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, April 23, 2018

OTP 2018 Apr 23: The Dominant-Sport Theory of American Politics

All true, and I have joined in the tut-tutting. Yet I can’t help noticing that the people making these criticisms are mostly a bunch of white guys born in the 1960s. I came along near the start of that decade, so I’ve seen a few cultural shifts in my day, and the first one came via early-1970s headlines proclaiming “Baseball No Longer the National Pastime,” after polls showed that football had become America’s most popular sport. Pundits lamented football’s rise (“violence punctuated by committee meetings,” in George Will’s memorable phrase, though he was certainly no stranger to the press box at Redskins games), and indeed, the change coincided with a trend toward greater complication, bureaucratization, and crudity in American life. After brushing off the 1980s soccer scare, football remained unchallenged for decades.

 

(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: April 23, 2018 at 08:10 AM | 1350 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: nba, nfl, off-topic, politics, soccer

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 14 pages  < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›
   101. DavidFoss Posted: April 23, 2018 at 01:17 PM (#5658513)
What's the ratio between those who saw the interview and those who bothered to read the transcript? My guess is 1,000-to-1. ("Hiding" something from 99.9% of one's audience might be quite effective.)

Reporters and pundits were poring over the full transcript even while the edited version of the interview was airing. There was a whole cycles worth of articles and tweets associated with the unaired part of the transcript. Comey then continued his interview tour where other questioners could follow-up on any of those interesting parts. I don't think this is an effective way to bury something.
   102. Srul Itza Posted: April 23, 2018 at 01:23 PM (#5658515)
I'll repeat. Such vision. Such forward-looking strategy.


If it works, that is all that matters.

Power is power.
   103. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: April 23, 2018 at 01:30 PM (#5658516)
If it works, that is all that matters.

Power is power.


Not so much. Power is a tool to accomplish things. I'll take the Democratic accomplishments after 2008 over the GOP accomplishments post 2016 every day. And I don't mean I like the accomplishments more (though I do), but rather the significance of the accomplishments. YMMV.
   104. Hot Wheeling American, MS-13 Enthusiast Posted: April 23, 2018 at 01:32 PM (#5658517)
@fart:
one of my favorite things to remember is how the dilbert guy asked readers of his comic strip to email him every time they nutted
   105. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 23, 2018 at 01:36 PM (#5658519)
It does, because there's no evidence that anything was done other than reading the emails (*) and there would be no way the other investigative steps could have been done and analyzed and cross-checked against the rest of the file in three or four days.

It doesn't "appear" that way to you because you have no idea what you're talking about.
FLTB is projecting again. He apparently doesn't realize that they had the laptop for at least a month beforehand. They hadn't read the body of the emails yet, but that does not mean they did not have time to find out how the emails had gotten onto the computer -- not that it's a mystery, in any case, how emails to and from Huma Abedin could have ended up on Huma Abedin's husband's laptop.

Ms. Abedin, did Mrs. Clinton ever take any steps to ensure that you weren't passing along her emails to people without security clearances?

Mrs. Clinton, did you ever take any steps to ensure that email traffic through your server wasn't being passed along to people without security clearances?
These questions are doubly stupid, not only because there's no reason to believe that they weren't asked, but because they are based on a misapprehension of the law in the first place. In multiple ways. Hillary Clinton is not criminally liable if Huma Abedin mishandles classified material, and the existence of classified material in an unclassified environment is the issue -- not passing classified material to people w/o proper clearances.
   106. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 23, 2018 at 01:44 PM (#5658522)

Whoa, ouch. I don't see how David's reputation can come back from this dramatic contradiction: handwriting vs typewriting! Yellow pad vs. form! Agent vs. agents! In your face, NiepoWRONG.
The thing is, his correction isn't even a real correction. It is certainly true that FBI agents typically take notes by hand during interviews and then later transcribe those notes on a 302 -- but I didn't actually say anything to the contrary. As a friendly clarification, his comment would be fine, but (a) there's nothing friendly about FLTB, and (b) he wasn't intending to clarify; he mistakenly thinks he found a gotcha.
   107. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 23, 2018 at 01:45 PM (#5658523)
Quoted in #104:
one of my favorite things to remember is how the dilbert guy asked readers of his comic strip to email him every time they nutted


Scott Adams:
For the few women reading this, my language skills activate your sex drive, and I know it. (Rule 4). ...Predicting a subject’s future tell – and being right – is a powerful method of persuasion. It builds credibility. Here I am employing a bit of a magic trick to accomplish Rule 10. My suggestion that you will be more often reminded of sex this week is self-fulfilling. I am causing the change I am predicting. Putting the thought in your mind that you will have a wet, throbbing week ahead causes you to notice sexual suggestions in the environment that you might have missed before.
...
In order to fully enjoy your New Year’s Eve, I want you to find a way to thank me, in words, not deeds. This is the part that connects us and makes it real. That feeling of connection will release a different set of feel-good chemistry in your brain that complements your arousal and takes it deeper. On New Year’s Eve, and the following day, I will be checking my public email account at dilbertcartoonist@gmail.com. You can stay anonymous if you want, but you have to show your respect by thanking me for some of the best orgasms of your life, if not the best.

I assume the secret behind these Jizzbert tsunamis involves the fist... of... death.

And if you're alone, you just need to become a masterpersuader.
   108. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 23, 2018 at 01:49 PM (#5658528)

When I google Verne Troyer most of the first page is about him dying, it doesn't mean that's what he's most famous for. I don't know the slur, not exposed to a lot of Jewish hatred on the south side of Chicago(but lots for others), but I sure wouldn't count google results on page 1 to make a determination about it.
Jason and I had this discussion on FB. I saw this claim yesterday, and I had no idea what the basis was, so I spent about half an hour googling. Once you filter out the people talking about Trump and Todd, there are virtually no results on any page of the google results supporting the claim. (It's not the easiest search because "sleepy eyes" is a relatively common innocuous phrase describing people who look sleepy.) I did find one hit from 2013 on Stormfront mentioning it in passing, so I guess it's not completely made up, but I do not see any evidence that this is a commonly-employed stereotype of Jews.
   109. . Posted: April 23, 2018 at 01:50 PM (#5658529)
These questions are doubly stupid, not only because there's no reason to believe that they weren't asked,


Right -- like the FBI re-interviewed Abedin and Clinton after the Weiner discovery. But I guess since you've just been making stuff up the whole way, no reason to go all the way in.

In multiple ways. Hillary Clinton is not criminally liable if Huma Abedin mishandles classified material, and the existence of classified material in an unclassified environment is the issue -- not passing classified material to people w/o proper clearances.


Failure to establish handling standards once you've set up the rogue server makes the negligence even grosser. In fact, it could be asserted as an aggravating factor to add onto the gross negligence she showed in the first instance removal. Not only did Clinton set up the rogue server, but she did little to nothing to make sure rogue server traffic didn't go to unauthorized recipients.

So there's the "plus factor" Comey laughably asserted should be present.

Stick to employment law and figuring out what a 302 is.
   110. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 23, 2018 at 01:51 PM (#5658530)
Because I'm not deranged.

Dude, you fled the country.
   111. Laser Man Posted: April 23, 2018 at 01:59 PM (#5658536)
Not only did Clinton set up the rogue server, but she did little to nothing to make sure rogue server traffic didn't go to unauthorized recipients.
Neither Clinton's mail server or the government's .gov server are classified email servers. The assumption and the directive in each case is that no classified material is supposed to sent through those email systems. Sometimes people send things by mistake, not realizing that they are classified (Note that none of the email chains later deemed classified were started by Clinton). Neither system (and in fact, probably all non-classified systems that are not purely internal systems) would be expected to have any mechanism to prevent emails from being forwarded outside the system - that is one of the most common uses of email.
   112. . Posted: April 23, 2018 at 02:00 PM (#5658538)
It is certainly true that FBI agents typically take notes by hand during interviews and then later transcribe those notes on a 302 -- but I didn't actually say anything to the contrary.


You said they transcribed the notes on a Form 302 and that isn't close to true. Moreover, I know from firsthand experience how agents go about doing their work, having been in the room many times when they've been doing it -- which is why it took like five seconds to spot the error.

You actually should know this better because it goes right to what used to be your philosophy about law enforcement, prior to the onset of your TDS. If they're taking notes and then after the fact, turning the notes into something else -- the 302s -- it makes the 302s less reliable as evidence than even the contemporaneous notes. So the 302s are really two steps removed, not one, from a recording. Whether the FBI should be able to go into court and make 1001 cases, or any other case, with merely their recollection of what they were told -- as opposed to something a court reporter took down, as is the case in most other legal contexts -- is a very real question.

As to Flynn, I suppose doctoring the 302s is possible, but it almost certainly didn't happen. The real question is why the FBI should be able to browbeat anyone by saying, "You said X at this interview, it's right in the 302" if the person went in without counsel, thinks he said Y, and there was no independent source taking it all down.
   113. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 23, 2018 at 02:00 PM (#5658539)

Right -- like the FBI reinterviewed Abedin and Clinton after the Weiner discovery.
Why would they need to wait until after the discovery of emails on Weiner's laptop to ask Huma "did Mrs. Clinton ever take any steps to ensure that you weren't passing along her emails to people without security clearances?", FLTB? Why would they need to wait until after the discovery of emails on Weiner's laptop to ask Hillary, "did you ever take any steps to ensure that email traffic through your server wasn't being passed along to people without security clearances?", FLTB? What about either of those questions turned on the last minute discovery, as opposed to her establishment of the server in the first place?


Failure to establish handling standards once you've set up the rogue server makes the negligence even grosser.
No, FLTB; there is no "rogue server," and there's no negligence at all in setting up a server for unclassified emails, so it can't make the negligence "even grosser." Mishandling classified information would be the negligence.
   114. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 23, 2018 at 02:01 PM (#5658541)
Moreover, I know from firsthand experience how agents go about doing their work, having been in the room many times when they've been doing it -
Dude, I believe you've been interrogated by the FBI more than once, but "many times" seems like a gross exaggeration even for you. That's even less believable than your fake black relatives.
   115. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 23, 2018 at 02:02 PM (#5658542)
Abedin had said that she sometimes forwarded the emails to their home, so she could print them out. Apparently she was having difficulty printing them in her office.

I'm at a loss for how anyone, much less the federal government's primary investigative agency, can credit such a ludicrous story. A government official who works in Washington, DC and has a house there and another one in Westchester County, NY, with frequent travels across the country and overseas, forwards thousands of her e-mails (through an aide) to a disgraced former politician with no security clearance living in Manhattan - because no one can get the office printers to work - so he can occasionally print them out and somehow deliver them days or weeks later? Not sure which is worse, being gullible (or partisan) enough to believe such nonsense, or voting for a candidate who can't even do e-mail.
   116. . Posted: April 23, 2018 at 02:03 PM (#5658543)
Neither Clinton's mail server or the government's .gov server are classified email servers. The assumption and the directive in each case is that no classified material is supposed to sent through those email systems. Sometimes people send things by mistake, not realizing that they are classified (Note that none of the email chains later deemed classified were started by Clinton). Neither system (and in fact, probably all non-classified systems that are not purely internal systems) would be expected to have any mechanism to prevent emails from being forwarded outside the system - that is one of the most common uses of email.


Classified material routinely went through the rogue server. There was no "directive" from Clinton or anyone else that the rogue server be limited to non-classified material. If there was, none of us would even be talking about this because the case would have been over long ago.
   117. . Posted: April 23, 2018 at 02:04 PM (#5658544)
What about either of those questions turned on the last minute discovery, as opposed to her establishment of the server in the first place?


The reality that they had been actually found outside her staff's possession.
   118. . Posted: April 23, 2018 at 02:06 PM (#5658545)
No, FLTB; there is no "rogue server," and there's no negligence at all in setting up a server for unclassified emails,


It wasn't "set up for unclassified emails." That's a complete invention.
   119. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 23, 2018 at 02:10 PM (#5658549)
Classified material routinely went through the rogue server.
Lie.
There was no "directive" from Clinton or anyone else that the rogue server be limited to non-classified material.
There was presumably no directive (or "directive") from Clinton that nobody send her classified things via snail mail, either. So what? That doesn't make the bin at the bottom of her driveway a "rogue mailbox," and doesn't make her criminally responsible if one of her staff members slipped the Benghazi embassy security plans into a business envelope and dropped it off at the local post office.
   120. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 23, 2018 at 02:13 PM (#5658551)

It wasn't "set up for unclassified emails."
Yeah, it actually was. It's pretty shocking that you don't realize this basic fact at this late date.
   121. DavidFoss Posted: April 23, 2018 at 02:14 PM (#5658552)
Not sure which is worse, being gullible (or partisan) enough to believe such nonsense, or voting for a candidate who can't even do e-mail.

Wow... project much? A lot of conveniently partisan technical misunderstanding here.

I'm not familiar with how the Clinton email server was set up, but it is completely normal for a person to have VPN software installed on their home computer so that they can access work emails, work data, and even work source code remotely. People get addicted to their work emails and check constantly -- even on weekends and their days off. It is not a big deal for someone to put this type of VPN software on their spouse's laptop.
   122. Laser Man Posted: April 23, 2018 at 02:14 PM (#5658553)
It wasn't "set up for unclassified emails." That's a complete invention.
Yes, it was. Clinton set up her own server to replace the official government .gov email address she was supposed to use. Neither system was set up for classified emails. There is a separate system for classified emails, which Clinton used for classified emails.

The problem is that a couple of topics (drones, contact info for an African leader) were accidentally sent through Clinton's system, and these topics were deemed classified later. This is a clearly a mistake by whoever started the thread, and also by those who replied and were part of the email chain. But it should be obvious that the Clinton email server was not intended for classified emails, based on the fact that only these two topics appeared there during her four years as Secretary of State. Clinton used the proper classified system for her classified email.
   123. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: April 23, 2018 at 02:16 PM (#5658555)
AND YET:

The Presidency
Both Houses
33 Governors
Both houses in 32 States and the only state legislative house in Nebraska
One house in 4 others


"It says on your chart that you're ###### up. Ah, you talk like a fag, and your ####'s all retarded."
   124. . Posted: April 23, 2018 at 02:21 PM (#5658557)
Classified material routinely went through the rogue server.

Lie.


Wow, so you're denying that any classified material was found there. Some of it actually made its way to Weiner's computer. So I guess you're at the hyperventilation stage now.

There was presumably no directive (or "directive") from Clinton that nobody send her classified things via snail mail, either. So what?


I thought you were going to explain how the rogue server was "set up for unclassified emails, and unclassified emails only." That was what you said, although I added the "unclassified emails only" part because it's necessary for it to make any sense.
   125. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: April 23, 2018 at 02:21 PM (#5658558)
The problem is that a couple of topics (drones, contact info for an African leader) were accidentally sent through Clinton's system, and these topics were deemed classified later.


As a reminder, the mere *existence* of the drone programs is deemed "classified" for most purposes. It's ####### absurd over-classification.
   126. . Posted: April 23, 2018 at 02:22 PM (#5658560)
Neither system was set up for classified emails.


The concept of "set up" is meaningless, given the establishment of the rogue server. This isn't difficult. She didn't even have a State Department email address.

Classified information was found on the rogue server because it is entirely predictable that emails to the Secretary of State would contain classified information, whether or not there is some other classified information channel. Indeed, that reality is why she was grossly negligent in setting it up. In fact, I'm not sure the record even shows that she received emails at the "secure" location; that's why she said she generally received classified info in personal briefings or by paper.
   127. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 23, 2018 at 02:23 PM (#5658561)
. . . there is no "rogue server," and there's no negligence at all in setting up a server for unclassified emails, so it can't make the negligence "even grosser." Mishandling classified information would be the negligence.

Routing your e-mail through your own server, which had weaker security than the official channels, seems prettyy negligent to me, as does doing nothing to prevent the easily anticipated spillage of classified information into a system ostensibly designed for unclassified material. Without the rogue server, Hillary's mishandling of classified information would have been lessened considerably. There's also the problem of her deliberate evasion of the FOIA, record keeping statutes, discovery requests, subpoenas and Congressional inquiries. Seems pretty "rogue" to me.
   128. . Posted: April 23, 2018 at 02:30 PM (#5658564)
Seems pretty "rogue" to me.


The dilettante is hyperventilating entirely. There's nothing about the server that wasn't "rogue." She was supposed to receive her email and do email business on a State Department system, and she didn't ... and she didn't get approval from anyone to do it that way. Her employer didn't know she was doing business on that server. Indeed, it's hard to imagine how it could be more "rogue."
   129. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: April 23, 2018 at 02:31 PM (#5658565)
Routing your e-mail through your own server, which had weaker security than the official channels,


I mean, it's not like she just gave the national security briefing to Russian agents in the Oval Office, right?
   130. DavidFoss Posted: April 23, 2018 at 02:32 PM (#5658566)
Routing your e-mail through your own server, which had weaker security than the official channels, seems prettyy negligent to me, as does doing nothing to prevent the easily anticipated spillage of classified information into a system ostensibly designed for unclassified material.

The whole thing is totally inane. I would hope that going forward in 2018 the State Department has some sort of secure device for easy email access while on the road (which is most of the time). Anyone who has worked at any reasonably sized company in the past 10 years knows sales & marketing folks email from bizarre locations at bizarre times all the time. Fortune 500 companies guard their internal data and correspondences as well.

   131. . Posted: April 23, 2018 at 02:35 PM (#5658568)
Her testimony to the FBI about not knowing the meaning of classified markings was ... not credible.

Oh, yeah, I thought that (C) up there was a bullet point heading ...

LOL.
   132. Laser Man Posted: April 23, 2018 at 02:37 PM (#5658571)
Her employer didn't know she was doing business on that server.
Except that literally thousands of emails were sent to her clintonemail.com address from her employer and many others in the government. She wasn't hiding the fact that she was not using her .gov address. No one cared at the time.
   133. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 23, 2018 at 02:39 PM (#5658573)
Classified material routinely went through the rogue server.

Lie.
Wow, so you're denying that any classified material was found there.
Not at all. I'm calling you a liar. Seriously, if you're going to try to rewrite history, at least don't quote the part that shows you're doing so; it's insulting.

A: "X routinely happened."
B: "Lie."
A: "So you're denying that X ever happened."

I thought you were going to explain how the rogue server was "set up for unclassified emails, and unclassified emails only." That was what you said, although I added the "unclassified emails only" part because it's necessary for it to make any sense.
"You said X. Well, you didn't say X; actually, I fabricated X. But you said X."
   134. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: April 23, 2018 at 02:39 PM (#5658574)
The trolls have succeeded in getting you guys to talk about Hillary Clinton again.
   135. . Posted: April 23, 2018 at 02:39 PM (#5658575)
Yeah, it actually was. It's pretty shocking that you don't realize this basic fact at this late date.


No, it actually wasn't ... which is why a bunch of classified emails got there. It was "set up" to receive her business emails, with no distinction made by her or anyone else between classified and unclassified. It's not as though the rogue server had some special reader inside that said, "Oh, that email is classified, we can't let it through!!"
   136. . Posted: April 23, 2018 at 02:41 PM (#5658579)
Not at all. I'm calling you a liar.


I know. You do that from time to time and it makes you look shrill and ridiculous. This time is no exception.

   137. , Posted: April 23, 2018 at 02:43 PM (#5658580)
I will boldly predict that the central issue of every presidential election through 2088 will be Hillary's emails (in 2092, we'll start looking into Chelsea's VR library).
   138. . Posted: April 23, 2018 at 02:43 PM (#5658582)
I thought you were going to explain how the rogue server was "set up for unclassified emails, and unclassified emails only." That was what you said, although I added the "unclassified emails only" part because it's necessary for it to make any sense.

"You said X. Well, you didn't say X; actually, I fabricated X. But you said X."


I was trying to be friendly and help you out of a pinch. "It was set up for unclassified emails" doesn't do you any good without "and unclassified emails only." It really wasn't "set up for unclassified emails" anyway; it was set up for emails, but still ....

Like I said upthread, she took no steps whatever to ensure that her people didn't send classified info to her. That wouldn't have been an issue if she'd availed herself of the proper State Department email system. But since she didn't, and since it's blatantly obvious that the SECSTATE might receive emails with classified info in the course of her business, it is an issue.
   139. Hot Wheeling American, MS-13 Enthusiast Posted: April 23, 2018 at 02:44 PM (#5658583)
The trolls have succeeded in getting you guys to talk about Hillary Clinton again.

Yep. Anything to avoid discussing and reckoning with the intellectual and moral leader of the Republican Party.
   140. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 23, 2018 at 02:46 PM (#5658586)

Her employer didn't know she was doing business on that server.
Her employer sent emails to that address, so I think that would've probably clued him in.
   141. Laser Man Posted: April 23, 2018 at 02:46 PM (#5658587)
It was "set up" to receive her business emails, with no distinction made by her or anyone else between classified and unclassified. It's not as though the rogue server had some special reader inside that said, "Oh, that email is classified, we can't let it through!!"
Everyone who works on the government understands what systems are designed for classified use and what systems are designed for unclassified use. It is incumbent on the users to do this properly. Yes, on a couple of instances, mistakes were made, but fortunately, these were on fairly innocuous subjects (and may be part of the "over-clasification" issue that Rickey mentioned).

This exact same problem would have occurred if those emails were sent to a .gov address. These systems don't sort emails by themselves; they rely on the user to not send classified info on a non-classified system.
   142. . Posted: April 23, 2018 at 02:50 PM (#5658588)
Everyone who works on the government understands what systems are designed for classified use and what systems are designed for unclassified use. It is incumbent on the users to do this properly.


And when they make a mistake, it's still deemed ok, because the information is still on a secure system. Not so with a "mistake" on the rogue server.

The people at State didn't even know their emails would go to the rogue server.

And you keep saying she received classified emails in another place, away from the rogue server. What evidence is there of that? This is one where I admit incomplete knowledge, but I don't remember anything like that in the record. That's why she took pains to tell the FBI she got classified info by personal briefing or paper, rather than email.
   143. BDC Posted: April 23, 2018 at 02:52 PM (#5658589)
I will boldly predict that the central issue of every presidential election through 2088 will be Hillary's emails

How long did the "failed policies of Jimmy Carter" last as a talking point? I seem to remember them still surfacing once in a while in the GHW Bush years.

OTOH, you could say that pretty much every Democratic nominee between FDR in '36 and McGovern in '72 was still running against Herbert Hoover. That guy had legs.
   144. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: April 23, 2018 at 02:52 PM (#5658590)
How long did the "failed policies of Jimmy Carter" last as a talking point?


They were being trotted out as comparisons to Obama as late as 2016.
   145. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 23, 2018 at 02:54 PM (#5658592)

Classified information was found on the rogue server because it is entirely predictable that emails to the Secretary of State would contain classified information, whether or not there is some other classified information channel.
As Laser Man has patiently explained to you, in tones far more temperate than mine, classified and unclassified emails are on entirely separate systems. People are trained when they start to send classified material only on the classified system. If it's "entirely predictable" that people are going to ignore that rule, then it would've been just as grossly negligent on her part to use her state.gov email account as to use her clintonemail.com account, and the entire talk about the server would be a red herring.

By FLTB's "logic," it's entirely predictable that phone calls to the Secretary of State would contain classified information, and therefore it would've been grossly negligent of her to have a personal phone in her house or personal cell phone.
   146. DavidFoss Posted: April 23, 2018 at 02:54 PM (#5658593)
The trolls have succeeded in getting you guys to talk about Hillary Clinton again.

Yeah, I fell for it. I'm just standing up for fellow VPN users out there. Firing off a build without having to drive all the way into the office is nice.

They're the ones who wimped out on investigating her. They run on a 'Hillary for Prison' platform and then don't follow up? No guts. :-)
   147. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 23, 2018 at 02:55 PM (#5658595)
"Routinely" can be a synonym for "happened at least once." But it's not FBI agents writing Form 302 reports, it's one agent at a time. Because precision matters.
   148. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 23, 2018 at 02:55 PM (#5658597)
And when they make a mistake, it's still deemed ok, because the information is still on a secure system.
This is 100% false. It is no more proper as a matter of law or of computer security to put classified email on @state.gov than it is to put it on @clintonemail.com.
   149. . Posted: April 23, 2018 at 03:02 PM (#5658599)
As Laser Man has patiently explained to you, in tones far more temperate than mine, classified and unclassified emails are on entirely separate systems. People are trained when they start to send classified material only on the classified system.


And I've asked patiently, "What is the classified system" he's talking about, and did she get classified emails there. Do people have personal email accounts on this system? The FBI report, which I've skimmed, is unclear. It says there was a system she could send info to "all staff" on, but that system (or address) couldn't receive emails. Then I got bored and busy and moved on.

If it's "entirely predictable" that people are going to ignore that rule, then it would've been just as grossly negligent on her part to use her state.gov email account as to use her clintonemail.com account, and the entire talk about the server would be a red herring.


Then she did nothing "extremely careless" either. In fact, she did nothing wrong. Is that your position? It seems like a far easier thing for Comey to have said, "We aren't prosecuting because Mrs. Clinton received a bunch of classified emails on the classified system as per protocol," but that isn't what happened.

It is no more proper as a matter of law or of computer security to put classified email on @state.gov than it is to put it on @clintonemail.com.


State.gov is more secure than the rogue server. By orders of magnitude.
   150. zenbitz Posted: April 23, 2018 at 03:02 PM (#5658600)
Political scientist Matt Grossmann notes that Republican House open seat primaries are increasingly favoring inexperienced candidates.


Wait... maybe this IS his master plan for draining the swamp. Make the GOP so toxic that all it's current reps and senators quit, then run a bunch of unsullied rookies! Nth-Dimension baby!
   151. Laser Man Posted: April 23, 2018 at 03:03 PM (#5658601)
And when they make a mistake, it's still deemed ok, because the information is still on a secure system
Last post from me on the emails, since you clearly don't understand this topic.
1) The .gov system is not a closed, internal-only email system. People on the .gov system send emails to the outside world millions of times a day, and the only thing that stops classified emails from leaving are the users. If you look at the email chains in question, many of the other recipients were not in the State department.
2) No one should have been sending classified info to either her .gov address or his clintonemail.com address. Everyone understood that.
3) The evidence that it was not intended for classified use is obvious. As you point out, as Secretary of State, Clinton would need to work with lots of classified info. The fact that only a couple of email threads were found shows that they used a different system (or maybe no email at all) when discussing classified info. They clearly were trying to keep classified info off the system - they messed up a couple of times.
   152. . Posted: April 23, 2018 at 03:09 PM (#5658605)
As you point out, as Secretary of State, Clinton would need to work with lots of classified info. The fact that only a couple of email threads were found shows that they used a different system (or maybe no email at all) when discussing classified info. They clearly were trying to keep classified info off the system - they messed up a couple of times.


You're right that I don't fully understand the State Dept. system, (*) but what you said in the language I quoted is an inference, not evidence.

Did she have a place on the "classified system" where she could and did receive knowingly classified emails? If someone had a knowingly classified report they needed to email to her -- EYES ONLY -- how did they do it, and how did she read it?

(*) I do understand the .gov system and have exchanged thousands of emails on it, and it's more secure than the rogue server. Its security is guarded far more closely than the rogue server, for what should be obvious reasons. It's not even a close call.
   153. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: April 23, 2018 at 03:10 PM (#5658606)
"Rogue server..." Hmmm...

Potential for some user names from this. Well done, Bear!
   154. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 23, 2018 at 03:13 PM (#5658610)
No one should have been sending classified info to either her .gov address or his clintonemail.com address. Everyone understood that.

Most of the people sending e-mails containing classified material to Hillary weren't rank & file Foreign Service Officers, or even those on the Ambassadorial level, but her own carefully chosen henchmen inner circle advisors. So why isn't that on her?
   155. BDC Posted: April 23, 2018 at 03:15 PM (#5658612)
If someone had a knowingly classified report they needed to email to her -- EYES ONLY -- how did they do it, and how did she read it?

The sender would print out the e-mail and lock it in a briefcase which would be handcuffed to a courier. Hillary would read the document and then have the courier killed.
   156. . Posted: April 23, 2018 at 03:27 PM (#5658618)
The FBI report says Clinton didn't even use a computer -- Clinton and Abedin both said so -- and primarily used her Blackberry and iPad to check emails. So, no, it very much does not appear that she was reading emails that went to a place other than the rogue server.

Which means that the amount of classified information in her emails had nothing to do with rogue server versus "classified system," but instead only emails versus other means of communications.

Still open to other interpretations, but it seems like a pretty easy thing to say if it in fact mattered.
   157. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 23, 2018 at 03:31 PM (#5658620)
I shouldn’t have let this pass without comment...
As to Flynn, I suppose doctoring the 302s is possible, but it almost certainly didn't happen. The real question is why the FBI should be able to browbeat anyone by saying, "You said X at this interview, it's right in the 302" if the person went in without counsel, thinks he said Y, and there was no independent source taking it all down.
...because FLTB and I have reached a rare point of agreement.


I have said for years that there's no excuse for law enforcement at all levels not having a policy of recording all interviews. There used to be technological barriers to that, but every single non-Amish person on the planet carries a recording device with them at all times. Of course, we can think of individual instances where it isn't practicable to do that, but those should be treated as the exceptions that need to be justified on a case-by-case basis. Otherwise, the presumption out to be that a non-recorded interview didn't happen, or at least not the way that law enforcement said.
   158. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 23, 2018 at 03:34 PM (#5658622)

State.gov is more secure than the rogue server. By orders of magnitude.
This is not at all true, at least not as a categorical statement. If her personal server were misconfigured, it could be utterly insecure; if it were configured properly, it would be just as secure. There's nothing magic about state.gov. Government computers are routinely hacked. (Think, e.g., of the OPM hacks that took place around the time of Hillary's tenure as SoS.)
   159. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 23, 2018 at 03:37 PM (#5658623)

Most of the people sending e-mails containing classified material to Hillary weren't rank & file Foreign Service Officers, or even those on the Ambassadorial level, but her own carefully chosen henchmen inner circle advisors. So why isn't that on her?
If these advisors didn't have security clearances, they shouldn't have had access to classified information in the first place to send to anyone at any email account on any server. If these advisors did have security clearances, then they should have gotten the same briefing as everyone else about proper handling of classified information. It's not like Clinton would be personally giving them that security briefing.
   160. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 23, 2018 at 03:38 PM (#5658624)

The sender would print out the e-mail and lock it in a briefcase which would be handcuffed to a courier. Hillary would read the document and then have the courier killed.
And then the document would self-destruct, no?
   161. . Posted: April 23, 2018 at 03:39 PM (#5658625)
If these advisors didn't have security clearances, they shouldn't have had access to classified information in the first place to send to anyone at any email account on any server. If these advisors did have security clearances, then they should have gotten the same briefing as everyone else about proper handling of classified information. It's not like Clinton would be personally giving them that security briefing.


She didn't really receive and read classified emails on the "classified system," did she?
   162. . Posted: April 23, 2018 at 03:43 PM (#5658627)
I have said for years that there's no excuse for law enforcement at all levels not having a policy of recording all interviews.


Yes you have, which makes your newfound, "But Flynn plead guilty, so he must have lied" all the more unfortunately TDS-addled.
   163. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 23, 2018 at 03:45 PM (#5658628)
If these advisors did have security clearances, then they should have gotten the same briefing as everyone else about proper handling of classified information. It's not like Clinton would be personally giving them that security briefing.

The head of an agency bears no responsibility for the misdeeds of the staff she brings on board? Hmmm.
   164. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: April 23, 2018 at 03:45 PM (#5658629)
The sender would print out the e-mail and lock it in a briefcase which would be handcuffed to a courier. Hillary would read the document and then have the courier killed.

And then the document would self-destruct, no?


Nah...Hillary would have eaten it.
   165. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: April 23, 2018 at 03:51 PM (#5658631)
I have said for years that there's no excuse for law enforcement at all levels not having a policy of recording all interviews.


There's no excuse, if you have some sort of support or belief in defendant rights. The continuing push back against recordings, of interviews, of arrests, of everything police related, is because recordings provide an alternative narrative to what occurred than Official Police Statements. Thus, they erode the mindless fealty to the authority of the police state.
   166. CrosbyBird Posted: April 23, 2018 at 03:51 PM (#5658632)
This is not at all true, at least not as a categorical statement. If her personal server were misconfigured, it could be utterly insecure; if it were configured properly, it would be just as secure.

Probably even more so. A personal server is very likely to have fewer users, and the weakest link in any well-maintained computer on a network is the human factor.
   167. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: April 23, 2018 at 03:55 PM (#5658633)
Hillary would have eaten it.


This is actually what happened at the 9/11 service. She collapsed because her body was digesting a toxin from a poisoned printout, but Putin's attempt on her life failed to understand Hillary's true constitution.
   168. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 23, 2018 at 03:56 PM (#5658635)
Five dead in Toronto Van Attack That Mows Down Pedestrians. Early reports indicate it was clearly deliberate. No word yet on motivation, but it has been noted that the G7 Foreign Ministers were meeting there, although not that close to the site of the attack.
   169. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: April 23, 2018 at 04:08 PM (#5658638)
Five dead in Toronto Van Attack That Mows Down Pedestrians. Early reports indicate it was clearly deliberate.


Odd that Clapper hasn't mentioned the four people murdered by the "sovereign citizen" at a Nashville Waffle House over the weekend...
   170. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 23, 2018 at 04:13 PM (#5658640)
Odd that poor pathetic Sam can't even follow the thread. I previously noted, while the suspect was still at large, that he had been arrested on the White House grounds last summer.
   171. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 23, 2018 at 04:17 PM (#5658642)
For the BBTF Royalist faction, the Duchess of Cambridge gave birth to a son today, 5th in line to the Crown. 8 pounds, 7 ounces, and baby & parents are already back at home. Must not have good health insurance.
   172. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 23, 2018 at 04:22 PM (#5658644)
Five dead in Toronto Van Attack That Mows Down Pedestrians. Early reports indicate it was clearly deliberate. No word yet on motivation, but it has been noted that the G7 Foreign Ministers were meeting there, although not that close to the site of the attack.
Definitely time for reasonable restrictions on who can buy or possess a van.
   173. . Posted: April 23, 2018 at 04:29 PM (#5658645)
There's no excuse, if you have some sort of support or belief in defendant rights. The continuing push back against recordings, of interviews, of arrests, of everything police related, is because recordings provide an alternative narrative to what occurred than Official Police Statements. Thus, they erode the mindless fealty to the authority of the police state.


Or the excuse is that the defendants are Michael Flynn and George Papadoupolous.
   174. DavidFoss Posted: April 23, 2018 at 04:29 PM (#5658646)
For the BBTF Royalist faction, the Duchess of Cambridge gave birth to a son today, 5th in line to the Crown.

The first boy with a sister ahead of him in the line. They had changed the rules before George was born. (At least the first boy that high up in the line)

I'm a bit curious about the name. Maybe Kate's side of the family? Her father's name is Michael. Michael isn't really a regal name, but the name is already in the family (Elizabeth's cousin).
   175. BDC Posted: April 23, 2018 at 04:29 PM (#5658647)
I'm a bit curious about the name

Names already crossed off the list: John, Richard, Ethelred, Donald, Benito, Adolf, Nigel, Dinsdale, and Kaepernick.
   176. DavidFoss Posted: April 23, 2018 at 04:33 PM (#5658648)
Names already crossed off the list: John, Richard, Ethelred, Donald, Benito, Adolf, Nigel, Dinsdale, and Kaepernick.

The world is not ready for another Ethelred.
   177. Laser Man Posted: April 23, 2018 at 04:34 PM (#5658649)
She didn't really receive and read classified emails on the "classified system," did she?
The government classified systems, SIPRNet or JWICS, are not connected to the public internet. So she couldn't send information from the secure system to her own email server.

Back in 2008, you had to physically go to a computer on the private network (a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, or SCIF). Clinton had three SCIFs - one in her office, and one in each of her residences in DC and New York. Usually, her staff would print out secure messages and bring them to her.
   178. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 23, 2018 at 04:37 PM (#5658652)
I'm a bit curious about the name
FLTB is taken.
   179. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: April 23, 2018 at 04:37 PM (#5658653)
Definitely time for reasonable restrictions on who can buy or possess a van.


When dude ran over a few cyclists in Manhattan, they IMMEDIATELY restricted access to rental vans.
   180. OCF Posted: April 23, 2018 at 04:38 PM (#5658654)
He's baaack - I refer to a rich crank named Draper who wanted to break California into six states but his initiative never made it to a ballot. This time, he wants to go for three states, each of them with large population and large economy. And this time, there have been some rule changes that make it easier to put something like this on the ballot. https://ballotpedia.org/California_Three_States_Initiative_(2018)

Now, I don't think there's much of a chance of this winning a ballot - and even if it did accidentally win a ballot, there are a whole lot of additional obstacles to making the result actually happen.

Quirks of the three-state version:

The "State of Jefferson" folks can't be happy about it, since it puts them in a "state" dominated in population by the urban areas of the San Fransisco Bay area and Sacramento. That's not what they've been agitating for all of these years.

The "South California" piece somehow connects San Diego to the San Joaquin Valley while sidestepping around Los Angeles. That is not a natural grouping. It does function as a sort of gerrymander, giving Republicans at least a competitive chance (mostly because of the Bakersfield-Fresno piece) of winning a "statewide" election.

As for the state university systems: each "state" would inherit 7 or 8 of the current CSU campuses. "South California" would wind up with a slightly larger share of UC campuses (San Diego, Irvine, Riverside, Merced).

   181. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: April 23, 2018 at 04:38 PM (#5658655)
If they went with Ethelred I'd become fans immediately.
   182. McCoy Posted: April 23, 2018 at 04:46 PM (#5658661)
California and Texas should be broken into multiple states. Also small states should not get two senators.

I am not a crank.
   183. OCF Posted: April 23, 2018 at 04:50 PM (#5658663)
Shoot, that link in #180 doesn't seem to work. OK, just Google it.

I understand McCoy's point - the U.S. Senate is the largest violation of legislative fair representation ("one person one vote") among all the world's democracies - but I don't know what the path for doing anything about it is.
   184. DavidFoss Posted: April 23, 2018 at 04:54 PM (#5658664)
@180 & @183

Here is a link to Draper's previous attempt:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Californias

There is a new map at the bottom showing the three-state version.

The common theme in both versions is to make LA-SB-SLO a separate state and separate from OC-SD-Inland Empire.
   185. OCF Posted: April 23, 2018 at 04:56 PM (#5658665)
The common theme in both versions is to make LA-SB-SLO a separate state and separate from OC-SD-Inland Empire.

And I would live within walking distance of the new state line.
   186. DavidFoss Posted: April 23, 2018 at 04:59 PM (#5658666)
And I would live within walking distance of the new state line.

All sorts of new possibilities of living/working/shopping in separate states. Though with Prop-13, no one in California ever moves. Would all the child states inherit Prop-13?

(This will never happen... just playing along with the thought experiment)
   187. Random Transaction Generator Posted: April 23, 2018 at 05:09 PM (#5658670)
Five dead in Toronto Van Attack That Mows Down Pedestrians. Early reports indicate it was clearly deliberate. No word yet on motivation, but it has been noted that the G7 Foreign Ministers were meeting there, although not that close to the site of the attack.

Definitely time for reasonable restrictions on who can buy or possess a van.


Oh, are you trying to make a "gun restriction" joke?

Here, let me help you.

The driver of the vehicle pulled out a cellphone and wielded it like a gun, and indicated numerous times to the police that surrounded him that he had a gun in his pocket. He made multiple quick motions to his pocket like he was going to draw his gun.

Except...he didn't have one. At all. He was attempting "suicide by cop", but the cop realized he didn't have a gun (which is more likely in Canada) and they simply took him down like a normal unarmed person.

That sure as #### ain't happening in the USA.

   188. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: April 23, 2018 at 05:16 PM (#5658673)
Queue the "but if we didn't over represent small states with no people, my preferred party wouldn't do as well...wait, no...something something something 'distinct rural American culture...'" rants.
   189. stig-tossled, hornswoggled gef the typing mongoose Posted: April 23, 2018 at 05:21 PM (#5658676)
That sure as #### ain't happening in the USA.


Oh, I dunno. Is he white?
   190. zenbitz Posted: April 23, 2018 at 05:21 PM (#5658677)
I'm at a loss for how anyone, much less the federal government's primary investigative agency, can credit such a ludicrous story. A government official who works in Washington, DC and has a house there and another one in Westchester County, NY, with frequent travels across the country and overseas, forwards thousands of her e-mails (through an aide) to a disgraced former politician with no security clearance living in Manhattan - because no one can get the office printers to work - so he can occasionally print them out and somehow deliver them days or weeks later? Not sure which is worse, being gullible (or partisan) enough to believe such nonsense, or voting for a candidate who can't even do e-mail.


I dunno man. I have a PhD in theoretical biophysics, have worked in computers for 25 years and I was just totally flummoxed by a video conference set up that I have used dozens of times before.
And yes, I *have* had problems getting the office printer to work.
   191. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 23, 2018 at 05:28 PM (#5658680)
Queue the "but if we didn't over represent small states with no people, my preferred party wouldn't do as well...wait, no...something something something 'distinct rural American culture...'" rants.

It's a bit late to overturn The Great Compromise, so those whining about the structure of the U.S. Senate are the ones with the problem. Get over it.
   192. BDC Posted: April 23, 2018 at 05:31 PM (#5658682)
It's a bit late to overturn The Great Compromise

Whatever about representative democracy, as long as a few pissants in 18th-century Rhode Island were happy, God's in his heaven :)
   193. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 23, 2018 at 05:32 PM (#5658683)

or voting for a candidate who can't even do e-mail.
Trump can't even do e-mail.
   194. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 23, 2018 at 05:33 PM (#5658684)
I dunno man. I have a PhD in theoretical biophysics, have worked in computers for 25 years and I was just totally flummoxed by a video conference set up that I have used dozens of times before. And yes, I *have* had problems getting the office printer to work.

Did you eventually get that video conferencing system to work? How about the printer? Or did you send your e-mails to a subordinate's spouse, hundreds of miles away, so they could be printed out?
   195. Laser Man Posted: April 23, 2018 at 05:39 PM (#5658686)
Or did you send your e-mails to a subordinate's spouse, hundreds of miles away, so they could be printed out?
Isn't what really happened is that the subordinate sent them to her own spouse, during the times they were in New York, so that she herself could print them? Do you really think this was really a secret plot to send government emails to Anthony Weiner?
   196. . Posted: April 23, 2018 at 05:46 PM (#5658689)
Isn't what really happened is that the subordinate sent them to her own spouse, during the times they were in New York, so that she herself could print them? Do you really think this was really a secret plot to send government emails to Anthony Weiner?


No, it was a grossly negligent -- and therefore illegal -- handling of classified information. Not sure exactly how you get the idea a high-ranking State Department official should be sending work stuff to her husband so she can print at home. That's an absurd way to handle government information, particularly if it's classified. It's a firing offense at practically every serious office in the country.

If instead she had printed it out, put it into a briefcase, and given it to her husband ... well, that's the kind of prosecution that happens all the time in the area.
   197. Laser Man Posted: April 23, 2018 at 06:04 PM (#5658694)
No, it was a grossly negligent -- and therefore illegal -- handling of classified information. Not sure exactly how you get the idea a high-ranking State Department official should be sending work stuff to her husband so she can print at home.
Sure, it was careless, by Abedin, not Clinton. Again, for the 1000th time, they did not realize there was any classified information. They were not expecting it to be classified.
   198. Swoboda is freedom Posted: April 23, 2018 at 06:23 PM (#5658696)
It's a bit late to overturn The Great Compromise

I do not think the US will ever change the system, but the US has changed. In 1790, the smallest state by population was Rhode Island with 68,000 people while Virginia had 747k, (11x) including slaves. Compared to 2010 with Wyoming having 563k and California having 37 million. (65 times as big). California has the same population as the smallest 20 states.


Maybe split up Texas too.
   199. Stormy JE Posted: April 23, 2018 at 06:26 PM (#5658697)
Fox Business interviewed Devin Nunes over the weekend:
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes said Sunday his review of FBI and Justice Department “electronic communication” documents shows no intelligence was used to begin the investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election.

“We now know that there was no official intelligence that was used to start this investigation. We know that Sidney Blumenthal and others were pushing information into the State Department. So we’re trying to piece all that together and that’s why we continue to look at the State Department,” Nunes told Maria Bartiromo on “Sunday Morning Futures.”

Nunes, R-Calif., cited the Five Eyes agreement as a way of knowing no intel was used. The U.S., along with Canada, the U.K., Australia and New Zealand, make up the “Five Eyes,” or countries that share intelligence in a more-trusted fashion than other arrangements, like NATO, particularly due to years of trust and a common language.
If Nunes is correct, the original heads-up on Papadopoulos and his supposed inebriated commentary with Ambassador Downer wasn't an official intel product of the Five Eyes, thereby undermining its credibility.
   200. BrianBrianson Posted: April 23, 2018 at 06:30 PM (#5658698)
How long did the "failed policies of Jimmy Carter" last as a talking point? I seem to remember them still surfacing once in a while in the GHW Bush years.


Carter legalized homebrewing. I cannot imagine any analysis that doesn't have him as the greatest president of the last 100 years. Certainly in terms of expanding the freedoms of Americans.
Page 2 of 14 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

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Sebastian
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogThe Yankees Now Have a Second Ace | FanGraphs Baseball
(66 - 6:02am, Nov 22)
Last: bbmck

NewsblogManny Machado reflects on hustle comments | MLB.com
(13 - 5:44am, Nov 22)
Last: BillWallace

NewsblogCalcaterra - Adrián Beltré Retires, is a Slam Dunk Hall of Famer
(50 - 4:25am, Nov 22)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

Gonfalon CubsNow what?
(250 - 4:20am, Nov 22)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogDrafting High School Pitchers Is a Major Problem for MLB, Health of Young Prospects
(10 - 2:48am, Nov 22)
Last: Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread (2018-19 season kickoff edition)
(2720 - 1:18am, Nov 22)
Last: Red Voodooin

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (November 2018)
(665 - 12:51am, Nov 22)
Last: Morty Causa

Sox TherapySox Therapy Looks at the Hall of Fame Ballot
(5 - 12:47am, Nov 22)
Last: The Run Fairy

NewsblogOT - November* 2018 College Football thread
(336 - 11:28pm, Nov 21)
Last: AuntBea calls himself Sky Panther

NewsblogBreaking Down the New Players on This Year’s Baseball Hall of Fame Ballot
(6 - 9:55pm, Nov 21)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogThe Braves' Profits Provide a Glimpse into Baseball's Books
(3 - 8:46pm, Nov 21)
Last: BillWallace

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-21-2018
(13 - 7:55pm, Nov 21)
Last: AndrewJ

Newsblog2019 BBWAA HALL OF FAME BALLOT
(82 - 6:34pm, Nov 21)
Last: JoeC

Hall of Merit2019 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(201 - 4:12pm, Nov 21)
Last: Carl Goetz

NewsblogAvid Barry Bonds Collector Has Amassed 5,000 Examples Of The Same Card
(36 - 4:12pm, Nov 21)
Last: jmurph

Page rendered in 0.6861 seconds
46 querie(s) executed