I've read it, it's biased and self-serving. It might be reasonable for a kleptocrat.

Ron Paul failed to meet the burden of proof. He couldn't prove he has a trade mark on his name (because he hasn't registered one), couldn't show that the site owners had no legitimate interest in the site (because they clearly have a legitimate interest), and couldn't show that they were using the site in bad faith (because he asked them to sell it). You may not understand this, but he had to prove all three allegations. He's 0 for 3.

Actually it doesn't. It says "fan site" on the site's header, it's pretty hard to miss. The domain name is nothing but an easy way to remember the site's address.

It's rather amusing to watch libertarians complain that the government isn't confiscating the property of one libertarian and transferring it to another. I love seeing exactly how deep your principles run.

"While they are working to make a better Facebook Home experience"

$ ping facebook.com
PING facebook.com (173.252.110.27): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 173.252.110.27: icmp_seq=0 ttl=87 time=59.217 ms
64 bytes from 173.252.110.27: icmp_seq=1 ttl=87 time=58.550 ms
64 bytes from 173.252.110.27: icmp_seq=2 ttl=87 time=58.887 ms
--- facebook.com ping statistics ---

Try harder.

Except they're not domain squatters or misusing the domain to mislead supporters. They're actual Ron Paul supporters who spent years voluntarily building a site dedicated to him, and his response was to try and take their property by force because he thought he could get away with making false accusations.

The could be right, except he fired his chief of staff two days ago for repeatedly telling him he needs to check in to rehab. You'd think Rob Ford's closest ally (not including his brother) would know what he's talking about.

Also, Rob Ford fired his chief of staff two days ago for repeatedly telling him (in private) that he needs to go to rehab. If Rob Ford's closest allies think he has a drug problem, and there's a video of him doing drugs, and he was spotted at a public event intoxicated, and that same event he grabbed the ass of a rival mayoral candidate and propositioned her (Ford is married and has children), then the chances are that he has an actual drug problem.

The most obvious reason would be there's no conceivable way that they could profit from the video at that price. You have to sell a lot of newpapers to cover one $200,000 video.

There was a free market alternative: Pay the $250,000 Ron Paul's supporters were asking for a site they had spent years working on.

Which Ron Paul abused in bad faith (see the ruling) to attempt to take someone else's private property by force. Now, who doesn't understand libertarianism very well?

One example come to mind immediately:

A notorious controversy is that after spending most of her life claiming that social security, medicare and other government programs were irredeemably evil, she signed up for both social security and medicare shortly after she became eligible to use them. Many people would conclude that she was only morally against wealth transfers when they flowed away from her.

Yes it did. He tried to use government to force to transfer ownership of private property to himself. It's a betrayal of everything he claims to stand for (and it's not the first time he's betrayed the principles he claims to hold). It's also pretty stupid to turn on your supporters in such a hypocritical way. The Libertarain solution would have been to start a kickstarter (or other) campaign to raise the money to buy the domain if he wasn't willing to pay the money out of pocket or out of an election campaign fund.

Actually, "finder keepers" is pretty much one of the core principles of libertarianism (and the free market) and one of the major reasons why other groups despise libertarian ethics. To libertarians, it shouldn't matter whether property is unique or not. According to the stated principles of all major branches of libertarianism, it is unethical to take someone's property by force unless it was acquired through violence or fraud. It is the most important and fundamental belief that all of libertarian philosophy is based on.

Furthermore, the people in question are Ron Paul's supporters, who believe they should be compensated for the work they've done in building the web site which Ron Paul now wants to control. The short-sightedness and hypocrisy boggle the mind.

Of course, you don't elected without telling some lies.

Most of them aren't actually sociopaths, though politics is a career that will attract more than it's fair share of sociopaths. Interestingly, the other profession that attract more than it's fair share of sociopaths is corporate management.

Clinton probably would have bought the domain and the mailing list. She's smart enough to know that starting legal proceedings against your own supporters is a generally a bad idea. The reasons this is news, is it's one of the most libertarian American politicians trying (and failing) to use the heavy boot of government to get around the free market.

It's the betrayal of Ron Paul's professed core principles over the fairly trivial matter of a domain name that is the real news.

Perhaps you meant the pound is a unit of force. "Weight" generally means the same thing, but not always.

However I was talking about the unit of mass. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_(mass)

From the pix in TFA, I don't think the headline writer meant five of these https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound#People_with_the_surname

No, no, no. The pound is a unit of mass.