Who took who for a Ride?

[righthand]

Yesterday two Americans went for a bike ride. One is a GREAT AMERICAN. The other is a BAD AMERICAN. Pick-out the GOOD American.

[CENTER]Clue: The GOOD American opposed the war in Iraq!!![/CENTER]

[center] [/center]

The GREAT AMERICAN was looking for GOOD things off the BAD man. Will he get good things of the Neanderthal bad man, who doesn't believe in dinosaurs?


Cycling: Armstrong Pushes Bush for Cancer Research
http://en.chinabroadcast.cn/301/2005/08/22/45@11874.htm
Lance Armstrong said he set a one-day record during his bike ride with President Bush.

Lance Armstrong said he set a one-day record during his bike ride with President Bush ¡ª not for cycling but for lobbying. During their two-hour ride on Bush's ranch Saturday, Armstrong pushed the president to spend more federal money on cancer research. "I've never asked someone for so much money before," the seven-time Tour de France winner and cancer survivor told ABC's "This Week" for its Sunday broadcast. Armstrong added that the Iraq war, which he opposes, never came up during their 17-mile ride. Bush has taken up cycling in the past few years, and Armstrong said the president has become an accomplished rider. "That old boy can go," Armstrong said. "I didn't think he would punish himself that much, but he did." (Source: China Daily)

Second clue: One is a cowboy in every sense, but he doesn't ride a horse.

[righthand]

I want to believe Armstrong

I DO BELIEVE ARNSTRONG

If there was EPO, I do NOT believe that it would make made any difference!

[CENTER]====[/CENTER]

Armstrong goes on the counterattack

By Jim Litke ...ASSOCIATED PRESS ...7:58 a.m. August 25, 2005

Lance Armstrong climbed down off his bike a month ago. His counterattacking skills, though, remain as sharp as ever. A day after the director of the Tour de France said the seven-time champion "fooled" race officials and the sporting world by doping, Armstrong responded to the growing controversy with harsh words for everyone connected to a report in L'Equipe, the French sports daily that made the original accusation. "Where to start?" Armstrong mused during a conference call Wednesday from Washington. "This has been a long, love-hate relationship between myself and the French." He went on to lambaste L'Equipe and question the science and ethics of the suburban Paris laboratory that stored frozen samples from the 1999 tour, tested them only last year and leaked the results used in the newspaper's report. He even suggested officials of the Tour and sports ministries who were involved in putting the story together could wind up facing him in court. "Right now," Armstrong said, "we're considering all our options." "And at the end of day," he added, "I think that's what it's all about ... selling newspapers. And it sells."

[GodBlessAmerica]

[quote=righthand]Yesterday two Americans went for a bike ride. One is a GREAT AMERICAN. The other is a BAD AMERICAN. Pick-out the GOOD American.

[CENTER]Clue: The GOOD American opposed the war in Iraq!!![/CENTER]

[center] [/center]
QUOTE]

LOL, Thanks for the trick question thread.
We all know they are BOTH great Americans.


This Honest Good Man is a Great American and President.
God Bless George W Bush


This is another fine American and legendary athlete, Lance Armstrong.
He is another Great American

BOTH are great Americans.

Regarding Armstrong lobbying for monies for cancer research, I agree with him.
AIDS is the most politicized disease there is and it hardly affects any when compared to cancer. Cancer has been pushed into the rear (little San Francisco humor there ), and AIDS has gotten far more of the research money because of all the political activist.
IMO, the funding should be flipped. What currently goes to cancer should go to AIDS and what currently goes to AIDS should instead go to cancer.

Far more people die from cancer, and whereas cancer strikes anyone at anytime, behavior can greatly cut back most chances of AIDS unless you have an emergency blood transfusion from a public blood supply.

We look forward to your good and bad Irishman thread.

PS, if you didn't like the war with Iraq, which mass grave was your favorite and how many more women and children would you have preferred die from Saddam?
He was killing at a rate of 100k a year. I guess maybe you would have wanted by this time an addiional 250k dead?

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: GodBlessAmerica He was killing at a rate of 100k a year.

Your source?

[righthand]

Quote by: doctored god PS, if you didn't like the war with Iraq, which mass grave was your favorite and how many more women and children would you have preferred die from Saddam? He was killing at a rate of 100k a year. I guess maybe you would have wanted by this time an additional 250k dead?

Quote by: PatrickHenry Your source?

Thank you, PH. Also my first reaction until I looked to the 'author'. God is not required to give his/her SOURCES on this forum. I guess it's a god dispensation thing from a special relationship with god's country and that's not the US.

I have already had a discussion with god about plagiarism and adding words to anther's to put the others words in a bad light. This is far WORSE. This is SICK SICK SICK SICK SICK SICK..... This is of the SICK MIND'S that belief that spilling blood is so noble ideal, but never their own These are the people that reveled in the S&M film by Gibson. SICK SICK SICK These are the people who use god, their god, as an excuse for their worst excesses. These are the people that dragged human beings - black - behind vehicles until dead. These are the KKK descendants without the white cape. Has ANYONE before posted an image that is so blatantly doctored. Yes, I posted one. It was GOVERNMENT DOCTORED!!! And that was to point of posting it. It gives NO EXCUSE for god to post her PERVERTED CRAP. I don't know the word for 'doctored' images is. I do know that if there is no CODE against the above crap, then this FORUM will...whatever. god should apologize and ask that his/her images be deleted from this thread

Bush gets first look at anti-war protest near ranch. #92 08-23-05, 01:57 pm Still waiting for a reply! Of course god knows this. god knows everything. EXCEPT SOURCES.

Would you remember this post, god.

GBA, two things. One: you need to use quotes and attribution or the board's integral quote function when you are using words someone else has written. Otherwise, how do we distinguish debate from some columnist's professional writing? And Two: Photo-shopped images that render the object of your scorn in a bad light are spiteful and beneath you. I think you are more honest than that, but maybe you are just vrwc... Or if you like, I can post images of Dubya's facial expressions next to a chimpanzee, grimacing the same way. It's not really debate, but maybe okay for laffs. Bush gets first look at anti-war protest near ranch ...08-21-05, 09:26 am ...#77

"maybe you are just vrwc..." don't know what this is but I'm sure its not a complement. God your consuming too much fibre. The result is everywhere to be seen and ...phew. Give your brain a chance and lay off the drugs until after you finish posting.

On your

Quote by: doctored god PS, if you didn't like the war with Iraq, which mass grave was your favorite and how many more women and children would you have preferred die from Saddam? He was killing at a rate of 100k a year. I guess maybe you would have wanted by this time an additional 250k dead?

you have repeated this mantra on at least three occasions. I responded. You don't read others responses. I will find my two posting on this point. So, to quote your 'esteemed leader 'bring it on' but lets see you 'evidence' first.

It is really EXTRAORDINARY that your sub-handle is "Look Stuff Up". Well I do not know where you "Look Stuff Up", but I imagine it's a case of "birds of a feather flock together". Right!

Quote by: PatrickHenry Your source?

Reputable SOURCES. Reputable SOURCES. Reputable SOURCES. Reputable SOURCES.

Quote by: PatrickHenry Your source?

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: righthand "maybe you are just vrwc..."

Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

And I have noticed that GBA doesn't do much sourcing. Not good debate tecnique. I find that if I go to actually "look stuff up", I am occasionally wrong. Not often, but enough to be a lesson to dilettantes who just offer airy opinions about "100K a year" without anything to back it up

[monty of ll]

Gawd knows that Aids is just another form of Cancer. The real Gawd I mean, if there is such a thing.

It's completely baffling to me why anyone would propose cutting any funding to Aids, unless that person was unaware of what the Aids epidemic (pandemic) is doing to people throughout the world. The only possible reason I could guess at for someone doing that is that some people think that Aids is Gawd's revenge or some other such fantasy notion. If there is a real Gawd I think he will strike people dead who think that it's just fine to ignore the millions who are dying from Aids.

Maybe Gawd should be concentrating more on his homework rather than interfering in adult topics!

[GodBlessAmerica]

Quote by: righthand Yesterday two Americans went for a bike ride. One is a GREAT AMERICAN. The other is a BAD AMERICAN. Pick-out the GOOD American. [CENTER]Clue: The GOOD American opposed the war in Iraq!!![/CENTER] [The GREAT AMERICAN was looking for GOOD things off the BAD man. Will he get good things of the Neanderthal bad man, who doesn't believe in dinosaurs? Second clue: One is a cowboy in every sense, but he doesn't ride a horse.

Where's your source as to proof of who is good and bad? To say your premise for this thread was bent would be charitable.

I'm going to post a nice MASS GRAVE link form Iraq later when I have time and you can review some of the hundreds of thousands of dead in Iraq, and maybe you can point to which was your favorite death and explain why you feel such deaths should have been continued?

[Chris]

Not a mass grave link, we need a source to verify that Saddam was killing at a rate of 100K a year as claimed by yourself GBA.

[Chris the Chees]

Alright, the insults stop here.

[righthand]

This says it for me.

Enough is enough.
Armstrong shouldn't have to explain away allegations
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...8/26/hot.read/

Posted: Friday August 26, 2005 1:47PM; Updated: Friday August 26, 2005 3:27PM

"The truth is, if you asked me to choose between winning the Tour de France and cancer, I would choose cancer. Odd as it sounds, I would rather have the title of cancer survivor than winner of the Tour, because of what it has done for me as a human being, a man, a husband, a son and a father." -- Lance Armstrong

Any man that has been through what he has been through, and as a bonus achieved what he has achieved, will get my vote every time. I'm sorry for having joined the two personalities together, as, instead of discussing the merits of one, we were arguing the demerits of the other. One is not fit to lace the other man's boots as we say in Ireland. Indeed, Lance had 'to sup with the devil' for the good of everyone.

There was one thing wrong with Lance Armstrong for me! He was too bloody GOOD. The Tour or La Tour was meant to last three weeks. After the first few days of sparing it was clear who was going to win. The Tour became about who was going to fill the minor places. Why could Lance not have done it like the last time and only time an Irishman won it. Roach won by 6 seconds. He also won the Tour of Italy and the World Championship in the same year. Never done before or since.

The race is the Tour de France. To win it once, is ambition enough for any man. To surpass Freddie Merck elevates him above legend.

In the end, there is nothing Armstrong can do to prove he is telling the truth. He is the most tested athlete in the most stringently tested sport and he has always tested clean. During his historic streak of seven consecutive Tour de France titles (yeah, he won six times after the disputed '99 win) he has been tested more than 100 times for every drug imaginable, often without notice, like the time he was examined at Sheryl Crow's New York apartment while he was on vacation, and has never test positive for anything. He tested clean 17 times during the '99 Tour and now must explain how six frozen secondary urine samples allegedly tested positive for EPO with no primary sample to compare the results with. Other than hopping into a time machine and being tested again, the only defense Armstrong has is his word. Unfortunately for Armstrong, that won't cut it for many people, no matter what he has accomplished on or off his bike.

I believe the truth may be that Lance is suffering for the sins of the other bastard on the other bike. I'm sure there is an anti-US element to these attacks. That is unfair on Lance. Given that we are talking about 1999, it shows ill-will by the sports authorities. They should be building him up not knocking him down. They'll miss him next year. A mere mortal like me might suggest that he was considering retuning to win it one more time. That would shut them up. And he could do it too.

If, if, if there is a tiny bit of truth in any of this, it will NOT change my opinion of this real man. If, if, if I still believe he could have done it without. So, if, if, if, nothing that I think or say will be any different.

God, that is my OPINION. I do not need a SOURCE for my opinion.

[GodBlessAmerica]

Quote by: monty of ll Gawd knows that Aids is just another form of Cancer. The real Gawd I mean, if there is such a thing. It's completely baffling to me why anyone would propose cutting any funding to Aids, unless that person was unaware of what the Aids epidemic (pandemic) is doing to people throughout the world. The only possible reason I could guess at for someone doing that is that some people think that Aids is Gawd's revenge or some other such fantasy notion. If there is a real Gawd I think he will strike people dead who think that it's just fine to ignore the millions who are dying from Aids. Maybe Gawd should be concentrating more on his homework rather than interfering in adult topics!

Cancer used to be funded in the most major way M, it by far takes out more people than AIDS.
Cancer isn't political, but AIDS is a politicized disease. I think the funding should be reversed with cancer getting the better funding.
As I said, has to do with far more people dying of cancer than AIDS.

Cancer, Not Heart Disease, Is Now America's Top Killer
http://www.mercola.com/2005/feb/2/cancer_kills.htm
"According to a 2002 study (the most current study available), "476,009" Americans under 85 died of cancer, while 450,637 died of heart disease. FOR THE YEAR" About 1.5 million Americans come down with cancer a year compared with 40k with HIV/AIDS.

It is estimated that 40,000 new HIV infections occur in America each year
http://www.avert.org/aids-america.htm
Deaths of people with AIDS have also remained stable with "18,017" people with AIDS dying in 2003
The FY2006 federal budget request to Congress in Feb 2005 totaled an estimated $21 billion for HIV and AIDS

Cancer
http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/1_1.htm
The budget is expected to increase to nearly $4.9 billion in Fiscal Year 2005.

AIDS = 21 billion in funding = 18,017 died in America.
Cancer = 4.9 billion in funding = 476,009 died in America

Seems cancer gets 25% of the budget the political disease AIDS gets, but cancer has nearly 60 times the number of deaths in America compared to AIDS.

I think Armstrong was correct to ask for more funding, the President was being a good man and President for listening, but I think most of the funding belongs in Cancer, not in Aids.
I think the death ratio in America for America backs up where I'm coming from.

I was not trying to be insensitive to your position on AIDS, I think all the death from all these diseases are horrible.

[GodBlessAmerica]

Quote by: |Chris| Not a mass grave link, we need a source to verify that Saddam was killing at a rate of 100K a year as claimed by yourself GBA.

You add up his murder of the Kurds, political enemies and the mass graves and you get to extraordinary numbers.
There were figured to be well over a million people (many women and children) found in mass graves and as time goes on, many more are being found.

The man was truly the butcher of Baghdad.

Between his killing all these people at his pleasure, the financing of terror outside of Iraq in Israel elsewhere, his attempts to assassinate an ex American President and his refusal to live by the sanctions... He was due for regime change.

Armstrong was doing a good thing in trying to increase money for cancer IMO, I think it being less than 25% of the funding compared to AIDS even though cancer kills 60x more in America is ridiculous.
Bush is a good man and a great President, he will help I am sure.

See prior posts for links regarding AIDS and Cancer numbers.

Links to Chemical massacre of the Kurds with pictures.
http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html
Link to Mass graves of Iraq, an Iraqi site with pictures as well.
http://massgraves.info/
If you would have kept Saddam in, you'd have to LOVE the mass graves.

Saddam was due.

Now better cancer funding is due and if Armstrong wants to go lobby to get better funding from Bush, so what? I think it is a good thing.

[GodBlessAmerica]

[quote=righthand]This says it for me.

Enough is enough.
Armstrong shouldn't have to explain away allegations
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...8/26/hot.read/
[quote]

There is no way to verify chain of custody for these samples over the last 7 years.
They were supposedly blind studies and only certain incrimidating samples were somehow kept.
Who knows what people did in private with these blood viles the last 7 years. For all we know, a mad French chemist tainted it to make trouble. We can NEVER know.

Armstrong had to deny what he needs to, but you can smell setup all the way on this.
The French are being typical here and can't stand that an American whipped their butts IMO.

[Sean]

Righthand, you have no right to insult members here. Altering another users name to make fun of them is not acceptable. (see post #5)

DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS WARNING WITHIN THE POST-use private message or email if you have a question for me

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: GodBlessAmerica Links to Chemical massacre of the Kurds with pictures. http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html Link to Mass graves of Iraq, an Iraqi site with pictures as well. http://massgraves.info/ If you would have kept Saddam in, you'd have to LOVE the mass graves. Saddam was due.

What about sourcing is so hard to understand, GodBlessAmerica? You did not produce ANY evidence to support your allegation that Saddam was killing 100 K/year. Is that because you can't or because you are too lazy? This is a debate site. If you make an assertion without anything to back it up, you expose yourself to ridicule.

Those disgusting photos af mass graves are lacking in any statistics. Statistics are what you need to establish the credibility of your statement about Saddam's crimes. You would also need to prove that Saddam's henchmen dumped the bodies there and that they weren't casualties of the Iran/Iraq war from the eighties. Not saying you can't do it, just that you HAVEN'T!

Furthermore, that poison gas attack on the Kurds of Halabja, foul as it may be, occurred while Saddam was one of America's best buds. During the aforementioned I/I war. At that time, the US and her allies were supplying Saddam with intelligence and precursor materials to create and use chemical weapons on the battlefield. The US knew what was going on, but didn't seem to care. BTW, the Halabja area in question was a battlefield, with the presence of Iranian troops when the Halbja horror was perpetrated.

See, the US was ready to back poisoner Saddam against the more hostile (to us) Iranians in that era. Does any of this ring a bell? Or maybe you are too young to have been aware of the news in that day? Or maybe you have just swallowed the drivel from right-wing talk radio without checking it out? You need to do what your custom user title says and "Look Stuff Up!"

Now all that having been said, I am not a fan of Saddam. I don't think I have heard more than a couple of supportive statements about him from anybody on this board in a year and a half that I have haunted this site. Saddam was/is a bad dude. No friend of mine. More a friend of Don Rumsfeld. So, I'm not sorry to see his butt in a jail cell. I have no doubt that he was a torturing, murdering dictator. Before and after the end of his friendship with the US. That lack of friendship doesn't make it worthwhile to spend a quarter trillion dollars to do a "regime change" in Baghdad! With money borrowed to be repaid with interest by my grandkids! These debts will last for the rest of my life and will infest and diminish the future of US children not even born yet...

Not to mention all the innocent blood spilled...In the scales of justice, somebody has gotta pay. The instigators of this crap live in Washington DC. They are allied to the profiteers, and they are all high-fiving just now, while the rest of us worry about our troops, our bloody-handed nation and our debts.

So, GodBlessAmerica, suck it up, give me some evidence, or walk away shamed...

[righthand]

Quote by: GodBlessAmerica #8 Where's your source as to proof of who is good and bad? To say your premise for this thread was bent would be charitable.

"To say your premise for this thread was bent would be charitable.
To say your premise for this thread was bent would be charitable.
To say your premise for this thread was bent would be charitable."

"bent" as in "To misrepresent; distort: bend the truth."
"bent" as in "To misrepresent; distort: bend the truth."
"bent" as in "To misrepresent; distort: bend the truth."

Altering another users name to make fun of them is not acceptable. True.

DOES IT COMPARE TO BEING CALLED A LIAR???

I'm prepared to accept whatever PROVIDED IT IS FAIR TO ALL

[GodBlessAmerica]

Quote by: righthand [UTo say your premise for this thread was bent would be charitable."[/u] "bent" as in "To misrepresent; distort: bend the truth." "bent" as in "To misrepresent; distort: bend the truth." "bent" as in "To misrepresent; distort: bend the truth." Altering another users name to make fun of them is not acceptable. True. DOES IT COMPARE TO BEING CALLED A LIER (LIAR?)???

I don't know what a "lier" is, I'm guessing you mean liar.

The link you posted and based your thread on was only of Armstrong lobbying for some more money for cancer research from our wonderful President George Bush. (A rather noble endeavor for both parties to get into IMO)
Nearly 1.5 million in our country each year become afflicted with the disease and nearly a half million die a year (including my own beloved mother).
What you wrote around the link you started the thread with IMO had almost nothing to do with the article's substance.

I'm sorry, did the article call Bush evil, RANT RANT RANT and so on?

Why not just start a proper slander thread about the President without the inclusion a real article about another topic?

I believe "YOU BELIEVE" what you say, I don't believe you are a liar at all.

To me, IMO your situation mirrors what happened exactly in the world regarding WMD. The world, UN, Gore, Clinton, Kerry, Bush all believed based on what was before them that Saddam had WMD. Saddam even kept saying he had them. They all believed it and were not lying when they included that on reasons to go into Iraq. So, it can happen.

I will probably enjoy both agreeing and disagreeing with you on various topics.

Regarding Armstrong, we agreed and I gave you my reasons as to how I agreed with you and formed my opinion on the doping matter.

Such is life! Have a good weekend. :-)

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: GodBlessAmerica Saddam even kept saying he had them.

Evidence? You are shameless, GBA. You won't debate like a man.