BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: Slate: Reed: Did George Bush’s thirst for power launch the steroid era?

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Sunday, December 23, 2007

Slate: Reed: Did George Bush’s thirst for power launch the steroid era?

And David P. says…“Low hanging fruit, I know.”

The Bush campaign called top fund-raisers “Rangers,” but contributors included Mets, Orioles, and Yankees as well. Palmeiro was not alone: Mike Stanton, who gave $3,200 to clubhouse drug dealer Kirk Radomski in 2003, gave $750 to the Republican National Committee the following year. John Giambi—the proud father of Jason and Jeremy, who’ve both admitted using steroids—was an early supporter of Bush’s 2000 campaign. The Mitchell report reproduces two checks Mo Vaughn wrote Radomski for $5,400. Last year, Vaughn gave $5,000 to a conservative PAC that has given to George Allen, Larry Craig, and the Bush campaign.

Jose Canseco claims the Mitchell report is incomplete because it left out Alex Rodriguez. While A-Rod denies using steroids, he did give Bush $2,000. By contrast, Hank Aaron, who played his entire career without an asterisk, has contributed to staunch opponents of Bush like Max Cleland and Hillary Clinton.

Repoz Posted: December 23, 2007 at 02:00 AM | 84 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: special topics, steroids

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

1. CraigK Posted: December 23, 2007 at 03:33 AM (#2652484)

George Bush + Steroids. Hoo boy.

Over/under on the total posts in this topic : 650.5.

Place your wagers.

2. St.Philly Posted: December 23, 2007 at 03:37 AM (#2652487)

I thought cocaine was G.W. drug o' choice. Who did Rick James donate to?

3. The Gurus DO NOT BourbonSamurai Posted: December 23, 2007 at 03:47 AM (#2652488)

That was a waste of time.

4. Shibal Posted: December 23, 2007 at 03:48 AM (#2652489)

Joe McCarthy would be proud of this story.

5. Jolly Old St. Neck Wound, Moral Idiot

Posted: December 23, 2007 at 03:57 AM (#2652491)

Joe McCarthy would be proud of this story.

You mean "Push Button" or "Low Blow"?

6. S. Ransom Posted: December 23, 2007 at 04:04 AM (#2652493)

Repoz, so proficient at parody, at last parodies himself.

7. Lassus Posted: December 23, 2007 at 04:09 AM (#2652494)

As this article was pointless, and there's no gamechatter or MLB games going on at the moment and only the Texas/Jacksonville game, this seems like the best place to put this:

That "Air Supply Burger" Wendy's commercial may be the funniest commercial I have ever seen.

8. Alex_Lewis Posted: December 23, 2007 at 04:09 AM (#2652495)

I don't see the point.

9. gay guy in cut-offs smoking the objective pipe Posted: December 23, 2007 at 04:10 AM (#2652496)

Bruce Reed, who was President Clinton's domestic policy adviser, is president of the Democratic Leadership Council and editor-in-chief of Blueprint magazine.

Man, Slate's really gone downhill since Kinsley left.

10. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 23, 2007 at 04:11 AM (#2652497)

These political diatribes that masquerade as baseball threads are starting to become really annoying.

11. Esoteric Posted: December 23, 2007 at 04:31 AM (#2652500)

This is quite possibly the stupidest article ever posted on BBTF. I mean that. Even dumber than all those BASN articles.

Seriously, words can't do justice to the inanity of this article.

Repoz, this is your jump-the-shark/killself moment.

12. Crispix Attacks Posted: December 23, 2007 at 04:46 AM (#2652507)

Bruce Reed has not been a good acquisition by Slate.

13. Neil Kinnock...Lord Palmerston! (Orinoco) Posted: December 23, 2007 at 05:08 AM (#2652512)

Has this guy figured out that Bush isn't running in 2008 yet?

Another reminder why I lost interest in Slate years ago.

14. Phineus Fog Posted: December 23, 2007 at 05:13 AM (#2652514)

Pleeeeeeeez stop it with the moronic political sauce spread over a thin slice of baseball!

15. Vaux, A.B.D. Posted: December 23, 2007 at 05:33 AM (#2652522)

Teh steriods aren't Bush's fault, they're Ronald Reagan's.

16. Vaux, A.B.D. Posted: December 23, 2007 at 05:35 AM (#2652524)

But seriously, what's so dumb about this article? If the general public hates steroids, then the Democrats absolutely should try to convince them that steroid users are Republicans. They are, after all--ballplayers are Republicans.

When your opponents lie and cheat, you've got to lie and cheat too. Otherwise, you've got no chance at all.

17. Voros McCracken, Human Shield Posted: December 23, 2007 at 05:49 AM (#2652526)

I realize I've been out of the loop for a while, but was there always this much lunacy posted about baseball or is this a new development?

This is twice in a week they've completely left Saturn's orbit.

It's like the old Three Stooges 'Niagra Falls' sketch. Say the words "bush" or "steroids" and folks become unhinged. Say them both together and you have a David Lynch film.

There's been some really interesting deals lately too, and we're stuck wallowing in someone's fevered swamps. Professor Pete Emeritus made more sense than this guy, and I think Professor Pete is a cleverly disguised Madlib...

18. Shibal Posted: December 23, 2007 at 06:06 AM (#2652531)

But seriously, what's so dumb about this article? If the general public hates steroids, then the Democrats absolutely should try to convince them that steroid users are Republicans. They are, after all--ballplayers are Republicans.

When your opponents lie and cheat, you've got to lie and cheat too. Otherwise, you've got no chance at all.

And the idiocy rolls on.

19. Jim Wisinski

Posted: December 23, 2007 at 06:41 AM (#2652542)

I realize I've been out of the loop for a while, but was there always this much lunacy posted about baseball or is this a new development?

No, this junk is a recent development. It seemed to start with the posting of that DailyKos article then continued with the two things from that lunatic professor and now this crap. I think there might have been one or two others thrown in as well. I know BTF is majority liberal but I don't see why we need thinly veiled anti-Republican political diatribe linked to. Besides, even liberals should be turned off by most of the crap in this Reed article and the stuff by Professor Genius.

20. stealfirstbase Posted: December 23, 2007 at 07:09 AM (#2652548)

Has this guy figured out that Bush isn't running in 2008 yet?

As far as the Democrats are concerned, George W. Bush is representing the Republican party in every election for any office for the next 3 decades. The Democrats should, and will, run against W longer than they ran against Herbert Hoover.

Republicans, prepare to have all your candidates burdened by having George W. Bush draped around their necks like the an albatross for the next 30 years. You made this future for yourself and for your party, so no complaints, now.

21. Vaux, A.B.D. Posted: December 23, 2007 at 07:16 AM (#2652551)

Why, because we need to learn to be polite to our Republican betters?

Really, though, I don't like dumbness any more than anybody else--less than most, I suspect. But dumbness in service of what's basically good underneath the morass of dumbness is a little better than dumbness in service of what's basically bad. Of course, dumbness itself ultimately is the root from which all badness flows, so the whole thing is a matter of cynically using the dumb people who are more likely to make the world tolerable for me. The people who would have done the best job of that are probably the ones Harold Gray thought Republicans were.

22. xbhaskarx Posted: December 23, 2007 at 07:25 AM (#2652552)

When your opponents lie and cheat, you've got to lie and cheat too. Otherwise, you've got no chance at all.

the bush folks should hire you as their PR guy regarding geneva convention violations in the GWOT.

23. Esoteric Posted: December 23, 2007 at 07:27 AM (#2652554)

21 - Vaux:

Who the hell appointed you the arbiter of "what's basically good?" Or decided that you were fit to assess the motivations of your political opponents?

Dear god.

24. gay guy in cut-offs smoking the objective pipe Posted: December 23, 2007 at 07:31 AM (#2652555)

Civil war by 2050.

25. Vaux, A.B.D. Posted: December 23, 2007 at 07:42 AM (#2652558)

I don't need someone to appoint me, I can do it anyway. I alone get to decide what I think, after all; human beings don't have a hive mind. I have no business telling you or anyone else what to think, but I can either agree or disagree with it, or even be unsure. That's the great thing about autonomy. But even though we're individuals, and differing opinions are legitimate--even to be encouraged in many areas of thought--there are absolutes: some things are right, and other things are wrong. Not many, really, in either case, but assuredly some. Lying is not always wrong. If I lie to save someone's life, then it wasn't wrong. But of course lying is often wrong, so it's one of those things that isn't inherently right or wrong. Cheating is the same way, partly because it's hard to define universally or consistently. Who or what am I cheating? Is having better skills, more strength, or faster reflexes in a game than my opponent cheating? It's me doing something to cause the playing field not to be level. Most would say that if I'm "naturally" superior then it isn't cheating, but if I had to "artificially" enhance myself, then it is cheating. That ignores the fact, however, that since I'm almost thirty years old, I'd "naturally" be dead by now. I have my teeth because of "artificial" measures that I've taken to preserve them; am I cheating when I eat an apple? By logic, I am if Barry Bonds is cheating when he hits a home run.

26. Rich Rifkin I Posted: December 23, 2007 at 07:59 AM (#2652563)

"I don't need someone to amuse me, I can do it anyway. I alone get to decide what I find funny, after all; human beings have a live mind. I have no business telling you or anyone else what to laugh at, but I can either agree or disagree with it, or even be unsure. That's the great thing about comedy. But even though we're individuals, and differing opinions are legitimate--even to be encouraged in many areas of thought--there are absolutes: some things are funny, and other things are not. Not many, really, in either case, but assuredly some. Having no punch line is not always wrong. If I have no punch line to save someone's act, then it was wrong. But of course having no punch line is often wrong, so it's one of those things that isn't inherently right or wrong. Stealing jokes is the same way, partly because it's hard to define universally or consistently. Who or what am I stealing from? Is having better delivery, more jokes, or faster retorts in a night club than my fellow comics cheating? It's me doing something to cause the playing field not to be level. Most would say that if I'm "naturally" superior then it isn't cheating, but if I had to "artificially" enhance myself, then it is cheating. That ignores the fact, however, that since I'm almost thirty years old, I'd "naturally" be jacked up on coke by now. I have my teeth because of "artificial" measures that I've taken to preserve them; am I cheating when I eat pot brownies? By logic, I am if Barry Bonds is cheating when he hits his wife."

27. Gambling Rent Czar Posted: December 23, 2007 at 08:02 AM (#2652564)

No, this junk is a recent development. It seemed to start with the posting of that DailyKos article then continued with the two things from that lunatic professor and now this crap.

Actually it started a couple of weeks back when Barry Bonds invaded Iraq.

28. stealfirstbase Posted: December 23, 2007 at 08:05 AM (#2652566)

Vaux, paragraphs are your friend. Indecipherable blocks of text are not.

29. Voros McCracken, Human Shield Posted: December 23, 2007 at 08:06 AM (#2652567)

I mean it's not like I'm much of a Republican or anything.

It's just that this doesn't make any sense. Agree or disagree there's plenty of other subjects you can legitimately claim to criticize this presidency for, steroids has to be about as far down the list as the quality of programming on Spike TV.

Why persist in this wackydom? "But, but, but... Bush!" isn't really much of an argument with regards to totally unrelated subjects.

30. Rich Rifkin I Posted: December 23, 2007 at 08:16 AM (#2652570)

"Actually it started a couple of weeks back when Barry Bonds invaded Iraq."

He only did that to control the world's supply of (flaxseed) oil.

31. stealfirstbase Posted: December 23, 2007 at 08:21 AM (#2652572)

I mean it's not like I'm much of a Republican or anything, my porn collection is far too large for that (of course a Republican would have as large or larger a collection, he just wouldn't admit it).

Ain't that the truth.

32. JMM Posted: December 23, 2007 at 09:25 AM (#2652577)

If George W. Bush was "behind" steroids, they wouldn't work.

33. Jim Furtado

Posted: December 23, 2007 at 01:08 PM (#2652583)

Some people enjoy the political stuff, others hate it. FYI, I'm not a big fan of most of the non-baseball discussions on the site. I'm particularly not a fan of the political stuff. To be frank, if I'm interested in political stuff I can find much better material on the sites dedicated to the subject.

When the old server setup was straining under the load and I didn't have the money to upgrade, I tried to push such talk over to the forums. You'd have thought I'd gone into a few houses and started beating the occupants. Now that I have a server setup that can better withstand the spikes in traffic we get, I'm working to introduce more customization in this off-season's upgrade. This way, if you aren't interested, the off-topic stuff won't even show up on your radar. If you are interested, and you are willing to contribute to offset the cost, you can argue politics to your heart's content without negatively impacting the users who come here for the baseball.

As for the political bias on the site, I do agree the members of the site slant liberal. That's not necessarily true of the people who help run the site. As a social moderate and fiscal conservative, I'm a Republican who isn't quite happy with his party. Quite a few contributors are Libertarians. To be frank, though, I don't know the political leanings of most of the others because what matters to me regarding this site is baseball knowledge and the way people interact with others.

Ultimately, if you come here to rant and rave about whatever, and do so in a harsh manner with no respect for the opinions of others, I'm sure I'll eventually encourage you to post somewhere else. If you have baseball knowledge and interact with others in an open-minded, polite manner, your contributions to the site are very much appreciated. If your baseball opinions differ from the norm here and you interact with others in an open-minded, polite manner, your contributions are also very much appreciated and your participation is greatly encouraged.

34. RMc is the loyal supporter of the MLB event Posted: December 23, 2007 at 01:25 PM (#2652586)

Vaux once again proves he's too stupid to be a Tigers fan.

As for the political bias on the site, I do agree the members of the site slant liberal.

Thank you! At last, they admit it!

35. Dan The Mediocre Posted: December 23, 2007 at 02:00 PM (#2652590)

I side with the Democrats far more than the Republicans, but this article is terrible. Sure, we know Bush allowed torture, invaded a country based on what he knew to be very dicey intelligence, etc., but I don't think he started a trend in baseball that started before he was the spokesman for the owner of the Rangers. This article is almost to the level of Christopher Hitchens or anything Slate does on sports.

36. Gambling Rent Czar Posted: December 23, 2007 at 02:20 PM (#2652593)

I think each and everyone of us should click that link in the top right hand corner, and wish Jim a Merry Christmas.

Think about how much of your daily or weekly life, evolves around this site.

Merry Christmas Jim.

thanks

Merry Christmas all.

37. pv nasby Posted: December 23, 2007 at 02:45 PM (#2652600)

Think about how much of your daily or weekly life, evolves around this site.

Oh man, don't bring up evolution. You'll have them screaming about this article and teaching the controversy on BTF next.

38. Dan Evensen Posted: December 23, 2007 at 02:58 PM (#2652603)

Jerry! Jerry! Jerry!

*looks at time*

Damn it! Too late.

39. Neil Kinnock...Lord Palmerston! (Orinoco) Posted: December 23, 2007 at 03:00 PM (#2652606)

As far as the Democrats are concerned, George W. Bush is representing the Republican party in every election for any office for the next 3 decades.

Sure, running against Nixon was such a roaring success...for about two years.

40. Dan The Mediocre Posted: December 23, 2007 at 03:19 PM (#2652614)

Oh man, don't bring up evolution. You'll have them screaming about this article and teaching the controversy on BTF next.

And yet they'll continue to ignore the controversy of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

41. Miko Supports Shane's Spam Habit Posted: December 23, 2007 at 05:07 PM (#2652644)

I did think it was notable that Bush railed against steroids in a SotU address then called Bonds to congratulate him on breaking the record.

Did the inner baseball fan take over, or did he decide no one cared about the steroids issue enough to worry about Bonds?

42. Russ Posted: December 23, 2007 at 05:32 PM (#2652654)

Now that I have a server setup that can better withstand the spikes in traffic we get, I'm working to introduce more customization in this off-season's upgrade. This way, if you aren't interested, the off-topic stuff won't even show up on your radar.

Jim, thanks for looking into this. Greatly appreciated (more customization for what shows up is always a good thing...)

43. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 23, 2007 at 05:42 PM (#2652660)

I think each and everyone of us should click that link in the top right hand corner, and wish Jim a Merry Christmas.

Think about how much of your daily or weekly life, evolves around this site.

I was about to agree with you, until I did count all of the hours I spend here at this site. ;-)

Merry Christmas Jim.

Seriously, a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to Jim, Dan and to everyone else here!

44. Loren F. Posted: December 23, 2007 at 05:51 PM (#2652665)

I can't wait for pitchers and catchers to report.

45. greenback

Posted: December 23, 2007 at 06:51 PM (#2652694)

Civil war by 2050.

At least we'll have more generals to discuss.

46. Answer Guy Posted: December 23, 2007 at 07:13 PM (#2652707)

Yeah, that article was pretty dumb.

It was almost as dumb as when the conservatives wrote things in the wake of Enron that said things like "Bill Clinton got away with a blow job. Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling and Andy Fastow saw that and thought to themselves "There are no morals anymore, so I can get away with anything. Just look at Clinton!" I read that line of reasoning in at least three different columns I read.

47. Der Komminsk-sar Posted: December 23, 2007 at 07:29 PM (#2652713)

I still like a lot of content on Slate, but Bruce Reed is terrible.

48. Fargo Posted: December 23, 2007 at 07:33 PM (#2652715)

The way I read it, the article was about how W smoked WMD when he was in college. The immediate effect is euphoric but the cumulative effect is depressant. That guy is a classic bipolar personality who gets by with a little help from his friends.

49. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 23, 2007 at 08:06 PM (#2652722)

It was almost as dumb as when the conservatives wrote things in the wake of Enron that said things like "Bill Clinton got away with a blow job. Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling and Andy Fastow saw that and thought to themselves "There are no morals anymore, so I can get away with anything. Just look at Clinton!" I read that line of reasoning in at least three different columns I read.

Both sides of the aisle can be ridiculous.

50. Vaux, A.B.D. Posted: December 23, 2007 at 08:22 PM (#2652725)

I don't know why I'm bothering, but those who are interested can note that I haven't called anybody stupid in this thread.

51. gay guy in cut-offs smoking the objective pipe Posted: December 23, 2007 at 08:36 PM (#2652732)

Both sides of the aisle can be ridiculous.

In fact, this article actually reminded me of nothing so much as the Fox story about how Obama had supposedly attended a madrassa.

Giving Bruce Reed a column on your website is like giving Karl Rove a column on your website. Yeah, maybe he'll have some interesting insights on the political process, but when it comes right down to it, do you really think either one of them is going to use that space as anything but a soapbox for getting their guys elected by whatever means necessary?

52. Phineus Fog Posted: December 23, 2007 at 08:51 PM (#2652740)

Dear #15. Slowly, because I am a compassionate conservative and because it is the Christmas season and because it is important to keep the lines of communication open to everyone.....the way you spell the difficult to spell word "the" is T-H-E. Not
T-E-H. I know, it tends to throw a lot of liberals because of its peculiar sequence, the H following the T and all that, but you should try harder because a lot of people, not me of course, but a lot of people will disrespect you if do that. Well, anyway, Merry Christmas. You F____king moron.

53. Dan Szymborski

Posted: December 23, 2007 at 08:58 PM (#2652742)

PF, "TEH" is a long-time running joke. For example, talking about steroids would be "the steroids scandal" while ranting about steroids is, with minor variations, TEH STERIODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111111111oneoneonesinepiovertworadians.

Vaux and I differ nearly as greatly as it's possible for two people to differ on political beliefs, but he's a good guy and he didn't give any reason for someone to act like a prick towards.

54. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 23, 2007 at 09:00 PM (#2652743)

the way you spell the difficult to spell word "the" is T-H-E. Not
T-E-H.

I'm also afflicted with that disease every now and then (only when I type, for some reason), so I always have to double-check my posts so I don't suffer any ridicule myself from a poster here.

55. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 23, 2007 at 09:01 PM (#2652744)

Vaux and I differ nearly as greatly as it's possible for two people to differ on political beliefs, but he's a good guy

...and a former HoM voter in good standing, to boot! :-)

56. chemdoc Posted: December 23, 2007 at 09:03 PM (#2652745)

Anyone who's been around this site for any reasonably length of time knows that if someone here misspells "the", it's probably being done for comedic effect. Unless it's Dial or meatwad.

Just so you know, o compassionate one.

57. Teufel's Graveyard Posted: December 23, 2007 at 09:05 PM (#2652746)

52, you can call Vaux out for saying some strange thigs, but that was completely out of line. Even if it was supposed to be some joke thta I don't get.

58. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 23, 2007 at 09:08 PM (#2652747)

Heh.

59. chris p Posted: December 23, 2007 at 09:16 PM (#2652755)

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111111111oneoneonesinepiovertworadians.

probably my most important contribution to this site. :)

60. pv nasby Posted: December 23, 2007 at 09:23 PM (#2652762)

Heh.

Dear #58. Slowly, because I am a compassionate conservative and because it is the Christmas season and because it is important to keep the lines of communication open to everyone.....the way you spell the difficult to spell word "hhe" is H-H-E. Not
H-E-H. I know, it tends to throw a lot of liberals because of its peculiar sequence, the H following the H and all that, but you should try harder because a lot of people, not me of course, but a lot of people will disrespect you if do that. Well, anyway, Merry Christmas. You F____king moron.

61. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 23, 2007 at 09:28 PM (#2652764)

Double hehs. :-D

62. The District Attorney Posted: December 23, 2007 at 09:33 PM (#2652765)

a lot of people will disrespect you if do that.

"If do that"? That doesn't make any sense.

63. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 23, 2007 at 09:41 PM (#2652774)

"If do that"? That doesn't make any sense.

If he dood it, he should get a whuppin'.

He dood it.

64. Gambling Rent Czar Posted: December 23, 2007 at 10:35 PM (#2652793)

"Anyone who can only think of one way to spell a word obviously lacks imagination." mt

65. Phineus Fog Posted: December 23, 2007 at 11:49 PM (#2652813)

Ah. Such a highly nuanced defence from so many leftist sophisticates can only mean one thing. I win.

66. Shalimar Posted: December 23, 2007 at 11:59 PM (#2652815)

After 7 years of Dubya as President I'm not sure why anyone with any sense of shame would still admit to being a supporter. Having said that, even after reading the article I have no idea what Bush had to do with steroids. Baseball players mostly contribute to Republicans. What a shock that news is.

67. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 24, 2007 at 01:50 AM (#2652852)

Ah. Such a highly nuanced defence from so many leftist sophisticates can only mean one thing. I win.

I'm neither a leftist nor a sophisticate.

68. Phineus Fog Posted: December 24, 2007 at 02:20 AM (#2652856)

#67 That would be "nor." Oh, I get it.

69. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 24, 2007 at 02:43 AM (#2652865)

What are you talking about?

70. Phineus Fog Posted: December 24, 2007 at 03:21 AM (#2652875)

nice try d....bag.

71. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 24, 2007 at 03:28 AM (#2652879)

nice try d....bag.

What the hell is your problem? Unless you have mistaken my Red Skelton parody in #63 as an insult, I haven't said anything derogatory to you.

72. Earvin 'Gold Stars' Johnson Posted: December 24, 2007 at 03:34 AM (#2652882)

Silence, John.
Who are you to question a Primate with a history here dating back to yesterday and a dozen posts to his credit?

73. gay guy in cut-offs smoking the objective pipe Posted: December 24, 2007 at 04:35 AM (#2652897)

Guy's not exactly doing a lot to improve the reputation of Bush supporters hereabouts. Then again, I'm not sure what would, sudden and permanent disappearance aside.

74. Phineus Fog Posted: December 24, 2007 at 05:30 AM (#2652927)

Gotta love it. Keep throwin your purses at one another fellahs. The only balls you've ever rubbed up are each others. In the meantime #71, call the web police. Neither, left, nor sophisticate, nor honest. Kennedy, Carter, Clinton and grandma have something in common. D.....bags all. Have anything to say about baseball? Mike , get a job buddy, you take this crap to seriously. Gold star....your reputation aa a maven in the blogosphere is legendary. You hurt my feeling. Just one of them. By the way Red Sox Nation, Bucky Dent and Aaron Boone will always be in your dreams. 2 world series victories. Wow. No, that's wow with a small w.

75. Gambling Rent Czar Posted: December 24, 2007 at 05:39 AM (#2652931)

I bet this dude is a bagnolosprophetic phan.

76. Dan The Mediocre Posted: December 24, 2007 at 05:51 AM (#2652936)

By the way Red Sox Nation, Bucky Dent and Aaron Boone will always be in your dreams.

Yeah, it's not like the Red Sox have any World Series titles recently...

77. gay guy in cut-offs smoking the objective pipe Posted: December 24, 2007 at 06:02 AM (#2652939)

Yeah, it's not like the Red Sox have any World Series titles recently...

Now I get it -- he's just been watching that Adult Swim clip.

78. Phineus Fog Posted: December 24, 2007 at 06:06 AM (#2652940)

What? Nothing? Must all be true. Save your panty pee boys, this thread is a bore. Yawn. Over and out and not to return. Look elsewhere. It's spelled B-a-s-e-b-a-l-l.

79. gay guy in cut-offs smoking the objective pipe Posted: December 24, 2007 at 06:14 AM (#2652942)

And yet another troll departs, not with a bang but a whimper.

80. Phineus Fog Posted: December 24, 2007 at 06:33 AM (#2652948)

Oh now Mike. That wasn't nice. I bet you used to curse under your breath at your dad when he left the room. Simpering little t...rd that you are. I almost forgot....David P.'s autobiographical note at the entry to this pathetic thread is completely accurate and honest....he is a low hanging fruit.

81. gay guy in cut-offs smoking the objective pipe Posted: December 24, 2007 at 06:40 AM (#2652951)

Oh, no, Phineus, I'd've been disappointed if you hadn't seen it. After all, declaring victory and announcing your departure, only to stick around and see what's said after you "leave", is right out of the troll cliche playbook.

82. Dan The Mediocre Posted: December 24, 2007 at 06:40 AM (#2652952)

Man, this is some of the saddest trolling I've ever seen. Even the insults are terrible.

83. stealfirstbase Posted: December 24, 2007 at 07:13 AM (#2652964)

The only balls you've ever rubbed up are each others.

???

And you're experienced at "rubbing up balls," Phineas? My, what a broad minded republican you are. Without the broads.

84. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: December 24, 2007 at 06:49 PM (#2653129)

And you're experienced at "rubbing up balls," Phineas? My, what a broad minded republican you are. Without the broads.

Fortunately, it appears we have received an early Christmas gift from Jim, since Phineus has now left the building for good. But unlike Elvis, he wont be remembered beyond today.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Sunday, December 23, 2007

Slate: Reed: Did George Bush’s thirst for power launch the steroid era?

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics