zlacker

>>itcrow+(OP)
Years ago a fusion center in Missouri listed Ron Paul supporters as potential domestic terrorists. There were so many controversial aspect to these fusion centers.

https://www.austinchronicle.com/daily/news/2012-09-12/ron-pa...

>>ourya+62
This is the kind of pseudofact that tends to trigger my BS detector (tl;dr: it's BS), so I followed your link. It mentions Ron Paul in only one sentence beyond the headline: where it appears in one clause, a semicolon-separated member of a list of "disturbing incidents": "a Missouri-based center's report that support for Ron Paul's presidential bid was a sign of membership in a domestic terrorist group".

But if you did, there's a link at the bottom to the report they're citing, so let's check that: http://www.austinchronicle.com/documents/fusioncenterreport.... This one isn't original reporting either. It's a 38-page think tank whitepaper from "The Constitution Project" on the subject of Fusion Centers in general.

And IT only mentions Ron Paul in one sentence too, where it mixes it in with two other items in the same bullet point: "A Missouri-based fusion center issued a February 2009 report describing support for the presidential campaigns of Ron Paul or third party candidates, possession of the iconic “Don’t Tread on Me” "ag and anti-abortion activism as signs of membership in domestic terrorist groups" So now we've gone from your 8 year old link to a point three years farther in the past. And the source for that attention grabbing headling is still nowhere to be found.

But that bullet point was footnoted, so let's check that. It's... another news story! Actually the URL in the footnote is stale and broken, but I found the story by headline using Google: https://www.columbiatribune.com/article/20090314/News/303149...

So this tells us all about the Ron Paul thing, right? Nope. It, too, mentions Ron Paul in only one sentence: "Red flags outlined in the document include political bumper stickers such as those for U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, talk of conspiracy theories such as the plan for a mega-highway from Canada to Mexico and possession of subversive literature.". So that's dilluted STILL FURTHER in a bunch of other items, most of which sound... not too terribly off to me.

And the source for this report? They have a link, but not to the report: https://www.infowars.com/secret-state-police-report-ron-paul...

Yup, four hops and we're at Infowars. And the report they cite? Not public. They're apparently the only one who have seen it.

You got fooled by "media laundering" into regurgitating partisan agitprop. I can't prove your "fact" is wrong, but the support for it is VERY thin.

>>newacc+W7
Nicely done.