What is Digg?139 Comments
- kemp34, on 05/27/2008, -15/+40Very interesting video. The way I see it, Obama is straddling the fence on many of these issues. I would rather see him win over McCain, but I am very wary of him, as he seems to believe that the answer to all problems is found through government action. Government is not reason or goodness, it is FORCE plain and simple. Perhaps he'd consider Paul for Secretary of State, as their foreign policy seems to be where there is the most agreement. Whatever takes place, our global standing military presence and endless war spending in acknowledged quagmires are rapidly deteriorating the purse of the nation. Let's reign it in before the laws of economics reign it all in for us.
- Minarchian, on 05/27/2008, -37/+56Obama says he taught Constitutional law for ten years but I have heard him say that he would continue the war in Iraq by not pulling out immediately, going in to fight in Pakistan, continuing to vote for funding the unconstitutional occupation of Iraq, threatening Iran et al.
To say that Obama would represent change is a fallacy.
And he says that he would roll back Bush's unconstitutional Executive Orders "with a stroke of a pen", hell, it was a stroke of a pen that created them! Why not work with Congress on a law that states that Executive Orders have no legal effect on citizens, which they are not supposed to? If Obama really did what he says, the next President will just go back to Bush's fascism and we'd be right back to where we are. - KMye, on 05/27/2008, -5/+25Other than opposition to poorly executed and unpopular war, where exactly to Paul and Obama's foreign policy converge?
- Minarchian, on 05/27/2008, -12/+28Herk, quit being such a dolt.
Only Congress can declare war.
I know you're clueless on Constitutional issues, our last conversation left you without a word.
Tell me. Which DOJ building do you work from? - inactive, on 05/27/2008, -22/+37There can be no doubt that this man is either inept or lying.
He claims the CFR is "just a forum".
"The CFR [Council On Foreign Relations, New York City] is the American Branch of a society which originated in England and believes national directives should be obliterated and one-world rule established. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years, and was permitted in the early 1960's to examine its papers and secret records... I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known".
-Dr. Carroll Quigley, Professor of International Relations, Georgetown University Foreign Service School, Washington, D.C., author of the epic "Tragedy & Hope", advocate of one-world government and personal mentor of President William Clinton (who acknowledged Professor Quigley during his 1992 presidential inauguration speech)
"We shall have world government whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World government will be achieved by conquest or consent".
-James Paul Warburg, Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, 1921 - 1932, before the U.S. Senate, February 17, 1950
Yeah, "just a forum".
"The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of US. sovereignty and national independence and submergence into an all powerful, one world government".
-Chester Ward, Rear Admiral and former Navy Judge Advocate 1956 - 1960 and CFR member for 15 years
"just a forum"?
Why would anyone trust anything that the man says?
Is he stupid? Is he lying? Does it make any difference?
He's not qualified to be president. - JKap, on 05/27/2008, -9/+22This discussion is outside the bounds of rational debate according to the Federal Thought Police. Therefore it should labeled as "conspiracy theory," appropriately, and anyone committing said thoughtcrime is doubleplusungood ("crazy," "nutjob," etc.).
- GhostyBoy, on 05/28/2008, -5/+18I have to say that I am impressed by the fact that he addressed those questions. I give him credit for being open and not trying to dodge the issue.
- slaizer, on 05/28/2008, -5/+15It's funny to notice that Digg is so anti-establishment, that even the presidential candidates which have had favoring articles about them spammed to the front page for over a year now (as in, Obama) are beginning to be hated, just because they're slowly becoming a part of the establishment itself (as is the nature of a presidential candidate, duh). A few weeks ago Obama was a champion on a white steed, nowadays as he took the nomination he starts to arouse skepticism and hateful comments, in a few months, we'll be back to zero and the reign of anti-establishment rants are joined by endless anti-Obama rants. In spite of his attitude nor the way he is changing one bit.
Not just Digg, but humanity needs a button for "Buried for utter ***** stupidity". - inactive, on 05/27/2008, -15/+25You're kidding! He asks, "What do you call it" blink blink like he's never heard it before! If they're lips are moving they're lying! It would have been a bit better if he said he knew it!
- inactive, on 05/28/2008, -9/+18OMFG! You found them out! Bright minds from fifty years ago could see that the world was becoming a smaller place, and countries would have to work together!
It is like technology has made it so economies of different countries rely on each other, and countries that work together to help that growth are prospering!
What a bunch of evil, forward looking Satan's!
You ***** genius! - inactive, on 05/27/2008, -8/+17you mean the conspiracy over the road that already exists?
- GhostyBoy, on 05/28/2008, -3/+12I don't hate onetimer. I disagree with at least half of what he says, but I don't hate him. At times I even find his comments insightful and well spoken.
It is you, however, who I have found to continually make irrelevant, nonsensical remarks that add nothing to the conversation whatsoever.
Oh, and your screen name appears to the top left of every comment you make. There, now you don't need to sign your posts anymore.
Sincerley,
Please stop being an idiot. - inactive, on 05/27/2008, -8/+17 I agree. When we have really seen the facts and truth come out it looks even more like there is a coordinated effort to reduce our Constitution to a footnote in the history books. Jefferson took action against the barbary pirates without a war declaration because Congress was not in session. He did so in response to warlike actions taken by the barbary pirates, namely kidnapping our citizens and stealing our ships and attacking our navy.
Anyone who compares what "W" did to what Jefferson did has absolutely no clue as to history and reality.It is like trying to compare a horse drawn wagon to a Corvette.
There was a war declaration offered in Congress and it was voted down, so anyone who tells you the use of force resolution and a war declaration are the same thing is ignorant. The response by Obama to the questions show he's a masterful actor when he pretends he does not understand the question.
He's a globalist shill who thinks that we should be told what to drive, how much to eat and where to put our thermostats. - inactive, on 05/27/2008, -4/+12I wasn't even answering you, I was giving a reply to minarchian.
Try again. - GhostyBoy, on 05/28/2008, -0/+8@onetimer: How was it confirmed? I don't doubt it, but that guy just snapped and went completely off the deep end. This dude seems less rabid, although not any more coherent.
@chaosium: Thanks. The fact is that there are way too many insane rabid people who are truthers. I went to see Richard Gage (A&E truth) when he came to my city a little while ago. I thought he seemed reasonable, predominantly stuck to the physics and structural engineering aspect and not making accusations.
Then I walk out and some serious ***** has gone and put up a poster on a pole that said:
JEWS DID 9/11 AND FAKED THE HOLOCAUST
Brought to you by Victoria 9/11 truth, a concerned citizens group.
Of course I ripped it down.
You can't imagine how ***** angry I was. This ***** jerk is trying to tie his dumb-ass racism to me, and the rest of the Victoria truth movement. A lot of these people are on the fence, or they just want a new investigation. They don't deserve to be tied in with this garbage.
I'd like to see the stigma around 9/11 broken down. There is too much disinformation on all sides. Neither paranoid ranting nor rabid nationalism is really helping anything very much. - chaosium, on 05/28/2008, -2/+10Liikewise, we find you one of the more reasonable truthers out there.
- inactive, on 05/28/2008, -2/+10Again, cow, define "everyone".
- KMye, on 05/28/2008, -1/+9@HC
Okay, so you sign all of your posts just to be as obnoxious as possible, right? - inactive, on 05/28/2008, -11/+18Wow. You have the testimony of two CFR members from over fifty years ago. They sure must be taking their sweet time trying to take over the world.
Yet whenever us "government shills" (aka skeptics) ask for any kind of recent or hard evidence - ANYTHING - maybe some documents, or recordings, you can't provide anything whatsoever. - inactive, on 05/28/2008, -4/+11You, cow, are a pathetic stalker.
- inactive, on 05/28/2008, -5/+12Cashman, it doesn't take more than two minutes to click on your profile where the day you registered at digg, your post count, your digg count are displayed and then do a little arithmetic. You're just jealous of us for being smarter than you. You could never figure out how many posts per day onetimer or I average without the help of some other troofer who learned arithmetic when he attended elementary school.
- inactive, on 05/28/2008, -9/+16Liar! The Constitution does not mention pirates, so Ron Paul would never try to catch them!
- inactive, on 05/28/2008, -5/+12Define "everyone", cow.
Sincerely,
jcm267 - inactive, on 05/28/2008, -6/+12Remember Dstat, ghostyboy? The guy who made all those racist tirades using dozens of accounts on front page stories? HumanCattle is just another one of his accounts. It's been confirmed.
- inactive, on 05/27/2008, -5/+11How many times does it need to be proved to you Hortnon? I have posted the response several times and you just pretend like it never happened.
- Sumbunny, on 05/27/2008, -4/+9Michelle Obama is a Director on the Board of Directors of the Chicago Council of Global Affairs aka Chicago Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/chicago_council_h ...
http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/chicago_council_b ... - rmtatum, on 05/27/2008, -24/+30Obama is a globalist shill.
- Minarchian, on 05/27/2008, -10/+15Herk, One only has to read your comment history to realize you're just a shill for big government tyranny.
When was the last time you actually posted one of your own opinions? I can't seem to find any, just the same tired attacks on people who are awake to the fallacy of your beloved government goons.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war:
"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water"
What part of that says that Congress has the authority to pass along the authority to wage war to the President?
You're too clueless to see that the attack on Iraq is/was against the Constitution. It's a shame there are people running around who are so clueless. - inactive, on 05/28/2008, -9/+14[Citation needed]
- inactive, on 05/28/2008, -8/+13"I have to wonder how much of a stalker you have to be to go through and count the number of posts from the beginning of my time here on digg and then average them out."
Yes, looking at your profile page (which lists the number of posts) and dividing by time is *such* a difficult, time-consuming task. AMAZING that after so much time on digg, you still don't understand this. Of course, you still can't use the reply button correctly either. Why is that, cashman?
"It is somewhat flattering to have someone so deeply interested in me, but then again I would say that anyone who does something like that needs some serious help."
So you must be deeply, deeply interested in Obama again. I mean, you pretty much post the same Rush-Limbaugh-Right-Wing drivel on every post about him. It's always humorous reading the comments in an Obama story, and seeing your comment as the first one dugg down to near -100.
What was your latest line again? Something about how when Obama is president, he's going to force us what temperature we have to set our air conditioning to, and how much to drive, as if he were some sort of fascist dictator? Regardless, your laughable faculty of argumentative structure is always evident and predictable, yet still entertaining to watch you try and justify. I especially enjoyed you citing the fact that RP has a #1 best selling book as "proof" that he is still a major candidate in the race... - inactive, on 05/27/2008, -5/+10Endgame?
What I have posted is quotes from people who were in it or are in it and who know what the CFR is about. You can live in your little world where everyone lies so you can be correct if that is what yopu want, it does not alter the fact the CFR is a threat to our Nation and its freedom loving people. - inactive, on 05/28/2008, -11/+16Wow, a geocities page and trollish personal insults. Is that really the best you can do?
- inactive, on 05/28/2008, -2/+7Now that others have mentioned that cow is the troll formerly known as dstat, it makes pretty good sense that cow is saying that everyone hates onetimer. It's the same thing that he was saying in his other incarnations.
- inactive, on 05/28/2008, -5/+10"The CFR is just a forum where a bunch of people talk about foreign policy."
... those people also have the means to carry out that foreign policy and the general public isn't any of those people. Not to mention, their policies suck for everyone but them. And Bono, he's ok. Yes, Bono is a member of the "elite."
I'm not voting for a Senator for President this time. - inactive, on 05/27/2008, -8/+12I can't believe you would want this guy in office, any office.
- inactive, on 05/28/2008, -4/+8You're a ***** creep.
- inactive, on 05/28/2008, -8/+12you are welcome. Simple minds require simple explanations. Unfortunately, you are ***** mud stupid. I can't make it simple enough for you.
- inactive, on 05/27/2008, -11/+15LMAO!! is that the best you can come up with? These people were MEMBERS who had YEARS of belonging to the "forum" and the best retort you have is that you might not BELIEVE THEM?
ROFLMAO@U!!!!!
Did you happen to catch the names? Are you trying to claim all of these people are lying so Hortnon can be correct? - chaosium, on 05/28/2008, -7/+11Your mom is a globalist shill.
- inactive, on 05/28/2008, -0/+4http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archive ...
State Sovereignty Must be Altered in Globalized Era
In the age of globalization, states should give up some sovereignty to world bodies in order to protect their own interests
By Richard Haass
Taipei Times - For 350 years, sovereignty -- the notion that states are the central actors on the world stage and that governments are essentially free to do what they want within their own territory but not within the territory of other states -- has provided the organizing principle of international relations. The time has come to rethink this notion.
The world's 190-plus states now co-exist with a larger number of powerful non-sovereign and at least partly (and often largely) independent actors, ranging from corporations to non-governmental organizations (NGOs), from terrorist groups to drug cartels, from regional and global institutions to banks and private equity funds. The sovereign state is influenced by them (for better and for worse) as much as it is able to influence them. The near monopoly of power once enjoyed by sovereign entities is being eroded.
As a result, new mechanisms are needed for regional and global governance that include actors other than states. This is not to argue that Microsoft, Amnesty International, or Goldman Sachs be given seats in the UN General Assembly, but it does mean including representatives of such organizations in regional and global deliberations when they have the capacity to affect whether and how regional and global challenges are met.
Less is more
Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function. This is already taking place in the trade realm. Governments agree to accept the rulings of the WTO because on balance they benefit from an international trading order even if a particular decision requires that they alter a practice that is their sovereign right to carry out.
Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change. Under one such arrangement, the Kyoto Protocol, which runs through 2012, signatories agree to cap specific emissions. What is needed now is a successor arrangement in which a larger number of governments, including the US, China, and India, accept emissions limits or adopt common standards because they recognize that they would be worse off if no country did.
All of this suggests that sovereignty must be redefined if states are to cope with globalization. At its core, globalization entails the increasing volume, velocity, and importance of flows -- within and across borders -- of people, ideas, greenhouse gases, goods, dollars, drugs, viruses, e-mails, weapons and a good deal else, challenging one of sovereignty's fundamental principles: the ability to control what crosses borders in either direction. Sovereign states increasingly measure their vulnerability not to one another, but to forces beyond their control.
Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere. Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary.
This was demonstrated by the American and world reaction to terrorism. Afghanistan's Taliban government, which provided access and support to al-Qaeda, was removed from power. Similarly, the US' preventive war against an Iraq that ignored the UN and was thought to possess weapons of mass destruction showed that sovereignty no longer provides absolute protection.
Imagine how the world would react if some government were known to be planning to use or transfer a nuclear device or had already done so. Many would argue -- correctly -- that sovereignty provides no protection for that state.
Necessity may also lead to reducing or even eliminating sovereignty when a government, whether from a lack of capacity or conscious policy, is unable to provide for the basic needs of its citizens. This reflects not simply scruples, but a view that state failure and genocide can lead to destabilizing refugee flows and create openings for terrorists to take root.
The NATO intervention in Kosovo was an example where a number of governments chose to violate the sovereignty of another government (Serbia) to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide. By contrast, the mass killing in Rwanda a decade ago and now in Darfur, Sudan, demonstrate the high price of judging sovereignty to be supreme and thus doing little to prevent the slaughter of innocents.
Conditions needed
Our notion of sovereignty must therefore be conditional, even contractual, rather than absolute. If a state fails to live up to its side of the bargain by sponsoring terrorism, either transferring or using weapons of mass destruction, or conducting genocide, then it forfeits the normal benefits of sovereignty and opens itself up to attack, removal or occupation.
The diplomatic challenge for this era is to gain widespread support for principles of state conduct and a procedure for determining remedies when these principles are violated.
The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalization, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy.
The basic idea of sovereignty, which still provides a useful constraint on violence between states, needs to be preserved. But the concept needs to be adapted to a world in which the main challenges to order come from what global forces do to states and what governments do to their citizens rather than from what states do to one another.
Richard Haass is president of the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of The Opportunity: America's Moment to Alter History's Course. - inactive, on 05/27/2008, -16/+19OMG if it's an acronym it must be EEEEEEEVVVVVVVIIIIIIIILLLLLL!!!
The CFR is nothing but a think tank (that has had its meetings broadcast on C-SPAN previously), and no one has ever been able to prove any kind of "world domination" scheme, ever. It's a boogeyman that whenever is spoken or written, almost guarantees that the user is a pauldtard and/or troofer.
Meanwhile, as for the "NAU" and the "AMERO", there is no hard proof of any kind of plan for them whatsoever. In fact the only proof I ever see the conspiritards use are the non-US-endorsed comments of the *former* president of mexico (which never even materialized) - fallen1004, on 05/28/2008, -5/+7There seems to be a presumption that one global society is a bad thing. If we can get beyond race and religion, and share basic human rights...fundamental rights with everyone, with equal justice and commercial and economic equity...why would that be such a bad thing?
I am not saying it is better than a portioned and diverse world...but I don't see why people think a unified global society is inherently a bad thing. We already have something like that...thanks to "Western" cultures. EU has turned out alright so far. Even the "United States" have worked out OK. The unification of provinces in China, India, Soviet Union...they also have worked OK (some better than others). It appears only isolationists fear global harmonization of laws and trade.
Further, regarding the Constitution...sure it is a good document...but it's not the bible. It can be changed as we see fit - if we elect the right people. And changing or amending the Constitution is allowed according to the Constitution. - elamr, on 05/28/2008, -2/+5Whether you are for Ron Paul or Obama, one thing is a fact: our civil liberties are being eroded. I don't know if you've noticed but Ron Paul is still with the GOP and they ALREADY have a nominee. A nominee who PROMISES more war AND more of the same. Now your choice is Bob Barr (who will suck the wind out of McCain's sails) or Obama (who will definitely do bad things but who MIGHT do some things right). Think about this choice... its very important. What ever you do America DO NOT vote for Bush again.
- inactive, on 05/28/2008, -3/+6I made dozens of accounts? Excuse me?
Still looking for "code words", onetimer?
You are so incredibly paranoid.... and yet accuse others of the same repeatedly. You really should seek some help. Stop taking digg so seriously, sweetie. It's just a game. If you don't like losing, you can simply stop playing at any time you choose.
Take Care
HumanCattle. - inobla, on 05/28/2008, -5/+8I think he's definitely surpassed LadyK and Card in raw magnitude of stupid. Don't get me wrong, I'm met some really extremely moronic truthers on here- but it takes a very special blend of ignorance, arrogance, and persistence to reach that class.
At least once in a while LadyK will surprise me and post something with a few trace elements of logical reasoning to it. I have yet to see that from 51short or HumanCattle... at least not since his digg reincarnation as the cow, whoever he used to be.
- bstory, on 05/27/2008, -7/+10Meaningless words as there is no way that if elected, he would reverse some of these orders. Also the NAU will come to pass if NA wants to be able to compete with the EU and China.There is a misconception that Canada will sell their resources to America first and the rest of the world second. While it might be in America's best interest to have first dibs on Canada's vast resources it might not be in Canada's best interest to do so. One sure way to secure the Canadian resources would be to sew the rights up by entering into a North American Union pact. I can only believe that Obama has to know this and is misrepresenting the truth about the NAU but what do I know about American politics?
- kemp34, on 05/28/2008, -0/+3Good point, I guess Obama is less anti-empire than I am giving him credit for. In all honesty, I don't know much about where he stands on the standing global US military presence. I'd like to see more, but my guess is he would change little.
- inactive, on 05/28/2008, -11/+14Digg is in three different camps, really. On one side, you have the conspirtards + diehard paul supporters who are posting all the "omg cfr paul can still win!!!!" stories, and on an other side, you have the Obama supporters posting, well, what seems like half the articles that go popular. Then you have a third side, that for whatever reason don't support either.
Stories like these get popular because some troofer/diehard-paultard sends a shout to 100+ of their friends, who blindly digg these stories. Then they come in here and give each other verbal-hi-fives talking about how informed they are for knowing the secret behind these CFR-NWO world conspiracies... - inactive, on 05/28/2008, -6/+9Hey cashman. Amazing that despite an average of 30+ posts per day (with over 10,000 to date), that the proper use of the reply button still eludes you.
I notice how you always start out your posts with this narrative rants, as if you were simply talking to the wind. Who exactly do you think you're talking too?
After reviewing your "proof", it appears simply to be the testimony of the chairman from over SEVENTY YEARS AGO, along with the testimony of three people dating back also fifty years.
None of that anecdotal evidence constitutes any kind of hard proof, and if it was all you had in court, you would be laughed out.
To this date, i've never had a single conspiritard present ONE hard piece of evidence that the CFR is currently engaging in a plot of "world domination". Just talk from less than a handful of people from over fifty years ago. - inactive, on 05/28/2008, -4/+6I wasn't aware that Herkimer56 is a military man. What makes you think that he is one, cow?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 140 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