FactCheck.org has posted a very negative article on our man

am writing to correct some errors in your recent article regarding the security and prosperity partnership.

You write - "that "quasi-government organization" – is really an actual government organization, organized through the White House. According to David Bohigian, an assistant secretary of commerce, the SPP is a bureaucratic dialog staffed by mid-level officials from the U.S., Canada and Mexico who work to synchronize customs, security and regulations. "Simple stuff," Bohigian told The Nation last August, "like, for instance, in the U.S. we sell baby food in several different sizes; in Canada, it's just two different sizes." Not exactly cloak-and-dagger stuff. "

First, if it is true that "bureaucratic dialog staffed by mid-level officials from the U.S., Canada and Mexico" it cannot be a "Government Organization" by any strech of the imagination - it must be , in fact' a multinational organization, that the U.S. participates in.

Far from being involved in only babyfood, the SPP looks at Energy policies, environmental policies, and immigration policies, not necessarily cloak and dagger, but certainly things that the american people have a significant stake in.

You also ignore the fact that the SPP has not been very forthcoming in releasing information about its meetings. Judicial watch has had to file under the FOIA to fid out just what the SPP meetings are about. I gues sthat is not quite secret, but why not have open meetings? Further, the SPP is advised by the north american competitiveness council. Recently, Judicial Watch sent a notice to Secretary Gutierrez (commerce) that stressed the legal requirement for the NACC, and any U.S. component subcommittee(s), to obey the federal open meetings law and file a charter, publish timely notice of meetings in the Federal Register, allow interested parties to attend and participate in meetings, and provide access to committee records. Judicial Watch believes the NACC has failed to satisfy any of these statutory requirements. This was not mentioned at all in Mr. Miller's article, a glaring omission considering the implication that the SPP is simply a regulator of inoccuous things like baby food (I'm reminded of Saddam's Baby Food factory sign during the first gulf war) - http://www.marketwire.com...

I believe it is poor journalism to rely on the group being criticized (the SPP) to provide accurate information about itself, and then use that as the "fact Check" I always enjoyed reading "fact Check" because of what I considered its objectivity. Needless to say I was dissapointed in this article, which was biased, and took the word of the SPP and other organizations as "facts" and ignored information from independent organizations, like judicial watch. I would expect you to print a retraction regarding this aspect ofthis article.

Frankly I suspect several other aspects of this article are incorrect or mis stated, but I simply don't have time to prove my assertions.

but you can detect the biases in the piece......look at their address and you can see their loyalties

Annenberg Public Policy Center
Nation Press Building
Washington DC

I'd say they're part of the "inside establishment team", wouldn't you?

Here are the links. The first is to a very reputable ezine (Human Events) which points to the obvious design to create a North American Union by effectively erasing our boarders with Mexico, similar to the EU.

http://www.humanevents.co...

The second is from the CFR and it is obvious that Bush was merely implementing this Rockefeller organizations recommendations when he signed "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America".

http://www.cfr.org/conten...

No conspiracy? Then what would YOU call it? Sell Out?
.
.
.

that anything that comes forth from the government with a benevolent, or warm and fuzzy name is something to run away from as the intent is the opposite. Some that come to mind is the one is this article the 'Security and Prosperity Partnership' [sure for who?], the 'Patriot Act', Homeland Security, etc.etc.

I wrote...
I’m totally confused on your facts on Ron Paul and the Super Highway. (I understand you point on Ronald Reagan and the trillion dollar thing, though it doesn’t make me question his integrity.) But the TTC is a reality—I live in TX. It is being discussed about extending it into OK. The TTC will be a new parallel road that will take land from people (a may kill my alma mater). Ron Paul never, as far as my research shows, said it was a secret plan. He did say people in Congress didn’t all pay attention to the fact that Congress is spending a bit of money on studying extending it beyond TX. (It is buried in a bill.)

But PLEASE…show me a quote where Ron Paul said anything about a conspiracy or secret plans. Do you really believe that there are not people promoted a North American Union? There are people pushing to legalize marijuana, too. Doesn’t mean it will happen, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be educated on the topic and take a stand on it.

And there have been several debates where you have nailed everybody but Paul, so that does give the impression that if you are exposing the facts, he’s clean. Maybe not something that can be proved, but if you are doing your job, you should be checking the facts of all the candidates—especially when you cover specific debates.

I appreciate the service you offer, but am really disappointed in your unfactual presentation about the NAFTA Highway and your stretch to discredit some followers who misunderstood you based on your incomplete coverage. Make me wonder how neutral a service you are really offering.

----------------------
Lymeade Lady
lymeadehealth.blogspot.com

And this is why I'm saying the NAU conspiracists calling the Truthers conspiracist isn't helping Ron Paul..it's making the whole lot of us look like we're wearing one tin foil hat or another and can't defend each other for our beliefs.

This is maybe the worst article ever. Please e-mail these idiots at editor@factcheck.org. Call them if they have a number. Snail mail them if they have an address. Joe Miller is either stupid or evil. Either way, he does not need to write an article ever again for an outfit that claims to "check facts." This article is extremely dangerous precisely for the reason that this website has set itself up as a place to check facts vs lies. When a site named "factcheck" spews lies, we are truly in trouble.

we now have a new definition of the word 'fact', just like WMD was a fact in Iraq and reams of other lies that pass for facts. And if you happen upon something that is a true fact it is thrown in the myth, conspiracy theory pile. Around and around we go, and most people don't question anything anymore.

I sent this email to the editor of Fact Check.
Watch the video. Reconsider your thoughts about the NAFTA superhighway and the SPP. In this video by Congressman Virgil Goode, VA he speaks directly to the issue and names other Presidential candidates who agree with Ron Paul. Wake up. They superhighway won't be called that. It will piss people off. They will simply connect it to other TransTexas corridor type highways under proposal. Colorado Superslab for one. Wake up!

http://restoretherepublic...

No wonder Hunter and Tancredo are out too. Why don't they endorse Ron Paul?

These guys are part of a foundation started by a media neo-con.

"The Annenberg Political Fact Check is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania."

Media magnate Walter Annenberg controlled important properties in the newspaper, television, and magazine industries. He later sold some of his empire to Poopert Murdick.

I can't believe sensible people read this garbage.

"But the TTC was approved by the Texas Legislature and the governor of Texas."

Wrong the TTC is now under a moritorium because the Legislature has not approved it and resents the Governor's policy.

Missing Trillions?

How much have we spent on Iraq War? How much on foriegn aid? Case closed.

Gipper Flipper?

This is a silly discussion. If whether or not a man has a changing view of a record of an administration over the years is the most interesting "discrepancies among facts" discussion one can have then I say our candidate is in good shape.

Of course, I have changed my view of the Carter administration over the years...having now much more sympathy for the man after Bush and Clinton and Bush...what does my changing opinion say about the *facts* that I assert elsewhere??

Funny they make such a big deal out of the NAFTA super highway. They never discuss the reall issues like, is Ron Paul right about our current and future economic woes? Have we been ignoring the Constitution for all these years? Isn't that the reason we are in most of these messes in the first place? Oh well.. I guess negative press is better than no press huh?

FU$# YOU Factcheck.

Have a nice day everyone!

Go Ron Paul March!

The government of Alberta, Canada has a map of it on their official website. They even label it the NAFTA Superhighway. I guess the author of that article didn't bother to check out that pesky little fact.

http://www.infratrans.gov...

get a website called factcheckthefactcheck.org

thThe accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. James Madison

That's what such called "Journalists" are good at. Comment gently in case people who don't know RP stumble in such webshits!

Something smells really bad here. I wonder who is pulling their strings.

go to www.clusty.com

type in Jerome Corsi NAFTA and you will find all you can read.

And what factcheck.org should have read before making a fool of themselves.

They exposed their bias when they took pen and paper.

Let someone talk long enough and they will hang themselves.

You said, "The problem with Paul's claim is that there
are no plans to build a NAFTA Superhighway. Or a North
American Union, for that matter."

Seriously...are you expecting them to just come out
and tell us what they are doing? Well...they do:

http://www.cfr.org/public... and

http://www.cfr.org/search...

The CFR is "neither secret nor nefarious" yet it
doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand what is
happening.

Regarding the 1 trillion amount that Ron Paul says can
be saved, let's see...are you including the amount we
send to the Arab countries and Israel that Ron Paul
wants to eliminate?? No. Besides, you take into account
inflation and 1 trillion today is 1.2 trillion next year! (Ha!)

Ron Paul has clearly stated his agreement, and then
disagreement with Reagan. He said it live, in front
of Nancy Reagan at the Reagan Library if you were
listening.

Lastly, your organization owes its existence to the
Annenberg foundation where they created the
misinformation about economics via the "Economics USA"
series - http://en.wikipedia.org/w...

Riddle me this...how come this series doesn't mention
anything about Austrian Economics? Answer: Because
God forbid this kind of information that has heavily
influenced Ron Paul get into the hands of the sheeple!

But believe me, it will. It is my life's passion to
make sure it does. Factcheck that!

not what I expect from factcheck.org. I've never seen them target anything but the words used by candidates; much less attack a candidate's supporters.

One note about their logic point (I was a philosophy major and I tutored logic students for some years, so this REALLY rubbed me the wrong way):

This is factcheck's illustration of the formal fallacy of denying the antecedent:

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.

They're right in saying that this would not be a valid argument, BUT their first premise is incomplete, making their argument very different than the Paulites'.

Here is the corrected, valid argument:

1. FactCheck.org writes about EVERY candidate who makes inaccurate claims.
2. Ron Paul is a candidate.
3. FactCheck.org has not written about Ron Paul

4. Therefore Ron Paul has not made inaccurate claims

This is a more accurate representation of the Paulite's argument. This argument is valid, but you may have noticed that it's not "sound," meaning that one or more of the premises is not true. The first premise "FactCheck.org writes about EVERY candidate who makes inaccurate claims." is not true, because they obviously ignore some candidates. So here is the corrected argument that is both valid and sound (this argument form is called a "constructive dilemma"):

1. Either FactCheck.org writes about every candidate who makes inaccurate claims OR FactCheck.org is doing an incomplete job.
2. FactCheck.org has not written about Ron Paul.
3. If FactCheck.org writes about EVERY candidate who makes inaccurate claims, then Ron Paul has not made inaccurate claims.
4. If FactCheck.org is doing an incomplete job, then they are undermining their purpose and are not being fair.

4. Therefore, Either Ron Paul has not made inaccurate claims, OR FactCheck.org is undermining their purpse and are not being fair.

I read that Joe Miller has a masters degree in Philosophy, he really ought to know better.

I stopped reading after I read "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. ..."

Do they bother to do any actual checking of any actual facts? Dip$hits...

Fact Check used to be one publication I trusted.

The first thing I noticed was that they said Ron Paul claimed that the NAFTA superhighway was a conspiracy.

In everything I have seen of Dr Paul, he is very careful not to call things a conspiracy.

See you in DC!

THE MORE I LEARN ABOUT GOVERNMENT
THE MORE I LOVE MY GUNS
FourWindsTradingPost

Walter Annenberg used his money and business to influence political elections and to influence policies that would profit his business. Call him a lobbyist.

Fact Check is a baby of the Annenberg School of Communication and is no doubt used today to influence elections and public opinion, as well.

They have picked only bits and pieces of RP's comments to meet their needs. They chose to ignore ALL costs associated with overseas spending (for example: NASA's costs to put into orbit satellites devoted to foreign spying), to spin it their way. I'm guessing they also didn't take into account the money we are currently borrowing from China to fund this war and the recent stimulus package.

They chose to mention Ron Paul's statement about disassociating himself from Reagan, but failed to mention Ron Paul's explanation of that statement. I'm not going to post the link. Let THEM go find it!

And they chose to try to debunk the NAFTA Superhighway. Well, theoretically they are correct.

It is NOT named the NAFTA Superhighway. It is merely a road expansion, that will be paid by private donations (from Corporations who will charge tolls).

The Texas portion of it is called the TransTexas Corridor, and the Keep Texas Moving website makes it sound like it is only intended for Texas.

Here is a quote about the road NOT called the NAFTA Superhighway from http://www.keeptexasmovin...

TxDOT has already taken the first steps in seeking private investment. The Trans-Texas Corridor is a multi-use statewide network of transportation routes that would allow separate lanes for passenger vehicles and large trucks, as well as for freight railways, high-speed commuter rail and infrastructure for various utilities.

So when Ron Paul describes the Not-a-NAFTA-Superhighway road as, "a ten-lane colossus the width of several football fields, with freight and rail lines, fiber-optic cable lines, and oil and natural gas pipelines running alongside," he's NOT incorrect. Fact Check is incorrect...and lying.

Now, does it only serve Texas?
On this NASCO page, it clearly says:

NASCO is a nonprofit organization dedicated to increasing economic development activity while supporting multi-modal infrastructure improvements, technology / security innovations and environmental initiatives along the NASCO Corridor...NASCO members include cities, counties, states, provinces and private sector representatives along the Corridor in Canada, the United States and Mexico, dedicated to maximizing the efficiency and security of their existing trade and transportation infrastructure. The NASCO Corridor represents the existing trade and transportation infrastructure roughly shadowing U.S. Interstate Highways 35, 29 and 94, and the connecting transportation infrastructure in Canada and Mexico critical to national and international trade. This includes major intermodal "inland ports" along the corridor and under development. As such, we have developed a network of contacts with public and private sector individuals, organizations, companies and public entities, institutes and centers of knowledge, as well as with regulatory and governmental entities from the local, state, provincial and Federal governments of Mexico, the United States and Canada."

Which does go along way in answering the question: Since when is an American road developed by a North American organization?

Of course, the federal government doesn't have the authority to implement such an undertaking. So, the governors of each state must help accomplish this goal. Currently I-35 doesn't meet Mexico. It will. And that's because of Texas Governor Rick Perry (who was hand-picked by GWB, and has called for Huckabee and Paul to drop out of the presidential race, so McCain -- who was recently endorsed by Bush -- can win the GOP nomination) is busy selling out American sovereignty by doing this for his beloved Bush who implemented the SPP.

So, the North American Union is also not a far-fetched idea. The SPP is just a friendly "front" to accomplish all this, because really, do you care about the sizes Canadian baby food is sold in...and do you think ALL this is for that? Furthermore, why does every country have to be the same?

What does the SPP say about all this?

We, the elected leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States, gather in Texas to announce the establishment of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.

Over the past decade, our three nations have taken important steps to expand economic opportunity for our people and to create the most vibrant and dynamic trade relationship in the world. Since September 11, 2001, we have also taken significant new steps to address the threat of terrorism and to enhance the security of our people.

But more needs to be done. In a rapidly changing world, we must develop new avenues of cooperation that will make our open societies safer and more secure, our businesses more competitive, and our economies more resilient.

Our Partnership will accomplish these objectives through a trilateral effort to increase the security, prosperity, and quality of life of our citizens. This work will be based on the principle that our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary, and will reflect our shared belief in freedom, economic opportunity, and strong democratic [not republican as in "and to the Republic, for which it stands, ONE nation under God"] values and institutions. Also, it will help consolidate our action into a North American framework to confront security and economic challenges, and promote the full potential of our people, addressing disparities and increasing opportunities for all.

Let me now say that in America, we don't call the SPP a "treaty." We call it an agreement, so Congressional vote can be bypassed. However, the SPP *is* called a "treaty" in Canada and Mexico. Yes, I know. The administration says Congress has been informed of the SPP plans. But, "being informed" and "Congressional vote" are two very different things.

And to just close this comment up:
1. Fact Check says: Those bright blue lines show only I-35 and I-29 – interstates that already exist. NASCO advocates improvements to existing roads, but is not lobbying for, or planning to build, any new thoroughfares.

Actually: NASCO plans to extend those routes into both Canada and Mexico, making them Intercontinental highways rather than interstates.

2. Fact Check says: But the [TransTexas Corridor] was approved by the Texas Legislature and the governor of Texas. It is a state initiative, but it is not part of a NAFTA Superhighway...

Actually: Here's NASCO's version of the Not-a-NAFTA-Superhighway road showing I-35...
and Here's Texas' Not-part-of-a-NAFTA-Superhighway-TranTexas Corridor plugging right into I-35.

3. Fact Check says: The other parts of the conspiracy are much the same. The SPP – that "quasi-government organization" – is really an actual government organization, organized through the White House..."

Actually: A business/government cooperation is a quasi-government organization. The SPP says, "We held roundtables with stakeholders, meetings with business groups and briefing sessions with legislatures, as well as with other relevant political jurisdictions." The TranTexas Corridor says, "In fact, TxDOT has already taken the first steps in seeking private investment." NASCO says, "As such, we have developed a network of contacts with public and private sector individuals, organizations, companies and public entities, institutes and centers of knowledge, as well as with regulatory and governmental entities from the local, state, provincial and Federal governments of Mexico, the United States and Canada."

And finally, what has NASCO been calling this highway?
"NASCO and the cities, counties, states and provinces along our existing Interstate Highways 35/29/94 (the NASCO Corridor) have been referring to I-35 as the 'NAFTA Superhighway' for many years..."

Why would they call it a NAFTA Superhighway if it wasn't intended to be a NAFTA superhighway?

We all know that their are a lot of people that log on to this site from other campaigns. I believe some are government agents.

They come here to put negative information and misinformation here for the purpose of misleading us and to discourage us.

We do not stop supporting Dr. Paul even tho the lame stream media ignores & insults him. The lame stream have educated us as to why we need to stop caring or believing what they say or buying what they advertise. Why? Because they lie, lie. lie, & twist facts (spin) and mislead the public every day!!

Most of the people that have joined this campaign and support Ron Paul ""believed that the media"" reported on the happenings of the day.
They did not know the amount of lying and deceiving that actually does go on in the media.

They were (virgins) innocent as to the way the media really is. But FOX, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, AND THE REST OF THE MEDIA have taught us deception (not news) is what they are paid to. If it was just one or two we might say they are just biased or negligent. However when they *****all do it together *** and we do see they are working in unison. That is not a coincidence.
Does a business have operating procedures for the employees to follow? If they do not things won't get done.

Truth be damned must be the motto of the news media. ??? Who ??? is powerful enough to have all of the networks co-ordinate a media blackout?

They want to get us to stop supporting Ron Paul (and the Constitution) which is not possible, because once a True Blue Ron Paul supporter
(((not a troll ))) always a Paul supporter. Why?? Because freedom is popular!!

We want to legalize adulthood We are not government children however the only purpose of government is to protect our freedom not abolish freedom as is going on now.

RP has never claimed we could cut the whole trillion. He always says hundreds of billions or a few hundred billion.

from the spp.gov website:

Myth: U.S. Government officials sponsored a secret SPP planning meeting in Banff, Alberta in September 2006.

Fact: The U.S. Government did not sponsor the meeting in Banff. The North American Forum, a private initiative that is separate from the U.S. Government, hosted the September 12-14, 2006 conference “Continental Prosperity in the New Security Environment.” Academics, businesspersons, private citizens, and government officials from the U.S., Mexican, and Canadian governments attended the conference. The North American Forum is not a product of the SPP.

NOW... this is from their website and perhaps it doesn't go as far as contradicting itself, but note this. 'Myth: U.S. Government officials did not sponsor..."
'private initiative... attended by....government officials"

Also:
Myth: The SPP will cost U.S. taxpayers money.

Fact: The SPP is being implemented with existing budget resources.

uh, so they are not raising taxes to pay for this. But they don't raise taxes often to pay for anything, just budget deficits.

Here's another doozy:
Myth: The SPP will harm our quality of life.

Fact: The SPP improves the safety and well-being of Americans.

!!!!!! um, how exactly is this a fact?

Their first damn bullet is a lie . I emailed the editor I hadn't expected such painfully stupid crap from them .

--
Bob Armstrong -- www.CoSy.com : APL2007/OOPSLA followup
www.SerfCity.US Logic of Liberty : Ron Paul and the end of the Broadcast Age

When Fact Check does the analysis on the financial details of the $1 trillion they leave out one tiny detail:

The Cost of the Damn Wars

Almost all of the costs of the war are OFF BUDGET. And none of the budget includes the future and soon-to-be-present need for replenishing war machinery that has been destroyed or worn out.

Same for the future costs of health care for the throngs of newly disabled.

This just really smells to me like "You guys sent me too many e-mails (he complains about this) so here's something to piss you off".

Idiots....

As for their "Daily Paul lacks logic" comment - I don't know if what they are saying is true. Personally, I DO understand the laws of logic, and I NEVER made such a claim; therefore Fact Check's own argument is lacking because it is based on statements made by a few on a website full of posts made by thousands.

Reagan - who cares, old news.

NAFTA Superhighway: Here Fact Check is making the same flawed argument as every other anti-Paul article on this subject. Sorry, but I HAVE done the research, the NAFTA Superhighway is a FACT. Yes, it will expand on existing roads, but they ARE taking land via eminent domain. Giuliani's law firm is representing the Spanish company building the roads, and an Australian partner of that Spanish company has bought out over 40 local newspapers suuounding the area of the highway to keep news of it from the public. I DO have the facts on this - I'm just too lazy to post all the specific data at the moment.

As for the Trans-Texas portion - Fact Check is LYING, because while Governor Perry DID push it through, the Legistature in fact VETOED the highway! The Leg signed a MORATORIUM BILL and Perry Vetoed it!Perry then overrode the legistaure's veto and threatened the legislators that the only way they could stop him from allowing the build to continue was to hold a "special session" (apparently that would require a whole extra year of work) and the leg just gave in.

I also have plenty of evidence direct from the horses mouths about the North American Union and SPP. Fact Check is sugar-coating the FACTS and blaming everything on "Conspiracy theorists." To call someone a conspiracy theorist without analyzing ALL the FACTS on BOTH SIDES, is a LOGICAL FALLACY in it's own right.

"Fact Check" is a MISNOMER! They have no concept or respect for VALID ARGUMENTS.

Therefore, I am NOT even going to bother disputing their stupidity.

Because I am SICK of this SHIT!

If I lived ANYWHERE near the NAFTA Superhighway I would move the hell away from there NOW and laugh at all the IDIOTS ten years down the road!

I know the facts, I believe the facts, and frankly, I don't give a damn about all the idiots who insist on burying their heads in the sand!

I may be a vegetarian, but I'll defend to the death my right to eat pork!

Paul was fully justified in disassociating himself from Reagan after that man approved one record budget deficit after another. Indeed, Cheney said, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." This is one reason why I myself never joined the Reagan fan club.

Paul is glib when saying we spend a trillion dollars a year on the empire. Obviously even after we bring the troops home we still have to guard our own borders. But I think a $400 billion savings a year is feasible, and that's nothing to sneeze at -- throw in eliminating the Department of Education and a few other items and we'll actually balance the budget, albeit with the income tax still in place. Remember when Republicans at least pretended to care about balanced budgets? (Realistically I don't think Paul will ever convince congress to cut entitlement spending enough to be able to eliminate the income tax; that's not why I'm voting for him.)

Needless to say, the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America is never going to go out and say, "Yes, we're going to integrate our economic and political systems until we're the North American version of the European Union." They'll deny it right up until it's a fait accompli.

Here is what was at the very end of the article:
"We close with a final point, though this one is directed at Ron Paul supporters. Recently, we’ve received a barrage of e-mail containing variations on this theme: "Am I to assume that by making no mention of Rep. Ron Paul in your synopses of GOP candidates, you found his statements meritorious?" The similarities between the messages led to a bit of searching, and we found what we suspect is the cause: A post at DailyPaul.com alleges that because the author found no instances where we called out Paul for misstatements, "FactCheck.org shows that Ron Paul is truthful."

We realize that DailyPaul.com is not officially affiliated with Paul’s campaign. But the error is egregious enough that it merits discussion. Here’s the basic argument from DailyPaul:
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.
That argument might sound appealing, but, in fact, it is a logical fallacy (philosophers call this one "denying the antecedent"). Consider a different argument that has exactly the same logical structure:
1. If it is Thursday, then I have to go to work.
2. It is not Thursday.
3. Therefore I do not have to go to work.
We wouldn't recommend trying that argument out on your boss – unless, of course, you have a job that requires you to work only on Thursdays. And that’s the problem with the DailyPaul.com argument. It works only to the extent that you assume that we write about every single inaccurate claim uttered by every single political candidate. We don’t. We just hadn't gotten around to mentioning many Ron Paul flubs.

We’ve corrected that oversight now."

And what is more you cannot rebutt their post openly but at tor@FactCheck.org article is by Joe Miller. I also note they cite Adam Clymer (the plagerist?? or fabricator??) as a source.

PolitiFact is far less biased:

http://www.politifact.com...

"Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
-Dwight D. Eisenhower

"And while the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America does exist, it’s just a boring bureaucracy."

don't bureaucracies exist to do things? what does it do other than be boring? I'm guessing it has something to do with securing a partnership for North America.

Factcheck proves themselves wrong.

"When we asked the Paul campaign for some documentation for the $1 trillion claim, it directed us to an opinion piece by a fellow at the libertarian-leaning Independent Institute. The article argues that in 2006, the U.S. actually spent just under $1 trillion on defense. "

http://www.independent.or...

"To arrive at that figure, the study included a number of items that one might generally not think of as defense spending, including the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department, one-third of the funding for the FBI and half of NASA’s funding. The numbers also include medical and retirement pay for veterans and a large portion of interest on the debt."

The problem is that what "one might generally not think of as defense spending" is gravely mistaken...

and why are they holding hearings about the new TTC to be built? it is NOT an upgrade to an existing interstate...

this is an org that tracks the status of the TTC

http://www.corridorwatch....

factcheck my ass. they need a new name.