They're back again…

[Naraku]

So are you saying all Ron Paul supporters are made equal. There are no die hard supporters, there are no tepid supporters, there are no fair weather supporters, and there are no false supporters, etc etc. One size fits all huh. People who are "die hard" or "true" Ron Paul supporters, those who allegience to Paul can not be swaned by some bias media story, have done their homework. Those like that person on the forum you mentioned obviously did not do their homework because if they did they would know this story is BULL or at the very least reserved judgement till more facts became available. So what should our reaction be to people who don't educate themselves on the truth? Lump them in with the rest of us and give them credit for doing research they have not done. They didn't think it was important enough to learn the truth about Ron Paul and the MSM Bias. Instead they just abandon ship. They believed what the MSM said without any proof whatsoever and disregard what Ron Paul said in the flesh. You call that kind of person a Ron Paul supporter, I don't. I call them undecided, fence sitters, trolls, something other than supporters. Some supporter, first lie/unsubstantiated claim and they are off to another canidate. Maybe its just a difference in what yours and my definition is of what a supporter is. Either way you forum friend didn't do their homework, belevied a MSM story with no proof and completly disregarded what Ron Paul himself said over and over and over and over again. Undecided...sure, Fence sitter...sure, but not a Ron Paul supporter. So you said your friend was definately a supporter, and after hearing an unsubstantiated claim from the MSM with no proof whatsoever and hearing Ron Paul himslef denounce it, choose to believe the MSM and not Dr. Paul. We OBVIOUSLY have different definitions of what a "Supporter" is and is not. And hold your diagnosis of Cognitive Dissonance there Doc, Ron Paul is the only physicain I listen to on this forum.



He even started a thread on it. What kind of supporter starts a thread like that given the facts, or more appropriately absence of facts?

Seriously, attitudes like yours do far more damage than the MSM could ever hope to inflict.

 

[sylcfh]

James B. Powell wrote the offending articles in a handful of newsletters from '90-'93...

Why are they quoting Ed Crane and some secretary with only one sentence for a statement?

Why is the media ignorning Powell?

He is now a director at Forbes (owned by News Corp)...

http://people.forbes.com/profile/james-b-powell/53743

 

[cavalier973]

The "Racist Newsletters" story isn't really about whether Ron Paul is or was a racist, or if he profited from putting racist remarks in his newsletters. The "Racist Newsletters" story is about his foreign policy--just like every other objection ("he's the king of pork!", "he's too old!") that people bring up. The anti-Paul coalition are afraid to face the truth that our government is a nasty piece of work when it comes to foreign relations, and they resent Dr. Paul for continuing to bring it up. If Ron Paul espoused a neo-con foreign policy, or backed off some of the anti-war rhetoric, then he would be in a lot better position politically. Of course, he would have sold out his soul, his country, and the cause of liberty by doing so. It is imperative that people grasp that perpetual war is killing the nation as we know it, and replacing it with a hideous, deformed clone of itself.

 

[KingNothing]

James B. Powell wrote the offending articles in a handful of newsletters from '90-'93...

Do you have any proof to back that up, other than the one article that we know Powell wrote that isn't in any way racist or offensive?

I hate the way that people just shoot from the hip around here regarding the NLs. We're no different than the dumbed-down media, or the controversy-loving sheeple sometimes.

 

[sylcfh]

Do you have any proof to back that up, other than the one article that we know Powell wrote that isn't in any way racist or offensive?

I hate the way that people just shoot from the hip around here regarding the NLs. We're no different than the dumbed-down media, or the controversy-loving sheeple sometimes.

The writing style is very similar.

Powell still has a newsletter to this day.

El Problema Grande

Last month, I wrote my third article about the growing instability in Mexico and the danger it poses for the U.S.17 Since then, the violence has become even worse, and more Mexicans than ever are trying to get into America.

Even people in Monterrey, which has long been one of Latin America's richest and safest cities, are joining the exodus.18 Caterpillar took the extreme measure of ordering its executives with children to leave the city. The U.S. State Department also ordered its diplomats out. These unprecedented actions show how serious the situation is becoming in Mexico. Much of the country is disintegrating.

I believe the number of Mexican refugees – for that is what they are — will soon become a flood. The pressure from Mexicans within the U.S., and internationally, to help them will be overwhelming.

It's possible that the Mexican government will ask Washington to send in troops to attack the drug cartels, as Columbia did during the Clinton administration.19 That program established seven U.S. military bases in Colombia to fight the drug-supported left-wing insurgency.

Iraq On The Rio Grande

However, I doubt that such an action will be taken with Mexico. The country is too large and there are too many combatants. Moreover, the cartels would probably call a temporary truce and combine forces to push the U.S. out.20 Mexico could quickly become another Iraq.

But even if Washington should undertake such a folly, the added violence would actually increase the number of refugees.

The United Nations recognizes two types of refugees. The first are people who are leaving a country primarily for economic reasons. The U.S. already has between 8 and 11 million of them. This group is given little or no assistance.

The second group are political refugees who are fleeing to save their lives. Such people qualify for help by the United Nations High Commissioner For Refugees (UNHCR) and many non-governmental charitable organizations (NGOs). There are also international agreements that require countries to give shelter and sustenance to political refugees from adjacent areas.

An Unprecedented Threat

If large numbers of refugees are allowed to enter the U.S. and go wherever they wish, it will create enormous problems. As we saw with the Mariel Boatlift from Cuba in 1980, many criminals would also come in with the refugees. With Mexico we would also get the terrorists I warned about last month. The result would be chaos.

The rising violence in the Southwest would also widen the divide between America's haves and have-nots, which is already an explosive issue. The haves will fortify themselves in gated communities with armed guards and electronic systems. The have-nots will live in free-fire zones. To survive, many people outside the protected areas may have little choice but to join the cartels, just as their counterparts in Mexico often do now.

I think the financial strain of a Mexican refuge crisis could also shatter the fragile U.S. economy.

The Most Likely Solution

Outside of the Hispanic population, I doubt the American people would stand for an emergency open border policy and thousands of Mexican refugees. I believe the only politically acceptable solution for Washington would be to let the refugees come in, but put them in camps. That's what the government is doing already with people from Haiti.

That's also what the U.N. does with most political refugees it helps throughout the world. To give legitimacy to such camps in America, Washington may ask the U.N. to help manage them.

Last month I ended my article about Mexico by saying, "What's happening in Mexico is a far bigger threat to the U.S. and its citizens than what is happening in Afghanistan or Iraq." That is even more true today.
What to do:

For years there have been reports that FEMA has plans to establish camps on several of America's many unused military bases. Most of the mothballed facilities have barracks, single family housing, schools, stores, clinics, and the necessary infrastructure to support them. The bases are actually complete towns inside secured areas. After being refurbished, they would make excellent refugee camps. If Mexico continues to disintegrate, I think that's what they will become.

http://www.powellreport.com/newsletters/index/sample

Sounds very familiar, doesn't it?