What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
243 Comments
- SheilaNoya, on 10/17/2007, -29/+114Thompson is just parroting Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh now. He doesn't have anything original to say, so he thinks he can ride on the lies that these idiots still dish out to their gullible audience. You've gotta admit that Fred Thompson provides us all with a good laugh when he shows up for photo-ops in his little red "rental truck" that they tow around behind his campaign bus. His only line is always: "I'm a regular guy, just like you". He always looks like a giant talking frog, and I don't want warts.
- EntropyMan, on 10/17/2007, -22/+91Fred, Fred, FRED! Cut! You're using the old version of the script. We changed all that two years ago. Didn't your people get you those revisions? I know we sent them to you. Marcy! Where is Marcy? Marcy, get Fred that new script on Iran ASAP. And can we get makeup in here? Fred is looking a little pale lately.
- hawkeye17, on 10/10/2007, -26/+69Stupid and lazy...does Fred remind you of anyone?? The last thing this country needs is another incompetent hack as our next President and Thompson is exactly that.
- EndersGame, on 10/10/2007, -10/+34It pisses me off that a lot of people out there still believe this insane rhetoric and its insulting that this guy and others take the whole country for a bunch of idiots. I can only take comfort in the fact that these evil bastards are wasting their time with this election, I really hope their pride is crushed into nothingness. Thats why it really will be hard for Ron Paul to pull through the primaries though, he belongs to a party where the more ignorant you act, the more you excel. Forget religion in politics, corporate owned politicians, the military industrial complex....if you want to nip the problem in the bud you need to abolish bi-partisan politics. Thats one of the biggest reasons I support Ron Paul, he is receiving a lot of support from both sides of the fence and he really is a third party candidate in disguise. That plus he is honest.
- DesertDude, on 10/10/2007, -8/+30What's alarming isn't that Fred Thompson said that; it's that he's endorsed by some media outlets. Obviously there's something in it for them. A couple of weeks ago he was blasted across MSN's front page (and they took the story from Time), and the title of the story was, "Is Fred Thompson made of presidential material?" accompanied by a picture of him in casual clothes with a warm, fatherly smile. US media is even more sinister than US politics.
- pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -12/+32the only wmds saddam had were the ones we gave him. he used them on the kurds and iranians so we punished him by giving him more money.
- EntropyMan, on 10/10/2007, -5/+23Actually, just about everything about Fred Thompson scares the liberals.
- inactive, on 10/17/2007, -24/+40Like Ghouliani... think of the word "Thompson" then think of the word "liberty". They don't seem to go together, do they?
- asands84, on 10/10/2007, -24/+40Fred Thompson: Liar. Propagandist. Passion.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -25/+40This jackoff needs to go back to acting and leave politics to the wise like Ron Paul
- trippinlikegod, on 10/10/2007, -4/+19It is insulting that these people take us for idiots. It's more insulting that most of us are. The reason they still dish this ***** out is because people still gobble it up. America needs to wake the ***** up. Stop eating what they give you because they tell you it tastes good.
- mitchellk, on 10/10/2007, -18/+31You never read the Iraq Survey Group report, did you? They did not rule out the possibility that there were WMDs there before the invasion. With months of advance warning, including Jay Rockefeller meeting with Syria, Saddam and others and telling them when the invasion would take place, with trucks rolling into Syria, the report explicitly did not rule out the probability that the weapons were moved.
Some were found. Saddam said he had them and threatened to use them, the world said he had them, the UN said he had them. - SickMonkey, on 10/10/2007, -14/+26Some were found? You mean the half dozen old rusty artillery shells leftover from their war with Iran? Give me a break.
BTW, Saddam never said he had them. Do you remember the 13,000 page report he turned over to UN detailing how Iraq dismantled their entire WMD program? Of course you don't. - jetboyterp, on 10/10/2007, -12/+23Oh, brother. Every major Democrat in Congress said Saddam had WMD too. Every major world intel agency said the same. And ThinkProgress....what an unbiased source!
- whiskeymb, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14He later clarified that he was referring to the 1980's attacks on the Kurds.
Nice to see he's up to date with current events. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -7/+17this guy is clearly presidential material
look at how well he parrots the lies of the current president - Calann, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11After the Gulf war, UN weapons inspectors were in Iraq for years. They found and destroyed many WMD and apparently they got them all.
Any more questions? - Tangaroa, on 10/10/2007, -9/+19This is the same idiot who said Cuban refugees fleeing Castro were all terrorists who threaten to nuke us. Yeah, with a Cuban nuke. Didn't the Russians remove them all back in 1962, or did they forget a couple?
Finally dug up his quote. This one went down the memory hole: "I don't imagine they're coming here to bring greetings from Castro. We're living in the era of the suitcase bomb."
Oh, and the suitcase bomb? It does not really exist outside of Hollywood.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-03-12-su ... - pictureDIGGER, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14Basically he said, "They had WMD's, trust us."
- fuzzmeister, on 10/10/2007, -12/+22The thing is... he isn't right.
- UrbanOne, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13On 11.16.2006, Ted Koppel, on The Daily Show, said, "“Before the invasion of Iraq in 2003, we used to say in Washington, “We know Sadaam has weapons of mass destruction; we still have the receipts.”
http://www.davidinmanhattan.com/the-daily-show-ted ... - Dumbledorito, on 10/10/2007, -11/+20Care to refute anything specific in the article, or are we just talking to your "conserv-o-rant" script?
- EntropyMan, on 10/10/2007, -10/+19Aha! No wonder they didn't find anything! They were looking for missiles and warheads and *****. Nobody said anything about looking for a giant toilet bowl!
- BrapAllgood, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11The Hunt for Red November
- Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -9/+17You know what... I don't think I want you in office....
- Nattybumpoe, on 10/10/2007, -5/+13Me = Liberal
There was actually a book written by an Iraqi who discussed that Iraq had WMDs prior to our invasion. He worked with the Iraqi government, and discussed how prior to the invasion Iraq moved them out of the country. I do not know how credible an argument it is as I have not read the book, however, it does give you a different perspective. - joe361, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Iraq did process WMD material and it was under UN supervision, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3009082.stm ...
- an0nymous, on 10/10/2007, -8/+15Sickmonkey is not the dumbass here.
Yes he used chemical weapons against his own people. He was a cruel and tyrannical despot. No-one is disputing this.
If you care so passionately for the lives of Iraqis you would have opposed this war. You would NOW oppose this war.
But you don't and your polemic about blowjobs is designed to draw attention about how terribly wrong you were and, no doubt, continue to be.
Examine your motives. - Zarchon, on 10/10/2007, -6/+13So where are the WMDs that we sold to Iraq? You know, the ones they used on the Kurds. Where are they?
If you don't know where they are now then how can anyone possibly know where they were before we invaded Iraq?
Oh, I got it, Saddam used them all up and we knew that. Or they never had them and it is just the rightwing press making things up, No really, seriously, everybody thought he had WMDs before we went to war. EVERYBODY (well, except for revisionist leftest who use any and everything they can against the right in order to get into power, who actually did think so but now say they never did.) - pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -8/+14*****.
http://www.counterpunch.org/boles1010.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#Chemica ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#Weapons ...
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.ht ... - Veretax, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10They DID have weapons of mass destruction, where do you think they got IEDs with mustard gas in them? The only issue here is that they didn't find the large quantity of missing and unaccounted for WMDs, some we think Saddaam may have destroyed, but we can't really confirm that either.
- Monk22, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6the founding fathers were statesmen.
- thentro, on 10/10/2007, -5/+11We found some useless trash in the wilderness. And yes, it does take a lot of that stuff to wipe out lots of people.
- dimplemonkey, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10Forget Fred Thompson for a second if you will. Listen to what all of you are saying. Instead of finding every single flaw in every single candidate, can you not acknowledge that everyone has flaws (even you do, that's why you're not running for office, it would be suicide and we'd all make you look like a fool, just like the rest of them). Try accentuating their strong points, leadership skills, approach on the issues without pointing a finger. I've been sterilized by all your petty remarks about how this guy sucks, and this guy's an idiot, and this guy's against this. You will get more of my attention if you can actually make a strong and supportive positive remark about the candidate you prefer. Instead of saying that Fred Thompson's a nutbag, try saying, "Although Thompson feels like WMDs were always present in Iraq before invasion, there have been several solid sources like X, Y, and Z that have presented evidence stating just the opposite. My candidate voted against the war because of A, B, and C and he poses a strong argument against Thompson's statements"
Let me summarize what I'm trying to say in case you haven't graduated from the pimple creme stage of your life.
Know your facts and present a valid argument that doesn't insult anyone or this country. You look like a fool when you do. - billm317, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8either that or people are just that stupid
I frequent http://forums.hannity.com/ for laughs and I end up wanting to cry. So many of these people are completely out of tune with reality. - datastorageguy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7So, because it is 13,000 pages, you seem to believe in it's authenticity. Do you have any idea what kind of person Sadam Huseein was?
- HappyScrappy, on 10/10/2007, -8/+13The problem here is that reality has a well-known liberal bias.
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/10/2007, -7/+12Wait, is Think Progress saying that Saddam NEVER had WMDs? Who exactly is being delusional here?
- an0nymous, on 10/10/2007, -9/+14Got any proof? Surely we would have satellite imagery. Right? I mean we were paying attention to the goings on.
What you describe is a right wing fever dream. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Hahaha!! You're proof of WMD's is that I can't dig them up by hand without being harmed??? Wow, those weapons were truly a THREAT to the United States.
- blackhawk919, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Sounds like your problem is more with the decision made by congress
- jetboyterp, on 10/10/2007, -9/+14***** yourself! Russian intel...British intel....the CIA.....Jordanian intel.....etc All said Saddam had WMD. So were the Dem's lying about it too? Or is it that they were "fooled".
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8He's just saying they had WMDs in the past. It is an established fact that Saddam used them on his own people.
- pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -5/+10"Thompson is just parroting Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh now" parroting parrots. talk about an echo chamber.
- gte879p, on 10/10/2007, -5/+10Ok, here's what happened, and here's why it isn't still played up alot in the media.
Before the war, we were all led to believe that Saddam had or was trying to get nuclear capabilities of some sort. We started calling them WMDs. Naturally everyone hates nukes so everyone gets behind stopping the nukes.
As we all know, there were no nukes found, and no evidence there had been any. We're all on the same page so far.
So THEN what Bush&Co say is "umm... not nukes, but nerve gas! look see? We found nerve gas." Technically they are a weapon that can kill things in a large area. So they then try to make the point that these are "WMDs". -Technically- Bush & Co. is right.
But we were all led to believe it was nukes we were looking for. So it's still relatively dishonest and a case of covering their butts and trying to make themselves look better.
It's a weak argument, but they did "find" "WMDs". http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?i ...
Probably they were just looking for the 'best reason' to accomplish their goals (remove Saddam from power, keep him from controlling the straights that millions of barrels of oil per day flow through, as Greenspan commented on). They picked what looked like a safe bet to go to war on, and after the fact, it turns out they were misinformed. - painted82, on 10/10/2007, -6/+11So how is this guy a frontrunner? I have a feeling these 'scientific polls' are rigged.
- bratpack8, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6If they are facts backed up by reliable sources, please let us know the sources because OwdenBowden doesn't cut it as a source to me.
- MerryMortician, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4um.. what? http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/DoSuitcaseNuk ... / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_bomb / http://www.nukepills.com/nuclear_dirty_bombs.htm
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 10/10/2007, -6/+10Does anyone else see the problem with the statement that "ThinkProgress says this is propaganda."
-
Show 51 - 100 of 244 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