Newsweek does it again with "Wrong Paul"

[Molly1]

article on factcheck.org. They didn't give any credit so I don't know who took it from whom. I assume they stole it from Newsweek.

The first part is blantantly false. There is a NAU agenda. The Arizona State Legislature has a bill in committee that "opposed the North American Union" and discusses the NAU and NAFTA Super Highway by name. If these didn't exist why are state representatives getting involved?

HCM 2000 - http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/48leg/2r/bills/hcm2003p.pdf

Because all bureaucracies love a myth?

 

[roguepatriot]

Newsweak can kiss my true patriot ass.

 

[Goldwater Conservative]

These are just some of their unbiased sources :

Braun, Stephen. "Paul Believes in Threat of North American Superhighway." Los Angeles Times, 30 Nov. 2007.

Dobbs, Michael. "A 'Superhighway' to Nowhere." 3 Dec. 2007. Washington Post: The Fact Checker. 30 Jan. 2008.

Hayes, Christopher. "The NAFTA Superhighway." 9 Aug. 2007. The Nation. 11 Feb. 2008.

Kennedy, J. Michael. "Politics 88; Hopeless Presidential Race; Libertarian Plods on -- Alone and Unheard." Los Angeles Times, 10 May 1988.

"SPP Myths vs Facts." January 2008. Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. 30 Jan. 2008.

Yeah, anti-Paul writers from liberal publications are reliable. And whatever the SPP says about itself must be true. No need for research that doesn't involve conflicts of interest.

 

[Gtex]

Hope some of this information helps that I have found

http://www.infratrans.gov.ab.ca/INFTRA_Content/doctype59/production/Canamex-Trade-Brochure.pdf

http://www.corridorwatch.com

http://corridornews.blogspot.com/2008/01/ports-to-plains-summit-planned-for.html

 

[Drknows]

They just did a copy paste job from factcheck.org http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/wrong_paul.html its the same article. I guess dailypaul pissed them off.


Did you notice they didnt mention the CFR? Everyone knows the super highway is just a front for the real issue at hand. They went after the smallest piece of the puzzle.

AND yes we do spend a Trillion dollars overseas they're not counting the aid we send to Israel around (26 billion) or the oil states (over 30 billion) or dictators like mursharif (billions in loans from china).

Most of the budget for overseas spending is not included in the budget because its been around for years and is part of regular spending. They must be just looking at the cost of bases. They didn't even include the cost of the war.

 

[RonRules]

"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."

Here's what I notice here: For Newsweek to have scoured all the 1988 elections documentation shows that they have spent a considerable amount of work on the subject (I assume they did). That a clear sign of how scared this left-leaning propaganda media is.

Yes, they made a serious effort to ignore him and now try to criticize him and working very hard at it.

 

[CaveDog]

1. If FactCheck.org writes about a candidate, then that candidate makes some inaccurate claims.
2. FactCheck.org has not written about Ron Paul.
3. Therefore Ron Paul does not make inaccurate claims.

1. A mediocre journalist biased againt Ron Paul would write a lightly researched hit piece aimed at discrediting him.
2. Joe Miller wrote a lightly researched hit piece aimed at discrediting Ron Paul.
3. Joe Miller is a mediocre journalist biased against Ron Paul

 

[TastyWheat]

This article talks about the cost of the war:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/06/15/war_budget/

I can see why FactCheck.org/Newsweek had a problem with the $1 trillion figure, but seriously, without our huge empire and the "war on terror" we'd save about $1 trillion across the board.

 

[qh4dotcom]

Looks like Mr. Miller just talked about current expenses for the year 2006. He forgot about future expenses of the empire that was maintained in 2006.

For example if $572 billion went to defense spending in 2006, that doesn't include the interest that will have to be paid in future years...money that wouldn't have to be paid had the $572 not been wasted in 2006.

Also in 2006, plenty of military personnel lost their lives or got injured....more money will have to be spent for those veterans' benefits or health care in future years.

 

[rockwell]

But the NAFTA Superhighway that Paul describes is a myth, and the groups supposedly behind the plans are neither secret nor nefarious.

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE MUCH?

 

[DamianTV]

Thier ignorance of the nature of the coin will lead to our children waking up homeless on the continent our forefathers conquered.

...and interest payments on the debt.

Thats a very good example right there. If our govenrment coined its own currency and backed it with something, there would be NO DEBT. Inflation is money out of nothing, and interest on inflated nothing is still NOTHING. Borrow a hundred bucks from me, and thats all the money in the world, I'll charge you interest. You finally pay back that hundred dollars but still owe me for the interest. Its ok cuz I'll print up more money for you to borrow. How do you ever get out of a debt cycle like that? The answer is that you cant.

 

[Ninja Homer]

I find this Newsweek hit piece quite encouraging.

Why write a hit piece now, when it seems that Ron Paul is out of the race?

There's only one possible explanation. They thought they could kill the R3volution by ignoring it. They have just realized that they were wrong, and this is going to continue whether they ignore it or not, and whether Ron Paul wins the nomination or not.

We're just getting warmed up!

 

[Spirit of '76]

Disinfo.

 

[Larry Lee]

Isn't the usual political plan something like this:
Ignore them out of existence.
If that doesn't work then smear them out of existence.
If that doesn't work then get busy with infiltrators and internal destruction.
If that doesn't work then coordinate with everyone else including your enemies to destroy.

So they are at step two which proves they have decided they can't ignore Ron Paul anymore.
Hurray.

 

[Irks]

article on factcheck.org. They didn't give any credit so I don't know who took it from whom. I assume they stole it from Newsweek.

The first part is blantantly false. There is a NAU agenda. The Arizona State Legislature has a bill in committee that "opposed the North American Union" and discusses the NAU and NAFTA Super Highway by name. If these didn't exist why are state representatives getting involved?

HCM 2000 - http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/48leg/2r/bills/hcm2003p.pdf

I actually sent factcheck.org a link containing montana's legislature banning such a thing from their state, then called them on the phone. They said ALL of the co-signers must be misinformed. I guess that applies to Arizona too. Wonder how all these people got the same, wrong idea...
such tools, and I used to think their articles were accurate.

http://data.opi.state.mt.us/legbills/2007/BillHtml/HJ0025.htm

"A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF MONTANA OPPOSING ANY EFFORT TO IMPLEMENT A TRINATIONAL POLITICAL, GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY AMONG THE UNITED STATES, CANADA, AND MEXICO; OPPOSING THE SECURITY AND PROSPERITY PARTNERSHIP OF NORTH AMERICA AND INITIATIVES PURSUED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PARTNERSHIP THAT THREATEN THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE UNITED STATES; OPPOSING A NORTH AMERICAN UNION; AND OPPOSING THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT SUPERHIGHWAY SYSTEM."

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

NEWSWEEK's Joe Miller's other articles:

http://services.newsweek.com/search.aspx?q=Author:^%22joe%20miller%22$&sortDirection=descending&sortField=pubdatetime

I wonder WHY Joe Miller is NOT LISTED in the NewsWeek contacts and staff page?

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/pr/pages/newsweek-staff-bios.aspx

 

[babaprad]

Newsweek has been openly liberal for many years now. The liberals want John Mccain to be the nominee in November - just so, it's easy for whoever the nominee is, to win in the general election. Also, can you imagine a debate where Obama says - he will bring home the troops vs Ron Paul - he will bring home the troops home faster than him. The media and the american people are not ready for such a confusion. It's like Hillary waking up tomorrow and saying - I'm prolife and I want to cut taxes.