The New McNamee Evidence
Moderator: Giants
Bren, shut the hell up. If anyone in this league is on a high horse, its you on every single issue. You do not take facts or other people's opinions into account on anything. You're just right and everyone else is wrong and that's the way it is. You haven't listened to a thing that Jim has said. You've convicted Clemens and hung him out to dry. Maybe you've heard of habeus corpus. The right to a fair trial. That is something that nobody ever gets with you because you throw whoever you don't agree with under the bus right away and convict them. Another case of a liberal being the most closed minded person in an arguement
I didn't say "it is a fact that he is guilty." Saying "Clemens is guilty" is a logical conclusion based on the FACTS. If other evidence or facts present themselves, I would revisit that conclusion
I didn't call you a name either, I simply pointed out that your ignorant post (which attacked the blood and needles, which I wasn't even using as a reference point in my argument) reinforced a stereotype of Mainers as being ignorant.
What individual human rights have I suppressed? You're missing (not surprisingly) the key element of Fascism, the pursuit of national (or other organizational) unity. I've dared you to prove me wrong, to say that the evidence I've cited is incorrect, that there's another logical conclusion. I'd welcome a logical debate on the subject, it would make for a nice change for your blithering... how is that oppressive? and what unity am I seeking?
As for "my way or the highway"... man, you really are reaching. What "highway" are you talking about? Was I insinuating someone should be thrown out of the league? Censored? Censured? Suspended? Or was I saying 'Here are some facts. Here's the logical conclusion from those facts.' You don't like it, prove me wrong. Is there some other logical conclusion to be drawn here? I suspect logic isn't your strong point, but do try, it would be a refreshing change.
I didn't call you a name either, I simply pointed out that your ignorant post (which attacked the blood and needles, which I wasn't even using as a reference point in my argument) reinforced a stereotype of Mainers as being ignorant.
What individual human rights have I suppressed? You're missing (not surprisingly) the key element of Fascism, the pursuit of national (or other organizational) unity. I've dared you to prove me wrong, to say that the evidence I've cited is incorrect, that there's another logical conclusion. I'd welcome a logical debate on the subject, it would make for a nice change for your blithering... how is that oppressive? and what unity am I seeking?
As for "my way or the highway"... man, you really are reaching. What "highway" are you talking about? Was I insinuating someone should be thrown out of the league? Censored? Censured? Suspended? Or was I saying 'Here are some facts. Here's the logical conclusion from those facts.' You don't like it, prove me wrong. Is there some other logical conclusion to be drawn here? I suspect logic isn't your strong point, but do try, it would be a refreshing change.
And the racist chimes in! How did I miss this?Cardinals wrote:Bren, shut the hell up. If anyone in this league is on a high horse, its you on every single issue. You do not take facts or other people's opinions into account on anything. You're just right and everyone else is wrong and that's the way it is. You haven't listened to a thing that Jim has said. You've convicted Clemens and hung him out to dry. Maybe you've heard of habeus corpus. The right to a fair trial. That is something that nobody ever gets with you because you throw whoever you don't agree with under the bus right away and convict them. Another case of a liberal being the most closed minded person in an arguement
Facts? I'd love it if someone besides me would present some facts on the matter. This whole argument has been me presenting some facts with a conclusion based on those facts, then Jim calling it fascist and BS and opinions without actually presenting any facts or even refuting the ones I presented followed by me saying "Show me where I'm wrong." Show me I'm wrong, show me that the logic is flawed and I will shout from the proverbial mountaintops (i.e. a featured post in my IBC blog with the following title) "I WAS WRONG!"
Here's a little lesson for you Aaron. The fascist (this is the proper use of the word: acting from the right wing opposed to socialism, liberalism, individual civil freedoms, democracy, feminism and favoring the maintenance of social divisions all in the name of Unity) George Bush and the Republican Party suspended Habeus Corpus. Apparently not everyone deserves the right to a trial by jury. Or any kind of trial. Or access to a lawyer or anyone at all other than their guards and 'interrogators'.
What's even funnier though is that you seem to think the ramblings of one person on a baseball website have any bearing WHATSOEVER on Habeus Corpus, or vice versa. So we should wait for Clemens to go to trial for this before we form an opinion or belief or say anything at all on the matter? What if it never goes to trial, which it almost certainly won't? What if the trial decision is wrong, like with OJ? Or it gets thrown out on a technicality? Should we then say "Well, he's innocent, he didn't do it!"
A fair trial is the presentation of facts and perspectives, weighed equally and without bias. What bias am I showing against Clemens? The available evidence leads to the conclusion that Clemens is guilty, It's that simple. If he had additional evidence to show otherwise, he'd have presented it because he's as aware of his public image and place in history as any player in pro sports. I have no doubt that if he had some further proof to dispute the currently known evidence then he would have presented it by now. If he shows some proof later that says otherwise then I'll revise my conclusion. Until then, I stand convinced of his guilt.
Well at least you called me out on the board and didn't attack me via PM like you did to Jim. If you want to get into an arguement on the suspension of citizens rights by presidents then we can go right ahead and start with Massachusetts own John Adams (funny how people from Massachusetts like to take credit for everything in American history and sweep everything else under the rug). But I've got a student teaching unit to prepare this weekend on World War I so if you'd like to postpone this arguement until the end of April I'd be more than happy to oblige
You're right, I should take my response to Jim's personal attack on calling me a fascist, and then having the balls to say I had started the name-calling, public. That's not even slightly personal or private.Cardinals wrote:Well at least you called me out on the board and didn't attack me via PM like you did to Jim. If you want to get into an arguement on the suspension of citizens rights by presidents then we can go right ahead and start with Massachusetts own John Adams (funny how people from Massachusetts like to take credit for everything in American history and sweep everything else under the rug). But I've got a student teaching unit to prepare this weekend on World War I so if you'd like to postpone this arguement until the end of April I'd be more than happy to oblige
Actually I thought the Debbie Clemens information was interesting too(and not that far-fetched given HGH's common use in anti-aging clinics though when it was reported it sounded like the reporters thought it was really far-fetched).
I do want to hear more about the party McNamee and Clemens went to. Getting an affadavitt from Canseco is akin to getting one from OJ Simpson, but the TV broadcast report is interesting. I don't know when the reported party was supposed to happen, but if it was the day or night before a Clemens start, I wouldn't put much credence in the report, since you wouldn't want news getting out about your pitcher going to a party the night before a start. Otherwise it would seem to be kind of a stupid thing to lie to the media about. But then, it is the media... I'm less convinced than I had been. Much as Clemens was (and remains) a douchebag, I'd rather he turn out to be innocent.
I do want to hear more about the party McNamee and Clemens went to. Getting an affadavitt from Canseco is akin to getting one from OJ Simpson, but the TV broadcast report is interesting. I don't know when the reported party was supposed to happen, but if it was the day or night before a Clemens start, I wouldn't put much credence in the report, since you wouldn't want news getting out about your pitcher going to a party the night before a start. Otherwise it would seem to be kind of a stupid thing to lie to the media about. But then, it is the media... I'm less convinced than I had been. Much as Clemens was (and remains) a douchebag, I'd rather he turn out to be innocent.
So, where are all the Clemens apologists at? Anyone still think he isn't a lying cheat?
I'll say this much for him, he's got some stones lying through his teeth and tossing his wife under the bus when both his trainer AND his best friend (Pettitte) have turned on him. The only thing more impressive is that the Republicans on the panel didn't line up to kiss his feet (or more) when the testimony was over.
I'll say this much for him, he's got some stones lying through his teeth and tossing his wife under the bus when both his trainer AND his best friend (Pettitte) have turned on him. The only thing more impressive is that the Republicans on the panel didn't line up to kiss his feet (or more) when the testimony was over.
i dont know how many people thought he didn't do it. The argument is over whether or not you could prove he did it, or if there was enough credible evidence at the time to warrant convicting him in the court of public opinion. At the time of this debate, there wasn't enough evidence. I think the testimony of Andy Pettite, which came out after this whole thread, is what swayed a lot of people.
I, personally, still dont think there is enough to prove that he did it. Though I do think that he did.
I, personally, still dont think there is enough to prove that he did it. Though I do think that he did.
Depends on your perspective on credibility. McNamee and Clemens both lack credibility but I'd take McNamee's testimony over Clemens, he has less motive to lie. Pettitte though, while not wholly beyond reproach, blows them both away.
As has been noted in a couple places, it really is amazing that guys like Clemens keep denying this stuff. First of all, when you lie, you're going to get caught. It's more a matter of 'when' rather than 'if' particularly once the spotlight is placed on you as it has here. Secondly, look at the guys that have come clean about it. Do you hear anyone shredding Pettitte? No, because he came clean and admitted that what he did was wrong. I think if Clemens had shown that kind of dignity and respect there wouldn't be half as much fuss about him as there is. Instead, the mess keeps getting bigger and bigger. What's going to do Clemens in and get him in such deep trouble isn't the HGH he took, that was just a catalyst. It's the lies he's spewing over and over in interviews, on TV, on the radio and in front of Congress.
As has been noted in a couple places, it really is amazing that guys like Clemens keep denying this stuff. First of all, when you lie, you're going to get caught. It's more a matter of 'when' rather than 'if' particularly once the spotlight is placed on you as it has here. Secondly, look at the guys that have come clean about it. Do you hear anyone shredding Pettitte? No, because he came clean and admitted that what he did was wrong. I think if Clemens had shown that kind of dignity and respect there wouldn't be half as much fuss about him as there is. Instead, the mess keeps getting bigger and bigger. What's going to do Clemens in and get him in such deep trouble isn't the HGH he took, that was just a catalyst. It's the lies he's spewing over and over in interviews, on TV, on the radio and in front of Congress.
I just don't understand how a guy coming out and saying he shot Clemens in the ass, in conjunction with the Mitchell report, in conjunction with the guy actually still having the needles, in conjunction with the other guys he named confirming his testimony about them and we're talking about a guy who experienced a resurgence in his late 30's early 40's and put up video game numbers is somehow less compelling than initials on a chart and the words of a scorned mistress who capitalized on her newfound fame by jumping right into a Playboy cover. It is beyond hypocritical for any of you to question the evidence against Clemens if you aren't questioning the evidence about Barry Bonds.Mets wrote:Exactly ...Cubs wrote: The argument is over whether or not you could prove he did it, or if there was enough credible evidence at the time to warrant convicting him ...
Exactly ...Athletics wrote:I just don't understand how a guy coming out and saying he shot Clemens in the ass, in conjunction with the Mitchell report, in conjunction with the guy actually still having the needles, in conjunction with the other guys he named confirming his testimony about them and we're talking about a guy who experienced a resurgence in his late 30's early 40's and put up video game numbers is somehow less compelling than initials on a chart and the words of a scorned mistress who capitalized on her newfound fame by jumping right into a Playboy cover. It is beyond hypocritical for any of you to question the evidence against Clemens if you aren't questioning the evidence about Barry Bonds.Mets wrote:Exactly ...Cubs wrote: The argument is over whether or not you could prove he did it, or if there was enough credible evidence at the time to warrant convicting him ...
[Puts on Bonds defender hat]
The balloon effect is only part of the story, the other part is the reverse balloon effect that happens when you go off the juice (see Sosa, Sammy and Rodriguez, Ivan). Bonds has maintained the bulk he put on. We didn't know about this 2000 test before McNamee, so its unfair to insert it into the discussion now.
[Bonds defender hat coming off]
I'm really curious about this 2000 test, because baseball didn't even start testing minor leaguers until 2001 and didn't test any major leaguers until 2003, so who conducted the test?
The balloon effect is only part of the story, the other part is the reverse balloon effect that happens when you go off the juice (see Sosa, Sammy and Rodriguez, Ivan). Bonds has maintained the bulk he put on. We didn't know about this 2000 test before McNamee, so its unfair to insert it into the discussion now.
[Bonds defender hat coming off]
I'm really curious about this 2000 test, because baseball didn't even start testing minor leaguers until 2001 and didn't test any major leaguers until 2003, so who conducted the test?
Ok, for a more extended reply, JP mentioned something that was pretty inevitable, that being the Reverend Al Sharpton stating that Clemens was getting different treatment than Bonds got because Bonds is black. While I think this is true in the fawning that Clemens experienced in his Congressional testimony i think there are a lot of other factors here that make this not quite an Apples to Apples comparison.
1. Fanbase - A player's fan base is going to be understandably blind to a players indiscretions. Giants fans certainly are to Bonds, and it's understandable to a point. In the case of Clemens, he has the largest fan base in baseball (the Yankees) behind him as well as still a lot of Red Sox fans (another huge fan base) who, while bitter with Clemens for leaving for the Yankees, still wanted him back and wanted to repair the damage (this included myself). That makes for a LOT of fans in denial.
2. Timeline - This all broke very recently, I'm sure a lot of folks are in denial if only because it all happened so fast. Four months ago, the only rumors around Clemens were conspiracy theorists who thought he sat out half the 06 and 07 seasons as a Michael Jordan-esque unofficial suspension. Bonds had suspicions for a LONG time before Congress, or anyone with any authority, got involved (publicly).
3. The Obvious factor - here is where I disagree with Jake. Clemens' numbers were good, but they weren't quite crazy good enough that the shift to the NL didn't make them seem possible. Especially with Pettitte seeing a resurgence there as well. Look what happened to Bronson Arroyo when he went to Cincinnati. it was easy to explain an improvement in performance with the fact that the NL has weaker lineups. As far as pitching so late into his career, I don't think that shocked a lot of people either. Clemens' workout regimen has been legendary for quite some time and he was long compared to Nolan Ryan and other durable fireballers so pitching until he turned 45 was impressive, but not wholly shocking. Bonds on the other hand started breaking some of the greatest records ever held by hitters in his late 30's, it was a huge red flag. So when evidence started coming out, reactions were more like "Well duh!" or "It's about time!" with Bonds while with Clemens it was more surprising.
basically, this whole situation developed so much faster people still haven't had a chance to process it, plus they'll probably never see Clemens pitching again after the allegations came out. Seeing Bonds play while so many people were convinced he was a cheat was a huge factor in generating vitriol against him, particularly seeing him breaking some of the most sacred records in the sport while we were so sure of his guilt.
1. Fanbase - A player's fan base is going to be understandably blind to a players indiscretions. Giants fans certainly are to Bonds, and it's understandable to a point. In the case of Clemens, he has the largest fan base in baseball (the Yankees) behind him as well as still a lot of Red Sox fans (another huge fan base) who, while bitter with Clemens for leaving for the Yankees, still wanted him back and wanted to repair the damage (this included myself). That makes for a LOT of fans in denial.
2. Timeline - This all broke very recently, I'm sure a lot of folks are in denial if only because it all happened so fast. Four months ago, the only rumors around Clemens were conspiracy theorists who thought he sat out half the 06 and 07 seasons as a Michael Jordan-esque unofficial suspension. Bonds had suspicions for a LONG time before Congress, or anyone with any authority, got involved (publicly).
3. The Obvious factor - here is where I disagree with Jake. Clemens' numbers were good, but they weren't quite crazy good enough that the shift to the NL didn't make them seem possible. Especially with Pettitte seeing a resurgence there as well. Look what happened to Bronson Arroyo when he went to Cincinnati. it was easy to explain an improvement in performance with the fact that the NL has weaker lineups. As far as pitching so late into his career, I don't think that shocked a lot of people either. Clemens' workout regimen has been legendary for quite some time and he was long compared to Nolan Ryan and other durable fireballers so pitching until he turned 45 was impressive, but not wholly shocking. Bonds on the other hand started breaking some of the greatest records ever held by hitters in his late 30's, it was a huge red flag. So when evidence started coming out, reactions were more like "Well duh!" or "It's about time!" with Bonds while with Clemens it was more surprising.
basically, this whole situation developed so much faster people still haven't had a chance to process it, plus they'll probably never see Clemens pitching again after the allegations came out. Seeing Bonds play while so many people were convinced he was a cheat was a huge factor in generating vitriol against him, particularly seeing him breaking some of the most sacred records in the sport while we were so sure of his guilt.
Interesting that you'd mention Andy Pettite, because Andy Pettite went to the NL in 2004, which is also when he acknowledged jumping into the hGH thing on his own. Anyway, let's do a little statistical comparison. I've chosen OPS+ to measure Bonds against other hitters because it doesn't take defense into account and surely any metric using defense would bring any NL player closer to Bonds. ERA+ seems like the most closely analagous statistic for pitchers, though if someone else has a better one I'm all over it.
In 2005 at the age of 42 Roger Clemens had an ERA+ of 226. For comparisons sake, the next highest was Hoyt Wilhelm at 176 and he was a knuckleballer, the next highest for a traditional pitcher was Mike Ryba at 137. For those of you who aren't big statheads that means that Clemens was 64% higher than the next best 42 year old ever. By comparison during Barry Bonds 2001 season at age 36 (the so-called impossible season that one statistical analysis suggested would happen every SIX TRILLION YEARS), his OPS+ was 259, while Babe Ruth's age 36 was 218, a mere 18% higher (and Hank Aaron is right behind Ruth at 194, while the next best pitcher after Ryba is at 124). At age 37 Bonds set the single season OPS record at 268, while at age 37 Ruth was at 201 (making Bonds a mere 33% higher) For those curious, Bonds age 42 OPS+ is 170, the next highest is Carlton Fisk at 134.
For those interested in comparing them to their competition that year, the #2 guy in ERA+ in the NL after Clemens was Andy Pettite at 177, but remember this is rejuvenated juiced up Pettite. After Pettite is Dontrelle Willis at 151, so Clemens is 49% better than his next (ostensibly clean) competitor. Johan Santana had a 155 ERA+ in the AL that year. In 2001 Bonds' OPS+ is 259, and Sosa is right behind him at 202 (we can probably discount Sosa's figure). Next is Luis Gonzalez at 174, making Bonds 48% better. Bonds also had an OPS+ figure of 268 in 2002 at age 37, with Brian Giles behind him at 179, giving Bonds a 51% edge. However, Bonds OPS numbers are skewed for those years because of the ludicrous number of times he was walked. In 2002 for instance Bonds was walked nearly 1/3 of the time (198 walks in 612 PAs), ratios no one else came close to that jacked up his figures and were beyond his control.
I know I'm cherry picking a couple of years here, but my point is that Roger Clemens' numbers are at least as stupid as Barry Bonds, if not more so, and that needs to be explained more than just the NL. Bronson Arroyo is a lousy comp because he had a great first year in the league, but last year came back down to earth with numbers similar to his Boston stats, which implies that the league figured him out. Clemens was actually much better in years 2 and 3 in Houston than he was in year 1, which rules out that explanation.
I don't think any of it is a race issue, I think its an irrational hatred of Barry Bonds issue.
In 2005 at the age of 42 Roger Clemens had an ERA+ of 226. For comparisons sake, the next highest was Hoyt Wilhelm at 176 and he was a knuckleballer, the next highest for a traditional pitcher was Mike Ryba at 137. For those of you who aren't big statheads that means that Clemens was 64% higher than the next best 42 year old ever. By comparison during Barry Bonds 2001 season at age 36 (the so-called impossible season that one statistical analysis suggested would happen every SIX TRILLION YEARS), his OPS+ was 259, while Babe Ruth's age 36 was 218, a mere 18% higher (and Hank Aaron is right behind Ruth at 194, while the next best pitcher after Ryba is at 124). At age 37 Bonds set the single season OPS record at 268, while at age 37 Ruth was at 201 (making Bonds a mere 33% higher) For those curious, Bonds age 42 OPS+ is 170, the next highest is Carlton Fisk at 134.
For those interested in comparing them to their competition that year, the #2 guy in ERA+ in the NL after Clemens was Andy Pettite at 177, but remember this is rejuvenated juiced up Pettite. After Pettite is Dontrelle Willis at 151, so Clemens is 49% better than his next (ostensibly clean) competitor. Johan Santana had a 155 ERA+ in the AL that year. In 2001 Bonds' OPS+ is 259, and Sosa is right behind him at 202 (we can probably discount Sosa's figure). Next is Luis Gonzalez at 174, making Bonds 48% better. Bonds also had an OPS+ figure of 268 in 2002 at age 37, with Brian Giles behind him at 179, giving Bonds a 51% edge. However, Bonds OPS numbers are skewed for those years because of the ludicrous number of times he was walked. In 2002 for instance Bonds was walked nearly 1/3 of the time (198 walks in 612 PAs), ratios no one else came close to that jacked up his figures and were beyond his control.
I know I'm cherry picking a couple of years here, but my point is that Roger Clemens' numbers are at least as stupid as Barry Bonds, if not more so, and that needs to be explained more than just the NL. Bronson Arroyo is a lousy comp because he had a great first year in the league, but last year came back down to earth with numbers similar to his Boston stats, which implies that the league figured him out. Clemens was actually much better in years 2 and 3 in Houston than he was in year 1, which rules out that explanation.
I don't think any of it is a race issue, I think its an irrational hatred of Barry Bonds issue.
I think the fawning over Clemens by the congressmen (and congresswomen. One of whom said she was sure he was going to heaven. Seriously.) could possibly be put down to race. Bonds is a douchebag, unquestionably, but how long has it been since that wasn't true about Clemens as well? Putting it down to Bonds being a douchebag is ridiculous because Clemens is a douchebag as well. He fucked over the Sox, the Jays, the Yankees...Athletics wrote:Interesting that you'd mention Andy Pettite, because Andy Pettite went to the NL in 2004, which is also when he acknowledged jumping into the hGH thing on his own. Anyway, let's do a little statistical comparison. I've chosen OPS+ to measure Bonds against other hitters because it doesn't take defense into account and surely any metric using defense would bring any NL player closer to Bonds. ERA+ seems like the most closely analagous statistic for pitchers, though if someone else has a better one I'm all over it.
In 2005 at the age of 42 Roger Clemens had an ERA+ of 226. For comparisons sake, the next highest was Hoyt Wilhelm at 176 and he was a knuckleballer, the next highest for a traditional pitcher was Mike Ryba at 137. For those of you who aren't big statheads that means that Clemens was 64% higher than the next best 42 year old ever. By comparison during Barry Bonds 2001 season at age 36 (the so-called impossible season that one statistical analysis suggested would happen every SIX TRILLION YEARS), his OPS+ was 259, while Babe Ruth's age 36 was 218, a mere 18% higher (and Hank Aaron is right behind Ruth at 194, while the next best pitcher after Ryba is at 124). At age 37 Bonds set the single season OPS record at 268, while at age 37 Ruth was at 201 (making Bonds a mere 33% higher) For those curious, Bonds age 42 OPS+ is 170, the next highest is Carlton Fisk at 134.
For those interested in comparing them to their competition that year, the #2 guy in ERA+ in the NL after Clemens was Andy Pettite at 177, but remember this is rejuvenated juiced up Pettite. After Pettite is Dontrelle Willis at 151, so Clemens is 49% better than his next (ostensibly clean) competitor. Johan Santana had a 155 ERA+ in the AL that year. In 2001 Bonds' OPS+ is 259, and Sosa is right behind him at 202 (we can probably discount Sosa's figure). Next is Luis Gonzalez at 174, making Bonds 48% better. Bonds also had an OPS+ figure of 268 in 2002 at age 37, with Brian Giles behind him at 179, giving Bonds a 51% edge. However, Bonds OPS numbers are skewed for those years because of the ludicrous number of times he was walked. In 2002 for instance Bonds was walked nearly 1/3 of the time (198 walks in 612 PAs), ratios no one else came close to that jacked up his figures and were beyond his control.
I know I'm cherry picking a couple of years here, but my point is that Roger Clemens' numbers are at least as stupid as Barry Bonds, if not more so, and that needs to be explained more than just the NL. Bronson Arroyo is a lousy comp because he had a great first year in the league, but last year came back down to earth with numbers similar to his Boston stats, which implies that the league figured him out. Clemens was actually much better in years 2 and 3 in Houston than he was in year 1, which rules out that explanation.
I don't think any of it is a race issue, I think its an irrational hatred of Barry Bonds issue.
Statistically, as much as 2005 stands out... it was just one year, the rest of the time, his numbers were within his career averages and the fact that the NL IS a more pitcher friendly environment made it a lot easier to overlook a one year aberration. bonds was WAY over his career OPS+ average (182) for four straight years (259, 268, 231, 263) and it wasn't just the walking, his SLG% was 150-250 points over his average during those years.
um. what?
do you have any idea what you're talking about? saying people didn't want bonds to break the record because he's a douche bag isn't ridiculous, its true. what that has to do with clemens i'll never know. were there groups of fans some place rooting for him to be the one to break the HR record instead?
congress and the HR record are two different things. I understand you have a need to be right about everything and argue with just about whatever anyone says, but at least try to wrap your head around what others saying before you start your stupidity.
tighten up your helmet and have a good day.
douche bag.
do you have any idea what you're talking about? saying people didn't want bonds to break the record because he's a douche bag isn't ridiculous, its true. what that has to do with clemens i'll never know. were there groups of fans some place rooting for him to be the one to break the HR record instead?
congress and the HR record are two different things. I understand you have a need to be right about everything and argue with just about whatever anyone says, but at least try to wrap your head around what others saying before you start your stupidity.
tighten up your helmet and have a good day.
douche bag.
