Around Geoff Baker: Feb. 18, 2011

Click here for today’s “Around The Blogosphere” video.

As you can see, despite attempts to casually move away from the painting to his left (our right), the painting is clearly inching its way closer towards Geoff. It’s only a matter of time now…

It has become apparent that Geoff is under the impression that only two colors look good on him: charcoal and black.

Ladies, Geoff has done you a solid today by undoing another button on his shirt. If you look closely, you can even see some chest pubes poking out there. I figured Geoff to be a waxer. It does not appear that that’s the case.

It is my opinion that a gold chain would be a valuable accessory for Geoff’s wardrobe today. Just a thought.

The current odds on what Geoff is looking at on that computer screen while filming ATB are as follows:

Images of himself via Facebook: 1.5-to-1

Images of himself via a photo storage site, such as Snapfish, Picasa, or Photobucket: 2-to-1

An episode of Degrassi Junior High: 3-to-1

Naked photos of Gary Carter: 6-to-1

An episode of The Kids in the Hall: 10-to-1

Images of himself via MySpace: 20-to-1

Clothed photos of Gary Carter: 45-to-1

Naked photos of former Montreal Expos mascot, Youppi: 75-to-1

Your blog: 100-to-1

My blog: 1,000-to-1

Geoff’s hair is slightly unkempt once again. I’m getting worried about his late-night party habits. The women of Peoria can only take so much.

4 thoughts on “Around Geoff Baker: Feb. 18, 2011”

  1. Why all the Geoff Baker hate? He knows his shit and doesn’t sugar-coat how awful the Mariners are. His segment with Mitch during season is among the best on local radio if you like actual baseball talk. Don’t get me wrong, I’m well aware of the observations. They’re funny as hell. Just thought I’d throw some props his way.

  2. To be clear, I think Geoff is a great guy. And nowhere in any of these segments will you find disdain for Geoff.

    I just think the world needs more Geoff Baker and I’m bringing it.

  3. My letter sent to Karl Rove [The idiot pradener]Mr. Rove;I have for years thought you were a fairly intellectual and level headed person, however you statements concerning the so-called brithers anly paints you as a kool-aide swilling idiot.Again, you sink to new levels of stupidity. I would relish the opportunity to actually eduacate you on the matter, but I realize that in the face of a mountain of evidence that contradicts your belief that Barack Abdallah Husein Obama is fact legitimate ‘Natural Born citizen’ of the United States as required by the United States Constitution, you’d cower and cringe at the facts. Your making yourself look like a fool, when you attempt to lie your ass off to the American public. Explain the following from the Kenyan Government official, If America was living in a situation where they feared ethnicity and did not see itself as a multiparty state or nation, how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the President of America?Why are numerous newspaper articles [archived] all state ‘Kenyan-Born’ or that Obama’s own wife stated on video that her husband a ‘Kenyan’ or that Obama’s Home country is ‘Kenya’. Yes, Mr. Rove all you taut is a forgery and fabricated past. You are nothing but a traitor to the United States of America. Here’s one more tidbit to chew on Mr Rove;The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.-Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)Now does the offspring of a foreign national, a British subject with a questionable birth, equate to being born of US Citizen parent(s)? United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were “free white persons” of “good moral character”. It thus left out indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and later Asians. While women were included in the act, the right of citizenship did “not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States….” Citizenship was inherited exclusively through the father. Think about Mr Rove, everytime you mis-quote and speak your foolishness is showing.Care to debate and actually see the evidence.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s