The Bill O'reilly smear job of Obama.

[The_OG_Rocco]

Huh??

[Jack Sawyer]

The_OG_Rocco, I think it's unfair to label people who disagree with you as leftists.

Its not unfair, its the generally accepted modus operandi.


i think we in innocently stumbled upon what the fuck is wrong with America, and why Bush got two terms

[The_OG_Rocco]

I try to avoid stererotypes but my god you must be one major bible bashing redneck.
so next time you reach for your beloved bible for a bedtime read, remember that theres no such thing as god, and even if there is, he thinks your an idiot to.

Dear leftist,

1) I am a native Southern Californian of 37 years and I am also Italian-American. How many rednecks named Rocco have you ever heard of ? Just because I live in Texas I must be a redneck ?
And what is wrong with being a redneck anyways, even though I am not by the way. Great way to insult a whole fkng state you leftist douchebag.

2) The only two flags that I will ever salute are the flags of the United States of America and the flag of Texas. California belongs to queers not steers so I won't salute that leftist flag. And I have no love for the Confederate Flag either you clown.

3) Yahweh and Yashua truly do exist and one day your knees will bend in their presence just as my knees will and everybody elses will come judgement time. So get over yourself you self worshipping fool, because you will not live forever and you will meet your maker one day whether you want to believe in Him or not.

That is all. Now kindly bite me.

[will641]

The_OG_Rocco, I think it's unfair to label people who disagree with you as leftists.

Its not unfair, its the generally accepted modus operandi.


i think we in innocently stumbled upon what the fuck is wrong with America, and why Bush got two terms

will you teach me how to become a really smart guy like you, because ive always wanted to be one.

[vqc]

The_OG_Rocco, I think it's unfair to label people who disagree with you as leftists.

Its not unfair, its the generally accepted modus operandi.


i think we in innocently stumbled upon what the fuck is wrong with America, and why Bush got two terms

will you teach me how to become a really smart guy like you, because ive always wanted to be one.

I'd teach you, but I'd have to charge...

My milkshake brings all the boys to the yard.

[CoccoBill]

@Rocco
Why do you call everyone who disagrees with you a liberal? Do you feel the need to categorize people to strict categories in order to be able to deal with issues? Am I the only one who sees the irony in a citizen of the self-proclaimed Land of The Free using "liberal" as a derogatory term?

There are other colors besides black and white, in fact black and white hardly exist in the real word.

[a500lbgorilla]

@Rocco
Why do you call everyone who disagrees with you a liberal? Do you feel the need to categorize people to strict categories in order to be able to deal with issues? Am I the only one who sees the irony in a citizen of the self-proclaimed Land of The Free using "liberal" as a derogatory term?

There are other colors besides black and white, in fact black and white hardly exist in the real word.

The mere fact that you think there is more than just black and white means you're lost in some liberal fantasy land!

It's only dirty liberals that ever want to talk about "name-calling." We're sorry that no one likes you once they know you for the backwards potheads that you are!

As long as the leftists out there believe that the government should tell you what life-saving operation you should have and let the Mexicans take all our jobs while taxes rise 130% then the word "liberal" will be extremely derogatory!

[Ash256]

@Rocco
Why do you call everyone who disagrees with you a liberal? Do you feel the need to categorize people to strict categories in order to be able to deal with issues? Am I the only one who sees the irony in a citizen of the self-proclaimed Land of The Free using "liberal" as a derogatory term?

There are other colors besides black and white, in fact black and white hardly exist in the real word.

The mere fact that you think there is more than just black and white means you're lost in some liberal fantasy land!

It's only dirty liberals that ever want to talk about "name-calling." We're sorry that no one likes you once they know you for the backwards potheads that you are!

As long as the leftists out there believe that the government should tell you what life-saving operation you should have and let the Mexicans take all our jobs while taxes rise 130% then the word "liberal" will be extremely derogatory!

You can be such a fucking commie sometimes, you know that?

[a500lbgorilla]

What did that one troll say in the NY Times article? I'm in it for the lulz.

[The_OG_Rocco]

@Rocco
Why do you call everyone who disagrees with you a liberal? Do you feel the need to categorize people to strict categories in order to be able to deal with issues? Am I the only one who sees the irony in a citizen of the self-proclaimed Land of The Free using "liberal" as a derogatory term?

There are other colors besides black and white, in fact black and white hardly exist in the real word.

The mere fact that you think there is more than just black and white means you're lost in some liberal fantasy land!

It's only dirty liberals that ever want to talk about "name-calling." We're sorry that no one likes you once they know you for the backwards potheads that you are!

As long as the leftists out there believe that the government should tell you what life-saving operation you should have and let the Mexicans take all our jobs while taxes rise 130% then the word "liberal" will be extremely derogatory!

You can be such a fucking commie sometimes, you know that?

That's it? "You can be such a Commie sometimes?"
Talk about liberals categorizing people that disagree with them and their narrow views of the world.
What's the next name you leftists are going to call us Conservatives? Nazis? Or Klansmen?
You partisan leftists are running out of ammo and your same old/lame old arguments are boring and bloviated at best.

[Jack Sawyer]

lol rilla the devil's advocate

[ATOTHEC101]

o rocco, where would you be without your emoticons and your distaste for modern science...

[Sprayed]

Rocco is a dingle berry. By the way, we went to war against Iraq due to being told by the Bush admin. that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Did we ever find them? It had nothing to do with terrorism at the time. In fact, Saddam didn't get along with Al Qaeda.

"Rocco's a dingle berry", "Rocco's a douche", "Rocco's a troll", blah blah blah.
Funny how all you 'mature' Liberals like to resort to name calling when someone rubs you the wrong way by disagreeing with your narrow and slanted views of the world.
I suspect that the only way that you libs can win any argument is to gang up on your victims and then attack from all directions eh? Pretty cowardly if you ask me.
Is there a 'Forum Posse' here? Sure seems like it. Maybe I better get on my trusty steed and make a run for them yonder hills before the 'Forum Posse' can string me up by my bootstraps.

Focus on the question. Please tell me where the weapons of mass destruction where in Iraq and when they found them. I do not recall Bush telling congress that we had to go to war against Iraq due to terrorism.

[will641]

i think rocco might be ann coulter irl.

[The_OG_Rocco]

Rocco is a dingle berry. By the way, we went to war against Iraq due to being told by the Bush admin. that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Did we ever find them? It had nothing to do with terrorism at the time. In fact, Saddam didn't get along with Al Qaeda.

"Rocco's a dingle berry", "Rocco's a douche", "Rocco's a troll", blah blah blah.
Funny how all you 'mature' Liberals like to resort to name calling when someone rubs you the wrong way by disagreeing with your narrow and slanted views of the world.
I suspect that the only way that you libs can win any argument is to gang up on your victims and then attack from all directions eh? Pretty cowardly if you ask me.
Is there a 'Forum Posse' here? Sure seems like it. Maybe I better get on my trusty steed and make a run for them yonder hills before the 'Forum Posse' can string me up by my bootstraps.

Focus on the question. Please tell me where the weapons of mass destruction where in Iraq and when they found them. I do not recall Bush telling congress that we had to go to war against Iraq due to terrorism.

Okay, I'll answer your question with this statement and then a follow up question to you.
It could be stated as fact that Saddam Hussein himself and his barbaric regime were 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' themselves.
Saddam and his regime are responsible for murdering thousands of men, women and children. Look it up, it's true.
Question, Could it then also be stated that Hitler himself and the Nazi regime was a weapon of mass destruction?
I would wager to say 'Yes'.

[a500lbgorilla]

Rocco is a dingle berry. By the way, we went to war against Iraq due to being told by the Bush admin. that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Did we ever find them? It had nothing to do with terrorism at the time. In fact, Saddam didn't get along with Al Qaeda.

"Rocco's a dingle berry", "Rocco's a douche", "Rocco's a troll", blah blah blah.
Funny how all you 'mature' Liberals like to resort to name calling when someone rubs you the wrong way by disagreeing with your narrow and slanted views of the world.
I suspect that the only way that you libs can win any argument is to gang up on your victims and then attack from all directions eh? Pretty cowardly if you ask me.
Is there a 'Forum Posse' here? Sure seems like it. Maybe I better get on my trusty steed and make a run for them yonder hills before the 'Forum Posse' can string me up by my bootstraps.

Focus on the question. Please tell me where the weapons of mass destruction where in Iraq and when they found them. I do not recall Bush telling congress that we had to go to war against Iraq due to terrorism.

Okay, I'll answer your question with this statement and then a follow up question to you.
It could be stated as fact that Saddam Hussein himself and his barbaric regime were 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' themselves.
Saddam and his regime are responsible for murdering thousands of men, women and children. Look it up, it's true.
Question, Could it then also be stated that Hitler himself and the Nazi regime was a weapon of mass destruction?
I would wager to say 'Yes'.

sick post.

[pgil]

It could be stated as fact that Saddam Hussein himself and his barbaric regime were 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' themselves.
Saddam and his regime are responsible for murdering thousands of men, women and children. Look it up, it's true.

The only problem with this fact is that while he was doing the majority of his murdering/attempted ethnic cleansing, he was a friend and ally of the US. Those pictures of Rumsfeld shaking his hand were from that era. Kind of makes it hard to use that as a justification for going to war when you were allied with him while he was doing it, and not only allied, but also providing support in more ways than one.

Plus, it was claimed that saddam had specific weapons of mass destruction. The majority of these claims were known to be false before the war, even before they were used to attempt to justify the war.

[Jack Sawyer]

a stove is just a smaller version of the sun.

[bjsaust]

I'm 50/50 on Rocco being a troll or being serious. If a troll, he's sneaky enough to just walk the line without going overboard into rediculousness.

[d0zer]

without going overboard into rediculousness.

debatable.

[vqc]

Rocco is a dingle berry. By the way, we went to war against Iraq due to being told by the Bush admin. that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Did we ever find them? It had nothing to do with terrorism at the time. In fact, Saddam didn't get along with Al Qaeda.

"Rocco's a dingle berry", "Rocco's a douche", "Rocco's a troll", blah blah blah.
Funny how all you 'mature' Liberals like to resort to name calling when someone rubs you the wrong way by disagreeing with your narrow and slanted views of the world.
I suspect that the only way that you libs can win any argument is to gang up on your victims and then attack from all directions eh? Pretty cowardly if you ask me.
Is there a 'Forum Posse' here? Sure seems like it. Maybe I better get on my trusty steed and make a run for them yonder hills before the 'Forum Posse' can string me up by my bootstraps.

Focus on the question. Please tell me where the weapons of mass destruction where in Iraq and when they found them. I do not recall Bush telling congress that we had to go to war against Iraq due to terrorism.

Okay, I'll answer your question with this statement and then a follow up question to you.
It could be stated as fact that Saddam Hussein himself and his barbaric regime were 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' themselves.
Saddam and his regime are responsible for murdering thousands of men, women and children. Look it up, it's true.
Question, Could it then also be stated that Hitler himself and the Nazi regime was a weapon of mass destruction?
I would wager to say 'Yes'.

sick post.

amazing.
i have never heard that comparison/analogy before. i give it at least 5 points for sheer insanity bordering on brilliance. amazing, absolutely amazing.

[CoccoBill]

Rocco is a dingle berry. By the way, we went to war against Iraq due to being told by the Bush admin. that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Did we ever find them? It had nothing to do with terrorism at the time. In fact, Saddam didn't get along with Al Qaeda.

"Rocco's a dingle berry", "Rocco's a douche", "Rocco's a troll", blah blah blah.
Funny how all you 'mature' Liberals like to resort to name calling when someone rubs you the wrong way by disagreeing with your narrow and slanted views of the world.
I suspect that the only way that you libs can win any argument is to gang up on your victims and then attack from all directions eh? Pretty cowardly if you ask me.
Is there a 'Forum Posse' here? Sure seems like it. Maybe I better get on my trusty steed and make a run for them yonder hills before the 'Forum Posse' can string me up by my bootstraps.

Focus on the question. Please tell me where the weapons of mass destruction where in Iraq and when they found them. I do not recall Bush telling congress that we had to go to war against Iraq due to terrorism.

Okay, I'll answer your question with this statement and then a follow up question to you.
It could be stated as fact that Saddam Hussein himself and his barbaric regime were 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' themselves.
Saddam and his regime are responsible for murdering thousands of men, women and children. Look it up, it's true.
Question, Could it then also be stated that Hitler himself and the Nazi regime was a weapon of mass destruction?
I would wager to say 'Yes'.

If you justify launching a pre-emptive strike against a sovereign nation on the basis of them having WMDs, you'd better make damn sure you find some.

Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000
Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94) 1.6 million (purges and concentration camps)
Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994) 800,000
Suharto (East Timor, West Papua, Communists, 1966-98) 800,000
Kim Jong Il (North Korea, 1994-2008) 400,000
Savimbi (Angola, 1975-2002) 400,000
Idi Amin (Uganda, 1969-1979) 300,000
Foday Sankoh (Sierra Leone, 1991-2000) 200,000
Hassan Turabi (Sudan, 1989-1999) 100,000
Fidel Castro (Cuba, 1959-1999) 30,000
Hafez Al-Assad (Syria, 1980-2000) 25,000

What has/did the US done/do about these WMDs, to name a few? Here's a couple more for comparison:

Saddam Hussein (Iran 1980-1990 and Kurdistan 1987-88) 600,000
Osama Bin Laden (worldwide, 1993-2001) 3,500

[will641]

you cant compare hitler and saddam. hitler was a serious threat to the world. saddam was just a thug with monies and potential to make a nuke.

in regards to invading iraq, bush was not the only person that thought saddam had wmd's, and if you think that bush trixed senators and everyone on both sides then gg sir. as we all know, government is incompetent. also saddam had violated several UN requirements set from the first gulf war. regardless, im not going to get my panties in a twist that they didnt find any wmd's. if you think saddam had lost all interest in obtaining one then you are lol stupid.

[bjsaust]

without going overboard into rediculousness.

debatable.

Unfortunately I've come to the cynical conclusion that people like this really do exist in reality.

[Sprayed]

Rocco is a dingle berry. By the way, we went to war against Iraq due to being told by the Bush admin. that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Did we ever find them? It had nothing to do with terrorism at the time. In fact, Saddam didn't get along with Al Qaeda.

"Rocco's a dingle berry", "Rocco's a douche", "Rocco's a troll", blah blah blah.
Funny how all you 'mature' Liberals like to resort to name calling when someone rubs you the wrong way by disagreeing with your narrow and slanted views of the world.
I suspect that the only way that you libs can win any argument is to gang up on your victims and then attack from all directions eh? Pretty cowardly if you ask me.
Is there a 'Forum Posse' here? Sure seems like it. Maybe I better get on my trusty steed and make a run for them yonder hills before the 'Forum Posse' can string me up by my bootstraps.

Focus on the question. Please tell me where the weapons of mass destruction where in Iraq and when they found them. I do not recall Bush telling congress that we had to go to war against Iraq due to terrorism.

Okay, I'll answer your question with this statement and then a follow up question to you.
It could be stated as fact that Saddam Hussein himself and his barbaric regime were 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' themselves.
Saddam and his regime are responsible for murdering thousands of men, women and children. Look it up, it's true.
Question, Could it then also be stated that Hitler himself and the Nazi regime was a weapon of mass destruction?
I would wager to say 'Yes'.

Hold on a minute. Don't manipulate the issue here. A weapon is a device or piece of equipment that can cause large amounts of loss of life. The fact is that Intel had told the Bush admin that it was unlikely that Iraq had WMDs. The Bush admin manipulated the report from Intel and made it known to congress and the American public that Iraq did have WMDs.

In addition, Bush did not say that Saddam was a WMD, Bush sited nuclear missiles and chemical weapons. The way that you spun your answer tells me that you know what really took place and that WMDs were never found. I think that everyone should be concerned with this because thousands of our young peoples' lives have been lost for no reason but for the greediness of oil, land, and money.

If Bush had told congress and the American public that Saddam is a WMD and therefore we need to spend billions of dollars and risk thousands of lives and attack a country, they would laugh at him. Rocco, you are boarding on insanity. I like your attempt at a creative reply, but your comments are just laughable.

[The_OG_Rocco]

[quote="Sprayed"]

Rocco is a dingle berry. By the way, we went to war against Iraq due to being told by the Bush admin. that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Did we ever find them? It had nothing to do with terrorism at the time. In fact, Saddam didn't get along with Al Qaeda.

"Rocco's a dingle berry", "Rocco's a douche", "Rocco's a troll", blah blah blah.
Funny how all you 'mature' Liberals like to resort to name calling when someone rubs you the wrong way by disagreeing with your narrow and slanted views of the world.
I suspect that the only way that you libs can win any argument is to gang up on your victims and then attack from all directions eh? Pretty cowardly if you ask me.
Is there a 'Forum Posse' here? Sure seems like it. Maybe I better get on my trusty steed and make a run for them yonder hills before the 'Forum Posse' can string me up by my bootstraps.

Focus on the question. Please tell me where the weapons of mass destruction where in Iraq and when they found them. I do not recall Bush telling congress that we had to go to war against Iraq due to terrorism.

Okay, I'll answer your question with this statement and then a follow up question to you.
It could be stated as fact that Saddam Hussein himself and his barbaric regime were 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' themselves.
Saddam and his regime are responsible for murdering thousands of men, women and children. Look it up, it's true.
Question, Could it then also be stated that Hitler himself and the Nazi regime was a weapon of mass destruction?
I would wager to say 'Yes'.

Hold on a minute. Don't manipulate the issue here. A weapon is a device or piece of equipment that can cause large amounts of loss of life. quote]

Any human being can be a weapon of destruction.
Have you ever heard of a human being killing another human being? Yes! Everyday on the news! A human can kill another human with anything, including his/her bare hands.
Now compare that to Saddam and his former regime who murdered thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians with chemical weapons, tanks, machine guns, torture and more.
Saddam and his militant regime could have been called the actual weapons of mass destruction in their own right. They definately destroyed massive amounts of civilians didn't they?

[CoccoBill]

Any human being can be a weapon of destruction.
Have you ever heard of a human being killing another human being? Yes! Everyday on the news! A human can kill another human with anything, including his/her bare hands.
Now compare that to Saddam and his former regime who murdered thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians with chemical weapons, tanks, machine guns, torture and more.
Saddam and his militant regime could have been called the actual weapons of mass destruction in their own right. They definately destroyed massive amounts of civilians didn't they?

Since u decided to ignore me last time I'll bite again.

Tell me how Saddam is different to the dozens of dictators in the past century (many of which were instated/financed by the US just like Saddam), and how come the government didn't feel compelled to overthrow their regimes? It's widely believed that Saddam is responsible for around 600,000 deaths, 500,000 of which were during the Iran-Iraq war and the rest are Kurds in the late 80s. Please explain to me how Saddam was a bigger threat in 2003 than for example Kim Jong Il, who actually does have nuclear weapons? The last and only WMDs Iraq ever had (chemical weapons sold to them by Halliburton during the Iran-Iraq war) were destroyed after Oil Rush I in the early 90s.

[Sprayed]

[quote="The_OG_Rocco"]

Rocco is a dingle berry. By the way, we went to war against Iraq due to being told by the Bush admin. that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Did we ever find them? It had nothing to do with terrorism at the time. In fact, Saddam didn't get along with Al Qaeda.

"Rocco's a dingle berry", "Rocco's a douche", "Rocco's a troll", blah blah blah.
Funny how all you 'mature' Liberals like to resort to name calling when someone rubs you the wrong way by disagreeing with your narrow and slanted views of the world.
I suspect that the only way that you libs can win any argument is to gang up on your victims and then attack from all directions eh? Pretty cowardly if you ask me.
Is there a 'Forum Posse' here? Sure seems like it. Maybe I better get on my trusty steed and make a run for them yonder hills before the 'Forum Posse' can string me up by my bootstraps.

Focus on the question. Please tell me where the weapons of mass destruction where in Iraq and when they found them. I do not recall Bush telling congress that we had to go to war against Iraq due to terrorism.

Okay, I'll answer your question with this statement and then a follow up question to you.
It could be stated as fact that Saddam Hussein himself and his barbaric regime were 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' themselves.
Saddam and his regime are responsible for murdering thousands of men, women and children. Look it up, it's true.
Question, Could it then also be stated that Hitler himself and the Nazi regime was a weapon of mass destruction?
I would wager to say 'Yes'.

Hold on a minute. Don't manipulate the issue here. A weapon is a device or piece of equipment that can cause large amounts of loss of life. quote]

Any human being can be a weapon of destruction.
Have you ever heard of a human being killing another human being? Yes! Everyday on the news! A human can kill another human with anything, including his/her bare hands.
Now compare that to Saddam and his former regime who murdered thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians with chemical weapons, tanks, machine guns, torture and more.
Saddam and his militant regime could have been called the actual weapons of mass destruction in their own right. They definately destroyed massive amounts of civilians didn't they?

If you want to believe that then how does that affect the U.S.? You still didn't answer my question. But whatever. I feel sorry for you.

[sarbox68]

Any human being can be a weapon of destruction.

Ummm, wait.... holy sh!t, wat?!?

Dude, come on. Aside from this being first rate, prima fascia revisionist bloviation (I learned that word from Websters, 6th grade... Ms. Clarke's spelling list...), it's just freaking retarded. By your definition, the Bush administration clearly qualifies as a weapon of mass destruction, unless somehow if you mass destruct another mass destructor you cancel out your own mass destructativeness...

Hitler was not a "weapon of mass destruction"... he was a nationalistic genocidal maniac with delusions of grandeur and a serious god complex. "Fat Man" and "Little Boy" on the other hand, were weapons of mass destruction, and remain the single incident that nuclear weapons have ever been used. It's not a very difficult distinction if you pay attention.

Saddam was not a nice guy. He killed his own people. He fought with his neighbors (who we don't think are nice guys either, so we were happy that our not-nice guy was beating up on the more-not-nice guys...). So f-kin what? That describes 80% of the 2nd and 3rd world. It's also not behavior limited to such. We've got our own track record (proximate cause for civilian deaths in Iraq, doctrine for bombing north of 20th parallel in Vietnam... hell, how many Indians left to open casinos after our own local version of genocide, oh sorry, "Manifest Destiny" wat??...)

We're all dragging a trail of sh!t behind us... which is prolly why "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is one of the things I remember most from 18 years of church -- and why all this disinegenuous, revisionist, polarizing moralistic grandstanding makes me wanna puke.

Oh and BTW... I'm a small government, free market, social safety net, personal responsibility independent... conservative on taxes, liberal on prostitution, and pro-choice because the only thing that separates abortion from infanticide is an arbitrary and scientifically disputed line of when life begins -- and the morally ambiguous decisions are best left to the individual. That being said, we also used to pronounce people dead when they no longer fogged up a mirror, so I think the odds are good that this line may shift as our science continues to evolve...

[Jack Sawyer]

Mike Tyson is a weapon of mass destruction IMO

so destructive he destroyed himself, beat that

[sarbox68]

Mike Tyson is a weapon of mass destruction IMO

so destructive he destroyed himself, beat that

yeah, but he got a dope facial tattoo and eats ears... you gotta give him some credit for free thinking