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, November 06, 2017

OTP 6 November 2017: Remembering Baseball’s Right-Wing Rotation

“Capitalist nations will crumble and die from the inside — not the outside,” one of the pitchers said.

“Communism is not the end in itself,” another pitcher said. “It’s only a way to socialize the entire world, so special-interest groups will be the master. And we? We will be the slaves. If, that is, we even live.”

A third pitcher nodded at these ideas and said: “Before, I was just one of those people ignorant of what really goes on.”

The pitchers were Eric Show, Mark Thurmond, and Dave Dravecky of the San Diego Padres. As Los Angeles Times reporter Mike Granberry later noted, they comprised three-fifths of the Padres’ starting rotation.

Thanks Shredder for the article.

(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: November 06, 2017 at 08:05 AM | 1984 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: politics, san diego padres

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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

Page 1 of 20 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›
   1. Zonk wouldn't or would he? Posted: November 06, 2017 at 08:41 AM (#5571381)
The John Birch rotation with a Nazi child molester at 1B...
   2. Lassus Posted: November 06, 2017 at 08:47 AM (#5571384)
“It’s only a way to socialize the entire world, so special-interest groups will be the master. And we? We will be the slaves. If, that is, we even live.”

This really is the only one who would fit in here.
   3. BDC Posted: November 06, 2017 at 09:11 AM (#5571389)
special-interest groups

A vintage 1980s synonym for "colored people" – not heard much anymore.
   4. Greg K Posted: November 06, 2017 at 09:17 AM (#5571390)
special-interest groups

A vintage 1980s synonym for "colored people" – not heard much anymore.

Yeah, my 21st century ear is not at all set to that frequency. I'd be more likely to read "special-interest groups" as pharmacy industry lobbyists.
   5. PreservedFish Posted: November 06, 2017 at 09:20 AM (#5571394)
Colored people? I thought it was always Jews behind these sorts of things.
   6. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: November 06, 2017 at 09:29 AM (#5571395)
I call on our DEAR LEADER President DONALD J. TRUMP to institute EXTREME VETTING MEASURES so that these ANIMALS can't get guns. DYLAN KELLEY should be sent to GITMO and ELECTROCUTED.
   7. BrianBrianson Posted: November 06, 2017 at 09:33 AM (#5571398)
Special interest groups is an obvious, lovely phrase because it can mean whatever group the listener imagines has too much power. It can be big pharma, or trial lawyers, or The Walt Disney Corporation, or can be status Indians, or QUILTBAGers, or landlords, or whatever. It's an inkblot.
   8. TDF didn't lie, he just didn't remember Posted: November 06, 2017 at 09:35 AM (#5571400)
Well, that guy was a Trump-hating Democrat, which seems likely to have been a factor, and there is no indication that Senator Paul's libertarian lawn mowing tendencies are at all similar to those of YR.
In Clapper's world the truth is what he wants to believe, not what we know:
It is unclear whether the attack's motivation was political or related to a neighborly dispute, but an unnamed Paul aide reportedly said the senator's office believes politics are not involved. Neighbors report the two men, both doctors, have an "ongoing dispute."
   9. Lassus Posted: November 06, 2017 at 09:36 AM (#5571401)
In Clapper's world the truth

BWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!

Oh, that's a good one.
   10. Morty Causa Posted: November 06, 2017 at 09:37 AM (#5571405)
Lot of talk lately about ultimate punishment for crimes. De Vries, like his mentor James Thurber, was a master parodist. To wit, this parody of Housman's romantic ditty:

LOVELIEST OF PIES

by Peter De Vries

Loveliest of pies, the cherry now
Completes a fine repast;
'Tis not the first I've ordered, lads,
But it will be the last.
For soon they'll slit my trouser-legs
And shave my head, and then
They'll sit me in the chair from which
I'll never rise again.
The lengthy error known as Life
Began in a single cell,
And that is where for luckless lads
It sometimes ends as well.
And so it's down the row I go
With my eternal curse
And that's what comes of reading
Pessimistic verse.
   11. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: November 06, 2017 at 09:47 AM (#5571408)
The pitchers were Eric Show, Mark Thurmond, and Dave Dravecky of the San Diego Padres. As Los Angeles Times reporter Mike Granberry later noted, they comprised three-fifths of the Padres’ starting rotation.

Dravecky was so right wing he wound up with only a right wing. Seems only logical.
   12. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: November 06, 2017 at 09:49 AM (#5571409)
"Deadliest church shooting". Let that percolate for a bit.
   13. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: November 06, 2017 at 09:49 AM (#5571411)
Trump has the best words.

President Trump delivered a rebuke to Japan Inc on Monday.

"Try building your cars in the United States instead of shipping them over. Is that possible to ask? That's not rude. Is that rude? I don't think so," Trump told executives from local automakers during a trip to Japan.

Japanese automakers have tried: The country's big three car companies already have huge factories in the U.S., and their production in the country is at a record high.

The Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association estimates that its members built nearly 4 million vehicles in the U.S. last year. Exports from Japan to the U.S. have fallen from 3.5 million cars a year in 1986 to just over 1.5 million in 2016.

It said that three out of four Japanese cars sold in the U.S. last year were built in North America, including Mexico and Canada.

"Many Japanese cars are made in the U.S. already and this request is not reflective of today's reality," said Stephen Nagy, a professor at Tokyo's International Christian University
   14. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: November 06, 2017 at 09:50 AM (#5571413)
   15. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: November 06, 2017 at 09:52 AM (#5571416)
You know what I tell the Japanese is rude? Slow play on the golf course. Amirite, Mister President? Can you get those people to hurry up, please? I know that's a shared concern.
   16. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: November 06, 2017 at 09:52 AM (#5571417)
Did Democrats “Clear the Field” for Hillary Clinton in 2016?

Question: What exactly do people mean when they say that the Democratic establishment “cleared the field” for Hillary Clinton in 2016? I can think of various definitions of this, ranked from least to most objectionable:

1) HRC had lots of money and lots of support, and that scared everyone else away.
2) Democratic bigwigs actively lobbied prospective candidates to stand down.
3) HRC made various promises to superdelegates, but only if they’d support her and make sure that everyone knew they wouldn’t switch.
4) The establishment threatened prospective candidates in concrete ways if they showed interest in running.

#1 is meaningless. Someone is always the frontrunner. #2 is more active, but also a nothingburger. #3 is worse, depending on what kind of promises were made. #4 would be clearly beyond the pale.


1 is obviously true, 2 is also extremely likely. 3 probably happened, but as stated who knows what the details are. I don't know if 4 happened. I should think in all the recriminations one would have heard about it if it had at this point, but honestly who knows. I bet some here will of course assume it happened and will include all sorts of other crazy nonsense as well.
   17. Zonk wouldn't or would he? Posted: November 06, 2017 at 09:53 AM (#5571418)
"Deadliest church shooting". Let that percolate for a bit.


Deadliest outdoor concert shooting... deadliest school shooting... deadliest nightclub shooting... Maybe we should start demanding gun owners pee in a cup and people will care about all the records being shattered.
   18. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: November 06, 2017 at 09:53 AM (#5571419)
We shall see how much this matters in aggregate tomorrow and going forward.

Democrats Open Wide Lead In Generic Ballot

“A slim 51% majority of registered voters say that if the election were held today, they would vote for or lean toward the Democratic candidate in their congressional district, while 40% say they would choose the Republican. That’s the biggest spread in a Post-ABC survey since October 2006, just weeks before a midterm in which Democrats won back control of the House and Senate amid deep dissatisfaction with then-President George W. Bush and the Iraq War.”
   19. BrianBrianson Posted: November 06, 2017 at 10:00 AM (#5571421)
A quick parsing of the wiki doesn't turn up any church bombings or arson (which is more of a traditional way to attack a church) with death tolls this high (16th Street Baptist Church bombing left 4 dead, the highest death toll I found).

Bit weird to qualify it as a shooting, then.
   20. PreservedFish Posted: November 06, 2017 at 10:02 AM (#5571423)
Did Democrats “Clear the Field” for Hillary Clinton in 2016?


Posted about an hour after you chastised the board for obsessing over the election.
   21. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: November 06, 2017 at 10:07 AM (#5571425)
Posted about an hour after you chastised the board for obsessing over the election.


Hey if people are going to obsess over it - and lord knows I wish they wouldn't - I would like a little clarity on what exactly they think happened. Yes, I considered not posting it, but decided to anyway.

But sure criticize away.
   22. PreservedFish Posted: November 06, 2017 at 10:08 AM (#5571426)
So you don't want to go over the election again, and in furtherance of that goal, you posted an article about the election in order to spur some fresh clean discussion regarding the election?
   23. I am going to be Frank Posted: November 06, 2017 at 10:09 AM (#5571427)
So does this shooting go down in favor of the "good guy with a gun" argument? The shooter (not terrorist) did his murdering, was engaged by neighbors with gunfire who caused him to run.

This seems like an ideal situation for the NRA dream scenario. Rural area in Texas where a lot of people own guns and everyone knows everyone so the neighbors could easily assume it was the stranger in tactical gear. There are probably no cops around to have the confusion of "friendly" fire and yet 26 people were still murdered. So I guess "only" 26 dead is a "good" thing?

I guess we're at the point where it's just going to be wild west from now on because the 2nd Amendment is unimpeachable.
   24. puck Posted: November 06, 2017 at 10:12 AM (#5571430)
From the article on the Padres' Birchers:

The Padres lost the series four games to one. But in a baseball desert like San Diego, 1984 had the feel of a dream season. “I’ve been waiting for a pennant so long in San Diego, I’d be for these guys even if they joined the Flat Earth Society,” one local columnist wrote.

The columnist just had to stick around for a while.
   25. Greg K Posted: November 06, 2017 at 10:16 AM (#5571431)
"Deadliest church shooting". Let that percolate for a bit.

The most troubling aspect of that phrase is that there's even a necessity for "Church shooting" as a statistical category.
   26. Zonk wouldn't or would he? Posted: November 06, 2017 at 10:16 AM (#5571433)
Granted, the rumor mill works overtime -- but I don't think he was a "stranger in the community", was he? I was under the impression that he was from the next town over and his mother-in-law was a congregant at the church.... coupled with his domestic violence history, I was under the impression this one isn't a mystery.
   27. PreservedFish Posted: November 06, 2017 at 10:19 AM (#5571435)
@23 One can imagine the argument that "you'd never even try this in Texas unless you went somewhere where guns were conspicuously absent, like a church" and see it as an argument that more guns around would indeed have solved the problem.

But my echo chamber social media doesn't show me what the gun nuts are saying about it.
   28. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: November 06, 2017 at 10:20 AM (#5571437)
Trumps words explaining why this is not a "guns issue", lays out exactly why it IS a "guns issue." Trump said the shooter had a lot of problems, was mentally deranged and had many other issues. That's precisely what make this a guns issue, in that someone like that should not ever have access to guns, and the issue is it is far to easy for someone who is not supposed to have access to guns to acquire them. Until we address THAT, this will continue to be a "guns issue".
   29. Greg K Posted: November 06, 2017 at 10:20 AM (#5571438)
The tally for the Blackfriars disaster of 1623 is just shy of 100.

Admittedly, most of those deaths were due to too many people packed into an upper-story room, rather than murder. Though there is evidence that the mob of Londoners that came out to mock the Catholics dying under the rubble helped things along by beating an injured girl or two to death.

   30. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: November 06, 2017 at 10:22 AM (#5571439)
We had an argument a while back about Healthcare in the US versus France. We are still waiting for Ray or David to post any evidence for their contentions (and day now, I am sure), but here is some more data regarding what exactly the US spends its money on - Click through for the chart, or again for the original report.

I was fiddling around looking for something unrelated, and happened to run across this chart from the latest OECD “Health at a Glance” report. We’re #1 in health spending, of course, and we pay inflated prices for just about everything. But what’s equally interesting is what we spend all that money on. More doctors? Nope. More nurses? Not really. More hospital beds? Nah.

So what do we spend our money on? Technology, baby! Who cares about having plenty of doctors as long as we have lots of machines that go ping? The Japanese may be serious technophiles too, but at least they also have plenty of hospital beds and reasonable spending levels.
   31. I am going to be Frank Posted: November 06, 2017 at 10:23 AM (#5571440)
@26 Ok he could be "known" in the area, I guess coming out of the church with tactical gear and an AR-15 would make you a prime suspect.

@27 I thought you could bring guns into a church - I guess it all depends on the church?
   32. PreservedFish Posted: November 06, 2017 at 10:25 AM (#5571442)
@27 I thought you could bring guns into a church - I guess it all depends on the church?


No idea about the legality, but I suspect it's not really socially acceptable.
   33. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: November 06, 2017 at 10:29 AM (#5571445)
#### it, let's just cut to the chase: Since the 2nd Amendment nuts obviously care more about their rights to carry guns than they do about the victims, maybe we can find some solace in that the adults killed were likely Trump supporters.

Nope, no solace there.
   34. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: November 06, 2017 at 10:31 AM (#5571447)
So I have a question for the anti-gun liberals here - what is it you hope to accomplish?

I understand there are a variety of things you could be trying to do by posting about various shootings, reacting to current events, venting, and so on, but politically what is it you hope might happen?

I am not criticizing. I am not a fan of guns. But years ago I decided that liberals had lost this fight (and nothing has really changed my mind on it since) and there is some evidence that overall death rates don't change much when guns are more regulated (though there is some dispute about that, still the evidence is far from clear that gun regulation actually decreases violence).

So what is the hoped for goal? Is it continuing the fight because it is the right thing to do? The hope that over the years things will change so long as pressure continues to be applied? Maybe we are near a tipping point, and change will follow rapidly from that?

I am honestly curious what the motivations are - there are no wrong answers.
   35. BrianBrianson Posted: November 06, 2017 at 10:34 AM (#5571452)
If we're counting the Blackfriars, does this mean it's the deadliest church shooting of all time, globally? I would've assumed India or Pakistan or something would have some that'd be an order of magnitude more dead.

The Grand Mosque seizure in '79 left ~250 dead. I believe mostly by gunfire.

Cave of the Patriarchs massacre was a lone gunman who killed 29 in a Mosque.
   36. Jess Franco Posted: November 06, 2017 at 10:35 AM (#5571453)
At least nine people in Trump’s orbit had contact with Russians

Stare too long into the sun you go blind.
   37. BDC Posted: November 06, 2017 at 10:35 AM (#5571454)
I thought you could bring guns into a church - I guess it all depends on the church?

Churches aren't mentioned in Texas gun law, unless the church shares premises with a school (which could raise certain technicalities). Basically if a church wants to ban firearms, it can put up a sign saying so, as any private business can. I don't remember seeing such any signs at churches, not that I go to many services. Fish is probably right that many churches just don't think of it (WTH would you carry in church?) But there's probably more than one open-carry church in this state.

Honestly, the public attitude is more and more just to expect a tactical firefight every time you go outside. As the senator said after the Las Vegas shooting, "get small" and you have a better chance of surviving.
   38. Ray (CTL) Posted: November 06, 2017 at 10:35 AM (#5571455)
1 is obviously true, 2 is also extremely likely. 3 probably happened, but as stated who knows what the details are. I don't know if 4 happened. I should think in all the recriminations one would have heard about it if it had at this point, but honestly who knows. I bet some here will of course assume it happened and will include all sorts of other crazy nonsense as well.


I bet some here will troll, as you just did, since you already loudly announced that you Don't Care about this topic and everyone should just move on, already.
   39. Zonk wouldn't or would he? Posted: November 06, 2017 at 10:39 AM (#5571456)
Sounds like lil' Trump's "I love it" Russian lawyer is throwing him under the bus and claiming quid pro quos were discussed....
   40. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 06, 2017 at 10:39 AM (#5571457)
Stare too long into the sun you go blind.


Who would be stupid enough to do that?
   41. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: November 06, 2017 at 10:40 AM (#5571458)
34...I'd like to see the NRA vaporized. Do we have the capability? If not, are we working on it?
   42. Ray (CTL) Posted: November 06, 2017 at 10:41 AM (#5571460)
So does this shooting go down in favor of the "good guy with a gun" argument? The shooter (not terrorist) did his murdering, was engaged by neighbors with gunfire who caused him to run.


Something about the Hero story doesn't ring true to me, but I can't put my finger on it.
   43. Swoboda is freedom Posted: November 06, 2017 at 10:43 AM (#5571461)
If we're counting the Blackfriars, does this mean it's the deadliest church shooting of all time, globally? I would've assumed India or Pakistan or something would have some that'd be an order of magnitude more dead.

The Grand Mosque seizure in '79 left ~250 dead. I believe mostly by gunfire.


There was a crush in Mecca during the Hajj that left 2,000 dead. This was in 2015 and was due to bottleneck trying to get to Grand Mosque. In 1990, 1400+ were killed. It was very hot and everyone was trying to get into air conditioned tunnels.
   44. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: November 06, 2017 at 10:44 AM (#5571462)
34...I'd like to see the NRA vaporized. Do we have the capability? If not, are we working on it?


So is that what you are hoping to accomplish? Because that is what my question is asking. Emotional venting and trying to do the right thing even against steep odds are both perfectly legitimate reasons to post, but I am curious what exactly you want out of the discussion past that.
   45. Lassus Posted: November 06, 2017 at 10:44 AM (#5571463)
"get small"

Isn't this an old Cheech & Chong bit about getting high?
   46. Ray (CTL) Posted: November 06, 2017 at 10:44 AM (#5571464)
Trumps words explaining why this is not a "guns issue", lays out exactly why it IS a "guns issue." Trump said the shooter had a lot of problems, was mentally deranged and had many other issues. That's precisely what make this a guns issue, in that someone like that should not ever have access to guns, and the issue is it is far to easy for someone who is not supposed to have access to guns to acquire them. Until we address THAT, this will continue to be a "guns issue".


Guns, knives, rented trucks, fertilizer bombs, whatever. It's sixth grade level thinking to believe that we can do much to stop crazy people intent on wreaking havoc.

Until we admit THAT, people will continue to make arguments that seventh graders would be embarrassed to make.
   47. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: November 06, 2017 at 10:44 AM (#5571465)
Ooooo they're showing a picture of the shooter...he has a BEARD! ANIMAL!!
   48. BDC Posted: November 06, 2017 at 10:44 AM (#5571466)
politically what is it you hope might happen?

Nothing will ever happen politically (and might not have much impact if it did, or even an unintended backlash).

For a while now, like you, I think the thing to do is just to insist that guns are uncool. If it worked with cigarettes …
   49. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: November 06, 2017 at 10:45 AM (#5571467)
Isn't this an old Cheech & Chong bit about getting high?


Steve Martin.
   50. PreservedFish Posted: November 06, 2017 at 10:45 AM (#5571468)
So I have a question for the anti-gun liberals here - what is it you hope to accomplish?


I'd like guns to be less easily purchased. Particularly the guns that are really good at killing lots of people quickly.
   51. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: November 06, 2017 at 10:46 AM (#5571469)
So I have a question for the anti-gun liberals here - what is it you hope to accomplish?


Sensible regulations that make it harder for people who shouldn't have guns from acquiring them. Make semi-automatic long weapons ownership illegal. Those would do for a start.
   52. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: November 06, 2017 at 10:46 AM (#5571470)
Guns, knives, rented trucks, fertilizer bombs, whatever. It's sixth grade level thinking to believe that we can do much to stop crazy people intent on wreaking havoc.

Until we admit THAT, people will continue to make arguments that seventh graders would be embarrassed to make.


Yeah because if this guy couldn't get his hands on a gun or three then he would have built a fertilizer bomb out of his truck!
   53. Greg K Posted: November 06, 2017 at 10:48 AM (#5571471)
If we're counting the Blackfriars, does this mean it's the deadliest church shooting of all time, globally? I would've assumed India or Pakistan or something would have some that'd be an order of magnitude more dead.

I'd say
A] We definitely shouldn't count it, I was just being cheeky!
and
B] Even if we did, I think you are right, it wouldn't rank #1 anyway.
   54. PreservedFish Posted: November 06, 2017 at 10:51 AM (#5571473)
Guns, knives, rented trucks, fertilizer bombs, whatever. It's sixth grade level thinking to believe that we can do much to stop crazy people intent on wreaking havoc.

Until we admit THAT, people will continue to make arguments that seventh graders would be embarrassed to make.


Crazy people always gonna be crazy, and yes, they can use stuff other than guns to murder too.

But it's my guess that the ease of acquiring guns (and cultural allure of them) means that there are more crazies that will tip over from "dangerous" to "actually murdering people."

It's like, fat people are just going to overeat, right? But if you have a place where soda and twinkies are plentiful, and a place where they are not, maybe you'll have more fat people in the former place. You can't blame any one fat person on soda, but over a wide swath of population, these things are real influencers. If you have 200 guys that are maybe thinking about killing sprees, maybe you can lower the % that actually enact those sprees just by putting little hindrances and annoyances in place.

To take the example of the LV shooter, I'm doubtful that he would have resorted to other means to kill to satisfy his bloodlust. It seems like the guns themselves were integral to the act, not just a means. That's not always going to be true, but sometimes it will be.
   55. I am going to be Frank Posted: November 06, 2017 at 10:51 AM (#5571474)
In this political environment, the 2nd Amendment is here to stay. The only way this stops is if the US gets all the guns out of the streets, homes, armories, zombie apocalypse bunkers, and survivalist huts. That's not going to happen until we have a change in gun culture of this country. If Columbine didn't do it, Virginia Tech didn't do it, Sandy Hook didn't do it, Orlando, Las Vegas or this one in Texas do it, I don't know what will. Honestly when Sandy Hook happened I thought that would be a tipping point, instead Alex Jones became more popular and no one blinked an eye when gunmaker stocks jumped up.

I'm willing to let people own a pistol, hunting rifle and/or shotgun for personal protection and/or recreation use. Even then, I would make it very simple for anyone to lose the privilege of owning a gun (at this hypothetical point the 2nd Amendment is no longer relevant). "Accidental" discharge, lose your privilege to own a gun. Misplace your gun, lose your privilege. Get a DUI, lose your privilege. Have a terrible credit score, lose your privilege. Anything a company can use as a reason to not hire you, could be a reason.

If you need an AR-15 to shoot hogs or some other pest, have the local fish and wildlife facility hold the guns and you can check it out during a hunt and check it back in when it's done. If you want to shoot a AR-15, AK-47 or a fully automatic machine gun, go to a range and do it, but the gun can't leave the range. That's my end game. I don't think this will be accomplished in 100 years.
   56. Lassus Posted: November 06, 2017 at 10:51 AM (#5571475)
Guns, knives, rented trucks, fertilizer bombs, whatever. It's sixth grade level thinking to believe that we can do much to stop crazy people intent on wreaking havoc.

Repetition does not improve this argument.
   57. Perry Posted: November 06, 2017 at 10:52 AM (#5571476)
Isn't this an old Cheech & Chong bit about getting high?


Steve Martin.
   58. PreservedFish Posted: November 06, 2017 at 10:55 AM (#5571478)
The argument against semi-automatic weapons doesn't need to be elucidated, I don't think. We all agree that there needs to be a practical limit to the killing power available to the public - even the NRA doesn't support private nuclear bomb ownership, I must assume - the only question is where we draw the line.
   59. Swoboda is freedom Posted: November 06, 2017 at 10:56 AM (#5571479)
So I have a question for the anti-gun liberals here - what is it you hope to accomplish?
As someone who has been a gun owner (not any longer as I don't hunt anymore and my wife didn't want me to have the gun in the house even though it was locked up), I would like to treat guns as cars.
1) You need a license. You need to show license to get ammunition.
2)Gun owners/dealers are responsible for guns (need to be traced).
3)Limit purchase to one at a time (stop straw man purchases).
4)I would make it harder to purchase more than 5 guns. Special license for that. The constitution says you have the right to keep and bear arms. You can't bear more than 5 at one time.
5) Lose your license/have it suspended for certain things (mental, any gun incident)
6) Ban bump stocks
7) Limit clips to 10 rounds.
8) All sales tracked and background checked.

Silencers are fine, they suppress the sound
   60. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: November 06, 2017 at 10:57 AM (#5571481)
The Saudi Arabian events recently are definitely worth following - Purge of Saudi princes, businessmen widens, travel curbs imposed

Prince Miteb bin Abdullah was detained and replaced as minister of the National Guard, a pivotal power base rooted in the kingdom’s tribes. That recalled a palace coup in June which ousted his elder cousin, Mohammed bin Nayef, as heir to the throne and interior minister.

The moves consolidate Prince Mohammed’s control of the internal security and military institutions, which had long been headed by separate powerful branches of the ruling family.

Yet many analysts were puzzled by the targeting of technocrats like ousted Economy Minister Adel Faqieh and prominent businessmen on whom the kingdom is counting to boost the private sector and wean the economy off oil.

“It seems to run so counter to the long-term goal of foreign investment and more domestic investment and a strengthened private sector,” said Greg Gause, a Gulf expert at Texas A&M University.


In any event it is a very interesting article, based on a fascinating chain of events. I don't have an opinion whether it is good or ill, one one hand the SA is starting from a pretty terrible spot and so change is likely to be for the good, plus they are saying the right things. On the other hand this sort of thing often goes off the rails in a fairly bloody and predictable ways and the tactics used are troubling to say the least.
   61. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: November 06, 2017 at 11:00 AM (#5571486)
By the way thanks for the answers to my question on guns.
   62. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 06, 2017 at 11:01 AM (#5571487)
Question: What exactly do people mean when they say that the Democratic establishment “cleared the field” for Hillary Clinton in 2016? I can think of various definitions of this, ranked from least to most objectionable:

1) HRC had lots of money and lots of support, and that scared everyone else away.
2) Democratic bigwigs actively lobbied prospective candidates to stand down.
3) HRC made various promises to superdelegates, but only if they’d support her and make sure that everyone knew they wouldn’t switch.
4) The establishment threatened prospective candidates in concrete ways if they showed interest in running.

#1 is meaningless.
That depends how it came about, doesn't it? If it's just that lots of people liked and supported Hillary, then obviously that would not constitute clearing the field for her. If there was a coordinated effort by the "Democratic establishment" (whatever that phrase means) to ensure that the money would be directed to Hillary, then it would be along the lines of 2-4.

Oh, and #4 is incomplete; it could be bribes as well as threats. (And the threats need not be concrete, but could simply be "Good luck with your political future, nudge, nudge, wink wink, if you challenge her.")
   63. Ray (CTL) Posted: November 06, 2017 at 11:02 AM (#5571488)
#### it, let's just cut to the chase: Since the 2nd Amendment nuts obviously care more about


banning guns and virtue signaling than they do about thinking through the issue logically.
   64. PreservedFish Posted: November 06, 2017 at 11:04 AM (#5571490)
banning guns and virtue signaling than they do about thinking through the issue logically.

Several logical arguments on this thread that one could pick from...
   65. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: November 06, 2017 at 11:06 AM (#5571493)
How will background checks keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them? What happens when liquor stores get caught selling booze to minors? They get sanctioned, all the way up to their licenses to sell booze taken away from them. I mean wtf, it's not hard. As soon as these gun dealers get threatened with losing their licenses to sell guns they'll make sure that guys like this won't be able to buy a gun or 3. 100%? No. But how about 95%? Would that be a nice number? Would that reduce the frequency of these shootings?
   66. BDC Posted: November 06, 2017 at 11:06 AM (#5571494)
Ray, can you make a positive argument for people having ####loads of guns? I understand that people can kill people with knives, and that pro-gun stances annoy liberals, but neither argument seems to point toward gun proliferation as actively good.

Even the standard libertarian line "Everyone's out to shoot me and I've got to get the drop on them" would be OK for a start.
   67. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: November 06, 2017 at 11:07 AM (#5571495)
banning guns and virtue signaling than they do about thinking through the issue logically.


#### off, shithead. Nowhere did I say "ban guns". You should be banned from owning a keyboard, troll.
   68. -- Posted: November 06, 2017 at 11:08 AM (#5571496)
banning guns and virtue signaling than they do about thinking through the issue logically.


The gun manufacturer should be liable in damages for yesterday's church shooting victims. Like Ralph Nader asserted about the Corvair BITD, weaponry like the shitbag from yesterday possessed is unsafe at any speed.

Ammunition should also be very heavily taxed, and guns easily traceable -- licensed like cars.

And obviously under no circumstances should the shitbag have been able to buy that gun legally, given his record. He was not the "law-abiding citizen" of gun nut myth.

   69. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: November 06, 2017 at 11:11 AM (#5571498)
"Democratic establishment" (whatever that phrase means)


Were you unclear when for months we talked about the GOPe? You have mentioned this confusion a couple times now and before this I assumed to were not being serious, but maybe you are.

The establishment (either party) is a group of people who are both politically active and influential. They include elected officials, wealthy donors, prominent activists, and leaders of groups which tilt one way or the other (NRA or Unions, for example). It is people who are both connected to a political party and influential in it.

It is a large group, these are national parties after all. A rough guide might be (at least on the Democratic side) super-delegates plus those who prefer to exercise their influence more behind the scenes or want to pretend they are not tied directly to a specific party (NARAL leadership for example). Generally speaking the establishment on either side only loosely agree with each other, but on specific topics they definitely exert influence on the parties.

One area that is unclear - to me at least - is the degree to which one includes the media. I don't think the media should be included as they are a different beast with different incentives, but an argument could be made to include the media as a part of the establishment.

And no there is not an explicit roster or by laws for the establishment.
   70. Greg K Posted: November 06, 2017 at 11:12 AM (#5571499)
In any event it is a very interesting article, based on a fascinating chain of events. I don't have an opinion whether it is good or ill, one one hand the SA is starting from a pretty terrible spot and so change is likely to be for the good, plus they are saying the right things. On the other hand this sort of thing often goes off the rails in a fairly bloody and predictable ways and the tactics used are troubling to say the least.

I get the sense that the new Crown Prince has all sorts of ambitions for what his reign is going to look like, one of which is Western modernization, and creating a more diversified, business-friendly economy. But that's just one of his ambitions, and if it gets in the way of his other goals, or his consolidation of power, then it takes a back seat.
   71. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: November 06, 2017 at 11:15 AM (#5571502)
Special interest groups is an obvious, lovely phrase because it can mean whatever group the listener imagines has too much power. It can be big pharma, or trial lawyers, or The Walt Disney Corporation, or can be status Indians, or QUILTBAGers, or landlords, or whatever. It's an inkblot.


Indeed. The NRA is a special interest group.
   72. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: November 06, 2017 at 11:17 AM (#5571504)
I get the sense that the new Crown Prince has all sorts of ambitions for what his reign is going to look like, one of which is Western modernization, and creating a more diversified, business-friendly economy. But that's just one of his ambitions, and if it gets in the way of his other goals, or his consolidation of power, then it takes a back seat.


Yeah, even if I believed his goals are as high minded as he is presenting to the world (I don't), I think the tactics being deployed, the process by which he is trying to reach his goals is largely self-defeating (towards reaching those goals).

I think - as should be clear at this point - that process really matter a great deal. And the process he is following seems - from a distance - to be extremely troubling at a minimum. But like I said they are starting from such a miserable starting point, how much worse it can get is kind of an open question and most likely they will get better in some ways and worse in others.

EDIT: The reason the tactics are self defeating is I don't think you can end up a moderate and open "western like" society through consolidation of power, massive arrests through "corruption" investigations, loyalty oaths and so forth.
   73. -- Posted: November 06, 2017 at 11:19 AM (#5571508)
Little to nothing separates the NRA from a terrorist organization. At very best, it's an organization with a depraved indifference to human life.
   74. The Good Face Posted: November 06, 2017 at 11:23 AM (#5571513)
I get the sense that the new Crown Prince has all sorts of ambitions for what his reign is going to look like, one of which is Western modernization, and creating a more diversified, business-friendly economy. But that's just one of his ambitions, and if it gets in the way of his other goals, or his consolidation of power, then it takes a back seat.


Pretty much. Remember too that the huge ass House of Saud has always been ruled by various sons of the country's founder, Ibn Saud. They were typically old as hell when they'd take the throne and when they carked it they'd be replaced by a slightly younger brother (Ibn Saud had 45 sons), so there was a sort of "everybody gets a turn" system in place, where the various sons and their supporters would get a few years to make hay while the sun shone. It provided stability for a time, but now we're all out of suitable sons, the current king is in his 80s, and the Crown Prince is like 32. Ain't gonna be no more getting your turn once young Mohammad bin Salman takes over. So we're seeing instability as people from the vast House of Saud are starting to figure out who's going to be left without a chair when the music stops and the Crown Prince becomes the King.
   75. PreservedFish Posted: November 06, 2017 at 11:25 AM (#5571515)
Little to nothing separates the NRA from a terrorist organization.


It's kind of fun to be on the same side of an issue as SBB.
   76. PreservedFish Posted: November 06, 2017 at 11:26 AM (#5571517)
EDIT: The reason the tactics are self defeating is I don't think you can end up a moderate and open "western like" society through consolidation of power, massive arrests through "corruption" investigations, loyalty oaths and so forth.


To what extent does this describe Ataturk's efforts? Of course the success of that project is open to debate, or, arguably, still unknown.
   77. McCoy Posted: November 06, 2017 at 11:26 AM (#5571519)
I think I’ve said it here before. Only allow revolver handguns, single or double shot shotguns, and bolt action rifles. You can have as many guns as you want but have a progressive tax on more than one of each type of firearm I just listed.

Ammo should be regulated.
   78. Ray (CTL) Posted: November 06, 2017 at 11:28 AM (#5571520)
Ray, can you make a positive argument for people having ####loads of guns?


It would have to be a logical argument and a Constitutional argument, not an argument based on personal preference because if I were king I'd prevent this because gun owners are loons.

The logical argument is that the mass shooter problem is one of mental illness and/or radicalization. This is so clear to me that I consider it a litmus test for whether a person is serious in discussing the issue or just blinded by left wing ideology and the desire to virtue signal. (If the person is serious then it's a litmus test as to whether the person is intelligent.)

The Constitutional argument is that the 2nd Amendment is a fundamental right. It's stronger than the right to travel but still we don't put a limit on the number of cars one can have or airplane trips one can take. It's stronger than the right to privacy but still we don't put a limit on the number of abortions a woman can have. Etc.
   79. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: November 06, 2017 at 11:29 AM (#5571522)
To what extent does this describe Ataturk's efforts? Of course the success of that project is open to debate, or, arguably, still unknown.


That is a great question. I don't know the answer mind you.
   80. Spahn Insane Posted: November 06, 2017 at 11:31 AM (#5571523)
The John Birch rotation with a Nazi child molester at 1B...

What a wonderful article. The '84 Padres were the first team to really break my Cub fan heart, and thus the first for whom I felt a white-hot hatred (my disdain for the Mets and Cardinals was sort of a low-heated burn at that point), but the Padres' general irrelevance since then has caused my hatred to fade over time. Now, it's as if I'm hating them again for the first time, for reasons non-baseball-related, and unbeknownst to my then-12-year-old self. Good stuff.
   81. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: November 06, 2017 at 11:31 AM (#5571525)
Ammo should be regulated.


Many of the gun-philes I know make/load their own ammunition. I also know of (second and third hand) people who have purchased pallets of ammo (Yes, that is just as ridiculous as you imagine), so I am not clear how one would regulate it. Tax it and the raw components maybe.
   82. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: November 06, 2017 at 11:33 AM (#5571528)
The Constitutional argument is that the 2nd Amendment is a fundamental right.


Amendments can be amended. Numbnuts.
   83. PreservedFish Posted: November 06, 2017 at 11:33 AM (#5571529)
Peter the Great is another that "westernized at gunpoint," if my memory of history classes can be trusted. You think of both Russia and Turkey as borderline countries that teeter between "Western" and "non-Western" and I cannot say if that was true before the westernizing efforts of their leaders or if those efforts actually introduced that tension.
   84. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 06, 2017 at 11:36 AM (#5571530)
I would make it very simple for anyone to lose the privilege of owning a gun (at this hypothetical point the 2nd Amendment is no longer relevant). "Accidental" discharge, lose your privilege to own a gun. Misplace your gun, lose your privilege. Get a DUI, lose your privilege. Have a terrible credit score, lose your privilege. Anything a company can use as a reason to not hire you, could be a reason.

A Constitutional right is not usually termed a "privilege", and is not normally forfeited on bureaucratic whim. Can you also lose your 1st Amendment rights for having a low credit score?
   85. BDC Posted: November 06, 2017 at 11:37 AM (#5571531)
The Constitutional argument is that the 2nd Amendment is a fundamental right. It's stronger than the right to travel but still we don't put a limit on the number of cars one can have or airplane trips one can take. It's stronger than the right to privacy but still we don't put a limit on the number of abortions a woman can have

That's certainly valid as an intrinsic argument within the American system as it is. I guess I'm kind of interested in whether people see it as a strong argument within systems as they should be. Bearing arms is absent from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for instance, which explicitly names privacy and travel (though not abortion) as basic rights.

IOW, the idea that packing a gun is a fundamental human right is strongly American, sure, but also rather parochially American. Americans often mention Switzerland and what a wonderful gun country that is, but the Swiss are kind of parochial too in that respect.
   86. Ray (CTL) Posted: November 06, 2017 at 11:37 AM (#5571532)
Amendments can be amended. Numbnuts.


So amend it, and then I'll support your currently bankrupt argument.
   87. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: November 06, 2017 at 11:37 AM (#5571533)
So I have a question for the anti-gun liberals here - what is it you hope to accomplish?

As someone who has been a gun owner (not any longer as I don't hunt anymore and my wife didn't want me to have the gun in the house even though it was locked up), I would like to treat guns as cars.
1) You need a license. You need to show license to get ammunition.
2) Gun owners/dealers are responsible for guns (need to be traced).
3) Limit purchase to one at a time (stop straw man purchases).
4) I would make it harder to purchase more than 5 guns. Special license for that. The constitution says you have the right to keep and bear arms. You can't bear more than 5 at one time.
5) Lose your license/have it suspended for certain things (mental, any gun incident)
6) Ban bump stocks
7) Limit clips to 10 rounds.
8) All sales tracked and background checked.

Silencers are fine, they suppress the sound


Sounds just about right, Swoboda.
   88. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: November 06, 2017 at 11:40 AM (#5571537)
A Constitutional right is not usually termed a "privilege", and is not normally forfeited on bureaucratic whim.


But we already do. One cannot legally own a howitzer. One cannot legally purchase a handgun if one is a convicted felon.
   89. PreservedFish Posted: November 06, 2017 at 11:41 AM (#5571538)
The logical argument is that the mass shooter problem is one of mental illness and/or radicalization. This is so clear to me that I consider it a litmus test for whether a person is serious in discussing the issue or just blinded by left wing ideology and the desire to virtue signal. (If the person is serious then it's a litmus test as to whether the person is intelligent.)


Does #54 qualify me as serious or blinded?
   90. Jay Z Posted: November 06, 2017 at 11:44 AM (#5571541)
BM, in answer to "why try", people have to fight battles, fight wars sometimes, even if they lose.

2A has outlived its usefulness, whatever usefulness it had. But it's here, maybe for the duration of this country. Because people treat the written word of the Constitution like the Bible, it came down from on high. It didn't. The founders just didn't anticipate where this would all go, IMO. Different culture, different guns when that was written.

Without 2A... things would be different. Not a 180, just different. Guns would be regulated through normal law. As they can be now, as the enablers on the right will constantly tell us. That's the good cop/bad cop ploy on that side. You've got the fanatics, then the ones who just want to see liberals cry and don't really care about guns.

But 2A has turned the subject of guns into a holy war, and guns as objects to be cherished and worshipped.

Now terrorists, I don't think they care how they kill people. They just want a body count. But a lot of what's going on in the US is specifically related to guns. Walk back the 2A, there would still be serial killers, still be bombings, etc. Not putting up reasonable curb high barriers for guns, both societal and legal, just makes it easier for the killers.
   91. Joe Bivens is NOT a clueless numpty Posted: November 06, 2017 at 11:47 AM (#5571542)
So amend it, and then I'll support your currently bankrupt argument.


OK, I will, and I look forward to your support.

Thank god they've ruled out terrorism. Don't we all feel safer now that we know it was just an angry man with an assault weapon firing at innocent people in a circumstance common to millions of citizens? USA! USA!
   92. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: November 06, 2017 at 11:47 AM (#5571543)
The John Birch rotation with a Nazi child molester at 1B...

What a wonderful article. The '84 Padres were the first team to really break my Cub fan heart, and thus the first for whom I felt a white-hot hatred (my disdain for the Mets and Cardinals was sort of a low-heated burn at that point), but the Padres' general irrelevance since then has caused my hatred to fade over time. Now, it's as if I'm hating them again for the first time, for reasons non-baseball-related, and unbeknownst to my then-12-year-old self. Good stuff.

And the catcher on that team (Terry Kennedy) was pretty damn right wing himself, if not an actual Bircher. There was something about the Southern California air back then that seemed to encourage the wacko birds; two Republican congressmen from that region were card carrying Birchers who kept getting re-elected, and a third one wound up replacing George Wallace on the AIP ballot in 1972 after Wallace was paralyzed by a would-be assassin.
   93. Lassus Posted: November 06, 2017 at 11:48 AM (#5571544)
Does #54 qualify me as serious or blinded?

Do you disagree with Ray?

Then you aren't serious.
   94. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 06, 2017 at 11:51 AM (#5571548)
A Constitutional right is not usually termed a "privilege", and is not normally forfeited on bureaucratic whim.

But we already do. One cannot legally own a howitzer. One cannot legally purchase a handgun if one is a convicted felon.

No, those are not bureaucratic whims. Certainly not in the "anything a company can use as a reason not to hire you" sense set forth in #55, which I was replying to.
   95. -- Posted: November 06, 2017 at 11:52 AM (#5571549)
The Constitutional argument is that the 2nd Amendment is a fundamental right.


At most, the individual component of the "Fundamental right" goes only to self-defense. Even that is a bizarre reading of the amendment, but we can accept it for the purposes of internal BBTF harmony. You don't need this kind of weaponry for self-defense.

And while it's not really a "fundamental right," letting people possess a sporting hunting gun doesn't seem to have a whole lot of critics.

But when a loon and already-demonstrated violent criminal like yesterday's shitbag can possess and post on Facebook weaponry like that, we've long ago left "fundamental right" in the rearview mirror.
   96. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: November 06, 2017 at 11:52 AM (#5571550)
I don't know if I'll be the first person to say it, but I'm relieved that the shooter was a white native born American with no obvious political motive. Can anyone even imagine where Trump and his dittoheads would be taking this if the killer had been either Muslim or black or Latino?
   97. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 06, 2017 at 11:54 AM (#5571551)
I would like to treat guns as cars.
I've posted this before many times¹, but there are no pro-gun control people who want to treat guns as cars. If we did, guns would be far far less regulated than they are now.

1) You need a license. You need to show license to get ammunition.
Already that's two ways that you're treating guns differently than cars. You need a license to drive a car... but only on public property. You do not need a license to buy a car, to own a car, to operate a car on private property, to buy supplies for a car.
2)Gun owners/dealers are responsible for guns (need to be traced).
Not sure precisely what you intend by this, but again, that's not the way we treat cars.
3)Limit purchase to one at a time (stop straw man purchases).
Not the way we treat cars. (Also, straw purchases and buying multiple guns at one time are discrete issues.)
4)I would make it harder to purchase more than 5 guns. Special license for that. The constitution says you have the right to keep and bear arms. You can't bear more than 5 at one time.
Again, nothing like cars.
5) Lose your license/have it suspended for certain things (mental, any gun incident)
Okay, somewhat analogous to cars -- but it's certainly not "any car incident" that triggers such a suspension.
6) Ban bump stocks
7) Limit clips to 10 rounds.
Again, not analogous to cars. There are some restrictions on what equipment cars that are driven on public roads can comprise; there are no restrictions on ownership of that equipment.
8) All sales tracked and background checked.
Not analogous to cars. You do have to register cars if you want to drive them on public roads. There certainly are no background checks.



¹Unfortunately, my google skills are failing me at the moment, and I don't feel like recreating the whole list. But the gist is similar to that above: there are virtually no regulations of any sort relating to motor vehicles on private property. Almost all motor vehicle regulations are related to the use of such vehicles in public, not to purchase or ownership. There are no federal regulations on use of cars, and no restrictions on interstate use of cars. You do have to take an exam to get a license to operate a car, but the exam is so easy a moderately-intelligent chimpanzee can pass it; I don't think that's what gun control advocates have in mind.
   98. -- Posted: November 06, 2017 at 11:57 AM (#5571555)
there are virtually no regulations of any sort relating to motor vehicles on private property.


Right, but this is your typical dumbass pedantry since all the mass shootings happen outside the gun owners' home -- either in public, or on someone else's private property.
   99. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 06, 2017 at 11:58 AM (#5571556)

Little to nothing separates the NRA from a terrorist organization.
Come on, this trolling is getting sadder and sadder. I feel sorry for you.
   100. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: November 06, 2017 at 11:59 AM (#5571557)
#97 is about as frivilous an argument I think I have ever seen David make.
Page 1 of 20 pages  1 2 3 >  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
aleskel
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogIs one game really worth an OMNCHATTER! for July 19, 2018
(33 - 8:53pm, Jul 19)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogOT - 2018 NBA Summer Potpourri (finals, draft, free agency, Colangelo dragging)
(3463 - 8:52pm, Jul 19)
Last: this is normal 57i66135. move on, find a new slant

NewsblogOTP 2018 July 16: Why Does President Trump Balk At Attending Baseball Games?
(1066 - 8:52pm, Jul 19)
Last: Greg K

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 7-19-2018
(35 - 8:43pm, Jul 19)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogRob Manfred: Mike Trout limits his popularity because he won't market himself
(94 - 8:21pm, Jul 19)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogManny Machado blockbuster makes Dodgers the NL's team to beat
(16 - 8:11pm, Jul 19)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogIndians deal for ace reliever Brad Hand
(21 - 6:44pm, Jul 19)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

NewsblogOT: Soccer Thread (World Cup)
(3245 - 6:01pm, Jul 19)
Last: Sean Forman

Gonfalon CubsLooking Forward
(29 - 5:44pm, Jul 19)
Last: Moses Taylor, aka Hambone Fakenameington

NewsblogIs Chase Utley a Hall of Famer?
(71 - 2:17pm, Jul 19)
Last: this is normal 57i66135. move on, find a new slant

NewsblogOT Gaming: October 2015
(799 - 1:31pm, Jul 19)
Last: Paul d mobile

Newsblog10 Years Ago, Two Trades Broke The Mold For MLB Deadline Deals
(17 - 1:29pm, Jul 19)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (let's call it July 2018)
(587 - 12:09pm, Jul 19)
Last: stig-tossled,hornswoggled gef the talking mongoose

NewsblogAaron Judge — Huge Talent, Phenomenal Trade Bait
(11 - 12:05pm, Jul 19)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

NewsblogOrioles have deal in place for Manny Machado, working through trade specifics
(22 - 11:47am, Jul 19)
Last: McCoy

Page rendered in 0.6946 seconds
46 querie(s) executed