Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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

Monday, July 17, 2017

OTP 17 July 2017: Love is baseball, family. Keep the politics out

This is baseball, and it’s our cocoon, our special time together, protected from the harder realities of life. Here, the sun is always shining, even if it rains.

If you don’t understand that, you’ve probably never lifted a child up over your head to watch adults scramble after a ball or circle the bases after crushing a home run. Or maybe you’ve never slid head first into a mud puddle without a care of how you would get past your mom and into the laundry room. Maybe you’ve never sat for hours on a rickety old bus with ice on your ankle, sprained from sliding into home, but smiling because you were safe.

Maybe you should have; if not, maybe you should try now. You are never not welcome to go sit in the bleachers and cheer on the players at a youth game, even if you cheer for both sides. Leagues always need volunteers. I coached for 35 years after playing, so I know.

(As always, views expressed in the article lede and comments are the views of the individual commenters and the submitter of the article and do not represent the views of Baseball Think Factory or its owner.)

Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: July 17, 2017 at 08:54 AM | 3063 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: baseball, ffs, politics

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 2 of 31 pages  < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›
   101. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 02:21 PM (#5494732)
And I flat disagree.
That's because you're flat not a libertarian, but are instead a Trumpista.


EDIT: Not to say that Trumpistas think legality and morality are the same thing; Trumpistas think "Trump did it" and morality are the same thing.
   102. BrianBrianson Posted: July 17, 2017 at 02:24 PM (#5494733)
Legality has absolutely nothing to do with morality.


This isn't wholly true. In general, we enact laws to ease our ability to live in society. Obeying laws is part of our social compact, so there's some moral obligation to follow laws. Other considerations can override this, but the two things aren't wholly unrelated.
   103. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 17, 2017 at 02:28 PM (#5494737)
As he looked back, Donald Trump noticed two sets of footprints along the beach. But then Trump also noticed that at certain times of his presidency-- when he fired Comey and a special counsel was appointed, when his approval rating fell, when his imbecile son tweeted out evidence of collusion-- at such moments, there was only one set of footprints in the sand.

Troubled by this, Donald Trump asked, "Even though it's almost impossible to separate out the lowest moments of my presidency from the others... whichever those moments were, why did you abandon me?"

"My precious one," smiled Ray. "Those were the times I was carrying you. I totally don't support you, though.”
   104. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 02:29 PM (#5494738)
? That relates to her mishandling of classified information. While it's stupid to call what she did treason, it doesn't have anything to do with the notion of locking her up because she took David's hypothetical meeting with the Chinese.
Well, the two are separate, but punishments are generally viewed on a continuum; people who favor a given level of punishment for a given offense typically favor at least that level of punishment for an offense they view as worse. If being merely extremely careless in handling classified materials is treason worthy of execution, then presumably directly conspiring with enemies of the country would be doubleplus treason worthy of doubleplus execution.
   105. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: July 17, 2017 at 02:30 PM (#5494739)
And I flat disagree.


Some people believe the world is flat. They, like you, are wrong in their beliefs.
   106. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: July 17, 2017 at 02:30 PM (#5494740)
See the bolded part there? You agree with me on that part of the inquiry. That's my "everyone does it" argument as being relevant to the morality inquiry. Something doesn't HAVE to be moral just because everyone does it, but that is a strong argument for it, or at least (again) is relevant to the inquiry.

That entire post... and that is the only thing you can come up with. Sad!

All you can do is cherry pick one single thing to try and attack, because you have no defense for the overall point.

But again, adultery violates societal norms, despite the fact that everybody does it. That's setting aside that you still have failed to show that everybody in fact does it.
   107. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 17, 2017 at 02:30 PM (#5494741)
Sleepy, #89:
Wonder what it would look like if we took those poll numbers and extrapolated out to the 1 year point, 2 year point, 3 year point etc. It would be fun (though unlikely) if it projected that his approval would actually go negative before the next election.


There's a floor. Nixon and Truman both plummeted to 22%. George W. Bush's low was 25%. Lyndon Johnson with the Vietnam War bottomed out at 34%.

Meanwhile, neither Bill Clinton nor Barack Obama ever fell as low as 35%.

Looking at it the other way, Trump's highest-ever approval (46%) is the worst that's been recorded. The president with the second-lowest high water mark was Richard Nixon at 66%.
   108. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: July 17, 2017 at 02:33 PM (#5494743)
A Somali-American police officer shoots dead an Australian immigrant under questionable circumstances? I suspect this is going to get way ugly...


How is this worse than all of the other cops killing people for no readily identifiable reason?
   109. BDC Posted: July 17, 2017 at 02:42 PM (#5494749)
The most salient previous scandal involving foreign interference in an American election, that I can recall, was the "October Surprise" flap occasioned by the Iranians releasing US hostages the day that Ronald Reagan was inaugurated – the inference being that Reagan's people had cooked up a deal with the Iranians so that Carter would not get credit for the release before the election.

I believe that there has never been any direct evidence that this happened. But it shows how an enemy power can #### with people's minds, because the inference was so strong, and the allegations would have been so serious. The scandal existed in a sort of grey area of bad, though fuzzy, optics.

IOW, you want to avoid that sort of appearance at any cost, just politically speaking. (And even though there are times you simply can't.)

Morality or legality aside, that makes Trump Jr.'s actions incredibly stupid (Fancy Pants mentioned the threat of blackmail, for instance). Sometimes the scandal is that you let the scandal happen.

Apologies if this was discussed at length in previous threads …
   110. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: July 17, 2017 at 02:43 PM (#5494750)
How is this worse than all of the other cops killing people for no readily identifiable reason?

It's not. He is just that desperate to distract from the raging dumpster fire that is D.C. right now, that he would rather talk about police violence.
   111. Hot Wheeling American Posted: July 17, 2017 at 02:49 PM (#5494754)
Russia rejects any US conditions for return of seized compounds

Russia has described any possible conditions set by Washington to return two of the country's diplomatic compounds in the US that were closed down late last year as "unacceptable."

"We have repeatedly said that we think any conditions are unacceptable. We think that the diplomatic property must be returned without any conditions and talks," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told CNN Monday.

"What is happening is -- de facto and de jure -- a violation of international law," he said. "Contacts are happening between the foreign policy departments. Kremlin, as it is, does not really participate but as you know this issue was raised by President [Vladimir] Putin during his G20 meeting with President Trump in a quite straightforward manner."


Perfect opportunity for the negotiator-in-chief to show off his talents.
   112. Hot Wheeling American Posted: July 17, 2017 at 02:51 PM (#5494755)
OW, you want to avoid that sort of appearance at any cost, just politically speaking.


This letter from George HW to George W in '88 was going around this weekend:

He said the family would be subject to “microscopic probing,” and warned them against new friends who would ask them for favors.

“My plea is this: please do not contact any federal agency or department on anything,” Bush Sr. wrote. “A call from a ‘Bush’ will get returned, but there is a great likelihood that it will be leaked; maybe deliberately misrepresented.”

He told the family to forward any legitimate inquiries to his office, “so no one can accuse any of the family of trying to use influence.”
   113. Morty Causa Posted: July 17, 2017 at 02:55 PM (#5494757)
Couching arguments in terms of morality mostly just allows a lot of swanking. Assuming superiority without actually arguing it to a probative conclusion. I prefer dealing with a frame of reference that uses the overarching terminology "right and wrong". Much of law has to do with what we think is right or wrong. Some of that, a lot of it, may fall within the purview of some moral system or other, but all of it has to do with what some authority with power thinks is best. Most of the rest of law has to do with what is necessary for an ordered, stable, safe and prosperous just community. But, again, that is in some way necessitates declaring something right or wrong.
   114. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 02:58 PM (#5494759)
This letter from George HW to George W in '88 was going around this weekend:
"We are sailing into unchartered waters"? That's what happens when you let people from lesser Ivies be president.
   115. Morty Causa Posted: July 17, 2017 at 03:01 PM (#5494760)
Meanwhile, neither Bill Clinton nor Barack Obama ever fell as low as 35%.

Remember when Yankee Clapper gleefully reported every downturn increment in Obama's low ratings, only to grow strangely silent when they started to go up?
   116. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 03:02 PM (#5494761)
How is this worse than all of the other cops killing people for no readily identifiable reason?
Snore. You very well know the reason.
It's not. He is just that desperate to distract from the raging dumpster fire that is D.C. right now, that he would rather talk about police violence.
Snore. I commented on the "dumpster fire" a bunch of times this weekend.
   117. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 03:07 PM (#5494764)
I hate to be a party pooper, Mouse, but...

The assault on Mosul appears to be making matters worse, not better:
Despite the Iraqi government’s proclamation of victory against ISIS in Mosul, reports on the ground indicate that fighting and airstrikes continued in and around the Old City over the weekend. Yet more troubling were a series of videos, photographs and first-person testimony showing Iraqi security forces engaged in organized extrajudicial executions and torture, seemingly driven by sectarian revenge. Several leaked videos showed Iraqi forces throwing live men off a cliff, before riddling their bodies with automatic gunfire. The scene eerily resembled some of ISIS’ mass executions of 2014, in which Iraqi soldiers were executed and thrown into a river.

While such incidents may be an exception to the norm, their rapid proliferation across the internet means they will have a deeply damaging effect, especially when combined with the apocalyptic destruction wrought upon Mosul by U.S.-led coalition operations. Winning the military battles are tactical victories; winning the hearts and minds of ISIS’ target audience is the major strategic challenge that lies ahead. We may already be losing it.
   118. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: July 17, 2017 at 03:09 PM (#5494767)
Trump administration has killed nearly as many civilians in ISIS strikes as Obama’s did in 8 years

Airwars researchers estimate that at least 2,300 civilians likely died from Coalition strikes overseen by the Obama White House—roughly 80 each month in Iraq and Syria. As of July 13, more than 2,200 additional civilians appear to have been killed by Coalition raids since Trump was inaugurated—upwards of 360 per month, or 12 or more civilians killed for every single day of his administration.

The Coalition’s own confirmed casualty numbers—while much lower than other estimates—also show the same trend. Forty percent of the 603 civilians so far admitted killed by the alliance died in just the first four months of Trump’s presidency, the Coalition’s own data show.
   119. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: July 17, 2017 at 03:10 PM (#5494770)
I hate to be a party pooper, Mouse, but...


Wait, you think that sort of thing surprises me? Um, you realize I am the one that is against the vast majority of military adventures, while you are for them, right? So, um, yeah. Good one.
   120. BrianBrianson Posted: July 17, 2017 at 03:11 PM (#5494772)
Wouldn't that be making matters perhaps the same, rather than worse?
   121. Morty Causa Posted: July 17, 2017 at 03:14 PM (#5494777)
   122. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 03:16 PM (#5494778)
Trump administration has killed nearly as many civilians in ISIS strikes as Obama’s did in 8 years
Some 400,000 Syrian civilians died in no small part because Obama dithered, then effectively ceded the country to Russia and Iran. Next?
   123. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 03:17 PM (#5494780)
Wait, you think that sort of thing surprises me? Um, you realize I am the one that is against the vast majority of military adventures, while you are for them, right? So, um, yeah. Good one.
I guess it must've been another Mouse who came awfully close to spiking the football a week or so ago in reporting news from Mosul.
   124. There are no words... (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 03:17 PM (#5494781)
Telling us that X is legal gives us no information about whether X is moral.


Right. Slavery was legal until 1866, but was never moral.
   125. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: July 17, 2017 at 03:18 PM (#5494783)
Some 400,000 Syrian civilians died in no small part because Obama dithered. Next?


Wait, next? People are dying at a greatly increased rate.

"I can make an argument that some Democrat did something sort of similar, so hey let's ignore all the death. Because, hey, politics. Am I right, or am I right?"

Sigh. Most everyone here slammed Obama for his drone policy for a reason, but I guess criticizing the Dear Leader is out of bounds on this subject. Because Obama.
   126. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: July 17, 2017 at 03:19 PM (#5494784)
I guess it must've been another Mouse who came awfully close to spiking the football a week or so ago in reporting news from Mosul.


Go back and read what I read, because you didn't understand it the first time. If you have questions I will gladly answer them. Think of it as an opportunity for dialogue.
   127. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 03:20 PM (#5494788)
See the bolded part there? You agree with me on that part of the inquiry. That's my "everyone does it" argument as being relevant to the morality inquiry. Something doesn't HAVE to be moral just because everyone does it, but that is a strong argument for it, or at least (again) is relevant to the inquiry.

That entire post... and that is the only thing you can come up with. Sad!

All you can do is cherry pick one single thing to try and attack, because you have no defense for the overall point.


It was a significant pillar of my argument. And you agreed with it.
   128. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 03:24 PM (#5494792)
Go back and read what I read, because you didn't understand it the first time. If you have questions I will gladly answer them. Think of it as an opportunity for dialogue.
You were taunting imaginary people about how the fall of Mosul proved that ISIS wasn't an existential threat.
   129. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 17, 2017 at 03:24 PM (#5494793)
It was a significant pillar of my argument.


If your argument can be used to prove slavery is moral or adultery is moral (and it can), then it proves nothing about morality.
   130. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: July 17, 2017 at 03:26 PM (#5494794)
Morality needs to stand on its own, based on principles, standards, and societal norms.

See the bolded part there? You agree with me on that part of the inquiry. That's my "everyone does it" argument as being relevant to the morality inquiry. Something doesn't HAVE to be moral just because everyone does it, but that is a strong argument for it, or at least (again) is relevant to the inquiry.
Except that's not how it works. To be moral, an act has to be more than just a "societal norm".

The new MLB rule for plays at 2nd base require the runner to slide towards the bag, keep contact with the bag, and not make illegal contact with the fielder. That doesn't mean that as long as the runner does one of the things it's a legal slide - he has to do all three.
   131. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 03:32 PM (#5494797)
If your argument can be used to prove slavery is moral or adultery is moral (and it can), then it proves nothing about morality.


It's like people can't read.

My argument can't be used to prove slavery is moral. My argument is not that legality and morality are the same; my argument is that legality can be an indicator of morality.

Laws on the whole just don't fall randomly out of trees. There's a moral reason for the law against rape. Laws are in part an attempt to graft a moral code onto society. We might not agree with a particular law or with the moral code but there's typically an attempt at a rational basis. And since none of us agree that rape for example should be permitted in our society then we're on the same page to some degree. That's why it can be an argument for morality that something is legal, though far from dispositive.
   132. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 03:33 PM (#5494798)
Sigh. Most everyone here slammed Obama for his drone policy for a reason, but I guess criticizing the Dear Leader is out of bounds on this subject. Because Obama.
Whenever I weighed in on the topic, I criticized Obama for his over-reliance on drones as a means of combatting terror. (EDIT: I did occasionally tease supposed civil libertarian lefties who kept mum or didn't talk much about the targeting of USCs abroad sans due process.) And it's beyond silly to think that I'm satisfied with Trump's policies, particularly the ill-advised cease-fire agreement with Moscow in SW Syria.
   133. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 03:36 PM (#5494799)
You were taunting imaginary people about how the fall of Mosul proved that ISIS wasn't an existential threat.
Yeah, this one's not even close. It's pretty clear that, unlike with Sammy, gaslighting doesn't come to Mouse naturally.
   134. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 17, 2017 at 03:36 PM (#5494800)
Mouse did it for adultery. I will do it for slavery.

It's 1860 and I I've in Montgomery, AL. My argument that slavery is moral is at least the following:

1. It's legal.
2. Everyone has always known that slaves here live a better life than in savage Africa.
3. There's been no showing that civilizations haven't consistently engaged in this type of conduct for a great many years, whether it be Africans, Orientals, or Moors.
4. Everybody in the south owns slaves
5. It would be immoral _not_ to have slaves run my plantation. It would put me and my family at a huge competitive disadvantage with everyone one who does use slave labor.
   135. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 17, 2017 at 03:38 PM (#5494801)
My argument can't be used to prove slavery is moral.


i just did. Well, what I did was use your exact same 5 bullet points to make my case. Why is my case wrong and yours right?
   136. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 03:41 PM (#5494803)
Laws on the whole just don't fall randomly out of trees.
No, far worse: they fall randomly out of legislatures.
   137. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 03:41 PM (#5494804)
Mouse did it for adultery. I will do it for slavery.

It's 1860 and I I've in Montgomery, AL. My argument that slavery is moral is at least the following:

1. It's legal.
2. Everyone has always known that slaves here live a better life than in savage Africa.
3. There's been no showing that civilizations haven't consistently engaged in this type of conduct for a great many years, whether it be Africans, Orientals, or Moors.
4. Everybody in the south owns slaves
5. It would be immoral _not_ to have slaves run my plantation. It would put me and my family at a huge competitive disadvantage with everyone one who does use slave labor.


Your above argument is as silly as Mouse's was but at least now you've come off the erroneous conclusion that I equated legality and morality.
   138. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: July 17, 2017 at 03:43 PM (#5494806)
You don't need to go to slavery. Go with taxes.

1. Taxes are legal.
2. Thus, Ray must by his own logic believe taxes are moral.
   139. simpleton & childlike gef the talking mongoose Posted: July 17, 2017 at 03:43 PM (#5494807)

It's 1860 and I I've in Montgomery, AL. My argument that slavery is moral is at least the following:


1860, 18schmixty. If you're here in town, please send your slaves over to mow my yard.
   140. Spahn Insane, stimulus-funded BurlyMan™ Posted: July 17, 2017 at 03:43 PM (#5494808)
Ray, you really, truly, don't seem to understand the basic concepts of morality. Really at all. I doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

Trump Jr.'s agreement to meet with the Russian lawyer was a deeply moral, selfless and patriotic act, and it's highly TDSer of you to suggest otherwise.
   141. Spahn Insane, stimulus-funded BurlyMan™ Posted: July 17, 2017 at 03:46 PM (#5494809)
Yeah, North Vietnam obviously.

Obligatory.
   142. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 17, 2017 at 03:46 PM (#5494810)
Your above argument is as silly as Mouse's was but at least now you've come off the erroneous conclusion that I equated legality and morality.


I used your exact same 5 bullet points.
   143. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: July 17, 2017 at 03:49 PM (#5494813)
You were taunting imaginary people about how the fall of Mosul proved that ISIS wasn't an existential threat.


No, they were real, people. Well USERNAMES anyway, not sure about the actual people. Other than that yes, my point was about the nature of the threat raised by ISIS vis-a-vis "The West". it had little or nothing to do about, well whatever imaginary argument Jason was trying to use to equate Obama (whose foreign policy I often disagreed with) and Trump(whose ... well everything I pretty much disagree with).
   144. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 03:49 PM (#5494814)
I used your exact same 5 bullet points.


You presumably typed your answers with your fingers too. But on balance your answers were absurd.
   145. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: July 17, 2017 at 03:50 PM (#5494817)
Your above argument is as silly as Mouse's

Yes it is. The point being that it is equally as silly as your argument.
   146. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: July 17, 2017 at 03:51 PM (#5494818)
Your above argument is as silly as Mouse's was but at least now you've come off the erroneous conclusion that I equated legality and morality.


In what way was my argument silly? I used your exact "logic" and form to argue about adultery.

Ray, do you think adultery is moral? Please use my post, read it, and explain in what way it is wrong. Explain how adultery is immoral. Since you found my argument silly.
   147. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 17, 2017 at 03:55 PM (#5494821)
But on balance your answers were absurd.


Your argument boils down to: It's legal, everyone does it, and because everyone does it, it's immoral not to do it. My slavery argument is exactly the same.
   148. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 04:02 PM (#5494825)
No, they were real, people. Well USERNAMES anyway, not sure about the actual people.
No. The only username -- sorry, USERNAME -- you cited was SBB, and he's a troll, not an actual person.
Other than that yes, my point was about the nature of the threat raised by ISIS vis-a-vis "The West". it had little or nothing to do about, well whatever imaginary argument Jason was trying to use to equate Obama (whose foreign policy I often disagreed with) and Trump(whose ... well everything I pretty much disagree with).
Your argument was that the great victory in Mosul demonstrated something something, while Jason is pointing out that the great victory in Mosul isn't.
   149. Morty Causa Posted: July 17, 2017 at 04:03 PM (#5494826)
"Out beyond ideas of right and wrong, there is a field. I'll meet you there." - Rumi

Would it have been better had slavery never come into being? What did civilizations do before slavery(which probably co-extensively developed with civilization)--kill their enemies? To have a slave system, you need wealth and the society has to have developed to a degree of complexity. In a way, it's a step up from what was done before. Right or wrong, moral or immoral, it may be better than the alternative, until something else became feasible and viable.
   150. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 17, 2017 at 04:06 PM (#5494827)
First, Bernie Sanders official spokesman said the federal bank fraud investigation of Bernie's wife was politically motivated, and now Jane Sanders herself is claiming the probe is "sexist". I wonder if she knows that the campaign of alleged feminist Hillary Clinton was onto the story?
   151. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: July 17, 2017 at 04:10 PM (#5494828)
Your argument was that the great victory in Mosul demonstrated something something, while Jason is pointing out that the great victory in Mosul isn't.


No. My argument is, was, and will always be that ISIS and all of extremist Islam is not and will not be (any time soon) an existential threat to the West. Their short time as a "Caliphate" and reversion to just another extremist group, killing people and endangering lives (but not civilizations) is a prime example.

SBB (who is both a Troll and a real person) often talked about ISIS as if they were an existential threat, as did other posters here (as far as I remember, but if you want to go through the threads and tell me otherwise I will cede the point), and in fact GB I believe published a whole host of notable people calling them an existential threat.

The reason I point out that they are not such a threat is because exaggerating the threat posed by them leads to very poor decisions in dealing with them. Poor decisions that lead to many people dying. Which is why Jason pointing out an alleged causality between actions not done by Obama and deaths in Syria, has nothing to do with my argument. Honest.
   152. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: July 17, 2017 at 04:15 PM (#5494831)
Would it have been better had slavery never come into being?
Yes.
What did civilizations do before slavery(which probably co-extensively developed with civilization)--kill their enemies?
Um, that's not exactly germane. The Africans brought to the US weren't our enemies; the thinking wasn't "slavery > murder".
To have a slave system, you need wealth and the society has to have developed to a degree of complexity.
There are people like Ray who think something like slavery is OK as long as someone's getting rich, but no one thinks those people are moral.
   153. Morty Causa Posted: July 17, 2017 at 04:17 PM (#5494832)
Um, that's not exactly germane.

How a system developed and embedded itself in cultures is always germane--and interesting, unless you just want to do that moral swanking we are reflexively prone to do.
   154. Zonk Tormundbane Posted: July 17, 2017 at 04:19 PM (#5494833)
Would it have been better had slavery never come into being? What did civilizations do before slavery(which probably co-extensively developed with civilization)--kill their enemies? To have a slave system, you need wealth and the society has to have developed to a degree of complexity. In a way, it's a step up from what was done before. Right or wrong, moral or immoral, it may be better than the alternative, until something else became feasible and viable.


Ultimately, I think society - and the individuals that comprise it - benefit most when questions of morality are answered with an eye towards the future and what could be, rather than the past and what has been.

IOW - there's certainly merit, or at least, it's discussion worthy from a historical perspective whether slavery was a natural evolution in social interactions and that whatever the practice was, it may have indeed been a step up.

This, however, is the root problem with Trump and the Trumpkins... for someone and people who so often fall back on the idea of grandiose changes in the 'way things have always been' - they don't look forward. They look to the past, real and imagined.

No matter what aspect of government and the Presidency you want to look - the past excuses every last foray to the lesser morality of the past.

Emoluments, foreign policy, nepotism, honesty, you name it -- the Trumpkin MO is to ignore any progress from history to the present in favor of mining history for excuses to regress.
   155. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 04:19 PM (#5494834)
There are people like Ray who think something like slavery is OK as long as someone's getting rich,


Stupid or liar? Which are you? Or does your screen name solve that mystery for us.

   156. madvillain Posted: July 17, 2017 at 04:20 PM (#5494835)
SBB (who is both a Troll and a real person) often talked about ISIS as if they were an existential threat, as did other posters here (as far as I remember, but if you want to go through the threads and tell me otherwise I will cede the point), and in fact GB I believe published a whole host of notable people calling them an existential threat.


Shariah bruh. Duh.

Seriously though, people are ####### dumb as ####. As far as existentialist threats go I'd put Shariah and the "Caliphate" pretty damn far down the list.
   157. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 04:20 PM (#5494836)
There are people like Ray who think something like slavery is OK as long as someone's getting rich,
Uncalled for. He only thinks slavery is okay if Donald Trump praises it.

EDIT: Or Hillary condemns it.
   158. Sleepy's not going to blame himself Posted: July 17, 2017 at 04:30 PM (#5494839)
There's a floor. Nixon and Truman both plummeted to 22%. George W. Bush's low was 25%. Lyndon Johnson with the Vietnam War bottomed out at 34%.

Meanwhile, neither Bill Clinton nor Barack Obama ever fell as low as 35%.
True, but I was hoping to snicker at a statistical anomaly based on Trump's historically awful early numbers, not hoping to predict a real result. Still, Nixon, Truman and W's approval ratings started out at 59%, 87% and 57%, respectively, so those low points indicate an average "fall" of 45 points (or 65%). Also, FWIW, LBJ started with a 79% approval rating and fell to 34%, exactly 45 points (whoa!) and dropping the average "fall" to 63%.

Trump started out at 45% approve :) So if he fell the same 45 points as these four former Presidents, he'll bottom out at exactly 0--sad, but not negative. I'm assuming that would be the "NK nukes SK and Japan and San Francisco" scenario. Although since some folks would support such an outcome, the chances of the approval rating falling to zero seems pretty low.

I guess for a more realistic "floor", we could use the mean; if he falls 63% of 45%, he'd bottom out at about 17%. That seems possible, even without a nuking; all it would take is a minor recession, which we are several years overdue on.
   159. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: July 17, 2017 at 04:30 PM (#5494840)
Stupid or liar? Which are you? Or does your screen name solve that mystery for us.


You need to teach Clapper how to use a screen name to identify who says what. Anyway, I don't know where you stand on slavery, but I am still interested in your take on adultery. Is it moral, or not?
   160. Lassus Posted: July 17, 2017 at 04:31 PM (#5494841)
I agree that's it's hilarious to suggest that Jason is in favor of ceasing any fire.
   161. Morty Causa Posted: July 17, 2017 at 04:32 PM (#5494842)
When did our sense that there were eternal absolutes as to morality? When we evolved into homo sapiens? Before? Were the moral categories always the same throughout our evolutionary history? If not, when and how were we suddenly imbued with this indelible sense? I believe many evolutionary ethicists and moralists would at least countenance the proposition for further contemplation and discussion that morality is very much situational, subject to time and space, and if the situation called for it, you'd #### your sister and eat your mother and father.
   162. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: July 17, 2017 at 04:45 PM (#5494846)
Um, that's not exactly germane.

How a system developed and embedded itself in cultures is always germane--and interesting, unless you just want to do that moral swanking we are reflexively prone to do.
The argument that "enslaving your enemy is better than killing them" (which is what I was discussing as "germane") isn't germane to slavery in America (which I explain in the sentence immediately following the one you quoted).
   163. Renegade (((JE))) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 04:50 PM (#5494847)
I agree that's it's hilarious to suggest that Jason is in favor of ceasing any fire.
Agree with whom? Who attacked my criticism of the Trump-Putin cease-fire agreement for SW Syria?
   164. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: July 17, 2017 at 04:50 PM (#5494848)
There are people like Ray who think something like slavery is OK as long as someone's getting rich,

Stupid or liar? Which are you? Or does your screen name solve that mystery for us.
Considering that you've been arguing that what's legal is moral as long as someone else also does it, I'll stand by my position.

But to answer your question directly, I'm a car salesman, so everyone assumes I'm both.
   165. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 04:51 PM (#5494849)
Considering that you've been arguing that what's legal is moral as long as someone else also does it, I'll stand by my position.


That has never been my argument.
   166. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: July 17, 2017 at 05:05 PM (#5494858)
Considering that you've been arguing that what's legal is moral as long as someone else also does it, I'll stand by my position.

That has never been my argument.
Then you need to explain exactly what your argument is, because that's all anyone here sees. Over and over again you've framed it that way, yet you keep saying that's not your position.
   167. Morty Causa Posted: July 17, 2017 at 05:08 PM (#5494860)
162:

Why something came into being and in all places, and why it persisted and is even extant in some places now, is very much pertinent. That views as to that changed over time is also relevant as my position is that morality is not eternal, absolute and immutable. By insisting only on considering African slavery in American in isolation, you seem to be implicitly endorsing that. So, I guess I'll leave it there.
   168. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 17, 2017 at 05:11 PM (#5494862)
That has never been my argument.


Your argument in #54 is precisely that. You used more words, but all you really said is that it's legal and everybody does it. If you would like to amend that, or add other substantive arguments, we're all ears.
   169. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: July 17, 2017 at 05:18 PM (#5494865)
Why something came into being and in all places, and why it persisted and is even extant in some places now, is very much pertinent. That views as to that changed over time is also relevant as my position is that morality is not eternal, absolute and immutable.
Except that many things came into being amorally, or the original (moral?) justification morphed into something amoral or immoral. So merely the fact that a particular act exists, or that it's popular, doesn't speak to its morality.
   170. Morty Causa Posted: July 17, 2017 at 05:21 PM (#5494869)
Cool.
   171. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 17, 2017 at 05:22 PM (#5494870)
That has never been my argument.

My argument that it's moral is at least the following:

1. It's legal.
2. Everyone has always known that campaigns will seek out dirt on political opponents from absolutely anywhere.
3. There's been no showing that campaigns haven't consistently engaged in this type of conduct for a great many years, whether foreign nationals of enemy powers or non-enemy powers.
4. There's the Hillary campaign's alleged ties to the Ukraine -- which to be clear I think are perfectly fine even if true and perfectly moral, which is part of why Don Jr's meeting was perfectly fine and moral.
5. It would be immoral _not_ to take a meeting with someone who you think has relevant and important information about
someone running for President of the United States.


1: Speaks for itself
2: Everyone does it
3: Different way of saying everyone does it
4: Another way of saying everyone does it
5: Yet another way of saying everyone does it

What are we missing here?
   172. Nose army. Beef diaper? (CoB) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 05:35 PM (#5494876)


US police officers have shot dead an Australian woman who reportedly called 911 after hearing a noise near her home in Minneapolis.

Minnesota’s public safety department said a woman was shot in Minneapolis after two officers responded to a callout about a possible assault on Saturday at 11.30pm local time. The police officers did not have their body cameras turned on.


Body cameras not turned on?

Quelle surprise!

But ... a *white* woman?

This might result in ... a stern talking to!

Or maybe ... even ... an official reprimand!

Sort of ... I'm sure she "menaced" them.

And, of course, she's a foreigner ...

   173. madvillain Posted: July 17, 2017 at 05:36 PM (#5494877)
When did our sense that there were eternal absolutes as to morality? When we evolved into homo sapiens? Before? Were the moral categories always the same throughout our evolutionary history? If not, when and how were we suddenly imbued with this indelible sense? I believe many evolutionary ethicists and moralists would at least countenance the proposition for further contemplation and discussion that morality is very much situational, subject to time and space, and if the situation called for it, you'd #### your sister and eat your mother and father.


When I studied Kant I mostly remember just thinking "what a ####### load of horseshit". Morality has always seemed contextual to me. Now obviously Kant formulated a hell of an internally consistent Moral Philosophy (and is certainly interesting as such) but I just don't agree with his first premises.
   174. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 17, 2017 at 05:43 PM (#5494882)
From the fool me once, shame on you, fool me 475 times, well I must be a Trump spokesman files:

Today in the press briefing, Spicey said "There's no reason for anyone to believe the meeting was about anything but adoption." Trump later tweeted that the meeting was about getting dirt on Hillary, anyone would have done it, and it's just politics."
   175. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 05:49 PM (#5494888)
about anything but adoption
Note that even if this had been true, it wasn't really true. When they say "about adoption," they really mean about sanctions -- you know, the same thing Michael Flynn et al. were chatting with the Russians about before taking office.
   176. Nose army. Beef diaper? (CoB) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 06:00 PM (#5494892)
Are you old enough to drink?

Maisie William's answer to this, with just her eyes, might just be the best moment of acting in the history of the entire damn show ...
   177. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 06:17 PM (#5494904)
Considering that you've been arguing that what's legal is moral as long as someone else also does it, I'll stand by my position.

That has never been my argument.

Then you need to explain exactly what your argument is, because that's all anyone here sees. Over and over again you've framed it that way, yet you keep saying that's not your position.


Above you say my argument is "what's legal is moral 'as long as' someone else also does it." That bears no relation to my argument. My argument is that legality and other people doing it are indicators/factors in determining whether something is moral, along with other factors. "As long as" is not now and never has been my argument.

Again, you guys are simply incapable of understanding the structure of my argument. I'm using these things as FACTORS in the inquiry, not "if it's legal then as long as someone else does it it's moral." Think of the test for fair use copyright infringement. There's no hard and fast rule. It depends on factors such as how much text someone quoted; the purpose of the use, i.e., whether it was for educational purposes; the effect of the use on the potential market; etc.

If you can't understand the argument type then there's no point in continuing the discussion with you.
   178. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 17, 2017 at 06:21 PM (#5494907)
I'm using these things as FACTORS in the inquiry,


Sure, but you have yet to give us factors beyond "It's legal, and everybody does it". So what are we to conclude? Do you want us to make up stuff? What else factors into it besides it's legal and everybody does it?
   179. Morty Causa Posted: July 17, 2017 at 06:25 PM (#5494910)
When I studied Kant I mostly remember just thinking "what a ####### load of horseshit". Morality has always seemed contextual to me. Now obviously Kant formulated a hell of an internally consistent Moral Philosophy (and is certainly interesting as such) but I just don't agree with his first premises.

Yes, and most posters here would, if you stop them and make them take a deep breath, agree with that. Probably many here are atheists or agnostic, yet they will revert to a tacit and implicit religious view of ethics and morality. Or, if they must, a "natural religion" view of things. Rights and wrongs are just there, out there, somehwere, and have always been.

That don't go on record as assenting to the propositions implicit in evolution and evolutionary theory. But, as Richard Dawkins put it so well in The Selfish Gene.

We no longer have to resort to superstition when faced with the deep problems: Is there a meaning to life.' What are we for? What is man? After posing the last of these questions, the eminent zoologist G. G. Simpson put it thus: The point I want to make now is that all attempts to answer that question before 1859 are worthless and that we will be better off if we ignore them completely.


Of course, Dawkins, and Simpsons, too, didn't mean it in an absolute categorical sense, but since Darwin and all that has transpired along those lines since, a Neo-Darwinian synthesis, if you will, has to be taken into account. Plato and Aristotle and their ideal forms and essences, and the extensive progeny that has sought to gloss, elucidate, and validate? For all times? C'mon, when did they lock in as immutable in our lineage that stretches back 3.5 billion years plus. So we ignore what we do know for what we desperately want to be. We gotta have that old-time religion, or at least the way of thinking it groomed and nurture. Believing makes it so.
   180. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 17, 2017 at 06:26 PM (#5494911)
It's legal, and everybody does it are both neither necessary nor sufficient for morality. Something can be legal and immoral. Something can be illegal and moral. Everybody could be doing an immoral act. Very few people could be doing a moral act. So It's legal and everybody does it, without supporting factors is gibberish. Likewise, the supporting factors, if they in themselves demonstrate morality, do not need it's legal and everybody does it.
   181. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 06:31 PM (#5494914)
Sure, but you have yet to give us factors beyond "It's legal, and everybody does it". So what are we to conclude? Do you want us to make up stuff? What else factors into it besides it's legal and everybody does it?


Again you. do. not. understand. the. argument. type.

Just because it's legal and commonly done doesn't necessarily mean that it's moral.

At any rate I also had factor 5:

5. It would be immoral _not_ to take a meeting with someone who you think has relevant and important information about
someone running for President of the United States.


I explained this one last week. You risk great harm to the US and its people by declining to hear negative information about your opponent that you think is credible, relevant, and important. Because if you decline to hear the information then the voters will be making decisions without relevant and important information that they otherwise would have.

If the Russian lawyer had gone to Hillary's camp and said, "We have video of Donald Trump raping a woman," and Hillary's camp believed the Russian lawyer was credible, it would have been harmful to the country for the Hillary campaign to ignore that. Thus a large factor in evaluating the Hillary camp's morality.

Whatever, I'm done with the topic.

   182. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 17, 2017 at 06:36 PM (#5494919)
No true genius is ever appreciated in his own time.
   183. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 17, 2017 at 06:37 PM (#5494920)
Whatever, I'm done with the topic.


Thank God, because you are completely incoherant on the subject.
   184. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 17, 2017 at 06:39 PM (#5494924)
If the Russian lawyer had gone to Hillary's camp and said, "We have video of Donald Trump raping a woman," and Hillary's camp believed the Russian lawyer was credible, it would have been harmful to the country for the Hillary campaign to ignore that. Thus a large factor in evaluating the Hillary camp's morality.


If a Chinese lawyer came to the Hillary campaign and said they had hacked copies of Trump's tax returns anf Hillary ran with them, you would have lost your ####### mind. So spare us the hypothetical crocodile tears over the poor, poor American electorate Mr "I can't be bothered to vote"
   185. madvillain Posted: July 17, 2017 at 06:42 PM (#5494926)
I explained this one last week. You risk great harm to the US and its people by declining to hear negative information about your opponent that you think is credible, relevant, and important. Because if you decline to hear the information then the voters will be making decisions without relevant and important information that they otherwise would have.


Attorney is the perfect career for you, the guidance counselor nailed it. It was obviously in Trump's patriotic DUTY to attend the meeting. In fact, the main criticism is that Trump himself wasn't in attendance, thus risking great harm to the US on the chance his son screwed it up.

If a Chinese lawyer came to the Hillary campaign and said they had hacked copies of Trump's tax returns anf Hillary ran with them, you would have lost your ####### mind. So spare us the hypothetical crocodile tears over the poor, poor American electorate Mr "I can't be bothered to vote"


Sometimes I get tone policed for refusing to get into fact based arguments with RDP: but you already know his non response response to what you wrote, so why even bother? Just use satire.
   186. DavidFoss Posted: July 17, 2017 at 06:45 PM (#5494927)
it would have been harmful to the country for the Hillary campaign to ignore that. Thus a large factor in evaluating the Hillary camp's morality.

What do the Russians want in return? That's why it is illegal! No one wants candidates going over and kissing Putin's ring for his support so he doesn't hack their email servers. That's crazy.

If Russia has information to help their favorite candidate. Why wouldn't they just release it? Why would they have to meet with anyone? If they ask for a meeting, that implies that they want something out of it too!
   187. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: July 17, 2017 at 06:52 PM (#5494931)
I explained this one last week. You risk great harm to the US and its people by declining to hear negative information about your opponent that you think is credible, relevant, and important.
And it was just as wrong last week.

Before the meeting you don't know if the information is credible, relevant, or important other than what you're lead to believe by others. What you do know is that the source of the information is not credible, and even if they were they're an enemy of the state so you can't trust what they'll tell you.

Which is why people threw out the "treason" card.
   188. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 17, 2017 at 06:55 PM (#5494933)
What do the Russians want in return? That's why it is illegal! No one wants candidates going over and kissing Putin's ring for his support so he doesn't hack their email servers. That's crazy.

If Russia has information to help their favorite candidate. Why wouldn't they just release it? Why would they have to meet with anyone? If they ask for a meeting, that implies that they want something out of it too!


This is an excellent point that Ray overlooks in his oh so belated concern for the electorate.
   189. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 06:58 PM (#5494935)
What do the Russians want in return? That's why it is illegal!


What an odd question. We've heard for many moons now that Russia wanted Trump to win the election.

(And, again, it's NOT illegal.)
   190. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 07:00 PM (#5494937)
(GLADSTONE, N.J.) Fringe left-wing NeverTrump TDS-suffering non-lawyer "on Monday addressed Donald Trump Jr.'s 2016 meeting with a Russian attorney, saying it's 'probably against the law' to get opposition research for his father's presidential campaign from a foreign country."
Oh, did I say "Fringe left-wing NeverTrump TDS-suffering non-lawyer"? I meant Chris Christie.


EDIT: Note that I still think this is probably wrong. I post this just to mock Ray's approach to the issue.
   191. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 17, 2017 at 07:02 PM (#5494938)
What an odd question. We've heard for many moons now that Russia wanted Trump to win the election.


Ray, you cannot be this dense. If all they wanted was for Trump to win, there is no need for the meeting. They just release it. The meeting is to extract something in return for their support. And as we saw, that was the case.
   192. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: July 17, 2017 at 07:06 PM (#5494939)
Yeah no one cares about this stuff ... no one.

Sixty-three percent in this poll, produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates, say it was inappropriate for Trump’s son, son-in-law and campaign manager to have met with a Russian lawyer during the campaign. Six in 10 also think Russia tried to influence the campaign, and among those who say so, 67 percent think Trump aides helped, similar to results in April.


   193. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 17, 2017 at 07:13 PM (#5494941)
Here's an important point. Ray claims Trump had a moral duty to take the meeting. Trump himself claims anyone would have taken the meeting. Not only has every politician not intimately connected to the Trump administration of both parties said otherwise, none have offered even the most grudgingly tacit agreement. Ultimately this is probably a poltitcal rather than a legal question, and right now the politics are 100% against.
   194. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 17, 2017 at 07:18 PM (#5494942)
Here's an important point. Ray claims Trump had a moral duty to take the meeting. Trump himself claims anyone would have taken the meeting. Not only has every politician not intimately connected to the Trump administration of both parties said otherwise, none have offered even the most grudgingly tacit agreement. Ultimately this is probably a poltitcal rather than a legal question, and right now the politics are 100% against.


But as you've already argued, morality doesn't hinge on "Everyone thinks X."
   195. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 17, 2017 at 07:23 PM (#5494944)
But as you've already argued, morality doesn't hinge on "Everyone thinks X."


If you want to argue that it was moral but nobody would do it, have at it. I mean, it's probably not immoral to run down 5th avenue with no pants on yelling "Winter is coming", but if that's the standard you want to hold the President to, no one can stop you.
   196. Lassus Posted: July 17, 2017 at 07:28 PM (#5494945)
Something can be legal and immoral.

Much of Capitalism, say.


If you can't understand the argument type then there's no point in continuing the discussion with you.

Many people understand it. That's different from agreeing with it.
   197. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 17, 2017 at 07:30 PM (#5494946)
If you can't understand the argument type then there's no point in continuing the discussion with you.

Many people understand it. That's different from agreeing with it.


Ray's not arguing. He's making an example of an argument. It's not his fault you can't tell the difference.
   198. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: July 17, 2017 at 07:34 PM (#5494947)
But as you've already argued, morality doesn't hinge on "Everyone thinks X."


But YOU have already argued that it does. "Everyone does(thinks) X" is literally the fundamental principle - err, factor? - you've bothered to name.
   199. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: July 17, 2017 at 07:51 PM (#5494956)
But as you've already argued, morality doesn't hinge on "Everyone thinks X."

You are letting Ray get away with a switcheroo here, which you shouldn't. He was very much arguing "Everyone does X" not "Everyone thinks X".

Everybody thinks adultery is immoral. They do it anyway. Consensus that something is in fact immoral is a much stronger indicator that it is, than people willing to do such is an indicator that it isn't.

Hell, everybody (except Ray and Donald Trump) thinks meeting with a hostile foreign government for the purpose of trading for incriminating material against his opponent is immoral. Switching to thinks from does literally destroys about the only argument he was willing to make (not that he was actually willing to back up his assertion that everybody does in fact do it).
   200. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 17, 2017 at 08:04 PM (#5494961)
You are letting Ray get away with a switcheroo here, which you shouldn't. He was very much arguing "Everyone does X" not "Everyone thinks X".


Ray's arguments are already nonsensical. Piling on would be beating a dead horse. He's lost it, and everyone but a precious few deny it.
Page 2 of 31 pages  < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
LA Podcasting Hombre of Anaheim
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogFinding the best spot for Giancarlo Stanton
(6 - 4:59am, Nov 22)
Last: stevegamer

NewsblogTaking Back the Ballparks - Phillies Voting Thread
(11 - 4:46am, Nov 22)
Last: stevegamer

NewsblogSources: MLB hammers Atlanta Braves, declaring 12 minor league players free agents
(59 - 3:42am, Nov 22)
Last: Swedish Chef

NewsblogA Discussion of WAR Wherein I Ardently Attempt to Avoid any WAR-Related Puns | Sports-Reference.com
(27 - 2:23am, Nov 22)
Last: Cooper Nielson

NewsblogOTP 20 November 2017: Sheriff’s official suspended 10 days over Cubs World Series sneak-in
(468 - 1:13am, Nov 22)
Last: Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant

NewsblogOT - November* 2017 College Football thread
(193 - 1:02am, Nov 22)
Last: Shredder

Hall of Merit2018 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(246 - 12:58am, Nov 22)
Last: Rob_Wood

NewsblogJoe Morgan Wants To Keep Steroid Cheats Out Of Baseball Hall Of Fame | MLB | NESN.com
(73 - 12:49am, Nov 22)
Last: Hotel Coral Esix Snead (tmutchell)

NewsblogOT: Winter Soccer Thread
(211 - 12:25am, Nov 22)
Last: Richard

NewsblogOT - NBA 2017-2018 Tip-off Thread
(1499 - 12:24am, Nov 22)
Last: LA Podcasting Hombre of Anaheim

NewsblogdWAR to end all WARs – Joe Blogs – Medium
(49 - 11:34pm, Nov 21)
Last: Meatwad in mourning

NewsblogGabe Kapler's only season as a manager gave hints for how he will lead Phillies
(34 - 10:10pm, Nov 21)
Last: Infinite Yost (Voxter)

NewsblogProspectus Feature: Bill James vs. The Noise - Baseball Prospectus
(9 - 9:26pm, Nov 21)
Last: The Duke

NewsblogOT: Wrestling Thread November 2014
(2114 - 9:23pm, Nov 21)
Last: Chokeland Bill

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-21-2017
(3 - 8:45pm, Nov 21)
Last: Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama

Page rendered in 1.1024 seconds
47 querie(s) executed