digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at wearechange.org

Activist Threatened by Secret Service For Querying Clinton

wearechange.org — Two agents questioned Nick about the confrontation and his participation at the Drexel Debate, where he dared confront Bill Clinton. They implied that his future professional career could be effected as his mother listened in disbelief in the same room. Nick has his own place but the agents waited until they could question him at his parent's home.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • BrapAllgood, on 12/18/2007, -5/+125"They asked him if he would use violence to defend the constitution."

    Trick question much?
    • DarkRabbit, on 12/18/2007, -0/+39YES! ***** yes! I'm not even American, and that stuck out like a sore thumb. Show this article to everyone who thinks there's a such thing as Constitution anymore, as far as your "leaders" are concerned. They'll soon realise they're either with or without it. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
    • hayzeus, on 12/18/2007, -28/+1Digg cliche much?
    • airwalkery2k, on 12/18/2007, -1/+30Violence to defend the constitution? I'm not too sure about the violence part, but I believe that's what those secret service agents are supposed to be doing.
      • Skooma714, on 12/18/2007, -2/+17"Protecting the constitution" is code for "protecting the government".

        They don't care about you, we are their enemies and slaves.
        • norman619, on 12/18/2007, -1/+3Thank you for interpreting that for us.
    • simplyskeptic, on 12/18/2007, -1/+24As I read that statement, I thought "violence to defend the constitution? Sounds very patriotic"
    • cslawren, on 12/18/2007, -0/+37I'd use violence to defend the constitution in a heartbeat. I don't even have to think twice about that. Hang on, someone in a black suit is knocking on my door.
      • d03boy, on 12/18/2007, -0/+15When you can't rely on your government for basic liberties and freedoms, what other options do you have? You can't really take them to court, you can protest all day but nothing will change... they'll somehow fix the elections...
        • ISIfunded911, on 12/18/2007, -0/+2You cannot really be free as long as there is a powerful government. The power of the government is mainly power over you.
        • carpespasm, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1the same can be said of multinational corporations.
      • positron, on 12/18/2007, -0/+15Soap Box -> Ballot Box -> Jury Box -> Ammo Box
        These are our options, in that order. When one fails we resort to the next. So, where does that leave us?
        • Chestnut3499, on 12/18/2007, -0/+3Posi, that is sheer genius! Awesome =)
          • dougmc, on 12/18/2007, -0/+4It is (genius), but he's not the first person to talk about the four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty ...
    • HonestAbe, on 12/18/2007, -0/+28"Like.. joining the military?"
      • Nth3nSum, on 12/18/2007, -0/+2That would be a correct answer to give the secret service. They probably will have less of a problem with you going forward with the rest of the questions.
      • pintomp3, on 12/18/2007, -1/+18nah, that's to defend corporate profits. if the military actually defended the constitution, they would invade washington.
    • gobbo, on 12/18/2007, -0/+9"if he would use violence to defend the constitution."
      Isn't that what armed SS agents are supposed to be doing? Yah, mostly, or enforcing it. But since they are claiming a monopoly on violence (in alliance with other gov forces), anyone else deciding what "defend" means is a threat.
      • sinrtb, on 12/18/2007, -0/+2"armed SS" agents i thought were supposed to be going after counterfeiters.
    • jasonkolb, on 12/18/2007, -1/+4Isn't that the president's job?
    • thallium205, on 12/18/2007, -1/+4He should have asked them "WOULD YOU??"
    • PhilLesh69, on 12/19/2007, -0/+2I guess it won't be too long before we're told that we have to get rid of that "god damned piece of paper" because if we don't, the terrorists win.
    • PhilLesh69, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7462248898 ...
    • faskippy, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1Hell yeah, it was. His answer made all the difference in whether he could be deemed an "enemy combatant", or not. Patriot Act in need of its first victim here.
  • phnx0221, on 12/18/2007, -5/+89"An obvious attempt at embarrassing him and trying to drive a wedge between him and his family, not to mention a blatant intimidation tactic."
    No kidding. I don't see anything illegal about what he is doing. We have questions, and we want answers. We should not have to experience intimidation and coercion because of that. They have a responsibility to answer our questions, as we are their constituents. We are the people that they represent, or are campaigning to represent. If you are vying to hold the most important official seat in the United States, you have an obligation to fulfill to the citizens of this country, to answer any question they have, without repercussions.
    • tehowe, on 12/18/2007, -6/+31Civil servants? What's that? No, no, no - we are the citizens, and they are the officials, the authorities. You may be guilty of Thoughtcrime, perhaps you need a refresher Ingsoc course. =P
    • dshPls, on 12/18/2007, -25/+6That sounds great actually, until you realize WeAreChange is a group of conspiracy theorists who push lies, not ask questions.
      • phnx0221, on 12/18/2007, -2/+28It doesn't matter. My questions may sound ridiculous to someone else, but as a citizen of this country, as someone who is deeply passionate about the politics of this country, I should have just as much of a chance to ask a question as anyone else. That goes for anyone, regardless of what anyone thinks about their opinion. And that's just in regards to asking a question, much less having the secret service knock on my door and question me about it. That is intimidation of a highest caliber to a normal everyday person, and it is entirely uncalled for.
        • Otto, on 12/18/2007, -16/+4When your question shows you to be a paranoid psychotic (like these truther people are), then yes, people do have a right to be concerned and to ask you questions in return, to determine if you're a threat.
          • nomadxx7, on 12/18/2007, -2/+6Because you know the 1st Amendment states "respecting an establishment of religion" (the "Establishment Clause") or that prohibit free exercise of religion (the "Free Exercise Clause"), laws that infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to assemble peaceably, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

            Because if you are asking a former President a passionate question, it's constitutional now to go to that person's house and threat them and intimidate them.
          • ISIfunded911, on 12/18/2007, -1/+7Tens of millions of US citizens share the same doubts/criticisms/questions as those truthers about 9/11.
            There are not tens of millions of paranoid psychos in this country. Especially since all of these people are the exact opposite of the paranoid psychos in the White House who attack other countries pretexting those countries are monstruous threats: those tens of millions of people want to put an end to the invasion of other countries. Sounds very sane to me.
          • norman619, on 12/18/2007, -4/+2@nomadxx & phnx0221:

            You are free to say whatever you like. It does not free you from the taking responsibility and the repercussions if you say something which can be considered a threat. For example I am free to advocate the death of the president or any other politician in office. I really shouldn't be surprised when I get investigated and grilled to see if I truly am a threat. Try to remember what we and most if reasonable nations in the "free world" have is what is known as "Freedom with limits."
          • phnx0221, on 12/18/2007, -1/+5Norman619 - reply function isn't working, so I'm going to have to do it this way.

            I understand accepting personal responsibility. I also understand that there are going to be consequences of you threaten the safety of another person or group of people. I think of the shouting fire in the theater, in regards to free speech. However, it seems that this guy was only asking forceful questions, he wasn't saying he was going to kill the president. There should never be consequences for asking questions. It's the same situation with the student in Florida who was tasered. Sure, some people thought that he was being an ass. Does that warrant detainment, followed with tasering? No. This is the same situation, only the consequences are different in that they involve Secret Serivce agents questioning him while using tactics to intimidate.
    • ChileanGoD, on 12/18/2007, -1/+17On the bright side... they didn't taze him on the spot.
      • wakananda, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1What are we medieval japanese vassals, that have to get on our knees when the might police/samurai approaches, and then thank them for sparing our lives? - or not driving barbed electrodes into our flesh and making us piss ourselves? This. Must. End.
    • itsameericle, on 12/18/2007, -0/+11I think its crucial for people to remember, as phnx0221 says, that we are "their constituents". It is only our continuing support that constitutes their power. This is laid out in (you guessed it!) the Constitution of the United States.
      p.s. I think an appropriate response to the question, "They asked him if he would use violence to defend the constitution"........ would be to ask that question back to the secret service (after diffusing it by saying i don't know)
  • lucidguru, on 12/18/2007, -13/+120This is direct evidence of fascism.
    • dshPls, on 12/18/2007, -19/+5Time to pack up then.
      • IADTatami, on 12/18/2007, -1/+23I disagree.

        Personally, I wouldn't exactly be eager to open my arms to people who are willing to enjoy freedom but not fight for it. What's to keep them from running away again if fascism decides to visit the country they've fled to next? Really, what help would they be?
        • PhilLesh69, on 12/19/2007, -0/+2Where did they flee the last time??

          Blind supporters always support their government because it just feels better than questioning it.
      • Urusai, on 12/18/2007, -3/+4Time to pack Quislings into body bags.
      • Chestnut3499, on 12/18/2007, -0/+4No *****, it means it's time to lock and load
    • arcangelgabriel, on 12/18/2007, -20/+2You wouldn't know fascism if it jumped from a bush and said 'papers please'. Learn your damn history kid.
      • calbff, on 12/18/2007, -1/+17Sounds like he's pretty much got it down to me. You must be the expert, and of course the rest of us are sadly misinformed, right? Because none of the rest of us could possibly understand history and human nature the way you do? We'd better stand down, we're all dwarfed by your intelligence and experience!
        • elhaf, on 12/18/2007, -8/+2Well, for one thing, fascism was adherence to a political party run by Mussolini, not (ever) a particular type of politics. People later said that Naziism was fascism, but it wasn't, it was Naziism. The fascist movement died with Mussolini. You learn your damn history, m'k? Granted, perhaps the phrase "republic" will someday take on the same taint, but that's another story altogether.
        • arjie, on 12/18/2007, -0/+5elhaf: There are many accepted definitions of fascism by which the Italian fascists were just one kind of fascists. You should be able to find one such description of fascism in Umberto Eco's Ur Fascism.
        • PhilLesh69, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1So what was Franco of Spain? And didn't the spanish fascists finally lose power in the early 1980's?

          Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and social interests subordinate to the interests of the state or party. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, and religious attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, and opposition to political and economic liberalism.
      • Chestnut3499, on 12/18/2007, -0/+5Fascism, modern political ideology that seeks to regenerate the social, economic, and cultural life of a country by basing it on a heightened sense of national belonging or ethnic identity. Fascism rejects liberal ideas such as freedom and individual rights, and often presses for the destruction of elections, legislatures, and other elements of democracy. Despite the idealistic goals of fascism, attempts to build fascist societies have led to wars and persecutions that caused millions of deaths. As a result, fascism is strongly associated with right-wing fanaticism, racism, totalitarianism, and violence.

        The term fascism was first used by Italian dictator Benito Mussolini in 1919. The term comes from the Italian word fascio, which means “union” or “league.” It also refers to the ancient Roman symbol of power, the fasces, a bundle of sticks bound to an ax, which represented civic unity and the authority of Roman officials to punish wrongdoers.
    • IADTatami, on 12/18/2007, -8/+1oops, bury
    • wipis, on 12/18/2007, -21/+2That is assuming that it actually happened. Why would Bill Clinton get bent out of shape over a college kid asking questions about something that happened under Bush's watch. People like Clinton are our friend. His wife could take office one day and actually work with the 911 commission to help get the truth.
      • cheesecake42, on 12/18/2007, -0/+11please tell me that was sarcasm
        • nomadxx7, on 12/18/2007, -1/+6I sure hope so.
        • EditorResponse, on 12/18/2007, -0/+7ASS wipis you just made my day! I had NEVER had laughed on Digg.com until I read "People like Clinton are our friend. His wife could take office one day and actually work with the 911 commission to help get the truth." Now that is funny because Bill Clinton is NOT anyones friend and the truthers are trying to tie in with Clinton too(besides Ron Paul)....NOW THAT'S A GAS!
      • norman619, on 12/18/2007, -0/+4....stunned.....

        Seeing this kind of stupidity and naivete is much like spotting Bigfoot. you can tell others you saw it but no one will ever believe you. wow...
      • PhilLesh69, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1Hillary and Bill are part of the same system, the same establishment that is pushing us farther down the road of empire.
  • dd12101, on 12/18/2007, -18/+52The Clintons are capapble of anything. The real enemy is the mindless fools that follow them.
    • Haecceity, on 12/18/2007, -13/+12Yes, the Clintons are somehow still in charge of the Secret Service.
      • Coven, on 12/18/2007, -1/+16Former Presidents are assigned a Secret Service detail for life.
        • NonServium, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1Yep, that way they know that they can be "protected" at any second, just in case.
      • Phrag, on 12/18/2007, -1/+14Former presidents get Secret Service for life and they are in control of the ones that are assigned to them.
        • HentaiJeff, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1not after Clinton, bush doesn't get it and Hillary, if elected, would get a loophole as a former first lady
      • HentaiJeff, on 12/18/2007, -2/+3Former presidents up to Clinton you mean. bush will not get it. Works for me, I don't want the SS all over Dallas
        • EditorResponse, on 12/18/2007, -0/+4Why wouldn't president Bush get Secret Service protection?
        • haveyougonemad, on 12/18/2007, -1/+2It's easier to assassinate him that way.
          • norman619, on 12/18/2007, -1/+1ummm... what would be the point? Do you realize how stupid that sounds right?
        • yojiffyskippy, on 12/18/2007, -1/+2Please don't talk about things that you don't know about. All presidents get Secret Service for 10 years after leaving office. Clinton was the last one to get assigned a Secret Service detail for life. Legislation was enacted in 1997 changing it from "life time of Secret Service" to "10 years".
          • HentaiJeff, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1next time read what I said I SAID THAT I just didn't go into detail
      • brjndr, on 12/18/2007, -0/+4Clinton was the last president to get secret service for life, now it's for 5 years after the presidency ends. They changed it when Clinton was in office.
        • yojiffyskippy, on 12/18/2007, -0/+3Actually 10 years. According to the US Department of Treasury.
          "In 1965, Congress authorized the Secret Service (Public Law 89-186) to protect a former president and his/her spouse during their lifetime, unless they decline protection. In 1997, Congress enacted legislation (Public Law 103-329) that limits Secret Service protection for former presidents to 10 years after leaving office. Under this new law, individuals who are in office before January 1, 1997, will continue to receive Secret Service protection for their lifetime. Individuals elected to office after that time will receive protection for 10 years after leaving office. Therefore, President Clinton will be the last president to receive lifetime protection."
        • dd12101, on 12/18/2007, -0/+2Here's one for you, the Clinton's charge the government for the Secret Service and the government re-imburses them for bogus expenses related to having to have the security. Unbelievable,,,,

    • arcangelgabriel, on 12/18/2007, -15/+6"The Clintons are capapble of anything." Did your decoder ring tell you that? Capable of...? Time shifting? Wormhole manipulation? Control of the galactic senate? Causing your dog to ***** wildly?
      Capable by the way, not capapble.
      • cawpin, on 12/18/2007, -0/+7You must ignore the dead bodies like the rest of them.
    • dd12101, on 12/18/2007, -0/+2Everyone knows the clinton apparaticks/opertatives are still in place. That was why they all went berserk when Bush starting replacing the fed lawyers, it would've crippled the clinton infiltration into the judicial branch. As for the CIA and FBI, come on, those buearacracies have more leaks than a fishnet. Where does anyone think all the leaks come from?
  • pedrovoltaire, on 12/18/2007, -24/+1well he should have known better really...
  • 309east, on 12/18/2007, -2/+67It's sad that its no longer safe to exercise our right to free speech in this country. If you ask questions 'they' don't like you are subject to harassment and intimidation, and worse.
    • slantyeyed, on 12/18/2007, -12/+2ha, I guess free speech means you have the right to say anything you want, but it doesn't protect you of its consequences, lol.
  • implied, on 12/18/2007, -5/+75I cant believe I have to take a 911 truther's side. :(

    // Has been victim of Secret Service abuse. They actually threatend to throw my friend in a closet "for a few days and see what happens". No Joke - SS isn't anything to ***** with. Case eventually "went away" and we all decided to just drop the issue..
    • doctechnical, on 12/18/2007, -4/+54I have to agree - even if I think the average "truther" is coo-coo for coco-puffs, their First Amendment rights are no different than mine.
      • Groovemaster, on 12/18/2007, -18/+18I think anyone who believes that 1300 foot tall buildings can collapse into dust and molten metal within 13 seconds (averaging 100 feet per second) through the path of greatest resistance - while jettisoning steel beams outwards with such force that they ended up jutting out of adjacent buildings - without the use of demolition explosives is "coo-coo for coco-puffs", but like you say... everyone has a right to their own opinion.
        • captric, on 12/18/2007, -9/+15Well that explains a few things aobut you. A 9-11 truther with no physics or engineering experience, just an illiterate "gut feeling" based on erroneous poolarized political propaganda.
        • Groovemaster, on 12/18/2007, -11/+10As opposed to your "gut feeling" that Bush was being honest for once.

          If you genuinely believe that the 9/11 commission was anything but a whitewash, you're entitled to your opinion.
        • HentaiJeff, on 12/18/2007, -7/+4I personaly know Bush didn't plan any of this. His track record doesn't show him to be very good in the planning department and something like that would take alot of planning.
          • Groovemaster, on 12/18/2007, -6/+5Where did I say Bush planned any of it?

            Strawman arguments FTL.
          • nomadxx7, on 12/18/2007, -3/+7BUT you personally know?

            I'm sorry but the President doesn't need the planning with all his cronies and Dick's cronies behind him. I'd say that the very least he know of something but was probably kept in the dark because he may blab about how he says the plane hit the building live on TV (when they weren't realized until later).
        • Frei, on 12/18/2007, -2/+4We don't have to relay on a gut feeling, we have historic and scientific evidence.
      • voyvf, on 12/18/2007, -1/+12Agreed. In fact, one of the greatest things about this country is that one is allowed to share their own thoughts, regardless of whether they are in accord with the government or the people. Take that freedom away, and we are all slaves to our government.
        • Groovemaster, on 12/18/2007, -4/+7"In fact, one of the greatest things about this country is that one is allowed to share their own thoughts"

          You mean "one of the greatest things about this country *was* that one *was* allowed to share their own thoughts."

          Just helping you stay on topic. ;)
        • gobbo, on 12/18/2007, -1/+5One was allowed, for a brief while, after countless arrests and beatings during various civil right demos during the 60's and 70's, post-mccarthyism. Since the instigators of these restrictions weren't unseated from power, they were concessions, not revolutionary. When the mass demonstrations slowed, the free speech restrictions creeped back. Check your history: some have always had more free speech than others in the USA, and it usually relies on them not saying certain things. The system has many more methods of silencing dissent than the truncheon.
      • implied, on 12/18/2007, -7/+3911 conspiracy theorists WANT the government to be involved (subconsciously). If the government isn't involved, that means that we are vulnerable as a country. They would rather have a government that attacks it's own citizens rather than a foreign body attacking them. It's a pretty elegant psychological affliction, really.
        • MrWhite7, on 12/18/2007, -1/+6Aw that's cute, you think your freedom of speech also extends to psychoanalyzing someone based on a digg comment.
        • nomadxx7, on 12/18/2007, -2/+7No I'd rather be my brother's keeper and help out where I can. I don't want to feel unsafe from foreign attack or that my own government has such blantant disregard for me as a person that they are willing to be larger terrorists in the world than anything we could ever produce.

          Things like Rendition, torture sites, being able to deny evidence in court until state secrets clause, being able to call anyone an enemy combatant and deny them habeus corpus doesn't sit well with me.

          I'm a revolutionary patriot at heart and I'm disheartened that that title will one day get my labeled as a terrorist or an enemy combatant.
        • Groovemaster, on 12/18/2007, -2/+4@implied

          If muslims believe they'll be sent to their version of heaven to spend eternity surrounded by willing virgins if they commit kamikaze attacks on Americans, why haven't any of the millions of muslims who live in America walked into their local malls strapped with explosives?
        • implied, on 12/18/2007, -1/+2@MrWhite7: My freedom of speech sure does afford me that right. Die in a fire.

          @nomadxx7: I agree totally, except that 911 was created by our government. When asked the appropriate questions, you people have no answers.
          a) How come nobody has come forward and said they helped? The cats out of the bag right? So where are all the whistleblowers?
          b) Our government is incompetent, Please explain how they could have pulled this off without it leaking

          @Groovemaster: Just wait.


          • Groovemaster, on 12/18/2007, -2/+4Six years later and you're saying "just wait"? Thanks for admitting you're in denial.
      • bono4u, on 12/19/2007, -0/+5i am often not sure what is a scam and what is true
        where are direct connections and which of them are only coincidentally

        i find it helpful for political news to imagine the land it is about, the resources it has, which kind of people/groups are living there, what connections do they have to other countries, which implications may be concluded , ...

        The Century of the Self
        http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-263763536 ...
        Manufacturing_Consent
        http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-563188239 ...

        Dead In The Water - The Sinking of the USS Liberty
        http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-331966304 ...
        Gulf of Tonkin Incident - False Flag
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71fT2IZ1y9M

        The History of Oil - Robert Newman(funny but very informative)
        http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-895726830 ...
        The Oil Factor: Behind the War on Terror
        http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=11307313887 ...


        YouTube - The Iran - Contra Scandal and Cover-Up (Part 1 of 3)
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HO9PXN-budo&feature ...
        The MENA Connection
        http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8615500044 ...

        YouTube - NATO terrorists (1-15) Operation Gladio: 1948-1990
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2MOpkriXb4
        Censored: Inside Indonesia's War on Terror
        http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-5284908317 ...


        Loose Change Final Cut - November 2007
        http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-203510896 ...
        Oil, Smoke & Mirrors.
        http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=86773898695 ...

        i take it like Socrates,
        i know that i do know nothing and that for itself is quite a lot.
    • elhaf, on 12/18/2007, -0/+4I know! Dammit! Anyway, it reminds me of another Clinton story, not that I have anything against Clinton per se; I'm sure there are similar stories about Bush, but the potential tellers of those stories are in Gitmo. Dan Brown famously wrote the novel Digital Fortress after a student of his (he was an English professor) was accosted by the SS for writing an e-mail to his friend that he wished Clinton dead. Brown wondered how the SS came to know of that e-mail, and hence learned all about the NSA, supercomputers, etc., from anonymous whistleblowers within the agency, which was the subject of the novel. Note that this was pre-2000. They've been spying on us since the development of communications technology, I feel sure.
      • PhilLesh69, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1Oh yeah, Echelon was created in the 1960's. They've been using for corporate espionage, eavesdropping on diplomatic and political communications since the 80's and since the 90's they've filtered EVERY electronic form of communication worldwide (email, fax, long distance voice calls, TCP/IP packets, cell phones, ship-to-shore comms, etc) looking for any of 2000 words in a list of suspect words.
    • GhostyBoy, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1If these government dicks aren't hiding anything, then what the hell does the secret service are what they say. Seriously, if truthers are just a bunch of loons, then who cares? Let them say whatever they want. Too me this just makes truthers look more credible.
  • Groovemaster, on 12/18/2007, -8/+40No wonder Americans are so unquestioning and subservient if this is how their owners treat them when they dare to think for themselves.
    • captric, on 12/18/2007, -3/+3OWNERS?
      • fac3less, on 12/18/2007, -5/+7Poor Captric.
        The truth hurts. Go back to sleep :)
        • captric, on 12/19/2007, -1/+1Truth? According to who? Some no nothing from Canada??? Go back and smoke a joint moron.
      • captric, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1The truth according to whom? some no nothing illiterate moron form the second world nation of Canada????? You actually think you know than I do about American Federal Law enforcement and our laws??? That sounds like some sort of mental illness to me. In Canada you don't even have the right to not be searched without probable cause. Smoke a joint and go back to reading some local rag for your education.
        • PhilLesh69, on 12/19/2007, -1/+1Cut back on your drinking, and then what you write might make sense.

          "Some no nothing illiterate moron from the second world nation of Canada???" How about, "some know nothing illiterate moron from the FIRST world nation of canada????"

          You fail the logic test. Our intelligence leaders have argued with reporters about whether the 4th Amendment requires probable cause. Their stance is that it only requires it to "be reasonable" and no, there is nothing in the 4th amendment that says anything about probable cause.

          Look up Gen. Hayden, when he was NSA chief.
        • captric, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1Apparently you have never lived in Canada. In Canada a police officer can pull you over and check you for drunkenness for example even if they have no PROBABLE CAUSE to believe that you have been drinking. Our 4th Amendment in the US would prevent that because the Courts have approved routine warrant less seizures, for example "where there is probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has been or is being committed." If the police could not prove probable cause the charges would be thrown out and the victim of the warrant less search without probable cause could sue the jurisdiction civilly as well as the officers who violated the persons civil rights could be punished criminally. You are talking about something different and this has nothing to do with INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES. The SS is a protective agency that is bound by Federal Law Enforcement protocol. If you threaten the President than you have possibly committed a crime and if you Conspire to kill the president than you have possibly committed a crime. If there is a reasonable belief by the SS that you have committed a crime than they not only have a right but an obligation to investigate and gather evidence to determine if you have actually violated a crime?
          Is that too much for you??? Do you know anything about the law or law enforcement? Do know anything about Canadian law and and law enforcement? I doubt it.
    • Skooma714, on 12/18/2007, -1/+11Try not to pay just your property tax. See who really is in charge.


      America isn't a republic, it's pretty feudalistic especially at the local level.
  • 01l0, on 12/18/2007, -16/+19If you believe your government killed thousands of civilians to further their evil agenda, why are you complaining about being QUESTIONED?
    • rudyghouliani, on 12/18/2007, -2/+6huh?
      I want unanswered question answered,
      • dshPls, on 12/18/2007, -9/+4Go ahead, shoot. Ask these questions. I bet they've been answered hundreds of times, but you refuse the evidence and science behind them.
        • 01l0, on 12/18/2007, -0/+2I believe he was asking for an answer to the question I asked.
      • PhilLesh69, on 12/19/2007, -0/+3The science of kerosene causing the collapse of 110 story steel framed buildings?

        KEROSENE. "Jet Fuel" is lower in flash point than diesel. It cannot melt steel. It cannot collapse a building.

        Sure, "Jet fuel" just sounds powerful, it makes airplanes go fast, so sure, it has to be able to melt steel.

        Look up the physics, not the Popular Mechanics physics, or the physics of the administration, but the real, scientific physics.

        Jet fuel/Kerosene burns in open air at 1400 degrees. Steel melts at 2300 degrees.

        The science is just not in support of the official conspiracy theory.
  • Frostman3D, on 12/18/2007, -6/+59Sounds like we need to defend the constitution with violence.
    • userperson, on 12/18/2007, -2/+10Need is relative to purpose.
      In order to keep society free? a little late, not to mention you & yours are probably severely outgunned.
      Also see the history of violence as being a 'useful solution', and how that usually works out, or doesn't.
      Though rest assured your frustration is shared by many.
    • epiffffany, on 12/18/2007, -1/+9They will be arriving at your doorstep in 3... 2...1...
    • captric, on 12/18/2007, -14/+4Oohhh - violence ffrom a digger. Are you going to go after the "EVIL SECRET SERVICE" with your 22 rim fire that you have never even had any training on how to shoot it??????
      • Phrag, on 12/18/2007, -1/+3Yeah. No one on the internet would ever actually do something violent. Especially people who post on digg or 4chan or.... oh wait...
      • Frostman3D, on 12/18/2007, -0/+4I don't own a gun, I'm going to beat them into submission with my erect penis.
    • insanebrain, on 12/18/2007, -2/+5It's time people remember the fact that they are in power. .. not a bunch of assholes who call themselves 'the government'
      • PhilLesh69, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1WERE in power. Or at least that was the story they once told us.
    • dshPls, on 12/18/2007, -7/+3I bet you wont, actually.
      • sestalker, on 12/18/2007, -1/+2Yeah because he's going to lay down and go back to sleep. Once you take the red pill there is no turning back
        • dshPls, on 12/18/2007, -0/+3Dude this is the real world, not a ***** movie. I swear the mind of a truther is confused and chaotic, the dfference between science-fiction and real life is a blur. Go jump off a building like neo, please.
      • NonServium, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1I suppose it's hard for you to deal with knowing that yes, there really are people who would defend freedom with violence, sacrificing life and limb in the process, while you must look at the face of someone who sells out his country for a living in the mirror every day. You know if you kill yourself now, God might go easier on you.
  • jaymzdean, on 12/18/2007, -3/+37The U.S. government despises the document that limits it's infringements on your liberties. Fascism. Plain and simple.
  • majortom1981, on 12/18/2007, -22/+0Why should I belive a website like this? With all the tasering going on and things like that if this was real it would have been ALL over the news.
    • rudyghouliani, on 12/18/2007, -2/+13BAAAAAAAAA, ***** sheep are the problem in this country, do you think Cheney could have gotten away with what he has if the people weren't so ***** asleep worrying about Brittney and Paris? Wake the ***** up!
      • yojiffyskippy, on 12/18/2007, -2/+1Actually some of us have the brain capacity to process news about Britney, Paris, and real issues. They're both hot and distracting but if you put your mind to it, I'm sure you can handle it too.
    • Troika37, on 12/18/2007, -4/+10No - you're forgetting the Clintons own the media. Need proof? Hillary told GQ they would lose all access to the entire family forever if they didn't cut a piece they had written which was critical of Bill.

      We call that extortion.
      • wendelgee2, on 12/18/2007, -2/+1That doesn't actually prove ownership.
      • yojiffyskippy, on 12/18/2007, -2/+1Obviously you don't know what "ownership" means and you don't know what "extortion" means? The Google is your friend.
        • PhilLesh69, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1control? ownership implies monetary possession. You are talking about editorial manipulation.
    • ladalang, on 12/18/2007, -3/+10are you serious? The news would never show this. They don't want Americans to know we are in a full blown dictatorship.
      • NoStoppingUs, on 12/18/2007, -5/+4i'm stunned that so many people on here are so naive. come to my house, and talk to my grandparents about what a TRUE 'full blown dictatorship" is. they'd slap the ***** out of you, and rightly so.
        • MrWhite7, on 12/18/2007, -2/+3I guess we should just wait quietly until we get a repeat of that then eh? If you want to quiet discourse because you don't feel threatened yet then fine, shut the ***** up.
        • ISIfunded911, on 12/18/2007, -1/+1Mass media brainwashing people plus stolen elections since 2000 plus people being slaves at work = today's form of dictatorship. It is more subtle than ever before.
          You can read Guy Debord's The Society of the Spectacle and his Comments on The Society of the Spectacle written 20 years later to analyze its evolution since the '60s.
          http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/103-8064078-7 ...
    • GhostyBoy, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1Are you for ***** real?!? The news does not report a SINGLE GOD-DAMN THING that may spark controversy, or cause the citizens to ask questions, or inform the public of anything relevant whatsoever.

      How much have you heard about Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and the former president of Italy calling for a new 9/11 investigation? Seems like that would be news, too. They don't report on anything that would detract from the agendas of the people who own them. Sit up in your chair and pay attention.
      • PhilLesh69, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1How many corporations control our media? TV, Newspapers, Movies, music are controlled by six corporations.

        CBS-Viacom
        NBC-GE (GE is the largest US defense contractor)
        ABC-Disney
        CNN-Time Warner (AOL)
        FOX-Rupert Murdoch News Corporation
        Bertlesmann

        Eventually, that will condense down to only 3 holders of media outlets, like every other industry.
  • oceanrain, on 12/18/2007, -5/+16Typical of the Clintons.
    • elhaf, on 12/18/2007, -4/+2I don't get it. A guy and his wife pull themselves up from nothing, Arkansas, by their bootstraps and now suddenly they're part of an evil dynasty. As opposed to third-generation politician Bush, whose father was a congressman who pulled strings for him re: the draft, and who also ran the CIA and was later president; meanwhile Prescott Bush was a Senator who benefited from alliances with Nazi Germany, including financing some of their worst programs, but somehow the Clintons are evil. Wow.
      • yojiffyskippy, on 12/18/2007, -0/+2So you're saying the Clinton's can't be corrupt because the Bush's are? Here's a very reliable rule of thumb in US politics. "If the person is a politician then they are corrupt." Are there exceptions to this rule? Probably. Will there be exceptions to this rule in the future? Probably. But if you're a betting man, put your money on Politician=Corrupt.
      • oceanrain, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1Do some homework and read about Hillary and Bill. You just might realize that they are corrupt as hell.
  • Evildudetx, on 12/18/2007, -15/+7Complete hersay - why wasn't his mother filming this or taking pictures?
    • Groovemaster, on 12/18/2007, -1/+11Who knows? Maybe the SS agents were camera shy?

      What a ***** stupid question.
      • fack0, on 12/18/2007, -5/+2Zero proof.... Hey aliens were at my house yesterday. Wait why doesn't anyone believe me?
    • voyvf, on 12/18/2007, -1/+11Not everyone carries a camera around with them where ever they go. And not many people have the presence of mind to pick one up when they're being harassed by federal officials. For example, the next time an officer pulls you over, whip out a video camera and start recording. See how that works out.
    • RyanElston, on 12/18/2007, -3/+3Pic's or it didn't happen.
    • sestalker, on 12/18/2007, -0/+6He was on Alex Jones Show yesterday. He gave the agent's names.
  • Haecceity, on 12/18/2007, -2/+16What's the context? What are these videos the article talks about? What could the supposed threats against a former president be? I've read the article and I don't know, because it's poorly written and not worthy of being Dugg. If there's a story here, would someone please write it up properly?
  • omgTHEPATRIOTS, on 12/18/2007, -3/+23"They asked him if he would use violence to defend the constitution."
    hahahahaha we are so *****.
    i don't even care if this kid was a nutty 9/11 truther who is making up conspiracy theories about the Bildebergs, but this just shows how much contempt the establishment has for the Constitution.
  • rholland356, on 12/18/2007, -17/+10UNSUBSTANTIATED blogwash.
  • inkhead, on 12/18/2007, -15/+4I don't want to be mean, but man if the secret service visits you, don't tell them about your 2nd amendment rights, even though you don't own a gun but could (they asked if he did, and that is what he said). Just say you wanted the President to answer your question and felt that he owed you an answer and that you have respect for him and his staff, but just wanted to make sure he could handle the tough questions.

    Why would I tell you to say this even if it is *****?

    Because the Secret Service DOES NOT ***** around. If you think the idea of the CIA, and other covert government agencies are scary, just wait until the Secret Service talks to you. They don't respect any laws, and flaunt the fact. They will destroy you, and nothing you do can fix that. If you get added to a list (which you did, probably not high up) your life will become a living hell. They purposely seek out the people on their list and have an entire team that does things to mess with these people for the rest of their natural lives. And I'm not talking about visiting or harassing them, I'm talking about ruining your credit, your power bills getting screwed up, screwing up your social security, messing with your phones, all sorts of things that normally would be annoying pranks. Anything they can do to make your life hell, including making sure you never get those jobs you interview for. They lie and cheat and will do anything to get revenge if they feel that you are on their bad side, so best to BE NICE, pretend you are very sorry.

    Trust me it's not worth it. Because in this case standing up to them will accomplish nothing, and nobody will know or care... sorry to disappoint you.
    • impei, on 12/18/2007, -0/+4How do you know this?
    • d03boy, on 12/18/2007, -1/+5Pansy.
    • Swift2, on 12/18/2007, -2/+2"Because the Secret Service DOES NOT ***** around. If you think the idea of the CIA, and other covert government agencies are scary, just wait until the Secret Service talks to you. They don't respect any laws, and flaunt the fact. They will destroy you, and nothing you do can fix that. If you get added to a list (which you did, probably not high up) your life will become a living hell."
      Talking from personal experience, Sparky? Or are you just writing some spy novel? I know they'll visit you after an incident. They want to see if you're a long-term or genuine threat. They don't want a Lee Harvey Oswald. The rest of you weird rant sounds like you're a spy novel fan.
  • edebolt, on 12/18/2007, -12/+6"they implied his future career could be effected......" .... oh my that is serious. I think I had a college professor who implied my future career could be effected.... I didn't realize he was a fascist overlord.
    • Nth3nSum, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1Your college professor was right, but also has less control over your future than the SS does.

      Your professor calls you a terrorist and the class laughs at you. He gives you a failing grade and you take the class again or try a different major.

      SS calls you a terrorist and you disappear in gitmo. No lawyer, no trial - you are enemy combatant #421. Have a nice day.
    • PhilLesh69, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1"This will go down on your permanent record."

      Sadly, there used to not actually be a "permanent record", but I have a feeling that there is one now.
  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 12/18/2007, -6/+10What future career? He's a sosh major.
    • mstoneburner, on 12/18/2007, -4/+2AND a Truther! Google his name. Would you hire him?
      • texxmexx, on 12/19/2007, -1/+2I love how all you sheep seemed so concerned about keeping your name clean so you can beg to become someone's slave....BAAAA
  • ladalang, on 12/18/2007, -2/+17That question was linked to HR1955, S1959, homegrown terrorism bill trying to become law. I knew they were targeting our first amendment rights. They are already acting as if its law which tells you nothing we do will stop it.
    • mwalker05, on 12/18/2007, -0/+4whats scary is that most people have already forgotten that it passed in one of the houses already and is set to go for a vote in the other in january. when it passes, a lot of the comments on digg would even be enough to warrant investigation.
  • Otto, on 12/18/2007, -20/+15This guy is a 911 Truther, so I'd take his account with a big heaping spoonful of salt.

    Most likely it was a standard investigation of a potential threat. When you get up and ask a former president idiotic truther conspiracy questions in a public forum, then yes, you are a potential threat. They want to know whether or not you'll snap and climb a tower with a rifle or something. It's happened before.

    So if all they did was ask you questions that you found harassing in some way, then they simply figured out that you're an idiot. If they thought you were at all dangerous, you'd be behind bars and waiting on psychiatric evaluations.
    • shredswithpiks, on 12/18/2007, -3/+6"Most likely it was a standard investigation of a potential threat. When you get up and ask a former president idiotic truther conspiracy questions in a public forum, then yes, you are a potential threat. They want to know whether or not you'll snap and climb a tower with a rifle or something. It's happened before."

      the problem with that is the constitution guarantees our right to ask idiotic truther conspiracy questions without being harassed or imprisoned by the government.
      • fac3less, on 12/18/2007, -4/+3Where does the consitution guarantee your right to ask idiotic questions without being harassed?
        None of them mentioned prison, they were simply asking him questions.

        I've had burritos wrapped in less tinfoil than you have on right now.
      • elhaf, on 12/18/2007, -2/+4Well, the constitution does not guarantee your right to shout fire in a crowded theatre. This has been established by the Supreme Court, which is empowered by the constitution to do so. Likewise, threats, real or implied, against a former or sitting president, are not taken lightly. Yes, they do, as reponsible law enforcement officers, take conspiracy theorists as a threat, to be properly evaluated, as they did. Having said that, if I were asked that question, I would answer it in the proper context. For example, I would defend the constitution with violence if I were in the SS, or in the military and charged to do so. If I were a politician, I would defend it with my stands on votes. As a citizen, I do likewise even though I am not under oath to do so; I defend the constitution with my votes and words (blogs, letters to editors and congressmen) not with violence, as that is not my job. Hypothetically, if there were a serious threat to the constitution, and for example the president asked all citizens to stand up and defend her with their lives, I would then do so, assuming I believed him (i.e., not for Bush). So as I said, it requires qualification.
    • NonServium, on 12/19/2007, -1/+1"Most likely it was a standard"

      The government violates one of our rights and the old "Don't worry, it's commonplace for them to do that in these cases" argument rears it's head right on cue.
      • Otto, on 12/19/2007, -1/+1What right did they violate? Be specific now, because as it stands they just came to his house and asked him some questions. He was quite free to not answer, but he did answer and that was that. He has not been arrested or had his freedom of speech stopped in any way.

        Take off the tin-foil, dude.
  • johnboycanada, on 12/18/2007, -1/+8Not using violence to defend the constitution is in complete contridition about how we have been told to react. I thought the Dec. of Ind. said that it is a right of the people to overthrow a despotic government. Somehow going to war to defend "Democracy" in Iraq is worth an armed confrontation but not here in the USA?
    • elhaf, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1Yes, and the constitutional government that was set up in place of the monarchy assures that we have non-violent means to achieve the overthrow of government. There's an overthrow scheduled for November, 2008.
      • NonServium, on 12/19/2007, -0/+2Yep, and since power doesn't corrupt, we know the voting system hasn't been tampered with!
  • wipis, on 12/18/2007, -9/+7Could we get some references, proof or context?
    Do people really think the Clintons stand to gain much if anything from intimidating some college kid who asked questions about 911? "Oh no this Nick guy is getting to close. He's asking to many questions. Send my body guards to embarrass him in front of his parents."
    And mind you this is posted on a 911 site that is very liberal and mildly conspiratorial.
    • akphidelt, on 12/18/2007, -3/+1The Clintons probably don't even know that went on... they probably question atleast a couple people a day, this just happened to make a web site.
    • mwalker05, on 12/18/2007, -0/+2given the phrasing of the question i doubt that they were their under direct orders from the clintons. sounds like homeland security to me.
    • faskippy, on 12/19/2007, -0/+3It's spelled TOO, DAMMIT! TOO MANY QUESTIONS, TOO CLOSE! TOO! TOO! TOO! Geez, what grade are you in???? AAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGG!!!!!!!
  • jacekw, on 12/18/2007, -12/+2Umm, why is Facism being thrown around like the dirty red-headed stepchild? By definition, activists are people that actively try to make things change. From the story that is linked, one is led to believe that there was a "confrontation". How can you guys all sit there and say that this means of retaliation on the part of the secret service was not warranted? Maybe the confrontation was getting a little to hostile. Clinton is an ex-president after all.... There is far too little information to be crying facism.
    • gobbo, on 12/18/2007, -0/+4I think people have their finger on the F'm button because there are many corroborating signs of the development of tyranny, and silencing dissent by threatening visits to the home (the next escalation step could be disappearance, during a crisis, according to the historical pattern) is one of them. As others have noted, the SS (no pun intended) carry overtones of being above the law, whether true or not.
      • elhaf, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1Oh, "tyranny". I thought you meant Mussolini was coming back.
    • Swift2, on 12/18/2007, -3/+1It's "fascism," and it has nothing to do with faces. Is this the televised, or YouTubed meeting where Clinton was addressing the crowd and some kids stand up and start spouting the 9/11 conspiracy crap, and Bill says they ought to be ashamed? And when they're hauled out of the meeting for making a disturbance, the audience applauds -- because Truthers are insufferable twits?
      • Vinadetta, on 12/18/2007, -0/+2Right it is better to be blind nationalist for your country than a patriot for the constitution.
  • Wolfboy, on 12/18/2007, -0/+17re: Use violence to defend the Constitution... Isn't that what the troops in U.S. military do?

    "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;"
    -- first lines of the oath you take if you join the U.S. Army.
    • elhaf, on 12/18/2007, -0/+3Maybe they were trying to recruit him.
  • KiwiHopeful, on 12/18/2007, -10/+1I don't get it. What does this story have to do with Ron Paul?
  • eddy23170, on 12/18/2007, -2/+6just refuse to work.....I can almost guarantee that 2 weeks away from your job will have the establishment on it knees. There are much more of us than them....the economy would be at a standstill....
    • R1ng00, on 12/19/2007, -0/+2unfortunately no one can afford to do that.
  • misfit410, on 12/18/2007, -0/+8It's his life he needs to be worried about, Clintons own their own coroner, and they have used him to get away with murder, multiple times.
    • GhostyBoy, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1Check out "Bill and Hillary: Their Secret Life" on YouTube.

      I'm not saying it's all true, but if even 5% of that movie is based on fact, then these guys have got some serious problems.
  • captric, on 12/18/2007, -8/+5So - there are no details about what this so called "CONFRONTATION" was. Isn't that curious? Former Presidents and current serious Candidates have Secret Service Protection of r a very good reason. This is not harassment, this guy exposed himself as a threat and he deserves to be questioned. It is the RIGHT of the Secret Service to question YOU,just like you have a RIGHT to question the President. Of the millions of people who meet Candidates and Former and Current Presidents every year, why do you think he stood out!!!!
    • slantyeyed, on 12/18/2007, -1/+2you forget people like laws that help them do what they want, and they hate laws that don't let them do what they want.
    • d03boy, on 12/18/2007, -2/+4The difference is the answer everyone gets. SS gets the answer they want or they'll throw you in a hole. If you don't get your answer, well, tough *****. Welcome to America.
      • captric, on 12/18/2007, -1/+1Thats funny - maybe you should become an attorney and if what you say is true than you can make mega buckes defending people t"thtown in a hole" by government agents without evidence of a crime being commited.
    • Difranco1911, on 12/18/2007, -3/+7You are a complete Idiot and do not know of what you speak. The Government and it's agents DO NOT have any rights, the government is only granted certain enumerated POWERS in the United States Constitution by We the People who hold all RIGHTS and Powers. Fictions created by law cannot have more rights than Natural Human Beings as all rights are only derived from the Creator / Natural Law.
      • elhaf, on 12/18/2007, -2/+1You are correct, however maybe a better word would be duty.
      • captric, on 12/18/2007, -1/+1Don't mix up the spirit world you believe in and the physical world we live in. Agents for the Federal Government have standards, operating practices and laws that they have to o obey as well. For instance, if you arrest someone for a crime they have not committed then you are liable both criminally and civilly. That is you can be prosecuted and also sued civilly by the victim. The SS has a RIGHT and an OBLIGATION to investigate threats against the people they are paid to protect. If you have rights that you think are NATURAL or derived form a CREATOR, than you better make sure they are not in conflict with the ENFORCEABLE LAWS that represent the collective conciseness of Society until you join the SPIRIT WORLD.
        • NonServium, on 12/19/2007, -1/+1I'm not sure which is more sad, that you think you are helping a political debate with your comments when even at a glance it is obvious you are completely unfamiliar with both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution; or that you claim to be strictly focused on this physical world and yet say that these laws represent the "collective conscience of our society".
    • bono4u, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1nevertheless i would be interested in the questions and the answers
  • Thumprr, on 12/18/2007, -13/+2Overreact much?

    A kid confronts an ex-president. He has public membership in an organization that has made some pretty wild claims about the government. He gets questioned. He doesn't like some of the questions. They left an impression on him, which was probably the intent.

    While I'm sure that it would make this kid feel important if the Secret Service were targetting him, those guys are plenty busy with more important things.
  • iAlex, on 12/18/2007, -2/+23The Clinton Crime family will do anything to destroy their opponents.
    Bill Clinton = Bilderberg attendee.
    Hillary Clinton = Bilderberg attendee.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bilderberg_at ...

    They are the real criminals! Tell everyone you know NOT to vote for Hillary Clinton to destroy the Bush-Clinton dynasty!
    • slantyeyed, on 12/18/2007, -7/+2I thought Bush was the one we all hate. Do you mean we have to hate the Clintons too?
      • Fabc001, on 12/18/2007, -0/+11Yes, they are CFR annointed presidents. Hilary just offered H.W Bush a job if she wins. Do you get what is happening yet?
        • iAlex, on 12/18/2007, -0/+10Yes. The Bush family and Clinton family are the same Establishment we all hate. Just that they are in different parties and are playing "opposition" when they are on the same corrupt evil ***** side.
        • Swift2, on 12/18/2007, -8/+2The Council on Foreign Relations is a big think-tank. They invite people in. Some of their members may be for Clinton, and some are for others. Please, conspiracy morons, grow up.
    • IADTatami, on 12/18/2007, -0/+2What makes you think that the Clintons are in charge of the group?

      Thanks for linking to that list. It's interesting how many familiar names are on it! I wish it'd mentioned the date each member was invited into the group, though.
      • iAlex, on 12/18/2007, -0/+4They are not in charge of the group. They are members of the group.
        Wikipedia puts in quite well: "Attendees of Bilderberg include central bankers, defense experts, mass media press barons, government ministers, prime ministers, royalty, international financiers and political leaders from Europe and North America."
        Bilderberg creates the opposition politicans in Europe so they have full control and people think they still have democracy and any choice. They are literally an elite group screwing up the world.
        Because they have so many press members (examples: Rupert Murdoch of Fox News, Washington Post, The Daily Telegraph, George Stephanopoulos (former communications director in the Bill Clinton administration and now ABC News's Chief Washington Correspondent), NY Daily News, National Review founder William F. Buckley, Jr., and many other journalists, see more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bilderberg_at ... , they might have more secret members) is the reason why the traitor media is never covering this extremely influential and secretive group. How can a secret group meeting once every year with politicians, mass media, monarchs, bankers, big businesses, oil companies etc, not be a concern for people? If they were not up to evil it would be an open meeting. The mainstream media fails us the people. They are supposed to cover the people in control. But all they do is to hide it, deceive us, and spins it. I can say to you, that the mainstream media are traitors.
        • bono4u, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1On the latest bilderberg list on youtube there are all names listed together with their functions, only one name without function, i don't know what these meetings are all about but i would want to have a closer look on some of these guys actions and intentions.
  • rumagin, on 12/18/2007, -1/+9ss = ss
  • revo764, on 12/18/2007, -1/+7I hope all you people are armed and if you are not old enough I hope you will convince your mummy and daddy to buy an assault rifle. A fascist/dictator regime cannot last long with an armed populace. The foundng fathers added the second amendment to the constitution for this very reason.
    • Pherdnut, on 12/18/2007, -1/+0Since when did Americans say "mummy?"
  • MrDiggDugg, on 12/18/2007, -8/+1Amazing how easily so many people believe this to be true without a shred of evidence to back it up.
    • bono4u, on 12/19/2007, -0/+4yes it is amazing. Nearly as amazing what people all believe they see on TV, read in their newspapers or here from a neighbor.
  • unklesam666, on 12/18/2007, -1/+11It is not a voter's place to disagree or question. Just say yes and be taxed. Come on people, get patriotic
  • akphidelt, on 12/18/2007, -16/+1You conspiracy theorists amaze me!! There is absolutely nothing wrong with questioning a crazy activists... who knows what is going through their minds!
  • slantyeyed, on 12/18/2007, -12/+2i'm surprised digg'ers haven't bombed a federal building yet with all the talk around here?
    • fotbr, on 12/18/2007, -1/+2I'm sure they'll act up as soon as the morons from ar15.com and freerepublic do.
      Or when paul and kunitich (I know, spelled, wrong, I don't care) fail to make the election, much less win.
  • Pherdnut, on 12/18/2007, -12/+0Are we really taking the unsubstantiated word of a conspiracy theorist at face value? He could have at least secured an interview with his mom by a third party to establish something resembling credibility. That said, it wouldn't be the first time someone at the Secret Service acted like a total loon.
    • Groovemaster, on 12/18/2007, -0/+4Keep a close eye on the corporate controlled mainstream media. I'm sure they're already rushing to report the truth of this matter to the highly informed American public.
      • Pherdnut, on 12/18/2007, -2/+0Our news media is a joke because it's market-driven by the same customers who aren't stopping to ask where this story is coming from. At least most mainstream newspapers give attribution to their sources and make a clear distinction between evidence, speculation and hearsay.
        • NonServium, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1Our news media is not market driven. It's profit driven. There's a lot more money in hiding the truth than in reporting it. That aside, adding attributions does not really make those distinctions. And, the news often just makes things up.
  • mikehill33, on 12/18/2007, -0/+2Waterboard him!
  • wafflesomd, on 12/18/2007, -3/+5Who cares about the Clintons? Seriously.
  • PistolPetey, on 12/18/2007, -8/+1Law enforcement using quasi-intimidating (at worst) tactics to elicit information from individuals who may (at least in the view of the Secret Service) potentially be a threat? What's the problem, again? I have no problem with the Secret Service knocking on people's doors and asking questions. There's absolutely nothing undemocratic about it. If you don't like it, don't answer your door! That's what I would do. Based on this blog post, some of you really conclude there exists some nefarious intent on the part of the Clintons, Secret Service, et. al.? Your intellectual dishonesty is losing you credibility.
    • Pherdnut, on 12/18/2007, -1/+5Being afraid to answer your own door because there might be SS spooks asking freaky questions that are completely unrelated to security is perfectly acceptable to you? Are you serious?
  • evo8ftw, on 12/18/2007, -9/+1Oh my dear god , please help this sheep! If this is true why doesn't Nick Carangi file a report with the SS as I am sure such behavior is not only condemned but not tolerated. I challenge Nick Carangi to file a complaint report with the SS until then I am calling him what he is a delusional liar.

    PS main stream media would eat this up if there were any credibility to it. Yet I've heard nothing. Nick Carangi I'll remember that be sure to pass that name around , good luck finding a job you histrionic.
    • inkhead, on 12/18/2007, -0/+6Uhh maybe you didn't see this? It was on CNN television, as well as cnn.com, and the drudgereport.com. Also the AP wire carried the story with an interview with his mother and comments from the secret service. This isn't some made up story.
      • evo8ftw, on 12/18/2007, -3/+1yet you fail to source
      • evo8ftw, on 12/18/2007, -1/+1http://news.google.com/news?q=Nick+Carangi&ie=UTF- ...

        You are a liar and nothing more. Or maybe google is broken?
        • sunkist22, on 12/18/2007, -1/+1Not sure what the hell you're searching for. I typed in Nick Carangi into google and found tons of results.

          http://www.google.ca/search?q=Nick+Carangi&ie=utf- ...
          • evo8ftw, on 12/18/2007, -1/+1I am searching google news which covers several news agency and the AP. If inkhead was telling the truth google news would of returned results for both cnn.com story and the AP wire. However no results are returned hence inkhead is liar. sunkist22 I've already proved you don't know how to tell time and now its looking as if you don't know how to read.
          • sunkist22, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1@evo: The fact I confused you talking about time zones shows you do not know enough to graduate high school. Sorry this story doesn't fit into your warped narrow vision of the world, but please let up on the sheep comments. you sound like a broken record
    • faskippy, on 12/19/2007, -0/+2Would you just please evolve, already?
  • moxley, on 12/18/2007, -0/+18The fact is that this was intimidation, pure and simple.

    People who think that campaigning for 9/11 truth (which we have never gotten, by the way - 911 truth doesn't mean that you think any one particular thing, other than that the official story is *****) is some offense or is nutty or whatever really are stupid sheeple who have no concept of the responsibility inherent in living in a free and open society.

    I would like to see the video of what he asked Clinton, and whether the event was presented as a free and open forum or a staged event. Judging by the article alone I would say that the Secret Service should be ashamed of themselves for this sort of blatant intimidation.

    The people who are criticizing those who are concerned about this need to study history and sociology; there is a lot to be concerned about in this country, it meets every definition of a fascist state.

    We have some unenducated people here stating that the word fascism is "being carelessly thrown around," - well, I choose my words carefully and obviously these people don't understand the meaning of the word.

    There are 14 general characteristics of a fascist state/society that all previous fascist states have had in common, and the US now meets all 14. Check the links below; or google "characteristics of fascism"

    http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/St ...

    http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm
    • Nidy1, on 12/18/2007, -4/+1"5.) Rampant Sexism" -from your sources.
      Sorry, I'm not completely disagreeing with you on everything, but claiming the US has "Rampant Sexism" is a flat out lie.
      • NonServium, on 12/19/2007, -0/+3It does, but it's anti-male sexism.
    • Pherdnut, on 12/18/2007, -2/+1The people who are questioning this are doing so because much like just about everything else 9/11 conspiracy theorists point too, no sources have been substantiated and nothing has been established as a fact.

      Do I think some part of Dick Cheney jumped for joy at this perfect excuse to establish a "pacifying influence" in the Middle East while lining his pockets with Haliburton's gratitude? Hell yes!

      Do I think an administration that can't even keep its recorded lies straight from month to month could even be a useful cog for a machine massive but well-oiled enough to be capable of this kind of coordination? Hell no.
      • NonServium, on 12/19/2007, -0/+2Is the Bush administration collectively capable of demolishing a couple buildings after flying planes into them, (and even missing one), and then appointing someone to be in charge of the investigation that would ensure they weren't found guilty, and only having millions of people figure it out? Yeah, I think they are competent enough to do that.
    • MrDiggDugg, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1Seems a lot more like it was "made up *****", pure and simple.
  • Swift2, on 12/18/2007, -10/+1All right. If there's a group more self-important and more dead wrong that the ronpaulites, it's the "9/11 Truth movement." Grow up, learn to think critically, and you will spend less time worrying about crap like this. Look, to the Secret Service, here was a guy that got out of control. Was there a threat from him? It's the agent's job to figure out what's going on, quickly, and asses whether there was a potential assassin here. He evidently decided there wasn't, but he said something that made Little Johnny unhappy. How dare he!
    As for the "Bilderberger" deal, it's a place where you can meet powerful and influential people. Of course, the most childish part of the left sees dark conspiracies everywhere. Are they Masons? Jews? The powerful unknown Illuminati? Like Bill Clinton or hate him, just don't pull this crap and think it's significant. Oh, of course, that means I must be part of Conspiracy!!!!!!!
    • Groovemaster, on 12/18/2007, -1/+5Haha! Well said!

      Everyone knows the mainstream media does nothing but tell you the truth - after all, their goal is to keep Americans highly informed and not to keep the corporations wealthy - and that conspiracies never happen because that would involve two or more people secretly planning to commit a crime, which is obviously impossible!

      It's lucky America's populated by insightful geniuses like you, otherwise the nation would probably be in a steady decline into fascism and bankruptcy!
    • inkhead, on 12/18/2007, -0/+5Conspiracy Theory has ruined most of the truth about so called "secret groups". The Bilderberger group exists, it has for nearly 80 years, and if you were ever to see inside you would be appalled. There's quite a bit of stuff that's blown out of proportion, but there is a lot of truth to NWO and large powerful groups trying to bring it in. I grew up under the influence of stuff like this, and it's quite real. People used to laugh at The Grove (SF) too, and the idea of the all the world's most powerful people (even enemies) dancing around naked in the night drinking, and having fun, until an AP reporter filmed the whole thing.

      There are powerful groups in this world with big, agendas. In 1950's one of the members of these groups for NWO said that there would be a Union of Europe, and then slowly a Union of North America presented under the guise of providing financial stability. Hell we are almost there now, eventually if we want the dollar to be worth anything we might just need to become US/Canada/Mex....

      Not everyone is crazy... just some people add their imagine to some VERY VERY real ideas.
  • inkhead, on 12/18/2007, -1/+14Yeah except that some of the 9/11 conspiracies aren't all that crazy. Read "Crossing the Rubicon". In early 2001 a Mike Vreeland placed in a Canadian jail for suspicious behavior, claimed he was employed at the Pentagon in Naval Intelligence, and was to to wait in Canada. Of course the Canadian court system didn't believe a word of a man without any identification. So while sitting in jail Vreeland began to tell guards of his duties at the ONI (office of naval intelligence). He then gave the prison guard a sealed envelope, and told him to open in on September 14th, 2001. Inside the envelope was detailed plans showing how factions in certain world governments were planning to take out at least 3 of 12 targets he listed in side the envelope. Needless to say he was immediately brought before a judge, who contacted the US government. Members of the DoD and ONI showed up, and produced documents 12,000+ pages of them to show the judge that while this man may have worked at ONI, he was only a low level clerk who was with them for three months. Unfortunately the Canadian judge was very suspicious, and noticed that the DoD did a very poor job editing the 12,000+ pages as they had history of his employment going back to 1988.

    The best part however was when Mike insisted that he worked at the Pentagon and was a high ranking official. The DoD who was present at his canadian trial said that he was completely lying. Mike asked to speak to the judge privately, which was allowed, and set up the DoD in the biggest way. The judge brought out a speaker phone and claimed that he was going to phone one of Mike's character witnesses, but instead called the Pentagon switchboard number that Mike gave him from memory. Immediately Mike asked the operator to connected to the office of Mike Vreeland, who the switchboard operator connected him to, and he even reached his own voicemail. The canadian judge was later able to establish that Mike Vreeland was at one of the highest military paygrades.

    Currently Mike is free, supposedly the government says it was a mixup. But what about the fact that Mike knew very intimate details about 9/11 in advance? Even the type of planes used, the buildings, the plan afterwards, the reasons, and so much more? Mike said it had been planned for a long time in advance and had to do with control, the economy, world power, and a bunch of other things.

    Mikes not the only one who have said things like this, there are many people who spoke out in advance about 9/11 who had prior knowledge.

    Not to mention, Mike's isn't fake, it wasn't a trick, the whole item is on camera from his prison cell with dates and times. It obviously was important otherwise the government wouldn't have bothered to show up.

    FYI Mike claims his family has been threatened, and his Son is currently in prison (2 days after his release) on unknown charges, in a country where Mike can't get to him.


    Don't believe me? Do some homework. It doesn't matter what part of 9/11 ***** was conspiracy or not. There were people who knew in advance, regardless of if it was terrorists or an inside job, somebody is selling us *****.
    • 01l0, on 12/18/2007, -3/+3I took your advice and did some homework. These are the decisions of the Canadian judges in the matter of the United States of America v. Vreeland:

      Justice A. Campbell (Oct. 25/2001) "The sheer size of the conspiracy against him and number of conspirators boggles the imagination. It is implausible that the necessary coordination and secrecy could be established and maintained between and among U.S. Naval Intelligence, the FBI, the U.S. Federal Government, the Russian secret police, a number of state and local governments and court officials and corrupt American judges and mob and organized crime and Mafia hit men."

      Justice Macdonald (Feb. 08/2002) "I find no reliable basis for concluding that the Applicant was in the U.S. Navy, as he alleges."

      Justice LaForme (March 05/2002) "Mr. Vreeland has not produced a single additional piece of evidence that is independent of his own testimony that might allow his assertions and allegations to attain some "air of reality" to them."
      • Groovemaster, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1Kangaroo court, you say?

        Interesting, but not surprising.
        • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 12/18/2007, -2/+1Why don't you go to fascist Canada and protest. Pack a sweater.
      • 01l0, on 12/18/2007, -1/+2I'm not at all surprised that truthers would respond to the argument that the number of people involved in the the alleged conspiracy is mind-bogglingly implausible by suggesting that the judges who made said argument are also part of the conspiracy. Talk about self-defeating logic.
        • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 12/18/2007, -1/+1So, we now add the Canadian Legal system to the roll call of people "in" on the inside job. They will fit nicely right after Popular Mechanics, The History Channel, The American Red Cross, Bill Maher and Danny Bonnaduche.
          • Groovemaster, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1Let's be serious for a moment.

            Can you honestly say with your hand on your heart that you genuinely believe the official story of what happened on is 100% true and that the 9/11 commission was a thorough, comprehensive investigation?

            I really need to gauge if you have even a shred of skepticism toward a blatantly corrupt government.
          • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 12/18/2007, -1/+1I believe the insignificant discrepancies in the "official story" are most probably caused by inaccurate recollections of a very confusing day. At worst, they are caused by lifetime bureaucrats frightened of exposing their incompetence and losing their cushy jobs.

            I do NOT believe there is a cover up of a grand conspiracy by a cabal of neoconservatives and Zionists to murder American citizens in order to forward an imperial foreign policy, create a police state and enrich the global military industrial complex while creeping toward a one-world government.
          • Groovemaster, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1"At worst, they are caused by lifetime bureaucrats frightened of exposing their incompetence and losing their cushy jobs."

            Why would they be frightened? Not one single person in the entire government or defense industry was held accountable for their "incompetence".

            You don't find that even vaguely suspicious?
          • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 12/19/2007, -0/+2No, I don't find it suspicous. I think people called to testify before the 9/11 Commission would rightfully be scared that they would become a scapegoat.

            I certainly do not think it is worth spending millions more of taxpayer dollars to try to hunt down every single discrepancy just to placate the paraniod delusional who think Bush did 9/11.

            The bottom line of the official story has never been in question. It was NOT an inside job, pissed off Muslims did it.
          • Groovemaster, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1"The bottom line of the official story has never been in question"

            Actually, it's always been in question. I'm surprised you haven't noticed.
      • R1ng00, on 12/19/2007, -0/+2It's really the simple things that are being over looked like : 9.2 seconds .. thats all it took for a building to fall or should I say free fall. That you should look in to more , I know when I tried to get mythbusters to do a pass of fail on their show -- they would not and even put up a message for everyone to see that states they will no under any circumstances do a show on the WTC collapsing. But they will do shows on other outrageous myths and urban legends? It's really very simple and it's so far beyond what anyone is "willing" to accept that it goes past unthinkable that something like this could happen in this country. Even as the breaking down of the constitution happens before their eyes they are still in denial and will not accept the truth until it's past too late and all it would take to change that is to really look at the details.
    • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 12/18/2007, -6/+1Yeah, nothing about what you wrote is crazy.
      /sarc
  • terencec, on 12/18/2007, -1/+9the US and A, this is going WAY TOO FAR, these were tactics employed by communist countries to keep one leader in power...
    • inkhead, on 12/18/2007, -0/+2The secret service treats everyone like this. I know a few, and they a basically told the rules don't apply. Seriously I'd rather be in trouble with the CIA than the secret service. At least the CIA has common sense. The secret service is like a frat, they will bully you for ever if you piss them off, even if you are within your rights.
  • dmadip, on 12/18/2007, -2/+9Mr. Clinton and his husband are the devil........RON PAUL muttha *****
    • inkhead, on 12/18/2007, -0/+2Ron Paul would be great, except that it's already been decided that Hillary will be put in power. Your vote doesn't count.
      • PhilLesh69, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1Either that or Giuliani. They're both posturing to impress the war mongering owners of our country.
    • thallium205, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1Clinton already paid for the presidency... but RON PAUL FTW
  • Vinadetta, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1It's must be hard for the Clinton's to be ask questions about real issues. Just because they were not greeted by a plant in the audience with a re-hearsed questions by evidence of Hillary's fiasco doesn't mean that they shouldn't be questioned. It is a sad day for journalism when every day citizens have to be responsible for asking tough questions and are working to hold government officials accountable. Our media and press has failed America and are strictly controlled by corporations and the government!!!!
    We are not a free country, that is merely an illusion...
  • thewump, on 12/18/2007, -0/+3At least they didn't taze you bro!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 62 of 62 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.