digg

Join DiggAbout

A "conspiracy theory" a few months ago.. now its a fact watch!

uk.youtube.com — It's funny how this was a "conspiracy theory" a few months ago now is a hard fact.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • caferrell, on 05/27/2008, -45/+828So where are the know-it-all, cynical diggers who scoffed at this idea and laughed at Ron Paul for opposing it?
    • avengingturnip, on 05/27/2008, -35/+143Dreaming wistfully of Obama?
    • swordedge, on 05/27/2008, -9/+62Ross Perot... "Giant sucking sound" -- 1992
    • pentupentropy, on 05/27/2008, -26/+189it's not too late to write in ron paul
      • evenson, on 05/27/2008, -29/+17Yes. Yes it is.
      • slaizer, on 05/28/2008, -4/+13Unfortunately, I agree. There's one contest left, Ron Paul has 30 delegates, John McCain has 1,500. What do you think your vote will change?

        If you want to make good use of your vote, vote against John McCain, because you know he's running for those fat cats the lady in the video talked about.
        • theOster, on 05/28/2008, -0/+22my vote won't change the outcome of this election. but if *everyone* voted who they really, truly, in their hearts, believed to be a good leader, i can almost guarantee that teh two-party system would quickly erode into a much truer democratic system. it's just that the media picks a winner from this side and a winner from this side and convinces everyone that if they don't vote for one of these two, that they're throwing their vote away. and the pisser is that enough of us believe it to make it so. come november i'm throwing my vote away to rp for the sake of saying no to the two-party system. i encourage everyone else to vote who they think is right and not who the media tells them will win.
        • yaddayaddayoda, on 05/28/2008, -0/+8@theOster, you get it, man!!! Vote your conscience in November. I am tired of picking the lesser of two unqualified, pre-picked candidates.
        • klipseracer, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2^ Word. I've been saying that for so long.
        • mrsteveman1, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1By the time the media has picked those 2 candidates, voting for who you really want makes little difference.

          It has to start way before that point, before anyone starts running as part of those 2 parties.

          It's uphill for sure, but the biggest mistake alternate candidates could make is to decide to run as part of one of those 2 parties like Paul did. But of course if your name doesn't have a D or an R after it, the media will ignore you.
        • theOster, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1mrsteve - if everyone voted for who they thought best then the beginnings of the process wouldn't matter. the candidates could join the big 2 or come up with something entirely new. but in the end, the people need to vote for who they believe should win, and not get railroaded into a "one of two" decision.

          my philosophy has always been to ask myself "if everyone acted as i did, would the world be a better place or a worse place?" and for the most part i try to take the high road. it's not always easy and most times is a lot more work, but at the end of the day you feel like you didn't contribute to the crappiness of the world (and you can also bitch at others :)
        • gofalcons, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1Those are called primaries, you can still write him in in the general election.
      • Sinnic, on 05/28/2008, -3/+32Ron Paul's presidential candidacy was a long shot from the start - but planted seeds have a tendency of growing. What was started is not over.
      • satanatnmtedu, on 05/28/2008, -31/+1Ron Paul is a ***** kook. People who think like he does are ***** kooks. I would rather have the evil of Bush and cheney for life than EVER have Ron Paul as President.
        • StiGUP, on 05/28/2008, -3/+11Digg this tool ^^ down to hell
        • theOster, on 05/28/2008, -0/+10all this swearing...not a good way to make a convincing argument. i mean god damn people.
        • Hangly, on 05/28/2008, -1/+8Your reasoned and persuasive argument has opened my eyes.
        • hypertension, on 05/28/2008, -1/+5Eat a dick.
        • bovester, on 05/28/2008, -5/+2i hate RP as much as anyone, but please don't compare him to Bush/Cheney... no one can ever come close to the evil that festers inside dick cheney and his dumb sock puppet
      • mmortal03, on 05/28/2008, -2/+5Don't write in Ron Paul. As much as I love him, we need to vote for one of the third party candidates to help get them more national attention and move us away from the two party system. We can't change America by writing in a single person that won't even be counted or reported. Instead, vote for alternative parties and then work to try to change the major parties from within, between the elections. This is the best way for us to make progress.

        There is a common misunderstanding of the write-in process, and that is that if enough people write someone in, the votes will get counted. It's not true. In most states, write-in votes are only valid if they correspond to someone who has actually officially registered as a write-in candidate. Otherwise, these write-ins are thrown out. They won't be tallied, and his percentage won't be reported to the news media. You would just as well have voted for Mr. Potato Head. However, similarly positioned 3rd party candidates WILL be registered on most of the ballots and will be tallied. We should vote for them, instead.

        I think that what this should be about is getting a viable third party going in America, one that is as close as we are going to get to our viewpoints. Voting for a third party candidate that is closest to your views is nothing like voting for Obama or McCain. Yes, people who have supported Ron Paul can't settle for the Republicans or Democrats, not because we are irrational absolutists who will never compromise at all, but because the major parties are so diametrically opposed to our viewpoints that it isn't a compromise. In contrast, it is completely logical to "settle" for a third party candidate, because he or she will be very close to our viewpoints, but will actually be counted and reported on.

        We can either be smart revolutionaries or dumb ones. This is about making an impact politically, not being perfectionists. If you can't even compromise so slightly as to vote for a similar third party candidate, then you are pushing your views to the absolute, completely away from the logical brain that got you to like Ron Paul in the first place, and to a stubborn way of thinking that Dr. Paul himself wouldn't support. Ron Paul supports smart political action. That is the reason why he remained in the Republican Party, because he knew he couldn't build up a group like us and gain national attention if he didn't make that compromise. This is the same kind of thing.

        "The lesser of two evils is still evil" concept only holds when the candidates' viewpoints in question are so far off from yours. The Libertarian Party, for example, doesn't fit that metric. They may not perfectly support all your viewpoints, but they are pretty darn close, and with them, we can make an actual impact by supporting Bob Barr. By supporting him, you will have a new campaign to participate in, where you could help pass out fliers, canvass, put up signs, etc., instead of just sitting around until November. He isn't perfect by any means, but we can use the publicity he gains for us, to our advantage.
        • MonoDede, on 05/28/2008, -1/+2I'm voting Mike Gravel. He's running Independent.
        • xerigen, on 05/28/2008, -1/+2No thanks mmortal. If I wanted to vote for a candidate who voted for the patriot act or iraq war (or who wasnt in office to vote), I would vote for Clinton, Obama or McCain.
        • Waterrat, on 05/28/2008, -2/+1""The lesser of two evils is still evil" concept only holds when the candidates' viewpoints in question are so far off from yours. T"

          So true.
          I could not vote for Ron Paul as he thinks abortion is wrong and he does not think evolution happened.
          He believes a man in the sky made us.
          I simply will not vote for someone that far removed from reality.
        • gofalcons, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2Doesn't matter what he thinks, the point is he won't force his views on you. Are you saying we shouldn't listen to the founders of this country as well? They wrote that all men should be free and equal, yet most of them owned slaves. So their ideas are null and void as well?
    • mal1964, on 05/27/2008, -26/+13Where were the diggers to post this video when it was added to youtube on April 6, 2008"
      • willskillz, on 05/27/2008, -9/+31they were here. i remember alex jones talking about this crap at least a year ago. it's nothing new. only new to your dumb butt!
    • oderdigg, on 05/27/2008, -10/+79As always, they are cowards hiding behind their disbelief.
    • willclarke, on 05/27/2008, -70/+10I'm right here. Some dumbass congresswoman bitching on CSPAN doesn't make it true.
      • MrCobaltBlue, on 05/27/2008, -6/+62Yeah because random diggers know more about this than a congresswoman, speaking to congress, about congressional matters.

        right?



        RIGHT??!!
        • LeeSoong, on 05/27/2008, -20/+8Well, Yes.

          diggers can spend many hours researching facts on the internet - or even go off-line
          and Go Outside (!) and look up the facts on hard copy, all available from various government publications and trade journals.

          The problem with Ron Paul's Automatic opposition
          to Trans-nationalism is this: It must be done.

          Trans-nationalism building up North America and
          South America into one economic super-power
          is the only way the Americas will be able to compete with the power of the European Union or the huge power of India, China, Japan, and other Asian countries.

          The USA should maintain Absolute Sovernity over the USA, but cooperative agreements between countries can help all our economies grow.


          Unfortunately as Mexico and South America go up,
          Canada and the USA economy will go down,
          and they will meet somewhere well below what
          USA Americans think of as normal or average.
        • DucoNihilum, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1We're already doing better than the UK, India, and China. Sure, they're seeing lots of growth, but they're all still trying to catch up to us.
      • digitalhair, on 05/27/2008, -2/+1hey willclarke, if i were you, i'd stock up on guns and friends because you're gonna be fighting both sides when this this comes to a head: REAL AMERICANS and money grubbing globalist mercenaries...
      • funkyloki, on 05/28/2008, -2/+5Yeah buddy, except she backs it up with facts that can be checked and confirmed, so in this case, she's right, and you're the dumbass.
      • Notasheeple, on 05/28/2008, -1/+2Are you just a complete ***** retard or what? What the hell is wrong with you?
      • Killbot2015, on 05/28/2008, -1/+1WOW. Really? I MEAN REALLY?? You're serious?
    • FredFredrickson, on 05/27/2008, -71/+11I'm right here. And Ron Paul is right where I left him - still a complete idiot, longing for ideals that this country will never see again.
      • gofalcons, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1Ok, that's exactly where you should leave this comment section then. Leave us crazy Ron Paul supporters be. Go ahead and be smart with everyone else.
    • RogerStrong, on 05/27/2008, -47/+18>> So where are the know-it-all, cynical
      >> diggers who scoffed at this idea and
      >> laughed at Ron Paul for opposing it?

      Still laughing, now at Rep. Capture.

      Mind you, I think you misunderstand *why* they're laughing.

      The TTC megahighway exists, at least as a shady proposal.
      http://ttc.keeptexasmoving.com/
      No-one denies this, nor has it been kept secret. It's as bad as it Ron Paul says, with a lot of land seized under eminent domain. But it's in Texas only.

      The NASCO SuperCorridor proposal - from Mexico to Canada - exists too.
      http://www.nascocorridor.com/
      No-one denies this either. Its also never been a secret. In fact it's been been discussed openly in the papers here for at least ten years. The picture she's showing came right off the web site.

      It's a trade corridor on EXISTING roads, in support of the EXISTING NAFTA agreement. The idea is to harmonize the wildly different regulation that each state and province has regarding truck lengths, loads and brake systems - so that a truck can easily cross the continent under one set of standards. They're even careful not to take away cargo from the rail lines, since the governments have to maintain highways and not rails. It has no 10-lane mega-highway. No seizing of land under eminent domain.

      But Paul & Kapture's combination of the two - a 10-lane megahighway from Mexico to Winnipeg - is a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory. And a rather stupid one at that.
      • blipblipbeep, on 05/28/2008, -7/+0good thing they dont pay ppl to b so ignorant hay dude.

        oh wait!
      • Javi, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1How odd that the most sensible points (comments) on this story have been burried by community that has such appreciation for science and technology. I guess logic does not need apply. Reason? Who needs it?

        It's just way cooler to buy into a conspiracy theory, like Zeitgeist. Do your damn homework people and gather the facts. It amazes me the sort of following that something as absurd as Zeitgeist can gather.
    • Lazydriver, on 05/27/2008, -7/+61I've always believed this, and I'm a skeptical Digger.

      Skeptical means we double check interests, I mean, this makes so much ***** sense, how can this NOT be true? Really!!! It's so simple - get around American minimum wages by outsourcing to Mexico and ship it from China, I've never thought of this as a conspiracy theory - but a genuine conspiracy!
      • LeeSoong, on 05/27/2008, -13/+7How to spot a Mexican Truck:

        http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/002483.htm ...

        Mexican trucks killing American families:

        http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/6/164446/8918
        • LeeSoong, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1digg me down,
          but you know what?

          David, Robert and Marie Jennings are
          still dead - killed by a Mexican Truck.

          American lives are too high a price to pay for any shipping company.

          And it's not just Mexican trucks killing Americans, Mexican bus rides have killed many people too:

          http://www.kvia.com/Global/story.asp?S=8265346&nav ...


          So be careful when your driving . . .
      • Lazydriver, on 05/27/2008, -5/+6I should also add that I do support comprehensive immigration reform.

        My idea's simple. Make it easier and less time consuming to become a citizen so that a person with any common sense can strike and get higher wages without fear of deportation.

        The background checks are what stops them, because the FBI simply doesn't have the resources to background check them. Well, you know what? Instead of having background checks, put a new citizen on probation for two years and if they commit any major crimes and are convicted for it (as in; child pornography, larceny or murder: not petty *****), they'd be deported after they serve their time.

        With that being said, making a wall 3000 miles long won't stop criminals from getting back in this country, nor terrorists. If a convicted felon wants a second chance, they have to reapply for citizenship and have their probation period extended by half the years they served for their crime (EG, a convicted murderer who comes back as a citizen would have to be on probation for 10 years).

        This makes it easier on INS, and innocent families don't get disbanded.

        It's not illegal immigration that's taking your jobs, America. It's outsourcing, and the millions of ignorant hicks in this country vote for people who let that happen: TWICE (BUSH JR and Clinton!)!
      • jonnyeh, on 05/28/2008, -2/+3You are not really skeptical. Skepticism isn't making guesses based on 'who benefits', it's coming to conclusions based on hard evidence.

        Until there's a bill, an agreement, or an admission from someone DIRECTLY involved, I'm gonna remain skeptical.
        • yaddayaddayoda, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3How about an admission from the websites of the Canadian government and also the state of Texas?
      • Waterrat, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2 I'm another skeptic ans I've been watching this insidious cancer take root for quite sometime.
        I'm with Lazydriver on this one.

    • spankaccount, on 05/27/2008, -28/+10She is all wrong on this people. It IS just a silly conspiracy theory. Sure, diggbots are falling over themselves to digg this up, but that doesn't change the fact that it's total nonsense.
    • glasnostic, on 05/27/2008, -20/+2where are all the Ron Paul supports who found that "secret" design for the amero?
      • ThickGreenPuke, on 05/28/2008, -2/+8Can you read this secret symbol?
        ....................../´¯/)
        ....................,/¯../
        .................../..../
        ............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
        ........../'/.../..../......./¨¯
        ........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
        ..........................'...../
        ..........''............. _.·´
        ..........................(
        ..............................
    • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 05/27/2008, -26/+5The bitch talks about how materials will be shipped to Mexico! TO MEXICO! Goddamnit! They could just go around and ship it to the U.S.!
      And the highway might be a toll road! GODDAMNIT! WE CAN'T ALLOW THIS!
      • starmanfalls, on 05/27/2008, -2/+9It's over done, finished. This program is, and has been in effect for some time now. It's just a matter of time now and we all will be *****. Thank you U.S.A.
      • gofalcons, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2You know, this guy is on every Ron Paul related story I've ever seen on Digg. If you spent half as much energy supporting your own candidate rather than tearing another one down, you could do some pretty amazing things. Seriously, you say we're *whatever the negative buzzword of the day is* but what does that make you if all you do is follow us around trying to tear us down? *which i highly doubt anyone has said, "I'm not supporting Ron Paul because XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX on Digg.com said not to!!!!11*
    • petrodollar, on 05/27/2008, -26/+9What's laughable about the Ron Paul douches is that they think this is some big scary threat to our "soviereingty" or some *****. That's because Ron Paul followers have never read the constitution and don't know that the constitution gives the president the power to sign treaties, and that NAFTA is a treaty.

      Ask ron paul supporters to define "sovereingty" and get ready for 30 minutes of dead silence. On the off chance that anyone of them does know what that term means, ask them how NAFTA intrudes upon it and watch their tiny little heads explode.
      • 4d669, on 05/27/2008, -3/+17You should attend a CFR meeting or just read public north american union documents so you can inform yourself.
        • petrodollar, on 05/27/2008, -9/+11The CFR puts all its literature up on its web site. No need to attend its "meetings." I think it's policy positions are generally well thought out, and I've never seen a ron paul tard actually point out anything objectionable in any of them. They just say "CFR CFR CFR GLOBAL GOVERNMENT!!!" like that's supposed to be meaningful to me.

          I still don't get what the problem is. We live in an era of increasingly integrated economies. Not putting in place some kind of governmental structure to deal with that reality would be horrendously stupid.
        • 4d669, on 05/27/2008, -1/+9The problem is that it sounds great but in reality it means massive unemployment for America during the first decades. Imagine you owned a company with 3,000 employees and suddenly America became the North American Union. You're telling me you wouldn't switch to 3,000 mexicans who are used to lower pay? Enjoy your unemployed when the ***** goes down.
        • petrodollar, on 05/28/2008, -4/+2"You're telling me you wouldn't switch to 3,000 mexicans who are used to lower pay?"

          If you can't compete with Mexicans, you have bigger problems than NAFTA.
      • XanderDee, on 05/27/2008, -2/+14Go away Petro you are a waste of space.
        • petrodollar, on 05/27/2008, -13/+3No. I enjoy asking questions that no Ron Paul idiot can ever answer. Like what the is sovereignty and how does NAFTA take it away? Or what does "global government" mean?
        • 4d669, on 05/27/2008, -1/+8Simple. When North American Union is in place, you won't be an american citizen anymore, you'll be a NAU citizen. Your currency will be the Amero and you'll probably have a new constitution above the American one.
          Global Government is what's going to happen when the NAU and the EU merge and are governed by the UN.
          I don't know why I bother, just look at Europe. It was full of skeptical people like you: "oh it's just trade deals! it's good for the economy! blah blah" then suddenly, without the people's consent, they were turned into the EU and the Euro was shoved down their throats. Now they have ***** up immigration issues in there and the house market is so dead people don't buy houses and wait till their parents die so they finally own a house.
        • petrodollar, on 05/27/2008, -8/+3"Simple. When North American Union is in place, you won't be an american citizen anymore, you'll be a NAU citizen."

          And how exactly is this going to happen?

          "I don't know why I bother, just look at Europe. It was full of skeptical people like you: "oh it's just trade deals! it's good for the economy! blah blah" then suddenly, without the people's consent, they were turned into the EU and the Euro was shoved down their throats."

          You're a dumbass. European countries still retain all of their sovereign rights under the EU and are free to withdraw if they object to its terms. They agreed to form a partnership because they recognized the tremendous benefits that EU membership accorded them. And to date you must admit the EU has done rather well for itself.

          You will also note that the EU constitution has not been enacted because France and the Netherlands have refused to ratify it. Assuming that they eventually come to agreement, the ratification process will mirror in many ways the ratification for the US constitution.

          Just curious: do you think the U.S. constitution is a "conspiracy?"
        • Gwennyk, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1Actually about that EU constitution, they changed perhaps two words in the whole thing and renamed it The Lisbon treaty. A few countries still get to vote but the UK? We don't get a referrendum on it. It means that the EU have far more control over our judicial system than anyone here is happy with and we don't get a say on it. A millionaire has recently won the right to oppose the government's decision in court. Labour said we could have a vote for the constitution but then they renamed it and now all of a sudden we can't? That sounds like hearing "no" and then shoving it down our throats anyway, does it not?
      • p1nn4cl3, on 05/27/2008, -1/+3For good or for ill the problem us RP "douches" have with NAFTA is that it equals more government, for apparently little benefit. In order to settle trade disputes, new commitees or decision making bodies need to be created to interpret and amend the language of these treaties.

        More government tends to lead to more government, and the ultimate fear is that we will join in a NAU just like the EU. I can barely make my voice heard with my own STATE government. How much harder is it then when my voice becomes diluted 100 fold in trying to appeal to some multi-national government?

        Just who will actually run a body of such size and scope? The people?
        • petrodollar, on 05/27/2008, -5/+2"it equals more government,"

          Meaning what specifically?

          "In order to settle trade disputes, new commitees or decision making bodies need to be created to interpret and amend the language of these treaties."

          How else would you prefer that trade disputes be settled? Trade disputes tend to get ugly very fast. What is your objection to arbitration by neutral parties? Isn't this just an extension of the same principle on which courts of justice all around the world already function?

          "More government tends to lead to more government"

          Again, you're being vague. What exactly do you mean? Will NAFTA create agencies that regulate things that are currently not regulated? As far as I know, the US already has numerous executive agencies that regulate various aspects of international trade. If NAFTA can accomplish many of the same goals much more effciently, as the signatory parties seem to think it will, the effect should be LESS government, not more.

          "What happens when the people's voice and the people's vote is diluted 100 fold in trying to appeal to some multi-national government."

          What on earth are you talking about? Do you actually know anything about NAFTA? It sounds like you don't. Our government would still consist of the same people doing the same old things. You'll vote will count just as much as it ever did. NAFTA's just a treaty. The U.S. can always withdraw from its treaties.
        • p1nn4cl3, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1What I mean is who decides the outcome, when the two countries dispute on an ambiguity in some line in one of the treaties? If you look at an example in the NAFTA Wiki, Canada disputes a provision dealing with the sale of commodities. Both sides had arguments, and the matter couldn't be taken before a traditional court system because these are international agreements. So instead, it's taken to a special Nafta Panel.

          The existence of this kind of panel raises a lot of questions as they potentially have a lot of influence, and wield a lot of power as far as business interests are concerned. They are not voted into their positions, and to my knowledge they are not even appointed by elected representitives. Increasingly, as you can read in the article or PDF found here: http://www.jbs.org/node/6616, the NAFTA panel of judges act as a kind of appeals court for NAFTA related disputes, taking U.S. federal and supreme court decisions into consideration, but treating them as non-binding.

          That opens a kind of can of worms. U.S. businesses are lawfully bound to certain actions even against their immediate interests as well as the interests of any public shareholders and employees, even when the Supreme court rules the opposite. In order to make sure the U.S. constitution is treated fairly, along with the Canadian charter, is it such a stretch to forsee the formation of another body to oversee the NAFTA Panel, and act as THEIR appeals court? This is what I mean by government leading to more government. RPers follow this out to endgame and see it leading to a North American Union.

          It was the NAU that I was referencing when I was talking about diluting the people's voice, and that's the real concern with a lot of Libertarians and Conservatives. Yes, we are essentially talking about layers of treaties that can be voluntarily opted out of, but when the body of government that regulates these treaties becomes large enough, what ramifications would come with "opting out"? The fear is that NAFTA is just another piece of the puzzle that creates a way to join Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. together under a common currency and common regulatory body.



        • petrodollar, on 05/28/2008, -1/+1"Both sides had arguments, and the matter couldn't be taken before a traditional court system because these are international agreements. So instead, it's taken to a special Nafta Panel."

          But that's precisely the point!!! Would you rather it go before a Canadian court? Can you explain how US courts would have jurisdiction over the case?

          "but when the body of government that regulates these treaties becomes large enough, what ramifications would come with "opting out"?"

          I don't know. You tell me. Is NAFTA going to send jackbooted thugs to Washington?

          "The fear is that NAFTA is just another piece of the puzzle that creates a way to join Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. together under a common currency and common regulatory body."

          Would you rather than trade between the US, Mexico and Canada be unregulated? What would be gained from that?
        • p1nn4cl3, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1"But that's exactly the point!!! Would you rather it go before a Canadian Court?..."

          I would rather each country decide for themselves if they want to do business or not. I believe it was RP himself who said if "free trade" is the point behind these treaties he could do it in a half-page bill. The bill that included the creation of NAFTA was 100 pages long! It was full of regulations, stipulations, arrangements, kickbacks, agreements...how free is that? And now we have this big complex body that comes with it's own judiciary to decide matters on this overly complex set of terms.

          It's a treaty that hasn't really served it's purpose, we now have the largest trade deficit in our nation's history. The citizens from all countries involved feel they got the short end of the stick, and we've had to add more government to regulate it. The price we've paid is job loss, and what we've gained is an entity with the power to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court in matters that relate to U.S. interests.

          I'm with the RP supporters in that U.S. government should mostly stay out of matters of international business. Let the market dictate trade.
      • beasty_dave_Mk2, on 05/27/2008, -2/+4"..No. I enjoy asking questions that no Ron Paul idiot can ever answer."

        lol, narcissistic *****.
      • Notasheeple, on 05/28/2008, -1/+2Are you ***** serious? What a waste of life you are.
      • kemp34, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1You think some NAU bureaucrat is going to give one ***** whit about your voice? Government is supposed to be of, for and by the people. The larger government gets, the harder it is for this to be the case. Your idiocy to the problem of growing government is your ignorant problem not "Ron Paul douches". Sovereignty is ultimate control of the government you nimrod.
    • crashbang, on 05/27/2008, -11/+4right here.
    • evenson, on 05/27/2008, -19/+6There are plenty of reasons to scoff at Ron Paul aside from this.
      • Radanator, on 05/28/2008, -2/+5I agree with you 100%!! Some people say that its a BAD thing for 40% of our taxes to go towards other countries that most of us would probably never even visit instead of investing in education or creating jobs.
        • evenson, on 05/28/2008, -1/+1Can you say Strawman? *****... i don't even think you can say that because I DIDN'T PRESENT an argument. You Ron Paul idiots are precious.
    • TVarmy, on 05/28/2008, -8/+1Didn't see the video, so I assume the conspiracy theory was gas at $4 a gallon...
    • cschnitz, on 05/28/2008, -13/+3I'm right here. Ron Paul is an un-electable joke.
      • gofalcons, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1You know what, you're right, I'm not voting for Ron Paul anymore!
        /s
    • ufia, on 05/28/2008, -10/+4"Say no to NAFTA Superhighway, don't let the beaners steal our jobs!" - Ron Paul (in a very high pitched voice)
      • gofalcons, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1There we go with the old racism line. When you can't defend yourself or your point of view with anything else, cry racism!
    • themastersb, on 05/28/2008, -4/+15NAFTA is something that must be stopped. I don't want to see the North American Freedom Treaty Allaince.
    • Morphine7399, on 05/28/2008, -0/+9Not to mention Nader...
      http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=p-264RGiBWk
      Even if you don't support his candidacy there is no reason not to help him get on the ballots so he can participate in the debates in bring issues such as these to light.
    • Wowabunga, on 05/28/2008, -0/+8All presidential candidates must be questioned on their support for the highway.... don't hold your breath.
    • kosser, on 05/28/2008, -2/+5fkin finally these stupid idiots who think we are conspiracy theorists can stfu. these same idiots do no research, just think everything in this country is fine *****...when we are on the verge of a huge meltdown, a crazy depression, and Obama being our president instead of someone who is in the interest of our nation, o maybe Ron Paul....since those same people think he really got 5% votes, they must think Bush really won his elections too.
      • Waterrat, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1 Your right,minus the religious Ron Paul part.
        I'd go with Gravel, myself.
    • SoulDrift404, on 05/28/2008, -0/+5Currently, many of them are claiming that Bush couldn't POSSIBLY want to drop bombs on Iran!
    • norman619, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1How can this have beena "conspiracy theory" when this was not being hidden at all? I was out in the open. Just because most Americans CHOOSE to be uninformed when it comes to the actions of our politicians/government does not make this a conspiracy. I love how the Ron Paul folowers ae making it sound like he was the only ones paying attention to this. Glenn Beck and other talk radio personalities have been speaking bout this for a while now. Oh yeah they don't count because idiots like the many diggers who poo pooed this info before love to dismiss any public personality who does not agree with your views regardless of that fact that their words are supported by FACTS and are easily varified.
    • richmomz, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2That Ron Paul guy sure is crazy - so what if he happened to be right about something? Next people will latch on to his rantings about excessive debt and runaway inflation... oh, uh, actually nevermind.

      Amero here we come.
    • ZeusIncarnate, on 05/28/2008, -1/+4As a UK citizen and resident, can you explain to me why a North American Union is a negative thing? I like the EU, and think that bringing countries closer together is a good thing. I like the idea of a single European Country, and eventually, only having a few countries on this planet. Are Americans so convinced of their superiority that they see any influx of foreigners to be a negative, and diluting your freedom and democracy that you seem so convinced you invented and are the sole owners of?

      I fully expect to be dugg down for that last comment, but in all seriousness, what is the reasons for hating NAFTA?
      • Syntaxis, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2Dugg up, valid question that many people will ponder themselves.

        There's a simple answer: the United States of America has a debt of $12.25 trillion (source: CIA world factbook). Having foreign countries like Spain and Mexico lay claim to valuable assets and business contracts, thus income and labor for American citizens, will hurt the USA as a whole. Especially when you talk about multi-billion figures.

        From a business point of view it's easily explained. Rats leaving a sinking ship. Mexico as a more developing country has far better prospects and on a much smaller scale. Their workforce is cheap and the country has all a company would want, just less distance between the east- and west coasts, making transportation easier to regulate from - say - a car factory.

        So basically, this project will cost the USA a huge amount of money, jobs and whatever follows from that. More crime, more children without good educations, future that looks bad, et cetera.
      • asus2000, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Because this is one big step closer to a one-world government. And that my British friend is the end of freedom.
    • BlacklabelSAR, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1Do some research. You're English FFS, you are supposed to be better educated than your average American. Corporate interests are controlling our government. There is no We the People any more. But do your own research instead of listening to someone else.
      You can also look at the story regarding government agents infiltrating groups of people protesting at the NAU meeting in Canada.
      Sophisticated fascism is still fascism.
  • Inthenameofmine, on 05/27/2008, -18/+263I know a guy who lives in Texas, he lost his job at a local newspaper about a year ago. It happened when the maximal ownership rights in the US changed due to a request and a lot of lobbying by some big corporations. At some point he found out that the rich guys who bout up the newspaper were shareholders of the corporations who build the highway.
    • grobinson, on 05/27/2008, -4/+31Yea i know some guys in Texas who lobbied for this stuff. Apparently there is not much debate about whether the federal govt or Texas state govt SHOULD do this but the only disagreement is HOW they do this.

      It all sounds good, a better state highway system, high speed rail right through the middle of Texas, but its all apart of the U.S. losing is soverienty.
      • highlyhigh, on 05/27/2008, -1/+36the scarier part of that story is that these same people are buying media. they will control media and keep their doings looked away from the masses.
        • WilliamDavis, on 05/27/2008, -1/+7Seems like they're well on their way. :-/
      • whereiseljefe, on 05/27/2008, -0/+16I live in Texas, and everyone I know does NOT support the highway. However I agree with your comment on how the debate is going. It seems that the Texas legislature puts its fingers in its ears and got NYAH NYAH NYAH when someone brings up the super-highway.

        Say what you want about Texans, we are very protective of our home turf (for better or for worse: Texans tend to support border security and the wall) and we see the highway as a massive invasion and undue burden on our state's finances and traffic. We like to grow as a state (look at Houston, Austin, and Dallas: tech and art meccas now), but on our own terms.

        Frankly this can't be happening at a worse time, what with pretty much our most corrupt governor (Perry) in office since Bush was elected...
        • theelectricafro, on 05/28/2008, -0/+9I heard about this in the movie "Endgame" by Alex Jones. It is free to watch on google video. CNN called this a conspiracy theory at the same time Lou Dobbs was talking about it, even though the maps were on the TexDOT website and the SPP.gov website. BTW the EU was a "conspiracy theory". We all know how that turned out.
        • BetterOffEd, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1Ahem... You make great points. However, Dallas and Houston are NOWHERE NEAR "art meccas."

          Austin is both a tech and art center, and as a result one of the best up-and-coming cities in America.
    • borrowedladder, on 05/28/2008, -1/+8As shown in 'End Game Blueprint For Global Enslavement' those papers were bought up so as to stop any reporting of the highway being built
    • FutureGuy, on 05/28/2008, -5/+1US has been sold to the highest bidder. Thanks Bush!!! Now only if McCain gets into power will the deal be sealed. So please vote McCain. Thanks.

      Obama 08
      • Hangly, on 05/28/2008, -0/+6The US was sold to the highest bidder almost a hundred years ago. Bush didn't sell it, and Obama isn't going to change a damn thing.
    • virtualfred, on 05/28/2008, -2/+1some guy in texas lost his job at a local newspaper...

      He wouldn't happen to have lost his job because the traditional newspapers are losing market shares to new internet media by any chance?

      It is much more fun to believe in conspiracies than in simple economics...
  • AManWithNoName, on 05/27/2008, -15/+423Just because it's a conspiracy theory doesn't mean it's crazy. I think Watergate proved that just fine.
    • Minarchian, on 05/27/2008, -11/+97I think the difference here is the word "theory".

      Both the NAFTA highway and Watergate are/were actually conspiracy "facts" rather than "theories".
      • RoboB0b, on 05/27/2008, -26/+7Kind of like how gravity is a "theory"? Please just shut up.
        • bob12321, on 05/27/2008, -10/+8Gravity is not a theory, it can be modeled with math letting it be able to be a law.
      • caferrell, on 05/27/2008, -0/+18They are all theories until the evidence is circulated among the decision makers and they agree that the evidence is valid. Then the theories miraculously transform into facts
    • Naidim, on 05/27/2008, -12/+7Until substantial evidence was procured and released outside of the MSM, they were both theories.
    • gandhii, on 05/27/2008, -5/+16I think Watergate and many other proven to be true "conspiracy theories" are crazy.
    • Innagadadavida, on 05/27/2008, -2/+14Step one in the North American Union. NAU also a conspiracy theory.
    • ByteGuerilla, on 05/27/2008, -0/+8Quite right. History is the documented chronology of conspiracies and their aftermaths.
    • ufia, on 05/28/2008, -5/+3The big difference is Watergate was uncovered by a single man through serious investigations and hard labour, and then alerting the key people to actually put an end to it.

      Truthers and conspiracy theorists in general are just a bunch of weirdos trying to wake us up very loudly about any imaginable secret government plots for world domination they can think of. They are not uncovering any real conspiracy in particular, or neither doing anything constructive about it. Their protests are not leading anywhere. They are just trying to get the most people to watch their lame amateur videos on YouTube, like some kind of viral marketing schemes pulled by Alex Jones to promote his radio shows, or some equally crazy ufologists selling books.
      • Hangly, on 05/28/2008, -2/+2The difference between Watergate and now was that reporters in the early 70's had a degree of autonomy. After the media disasters of Vietnam and Watergate the government clamped down hard on the media.
        Similar potential disasters since then have all been successfully contained.
        • utahnkid, on 05/28/2008, -2/+2Yeah because you never hear anything bad about the government or it's policies on the news.. They must really have it clamped down...

          /hows your tin foil hat
        • Hangly, on 05/28/2008, -1/+1Hear things critical of the government? Yes.
          Hear about anything truly damning or criminal that could get someone arrested or forced from office? No.
      • camarokidaj, on 05/28/2008, -1/+2Watergate should really be a footnote rather than the scandle is was. There was a much larger COINTELPRO going on at the same time , that was much more invasive . Try any of Noam Chomsky's books.
    • Spudster, on 05/28/2008, -1/+1This was never a "conspiracy" guys... It was always known about and not considered a big deal. That's why we mocked you. Way to put words in our mouths.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1You get into the issue where the Govt. may do things so outrageous nobody would believe they were true.


      For example in some stretch of the imagination if the govt. was behind 911 (unlikely), people wouldn't believe it anyway.
    • mrcoderga, on 07/23/2008, -0/+1Every employer knows that most crimes are done by insiders.

      That's why the local Acme and Shoprite grocery stores have dozens of cameras over the cash registers.

      Only defectively brained people can possibly believe that government employs angels while the rest of us are devils.
  • visculent, on 05/27/2008, -48/+247Someone PLEASE, I mean please, explain to me WHY it is so illogical, non-considerable, and irrational, to just at the minimum, explore the possibility of this happening or things like this happening. What the f*** happened to Americans these day's? How did the masses become so resistant to the potentiality of any kind of negative imposition by their government. WAKE THE HELL up. Question everything -- in doing such you're not offending your citizenship, you're only defending the wellbeing of your family.
    • caferrell, on 05/27/2008, -8/+102We're awake over here friend. Wake up the TV viewers
    • JKap, on 05/27/2008, -8/+64The expression "conspiracy theory" has largely received its negative connotation from the corporate military-industrial government-media and along with a host of other pejorative labels and language (quack, wacky, nutjob, "not serious," etc.) have been orchestrated as a mode of control to limit "acceptable" opinion and to end rational, free debate on a host of subjects. This self-reinforcing control paradigm is perpetuated either consciously or unconsciously by the masses and amounts to mindless groupthink and psychological collectivism.

      People do not want to be labeled as "kooky" so they simply dismiss "conspiracy theories" out of hand without the need for further inquiry. To do otherwise would be "crazy." Voila, a self-reinforcing control paradigm.

      Certainly, the purpose of this mode of control is not to encourage critical thinking and intellectual curiosity. To the contrary, the purpose is to discourage those things and place limitations upon them.
      • caferrell, on 05/27/2008, -1/+43Well said JKap. They have given us a fenced playground where we can say what we like, but once we get over the fence, then we are either loony or dangerous.
        • wolferz, on 05/27/2008, -6/+4grr wrong place... still getting used to the new format... digg down
        • wolferz, on 05/27/2008, -3/+5Wow! Talk about a conspiracy... but yeh, honestly this happens to be the one I subscribe to the strongest... based on my personal experience any way.

          EDIT: ***** it... I'm a moron
        • sarixe, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1Kind of like in Portal!
      • robotfuel, on 05/27/2008, -0/+9Well ***** said. Kudos.
      • buckrogers1965, on 05/27/2008, -0/+7You are absolutely right.

        They have carefully managed the term and who it applies to in the media, news, tv shows, and movies.

        I think this is why the media has been so focused on the fake moon landing crap, ufos, big foot, and all the other myths that a few loons have. In order to force anyone with legitimate concerns into the same box as the guy that thinks big foot flies around in ufo's.
      • orrd, on 05/28/2008, -7/+2You use a term like "corporate military-industrial government-media" and you wonder why people call you a nutjob? Seriously?
      • Hangly, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1When I grow up I'm going to Bovine University!
    • NikoKun, on 05/27/2008, -4/+36That's part of the problem... Society has made the consideration of such things, into a sort of credibility taboo.
      It's a great way to hide the real conspiracies out there.
      • megahan, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2"American" society that is. Things are different in other countries. Things can be different in America.
    • bullhead2007, on 05/27/2008, -3/+53In almost all aspects of American life, thinking for yourself, or contradicting popular beliefs has a stigma. You're smart in school, nerd. You like technology, geek. You think the government isn't always right, or has done messed up things, conspiracy kook.

      Basically you just need to shut up, read a bible, and let the crime bosses do all the thinking for you. (Nanny state)
      • Becca4RonPaul, on 05/27/2008, -9/+17Sorry you felt the need to add "read the Bible." The Bible does not encourage ignorance or apathy. People's comfortable and shallow conceptions of the Bible, however, can and do. The Christian Scriptures tell believers to "TEST *ALL* THINGS, hold fast to that which is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21--this means ALL things. We are not to follow blindly! This includes every kind of teaching, every "fact" claimed, the motivations of others, the actions of goverment, etc.) and "Learn to do good; *SEEK JUSTICE,* Rebuke the oppressor; Defend the fatherless, Plead for the widow," Isaiah 1:17. It is not a faith for cowards or lemmings. But a good many Christians need to be confronted with that fact.
        • Valyn, on 05/27/2008, -0/+15While you may be right in what the bible encourages, (I don't know much about the bible personally) but a large majority of the people who meekly stand by, or actively want (albeit in a different name) a nanny state are religious people. I'm not implying there is any causality there, but there is a correlation.
        • thall, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3Valyn, I agree with you. To add to the irony, Revelation describes the moments before the rapture as including the creation of a global government that turns on Christians. To believe that it's going to go down in that way means to believe that government will back stab followers at some point. Why would they put all their trust in government so blindly that they embrace a nanny state policy??
        • WebWorker, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3While what you say is true and I gave you a digg for it, here's an interesting passage specifically regarding government from Romans 13. I feel that it encourages submission to authority without question.

          1] Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

          2] Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

          3] For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.

          4] For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

          5]Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.

          6] This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing.

          7] Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
        • Valyn, on 08/10/2008, -0/+1@webworker
          Wow, thats some craziness there.
      • Becca4RonPaul, on 05/27/2008, -2/+12Its not for no reason that the "crime bosses" that are currently running the show have seen fit to offer helpful "programs" for Christian pastors which teach them how to indoctrinate those under their influence with the message, "Just obey the government. Just be calm and compliant. Everything will be ok. Just do what the nice policeman (or is it soldier? . .. ) says . . . " They know that if more Christians were to wake up, seriously begin to live for God (instead of just being nice and churchy) and influence their communities with the message of spiritual AND political freedom, they would have a much harder time. I'm not trying to say that the freedom philosophy is limited to Christians, but Scripture strongly enjoins that we be *vigilant* against those who would enslave us and others, and willing to fight for freedom and justice.
        • SpudgeBoy, on 05/27/2008, -0/+16I wish there were more Christians like you, but sadly there aren't one side of my family is 100% Christians that believe everything the Bushbots tell them.

          They don't realize that in his day, Jesus was a rebel. He rebelled against Ceasar and the Roman opressors.

          If he was here today, he would say "This is not what I wanted from my people."
        • Abram730, on 08/23/2008, -0/+1correct Becca4RonPaul.

          One such group is called "The Fellowship" / "The Family" / "The Christian Mafia"
          This is the most powerful "Christian" group in America. This group is quite sick in that instead of having a trinity of the father the son and the holy ghost, it's a trinity of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. They say that Democracy has run it's course and it's time for "Godly Rule" on earth. They use Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Bin Ladan, Pol Pot and other as examples of Godly rule.

          Examples of their morality or lack there of. But how much morality is one to expect from crime bosses?

          David said, “let's talk about the Old Testament. Who would you say are its good guys?”... “King David,” David Coe said. “That's a good one. David. Hey. What would you say made King David a good guy?”... “King David,” David Coe went on, “liked to do really, really bad things.” He chuckled. “Here's this guy who slept with another man's wife—Bathsheba, right?—and then basically murders her husband. And this guy is one of our heroes.”

          So King David is a "good guy" because he liked to do really really bad things?

          “Beau, let's say I hear you raped three little girls. And now here you are at Ivanwald. What would I think of you, Beau?”
          Beau shrank into the cushions. “Probably that I'm pretty bad?”
          “No, Beau. I wouldn't. Because I'm not here to judge you. That's not my job. I'm here for only one thing.” “Jesus?” Beau said. David smiled and winked.

          “Genghis was a man with a vision. He conquered”... "He devastated nearly everything. His enemies? He beheaded them.”
          when Genghis entered a defeated city he would call in the local headman and have him stuffed into a crate. Over the crate would be spread a tablecloth, and on the tablecloth would be spread a wonderful meal. “And then, while the man suffocated, Genghis ate, and he didn't even hear the man's screams.” David still stood on the couch, a finger in the air. “Do you know what that means?” He was thinking of Christ's parable of the wineskins. “You can't pour new into old,”... “Isn't that great?” David said. “That's the way everything in life happens. If you're a person known to be around Jesus, you can go and do anything. And that's who you guys are. When you leave here, you're not only going to know the value of Jesus, you're going to know the people who rule the world. It's about vision.

          The late Indonesian president Suharto and Somalia's bloodthirsty strongman Siad Barre were "brothers" of the Family. They prayed with congressmen, oilmen and arms dealers. Later some lucrative business was done. It was after hearing that Suharto had killed around 100,000 of his own citizens, that "The Family" knew he was "their kind of guy" and helped him kill as many as 1.8 million.

          Other dictators they support/supported include Brazilian dictator Marshal Artur da Costa e Silva, Salvadoran general Carlos Eugenio Vides Casanova, Honduran general Gustavo Alvarez Martinez, Siad Barre in Somalia. More recently, Congress members of the "Family" have voted texts in favor of Jean-Claude Duvalier in Haiti and of Park Chung-hee in South Korea.

          In the 1930s, Vereide also recruited the antisemitic Merwin K. Hart, labelled by the FBI as a supporter of the US fascist movement. Following World War II, Vereide visited prisoners camps in Germany, and recruited several former Nazis, such as the Gestapo's head in America, Ulrich von Geinath, Dr. Otto Fricke, a radio propaganda specialist of Joseph Goebbels' service, or Hermann J. Abs, "Hitler's banker".

          an interview
          http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-808173955 ...

          includes some audio of Coe
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaYia5Ensw4

          Some fair and balanced reporting lol
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVrQkunIZXo

          Clearly not a metaphor
          This was origonaly a more openly Nazi group.
          http://www.insider-magazine.com/ChristianMafia.htm

          Quote
          "the Family's long-term project of a worldwide government under God is more ambitious than Al Qaeda's dream of a Sunni empire."

          The Secret Government
          http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3505348655 ...

          And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
          —Matthew 10:36
    • dafragsta, on 05/27/2008, -3/+14Your no nothing do nothing ***** friends and family will call you a wacko and a conspiracy theorist. Our country can do no wrong. Go back to sleep. As time wears on, I identify more with the 9/11 conspiracy people more and more. The more people staunchly deny that something like that is possible, the easier it is. The elites know that, like everything else, the hard work does itself.
      • buckrogers1965, on 05/27/2008, -0/+12They are afraid to believe that the government could do something like that. Because it would utterly destroy the image of the United States that has been cultivated in their minds their whole lives by the state schools, by their ministers, by the media, by movies.

        Easier to think that anyone that goes against a lifetime of conditioning is wrong, rather than face the truth and the consequences of action that would be required by believing this new thing.

        It is easier to deny one big lie than it is to deny 1000 smaller lies.
        • Hangly, on 05/28/2008, -0/+5Worse than that, if they wake up to the reality that the government is their greatest enemy they will be forced to admit that they are in real danger. That's more than most people are able to deal with.
    • FredFredrickson, on 05/27/2008, -1/+21Our country is fill of people who would willingly glide through life completely ignorant of all the bad things that go on in the world, so long as they get to wait in line for the newest piece of technological wizardry and surf the internet for funny cat pictures all day.

      People are too caught up in the rat race and the stupid distractions to care about the important things. That's what's wrong with it.
      • Valyn, on 05/27/2008, -0/+6Absolutely right. Same exact problem with the environment. This is also one of the reasons that the danger the internet faces (net neutrality) is bigger than most people realize. Right now, the internet is the best way to get true news, and not listen to what Fox (etc.) tells them is news.
    • RogerStrong, on 05/27/2008, -16/+6A major problem is that the tinfoil hat crowd takes real, serious issues, and destroys all the credibility of the issue. This video is a perfect example.

      The TTC proposal is real, and it's as bad as they say - huge amounts of land seized under eminent domain, etc. It should be fought.

      But, it's in Texas only. The tinfoil hat crowd has wrapped a rather silly fantasy around it where it extends all the way to Winnipeg, Canada. They incorporate a map of NASCO, a corridor of harmonized regulations for truck lengths, loads and brake systems, on EXISTING roads.

      And now the tinfoil-hat version gets the air time, and in the video above a prominent politician gets fooled by it, and everyone gets to make fun of her.

      After a while, the issue loses credibility. Which is probably what the folks who keep generating this stuff wants.
      • buckrogers1965, on 05/27/2008, -1/+10Obviously it is not just in Texas, since we have a United States Congress critter talking about several other sections of the corridor being built or proposed for construction in other states, including a section in her home state of Ohio.

        Personally, I'll believe someone that actually works on the issues at the state and federal levels over some random post on the internet.

        But thanks.
      • Abomonog, on 05/28/2008, -1/+6Watch the video idiot. The Chicago Skyway has already been leased to foreign interest as has the Indiana Turnpike. People who use these roads now pay tolls to foreign countries.

        Very wrong.
        • RogerStrong, on 05/28/2008, -3/+2And.....?

          Are they being expanded to become "10-lane superhighways with rail and pipelines"? Are they seizing millions of acres to do so?

          Or.... is it merely a case of a foreign company buying an EXISTING road?

          You'll find it's the latter. It may be bad, but it's not part of any super-duper-uber grand unified conspiracy.
    • wolferz, on 05/27/2008, -6/+15I agree 100% that we should question everything... but the problem is that even the people agreeing with the conspiracies are not questioning anything... ESPECIALLY not themselves and those that agree with them (as they should be).

      They are just sheep with less popular viewpoints. This is even worse than sheep with popular ones. Why? Cause it realy DOES lower the credibility of the conspiracy theorists. Think about all the people going on about sept 11 being an inside job. I'll bet maybe.. MAYBE .02% of them came to that opinion on their own. The rest heard one of the .02% or one of the other sheep and mindlessly went along.

      Why would people do that? Don't people want to belong? Isn't it the desire to belong the reason sheeple exist? Yes and no. They do it to belong but if the group they belong to is too big they start to lose their sense of identity and self... so they seek out smaller groups. This is part of the reason racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry continue to exist. They are imaginary lines designed to separate the human race into smaller factions that people can then belong to. Political allegiances, your favorite baseball team, your preferred soda company, your preferred car company... in the end may of them have elements of this trend at their core. Some of them exist solely because of this trend.

      So then... to answer your question: "WHY it is so illogical, non-considerable, and irrational, to just at the minimum, explore the possibility of this happening or things like this happening?"

      It's the "boy who cried wolf" syndrome. Too many times have these conspiracies been brought forth with NO supporting evidence and NO level of reasonable logic. This particular post is yet another case of it. Just cause some politician got up on stage in congress and said "this is exists and it is bad" does not mean it does exist or that its bad. These are politicians. They lie, generally to their supporters, in order to rally them and gain further, more vehement support for whatever the politicians current pet project might be. People who claimed that 9/11 was an inside job site this as the very reason why the government would be interested in causing a 9/11 type disaster.

      So why not here? Why not say that Bush Co is doing something uber shady to rally support for the Dems and every one who has kept Bush Co at the end of a 100 foot pole. This is why I am unwilling to accept what is said here. Even though I wouldn't put it past Bush Co there is still no evidence. It's just some one else saying it is happening. Yet "because some one else said it and they wear a suit to work it must be "FACT" now." This is called circular logic.

      In the end, if you want to live the "question everything life style" you have to apply critical thinking unilaterally. That means you have to question yourself too. In fact, according to the accepted methods of critical thinking, you need to question yourself FIRST. That isn't what is happening. That is why so many quacks are making the few conspiracies that might be true lose credibility when their best "proof" falls short of actually proving anything and just makes them look stupid.
      • Lastcar, on 05/28/2008, -2/+2tl:dr
      • Hangly, on 05/28/2008, -1/+4"So why not here? Why not say that Bush Co is doing something uber shady to rally support for the Dems and every one who has kept Bush Co at the end of a 100 foot pole."

        Because the evidence indicates something entirely different?

        Being a truther doesn't mean merely buying the most outlandish theory possible. It's about believing what available evidence indicates.

        Yes, your theory is smaller-scale and therefore more palatable to the uneducated, but you pulled it straight out of the air. Read read read, study study study, and fact-check everything. You'll see that the inside job theory has overwhelming evidenciary support.
    • QuantumBios, on 05/28/2008, -0/+6It's called flouride.
      • homesickalien, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2but it's spelled "fluoride". ;P
    • GregofJersey, on 05/28/2008, -0/+6Americans are too busy watching Dancing with the Stars to care about what's happening with our government. Sorry.
  • allowners, on 05/27/2008, -14/+58This is colonial medicine coming full circle. It has been under way for a long time, there is no big mystery here.
    • halobender, on 05/27/2008, -1/+16What is colonial medicine?
      • WilliamDavis, on 05/27/2008, -1/+13It's medicine for the colon.
        • allowners, on 05/27/2008, -1/+1You win the prize for keen perception, so now please bend over so that your medicine might be properly given.
      • buckrogers1965, on 05/27/2008, -1/+13United States was a colony for a long time. We are being recolonized, and it's not going to be fun.
  • kemp34, on 05/27/2008, -22/+491I remember during one of the CNN Republican debates they asked Ron Paul about "NAU/NAFTA highway conspiracy theories", he answered majestically regarding it being a "conspiracy of ideas" readily researchable on the Net. After the debate, some CNN talking head lambasted Paul for "talking about such absurdities" failing to mention that CNN ASKED Paul about the topic. A couple months later CNN's own Lou Dobbs shed light on the NAFTA highway and the Trans-Texas Corridor. I have yet to see CNN apologize to Paul for their treatment of him during and after the debate. I will not be holding my breath. One thing I have witnessed is that globalists have no scruples.
    • caferrell, on 05/27/2008, -10/+40kemp34, the globalists do have scruples and they know what is best for you.
      Now just go back to watching your TV and take your medication. Everything will be fine
      /
    • XanderDee, on 05/27/2008, -1/+22Stop watching TV remember they said that there was WMD, and we would get cheap oil. They have recently broadcast that gas prices went down in the month of April. I am sick of the lies and the fluff peaces.
    • mrraven200, on 05/27/2008, -3/+10100% agree as a lefty. Too bad you guys don't realize that unregulated corporations would ALSO put Blackwater troops on the street to ***** us. Question BOTH public and private concentrations of power FTW.
      • WiseWeasel, on 05/28/2008, -0/+10Which is actually a strong argument that power should reside with citizens, and that most services should be privatized. Don't like what that company is doing? Don't give them your money, convince others to do the same, and start competing with them. Capitalism is the distribution of power to individual consumers. It's because many of these large corporations are subsidized by government that we no longer have any control over them, and we are no longer able to cut their money supply by refusing to support them. Granted, extremes in either direction are impractical, but individuals DO have the power to control corporations, as long as those corporations are answering to them. We have to look no further than the computer industry to see what a consumer-responsive sector looks like, and we can see that the products evolve quickly, become more affordable, and the big players respond to consumer concerns. Consumer Reports, a private non-government organization, has done more for automobile and general product safety than any government regulation was ever capable of doing. Organized citizens are more effective at keeping corporations under control than our generally incompetent and corrupt federal representatives. Concentrating power in the hands of a few representatives at the US federal level has proven extremely prone to abuse.
    • jwoulf, on 05/27/2008, -1/+22Simple really... the media doesn't *want* Ron Paul to have a chance of being elected. He was a viable candidate and the media all but ignored him. Out of sight, out of mind.
      • Waterrat, on 05/28/2008, -0/+6 The same goes for Gravel.
        Anyone who might stand up to the criminal corps' has no chance of being elected,ever...Only those who kiss corp's fat ass have a chance.
    • TantrooM, on 05/27/2008, -2/+1That and when Dobbs called one critic a 'leftist'. Um, that letter by the name of this NAFTA critic appears to be a 'D'. So does that mean not all leftists are for this highway? Or just the ones that ask Dobbs questions?
  • schif, on 05/27/2008, -13/+175So then I am not crazy for believing in the NAFTA super highway?
    • SpikeLee, on 05/27/2008, -13/+19No, you are.
    • cybrguy, on 05/27/2008, -8/+17Your totally crazy, now get back to work; everything is fine, we will take care of you.
    • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 05/27/2008, -18/+6No one ever doubted it. You're just a stupid xenophobic dumbass for opposing it like sheep.
      • schif, on 05/27/2008, -4/+6wow you seem very angry. I thought that Obama was about hope not cynicism. Maybe you should try promoting your candidate, or do you find it more fun to tear things down instead of build them up?
    • petrodollar, on 05/27/2008, -14/+8You're crazy for thinking it's a big scary threat to our "sovereignty" or whatever it is that you retards like to claim.
      • WiseWeasel, on 05/28/2008, -4/+5How is joining multiple countries, concentrating and consolidating power, and decreasing the representation of every citizen of those countries NOT a threat to national sovereignty? Perhaps you don't know what the term means? Who's the retard now?
      • funkyloki, on 05/28/2008, -2/+2When China owns a massive amount of US debt (and can call us on it at anytime, which would effectively destroy us), when foreign interests buy controlling shares of our infrastructure, when a HUGE majority of consumer products and services are outsourced to other nations, when we are almost completely reliant and at the mercy of OPEC (a cartel of middle eastern countries who do NOT have the best interests of the US at heart, as symbolized by Bush's two visits to see the OPEC leaders with his hat in hand only to be told no) for our most demanded energy resource, then we have lost our sovereignty. We sell out to the lowest bidder, we mortgage our children's future and the future of our nation, and you question whether we are on the road to our own destruction. Calling us retards doesn't change any of that, and you can continue to bury your head in the sand if it will make you feel better about it. Hell, even flag lapel pins, which our politicians love to tout around as the symbol of our freedom and sovereignty, are made in other countries.
      • petrodollar, on 05/28/2008, -2/+3"How is joining multiple countries, concentrating and consolidating power, and decreasing the representation of every citizen of those countries NOT a threat to national sovereignty?"

        When it does nothing to remove the powers delegated to the executive, legislative, and judicial branches under the Constitution, that's when.

        "Perhaps you don't know what the term means?"

        No, I don't think YOU know what it means, WiseWeasel. Sovereignty means that the US government has exclusive control over its own territory, which it does under any treaty it signs for two primary reasons: 1) a treaty provision that conflicts with a constitutional provision cannot have the force of law in US courts and 2) US federal courts have exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over cases and controversies raising constitutional questions, pursuant to Article III of that document.

        You are a knave, WiseWeasal. Enjoy irrelevance.
      • petrodollar, on 05/28/2008, -1/+3"When China owns a massive amount of US debt (and can call us on it at anytime"

        You clearly know nothing about how finance works. By "call in its debts at any time," presumably you mean "dump all its dollar holdings," which it cannot do without drastically reducing the value of those holdings, which would be economic suicide for China because without the VALUE of its dollar holdings it will be royally ***** for generations to come.

        What China is doing instead is purchasing US assets like Blackstone. Which is fine with me, because it means all the money shipped over there is being shipped right back over here. Pretty cool, huh?

        "when a HUGE majority of consumer products and services are outsourced to other nations, when we are almost completely reliant and at the mercy of OPEC "

        It's also obvious that you know nothing about OPEC either. OPEC has very little capacity to influence oil prices any more. The only country that ever mattered in OPEC was Saudi Arabia, because they were the only country with extensive enough reserves to play the swing producer role and keep everyone else in check. Saudi Arabia can't do that anymore because it's already pumping at full capacity. It can bluster and threaten to up the supply to drive down the price to punish OPEC members who exceed their quota, but none of the other OPEC members are buying it anymore and haven't for about a decade now.

        Sorry, funkyloki, your crackpot whinging might have carried some sway 20 years or so ago. But it just doesn't jibe with reality in 2008.

        "We sell out to the lowest bidder, we mortgage our children's future and the future of our nation, and you question whether we are on the road to our own destruction"

        What on earth are you talking about? What are we selling to what lowest bidder. And don't say our "sovereignty" unless you are prepared to either accept the definition of that term that I have provided in my post above or provide a different definition that is at least as compelling.

    • diggingaround, on 05/28/2008, -2/+6Reporter with balls:
      So mister president can you tell us more about this Super NAFTA scheme, that you and your rich buddies are trying to pull? It is a modern day slavery right? Whole continent working for a very few ultra rich people?

      Moron in chief:
      eemmm....huh.... LOOK OVER THERE!!! it is Osama Bin Laden - WE WILL ALL DIE!!!
    • jesuswuzanalien, on 05/28/2008, -1/+4No, you're crazy if you say it 3 times in the mirror and a bridge to another world pops out. NAFTA... NAFTA... NAFTA!
  • chadillak, on 05/27/2008, -45/+24You just tricked me into watching over 7 minutes of CSPAN. Is this the new rick roll?
    • afterlife23, on 05/27/2008, -1/+1i found it funny
    • darthjure, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3No kidding! I could only stand it for four minutes! I heard a lot of talking, and she was obviously very concerned, but even if they agree to do this before Bush's term is up AND even if congress allows it AND even if the next president doesn't overturn it, what's the downside to this anyway? She never got around to that - it was just assumed to be a bad idea.
    • b0gus2008, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1No, it's not the new rick roll. Now, I know it's not shiny and quick like Idol, but the topics she's discussing may have a huge effect on your life. In retrospect, I am proud of you for watching the full 7 minutes - good job!
  • SaraLiberty, on 08/16/2008, -12/+154Operation Northwoods used to be a "crazy conspiracy theory" too, back in the day..
    • franklymister, on 05/27/2008, -4/+16So did Operation Torchwood
      • Cerebron, on 05/27/2008, -1/+5Hallucinations, man massive hallucinations every Christmas!
    • Malarie, on 05/27/2008, -8/+13So is 911
    • kinerry, on 05/28/2008, -3/+2it still is as it never happened and the man that proposed it fired on the spot
    • FXPooky, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1Can someone explain to me what the NAFTA Superhighway means? I'm kind of confused here.
    • darkciti2, on 05/28/2008, -1/+1So was Operation Sundevil.
    • Jeepy, on 05/28/2008, -0/+0As was Operation Condor.
    • solid12345, on 05/28/2008, -3/+1Probably because it was just that, a theory by some douchebag who presented to the pentagon a crazy plan and they rejected it, rightfully so, yet people act like the government was enthusiastic about it. If they were why was it never carried out?
      • kemp34, on 05/28/2008, -1/+3For it to be PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT meant it went through all the chain of command and was ready to go if the president signed off. Imagine if we didn't have a morally decent president...
  • WeThePeople2012, on 05/27/2008, -8/+51http://digg.com/world_news/Cops_Admit_Agent_Provoc ...
    • MrVeal, on 05/27/2008, -5/+1Was her name Susan Boner??
    • jumbalia, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3Now that's how a national news agency is supposed to do its job
  • cannabrain, on 05/27/2008, -27/+7hmmm, comment system seems to be broken
    • colonelbuckshot, on 05/27/2008, -3/+8the comment system was broken the day Mr Rose and Mr Burka released it. Just edit your comment within the time frame.
    • theOster, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1i've had comments get lost and also it seems that there's an inconsistancy in the digg ups/downs that is stored - a certain site that pulls digg user stats says i had 7 diggs and the site only shows 1 so something is amiss. (also, did anyone know that you can click on teh number of diggs your coment has and it will toggle between the "normal" view and the total ups and down for your comment? just found that out a little while ago...
  • staxofmax, on 05/27/2008, -36/+44This looks less like a New World Order style conspiracy, and more like Bush trying to give a sweetheart deal to his home state in creating essentially a "Port of Texas" by promoting the construction of rail and highway corridors from Mexican ports to the US via Texas. Opening this new transportation corridor will not make the US ports on the Pacific coast wink out of existence. The worst that could happen is some west coast cities would loose money by having to make their ports more competative, or some midwest cities would loose money on their leases when US ports decide to price their transportation corridor out of the market.
    • bullhead2007, on 05/27/2008, -6/+20Yes. It's totally plausible to compete with near slave wages in a place with no regulations or health codes.
      • Enrickey, on 05/27/2008, -7/+9So don't compete. If the other guys are offering a better service than you are, at a better price than you are, it's time to change businesses. The same goes for the job market, if there are millions (billions worldwide) of people willing to do manual labor for next to no money, then get an education, and do a job that they aren't able to.
        • bullhead2007, on 05/27/2008, -1/+7Right now we can compete, because of our superior transportation systems from our ports. This proposal would create infrastructure for Mexico to specifically out bid us, so companies like Ford can ship stuff through Mexico instead of through US ports.

          This kind of proposal is dictating where the competition is. It's specifically designed to undercut our current system, with our tax money and with laws, so that the Corporations can save a penny here and turn extra profit there.
        • buckrogers1965, on 05/27/2008, -2/+4Someone in the States has to have a job to buy stuff. Do you want us all to have to move overseas to get a job? If nobody lives in the states who will buy the crappy merchandise?
        • Waterrat, on 05/28/2008, -0/+2 I've wondered the same thing.
          So what's the real reason the middle class is being squeezed to death?
      • staxofmax, on 05/27/2008, -7/+5... That happen to be 2,000 miles out of the way with diesel prices approaching $5.00 per gallon.

        So some Teamsters will have to live with a paycut, and some cities will have to actually invest in their road and rail infrastructure to cut transit times.

        It's all "doom and gloom" with you guys, isn't it? Is it too much to get beyond the FUD and take a rational look at the world?
      • Jackar00, on 05/27/2008, -8/+3@ enrickey
        here here. I find it absurd that all these right-wing libertarians get upset about government regulation, and will go on at length about the free market, but then, when someone threatens their job because they're willing to do it for less they get all nationalistic and yell about national sovereignty and the new world order.
        • bullhead2007, on 05/27/2008, -1/+7Free Market isn't bending over for corporations, or letting corporations dictate our economy through litigation and lobbyism.

          This isn't Free Market because it is litigation that will specifically destroy an existing market so that certain companies can enjoy a better profit.

          There's nothing Free Market about NAFTA, the WTO, or this proposal.
    • indypunx, on 05/27/2008, -2/+12You realize moving our ports to mexico and dismantling our own ports essentially gives mexico control over all US imported goods from asia right? Once we have dismantled our own ports because they are not economically viable what is to stop mexican workers from striking and demanding higher wages? Now you can have foreign companies and countries holding american imports hostage driving up the price of everything. They can either control strikes and demands for fair wage with brutality over the workers or they will cave and pay more. In that case, we may end up paying the same, only difference is now the money is being shipped to mexico and investors in Europe instead of going to workers in the US. The only way america can compete is when our citizens are as poor as the ones in mexico who will work for near slave wages and this might be where this is all heading anyway.
    • monkey661, on 05/27/2008, -4/+3It is hard to take you serious when you do not know the difference between loose and lose.
    • SpudgeBoy, on 05/27/2008, -1/+8Phase one: Let the real port get wiped out by a massive hurricane and don't do anything to help.

      Phase two: Make jokes about soldiers dying in Iraq

      Phase three: Build NAFTA Superhighway

      Phase four: Buy 250,000 acre ranch in Paraguay

      Phase five: Profit.
      • Observant1, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1bush treason nailed cold in 5 seconds, nice.
    • SquigglyP, on 05/28/2008, -1/+4Why do you think Bush is the president? They wanted a guy from texas so they could exploit his greedy nature to make himself look like an economic bad-ass in his home state. This is the exact same reason McCain's being set up to be the president next. Not that I think it will happen, but come on... these corporations ***** OWN this country, and don't put it past them to blatantly falsify the election come november. A Texas guy to seal the deal for the in-road from Mexico, and a Michigan guy to do the same for Michigan. Surely someone out there has noticed this.

      These companies that own just about everything in this country will save billions of dollars annually by having this highway system in place, and the best part is that WE'RE the one's who will be paying for it.
      • elmuerte17, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1lol "economic bad-ass." the guy thinks the first rule of economics is "buy high, borrow more"
  • ironhide, on 05/27/2008, -79/+19Oh good, camouflaged Paulspam.
    • rexblade, on 05/27/2008, -5/+4Here we have the North American digg-douchebag in his natural habitat...
    • ThickGreenPuke, on 05/27/2008, -5/+8Oh crap, a visible moron
    • Fozefy, on 05/27/2008, -2/+6In that case anything related to politics becomes "Paulspam". This was a presentation by a Democrat, I don't think she really has anything to do with Dr. Paul.
    • SquigglyP, on 05/28/2008, -1/+2The funny part is that he obviously LIKED that ***** transformers movie.

      retard.
  • ANT1138, on 05/27/2008, -11/+274I think it's so ***** stupid when people dismiss conspiracy theories solely because they're conspiracy theories. As if people don't conspire to do things...
    • geodebug, on 05/27/2008, -13/+19people, or ALIENS!?!
    • Conspiracy20, on 05/27/2008, -2/+34Bingo! Everyday small conspiracies are perpetrated on people. Why can't anyone wrap their minds around this? Too big? Too scary?
      • megaloid, on 05/27/2008, -2/+11Too much conditioning from the media that says believing in any sort of conspiracy is tantamount to madness.
      • ByteGuerilla, on 05/27/2008, -0/+5In the age of the conspiracy movie, the most successful liars and conspirators tell the biggest lies the most often, and perpetrate the biggest conspiracies.
    • TonyLocNE, on 05/27/2008, -5/+6that's why I never call them conspiracy theories... Alternative history is a far better term to use.
      • Rekutyn, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3How about "Accurate History"?
        • TonyLocNE, on 05/28/2008, -1/+1That works too, but its comes off as one-sided.
    • ninti, on 05/27/2008, -16/+5No, we dismiss conspiracy theories because they are completely unworkable, like "The Bush administration masterminded 9/11", or because they are just kind of dumb, like this one.
      • SpudgeBoy, on 05/27/2008, -1/+5Naw, it's just that you can't wrap your mind around the fact that the US Government is not your friend guy.
        • geodebug, on 05/27/2008, -4/+1The government isn't your friend or your enemy. It is a service called democracy. Digging up or down while you wank it on your mama's sofa isn't participating much (might as well be praying). If you really cared you'd be walking door to door or, at least, writing full length articles explaining the evidence.

          The problem with taking it that far is that whiny brats may not like your opinion and say you've been bought off. You may, in your research, even change your mind on a subject.

          I think it is smart to live your life with a very skeptical eye. However, blind mistrust of the government is just as dangerous as blind trust. It breeds apathy and feeling like a perpetual victim.
    • brjohnson789, on 05/27/2008, -0/+11I just ask people to look up how many 'conspiracies' end up getting people convicted in US courts. Its quite a lot. Its just a matter of getting someone to take the buggers to court in the first place and actually having a fair trial.
      • buckrogers1965, on 05/27/2008, -0/+6Yeah, more people are in prison on conspiracy charges than any other crime, because when any two people work together in a criminal operation they are conspiring to commit a crime.
    • osbjmg, on 05/28/2008, -0/+7Agreed. Everyone is not honest. There are lies and subversion out there so you don't find out, why is this hard to believe?
    • 0nslaught, on 05/28/2008, -0/+6" . . . since the great masses of the people in the very bottom of their hearts tend to be corrupted rather than consciously and purposely evil, and that, therefore, in view of the primitive simplicity of their minds they more easily fall a victim to a big lie than to a little one, since they themselves lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big." --Chapter 10 of Mein Kampf

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie

    • Hangly, on 05/28/2008, -0/+4Part of the problem, in my mind, is Occam's Razor. Too many otherwise intelligent people believe that the only useful kind of thinking is the reductionist kind. Yes, Occam's Razor is valuable to science because it simplifies problems by limiting the number of factors that are considered, but it also sometimes prevents people from seeing larger contexts and making abstract connections between things.

      Occam's razor is not the only kind of truth. People should investigate the various philosophical anti-razors and how they might be applied to solve problems.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor#Anti- ...

      For example, the plenitude principle applied to politics suggest that whenever there is a power vacuum, that vacuum is immediately filled by whatever entity has the best opportunity to do so.
      Therefore, it is to be expected that the wo