Today in “Ryan Lochte, Douchebag”: A Picture of Douchebag Ryan Lochte Being a Douchebag

28 Responses

1. Cool, thanks.

2. I hope he breaks a fin & can never swim again

3. BANG!

4. This obsession you have with this obvious homosexual is scaring me son. Did I scare you the gay way with my overly hairy, dredlocked beaver?

5. Ah…there is “Your Mother” chiming in with easily the dumbest and least funny comment on the board. Go take a timeout, chief.

6. The Lockmonsterrrrrrrrrrrr. He is a totally cool and genuine dude

7. Hey Kyle, why are you so obsessed with this guy? Maybe you should just give him the benefit of the doubt for bringing home medals for our nation and leave it at that. Who cares what he does outside of the pool?

8. OK, Rube’s Pubes.

9. JEAH!

10. @ rubes that was a very American statement, now come out of the closet. This dude is a d bag and belongs in avalon but if he was on a team in Philly all the brothers would be going nuts that he likes slightly dark meat

11. Charlie Brown’s obsession with me is, well making me sooo hot… Do you like fried egg nipples Charlie??

12. You have rocks for brains

13. no one said anything about my comment 🙁

14. It’s been a nice week for cb
    @ Rubes Pubes – get the f off this site,p*ssy

15. GFY Rob

16. Rubes Pubes is a cock mongrul. Who is the skank? Fuck Lochte.

17. Yo, Kyle! Is there some sort of significance to all this? I mean, no one ever heard of this clown before the Olympics, and he was out of sight, out of mind until you mentioned him today. Does he owe you money or something?

18. @ Candy, are you the whore from Scruples (aka Oakford Inn) that was hooked on pain killers?
    @ 3 Finger Lenny, are you the same Lenny that is 4ft 10 and used to drive around Torresdale on your GT Performer acting like a tough guy? Get a clue.

19. Sorry rubes wrong

20. Holy shit- rubes pubes is right on the $$.

21. Sound like rubes pubes hit the champagne room with the candy extras? I hope you know she has the herp

22. lol Kyle dislikes anyone who is better looking than him and has athletic ability (which is the majority of people). Youre just a sad little blogger who will amount to nothing more. What a joke. Hope off the guys dick…bitch.

23. yo sounds like Mike Richards

24. Is that a tranny?

25. Pleased to be here and see this. Thank you very much for sharing.

26. You are wrong on both DC and Los Angeles as to potential road catcpiay. Also, while light rail demonstrably reduces congestion less than spending the dollars on road catcpiay, I was not attacking light rail (though there is much to attack. The first point is that cities which do less to increase road catcpiay versus places that do not, whether they use the money on light rail or otherwise (It doesn’t seem to matter because so little traffic is carried on the light rail it amounts to a rounding error) have worse congestion problems. If you look at the underlying data it has little to do with the size of the cities. Some big cities do worse than others depending on that one metric. The second point is that cities which increase density do not reduce congestion, whether they spend money on light rail and other options or not. Yet, this is often claimed as a way to reduce congestion. Every city which has tried the growth boundary/high density/fewer roads/Transit Oriented Development model has seen congestion increase faster than cities which do not. That doesn’t mean the model is bad (though I have problems with it) but that this particular claim fails. As far as I can tell it has failed in every instance to accomplish this particular stated aim. One problem is clear from cities which have aggressively utilized this model such as Portland. By increasing density they have both made it difficult to build roads while simultaneously increasing the need for roads. Transit, despite receiving huge subsidies has barely made a dent. The interesting thing is Portland knew that. Not at first, but when their planners studied what the effect of their plans were, right on the heels of screaming to get their plans approved to keep them from becoming Los Angeles, found that Los Angeles actually was a lot like what they were trying to accomplish from a density, transit and roads standpoint. Instead of questioning that goal they quietly slipped the findings in and admitted Los Angeles had a desirable development pattern. Now I am no LA hater, and think it is unfairly criticized, but it isn’t what they were selling people on, and the planners need to start being straight with themselves and people that they are trying to accomplish things which may be fine and dandy but will not solve problems such as pollution, congestion or lead to more affordable housing. We have seen time and again they make each worse. The other goals may be laudable enough to overcome those issues, but my guess is they don’t think the public will buy if they knew the truth. So they lie to themselves and/or others.

27. Here in Austin the smart growthers argue that new roads cause depolevment, which in turn causes traffic congestion. When you point out that by their logic one could argue that the sale of cat food causes traffic congestion, they just look at you funny.yours/peter.

28. That is a good point Why are there so many different lguenaags in the world? I did try a translation plugin some time ago but found that it was hardly used so I therefore removed it.What language would you like to see this blog displayed in?Does your website support language translation?R

Comments are closed.