What is Digg?Sponsored by Realtor.com
Top 5 most ridiculous properties sold for a single dollar view!
realtor.com - Looking for a deal on your next home? What if you could pay a dollar? What if it was a MLB stadium or a university?!?!?
537 Comments
- Pssdoff, on 12/04/2007, -18/+294These aren't the droids you're looking for...
There is no NAFTA Superhighway conspiracy...
Move along...
Move along... - dave11980, on 12/04/2007, -11/+260This is really insane since they actually call it "NAFTA Superhighway".
- dave11980, on 12/04/2007, -11/+123The point is they keep calling Ron Paul crazy for mentioning a NAFTA Highway. It already exists in part and we have seen many many other things showing that they plan to expand it.
- fadeout, on 12/04/2007, -14/+102Yup, it's one of those super secret conspiracies that they show in the open, only the truly clever have the comprehension to see the hidden truth. It's such a super conspiracy I saw ***** about it on 60 minutes like 3 years ago, you people are just on the cutting edge!
Must rush off to put on my tinfoil helmet again before Ron Howard reachieves control over my brain, remember truthers - shiny side out for maximum effectiveness!
PS: No, seriously, get a ***** grip.. The AFL-CIO and other unions have been talking about this for YEARS now, it's designed to destroy the west coast dockworker organized labor via Mexico. And it's called the "Trans-Texas Corridor." Google using the conspiracy nut name and you will get conspiracy nut results. - thewump, on 12/04/2007, -38/+121I'm confused.. I thought the ongoing discussion / denial was about something that was to be built. If this is just Canada labelling a current highway system as the "NAFTA Super Highway" I'm not sure that it's of any significance.
- Godwhacker, on 12/04/2007, -8/+70It's important to understand what's bad about this. Globalists are using eminent domain to seize private land. They are transferring that land to a private corporation, and Americans will have to pay taxes and tolls to ride on a road built on stolen land. They will bypass U.S. ports and subvert U.S. labor standards, environmental safeguards, and trade rules under an corporate controlled oligarchy.
There is only one presidential candidate standing against this plan, and his name is Ron Paul. - Ziferius, on 12/04/2007, -1/+61I live in Texas...... they ARE planning a huge highway project. It's called the Trans-Texas Corridor. http://www.keeptexasmoving.com/
- projectstartrek, on 12/04/2007, -7/+63Personally, I'd prefer high speed rail.
- thewump, on 12/04/2007, -17/+67After more reseach I agree with this guy.. er.. me. The "conspiracy" is about a 12 lane highway project. The map on the Canadian site is just a line drawn through current highways.
- uselessexpert, on 12/04/2007, -11/+61And the rest of the republicans running for president keep telling Ron Paul that it does not exist!
- Philoushka, on 12/04/2007, -20/+68as a Canadian, I have no idea what you're referring to. This is simply a map of popular shipping routes. Honestly, what's the fuss now?
- homerj1965, on 12/04/2007, -21/+67Can you say "North American Union"?
Must be stopped. - inactive, on 12/04/2007, -22/+63This doesn't exist. You don't exist. Only your purchases make you who you are. Be reasonable, do not think about conspiracy theories. The government cares about you. You are greedy, give your money to the government for the good of all.. Sacrifice is in order. Sacrifice you and your children and you will be an saint.
- jeffiek, on 12/04/2007, -6/+46gabeh73 DID answer your question, using the Socratic method.
Since you didn't follow the intended path, I'll give some more. "Why not lift trade sanctions" isn't this an action that the US can take on its own? WITHOUT any treaties?
Global economy is good, it benefits everyone. What governments do is STOP trade, or manage it to death. "Why did they lie about going in to Iraq?" - what basis is there for government credibility? Do you really think these "free-trade agreements" are about free trade? That would only take two words (nine letters) NOT a huge treaty. Aren't treaties, in effect, an agreement between governments to regulate each other? Or, more plainly, an expansion in government.
There's too much government already, we don't need more. - dave11980, on 12/04/2007, -8/+46Actually this is exactly my point. There is a definite and very provable movement towards more globalization, especially on the North American Continent yet anyone who says so is labeled a conspiracy theorist and a wack job when in reality they are simply opposed to a very real activity taking part. This isn't some sinister dark secret conspiracy, it's just what some people are doing and others are opposed to.
- Mikejoneswho5, on 12/04/2007, -5/+37Someone alert me when there is a NAMBLA superhighway
(oh hai chris...) - nivek, on 12/04/2007, -9/+38I'd just like to point out this isn't the Canadian Government website, it's the Alberta Provincial Government website.
That is all. - tmbrwolf19, on 12/04/2007, -7/+36I honestly think the only people who believe in this myth of the North American Union are Americans. Read anything on Canadian geopolitics and you would realize that expansion is the exact opposite of almost every political movement since confederation in this country. Canada is dying to move to the micro, not the macro and the long list of separatist movements more then proves it. The simple fact is this country hates itself. Ontario can't get along with Quebec. Alberta thinks everyone benefits from its oil wealth. Martimes feel ignored. The North gets almost no political say. The Bloc (a separatist party) holds 51 of 308 seats in Parliament. Beyond some form of beefed up NAFTA (which is disliked by the majority of Canadians) nothing is ever going to happen on this continent in the way of a 'union'.
- BassMastr, on 12/04/2007, -37/+63Not looking for everyone to freak out, but what would be so bad about a more global economy? I have been thinking about this for awhile...I can think of several "pro's" and only a few "con's". Being as nationalistic as I am, I am surprised that I don't really have a problem with this. What are your thoughts on why this would be so bad? I understand that it will cost us some jobs and we would have some "unsafe" trucks on the roads, but those are both problems that are pretty easy to solve... I know this is a very unpopular project...I have yet ot make up my mind about whether I am for or against this.
- Daedalos, on 12/04/2007, -2/+27fonebone - The government is confiscating millions of acres through imminent domain and selling it to foreign corporations who then expand the roads and convert them to toll roads and charge the American taxpayer money to drive on roads that have already been payed for with their taxes. This is an example of Government subsidized Corporatism. Very different than Capitalism and Free Market. This is Globalist Fascism that the people would never have been subjected to were it not for Big Government -> Big Business International Corporations and regulatory committees. This is NOT local privatization, the government is SELLING our country to foreign Corporations. That's International Corporatism and it sucks.
- Kwashiorkor, on 12/04/2007, -2/+27Sorry, the "free trade" in NAFTA is more govt. doublespeak. It's controlled trade, with benefits to the favored few.
- dave11980, on 12/05/2007, -3/+27This is the exact point we are trying to make, this isn't some conspiracy yet Wolf Blitzer stood down Ron Paul saying "Mystery Highway? What?" over his comments of a NAFTA highway that is in some ways already in existence and is being expanded. The fact that even the people in the news don't know or generally aren't talking about this when it is so well documented is what we are referring to. This would be comparable to if they said "Pull out of Iraq??? What are you talking about Dr. Paul, we aren't in Iraq. This is this some conspiracy theory you've cooked up about our troops." There is a NAFTA Highway and they do plan on making it bigger.
- Maevirko69, on 12/04/2007, -18/+41I-35 and I-15 already go from Mexico to Canada, why is this such a big deal?
- inactive, on 12/04/2007, -1/+23capitolist? you think the government can have a main office building?
- rkzda, on 12/04/2007, -5/+26Ron Paul does not call it a conspiracy as it isn't. And I support Ron Paul. He can give a very specific answer to any question. He knows what he is talking about, and he goes by the constitution, period.
- Jareth86, on 12/04/2007, -3/+22lol, it says "NAFTA Superhighway" right on the damn map. Do you even read before you comment?
- inactive, on 12/04/2007, -22/+41global economy good. Why not lift trade sancitons on Iran and Cuba? why not lift the sugar quatas?why did we inhibit trade with Iraq? Why does the government need to lie about this stuff? why do you believe your government about anything when it so blatanly lies about this? Why do you believe your media when they so obviously lie about this? Why did they lie about going in to Iraq? why do they lie and say thousands of terrorists are trying to get us, yet say it is perfectly safe for 5 million illegal imigrants to come across the borders whenever they want? how are those two things not mutually exclusive? there is much more but I think you get the point.
- Progrockusa, on 12/05/2007, -7/+25north american union means, we will no longer be the united states of america. and then you can say good bye to the constitution. Say hello to international law.
- graemee, on 12/05/2007, -1/+19I wonder what Darth Chenney will do about you and your insignificant rebels.
- boundless316, on 12/05/2007, -1/+18The basic infrastructure does already exist, yes I-35 is a part of it. The NAFTA Superhighway, as it's been labeled, is a massive revamp of the current highway system. From the last plans I saw it was supposed to be about 600 yards wide and contain 6 commuter lanes, 3 transport lanes, 2 high speed cargo rail and a high speed passenger rail along with power and water lines. Oh, that's per side. So it's really 12 lanes of commuter traffic, 6 lanes of transport 4 cargo rails and 2 passenger rails. The Trans-Texas Corridor is simply step one. Of course that was a while ago and this is being planned by the same group of people who said Iraq would be a walk in the park so.... I'm not promising the plans haven't changed.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for upgrading our aging transportation infrastructure but not at the expense of national sovereignty. The plan as it stands now would be the first step to merging our economy with Mexico's and Canada's and I personally think that is a horrible idea. - ShrimpCrackers, on 12/04/2007, -4/+20Thats the whole point, it ISNT a conspiracy theory, so why is the main stream media calling Ron Paul crazy and a conspiracy theorist when right there on the Canadian website it says that the NAFTA superhighway plan exists?
- Drax0n, on 12/04/2007, -4/+20Way to puinish them for your disgust by driving traffic to their article. I bet they hate that.
- dinsy, on 12/04/2007, -4/+20From spp.gov:
"There are private and state level interests planning highway projects which they themselves describe as "NAFTA Corridors," but these are not Federally-driven initiatives, and they are not a part of the SPP. "
I think you can see from this double-speak it would be pretty easy to swindle tax-payers into paying for these "projects" with items buried in legislation. - inactive, on 12/04/2007, -4/+19Global economy does not benefit everyone. A worker here in the United States cannot offer his services at a price comparable to that of a Malaysian worker, but the high cost of international shipping adds some padding to the cost of outsourcing to that Malaysian factory. However, a Mexican factory is another story. With the right infrastructure shipping becomes a lot more affordable and that factory in Mexico has a union to prevent their workers from joining unions and they don't have an EPA to prevent them from dumping their industrial waste. Now every aspect of production is cheaper. Does that benefit everyone? No. The American worker has to continually lower his standard of living in an attempt to reach parity with the Mexican worker. Meanwhile Mexico is becoming the most polluted nation on Earth. The only people a "global economy" is good for are people who own the companies making use of that cheap labor. It's not good for the planet. It's not good for the American worker. And at the end of the day it isn't even good for the US economy. It's just good for some billionaires who can afford to lobby for things like the NAFTA superhighway.
- voodoochild461, on 12/04/2007, -0/+15anyone on the east coast feeling left out? because there is nothing "super" about I-95
- glasnostic, on 12/04/2007, -25/+39A: why the ***** are people freaking out about a highway..
B: that highway is known localy as I-35 runs right through my home town (san antonio)
C: i for one welcome any new highway which might cut some of the traffic that runs though my city and diverts off our allready dangerious roads.
now digg me down for being a capitolist - spudnic, on 12/05/2007, -2/+16Okay, completely ignoring whether or not a North American union would be a good thing, can someone please explain how this would lead to it?
- Terr01, on 12/05/2007, -2/+16"and push us towards an unaccountable oligarchy sitting on top of a crippled national elected government [...] We would lose all say over our foreign policy, and be at the mercy of an unelected government."
Have you not lived in the US for the last seven years? - jze17, on 12/05/2007, -5/+19A: It's really a walmart, target, and costco freeway. If you have no qualms with them then your okay.
B: FYI, it's a 19-lane freeway. Very very big IMO. Train tracks will prob be built along side the freeway and it runs from Mexico all the way to Canada.
C: You probably can't even get on the freeway if your not a truck driver. It's for semi-trucks only, hence point 'A' above. It allows mexican truck drivers to cross into the usa, UNCHECKED. Makes drug dealers, terrorist, and border crossers lives so much easier.
I see this as an outsourcing issue. It's way easier, cheaper and faster to ship goods into Mexican harbors and transport them into the US via trucks/trains than if they were to dock at a US port. It has to do with regulations and long waits at overcrowded harbors. - and303, on 12/04/2007, -7/+19Why is this all of a sudden a huge X-Files episode to everyone on the internet?
I-69 has been in planning for many years, and nobody is denying that at all. Sure, some candidates simply don't know the current details of it, but that doesn't make is a conspiracy, that just makes it yet another project that we don't have enough money to start.
Most of the opposition is the exact opposition we receive when building ANY expressway. Wildlife and property concerns, safety, and leading to further dependence on oil.
Finally, think of how much cheaper cocaine and weed will be!
But it's not like one day we'll wake up and notice a giant Mexican insaniroad magically propped up outside our bedroom window. The next time I read about this like its a ***** Area 51 story I'm going to shoot someone. - WiseWeasel, on 12/05/2007, -4/+16Unfortunately, it would cost us our representative government, and push us towards an unaccountable oligarchy sitting on top of a crippled national elected government, like they have in Europe. We would lose all say over our foreign policy, and be at the mercy of an unelected government. I will fight that prospect with all my strength. We need more DECENTRALIZED government, not MORE CENTRALIZED, so that we each have more say over our local laws and policy. I'm all for countries choosing to form trade accords, but they should still remain autonomous, and they should have the option of pulling out anytime they feel it's in their interest to do so.
- fadeout, on 12/04/2007, -0/+12Actually, the company in charge is designing it with a space in between lanes for a high speed train system.
/among the super secret details I learned about this from the main stream media years ago, on tv... - bbtrev, on 12/04/2007, -0/+12Doc Brown: "What does weight have to do with anything?"
- Aspire36, on 12/04/2007, -2/+14An your next issue's subscription fee is now paid for by online advertisements.
- Kris514, on 12/04/2007, -5/+17As a Canadian as well,,, I don't see why is this news to USA people. There is no conspiracy in that map. These transit routes exist for decades. Not everything is a conspiracy... And global economy is beneficial to most countries actually. There is an easy and practical way to preserve national identities if that is what people are afraid of. Ah,, if I say more I will find myself offending people and that is not the intention. Anyways,, that is not a NEW discovery..
- Progrockusa, on 12/05/2007, -2/+14because it will be internationally controlled superhighway. the merging of a union. international government in other words. which will mean a 3rd layer of laws for us to abide by
- SantafromNorth, on 12/04/2007, -10/+21Silly. Free Trade is good during peace time. However when you have international conflicts, Free Trade can determine whether you have the ability to defend national insterests or not.
Think of it this way. In the 1940's, the US had an overcapacity of manufacturing capability which allowed it to crank out the goods to fight two major conflicts simultaneously with scant imported goods needed to support the effort.
Contrast this today with US Airborne boots even being made in China or most chips being produced in Asia. Most manufacturing has been outsourced to Canada, Mexico, & Asia. Worse, we have exported our expertise in manufacturing to these regions so that the next advances in production capacity & efficiencies will come that region rather than the US.
Would we be able to defend a national interest that was in direct conflict with China, Saudi Arabia, or the EU right now? I don't think so.
If you don't see a problem with free trade, you are dooming future generations to economic serfdom, or worse, to a living standard of "may I take your order jobs"... at least until the fast food chains mechanise that production as well. - jufreese, on 12/05/2007, -1/+11thats what the homegrown terrorist act is for
- JonFugeEveryone, on 12/05/2007, -3/+13It's a sovereignty issue and also a right of way issue. The highway would be greatly expanded and would require international laws to govern it. The point of the story is that CNN tried to make Ron Paul look like a nut because he talks about this and in doing so showed their complete lack of journalistic credibility.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 539 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