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

Sunday, December 02, 2012

OTP December 2012 - Pushing G.O.P. to Negotiate, Obama Ends Giving In

Mr. Obama, scarred by failed negotiations in his first term and emboldened by a clear if close election to a second, has emerged as a different kind of negotiator in the past week or two, sticking to the liberal line and frustrating Republicans on the other side of the bargaining table.

Bitter Mouse Posted: December 02, 2012 at 11:15 PM | 6172 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: 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 61 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 > 
   6001. Bitter Mouse Posted: January 01, 2013 at 07:35 PM (#4336333)
Flip
   6002. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: January 01, 2013 at 07:47 PM (#4336346)
They have the tiger by the tail and have no idea long term what to do.


Harvey's a better guy to answer this, but I suspect the GOP elites are of two minds, generally. On the one hand, they're aghast that the Old South voting bloc that they agreed to let sleep in the horse stables have had the audacity to take over the throne room; on the other, they probably realize the deep demographics aren't likely to change, and their only path back to executive power may very well rest on those gerrymandered districts being in their ranks if they ever get the "electoral college by districting" thing done.
   6003. Gonfalon B. Posted: January 01, 2013 at 08:43 PM (#4336408)
Lyndon Johnson's observation about J. Edgar Hoover applies: “Better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside pissing in.”
   6004. SteveF Posted: January 01, 2013 at 08:57 PM (#4336422)
Isn't it about determining which interest is more compelling?


This is the text of the law:

(a) In general:

Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

(b) Exception
Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—

(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.



Exercise of religion is defined in the following way:

(7) Religious exercise
(A) In general
The term “religious exercise” includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.
   6005. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: January 01, 2013 at 09:22 PM (#4336457)
OK, I guess I was looking at it all wrong.

The term “religious exercise” includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.


So the case(s) would seem to hinge on whether preventing a second party from having her birth control paid for by a third party constitutes an exercise of religion on the part of the first party. Seems like more than a bit of a stretch when you look at it that way, doesn't it? Of course, the argument of the plaintiff(s) is that they are the one(s) doing the paying, but we call them third party payers for a reason, don't we?
   6006. GregD Posted: January 01, 2013 at 09:27 PM (#4336464)
Looks like Boehner taked the conference down, according to TPM.

Harveys I didn't mean to put words in your mouth when I said I thought you were pointing to external factors causing the House Reps to divide. I was responding to what you wrote here:
tripon

maybe the president succeeded in provoking the house to reject the deal

i have heard that version and don't think it's completely crazy


But if that's not what you meant, then I take it back. I don't think there's much difference in our positions on this, and I certainly don't think you're cheering on the people in the Congress.

You're right to point to the incentive structure of the House members. The problem at this point is democracy. The House Republicans didn't exactly hide their beliefs the last 2 years. People who voted for them must have liked what they're getting. It's always tempting to blame individual bad actors, but sometimes the fault truly lies in the people themselves.
   6007. GregD Posted: January 01, 2013 at 09:39 PM (#4336482)
TPM says a vote tonight so before the Speaker vote on Thursday. Boehner must be confident.
   6008. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: January 01, 2013 at 09:42 PM (#4336484)
The problem at this point is democracy.


Or the anti-democratic way that the House is being run. Democracy should mean that a bill needs the votes of 218 of 435 congresspersons to pass, not 218 of 242.
   6009. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: January 01, 2013 at 09:44 PM (#4336486)
greg

i don't regard the president as an external factor

he's part of the negotiation. how is that external??
   6010. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: January 01, 2013 at 09:45 PM (#4336493)
TPM says a vote tonight so before the Speaker vote on Thursday. Boehner must be confident.


But what is he confident of? They're voting on an amendment first, right? And amendment that would cut $330B in spending and effectively kill the bill, since it's been made clear that the Senate will not reconsider an amended version.
   6011. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: January 01, 2013 at 09:47 PM (#4336494)
how is that external??


Semantics? The President is external to the House Republican Conference.
   6012. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: January 01, 2013 at 09:47 PM (#4336495)
i don't regard the president as an external factor

he's part of the negotiation. how is that external??
External to intra-GOP politics, is how I read it.
   6013. GregD Posted: January 01, 2013 at 09:48 PM (#4336497)
Harveys we're talking past each other and it's such a minor point it doesn't matter to me. I have plenty of criticisms of the President, but my inclination is to blame any House failure on the House before I looked elsewhere, given past events. But it appears that the Pres didn't cause them to block it and they have their act together! That's an outcome I didn't predict!
But what is he confident of? They're voting on an amendment first, right? And amendment that would cut $330B in spending and effectively kill the bill, since it's been made clear that the Senate will not reconsider an amended version.
TPM says they're doing a straight up or down on the Senate bill later tonight. Who knows if that is true?
   6014. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: January 01, 2013 at 09:49 PM (#4336499)
They're voting on an amendment first, right? And amendment that would cut $330B in spending and effectively kill the bill, since it's been made clear that the Senate will not reconsider an amended version.
Last I read, that amendment is dead in principle (GOP admitting they don't have the votes) in not practice (I'm unsure whether a vote will take place anyway).
   6015. Gonfalon B. Posted: January 01, 2013 at 09:51 PM (#4336503)
The feeling seems to be that there aren't 218 votes for the amendment. So Boehner can serve up the red meat to the Tea Party as an appetizer first, knowing that it won't pass. Of course, his vote-counting skill has been a little shaky lately.
   6016. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: January 01, 2013 at 09:52 PM (#4336505)
ca

the spending cut stuff was trashed
   6017. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: January 01, 2013 at 09:58 PM (#4336512)
interesting:

In the Tuesday night session, the speaker and Mr. Cantor, of Virginia, both cautioned colleagues that the Senate might not take up the amended legislation. That would leave the House to blame for standing in the way of a bill that sailed through the Senate and been blessed by the administration, opening the GOP to fresh blame.

The strategy forced Mr. Boehner's rank-and-file to confront the risks of their intransigence. By Tuesday evening, Republicans rose in the closed-door session to say they wanted to vote solely on the Senate-passed measure.
   6018. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: January 01, 2013 at 09:58 PM (#4336513)
That $330B figure - did the amendment list what should be cut?
   6019. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: January 01, 2013 at 10:01 PM (#4336515)
The strategy forced Mr. Boehner's rank-and-file to confront the risks of their intransigence. By Tuesday evening, Republicans rose in the closed-door session to say they wanted to vote solely on the Senate-passed measure.
And this is why I wonder how much of an impact the TPers will have in two months, at the debt ceiling deadline. Especially if the markets get twitchy during the run-up. They think there were risks NOW?
   6020. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: January 01, 2013 at 10:04 PM (#4336520)
gold star

they only called out cutting your internet access

very strange
   6021. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: January 01, 2013 at 10:07 PM (#4336522)
ex speaker helping out the current speaker it would seem

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) said there was a "strong majority" of Democrats who would support the bill and that she was "confident it will pass" if it comes to a House vote.
   6022. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: January 01, 2013 at 10:07 PM (#4336524)
From my cold, dead hands.
   6023. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: January 01, 2013 at 10:14 PM (#4336530)
i freely admit i am surprised that the house members didn't drag this out to see for themselves what would happen on Wednesday

i know senator shelby has been telling to not be cowed
   6024. tshipman Posted: January 01, 2013 at 11:24 PM (#4336572)
ex speaker helping out the current speaker it would seem


Pelosi is not in the business of helping Boehner, she's in the business of governance.

In the Tuesday night session, the speaker and Mr. Cantor, of Virginia, both cautioned colleagues that the Senate might not take up the amended legislation. That would leave the House to blame for standing in the way of a bill that sailed through the Senate and been blessed by the administration, opening the GOP to fresh blame.

The strategy forced Mr. Boehner's rank-and-file to confront the risks of their intransigence. By Tuesday evening, Republicans rose in the closed-door session to say they wanted to vote solely on the Senate-passed measure.


These guys are clowns.
   6025. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 01, 2013 at 11:34 PM (#4336576)
Pelosi is not in the business of helping Boehner, she's in the business of governance.

New year, same absurd worship of government types.
   6026. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 01, 2013 at 11:37 PM (#4336579)
Isn't it about determining which interest is more compelling?
No.

If by the commonly stated and as practiced in America religious beliefs, then it clearly doesn't violate them. If you mean the individuals personal beliefs, well obviously only they know what their beliefs are, but who cares? Not in the wow I hate them sense, but in the sense that you can't run a nation allowing exceptions for every individuals beliefs.
The government, of course, is not permitted to privilege "common" religious beliefs over uncommon ones. And in fact, the RFRA requires that exceptions be considered "for every individual's beliefs." The standard is whether the government has a compelling interest in infringing on those beliefs, and whether it has chosen the least restrictive method of doing so.
The government does not have to justify every law to every individual. "Sorry officer, my religion insists I speed on Sundays, you must show compelling interest in limiting my freedom to speed."
Actually, that's exactly what the RFRA requires. (Only for federal law, not state, so speeding would generally not qualify. But many states have their own RFRAs.)
   6027. GregD Posted: January 01, 2013 at 11:40 PM (#4336580)
These guys are clowns.
I actually think that it's the first real sign of the Republicans operating like a normal political party. They got a deal that was better than what they might have ended up with and seem to be getting it through despite the chorus of people who would rather blow everything up than dirty their hands. That's what parties do. I will be curious how many Rs vote for the deal. I imagine Boehner is only whipping to get enough to go over with the Dem votes and is releasing everyone else. Maybe that's his deal for the Speakership? He doesn't strongarm anyone into going on record and bears the weight himself.
   6028. tshipman Posted: January 01, 2013 at 11:45 PM (#4336583)
New year, same absurd worship of government types.


I don't like all the "Inside Baseball" stuff. I don't really care if Boehner keeps his job or not.

Governance matters. It's important to get things right, and has a huge effect on society. Look at Japan 20 years ago. It bothers me that the Republican party is made up of complete clowns who are mostly out of control. They seem to think that governing is an inconvenience. That bothers me.
   6029. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 01, 2013 at 11:47 PM (#4336584)
So the case(s) would seem to hinge on whether preventing a second party from having her birth control paid for by a third party constitutes an exercise of religion on the part of the first party. Seems like more than a bit of a stretch when you look at it that way, doesn't it? Of course, the argument of the plaintiff(s) is that they are the one(s) doing the paying, but we call them third party payers for a reason, don't we?
We call insurers third party payers, not employers. Employers are the ones paying for the insurance. But again, the whole "paying for" thing is a red herring. It's providing the coverage, not "paying for" it, that's the problem. If I give you $10 to go to the store and buy me some birth control, you're obviously not paying for it -- but you're still providing it to me, and a good Catholic would not do that.
   6030. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 01, 2013 at 11:51 PM (#4336586)
Governance matters. It's important to get things right, and has a huge effect on society. Look at Japan 20 years ago. It bothers me that the Republican party is made up of complete clowns who are mostly out of control. They seem to think that governing is an inconvenience. That bothers me.

Do you hold local and state leaders to the same standard when it comes to "governance," or do the liberals who've had a decades-long stranglehold on failed or dying cities like Detroit, Newark, etc., get a free pass?
   6031. Mefisto Posted: January 02, 2013 at 12:08 AM (#4336590)
We call insurers third party payers, not employers. Employers are the ones paying for the insurance.


This is non-responsive and incoherent, but I said my last one would the last time, so it is.
   6032. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: January 02, 2013 at 12:11 AM (#4336593)
(7) Religious exercise
(A) In general
The term “religious exercise” includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.


Well, clearly there's no compelling interest for the government to curtail my religious expression and right to ride my motorcycle 140 on clear days with no traffic, and more importantly, my divinely given right to cruise the breakdown lane to ride around any traffic jams Lord Satan puts in my Holy Path.
   6033. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 02, 2013 at 12:15 AM (#4336595)
This is non-responsive and incoherent, but I said my last one would the last time, so it is.
Well, that's nice and passive aggressive and stupid. I am not surprised you don't understand economics, but I am surprised you don't understand law, logic, or English.
   6034. Jim Wisinski Posted: January 02, 2013 at 12:15 AM (#4336596)
The House passed it, 257 votes.

Edit: In favor: 172 Dem, 85 Rep
Opposed: 16 Dem, 151 Rep
   6035. Gonfalon B. Posted: January 02, 2013 at 12:23 AM (#4336598)
Do you hold local and state leaders to the same standard when it comes to "governance," or do the liberals who've had a decades-long stranglehold on failed or dying cities like Detroit, Newark, etc., get a free pass?

1963-2012 (50 years):
Republican Governors of Michigan: 1963-1982, 1991-2002, 2011-present (30 of 50 years)

Republican Governors of New Jersey: 1970-1973, 1982-1989, 1994-2001, 2010-present (24 of 50 years)

In Michigan, Republicans held the majority in the State Senate from 1963-1964, 1967-1974, and 1985-present (39 of 50 years).

Michigan Republicans held the majority in the State House from 1963-1964, 1967-1968, 1993-1997, 1999-2006, and 2011-present (18 of 50 years).

Couldn't find New Jersey state legislature results from 1963-81, but since then the Republicans have held the General Assembly majority for 14 of 31 years, and the Senate majority for 11 of 31 years.

However, Newark has had a Democratic mayor every year since 1896. The suffrage movement poisoned that town.
   6036. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 02, 2013 at 12:26 AM (#4336599)
I actually think that it's the first real sign of the Republicans operating like a normal political party. They got a deal that was better than what they might have ended up with and seem to be getting it through despite the chorus of people who would rather blow everything up than dirty their hands. That's what parties do. I will be curious how many Rs vote for the deal. I imagine Boehner is only whipping to get enough to go over with the Dem votes and is releasing everyone else. Maybe that's his deal for the Speakership? He doesn't strongarm anyone into going on record and bears the weight himself.
I'm a little puzzled how a "deal" that raises taxes and raises spending is "better than what they might have ended up with." It's a debacle for anyone who professes to care about limited government, and of course it doesn't actually do anything about the deficit, either.
   6037. The District Attorney Posted: January 02, 2013 at 12:30 AM (#4336601)
David Corn @DavidCornDC

O draws a red line: no more debate over raising debt ceiling. "We cannot pay bills we've already incurred."
Oh, okay. I'm sure simply expressing your desire for "no more debate" will change everything.

On the other side, Grover Norquist also invokes his ability to alter reality with his words, decreeing that voting for this deal is voting for a tax cut.
   6038. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 02, 2013 at 12:34 AM (#4336603)
   6035. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 02, 2013 at 12:23 AM (#4336598)

1963-2012 (50 years):
Republican Governors of Michigan: 1963-1982, 1991-2002, 2011-present (30 of 50 years)

...

You've developed a very odd habit of posting "gotcha" replies that are missing the "gotcha" part.

Detroit and Newark have had Dem mayors for decades. The idea that the governor of Michigan is more responsible for Detroit than the mayor of Detroit is typical lefty nonsense, along the lines of George W. Bush being more responsible for Katrina than the local idiots who not only failed to plan, but packed tens of thousands of people into the Superdome.

***
I'm a little puzzled how a "deal" that raises taxes and raises spending is "better than what they might have ended up with." It's a debacle for anyone who professes to care about limited government, and of course it doesn't actually do anything about the deficit, either.

David, haven't you heard? The only spending and debt problem currently facing the U.S. is that we don't have enough spending or debt. Just ask any BBTF liberal.
   6039. tshipman Posted: January 02, 2013 at 12:39 AM (#4336606)
Do you hold local and state leaders to the same standard when it comes to "governance," or do the liberals who've had a decades-long stranglehold on failed or dying cities like Detroit, Newark, etc., get a free pass?


Yes. I complain about silly things in San Francisco all the time. Like requiring buildings to be downzoned. Like making condo conversions difficult.
   6040. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: January 02, 2013 at 12:41 AM (#4336607)
Shouldn't the quote be "We cannot NOT pay bills we've already incurred"?
   6041. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 02, 2013 at 12:42 AM (#4336610)
Shouldn't the quote be "We cannot NOT pay bills we've already incurred"?

No, the original quote was likely accurate, whether Obama knows it or not.
   6042. Tripon Posted: January 02, 2013 at 12:42 AM (#4336611)
Its a bit of a silly notion of the automatic assumption to think that Liberals love government. It might be more accurate to say that liberals think that government can be a force of good. But in 'love' with government is a stretch.

   6043. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 02, 2013 at 12:45 AM (#4336614)
Its a bit of a silly notion of the automatic assumption to think that Liberals love government. It might be more accurate to say that liberals think that government can be a force of good. But in 'love' with government is a stretch.

Liberals love government like my lungs love air.
   6044. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 02, 2013 at 12:46 AM (#4336615)
Right; it's not that liberals love government. It's just that liberals always want more of it, and measure everyone's compassion by how much more they want to spend on it.
   6045. The District Attorney Posted: January 02, 2013 at 12:47 AM (#4336616)
Heh.
Fred B. @ebayjick

@DavidCornDC that's cannot NOT pay

Retweeted by David Corn
I thought Obama as quoted meant that the act of "incurring" the bill was equivalent to agreeing to the obligation to pay it. Which would have made perfect sense, I think. But I guess that's not what he said.
   6046. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: January 02, 2013 at 12:47 AM (#4336617)
The idea that the governor of Michigan is more responsible for Detroit than the mayor of Detroit is typical lefty nonsense


It may be nonsense, but there is nothing typical or lefty about it.

On the other hand, it is fairly typical for righties to blame all the problems of inner cities on failed social welfare programs. And it is also true that those programs are primarily run by state governments rather than city governments. So if the programs have failed, isn't it fair to blame the government entities that are actually responsible for them?
   6047. tshipman Posted: January 02, 2013 at 12:50 AM (#4336619)
I'm a little puzzled how a "deal" that raises taxes and raises spending is "better than what they might have ended up with." It's a debacle for anyone who professes to care about limited government, and of course it doesn't actually do anything about the deficit, either.


Because the alternative is no deal, where taxes are raised a lot more, and spending is not cut.

Also, the deal does reduce the deficit, so you know.
   6048. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 02, 2013 at 01:01 AM (#4336621)
Its a bit of a silly notion of the automatic assumption to think that Liberals love government. It might be more accurate to say that liberals think that government can be a force of good. But in 'love' with government is a stretch.


Like it, love it, want it, whatever. The point is they can't get enough of it. They never can. They never do.

   6049. Shredder Posted: January 02, 2013 at 01:03 AM (#4336622)
Because the alternative is no deal, where taxes are raised a lot more, and spending is not cut.
Spending would have been cut a lot. Just not completely on the poors, which would have made Republicans sad.
Liberals love government like my lungs love air.
If only that were true. We may all have been spared your nonsense for the last three months.
   6050. Morty Causa Posted: January 02, 2013 at 01:04 AM (#4336623)
Like it, love it, want it, whatever. The point is they can't get enough of it. They never can. They never do.


"Sound that horn, son, and, Brethren, leave us go amongst them!" The Searchers.
   6051. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 02, 2013 at 01:06 AM (#4336624)
On the other hand, it is fairly typical for righties to blame all the problems of inner cities on failed social welfare programs. And it is also true that those programs are primarily run by state governments rather than city governments. So if the programs have failed, isn't it fair to blame the government entities that are actually responsible for them?

The Republican governors of Michigan and New Jersey are to blame for the failed social welfare programs created by their liberal predecessors?

***
If only that were true. We may all have been spared your nonsense for the last three months.

If liberals really loved government, you may have been spared my nonsense?

It looks like Santa didn't bring you a better supply of rejoinders. Maybe next year.
   6052. greenback calls it soccer Posted: January 02, 2013 at 01:09 AM (#4336625)
It's kinda interesting to read a book about Lincoln between tweets about the fiscal cliff. I don't have kids, but if I did, I think I'd make sure they didn't grow up to be libertarians. Nobody wants to hear an adult rant about his principles.
   6053. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 02, 2013 at 01:15 AM (#4336629)

Personally, I prefer seeing adults rant about their principles to seeing adults insist that basic words mean the opposite of what they actually mean, like 'Mefisto' and 'Bitter Mouse,' et al., did for the last five pages. But to each his own, I guess.
   6054. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 02, 2013 at 01:25 AM (#4336632)
Because the alternative is no deal, where taxes are raised a lot more, and spending is not cut.
Except that in fact the alternative would be spending being cut a lot.
Also, the deal does reduce the deficit, so you know.
No, it doesn't. It raises the deficit by trillions of dollars compared to simply doing nothing.
   6055. Morty Causa Posted: January 02, 2013 at 01:26 AM (#4336633)
"Irwin?" "Yeah, Ray?" "We're gonna have to kill him." A Mad Mad Mad Mad World
   6056. Gonfalon B. Posted: January 02, 2013 at 01:26 AM (#4336634)
#6038:
You've developed a very odd habit of posting "gotcha" replies that are missing the "gotcha" part.

Detroit and Newark have had Dem mayors for decades. The idea that the governor of Michigan is more responsible for Detroit than the mayor of Detroit is typical lefty nonsense, along the lines of George W. Bush being more responsible for Katrina than the local idiots who not only failed to plan, but packed tens of thousands of people into the Superdome.


So when you specifically said "state leaders," Joe, what you meant was "ignoring state leaders." Gotch... um, ahem, duly noted.
   6057. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: January 02, 2013 at 01:27 AM (#4336635)
If liberals really loved government, you may have been spared my nonsense?
Apparently, nothing will spare us from your nonsense.
   6058. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 02, 2013 at 01:29 AM (#4336636)
So when you specifically said "state leaders," Joe, what you meant was "ignoring state leaders." Gotch... um, ahem, duly noted.

And when you posted a reply that ignored the emphasis I placed on cities in #6030 and instead gave a long rundown of governors and state legislatures, that was just a good-faith error on your part, right?

Or are you claiming that Detroit and Newark having Dem mayors for 40 out of the last 40 years is irrelevant, while the GOP having the governorship for 30 out of 50 years (Michigan) or 24 out of 50 years (New Jersey) is highly dispositive of something? (Let me guess: Detroit would be awesome right now if only that awful Republican John Engler hadn't been governor from 1991 to 2002.)
   6059. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: January 02, 2013 at 01:31 AM (#4336637)
The most satisfying headline we've seen since November 7th:

Tea party backers swallow a bitter pill in ‘cliff’ bill

Too bad it wasn't a strychnine pill, but you can't win em all.

It's hardly a long range solution to anything, but at least it temporarily removes the threat of blackmail from the table.

   6060. Gonfalon B. Posted: January 02, 2013 at 01:35 AM (#4336639)
I included the fact that Newark has had a Democratic mayor without interruption since the 19th century. But in your haste to bring up the New Orleans Superdome for some reason, you may have skipped that sentence.

Question: Is the mayor of Detroit a state leader, Joe? How about the mayor of Newark?
   6061. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 02, 2013 at 01:40 AM (#4336640)
I included the fact that Newark has had a Democratic mayor without interruption since the 19th century. But in your haste to bring up the New Orleans Superdome for some reason, you may have skipped that sentence.

Question: Is the mayor of Detroit a state leader, Joe? How about the mayor of Newark?

Do you really believe this silly pedantry is clever? In #6030, I plainly referred to the "liberals who've had a decades-long stranglehold on failed or dying cities like Detroit, Newark, etc." I didn't say anything about the state governments in those places. Indeed, I didn't mention any state-level examples at all.

But regardless, I'll ask again: Are you claiming that Detroit and Newark having Dem mayors for 40 out of the last 40 years is irrelevant, while the GOP having the governorship for 30 out of 50 years (Michigan) or 24 out of 50 years (New Jersey) is highly dispositive of something? Are you suggesting Detroit and Newark would be awesome today if only the GOP hadn't controlled the Michigan governorship for 30 out of the last 50 years, or the N.J. governorship for 24 out of the last 50 years?
   6062. SteveF Posted: January 02, 2013 at 01:46 AM (#4336642)
CBO says the current deal adds $4 trillion to deficits over next 10 years. Looks like Congress is gonna have to check the couch for an extra $400 billion a year.
   6063. Gonfalon B. Posted: January 02, 2013 at 01:58 AM (#4336645)
Joe, who hates gotchas, thinks he's on to something hot:
Or are you claiming that Detroit and Newark having Dem mayors for 40 out of the last 40 years is irrelevant, while the GOP having the governorship for 30 out of 50 years (Michigan) or 24 out of 50 years (New Jersey) is highly dispositive of something?

Your question is stupid. And the only reason you're "asking again" in #6061 is because you edited your previous post to include it. It wasn't there when I replied.

But finally, at long last, I have to stop ducking the question. I'm "claiming" (that is, citing) that Michigan and New Jersey have both had substantial amounts of Republican governance in their Governors' mansions and state legislatures over the past 50 years. And thus, your statement wondering whether "local and state leaders" weren't properly being held accountable for the problems of two cities was at least half wrong.

Joe, who made you type "state leaders"? Was it Ray Nagin?
   6064. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 02, 2013 at 02:07 AM (#4336650)
Your question is stupid. And the only reason you're "asking again" in #6061 is because you edited your previous post to include it. It wasn't there when I replied.

I added it about 2 seconds after clicking "submit."

But finally, at long last, I have to stop ducking the question. I'm "claiming" (that is, citing) that Michigan and New Jersey have both had substantial amounts of Republican governance in their Governors' mansions and state legislatures over the past 50 years. And thus, your statement wondering whether "local and state leaders" weren't properly being held accountable for the problems of two cities was at least half wrong.

Speaking of "stupid," this certainly is. Given that I specifically referred to "liberals who've had a decades-long stranglehold on failed or dying cities," coming back with a list of state governments that have not been subject to a one-party "stranglehold" served no purpose.
   6065. Gonfalon B. Posted: January 02, 2013 at 02:12 AM (#4336652)
Do you feel that you erred by including "state leaders" in your original post?
   6066. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 02, 2013 at 02:18 AM (#4336653)
Do you feel that you erred by including "state leaders" in your original post?

Only because of the presence here of pedants like you.

For about the fifth time, I gave no state-level examples in #6030, only city-level examples.
   6067. Gonfalon B. Posted: January 02, 2013 at 02:29 AM (#4336654)
Your original post was one sentence long. If including state leadership as part of the "liberal stranglehold" was a mistake, you could just say so. If including state leadership was intentional, and you stand by it, you're wrong. Blaming me for what you typed doesn't change that.
   6068. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 02, 2013 at 02:35 AM (#4336655)
Your original post was one sentence long. If including state leadership as part of the "liberal stranglehold" was a mistake, you could just say so. If including state leadership was intentional and you stand by it, you're wrong. Blaming me for what you typed doesn't change that.

The point of #6030, which anyone with a second-grade grasp of reading would comprehend, was that liberals have had a "decades-long stranglehold" on some places that are struggling. I gave some city-level examples but no state-level examples. (And mentioning the word "state" in the first half of the sentence didn't mean that word attached to the examples given in the second half of the sentence.)

Given that Michigan and New Jersey currently have Republican governors, I clearly wasn't referring to the state governments of Michigan or New Jersey as having been subject to a "decades-long stranglehold" by liberals, so it's unclear to me what you thought you were accomplishing or refuting by coming back with the recent state-level histories of Michigan and New Jersey.
   6069. Gonfalon B. Posted: January 02, 2013 at 02:44 AM (#4336658)
(And mentioning the word "state" in the first half of the sentence didn't mean that word attached to the examples given in the second half of the sentence.)

What did the word "state" in the first half of the sentence mean?
   6070. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 02, 2013 at 02:50 AM (#4336662)
What did the word "state" in the first half of the sentence mean?

Asked and answered, about three times. The fact I didn't give state-level examples didn't render the city-level examples incorrect.

Unless you mistakenly assumed I didn't know Republican Chris Christie and Republican Rick Snyder are the governors of New Jersey and Michigan, respectively, this whole exchange has — as usual — been nothing more than an exercise in pedantic nonsense.

Henceforth, when you're involved, I'll heed Mark Twain's advice.
   6071. Gonfalon B. Posted: January 02, 2013 at 03:11 AM (#4336664)
If BBTF were poker, "asked and answered" would be your tell. You haven't answered.

You've explained, about three times, what "state leaders" didn't mean. But that's not what I asked. I'm asking you what it DID mean.
   6072. tshipman Posted: January 02, 2013 at 03:11 AM (#4336665)
The point of #6030, which anyone with a second-grade grasp of reading would comprehend, was that liberals have had a "decades-long stranglehold" on some places that are struggling. I gave some city-level examples but no state-level examples. (And mentioning the word "state" in the first half of the sentence didn't mean that word attached to the examples given in the second half of the sentence.)


I don't understand why you're arguing with him about this. I answered you that yes, I was frustrated with some of the results of extended liberal governance. The most frustrating part about poor liberal governance is that you end up spending more money on poor people than if you just gave money to them, and the poor people would prefer the money.

CBO says the current deal adds $4 trillion to deficits over next 10 years. Looks like Congress is gonna have to check the couch for an extra $400 billion a year.


This is dumb to cite because it's current law baseline, rather than current policy, which has been the point of discussion.
   6073. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 02, 2013 at 03:37 AM (#4336668)
You've explained, about three times, what "state leaders" didn't mean. But that's not what I asked. I'm asking you what it DID mean.

"State leaders" means state leaders. The fact I didn't give any state-level examples didn't change the meaning of "state leaders" to "city leaders."

If you insist on a state-level example, I'll offer up California, a state that's being run into the ground by a legislature that's been controlled by Dems for 39 of the past 40 years.

***
The most frustrating part about poor liberal governance is that you end up spending more money on poor people than if you just gave money to them, and the poor people would prefer the money.

No doubt about this. The wide disparity between the per-household welfare spending and what those households allegedly receive is fairly staggering. Either poor people are getting a lot more than liberals generally admit or the bureaucracy is huge and inefficient.
   6074. bookbook Posted: January 02, 2013 at 04:10 AM (#4336669)
Interesting how much both sides dislike this deal.

Obama had strong popular support for returning to Clinton-era tax rates over $250K per year. And he was just re elected quarterback by about 4 million votes explicitly running on raising those taxes. He had all the leverage in this situation.

Yet he moved all the way to 400/450 without gaining any breathing room on the debt ceiling or much on the sequester austerity punch that's likely to sock the economy into recession if unaddressed. Worse yet, he punted on estate taxes thanks in part to "moderate" Dem senators who weren't on the democrats side in this. Estate taxes don't raise trillions in revenue, but they are one of the most important mechanisms for preventing the permanent bifurcation of society into isolated wealthy elites, and everyone else.

All this, and the GOP is the one licking it's wounds like it lost everything. Did conservatives really plan to drown government in the bathtub? Without the infrastructure, where would the tub water come from?
   6075. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: January 02, 2013 at 05:03 AM (#4336672)
If you insist on a state-level example, I'll offer up California, a state that's being run into the ground by a legislature that's been controlled by Dems for 39 of the past 40 years.
Link.
The numbers change every week. But essentially Brown entered office facing a $26-billion deficit. It was halved to $13 billion by the end of 2011 and recently was projected by the nonpartisan legislative analyst to be a relatively minor $1.9 billion for the next budget year.
It should be noted that Brown inherited that $26-billion deficit from a Republican governor. I don't necessarily blame Arnold Schwarzenegger, as no state's had to go through what California's had to the past decade. Between the energy boondoggle and California's subprime market crash — by far the worst in the country — massive deficits were unavoidable. Brown's done as good a job as can reasonably be expected with the recovery.
   6076. Gonfalon B. Posted: January 02, 2013 at 05:22 AM (#4336673)
Revised in light of #6073: "Do you hold local and state leaders, such as the California legislature, to the same standard when it comes to "governance," or do the liberals who've had a decades-long stranglehold on failed or dying cities like Detroit, Newark, etc., get a free pass?

Ah, of course. Now it makes total sense.

"State leaders" means state leaders.

It's official: the words exist. Alas, the question was why "state leaders" were invoked in the sentence at all. But an honest answer would have spoiled my fun. Thanks for never, ever, ever backing down, not even from the most insignificant throwaway error pulled from your tush. You are a delight.

Henceforth, when you're involved, I'll heed Mark Twain's advice.

We can assume you're not referring to this:
"Always acknowledge a fault. This will throw those in authority off their guard and give you an opportunity to commit more."
   6077. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 02, 2013 at 05:59 AM (#4336674)
Revised in light of #6073: "Do you hold local and state leaders, such as the California legislature, to the same standard when it comes to "governance," or do the liberals who've had a decades-long stranglehold on failed or dying cities like Detroit, Newark, etc., get a free pass?

Ah, of course. Now it makes total sense.

Assuming that last sentence was sarcastic, the California state senate has been led by Dems for the last 40 years and the state assembly has been led by Dems for 39 out of 40 years. You don't consider state legislative leaders to be "state leaders"?

It's official: the words exist. Alas, the question was why "state leaders" were invoked in the sentence at all. But an honest answer would have spoiled my fun. Thanks for never, ever, ever backing down, not even from the most insignificant throwaway error pulled from your tush. You are a delight.

I just gave you an example of the state leaders to whom I was referring, but apparently you don't consider the leaders of the California legislature to be "state leaders." But in any event, it was amusing to watch you make a federal case out of the fact that my one-sentence comment in #6030 wasn't as comprehensive as you would have preferred.
   6078. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 02, 2013 at 06:01 AM (#4336675)
It should be noted that Brown inherited that $26-billion deficit from a Republican governor. I don't necessarily blame Arnold Schwarzenegger, as no state's had to go through what California's had to the past decade. Between the energy boondoggle and California's subprime market crash — by far the worst in the country — massive deficits were unavoidable. Brown's done as good a job as can reasonably be expected with the recovery.

Wait a minute — I thought worrying about budget deficits during stagnant economic times was something only idiot Republicans would do, but now it's a symbol of excellent liberal governance? The shifting political principles are tough to keep up with around here.
   6079. Bitter Mouse Posted: January 02, 2013 at 08:54 AM (#4336691)
Presented for your amusment...
6053. Joe Kehoskie Posted: January 02, 2013 at 01:15 AM (#4336629)

Personally, I prefer seeing adults rant about their principles to seeing adults insist that basic words mean the opposite of what they actually mean, like 'Mefisto' and 'Bitter Mouse,' et al., did for the last five pages. But to each his own, I guess.


Followed shortly by a long discourse wherein Joe states...
And mentioning the word "state" in the first half of the sentence didn't mean that word attached to the examples given in the second half of the sentence.


Because Joe does Principle and I never do. I only parse words. New Year, same BS.
   6080. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: January 02, 2013 at 09:03 AM (#4336693)
Like it, love it, want it, whatever. The point is they can't get enough of it. They never can. They never do.


Well, Ray Ray, if you, Davey and the Joek are all telling telling us the way the world is, it clearly *must* be true.

I assume, now that we've established this principle whereby the most avidly anti-voices of any given debate determines the terms and meanings of all things you will gladly admit that you and other conservatives hate women.
   6081. Bitter Mouse Posted: January 02, 2013 at 09:04 AM (#4336695)
How does this ...
Pelosi is not in the business of helping Boehner, she's in the business of governance.


become ...

New year, same absurd worship of government types.


Suggesting someone is doing their job is worship? The reason I sometimes parse words is that they are important. Taxes are not stealing and calling them that is wrong. Suggesting Nacy Pelosi is doing her job is not worship. Wanting a safety net enhanced is not love of government, it is love of what the government can do.

I would love to talk principles, but I would rather not let BS go through unchallenged.
   6082. Bitter Mouse Posted: January 02, 2013 at 09:06 AM (#4336696)
Well, Ray Ray, if you, Davey and the Joek are all telling telling us the way the world is, it clearly *must* be true.


Similarly something, not government, is in charge of the military, because (a) many Liberals here on BBTF have spoken about wanted to cut spending on the Military, and yet (b) we love the government and always want it to grow. A military junta has taken over or something I guess, or maybe Ray, Dave, and Joe are wrong.
   6083. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: January 02, 2013 at 09:26 AM (#4336707)
Suggesting someone is doing their job is worship? The reason I sometimes parse words is that they are important. Taxes are not stealing and calling them that is wrong. Suggesting Nacy Pelosi is doing her job is not worship. Wanting a safety net enhanced is not love of government, it is love of what the government can do.


You fail to understand that David and Joe were both snapping their fingers, rubbing their bellies counterclockwise and tapping their right big toe three times. That makes them super-always-right and you a big, stupid poopyhead.
   6084. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: January 02, 2013 at 09:27 AM (#4336708)
A military junta has taken over or something I guess, or maybe Ray, Dave, and Joe are wrong.


No, they just *love* them some authoritarian government, that's all.
   6085. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 02, 2013 at 09:28 AM (#4336709)
Obama had strong popular support for returning to Clinton-era tax rates over $250K per year. And he was just re elected quarterback by about 4 million votes explicitly running on raising those taxes. He had all the leverage in this situation.
The mistake in this analysis comes from the fact that, well, it's not analysis, but narrative. So what if he was elected based on the platform of raising taxes? How is that "leverage"? Here's what leverage in negotiations really is: when you have something the other side wants. (Or, more precisely: when the other side wants what you have more than you want what the other side has.) The fact that he got reelected is not something he can trade away to Republicans for their support.
Yet he moved all the way to 400/450 without gaining any breathing room on the debt ceiling or much on the sequester austerity punch that's likely to sock the economy into recession if unaddressed. Worse yet, he punted on estate taxes thanks in part to "moderate" Dem senators who weren't on the democrats side in this. Estate taxes don't raise trillions in revenue, but they are one of the most important mechanisms for preventing the permanent bifurcation of society into isolated wealthy elites, and everyone else.
Or, to put it another way: he got tax hikes without actually giving Republicans anything at all, other than the opportunity to try again in a few months.
All this, and the GOP is the one licking it's wounds like it lost everything. Did conservatives really plan to drown government in the bathtub? Without the infrastructure, where would the tub water come from?
Oh, yeah, cutting spending by 3% -- less than the projected growth in spending -- is practically like abolishing the government.

But tub water does not come from government. Government doesn't produce; it takes things that other people have produced and redistributes it.
   6086. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: January 02, 2013 at 09:32 AM (#4336710)
a number i watch is debt as a percentage of gdp

most economists think a country is in a danger zone once the debt to gdp gets over 110 percent and 120 or higher is a huge red flag.

the u.s. is over 100.

servicing debt takes away the govt's ability to do things that citizens really want. it creates all kinds of distractions and frustrations.

right now i have a simple goal. to get the debt to gdp percentage under 100 percent. i think if you reduce some of the debt you will also allow the economy to improve and hence greater gdp.

just a tweak here and there really

not even a flesh wound (little monty python reference)
   6087. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: January 02, 2013 at 09:32 AM (#4336711)
Government doesn't produce; it takes things that other people have produced and redistributes it.


Like corporations, then?
   6088. Bitter Mouse Posted: January 02, 2013 at 09:41 AM (#4336715)
a number i watch is debt as a percentage of gdp

most economists think a country is in a danger zone once the debt to gdp gets over 110 percent and 120 or higher is a huge red flag.

the u.s. is over 100.


HW, what you are saying is not crazy. As a rule of thumb I think debt as a percentage of GDP is good to look at. But isn't the problem with too much public debt the crowding out of private investment (through high interest rates)? In other words you are looking at an underlying factor (good), but there is a factor more relevent (less underlying?) that is even easier to look at in the interest rate.

And clearly the interest rate (and the financial markets that drive it) are not concerned with there being too much debt. Maybe you think the financial markets for interest rate are inefficient, sending the wrong signal, have too much lag, or are too influenced by short term governmental action (or something else), but if you think those markets are efficient then shhouldn't you care more about the interest rate than the ratio you mentioned?

Maybe a better question, is when those two factors (debt ratio and iterest rates) seem to disagree, wy are you choosing the signaling of one over the other? Not a gotcha, and honest question, because I am not sure there is a right or wrong answer, so I am interested in your take.
   6089. zonk Posted: January 02, 2013 at 09:45 AM (#4336719)
a number i watch is debt as a percentage of gdp

most economists think a country is in a danger zone once the debt to gdp gets over 110 percent and 120 or higher is a huge red flag.

the u.s. is over 100.

servicing debt takes away the govt's ability to do things that citizens really want. it creates all kinds of distractions and frustrations.

right now i have a simple goal. to get the debt to gdp percentage under 100 percent. i think if you reduce some of the debt you will also allow the economy to improve and hence greater gdp.

just a tweak here and there really

not even a flesh wound (little monty python reference)


Well, if you exclude "intergovernmental borrowing" (i.e., financing debt via the SS Trust fund) - it's under 100 (without looking up the current tally, I think it's around 70-75).

   6090. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: January 02, 2013 at 09:48 AM (#4336722)
bitter

experience. one of the advantages of being around a long time is watching countries struggle with debt. and yes there are wild and huge and dramatic differences between the u.s. and every other country but fundamentally i have watched dozens of countries over the years go through all kinds of contortions due to debt as a percentage of gdp

and note i am not setting a stretch goal that would require all kinds of dramatic change such as 60 percent. just under 100. which is where it was not that very long ago and is a very reasonable percentage.

like kennedy saying he wanted to have the u.s. be on the moon in ten years i like setting concrete targets that are both easily understood and attainable.

   6091. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: January 02, 2013 at 09:48 AM (#4336724)
zonk

no accounting tricks please
   6092. Bitter Mouse Posted: January 02, 2013 at 09:51 AM (#4336725)
Or, to put it another way: he got tax hikes without actually giving Republicans anything at all, other than the opportunity to try again in a few months.


In any negotiation shouldn't the assumption be both sides gave and got something? Even if some of what was gained was the patina of bipartinsanship and the joy of making a deal.

But tub water does not come from government.


My water comes from the government, but the larger point is pretty much correct. The government is not a very good producer. It should be good at establishing and regulating "spaces" (where spaces is a generic term for markets, citizens rights, national borders and so on), correcting for externalities (the classic example is air pollution from a factory is a cost not born by the factory owner, thus it is an externality), investing in the capital (including people) of the nation, and running/regulating any "natural monopolies", and ensuring the welfare of its citizens.

Or as we discussed a while back ...
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


EDIT: Minor change to a sentance to hopefully make it clearer.
   6093. Bitter Mouse Posted: January 02, 2013 at 09:55 AM (#4336727)
and note i am not setting a stretch goal that would require all kinds of dramatic change such as 60 percent. just under 100. which is where it was not that very long ago and is a very reasonable percentage.


I actually don't have much of a problem with it as a goal, depending on the timeline. As a Keynsian though I don't want to be hostage to that goal. When the economy is doing poorly (especially from ademand side issue like we have now) I want to run up the debt, when the economy gets better I am completely on board (despite what some think) with cutting back and getting under 100. So if your goal is tomorrow (this year) I am against, but if it is two years (with adjustments if the economy gets better or worse) then I am totally on board, because I agree that goals are critical.
   6094. zonk Posted: January 02, 2013 at 09:59 AM (#4336729)
zonk

no accounting tricks please


I guess I just feel the same way -- like it's also an accounting trick to lump entitlements in with discretionary spending... i.e., there's a difference between things we've actually 'bought' on the national credit card (be they wars, highways, or food stamps) and things that are promised benefits.

   6095. bobm Posted: January 02, 2013 at 10:01 AM (#4336732)
clearly the interest rate (and the financial markets Federal Reserve targets and QE purchases that drive it) are not concerned with there being too much debt

FTFY
   6096. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: January 02, 2013 at 10:02 AM (#4336733)
In any negotiation shouldn't the assumption be both sides gave and got something? Even if some of what was gained was the patina of bipartinsanship and the joy of making a deal.


Anyone who says that one side or another of a negotiation "got nothing" simply means "I was really hoping that my side would have gotten more." It's like baseball trades. David is reading the "cliff" negotiations, from the GOP POV, the same way Mets fans read the trade market. But you're not going to get Giancarlo Stanton for John Neise.
   6097. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: January 02, 2013 at 10:06 AM (#4336735)
I actually don't have much of a problem with it as a goal, depending on the timeline. As a Keynsian though I don't want to be hostage to that goal. When the economy is doing poorly (especially from ademand side issue like we have now) I want to run up the debt, when the economy gets better I am completely on board (despite what some think) with cutting back and getting under 100


You're confused. You don't want to cut spending, even in a recovery/expansionary economy, because you love government. David said so. And David is like, the voice of g*d on Earth and knows all, dontchaknow?
   6098. Bitter Mouse Posted: January 02, 2013 at 10:23 AM (#4336747)
clearly the interest rate (and the financial markets Federal Reserve targets and QE purchases that drive it) are not concerned with there being too much debt

FTFY


Ummm, no. the Fed and such are part of the market, but history is repleat with times the Federal reserve tries to swim upstream and basically get rolled. I said financial market specifically because the marketplace is a combination of private and public and ignoring either gets you in trouble. I could have been more clear though I admit.
   6099. Bitter Mouse Posted: January 02, 2013 at 10:30 AM (#4336753)
because you love government


We spend too much on defense. Agricultural subsidies are ridiculous (mostly), especially ethanol. TSA and much of homeland security stomps around on civil liberties in their clown shoes and something needs to be done. Our safety net could use work (streamlining) to better line up a hard floor of benefits with incentives to move off the net. Our drug/justice/prison system is grotesque, managing to waste money, make people less safe, and harm our civil liberties.

Our election laws (patchwork crap) is inefficient and disenfranchises too many. Campaign financing is a rat's nest that needs to be redone, respecting first amendment rights while limiting corporate influence and reducing the need for our public officials to spend all their damn time fundraising (I would rather they occasionally do what they were elected to do).

All of those things above (and many more) are wrong with our current government and reducing (streamlining) spending in selected areas could really help. I love the US and expect better than we are getting honestly, but government? Government is a means to and end and not the end itself.
   6100. bookbook Posted: January 02, 2013 at 10:34 AM (#4336754)
Federal revenue is down below 16% of GDP, the lowest it's been since 1950. It needs to get up to 18-19% for us to have a prayer. Spending needs to come down to 19-20% or so as well, I agree. A large part of that is ending trillion dollar wars and growing enough that extraordinary unemployment and welfare and infrastructure spending becomes less necessary...

Bringing Medicare spending under control is difficult, but doable if mature adults on both sides are working to address a long term issue in a responsible way.
Page 61 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14!
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogMisremembering Mantle's Final Season
(29 - 3:38am, Jul 22)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogTony Oliva turns 76; Gardenhire: 'He should be in hall of fame'
(1 - 3:16am, Jul 22)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogJim Bouton Still As Opinionated As Ever
(136 - 2:05am, Jul 22)
Last: greenback calls it soccer

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(2701 - 1:59am, Jul 22)
Last: bunyon

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 7-21
(34 - 1:44am, Jul 22)
Last: Dale Sams

NewsblogPadres’ Offense May Go Down as Worst Ever
(79 - 1:36am, Jul 22)
Last: Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB)

NewsblogMLB.COM - Toman: Lewis takes exception with Rasmus' bunt
(117 - 1:17am, Jul 22)
Last: Baldrick

SABR - BBTF ChapterWho's going to SABR??
(35 - 12:27am, Jul 22)
Last: Neal Traven

NewsblogTrading for Price would be right move for Cubs | FOX Sports
(53 - 12:26am, Jul 22)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogGeorge "The Animal" Steele Mangles A Baseball
(109 - 11:11pm, Jul 21)
Last: NJ in DC (Now unemployed!)

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(803 - 10:41pm, Jul 21)
Last: RollingWave

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1956 Ballot
(5 - 9:57pm, Jul 21)
Last: Moeball

NewsblogBraves release Dan Uggla
(35 - 9:51pm, Jul 21)
Last: Roger McDowell spit on me!

NewsblogESPN : GM Offers To Get Prostate Exam During Game
(15 - 9:34pm, Jul 21)
Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave)

NewsblogThe Blaze: Chicago Cubs File Suit Over Fake Mascot — You’ll Understand Why After Watching Punch He Allegedly Throws in Windy City Bar Brawl
(10 - 9:04pm, Jul 21)
Last: JE (Jason Epstein)

Page rendered in 0.9300 seconds
52 querie(s) executed