I'm so fucking sick of this asshole, and all the assholes with LIVE STRONG braclets. Wow, you can ride a bike, good for you dipshit! wow, you survived cancer, and can still ride a bike! double plus good for you, you idiot. Maybe I'd be a little less inclined to hate him if he hadn't left his wife and 3 kids, the wife who stayed with him AFTER he had his fucking balls removed... I seriously think there was nothing wrong with his balls that not grinding them into a bicycle seat wouldn't have cured, but now they're gone, and to compensate he's gotta go and show up the french every year... I'd bet that 90% of his popularity in this country is BECAUSE he pisses off the french, and in this redneck fucking land I live in pissing off the french is grounds for admiration...
so, in conclusion, fuck Lance Armstrong (if that IS his real name... it sounds too fucking good to be real), I hope he gets hit by a truck.
Forum
OT: Fuck Lance Armstrong
MultiQuote
#4
- Brother
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 966
- Joined: 23-April 03
Posted 11 July 2005 - 10:51 PM
toomuch'stash Escribi�:
yes yes, I hate them too.
Karl Rove is going down, methinks.
The press asked McClellan about Roves involvement in the Plame case and Scott refused to answer the question about 30 times. If they are not talking then it doesn't look good. Rove is still probably above the law though.
#5
- Brother
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 966
- Joined: 23-April 03
Posted 11 July 2005 - 10:53 PM
somebody else put this together on another forum.... X-D
1. MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your question. I think your question is being asked related to some reports that are in reference to an ongoing criminal investigation. The criminal investigation that you reference is something that continues at this point. And as I?ve previously stated, while that investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it. The president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation. And as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, we made a decision that we weren?t going to comment on it while it is ongoing.
2. MCCLELLAN: Yes, but this question is coming up in the context of this ongoing investigation, and that?s why I said that our policy continues to be that we?re not going to get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation from this podium. The prosecutors overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference to us that one way to help the investigation is not to be commenting on it from this podium. And so that?s why we are not going to get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation ? or questions related to it.
3. MCCLELLAN: Again, John, I appreciate the question. I know you want to get to the bottom of this. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States.
And I think the way to be most helpful is to not get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation. And that?s something that the people overseeing the investigation have expressed a preference that we follow. And that?s why we?re continuing to follow that approach and that policy. Now, I remember very well what was previously said. And, at some point, I will be glad to talk about it, but not until after the investigation is complete.
4. MCCLELLAN: Well, I think maybe you missed what I was saying in reference to Terry?s question at the beginning. There came a point, when the investigation got under way, when those overseeing the investigation asked that it would be ? or said that it would be their preference that we not get into discussing it while it is ongoing.
I think that?s the way to be most helpful to help them advance the investigation and get to the bottom of it.
5. MCCLELLAN: Again, David, this is a question relating to a ongoing investigation, and you have my response related to the investigation. And I don?t think you should read anything into it other than: We?re going to continue not to comment on it while it?s ongoing.
6. MCCLELLAN: I?m well aware, like you, of what was previously said. And I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation?
7. MCCLELLAN: There will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.
8. MCCLELLAN: Again, I?ve responded to the question.
9. MCCLELLAN: No, that?s not a correct characterization. And I think you are well aware of that. We know each other very well. And it was after that period that the investigators had requested that we not get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation. And we want to be helpful so that they can get to the bottom of this. Because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States. I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some point I look forward to talking about it. But until the investigation is complete, I?m just not going to do that.
10. MCCLELLAN: Again, you?re continuing to ask questions relating to an ongoing criminal investigation and I?m just not going to respond to them.
11. MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your questions. You can keep asking them, but you have my response.
12. MCCLELLAN: I?ve responded to the questions.
13. MCCLELLAN: I?ve responded to your questions.
14. MCCLELLAN: Again, after the investigation is complete, I will be glad to talk about it at that point.
15. MCCLELLAN: Well, those overseeing the investigation expressed a preference to us that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it?s ongoing. And that was what they requested of the White House. And so I think in order to be helpful to that investigation, we are following their direction.
16. MCCLELLAN: Again, these are all questions coming up in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation. And you?ve heard my response on this.
17. MCCLELLAN: You?re asking this question in the context of an ongoing investigation, and I would not read anything into it other then I?m simply going to comment on an ongoing investigation.
18. MCCLELLAN: Again, you have my response to these questions.
19. MCCLELLAN: Well, I think the president has previously spoken to this.
20. MCCLELLAN: No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States. And we?re just not going to have more to say on it until that investigation is complete.
21. MCCLELLAN: Again, you?re asking questions relating to an ongoing investigation, and I think I?ve responded to it.
22. MCCLELLAN: This is still coming at the same question relating to reports about an ongoing investigation. And I think I?ve responded to...
23. MCCLELLAN: Do you have questions on another topic?
24. MCCLELLAN: I appreciate the question. I think I?ve responded.
25. MCCLELLAN: Again, I?m going to be happy to talk about this at the appropriate time. You and everybody in this room ? or most people in this room, I should say ? know me very well, and they know the type of person that I am. And I?m confident in our relationship that we have. But I will be glad to talk about this at the appropriate time, and that?s once the investigation is complete. I?m not going to get into commenting based on reports or anything of that nature.
26. MCCLELLAN: You?ve heard my response.
27. MCCLELLAN: And I think those are questions best directed to the special prosecutor. Again, this is an ongoing matter. I?m just not going to get into commenting on it further at this time. At the appropriate time, when it?s complete, then I?ll be glad to talk about it at that point.
28. MCCLELLAN: It?s the same type of question. You?re asking me to comment on an ongoing investigation and I?m not going to do that.
29. MCCLELLAN: Understood. The president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation, and that?s what he expects people in the White House to do.
30. MCCLELLAN: Again, I?ve already responded.
31. MCCLELLAN: You can direct those questions to the special prosecutors. I think probably more than one individual who?s involved in overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it?s ongoing. I think we all want to see the prosecutors get to the bottom of this matter. The president wants to see the prosecutors get to the bottom of this matter. And the way to help them do that is to not get into commenting on it while it is ongoing.
32. MCCLELLAN: I already responded to these questions.
33. MCCLELLAN: Again, I?m just not going to say anything further. I expressed all I?m going to say on this matter from this podium.
http://thinkprogress...11/briefing-711
1. MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your question. I think your question is being asked related to some reports that are in reference to an ongoing criminal investigation. The criminal investigation that you reference is something that continues at this point. And as I?ve previously stated, while that investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it. The president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation. And as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, we made a decision that we weren?t going to comment on it while it is ongoing.
2. MCCLELLAN: Yes, but this question is coming up in the context of this ongoing investigation, and that?s why I said that our policy continues to be that we?re not going to get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation from this podium. The prosecutors overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference to us that one way to help the investigation is not to be commenting on it from this podium. And so that?s why we are not going to get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation ? or questions related to it.
3. MCCLELLAN: Again, John, I appreciate the question. I know you want to get to the bottom of this. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States.
And I think the way to be most helpful is to not get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation. And that?s something that the people overseeing the investigation have expressed a preference that we follow. And that?s why we?re continuing to follow that approach and that policy. Now, I remember very well what was previously said. And, at some point, I will be glad to talk about it, but not until after the investigation is complete.
4. MCCLELLAN: Well, I think maybe you missed what I was saying in reference to Terry?s question at the beginning. There came a point, when the investigation got under way, when those overseeing the investigation asked that it would be ? or said that it would be their preference that we not get into discussing it while it is ongoing.
I think that?s the way to be most helpful to help them advance the investigation and get to the bottom of it.
5. MCCLELLAN: Again, David, this is a question relating to a ongoing investigation, and you have my response related to the investigation. And I don?t think you should read anything into it other than: We?re going to continue not to comment on it while it?s ongoing.
6. MCCLELLAN: I?m well aware, like you, of what was previously said. And I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation?
7. MCCLELLAN: There will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.
8. MCCLELLAN: Again, I?ve responded to the question.
9. MCCLELLAN: No, that?s not a correct characterization. And I think you are well aware of that. We know each other very well. And it was after that period that the investigators had requested that we not get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation. And we want to be helpful so that they can get to the bottom of this. Because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States. I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some point I look forward to talking about it. But until the investigation is complete, I?m just not going to do that.
10. MCCLELLAN: Again, you?re continuing to ask questions relating to an ongoing criminal investigation and I?m just not going to respond to them.
11. MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your questions. You can keep asking them, but you have my response.
12. MCCLELLAN: I?ve responded to the questions.
13. MCCLELLAN: I?ve responded to your questions.
14. MCCLELLAN: Again, after the investigation is complete, I will be glad to talk about it at that point.
15. MCCLELLAN: Well, those overseeing the investigation expressed a preference to us that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it?s ongoing. And that was what they requested of the White House. And so I think in order to be helpful to that investigation, we are following their direction.
16. MCCLELLAN: Again, these are all questions coming up in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation. And you?ve heard my response on this.
17. MCCLELLAN: You?re asking this question in the context of an ongoing investigation, and I would not read anything into it other then I?m simply going to comment on an ongoing investigation.
18. MCCLELLAN: Again, you have my response to these questions.
19. MCCLELLAN: Well, I think the president has previously spoken to this.
20. MCCLELLAN: No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States. And we?re just not going to have more to say on it until that investigation is complete.
21. MCCLELLAN: Again, you?re asking questions relating to an ongoing investigation, and I think I?ve responded to it.
22. MCCLELLAN: This is still coming at the same question relating to reports about an ongoing investigation. And I think I?ve responded to...
23. MCCLELLAN: Do you have questions on another topic?
24. MCCLELLAN: I appreciate the question. I think I?ve responded.
25. MCCLELLAN: Again, I?m going to be happy to talk about this at the appropriate time. You and everybody in this room ? or most people in this room, I should say ? know me very well, and they know the type of person that I am. And I?m confident in our relationship that we have. But I will be glad to talk about this at the appropriate time, and that?s once the investigation is complete. I?m not going to get into commenting based on reports or anything of that nature.
26. MCCLELLAN: You?ve heard my response.
27. MCCLELLAN: And I think those are questions best directed to the special prosecutor. Again, this is an ongoing matter. I?m just not going to get into commenting on it further at this time. At the appropriate time, when it?s complete, then I?ll be glad to talk about it at that point.
28. MCCLELLAN: It?s the same type of question. You?re asking me to comment on an ongoing investigation and I?m not going to do that.
29. MCCLELLAN: Understood. The president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation, and that?s what he expects people in the White House to do.
30. MCCLELLAN: Again, I?ve already responded.
31. MCCLELLAN: You can direct those questions to the special prosecutors. I think probably more than one individual who?s involved in overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it?s ongoing. I think we all want to see the prosecutors get to the bottom of this matter. The president wants to see the prosecutors get to the bottom of this matter. And the way to help them do that is to not get into commenting on it while it is ongoing.
32. MCCLELLAN: I already responded to these questions.
33. MCCLELLAN: Again, I?m just not going to say anything further. I expressed all I?m going to say on this matter from this podium.
http://thinkprogress...11/briefing-711
#7
- Brother
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 966
- Joined: 23-April 03
Posted 11 July 2005 - 11:32 PM
toomuch'stash Escribi�:
after all the huge crimes this administration's committed, it would be hilarious is Rove went down for this petty vengeful shit... it'll be like Al Capone getting busted on tax charges.
it isn't petty at all. He outed a CIa agent. A CIA agent who was working undercover to investigate WMD trafficing. You know...a major part of Bush's War on Terror.
The act was treasonous. Even Bush's fater once stated that outing an agent is treason. The agent doing work to keep WMD out of the hands of terrorists makes it even worse IMO.
#8 toomuchstash
Posted 12 July 2005 - 12:28 AM
eh, I dunno, I kinda like the idea of Al Queda being a nuclear power... it sorta evens the playing field, you know?
But then again, I don't even believe Al Queda exists, not in the way they're talked about on CNN... I believe they're a front for a joint CIA/Mossad operation that's tasked with making people believe there's an islamic terrorist organization bent on destroying the west. Bin Ladin worked for the CIA in the 80s, and there's no reason to believe he ever stopped working for them.
But then again, I don't even believe Al Queda exists, not in the way they're talked about on CNN... I believe they're a front for a joint CIA/Mossad operation that's tasked with making people believe there's an islamic terrorist organization bent on destroying the west. Bin Ladin worked for the CIA in the 80s, and there's no reason to believe he ever stopped working for them.
#10 toomuchstash
Posted 12 July 2005 - 12:47 AM
I was just bitching about Lance Armstrong, and then soupy brought up this thing that happened 2 years ago, when Karl Rove, the man often described as 'Bush's Brain', leaked the name of an undercover CIA operative to the press in retaliation for that agents husband saying that Iraq was not trying to buy uranium in Nigeria.
#11
- doin' it after dark
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 6304
- Joined: 10-June 04
- Locationthe Canadian Shield
Posted 12 July 2005 - 12:52 AM
*shrug* I didn't say I cared either. :D
I couldn't care less about Armstrong or the Tour de France. Give me Synchronised Hobo Sniping at the Olympics or as a professional sport anyday..... (too many times spent sitting on my girl's 22nd floor balcony downtown wishing for projectile weapons, I think...)
I couldn't care less about Armstrong or the Tour de France. Give me Synchronised Hobo Sniping at the Olympics or as a professional sport anyday..... (too many times spent sitting on my girl's 22nd floor balcony downtown wishing for projectile weapons, I think...)
#13
- Chimney Fisting !
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 7490
- Joined: 25-January 05
- LocationParis, France
Posted 12 July 2005 - 10:15 AM
I don't like Lance Armstrong and most of the french people don't like him neither. And I don't like the Tour de France either. It's so boring and useless... And it's always the same american prick dopped by his nuts medicine who win... BORING
#20
- Veteran
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 4585
- Joined: 30-May 05
Posted 14 July 2005 - 4:17 AM
message for lance armstrong:
you can be the best cyclist in the world but if you dont have the right bike your nobody
you can be the best cyclist in the world but if you dont have the right bike your nobody
tom_rowlands_chemical_chi, on 08 January 2003 - 8:53 PM, said:
This old man,
he play beats,
He don't need no music sheets,
but with a snip-snip-snippy-snip
gave his mop a chop,
Old man hairstyles are a flop.
he play beats,
He don't need no music sheets,
but with a snip-snip-snippy-snip
gave his mop a chop,
Old man hairstyles are a flop.