This group says Dr. No lied. Tell me it isn't true...

[wgadget]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/ron-paul/


Perhaps "never" is a word that should be used sparingly.

[Sematary]

Wow - talk about quibbling

[Elwar]

I'll leave it to the campaign to answer as they did. Semantics of whether or not naming a monument is the same thing as passing a "law".

[njandrewg]

Talk about grasping at straws.

[10thAmendmentMan]

That's the worst they could find? HA!

[Chester Copperpot]

Wow - talk about quibbling

Yep... well again scour as they might for scandals this is the best they can come up with after months of research. hahaha.

Personally I wouldnt consider martin luther king day real legislation. geez... They forgot the vote the congress had where the congratulated the Chicago Cubs or something... like WTF...

[ctb619]

Changing my vote to Giuliani

[Dustancostine]

http://www.smddrums.com/woodcell/straws.jpg

[wgadget]

Thanks, Dustan.

[FrankRep]

For example, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, he voted to authorize the continuing operation of NASA and to celebrate Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday on the third Monday in January.

More recently, he voted to change federal law governing organ transplants to make it easier for people to receive donated kidneys. He voted to designate the Ellis Island Library as the “Bob Hope Memorial Library.” And he voted to change federal law so the American flag would be displayed on Father’s Day.


:rolleyes:

Oh no, let the dirt fling!

[njandrewg]

oh and its interesting that Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate who they are grilling on the content of his website

[EvilEngineer]

Lol, Dustan. The literal meaning of grasping at straws =P

[SewrRatt]

To be fair, the site uses the same standards for things other politicians say. And they have a "Pants on Fire" level that they use in case of intentional deception or outright ignorance, whereas marking it false just means they object to the use of the word "never".

[FrankRep]

I can agree. Don't be sloppy with words.

[IowaSupport]

What they've possted as evidence is true - and they don't seem to be biased about it - but I think they should do a true/false-o-meter about what that professor said - hundreds of other cases?

Hmph.

[BuddyRey]

The only thing that disheartens me about this is the "Bob Hope Memorial Library" thing, because he voted against honoring Rosa Parks.

[Cindy]

What cute little pea shooters they have. :D

[KewlRonduderules]

This really sounds like nit picking to me. I read other candidates' statements and they are flat out lies and are much much worse.

I can see how they would use the word 'never'. Keep in mind he voted for a handful of measures that were not specified by the Constitution. Boo hoo!!! Gimme Me a break!!! How many years he has been in Congress?!

This is all they can come up with?!


(Psst. If you are reading politifact.com, try harder)

[1000-points-of-fright]

Most of the things in their "false" category are minor and non-freedom infringing. Nor do they cost any money.

NASA, one could argue, is constitutional under Article 1, section 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

It's a stretch I know.

As far as the substantive legislation goes, we need to define "substantive". That website would probably define it as legislation that would actually accomplish something without much pork. Ron Paul would would add being constitutional to that definition.

[nexalacer]

The only thing that disheartens me about this is the "Bob Hope Memorial Library" thing, because he voted against honoring Rosa Parks.

The honoring of Rosa Parks required tax-payer money, did it not? The name change doesn't, does it?

[SewrRatt]

The only thing that disheartens me about this is the "Bob Hope Memorial Library" thing, because he voted against honoring Rosa Parks.

The renaming of the library probably didn't cost anything, and the "honoring Rosa Parks", whatever that would entail, most likely did cost something.

[BuddyRey]

Yipes, talk about a smear article.

http://rush_awards.tripod.com/ronpaul.html

Please someone tell me RP didn't really vote against HMO reform and the Patients' Bill of Rights! :eek:

[takadi]

HAAHHAHAA this is the most hilarious hitpiece on Ron Paul ever. It's like pointing out how Jared ate one quizno's sandwich with extra mayo instead of a subway sandwich and then deeming how Rosie O'Donnell is now the most credible candidate for weight-loss

[hard@work]

haha that was great

[Original_Intent]

This article helps rather than hurts. Anyone that sees that these are the worst cases of "not following the Constitution" in 20 years as a legislator only shows how principled he is.

[SewrRatt]

NASA is constitutionally legitimate because of defense satellites, possible SDI, etc. Its purely scientific functions aren't and should be privatized.

[Hook]

The only thing that disheartens me about this is the "Bob Hope Memorial Library" thing, because he voted against honoring Rosa Parks.

No he voted against a Congressional Medal of Honor for parks, which costs $30,000 to make. He did offer to help pay for it out of his own pocket if everyone else in congress was willing to as well. Renaming a library costs nothing.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Oh snap, he voted for MLK day? Its like Hitler all over again!

[SewrRatt]

Oh snap, he voted for MLK day? Its like Hitler all over again!

Changing my vote to Rick Astley.

[CMoore]

The only thing that disheartens me about this is the "Bob Hope Memorial Library" thing, because he voted against honoring Rosa Parks.


He voted against spending the tax payers money to buy her a gold medal. He did offer to put up his own money if the other representatives would join him. He did not vote against honoring her, only spending the taxpayers money to do so.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

No he voted against a Congressional Medal of Honor for parks, which costs $30,000 to make. He did offer to help pay for it out of his own pocket if everyone else in congress was willing to as well. Renaming a library costs nothing.

Everything costs money. Paper work to rename it, changing the sign on the building, even the time spent voting on the issue. Every minute they are in the house, they are using electricity. Who pays for that electricity? Taxpayers.

[SewrRatt]

Everything costs money. Paper work to rename it, changing the sign on the building, even the time spent voting on the issue. Every minute they are in the house, they are using electricity. Who pays for that electricity? Taxpayers.

Only the paperwork and the sign wouldn't have been bought anyway. So let's see, Dr. Paul's tally is at 100 bucks for unconstitutional spending and everyone else's is at 60 trillion. That, my friends, is what we call statistically insignificant.

[BarryDonegan]

be wary of people who show the components of a bill they find undesirable without clarifying the EXACT wording. if changing it to make it easier for donors to get kidneys doesn't involve raising taxes, its not increasing the powers of government, in fact it may be done via removing beuracracy.

NASA was theoretically involved in missile defense in the 70s. hindsight is 20/20 and maybe it didn't wind up being valuable, but the defense industry works on crazy stuff like mind control on the govt dime, why not an anti missile system.

[trispear]

Not only did he vote against spending on a Rosa Parks Medal, he also voted against similiar medals for Pope John Paul II, Ronald and Mrs. Reagan, and Mother Theresa. AFAIK, in all of these cases he would put up his own $100 and challenged his congressional colleagues to do the same. They never took him up on his offer, instead spending 30k of taxpayer money because it was easier.

Why everyone brings up Rosa Parks without bring up these others is beyond me (other to imply he's rascist or something:rolleyes: )

[Syren123]

The only thing that disheartens me about this is the "Bob Hope Memorial Library" thing, because he voted against honoring Rosa Parks.

No he didn't. He voted against Congress minting a commemorative medal for her at taxpayer expense. Same with Ronald Reagan, his friend. But unlike all the rest of Congress, he offered to pony up $100 of his own money to mint the medal.

[mconder]

Changing Ellis Island to Bob Hope probably meant it was becoming privatized and would save the tax payer money for all we know. There is always some detail in these Bills that fits with Dr. Paul's standards when you look closer.

[stevedasbach]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/ron-paul/


Perhaps "never" is a word that should be used sparingly.

Agreed.

[stevedasbach]

This article helps rather than hurts. Anyone that sees that these are the worst cases of "not following the Constitution" in 20 years as a legislator only shows how principled he is.

I agree. They clearly explain that "never" is a tough standard and they list the only things they could find that failed to meet that standard. This is not a hit piece.

[Joey Wahoo]

I think this site will serve Dr. Paul well. His integrity will contrast nicely with the crapola the other candidates are spewing.

I just wish there were more examples of media holding candidates accountable for what they say.

[angelatc]

The only thing that disheartens me about this is the "Bob Hope Memorial Library" thing, because he voted against honoring Rosa Parks.


He voted against spending any money to honor Rosa Parks (and a bunch of other people, too.) He instead asked the members of COngress to pay for the award out of their own pockets.

I'm more curious about the NASA funding.

[angelatc]

NASA is constitutionally legitimate because of defense satellites, possible SDI, etc. Its purely scientific functions aren't and should be privatized.

HOw do you separate the two?

[SewrRatt]

HOw do you separate the two?

For instance, it should be obvious that sending probes all over the solar system has no current national defense application. Its only legitimate constitutional functions would be research, development, and deployment of orbital defense platforms, intelligence satellites, and things of that nature.

[runderwo]

It should be noted that the site does not offer a single politician with a better Constitutional record than Dr. Paul.

[AlexAmore]

Changing my vote to Giuliani

Agreed.

[Corydoras]

For instance, it should be obvious that sending probes all over the solar system has no current national defense application. Its only legitimate constitutional functions would be research, development, and deployment of orbital defense platforms, intelligence satellites, and things of that nature.

This separation is easier said than done. In the opposite direction, I know of a civilian medical research lab that gets large grants from the SDI "Star Wars" people.

[mkrfctr]

Pretty much any scientific research can eventually come back in a military application. Whether it is pointless lasers (thought so at the time, or so the rumor goes - check snopes?) or velcro or finding out that water once existed on mars (you don't think those robotic technologies and automated control systems for those robots won't come back as robotic soldiers, sentries, and bomb defusal robots?...), that knowledge can and does come back to be applied to how the military functions, equips its forces, and the strategies it employs.

So really the government could spend money on whatever it wanted, even stem cell research (repairing spinal column injuries, nerve damage, etc ... what's that you say? Why are you against our injured veterans!?! Why do you hate America?!). It's certainly not as contrived logic as the "interstate commerce" clause.

That said, even ignoring the "why should the fed steal your money to pay for research you do not agree with morally" Ron Paul still has the argument of "free-market does it better" to cut spending anywhere.

[SewrRatt]

This separation is easier said than done. In the opposite direction, I know of a civilian medical research lab that gets large grants from the SDI "Star Wars" people.

So are you saying you think Ron Paul isn't up to the task? If it's too hard for even him to separate, I imagine he'd abolish the whole thing and start up a new one that follows constitutional principles within the DOD, just like with the intelligence agencies. Hell, he'll probably do that anyway.

[SewrRatt]

Pretty much any scientific research can eventually come back in a military application. Whether it is pointless lasers (thought so at the time, or so the rumor goes - check snopes?) or velcro or finding out that water once existed on mars (you don't think those robotic technologies and automated control systems for those robots won't come back as robotic soldiers, sentries, and bomb defusal robots?...), that knowledge can and does come back to be applied to how the military functions, equips its forces, and the strategies it employs.

So really the government could spend money on whatever it wanted, even stem cell research (repairing spinal column injuries, nerve damage, etc ... what's that you say? Why are you against our injured veterans!?! Why do you hate America?!). It's certainly not as contrived logic as the "interstate commerce" clause.

That said, even ignoring the "why should the fed steal your money to pay for research you do not agree with morally" Ron Paul still has the argument of "free-market does it better" to cut spending anywhere.

I'm aware that research can yield benefits in unexpected directions, that doesn't mean all research could be classified as defense-related. I agree that free market can do it better, I'm just saying that there's nothing in the constitution that says the federal government can't do research on its own for national defense purposes.

[max]

The renaming of the library probably didn't cost anything, and the "honoring Rosa Parks", whatever that would entail, most likely did cost something.

Rosa parks is a media myth. She was put up to do what she did by communist groups she was working with. Communists didnt give a damn about blacks. Their true agenda was to stir up racial tensions.

Martin Luther King surrounded himself with communists and had even attended a communist training school in Tennessee. The whole "civil rights" movement was a fraud

[ronpaulitician]

Heck, by Dr. Paul's own admission, he's voted for legislation that he believed to be constitutionally flawed.

See his explanation for HR760 (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul98.html).

"Unfortunately, H.R. 760 takes a different approach, one that is not only constitutionally flawed, but flawed in principle, as well."

I've never liked the "never votes for legislation" claim. If anything, it should be "never votes for legislation unless he believes the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution".

[dsentell]

OMG!!

I'm CRUSHED!!

:D

[CMoore]

Legislation is law enacted by a legislative body. Generally anything coming before Congress is called "legislation", but strictly speaking it is only that which becomes the law. So things like resolutions, budgets, etc, are not legislation since they are not "laws". So when Dr. Paul says he never voted for unconstitutional legislation, that may be strictly true if he never voted for a bill which was due to become a law if passed and signed by the President.

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

More recently, he voted to change federal law governing organ transplants to make it easier for people to receive donated kidneys.
Voting to EASE federal law is much more constitutional than voting to keep a proscriptive law in place. If they can't interpret that correctly, I'm not going to bother reading the rest of it.

[Bradley in DC]

For the record, they get their facts wrong in the first line: Dr. Paul is in his third stint in Congress.

[Paul4Prez]

I've seen this tactic on some conservative discussion sites.

They're like "Ron Paul isn't perfect! We found 3 or 4 instances in his 20 years in Congress where he did in fact vote against the strict interpretation of the Constitution, if you consider X, Y, and Z!!!! Now you have to stop supporting him, and vote for someone else who violates the Constitution every other day, like the rest of us! Hah!"

And I'm like, "Dude, I already disagree with Ron Paul on some stuff, and I support him anyway. He is far and away the best candidate in my lifetime, and I will be voting for him, and helping his campaign any way I can."

And they're like, "But he has no supporters! You have to vote for someone realistic!"

And I'm like, "Actually, he has more supporters than the other Republican candidates all put together. Check out Meetup.com. Or any major news stories that allows comments. Or YouTube. Or the size of the crowds he attracts compared to theirs. Or the local news stories about those mysterious Ron Paul signs all over town."

And they're like, "But the polls! He's only at 1%!"

And I'm like, "Actually, it's 4% in the latest Gallup Poll, and your guy Mitt is only at 7. But I don't let 400 strangers, most of whom couldn't even tell you what the various candidates stand for, or even identify them on sight, make up my mind about which candidate to support. I base it on the issues, and the candidate's record, integrity, and principles."

[dude58677]

The NASA argument is debunked simply because he voted to support the Commercial Space Industry after Burt Rutan sent a man to space from Paul Allen's pocket.

[jmdrake]

The only thing that disheartens me about this is the "Bob Hope Memorial Library" thing, because he voted against honoring Rosa Parks.

He didn't vote against honoring Rosa Parks. He voted against giving Rosa Parks a congressional gold medal. His argument was based on the cost of the gold in the medal. He also voted against that same medal for Ronald Reagan. He said that if members of congress were willing to pay for such medals out of their own pockets he'd vote for it.

See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/08/AR2006070800966.html
Paul, 70, has earned the nickname Dr. No for his habit of voting against just about anything that he sees as government overreach or that interferes with the free market. No to the Iraq war. No to a federal ban on same-sex marriage. No to a congressional gold medal for Pope John Paul II and Ronald Reagan and Rosa Parks. He says the medals are an unconstitutional use of taxpayer money and once suggested each House member instead contribute 100 bucks from his or her own pocket.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[ednunn]

I think the big point everyone is missing is the CAMPAIGN is saying these things on his CAMPAIGN website not Ron Paul. It’s a matter of interpretation, and his campaign, not Ron Paul himself, that have designed and implemented the website. Whether or not the "facts" are accurate on the website is up to the CAMPAIGN officials to decide. They may be doing Ron Paul an injustice by posting their "facts" but ultimately Ron Paul himself has never said that, to my knowledge.

[OptionsTrader]

Changing my vote to Giuliani

There is no denying it, she IS an attractive woman.

http://www.blogactive.com/uploaded_images/giuliani_in_drag-752491.jpg

[antboy]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/ron-paul/


Perhaps "never" is a word that should be used sparingly.

True, and there are other, far more significant, examples. Dr. Paul is a wonderful man, but he is not perfect. He voted for a federal legislative ban on late term abortions in contradiction to his position that the Federal government has no authority to regulate the abortion laws. He supports controls on immigration that are not listed anywhere in the Constitution, and that certainly contradict the intent and views of the framers and founding fathers (Paul is correct that the Federal government can regulate whether or not someone is given US citizenship, but not whether they can enter, travel, live, and work in the country).

I do wish the campaign site didn't make these impossible claims, because they aren't necessary and create straw men that are easy to knock down. Nor is it necessary for any of us to agree with 100% of Dr. Paul's views to enthusiastically support his candidacy. For heaven's sake, he is the best candidate offered by either major party in at least a century: a giant running against a bunch of midgets. That's more than enough to defend him, and we'll be most successful if we avoid hyperbole.

IF I'VE TOLD YOU ONCE, I'VE TOLD YOU A MILLION TIMES: DON'T EXAGGERATE! ... oops

[seapilot]

Guiliani married his second cousin?? Cross dresser?
Thompsen professional lobbyist for abortion rights? Is he in the right party? Interesting as Mac and Cheese on a Friday night?
Edwards 400 dollar hair job?
Mccain ba ba bomb Iran?
Clinton whats the new lie for the day should be in Jail but hubbys expresident so cant touch this?
Rommney's attorneys ATTACK!
What are we so worried about again? Couldnt be principles or integrity.

[RP4ME]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/ron-paul/


Perhaps "never" is a word that should be used sparingly.


He has addressed this himslef - he is not Lying by sayin this.....

[KingTheoden]

Wow. We have all heard of mudslinging in campaigns but this is something else. Sort of reminds me of an angry toddler throwing blades of glass in a fit of rage.

NASA is constitutional because 90% of it is military related; the operates in tandem with the Air Force and Navy in many respects. I think Uncle Ron has since said that private industry and entrepreneurs would do a better job with space travel (I agree).

Is this site seriously saying that Ron is bad because he voted for MLK Day? This is a first. By the way, the MLK Day law was attached to a tax cut of some sort if I recall.

So no, Dr. Paul has not lied. His vices are still limited to actions incurred while assuming his cookie monster alter personality.