Here is what I posted in the last thread on this:

According to whois, RonPaul.com was registered in 2000 while RonPaul.org was registered in 1999. The current owner of RonPaul.org is DN Capital Inc, a company based in Panama, while RonPaul.com is owned by WKF Corp, another company based in Panama.

This right here is sending up red flags. A "fan site" whose domain name is owned by some corporation in Panama? This isn't some Hary Alderson in Vermont who owns the domain name, as one might expect from a fan site. It is some company in Panama who, for all we know, may or may not be a shell company.

Second, Ron Paul DID NOT go to "The UN" for this, he went to the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, whose JOB it is to settle disputes like this. There is nothing hypocritical about this. WIPO would exist absent the UN for this purpose. He may not LIKE the UN, but he is working within the system as it currently exists even though he would like that system changed. I don't like the city government where I live and wish it were set up differently, but you bet your butt I go to them when I have a problem or need something taken care of under their jurisdiction.

RP wanted only the domain name, yet the "owners" of the site wanted to sell him the whole thing for a huge chunk of cash? That's not "Fan site", that's "trying to hit up a public figure for money and cash out". Wanting to sell the whole nine yards so eagerly, and for so much, doesn't sound like any "fan site" I've ever heard of.

Sorry, the owners of ronpaul.com are looking awfully shady. Say what you want about Dr. Paul, the owners of the domain are not looking so innocent and it is looking that Dr, Paul may have a decent case for cybersquatting. We simply don't have enough information to be 100% sure. Considering Dr. Paul's past, I'm tending toward giving him the benefit of the doubt for now, but I would certainly like more information before definitively siding one way or the other on this. There is probably a lot of details that we don't know about.

How many times does this argument need to be beaten like a baby seal before people stop using it?

Suppose you are to be executed by a firing squad of 100 trained marksmen, all of them aiming rifles at your heart. You are blindfolded; the command is given; you hear the deafening roar of the rifles. And you observe that you are still alive. The 100 marksmen missed!

Taking off the blindfold, you do not observe that you are dead. No surprise there: you could not observe that you are dead. Nonetheless, you should be astonished to observe that you are alive. The entire firing squad missed you altogether! Surprise at that extremely improbable fact is wholly justified - and that calls for an explanation. You would immediately suspect that they missed you on purpose, by design.

Such amateur philosophy like yours won't fool anyone who ihas been given into a basic understanding in the subject. In fact, your objection is often one of the first things covered. The theist intellectual response to the new atheists has been brutal, Dawkins has been running like a scared puppy when intellectual heavyweights like Bill Craig challenge him to debates. They continue to pretend that their arguments have not been answered a hundred times. Their movement is slowly grinding to a halt.

Might want to go back and check the science you claim to care so much about. No statistically significant warming over the last decade or so. It is the computer models that predict catastrophe and yet never match reality.

So you're advocating genocide I see. 100+ million corpses produced by the beliefs you advocate in the 20th century alone. Militant Atheism and Humanism has done more damage to the people of the world than Religion ever could. It promises only death and despair and delivers on those promises. Further up in your post, you fear that it would be the conservative and religions people who would use those advances for evil. Quite frankly it is your kind that would be the ones using it for such purposes. What you advocate would not eliminate the greedy and selfish, it would only entrench them at the top like in The Soviet Union.

The worst thing I could wish upon you is for you to get the world you want. Problem is we only have one.

Basic things like that yes, the finer details, no. How much Mercury does it take to poison someone? You can't say precisely because it affects people differently, the best thing you can do is give a range.

How is it a sloppy design? It seems to work quite well. By having the two connected one can breathe through the nose during normal activity, which does a great job of filtering out foreign contaminates, but also breathe through the mouth to increase airflow when the organism is engaged in strenuous activity and the increased airflow is more important than not breathing in foreign contaminates.

Designers frequently design one component to do multiple things. The front wheels on my car provide steering, but also transfer the engine power to the road. Thank goodness you don't design cars or else everything would be rear wheel drive.

So because something is sub-optimal means that it is not designed?

Are you going to claim that the Pinto was not designed because it had a poorly placed gas tank? Are you going to claim that the Tacoma Narrows Bridge was not designed because it fell apart after a few months? Scientists used to think that the human eye was sub-optimal design because the nerves are in front of the rods and cones, but it turns out that we find that the eye is like that so the rods and cones can have unimpeded access to their blood supply. So what looks like sub-optimal design may just look that way because we don't understand the system.

Furthermore, sub optimal according to who? The only way to claim something is "sub-optimal" is to know the intent of the designer. How do you know that there were not reasons for doing things they way they were?

I'll just quote William Lane Craig who nicely points out how your objection crashes and burns in numerous ways.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/natures-flaws-and-cruelties

Ford averaged 61,500 Ford Focuses sold per quarter in 2012 just in the US. 5,000 cars is a rounding error in the car market. For a boutique car 5,000 units is fine, but nobody should be pretending that it's changing the car market.

Except in the early days of motoring electric cars DID have the advantage, in both reliability and cost, and was overtaken by the internal combustion engine.

Electric cars will suck forever for the simple fact that batteries never have and never will have the energy density of liquid fuels do. Battery energy density needs to increase by a factor of 40 to match what a gallon of gasoline can do, but physics says that is impossible.

Wrong. Those transit systems were hemorrhaging money and bankrupt. GM bought up the bankrupt streetcar lines and replaced them with buses, which were cheaper, more versatile, more reliable, and faster than streetcars. GM only got in trouble because they didn't allow other bus makers to sell buses to those transportation systems.

Stop getting your history from "Who Framed Roger Rabbit".

As the price of car ownership fell further, intercity bus travel too became unprofitable. Intracity bus travel was always profitable and never went away. It is seeing a resurgence thanks to Chinatown bus services cutting costs.

http://marketurbanism.com/2010/09/23/the-great-american-streetcar-myth/

I would gladly forgo any right to Social Security, Medicaid, or Medicare as well as forfeit all taxes paid into those programs thus far if it means I did not have to pay those taxes anymore from today forward. Yet if I try to do that, men with guns will show up and throw me in jail.

So yes, it is theft. I am being forced to pay for something that I do not want with no choice to opt out.

If you're gonna live by that line of logic, then you are going to die by it.

Following your logic means that everyone in the US is culpable for, and participants in, government actions, meaning civilians are legitimate targets for the enemies of the US government. After all, getting behind the enemy lines and attacking the logistics personnel is a perfectly legitimate strategy, attacking non-combatant civilians would be nothing more than attacking further up the supply chain.

So are you going to follow your logic where it leads and say the Boston Marathon Bombing was a legitimate attack against the US government? Or are you going to cherrypick only for when it is convenient for you? Best bet would be for you to abandon it entirely.

They were being deliberately stupid on that show when trying to make BP, that is the only conclusion I can come to because they should have been able to make good BP with only 15 minutes of research on how to do it.

No, violence is a means to and end. The problem is when violence becomes and end unto itself.

Why to Arabs attack us? They've told us repeatedly, because they view our interventions in the region as an assault on their culture and right to self rule. So they attack us in retaliation. The leaders at home don't blame their bad foreign policy, but say that they are attacking because "they hate us for our freedom" and so they attack the Arabs back, which only makes it all the easier for the Arabs to recruit new members to attack again. Our "leaders" are trying to put out a fire by pouring gasoline onto it.

Now you of course you may ask, If they know we're going to strike back, why do they attack us if they want us to leave them alone? Because they know that the American government won't leave them alone no matter how many times they say please, so they attack knowing that we will try to go after them. Their violence is simply a means to an end, that end is to bankrupt the American Military-Industrial complex so the US government is forced to leave because they are defeated economically. They know that we have to spend $1000 in the middle east to counter every dollar they spend. They know that every bullet we fire, every bomb we drop, every solider we send, brings them one step closer to victory. Sure some of them say they want the world to all be ruled by Islam, but they're practical people and realize that they're not gonna launch an invasion of the mainland US.

The correct thing to do is give them what they want, leave them along and let people buy the oil at whatever price it is selling for. The number of people they can send over to us is little more than a lethal nuisance and can be easily dealt with here. With us gone, the many Arab factions will lose a common enemy and within a decade they will go back to fighting each other like they have done for hundreds of years and not give us a second thought.

Fun fact, McVeigh called those children "Collateral Damage".

What has the Obama administration called children killed in drone strikes?..........Collateral Damage.

He's describing current US drone policy.

Translation: Someone called you on your economic ignorance and your only option is to change the subject.

Your argument there is a red herring. If you're gonna live by that argument, you're also gonna die by it because I can do the same thing in regards to labor unions, just cite one of the many examples of Unions working to make it illegal to hire blacks in order to protect white workers.

You continually yammer on and on about how the evil businessmen are exploiting the workers and not one peep about how it is the tens of thousands of pages of regulations that keep those large firms in place by making it impossible for small start-ups to compete. You look at businesses gaming the system and never once question the system itself.

Sure, you've pointed to the fact that the government is blowing massive bubbles into the economy, but that's about all you have right. Your knowledge and understanding about the economic history of the 19th century is embarrassingly bad, reminiscent of what I remember from high school. Overly simplistic and presented from the point of view that the government can do no wrong. A great many other people stopped reading history and economics after the 10th grade too, but what makes me shake my head is that you are clearly a well read and intelligent person in the area of computers and technology. You're investigated one side of an issue and then the other and come to your conclusion. That's great. Yet it's as if your brain shifts into neutral when it comes to history or economics and you resort to some 10th grade textbook understanding of history and economics.

I was always into non-fiction so I was always reading history books when I was young. With the advent of the internet, the ability to read alternate views became much easier. One could have one window open with one point of view of history and in another have the other sides attempt at a rebuttal. If one rebuttal was unconvincing, a little searching would turn up another. I went back and forth on several major issues over several years as I weighed the arguments and counter arguments. Some issues I have become totally convinced about, others are tentative, and others I recognize as imperfect, but the best practical option. The point I'm making here is that with the internet it is not that hard to investigate different views, provided you actually read the alternative views as written by those expounding them and not just a paraphrase by someone else, which can be quite a task at times.

You've been repeatedly corrected by me and others and yet it makes no impact. You don't read up, you don't even get more sophisticated in your argumentation. It's the same stuff over and over again. I read your posts and wish someone else would respond, but I realize that they are thinking the same thing I am, "Why bother, he's not going to respond with anything new." Reminds me of a discussion on another forum with someone who was expounding the Venus Project's "Resource based economy". They were asked how their system solves the Economic Calculation Problem. Not only did they not understand the problem, they made no effort TO understand the problem despite repeated attempts to explain and clarify the problem. Eventually people just gave up and ignored that person when they posted about economics, though they did have insightful things to say on other topics.

It's just frustrating because you're better than that.