that the point/problem? What good is buying the site if you can't profit better from it? Just to keep another guy from doing it? If you can't profit the same way as the current guy, the value to you would obviously be lower.




> Who is only expecting the earnings for two years?  I am not sure what you are questioning.


Niche businesses. Businesses that are certain not to last. You know, fads? Oh yeah, election related businesses! They die every 2 years if not every year, depending on the candidate!




> Correct.  A business like ronpaul.com does have a different lifespan than other businesses.  But again, that is for the owner to decide.  With Rand potentially running, and with Ron Paul still planning on being in the spotlight the owner may feel that the site has a good number of years left to make money.  
> 
> And you never will see the books.  But anyone with a fair amount of knowledge of business can evaluate what something is worth.  He has over 500 product choices in his store, combine that with the traffic the site is getting and there is no question money is being made here.  The owner would be foolish to walk away from this without being well compensated.


I'm sure he's asking to be compensated fairly. I don't condemn him for that, I hope whoever pays him can see a good justification, and the only way to know for sure will be from books.





> He could very well say "screw you" keep the site and keep earning revenue from it for as long as it can continue on.


He probably already did.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Isn't that the point/problem? What good is buying the site if you can't profit better from it? Just to keep another guy from doing it? If you can't profit the same way as the current guy, the value to you would obviously be lower.


Well this is a unique situation because the buyer is interested in doing something else with the domain name than the seller.  A similar example would be that you want to buy a gas station because you want to tear it down and open a restaurant in the same location.  But regardless of what the buyer wants to do with the property that doesn't change the value of the business to the seller.  

And yes it is a niche business.  But we don't know what the guy is making off the site currently, and what he is projecting to make in years forward.  Hell, he could have made 200K off the site last year, and estimates that his revenue will decline over the next few years - but none of that really matters.  It is his site, he can ask whatever he wishes for it and go from there.  He apparently has an interested buyer in Ron Paul, whether Ron Paul ponies up the money or not is yet to be seen.  If the price declines, then we might get a better perspective on whether or not the guy is eager to sell the site or not.

----------


## Tpoints

> Well this is a unique situation because the buyer is interested in doing something else with the domain name than the seller.  A similar example would be that you want to buy a gas station because you want to tear it down and open a restaurant in the same location.  But regardless of what the buyer wants to do with the property that doesn't change the value of the business to the seller.


Agreed. 





> And yes it is a niche business.  But we don't know what the guy is making off the site currently, and what he is projecting to make in years forward.


What we've been saying all along, you're the only person in here who doesn't think 250k is too much. 




> Hell, he could have made 200K off the site last year, and estimates that his revenue will decline over the next few years - but none of that really matters.  It is his site, he can ask whatever he wishes for it and go from there.  He apparently has an interested buyer in Ron Paul, whether Ron Paul ponies up the money or not is yet to be seen.  If the price declines, then we might get a better perspective on whether or not the guy is eager to sell the site or not.


hopefully we will.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> What we've been saying all along, you're the only person in here who doesn't think 250k is too much.


The reason being is when looking at the site, seeing the large volume of products he is selling, the high profitability of those products (from what I can tell looking at zazzle's info it appears as though he is making about 50% on those products), and the Google ads he is serving - I conclude that the guy is making a nice buck off the site.  Why walk away from something that is bringing you in a nice stream of cash without being compensated for present and projected future earnings?  

I checked out his traffic stats, and he is actually running fairly consistent to where he was in 2011.  He peaked in the height of the election season, but he is fairly stable right now.  And since Ron Paul isn't going away anytime soon, there is no reason to assume that his traffic is going to plummet and he will not make money from the site.

In the grand scheme of things, 250K is not a lot of money, particularly if the site is generating a steady stream of income for the owner.

----------


## Tpoints

> The reason being is when looking at the site, seeing the large volume of products he is selling, the high profitability of those products (from what I can tell looking at zazzle's info it appears as though he is making about 50% on those products), and the Google ads he is serving - I conclude that the guy is making a nice buck off the site.  Now granted his traffic is declining, but still there is likely a nice stream of cash coming in from the site. Why walk away from something that is bringing you in a nice stream of cash without being compensated for present and projected future earnings?  
> 
> In the grand scheme of things, 250K is not a lot of money, particularly if the site is generating a steady stream of income for the owner.


$500 a year is still "steady". Steady just means a constant number. Sure, $250K isn't a lot of money if the site makes more than that in 5 years and then some. Until we know that, I say it's too much.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> $500 a year is still "steady". Steady just means a constant number. Sure, $250K isn't a lot of money if the site makes more than that in 5 years and then some. Until we know that, I say it's too much.


From what I have read about Google ads, he is probably making $500 per month just from the ads.  He has a lot of pageviews, so that translates into cash.  And then you also have the merchandise sales to consider.  If he is making $10 per shirt for example, you don't have to sell a ton of them to make some nice cash.

And again, he's got a hot buyer, why not make as much as he can while he has the chance?  If Ron Paul passes, then he still is making money from the site.

----------


## Tpoints

> And again, he's got a hot buyer, why not make as much as he can while he has the chance?  If Ron Paul passes, then he still is making money from the site.


I don't think he has a hot buyer, he has one guy complaining it's too much (and most of us agreeing it's too much, for several different reasons). lol. you're the only person that's ever said it's not too much.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I don't think he has a hot buyer, he has one guy complaining it's too much (and most of us agreeing it's too much, for several different reasons). lol. you're the only person that's ever said it's not too much.


Right because I am taking all things into consideration.  I think most are solely basing it on their perceived value of the .com and not the business as a whole.  Just because Ron Paul wants to tear down the site and start fresh does not detract from the value of the business to its present owner.  Refer back to my previous example.  If my gas station is worth 1 million, I don't give two hoots what type of business you want to open up on the spot - I am still selling it for $1 million.

----------


## Tpoints

> Right because I am taking all things into consideration.  I think most are solely basing it on their perceived value of the .com and not the business as a whole.  Just because Ron Paul wants to tear down the site and start fresh does not detract from the value of the business to its present owner.  Refer back to my previous example.  If my gas station is worth 1 million, I don't give two hoots what type of business you want to open up on the spot - I am still selling it for $1 million.



yes, and the fact you can claim it's worth a million means usually one thing : you can find at least one person who agrees with you. Otherwise you can claim any number without any basis. In fact, it can be purely sentimental without any profits, if the one person you find will be happy to pay a million just to see it taken away from you, you got your buyer even if he makes no money after that.'

so yes, while we both agree that it's not necessarily the case that Ron or anybody will make back $250K in the years to come. we also don't know of even one person who's willing to pay that price tag.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> yes, and the fact you can claim it's worth a million means usually one thing : you can find at least one person who agrees with you. Otherwise you can claim any number without any basis.


Again, business have a value based on their revenue and other factors.  But let's look at ronpaul.com again.  Now we do not know what the owner is making from the site, butf you were the owner, and you were earning $100K per year from the site on average since you purchased in in 2008, how much would you expect to sell the site for?

----------


## gerryb1

> Why did none of you complainers on here buy it when it was available? Anyone on this forum knew it was available and could have purchased it.





> When did that happen?


2008 .  If you didn't buy it for $25,000 back then like any of us could have, you have no reason to complain now that the owner has improved the property and is asking more for it.

----------


## gerryb1

> Again, business have a value based on their revenue and other factors.  But let's look at ronpaul.com again.  Now we do not know what the owner is making from the site, butf you were the owner, and you were earning $100K per year from the site on average since you purchased in in 2008, how much would you expect to sell the site for?


It depends how bad I needed cash.  Most businesses sell for a minimum of 2x cash flow, so $200,000 would be the minimum for a normal business.  Depending on the sources of revenue, I'd say this business is pretty easy to run, has good prospects to increase revenue, has low overhead, etc. so a 3-6x multiple is probably warranted if the owner was looking to sell.  

Not being motivated to sell always increases the price, so my guess is they are making less than $100k a year and have a multiple between 5x and 15x.

----------


## angelatc

> It depends how bad I needed cash.  Most businesses sell for a minimum of 2x cash flow, so $200,000 would be the minimum for a normal business.  Depending on the sources of revenue, I'd say this business is pretty easy to run, has good prospects to increase revenue, has low overhead, etc. so a 3-6x multiple is probably warranted if the owner was looking to sell.  
> 
> Not being motivated to sell always increases the price, so my guess is they are making less than $100k a year and have a multiple between 5x and 15x.


Absolutely true.  While Capt Lou's million dollar gas station is noteworthy, I had a friend who owned a property that WalMart wanted.  WalMart didn't dick around, trying to figure out what the current value of the property was.  Indeed, just the opposite happened.  My friend had paid $90k for the property, and 2 years later went into the face-to-face with Walmart meeting determined not to settle for less than $200k. It wasn't that he didn't want to sell, he just saw deep pockets.

The meeting lasted about 5 minutes, because they opened with $350k.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

Not sure why Lew is upset. Lew and his crew may do a better job of upholding Ron's legacy than the current operators of ronpaul.com, but the current operators have assuredly done a better job than Ron's political apparatus would have done.

----------


## qh4dotcom

The latest RP Twitter controversy is more evidence that RonPaul.com is better off being managed by the current owners.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...witter-Account

----------


## Tpoints

> Absolutely true.  While Capt Lou's million dollar gas station is noteworthy, I had a friend who owned a property that WalMart wanted.  WalMart didn't dick around, trying to figure out what the current value of the property was.  Indeed, just the opposite happened.  My friend had paid $90k for the property, and 2 years later went into the face-to-face with Walmart meeting determined not to settle for less than $200k. It wasn't that he didn't want to sell, he just saw deep pockets.
> 
> The meeting lasted about 5 minutes, because they opened with $350k.


luckily they didnt use eminent domain

----------

