?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Ron Paul eats spam

I hear he prefers the MLB allow market forces to work their magic and allow players to take whatever performance enhancing drugs they want... This will effectively requireme all players to max out their steroid intake to stay competitive, and destroy the possibility of long, rich careers like those of Nolan Ryan and Curt Schilling. Players will burn out months after their peaks, and teams will discard them carelessly for the next up-and-coming powerhouse.

I wonder how many Ron Paul attack dogs there are out there, and if we can DoS them by all saying bad things about Ron Paul all the time.

Comments

( 12 comments — Leave a comment )
geekosaur
Nov. 26th, 2007 04:04 am (UTC)
Don't bet on it. More fanatics than sensible-and-active folk, always. :(
jforbess
Nov. 26th, 2007 04:14 am (UTC)
all of the Ron Paul graffiti in Austin is annoyingly located. Stickers in the middle of speed limit signs, spraypainted on the railroad bridge.

Not impressed.
technomaget
Nov. 26th, 2007 05:28 am (UTC)
I hear he wants to eat babies after bringing them into this world. I think that is horrendous.
melted_snowball
Nov. 26th, 2007 12:52 pm (UTC)
You could just send him up against the marvelously named Dick Pound.

I of course know nothing about sports. But I do wonder why this is Congress's job.
zkzkz
Nov. 26th, 2007 01:10 pm (UTC)
Does the evidence actually support that? I mean the main examples we have of steroid-boosted baseball players are all players who have played and even peaked well past the age that baseball players would normally be expected to even be playing.That said it's also telling that the two examples you named are both pitchers.

So if the product would be better without steroiods presumably MLB would itself choose to regulate steroid use? Unfortunately home runs appear to sell tickets and strategy and pitching don't seem to actually be something fans are interested in.
baronet
Nov. 26th, 2007 05:12 pm (UTC)
Heroes
1: Part of the appeal of sports (so I hear) is that we can look up to the players. When confronted with a scraped knee, we can work through the pain, just like your hero did. When your project looks hopeless, you dive back into it and give it your best shot, just like that team did when everyone thought they had no hope.

The more the players are perceived to be dependent on drugs for their performance, the less they are exemplars for the watchers to draw inspiration from. So the product (baseball) would be better without the public awareness of steroids, which is correlated with the lack of steroids, but not identical.

2: Infamy generates interest for you in the short term, at the expense of respect for the sport as a whole. A team might decide not to look too hard for player drug abuse because it decides that bad publicity is still publicity. They get +$2 and everyone gets -$1. If everyone does that, then you all end up worse off, but if you think you can be the only one....

3: Sports is a dream. It doesn't matter how poor you are, you can dream about making it to the Big Leagues. If the big leagues require that you rot your brain to jello, the dream losses some of its luster.
kirisutogomen
Nov. 26th, 2007 04:31 pm (UTC)
Don't you have anything better to do? Or at least an actual link to him saying that, rather than an "I hear he eats babies"?

I haven't noticed any other professional sport needing government help to administer a drug policy. Is baseball really that strapped for cash that they can't figure this out on their own?
crs
Nov. 26th, 2007 04:37 pm (UTC)
Ah, *context*.

This is a response to a friend who had a content-ful attack on Ron Paul in his livejournal attacked by rude people who had never been seen in his LJ before. The explanation - the Ron Paul folks crawl blogs and the web in general to watch for mentions of their leader and descend on anyplace that tries to talk about him in a negative light.

This is purely a quick attempt to add workload to them, since I don't think I like such tactics. A mention of Ron Paul is not an invitation to random strangers to pile on abuse.
melted_snowball
Nov. 26th, 2007 06:22 pm (UTC)
Ah. That would have helped, too...
technomaget
Dec. 25th, 2007 02:34 am (UTC)
Abuse
Actually, I wasn't rude. Some of the people responding to me were very rude. If he didn't want strangers responding, why would he leave his journal open? In any case, I didn't abuse anyone on his journal, nor did he abuse me on my journal nor did I abuse him on my journal.
technomaget
Dec. 25th, 2007 02:31 am (UTC)
I have no link to it because he didn't say it, but a lot of people attribute a lot of things to him that he didn't say.
tirianmal
Nov. 27th, 2007 06:08 pm (UTC)
Who the heck is Ron Paul? (a google later) Oh, nevermind, no one cares about Ron Paul and neither should I.
( 12 comments — Leave a comment )