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

Tuesday, July 01, 2014

OTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game

As Time magazine recently reported, Republicans, frustrated by their 22-0 loss in last year’s game, sought a new coach to shake things up on the field this year. Some members even appealed to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to fire the coach, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas). But Boehner said he wasn’t powerful enough to control the baseball diamond, and Barton refused to walk away after spending 28 years with the game. Instead, he brought on Rep. Roger Williams (R-Texas), a former professional baseball player and coach at Texas Christian University, to coach while he stayed on as the team’s manager.

In the face of Wednesday’s loss, according to The Washington Post, Republicans are once again asking Boehner to remove Barton from the game. But with multiple pitchers giving up walk after walk, it seems that what the Republicans really need is a pitcher who can better match Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.), who previously pitched on Morehouse College’s varsity baseball team.

Bitter Mouse Posted: July 01, 2014 at 07:53 AM | 4025 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: politics, winning is fun

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 1 of 41 pages  1 2 3 4 5 6 >  Last ›
   1. bobm Posted: July 01, 2014 at 09:20 AM (#4740547)
And for those who cried and whined so last month, I made sure it was a nice baseball related article with no hint of something that would hurt people's feelings.

Thank you Bitter Mouse.
   2. bobm Posted: July 01, 2014 at 09:24 AM (#4740549)
Reposted:

Predictably, once Mr. McCain ran for president again in 2008 and Democrats started sending negative messages about him, the public quickly came to see him as a conventional partisan. By late October 2008, a CBS/New York Times poll found that only 11 percent of Democrats and 38 percent of independents had a favorable view of him. Ms. Clinton’s image is undergoing a similar transformation.

As both cases illustrate, we tend to overrate the importance of candidate image, which is largely a function of the flow of partisan messages. When opposition elites withhold criticism during, say, a presidential honeymoon or a foreign policy crisis, politicians can seem unstoppable, but when normal politics resume, their images — and their poll numbers — quickly return to earth. The same will be true for Ms. Clinton.


NYT: Why Hillary Clinton Is Like John McCain
   3. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 01, 2014 at 09:27 AM (#4740552)
Thank you Bitter Mouse.


I may be bitter (and whiny) but I am willing to follow rules and standards. :)

And by the way, I sort of agree with the article you linked to in the other thread (and reposted above - thanks!). I am not sure it matter much though. HRC's approval will carry her to the Democratic nomination (Dem leader messaging won't hurt her their certainly), and I am of the opinion once you get to the big dance fundamentals and some campaign ability matter (approval ratings from people who will never vote for you don't matter much IMO).

Of course her campaign ability is under debate as are what the fundamentals are going to be, so I guess this far out ... who knows really.
   4. 'zop sympathizes with the wrong ####### people Posted: July 01, 2014 at 09:32 AM (#4740554)
Glad to see that someone else is calling out Bitter Mouse for being the Democratic version of Joe K. Sometimes I wonder if he isn't a troll set up by one of the conservative posters to parody all the unpleasant idiosyncracies of the modern super-ideologue progressive Democrat.
   5. Lassus Posted: July 01, 2014 at 09:36 AM (#4740559)
Glad to see that someone else is calling out Bitter Mouse for being the Democratic version of Joe K. Sometimes I wonder if he isn't a troll set up by one of the conservative posters to parody all the unpleasant idiosyncracies of the modern super-ideologue progressive Democrat.

I certainly grasp the sentiment you're going for, but I'm a little confused WTF you're referring to. This occurs somewhere on this page?
   6. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 01, 2014 at 09:45 AM (#4740563)
Reposted:

NYT: How Hillary Clinton Is Like John McCain

Predictably, once Mr. McCain ran for president again in 2008 and Democrats started sending negative messages about him, the public quickly came to see him as a conventional partisan. By late October 2008, a CBS/New York Times poll found that only 11 percent of Democrats and 38 percent of independents had a favorable view of him. Ms. Clinton’s image is undergoing a similar transformation.

As both cases illustrate, we tend to overrate the importance of candidate image, which is largely a function of the flow of partisan messages. When opposition elites withhold criticism during, say, a presidential honeymoon or a foreign policy crisis, politicians can seem unstoppable, but when normal politics resume, their images — and their poll numbers — quickly return to earth. The same will be true for Ms. Clinton.


Right, and her former supporters will rush to embrace Rand Paul or some other Tea Party Republican. You almost have to wonder what sort of planet writers like this are living on.



   7. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 01, 2014 at 09:46 AM (#4740564)
I certainly grasp the sentiment you're going for, but I'm a little confused WTF you're referring to. This occurs somewhere on this page?

I believe he is cross-referencing to the June thread.
   8. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 01, 2014 at 10:02 AM (#4740574)
I believe he is cross-referencing to the June thread.


Where my calling out a Howie hissy fit is, I guess, trolling. Shrug.

You don't have to like my views, heck I have opinions I don't expect people with differing opinions to like them, but while I argue strongly for my viewpoint, it most certainly is not trolling. I wish I could troll better, but it is just not a skill set I have.
   9. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 01, 2014 at 10:12 AM (#4740578)
For the record here is the extent of my (first on this subthread) post which offended so many:
Maybe so, maybe not. But it certainly is part of a strong narrative regarding the war on women. I am sure the conservatives here will continue to think women are being foolish in thinking the GOP doesn't like or respect them.


And when challenged on the word "War" I said:
If you actually pay attention to what the GOP is doing it is pretty clearly anti-woman (as women see it) and anti-minority (as minorities see it). You can mock the exact verbiage all you want - lord knows I have mocked War on Drugs, War on Poverty, and War on Terrorism - however the victims of this "war" very much perceive it that way.

In and of itself the ruling may not matter much, but it is another data point showing who is on what side.


So yeah, if you guys think that is extreme liberalism and trolling, then - warning! intended insult coming - you are idiots and hyper sensitive.
   10. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: July 01, 2014 at 10:14 AM (#4740579)
In the face of Wednesday’s loss, according to The Washington Post, Republicans are once again asking Boehner to remove Barton from the game.

The Republican Congressional Baseball Team cannot fail, it can only be failed.
   11. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 01, 2014 at 10:17 AM (#4740580)
Of course not, and I've never used that term. But we'll see if the next GOP candidate can get 45% of the vote against Hillary Clinton. The gender gap already went from 12% in 2008 to 18% in 2012.

EDIT: If you want to respond to this, please copy and paste it in the June thread. We don't want to offend Brown Diaper Baby Joey.


The gender gap went up in 2012 because Romney did better among men than McCain.

Obama was +14 among women, and even with men in 2008. In 2012, Obama was +12 among women, -8 among men.

That's hardly evidence of women flocking to the Dems.
   12. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: July 01, 2014 at 10:21 AM (#4740587)
Of course it's not an insult, but I can see how you'd have difficulty understanding the nuances of human interaction. Color me shocked that the rest of your family is autistic though. No one could have possibly seen THAT coming.


That's a pretty ####### low blow at the end of last month's thread, even coming from scum (not an insult, BTW, but rather an objective description based on years of evidence) like Goon Face, though of course Bitter Mouse is more than capable of defending himself & his family.

When off-the-cuff diagnoses of autism & such were thrown around a few months ago by me & others in regard to everyone's favorite robot, hands were wrung to the point that I'm surprised the affronted individuals were able to continue typing.
   13. Mefisto Posted: July 01, 2014 at 10:23 AM (#4740591)
Not all women feel like they need Gov't to take care of their every need.


Here's an example of you using libertarian rhetoric.
   14. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 01, 2014 at 10:24 AM (#4740592)
That's hardly evidence of women flocking to the Dems.


The polling I linked to in last months thread does suggest it though -

And then there’s this BIG difference: At this point in 2010, Democrats had a narrow congressional-preference lead with women (44%-43%), and the GOP had a significant advantage with white women (51%-36%). Now? Democrats hold a double-digit with all women (50%-38%), and white women are pretty much a jump ball (GOP 45%, Dems 44%). As we’ve said before, female voters -- and female candidates -- are likely to decide the outcome of the midterm elections and specifically control of the U.S. Senate. And right now, the GOP has some work to do here.
   15. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 01, 2014 at 10:33 AM (#4740603)
Here's an example of you using libertarian rhetoric.

It's Libertarian now to express the idea that progressives are going too far in certain expansions of the welfare state?

I'm not against the idea of a welfare state. I'm not proposing rolling back the welfare state. I just oppose particular programs, some of which tend to infantilize women.
   16. GregD Posted: July 01, 2014 at 10:36 AM (#4740605)
NYT: Why Hillary Clinton Is Like John McCain


This is true on its own terms but not that revealing for anyone who's paid attention. Yes, Hillary like McCain and other figures enjoyed cross-party popularity as long as she/he stayed out of fights between parties. That may have prompted some delusional people to think that one or the other would actually draw in lots of people from the other party, and those people would be surprised when their numbers returned to earth.

But I don't think anyone expects Hillary to have a favorable rating over 51%. She could likely win with one at 45% given that the R nominee is likely to have a high unfavorability rating by election time. And I don't think anyone expects Hillary to get lots of R votes, just as I don't think anyone expected McCain to get lots of D votes (other than Super Joe from CT!)

So in disproving something no one believed, that article is effective.

But to the degree it implies McCain's loss predicts a Hillary loss, that's silly.

McCain was actually a good choice for the R party in 2008. Mostly he lost because the economy collapsed. Marginally he contributed to that loss by 1) responding in baffling ways publicly to that collapse and 2) falling into incoherence on the economy with bigwig and generally conservative donors, who switched to Obama for fear that McCain would inadvertently blow up the economy out of an inability to distinguish between things like growth and inflation. That hurt, but only on the margins.

No matter what, Hillary's negatives will rise and her positives will fall.

Meantime, conditions may shift so that she seems very likely to win, very unlikely to win, or something in between.

But those two facts are basically independent of each other, and the second is what is going to determine the White House.
   17. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: July 01, 2014 at 10:36 AM (#4740606)
That's hardly evidence of women flocking to the Dems.


Maintaining a double digit lead isn't something to be written off, and as the GOP and it's Court apparatchiks continue to advance the narrative and perception that they are waging a "war on women," they will lose more of those voters. I'm not sure you really understand how big of a deal yesterday's Hobby Lobby decision was to women. The GOP, always seen (with some due reason) as a throwback, anti-woman, anti-choice party, just moved their goals back from "women can't decide to not be a baby factory if they get pregnant" to "women can't decide not to get pregnant."

You can harp and hem and haw about how that's not really what they are arguing or doing, but your spin doesn't carry much weight in the, *ahem*, marketplace of ideas. Your team just declared itself a combatant against contraception (but only for women.) That will resonate deeply with women.
   18. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: July 01, 2014 at 10:37 AM (#4740609)
Of course it's not an insult, but I can see how you'd have difficulty understanding the nuances of human interaction. Color me shocked that the rest of your family is autistic though. No one could have possibly seen THAT coming.

This comment merits a timeout.
   19. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 01, 2014 at 10:37 AM (#4740610)
was reading SCOTUSBlog, re: Hobby Lobby, as I'm want to do this time of year, and I guess there's quite a group of people who think SCOTUSblog's twitter handle is actually SCOTUS. They've been retweeting some of the misinformed. Scrolling through their twitter feed has been pretty funny (whether you think it is a good or lousy opinion).

My favorite: The passive aggressive way @SCOTUSblog is answering right now is horrible considering the position they just put women in. Not okay.


My favorite was when a partner at Reed Smith thought the SCOTUSblog's twitter feed was an official feed of the Supreme Court, and got so irate over an EPA ruling (and then a tweet directed at him) that he told them to go F themselves and die.

Good times.
   20. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 01, 2014 at 10:39 AM (#4740611)
When off-the-cuff diagnoses of autism & such were thrown around a few months ago by me & others in regard to everyone's favorite robot, hands were wrung to the point that I'm surprised the affronted individuals were able to continue typing.


Shoot, did I miss the free psychiatric advice? What was my full diagnosis and recommended treatment?
   21. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: July 01, 2014 at 10:40 AM (#4740612)
Yes, Hillary like McCain and other figures enjoyed cross-party popularity as long as she/he stayed out of fights between parties.


When, exactly, did this happen? The closest thing the GOP has come to embracing HRC is saying "even Hillary would have been better than Obama."
   22. spike Posted: July 01, 2014 at 10:41 AM (#4740613)
I'm not sure you really understand how big of a deal yesterday's Hobby Lobby decision was to women.

I would not be at all surprised to see some significant impact on the midterms as a result. This could well be a turnout driver.
   23. spike Posted: July 01, 2014 at 10:42 AM (#4740616)
When, exactly, did this happen?

No kidding - "Hillary's popularity with the GOP in trouble!" doesn't sound like much of a threat.
   24. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: July 01, 2014 at 10:44 AM (#4740620)
Shoot, did I miss the free psychiatric advice? What was my full diagnosis and recommended treatment?


I believe it involved getting a puppy & a kitten.
   25. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: July 01, 2014 at 10:46 AM (#4740621)
Well, at least they didn't have to forfeit because the Tea Partiers refused to take the field. Baby steps, folks.
   26. AROM Posted: July 01, 2014 at 10:50 AM (#4740626)
Republicans need to get Curt Schilling elected somewhere.
   27. GregD Posted: July 01, 2014 at 10:51 AM (#4740627)
When, exactly, did this happen? The closest thing the GOP has come to embracing HRC is saying "even Hillary would have been better than Obama."
The article is about how her polling has fallen as she has re-emerged as a political figure. There is nothing surprising about that and nothing predictive about her she'll do in 2016. The issue of whether GOP leaders ever worked with her is a separate one.
   28. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 01, 2014 at 10:53 AM (#4740629)
I'm not against the idea of a welfare state. I'm not proposing rolling back the welfare state. I just oppose particular programs, some of which tend to infantilize women.

Such as providing child care for working women who otherwise couldn't possibly afford it? Or are women like that merely a figment of the liberal imagination?
   29. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 01, 2014 at 10:57 AM (#4740632)
NYT: Why Hillary Clinton Is Like John McCain

When the Republicans can come up with their version of Barack Obama, this point might assume some relevance.
   30. The Good Face Posted: July 01, 2014 at 11:00 AM (#4740637)
This comment merits a timeout.


Delicate flower is delicate. Fainting couch is thataway.

I'm not sure you really understand how big of a deal yesterday's Hobby Lobby decision was to women.


Talk about living in a bubble. Yes, it was probably a big deal to the perpetually outraged female segment of the population who would never vote GOP in a million years. That group doesn't represent women as a whole.
   31. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: July 01, 2014 at 11:02 AM (#4740639)
That group doesn't represent women as a whole.


I'm sure your women are in line with what you've told them is correct, given the bruising.
   32. Mefisto Posted: July 01, 2014 at 11:12 AM (#4740645)
It's Libertarian now to express the idea that progressives are going too far in certain expansions of the welfare state?


I'm not talking about the merits. I'm talking about the rhetoric. You had options in the rhetoric you chose to defend the HL decision. For someone in your situation, going with the Court and resting on "religious freedom" would seem the obvious choice. Instead, your first instinct was to use the language of libertarianism.

I'll add that the libertarian rhetoric is somewhat forced in this case because the government, per se, isn't supplying contraceptives to women (if it did so, that would be legally unobjectionable even if contrary to liberatarian theory). The regulation at issue is merely one of thousands which already (and mostly uncontroversially) regulate insurance policies.
   33. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 01, 2014 at 11:12 AM (#4740646)
I'm not sure you really understand how big of a deal yesterday's Hobby Lobby decision was to women.


To hysterical feminazi women, or uninformed women being used as pawns by the left, it was a big deal. To level headed clear thinking normal women who took a few minutes to understand the issues involved, it barely registers at all -- and rightfully so, since this decision was not a big deal.

   34. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: July 01, 2014 at 11:14 AM (#4740647)
To hysterical feminazi women, or uninformed women being used as pawns by the left, it was a big deal.


I'm sure they'll calm down when you mansplain things to them.
   35. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 01, 2014 at 11:14 AM (#4740648)
Such as providing child care for working women who otherwise couldn't possibly afford it? Or are women like that merely a figment of the liberal imagination?


Oh, won't someone please Think Of The Children Again.

Too bad these women who had the children without being able to afford them didn't Think Of The Children then.
   36. Lassus Posted: July 01, 2014 at 11:19 AM (#4740650)
Delicate flower is delicate. Fainting couch is thataway.

What was it, like a month ago you were still bringing up Andy's banning for scaring you?


To hysterical feminazi women, or uninformed women being used as pawns by the left, it was a big deal.

Heh. As long as there's no confusion why the demographic lead is cemented where it is.
   37. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 01, 2014 at 11:25 AM (#4740653)
Talk about living in a bubble. Yes, it was probably a big deal to the perpetually outraged female segment of the population who would never vote GOP in a million years. That group doesn't represent women as a whole.


Which is why I initially said it will feed the established narrative, but is not a huge deal in and of itself. Just like the HRC is clueless about being "dead broke" doesn't matter much except as it feeds an existing narrative (or doesn't).

EDIT: Or establishes a new narrative, I guess.
   38. The Good Face Posted: July 01, 2014 at 11:25 AM (#4740654)
What was it, like a month ago you were still bringing up Andy's banning for scaring you?


Never brought it up, never complained or reported it when it happened, never asked for Andy (or anybody else) to be banned.
   39. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 01, 2014 at 11:31 AM (#4740657)
Oh, won't someone please Think Of The Children Again.

Too bad these women who had the children without being able to afford them didn't Think Of The Children then.


Maybe, but some of us are unwilling to punish the children, because their mother made a mistake (or was foolish or whatever she did or did not do). We value the children and think society should protect and as much as practical see that they are properly cared for. So yeah I guess we are thinking of the children.
   40. Booey Posted: July 01, 2014 at 11:33 AM (#4740658)
I'm sure your women are in line with what you've told them is correct, given the bruising.


Hey now. Remember the Brad Ausmus fiasco? Apparently these types of jokes are over the line and off limits now.
   41. Lassus Posted: July 01, 2014 at 11:36 AM (#4740659)
Never brought it up, never complained or reported it when it happened, never asked for Andy (or anybody else) to be banned.

Someone has fun bringing it up over and over and over again in regards to Andy since the event. I stand fully corrected if it hasn't ever been you since it occurred.
   42. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: July 01, 2014 at 11:38 AM (#4740661)
Too bad these women who had the children without being able to afford them didn't Think Of The Children then.


And too bad for the children who made the poor decision to be born to those women, I guess.
   43. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 01, 2014 at 11:42 AM (#4740665)
Someone has fun bringing it up over and over and over again in regards to Andy since the event. I stand fully corrected if it hasn't ever been you since it occurred.


I've brought it up a few times (*), as have some others. I can't recall GF ever bringing it up, though. Not sure why you care, but there it is.

(*) Probably two or three times, not "over and over and over again," but whatever.
   44. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 01, 2014 at 11:53 AM (#4740670)
I'm not talking about the merits. I'm talking about the rhetoric. You had options in the rhetoric you chose to defend the HL decision. For someone in your situation, going with the Court and resting on "religious freedom" would seem the obvious choice. Instead, your first instinct was to use the language of libertarianism.

I'll add that the libertarian rhetoric is somewhat forced in this case because the government, per se, isn't supplying contraceptives to women (if it did so, that would be legally unobjectionable even if contrary to liberatarian theory). The regulation at issue is merely one of thousands which already (and mostly uncontroversially) regulate insurance policies.


Well, I don't find it surprising that progressive wish to trample religious freedom, it's pretty much part-and-parcel of their whole agenda. Nothing is allowed to stand in the way of the almighty state in its quest to reshape society. And since the touchstone of that reshaping is eliminating any and all restraints on sexual behavior, traditional religions need to be vanquished, or at least marginalized.

I do find it a tad ironic that the very people who claim to be the standard bearers for "liberated" women, don't believe women are capable of accessing simple, often OTC, pharmaceutical products on their own. It is the basest pandering to require insurance to cover contraceptives but not any other type of drug.
   45. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: July 01, 2014 at 11:58 AM (#4740676)
Well, I don't find it surprising that progressive wish to trample religious freedom


Oregon vs. Smith. 1990. In which Antonin Scalia writes the controlling opinion that states that deeply held religious beliefs of American Indians don't matter, so the state can fire them and deny them unemployment for using peyote during centuries old religious ceremonies.

Apparently the only religious freedom Scalia is concerned with is the religious freedom of extremely conservative sects of Catholics to impose their beliefs on others. This is Orwellian misuse of language.
   46. base ball chick Posted: July 01, 2014 at 11:58 AM (#4740677)
Mefisto Posted: July 01, 2014 at 10:23 AM (#4740591)

Not all women feel like they need Gov't to take care of their every need.


Here's an example of you using libertarian rhetoric.


- hows about - some of us believe that we are actually human beings who think that the "all MEN are created equal" thingy in the declaration of independence means all PEOPLE and was not specifically meant to exclude females from human being hood or equality under the law

and ray
i will thank you to not refer to me or any other woman who doesn't way yassah massah sah and obey their owner (father, brother or husband) as butchers of jews.

i can handle atheists talking about poor children, out of wedlock children as things to be discarded of left to die because, like they are bad things because if they weren't. they would have 2 wealthy parents who could afford endless numbers of children. you are a believer in rand, and a devout atheist, at least you are not a hypocrite

but anyone who calls themself a Christian???!!! and uses the words of any OT writer or Paul to disavow the direct words of Christ - well, all i can say is, be honest and stop calling yourself a Christian. call yourself a hater of poor, needy, children, especially those with bad parent(s) who should all just be left to die. because they are EVULLL. oh yeah - and make sure you protect those fetuses before leaving them to rot
   47. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 01, 2014 at 12:01 PM (#4740680)
Such as providing child care for working women who otherwise couldn't possibly afford it? Or are women like that merely a figment of the liberal imagination?

When was that proposed? That wasn't part of Obama's agenda.

I'd have no problem with a refundable tax-credit for child care.
   48. base ball chick Posted: July 01, 2014 at 12:04 PM (#4740682)
snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 01, 2014 at 11:53 AM (#4740670)

Well, I don't find it surprising that progressive wish to trample religious freedom,


- so any religion is free to do whatever its beliefs state?

explain how polygamy is legal. explain how it is legal to sell your children as slaves, especially those excess, useless females. explain how it is legal to kill your children (not fetuses, mind - seeing as how they are a special protected part of a MAN) if they disobey you

as for sexual freedom

there are most definitely anti sex rules in place NOW that did not used to be. for example, it is perfectly legal for a 17 year old to have sex with a 15 year old. but the second that 17 year old turns 18, it is NOW a felony, even though it is the same partners.

   49. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 01, 2014 at 12:08 PM (#4740686)
but anyone who calls themself a Christian???!!! and uses the words of any OT writer or Paul to disavow the direct words of Christ - well, all i can say is, be honest and stop calling yourself a Christian. call yourself a hater of poor, needy, children, especially those with bad parent(s) who should all just be left to die. because they are EVULLL. oh yeah - and make sure you protect those fetuses before leaving them to rot

Is this aimed at me? I haven't said boo about cutting off any benefits to children.

I've said multiple times here, that I would be fine with spending more on welfare benefits, if the programs were redesigned in a way so that they didn't discourage work and marriage.

But we're debating forcing an employer to cover methods of birth control that they find morally objectionable in their group insurance plan. What on earth does that have to do with leaving children to die?
   50. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 01, 2014 at 12:12 PM (#4740688)
- so any religion is free to do whatever its beliefs state?

explain how polygamy is legal. explain how it is legal to sell your children as slaves, especially those excess, useless females. explain how it is legal to kill your children (not fetuses, mind - seeing as how they are a special protected part of a MAN) if they disobey you


I don't think any of those things is moral, or should be legal. But, a lot of leftists are making noises that polygamy should be legal.

There is always a balance between respecting the religious belief, and the negative impact of that belief on the rest of society. It's not absolute.

there are most definitely anti sex rules in place NOW that did not used to be. for example, it is perfectly legal for a 17 year old to have sex with a 15 year old. but the second that 17 year old turns 18, it is NOW a felony, even though it is the same partners.

Those rules are silly. But, I'm not even talking primarily about laws. Most of the restraints on sexual behavior historically, have been primarily driven by societal pressure.
   51. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 01, 2014 at 12:15 PM (#4740690)
Oregon vs. Smith. 1990. In which Antonin Scalia writes the controlling opinion that states that deeply held religious beliefs of American Indians don't matter, so the state can fire them and deny them unemployment for using peyote during centuries old religious ceremonies.

Apparently the only religious freedom Scalia is concerned with is the religious freedom of extremely conservative sects of Catholics to impose their beliefs on others. This is Orwellian misuse of language.


So, Scalia got one wrong.

The Hobby Lobby people are not Catholics.
   52. BrianBrianson Posted: July 01, 2014 at 12:18 PM (#4740695)
But, a lot of leftists are making noises that polygamy should be legal.


C'mon, Snapper, watch your petard. Leftist polygamy is three thirty year olds making the beast with three backs and only have to cook every third meal. Rightist polygamy is a fifty-something man marrying a bunch of thirteen year old girls.
   53. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 01, 2014 at 12:25 PM (#4740699)
C'mon, Snapper, watch your petard. Leftist polygamy is three thirty year olds making the beast with three backs and only have to cook every third meal. Rightist polygamy is a fifty-something man marrying a bunch of thirteen year old girls.

I have no sympathy, zero, for any form of polygamy, and I don't know any conservatives or Republicans who do. You want to send the state police to break up those extremist Mormon groups, and jail the adult men, I'm 100% with you.

And once you allow your three 30 year olds, how are you going to prevent it happening with 18 y.o.'s? Or 16 or 17 y.o.'s with parental permission? Islamic fundamentalists have been importing teen brides into Europe for decades.
   54. GregD Posted: July 01, 2014 at 12:27 PM (#4740700)
But, a lot of leftists are making noises that polygamy should be legal
???
   55. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: July 01, 2014 at 12:29 PM (#4740704)
The Hobby Lobby people are not Catholics.


No, they just happened to appeal a distinctly Catholic doctrine about contraception that was supported by five deeply conservative Catholic men on the Court.
   56. GregD Posted: July 01, 2014 at 12:31 PM (#4740709)
Too bad these women who had the children without being able to afford them didn't Think Of The Children then.
What's awesome is the juxtaposition of this line with your celebration of a decision that makes it harder for women to get birth control.
   57. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 01, 2014 at 12:31 PM (#4740710)
   58. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 01, 2014 at 12:33 PM (#4740712)
No, they just happened to appeal a distinctly Catholic doctrine about contraception that was supported by five deeply conservative Catholic men on the Court.

Actually, they didn't. A strict Catholic doctrine would oppose all artificial contraceptives; the health plans of Catholic organizations won't typically cover any forms.

The Hobby Lobby folks only objected to contraceptives they believed were abortifacients.

Of course, I don't know why that is relevant to the legal issue. In either case, any woman would still be free to purchase any contraceptive she wants using HSA dollars, for example.

The idea of the right to have specific drugs covered in your health plan is absurd. Why birth control pills and not OTC anti-histamines?

If the NRA got a law passed requiring all homeowners insurance to pay for a free firearm, and 250 rounds of ammo per year for practice, would that be OK?
   59. GregD Posted: July 01, 2014 at 12:35 PM (#4740714)
So snapper if that's your standard for "a lot of leftists" then I assume you strongly agree with the people who use Todd Akin, who unlike these bloggers was the party nominee for a serious post, to represent "a lot" of Republicans?

If that's the standard you set for representing a group of people, then I assume you want that standard applied to all groups, right? A few molesting priests represent "a lot of Catholics", a few rape deniers represent "a lot of Republicans," and so on?
   60. base ball chick Posted: July 01, 2014 at 12:36 PM (#4740715)
snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 01, 2014 at 12:08 PM (#4740686)
but anyone who calls themself a Christian???!!! and uses the words of any OT writer or Paul to disavow the direct words of Christ - well, all i can say is, be honest and stop calling yourself a Christian. call yourself a hater of poor, needy, children, especially those with bad parent(s) who should all just be left to die. because they are EVULLL. oh yeah - and make sure you protect those fetuses before leaving them to rot

Is this aimed at me? I haven't said boo about cutting off any benefits to children.

I've said multiple times here, that I would be fine with spending more on welfare benefits, if the programs were redesigned in a way so that they didn't discourage work and marriage.


- no aimed at you. you're very different than most of the rightys/christian-ists here.

But we're debating forcing an employer to cover methods of birth control that they find morally objectionable in their group insurance plan. What on earth does that have to do with leaving children to die?


- because of 2 reasons

1 - makes it very easy NOW for employers to refuse to cover any other medical anything they find objectionable on "moral" grounds.
best i can tell, this has opened a crack i don't see how they can keep it closed

2 - the vast majority of rightys i have read

object to any sex except for reproduction and do not believe that contraception is OK. and hopefully, reproduction will be limited to the wealthy and the rest of humanity must remain celibate. i have asked some of them if the MARRIED couple is poor, and can't afford children, then have been told that the couple should either just continue to have children, as that is God's will, even though they have no food, clothing or prospects, or else should remain as lifelong ceibates

object to any help whatsoever for anyone who is poor because the poor are, by definition, bad people. because if they were born poor, it means their parents chose to be poor and this is God's way of showing them they should just lie down and die, unless some miracle occurs. and if their children are illegitimate, that is proof.

it is ALWAYS the woman's fault if sex happens. there is no such thing as rape unless it is pre-adolescent children. and if sex happens, or a fetus results, it is entirely her fault and she has to come up with money to pay for her own medical care, and if she is too poor to afford it, then she should be put in prison for fetus abuse. not obtaining medical care when you have no money is a crime against the fetus.

of course, there should be zero government help for any citizen under any circumstances. food stamps, public housing, medicaid and welfare should be abolished and those people left to fend for themselves like wild animals, or just, hopefully, die

i have said many many times, that it is interesting that so far, i have not met any christianist righty who adopts unwanted CHILDREN or teens, who takes in foster kids. i have been informed by some that they will be glad to help those less fortunate pieces of garbage, once their own precious kidz are raised because they do not want their OWN perfection exposed to Those People

   61. BrianBrianson Posted: July 01, 2014 at 12:37 PM (#4740716)
You can't stop people from being polygamous in practice; 18 year olds can shack up in threesomes, foursomes, whatever, and shag each other randy. Whether or not they're legally married is besides the point.

As for keeping 16 year olds out of socially/religiously imposed marriages, preventing the polygamous ones is exactly like preventing the monogamous ones. Give them other options. Affordable schools, welfare/EI/public housing/childcare, job training, non-discrimination in employment, a society where it's clear they're as good as men and they don't have to do what their priest or imam or parents tell them to do. You know, leftist things ;)
   62. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 01, 2014 at 12:39 PM (#4740721)
So snapper if that's your standard for "a lot of leftists" then I assume you strongly agree with the people who use Todd Akin, who unlike these bloggers was the party nominee for a serious post, to represent "a lot" of Republicans?

If that's the standard you set for representing a group of people, then I assume you want that standard applied to all groups, right? A few molesting priests represent "a lot of Catholics", a few rape deniers represent "a lot of Republicans," and so on?


You want to make a friendly BRef wager on how many leftists oppose legalizing polygamy when that ball gets rolling?
   63. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: July 01, 2014 at 12:39 PM (#4740722)
i have said many many times, that it is interesting that so far, i have not met any christianist righty who adopts unwanted CHILDREN or teens, who takes in foster kids.


Surely you jest. Why, right here on this very page, we've got ...

...

...

...

Oh.

Never mind.
   64. base ball chick Posted: July 01, 2014 at 12:41 PM (#4740727)
i don't know any leftist who wants to legalize polygamy/polyandry. or did you just mean polygamy with LEGAL marriages to all

i would guess the rigtys will oppose it because it is what the muslims do
   65. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 01, 2014 at 12:43 PM (#4740728)
You can't stop people from being polygamous in practice; 18 year olds can shack up in threesomes, foursomes, whatever, and shag each other randy. Whether or not they're legally married is besides the point.

You can certainly deny them welfare benefits. If some sicko wants a harem, let him pay for it. Landlords can refuse to rent to them; it's legal to limit the number of unrelated adults living in a unit.

You can also certainly apply harsh societal disapproval. Stigma works, but we have no guts anymore to say when something is wrong.

   66. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 01, 2014 at 12:45 PM (#4740732)
i don't know any leftist who wants to legalize polygamy/polyandry. or did you just mean polygamy with LEGAL marriages to all

i would guess the rigtys will oppose it because it is what the muslims do


I mean legal marriages to multiple partners. The noises have already started, and I can't see how the courts stop short of that.

It's inevitable now that the "one man, one woman" definition has been struck down. If a limitation with that much history behind it didn't hold, I don't see how the 2-person limit holds.

Everyone should oppose it because it is horrible for women. All the polygamous societies tend to be extremely misogynistic.
   67. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: July 01, 2014 at 12:47 PM (#4740734)
Rick Santorum, is that you?
   68. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 01, 2014 at 12:50 PM (#4740739)
You want to make a friendly BRef wager on how many leftists oppose legalizing polygamy when that ball gets rolling?

Todd Aiken got over a million votes in Missouri in the 2012 Senate election, and that was after his "legitimate rape" comment. You couldn't get a million leftists in the entire country to support legalizing polygamy.
   69. BrianBrianson Posted: July 01, 2014 at 12:51 PM (#4740741)
Wanting to legalize polygamy is perhaps a bit much (and I don't particularly consider myself a leftist), but I can't see any principled argument against polygamy.

In practice, they're usually abusive religious things with an old man and several young girls, and if the public narrative swings to that, obviously most progressive-types would oppose it (and I suspect it would be the narrative. Hippie drum circle marriages are just to rare and flaky to be the posterchildren). And in practice, unless they're the kind of highly abusive religious marriages, they're probably totally unworkable. I can't imagine I'd be allowed to sponser my husband and two wives for immigration (or six husbands and seven wives, say!). Directing medical care and the like gets totally knackered when your wife disagrees with your husband. The complexity of acrimoneous divorces might get divorce lawyers to support the idea. And so on.
   70. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 01, 2014 at 12:52 PM (#4740742)
Todd Aiken got over a million votes in Missouri in the 2012 Senate election, and that was after his "legitimate rape" comment. You couldn't get a million leftists in the entire country to support legalizing polygamy.

I sincerely doubt that.

But, it won't be a vote anyway. The courts will do it.
   71. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 01, 2014 at 12:52 PM (#4740743)
I mean legal marriages to multiple partners. The noises have already started, and I can't see how the courts stop short of that.

It's inevitable now that the "one man, one woman" definition has been struck down. If a limitation with that much history behind it didn't hold, I don't see how the 2-person limit holds.


Care to make a wager on that? Say with a five year expiration date?

EDIT: Meaning the Supreme Court, with or without any personnel changes.
   72. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 01, 2014 at 12:53 PM (#4740744)
As a lefty (rumor has it I am extreme even) I support polyamory (a more generic term than polygamy or polyandry). I think - in an ideal world - there would be some way to have more than two consenting adults join together into a legally recognized marriage (in so much as we legally recognize any marriage). However it is about 10,000th on my list of things I care about.

You can certainly deny them welfare benefits.


That is one benefit. Once you allow such things and recognize them there is less gaming of the system by some - though obviously fraud can and will still occur.

But like I said there are enough other things that I think are more important and it is pretty rare and I also acknowledge that the complexity of such arrangements are going to be worse than for a two person marriage, that basically it is not something I really care about much at all.
   73. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 01, 2014 at 12:56 PM (#4740746)
Care to make a wager on that? Say with a five year expiration date?


There is no chance of any changes along those lines in the next five years.
   74. BrianBrianson Posted: July 01, 2014 at 01:00 PM (#4740749)
You're confusing polygamy and polygyny, Bitter mouse.
   75. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 01, 2014 at 01:03 PM (#4740755)
You're confusing polygamy and polygyny, Bitter mouse.


Entirely likely. Multitasking is a terrible idea. My bad.
   76. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 01, 2014 at 01:06 PM (#4740758)
Care to make a wager on that? Say with a five year expiration date?

There is no chance of any changes along those lines in the next five years.


The only way you'd ever get legalized multiple marriages in this country would be if Joseph Smith got resurrected and was equipped with a private nuclear arsenal.
   77. GregD Posted: July 01, 2014 at 01:10 PM (#4740763)
You want to make a friendly BRef wager on how many leftists oppose legalizing polygamy when that ball gets rolling?

Absolutely! Should we make it like this:
# of Democratic statewide nominees who support legalizing polygamy vs # of Republican statewide nominees who ridicule the idea of rape

   78. Lassus Posted: July 01, 2014 at 01:10 PM (#4740764)
Entirely likely. Multitasking is a terrible idea.

Exactly my opinion on polyamory. I've known a bunch of serious polyamorous couples, and I don't care how small my sample size is, they have all ended up miserable. Just sleep around, you're better off.
   79. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 01, 2014 at 01:12 PM (#4740767)
Exactly my opinion on polyamory. I've known a bunch of serious polyamorous couples, and I don't care how small my sample size is, they have all ended up miserable. Just sleep around, you're better off.


There are lots of things that are terrible ideas that I am willing to have made legal. My experience is somewhat similar to yours, though I do know a multi-year success story, a couple of them actually.
   80. Lassus Posted: July 01, 2014 at 01:16 PM (#4740771)
There are lots of things that are terrible ideas that I am willing to have made legal.

I don't mean to be combative, but I'm not sure what you mean here in regards to polyamory. Legal?
   81. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: July 01, 2014 at 01:17 PM (#4740775)
The only way you'd ever get legalized multiple marriages in this country would be if Joseph Smith got resurrected and was equipped with a private nuclear arsenal.


I'm not sure I'd put that past the Utah theocracy.
   82. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 01, 2014 at 01:20 PM (#4740779)
I don't mean to be combative, but I'm not sure what you mean here in regards to polyamory. Legal?


As part of a recognized legal marriage - more than two people. Isn't that what we were talking about?

Anyway still not a subject I care about ... really at all. In fact the typing in this post wildly over represents the amount of caring I have on the subject. Oh well.
   83. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: July 01, 2014 at 01:23 PM (#4740785)
I gotta say, it is too bad single payer was so completely impossible that it couldn't be publicly discussed, much less voted on.
Could've avoided the Hobby Lobby stuff, and the roll-out stuff, and the Roberts-limiting-the-Commerce-Clause stuff.
But on the bright side, the insurance companies locked in a guaranteed customer base, forever!
   84. Steve Treder Posted: July 01, 2014 at 01:25 PM (#4740787)
the typing in this post wildly over represents the amount of caring I have on the subject.

That's Ray's schtick.
   85. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 01, 2014 at 01:26 PM (#4740790)
That's Ray's schtick.


My apologies to Ray for stepping on his gig.

But on the bright side, the insurance companies locked in a guaranteed customer base, forever!


Yup.
   86. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: July 01, 2014 at 01:27 PM (#4740793)
In theory, I'm OK with multiple marriages among consenting adults. It's not something I'd ever consider as an individual, but I don't see any reason to butt into other people's personal relationships.

In practice, I'd need a hell of a lot more detail on how it would work W/R/T things like tax benefits and inheritance law and such before I'd want to see any kind of federal recognition of relationships of that kind. Which probably isn't forthcoming at any time in the near future.
   87. zenbitz Posted: July 01, 2014 at 01:32 PM (#4740797)
negative impact of that belief on the rest of society


I pretty sure one cannot measure negative effects on "society" without decomposing it into specific harm against specific people. It is actually very close to "negative effects on the environment".

The environment, and society - are global descriptors of a state or situation. What, precisely, are you (and I think Good Face who used this upthread a few pages) trying to say when "society is harmed by" X. That there is some blanket effect that harms a very large number of people in some small way?

So - specifically polygamy. Clearly there are marriages (polygamous or monogamous) that are harmful to one party or the other. For example, any marriage without consent - I think we would deem "harmful" to that person's freedom. This then covers marriage to minors who can't really give consent (although in some States I think this age is pretty low).

In any case exploitative and abusive MONOGAMOUS marriages are already illegal, so applying some statistical arguments to generalized polygamy doesn't seem sound to me.

I agree there are some legal entanglements with polygamy - but it's not really that more complicated of a legal contract than a co-op house with >2 owners.

   88. zenbitz Posted: July 01, 2014 at 01:37 PM (#4740804)
(Almost) All the polygamous historical societies tend to be extremely misogynistic up until about 1900.

Fixed that for you. What's the P-value there? Most polygamous societies allowed women to be essentially sold by their parents. It's hardly analogous.
   89. Lassus Posted: July 01, 2014 at 01:37 PM (#4740805)
As part of a recognized legal marriage - more than two people. Isn't that what we were talking about?

Ah, I was talking about polyamory as a concept, and serious polyamorous relationships, not polyamorous marriages or whatever recognition people may be after.

Polygamy and multi-partner marriages precipitate abuse so frequently I'm fine with keeping them from legal recognition.
   90. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 01, 2014 at 01:39 PM (#4740807)
and ray
i will thank you to not refer to me or any other woman who doesn't way yassah massah sah and obey their owner (father, brother or husband) as butchers of jews.


BBC, I've read this a few times. I honestly don't know what it means or what you're referring to.
   91. zenbitz Posted: July 01, 2014 at 01:41 PM (#4740809)
Everyone should oppose it because it is horrible for women.


If only there was some way for woman to leave a marriage she didn't like.
   92. robinred Posted: July 01, 2014 at 01:51 PM (#4740831)
90,

Then you need to the post where you used the term "feminazi" instead of rereading bbc's post.
   93. Blastin Posted: July 01, 2014 at 01:52 PM (#4740834)
Ray, she's referring to feminazi. And I'm sure your miniscule brain will dismiss it as a figure of speech, but when women who feel strongly about something you don't like are routinely referred to as the worst folks on Earth, it's more than that, so Lisa's asking you to cut it out. And now you'll say something about being PC and I'm going to stay happy you're on ignore.
   94. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: July 01, 2014 at 01:52 PM (#4740836)
Getting back to the GOP baseball team... perhaps there's still a small opportunity for immigration reform if enough of the GOP in the House decides to make fielding a more competitive baseball team a priority?
   95. base ball chick Posted: July 01, 2014 at 02:01 PM (#4740849)
Ray (RDP) Posted: July 01, 2014 at 01:39 PM (#4740807)

and ray
i will thank you to not refer to me or any other woman who doesn't way yassah massah sah and obey their owner (father, brother or husband) as butchers of jews.


BBC, I've read this a few times. I honestly don't know what it means or what you're referring to.


- being called a
and i quote
"feminazi"

nazis are people who didn't/don't just believe in butchering jews/gypsies/dark skinned people, they DID it. and the rest of them are looking forward to doing it again

- substitute the right phrase - female humans who have the effrontery to believe that they are just as much a human being as a male, not a thing, not the moral, spiritual and intellectual equivalent of a child, and believe that they should actually have the same standing, treatment and rights. (thank you mama)
   96. Lassus Posted: July 01, 2014 at 02:03 PM (#4740852)
Ladies and gentlemen, Lanar Whitney (R) Louisiana.

You think you got game? You got nothing, compared to Ms. Whitney.
   97. JE (Jason) Posted: July 01, 2014 at 02:05 PM (#4740855)
I want to thank Ray for re-introducing me to modified-fast pitch softball. Last Thursday night, I played second base and batted ninth for his team at one of the field-turf diamonds by the FDR Drive just north of the Williamsburg Bridge. Thankfully, I didn't make a total fool of myself at the plate* since last time I played this type of softball was probably up in Albany in the spring of 1991.

And of course, we won! Oh, and Ray is a really good pitcher.

* I went 0-for-3 with a grounder to shortstop, a line drive to right-center, and a backwards K.
   98. GregD Posted: July 01, 2014 at 02:05 PM (#4740857)
That video is amazing! "the greatest deception in the history of mankind"
   99. haggard Posted: July 01, 2014 at 02:07 PM (#4740859)
I think the problem with the GOP pitching is that Joe Barton doesn't believe in warming up.
   100. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 01, 2014 at 02:14 PM (#4740880)
To hysterical feminazi women, or uninformed women being used as pawns by the left, it was a big deal.

I'm sure they'll calm down when you mansplain things to them.


The "mansplain" business is just more of the same tactics of the left: cast the person you disagree with as some form of bigot. Cast a simple issue in terms of "bigoted" vs. "non-bigoted." Pretend that a ruling did X or means Y when it did and is no such thing.

In any event, let me try to educate the couch fainters as to why the hysterical reaction from the left is, well, hysterical.

This ruling does not deprive anyone of access to birth control. It doesn't give qualifying employers the power to deny women these or any other forms of birth control. Employers still need to pay for 16 of the 20 types of birth control at issue. Women who work for an employer that qualifies under this decision -- and to be sure that's a lot of employers -- can still use their insurance to pay for most forms of contraception - including the most popular ones. They can pay for the forms of contraception at issue themselves. They can get contraception through physicians, including those at publicly subsidized clinics. They can get them through Medicaid. Or they can find another job too, slavery having been outlawed many years ago.

Moreover, government can provide these types of contraceptives for free, per the ACA. Congress can fund a program to provide it. Congress can pass a law that overturns this decision. It can repeal RFRA, or enact an RFRA exemption. It can amend the ACA. I didn't hear shrieking complaints in 2012 and before that employers weren't funding all forms of birth control, oh my gawd.

If you're interested in the legal analysis, start with the RFRA, which has the following exemption for religious objectors:

"Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion
even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, …
[unless the Government] demonstrates that application of the burden to the person …
is the least restrictive means of furthering [a] compelling governmental interest."

The Court essentially held that qualifying employers (closely held companies) were "persons" under the RFRA, and that forcing such qualifying employers to pay for these types of birth control is not the least restrictive means for doing this.

The wails and cries from the left and from radical feminists in response to this ruling are so outlandish and cartoonish that they're not to be taken seriously. People are either severely misinformed or have been overtaken by an agenda.

Also, "People are upset that they aren’t getting even more free stuff" is not exactly breaking news.
Page 1 of 41 pages  1 2 3 4 5 6 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Adam M
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogAngels beat Athletics, Oakland protests game after obstruction call
(21 - 2:06pm, Aug 29)
Last: Jose Can Still Seabiscuit

NewsblogOT: Politics, August 2014: DNC criticizes Christie’s economic record with baseball video
(6177 - 2:06pm, Aug 29)
Last: Brian

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread August, 2014
(786 - 2:02pm, Aug 29)
Last: CWS Keith plans to boo your show at the Apollo

NewsblogMets call up Dilson Herrera, have "talked about" d'Arnaud to LF
(44 - 1:59pm, Aug 29)
Last: Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora

NewsblogRobothal: Tension growing between Astros' manager, GM
(3 - 1:57pm, Aug 29)
Last: JRVJ

NewsblogWatch a Japanese baseball player try to hit a 186 mph fastball (Video)
(5 - 1:56pm, Aug 29)
Last: Harveys Wallbangers

NewsblogAfter awkward attempt at game-saving catch, Yankees' Ichiro Suzuki gets testy with reporters
(21 - 1:54pm, Aug 29)
Last: Infinite Joost (Voxter)

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 8-29-2014
(13 - 1:47pm, Aug 29)
Last: Batman

NewsblogJack White, Eddie Vedder, and Paul Simon take in a Seattle Mariners game
(188 - 1:40pm, Aug 29)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogDavid Justice Says Put Barry Bonds in Baseball Hall of Fame Despite Steroid Use Late In Career
(152 - 1:40pm, Aug 29)
Last: just plain joe

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - August 2014
(372 - 1:37pm, Aug 29)
Last: andrewberg

NewsblogJonny Venters Tears UCL, Facing Third Tommy John Surgery
(12 - 1:36pm, Aug 29)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(752 - 1:18pm, Aug 29)
Last: hokieneer

NewsblogPosnanski: Alex Gordon and the M-V-P chants
(50 - 1:18pm, Aug 29)
Last: Harveys Wallbangers

NewsblogSchoenfield: A quick note about awesome Wade Davis
(3 - 12:28pm, Aug 29)
Last: John Northey

Page rendered in 0.6555 seconds
53 querie(s) executed