VIDEO: Ron Paul files suit for RonPaul.com (Fox News)

I wonder what multiple of annual free cash-flow $250,000 is for that website.

My guess is that 5x is an extremely, extremely, extremely far too low for an estimate.

I mean if the owner really wanted $250,000 for it, he could easily justify it by having a CPA do a certification of the cashflow, and then state a multiple based on that figure that gets to $250,000.
 
Lady in the pink dress is pleading an emotional argument. Lady in white is more level headed.

Lady in pink needs to be shown the door.
 
Cowlesy said:
I wonder what multiple of annual free cash-flow $250,000 is for that website.

My guess is that 5x is an extremely, extremely, extremely far too low for an estimate.

I mean if the owner really wanted $250,000 for it, he could easily justify it by having a CPA do a certification of the cashflow, and then state a multiple based on that figure that gets to $250,000.
Click to expand...

They'll never show you how much they make because then they will lose the 'grassroots support' because we will find out they make entirely way too much. There is a blatant reason why they left out their earnings from the 'letter' but instead talked about how hard they worked and how much they sacrificed. They figure if they can play to everybody's emotion, they'll look RP bad for trying to get the domain.
 
eleganz said:
They'll never show you how much they make because then they will lose the 'grassroots support' because we will find out they make entirely way too much.
Click to expand...

I've never known libertarians to complain about people making too much money. I hope they are getting filthy rich off the site, but in reality revenue is probably something like 5k/month, which puts Cowlesy's 5x estimate right in the ballpark.
 
They should quit calling them supporters and instead call them what they are. People making a living off of the liberty movement.
 
I have to wonder if Ron Paul is really behind this. It doesn't seem like something he'd push to the point of a lawsuit.
 
I put extensive comments on this on the other thread. We don't know what happened and do know the site owner is trying to stir up public opinion against Ron for 'going to the UN' when the tribunal is specified in the site owner's own agreement with the domain, which also specifies the rules that allowed the site owner to snap up Ron's sites over the years and also specifies the basis for this claim.

Having said that, I am surprised at this action, but not knowing why Ron did it, I am giving him every benefit of the doubt until I find out the facts.

In the meantime I think the site owner who has this site on whosis to sell to anyone including Ron's enemies right now, from what I can tell, should suggest a fair mechanism for neutral valuation of the site. Ron has an estimate saying it is worth $50,000. If that isn't correct, suggest another method.
 
eleganz said:
They'll never show you how much they make because then they will lose the 'grassroots support' because we will find out they make entirely way too much. There is a blatant reason why they left out their earnings from the 'letter' but instead talked about how hard they worked and how much they sacrificed. They figure if they can play to everybody's emotion, they'll look RP bad for trying to get the domain.
Click to expand...

They also said the take it or leave it was because they wanted not to sell it after all, yet as of yesterday it was listed on whosis for ANYONE to buy. That it might have been on the verge of being sold potentially to people who would try to cause trouble for his new project (an Adelson funded group like the one attacking Hagel or something) might have been what precipitated the claim. No idea, but as I said, I'm giving Ron the benefit of the doubt.
 
For what it's worth, I recall Josh and myself having tried many times to find out who the people behind the site were, but I know I never got anywhere with that. I wanted to talk to them about transcripts and captioning videos. I sent numerous emails to them over a period of four years and never once heard back. The people running that site never passed the smell test for me. But that's just me.
 
The people holding RonPaul.com stopped being supporters of Ron Paul precisely when they failed to cooperate with Ron Paul.

The use of "supporters" in the press is evidence of slanting this story in a certain fashion (Or of lazy journalism).
 
I can't stand to watch the video again to verify the explicit accuracy of the following statement, but I want to say that literally everything stated in the video is false. That was really, really bad analysis coming from a layperson, much less so called legal experts.

This isn't a lawsuit, it isn't against 'his supporters'. Outrageously horrid video. Shame shame.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Brian4Liberty
  • Featured
Rand Paul on Big, Beautiful Bill
Replies
4
Views
150
Brian4Liberty
Brian4Liberty
Brian4Liberty
FlashBack: "Unfiltered: Ron Paul and Joe Rogan Take on Current Events with Jay Leno"
Replies
0
Views
4K
Brian4Liberty
Brian4Liberty
Occam's Banana
Epstein victims press conference [WED 03 SEP 2025 10:30 AM EST]
2
Replies
36
Views
274
TheTexan
TheTexan
Occam's Banana
The lessons of Ron Paul
Replies
12
Views
138
acptulsa
acptulsa
W
Ron Paul: World War III is on the Horizon as Congress Pushes Women for Draft
Replies
1
Views
638
Anti Globalist
Anti Globalist
Back
Top