What is Digg?303 Comments
- tyywebb, on 10/11/2007, -27/+99I can't believe there's really a USS Enterprise.
- Pootle4rthur, on 10/11/2007, -5/+46There is cause enough to concerned about the machinations within the White House, and it's clear that the VP is chomping at the bit to have a pop at Iran. The concern that once there is a proper state of war or an excuse (terrorist incident on US soil) for the President to suspend the forthcoming elections and not stand down, is not utterly unreasonable given the current administration's limp regard for law, the US constitution and due process.
To attempt to summarise such concerns in weak bullet point form of varying validity, and attach it to a election manifesto is unfortunate, and detracts from the value of those points which aren't utterly unfounded causes for concern. - Toshibi, on 10/11/2007, -5/+42I distrust the government. Everyone should. But there is a fine line between distrust and paranoia. Unfortunately, this administration has really pushed my distrust towards paranoia. I'm not a truther, I'm not some "Zionist, Illuminati, Lizard men" control our government whack job. I am a Libertarian (some may say that's nutty enough...
Anyhow, I really don't put much past this administration... - bigboy101011, on 10/11/2007, -3/+40the name is older than star trek, there has been ships named Enterprise for centuries, just watch the intro to "Enterprise" the show.
- BonerMachine, on 10/11/2007, -23/+59dugg to piss off the anti-Ron Paul crowd.
- Chas555, on 10/11/2007, -15/+47There is alot of truth to this ... Syria has called all of there citizens to move from lebanon by Jul 15 too ... there is alot of things transpiring. Weird that a third aircraft carrier will be in the gulf on the 30th of July when Congress has recess for the month of August
- dbzer0, on 10/11/2007, -7/+36I can't believe how many American are still in denial on all this...
- overtoke, on 10/11/2007, -12/+41Preempt Bush
- mrfreeziexp, on 10/11/2007, -8/+31I used to think that. But as I thought of what I was going to say in response to you, in which I would probably bash Bush, the new anti-war law flashed into my mind. I then thought I wouldn't say anything, in fear that the possibility of having all my assets seized was a reality, just for saying something against the war. I then realized how immensely sick, and disturbing that is. I asked myself, in horror, "what kind of President would do this?" Obviously it would have to be one very disconnected from the people. But isn't that Bush? He doesn't even want to hear their opinions anymore! He has outlawed it!
So why would he start listening to us now about iran? He wouldn't, and won't. - TopherT, on 10/11/2007, -7/+30Yeah, this stuff is junk, but what would things look like it it were true? What are the warning signs in a country which is slipping into fascism? Certainly we've seen some unprecedented moves, some rights we've lost only opening the way for new levels of government influence. Shouldn't we be at least conscious of a past in which nation states have fallen into the hands of elite power brokers, strongmen and military types?
- MrHappy123, on 10/11/2007, -7/+28"Sorry conspiracy folk. The Iranians would have to strike first AND claim responsibility."
-You mean just like what Iraq did? - gentlax13, on 10/11/2007, -11/+32The idea of Iran being surrounded is kind of old news. Afghanistan is their largest eastern border and Iraq is the western border. To the south is the Persian gulf. Anyone who has ever played Risk knows that Iran is now on the defensive and better be building up troops. Furthermore the remaining countries whose leaders are not in bed with the US are Iran, Pakistan, Syria, and Iraq (b/c they lack 'leaders'). It would not be militarily difficult to secure the area enough to plunder the resources and let every thing else go to hell.
Politically, however, it's impossible. Even if we do end up with 8 years of Pres. Cheney it's still not going to happen. Not with a volunteer army or congressional budgetary control.
Sorry conspiracy folk. The Iranians would have to strike first AND claim responsibility. But the Ayatollah knows that road only leads to death. - zeromancer, on 10/11/2007, -4/+24well. i try not to dive into conspiracy theory. and i know that everything on digg is extreme leftist, but at the same time, why do you need to pass a blanket EO that could possibly be used against war protestors. If DC was attacked, marshal law isn't good enough, bush needs more power than that? People like bush, as dumb as they may seem, don't do these things for no reason. I would be willing to bet there's a very good reason for everything that has happened. If not, no big deal and people will forget all about the conspiracies. But if they're right, it will be simple for the history books to pieces together the events that led up to it.
are there any statistics to prove terrorism is any more of a threat than prior to 9/11? would we know if there were? does anyone care? no. because america has the mindset of "i don't care, as long as it doesn't happen to me," which is why nothing is getting done. this wouldn't have lasted this long in the 60s or 70s. america has turned into a bunch of pussies that watch tv all day and don't care about the long term consequences of their lack of action.
/rant - tonyt11, on 10/11/2007, -4/+21I wrote about something similar to this in this post:
http://vocalnation.net/posting/341/A+Growing+Dissonance+in+the+World/
Something that I think a lot of people don't get is that things aren't necessarily going bad for the Bush Administration and the NeoCons. In the Plan for a New American Century, they outlined their plans for an endless war. This is good for those elite who rule the economy (endless contracts to the defence industry) and also means keeping oil prices high by reducing the supply from Iraq. Iran & Venezuela (and increasingly pakistan) are definately the biggest obstacles in America carrying out its agenda. - art42, on 10/11/2007, -2/+17" i know that everything on digg is extreme leftist"
*Extreme* leftist - not even close. The neocons have gone so far to the right the middle seems to be to the left. Additionally, the cons call truth and *everything* they don't agree with leftist. Cuba is "extreme leftist". - Moskie, on 10/11/2007, -2/+17Someone needs to rent Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home.
- Onetrack, on 10/11/2007, -18/+32Not news? Open your eyes man.
You'll say its not news when you get drafted, and your house is seized for saying no - andrewgreve, on 10/11/2007, -8/+22No one is actually anti-RP. They're all just pentagon spam-bots.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -3/+17impeach Dubya and Vice President Chicken Hawk. Start at the state level. If all the states agree to impeach...
- tonyt11, on 10/11/2007, -7/+19No, because people "shuting the ***** up" was the reason why we got stuck in iraq in the first place. the public's gotta give a dam otherwise you give the administration free-reign to do whatever they want.
- postmaster3000, on 10/11/2007, -5/+17Misleading site. Who the heck is Stanley Carter and what is his relationship with Ron Paul? The site masquerades as the Ron Paul campaign website, but it's not the actual official site.
- UtopiaInTheSky, on 10/11/2007, -21/+33Everyone blames the US government for controlling the people with fear. And now this article? Now even the nutjobs are trying to control us with fear. Give me a damn break, please!
- Sterango, on 10/11/2007, -9/+20Guys i really dont think the author is saying omg a war will definately happen, I think hes saying beware as there are pieces here fitting toegtehr very well for something to happen, so really, can the "haha u libs will see when there was no Iran was 6 months from now!", cause I don't see anyone saying there will definately be one.
- WilliamDavis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10This has NOTHING to do with Ron Paul. Pay attention.
- Dotmeister, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/Ryoushii/picardfacepalm.jpg
There you go - polyGone, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12I logged in to let you know that, what you've stated, is an appeal to authority fallacy. This is just one mans opinion, but the MSM is just another's.
- LakeshoreBaby, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12Alex's I told you so pisses me off too. But he did predict 9/11. I don't think you are able to accept that.
- ihate2reg4u, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9Yes, and it's a nuclear wessel.
- milliebubba, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Folks. Regardless of how far to the left or right a person wants to be, we SHOULD all be standing up for the Constitution. The grab for still more Executive Power, illustrated through the Patriot Act and its accompanying National Security Letters, abuse of signing statements and broad and sweeping claims of Executive Privilege, plus a plethora of Executive Orders is dangerous to this nation. Instead of making statements like "tin-foil hatters" and "wing-nuts" and the like, why not just look at what IS actually happening. The LEGAL construct of the Constitution is being dismantled. Period. Those of you on the hard Right would be squealing like pigs if it were a Democratic president doing these things. THEY WILL TRANSFER TO THE NEXT PRESIDENT IF THEY ARE NOT RESCINDED. Why are you not incensed by this? Why are you not insisting that our alleged "representatives" live up to their oaths of office by protecting the Constitution against ALL enemies, domestic or foreign. The amassing of numerous abuses of power, felony criminality, and obstruction of justice alone justifies the immediate impeachment and removal from office of this president. It is outrageous that supposed "defenders of freedom" do not see this and act upon it. This is NOT a partisan issue; it is a quintessential AMERICAN issue.
- localzuk, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9Yep, there is - and it is a name that has been in use since 1775 whilst there have been HMS Enterprise's in the British Navy since 1705 following the capture of a French vessel of the same name.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -15/+23How the ***** did digg deteriorate so fast? Until this troofer nonsense took over there wasn't much we could agree on. Now there's hardly any debate, just a bunch of us supposed government plants or members of the "bury brigade" ridiculing these imbeciles.
- art42, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10How dare they dominate their own resources!
- LakeshoreBaby, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11I'm not sure how you arrive at that conclusion Gentleax, given Iraq didn't claim responsibility for 9/11, and in no time at all we were there.
- tremor_tj, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10Unfortunately, it only takes a few conspiracy nuts to make all of us look bad. But please, don't lump us all into that group. Many of us just want to get back to a constitutional government.
- WilliamDavis, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8I don't understand why you are being dug down. It's not Ron Paul's website. Anyone who thinks so must be pretty easily manipulated. If some clown with a website is doing it, imagine what the msm must be doing to those people.
- 15charmaxwtf, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10His position comes from the constitution and what the founding fathers envisioned: free trade with a non-interventionist policy. There have been lots of completely failed wars this century that would have been completely avoided if this advice was heeded to. I find it to be just common sense.
- Flestrin, on 10/11/2007, -9/+16***** this is big. It raises difficult issues. Do you think Paris Hilton will be drafted??
- Airforcefalco, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Did you ever look up what happened at the Gulf of Tonkin or any other false flag operation for that matter? They attacked their own ships and blamed it on Vietnam. After doing that the public and Congress was behind the war in Vietnam and it wasn't until later that it was found out to be a set up and the Vietnamese did nothing to provoke us. So if they stagged some attack on one of the three carrier groups in the waters there, made it look like someone else did it, and blamed it them, then the people will back the conflict.
P.S. The Democrats are in bed with the Republicans. What you don't believe me? Just look at what Nancy Pelosi said about impeaching the President even though there is so much evidence against him that it would be an open and shut case. Look at the bills passed by a Congress that was elected to get us out of Iraq; they gave the President the funding to continue even though they could have stopped it. Or how about passing that bill that told the President to get out of Iraq but not having any consequences for not doing so and thereby the congress did nothing to get us out of Iraq.
Congress wouldn't impeach the Bush administration even if they all started to drink baby's blood with every meal. - 15charmaxwtf, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7If you actually looked more carefully, e.g. listening to what he said, you would find out he is not a conspiracy theorist. Some of his supporters are, but I think that a 3 year old child would notice there is flawed logic in saying: a candidate is what some of his supporters are.
He simply said he was worried about a Gulf of Tonkin type incident happening. - LakeshoreBaby, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9"Our" oil supply?
- LakeshoreBaby, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10Yah, it's really sad how there are people here who haven't even heard of the books 1984 and Brave New World, let alone have read them.
- yergi, on 10/11/2007, -9/+15what's with these assclowns always using Ron Paul's likeness with this filth?
This has nothing to do with Ron Paul.
from the whois:
Clearwater, Florida
stanxcarter@yahoo.com
Admin Phone.......... +1.7274476159 - omjeremy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6That quote has never been successfully attributed to Eisenhower. It has been said that the quote originated from this one:
"All of us have heard this term 'preventive war' since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time, if we believe for one second that nuclear fission and fusion, that type of weapon, would be used in such a war--what is a preventive war?
I would say a preventive war, if the words mean anything, is to wage some sort of quick police action in order that you might avoid a terrific cataclysm of destruction later.
A preventive war, to my mind, is an impossibility today. How could you have one if one of its features would be several cities lying in ruins, several cities where many, many thousands of people would be dead and injured and mangled, the transportation systems destroyed, sanitation implements and systems all gone? That isn't preventive war; that is war.
I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing." - SushiCW, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Chekov: Admiral. We have found the nuclear wessel.
Kirk: Well done, Team 2.
Chekov: And Admiral... it is the Enterprise. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7And almost every episode is based on historical events from the first Earth we lived on.
- gentlax13, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6During the Iraq invasion the Gov't still had 9-11 carte blanche. The population doesn't trust it anymore. People won't join the armed forces out of patriotic duty as they did in '01 unless there is absolute and irrefutable proof that Iran posed an imminent threat to the lives and safety of American families here in America. Also, congress knows that any spike that may occur as a result of "remember the enterprise" will be eroded entirely by the next election and a pro-war vote will be a death-knell on their careers.
- humanerror, on 04/03/2008, -1/+6I don't believe it, but I dugg it because it's high time Americans started to get a little more paranoid. Stop trusting this government, they do not have your interests at heart!
- bmclaughlin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5I'm presently getting my MBA at Duke, and go to school with someone who is very high in the military. I wrote to him, telling him that I was really worried about all of this: About how Bush could seize control, start a war, and cancel the elections. My friend seems appropriately skeptical about Bush's War on Terror (and commented that its effects are now waning as people get numbed to the "we'll protect you!" Republican shtick).
But he said that we have nothing to fear: That everyone in the military takes a pledge to uphold the Constitution, NOT to just blindly support the President. And that if something really blatant happened, the military would intervene. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I've read enough of history to know that a fake attack to stage a war is NOT out of the realm of possibility: This stuff does happen. And Bush's systematic lying about...well just about everything...proves that if anybody can do it, he can. But I take some solace in the idea that the military would step in if there were obvious malfeasance. At least, I hope they would. - WilliamDavis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5It's not a Ron Paul story, genius.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 296 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 