The Daily Show

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (958 of them)
plz to quote more blogs

j blount (papa la bas), Thursday, 9 March 2006 21:16 (twenty years ago)

Check out the list of players who have been caught since testing began. There aren’t any McGwires in the group, just a lot of hapless minor leaguers.

OK seriously what point is this trying to make?

I'm all for quoting the YES Network though :D

Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 9 March 2006 21:20 (twenty years ago)

Rafeal Palmeiro is a hapless minor leaguer?

Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Thursday, 9 March 2006 21:25 (twenty years ago)

Cherry-pick the exceptions, Y dontcha...


"blount couldn't find my hole with a miner's hat."
- Andrew Sullivan

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 9 March 2006 21:27 (twenty years ago)

andrew sullivan otm

j blount (papa la bas), Thursday, 9 March 2006 21:27 (twenty years ago)

But what point does it make, regardless of the veracity of the statement?

Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 9 March 2006 21:28 (twenty years ago)

Ally, I really can't explain baseball and film in a way to get through to you, I've got maybe 40 years left.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 9 March 2006 21:29 (twenty years ago)

So you're racist AND sexist.

Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 9 March 2006 21:30 (twenty years ago)

What is so difficult to understand about the question? Throwing in some "Only suck ass players get caught" thing in the middle of the paragraph seems to undermine everything a little bit. OF COURSE there is no McGwires in the list. That is the POINT of the Spanish Inquisition going on in baseball all of a sudden. Too many people bitching about them scapegoating the little guy in a dog-and-pony "drug testing" show when yr Bonds and McGwires are "ruining baseball" and taking the records from "honorable old players" and shit like that.

Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 9 March 2006 21:32 (twenty years ago)

The effect of bullshit accounting practices on a company's net worth have yet to be defined.

Lots of companies have been busted since anybody besides the corrupt and moribund SEC started giving a flying fuck about accounting practices; most of them hapless sub-Fortune 1000 operations. Whatever the effect of the fudging, it apparently has to be earned, or accompanied by a lot of natural ability, or both. The market has to be loaded up, as it clearly has been since the late 1990s. If Enron took a time machine and a second set of books back to 1906 they'd still have gone belly-up because that's what the prevailing conditions allowed for.

TOMBOT, Thursday, 9 March 2006 21:32 (twenty years ago)

Tombot ex machina!

I'm only funnin', gal youngun. I agree entirely with your last post (I think), but sometimes yr train of thought goes express when I need to get off at 28th Street.

Also, nearly every MLB player between 1950 and 2006 took bennies, apparently. (As I guess many of the Daily Show writers do.)

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 9 March 2006 21:36 (twenty years ago)

ally the two sides of the sportstalk argument (and you thought ilx was stupid!) are 'strength is ALL you need to hit' steroid hysterics that don't note b-b-but different numbers for jeremy and jason giambi and that steroids don't exactly work as magic pills (my understanding is most of them work mainly by allowing or amplifying more weight lifting)(this is how creatine works at least right?) vs. 'strength has no impact on hitting' reactionaries for some reason recognizing hysterics idiocy and creating an opposite idiocy of their own (maybe morbs isn't rumpie's antipode, maybe he's jim bunning's)(same diff) wherein we're supposed to ignore that added strength might turn a flyball into a homer and revert to really old cw that 'weight lifting is bad for a ballplayer, don't wanna get too strong o no sirree bob'. are there other factors to explain offensive explosion of the nineties besides steroids? yes. are these factors probably bigger factors than steroids? yes. are any of these other factors illegal? no. do steroids work? yes. have at least half of the mvp winners of the past ten years been juiced? yes. do i care? no.

j blount (papa la bas), Thursday, 9 March 2006 21:41 (twenty years ago)

blount = david peel + john mclaughlin. without the charm.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 9 March 2006 21:45 (twenty years ago)

blount i agree with that except for "do steroids work? yes." sure they work to build muscle mass etc but what exactly does that mean in baseball terms? that's what the debate comes down to, and it's something absolutely worth quantifying from a moral to a statistical to even a marketing level. and it's something that the skip baylesses of the world push against, saying that cheating is cheating. well it is, except when it wasn't outlawed by baseball and everyone looked the other way and in the end the cheating might be irrelevant anyway. i definitely believe that steroids change a player's performance, but the issue is how much. and yr last two sentences ("have at least half of the mvp winners of the past ten years been juiced? yes. do i care? no.") i COMPLETELY agree with.

Jams Murphy (ystrickler), Thursday, 9 March 2006 21:45 (twenty years ago)

What jams said.

'strength has no impact on hitting' reactionaries

Yeah right, that's me. Grow the fuck up.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 9 March 2006 21:49 (twenty years ago)

well 'work' is relative obv., one thing i don't get is why a player would juice (which is illegal, 'cheating', and bad for yr health though maybe morbs can chime in and say 'nothing's been proven!' on that score like bernie goldberg, who's his plain ol' pode i guess) but not go in and say 'gimme ted william's eyes' with some laser surgery which would surely enhance one's performance more. i think steroid's biggest impact is it got players working out more, hitting the gym, etc. baseball players are still probably the sorriest excuses for athletes among the big three but the gulf isn't nearly as big as it was twenty years ago.

j blount (papa la bas), Thursday, 9 March 2006 21:55 (twenty years ago)

ten million xposts

blount, with the right diet and exercise volume (and poss. GH and insulin + anti-rebound drugs [clomid or any estrogen blocking type of shit is a necessary chaser with any anabolic cycle]), they do almost act as a magic pill! but yeah, they do allow you to lift with more weight and frequency but only cause they actually do promote tissue growth so you're stronger and recover faster. the alleged list of what bonds and giambi probably took is fucking amazing. crazy state of the art testosterone sublinguals and creams (the method was combining test + epitest cause they appear in the same ratio in the body, so the lab doesn't see a wacked out ratio). that BALCO dude was like a mad scientist. giambi and some other dudes were also supposedly fucking with growth hormone and insulin.

roidnerd, Thursday, 9 March 2006 22:01 (twenty years ago)

Don't you sporks have a board for this

TOMBOT, Thursday, 9 March 2006 22:04 (twenty years ago)

This is like in "Blazing Saddles" where the epic western bar fight spills over into the frothy musical set directed by mincing Dom DeLuise.

Haikunym (Haikunym), Thursday, 9 March 2006 22:10 (twenty years ago)

and one thing that really annoys me about the 'debate' is how vague a catchall 'steroids' is, how there's been very little discussion of how these drugs work and what drugs are being used so that even when you have players (or omg players whose first language isn't english even) saying that the rules might be confusing you have sports 'journalists' going 'lol u tryin to cheat' although none of them could tell you what prescribed medications will make you test positive, whether redbull is banned and why, etc. instead the debate is just outrage over some lack of ethics (PLZ) or 'the children', complete lack of curiosity or willingness to do some work and dig for some facts beyond 'catching' some player and getting and easy headline, and the discussion among baseball geeks is worse, even falser outrage with less thoughts and more quotes of this dude said on his blog/radioshow garbage. if there's a paragraph in the volumes on this topic on ilb about how a specific drug actually works i'd love to see it. a quarter to anyone who shows me that paragraph followed by a paragraph showing how that in turn would enhance a performance in what manner.

xpost - haha THANK YOU ROIDNERD! my understanding is that basically 'steroids = much much quicker recovery = you can lift longer, more' but my understanding = 'what i've heard from those creatine using dudes that take lifting WAY too seriously at the gym and get weird about flaxseed the same way potheads do about golden seal'.

j blount (papa la bas), Thursday, 9 March 2006 22:17 (twenty years ago)

wait - insulin?

j blount (papa la bas), Thursday, 9 March 2006 22:17 (twenty years ago)

This is like in "Blazing Saddles" where the epic western bar fight spills over into the frothy musical set directed by mincing Dom DeLuise.

I've been look forever of a jpg or gif of that for occassions such as this!

Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Thursday, 9 March 2006 22:20 (twenty years ago)

xpost

I'm never surprised we're doing the French Mistake around here.


if there's a paragraph in the volumes on this topic on ilb about how a specific drug actually works

that'd be for I Love Chemistry.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 9 March 2006 22:21 (twenty years ago)

http://www.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/03/01/sp_baseball_azbm106.jpg

Quite frankly, my point was not that I gave a shit about whether Crazy Pants was on drugs rather that:
A) TDS's commentary was not 'histrionic' but instead 'amusing'
B) That YES Network thing was hideously poorly written and Morbius could've just freaking reposted someone else's posts from the Bonds thread on ILB and it woulda been mo better than that.

NOW LET'S TALK ABOUT JOHN STEWART AND HOW HE WON'T SHUT UP ABOUT HOW TIRED HE IS SINCE HE WAS FABULOUS OSCARS MAN.

Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 9 March 2006 22:23 (twenty years ago)

and yeah roidnerd is OTM in description u can't just take steroids and poof yr Derek Jeter but obviously the problem in pro sports is that these dudes are all already lifting and working out anyway, except Roger Clemens (haha do u see? FATTEY), so, yeah, if you've got one guy on 'roids and the other guy is on the up and up, it's an unfair advantage.

Meanwhile poor Ricky Williams can't even smoke the weed :(

Allyzay Rofflesberger (allyzay), Thursday, 9 March 2006 22:25 (twenty years ago)

There are massive threads about this topic on ILB, and they're the most combative threads on the board. But they're still only about 0.1% as dickish as the average ILE film thread, so I'm not sure those ILB threads will hold some of your interests.

Back to the thread topic -- I don't see how making fun of Bonds on the Daily Show makes them "reactionaries" anymore than making fun of the Democrats (sometimes) makes them Republicans. "Bonds is a crazed steroid freak" makes for more roffles than "Bonds is being treated unfairly by MLB and the media". Simple.

NoTimeBeforeTime (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 9 March 2006 22:31 (twenty years ago)

yeah, insulin! not just for diabetics anymore. all of your favorite bodybuilders are abusing it cause it's super anabolic (esp. after workouts, and at least anti-catabolic the rest of the time). it decides how your body uses carbs and fats. it pushes glucose and amino acids and shit into muscle cells (and fat cells, too). you know how athletes are supposed to eat simple sugars after workouts? that's for the insulin spike! everyone that abuses growth hormone usually combines it with insulin, and then they grow like a motherfucker.

roidnerd, Thursday, 9 March 2006 22:41 (twenty years ago)

http://www.2006olympia.com/new/images/photo/training/Ronnie-Coleman---1.jpg

= more the product of gh/insulin (and being able to afford eating 12 meals of filet mignon a day) than the testo he puts in his glutes.

roidnerd, Thursday, 9 March 2006 22:43 (twenty years ago)

You know, I wasn't trying to fire a heavy critical cannonball re the Corddry bit's "frothing." As a vein for humor it just struck me as ALREADY tapped out, which means the next 7 months oughta be a joy... (I was directing them to ILB outta spite, Barry!)

Ally, I like when Stewart beats dead horses like Oscar fatigue. It's textbook kvetching, and shows his roots in Lenny Bruce... and Smith & Dale (google em).

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 9 March 2006 22:47 (twenty years ago)

Oh, the humour is definitely tapped out for baseball fans, who are sick and tired of hearing about steroid rumours (even the ones involving Bonds).

I acknowledge the fact that this particular episode in the Bonds + Steroids saga is more newsworthy outside the baseball world than the usual finger-pointing/wagging fare. So I expect TDS to say something about it now. Even though the "story" is played from a baseball fan's perspective, I think TDS did a good job with it.

NoTimeBeforeTime (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 9 March 2006 22:56 (twenty years ago)

Last night's little segment about black Republican candidates (esp. Lynn Swann) was particularly not funny in any way.

TOMBOT, Friday, 10 March 2006 14:54 (twenty years ago)

As with some segments of Monty Python's The Meaning of Life, I appreciate when the Daily Show is more angry than funny.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 10 March 2006 14:59 (twenty years ago)

the bit with paul hackett was pretty good.

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Wednesday, 15 March 2006 06:38 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, that Paul Hackett ad coulda been made by gabbneb!

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 22:09 (twenty years ago)

thfuck? what was jon stewart doing interviewing Gen Sada? former saddam crony, currently now changed allegiance to the u.s., pushing a frikin book all about mythical WMDs and washing his hands. too "comedic" to go hard hitting with such a subject (and rilly, in this climate, who could!?) but "newsy" enough to try and engage in an interview with really no funny stuff to be had -- this interview is neither hot nor cold and i spit it out.

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Wednesday, 22 March 2006 04:31 (twenty years ago)

JOn can get overwhelmed or intimidated by his guests. I don't think Stephen has that problem, tho.

kingfish da notorious teletabby (kingfish 2.0), Wednesday, 22 March 2006 04:37 (twenty years ago)

colbert with sada would have been an even bigger train wreck.

i think the language barrier kept sada from rilly getting the jokey stuff at all.

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Wednesday, 22 March 2006 04:48 (twenty years ago)

you know who was a weird interview? clive owen! all he did was laugh! he didn't seem to want to talk at all!

s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 22 March 2006 05:25 (twenty years ago)

stewart was using waaay too many idioms

R.I.P. Concrete Octopus ]-`: is a guy with a belly button piercing (ex machina), Wednesday, 22 March 2006 06:15 (twenty years ago)

That Sada interview sucked, not because it wasn't funny enough or it wasn't serious enough, but because of all the stupid "Wow, you really put a human face on everything we've been taught to believe was faceless evil" nonsense. OKAY JON WE GET IT THANKS NOW ASK HIM MORE ABOUT SADDAM.

Dan (Christ) Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 22 March 2006 13:15 (twenty years ago)

For the interview segment, Stewart needs to go back to destroying helpless starlets a la the JenLoveHewitt classic.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 22 March 2006 14:42 (twenty years ago)

That interview last night pissed me the fuck off, dudes.
Let's get a Schutzstaffel chaplain next to put a human face on the ovens. Or whoever the fuck is doing a book tour, since apparently nobody else wants to talk to poor Jon.

TOMBOT, Wednesday, 22 March 2006 14:54 (twenty years ago)

Actually you know what in between the "Here's why black republicans are stupid tokens" segment and last night's guest I'm pretty much done with Jon Stewart. More John Hodgeman, though, please.

TOMBOT, Wednesday, 22 March 2006 14:56 (twenty years ago)

he should just lose the interviews already

s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 22 March 2006 17:36 (twenty years ago)

He can't, that's 24 minutes of airtime a week. Losing ALL political figures (retirees possibly excepted) is the key.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 22 March 2006 17:40 (twenty years ago)

he has to do the interviews, the format falls apart without them.

xpost

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 22 March 2006 17:41 (twenty years ago)

I really liked John Hodgeman's segment from...last week? week before? I think he's got a great mix of deadpan & absurdity that really fits into the show.

I'm still waiting for them to come up with a recurring bit I enjoyed as much as "Stephen & Stephen"

kingfish da last ubermensch (kingfish 2.0), Wednesday, 22 March 2006 17:43 (twenty years ago)

Hodgeman def is unusually low-key deadpan for even the brightest show on basic cable.

And black Republicans are stupid tokens.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 22 March 2006 17:45 (twenty years ago)

http://www.historyplace.com/lincoln/lincpix/last.jpg

"Silly Negroes."

Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Wednesday, 22 March 2006 18:09 (twenty years ago)

It ain't 1870.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 22 March 2006 18:12 (twenty years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.