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

Thursday, April 03, 2014

OTP April 2014: BurstNET Sued for Not Making Equipment Lease Payments

Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: April 03, 2014 at 01:59 PM | 4718 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: 7 million aca signees and counting, i-95 south, nc, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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

Page 30 of 48 pages ‹ First  < 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 >  Last ›
   2901. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 25, 2014 at 04:20 PM (#4694381)
This is true. The problem are people who think "my life is terrible and I'm sad, if I had a kid I'd be happy and someone would love me." Get a ####### dog.

And guys who think they're big swinging dicks because they've got 7 kids with 5 "baby-mamas".

If anyone should be forced sterilized (which I oppose on moral grounds) it's those guys.
   2902. spike Posted: April 25, 2014 at 04:22 PM (#4694382)
Do you really deny that the change in social mores in re casual sex hasn't contributed greatly to this?

As usual, that's not what I was taking issue with. The statement was "[promiscuity] does lead to huge numbers of out-of-wedlock births".

Prove it.
   2903. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 25, 2014 at 04:22 PM (#4694383)
So what? The assertion was that rank promiscuity causes these problems, and these would definitely be ameliorated by more widespread access to birth control

Contraception is infinitely more available today than it was in 1950 (when it was illegal even for married people in some states). Yet, the rate of unwed births is an order of magnitude higher. Lack of contraceptives ain't the problem.
   2904. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: April 25, 2014 at 04:24 PM (#4694385)
Jonathon Chait ran with that Onion angle first.
   2905. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 25, 2014 at 04:25 PM (#4694388)
As usual, that's not what I was taking issue with. The statement was "[promiscuity] does lead to huge numbers of out-of-wedlock births".

What's your counter-argument? That the increase in out-of-wedlock births from 5% to over 40% is driven solely by people in long-term monogamous relationships that simply choose not to get married?
   2906. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 25, 2014 at 04:26 PM (#4694389)
So what? The assertion was that rank promiscuity causes these problems, and these would definitely be ameliorated by more widespread access to birth control

You have to #### to get knocked up, right? So the more ####### that's going on, ceteris paribus, the more knocking up there's going to be.
   2907. spike Posted: April 25, 2014 at 04:26 PM (#4694390)
Contraception is infinitely more available today than it was in 1950 (when it was illegal even for married people in some states). Yet, the rate of unwed births is an order of magnitude higher. Lack of contraceptives ain't the problem.

Non responsive, again. Additional access to birth control would ameliorate to a degree the number of unwanted pregnancies and the spread of disease, period.
   2908. spike Posted: April 25, 2014 at 04:27 PM (#4694392)
What's your counter-argument?

I don't need one -defend your own daily made up on the spot whopper.
   2909. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 25, 2014 at 04:27 PM (#4694393)
And guys who think they're big swinging dicks because they've got 7 kids with 5 "baby-mamas".

If anyone should be forced sterilized (which I oppose on moral grounds) it's those guys.


wonder what Elijah Dukes is up to these days...
   2910. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 25, 2014 at 04:27 PM (#4694394)
This is the real issue; the militarization of policing in the US. There was no need to send paramilitary units after Bundy. Just put a damn lien on his bank account, like they do with the Amish who won't pay SSI taxes.
If all it were about was collecting money he owed, yes, but it stopped being about that a while ago.
   2911. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 25, 2014 at 04:28 PM (#4694395)
Non responsive, again. Additional access to birth control would ameliorate to a degree the number of unwanted pregnancies and the spread of disease, period.

And the history has proven that to be untrue.

Contraception is more available than ever (handed out free in many schools, sold in every pharmacy, market and bodega, provided by most insurance plans) and the out-of-wedlock birth rates, and the rates of STD infections (approx. 20% of the population now has genital Herpes) keep rising.
   2912. spike Posted: April 25, 2014 at 04:29 PM (#4694396)
You have to #### to get knocked up, right? So the more ####### that's going on, ceteris paribus, the more knocking up there's going to be.

Again, I understand you like to respond to arguments nobody made, but I didn't question this - I said that the getting knocked up would definitely be ameliorated by more widespread access to birth control
   2913. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 25, 2014 at 04:30 PM (#4694398)
Additional access to birth control would ameliorate to a degree the number of unwanted pregnancies and the spread of disease, period.

Birth control is as easy to "access" as oatmeal, and easier to access than batteries or razor blades, which the drug stores have seen fit to hide and/or lock up and/or put behind one of those usually broken dispensers.
   2914. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: April 25, 2014 at 04:34 PM (#4694401)
Contraception is infinitely more available today than it was in 1950 (when it was illegal even for married people in some states). Yet, the rate of unwed births is an order of magnitude higher.


In 1957, there were 96.1 teen births per 1000 teenage females. In 2009, it was 39.1.

Conclusion: In 1957 there were a lot more shotgun weddings.
   2915. spike Posted: April 25, 2014 at 04:38 PM (#4694403)

Contraception is more available than ever (handed out free in many schools, sold in every pharmacy, market and bodega) and the out-of-wedlock birth rates, and the rates of STD infections keep rising


Unintended pregnancy rates have been dropping overall since 1981 and have been relatively stable since 1994 - the leveling off notably tieing in with the rise of "abstinence only" programs. STD rates have been flat for years, with the notable exception of chlamydia and much of this rise can be attributed to the expansion of chlamydia screening activities, use of more sensitive screening tests, and improvements in the reporting system.

Try again
   2916. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: April 25, 2014 at 04:39 PM (#4694404)
Sterilize them all. They can reverse it later if they really want to be dads.
   2917. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 25, 2014 at 04:41 PM (#4694406)
In 1957, there were 96.1 teen births per 1000 teenage females. In 2009, it was 39.1.

Conclusion: In 1957 there were a lot more shotgun weddings.


So every wedding involving a woman under 20 in 1957 was a shotgun wedding? Good to know.

   2918. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: April 25, 2014 at 04:41 PM (#4694407)
In 1957, there were 96.1 teen births per 1000 teenage females. In 2009, it was 39.1.

Conclusion: In 1957 there were a lot more shotgun weddings.


Well that's the way they handled the issue in the bible.
   2919. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 25, 2014 at 04:46 PM (#4694411)
In 1957, there were 96.1 teen births per 1000 teenage females. In 2009, it was 39.1.

Conclusion: In 1957 there were a lot more shotgun weddings.


Some of those, also a lot more people married at 17, 18 and 19.

Unintended pregnancy rates have been dropping overall since 1981 and have been relatively stable since 1994 - the leveling off notably tieing in with the rise of "abstinence only" programs. STD rates have been flat for years, with the notable exception of chlamydia and much of this rise can be attributed to the expansion of chlamydia screening activities, use of more sensitive screening tests, and improvements in the reporting system.

Try again


I said nothing about unintended pregnancies. I said, in fact, most of these out-of-wedlock births are more or less wanted.

There is no evidence that I have seen that whether a child is intended or not has an impact on their success in life. I would guess many of us were unintended. It is clear that not having two married parents has a huge impact on children's outcomes.

Curable STD rates have been flat, because we have ever better medical care. Again, Herpes is up to 20% of the population.
   2920. The Good Face Posted: April 25, 2014 at 04:47 PM (#4694413)
Unintended pregnancy rates have been dropping overall since 1981 and have been relatively stable since 1994 - the leveling off notably tieing in with the rise of "abstinence only" programs.


Unintended pregnancies aren't really the issue. The number of children being brought up in single parent homes is the issue.

STD rates have been flat for years, with the notable exception of chlamydia and much of this rise can be attributed to the expansion of chlamydia screening activities, use of more sensitive screening tests, and improvements in the reporting system.


So aside from the explosion in STDs, there is no explosion in STDs.
   2921. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 25, 2014 at 04:48 PM (#4694414)
So every wedding involving a woman under 20 in 1957 was a shotgun wedding? Good to know.

We also need to distinguish between weddings that were merely accelerated by pregnancy from wedding that only happened due to pregnancy.

There were likely many more of the former among the "shot-gun" affairs. That's what research on the colonial era has shown; many pregnant brides, but most had already intended to marry the father. Many were engaged.
   2922. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 25, 2014 at 04:49 PM (#4694417)
Unintended pregnancies aren't really the issue. The number of children being brought up in single parent homes is the issue.

Correct. In an imaginary world where every unintended pregnancy led to a marriage that lasted, there would be no societal impact from unintended pregnancy,
   2923. spike Posted: April 25, 2014 at 04:52 PM (#4694418)
I said nothing about unintended pregnancies.

Right. You said "the rates of STD infections keep rising." They have not.
   2924. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: April 25, 2014 at 04:53 PM (#4694419)
Elvira Arellano is back in the United States. A government that can send dozens or hundreds of armed agents to raid some guy's ranch should be able to do a much better job keeping defiant dregs like Elvira Arellano out.

That "defiant dreg" would almost certainly become a normal taxpayer if she were to be left alone, whereas that "some guy" is now a million dollar stiff when it comes to paying grazing fees. Is this character your idea of some sort of a model citizen?
   2925. Greg K Posted: April 25, 2014 at 04:56 PM (#4694420)
There are not many (any?) strategy games with realistic battle sub-systems. It makes it very hard to actually plan strategy.

Part of the reason I like strategy games so much is probably that I find the warfare the least interesting element. I generally play Civ V on hot seat as every nation, and only fight wars in very specific circumstances.

EDIT: part of what I like about EU IV is that they've really expanded your ability to acquire territory without war.
   2926. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 25, 2014 at 04:59 PM (#4694425)
That "defiant dreg" would almost certainly become a normal taxpayer if she were to be left alone,

So would a billion other people who'd like to emigrate here. Should we let them all in?

("Dreg" was a little harsh, but Arellano clearly has zero respect for our laws, and she's precisely the wrong type of immigrant we should be welcoming — a low-skilled lawbreaker with no apparent remorse for her actions.)

whereas that "some guy" is now a million dollar stiff when it comes to paying grazing fees. Is this character your idea of some sort of a model citizen?

Yet another guy who can't read. It's truly an epidemic around here.

But to address your point about "stiffs" and "model citizens," Bundy is small potatoes when it comes to owing the government money. Al Sharpton apparently still owes north of $2 million in personal and business taxes to the IRS, but that didn't stop MSNBC from giving him a huge platform from which to preach his nonsense.
   2927. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 25, 2014 at 05:01 PM (#4694427)
So what? The assertion was that rank promiscuity causes these problems, and these would definitely be ameliorated by more widespread access to birth control
No; there's no such thing as "more widespread access to birth control," because there is already unlimited access to birth control.
   2928. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: April 25, 2014 at 05:01 PM (#4694428)
In an imaginary world where every unintended pregnancy led to a marriage that lasted, there would be no societal impact from unintended pregnancy,


Such a world definitely qualifies as imaginary.
   2929. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 25, 2014 at 05:03 PM (#4694431)
Right. You said "the rates of STD infections keep rising." They have not.

Herpes is at an all time high. You yourself mention a spike in chlamydia. HPV is apparently widespread enough that we need a vaccine.
   2930. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 25, 2014 at 05:03 PM (#4694432)
No matter how Republicans try, they will never shake the racist label until they begin to let go of the nativist branch of their party. In other words, the entire ante bellum south.

What utter nonsense and total partisan hackery. Such a sweeping attempt to indict such a large group, close to half the population, is what is actually consistent with the extremists and nutters who have been sprinkled throughout history. Kevin 2.0, a modern bigot.
   2931. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 25, 2014 at 05:05 PM (#4694435)
Such a world definitely qualifies as imaginary.

Hence my qualifier. But children of divorced parents have better socio-economic results that children of parents who never married. So, even marriages that don't last benefit the children. It's a lso a hell of a lot easier to get the father to provide ongoing support when there was a marriage.
   2932. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: April 25, 2014 at 05:06 PM (#4694436)
Such a sweeping attempt to indict such a large group, close to half the population, is what is actually consistent with the extremists and nutters who have been sprinkled throughout history.


You've never been to the south, have you?
   2933. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 25, 2014 at 05:08 PM (#4694438)
Part of the reason I like strategy games so much is probably that I find the warfare the least interesting element. I generally play Civ V on hot seat as every nation, and only fight wars in very specific circumstances.

EDIT: part of what I like about EU IV is that they've really expanded your ability to acquire territory without war.


My dream is to merge the diplomacy/economic engine from EU4, with the battle engine from the Total War series.
   2934. zonk Posted: April 25, 2014 at 05:11 PM (#4694441)
Elvira Arellano is back in the United States. A government that can send dozens or hundreds of armed agents to raid some guy's ranch should be able to do a much better job keeping defiant dregs like Elvira Arellano out.

That "defiant dreg" would almost certainly become a normal taxpayer if she were to be left alone, whereas that "some guy" is now a million dollar stiff when it comes to paying grazing fees. Is this character your idea of some sort of a model citizen?


My recollection is that she worked on an airport cleaning crew... where I assume she had state and federal income taxes deducted from her check, while most likely not filing tax returns to get refunds (which, plus things like EIC calculations might very well have wiped and then some the taxes she paid on income) -- plus Medicare & Social Security deductions, where again - assuming she was using a falsified SS #, etc -- she wasn't going to be applying for benefits... to say nothing of the fact that living in the Chicagoland area, she was certainly paying a much higher amount in local sales taxes than the generally sales tax free Nevada gaming paradise.

I suppose we'll never know for certain as I doubt anyone here can get either Bundy or Arellano would be willing to open their books...

But -- given the state tax laws of Nevada which I'm relatively familiar with, given the trade that Bundy plies vs the trade that Arellano plied...

I'm willing to a year's salary that Arellano actually "paid into the system" more money than Bundy has... whether you want to talk raw dollars, percent of income, or whatever.

How about we just trade Bundy to Mexico and keep Arellano?
   2935. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 25, 2014 at 05:13 PM (#4694445)
. . . expect a Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine sometime this weekend

How can that be? Weren't we assured, right here at BBTF, that Obama had stared down Putin? Weren't we told that such a move wasn't in Russia's interest? You're saying those folks were wrong?
   2936. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 25, 2014 at 05:14 PM (#4694448)
Such a sweeping attempt to indict such a large group, close to half the population


The former Confederacy is only 1/3 the population of the US
   2937. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 25, 2014 at 05:15 PM (#4694451)
Weren't we assured, right here at BBTF, that Obama had stared down Putin?


no.

Weren't we told that such a move wasn't in Russia's interest?

yes.
   2938. Mefisto Posted: April 25, 2014 at 05:19 PM (#4694455)
No; there's no such thing as "more widespread access to birth control," because there is already unlimited access to birth control.


That's an odd position for a libertarian to take, given the need for a prescription.

   2939. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 25, 2014 at 05:19 PM (#4694456)
but Arellano clearly has zero respect for our laws


true, but then at least she seems able to comprehend what they are, whereas Bundy has zero respect for our laws, both the real ones and the ones existing in his imagination (Actually I may have misspoke, he seems to have some respect for the imaginary laws that exist only in his mind)
   2940. Lassus Posted: April 25, 2014 at 05:20 PM (#4694457)
If I outlive my wife I will inevitably move back to the swamps. Roots die hard.

True Detective 2, starring Fisher Stevens!
   2941. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: April 25, 2014 at 05:21 PM (#4694459)
That's an odd position for a libertarian to take, given the need for a prescription.


David doesn't care about female access. A guy can buy a rubber, so in his world, UNIVERSAL ACCESS!
   2942. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 25, 2014 at 05:23 PM (#4694462)
David doesn't care about female access. A guy can buy a rubber, so in his world, UNIVERSAL ACCESS!

Is there a new law prohibiting women from buying them?
   2943. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 25, 2014 at 05:25 PM (#4694464)
What utter nonsense and total partisan hackery. Such a sweeping attempt to indict such a large group, close to half the population, is what is actually consistent with the extremists and nutters who have been sprinkled throughout history. Kevin 2.0, a modern bigot.

We already knew, from their obsession with the "dog whistling" by Reagan at Philadelphia, that the modern liberal believes any effort to seek and obtain the votes of American southerners is fundamentally racist and illegitimate.

The modern liberal way is to inject deck-stacking procedures into the political system to get their way substantively. This "Republicanism is racism" nonsense they've been pitching the last couple years is yet the latest example.

Note here my objections: they are procedural and aimed at fundamental political fairness in the way issues are presented, discussed, debated, and decided.(*) They don't necessarily say anything about my personal stance on the substance. So we can dispense with the "You're a racist, Sugarbear" nonsense.

You're cheating, liberals. Stop cheating.

(*) In much the same way several provisions of the Constitution are so aimed.

   2944. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 25, 2014 at 05:25 PM (#4694465)
Media bias? What media bias? CNN Coordinates "Chicagoland" Documentary With Mayor:
If it seemed as though some scenes of CNN's documentary series "Chicagoland" were coordinated by Mayor Rahm Emanuel's City Hall and the show's producers, that's because they were. More than 700 emails reviewed by the Tribune reveal that the production team worked hand in hand with the mayor's advisers to develop storylines, arrange specific camera shots and review news releases officially announcing the show.
. . .
The production team for the series, whose final episode aired Thursday night, told Emanuel's staff that particular scenes would present the mayor in a positive light, with one of the producers expressing a desire to showcase the mayor "as the star that he really is."

Given CNN's recent ratings, most people were probably unaware of the show, but one-sided programming like this is a big part of CNN's ratings problem.
   2945. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 25, 2014 at 05:28 PM (#4694469)
Given CNN's recent ratings, most people were probably unaware of the show, but one-sided programming like this is a big part of CNN's ratings problem.

One-sided "advocacy" programming isn't a problem. One-sided, advocacy programming that masquerades as straight journalism is the problem.
   2946. Bitter Mouse Posted: April 25, 2014 at 05:29 PM (#4694471)
You're cheating, liberals. Stop cheating.


The losers lament.
   2947. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: April 25, 2014 at 05:35 PM (#4694478)

Hence my qualifier. But children of divorced parents have better socio-economic results that children of parents who never married. So, even marriages that don't last benefit the children.


And children born in countries that begin with the letter U do better than children born in countries beginning with the letter Z. In fact, they do so even if they later move out of the country later. So even living a short while in countries beginning with the letter U benefit children. Clearly people living in Zambia ought to move to Uganda if they know what's good for them.
   2948. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 25, 2014 at 05:36 PM (#4694480)
Again, I understand you like to respond to arguments nobody made, but I didn't question this - I said that the getting knocked up would definitely be ameliorated by more widespread access to birth control


Is there a person in this country who had sex without using protection because they didn't have "access to birth control"? When will liberals stop repeating this lie? Condoms (to take one example) are a few dollars a pack. Hell, they're actually $0 because most governments now give them out for free. But (since you seem to think these things are expensive) here's the first link I came to. $9.99 for a 12-pack.

People don't use protection more because people don't want to use protection more, not because people don't have "access" to it, whatever the hell that means.
   2949. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 25, 2014 at 05:38 PM (#4694481)
That's an odd position for a libertarian to take, given the need for a prescription.
Condoms and Plan B are both OTC.

In any case, that's pretty disingenuous of a response; obviously libertarians would remove the prescription requirement, but that's not remotely what liberals mean by "more widespread access to birth control."
   2950. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 25, 2014 at 05:42 PM (#4694483)
Maybe there are "birth control deserts" in Liberal La La Land. Located right next to the food deserts.
   2951. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 25, 2014 at 05:44 PM (#4694485)
And children born in countries that begin with the letter U do better than children born in countries beginning with the letter Z. In fact, they do so even if they later move out of the country later. So even living a short while in countries beginning with the letter U benefit children. Clearly people living in Zambia ought to move to Uganda if they know what's good for them.

Every person in this country can 99% ensure they are married before they have children (100% if they don't have intercourse before marriage). It is a free choice not to take the appropriate steps to prevent it.
   2952. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: April 25, 2014 at 05:44 PM (#4694486)
We already knew, from their obsession with the "dog whistling" by Reagan at Philadelphia, that the modern liberal believes any effort to seek and obtain the votes of American southerners is fundamentally racist and illegitimate.


You've never been to the south, have you?
   2953. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 25, 2014 at 05:44 PM (#4694487)
David doesn't care about female access. A guy can buy a rubber, so in his world, UNIVERSAL ACCESS!
1) That doesn't even make sense as a gotcha, even if you were serious rather than trolling. Who cares who buys the condom? (Women can buy them, of course.) The condom is applied to the male body -- you can check google images, if you'd like -- but its use is for the benefit of the man and woman. Except in gay sex.
2) By the way, there are female condoms.
   2954. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 25, 2014 at 05:45 PM (#4694489)
When will liberals stop repeating this lie?

If they made maple syrup as well as they make excuses, Vermont would be out of business.
   2955. Mefisto Posted: April 25, 2014 at 05:48 PM (#4694491)
Is there a new law prohibiting women from buying them?


No, but they don't fit women very well.

Condoms and Plan B are both OTC.


I'm glad to see you admit that Plan B is a contraceptive, contra your Hobby Lobby defense.

But the disingenuity is all yours: you made the claim that there was "unlimted access to birth control". You've now implicitly admitted that is false.

   2956. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 25, 2014 at 05:51 PM (#4694492)
You've never been to the south, have you?

Not without bodyguards, no.

But as long as they're in the union and their citizens can vote, it isn't illegitimate to get them to try to vote for you.
   2957. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 25, 2014 at 05:52 PM (#4694496)
When will liberals stop repeating this lie?

The lie is necessary to maintain their belief system. If sexual liberty is the one thing to be protected above all other, they can not admit excessive sexual liberty is causing poverty and harm to children. It MUST be a failure of contraceptive access.
   2958. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 25, 2014 at 05:56 PM (#4694499)
Is there a new law prohibiting women from buying them?

No, but they don't fit women very well.


Relevance? They fit men quite nicely, and if we're talking about getting pregnant through sex -- a man is needed for that -- then condoms are vastly effective in preventing pregnancy no matter who actually buys them.

Seriously, are these the best arguments you guys have? Or do you just need biology lessons?
   2959. Greg K Posted: April 25, 2014 at 06:04 PM (#4694502)
My dream is to merge the diplomacy/economic engine from EU4, with the battle engine from the Total War series.

That would be a pretty comprehensive game!

Though one I would suck at. I'm probably one of the slowest thinkers of all time. Usually I can only play turn-based games. Luckily constantly pausing it actually doesn't hurt the flow of the Paradox games. I absolutely suck at Total War. Everything happens so quickly I can't react...I'm the prototypical incompetent general.
   2960. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 25, 2014 at 06:06 PM (#4694503)
I suppose the people without "access to birth control" have this conversation.

"Girl, let's do it."
"Yes! Do you have a condom?"
"Nah, can't afford one. Do you?"
"Well, I can afford one -- but it doesn't make sense for me to be the one who buys it."
"Yeah, I see that; you're the woman, and condoms don't fit women very well."
"Yeah. You know, we can get condoms for free now. The government hands them out."
"No, you can't be right. We don't have access to birth control. What about a form other than condoms?"
"No, I don't have any. I can't afford it. And don't have access to it."
"Well, let's just have sex anyway."

----

I mean, how condescendingly low of an opinion does one have to have of poor people to think they don't have access to birth control?
   2961. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 25, 2014 at 06:16 PM (#4694505)
You're cheating, liberals. Stop cheating.

The losers lament.


the liars lament:

The modern liberal way is to inject deck-stacking procedures into the political system to get their way substantively.

there's a party that has been strenuously trying to do that the last two decades ans it sure as hell ain't the party of the "modern liberals"
   2962. Mefisto Posted: April 25, 2014 at 06:16 PM (#4694506)
Relevance? They fit men quite nicely, and if we're talking about getting pregnant through sex -- a man is needed for that -- then condoms are vastly effective in preventing pregnancy no matter who actually buys them.


First, it was a joke. Second, they have a typical use failure rate of 18%. Cite.
   2963. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 25, 2014 at 06:18 PM (#4694508)
But as long as they're in the union and their citizens can vote, it isn't illegitimate to get them to try to vote for you.


Nor is it illegitimate to try to get others to vote for the Dems by noting that the GOP has a habit of pandering to racists as part of its efforts to woo that voting block.
   2964. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 25, 2014 at 06:18 PM (#4694509)
I suppose the people without "access to birth control" have this conversation.


wasn't that the dialog to a 1990s SNL skit?
   2965. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: April 25, 2014 at 06:19 PM (#4694510)
the modern liberal believes any effort to seek and obtain the votes of American southerners is fundamentally racist and illegitimate.

Not any effort. Just the effective ones.

Condoms? Really? We can't do better than that? I think we can do better than that.
   2966. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 25, 2014 at 06:26 PM (#4694514)
Not any effort. Just the effective ones.


No just the racist ones. I've seen the ads the Repubs sometimes run in Dixie, there's a reason they don't run them anywhere else- not that there aren't any racists anywhere else, but it seems that non-southern racists prefer a bit more subtlety in their appeals.
   2967. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 25, 2014 at 06:30 PM (#4694516)
This may cheer up Snapper a bit...

   2968. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 25, 2014 at 06:31 PM (#4694517)
I've seen the ads the Repubs sometimes run in Dixie . . .

Really? Did you also see the ads Democrats ran against Bobby Jindal, darkening his complexion several shades? How about the equally racist campaign against Nike Haley in South Carolina? Did you notice that, too?
   2969. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 25, 2014 at 06:35 PM (#4694522)
How about the equally racist campaign against Nike Haley in South Carolina? Did you notice that, too?

It's Nikki Haley and what the Dems did was bad, what her GOP primary opponents did was far worse.

Did you also see the ads Democrats ran against Bobby Jindal, darkening his complexion several shades

really I've been told that never happens that nobody ever does that.
   2970. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 25, 2014 at 06:38 PM (#4694525)
What is the conversation those without "access to birth control" are having, then? I can readily imagine a conversation for those (like me) who don't have "access to porsches." Porsches are expensive, you have X money coming in, your expenses are Y... but condoms cost very little or are free, so what is the actual conversation like when two people discuss the various options for getting birth control and conclude that no options are available?

I am inviting someone to actually provide a hypothetical conversation to show me just how such a conversation goes.
   2971. Mefisto Posted: April 25, 2014 at 06:44 PM (#4694526)
Ray: "Here, I have a condom."
Woman: "The failure rate on condoms is 18%."
Ray: "That sounds pretty reliable."
Woman: "It's higher than the failure rate for Russian Roulette."
   2972. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 25, 2014 at 06:46 PM (#4694528)
I am inviting someone to actually provide a hypothetical conversation to show me just how such a conversation goes.

I'll try:

"Girl, let's do it."
"ummmm.... I'm not on the pill... ummm do you have a condom?"
"Nah, can't afford one. Do you?"
"Well, oooh gee, look at the time, just remembered I err.. gotta go."

Ok, that doesn't quite get there, let's see

"Girl, let's do it."
"ummmm.... I'm not on the pill... ummm do you have a condom?"
".... umm no I, didn't think.... do you?"
"Me? why would I, they don't go on me, and hey what kind of girl do you think I am, do you think I plan this"
"Well I didn't plan this either, how far is the nearest Duane Reade?"
some lapse of time later and it's either:

"Well, let's just have sex anyway."

or

"Well, I'm not in the mood anymore any way"
   2973. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: April 25, 2014 at 07:00 PM (#4694531)
wasn't that the dialog to a 1990s SNL skit?
It's Ray, so it's probably from an episode of "Frasier."
   2974. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: April 25, 2014 at 07:10 PM (#4694534)
I suppose the people without "access to birth control" have this conversation.

"Girl, let's do it."
"Yes! Do you have a condom?"
"Nah, can't afford one. Do you?"
"Well, I can afford one -- but it doesn't make sense for me to be the one who buys it."
"Yeah, I see that; you're the woman, and condoms don't fit women very well."
"Yeah. You know, we can get condoms for free now. The government hands them out."
"No, you can't be right. We don't have access to birth control. What about a form other than condoms?"
"No, I don't have any. I can't afford it. And don't have access to it."
"Well, let's just have sex anyway.


Holy #### Ray, but you are a ############# ####### tool.

Alternatively, there's no ####### conversation, but the woman is on birth control, which costs insurance or the government almost nothing, and it thus prevents unwanted pregnancy and thus saving everyone money, time, and everything else.
   2975. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: April 25, 2014 at 07:24 PM (#4694537)
When will liberals stop repeating this lie?

The lie is necessary to maintain their belief system


HAW HAW HAW

Oh man. Physician faith-heal thyself.
   2976. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 25, 2014 at 09:43 PM (#4694563)
I'm glad to see you admit that Plan B is a contraceptive, contra your Hobby Lobby defense.
You are doubly mistaken. My Hobby Lobby defense has nothing to do with whether Plan B is a contraceptive. My Hobby Lobby defense is that Hobby lobby has religious objections to Plan B, and that compelling them to provide coverage for it would require them to violate their religious conscience, and the government cannot meet the RFRA-imposed standard for overcoming that. It doesn't matter if Plan B is sugar water for that purpose. And nothing I just said contradicts that.

But the disingenuity is all yours: you made the claim that there was "unlimted access to birth control". You've now implicitly admitted that is false.
No; the claim that there's unlimited access to birth control is not remotely the same claim as there being unlimited access to every possible form of birth control. (And, as usual, you try to read one of my statements in isolation from the surrounding context. The context was about buying it, not about whether one needed to go through a doctor to do it.)
   2977. Tripon Posted: April 25, 2014 at 09:46 PM (#4694564)

Given CNN's recent ratings, most people were probably unaware of the show, but one-sided programming like this is a big part of CNN's ratings problem.


This is assuming that CNN is covering anything else besides MA370
   2978. Mefisto Posted: April 25, 2014 at 10:04 PM (#4694571)
My Hobby Lobby defense has nothing to do with whether Plan B is a contraceptive. My Hobby Lobby defense is that Hobby lobby has religious objections to Plan B, and that compelling them to provide coverage for it would require them to violate their religious conscience, and the government cannot meet the RFRA-imposed standard for overcoming that. It doesn't matter if Plan B is sugar water for that purpose.


If HL claimed a religious objection to sugar water, it would be laughed out of court and you wouldn't defend them. You're also dodging the falsity of HL's claims about Plan B. Apparently the "D" in DMN does stand for "disingenuous".

the claim that there's unlimited access to birth control is not remotely the same claim as there being unlimited access to every possible form of birth control.


You managed to identify 2 forms, one of which has an 18% failure rate, and one of which is intended as to be used only if actual prophylactics fail. That's not a good faith support for "unlimited".
   2979. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 25, 2014 at 10:04 PM (#4694572)
Relevance? They fit men quite nicely, and if we're talking about getting pregnant through sex -- a man is needed for that -- then condoms are vastly effective in preventing pregnancy no matter who actually buys them.

First, it was a joke. Second, they have a typical use failure rate of 18%. Cite.


So it was a joke... I've used this example before, but it reminds me of the time that Sheryl Crow, during the end of her "global warming tour," made the comment that people should be limited in how many squares of toilet paper they used in any one session. After people laughed hysterically at her, she had to explain that it was a joke. Maybe it was, and maybe it wasn't, but the point is that she had gotten so crazy with her "global warming tour" that people lost the ability to tell whether she was joking or being serious in her comments.

That's what happened above. People go from talking about lack of "access to birth control" -- itself an utter joke, although unfortunately the people saying that don't realize it -- to "women wouldn't buy condoms because they don't fit women very well" and people lose the ability to tell whether you're joking.

But I don't really think your overall point was a joke, which was, well, why would the woman be the one to buy the condoms?

As to you citing failure rates of condoms, what does that have to do with the issue of whether people have "access" to them? You seem to be weirdly suggesting that people with money don't use condoms and that it's the poor who are stuck with them. But of course that's not true either.
   2980. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 25, 2014 at 10:18 PM (#4694581)
If HL claimed a religious objection to sugar water, it would be laughed out of court and you wouldn't defend them. You're also dodging the falsity of HL's claims about Plan B. Apparently the "D" in DMN does stand for "disingenuous".
If Hobby Lobby had a sincere religious objection to sugar water, then the same argument would apply. As for falseness, they say it can prevent implantation. So does the FDA. There's nothing false about that.
   2981. Morty Causa Posted: April 25, 2014 at 10:20 PM (#4694583)
Somewhere in all that Ray & Co. have good point. The more readily and cheaply available contraception in all its forms has become, the more out of wedlock births and the more single parents. And for fifty years, the dominant voice has been, "more of the same". And with each and every incremental change in availability, there has been incremental increase in that which the advocates say they would like to prevent. I think there could be optic orange barrels of free contraceptives of every sort on every street corner in America, and you know what? There would still be tons and tons of unintended births, out of wedlock births, and single parents. It's a problem that isn't going to be solved by making contraception universally free. Maybe we need to think some about why we have sex and why society used to discourage people at certain times and places in their lives not to have sex. That didn't work perfectly either, but it seemed to be more effective, didn't it? But, I guess that would be trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube.
   2982. Mefisto Posted: April 25, 2014 at 10:30 PM (#4694588)
why would the woman be the one to buy the condoms?


Women do buy condoms. They just aren't very effective at birth control. If the woman has a choice, she'd much prefer to use another form of birth control and use the condom to prevent STDs.

As to you citing failure rates of condoms, what does that have to do with the issue of whether people have "access" to them?


"Having access to them" implies that they're effective. Women have access to sugar water too, but I wouldn't recommend that.

As for falseness, they say it can prevent implantation. So does the FDA.


No, the FDA did not say that. It left open the possibility because there wasn't enough data. Regardless, the evidence now shows that it does not. What HL "believes" is as irrelevant as it would be if it believed that sugar water prevented implantation.
   2983. CrosbyBird Posted: April 25, 2014 at 11:11 PM (#4694611)
Women do buy condoms. They just aren't very effective at birth control.

A properly-used condom with spermicide is around 98% effective. That's not perfect, but when you consider that there's only a 25% chance of pregnancy during unprotected sex during the woman's most fertile day of her cycle, it's a pretty good success rate.

Problem #1: People don't properly use condoms. They open them with their teeth. They don't properly eject the extra air. They don't hold the ring on withdrawal. You can fix some of that with education, but honestly, not too much over what we've got now.

Problem #2: People don't use condoms at all, because they reduce the pleasure of the experience. (If you've got a latex allergy, they really reduce the pleasure or you switch to non-latex which are less effective and still pleasure-reducing.)
   2984. Dan The Mediocre Posted: April 25, 2014 at 11:33 PM (#4694618)
Problem #1: People don't properly use condoms. They open them with their teeth. They don't properly eject the extra air. They don't hold the ring on withdrawal.


They don't leave a reservoir at the tip, they don't use lubricant, they use oil based lubricants (which degrade latex), they tear it so that the tear gets stopped by the condom (and the foil nicks the latex), they unroll it before use, they don't unroll it all the way, they put it on inside out, they store it in improper conditions (wallets and purses are terrible places to store them)...

Condoms are used correctly by well less than half of all people.
   2985. Greg K Posted: April 25, 2014 at 11:39 PM (#4694621)
   2986. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 26, 2014 at 07:54 AM (#4694654)
You managed to identify 2 forms, one of which has an 18% failure rate, and one of which is intended as to be used only if actual prophylactics fail. That's not a good faith support for "unlimited".
Condoms do not remotely have an 18% failure rate. Googling and finding a statistic you don't understand the derivation of and blindly reciting it is dishonest. What that figure actually means is that, of people who report condoms as their primary birth control method, 18% of them get pregnant in a given year. But that not only includes times when they misused condoms, but times when they didn't use condoms at all. It's like saying that seatbelts don't protect you by counting all the people who got hurt while riding in cars that had seatbelts, including the people who weren't wearing them.
   2987. Mefisto Posted: April 26, 2014 at 10:17 AM (#4694684)
Condoms do not remotely have an 18% failure rate.


I'll let you take that up with the Centers for Disease Control. Perhaps you can sell them on the benefits of sugar water.
   2988. BDC Posted: April 26, 2014 at 10:35 AM (#4694687)
Heh, George Takei reposted this meme today, conveniently. I love that guy.

OK, condoms are widely available and way better than nothing. Great. Why not still make it easier (than it already is) for women to take more control over contraception and use it with more certainty? What's the downside in that? Even if you're big on chastity as a value, you have to recognize that there are lots of people who simply won't be chaste despite all possible rhetoric, persuasion, and/or shaming. So let them manage their reproductive lives with some planning and forethought.

I guess I just reject the premise that a lot more of us were pure as driven snow before the Pill made us loose and depraved. I suspect there's a class dynamic here: that for a certain stratum of ambitious middle-class people, chastity before the pill was a way of safeguarding one's class position – something that mattered less to blue-bloods who couldn't lose it and working-class people who had nothing to lose.

My eminently working-class grandmother was born six months after her parents married in 1910: my great-grandparents were in their early 20s, and it's naïve to think they hadn't been sexually active for a while, and probably not exclusively with each other. But the inevitable happened, and then they married, and Great-Grandpa worked on the railroad and Great-Grandma raised babies and eventually they lived in a very nice trailer where they died. That was all fine and wholesome and they were married for 60 years, but think of so many of their descendants who were able to attain middle- or upper-middle-class lifestyles in part because contraception technologies and access improved.

Not that I'm going to change anyone's mind, but that's just how I see things, and how millions of people see them. I don't know why you'd ever want to limit, or indeed to avoid extending, access to contraception in all forms.
   2989. Publius Publicola Posted: April 26, 2014 at 10:44 AM (#4694692)
Girls. Yucch.

Let's switch gears. Here's the latest from those loveable, fiscally responsible Republicans:

A Consensus in Washington, but No Action
WASHINGTON — The Savannah Harbor Expansion Project has friends in all the right places.

Republicans and Democrats from Georgia’s often divided congressional delegation agree that it is essential and overdue. The Senate and House have separately approved it. President Obama supports it, and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. traveled to the state last year to vow that “come hell or high water,” the work would get done.

It has not even started. Instead, the $652 million project has become the latest emblem of Washington’s struggle to accomplish much of anything, even when all sides agree, and a vivid illustration of how the toxic political climate has made inertia the most powerful force in town.

“It really speaks about the dysfunction of the process and the politicization of the process,” said former Representative Tom Davis, a Virginia Republican who left Congress in 2008, partly out of frustration with a broken system. “It’s a shame.”

...

“This isn’t about politics,” said Steve Posner, a spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget. “It is about being fiscally responsible and ensuring that taxpayer resources only go to projects that have been fully reviewed and authorized by Congress. The administration fully supports the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project and urges Congress to pass a Water Resources Development Act that includes authorization for the project.”

It is not lost on Democrats that Republicans, who often decry what they see as abuse of executive authority and have complained loudly when the administration has acted unilaterally in other cases, are now demanding that the president use his power to advance the project.

...

Even Speaker John A. Boehner could not refrain on Thursday from chastising his colleagues for lacking the grit to take on difficult issues such as immigration.

“We get elected to make choices,” Mr. Boehner told a Rotary club back home in Ohio. “We get elected to solve problems, and it’s remarkable to me how many of my colleagues just don’t want to.”
   2990. Publius Publicola Posted: April 26, 2014 at 11:46 AM (#4694703)
David Brooks weighs in on Thomas Piketty:

The Piketty Phenomenon

Lots of juicy stuff here. First Brooks completely misses the point of the book and constructs a strawman:
If you are a young professional in a major city, you experience inequality firsthand. But the inequality you experience most acutely is not inequality down, toward the poor; it’s inequality up, toward the rich.

You go to fund-raisers or school functions and there are always hedge fund managers and private equity people around. You get more attention than them at parties, but your whole apartment could fit in their dining room. You struggle with tuition, but their kids go off on ski weekends. You wait in line at the post office, but they have staff to do it for them.


Ah, so Piketty isn't really complaining about the growing trend of those lucky, growing few who do no work but are being rewarded anyway. His book is really about jealousy by the educated middle classes of the rich, and their mounting effort to take it away. OK, Dave. Gotcha.

Then he tries to critique it, with a hilariously weak argument:
The book is very good and interesting, but it has pretty obvious weaknesses. Though economists are really not good at predicting the future, Piketty makes a series of educated guesses about the next century.

Piketty predicts that growth will be low for a century, though there seems to be a lot of innovation around. He predicts that the return on capital will be high, though there could be diminishing returns as the supply increases. He predicts that family fortunes will concentrate, though big ones in the past have tended to dissipate and families like the Gateses give a lot away. Human beings are generally treated in aggregate terms, without much discussion of individual choice.


Economists aren't good at predicting the future, Dave? Since when? Remember Keynes' prediction of WWII within 20 years after Versailles? How did that prediction work out, Dave? And more to the point, what about all the liberal economist' warnings about the growing wealth disparity causing economic growth problems, Dave? How is that working out?

Finally, he scoffs at the solution (bring back the graduated income tax):
Piketty wouldn’t raise taxes on income, which thriving professionals have a lot of; he would tax investment capital, which they don’t have enough of. Think of what would happen to the Manhattan or Bay Area real estate markets if the financiers had to sell their stray apartments in order to get liquid assets to pay the tax bill. Think of how much more affordable fine art would be. Think of how much more equal the upper class would be.


You know what, Brooks? #### you. And the horse you rode in on. What wealth have you ever created? You've never taught anyone. You've never healed anyone. You've never invented anything. You've never saved anyone's life or pulled them out of a burning building. You've never gotten up at 5 in the morning to drag your ass in to a shitty job you hate, one that is destroying your body and your soul, just so your children have enough to eat and a roof over their head. All you do is write a stupid, hack column as an apologist for the ultra-wealthy.

And then, the piece de resistance:
The reaction to Piketty is an amazing cultural phenomenon. But it says more about class rivalry within the educated classes than it does about how to really expand opportunity. Of course, this perspective could just be my own prejudice. When it comes to cultural analysis, I, like Piketty, am quasi-Marxist.


Gee, Dave. Ya think?

A$$hole.

   2991. formerly dp Posted: April 26, 2014 at 12:03 PM (#4694710)
I don't know why you'd ever want to limit, or indeed to avoid extending, access to contraception in all forms.
The sluts, they are in need of shaming.
   2992. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 26, 2014 at 12:09 PM (#4694715)
Ah, so Piketty isn't really complaining about the growing trend of those lucky, growing few who do no work but are being rewarded anyway. His book is really about jealousy by the educated middle classes of the rich, and their mounting effort to take it away. OK, Dave. Gotcha.
ayes, that's exactly it. Remember, the upper class Paul Krugman draws the line right above himself; it's really the 0.1%, not the 1%, whose wealth he feels the need to redistribute.

A$$hole.
Doesn't it defeat the whole purpose of using a pseudonym for a handle if you're going to sign your post?
   2993. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: April 26, 2014 at 12:14 PM (#4694717)
Krugman has always endorsed raising his own taxes, so you are lying again.
   2994. Mefisto Posted: April 26, 2014 at 12:23 PM (#4694719)
the upper class Paul Krugman draws the line right above himself; it's really the 0.1%, not the 1%, whose wealth he feels the need to redistribute.


You have no idea where Krugman stands in the wealth distribution. You may have some idea of his income (though probably not a very accurate idea), but that's not the same as wealth. Either way, Krugman's point is based on actual data showing that the big disparity since Saint Ronnie wrecked the economy have come in the top .1%. In contrast, you have zero. Besides, are you now arguing in favor of higher taxes on the top 1%?
   2995. tshipman Posted: April 26, 2014 at 01:11 PM (#4694736)
I am actually curious what DN/RDP think about a theoretical exchange of all taxes on income with taxes on wealth.
   2996. bobm Posted: April 26, 2014 at 01:51 PM (#4694749)
From the NY Daily News, on the real-estate - investor funded carriage horse opponents NYCLASS:

The FBI is investigating allegations that opponents of the carriage horse industry threatened to undermine Bill de Blasio’s chief rival in last year’s mayoral race, Christine Quinn, if she didn’t support their cause, the Daily News has learned.

In the past few weeks, FBI agents have been asking questions about the campaign by the animal rights group NYCLASS to get Quinn to support a ban on the iconic carriages, two sources familiar with the matter told The News.

Agents were interested in an incident that took place in early 2013, when Quinn was the City Council speaker and the clear front-runner for the Democratic nomination for mayor, the sources said.

A political consultant hired by NYCLASS, Scott Levenson, twice approached aides to Quinn and allegedly told them that if she didn’t back the proposed ban on carriage horses, they would spend big money on a political campaign attacking her.
   2997. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 26, 2014 at 01:58 PM (#4694751)
A$$hole.

Kevin 2.0, still the same.
   2998. Publius Publicola Posted: April 26, 2014 at 02:04 PM (#4694758)
I am actually curious what DN/RDP think about a theoretical exchange of all taxes on income with taxes on wealth.


He doesn't. Too busy chasing ambulances.
   2999. CrosbyBird Posted: April 26, 2014 at 02:17 PM (#4694769)
What that figure actually means is that, of people who report condoms as their primary birth control method, 18% of them get pregnant in a given year. But that not only includes times when they misused condoms, but times when they didn't use condoms at all.

That figure (I thought it was a bit lower, but it may have changed over the years) represents "typical condom use," which is how regular people use condoms, and includes occasionally having a lapse in judgment and not using them at all while being a regular condom user.

"Ideal condom use" has a much lower failure rate, but it's not so common even among the diligent.
   3000. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 26, 2014 at 02:46 PM (#4694790)
Flip.
Page 30 of 48 pages ‹ First  < 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Vegas Watch
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogDerek Jeter's historic hit that tied Honus Wagner ruled an error by MLB
(1 - 2:48am, Aug 20)
Last: TerpNats

NewsblogPosnanski: The need – the need for speed
(8 - 2:46am, Aug 20)
Last: TerpNats

NewsblogKepner (NYT): Astros’ Jose Altuve Doesn’t Let Height Be a Disadvantage
(3 - 2:43am, Aug 20)
Last: TerpNats

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 8-19-2014
(69 - 2:25am, Aug 20)
Last: odds are meatwad is drunk

NewsblogIwakuma gives Mariners a second true ace
(5 - 2:24am, Aug 20)
Last: 6 - 4 - 3

NewsblogMinor League manager undresses during epic home plate tirade
(8 - 2:09am, Aug 20)
Last: The Ghost's Tryin' to Reason with Hurricane Season

Newsblog[Ubaldo] Jimenez to the bullpen
(9 - 2:03am, Aug 20)
Last: 6 - 4 - 3

NewsblogRingolsby: Helton's numbers stack up against the best
(61 - 1:26am, Aug 20)
Last: The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott)

NewsblogOT August 2014:  Wrassle Mania I
(40 - 1:14am, Aug 20)
Last: steagles

NewsblogKeidel: Don’t Be Fooled — The Yankees’ Season Is Over
(57 - 1:07am, Aug 20)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogPirates activate Andrew McCutchen from the disabled list
(8 - 12:57am, Aug 20)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - August 2014
(271 - 12:40am, Aug 20)
Last: robinred

NewsblogMooney: Javier Baez, Kyle Hendricks aren’t showing any nerves with Cubs
(33 - 11:48pm, Aug 19)
Last: Spahn Insane

NewsblogGammons Notes - 8/17/14
(53 - 11:11pm, Aug 19)
Last: theboyqueen

NewsblogRoth: The Mets' Matt Harvey problem is a Mets problem
(6 - 10:55pm, Aug 19)
Last: MNB

Page rendered in 0.8013 seconds
52 querie(s) executed