Why Do I Continue to Read Peter King?

Reverend · Apr 10, 2012

drleather2001 said:
Um. I don't know, Peter. There are a lot of possible ways that could go. I'm no pro football writer or anything, but hasn't Belichick taken some flak for trading his high picks the last few years? It's arguable (at least in some parts of the internet) that they were one player away from winning it all in 2006, 2007, 2010, and 2011. One player. Yet BB often trades high picks. What if he didn't for one of those years? What if they had drafted a hot young receiver in 2006? What if they had drafted another offensive lineman in 2007? Who knows? And, frankly, isn't New England a "live-for-today" team? I mean, Brady isn't getting any younger. Maybe BB should think about moving up in the draft, no?

I guess my point is, Peter, I'm eager to hear your thoughts on this, because I am curious. This is a pretty huge draft for the Patriots.

Patriots might consider trading a draft pick? Edgy.

drleather2001 said:
SWEET!

But seriously, isn't it plainly obvious between this and the wierd "let-the-American-soldier-be-tried-for-murder-in-Afganistan!" comment a couple weeks back that King doesn't simply not understand the law (whatever), but actively avoids trying to engage in any analysis of it whatsoever? And, that would be fine (preferable, in fact), except he loves to bring up legal issues in his football blog! And, for the record "This is one of those cases where what's morally right [should trump legality]" is some pretty wishy-washy standard writing, there Peter. Who gets to be the moral arbiter? You?

Are you suggesting that there might actually be a significant moral imperative to developing a system of law to promote justice and right in the world rather than... wait for it... letting the King decide?

Wakka wakka wakka! :fonz:

Shelterdog · Apr 10, 2012

drleather2001 said:
At the very least, he gets docked a huge amount of points for having spent time with Parcells and not coming to the conclusion that he wasn't really into coaching. The fact is, he clearly thought opposite.

I'm not sure about that--Parcells might have been willing to do it (he certainly was telling the world that he wasn't uninterested in the position) but only for the right price, and he was just using King to broadcast his interest. Since King will do anything for a story King just repeats whatever bullshit Parcells gives him.

King's failing here is that, wittingly or not, he's just letting himself be a mouthpiece for somebody with a blatant agenda, and he's so fucking thankful for the information that he endorses the story he was given. For Pete's sake, he wrote an article about why Manning chose Denver in which he doesn't really analyze contract terms or money.

As is noted above, his other failing is that he's an asshole.

tims4wins · Apr 10, 2012

drleather2001 said:
What if they had drafted a hot young receiver in 2006?

Don't mean to pick on you because you do a tremendous job with your recaps... but I got a chuckle out of this one.

E5 Yaz · Apr 10, 2012

Reverend said:
Are you suggesting that there might actually be a significant moral imperative to developing a system of law to promote justice and right in the world rather than... wait for it... letting the King decide?

Oh but if I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away.

Worst Trade Evah · Apr 10, 2012

I love these recaps of drleather. "Monarch of Cocks" was a real gem. Tremendous work.

It's depressing that these guys who actually have access -- the one real advantage they have over the blogosphere or whatever -- just don't take full advantage.

Average Reds · Apr 10, 2012

Worst Trade Evah said:
I love these recaps of drleather. "Monarch of Cocks" was a real gem. Tremendous work.

It's depressing that these guys who actually have access -- the one real advantage they have over the blogosphere or whatever -- just don't take full advantage.

The cynic in me thinks that the real reason King torched Sean Pamphilon in his MMQB piece is that he was pissed that someone used information they gained through their access to break an actual story instead of burying it to curry favor with the powerful insiders.

Shelterdog · Apr 10, 2012

Average Reds said:
The cynic in me thinks that the real reason King torched Sean Pamphilon in his MMQB piece is that he was pissed that someone used information they gained through their access to break an actual story instead of burying it to curry favor with the powerful insiders.

And to show that he'll protect his sources unlike that Pamphilon guy. He also had some snippy tweets about how he had to leave good material out of the Peyton story because there was a misunderstanding about what was off the record, but that that's the way things work when you're a reporter--again highlighting that he's a very professional reporter who doesn't print good stories if his sources don't want them out there.

soxfan121 · Apr 10, 2012

Shelterdog said:
And to show that he'll protect his sources unlike that Pamphilon guy. He also had some snippy tweets about how he had to leave good material out of the Peyton story because there was a misunderstanding about what was off the record, but that that's the way things work when you're a reporter--again highlighting that he's a very professional reporter who doesn't print good stories if his sources don't want them out there.

I know you know this, but there is a significant difference between what King engages in (i.e. public relations for the NFL) and journalists. A journalist could get the information "out there" without compromising sources; King will sit on information (but let everyone know he has the info) to maintain his position as public relations flack for the NFL.

Average Reds · Apr 10, 2012

soxfan121 said:
I know you know this, but there is a significant difference between what King engages in (i.e. public relations for the NFL) and journalists. A journalist could get the information "out there" without compromising sources; King will sit on information (but let everyone know he has the info) to maintain his position as public relations flack for the NFL.

I think we all know this. However, while moralizing over Pamphilon's ethics, King reveals that he doesn't really understand this distinction.

I'm tremendously conflicted on this story. I've thought about it for three days straight, trying to divine what's right and wrong. I enrolled in college to study journalism in 1975, one year after the Watergate burglary and coverup forced Richard Nixon to resign the presidency. I'm all for the public's right to know. And in the end, I'm tempted to say the more clarity about this story the better, just so the public understands why Goodell acted with such an iron hand. But I can't get over the way the material was acquired and made public. It's just not right.

Peter King, serious journalist.

Mystic Merlin · Apr 10, 2012

He's 'all for the public's right to know', just not by the only means that right would conceivably be vindicated.

DJnVa · Apr 10, 2012

But I can't get over the way the material was acquired and made public. It's just not right.

So, help me out here. Pamphilon had permission to be in the locker room. He had permission to record audio. And according to Yahoo!, a contract that does not prohibit him from releasing audio or video footage before the film he was working on is released.

And, finally, when Gleason disagreed with him about the release, he went to a third party that advised him to release it.

What a dick.

Darnell's Son · Apr 11, 2012

DrewDawg said:
So, help me out here. Pamphilon had permission to be in the locker room. He had permission to record audio. And according to Yahoo!, a contract that does not prohibit him from releasing audio or video footage before the film he was working on is released.

And, finally, when Gleason disagreed with him about the release, he went to a third party that advised him to release it.

What a dick.

He broke the unwritten rule...or rules...or whatever. The guy is evil. Peter King would never report such an intriguing story! Peter King represents the pathetic anal licking drivel that results from "journalists" sucking from the NFL money teat. Think of how many people make money off of this "journalism". It's about the greater good! I don't get how you, Average Reds, Mystic Merlin, and that joker Dr. Leather can't get it through your thick skulls. Jesus! Why ask serious questions when you can get clicks by not questioning anything!?

Now let's talk about Starbucks and interesting beer brews like Blue Moon!!!!!

Reverend · Apr 13, 2012

The problem isn't that he isn't as ideologically pure, it's that he is pretending that he is, or at least possessing and adhering to the same bedrock principles but in a more mature manner.

That's why Darrel's Son is spot on--when confronted with a guy like Pamphilon who is doing real journalism, precisely because it is different from what he would do, he self-referentially sees it as an implicit indictment of his own approach [Nota: It is.] and so he delegitimates him. It's unbelievably self-serving: journalist does X and breaks big story; I wouldn't do X for fear of losing my beloved X; ergo X is not appropriate, QED. It's like asking Wormtongue what he thought about the ethical content of Gandalf's extremist behavior.

Shelterdog · Apr 13, 2012

Reverend said:
The problem isn't that he isn't as ideologically pure, it's that he is pretending that he is, or at least possessing and adhering to the same bedrock principles but in a more mature manner.

That's why Darrel's Son is spot on--when confronted with a guy like Pamphilon who is doing real journalism, precisely because it is different from what he would do, he self-referentially sees it as an implicit indictment of his own approach [Nota: It is.] and so he delegitimates him. It's unbelievably self-serving: journalist does X and breaks big story; I wouldn't do X for fear of losing my beloved X; ergo X is not appropriate, QED.

Remember he did his own gloss on Gleason and bountygate, http://sportsillustr...ason/index.html . His conclusion was
"This does such a shameful disservice to Steve Gleason that I almost puke thinking about it." (As an aside,
the Java Chip Frappuccino in a Trenta cup, 16 shots of espresso, a shot of soy milk, caramel flavoring, banana puree, strawberry puree, vanilla beans, Matcha powder, protein powder, and a drizzle of caramel and mocha might be causing the GI distress).

Oops. It sucks that Gleason has ALS but he's still no hero in this story; Gleason knew about the bounties and he want to keep the audiotape covered up. If King had done some reporting instead of some sermonizing he might have figured this out.

tims4wins · Apr 13, 2012

One of these days PK is going to suffer a heart attack from all of the horrible Starbucks he drinks, and there is going to be a long P&G thread in celebration. I for one eagerly anticipate that day.

Leather · Apr 16, 2012

i. Best two hours and nine minutes I spent, non-baseball edition: Watching To Kill a Mockingbird, 50 years after its release. Remind me to watch it again next year. And the year after that.

I wonder if PK knows it was a book first.

e. Mike Florio on the abomination of the Flyers-Penguins fight fest Sunday afternoon: "So when do former hockey players start suing the NHL over the referees allowing the players to pound the crap out of each other?''

4. I think if you love the Saints (or you simply can't agree with the league coming down on them like a ton of bricks for the bounty scandal), know this: The number of players involved in concussion- or head-trauma-related lawsuits against the NFL now is 1,186. Someday those cases are going to get to a courtroom somewhere. And someday Roger Goodell is probably going to have to testify about what an attorney will say is the NFL's lax approach to player safety. Don't think those sanctions were made in a vacuum.

aaaaand the people involved in those lawsuits won't give a shit about the sanctions handed out in year 2012, because their injuries occurred long before then, most of which from a time when Goodell wasn't even the commish.

I'm not arguing that the point about legal CYA isn't valid, but he's wrong on its relevancy, and it once again demonstrates that Peter King, no matter how much he thinks he's qualified to comment on the legal process because he's watched a fictional movie about a young girl's experience with racism that took place some 90 years ago 4 gimes, should not comment on the legal process. Yet he does, at least twice every monday.

Leather · Apr 16, 2012

Also,

o. Beernerdness: Spring at Fenway, and UFO Hefeweizen on tap in one of the stadium bars. Nothing wrong with that.

PK really likes some wimpy beers. He drinks like a 23-year old, female, grad student.

Leather · Apr 16, 2012

Of course it isn't.

I don't know why he can't call up a law professor and ask him about some of this stuff, if he genuinely thinks it's that interesting or important. For shit's sake, he lives in the most law-school-saturated market on the planet, it wouldn't be hard to get some torts prof on the phone for 10 minutes to ask him about potential liability for both sports. Unfortunately, King isn't interested in educating his readers so much as he delights in simply assigning significance to everyday observations.

Reverend · Apr 16, 2012

I don't suppose the King knows that criminal charges are occasional filed in response to one ice incidents in hockey?

Oddly enough, they're not filed against the refs, but against the actual perpetrators of violence.

4 6 3 DP · Apr 16, 2012

Without coming here to see the thoughts, I was blown away that King would suggest that Roger Goodell would make a decision that will change the course of an entire season based on trying to defend a lawsuit, without any analysis or commentary about it.

I mean, one could say that if players are afraid that they are human targets for compensated assassins, the quality of play will suffer, and therefore the league not only is worried about player safety but also the entire competitive balance of the league. But King implies this decision is to cover the league's ass and that to me is appalling.

TheoShmeo · Apr 17, 2012

4 6 3 DP said:
Without coming here to see the thoughts, I was blown away that King would suggest that Roger Goodell would make a decision that will change the course of an entire season based on trying to defend a lawsuit, without any analysis or commentary about it.

I mean, one could say that if players are afraid that they are human targets for compensated assassins, the quality of play will suffer, and therefore the league not only is worried about player safety but also the entire competitive balance of the league. But King implies this decision is to cover the league's ass and that to me is appalling.

I thoroughly enjoy picking on King and drleather's weekly rip jobs are now appointment reading for me.

But, respectfully, I think your reaction to King's implication is a little naive. Large institutions like the NFL routinely take actions with the goal of blunting litigation and things like the Saints bounty program are a plaintiff lawyer's wet dream.

I also think that King's implication is not mutually exclusive with the more noble goals that you mentioned and the NFL was likely motivated by a mixture of all of the above.

4 6 3 DP · Apr 17, 2012

I should have worded it differently. I see the point you're making.

BS_SoxFan · Apr 25, 2012

Getting this here for posterity before he deletes it.

Peter King &rlm; @SI_PeterKing

Close

This Richardson stuff is so silly--a great example of the circle-jerking of a jillion of us covering the draft for far, far too long.

Mystic Merlin · Apr 25, 2012

I'm really upset Courtney Upshaw called him 'sir'. King gets such a kick out of fealty.

Mystic Merlin · Apr 30, 2012

Peter de Tocqueville:

n. The stadium itself reminded me of the Diamondbacks stadium in Phoenix, a spacious monster, with a huge center field and that bizarre structure in left-center that I guess is supposed to illustrate the diversity and art and wildlife of south Florida but just looks awful. It's a comfy place. The food is tremendous; I strongly recommend the steak soft tacos (not sure if that's what they're called) at the Miami Mex stand in the upper deck.
I loved the diversity -- major league baseball, and all sports really, need to attract fans of all color and nationality, and two Latino families sat on either side of me. I wonder how long the fans will come. A vast number of them the other night were there to be social and to see the big new spaceship in Little Havana, not to watch the game.

Leather · Apr 30, 2012

Les Snead shouldn't be this smart as a first-year GM.
"Draft picks are like stocks,'' Snead said after midnight Friday. "But our draft, as a whole, is sort of like a mutual fund.''
I'll translate: Let's say you have seven picks in a seven-round draft, and you're coming off a 2-14 season, and you've got needs out the wazoo. The guys you pick in the first two or three rounds are guys you have confidence that as people and players will be good long-term investments. But if you have extra picks -- the Rams had four in the top 50 -- you can afford to try to hit a home run. If you fail, it's bad -- Pacman bad. If you succeed, it's great.

Um. "We have a lot of needs, so we want to go for a lot of good players, rather than pin our hopes to two guys" seems pretty basic. No translation necessary, Peter.

I really do think he's kind of a fucking dummy. Like, any time someone links football with finance, or the law, Peter gets really impressed. I bet he hears platitudes and cliches from people he considers smart (investment bankers and the like) and repeats them ad nauseum as if they are incredibly profound.

PK: "Hi Rich, how's work?"
Guy: "Well, Peter, it's ok. Market's struggling along. Housing is stiff iffy, and Europe is a question mark, so nobody is confident enough to invest big. It's kind of like how you need to figure out where a team's weaknesses are, and get a hold on them, before you can have any confidence in how to improve your team. Otherwise, you're just kind of guessing."
PK: [eyes go wide] "Wooooowwww."

Next Day, PK and his wife are watching TV, stock market report comes up:

PK: "You know, the stock market is a lot like a football team..."

To become a great general manager, you have to be willing to take some chances. You have to be willing, on draft day, to make decisions that can impact your team for the next few years, positively or negatively. You have to have the courage of your convictions that if you trade down and lose the player you wanted in the first place, you'll be OK with that; the risk was worth it.

"To be a great general manager, you have to do stuff. If it works out, great!"

This is totally meaningless. Peter King is saying nothing. Making a draft pick, or not making a draft pick, or trading down, or fucking taking a nap during the draft, all involve "taking chances", and all will either positively or negatively affect the team on draft day. It's impossible for a decision not to do one or the other.

I wonder if Peter King really believes this shit, or if he understands that drafting involves a hell of a lot of luck.

MyDaughterLovesTomGordon · Apr 30, 2012

Ha. To extend the thought, find a profession or life occupation in which you can't fill in the blanks of the following mad libs:

To become a great ......, you have to be willing to take some chances. You have to be willing, on .... day, to make decisions that can impact your ..... for the next few years, positively or negatively. You have to have the courage of your convictions that if you ..... and ...... happens, you'll be okay with that; the risk was worth it.

Just inane babble to fill space on the internet.

Mystic Merlin · Apr 30, 2012

Yeah, the most fitting word I can think of to describe it is 'piffle'.

dirtynine · Apr 30, 2012

To become a great [football insider], you have to be willing to take some chances. You have to be willing, on [any] day, to [avoid] decisions that can impact your [appearance of having insight] for the next few years, positively or negatively. You have to have the courage of your convictions that if you [write babble] and [anything] happens, you'll be okay with that; the risk was worth it.

Shelterdog · Apr 30, 2012

The irony is that the two teams with arguably the most long term success (steelers and giants) dont really take many chances in the draft or in free agency.

Reverend · Apr 30, 2012

Mystic Merlin said:
Peter de Tocqueville:

I can see why you posted without comment: that reads like parody.

drleather2001 said:
"To be a great general manager, you have to do stuff. If it works out, great!"

This is totally meaningless. Peter King is saying nothing. Making a draft pick, or not making a draft pick, or trading down, or fucking taking a nap during the draft, all involve "taking chances", and all will either positively or negatively affect the team on draft day. It's impossible for a decision not to do one or the other.

I wonder if Peter King really believes this shit, or if he understands that drafting involves a hell of a lot of luck.

MyDaughterLovesTomGordon said:
Ha. To extend the thought, find a profession or life occupation in which you can't fill in the blanks of the following mad libs:

To become a great ......, you have to be willing to take some chances. You have to be willing, on .... day, to make decisions that can impact your ..... for the next few years, positively or negatively. You have to have the courage of your convictions that if you ..... and ...... happens, you'll be okay with that; the risk was worth it.

Just inane babble to fill space on the internet.

Is it possible that King has been coasting for so long that he basically doesn't know what actual work is anymore? "Hey, what are you doing? Oh, work, huh? What's that involve? Really? Fascinating."

You know how when some comics make it big and start doing movie or tv, but then they realize that they need to go back on the road and do stand-up to sorta reboot because they're material's not fresh or pushing things anymore? I'm not sure what the journalistic equivalent is, but whatever it is, King should figure what it is and do it.

MyDaughterLovesTomGordon · May 2, 2012

My goodness do I dislike this man. The Saints player suspensions finally are out and guess what old Pete's lede is:

Saints bounty scandal 77, Patriots Spygate scandal 0

Why in fuck would players be suspended over the Spygate thing? Maybe (maybe) if you want to equate Belichick with Payton, that's fine, and it's at least a discussion, but once we've moved on to players it just makes no fucking sense.

The concept is pretty simple Pete: The folks who did bad stuff are going to be punished. Does he think the individual players were videotaping the opposing sidelines? And even if you make the argument that players benefitted from it, who would you suspend? Tom Brady, just because he's the best player or something? It's completely and totally asinine.

And yet Pete calls this "startling." Nevermind that there's a huge difference between trying to gain a competitive advantage and actually trying to end someone's career, but there are simply way more people directly involved that are easy to target for specific punishment.

Further, the Patriots were fined more money, and lost a more significant draft asset, which goes to show the ORGANIZATION was being punished in that case, and in this one it's the organization AND individuals. This is not a difficult concept to grasp.

Also, there's this:

It's ironic that, in my Monday column, I recalled a moment spent with Goodell late in 2010, when we were discussing something controversial that he could be at loggerheads with the union about. "We've got good lawyers too,'' Goodell said.

Wrong, Alanis, that's not ironic. That's fitting. It's apropos. It's foreshadowing. It's not ironic because he told you he's got good lawyers and then he went and hired a good lawyer. There you have it. Not close to ironic. Shut up you stupid, self-serving asshole. Go recall a moment spent with Goodell where you fondled his buttocks somewhere else.

Finally, this is such a bad final line I honestly can't tell if he's being sarcastic or not:

And it's hard to believe any player will ever attempt to injure another player in an NFL game again.

Huh? No. Actually, they'll try to injure each other all the time - they just won't do it because someone is paying them to do it in a fairly open way. If he's being sarcastic, as in, "fine them as much as you want, but football is football," I take it back. But I think he's saying that everyone will just be terrified because of the fines handed down, and it's just a totally ass-kissing stupid little finishing line it makes me want to puke.

bosox188 · May 2, 2012

Boy does he look like a jackass with that article given the news of Seau's suicide.

JBill · May 3, 2012

This is great, from King's twitter:

Funny story about London Fletcher. Early in his career, I christened him "the black Seau." Fletcher said to me: "What an honor!''

What? Maybe if by "funny" you mean "completely random." It hardly even qualifies as a "story." Should have read that one a couple times before tweeting out Pete...

Leather · May 3, 2012

I'm guessing PK gets a little thrill in his balls when he thinks that he's "down" with black people.

He's so fucking cool, reminding London Fletcher that he's black.

E5 Yaz · May 3, 2012

drleather2001 said:
I'm guessing PK gets a little thrill in his balls when he thinks that he's "down" with black people.

He's so fucking cool, reminding London Fletcher that he's black.

Give Peter some credit here. Maybe Fletcher didn't know he was black

Leather · May 7, 2012

4. I think it was good to see Ben Roethlisberger walking with the grads at Miami (Ohio) University Sunday. Roethlisberger got his Bachelor of Science in Education eight years after leaving campus for the NFL. What's not good is the petty attacks Roethlisberger took when I threw out kudos Saturday on Twitter. Those are the people who refuse to believe a person can change and grow, and who revel in keeping their opinions static. Roethlisberger, these people are certain, has abused women and thus will always be an abuser, and he can never move forward in his life.
I'm not sure who Ben Roethlisberger is right now, and I'm not sure if he'll ever be the kind of person you'd want your kids to emulate. But what I am sure of is this: People are capable of changing, and very often do change when tumultuous events rake their lives. That, however, is something none of you Twitter abusers believe can happen.

What a kiss ass. I wonder if Ben gave him this shirt (picture posted about 3 paragraphs later):

Property of the Pittsburgh Steelers, indeed.

e. My favorite quote from Saturday morning walking around the monuments in Washington comes from the Jefferson Memorial:
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.''
In other words, don't tell me we cannot amend laws that don't apply, or laws that must be fitted to our society today.

Peter King: Consitutional Scholar.

l. Coffeenerdness: Can you vary the baked goods, Starbucks? Are we fated to looking at the same doughy, tasteless scones for the rest of our lives?

PeterKingNerdness: Can you at least fucking try to eat/drink something that doesn't come from Starbucks (or out of a beer tap), you boring fuck? Is Starbucks fated to serving your doughy, tasteless, face every day for the rest of your life?

Also, Peter King believes that all people are capable of changing, no matter how heinous their past. I disagree. As evidence that some people are incapable of changing, I point to Peter King.

dirtynine · May 7, 2012

I wonder what PK's thoughts on Chris Brown are.

ed. sucky grammar

Leather · May 7, 2012

dirtynine said:
I wonder what PKs thoughts in Chris Brown are.

I dunno. Did he take 9 years to complete 4 courses to get a college degree for which he no doubt had 90% of the work done for him as part of an obvious effort to improve his image with the public in the latter half of his career?

In other words, does Chris Brown have a good public relations consultant, like Ben?

Mystic Merlin · May 7, 2012

Peter King: Consitutional Scholar.

I was literally about to post this exact phrase. I am scared.

Leather · May 7, 2012

With the same misspelling? Uncanny.

dirtynine · May 7, 2012

l. Coffeenerdness: Can you vary the baked goods, Starbucks? Are we fated to looking at the same doughy, tasteless scones for the rest of our lives?

I'm forced to see Starbucks' cake lollipops as an attempt to give Peter King his binkie.

pedro1918 · May 7, 2012

The end for Patriots left tackle Matt Light comes this morning in Foxboro.

After the death of Seau, I wanted to find a story this morning of a man leaving the game who -- at least in my opinion -- could be a good model for the NFL for players' lives after football. Light, drafted in the second round by the Patriots in 2001, had a very good 11-year NFL career and played in five Super Bowls. I've gotten to know him pretty well as a player and as a person off the field, because of his extensive charity work, both with his foundation and other pet projects, including the Greater Boston Food Bank.

[peterking]...but he should have been suspended for Spygate.[/peterking]

Corsi · May 7, 2012

drleather2001 said:
What a kiss ass. I wonder if Ben gave him this shirt (picture posted about 3 paragraphs later):

Property of the Pittsburgh Steelers, indeed.

Love your analysis, as always, but that's a Pirates hoodie.

Leather · May 7, 2012

Oh, total brainfart. I meant to write "Pirates". Coffee hasn't kicked in yet.

Heh? HEH?

But seriously, I should have looked closer. But also, what the fuck is he doing wearing a pirates shirt to a Sox game at Fenway? I thought he turned into Sox Fan #1 a few years back.

Reverend · May 7, 2012

drleather2001 said:
In other words, don't tell me we cannot amend laws that don't apply, or laws that must be fitted to our society today.

Click to expand...

Peter King: Consitutional Scholar.

Is anyone telling him that we can't change the laws? Does anyone even think this?

This is the same crap that goes on on the mainboard with Valentine where someone imagines someone else taking a silly position and then getting angry that anyone would take that position even though nobody has and then they started arguing against these people who don't actually exist.

Or, in the words of Homer Simpson: "In your face, hypothetical guy!!"

Why Do I Continue to Read Peter King?

for king and country

Well-Known Member

PN23's replacement

polka king

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

JAG

Member

Member

Dorito Dawg

He's a machine.

has fancy plans, and pants to match

for king and country

Well-Known Member

PN23's replacement

given himself a skunk spot

given himself a skunk spot

has fancy plans, and pants to match

given himself a skunk spot

for king and country

Member

Skrub's sympathy case

Member

Member

Member

Member

given himself a skunk spot

Member

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

has fancy plans, and pants to match

for king and country

has fancy plans, and pants to match

Member

Member

Member

given himself a skunk spot

polka king

given himself a skunk spot

Member

given himself a skunk spot

Member

given himself a skunk spot

Member

Member

isn't shy about blowing his wad early

given himself a skunk spot

for king and country