Newsweek bashes Ron Paul

ams5995

Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
244
delete this thread


I was researching the Security, Prosperity & Partnership and found this great article. Six, (6) pages of bashing. Are we going to take this? I am going to finish reading it and reply to the editor in the form of a letter. I hope we can calmly debunk this piece and not make ourselves look like conspiracy nuts.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/110803/page/1
 
delete this thread


I was researching the Security, Prosperity & Partnership and found this great article. Six, (6) pages of bashing. Are we going to take this? I am going to finish reading it and reply to the editor in the form of a letter. I hope we can calmly debunk this piece and not make ourselves look like conspiracy nuts.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/110803/page/1

Newsweek is a waste of paper and ink. Used to read it until like Time magazine it hired biased, opinionated journalists that flunked out of creative writing. Have more respect for the writers in World Weekly or The Enquirer.
 
Isn't it by factcheck.org? Either way, they're both making Ron Paul look bad. But are they right about what they are saying about him? :confused::confused:
 
Isn't it by factcheck.org? Either way, they're both making Ron Paul look bad. But are they right about what they are saying about him? :confused::confused:

It's not what they are saying, as much as how they are saying it:

* Paul claims that a secret conspiracy composed of the Security and Prosperity Partnership and a cabal of foreign companies is behind plans to build a NAFTA Superhighway as the first step toward creating a North American Union. But the NAFTA Superhighway that Paul describes is a myth, and the groups supposedly behind the plans are neither secret nor nefarious.

* Paul says that the U.S. spends $1 trillion per year to maintain a foreign empire and suggests that we could save that amount by cutting foreign spending. Paul gets that figure by including a lot of domestic programs that he isn't planning to cut, like the U.S. Border Patrol and interest payments on the debt.

* Paul has run television ads touting an endorsement from Ronald Reagan, but he fails to mention that, in 1988, Paul wanted "to totally disassociate" himself from the Reagan administration.

Find a quote of Ron Paul saying the SPP is a "secret conspiracy". The Nafta superhighway may be a 'myth', but only since they've changed its name to a "corridor." The entire first bullet-point is crap, both logically and factually, in addition to using carefully placed words to slander Paul as a 'nut-job'.

My take on the sovereignty issue of the 'shipping corridor': we are strengthening own own trucking regulation, while allowing Mexican truckers to run, unregulated by the US, the routes that take longer than 10 hours a day to drive.

The author of the article brought up the NAU, but didn't do a single thing to evidence his claims on that front, so I won't refute anything.

The second bullet-point is a squirrelly way of saying "He's not being precise with his numbers," but doesn't really deny that Paul's economic plans work.

Paul ran ads with the Reagan endorsement because the current fad in the Republican race was playing to Reaganism, he was showing a true statement that Reagan made. In 1988 Paul distanced himself from the Reagan that went against his campaign promises and expanded the size of the government and foreign entanglement. Reagan distanced himself from Dr. Paul.

And the other 5 pages were just rambling discussion of these distortions,
 
The facts speak for themselves, google NAFTA highway funding

Friday, July 14, 2006
NAFTA highway faces uncertain future
The Business Journal of Phoenix - by Mike Sunnucks The Business Journal

Print Article Email Article Reprints RSS Feeds Add to Del.icio.us Digg This
Other Matching Articles for
"NAFTA Highway Funding"
Funding shortfalls taking major toll on TxDOT's future mobility [01/11/2008]
NAFTA trucking rules are on again, off again [09/21/2007]
NAFTA highway faces uncertain future [07/14/2006]
Highway bill includes $100 million for Tennessee's I-69 construction [07/29/2005]
NAFTA highway lobbying duties continue to pay off for alliance [08/16/2004]

A proposed business-backed superhighway link between Arizona, Mexico and Canada is running into skepticism about whether it actually will be built and worries that it will result in more U.S. and Mexican job losses to China.

The planned Canamex corridor is a one of a series of so-called North American Free Trade Agreement superhighways ballyhooed as improving trade and transportation links between Mexico, Canada and the U.S. The corridor involves improving and linking highways from Mexico City and the Mexican state of Sonora through Nogales, Tucson, Phoenix, Las Vegas and Salt Lake City and north into Alberta, Canada.

Phoenix Congressman Ed Pastor, a key border state lawmaker, questions whether the superhighway will ever happen, and free-trade skeptics worry such a corridor will make it easier for Chinese goods to get into North America -- which they say could result in more U.S. and Mexican job losses to Asia.

The planned roadway would traverse Arizona via Interstates 10 and 19 and Route 93 over the Hoover Dam. Backers of Canamex include business groups and free-trade advocates. They see the corridor as a way to increase trade and tourism. Mexico and Canada are the state's top trading and tourism partners.

"It is a good idea," said Maria Luisa O'Connell, president of the Phoenix-based Border Trade Alliance.

Pastor, however, questions whether the highway link will ever be built, pointing to the lack of progress and major funding on the coordinated highway project. Canamex has been in the works since 1995.

Some states and provinces have moved forward with planning related to the corridor and improvements of some highways that will be linked to the trade route. But, more than a decade later, there has yet to be major funding or a sweeping, coordinated effort related to the project.

Pastor voted for NAFTA but now regrets that vote. He opposes business-backed free trade accords, citing concerns about job losses and the lack of environmental and labor standards in Latin American and Asian markets. He also worries about potential job losses if increased links to Mexico encourage companies to ship jobs out of the U.S.

The Phoenix congressman is a high-ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, which gives him a hand in deciding which projects get funding, and which don't. That hand could be a lot a stronger next year if Democrats win congressional elections in November.

There also are NAFTA highways planned through Texas and other Western states. Business interests -- including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- support those roads, arguing they will facilitate North American trade.
 
What got me were the comments following the article. They were concise and very well written. I did noy see one that was in any way in favor this "Cabal-istic / Neo Con(ned) / CFR / Paid for Article Propagandist False Journalist / Absolut Bull-Sh--"

You know what, if you look at our overall numbers, lets call it 5-10% minimum of republican voting population. That is a pretty substantial number. Because we are the educated ones (not sheeple) that generally have a more potent effect on the corporate neg-elite. For example I cannot tell you how peple commented on cancelling thier subscriptions. Not to remind you the impact that we had on Fox (after not inviting Paul) as wel as how many times it has been mentioned in the MSM that "I know that if say such and such abot Ron Paul that I/We will be infiltrated with e-mails and phone calls".

My Friends (not to steal one from McBS), the battle has just begun - and they are feeling it as a result of this article and many others. This just one more up for us. Because you know when you assume that others are not going to perform due-dilligence after reading such lies you are assuredly "WRONG" (as the articles headline purports). So my point is that that article has an opposite effect on the masses to a great degree. Because it actually does the opposite people will find out on their own after reading such B_S!
 
Oh my God. That is the most misleading piece I've ever read.

Firstly, the #1 trillion figure on our foreign policy, when you consider all of the costs that add up because of our foreign policy, is accurate. And Paul has NEVER suggested we could save $1 trillion from cutting our foreign policy; he's said we could save hundreds of billions of dollars. And he's right.

Secondly, I can't believe they're attacking him for using the Reagan quote in his campaign. HE'S CAMPAIGNING FOR THE BLOODY REPUBLICAN NOMINATION! OF COURSE REPUBLICAN VOTERS ARE GOING TO WANT TO HEAR WHAT REAGAN HAD TO SAY ABOUT HIM! He's not endorsing the Reagan Administration, and he stated this on Meet the Press. He's just saying that Reagan kind of liked him.
 
*raises hand...

I live in KC, MO. I can drive by the site for the proposes 'SmartPort'. This SmartPort will sit on the proposed 'Trade Corridor', a 10 land highway from South to North. Have any doubts...Check out the site pushing for it here in KC...

http://www.kcsmartport.com/
 
I thought the media already decided and announced that McCain has basically won the nomination and that Paul is effectively dropping out? And with Paul saying it's GOP or bust for him, why are they even bothering ending the blackout only to attack him?

Anyway, yeah, many of the sources are far from unbiased (leftist publications, and the SPP itself), the article takes some serious leaps to put words in Paul's mouth, and whoever wrote that has an overall attitude problem which makes me doubt the impartiality of FactCheck even more than when I found out they're just an arm of the University of Pennsylvania.
 
Back
Top