Wrong Paul

ALL OF YOU WHO WANT PROOF THERES TOO MANY SHANANIGANS GOING ON WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS LOOK AT THIS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kpWqdPMjmo GO RON PAUL!!

ALL OF YOU WHO WANT PROOF THERES TOO MANY SHANANIGANS GOING ON WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS LOOK AT THIS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kpWqdPMjmo GO RON PAUL!!

Concerning the "flipper on the gipper", Dr Paul never said that he supports all of President Reagan's positions (nor does any other candidate claim that). He simply points out to all of the Reagan worshippers that he supported Reagan when nobody else did (in '76) and that Reagan supported him as well.
It is about the same as when Dr Paul says that he whole heartedly supported President Bush (then Gov Bush) in 2000. He supported his ideas concerning:
The Military having a humble foreign policy
Sending in troops only when we have a clear exit strategy
Bringing our troops home from overseas (Korea, Japan and Europe)
Privatizing Social Security
Decreasing our dependancy on foriegn oil
Solving the Border problem
Shrinking the size of government
Reaching across and working with democrats
Creating Health Savings Accounts
And bringing peace to the middle east

So now that President Bush has followed through on all of his promises, you can say that Dr Paul flipped on "W" too. Another brilliant bit of journalism by Joe Miller.

If Dr. Paul is, in your opinion, not going to succeed in being elected President of the United States, then why did you waste all this time and energy bashing him? If his opinions are supposedly nothing other than conspiracy theories, then why waste your breath? Just let it go and don't pay any attention. I just want to point something out to you..........On a serious note........I'm actually worried about your health.......IT'S NOT HEALTHY TO HAVE YOUR HEAD BURIED SO FAR UP YOUR ASS!!!!!
Maybe you need a Dr. to help you remove it!

Brilliant observation concerning our "trillion dollar empire". However, I believe you have no idea that President Bush's 3 trillion dollar budget proposal does not include the cost for the wars in Iraq and Afganistan (and has never been included in the budget). You might find an extra couple bucks there, huh? Thanks for doing that research before writing this article, because there is nothing I dislike more than biased reporting that lacks substance.

The "couple hundred billion" that is missing from Dr Paul's trillion could probably be found in what is called a supplimentary spending bill that is seperate from the budget. How much does Newsweek pay you for this kind of "quality" research?

Newsweek should have a look at the Council on Foreign Relations website where they discuss openly the plan to integrate Canada, the US and Mexico and dissolve the borders between the countries. Do a little research before you call simple facts a "conspiracy theory". It seems a little more like conspiracy fact.

Newsweek has officialy lost my viewership as someone in the news industry this was a cowardly act, they obviously did not research the facts, what a shame.

Newsweek disgusts me.

You are a jackass. Come to Texas to dumb mother f'er and see. The state it holding public forums on it everywher. I have been to one. It is called the trans texas corridor. It is real. Google it retard, and do some real journalism.

I am a Ron Paul supporter. And I have read some awesome comments here. There are a wealth of well educated people reading and commenting on this Newsweek article. Well use your bright mind for this one: Do you think this article would be published in the magazine, Newsweek? Probably not. Why because it wasn't meant for that. I will tell you what this article was meant for. Since I have been in these pages I have been attacked by at least 10 pop up ads. Those are just the ones I know about. (Later i will find them all on my HDD and remove them all) But here is the whole reason this article was written: Ron Paul articles pull in readers, responses, and traffic. When these articles written by un-educated losers are posted and Ron Paul supporters find them, they are subjecting themselves to a marketing frenzy. These internet marketers and media outlets get huge amounts of money (and information) from us browsing these pages.

Tell me this, would you have visited here today and speant time here fighting off all of the pop up ads if it wasn't for a smear article about the best person for the 2008 presidential election? Hell no.

These Newsweeks folks just got wind through their corperate grapevines that the Ron Paul name pays off in $$$ when the Paulites get mad and defend the good Dr.'s name. Their just corporate pigs. Thats all.

Joe- You blow. Out here in the real world , the highway is far more than a Myth. I own a Title insurance Company in Colorado. We have been already insuring around potential claims that will arise out of this "make believe" Highway. It's on the map baby and recent court decisions in regards to eminent domain with quasi private-public projects show us where we will be heading in regards to private property rights...NONE .wit

As the poster below noted, the NAU and the NAFTA super-highway certainly *seem* to be real plans. But since I am a professional philosopher and logician, I wanted to respond to your "logic."

In short, you are in error. You have presented a straw-man argument. The real argument on the minds of Paul supporters (including myself) can be formulated in either counter-factual logic or probability theory as follows:

1. If Paul *had* made an inaccurate statement, FactCheck *would have* reported on it.
2. FactCheck did not report on inaccurate statements by Paul.
3. Therefore, Paul did not make an inaccurate statement.

This does not require you to "write about every single inaccurate claim uttered by every single political candidate," as it makes reference only to Paul. It can be put in probability theory as well. I will spare you the mathematical details, but it can be shown that:

The probability that Paul *does not* make an inaccurate statement, given that FactCheck does not report such, IS GREATER THAN the probability that Paul *does* make an inaccurate statement, given that FactCheck does not report such
IF AND ONLY IF:
The probability that FactCheck does not report such, given that Paul *does not* make an inaccurate statement IS GREATER THAN the probability that FactCheck does not report such, given that Paul *does* make an inaccurate statement.

So, the question is simply this: Is it more likely that FactCheck would fail to report an inaccurate statement *when there is none to report*, or is it (bizarrely) **more** (or **equally**) likely that FactCheck would fail to report an inaccurate statement when it *actually exists*?

DailyPaul seems to have paid FactCheck a compliment by assuming the former (what one would naturally assume, if FactCheck is at all rational), and then making the appropriate inference. The only way the inference would have been invalid (in a probabilistic sense), would be if, in fact, FactCheck was (bizarrely) **more** (or equally) likely to fail to report an inaccuracy that exists than to fail to report an inaccuracy that *doesn't* exist.

In the future, please don't lecture us about logic if you have no idea how logic works (as it does not appear you do). And please do not tell us that plans for things do not exist when they are right there on the internet for anyone to see.

--Beau Branson

NEWS-WEAK...
CFR Mouthpiece.
See:
http://www.christianlifeandliberty.net/CFR-TNAart.doc
&
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44841
Plus:
http://aolsearch.aol.com/aol/search?encquery=4723989872a9c0e9a31a4d24245f246304f5e7bea1fcc26e&invocationType=keyword_rollover&ie=UTF-8

And WAKE UP!

Mr. Miller, maybe you should start doing some facts checking before you burden your readers with such obvious disinformation as this! Really, it is just plain insulting to have so called ???credible??? journals pumping out yellow press by the bushel basket! Did you even bother to critically examine your sources?

As with many thousands - I quit my subscription to Newsweek many years ago due to the consistent bias slant???I just couldn???t take the hack agenda anymore. I can see that you are still up to your old tricks and very glad I haven???t spent another dime on your dribble.

Question: With all of the smears, erroneous statements and distortions perpetrated by your magazine and hundreds of others regarding Ron Paul throughout this election season ??? how are you all going to regain your credibility when one by one Ron Paul is proven right on? It would seem to me that the real losers down the line will be Newsweek and the rest of mainstream media when your unethical agendas become completely transparent to an outraged and destitute average Joe blow American. Word to the wise ??? start preparing for the ???blowback??? because it is coming ??? you can count on it.

Good grief what a dispictable travesty of journalism. Judging from all the comments the untruths in this shitty little article have fooled no one. No wonder old media is going out backwards with treacherous villians like Joe "fatcheque" Miller on board.

Even if Paul is off a few hundred billion dollars in his speeches about our defense of Asia and Europe and our intervention most everywhere else, he still seems much more realistic than his opponents. It seems perfectly consistent to associate oneself with Reagan's stated goals and not with his accomplishments. Finally, you omitted the fact that both major TX parties' '06 platforms opposed the Trans TX Corridor.