Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, July 02, 2012

OT-P: July: Obamacare Decision as Baseball: the Runner is Safe, so Now What?

My favorite play in baseball is the second base steal. In the play, the base runner watches the pitch, and at just the right moment, he sprints toward second. The catcher snatches the pitch, springs up and rockets the ball to the second baseman who snags it and tries to tag the runner as he slides into the base. As the dust clears, all eyes are on the second base umpire who, in a split second, calls the runner safe or out. When the play is over, the players dust themselves off, and the game goes on.

Some on the field may disagree with the umpire’s call.  However, the umpire’s decision is final, and arguing can get you ejected. To stay in the game, great teams simply adjust their strategy based on the umpire’s call.

 

Morty Causa Posted: July 02, 2012 at 02:26 PM | 4025 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: politics, special topics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 9 of 41 pages ‹ First  < 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 >  Last ›
   801. Spahn Insane Posted: July 05, 2012 at 05:16 PM (#4173938)
Don't forget the high-five after the circle jerk, boys. It's the best way to smear all of your jizz together but still make sure no one thinks you're gay, bros.

Eew.
   802. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 05, 2012 at 05:19 PM (#4173942)
Mr. Furtado, I think you can use Ray's logic here to induce him to make an infinite financial contribution to this site. He makes one already, which is evidence that he likes to give a financial contribution to this site. And if he truly liked it, he would pay more.


Wow. Apparently logic just completely escapes some people.

I contributed to his site even though I didn't have to pay a dime.

Liberals paid their taxes after being required to. (Oh, one of them forgot to cash his refund check, so that totally counts as voluntarily giving extra tax money to the government.)
   803. Shredder Posted: July 05, 2012 at 05:21 PM (#4173945)
I appreciate your honesty in saying this.

Ditto; I disagree with the position, but at least it's intellectually consistent vis. his position on the ACA.
It also makes it easier when it comes time to tell all of the people with infectious diseases and can't afford treatment where they should hang out. If we're gonna prefer to let poor people die in the street, we should at least allow them to choose which street they'd like to die on. Though something tells me the Good Face would be pretty quick to call for state intervention once the corpses started piling up.
   804. Brian C Posted: July 05, 2012 at 05:23 PM (#4173946)
Liberals paid their taxes after being required to. (Oh, one of them forgot to cash his refund check, so that totally counts as voluntarily giving extra tax money to the government.)

Either way, what's the point? We've moved on from the compassion angle, and numerous people have better restated the idea behind whay they're not bothered by paying taxes (away from "liking" it). You're arguing against the wall here.
   805. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 05, 2012 at 05:27 PM (#4173947)
But why should random acts of charity like this be necessary?

I responded, but I feel the need to re-respond. The mindset behind this question is just unfathomable. You have a friend who has suffered a unavoidable tragedy. And your question is, "Why should it be necessary to help my friend?" Implying, "Why shouldn't someone else do it, someone who neither likes nor even knows this person?"


I asked that question for the simple (and already stated) reason that not everyone has access to friends with disposable income. What becomes of people like that? Under your scenario, if you're not well-connected (or if you're not particularly likeable) you're out of luck.

If, instead of being sick, your friend was moving across town, would you help him pack and move his stuff? After doing so, would you ask, "Why should random acts of charity like this be necessary?" He's your freaking friend. If you want to help him, help him. If you don't think he's worthy of your help, then why should anybody else? The idea behind the welfare state is as a safety net -- that is, if you fall through the cracks in private assistance for whatever reason (perhaps you're a jerk like Sam and have no friends or colleagues), then there's still the government there to catch you before you splatter on the pavement. The safety net isn't the first line of defense.

So I suppose that everyone who was in my friend's position, but who wasn't in a similar circle, should be required to provide some sort of solemnly sworn proof that he had no private help available before getting government assistance. I suppose he should also be required to sell all of his personal belongings as well, and listen to hymns from the Salvation Army choir. Sounds like a real winner.

Of course your own mindset is unfathomable to everyone here but your pidgin libertarian dittoheads, but that's not exactly new news, and doesn't require further comment.

   806. The Good Face Posted: July 05, 2012 at 05:27 PM (#4173948)
It also makes it easier when it comes time to tell all of the people with infectious diseases and can't afford treatment where they should hang out. If we're gonna prefer to let poor people die in the street, we should at least allow them to choose which street they'd like to die on. Though something tells me the Good Face would be pretty quick to call the cops once the corpses started piling up.


Lulz! Oh noes, teh poor peoples are going to DIE IN THE STREET! Won't somebody think of the childrens at gunpoint!

   807. billyshears Posted: July 05, 2012 at 05:28 PM (#4173949)
No, the exception is that people have an unalienable right not to be murdered or have their homes burglarized.


I don't think that matters, or that they even do. I mean, it's a good thing that the state tries to prevent this sort of thing. But then some ####### breaks into your house, steals your stuff and kills you. Is the big concern that your rights have been violated? Is that why we have the laws against murder and burglary? Or did people just decide that it would really suck to get robbed and murdered so they did what they could as a society to make sure this kind of thing happens as little as possible, mostly through the passage and enforcement of laws.

In short, the idea of unalienable or fundamental rights that exist in the ether is kind of bullshit. There is some sort of universal package of rights that is optimal and which makes for the healthiest, happiest, most high functioning of societies. But declaring certain rights unalienable or fundamental while others insignificant or non-existent (like the right to basic healthcare) is just an attmempt to declare unilaterally that certain things are yours. It doesn't really work that way. As far as I can see, the whole "This mine/No it's not" argument is pretty much the central axis on which every libertarian/non-libertarian argument rotates.
   808. Shredder Posted: July 05, 2012 at 05:29 PM (#4173950)
Lulz! Oh noes, teh poor peoples are going to DIE IN THE STREET! Won't somebody think of the childrens at gunpoint!
It's your stated view that you would find this preferable to requiring hospitals to treat the indigent. You said it yourself. Pretty easy to hold a ridiculous view that you know never has any chance of actually becoming a legal reality.
   809. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 05, 2012 at 05:35 PM (#4173952)
So I suppose that everyone who was in my friend's position, but who wasn't in a similar circle, should be required to provide some sort of solemnly sworn proof that he had no private help available before getting government assistance. I suppose he should also be required to sell all of his personal belongings as well. Sounds like a real winner.


Hmm. Actually, I think you're onto something here. If only the ACA had such a provision. Make someone list in a sworn affidavit all of the efforts they went through to pay for their own health insurance before they stuck their hand out and took someone else's money. And then penalize them for false statements if they were found to have lied.

Also, I really don't understand why you think the greater evil is someone being required to sell his own personal belongings in order to provide for himself, compared to some random schmuck being forced to give away his own money. Thus, the schmuck is prevented from adding to his own personal belongings so that the person with his hand out can keep or add to his.
   810. The Good Face Posted: July 05, 2012 at 05:35 PM (#4173954)
It's your stated view that you would find this preferable to requiring hospitals to treat the indigent. You said it yourself. Pretty easy to hold a ridiculous view that you know never has any chance of actually becoming a legal reality.


Oh god, you were actually serious?!?

Ok, throughout most of human history, there was no socialized medicine or governmental obligation to provide healthcare. And yet streets existed. And they weren't all the time choked with dying people. Honest.

   811. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 05, 2012 at 05:39 PM (#4173957)
Either way, what's the point? We've moved on from the compassion angle,


I know that's an inconvenient angle for people here, but clearly we hadn't "moved on" from it - if we had, there'd have been no post for me on the subject to respond to.
   812. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 05, 2012 at 05:40 PM (#4173959)
I believe that people who can't afford medical care and can't find anybody willing to volunteer to provide it or pay for it should go without....

Lulz! Oh noes, teh poor peoples are going to DIE IN THE STREET! Won't somebody think of the childrens at gunpoint!


In a perfect world people with attitudes like Good Face's would just be shot on sight and their corpses left to rot. And if that gets the thread shut down, frankly I don't care, since the same handful of professional trolls have pretty much drained it of any value.
   813. Brian C Posted: July 05, 2012 at 05:41 PM (#4173960)
Ok, throughout most of human history, there was no socialized medicine or governmental obligation to provide healthcare. And yet streets existed. And they weren't all the time choked with dying people. Honest.

Well, no, of course not, thanks to these guys.
   814. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 05, 2012 at 05:43 PM (#4173961)
I know that's an inconvenient angle for people here, but clearly we hadn't "moved on" from it - if we had, there'd have been no post for me on the subject to respond to.


Leave the matchsticks be, Raymond.
   815. Brian C Posted: July 05, 2012 at 05:43 PM (#4173962)
In a perfect world people with attitudes like Good Face's would just be shot on sight and their corpses left to rot.

See, Ray? I told you we've moved on from the compassion angle.
   816. billyshears Posted: July 05, 2012 at 05:43 PM (#4173964)
Now, self-defense, sure. I can delegate my right to self-defense to the state because it's more efficient at exercising that right than I am individually.


If the government charged people for the propection of their property rights in proportion to the value of that protection to that individual, rather than in proportion to their income, I'd have a lot more understanding of the libertarian position. In my view, the fact that the government doesn't price security services on market principles pretty much offets any libertarian arguments about the injustice of the violation of property rights by way of taxation.
   817. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 05, 2012 at 05:46 PM (#4173967)
See, Ray? I told you we've moved on from the compassion angle.

Compassion has its limits.
   818. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: July 05, 2012 at 05:47 PM (#4173968)
Now, self-defense, sure. I can delegate my right to self-defense to the state because it's more efficient at exercising that right than I am individually.
I missed this. Why am I paying for your self-defense? Can it be for the same reason you're paying for my health care?
   819. villageidiom Posted: July 05, 2012 at 05:50 PM (#4173971)
Dialing from pages ago...
But meanwhile Obama, coming off 2008 where he had quite a few plans for the future, seems to have almost nothing to offer this time except I'm Not Romney.
Obama campaigned on effectively five major themes:

1. End the war in Iraq. Done.

2. Universal health care. Done. You can quibble about "how" done it is, but it's a lot more done than it was when he took office.

3. Improve our diplomatic standing among other nations. Significant progress.

4. Energy independence. Not nearly done, but there's some progress.

5. Cooperation in DC. Effectively no progress, although in some ways the ACA reflected some degree of progress. (The ACA bill was written by the majority, but over time bent increasingly toward the minority until it had enough votes to pass. That's pretty much how Congress works, when it works.) Otherwise there's been a remarkable lack of progress; we lost our AAA bond rating pretty much because of a demonstrated lack of interest in cooperation. (Blame whoever you want; but here I'm talking about results on Obama's action list. This is a very poor result.)

At this point in the campaign cycle, Obama hasn't had to campaign on the specifics yet. He's the incumbent, running unopposed for his party's nomination. I figure at the DNC he'll list off the above, hit the highlights, avoid the lowlights except to say he needs more time to finish the job (and more reasonable people in Congress), and accentuate the positives on bailouts and the economy. He'll repeat the claim from two years ago that the GOP's platform is still "NO!" with no specific ideas for alternatives, except he'll note that Romney is the perfect figurehead for a platform of contradiction without constructiveness.

Whether that will actually work for him, I don't know. But if the GOP claims he's accomplished nothing... well, he's actually accomplished a lot of what he campaigned on in 2008.
   820. The Good Face Posted: July 05, 2012 at 05:54 PM (#4173972)
If the government charged people for the propection of their property rights in proportion to the value of that protection to that individual, rather than in proportion to their income, I'd have a lot more understanding of the libertarian position. In my view, the fact that the government doesn't price security services on market principles pretty much offets any libertarian arguments about the injustice of the violation of property rights by way of taxation.


It doesn't cost any more to hire somebody to protect a diamond than it does a lump of ####.
   821. formerly dp Posted: July 05, 2012 at 05:56 PM (#4173978)
Andy,, no reason for Benji Molina to attempt a steal with Rickey in the lineup.
   822. billyshears Posted: July 05, 2012 at 06:01 PM (#4173981)
It doesn't cost any more to hire somebody to protect a diamond than it does a lump of ####.


1. Nobody protects a lump of ####. So all the people that are paying the government to protect their lump of #### can stop. The people with diamonds will have to stop freeloading on the people with the ####.

2. I must have missed the part in economics class where the price of a good or service is determined purely based on the cost of providing that service.
   823. Brian C Posted: July 05, 2012 at 06:01 PM (#4173982)
It doesn't cost any more to hire somebody to protect a diamond than it does a lump of ####.

Irrelevant. In a free market situation, you'll be bidding for security services according to the "market principles" of supply and demand. Cost doesn't have much to do with it.

EDIT: Coke to billy. Good Face needs a remedial econ lesson if he doesn't want to look like an idiot, and it's one more piece of evidence that libertarians don't really understand the world that they're advocating for.
   824. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 05, 2012 at 06:02 PM (#4173985)
In a perfect world people with attitudes like Good Face's would just be shot on sight and their corpses left to rot.


Shot on sight for holding a viewpoint you disagree with? Wow.

So much for free expression. Or even free thought.
   825. Greg K Posted: July 05, 2012 at 06:06 PM (#4173987)
There were declines in poverty because the industrial revolution, capitalism, and trade made the world richer.

I'd argue it's more accurate to say that the industrial revolution made pre-existing forms of poor relief obselete and made poverty an issue that government and private individuals struggled with throughout the 19th century with varying degrees of success.
   826. Greg K Posted: July 05, 2012 at 06:08 PM (#4173990)
As always I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to American history, but I know the mid-19th century is a virtual gold mine when it comes to researching questions of how best to provide for the poor.



Where'd ya learn that, some egghead professor in a fancy college? What a snob.

I realize now I left out a rather key word in that sentence. "Britain" should be squeezed in after "mid-19th century".
   827. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: July 05, 2012 at 06:10 PM (#4173991)
Whatever, snobby.
   828. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: July 05, 2012 at 06:11 PM (#4173994)
Shot on sight for holding a viewpoint you disagree with? Wow.

So much for free expression. Or even free thought.


Yeah, it's ok to expect the terminally ill poor to wander off into the wilderness to die. That viewpoint isn't deserving of ridicule.
   829. Greg K Posted: July 05, 2012 at 06:12 PM (#4173995)
And yet streets existed. And they weren't all the time choked with dying people. Honest.

Perhaps not, but when the time machine gets invented I'm sure as hell taking all my shots before walking them.
   830. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: July 05, 2012 at 06:13 PM (#4173996)
1. Nobody protects a lump of ####.


How ignorant. I can assure you Don King has a bodyguard.
   831. The Good Face Posted: July 05, 2012 at 06:15 PM (#4173998)
1. Nobody protects a lump of ####. So all the people that are paying the government to protect their lump of #### can stop. The people with diamonds will have to stop freeloading on the people with the ####.


I would think most people value their lives more than a lump of ####, but if you're advocating a world where we can kill the people who don't pay for government protection, I'll get on board. The most dangerous game and all that.

2. I must have missed the part in economics class where the price of a good or service is determined purely based on the cost of providing that service.


So you want market based solutions but only within the context of a government monopoly?

Just be honest and say you want a tax on wealth instead of torturing free market principles.
   832. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 05, 2012 at 06:16 PM (#4173999)
In a perfect world people with attitudes like Good Face's would just be shot on sight and their corpses left to rot.

Shot on sight for holding a viewpoint you disagree with? Wow.


Considering that that "viewpoint" you refer to amounted to a call for death by omission for those who can't afford medical care and don't have friends to pay for it, I make no apology for my reaction.

So much for free expression. Or even free thought.

Let's just say that one good free expression deserves another. But I'll amend my comment to simply say that it's too bad his mother didn't visit a safe and legal abortionist, so that the world could be spared of his particular brand of poison.
   833. Spahn Insane Posted: July 05, 2012 at 06:16 PM (#4174000)
Yeah, it's ok to expect the terminally ill poor to wander off into the wilderness to die. That viewpoint isn't deserving of ridicule.

Leaving aside that the post that drew Ray's ire was obviously hyperbolic (and in a way that directly satirized the post IT responded to) anyway.

EDIT: Or, perhaps not.
   834. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 05, 2012 at 06:22 PM (#4174002)
I feel like a xenobiologist or something. Pretend I'm raising an eyebrow and saying "Fascinating!" if that helps.


... nope, I still see you as Blofeld (Donald Pleasance version), can't see you as Spock, but if I squint real hard I can kind've see Dr Emilio Lizardo...

Ray, now Ray I see as this certain rightwinger in my Roto league...

I look a lot like, and sound a lot like Will Carroll... if any of you have met him or seen his webcasts, you know that's not a good thing... the camera is not my friend
   835. The Good Face Posted: July 05, 2012 at 06:23 PM (#4174003)
Shot on sight for holding a viewpoint you disagree with? Wow.

So much for free expression. Or even free thought.


Eh, it's more amusing than anything. Just shows how fragile some folks here really are. No need to insult or threaten... just challenge their assumptions and watch the hissy fits.
   836. Spahn Insane Posted: July 05, 2012 at 06:24 PM (#4174005)
I feel like a xenobiologist or something. Pretend I'm raising an eyebrow and saying "Fascinating!" if that helps.

Quite--I oppose government action that I perceive to harm me, and support that which I perceive to benefit me. Fascinating, indeed! (Why, it's almost as if I'm more a pragmatist than an ideologue, or something.)
   837. formerly dp Posted: July 05, 2012 at 06:25 PM (#4174006)
It doesn't cost any more to hire somebody to protect a diamond than it does a lump of ####.


Not very good at this part of the game, eh?
   838. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 05, 2012 at 06:26 PM (#4174007)
1. End the war in Iraq. Done.

2. Universal health care. Done. You can quibble about "how" done it is, but it's a lot more done than it was when he took office.

3. Improve our diplomatic standing among other nations. Significant progress.

4. Energy independence. Not nearly done, but there's some progress.

5. Cooperation in DC. Effectively no progress,


1: Well it was gonna end one way or another, even Nixon eventually ended Vietnam
2: Sort of I guess, I think certain Senators and Congressmen pulled a lot more of this weight than Obama did though
3: All he had to do was not have Cheney be his Veep and not send Bolton to the UN
4: Not possible, a false goal
5: Out of his control, he was late to realize that there could be none

   839. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 05, 2012 at 06:32 PM (#4174012)
It doesn't cost any more to hire somebody to protect a diamond than it does a lump of ####.


This is wrong.

You can hire someone to protect a lump of #### far more cheaply:

1: What you are paying the dude is more than he could get by stealing your lump and fencing it
2: You don't care who you are hiring to protect that lump, with the diamond you are going to spend time and effort on researching his background.
3; You don't care if the guard for your lump of #### has any training or experience...
4: In addition to raw pay, you may offer all sorts of incentives- healthcare- job security, employee restrooms, lunchrooms etc., to incubate some sense of loyalty in the guy you hire to guard the diamond
5: You are probably going to take out a fidelity bond to insure you in case the guy guarding your diamond steals it, not so teh guy guarding your lump.
   840. Spahn Insane Posted: July 05, 2012 at 06:36 PM (#4174014)
5: You are probably going to take out a fidelity bond to insure you in case the guy guarding your diamond steals it, not so teh guy guarding your lump.

Well, sure--if we're talking YOUR garden-variety shite. You're forgetting that Good Face's doesn't stink.
   841. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 05, 2012 at 06:40 PM (#4174016)
Let's try to put this trainwreck back on the tracks.

Conor Friedersdorf:

Health care is hugely important. If Mitt Romney took office and wanted to replace Obamacare with the package of reforms laid out in "How American Health Care Killed My Father," I'd support him, for I have little faith in the recent reforms. But treating the individual mandate as a particularly dire affront to liberty and elevating its repeal to priority number one in a Romney Administration?

Why would anyone who cares about liberty want that?
   842. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: July 05, 2012 at 06:43 PM (#4174018)
Irrelevant. In a free market situation, you'll be bidding for security services according to the "market principles" of supply and demand. Cost doesn't have much to do with it.

EDIT: Coke to billy. Good Face needs a remedial econ lesson if he doesn't want to look like an idiot, and it's one more piece of evidence that libertarians don't really understand the world that they're advocating for.


There's not exactly a shortage of supply of people wllling to provide private security services; when I walk around Manhattan it seems like that's the only growth industry. In a world without government security, the rich would be able to hire their own protection relatively cheaply -- I mean, they already do so anyway.
   843. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 05, 2012 at 06:49 PM (#4174020)
Yeah, it's ok to expect the terminally ill poor to wander off into the wilderness to die. That viewpoint isn't deserving of ridicule.

Leaving aside that the post that drew Ray's ire was obviously hyperbolic (and in a way that directly satirized the post IT responded to) anyway.

EDIT: Or, perhaps not.


It may have been out of line, but it's wasn't satirical in the least. People like that can wantonly consign entire classes of people to undeserved deaths, and that's just "free speech"? Please. I know that the macho boys like to flaunt how Big and Tough they are, but when you write crap like this....

I believe that people who can't afford medical care and can't find anybody willing to volunteer to provide it or pay for it should go without.


....AFAIC a reaction like mine is perfectly appropriate.
   844. Brian C Posted: July 05, 2012 at 06:54 PM (#4174022)
There's not exactly a shortage of supply of people wllling to provide private security services; when I walk around Manhattan it seems like that's the only growth industry. In a world without government security, the rich would be able to hire their own protection relatively cheaply -- I mean, they already do so anyway.

Maybe, maybe not ... but "cost" still doesn't have much to do with it, and the price of security would fluctuate like any other industry regardless of cost.

In a world without government security, though, I'd guess that security would be vastly more expensive than it is now. I suppose it's probably true now that the rich can in many cases hire security for relatively cheaply, but that's because much of the burden of security has already been taken up by the law and order established by the government. When rich people are traveling to areas without that law and order, they pay quite a bit more for their security!
   845. Brian C Posted: July 05, 2012 at 06:54 PM (#4174024)
People like that can wantonly consign entire classes of people to undeserved deaths, and that's just "free speech"?

Well, yeah ... it pretty much is.
   846. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 05, 2012 at 06:56 PM (#4174026)
I would think most people value their lives more than a lump of ####

While all men are created equal, not all of them are worth $11,290.
   847. The Good Face Posted: July 05, 2012 at 07:00 PM (#4174029)
I know that the macho boys like to flaunt how Big and Tough they are


And yet you're the guy talking about killing perfect strangers on the intarwebs. Actually you were talking about somebody else doing it FOR you, sorry, didn't want to give you undue credit. Sam Hutcheson is a violent lunatic who frequently makes death threats against strangers, but at least he maintains a DIY ethos. That's something.
   848. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: July 05, 2012 at 07:03 PM (#4174033)
You're still here? I wished you into the cornfield.
   849. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 05, 2012 at 07:04 PM (#4174035)
People like that can wantonly consign entire classes of people to undeserved deaths, and that's just "free speech"?

Well, yeah ... it pretty much is.


As was my reaction to it, which at least had the virtue of targeting but one person for oblivion rather than several million. But hell, I don't even own a gun, and the only things I've ever shot at were wooden ducks on a chain at an amusement park.
   850. Brian C Posted: July 05, 2012 at 07:07 PM (#4174039)
As was my reaction to it, which at least had the virtue of targeting but one person for oblivion rather than several million

To paraphrase Major Calloway, "that's a fine boast to make".
   851. Jay Z Posted: July 05, 2012 at 07:14 PM (#4174042)
There's not exactly a shortage of supply of people wllling to provide private security services; when I walk around Manhattan it seems like that's the only growth industry. In a world without government security, the rich would be able to hire their own protection relatively cheaply -- I mean, they already do so anyway.


In a world without government security, what prevents your private security guard from simply taking your stuff if he's more powerful than you? The government doesn't have any ability to discipline. Attila Jr. will be the world's richest man.

Not that there should be anything wrong with this world to the libertarians, since forcing people to pay for someone else's property protection should be as evil as anything else government does. They all tend to ignore this, though. Those that don't are anarchists, which is at least a philosophically consistent world view instead of the utter hypocrisy of libertarnism.
   852. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: July 05, 2012 at 07:25 PM (#4174047)
And yet you're the guy talking about killing perfect strangers on the intarwebs.
Meh. Karma. The right has been using the whole killing-strangers-on-the-Internet thing for a long time. Lefties who didn't support GWB and the GOP after 9/11 were labeled traitors, fit only to be rounded up and put to death. It's rather hysterical to me that it's suddenly offensive to say that others should die when righties have been saying I should be killed for the better part of a decade.
   853. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 05, 2012 at 07:30 PM (#4174051)
It's all good unless the person is shot... at gunpoint!
   854. Dan Szymborski Posted: July 05, 2012 at 07:38 PM (#4174054)
Considering that that "viewpoint" you refer to amounted to a call for death by omission for those who can't afford medical care and don't have friends to pay for it, I make no apology for my reaction.

Get off the cross, Andy. Every policy that even remotely involves a safety issue involves costs that we choose to ignore that would prevent deaths.

Are you in favor of laws that require all cars to be giant inflatable cubes that travel at a maximum speed of 2 MPH? If not, why not? A million people die every year due to traffic accidents. Why are you calling for the deaths of a million people? Should we call you Andy the Murderer?

Or are there in fact, tradeoffs that involve the deaths of people, from swimming in the ocean to use of alcohol to eating meat and shellfish, at which we inevitably will "cause" deaths to happen unless we draw the line at the most extreme place possible?



   855. Dan Szymborski Posted: July 05, 2012 at 07:42 PM (#4174055)
Lefties who didn't support GWB and the GOP after 9/11 were labeled traitors, fit only to be rounded up and put to death. It's rather hysterical to me that it's suddenly offensive to say that others should die when righties have been saying I should be killed for the better part of a decade.


Here? "Turnabout is fair play" doesn't work unless you're actually responding to those specific people.
   856. Dan Szymborski Posted: July 05, 2012 at 07:45 PM (#4174057)
Let's try to put this trainwreck back on the tracks.

"I think we should all have the strength of character to just move on."
- Costa Concordia captain Francesco Schettino, 1/14/12
   857. formerly dp Posted: July 05, 2012 at 07:47 PM (#4174058)
Here? "Turnabout is fair play" doesn't work unless you're actually responding to those specific people.


Dan apparently missed the last 600 posts, where Ray argued with the liberals he imagines in his head, instead of the ones posting to btf.
   858. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: July 05, 2012 at 07:49 PM (#4174060)
Catching up, but don't see this addressed anywhere:

To the extent that the Iraq war was not about defense, then nobody should have been compelled to pay for it, and any funding for it should have been voluntary, yes. (Of course, it's not that the Pentagon should have relied on voluntary contributions, but that the whole thing should have been done privately, w/o Pentagon involvement.)


Are you seriously suggesting that private groups should have the ability to organize and engage in warfare?!?

HOLY. FUCKING. COW!
   859. Dan Szymborski Posted: July 05, 2012 at 07:51 PM (#4174062)
Dan apparently missed the last 600 posts, where Ray argued with the liberals he imagines in his head, instead of the ones posting to btf.

Did Ray characterize "lefties who didn't support GWB and the GOP after 9/ll" as "traitors, fit only to be rounded up and put to death?" If not, how could that be possibly be the justification for an equally poisoned reply to him?
   860. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: July 05, 2012 at 07:55 PM (#4174063)
1. End the war in Iraq. Done.

No US soldiers, no "military advisors," no contractors, nobody, at all, being paid by the US government for fighting or "security" in Iraq?
   861. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: July 05, 2012 at 07:59 PM (#4174066)
In a world without government security, what prevents your private security guard from simply taking your stuff if he's more powerful than you? The government doesn't have any ability to discipline. Attila Jr. will be the world's richest man.

(1) His own sense of morality. Most people aren't thieves.

(2) I wouldn't just hire a random person off the street, I'd likely (pool with my neighbors and) contract with a reputable private security company, and that company would do the work to make sure they were hiring trustworthy people. And they'd have insurance coverage in the event that one of their employees walked off with my stuff. This is effectively how private security works now, I imagine. It might be more expensive in a world where there was no government security, but I'd also have money that I was no longer paying in taxes.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not advocating for this. I don't even remember how we ended up on this topic, but I thought it was interesting to b.s. about.
   862. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 05, 2012 at 08:07 PM (#4174069)
Despite Ray's refusal to acknowledge it, a big part of ACA was about bringing down insurance costs across the board, for everyone.
Well, not the ones who were previously paying $0!
   863. Morty Causa Posted: July 05, 2012 at 08:08 PM (#4174070)
Shot on sight for holding a viewpoint you disagree with? Wow.


Jolly Old reacted viscerally. And why shouldn't he?


No, it's perfectly defensible to claim he should be shot because he has in effect declared war against the system he exists under. If that's so, he should expect no quarter, since he's shown no indication he would give any. On the contrary.

He has no allegiance to the system from which he nevertheless has the gall to demand entitlements and consideration. What he, and you, and others have revealed, is that you are in a state of war with the rest of the country. If that’s the case, and I believe it is, you are owed nothing--you can’t even plead mercy until you capitulate. I know this sounds harsh, but you’ve convicted yourself by your own words. The state owes you nothing if you owe it nothing. It’s that simple. See you in the trenches.
   864. Morty Causa Posted: July 05, 2012 at 08:10 PM (#4174073)
Liberals act as if government is the only solution. Families can solve problems also, and often do. Friends. Etc.


No, they don’t. Not any more than anyone else.

Besides, I don’t trust you to know what a liberal is. You can’t even tell us what “constitutional” is.
   865. billyshears Posted: July 05, 2012 at 08:11 PM (#4174075)
So you want market based solutions but only within the context of a government monopoly?


No. I have no bias in favor of market based solutions. I just want the best solutions.
   866. Morty Causa Posted: July 05, 2012 at 08:12 PM (#4174077)
We're already doing it, and it's incredibly inefficient, which is why we worked to get a different system passed.


Not only that, but it’s not the way systems of government work. This goes back (he says once more to the wind) to when we first organized it a way that didn’t depend just on voluntary action. The superior in tribes give to the less fortunate (or inferior, if you will) because it is expected of them. If you don’t do it, you’re not of the tribe. It’s an instrument of cohesion—it makes the group stronger. Everybody doing what they want without any official sanction is not a strategy for keep an organization going. Only the incorrigibly solipsistic and demonically dishonest and deceptive pretend otherwise.
   867. formerly dp Posted: July 05, 2012 at 08:15 PM (#4174080)
Well, not the ones who were previously paying $0!


It's cute to see you and Ray put so much effort into defending free riders.
   868. booond Posted: July 05, 2012 at 08:15 PM (#4174081)
Are you in favor of laws that require all cars to be giant inflatable cubes


Can I have mine super-sized?
   869. Dan Szymborski Posted: July 05, 2012 at 08:17 PM (#4174083)
The superior in tribes give to the less fortunate (or inferior, if you will) because it is expected to them. If you don’t do it, you’re not of the tribe. It’s an instrument of cohesion—it makes the group stronger.

That's an argument against liberal policies, not for them - recent progressive policies are always directed to limit that "cohesion-promoting giving" to fewer and fewer people, but make them give more and more.
   870. Dan Szymborski Posted: July 05, 2012 at 08:21 PM (#4174086)
It's cute to see you and Ray put so much effort into defending free riders.

Progressives created the free rider issue (and the employer-driven health insurance trap that they rant about, but that's a different argument for a different day).
   871. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 05, 2012 at 08:22 PM (#4174087)
Not only that, but it’s not the way systems of government work. This goes back (he says once more to the wind) to when we first organized it a way that didn’t depend just on voluntary action. The superior in tribes give to the less fortunate (or inferior, if you will) because it is expected of them. If you don’t do it, you’re not of the tribe. It’s an instrument of cohesion—it makes the group stronger. Everybody doing what they want without any official sanction is not a strategy for keep an organization going. Only the incorrigibly solipsistic and demonically dishonest and deceptive pretend otherwise.
Nope. Still sounded better when Mussolini said it.
   872. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 05, 2012 at 08:23 PM (#4174088)
It's cute to see you and Ray put so much effort into defending free riders.
Once more: not having insurance doesn't make you a free rider. Not paying for what you get does.
   873. Dan The Mediocre Posted: July 05, 2012 at 08:32 PM (#4174092)
Once more: not having insurance doesn't make you a free rider. Not paying for what you get does.


Yep. And all those that go into bankruptcy or just have debts discharged by their holders are simply passing the costs to the rest of us. With the ACA, they will be paying for insurance. With fewer bankruptcies, the cost of health care will rise at a slower rate because there will be fewer debts that are going unpaid that the rest of us have to make up for in order for the health care company to turn a profit. And with there being less of that cost being passed around, there won't be an increasing number of people unable to afford health care.

So in the end the ACA stops the cycle by which medically-related bankruptcies create more of them and pass more and more of the cost onto those of us who can pay.
   874. Spahn Insane Posted: July 05, 2012 at 08:34 PM (#4174093)
Dan, stop providing context. It's confusing for certain posters.
   875. Spahn Insane Posted: July 05, 2012 at 08:35 PM (#4174094)
It's cute to see you and Ray put so much effort into defending free riders.

Once more: not having insurance doesn't make you a free rider. Not paying for what you get does.


Yeah--they're not defending free riders; they're just defending a system that inevitably turns some people INTO free riders (see 873). That's totally different, man.
   876. Spahn Insane Posted: July 05, 2012 at 08:46 PM (#4174097)
At the risk of being accused of "appealing to authority," I'd like to see one of our resident libertarians refute Justice Ginsburg's concurrence in the ACA case, point by point. Just for my own edification. Since, you know, they're right and she's wrong and all.
   877. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 05, 2012 at 08:48 PM (#4174102)
Yeah--they're not defending free riders; they're just defending a system that inevitably turns some people INTO free riders (see 873). That's totally different, man.
You're mistaken. I'm not defending EMTALA. (Or Medicaid or Medicare, for that matter.) You are.
   878. Spahn Insane Posted: July 05, 2012 at 08:52 PM (#4174103)
You're mistaken. I'm not defending EMTALA. Or Medicaid or Medicare, for that matter.

All right--I stand corrected. But EMTALA's been defended as a satisfactory status quo by many opponents of ObamaCare (if not supporting it outright, clearly suggesting it's a preferable state of affairs to the ACA), and I'm genuinely puzzled as to why that's so.

You are.

As opposed to supporting an implementation of The Good Face's wet dream come to life (and apparently yours?), you bet--but that's not to say I consider it anything resembling an optimal state of affairs.
   879. Dan Szymborski Posted: July 05, 2012 at 08:56 PM (#4174107)
All right--I stand corrected. But EMTALA's been defended as a satisfactory status quo by many opponents of ObamaCare (if not supporting it outright, clearly suggesting it's a preferable state of affairs to the ACA), and I'm genuinely puzzled as to why that's so.

I don't think it's that bad either, but whether it's good or bad, it still created the free riders.

And all those that go into bankruptcy or just have debts discharged by their holders are simply passing the costs to the rest of us.

And I'd have a lot more sympathy for this argument if it wasn't coming from the exact same people that have vehemently opposed the tiniest, most miniscule attempts to have people that can manage even a slightest shred of payment file under Chapter 13 before going to Chapter 7.
   880. Jay Z Posted: July 05, 2012 at 09:16 PM (#4174115)
Once more: not having insurance doesn't make you a free rider. Not paying for what you get does.


We'll settle for you putting up a cash bond to guarantee you'll be good for any health care expenses before you get the privilege of participating in society.
   881. Zipperholes Posted: July 05, 2012 at 09:20 PM (#4174117)
The superior in tribes give to the less fortunate (or inferior, if you will) because it is expected of them. If you don’t do it, you’re not of the tribe. It’s an instrument of cohesion—it makes the group stronger.
Great, then there should be no problem inducing this philanthropic behavior without guns.
   882. Dan Szymborski Posted: July 05, 2012 at 09:26 PM (#4174120)
We'll settle for you putting up a cash bond to guarantee you'll be good for any health care expenses before you get the privilege of participating in society.

Would be a better gotcha if not for the fact that presenting a valid insurance policy is in effect doing this. Assuming David has insurance, which seems extremely likely, he almost certainly does this before receiving his health care treatments.

As someone posted earlier (BrianBrianson?), while I'd still vehemently disagree with it, the people that simply admit that it's about wealth transfer are at least being honest about it and deserve credit. When progressives argue that reason we need the law is because of all the free rider problems created by...previous progressive laws and because of the employer-tethered health insurance market created by...previous progressive laws, and all the various market distortions and mandates created by...previous progressive laws, it comes off as much more dodgy.
   883. Morty Causa Posted: July 05, 2012 at 09:29 PM (#4174122)
881

What makes you think that? It's not philanthropic. It's what you, the individual, owe the group if you want to belong. If you don't want to belong, or don't think you owe the group, take a hike.
   884. Dan Szymborski Posted: July 05, 2012 at 09:31 PM (#4174123)
What makes you think that? It's not philanthropic. It's what you, the individual owe if you want to belong.

And when the mugger points a gun at me, he's not stealing from me, he's just setting the price which I owe in return for being granted the boon of remaining on this mortal coil.'

I could just as easily turn around the argument and say that *not* having your health care paid for you by an unwilling third party is the price you pay for living in this advanced society.
   885. Morty Causa Posted: July 05, 2012 at 09:33 PM (#4174124)
All relations, between individuals, between individuals and groups, between groups and groups, are of a contractual nature--that means there are reciprocal right, benefits, AND duties.
   886. Zipperholes Posted: July 05, 2012 at 09:33 PM (#4174125)
What makes you think that? It's not philanthropic. It's what you, the individual, owe the group if you want to belong. If you don't want to belong, or don't think you owe the group, take a hike.
OK. How about those of us who want to be in "the group" do so, and leave the rest the hell alone? What's the harm in that?
   887. formerly dp Posted: July 05, 2012 at 09:34 PM (#4174126)
Instead of whining about the very existence of the social contract like you do every time you lose a public referendum on the nineteenth century, how about telling us which of the ACA's provisions would not cause to to blow your freedom rape whistle?
   888. Dan Szymborski Posted: July 05, 2012 at 09:35 PM (#4174127)
All relations, between individuals, between individuals and groups, between groups and groups, are of a contractual nature--that means there are reciprocal right, benefits, AND duties.


Yes, contained within the contract. If Ray signed a contract that said that he agrees to pay every one of Morty's health problems that result from eating three hamburgers a night, then obviously he would be compelled to pay for Morty's health problems.

   889. Jay Z Posted: July 05, 2012 at 09:35 PM (#4174128)
In a world without government security, what prevents your private security guard from simply taking your stuff if he's more powerful than you? The government doesn't have any ability to discipline. Attila Jr. will be the world's richest man.

(1) His own sense of morality. Most people aren't thieves.


So when you're wrong, and Atilla rapes and robs an old man, or a woman, or a child, you just tell them "Well, I thought he'd be nice" and shrug your shoulders?

(2) I wouldn't just hire a random person off the street, I'd likely (pool with my neighbors and) contract with a reputable private security company, and that company would do the work to make sure they were hiring trustworthy people. And they'd have insurance coverage in the event that one of their employees walked off with my stuff. This is effectively how private security works now, I imagine. It might be more expensive in a world where there was no government security, but I'd also have money that I was no longer paying in taxes.


Again, what's the fallback? What if you're wrong, and they aren't honest? Or what if you and your buddies are the bad guys, deadbeats who put the security folks in danger and shoot them in the back when they complain?

EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not advocating for this. I don't even remember how we ended up on this topic, but I thought it was interesting to b.s. about.


I'm mainly running with this as a counterpoint to all the libertarians who are constantly holding court. To be honest, it's not something I have a lot of respect for. Every time it comes up, there have to be the constant questions about how the philosophies would actually work, since there's never any evidence of applicability. As I mentioned before, the coercion line that's always spouted is b.s. because owning property is as coercive as anything else.
   890. Morty Causa Posted: July 05, 2012 at 09:36 PM (#4174129)
And when the mugger points a gun at me, he's not stealing from me, he's just setting the price which I owe in return for being granted the boon of remaining on this mortal coil.


I'll assume this has some a point. It could be legal. In fact, some of what we think of as theft now has been legal in the past--and may be legal again in the future. That's the way it is with law, society, and politics. It's a #####.
   891. Zipperholes Posted: July 05, 2012 at 09:37 PM (#4174130)
The problem I have with the worldview Morty expresses here is that all roads eventually lead to "the guys with the biggest guns win. What're you gonna do about it?" What is is what should be. OK, fine. But then you don't get to complain when things don't go your way.
   892. Dan Szymborski Posted: July 05, 2012 at 09:38 PM (#4174131)
Instead of whining about the very existence of the social contract like you do every time you lose a public referendum on the nineteenth century, how about telling us which of the ACA's provisions would not cause to to blow your freedom rape whistle?

Hey, it's the Patriot Act argument! Maybe you missed the boat by not voting for Dubya, the other pea in your pod.
   893. Morty Causa Posted: July 05, 2012 at 09:40 PM (#4174132)
Yes, contained within the contract. If Ray signed a contract that said that he agrees to pay every one of Morty's health problems that result from eating three hamburgers a night, then obviously he would be compelled to pay for Morty's health problems.


No, you got it wrong again. Take off the blinders. It's of a contractual nature. We're not talking about pieces of paper. As Civil Law systems hold, everything is matter of obligations. Society and culture, law and politics, is all about parsing those obligations. Who owes who what can changed, and has changed, over time.
   894. tshipman Posted: July 05, 2012 at 09:40 PM (#4174133)
Jeez, what a mess this thread has become.

I think TGF is pretty much a troll, but saying he should be shot is beyond the pale, obviously.


But meanwhile Obama, coming off 2008 where he had quite a few plans for the future, seems to have almost nothing to offer this time except I'm Not Romney. I understand that issues are often less important in Presidential elections than impressions and personalities, but this seems a particularly stark example. (Partly because everyone's mind seems so made up on defining issues these days there's little point in campaigning on them.)


Well, defining initiatives for the big O has been tough. He's caught in the elite judgement trap--anything substantive is condemned as being unfeasible, and anything feasible is condemned as being un-substantive. I think that if Obama were to be elected, government norms probably start to come back, and some items able to be compromised on.

I think it's quite likely that in an O re-election (and general D+2 or greater lean) there's serious conversation about tax reform (the amount of revenue raised varying based on Republican bargaining position), some variant of carbon limiting legislation, tinkering around the edges at health care, and various peacekeeping actions (wars if you prefer that terminology) to be determined later.

There is no real agenda because most of it's already been completed, and this election is about preventing it from being torn down.
   895. Dan Szymborski Posted: July 05, 2012 at 09:41 PM (#4174134)
I'll assume this has some a point. It could be legal. In fact, some of what we think of as theft now has been legal in the past--and may be legal again in the future. That's the way it is with law, society, and politics. It's a #####.

Ah, so Morty's intellectual underpinning is "bend over and take it, you might as well enjoy the ride."

As long as the circle-jerk masturbatory backslappy crowd deems it proper to give Ray an insulting nickname, I guess we have a third member to join Sam Crow and Andy the Murderer.
   896. Morty Causa Posted: July 05, 2012 at 09:43 PM (#4174135)
The problem I have with the worldview Morty expresses here is that all roads eventually lead to "the guys with the biggest guns win. What're you gonna do about it?"


Disliking that is one thing. Denying it is idiotic.

What is is what should be. OK, fine. But then you don't get to complain when things don't go your way.


And you can change it. Or you and other people together can effect change. That's the nature of political systems.

You do get to complain if you don't get your way, and you do get to work to change it. You don't get to hoky-poky the system.
   897. Dan Szymborski Posted: July 05, 2012 at 09:43 PM (#4174136)
No, you got it wrong again. Take off the blinders. It's of a contractual nature. We're not talking about pieces of paper.

Give me $50,000 right now or be banned from BTF forever. I can smell it in the penumbra.

- Dan, Liberal Defender of Justice
   898. Morty Causa Posted: July 05, 2012 at 09:48 PM (#4174137)
I think TGF is pretty much a troll, but saying he should be shot is beyond the pale, obviously.


Yes, he is a troll, but he's more, as I've already written. You can't be like those militiamen sorts who deny the legitimacy of government, threaten to over turn it with violence, than feign outrage, and claim exemption, when that government takes you seriously and treats you like its enemy. Naivete is not a free base. If there are no rules you'll abide by but your own, then don't be shocked if the opposition acts the same way.
   899. formerly dp Posted: July 05, 2012 at 09:51 PM (#4174138)
Hey, it's the Patriot Act argument
!

Well , if you want dodge it, fine. But that doesn't get us anywhere. If you could strike 1/2 of ACA's provisions, which ones would go, and which would you begrudgingly keep? This is a bill you guys have spent hundreds of posts ######## about, and I'm wondering which parts are the least reasonable/most freedom killing to you, and which ones you'd be OK with.
   900. Morty Causa Posted: July 05, 2012 at 09:53 PM (#4174139)
Ah, so Morty's intellectual underpinning is "bend over and take it, you might as well enjoy the ride."


No, that's not my underpinning; that's implicit in your not abiding by any rules or system. We're back to nature red in tooth and claw--or, as I said, a state of war. Quit being such a candy asss radical. Have the courage to face up to what the consequences of your position are. You cannot expect of your foe what you will not give to him. If nothing binds, let's hit the road running, ##########, and stop your whining and special pleading. We're at war; someone's gonna die, and I'm going to make sure it's you.
Page 9 of 41 pages ‹ First  < 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Harry Balsagne, anti-Centaur hate crime division
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogChris Davis Rescues Man Pinned Under Truck
(3 - 7:39am, Sep 17)
Last: boteman is not here 'til October

NewsblogNew approach on offense has Pirates in playoff contention this season
(6 - 7:35am, Sep 17)
Last: bobm

Newsbloghttp://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/orioles/bal-orioles-clinch-american-league-east-title-first-time-since-1997-20140916,0,2540424.story
(1 - 7:11am, Sep 17)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogCalcaterra: Derek Jeter got a bucket of crabs and a captain’s hat from the Orioles
(20 - 7:08am, Sep 17)
Last: Flynn

NewsblogPedro pens a letter to Clayton Kershaw
(16 - 7:03am, Sep 17)
Last: A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose)

NewsblogBryan Cranston’s One-Man Baseball Play Inspired By ‘Looney Tunes’ Is Incredible
(23 - 6:57am, Sep 17)
Last: Leroy Kincaid

NewsblogA’s lose Triple-A Sacramento affiliate
(60 - 4:28am, Sep 17)
Last: Bhaakon

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - September 2014
(264 - 4:00am, Sep 17)
Last: Moses Taylor World Re-Tour 2.0: Warszawa

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 9-16-2014
(113 - 2:58am, Sep 17)
Last: TerpNats

Hall of Merit2015 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(27 - 2:53am, Sep 17)
Last: Ardo

NewsblogDave Kreiger: New Baseball Hall of Fame voting rules
(44 - 1:17am, Sep 17)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(249 - 11:58pm, Sep 16)
Last: The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB)

NewsblogSteven Matz, other top minor league Mets to be honored at Citi Field on Monday
(22 - 11:57pm, Sep 16)
Last: billyshears

NewsblogJohnny Cueto shuts down the Cardinals, lowers ERA to 2.15
(26 - 11:51pm, Sep 16)
Last: Srul Itza

NewsblogVox.com: Major League Baseball’s human-trafficking problem
(7 - 10:29pm, Sep 16)
Last: The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott)

Page rendered in 0.5745 seconds
52 querie(s) executed