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 9 of 41 pages ‹ First  < 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 >  Last ›
   801. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 05, 2014 at 05:08 PM (#4744163)
He's asking what the US Government should have done, not David Koresh.

We have no idea what started the fire.
   802. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: July 05, 2014 at 05:10 PM (#4744164)
We have no idea what started the fire.


Then why did you blame it on the police?
   803. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 05, 2014 at 05:11 PM (#4744165)
Agents of the same government whose representatives were under siege in Benghazi.

Not at the time they launched the initial raid, or when they decided to burn down the compound. There was no reason not to wait them out.


Who is "they"? It was later determined that the Davidians themselves had set the compound on fire. And why should anyone believe a single word of an armed madman like Koresh or any of his followers?

And anyway, the Davidians initiated the entire incident by stockpiling weapons and resisting a lawful search warrant. If megadeaths of Soviet citizens could be considered "acceptable" collateral damage merely due to the accident of geography, it's hard to see how anyone who chose to live in an armed compound that was in open warfare against the government could be considered any less culpable. Where's the "moral" distinction, other than the accident of citizenship?

----------------------------------------------

So was the My Lai massacre a moral battle for the USA?

Apparently most Americans saw Lt. Calley as the main victim in the incident.

----------------------------------------------

No, a clear war crime. They should have hung Calley.

According to that linked public opinion survey, only 1% of Americans would have agreed with you.
   804. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 05, 2014 at 05:11 PM (#4744166)
The BBTF Surrender Now Caucus is making the same argument that victims of aggression have always rejected: more people will be killed, some of them relatively innocent, if you fight back - better to let the Germans, Nazis, Communists, Russians, etc, win. All that does is encourage aggression, but I suppose it is more important that a relatively few people feel morally superior.
   805. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 05, 2014 at 05:14 PM (#4744168)
And do you feel the same way about the Iraq invasion?


Knowing what we know today, we shouldn't have invaded. So, yes. Waiting would have been better.

"Sorry about that, Iraq! That's one on us!"
   806. McCoy Posted: July 05, 2014 at 05:16 PM (#4744171)
The BBTF Surrender Now Caucus is making the same argument that victims of aggression have always rejected: more people will be killed, some of them relatively innocent, if you fight back - better to let the Germans, Nazis, Communists, Russians, etc, win. All that does is encourage aggression, but I suppose it is more important that a relatively few people feel morally superior.

There is a difference between an aggressor with a gun and an aggressor who just launched 6,000 nuclear missiles. I'm sure the 10% of the world's population that survives the nuclear war will be glad you taught those aggressors a lesson. Perhaps they'll kiss your bones with both their mutant mouths.
   807. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 05, 2014 at 05:18 PM (#4744177)
He's asking what the US Government should have done, not David Koresh.


We have no idea what started the fire.

Pure BS. From the Frontline website:

8. Who started the fire that erupted a little more than six hours after the FBI began inserting the tear gas on April 19?

Although several of the surviving Branch Davidians insist that they did not start the fire, a panel of arson investigators concluded that the Davidians were responsible for igniting it, simultaneously, in at least three different areas of the compound. Unless they were deliberately set, the probability of the three fires starting almost simultaneously was highly unlikely, according to fire experts. Furthermore, the videotapes show the use of accelerants that strongly increased the spread of the fire. Although one Branch Davidian stated that a FBI tank had tipped over a lantern, videotapes show that the tank had struck the building a minute and a half before the fire began. Also some of the surviving Davidians' clothing showed evidence of lighter fluid and other accelerants. In addition, FBI listening devices seemed to establish that the Davidians were overheard making statements such as, "Spread the fuel," some six hours before the fires began. (Joint Hearing of the Crime Subcommittee July 1995.)
   808. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 05, 2014 at 05:28 PM (#4744185)
We have no idea what started the fire.

Pure BS. From the Frontline website:


8. Who started the fire that erupted a little more than six hours after the FBI began inserting the tear gas on April 19?

Although several of the surviving Branch Davidians insist that they did not start the fire, a panel of arson investigators concluded that the Davidians were responsible for igniting it, simultaneously, in at least three different areas of the compound. Unless they were deliberately set, the probability of the three fires starting almost simultaneously was highly unlikely, according to fire experts. Furthermore, the videotapes show the use of accelerants that strongly increased the spread of the fire. Although one Branch Davidian stated that a FBI tank had tipped over a lantern, videotapes show that the tank had struck the building a minute and a half before the fire began. Also some of the surviving Davidians' clothing showed evidence of lighter fluid and other accelerants. In addition, FBI listening devices seemed to establish that the Davidians were overheard making statements such as, "Spread the fuel," some six hours before the fires began. (Joint Hearing of the Crime Subcommittee July 1995.)


OK, let's assume that's all true; I haven't studied the issue.

If the FBI thought they were preparing to burn the place down in case of assault, that makes the assault a far worse decision, not a better one.

If you think they are preparing to burn the place down, you either assault immediately with hostage rescue teams, or you do nothing.

You don't launch a slow motion, tear gas assault, that gives them plenty of warning, and time to burn the place down.
   809. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 05, 2014 at 05:30 PM (#4744187)
And anyway, the Davidians initiated the entire incident by stockpiling weapons and resisting a lawful search warrant. If megadeaths of Soviet citizens could be considered "acceptable" collateral damage merely due to the accident of geography, it's hard to see how anyone who chose to live in an armed compound that was in open warfare against the government could be considered any less culpable. Where's the "moral" distinction, other than the accident of citizenship?

The moral distinction is that Koresh wasn't attacking anyone at that moment. There was plenty of time to keep him under surveillance, and arrest him when he left the compound.
   810. Lassus Posted: July 05, 2014 at 07:07 PM (#4744404)
Snapper, I would still like an answer to my original question, as re-stated in #795.


The BBTF Surrender Now Caucus is making the same argument that victims of aggression have always rejected: more people will be killed, some of them relatively innocent, if you fight back - better to let the Germans, Nazis, Communists, Russians, etc, win. All that does is encourage aggression, but I suppose it is more important that a relatively few people feel morally superior.

The adults are talking, about actual ideas. Go find a poll.
   811. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 05, 2014 at 07:11 PM (#4744408)
The adults are talking, about actual ideas. Go find a poll.

Quite an "adult" response right there. Very substantive.
   812. McCoy Posted: July 05, 2014 at 07:20 PM (#4744416)
Snapper, I would still like an answer to my original question, as re-stated in #795.

Well, not in terms of ideology but in terms of practice very much so.
   813. CrosbyBird Posted: July 05, 2014 at 08:05 PM (#4744431)
There is a difference between an aggressor with a gun and an aggressor who just launched 6,000 nuclear missiles. I'm sure the 10% of the world's population that survives the nuclear war will be glad you taught those aggressors a lesson. Perhaps they'll kiss your bones with both their mutant mouths.

That's the critical distinction for me.

When 90% of America is dead from the initial strike, we're not fighting for anything any more. We've lost. The nation no longer exists to fight back since we'll be too busy just surviving. At that point, all we're doing is taking other people out with us, most of whom are innocent.

Give me a magic weapon that executes only those responsible for the decision-making and I might be convinced about a "protect the world from monsters" argument. If our response to a horror inflicted on us involves slaughtering millions of innocents, we are the monsters.
   814. Lassus Posted: July 05, 2014 at 08:33 PM (#4744441)
Quite an "adult" response right there. Very substantive.

I fell to the level of the quote, I admit. If you wanted more you should have moved beyond "LIBERALS LEGENDS IN THEIR OWN MINDS" shtick and provided better than BTF Surrender Now Caucus lol.

If one's sole purpose is to revenge themselves against their aggressors, go ahead and salt the earth for the next 10,000 years. Please believe me when I tell you that as a member of the real world, I am perfectly aware that no monkey in charge or in the command center on either side is going to follow through on a let-the-planet-live scenario when they have folks like you to hunker down in the shelters with to live out the last 45 days of their lives. The dream scenario of you guys dying happy in that scenario knowing that you and your children won't be exposed to Obama-supporting weaklings for the rest of your lives is indeed what will happen in that case. The other option is entirely a philosophy and theory experiment.

I have no problem with a stated policy of "Nuke us, we nuke you, the planet all dies, woohoo we win because the other nation doesn't", because that is how MAD works in the great insanity of 4 billions partially-evolved animals. Those animals can't live with any other policy, so here we are. I'm fine with finding that stupid. I can leave the idea that the world is better off dead than alive to all of you positive-thinking conservatives. As McCoy states, nuclear holocaust is not Axis vs. Allies.

I don't see the world as better off with billions dead and rebuilding impossible. If I was given one wish and could only destroy either ours or the Soviets nukes, I would choose the Soviets. Attempt to realize my hatred for America might not be what you think, Clapper. With that, try and grasp that in other what-if scenarios, the whole planet dead for the sake of revenge is senseless.

I'm not sure what other kind of adult response you want - Miserlou gave it, others agreed, the statements were made as for why by better men than I. I'm willing to hear your adult argument why the whole planet dead is a better idea if you have any desire to make such an argument. The only argument I heard was LIBRULS SURRENDER, so I responded in kind.
   815. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 05, 2014 at 08:59 PM (#4744447)

Some of BBTF's liberals have raised self-righteous preening to an art form.
   816. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 05, 2014 at 09:26 PM (#4744457)
And anyway, the Davidians initiated the entire incident by stockpiling weapons and resisting a lawful search warrant. If megadeaths of Soviet citizens could be considered "acceptable" collateral damage merely due to the accident of geography, it's hard to see how anyone who chose to live in an armed compound that was in open warfare against the government could be considered any less culpable. Where's the "moral" distinction, other than the accident of citizenship?

The moral distinction is that Koresh wasn't attacking anyone at that moment.


So what? In both cases you were dealing with madmen, and in the case of the Davidians all you really knew is that they were both armed and insane. Perhaps the government should have just gone in and wiped them out without any warning, rather than give them the opportunity to torch themselves, but I can only imagine what the reaction would have been to that option.

As for the "morality" of it, if you're willing to wipe out millions of innocent Soviet civilians after the metaphorical horse has left the barn, then surely you can't argue for any obligation to be moral when dealing with characters like the Branch Davidians. After all, even more than those hypothetical Soviet civilians, they brought it on themselves by their actions from Day One----surely you're not suggesting that they deserve more sympathy than families of collective farmers in Ukraine who were being held on those government farms against their will?
   817. Lassus Posted: July 05, 2014 at 09:41 PM (#4744462)
Some of BBTF's liberals have raised self-righteous preening to an art form.

I strongly note the purpose of speaking to you, given your thoughtful response.
   818. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 05, 2014 at 09:42 PM (#4744463)
I'm sure the 10% of the world's population that survives the nuclear war . . .

Wasn't there a thread that debunked that number? Not that it completely changes the equation, but I don't think 90% is correct.
   819. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 05, 2014 at 09:48 PM (#4744465)
If you wanted more you should have moved beyond "LIBERALS LEGENDS IN THEIR OWN MINDS" shtick and provided better than BTF Surrender Now Caucus lol.

I said nothing about liberals - much less LIBRULS - but just noted that some folks at BBTF have taken a "we'll surrender if attacked" posture. Worth noting that such as stance is at variance with United States policy under both Republican & Democratic Presidents. So who is out of step here?
   820. McCoy Posted: July 05, 2014 at 09:50 PM (#4744466)
How does one surrender with nuclear annihilation incoming? 6,000 missiles in the air hurling at you is not a threat to get you to surrender. At that point you're not in a war.
   821. Lassus Posted: July 05, 2014 at 09:58 PM (#4744469)
I said nothing about liberals - much less LIBRULS - but just noted that some folks at BBTF

Oh brother. No, my response is not thoughtful, just incredulous.


6,000 missiles in the air hurling at you is not a threat to get you to surrender.

I'm sure just one pointed at Cooperstown would be sufficient and they'd give up the HOF pretty fast. :-D
   822. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 05, 2014 at 10:11 PM (#4744476)
How does one surrender with nuclear annihilation incoming?

By not retaliating.
   823. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 05, 2014 at 10:39 PM (#4744490)
. . . 6,000 missiles in the air hurling at you . . .

This appears to be another incorrect number, at least based on a quick search:
Russia: Approximately 1,512 strategic warheads deployed on 498 ICBMs, SLBMs, and strategic bombers [1]. The Federation of American Scientists estimates Russia has another 1,000 nondeployed strategic warheads and approximately 2,000 tactical nuclear warheads. Additional thousands are awaiting dismantlement.
. . .
United States: 4,804 nuclear warheads as of September 2013 [2], including tactical, strategic, and nondeployed weapons. According to the latest official New START declaration, the United States has1,585 strategic nuclear warheads deployed on 778 ICBMs, SLBMs, and strategic bombers [1]. The Federation of American Scientists estimates that the United States' nondeployed strategic arsenal is approximately 2,800 warheads and the U.S. tactical nuclear arsenal numbers 500 warheads. Additional warheads are retired and await dismantlement.
   824. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: July 05, 2014 at 10:42 PM (#4744492)
Irrelevant. How many did they have in 1978?
   825. BDC Posted: July 05, 2014 at 10:51 PM (#4744494)
It seems to me that warfare always involves a certain amount of revenge. Y'all are just arguing how much.
   826. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: July 05, 2014 at 11:05 PM (#4744497)
How does one surrender with nuclear annihilation incoming? 6,000 missiles in the air hurling at you is not a threat to get you to surrender. At that point you're not in a war.

Yes, so the choice is to either do nothing, or attempt to take out as much of their stuff as we can to aid the part of the world that's remaining. The entire world isn't Russia and NATO. Every bit of Russian war-making capacity we destroy on our way off this mortal coil gives that much more reprieve to India or Australia or Japan or China or Brazil. In this theoretical scenario, I'm guessing the innocents in those countries that *didn't* nuke us would prefer we don't leave a country that was willing to launch 6,000 nukes completely unscathed so that we could go to our deathbeds not having offended our delicate sensibilities.
   827. McCoy Posted: July 05, 2014 at 11:06 PM (#4744499)
Maybe you could stop and ask them before you set the world on fire for their benefit.
   828. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: July 05, 2014 at 11:10 PM (#4744501)
Maybe you could stop and ask them before you set the world on fire for their benefit.

Which is a bit like complaining about a nursery school firing a child molester because they didn't actually ask each parent individually whether or not their 4-year-olds enjoyed the penis of a middle-aged man.

I guess launching 6,000 nukes could just be a wacky accident. Like that time the Germans brought the Jews to take showers and accidentally replaced the bath aromas with prussian blue, and hilarity ensued. Oopsy-daisy!

   829. McCoy Posted: July 05, 2014 at 11:14 PM (#4744503)
Which is a bit like complaining about a nursery school firing a child molester because they didn't actually ask each parent individually whether or not their 4-year-olds enjoyed the penis of a middle-aged man.

Really? It's a bit like that?

Seems to me history has been full of countries letting their fellow countries get swallowed up, conquered, or massacred. I'd think most countries if they had a choice between several thousand nukes going off thousands and thousands of miles away or having thousands and thousands of nukes going off everywhere they'd choose them to go off far away. Why would Brazil or Canada or Australia want the world to be set ablaze all because America is about to go up in smoke?
   830. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 05, 2014 at 11:15 PM (#4744504)

The answer to that seems rather self-evident.
   831. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 05, 2014 at 11:18 PM (#4744505)
(810) Just war theory is Christian doctrine.
   832. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: July 05, 2014 at 11:18 PM (#4744506)
Really? It's a bit like that?

Worse. A country that's just launched 6,000 nukes is a lot more dangerous than a single child molester. If we can damage the war-making capacity of a country that's aggressively launched thousands of nuclear weapons, we have a moral imperative to do so, regardless of our fate. That's patently obviously to anyone who doesn't think wars are historically settled with a series of Magic: The Gathering tournaments.




   833. CrosbyBird Posted: July 05, 2014 at 11:22 PM (#4744507)
Which is a bit like complaining about a nursery school firing a child molester because they didn't actually ask each parent individually whether or not their 4-year-olds enjoyed the penis of a middle-aged man.

If by "firing a child molester," you mean "murdering all the teachers to make sure they get revenge on one teacher who happened to be a child molester," you're getting closer. Except that this modified hypothetical kills a lot fewer innocents.

It's not about delicate sensibilities. It's about realizing when more fighting serves no good purpose and can further harm a shattered world. Once someone goes so far as to essentially destroy North America (Canada and Mexico don't get off easy with that much relatively local radiation), and place the entire world in grave environmental and economic danger, they won. The best thing for humanity is to accept that loss.

If we get to the point where any human being has the right combination of power and madness, we are on the ropes as a species. At that point, even if I'm in the US, I'm rooting for team homo sapiens; my nation no longer exists to be made whole.
   834. Howie Menckel Posted: July 05, 2014 at 11:23 PM (#4744508)
I liked the Dutch protesting their Christmas blackface traditional character controversy better.

   835. Lassus Posted: July 05, 2014 at 11:23 PM (#4744509)
Equating a liberal opinion to child molestation and nazi holocaust in one post of two sentences. Damned impressive.
   836. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: July 05, 2014 at 11:26 PM (#4744512)
It's not about delicate sensibilities. It's about realizing when more fighting serves no good purpose and can further harm a shattered world. Once someone goes so far as to essentially destroy North America (Canada and Mexico don't get off easy with that much relatively local radiation), and place the entire world in grave environmental and economic danger, they won. The best thing for humanity is to accept that loss.


So, your theory is that after Russia is victorious nuking the US, they'll simply say "OK, everything's cool. We'll now settle our differences with other countries by blue ribbon panels?"

Equating liberal opinion to child molestation and nazi holocaust in one post of two sentences. Damned impressive.

You made the shoe, might as well try it on.

Going back a page, it's really clear *exactly* what some of you think about the Warsaw Ghetto, which had absolutely no chance at winning and was done for. They were murderers, killing innocent Germans. For all they knew, the Germans only were going to play Parcheesi. I think there are a few people still surviving from the Sobibor uprising, there's still time to prosecute those dangerous war criminals.
   837. Lassus Posted: July 05, 2014 at 11:39 PM (#4744519)
Going back a page, it's really clear *exactly* what some of you think about the Warsaw Ghetto, which had absolutely no chance at winning and was done for. They were murderers, killing innocent Germans... I think there are a few people still surviving from the Sobibor uprising, there's still time to prosecute those dangerous war criminals.

OK then. I know when I've had enough.
   838. CrosbyBird Posted: July 05, 2014 at 11:40 PM (#4744521)
So, your theory is that after Russia is victorious nuking the US, they'll simply say "OK, everything's cool. We'll now settle our differences with other countries by blue ribbon panels?"

My theory is that if anyone fights back against the Russians, once they have demonstrated the moral capacity to nuke a country with enough weapons to destroy it several times over, everybody dies and we lose as a species. At least if we let the Russians conquer the world, another hundred years of existence might offer the hopes that we've evolved morally to the point where we disarm.
   839. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: July 05, 2014 at 11:47 PM (#4744522)
My theory is that if anyone fights back against the Russians, once they have demonstrated the moral capacity to nuke a country with enough weapons to destroy it several times over, everybody dies and we lose as a species.

You know what also causes us to lose as a species? Leaving a country that's nuking another into oblivion unscathed and able to do it again.
   840. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 06, 2014 at 12:13 AM (#4744527)
My theory is that if anyone fights back against the Russians, once they have demonstrated the moral capacity to nuke a country with enough weapons to destroy it several times over, everybody dies and we lose as a species. At least if we let the Russians conquer the world, another hundred years of existence might offer the hopes that we've evolved morally to the point where we disarm.

The United States, under Republican & Democratic Presidents - liberals, moderates & conservatives, with just about every possible combination in Congress, too - has uniformly rejected that policy, so perhaps the case for it is weaker than the advocates here claim. But maybe they'll be able to convince the Russians.
   841. CrosbyBird Posted: July 06, 2014 at 01:00 AM (#4744540)
It's all bullshit posturing until there's an actual nuclear conflict. Of course, we dance the dance and pretend that mutually assured destruction is a threat with teeth.
   842. BDC Posted: July 06, 2014 at 08:45 AM (#4744589)
Again, in real life, Schlosser's Command and Control and other histories of the cold-war arms race stress the tendency on both sides to eliminate human judgment and reaction time and options. (The Soviets actually invented something very much like the Strangelove Doomsday Machine, and just as in the film, didn't tell the Americans.) On on hand, that tendency is manifestly insane. On the other, it has an obvious weird logic. If you think that your nuclear enemy might blink, you might order a strike. If you know they won't – in fact can't – you are more effectively deterred.

This history has the substance of weird games dreamed up by demented logicians, but it was real enough.
   843. McCoy Posted: July 06, 2014 at 09:17 AM (#4744597)
I don't really get it. All the people who say we should nuke back for the good of the world don't want to be bothered with actually knowing if the rest of the world would want us to nuke back. I guess I now realize why the rest of the world thinks America is arrogant.
   844. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: July 06, 2014 at 09:18 AM (#4744598)
I'll second Sam's armchair analysis of Dan. What a whackjob
   845. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 06, 2014 at 10:14 AM (#4744615)
I don't really get it. All the people who say we should nuke back for the good of the world don't want to be bothered with actually knowing if the rest of the world would want us to nuke back. I guess I now realize why the rest of the world thinks America is arrogant.

This is not unique to the US. If France, the UK, China, Israel, India, or Pakistan was under imminent threat of substantive national extinction, they'd have the right to respond with their full nuclear arsenal.
   846. Greg K Posted: July 06, 2014 at 10:20 AM (#4744620)
This is not unique to the US. If France, the UK, China, Israel, India, or Pakistan was under imminent threat of substantive national extinction, they'd have the right to respond with their full nuclear arsenal.

To be fair I'm not sure he's talking about rights so much as the justification of universal rather than national interest. Though perhaps Indians would say they were retaliating with their nukes for the good of humanity too.

EDIT: On the other hand, at least in terms of Canada, if 6,000 nukes hit the US, there may not be any Canadians left to ask about how they feel regarding retaliation.
   847. McCoy Posted: July 06, 2014 at 10:29 AM (#4744622)
they'd have the right to respond with their full nuclear arsenal.

And we'd probably not see it that way. If India launched nukes at Pakistan we wouldn't be telling the Pakistanis to go ahead and nuke India. We'd be trying to get the Pakistanis to not launch their missiles. Nor would we launch nuclear missiles at India for the good of the world.
   848. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: July 06, 2014 at 10:37 AM (#4744627)
It's all bullshit posturing until there's an actual nuclear conflict. Of course, we dance the dance and pretend that mutually assured destruction is a threat with teeth.


Of course. What clapper and others seem to be missing is that I'm not arguing a change in national policy. That would be insane. What I proposed is a thought experiment that once deterence fails, and half the world is about to get blown up, do you blow up the other half. That second part, choosing to blow up half the world merely to punish the wrongdoer, is what makes these other hypotheticals like Wake Island and the Warsaw Ghetto non sensical. Of course you fight back against the Germans and the Japanese. There's no consequences for anyone outside of your tiny piece of the world.

If you are mortally wounded, and the only way you can retaliate against the guy who shot you is to take down 10,000 innocent bystanders along with him, do you do it? I say no. Snapper and others seem to say yes.
   849. McCoy Posted: July 06, 2014 at 10:54 AM (#4744633)
Well, not if you're standing on American soil. Then you're not allowed.
   850. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 06, 2014 at 11:07 AM (#4744636)
If you are mortally wounded, and the only way you can retaliate against the guy who shot you is to take down 10,000 innocent bystanders along with him, do you do it? I say no. Snapper and others seem to say yes.


Well, not if you're standing on American soil. Then you're not allowed.

Unless, of course, those 10,000 innocent bystanders standing on American soil can't produce a valid driver's license or other photo ID. Then #### 'em and fire away.
   851. McCoy Posted: July 06, 2014 at 11:21 AM (#4744646)
No, no, no. Then you have to check if they're Christian. If they aren't it's okay. Granted you then have to check to see how often they go to church. If they aren't averaging 30 times a year then you're good to go. But of course even if they do manage to average 30 or more visits you then have to check their tax filings to see if they are tithing enough. If not fire away. It is a very complicated process.
   852. Mefisto Posted: July 06, 2014 at 11:22 AM (#4744647)
Unless, of course, those 10,000 innocent bystanders standing on American soil can't produce a valid driver's license or other photo ID. Then #### 'em and fire away.


And a long form birth certificate. Never forget the long form birth certificate.
   853. BDC Posted: July 06, 2014 at 11:36 AM (#4744656)
You're not really an American unless your cheerleader daughter has bagged the Big Five.
   854. McCoy Posted: July 06, 2014 at 11:54 AM (#4744663)
So who were the moral actors in WWI? How were we the moral actors in WWII against the Germans? How were the British or Russian the moral actors against the Japanese? Weren't the Germans the moral actors against the Americans and wouldn't the Germans be the moral actors against the Soviets since the Soviets were going to attack Germany?
   855. bobm Posted: July 06, 2014 at 12:05 PM (#4744669)
So who were the moral actors in WWI?

Mary Pickford, Douglas Fairbanks and Charlie Chaplin :)
   856. steagles Posted: July 06, 2014 at 12:17 PM (#4744676)
Mary Pickford, Douglas Fairbanks and Charlie Chaplin :)
charlie chaplin should have never ridden that dinosaur.
   857. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 06, 2014 at 12:18 PM (#4744678)
So who were the moral actors in WWI?


Mary Pickford, Douglas Fairbanks and Charlie Chaplin :)

And Chaplin turned into a philandering Commie, but fortunately Gary Cooper was able to come off the bench and zap 28 Krauts singlehandedly.
   858. Jick Posted: July 06, 2014 at 02:28 PM (#4744722)
837. Lassus Posted: July 05, 2014 at 11:39 PM (#4744519)
Going back a page, it's really clear *exactly* what some of you think about the Warsaw Ghetto, which had absolutely no chance at winning and was done for. They were murderers, killing innocent Germans... I think there are a few people still surviving from the Sobibor uprising, there's still time to prosecute those dangerous war criminals.

OK then. I know when I've had enough.


Lassus, you're playing right into their hands! They escalated the analogy arms race just to see if you'd surrender.
   859. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 06, 2014 at 04:13 PM (#4744761)
Apparently, some aren't as committed as BBTF's left-leaning partisans - Why Liberals Are Abandoning ObamaCare Employer Mandate:
More and more liberal activists and policy experts who help shape Democratic thinking on health care have concluded that penalizing businesses if they don’t offer health insurance is an unnecessary element of the Affordable Care Act that may do more harm than good. Among them are experts at the Urban Institute and the Commonwealth Fund and prominent academics like legal scholar Tim Jost. The employer mandate, Jost wrote in a Health Affairs post in June, “cries out for repair.” Repealing it “might not be such a bad idea,” if it’s replaced with something better for workers and businesses.
. . .
Chris Jennings, a longtime health policy hand who helped the White House during the final implementation push, says the employer mandate has become a “political irritant” — although he didn’t take a stance on whether it should stay, go or be replaced with some other Democrat-blessed way of helping cover workers.

From the article, there appears to be a considerable difference of opinion among Democrats. That may be acerbated if they lose the Senate because of public opposition to ObamaCare, and there is no guarantee that repeal comes on Democratic terms.
   860. spike Posted: July 06, 2014 at 04:58 PM (#4744775)
OK, let's assume that's all true; I haven't studied the issue.

Then on what basis did you say "We have no idea what started the fire"?

Anyway, carry on.
   861. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: July 06, 2014 at 05:45 PM (#4744792)
I'm not ruining a perfectly good vacation to correct all the wrong things in the last two pages, but suffice to say the Plato.Stanford entry on just war theory is pretty well written and the "irradiate the Earth if it looks like we might lose a hill in Ukraine" contingent could do with some refresher reading. This is why we can't have nice things.

Also, Dan. Just...wow.
   862. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 06, 2014 at 10:09 PM (#4744880)
From the article, there appears to be a considerable difference of opinion among Democrats. That may be acerbated if they lose the Senate because of public opposition to ObamaCare, and there is no guarantee that repeal comes on Democratic terms.


Concern Troll is concerned.

I love how you have conflated a few people wanted to tweak things and the GOP burn it down and salt the earth. Pretty funny stuff dude.

Do you want to fix ACA? And what does that entail in your mind? Maybe we could follow the GOP endorsed plan to fix health care? Oh wait, there isn't one.
   863. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 06, 2014 at 10:44 PM (#4744898)

Obamacare going about as well as expected in New York ...

Insurance firms participating in New York’s ObamaCare health exchange are seeking double-digit hikes for patient medical premiums in 2015, new figures reviewed by The Post reveal.

The average hike sought by insurers for individual plans is 12 percent—but a number of firms serving large numbers of patients want to boost individual premiums by nearly 20 percent.

Leading the charge is Excellus Health Plan, which is seeking to sock more than 24,000 customers with a 19.7 percent hike.

The even larger MVP Health Plan, with nearly 33,000 customers, is seeking a 19 percent boost.

While a number of smaller plans put in for lesser increases or, in a number of cases, decreases, Health Republic Insurance of New York — the largest on the exchange with more than 68,000 members — requested a 15.2 percent increase for individual plans.

The proposed rate increases call into question one of the goals of the Affordable Care Act — curbing runaway health-care costs.

You don't say.
   864. GregD Posted: July 06, 2014 at 10:53 PM (#4744902)
Sadly we don't live in the pre-ACA Utopia where in NY Aetna requested increases up to 53.6 percent Oxford up to 34 percent in a single year
   865. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 06, 2014 at 10:53 PM (#4744903)
I love how you have conflated a few people wanted to tweak things and the GOP burn it down and salt the earth. Pretty funny stuff dude.

So, ditch the Employer Mandate or not? Or will the Varmint Caucus just go with whatever Obama says?
   866. greenback calls it soccer Posted: July 06, 2014 at 11:07 PM (#4744907)
863 left this out:
They noted that the agency has final say over what the rate hikes will actually be in 2015, the second year of the exchange.

New York's insurance department isn't shy about being a pain in the ass to insurance companies. They're not even shy about being a pain in the ass to other regulators. The rate request is a negotiating tactic.
   867. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 06, 2014 at 11:11 PM (#4744909)
Sadly we don't live in the pre-ACA Utopia where in NY Aetna requested increases up to 53.6 percent Oxford up to 34 percent in a single year

Or where a healthy self-employed male could get a catastrophic-care plan for $900 per year. I thought the "$2,500 per year" savings was supposed to come after Obamacare, but I guess it was before. Hard to keep up.
   868. Lassus Posted: July 06, 2014 at 11:26 PM (#4744914)
So, ditch the Employer Mandate or not? Or will the Varmint Caucus just go with whatever Obama says?

He asked you first.
   869. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 06, 2014 at 11:41 PM (#4744916)
So, ditch the Employer Mandate or not? Or will the Varmint Caucus just go with whatever Obama says?

He asked you first.

We've discussed my view of healthcare legislation before, but I'm not running for anything. Today's issue is the rats jumping the ObamaCare ship. Should Democrats ditch the Employer Mandate now in an attempt to stave off mid-term loses? After the mid-term to try to take the edge off ObamaCare as a 20016 issue? Or is the Employer Mandate a hill to die on, since we've been repeatedly advised by the savants here that ObamaCare is here to stay?
   870. Lassus Posted: July 06, 2014 at 11:56 PM (#4744918)
We've discussed my view of healthcare legislation before, but I'm not running for anything.

Neither is Bitter Mouse.


Today's issue is the rats jumping the ObamaCare ship.

- SPIT TAKE -

Today's issue? On what planet have you made this today's issue? Have you not been reading your own posts for the last year?
   871. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 07, 2014 at 12:22 AM (#4744922)
On what planet have you made this today's issue?

Did you read the article linked in # 859? Seems like significant divisions are emerging in "Team Blue". But, of course, at BBTF, "No One Cares" and "It Doesn't Matter". Elsewhere, it may be a little different.
   872. Lassus Posted: July 07, 2014 at 07:19 AM (#4744973)
Oy. Clapper, to you it's today's issue, yesterday's issue, the day before yesterday's issue, last week's issue, the issue of the month, the antipenultimate issue of the third week of the month before last, the issue of the start of every month, the issue of the fourth bank holiday of the year, ad nauseum. I believe on occasion you mistake "no one cares" with "no one is capable of caring with the frequency I demand."
   873. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 07, 2014 at 07:33 AM (#4744976)
If I were Clapper and contemplated the Republican field for 2016, and noted that in that year the great majority of Senate races will feature incumbent Republicans rather than Democrats, I'd be doing exactly what he's doing. We'll see what he does for an encore after November.
   874. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 07, 2014 at 07:43 AM (#4744978)
Should Democrats ditch the Employer Mandate now in an attempt to stave off mid-term loses?


No, that would be dumb.

After the mid-term to try to take the edge off ObamaCare as a 20016 issue?


No, that would be dumb.

Or is the Employer Mandate a hill to die on, since we've been repeatedly advised by the savants here that ObamaCare is here to stay?


ACA Will change over time, but the bulk of it is here to stay. It is not frozen in Amber, perfect in all respects. Just because some folks within the Democratic Party have differing opinions is hardly a sign of an impending split. Healthy parties have debate on issues. It is only in diseased parties, ossified and moribund where all debate has stopped and everyone thinks the same things, says the same things, and jostles to be most pure in the one true belief of the party. When Democrats start acting that way I will be worried, until then, not so much.
   875. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: July 07, 2014 at 08:25 AM (#4744991)
It's kind of amazing that this thread manages to be awful in a totally new and different way every time I open it.
   876. McCoy Posted: July 07, 2014 at 08:35 AM (#4744995)
Can't we all just talk about the Kaiser?
   877. Greg K Posted: July 07, 2014 at 08:53 AM (#4745002)
Can't we all just talk about the Kaiser?

Only if it's about going back in time to nuke him.

I did hear a Hapsburg on the radio the other day talking about how much of a jerk Gavrilo Princip was. I wonder what the Hohenzollern folks are up to these days.

Upon looking it up I see Prince of Prussia is still a Hohenzollern, though they do not appear to play any political role at all.
   878. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 07, 2014 at 09:13 AM (#4745008)
Can't we all just talk about the Kaiser?

Only if it's about going back in time to nuke him.


Nah, we should have let the Kaiser win. We would have just gotten the EU 75 years sooner, and skipped all that Soviet/Nazi unpleasantness.
   879. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 07, 2014 at 09:17 AM (#4745010)
WWI, the Roaring 20s, Great Depression, and then WWII were a crazy important stretch of time, each leaving a strong imprint on the psyche of the US and the world. I have no idea how things would change if WWI ended differently. Really hard to say, maybe better, maybe worse.
   880. JE (Jason) Posted: July 07, 2014 at 09:21 AM (#4745012)
I have no idea how things would change if WWI ended differently. Really hard to say, maybe better, maybe worse.

Maybe the Astros sign Derek Jeter and Phil Nevin gives out gift baskets?
   881. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 07, 2014 at 09:24 AM (#4745015)
WWI, the Roaring 20s, Great Depression, and then WWII were a crazy important stretch of time, each leaving a strong imprint on the psyche of the US and the world. I have no idea how things would change if WWI ended differently. Really hard to say, maybe better, maybe worse.

If you could avoid the Russian Revolution/Civil War/Stalin/Hitler/WW2 it would be really hard not to be way ahead.
   882. Lassus Posted: July 07, 2014 at 09:26 AM (#4745018)
I'm currently reading this insane alternate history where the Titanic isn't sunk - sort of - and all kinds of insanity happens as a result. The US is divided by Germany and Japan is only the beginning.
   883. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 07, 2014 at 09:28 AM (#4745020)
I'm currently reading this insane alternate history where the Titanic isn't sunk - sort of - and all kinds of insanity happens as a result. The US is divided by Germany and Japan is only the beginning.

Is that guy confused? Did he mean the Lusitania? WTF does the Titanic sinking have to do with the US entering WW1?
   884. McCoy Posted: July 07, 2014 at 09:38 AM (#4745024)
Butterfly effect, baby. Might have to pick up the book
   885. Lassus Posted: July 07, 2014 at 09:44 AM (#4745027)
It's pretty complicated. I'm still waiting to be convinced.

And horrifyingly, over the last four days, I have misplaced the damn thing. I may have to buy another, unfortunately.
   886. JE (Jason) Posted: July 07, 2014 at 09:47 AM (#4745029)
It's pretty complicated. And horrifyingly, over the last four days, I have misplaced the damn thing. I may have to buy another, unfortunately.

Yes, keep us posted what you learn. In particular, let us know what impact, if any, it has on the BBTF softball game.
   887. JE (Jason) Posted: July 07, 2014 at 09:49 AM (#4745031)
If you could avoid the Russian Revolution/Civil War/Stalin/Hitler/WW2 it would be really hard not to be way ahead.

If you could avoid the Russian Revolution, how would Yankee Redneck be able to criticize Bud Selig?
   888. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: July 07, 2014 at 09:52 AM (#4745036)
Don't sell me short.
   889. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 07, 2014 at 09:52 AM (#4745038)
WWI, the Roaring 20s, Great Depression, and then WWII were a crazy important stretch of time, each leaving a strong imprint on the psyche of the US and the world. I have no idea how things would change if WWI ended differently. Really hard to say, maybe better, maybe worse.


If you could avoid the Russian Revolution/Civil War/Stalin/Hitler/WW2 it would be really hard not to be way ahead.

Given that how both world wars were major factors in toppling colonialism and white supremacy, it really kind of boils down to "way ahead" for whom?

And of course there's absolutely no way to say where we'd be now if the world of 1914 had simply muddled forth for a few more years, uninterrupted by one particular war and one particular revolution. The underlying causes of those two cataclysmic events weren't going to go away permanently, or necessarily have been resolved peacefully.
   890. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: July 07, 2014 at 09:58 AM (#4745045)
Maybe the Astros sign Derek Jeter and Phil Nevin gives out gift baskets?


A-Rod is a minotaur?
   891. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 07, 2014 at 09:58 AM (#4745047)
Given that how both world wars were major factors in toppling colonialism and white supremacy, it really kind of boils down to "way ahead" for whom?

Yeah, like post-colonialism was such a picnic.

I think avoiding the deaths of 200 million people (between Russia, WW2, Maoist China, etc.), and the complete devastation of Europe, due to Nazism and Communism is well worth the Raj soldiering on for another decade or two.

And of course there's absolutely no way to say where we'd be now if the world of 1914 had simply muddled forth for a few more years, uninterrupted by one particular war and one particular revolution. The underlying causes of those two cataclysmic events weren't going to go away permanently, or necessarily have been resolved peacefully.

I was positing a German victory in WW1, not a continuation of the pre-war situation.
   892. McCoy Posted: July 07, 2014 at 09:58 AM (#4745048)
As long as he British royal family was around you were going to have a lot of bloodshed. If you want to really alter history kill queen Victoria when she was 10.
   893. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: July 07, 2014 at 09:59 AM (#4745049)
Now I'm imagining an alternate BBTF where the royalists won and Joey complains incessantly about "white diaper babies".
   894. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 07, 2014 at 10:03 AM (#4745055)
Now I'm imagining an alternate BBTF where the royalists won and Joey complains incessantly about "white diaper babies".

I, for one, welcome our new Habsburg overlords.
   895. JE (Jason) Posted: July 07, 2014 at 10:04 AM (#4745056)
It's kind of amazing that this thread manages to be awful in a totally new and different way every time I open it.

Care to walk back that comment now, Vlad? :)
   896. villageidiom Posted: July 07, 2014 at 10:07 AM (#4745058)
It's kind of amazing that this thread manages to be awful in a totally new and different way every time I open it.
Agreed.

On the nuclear question, we clearly have some people for whom {live free > live > die} are arguing with others for whom {live free > die > live}, about how best to impose their own beliefs on the billions of survivors who haven't clearly chosen one or the other to this point.

TYC continues his ritual of unrealized schadenfreude.

There are still questions about what happened in Waco, much like there are still questions about Obama's nation of origin. That is, the trail of evidence has not stopped people from asking questions that the evidence has already answered.

And greenback speaks the truth about NY insurance regulation. I've lived it.
   897. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 07, 2014 at 10:09 AM (#4745061)
Given that how both world wars were major factors in toppling colonialism and white supremacy, it really kind of boils down to "way ahead" for whom?

Yeah, like post-colonialism was such a picnic.


Yes, and be sure to remind the Africans and the Indians and the Indochinese how they prospered under the benevolent rule of their white masters.

I think avoiding the deaths of 200 million people (between Russia, WW2, Maoist China, etc.), and the complete devastation of Europe, due to Nazism and Communism is well worth the Raj soldiering on for another decade or two.

Right, as if worldwide white supremacy was nothing but a matter of who was in charge of those military parades.

And of course there's absolutely no way to say where we'd be now if the world of 1914 had simply muddled forth for a few more years, uninterrupted by one particular war and one particular revolution. The underlying causes of those two cataclysmic events weren't going to go away permanently, or necessarily have been resolved peacefully.

I was positing a German victory in WW1, not a continuation of the pre-war situation.


Really? And what then would have been the consequences for England, continental Europe, and the rest of the world? Do you suppose that Germany was the only country that would've reacted to a defeat with stab in the back theories and not-so-pretty consequences?
   898. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 07, 2014 at 10:11 AM (#4745065)
Now I'm imagining an alternate BBTF where the royalists won and Joey complains incessantly about "white diaper babies".

It would almost be worth it.
   899. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 07, 2014 at 10:24 AM (#4745081)
Really? And what then would have been the consequences for England, continental Europe, and the rest of the world? Do you suppose that Germany was the only country that would've reacted to a defeat with stab in the back theories and not-so-pretty consequences?

They may have reacted that way, but the only reason Germany was able to go for a second try at the brass ring was that it was by far the most powerful state in Europe, just like it is today.

With Russia dismembered (and Germany willing and able to defend the new nations against Russian revanchism), and France beaten, there's no real contender to German power on the continent. The UK turns its focus overseas, and to an alliance with the US, and likely continues its alliance with Japan.

Yes, and be sure to remind the Africans and the Indians and the Indochinese how they prospered under the benevolent rule of their white masters.

I'm not saying that, I'm just saying they have suffered as much, or more under their yellow, black and brown masters. I'm no nationalist. I see nothing intrinsically terrible if colonialism had persisted a bit longer.

Indochina's a great example. It's hard to see how an alternative, slower, de-colonialization could have gone any worse than a 30 year civil war, and genocide.

Of course you seem to have a soft spot for Ho and company, so delaying or preventing their ascendancy is probably a minor tragedy to you.
   900. GregD Posted: July 07, 2014 at 10:25 AM (#4745083)
A German victory before the US had a chance to enter would really have shaken up the 20th century since the Anglo-US alliance was pretty tentative then.

A US in the late 1910s that realizes it can pry away British colonies in tandem with Germany might lead to all kinds of different outcomes.

Other people can imagine the full impact on colonialism better than I can, but I would say it would have to be double-edged. It was WW2 that spelled the doom of colonialism, but it was WW1's outcome that kept the system afloat by solidifying French and British claims and eliminating Germany as a competitor. A different WW1 outcome could destabilize colonialism in the 1920s or 1930s, at least in some places.

If Germany couldn't claim actual colonies for some reason, it is easy to imagine it getting the US to join together to destabilize the British and French colonies.
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
Rough Carrigan
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogBlue Jays Acquire Mayberry Jr.
(4 - 7:45am, Sep 01)
Last: Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama

NewsblogBob Melvin calls Athletics 'pathetic' after Angels sweep four-game set
(3 - 6:24am, Sep 01)
Last: RMc's desperate, often sordid world

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread August, 2014
(944 - 6:08am, Sep 01)
Last: Swedish Chef

NewsblogSherman: How Reds react to second-half swoon will be major factor in offseason
(6 - 6:06am, Sep 01)
Last: Davo Dozier

NewsblogOT: Politics, August 2014: DNC criticizes Christie’s economic record with baseball video
(6297 - 5:07am, Sep 01)
Last: BrianBrianson

NewsblogTigers' Miguel Cabrera appears to re-injure ankle, leaves game
(10 - 3:48am, Sep 01)
Last: Cooper Nielson

NewsblogBackman named PCL’s top manager
(12 - 2:57am, Sep 01)
Last: ReggieThomasLives

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(779 - 2:09am, Sep 01)
Last: DJS and the Infinite Sadness

NewsblogJesus Montero gets heckled by Mariners cross checker during rehab stint
(58 - 2:00am, Sep 01)
Last: Weratych

NewsblogAthletics Acquire Adam Dunn
(22 - 1:37am, Sep 01)
Last: 6 - 4 - 3

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 9-1-2014
(1 - 1:13am, Sep 01)
Last: Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq.

NewsblogOT August 2014:  Wrassle Mania I
(90 - 12:53am, Sep 01)
Last: andrewberg

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 8-31-2014
(100 - 12:29am, Sep 01)
Last: Jose Can Still Seabiscuit

NewsblogHigh School Baseball Game In Japan Takes 50 Innings, Four Days
(6 - 11:46pm, Aug 31)
Last: Gamingboy

NewsblogPhoto of the day: Bill Murray, indy league ticket-taker
(42 - 11:33pm, Aug 31)
Last: Robert in Manhattan Beach

Page rendered in 0.8533 seconds
53 querie(s) executed