I'm not taking a position on this issue, but you do realize that moderators do not read every single post and have a perfect memory of their relative contents?  Moreover, you do know it's possible (and reasonable) to infract one post for something done across several posts (like thematic spamming)?

One of the key principles on Libertarianism is the right to your property, and your right to keep it. The real debate here is what property is Ron Paul's and what property is not.

Yes.

A site attacking Ron Paul has the right to take the domain name that is available and turn it against Ron Paul, just like Dan Savage did with “Spreading Santorum”. Taking away a negative site would be an assault on freedom of speech. The websites intention is too, for whatever reason, to defame or attack its target.  This is legitimate.

I agree that negative speech should be protected.

If the site is positive, it is much different, and perhaps even sinister in a sense. If I registered Alcon.com  and made the site a collection of your best posts, and operated independently of you, you should have the intellectual property rights.

I understand you claim this.  I'm asking why you claim this.  Unless I am claiming falsely to be you, or claiming falsely to operate/speak as your representative, how is this an unfair use of freedom of speech?

Here is an example. The year is 2016, and a now 20 year old ChairmanSanchez decides to start a grass roots movement for Rand Paul in 2016. If I go around to every live TV news interview in the area and heckle about Rand Paul, or if I desecrate the other peoples signs, etc, and embarrass the campaign while working as an independent grassroots guy, do they not have the right to stop me from working for them.

Was RonPaul.com claiming to be working on Ron Paul's behalf in an official, authorized capacity?  Owning the domain name and advocating on his behalf alone do not constitute deception, and without proof of deception, this is such an obvious violation of the protection of freedom of speech.

I think muon2 voted against civil unions/domestic partners on a technical issue that ostensibly wouldn't apply to full marriage rights.  I hope.

I can't shun someone I respect holistically so much, but please do the right thing -- as someone who cares about rational public policy -- my man!

My existence as a person should be mine. I would be angry if somebody was profiting off of my daily activities for whatever reason. That is why the whole tabloid/paparazzi industry theoretically immoral in my opinion.

I understand that this pisses you off on moral grounds, but what legal claim are you asserting here?  Basically:

"If I bought a domain name in your name, and dedicated it solely to you, in a positive connotation, the website would be your intellectual property."

Why?  Why is it my "intellectual property," but a negative site about me is not?  Do I own my positive likeness, but not my negative likeness?  I understand revoking a domain name if someone is claiming to be, or represent you, somehow.  But what you're arguing seems so obviously ridiculous and authoritarian to me.  Under what circumstances could a web site about someone be claimed by the person about whom it is about, and under what circumstances couldn't it?  I don't understand your argument behind this at all, besides that it seems intuitively proper to you.

Also, if you give me something and I reneg on a legally non-binding promise to return it, and then want something for it, that's not called extortion.  That's called getting screwed.  It's kind of funny you call that "extortion" considering the only similarity to extortion is wanting something but resenting paying the price the seller is asking...a very odd complaint for a libertarian to entertain.

So if somebody makes a facebook page with my name, dedicated to everything about me, I should not have the right to control its operations?

You think you have the right to control every web site that is about you...?  Or only if the web sites favor you, or what?

if nothing else than on account of the grease.

not how this works

CALORIES IN < CALORIES OUT

it's on the damn menu son

Because I feel that certain offenders (murderers, terrorists) merit the death penalty for what they have done? Or, as (I believe) Lewis Powell once put it, "certain crimes are themselves so grievous an affront to humanity that the only adequate response may be the penalty of death."

It's pretty simple really. If you feel that there are crimes for which the death penalty is called for, you will support it.

Do you realize that you just basically took two sentences to say "the death penalty is right because that's just how it is"?  I don't even have much of an emotional investment in this issue, but your 'argument' is totally self-referential.

Unrelated question: Why are there so many gangs in the Senate?

Boredom, peer pressure, poor role models, etc.  Just the other day, Barbara Mikulski was caught carving her gang sign onto her desk.  It's just such a shame.

I openly and aggresively support civil unions, but not gay marriage.

Still waiting, after several weeks, on your rationale why.  (I guess this counts as aggressive?)

I'm not sure I'm aggressive about it, but I have so little uncertainty about it that I like going to bat for it.  I'd rather argue a relatively trivial issue that I'm certain about, than a very significant one where I have ambivalence.

Approve or neutral (thus abstaining) for most.

Alcon was my only disapproval.

...?

Just curious: are you resentful that I criticized you over gay marriage?  I thought we had a friendly, productive PM conversation about that.  I didn't know we ended things negatively.

And it would have been nice if that conversation was confined to PMs as opposed to the unnecessary spectacle that you made it into.

Sorry man :\ You expressed an opinion in public.  I challenged it (respectfully) in public and then moved it to PM when you asked.  If that's grounds to resent me, I guess that's your right, but yikes dude...

Approve or neutral (thus abstaining) for most.

Alcon was my only disapproval.

...?

Just curious: are you resentful that I criticized you over gay marriage?  I thought we had a friendly, productive PM conversation about that.  I didn't know we ended things negatively.

Simfan, please go back to your old self.  I feel like I'm reading Lief's posts twice and that's not a knock on Lief, as I would feel the same way if Lief started posting like old Simfan.  There's too much Yin and not enough Yang on this forum right now.

Erm...

But yes! That's it! I was trying to be Lief! . I had not managed to concoct a complete worldview- it ranged from a latte liberal to a collegiate socialist. Given more time, a definite persona a with viewpoint somewhere within that spectrum would have emerged. But that was it- Lief!

I haven't really been around for months, and I can still tell that you've been trying too hard.

I'm sorry if I cannot possess some kind of online-sprezzatura for your amusement.

i think you have a tabouli stain on your Columbia University sweatshirt

Simfan, please go back to your old self.  I feel like I'm reading Lief's posts twice and that's not a knock on Lief, as I would feel the same way if Lief started posting like old Simfan.  There's too much Yin and not enough Yang on this forum right now.

Erm...

But yes! That's it! I was trying to be Lief! . I had not managed to concoct a complete worldview- it ranged from a latte liberal to a collegiate socialist. Given more time, a definite persona a with viewpoint somewhere within that spectrum would have emerged. But that was it- Lief!

I haven't really been around for months, and I can still tell that you've been trying too hard.

we're infracting objectively false statements?

Knowingly re-posting a deleted post warrants pretty heavy infraction points.

I also don't appreciate the lie by omission that this thread is, if Inks's summary is accurate.

Would my participation in this topic be aided by having any idea what's going on?  Or is that beside the point for our purposes?

I vote, although I don't care.  I rarely know all of the candidates personally, and there's rarely much to on beyond personal reputation.  It's like real politics, but without any of the issues and the candidates don't usually have backgrounds useful in evaluating them.  So it's like real politics but completely stupid.

Not sure about turnout, but I assume low.

Well, it's real quiet in here, so random factoid.  Seattle's precinct 43-1782 is almost entirely the Horizon House retirement home community.  The precinct has an average voter age of 84.  Check out the results:

President: 82% Obama
Governor: 75% Inslee
Gay marriage: 83% Approved
Pot: 80% Yes
Supreme Court: 83% McCloud

There's some seriously liberal old people

Medical marijuana is much, much less polarized along political, ideological and religious lines than gay marriage.  There are big chunks of the population that are theoretically open to the idea of medical marijuana that will be hardcore opponents of gay marriage, much moreso than vice-versa.

No idea about the courts situation, but demographically, I imagine it will pass majority approval first in either Montana or Arizona.

Yeah, I don't think there's any cause for optimism.  The supposed libertarianism of the interior West on social issues is vastly overstated.  This is a few Democratic representatives and a couple of Republicans from Teton County.  I haven't exactly looked at the breakdown on the issue, but my guess is that it's hopeless.

Yeah, a small sample size does this kind of thing.

None.  I have an adblocker on my browser. I don't want to waste my bandwidth downloading ads I'll never click on anyway.

I'm pretty sure that the ads are still downloaded, just intercepted by the Adblocker before they're displayed -- the adblocker has to read the code to remove it.  Unless there's an image or video involved, I don't think you'd save bandwidth.

ENTJ

You have moderate preference of Extraversion over Introversion (44%)
You have strong preference of Intuition over Sensing (88%)
You have slight preference of Thinking over Feeling (12%)
You have distinctive preference of Judging over Perceiving (67%)