Political Truth-o-Meter: Ron Paul truthful, Romney biggest liar

[agaiziunas]

They put it in little drawings even sheeple can understand.

http://politifact.com/media/img/tom-true.gifhttp://politifact.com/media/img/tom-mostlytrue.gifhttp://politifact.com/media/img/tom-halftrue.gifhttp://politifact.com/media/img/tom-barelytrue.gifhttp://politifact.com/media/img/tom-false.gif

So Ron Paul's section has only "True" and "Mostly True" factoids. Thompson seems to be the next most-honest, but he dips into the "Barely True" bucket.

Our friends Ghoul, Huckabubble, and McCanbombyou have all been caught with outright lies, while:

Romney (Mr. Sleaze) was the only candidate to earn the privilege of: http://politifact.com/media/img/tom-pantsonfire.gif


Full articles and candidate pages here: http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/ron-paul/

[CaptBookbag]

Awesome site. Thanks for posting.

Actually Biden got the 'pants on fire' as well, if you scroll down to criticisms of Giuliani.

[Jeremy]

Looks like Gravel lied a lot too

[Dibold]

I call http://politifact.com/media/img/tom-pantsonfire.gif for your post.

You say "Paul has only "true" and "mostly true" factoids"

But if you go here
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/ron-paul/statements/

You can clearly see Ron Paul has one "False" factoid.

[CaptBookbag]

You can clearly see Ron Paul has one "False" factoid.

I missed that too.

That is a really really weak false though.

[Jeremy]

Lol, one of Rudy's Pants on Fire ones is "I'm probably one of the four or five best-known Americans in the world."

[Dibold]

Lol, one of Rudy's Pants on Fire ones is "I'm probably one of the four or five best-known Americans in the world."

As much as I hate to say that Rudy is probably right. Rudy DID get Time Person of the year, I don't think any other candidate running can say that.

[Thanehand]

Actually, Ron has one false statement, but it's not that big of a deal. Thanks for the AWESOME link!

[cheese]

Ron Paul's ONLY lie:

A few exceptions to his small-government principles
False

Paul's campaign Web site declares: “Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.”

There is no hedging in that promise. Indeed, Paul has earned the nickname "Dr. No" because he has a long history of standing against the tide on even very popular measures because he disagreed on principle. But “never” is a tough standard to meet, and 17 years in Congress covers an awful lot of votes. An examination of Paul’s record shows that although he usually adheres to his principle, he has sometimes voted for programs that aren’t “expressly authorized” in the Constitution.

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.

The Constitution discusses many things, but there’s nothing that “expressly authorizes” organ transplant law, naming rights for libraries or flags on Father’s Day.

When we sent the Paul campaign an e-mail asking for an explanation of these votes, spokesman Jesse Benton declined to discuss them in detail. He quibbled over whether the measures technically could be considered legislation. “Your argument over semantics sounds more like a fishing expedition than good journalism,” he said.

Benton later e-mailed to say that one explanation for the NASA vote was that the agency “has a national security component.”

We checked with a congressional historian and two constitutional law professors who said they believe those votes do not meet Paul’s claim. A.E. Dick Howard, a law professor at the University of Virginia, said Paul’s claim “just doesn’t stand up. ...My guess is you could find a hundred other examples.”

So we find that Paul’s absolutist statement “never” is false.
----

lol so he supported nasa, mlk day, and organ transplants. what a lier!

[InLoveWithRon]

cool site

[Original_Intent]

Lol, they gave Biden a "pants on fire" for saying Bush is brain-dead. They said there is clear evidence that the President is breathing unassisted and responding to stimuli. :D

[Paul Revered]

They put it in little drawings even sheeple can understand.

http://politifact.com/media/img/tom-true.gifhttp://politifact.com/media/img/tom-mostlytrue.gifhttp://politifact.com/media/img/tom-halftrue.gifhttp://politifact.com/media/img/tom-barelytrue.gifhttp://politifact.com/media/img/tom-false.gif

So Ron Paul's section has only "True" and "Mostly True" factoids. Thompson seems to be the next most-honest, but he dips into the "Barely True" bucket.

Our friends Ghoul, Huckabubble, and McCanbombyou have all been caught with outright lies, while:

Romney (Mr. Sleaze) was the only candidate to earn the privilege of: http://politifact.com/media/img/tom-pantsonfire.gif


Full articles and candidate pages here: http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/ron-paul/Great thread! I posted this on MySpace.

[Goldwater Conservative]

"A few exceptions to his small-government principles"

How exactly is voting for MLK Day, naming a library, or changing the standards of flag display on Father's Day (which only affects federal buildings) an exception to small government? Okay, maybe it's unconstitutional, but even if it is it's unconstitutional the way jaywalking is illegal. Everyone else in government, meanwhile, is engaging in unconstitutionality comparable to violent crime.

"More recently, he voted to change federal law governing organ transplants to make it easier for people to receive donated kidneys."

I would guess he was trying to weaken federal law that had no business being there, in which case it is both constitutional and not an exception to his small government principles.

And NASA very much falls under the category of national defense. Frankly, I don't really see how any of these quibbles justifies a flat-out "False." A case could at least be made for that anti-abortion bill (although I believe it just strips the Supremes of jurisdiction over the matter, which is perfectly constitutional), but they didn't even bother bringing that up.