Is Fact Check.org Right About Ron Paul

[MattforPaul]

Here is the link http://www.factcheck.org/tag/ron-paul/
They claim the Ron Paul is telling misinformation and calls him a conspiracy theorist.

[sailingaway]

Which are you referring to? The answer is no, they are spinning it but you should be able to tell that from reading it. If there is one in particular that concerns you, tell us and we'll address it. Or more, but I don't want to do an essay against all that nonsense. Surely you can see the Reagan one, for example, where Ron stayed true to Reagan's program and supported REagan in office but Reagan didn't accomplish what he wanted and when the guy who called Reagan's economics 'voodoo economics' when he ran for president, Ron ran against him. You can watch Ron's speeches on youtube, way back to the 70s, Ron sounds exactly like he did then. Ron didn't change. the GOP did.

etc. Which point concerns you? Where is the conspiracy theorist nonsense?

By the way, Politifact was charted by Nate Silver's five thirty eight and Huntsman was the 'most truthful' but had the least statements checked, and Ron was next most, and that includes some Poltifact said were 'mostly untrue' which if you read the actual thing weren't at all. Poltitfact is more politics than facts. factcheck.org has its own bias, though. You have to think for yourself while you read it. SOmetimes there is useful info in there.

[robertwerden]

Welcome to the forum. Are you a Ron Paul Supporter?

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

In a presidential race, the candidates end up talking in soundbites--even if they aren't. Soundbites can be distorted and argued against very easily.
Which claims by "factcheck" are you curious about?

In my opinion, Politifact is a much better site. Factcheck seems to have a very limited view of the world, and seems to spew plenty of disinformation itself.

[sailingaway]

In a presidential race, the candidates end up talking in soundbites--even if they aren't. Soundbites can be distorted and argued against very easily.
Which claims by "factcheck" are you curious about?

In my opinion, Politifact is a much better site. Factcheck seems to have a very limited view of the world, and seems to spew plenty of disinformation itself.

I thought politifact was funded by media matters or something? Cross funding? No? Anyhow, none of them are neutral.

[The Dark Knight]

We need to set up a web site that fact Checks, factcheck.org

[Isaac Bickerstaff]

I have limited exposure to either, but my very non-scientific comparison puts politifact a little closer to the unbiased side of things. Factcheck seems to check the truthfulness of the statements as spun by the media. Politifact is crappy to the extent that the people "checking" the facts are not always very good at critical thinking.

[sailingaway]

Polifact will say stuff like 'that is absolutely true but we are sure that isn't what people think he meant' and rating it as false. They are glandular, as far as I am concerned.

[D.A.S.]

I thought politifact was funded by media matters or something? Cross funding? No? Anyhow, none of them are neutral.

I am mostly OK with Politifact (this FactCheck thing looks a bit on the "progressive" side). Politifact is pretty good at fact-checking, but then their analysis of the facts and the final verdict (True, half True, mostly False, etc) can be somewhat disconnected from those facts.

[MattforPaul]

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/wrong-paul/

[heavenlyboy34]

I used to like factcheck. They've gotten less objective as time progressed, IMO.

ETA: I noticed FC mocked and attempted to discredit what Ron said about the NAFTA superhighway. They're wrong. Jerome Carsi writes about it here (http://www.greatdreams.com/political/superhighway_facts.htm). Ron wrote about it way back in 2006 here (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul349.html).

[sailingaway]

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/wrong-paul/

LOL!!

Boy do we have answers for that one, starting with, get Ron's actual words, please, note the lack of quotes. You went back to 2008? OK, lets start with the fact that in 2008 LOTS of people had called the Texas Toll road the NAFTA Superhighway, including Perry, who was one of the architects. I've got links on that....

heck they aren't in my book marks, they are in opposing candidate section though, under Perry.

Anyhow, the texas toll road was hugely unpopular, widely called the NAFTA superhighway and some people dreamt up stuff about it that was beyond the pale, however, the truth was quite bad enough. The eminent domain for the private foreign owned roads that would be 5 foot ball fields in width and was to be taken from ranches predating Texas as a state not to mention the fact the toll road would bypass all local business, etc, was hugely unpopular. and was supposed to be in Ron's district. He fought it. Perry is an internationalist/globalist, whatever they call it these days, and Ron believes in US sovereignty and it comes up a lot in their differences. Perry pushed for NAFTA to be passed (a quote from him is in my signature) and Ron opposed NAFTA. NAFTA, as with many of these schemes, has international bodies supposedly set over domestic law, superceding it. That is a violation of US sovereignty to Ron, and to me, as well. It is fact and we can cite sections in NAFTA for it, so calling it a conspiracy theory is pretty weak. 'Conspiracy theorist' is what internationalists use to try to make people who aren't internationalists seem feeble minded. I need more to wrestle with. What are the specific 'conspiracy' facts being charged?

Because a ton of stuff was proposed that people didn't like and it was dropped, but it was proposed.

As for Security and Prosperity partnership, I oppose it because it is essentially a treaty but was created by executive order with no action by the Senate. In fact at one point when I read up on it at the Canadian consul page it said it was 'not called a treaty because of the unusual status treaties hold in the United States'. Meaning that it would have to be ratified. But you can go to spp.gov and look at what is there, now. It is essentially an international think tank of corporate interests that proposes legislation to Congress, and an 'integration' body with government officials to integrate stuff. It is what it is. Some people may have conspiracy theories about it, but the entity exists.

[D.A.S.]

Their tone seems like they are repulsed by Ron Paul and his phenomenon, and it doesn't look like fair reporting.

On Reagan, they are correct to say that Ron Paul did eventually disassociate himself from the Reagan administration and even the Republican party as a whole. BUT. Ron Paul was one of the first to endorse Reagan when Reagan ran for President, and that was because Paul loved the MESSAGE that Reagan ran on. The so-called Reagan Revolution. So, that's where "stood with Reagan" comes from. Notice the past tense in "stood". The problem was that Reagan as President strayed away considerably from the platform he ran on, and as a true conservative, Paul was deeply disappointed with that.

[refuge]

I believe I read somewhere that FactCheck.org is traced back, or has close connections, with the whitehouse.

[centure7]

I know someone who registered FactDoubleCheck.org in frustration of FactCheck.org doing such a sloppy job, but don't think they are really working on it at the moment.

[Expatriate]

The Annenberg Public Policy Center which runs FactCheck.org is a pretty left-wing organization that funds, among other things, the Brady Campaign. I would take anything they say about conservative candidates with a huge grain of salt.

Google "annenberg brady campaign" and make up your own mind.
http://www.google.ca/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=annenberg+brady+campaign&pbx=1&oq=annenberg+brady+campaign&aq=f&aqi=&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=148773l160062l2l160359l25l22l1l3l3l0l245l26 37l4.10.4l22l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=676406b218904b0&biw=1600&bih=678

Also I recall reading somewhere that Barack Obama and Bill Ayers had leadership positions within the group. Might be worth checking into.

[Valli6]

NAFTA, TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR, "SUPER-HIGHWAY"
------------
Jefferey Toobin's lie verses what Ron Paul actually said. (4:01) 2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtK2AeONPYg

Rick Perry proposes Trans-Texas Corrider (1:59) From January 2002.
"The Trans-Texas Corridor is not merely an extension of the current system, but the beginning of a whole new way of planning and building a transportation system…"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLS-9IBFVwg

Mexican President Vicente Fox tells us about the infrastructure programs to develop a highway from Mexico City to Texas and on up to Canada. (0:26) from 2003
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=OBcaTh3BwlM

Trans-Texas Corridor report on NBC (June 2007) (2:33)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOWKs-wC2ek

Lou Dobbs On Trans-Texas Corridor, Eminent Domain w/ Ron Paul (5:19) from February 2008 (Also see links below video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwrQhiuX35E

Manitoba Throne Speech (4:51) November 2007
Discussion of Trade Corridor connecting Canada with US and Mexico. "To advance the concept, an alliance has been built with business leaders and state & city governments spanning the entire length of the corridor." SPP leaders George Bush, Vicente Fox and Paul Martin laugh over conspiracy theories. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Br31mdP8-Ug

Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) talks about NAFTA, The Security & Prosperity agreement, CINTRA and the "superhighway". (7:24) March 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAs7XZVgKhI

[angelatc]

I thought politifact was funded by media matters or something? Cross funding? No? Anyhow, none of them are neutral. The Poynter Institute. Very liberal.

I lost all faith in them when they rated a Rand Paul about payroll and income taxation statement as mostly untrue, then explained that even though it was true most people wouldn't understand that it was true, which somehow meant it was untrue.

[ItsTime]

The Poynter Institute. Very liberal.

I lost all faith in them when they rated a Rand Paul about payroll and income taxation statement as mostly untrue, then explained that even though it was true most people wouldn't understand that it was true, which somehow meant it was untrue.

LMAO. In other words, they want to shape reality.

[specsaregood]

The Poynter Institute. Very liberal.

I lost all faith in them when they rated a Rand Paul about payroll and income taxation statement as mostly untrue, then explained that even though it was true most people wouldn't understand that it was true, which somehow meant it was untrue.

Yeah that one AND the one on pappa Paul in regards to the estate tax. Where Paul says that it especially harms small and family businesses; then politifact proceeded to twist that into saying that the tax primarily falls on small and family businesses and proceeds to "debunk" that statement/claim he never actually made. That was a good one too.

[angelatc]

Yeah that one AND the one on pappa Paul in regards to the estate tax. Where Paul says that it especially harms small and family businesses; then politifact proceeded to twist that into saying that the tax primarily falls on small and family businesses and proceeds to "debunk" that statement/claim he never actually made. That was a good one too.

Missed that one.