Having someone else fuck your girl really seems like a great way to help your self esteem issues
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Oh now ya'll quiet feggs Who would have thought, the foundation of an attention seeking whore like Armstrong donates most cash to "awareness", probably of his own organisation and name.
He should also have to give back the memories of sleeping with Sheryl Crowe also. It's only fair to guys like me who will never get to fuck her.
Quote from: Yeti on October 22, 2012, 09:22:19 PMQuote from: Mandark on October 22, 2012, 06:52:30 PMQuote from: MrAngryFace on October 22, 2012, 06:30:36 PMid rather see people helped even IF it goes against 'the principle of the thing'. Saying Lance's contributions are tainted/wrong is basically an accusation against anyone who's benefited from it out of a basic need.No no no. Everyone has to be either good or bad. So either the accusations against Armstrong are false and he's a martyr, or he's a dirty cheater and all his charity work is sullied and meaningless!Gosh, how can you be so naive?I guess the question becomes "do the ends justify the means?" I mean, his charity wouldn't be nearly as successful without Lance himself being successful, and the doping was a major contributor to his success. Can all heinous acts be forgiven if a large enough check is written? What about just minor infractions? Where is the line drawn?Who was harmed by the doping? Did anyone get their ass fucked in the course of this doping?
Quote from: Mandark on October 22, 2012, 06:52:30 PMQuote from: MrAngryFace on October 22, 2012, 06:30:36 PMid rather see people helped even IF it goes against 'the principle of the thing'. Saying Lance's contributions are tainted/wrong is basically an accusation against anyone who's benefited from it out of a basic need.No no no. Everyone has to be either good or bad. So either the accusations against Armstrong are false and he's a martyr, or he's a dirty cheater and all his charity work is sullied and meaningless!Gosh, how can you be so naive?I guess the question becomes "do the ends justify the means?" I mean, his charity wouldn't be nearly as successful without Lance himself being successful, and the doping was a major contributor to his success. Can all heinous acts be forgiven if a large enough check is written? What about just minor infractions? Where is the line drawn?
Quote from: MrAngryFace on October 22, 2012, 06:30:36 PMid rather see people helped even IF it goes against 'the principle of the thing'. Saying Lance's contributions are tainted/wrong is basically an accusation against anyone who's benefited from it out of a basic need.No no no. Everyone has to be either good or bad. So either the accusations against Armstrong are false and he's a martyr, or he's a dirty cheater and all his charity work is sullied and meaningless!Gosh, how can you be so naive?
id rather see people helped even IF it goes against 'the principle of the thing'. Saying Lance's contributions are tainted/wrong is basically an accusation against anyone who's benefited from it out of a basic need.
